Social Media and Consumer Engagement: A Review and Research Agenda
Social Media and Consumer Engagement: A Review and Research Agenda
Social Media and Consumer Engagement: A Review and Research Agenda
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm
JRIM
10,4
Social media and consumer
engagement: a review and
research agenda
268 Victor Barger
College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater,
Received 30 June 2016
Revised 4 August 2016
Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA
Accepted 7 August 2016
James W. Peltier
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA, and
Don E. Schultz
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose – In “Social media’s slippery slope: challenges, opportunities and future research
directions”, Schultz and Peltier (2013) asked “whether or how social media can be used to leverage
consumer engagement into highly profitable relationships for both parties”. The purpose of this
article is to continue this discussion by reviewing recent literature on consumer engagement and
proposing a framework for future research.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the marketing literature on social media,
paying particular attention to consumer engagement, which was identified as a primary area of concern
in Schultz and Peltier (2013).
Findings – A significant amount of research has been conducted on consumer engagement since 2010.
Lack of consensus on the definition of the construct has led to fragmentation in the discipline, however.
As a result, research related to consumer engagement is often not identified as such, making it difficult
for academics and practitioners to stay abreast of developments in this area.
Originality/value – This critical review provides marketing academics and practitioners insights
into the antecedents and consequences of consumer engagement and offers a conceptual framework for
future research.
Keywords Social media marketing, Marketing communications, Brand management,
Measurement, Consumer loyalty, Online branding
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Schultz and Peltier (2013) published an article in the Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing titled “Social Media’s Slippery Slope: challenges, Opportunities and Future
Research Directions”. The authors noted that while marketers have dramatically
increased their creation and usage of social media platforms, a relatively small portion
Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing have seen corresponding increases in consumer-brand engagement. They suggested
Vol. 10 No. 4, 2016
pp. 268-287
that rather than utilize social media communication technology to enhance short-term
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-7122
revenue vis-à-vis sales promotions, marketers need to use these evolving technologies to
DOI 10.1108/JRIM-06-2016-0065 create long-lasting engagement.
Recent large-scale commercial studies provide evidence that consumer Social media
engagement continues to be a problem for social media users. For example, IBM’s and consumer
CMO Insights Global C-Suite Study found that few companies engage with engagement
customers via social media and most have failed to “exploit the opportunities arising
from the data explosion and advanced analytics” (IBM, 2014, p. 4). Moreover, a
TrackMaven’s (2016) study found that while social media content per brand rose by
35 per cent across varied platforms from 2014 to 2015, content engagement actually 269
decreased by 17 per cent over that same time period. Even social media vendors who
purportedly measure engagement have been unable to prove whether, or the degree
to which, engagement correlates to metrics like loyalty or sales (Elliott, 2014). So
while almost nine in ten US companies with at least 100 employees have a social
media presence for marketing purposes, how this translates into customer value
remains a mystery (eMarketer, 2015).
A number of factors contribute to this engagement gap. First, social media is a
relatively new marketing phenomenon, and there is thus a naiveté for how
engagement should be created, tracked and measured (Barger and Labrecque; 2013;
Schivinski et al., 2016). Second, with its many platforms and varied formats, social
media has become a fragmented medium, making it difficult for companies to track
and coordinate their efforts (King et al., 2014; Straker et al., 2015). This
fragmentation, along with content saturation across channels, has placed greater
cognitive demands on consumers, forcing them to either ignore content or become
more selective in what they view and process (IBM, 2014). Lastly, in their search for
short-term sales gains, marketers over-rely on social media to deliver sales
promotions to consumers, and this continues to have a negative effect on brand
equity (Schultz and Block, 2014).
