Unlocking the power of social media marketing: Investigating the role of posting, interaction, and monitoring capabilities in building brand equity

Abstract

Given the extensive utilisation of social media, brands have grown increasingly dependent on it to build brand equity. As a result, acquiring specific capabilities in the realm of digital marketing has become a necessity. This research aims to investigate the essence of Social Media Marketing Capabilities (SMMC) and assess the forecasting of its capability on Consumer-Based Brand Equity using qualitative and quantitative research methods. The results demonstrate that the ability to post and interact on social media positively correlates with consumer-based brand equity. Conversely, the monitoring capabilities of social media marketing (SMM) did not establish a significant association with Consumer-Based Brand Equity. These findings have important implications for marketing, branding, and community management professionals who can leverage these insights to optimise their social media strategies and maximise their returns by focusing on enhancing specific SMM capabilities.

Keywords:

• digital marketing
• Social Media Marketing Capabilities (SMMC)
• consumer-based brand equity
• brand image
• capabilities theory

1. Introduction

Social media platforms allow individuals to connect and share crucial information about their interests and lives. It also provides an ideal opportunity for real-time marketing, as marketers can engage with consumers at the moment by connecting their brands to important events, causes, and milestones in consumers’ lives. In the digital age, social media marketing (SMM) is one of the major trends and forces transforming the marketing landscape and challenging traditional marketing strategies (Kotler & Armstrong, 2018). Almost everyone uses social media, from NASA to doctors to local fast-food restaurants. Researchers have noted that widespread social media networking creates opportunities and risks for businesses seeking a sustainable competitive advantage (David & David, 2017). The emergence of social media has brought about significant changes in the business world, transforming branding and requiring companies to communicate with their external customers and employees through new digital platforms and methods (Jayasuriya et al., 2018; Leonardi et al., 2013).

The field of branding research has a long history in academia, but there has been a notable increase in the number of scientific articles focused on brand management and brand equity in recent years (Rojas-Lamorena et al., 2022). Among these, the brand-leveraging process and factors are becoming increasingly critical to the field (Keller, 2003; Yoo et al., 2000). Brand communication, as a critical aspect of marketing mix management (Kotler & Armstrong, 2018), has long been identified as a critical factor in enhancing brand value from a consumer perspective (Aaker, 1991). Social media, as a growing marketing channel, has been incorporated into traditional marketing mix strategies and is closely related to the concept of Integrated Marketing Communication (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Šerić, 2017). Many researchers have found a strong positive relationship between social media marketing (SMM) activities and Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) across different industries (Godey et al., 2016; Jayasuriya et al., 2018; Kim & Ko, 2012; Šerić, 2017; Zollo et al., 2020), providing valuable insights into the role of communication in social media.

Brands’ social media platforms take time to develop visibility and interactivity with consumers, and the degree of consumer engagement with these platforms varies greatly among brands. This variability can be explained by the resource-based or capabilities theory, which suggests that brands in a given industry are heterogeneous regarding the strategic resources they control (Day, 2011). In the context of digital marketing capabilities, SMM is a recently discussed topic and is considered one of the key digital marketing capabilities and resources (Herhausen et al., 2020). This study, while acknowledging the existence of digital marketing capabilities as significant drivers of firm performance (Homburg & Wielgos, 2022), focuses specifically on the capabilities related to SMM activities as drivers of brand performance at the consumer perception level.

Despite the growing attention to the role of Marketing Capabilities Theory in achieving superior performance in a complex, competitive environment (Herhausen et al., 2020; Mathews et al., 2016, 2019), there has been limited research examining SMM as a new strategic capability. Questions remain, such as “what is the nature of new capabilities in social media?” (Moorman & Day, 2016) and “does social media use by brands contribute to organisational performance?” (Herhausen et al., 2020).

Researchers have previously examined SMM using a range of variables (Jayasuriya et al., 2018), and this study suggests that these variables can be reduced to a smaller set of activities that express the tone and tactics used to communicate messages. These activities, such as “trendiness,” “entertainment,” and “personality,” can be included as sub-dimensions within the “Content” activities. Focusing on the essence of SMM variables is a more promising approach than exploring many variables. Therefore, instead of delving into many variables, it is promising to focus on the essence of SMM variables. This approach would afford a deeper understanding of SMM as the core competencies businesses focus on to improve their brand performance.

