Dissertation

1
Does social media have an impact on

consumer-brand relationships? An
investigation into trust, commitment,
brand personality and the engagement
in social media
David Nichols, BSc
This work is the result of my research carried out during

the period July 2010 to December 2010 tutored by Ed
Little at the University of the West of England, Bristol.
Where reference has been made to the work of others,
this is given full acknowledgement in the text. The
dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the degree
06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

2
of Masters of Science in Marketing Communications at

the University of the West of England, Bristol in 2010.
The dissertation may be made freely available

immediately for academic purposes

3
Abstract
Components of consumer-brand relationships such as trust, commitment

and brand personality have been extensively researched within previous
literature. However this research has not encompassed the impact that social
media platforms like facebook and twitter have on those relationships. There are
no existing models that fit into this research. This research aimed to identify the
relationships between the engagement in social media with trust, commitment
and brand personality. Results showed significant positive correlations between
several variables illustrating that social media does have an impact into the way
consumers interact with brands, how they trust and remain committed to them
and maintain their relationships with them. Questionnaires and in-depth
interviews were used as a means of gathering data.

4
Chapters
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. References
7. Appendices

5
Chapter 1
Introduction
Relationship marketing and the rising social media are two areas of
research within the marketing industry that have previously been investigated
separately. There has been extensive theorising of relationship marketing in the
years prior to this current research, with testing of models and marketing
practitioners utilising the many tools suggested by relationship marketing.
Relationship marketing aims to build lasting relational interactions between an
organisation and its consumer. It has been suggested that organisations must go
further than to simply satisfy the customer on the grounds of price, speed of
delivery of service and customer service. Morgan (1996) explained the difference
between marketing and relationship marketing. Marketing is the efforts to
acquire new customers, while relationship marketing is retaining your customers.
Market research must play a key role in the marketing mix with regards to
relationship marketing because organisations need to recognise who their
customers are and learn more about them. Therefore database management is
crucial. For example Tesco, a UK supermarket launched a loyalty programme
which enabled Tesco to not only reward its customers for their custom, but to
gain invaluable data to gain an insight into each customer.
One could argue that a customer is satisfied after purchasing an excellent

product, combined with excellent service and value for money. Arguments have
been made that repeat purchases lead to brand loyalty. Yet in the now
competitive market where consumers are empowered to make executive
decisions with their purchases, this is arguably becoming more an over reaching
statement. Organisations are being required to do more to offer their customers
more value, in other words more reason to remain a customer rather than
deferring to a competitor. This further value could be given by creating a
dialogue between organisation and customer; creating a relationship that would
prove difficult for the consumer to stray. Social media could fulfil this role, with
its interactive, intimate approach to building brand relationships. The growth of
the use of social media to interact with peers quickly developed in the mid
2000’s, but increasingly, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter
are being utilised by organisations to create dialogue and ultimately on-going
relationships with customers and all stakeholders.

6
Social media has largely impacts several areas of marketing research.

Word of mouth communications (WOM) have been researched extensively for
many years, and with the growing use of the internet, the context of WOM is
changing. Online communities are gathering to discuss, review and offer
opinions of offerings from organisations. It is not surprising that a large amount
of research has focused on electronic word of mouth (eWOM). It is clear that
there are vast and arguably different accounts of the reasons for engaging in
WOM. Sandraram, Mitra and Webster (1998) concluded that there are eight
primary reasons for WOM. These range from being involved in the product,
seeking advice and being an opinion leader. The influence of opinion formers is
augmented within recent literature. Opinion formers are those which express
their influential opinion throughout potential masses of listeners. According to
Hughes (2009), opinion formers typically keep readers updated with a personal
blog, with the ability to ‘produce high levels of positive (or negative) word of
mouth’. This power is linked with the widely accepted notion that consumers
trust their peers more than marketers. Trust, noted here is a much discussed and
researched topic as ‘research from the Future Foundation tells us that the
percentage of consumer citizens in the UK agreeing that 'most companies are
fair' fell from around 60% in 1980 to 35% by 2001’ (Murphy, 2003). The influence
of WOM in consumer behaviour has been greatly investigated and many have
found that constituents of forums and review websites are influenced in their
purchase decisions by fellow constituents (Bickart & Shindler, 2001, Hennig-
Thurau et al. 2004). The suggested reason behind this is that consumers
generally trust peer consumers more than they trust marketers (Lee & Youn,
2009; Sen & Leman, 2007). Lee & Youn articulate that ‘WOM is typically
independent of marketers’ selling intents and is thus considered to be more
trustworthy and credible’. This is a general agreement amongst academics that
peer reviews of products or services have an arguable weight to them (Bone,
1995; Bickart & Shindler, 2001; Lau & Ng, 2001). They are questionably more
independent than the marketers’ contribution as consumers do not have an
ulterior motive to sharing information. This is becoming the case more as eWOM
becomes more prominent and more people can easily engage in dialogue to
share their views on brands and organisations.
WOM often expands to brand communities. A brand community consists of

individuals that are enthusiastic and passionate about a brand to the point where
they share their experiences and engage in dialogue with other similar members.

7
Preece (2001) discussed the varying relationships between members of brand

communities and their differences. Strong ties in relationships ‘satisfy important
needs and produce closely knit groups’. Relationships with weak ties on the
other hand focuses often on ‘information exchange’ (Preece, 2001). Early
research delved into consumer online communities, examining the role of brand
communities in forming opinions, purchasing and consuming products or
services. However, research currently is looking more into the close relationship
that brand communities have with businesses i.e. the relationship between the
consumer and the organisation. There appears to be a slow growing interest in
research surrounding the importance of online communities to both individuals
and companies (Kim et al, 2007). Kim et al note that ‘online communities
accumulate member-generated content on various products offered by the
company as well as competitor companies that sell similar products’.
Most academics concur that a ‘customer can achieve social need

satisfaction’ through building and maintaining relationships with fellow
constituents and the brand; however it is not just the customers that can benefit
(Stokburger-Sauer, 2010). The brand benefits in that it gains customer loyalty
and advocacy of those customers. While this has been supported by many, there
have not been many companies who have succeeded in turning their customers
into brand advocates or ‘champions’ (Stokburger-Sauer, 2010).
New media has not been researched sufficiently in the context of brand
communities. This is understandable as new media is already becoming dated.
Facebook for example is just one of the many platforms where users can ‘join’ a
group, show their support and discuss this in a public forum. Brands are now
appearing rapidly on social media platforms such as Facebook, attracting many
‘fans’ to find out new information and engage in dialogue between other
members of the group and the organisation itself. It is arguably an informal
situation where consumers can put forward their suggestions, share content with
others and most importantly, a situation where consumers can publically share
their negative experience in order for the brand to listen and take action.
It has been widely accepted that consumers are more ‘active and
knowledgeable’ (Lawer and Knox, 2006). Many have also commented on the
growing concern about the ‘rate of increase in choice, uncertainty, confusion and
complexity within markets’ (Mitchell and Papavassiliou, 1999; Mitchell, 2001;
Willmott and Nelson, 2003). Pitt et al (2002) note that while online communities

8
and individual consumers may not be able to match the scope of advertising that
organisations use, they are able to attract the same amount of attention very
quickly.
Consumers have access to ‘accurate, recent and unbiased information’,

which could be seen as more effective than marketing campaigns (Pitt et al,
2002). The consequence of this, according to the research is that companies are
increasingly attempting to engage and involve their customers, in order to build
relationships. A strong consumer-organisation relationship will allow the
organisation to improve customer service and eliminate problems, and ‘sense
and respond to new opportunities with customers and partners’ (Lawer and
Knox, 2006). Once a company understands their customers’ needs and
requirements, ‘brand management can help partners to increase the context and
relevance of their products to individual customers’. However, there is limited
support on this notion and it is questionable as to whether building relationships
with customer will result in brand advocacy. A further comment to make is based
on the focus on customer transparency and trust made by Lawer and Knox
(2006). Increasingly, many consumers now seek more value from a company,
rather than merely satisfaction derived from a product or service. Customers are
now becoming ‘co-creators of value’ (Lawer and Knox, 2006). Companies are
promoting their corporate social responsibility programmes and values on social
media, to demonstrate the value their customers receive.

9
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The way that consumers interact with their brands has long been of
notable interest within the marketing industry and subsequently in research.
Authors have investigated the how, why and what in brand-consumer
relationship formation and sustainment. Theories, specifically relationship theory
have been formed to create general laws of the nature of consumer-brand
relationships. Relationship theory remains significant within past and present
literature. The basic premises of the theory have not changed. However with the
emergence of new technologies, relationship theory is developing and its utility
is changing. Technology has opened new channels of communication which
relationship marketing is quickly embracing. There are several factors that must
be valued within relationship marketing. Morgan and Hunt (1994) identified the
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing to be a key role in conducting
research into the field. Social media use has transformed the way in which
consumers and brands interact with one another. This is likely to alter how
consumers trust and remain committed to their chosen brands and will change
the relationship indefinitely. It is also arguable that social media gives brands the
opportunity to voice its’ perceived personality. The following review of literature
will analyse existing research into relationship marketing including theories of
trust, commitment, brand personality and the motivations towards forming a
consumer-brand relationship.
Motivation in brand relationships
There has been a body of research into the motivations of maintaining

human relationships that has transferred into research into the motivations of
brand relationships. It is important to take into account the motivations behind
relationship formation before deliberating the maintenance of a relationship.
Theorising ‘that successful relationship marketing requires relationship
commitment and trust’, Fournier (1998) wrote the seminal paper calling for
further investigation into the motives behind consumers ‘seek and value on-
going relationships’. There has since been valuable contribution to this call.
Eisingerich & Rubera (2010) discuss ‘self-brand connections’ which have been
acknowledge by many others within the literature (Chaplin & John, 2005).
Eisingerich & Rubera describe the process of self-brand connections as an

10
‘individual’s comparison of their own defining characteristics’. Values and

preferences that individuals hold will transfer onto that of a brand. Consumers
who characterise themselves as being ‘traditional’ are unlikely to become
involved in innovative products. This notion would appear logical, as brand
managers are recognising more the value of creating a personality closely
related to the ‘self’ of the target consumer. Fournier (1998) also noted that at
the time of writing, the literature had been based mostly on psychological
theories of love, commitment and trust within human relationships and that
research had not moved onto ‘consumer-brand interactions’. An influential
concept founded by Fournier discussed equality between relationship partners.
When there are two parties within a relationship, both must be acknowledged as
equal. Fournier is pointing towards a partnership; consumers and brands are
becoming partners within their relationships. Traditionally brands have been the
dominant party within the relationship, but this is fast changing. Fournier cites
support from Hinde (1979) noting that ‘partners must collectively affect, define
and redefine the relationship’.
‘Anthropomorphizing inanimate objects’ can be described as attributing

human behaviours to an inanimate object. Often, human characteristics are
attributed to brands. Brands are seen to have a personality, created by the
individuals who engage with it. Organisations make attempts to instil a
personality into a brand based on its’ target audience, but ultimately it is the
audience who shape the personality (Biel 2000). This is coupled with the above
discussion of the ‘self’. Brands therefore serve many purposes to those who
engage in it. The explanations for the ‘tendency to anthropomorphize’ are
discussed in Biel’s (2000) research. Psychological reasons include filling a void in
one’s social life by creating a relationship between them and a brand. Tying in
the use of social media, one could posit that ‘conversations’ on social media
platforms add to the anthropomorphizing of a brand. Such research that
encompasses anthropomorphosis and social media is scarce. It could be argued
that it is now integral in brand relationships. The use of social media in branding
and relationship marketing demonstrates that organisations are no longer
merely ‘selling’ a product or service. Their desire goes beyond this premise, to
permanently engage their target audience to build and sustain relationships.
Customers who have a relationship with a brand are less likely to defer to a
competitor. For the same reason, this will consequently result in less price

11
sensitive customers and more customers willing to engage in word of mouth

communications, as discussed earlier.
Brand communities were discussed briefly earlier; the tendency to be part

of a community is well researched within psychological literature. This tendency
translates well into brand communities. Brand advocates and those that engage
in word of mouth communications are likely to congregate to discuss and review
their chosen brands. Previous research has mostly described a brand community
of a cluster of homogenous individuals whom have the likeness of a brand in
common (McAlexander et al, 2002). This view may be a narrow minded view on
the other hand, as it does not recognise the uniqueness of an individual, as
suggested by Ouwersloot & Odekerken-Shroder (2008). There does not appear to
be a general consensus as to the motivations consumers have in being part of a
brand community. While notable contributions have been made (Ouwersloot &
Odekerken-Shroder, 2008), there is a lack of investigation into the impact that
social media has on brand communities. Brand communities could rapidly evolve
due to social media. Social media can frighteningly quickly gather a vast number
of individuals who can range from remotely interested in a brand, to brand
advocates. What this research intends to investigate is how the engagement in
social media impacts on brand personality, trust, commitment and ultimately
consumer-brand relationships.
Models of relationship marketing
With varying styles of research come numerous models of testing notions

such as trust and commitment towards brands. Key models will be briefly
described here and compared and contrasted to retrieve the most appropriate

12
model for use in this current research. Morgan and Hunt (1994) claim that
‘relationship commitment and trust are key constructs’, and use the use key
mediating variable (KMV) model to test their hypotheses. The KMV model is
displayed in figure 1.1:
The model illustrates several hypotheses. Firstly, when relationship termination

costs are high, this leads to relationship commitment. This in turn reduces the
propensity to leave, and increases acquiescence and cooperation. Also of notable
interest is that when communication is at its’ best, levels of trust improve which
decreases feelings of uncertainty and again cooperation. This model suggests
that trust leads to relationship commitment, rather than working together. In an
adapted model discussed later in this research, trust and commitment work
simultaneously towards a brand relationship.
Fournier’s (1998) working model of brand relationship quality was

conceived subsequent to Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) KMV model. This model
begins by demonstrating that brand behaviours and consumer behaviours are
interlinked and affect brand relationship quality. Fournier (1998) identifies six
poles of brand relationship quality: love/passion, self-connection, commitment,
interdependence, intimacy and brand partner quality. According to this model,
each of these poles consequently lead to accommodation, tolerance/forgiveness,

13
biased partner perceptions, devaluation of alternatives and attribution biases. All

of these should directly and indirectly lead to relationship stability, according to
the model. The BRQ components to the model are consistent with those found
with a human to human relationship. Fournier’s (1998) working model suggests
that consumers build and maintain relationships with brands much like they
would do with another person. In other words, there must be certain benchmarks
fulfilled before a relationship can be made stable and durable. The BRQ
components are feelings towards a brand, which lead to actions. The outcomes
in this instance (accommodation, tolerance, biased partner perceptions,
devaluation of alternatives, attribution biases) are actions that a consumer takes
once levels of brand relationship quality are of a certain depth. So if a consumer
feels love, commitment and intimacy with a brand for example, they are more
likely to accommodate and forgive grievances by a brand and perceive others to
be incomparable. Compared to Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) KMV model, Fournier’s
(1998) working model has the advantage of demonstrating the flow of
relationship building and maintenance. It clearly states what feelings must be
achieved in a hierarchal fashion in order to move forward to act on those
feelings. In other words: feelings lead to action. Once an organisation has
motivated the consumer to hold onto those feelings and act on them, they are
able to manage that relationship. However, what this working model does not
outline, which Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) KMV model does is negative factors
involved in brand relationships. The drivers to consumers deviating to a
competitor are not discussed. What is not included is the scenario of a
relationship fulfilling the BRQ components, but not going further to action. It
would be injudicious to make the assumption that once the BRQ components are
fulfilled, a consumer will act upon all outcomes.
The relationship investment model (Sung & Campbell, 2009; Breivik &
Thorbjorsen, 2008) is one that is ‘based on theories on close relationships found
in social psychology’ (Breivik & Thorbjorsen, 2008). The relationship investment
model is often employed in brand relationship research and is a derivative to
interdependency theory coined by Kelley and Thibaut (1978). Independence
theory puts forward that positive outcomes directly impacts on levels of
dependence to a brand/product. This can be demonstrated in a satisfied
customer. Satisfied customers are more likely to repeat buy and this will impact
on how dependent that customer is to a brand or product. Satisfaction levels will
increase if positive perceptions of the relationship partner outweigh the negative

14
perceptions of the relationship partner and the perception of the alternatives.

