Questions 30

wealthprocess1

RES-850-RS-GroveunderDBAQualDissertation-3.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Questions 30

Branded Online Communities: Brand Loyalty and Brand Perception

Submitted by

Mark Allen Groveunder

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctorate of Business Administration

Grand Canyon University

Phoenix, Arizona

March 31, 2017

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in online brand

communities influences brand perception and brand loyalty from the perspective of the top

contributors in an online community. This study addressed two questions: RQ1: How does

participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand?

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s loyalty

to the brand? This study was theoretically grounded in the customer-to-customer (C2C)

exchange theory and motivation, opportunity, and ability (MOA) model. Data for this study

were obtained from three sources: semi-structured interviews with significant contributors

in the community, social media postings, and online product reviews. The sampling

strategy for this study was one of convenience except for the interviews where the

interviewees were purposefully selected; there was a sample size of 10. A thematic analysis

was conducted on the transcribed interviews to identify key themes. A content analysis was

conducted on social media postings and online product reviews related to the brand to seek

out themes related to brand perception and brand loyalty. The findings from the research

show value in the use of online branded communities to promote a brand and foster brand

loyalty. Additionally, a branded community can be another channel to provide support to

customers and feedback to the company. This research advances the practical and

theoretical understanding of how participation in an online branded community can

influence a brand’s perception and loyalty.

Keywords: online branded community, online community, community, branding,

social media

Dedication

This is dedicated to the women in my life. Annie Mullennax, my great-

grandmother, you were a profound influence on my life. You believed in me, challenged

me, encouraged me, and loved me. My grandmother, Edna Crozier, you taught me the

importance and value of hard work. You were the hardest working person I have ever

known. And, you loved me. Karen Groveunder Fleeman, my mother, you helped me

understand that life is not always simple or easy and that sometimes we just have to

survive. You also loved me. In addition, I dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Sue

Roeder Groveunder: You have been with me every step of this doctoral journey. You

have read countless papers, always giving me the critique I needed even while the topic

was not in your field. You have learned more about online branded communities than you

probably ever imagined or desired! You love me more than I deserve and I love you with

every fiber of my being.

vii

Acknowledgments

One cannot complete a doctoral dissertation without the help of many. I am

thankful to everyone who has been a part of this journey. My committee has been

tremendous. They were encouraging, patient, and gave me great advice. Thank you, Dr.

Gayle Grant and Dr. Dana Shelton, for agreeing to be on my committee and for your

excellent coaching. A special thanks to Dr. Carol Pernsteiner, my committee chair. Dr.

Carol spent countless hours reviewing my drafts, providing me feedback, encouraging

me, and guiding me. I am very thankful to have had her as my chair.

viii

Table of Contents

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1

Background of the Study ...............................................................................................2

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................4

Research Questions ........................................................................................................5

Advancing Scientific Knowledge ..................................................................................6

Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................8

Rationale for Methodology ..........................................................................................10

Nature of the Research Design for the Study ...............................................................11

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................15

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ..............................................................17

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study ........................................18

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................20

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem ......................................20

Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Framework .................................................22

Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................24

History of branding .............................................................................................24

Mid-20th century.................................................................................................25

1970s to 1990s. ...................................................................................................27

1990s to the present day. .....................................................................................30

Brand communities .............................................................................................32

Online brand communities ..................................................................................38

Crowdsourcing ....................................................................................................40

WOMM ...............................................................................................................41

Branding and brand experience. ..........................................................................43

Brand management .............................................................................................47

Role of social media. ...........................................................................................50

Functional blocks of social media .......................................................................52

Social media and brand communities .................................................................58

Customers’ experience, brand experience, and purchase decisions. ...................59

Methodology ................................................................................................................66

Summary ......................................................................................................................72

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................................................77

Introduction ..................................................................................................................77

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................77

Research Questions ......................................................................................................78

Research Methodology ................................................................................................79

Research Design...........................................................................................................81

Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................83

Sources of Data ............................................................................................................85

Validity ........................................................................................................................88

Reliability .....................................................................................................................88

Data Collection and Management ................................................................................90

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................92

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................94

Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................95

Summary ......................................................................................................................96

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results ..............................................................................100

Introduction ................................................................................................................100

Descriptive Data.........................................................................................................102

Data Analysis Procedures ..........................................................................................107

Results ........................................................................................................................115

Research Question 1..........................................................................................115

Research Question 2..........................................................................................128

Summary ....................................................................................................................143

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................146

Introduction ................................................................................................................146

Summary of the Study ...............................................................................................147

Summary of Findings and Conclusion .......................................................................150

Conclusions ................................................................................................................156

Implications................................................................................................................159

Theoretical implications ....................................................................................159

Practical implications ........................................................................................161

Future implications ...........................................................................................161

Recommendations ......................................................................................................162

Recommendations for future research ..............................................................163

Recommendations for future practice ...............................................................165

References ........................................................................................................................167

Appendix A. Site Authorization Letter ............................................................................190

Appendix B. Informed Consent .......................................................................................191

Appendix C. Interview Questions ....................................................................................194

Appendix D. Case Study Protocol ...................................................................................196

Appendix E. Process Map ................................................................................................200

Appendix F. Social Media & Online Reviews Sample Data ...........................................202

Appendix G. Figures for Themes.....................................................................................204

Appendix H. Brand Community Participation Lessons Learned.....................................207

Appendix I. Brand Community Participation ..................................................................209

Appendix J. Predetermined and Discovered Codes .........................................................218

xii

List of Tables

Table 1. Major Themes ................................................................................................... 101

Table 2. Sources of Data ................................................................................................ 104

Table 3. Interviews Summary ........................................................................................ 105

Table 4. Participant Demographics ................................................................................ 105

Table 5. Facebook Summary ......................................................................................... 106

Table 6. Twitter Summary ............................................................................................. 106

Table 7. Online Reviews Summary ............................................................................... 107

Table 8. Original NVivo Coding ................................................................................... 111

Table 9. Member Checking............................................................................................ 112

Table 10. RQ1: Questions with Codes and Themes ...................................................... 113

Table 11. RQ2: Questions with Codes and Themes ...................................................... 114

Table 12. Negative Brand Perception of This Specific Brand ....................................... 119

Table 13. Reasons for Joining Brand’s Online Community .......................................... 126

Table 14. Online Forum Participation by Year .............................................................. 136

xiii

List of Figures

Figure G1. Levels of participation. ................................................................................. 204

Figure G2. Brand loyalty themes. ................................................................................... 204

Figure G3. Recommendation to others theme. ............................................................... 205

Figure G4. Perceptions of online community theme. ..................................................... 205

Figure G5. Brand Perceptions theme. ............................................................................. 206

Figure G6. Reasons for joining online forum theme. ..................................................... 206

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

Successful companies use marketing strategies to positively influence their brand

perception and promote brand loyalty with the aim of increasing their overall brand

value. These strategies include deliberate efforts to create a brand experience and to

manage the product in a concerted manner. With the advent of social media have come

both new challenges and opportunities for companies and their branding strategies

(Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). Online brand communities (OBC) are one area of social

media where owners and potential product owners help each other by sharing experiences

and ideas (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger, & Shapiro, 2012; Goh, Heng, & Lin, 2013; Singh, &

Sonnenburg, 2012). These online brand communities are sometimes founded by users

themselves, or are sometimes created by companies to help foster peer-to-peer

discussions. Online communities create an additional area where a company’s brand

influences its potential users. To date, however, it is not known how participation in

online brand communities affects the perception and loyalty of a brand (Fetscherin &

Usunier, 2012; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

In light of this empirical need, this research focused on the potential influence of

participation in an online community on brand perception and brand loyalty. If data

demonstrate that such a community affects brand perception and brand loyalty,

companies could be motivated to explore the use of such communities to improve their

own brand perception and brand loyalty. The results of this study may therefore help to

further understanding of how participation in an online brand community influences

brand loyalty. As companies seek ways to leverage social media, this research may help

them create better customer engagement strategies to improve brand loyalty.

This chapter will provide a background of the study, state the research problem,

and explain the purpose of the study. This chapter also outlines the research questions

guiding this study, the theoretical construct used to frame the current issue within online

brand communities, and the important empirical studies that influenced the conduct of

this present study. Finally, this chapter includes the significance of the study, the

rationale for the selected methodological approach, justifications for the appropriateness

of the research design, relevant terms, and the assumptions and boundaries of the study.

Background of the Study

The practice of companies developing brand identities for consumer products

began in the 1800s in the United Kingdom (Mercer, 2010). Early on, firms used branding

primarily to promote a product’s distinct, innovative qualities (Mercer, 2010). When

branding initiatives became successful, companies saw opportunities for higher margins

for products with stronger brands (Mercer, 2010; M’zungu, Merrilees, & Miller, 2010).

Companies actively manage the identities and experiences of brands with the objective of

maximizing value (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Fuciu & Dumitrescu, 2010; Kumaravel

& Kandasamy, 2012).

Over time, branding theory has evolved and online brand communities have

become relevant in business literature since the early 21st century. Muniz and O’Guinn

(2001) defined brand communities as non-geographical areas that constitute structured

social relationships among admirers of a particular trademark. Laroche, Habibi, Richard,

and Sankaranarayanan (2012) asserted that brand communities represent an association of

members enjoined in the context of consumption of a product. Further, Laroche et al.

concluded that members of these communities share commonalities that serve to maintain

their association with the group. With the popularity of social media, many companies

use social networking sites to develop brand communities (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;

Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Social media sites give end-users a sense of freedom that

allows them to speak their minds and engage in a free flow of information (Laroche et al.,

2012).

The brand image of a product or company can have a tremendous influence on

consumer choices (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). A strong brand can also command a higher

price and margin than its counterparts. Online communities and social media present new

challenges and opportunities for companies’ brand management strategies, since

consumers can share experiences more easily in online communities. Previous

researchers have demonstrated the value of brands and the need for strong brand

management in order to increase brand value (Fuciu & Dumitrescu, 2010; Mercer, 2010;

M’zungu et al., 2010; Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). They have revealed an increased use of

social media by consumers, including those in online communities (Goh et al., 2013;

Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao & Zhu, 2014). While word-of-mouth (WOM) and social

dynamics have long been recognized as factors affecting perceptions and loyalty of a

brand (Dubois, Rucker, & Tormala, 2011), there is a paucity of research exploring these

factors in light of the emerging power of social online media (Goh et al., 2013). In

particular, none of these studies has explored how participation in online communities

affects brand perception and brand loyalty.

Problem Statement

It is unknown how participation in online brand communities affects the

perception and loyalty of a brand. What motivates some members to participate in an

online branded community more frequently is also unknown. Companies frequently

utilize these communities to foster relationships and assist with customers within the

context of their branded products and services, but do so without the knowledge of how

participation affects brand perception and brand loyalty. This lack of knowledge could

cause an online brand community to be less effective and fail to meet company

objectives. Both brand management and social media influence consumer loyalty and

perception (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Laroche at al., 2012; Rizwan, Javed, Aslam, Khan,

& Bibi, 2014).

There was a need to examine the experiences of online brand community

members who are top content contributors to the community concerning their perceptions

as to how participation in online brand communities influences individual perceptions of

the brand. An empirical exploration concerning the experiences of participants in online

brand communities may further understanding on the influence of participation in an

online brand community and how such participation contributes to brand perception and

brand loyalty. The results of this study contributed new information to the field of online

brand communities that companies could apply in their own brand management resulting

in improved customer loyalty.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online brand communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception

of the top contributors in an online community. In this study, participants in online

communities were individuals who use social media to promote or talk about a certain

branded product. This study focused on a single online brand community as a case unit.

This online brand community within the study focused on the personal computer

industry. Participants in this community do so in the English language, but are from

multiple countries. When examining consumer-based perspectives, it is important to

consider that brand value refers to consumer perceptions of products (Eryigit & Eryigit,

2014). The perceived value associated with a brand refers to its global business value.

The global value, in turn, is associated with the brand and derived from the brand name,

not just from physical aspects of the product.

Brand loyalty refers to the influence that a product’s image bears on its ability to

generate repeat purchases (Laroche et al., 2013). Not only can a product’s usability and

functionality foster a deeply held commitment to repurchasing that product—such as a

specific brand or model of cellular phone—but effective marketing targeted to a specific

consumer base that already owns that product can affect continuing brand loyalty as well

(Lee, Moon, Kim, & Mun, 2015). The results of this study may help to inform company

leaders of the value of online brand communities and their influence on brand perception

and brand loyalty.

Research Questions

The phenomenon of interest in this study was the influence of participation in

online communities on brand perception and brand loyalty. Given the paucity of research

on the impact of participation in online communities, the researcher examined the

following research questions to examine this phenomenon:

RQ1: How does participating in an online brand community influence an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community influence an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

The first research question considers the perceptions one may have regarding a

brand. How one perceives a brand creates a base perspective of the brand. This research

considered the brand perceptions of the interviewees as well as those who posted on

social media and online reviews.

Loyalty to a brand goes beyond ones perception of the brand. Brand loyalty can

create an emotional connection between a consumer and a brand. Understanding the

constructs of the participants’ loyalty helped answer this research question. Answering

these questions addressed the problem of not knowing how participation in online brand

communities affects the perception and loyalty of a brand.

Advancing Scientific Knowledge

Companies use brand communities to create relationships with their consumers

because researchers have found that brand management and social media affects brand

loyalty and brand perception (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Laroche et al., 2012). However,

a review of the literature has indicated that it is unknown how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012;

Goh et al., 2013; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Results of this study address this gap in the

literature by exploring the perceptions of top contributors of an English language online

branded community. While most participants in this community are from the United

States, some of the participants were from France, Germany, and Italy. The focus was

how participation in online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty.

Further, the results of this study contribute to the existing knowledge on how to utilize

online brand communities for brand management, particularly with regard to perception

of and loyalty to a brand.

Two consumer behavioral theories provided the conceptual framework.

Specifically, the theory of customer-to-customer exchange (C2C) described by Gruen,

Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski, (2007) and the motivation, opportunity, and ability model

(MOA) described by MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski (1991). These two foundational

frameworks are important in exploring the influence of participation in online

communities on brand perception and brand loyalty.

In the C2C model, Gruen et al. (2007) postulated that knowledge exchange among

participants requires sharable concepts commonly derived from their education and

experience. Von Hippel (1988) claimed that sharable ideas create value through the

informal exchange of concepts by participants with different backgrounds and

experiences. In the current study, the focus was to contribute to the understanding of the

information in which participants or members in the online communities engage. In C2C

theory, exchange of knowledge occurs in situations where participants take part in

communication processes that detail the concerns, complaints, and recommendations that

enhance the well-being of the consumer and improvements in the products offered by the

company. Participants in the exchange process may thus need to have the expertise to be

able to contribute in the exchange of information (von Hippel, 1988). In this study, the

C2C exchange offers theoretical tenets concerning the manner by which members of the

brand communities share and interact to influence the utilization and purchase decisions

of other members and potential members within the community.

In addition to C2C, which provided a theoretical explanation of members’

knowledge exchange within the online communities, the present study also included the

theory of MOA (MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989). The MOA model could potentially explain

the factors that impede or facilitate the C2C exchange process, as this model posits the

degree to which individual process marketing communications is based on motivation,

opportunity, and ability factors (MacInnis et al., 1991). Therefore, one can manage the

effectiveness of communications proactively by enhancing the individual’s levels of

motivation, opportunity, and ability to share information. In the current study, application

of the combined theoretical tenets of C2C and the MOA model provided an

understanding of the influence of participation in online communities on brand

perception and brand loyalty.

Significance of the Study

The concept of brand community arose in response to the inefficient management

of one-on-one relationships with consumers (Laroche et al., 2012). Muniz and O’Guinn

(2001) defined brand community as a “specialized, non-geographically bound community

and based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand” (p. 412).

Laroche et al. (2012) asserted that brand communities have attracted much attention

among researchers because they enable businesses to learn consumers’ perceptions

regarding new products and competitive actions. Brand communities also maximize the

opportunities to collaborate with loyal consumers who influence the brand community

members’ evaluations and actions. They also disseminate information quickly and allow

companies to gain the trust of loyal consumers.

According to Brodie, Ilic, Juric, and Hollebeek (2013), brand communities can

bring consumers together, create conversations among them, and enable them to obtain

information about a company’s products. These capabilities have raised companies’

interest regarding the advantages of online brand communities as a way to maintain

effective communication between marketers and customers, and as a method to obtain

essential information (Hede & Kellett, 2012). Furthermore, these communities often

contain virtual forums where consumers can come together and share their interest in a

product, whether through exchanging knowledge and information about a product or

service or by simply expressing their admiration for the brand through online

correspondence (Zaglia, 2013).

As previously mentioned, researchers have demonstrated the value of brands and

the need for strong brand management in order to increase brand value (Fuciu &

Dumitrescu, 2010; M’zungu et al., 2010; Mercer, 2010; Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011).

Additionally, other researchers have noted consumers’ increased use of social media,

including those in online communities (Goh et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao &

Zhu, 2014). Within this intersection of brand communities and brand loyalty is a gap in

the existing literature (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Goh et al., 2013; Kaplan & Haenlein,

2010). Existing literature lacks information on how and why one would use participation

in an online community as a means to strengthen brand perception and brand loyalty.

This case study included the exploration of the insights of consumers who have

previously chosen to participate in an online community and investigated how such an

engagement relates to their brand perception and loyalty.

Earlier researchers have claimed that a brand community may have a strong

influence on brand loyalty (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Wirtz et al. (2013), for example,

asserted that consumers who are passionate about a specific branded product often create

brand communities as a focal point of social interaction, and that these social interactions

“occur within small groups, typically comprising fewer than ten close friends” (p. 17)

within that brand community. Though many companies have already included brand

communities as a part of their marketing plans, there are no conclusive findings as to the

relevance of brand communities for marketing programs or the way in which these

communities can best facilitate brand loyalty. The findings from this qualitative case

study can help company leaders understand the importance of online brand communities

and if these communities can play an important role in improving positive brand

perceptions and brand loyalty.

Rationale for Methodology

Qualitative research is a systematic inquiry designed to explore complex

situations in order to enhance understanding and build theory (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).

Qualitative research enables the expansion of knowledge about a phenomenon and the

attainment of answers to research questions through experiences of participants (Yin,

2014). This exploration of how participation in online communities affects brand

perception and brand loyalty utilized a qualitative methodology. According to Yin

(2014), qualitative methods can be used to explore complex situations, and therefore, are

an appropriate choice for this study. Given that the how’s and why’s of participation in

online branded communities, an exploratory qualitative method can be useful. By

contrast, researchers use quantitative methodology in studies with known and defined

variables to measure and explain the phenomena under investigation (Zaglia, 2013). Such

methods, however, may overlook the social and cultural formation of the variables that

quantitative researchers seek to investigate (Wallace, Buil, & de Chernatony, 2013). The

use of quantitative methods may overlook deep and complex narratives of personal

experience often found in social science research (Brodie et al., 2013). A qualitative

approach is therefore appropriate, as the methodology allows one to obtain deeper

knowledge and understanding of the behavior and attitudes of participants in online

communities affecting brand perception and brand loyalty.

Nature of the Research Design for the Study

“Qualitative case study is highly personal research. Persons studied are studied in

depth. Researchers are encouraged to include their own personal perspectives in the

interpretation” (Stake, 2010, p. 135). The case study is a research design that involves the

uniqueness and commonality of people and programs (Stake, 2010). The use of a case

study depends in large part on the research questions. Research questions that seek to

explain how and why some social phenomenon works lend themselves to case study

research (Yin, 2014). Researchers use case study research to derive in-depth

understanding of a single or small number of cases set in real-world contexts (Yin, 2014).

Case studies are relevant when one has a descriptive research questions or an explanatory

research question (Yin, 2014). In this project, the researcher had explanatory research

questions of how participation in an online branded community influence a participant’s

perception and loyalty for a brand.

The researcher employed a qualitative case study design to explore how

participation in online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. Case

study design is particularly useful to help clarify the how’s and why’s of a research

problem (Yin, 2014). Such a design was an appropriate choice to understand the

influence of brand loyalty when participating in online communities in order to

understand behavior and focus on contemporary events, which are characteristics of a

case study design.

Other qualitative designs considered for this study included narrative research,

ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory. Narrative inquiry uses conventional

sources such as field notes, letters, stories, and journals that have a common storied form.

The use of narrative inquiry can be slow and painstaking, requiring attention to subtlety

(Merriam, 2014). It would be difficult to capture the nuances of intent within social

media and online review postings. Additionally, no texts were available that would lend

themselves to a narrative inquiry. Ethnography is the art and science of describing a

group or culture. Ethnographers immerse themselves in the culture in order to observe

and record the participant behavior in their natural setting Merriam, 2014). Ethnography

was not possible as a method of research, as time and cost constraints prevented the

dedication of the resources necessary for immersion in the participants’ culture and

community (Merriam, 2014). Phenomenological research design analyzes how people

experience the world and is useful for surfacing deep issues and making voices heard

(Merriam, 2014). While this made phenomenological design attractive for this project,

the researcher was not intent on determining the lived experiences of the consumers

concerning their participation in the brand community. Grounded theory is a systematic

inductive qualitative method with an aim toward theory development. Researchers often

use it to discover emerging patterns within data (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2002). For this

research project, relevant data on the motivation for participation in an OBC did not exist.

This made grounded theory a poor design fit.

The research questions for this project focused on how participation in an OBC

influenced the brand perspective and loyalty of the top contributors. Yin (2014)

suggested that case study design is appropriate when the main research questions are

“how” or “why,” when the researcher has little or no control over behavioral events, and

when the focus of the study is contemporary rather than historical. Using a case study,

one investigates a contemporary phenomenon in its real-world context; participation in

branded online communities is an example of such a phenomenon.

The population for this research was OBC within the global high tech industry.

The researcher selected the particular OBC in this study out of convenience. Participants

targeted in the study were community members that the company has designated as top

contributors to its community. The company designated these top contributors

“superfans”. The company has created a program to recognize the superfans within the

community. Superfans contribute approximately 80% of the useable content in the

community. The researcher purposefully invited all of the superfans in the selected OBC

to participate in the study. The social media postings and online reviews were also

purposeful samples. The researcher used the NVivo Ncapture tool to retrieve the 50 most

recent social media postings for the brand for each social medium. The researcher used

this same application to capture the 50 most recent online product reviews – 50 from

Walmart.com and 50 from BestBuy.com.

The online community selected for this study has over 200,000 registered users.

Some users register once just to obtain an answer regarding a product or service and then

never return. Others access the online community frequently and answer questions other

users may post. Superfans are the users who provide a significant number of answers to

other users and are the top contributors to the online community. A superfan has been

described as “… customers who are so positive about a brand that they do much of its

marketing and sales themselves – and for free” (Harris & Rae, 2010). At the time of the

study, there were 14 superfans within this selected online community. These 14 superfans

were the target audience of this study. The researcher invited all 14 to participate in the

study. The minimum number of superfans needed for the study was 10. The researcher

obtained the list of the current superfans, along with their e-mail addresses, from the

company’s community owner.

The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews via video conference calls

using Skype or WebEx, depending on the technology that worked best for each

participant. The video conference calls took place on a date and time of each participant’s

choosing. The transcription of each recorded interview became the functional source of

data for analysis. A second source of data for the study involved online product reviews

using the retailer websites, Walmart.com and BestBuy.com. These two companies sell

approximately 50% of all personal computers to consumers. This market presence, along

with thousands of online product reviews on their websites, represents a powerful market

presence. The sheer size and presence of these two websites make them important

sources of consumer feedback on brands. Facebook and Twitter postings about the brand

served as the third source of data for the study. These two social mediums represent the

vast majority consumer postings related to products and brands making them a significant

source of data.

Definition of Terms

This study included the following operational terms.

Brand community. A brand community is a “specialized, non-geographically

bound community based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a

brand” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001, p. 412). Companies use brand communities as a place

to engage with customers. Consumers who engage in these brand communities often

exhibit enhanced consume loyalty (Brodie et al., 2013).

Brand value. Brand value is the influence of brand knowledge on consumers’

behavior regarding the marketing of the brand (Eryigit & Eryigit, 2014). Consumers

attach perceived value to a brand when considering the purchase of goods. Frequently

consumers consider the brand first because it indirectly leads consumers to associate

products with certain attributes (Wang & Tzeng, 2012).

Brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is the continuing purchase of the goods or services

offered by a particular brand or brands over time. There is a link between brand loyalty

and company success. Companies seek to increase brand loyalty to increase sales and

margins (Schultz & Block, 2012).

Brand perception. Brand perception is the manner by which people relate to a

brand, much like how they relate to people around them. Perceptions of a brand develop

over time. The emotional response a brand elicits from a consumer may be positive,

negative, or indifferent (Kervyn, Fiske, & Malone, 2012).

Social media. Social media is a “group of internet based applications that builds

on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and it allows the creation

and exchange of user-generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Social media

has become dominant in our society. Companies have to adapt to the perceived power

that social media gives to consumers.

Superfan. People often use the term superfan to describe people who are above

average in the support of a product, brand, school, or even a celebrity. For the purposes of

this study, a superfan is a top contributor of content to the community and the company

behind the community recognizes their contributions. Superfans within a branded online

community are typically more engaged in the community, especially when it comes to

providing answers to other members’ questions (Harris & Rae, 2010).

Web 2.0. According to Berthon et al. (2012), Web 2.0 “…can be thought of as the

technical infrastructure that enables the social phenomenon of collective media and

facilitates consumer-generated content” (p.262). These services and technologies have

transformed the use of the World Wide Web in commerce. Consumers have become

more empowered because of Web 2.0 technologies (Berthon et al., 2012).

WOM and WOMM. Word of Mouth (WOM) is the “intentional influencing of

consumer-to-consumer communications by professional marketing techniques”

(Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010, p. 71). WOM affects perceptions and

loyalty of a brand (Dubois et al., 2011). Word of Mouth Marketing (WOMM) developed

because of the recognition of the power of WOM. Kozinets et al. (2010) defined WOMM

as a direct technique in communicating product information.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions are boundaries or conditions believed to be true without proof. The

following are the assumptions that were set forth prior to the commencement of this

study:

1. Study participants trusted that all information obtained from them would remain confidential. Having participants’ trust provided the researcher access to their true

feelings and opinions. Without this trust, participants may hold back in offering

useful and important input.

2. Participants were willing to share their perceptions and experiences concerning online communities. Honest responses to the questions asked generated accurate

information for use in designing online community advertisements that are

effective in developing positive brand perceptions.

3. The researcher assumed a qualitative case study is the most appropriate methodology for answering the research questions. Other designs, such as

phenomenological may have yielded different results.

4. The researcher assumed the data collected was a good representation of opinions of the whole population. Since the number of superfans for the OBC within this

study was small and the vast majority of the superfans did participate, there was

little risk in the data collected from the superfan interviews. However, the social

media postings and the online product reviews were a small sample of the

population of these data.

5. The data analysis was a thematic analysis for the interviews and a content analysis for the social media postings and the online product reviews. It was assumed that

the coding for these analyses were a fair representation of the actual views within

the data.

In addition to assumptions, limitations are constraints in the research design or

methodology that can affect the results of the study (Hyette, Kenny, & Dickson-Swift,

2014). One limitation in this study was that participants were not representative of

participants in all types of online brand communities. This study focused on an OBC

within the personal computer industry. In effect, small sample sizes in case studies

typically limit the generalizability of results (Shih & Fan, 2008). Findings from this

proposed study are therefore only applicable to the study participants’ working

environment. Thus, results are only applicable to the brand promoted by online

contributors. The data collected from the social media postings and online product

reviews were limited to the brand within this study and were a limited quantity of recent

postings. A broader audience may have different perspectives. The analyses conducted

were limited to the coding done by the researcher. Other researchers may have coded

differently, thus providing some different outcomes.

Delimitations are boundaries set in the study that are under the researcher’s

control (Yin, 2014). The researcher has chosen to limit the study to the current superfans

of the online community as designated by the company. Using the 50 most recent social

media postings and only using Facebook and Twitter created a delimitation of that data.

The same is true of the delimitation of the 50 most recent online product reviews. The

timeline of the study included a conclusion of data collection by the end of August 2016

per the site authorization from the company. This deadline served as delimitation of the

project.

Summary and Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online brand communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception

of the top contributors in an online community in the United States. Using the theoretical

foundations of C2C exchange theory (Gruen et al., 2007) and the MOA model (MacInnis

et al., 1991), the researcher intended to answer the following research questions: How

does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s perceptions of the

brand? How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

The researcher recruited 14 online top contributors to participate in semi-

structured interviews via Skype or WebEx. Ten of those targeted elected to participate in

the study. The researcher then transcribed the recorded interviews with the participants.

Additionally, given the qualitative case study design, data triangulation is essential. Thus,

in addition to conducting the semi-structured interviews, the researcher reviewed social

media postings and product reviews for the brand from 2015 to extrapolate a case

scenario for data triangulation.

Chapter 2 presents the study’s theoretical foundations and current research related

to online communities, brand perception, and brand loyalty, including the use of the C2C

exchange (Gruen et al., 2007) and MOA model (MacInnis et al., 1991) in marketing

research. Chapter 3 describes the methodology, the research design, and the procedures

necessary for data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 describes the data analysis and

provides the results from the data analysis. Finally, Chapter 5 presents the interpretation

and discussion of the results in light of the current knowledge on online communities and

brand perception and brand loyalty.

The next chapter (Chapter 2) presents the theoretical foundations for this study.

As described in Chapter 2, there is a significant existing literature in the areas of brand

theory, brand management, WOM, and the role of social media in brand management.

This prior research provides the basis for this current research, yet also presents the

lacuna in the literature on how participation in an online branded community affects

brand loyalty and brand perception that this study addressed. The summary of Chapter 2

provides an argument for the need to apply brand management principles to the social

medium of online branded communities.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception of

expert participants in an online community in the United States. In this chapter, the

researcher explored the literature and research pertaining to online communities, product

branding, brand perception, and brand loyalty. This review of the related literature

includes the theoretical foundations of the study and a discussion of branding theory,

branding communities, and their evolution.

The researcher included these topics as relevant to the problem statement and

purpose of the study. The materials used included peer-reviewed journals, articles, the

Internet, and books. The resource databases used included LopeSearch, ProQuest,

EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, Business Source Complete, ABI/INFORM Complete, and

Gale PowerSearch. The researcher used key words and phrases to collect academic

sources, including “brand perception,” “brand loyalty,” “online community,” “online

branded community,” “brand value,” “social media and online community,”

“participation online branded community,” “brand value and online branded

community,” and “social media and online branded community.” The literature includes

a background of online brand communities and the way in which current studies highlight

issues concerning brand perception and brand loyalty.

While branding strategies require efforts to create a brand experience and to

manage the brand in a concerted manner, outcomes of these branding strategies increase

the overall value of market products (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Fuciu & Dumitrescu,

2010; Kumaravel & Kandasamy, 2012). In the 21st century, social media has created new

challenges for companies and their branding strategies. The Internet and other related

technologies have heightened the influence of social media on business, particularly on

brand management (Laroche et al., 2012). Among the social media that has influenced

changes in branding management are online communities. Online communities are virtual

gatherings of owners and potential owners of products who come together to share

experiences and ideas, and to help each other with aspects of product brands.

Communities may be founded by the users themselves or created by the company to help

foster peer-to-peer discussions. Ultimately, these communities create additional influence

on the company brand.

Researchers have demonstrated the increased use of social media by consumers,

including those in online communities (Goh et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao &

Zhu, 2014). Consumers in the social media-driven branded communities tend to exert

more influence than that of the producer or the company itself (Laroche et al., 2012;

Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). Other researchers have suggested that consumers aspire to go

beyond ordinary consumerism, and that the branded community is one way to achieve

this (de Vries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2012; Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins, & Wiertz,

2013; Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit, 2011). While the power of WOM and social

dynamics have long been recognized as factors that affect perceptions and values of a

brand (Dubois et al., 2011), there is a paucity of research exploring these factors in light

of the emerging power of social online media (Goh et al., 2013). It is thus this unknown

how participation in online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty

(Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The researcher of this study,

therefore, intended to fill the empirical gap by exploring how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception of expert

participants in an online community in the United States.

Theoretical Foundations and Conceptual Framework

In this study, the researcher utilized both the C2C exchange (Gruen et al., 2007)

and the MOA models (MacInnis et al., 1991) in exploring how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. In the past, researchers have

investigated brand communities utilized C2C exchange and the MOA model in

explaining value generation of the product through information sharing (Hui-Chen,

Kuen-Hung, & Chen-Yi, 2014; Jepson, Clarke, & Ragsdell, 2013). The C2C model posits

that the knowledge exchange among participants requires sharable goods commonly

expressed from the participants’ education and experience (Gruen et al. 2007). von

Hippel (1988) suggested that the sharable goods create value from the informal

knowledge trading among process participants with varying levels of education and

experiences. The current study focused on brand perceptions and brand loyalty of

participants in an online community.

In the theory of C2C, knowledge exchange occurs in situations where individuals

participate in communication processes that detail the concerns, complaints, and

recommendations that enhance the well-being of the consumer and the product (Gruen et

al. 2007). The participants in the exchange process may need to have the knowledge to be

able to contribute to the exchange of information (von Hippel, 1988). In this study, the

C2C exchange focuses on the way members of the brand communities share and interact

with other members to influence the utilization and purchase decisions of other members,

as well as potential members, in a specific brand community. This theory guided the

examination of the role that the online community plays in shaping the individual’s

perception of and loyalty to the brand.

Though C2C helps explain the knowledge exchange among members within

online communities, this researcher felt it important to include the MOA theory (Leung &

Bai, 2013; MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989), as it may explain the factors that impede or

facilitate the C2C exchange process. The MOA model discusses the degree to which an

individual processes marketing communications and is based on motivation, opportunity,

and ability factors. One may proactively manage communication effectiveness by

enhancing the individual’s levels of motivation, opportunity, and ability to share the

functional information.

In the MOA model, the first element is motivation. This refers to a force impeding

or facilitating consumers’ engagement, behavior, decisions, and information processing.

Motivated consumers in the online communities are willing to engage in influencing

positive product perception, brand perception, and brand loyalty. The second element,

opportunity, refers to a situation conducive to the implementation of activities that could

achieve desired outcomes (Kim, Hur, & Schoenherr, 2015; MacInnis & Jaworski, 1989).

These situations may include time, consumers’ attention, distractions, and repetitions of

information. The third element is ability, which refers to the availability of resources that

participants can use to achieve desired outcomes. These resources may include

knowledge, money, intelligence, and charisma. In this study, the MOA model focuses on

the way members of the brand communities engage in marketing communication

processes to influence other potential members and brand users. From an empirical

standpoint, it is unknown how such participation in online communities affects brand

perception and brand loyalty. These theories will provide a foundation for answering the

research questions. The MOA model specifically guides the researcher in evaluating the

flow of communication among members of the online community, particularly in the

aspects of motivation, providing opportunities, and available resources to accommodate

consumers’ varied needs.

Review of the Literature

This section included a review of business concepts that are applicable to the

current research. Included with this is existing literature describing and defining each

concept. These topics begin with the concept of branding as a cornerstone of this

research. This is important because of the interest in examining how one might influence

a brand by participating in an online community. The researcher also looked at social

actions that play a role in participation in online communities. For example, the dynamics

of WOM communications play a role in online communities just as they have in other

media. Reviewing these business concepts sets the framework and context for the current

study.

History of branding. In order to understand the complex manner by which online

communities can influence consumer perceptions and brand loyalty, it is important to

understand the history of branding. Kastberg (2012) suggested that the notion of branding

is probably as old as commerce itself. First, it is easier to identify a product when it is

associated with a brand. Branding is also essential in the creation of an emotional

connection between the consumer and the product (Kastberg, 2012). Further, as

commerce has evolved, so have the concepts and strategies of branding. For example,

while Kastberg described branding largely as a sign that generates an emotional response,

Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus, and van Riel (2013) used the metaphor of storytelling

to describe the manner by which one manages the consumer brand experience. What

follows is a brief, high-level review of the history of branding.

Mid-20th century. In the early 1950s, the notion of product segmentation

emerged as an important concept in branding theory (Moschis & Moore, 1982).

