Consumer brand engagement in social networking sites and its effect on brand loyalty

Figures & data

Table 1. Theories adopted in social networking research

No.	Theories	Author(s)
1	Personality Theories	Lu and Hsiao (2010); Orchard, Fullwood, Galbraith, and Morris (2014)
2	Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT)	Weman (2011); Zheng, Cheung, Lee, and Liang (2015); Azar et al. (2016); Gao and Feng (2016); Kleine-Kalmer (2016); Kujur and Singh (2016)
3	Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)	Casaó, Flaviàn, and Guinalìu (2010); Leung (2012); Senthil, Ramachandran, and Panboli (2015); Al-Ghaith (2016)
4	Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)	Lee and Lee (2014); Chung, Han, and Koo (2015); Li and Suh (2015); Zhou, Lu, and Wang (2016); Poorrezaei (2016)
5	Social Cognitive Theory	Khang, Han, and Ki (2014)
6	Theory of planned behavior (TPB)	Casaó et al. (2010); Senthil et al. (2015)

Table 2. Questionnaire scale

Construct	Item Scale	Author/s
Information Seeking	I feel that in order to know more about a brand or store, I have to like its page	Andre (2015)
	I think reading Facebook feed is informative	Asghar (2015)
	I use Facebook to post questions because Facebook users provide me with better information than an Internet search	Andre (2015)
	Facebook Page provides me quick and easy access to information I seek.	Anderson (1988)
Entertainment	Reading Facebook Brand Page posts and comments is entertaining.	Asghar (2015)
	It is fun to go over Facebook Brand Page posts and comments.	Asghar (2015)
	I have a good time reading posts shared through Facebook Brand Pages.	Asghar (2015)
	To pass time when I am bored	Gummerus et al. (2012)
Economic Benefits	I interact with brands on Facebook in order to access discounts and promotions	Azar et al. (2016)
	To participate in Competitions and Games to win prizes	Azar et al. (2016)
	To get reward/free gifts	Gummerus et al. (2012)
Social Benefits	To meet other users who share similar interests	Fernandes and Remelhe (2016)
	I can find out about people like me on this fan page.	Jahn and Kunz (2012)
	I can interact with people like me on this fan page.	Jahn and Kunz (2012)
Brand Love	This is a wonderful brand.	Andre (2015)
	This brand makes me feel good.	Andre (2015)
	This brand makes me feel happy.	Andre (2015)
	This brand is a delight.	Andre (2015)
	I am passionate about this brand.	Andre (2015)
Trust	I believe it is safe to interact with brands on Facebook	Andre (2015)
	I believe that brands respects my privacy when I interact with them on Facebook	Andre (2015)
	I trust the information published by other consumers on Facebook on the brand page	Andre (2015)
	I believe that brands will not provide the information that they have obtained about me, through Facebook, to other people or entities	Andre (2015)
Social Influence	I will share information about the brand with friends and family.	Andre (2015)
	By interacting with the brand on Facebook, I feel I am part of a community	Azar et al. (2016)
	I interact with the brand on Facebook to state my interests and preferences to my friends	Azar et al. (2016)
	My interaction with the brand on Facebook allows me to increase my social involvement	Azar et al. (2016)
Consumer Engagement	I read posts related to Brands on Facebook pages	Schivinski et al. (2016)
	I express my reactions to brand posts and comments using Facebook buttons Like, angry, etc.	Schivinski et al. (2016)
	Engaging in conversations on the brand’s Facebook page (e.g., commenting, asking, and answering questions)	Andre (2015)
	Sharing the brand’s Facebook posts on my own Facebook page (e.g., videos, audios, pictures, texts)	Andre (2015)
	I initiate new posts related to Brand on Facebook pages	Schivinski et al. (2016)
Brand Loyalty	I am most likely to purchase this brand I follow	Andre (2015)
	I will recommend the brand to others.	Andre (2015)
	I consider myself to be loyal to the brand	Jahn & Kunz (2012)

Table 3. Post format and total interactions

Post Format	Posts	Likes	Comments	Shares	Reactions	Total Interactions	Avg. Int.
Event	20	436	129	252	0	817	41
Link	12,134	80,420,358	680,672	493,789	180,821	81,775,640	6739
Offer	307	1,159,901	17,703	29,712	271	1,207,587	3934
Photo	138328	572,311,035	6,345,750	8,456,235	1,747,556	588,860,576	4257
Status	4259	1,256,633	219,026	30,978	8395	1,515,032	356
Music	9	929	31	43	0	1003	111
Video	12,131	45,543,510	1,113,551	3,325,828	1,491,661	51,474,550	4243
Total/Avg.	167,188	700,692,802	8,376,862	12,336,837	3,428,704	724,835,205	4335