In last decades, the concept of brand equity has gained significant importance within the realm of marketing. Meanwhile, investigations endeavors have been dedicated to understanding the forces that contribute to build a robust brand. Multiple frameworks for assessing brand equity have emerged since the inception of this concept in the 1990s. However, the brand equity model introduced by Keller (1993) continues to hold prominence. This model effectively combines two fundamental aspects: brand awareness and brand image. These two dimensions closely align with the notion of brand knowledge, as defined and operationalized in various studies. Simultaneously, these dimensions have been empirically employed across diverse fields of research (Godey et al., 2016), including a social media setting. Therefore, this study adopts a cognitive perspective in evaluating brand equity by integrating the two dimensions of brand knowledge; awareness and brand image.

Thence, current paper endeavours to make several contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, it aims to streamline the numerous factors that define SMM activities while preserving the central concept. Secondly, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has applied the capabilities theory to SMM activities and evaluated their impact on CBBE. In this research, the following questions are addressed: How to define the capabilities of SMM? And to what extent do these capabilities impact CBBE? Hence, the capabilities theory and the brand equity theory were integrated to formulate a conceptual framework to assess the impact of SMM Capabilities on brand performance.

2. Literature review

2.1. Capabilities theory and digital marketing

The foundation of this research is grounded in the capability-based and resource-based perspectives. Both theories posit that a company’s performance depends on effectively transforming its unique resources into capabilities (Barney, 1991; Day, 1994). Resources are the assets, capabilities, processes, attributes, information, and knowledge a company controls to design and implement strategies to enhance efficiency and effectiveness (Barney, 1991). The capability approach highlights the ability to use resources to perform tasks, which results from the strategic bundling of resources (Teece, 2014). The original version of the resource-based view portrayed organisational capabilities as established routines for executing processes (Day, 2011) but failed to explain the development and adaptation of capabilities in response to changes in the market or nonlinear disruptions such as the Internet (Day, 2011). As digital marketing requires resources, skills, information, and processes to support a brand’s marketing strategy (Miller, 2015), the resource-based theory and capability approach are crucial in understanding the role of digital marketing in achieving high performance and competitive advantage. In marketing, capabilities are complex and multi-faceted bundles of skills and accumulated knowledge exercised through organisational processes to coordinate activities and use assets (Day, 1994).

Marketing capabilities are complex and multi-dimensional (Möller & Anttila, 1987). Marketing managers must navigate the challenges of information and communication technology while integrating marketing resources and activities to establish new capabilities that help achieve performance through customer acquisition and retention. To do this, they draw upon capability and resource-based theories to conceptualise e-marketing capabilities (Trainor et al., 2011).

A firm’s marketing capabilities are the intricate bundles of firm-level skills and knowledge leveraged to carry out marketing tasks and adapt to market changes (Moorman & Day, 2016). E-marketing capabilities are defined as the processes, structures, and skills a company adopts to plan and execute e-marketing activities (Chaffey & Smith, 2017). These capabilities enable companies to allocate resources and achieve their e-marketing goals effectively. For instance, different companies may have varying levels of engagement and appealing content on their Facebook pages and rank differently in search engine results (Cox, 2021).

2.2. Towards social media marketing capabilities

The rise of social media and accessible high-speed network connectivity, the advent of social media platforms, and the widespread adoption of mobile devices have greatly impacted the marketing landscape (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016). The role of marketers has continued to evolve, especially with the recent pandemic and increased internet usage, leading to increased responsibilities. 84.1% of companies prioritise social media marketing after branding and digital marketing, demonstrating the importance companies place on leveraging social media for competitive advantage.

Social Media Marketing (SMM) involves activities that enhance the role of social media in marketing efforts. It refers to using social media technologies, channels, and software to create, communicate, deliver, and exchange valuable offerings with stakeholders (Alalwan et al., 2017). Social media is a form of new media technology that facilitates interactivity and co-creation, enabling the sharing of user-generated content between organisations and individuals (Filo et al., 2015).

Two types of social media can be identified: earned social media (ESM) and owned social media (OSM). ESM refers to voluntary user-generated comments and recommendations that a company does not directly control, while OSM refers to brand-owned digital assets such as corporate Facebook pages (Colicev et al., 2018). To effectively measure SMM activities, there is a need to develop more reliable measurement instruments (Kim & Ko, 2012).

