See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/352197644

The impact of social media marketing on brand equity: A systematic review

Article in Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

15 11,106

6 authors, including:

Jassim Al-Gasawneh Malik Gharaibeh

Applied Science Private University Ajloun National University
104 PUBLICATIONS 1,186 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 354 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Odai Enaizan Nawras Nusairat

University of Tabuk Applied Science Private University
37 PUBLICATIONS 889 CITATIONS 52 PUBLICATIONS 481 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jassim Al-Gasawneh on 07 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

The impact of social media marketing on brand equity: A

systematic review

Ra‟d Almestarihi
Middle East University, faculty of business, management and marketing department
ralmestarihi@[Link]

Jassim Ahmad Al-Gasawneh

Applied science private university, business faculty, marketing department
J_algasaneh@[Link]

Sameer Al-jabali
Middle East University, faculty of business, management and marketing department
sjabaly@[Link]

Malik Khlaif Gharaibeh

Ajloun National university, faculty of business
[Link]@[Link]

Enaizan, Odai
Jadara university, faculty of business
[Link]@[Link]

Nawras M. Nusairat
Applied science private university, business faculty, marketing department
n_nserat@[Link]

Abstract: social media has impacted all types of business and marketing in terms of promoting brands and enhanced their
equity. This study aims to identify, evaluate, summarize and synthesize findings of previous studies that tested the impact of
social media marketing on building brand equity and to classify the included studies according to brand equity components,
platforms, social media dimensions, and type of industry. The study selection process is outlined according to the PRISMA
statement. An online search carried out of 11 databases using combinations of all possible keywords and phrases. Clear,
specific, and predefined eligibility criteria were applied to identify studies that related to the topic. Search results were
transferred into Endnotes software to remove duplication, article and abstract were scanned of records that are related to the
topic. a total of 26 papers that meet inclusion criteria were included, most studies have reported an influence of social media
on brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty. Further, this study reported that the Facebook
platform was dominant among studies, several industries were tested and most studies have reported the five dimensions of
social media. To sum up, social media marketing positively impacted CBBE dimensions namely brand awareness, perceived
quality, association, and loyalty.
.

Keywords: social media, brand equity, consumer-based brand equity, social media dimensions

1. Introduction

The design during which brand content is planned, devoured, and disseminated has changed in social media
(SM), migrating the influence to form a brand image from traditional marketing to digital contents and
interactions of buyers (Geiser, 2017). According to Hudson, Huang, Roth, and Madden (2016) in the current
smart business, solid brands perceive the power of SM in creating, sustaining, engaging, and interacting with
__________________________________________________________________________________
4073
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

new potential consumers as it provides practitioners with unexpected opportunities to meet new consumers on
social networks and eventually create strong relations with them In just seconds, SM shoppers can express their
points of view to a large number of people, rapid collaboration and correspondence of managed organizations to
turn out to be increasingly under the attention of buyers, which this miracle demonstrates that buyers are steadily
used to bring news to them as opposed to searching for data. Although SM provides endless opportunities for
marketers and brands, numerous negative encounters to traditional marketing strategies, companies are not in
control of brand identity. Users invariably give feedback about purchased goods and their interactions with other
users. Bad experiences exchanged will spread through sites that in the millions boast of users. This greatly
influences a brand. Further to this, SM's global nature exposes brands to a global audience. Organizations are
now paying attention to their key interest in SM networks as to how Best for leveraging and attaining a strong
brand that can be memorized.
Brands are highly valuable pieces of legal property, capable of affecting consumer preference, being
purchased and sold, and providing companies with the protection of sustained future revenue. According to
(Kapferer 2012; Keller 2014), brand equity is referred to the value accrued by various benefits, and the
fundamental concept of brand equity is that a brand's strength resides in consumers mind and how consumers
perceived the brand over time. Further, brand equity added value to products in terms of thoughts, words and
consumer's choice preference, and there are several tactics that enabled the creation of value for brands, and
consequently, companies can benefit in terms of higher revenue or lower cost. Positive brand equity for strong
brands has many advantages including, but not limited to, more brand extension opportunities, achieving higher
margins, enhance brand loyalty, raise marketing communication effectiveness, and achieving higher consumer
preferences. Further, brand equity guide marketing decisions and offer a valuable strategic function, it is very
critically for marketers to be completely understanding of the essential sources of brand equity, and how it may
influence results of interest such as sales. Understanding the causes and outcomes of brand equity offers an
indicator for defining marketing strategies and measuring brand value which enables managers to understand and
emphasize what brand equity drivers, and recognize exactly where and how brands add value. Towards that goal,
we intend to identify, critically evaluate, summarize and synthesize findings of all relevant individual studies that
directly relate to the impact of SM marketing (SMM) on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) and classify the
included studies according to dimensions CBBE suggested by Aaker 1991, identify SM platforms that have has
been used as well SM dimensions and type of investigated industry.

