Driving consumer–brandengagement and co-creation by

brand interactivityMan Lai Cheung

Department ofMarketing, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong andNewcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle City Campus,

Newcastle, Australia

Guilherme D. PiresNewcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Newcastle City Campus,

Newcastle, Australia

Philip J. Rosenberger, IIINewcastle Business School, University of Newcastle - Central Coast, Ourimbah,

Australia, and

Mauro Jose De OliveiraDepartment of Business and Marketing, The University Center of FEI,

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Abstract

Purpose – This paper investigates the impact of brand interactivity within social media on consumer–brandengagement and its related outcomes, including consumers’ intention of co-creating brand value and futurerepurchase of the same brand.Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework is tested for a durable technology product, asmartphone. Data was collected in Brazil from 408 users utilizing a self-administered online survey. Dataanalysis uses partial least squares–structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).Findings – Entertainment interactivity, cognitive information-transfer interaction and cognitive up-to-dateinformation interactivity are the key elements directly influencing consumer–brand engagement, enhancingconsumers’ intention to co-create brand value and to repurchase the brand. Importantly, the impact ofinteractivity ease of use and customization interactivity on consumer–brand engagement and its relatedoutcomes is non-significant. This is inconsistent with previous studies on consumer–brand engagement.Research limitations/implications – The research contributes to the literature by providing anunderstanding of how to use brand interactivity elements on social-media platforms to strengthen consumer–brand engagement for durable technology products, such as smartphones in Brazil. However, this study iscross-sectional in nature and focus is solely on smartphones in Brazil. Future research might consider alongitudinal design and include comparisons between countries with diverse cultures as well as otherindustries and product types to enhance the generalizability of the findings.Practical implications – Marketers may heighten consumer–brand engagement by using content that isentertaining, current and trendy. Incorporating positive referrals on social-media platforms encouragesconsumers to co-create brand value and to repurchase the same brand in the future.Originality/value – Examination of the role of social-media marketing in the marketing literature largelyoverlooks the impact of elements of brand interactivity within social media on consumer–brand engagement.This article contributes to social-media marketing and consumer–brand engagement research by empiricallytesting a theoretical model, confirming that specific elements of brand interactivity within social media –including entertainment interactivity, cognitive information-transfer interaction and cognitive up-to-dateinformation interactivity – are critical drivers in the process of strengthening consumer–brand engagement inBrazil.

Keywords Brand interactivity, Engagement, Co-creation, Repurchase intention, Social media, Brazil

Paper type Research paper

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

523

We are grateful for constructive comments offered by the anonymous reviewers.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0263-4503.htm

Received 24 December 2018Revised 3 June 201929 September 2019

Accepted 30 September 2019

Marketing Intelligence &Planning

Vol. 38 No. 4, 2020pp. 523-541

© Emerald Publishing Limited0263-4503

DOI 10.1108/MIP-12-2018-0587

1. IntroductionConsumer–brand engagement (CBE) is deemed a critical factor for building firms’competitive advantage within markets (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). Regarded as a keymarketing research priority (MSI, 2018). CBE refers to “consumers’ brand-related cognitive,emotional and behavioural activity related to focal brand interactions” (Hollebeek et al., 2014,p. 149). CBE is conceptualized as a psychological state that involves consumers’ passion forthe brand, arising from the strength of consumer–brand interactions (Brodie et al., 2011).

The need to manage CBE strategically justifies attention on how CBE is formed, nurturedand sustained (Calder et al., 2016) and on its implications for behavioural outcomes (Hollebeeket al., 2014), namely consumer co-creation and repurchase intention. Co-creation involvesconsumers’ potential to help shape the brand (France et al., 2015), seen as critical for brandsuccess (Ind and Coates, 2013) by strengthening repurchase intention. The importance ofrepurchase intention is second only to actual purchase (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995;Morrison, 1979).

Notwithstanding, intelligence on how to facilitate consumer–brand interactions, hencestrengthening consumers’ psychological engagement with the brand and their co-creationintention, remains mostly undeveloped (France et al., 2018). With the advancement of socialmedia, marketers increasingly use social-media brand communication to evoke consumer–brand interaction to achieve positive business outcomes (Cheung et al., 2019). Growingawareness about the potential brand-building benefits of using social media calls for moreresearch to guide marketers in a digital world (Hudson et al., 2016), strengthening theimportance of enhanced brand interactivity on social-media platforms (Kim and Lee, 2019;Ramadan et al., 2018). This study answers Bolton’s (2011) call for empirical research on howfirms should facilitate brand interactivity to strengthen CBE, value co-creation andrepurchase intention. Bolton’s call warrants scholarly attention to brand interactivity withinsocial media, regarded as one of the most useful platforms in facilitating brand interactivity,driving CBE and strengthening consumers’ value co-creation and repurchase intention (Kimand Lee, 2019; Merrilees, 2016).

Brand interactivity within social media is an important but relatively new marketing-strategy area, and understanding of how it influences CBE and co-creation is limited (Dessartet al., 2015; Galvagno and Dalli, 2014). Accordingly, this study examines the role of brandinteractivity within social media on CBE, value co-creation and repurchase intention. Thepaper proceeds by critically reviewing the relevant literature to identify research gaps. Thisleads to developing a theoretical model, where brand interactivity within social-mediaelements acts as a driver of CBE, itself driving value co-creation and repurchase intention.The paper then discusses the methodology used and the results of the empirical analysis,followed by implications for theory and practice, limitations and future research directions.

2. Conceptual foundations and hypothesesA critical review of the literature dealing with CBE, brand interactivity within social media,co-creation and repurchase intention underpins the subsequent development of thetheoretical framework and associated hypotheses used to guide the empirical researchreported in this paper.

2.1 Consumer–brand engagement (CBE)The focus of CBE is on consumers’ specific level of cognitive, emotional and behaviouralactivity in brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2014). CBE is considered critical in affectingconsumer behaviours (Bowden, 2009; Wong and Merrilees, 2015), including self-brandconnection, brand attitude, purchase intention and brand loyalty (France et al., 2016; Harriganet al., 2017; Luo et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2017). Its importance justifies the extensive literature

MIP38,4

524

examining CBE’s antecedents and consequents, including recent interest on the potentialimpact of brand interactivity on social-media platforms on CBE and subsequent behaviours(De Vries et al., 2012; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019; Nisar and Whitehead, 2016).

The notion that firms can enhance CBE by strengthening consumer–brand interactionson social-media platforms (DeVries and Carlson, 2014; Dessart et al., 2015; Ibrahim et al., 2017)highlights the importance of consumer–brand interactions in building CBE (Bento et al., 2018;Kim et al., 2014). In doing so, they create brand experiences by using different forms of brandinteractivity (Barger et al., 2016; Merrilees, 2016).