Table 4. Brand category and the consumer engagement rate

Post Format	Posts	Interactions	Avg. Int.	Avg. CE
Airlines	10,714	1,11,90,016	1,044	3.21
Automobile	16,805	9,82,22,485	5,845	3.02
Banks	9,383	5,06,96,874	5,403	3.86
Beverages	2,759	5,06,96,874	4,776	3.63
Computer	10,368	6,21,32,438	5,993	6.05
Electronics	9,004	1,27,46,287	1,416	1.37
eRetailers	17,672	6,71,70,838	3,801	2.22
Fashion	4,349	3,58,68,223	8,247	3.87
FMCG Food	4,048	1,06,63,897	2,634	2.93
Health/Beauty	12,335	6,14,09,829	4,979	3.71
Household Goods	6,875	1,58,76,774	2,309	3.2
Hotels	8,423	17,80,607	211	2.34
Mobile	22,310	13,98,34,818	6,268	5.03
Restaurants	10,935	3,42,37,584	3,131	2.06
Retail	10,132	1,40,93,818	1,391	0.95
Sporting Goods	3,158	89,74,803	2,842	2.75
Telecom	7,918	8,67,58,119	10,957	3.5
Total	1,67,188	72,48,35,205	4,335

Table 5. Demographic variable of respondents

Demographic	Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	240	71.9
	Female	94	28.1
Age	18–25	174	52.1
	26–33	92	27.5
	34–41	47	14.1
	42–49	21	6.3
Education	Undergraduate Degree	259	77.5
	Masters and Above	75	22.5
Location	Chennai	119	35.6
	Delhi	97	29.0
	Mumbai	55	16.5
	Bangalore	63	18.9
Total		334	100

Table 6. Confirmatory factor analysis for convergent validity

Construct	Item	Lambda	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV
Brand Love	BLb	0.649	0.8801	0.6520	0.2611	0.1066
	BLc	0.734
	BLd	0.943
	Ble	0.871
Information Seeking	ISa	0.726	0.8057	0.5835	0.2611	0.1620
	ISb	0.88
	Isd	0.67
Entertainment	ENTa	0.791	0.8282	0.5487	0.2401	0.1245
	ENTb	0.767
	ENTc	0.774
	ENTd	0.618
Economic Benefits	EBa	0.862	0.8928	0.7355	0.1318	0.0584
	EBb	0.894
	EBc	0.815
Social Benefits	SBa	0.698	0.9019	0.7576	0.1089	0.0655
	SBb	0.985
	SBc	0.903
Trust	TRUa	0.72	0.8974	0.6874	0.2247	0.1047
	TRUb	0.871
	TRUc	0.867
	TRUd	0.849
Brand Loyalty	BLYa	0.808	0.9297	0.8161	0.3215	0.1154
	BLYb	0.977
	BLYc	0.917
Social Influence	SIa	0.767	0.8381	0.6059	0.2070	0.1339
	SIb	0.83
	SIc	0.707
	SId	0.804
Customer Engagement	CEb	0.631	0.8966	0.6889	0.3215	0.1408
	CEc	0.882
	CEd	0.948
	CEe	0.825

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Squared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance.

Table 7. Discriminant validity and correlation matrix

Constructs	EB	BL	IS	Ent	SB	Trust	SI	BrLoy	CE
EB	0.858
BL	0.160	0.807
IS	0.214	0.511	0.764
Ent	0.363	0.340	0.490	0.741
SB	0.208	0.218	0.285	0.310	0.870
Trust	0.132	0.330	0.474	0.241	0.330	0.829
SI	0.269	0.419	0.416	0.360	0.218	0.339	0.778
BrLoy	0.193	0.254	0.245	0.283	0.244	0.305	0.455	0.903
CE	0.306	0.233	0.458	0.380	0.200	0.334	0.389	0.567	0.830

Note: The square root value of each AVE in bold.

Table 8. Measurement model fit index

Category	Name of Index	Index Value	Level of Acceptance
Absolute fit	Chi-Square	0.001	P-value >0.05
	RMSEA	0.044	RMSEA <0.08
	GFI	0.898	GFI >0.80
Incremental fit	AGFI	0.868	AGFI >0.80
	CFI	0.962	CFI >0.90
	TLI	0.955	TLI >0.90
	NFI	0.91	NFI >0.90
Parsimonious fit	χ^2/df	1.643	χ^2/df <3.0

Table 9. Regression estimation

Hypothesis	Path	β	p	Comment
H1	Information Seeking → Consumer Engagement	0.352	0.001	Accepted
H2	Entertainment → Consumer Engagement	0.133	0.046	Accepted
H3	Economic Benefits → Consumer Engagement	0.18	0.002	Accepted
H4	Social Benefits → Consumer Engagement	−0.005	0.926	Rejected
H5	Trust → Consumer Engagement	0.167	0.009	Accepted
H6	Social Influence → Consumer Engagement	0.202	0.003	Accepted
H7	Brand Love → Consumer Engagement	−0.068	0.302	Rejected
H8	Consumer Engagement → Brand Loyalty	0.474	0.001	Accepted

Figure 1. Structural model (with direct and indirect effects).