2. Literature review
Numerous scholars have suggested measurements of brand equity with different aspects, as a consequence,
two main views of how brand equity can be managed and conceptualized proposed: firm-based brand equity and
CBBE. A firm-based brand equity standpoint is the premium value that a firm attains from a product/service
with a known brand name when compared to a non-branded product (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010).
Atilgan, Akinci, Aksoy, and Kaynak (2009) suggested that firm-based brand equity relies on product/market
outcomes, such as prices, market share, as well as financial market results. On the other hand, the CBBE
perspective focuses on customer's value perceptions, which were shaped by a mixture of a product's
performance, emotional attachment, and consumer's lifestyle. Expressly, CBBE gains its importance from
consumers' evaluation of products or services.
Brand equity literature has focused on CBBE, and it is the dominant perspective and preferred by most
scholars and experts in the marketing field (Christodoulides & De Chernatony, 2010; Keller, 1993). Keller
(1993) and Aaker (1991) were initiative scholars in construct brand equity, as a concept, but both referred to
brand equity following the customer perspective. Keller (1993) used the term CBBE to indicate brand equity and
reported that CBBE takes place when customers awareness is high of the brand and consumers have favourable
and exceptional associations in their memory. CBBE can be best expressed as a concept caused by brand
associations and the influence of brand associations is emphasized. On the other hand, Aaker (1991) suggested
that CBBE contains five components which are the core sources of value formation. These components are
awareness to brand, perception of brand quality, association related to the brand, and brand loyalty; and an extra
proprietary brand asset that acts in place of patents, trademarks. This model is a widely accepted and

__________________________________________________________________________________
4074
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