2.2 Brand interactivity within social mediaConceptualized as a firm-level antecedent of CBE and value co-creation, brand interactivityrefers to consumers’ perception of authentic preference for a brand in interacting with thebrand (France et al., 2016). Brand interactivity reflects two-way communication betweenconsumers and brands (Fiore et al., 2005; Merrilees and Miller, 2001). It is deemed critical indriving positive consumer–brand experiences (Merrilees and Miller, 1996), as well as beingconducive to building effective relationships (Merrilees, 2002; Ou et al., 2014) and generatingconsumer e-trust in the brand (Merrilees and Fry, 2003). Brand interactivity is facilitated bysocial media (Al-Htibat and Garanti, 2019; Prasad et al., 2019), due its ability in promotingcollaboration and content sharing between community members (Valos et al., 2016), and theuse of online applications, platforms, Web tools or technological systems (Kaplan andHaenlein, 2010).

In a social-media context, interactivity refers to the interaction between the social-mediaplatforms and consumers that facilitates the development of trust and relationship amongstthe communicating parties (Chan and Guillet, 2011; Dennis et al., 2009; Merrilees and Fry,2003). France et al. (2016) conceptualize brand interactivity within social media at two levels,namely the facilitation of consumer–brand connections and the technical facilitation ofconsumer–brand interactions. The former involves consumers’ overall evaluation of whetherbrands are willing to listen to what they are saying in two-way communication. The latterrefers to whether the online interactive features of the brand provide an effective andconvenient means for direct, bilateral brand–consumer communications (France et al., 2015).Arguably, brands can strengthen the consumer–brand relationship by communicating withconsumers using social-media platforms, thus encouraging consumer participation in brand-related activities, such as sharing their usage experience and participating in competitionsand in the development of new ideas for products and services (G�omez et al., 2019). Thissupports the view that brand interactivity is positively associated with consumers’willingness to participate in brand-related activities, suggesting that CBE is the outcome ofrepeated interactions between consumers and brands (Mollen and Wilson, 2010).

Given its influential role in driving CBE, how to facilitate interactions in a social-mediasetting developed into a fundamental matter of interest for business andmarketers (Chan andGuillet, 2011; France et al., 2016; Merrilees, 2016). The first step in addressing this matter is torealize that brand interactivity within social media can involve several tactics depending onwhich elements are deployed. Drawing upon the brand-interactivity literature (see, e.g.Dessart et al., 2015; France et al., 2016; Merrilees and Fry, 2003; Merrilees, 2016), theseelements are entertainment interactivity (EI), customization interactivity (CI), interactivityease of use (IEOU), cognitive information-transfer interaction (CITI) and cognitive up-to-dateinformation interactivity (CII). Each element is discussed further.

2.2.1 Entertainment interactivity (EI). Brands can facilitate brand interactivity by usingentertaining content that is perceived as fun and playful when using social-media platforms(Agichtein et al., 2008; Manthiou et al., 2013; Merrilees and Fry, 2002). Dessart et al. (2015)assert that brand posts with funny stories, photo postings and exciting experiences are usefulin facilitating consumer–brand interactions, thereby driving consumers’ attention and

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

525

intention to participate in social-media brand communities. Similarly, Merrilees (2016)argues that entertaining content, such as games, multi-media videos and entertainingdemonstrations available on social-media platforms are perceived by consumers to beinteractive and useful in strengthening their intention to seek brand-related information andto provide feedback. More recently, Hollebeek and Macky (2019) emphasize the tacticalimportance of contentmarketing on social-media platforms, arguing that entertaining contentplays an essential role in driving interactivity, thus promoting consumers’ engagement byexerting greater cognitive effort to understand more about the brand. The argument is thatfun and playful experiences ultimately build a sense of intimacy with the brand. Thisstrengthens consumer–brand interactions, building consumers’ affection toward the brand(Ashley and Tuten, 2015; Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019) and strengthening their intention toengage with the brand as their primary consumption choice (France et al., 2016). Thus, wehypothesize that:

H1. The level of entertainment interactivity has a positive effect on CBE.

2.2.2 Customization interactivity (CI). Utilizing the technological features of social-mediaplatforms, brands can facilitate interactivity by offering customized information toconsumers. Regarded as an effective means in driving brand interactivity (Fiore et al.,2005; Merrilees, 2016), customization refers to the extent to which services are tailored tosatisfy consumers’ personal preferences (Godey et al., 2016). Social-media marketingtechnologies permit marketers to customize their messages and to maintain a personalizeddialogue with customers (Miller and Lammas, 2010), being useful in developing a close andpersonalized relationship with consumers, hence facilitating brand interactivity (Hollebeekand Macky, 2019; Merrilees and Fry, 2003).

CI may be achieved by adapting services, marketing efforts and messages to create valuefor a specific consumer or consumer group (Zhu and Chen, 2015), creating enjoyableexperiences and motivating consumers to read brand-related information on social-mediaplatforms (Mishra, 2019). Indeed, customized and personalized messaging enhancesinteractivity, improving consumers’ understanding of the brand and their cognitive brandrecognition (Merrilees, 2016).

Schulze et al. (2015) argue that consumers are more willing to read relevant informationthat is available on social-media platforms, endorsing the notion that whenmarketers provideinformation that fits consumers’ needs, consumers are more willing to visit the sites becauseof higher enjoyment levels (Fiore et al., 2005). Thus, when brands offer customized messagesand services according to consumers’ preferences, this positively influences consumers’perceptions of the benefits offered to them by the brand, enhancing their affection for thebrand (Fiore et al., 2005; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019; Phan et al., 2011). When consumers’cognitive experience and affection for a brand are enhanced, consumers are more willing toconsider the focal brand as their primary choice, as reflected in their activation (Harriganet al., 2017). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H2. The level of customization interactivity has a positive effect on CBE.

2.2.3 Interactivity ease of use (IEOU). Inextricably linked with the interactivity on socialmedia, perceived ease of use draws from Davis’s (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM),being “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free ofeffort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Perceived ease of use is widely employed as an antecedent ofusers’ intention to adopt information-technology platforms (Featherman et al., 2010) andof engagement (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017).

Applied to the social-media context, consumer–brand interaction is strengthened whenconsumers aremore familiarwith the interactive features of social-media platforms (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019; Fry and Merrilees, 2001). Arguably, marketers can enhance IEOU on

MIP38,4

526

social-media platforms by guiding consumers to participate in collaborative activities (Chungand Koo, 2015; Pai and Yeh, 2014), along with messages encouraging the sharing anddissemination of brand-related information amongst consumers (Manthiou et al., 2014).

