Influencing COBRAs: the effects of brand equity on the consumer’s propensity to engage with brand-related content on social media

Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2021

Bruno Schivinski, Daan G. Muntinga, Halley M. Pontes, Przemyslaw Lukasik

Journal of Strategic Marketing, volume 29, issue 1, pages 1–23, 2021 (online February 2019)

  • 414 social media users
  • 51 brands
  • Structural equation mixture modelling
  • Poland
Download the accepted manuscript (PDF)Published version

Free full text: the authors’ accepted manuscript, identical in content to the published article. Please cite the published version.

Keywords
  • consumer-based brand equity
  • online brand-related activities
  • COBRAs
  • social media
  • engagement
  • online consumer behaviour
  • consumer brand engagement
  • behavioural engagement
  • social media brand engagement
  • brand-related social media content
  • user-generated content
  • electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)
  • content consumption, contribution and creation
  • brand loyalty
  • brand associations
  • perceived quality
  • brand awareness
  • social media marketing
  • Aaker brand equity model
  • hierarchy of effects
  • theory of reasoned action
  • negativity effect
  • prospect theory
  • CEBSC scale
  • Poland
  • social media users
  • structural equation mixture modelling
  • higher-order factor model
  • confirmatory factor analysis
  • robust maximum likelihood (MLR)
  • Mplus
  • survey research
  • social media strategy
  • brand management
  • brand equity measurement
  • online reputation management

Brand equity drives how much consumers read, share and create brand content on social media, and brand loyalty is its strongest driver. In a survey of 414 social media users in Poland following 51 brands, lower perceived quality went with more reading and commenting, not less.

Key findings

  1. Overall brand equity drives engagement with brand content. In a survey of 414 social media users in Poland, each rating one of 51 brands they followed, overall consumer-based brand equity increased overall engagement with brand-related social media content (β = 0.30, t = 5.24, p < .001), controlling for age, gender and social media usage (Schivinski et al., 2021).
  2. Brand loyalty is the only dimension that drives content creation. Brand loyalty increased the consumption (β = 0.33), contribution (β = 0.32) and creation (β = 0.32) of brand-related social media content, all p < .001; it was the only brand equity dimension with a significant effect on creating content (Schivinski et al., 2021).
  3. Brand associations drive reading and commenting, not creating. Brand associations increased the consumption (β = 0.21, p < .001) and contribution (β = 0.13, p < .05) of brand-related social media content, but had no effect on its creation (p = .96) (Schivinski et al., 2021).
  4. Lower perceived quality goes with more engagement. Perceived quality had a negative effect on the consumption of brand-related social media content (β = −0.13, t = −2.87) and a weaker, marginal negative effect on contribution (β = −0.11, t = −1.78, p < .10), and no effect on creation; the study did not measure whether this engagement was positive or negative (Schivinski et al., 2021).
  5. Brand equity dimensions follow a learning sequence. Brand awareness increased brand associations (β = 0.36) and perceived quality (β = 0.35), which in turn increased brand loyalty (β = 0.26 and β = 0.52), all p < .001, supporting a cognitive–affective–conative structure of consumer-based brand equity (Schivinski et al., 2021).
  6. Younger consumers engage more. Age had a negative effect on overall engagement with brand-related social media content (β = −0.09, p < .05), and on consumption (β = −0.16) and contribution (β = −0.08) at the dimension level (Schivinski et al., 2021).

At a glance

Design
Cross-sectional online survey (Qualtrics); confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation mixture modelling in Mplus 7.2 (robust maximum likelihood), with brands as latent classes
Participants
414 valid questionnaires from 489 social media users in Poland (59.7% women; 47.6% aged 22–25; 45.4% online 2–4 hours a day), recruited on social media channels, online forums and discussion groups, with no incentive
Brands
51 brands across industries and product categories (e.g. Pepsi, Zara, Chanel, Apple); each respondent rated one brand they had actively followed on social media for at least four months
Measures
Brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty (3 items each; Christodoulides et al., 2015; 1–7 agreement); consumption (5 items), contribution (6) and creation (6) of brand-related social media content (CEBSC scale; Schivinski et al., 2016; 0 = not at all, 1–7 frequency); Polish, back-translated
Models
Macro: higher-order CBBE predicting higher-order COBRAs. Micro: the four brand equity dimensions in sequence, predicting each of the three COBRAs. Controls: age, gender, social media usage
Model fit
CFA: MLR χ²(539) = 1122.36, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05. Macro model: χ²(654) = 1355.82, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05. Micro model: χ²(640) = 1522.45, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