Segmentation refers to the process of identifying and isolating buyers’ properties in order

to select markets. Organizations offer products and services to these markets by

designing products and marketing programs targeted at these consumer properties (Kim

& Ko, 2012; Venter, Wright, & Dibb, 2015). While there is a diverse demand in a

heterogeneous market, it also consists of smaller homogeneous markets established using

different variables. These variables differ depending on the type of targeted consumers

based on demographic, geographic, and financial factors. With this empirical

advancement, researchers developed segmentation theory—a theory that is “conceptually

simple to define and understand, but [that is] inherently a multi-criteria problem that is

hard to measure and computationally difficult in many aspects”—to better understand the

process of segmentation in the market (Liu, Kiang, & Brusco, 2012, p. 10292). Moschis

and Moore (1982) presented the basic concepts of segmentation, and more recent studies

have expanded segmentation theory to include motives, consumer patterns, buying

behaviors, preferences, and consumers’ values (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011; Simkin

& Dibb, 2013).

In the 1960s, companies’ primary strategies were limited to mass production and

mass communication. Lifestyle marketing refers to segmenting a complex market into

niche subdivisions according to interests, attitudes, and beliefs (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo,

2011). This type of marketing helps firms create products and services to meet particular

market segments, and with the phenomenon of social media, the specifics of lifestyle

marketing have changed drastically in recent years. Mehta and Anand (2012), for

example, provided a relevant description of the evolution of lifestyle marketing, from the

beginnings of the mass marketing of the television to the present day:

The precursor to the usage of social media marketing for life style products has

been the extensive use of television channels for programmes based on appliances

and products of day-to-day use ranging from gym equipment to kitchen knives to

jewelry. With the advent of satellite television and day long beaming of television

programmes, an unexplored opportunity presented itself for airing of content that

catered to the segment of population with disposable income and readiness to try

new products. From here, the transition to Internet-based platforms was quick and

smooth. The audience has kept up with the technology and since almost all

professional work requires comfort with computers, there is hardly any resistance

to access goods and services on social media marketing platforms. (p. 46).

Neil Borden introduced the concept of the marketing mix, also referred to as the

“four Ps” of marketing: product, price, place, and promotion (Borden, 1964). Borden

asserted that marketing mix be treated as a recipe, whereby consumers use a mixer to

achieve the goals. The four Ps then pertain to the marketing tools the company utilizes to

attain its goals. In the 21st century business field, the term “four Ps” bears no connection

to branding, contrary to Borden’s early postulations (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011).

Researchers have defined brand personality as the human characteristics that can

be associated with a given brand (Aaker, 1997; Avis, 2012). Aaker’s (1997) foundational

research on brand personality established five dimensions of brand personality: (a)

sincerity, (b) excitement, (c) competence, (d) sophistication, and (e) ruggedness. In his

research, Avis (2012) suggested limitations, however, with the application of Aaker’s

theories and recommended humanlike brand theory as a way to address these limitations.

Thus, while two stores can offer the same quality of products and services, consumers

often demonstrate preference to one or the other according to individual traits that one

can apply uniquely to them (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011). The reason for this

phenomenon involves the personality of the store or business. Hampf and Lindberg-Repo

(2011) elaborated that a marketer should utilize the power of a brand’s image to create

the desired personality. Moreover, consumers will prefer the store that represents their

own personality. A marketer must thus consider the relationship between the product and

store personality to attract consumers effectively.

Branding continued to be associated with mass production and mass

communication through the 1970s. Companies utilized brand commercials to present the

quality and functionality of their products. Companies later began to emphasize the

immaterial value of their products in the years between 1970 and 1990 (Hampf &

Lindberg-Repo, 2011). Commercials used story-telling strategies to present consumers

with the meanings they desired to portray (Bastos & Levy, 2012).

1970s to 1990s. Beginning in the early 1970s, non-profit organizations began

utilizing the concept of branding with the introduction of social marketing (Luca &

Suggs, 2013). In this era, there was a paradigm shift from the four Ps of marketing to

relationship marketing (Luca & Suggs, 2013). Gordon (2012) pointed out limitations in

the four P-framework proposed by Borden (1964). Gordon suggested the importance for

one to establish, maintain, and enhance long-term relationships between consumers and

companies to achieve the objectives.

In the 21st century, social marketing has been the result of the evolution of

branding, which also has become the framework for the planning and implementation of

changes in the market (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011). Hampf and Lindberg-Repo

(2011) added that social marketing demonstrated the wide boundaries of marketing

suggesting that marketers’ aim is to instill the product in the minds of the consumers.

Therefore, the positioning strategy does not concentrate on the core product itself, but

rather on the elements surrounding it. In this case, a company could resort to changing

the name, price strategy, or the package of the product (Eryigit & Eryigit, 2014). One of

the primary principles of positioning theory deals with the notion of adapting a product’s

external elements in order to attain the desired outlooks that exist within the minds of the

consumer (Urde & Koch, 2014). Advertising agencies have utilized positioning theory to

emphasize stronger reactions among consumers, rather than solely focusing on

commercials and slogans.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the academe popularized relationship marketing

(Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998). Mercer (2010), however, argued that there was no in-

depth understanding of the relationship between branding and relationship marketing at

the time. Nonetheless, during the early 1980s, brand equity was a popular research topic

and was an important element in strategic management (Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998).

Brand equity measures the value of a brand, which is an essential aspect of present-day

marketing (Bastos & Levy, 2012; Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998). Researchers postulated

that brand value is distinguishable from the company’s other assets, including price,

marketing strategy, and promotional activity (Keller, Parameswaran, & Jacob, 2011;

Davcik, Vinhas da Silva, & Hair, 2015).

Understanding the concepts of brand equity helps companies understand the

importance of branding because they can now measure the benefits that they are

receiving from investments on their brand. Brand equity includes both the consumer

perspective and the financial perspective, which constitutes the product’s total value and

reflects the company’s performance in the market (Keller et al., 2011). Utilizing the

financial market value provides a view of the company’s future revenues (M’zungu et al.,

2010). A consumer-based perspective should focus on consumers’ reactions to products

(Eryigit & Eryigit, 2014). Brand equity has a significant relationship with brand loyalty,

and is defined as a set of brand assets that have the potential to influence consumer’s

behavior regarding a firm’s brand, including visual brand loyalty, perceived quality, and

brand associations (Toufaily, Ricard, & Perrien, 2013; Zhang & Niu, 2015). Hampf and

Lindberg-Repo (2011) added that consumers’ strong, positive, and unique associations

constitute a well-known brand. When considering a consumer-based perspective, it is

important to consider that brand equity refers to consumer perceptions, rather than any

objective metrics. In addition, the brand and the brand names set the product’s global

value.

Davcik, Vinhas da Silva, and Hair (2015) asserted that the financial and

consumer-based perspectives have not encompassed the overall picture of brand equity.

The global brand equity valuation model (Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998) measures three

brand multiples: (a) customer-base potency, (b) competitive potency, and (c) global

potency (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011). Brand image and customer loyalty shapes

customer-based potency. These components constitute the core dimensions of brand

equity (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011). This concept suggests that brand loyalty is

dependent on brand image. Brand trend, brand protection, and brand support characterize

competitive potency. Furthermore, the dynamic factors between local and global markets

determine global potency.

1990s to the present day. Starting in the 1990s through the present, relational

branding has become the current paradigm in branding (Hardy, Norman, & Sceery,

2012). Relational branding is the branding style that takes into account para-social

relationships, which consist of the connections between the consumers and the company

(Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011). Relational branding can specifically impact the

company’s image when presented through company name, brands, and personalities that

represent it. Relational branding also refers to the power given to consumers to dictate the

brand relationship. Brand relationship determines the individual’s perspective toward the

brand relationship and relational value (Avis, Aitken, & Ferguson, 2012). Moreover,

consumers develop individual relationships based on their perceptions of brand value and

their experiences with the brand. Hampf and Lindberg-Repo (2011) further elaborated

that consumers actually create the brand through communications in different contexts.

Bastos and Levy (2012) contrasted the work of other researchers with the realities of the

complex nature of brand management, suggesting the transformation of branding into a

multidimensional, multifunction, and malleable entity.

Business marketing leaders have also emphasized brand identity (Peterson &

Jolibert, 1995). According to Kapferer (2012), brand identity provides information on

ways to improve the product over time. Kapferer asserted that brand identity emphasizes

the role of the internal brand builders. Additionally, employees’ attitudes and behaviors

are crucial to creating brand identity, such as being visionary and determined. Therefore,

employees’ vision and culture influence the process of brand building. Moreover, it is

essential for companies to determine and control the way in which employees influence

their positioning. Successful management of this positioning will result in attainment of

the desired value. There is therefore a relationship between brand identity and employee

behavior (Kapferer, 2012); organizational leaders who can create a work environment

where every decision and behavior employees demonstrate highlights specific attributes

of the brand can influence the brand’s performance. Further, employees whose thoughts

and behaviors prioritize the brand’s interests can benefit the brand and the company. It is

also essential that the staff members’ attitudes correspond to one another in order to

communicate the company’s desired image and personality. Thus, the company must

prevent or eliminate the discrepancy between the desired values and the values reflected

by employees (Kapferer, 2012).

Another milestone in the evolution of branding was the utilization of the country-

of-origin (COO). According to Peterson and Jolibert (1995), the concept of COO has

become one of the most researched topics in the field of marketing. Studies have revealed

that because of the increasing competition of global brands, consumers have developed

sensitivity to COO (Fatma, 2014). Hampf and Lindberg-Repo (2011) added that the

variables of price, origin, and brand name guarantee the quality in the branding of COO

approach. However, branding the COO is not applicable to all products, especially to

those of everyday use. Branding the COO is crucial, however, for products that are

dependent on brand image, such as expensive wines.

The above discussion illustrates how the concept and practice of branding within

business marketing has evolved in phases over the years. It began with product

segmentation in the early 1950s, which gradually led the way to lifestyle marketing in the

1960s. The 1970s saw the rise and popularity of mass production and mass

communication. Gradually during this time, social marketing also emerged as a popular

practice, which marked a shift from the four Ps of marketing to relational marketing that

continued as the dominant marketing practice into the 21st century. Brand equity and

brand identity are two other concepts that have emerged as integral elements of branding

since the inception of the practice.

Brand communities. In response to the inefficient management of one-on-one

relationships with consumers, the concept of brand community has emerged (Laroche et

al., 2012). Different scholars define the concept of brand community variously

highlighting its key features. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) defined brand community as a

community with members who have specialized knowledge about a specific brand.

McAlexander and Koenig (2012) alternatively defined brand communities as non-

geographical areas that constitute structured social relationships among brand admirers.

Laroche et al. (2012) also asserted that brand communities represent association rooted in

the consumption context surrounding a product and that members of these communities

have similarities that differentiate them from other communities. The most essential

entity shared by brand community members is the formation and negotiation of meaning

in three domains of cognitive schemas: social relatedness, personal involvement with the

company and brand, and psychosocial symbolic connections to the product and brand

(Morandin, Bagozzi, & Bergami, 2013). Overall, the definitions of brand communities

focused on shared knowledge (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001), structured social relationships

(McAlexander & Koenig, 2012), similarities (Laroche et al., 2012), and common

meaning formation (Morandin et al., 2013) among members as core features.

Relevant to brand communities is a phenomenon of user generated, brand-related

messages in which individuals develop relationships with other consumers of the brand

through formal and informal interactions, the latter of which has been referred to as “the

collapse of the private sphere” (Yannopoulou, Moufahim, & Bian, 2013, p. 88). These

interactions typically occur within a social medium such as Twitter, YouTube, and

branded communities. McAlexander and Koenig (2012) asserted that these relationships

within each group are strong because members usually prefer only a few brands. They

added that theories governing the two concepts added to the body of theories in the

literature of relationship marketing. They concluded that these concepts supported the

development of a framework that explains the complex relationship between people and

brands (McAlexander & Koenig, 2012).

In the extant literature, there has also been a focus on the association between

branding and corporate social relationship (CSR). Hampf and Lindberg-Repo (2011)

proposed that at the beginning of the 21st century, individuals witnessed the merging of

two concepts: (a) branding and (b) CSR. Comparatively, highlighting the association

between the two, Kitzmueller and Shimshack (2012) noted that CSR has become a

mainstream initiative for almost every type of organization. CSR offers an understanding

of the relationship between a company’s reputation and its brand equity. Moreover, CSR

has introduced the notion that customers, employees, and other stakeholders have the

power to disapprove of an organization’s CSR strategies and actions, thus implying the

need for organizations to be in tune with CSR stakeholders.

Hampf and Lindberg-Repo (2011) concluded that the main aim of CSR is to

influence consumers’ perceptions through the activities the company performs. Because

these activities affect a company’s reputation, it is essential that the company consider

such activities in the name of the brand. There are four reasons for companies to utilize

CSR: (a) to understand the brand promise, (b) to maintain customer loyalty, (c) to

maximize the effect of investments that were to be directed toward CSR regardless of the

brand, and (d) to avoid conflicts with stakeholders (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011).

Kapferer (2012) added to this concept by suggesting that companies could use ethicality

as a brand benefit. Consumers will also feel satisfied, given the linkage between a brand’s

responsible behavior and its relationship to society.

There are several methods for organizing brand communities, such as the Internet

and social media, where one may co-create value (Goh et al., 2013). Researchers have

also explored the conceptual and empirical dimensions and factors that influence brand

communities (Laroche et al., 2012; Matzler, Pichler, Füller, & Mooradian, 2011). The

focus of these studies was on examining the connections and relationships among

individuals who prefer a certain brand. According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), many

companies take advantage of the capabilities of brand communities as well as social

media. In addition to the research on offline brand communities, the concept of online

brand communities has emerged, which are social media-based. Laroche et al. (2012)

thus concluded that the prevalence of brand communities supports the need for both

marketers and scholars to have more in-depth knowledge about communities.

Several factors have increased scholars’ attention in exploring the concept of

brand communities (Laroche et al., 2012). Laroche et al. (2012) asserted that brand

communities have attracted much attention among researchers for the following reasons:

 learning consumers’ perceptions about new products and competitive actions,

 maximizing the opportunities to collaborate with loyal consumers,

 influencing the evaluations and actions of the members of the brand community,

 disseminating information quickly, and

 allowing companies to gain the trust of loyal consumers.

Acknowledging the factors identified by Laroche et al. (2012), Kaplan and

Haenlein (2010) concluded that the vast influence of social media on brand communities

has engaged many companies in this area of research.

Laroche et al. (2012) proposed that consumers have individual motivations for

engaging in a brand community. The authors noted that brand communities address

psychological and social needs by providing a form of expression for the individual or

group. Joining a brand community helps individuals to identify themselves with certain

brands, which fulfills their social needs and their needs to self-identity. Moreover, brand

communities tend to help consumers reflect on who they want to be and how they want to

present themselves to others. Other studies have corroborated the motivational aspect of

brand community engagement (Brodie et al., 2013; Jin, Lee, & Huffman, 2012). Brodie

et al. (2013) and Jin et al. (2012) also highlighted that the interrelationship in a brand

community is motivational, as consumers favor self-associations with the signs and

symbols they prefer.

Brand communities can bring consumers together, create conversations among

them, and enable them to obtain information about the brand (Goulding, Shankar, &

Canniford, 2013). Brand communities’ capabilities have raised ideas among companies

interested in tapping into the advantages of offline brand communities, such as effective

communication between marketers and customers as well as obtaining essential

information. These brand communities serve as a communication channel that links

devoted users (Goulding et al., 2013). Laroche et al. (2013) further posited that in brand

communities, consumers are valuable sources of information for companies, and their

ideas can lead to the production of the right products and the right product modifications.

In contrast to online brand communities, offline brand communities have

geographical constraints and thus, are limited (Goh et al., 2013). However, the use of

online social media may help address such constraints, as brands tend to transcend

geography with the use of social media. Laroche et al. (2012) added that the role of social

media is essential for brands to gain potential customers as well as to foster the marketer‒

consumer relationship without any constraints. The authors further concluded that it is

important for companies as well as consumers to utilize the benefits of new technology

and brand communities (Laroche et al., 2012).

Historically, customers have been separate from the value chain within a firm.

More recently, however, this practice has become an issue due to Web 2.0 technologies,

such as online social media. Using social media, companies may give consumers the

opportunity to create brand communities and the freedom to alter their products. There

are three markers within brand communities, namely “shared consciousness, shared

rituals and traditions, and obligations to society” (Laroche et al., 2012, p. 3). In addition,

there are specific practices that contribute to the development of values in brand

communities (Laroche et al., 2012).

Trust is highly significant to a brand community. To examine this concept, Hur,

Ahn, and Kim (2011) interviewed 200 female brand community users who were mobile

phone consumers and concluded that a company’s brand community marketing activities

can influence the relationships among the community participants as well as the brand

and the company. Hur et al. (2011) suggested that customer participation often leads to

brand loyalty activities.

Moreover, the phenomenon of tribal marketing has emerged as online

communities make use of Web 2.0 technologies. Branded communities, according to

Laroche et al. (2012), have a significant influence on contemporary marketing. These

researchers concluded that the nature of consumption, work, and marketing is moving

into the hands of the consumer. The above discussion highlights that brand communities

play an integral role in branding activities. Researchers have focused on the various

functions served by the brand communities for the consumer such as fulfilling

consumers’ social needs and obtaining information about products quickly. What

researchers had not examined is the how participation in a brand community may

influence brand loyalty.

Online brand communities. The concept of community is typically an emotional

and humanistic dynamic, meaning that it is continuously growing and needs nurturing. A

common belief system and peer-based support are key attributes of a community (Maton

& Salem, 1995). In addition, communities work best when participants share common

values and interests. For example, Maton and Salem (1995) surveyed moderators of 13

Yahoo! groups, yielding 470 usable responses to a questionnaire. They concluded that

participation in online brand communities related to a consciousness of kind, moral

responsibility, and shared rituals and traditions. The limitations of the study included the

use of an online survey method utilizing a self-reported instrument and the focused

cameras, motorcycles, and hybrid cars. There is an opportunity to expand this research,

however, by examining how brand value influence online brand community participation.

Many companies use online brand communities to support their products

including the launch of new products (Gruner, Homburg, & Lukas, 2013). In their

research of 81 firm-hosted online brand communities and 170 community-hosting firms

in the consumer durable goods industry Gruner et al. (2013) found that a growing number

of companies develop and host online brand communities to support their products. They

suggested one motivation of firms to establish such communities is to increase the

success rate of their new products in the marketplace. There is a broad based usage of

online brand communities in the durable goods industry. Gruner et al. (2013) revealed

that almost 90% of the 670 firms in their initial sample hosted an online brand

community of some type. Although their research focused on whether and how online

brand communities can contribute to the success of new products, but did not explore

how participation in such a community may influence brand value.

In contrast, Mahar (2007) examined the factors affecting participation in online

communities, surveying 1,612 active members of an IBM-based community, as well as

336 members of a Xerox community. The research questions in this mixed-methods

study focused on the dynamics of participation in corporate communities of practice.

Mahar found managing communities of practice to be complex, yet beneficial. Future

researchers could examine the level of participation by members and potential

community members with a focus on increasing participation.

Making connections with others who share common interests is essential to online

communities (Kotowski & dos Santos, 2010). Kotowski and dos Santos (2010) examined

the personality characteristics that enable some people to better form connections within

online communities, concluding that an extraverted personality is consistent among

online users. Kotowski and dos Santos concluded that communication technologies such

as Web 2.0 create new opportunities for people to connect. In contrast, Wirtz et al. (2013)

suggested a need to understand online community members’ personality characteristics at

a deeper level, such as personal backgrounds and cultural differences, to allow for

segmentation.

In addition, Felix (2012) suggested that in the world of online, consumer-to-

consumer communications, companies risk losing control of their brands. Yamaha

learned to leverage online communities to allow customers to ask questions to Yamaha

employees, and the community members—including those who did not ask a question—

benefited from their answers (Felix, 2012). In contrast to Felix’s research, Hashim and

Tan (2015) suggested a need for a clear understanding of what and how member

influence is determined.

Goh et al. (2013) investigated whether online communities could influence brand

value. The researchers suggested that the risk of negative effects on the brand far

outweighs the value of direct communication with customers. Companies seek

opportunities to create brand loyalty in this peer-to-peer setup because of the emotional

connection that occurs within a social media environment (Goh et al., 2013). Consumers

want confirmation that they bought or are buying the right product and will trust others in

an online community to help them with that decision. Users of online communities trust

members more than they trust the company behind the brand.

The above-discussed literature focused on the various factors that govern the

participation and functioning of online brand communities. Some of the key features of

online communities are shared rituals and practices, emotional connections with others

who share similar interests, and trust among the members (Goh et al., 2013; Kotowski &

dos Santos, 2010; Maton & Salem, 1995). Companies also benefit by getting the

opportunity to foster brand loyalty among the members of the online communities.

Crowdsourcing. One way to leverage a community is to allow participants in a

community to contribute to the overall well-being of others. Marketing experts refer this

concept as crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is the process whereby a company or

institution takes a function previously performed by its employees and then outsources

this function to a large, but not defined, network of people through open call. As an

example, an organization can ask a crowd to find and gather data into a common location

as well as a common format. Organizations can also ask a crowd to create and choose

creative ideas. Another form of crowdsourcing involves organizations asking a crowd to

solve empirical problems (Wexler, 2011). Wexler (2011), for example, examined three

phases of the crowd, and suggested that society is now in the third phase of crowds,

which facilitates problem resolution. The concept of crowdsourcing strategically merges

the consumer of a good with its producer.

In comparison, Zhao and Zhu (2014) examined previous research on

crowdsourcing. The researchers stressed the need for refined sociotechnical systems to

support the implementation of an online community. With a well-defined community and

process, companies can drive growth and support a culture of innovation. One example of

the use of crowdsourcing is for conducting research through surveys, which is an area

that Behrend, Sharek, Meade, and Wiebe (2011) explored. They concluded that the use of

crowdsourcing has considerable potential for researchers. Behrend et al. contrasted the

research of Behrend et al. by highlighting the issues with crowdsourcing surveys. As an

example, there is a possibility of over-surveying, which could skew the data.

WOMM. According to research by Keller and Libai (2009), marketers expected

to spend $3 billion on WOMM in 2013. However, the WOMM phenomenon was not new

to this report; rather, marketers and scholars have recognized WOMM for decades

(Kozinets et al., 2010). Marketers expect to benefit from understanding WOMM,

especially given the accessibility of the Internet (Kozinets et al., 2010).

In contrast, Dubois et al. (2011) noted the influence that rumors can have on

products, brands, companies, and even people and, as such, stressed the need for rumor

management, rather than leaving WOM to chance. WOM plays a significant role in social

media, including online communities, because its dynamics are the same in these venues

as they are in others, but may actually exert a greater influence due to the exponential

effect of social media (Sun, 2013). WOM also heavily influences online consumer

interactions. Companies are utilizing virtual social networks to develop strong ties with

consumers. This is particularly important because a specific user behavior in online

communities is the seeking of recommendations (Sun, 2013).

According to Kozinets et al. (2010), WOMM is an integral part of the current

cultural process. While the use of WOMM appears to be the same with the process of

public relations and promotions, it has less complex cultural interactions. Kozinets et al.

added that the elements of WOMM are communications related to marketing. The four

essential factors, which include character narratives, forums, communal norms, and

promotional characteristics, influence WOM online communications.

Character narrative. The first factor that affects WOM online communication is

character narrative. Character narrative causes people to associate with a particular type

of character and endures personal stories (Kozinets et al., 2010). Researchers have argued

that while narratives differ from time to time, there are particular archetypal patterns that

manifest among them. As an example, a blogger may relate to a particular character

within the narrative, which leads to the blogger’s positive presentation of the character.

Forums. The second factor affecting WOM online communication is the online

forum. Online forums such as social networking, websites, and blogs may address a wide

range of topics. Other WOM contexts might include dinner parties, bars, and other face-

to-face forums.

Communal norms. These govern the expression, transmission, and reception of a

message and its meanings. Characteristics such as the size of the community, the interests

of the members, and social class, among others, can affect these communal norms. In

turn, this influences the type of audience and the narratives amongst the members. In

addition, the third factor involves the communal norms that facilitate the exchange of

messages and their embedded meanings. Kozinets et al. (2010) suggested that these

norms depend on the size of the online community.

Promotional characteristics. Finally, the fourth factor affecting WOM online

communication involves the promotional characteristics of WOMM. These

characteristics pertain to promotional campaigns such as brand equity and humor.

Kozinets et al. (2010) concluded that these four factors work collaboratively to influence

the meaning of WOMM. The authors added that online users transform WOMM from

commercial promotion to information valued by the online community. Kozinets et al.

elaborated that these norms attract bloggers and other members in the community.

The preceding discussion highlighted the considerable research conducted to

study the influence of WOMM on online consumer interaction. Studies stressed the key

role of WOMM in social media, greatly influencing interactions among online

community members. It is important to control strategically how WOMM affects

products and their brand images. Certain norms govern the impact of WOMM on online

communications, and companies leverage the influence of WOMM to develop close ties

with consumers.

Branding and brand experience. There are many motivations for the use of

brands; such motivations create product distinction through innovation (Mercer, 2010). A

brand tells others who someone is and what someone wants to be, thus serving as a

psychological symbol for the consumer and thereby differentiating it from other brands

(Lysonski & Durvasula 2013; Singh, 2012; Spence, 2012). When the concept of branding

emerged, companies had opportunities for higher margins for products with stronger

brands (Mercer, 2010; M’zungu et al., 2010). These companies examined ways to

manage their brands to maximize value (Avis, 2012). Ultimately, this led to the concept

of brand management and the idea of a brand experience (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012;

Fuciu & Dumitrescu, 2010; Kumaravel & Kandasamy, 2012). Other researchers added to

the concept of branding by suggesting the need to apply significant resources in the area

of brand creation and brand experience management (Lysonski, S., & Durvasula 2013;

Singh, 2012; Spence, 2012).

Consumers interact with brands in a number of different ways. Brand experience

is thus critical, as it influences an individual’s sensations, feelings, cognitions, and

behavioral responses to the stimuli companies create to define a personality for their

brands (Schmitt, Zarantonello, & Brakus, 2009). Schmitt et al. (2009) asserted that brand

experience has generated much attention in the field of marketing as marketers have

realized that having the knowledge about consumers’ experiences can help them develop

effective marketing strategies.

While a number of constructs have been studied in the branding literature

including brand personality, brand love, and brand community (Aaker, 1997; Batra,

Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012; Schmitt, 2012), there is limited research focusing on

measuring brand experience (Schmitt et al., 2009). Moreover, most past research has

focused on contexts where specific products and services have arisen. Despite the fact

that researchers have studied the contexts in which specific product and service

experiences were optimal, researchers have not given priority to the nature and structure

of brand experience (Newbery & Farnham, 2013). Schmitt et al. (2009) further concluded

that brand experiences are demonstrated when consumers look for products. The same

can be demonstrated when consumers shop for products and when they receive services

(Newbery & Farnham, 2013).

Klaus and Maklan (2013) claimed that product experience pertains to the

interaction between the consumer and the product. This occurs when consumers look,

examine, and evaluate products. However, Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou (2013)

suggested an important role of online aspects of a brand, specifically noting that “online

brand experiences depend on the perceptions of the usefulness of the brand, trust, and

indirectly, on its reputation” (p. 26). Schifferstain and Hekkert explained that there are

two kinds of product experience: (a) direct and (b) indirect. Direct product experience

occurs when there is physical contact with the product. In contrast, indirect product

experience occurs when the first contact with the product is through advertisement (Klaus

& Maklan, 2013). The interaction between the consumer and the business’s physical

environment, its personnel, and its policies and practices shapes shopping and service

experiences (Krystallis & Chrysochou, 2014). Krystallis and Chrysochou (2014), for

example, focused on atmospheric variables as well as the effects of salespeople and found

that consumer interaction with salespeople can influence the consumers’ attitudes,

feelings, and satisfaction levels.

Finally, brand experience can also occur when consumers use or experience the

product personally. Consumption experience, a part of brand experience, is

multidimensional and includes a hedonic dimension, such as fantasies (Hollebeek, Glynn,

& Brodie (2014). Research has shown that in the area of consumption experience, the

focus has been on the hedonic goals that occur before and after consumption (Schmitt et

al., 2009). Conclusions from such research suggest that brand experiences occur in

different settings (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Schmitt et al., 2009). Thus, while most brand

experiences occur when the consumer interacts with the product, they can also occur

indirectly in the form of advertising and marketing communications, such as on websites.

In their research, Schmitt et al. (2009) addressed the creation and management of

brand experience. The authors developed a brand experience scale to capture the

dimensions of brand experience, as well as the level of experience the brand evoked

within each dimension. Their results suggested that outside the academe, companies

could apply the concept of the brand experience scale.

In addition, a good brand image strategy can be a key element in a brand

experience and can help a company differentiate itself from its competitors (Kumaravel

& Kandasamy, 2012). Indeed, Kumaravel and Kandasamy (2012) suggested that brand

quality, awareness, and features have a significant effect on brand equity, suggesting that

brand management is an important strategy to achieve brand equity. Conversely, Klaus

and Maklan (2013) highlighted the need for a holistic approach to the design of a

customer experience. This suggests a need to examine the total brand experience from the

customer’s perspective.

Researchers recognize brand experience as an integral element in the practice of

branding. Studies have identified how brand experience occurs in various settings,

through the direct contact of the product or through indirect contract via advertisements

(Hollebeek et al., 2014; Klaus & Maklan, 2013; Schmitt et al., 2009). Companies also

benefit from an evaluation of brand experience as they can get information about

consumers’ interaction with a product.

Brand management. The notion of branding emerged in the late 1800s as a

business discipline of brand management (Mercer, 2010). Fetscherin and Usunier (2012)

reviewed the evolution of corporate branding from 1969 to 2008. The authors’ research is

beneficial to those in corporate branding because it provided information on managing

corporate brands and documenting events written from the non-scholarly documents

(Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012).

Balmer (2012) focused on the strategic management of corporate brands.

According to Balmer:

A corporate brand is a distinct identity type pertaining to one or more entities. It

has a quasi-legal character in that it is underpinned by an informal, albeit

powerful, corporate contract between the firm and its stakeholders—a corporate

brand “covenant.” (p. 6)

Balmer (2012) elaborated that the corporate brand covenant pertains to the

consumers’ expectations and other stakeholders’ associations to the corporate brand

name. Consumers can accept or reject brand covenants and it takes time to develop

corporate brand covenants. Corporate brands also reflect the company’s corporate

identity attributes. Balmer added that other companies might buy, sell, and borrow

corporate brands from another company.

Balmer (2012) determined three important management strategies for corporate

brands:

(a) The brand custodianship imperative: ensuring the corporate brand is seen as a

strategic senior management concern.

(b) The brand credibility imperative: ensuring the corporate brand covenant is bona

fide.

meaningfully and dynamically aligned with the identities forming the corporate

brand constellation. (p. 7)

The corporate brand custodianship imperative recognizes that senior management

is responsible for implementing corporate brand handling strategies. Conversely, the

brand credibility imperative requires the company to implement the brand covenant in all

activities. Finally, the corporate brand calibration imperative characterizes the regulation

of the relationships between the corporate brand identity and other manifestations of the

company’s identity. The brand calibration imperative also supplements the company’s

credibility.

Any significant asset within an organization requires management. Corporate

brand management, maintenance, and development are all critical concerns for the

company’s stakeholders. It is thus senior management’s responsibility to address the

challenges faced in corporate brand management (Balmer, 2012). Additionally, included

in senior management’s responsibility is the maintenance of a meaningful brand

covenant. Ineffective brand management can result in institutional liability, characterized

by the brand’s losing consumers and other stakeholders. Other researchers have

supported Balmer’s research suggesting a need to focus on the corporate brand

management, maintenance, and development (Felix, 2012; M’zungu et al., 2010). Given

the need to focus on corporate brand maintenance, Shamoon and Tehsee (2011)

recommended that brand managers look beyond individual campaigns to appeal to the

consumer’s intellect.

Recognizing the importance of a powerful brand often leads to the question of

how to make it stronger. Fuciu and Dumitrescu (2010) explored what brands mean for

companies and consumers as well as the factors that determine a brand’s value and

suggested four steps to developing a powerful brand. According to the researchers, to

develop a powerful brand, managers should (a) master brand management, (b) measure

the brands, (c) make the brands, and (d) manage the brands. To master the brands,

managers should have knowledge in arts, science, and crafts and demonstrate

transparency. To measure the brands, managers should carry out market research to

understand the current perceptions of the brand. In making the brand, managers should

first identify the different factors that would differentiate a strong brand from a weak one.

They should then carry out a pathway analysis, which involves transforming these

abstract elements identified into practical as well as understandable terms for brand

integration. After the creation of the desired brand, the last step involves managing the

brand. This means that managers should think of the best budget as well as the

appropriate media outlets in which to present the brand. These four steps are part of an

overall strategy of brand management.

Thus, brand management is a crucial function within branding. Extant literature

on brand management stresses the importance of corporate strategies in managing brands

effectively. Studies also recognize the role of senior management in adopting effective

brand management strategies (Balmer, 2012; Felix, 2012; M’zungu et al., 2010).

Researchers have also discussed the various processes that managers need to focus on in

developing influential brands (Fuciu & Dumitrescu, 2010).

Role of social media. Whether it is through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or

another platform, consumer exposure to WOM on various social media sites can be a

significant driver of consumer purchasing behavior (Liu & Lopez, 2014). Given its

enormous influence, Hanna, Rohm, and Crittenden (2011) posited that the popularity of

social media has revolutionized marketing practices, especially product promotion and

product advertising. A number of studies also noted that social media has affected

consumer behaviors, from the acquiring of information about the product to after

purchasing behaviors (Goh et al., 2013; Kietzmann, Silvestre, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2012).

With the vast influence of social media, it is imperative that research on this important

topic continue.

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) defined social media as “a group of internet based

applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and

allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content” (p. 61). Laroche at al. (2012)

added that social media pertains to the online technologies that people use to share ideas,

knowledge, and opinions. Social media is a form of Internet social aggregation from

people who have conducted public discussions with human emotions that lead to the

formation of personal relationships in cyberspace (Aiello, Barrat, Cattuto, Schifanella, &

Ruffo, 2012). There are two directly related concepts essential to the discussion of social

media: (a) Web 2.0 and (b) user generated content (Laroche et al., 2012).

Laroche et al. (2012) posited that Web 2.0, introduced in 2004, characterized a

new method that application programmers as well as end users could use through the

World Wide Web. Web 2.0 is a platform whereby participants collaborate to publish

software and content. Conversely, user generated content emerged in 2005 as a method

for end-users to make content and utilize social media on the grounds of Web 2.0. It also

contains various forms of media content available publicly, ranging from text to audio to

video materials created by the end users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Laroche et al. (2012) posited that social media includes a vast array of Internet-

based applications and programs, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook. They

added that social media has been the center of attention among researchers in different

industries because of its capability to directly connect businesses to end consumers in a

timely manner at a low cost, in influencing customer perceptions and behavior, and in

bringing together like-minded people. Moreover, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) added that,

due to the increased efficiency of social media as compared to other modes of

communication, industry leaders have insisted on companies participating in different

social media to succeed in the online setting. More industries maximize the benefits of

social media in developing strategies, managing others’ strategies, and following others’

directions (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011).

People address their need for belongingness as well as their need for cognition

when they participate in social media through the sharing of norms, values, and interests

(Laroche et al., 2013). The feeling of being socially connected is central to the

individual’s psychological sense of community. While feelings of belongingness are

weaker in the online environment, weak ties could bridge people and encourage

members’ participation in communities that can reach intimate levels (Laroche et al.,

2013). Laroche et al. concluded that people take advantage of social media capabilities

through contribution and participation in communities that address their needs for

belongingness. It is thus essential to discuss social media with brand communities.

Functional blocks of social media. Kietzmann et al. (2011) devised a framework

of seven functional building blocks that describe social media: (a) identity, (b)

conversations, (c) sharing, (d) presence, (e) relationships, (f) reputation, and (g) groups.

In their research, Kietzmann et al. studied the implications of each of the seven blocks to

companies’ engagement with social media. Moreover, they examined consumers’

experiences using social media by utilizing the seven blocks framework. Their findings

suggest, however, that these building blocks may or may not be included in social media

activity, depending on the configuration of the social media.