As consumers vary in their competence in using the interactive features of social-mediaplatforms to interact with brands, their socialization and training in communicating withbrands help improve their interactional proficiency using social-media platforms (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019; Groth, 2005). Thus, consumers’ familiarization with the brand-relatedinteractive content on social-media platforms strengthens consumer–brand interaction,improving consumers’ cognitive understanding of the product attributes and brand benefits(Ballantine, 2005; De Vries et al., 2012; Hudson et al., 2016). That is, higher perceived ease ofuse of brands’ interactive features on social-media platforms acts as an intrinsic motivationfor consumers to engage in information sharing with their brands of interest and other like-minded users (Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019), thereby resulting in higher levels of enthusiasmand subsequent development of affection (Vivek et al., 2012). Enhanced affection is deemed tostrengthen consumers’ activation and subsequent development of CBE (Harrigan et al., 2017).Thus, we hypothesize that:

H3. Interactivity ease of use has a positive effect on CBE.

2.2.4 Cognitive information-transfer interaction (CITI). CITI occurs when consumers useother consumers’ reviews and referrals to get ideas and opinions about products and servicesoffered by their brands of interest (Merrilees, 2016), such as electronic referrals related totourism information (Al-Htibat and Garanti, 2019). Product reviews are like electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM), and communications are made by potential, actual or former customersabout a product, brand or company using social-media platforms (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).

Arguably, consumers increasingly generate and share unconstrained brand-relatedinformation with other social-media users – including friends, peers and the general public –by two-way interaction, because this information is perceived to be credible andtrustworthy (Reza Jalivand and Samiei, 2012). Thus, CITI motivates consumers to readand share brand-related information, strengthening their understanding of the focal brandsand positively affecting their product evaluations (G�omez et al., 2019; Krishnamurthy andKumar, 2018). The creation and sharing of cognitive brand information amongst consumersbuild a sense of closeness and emotional relationship between brands and consumers(Brodie et al., 2013; Chae et al., 2015), generating positive feelings (De Vries et al., 2012) andstrengthening the consumer–brand relationship. Importantly, consumers who activelyobtain information through interactions with other consumers, such as reviews andreferrals, become familiar with the brand, thus strengthening their intention to choose thefocal brand as their primary choice, as reflected in their purchase intention (Hajli et al.,2017). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H4. Cognitive information-transfer interaction has a positive effect on CBE

2.2.5 Cognitive up-to-date information interactivity (CII). CII refers to the extent to whichconsumers interact with brands on social-media platforms to obtain the latest news andupdates about their brands of interest, driving their cognitive engagement (Dessart et al.,2015; Hollebeek and Macky, 2019). Arguably, CII includes updates of trendiness information,current discussion topics and novel ideas about brands initiated by both marketers andconsumers (Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010; Seo and Park, 2018).

When consumers are motivated to exert their cognitive presence in brand-relatedinteractions related to trendiness topics, repeated interactions develop positive brandperceptions in their minds (Chan et al., 2014). Therefore, the trendier the information carriedby social-media brand pages is, then the more effective brands are in engaging consumers(Mishra, 2019). Thus, we hypothesize that:

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

527

H5. Cognitive up-to-date information interactivity has a positive effect on CBE.

The behavioural consequents resulting from the relationship between brand interactivity onsocial-media platforms and CBE – co-creation and repurchase intention – are discussed next.

2.3 CBE and value co-creationValue co-creation implies that consumers play an active role as participants in brandexperiences and brand value creation, rather than being passive receivers of brand-relatedinformation and purchasers of the brand (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Particularlywith the emergence of a customer-centric logic combined with service-dominant logic(Brodie et al., 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004), consumers are regarded as co-creators ofbrand value when they engage in interaction activities with brands, with brand valueconsidered as one of the most essential sources of a firm’s competitive advantage (Tajvidiet al., 2018).

Brand value is also co-created when consumers directly or indirectly share their brandexperience with other consumers (France et al., 2015; Rosenthal and Brito, 2017), either whencollaborating in the new product development process to develop new product ideas (Bhartiet al., 2014) or when co-creating the design of products (Galvagno and Dalli, 2014; Hsieh andChang, 2016). In these cases, co-creation allows consumers to be active partners working witha brand, hence playing a significant role in determining brand success (Cowan and Ketron,2018; Juntunen, 2012; Tajvidi et al., 2017).

The intertwining of engagement and value co-creation (France et al., 2015) sustains theargument that CBE positively influences consumer–brand relationships (Hollebeek, 2011),empirically supported by research findings showing that engagement is a relationalantecedent with a direct effect on consumers’ propensity to co-create, strengtheningconsumers’ perceived brand value (France et al., 2018; Thompson andMalaviya, 2013). Thus,we hypothesize that:

H6. CBE has a positive effect on co-creation.

2.4 CBE and repurchase intentionActing as a proxy for purchase behaviour (Morwitz et al., 2007), repurchase intention refers toconsumers’ intention to buy the same product or service from the same firm onmore than oneoccasion (Hellier et al., 2003) or to engage in future activities with the brand (Curtis et al., 2011;Hume et al., 2007). Consumers’ attention, understanding and positive affection develop frombrand-interactivity elements on social media through the engagement process, drivingrepurchase intention (Kuo et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2014). Therefore, CBEpositively affects brand-loyalty outcomes, including repurchase intention (Dwivedi, 2015;Hollebeek et al., 2014; Leckie et al., 2016). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H7. CBE has a positive effect on repurchase intention.

3. Methodology3.1 DesignA self-administered, online survey in Portuguese was used to collect data from a conveniencesample of consumers with a Facebook account in Brazil. The survey was drafted in Englishand successfully back-translated into Portuguese (Brislin, 1970). The choice of Brazil for thisresearch is justified given its 66 per cent social-media penetration rate at the start of 2019(Chaffey, 2019), with the number of social media users expected to increase to 114 million by2021 (Statista, 2019a). With a daily usage in excess of 214 min, Brazilians rank second interms of daily time spent on social-media platforms (PagBrasil, 2019), compared to 136 min

MIP38,4

528

global average (Statista, 2019b). Brazilians increasingly engage with brands on social-mediaplatforms, searching for information, interacting with brands and like-minded users and co-creating brand value (Lima et al., 2019).

Following recent studies on branding and engagement (e.g. Djatmiko and Pradana, 2016;Hsu et al., 2018; Kudeshia and Kumar, 2017), this research used smartphones as the focalproduct. A smartphone is a high-technology product that allows consumers to use theirimagination to meet their needs, enjoying unique brand experiences during the co-creationprocess. For example, Nokia initiated co-creative marketing activities by inviting consumersto contribute to the design of smartphones for themselves, aiming at strengthening CBE andbrand loyalty (Vivek et al., 2012). Hence, a smartphone is deemed an appropriate focal productfor this study.