The relationship investment model is an extension to independency theory as it
creates a further dimension of dependence: relationship investment, with
‘commitment as a mediating construct’. Sung and Campbell (2009) state that
‘commitment is a central relationship-specific motive’. Eisingerich & Rubera
(2010) discuss exchange theory in relation to drivers of brand commitment.
Exchange theory is directly associated with the relationship investment model as
it argues that ‘people are more likely to reciprocate when an exchange partner is
perceived as having made equivalent contributions to the relationship’
(Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010).
The model has four determinants of relationship permanence; first and

foremost being commitment. Commitment, according to Breivik & Thorbjorsen
(2008) is the ‘intent to persist in a relationship, including long term orientation
toward the relationship, and feelings of psychological attachment’. This is in line
with other authors about commitment as a construct. There is a consensus
amongst the literature that commitment is a state where an individual is
dependent on a relationship, and therefore continues to nurture, grow feelings
and become attached to it (Sung & Campbell, 2009; Breivik & Thorbjorsen,
2008). Commitment in a social psychological context and a brand relationship
context will be discussed further later. The latter three are satisfaction, quality of
alternatives and investment size. Support for the investment model stems from
both Sung & Campbell, 2009; Breivik & Thorbjorsen, 2008). The investment
model would be worth pursuing in terms of methodology for this current
research. However it will need to be adapted to enable social media to fit in with
the different premises. The predictors of commitment (satisfaction, alternatives
and investment) as stated in Sung and Campbell (2009) have not been
empirically researched in a ‘single framework’, therefore empirical research
which encompasses social media in parallel are also likely to be scarce. For this
reason, this research aims to identify the relationships between the engagement
in social media and trust, commitment, brand personality and brand
relationships.
Commitment
Commitment is a notion well discussed within marketing and social

psychology literature. It is thought to be one of the foundations of relationship
building and maintenance (Berry and Parasuraman (1991). There are thought to

15
be varying determinants of levels of commitment, and whether these precursors

initiate positive or negative outcomes. Positive outcomes are generally thought
of in relationship marketing as brand relationship building and maintenance.
Sung & Campbell (2009) posit that ‘strong commitment to a relationship is
reliably associated with voluntary continuance in the relationship’. This is to a
very large extent accurate and will almost certainly become a more prominent
feature in future research and literature for many reasons. For example, the term
voluntary is exceedingly relevant within relationship marketing. With more ways
of seeking out reviews and information about brands and products, and with the
increasing use of word of mouth communications within social media, it is very
difficult for organisations to build and maintain relationships with their
customers. Their customers are empowered more than they were even ten years
ago, meaning that customers are more likely to seek out competitors with ease.
This may impact on levels of commitment within a brand. However, it could be
hypothesised that once a customer is committed to a brand, the relationship
may be stronger as a brand might have behaved exceptionally compared to an
alternative. As the investment model suggested earlier, commitment will more
likely increase if positive experiences of a brand outweigh that of the
alternatives.
With regards to the investment model discussed earlier, Sung and

Campbell (2009) argue that the ‘predictors of commitment’ within the
investment model have not been researched extensively. Sung and Campbell
investigated brand relationships using the investment model and found that their
hypotheses were supported; ‘satisfaction, investments and alternatives each
predicted variance in commitment’. Sung and Campbell (2009) found that
customers have individual relationships with individual brands. This is not
surprising, as there are many offerings from many different brands. People
acquire different interests and many brands are able to meet those interests.
What Sung and Campbell (2009) also recognise is the influence of parents and
the social environment that surrounds a young person. It will be interesting to
identify the different relationships young people have with consumers and the
role that social media has on those relationships. Another note to add here are
the demographics surrounding the use of social media.
Commitment is also theorised as being part of a larger model to which it is

the outcome of other factors. Louis & Lombart (2010) conceptualised their

16
hypotheses into a framework; where trust in a brand impacts on attachment,

which indirectly influences on commitment to the brand. Different scenarios are
integrated into the framework, so it demonstrates that trust in a brand can lead
to commitment without directly influencing attachment. Sung and Campbell
(2009) found that the three variables they hypothesised were significant in
predicting levels of commitment; they concluded that ‘greater satisfaction and
investment size, and poorer alternatives resulted in higher levels of commitment
to the brand’. The authors also note here that there may be several reasons for a
consumer remaining committed to a particular brand. A consumer may be
unaware of alternatives, or find no alternative worthy of switching for. Combine
this with satisfaction; it is fair to assume the consumer will continue to purchase
the product. What this current research will aim to investigate is the impact that
social media has. The investigation will seek to determine what relevance social
media has with regards to brand relationships. Social media could directly impact
on trust, indirectly impacting commitment by its conversational and engaging
nature.
Carrying on with the discussion regarding commitment being a part of a

larger unit, Morgan and Hunt (1994), among others put forward that trust
influences relationship commitment. Relationships that are based on foundations
of trust are ‘so highly valued that parties will desire to commit themselves to
such relationships’ (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Hrebiniak, 1974). Authors tend to
concur that ‘trust is a major determinant of relationship commitment’ (Morgan &
Hunt, 1994). Trust as a key variable impacting relationship commitment will be
discussed in more detail later.
Within some research, commitment is described as having two types:

affective commitment and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is
the type of commitment that brands currently strive for in their consumer-brand
relationship. Terms like shared values and trust are used to describe this
component of commitment. Continuance commitment describes a consumer’s
commitment to a brand when there appears to be no other alternative available.
It would seem logical that brand managers would strive for affective
commitment because it is based on something positive. When commitment
between a consumer and a brand is positive, rewards such as brand advocacy
and word of mouth communications are likely to result. Support is given to this

17
concept by many (Fullerton, 2003, Gilliland & Bello, 2002; Anderson & Weitz,
1992).
From looking at the literature, commitment towards a brand has and will
likely always be voluntary. Consumers have the right and the power to decide
which brands they want to remain committed to and for how long. Social media
is unlikely to change this, but what social media does allow for is the ability to
form and sustain relationships on a personal level. This is very much untypical of
previous relationships. Trust has been placed of high importance with regards to
commitment. There appears to be a general consensus that trust is a precursor
of commitment, something which will be tested within this research. The role
that trust plays will be discussed in more depth now.
Trust
Trust in relationship marketing and brand personality can be described

and discussed simultaneously with trust in human relationships. The basic
premises of trust remain the same within a human relationship and that of a
relationship with a particular brand. There appears to be an agreement to the
concept of trust within the literature. Morgan and Hunt (1994) for example define
trust ‘as a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has
confidence’. Amongst the literature, there seem to be a vast amount of traits
associated with trust. Louis & Lombart (2010) summarise studies that have
investigated those traits. Morgan and Hunt (1994) use terms such as reliance,
integrity, confidence.
It is interesting that independence was a trait discussed in this research,

as it is heavily related to social media. It is evident that the reason why social
media platforms are polluted with consumer opinion and review and why these
are popular with peer consumers is because they are independent reviews and
opinions. Cynicism has appeared in literature and articles rapidly over the last
few years, and ties in with word of mouth communications discussed earlier.
Consumers trust their peers more than they do marketers; therefore trust is a
construct of much needed research.
While commitment has already been discussed earlier, it is worthwhile

noting that trust influences relationship commitment. There have been a number
of authors supporting the importance of trust within the ‘relational exchange’
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Louis, D. & Lombart, C. 2010; Sung, Y. & Kim, J. 2010).

18
Spekman (1988) went further by positing it to be ‘the cornerstone of the

strategic partnership’. Trust has been deemed as a crucially important factor
because trust directly influences levels of commitment (Hrebiniak, 1974). Higher
levels of trust lead to higher levels of commitment or at the very least, basic
levels of commitment. Commitment to a brand, product or service is something
widely discussed by practitioners as markets become much more saturated,
therefore trust and commitment are seen to be harder to accomplish. Morgan
and Hunt (1994) hypothesised that ‘cooperation arises directly from both
relationship commitment and trust’. It is clear when reviewing the literature,
trust and commitment can be discussed separately, but are always intertwined
as one directly or indirectly impacts on the other. It is this author’s suggestion,
with support of others that they be treated as a theory together, rather than
apart. Morgan and Hunt (1994) found significant support backing their
hypothesis mentioned here; from their own analysis and other findings (Deutsch,
1960; Pruitt, 1981).
An interesting discussion on ‘covert marketing’ has emerged recently by

Ashley & Leonard (2009). Covert marketing is the practise of marketing
communication while concealing the ‘commercial nature of its source’ (Ashley &
Leonard, 2009). The majority of the literature debating commitment and trust
towards a brand has mostly discussed the positive consequences that result
from commitment and trust. These positive consequences have been discussed
above in detail, but include increased levels of brand advocacy, repeat purchase,
and word of mouth communications and so on. However Ashley & Leonard
(2009) have conducted some research into the possible negatives that may arise
from emotional attachment to a brand. It is claimed that the attachment and
subsequent relationship that companies currently strive for with their customers
could be detrimental to them, should something go wrong. Aaker, Fournier and
Brasel (2004) claim that when a consumer has a ‘high quality relationship with
some brands, the brand is less able to recover from brand transgressions’. It is
easy to see the link between this potentially fatal scenario with the impact of
social media. Social media platforms have a vast reach. If a crisis occurs, severe
damage could be done to the high quality relationships brands have come to
enjoy. Betrayal is likely to ensue with these types of consumers and recovery
could be challenging (Ashley & Leonard, 2009). This would appear to support
Fournier (1998) in her claim that brand relationships are similar to human
relationships. When trust and commitment levels are high, the rewards are

19
higher. However this ultimately results in potential crises being more damaging
to consumer-brand relationships and the reputation of the brand hampered. The
following example can be used to demonstrate this scenario. Earlier this year,
Apple Inc came under fire shortly after releasing its latest addition to the iPhone
family in July. Apple recognises that it has a vast and devoted following for its
innovative products. Brand advocates and consumers emotionally attached to
Apple were quick to purchase the new product, regardless of its expense (Apple
Press Release, July 2010). This demonstrates that brand advocates are less price
sensitive than those consumers not as involved with a brand. When there was a
defect with the product, those consumers who advocate the brand quickly went
to social media platforms to express their concerns and a crisis ensued. This
shows that when a brand or company does something right, the rewards are
endless, however once the same brand or company transgresses, problems will
follow.
It seems trust is a crucial component to the consumer brand relationship.

Brands appear more credible when they are trustworthy. Honesty and the
consideration of the consumer’s welfare is also of importance which leads to
trust. From looking at the research, trust is imperative as commitment often
ensues and is strengthened by trust. Trust alone cannot maintain a lasting
relationship. There are also many determinants of trust and one pivotal
determinant is brand personality. A consumer may place more trust in a brand
simply because that brand is perceived to be similar to them. Brand personality
as discussed below is of great importance as it impacts on trust, commitment
and consumer-brand relationships.
Dimensions of brand personality
It is important to consider the different components which make up ‘brand

personality’. Fournier (1998) began the discussion by discussing the personality
of a brand similar to that of human relationship characteristics. Put slightly
differently, Aaker (1997) described the construct of brand personality, referring
to ‘human characteristics associated with a brand’. Within the consumer
behaviour research and literature, a focus has been on what many psychologists
call ‘the self’. Aaker notes that a brand personality enables a consumer to
project his or her ‘self, ideal self or other dimensions of the self’ (Aaker, 1997). It
is clear why this is an accepted notion within the literature. There appears to be
a general consensus that many marketers and advertisers make attempts to

20
generate a type of brand that its consumers can identify with and relate to. The
reasons for this are plentiful. This can be demonstrated best in the fashion
industry with clothing. At a basic level, retailers will identify who their target
market is. However this should not be viewed at such a basic stance. This may
be a digression of the point made, however knowing who your target market is is
the beginning of the creation of the brand personality. Every detail affects the
personality. A retailer will design and create clothes which fit in with the needs
and wants from the specific target market. A clothing retailer is unlikely to be
successful if research is not done into the trends, needs and wants of the target
customer. If a retailer is successful in creating a personality in their brand that
their target customers can identify with, they are likely to engage in word of
mouth communications as mentioned earlier. Psychologists agree that
individuals will form groups based on similarities in personalities. It is important
for marketers and retailers in this example retain and learn from this
information.
This point, while digressing slightly is made to demonstrate the move to

social media in these attempts by retailers to gain an insight into their target
market’s personalities, in order to form a brand personality to match.
Organisations are now moving towards engaging in dialogue within social media
platforms like facebook and twitter to gain this insight. While engaging in this
dialogue for research purposes, there are of course several more advantages for
the organisation/brand, as well as the consumer of course. This point will be
demonstrated in an online clothing retailer: ASOS.com. Ten year old asos (as
seen on screen) are an online only department clothing shop. Within the last two
years, the retailer has engaged in several forms of online communication
including newsletters, money off vouchers sent via email. More recently
however, with the ever growing use of social media platforms, asos have been
employing more dynamic and innovative techniques to engage their customers.
On Facebook and twitter, asos asked customers to send photos into them in
different outfits that described their personalities. Customers would attach a few
notes on their chosen outfit. ASOS ran competitions alongside this campaign.
This meant that customers could communicate with asos on a friendly, informal
manner. ASOS were not necessarily seen as a retailer, but fellow advocates of
fashion. Customers could identify with asos on a higher level, by sharing
information with one another rather than receiving mass one way
communication. Of course ASOS were able to engage in dialogue, at the same

21
time receiving profuse amounts of market research. ASOS appear to be keen

advocates of the ‘you speak, we listen’ idea. ASOS therefore seem different
within a saturated market. Many researchers in the past have concurred that if
those characteristics that construct a person’s ideal or actual self are congruent
with those of a brand, the ‘greater the preference of a brand’ (Aaker, 1997;
Malhotra, 1981; Sirgy, 1982).
Aaker points towards the similarities and differences within brand

personality, by discussing the formation of the human personality traits and
those of a brand personality (Aaker, 1997). Human personality traits ‘are inferred
on the basis of an individual’s behaviour, physical characteristics, attitudes and
beliefs’ (Aaker, 1997). The brand personality is formed by those who interact
with it. In other words, those customers who interact with the brand directly
associate their personality traits with the traits of the brand.
After rigorous analysis to identify the five brand personality dimensions,

Aaker (1997) branded sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and
ruggedness as those five. To summarise, sub traits were also found within each
personality dimension. Sincerity for example was characterised by honesty,
cheerfulness. Excitement: daring, imaginative, competence: reliable, intelligent,
sophistication: upper class and finally ruggedness: outdoorsy. While this
framework has been found to be ‘reliable, valid and generalizable’ (Aaker, 1997),
the brand personality scale is likely to have changed in the previous 13 years.
With the rise of the internet and social media use by consumers and
organisations, this could impact on the manner of which consumers interact with
their brands, and the traits they transfer onto them. However it could also be
argued that human personality traits are unlikely to have altered significantly
throughout the last 13 years and that customers continue to have high (if not
higher) expectations from the quality of product and/or service. It would be an
interesting to gain an insight into whether the framework still works in today’s
market. Perhaps the framework could work within the changing dynamics of
communication, rather than against. It could be that it could be adapted to a
specific model of relationship marketing so that it encompasses the current and
past nature of brand personality.
Conclusion

22
After reviewing the relevant literature on trust, commitment, brand

relationships and the models measuring those variables, it is clear that there is a
gap in literature with regards to the impact of social media on these variables.
Social media is a new phenomenon within marketing practise and therefore
scarcely investigated in using empirical testing methods. It is clear that there is
not a general consensus on the treatment of trust and commitment, i.e. whether
they should be treated consecutively, where one leads to the other, or whether
they should be treated as one entity, where they simultaneously impact on
consumer-brand relationships. It is this author’s belief that trust leads to
commitment, which indirectly leads to a brand relationship. Figure 1.2 details the
adapted model used for this research.
Figure 1.2- Social media relationship model
The models described in this review all contain strengths and weaknesses. One
of the fundamental weaknesses is the omitting of social media in the measures.
This is not surprising as these models and measures of brand relationship were
constructed long before social media came into existence and was
acknowledged to have a profound impact on marketing practises. Thus, not one
single model will be used in this research. A new model of relationship marketing
will be created that encompasses the strengths of each model and social media.
The adapted model contains five components: engagement with social media,
brand personality, trust, commitment and brand relationship. Firstly, brand
personality has been placed in a position where it can affect and influence the
remaining components. The personality or perceived personality of a brand can

23
affect the level of engagement between the consumer and the brand. Brand
personality can also affect the perceived trust from a consumer’s point of view. If
a consumer identifies a brand that is similar in personality, they are likely place a
degree of trust in that brand based on its personality. In the same way, brand
personality influences on commitment and ultimately the brand relationship. The
model suggests that there will be a direct correlation between the engagement
of social media, trust and commitment. It also proposes that trust and
commitment both lead to a consumer-brand relationship, but allows both
components to work together and separately. There are a number of different
scenarios towards the goal of a brand relationship. For example, trust may follow
from social media engagement, which indirectly leads to a brand relationship.
Another scenario may involve engagement in social media leading to trust, then
to commitment and following on towards a brand relationship. The model allows
for components to be omitted from a scenario. Perhaps consumers feel they do
not need trust as well as commitment to create a long lasting brand relationship.
It is important to recognise individual difference in consumer opinion with
regards to the relationships they have with their chosen brands.
This investigation attempts to identify the links between engagement with

social media, trust and commitment, and overall brand relationship.
Objectives
1. To identify the level engagement of social media between consumers and

brands.
2. To identify whether engagement in social media impacts on trust.
3. To identify whether engagement in social media impacts on commitment.
4. To identify whether trust and commitment lead to a stronger consumer-

brand relationship.
5. To identify the role that brand personality has on each of the variables.