Identity. The first functional block of social media is identity. Identity occurs

when a social media user reveals the consumer’s identity to the social media setting

(Kietzmann et al., 2011). These authors suggested the “identity” functional block

includes the disclosure of personal information such as name, gender, and age. Kaplan

and Haenlein (2010) expounded that the presentation of one’s identity can occur through

the conscious or unconscious disclosure of subjective details such as feelings and

thoughts. Moreover, Kietzmann et al. (2011) added that users have various preferences in

using social media. While many users prefer engaging in online activities using real

names, others prefer using nicknames (Kietzmann et al., 2011).

In addition to these preferences are the various social media sites that require

users to create their own profiles to represent their identity. Here, users may treat the

social media sites in the same way one may treat a business card by creating profiles,

which market their identities and enable other users to know and follow them. Social

media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are now regularly used by more than one

seventh of the world population (Schwartz et al., 2013), which allows for hundreds—if

not thousands—of varying consumer bases to which firms can specifically market.

Furthermore, the role of identity in social media platforms has influenced

companies in developing their own social media sites (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The

authors added that one of the implications of social media on companies developing

social media sites is the sense of privacy. While social media users freely share their

personal information on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, users are keen to determine

how these sites use the information. Social media users have significant concerns about

how companies use their personal details. Thus, in response to such concerns,

governments around the world have begun to initiate laws regulating social media

privacy issues (Child, Haridakis, & Petronio, 2012; Sánchez Abril, Levin, & Del Riego,

2012). Kietzmann et al. (2011) asserted that social media users have developed strategies

in presenting identities, such as the use of a real identity as opposed to a virtual one.

Other users, however, have utilized social media for self-promotion and self-branding.

Kietzmann et al. further concluded that it is critical for companies to utilize social media

sites to balance the sharing of identity and the protecting of privacy. Failure to balance

these actions may lead to cyberbullying and a lack of accountability among social media

users.

Conversation. The second functional block involves conversation between social

media users with other social media users (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Kietzmann et al.

(2011) noted that conversations in social media are inevitable and thus, several social

media sites cater to conversations among users and groups of users. Some online users

utilize social media conversation as a response to political issues (Valenzuela, 2013),

environmental concerns (Bennett, 2012), as well as for other humanitarian purposes

(Madianou, 2013), among others. Furthermore, most of the message exchange among

users is brief in nature, which requires no obligation for a response.

Kietzmann et al. (2011) noted that the diverse frequency and content of the

conversation reflects conversation velocity. They defined conversation velocity as “the

rate and direction of change in a conversation” (Kietzmann et al., 2011, p. 244).

Companies can utilize these conversations by having a collective sense of several short

conversations among users. Through such conversations, companies can gain an idea of

the users’ perceptions of the brand or product of discussion. Understanding user

perceptions can help companies gauge important factors that can affect their success,

including brand loyalty, brand commitment, and brand value.

Sharing. Another functional block of social media is sharing, which pertains to

the exchange, distribution, and receipt of content in the social media setting. Kietzmann

et al. (2011) noted that a sense of sociality facilitates a link between individuals and the

product. Moreover, the sharing of such objects is a method of interaction in social media.

According to Kietzmann et al., one use of the sharing functional block provided by social

media is to fulfill the need to evaluate the objects the users share. Moreover, sharing

functionality determines what objects can mediate users’ share interests (Kietzmann et

al., 2011). These objects can take the form of a brand or a product that connects social

media users. Another important aspect of sharing functionality involves the degree to

which users share activities. The sharing of information among users can initiate a wider

range of products and service dissemination.

Presence. The next functional block is presence, which pertains to users’

knowledge of users’ accessibility. According to Kietzmann et al. (2011), presence

functionality includes having the knowledge of the location and availability of other users

in the virtual or real world. Kietzmann et al. elaborated that presence status can be

determined using terms such as available or hidden. The increasing connectivity among

people serves to bridge the virtual and real world (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Considering

the presence functionality in social media can help companies to assess users’

availabilities and locations. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) concluded that presence

functionality influences the intimacy and the immediacy of relationships. Moreover,

higher levels of presence functionality lead to conversations that are more influential,

making the introduction of a brand more effective during functional conversation.

Relationship. One may characterize relationship, the fifth functional block, by

how a social media user relates to others (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Relationship refers to

the association between two or more social media users that enables them to share

objects, converse, or even acknowledge friendship (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The depth

and type of exchange of information depends on the connectivity of the social media

users. An example is the social media site LinkedIn, where relationships tend to be more

formal and structured as compared to less formal social media sites such as Facebook.

LinkedIn reflects how users connect with one another and determines how many degrees

of separation exist between users, which can link people to potential employers.

Moreover, membership acceptance requires validation from other members. LinkedIn

focuses on building relationships through a referral system and membership acceptance

requires validation from other members (Kietzmann et al., 2011).

In contrast to LinkedIn, Kietzmann et al. (2011) asserted that other social media

sites tend to provide a more informal and unstructured format. Blogs, for example, do not

require users to have a formal arrangement on the degree of information that one may

share in an established relationship. On sites such as YouTube and Twitter, relationships

may not necessarily matter at all. Kietzmann et al. concluded that on social media sites,

the degree to which identity is considered determines the degree to which the relationship

is valued. Thus, companies utilizing social media sites should know how to maintain

users’ relationships. These site set-ups depend on users’ expectations of privacy and

identity in social media relationships. Social media relationships are strong bonds that

companies can use to disseminate their brand or product. These relationships create

opportunities for companies to venture their products and services.

Reputation. The sixth functional block of social media is reputation, characterized

by users’ acknowledgement of others’ views, beliefs, and standpoints in the social media

setting (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Reputation is a matter of trust on most existing social

media sites. For example, Twitter reflects brand reputations based on the number of

followers a user has. Conversely, LinkedIn reflects users’ reputations through the number

of endorsements the user has. Kietzmann et al. (2011) argued that in social media,

content through voting systems determines the brand reputation. Additionally, social

media sites such as YouTube exhibit reputation through the rating and view counts of a

particular video.

It is essential for companies utilizing social media advertisement to consider a

site’s reputation system. Furthermore, it is also important to identify the appropriate

metric to assess the reputation of the social media community’s engagement.

Additionally, upon identification of the appropriate metrics, it is essential to determine

the appropriate evaluation tool. Evaluation tools can be in the form of objective data or

the collective intelligence of the crowd. For example, the number of views of a particular

web page or a system to rate the top contributors. Reputation functionality can be the best

vehicle for brand advertisement. Companies have utilized the popularity of social media

users to advertise their brands or products.

Groups. Finally, the group functional block pertains to users’ abilities to form

social media communities. Kietzmann et al. (2011) asserted that when a network is more

social, larger friend and contacts groups form. In this context, Saramäki et al. (2014)

proposed that individuals have cognitive limits to the number of stable social

relationships they can have. For most people, the cognitive limits tend to fall around 150

social relationships. However, social media sites reveal that several communities have

exceeded this limit (Kietzmann et al., 2011). According to Kietzmann et al., there are two

types of groups in social media. One may characterize the first group as self-creation, in

which users can modify the members of the group, while the other social media type

pertains to groups similar to clubs in the real world. These groups can be open to anyone,

closed, or private (Kietzmann et al., 2011). These social media communities influence

companies’ advertisement strategies. Social media communities serve as an arena for the

discussion of brands and products. Companies can thus hone their brand modification or

improvement through inputs from the social media communities. The next section details

the input required to modify and improve a brand.

While Kietzmann et al. (2011) suggested functional building blocks to leverage

social media in business, other researchers have suggested such an approach may

encroach on consumers’ space reserved for friends and family (Laroche et al., 2013).

However, the preceding discussion demonstrates the crucial role social media plays in

promoting, advertising, and marketing products among consumers. In the extant

literature, researchers have explored the various conceptions of social media, evolving

technologies that have affected its influence on marketing, social functions served by

social media, and the mechanisms underlying social media functioning. The authors have

discussed the advantages for companies advertising through social media.

Social media and brand communities. According to Laroche et al. (2012), the

discussion of social media and brand community leads to the concept of social media-

based brand community, which falls under the broader concept of virtual or online brand

communities. The main difference between social media and online brand communities

involves their platforms. Social media utilizes Web 2.0 plus user generated content, while

online brand communities utilize Web 1.0 as the core platform. However, given the

popularity of social media, many companies use social networking sites to develop brand

communities (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Online communities intended for information sharing rather than for commercial

purposes exert the greatest influence on members’ opinions and purchase intentions

(Naylor, Lamberton, & West, 2012; See-To & Ho, 2014). Social media-based brand

communities cater to members’ active participation in consuming content as compared to

traditional media, which tends to be more passive. Zhu, Dholakia, Chen, and

Algesheimer (2012) concluded that consumers’ active participation mediates users’

influence on one another. Furthermore, these communities create a distinctive knowledge

base from the aggregation of collective member expertise. Wirtz et al. (2013) offered a

contrarian perspective by suggesting online branded communities are a place for

providers, consumers, and users to unit by the value they associate with engaging in a

relationship with a brand. In the next section, the researcher discusses the strategies in the

creation of customers’ valuable experiences.

Customers’ experience, brand experience, and purchase decisions. Consumers

are now digitally empowered and more well informed in their purchasing decisions

(Keiningham, Frennea, Aksoy, Buoye, & Mittal, 2015; Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-

Thomas, 2015). In addition, businesses also have the opportunity to operate in a better

environment, where they can make more informed and smarter decisions because of

technology (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). As technologies empower both buyers and sellers,

the consumer‒seller relationship is consistently changing. For example, customers are

increasingly demanding better and more innovative products, services, and ultimately,

experiences from the companies that they patronize (Keiningham et al., 2015; Hudson &

Thal, 2013). In sum, a positive customer experience is essential in corporate branding

(Verhoef et al., 2009).

Verhoef et al. (2009) provided a conceptual model of customer experience,

assuming eight customer experience constructs: (a) social environment, (b) service

interface, (c) retail atmosphere, (d) assortment, (e) price, (f) retail brand, (g) customer

experience in alternative channels, as well as (h) previous experience with the specific

brand. Customer experience now extends to the online domain, making Verhoef et al.’s

seventh construct of customer experience in alternative channels relevant. Further, Klaus

and Maklan (2013) extended Verhoef et al.’s work by suggesting customer experience as

a holistic concept comprising of various components. For example, blogging provides

corporations a platform allowing their customers to experience a brand. Corporate blogs

are an important platform for which companies can influence their consumers'

experience. A number of recent studies have found that blogs can be positive and

significant methods for the transmitting of advertisement messages, influencing purchase

motivations, forming conversations, and facilitating a trusted resource that can ultimately

shape purchasing decisions (Chau & Xu, 2012; Halvorsen, Hoffmann, Coste-Manière, &

Stankeviciute, 2013; Ho, Chiu, Chen, & Papazafeiropoulou, 2015; Kaplan & Haenlein,

2012).

As Verhoef et al. (2009) asserted, customers evaluate their experiences

holistically. As such, leaders of firms must think broadly when designing and ensuring

positive customer experience. Klaus and Maklan (2013) identified activities that help

assure positive customer experiences, including ensuring positive before-and-after

service encounter experiences, responding to emotional and functional aspects of quality,

and considering customers’ social contexts. Similarly, Hollebeek et al. (2014) also

recognized practices to ensure good customer experiences that include the carrying out of

an assessment of value-in-use as well as the recognition of use through multiple channels.

Klaus and Maklan (2013) recommended that managers design and employ a clear

strategy for ensuring positive customer experience if they want to earn good profits.

Failure is highly likely for marketing managers who lack a clearly articulated strategy, a

focused ambition, or dynamic capabilities (Klaus & Maklan, 2013). Implementing

customer experience strategy is challenging because the concept of customer experience

has a broad reach. Ensuring positive customer experience also covers a much-extended

period and requires looking at every customer touch point. It is therefore essential to

measure both functional and emotional results. Unless managers have a clearer

understanding of what they should do to build their dynamic capabilities as well as the

scope of their programs, they will repeat the mistakes of previous leaders, especially

marketing leaders (Klaus & Maklan, 2013).

According to Klaus and Maklan (2013), measuring customer experience would

require the researcher to observe several tenets. First, customers’ general perceptions are

essential in customer experience assessment. In addition, customers’ assessments are

dependent on overall value-in-use and not just generated from a summary of performance

when getting individual sessions of certain services. SERVQUAL, a widely used survey

instrument that measures the quality of services in a product, is not sufficient to measure

customer experience, as it only measures the emotions and influences of peers. These

authors also asserted that customer experience starts before customers even encounter the

service and furthermore, will continue after these service encounters. In addition, service

encounters cross all the channels and thus, an ideal measure can link experience with

customer behavior and business performance and not necessarily to customer satisfaction.

The concept of customer experience is not a novel one (Sirapracha & Tocquer,

2012). Sirapracha and Tocquer (2012) claimed that consumption has experiential effects

and that famous brands such as Google, Netflix, IKEA, and Starbucks, among others,

have all become powerful names not only because of their creative and strong campaigns,

but also because they provide compelling and positive customer experiences. They do not

just focus on how good the features of their services are or the functional benefits that

their services can offer, but they also incorporate customer experience as one of the

significant sources of their competitive advantage. The researchers concluded that

customer experience is a driver of brand equity.

Conversely, Grönroos and Voima (2013) suggested that customer experience is an

individual interpretation of the service process that the person has encountered as well as

the interactions experienced, both of which affect customer feelings. Customer

experience is therefore a result of the interaction between companies and their customers,

including interactions with the staff, technologies, and the environment present within the

companies. Therefore, positive perceptions come from the positive interaction between

the consumers and owner of the product. The fact that the very term customer experience

deals with consumers’ feelings and perceptions makes it difficult to properly measure. In

fact, Teixeira et al. (2012) have averred that “while existing methods address some of the

elements of customer experiences, there is no systematized representation of a more

holistic view of the customer experience” (p. 363) to support service design that could

optimize dealings with consumers.

Clatworthy (2012) emphasized the importance of customer experience in shaping

a company’s brand. Essential steps in the creation of customer experience include

developing a service personality, considering service touchpoint behaviors through

conducting analytical work, and carrying out experience prototyping. Clatworthy

emphasized the highlighting of touchpoint behaviors and strategic brand identity or

“brand DNA,” which depicts the brand’s essence. In particular, Clatworthy provided a

three-stage process to improve customer experience and align this with the company’s

brand. First, the company should summarize its brand DNA. Second, the company should

establish service personality as well as touchpoint behaviors. Lastly, the firm should

enact and refine the experience, defined as experience prototyping (Clatworthy, 2012).

The goal of this process is to enable the designers, clients, as well as users to experience

the brand themselves, rather than observing the effects of these brands through the

experiences of others. This type of role-playing improves communication within the

design process and forms customer empathy. Clatworthy claimed that the concept phase

of a project is the most important phase when transforming a brand strategy into a service

concept. While the transformation is underway, the establishment of critical elements of

customer experience is necessary. The researcher also found that customer experience

relates with service personality as well as the behavior of certain service touchpoints,

regardless of whether they are people or technologies. Firms that focus on the initial

stages of a project upon customer experience can also develop team coherence and

facilitate a culture of innovation (Clatworthy, 2012).

Additionally, Fatma (2014) reviewed empirical studies concerning customer

experience, with particular attention to the methods of improving this experience and the

effects of such improved experience. Fatma found that brand performance, multichannel

interaction, service interface, physical environment, social environment, and price and

promotions can all affect customer experience. In turn, customer experience can shape

customer satisfaction, loyalty, and equity levels. According to Hwang and Kandampully

(2012), a company’s brand offers both functional and emotional benefits, enabling

customers to perceive the product and service that they are receiving as meaningful and

worthy. This study illustrates that concentrating on “emotional connections with

consumers, rather than just on functional benefits/advantages, can be a viable and critical

consideration for [a company’s] management decisions in order to enhance customer

brand loyalty” (Hwang & Kandampully, 2012, p. 105). Even though both data mining

and customer relationship management can enable firms to track the level and patterns of

customer transactions, customer experience is what influences positive or negative

reactions and whether a customer will make referrals.

Comparatively, Sukwadi, Yang, and Fan (2012) claimed that customers are more

willing to pay premium prices, refer the company or brand to others, and establish longer-

term relationships with companies that provide superior customer experience. According

to Lemon and Verhoef (2016), in order to instill a positive experience in customers, it is

essential that companies recognize the importance of customer experience. If they

recognize how these experiences are developed, they can carry out strategies to capture

customer feedback, determine where business processes can be improved, and ensure that

negative customer experiences are avoided. Lemon and Verhoef also asserted that

consistent positive customer experience is one method of ensuring company success and

effectiveness.

Additionally, Fatma (2014) claimed that in the current digital world, companies

could easily improve customer experience by using several technology solutions such as

site search, personalization, content management, as well as other e-commerce platforms.

These technology solutions can help personalize the customer experience. Keiningham et

al. (2015) studied the relationship between product purchase and customer experience.

The researchers looked at a product that necessitates special skills, such as the use of

computers and cellular phones. They found that customers’ purchase decisions depended

on their anticipation of the speed at which they could master these required skills. In

addition, Giebelhausen, Robinson, Sirianni, and Brady (2014) claimed that technologies

are increasingly important for ensuring positive consumer experience, especially because

interpersonal exchanges between customers and companies involve the use of

technology. Examples of these are point-of-sale terminals, tablets, and kiosks. All these

technologies can enhance consumer experience.

Company leaders deliberately seek to improve costumers’ experiences in product

and product branding with the intent of achieving business advantages. For example,

Starbucks created a customer experience in their stores to be a “third space” between the

home and the office. Businesses adapted this concept to create a place where customers

can work, relax, or both. It was important for this third space to be a fulfilling customer

experience, as focusing on serving consumers’ social needs as well as their traditional

customer needs, has the potential to foster greater loyalty behaviors, which may result in

repeat customers (Rihova, Buhalis, Moital, & Gouthro, 2013). It is thus, essential to

evaluate the efficacy of information sources such as media, peers, and other online

stakeholders to improve marketing, branding, and product development with the goal of

improving customer experience. The models reviewed in this section have provided a

broad, yet essential framework in managing business using online communities.

Ultimately, the existing literature points to customer experience as a key element

influencing product branding. Researchers have explored the various components of

customer experience, factors determining positive customer experience, the role of

managers in enhancing positive customer experience, and measurement of customer

experience (Klaus & Maklan, 2013; Verhoef et al., 2009). Most importantly and pertinent

to the current study, researchers have highlighted how customer experiences influence

product branding and how companies should leverage technological advancements to

enhance positive customer experience (Clatworthy, 2012).

Methodology

Most of the empirical studies reviewed have employed a quantitative design,

focusing on the effects of social media on consumer behavior (Goh et al., 2013; Grönroos

& Voima, 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Yi & Jeon, 2003). Quantitative research methods

are appropriate for determining the relationships among one or more numeric variables.

Such designs are effective in contrasting variables and evaluating whether or not

statistically significant relationships exist between them (Barnham, 2015).

Fundamentally, researchers use quantitative designs to account structurally for the

contributions of two or more variables in a specific model. When building a structural

model, researchers use descriptive to test hypotheses regarding the interactions of

proposed factors. Descriptive designs measure the relative associations between or

among variables, while experimental designs measure the evidence of causal

relationships among variables. The studies of Goh et al. (2013), Laroche et al. (2012),

and Yi and Jeon (2003) are examples of quantitative designs examining the relationship

between social media and online communities and consumer behavior.The reseach of

Goh et al. (2013) used text mining of user generated and marketer generated content for a

quantitative analysis. They found evidence that social media brand community contents

affect consumer purchase behavior. The work of Laroche et al. (2012) was a quantitative

study that used a confirmatory factor analysis to analyze several, scaled type data. They

concluded there is value in social media based brand communities in that these OBCs

offer brand owners the ability to enhance value, brand trust, brand loyalty, and feelings of

community among members. The quantitative study by Yi and Jeon (2003) investigated

how reward schemes within loyalty programs influence perceived value of the program

and how the perceived value affects customer loyalty. These authors found that the value

perception and customer loyalty link could be divided into two different paths: a direct

route from value perception to brand loyalty and an indirect route with program loyalty as

a mediator.

A qualitative study by Cova and Pace (2006) examined the power that an OBC

exerts over a brand of a mass-marketed product. They concluded that OBCs demonstrate

a form of sociality and customer empowerment based on the personal self-exhibition in

front of other consumers through the marks and rituals linked to the brand rather than

interaction between peers. Another qualitative study followed a grounded theory

approach to explore the domain of engagement to develop the scale for online brand

community engagement. Baldus, Voorhees, and Calantone (2015) examined six previous

studies to develop and test a typology of online brand community engagement (i.e., the

compelling intrinsic motivations to continue interacting with an online brand

community). These researchers identified 11 independent motivations and tested the

scale's predictive power for participation in an online brand community. Baldus et al

(2015) suggested their study provided managers with new insight in the motivations for

and influence of interacting in online brand communities.

The use of both quantitative and qualitative methods for prior research on OBCs

suggests either method will suffice in the study of OBCs. However, prior research has not

examined the how participation in an OBC might influence brand perception and brand

loyalty. The research questions of this study leads one to choose a qualitative

methodology given the frequent use of qualitative research when looking how or why

questions.

Quantitative approaches. In quantitative approaches, authors carry out research

from a positivist scientific paradigm to interpret general patterns (Behrend et al., 2011).

Researchers use quantitative designs when succinct information about the constructs is

readily available and requires further testing to assess whether the same pattern holds true

to a specific population (Merriam, 2014). Quantitative studies on the marketing industry

and business performance, for example, have tested variables previously unrelated to one

another, but applied in a different business environment. The purpose of the current

dissertation research, however, is to explore how participation in online communities

affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perceptions of 10 expert participants

in an online community in the United States. Exploring this phenomenon thus requires

the researcher to use the qualitative approach to achieve an adequate understanding of the

constructs of interest.

In another quantitative study, Zheng, Cheung, Lee, and Liang (2015) examined

the concept of user engagement in the context of online brand communities. Zheng et al.

proposed a model explaining how one might develop brand loyalty through user

engagement. One hundred eighty-five current Facebook users responded to an online

survey and results revealed that user engagement influenced brand loyalty both directly

and indirectly through online community commitment. Thus, users tended to focus on the

benefits derived from usage when they engaged in an online brand community. Like

Rohm et al.’s (2013) study, participant recruitment was also bound to the Hong Kong

area, representing a limitation to the study. In addition, this study involved a cross-

sectional design rather than investigating the development of brand loyalty from a long-

term perspective. Nevertheless, the results helped inform e-marketers of the importance

of user engagement behaviors for building brand loyalty through online communities.

The authors also provided strategies to encourage members to engage in online brand

communities in social networking sites such as Facebook. Zheng et al. presented a

research model introducing the concept of user engagement in social media research and

empirically examined its role in building brand loyalty in online brand communities.

Qualitative approaches. According to Lin (1998), the interpretivist perspective in

qualitative research is appropriate when the researcher’s intention is to evaluate details

pertaining to preferences, motivations, and that actions are not easily quantifiable. An

interpretive study seeks to combine qualitative data into systems of belief whose

manifestations are particular to a case (Lin, 1998). Interpretivist approaches differ from

positivist approaches in the types of questions asked and the types of conclusions drawn

by the researcher (Lin, 1998). For instance, interpretivist researchers may ask “how” and

“what” questions to gain an understanding of the phenomenon, while those from the

positivist perspective may ask a defined question answerable by one or two answers.

Positivist researchers work to interpret general patterns, whereas interpretivist researchers

work to explain how general patterns apply in practice. The interpretivist approach is

therefore an appropriate perspective to investigate how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception of the 10

expert participants in an online community in the United States.

Yin (2014) stated that qualitative research is appropriate when the researcher’s

intention is to garner an understanding of a phenomenon prior to the study. In this

context, qualitative research describes the experiences or feelings of a small sample of

participants who provide their own explanations in a given setting. Unlike quantitative

research, qualitative studies typically sample a small number of participants who have

relatively rich experience with the phenomenon under investigation. However, given that

qualitative research is reflective of participants’ personal experiences and based on what

their engagement with the phenomenon has meant to them (Yin, 2014), such data may

lead the researcher to a biased conclusion. Thus, safeguards must be in place to ensure

the study’s validity. Furthermore, although qualitative research is a valid research design,

qualitative studies are not generalizable to other populations in other locations or

sociocultural environments. As such, the differences in human experience are a limitation

to qualitative research.

Researchers often analyze qualitative data in a textual format. Text analysis is

appropriate when the researcher’s intention is to explore information and stratify the data

into themes (Hyette et al., 2014). Yin (2014) defined qualitative research as an attempt to

understand a phenomenon based on participants’ natural experiences. Bernard and

Bernard (2012) stated that if scant empirical research exists, the researcher might then use

explorative techniques to determine necessary future research and generate hypotheses

for quantitative research. Qualitative research techniques often involve explorative

methods of inquiry and may utilize a number of data collection techniques, including (a)

in-depth interviewing; (b) direct observation of participants and their environments; and

from the study (Bernard & Bernard, 2012; Merriam, 2014). Qualitative research as a

methodology is therefore relevant in garnering an in-depth understanding of an

experience of a particular phenomenon. The questions “what” and “how” provide an in-

depth understanding of a specific problem as they can answer questions as yet unknown

to the researcher, yet still important in the context of the examined problem.

Pereira-Correia, García, Romo, and Contreras-Espinosa (2014) explored

Facebook’s contribution as a marketing tool in companies’ business performance. Using

interviews and a questionnaire, the authors analyzed individuals’ reactions in social

media. The overall aim divided into three objectives covering marketing communication

related to consumers and businesses within the context of Facebook. The goals were: (a)

to learn about users’ visions on Facebook and their points of view as part of it, (b) to

understand Facebook’s strategic vision from those responsible for marketing and

communication within companies, and (c) to analyze Facebook’s role in marketing

activities and interactive communication (users and companies). Findings suggest that

organizations are consistently using traditional communication channels to market sales

and promotions when they should move to create interactions that are meaningful to the

audience before focusing on sales. Pereira-Correia et al. thus recommended that

organizations consider the way they communicate with their target audience and consider

social networks and mobile technologies as a new way of expanding the business.

Sources of data. The researcher utilized three data sources: (a) interviews of

superfans, (b) social media postings related to the brand, and (c) online reviews of the

brand’s products. Crucial to this study was the development of the interview guide (see

Appendix C). The interview guide provided the researcher some structure for the

interviews, but also allowed for flexibility in the interview process. The works of

Seidman (2013) and Merriam (2014) served as resources in the development of the

interview guide. The brand’s global marketing organization also served as a valuable

resource in the development of the interview guide by suggesting questions that are

relevant to an online branded community as well as brand perception and loyalty.

Ultimately, the questions within the interview guide solicited germane discussion

relevant to the participation in an online branded community within the global personal

computer industry. The interview guide comprised semi-structured questions giving the

interviewer the latitude to ask additional questions for clarification. The researcher

recruited 14 online top contributors, designated as “superfans,” to participate in semi-

structured interviews via Skype video conference calls. Ten of the 14 elected to

participate in the study. The researcher transcribed the recorded interviews with the

participants. In addition to conducting the semi-structured interviews, the researcher

reviewed social media postings and product reviews for the brand during 2016 to

extrapolate a case scenario for data triangulation. Empirical research has demonstrated

the viable use of semi-structured interviews, social media, and online reviews as viable

sources of data (Maramwidze-Merrison, 2016; Rohra & Sharma, 2016; See-To, & Del

Rio, 2011; Snelson, 2016).

Summary

Great companies tend to use branding strategies to increase their overall value.

Such branding strategies include deliberate efforts to create a brand experience and to

manage the brand in a concerted manner. Social media is creating new challenges for

companies and their branding strategies, however. The advent of the Internet followed by

Web 2.0 technologies has introduced the influence of social media into business,

including brand management (Laroche et al., 2012; Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). Online

communities are one such area of social media, where owners and potential owners of

products share experiences, ideas, and help each other. These communities may be

founded by the users themselves or created by the company to help foster peer-to-peer

discussions. These communities influence a company brand. What differs among social

media-driven branded communities is that the “power” of influence is in the hands of the

consumer more than in those of the producer or the company itself (Laroche et al., 2012;

Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). However, firm-hosted online communities are relatively new

and research is lacking as to their influence on key company objectives, such as brand

value (Brodie et al., 2013; Gruner et al., 2013).

This recent combination of brand experience management and social media

creates opportunities and risks for companies. Findings from studies suggest that brand

management can increase the value of a brand, but this has largely occurred with

environments and structures that companies could control (M’zungu et al., 2010;

Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). With social media, companies no longer retain their previous

levels of control, and therefore must find ways to influence brand value within the

context of social media. There have been cases of social media having short-term

influence on a company’s market value, but the long-term influence of social media on

brand value is still uncertain. This dissertation focused on the specific area of social

media known as “online brand communities” and how participation in such communities

affects brand perception and brand loyalty.

A product or company’s brand image can have a tremendous influence on

consumer choices. A strong brand can also command a higher price and margin than its

weaker counterparts. While brands and the concept of brand management have existed

for 150 years (Hampf & Lindberg-Repo, 2011), new forms of management have emerged

with the advent of social media. One type of social media involves online communities,

which present challenges and opportunities for companies and their brand management

strategies. WOM is a powerful social dynamic within these communities; participants in

these communities often seek the advice and help of others in the community, to the point

of often trusting the advice of strangers in the community more than the input from the

company behind the brand. Previous research has demonstrated the value of brands and

the need for strong brand management to increase brand value (Fuciu & Dumitrescu,

2010; Mercer, 2010; M’zungu et al., 2010; Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). Other research has

confirmed that consumers increasingly use social media, including those in online

communities (Goh et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao & Zhu, 2014). The power of

WOM and social dynamics exponentially influences perceptions of a brand and, in turn,

its value (Dubois et al., 2011). Online communities are sometimes founded by the users

themselves and other times created by the companies to help foster peer-to-peer

discussions. These communities may influence a company’s brand, though not

necessarily in a way that the company controls. It is thus far unknown how participation

in online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty (Fetscherin & Usunier,

2012; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Previous researchers have examined the various dynamics of online brand

communities. Gruen et al. (2007) conducted a content analysis of previous research on

the topic of online brand communities. Their analysis described characteristics of

participation in online brand communities. These characteristics included trust in the

community, increased satisfaction, customer engagement, and difference in the size of

communities. However, they did not examine how participation in an online brand

community may influence brand value. Brodie et al. (2013) conducted a netnographic

study of customer engagement in a virtual brand community. They found customer

engagement to be an interactive, experiential process. Though their research demonstrates

the importance of understanding how consumers engage in specific brand communities, it

does not examine such engagement from a brand value perspective. The authors also

suggested this is a complex and emerging topic that requires additional research (Brodie

et al., 2013).

Previous researchers built a strong foundation for the use of online brand

communities, yet they never explored how participation in an online brand community

might influence brand value. Past research has not examined the connection between

participation in an online brand community and brand value and thus, there is a gap in the

current literature. Thus, in the light of this empirical need, this researcher focused on

understanding how participation in online communities influences brand perception and

brand loyalty using the C2C theory (Gruen et al., 2007) and the MOA model (MacInnis

et al., 1991).

Using a case study design, the researcher investigated a contemporary

phenomenon in its real-world context—namely, participation in branded online

communities. Participants were community experts that the company had designated as

key contributors to its community. The company has created a program to recognize the

top contributors to the community. These top contributors contribute approximately 80%

of the useable content in the community.

The online community selected for this study has over 200,000 registered users.

Some users register once just to obtain an answer and never return. Others access the

online community frequently and answer questions other users may post. Superfans are

users who provide a significant number of answers to other users and are typically the top

contributors to an online community. The researcher conducted interviews via video

conference calls using Skype or WebEx. The calls took place on a date and time of each

participant’s choosing. The researcher then transcribed each recorded interview. A

second source of data for the study is online product reviews. The researcher reviewed

retailer websites Walmart.com and BestBuy.com for these product reviews. Facebook

and Twitter postings about the brand served as the third source of data for the study.

Chapter 3 details the methods and research design. This includes participant

recruitment and selection, sources of data, and procedure for the proposed study. The

researcher also addresses the data sources’ reliability and validity, ethical considerations,

and limitations of this qualitative study.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. This was from the

perspective of the superfans in an online branded community. This community was an

English language OBC, but the participants were from multiple countries.

The content of this chapter readdresses the problem under investigation and this

study’s underlying research questions, and provides justification for the chosen

methodology and research design. As the researcher was investigating the effects of

participating in online brand communities on brand loyalty and brand perception, a

qualitative case study was an appropriate research design. Additionally, the researcher

discusses the population and sample selection, the data collection process (including data

sources and the validity and reliability methods used to ensure viability in the data

analysis procedure, and data management), ethical considerations, and limitations and

delimitations.

Statement of the Problem

Prior to this study, it was unknown how participation in online communities

affects the perception and loyalty of a brand, though these communities are now

established places where companies create and cultivate relationships with and between

customers. Within an online brand community, customers can assist each other with the

company’s products and services by relaying reviews, criticisms, and suggestions, and by

posting queries about the products or services for other customers or company

employees. Companies can also create such a community to foster brand value, as

stimulating ongoing conversation about their products and services in an online

environment allows personnel to better gauge customer reception and opinion. An online

brand community can also facilitate WOM brand influence and can cultivate a larger

customer base. However, there is a paucity of research conducted related to how one may

leverage these online brand communities (Wirtz et al., 2013).

Research Questions

The phenomenon under study was the influence of participation in online

communities on brand perception and brand loyalty. To gain a better understanding of

this phenomenon, the following research questions guided this study.

RQ1: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

Given the nature of this study’s research questions, the researcher has deemed a

qualitative approach more appropriate in exploring the phenomena of an individual’s

brand perception and brand loyalty on the premise that the individual participates in an

online community than other approaches. The researcher drew insights through in-depth

exploration of behavioral patterns that influence brand perception and brand loyalty. To

do this, the researcher gathered data from in-depth interviews, online social media

postings, and third-party reviews, all of which correspond to the concerning brand’s

products and services. In-depth interviews are the best approach to capturing consumer

perceptions because of the opportunity for the interviewer to ask follow up questions to

clarify participant opinions and allow the participant to bring up additional points. The

researcher sought a minimum of 10 superfans who are top contributors in the concerning

brand’s online community to conduct these interviews. Additionally, an analysis of

archival data from customers’ social media postings on the brand’s products and services

also provided data on brand perception. Moreover, the researcher examined online

reviews of the brand’s products and services listed on Walmart.com and BestBuy.com to

seek insight into brand perception. These three sources of data allowed for triangulation

of the data to assess commonalities regarding overall brand perception. The main goal

was to understand how these particular individuals perceive the brand and how they

demonstrate brand loyalty, thus answering the questions “how” as posited in the

aforementioned research questions.

Research Methodology

The researcher utilized a qualitative method to explore how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. According to Muzellec, Lynn,

and Lambkin (2012), a researcher can use a qualitative research strategy to describe

complex situations that may not immediately lend themselves to quantifiable

measurement. While quantitative research can also analyze complex situations,

qualitative studies are more adept at examining the “how” and “why” of a situation.

Qualitative studies are inductive in nature, examining a particular subject within its

context (Shahrokh & Dadvand, 2014). Qualitative studies focus on ascribing meaning to

ones lived experiences within the conditions wherein these experiences occur (Lundqvist

et al., 2013).

In the case of this study, the researcher investigated the phenomenon of building

brand perception and brand loyalty within the context of participation in brand

communities. Using a qualitative method allowed for emphasis on the existence of

multiple realities within one situation and differentiated by the varying perspectives of

the individuals who experience it (Muzellec et al., 2012). By choosing to use a qualitative

method of inquiry, the researcher sought to solicit various perspectives on building brand

perception and loyalty within online brand communities, while at the same time

identifying trends that depict the phenomenon. The researcher collected data based on

participants’ observations and experiences and drew conclusions based on the data

(Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013; Wiles, Crow, & Pain, 2011).