3.2 MeasuresThe questionnaire featured seven-point Likert scales (1 5 strongly disagree,7 5 strongly agree), using measurement items adopted from previous studies (seeTable I). For brand interactivity within social media, 19 items covering five elements (EI,CI, IEOU, CIFI and CII) were adapted from Kim and Ko (2010). Ten items adopted fromLeckie et al. (2016) tapped the cognitive processing (three items), affection (four items)and activation (three items) dimensions. Five items from Nysveen and Pedersen (2014)measured co-creation. Lastly, three items from Wu et al. (2014) measured repurchaseintention.

Conceptualized as a three-dimensional construct, CBE was operationalized as a second-order, reflective-reflective construct. The cognitive processing, affection and activationdimensions are justified for two reasons. One reason is that CBE studies assert a positivecorrelation between these three second-order dimensions (Dwivedi, 2015; Harrigan et al.,2017; So et al., 2016). For example, when consumers invest cognitive efforts inunderstanding more about their favourite brands, their cognitive efforts are expected tocorrelate positively with their positive emotions (i.e. affection) and attitude towards thebrand as the first choice in their decision-making process (i.e. activation). Since the threesecond-order dimensions are positively correlated, a reflective-reflective, second-orderoperationalization is justified (Jarvis et al., 2003). The second reason is that prior CBE studieswith reflective-reflective operationalization have reported satisfactory results (Hinson et al.,2019; Islam et al., 2018).

3.3 Data collection and samplePromoted by the research team on social media, including Facebook, LinkedIn andWhatsApp groups, along with an email sent to an extended network of Brazilian contacts,data collection tallied 408 useable responses.

All respondents were Brazilians, over 18 years old, experienced users of social-media andFacebook – as well as Google þ , Twitter, Instagram and YouTube – who owned the focalproduct at the time of data collection. Comprising males (37 per cent), the majority ofrespondents (80.1 per cent) was aged between 18 and 40 (mean 5 26–30 years), with 35 percent engaged in full-time employment. Most respondents (36.9 per cent) nominated Apple astheir most familiar smartphone brand, followed by Samsung (36.7 per cent) and Motorola(17.6 per cent), with the remainder being LG, Sony, Asus and Nokia. In terms of reported dailyusage of Facebook, one-third of respondents used it an average 2–5 times per day and 17.1 percent used it 6–10 times a day, while 23.2 per cent signed into Facebook all the time. Sincerespondents are recognized by their extensive usage of social media (Pfeil et al., 2009), thesample is suitable for addressing the data requirements for testing the hypotheses of themodel (Zadeh et al., 2019).

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

529

Construct Loading t-value

Entertainment interactivity (EI)The content found in brand X’s social media seems interesting 0.85 50.59It is exciting to use brand X’s social media 0.91 80.42It is fun to collect information on products through brand X’s social media 0.90 79.42

Customization interactivity (CI)It is possible to search for customized information on brand X’s social media 0.86 47.31Brand X’s social media provide customized services 0.91 62.69Brand X’s social media provide lively feed information i am interested in 0.89 60.38

Interactive ease of use (IEOU)It is easy to use brand X’s social media 0.85 45.76Brand X’s social media can be used anytime, anywhere 0.87 45.39It is easy to convey my opinions or conversation with other users through brand X’ssocial media

0.90 70.03

It is possible to have two-way interaction through brand X’s social media 0.87 47.88

Cognitive information-transfer interaction (CITI)I would like to pass information on brands, products or services from brand X’s socialmedia to my friends

0.88 59.26

I would like to upload content from brand X’s social media on my Facebook page or myblog

0.89 54.49

I would like to share opinions on brands, items or services acquired from brandX’s socialmedia with my friends

0.90 60.17

Cognitive up-to-date information interactivity (CII)Content found on brand X’s social media are up-to-date 0.91 62.33Using brand X’s social media is very trendy 0.89 59.36The content on brand X’s social media is the newest information 0.93 92.72

Consumer–brand engagement – cognitive processingUsing this brand gets me to think about brand X 0.93 108.58I think about brand X a lot when I am using it 0.95 174.44Using this brand stimulates my interest to learn more about brand X 0.88 62.52

Consumer–brand engagement – affectionI feel very positive when I use brand X 0.92 73.17Using brand X makes me happy 0.95 129.66I feel good when I use brand X 0.96 166.38

Consumer–brand engagement – activationI spent a lot of time using brand X compared with other brands 0.93 97.01Whenever i am using smartphones, i usually use brand X 0.88 54.15I use brand X the most 0.93 100.39

Co-creationI often suggest how brand X can improve its products and services 0.77 28.88I often express my personal needs to brand X 0.85 41.68I often find solutions to my problems together with brand X 0.85 50.68I am actively involved when brand X develops new products 0.86 59.36Brand X encourages consumers to create solutions together 0.81 36.04

Repurchase intentionThe probability that I will use brand X again is high 0.90 89.97I consider myself a loyal customer of brand X 0.90 71.78If i had to do it over again, i would choose brand X 0.92 78.25

Table I.Outer model results

MIP38,4

530

4. ResultsThe analysis featured partial least squares–structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) usingSmartPLS v3.2.8 (Ringle et al., 2015) and adopting the 5,000-bootstrap procedure. Assessmentof the measurement (outer) model and of the structural (inner) model, using two-tailed test, isdetailed further.

4.1 Outer (measurement) model resultsFor the measurement model, all item loadings were > 0.77 and significant (see Table I). UsingCronbach’s alpha and composite reliability to assess internal consistency, all values > 0.86,well above the recommended 0.70 threshold (see Table II). Average variance extracted (AVE)was used next to assess the convergent validity of the model, with all scores higher than therecommended 0.50 threshold (see Table II). Discriminant validity was assessed using theFornell–Larcker (1981) criterion, with the AVE square roots larger than the correspondingcorrelations (Hair et al., 2014).

Relative to assessment of the hierarchical nature of the CBE construct, the first-orderloadings of the CBE dimensions were strong (≥ 0.812) and significant (p5 0.000) for the threefirst-order dimensions of cognitive recognition, affection and activation, supporting CBE’smodelling as a second-order construct. All three first-order CBE dimensions were positivelycorrelated (average r5 0.644), further supportingCBE’smodelling as a second-order construct.

