Crafting Brand Equity on Instagram:

Exploring UGC and FGC Strategies for

Optimal Content Marketing
An experiment of the differences between UGC and FGC in brand
equity on brands Instagram accounts

Authors:
Alice Christensen
Hanna Sahlqvist
Melker Oscarsson

Stockholm Business School

Bachelor’s Degree Thesis 15 HE Credits
Subject: Business Administration
Spring/Fall 2023/2024
Supervisor: Hanna Berg
Acknowledgments
We extend our gratitude to those who have been instrumental in realizing this study. First
and foremost, we extend our sincere appreciation to our respected supervisor, Hanna
Berg. She has been our biggest supporter, answering our many questions along the way,
and constructive feedback has been crucial in shaping this research. Her dedication to our
academic growth and the project's success has permanently impacted our experience and
contributed to further interest in the area of study. We would also like to dedicate our
appreciation to Rana Mostaghel who contributed a lot in the process of coding the
quantitative data, as we have no previous experience with SPSS.

To our wonderful classmates, thank you for the unique perspectives and shared
commitment that has improved our research and made this academic journey not only
educational but also enjoyable. Also to all who participated in our experiment hence
contributing to our study.

Lastly, we would like to thank Niklas Bondesson for creating a superior marketing
communications program at Stockholm Business School who introduced us to the main
subject in our study – brand equity. His business perspective on marketing is a big
inspiration and how to make communication work towards your business goals.

Alice Christensen Hanna Sahlqvist Melker Oscarsson

1
Abstract
The study investigates the impact of content strategy on customer-based brand equity
within social media marketing, focusing on the contrast between user-generated content
(UGC) and firm-generated content (FGC). Using Instagram as the platform for analyzing
the different content strategies, the study seeks to answer the question: What is the most
effective content strategy between user-generated and firm-generated content to build
consumer-based brand equity?

The research consists of a comparative experiment involving 186 participants, employing

Likert-scale questions to assess brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand
awareness/associations. The study delves into the research's internal validity,
acknowledging the brand's potential influence on respondents' perceptions. Contrary to
prior research, the study shows no statistically significant difference in brand equity when
brands employ UGC or FGC in their Instagram feeds.

The discussion presents practical considerations for businesses in choosing between UGC
and FGC, acknowledging the nuanced factors of cost, brand image control, authenticity,
and the influencer dynamic. Further, it explores the complexities of the rejected
hypotheses, considering the impact of brand visibility and the unique context of Instagram
feeds, as well as the challenge of balancing multiple variables in experimental research.

In conclusion, while prior research has highlighted distinctions in the impact of UGC and
FGC on customer-based brand equity (CBBE), the study focused on Instagram feeds
suggests that brands may not experience significant differences in brand loyalty,
perceived quality, or brand awareness/associations based on content strategy. The
findings offer flexibility to brands in choosing between UGC and FGC, highlighting the
need for a nuanced understanding of social media dynamics and brand influence.

Keywords: Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE), User-Generated Content (UGC),

Firm-Generated Content (FGC), Content Marketing, Instagram, Social Media Marketing
(SoMe)

2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 1
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Problematization 6
1.2 Purpose and research questions/hypothesis 8
1.3 Brief summary of theoretical and managerial contributions 9
1.4 Limitations of the study 9
2. Literature review 11
2.1 Brand Equity 11
2.2 Content Marketing 13
2.3 User-generated content (UGC) 14
2.4 Firm-generated content (FGC) 15
3. Methodology 16
3.1 Research approach 16
3.2 Method for data collection 17
3.3 Empirical data 20
3.4 Method for analyzing data 20
3.4.1 Operationalization Table 21
3.4.2 T-test 21
3.4.3 Ordinal and Interval/Ratio 21
3.5 Discussion of methodology 22
3.6 Ethical considerations 23
4. Results 24
4.1 Demographics 24
4.1.1 Response rate 24
4.1.2 Demographics 24
4.2 Reliability 25
4.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha 25
4.3 Descriptive Statistics 25
4.3.1 UGC – Dependent Variables 25
4.3.2 FGC – Dependent Variables 26
4.4.3 Manipulation control 26
4.4 Hypothesis Testing 26
4.4.1 T-test 27
4.4.2 Additional testing – t-test with manipulation control 27
5. Discussion 29
5.1 Discussion of result 29
5.2 Practical Discussion of Content Marketing Strategies 31
6. Conclusion 33
6.1 Further Research and Recommendations 33
References 35
Appendix 40
1. Stimulus 40
1.1 Orginal screenshot of Vagabond’s Instagram 40
1.2 UGC – Manipulated Instagram feed 41
1.3 FGC – Manipulated Instagram feed 42

3
2. Questionnaire 43
2.1 First-page 43
2.2 Items in the questionnaire – same for both groups 44
3. Results 47
3.1 Demographics 47
3.2 UGC – Dependent Variables 47
3.3 FGC – Dependent Variables 48
3.4 UGC – Manipulation 48
3.5 FGC – Manipulation 48
3.6 Cronbach's Alpha 48
3.7 Descriptive statistics comparison 49
3.8 T-test 49
3.9 Descriptive statistics comparison 49
3.10 Additional t-test 50

4
1. Introduction
Content marketing through social media has emerged as the predominant choice for
proficient marketing and customer engagement (Kotler et al., 2005). Enterprises
strategically employ social media platforms to acquire new clientele and foster loyalty
among existing customers. The growing popularity of social media extends beyond
individual users; corporate entities and governmental bodies are increasingly leveraging
these platforms for interactive discourse and information dissemination (Kim and Ko,
2012).

The technical evolution has increased internet use, causing social media to rise over the
last two decades hence changing internet users' everyday life (Tuten T, 2023). Companies
no longer exclusively dictate brand communication, given that social media provides
consumers and prospects with a platform to engage with a diverse audience from all
global corners (Yogesh K et al., 2021). Significantly, consumers are diverting their
attention away from conventional media channels like TV, radio, or magazines, favoring
the increased utilization of social media platforms for information retrieval (Mangold and
Faulds, 2009). Today's digital marketing landscape is dominated by the internet, with the
percentage of people not using the Internet continuing to decrease. Among the Swedish
population, 96% are expected to use the Internet by 2023, and 85% will use some social
media platform daily. Instagram is one of the most used social media platforms, with
almost half of the population using it every day in 2023 (Svenskarna & internet 2023).

The rise of social media has changed the way companies implement business by allowing
them to promote their products (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) as well as allowing them to
interact with their customers (Hudson et al., 2016). Therefore, the online presence is
significant for companies to be available where the customers are, making digital
marketing more important than ever. Over 55% of Swedish companies were using social
media to develop their enterprise’s image or market products by 2019 (SCB 2019), which
indicates the importance of having a social media (SoMe) strategy for marketing their
products through social platforms. Examining digital content marketing from both the
company and customer viewpoints, scholarly literature primarily discusses two key
categories: user-generated content (UGC) and firm-generated content (FGC), as
highlighted by Kumar et al. (2016).

Companies can publish either FGC, where the content is created by the company itself, or,
on the contrary, publish users' content on their owned channels, known by the term UGC,

5
which has become well-known in digital marketing (Yang et al., 2019). Researchers
identify that the source of the content (user or firm) impacts the attitude toward the brand
posting that specific content, where UGC tends to have a more substantial influence on
brand advocacy (Aljarah et al., 2022). Studies have also shown that FGC can negatively
impact purchase intention with little to no effect on brand equity and attitude toward the
brand (Santiago et al., 2022).

On the other hand, Wei et al. (2023) showed that UGC, compared to FGC, exerts a
weaker effect on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). Influencers are recognized as
significant channels for brand advertising and promotion, as identified by Corrêa et al.
(2020). While a consumer's admiration and trust in a favored influencer can enhance the
perceived legitimacy of a brand’s marketing messages (Chan, 2022), this can be
undermined if the consumer perceives the influencer's content as a product of paid
marketing (Boerman et al. 2018).

Consumer engagement is at an all-time high in an increasingly competitive global

marketplace due to the digital evolution where information flows seamlessly. Creating a
brand identity through social media, hence shaping brand perception, cannot be overstated
(Cheung, M. L. et al. (2019). As (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015) mentioned, social
media is changing traditional marketing communication and brand image where brand
communication and content are no longer shaped by only marketers but also by internet
users. This requires companies to think even more about their content strategy, moreover
what kind of content they publish on which channel. Therefore, the distinction between
these two types of communication and content (user or firm based) is relevant for how
customers perceive and portray brands, hence their effect on the company’s CBBE (Zia S.
et al., 2022).

