memo to marketers- quantitative evidence for change
Post on 31-Oct-2015
312 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
-
DOI: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-053-064 March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 53
INTRODUCTIONThe social Web represents a paradigm shift in mar-
keting communicationsindeed, communication
as a whole. Brands that formerly were tightly con-
trolled by their managers increasingly are being
shaped by their consumer markets. It is, therefore,
important for managers to understand the driv-
ers of consumer online content creation and their
subsequent impact on brands (Berthon, Pitt, and
Campbell, 2008; Christodoulides, 2009).
User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly grow-
ing vehicle for brand conversations and consumer
insights. The growth of online brand communities,
including social-networking sites, has supported
the development of UGC (Gangadharbatla, 2008).
More than 82 million people in the United States
created content online during 2008, and this number
is expected to grow to nearly 114.5 million by 2013
(eMarketer, 2009). Following a similar trend, con-
sumers of UGC are expected to reach 155 million in
2013, up from 116 million in 2008 (eMarketer , 2009).
A significant amount of UGC concerns brand-
related material (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). For
example, recent evidence shows that about 70 percent
of brand-related searches on social-networking
sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter relate
to UGC, and only 30 percent of searches are for
marketer-created content (360i, 2009).
Despite the rapid increase in UGC and its poten-
tial effect on brands, however, there has been
limited research to date on the impact of consumer-
generated content on how brands are perceived.
Indeed, empowered consumers generating and
sharing their own brand-related content does not
fit into any current model of integrated marketing
communications (Ewing, 2009).
With the continued growth of online participa-
tion in content creation and sharing, consumers
are exerting greater influence over products and
brands (Jevons and Gabbott, 2000; Riegner, 2007).
Although the shift to more user-centered commu-
nication means there is growing interest in UGC,
there is little theory to inform managers about the
impact of UGC on brands.
Examples of poor practice abound, and UGC does
not always work as brand managers might hope
(Shenkan and Sichel, 2007). This limited understand-
ing of the nature of UGC and its effects on brand
Memo to Marketers:
Quantitative Evidence for ChangeHow User-Generated Content Really Affects Brands
GEORGE CHRISTODOULIDESHenley Business school,
University of ReadingG.christodoulides@henley.
reading.ac.uk
COLIN JEVONSMonash University/
Caulfield campus
colin.Jevons@ monash.edu
JENNIFER BONHOMMEDigital Planning
consultantJennifer.L.Bonhomme@
gmail.com
Developed in response to the new challenges of the social Web, this study investigates
how involvement with brand-related user-generated content (UGc) affects consumers
perceptions of brands. The authors develop a model that provides new insights into the
links between drivers of UGc creation, involvement, and consumer-based brand equity.
Expert opinions were sought on a hypothesized model, which further was tested through
data from an online survey of 202 consumers. The results provide guidance for managerial
initiatives involving UGC campaigns for brand building. The findings indicate that consumer
perceptions of co-creation, community, and self-concept have a positive impact on
UGc involvement that, in turn, positively affects consumer-based brand equity. These
empirical results have significant implications for avoiding problems and building deeper
relationships between consumers and brands in the age of social media.
-
54 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
equity can result in marketers engaging
with UGC in a way that is of no benefit to
the brand or even is damaging.
This research contributes toward under-
standing UGC creators and how their
engagement with brand-related UGC
affects their brand perceptions and hence
their communications about that brand. A
theoretical framework is drafted from the
limited literature to date, refined through
depth interviews with experts, and then
further tested with an online consumer
survey.
The study opens with a review of the
literature on UGC, offering a definition
of this emergent phenomenon and then
discussing its drivers, organized in four
categories. Then, based on the literature
and in-depth interviews with experts, the
authors develop a model postulating that
co-creation, empowerment, community, and
self-concept lead to involvement with UGC,
which, in turn, affects consumer-based brand
equity (CBBE). The article then presents the
method used to test the model, describes
the results, and discusses the findings in
light of the pertinent literature, highlighting
implications for managerial practice.
DEFINING USER-GENERATED CONTENTFrom its origins as a niche activity driven
by long-tail distribution (Daugherty, Eas-
tin, and Bright, 2008), early UGC was
characterized by participatory inequality
whereby creation used took place among
the few (Ochoa and Duval, 2008). In the
communication democracy that the Inter-
net is empowering more and more, how-
ever, all kinds of consumers express their
views publicly; influence has been shifting
from manager-generated content toward
key opinion leaders in the customer base
for many years, furthering the shift from
a conventional publisher-centric media
model to a more user-centric model
(Daugherty et al., 2008).
Perhaps because the subject is con-
tinuing to evolve and grow, there is no
one widely accepted definition for UGC.
It can be interchangeably referred to as
user-created content or, less commonly,
user-led content creation (Burmann and
Arnhold, 2008). One study described UGC
as media content primarily distributed
on the Internet (Daugherty et al, 2008).
This definition is too broad to be useful
in the current context, as it allows for all
levels of involvement on all types of plat-
forms, lacks specificity, and is difficult to
differentiate from e-word-of-mouth or
brand-originated content. The Interactive
Advertising Bureau in the United States
(2008) defined UGC as any material
created and uploaded to the Internet by
non-media professionals. The description
of non-media professionals as the crea-
tors of UGC is flawed, as media profession-
als can (and often do) use their expertise
and tools to create UGC as consumers,
not as part of their (paid) employment.
A looser definition described consumers
who generate UGC as ordinary people
who represent the end users of products
or services (Cheong and Morrison, 2008).
The most commonly cited definition
for UGC comes from the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), which, in 2007, defined UGC as
having three key characteristics:
content that is made publicly available
over the Internet;
content that reflects a certain amount of
creative effort; and
content created outside professional
routines and practices.
This definition appropriately excludes
ostensibly private modes of online com-
munication such as e-mail and instant
message. Even the OECD definition of
UGC, however, contains a few gaps. For
example, some UGC is not completely
public and is available only to designated
communities. Additionally, the OECD
definition of UGC cites the Internet as
the only publication medium, unreason-
ably limiting its range. Indeed, the OECD
acknowledged in other sections of its 2007
OECD report that UGC is driven by a
number of different media, which includes
emerging and converging mediaamong
them mobile applications, satellite naviga-
tion services, game consoles, and the like.