In comparison to qualitative studies, quantitative studies are more deductive in

nature, typically originating from a theory. Based on this methodology, one formulates

hypotheses and collects numerical data quantifying the study variables (Jara & Cliquet,

2012; Merchant & Rose, 2013). Using the data collected, the researcher conducts

mathematical or statistical analysis to test the hypotheses and draws conclusions and

generalizations based on the results of the analysis (Jara & Cliquet, 2012; Merchant &

Rose, 2013). The researcher elected did not use a quantitative method because this study

focused on exploring how participation in online brand communities affects brand

perception and loyalty. The use of qualitative methodology, by contrast, was an

appropriate choice for this study, as brand communities’ influence can be a complex area

of exploration not easily reduced to quantifiable terms. Furthermore, a qualitative

approach allowed the researcher to gain deeper knowledge and understanding of the

problem by analyzing participants’ underlying behaviors and attitudes.

Research Design

This research focused on a single case study unit. This case for this study was an

online branded community within the personal computer industry. This OBC was an

English language OBC used in multiple countries. The researcher employed a qualitative

exploratory case study design to add to the understanding of how participation in online

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. A case study is appropriate as

the researcher sought to understand behavior and focus on contemporary events, which

are characteristics of such a design (Yin, 2014). Researchers conduct case studies to

analyze people, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other systems

holistically, using multiple data sources (Shahrokh & Dadvand, 2014) and resulting in in-

depth knowledge on the subject under investigation (Yin, 2014). In case studies,

researchers explore a specific subject within its particular context (Cronin, 2014); in this

case study, the researcher analyzed the phenomenon of brand perception and brand

loyalty within the context of brand communities.

As noted, Yin (2014) suggested that a case study design is appropriate when the

main research questions are “how” or “why,” when the researcher has little or no control

over behavioral events, and when the focus of the study is contemporary rather than

historical. Case study research is useful in investigating a contemporary phenomenon in

its real-world context; participation in branded online communities is a prime example of

such a phenomenon. Moreover, as the influence of participation in online brand

communities on brand loyalty and brand participation is unknown, a case study is an

appropriate choice (Yin, 2014).

Outside of case study design, other designs considered for this study included

narrative research, ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory. The researcher

decided against narrative inquiry because the study involved firsthand information from

participants through Skype video conferencing interviews. Further, the researcher did not

include the use of other conventional sources for narrative inquiry, such as field notes,

letters, stories, and journals (Merriam, 2014). The researcher also rejected the possibility

of using ethnography because the study did not focus on tapping into the culture online

community members embrace, but rather to understand how participation in online brand

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty (Merriam, 2014). Furthermore,

the researcher did not choose phenomenology because participants’ lived experiences

were not the focus this study.

As previously noted, participants were experts that the company has designated as

key contributors to the company’s online community, or superfans. The company has

created a program to recognize the top contributors to the community. These superfans

contribute approximately 80% of the useable content in the community.

The researcher conducted video conference call interviews using semi-structured

questions. The conference calls took place on a date and time of the participants’

choosing. The researcher used Skype or WebEx (depending on which technology worked

best for each participant) to facilitate and record the conference calls. The researcher then

transcribed the recorded interviews. Apart from the interviews, the researcher also

gathered online documents and reviews of the concerned brand’s products and services

from Walmart.com and Bestbuy.com, as well as data from social media postings. The

researcher ensured the validity of this aggregate data via triangulation and cross-

referencing of the data gathered from these three sources, as well as by conducting a

member check of the transcribed data.

Population and Sample Selection

The population for this case study unit was English language online branded

communities (OBC) within the personal computer industry. The selection of the

particular OBC for this study was a sample of convenience. The researcher collected the

data from three sources: (a) semi-structured interviews with superfans of the concerned

brand, (b) a review of online social media postings for the brand, and (c) online reviews

of the brand’s products and services. The superfans in the selected OBC were

purposefully invited to participate in the study. The researcher also purposefully selected

online social media postings and online product reviews. This was done by selecting the

50 most recent postings on each of the brand’s social media presences on Facebook and

Twitter. Likewise, the most recent online product reviews were selected – 50 from

Walmart.com and 50 from Bestbuy.com.

There is often debate as to the sample size in qualitative studies, though in

general, sample sizes are much smaller in comparison to quantitative studies (O’Reilly &

Parker, 2012). This is often because data collection reaches a point of diminishing returns

in qualitative samples, whereby more data does not necessarily lead to more information.

Furthermore, the integration of data is important and the researcher must ensure that each

data source becomes part of the analytical framework (Merriam, 2014). Thus, O’Reilly

and Parker (2012) suggested that the guiding principle for sample size selection in

qualitative research should be saturation. In qualitative research, saturation implies the

point at which a researcher finds no new information or themes in the data. “In qualitative

research the selection of respondents cannot follow the procedures of quantitative

sampling because the purpose is not to count the opinions or people but explore the range

of opinions and different representations of an issue (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012, p. 192).

This researcher focused on conducting interviews with the superfans within a particular

brand’s online community. The researcher invited the 14 superfans within this

community participate in the study. Since these 14 superfans are all of the superfans

within the OBC in this study, the researcher was confident of obtaining data saturation

via the semi-structured interviews (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012; Yin, 2014). Of these 14, 10

agreed to join the research ensuring saturation.

The researcher assigned interviewees a unique, anonymous identifier, and used

this identifier for all records. No records included the participants’ names or other

personal identifying data. The researcher assigned codenames to each participant to

assure anonymity. The researcher stored all textual or video records of the identity of the

interviewees and the interviews on an encrypted external hard drive. When not being

used for this research project, he kept this external hard drive in a locked compartment in

his office. The researcher will retain records of the interviewees’ identities and their

subsequent interviews for a period of 3 years. The researcher will destroy the records

after the 3-year period.

During each interview, the researcher used an interview guide (see Appendix C)

detailing a list of semi-structured questions for the interview process. The researcher

field-tested the interview guide with at least three online brand community participants to

ensure reliability. The researcher excluded the field test participants from the final

interview. Even though the interview guide provided some structure, participants had the

opportunity to respond freely and to expand on their answers (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012).

The researcher was also free to ask follow-up questions that arose naturally from each

participant’s response (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). Interviews took 45 to 60 minutes,

including all follow-up questions.

Sources of Data

The researcher collected the data from three sources: (a) semi-structured

interviews with participating superfans of the concerned brand, (b) online social media

postings related to the brand, and (c) reviews of the brand’s products and services as

posted on Walmart.com and Bestbuy.com. Additionally, the researcher took into account

that validity and reliability are both important aspects of many qualitative study designs.

The researcher ensured validity by the triangulation of data from all three sources. Once

the researcher completed data triangulation, he performed a member check to improve

the validity. The researcher ensured reliability by conducting a pilot test for the interview

questions and by triangulating the data.

The researcher developed a case study protocol to guide the collection of data

from each of the sources (see Appendix D). A protocol is necessary in a qualitative case

study to provide the procedures and general rules to be followed (Yin, 2014). The case

study protocol is comprised of four sections. The first section is an overview of the case

study. This covers the background information about the case study, substantive issues,

and the relevant readings about the issues (Yin, 2014). The next section describes the data

collection procedures. Yin (2014) suggested some major tasks in collecting data:

1. gaining access to key organizations or interviewees;

2. having sufficient resources while doing fieldwork – including a personal computer, writing instruments, paper, paper clips, and a pre-established, quite

place to write notes privately;

3. developing a procedure for calling for assistance and guidance, if needed, from other team members or colleagues;

4. making a clear schedule of the data collection activities that are expected to be completed within specified periods of time;

5. providing for unanticipated events, including changes in the availability of interviewees as well as changes in your own energy, mood, and motivation while

doing fieldwork. (p. 89)

The third section is the heart of the protocol, containing the substantive questions

that reflect the line of inquiry (Yin, 2014). Some researchers view this section as the case

study instrument. However, two characteristics distinguish case study questions from the

type of questions one finds in a survey instrument. First, the questions within a case study

are for the researcher, not the interviewee. The questions serve as a guide for the

researcher to lead the conversation that is the interview. The main purpose of the protocol

is to keep the researcher on track as data is collected (Yin, 2014). The second important

characteristic is a case study protocol should distinguish clearly between different types

or levels of questions. Yin (2014) suggested potentially relevant questions could occur at

any of five levels:

1. questions asked of specific interviewees,

2. questions asked of the individual case,

3. questions asked of the pattern of findings across multiple cases,

4. questions asked of the entire study, and

5. normative questions about policy recommendations and conclusions.

While all levels of questions may be used, researchers should focus heavily on the

Level 2 questions for the case study protocol (Yin, 2014). The Level 2 questions should

lead one to the heart of the research. Level 1 questions are often used to create

conversations with the interviewee without betraying what the interviewer is thinking

(which would be a Level 2 question). Yin (2014) posited the difference between Level 1

and Level 2 questions is highly significant. The researcher carefully guided the

interviews with this advice in mind.

There are three sources of data for this research. The primary source of data was

semi-structured interviews of the superfans. The researcher conducted these interviews

via Skype and recorded (both audio and video). The researcher transcribed the recorded

interviews to create a useable dataset for data analysis of the interviews. The researcher

conducted a thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. The researcher used NVivo

10 for this thematic analysis.

With qualitative research, it is important to triangulate the data sources (Carter,

2014; Yin, 2014). The researcher used two additional sources of data to create such

triangulation. One source of data for this triangulation was social media postings about

the brand. The researcher used NVivo to collect these social media postings from

Facebook and Twitter, as it has the capability of connecting to social media platforms

including Facebook and Twitter to pull in content for analysis. With NVivo, one may

apply chosen criteria to target specific keywords for a search. In the case of this research,

one such criterion will be the brand selected for this research. This allowed the researcher

to download the relevant content from the social media platforms and import the content

into NVivo for analysis.

The third data source for the data triangulation consisted of online reviews found

on Walmart and Best Buy’s websites. More specifically, it was comprised of reviews of

the brand’s product that one may find on www.walmart.com and www.bestbuy.com. The

researcher downloaded these reviews using NVivo’s Ncapture feature that allows one to

download content from a website. Once downloaded, the researcher imported the content

into NVivo for analysis.

Validity

Validity refers to the trustworthiness of the quality of the data in a given

experiment and the interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data (Cousin, 2013).

Strategies for enhancing validity in qualitative research include (a) triangulation, (b)

coherence, (c) uncovering self-evidence, (d) testimonial validity, and (e) reflective

validity (Bernard & Bernard, 2012; Leung, 2015). Within this study, the researcher

employed both data triangulation and member checking as means to validate the data

analysis. To ensure validity, the researcher triangulated the data from all three

aforementioned data sources to reveal patterns relating to brand perception. As an

additional validity check, the researcher also employed member checking by providing

the interviewees with a synthesis of the analyzed data. This synthesis included the

thematic analysis of the interviews and the content analysis of the online product reviews

and social media postings. The researcher asked the interviewees to review and validate

the summary of the synthesized data (Birt, Scott, Cavers, Campbell, & Walter, 2016;

Harvey, 2015). The researcher’s use of a case study protocol also aids in ensuring

validity. When one follows a protocol for data collection, one creates a chain of evidence

that provides construct validity (Yin, 2014).

Reliability

Krippendorff (2012) described some methods to ensure the reliability in

qualitative research, including observing, in-depth interviewing, and comparing and

contrasting any similarities. In this study, use of both a pilot test and triangulation of the

data helped to ensure reliability. Given the use of an interview guide, pilot testing helped

to ensure that the researcher was be able to collect the necessary information to answer

these particular research questions.

Pilot testing strengthened the reliability of the interview questions (Jacob &

Furgerson, 2012). To run the pilot test, the researcher first asked a set of respondents to

evaluate each interview question for overall comprehension, clarity, ambiguity, and to

assess potential difficulties in answering. The second step determined the interview

guide’s reliability by checking for test‒retest reliability. The researcher assessed how

each question in the guide helped meet the study objectives from the pilot participants’

perspectives and identified any issues with the interview guide. Through this process, the

researcher was able to eliminate redundant questions in the interview guide. The

researcher utilized insights gained from the pilot testing to improve the interview

questions. Furthermore, the researcher was conscientious about controlling for self-

imposed bias when gathering data from interviews (Hyette et al., 2014). This study’s

reliability depended on the accurate reviews of previous relevant literature and the

researcher’s non-biased presentation of findings.

Yin (2014) asserted that case study research demonstrates reliability through

consistency and repeatability. This researcher utilized data triangulation to determine the

consistency of the findings from all three sources of data—the participant interviews,

product and service reviews, and social media postings. The researcher used the thematic

analysis technique in generating emergent themes and patterns to answer the research

questions (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013). The use of a case study protocol

helped with reliability by providing a clear view of the plan and expected outcome of the

research. As Yin (2014) noted, “The protocol is a major way of increasing the reliability

of case study research and is intended to guide the researcher in carrying out the data

collection” (p. 84).

Data Collection and Management

To address the research questions, the researcher collected data from three sources

of data. As previously mentioned, these three sources are comprised of (a) interviews

with superfans, (b) online social media postings, and (c) online reviews of the concerned

brand’s products and services. The researcher obtained approval from the company as

well as IRB approval from the university. After obtaining IRB approval, data collection

commenced.

The brand’s global community manager provided a list of top contributors from

the brand’s online community. The top contributors received email recruitment letters

describing the study, seeking a minimum of 10 participants who are the top contributors

in the brand’s specific online community to participate in the interview portion of data

collection. The expectation was the involvement of the top contributors would reach the

saturation point required in understanding the phenomenon under examination. There

were 14 designated top contributors—superfans—in the concerned online brand

community. The e-mail included an informed consent form for participants to sign and

return to the researcher as a sign of willingness to participate in the study. The informed

consent form included the study’s purpose and assurance of participants’ confidentiality

and anonymity. The researcher assigned a unique code to each participant to ensure

confidentiality. All documentation and other records included this code for participant

identification.

Given geographical constraints between the researcher and the 10 participants, the

interviews took place via video conference calls using Skype or WebEx. The researcher

employed the interview guide while performing the interviews. As the researcher self-

developed the interview guide, field-testing utilizing a pilot test aided in ensuring

validity. The researcher then modified the interview guide as needed prior to the actual

interviews. The researcher recorded and transcribed the interviews for preliminary data

analysis.

Through the interviews, the researcher gathered participants’ firsthand

perceptions of the concerned brand and of the online brand community in order to answer

this study’s research questions. As aforementioned, even though the interviews are

partially structured, participants were able to respond and elaborate in open-ended ways,

generating follow-up questions arising naturally from their unique responses (Jacob &

Furgerson, 2012). The semi-structured interviews took place at a time and locations of

the participants’ choosing. The researcher used Skype or WebEx to record all interview

proceedings and transcribe thereafter for the data analysis procedure.

The researcher collected data from the online social media postings pertaining to

the concerned brand via a data analysis program, NVivo 10 (QSR International). This

program enabled the researcher to retrieve, code, organize, store, compare, and link data

from social media sites regarding the concerned brand. The researcher utilized this

software to gather data from social media sites Facebook and Twitter, and used the

program’s filtering systems to search for data by keywords. In order to collect these data,

the researcher searched keywords including the name of the concerned brand as well as

its products and services, and additional popular, more general keywords relating to these

products and services. The researcher only used data from social media posts that

specifically discussed the concerned brand’s products or services. Similarly, there was an

examination of the data from customer reviews on Walmart.com and Bestbuy.com. The

researcher only used data from posts ranging from the beginning of 2016 to the time of

data collection to ensure that he captured the most relevant and contemporaneous brand

perceptions.

The researcher will maintain all gathered data in a locked filing cabinet for 3

years. An external hard drive contains encrypted versions of all textual and video records.

After 3 years have passed, the researcher will destroy the records using a commercially

available shredder to destroy any hard copies. The researcher will also use a software

utility to destroy any electronic files. This software utility will meet the Department of

Defense (DoD) 5220.22M Guttman method of file deletion requirements to ensure

destruction of the electronic files (Seo & Park, 2014). Appendix E is the 12-step process

map used in this study and depicts the cohesive process of data collection and analysis,

including all of the steps regarding data collection, analysis, and storage and destruction

of data files.

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher utilized an inductive thematic analysis (TA) technique to analyze

the data from the transcribed interviews. The semi-structured interviews provided newly

created data and were narratives of life stories, so the researcher used an inductive TA to

identify themes. TAs are used to identify patterns of meaning across a dataset that

provide an answer to the research questions (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The analysis of the

interviews yielded codes as part of the process. Therefore, this was an inductive TA. The

researcher codified data within the interviews using the NVivo 10 to identify themes. The

researcher created codes in parallel with the analyzing of the data. Appendix J contains

these codes. This followed Clarke and Braun’s (2013) six steps for conducting a thematic

analysis.

Predetermined codes provided a framework for the content analysis (CA) of the

social media postings and online product reviews. Existing literature on brand

participation, loyalty, and value guided the development of these predetermined codes for

the CA. The analysis of these two sources of data was deductive since it involved the

application of predefined coding in the analysis of the text. The researchers objective

with the analysis of the social media postings and online product reviews was to identify

with the text key themes related to the research questions by using predefined coding.

Appendxi J lists these predefined codes.

The researcher examined the key themes of brand loyalty, brand perception, and

participation in the online branded community.

The researcher utilized NVivo’s capabilities to search for data by keywords to

identify themes for the content analysis of the data retrieved from the product reviews

and from social media postings. The keywords searched included the name of the

concerned brand, names of the concerned brand’s products and services, and additional

popular and more-general keywords relating to these products and services. These

keywords codified within NVivo to identify recurring themes within the content. The

researcher coded and similarly utilized essential texts and phrases for content analysis by

manually searching for and coding words and phrases to be analyzed and by aggregating,

coding, and stratifying certain keywords and phrases using NVivo. According to

Vaismoradi et al. (2013), thematic analysis is a method to identify and understand the

themes that emerge from the interviews. This type of analysis is excellent for researchers

seeking to develop meaning and draw conclusions using multiple interviews. The

researcher coded the themes extrapolated from the three data sources to answer the

following research questions:

RQ1: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

The researcher then evaluated the data for consistency through a process of

comparing and identifying relevant cases demonstrating the meaning of participants’

perceptions. The researcher codified the perceptions to aid the data analysis. Once the

researcher derived meaning from the codes, he extrapolated the codes to identify the

themes relevant in answering the research questions.

Ethical Considerations

Upon both the university’s IRB approval and the concerned company’s approval,

the researcher sent an e-mail invitation to the company’s top online community

contributors. The e-mail invitation described the study’s purpose and included an

informed consent form, which explained the study in detail and provided potential

participants with all information necessary for them to make an informed decision about

participating in the study. The researcher informed the participants that they could

withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. This research did not incur

any ethical issues, although these may occur in any study. If unexpected ethical issues

had arisen, the researcher would have addressed them in a manner consistent with the

Belmont Principles. Furthermore, the researcher assured participants’ confidentiality and

anonymity by removing any identifying information and replacing their names with

pseudonyms and by storing all data and forms in a protected, private location. As

aforementioned, the researcher will keep data for 3 years before destroying it.

Limitations and Delimitations

One may draw important limitations influencing the generalizations from this

study. First, the qualitative exploratory case study design with analysis of a small number

of online community brand experts (superfans) within a particular online branded

community within the global personal computer industry. As such, it may not be broadly

generalizable. However, the goal of this exploratory case study was to produce accurate

findings that increase the understanding of the case and though the examination may not

be broadly generalizable, stakeholders in marketing and brand management will find the

case narratives and details of the results useful. A second limitation involves the use of

bias within the self-developed interview guide. The researcher reduced the potential bias

imposed by devising an interview guide which was field tested in a pilot study with

participants of the online community. This study used recent postings to social media and

online product reviews related to a specific brand. A broader audience may have different

perspectives. The analyses for this project were limited to the researcher. A project with

other researchers may have coded the data differently and yielded different results.

Finally, time boundaries limited this study. Data collection was limited to postings from

January 1, 2016 to the time of data collection. The data from this period may not

completely reflect the data before January 1, 2016 or after the date of the collection

period. The three forms of data therefore only provide a snapshot of a dynamic process.

Brand loyalty at a moment in time captures some of the dynamics in action, but is unable

to address those dynamics in environments with different variables at play. The purpose

and nature of this exploratory case study, in addition to its design, built in these

limitations; however, the researcher has taken steps to minimize them and they did not

affect the results in a meaningful way.

The size of the sample delimits this research. There were only 14 superfans within

the targeted branded community. This represents the entire population within the scope of

this study. Nevertheless, 14 is a small population. However, the 10 interviews conducted

presented a more than reasonable sample size of the 14 superfans. This research project

had a data collection deadline of August 31, 2016. This deadline delimited the data. The

researcher delimited social media postings and online product reviews data sources to 50

from each source. Another possible delimitation of this study is the scope of the research.

The researcher only looked at one brand’s online community, which may not represent

the opinions of superfans from other branded online communities.

Summary

A review of existing literature has indicated a dearth of literature on how

participation in online communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty. There is

also very little known about how brand communities can best be utilized to increase

brand value and profit (Wirtz et al., 2013). To address this gap in the literature, the

purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore how participation in online brand

communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception of the top

contributors in an online community in the United States.

The researcher formulated the proposed research questions in this study to

understand how participation in online brand communities affects brand perception and

brand loyalty. These questions provide a framework for exploring brand perception and

brand loyalty for a group of superfans within the particular branded online community

examined in this study. The advent of social media, along with the existing dynamics of

brand management, poses new challenges to companies (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;

Laroche at al., 2012; Rizwan et al., 2014). The use of branded online communities is one

area of social media that presents brand management challenges.

The researcher elected to use a qualitative research methodology to carry out this

study. Brand management within a social medium such as a branded online community is

complex and qualitative methods can be useful for researching complex topics,

particularly in relation to the purpose of the study (Lin, 1998; Muzellec et al., 2012; Yin,

2014). The researcher desired to examine various perspectives on creating brand

perception and loyalty within online brand communities, while simultaneously

identifying trends that depict the phenomenon. The objective was to understand the

“hows” and “whys” of brand perception and brand loyalty when one participates in a

branded online community (Lundqvist et al., 2013). Qualitative methodology was

therefore more appropriate as compared to the quantitative methodology. Similarly, in

line with the study’s purpose, the researcher chose a case study design because it allowed

the researcher to examine a specific concept within a specific context in a holistic manner

(Shahrokh & Dadvand, 2014; Boblin, Ireland, Kirkpatrick, & Robertson, 2013). In this

study, the researcher sought to explore the concepts of brand perception and brand loyalty

within the context of online brand communities.

The 14 superfans who participate in the brand’s online community represented the

study’s target population and encompassed the entire population within the scope of this

study. Qualitative research uses saturation as a guiding principle (O’Reilly & Parker,

2012,). Ten of these superfans agreed to participate in the study. While a sample size of

10 appears small, it did reach the point of saturation as these 14 represented the entire

population of superfans within this particular branded online community. While the

researcher desired to interview all 14 of these superfans, he was able to interview 10

participants, which was the minimum.

The primary data source for this study was semi-structured interviews with the

superfans of this branded online community. The researcher conducted and recorded

these interviews. The researcher developed an interview guide to facilitate the interviews.

These interviews also present a limitation of this study, as the researcher had no control

over the answers given. However, this did not adversely affect the overall results of the

study negatively, given the exploratory nature of this research project.

The data analysis required triangulation to ensure reliability. Two additional

sources of data were necessary to conduct triangulation. These other two sources were (a)

product reviews for the brand on BestBuy.com and Walmart.com websites and (b) social

media mentions of the brand. The researcher compared a thematic analysis of the

interviews to a content analysis of the reviews and social media postings on Facebook

and Twitter. The researcher looked for common themes within the three sources of data.

The researcher used this process to answer the research questions:

RQ1: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

Chapter 3 detailed this study’s procedure and methodology and provided

justifications for the appropriateness of the case study method in facilitating a detailed

understanding of how participation in online communities affects brand perception and

brand loyalty. The researcher also reviewed the population and sample selection, the data

sources, validity and reliability of the data, data collection and management, the data

analysis procedures, ethical considerations, and the limitations and delimitations of the

study. Along with the presentation of the study plans, as well as a process map for the

collection and analysis of data, the researcher justified the use of three different sources

of data and the use of the content analysis technique in generating emergent themes and

patterns to help address the research questions.

Chapter 4 contains the results and findings generated from the data analysis.

Exploration of the phenomena within the scope of the participants’ experiences with the

branded online community yielded answers to the research questions. Additionally

described is how this study may influence other research.

100

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results

Introduction

Prior to this study, the effect of participation in online brand communities on the

perception and loyalty to a brand was unknown. Companies frequently utilize brand

communities to foster relationships with customers and assist customers within the

context of their branded products and services. Both brand management and social media

influence consumer loyalty and perception (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Laroche at al.,

2012; Rizwan et al., 2014). Hence, there was a need to examine the experiences of online

brand community members who are top content contributors to the community

concerning their perceptions on how participation in online brand communities influences

individual loyalty and perception of the brand.

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online brand communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception

of the top contributors in an online community in the United States. When examining

consumer-based perspectives, it is important to consider that brand value refers to

consumer perceptions of products (Eryigit & Eryigit, 2014). The results of this study may

help to inform company leaders of the value of online brand communities and their

influence on brand perception and brand loyalty.

The phenomenon of interest in this study was the influence of participation in

online communities on brand perception and brand loyalty. The proposed study included

the following research questions to examine this phenomenon:

RQ1: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

101

RQ2: How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

The researcher employed a qualitative methodology and a case study design to

explore how participation in online communities affects brand perception and brand

loyalty. The three sources of data for this research were (a) 10 semi-structured interviews

with participating superfans of the concerned brand, (b) online social media postings

related to the brand, and (c) reviews of the brand’s products and services as posted on

Walmart.com and Bestbuy.com. These three sources allowed for data triangulation

regarding overall brand loyalty and brand perception.

Table 1 lists these questions and the themes identified within these questions.

These seven themes are outcomes of this research. Appendix I lists portions of the

conversations with each participant that align with each of the major themes.

Table 1

Major Themes

Research Question Major Theme

How does participating in an online brand community

affect an individual’s loyalty to the brand?

• Brand loyalty to other brands, and brand loyalty to this brand.

• Level of online forum participation by respondents.

• Recommendations to others.

• Recommendations for the online forums to increase brand loyalty.

How does participating in an online brand community

affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand?

• Brand perceptions (positive and negative).

• Perceptions about the brand’s online forum.

• Reasons for joining the brand’s online forum.

102

Presented in this chapter is a review of the problem statement, the research

questions, the research methodology, and the data sources. Presented as well is the

capture of data, the analysis of the data, the codification of the data, and the identification

of themes. This chapter concludes with the results from the study.

Descriptive Data

The researcher recruited 14 superfans who are top contributors in the concerning

brand’s online community to conduct these interviews. The company had created a

program to recognize the top contributors to the community. These superfans contribute

approximately 80% of the useable content in the community. The participants were all

male with a considerable length of experience with computers. While most of the

participants were from the United States, there was some representation from other

countries. The community under study is an English language community. Having

participants from countries where English is a second language illustrates the global

reach of online communities.

This study collected data from three different sources: (a) interviews with

superfans, (b) online social media postings, and (c) online reviews of the concerned

brand’s products and services. To do this, the researcher gathered data from in-depth

interviews, online social media postings, and third-party product reviews, all of which

correspond to the brand’s products and services. The researcher developed a case study

protocol to guide the collection of data from each of the sources (see Appendix D).

During each interview, the researcher used an interview guide (see Appendix C)

detailing a list of semi-structured questions for the interview process. The researcher

field-tested the interview guide with three online brand community participants to ensure

103

reliability. The researcher excluded the field test participants from the final interview.

Even though the interview guide provided some structure, participants had the

opportunity to respond freely and to expand on their answers (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012).

The researcher was also free to ask follow-up questions that arose naturally from each

participant’s response (Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). The interviews took between 48 and

74 minutes, including all follow-up questions. The researcher used Skype or WebEx,

depending on which technology worked best for the participant, to facilitate and record

the video conference calls, and then transcribed the recorded interviews. In total, there

were 110 pages of transcribed text (single-spaced, Times New Roman, and 12-point

font).

Moreover, archival data from customers’ social media postings on Facebook and

Twitter of on the brand’s products and services also provided data on brand perception.

The researcher used NVivo to collect these social media postings from Facebook and

Twitter, as it has the capability of connecting to social media platforms including

Facebook and Twitter to pull in content for analysis. With NVivo, one may apply chosen

criteria to target specific keywords for a search. In the case of this research, one such

criterion will be the brand selected for this research. This allowed the researcher to

download the relevant content from the social media platforms and import the content

into NVivo for analysis.

The third data source for the data triangulation consisted of online reviews found

on Walmart and Best Buy’s websites. More specifically, it was comprised of reviews of

the brand’s product that one may find on www.walmart.com and www.bestbuy.com. The

researcher downloaded these reviews using NVivo’s Ncapture feature that allows one to

104

download content from a website. Once downloaded, the researcher imported the content

into NVivo for analysis. These three sources of data allowed the researcher to triangulate

the data and seek commonalities regarding overall brand perception and loyalty. Samples

of the transcribed interviews are interspersed throughout this chapter and can be found in

Appendix I. Appendix F contains samples of social media postings and online reviews.

Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive data from this study.

Table 2

Sources of Data

Source Quantity Additional Notes

Interviews 10 A range of 48-74 minutes for each interview

110 pages of transcribed text in total, single-

spaced

An average of 7.85 pages of transcribed,

single-spaced text per participant

Social Media 100 postings for each

medium

 Twitter: 1607 words; 40 contributors

 Facebook: 2,147 words; 43 contributors

Facebook & Twitter

Online Reviews 50 posted reviews, 3,137 Walmart.com

 4 ½ pages transcribed, single-spaced

 32 individual contributors

Online Reviews 50 posted reviews, 2,208

words

BestBuy.com

 2 ½ pages transcribed, single-spaced

 15 individual contributors

105

Table 3 contains details on the timing, length, and medium for the interviews.

Shown in Table 4 are participant demographics.

Table 3

Interviews Summary

Participant Interview

Date Interview Time

Interview

Medium

Interview

Length

Transcribed

Pages

Single

Spaced

Received

Consent

Form?

P1 5/25/2016 8:00 AM CDT Skype 67 minutes 14 Yes

P2 5/25/2016 12:00 PM CDT Webex 63 minutes 13 Yes

P3 6/6/2016 7:00 PM CDT Webex 56 minutes 8 Yes

P4 6/2/2016 5:00 PM CDT Webex 61 minutes 12 Yes

P5 6/9/2016 2:00 PM CDT Webex 74 minutes 16 Yes

P6 5/31/2016 3:00 PM CDT Skype 62 minutes 14 Yes

P7 6/8/2016 12:00 PM CDT Webex 51 minutes 8 Yes

P8 6/7/2016 2:00 PM CDT Webex 57 minutes 11 Yes

P9 7/8/2016 4:00 PM CDT Webex 48 minutes 7 Yes

P10 7/14/2016 1:00 PM CDT Webex 53 minutes 7 Yes

Total 592 902

Table 4

Participant Demographics

Participant Location

Years as

Member

Years of

Computer Experience Gender

P1 US 2 30 M

P2 France 1.5 15 M

P3 US 4 35 M

P4 US 4 20 M

P5 Germany 2.5 18 M

P6 France 3 16 M

P7 Germany 2 8 M

P8 Italy 3 22 M

P9 US — 8 M

P10 US 1 10 M

Average 2.6 18.2

106

The interviews of the superfans provided the most insightful information as to the

how’s and why’s of their participation. The social media postings and online reviews

helped illuminate brand loyalty and contained information that helped validate the results

from the interviews. However, little demographic information was available from the

social media postings and online reviews. Those sources are typically anonymous and

lack demographic details. The nature of the Facebook postings was different from the

Twitter posts. It was more common for customers to use Facebook to seek help with their

product. Twitter users mostly used it for promotional purposes. Table 5 has a summary of

the Facebook posts. Table 6 has a summary of the Twitter posts.

Table 5

Facebook Summary

Source Context Timeframe Perspective Percentage of All

Posts

Facebook Users Service June, 2016 Negative 34%

Facebook Users Service June, 2016 Positive 2%

Facebook Users Sales June, 2016 Negative 0%

Facebook Users Sales June, 2016 Positive 26%

Company representative Service June, 2016 N/A 28%

Company representative Sales June, 2016 N/A 10%

Table 6

Twitter Summary

Source Context Timeframe Perspective Percentage

of All Posts

Twitter Users Promotional June, 2016 Positive 46%

Twitter Users Sales June, 2016 Positive 21%

Twitter Users Service June, 2016 Negative 33%

107

The researcher retrieved online product reviews from Walmart.com and

Bestbuy.com. From Walmart.com, there were 50 reviews with 32 individual contributors;

from bestbuy.com, there were 50 reviews with 15 individual contributors. These reviews

provided better insights into the customers’ perspectives of the brand because they

contained more content than the social media postings. These perspectives were all post-

purchase reviews of specific products from the brand. The reviewers, for the most part,

had a positive view of the brand and its products. Online product reviews, like the social

media postings, lacked detail demographic information. Table 7 below is a summary of

the online reviews.

Table 7

Online Reviews Summary

Source Context Timeframe Perspective

Percentage

of All

Posts

Walmart Product Review June, 2016 Negative 12%

Walmart Product Review June, 2016 Positive 28%

Best Buy Product Review June, 2016 Negative 14%

Best Buy Product Review June, 2016 Positive 46%

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher used two distinct types of qualitative data analysis approaches:

thematic analysis (TA) and content analysis (CA). An inductive thematic analysis

technique provided analysis of the data from the transcribed interviews. The purpose of a

TA is to identify patterns of meaning across a dataset that provide an answer to the

research questions (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The researcher identified patterns through a

rigorous process of data familiarization, data coding, and theme development and

revision. The researcher used this process for the interviews in order to ascertain themes

108

and patterns across participants’ experiences in participating in an online branded

community within the global personal computer industry.

The researcher based the thematic analysis on Clarke and Braun’s (2013) six

steps. These steps for analyzing the data included:

1. Familiarization with the data: This phase involves reading and re-reading the data, to become immersed and intimately familiar with its content.

2. Coding: This phase involves generating succinct labels (codes!) that identify important features of the data that might be relevant to answering the research

question. It involves coding the entire dataset, and after that, collating all the

codes and all relevant data extracts, together for later stages of analysis.

3. Searching for themes: This phase involves examining the codes and collated data to identify significant broader patterns of meaning (potential themes). It then

involves collating data relevant to each candidate theme, so that you can work

with the data and review the viability of each candidate theme.

4. Reviewing themes: This phase involves checking the candidate themes against the dataset, to determine that they tell a convincing story of the data, and one that

answers the research question. In this phase, themes are typically refined, which

sometimes involves them being split, combined, or discarded.

5. Defining and naming themes: This phase involves developing a detailed analysis of each theme, working out the scope and focus of each theme, determining the

‘story’ of each. It also involves deciding on an informative name for each theme.

6. Writing up: This final phase involves weaving together the analytic narrative and data extracts, and contextualizing the analysis in relation to existing literature.

Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words

or concepts within existing texts or sets of texts (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Since the text

of the social media postings and online reviews already existed, the researcher utilized a

deductive content analysis to analyze the data captured from these sources of data. A

deductive approach fit because of preconceived themes often found in social media and

online reviews (Bernard & Bernard, 2012). A list of predefined codes provided the basis

for the content analysis. The researcher derived these codes from existing research on

109

brand perception and brand loyalty. Appendix J contains these codes. The researcher used

NVivo 10 to search for data by keyword to identify themes for the content analysis of the

data retrieved from the product reviews and from social media postings. The keywords

searched included the name of the brand, names of the concerned brand’s products and

services, and additional popular and more general keywords relating to these products

and services. The researcher did this after using a manual approach to coding themes.