1.1 Problematization

As Rachna and Khajuria (2017) mention, social media networks are an excellent way for
companies to promote their brands and products as they allow visibility even to those
unaware of the brands and are interactive platforms for everyone. With the development
of social networks, UGC is an adapted strategy across various social media platforms and
is often subtly integrated into our online experiences (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017).
Companies are consistently refining their content strategies to meet the growing demand
for diverse forms of content in reviews, on social media, and on websites. Consequently,

6
comprehending UGC and its impact on CBBE remains pertinent in the contemporary
market landscape (Rachna and Khajuria, 2017).

The content companies produce on their social media accounts is up for discussion,
stating that the type of content being posted can influence customer engagement
(Shahbaznezhad et al., 2021), which in turn can be connected to Aaker’s brand equity
model (1991). Given the intriguing findings from a study made by Schivinski and
Dabrowski (2014) and a study made by Poulis et al. (2019), it is evident that the
relationship between UGC and FGC and their impact on various dimensions of CBBE is a
nuanced and evolving area of study. While both UGC and FGC have been associated with
positive effects on brand awareness/associations, it is noteworthy that UGC seems to
exert a more substantial influence on brand loyalty and perceived quality, as indicated by
Schivinski and Dabrowski (2014). The study by Poulis et al. (2019) adds an absorbing
layer to this narrative, suggesting that FGC contributes positively to brand
awareness/associations and brand loyalty. However, different sources display different
information, meaning that the absence of a significant impact raises questions about the
mechanisms through which FGC and UGC influence consumer behavior and whether
other factors may mediate this relationship.

The research landscape within UGC is expansive, yet it lacks specific investigations into
companies' content marketing strategies concerning UGC versus FGC on social media.
Despite the established evidence supporting the enhancement of CBBE through UGC, a
notable gap exists in understanding the specific types of content that brands should
prioritize. Prior research has predominantly focused on studying overall FGC and UGC
marketing across various social media and websites and their impact on CBBE metrics
without considering the content marketing strategy, hence leaving a gap. Companies today
have to take this specific question into account when planning their social media strategy
whether to focus on UGC or FGC for example when publishing posts on their own
Instagram. The lack of research leaves companies more up to guessing on what would be
the best choice for them. In this study, we aim to bridge this gap by exploring brands'
published image content on their owned Instagram profiles and their utilization of UGC
and FGC in shaping CBBE metrics. As a popular social media platform for brand
engagement, Instagram serves as a rich ground for our investigation. Through strategic
marketing efforts on Instagram, brands can upload visually appealing content on their
profiles that resonates with their audience's preferences and effectively shape a unique
feed, enhancing how the brand wants to be perceived outwards. Therefore, UGC versus
FGC Instagram profile feeds may exert distinct influences on consumer perceptions of a

7
brand, particularly in shaping CBBE. This proposition is grounded in prior research,
which indicates that UGC and FGC on social media exhibit differential effects on CBBE.

1.2 Purpose and research questions/hypothesis

The study aims to discover the most effective content strategy to guide companies when
planning what type of content they should focus on when constructing an Instagram
profile, hence an experiment will be made. It will examine how Swedish consumers view
user-generated content (UGC) compared to firm-generated content (FGC) on a Swedish
fashion brand’s Instagram account and how it shapes consumer-based brand equity
(CBBE). The goal and desired achievement of the study is to understand where the
difference between these content marketing strategies lies and their respective influence
on brand equity.

It aims to compare UGC with FGC in the context of a brand’s owned Instagram profile,
acknowledging which strategy positively impacts CBBE the most, consequently
answering our research question: What is the most effective content strategy between
user-generated content and firm-generated content to build consumer-based brand
equity?

Chen and Qasim (2021) affirmed that customers' perception of brands is positively shaped
by the brand's social media communications, with numerous prior studies that have
consistently found that a brand's communications enhance brand equity (Yoo et al., 2000).
As mentioned Shivinski and Dabrowski (2014) found in their study that both UGC and
FGC positively influenced the CBBE dimension of brand awareness/association, while
Poulis et al. (2019) also suggest that FGC contributes positively to brand
awareness/associations. Thus our first hypothesis is formulated to compare these two:
H1: Instagram feeds based on UGC will lead to higher brand awareness/brand
associations compared to Instagram feeds with FGC

When a customer responds positively to the brand's social media messages, it signifies a
strong connection between the customer and the brand. Consequently, a sturdy bond
between the customer and the brand can foster brand loyalty (Arya et al., 2021) Shivinski
and Dabrowski (2014) indicate that UGC takes precedence when it comes to the other
dimensions of CBBE. These have not been compared before on the same brand, making it
interesting to try the second hypothesis formulated as such: H2: Instagram feeds based
on UGC will lead to higher Brand Loyalty compared to Instagram feeds with FGC

8
Findings from Schivinski and Dabrowski (2024) study assert that FGC in SoMe
communication positively influences brand awareness/associations, whilst there is no
significant positive impact on perceived quality in contrast to UGC. Building upon this a
new hypothesis emerges positing that an Instagram feed centered around UGC will lead to
a higher perceived quality when compared to Instagram feeds featuring FGC. This
proposition introduces another dimension to the discussion, suggesting that the source of
FGC on Instagram feeds may play a crucial role in shaping perceptions of quality among
users hence leading to the third hypothesis formulated as such: H3: Instagram feeds
based on UGC will lead to higher Perceived Quality compared to Instagram feeds with
FGC

1.3 Brief summary of theoretical and managerial contributions

Through this research, the objective is to obtain a complete understanding of the precise
content featured on companies' Instagram profiles that generates the most favorable
impact on brand equity, isolating the effects of the Instagram feed to address the current
gaps in available research data on this subject. The forthcoming results will provide
insights into the effectiveness of specific content elements and offer actionable guidance
for companies in structuring their content strategy on social media. By showcasing
evidence of the most impactful strategies for building brand equity, the study seeks to
empower companies to refine their approach, ensuring a more strategic and impactful
presence on Instagram. In doing so, we aspire to contribute valuable information that
enhances the collective understanding of how Instagram content and as well as an
Instagram profile shape overall Brand Equity and provides practical implications for
companies aiming to optimize their content marketing strategy.

1.4 Limitations of the study

As mentioned before, the study will dive into the differences between UGC and FGC on
Instagram, by experimenting to analyze further which of the two is the most effective in
terms of establishing a high brand equity. Because of the time limitations, the study will
focus only on the Swedish market, specifically examining the fashion industry – targeting
a brand and content associated with this sector. The study aims to provide valuable
insights into the impact of UGC and FGC on brand equity within the context of
Instagram.

9
Our focus on the Swedish market ensures a culturally specific analysis, considering
Swedish consumers' unique preferences and behaviors. By concentrating on a single
market, we aim to capture the nuances of consumer perceptions within this geographical
context, providing a more tailored and relevant understanding of the effectiveness of
different content strategies.

The study focuses exclusively on the Instagram feed, neglecting other potential
touchpoints within the platform, such as Instagram Stories, IGTV, or Reels. While the
Instagram feed is a prominent and widely used feature, acknowledging this limitation is
crucial for understanding that user interactions and content strategies might differ across
various platform features. The choice to narrow the focus to the feed may limit the
generalizability of findings to other Instagram components.

According to the Svenskarna och Internet studies, the Swedish population born between
1990 and 2010 demonstrates the highest activity on Instagram (Svenskarna och Internet,
2023). We intend to focus our investigation on defining our target audience to ensure
effective outreach and engagement. We have narrowed the target population to individuals
born between 1995 and 2005. This decision stems from the consideration that individuals
born after 2005 would be younger than 18 years old and individuals born before 1995
older than 28. This is to narrow down and ensure a more coherent study group for our
research on consumer perspectives regarding UGC and FGC on organic social media
platforms. By targeting this demographic, we aim to obtain insights into the content
preferences and brand perceptions of a vital segment of the Instagram user base.

Furthermore, our restriction to the fashion industry allows a focused examination of

content within a specific context. Fashion is a visually driven and highly competitive
industry on social media, making it an ideal sector for studying the impact of content
strategies on brand equity. This limitation ensures that the findings are applicable and
relevant to companies operating within the fashion space, offering practical implications
for businesses in this industry.

10
2. Literature review
The literature review explores the dynamic landscape of brand equity and content
marketing, focusing on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) and digital content
marketing (DCM). Aaker's (1991) and Keller's (1993) models lay the groundwork for
understanding CBBE, covering brand awareness/associations, perceived quality, and
brand loyalty. User-generated content (UGC) and firm-generated content (FGC). UGC is
two central concepts, shaped by user participation, which signifies a move towards
authentic brand communication.