MACRO-RELATIONSHIP PERSPECTIVEMICRO-RELATIONSHIP PERSPECTIVEH1Brand awarenessBrand associationsPerceived qualityBrand loyaltyCBBECOBRAsConsumptionContributionCreationBrandsControl variablesAge · GenderSocial media usageH2aH2bH2cH2dH3aH3bH3cH4aH4bH4cH5aH5bH5cBrandawarenessBrandassociationsBrandloyaltyPerceivedqualityConsumptionContributionCreationBrandsControl variablesAge · GenderSocial media usage
Macro-relationship perspective (top): overall consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) predicts overall consumers' online brand-related activities (COBRAs). Micro-relationship perspective (bottom): the four brand equity dimensions in sequence, each predicting consumption, contribution and creation. The Brands circle and dashed line show the random part of the structural equation mixture model.

Figure 2. Parameter estimates for the final structural models

MACRO-RELATIONSHIP PERSPECTIVEMICRO-RELATIONSHIP PERSPECTIVEλ = 0.32***λ = 0.85***λ = 0.71***λ = 0.93***λ = 0.65***λ = 0.92***λ = 0.77***β = 0.30***Brand awarenessBrand associationsPerceived qualityBrand loyaltyCBBECOBRAsConsumptionContributionCreationBrandsControl variablesAge: β = −0.09**Gender: n.s.Social media usage: n.s.β = 0.36***β = 0.35***0.26***0.52***0.21***0.13**n.s.0.33***0.32***0.32***−0.13***−0.11*n.s.BrandawarenessBrandassociationsBrandloyaltyPerceivedqualityConsumptionContributionCreationBrandsConsumptionAge: −0.16***Gender: −0.09**SM usage: 0.11**ContributionAge: −0.08**Gender: −0.10**SM usage: n.s.CreationAge: n.s.Gender: −0.14***SM usage: n.s.
Standardised loadings (λ) and path coefficients (β), N = 414. *** p < .001, ** p < .05, * p < .10; n.s. = not significant (dashed grey). Gender coded female = 1.

Tables

Table 1. Standardised structural coefficients of the model

Path β t p Result
Macro-relationship perspective
H1. Overall CBBE → overall COBRAs 0.30 5.24 *** Supported
Gender → overall COBRAs −0.06 −1.18 0.23
Age → overall COBRAs −0.09 −2.10 **
Social media usage → overall COBRAs 0.06 1.19 0.23
Micro-relationship perspective
H2a. Brand awareness → brand associations 0.36 4.87 *** Supported
H2b. Brand awareness → perceived quality 0.35 5.55 *** Supported
H2c. Brand associations → brand loyalty 0.26 3.45 *** Supported
H2d. Perceived quality → brand loyalty 0.52 5.92 *** Supported
H3a. Brand associations → consumption 0.21 3.21 *** Supported
H3b. Brand associations → contribution 0.13 2.14 ** Supported
H3c. Brand associations → creation 0.03 0.04 0.96 Not supported
H4a. Brand loyalty → consumption 0.33 4.63 *** Supported
H4b. Brand loyalty → contribution 0.32 5.13 *** Supported
H4c. Brand loyalty → creation 0.32 5.63 *** Supported
H5a. Perceived quality → consumption −0.13 −2.87 *** Supported
H5b. Perceived quality → contribution −0.11 −1.78 * Supported
H5c. Perceived quality → creation −0.09 −0.97 0.24 Not supported
Gender → consumption −0.09 −1.91 **
Gender → contribution −0.10 −1.94 **
Gender → creation −0.14 −2.60 ***
Age → consumption −0.16 −3.72 ***
Age → contribution −0.08 −2.01 **
Age → creation −0.06 −1.52 0.12
Social media usage → consumption 0.11 2.10 **
Social media usage → contribution 0.06 1.24 0.21
Social media usage → creation 0.01 0.23 0.82

Macro model (higher-order structural equation mixture model): MLR χ²(654) = 1355.82, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05 [90% CI 0.05–0.06]. Micro model (lower-order structural equation mixture model): MLR χ²(640) = 1522.45, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05 [90% CI 0.05–0.06]. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10. Gender (ref: female = 1); n = 414. The slope in the regression of COBRAs on CBBE was allowed to vary across brands in both models.