comprehensive model that‟s has been accepted by many researchers, therefore, the elements of this model will
be used in this study to classified accepted papers based on its components.
Aaker (1991) CBBE components
Brand awareness is considered a major critical element of brand equity which is often ignored by academics
and practitioners (Aaker, 1996). According to (Aaker, 1996), brand awareness is defined as the ability of
consumers to identify or recall that a brand is related to a specific product category. Farjam and Hongyi (2015)
noted that brand awareness has two main levels; recognition and recall level. Recognition levels offer a sense of
familiarity and signal substance, awareness, and commitment to the brand. Whereas, recall level impacts
consumers' choice and selection. For most firms, brand awareness is essential key because it strengthens brands
to succeed (Aaker, 1991). Kuhn, Alpert, and Pope (2008) reported that building a solid brand requires
establishing the accurate brand identity to create brand identification and association in consumers mind at first,
to achieve that, the existence of brand salience is a must. It worth noting that salience is consist of two sub-
dimensions, that's are the need for satisfaction and identification.
Aaker (1992) reported that perceived quality is a fundamental dimension of CBBE. It offers value to
consumers because it gives the motive to make a buying decision, create a competitive advantage by
differentiating brands from surrounded competitors, facilitates line extensions, and selling at a premium price.
Kuhn et al. (2008) indicated perceived quality as a superiority perception of the brand when compared to
competing for the brand, while, (Aaker, 1992) referred to perceived quality as consumer's judgment about
product superiority or excellence. Perceived quality has become a central business drive for most businesses and
strategic choice that enable programs designed in order to build brand equity (Aaker, 1992).
Brand associations or brand image is a highly accepted aspect and a major element of brand equity, which
refers to the correlation of a brand in customers‟ memory (Aaker, 1996). Brand association includes object,
experience, personality, emotion, product attributes, relation or image, customer benefits, uses, users, lifestyles,
product classes, competitors, and countries (Aaker, 1991). Further, brand associations assist consumers process
and restore information, provide a reason to buy, be the basis for differentiation and extensions, and create
positive feelings. According to Aaker (1991), Consumers utilize brand associations in processing, organizing,
and saving information in memory and this assisting purchase decision. It is very critical to understand the
fundamental component of brand association to build brand equity, when brand association level is high, it is
more likely to have a higher tendency to succeed in brand strategies and become more relevant to consumers
(Netemeyer et al., 2004).
Aaker (1991) suggested that brand loyalty is consumer attachment to a brand. Yoo and Donthu (2001) also
defined brand loyalty as the tendency of consumers to hold loyalty to a brand in terms of purchase intention and
set brand as a first choice to buy. Also, Oliver (1999) referred to brand loyalty as the strong commitment held to
repurchase or support a favoured brand in the future. Brand loyalty creates value to firms as it reduces marketing
costs in addition to leveraging trade (Keller, 1993). Loyal customers assume that the brand is always available
and recommended others to use it. Bilgin (2018) noted that attracting new consumers is much more expensive
than keeping existing customers. Further, competitors will face difficulties to attract brand loyal users as they are
less motivated to search for alternatives, as a result, competitors will be less motivated to spend resources to
attract loyal customers because it will take a long time (Bilgin, 2018; Ngah et al., 2021). Therefore, Aaker (1992)
suggested that concentrating on brand loyalty is a powerful technique in managing brand equity.
Building brand equity within SM became very critical for almost all businesses, a well-adopting channel for
marketers that increase marketing strategies' effectiveness. Although many businesses realize the importance of
adopting SM, it is very important to evaluate how effectively SM works. Therefore, Kim and Ko (2011)
examined five dimensions of how customers are influenced by SM which include: interaction, entertainment,
customization, trendiness, and word-of-mouth, and reported a positive influence on the evaluation of SMM
activities. Furthermore, taking a closer look at media users, social networking platforms are estimated to have
3.6 billion users and these statistics are still expected to grow in the future. The market leader is Facebook and
the first social network to exceed one billion valid accounts, currently sits at more than 2.74 billion monthly
active users, followed by YouTube 2 billion, WhatsApp 2 billion, FB Messenger 1.3 billion, and WeChat 1.2
__________________________________________________________________________________
4075
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