The researcher based the content analysis on work of Krippendorff (2012). The content

analysis involved:

1. Copy and read the transcript - make brief notes in the margin on the discovery of interesting or relevant information as well as possible code assignment

2. Go through the notes made in the margins and assign codes to the text using the predetermined code list.

3. Identify any possible new codes that did not exist in the predetermined codes and assign them to the text

4. Identify whether or not the codes can be linked any way and list them as major themes and / or minor or themes. Major themes were directly related to the

research questions

5. Compare and contrast the various major and minor themes

6. Repeat the first five stages again for each transcript

7. Collect all of the themes and examine each in detail and consider if it fits and its relevance

8. Review to ensure that the information was categorized as it should be

9. Review all of the themes and ascertain whether some themes can be merged or if some need to them be sub-categorized

10. Return to the original transcripts and ensure data categorization

The researcher chose to use a TA for the interviews because it is useful for

analyzing narrative materials like life stories (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The participant

interviews were life stores of their experiences with participation in an online branded

110

community within the global personal computer industry. The deductive CA of the social

media and online reviews data used predefined codes to provide a framework of brand

participation and loyalty. The analysis of the date yielded themes. These themes became

the foundation for answering the research questions. Table 8 illustrates the original

coding in NVivo. Quotes from the data serve as supporting examples of the coding.

111

Table 8

Original NVivo Coding

Code Description Example

Reasons for Joining Why superfans joined

the online community

originally and why they

continue to participate

“Well, I went there for, to find an answer for myself

and I got to looking at the questions people were

answering and I just thought, "Well, I could answer

that," and "I can answer that," and pretty soon I was

involved.”

Brand Perceptions Superfans’ and social

media users’ opinions

about Acer, other

brands, and why they

hold these attitudes

“My overall experience with Acer, I have some very

strong feelings about it. I feel that they make a

superior product for what I was buying.”

Changes in Perception If, at all, superfans’

opinions about Acer

changed over the years

and why this change

occurred

“Nothing scared me off the Acer brand. I think, I still

think they're good computers.”

Perceptions of Online

Community

General insights into

how the online forum

community functions

“It's a good community, there's good people on there,

and there's good people supporting us. They give us

better tools to use than, like, the Lenovo forum does.

They don't, as far as I can see, they don't give you

access to the repair manuals and things like that,

which really helps.”

Brand Loyalty Superfans’ and social

media users’ level of

loyalty towards Acer,

other brands, and why

are/are not loyal

“I look at all the different manufactures and then

choose the one that is the best for the best price for

my needs at that moment. I give a little bit more

weight to the brands that I'm more familiar with and

less to the ones that I'm either not as familiar with or

have had bad experiences with in the past.”

Levels of Participation How active superfans

are on the online forum,

including how long

they have been

superfans

“I have around 11, near to 12,000 replies and over

1000 solutions”

Online Forum

Recommendations

Suggestions for

improvements to the

online forum and for

the online community

“Meaningful participation by representatives from

the product and it's sort of like a two part thing

because number one, you need participation from

people that represent the brand in the forums.”

Recommendations to

Others

How/if superfans and

social media users

would recommend Acer

to others and why/not

“Most Chromebooks sacrifice display quality for the

low price but not his model. The last thing is the

excellent keyboard and trackpad. Acer did a really

great job on this product and I highly recommend it.”

Member checking helped boost the validity of the interviews. Once the interviews

were completed, the researcher created a summary of the interviews (brand community

112

participation interviews observations version 0.1) and each participant received an e-mail

with this summary. Each participant reviewed this information and emailed the researcher

to confirm their agreement or suggest modifications. Some sent back their feedback while

others simply said they agreed with the version 0.1 observations. After reviewing the

feedback, the researcher created the brand community interviews observations version

1.0 document. That document is the basis for Appendix H. A summary of this member

checking is in Table 9 below. In addition, the researcher used negative case analysis,

which involves a conscious search for negative cases and unconfirmed evidence. This

helped with the reliability and validity of the data.

Table 9

Member Checking

Participant Interview

Date

Date Member

Checking Sent

Confirmed or

Suggestions

Second

Member

Checking

Sent

Confirmed

Suggestions

P1 5/25/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P2 5/25/2016 7/16/16 Suggestions 7/22/16 Suggestions

P3 6/6/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P4 6/2/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P5 6/9/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P6 5/31/2016 7/16/16 Suggestions 7/22/16 Suggestions

P7 6/8/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P8 6/7/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P9 7/8/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

P10 7/14/2016 7/16/16 Confirmed 7/22/16 Confirmed

The interview guide (Appendix C) provided structure for the interviews. Both the

interview and interviewee asked additional questions and provided additional responses

as part of the flow of the conversation. Tables 10 and 11 contain the essence of these

conversations and the resulting themes.

113

Table 10

RQ1: Questions with Codes and Themes

Questions Codes Themes

What is your perception of Acer’s brand?

What are your perceptions of other brands?

Could you please describe how a company brand could

use online community in marketing their products?

How do you define brand perception?

Has your perception of the Acer brand changed since you

started participating in the Acer Community? If so, in

what way has your perception changed?

Previous use

experience

Current use

experiences

Features & Functions

of Product

Marketing

Brand Perceptions

Do you look for other member’s answers before you post

a question?

If you post an answer to another member, what process do

you go through to develop your answer?

Tell me about your experience with the community – what

is your opinion of the setup of the community?

What elements are in online community that could

influence brand perception and brand loyalty?

Helpful

Welcoming

Community Activity

Level

Size of Community

Brand Employee

Involvement

Perceptions of

Online

Community

What is your level of participation in the online

community?

What led you to this community?

What motivates you to continue participating?

Please describe a situation where online participation

influences brand perception and brand loyalty.

Had an issue with

product

Helping a Friend

Helping Others in

Community

Reasons for

Joining

Community

The codes listed in these tables related to the themes. Some of the codes were

predetermined and some the researcher discovered as part the data analysis process.

Appendix J lists the predetermined codes and the codes discovered during the analyses.

114

Table 11

RQ2: Questions with Codes and Themes

Questions Codes Themes

What is your level of participation in other online

communities

How would you describe your brand loyalty to the

companies that have these communities?

Has your brand loyalty changed after you started

participating in this brand’s community? If so, in what way

have they changed?

How do you define brand loyalty?

Previous History

with Brand

Current Experience

with Brand

Comparison of

Brand to other

Brands

Brand Loyalty

How long have you been participating in this community?

What is your level of participation in the online community?

How often do you read the community?

How often do you post on the community?

How often do you respond to others in the community?

Frequency of

Involvement

Reasons for

Involvement

Level of

Participation

What products do you discuss most often in the community?

Why do you discuss these products?

How would you describe your personal criteria for

recommending to others?

Product Use

Product Features

Recommendations

to Others

Do you participate in other online communities? What other

companies and/or brands?

What is your impression of these other communities?

How do they compare to this community?

What are some good ideas you have seen with other online

communities?

Could you please describe how a company brand could use

online community in servicing or supporting their products?

Ease of Use

Brand Employee

Involvement

Transparency

Recommendations

to Online

Communities

The actual data analysis followed the original data analysis plan as described in

Chapter 3. The remainder of this chapter includes a discussion of how these findings

correspond to the topic and research questions as well as a narrative presentation of the

results with illustrative quotes supporting the evidence. This includes a discussion of each

research question as viewed through the specific themes and categories that have

115

emerged during the coding process. In addition, the researcher identified any outliers or

discrepancies that emerged during analysis.

Results

The findings within this research answered the original research questions.

Themes emerged which addressed perceptions and loyalty to a brand via the participation

in an online branded community. Data and the analysis of the data indicated value in the

use of online branded communities to facilitate conversations between like owners. The

participants communicated loyalty by way of participation, but not without limits. The

quality of the product and the support of the company behind the product are more

important than the online branded community and the participation within that

community.

Research Question 1. The first research question explored how participating in

an online brand community affects an individual’s perceptions of the brand. Three major

themes emerged: (a) Brand Perceptions, (b) Perceptions About the Brand’s Online

Forum, and (c) Reasons for Joining the Brand’s Online Forum.

Brand perceptions. Within the first major theme of Brand Perceptions, two main

subcategories emerged: (a) Positive Brand Perceptions and (b) Negative Brand

Perceptions. Participation in an online community has some influence on the likelihood

of recommending the brand to someone else. If the brand has a good community, then

this is a positive factor in the recommendation. However, the product features, price, and

online product reviews seem to be stronger factors than the community is. Eight out of

the 10 participants (80%) specifically spoke about their positive brand perceptions of this

brand. For P6, this company brand has a good reputation. P6 believed that new customers

116

would buy this product because the brand has a good reputation according to the

magazines or websites. As P1 explained, the product and features were responsible for

his positive brand perception:

My overall experience with Acer, I have some very strong feelings about it. I feel

that they make a superior product for what I was buying. It was the most

intelligently designed laptop I’ve ever had…It’s a very simple laptop but it’s got

the form factor, it’s got the performance, and it just checked all my boxes.

P3 similarly noted that his positive perception of the brand was based on the

product itself and the features it offers:

The list of features that are going to be important to me are going to be dependent

on what I’m buying the product for…This is a product that fits into my needs and

at the time I was looking for a super-fast processor or a lot of memory or super

lightweight or anything like that.

For P3, product and features were first, but this participant also stated that price

and the brand were relevant. In this way, both price and performance of the product drive

the brand and loyalty to the brand:

What was driving me was the touchscreen, the keyboard, the ability to run

without the keyboard and to a lesser extent the resolution of the screen... The

price was a second factor and the fact that it was an Acer was [a] good factor.

The same was true of P7, who measured this brand’s perception by price and

performance as the most important parts of brand loyalty:

Let’s say the first impression of my first Acer Notebook was like that, and if you

compare price and performance. Compared to the price of other products it was

117

really, really new and it’s still working; it’s going well after 5 years. It’s a really

good product I really still love it.

However, P7 also noted that the brand’s online community was also important in

constructing a positive perception of the brand. The entirety of the product is essential to

building loyalty: “I think it’s really good public relations in such a community.” For P5,

the recommendation of others was important; he cited participation in an online

community as having some influence on the likelihood of recommending the brand to

someone else. P5 explained, “You can get a pretty good sense of the product from those

reviews. You know, you have 1,000 reviews and 79% of them, given they’re the 5-star

[reviews], it’s, I’d go read the 1 star and 2 stars, but 79% of 1,000 people giving it a 5-

star review influences me highly.”

The construction of the brand perception was also evident on social media. The

brand itself posted on its Facebook page, bragging about its awards in order to boost

brand perception writing, “Our Products went for gold at COMPUTEX TAIPEI 2016.

The Revo Build mini PC was among some of our winners, winning Best Choice of the

Year award as well as a Best Choice Gold.” In addition to the self-created brand

reputation, users helped to build others’ perceptions, as well as reinforce their own

perceptions, through online reviews. Many reviewed the product and the company,

glowingly. One review posted on Best Buy’s website proclaimed the brand’s tablet an

“outstanding value,” basing his perceptions on price and product:

For a hundred bucks, you definitely can’t beat the deal on this tablet. It’s got

decent performance for the price…Camera is pretty decent and camera App has

quite a few features. Quad core processor is pretty snappy. Nice bright display.

118

Fast Wi-Fi Connected to my 5GHz network. . . . Overall, this is a great value for

an Android tablet and blows most other budget tablets away in terms of what you

get for the price.

Another online review claimed one of the brand’s products was “exactly what I

was looking for.” He added his brand perception based on the features of the product,

including “newer, faster ram” as well as “speakers [that] sound better than any other

laptop I’ve tried (for < $1,000).” The reviewer also cited the how the screen looked and

how the keyboard functioned, finally saying that “hands down, I think this computer is

better than anything else available around this price range. If you’re looking for

something similar, at least track one of these down to take a look for yourself.”

For a Walmart online reviewer, the product and price upped the brand’s

reputation. The reviewer wrote that the brand’s Chromebook was “worth the buck,”

because it was easy to use and set up for someone who was not good with computers: “I

have a very technologically challenged mother and she found it so be simple and a great

way to start! All in all, it is a great computer for its price.”

On Twitter, a user with the handle INKSQUIDDD put his perception of this

brand’s products this way: “Willing to sell my right testicle for Acer predator 4k monitor:

ball condition unused #4k #pc #twitch #pcgames #acer @Acer.” Another Twitter user,

Alicekeeler, engaged in a Twitter discussion with another user (@Crippit) who was

asking her opinion of a specific brand product. She tweeted, “@Crippit @Acer I like the

larger size but the smoothness with how everything works won me over,” and earlier,

“@Crippit @Acer I am VERY picky about the keyboard and trackpad. Big factor in me

119

saying I could give up my Mac for R11” focusing on the features that boosted Acer’s

brand perception for her.

The second subcategory of this theme, on the other hand, was Negative

Perceptions. Only two of the 10 participants (20%) had some negative perceptions of the

brand. Positive perceptions by these two participants offset any negative perceptions they

held of this specific brand. However, on social media and online reviews, customers also

had negative perceptions of the brand. Table 12 demonstrates the distribution of themes

within the negative perceptions of participants, social media users, and online reviewers.

Table 12

Negative Brand Perception of This Specific Brand

P1 P8 Social media user Online reviewers

Poor Customer

service

Y Y Y N

Inferior

Technology

N Y Y Y

Slow processor N N N Y

While P1 also had positive perceptions of this brand, he did note that his main

problem with the brand is customer service. This issue with customer service was

detrimental to the strength of his brand loyalty: “But the problem is, as good as this

laptop is, the service has been way, way below par.” Part of the problem of customer

service was the staff, whom P1 thought was not very knowledgeable about the products,

which hurt his faith in the brand: “I noticed that there is a profound lack of knowledge

among their general technical staff about this laptop. I mean profound.” Moreover, P1

argued that his positive perception was more product than brand oriented: “Like my

brand perception of Acer is actually probably less than my appreciation of the product

120

that I have from them. Because generally, Acer to me makes a lot of cheaper, more

consumer-oriented products.”

Like P1, P8’s negative perception of the brand had to do with the European brand

smartphones, and the lack of customer service response to the problems those

smartphones had: “Acer smartphones updates on Android system are sometimes crappy

quality, to be really honest.” P8 told Acer about these problems in “weekly or daily

reports” but he noted that “they sometimes they never fix the sound issue. To be honest, I

saw some [problems] that I highlighted about two or three years ago, and they never fixed

it.”

For online reviewers, their negative perceptions of the brand were centered on

products rather than the company or brand specifically. One reviewer, Jerome, said on the

Best Buy website that one of the brand’s products was “not a good laptop,” referring to

how slow the processor was: “I have been using it for 2 days and it is very slow. Hiccups

constantly when just surfing the web …Would not recommend this laptop. Spend the

extra money and just go with a better brand.”

Another user also had a negative experience with another of the brand’s products

saying it was a “waist [sic] of money; died quickly,” adding that their previous

experience with Acer was positive but that this most recent computer “died after only

thirteen weeks refusing to take a charge.” For this customer, performance was more

essential than the brand. A third review simply said one of the brand’s products was an

“awful computer” noting, the user “bought it about a month ago and hate it. I’m not too

picky with computers but this one is by far the worse one I have ever had.”

121

In the Twitter universe, one user had multiple tweets about her negative

experiences with, and concurrent perceptions of, the brand and their products.

TracyGesare tweeted, “@Acer I think you just shrank the abacus system and packed it up

as your new and advanced technology.” Her next tweet read “@Acer and wasting my

time. With your lackluster support. You can reply to this tweet in 2074 as well. Since this

is how you work.” She continued with another tweet: “@Acer I am disappointed. I can’t

even help myself. Thank you too for wasting my enthusiasm for your ‘state of the art

creation.’” Her final tweet cemented her negative brand perception: “@Acer thank you

for helping me explore all possible hardships beyond limits with your ever failing

system!!! You’re the worst!!! Officially.”

Perceptions of the brand’s online community. The second major theme is

Perceptions of the Brand’s Online Community. Three subcategories came from this

theme: (a) Helpful and Welcoming; (b) Small, Active Community; and (c) the Brand’s

Employees. Across all three of these subcategories, however, participants saw the

community as good public relations or marketing program for the brand.

The first subcategory in this theme was Helpful and Welcoming perceptions. Nine

out of 10 participants (90%) cited that the brand’s online community was both helpful

and/or welcoming. Having this sort of attitude not only made the participants more likely

to visit the forum but also more likely to be loyal to the brand. P1 specifically focused on

the usefulness of the online forum, noting that it felt like a community, and that people

cared about each other and their problems: “The community is helpful . . . I can’t always

find my answers there, but I appreciate that people do try and chime in. . . .” P7 also

focused on his perception of the brand’s online community as helpful. He noted that

122

people share their experiences – both positive and negative – which helps with the feeling

of community. As P7 noted, “If you go to some forums you always find threads of people

asking, ‘Is it possible to do that with the product?’ They are asking for real experiences…

The nice thing and also if someone has a bad experiences I had too, I too find some real

solutions there—good things and bad things.” P5 noted that not only is the community

helpful—in part because of the resources the brand gives them—but it is also hospitable

toward its members. Because of these positive, welcoming feelings, the brand is

augmented and reinforced:

It’s a good community, there’s good people on there, and there’s good people

supporting us... If they help cheerfully, and, we have a couple people on the

forum that get a little rude with people and just somebody being rude to you can

throw you off a brand, you know? They perceive that you’re part of the company

and you be rude to them, [and] I’ve seen them go, “I’ll never buy another Acer,”

just because somebody was rude to them.

P2 also perceived the online community as useful and friendly, as well. He said

that people always try to be helpful, even if they do not know the answer: “It’s the best

community that I’ve joined more or less with the support members of trying to help or

trying to ask for help... So far what I’ve found is many people are trying to help even if

they don’t give you any reason. . . .” Similarly, P3 noted the welcoming atmosphere of

the online community, which allows people to ask any sort of question: “I see that the

people that come in and ask a really dumb question are treated gently and so the

community is a welcoming community. Probably it does make so that I would be more

likely to suggest an Acer product to someone else because I know that that person, if they

123

had to ask a question on the community, wouldn’t hit like half a dozen trials or just try to

not come down immediately.” Because of the welcoming feelings, P3 is more loyal to the

brand. P8 similarly specifically noted that the welcoming and helpful online community

was important to building a positive brand:

I think it can be really positive for the Acer brand, the Acer community. . . The

user can feel like it is followed by a brand. An answer from another user or an

ACE that can help you with an issue or confirm you learned the problem, can help

a user to feel followed or to feel important to a brand.

The second subcategory within this major theme was a small, active community.

For three of the 10 participants (30%), they saw the brand’s online community as driven

by a small, dedicated number of participants. As P4 said, “Mainly it’s become a global

community as well as the local one. It’s become the telephone of this age.” P8

specifically noted the tightknit element of the brand’s online participants: “I know few

people on looking at the Acer community, it is very few people right now active. Really,

it probably is 90% of traffic or 90% of contributions.” P3 similarly mentioned the small

community, but argued that was, in part, what led to the development of a stronger brand:

If you’re talking about the community of people, then certainly 95% or higher of

the people that join the community are there to ask one or two questions and

never come back… I find that personally I do have a higher affinity to the brand

because I’m involved in their community. . . . I spend more time on the Acer

website because I’m more comfortable with the rest of the people that are active

on the site.

124

The final subcategory within the major theme of perceptions of the online

community was the Brand’s Employees. Five out of the 10 participants (50%) mentioned

the involvement—or lack thereof—of the brand’s employees within the forum.

Moreover, the brand tried to highlight its customer service proficiencies on social media.

P1 believed the brand’s employees needed to exert a stronger, more individualized

presence: “One thing that I noticed with this community—and I noticed it with a lot of

communities—is there always seems to be somebody from the company who jumps in

with a canned response and I think that a lot of people see that for what it is.” P1 argued

that the employees’ responses make it seem as if they do not care about the customer or

they do not know the solution to the problem, both of which are problematic for brand

loyalty.

P2 noted that much of the brand’s company does not have an online presence,

which can affect its brand perception. Because, as he notes, “90% of the company is not

there [online]” customers are unable to find solutions to their problems. Therefore, “their

opinion will be ‘Oh, this product is not good. Next time I will not buy from this

company.’ More employees online to help with customer would assist with brand loyalty

and customer satisfaction.

P3 saw the role of the employees as technical moderators of the online

community more than helpful technical assistance, unless the person who is asking the

question is confrontational. He argued that were “a fixed number of Acer employees that

spend time on the community. Mostly the Acer employees are hiding in the background.”

P3 argued that this invisibility is appropriate, and that employees surface when

community members aren’t either able or willing to respond to a support request or if

125

there is a “belligerent post that’s asking a question but asking in such a way that they’re

acting like they’ve got a chip on their shoulder.” This allows the community to bond

together, rather than having a top-down structure at Acer. This community feel, then, aids

in brand loyalty.

Alternatively, P7, unlike P1, actually praised the brand’s employees when it came

to individualized, technical support, arguing that it is essential for customer satisfaction:

“Every time I ask and put in a German community, I get an answer to a question from an

Acer technician and it was really good. It was not a standard answer by standard e-mail

or something; it was a really good technical explained answer.”

The company also tried to project a brand that cares about individual customers.

The Twitter handle for the company, tweeted directly to customers, trying to assist them.

One tweet read “@sweetcurves79 @Acer Sorry your computer is no longer charging.

Can you send us a direct message so we can help you get a new charger?” while another

one similarly said, “@GrapeCollie @Acer Sorry your monitor isn’t working. Can you

send us a direct message so we can help you get it working again?” Individual customers

also tweeted at the company, asking specific questions to help them with service.

A_true_blonde tweeted, “@Acer where can I find an Acer repair centre in Valencia,

Spain?” This customer service presence on social media may act to augment and solidify

a positive brand perception.

Reasons for joining. The third major theme that emerged from the first research

question is Reasons for Joining the Brand’s Online Forum. Two main subcategories

contribute to this theme: (a) Participants Initially Came to the Brand’s Community

Because of a Problem, or (b) Participants Became Active in the Brand’s Community

126

Because of a Desire to Help Others. Additionally, two participants’ had disparate reasons

for joining the brand’s online community, representing outlier responses. Table 13

demonstrates the dispersion of responses to the theme.

Table 13

Reasons for Joining Brand’s Online Community

Participants Questions about brand

product

Desire to help Other

P1 Y Y N

P2 Y Y N

P3 Y N N

P4 N Y Y

P5 Y Y N

P6 Y Y N

P7 Y N N

P8 N Y Y

P9 Y Y N

P10 Y Y N

Total 8 8 2

Eight of the 10 participants (80%) noted that at least one reason for joining the

brand’s online community was that they had questions about specific brand products.

That acted as a gateway, and those participants began answering other people’s questions

about the products. As P3 explained, “I bought an Acer tablet . . . and I got in the

community because I had some questions about it. I found myself answering more

questions than I was asking and I’ve been on ever since . . . I would expect that that’s

what would lead most people to a community like this.” P7 shared P3’s sentiment. He

also joined the brand’s forum because of a problem with his own computer: “I just started

to some year[s] ago when I had an Acer V3, I had some problems…as you start a with

new product you’ll always have problems at the beginning therefore community is very

interesting.” In addition, P5 noted that his own questions, which led him to the brand’s

127

online community, led to a desire to help others with their questions:

Well, I went there for, to find an answer for myself and I got to looking at the

questions people were answering and I just thought, “Well, I could answer that,”

and “I can answer that,” and pretty soon I was involved.

In addition to personal problems with the brand’s products, eight out of 10

participants (80%) said that their desire to help others was the reason they were active

members of the brand’s online community. As P1 simply explained, “I feel I can help

that will be a motivator.” P5 agreed, saying: “I enjoy doing it, the biggest reason I do it is

because I enjoy it. You know, it keeps my mind sharp and I like helping people, that’s

part of the enjoyment.” P6 also said he became active in the brand’s community because

of desire to help others, while P8 said it this way:

I enjoy helping other users when has problems with computers or tablets or

smartphones. . . . When I see a new user posting a problem, I always try to think

is a guy or woman or what it is. . . . . He or she really needs an answer to

understand how to fix something important because I feel like for lots of people,

computers, smartphones, technology, personal technology, is something really

important for work or life, so maybe if they can solve the problem or the issue in

about a day or something less, we’re really very happy. It’s all about enjoy[ment],

nothing else.

In addition to these two main subcategories, however, there were two outlying

responses. While both P4 and P8 gave reasons that did fall within the main subcategories,

they also provided other responses for why they joined the brand’s online community.

For P4, it was for “relaxation,” a form of enjoyment. P8 felt differently—the brand

128

recruited him for his specialized knowledge: “Around 2009, I was contacted by one Acer

employee from Taiwan. . .. I started testing mostly all the android devices from Acer and

so one day at the end of the product I started to look around and found the Acer

community and I registered.”

Research Question 2. How does participating in an online brand community

affect an individual’s loyalty to the brand?

From the results of this question emerged four major themes: (a) Brand Loyalty to

Other Brands and Brand Loyalty to This Brand, (b) Level of Online Participation, (c)

Recommendations to Others, and (d) Online Forum Recommendations for Brand

Loyalty.

Brand loyalty. The first major theme to emerge from the second research question

was brand loyalty. There were two aspects of this theme: (a) brand loyalty to other brands

and (b) brand loyalty to this brand. For this study, the term brand loyalty meant the

likelihood of one to recommending a brand to someone else. Seven out of 10 participants

(70%) cited other brands to which they were loyal, noting both why they were loyal and

how that loyalty had—and still does—shift according to price, performance, and product.

Overall, participants noted that they were loyal to brands if the product itself was reliable,

efficient, and suitable. Moreover, price was always a factor. In this way, the participants

were not necessarily always loyal to one brand; instead, the products’ performance and

price inspired any loyalty. For other participants, they choose between certain brands that

had a history of strong products. Participant 3 (P3) specifically noted that price and

compatibility were components to the participant’s choices:

129

I typically end up choosing among about two brands; I do look at everything I

can. I bought a house last November and it didn’t have any appliances in it, so I

had to look at appliances. I looked at all the different brands of appliances that I

could find easily. I picked three or four of those brands that I was most

comfortable with and then I purchased appliances that provided the best features

for the price.

This participant also did the same thing with cars, for which the participant has a

specific brand loyalty to Honda. P3 argued product performance was a determinant of

future purchases: “I do the same thing when I’m purchasing pretty much any product and

I find myself, when I look at the vehicles I’ve had in the past several years. I’ve got a lot

of Toyotas and a lot Hondas and not much else . . . “P4 also declared brand loyalty to a

car company, this time to GM. However, P4 also discussed why this loyalty has shifted,

which he attributes to inferior products: “From 1978 to this century, I bought all GM

cars, but my cars from the last century were all GM.”

P5 similarly shared loyalties to a car company and noted the evolution of those

loyalties, including the factors that affected those allegiances:

I would say the biggest thing I’ve always had brand loyalty was Ford. I’ve always

liked Fords but I haven’t always bought Fords. I have a Toyota now because it

was the best car for the money . …

Despite disparate loyalties, P4 saw brand loyalty at its highest form in Apple. P4

stated:

The most fierce brand loyalty I’ve ever seen are Apple people. Of course, you

have to understand the great bulk of the population doesn’t like computers. They

130

like what they can do. They don’t like to mess things. The Apple company made a

fortune off of designing computers for people who don’t like computers that take

almost no intelligence to use. That’s because they don’t do very much, but they do

it extremely well.

P8 agreed with the sentiments of P4, seeing Apple as one of the only brands to

inspire blind loyalty. To P8, brand loyalty does not exist in the same way because price

and performance are so important:

I’m not quite sure if they feel like they are loyal to a brand, to be honest, because

many people look at the prices or some feature. I don’t know; I don’t think people

are so loyal to a brand right now. Maybe the only can be the Apple, Apple

brand—I can talk about fans more than loyal users, in my opinion.

P1, however, discussed the problems that come with brand loyalty, rather than a

specific form of brand loyalty. In particular, the participant used the example of a stereo

company that P1 used to work for, noting the challenges that emerge when trusted brands

put out subpar products. He found that loyalty did not extend to products that did not

perform to the level of the brands’ previous products:

I used to sell stereo equipment way back in the day. And there was a brand called

JBL and JBL, they really made professional studio monitors…While we were

selling JBL, we had a lot of JBL fans that would come in the door and they’d be

very, very focused on JBL. JBL decided that we’re going to try to niche ourselves

in that market. And they came out with a series called the Radian series, which

were absolute junk. These were speakers that were just absolute cheap, tinny,

awful speakers that were nothing like JBL, but they put their name on it and their

131

perception with a lot of people like me…The superfans are going to see that. So

you’re going to lose your superfan base when you do that because they know the

product so well that they can see what’s happening. They can see, “Hey, what is

this?”

Overall, the results of this study indicated that an online branded community

could create positive views of a brand and, as a result, increase brand loyalty. The

increase in brand loyalty may be small, but it is present. However, the results also

indicate that loyalty can never offset products that are lacking features or have poor

quality. For P3, this brand is not the only brand of computer he uses. P3 has a small pool

of brands to which he is loyal, often based on familiarity and price:

I look at all the different manufactures and then choose the one that is the best for

the best price for my needs at that moment. I give a little bit more weight to the

brands that I’m more familiar with and less to the ones that I’m either not as

familiar with or have had bad experiences with in the past. . . . Typically, the

brand will be third but sometimes it’s second.

P4 preferred the specific brand, but like P3, the participant was not exclusively loyal to

the brand. As P4 explained:

I prefer Acer because I have more knowledge of their systems and structures and

machines, but I have a Toshiba sitting here. I have an Apple sitting here, so I

don’t confine myself, but rather it’s the first one I look to if I need something.

However, P4 also specifically noted that the brand’s community and his participation in

that community add to his brand loyalty. He noted, “because Acer permits these forums

to exist, it’s part of the reason I participate in comparison to, say, Toshiba that has a very

132

weak structure. Dell is in the middle, but I don’t really care for Dell products.” In this

way, not only the product but also the community drive P4’s loyalty to this specific

brand, as the community is reasonably easy to use and helpful, he enjoys participating in

it, and “they make more information available to me on how their systems work.”

P5 also has loyalty to the brand, although he cited Lenovo as his first choice. In

part, P5 noted the problems online community participants discuss with their computers

of this brand:

I like Acers. My main laptop that I use is a Lenovo. I had an Acer and I needed a

new laptop and I did research and the one that appealed to me the most was this

Lenovo that I have. . . you know, when you’re in the forum and people are calling

in with their problems, you’re going to see a lot of problems. I know that that’s

only a small subsection of the people that have bought Acers. You know, it wasn’t

brand disloyalty; it’s just the Lenovo appealed to me, so I bought it.

P7 argued that product performance is a significant contributor to brand loyalty.

This was a common theme among all of the participants. As previously noted,

performance, as well as price, drives loyalty to a brand, rather than brand loyalty coming

first. As P7 stated:

The first impression of my first Acer Notebook was like that, and if you compare

price and performance and so on. Compared to the price of other product[s] it was

really, really new and it’s still working—it’s going well after 5 years. It’s a really

good product I really still love it. . . . [The Acer brand is built by] the product

itself, also I compare it to others like Acer’s and so on. I think if I compare it to

Acer, [which is] always a good brand for notebooks are good quality . . . This

133

product line of Predator notebook I think is very good quality because it’s new it

has to be competitive and also the reason why I have chosen with them. . . .

Moreover, P7 argued that one’s culture could influence brand loyalty. In some

cultures, product performance and experience can be a primary determinant to brand

loyalty. A significant difference in price may alter the loyalty. P7 stated:

I think the special thing with Germans is [that] we have one brand and we have a

good experience; we stay there if we don’t have other reasons to go so the others

may be much, much cheaper, we take a deeper look at the other product at the

same price…I don’t know if it’s the same in America, but I think it’s worked

because of it’s really good quality.

According to P8, the basis for brand loyalty was also the quality of product.

However, P8 also noted that customer service is essential to brand loyalty. This

contributes to the participants’ views that loyalty is earned by specific aspects of the

brand, including performance, price, and customer service:

My opinion is you need to have a very good product, that’s for sure, because if

you put to the market a bad product with lot of issue[s], you are going to kill

yourself instantly. . . . [A company also needs] a very good balance from a good

product, good price and great customer service. Without a great customer service,

you don’t survive in [the] market right now. In my opinion right now, without a

great customer service you will die in 2 month[s].

P2 also discussed brand loyalty in terms of price and performance:

Always, Acer is great at price to performance . . . it’s proven for me that it’s

worked very well and it’s a very good quality. That’s why my notebook is always

134

with Acer because I have two of them that never failed for me. Or if they failed, it

was not because of Acer’s fault or something like that. That’s why my notebook

is still an Acer.

Similarly, P6 described loyalty to some brands because of experience with their

products. However, brand loyalty has to do with the products and their quality, rather

than the company itself. However, he did not see his participation in this brand’s

community as a significant influence to his loyalty to this specific brand. Rather, the

product first influences his loyalty. Secondary were his impressions that developed over a

period with the use of the product and interactions with the company.

In addition to this study’s participants, online reviews posted on Best Buy and

Walmart’s websites underscored when and how customers felt loyal to the brand.

Because the online reviews were only for this specific brand, loyalty is specific only to

this case study’s specific brand. For these customers, product quality and past positive

experiences premised their loyalties. A user named Mzsharsim wrote about one of the

brand’s products:

I had an Acer tablet for years, this was an upgrade for me, and I love it just as

much as I did my older one. Graphics are great, clear, and vibrant color. Response

time is fast; you click and you are there. Lots of storage. Going to purchase one

for my daughter next.

Another customer, Kathy, also noted past purchases influenced her loyalty. Her

online review title was “This is the second one that we have purchased,” and she wrote,

“We love these Chromebooks so much. This is the second one that we have purchased. It

135

is better than laptops that we have bought in the past. I recommend it to everyone that

asks about them.” Another review she wrote stated:

Bought one for my daughter when she was accepted into her graduate school of

choice. She loved it so much that I bought one for my son, who was starting his

undergraduate program. They both are able to use them for all of their studies and

assignments with no complaints. Great purchases!

Level of participation. The second major theme that came from the second

research question is the level of online forum participation by respondents. The number

of years of participation in the online community varied from one to four. Table 14

demonstrates the number of years participants have been active on this online

community.

136

Table 14

Online Forum Participation by Year

Participants Number of Years

P1 2

P2 1.5

P3 4

P4 4

P5 2.5

P6 3

P7 2

P8 3

P9 —

P10 1

Total 23

Average 2.3

Of the nine participants who reported how long they had been active on this

brand’s online community, the longest was 4 years (two participants), while the shortest

was 1 year (one participant). One participant did not indicate how long he was a part of

this brand’s community. Regardless of the number of years participants had spent on the

forum, the frequency and level of participation varied. Overall, participants noted that

they had first come to the community with questions, but now spent most of their time

helping others with their questions. P3 explained that he had a high level of involvement

because of helping other people:

Typically, you have the initial post which is somebody who’s not part of the

community; he’s just joined in order to ask questions. He asks a question or

makes a complaint or does something like that and then there will be an

interaction with one or more of the people that were qualified as superfans to

respond to his question.

137

Moreover, P3 argued that his participation increased his brand loyalty. The time

he spent on the forums made him more loyal to the brand:

I find that personally I do have a higher affinity to the brand because I’m involved

in their community. I don’t know for sure whether that’s because I’m involved

with community or because I see how the community responds to the other

members of the community.

P4 similarly categorized himself as an involved participant, both in the amount of

time spent on the forum and the level of his knowledge: “The difference is I probably

have that level of expertise on any number of different forums. I tend to be somewhat

fanatical.” P8 also placed his level of participation in the high category, explaining, “In

the past year, I think I spent like 3 or 4 hours on the community . . . each day. I have

around 11, near to 12,000 replies and over 1,000 solutions.” P2 contended that his time

and level of participation was due, in part, to his absence on social media:

I don’t like to occupy my free time like many people using Facebook or Twitter. I

don’t use any social media. I think it’s more or less a waste of time spending on

those. I’m trying to fill my free time and usually I fill it by forums, but it’s really

difficult.

These participants also noted that the time they spent on this online forum was

most often spent helping other consumers with problems they have and answering

questions those consumers had.

P1, however, did not see online forum engagement as an all-consuming endeavor.

Instead, he saw the community as a pick-and-choose site:

138

Most of the forums to me are sort of like phone books. It’s just like you don’t read

it cover to cover. You just go in there, you look for one thing that you need, you

pull it out and you close the book and don’t look at it again till you need it again.