4.2 Inner (structural) model resultsThe hypotheses were assessed using the inner (structural) model results, by examining the t-values, standardized coefficient beta values and coefficient of determination (R2 value). Theresults (see Figure 1) support five of the seven hypotheses. Regarding the relationshipbetween brand interactivity within social media and CBE, the impact of CII on CBE was thestrongest (β 5 0.349, p 5 0.000), followed by EI (β 5 0.318, p 5 0.000) and CITI (β 5 0.130,p5 0.026). Thus, H1, H4 and H5 were supported. However, the impact of IEOU on CBE wasnegative and non-significant (β 5 �0.086, p 5 0.235), rejecting H3, whilst the effect of CI(β5�0.023, p5 0.719) on CBE was non-significant, and thus H2 was not supported. Lastly,the influence of CBE on co-creation (β5 0.585, p5 0.000) and repurchase intention (β5 0.722,p 5 0.000) was strong and significant, supporting H6 and H7.

TheR2 valueswere reviewed to evaluate themodel’s explanatory power. TheR2 values forCBE (R2 5 0.363), co-creation (R2 5 0.341) and repurchase intention (R25 0.520), along withan AVA (average variance accounted for) 5 0.408, all exceed the recommended criterionbenchmark in being greater than 0.10 (Chin, 1998), with a value of 0.20 considered high forconsumer-behaviour studies (Vock et al., 2013). This suggests that the model performs well inexplaining variation in the target (endogenous) variables.

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 Alpha AVE

1. Entertainment interactivity 1 0.92 0.782. Customization interactivity 0.76 1 0.86 0.783. Interactivity ease of use 0.63 0.70 1 0.90 0.764. Cognitive information-transfer

interaction0.61 0.57 0.50 1 0.87 0.79

5. Cognitive up-to-date informationinteractivity

0.62 0.64 0.76 0.52 1 0.89 0.82

6. Consumer–brand engagement 0.54 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.54 1 0.94 0.667. Co-creation 0.54 0.50 0.39 0.53 0.47 0.59 1 0.89 0.698. Repurchase intention 0.39 0.34 0.35 0.28 0.41 0.72 0.49 0.89 0.82

Table II.Construct correlation

matrix and AVE

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

531

Figure 1.Conceptual modelresults

MIP38,4

532

5. Theoretical implicationsAn increasing number of empirical studies examine the theoretical and practical implicationsof social-media marketing for brand building (Ismail, 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Seo and Park,2018). Notwithstanding, the influence of different constructs related to brand interactivitywithin social media on CBE and its behavioural outcomes remains unclear. This studyaddresses this gap in the literature by introducing five different elements of brandinteractivity within social media, along with examining their importance in building CBE, co-creation and repurchase intention. Thus, this study contributes to the literature byidentifying and assessing individual brand-building factors amongst the five elements ofbrand interactivity within social media. The results reveal that EI, CITI and CII should bethought of as means for facilitating CBE, justifying the importance of using social-mediafeaturing entertainment content, along with positive cognitive information and trendinessposts, in the brand-building process (Harmeling et al., 2017; Islam and Rahman, 2016; Valeand Fernandes, 2018).

Inconsistent with previous studies’ findings, the impact of IEOU on CBEwas negative andnon-significant (e.g. Frasquet-Deltoro et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2017). This result can beexplained in several ways. One explanation is related to consumers’ enduring involvementwith online platforms (G�omez et al., 2019; Shen and Chiou, 2010). Arguably, when consumers’enduring involvement is high, as in our sample (with an average 5.6/7 category-involvementscore), the perceived ease of use of social-media platforms is less relevant to consumers’intention to engage with products and brands, because they are seeking to acquireinformation about their brands of interest (Shen and Chiou, 2010). Another possibleexplanation is related to consumers’ familiarity in using social-media platforms. Yang et al.(2017) found a non-significant relationship between perceived ease of use and customerengagement in the context of online marketing with gamification, because perceived ease ofuse does not affect consumers’ attitude for a long time, since young consumers are willing tolearn and become familiar with using online platforms in the long run. Similarly, Bailey et al.(2018) found that because consumers (in Latin America) are familiar with using social-mediaplatforms, ease of use has no impact on consumers’ attitude towards social media. In ourstudy, most of our Brazilian respondents were young and active users of social-mediaplatforms; thus, they would not regard social-media platforms as being challenging to use,checking the relevance of IEOU for CBE.

The non-significant relationship found between CI and CBE also contrasts withprevious findings in the literature (Ko and Megehee, 2012; Schulze et al., 2015; Zhu andChen, 2015). The contrast may be explained by Holbrook’s (2000) arguments aboutcustomer experience, where the impact of customized and standardized experience onconsumers’ satisfaction is similar because both are useful in building consumers’ positiveperceptions in their minds.

Finally, this study also contributes the finding that CBE has a significant and robust effecton co-creation and repurchase intention, suggesting that engagement between consumersand their brands is effective in building the consumer–brand relationship (Luo et al., 2015),ultimately strengthening consumers’ intention to co-create brand value (Tajvidi et al., 2017)and repurchase intentions (Park and Ha, 2016). Indeed, the intertwined nature of CBE and co-creation has been discussed in prior studies (France et al., 2015; Hollebeek et al., 2014).However, limited empirical studies have demonstrated a relationship between them. Thus,our findings reinforce France et al.’s (2018) arguments that CBE and co-creation are twodistinct concepts by empirically demonstrating CBE’s strategic role in driving co-creationand repurchase intention. In other words, CBE is a motivational brand-related psychologicalstate that helps drive consumers’ intention to co-create brand value (France et al., 2015;Hollebeek, 2011). This explains why CBE is regarded as one of the most critical constructs inbrand-building processes, thereby warranting marketers’ attention.

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

533

6. Managerial implicationsFrom a managerial perspective, our findings call on marketers to consider using brandinteractivity within social media in the formation of CBE, co-creation and repurchaseintention. Particularly, marketers should consider engaging with consumers by usinginteractive content that is entertaining, current and trendy to encourage positive cognitiveinformation sharing amongst consumers. The aim is to stimulate consumers’ cognitiveprocessing, affection and activation (i.e. CBE), ultimately strengthening their intention to co-create brand value and to repurchase the same brand in the future.

Marketers should particularly assist consumers in obtaining and sharing comprehensiveinformation about their brands of interest on social-media platforms. This facilitates brandinteractivity, such as consumer referrals of particular products and incorporating the latestnews and updates, and offers entertaining content. The aim is to increase consumers’cognitive understanding of the focal brands, thus driving their satisfaction with and positiveperceptions of those brands.