A public-domain definition of CGM
from Wikipedia is encompassing opin-
ions, experiences, advice and commen-
tary about products, brands, companies
and servicesusually informed by per-
sonal experiencethat exist in consumer-
created postings on Internet discussion
boards, forums, Usenet newsgroups and
blogs (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008,
p. 1). This definition is limited in its plat-
form and content types but does include
a brand-related element that other UGC
definitions lack.
For the purpose of understanding the
impact of UGC on brands and brand
equity, this study focuses explicitly on
brand-related UGC, also referred to as
consumer-generated media (CGM) or
consumer-generated content (CGC)
terms specific to consumers generating
content about a brand, regardless of posi-
tive or negative connotation or intent.
The authors apply a brand-related focus
to the generally well-founded OECD defi-
nition, and for the purpose of this research,
they define UGC as consumers creating
content that
User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly growing
vehicle for brand conversations and consumer insights.
-
March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 55
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
is made available through publicly
accessible transmission media such as
the Internet;
reflects some degree of creative effort;
and
is created for free outside professional
routines and practices.
In this study, the focus is on brand-related
UGC.
As UGC is an emerging field of study,
there is limited knowledge on the impor-
tant motivating factors of involvement
with branded UGC. Previous studies of
UGC suggested that consumers participate
in content creation for a variety of reasons,
including the notion that consumers are
driven to create their own advertisements
for self-promotion or intrinsic enjoyment
or in the hope of changing public percep-
tions (Berthon et al., 2008). Elsewhere, the
drivers of content creation were suggested
to be a desire to collaborate, information
dissemination, interaction, and creativity
(Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). Knowledge-
sharing, advocacy, social connections, and
self-expression were shown to be psycho-
logical motivators of UGC engagement
(Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008).
Social drivers of UGC specified in the
2007 OECD report are the desire to express
oneself and the development of communi-
ties and collaborative projects. Brand com-
munities can engage with UGC to fill a
void left by conventional media, often giv-
ing brands a new identity in the process
(Muniz and Schau, 2007).
Although the literature suggests a num-
ber of common drivers for UGC, it is impor-
tant to note that no such individual as an
average UGC user exists (Ochoa and
Duval, 2008). Further, in the related area
of word-of-mouth advertising, there are
interesting tensions between commercial
interests, the online user community, and
the individuals who participate in those
communities (Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki,
and Wilner, 2010), which adds complexity
to the drivers of UGC motivation.
Drawing together, summarizing, and
analyzing the embryonic literature on
UGC, the authors have identified four
types of factors as motivating factors for
creating UGC: co-creation, empowerment,
community, and self-concept (See Table 1).
Building on these factors, the authors
hypothesize that
co-creation, empowerment, community,
and self-concept have a positive impact
on UGC involvement;
UGC involvement has an impact on
consumer-based brand equity; and
a feedback loop is postulated allowing
consumers perceptions of the brand
to inform perceptions of co-creation,
empowerment, community, and self-
concept (See Figure 1).
Drivers of UGCBusinesses are not good at predicting con-
sumer preference and need the help of their
customers in getting their products right.
For example, the statistic that up to 80 per-
cent of new grocery products fail was cited
a half-century ago (Fourt and Woodlock,
1960). Product knowledge in new-product
development is both a barrier to and a
source of innovation (Carlile, 2002). The
value of lead users knowledge of needs
and potential solutions in developing new
products, however, was shown to be sig-
nificant more than 20 years ago (Urban
and von Hippel, 1988). Hence, the authors
interest in understanding lead users of
UGC as the phenomenon of online content
creation becomes more mainstream.
It is not new for consumers to be involved
in creating (or communicating about) the
products they consume. Word of mouth
(WOM) was one of the earliest subjects
looked at by the nascent market-research
industry (Dichter, 1966). More recently, the
volume of WOM produced about a brand
has been shown to be roughly proportional
to its market share (Uncles et al., 2010), and
positive WOM has been suggested as an
alternative voice to paid advertising (de
Matos and Rossi, 2008).
Consumers value the empowerment
offered by co-creation, which is greatly
facilitated by the Internet (see, for example,
Fuller et al., 2010) and strategies for trying
to involve customers in co-creation activi-
ties are particularly important in high-
technology enterprises (Kristensson et al.,
2007). Open-source software, in fact, drives
more than half of the worlds Web servers,
but it is difficult to research an area that
has no central organizing body, no uni-
fied voice, few written rules or standards
(Cromie and Ewing, 2008, p. 632).
WOM, in a social-media setting, has been
shown to be a highly complex system of
networked co-production of a variety of
narratives that is significantly changing our
previous understanding of how and why
WOM works (Kozinets et al., 2010). There
is little doubt, however, that WOM referrals
still do have stronger effects than traditional
marketing (Trusov et al., 2009). Where there
is doubt is in just how that will work in
future, as we know how much social media,
UGC, and WOM are increasing in signifi-
cance (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).
Co-creation is the consumers participa-
tion in the production of value at all points
For the purpose of understanding the impact
of UGC on brands and brand equity, this study
focuses explicitly on brand-related UGC.
-
56 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
in the value chain (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Allowing access to the value-creation pro-
cess and giving consumers the tools and
encouragement to create UGC may further
the perception (and reality) of co-creation
(Muniz and Schau, 2007).
Co-creation encompasses all situations
wherein consumers collaborate with com-
panies or other consumers to generate
value such as online content (Humphreys
and Grayson, 2008). The growing number
of brand-related conversations taking place
onlineand on other multimedia plat-
formsdemonstrates a consumer interest
in collaboration and co-created dialogue.
The perceived value co-creation means
the consumers see themselves as an integral
part of the value-creation system, influenc-
ing when, where, and how value is gener-
ated through multiple points of exchange
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). Con-
sumers no longer are satisfied with expe-
riences fabricated by companies; instead,
they want to shape experiences themselves
through co-created content such as UGC
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000).