Responding to calls (Azar et al., 2016; Niedermeier et al., 2016), in this invited paper,
we dig deeper into the meaning of consumer engagement on social media. We do so by
defining consumer engagement and categorizing the antecedents and consequences of
consumer engagement in the social media world. As part of this categorization, we focus
on both consumer factors and firm factors as precursors and outcomes of social media
engagement. Our engagement framework is shown in Figure 1. We conclude by offering
a research agenda for developing a better understanding of how consumers and
companies co-create engagement.
270
Figure 1.
Antecedents and
consequences of
consumer
engagement on social
media
Recognizing the existence of precursors and outcomes of brand engagement and after an
extensive review of the engagement literature, Calder et al. (2016) extend Brodie et al.
(2011)’s definition of brand engagement to a:
[…] psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences
with a focal agent/object, under a specific set of context-dependent conditions, and exists as a
dynamic, iterative process in which other relational concepts are antecedents and/or
consequences (p. 40).
Because of the interactive and co-creative nature of social media, antecedents and
consequences of brand engagement may be viewed in light of key social media usage
metrics such as expressions of agreement, ratings, comments and shares (Barger and
Labrecque, 2013). Potential relational outcomes of engaged social media usage include
increased consumer satisfaction, loyalty, retention, customer lifetime value, share-
of-wallet and profitability (Cummins et al., 2014).
To help provide structure for research on consumer engagement, we offer a
conceptual framework (Figure 1). We operationalize consumer engagement as a set
of measurable actions that consumers take on social media in response to
brand-related content: reacting to content (e.g. likes, hearts, ⫹1s, 1 to 5 star ratings),
commenting on content (e.g. Facebook comments, Twitter replies), sharing content
with others (e.g. Facebook shares, Twitter retweets) and posting user-generated
content (UGC) (e.g. product reviews, Facebook posts about brands). The reasons
consumers engage with content are listed under “Antecedents” in Figure 1, and Social media
these are further categorized into brand, product, consumer, content and social and consumer
media factors. The possible outcomes of consumer engagement are listed under
“Consequences”, and these are further categorized into effects on brands, products,
engagement
consumers, content and markets. Within each type of antecedent/consequence are
bullet lists of factors/effects that have been investigated in the literature. In the
following two sections we review the literature on these antecedents and 271
consequences, respectively.
Brand factors
Six factors related to brands have been investigated in terms of their effects on consumer
engagement: brand attitude, brand warmth, for-profit vs non-profit status, word-
of-mouth for related brands, spending on traditional advertising and a firm’s
commitment to communication technologies.
With respect to brand attitude, Huang et al. (2013) demonstrated that the likelihood of
a consumer sharing a viral video was linked to not only the consumer’s attitude toward
the video but also the consumer’s attitude toward the brand. Moreover, the impact of
attitude toward the brand had a significant impact on sharing. On the opposite end of the
spectrum, Anderson and Simester (2014) showed that brand attitude may affect the
likelihood of consumers posting negative product reviews without ever having
purchased the product they are reviewing.
Bernritter et al. (2016) investigated how perceptions of a brand’s warmth (vs
competence) affect consumer intentions to publicly endorse the brand and its posts on
social media. In general, consumers are more likely to endorse brands that are perceived
to be warm, and this extends to non-profit brands, which are typically perceived as
warmer than for-profit brands. In addition, for non-profit brands, the extent to which the
brand is perceived as symbolic enhanced the effect of warmth on intention to endorse.
Borah and Tellis (2016) examined the effect of automobile recalls on online consumer
engagement. Not surprisingly, news of an automobile recall led to an increase in
negative posts on social media about the automobile model being recalled. More
importantly, however, the news of the recall also led to an increase in negative posts
about related automobile models, both for the affected brand in other segments and for
other brands in the same segment.
Counterintuitively, traditional advertising may have an inhibiting effect on
consumer engagement. Feng and Papatla (2011) modeled the relationship between
spending on advertising in the automobile industry and online word of mouth,
controlling for sales, customer satisfaction and a number of other factors. Across 32
automobile brands over a five-year period, they showed that an increase in advertising
was associated with a decrease in online word of mouth, although they caution that more
research is needed to determine if the relationship is causal.