billion. The importance of observation of SM platforms, as well as the dimensions of SM, provides marketers
substantial insights into prioritizing the SM platform and how SM dimensions can influence consumers to brand.
Recently, brand and branding within the SM context captured the attention of many scholars globally and a
huge number of studies have been carried out in this topic investigating different sectors, SM platforms, and
viewpoints (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger, & Shapiro, 2012; Filo, Lock, & Karg, 2015; Al-Gasawneh& Al-
Adamat,2020; Whitelock, Cadogan, Okazaki, & Taylor, 2013). Despite the increasing interest in research and
the huge number of studies that test the importance of SM on branding for most organizations, a little systematic
review about how brand equity might be affected by SM marketing has been carried out, which is an important
market-based asset. therefore, this study realized a need of conducting a systematic review paper of the previous
studies of SM within the marketing field to synthesize and organize the key topics covered by these researches
and how these studies tested those issues, this review important to investigate how prior studies addressed the
implications of SM for marketing topics. Consequently, the current study contributes to academia and industry
by providing a complete, comprehensive summary of current literature related to the impact of SM marketing on
building brand equity. As far as we know, the current systematic review is among the first few to show that
social media affects CBBE. Further, this study will benefit practitioners to analyze the power and potential of
marketing actions, and the development of better SM marketing strategies in manage brands online. Generally,
this study is considered as a starting point for relevant researches and to establish holistic understandings of how
SM influence brand equity online.
Methodology
The systematic review is typically aimed to find, test, analyze and find the best existing evidence relating to
an exact research question to bring informative and evidence-based answers (Gopalakrishnan & Ganeshkumar,
2013; Muka et al., 2020). According to Cook, Mulrow, and Haynes (1997), systematic reviews are the most
accepted method to summarize and synthesize the findings of studies examining the same questions in any
discipline. Moreover, systematic reviews pass through a well-defined structure and clear process that require
identifying the research question or problem, classifying and critically assessing the existing literature,
amalgamation of the findings, and concluding (Wamba, Akter, Edwards, Chopin, & Gnanzou, 2015).
Search strategy
In this review, a hand search was carried out to identify the papers that should be included. The search aimed
to find studies that empirically investigated the impact of SM marketing on brand equity. An online search of 11
databases included: Education Data Base, Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete,
PsycINFO, Eric, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald, Research Library, Taylor & Francis, and
Sage, and was conducted in Dec 2020. Those databases were selected in consulting with librarians who support
this with designing complex searches, searching database scope, and checking similar systematic review. The
search was carried out using combinations of the following keywords and phrases: Social media” OR “social
network” OR “social networking” OR “Web 2.0” OR “Facebook” OR “LinkedIn” OR “Twitter” OR “MySpace”
OR “Instagram” AND brand* OR “brand equity” OR “customer-based brand equity” OR “CBBE” AND
“marketing” OR “social media Marketing”. A decent time was spent in identifying all possible synonyms and
related terms for each of your elements or concepts to ensure that search retrieves as many relevant records as
possible, so we search terms used previous studies or systematic reviews, check relevant dictionaries.
Study selection
Clear, specific, and predefined eligibility criteria are a critical prerequisite for a systematic review because
inclusion and exclusion criteria define the boundaries of any systematic review (Brereton, Kitchenham, Budgen,
Turner, & Khalil, 2007). The current study conducted a thorough review of each possibly relevant article to find
studies presenting original and empirical data related to the topic of the impact of SM on brand equity. Included
studies needed to self-identify as SM marketing to be included in this review. The inclusion criteria are also
focusing on identifying empirical papers that tested the impact of SM on CBBE model elements. Further, studies
must be conducted in the English language and must be within 2008-2020 in a peer journal review is must be
eligible. On the other hand, Studies reporting different aspects of SM other than marketing aspects were

__________________________________________________________________________________
4076
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

excluded. Also, reviews, conceptual and method-focused papers, and papers studying SM from a social or
psychological standpoint were excluded.
Procedures
An online search was carried out using the above-mentioned keywords and synonymous on each database.
Search results with abstracts were transferred into Endnotes software which is highly recommended and used in
the systematic review. Two stages to screening and choosing results were used in this paper which is: first, the
primary screening phase where numerous records were excluded, which consists of removing duplication, title
and abstract scanning of records related to the topic. Second, the screening phase includes testing more precisely
at those articles that meet the first screening phase. At this stage, articles tested based on the inclusion or
exclusion criteria identified in the protocol and provide reasons why some studies are excluded. In this study, the
process of screening data started by remove and duplicates articles. Afterwards, screening of the titles was
conducted to exclude irrelevant articles and the remaining papers were examined for further investigation of their
relevance to the topic. Finally, the relevant articles and the articles they cited were reviewed. Accepted papers
were classified according to Aaker (1991) CBBE components, SM dimensions, SM platforms, and type of
industry.

Data Extraction
The study selection process is outlined in the PRISMA Diagram. Two experienced researchers independently
reviewed the titles and abstracts of the identified studies and determined if they met the inclusion criteria.
Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by discussion and adjudication by a third senior researcher at
each stage.
Result
The study selection process is outlined in the PRISMA diagram (Fig 1). A total of 1123 records were located
using the described search terms. Next, we reviewed 876 records at the title level and excluding 317 articles.
Afterwards, the remaining articles were reviewed at the abstract level leading to removing an extra article of 463.
A total of 96 were reviewed in a full text remove another 68 studies. A total of 25 records were included in this
study.

Brand equity according to Aker 1991

As mentioned earlier, Aaker (1991) has suggested four main elements of brand equity: perceived quality, brand
loyalty, brand awareness, and brand associations other than proprietary brand assets. Only these four dimensions
have been frequently used by different researchers (Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004; Bhardwaj, Kumar, &
Kim, 2010; Ogunnaike, 2017). This study, therefore, conceptualizes brand equity based on the most generally
accepted proposed model of Aaker.