2.1 Brand Equity

Brand equity is described by Aaker (1991) as “the assets and liabilities associated with a
brand, including its name and symbol, which contribute to or detract from the value a
product or service offers to a company and/or its customers” and is a well-known term in
the marketing industry to measure the value of the brand itself. The study centers around
consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), grounded in the understanding that a brand's worth
to its customers directly correlates to its value for the brand owner and potential investors,
as highlighted by Farjam and Xu (2015). Two main frameworks are Aaker (1991) and
Keller (1993), which both conceptualize CBBE, where Keller’s model is more in regards
to consumers' feelings while Aaker’s model emphasizes recognition (Wei et al. 2023).
Keller (1993) conceptualized CBBE as a pyramid structure with four tiers, beginning at
the base with brand salience, followed by brand performance and imagery, then brand
judgments and feelings, and culminating with brand resonance at the top. This model
illustrates a straightforward principle: brands ought to develop a strong brand image by
creating ideal experiences that elicit positive emotions and thoughts, fostering enduring
customer relationships.

Brand awareness/associations is the spectrum from a vague familiarity with the brand to
the conviction that it is the leading brand in its category. The term can be understood as
the capacity for customers to identify and remember a brand as part of a specific category
and involve a connection between the brand and its product class. The significance of
awareness in contributing to brand equity varies depending on the context and level of
awareness reached (Aaker, 1991). Additionally, Brand Associations explain what is
mentally “linked” to a brand in a consumer’s memory. The concept is closely connected
to positioning and brand image but differs in the way associations do not regard
competitors as a frame of reference. Associations are more linked to salience, where the

11
goal is to rank highly in desirable attributes for the specific brand (Aaker, 1991).
Combining these factors offers an accurate insight into how customer perceptions and
mental associations can strengthen the value of a brand. As noted by Shivinski and
Dabrowski (2014), empirical evidence suggests that brand awareness and brand
associations can be merged into a specific dimension referred to as brand
awareness/associations (Yoo et al., 2000).

Perceived Quality refers to the customer’s overall perception of the quality of a

company’s products or services about its intended use and compared to alternatives. The
perception can not always be measured objectively. Hence the quality is a subjective
experience. Customers will have different judgments on different aspects of a product that
will affect the perceived quality based on their subjective values. Not to be confused with
attitude or satisfaction which can occur even with low-performance expectations and
products (Aaker, 1991).

Brand loyalty is crucial for securing future sales as it will ensure the customer will not
change to a competitor. It indicates how loyal a customer is in terms of the likelihood of
switching to another brand – mainly when changes in price or product features occur.
Brand loyalty will be influenced by the other dimensions because of their way of
reassuring customers not to try other brands (Aaker, 1991). It's essential to recognize that
similar interdependencies exist between various dimensions of brand equity. For instance,
Aaker (1991) exemplifies how perceived quality can be impacted by factors such as
awareness (a well-recognized brand name is often associated with high quality).

The study will refer Brand Equity to the model by Aaker (1991), who identified four
critical determinants for measuring brand equity: brand awareness, brand associations,
perceived quality, and brand loyalty. It will integrate brand awareness and brand
associations into a consolidated dimension, aligning with the approach established in the
previous research conducted by Schivinski and Dabrowski (2014). Integrating brand
awareness and brand associations into a unified dimension in empirical studies reflects the
intrinsic interdependence of these constructs within the consumer perceptual framework.
This methodological amalgamation acknowledges the nuanced and reciprocal relationship
between recognition and associative elements, providing a more streamlined and
comprehensive evaluation of brand equity in academic research contexts (Yoo et al.,
2000).

12
2.2 Content Marketing

Content marketing is a crucial driver of brand communication, influencing consumer

perceptions and brand image. The exploration of UGC and FGC on Instagram
underscores the strategic role of content marketing in fostering authenticity, building
brand loyalty, and adapting to the evolving dynamics of digital marketing. The concept of
digital content marketing (DCM) was introduced by Koiso-Kanttila (2004) in the sense of
marketing actions being fully digital in both entity and the delivery, and has ever since
had an increasing importance in the commercial landscape. DCM often refers to, but is
not exclusively, marketing through online channels (Rowley, 2008), which is based on
internet use. The advancements in technology and, thus, marketing have created a
two-way communication channel for brands to stay connected to existing and potential
customers. All over the world, people are now sharing their experiences online, which
forms a social transmission of content, and by leveraging this internet-based technology –
marketing actively encourages customer participation (Vinerean, 2017).

Content marketing goes beyond traditional marketing campaigns by providing customers

with value presented as information and ideas. Content marketing is known to positively
impact brand equity (Zhu, 2019), but too few studies are measuring the difference
between strategies. The value provided is achieved by publishing or syndicating various
forms of content such as text, images, videos, and other multimedia formats.
Consequently, content marketing reshapes how companies sell and communicate with
their target audience (Vinerean, 2017). Hence, Jutkowitz (2014) outlines that we are on
the cusp of a transformative era due to the influence of content marketing on brands and
organizations. Therefore, in these online environments, it is crucial that brands not rely
only on a push marketing strategy. Instead, they should encourage more interactions and
engagement from their consumers (Eldeman, 2010), making content marketing a valuable
tool for any company with an online presence. Content marketing is an integral part of
digital inbound marketing (Opreana and Vinerean, 2015), aimed at attracting potential
customers, retaining existing ones, and turning aspirational consumers into advocates by
creating valuable content that prospects find useful and which drives them to access a
website for further information or to engage with marketing offers (Vinerean, 2017).

The study aims to guide companies when making strategic decisions regarding what kind
of content they should put their resources on. Examining digital content marketing from
both the company and customer viewpoints, scholarly literature primarily discusses two
key categories: UGC and FGC (Kumar et al. 2016), which will be defined further below.

13
2.3 User-generated content (UGC)

User-generated content (UGC) encompasses the diverse ways individuals engage with
online platforms. Specifically, UGC is defined as a range of media content created by
end-users and made publicly accessible (Kaplan et al., 2010). UGC is a central feature of
the participative web, characterized by increased user participation and interaction on the
Internet. It comes in various forms, such as written, audio, and visual content generated
by internet and technology users (OECD, 2007). The concept of UGC garnered
widespread popularity around 2005 and has since evolved due to technological
advancements, economic influences, and shifts in social behaviors, particularly among the
younger generation.

In social media, UGC refers to content created by end-users and shared publicly on online
platforms. This practice aligns with the shift from traditional, one-way brand
communication to more interactive and participatory approaches (Cheung et al., 2019).
This shift is significant in the contemporary digital landscape, where consumers seek
authenticity, engagement, and a sense of community with the brands they support
(Cheung et al., 2019). Instagram, a popular platform for brand engagement, emphasizes
the importance of captivating and authentic content through its highly visual features.
Brands often feature UGC on their Instagram feeds, showcasing how customers use and
experience their products. UGC often provides a more genuine and relatable perspective,
contributing to increased consumer trust and advocacy (Aljarah et al., 2022). UGC boosts
promotion and builds lasting bonds between consumers and organizations. Encouraging
user contributions creates a two-way connection, turning consumers into active
contributors for a sense of community and shared ownership. Valuing user input fosters
loyalty, going beyond simple transactions (Nornajihah et al., 2020). UGC humanizes
brands, making them relatable. Consumers are motivated to engage with brands that
showcase real user experiences, creating authenticity. UGC is a shift from transactional to
relational marketing, fostering sustained consumer loyalty and advocacy (Azlin et al.,
2015).

The study will examine UGC in the context of companies' own Instagram accounts to see
if there is a significant impact on brand equity, as previous studies have shown (Zia, S. et
al. 2022). Our perception aligns with the idea that UGC has become a valuable tool for
companies to enhance brand communication, foster brand loyalty, and establish a more
authentic brand identity (Christodoulides et al., 2012).

14
2.4 Firm-generated content (FGC)

Contrary to UGC, we find FGC where the social media communication published is made
by the brand itself and delivered on the firm’s digital platforms (Yang et al., 2019). FGC
has been rising in popularity as an influential content tool for brands to produce diverse
formats of engaging information for their customers (Santiago et al., 2022). FCG
enhances brand visibility by effectively conveying its products and services. It also
enables firms to provide discussion-worthy topics that can foster personalized
relationships with customers. Keller (2009) has classified FGC into various marketing
communication categories, each serving distinct purposes, such as advertising,
promotions, interactive marketing, and branding. FGC positively impacts user responses
through compelling content (Djafarova, Rushworth, 2017) while also increasing brand
loyalty by fostering a greater sense of belonging and customer involvement (Kumar et al.,
2016).