There are several dimensions of SMM, with the most widely accepted being the five dimensions proposed by Kim and Ko (2012). Their study, which used a structural equation model, found that the perceived SMM activities consisted of entertainment, interaction, trendiness, customisation, and word of mouth. These five dimensions have been replicated and tested in various brands and contexts to examine the relationship between SMM and customer-based brand equity (Godey et al., 2016; Koay et al., 2021; Yadav & Rahman, 2017, 2018); while other studies have used one or more of these dimensions (de Vries et al., 2012; Nobar et al., 2020; Sehar et al., 2019; Seo & Park, 2018).

2.3. Dimensions of SMM capabilities

The literature on digital marketing acknowledges that Social Media Marketing (SMM) is a component of a broader digital marketing strategy (Chaffey & Smith, 2017; Kotler & Armstrong, 2018; Miller, 2015). As a subset of digital marketing capabilities, SMM capabilities can be reduced to two essential elements as perceived by practitioners: “Posting Capabilities” and “Interaction Capabilities” (Herhausen et al., 2020; Nuseir & El Refae, 2022; Tarsakoo & Charoensukmongkol, 2018). Furthermore, a new construct called “Monitoring Capabilities” is introduced, defined as the skills required for web analytics, a crucial management process in digital marketing.

2.3.1. Posting capabilities of SMM

SMM is widely regarded as a content marketing and communication tool that requires specialised skills for creating and broadcasting messages on social media platforms (Chaffey & Smith, 2017; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). The Posting Capabilities of Social Media Marketing (PC-SMM) refers to the knowledge and skills required to create appropriate, distinctive, and relevant content for publishing on social media platforms for long-term broadcasting and promotion. This includes personalising messages, making them vivid, exciting, trendy, and exclusive, among other strategies, to align the brand’s essence with the target audience (Colicev et al., 2018). Through informative and expertly crafted content, brands can deliver important information to their audience, such as new products, promotions, and corporate news.

2.3.2. Interaction capabilities of SMM

Social media’s two-way nature demands companies’ active involvement to engage their audience, a key component of successful SMM (Miller, 2015). The Interaction Capabilities of Social Media Marketing (IC-SMM) refer to a company’s ability to interact actively with its audience (de Vries et al., 2012; Jayasuriya et al., 2018; Kim & Ko, 2012). This benefits brands by stimulating users to share information and experiences and provides marketers with valuable data and insights about their target audience through consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-brand interactions (Zollo et al., 2020). Brands should understand their target audience and the mechanics of viral marketing (Berger & Milkman, 2012; Bhattacharya et al., 2019; Mora et al., 2021) to encourage customer participation in activities such as commenting, sharing, or liking their social media posts. Brands must foster interaction on social media platforms, as this is critical to the effectiveness of SMM as a communication tool. The most popular and influential brands on social media have high numbers of likes and comments, which indicate the vitality of their social media presence (de Vries et al., 2012). The Interaction Capabilities of SMM represent companies’ skills to encourage customer engagement in conversation and events.

2.3.3. Monitoring capabilities of SMM

As companies continue to increase their investment in SMM, the need for effective evaluation techniques is becoming increasingly important (Keegan & Rowley, 2017). From a marketing management perspective, it is critical to assess the effectiveness of SMM, and a Social Media Audit is a useful tool for capturing the current state of social media activities and evaluating their effectiveness (Mukesh & Rao, 2017). Brands must also actively listen to and monitor online user actions related to specific brand postings to understand consumer reactions to their campaigns. The Monitoring Capabilities of Social Media Marketing (MC-SMM) are defined as “the ability of a brand to monitor future decisions by tracking and reporting users’ activity on brand social media platforms.”

Marketing professionals should regularly evaluate the effectiveness of their social media marketing (SMM) by analysing various metrics, both objective (e.g., number of friends) and subjective (e.g., quality of conversations) (Miller, 2015). As per the Total Quality Management (TQM) approach, monitoring Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is a crucial step in the improvement of any program (Day, 1994). Regularly measuring KPIs and setting time-based targets can quickly identify and address issues and weaknesses.