24
Chapter 3
Methodology
As mentioned in the previous chapter, several themes arose from

reviewing previous literature. This investigation aimed to use the premises set in
previous literature on trust, commitment and the effects these variables have on
consumer-brand relationships. Null hypothesis 3 (Trust in a brand will not lead to
commitment to a brand, which together will strengthen the brand relationship)
as described in the previous chapter was a decision made subsequent to finding
no consensus on the treatment of both trust and commitment. Rejecting the null
hypothesis assumes that trust is more likely to result in commitment which will
subsequently indirectly lead to a brand relationship. It does not seem as logical
an argument to assume that commitment towards a brand will lead to trust,
which indirectly leads to a brand relationship. It appears throughout the
literature that commitment is a more long term investment behavioural trait
towards a brand. While trust must be sustained to prolong commitment, it would
seem logical that a relationship with a brand cannot ensue without both of the
foundations in place. This hypothesis is therefore suggesting that trust and
commitment must both be present in order for a brand relationship to exist.
Positivism
It is important to state that methodology is not a discussion of the various

research methods that are suitable for this research, but a discussion of the
approach to the research and the philosophy behind it. The research perspective
that this research takes is Positivism. A term coined by Auguste Comte (1857)
(Fisher, 2007) held that human behaviour can be subjected to scientific and
rational investigation. It also maintains that ‘humans can be studied as
objectively as the natural world can’ (Fisher, 2007). General laws of behaviour
are created and tested according to Positivism. These laws which are formed by
research are used to predict behaviour in other research to quantifiably study
behaviour. One disadvantage to the Positivist route with regards to research are
the ‘norms’ that are created by general laws. Once a norm is formed, tested and
made a general law, positivism can only examine behaviour as an average. It
rules out the possibility of seeking information about individuals and
particularities. The reason this point is made here is for the reason that research
cannot arguably be absolutely positivist. Researcher bias can still be influential in

25
the decisions that are made in the research, which makes the general laws
difficult to be made value-free (Fisher, 2007). Fisher (2007) states that simply
having an interest in the research means the research is more subjective.
Extreme positivism states that scientists and researchers should be disinterested
in the outcome of their research in order for the investigation to remain as value-
free as possible.
Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning stems from the workings of French Philosopher Rene

Descartes and describes the method of gaining knowledge. It holds that
deductive arguments are developed by following a set of premises. A researcher
for example conducting an investigation would first find similar studies already
done. Testing has already been done on a particular subject, therefore a set of
premises are already in place. Deductive reasoning attempts to form conclusions
based on this premises. In the case of this current research, the literature review
in the previous chapter has covered the relevant research that surrounds brand
relationships and the factors that have an effect. The previous research confirms
that there is a set of premises that can be tested. Deductive reasoning is often
compared and contrasted to inductive reasoning, where researchers test
something new that has never been investigated prior to that research. This
current research is therefore utilising deductive reasoning to form conclusions,
which will ideally lead to patterns of behaviour and identify general links
between the variables mentioned earlier.
There have been a vast amount of premises set within previous research.
Some authors have claimed that trust in a brand leads to brand commitment
which indirectly leads towards a brand relationship. Others on the other hand
have held contested that trust and commitment simultaneously affect consumer-
brand relationships. For the reason that there is not an absolute consensus on a
testing model of brand relationships, a model will have to be created for this
research that also encompasses social media. Social media has yet to be
examined alongside trust and commitment towards a brand and brand
relationships, so in that sense that part of the research will be inductive. But the
majority of the research will come from a deductive reasoning stance.
Research methods

26
Qualitative and quantitative methods of research were employed in this

investigation to gain a rich amount of data from the target population. By using
both means of research methods, generalizability to the general population is
increased. The range of exploration in the study becomes vaster which in turn
should gather significant statistics and a deeper insight into the factors
surrounding brand relationships. The research’s aims and objectives were to be
met by the nature of the questions asked in the quantitative and qualitative
methods. The adapted model for this research that encompassed social media
into already working models of relationship marketing was to test the
relationship between the engagement of social media and commitment, trust
and ultimately, consumer- brand relationships.
Qualitative methods
Qualitative methods were used before the quantitative side of the

research. This was to gauge the response of participants in order to formalise
questions for the quantitative part of this research. Three in depth interviews
took place at approximately thirty minutes each. The purpose for qualitative
research was to gain a rich, in depth understanding into the way consumers
engage with their chosen brands. By using projective techniques, it was possible
to elicit a deeper response into the processes and influences into consumer-
brand relationship and behaviour. Participants were asked how they felt at
certain moments during accounts of experiences and how others may feel in that
situation. Third party views were asked of the participant to get a different point
of view that the participant may not have thought of if they were thinking of their
own perspective. The advantage of using this kind of technique is gaining an
open, detailed account of the participant’s weekly use of social media. It allowed
participants to discuss experiences they had had with brands. Projective
techniques are able to obtain an insight into the extent to one’s feelings about a
brand, rather than demonstrating this on a scale. Questions such as ‘Describe
your actions after seeing an update from a brand’ was particularly useful. Not
only did it provide a detailed account of actions after seeing an update that
interested the participant, but it provided further questions to include in the
questionnaire. Questions such as ‘do you think that you need to have trust in
order to be committed to a brand, or do they work together?’ was a question of
value because it enabled the participant to describe and criticise their
relationship and the components that are of value to them in that relationship.

27
The decision to model trust and commitment as separate variables, but also
interlinked was a decision that would be tested within the research. This will be
discussed in more detail in recommended future research later. Finally, asking
the participant to describe the influence that social media has had on
perceptions of a brand was a question that could not be included in the
quantitative questionnaire, but it was a vital variable for this research and
therefore included in the qualitative part of the research. Quantitative survey
methods would not have allowed for such a deep understanding of the impact of
social media and the consumer-brand relationship.
The in-depth interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone and then

transferred onto a computer ready for transcribing. Each of the interviews was
transcribed and was prepared for analysis. Using Microsoft excel, it was possible
to view the interview line by line in order to form codes. Codes were given labels
and administered to each line if relevant of each interview. There were almost 20
codes to begin with. The codes were then condensed further and there was a
second analysis to create new codes. Those new codes were again condensed to
allow for themes to be created. The third level analysis of the interviews created
themes that ran through the data as a whole. Once themes had been found,
relationships needed to be identified between the data and once relationships
were established, it was possible to make interpretations about the data.
Quantitative methods
The formal side of the research will place emphasis on set questions and
fixed response options. The questions are administered to a large amount of
people to gain a representative sample of the target population. The quantitative
research aims to identify a vast amount of data to be able to test the theories
mentioned in previous chapters. The main goals of quantitative research are set
out by Hair et al (2006):
1) Make accurate predictions about relationships between market factors

and behaviours. 2) Gain meaningful insights into those relationships, 3)
validate existing relationships and 4) test various types of hypotheses.
The quantitative side of the research encompassed ‘scale measurement,

questionnaire design, sampling and statistical data analyses’ (Hair et al, 2006).
Online survey methods were used employed in this side of the research. Online
surveys are a relatively new method, but maintain premises set in other survey

28
methods. An online survey is posted onto the internet where people can access
the survey and answer online. Using online surveys as a means to gather
quantitative data is chosen for the following reasons. Online surveys are easily
administered and there is no limit on who can access it. It has been argued in the
past by several research methods authors for example Hair et al (2006) that
online survey methods are ‘initially passive in nature’ and that those who have
an interest are the only ones to find the survey and complete it. However, social
media platforms such as facebook and twitter can be used to post a link to the
online survey where participants agree to participant before completing the
questionnaire. While many may argue that because online surveys are posted
online and therefore available to anyone, response bias may occur. However to
combat this issue, eligibility questions will be set out at the start to ensure that
participants are appropriate for the study. These questions will be based on age
and use of social media. If participants pass the eligibility questions at the
beginning and agree to take part by printing their name as signed consent, they
will be taken through to the formal questionnaire.
Measures of trust and commitment
The dyadic trust scale was used in part to create the quantitative
questionnaire administered to participants. Components from the scale were
taken that could be translated to measuring trust with a brand, rather than a
human relationship as investigated by Larzelere et al (1980). Four of the eight
components of the dyadic trust scale were adapted, identifying the extent to
which participants agree with their chosen brand’s behaviour. The dyadic trust
scale asked participants to demonstrate whether their chosen brands are honest,
truthful and looking out for both parties welfare. The organisational commitment
scale from Allen and Meyer (1990) was adapted to create measures of affective
brand commitment and continuance brand commitment (Fullterton, 2003). For
example ‘I feel emotionally attached to my chosen brand’ was used to measure
affective commitment and ‘my life would be disrupted if I switched away from
my chosen brand’ was used to measure continuance commitment. Rusbalt’s
(1983) measures of commitment were investigating human relationships, but
components were adapted for this study to measure brand commitment by a
consumer. For example ‘How attractive would an alternative have to be for you
to switch brands?’ was used to measure brand alternatives in terms of brand
commitment.

29
Questionnaire questions
The questions for the questionnaire were constructed by using various
previous methods of measuring brand commitment, trust and brand personality.
Thus, an adapted scale was created combining several components of different
scales. This was done to encompass many aspects of previous work and to
interlink the use of social media. The questionnaire began with eligibility
questions to ensure that participants would be appropriate respondents of the
study, for example ‘Do you use at least facebook or twitter to follow brands?’.
Engagement of social media questions asked how many brands participant’s
follow, what kinds of brands they were, how often participants engage in social
media and the actions participants take to engage with the chosen brands.
Section B asked questions concerning brand personality, identifying whether
participants felt their chosen brands had a personality and the extent to which
that personality matched its’ social media engagement and the extent to which
it matched the participant’s personality. Section C moves on to trust. This section
enquires into the degree of importance that trust is in the consumer-brand
relationship. It asks a series of questions to which participants state their level of
agreement on a 5 point scale (Strongly agree, strongly disagree). Measures of
commitment within the questionnaire are similar, but as discussed earlier asks
the extent to which brand switching behaviour would occur.
Pilot testing
It was important to pilot test the questionnaire to ensure that individuals

understood what the questions asked of them and how they should respond
appropriately. It was particularly important to pilot the first question as this
asked participants whether they engaged in social media with brands. This
question was difficult for some participants in the pilot study as some
participants did not engage with ‘brands’. Some participants did not fully
understand what it meant to be a brand, while others did not realise they were
engaging in brand conversations. The question needed to be altered a few times
to ensure that it included as many people as possible, but not to include
everyone that it might not be relevant to which would skew the data.
Ethics
When conducting any kind of research, it is essential to consider ethics

when gathering the data for analysis. This investigation carried out a number of

30
actions to ensure that the research met ethical codes and guidelines.
Participants firstly gave consent to their involvement of the project before any
questions were asked. It was important for the participants to understand what
their involvement would be and what their data would be used for. A participant
information sheet was issued to all participants along with a link to the
questionnaire. Participants were advised to view the information sheet first so
they could ask any questions before taking part in the research. The participant
information sheet was also important as it required a participant ‘signature’ and
the date it was signed. In this information sheet, details about the research were
included along with details of how the data would be kept confidential; for
example:
Any information or data this research collects from you, the participant will be
kept confidential and used only for the purpose of this research. No personal
information will be used in the final report.
Anonymity is also important within research and participants were made aware
that the ‘personal details’ spoken of above were related to their name, but not
necessarily their age or sex. Testing for age and sex may be of significant
importance in analysing results. It is important to recognise that there was no
cause for deception in this research. While the ethical guideline for deception
was considered, it is not relevant to this investigation.
The in depth interviews were recorded with a Dictaphone for transcribing

and analysis later. It was made clear to the participant that their interviews
would be recorded, but the data would only be used for the purpose of research
and kept private throughout the entire investigation. Any data stored for the
purpose of the research will be destroyed once the research is complete.
Sampling
There are stages that researchers should take when developing and
implementing a sampling plan (Hair et al, 2006). The first stage is defining the
target population. The target population for this research are males and females
aged between 18 and 65, who actively engage in social media to interact in
various means with brands. It is important to state that whether participants’
engagement is light or heavy was not identified within the target population
definition, but could be a confounding variable within the results. This will be
discussed in more detail later.

31
The second step of the sampling plan is selecting a data collection

method. As discussed earlier, in depth interviews of three participants at
approximately thirty minutes each generated the qualitative data for the
research. A sample size of between 50-100 was recruited for the quantitative
side of the research, which were answering the questionnaire. Online survey
methods were used for the quantitative side of the research, meaning that
following normal guidelines and methods of recruitment are diverse. The
questionnaire was uploaded via a link onto social media platforms such as
Facebook and twitter for participants to ‘click through’ to the questionnaire and
fill out the questions online. What transpires in this case of participant
recruitment is that the questionnaire is open to anyone in a given network.
Consequently, the link can be forwarded on to others and the questionnaire can
potentially reach a vast number of respondents. In other words, the
questionnaire can go ‘viral’. Of course, this resembles the sampling technique
snowballing. Snowballing is a sampling technique where current participants
recruit others themselves. On twitter for example, participants are able to post
the link to the questionnaire to their individual profile, where their network will
have access to it. The advantage of this technique is that potential recruits are
likely to have an interest in the subject area, if current participants have
forwarded the post to their network.
Once participants have completed the questionnaire, the responses will be

recorded ready for a formal statistical analysis procedure. This statistical analysis
was done using software SPSS. Once data is inputted into SPSS, various tests can
be done to identify significant statistics. Firstly, variables were computed using a
function on SPSS to gather similar variables together to create a unified variable.
For example measures of trust were clustered together in order to create ‘overall
trust’, measures of commitment were clustered in order to create overall
commitment. Bivariate correlations were conducted on the data to identify
where there were relationships and how significant those relationships were.
Hypotheses
The null hypotheses tested in this research are as follows:
H1: There will not be a positive correlation between the engagement of social
media and trust of a brand.

32
H2: There will not be a positive correlation between the engagement of social
media and commitment of a brand.
H3: Trust in a brand will not lead to commitment to a brand, which together will
strengthen the brand relationship.
H4: There will not be a relationship between brand personality with a) social
media engagement, b) trust, c) commitment and d) brand relationship.
Limitations
There are some problems associated with this kind of research, concerning
the qualitative methods and the quantitative methods. Firstly, only three
participants took part in the in-depth interviews. While a lot of rich information
can be gathered from these three interviewees, it does not necessarily represent
the population that engages with social media and brands. With the quantitative
results, a different problem can occur. When a questionnaire is posted online for
participants to be directed to and complete, the researcher loses control of who
has access to the questionnaire and who is answering the questionnaire. The
only control that is retained is by creating a ‘skip logic’ for the first two questions
to ensure the correct people were answering the questionnaire. The first
question asked whether the participant used social media to engage with brands
and if the participant answered no to this question, the questionnaire ended.
Similarly for the second question, participants over 18 were to be included within
the target sample and any participants answering no to this question were
directed to the end of the questionnaire. However, it is with confidence that by
posting an online survey on social media, it allows research to be more widely
spread and a random sample to be taken.