Table A1. Scale items: factor loadings, explained variance and descriptive statistics

Item λ R² t Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
COBRAs framework (Schivinski et al., 2016)
Consumption
I read posts related to Brand X on social media. 0.87 0.75 76.36 3.54 2.06 0.21 −1.25
I read fan page(s) related to Brand X on social networking sites. 0.86 0.74 64.64 3.55 2.11 0.22 −1.32
I watch pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.71 0.51 38.26 4.01 2.09 −0.13 −1.31
I follow blogs related to Brand X. 0.60 0.35 25.20 2.39 1.72 1.10 0.15
I follow Brand X on social networking sites. 0.88 0.78 78.63 3.38 2.04 0.33 −1.21
Contribution
I comment on videos related to Brand X. 0.83 0.69 43.88 1.91 1.51 1.85 2.76
I comment on posts related to Brand X. 0.88 0.77 69.86 2.09 1.59 1.48 1.44
I comment on pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.86 0.75 60.30 1.93 1.51 1.74 2.32
I share Brand X related posts. 0.87 0.74 54.88 2.15 1.65 1.42 1.04
I ‘Like’ pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.65 0.42 35.82 3.11 2.07 0.53 −1.10
I ‘Like’ posts related to Brand X. 0.70 0.49 47.71 3.00 2.02 0.62 −0.95
Creation
I initiate posts related to Brand X on blogs. 0.73 0.52 27.04 1.76 1.42 2.09 3.73
I initiate posts related to Brand X on social networking sites. 0.82 0.68 40.60 1.84 1.53 1.99 3.13
I post pictures/graphics related to Brand X. 0.88 0.79 72.40 1.84 1.43 1.93 3.21
I post videos that show Brand X. 0.80 0.65 31.47 1.80 1.40 1.85 2.82
I write posts related to Brand X on forums. 0.88 0.77 75.56 1.84 1.45 1.87 2.78
I write reviews related to Brand X. 0.80 0.65 44.42 1.74 1.45 2.12 3.77
CBBE framework (Christodoulides et al., 2015)
Brand awareness
I have heard of this brand. 0.71 0.51 16.58 6.48 1.08 −2.48 6.51
I am quite familiar with this brand. 0.69 0.47 17.08 6.70 0.95 −3.53 12.66
I can recognize this brand among other brands. 0.81 0.66 27.54 6.66 0.91 −3.17 10.94
Brand associations
This brand has strong associations. 0.87 0.76 72.95 6.05 1.25 −1.47 1.96
This brand has favorable associations. 0.85 0.72 52.21 5.88 1.38 −1.19 0.84
It is clear what this brand stands for. 0.77 0.60 40.28 5.99 1.22 −1.33 1.67
Perceived quality
This brand is good quality. 0.76 0.57 35.91 5.57 1.57 −1.02 0.38
This brand has excellent features. 0.76 0.58 40.97 5.22 1.71 −0.85 −0.06
Compared to other brands in its category, this brand is of very high quality. 0.81 0.66 49.83 5.88 1.25 −1.07 0.61
Brand loyalty
I feel loyal to this brand. 0.93 0.86 132.76 4.60 1.96 −0.44 −0.92
This brand is my first choice. 0.89 0.80 99.59 4.58 1.94 −0.45 −0.88
I am committed to this brand. 0.75 0.56 48.13 4.08 2.09 −0.01 −1.29

λ = completely standardised loading; R² = explained variance of the item. COBRAs items: 1 = not very often, 7 = very often, with ‘not at all’ coded 0. CBBE items: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree. Brand X is replaced by the brand the respondent follows.

Table A2. Reliability and validity of the measurement model
α CR FD AVE MSV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 – Creation 0.93 0.93 0.97 0.69 0.60 0.83
2 – Brand associations 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.73 0.62 0.12 (2.81) 0.85
3 – Brand awareness 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.61 0.10 −0.24 (−3.89) 0.32 (6.54) 0.78
4 – Consumption 0.88 0.87 0.96 0.58 0.39 0.48 (11.73) 0.34 (7.66) 0.05 (1.02) 0.76
5 – Contribution 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.62 0.60 0.77 (23.45) 0.26 (6.29) −0.05 (−1.04) 0.63 (19.35) 0.78
6 – Perceived quality 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.65 0.62 0.14 (3.03) 0.79 (31.57) 0.30 (7.01) 0.25 (4.90) 0.21 (4.86) 0.80
7 – Brand loyalty 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.72 0.47 0.27 (6.13) 0.59 (17.63) 0.16 (3.49) 0.37 (8.13) 0.34 (8.37) 0.68 (22.74) 0.85

α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; FD = factor determinacy; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared squared variance. Robust maximum-likelihood estimation (MLR) χ²(544) = 1113.41, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI [0.04–0.05]); n = 414. t-values for correlations in parentheses. The square roots of the AVE values are in italics.