In the context of social media, FGC refers to content created directly by the company, and
in this research, it pertains to content published on their official Instagram account.
Instagram, a widely used platform for brand engagement, strongly emphasizes the
importance of compelling and authentic content due to its highly visual nature. Brands
frequently share their own content on their Instagram accounts, showcasing how
customers utilize and perceive their products from the brand's perspective.

The use of FGC on social media positively influences customer behavior and works
synergistically with other marketing channels. Kumar et al.(2016) emphasize the
importance of monitoring FGC popularity, considering customer characteristics, and
integrating social media strategies with other communication channels for optimal results.
FGC, together with synergies from other marketing channels such as television
advertising and e-mail marketing, contributes to enhanced overall customer engagement
(Kumar et al. 2016).

The study will examine FGC within the context of companies' Instagram accounts to
assess if it significantly impacts brand equity, as demonstrated in prior research (Zia S. et
al., 2022).

15
3. Methodology
In our research, methodology acts as the guide through a complex landscape. The
methodology is rooted in the functionalist paradigm to navigate the complexity of
organizational research. Aligned with our goal of understanding organizational dynamics,
we adopt an objectivist ontological stance and a positivist epistemological approach for
structured, quantitative analysis. Employing a deductive method, we leverage existing
theories in a new context for objective results.

The data collection involves a strategic online experiment, employing a quantitative

questionnaire to measure the impact of user-generated content (UGC) and firm-generated
content (FGC) on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). Ethical considerations and
participant privacy are prioritized. This methodological framework, incorporating
multivariate analysis and T-tests, lays the groundwork for clarifying the complexities of
brand equity in a digital environment.

3.1 Research approach

Burrell and Morgan's model, introduced in 1979, outlines four distinct paradigms that
encapsulate the various perspectives and assumptions researchers hold regarding the
essence of organizations and the methodologies for studying them. The study uses the
functionalist research paradigm to understand how philosophical assumptions interact
with business research (Bell et al., 2022). The selection of the functionalist paradigm is
well-aligned with the study's objectives. The aim is to comprehend organizational
dynamics in a manner that facilitates practical recommendations. This choice is
particularly pertinent given the problem-solving orientation embedded in the functionalist
paradigm. This decision is informed by Burrell and Morgan's paradigmatic model, which
serves as the foundational framework for understanding how philosophical assumptions
interact with business research in the context of the study (Bell et al., 2022).

The choice of the functionalist paradigm may align well with the study's specific
objectives. If the goal is to understand the organizational dynamics in a way that leads to
practical recommendations or improvements, the problem-solving orientation of the
functionalist paradigm could be highly relevant.

When conducting social science, one must also determine the ontological position of the
study. Adopting an objectivist ontological position based on the understanding that social

16
phenomena exist independently of observers (Bell et al., 2022). This stance is grounded in
the belief that social entities like organizations and cultures have an objective reality
external to individual actors. Objectivism posits that social phenomena and their
associated meanings are separate from social actors (ibid). In the context of the study, this
means viewing organizations or cultural elements not just as constructs shaped by
individual experiences but as entities with their inherent characteristics and impacts. This
perspective aligns with the research goal of examining social phenomena as distinct,
tangible entities that exert influence independently of personal perceptions or
interpretations. When examining the difference between UGC and FGC in the perception
of the consumer, the objectivist position can help the study to form measurable and
verifiable aspects when measuring the difference between variables in the two groups of
the experiment. Not only is it useful when comparing these quantitative aspects of the
content, but also as it aligns with the aim for generalizability and to discover patterns that
could guide companies when creating their content strategy.

Underpinning by an ontological position, we must use epistemology to answer how we

should conduct the research. Using an epistemology approach will establish a theoretical
foundation that guides methodological choices and ensures the quality and validity of the
knowledge. Making the research more credible within the context (Bell et al., 2022). The
epistemological approach to the study will be positivism, as it will be based on
quantitative methods to analyze responses. The study will use scales to measure aspects of
brand equity like brand awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand
association, which is a structured and objective analysis that aligns with the positivist
approach. Positivism asserts that objective and external reality is best understood through
direct observation or measurement using survey tools. In the realm of social science, this
approach seeks to emulate the methodologies and standards of the natural sciences,
applying similar rules and procedures to conduct research (Bell et al., 2022).

3.2 Method for data collection

To answer the research question by testing the hypotheses, a quantitative study will be
performed to collect numeric data. Quantitative research, often characterized by its
preoccupation with applying measurement procedures to social phenomena, allows for a
structured and precise examination of relationships between variables. This is crucial in
the study as it seeks to objectively analyze and quantify aspects of social entities and their
impacts (Bell et al., 2022). Additionally, the generalizability of findings is a critical aspect
of quantitative research. It aims to produce results that apply to a broader population,

17
which is a desirable study outcome. The ability to generalize findings enhances the
relevance and impact of the research, contributing to the broader knowledge base in the
field (ibid).

A deductive approach has been chosen to establish the relationship between theory and
research, guided by the principles of positivism. This approach starts with a theoretical
hypothesis and then moves toward testing this hypothesis with empirical data. The theory
is used as the basis for our research, which we will test in a new context, while the
inductive approach views theory as an outcome of the study (Bell et al., 2022). Hence, the
deductive approach was the most appropriate for the study as we lean on existing theory
while testing it in a new context (ibid). It aligns with the intention to produce objective,
quantifiable results, ensuring a structured, hypothesis-driven process. The deductive
method clearly distinguishes between theory and research, enabling a focused and
methodical examination of the subject. This approach, influenced by successful studies in
the field, promises to deliver rigorous, generalizable conclusions, making it the most
suitable choice for the study. We are aware that a consequence of the deductive approach
is the fact that collected data do not always match the research questions or hypotheses
made in the outline of the study (Bell et al., 2022).

To collect data, an experiment will be employed to compare the two types of content –
UGC versus FGC. In an experimental setting, individuals are randomly assigned to
distinct groups that undergo varied treatments, with the subsequent step being the
comparison of each group's responses to these treatments (Söderlund, 2010). Because of
the good knowledge of the overall field of study, an experiment is a suitable method to
test existing theories on our specific hypotheses. The study is also narrow in its aim to
answer how the two variables affect Brand Equity, only focusing on Instagram feeds,
which is another argument for choosing this method for data collection (ibid). Due to
limitations and convenience for the respondents, the experiment will be performed in the
format of an online self-completion questionnaire (Bell et al., 2022). Time and efficiency
are some of the limitations that formed the study as an experiment in person would
require gathering two larger groups of people and ensuring the same number of
respondents were exposed to the two stimuli.

The respondents will be randomly divided into two groups who will be exposed to
pictures of Instagram feeds with only UGC or FGC. Randomly assigning subjects to these
groups further strengthens the validity of the findings by eliminating biases that might
arise from pre-existing differences between the groups (Bell et al., 2022). In the absence

18
of a survey tool that would let us send 50% of the respondents to one stimulus while the
other 50% to the second stimulus – we found another way of randomly placing the
experiment’s respondents in either group A or B. After the short introduction to the
survey (table 2.1), the first question's purpose was to divide the groups based on the
month they were born. The two options were chosen after an even and odd number of
months – where all respondents born in February/April/June/August/October/December
were determined to be group A, while all respondents born in
January/Mars/May/July/September/November were determined to be group B. The
answers to the question were linked in that way, so the respondents choosing the first
alternative (group A) were sent to the section exposing UGC, while all respondents
choosing the second alternative (group B) were sent to the other section exposing FGC.
At this point, they were unaware of how the questionnaire was examined. Hence, they had
not received any information about UGC or FGC.

Each group will see one picture of an Instagram feed manipulated with either UGC or
FGC. To make the study more realistic, a screenshot of the brand Vagabonds’s Instagram
feed (table 1.1) was taken where the pictures shown were manipulated and changed with
either only UGC or FGC. For the study a Swedish established brand using both UGC and
FGC SoMe marketing strategies was chosen, Vagabond in this case. These requirements
made it possible to create two realistic Instagram feeds with only the brands actual
content, separating UGC into one feed and FGC into the other (table 1.2-1.3). Since all
content was taken from the brand examined itself, the Instagram feeds were on-brand
giving more trustworthiness to the study together with the manipulation control at the end.
All pictures were taken from the brand's original Instagram profile but were then placed
into the new manipulated feeds.

Further, questions will ask the respondent to evaluate the consumer response concerning
the four pillars of BE; awareness/associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and
brand attitude. A Likert scale will be used for the evaluation, where 1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree. Likert scaling, frequently employed for assessing attitudes,
involves presenting respondents with a set of statements and then asking them to indicate
their level of agreement or disagreement with these statements (Bell et al., 2022).