33
Chapter 4
Results
This chapter will be split into two sections: qualitative analysis and
quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis will be discussed first as the
analysis was conducted prior to the quantitative analysis. As previously
discussed, three in-depth interviews were conducted at approximately thirty
minutes each to gain a rich response to the questions asked (see appendix). It
enabled the investigation to delve deeper into the behaviour and beliefs of
participants with regards to the engagement in social media and trust,
commitment and brand relationships. The first stage of analysis with this method
of research is to code the data. Codes are not necessarily themes that run
throughout the data, but more patterns throughout the three data. 19 codes
were found which were then developed into three themes. The original codes can
be found in the appendix. The three themes developed and identified within this
data are: conversations within social media, trust and commitment. Each will be
discussed in turn below.
‘Conversations’ within social media
The engagement in social media theme was developed from codes such
as being part of a community, sharing, social media used in a crisis, consumer-
brand interaction being personal, and brands listening to consumers. It emerged
from the data that consumers and brands are now engaging in a two way
conversations, rather than the traditional one way mass communication from a
brand. Brands begin the ‘conversation’ by posting an update which could contain
information, news, articles or promotions and waits for consumers to do what
they wish with that update. All three of the interviewees claimed to find updates
from their chosen brands and ‘click through’ for more information. For the

34
purpose of the reader, ‘clicking through’ is when a consumer clicks on a link
posted in an update. For example as mentioned by Sarah, one of her chosen
brands is a cinema where regular reviews are written and posted:
‘I follow Vue cinema because I’m a movie fan and that’s great because most of
their updates are film reviews. I’ll have a read of the film review and then
retweet it so my followers can see it too’.
This suggests that the balance between consumer generated content and
brand generated content is more even than perhaps it has been previously.
Consumers are more interested in getting involved with the brands they like as a
result of social media engagement. This relates to what was said in the earlier
chapter about how brand personality can impact on the engagement in social
media. Consumers are in control of their social ‘listening’, so if a brand is similar
to the consumer, they are likely to get more attention. It also transpired that
based on the data from the interviews, these particular consumers prefer brands
to be more conversational in their updates. Rather than posting messages which
one would identify as ‘one way communication’ for example promotional or
advertising messages, updates that are more personal and ask about the
consumer are better received.
By analysing the data from the interviewees, it is clear that there are
different uses for social media by both brands and consumers. One of these uses
discussed by all interviewees is that social media is used in a crisis. This will be
discussed in more detail later but one example of how brands used social media
to resolve an issue in customer services emanates from Sarah. Sarah discusses
an experience with an online crockery company. After purchasing a mug as a
present, and waiting for two weeks for delivery with no success, Sarah got in

35
touch via telephone to the customer services department. With no resolution,
Sarah decided to turn to twitter:
‘The first thing I decided to do was to rant on twitter and directed the comment
at the company so that everyone could see it. The twitter webmaster of the
company got in touch straight away and he wanted to know what had happened
and asked if I could explain the whole thing. The next day they sent me a free
mug and a little tag apologising for the trauma, which was great’.
It seems an extraordinary manner at which to resolve a customer service issue
when the company seemed to have a dedicated team for these matters. It would
also appear that care and consideration for this particular customer was only put
into practise once the customer had decided to post her views on the social
networking website. What the customer is able to do on twitter for example is
send out an update to their followers with information about the experience and
direct the update towards but not directly at, the company in dispute. Once a
company’s reputation is in jeopardy, customer service levels seemed to
proliferate. This suggests that brands and corporate entities perhaps do not
understand the power of social networking websites such as facebook and
twitter. Company or brand reputation cannot be harnessed by a brand as they
could do prior to social media. To say whether this experience impacted on
Sarah’s trust and commitment towards the brand is debatable. However, Sarah
will come away from the experience knowing that the situation was resolved and
can trust that should something similar happen again, it will be resolved. This is
by no means a universal assumption to all brands as Sarah also noted of some
brands or entities that ‘did social media very well’:
‘Waterstones have great customer service and I can’t imagine ever having any
kind of problems or issues’

36
At this point it is worth noting that Sarah felt she had ‘little relationship’
with the crockery company before the incident described above. However Sarah
describes her relationship with Waterstones as:
‘Great! I feel I’m getting a good value customer experience and keeping my
brand loyalty by engaging with them’.
Sarah also describes having an ‘emotional attachment’ to Waterstones. Sarah
also went on to say that after the incident, she was ‘completely turned off’ by
the company. It would appear that the costs of switching to another brand would
be very low for Sarah with regards to the crockery company, because there was
no relationship to support the negative experience. While Sarah had no negative
experience to speak of with regards to her relationship with Waterstones, it
ponders as to whether an emotional attachment with a brand would aid the
relationship if an issue were to arise. This account illustrates that rewards are
plentiful for both the consumer and the brand. It was hypothesised that
engagement in social media would impact on trust, commitment and lead to
brand loyalty. However it is clear here that the process is not one way. Perhaps
engagement in a brand comes from placing trust and remaining committed to a
brand.
Allen also describes a positive use of social media by a brand at a time
when a problem arose at a restaurant:
They had a bit of an issue with one of their restaurants and they were constantly
updating the twitter feed with what the problem was and what they were doing
to fix it. I thought it was really good that they were keeping their customers in
the loop at all times.

37
Allen then went onto say that this engagement with customers on social media
affected his trust with the restaurant brand:
‘It made me trust them because I knew they weren’t lying about anything or
hiding any element of the problem’.
What this demonstrates is that when a brand or company has a problem, it is
how this problem is dealt with that can impact on trust and commitment by a
customer. Allen has claimed to have an emotional attachment with the
restaurant brand in question, but has since commended the brand on their
communication of the issue. It would appear that those customers that have an
emotional attachment with a brand understand that all brands will have
problems. If these problems are dealt with efficiently and effectively with full
regard of the customer at all times, this problem can become a positive
experience. This demonstrates the relationship between engagement in social
media and trust. When this particular brand used the social media platform to
communicate with its followers, levels of trust increased for that reason.
Consumers want to know and understand everything about their chosen brands,
whether it is positive or negative. Those brands that acknowledge the negatives
about the brand and point towards changes to overcome those negatives appear
to fare better, when looking at this account.
The transfer of power to the consumers from brands has been well
discussed within the literature and the recurrent theme emerged in this
research. A brand being transparent in their business was of frequent discussion
with the data as shown below by James:
‘I would love to get more of an insight into the insider trading. Brands and
companies have to be much more careful than they used to be. If you have a
bad experience, you can quickly tell potentially thousands of people by posting it

38
on facebook or twitter. You don’t care whether it’s going to damage the brands
reputation, you just care you’ve been mistreated’.
Consumers have more than likely been keen to know the intricate details
of a firm’s business running, but have up until recently, not had the opportunity
to do so. Based on this account, nothing is hidden anymore. This relates to the
problem that many brands face is that ‘news never dies on the internet’. This
could be a positive for a brand that is being talked about for something good, but
as Sarah points out in her interview, ‘how often do we remember the good
stuff?’. Consumers have the power over brands by being able to quickly find
information out, positive or negative and share it with their followers, who can
share with their followers and so on. Allen notes also that the sharing of bad
news with regards to brand behaviour spreads quickly because it can be done at
ease:
‘With things like facebook, the second anything goes bad with someone, a
group will be made. The issue will spread as more people join that group and
companies really have to redeem themselves’.
What is interesting about this comment is that not only do brands have to
be concerned with the potential of negative feedback and backlash that could
circulate, but redemption seems to be important to certain consumers. Allen
conveys that because the scale of the damage increases with the increasing use
of social media, more ‘damage control’ is needed. Social media can be viewed as
an advantage to enhancing customer relations, but can equally be a hindrance. It
may seem obvious that companies should strive to do everything ‘right’,
however this may not always be possible. What is important and what is advised
is that when something does go wrong, that it is handled effectively. This entails
effective communication to all stakeholders which in itself requires regular

39
updating to the problem, how the problem is going to be resolved and the steps
taken towards the resolution of that problem. It is clear why so many companies
are prioritising social media monitoring and evaluation more with the aid of
Public relations.
Trust, commitment and relationships
From analysing the data from the interviewees, there appears to be a
general consensus that trust is important to consumers at all times between
consumers and chosen brands. Varying accounts were exchanged on the
meaning of trust, however all participants placed trust very highly with regards
to their relationships with brands. One trait that appeared to be directly linked to
trust was honesty. According to this data, consumers feel that honesty is an
important component in forming a trusting relationship between consumer and
brand. For example James goes on:
‘I do want to be able to trust that the brands I follow are selling or offering good
quality things at good prices and they’re not doing anything illegal or unethical. I
want to trust that when I buy something and it says its free range for example,
it’s actually free range. I like to keep faith that what they’re doing is honest.
Honesty is really important. If companies or brands weren’t honest, how could I
trust them?’
James’ account describes several different components to trust. The degree of
trust depends on honesty; that the products or services that brands offer are of
‘good quality’ and matched by price. It is interesting when studying James’ final
comment that assumes that if brands were dishonest, he could not trust the
brand. This of course correlates well with schools of thought as it would seem
unusual for a consumer to be able to trust a brand, if it was dishonest in its’
business. Honesty as a measure of trust was also included in the quantitative

40
questionnaire as a result of this comment. Honesty and trust are parallel so to
measure trust by identifying whether honesty is important was part of the
quantitative research.
Allen also places trust as very important with regards to brands and also
discusses trust and use of social media:
‘I like to think I can trust them because if I didn’t trust them, I don’t think I would
be following them. I think you need to have some degree of trust in the brand to
give them that much attention’.
Allen is claiming that if he did not trust a chosen brand, he would not engage
with them on social media. This implies that by engaging in social media with a
brand demonstrates a degree of advocacy on behalf of that brand. Trust is of
significant importance here because if consumers are unable to trust their
brands, they can simply opt out of any interaction between the brand and
consumer. Once a consumer is following a brand and receiving updates, there is
enormous potential for sharing of updates, retweeting, engaging in conversation
and most importantly, brand advocacy. However it appears that if there is not
element of trust in that relationship, that potential diminishes. Linking back to
what was said earlier about engagement in social media and the direction in
which the process occurs; Allen clearly states that if there was no trust within the
consumer-brand relationship, he would not engage with the brand on social
media. Perhaps there needs to be a minimal relationship that contains trust so
that engagement in social media can occur.
It has emerged from the qualitative data that trust and commitment both
factor simultaneously with regards to consumer-brand relationships. There
seems to be a general consensus amongst the data recorded that trust must be

41
present in order for a consumer to be ‘committed’ to a brand, which in turn
creates the foundations and maintains the relationship.
Sarah begins by explaining that commitment works both ways:
‘(Herbal Essences) I like them because I feel they are committed to working on
the product. I stay with them because the product works well and I trust them as
brand, therefore I am committed to them’.
What is interesting in this account is that Sarah believes that being committed is
just as much a responsibility of the brand as well as the act of the consumer.
Brands have to remain committed to the product or service and indeed its
customers by listening, engaging to make the product the best it can be. Linking
back to earlier discussions on how brands use social media platforms to engage
with followers, it would appear that merely posting updates about promotions
and news is by no means an exhaustive method of social media. Remaining
committed to customers was placed of high importance. This relates to what was
said earlier about how trust and commitment work together to form and
maintain a relationship with a brand.
An interesting account by James discusses commitment as an ‘action’:
‘I don’t think anyone could be committed to a brand if you couldn’t trust them.
Commitment feels more of an ‘act’ than a state of mind. Trust is something you
feel, but a commitment often involves doing something like sending on
information or going to the use the product’.
This statement is intriguing. Trust has been dubbed as an emotion, whereas
commitment has been labelled an action. It would seem logical to think of this
process in this manner as it concurs with earlier accounts as to the order of trust,
commitment and relationship. Sarah and James both discuss trust as a precursor

42
to commitment. Commitment is consequential of trust and entails acting on
updates from brands.
The influence of the interviews and the quantitative questionnaire
The interviews had a direct influence in the quantitative research that
followed. The questionnaire that was administered to participants for the
quantitative part of the study included questions resulting from data found in the
interviews. For example it was made clear in the interviews that honesty was a
key component to measures of trust. Also measures of brand personality were
adapted to include measures of trust and commitment. For example questions
such as ‘I trust this brand because they are similar to me’ and ‘I want to maintain
the relationship with the brand because they are similar to me’. It was
hypothesised earlier that brand personality would have a direct impact on all
other variables, so it would seem rational to intertwine brand personality in
measures of trust and commitment.

43
Quantitative results
As mentioned previously, the quantitative part of the study occurred

following the qualitative research. The questionnaire made available online
collected a total of 148 responses. However not all of the data collected was
usable. Of those responses, 87 respondents answered ‘yes’ to the first question:
Do you use Facebook AND/OR Twitter to follow brands or products?

These can be food e.g. marmite, clothing e.g. ASOS, magazines e.g. Heat,
businesses e.g. Sainsburys etc. Please note that selecting 'No' will end the
questionnaire.
Using the software Qualtrics to create and distribute the questionnaire, ‘skip
logic’ was created for this first question. Any respondent answering ‘no’ to this
question brought the questionnaire to an end as any further questions would not
have been applicable. Therefore of the total responses, there were 87 good data
that could be used for analysis.
The analysis was conducted using statistical software SPSS (statistical

package for the social sciences). The data was uploaded from the Qualtrics
software to eliminate the possibility of data entry error. The data was cleaned
and tidied; any missing values were given a label and any data not suitable for
analysis was omitted. Bivariate correlations were used to identify relationships
between the different variables. There were several different measures of
engagement in social media, trust, commitment and brand personality.
Computed variables were created using a function in SPSS to form a unified
variable i.e. all measures of trust were computed into ‘overall trust’. Subsequent
relationships could be identified between the different overall measures of
engagement in social media, trust, commitment and brand personality. This
enables the data to be analysed as a ‘bigger picture’, and more defined, detailed
variables.
Computed variables*
*Note to reader: The way in which questions were asked varied from question to
question. Scales were created in different orders to combat order error. Question
6 for example, a measure of trust begins with 1=Skim read with no further
action, 3= Read in detail, click through and forward to others. Other questions
began with scales where 1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree. This meant that

44
for certain correlations, significant statistics displayed a negative correlation,

where a positive correlation should be in place. Any tables or graphs
demonstrating a positive correlation but appear negative are therefore
explained.
Once the variables were computed to create unified variables, they could be
analysed in statistical means. Firstly overall trust and overall engagement were
correlated and found a statistically significant positive correlation between the
two variables. This is detailed in table 1.1:
Table 1.1 Correlations of overall trust and engagement.
Correlations
OverallTrust Engagement
OverallTrust Pearson Correlation 1 -.235*
Sig. (2-tailed) .040
N 77 77
*
Engagement Pearson Correlation -.235 1
N 77 87
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The significant correlation is at the 0.05% confidence level. Graph 1.1 displays
this correlation:
Graph 1.1 Positive relationship between overall trust and engagement.

45
The line of best fit shows the mean of both variables. As engagement in social
media increases, as does overall trust. This supports hypothesis 1:
H1: There will be a positive correlation between the engagement of social media
and trust of a brand.
Secondly, overall engagement in social media was correlated with overall

commitment. The Pearson Correlation is displayed in table 1.2:
Table 1.2 Correlation between overall engagement and overall commitment
Correlations
Engagement Commitment
Engagement Pearson Correlation 1 -.278*
N 87 77
*
Commitment Pearson Correlation -.278 1
N 77 77

46
Once again there is a statistically significant positive correlation between the

engagement in social media and the levels of commitment that participants have
towards chosen brands. Graph 1.2 displays this correlation:
Graph 1.2 Positive correlation between commitment and engagement
These results illustrate the link between engagement and commitment. As a

consumer becomes more involved with a certain brand and engages,
commitment levels rise. Question 6 as described later in more detail with regards
to commitment, there appears to be a pattern where consumers are first
interested in a product or brand, become engaged with them on social media
platforms and the more engaged consumers become with brands, the more
committed they are.
H3 aimed to test the way in which trust and commitment work; i.e.
whether they work parallel or individually to create and sustain a brand
relationship. Overall trust and overall commitment were then correlated to find a
statistically significant positive correlation as shown in table 1.3:
Table 1.3 Correlations between commitment and overall trust

47
Correlations
Commitment OverallTrust
Commitment Pearson Correlation 1 .463**
N 77 77
OverallTrust Pearson Correlation .463** 1
N 77 77
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Graph 1.3 also illustrates this strong positive relationship:
As the
line of
best fit
indicates, as trust increases, so does commitment. Based on these findings, it is

difficult to decide the order in which trust and commitment lead to a brand
relationship. It is clear that the hypothesis should be accepted based on this
finding as trust leads to commitment in consumer-brand relationships.
Brand personality was analysed and correlated against overall trust,
commitment and engagement as H4 identified a possible relationship between
this variable with all others. Table 1.4 shows the significant correlations between
brand personality and overall trust, engagement and commitment.