It is further recommended that marketers should regard brand interactivity withinsocial media as an important strategy for driving consumers’ intention to co-create brandvalue and to repurchase the brand. In particular, marketers can facilitate consumer–brandinteractions by encouraging consumers to create, like and share interactive brand contentwith other consumers, along with using (and diffusing) hashtags. The aim is to contributeto driving consumers’ intention to co-create brand value on social-media platforms(Aichner, 2019; Algharabat et al., 2019), hence strengthening repurchase intention (Chenand Chen, 2017).

Finally, marketers may consider encouraging experienced consumers to share theiraccumulated brand experience regarding brand-interactivity elements with brands and otherusers of social-media platforms, thus helping brands to improve the quality of their products,as well as helping other consumers enhance their cognitive understanding about theattributes and benefits of the focal brands (Chathoth et al., 2016). This interaction is deemeduseful in co-creating brand value and in driving consumers’ attitudinal and behaviouralloyalty (France et al., 2018; Gligor et al., 2019).

Overall, this study contributes to the discussion of the effectiveness of social-mediamarketing strategies in highlighting the usefulness of brand-interactivity elements. In Brazil,marketers should focus on providing entertaining, trendy information, along withconsumers’ referrals to strengthen CBE, consumers’ intention to co-create brand value andrepurchase the brand.

7. Limitations and directions for future researchThis study adopted a cross-sectional design conducted in Brazil only, thus limiting thegeneralizability of the findings. Accordingly, future research should consider longitudinalstudies and comparisons between countries with diverse cultures. The study’s scope is alsolimited by its focus on smartphones alone, a durable technology product, limiting theapplication of the findings, with future research needed to consider other product categoriesand different sectors, such as services.

A further limitation arises because of the focus on the impact of brand interactivity withinsocial media on CBE and its related outcomes; thus, future research could also consider theinfluence of other constructs or potential moderators that may affect the brand-interactivityelements and/or the relationships investigated in this study. Finally, as this study focused onthe effectiveness of brand interactivity within social media, the impact of traditionalmarketing elements was not considered. Future research may compare the relative impact ofbrand interactivity within social-media versus traditional marketing activities, such astraditional advertising, sales promotion and distribution intensity.

MIP38,4

534

References

Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A. and Mishne, G. (2008), “Finding high-quality contentin social media”, Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and DataMining, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA, pp. 183-194, doi: 10.1145/1341531.1341557.

Aichner, T. (2019), “Football clubs’ social media use and user engagement”, Marketing Intelligence andPlanning, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 242-257.

Al-Htibat, A. and Garanti, Z. (2019), “Impact of interactive eReferral on tourists behavioral intentions”,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 527-541.

Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Alalwan, A.A., Baabdullah, A. and Gupta, A. (2019), “Investigating theantecedents of customer brand engagement and consumer-based brand equity in social media”,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.

Ashley, C. and Tuten, T. (2015), “Creative strategies in social media marketing: an exploratory studyof branded social content and consumer engagement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1,pp. 15-27.

Bailey, A.A., Bonifield, C.M. and Arias, A. (2018), “Social media use by young Latin Americanconsumers: an exploration”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 10-19.

Ballantine, P.W. (2005), “Effects of interactivity and product information on consumer satisfaction inan online retail setting”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33No. 6, pp. 461-471.

Barger, V., Peltier, J.W. and Schultz, D.E. (2016), “Social media and consumer engagement: a reviewand research agenda”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 268-287.

Bento, M., Martinez, L.M. and Martinez, L.F. (2018), “Brand engagement and search for brands onsocial media: comparing generations X and Y in portugal”, Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, Vol. 43, pp. 234-241.

Bharti, K., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2014), “What drives the customer of world’s largest market toparticipate in value co-creation?”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 32 No. 4,pp. 413-435.

Bolton, R.N. (2011), “Comment: customer engagement: opportunities and challenges for organizations”,Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 272-274.

Bowden, J. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework”, Journal ofMarketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.

Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216.

Brodie, R.J., Glynn, M.S. and Little, V. (2006), “The service brand and the service-dominant logic:missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory?”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 363-379.

Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juri�c, B. and Ili�c, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 252-271.

Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L. (2013), “Consumer engagement in a virtual brandcommunity: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 105-114.

Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Maslowska, E. (2016), “Brand marketing, big data and socialinnovation as future research directions for engagement”, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 32 Nos 5-6, pp. 579-585.

Chae, H., Ko, E. and Han, J. (2015), “How do customers’ SNS participation activities impact oncustomer equity drivers and customer loyalty? Focus on the SNS services of a global SPAbrand”, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 122-141.

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

535

Chan, N.L. and Guillet, B.D. (2011), “Investigation of social media marketing: how does the hotelindustry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social media websites?”, Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 345-368.

Chan, T.K., Zheng, X., Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K. and Lee, Z.W. (2014), “Antecedents and consequencesof customer engagement in online brand communities”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 2No. 2, pp. 81-97.

Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Harrington, R.J. and Chan, E.S. (2016), “Co-creation andhigher order customer engagement in hospitality and tourism services: a criticalreview”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 222-245.

Cheffey, D. (2019),Global SocialMediaResearchSummary 2019, available at: https://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/ (accessed31 May 2019).

Chen, C.C.V. and Chen, C.J. (2017), “The role of customer participation for enhancing repurchaseintention”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 547-562.

Cheung, M.L., Pires, G.D. and Rosenberger, P.J. III (2019), “Developing a conceptual model forexamining social media marketing effects on brand awareness and brand image”, InternationalJournal of Economics and Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 243-261.

Chin, W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling”, inMarcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Laurence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.

Chung, N. and Koo, C. (2015), “The use of social media in travel information search”, Telematics andInformatics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-229.

Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference, and purchaseintent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.

Cowan, K. and Ketron, S. (2018), “A dual model of product involvement for effective virtual reality: theroles of imagination, co-creation, telepresence, and interactivity”, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 100 July, pp. 483-492.

Curtis, T., Abratt, R., Rhoades, D.L. and Dion, P. (2011), “Customer loyalty, repurchase andsatisfaction: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction andComplaining Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 1-26.

Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of informationtechnology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.

Dennis, C., Merrilees, B., Jayawardhena, C. and Tiu Wright, L. (2009), “E-consumer behaviour”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 9/10, pp. 1121-1139.

Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brandcommunities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24No. 1, pp. 28-42.

De Vries, N. and Carlson, J. (2014), “Examining the drivers and brand performance implications ofcustomer engagement with brands in the social media environment”, Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 495-515.

De Vries, L., Gensler, S. and Leeflang, P.S. (2012), “Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: aninvestigation of the effects of social media marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26No. 2, pp. 83-91.

Djatmiko, T. and Pradana, R. (2016), “Brand image and product price; its impact for samsungsmartphone purchasing decision”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 219,pp. 221-227.