2.4. SMM capabilities and consumer-based brand equity

The utilisation of social media as a marketing strategy has been widely recognised for its effectiveness in achieving firms’ marketing objectives. This has elevated the importance of social media among CEOs and consultants (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The benefits of social media have remained consistent across internal, consumer and partner purposes (Bughin et al., 2011), making it imperative for successful social media marketing (SMM) activities to establish positive consumer-based brand equity. Kim and Ko (2012) found that SMM activities significantly impact luxury brands’ value equity, relationship equity, and brand equity. Yadav and Rahman (2017) also observed that implementing SMM activities in the e-commerce industry positively influence purchase intention and brand equity. Research has confirmed that SMM activities have a positive relationship with brand awareness and image, which in turn influences preferences and brand loyalty (Godey et al., 2016). Another study indicated that perceived SMM activities significantly positively impact consumer-based brand equity (Koay et al., 2020).

Following marketing capabilities theory and the digital marketing component, it is posited that social media marketing (SMM) capabilities positively impact consumer-based brand equity. The concept of brand equity has undergone significant alterations due to the evolution of brand equity theory. Brand equity is the added value that a specific brand confers to a product. Brand equity is further defined as the differential preference consumers show for a branded product compared to an unbranded product, given the same product features (Yoo et al., 2000). For clarity, some studies have synthesised the various concepts of brand equity found in the literature (Laradi, 2019). From a cognitive perspective, brand equity is defined as the differential impact of brand knowledge on consumer responses to marketing efforts. Brand knowledge is a comprehensive set of brand associations stored in long-term consumer memory and is the most commonly used model of brand equity that establishes a link between brand awareness and brand image (Keller, 1993; Leone et al., 2006). Brand awareness, which represents the consumers’ ability to recognise the brand under various conditions, is determined by the strength of the brand node in consumer memory. Brand awareness is defined as the ability of an individual to recall and recognise a brand (Keller, 1993).

On the other hand, brand image encompasses various facets and dimensions that are influenced by psychological characteristics. Keller defines brand image as the consumer perceptions of a brand reflected in the brand associations stored in their memories (Keller, 1993). Based on the above discussion, this study proposed three main hypotheses:

H1.

Posting capabilities of social media marketing is positively related to consumer-based brand equity.

H2.

Interaction capabilities of social media marketing is positively related to consumer-based brand equity.

H3.

Monitoring capabilities of social media marketing is positively related to consumer-based brand equity.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and procedures

The present study aims to investigate the impact of social media marketing (SMM) capabilities on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) by conducting a field study. The study focuses on the brand Facebook page, as Facebook is the most widely used social network in Algeria, with a user base of over 22 million (Dataportal.com). The data was collected from a sample of 124 brands that maintain a Facebook page to assess SMM capabilities. Brands were selected using a qualitative method, where eight master students were asked to identify brands they frequently encounter on Facebook. The students identified 163 brands, from which researcher collected data by contacting the brands through their Facebook pages, websites, email, or any other contact information. The study involved a multi-step approach to gather data from both firms and consumers to evaluate social media marketing capabilities and measure CBBE. The companies were given questionnaires to evaluate their capabilities, while at least five consumers were administered CBBE questionnaires for each brand. Mean CBBE values were then calculated for each brand and integrated into the observations on their capabilities, resulting in the creation of 124 counts, each containing information on both the capabilities and CBBE measures of a specific brand. The data collection was performed by asking the brand representative who was aware of or involved in the brand’s Facebook page, such as the CEO, head of marketing, head of sales department, or communication person in charge. A link to the questionnaire was included in the communication messages and distributed through Google Forms. After three months of contact efforts, 124 responses were received.

To measure CBBE dimensions, responses from 5 to 10 consumers of the previously identified brands were collected through consumer surveys. The data was collected from 954 students, conveniently chosen as consumers of the brands, over one month in 2021. The data collection was performed by distributing a questionnaire to the students and ensuring that each student only filled out one questionnaire.

3.2. Measurement procedures

To measure SMM capabilities, a total of 28 measurement items were developed from a qualitative study that included online interviews with four professionals in charge of social media marketing or digital marketing within their organisations, as well as three academics highly involved in teaching digital marketing. The content analysis (Appendix) of the interviews resulted in the majority of items being similar to those found in previous studies (Godey et al., 2016; Keegan & Rowley, 2017; Kim & Ko, 2012; Koay et al., 2020; Yadav & Rahman, 2017)) and social media evaluation for monitoring dimension on perceived SMM activities but modified to fit strategic capabilities. The number of items was reduced to 12 using Cronbach’s alpha value after data was collected from the brands.