48
Table 1.4 Significant positive relationships between brand personality and overall
trust, engagement, commitment
Correlations
OverallTrust Engagement Commitment Brandpersonality
* **
OverallTrust Pearson Correlation 1 -.235 .463 .395**
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .000 .000
N 77 77 77 77
Engagement Pearson Correlation -.235* 1 -.278* -.255*
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .015 .023
N 77 87 77 79
** *
Commitment Pearson Correlation .463 -.278 1 .283*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .015 .013
N 77 77 77 77
** * *
Brandpersonality Pearson Correlation .395 -.255 .283 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .023 .013
N 77 79 77 79
Of the statistically significant positive correlations found in these results, the

figure most notable is the correlation between brand personality and overall
trust. There is a statistically significant positive relationship at the confidence
level 0.00%. This suggests that the more consumers felt their chosen brands had
a ‘brand personality’ and the more that personality matched their own, more
trust was placed into that brand. The same can be said for the engagement and
commitment variables and their relationship with brand personality. Both were
statistically significant and it transpires that the more a brand had a perceived
personality, the more consumers were engaged and committed.
Engagement in social media and trust

One of the hypotheses set out in the earlier chapter was that there would
be a positive correlation between engagement in social media and trust between
consumer and brand. Using SPSS, relationships were identified when correlating
measures of engagement with measures of trust.

49
Question 6, measuring engagement asked respondents about how much

attention they give to an update from their chosen brands and this was
measured on a scale of:
1. Skim read with no further action
2. Read in detail and click through for more
3. Read in detail, click through and forward to others.
4. Other.
This was correlated with measure of trust (Question 14_1_2):
‘How far do you agree with this statement: my chosen brand is equally
interested in my welfare as much as its own’
There is a statistically significant positive relationship between these two
variables at the 0.01% confidence level. As participants gave more attention to
chosen brands’ updates, the more the participant felt that the brand was
interested in their welfare as much as their own.
Question 6 was also correlated with question 14_1_4:
‘My brand is perfectly honest and truthful with me’
There is a statistically significant positive relationship between these two
variables at the 0.05% confidence level. Similar to the previous statement, as
participants gave more attention to chosen brands updates, brand ‘honesty and
truthfulness’ increased. This suggests that the increased level of interaction with
a brand affects how honest and truthful a participant finds their brands.
Question 5, which measured how often participants engaged with social
media, was correlated with question 14_1_3:
‘There are times when I can’t trust my brand’
In this case, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between
these two variables at the 0.05% confidence level. This found that the more
often participants claimed to engage with social media, the times where they
could not trust their chosen brand decreased. This demonstrates that higher
usage of social media platforms such as facebook and twitter combat levels of
distrust towards a brand.
Question 9, continuing with measures of engagement in social media
asked respondents to identify what makes updates from chosen brands
interesting to them. This measure was correlated to question 14, a measure of
trust. There is a statistical significant positive relationship between Q14_1_1 (I
trust the brands I follow/are fans of) and an interest in the brand (Q9_1). The
positive relationship found at the 0.01% confidence level is expected as one

50
would assume that consumers would trust brands that they are interested in,
and vice versa.
Likewise, there were several other significant correlations between what makes
updates interesting to consumers and trust. Wanting to be kept updated was a
statistically significant positive correlation with trust, as was wanting to be the
first to hear news. Question 9_6 asked participants to tick if they felt that
updates were interesting to them because they could ‘tell others through social
media about a brand’. Interestingly, there was a significant positive correlation
between those claiming to trust their chosen brands and question 9_6 at the
0.05% confidence interval. This demonstrates that consumers are more likely to
advocate their chosen brands if they feel they can trust them. This links to what
was discussed in previous chapters about word of mouth communications and
advocacy. Consumers feeling their brands are untrustworthy, they are unlikely to
convey positive word of mouth communications to peers.
Continuing with the same line of thought, correlations were created between
question 9_2 and 9_3 (I want to be kept updated, I like to be the first to hear the
news) and question 14_1_2:
Agree/disagree: My chosen brand is equally interested in my welfare as much as
its own.
There were statistically significant positive correlations between these variables
at the 0.05% confidence interval. This positive correlation was as expected; while
consumers want up to date news from their brands, it is also important that
those brands are considering the welfare of their target audience simultaneously.
It is worth quickly noting that there were no significant correlations
between question 9 (what makes updates interesting to you) and the measure of
trust ‘there are times when I cannot trust my brand’. As there is no significant
correlation, this could suggest that consumers do not engage as heavily with
brands when there is no trust involved in the relationship.
Overall, when looking broadly at these findings, it is clear that there is a
significant relationship between engagement in social media and trust within
consumer-brand relationships. Significant positive relationships have been found
that suggest that the deeper and more often the engagement in social media by
consumers, trust within the consumer-brand relationship increases. Question 6
measured what consumers decide do with updates they receive from their
chosen brands. The data demonstrates the need for trust in this kind of
relationship to ‘forward’ on messages to peers. Based on these findings, when

51
consumers receive updates from their brands, they are unlikely to share those
updates with their peers if they do not trust in the brand or the update.
Consumers do not want to send others messages that could be damaging,
dishonest or unreliable. Therefore, at present these findings support the
hypothesis:
H1: There will be a positive correlation between the engagement of social media
and trust of a brand.
Hypothesis H1 is accepted based on the findings described above.
Commitment
Following on from measuring the engagement in social media with trust,
engagement in social media was then correlated with measures of commitment
outlined in the earlier chapter, methods. The measure of engagement in social
media first used was question 6 (see above for description). Question 15 which
measured commitment had 4 levels, requiring participants to rate on a scale the
extent to which they agreed with certain statements.
There was a statistically significant positive correlation between question 15_1_1
(I am committed to maintaining my relationship with this brand) and question 6
at the 0.05% confidence level. This illustrates the link between being more
engaged in social media and the commitment towards maintaining the
relationship with that particular brand. The more consumers engage and interact
with their chosen brands, the desire to maintain the relationship increases.
Similarly, there was a statistically significant positive correlation between
question 15_1_3 (I feel emotionally attached to my chosen brands) and question
6 at the 0.05% confidence level. In earlier chapters, emotional attachment was
discussed as a precursor for maintaining commitment in relationships. Fournier
(1998) described emotional attachment in human relationships and it appears
that emotional involvement within a brand is emerging more as social media
gives brands a voice to partake in ‘conversations’ between them and their
consumers. The more consumers feel ‘emotionally attached’ to their chosen
brands, the commitment to maintaining the relationship strengthens.
One measure of commitment asked participants to rate on a scale how
much they agreed with the following statement:
‘My life would disrupted if I switched away from my brand’
This was correlated with question 6 and found interesting results. There was a
statistical significance between these two variables at the 0.01% confidence

52
level. While it was not expected to be such a significant relationship between

these two variables, it demonstrates the effect that social media can have. The
more involved consumers get in engaging with their chosen brands, the higher
the switching costs are. More on this will be discussed in later chapters.
Correlations were also made between measures of trust and commitment,
testing H3:
H3: Trust in a brand will lead to commitment to a brand, which together will lead
to brand relationship.
There were several significant positive correlations between the measures of

trust and commitment. These are displayed in table 1.5:

Correlations
Q14_1_2How far Q15_1_1How far Q15_1_2How far

53 Q15_1_4How far
do you agree with Q14_1_3How far Q14_1_4How far Q14_1_5How far do you agree with do you agree with Q15_1_3How far do you agree with
Q14_1_1How far these statements? : do you agree with do you agree with do you agree with these statements? : these statements? : do you agree with these statements? :
do you agree with Please choose one these statements? : these statements? : these statements? : Please choose one Please choose one these statements? : Please choose one
these statements? : per statement-My Please choose one Please choose one Please choose one per statement-I am per statement-I Please choose one per statement-My
Please choose one chosen brand is per statement- per statement-My per statement-My committed to imagine having a per statement-I feel life would be
per statement-I equally interested in There are times brand is perfectly brand is truly maintaining my relationship with emotionally disrupted if I
trust the brands I my welfare as much when I can't trust honest and truthful sincere in its relationship with this brand several attached to my switched away from
follow/are fans of as its own my brand with me promises this brand years from now chosen brands my brand
** ** ** ** ** *
Q14_1_1How far do Pearson Correlation 1 .432 -.133 .470 .526 .504 .348 .285 .206
you agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .002 .012 .072
statements? : Please N 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77
choose one per
statement-I trust the
brands I follow/are fans
of
Q14_1_2How far do Pearson Correlation .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521** .453** .279* .264* .330**
choose one per
statement-My chosen
brand is equally
interested in my welfare
as much as its own
Q14_1_3How far do Pearson Correlation -.133 -.048 1 -.133 -.016 -.181 -.254* -.154 -.054
choose one per
statement-There are
times when I can't trust
my brand
Q14_1_4How far do Pearson Correlation .470** .425** -.133 1 .718** .354** .119 .250* .124
54
There are some notable strong positive correlations that exist within the
correlations. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between
participants saying they ‘trust the brands [they] follow/are fans of’ and were
‘committed to maintaining [their] relationship with this brand’ at the 0.00%
confidence level. There was also a statistically significant positive correlation
between those that trusted their chosen brands and those that imagined having
a relationship with their chosen brand years from now and those that felt
emotionally attached to their brands.
The majority of the findings in this correlation found statistically significant
positive correlations, which demonstrates the hypothesis that trust and
commitment work together to achieve a consumer brand relationship. As trust in
a brand rises, commitment towards the brand follows.
Brand personality
As outlined in the model displayed in earlier chapters, it was hypothesised that
brand personality would impact on all of the four remaining variables:
engagement, trust, commitment and brand relationship. Measures of brand
personality were correlated with measures of brand personality/trust and brand
personality/commitment. These correlations can be seen in table 3.1:
Table 3.1 Correlations between brand personality, trust and commitment

55
Correlations
Q12_1_1How far do Q12_1_4How far do
you agree with Q12_1_2How far do Q12_1_3How far do you agree with
these statements? : you agree with you agree with these statements? :
Please choose one these statements? : these statements? : Please choose one
per statement-The Please choose one Please choose one per statement-I
updates I receive per statement-The per statement-I trust want to maintain the
from my chosen personality of the this brand because relationship with the
brand match its' brands I follow are they are similar to brand because they
personality similar to me me are similar to me
Q12_1_1How far do Pearson Correlation 1 .183 .215 .240*
you agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .110 .059 .034
statements? : Please N 79 78 78 78
choose one per
statement-The updates
I receive from my
chosen brand match its'
personality
Q12_1_2How far do Pearson Correlation .183 1 .743** .674**
choose one per
statement-The
personality of the
brands I follow are
similar to me
Q12_1_3How far do Pearson Correlation .215 .743** 1 .808**
choose one per
statement-I trust this
brand because they are
similar to me
Q12_1_4How far do Pearson Correlation .240* .674** .808** 1

statements? : Please
N 78 77 77 78
choose one per
statement-I want to
maintain the
relationship with the
brand because they are
similar to me

56
From looking at these correlations, it is clear that brand personality has a

direct affect on trust and commitment. There was a statistically significant
positive correlation between question 12_1_2: ‘The personality of the brands I
follow are similar to me’ and question 12_1_3: ‘I trust this brand because they
are similar to me’. Also illustrating statistically significant positive correlations
were question 12_1_2 and question 12_1_14: ‘I want to maintain the relationship
with the brand because they are similar to me’. Both positive correlations were
found at the 0.01% confidence level.
These findings demonstrate H4; participants felt that they trusted and
were more committed to a brand when they believed the brand to be similar to
them. Therefore it would suggest that brand personality is very important from
the point of view of the brand as the personality needs to be formed correctly
and accurately to match that of its target customers so that trust and
commitment ensues.

57
Chapter 5
Discussion
There are many conclusions that can be drawn from looking at both the
quantitative and qualitative results. Before commencing the research, it was
made clear that research into the impact of social media on trust, commitment
and brand loyalty was scarce. As discussed in earlier chapters, there is a rich
amount of literature surrounding relationship marketing concepts such as trust,
commitment, and brand personality. However social media was not measured
against these variables, as social media is a relatively new phenomenon in the
field. This was seen as an opportunity to test existing theories and models of
relationship marketing and encompass social media, contributing to the body of
research on consumer-brand relationships. The qualitative data will be discussed
in more detail first, followed by the quantitative data results.
Qualitative results
The in-depth interviews were used as a tool to gain rich responses to
questions that had emerged from reviewing existing literature. There was much
support to the hypotheses made from the in-depth interviews and also produced
results that were not anticipated. It was earlier hypothesised that the
engagement in social media would influence levels of trust and commitment,

58
which would indirectly impact on the strength of the relationship between
consumer and brand. However it appeared that that process is not always one
way. The majority of participants that took part in the qualitative side of the
research claimed that in order for them to engage with a brand on social media
platforms, there already needed to be some degree of trust, commitment and
interest. Social media may not be the first port of call when beginning a
relationship with a brand. It is suggested that the model needs to be adapted
further to incorporate flexibility within the process. Commitment may lead to
engagement with the brand using social media, which in turn may lead to trust
for example. While it was not anticipated within the adapted model created for
this research, it does have some rationale behind it. Social media platforms like
facebook and twitter give the consumer back the power in terms of what they
want to hear and engage with. The ‘social listening’ is not determined by a
brand, but guided once the brand has the consumer ‘listening’. It is therefore
important for brands to entice target consumers into the ‘community’ to allow
interaction and ongoing engagement. This links back to the discussion of power
back to the consumers. Consumers can very easily choose to not listen to
particular brands on social media. Social media is not a medium for traditional
marketing as it relies on the individual partaking in the interaction first. With
traditional marketing practise, interesting and informative campaigns are
directed at certain target consumers with the hope that some will engage with it
and act on it. The problem with social media is this cannot be achieved simply.
Brands have the opportunity to advertise on facebook and twitter, but this is
usually limited to advertising their social media presence, rather than
campaigns.
It is interesting the notion that arose concerning trust being an emotion
and commitment being an action. This has not been discussed in previous

59
literature, so could be further researched in the future. Two accounts from the in-
depth interviews illustrated this. It was discussed that commitment ‘often
involves doing something like sending on information or going to use the
product’. This again shows support for expectations that trust leads to
commitment, which leads to a stronger brand relationship. It is therefore
important for brands to remain transparent in their conducts in order to maintain
those relationships, keeping customers committed especially in times of
economic downturn.
Price sensitive customers
At the time of writing, the UK economy is recovering and very much
suffering from the 2009 recession. While the recession was not taken into
consideration within the hypotheses and other expectations, patterns emerged
from the qualitative data that were interesting. It transpired that the majority of
respondents to the in-depth interviews were not as susceptible to switching costs
as one might assume. The respondents from the in-depth interviews talked about
certain brands in an emotional manner, that is that they had an ‘emotional
attachment’ to the brand. This emotional attachment, as discussed in the results
chapter adds to the commitment in the brand, which suggests longevity in the
relationship. Perhaps an emotional attachment aids in the brand relationship and
brand loyalty. One would assume that during the recession, customers would be
more sensitive in price. However it appears that customers are looking to getting
good value just as much as they are looking for good prices. Many customers
may not be in the same position as they were before the recession; therefore
they are looking to brands that give good customer service, a good quality
product/service. Customers are sensitive about much more than they were
previously as customers are much wiser and knowledgeable. With the use of

60
social media, customers can find out information about product quality and
service almost instantly at their convenience, as mentioned earlier. This relates
to the transfer of power to customers and correlates positively to previous
findings.
Handling a crisis using social media
It transpired through the in-depth interviews that social media is seen as a
good tool for brands handling a crisis or a problem. Again, the use of social
media in handling issues was not one of the main objectives of this research, but
it is an interesting finding as it obviously relates to how consumers engage with
brands, trust them and remain committed to them. Two different accounts were
discussed with regards to a problem. The first was Sarah and her experience with
a crockery company who turned to social media to put her views on the
customer service she had received, or lack thereof. Sarah commended the social
media team for dealing with her problem quickly and with a gesture of goodwill.
This demonstrates the widely discussed notion of word of mouth communications
and how it has enormously potential to do as much bad as good. The customer
service team at the company did not take the problem seriously, and it was only
when the customer took to the social media platform to express their views that
the matter was taken seriously. The second account was a positive one,
discussing the restaurant brand that was dealing with a few issues and Allen
recalls ongoing communication from the brand using social media. Without social
media, the restaurant would not have been able to post ongoing updates to
customers to keep them informed. Without the problem, and without social
media, the restaurant may not have improved relations with its customers as it
managed to with Allen, who claimed that the string of updates made him trust
the brand more.