A firm’s commitment to communication technologies has emerged as an important
organizational asset for capturing competitive advantages vis-à-vis multi-channel
JRIM initiatives and cross-platform metrics (Zahay et al., 2014). This commitment requires an
10,4 organizational vision for utilizing information and customer data, cross-functional
cooperation and the sharing of customer data (Peltier et al., 2013). Although not well
studied in the social media literature, a firm’s dedication to building rich social media
strategies and tactics is expected to impact brand engagement (Pomirleanu et al., 2013;
Homburg et al., 2015; Cummins et al., 2016).
272
Product factors
Five product-related factors have been explored in terms of consumer engagement:
hedonic vs utilitarian products, new vs updated products, extant product reviews,
product quality and product experience.
Schulze et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between hedonic vs utilitarian
products and online sharing. Whereas hedonic products benefit from “encouraging
consumers to broadcast unsolicited viral marketing messages to their Facebook friends
and offering small incentives to convince the receiver to try and use the product” (p. 13);
such a strategy is ineffective for utilitarian products. Whether a product is new or
simply redesigned may also influence engagement, though perhaps not in the expected
direction. Feng and Papatla (2012) compared online discussions of two automobile
models: the Chevy Impala (redesigned) and the Chevy Volt (newly introduced).
Surprisingly, the redesigned Chevy Impala generated significantly more online
discussion than the new Chevy Volt.
Within the context of book reviews, Hu and Li (2011) looked at the effect of extant
product reviews on engagement behavior. Although having a number of reviews of
a product is generally viewed as a positive, Hu and Li (2011) showed that high
ratings often lead to future reviews with lower ratings. This is in part because of the
fact that consumers are more likely to voice their views when these views differ from
current opinions. Product quality also plays a role: Chen et al. (2011) found that
consumers are more likely to post reviews when product quality is very low or very
high.
Kähr et al. (2016) explored the reasons behind “consumer brand sabotage”, which
they define as “a deliberate form of hostile, aggressive behavior on the part of a
consumer, designed to harm a brand” (p. 25). A key motivation for consumer
brand sabotage is poor experience with a brand’s product, which leads to feelings of
anger, frustration, outrage and hatred. Kähr et al. (2016) point out the ease with
which consumers can then use social media to cause significant harm to the brand.
Consumer factors
Why do consumers engage with brand-related content on social media? A number of
reasons have been proposed, including entertainment (Son et al., 2012; Rohm et al.,
2013; Azar et al., 2016), information acquisition (Rohm et al., 2013; Berger, 2014;
Azar et al., 2016), incentives and promotions (Rohm et al., 2013; Schultz and Peltier,
2013; Azar et al., 2016), social influence and bonding (Berger, 2014; Azar et al., 2016)
and impression management (Rohm et al., 2013; Berger, 2014). Taking a lifecycle
perspective on customer engagement, Shao and Ross (2015) consider how
motivations for engagement may change over time. Initially, consumers join brand
communities on social media primarily to socialize and acquire information. As the
consumers become familiar with the community, entertainment becomes the
primary motivation for engagement. Later, entertainment becomes less important Social media
and engagement depends on the consumer’s need for information about the brand and consumer
and its products.
Researchers have also considered individual differences and personality traits as
engagement
predictors of consumer engagement. At the most basic level, intention to engage on
social media is associated with previous engagement on social media (Goldsmith
et al., 2013). Blazevic et al. (2014) went a step further and developed a one-factor, 273
eight-item measure called “GOSIP” to ascertain individual differences in propensity
to interact with others online. Predictive validity was demonstrated by statistically
significant correlations between GOSIP and the posting activities of respondents.