For CBBE measurement, 10 items were used to measure brand awareness and brand image or association. The items were adapted from previous studies (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, 2003; Laradi, 2019; Yoo et al., 2000). The measurement items were judged on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 7 representing “strongly agree”.

3.3. Analysis methodology

The researcher employed a mixed-methods approach to assess the relationship between SMM capabilities and CBBE, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data. The researcher used the mean values of each brand’s reported CBBE to match their related SMM capabilities as reported by the brand representatives. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26, including tests for Cronbach’s alpha, correlation, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and descriptive analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis and the measurement model for the path analysis were conducted using AMOS software. The internal and discriminant validity, extraction method, and fit indices of the measurement model were based on established guidelines from the academic community in the field (Brown, 2015; Churchill, 1979; Nunnally, 1978).

4. Results

4.1. Demographics

The study was conducted with a sample of 945 respondents, of which 65% were female, and 35% were male, reflecting the gender demographics of universities in Algeria. Most respondents were between 18–24 years old (58%) or 25–30 years old (30%). Most respondents were pursuing a Bachelor’s degree (54%) or a Master’s degree (45%), with less than 1% being PhD students. The industries studied included retail clothing and retail, arts and culture, food, electronics and furniture, service, and other industries, with global (41%) and local (59%) brands represented.

4.2. Measurement model analysis

The study aimed to develop a multi-dimensional model of social media marketing (SMM) capabilities. The activities perceived as crucial by brand representatives were identified as the capabilities. The study first eliminated unnecessary items through a common Cronbach’s alpha, followed by an exploratory factor analysis through a Principal Component Analysis (Nunnally, 1978). The factor structure of the model was supported for reliability through Cronbach’s value (Churchill, 1979). Besides, a Varimax rotation was performed to extract the factors, with a strict a priori decision criterion of rejecting factor loadings less than 0.5 and retaining components with Eigen-values greater than 1.0.

The results of the exploratory factor analysis revealed that 78.5% of the variance was contributed by three factors of SMM capabilities: posting capabilities (4 items), interaction capabilities (4 items), and monitoring capabilities (4 items). The theoretical model received an acceptable indicator with KMO = 0.78 and Bartlett sig = 0.00, leading to a confirmatory factor analysis using the AMOS program. The constructs showed high Cronbach’s values, with Posting capacities at 0.84, interaction capabilities at 0.94, and monitoring capabilities at 0.89. The composite reliability values were all above 0.70, meeting the requirements of construct reliability, and all average variance extracted (AVE) values were higher than 0.50, indicating strong convergent validity. The findings suggest that SMM capabilities consist of three key dimensions: posting capacities, interaction capabilities, and monitoring capabilities, with consistent individual items to measure each dimension.

The present study utilized several key points to strengthen the analysis and interpretation of results. Firstly, we employed a Mahalanobis distance test with SPSS software to identify and eliminate 11 brands with large distances from the dataset. Secondly, we ensured that there were no missing data and no multi-group setting present in the study. Additionally, we aimed for minimal model complexity by using 12 items across three dimensions to obtain a simpler model with fewer parameters to estimate. Furthermore, the factor loadings exhibited sufficient size, and effect sizes (Cohen’s f2) and multicollinearity (tolerance values < 0.2) were also assessed. Lastly, we note that the sample size was relatively small; however, the CFI metric performed well under these conditions. Due to the challenge of reaching more respondents in brand management, the study was limited to 150+ brands, and 124 were deemed valid for the analysis.

According to some experts, a CFI criterion of .95 is commonly used. However, it is also acceptable in some cases for certain parts of the model to fit less well. For instance, an initial cut-off criterion of CFI ≥ 0.90 was proposed, and in the marketing field, a range of 0.91 to 0.97 is considered acceptable. Brown (2015) suggests aiming for a CFI of 0.95 or higher. The observed decrease in CFA after adding CBBE data in SEM could be attributed to the introduction of new variables and data correlations, as CFA tends to decrease as more variables are added and the data becomes less correlated.