Consumer empowerment is activated
and advanced by marketing efforts
designed to satisfy consumer needs and
wants (Wright, Newman, and Dennis,
2006). One study suggested that there are
three core influences on the consumers
subjective empowerment experience: the
ability to specify and adjust the choice set;
progress cues in the consumer decision-
making process; and, information about
other consumers (Wathieu et al., 2002).
Consumer empowerment requires that
consumers have authority in decision
making (Pires, Rita, and Stanton, 2006).
Primary control occurs when people exert
authority directly on the environment,
such as in an online context (Hoffman,
Novak, and Schlosser, 2003). Greater con-
sumer control may not always result in the
subjective perception of empowerment. In
fact, greater perceptions of empowerment
sometimes may entail costs to the con-
sumer (Wathieu et al., 2002).
Considering consumer control in the UGC
arena, most UGC-driven sites operate under
some degree of self-organization and corpo-
rate governance (Bruns, 2007). UGC enables
TABLE 1Motivating Factors for creating Brand-Related UGcFactor Authors Descriptionco-creation Burmann and Arnhold (2008)
christodoulides (2009)
Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008)
kozinets et al. (2010)
kristensson et al. (1997)
Muniz and schau (2007)
OEcD (2007)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2002; 2004)
shenkan and sichel (2007)
smith (2009)
Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009)
Uncles et al. (2010)
Co-customers as a social benefit factor
Risk reduction
Empowerment Berthon, Pitt, and campbell (2008)
Burmann and Arnhold (2008)
Dhar and chang (2009)
Fuller et al. (2010)
Gregoire, Tripp, and Legoux (2009)
Li and Bernoff (2008)
Muniz and schau (2007)
shenkan and sichel (2007)
OEcD (2007)
Changed perceptions and influence
people
Feelings of power and control
Increased willingness to engage online/
reveal personal information
Filling a void left by conventional media
Forum to request greater choice
community Burmann and Arnhold (2008)
christodoulides (2009)
Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008)
Fieseler, Fleck, and Meckel (2010)
Gangadharbatla (2008)
kozinets et al. (2010)
krishnamurthy and Dou (2008)
Muniz and schau (2007)
OEcD (2007)
smith (2009)
stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008)
Uncles et al. (2010)
von Hippel (2001)
knowledge-sharing
Advocacy
social connections/contact
Wanting to be heard
Desire to interact and collaborate
social networking
self-concept Berthon, Pitt, and campbell (2008)
Burmann and Arnhold (2008)
Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008)
kozinets et al. (2010)
krishnamurthy and Dou (2008)
Muniz and schau (2007)
OEcD (2007)
smith (2009)
stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008)
von Hippel (2001)
Personal documentation
self-expression
creativity
social functionexpressing attitudes/
behaviors that are agreeable to others
self promotion
Identity shaping
Ego defensiveminimize self-doubt,
create a sense of belonging
-
March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 57
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
consumers to connect in new digital spheres
(Harrison, Hunter, and Waite, 2006), making
them feel powerful and able to define brand
values on their own (Christodoulides, 2009).
The perception of control is considered a
central theme to the experience of empow-
erment (Wathieu et al., 2002) and is shown
to have high correlations with responsibility
and choice (Wortman, 1975). It is recognized
that consumers use the Internet and content
creation as a way of exerting control over
brands. UGC involvement empowers con-
sumers with insights about other consumers
(Burmann and Arnhold, 2008) and a forum
to request greater choice (OECD, 2007).
The social Web enables communities.
These communities do not passively con-
sume but interact to co-create brand value
(de Chernatony and Christodoulides,
2004) through activities such as generating
branded content. People who are highly inte-
grated into brand communities may be emo-
tionally invested in the brand, have higher
loyalty, and identify strongly with the brand
(McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig, 2002).
It is noteworthy that UGC produc-
tion mainly is driven by a community of
digital nativesa group of young, digi-
tally skilled users who grew up using the
Internet and Web 2.0 platforms (Burmann
and Arnhold, 2008) and, as such, differ
behaviorally from their elders. Commu-
nity development and interaction often
are described as social drivers of UGC
(OECD, 2007; Burmann and Arnhold,
2008; Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008).
UGC provides opportunities for indi-
viduals to express themselves through
sharing ideas with others. One study theo-
rized that brands could become vehicles
for self-expression, an integral part of self-
concept (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Sirgy,
1982). The social dimension of UGC also
can set the stage for self-presentation and
new identity creation, rewarding users
with recognition from their community
peers (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). This
identity-based component of UGC is inter-
preted as a way that consumers can express
attitudes and behaviors that are agreeable
to others (Daugherty et al., 2008).
Of course, much UGC is not necessarily
agreeable to the marketer, as it is an out-
put of consumer self-expression. Consum-
ers self-concepts affect how they perceive
a brands personality. For instance, highly
preferred brands are shaped, in part, by
the preferred personality of the consum-
ers. Through piggy-backing on brands,
UGC allows consumers to draw attention
to themselves and, thus, to communicate
who they are from their own perspective
(Berthon et al., 2008).
The authors, therefore, postulate
H1: The stronger a consumer per-
ceives that a brand is co-created,
the higher his or her involvement
with that brand through UGC.
H2: The stronger a consumer per-
ceives that a brand is empowering,
the higher his or her involvement
with the brand through UGC.
H3: The stronger a consumer per-
ceives that a brand facilitates a
community, the higher his or
her involvement with that brand
through UGC.
H4: The stronger a consumer per-
ceives that a brand expresses
his/her self-concept, the higher
his/her involvement with that
brand through UGC.
INVOLVEMENT WITH UGC AND BRAND EQUITYIn the authors model, involvement is con-
ceptualized as the degree of personal rele-
vance and importance of a stimulusin this
case, brand-related UGCin achieving con-
sequences and values of importance to the
consumer (Peter, Olson, and Grunert, 2009).
UGC involvement is considered a
form of product involvement because
brand-related UGC can be viewed as
consumption-related activity. Product
involvement is the most commonly
researched area of involvement (Michaeli-
dou and Dibb, 2008) and has three plau-
sible antecedents: factors related to the
characteristics of a person, factors related
to the characteristics of a stimulus, and
factors related to the characteristics of
a situation (Bloch and Richins, 1983;
Zaichkowsky, 1985). One or several of
these factors could affect the level of
involvement with the stimulus in rela-
tion to the product (Hupfer and Gardener,
1971). Some product categories are more
susceptible to the influence of UGC than
others (Riegner, 2007), presumably in a
way analogous to other forms of WOM.