Relatedly, VanMeter et al. (2015) developed an 8-factor, 27-item measure of
consumer attachment to social media (“ASM”). VanMeter et al. (2015) tested their
measure in a brand context and showed that ASM predicts consumer engagement
better than attitude toward social media alone. From a personality traits
perspective, Kabadayi and Price (2014) found that extraversion and openness to
experience are positively related to consumer engagement, whereas neuroticism is
negatively related to consumer engagement. Previously, Pagani et al. (2013) had
shown that the effect of extraversion on consumer engagement is partially mediated
by social identity expressiveness.
Packard and Wooten (2013) examined consumer knowledge as a predictor of
consumer engagement. Interestingly, they found that consumers who perceive
deficiencies in their level of knowledge are prone to “compensatory self-enhancement”;
that is, they are motivated to share their knowledge on social media to signal a higher
level of knowledge. Eisingerich et al. (2015) extend research on self-enhancement by
considering differences between online and in-person word-of-mouth. In general,
consumers are less willing to engage in word-of-mouth on social media than in person
because of the higher perceived social risk associated with online sharing. However, this
risk is mitigated by need to self-enhance, which increases willingness to engage in online
word-of-mouth.
Willingness to share is further impacted by the number of friends or followers a
person has. Barasch and Berger (2014) compare sharing behaviors of consumers
who are communicating with multiple people vs one other person. When sharing
with multiple people, consumers are less likely to share content that may reflect
negatively on themselves. However, when sharing with one other person, consumers
focus on the value of the information to the recipient instead of the value to the
sharer.
Content factors
The branded content with which consumers may engage clearly shapes the extent to
which consumers do engage. In their study of viral video advertising, Huang et al. (2013)
showed that attitude toward content is the primary factor that affects sharing behavior
on social media. Similarly, Swani et al. (2013) found that consumers were more likely to
engage with posts that were not overly commercial and that included emotional
sentiments.
The format and purpose of the content also affects consumer engagement. de
Vries et al. (2012) found that multisensory and interactive posts were more likely to
generate engagement than posts that lacked multisensory and interactive elements.
JRIM Similarly, Kim et al. (2015) showed that posts with photos were most likely to receive
10,4 likes, comments and shares. When they categorized the posts by marketing
objective – that is, task-oriented (e.g. communicating a sales promotion),
interaction-oriented (e.g. posting content not directly related to the brand) and
self-oriented (e.g. posting information about the company) – they discovered that
consumers were more likely to engage with task-oriented content than self-oriented
274 content. No statistically significant difference was found between interaction- and
self-oriented content.
Whether consumers engage with content on social media is affected by how
entertaining, educational and interesting the content is. Analyzing the diffusion of
YouTube videos, Liu-Thompkins and Rogerson (2012) found that entertaining and
educational UGC are more likely to be shared and that production quality
does not matter. Similarly, Berger and Iyengar (2013) showed that consumers are
more likely to post about interesting products and brands. This is because of two
factors:
(1) consumers have more time to construct messages when writing compared to
speaking; and
(2) self-enhancement is a key motivation when posting about products and brands.
In a follow-up study, Chen and Berger (2016) report that the importance of
interestingness depends on the means by which the information is acquired.
Namely, consumers are more likely to share interesting content when they receive it
from others, but they are less discerning when sharing content that they find
themselves.
The extent to which the promotional cues used in online campaigns affect consumer
engagement was investigated by Koch and Benlian (2015). They found that campaign
content that uses a scarcity appeal is more likely to be shared by consumers than content
that does not contain a scarcity appeal. However, when the campaign is also
personalized, the effect of personalization on sharing behavior is negated by a scarcity
appeal. In the case of scarcity, consumer engagement is driven by the value of the offer,
whereas personalization drives consumer engagement through feelings of gratitude
toward the marketer.
Product effects
Consumer engagement and attitudes toward products were the subject of four studies.
Purnawirawan et al. (2012) showed that engagement in the form of reviews leads to an
impression of how the public views a product, and this impression affects attitude
toward the product. Previously, Chakravarty et al. (2010) had found that reviews can be
highly persuasive for infrequent purchasers, particularly if the reviews are negative.