Lu, H. P., & Hsiao, K. L. (2010). The influence of extro/introversion on the intention to pay for social networking sites. Information and Management, 47, 150–157. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.01.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orchard, L. J., Fullwood, C., Galbraith, N., & Morris, N. (2014). Individual differences as predictors of social networking. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 19(3), 388–402. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12068

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Weman, E. (2011). Consumer motivations to join a brand community on Facebook ( Master’s thesis). Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki. Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10227/798/weman.pdf?sequence

 Google Scholar

Zheng, X., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K., & Liang, L. (2015). Building brand loyalty through user engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites. Information Technology and People, 28(1), 90–106. doi:10.1108/ITP-08-2013-0144

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Azar, L. S., Machado, C. J., Vacas-de Carvalho, L., & Mendes, A. (2016). Motivations to interact with brands on Facebook-towards a typology of consumer brand interactions. Journal of Brand Management, 23(2), 153–178. doi:10.1057/bm.2016.3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gao, Q., & Feng, C. (2016). Branding with social media: User gratifications, usage patterns, and brand message content strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 868–890. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kleine-Kalmer, B. (2016). Brand page attachment: An empirical study on facebook users. Germany: Springer Gabler. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-12439-7

 Google Scholar

Kujur, F., & Singh, S. (2016). Engaging customers through online participation in social networking sites. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22(1), 16–24. doi:10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.10.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Casaó, L. V., Flaviàn, C., & Guinalìu, M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of consumer participation in on-line communities: The case of the travel sector. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 137–167. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415150205

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leung, X. Y. (2012). The marketing effectiveness of hotel Facebook pages: From perspectives of customers and messages ( PhD thesis). University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Retrieved from https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=2681&context=thesesdissertations

 Google Scholar

Senthil, K. S., Ramachandran, T., & Panboli, S. (2015). Product recommendations over Facebook: The roles of influencing factors to induce online shopping. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 202–218. doi:10.5539/ass.v11n2p202

 Google Scholar

Al-Ghaith, W. (2016). Applying and extending the technology acceptance model to understand social networking sites usage: Toward proposing a comprehensive model. In Proceedings of the 3rd Multidisciplinary International Social Networks Conference on Social Informatics 2016, Data Science 2016 (Vol. 20., pp. 1–22). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2955129.2955149

 Google Scholar

Lee, Y. S., & Lee, J. (2014). Do brands talk differently?: An examination of product category involvement of elaboration likelihood model in Facebook. The Journal of Advertising and Promotion Research, 3(2), 45–84. doi:10.14377/japr.2014.9.30.45

 Google Scholar

Chung, N., Han, H., & Koo, C. (2015). Adoption of travel information in user generated content on social media: The moderating effect of social presence. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(9), 902–919. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2015.1039060

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Li, R., & Suh, A. (2015). Factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms: Evidence from Facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 314–328. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.146

 Google Scholar

Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2016). Examining online consumers’ initial trust building from an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(2), 265–275. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9530-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Poorrezaei, M. (2016). Customer engagement: Conceptualisation. Measurement and validation ( PhD thesis). Salford Business School, Salford. Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/39377/

 Google Scholar

Khang, H., Han, E. K., & Ki, E. J. (2014). Exploring influential social cognitive determinants of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 36(1), 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.038

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Andre, C. R. (2015). Consumer engagement with a brand on Facebook ( Master’s thesis). Catholic University of Portugal, Portugal. Retrieved from https://repositorio.ucp.pt/bitstream/10400.14/19303/1/TFM_Ana%20Raquel%20Andr%C3%A9.pdf

 Google Scholar

Asghar, H. M. (2015). Measuring information seeking through Facebook: Scale development and initial evidence of information seeking in Facebook scale (isfs). Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 259–270. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877. doi: 10.1108/01409171211256578

 Google Scholar

Fernandes, T., & Remelhe, P. (2016). How to engage customers in co-creation: Customers’ motivations for collaborative innovation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4), 311–326. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095220

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jahn, B., & Kunz, H. W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal of Service Management, 23(3), 344–361. doi:10.1108/09564231211248444

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring consumers’ engagement with brand-related social-media content. Journal of Advertising Research, 56, 64–80. doi:10.2501/JAR-2016-004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar