Motives for Participation in Virtual Brand Communities

Transcription

1 Motives for Participation in Virtual Brand Communities Abstract The focus of this study is the identification of motives for the participation in virtual brand communities. The results serve as a basis for marketing strategies with regard to brand communities. An online survey of 4534 members of a brand community of a liqueur producer was carried out. The motives of consumers taking part in the community were aggregated to community-related motives, brand-related motives and motives related to added value the brand community provides. Marketers should take the three dimensions into account and foster brand communities with their marketing activities. Keywords: Track: Authors: virtual brand communities, motives for participation, marketing strategy Product and Brand Management Bastian Popp, University of Bayreuth, Germany Herbert Woratschek, University of Bayreuth, Germany Stefan Roth, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Conference: 37th EMAC Conference 2008, May 2008, Brighton, Great Britain

2 Motives for Participation in Virtual Brand Communities 1. Introduction Brand communities currently are of great interest in theory and practice. Muniz and O Guinn (2001) define a brand community as a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand. Brand communities affect the members perceptions (Muniz & Schau, 2005) and increase brand involvement (Upshaw & Taylor, 2000). This leads to improved ways of gaining marketing information (Maclaran & Catterall, 2002). Moreover, consumers can be integrated into new product development communities (Franke & Shah, 2003). The internet provides an excellent basis for a brand community and the interaction of customers with a company and customers among each other (McWilliam, 2000). The low costs of interaction with others in cyberspace allow consumers easily and more frequently to share their brand feelings or experiences with others (Shang, Chen, & Liao, 2006). Upshaw and Taylor (2000) draw a comparison to Moore s Law and Metcalf s Law and propose a law of mutually beneficial interaction which states that the value of future brands will be a direct function of the mutually beneficial interaction generated between the brand and its greater brand community. The traditional focus of the dyadic relationship is broadened with more emphasis on the customer which leads to a customer-customer-brand triad (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Whereas communication in traditional relations with a brand only proceeds between the consumer and the company, communication in brand communities incorporates a third component, the communication among customers (McWilliam, 2000). The interaction of the brand community members influences their relation and their attitude towards the brand (Ahonen & Moore, 2005). Empirical studies reveal that the relationships between the customers also increase brand loyalty (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Claricini & Scarpi, 2007; Hoppe, Matzler, & Terlutter, 2007; Shang et al., 2006; von Loewenfeld, 2006). Moreover, members of brand communities more often recommend the brand to other persons (von Loewenfeld, 2006). Hence, marketers support building and maintaining brand communities. Therefore a fundamental understanding of the motives of brand community participation is necessary to derive adequate marketing strategies for this target group. The focus of this study is the identification of those motives in virtual brand communities and their aggregation to key dimensions. Hereafter possible marketing strategies for the establishment of brand communities are derived. 2. Theoretical Foundations There are numerous publications with a focus on virtual communities studying the motives of members of virtual communities in general (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; de Valck, 2005; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Klein Pearo, 2004; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Bagozzi & Dholakia (2002) find two main drivers for the participation in virtual communities, namely positive anticipated emotions and social identity (self-categorization, affective commitment, and group-based self-esteem). They differentiate between individuallevel motives (positive anticipated emotions) and group-level motives (social identity). In a follow-up paper five specific, individual-level, value perceptions are introduced and modelled as antecedents to various group-level variables, which in turn influence community participation (Dholakia et al., 2004). Furthermore, they distinguish between small group-

3 based communities (members usually interact with the same group of people) and networkbased virtual communities (members usually interact with different individuals). In small group-based communities social benefits are the main reason to participate in a virtual community, whereas in network-based communities the main motives are informational and instrumental value. Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh & Gremler (2004) focus on web-based consumer opinion platforms, thus merging literature from the field of virtual communities and word-ofmouth behaviour. They reveal that consumers are longing for social interaction and economic incentives, concern for other consumers and hope to enhance their own self-worth. Furthermore they identify four different segments: self-interested helpers, multiple-motive consumers, consumer advocates and true altruists. However, the studies on the motives for participating in virtual communities neglect the fundamental role of the brand for the members of brand communities. Brand communities build around admirers of a brand, thus the brand serves as a common point of reference for all members of the community. Nevertheless, the motives for taking part in a brand community are more widespread than just the consumer s favour for a brand. But most of the literature on brand communities deals with the interaction of community members and their impact on a brand (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; Luedicke, 2006; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001; Schouten, McAlexander, & Koenig, 2002) or focuses on the economic value of brand communities (Cova & Pace, 2006; Dwyer, 2007; McAlexander, Kim, & Roberts, 2003). As far as we know, only Morandin, Bagozzi & Bergami (2005) extensively study the motives of brand community members. Their means-end chain analysis reveals motives in the three different dimensions social relatedness, personal involvement and the symbolic meaning of product/brand. This result reflects the importance of the social interaction among customers (social relatedness) and the brand (symbolic meaning of product/brand). The personal involvement comprises for example benefits like fun, passion and emotions which lead to a better life and a purpose in life. The findings are derived using a laddering interview technique with open answers and a content analysis. However an extensive quantitative study on motives for brand community participation is still missing. That is why the aim of our study is a quantitative survey of these motives. 3. Empirical Study 3.1. Methodology The theoretical considerations of motives of participation in virtual brand communities are tested with an online survey of 4534 members of a virtual brand community operated by a liqueur producer. The community offers a widespread range of features, e.g. message boards, greeting cards, user blogs, mail, photo and video sharing, information on the brand/company, wallpapers, feedback options, event calendars, lotteries and web radio. A standardized questionnaire with closed-response questions using 7-point Likert scales (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree) was developed in order to ask the members of the virtual brand community for their motives for their participation in the community. The items were taken from literature and adopted to the brand community (see table 1).

4 3.2. Results In a first step a descriptive analysis of the items was conducted and the most important items were identified on the basis of their mean values (see table 1). Consumers attached most importance to information from the company (2,34), their passion for the brand (2,40) and the excellent reputation of the brand (2,63). However, the aim of the study is not the identification of the importance of single motives, since the specific motives strongly vary from brand community to brand community or as De Valck (2005) sums it up: In short, people have specific reasons to participate in specific types of communities. That is why we concentrate on the identification of different dimensions of motives for brand community participation. Therefore a principal component analysis of the motive items was performed. The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0,957 thus showing a marvellous appropriateness of factor analysis. Three factors were extracted and explain 62,2 per cent of variance of the items. The factor loadings were calculated with a varimax rotation of the components. The three extracted factors were interpreted as community-related motives, brand-related motives and motives related to added value which is derived from specific offers of the virtual brand community (see table 1). For example, the community dimension comprises the similarity of the community members, their mutual support and the identification with other members of the community. The brand-related items clearly state the passion and identification with the brand, whereas the third dimension includes features like radio, lotteries and entertainment that add value for customers, but neither belongs to the relationships between customers and the brand/company nor to the interaction within the community. That is why we decided to summarize these items in a factor added value of the community. I visit the community, Mean Factor Interpretation Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 because I want to support other members. 4,54 0,816 0,212 0,196 because I love to talk with other members of the community. 4,14 0,814 0,178 0,197 for getting to know new people. 3,92 0,790 0,137 0,236 for actively participating in the community. 4,62 0,768 0,199 0,287 because the other members have the same goals I have. 4,17 0,751 0,270 0,222 because I want to make friends. 5,02 0,743 0,083 0,246 because it is important to me to be part of the community. 4,25 0,740 0,332 0,197 for gaining recognition from other members of the community. 5,38 0,736 0,153 0,094 because I identify with the members of the community. 4,13 0,725 0,269 0,231 for getting information from other members. 4,19 0,713 0,182 0,366 for gaining new experiences. 3,79 0,571 0,208 0,547 because I am proud of the brand. 2,89 0,215 0,855 0,144 because I identify with the brand. 3,04 0,209 0,797 0,186 because of my passion for the brand. 2,40 0,081 0,793 0,290 for supporting the brand. 2,97 0,211 0,702 0,326 because the brand has an excellent reputation. 2,63 0,174 0,697 0,227 for giving feedback to the company. 3,01 0,277 0,614 0,278 because I don't like other brands. 3,81 0,248 0,611 0,036 for getting entertained. 2,94 0,192 0,170 0,743 for relaxing. 3,42 0,325 0,185 0,710 for producing new ideas. 2,81 0,245 0,328 0,695 for playing. 3,50 0,231 0,170 0,622 for getting information from the company. 2,34 0,044 0,435 0,605 for escaping everyday life. 4,19 0,418 0,106 0,563 for participating in the lotteries. 2,99 0,183 0,145 0,437 Community-related Motives Brand-related Motives Added Valuerelated Motives Weighted sum score factors 4,38 2,97 3,17 Table 1: Descriptive analysis and principal component analysis

5 In order to derive the importance of each dimension and keep the absolute scale meaning the items of a factor were combined using weighted sum scores (Dillon & McDonald, 2001). The results reveal the high importance of the brand dimension (2,97) and that consumers derive added value from the brand community offers (3,17), whereas the relationships within the community (4,38) seem to be less important for the consumers. 4. Implications The results of our quantitative study extend the knowledge of motives for the participation in virtual brand communities. The study clearly reveals three main dimensions, namely community-related motives, brand-related motives and added value-related motives. These dimensions are of great interest for marketers in order to foster the brand community. The brand-related dimension turned out to be the most important factor for a brand community. This means that basically all efforts in creating a powerful brand are useful to facilitate a brand community and the companies marketing strategies can be expanded to the community. However there are some limitations that have to be considered. Von Loewenfeld (2006) noticed that brands differ in their suitability for establishing a brand community and made out several requirements a successful brand has to meet. These are the (enduring) brand involvement of customers, the identification of customers with the brand, the emotional attraction of the brand, the importance of the brand for the customers and an interactive component. Although brands fulfilling all five requirements are very suitable for establishing a brand community, deficits in some points may be opened up later on (von Loewenfeld, 2006). O Guinn & Muniz (2005) also studied successful brand communities and found that those brands often are unusual/objectable, have low market shares and strong rivals and a long, extensive history. The invention of tradition is also proposed by Hobsbawn & Ranger (1983) as a good possibility to grow potential members of a brand community which shares rituals and traditions of a brand (Cova & Pace, 2006; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). The community-related motives advise companies to support brand communities with the provision of infrastructure (Albrecht, 2006). Examples for tools fostering the interaction among customers can be message boards, greeting cards, blogs, mail functions or photo and video sharing. Furthermore operators of a virtual brand community have to take care of a fair and trustful organization and moderation of the community (Herstatt & Tietz, 2005). The interaction of customers also benefits from the public consumption of the good or service which increases the possibility of discussions about the brand (Lindstrom, 2002; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001) For brands with deficits in the brand-related motive dimension and the community-related motive dimension the third dimension represents an important factor of success, since the contents offered as added value can be manifold. Some examples are the usage of lotteries and online games or other digital entertainment. Moreover, the integration of music can serve as a transmitter of positive emotions (Albrecht, 2006). It also might be possible to integrate cooperation partners into a brand community in order to transfer a positive involvement of the customer to the own brand. However, the brand community operator has to pay attention to the threat of a dilution of the own brand.

6 5. Further Research The study shows three different motive dimensions for the participation in a brand community. However, the heterogeneity within the brand community members is not taken into account, although their population seems to be rather diverse. Therefore further research is needed in clustering the brand community members. Subsequently, the economic value of different clusters can be studied looking at the importance of different clusters for increasing brand loyalty and word-of-mouth behaviour.

7 References Ahonen, T. T., & Moore, A. (2005). Communities Dominate Brands: Business and Marketing Challenges for the 21 st Century. London: Futuretext. Albrecht, G. (2006). Vom Konsumenten zum Komplizen - das Web verändert die Kundenbeziehung. Marketing Journal, 39, 32. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), Claricini, O., & Scarpi, D. (2007). The Influence of Brand Community Integration, Word of Mouth and Community Loyalty on Brand Loyalty. Paper presented at the EMAC 2007, Reykjavik. 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), de Valck, K. (2005). Virtual Communities of Consumption Networks of Consumer Knowledge and Companionship. Rotterdam: ERIM. Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Klein Pearo, L. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), Dillon, W. R., & McDonald, R. (2001). How to Combine Multiple Items into a Composite Score. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1/2), Dwyer, P. (2007). Measuring the value of electronic word of mouth and its impact in consumer communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), Herstatt, C., & Tietz, R. (2005). Erfolgsfaktoren für den Aufbau und die Nutzung virtueller Communities. Thexis, 22(3), Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. O. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hoppe, M., Matzler, K., & Terlutter, R. (2007). The functional chain of brand communities and their impact on brand loyalty and brand recommendation. Paper presented at the EMAC 2007, Reykjavik. Lindstrom, M. (2002). Give Your Brand Away, Part 1. Retrieved , 2006, from the World Wide Web: Luedicke, M. K. (2006). Brand Community Under Fire: The Role of Social Environments for the HUMMER Brand Community. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, Maclaran, P., & Catterall, M. (2002). Researching the social Web: Marketing information from virtual communities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20(6), McAlexander, J. H., Kim, S. K., & Roberts, S. D. (2003). Loyalty: The Influences of Satisfaction and Brand Community Integration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11(4), 1-11.

8 McWilliam, G. (2000). Building Stronger Brands through Online Communities. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), Morandin, G., Bagozzi, R. P., & Bergami, M. (2005). The motivation to participate: Disclosing cognitive schemas in a brand community. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Honolulu. Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), Muniz, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), O' Guinn, T. C., & Muniz, A. M. (2005). Communal Consumption and the Brand. In D. G. Mick & S. Ratneshwar (Eds.), Inside Consumption: Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires (pp ). London: Routledge. Schouten, J. W., McAlexander, J. H., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building Brand Community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Liao, H.-J. (2006). The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty. Internet Research, 16(4), Upshaw, L. B., & Taylor, E. L. (2000). The Masterbrand Mandate - The Management Strategy That Unifies Companies and Multiplies Value. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. von Loewenfeld, F. (2006). Brand Communities - Erfolgsfaktoren und ökonomische Relevanz von Markengemeinschaften. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.