Interestingly, when product reviews contain figurative language, attitudes toward
hedonic, but not utilitarian, products tend to be higher (Kronrod and Danziger, 2013).
Purnawirawan et al. (2015) looked at consumer engagement in the form of sets of
product reviews. When none or only a few of the reviews in a set were negative, product
attitudes were influenced the most. In addition, influence on attitude was greater for
unfamiliar brands than familiar brands.
Consumer effects
What effect does consumer engagement have on other consumers? He and Bond
(2013) investigated the effect on forecasts of consumption enjoyment. They found
that engagement in the form of reviews was most likely to result in potential
purchasers adjusting their forecasts. In a similar vein, Moore (2015) looked at two
types of explanations consumers use in online reviews: action explanations (e.g. “I
chose this product because”) and reaction explanations (e.g. “I love this product
because”). She found that attitude self-prediction increases when action
explanations are used for utilitarian products and when reaction explanations are
used for hedonic products.
Pinho (2013) developed a 4-factor, 25-item measure of online social capital called
“e-SOCAPIT”. He did not test the effect of consumer engagement on online social capital,
but, presumably, engagement would lead to an increase in social capital for the
consumer. Consumer power is another likely outcome of customer engagement,
particularly when engagement activities are considered in aggregate (Labrecque et al.,
2013).
JRIM Content effects
10,4 A number of studies have shown that consumer engagement shapes attitude toward
content and likelihood of re-sharing content. Lepkowska-White (2013) found that
consumers had the most positive attitudes towards recommendations from other
consumers, recommendations from third-party recommendation systems (vs seller
recommendation systems) and search and experience goods (vs credence products).
276 In their investigation of why positive online reviews tend to be valued less than
negative reviews, Chen and Lurie (2013) showed that consumers often attribute
positive reviews to the reviewers, whereas they attribute negative reviews to the
product experience. Lee and Ma (2012) suggest that how consumers perceive
reviews can further be influenced by individual differences, such as consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence (Bearden et al., 1989). With respect to
ratings, He and Bond (2015) found that consumers are more tolerant of dispersion of
ratings for taste-dissimilar product domains (e.g. music) than taste-similar product
domains (e.g. flash drives). The level of affiliation with the brand may also affect
perceptions of UGC. For example, Ertimur and Gilly (2012) found that unsolicited
consumer-generated advertisements were perceived as authentic but not credible,
whereas consumer-generated advertisements submitted to brand-sponsored
contests were perceived as credible but not authentic. Similarly, Seraj (2012)
reported that the perceived value of content depended on the extent to which it was
co-created with professionals and enthusiasts.
With respect to likelihood of re-sharing content, Purnawirawan et al. (2015)
conducted a meta-analysis of online review valence. They found that the strongest
influence of review valence is on consumer intention to engage in electronic
word-of-mouth for the product being reviewed; that is, the more positive the set of
reviews, the more likely the reader will recommend the product to others. Similarly,
Baker et al. (2016) showed that positive word-of-mouth has the strongest effect on
retransmission intentions.
Market effects
Consumer engagement in aggregate can have significant market-level effects (Langley
et al., 2014; Dolbec and Fischer, 2015). Investigating effects on sales, Ludwig et al. (2013)
found that the language used in UGC has a significant effect on conversion rate. Tang
et al. (2014) looked at the difference between mixed-neutral UGC, which has an equal
number of positive and negative statements and indifferent-neutral UGC, which
contains neither positive nor negative statements. Although one might think neutral
UGC would not have an effect on perceptions of reviews, mixed-neutral UGC turned out
to amplify the effects of other positive and negative UGC, whereas indifferent-neutral
UGC attenuated these effects. With respect to automobile recalls, Borah and Tellis (2016)
observed that the negative effect of a recall on sales was amplified by social media by
approximately 4.5 times.