Dwivedi, A. (2015), “A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyaltyintentions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 24 May, pp. 100-109.

MIP38,4

536

Featherman, M.S., Miyazaki, A.D. and Sprott, D.E. (2010), “Reducing online privacy risk to facilitate e-service adoption: the influence of perceived ease of use and corporate credibility”, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 219-229.

Fiore, A.M., Kim, J. and Lee, H.H. (2005), “Effect of image interactivity technology on consumerresponses toward the online retailer”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 38-53.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2015), “Customer brand co-creation: a conceptual model”,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 848-864.

France, C., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2016), “An integrated model of customer-brand engagement:drivers and consequences”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 119-136.

France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2018), “Customer brand co-creation behavior:conceptualization and empirical validation”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 3,pp. 334-348.

Frasquet-Deltoro, M., Alarc�on-del-Amo, M.D.C. and Lorenzo-Romero, C. (2019), “Antecedents andconsequences of virtual customer co-creation behaviours”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 218-244.

Fry, M.L. and Merrilees, B. (2001), “E-shopping: the role of experience on security perceptions”,International Quarterly Journal of Marketing, Vol. 1 Nos 2-4, pp. 225-237.

Gallaugher, J. and Ransbotham, S. (2010), “Social media and customer dialog management atstarbucks”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 197-212.

Galvagno, M. and Dalli, D. (2014), “Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 643-683.

Gligor, D., Bozkurt, S. and Russo, I. (2019), “Achieving customer engagement with social media: aqualitative comparative analysis approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101 August,pp. 59-69.

Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R. and Singh, R. (2016), “Socialmedia marketing efforts of luxury brands: influence on brand equity and consumer behavior”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 12, pp. 5833-5841.

G�omez, M., Lopez, C. and Molina, A. (2019), “An integrated model of social media brand engagement”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 96 July, pp. 196-206.

Groth, M. (2005), “Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet servicedeliveries”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 7-27.

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least SquaresStructural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A.H. and Richard, M.O. (2017), “A social commerce investigation of the role oftrust in a social networking site on purchase intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 71February, pp. 133-141.

Harmeling, C., Moffett, J., Arnold, M. and Carlson, B. (2017), “Toward a theory of customerengagement marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 3,pp. 312-335.

Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2017), “Customer engagement with tourism socialmedia brands”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59, pp. 597-609.

Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A. and Rickard, J.A. (2003), “Customer repurchase intention: ageneral structural equation model”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 11/12,pp. 1762-1800.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth viaconsumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on theinternet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

537

Hinson, R., Boateng, H., Renner, A. and Kosiba, J. (2019), “Antecedents and consequences of customerengagement on Facebook: an attachment theory perspective”, Journal of Research in InteractiveMarketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 204-226.

Holbrook, M.B. (2000), “The millennial consumer in the texts of our times: experience andentertainment”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 178-192.

Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes”, Journal ofStrategic Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573.

Hollebeek, L.D. and Macky, K. (2019), “Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumerengagement, trust, and value: framework, fundamental propositions, and implications”, Journalof Interactive Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 27-41.

Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer brand engagement in social media:conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28No. 2, pp. 149-165.

Hsieh, S.H. and Chang, A. (2016), “The psychological mechanism of brand co-creation engagement”,Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 33, pp. 13-26.

Hsu, C.L., Chen, Y.C., Yang, T.N., Lin, W.K. and Liu, Y.H. (2018), “Does product design matter?Exploring its influences in consumers’ psychological responses and brand loyalty”, InformationTechnology and People, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 886-907.

Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S. and Madden, T.J. (2016), “The influence of social mediainteractions on consumer–brand relationships: a three-country study of brand perceptionsand marketing behaviors”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1,pp. 27-41.

Hume, M., Mort, G.S. and Winzar, H. (2007), “Exploring repurchase intention in a performing artscontext: who comes? and why do they come back?”, International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-148.

Ibrahim, N.F., Wang, X. and Bourne, H. (2017), “Exploring the effect of user engagement in online brandcommunities: evidence from twitter”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72 July, pp. 321-338.

Ind, N. and Coates, N. (2013), “The meanings of co-creation”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 86-95.

Islam, J.U. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Linking customer engagement to trust and word-of-mouth onFacebook brand communities: an empirical study”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 40-58.

Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2018), “Consumer engagement in online brandcommunities: a solicitation of congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-45.

Ismail, A.R. (2017), “The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand loyalty: themediation effect of brand and value consciousness”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 129-144.

Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators andmeasurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.

Juntunen, M. (2012), “Co-creating corporate brands in start-ups”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 230-249.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities ofsocial media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Kim, A.J. and Ko, E. (2010), “Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media marketing on customerrelationship and purchase intention”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 164-171.

Kim, J. and Lee, K.H. (2019), “Influence of integration on interactivity in social media luxury brandcommunities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 99, pp. 422-429.

MIP38,4

538

Kim, E., Sung, Y. and Kang, H. (2014), “Brand followers’ retweeting behavior on twitter: how brandrelationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth”, Computers in Human Behavior,Vol. 37, pp. 18-25.

Ko, E. and Megehee, C.M. (2012), “Fashion marketing of luxury brands: recent research issues andcontributions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1395-1398.

Krishnamurthy, A. and Kumar, S.R. (2018), “Electronic word-of-mouth and the brand image: exploringthe moderating role of involvement through a consumer expectations lens”, Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 149-156.

Kudeshia, C. and Kumar, A. (2017), “Social eWOM: does it affect the brand attitude and purchaseintention of brands?”, Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 310-330.

Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M. and Deng, W.J. (2009), “The relationships among service quality, perceived value,customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services”, Computersin Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 887-896.

Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. and Johnson, L. (2016), “Antecedents of consumer brand engagement andbrand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5-6, pp. 558-578.

Lee, Z.W., Chan, T.K., Chong, A.Y.L. and Thadani, D.R. (2019), “Customer engagement throughomnichannel retailing: the effects of channel integration quality”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 77, pp. 90-101.

Lima, V.M., Irigaray, H.A.R. and Lourenco, C. (2019), “Consumer engagement on social media: insightsfrom a virtual brand community”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 14-32.

Liu, X., Shin, H. and Burns, A.C. (2019), “Examining the impact of luxury brand’s social mediamarketing on customer engagement: using big data analytics and natural languageprocessing”, Journal of Business Research, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.042.

Luo, N., Zhang, M. and Liu, W. (2015), “The effects of value co-creation practices on buildingharmonious brand community and achieving brand loyalty on social media in China”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 492-499.

Manthiou, A., Chiang, L. and Tang, L.R. (2013), “Identifying and responding to customer needs onfacebook fan pages”, International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), Vol. 9No. 3, pp. 36-52.