In-depth interviews for the current
study confirmed the view that brands that
encourage UGC can carve out relationship-
building opportunities with consumers.
Conversely, negative UGC can have harm-
ful implications for building and sustaining
a brands equityan issue compounded
by the notion that consumers of UGC often
consider it more credible than professional
content (Cheong and Morrison, 2008).
The authors introduce a feedback loop
to the model, suggesting that CBBE influ-
ences, in turn, perceptions of whether a
brand facilitates co-creation, empowers
consumers, fosters a community, and con-
veys the desired self-concept. For example,
a consumers affinity or loyalty to a brand
drives the desire to co-create in ways such
as UGC (Boyle, 2007). Additionally, brand
UGC provides opportunities for individuals to express
themselves through sharing ideas with others.
-
58 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
associations inspire further online dialogue
in value creation (Prahalad and Ramas-
wamy, 2000).
Higher levels of brand awareness and
associations may prompt perceptions
of choice and progress cues (Hoyer and
Brown, 1990), which are dimensions of
empowerment. Brand market share (which
can be seen as a proxy for brand equity)
recently has been shown to have reciprocal
causality with the share of voice of WOM
(Uncles et al., 2010), so the authors also
have considered a similar link with UGC.
A brand community is often the result
of brand loyalty, positive associations,
and a perception of high product quality
(Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Brand loy-
alty and personality can also contribute
to a consumers self-concept and function
as a means for self-expression (Aaker, 1997).
It, therefore, is postulated
H6a: The higher the CBBE, the
stronger a consumer perceives
that a brand is co-created.
H6b: The higher the CBBE, the
stronger a consumer perceives
that a brand is empowering.
H6c: The higher the CBBE, the more a
consumer perceives that a brand
facilitates a community.
H6d: The higher the CBBE, the higher
the consumer perceives that a
brand expresses his or her self-
concept (See Figure 1).
RESEARCH DESIGNBecause research in the field of UGC is
mostly conceptual, the authors consid-
ered it appropriate to test the conclusions
drawn from the literature through inter-
views with experts. These ideas then were
empirically tested with a sample of actual
consumers involved in the creation of
brand-related UGC.
The face-to-face, semi-structured in-
depth interviews utilized a judgment
sample of five industry experts in New
York City, each of whom had specific
experience in consumer engagement with
brand-related UGC and expertise in the
areas of branding, marketing, and adver-
tising. The experts job titles included
brand development director, marketing
strategist, marketing futurist, and con-
sumer insights manager. As such, they all
had professional interest in monitoring
and understanding consumers engage-
ment with UGC and provided a valuable
initial sounding board for the hypotheses
drawn from the sparse literature to date.
A questionnaire was subsequently
developed, targeting consumers engaged
in brand-related UGC. The quantitative
data were collected through an Inter-
net survey administered via e-mail, and
direct messaging on a variety of UGC plat-
forms such as blogs, social networks, and
video- and photo-sharing Web sites.
As the survey targeted consumers
engaging in brand-related UGC, an online
survey was considered the most suitable
method of recruiting this sample. Example
brands were selected based on their global
nature and their likelihood for UGC
engagement. Hundreds of searches were
undertaken to identify individual exam-
ples of UGC related to those brands. Then,
the creator of the content was contacted
with a tailored invitation to participate in
the survey, referring to their creation.
Each survey invitation included an
embedded link leading respondents to the
questionnaire. By providing participants
with an example of their own brand UGC,
the need for participant recall was reduced,
and filtering of participants was more
closely monitored. The example brands and
platforms used when disseminating the sur-
vey were recorded along with the number
of approaches, ensuring a wide variety of
brand categories and UGC typologies were
included. The screening record also con-
firmed that the examples of UGC evaluated
included a mixture of positive, negative,
and neutral sentiment toward the brand.
The survey was open for 11 days, during
which 760 survey invitations were sent out
and 374 responses were counted. Of those
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6a
H6b
H6c
H6d
UGC
PerceivedEmpowerment
PerceivedCommunity
PerceivedSelf-Concept
PerceivedCo-creation
Involvement BrandEquity
Figure 1 Drivers of Brand-Related UGc and its Impact on consumer-Based Brand Equity
-
March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 59
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
replies, there was a total useable response
rate of 49.2 percent. Another 172 responses
were incomplete, and 202 responses were
fully completed, so the response rate for
the survey effectively was 26.5 percent.
MEASURESRespondents began the questionnaire by
identifying the brand about which they
last had created UGC. This was labeled
Brand X and operated as a constant
in most items. All items were measured
using five-point Likert scales ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Co-creation was measured through four
items adapted from Prahalad and Ramas-
wamy (2002) and Vargo and Lusch (2004).
Empowerment items were adapted from
Pires et al. (2006), Conger and Kanungo
(1988), and Hoffman et al. (2003). Community
was measured by three items from McMillan
and Chavis (1986) and Muniz and OGuinn
(2001). The three items for self-concept were
adapted from Markus and Wurf (1987).
Involvement with UGC was measured
using Zaichkowskys (1994) set of nine
semantic differential scales (e.g., important
unimportant, boringinteresting).
The eight items used to tap CBBE
were from Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey
(2005) and captured the construct through
its theoretical facets, brand awareness (e.g.,
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of
X), brand associations (e.g., I like X),
perceived quality (X is very reliable),
and brand loyalty (I feel loyal to X).
AnalysisThe respondents predominantly were
male (58 percent) and predominantly
in the 30- to 39-year age bracket (30.3
percent), spending on average 33 hours
per week online. The UGC assessed by
respondents was distributed through vari-
ous channels, including social networking
sites, photo- and video-sharing platforms,
forums, and blogs, and concerned an array
of brands in several product categories
including beverages (23 percent), automo-
tives (12 percent), electronics (12 percent),
and clothing (11 percent).