The last item in the questionnaire was a manipulation control to see if the respondents
understood what they were exposed to. For both groups, the item and its options were
written in the same order. The item was formulated as “I believe this Instagram feed was

19
mostly made of” with option 1: content made by users/influencers and option 2: content
made by the brand without mentioning the actual terms UGC/FGC.

3.3 Empirical data

The empirical data was collected by an online self-completion questionnaire where the
respondents were shown one out of two stimuli (UGC or FGC ) and answered closed
questions regarding how they perceived the brand shown based on the content seen on the
Instagram feed. To ensure relevance and focus, the target audience comprises individuals
actively engaged on Instagram. The users relevant were those aged between 18 and 28
years old. This demographic aligns with the age group most active on Instagram
(Svenskarna & Internet, 2023). A minimum of 30 participants per group is recommended
for a robust sample size (Söderlund, 2010). Following this guideline, we aimed to reach at
least 30 respondents for each group, providing a solid foundation for the analysis. A
strategic distribution method through private Instagram stories was employed to reach the
target audience. 700 unique individuals from the specified age group were added to the
distribution list. The decision to use private Instagram stories for the survey was driven by
the intention to establish a more personalized connection and create a sense of being
chosen for participation. This strategic choice was informed by research suggesting that
approaching individuals in a more personal manner results in a higher response rate
(Mostaghel, 2023). We adapted this principle to a digital context, specifically within the
Instagram platform.

In private stories on Instagram, content can be shared with a select group of people. This
feature enabled a tailor-made survey exposed exclusively to individuals within the defined
target audience. Leveraging private stories ensured that only those belonging to the target
demographic were presented with the questionnaire. This approach adds an element of
exclusivity and personalization to the survey experience, aligning with the established
practice of enhancing participant engagement through more personalized interactions.

3.4 Method for analyzing data

Our study employs a quantitative data analysis to systematically investigate the

relationships between variables, providing a structured and precise comparison of the
impact of UGC and FGC on brand equity within the context of social media. The
variables being researched are brand associations/awareness, perceived quality, and
brand loyalty. These specific factors are key components in understanding the dynamics
of brand equity in the context of our research and will therefore be the ones measured.

20
3.4.1 Operationalization Table

Table 1: Operationalization table for the experiment

3.4.2 T-test

A t-test is a statistical method used to compare the means of two groups and determine if
there is a significant difference between them. The t-test is particularly suitable for
comparing the mean values of continuous variables. An Independent Samples T-test is a
statistical method employed to compare the means of a single group with a known or
hypothesized population average. In the context of comparing UGC and FGC, this
statistical test can be used to assess whether there is a significant difference in a particular
metric between the two content types (Tae Kyun, 2015). By applying an Independent
Samples T-test in this manner, organizations can gain insights into whether there is a
notable difference in user sentiments expressed in content generated by users as opposed
to content created by the company itself. This statistical approach provides a rigorous and
quantitative means of comparing means, helping businesses make informed decisions
based on the analysis of UGC/FGC. The goal is to determine if there is a significant
difference in engagement levels between the two content types.

3.4.3 Ordinal and Interval/Ratio

The researched variables related to brand equity include brand awareness/associations,

brand loyalty, and perceived quality. These are measured on either ordinal or interval
scales. Ordinal variables involve systematically ranked categories with unequal distances,
while interval/ratio variables have consistently equal distances between categories.
Ordinal measurement is appropriate when there is a meaningful order among categories
despite variations in the differences between them (Bell et al., 2022).

21
3.5 Discussion of methodology

In the realm of business and management research, three pivotal criteria for evaluating the
quality of studies are reliability, replicability, and validity. As the study embarks on a
quantitative research approach to investigate the impact of UGC and FGC on brand equity
within the context of social media, it becomes crucial to discuss these quality criteria in
the context of our chosen methodology.

Reliability, in the context of business research, focuses on the repeatability of study

results. It addresses the consistency of measures applied to concepts within the business
and management domain. In quantitative research, the stability of measures is of the
highest concern, ensuring that the same measures applied to concepts yield consistent
results over time (Bell et al., 2022). First and foremost, the study is built upon established
measurements from previous studies on how to measure brand equity, and all items in the
study are based on Yoo et al., 2000. It uses the Likert scale, a standardized measure, to
ensure stability and reliability in capturing participants' responses regarding brand equity
and content impact on social media. Cronbach alpha was also used to evaluate the
reliability of the independent indices, specifically measuring internal consistency or
homogeneity. This metric signifies the degree to which the individual variables within the
indices exhibit correlations with one another. A Cronbach's alpha value of 0.70 or above
is considered indicative of satisfying internal reliability (Bobko, P. 2001).

Replicability is closely linked to reliability, it concerns the ability of a study to be

replicated by other researchers. This criterion is essential for building cumulative
knowledge and ensuring the robustness of findings. Detailed procedures and
methodologies must be clearly outlined to facilitate replication (Bell et al., 2022). In the
study, the explicit inclusion of survey details, sampling criteria, and content selection
processes will enhance the replicability of the research, contributing to the credibility of
our findings from the T-test that tests the hypotheses.

Validity, arguably the most critical standard in business research, is concerned with the
integrity of conclusions drawn from a study. In the context of our research, two main
types of validity are relevant. Construct validity and internal validity, where construct
validity is primarily applicable to quantitative research, examine whether a measure
accurately captures the intended phenomenon (Bell et al., 2022). The study will use Likert
scales to measure brand equity concepts ensuring that the chosen metrics genuinely
represent the targeted constructs in BE. Internal validity refers to what extent the

22
treatment itself explains the respondents’ responses in the experiment (Söderlund, 2010).
If the study is designed in a way one can be confident in saying that the independent
variable (UGC/FGC) caused the effect on the dependent variable (BE), the study must be
said to have a high level of internal validity (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

3.6 Ethical considerations

According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) considerations must be taken to

issues such as securing the consent and privacy of respondents, minimizing potential
harm to participating individuals, avoiding any misleading practices in how researchers
present the study, ensuring participants have the freedom to choose their involvement in
the research, and responsibly managing the collected data. The questionnaire and study
ensure ethical considerations, and the anonymity and privacy of the respondents were
prioritized. To ensure the pertinence of the responses of the study while preserving
respondent anonymity and privacy, broad yet specific control questions were carefully
crafted.

Instagram is decreasing among people in upper secondary school since the younger
generation is moving towards newer social media platforms like Snapchat, Roblox, and
YouTube, Sweden's most popular social media platforms of 2023 (Svenskarna & internet
2023). Among Instagram users, people born 90-00 are the majority (ibid). When doing an
experimental study, it is also crucial that the respondents do it voluntarily and not forced
in any way, as one of the ethical considerations when doing experiments with humans
(Söderlund, 2010). Hence, it was made clear when sharing the link to the experiment that
participation is appreciated but not forced or a must in any case.

23
4. Results
In this chapter, we will present the research results of our experiment. First, we will
disclose the descriptive statistics, such as the demographics of the population and the
tested variables. Then, we will disclose the results of reliability, such as Cronbach’s Alpha
and the T-test to see if our hypothesis were to be accepted or rejected.

4.1 Demographics

4.1.1 Response rate

The questionnaire had a total of 186 valid answers out of 280 that visited the link to the
survey, which was shared on the researchers' Instagram accounts as a story for their
filtering function “close friends”. Stories were published for 700 people who could see
this story for 24 hours only, resulting in a total response rate of 26,5%.

4.1.2 Demographics

Table 2: Boxplot on the age distribution in group 1 and 2

In our demographic analysis, we gathered information about the age and gender
distribution of our respondents. Among the 186 respondents, we observed a diverse range
of ages, with a mean of ≈ 23 years old. The most represented age group was 23 years old,
consisting of 69 individuals, which accounted for 37.1% of the total respondents. The

24
next most significant group was 22 years old, with 42 participants, representing 22.6% of
the sample. Furthermore, 21-year-olds had 18 respondents, making up 9.7% of the total.
The remaining age groups, from 18 to 28 years old, had varying levels of representation,
with the smallest group being 28 years old, consisting of 4 individuals, or 2.2% of the
sample. In total, the cumulative distribution indicates that 86.6% of respondents were
aged 24 years or younger. In terms of gender, found that among the 186 participants, 124
identified as female and made up 66.7% of the total respondents. The remaining 62
respondents identified as male, making up 33.3% of the sample (table 3.1). This
distribution illustrates a clear gender imbalance in our study, with a higher proportion of
female respondents.