Recommendations to others. The results indicated that one’s experience with a

particular product has a larger influence on one’s decision to recommend the brand than

the brand itself. Using a 10-point Likert-type scale measuring how likely one is to

recommend this specific brand to a friend or family member (1 = least likely to 10 = most

likely), the average score was 7.68. The scores that participants gave, which corresponded

to the likelihood of recommending the product to others, were based on the experiences

these participants had had in the past with the product. If they had a positive experience,

they were more likely to recommend the product to others. The lower scores were based

on either the performance of the product or problems with customer service.

How one sees their rating of one brand or product is similar to how one might rate

similar products. P3 explained his rating of an 8:

It’s a fairly high number. Other numbers I’ve got are other brands of computers

specifically that I would be more likely rather than less likely but I can't think of

one right now that would go higher than an 8.

P7 also gave a high rating, based on positive prior experiences:

I would say 8 or 9. . . . Until now I didn’t have any bad experiences; maybe it

depends if somebody asks me [if] I want to buy something more expensive, more

thrilling than in the notebook or something like that. It should be a reason to

choose something else.

139

P8, however, gave a somewhat lower Net Promoter rating, grounded in problems

he has had, particularly with the customer service department:

Right now, I can tell you 7 or 8. More 7, to be honest. . . . Right now, Acer has

very good products... Sometimes also on the customer service, more on the phone

calls or the chat, I’m reading more and more user[s] that said, “I ask one thing and

had no replies.” [It] doesn’t look or reply with like, “My monitor is black?” “Turn

off your computer and turn it on.” “Yes, I know, I already tried; my monitor is

still black.” “Restart your computer.” I know that the phone calls they have

automatic to follow, some questions to follow, but sometimes the user can’t

understand the agent and they want answers.

Three participants reported that they would recommend the brand, but with certain

qualifications. These respondents would recommend specific models rather than a

blanked endorsement of the brand. P10 supported this notion of a recommendation

varying by model by giving a 9 or 10 rating for the specific brand’s gaming product

lineup. As P1 explained:

I just recommended an Acer to somebody and he just bought it. The reason why,

and I told him my caveat. I said, “You now, you probably won’t have the

problems I have cause you’re getting an Acer Aspire. So you’re getting more of a

consumer brand.” But I told him my experiences with the service.

P4 agreed, saying:

I would be likely to recommend a specific model to someone. . . . One of the

drives I have had with Acer and made public several times is they have some of

the most confusing model names and designations I’ve ever seen. Take the R3-

140

131T. You can have wildly different performance and models all with that same

designation. It’s the last 4 digits that tells you what it really is.

P5 concurred, while still giving the brand a relatively low score: “I would say 5.

. . . I still recommend Acers, but I recommend specific models. . . . I don’t just say, ‘Go

buy yourself an Acer.’”

The same was true of those on social media. Past positive experiences with a

product significantly influenced online reviewers’ written reviews and recommendations.

They were more likely to recommend the product because they personally had a good

experience with the laptop. These experiences were all about the performance of the

product, however. None of the posts dealt with price or customer service. As a user

named Nursingstudentmom stated,

I love this laptop you can use it as a traditional laptop or make it into a

touchscreen both ways it’s perfect and the battery life is very, very nice I have

gotten at least 7 hours out of a charge. I would recommend this product for

anyone looking for a nice laptop.

EddineN concurred, saying, “The Chromebook is one of the best Chromebooks out right

now... Acer did a really great job on this product and I highly recommend it.”

Enya also linked her recommendation in an online review to her experience,

saying,

I love my tablet. It is so handy for me to take anywhere and its plenty big enough

to see everything one and so easy to use. I would recommend this to anyone who

wants to check their [F]acebook and emails while they are away from home.

141

Recommendations to online communities. The fourth and final major theme

from the RQ1 involved recommendations for the online forums to increase brand loyalty.

Six out of the 10 participants (60%) stated that the main way this brand could improve its

online forums, and in turn increase brand loyalty, was to increase its customer technical

support. In addition, there were two outlying responses for this theme.

For the majority of respondents, there needed to be better customer service. They

contended that if the quality of the technical assistance improved, this could help improve

brand loyalty. For P1, this assistance should not be pre-formed or artificial; he argued that

there needed to be personal attention:

Meaningful participation by representatives from the product and it’s sort of like a

two-part thing because number one, you need participation from people that

represent the brand in the forums. That’s number one. And number two,

meaningful. Not the canned responses.

P8 also pointed to the need for more brand-based technical help. He noted that there were

so many questions from customers that Acer needed to add more employees so that they

could respond. He contended that interaction could increase brand loyalty:

In my opinion, they can reply more…I think maybe one or two Acer people on

the community board can help seal the brand more stronger or more interactive on

the user issue…It’s very, very hard, but you know, you can try the best possible to

have a loyal customer.

P2 also suggested adding brand employees, specifically engineers and technicians, enter

the forum to help build the community:

142

I probably think Acer community, while it’s big in the numbers when you look at

just pure statistics. The number of active members I don’t find. It will always be

kind of the same people answering. I think the community could be bigger, but

that’s the only thing…Here, I think a few problems could be solved if there were

more suggestions passed from the forum directly to engineers or technicians,

whereby some technicians [are] just watching the community and trying to find

the problems.

Some participants felt the quality of answers creates a better community. If the

employees are not answering questions, then the customers do not feel valued, which

harms brand loyalty. P7 was one of the participants who agreed with this notion:

In my experience, others do so for example. Their support is not very good, so

you don’t get any chances to get a technician by e-mail or by telephone; you only

get a number and then you send it there, you have to wait until 6 weeks to get it

back and they always do the following:

However, not all participants agreed that the brand needed to augment and improve

employee involvement. One respondent, P5, actually praised the work that the employees

do on the online forums:

I think they [Acer moderators] do a very good job. They don’t try to rule it; they

just do their job and they do it well. . . . We try to do a good job in there and we

help the people as much as they can but you have people that have, you know, 5-

to 7-year-old computers and they’re all angry because their computer is broke and

we can’t find a way to fix it for them.

143

Finally, one other participant had a different recommendation. P4 argued that this

brand’s product was superior to their marketing campaign, and suggested that the

company, as well as the forum, make more use of advertising. As P4 said, “They don’t

really seem to know how to advertise, which is another comment I’ve made it multiple

times to them.”

Summary

The capture and analysis of data outlined in the proposal held true in the actual

data capture and analysis. Some interesting themes emerged from the data analysis. Table

11 is a summary of these themes, including brand loyalty to other brands, level of online

forum participation by respondents, recommendations to others, recommendations for the

online forums to increase brand loyalty, positive and negative brand perceptions,

perceptions about the brand’s online forum, and reasons for joining the brand’s online

forum.

Within this case study, most participants elected to join the community because of

their own need. Additionally, a personal desire to help others is what led them to continue

their participation. These results indicate opportunities for companies who wish to create

or enhance an online community.

The first major theme to emerge from the second research question had two

facets: (a) Brand Loyalty to Other Brands, and (b) Brand Loyalty to a Brand.

Specifically, six participants out of 10 (60%) cited other brands that they were loyal to,

noting both why they were loyal and how that loyalty had shifted—and continues to

shifts—according to price, performance, and product. The second part of this first major

theme involved participants’ brand loyalty toward a specific brand. Overall, the results of

144

this study indicated that an online branded community could create positive views of a

brand and, as a result, increase brand loyalty. The increase in brand loyalty may be small,

but nonetheless it is present. However, the results also indicate that loyalty can almost

never offset products that are lacking important features or have poor quality.

The second major theme that came from the second research question is the Level

of Online Forum Participation by Respondents. Of the nine participants who reported

how long they had been active on the online community, the longest was 4 years (two

participants), while the shortest was 1 year (one participant). Regardless of the number of

years of participation in the brand’s forum, their frequency and intensity of participation

was similar.

The third major theme is Recommendations to Others. The results indicated that

participants chose to recommend the product brand based largely on the experience with

the particular product, and not less so because of the brand itself. In addition, others’

online reviews influenced participants’ own purchase decisions.

The fourth and final major theme from the second research question is

Recommendations for the Online Forums to increase brand loyalty. The majority of

participants—seven out of 10 (70%)—stated that the main way this brand could improve

its online forums, and in turn increase brand loyalty, would be increase customer

technical support. In addition, there were two outlying responses for this theme.

As with all studies, this study had its limitations. The participants of this study

were members of only one personal computer company’s online community. These

participants were not representative of all types of online branded communities. The view

of brand loyalty and brand perception could be different for other industries and other

145

brands from the results of this study. The sample was voluntary, so the participants could

have different views on brand loyalty than other customers; moreover, because the

participants were active members of a specific branded community, their views may be

different from the average customer. Selection bias may have occurred during

identification of the study population. There could also be limitations in terms of

coverage, and non-response from the participants. Finally, there could have been

interviewer bias in solicitation, recording, or interpretation of data.

The data collected and analyzed has clear themes identified. An understanding of

these themes could be beneficial to companies seeking to deploy or enhance an online

community. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the findings of this research, implications

for others, and recommendations for additional research. This will include an overview of

why the study is important and how the researcher designed the study to contribute to the

understanding of the topic, a comprehensive summary of the overall study, and

conclusions made based on the data analysis and findings of the study related to the

extant literature and significance of the study. Moreover, the chapter will delve into the

theoretical and practical implications of these findings, as well as areas that require

additional research within this topic.

146

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

Brand loyalty has a strong precedent in influencing public perception of a product

and its overall value. This study focused on the potential influence of participation in an

online community on brand perception and brand loyalty. Evidence from previous studies

has demonstrated an increased use of social media among consumers (Goh et al., 2013;

Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao & Zhu, 2014). Social media has become a powerful WOM

influence on our society, including the marketing of products and brands. Online

communities, a form of social media, influence consumer behavior in a similar way as

other social media.

It was unknown how participation in online communities affects the loyalty to and

perception of a brand. There was a need to gain better insights into the motivation for

participating in online communities (Berthon et al., 2012; Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012;

Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Goh et al., 2013; Singh & Sonnenburg, 2012). Many

companies deploy online communities with different objectives in mind. However,

previous research has lacked an examination of the motivations for participating in online

communities (Brodie et al., 2013; Gruen et al. 2007; Wirtz et al., 2013). Companies

should understand these motivations to develop communities that align better with

participant motivations.

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online brand communities affects brand loyalty and brand perception from the perception

of the top contributors in an online community. This study examined the two research

questions as follows: (a) how does participating in an online brand community affect an

147

individual’s loyalty to the brand, and (b) how does participating in an online brand

community affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand? The data for this research

came from semi-structured interviews, social media postings, and online product reviews.

A thematic analysis of the interviews and content analyses of social media postings and

online product reviews yielded the results.

Covered in this chapter are the study’s results, conclusions, recommendations,

and suggestions for future practice. Results from this study revealed that brand

communities influence brand loyalty, which could alter companies’ online marketing

strategies. Online communities are a place to create bonds between owners of the same

brand of product. This bond presents an opportunity for participants to help each other. It

also presents an opportunity for companies to learn from the participants (their

customers) in ways previously not possible. This study was the first to examine the

influence of online brand communities on brand perception and loyalty.

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore how participation in

online brand communities affects brand loyalty and brand participation from the

perception of the top contributors in an online community. Participants in this research

were those who were actively engaged in an online branded community. Interviews of

these participants were interviewed provided insights into their motivation for

participating in an online branded community. The triangulation of these interviews with

data from social media postings and online product reviews provided the foundation for

the research. The results from this study can inform business leaders and developers

148

about the value and effectiveness of online brand communities in influencing brand

perception and loyalty.

There were two underlying consumer behavioral theories to this research: (a) C2C

exchange (Gruen et al., 2007), and the MOA model (MacInnis et al., 1991). In C2C

exchange, Gruen et al. (2007) posited that participants’ knowledge exchange requires

sharable concepts commonly derived from their education and experience. C2C occurs

when individuals communicate concerns, complaints, and recommendations that enhance

the well-being of the consumer and product (von Hippel, 1988). MOA measures one’s

level of motivation, opportunity, and ability to share information about a product or brand

(MacInnis et al., 1991). This study combined elements of these two theories.

The use of a qualitative methodology can allow one to gain a deeper insight into

the motivation of participation in online communities. Given that the complexity and

subjective nature of brand perception and loyalty does not lend itself well to a

quantitative analysis, qualitative methodology was therefore the most effective

methodology to address the research questions. Qualitative studies are effective at

answering “how” and “why” questions in research, as they allow researchers and

participants to offer expansive responses to questions. These “how” and “why” questions

made a qualitative case study the best methodological model for this study (Muzellec et

al., 2012). Researchers often use a case study design to analyze people, events, decisions,

periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other systems holistically, using multiple data

sources (Shahrokh & Dadvand, 2014). Yin (2014) suggested a case study is an

appropriate design to understand behavior and focus on contemporary events.

Participation in an online branded community is a contemporary event.

149

The participants of this study were individuals designated as “community experts”

specific to a company and given the title of superfan, as they are the most active online

users who provide significant information and answers to an online community. These

community experts contribute 80% of the useable content in the community. Fourteen

superfans received invitations to participate in this study from an online community of

200,000. The superfans chosen for this study were from a list of top online contributors

provided by the company. The interviewer spoke with the participants via Skype or

WebEx and transcribed these interviews. Product reviews from the Walmart and Best

Buy websites were the second source of data. Facebook and Twitter postings from 2016

about the brand were the third source of information.

This study was important because many companies deploy online communities

without understanding the depth and dynamics of the interactions between participants,

between participants and superfans, and between participants and the company. By

looking in detail at the motivations of a group of superfans, one can better understand

what those motivations mean to the company. This can help a company modify its online

community strategies. For example, most superfans in this study continued to participate

in the community because of a desire to help other people. The company behind the

community should therefore be aware of this dynamic and leverage it as it grows and

fosters its superfans. The remainder of this chapter will include conclusions from this

research as well as implications and recommendations for others who may pursue or

enhance an online branded community.

150

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

Previous research included the characteristics of online branded community.

Gruen et al. (2007) described characteristics of communities including trust within the

community and increased customer satisfaction. The netnographic study of customer

engagement in a virtual brand community conducted by Brodie et al. (2013) found

customer engagement to be an interactive, experiential process. Neither of these studies

included an examination of the motivations for participation. Conversely, the participants

within this study shared the “how” and “why” of their participation clearly demonstrating

a deeper level of commitment than indicated by previous research. These motivations do

have some similar characteristics to Gruen et al. and Brodie et al.’s findings. For

example, all three studies clearly illustrate the power of community in that people seek

community when they need help and wish to help others.

The three sources of data were (a) semi-structured interviews with participating

superfans of the concerned brand, (b) online social media postings related to the brand,

and (c) reviews of the brand’s products and services as posted on Walmart.com and

Bestbuy.com. Semi-structured interviews conducted with participants designated as

superfans by the company were conducted via Skype or WebEx, and then transcribed,

analyzed, and codified the data with the help of NVivo 10. NVivo was also the tool used

for capturing social media postings and product reviews and to interpret them. This use of

this software enabled the collection of both predetermined themes and new themes from

the sources. The interviews provided the most insight into the “how” and “why” of

participation in an online branded community. Semi-structured interviews allowed the

interviewee to expand on thoughts and opinions that gave depth to the research. Although

151

the flexible structure of the interviews could have created some risk of not staying on

topic, the interviewees revealed common themes. Each participant received a summary of

the combined interviews to confirm the conclusions from the interviews. The process,

member checking, confirmed these themes. The social media postings and online reviews

provided some confirmation of views expressed in the interviews. Most notably, it is

doubtful if that loyalty can ever offset products that are lacking features or have poor

quality.

The first research question (how does participating in an online brand community

affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand?) was addressed using semi-structured

interviews, social media postings, and online product reviews. The semi-structured

interviews provided the most insight for answering the research question. Additional

factors discovered in the interviews influenced the perception of the brand. This included

advertising, product quality, and product features. The analysis yielded three major

themes. The first major theme contained two subcategories: (a) Positive Brand

Perceptions and (b) Negative Brand Perceptions. The quality and vibrancy of an online

community has some level of influence on the likelihood recommending the brand to

someone else. The company received positive reviews from seven of the 10 participants.

The majority of participants cited personal experience, product performance, and price as

the underlying factors affecting their positive brand perceptions. However, some

participants argued that the brand itself, and its online community, contributed to

improving brand perception. Only two participants had negative perceptions of the brand.

Both participants, P1 and P8, had negative perceptions rooted in their perceived quality

of customer service. These participants’ negative perceptions were product-specific, and

152

not directed toward the brand as a whole. This is also true for most of the negative

perceptions found on social media, with the exception of some isolated incidents in which

social media users expressed dissatisfaction with the entire brand. As was often the case,

participants’ negative expressions involved dissatisfaction with service responses to

product issues. Thus, it seems as though participants were tolerant of a certain level of

malfunction with computer hardware as long as the service responses were prompt and

helpful.

The second major theme related to the first research question involved

perceptions of the company’s online community. Three subcategories originated from

this major theme: (a) Helpful and Welcoming; (b) Small, Active Community; and (c) the

Brand’s Employees. The first subcategory drew similar responses from participants. The

common denominator among all these subcategories is that participants believed the

online brand community to be good public relations and business. Eight of the 10

participants claimed that the online community was helpful and/or welcoming. Similarly,

several participants argued that the helpfulness of this online community bolstered

positive perceptions of the brand in general. As was often the case in this study,

participants did not necessarily expect miracles or for all of their problems to be solved

by the online community, but rather courteous and prompt service. For example, P1 noted

that the community could not always solve problems. Even these instances did not hurt

perception of the brand because the effort was genuine and the company offered to

communicate when the issue had been resolved. P3 and P8 specifically noted that the

helpful and welcoming atmosphere of the online brand community contributed to a

positive perception of the brand.

153

A Small, Active Community was the second subcategory related to the second

major theme. Three of the 10 participants (30%) saw the online brand community as one

driven by a small, albeit dedicated group of contributors. This gave some participants the

perception of a tightknit community that looks out for its fellow contributors. One

participant also noted that the relatively small number of contributors offered some

comfort and familiarity that made seeking help more casual.

Employee Participation in the Online Community was the third and final

subcategory. Seven of 10 participants (70%) discussed employee participation in the

online brand community. Notably, P1 wanted more individualization and fewer canned

responses. P7 held the opposite opinion and claimed that responses were already

individualized. The company’s Twitter community reflected individualization. Users

were often tweeted directly. On multiple occasions, the company’s official Twitter handle

responded to users to request direct messages from them about their issues.

The third major theme emerging from RQ1 involved the reasons for joining the

brand’s online community. There were two major subcategories related to this theme: (a)

Participants Initially Came to the Brand’s Community Because of a Problem, or (b)

Participants Became Active in the Brand’s Community Because of a Desire to Help

Others. Eight of 10 participants (80%) joined the community to ask questions about

specific products. Two participants originally visited the online brand community with

their own questions, and ultimately ended up answering others’ questions. Outliers P4

and P8 joined the online brand community for their own, unique reasons. P4 joined for

relaxation while a brand employee recruited P8 due to his level of expertise.

154

RQ2 (how does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?) was addressed with the same sources of data as RQ1. Four major

themes arose from this question: (a) Loyalty to Other Brands, (b) Loyalty to the Brand

Level of Online Participation, (c) Recommendations to Others, and (d) Online Forum

Recommendations for Brand Loyalty. In the context of this research, the term brand

loyalty refers to the likelihood that someone will recommend a brand to someone else.

With respect to the first part of the first major theme, Loyalty to Other Brands, seven out

of 10 participants (70%) claimed loyalty to other brands. Their loyalties were based on

and changed according to price, performance, and product. P3, for example, purchased all

kitchen and laundry appliances at once. P3 chose appliances based on a variety of

different features, with price being the baseline. However, the participant wanted all

appliances in a specific room to be of the same brand. No predetermined loyalty existed

in this instance, but the same participant did claim a brand-specific loyalty with respect to

automobile purchases. The participant used a series of anecdotal opinions and evaluations

to determine loyalty to Honda. P4 and P5 both claimed evolved loyalties to car

companies, also based on anecdotal forms of information. P4 and P8 both believed that

loyalty to Apple stood out as exceptionally strong.

The second part of the first major theme was loyalty to the online community’s

brand. The results showed that online brand communities create and foster positive views

of a brand, and therefore can increase brand loyalty, albeit only to a relatively small

extent. Conversely, the results demonstrated that brand loyalty rarely, if ever, offset poor

product quality or dissatisfaction with product features. With respect to computer

products, P3 claimed loyalty based on a combination of price, features, and familiarity.

155

P3 fluctuated among three different computer brands, but was willing to try a different

brand for a lower price if it had comparable features. The product predominantly drove

P4’s loyalty; however, the participant claimed that its vibrant community enhanced

loyalty to a certain extent.

While participation in the community typically created brand loyalty, there was

one example of the company’s online brand community actually reducing brand loyalty.

P5 claimed that having such ready access to user problems online functioned as a turnoff

to the brand. Sometimes, cultural values affected brand loyalty, in P7’s experience. Being

German, P7 cited the cultural value of brand loyalty based predominantly on performance

and experience. Data collected from the Walmart and Best Buy websites highlighted

quality and experience as the most impactful qualities to loyalty to brand.

The second major theme from the second research question was the level of

online forum participation by respondents. The length of participation ranged from 4

years at the longest to 1 year at the shortest with nine participants responding. Participant

tenure in the community did not influence participant activity level.

The third major theme was Recommendations to Others. The results suggested

that personal experiences influenced brand recommendation more than loyalty to the

brand. The Net Promoter rating, a 10-point scale, determined participants’ rating of the

brand. Direct experiences with the brand’s products drove ratings. Three participants

reasoned that they would recommend a brand’s specific products with which they had

personal success, as opposed to a blanketed endorsement of the brand as a whole.

The fourth major theme that arose from the second research question was Online

Forum Recommendations for Brand Loyalty. Seven out of 10 participants (70%)

156

recommended the improvement of online technical support as a means to increase brand

loyalty. Participants had recommendations ranging from better technical support to more

representatives. For example, P1 suggested that technical support should offer fewer

canned responses and more catered responses. Most participants desired a better and

more intimate quality of technical support.

The analysis included all three sources of data; however, the semi-structured

interviews provided the most insight into this question. The participants all felt some

amount of loyalty to the brand because of their participation in the community. However,

all of the participants also felt the community alone could not justify future purchases of

the brand. Participants stated product features, quality, and price have a greater influence

on future purchases.

Conclusions

This study has shed light on the previously unknown phenomenon of how

participation in online brand communities affects the perception and loyalty of a brand

(Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Although participation in the

online community was never a deciding factor in perception and loyalty, participants had

both positive and negative opinions regarding their experiences with the community. The

qualitative nature of this study made definitive conclusions difficult; however, participant

responses made clear that participation in online brand communities was not a benign

activity and did influence perception and loyalty to some extent. This finding solidified

previous research that social media indeed influences brand loyalty and perception

(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Laroche at al., 2012; Rizwan et al., 2014). Previous research

has demonstrated that WOM influences brand perceptions (Dubois et al., 2011), and

157

since it is also known that consumers increasingly participate in online communities, one

can safely conclude that online WOM has the potential to influence brand perception and

loyalty, as it is a form of WOM (Goh et al., 2013; Laroche et al., 2012; Zhao & Zhu,

2014).

This study supports the influence of participation in online branding communities

despite the paucity of evidence of its influence. Maton and Salem (1995) demonstrated a

correlation between participation in communities and kindness, moral responsibility, and

shared rituals and traditions. These characteristics have carried over to online

communities (Goh et al., 2013). These are important and beneficial qualities for a brand

to nurture, and are contrary to common perceptions of online participants as fickle and

disingenuous. These are qualities of loyalty in general.

The first research question was, “How does participating in an online brand

community affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand?” This was an easier question

to answer than the second question related to loyalty, as perception is easier to identify

based on participant responses. For example, in one study it was described how

extraverted personalities were most commonly successful at forming online connections

(Kotowski & dos Santos, 2010). These extraverted personality types can have an outsized

influence on brand perception. Granted, perception is not always an accurate or objective

reflection of reality, but it can be influential nonetheless. Therefore, companies may

benefit from managing online perceptions even in the face of scant evidence suggesting

their influence on overall brand perception. According to previous research, shared rituals

and practices, emotional connections with those who share similar interest, and trust

among members are a large part of communities, including online communities (Goh et

158

al., 2013; Kotowski & dos Santos, 2010; Maton & Salem, 1995). These characteristics

have the potential to spread and change certain perceptions. Perception can be powerful

even when untrue. For example, Dubois et al. (2011) suggested companies engage in

rumor management. Rumors (WOM) influence products, brands, companies, and even

people. It is important to have rumor management rather than leaving word of mouth to

chance. The dynamics of WOM are the same in social media (including online

communities) as they are in traditional venues, but may actually exert a greater influence

due to the exponential effect of social media (Sun, 2013). This study has indicated the

similar WOM dynamics in online participation. Within an online community one can

save, share, and view repeatedly online comments which is a form of WOM. The

implication is that online WOM may even have more potential than traditional WOM to

influence brand perception.

Participants frequently cited their own personal experiences with the brand as

prime influence on their brand perceptions. Researchers have suggested the importance of

brand experience management (Lysonski & Durvasula 2013; Singh, 2012; Spence, 2012).

Schmitt et al. (2009) found in their research that knowledge of consumers’ brand

experiences could enhance the development of marketing strategies. There is no more

powerful feedback medium than online participation. One may obtain online brand

perceptions easily and affordably via a community that solicits feedback. It is also the

promptest form of feedback. Previous research demonstrates that a consumer’s

experiences with a company’s physical environment, personnel, and policies shape

shopping and service experiences (Krystallis & Chrysochou, 2014). Therefore, evidence

and logic dictate that a positive consumer experience in an online brand community can

159

indeed affect brand perception. Several participants in this study provided in-depth

responses about the influence of their online experiences on their brand perceptions. In

tandem, a negative online experience had the power to turn consumers off from the

brand, whether fairly or not. Conversely, a positive experience could not only bolster

perception of the brand, but also help users feel like a part of a community.

Implications

Theoretical implications. This study serves as an important first step toward

illuminating the influence of participation in online brand communities on brand

perception and loyalty. Since most studies conducted on brand communities have been

quantitative in nature, it is critical to produce more qualitative research on the subject

(Hede & Kellett, 2012; Laroche et al., 2012; Brodie et al., 2013). Qualitative studies

provide the opportunity to delve deeply into topics and understand how or why

participants feel or react in certain ways (Yin, 2014). One of this study’s weaknesses, and

a weakness of many qualitative studies, was the small sample size. Surely, interviews of

10 participants are not sufficient for drawing broad generalizations about the impact of a

single community on the Internet as whole. Nonetheless, the qualitative nature of the

study offered a deeper examination into how and why consumers of this community

develop perceptions and loyalty to a brand.

The research questions were open-ended in an attempt to offer broad leeway for

drawing conclusions. This was critical due to the dearth of qualitative information

available on the topic (Muzellec et al., 2012). Qualitative studies are often reliant upon

the depth of participant responses, as they rarely involve simple “yes or no” questions.

However, the open-ended nature of the research questions also presented a potential

160

weakness. They rendered it difficult to narrow down responses and get to the significant

part. This required follow up and more focused questions to ensure participants’

responses were adequate.

How participation in an online community affects an individual’s brand loyalty is

a challenging question to answer. Contentedness purchasing a specific brand is one of the

most accurate ways to measure loyalty. However, this study focused on an online

branded community within the personal computer industry. The frequency of new

purchases of personal computers has declined in recent years and therefore, it is possible

that participants’ responses are less meaningful because of decreased frequency of new

purchases. As such, this research was heavily reliant on the accuracy of responses.

Overall, the study’s results did not indicate much brand loyalty. Instead, participants were

more concerned with past experiences, price, and features when determining which

product to purchase. Only in a small number of cases did participants indicate a serious

level of brand loyalty.

The first research question was less challenging to explore. Perception is nothing

more than a participant’s thoughts and opinions. The respondents freely shared their

thoughts and opinions. Qualitative responses to questions pertaining to brand perception

can be very illuminating. The influence of online brand communities on brand perception

became clear in the course of this research. Results showed that online experiences did

not have a major impact on brand perception, in most cases. However, in certain cases, an

extreme positive or negative experience could change a person’s perception. Personal

experiences with the brand’s products, prices, and other direct interactions with the

products were significant creators of brand perception.

161

Practical implications. The results clearly demonstrated that companies could

benefit from enhancing the scope and quality of their online communities. Participants

outwardly stated that, at times, they sought more from their experiences with an online

brand community. Companies therefore may consider transitioning more customer

support to online media, since it is less expensive and a more effective support channel

for customers. In addition, the potential for WOM to influence the brand via online

communities cannot be underestimated. Previous research has suggested the importance

of rumor control and response; this is relevant to bolstering online brand communities

(Dubois et al., 2011). A dearth of employee presence online is a lost opportunity to sculpt

and control a brand’s narrative. For example, Laroche et al. (2012) found that brand

communities enable businesses to learn consumers’ perceptions regarding new products

and competitive actions.

Future implications. Understanding and responding to consumer opinions on

brand perception and loyalty is more important than ever in the contemporary world.

Consumers can easily search for good deals and different options, enhancing competition

among businesses and often making service quality a defining factor. This study

demonstrated that consumers seriously consider brand choices prior to purchase and do

not offer blind loyalty. An important implication of this study is that businesses can use a

similarly designed questionnaire to learn about and bolster their product and service

qualities. Each person’s reasoning for selecting a product is subjective and dependent on

many different factors, and this goes beyond impersonal mathematical measurements of

brand loyalty. Therefore, the qualitative elements of this study are not only innovative,

but also indispensable to brand loyalty and perception.

162

Recommendations

While this study was an important launching pad for qualitative research on the

topic of branded online communities, brand loyalty, and brand perception, additional

research could build on this foundation. Social media is ubiquitous and consumer

participation in online brand communities will continue to trend upward rapidly. It is

inevitable for social media to become the dominant force in brand communities.

This research had a limited number of participants. Future research with a larger

number of participants could expand upon this study and lend additional validation to its

findings. In addition to increasing the number of participants, a more diversified

population is another recommendation. Researching online branded communities within

other industries could yield different results or reinforce the results within this study. Yet

another recommendation would be an in-depth study regarding repeat purchases or brand

changing. This could offer additional insights on brand loyalty and brand perception.

Since marketing has changes over time, the field could also benefit from research with

more up-to-date information on brand loyalty and brand perception in the Internet age.

Quantitative research is another recommendation. While qualitative research can provide

much benefit and insights, a quantitative study could provide a different perspective on

this topic.

There is a dearth of information on the influence of online brand communities on

brand perception and loyalty (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012; Goh et al., 2013; Kaplan &

Haenlein, 2010). This gap could benefit from additional research. Studies and

investigations on this transcend beyond academia. Companies frequently expend

resources on marketing research and development, and those concerned about brand

163

perception and loyalty can examine the results of this study to improve their

understanding of their online interactions. Many companies have deployed online

branded communities for various reasons including a desire to improve brand loyalty and

brand perception. Yet, many of these same companies lack in understanding the

motivation for participation in an online branded community. This study advances the

scientific knowledge of online branded communities. In particular, the results from this

study clearly suggest benefits of having an online branded community. However,

companies and organizations should not assume an online branded community could

provide enough value to offset products and services that lack features or have poor

quality. Given the dominance of online communities on modern communication, both

companies and customers stand to serve their best interests by greater investments in

online participation.

Recommendations for future research. The topic of participation in online

branded communities could benefit from further research. For example, modern-day

marketing uses algorithms to gauge specific preferences on an individual level. If an

individual loves Philadelphia baseball, for example, one could derive this preference

without interacting directly with the consumer. Marketing organizations can learn these

preferences and cater to them to create more targeted marketing campaigns. Future

research can use these algorithmic methods to determine brand loyalty. An individual’s

search patterns can teach a great deal about brand loyalty. Future practices could

potentially measure brand loyalty with mathematical algorithms, to analyze larger

populations and quantify levels of brand loyalty. Personal opinions and perceptions have

their place in furthering brand management, but such information is not concrete and one

164

must interpret these perceptions and opinions. Modern technology provides the

opportunity to monitor online behavior, which can shed light on brand perception and

loyalty. Positive or negative connotations from participants in online communities can

give the opportunity to measure perception. Furthermore, how often an individual

participates in certain communities can be measured directly, which can be used to gauge

loyalty.

The topic of participation in online branded communities could benefit from

additional research, both qualitative and quantitative, to expand and deepen the

understanding of the dynamics of participation in online communities. A summary of the

suggestions within this research are:

 Increasing the scope of the research could advance the scientific knowledge in the area of online branded communities. One could accomplish this by increasing the

study’s sample size, examining communities from other industries, or by

analyzing more than one community within one study.

 The application of algorithms to gauge user preferences could be a part of future research. Such an approach could be an innovative way to analyze consumer

loyalty and preference. This approach could provide insights without the need to

interact directly with consumers.

 Future researchers could utilize contextual analysis software in a sentiment analysis. Such an approach could provide insights into the degree of preference

for a product or brand. One could even go deeper by examining the sentiment of

individual features of a product. Such research could expand on the MOA model

described by MacInnis et al. (1991).

 An in-depth study on repeat purchases and brand switching could add to the scientific knowledge on branded online communities. This research project did

not take into consideration the number of times participants purchased a particular

brand or how often participants switched brands. Future research that includes

these dynamics in a detailed study of an online branded community could add to

the scientific knowledge of C2C exchange as described by Gruen et al. (2007).

The use of online branded communities is expanding and an important tool for

any company selling directly or indirectly to consumers. These communities are part of a

165

broad social media movement that is shifting power from companies to consumers.

Companies would benefit from researchers adding to the scientific knowledge by

expanding on this research.

Recommendations for future practice. Examined in this study were two

research questions. The first stated, “How does participating in an online brand

community affect an individual’s perceptions of the brand?” The second question was,

“How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s loyalty to

the brand?” The answers to these questions provide businesses and researchers with

knowledge and opportunities to improve their online communities and further studies on

brand loyalty and brand perception.

It would have been reasonable to predict a relatively high level of brand loyalty

because of participation in the online community. However, the data did not support this

position. Price, product features, and other performance-related criteria often influenced

brand decisions more so than participation in the community. Brand perception within the

community had slightly different results. At times, participants’ negative perceptions of a

brand increased based on poor experiences with an online community. Furthermore,

positive experiences at times left participants with a sense of satisfaction and appreciation

for the online attention. The online participation also had the influence of making

participants feel part of a community. For the most part, online experiences were less

important than price and performance when participants described their loyalty and

perception.

This research is an important first step toward a new and important area of study

and business. Companies are just beginning to offer online options for direct customer

166

service interactions. The literature review demonstrated that brand management is an

important focus for businesses (Fuciu & Dumitrescu, 2010; Mercer, 2010; M’zungu et

al., 2010; Shamoon & Tehsee, 2011). A brand’s online presence, if not already one of the

most important mediums of brand management, will likely become one. Lacking an

online presence is most likely not a good decision for a brand in a global, connected

world. Overlooking the research into the influence of online brand communities would be

a serious misstep for the business and academic worlds. This study can advance the

interests of successful business and brand management in the modern, Internet-driven

world. In particular, brand managers, social media strategists, customer service leaders,

and those in similar positions could benefit from this research. Some recommendations

for those in such positions are:

 Define the company objectives for having an online branded community prior to launching a community. This will help ensure the community supports the

company objectives.

 Identify participants who could be superfans and cultivate them as key contributors to the community. This is an ongoing process as some superfans lose

interest over time and there is a need to develop new superfans to keep the

community active and the content fresh.

 Actively monitor and moderate the community while allowing open and free discussion and debate. Strike a balance between healthy interactions between

participants and ensuring an environment that is free of inappropriate behavior.

 Ensure company employees are engaged and available to participants to ensure the participants feel the company is listening.

The use of online communities is a tremendous opportunity for companies. These

communities can have a positive influence on a brand. Communities also provide a

valuable conduit of direct feedback from customers. This feedback can help companies

improve their products and business practices.