Before testing the model, the reliability
and validity of the measures were estab-
lished using standard procedures (Church-
ill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).
Reliability analysis first was performed for
each construct of the conceptual model,
and Cronbachs a was as follows: co-
creation, 0.74; empowerment, 0.63; commu-
nity, 0.77; self-concept, 0.78; involvement
with UGC, 0.88; and CBBE, 0.92. Cronbach
a for empowerment, although below the
optimum level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), was
still higher than 0.6, satisfactory for further
analysis (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
Exploratory factor analysis was subse-
quently performed on each scale. All the
items loaded on a single factor, suggesting
that co-creation, empowerment, commu-
nity, and self-concept are unidimensional.
This finding was further corroborated
through confirmatory factor analysis (Ger-
bing and Anderson, 1988) performed on
each scale measuring UGC motivations as
shown in Table 2. Chi-square ranged from
0 (empowerment, community, and self-
concept) to 3.504 (co-creation) and was in
all cases insignificant. Correlations among
items of co-creation, empowerment, com-
munity, and self-concept ranged from 0.17
to 0.51 for items across different factors,
suggesting that multicollinearity is not
severe. (The detailed covariance table is
available from the first-named author on
request.)
To test the postulated hypotheses in
the conceptual model, structural equation
modeling (AMOS 16.01) was used with
maximum likelihood as the estimation
method. The models chi-square value
was small but significant: =68.67 (df = 49, p = 0.02). A more appropriate indicator of
global fit, however, is relative chi-square
(chi-square divided by degrees of free-
dom) that is not so sensitive to sample size.
The relative chi-square for the model was
below 2 ( = 1.46), which is indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypotheti-
cal model and the sample data (Carmines
and McIver, 1981). Other fit indices were
also considered including GFI (0.95), AGFI
(0.91), NFI (0.92), CFI (0.97), and RMSEA
(.048), suggesting an adequate overall fit.
The path analysis (See Table 3) shows
that co-creation ( = 0.505, p < 0.000); com-munity ( = 0.011, p = 0.036); and self-concept ( = 0.451, p < 0.000) have a positive impact on consumers involvement with
UGC. Conversely, the regression coefficient
from empowerment to UGC involvement
is statistically insignificant ( = 0.011, p = 0.863). The beta value associated with
H5 corroborates that consumers involve-
ment with UGC ( = 0.834, p < 0.000) has a positive impact on their brand perceptions
captured through CBBE. H6a, H6b, H6c,
and H6d capture the inverse effect of CBBE
perceptions on co-creation, empowerment,
community and self-concept.
Although the existing literature suggests
a correlation between the parameters of
empowerment and involvement in UGC, these
results do not show that empowerment has a
significant influence on UGC involvement.
-
60 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
The beta values from CBBE back to co-
creation ( = 0.814, p < 0.000), empower-ment ( = 0.578, p < 0.000), and community ( = 0.596, p < 0.000) provide support for a positive and statistically significant impact
(H6a, H6b, and H6c accepted). The path
from CBBE to self-concept was significant
only at the 10 percent confidence interval
(p = 0.094) but contrary to the hypoth-
esized direction ( = 0.166).
DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONSH1, H3, H4, H5, H6a, H6b, and H6c were
supported by the data (p < 0.05), whereas
H2 and H6d were rejected (p > 0.05).
These results suggest that three of the
four consumer perceptionsco-creation,
community, and self-concepthave a
positive impact on consumers involve-
ment with UGC and that UGC involve-
ment has a positive impact on brand
perceptions through CBBE.
Although the existing literature suggests
a correlation between the parameters of
empowerment and involvement in UGC,
these results do not show that empower-
ment has a significant influence on UGC
involvement. This could be because
UGC usually is not the result of brand-
marketing efforts and, therefore, normally
would not activate or advance consumer
empowerment. Another possible explana-
tion may be that consumers who engage
in UGC, by definition, already are empow-
ered to create their own content regardless
of the inclusion of a brand. In other words,
it may be that what empowers consumers
to engage with brand-related UGC is the
context (Web 2.0 technologies) rather than
the brand itself.
The findings also suggest that CBBE
through its theoretical dimensions of
brand awareness, loyalty, associations, and
perceived qualityhas a positive impact
on three of the initial UGC drivers (co-
creation, empowerment, and community).
Interestingly the hypothesis that higher
levels of CBBE would lead to higher lev-
els of self-concept is rejected, whereas an
inverse, negative relationship is supported
weakly by the data (at a 10-percent confi-
dence interval). This may suggest that
consumers who engage with UGC for
self-expression prefer doing so for less-
established brandsperhaps because they
TABLE 3sEM Path Analysis ResultsPath Std. Estimate C.R. Sig.
H1: co-creation Involvement 0.505 3.332 0.000
H2: Empowerment Involvement 0.011 0.173 0.863
H3: community Involvement 0.177 2.095 0.036
H4: self-concept Involvement 0.451 4.465 0.000
H5: Involvement cBBE 0.834 8.656 0.000
H6a: cBBE co-creation 0.814 7.626 0.000
H6b: cBBE Empowerment 0.578 4.692 0.000
H6c: cBBE community 0.596 6.068 0.000
H6d: cBBE self-concept 0.166 1.674 0.094
TABLE 2Measurement Model
Std. Loading C.R.
Co-Creation
cO1: I enjoy creating online content about [X] 0.639cO2: I want to be able to have online dialogue with [X] 0.712 6.971CO3: I find information from other consumers about [x] trustworthy 0.687 6.884CO4: If I can customize [x], then I feel more confident using [x] 0.582 6.232
a = 0.742Empowerment
EM1: I expect to be able to create whatever I want about [X] online 0.759EM2: Owning what I create online about [X] is important to me 0.509 4.059EM3: I produce online content about [X] because I want to be heard 0.544 4.080
a = 0.625Community
cM1: I feel a sense of community from posting my own content about [X] 0.749cM2: I engage with other people online because of a shared interest in [X] 0.829 7.872cM3: My membership in a social network encourages me to produce content about [X]
0.619 7.583
a = 0.766Self-concept
sc1: I use [X] to express myself online. 0.826sc2: My link with [X] says a lot about me. 0.719 8.126sc3: I make my point of view known by creating online content about [X]. 0.680 7.965
a = 0.784
-
March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 61
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
feel they can be more creative or to have
more impact on other consumers percep-
tions (Berthon et al., 2008).