4.2 Reliability

4.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

To test the internal reliability, we conducted a Cronbach’s Alpha test because of the
multiple-item questions for each variable. It is essential to see that all items share a
meaningful connection to avoid any lack of coherence among the different indicators.
Cronbach's alpha was conducted on each of the variables separately but for both groups
together. Brand loyalty consisting of 3 items generated the results of 0,817, perceived
quality consisting of 6 items resulted in 0,422, and brand awareness/associations
consisting of 6 items provided us with the results of 0,382, while brand attitude resulted
in 0,872. Summarized, the cronbach’s alpha were widely spread with both high and low
scores.

4.3 Descriptive Statistics

4.3.1 UGC – Dependent Variables

In the realm of UGC, the arranged data illustrates that 91 participants were subjected to
this experiment segment (table 3.2). Identical to the FGC segment, the same variables and
interrogative framework were administered in this context, utilizing the Likert scale
ranging from 1 to 5. For the brand loyalty variable, the statistical results indicate a
minimum score of 1, a maximum of 4,33, a mean of 2,1282, and a standard deviation of
0,82965. For perceived quality, the minimum score was 2,17, the maximum was 4,33, the
mean was 3,3114, and the standard deviation was 0,48062. Brand awareness/associations
ranged from a minimum of 1,67 and a maximum of 4,17, with a mean of 3,1374 and a
standard deviation of 0,52269. Regarding the fourth variable, brand attitude, the scores

25
varied from a minimum of 1,33 and a maximum of 5, a mean of 3,4322, and a standard
deviation of 0,78488.

4.3.2 FGC – Dependent Variables

The dependent variables measured in the experiment were brand loyalty, perceived
quality, brand awareness/associations, and brand attitude. As mentioned, each variable
was assessed using Likert-scale questions ranging from 1 to 5. As we can see in the table,
95 individuals were exposed to the FGC segment of the experiment (table 3.3). For the
Brand Loyalty variable, the statistical results indicated a minimum score of 1, a maximum
of 5, a mean of 2.1439, and a standard deviation of 0.88946. For perceived quality, the
minimum score was 2, the maximum was 4.33, the mean was 3.2807, and the standard
deviation was 0.43777. Brand awareness/associations ranged from a minimum of 1.67 to
a maximum of 4.33, with a mean of 3.1719 and a standard deviation of 0.57399.
Regarding brand attitude, the scores varied from a minimum of 1.67 to a maximum of 5.
The mean was 3.4175, and the standard deviation was 0.68065.

4.4.3 Manipulation control

Out of the 95 respondents in the FGC group, a majority of 74 individuals, which accounts
for approximately 77.9%, believed that the Instagram feed they were evaluating was
primarily made by FGC. In contrast, 21 respondents, or 22.1%, thought the feed was
primarily made by the UGC. This indicates that a significant portion of the FGC
respondents understood what kind of content they saw on the Instagram account. On the
contrary – of the 91 respondents in the UGC group, the majority, specifically 69
individuals, corresponding to 75.8%, believed that the Instagram feed they assessed was
predominantly created by the UGC. On the other hand, 22 respondents, or approximately
24.2%, thought that the feed was mostly made by the FGC (3.4-3.5). Hence, almost
one-fourth of each group did not recognize what kind of content they were exposed to.

4.4 Hypothesis Testing

In the analysis comparing the UGC (group 1) and FGC (group 2) on various variables, we
conducted two t-tests to see whether there was a difference between groups. The
mathematical formula can be understood as Mugc = the mean of UGC, Mfgc = the mean of
FGC.

26
4.4.1 T-test

Next, we conducted an Independent Samples T-test to compare the means of the two
groups for each variable. The t-test results for brand awareness/associations, brand
loyalty, perceived quality, and brand attitude did not reveal statistically significant
differences between the two groups (table 3.8).

To investigate H1, we performed an independent sample t-test to assess the impact of

content type (Instagram feed with UGC or FGC) on brand awareness/associations. Results
indicated that the brand awareness/associations were not significantly higher after
exposure to the feed with UGC than FGC (Mugc=3.1374, Mfgc=3.1719; t(184) = -0.429, p =
0,669), providing no support for H1.

To address H2, the exact independent samples t-test was conducted for the second
hypothesis to assess the impact of content type (Instagram feed with UGC or FGC) on
brand loyalty. Similar results showed no significant difference between the two groups
(Mugc=3.1374, Mfgc=3.1719; t(184) = -0.124, p = 0,901), providing no support for H2.

Finally, the third hypothesis is to assess the impact of content type (Instagram feed with
UGC or FGC) on perceived quality. The last hypotheses did not show significant
differences between the groups (Mugc=3.3114, Mfgc=3.2807; t(184) = 0,455, p = 0,650),
providing no support for H3.

To summarize the result of the t-test, the p-values for variables were greater than 0.05,
indicating that there were no significant mean differences between the UGC and FGC
groups for these variables. These results suggest that, on average, both groups had similar
perceptions and attitudes in these aspects.

4.4.2 Additional testing – t-test with manipulation control

As all the hypotheses were rejected, a second t-text was conducted with only the
respondents who passed the manipulation control (table 3.10). The statement was framed
as follows: "I believe this Instagram feed primarily consisted of," with two options: option
1, which is content generated by users and influencers, and option 2, content created by
the brand. Among the 95 participants in the group not explicitly named, a significant
majority, totaling 74 individuals or about 77.9%, thought that the Instagram feed they
were reviewing was primarily composed of content from option 1. Among the 91
respondents in the other group, the majority, specifically 69 individuals or approximately

27
75.8%, believed that the Instagram feed they were examining was primarily content from
option 2.

To investigate H1, we performed an independent sample t-test to assess the impact of

content type (Instagram feed with UGC or FGC) on brand awareness/associations.
Results indicated that the brand awareness/associations were not significantly higher after
exposure to the feed with UGC than FGC (Mugc=3,1353, Mfgc=3.1914; t(141) = -0,617. p =
0,538, providing no support for H1.

To address H2, the exact independent samples t-test was conducted for the second
hypothesis to assess the impact of content type (Instagram feed with UGC or FGC) on
brand loyalty. Similar results showed no significant difference between the two groups
(Mugc=2,1304, Mfgc=2,1847; t(141) = -0,379, p = 0,706), providing no support for H2.

Finally, the third hypothesis is to assess the impact of content type (Instagram feed with
UGC or FGC) on perceived quality. The last hypotheses did not show significant
differences between the groups (Mugc=3,2778, Mfgc=3,2850; t(141) = -0,104, p = 0,917),
providing no support for H3.

The additional t-test with only the respondents who passed the manipulation control still
showed the same results as the first one did – still rejecting all the hypotheses.

28
5. Discussion
Our analysis, comparing user-generated content (UGC) and firm-generated content (FGC)
on various variables, involved t-tests to assess the difference between the two groups. The
results showed no significant differences in brand loyalty, perceived quality, awareness
associations, or brand attitude; the hypotheses predicting the impact of UGC and FGC on
these variables were rejected. An additional T-test was conducted with the manipulation
control, which also confirmed these findings. The discussion will address internal validity
concerns and explore the potential influence of the brand on results, concluding with
practical considerations for businesses in choosing between UGC and FGC.

5.1 Discussion of result

The first thing to be discussed from our research and collected data is the study's internal
validity and the fact that the results might not only be caused by the treatment itself
(pictures with UGC or FGC). As the treatment shown for the respondents was a
screenshot of the company Vagabond’s Instagram feed, the brand was also visible to see.
There is a possibility that the respondents were more prone to answer the questionnaire
based on the brand they saw – and not entirely based on the content shown in the
Instagram feed. If so, this could explain why there is no significant difference between the
two groups if the brand and not the treatment influenced them. As the groups were
randomized, the result will likely become the same if the internal validity leads to the
brand involuntarily becoming the treatment. In the case of low internal validity, we cannot
generalize these results further on an external level (Söderlund, 2010). Regarding the
attitude towards the brand, the mean was shifting from 1-5 where people have very
different opinions about the brand and do not have a significant difference between the
groups. Hence, we suggest these findings might also align with the statement above.

The effect of the brand itself might be a reason for the rejected hypothesis but can not be
fully explained. This, however, was an expected outcome of the study that the
respondents, to some degree, might have been affected by the brand shown in the
treatment. During the first phase of the experiment, we thought about how to conduct the
treatment most accurately and considered two other options for exposing the different
content types in the experiment. The two possibilities were either to create a fictional
brand or simply anonymize the brand by removing any trademarks such as logos that
revealed the brand in the treatment. These options would though lead to other difficulties
in regards to the measurement of brand equity, as both the variables brand loyalty and

29
brand awareness/association would be hard to determine if the respondents did not have
any connections to the brand at all.