Despite the distinct and consistent dimensions of social media marketing (SMM) capabilities, as demonstrated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the overall model fit was found to be satisfactory with the collected data, as reported by Brown (2015). Specifically, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio was 1.388, which is less than the critical value of 2, and the p-value was less than 0.01, indicating that the model fit the data well. Additionally, the comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.963, the goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.938 (both greater than the recommended threshold of 0.9), and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was 0.901 (greater than the recommended threshold of 0.8). Finally, the root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.048, which is less than the acceptable threshold of 0.08. After establishing the satisfactory model fit, the three constructs of SMM capabilities were subsequently verified.

4.3. Structural model analysis

The findings in Figure 1 & Table 1 strongly suggest that measures of the SMM capabilities scale are consistent and reliable. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate whether the SMM capabilities measure has predictive validity to support the scale’s effectiveness.

Figure 1. Results of the measurement Model.

Table 1. Confirmatory factor Analysis

Items	γ	α	CR	AVE
Posting capabilities of SMM		0.84	0.93	0.79
1. Effectively posting interesting information on social media.	0.87
2. Sharing content on “SM” on a constant basis.	0.87
3. Capacity to use SM as a key force for multichannel marketing.	0.90
4. Creative concepts to delight fans on SM.	0.93
Interaction Capabilities of SMM		0.94	0.92	0.76
1. Encouraging tips for more likes and comments.	0.91
2. Quickly connecting/responding to “our brand’s SM” users.	0.95
3. Powerful platform for users and brands to interact with fans	0.82
4. Significant consumer engagement on “our brand’s SM”.	0.81
Monitoring Capacities of SMM		0.87	0.91	0.72
1. Identification of specific and clear evaluation objectives	0.89
2. Skills for using appropriate analytical tools.	0.79
3. Integrating of the KPIs and metrics into a presentable format	0.85
4. Using SM analytics skills to develop effective marketing posts	0.87

Notes: γ: individual indicator standardised loadings. α: Cronbach’s alpha. CR: composite reliability. AVE: average variance extracted.

Table 2 displays a positive and significant statistical relationship between all the constructs in the model. To provide evidence of the model’s predictive validity, relationships H1, H2, and H3 were tested using a linear regression model. The results reveal that the model’s significance is supported, with a p-value of 0.00, which is less than the significance level of 0.05, as demonstrated in Table 3.

Table 2. Correlation matrix among each construct

	1	2	3	4	5	6	Mean	SD
1. Posting capabilities of SMM	1	0.78	0.40	0.87	0.83	0.82	5.31	1.32
2. Interaction capabilities of SMM		1	0.18	0.78	0.77	0.70	4.67	1.16
3. Monitoring capabilities of SMM			1	0.36	0.27	0.41	3.85	1.55
4. Consumer-Based Brand equity				1	0.94	0.94	5.76	0.98
5. Brand image					1	0.78	5.62	1.02
6. Brand awareness						1	5.91	1.17

Notes: The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (bilateral). SD: Standard deviation. Brand equity score is the average of Brand image and Brand awareness.

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis

Variables	β	t value	Sig.	Unstandardized values	R^2 adj
1. SMM Posting capabilities= =brand equity	0.643	7.964	0.000	0.607	0.792
2. SMM Interaction capabilities= =brand equity	0.269	3.569	0.001	0.290
3. SMM Monitoring capabilities= =brand equity	0.062	1.214	0.228	0.071

Note: ANOVA model is significant at level 0.001.

Regarding the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis, the fit indices were found to be within the recommended range of acceptable values, with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.922, a goodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.901 (greater than the suggested threshold of 0.9), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) of 0.852 (greater than the suggested threshold of 0.8), and a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.052 (less than the recommended threshold of 0.08). Furthermore, the overall model fit was considered satisfactory with a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (x2/df) of 1.426, which is less than the critical value of 2, as reported by Brown (2015) and depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Results of path analysis.

The impact relationship between social media marketing (SMM) capabilities and customer-based brand equity (CBBE) was examined, as demonstrated in Figure 2 and Table 3. The findings indicate that the posting capabilities of SMM have a positive (β = 0.64, t = 7.96) and significant (p = 0.00, which is less than the significance level of 0.05) impact on CBBE. Furthermore, the interaction capabilities of SMM also have a positive (β = 0.26, t = 3.56) and significant (p = 0.00) impact on CBBE. However, it is surprising to note that the monitoring capabilities of SMM were found to have no significant impact (p = 0.22, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05) on CBBE. Whereas, brand image and brand awareness are ancillary as they are included in CBBE.