This notion, however, does run counter
to the use of the Internet for so-called anti-
branding activities (Klein, 2000). The find-
ings support the notion that involvement
with UGC has a significant correlation with
brand perceptions and that high regard for
a brand is likely to be positively related
with consumer perceptions of co-creation,
community, and empowerment. This sug-
gests that consumers are more involved
with UGC pertaining to brands that help
them define who they are and give them
the tools to express themselves creatively.
The increase in CBBE caused by UGC
involvement means that consumers are
more likely to consider a brand as part of
their evoked set for purchase. This leads to
a significant implication for brand manag-
ers involved in UGC campaigns. Carefully
created and managed, these campaigns
can enhance brand equity, particularly as
the social structure of digital networks has
been shown to play a critical role in the viral
spread of a message (Bampo et al., 2008).
A brand with stronger brand equity
is likely to lead a more involving user-
generated campaign through enhanced
perceptions of co-creation, community, and
empowerment. Armed with insights from
these research results, brand managers can
utilize UGC to build CBBE through an inter-
active strategy to improve brand positioning
according to consumer wants and needs.
For example, a promotion strategy encour-
aging self-expression through UGC that is
related to a strong brand association would
be a useful application of these research
results. Marketers seeking to engage con-
sumers with UGC campaigns should foster
a culture of co-creation that is reinforced
through dialogue and continual consumer
participation in value chain activities.
Practitioners may choose to drop subtle
reminders that consumers are in control
of UGC-brand activities and focus more
heavily on creating a strong sense of
shared community that consumers iden-
tify with by championing branded UGC.
Further, marketers should build a sense of
community around their brand, facilitat-
ing relationships not just between brand
and consumers but, importantly, among
consumers themselves.
For example, a blogger advocacy cam-
paign designed to use the brand to facili-
tate friendships among bloggers of similar
interests would be more likely to yield
positive UGC about that brand in those
blog networks.
To successfully penetrate UGC commu-
nities, marketers are advised to develop an
image of their brand that is congruent with
its target audiences desired self, in line with
self-brand congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982).
Finally, marketers need to thoroughly
monitor all UGC related to their brand, not
only from the defensive point of view of
adding value while avoiding damage but
to gain rich, unfiltered insights into cus-
tomer perceptions of the brand.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSUGC has been a concern and interest for
managers ever since it first emerged. The
current research has focused on creators of
UGC and provides empirical evidence on
how involvement with brand-related UGC
is capable of changing perceptions of the
brand. It addressed the impact of involve-
ment with brand-related UGC on brand
perceptions, measured by proxy of CBBE.
Through the development of a conceptual
model, the relationships between four ini-
tial consumer perceptions representing
UGC, involvement, and CBBE were criti-
cally analyzed.
The authors believe that this study pro-
vides the first empirical evidence to sug-
gest that UGC does have an effect on CBBE,
and it shows how that effect is created. It
adds further weight to the argument that
successful brand managers should change
their approach from a strict, top-down,
supervisory strategy to a more participa-
tive and interactive one (de Chernatony
and Christodoulides, 2004).
Further, it provides a solid basis for a
brand manager to engage in UGC; there
is now no excuse for simply following
the herd without sound reasoning. This
research has provided evidence to sug-
gest that, overall, involvement with UGC
can have a positive impact on CBBE,
which is just as well as more than twice
as many brand-related searches on social-
networking sites relate to UGC than to
marketer-created content.
Excitingly for managers, as brand equity
strengthens, the stronger the positive effect on
co-creation, community, and empowerment.
In conclusion: If managed correctly, UGC
and brand equity can grow together and
build from each other. Successful managers
will need to review the ways in which they
operate to maximize their benefits from
this. The authors, in fact, recommend that
they shift emphasis from the old-fashioned
practice of trying to control the brand
toward monitoring and influencing brand-
related communications, especially UGC.
A brand with stronger brand equity is likely
to lead a more involving user-generated
campaign through enhanced perceptions of
co-creation, community, and empowerment.
-
62 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
This research has demonstrated that the
critical areas to address are consumer per-
ceptions of co-creation, development of a
brand community, and congruence with a
consumers self-concept.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHFuture research may examine deeper con-
sumer empowerment and seek to validate
the notion that consumer empowerment in
the case of UGC derives from the context
rather than the brand itself. In addition,
further research may seek to understand
whether invited UGC empowers consum-
ers or whether it actually restricts creativ-
ity by asking consumers to comply with
a brief and accept the internal selection
procedures specified by the brand. Bet-
ter understanding of consumer empow-
erment in the context of UGC possibly
through qualitative research will help
achieve better internal consistency.
This research has made no distinction
between endorsed and non-endorsed UGC.
Further research may test the applicability of
the model and observe differences between
the two types of UGC. For instance, it may
be that UGC invited by a brand is driven
primarily by extrinsic motivations such as
monetary or other incentives and less so by
intrinsic motivations such as co-creation,
community, and self-concept.
Future research also may distinguish
between incentive- and non-incentive-
driven UGC and examine differences in
terms of drivers and brand perceptions.
Finally, the authors future research will be
directed at consumers of UGCthose indi-
viduals who get exposed to brand-related
UGC such as spoof advertisementsto
investigate whether simply viewing rather
than creating such material may cause a
change in consumer-based brand equity.
UGC offers enormous possibilities to
managers and, therefore, obligations to
researchers; this article provides some
foundation for that work.
GeoRGe chRiStoDouLiDeS is professor of marketing at Henley
Business school at the University of Reading, Uk. His
research interests lie in the areas of brand management
and e-marketing, particularly consumer-based brand equity
conceptualization and measurement and the impact of
interactive/social media on consumer-brand relationships.