Another more convincing discussion about the rejected results can be done in regard to
the previous studies and how the existing theories are not yet focused on our specific field
of research. Prior research conducted by Shivinski and Dabrowski (2014) as well s Poulis
et al. (2019) has highlighted the distinct impacts of two SoMe strategies, UGC and FGC,
and their different impacts on companies' CBBE and their dimensions: brand loyalty,
perceived quality, and brand awareness/associations. As previously mentioned, our study
builds on these findings and aims to contribute additional insights by conducting an
experiment that specifically compares the effects of UGC and FGC on a brand’s
Instagram profile and its feed. Contrary to the outcomes observed in prior studies, our
statistical results did not align with the established research leading to our tested
hypotheses being rejected. This dissonance could be attributed to the fact that our
investigation and experiment delve into a new gap and niched context within UGC and
FGC marketing: the examination of published image content on a company's Instagram
profile, focusing on their feed. Our lower results from the Cronbach's alpha can also be
seen as a sign of this, as the items used are well established measurements that normally
have a good reliability. When considering the rejection of our hypothesis it is therefore
important to have in mind the distinction of research methods and the specific category of
UGC and FGC being researched between our conducted experiment and the
aforementioned research. This previously unexplored aspect of UGC and FGC focusing
on the owned Instagram feed may introduce a new dimension not covered by existing
theories, leading to a divergence in results between our study and earlier research despite
our questionnaire structure aligning with a previous study conducted by Yoo et al.,
(2000).

The respondents did also understand, in the majority of cases, what kind of content they
were exposed to. Approximately ¾ of all respondents correctly identified whether they
were viewing UGC or FGC in the Instagram feed shown as the treatment. This
manipulation control was placed after the variables to decrease the potential of
respondents being influenced by this last item (Söderlund, 2010). Our results can be
understood as how successful the manipulation was, where the audience was rather
well-educated about the field. A reason for this can be the respondents' demographic as all
were of the same age that is used to connect with brands through social media. Since we
used a convenient sampling to collect the respondents, these were all people in our
existing network and could be more educated in the field than the average citizen due to

30
our education. It is worth considering the potential impact of incorporating multiple
variables in experimental research. The inclusion of more than one variable in an
experiment can diminish the individual impact of each variable on the respondents. This
aligns with the principle that increasing the number of factors being tested may lead to a
dilution of the effects, making it challenging to recognize changes in respondent behavior
to a specific variable (Söderlund, 2010). Involving more than one variable comes from the
desire to capture the complexity inherent in real-world scenarios of social media
interactions. The challenge lies in finding the right balance. While a broader view was
chosen when making the study, it's crucial to acknowledge that too many variables might
lessen the precision of our results. This is something that needs to be highlighted, as it
may have contributed to neutralizing our results and preventing the anticipated effects
outlined in our hypotheses. On the other hand, applying multiple variables will provide a
more comprehensive understanding.

5.2 Practical Discussion of Content Marketing Strategies

In the second part of our discussion, we discuss the practical implications of our research
findings in guiding companies through the decision-making process of selecting between
UGC and FGC. While our analysis has revealed that the choice between UGC and FGC
may not be a decisive factor, there are still crucial aspects that businesses should consider
when crafting their content marketing strategy.

One factor to justify is the cost associated with content creation. UGC is generally more
cost-effective, as it often involves collaboration with consumers or fans who willingly
contribute without financial compensation (Mehta, 2023). On the other hand, FGC allows
companies to have complete control over the content but at a potentially higher cost. The
question arises: How can companies optimize and reduce costs associated with FGC?
Exploring efficient content creation processes and tools may offer solutions.

Having control over the brand image is a constant concern in content marketing. While
UGC provides authenticity, it hands over the control to a certain extent. Reversed, FGC
allows for accurate brand management but at the expense of perceived authenticity.
Moreover, the differentiation factor comes into play – UGC may result in more generic
content, whereas FGC enables companies to carve out a distinct brand identity. The
challenge is to balance control and authenticity in dealing with the company's overall
marketing objectives. The influencer dynamic introduces a nuance to the UGC-FGC
debate. UGC connected to influencers may risk the brand becoming overly influenced by

31
the personalities involved. Therefore, carefully selecting UGC, especially when
influencers are part of the equation. It is crucial to select influencers whose style aligns
with the brand ethics to ensure a harmonious integration that does not interfere with the
brand's identity.

Moreover, the choice between UGC and FGC is not just about cost or control; it also
involves managing brand perception and potential risks. Extensive use of UGC may lead
to the brand being perceived as an "Influencer brand," where influencers hold substantial
influence over the brand image. In contrast, FGC might communicate a more corporate or
controlled image. Balancing these approaches is critical for crafting a content marketing
strategy that resonates with the target audience. Finally, the decision between UGC and
FGC should align with the company's strategic goals. Understanding the target audience,
brand positioning, and marketing objectives is crucial. Whether aiming for authenticity
and community engagement through UGC or accurate brand control with FGC, the
chosen strategy should seamlessly integrate with the broader business strategy.

32
6. Conclusion
The study aims to compare user-generated content and firm-generated in customer-based
brand equity. We aimed to answer our research questions: What is the most effective
content strategy between user-generated content and firm-generated content to build
consumer-based brand equity? y using previous theories about brand equity, UGC and
FGC. These theories will be placed in a new context where the feed on brands-owned
Instagram profiles is being examined to understand what content strategy should be
chosen on Instagram as a SoMe channel.

Previous research conducted by Schivinski and Dabrowski (2014) and a study made by
Poulis et al. (2019) shows that UGC and FGC have different impacts on the dimensions of
CBBE. To build upon this research, we conducted an experiment with the two types of
content to see whether a brand can be viewed differently depending on what content they
share in their Instagram feed. An experimental design was chosen to be able to distinguish
the potential difference of variables connected to brand equity; brand loyalty, perceived
quality, and brand awareness/associations.

The study resulted in the hypotheses being rejected, showing no significant difference in
brand equity between UGC versus FGC Instagram feeds. Therefore, results indicate that
brands should not be affected in terms of brand loyalty, perceived quality, or brand
awareness/associations when creating their content marketing strategy for their social
media profiles. Our findings will help companies guide them in whether to spend money
on creating their content or use content from their users or influencers for their owned
Instagram. The choice between UGC or FGC doesn’t seem to have a significant effect,
leaving the brands with more options to choose what strategy would suit their other goals
the most.

6.1 Further Research and Recommendations

Our research focuses on the analysis of published image content within an Instagram
profile surrounding UGC versus FGC, emphasizing the arrangement of multiple pictures
concerning one another. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the context we
consider the option of exploring deeper into an alternative perspective that includes the
investigation of visual communication, visual elements, and semiotics. This could explore
the interplay between the visual components within the pictures in the profile, and
highlight the importance and meaning through the organization and composition of

33
images, whether UGC or FGC. By adopting this particular approach we suggest that
separating the Instagram feed and its content by analyzing it on its own with visual
communication, visual elements, and semiotics away from the direct influence of the
brand featured in the profile being examined could lead to other results. This approach
could potentially create a scenario where the content is exposed more isolatedly, allowing
it to stand out on its own rather than being shaped by the brand's visual presence in the
profile and its associations, which happened in our study and affected our results.

Future research could therefore explore the intersection of visual semiotics and content
strategy – investigating how visual elements such as colors, symbols, and images convey
meanings in both UGC and FGC can provide insights into how they influence consumer
perceptions of brand equity. For instance, an analysis could be conducted on the use of
colors and symbols in UGC versus FGC, examining how these elements align or diverge
from the brand's intended message. Additionally, a longitudinal analysis of content
strategy could be taken to examine how the impact of content strategy on brand equity
evolves. Tracking changes in consumer perceptions as brands shift between UGC and
FGC in their Instagram feeds would consider the dynamics of audience engagement and
cultural trends. This longitudinal approach could reveal patterns, trends, and potential
shifts in consumer attitudes towards UGC and FGC. Extending the study to a qualitative
analysis of visual elements could complement quantitative data by delving deeper into the
meanings behind visual elements. Conducting interviews or focus groups with
participants to explore their subjective experiences and perceptions and asking
open-ended questions about specific visual elements in UGC and FGC can provide richer
insights into the nuanced ways these elements contribute to brand perception.

Expanding the study further can involve analyzing the impact of content strategy across
various social media channels beyond Instagram. Investigating whether the effectiveness
of UGC and FGC varies on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok could provide a
more comprehensive view of content strategy's impact on brand equity. By taking into
account the distinctive features on each SoMe platform, businesses can collect valuable
insights into the varied effectiveness of content strategies. This could consequently lead to
comprehension not only on content creation but also on how businesses can tailor their
SoMe strategies for a maximum impact on diverse audiences on diverse platforms.
Ultimately extending these deeper insights can empower businesses to strengthen their
brand equity while fostering stronger connections with their customers hence driving
sustained success in the continuously evolving digital landscape.