Manthiou, A., Tang, L.R. and Bosselman, R. (2014), “Reason and reaction: the dual route of thedecision-making process on facebook fan pages”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 297-308.

Merrilees, B. (2016), “Interactive brand experience pathways to customer-brand engagementand value co-creation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,pp. 402-408.

Merrilees, B. and Fry, M.L. (2002), “Corporate branding: a framework for e-retailers”, CorporateReputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2-3, pp. 213-225.

Merrilees, B. and Fry, M.L. (2003), “E-trust: the influence of perceived interactivity on e-retailingusers”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123-128.

Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (1996), Retailing Management: A Best Practice Approach, RMIT Press,Melbourne.

Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2001), “Superstore interactivity: a new self-service paradigm of retailservice?”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 8,pp. 379-389.

Miller, R. and Lammas, N. (2010), “Social media and its implications for viral marketing”, Asia PacificPublic Relations Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Mishra, A. (2019), “Antecedents of consumers’ engagement with brand-related content on socialmedia”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 386-400.

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

539

Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumerexperience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of business research,Vol. 63 Nos 9-10, pp. 919-925.

Morrison, D.G. (1979), “Purchase intentions and purchase behavior”, The Journal of Marketing, Spring,Vol. 43, pp. 65-74.

Morwitz, V.G., Steckel, J.H. and Gupta, A. (2007), “When do purchase intentions predict sales?”,International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 347-364.

MSI (2018), 2018 – 2020 Research Priorities, Marketing Science Institute, Boston, MA.

Nisar, T.M. and Whitehead, C. (2016), “Brand interactions and social media: enhancing user loyaltythrough social networking sites”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 743-753.

Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2014), “Influences of cocreation on brand experience”, InternationalJournal of Market Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 807-832.

Ou, C.X., Pavlou, P.A. and Davison, R. (2014), “Swift guanxi in online marketplaces: the role ofcomputer-mediated communication technologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 209-230.

PagBrasil (2019), “Brazil: digital in 2019 report”, available at: https://www.pagbrasil.com/noticias/digital-in-2019-brazil/ (accessed 22 May 2019).

Pai, F.Y. and Yeh, T.M. (2014), “The effects of information sharing and interactivity on theintention to use social networking websites”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 4,pp. 2191-2207.

Park, J. and Ha, S. (2016), “Co-creation of service recovery: utilitarian and hedonic value andpost-recovery responses”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 28,pp. 310-316.

Pfeil, U., Arjan, R. and Zaphiris, P. (2009), “Age differences in online social networking–a study of userprofiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in myspace”, Computersin Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 643-654.

Phan, M., Thomas, R. and Heine, K. (2011), “Social media and luxury brand management: the case ofburberry”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 213-222.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in valuecreation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.

Prasad, S., Garg, A. and Prasad, S. (2019), “Purchase decision of generation Y in an onlineenvironment”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 372-385.

Ramadan, Z., Farah, M.F. and Dukenjian, A. (2018), “Typology of social media followers: the case ofluxury brands”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 558-571.

Reza Jalilvand, M. and Samiei, N. (2012), “The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image andpurchase intention: an empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran”, MarketingIntelligence & Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 460-476.

Ringle, C., Wende, S. and Becker, J. (2015), “Smartpls 3.0, boenningstedt: smartPLS GmbH”, http://www.smartpls.com.

Rosenthal, B. and Brito, E.P.Z. (2017), “The brand meaning co-creation process on facebook”,Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 923-936.

Schulze, C., Sch€oler, L. and Skiera, B. (2015), “Customizing social media marketing”, MIT SloanManagement Review, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 8-10.

Seo, E.J. and Park, J.W. (2018), “A study on the effects of social media marketing activities on brandequity and customer response in the airline industry”, Journal of Air Transport Management,Vol. 66, pp. 36-41.

Shen, C.C. and Chiou, J.S. (2010), “The impact of perceived ease of use on Internet service adoption: themoderating effects of temporal distance and perceived risk”, Computers in Human Behavior,Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 42-50.

MIP38,4

540

So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A. and Wang, Y. (2016), “Enhancing customer relationships with retailservice brands: the role of customer engagement”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 170-193.

Statista (2019a), “Internet usage in Brazil - statistics and facts”, available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/2045/internet-usage-in-brazil/ (accessed 22 May 2019).

Statista (2019b), “Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from 2012 to2018 (in minutes)”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-media-usage-worldwide/ (accessed 22 May 2019).

Tajvidi, M., Wang, Y., Hajli, N. and Love, P.E. (2017), “Brand value co-creation in social commerce: therole of interactivity, social support, and relationship quality”, Computers in Human Behavior, inpress, 105238.

Tajvidi, M., Richard, M.O., Wang, Y. and Hajli, N. (2018), “Brand co-creation through social commerceinformation sharing: the role of social media”, Journal of Business Research, in press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.008.

Thompson, D.V. and Malaviya, P. (2013), “Consumer-generated ads: does awareness of advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 33-47.

Vale, L. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Social media and sports: driving fan engagement with footballclubs on facebook”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 37-55.

Valos, M.J., Haji Habibi, F., Casidy, R., Driesener, C.B. and Maplestone, V.L. (2016), “Exploring theintegration of social media within integrated marketing communication frameworks:perspectives of services marketers”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 34 No. 1,pp. 19-40.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Vivek, S., Beatty, S. and Morgan, R. (2012), “Customer engagement: exploring customer relationshipsbeyond purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 122-146.

Vock, M., Dolen, W.V. and Ruyter, K.D. (2013), “Understanding willingness to pay for social networksites”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 311-325.

Wong, H.Y. and Merrilees, B. (2015), “An empirical study of the antecedents and consequences ofbrand engagement”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 575-591.

Wu, L.Y., Chen, K.Y., Chen, P.Y. and Cheng, S.L. (2014), “Perceived value, transaction cost, andrepurchase-intention in online shopping: a relational exchange perspective”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2768-2776.

Yang, Y., Asaad, Y. and Dwivedi, Y. (2017), “Examining the impact of gamification on intention ofengagement and brand attitude in the marketing context”, Computers in Human Behavior,Vol. 73, pp. 459-469.

Zadeh, A.H., Zolfagharian, M. and Hofacker, C.F. (2019), “Customer–customer value co-creation insocial media: conceptualization and antecedents”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4,pp. 283-302.

Zhu, Y.Q. and Chen, H.G. (2015), “Social media and human need satisfaction: implications for socialmedia marketing”, Business Horizons, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 335-345.

Corresponding authorMan Lai Cheung can be contacted at: manlaiicheung@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Consumer–brand

engagementand co-creation

541