167

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,

347–356. doi:10.2307/3151897

Aiello, L. M., Barrat, A., Cattuto, C., Schifanella, R., & Ruffo, G. (2012). Link creation

and information spreading over social and communication ties in an interest-based

online social network. EPJ Data Science, 1(12). doi:10.1140/epjds12

Avis, M. (2012). Brand personality factor based models: A critical review. Australasian

Marketing Journal, 20, 89–96. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.08.003

Avis, M., Aitken, R., & Ferguson, S. (2012). Brand relationship and personality theory

metaphor or consumer perceptual reality? Marketing Theory, 12, 311–331.

doi:10.1177/1470593112451396

Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C., & Calantone, R. (2015). Online brand community

engagement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business

Research, 68(5), 978-985.

Balmer, J. M. (2012). Corporate brand management imperatives: Custodianship,

credibility, and calibration. California Management Review, 54(3), 6–33.

Retrieved from http://cmr.berkeley.edu/

Barnham, C. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of

Market Research, 57(6), 837-854. doi:10.2501/IJMR-2015-070

Bastos, W., & Levy, S. J. (2012). A history of the concept of branding: Practice and

theory. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4, 347–368.

doi:10.1108/17557501211252934

168

Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2),

1–16. doi:10.1108/17557501211252934

Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of

crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 800–813.

doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0

Bennett, W. L. (2012). The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and

changing patterns of participation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 644, 20–39. doi:10.1177/0002716212451428

Bernard, H. R., & Bernard, H. R. (2012). Social research methods: Qualitative and

quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0,

social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing

strategy. Business Horizons, 55, 261–271. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2012.01.007

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking a

tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative Health

Research, doi:10.1177.1049732316654870.

Boblin, S. L., Ireland, S., Kirkpatrick, H., & Robertson, K. (2013). Using Stake’s

qualitative case study approach to explore implementation of evidence-based

practice. Qualitative health research, 1049732313502128.

Borden, N. H. (1964). The concept of the marketing mix. Journal of Advertising

Research, 4(2), 2–7. Retrieved from

http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/

169

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a

virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research,

66, 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029

Carter, Nancy,R.N., PhD., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, Alba,R.N., PhD., Blythe, J.,

PhD., & Neville, Alan J, MBChB, MEd,M.R.C.P., F.R.C.P.(c). (2014). The use of

triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-7.

Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory

analysis. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the

craft, 2(2002).

Chau, M., & Xu, J. (2012). Business intelligence in blogs: Understanding consumer

interactions and communities. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1189–1216. Retrieved from

http://misq.org/

Child, J. T., Haridakis, P. M., & Petronio, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations,

privacy management, and content deletion practices: The variability of online

privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in

Human Behavior, 28, 1859–1872. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.004

Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis. Psychologist, 26(2), 120-

123.

Clatworthy, S. (2012). Bridging the gap between brand strategy and customer experience.

Managing Service Quality, 22, 108–127. doi:10.1108/09604521211218936

Cousin, G. (2013). Getting to the bottom of the well: The value of qualitative research

into teaching and learning. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 1, 123–

136. doi:10.14426/cristal.v1i1.11

170

Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: new forms of

customer empowerment-the case “My Nutella The Community”. European

Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 1087-1105.

Cronin, C. (2014). Using case study research as a rigorous form of inquiry. Nurse

Researcher, 21, 19–27. doi:10.7748/nr.21.5.19.e1240

Davcik, N. S., Vinhas da Silva, R., & Hair, J. F. (2015). Towards a unified theory of

brand equity: conceptualizations, taxonomy and avenues for future

research. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 3-17.

doi:10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0639

de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & 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, 26, 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.003

Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Consumer engagement in

online brand communities: A social media perspective. Journal of Product &

Brand Management, 24, 28–42. doi:10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635

Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2011). From rumors to facts, and facts to

rumors: The role of certainty decay in consumer communications. Journal of

Marketing Research, 48, 1020–1032. doi:10.1509/jmr.09.0018

Eryigit, C., & Eryigit, M. (2014). Understanding the effectiveness of positioning bases

with regard to customer perceptions. Journal of Global Marketing, 27, 85–93.

doi:10.1080/08911762.2013.864371

171

Fatma, S. (2014). Antecedents and consequences of customer experience management- a

literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Business and

Commerce, 3(6), 32–49. Retrieved from http://www.ijbcnet.com/

Felix, R. (2012). Brand communities for mainstream brands: The example of the Yamaha

R1 brand community. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 225–232.

doi:10.1108/07363761211221756

Fetscherin, M., & Usunier, J. C. (2012). Corporate branding: An interdisciplinary

literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 46, 733–753.

doi:10.1108/03090561211212494

Fuciu, M., & Dumitrescu, L. (2010). What can companies do to make their brand

stronger? Studies in Business and Economics, 5, 62–69. Retrieved from

http://eccsf.ulbsibiu.ro/

Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., & Wiertz, C. (2013). Managing brands in

the social media environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 242–256.

doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.004

Giebelhausen, M., Robinson, S. G., Sirianni, N. J., & Brady, M. K. (2014). Touch vs.

Tech: When technology functions as a barrier or a benefit to service encounters.

Journal of Marketing, 78, 113–124. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0056

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in

inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research

Methods, 16, 15–31. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151

172

Goh, K. Y., Heng, C. S., & Lin, Z. (2013). Social media brand community and consumer

behavior: Quantifying the relative impact of user-and marketer-generated content.

Information Systems Research, 24, 88–107. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0469

Gordon, R. (2012). Re-thinking and re-tooling the social marketing mix. Australasian

Marketing Journal, 20, 122–126. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.10.005

Goulding, C., Shankar, A., & Canniford, R. (2013). Learning to be tribal: Facilitating the

formation of consumer tribes. European Journal of Marketing, 47, 813–832.

doi:10.1108/03090561311306886

Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation

and co-creation. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133-150.

doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3

Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-to-customer

exchange: Its MOA antecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 537–549.

doi:10.1007/s11747-006-0012-2

Gruner, R. L., Homburg, C., & Lukas, B. A. (2014). Firm-hosted online brand

communities and new product success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 42, 29–48. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0334-9

Halvorsen, K., Hoffmann, J., Coste-Manière, I., & Stankeviciute, R. (2013). Can fashion

blogs function as a marketing tool to influence consumer behavior? Evidence

from Norway. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 4, 211–224.

doi:10.1080/20932685.2013.790707

173

Hampf, A., & Lindberg-Repo, K. (2011, June 14). The past, present, and future: A study

of the evolution and future of branding (Working Paper 556). Retrieved from

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/26578/556_978-952-232-134-

3.pdf?sequence=1

Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the

social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54, 265–273.

doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007

Hardy, S., Norman, B., & Sceery, S. (2012). Toward a history of sport branding. Journal

of Historical Research in Marketing, 4, 482–509.

doi:10.1108/17557501211281824

Harris, L., & Rae, A. (2010). The online connection: transforming marketing strategy for

small businesses. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(2), 4-12.

Harvey, L. (2015). Beyond member-checking: A dialogic approach to the research

interview. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(1), 23-

38.

Hashim, K. F., & Tan, F. B. (2015). The mediating role of trust and commitment on

members’ continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory

perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 35, 145–151.

doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.11.001

Hede, A. M., & Kellett, P. (2012). Building online brand communities Exploring the

benefits, challenges and risks in the Australian event sector. Journal of Vacation

Marketing, 18, 239–250. doi:10.1177/1356766712449370

174

Ho, C. H., Chiu, K. H., Chen, H., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2015). Can internet blogs be

used as an effective advertising tool? The role of product blog type and brand

awareness. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28, 346–362.

doi:10.1108/JEIM-03-2014-0021

Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in

social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of

interactive marketing, 28(2), 149-165.

Hudson, S., & Thal, K. (2013). The impact of social media on the consumer decision

process: Implications for tourism marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 30, 156–160. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.751276

Hui-Chen, C., Kuen-Hung, T., & Chen-Yi, P. (2014). The entrepreneurial process: An

integrated model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10,

727–745. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0305-8

Hur, W.-M., Ahn, K.-H., & Kim, M. (2011). Building brand loyalty through managing

brand community commitment. Management Decision, 49, 1194–1213.

doi:10.1108/00251741111151217

Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of emotional aspects in younger

consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21, 98–

108. doi:10.1108/10610421211215517

Hyette, N., Kenny, A., Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical

review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative

Studies on Health and Well-being, 9, Article 23606. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.23606

175

Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting

interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10. Retrieved from

http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3

Jara, M., & Cliquet, G. (2012). Retail brand equity: Conceptualization and measurement.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19, 140–149.

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2011.11.003

Jepson, A., Clarke, A., & Ragsdell, G. (2013). Applying the motivation-opportunity-

ability (MOA) model to reveal factors that influence inclusive engagement within

local community festivals: The case of UtcaZene 2012. International Journal of

Event and Festival Management, 4, 186–205. doi:10.1108/IJEFM-06-2013-0011

Jin, N., Lee, S., & Huffman, L. (2012). Impact of restaurant experience on brand image

and customer loyalty: Moderating role of dining motivation. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 29, 532–551. doi:10.1080/10548408.2012.701552

Kapferer, J. (2012). The New Strategic Brand Management : Advanced Insights and

Strategic Thinking (5). London, GB: Kogan Page.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.

doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2012). The Britney Spears universe: Social media and

viral marketing at its best. Business Horizons, 55, 27–31.

doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.08.009

176

Kastberg, P. (2012). What’s in a brand? Notes on the history and main functions of

branding. Language at Work: Bridging Theory and Practice, 5(8). Retrieved from

http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/law/index

Keiningham, T. L., Frennea, C. M., Aksoy, L., Buoye, A., & Mittal, V. (2015). A five-

component customer commitment model implications for repurchase intentions in

goods and services Industries. Journal of Service Research, 18(4), 433-450.

Keller, E., & Libai, B. (2009). A holistic approach to the measurement of WOM its

impact on consumer's decisions. ESOMAR: Worldwide multimedia measurement,

1-12.

Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M. G., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic brand management:

Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (4th ed.). Old Tappan, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework:

How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 22, 166–176. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.006

Kietzmann, J. H., Silvestre, B. S., McCarthy, I. P., & Pitt, L. F. (2012). Unpacking the

social media phenomenon: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Public

Affairs, 12, 109–119. doi:10.1002/pa.1412

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social

media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media.

Business Horizons, 54, 241–251. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

177

Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer

equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business

Research, 65, 1480–1486. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014

Kim, H., Hur, D., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). When buyer‐driven knowledge transfer

activities really work: A motivation‐opportunity‐ability (moa) perspective.

Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(3), 33–60. doi:10.1111/jscm.12077

Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social

responsibility. Journal Of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51-84.

doi:10.1257/jel.50.1.51

Klaus, P., & Maklan, S. (2013). Towards a better measure of customer

experience. International Journal Of Market Research, 55(2), 227-246.

Kotowski, M. R., & dos Santos, G. M. (2010). The role of the connector in bridging

borders through virtual communities. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 25, 150–

158. doi:10.1080/08865655.2010.9695777

Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, J. S. (2010). Networked

narratives: Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities.

Journal of Marketing, 74, 71–89. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.2.71

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krystallis, A., & Chrysochou, P. (2014). The effects of service brand dimensions on

brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 139-147.

178

Kumaravel, V., & Kandasamy, C. (2012). To what extent the brand image influence

consumers’ purchase decision on durable products. Romanian Journal of

Marketing, 2012(1), 34. Retrieved from http://www.revistademarketing.ro

Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., & Richard, M. O. (2013). To be or not to be in social media:

How brand loyalty is affected by social media? International Journal of

Information Management, 33, 76–82. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.003

Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects

of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value

creation practices, and brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human

Behavior, 28, 1755–1767. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.016

Lee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y. J., & Mun, Y. Y. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of

mobile phone usability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust,

and brand loyalty. Information & Management, 52, 295–304.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.12.001

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout

the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 8069-96. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative

research. Journal Of Family Medicine & Primary Care, 4(3), 324-327.

doi:10.4103/2249-4863.161306

179

Leung, X. Y., & Bai, B. (2013). How motivation, opportunity, and ability impact

travelers’ social media involvement and revisit intention. Journal of Travel &

Tourism Marketing, 30, 58–77. doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.751211

Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative

methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 162–180. doi:10.1111/j.1541-

0072.1998.tb01931.x

Liu, Y., Kiang, M., & Brusco, M. (2012). A unified framework for market segmentation

and its applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 10292–10302.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.161

Liu, Y., & Lopez, R. A. (2014). The impact of social media conversations on consumer

brand choices. Marketing Letters, 27, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9321-2

Luca, N. R., & Suggs, L. S. (2013). Theory and model use in social marketing health

interventions. Journal of Health Communication, 18(1), 20-40.

DOI:10.1080/10810730.2012.688243

Lundqvist, A., Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Van Riel, A. (2013). The impact of

storytelling on the consumer brand experience: The case of a firm-originated

story. Journal of Brand Management, 20, 283–297. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.15

Lysonski, S., & Durvasula, S. (2013). Consumer decision making styles in retailing:

Evolution of mindsets and psychological impacts. The Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 30(1), 75-87.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/07363761311290858

MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements:

Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23. Retrieved

180

from https://www.ama.org/publications/JournalOfMarketing/Pages/Current-

Issue.aspx

MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring

consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information

from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53. Retrieved from

https://www.ama.org/publications/JournalOfMarketing/Pages/Current-Issue.aspx

Madianou, M. (2013). Humanitarian campaigns in social media: network architectures

and polymedia events. Journalism Studies, 14, 249–266.

doi:10.1080/1461670x.2012.718558

Mahar, G. J. (2007). Factors affecting participation in online communities of practice.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5, 151–160. Retrieved from

http://www.ijbssnet.com/

Maramwidze-Merrison, E. (2016). Innovative methodologies in qualitative research:

Social media window for accessing organisational elites for interviews. Electronic

Journal Of Business Research Methods, 14(2), 157-167.

Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering

community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 23(5), 631–656. doi:10.1007/BF02506985

Matzler, K., Pichler, E., Füller, J., & Mooradian, T. A. (2011). Personality, person–brand

fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand

communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 874–890.

doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.543634

181

McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2012). Building communities of philanthropy in

higher education: contextual influences. International Journal of Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17, 122–131. doi:10.1002/nvsm.1415

Mehta, M., & Anand, R. (2012). Social media and micro-entrepreneurs: Lifestyle

marketing. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 1(3), 46–50. Retrieved

from http://www.publishingindia.com/jem/

Mercer, J. (2010). A mark of distinction: Branding and trade mark law in the UK from

the 1860s. Business History, 52, 17–42. doi:10.1080/00076790903281033

Merchant, A., & Rose, G. M. (2013). Effects of advertising-evoked vicarious nostalgia on

brand heritage. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2619–2625.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.021

Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morandin, G., Bagozzi, R. P., & Bergami, M. (2013). Brand community membership and

the construction of meaning. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 173–183.

doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2013.03.003

Morgan-Thomas, A., & Veloutsou, C. (2013). Beyond technology acceptance: Brand

relationships and online brand experience. Journal of Business Research, 66, 21–

27. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.019

Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising

effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 279–286. doi:10.1086/208923

182

Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: A global perspective.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7, 275–290.

doi:10.1108/10610429810229799

Muniz Jr., A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal Of Consumer

Research, 27(4), 412-432.

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring

motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of

Advertising, 30, 13–46. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046

Muzellec, L., Lynn, T., & Lambkin, M. (2012). Branding in fictional and virtual

environments: Introducing a new conceptual domain and research agenda.

European Journal of Marketing, 46, 811–826. doi:10.1108/03090561211214618

M’zungu, S. D., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2010). Brand management to protect brand

equity: A conceptual model. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 605–617.

doi:10.1057/bm.2010.15

Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the “like” button: the

impact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in

social media settings. Journal of Marketing, 76, 105–120.

doi:10.1509/jm.11.0105

Newbery, P., & Farnham, K. (2013). Experience design: A framework for integrating

brand, experience, and value. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

O'Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of

the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research,

13(2), 190-197. doi:10.1177/1468794112455037

183

Pereira-Correia, P., García, I., Romo, Z. S. & Contreras-Espinosa, R. (2014). The

importance of Facebook as an online social networking tool for companies.

International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 22, 295–

320. doi:10.1108/IJAIM-08-2013-0050

Peterson, R. A., & Jolibert, A. J. P. (1995). A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects.

Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 883–900.

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490824

Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Moital, M., & Beth Gouthro, M. (2013). Social layers of

customer-to-customer value co-creation. Journal of Service Management, 24,

553–566. doi:10.1108/jsom-04-2013-0092

Rizwan, M., Javed, P. A., Aslam, J., Khan, R., & Bibi, H. (2014). The relationship of

brand commitment, brand credibility, perceived quality, customer satisfaction and

brand loyalty: An empirical study on Stylo shoes. Journal of Sociological

Research, 5, 377–404. doi:10.5296/jsr.v5i1.6572

Rohm, A., Kaltcheva, V. D., & Milne, G. R. (2013). A mixed-method approach to

examining brand-consumer interactions driven by social media. Journal of

Research in Interactive Marketing, 7, 295–311. doi:10.1108/JRIM-01-2013-0009

Rohra, D., & Sharma, D. (2016). Qualitative study on brand passion: The role of

admiration and experience. South Asian Journal Of Management, 23(2), 90-108.

Sánchez Abril, P., Levin, A., & Del Riego, A. (2012). Blurred boundaries: Social media

privacy and the twenty‐first‐century employee. American Business Law

Journal, 49(1), 63–124. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1714.2011.01127.x

http://search.proquest.com/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/105993/International+Journal+of+Accounting+and+Information+Management/02014Y10Y01$232014$3b++Vol.+22+$284$29/22/4?accountid=33262

184

Saramäki, J., Leicht, E. A., López, E., Roberts, S. G., Reed-Tsochas, F., & Dunbar, R. I.

(2014). Persistence of social signatures in human communication. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, 111(3), 942-947.

Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 22, 7–17. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.005

Schmitt, B., Zarantonello, L., & Brakus, J. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is

it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52–68.

doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52

Schultz, D. E., & Block, M. P. (2012). Rethinking brand loyalty in an age of

interactivity. IUP Journal of Brand Management, 9(3), 21–39. Retrieved from

http://www.iupindia.in/brand_management.asp

Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M.,

Agrawal, M., . . . Ungar, L. H. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the

language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PloS One, 8(9),

e73791. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073791

See-To, E. m., & Del Rio, P. A. (2011). The effect of trust and intention on virtual brand

communities in online social networks: A comparison between Facebook and

Twitter from a B2C e-commerce perspective. Annual International Conference

On Software Engineering & Applications, 76-80.

See-To, E. W. K., & Ho, K. K. W. (2014). Value co-creation and purchase intention in

social network sites: The role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust – a

theoretical analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 182–189.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.013

185

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. Teachers college press.

Seo, M. S., & Park, D. W. (2014). A study on the encryption of searching, deleting, and

restricting access of personal information in smart PCs. International Journal of

Information Processing & Management, 5, 124–131. Retrieved from

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21100223564&tip=sid

Shahrokh, Z. D., & Dadvand, A. (2014). Investigating the relationship between brand

development and company image; (case study: nivea products). Kuwait Chapter

of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(10), 23–27.

doi:10.12816/0018388

Shamoon, S., & Tehsee, S. (2011). Brand management: What next? Interdisciplinary

Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 435–441. Retrieved from

http://ijcrb.webs.com/

Shih, T. H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A

meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249–271. doi:10.1177/1525822X08317085

Simkin, L., & Dibb, S. (2013). Social media’s impact on market segmentation and

CRM. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21, 391–393.

doi:10.1080/0965254X.2013.801598

Singh, B. (2012). Emerging trends in branding strategy. International Journal of

Marketing & Business Communication, 1(3), 34-42.

Singh, S., & Sonnenburg, S. (2012). Brand performances in social media. Journal of

Interactive Marketing, 26, 189–197. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.001

186

Sirapracha, J., & Tocquer, G. (2012). Branding and customer experience in the wireless

telecommunication industry. International Journal of Trade, Economics &

Finance, 3, 103–108. doi:10.7763/IJTEF.2012.V3.181

Snelson, C. L. (2016). Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: A review of

the literature. International Journal Of Qualitative Methods, 1-15.

doi:10.1177/1609406915624574

Spence, C. (2012). Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands:

Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 22, 37–54. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.004

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Sukwadi, R., Yang, C., & Fan, L. (2012). Capturing customer value creation based on

service experience – a case study on News Café. Journal of The Chinese Institute

Of Industrial Engineers, 29(6), 383-399. doi:10.1080/10170669.2012.713033

Sun, H. (2013). Moderating role of online word of mouth on website attributes and

consumer trust in e-commerce environment. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13,

2316–2320. doi:10.3923/jas.2013.2316.2320

Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Nunes, N. J., Nóbrega, L., Fisk, R. P., & Constantine, L. (2012).

Customer experience modeling: from customer experience to service

design. Journal of Service Management, 23, 362–376.

doi:10.1108/09564231211248453

Toufaily, E., Ricard, L., & Perrien, J. (2013). Customer loyalty to a commercial website:

Descriptive meta-analysis of the empirical literature and proposal of an integrative

187

model. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1436–1447.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.011

Urde, M., & Koch, C. (2014). Market and brand-oriented schools of positioning. Journal

of Product & Brand Management, 23, 478–490. doi:10.1108/jpbm-11-2013-0445.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic

analysis: Implications for conducting a descriptive study. Nursing & Health

Sciences, 15, 398–405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048

Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior the roles of

information, opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral

Scientist, 57(7), 920–942. doi:10.1177/0002764213479375

Venter, P., Wright, A., & Dibb, S. (2015). Performing market segmentation: a

performative perspective. Journal Of Marketing Management, 31(1-2), 62-83.

doi:10.1080/0267257X.2014.980437

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., &

Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics

and management strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85, 31–41.

doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001

von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2013). Brand orientation and brand values in

retail banking. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1007–1029.

doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.796323

188

Wang, Y. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2012). Brand marketing for creating brand value based on

a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods. Expert

Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5600-5615.

Wexler, M. N. (2011). Reconfiguring the sociology of the crowd: Exploring

crowdsourcing. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31, 6–20.

doi:10.1108/01443331111104779

Wiles, R., Crow, G., & Pain, H. (2011). Innovation in qualitative research methods: a

narrative review. Qualitative Research, 11, 587–604.

doi:10.1177/1468794111413227

Wirtz, J., den Ambtman, A., Bloemer, J., Horváth, C., Ramaseshan, B., van de Klundert,

J., . . . Kandampully, J. (2013). Managing brands and customer engagement in

online brand communities. Journal of Service Management, 24, 223–244.

doi:10.1108/09564231311326978

Yannopoulou, N., Moufahim, M., & Bian, X. (2013). User-generated brands and social

media: Couchsurfing and AirBnb. Contemporary Management Research, 9, 85–

90. doi:10.7903/cmr.11116

Yi, Y., & Jeon, H. (2003). Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program

loyalty, and brand loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31,

229–240. doi:10.1177/0092070303031003002

Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage publications.

Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of

Business Research, 66, 216–223. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.015

189

Zhang, H., & Niu, Z. (2015, June). A holistic model of brand equity management for

hotel companies: Understanding the role of employees in brand building. In 12th

International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (pp. 1–5).

doi:10.1109/ICSSSM.2015.7170148

Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and

future direction. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(3), 417-434.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10796-012-9350-4

Zheng, X., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Liang, L. (2015). Building brand loyalty

through user engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites.

Information Technology & People, 28, 90–106. doi:10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144

Zhu, R., Dholakia, U. M., Chen, X., & Algesheimer, R. (2012). Does online community

participation foster risky financial behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 49,

394–407. doi:10.1509/jmr.08.0499

190

Appendix A

Site Authorization Letter

Site authorization is on file at Grand Canyon University

191

Appendix B

Informed Consent

Grand Canyon University College of Doctoral Studies 3300 W. Camelback Road

Phoenix, AZ 85017 Phone: 602-639-6106

Fax: 602- 639-7820

INFORMED CONSENT FORM (SOCIAL BEHAVIORAL)

MINIMAL RISK SAMPLE

CONSENT FORM

BRANDED ONLINE COMMUNITIES, BRAND PERCEPTION, AND BRAND

LOYALTY

INTRODUCTION

The purposes of this form are to provide you (as a prospective research study participant) information that

may affect your decision as to whether or not to participate in this research and to record the consent of

those who agree to be involved in the study.

RESEARCH

Mark Groveunder, a doctoral learner at Grand Canyon University, is conducting a qualitative study on

how participation in an online branded community may influence brand perception and brand loyalty.

STUDY PURPOSE

The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore how participation in online communities affects

brand perception and brand loyalty from the perception of 10 expert participants in an online community

in the United States. In this study, participants in an online community will be individuals are considered

to be the top contributors to the community. These top contributors typically make up less than 1% of

the community population, but contribute around 80% of the useable content in the community. The

objective is to gain an understanding of the participants’ perspectives of the brand and what this means

to the participants’ loyalty.

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STUDY

If you decide to participate, then as a study participant you will join a qualitative study that will look

at the how’s and why’s of participation in an online branded community. The primary method of data

collection will be a semi-structured interview. The interviews will be conducted via Skype. The audio

of the interview will be recorded. The recorded calls will be transposed so that a content analysis can

be done. With a semi-structured interview the participant is allowed to freely answer questions.

192

RISKS

There are no known risks from taking part in this study, but in any research, there is some possibility that

you may be subject to risks that have not yet been identified.

BENEFITS

Although there may be no direct benefits to you, the possible benefits of your participation in the research

are improvements to the brand’s community that may indirectly benefit all participants of the community.

NEW INFORMATION If new information is found during the study that would reasonably change your decision about

participating, then they will provide this information to you.

CONFIDENTIALITY All information obtained in this study is strictly confidential. The results of this research study may be

used in reports, presentations, and publications, but you will not be identified. In order to maintain

confidentiality of your records, Mark Groveunder will assign a code to each participant. This code will be

used to identify the individual interviews, but will not link back to any personal information of the

participant. .Each recorded call and related transposed text will only be identified by the assigned code.

This approach will ensure anonymity of the participants. All documents and recordings will be kept for

no more than 3 years. No hardcopies of documents will be kept. All records will be held electronically in

a secured storage with strong password for access. WITHDRAWL PRIVILEGE

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. It is ok for you to say no. Even if you say yes now, you

are free to say no later, and withdraw from the study at any time. If any conversations with you have been

recorded, those recordings, along with any transcriptions, will be destroyed should you withdraw from the

study.

COSTS AND PAYMENTS Your decision about participating in the study to be absolutely voluntary. A global system for facilitating

the calls so as to avoid any telecom costs for the participants. There is no payment for your participation

in the study.

Questions will be adjusted as the interview takes place to allow the participant to make meaningful

comments relevant to the study. If the participant is uncomfortable answering any question, that

question may be skipped.

If you say YES, then your participation will likely be a single session. A follow up call may be need for

clarification. However your participation is not expected to last more than two phone calls both within a

single month. There will be approximately 10 participants globally. All of the participants will be top

contributors to the community that is being studied.

193

VOLUNTARY CONSENT Any questions you have concerning the research study or your participation in the study, before or after

your consent, will be answered by Mark Groveunder. Contact information for Mark Groveunder is

provided below:

Mark Groveunder

[email protected]

254-541-9496

If you have questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have

been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board, through the College of

Doctoral Studies at (602) 639-6106.

This form explains the nature, demands, benefits and any risk of the project. By signing this form you

agree knowingly to assume any risks involved. Remember, your participation is voluntary. You may

choose not to participate or to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without

penalty or loss of benefit. In signing this consent form, you are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or

remedies. A copy of this consent form will be given (offered) to you.

Your signature below indicates that you consent to participate in the above study. By signing the document

you are granting the right to record your voice during a conference call for the purpose of this study.

___________________________ _________________________ ____________

Subject's Signature Printed Name Date

___________________________ _________________________ ____________

Other Signature Printed Name Date

(if appropriate)

INVESTIGATOR’S STATEMENT

"I certify that I have explained to the above individual the nature and purpose, the potential benefits and

possible risks associated with participation in this research study, have answered any questions that have

been raised, and have witnessed the above signature. These elements of Informed Consent conform to the

Assurance given by Grand Canyon University to the Office for Human Research Protections to protect

the rights of human subjects. I have provided (offered) the subject/participant a copy of this signed consent

document."

Signature of Investigator______________________________________ Date___________

194

Appendix C

Interview Questions

a. What is your perception of Acer’s brand?

b. How long have you been participating in Acer’s community?

c. What products do you discuss most often in the Acer community? Why do you

discuss these products?

d. Do you look for other member’s answers before you post a question?

e. If you post an answer to another member, what process do you go through to

develop your answer?

f. Tell me about your experience with the Acer community – what is your opinion

of the setup of the Acer community?

g. Do you participate in other online communities?

i. What other companies and/or brands?

ii. What is your impression of these other communities? How do they compare to

Acer’s community?

iii. What is your level of participation in other online communities? For example,

are you considered a superfan in other communities?

iv. How would you describe your brand loyalty to the companies that have these

communities?

v. What are some good ideas you have seen with other online communities?

vi. Has your brand loyalty changed after you started participating in this brand’s

community? If so, in what way have they changed?

195

h. What is your level of participation in the Acer online community? How often do

you read the community? How often do you post on the community? How often

do you respond to others in the community?

i. What particular online community brands have you had relevant expertise?

j. Could you please describe how a company brand could use online community in

marketing their products?

k. How do you define brand perception?

l. How do you define brand loyalty?

m. What elements are in online community that could influence brand perception and

brand loyalty?

n. Could you please describe how a company brand could use online community in

servicing or supporting their products?

o. What is your perception of the Acer brand?

p. Has your perception of the Acer brand changed since you started participating in

the Acer Community? If so, in what way has your perception changed?

q. Please describe a situation where online participation influences brand perception

and brand loyalty.

196

Appendix D

Case Study Protocol

A. Overview of the Case Study

B. Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore how participation

in online brand communities affects brand perception and brand loyalty from the

perception of the top contributors in an online community in the United States.

C. Case study questions:

a. How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

perceptions of the brand?

b. How does participating in an online brand community affect an individual’s

loyalty to the brand?

D. Theoretical framework: In the theory of C2C, knowledge exchange occurs in

situations where individuals participate in communication processes that detail the

concerns, complaints, and recommendations that enhance the well-being of the

consumer and the product (Gruen et al. 2007). In this study, the MOA model

focuses on the way members of the brand communities engage in marketing

communication processes to influence other potential members and brand users.

Companies frequently utilize brand communities to foster relationships with

customers and assist customers within the context of their branded products and

services. However, it is not known how participation in online brand communities

affects the perception and loyalty of a brand.

197

E. Role of protocol in guiding the case study researcher: The protocol contains the

instrument as well as the procedures and general rules to be followed using the

protocol (Yin, 2014)

F. Data Collection Procedures:

a. Social media specific to the brand will be collected using NVivo’s NCapture

feature. NCapture will be used to electronically capture the text from those

sites.

b. Online product reviews will be collected using NVivo’s NCapture feature.

Specific product pages for the brand on Walmart.com and Bestbuy.com will

be examined. NCapture will be used to capture the text from these web pages.

c. The video and audio of the semi-structured interviews of the superfans will be

recorded. These recordings will be transcribed into usable text and will import

the text into NVivo.

G. Data Collection Questions:

a. What is your perception of Acer’s brand?

b. How long have you been participating in Acer’s community?

c. What products do you discuss most often in the Acer community? Why do

you discuss these products?

d. Do you look for other member’s answers before you post a question?

e. If you post an answer to another member, what process do you go through to

develop your answer?

f. Tell me about your experience with the Acer community – what is your

opinion of the setup of the Acer community?

198

g. Do you participate in other online communities?

i. What other companies and/or brands?

ii. What is your impression of these other communities? How do they

compare to Acer’s community?

iii. What is your level of participation in other online communities? For

example, are you considered a superfan in other communities?

iv. How would you describe your brand loyalty to the companies that have

these communities?

v. What are some good ideas you have seen with other online communities?

vi. Has your brand loyalty changed after you started participating in this

brand’s community? If so, in what way have they changed?

h. What is your level of participation in the Acer online community? How often

do you read the community? How often do you post on the community? How

often do you respond to others in the community?

i. What particular online community brands have you had relevant expertise?

j. Could you please describe how a company brand could use online community

in marketing their products?

k. How do you define brand perception?

l. How do you define brand loyalty?

m. What elements are in online community that could influence brand perception

and brand loyalty?

n. Could you please describe how a company brand could use online community

in servicing or supporting their products?

199

o. What is your perception of the Acer brand?

p. Has your perception of the Acer brand changed since you started participating

in the Acer Community? If so, in what way has your perception changed?

q. Please describe a situation where online participation influences brand

perception and brand loyalty.

H. Guide for the Case Study Report

a. Audiences: Dissertation Committee, Chief Marketing Officer of Acer

b. This case study report will follow the GCU dissertation template.

c. APA 6th edition will be followed.

200

Appendix E

Process Map

Step 1 Project approval from Grand Canyon University Institutional Review Board

(IRB) and site approval.

Step 2 Obtain list of top community contributors and reach out to each individual

via email per IRB approved procedures. Allow participants two weeks to

respond/not respond and agree to participate/not participate.

Step 3 Destroy identifying information regarding individuals who did not consent to

participate.

Those participating will be assigned a unique personal identifier. The master

identifier list will be kept separately from all other data files and will be the

only way to match consenting participants to any data they provide.

Step 4 Begin importing social media posts from top community contributors who

consented to participate via NVivo 10 social media tools.

Step 5 After completion of social media post collection begin collecting brand

reviews from top community contributors via NVivo 10 web importing tools.

Data from steps 4 and 5 will not be reviewed until after all initial community

contributor interviews are completed. This will be done to keep each of the

data sets independent. Any unconscious framing of interview questions or

direction of the interview based on the online data would weaken the virtues

of triangulation.

Step 6 Randomly select 3 community contributors to participate in the pilot field

study of the interview guide via Skype.

Upon completion of each pilot interview, pilot participants will be asked to

provide feedback on all aspects of the interview and interview guide.

Feedback, if any, from the pilot interviews will be integrated into the

interview guide.

Pilot interview files will be saved in anonymous identifier form but not

uploaded for transcription.

Step 7 Begin conducting interviews with community contributors via Skype.

201

Step 8 After the completion of all the interviews, any identifying markers will be

removed from the raw the Skype media files. After the files are saved in

anonymous identifier form they will be transcribed.

Step 9 After transcription the interview transcripts will be loaded into NVivo 10

alongside the social media data set and the online reviews dataset.

Social media posts and brand reviews will not be scrubbed of identifying

information, as they are a public data source. However, if they are quoted in

the final results write-up, the user name or avatar name will be assigned a

pseudonym.

Thematic and content analysis will begin to uncover themes and patterns

across the three sets of data. A thematic analysis will be used for the

interviews. A content analysis will be used to identify themes that exist

within the social media postings and the online product reviews. In addition,

NVivo will allow one to run queries that will present word and phrase

distributions. This pattern-based auto coding will code large volumes of text

quickly and can reveal unique ways in which the brand is perceived in real

time – e.g. funny hashtags, odd verb or adjective usage around the brand, etc.

Step 10 Notations will be made in the NVivo system throughout the analysis that

highlight examples of the broad trends and patterns that emerge. These

highlights will provide primary evidence that will be included in the results

chapter when talking about the broader findings.

Step 11 Preliminary analysis along with a transcript of the individual’s interview will

be presented to each of the interview participants so that they may participate

in member checking.

Each participant will be advised that this process allows them the opportunity

edit, clarify, elaborate, or delete their own words from the work.

This also provides the opportunity for participants to approve aspects of the

interpretation of the data they provided.

Step 12 Revise and complete analysis and complete results write up.

Destroy any remaining personal information on the participants and collapse

all the data for archiving for 3 years until final destruction of electronic files

via software utility.