34
References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York.

Aljarah, A., Sawaftah, D., Ibrahim, B., & Lahuerta-Otero, E. (2022). The differential
impact of user-and firm-generated content on online brand advocacy: customer
engagement and brand familiarity matter. European Journal of Innovation Management.

Anderson, C.A. & Brushman, B.J. (1997) “External validity of trivial experiments: The
case of laboratory aggression”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 20.

Arya, V., Paul, J., & Sethi, D. (2021). Like it or not! Brand communication on social
networking sites triggers consumer‐based brand equity. International Journal of
Consumer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12763

Azlin Zanariah Bahtar, Mazzini Muda (2015) The Impact of User–Generated Content
(UGC) on Product Reviews towards Online Purchasing – A Conceptual Framework

Bobko, P. (2001). Correlation and regression: Principles and Applications for

Industrial/Organizational psychology and management (2:an upplagan). Series
Organizational research methods. London: Sage Publications Inc.

Boerman, Sophie C., Eva A. van Reijmersdal, Esther Rozendaal, and Alexandra L. Dima.
(2018). ―Development of the Persuasion Knowledge Scales of Sponsored Content
(PKS-SC). International Journal of Advertising 37 (5): 671–697

Bryman, Alan; Bell, Emma & Harley, Bill (2019). Business research methods. 5. ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press

Chan, F. A Study of Social Media Influencers and Impact on “Consumer Buying

Behaviour in the United Kingdom”. International Journal of Business & Management
Studies ISSN 2694-1430 (Print), 2694-1449 (Online) Volume 03; Issue no 07: July 2022

Chen, X., & Qasim, H. (2020). Does E‐Brand experience matter in the consumer market?
Explaining the impact of social media marketing activities on consumer‐based brand
equity and love. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(5), 1065–1077.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1915

35
Cheung, M. L., Pires, G. D., & Rosenberger III, P. J. (2019). Developing a conceptual
model for examining social media marketing effects on brand awareness and brand image.
International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 17(3), 243-261.

Christodoulides, G. (2010). Consumer-Based Brand Equity Conceptualisation and

Measurement: A Literature Review. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1),
pp.43-66.

Corrêa, S.C.H., Soares, J.L., Christino, J.M.M., Gosling, M.de S. and Gonçalves, C.A.
(2020), “The influence of YouTubers on followers' use intention”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 173-194, doi: 10.1108/JRIM-09-2019-0154.

Diwanji, V. S., & Cortese, J. (2020). Contrasting user generated videos versus brand
generated videos in ecommerce. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, Article
102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102024

Djafarova, E. and Rushworth, C. (2017), “Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’

Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 1-7.

Eldeman, D., 2010. Branding in the digital age. Harvard Business Review.

Farjam, S. and Xu, H. (2015), “Reviewing the concept of brand equity and evaluating
consumer-based brand equity (cbbe) models”, The International Journal of Management
Science and Business Administration, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 14-29, doi:
10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.18.1002.

Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M. S., & Madden, T. J. (2016). The influence of social
media interactions on consumer–brand relationships: A three-country study of brand
perceptions and marketing behaviors. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
33(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.06.004

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

36
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi:
10.1177/002224299305700101.

Keller, K.L. (2009), “Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications

environment”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2-3, pp. 139-155, doi:
10.1080/13527260902757530.

Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer
equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research,
65(10), 1480-1486.

Koiso-Kanttila, N. (2004), “Digital content marketing”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, pp.45-65.

Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V., & Saunders, J. A. (2005). Principles of marketing.
Fourth edition.

Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). From
Social to Sale: The Effects of Firm-Generated Content in Social Media on Customer
Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 7-25.

Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009). Social media: the new hybrid element of the
promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357-65.

Mehta, Jimit (2023 Nov 17) The benefits of user-generated content for growth. Collected
24.01.08 from: https://abmatic.ai/blog/benefits-of-user-generated-content-for-growth

OECD, 2007, “Participative Web and User-Created Content WEB 2.0”, WIKIS AND
SOCIAL NETWORKING

Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah, Zuraidah Sulaiman, Adaviah Mas’od (2020)

User-Generated Content Sources: The Use Of Social Media In Motivating Sustainable
Luxury Fashion Consumptions

Opreana, 2013. Examining Online Shopping Services in Relation to Experience and

Frequency of Using Internet Retailing. Expert Journal of Marketing, 1(1), pp.17-27.

37
Paper Series A. Gdansk (Poland): Gdansk University of Technology, Faculty of
Management and Economics, 4(4), 1–20

Poulis, A., Rizomyliotis, I. and Konstantoulaki, K. 2019. Do firms still need to be social?
Firm Generated Content in social media. Information Technology and People. 32 (2), pp.
387-404.

Rachna, M. and Khajuria, L. (2017). A Study of User-Generated Content on Social

Networking Sites and its Impact on Consumer-Based Brand Equity Constructs. Global
Journal of Management and Business Research: E Marketing, 17(1), pp.1-8

Rowley, J. (2008). Understanding digital content marketing. Journal of marketing

management, 24(5-6), 517-540.

Santiago, J., Borges-Tiago, M. T., & Tiago, F. (2022). Is firm-generated content a lost
cause?. Journal of Business Research, 139, 945-953.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business
Students. Pearson, New York.

SCB, Statistiska Centralbyrån (2019). Share of enterprises using social media to…
Collected: 2023-11-14.
https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/business-activities/struct
ure-of-the-business-sector/ict-usage-in-enterprises/pong/tables-and-graphs/aldre-tabeller-
och-diagram-som-inte-uppdateras/share-of-enterprises-using-social-media-to/

Schivinski, B., & Dąbrowski, D. (2013). The Impact of Brand Communication on Brand
Equity Dimensions and on Brand Purchase Intention Through Facebook. GUT FME
Working

Shahbaznezhad, H., Dolan, R., & Rashidirad, M. (2021). The Role of Social Media
Content Format and Platform in Users’ Engagement Behavior. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 53, 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.05.001

Svenskar och Internet, Internetstiftelsen (2023). Sociala medier, Instagram.

38
Söderlund, Magnus (2010). Experiment med människor. 1. uppl. Malmö: Liber

Tae Kyun Kim, (2015). T test as a parametric statistic, Korean Journal of Anesthesiology,
p. 540 - 546.

Tuten, T. L. (2023). Social media marketing. Sage Publications Limited.

Vinerean, S. (2017). Content marketing strategy. In Content marketing strategy: Vinerean,

Simona.

Wei, L. H., Huat, O. C., & Thurasamy, R. (2023). The impact of social media
communication on consumer-based brand equity and purchasing intent in a pandemic.
International Marketing Review.

Yang, Z., Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y., Chao, H. and Doong, S. (2019), “Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications Bipolar influence of firm-generated content on
customers ’ offline purchasing behavior: a field experiment in China”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 35 March, 100844, doi:
10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100844.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N. and Lee, S. (2000), “An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.

Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Elvira Ismagilova, D. Laurie Hughes, Jamie Carlson, Raffaele Filieri,
Jenna Jacobson, Varsha Jain, Heikki Karjaluoto, Hajer Kefi, Anjala S. Krishen, Vikram
Kumar, Mohammad M. Rahman, Ramakrishnan, Raman, Philipp A. Rauschnabel,
Jennifer Rowley, Jari Salo, Gina A. Tran, Yichuan Wang, 2021, Volume 59, “Setting the
future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research
propositions” , International Journal of Information Management

Zia, S., Khan, A., Tufail, M. M. B., Ismat, J., & Idrees, A. (2022). Impact of social media
marketing on consumer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing Strategies, 4(1),
120-139.

Zhu, X. (2019, March). Research on the impact of content marketing on brand equity. In
International Academic Conference on Frontiers in Social Sciences and Management
Innovation (IAFSM 2018) (pp. 230-235). Atlantis Press.

39
Appendix

1. Stimulus

1.1 Orginal screenshot of Vagabond’s Instagram

40
1.2 UGC – Manipulated Instagram feed

41
1.3 FGC – Manipulated Instagram feed

42
2. Questionnaire

2.1 First-page

43
2.2 Items in the questionnaire – same for both groups

44
45
46
3. Results

3.1 Demographics

3.2 UGC – Dependent Variables

47
 3.3 FGC – Dependent Variables

3.4 UGC – Manipulation

3.5 FGC – Manipulation

3.6 Cronbach's Alpha

Brand Loyalty Percieved Quality Brand Awareness/Associations Brand Attitude

48
3.7 Descriptive statistics comparison

3.8 T-test

3.9 Descriptive statistics comparison

49
3.10 Additional t-test

50