Georges research has attracted funding from prestigious
external bodies including the Economic and social
Research council, the British Academy, and the chartered
Institute of Marketing. He is a regular presenter at
international conferences, and his research has appeared
in journals such as the Journal of Advertising Research,
Industrial Marketing Management, and European Journal
of Marketing. George has guest-edited a book and special
issues of the Journal of Business Research, Industrial
Marketing Management, and European Journal of
Marketing on various aspects of brand management.
coLin JevonS is associate professor in Marketing at
Monash University, Australia and holds a PhD in brand
management, his main research and teaching interest. He
is on the editorial boards of three international journals.
His work has been published in a variety of journals
including the Journal of Advertising Research, Journal
of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, European
Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review,
Journal of Marketing Management, and Journal of
Product and Brand Management. He has won best-paper
awards at conferences in both the United kingdom and the
United states, and he has guest-edited two special issues
of Journal of Business Research on brand management.
JennifeR Bonhomme is a digital strategist working in
interactive advertising planning. she has created
socially led campaigns for leading global brands while
at the London-based agencies Euro RscG and skive
creative. Jennifer now consults to a variety of sectors
on envisioning, positioning, and creating impactful
digital footprints. she also regularly contributes to the
marketing consultancy Faith Popcorns Brain Reserve
as a social media specialist and cultural trend-spotter
and has done so while living in Australia, Japan, and the
United kingdom. Her research interests include online
interaction branding and the evolution of the social Web.
REFEREncEs
360i. The State of Search. A 360i Working
Paper, November 2009.
aaKER, J. L. Dimensions of Brand Personality.
Journal of Marketing Research 34, 3 (1997): 347357.
BagoZZi, R. p., and y. yi. On the Evaluation
of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 16, 1 (1988): 7494.
Bampo, m., m. t. EWing, d. R. matHER, d.
stEWaRt, and m. WaLLaCE. The Effects of the
Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral
Marketing Performance. Information Systems
Research 19, 3 (2008): 273290.
BERtHon, p., R. L. pitt, and C. CampBELL. Ad
Lb: When Customers Create the Ad. California
Management Review 50, 4 (2008): 630.
BLoCH, p. H., and m. L. RiCHins. A Theoretical
Model for the Study of Product Importance Per-
ceptions. Journal of Marketing 47, 3 (1983): 6981.
BoyLE, E. A Process Model of Brand Co-
Creation: Brand Management and Research
Implications. Journal of Product and Brand Man-
agement 16, 2 (2007): 121133.
BRuns, a. Produsage: Towards a Broader
Framework for User-Led Content Creation.
Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Creativity
& Cognition 2007. Washington, DC.
BuRmann, C., and u. aRnHoLd. User Generated
Branding: State of the Art Research. Berlin: LIT
Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Mnster, 2008.
CaRLiLE, p. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge
and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New
Product Development. Organization Science 13,
4 (2002): 442455.
CaRminEs, E. g., and J. p. mCivER. Unobserved
Variables. In Social Measurement: Current Issues,
-
March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 63
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
G. W. Bohrnstedt, and E. F. Borgatta, eds. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.
CHEong, H. J., and m. a. moRRison. Con-
sumers Reliance on Product Information and
Recommendations Found in UGC. Journal of
Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 3849.
CHRistodouLidEs, g. Branding in the Post-Internet
Era. Marketing Theory 9, 1 (2009): 141144.
CHuRCHiLL, g. a. A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 26, (1979): 6473.
CongER, J. a., and R. n. Kanungo. The
Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Academy of Management Review 13, 3
(1988): 471482.
CRomiE, J., and EWing, m. Squatting at the Digi-
tal Campfire: Reflections on Researching the
Open Source Software Community. International
Journal of Market Research 50, 5 (2008): 631653.
daugHERty, t., m. s. Eastin, and L. BRigHt.
Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating
User-Generated Content. Journal of Interactive
Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 1625.
dE CHERnatony, L., and g. CHRistodouLidEs. Taking
the Brand Promise Online: Challenges and Oppor-
tunities. Interactive Marketing 5, 3 (2004): 238251.
dE matos, C. a., and C.a.v. Rossi. Word-
of-Mouth Communications in Marketing: A
Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents and
Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 36, 4 (2008): 578596.
dHaR, v., and E. CHang. The Impact of User-
Generated Content on Music Sales. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 23, 4 (2009): 300307.
diCHtER, E. How Word-Of-Mouth Advertising
Works. Harvard Business Review 44, 6 (1966):
147166.
EmaRKEtER. User Generated Content: More
Popular than Profitable. eMarketer Digital Intel-
ligence 2009.
EWing, m. Integrated Marketing Communica-
tions Measurement And Evaluation. Journal of
Marketing Communications 15, 2-3, (2009): 103117.
FiEsELER, C., m. FLECK, and m. mECKEL. Corporate
Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal
of Business Ethics 91, 4 (2010): 599614.
FouRt, L., and J. WoodLoCK. Early Prediction
of Market Success for New Grocery Products.
Journal of Marketing 25, 2 (1960): 3138.
FuLLER, J., muHLBaCHER, H., matZLER, K., and g.
JaWECKi. Consumer Empowerement Through
Internet-Based Co-Creation. Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems 26, 3 (2010): 71102.
gangadHaRBatLa, H. Facebook Me: Collective
Self-Esteem, Need to Belong, and Internet Self-
Efficacy as Predictors of the Igenerations Atti-
tudes toward Social Networking Sites. Journal
of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 515.
gaRdnER, B., and s. LEvy. The Product and the
Brand. Harvard Business Review 33, 2 (1955): 3339.
gERBing, d. W., and J. C. andERson. An Updated
Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating
Unidimensionality and its Assessment. Journal
of Marketing Research 25, 2 (1988): 186192.
gREgoiRE, y., t. m. tRipp, and R. LEgoux.
When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate:
The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time
on Customer Revenge and Avoidance. Journal
of Marketing 73, 1 (2009): 1832.
HaRRison, t., g. L. HuntER, and K. WaitE. The
Internet, Information and Empowerment. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10, (2006): 972993.
HoFFman, d. L., t. p. novaK, and a. E. sCHLossER.
Locus of Control, Web Use, and Consumer
Attitudes toward Internet Regulation. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing 22, 1, (2003): 4157.
HoyER, W., and s. BRoWn. Effects of Brand
Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-
Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research
17, 2 (1990): 141148.