Perhaps not surprisingly, credible reviews lead to higher purchase intentions
(Jiménez and Mendoza, 2013). What makes a review credible differs for search products
vs experience products; however, reviews for search products are more credible if they
provide detailed information about the product, whereas reviews for experience
products are considered more credible if the reviewer agrees with the review (Jiménez
and Mendoza, 2013). The language of the review also affects product choice (Kronrod
and Danziger, 2013); when product reviews contained figurative language, consumers Social media
were more likely to choose hedonic products over utilitarian products. Illustrating the and consumer
importance of reviews in general, de Langhe et al. (2016) showed that consumers rely engagement
heavily on average ratings of products to arrive at purchase decisions, despite a
“substantial disconnect between the objective quality information that online user
ratings actually convey and the extent to which consumers trust them as indicators of
objective quality” (p. 817). 277
Baker et al. (2016) studied the valence, channel and social tie strength of consumer
engagement. Negative word-of-mouth had the strongest effect on purchase intention,
although purchase intention was also influenced by the strength of the social tie between
the communicator and the recipient. The format of the online word-of-mouth plays a role
as well; specifically, the presence of photos in posts results in higher product interest and
higher purchase intention for both search products and experience-hedonic products
(Lin et al., 2012).
UGC in the form of reviews can affect consumers’ willingness-to-pay. In their study of
dis preferred markers (discussed previously under “Brand Effects”), Hamilton et al.
(2014) found that the presence of dis preferred markers in UGC increased willingness to
pay for a product. Wu and Wu (2016) argue that willingness-to-pay varies across
individuals and even within an individual depending on preferences for uncertainty.
They offer a framework for quantifying willingness-to-pay based on consumers’
preferences for different review statistics.
278
Figure 2.
Consumer
engagement and firm
engagement on social
media
consumers who created the content with additional visibility. Starbucks Coffee is an
example of a firm that does an excellent job of retweeting consumer content on
Twitter to drive consumer engagement.
Firm engagement requires a listening and response process through which
marketers themselves become engaged. Specifically, a firm’s role in managing social
communications may be either passive or active (Dholakia et al., 2009). Passive
engagement is more of a push communication approach in which messages are
delivered via social media by a firm, with consumers providing the bulk of follow-up
conversations. In contrast, active engagement takes place when the firm is involved in
all stages of the communication process from delivery to response. Singh and
Sonnenburg (2012) advocate for a change in the marketer’s mindset from that of creating
stories for audiences to consume to that of involving the audience in the co-creation of a
brand narrative.
Very little has been published on firm engagement. Indeed, our review of the
literature revealed only four papers on the topic. van Noort and Willemsen (2012)
showed that attitude toward a brand is higher when the brand addresses negative posts
and uses a human voice. Coyle et al. (2012) looked at the content of brand responses, Social media
finding that attitude toward the brand is higher when the brand’s response helps solve and consumer
a problem rather than simply empathizes with the customer. Homburg et al. (2015) engagement
investigated the effect of firm engagement on consumer sentiment in online forums.
They found that active firm engagement has a positive effect on consumer sentiment,
though with diminishing returns. Lastly, Schamari and Schaefers (2015) studied the
effect of firm engagement on consumer engagement, finding that firm engagement 279
increases the engagement intentions of consumers. More research is needed in this area,
but firm engagement holds promise for increasing consumer engagement on social
media.
Noting the interplay between consumer engagement and firm engagement, we
suggest that “social media engagement” should be defined as a mutually beneficial
process through which firms and consumers co-create brand-related content and social
experiences on social media. Only when marketers view their role on social media as
more than simply supplying content in hopes that consumers will engage with that
content will firms realize the true potential of social media marketing. Indeed, research
is needed on how to best foster and maintain this symbiotic relationship between brands
and consumers.
Corresponding author
James W. Peltier can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]