Brand awareness
The first stage in building CBBE is to create brand awareness, and it considers a fundamental component of
brand equity (Aaker,1991). Aaker (1991) referred to brand awareness as "the ability of a buyer to recognize or
re-call that brand is a member of certain product category. Brand awareness consists of two main elements
according to (Keller,1993) which are: brand recall and recognition. In this paper, brand awareness has been
tested by most included papers in different contexts, Amoako, Okpattah, and Arthur (2019) investigated the
impact of Facebook pages on awareness of Vodafone and MTN and reported a significant positive influence.
Owino et al. (2016) tested the impact of SM on the banking industry and revealed that SM explains 81.2% of the
variation in brand awareness. A comparison between firm and users generated contents was evidenced in

__________________________________________________________________________________
4077
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

numerous of studies, studies (Cheung, Pires, & Rosenberger III, 2020; Llopis-Amorós, Gil-Saura, Ruiz-Molina,
& Fuentes-Blasco, 2019; Sadek, Elwy, & Eldallal, 2018; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016; Vinh, Phuong,
Nga, & Nguyen, 2019; Wright, Williams, & Byon, 2017) reported that firm created contents have a positive
direct influence on brand awareness. Similarly, some studies proposed evidence of users generated contents on
influencing brand awareness (Cheung et al., 2020; Coulter, Bruhn, Schoenmueller, & Schäfer, 2012; Llopis-
Amorós et al., 2019; Rachna, 2017; Sadek et al., 2018; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016; Vinh et al., 2019).
Additionally, Stojanovic, Andreu, and Curras-Perez (2018) noted that of intensity use of social media influence
brand awareness, which in turn influence brand quality, cognitive and affective image, and create customer
value, and intention to make WOM. In the same vein, Severi, Ling, and Nasermoadeli (2014) reported that brand
awareness mediates the relationship between EWOM and brand association.

Ide
nti
fic Records identified through Additional records identified through
ati database searching (n =1261) other sources (n=13)
on

Records after duplicates removed (n

= 344)
Sc
re
en
in Records screened(n Records excluded
g =933)
(n = (674)

Eli title articles assessed for Full-text articles

gib eligibility (n = 259) excluded(n = 114)
ilit
y
Abstract article assessed Studies excluded
(n=51)
(n = 145)
Inc
lud
ed Studies full reviewed Studies excluded(n=68
(n=94) )

Total included studies

(n=25)

Figure 1: Systematic review flow diagram

Brand association
The second major element of CBBE according to (Aaker,1991) is brand association, which related to the
linkage of brand image in consumers' mind. According to Keller (1993), brand association referred to
"impressions based on other information that is related to impressions created by the brand in the minds of
consumers and that includes the brand meaning for the consumers". This element of CBBE is also investigated in
most of the included studies; Studies that tested the influence of users generated contents have shown a positive
__________________________________________________________________________________
4078
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

association between SMM and brand associations (Llopis-Amorós et al., 2019; Rachna, 2017; Sadek et al., 2018;
Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015; Vinh et al., 2019). On the other hand, firm-generated contents reported a
significant positive influence on brand associations (Llopis-Amorós et al., 2019; Sadek et al., 2018; Schivinski &
Dabrowski, 2015; Vinh et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2017). Further, some studies (Amoako et al., 2019; Khajuria,
2017; Sehar, Ashraf, & Azam, 2019) have shown a direct positive effect of SMM on brand association. Also,
Stojanovic et al. (2018) advocated that SM use impacts brand awareness and sequentially influences brand
quality, cognitive and affective image. Likewise, Severi et al. (2014) reported that brand awareness mediates the
relationship between EWOM and brand association, and brand association mediates the relationship between
electronic WOM and brand loyalty.