The results of this study support the H1 and H2 hypotheses, which suggest a positive relationship between the posting and interaction capabilities of SMM and CBBE. However, the findings do not support the H3 hypothesis, which suggests a positive relationship between monitoring capabilities of SMM and CBBE.

5. Discussion

The present study sheds light on the different dimensions of Social Media Marketing (SMM) capabilities. By examining the existing literature on SMM and capabilities theory, qualitative and quantitative research was conducted to answer two key questions related to the nature of new capabilities in social media and the contribution of social media use to organisational performance.

This study significantly contributes to the field of SMM and branding management. Firstly, it is the first study to provide a conceptualisation and assessment of SMM capabilities, which combines the digital marketing field with the theory of capacities. Additionally, the results align with prior research in the area, demonstrating that SMM capabilities positively impact Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) and firm performance. Specifically, the study found that SMM’s posting and interaction capabilities positively affect CBBE. These findings are also consistent with the capabilities theory applied in the marketing field, which suggests that marketing capabilities, including SMM, contribute to non-financial performance, such as consumer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand performance.

The present study reveals that social media marketing (SMM) posting capabilities share similarities with traditional communication capabilities. Advertising management and creative skills are essential components of communication capabilities. The difference between posting capabilities in SMM and copywriting capabilities in traditional advertising lies in utilising new technologies that require novel skills for optimised digital promotion (Miller, 2015).

Interestingly, this study found that the monitoring capabilities of SMM do not influence Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE). It is crucial to note that SMM capabilities are not directly observable by consumers, especially during the evaluation process of SMM capabilities. As a result, the internal monitoring process of a company does not directly impact consumer perception and awareness; however, the monitoring results can reflect in the content of SMM posts and the interaction between the company and its users. In contrast, the consumer can directly perceive the efforts put into posting and interaction capabilities. It is possible that the impact of monitoring capabilities on SMM may be indirect rather than direct. These capabilities may prove valuable when they result in improved content and interaction. To gain a better understanding of the findings related to monitoring, further research could be conducted.

Moreover, some specialised reports on social media insights suggest that half of the brands executing SMM campaigns do not use a sophisticated Return on Investment (ROI) approach to measure the impact of SMM but instead rely on simple metrics such as “likes” (Kotler et al., 2019, p. 607). This could explain the relatively weak average score (Mean = 3.85) and large variance (explained by the Standard deviation) in monitoring capabilities compared to other capabilities.

5.1. Future direction for researcher

Despite the promising findings of this study, further research is required to expand our comprehension of the nature and significance of digital marketing capabilities. The dynamic nature of these capabilities and their relationship with Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) demand continued exploration on their scalability over time for specific brands and target consumers. The long-term success of Social Media Marketing (SMM) activities requires measuring their outcomes over an extended period, similar to other marketing endeavours.

Future research should focus on determining the specific factors that contribute to developing digital marketing skills, such as the influence of top-level management, the brand’s innovation rate, and the mediating role of the market structure and size. Additionally, the impact of SMM capabilities on a firm’s financial benefits should be established by exploring their relationship with the company’s profit, market share, and shareholder value. A comparison of post behavior assessment could also be an interesting comparative study. Moreover, it is also possible that the impact of monitoring capabilities on SMM may be indirect rather than direct. These capabilities may prove valuable when they result in improved content and interaction. To gain a better understanding of the findings related to monitoring, further research could be conducted.

A broader spectrum of industries in the Algerian context should also be investigated, such as comparing SMM capabilities between high-tech brands and fashion brands or between products targeted at different gender segments. Furthermore, additional country-specific studies would help assess the robustness of the SMM capabilities model and its relationship with CBBE. Finally, further research is needed to understand the role of other digital or traditional marketing activities, such as the contribution of advertising to engagement on social networks or the synergy from different media marketing activities.

5.2. Limitations

Despite utilising comprehensive research methods and information-gathering procedures, future studies could address several limitations. Firstly, the sample size in this research is relatively small, so the results of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis should be considered with caution. A larger sample size would provide greater reliability and validity of the results (Hair et al., 2014). Secondly, the measurement issues were only assessed on the same sample when using multiple samples was recommended for increased reliability (Churchill, 1979). As a result, the generalizability of the findings should be viewed with caution.