The question

Companies want consumers to read, share and create content about their brands on social media, and research had looked at the content people engage with and at personal drivers such as motivations and tie strength. What the brand itself contributes was largely unknown: why consumers engage with some brands and leave others untouched. We asked whether consumers' perceptions of a brand, captured as consumer-based brand equity, explain how much they consume, contribute and create brand-related content on social media, overall and dimension by dimension.

Implications

Practical implications

Social media managers should build positive brand associations, not only stress functional product features, to raise reading, liking and commenting. Loyal customers are a smaller group on social media but the only one that covers the whole range of activity, including creating content, so they are worth reaching directly. Because consumers who see a brand's quality as low consume and contribute more brand content, brands should monitor how quality is perceived and step in early to contain negative information. The two models can also serve as an audit tool: the overall score shows how well a brand triggers social media activity, the dimension scores show which part of brand equity drives it, and the same survey can benchmark competing brands beyond platform metrics such as likes and shares.

Theoretical implications

The study links two frameworks that had been studied apart, consumer-based brand equity and COBRAs, and identifies brand-specific drivers of behavioural engagement on social media. It supports modelling Aaker's brand equity as a learning sequence from awareness to attitudes to loyalty. At the dimension level, associations relate to lower and medium levels of engagement, loyalty to all levels, and perceived quality negatively to consumption and contribution, which fits the view that negative product information has higher diagnostic value. The most active level, creating content, responded to loyalty only.

Limitations and future research

  • Brand equity was measured with Aaker's framework only; other conceptualisations, such as Keller's brand knowledge model, could map further antecedents of COBRAs.
  • Past brand usage was not measured; it could moderate the effects, as social media followers tend to be loyal customers.
  • Differences between brand types and industries were not tested; a multilevel design could show how engagement varies at brand and industry level.
  • COBRAs do not capture the valence of engagement; future surveys and experiments could measure whether content is positive or negative across media types.

Questions this paper answers

Does brand equity increase engagement on social media?

Yes. In a survey of 414 social media users in Poland following 51 brands, overall consumer-based brand equity increased overall engagement with brand-related social media content (β = 0.30, p < .001) (Schivinski et al., 2021).

What makes consumers create content about a brand on social media?

Of the brand equity dimensions tested, only brand loyalty predicted creating brand-related content (β = 0.32, p < .001); brand associations and perceived quality had no effect on creation (Schivinski et al., 2021).

Do people engage more with brands they think are low quality?

For lower levels of engagement, yes. Perceived quality had a negative effect on consuming (β = −0.13) and, marginally, on contributing to (β = −0.11, p < .10) brand-related content, but no effect on creating it; the study did not measure whether that engagement was positive or negative (Schivinski et al., 2021).

Are younger consumers more engaged with brands on social media?

Yes. Age had a negative effect on overall engagement with brand-related social media content (β = −0.09) and on consuming (β = −0.16) and contributing to it (β = −0.08) (Schivinski et al., 2021).

Key concepts

Consumers' online brand-related activities (COBRAs)
Brand-related activities on social media that range from passive to active: consuming, contributing to and creating brand-related content (Muntinga, Moorman & Smit, 2011).
Consumption, contribution and creation
The three COBRA levels: consumption is reading, watching and following brand content; contribution is liking, commenting on and sharing it; creation is posting one's own brand-related content, reviews and videos.
Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE)
The perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and behaviour that let a brand earn more volume or margin than it could without its name; measured here through brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991).
Perceived quality
The consumer's judgement about a product's overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1988).
Negativity effect
The tendency to give negative information more weight than positive information when forming evaluations of a product or brand.
Structural equation mixture model
A structural equation model in which parameters, here factor means and path slopes, are allowed to vary across classes, here the 51 brands.

Open science and materials

Study materials

Screening question
Respondents named a brand they had actively followed on social media for at least four months; that brand was used throughout the survey.
Scale items
All 29 items with loadings and descriptive statistics are in Table A1 below (English versions; the survey was administered in Polish after back-translation).

How to cite

Schivinski, B., Muntinga, D. G., Pontes, H. M., & Lukasik, P. (2021). Influencing COBRAs: the effects of brand equity on the consumer’s propensity to engage with brand-related content on social media. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 29(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1572641

Related publications

All publications

Buy me a coffee

Loading…

Open on Ko-fi