61
Quantitative results
While using statistically analysis to identify relationships between certain
variables, a number of significant correlations arose. Computed variables showed
support for the hypotheses that engagement in social media would positively
correlate with trust, commitment, that trust would lead to commitment and that
brand personality would impact on all other variables. The significant correlations
between brand personality and the other variables illustrate how crucial a
perceived personality of a brand is. Having a brand personality affects how
consumers trust a brand, how they engage with it (using social media or
otherwise), how they remain committed to it. Brand personality is the ignition to
the formation of a relationship between consumer and brand. It is therefore
crucial for brand managers to focus time and energy into analysing their target
market and to find out what kind of personality would work. According to these
results, brand personality could spell positive or negative relationships on a large
scale.
Improvements and future research
While every effort is made to make research as accurate as possible, there
are always improvements that can be made and suggestions for future research.
Based on the findings in this research, there are several avenues that other
researchers could go down. Firstly, an adapted model could be created that
allows for the process of consumer- brand relationships to be reversed. The
model used for this research did not allow for trust and commitment and existing
relationships to impact the engagement in social media. Results showed that
degrees of a relationship that already existed meant that consumers would then
turn to social media to engage in brands, which then started the process of
engagement to trust, to commitment to a stronger relationship.

62
Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on brand personality than what
was in this research. With the emergence of social media and brands using it to
voice that personality, brand personality will become even more relevant. More
in depth questioning surrounding brand personality could be included into
qualitative and quantitative methods.
As mentioned earlier, in some cases trust was seen as an emotion, where
commitment was seen as an action. This could be researched further to identify
whether trust is a cognitive feature of the relationship and whether commitment
is behavioural attribute. This would be a substantial contribution to academic
research in the field of relationship marketing. Combining social media into this
research would also be of interest to identify whether social media contributes to
the emotion, or actions.
One perspective that was overlooked in this research is the point of view
of the brand. By including the perspective of a brand in terms of the way they
engage with social media themselves and how they try to manage consumer-
brand relations would be worthy of note and a useful evaluation tool for a brand
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their public relations. Speaking of
public relations, this kind of research could also be tailored specifically as a
public relations investigation. The results discussed the use of social media in a
crisis, which is a key part in public relations. Research could identify relationships
between public relations activities and the general public.
References
Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research.

63
34 (3) 347-356
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. & Brasel, A. (2004) When Good Brands Do Bad, Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (June), 1–16.

Allen, N. & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology. 63, 1-18

Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain
commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1) 18-34.

Ashley, C. & Leonard, H. (2009) Betrayed by the buzz? Convert content and
consumer-brand relationships. Journal of public policy and marketing. 28 (2) 212-
220
Berry , L. & Parasuraman , A . (1991) Marketing services. New York: The Free
Press.
Bickart, B., Schindler, R. (2001) Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
information. Journal of interactive marketing, 15 (3)

Biel, A. (2000) Converting image into equity. In: Brand equity and advertising:
advertising’s role in building strong brands, ed. Aaker, D. & Biel, A. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 67-82
Bone, P.F. (1995) Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product
judgment. Journal of Business Research, 32(3)

Breivik, E. & Thorbjornsen, H. (2008) Consumer brand relationships: an
investigation of two alternative models. Journal of the academic marketing
science. 36, 443-472

Chaplin, N. & Deborah Roedder John (2005) The Development of Self-Brand
Connections in Children and Adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, 32
(June), 119–29.
Deutsch, M. (1960) The effect of motivational orientation on trust and suspicion.
Human relations, 13, 123-139

Eisingerich, A. & Rubera, G. (2010) Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-national
investigation. Journal of international marketing. 18 (2) 64-79

Fisher, C. (2007) Researching and writing a dissertation, a guidebook for business
students. Pearson Education Ltd.

Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of consumer research. 24 343-373

Fullerton, G. (2003) The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service

64
brands. Canadian Journal of administrative sciences. 22 (2) 97-110

Gilliland, D. & Bello, D. (2002). The two sides to attitudinal commitment: The
effect of calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in
distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (1) 24-43

Hair, J. & Bush, R. & Ortinau, D. (2006) Marketing research: within a changing
environment. NY, McGraw-Hill Irwin

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G., Gremler, D. (2004) Electric Word of
Mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing. 18 (1)

Hinde, R. (1979) Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press
Hrebiniak, L. (1974) Effects of job level and participation on employee attitudes
and perceptions of influence. Academy of management Journal. 17, 649-662

http://www.apple.com/uk/pr/library/2010/06/28iphone.html (accessed
01/12/2010)
Hughes, R. (2009) Social networks: a new perspective for direct marketing. In:
Tapp, A. ed. Principles of direct and database marketing (2009) Pearson Education
Limited
Kelley, H. & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relationships: A theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Kim, HS., Park, J., Jin, B. (2007) Dimensions of online community attributes:
Examination of online communities hosted by companies in Korea. International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management. 36 (10)

Larzelere, R. & Huston, T. (1980) The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding
interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of marriage and family. 42 (3)
595-604
Lau, G.T. & Ng, S. (2001) Individual and situational factors influencing negative
word-of-mouth behaviour. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 18(3)

Lawer, C., Knox, S. (2006) Customer advocacy and brand development. Journal of
product and brand management. 15 (2)

Lee, M., Youn, S. (2009) Electric word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM platforms
influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising. 28 (3)

Louis, D. & Lombart, C. (2010) Impact of brand personality on three major
relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand).
Journal of product and brand management. 19 (2) 114-130

65
Malhotra, N. (1981) A scale to measure self concepts, person concepts and
product concepts. Journal of marketing research. 23 (November), 456-464

McAlexander, J., Schoutern, J. & Joenig, H. (2002) Building brand community.
Journal of marketing. 66 (1) 28-54

Mitchell, A. (2001), Right Side Up, Harper Collins Business Books, London.
Mitchell, V-W., Papavassiliou, V. (1999), "Marketing causes and implications of
consumer confusion", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No.4,
pp.319-39.
Morgan, R. & Hunt, S. (1994) The commitment- trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing. 58, July (20-38)

Ouwersloot, H. & Odekerken- Schroder, G. (2008) Who’s who in brand
communities- and why? European journal of marketing 42 (5/6) 571-585

Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R., Watson, R.T., Zinkhan, G.M. (2002), "The internet and the
birth of real consumer power", Business Horizons, Vol. 45 No.4, pp.7-14.

Preece, H. (2001) Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and
measuring success. Behaviour and Information technology. 20 (5)

Pruitt, G. (1981) Negotiation behaviour. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Rusbalt, C. (1983) A longitudinal test of the investment model: the development
(and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.
Journal of personality and social psychology. 45 (1) 101-117

Sen, S., Lerman, D. (2007) Why are you telling me this? An examination into
negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 21 (4)

Sirgy, J. (1982) Self concept in consumer behaviour: A critical review. Journal of
consumer research. 9 (December) 287-300

Spekman, R. (1988) Strategic supplier selection: understanding long term buyer
relationships. Business horizons, 75-81

Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010) Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychology
and Marketing. 27 (4)

Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K., Webster, C. (1998) Word of Mouth communications: a
motivational analysis
Sung, Y. & Campbell, W. (2007) Brand commitment in consumer-brand
relationships: An investment model approach. Brand management. 17 (2) 97-113

Willmott, M., Nelson, W. (2003), Complicated Lives, Sophisticated Consumers,
Intricate Lifestyles, Simple Solutions, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

66
Appendix 1
Information sheet
What role does social media play in trust and commitment in consumer-brand
relationships?
Supervisor: Ed Little
Purpose of this study:
The aim of this research is to identify the impact of engagement in social media
has on trust, commitment and relationships with brands. With the growing use of
social media platforms e.g. facebook and twitter by brands and consumers, the
way brands interact with consumers is changing. What this research aims to find
out is whether those interactions influence the way consumers trust and
maintain their commitment to a brand.
Procedure:
If you agree to take part in this research, you will be required to answer a
questionnaire with subsections. The questionnaire begins with questions based
on your use of social media. It will then ask questions about trust in the next
section, followed by commitment. There will be some questions based on brand
personality and then a few questions about you. The questionnaire is an online
survey and the results will be collected once you have finished. The data will be
collected and then analysed for the purpose of the research.
Notes:
• Your participation in this research in entirely voluntary. None of the online

survey questions are obligatory. If you do not feel comfortable answering
a particular question, leave it blank.

67
• You are free to withdraw your participation from the research at any time
without giving a reason. If you have any questions at all, please feel free
to email me using the contact details below.
• Any use of the data collected is for the purpose of this research only. All
data will remain confidential and all data will be kept secure for the
duration of the research.
• Your data will be fully anonymised and you will not be identified in any
way when the research is published.
If you have any questions regarding this research or would like more information
on the topic, please contact me on:
[email protected]
Thank you very much for taking part in this research.
Appendix 2
James
Could you please confirm that you use facebook and twitter to interact with
brands?
Yes I do
Talk to me about a typical week of using social media
Well I normally get up in the morning and the first thing I’ll do is check facebook
and twitter. See
what I’ve missed during the night and see what kind of news I’m waking up to. I
often find I can find
out more information or ‘breaking news’ on twitter because it’s normally faster
than news outlets.
News outlets normally write an article shortly after but more regular ‘updates’
are on facebook and
twitter. I’ll normally have a look on both sites to see what has been said by the
people I’m following
and if there’s an article or something to click through I often do and if I think

others will find it
interesting I’ll retweet it so my followers can see it too, a bit like passing it on.
Sometimes if I’m on a

68
website and I see something of interest I will send it to facebook or twitter so it

will appear to my
followers. Sometimes there are news or something written that isn’t from twitter
or facebook, but
I’ll send it to facebook or twitter.
Ok. What kind of brands do you follow or are fans of?
They vary to be honest. I mean I follow asos as I like their clothes. Some fashion
blogs I also follow. I
like following bbc good food because they often have interesting updates.
Companies that are on
twitter I follow. So there’s a mixture really. But I would say I follow food products
a lot, fashion
brands, news outlets, technology and food blogs.
When you see an update that interests you, how much attention do you give it?
Well it depends on the brand. If it’s a brand like river island or asos, or pie
minister I really want to
know what’s going on. Sometimes they’ll have competitions, or offers.

Sometimes there’ll be new
products that I want to see. So if it’s a brand that I’m particularly interested in, I
will give it more
attention to it. I’ll open up a link if there is one, and retweet it with or without a
link to something.
Talk to me about the relationships you have with your chosen brands?
I think my relationships have changed since social media has come onto the
scene. Before I used
facebook and twitter I would just interact with brands whenever I bought
products from them. If I
bought something from river island, my relationship would be based on the

service I received, the
quality and price of the product. But it’s different now. So many brands are on
facebook and twitter
that it’s a different kind of experience. There’s more information, insider

information as to what the

69
brand is up to and what it has coming up. If there’s an offer going on, I don’t
have to find out about
it if I happen to be going to the shop or something. If there’s a sale on

somewhere, I find out about it
quickly and it will more than likely encourage me to go to the shop. Some things
I may have missed I
won’t miss anymore. I think I have a good relationship with the brands I follow. It
depends how
dedicated I am to each of them. There are some brands that I like, but I wouldn’t
necessarily buy
from them or used their products every time. Like the body shop for example. I
like the body shop,
and I follow them but it doesn’t mean I’m always just going to shop there. If that
makes sense.
Ok great. Do you feel you trust your chosen brands and would you say you are
committed to them?
Is that important to you?
I think that trust is really important between me and a brand. I mean me trusting
them. I don’t really
think about whether a brand trusts me, that’s not important. But I think I do want
to be able to trust
that the brands I follow are selling or offering good quality things at good prices
and that they’re not
doing anything illegal or unethical. I want to trust that when I buy something and
it says it’s free
range for example, it actually is free range. I think there’s a lot of skeptism
around these days
especially about big brands, but I like to keep faith that what they’re doing is
honest. Honesty is
really important. If companies or brands weren’t honest, then how could I trust
them? I wish brands
would be more transparent in their business but that’s an ideal world which we
don’t live in.
So transparency is something important to you? Do you think social media

influences on that at all?

70
Absolutely. Like I said it’s an ideal world. I would love to get more of an insight
into the insider
trading. And yeah I suppose social media does affect that. Brands and companies
have to be much
more careful than they used to be. If you have a bad experience, you can quickly
tell potentially
thousands of people by posting it onto facebook and twitter. You don’t care
whether it’s going to
damage your reputation, you just care that you’ve been mistreated! You won’t
your friends to know
and you want to let their friends know as well. It means that my bad experience
might have gone
under the radar, but now social media is so fast and has the potential to spread
so quickly and to so
many people, companies don’t have the pleasure of hoping it’ll go away.
So, could you please tell me about commitment in terms of your relationships
with brands?
Erm… I think I’m committed to my brands yeah. Like I said earlier it depends
what brand it is. There
are some brands that I feel I am more connected to. I actually look forward to
updates from them
because I want to hear about it before anyone else. I know that’s stupid because
loads of people
follow them but still… it makes me feel like I’m the first to know so that means I
am important.
Do brands make you feel important?
Yeah I think so. Depends on the situation. On twitter for example, it is easier to
send messages to
brands. Last week I sent a message to one of the brands I follow and they
retweeted it. It meant they
thought it was interesting enough to send it to all of their followers. It made me

feel that my opinion
mattered and that they were listening. A lot of brands that are on twitter just
send out mass

71
information and just use it for promotions, but there are a few brands that really
engage in two way
conversations which is great. Back to commitment, I would say I am committed

to some of my
brands. If I am overall pleased with the service I get and the product is great and
I’ve had no
customer service problems then yeah I’m committed. If I think there’s something
interesting that’s
come from them, I’ll send it on, which is what they want but I don’t mind that.
Do you think that there needs to be a basic level of trust before you can be
committed to them?
Probably. Thinking about it… I don’t think anyone could be committed to a brand
if you couldn’t
trust them. Commitment I feel is more of an ‘act’ rather than a state of mind.
Trust is something you
feel, but a commitment often involves doing something like sending on

information or going to use
the product. I would need to feel I trusted a brand before I could remain
committed to them.
Otherwise I may as well just switch.
What would make you switch?
Erm… it depends (again). If there’s a brand like pie minister, I don’t think I would
ever switch from
them. They would have to do something awful for me to stop buying from them. I
definitely
advocate their products! I love them! If it’s another brand that I shop at or
consumer sometimes,
because I’m not that bothered about them, it would probably be based on price
or quality. If two
similar companies, like asos and river island for example. I probably like them
equal amounts. But if
one had a cheaper price, I’d go for that one. If I was looking for jeans for
example. I think both have
the same quality, but if one had a promotion I’d go with whichever. So I don’t
have an absolute

72
loyalty with either really. Hmm..
Great thanks. So…do you think that brands have a personality?
I think that some brands have it instilled in them, I think others try. But yes is the
answer to the
question. Brands have to have a personality to connect with their customers. I

probably wouldn’t
like river island if they had an outdoorsy personality, or a older personality. I like
river island because
their clothes are cool and up to date. They know what works well together and I
like their style. I
suppose brand personality and style are the same thing really. The style of river
island for example
matches mine and that’s why I like the clothes and shop there. It makes sense
for a brand to have a
personality so people can recognise similarities between themselves and the

brand.
Is that important?
Erm.. based on what I said just now yes. Pie minister are great because they
offer gourmet pies at
good prices. But then I could shop anywhere for pies if that was the only reason.
Pie minister are
local retailers and they’re humorous with their advertising. I don’t know how to
put it. They’re not
cheeky, but they like to talk to their customers in a way that I like. It’s not
pretentious.
Ok, all of that is great. Finally could you please tell me the influence that social
media has had on
perceptions of the brands you follow?
Like I said before, social media is great for getting up to date news. I don’t have
to go out to the
shopping centre to find out about any deals or promotions. I think that social
media closes the gap
between the idea that brands aren’t human. Social media gives brands a human
voice. They can

73
interact with you. I mean all brands are different in the way they do it, but it
gives us as a consumer
a chance to speak to them in an informal way. I mean I wouldn’t want to email a

company just to say
I’d bought something from them and was really enjoying it! But on social media
you feel you can. I
always tweet pie minister if I’ve just gone for one with a mate. I might even take
a picture and send
it to them! I know that’s not really important and probably no one cares. But it’s
nice when they
tweet back saying ‘hope you enjoyed’ or something. I dunno, it’s just a nice way
of finding out
information and being able to tell them what you think or tell others about what’s
going on with that
brand.