HumpHREys, a., and K. gRayson. The Intersecting
Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Per-
spective on Co-Production, Co-Creation and Pro-
sumption. Sociology Compass 2, 3 (2008): 963980.
HupFER, n. t., and d. m. gaRdnER. Differ-
ential involvement in Products and Issues:
An Exploratory Study. Advances in Consumer
Research 2, (1971): 262270.
intERaCtivE advERtising BuREau. User-
Generated Content, Social Media and Adver-
tisingAn Overview. Interactive Advertising
Bureau Platform Status Report, April 3, 2008.
JEvons, C., and m. gaBBott. Trust, Brand Equity
and Brand Reality in Internet Business Relation-
ships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Journal of
Marketing Management 16, 6 (2000): 619634.
KapLan, a., and m. HaEnLEin. Users of the World,
Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social
Media. Business Horizons 53 (2010): 5968.
KLEin, n. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bul-
lies. London and New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
KoZinEts, R. v., dE vaLCK, K., WoJniCKi, a., and s.
WiLnER. Networked Narratives: Understanding
Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communi-
ties. Journal of Marketing 74 (2010): 7189.
KRisHnamuRtHy, s., and W. dou. Advertising
with User-Generated Content: A Framework
and Research Agenda. Journal of Interactive
Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 14.
KRistEnsson, p., J. mattHing, and n. JoHans-
son. Key Strategies for the Successful Involve-
ment of Customers in the Co-Creation of New
-
64 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012
HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs
Technology-Based Services. International Journal
of Service Industry Management 19, 4 (1997) 474491.
Li, C., and J. BERnoFF. Groundswell: Winning
in a World Transformed by Social Technolo-
gies. Forrester Research Inc. MA: Boston, 2008.
maRKus, H., and E. WuRF. The Dynamic Self-
Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology 38 (1987): 299337.
mCaLExandER, J. H., J. sCHoutEn, and H.
KoEnig. Building Brand Community. Journal
of Marketing 66, 1 (2002): 3854.
mCmiLLan, d. W., and d. m. CHavis. Sense of
Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal
of Community Psychology 14, 1 (1986): 623.
miCHaELidou, n., and s. diBB. Consumer
Involvement: A New Perspective. The Market-
ing Review 8, 1 (2008): 8399.
muniZ, a. m., and t. oguinn. Brand Community.
Journal of Consumer Research 27, 4 (2001): 412432.
muniZ, a. m., and H. sCHau. Vigilante Market-
ing and Consumer-Created Communications.
Journal of Advertising Research 36, 3 (2007): 3550.
nunnaLLy, J. C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
oCHoa, x., and E. duvaL. Qualitative
Analysis of User-Generated Content on the Web.
Proceedings of the First International Workshop
on Understanding the Web Evolution. Web Science
Research Initiative 2008, Beijing, China, 1926.
oRganisation FoR EConomiC Co-opERation and
dEvELopmEnt. Participative Web and User-
Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Net-
working, 2007: OECD Information Technologies.
pappu, R., p. QuEstER, and R. CooKsEy.
Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the
MeasurementEmpirical Evidence. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 14, 2/3 (2005):
143154.
pEtER, J. p., J. C. oLson, and K. g. gRunERt. Con-
sumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy, Euro-
pean ed. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
piREs, g. d., p. Rita, and J. stanton. The Inter-
net, Consumer Empowerment and Marketing
Strategies. European Journal of Marketing 40,
9/10 (2006): 936949.
pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. Co-
opting Customer Competence. Harvard Busi-
ness Review 78, 1 (2000): 7987.
pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. The Co-
creation Connection. Strategy & Business 27
(2002): 5061.
pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. Co-creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Crea-
tion. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18, 3 (2004):
515.
RiEgnER, C. Word of Mouth on the Web: The
Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer Purchase Deci-
sion. Journal of Advertising Research 47, 4 (2007):
436447.
sHEnKan, a. g., and B. siCHEL. Market-
ing with User Generated Content: Market-
ers Who Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom Risk
Losing Focus. McKinsey Quarterly (2007).
Retrieved from www.mckinseyquarterly.com/
Marketing_with_user-generated_content_2055
siRgy, m. J. Self-concept in Consumer Behav-
ior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer
Research 9, 3 (1982): 287300.
smitH, t. The Social Media Revolution. Interna-
tional Journal of Market Research 51, 4 (2009): 559561.
stoCKL, R., p. RoHRmEiER, and t. HEss.
Why Customers Produce User-Generated Content,
in Hass, B.H., G. Walsh, and T. Kilian (eds)
Web 2.0: Neue Perspektiven fr Marketing
und Medien. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008:
271287.
tRusov, m., R. E. BuCKLin, and K. pauWELs. Esti-
mating the Dynamic Effects of Online Word-of-
Mouth on Member Growth of a Social Network
Site. Journal of Marketing 73 (2009): 90102.
unCLEs, m., R. East, and W. Lomax. Market Share
Is Correlated with Word of Mouth Volume. Aus-
tralasian Marketing Journal (2010): in press.
uRBan, g., and E von HippEL. Lead User Anal-
yses for the Development of New Industrial
Products. Management Science 34, 5 (1988):
569582.
vaRgo, s. L., and R. F. LusCH. Evolving to A
New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of
Marketing 68, 1 (2004): 117.
von HippEL, E. Innovation by User Commu-
nities: Learning from Open Source Software.
Sloan Management Review 42, 4 (2001): 8286.
WatHiEu, L., L. BREnnER, Z. CaRmon, Et aL.
Consumer Control and Empowerment: A
Primer. Marketing Letters 13, 3 (2002): 297305.
WoRtman, C. B. Some Determinants of Per-
ceived Control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 31, 2 (1975): 282294.
WRigHt, L. t., a. nEWman, and C. dEnnis.
Enhancing Consumer Empowerment. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10 (2006): 925935.
ZaiCHKoWsKy, J. L. Measuring the Involve-
ment Construct. Journal of Consumer Research
12, 3 (1985): 341352.
ZaiCHKoWsKy, J. L. The Personal Involvement
Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Applica-
tion to Advertising. Journal of Advertising 23, 4
(1994): 5970.
-
Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
top related