Perceived quality
According to Aaker (1991), perceived quality is the third component that measures CBBE. According to,
Erenkol and Duygun (2010) Perceived quality refers to a customer‟s opinion on the degree to which a particular
brand able to meet consumers expectation in term of excellence and superiority. It worth noting that quality
perception is not actual product quality, it is more related to the personal judgment of the product (Erenkol and
Duygun, 2010), and the judgment influenced by consumption situation, previous experience and the unique
needs of consumers (Yoo et al., 2000). Perceived quality "as a main construct" is evidenced in most studies.
Numerous studies tested the impact of SM on this dimension and reported a significant effect (Amoako et al.,
2019; Khajuria, 2017; Owino et al., 2016; Sehar et al., 2019; Sharma & Sahni, 2015; Stojanovic et al., 2018).
Furthermore, users generated contents on SM have been tested in some studies and revealed a positive influence
on perceived quality (Cheung et al., 2020; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016; Vinh et al., 2019), the firm
created SM is also impacted perceived quality (Cheung et al., 2020; Llopis-Amorós et al., 2019).

Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty Aaker (1991) states that brand loyalty is "a measure of the attachment that a customer has to a
brand" (p. 91). Brand loyalty is the most critical component of CBBE because loyal customers committed to
brand and repeat purchases and involve in WOM over time. The most common scale to measure brand loyalty is
purchase the brand, repurchase, and involvement in WOM. The brand loyalty dimension was tested in each
single included study. Numerous studies revealed that SM marketing directly influences loyalty (Amoako et al.,
2019; Ebrahim, 2020; Godey et al., 2016; Khajuria, 2017; Nobar, Kalejahi, & Rostamzadeh, 2020; Owino et al.,
2016; Sehar et al., 2019). Users generated contents also has a positive significant influence on brand equity
(Cheung et al., 2020; Rachna, 2017; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016; Vinh et al., 2019), and firm generated
contents also has shown a significant effect on brand loyalty (Cheung et al., 2020; Vinh et al., 2019; Wright et
al., 2017). It worth mentioning that some studies have shown no effect of SM on brand loyalty (Coulter et al.,
2012). Stojanovic et al. (2018) reported that intensity use of SM impact brand awareness which influences
intention to make WOM. Additionally, Severi et al. (2014) suggested that brand association mediates the
relationship between electronic WOM and brand loyalty, and brand loyalty mediates the relationship between
electronic WOM and brand image. Sánchez-Casado, Confente, Tomaseti-Solano, and Brunetti (2018) proposed
that social and monetary benefits impact brand loyalty. Seo and Park (2018) advised that SMM activities have a
positive effect on brand awareness and brand image which in turn influence electronic WOM.

Author Aim Finding

(Amoako To investigate the effects of SMM impact brand awareness; brand association brand
et al., 2019) SMM on brand equity loyalty; and perceived quality p≤0.01to all dimensions
Table 1:impact of SM marketing on brand equity

__________________________________________________________________________________
4079
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

(Owino To determine the influence SM explains 81.2% of the variation in brand awareness;
et al., 2016) of SM on brand equity in the 82.5% of perceived quality; and 85.9% of brand loyalty.
banking industry

(Llopis- Analyzing the moderating Perceptions of users created contents impact awareness
Amorós et role of SM communications on 303, social image (β = 0.636; t = 9.3), value .400, service
al., 2019) brand equity creation and its quality.428, leadership .591 and loyalty (β = 0.606; t = 11.4).
correlates while contents generated by companies did not impact loyalty
and perceived quality-leadership.

(Stojano Examine the power of the Intensity use of SM impacts brand awareness ( p<0.01).
vic et al., use of SM on tourist destination brand awareness influences cognitive image, affective image,
2018) brand equity brand quality, customer value, and intention to make WOM (
p<0.01) to all

(Severi Evaluating the roles of Brand awareness mediates the relationship between
et al., 2014) CBBE constructs in mediating EWOM and brand association p<0.05, which in turn mediates
the relationship between the relationship between EWOM and brand loyalty. p<0.05,
EWOM and the elements of Brand loyalty mediates the relationship between EWOM and
CBBE brand image p <0.05, Brand image mediate the relationship
between EWOM and perceived quality p<0.05

(Rachna, To test brand-related content User-generated content on Facebook has a significant

2017) generated by users on SM and impact on brand awareness
its influence on the CBBE
(p <.05) brand associations (p <.05) brand loyalty (p <.05)
and perceived brand quality. (p <.05)

(Cheung examines the effectiveness Firm-created SM has a positive effect on brand awareness,
et al., 2020) of SM brand communication brand associations, perceived quality, and brand loyalty, p <
and intensive distribution plan .001. users-created SM has no influence and all p-value are
on the CBBE dimensions, and higher than .05. distribution intensity influence brand
the moderating effect of product awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, and brand
involvement loyalty, p < .001 to all constructs

(Coulter To compare traditional and Traditional media activities influence brand awareness and
et al., 2012) SM communication on brand brand image. Firm-created SM contents impact on brand
equity image, user-generated SM reported main influence on hedonic
brand image.