74
Sarah
Firstly could you please confirm that you use facebook and twitter to interact
with brands?
Yes I do.
Firstly could you talk through a typical week of your use of social media?
I have the twitter app on my blackberry so once I’ve checked my emails in the
morning I’m on the
tube and I’m onto twitter on my blackberry to see what the news is for the day.
See what people
have got to say. And then once I’m in work I open up tweetdeck so I’ve got the
twitter feed going on
all day so I can keep a continual eye on twitter and I’ll regularly check facebook
throughout the day
too.
What do you do on twitter? How you engage with twitter?
My chosen brands are changing all the time. As I work within social media, social
listening is high on
the agenda really for me. I do it on a personal level, looking at brands I’m
interested in. for example
waterstones is a big favourite for me erm… lots of book things and travel things.
I’m looking at what
people are saying and how they’re saying it, how they’re making it work.
The industries that you follow are book and travel.
Yeah I mean I follow vue cinema as well because I’m a movie fan and that’s
great because most of
their updates are film reviews actually. It’s quite an interesting one because I
mean I’m not sure how

75
people they have on their team… it must be about 4 or 5 and sort of between
them they go and
watch the films and then pop on reviews on twitter.
When you’re on twitter and you see an update, how much attention do you give
it?
It depends on the kind of update. But if it’s something like a review, I’ll normally
click through and
read whatever it is or the full on review and then I’m likely to retweet it and add
a comment. Via
tweetdeck I’m able to alter the text so I can add my own comment. Sometimes
with waterstones
they’ll just update with ‘this is happening in Piccadilly lalala’ because they’re
based in London and
being a Londoner I see that as more of a personal update rather than a brand
update. I do like a
good @reply. I’m quite good at retweeting and mentioning brands.
Talk to me about your relationships with those brands you follow?
I feel like I have a relationship with waterstones because I practically stalk them.
Erm… I will try and
engage in them quite a lot because a) they have a lot of competitions and I have
bought a lot of
books from them but overall I think they are a really engaging brand because
they will talk back to
you. They’re not one of those brands that will put a load of stuff on twitterfeed
and ignores anyone
that responds to them. Waterstones do tend to follow you back or get a ‘follow
Friday’ if I’ve
interacted with them that week.
Do you think it’s important to engage with followers rather than just send them
mass
communication?
I do and I think… with some accounts it’s like ‘we’re just here for competitions
and giveaways and

76
you sort of think that’s fine but if there are some who are there for more than
that then I would
certainly expect them to be more engaging and if they don’t then I kind of feel
that I’m bored of you
now you’re not playing by the twitter game. Often, straight promotion with
nothing else doesn’t go
down that well on twitter and I think that’s what you should use facebook for or
you own actual
website. I don’t think it works very well on twitter space.
This is it…. There’s been a lot of conversations recently as to whether twitter is

good at assisting with
customer services with certain brands. I have a personal experience of this

because I ordered a mug
for my mum’s birthday from emma Bridgwater. My mum loves them and I
ordered this mug and I
was able to track it online, or in theory I was able to track it online. When I went
to sign in after
having two weeks of it not arriving I couldn’t log into my account and I spoke to
customer services
and they were like ‘oh right’ and didn’t do anything. I was like can you help me
log into my account?
I wanted to log in so I could track my parcel and they were like ‘oh right’… so
then I suggested that
they speak to parcel force to find out what had happened to my parcel and they
were like ok why
don’t we do that. They come back with ‘parcel force have come back and said
they delivered it’. And
I said that’s no good to me because it’s not here! So then I suggested they go
back and find out who
it’s been left with by the signature and it all turned out it was left with the
neighbour. I had to make
all the suggestions and they were completely useless. The first thing I decided to
do was to bitch on
twitter and their webmaster actually called me within about ten minutes after
seeing it on twitter.

77
He wanted to know what had happened and asked if I could explain the whole
thing and said it was
awful and he said someone will call you back later. No one called me back later
but the next day they
sent me a free mug and a little tag apologising for the trauma. Which was great.
It sort of, I hadn’t gone on twitter to get a response but I was really annoyed I put
them in my twitter
update and put something along the lines of ‘I’m not happy with emma
bridgwater’s customer
service’.
I think a lot of brands go and charge in and go about it in the wrong way.
Do you think that experience hampered your relationship?
Well to begin with I didn’t feel I had much of a relationship with them. I mean I
was following them
on twitter because I know my mum likes them. I was keeping an eye on them to
see if there was
anything special. I had an opinion on them because I knew my mum liked them
but that experience
with the customer service completely turned me off and I was like you’re a
bunch of…
I know they ship out nationally and internationally and they are quite a small
business but for me to
go on twitter I think they saw I had something to say. It was great that they
decided to listen. The
webmaster was really understanding and actually listened to what I had to say
so I think yeah I think
their customer service was awful but the fact that they got back to me and made
the effort with the
gift and the card… it definitely changed my opinion after that so they definitely
redeemed
themselves.
Describe what trust and commitment mean to you in terms of your relationships
with those brands?

78
I think waterstones is my mecca. They have some great loyalty schemes and the
one thing they are
good at is customer service and I can’t imagine ever have any kind of problems
or issues so you
know it is important that there is a trust between me and the brand because as
soon as I have that
feeling that they’re trying to screw me over and that’s the point where I get
angry and go on to
twitter to vent. Obviously I do want my brands to be ethical and don’t want to

hear that they’re
abusing children in foreign countries. And things like that can proliferate so
quickly so I wanna keep
a bit of an eye on them to make sure what they’re doing.
Do you think that trust and commitment need to be intact in order to build and
maintain a brand
relationship?
I think they do, even at a basic level. Like herbal essences the shampoo and
conditioner brand for
example. I like them because I feel they are committed to working on the
product and I think it’s a
good product and what I quite like is that they’ve built the shampoo and
conditioner to fit together
which is nice. But I stay with them because the product works well and I trust
them as a brand and
therefore I am committed to them. Just on a basic level but I think you’re right
but I think they both
need to be there before there can be any kind of relationship. Otherwise you’re
just judging them on
face value or whatever you hear in the media.
Can you think of examples of brands that have dealt with something brilliantly?
Hmm… that’s difficult because do you remember the good experiences as much
as the bad ones? I
mean I like waterstones because I like their updates and I feel I’m getting a good
value customer

79
experience and keeping my brand loyalty by engaging with them.
If I do come across a brand that I feel is doing it wrong that I will just stop
following them so they
don’t stay in my consciousness for very long if I feel they’re not doing it right.
Do you feel that brands have a personality?
That’s very difficult answering that objectively. I do feel that brands have a
personality and I think
the whole point of social media is to display that personality. Some brands or
companies can be seen
as these big corporations that own a lot of brands and seen as a corporate face
of doom. Coke are
quite good actually in showing their brand personality from what they do in
advertising, from the
social media like particularly on facebook. They’re always bringing out the fun
element of the brand
and really getting people to engage. There’s a lot of ‘uploading your own
content’ which is a great
way of interacting with the brand and getting people to stay committed to the
brand.
Thinking of brand personality and how far brands go to meet that perception of
the brand on social
media….
It’s almost like giving the brand a human face. Then you sort of feel like I don’t
mind in them taking
my money. They seem personable which is great.
Is there anything else that I haven’t mentioned you’d like to say?
I think it’s also nice… you don’t always see it but I do like it when brands start to
interact with each
other. I’ve definitely seen Innocent are one brand I follow. They certainly are
keen to be interacting
with other brands and having a general chat on twitter. Brand environments are
normally so

80
compeititive but I think it’s great to break down those barriers and engage in a
conversation to learn
from other brands, sharing ideas so that we’re making the best product, offering
the best customer
service. Because you can see what everyone else is doing it’s quite easy to do
that. Publications are
brands in themselves and seeing them interact is great because they can be
very competitive
especially if they’re going for a particular market.
Allen
Firstly can I please confirm that you use social media to interact with brands for
example facebook and twitter?
Yes I do

81
Could you please name the social media platforms that you currently use?
I use facebook, twitter, in the past I’ve used myspace. I still occasionally use it.
That’s it really.
Ok.
Talk to me about a typical week of your use of social media.
Pretty much every day I will log on to facebook or twitter seeing whats
happening with everything.
See what news is out there. I think twitter is probably the easiest option if you’re
after quick news.
That’s it really, interacting with people.
Ok.
How long would you say you used social media every day, per week?
With the advent with smart phones its easier to access facebook and twitter all
the time. You more
go on quickly to check.. every hour really. You go and check to see what updates
there are and if
there’s a big news you check more often to keep yourself in the loop. I probably
use facebook and
twitter for a good few hours a day?
I think that most people do.
Ok, so what kinds of brands do you follow on twitter and facebook?
On facebook it tends to be more like tv shows. I discount facebook as really the

way to go. But
people like twitter I follow nasa, magazines, bands I like to follow. I follow a lot of
restaurants
actually.
If you wouldn’t mind summing up the industries, what industries would you say
you looked at?
On twitter I would say restaurants and news outlets. On facebook I would

probably say I would
follow more…well.. tv shows I suppose to be honest.

82
That’s fine, do you follow brands to keep yourself updated with what brands
might be doing?
I follow… kind of like… technology brands. I follow o2, apple, I follow twitter as
well so they keep me
updated with what’s going on.
Ok. So, thinking about those different brands, when you go onto facebook and
twitter, which
updates are you looking for from particular brands? Do you have a top 5?
Ok. I like looking for updates from o2, from apple.. erm… I like to get updates
from… I like getting
updates from giraffe the restaurant. I like updates from sky news because they
seem to be good at
getting breaking news on twitter. BBC news.
Could you explain why?
I like getting updates from o2 because they give you updates on their network
which I’m a part of.
Apple because I like their technology and interested in what they’re doing.
Giraffe because I like
their food and it’s nice to hear from them. Sky news like I said… any breaking
news they seem to
tweet it instantly and BBC news because I like their style of reporting.
When you see an update that interests you, what are your actions after seeing
an update?
I’ll read it, if it’s got a link to expand on an article and then read the article as
well and if I feel that
it’s a good article and I think others would also be interested in it, I’ll retweet it
so others can see it
too.
Do you feel you paid attention to click through every brand you follow?
Erm… I tend to concentrate on the ones that I’ve just mentioned. I normally
scroll through and if I
see an update from those I’ve mentioned I’ll stop and read it.
Do you think you would give the brands you mentioned equal attention?

83
Yes
Ok. So tell me about your trust towards those brands you follow.
I like to think I can trust them because if I didn’t trust them I don’t think I would
be following them. I
think you need to have some degree of trust in the brand to give them that much
attention.
Are there brands that aren’t necessarily on social media that you would say you
trust?
Erm… do you mean like erm… well… I suppose so because I don’t follow
Microsoft and I trust their
products. I use windows at home on my PC, but I don’t actually follow them on
social media.
Same question about commitment towards a brand. Do you feel you have a
commitment to those
brands because you trust them?
I feel I have a commitment to o2 and apple because I use their services and
products and therefore I
feel a sense of commitment there. I suppose with the news outlets, erm… I don’t
think it’s
commitment on my part, but you do feel like they’re giving you the information
you require and you
feel you have to go to them to get it.
In terms of how to you interact with your chosen brands, could you describe
what trust means to
you?
Trust to me is giving the correct information to the users, erm.. making sure all
the facts are right
and being truthful. If something’s gone wrong they need to say it’s gone wrong
and don’t fluff over it
with something that’s not right. If you find out they haven’t done something
right, you kind of lose a
bit of trust in them and I feel they need to be honest with you.
Ok. Do you think it’s just as important for brands to be transparent in their
business because of

84
things like social media now?
Yes definitely because there’s… with things like facebook the second anything
goes bad with
someone, a group will be made… the issue will spread as more people join that
group and
companies have to really redeem themselves.
Can you think of any examples of companies having to deal with things like this?
Well with the whole thing with apple… they’ve had some bad press with their
new product iphone 4.
They said ‘don’t hold it that way’. It spread like wildfire and it was all over
facebook and twitter,
forums and blogs. It literally spiralled for them to the point where they had no
choice but to
investigate those claims.
You sound like you have quite an emotional attachment to them in that you trust
them and you’re
committed to them as a brand, but would you say that’s right?
Yes. I think we’ve got a good relationship. I only have one product with apple.
But it works well and I
think it works brilliantly and I would definitely want to buy more products from
them.
When brands like apple do something wrong, how does that make you feel?
Everyone makes mistakes, but it’s how you deal with those mistakes that make
people either still
like them or move on from them.
What could they have done better?
Instead of brushing over the issue with the antenna, they could’ve immediately
said they would
investigate the problem and we’ll come back to you as soon as we can with what
we’ve found rather
than it going on for a couple of months before they even acknowledge that there
might be an issue

85
and I think that damaged them professionally.
How exactly did it damage them?
It made me feel that they don’t …. They felt at that point that they knew better
and I think only now
they’re starting to realise they need to listen to their customers more as they’re
the ones using the
products.
Have you got any good examples? stop
I’ve really liked… recently giraffe restaurants. They had a bit of an issue with one
of their restaurants
and they were constantly updating the twitter feed with what the problem was
and what they were
doing to fix it and I thought it was really good that they were keeping their
customers in the loop at
all times. I think that’s really important when you’re dealing with customers that
they’re being kept
in the loop.
How did that make you feel?
It made me trust them because I knew they weren’t lying about anything or
hiding any element of
the problem.
Ok. So you trust them, did that lead to anything further in terms of the
relationship with the brand?
It makes me want to go there more.
Ok. Thinking about the different traits that the brand has/have. Do you feel that
brands have a
personality?
Erm… yeah because each brand has their own identity and they’ve got to live up
to that identity I
suppose. You know whether they’re professional, or fun and outgoing. They have
to keep up with
that personality or identity.

86
Thinking about one of your chosen brands, could you please think of what that
brand personality
means to you?
Erm… if I take BBC for example. Obviously it’s a news outlet so they’ve got to be
professional but I
think they really do live up to that. Their tweets are to the point and their
professionalism does show
through the wording they use.
Any others?
Giraffe. It’s a fun and friendly restaurant and the tweets they do come across in
that. They seem like
a regular person. It’s almost as if they’re speaking just to you, rather than a
thousand people. It’s
almost a one on one and I think that’s nice.
How does that make you feel?
It makes me feel like it’s a conversation between two people and I like that kind
of intimate setting
shall we say?
You would prefer brands to be more involved in the two way communication
rather than the one
way mass communication? How would you like your chosen brands to interact
with you?
Say they’ve said something in an update and you’ve replied to them and you ask
them a question
back, a lot of places won’t respond individually. They won’t reply to your
question. And with some
brands I think it’s good when you can see they’ve taken the time to speak to
them and I think they
should at least respond in some way. Whether it’s a retweet or responding so

you know they’ve
seen your update.
Could you please tell me about the influence you think social media has had on
your perception of a

87
chosen brand?
Erm… it’s certainly a lot easier to interact with brands because of twitter. More
brands will use
twitter than any other social media platform because it’s a quick way of getting
updates or
information out there. And erm… it certainly makes everyone more accessible.
Do you think that.. what you say you had a relationship with each brand that
you follow?
Yes because if I was to recommend. Say if someone was to come up to me and

say do you know any
nice restaurants to go to I would definitely say giraffe because a) they do nice

food, but also because
they come across as a caring restaurant and they seem to care about their
customers. It kind of
comes through on their tweets.
Is the quality of food enough to get you to go to the restaurant? Do you think
quality can be
overcome by the relationship you have with a brand?
The product has got to be good. You can’t advocate something just purely about
the fact they write
cool messages on twitter. The product has to be good enough for you to get it.
You can do as much
marketing as you want in the world but at the end of the day the quality has got
to be good. I’d say
it’s equal between relationship and quality. Whilst the products may be good, if
you don’t have
much faith in the company as a whole you may only get the product once and
never go back. You
need a relationship to sustain business.
Any other comments?
I certainly enjoy having the interaction. It’s a lot better now because you only
had email or writing or
phoning. But now you can spread the word of a brand with one sentence. I think
that’s important for

88
us not only as consumers but it’s good for brands. While we can interact with
each other, likeminded
folk can also interact like a community.
Is that important?
Yes because in a community it can sway your perception of things as you know.
If a lot of people like
it, it makes you think it must be really good. You start looking into it and you
start building a
relationship with that brand. But at the same time it can go the other way. If
negative comments will
hinder your opinion of a brand and that can spread too.
Appendix 3
Questionnaire
The impact of social media on trust, commitment and brand relationships
Q1 Do you use Facebook AND/OR Twitter to follow brands or products? These

can be food e.g. marmite, clothing e.g. ASOS, magazines e.g. Heat, businesses
e.g. Sainsburys etc. Please note that selecting 'No' will end the questionnaire.
 Yes (1)
 No (2)