Thirdly, the digital capabilities examined in this research focused only on the content created and controlled by the companies and brands. However, much of the content on social media is generated by users, which can have a significant impact on consumer brand evaluation (Colicev et al., 2018). Fourthly, the degree of adoption of SMM capabilities may vary across different industries, and therefore, further research is needed to investigate industry-specific differences.

Finally, a limitation of this study is that it only considered Facebook pages as a means of brand building on social media, while other social media sites, such as Instagram and YouTube, require different capabilities and skills.

Despite these limitations, studying SMM capabilities presents a rich opportunity for businesses and academic researchers due to the growing digital nature of marketing activities. It is hoped that this study will encourage further research into digital marketing capabilities and their impact on brand and company performance.

6. Conclusion

The findings of this study hold significance for marketing managers, brand managers, and community managers to cultivate the essential marketing and technical competencies associated with social media platforms, to enhance consumer engagement and brand performance. Social media platforms offer users the opportunity to express their interests and provide brands with a powerful tool for their marketing communications. This research offers valuable managerial insights that can potentially elevate brand recognition and image by honing the skills in social media marketing (SMM) as a communication tool.

Firstly, it is imperative for policymakers in all brands, regardless of whether they operate in the mass market or niche market, to fully leverage and cultivate SMM marketing strategies by focusing on the digital gaps in social media activities as part of a comprehensive marketing approach. It is crucial to determine the required skills and how they are being implemented. This information is indispensable in developing effective broadcast messages and promoting brands across social media platforms.

Secondly, in addition to providing accurate, relevant, and coherent information about the products or services offered, it is important to balance the optimal posting frequency and choose the right words and tone that align with the brand’s essence. The content consumers encounter, read, and interpret in their available time is directly influenced by the content creation abilities of the brand. Community managers must leverage creative content to capture the attention of their audience. Brands can effectively communicate with their target audience and reinforce their core brand-consumer experience (CBBE) values by using a variety of message tones, such as an educational or entertaining message, or a combination of both.

Thirdly, if the study finds that social interaction skills between consumers and brands are a driving force of CBBE, brand managers should take a closer look at the dynamics of consumer-brand interaction on social media platforms to optimise the customer experience and engagement.

Finally, for brands to succeed in the realm of social media, community managers must continuously monitor the quantitative and qualitative results of their previous efforts. Brand and community managers must thoroughly understand when their social media initiatives are producing positive outcomes. Regularly tracking both subjective and objective metrics is necessary to determine the success of their post content and the reasons behind it.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data are available upon request.

Appendix

SMMC items generated from content analysis (Questionnaire before statistic purification).

Table

Content capabilities
1.Using effectively “our brand’s social media” to share interesting information (retained).
2.Regularly sharing content on “our brand’s social media” (retained).
3.“Our brand’s social media” post provides needed information accurately.
4.Ability to integrate content of “our brand’s social media” as an effective tool of multichannel marketing strategies.
5.Being able to communicate with “our brand’s social media” followers in their own language.
6.Skills of publishing content that appeal to various types of “our brand’s social media” followers.
7.Providing accurate product information on the “our brand’s social media”.
8.Using creative concepts to post content in multiple of ways to delight fans (retained).
Interaction capabilities
1.Making “our brand’s social media” easier to share information with others.
2.Exchanging conversation and opinion with others is possible through “our brand’s social media”.
3.It’s convenient to deliver consumer’s opinion through “our brand’s social media”.
4.Encouraging fans to make likes and comment on “our brand’s social media” publication (retained).
5.Quickly connecting or responding to users of “our brand’s social media” (retained).
6.Providing a strong platform for fans interaction with both the brand and other users (retained).
7.Having a high level of consumer engagement on “our brand’s social media” (retained).
8.Ability to promote a positive attitude among users of “our brand’s social media”.
9.Having a sizable number of typical fans
10.Attracting and retaining the best customers through “our brand’s social media”.
Monitoring capabilities
1.Identification of specific and clear evaluation objectives to “our brand’s social media” activities (retained).
2.Ability to identify the most appropriate performance indicators for “our brand’s social media”.
3.Skills for using appropriate analytical tools for “our brand’s social media” (retained).
4.Integrating of the KPIs and metrics into a presentable format (retained).
5.Skills to highlight the overall campaign performance with notable future iterations
6.Deciding on the optimal frequency of reporting and extending from real-time
7.Making full use of social media analytics and information
8.Using social media analytics skills to develop effective marketing publications in the future (retained).