202

Appendix F

Social Media & Online Reviews Sample Data

Social Media Samples

Twitter

Facebook

Online Reviews Samples

Outstanding value 8-inch tablet Acer - Iconia One - 8 Tablet - 16GB - Wi-Fi - White @ BestBuy 21 hours ago For a hundred bucks you definitely can't beat the deal on this tablet. It's got decent performance for the price. Like all Android devices I have ever used it can occasionally be sluggish, especially when downloads and updates are going on in the background. 16GB of storage is also good at this price point. I dropped in a 64GB micro SD card with no troubles whatsoever. Pros: I don't take many pictures with tablets, however, did take a few. Camera is pretty decent and camera App has quite a few features. Quad core processor is pretty snappy. Nice bright display. Fast wifi Connected to my 5GHz network. Had latest version of Android 5.1 loaded. Probably will never see version 6 but 5.1 is nice. Good battery life. I liked the EZ Wakeup double tap and 2 thumb gesture even if it didn't always respond on the first try. My 11 year old daughter tried out the Kids Center App and said that it was kind of neat even though it's probably geared towards kids a little younger. Cons: Back case was a hard textured plastic with an unimpressive feel to it. Would be nice to have more than 1GB of RAM so don't plan on heavy multi-tasking. But for the price you can't really complain. Not sure what the bundled AppsGallery App adds beyond the play store. Seems like a waste of space but I understand that it recommends apps and probably also helps pay the bills. Don't care for the left swipe desktop app. There are not many options for feeds and it is not very configurable either. I'm still trying to figure out how to get rid of. Other thoughts: They seem ok but did not try Bundled Acer Portal apps for syncing files, music and pictures with a PC. Overall this is a great value for an Android tablet and blows most other budget tablets away in terms of what you get for the price. sdunnin

False advertised Acer - Aspire E 15 15.6 Laptop - Intel Core i5 - 4GB Memory - 1TB Hard Drive - Obsidian black @ BestBuy a day ago I bought 2 laptops during flash sale.Best Buy advertised on website as full HD 1080 screen, picked them up yesterday and realized that they are not 1080 but 768 not a full HD. I will return them back. VanHai

Row ID Tweet ID Username Tweet Time Tweet Type Retweeted By Number of Retweets Hashtags Mentions Name Location Web Bio Number of Tweets Number of Followers Number Following Location Coordinates

1 742415406342635520 W_Nilges @Acer why do I have to disassemble the whole thing for the CMOS battery? https://t.co/j424hMRya66/13/2016 12:56:40 PM Tweet 0 Acer TechnoStew Milky Way Galaxy https://t.co/MgcCNb6Yk1 568 49 20

2 742412242272948225 sadavasc

RT @sadavasc: #Laptop @Acer

#AspireE E5-473-C0KV 14" 4Gb

RAM 1Tb HDD $ 6,8,30.00

https://t.co/gNMA6923jV

@coloniapedregal #ssc

https://t.co… 6/13/2016 12:44:06 PM Retweet angelesdan 1 Laptop AspireE ssc Acer coloniapedregal SADAVA SC México, D.F. http://t.co/fQmgTsHj1t SADAVA Services & Consulting es una firma mexicana de jóvenes emprendedores que ofrece Soluciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Seguridad Electrónica.1104 108 143 +19.42847-099.12766/

3 742411834343333889 sadavasc

#Laptop @Acer #AspireE E5-473-

C0KV 14" 4Gb RAM 1Tb HDD $

6,8,30.00

https://t.co/gNMA6923jV

@coloniapedregal #ssc

https://t.co/prPXTV7Jcs 6/13/2016 12:42:29 PM Tweet 1 Laptop AspireE ssc Acer coloniapedregal SADAVA SC México, D.F. http://t.co/fQmgTsHj1t SADAVA Services & Consulting es una firma mexicana de jóvenes emprendedores que ofrece Soluciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Seguridad Electrónica.1104 108 143 +19.42847-099.12766/

4 742409209795465216 TracyGesare @Acer I think you just shrank the abacus system and packed it up as your new and advanced technology. 6/13/2016 12:32:03 PM Tweet 0 Acer Tracy Gesare Next Level https://t.co/y9ZWDrF8iP Journalist | Blogger | Writer 20882 849 1079

5 742407263328047104 TracyGesare @Acer and wasting my time. With your lacklustre support. You can reply to this tweet in 2074 as well. Since this is how you work. 6/13/2016 12:24:19 PM Tweet 0 Acer Tracy Gesare Next Level https://t.co/y9ZWDrF8iP Journalist | Blogger | Writer 20882 849 1079

6 742406943931793408 TracyGesare @Acer I am disappointed. I can't even help myself. Thank you too for wasting my enthusiasm for your "state of the art creation" 6/13/2016 12:23:03 PM Tweet 0 Acer Tracy Gesare Next Level https://t.co/y9ZWDrF8iP Journalist | Blogger | Writer 20882 849 1079

7 742406125929267200 Myextra75 @Acer bonsoir. Merci de me communiquer le process pour mettre la dernière version d'android sur ma iconia 501.6/13/2016 12:19:48 PM Tweet 0 Acer Myextra75 25 9 25

8 742405796567388160 TracyGesare https://t.co/dwIxa8sOSf Dear @Acer apparently you do not have an Acer centre in my country. And the above answers do not help.6/13/2016 12:18:29 PM Tweet 0 Acer Tracy Gesare Next Level https://t.co/y9ZWDrF8iP Journalist | Blogger | Writer 20882 849 1079

9 742403296502157312 TracyGesare @Acer thank you for helping me explore all possible hardships beyond limits with your ever failing system!!! You're the worst!!! Officially6/13/2016 12:08:33 PM Tweet 0 Acer Tracy Gesare Next Level https://t.co/y9ZWDrF8iP Journalist | Blogger | Writer 20882 849 1079

10 742402535298859008 DanceTheory Enter the PC Gamer @Acer Predator 17 Giveaway https://t.co/MCJn7wFOBY #gaming #pcgaming #videogames #sweepstakes6/13/2016 12:05:32 PM Tweet 0 gaming pcgaming videogames sweepstakesAcer ERlC California

Brand Ambassador. Cereal Thriller.

Music. Movies. Video games. TV.

Technology. MTB. Fitness. Food.

Sex. Stormtroopers.

#VaderGold #MelloGang

#TKPuppytrooper 36883 1742 2990 +34.68743-116.78467/

11 742400041701257216 keneory1 @Asus @HP @Acer @Dell @msitweets via MicrosoftASIA #mieexpert https://t.co/sXReTXVdUQ #mieexpert https://t.co/4fKpkx3MuH6/13/2016 11:55:37 AM Tweet 0 mieexpert mieexpert ASUS HP Acer Dell msitweets Nguyen Thi Hoang Anh Việt Nam https://t.co/PbxXoZYeHh Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert| Chemistry teacher at Secondary School in Bac Giang, Viet Nam.2259 360 1132 +16.16667+107.83333/

12 742395974450962432 sadavasc

RT @sadavasc: #Laptop @Acer

#AspireES ES1-521-20AU 15.6" 4Gb

RAM 500Gb HDD $ 6,810.00

https://t.co/gNMA6923jV

@elpedregaldf #ssc https://t.… 6/13/2016 11:39:28 AM Retweet angelesdan 1 Laptop AspireES ssc Acer elpedregaldf SADAVA SC México, D.F. http://t.co/fQmgTsHj1t SADAVA Services & Consulting es una firma mexicana de jóvenes emprendedores que ofrece Soluciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Seguridad Electrónica.1104 108 143 +19.42847-099.12766/

13 742395408450609152 sadavasc

#Laptop @Acer #AspireES ES1-521-

20AU 15.6" 4Gb RAM 500Gb HDD $

6,810.00

https://t.co/gNMA6923jV

@elpedregaldf #ssc

https://t.co/zu1ndutRls 6/13/2016 11:37:13 AM Tweet 1 Laptop AspireES ssc Acer elpedregaldf SADAVA SC México, D.F. http://t.co/fQmgTsHj1t SADAVA Services & Consulting es una firma mexicana de jóvenes emprendedores que ofrece Soluciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Seguridad Electrónica.1104 108 143 +19.42847-099.12766/

14 742384816289501184 sadavasc

RT @sadavasc: #Laptop @Acer

#AspireES ES1-421-2675 14" 4Gb

RAM 500Gb HDD $ 6,660.00

https://t.co/gNMA6923jV

@CIUDAD_SATELITE #ssc

https://t… 6/13/2016 10:55:07 AM Retweet angelesdan 1 Laptop AspireES ssc Acer CIUDAD_SATELITE SADAVA SC México, D.F. http://t.co/fQmgTsHj1t SADAVA Services & Consulting es una firma mexicana de jóvenes emprendedores que ofrece Soluciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Seguridad Electrónica.1104 108 143 +19.42847-099.12766/

Row ID Post ID Posted By Username Post Tagged Picture Link Link Name Link Caption Link Description Video Type Likes Created Time Updated Time Comment ID Commenter Username Comment Text In Reply To ID Comment Likes Comment Time

2 256554547543_10153667937992544 256554547543_10153667937992544_10153672333642544Sherrie Simpson I've sent you a pm acer... 0 6/13/2016 7:00:57 AM

3 256554547543_10153667937992544 256554547543_10153667937992544_10153670080657544Takudzwa Mutongwizo To hell with Acer 0 6/12/2016 7:56:05 AM

5 256554547543_10153667937992544 256554547543_10153667937992544_10153671981532544Acer Hey Takudzwa, we would like to help you out. Could you send us an inbox message with your contact details? We'll put you in contact with an expert who can help you out.256554547543_10153667937992544_101536700806575440 6/13/2016 1:51:27 AM

6 256554547543_10153667937992544 256554547543_10153667937992544_10153670338882544Takudzwa Mutongwizo I bought an Acer TravelMate 5730G and it has given me nothing but problems. The screen goes black and it tell me to consider changing battery when I am charging. Your South African branch doesnt help either. Mxm256554547543_10153667937992544_101536700806575440 6/12/2016 10:17:17 AM

7 256554547543_10153667937992544 256554547543_10153667937992544_10153670334057544Acer Hey Takudzwa, what problems have you experienced with our products?256554547543_10153667937992544_101536700806575440 6/12/2016 10:14:29 AM

8 256554547543_10153663191407544 Acer You know they say beauty comes from within? They were talking about the battery in our Liquid Zest Plus. http://spr.ly/6185BsTaZInternals\\(15) Acer_Sources\\Picture [8,4]https://www.facebook.com/Acer/photos/a.395554712543.172736.256554547543/10153663191407544/?type=3Timeline Photos photo 65 6/9/2016 10:00:02 AM 6/9/2016 10:00:02 AM

9 256554547543_10153663191407544 256554547543_10153663191407544_10153667031542544Shantanu Karmakar mind Blowing..(y) 1 6/11/2016 12:52:32 AM

10 256554547543_10153660971372544 Acer #Winning Internals\\(15) Acer_Sources\\Picture [10,4]https://www.facebook.com/Acer/photos/a.395554712543.172736.256554547543/10153660971372544/?type=3Timeline Photos photo 64 6/8/2016 10:07:32 AM 6/8/2016 10:07:32 AM

11 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153665945962544Blanche Lucas #Winning 0 6/10/2016 2:13:27 PM

12 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153665235577544Ruth Ndlovu

Liked & Shared

#Winning Acer the best *** 0 6/10/2016 7:36:49 AM

13 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153664947137544Vicky Mikhacani Chavalala #Winning 0 6/10/2016 3:50:32 AM

14 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153664870317544Angelique Meuter #Winning Acer. Like and shared 0 6/10/2016 3:11:39 AM

15 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153664716637544Anne Botes #Winning 0 6/10/2016 1:17:12 AM

16 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153661239847544Nikolai Ankergren Dear Acer, Today i got my new Predator 17. >GPU Geforce 980, and 32 gb ram.. Very excited! In the first 30 min the computer crash in fatal error 4 times. FIRST TIME THE PC IS ON. I start to look for the problem, and i find out that the laptop try to use the Integrated HD family Graphics card. Easy, but annoying, i try to set the dedicated GPU to the GTX 980. When i look in the Nvidia experience window, it say that the pc is not VR ready, because i need the GPU, that is in the laptop. I try to turn of the family card, and now the pc acts really strange, and cant resize screen dimensions to the prober. And now that only the dedicated is turn on, the Nvidia center, cant open because it thinks that now no Geforce card is running for some reason. So its like it thinks the HD family is the GTX 980, and the other way around,, really wierd!! .. I then try to update every thinkable piece of software on the laptop, and end up with the idea to factory reset the pc,, and now it got into an endless loop at %1 everytime i0 6/8/2016 12:58:58 PM

17 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153663098727544Nikolai Ankergren Sure Will send now . 256554547543_10153660971372544_101536612398475440 6/9/2016 8:56:57 AM

18 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153663096812544Acer Hey Nikolai, we apologise for your experience and would like to do everything in our power to help you. Could you send us an inbox message with your country of residence and contact details? We'll put you in touch with an expert who can help you out.256554547543_10153660971372544_101536612398475440 6/9/2016 8:55:02 AM

19 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153660977912544Katherine Aquino help pls. where can I buy a Acer iconia 10 in Ilocos Norte, Philippines? 0 6/8/2016 10:11:58 AM

20 256554547543_10153660971372544 256554547543_10153660971372544_10153663094987544Acer Hey Katherine, we recommend contacting our experts in the Philippines. They'll tell you the price and availability of our products in your country. http://spr.ly/Global_Support256554547543_10153660971372544_101536609779125441 6/9/2016 8:52:57 AM

21 256554547543_10153651741312544 Acer Internals\\(15) Acer_Sources\\Picture [21,4]https://www.facebook.com/Acer/photos/a.10153651741132544.1073741927.256554547543/10153651741312544/?type=3Acer-Computex 2016 photo 72 6/4/2016 4:34:37 AM 6/12/2016 6:56:39 AM

22 256554547543_10153651741312544 256554547543_10153651741312544_10153659865082544Ying Zhu Hi. I ordered an Acer Chromebook R11 (CB5-132T-C32M) from Amazon US, but it's stuck in customs. I'm being asked for its FCC ID, without which there is no hope of getting it released. Would you be willing to look this number up for me? If so, I would be very appreciative. Thanks! (I have already made number calls to Acer US/Taiwan and Amazon, and so far no one has been able or willing to help.)0 6/7/2016 9:35:05 PM

23 256554547543_10153651741312544 256554547543_10153651741312544_10153669987577544Ying Zhu Hi. I just sent a message with the details you requested. Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks.256554547543_10153651741312544_101536598650825440 6/12/2016 6:56:39 AM

24 256554547543_10153651741312544 256554547543_10153651741312544_10153660457737544Acer Hey Ying, could you send us your contact details and current country of residence? We'll put you in contact with an expert who can help you out.256554547543_10153651741312544_101536598650825440 6/8/2016 4:17:28 AM

28 256554547543_10153651741312544 256554547543_10153651741312544_10153656394272544Stê Pereira Of course passed my cell phone, all o'que most desire is to solve my problem, step by Feedback256554547543_10153651741312544_101536521112675440 6/6/2016 9:15:36 AM

29 256554547543_10153651741312544 256554547543_10153651741312544_10153655944072544Acer We'd like to help you out. Could you snd us your contact details and current country of residence? We'll put you in contact with an expert from your country who can help you.256554547543_10153651741312544_101536521112675440 6/6/2016 3:27:56 AM

32 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153660456672544Acer Hey Marcio, if you are experiencing any issues we suggest contacting our experts in your country. You could find our contact details in the link below. http://spr.ly/Global_Support256554547543_10153649635442544_101536593132075440 6/8/2016 4:15:52 AM

34 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153652023537544Rabin Nazmir Can confirm the model n price in singapore? 0 6/4/2016 7:23:57 AM

35 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153655945702544Acer Hey Rabin, we recommend contacting our experts in Singapore. They'll tell you the price and availability of our products in your country. http://spr.ly/Global_Support256554547543_10153649635442544_101536520235375440 6/6/2016 3:29:26 AM

36 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153651404917544Bruce Straw Acer I assume you have to make purchases of Acer items to go into the competition to win a Acer Predator?0 6/3/2016 11:44:35 PM

37 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153655717177544Acer Hi Bruce, our marketing people have confirmed that in order to be in the draw to win a Predator pack, you need to have purchased a Predator product.256554547543_10153649635442544_101536514049175440 6/5/2016 11:19:24 PM

38 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153651625947544Bruce Straw My question is, do you have to purchase an Acer item to go into the draw, or can you enter the draw without purchasing?256554547543_10153649635442544_101536514049175440 6/4/2016 2:29:06 AM

39 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153651623912544Acer Hey Bruce, we recommend visiting our official website. We will announce any competitions there first. You can find our official site in the link below. http://spr.ly/Global_Support256554547543_10153649635442544_101536514049175440 6/4/2016 2:26:38 AM

40 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153651165372544Purvish Sheth When is the aspire ultrabook s5 launching in India? 0 6/3/2016 8:48:09 PM

41 256554547543_10153649635442544 256554547543_10153649635442544_10153655394037544Acer We're excited for the launch of the Aspire S 5 too! Availability varies depending on a number of factors, so please keep an eye on the Acer website and local media for updates, or you can contact our India office, where they will be better able to answer your question. http://spr.ly/6186BSNeY256554547543_10153649635442544_101536511653725440 6/5/2016 7:36:27 PM

203

Great little Chromebook Acer - 14 Chromebook - Intel Celeron - 4GB Memory - 32GB Solid State Drive - Sparkle silver @ BestBuy a day ago Got this laptop on sale. Knew what I was getting before it arrived. It's a great chromebook. All metal construction. Fairly snappy performance. Fanless, so runs cool. Couple of issues to consider. Only two usb ports and no sd slot (knew in advance, not really a big deal, solved memory card slot issue with 128 gig usb key). Screen is a bit dim. Resolution causes you to squint (ChromeOS issue). Non-backlit keyboard (this seriously knocked it down). I thought it wasn't a deal breaker upon ordering. but it really affects the use of the laptop. I ordered a cheapy usb light to address. Had they spent an extra few pennies on led lights this could have been the perfect chromebook. It's a big deal, but not enough to return. skeighter

Not a good laptop Acer - Aspire E 15 15.6 Laptop - Intel Core i5 - 4GB Memory - 1TB Hard Drive - Obsidian black @ BestBuy a day ago I caught this laptop during a flash sale, which I thought was a good price. The resolution read 1080P and it is an I5. Well when I got the laptop it was definitely NOT 1080P. So I have been using it for two days and it is very slow. Hick ups constantly when just surfing the web. I have another low end laptop from a different manufacturer with similar specs I use as a lab server. It performs a lot better than this laptop. For an I5 this is a very disappointing turnout. It runs more like an I3 or Pentium. I'm not playing games on it. Just using it to web surf and it is struggling. Would not recommend this laptop. Spend the extra money and just go with a better brand. Jerome

Exactly what I was looking for... Acer - Aspire R 15 2-in-1 15.6 Touch-Screen Laptop - Intel Core i5 - 8GB Memory - 1TB Hard Drive - Steel gray @ BestBuy 2 days ago Only had this for several days at the moment, but I'm completely satisfied at this time (we'll see how it goes in the long haul). I was looking for a family workhorse between $500-$700, 2-in-1 touchscreen, 1080p, 8GB ram and a 1TB hard The other three were ok, but they didn't have this one on the floor as they were waiting for the old model to sell out first. Somehow my wife convinced them to pull one out and fire it up...I knew after a few minutes that this was the one. This has the newer, faster ram...speakers sound better than any other laptop I've tried (for<$1000)...screen looks great...keypad has a large "0" like my split keyboard, so hitting with my thumb still works (some others have a small "0" buried between some keys)...and the keyboard is backlit. The only thing it's missing is the DVD/CD drive...but none of the four had one. An external USB drive will still work out...and since it had the most USB ports (4), it'll be easy to connect along with my wireless mouse, backup drive, etc. Hands down, I think this computer is better than anything else available around this price range. If you're looking for something similar, at least track one of these down to take a look for yourself... haw keye

Jaw dropping picture for $99 Acer - H6 Series 23 IPS LED HD Monitor - Black @ BestBuy 2 days ago I bought one of these for a less than 2 yr old Dell that broke. Unbelievable quality for the price. I can see this really is a monitor worth $180 so a great buy at $99. Plus only $10 for a 4 year replacement plan. I plan on picking up 3 more of these today I'm so impressed. Another big plus is DVI-D, VGA and HDMI inputs AND cables for each are in the box! flrebroker

Smooth running machine/long battery life Acer - Aspire R14 2-in-1 14 Touch-Screen Laptop - Intel Core i5 - 8GB Memory - 256GB Solid State Drive - Black @ BestBuy 2 days ago I love this laptop you can use it as a traditional laptop or make it into a touchscreen both ways it's perfect and the battery life is very very nice I have gotten at least 7 hours out of a charge. I would recommend this product for anyone looking for a nice laptop. Nursingstudentmom

204

Appendix G

Figures for Themes

Figure G1. Levels of participation.

Figure G2. Brand loyalty themes.

Levels of

Participation

One Year

Two Years +

Three Years +

Four Years

Brand

Loyalty to

Other

Brands

Brand

Loyalty to

this Specific

Brand

Price Performance Product

205

Figure G3. Recommendation to others theme.

Figure G4. Perceptions of online community theme.

Perceptions of Online Community

helpful and welcoming

small and active

brand employees

Recommendation to

Others

Net

Promoter

Rating

Product

over

Brand

206

Figure G5. Brand Perceptions theme.

Figure G6. Reasons for joining online forum theme.

Positive

study participants and social

media

Negative

study participants and social

media

Brand Perception

Reasons for Joining

Online Forum

Questions about

Product Desire to Help

Others

Other Reasons

207

Appendix H

Brand Community Participation

Lessons Learned

 Many community participants prefer the word “forum” to describe the

community. However, for the purposes of this research the word “forum” will

mean the same as “online community”.

 For this document the words “online community” will mean a web based

community for people to share knowledge and ideas as well as to help other

participants.

 For this document the term “brand loyalty” means the likelihood of one to

recommend a brand to someone else.

 Participants in an online community are typically initially led to the community

because of a need or problem they or someone they are helping has.

 After the initial participation in a community, a participant may choose to

continue participating. The motivation to continue participating is typically a

desire to help others and share ones knowledge.

 One may also be motivated to continue participating because of an interest in

meeting people from around the world.

 The original decision to purchase a product from a particular brand is usually

motivated by the features of the product with the particular planned use in mind.

For example, whether the product will be used for just browsing the Internet, or

for something that requires more computing power such as computer aided

208

drafting. The price of the product and the reputation of the brand are secondary

factors in the purchase decision.

 A decision to recommend the product brand is largely based on the experience

with the particular product and not so much on the brand itself.

 Participation in an online community has some influence on the likelihood of

recommending the brand to someone else. If the brand has a good community,

then this is a positive factor in the recommendation. But, the product features,

price, and online product reviews are stronger factors than the community.

 Participants see the community as a positive thing for companies to do. They view

the community as a good public relations or marketing program for the brand.

 An online branded community can create positive views of a brand and, as a

result, increase brand loyalty. The increase in brand loyalty may be small, but it is

present. But, it is doubtful if that loyalty can ever offset products that are lacking

features or have poor quality.

209

Appendix I

Brand Community Participation

Research

Question Theme P1 P2 P3 P4

How does

participating

in an online

brand

community

affect an

individual’s

loyalty to the

brand?

Brand loyalty to

other brands, and

brand loyalty to

this brand.

My overall

experience

with Acer, I

have some

very strong

feelings about

it. I feel that

they make a

superior

product for

what I was

buying

There's sorts

of different

problems that

yes I can say

that I have

loyalty

towards the

brand, but it's

not necessary

that people

would

probably

change to

different

company.

I look at all

the different

manufactures

and then

choose the

one that is the

best for the

best price for

my needs at

that moment.

I give a little

bit more

weight to the

brands that

I'm more

familiar with

and less to the

ones that I'm

either not as

familiar with

or have had

bad

experiences

with in the

past.

I just happen

to like Acer

Level of online

forum

participation by

respondents

I would

describe it as

maybe

moderate.

Yes, regularly

I post

answers. I try

to check the

forum

regularly

I bought an

Acer tablet I

would think

maybe 4 years

ago,

somewhere in

that time-

frame. It was

a used tablet

and I got in

the

community

because I had

some

questions

about it

Let's see, I

think I joined

in 2012 when

I got the 512

Recommendations

to others

I'd say maybe

about a seven.

Which means

that they're

above

average. But

they're not

perfect.

I would

recommend it

quite likely

because I will

tell you what,

of course, I

have three

notebooks. I

started on one

I would be

more likely to

suggest an

Acer product

to someone

else because I

know that that

person, if they

had to ask a

I did and they

bought one

210

Research

Question Theme P1 P2 P3 P4

notebook and

all of the three

were Acer

question on

the

community,

wouldn't hit

like 1/2 a

dozen

members

Recommendations

for the online

forums to increase

brand loyalty

I can't

remember off

hand if they

rate answers

as helpful or

not. But I

notice on

some

communities,

you can look

and people

can grade the

helpfulness of

the answer

it's a

computer

company,

probably it

would be

interesting

and I would

be happy to

see that the

technicians,

like the

engineers,

actively read

the

community

and try to

foundation

each highlight

I've been

doing that for

a good portion

of my life.

Even when I

was in college

I took a lot of

classes on

teaching. It

makes you

feel good to

be able to

answer

somebody's

question or to

learn

something

new from

somebody and

be able to take

that and

transfer it into

helping

somebody

else.

One of the

drives I have

had with Acer

and made

public several

times is they

have some of

the most

confusing

model names

and

designations

I've ever seen

How does

participating

in an online

brand

community

affect an

individual’s

perceptions of

the brand?

Brand perceptions

(positive and

negative).

I do have an

Acer laptop.

It's a

TravelMate

which is one

of their

business

laptops and

I've had some

issues with it.

So that was

why I

participated in

the Acer

forum.

I've never had

issues. I mean

I had one

issue and my

old notebook

is 5 years old.

I never had

other issues

with my

notebooks

It's easy to use

because it has

a regular

keyboard as

well as the

touch screen

and yet it's got

the touch

screen which I

find myself

using a lot as

I'm navigating

Windows and

navigating

browsers and

stuff like that

Oh, to a

certain extent,

I would say

it's both of

them

[community

and product]

for instance

because Acer

permits these

forums to

exist, it's part

of the reason I

participate in

comparison

[to other

brands]

211

Research

Question Theme P1 P2 P3 P4

Perceptions about

the brand's online

forum.

The

community is

helpful. One

thing that I

noticed with

this

community,

and I noticed

it with a lot of

communities

is there

always seems

to be

somebody

from the

company who

jumps in with

a canned

response and I

think that a lot

of people see

that for what

it is.

Well it's

working well.

I rarely post

something

that I need

help there.

Most of the

time what I

post help

doesn't have

an answer

because it's

really

technical

questions that

I would need

probably a

technician for

my answer,

not just a

community

. I don't think

there are

many

[communities]

that I spend as

much time on

as I do with

the Acer

community

It's mostly a

mixture, but

usually when

I have a

problem,

you're not

going to find

an answer in

the

community

like that.

Reasons for

joining the brand's

online forum

If it's

something

that I feel

strongly

about, not

necessarily

for

information

but I want to

put in my

experience or

an idea or an

opinion

If it's

something

that I feel

strongly

about, not

necessarily

for

information

but I want to

put in my

experience or

an idea or an

opinion, like

let's say it's a

political

forum or a

forum about

something

that I have

had some

experience

with, I feel I

can help that

will be a

motivator

I've been

doing that

[helping

others] for a

good portion

of my life.

Even when I

was in college

I took a lot of

classes on

teaching,

thinking about

possibly

going into that

field. It makes

you feel good

to be able to

answer

somebody's

question or to

learn

something

new from

somebody and

be able to take

that and

transfer it into

helping

somebody

else.

Relaxation. , I

get to teach

and I get to

send

messages

[socialize]

212

Research

Question Theme P5 P6 P7 P8

How does

participating

in an online

brand

community

affect an

individual’s

loyalty to the

brand?

Brand loyalty to

other brands, and

brand loyalty to

this brand.

You know, it

wasn't brand

disloyalty, it's

just the

Lenovo

appealed to

me, so I

bought it.

Certain

members

perceive the

brand as a

family or an

environment

(not me!). This

is a

psychological

approach of

brand

perception. The

best example is

Apple. These

owners only see

this brand. Like

a subliminal

message/picture

(logo)

For example,

I at one time

had a BMW

car and my

perception is

the BMW

makes a good

quality car

and I would

probably buy

BMW again

because I'm

loyal, I see

value in the

brand as

apposed to a

Volkswagen

is a good

brand, but I

wouldn't be

as loyal to

Volkswagen

as I would be

to BMW. I

have a

different

perception of

the value of

the BMW

brand than I

do the

Volkswagen

brand.

brand loyalty

means that

the brand can

help me to

solve

problems

with the

products so

can be the

community,

can be the

from the

brand

Level of online

forum

participation by

respondents

I believe

going on 2

years, 2 and a

half years,

somewhere

around there

I have been

participating

for about 3

years

I started a

little over a

year ago

It was in 2012

exactly, so

nearly four

years ago

Recommendations

to others

Well, I still,

oh okay, I

would say 5. I

still

recommend

Acers but I

recommend

specific

models.

I recommend a

product more

based on the

product and

less so on the

brand

I would say

between 8

and 10

Right now, I

can tell you

seven or

eight. More

seven, to be

honest.

213

Research

Question Theme P5 P6 P7 P8

Recommendations

for the online

forums to increase

brand loyalty

You know,

when you're

in the forum

and people

are calling in

with their

problems,

you're going

to see a lot of

problems

It would be

nice for the

company to be

more active in

the community

every time I

ask and put in

a German

community I

get an answer

to a question

from an Acer

technician

and it was

really good. It

was not a

standard

answer by

standard

email or

something, it

was a really

good

technical

explained

answer.

I think it can

be really

positive the

Acer brand,

the Acer

community

How does

participating

in an online

brand

community

affect an

individual’s

perceptions of

the brand?

Brand perceptions

(positive and

negative).

You know,

when you're

in the forum

and people

are calling in

with their

problems,

you're going

to see a lot of

problems

Acer is closed

and Lenove is

open. The

brand [Lenovo}

shares each

events with

their members.

I was also

very

interested

with the

special

product line

of new Acer

gaming

Notebooks.

Acer giving

the path, so

right now,

we're Acer

community

and the

contribution

from the user,

from the Ace,

in my

opinion, the

brand is more

solid on the

customer

support. The

user can feel,

what can I

say, like the

user can feel

it is followed

by a brand.

214

Research

Question Theme P5 P6 P7 P8

Perceptions about

the brand's online

forum.

Yeah, I think

it works very

well. It's a

good

community,

there's good

people on

there, and

there's good

people

supporting us

When you plan

the purchase of

a workstation,

the price/power

is the criterion

like a car

weight/power.

At the

beginning as

you start a

with new

product you'll

always have

problems at

the beginning

therefore

community is

very

interesting.

I enjoy

helping other

users when

has problems

with

computers or

tablets or

smartphones.

I feel like for

lots of people,

computers,

smartphones,

technology,

personal

technology, is

something

really

important for

work or life,

so maybe if

they can

solve the

problem or

the issue in

about a day or

something

less, we're

really very

happy. It's all

about enjoy,

nothing else.

Reasons for

joining the brand's

online forum

Well, I went

there for, to

find an

answer for

myself and I

got to looking

at the

questions

people were

answering

and I just

thought,

"Well, I could

answer that,"

and "I can

answer that,"

and pretty

soon I was

involved

As I said, I like

mmeeting new

persons. Now

this new

member

appreciates this

community

website.

when I had an

Acer V3, I

had some

problems and

I went to the

community

The main

thing is what

happened

with the

community

was the

mobile

section, so

smartphones.

it was called

Power User. I

started testing

mostly all the

android

devices from

Acer and so

one day at the

end of the

product I

started to

look around

and found the

Acer

215

Research

Question Theme P5 P6 P7 P8

community

and I

registered.

216

Research Question Theme P9 P10

How does participating

in an online brand

community affect an

individual’s loyalty to

the brand?

Brand loyalty to other

brands, and brand

loyalty to this brand.

I would say I've gotten

to like them, and when

people ask for

something I do, I'll say

Acer and HP, of course

being the largest. I've

had a few of those, but

I've said, if you see

Acer get that, because

I've had more problems

with HP than I have

with my Acers. I think

I've had about three

Acers.

For me, when you get

to a community where

the people are helpful,

the questions are

answered ... I've been to

other forums where it

could be a month or

two before you even

hear a single reply.

With Acer, it seems that

everything is answered

even within minutes

and they're more than

willing to help. I used

to have Alienware so

when I asked a question

on something, I was

temporarily an

Alienware forum

member, but I could

wait easily 3 weeks

before I'd get a

response, and even then

it was a question to my

question.

Level of online forum

participation by

respondents

I have difficulty typing

also, so that's why i

don't participate as

much in this stuff. It

just takes so long and it

wears me out, to tell

you the truth, with

fatigue, but I enjoy it.

I think I've been there

about a year

Recommendations to

others

Right now I would say

10.

If I think about all the

products that they offer

and think of it globally,

then I would probably

go with an 8

Recommendations for

the online forums to

increase brand loyalty

Acer staff really doesn't

respond much on the

site. Like they say in

almost all those forums,

they say that it's driven

by other customers.

Honestly, I get the

feeling that what they

have set up for the Acer

community is kind of

basic, but compared to

other forums and

community areas, it's

not quite as advanced.

There's no different

topic sections and the

private messaging is a

little basic

217

Research Question Theme P9 P10

How does participating

in an online brand

community affect an

individual’s perceptions

of the brand?

Brand perceptions

(positive and negative).

I've had a few Acers,

and basically I really

don't have any

problems with them

above what I might

have with any other

brand. I actually have

gotten to like them a

little better because

they're a little more

affordable

If I applied it only to

the Predator line what

would you say?

Definitely for that, I'm

going between a 9 and a

10. I spent a lot of time

comparing and at least

from what I can tell, it's

quite a bit higher than

most, especially for the

price.

Perceptions about the

brand's online forum.

It just keeps the mind

gears going. I just enjoy

it. That's why once in a

while I'll still, to keep

the mind going and try

to help other people

with it. I don't mind. I

like helping other

people with the

problems, as long as

they aren't abrasive.

feedback, whether it's

features, whether it's

quality, whether it's

design, or it could even

be customer service,

that feedback from the

community is a

powerful thing and

companies should take

advantage of that.

Reasons for joining the

brand's online forum

When I first got my

Switch 10 tablet I had a

couple problems with

it, which I had tried

everything I know and

online searching

through Google and

Bing and all that, and I

decided to go right to

the community forum

and check

Then I had a couple

questions and just about

everywhere I looked, it

came back to the Acer

community, which had

a small forum where

people were pretty

much asking the exact

same thing. I joined in

and got a couple of my

questions answered

with friendly responses,

they were quick.

218

Appendix J

Predetermined and Discovered Codes

Predetermined Codes

Code Description

Source Where did the data come from (e.g. Facebook,

online review, etc.)

Date Date of posting

User-id ID of the person who did the posting

Sentiment What was the general sentiment of the posting

(positive, negative, neutral)

Subject What was the subject of the posting (e.g.

complaint, compliment, question)

Reason Reason for posting

Product What was the specific product

Features Product features discussed

Function Functions of product (product use)

Business segment Sales, service, marketing, other

Participation Any of the text related to participation in the

medium

Loyalty Any of the text related to loyalty to the brand

Tenure Any text related to length of time with the brand

Language What language was the post written in

Activity Level User activity level (frequency)

Discovered Codes

Previous Use Historical experience with product

Current Use How is product being used now

Marketing Source was a marketing program

Helpful Users helping each other

Welcoming Found the community welcoming

Size of community Perceptions about the size of the community

Brand employee involvement How active were brand employees

Issue with product Had some sort of issue with the product

Helping a friend Heling someone else led to the community

Helping others Sought to help others

Frequency of involvement How often reading or posting

Reason for involvement Why stay engaged

Other brand How does the community compare to other brands

Ease of use How easy is the community to use

Transparency Perceptions as to the transparency of the

community