89
Q2 Are you over 18?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q3 How many brands do you follow/are fans of?
 0-10 (1)
 11-25 (2)
 26-35 (3)
 36-50 (4)
 50+ (5)
Q4 What kinds of brands do you follow/are fans of? Please tick all that apply
 Food and Drink (1)
 Leisure and entertainment (2)
 Clothing (3)
 Lifestyle e.g. magazines (4)
 Service (5)
 All of the above (6)
Q5 How often do you check Facebook and/or twitter?
 Less than Once a Month (1)
 Once a Month (2)
 2-3 Times a Month (3)
 Once a Week (4)
 Up to 5 times a day (5)
 More than 5 times a day (6)

90
Q6 When you see an update from your chosen brand that you follow, how much
attention do you give it/them?
 Skim read with no further action (1)
 Read in detail and click through for more (2)
 Read in detail, click through and forward to others (3)
 Other (4)
Q7 Do you send messages to your chosen brands?
 Never (1)
 Less than Once a Month (2)
 Once a Month (4)
 2-3 Times a Month (5)
 Once a Week (6)
 2-3 Times a Week (7)
 Daily (8)
Q8 What are the messages regarding? Tick all that apply
 Product enquiry (1)
 Reply to an update (2)
 Ask a question (3)
 A 'mention' (4)
 A general comment (5)
 n/a (6)

91
Q9 What makes the updates interesting to you? Tick all that apply
 I'm interested in the brand (1)
 I want to be kept updated (2)
 I like to be the first to hear news (3)
 It enables brands to interact with me (4)
 I can show I like that brand to others (5)
 I can tell others through social media about a brand (6)

92
Q11 How far do you believe your chosen brands to have a 'brand personality'?
 A great deal (1)
 A fair amount (2)
 Lacking personality (3)
 Little or no personality (4)
Q12 How far do you agree with these statements?
Please choose one per statement

Strongly
Strongly Disagree
Agree (2) Neutral (3) disagree
Agree (1) (4)
(5)
The
updates I
receive
from my
chosen     
brand
match its'
personality
(1)
The
personality
of the
brands I     
follow are
similar to
me (2)
I trust this
brand
because
    
they are
similar to
me (3)
I want to
maintain
the
relationship
with the
    
brand
because
they are
similar to
me (4)

93
Q13 Is trust between you and your chosen brand important to you?
 Extremely Important (1)
 Very Important (2)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (3)
 Very Unimportant (4)
 Not at all Important (5)

Strongly
Strongly Disagree
agree (1) (4)
(5)
I trust the
brands I
    
follow/are
fans of (1)
My chosen
brand is
equally
interested
    
in my
welfare as
much as its
own (2)
There are
times when
I can't trust     
my brand
(3)
My brand is
perfectly
honest and     
truthful
with me (4)
My brand is
truly
sincere in
    
its
promises
(5)

94

Strongly
Strongly Disagree
agree (1) (4)
(5)
I am
committed
to
maintaining
    
my
relationship
with this
brand (1)
I imagine
having a
relationship
with this
    
brand
several
years from
now (2)
I feel
emotionally
attached to     
my chosen
brands (3)
My life
would be
disrupted if
I switched     
away from
my brand
(4)

95
Q17 If you were to switch brands, what would make you switch? Please rank with
1 being most important to you.
______ Price (1)
______ Quality (2)
______ Service (3)
______ Brand personality (4)
______ Design (5)
______ Use of social media (6)
Q20 How old are you?
 18-25 (1)
 26-34 (2)
 35-54 (3)
 55-64 (4)
 65 and over (5) ____________________
Q23 What is your gender?
 Male (1)
 Female (2)

96
Q24 What is your occupation?
 Top Management (1)
 Senior management (2)
 Lower management (3)
 Entry level (4)
 Self employed (5)
 Unemployed (6)
 Student (7)

97
Appendix 4
SPSS raw data

98
Correlations
Q14_1_2How far do you
agree with these Q14_1_3How far do you Q14_1_4How far do you Q14_1_5How far do you
Q14_1_1How far do you statements? : Please agree with these agree with these agree with these
Q6When you see an agree with these choose one per statements? : Please statements? : Please statements? : Please
update from your chosen statements? : Please statement-My chosen choose one per choose one per choose one per
brand that you follow, how choose one per brand is equally statement-There are statement-My brand is statement-My brand is
much attention do you statement-I trust the interested in my welfare times when I can't trust perfectly honest and truly sincere in its
give it/the... brands I follow/are fans of as much as its own my brand truthful with me promises
Q6When you see an update Pearson Correlation 1 -.214 -.316** .162 -.240* -.211
from your chosen brand that Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .005 .158 .035 .066
you follow, how much attention N 82 77 77 77 77 77
do you give it/the...
Q14_1_1How far do you agree Pearson Correlation -.214 1 .432** -.133 .470** .526**
with these statements? : Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .000 .250 .000 .000
Please choose one per N 77 77 77 77 77 77
statement-I trust the brands I
follow/are fans of
Q14_1_2How far do you agree Pearson Correlation -.316** .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521**
statement-My chosen brand is
equally interested in my
welfare as much as its own
Q14_1_3How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .162 -.133 -.048 1 -.133 -.016
statement-There are times

99

100
Correlations
Q14_1_2How far do
you agree with these
Q14_1_1How far do statements? : Please Q14_1_3How far do Q14_1_4How far do Q14_1_5How far do
you agree with these choose one per you agree with these you agree with these you agree with these
statements? : Please statement-My chosen statements? : Please statements? : Please statements? : Please
choose one per brand is equally choose one per choose one per choose one per
Q5How often do you statement-I trust the interested in my statement-There are statement-My brand is statement-My brand is
check Facebook brands I follow/are welfare as much as its times when I can't trust perfectly honest and truly sincere in its
and/or twitter? fans of own my brand truthful with me promises
Q5How often do you check Pearson Correlation 1 .065 .120 .236* .076 .222
Facebook and/or twitter? Sig. (2-tailed) .574 .300 .039 .509 .052
N 82 77 77 77 77 77
Q14_1_1How far do you Pearson Correlation .065 1 .432** -.133 .470** .526**
agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .574 .000 .250 .000 .000
statements? : Please N 77 77 77 77 77 77
choose one per statement-I
trust the brands I follow/are
fans of
Q14_1_2How far do you Pearson Correlation .120 .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521**
agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .300 .000 .681 .000 .000
statements? : Please N 77 77 77 77 77 77

101

102
Correlations
Q14_1_2How far do you agree with
Q14_1_1How far do you agree with these statements? : Please choose Q14_1_3How far do you agree with Q14_1_4How far do you agree with Q14_1_5How far do you agree with
these statements? : Please choose one per statement-My chosen brand these statements? : Please choose these statements? : Please choose these statements? : Please choose Q4_2What kinds of brands do you
one per statement-I trust the brands is equally interested in my welfare as one per statement-There are times one per statement-My brand is one per statement-My brand is truly follow/are fans of? Please tick all
I follow/are fans of much as its own when I can't trust my brand perfectly honest and truthful with me sincere in its promises that apply-Leisure and entertainment
Q14_1_1How far do you agree with these Pearson Correlation 1 .432** -.133 .470** .526** -.043
statements? : Please choose one per Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .250 .000 .000 .714
statement-I trust the brands I follow/are fans N 77 77 77 77 77 76
of
Q14_1_2How far do you agree with these Pearson Correlation .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521** -.345**
statement-My chosen brand is equally N 77 77 77 77 77 76
interested in my welfare as much as its own
Q14_1_3How far do you agree with these Pearson Correlation -.133 -.048 1 -.133 -.016 -.005
statement-There are times when I can't N 77 77 77 77 77 76
trust my brand
Q14_1_4How far do you agree with these Pearson Correlation .470** .425** -.133 1 .718** .083
statement-My brand is perfectly honest and N 77 77 77 77 77 76
truthful with me
Q14_1_5How far do you agree with these Pearson Correlation .526** .521** -.016 .718** 1 .035
statement-My brand is truly sincere in its N 77 77 77 77 77 76
promises
Q4_2What kinds of brands do you Pearson Correlation -.043 -.345** -.005 .083 .035 1
follow/are fans of? Please tick all that apply-

Sig. (2-tailed) .714 .002 .963 .474 .766

103

Correlations
Q14_1_2How far do
you agree with these

104
Q14_1_1How far do statements? : Please Q14_1_3How far do Q14_1_4How far do Q14_1_5How far do
you agree with these choose one per you agree with these you agree with these you agree with these Q9_4What makes the Q9_5What makes the Q9_6What makes the
statements? : Please statement-My chosen statements? : Please statements? : Please statements? : Please Q9_1What makes the Q9_2What makes the Q9_3What makes the updates interesting to updates interesting to updates interesting to
choose one per brand is equally choose one per choose one per choose one per updates interesting to updates interesting to updates interesting to you? Tick all that you? Tick all that you? Tick all that
statement-I trust the interested in my statement-There are statement-My brand statement-My brand you? Tick all that you? Tick all that you? Tick all that apply-It enables apply-I can show I apply-I can tell others
brands I follow/are welfare as much as times when I can't is perfectly honest is truly sincere in its apply-I'm interested apply-I want to be apply-I like to be the brands to interact like that brand to through social media
fans of its own trust my brand and truthful with me promises in the brand kept updated first to hear news with me others about a brand
Q14_1_1How far do you Pearson Correlation 1 .432** -.133 .470** .526** -.273* -.327** -.255* -.189 .076 -.229*
agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .250 .000 .000 .016 .004 .025 .100 .509 .045
statements? : Please N 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77
choose one per
brands I follow/are fans of
Q14_1_2How far do you Pearson Correlation .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521** -.023 -.252* -.263* -.224 .174 -.049
choose one per
statement-My chosen
brand is equally
interested in my welfare
as much as its own
Q14_1_3How far do you Pearson Correlation -.133 -.048 1 -.133 -.016 .108 .151 .029 -.067 .050 .105
choose one per
statement-There are
times when I can't trust
my brand
Q14_1_4How far do you Pearson Correlation .470** .425** -.133 1 .718** -.171 -.260* -.072 .024 .073 -.116
choose one per
statement-My brand is
105

106
Correlations
Q15_1_1How far do you Q15_1_2How far do you
agree with these agree with these Q15_1_3How far do you Q15_1_4How far do you
statements? : Please statements? : Please agree with these agree with these
choose one per choose one per statements? : Please statements? : Please Q6When you see an
statement-I am committed statement-I imagine choose one per choose one per update from your chosen
to maintaining my having a relationship with statement-I feel statement-My life would brand that you follow, how
relationship with this this brand several years emotionally attached to be disrupted if I switched much attention do you
brand from now my chosen brands away from my brand give it/the...
Q15_1_1How far do you agree Pearson Correlation 1 .703** .390** .358** -.272*
with these statements? : Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .017
Please choose one per N 77 77 77 77 77
statement-I am committed to
maintaining my relationship
with this brand
Q15_1_2How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .703** 1 .316** .356** -.132
statement-I imagine having a
relationship with this brand
several years from now
Q15_1_3How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .390** .316** 1 .531** -.271*
statement-I feel emotionally
attached to my chosen brands
Q15_1_4How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .358** .356** .531** 1 -.297**

107
Correlations
OverallTrust Engagement
OverallTrust Pearson Correlation 1 -.235*
N 77 77
Engagement Pearson Correlation -.235* 1
N 77 87

108

109
Correlations
OverallTrust Engagement Commitment Brandpersonality
OverallTrust Pearson Correlation 1 -.235* .463** .395**
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .000 .000
N 77 77 77 77
Engagement Pearson Correlation -.235* 1 -.278* -.255*
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .015 .023
N 77 87 77 79
** *
Commitment Pearson Correlation .463 -.278 1 .283*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .015 .013
N 77 77 77 77
Brandpersonality Pearson Correlation .395** -.255* .283* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .023 .013
N 77 79 77 79

110

111

112
Correlations
Brandpersonality Commitment
Brandpersonality Pearson Correlation 1 .283*
N 79 77
Commitment Pearson Correlation .283* 1
N 77 77

113
Correlations
Q14_1_2How far do Q15_1_1How far do Q15_1_2How far do
you agree with these you agree with these you agree with these Q15_1_4How far do
Q14_1_1How far do statements? : Please Q14_1_3How far do Q14_1_4How far do Q14_1_5How far do statements? : Please statements? : Please Q15_1_3How far do you agree with these
you agree with these choose one per you agree with these you agree with these you agree with these choose one per choose one per you agree with these statements? : Please
statements? : Please statement-My chosen statements? : Please statements? : Please statements? : Please statement-I am statement-I imagine statements? : Please choose one per
choose one per brand is equally choose one per choose one per choose one per committed to having a relationship choose one per statement-My life
statement-I trust the interested in my statement-There are statement-My brand statement-My brand maintaining my with this brand statement-I feel would be disrupted if I
brands I follow/are welfare as much as times when I can't is perfectly honest is truly sincere in its relationship with this several years from emotionally attached switched away from
fans of its own trust my brand and truthful with me promises brand now to my chosen brands my brand
Q14_1_1How far do you Pearson Correlation 1 .432** -.133 .470** .526** .504** .348** .285* .206
agree with these Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .002 .012 .072
choose one per
brands I follow/are fans of
Q14_1_2How far do you Pearson Correlation .432** 1 -.048 .425** .521** .453** .279* .264* .330**
choose one per
statement-My chosen
brand is equally interested
in my welfare as much as
its own
Q14_1_3How far do you Pearson Correlation -.133 -.048 1 -.133 -.016 -.181 -.254* -.154 -.054
choose one per

114

115
Correlations
Q12_1_4How far do you
Q12_1_1How far do you Q12_1_2How far do you agree with these
agree with these agree with these Q12_1_3How far do you statements? : Please
statements? : Please statements? : Please agree with these choose one per statement-I
choose one per statement- choose one per statement- statements? : Please want to maintain the
The updates I receive from The personality of the choose one per statement-I relationship with the brand
my chosen brand match its' brands I follow are similar to trust this brand because because they are similar to
personality me they are similar to me me
Q12_1_1How far do you agree Pearson Correlation 1 .183 .215 .240*
with these statements? : Please Sig. (2-tailed) .110 .059 .034
choose one per statement-The N 79 78 78 78
updates I receive from my chosen
brand match its' personality
Q12_1_2How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .183 1 .743** .674**
choose one per statement-The N 78 78 77 77
personality of the brands I follow
are similar to me
Q12_1_3How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .215 .743** 1 .808**
choose one per statement-I trust N 78 77 78 77
this brand because they are
similar to me
Q12_1_4How far do you agree Pearson Correlation .240* .674** .808** 1
with these statements? : Please

Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .000 .000
choose one per statement-I want

N 78 77 77 78

116

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Does social media have an impact on

David Nichols, BSc

This work is the result of my research carried out during

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

of Masters of Science in Marketing Communications at

The dissertation may be made freely available

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Components of consumer-brand relationships such as trust, commitment

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

One could argue that a customer is satisfied after purchasing an excellent

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Social media has largely impacts several areas of marketing research.

WOM often expands to brand communities. A brand community consists of

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Preece (2001) discussed the varying relationships between members of brand

Most academics concur that a ‘customer can achieve social need

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Consumers have access to ‘accurate, recent and unbiased information’,

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Motivation in brand relationships

There has been a body of research into the motivations of maintaining

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

‘individual’s comparison of their own defining characteristics’. Values and

‘Anthropomorphizing inanimate objects’ can be described as attributing

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

sensitive customers and more customers willing to engage in word of mouth

Brand communities were discussed briefly earlier; the tendency to be part

Models of relationship marketing

With varying styles of research come numerous models of testing notions

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

The model illustrates several hypotheses. Firstly, when relationship termination

Fournier’s (1998) working model of brand relationship quality was

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

biased partner perceptions, devaluation of alternatives and attribution biases. All

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

perceptions of the relationship partner and the perception of the alternatives.

The model has four determinants of relationship permanence; first and

Commitment is a notion well discussed within marketing and social

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

be varying determinants of levels of commitment, and whether these precursors

With regards to the investment model discussed earlier, Sung and

Commitment is also theorised as being part of a larger model to which it is

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

hypotheses into a framework; where trust in a brand impacts on attachment,

Carrying on with the discussion regarding commitment being a part of a

Within some research, commitment is described as having two types:

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Trust in relationship marketing and brand personality can be described

It is interesting that independence was a trait discussed in this research,

While commitment has already been discussed earlier, it is worthwhile

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

Spekman (1988) went further by positing it to be ‘the cornerstone of the

An interesting discussion on ‘covert marketing’ has emerged recently by

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation

It seems trust is a crucial component to the consumer brand relationship.

Dimensions of brand personality

It is important to consider the different components which make up ‘brand

06500707 MSc Marketing Communications Dissertation