(Vinh et To test the impact of brand firm-created content impacts brand awareness, association,
al., 2019) communication through SM on and loyalty (p = 0.0, and insignificant on perceived quality.
CBBE elements, and how these user-generated content impact awareness/ association (p =
elements affected CBBE 0.0), perceived quality (p = 0.01), and brand loyalty (p =
0.024).
dimensions

(Wright Examined the relationship firm-generated SM communications impacted brand equity

et al., 2017) between 4Ps related SM social image (, p < .05), perceived value (p< .05) and brand
communications, brand equity, commitment (p < .05), which in turn impact intention to
and purchase intention purchase

(Nobar et To test the impact of SM SM impact brand awareness, brand image P<.05 which in
marketing activities on brand
__________________________________________________________________________________
4080
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article
al., 2020) equity and commitment turn influence brand commitment p<.05.

(Ebrahim examining the impact of SM SM marketing has a direct impact on brand trust and
, 2020) on brand loyalty through two loyalty (p< .05). SM activities are also indirectly impact
mediators which are brand brand equity mediated by brand trust, p = 0.009)
equity and trust

(Chahal To clarify variables that Tie strength, social identity, entertainment significantly
& Rani, impact customers‟ brand influence SM brand engagement (p<.05) to all constructs.
2017) engagement and its impact in Convenience SM engagement significantly leads to brand
building CBBE, and to examine equity (p= 0.004). trust moderates the relationship between
the moderating role of trust on SM engagement and brand equity (p<.05).
brand engagement and
relationship

(Godey To examine the influence of SM impact CBBE (p= 0.001), CBBE also mediate effect
et al., 2016) SM marketing on consumers' on the relation between marketing strategies on SM and
responses through brand equity customer response (R2 = 0.212).
creation

Khajuria to investigate how brand SM brand communication influence brand awareness,

(2017) communication on Facebook associations perceived quality, as well as loyalty with (p <
affects perception towards 0.5) for all constructs
brands and brand equity

Sadek et to examine the impact of SM brand communication impact on CBBE dimensions

al. (2018) firm-created and user-generated (brand awareness, brand perceived quality, brand associations,
SM brand communication on and brand trust). P- Values are 0.097, 0.847, 0.560 and 0.777
CBBE respectively.

Colicev, to investigate how SM The power and SM volume are significant predictors of
Malshe, and affects US retailers‟ CBBE CBBE. Advertising, own SM, Earn SM impact CBBE and (p
Pauwels < 0.05) to all dimensions.
(2018)

Sánchez- To measure the effect of Social benefits elements impact CBBE (p<.05) and brand
Casado et al. relational benefit on CBBE and loyalty (p<.05), Monetary benefits have a positive effect on
(2018) customer loyalty. loyalty(p<.05)

Schivins Test the impact of firm- Firm-created SM brand communication impact brand
ki and created and user-generated SM awareness/associations; p= 0.02), and no influence on brand
Dabrowski brand on CBBE through loyalty, perceived quality, p>.05. user-generated SM brand
(2015) Facebook. communication impacts awareness, associations, brand
loyalty. and perceived quality (p<.05) Brand
awareness/associations impact brand loyalty; (p= 0.03) and
perceived quality (p= 0.001)

Schivins Examined the effects of SM Users generated contents had an influence on both brand
ki and communication on CBBE and equity and attitude (p <0.05), on the other hand, firm-created
Dabrowski how consumers perceive brands contents impact brand attitude (p<.05). brand equity and
(2016) attitude impact purchase intention

__________________________________________________________________________________
4081
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

Dwivedi, to understand SM platforms Emotional brand attachment impact on brand credibility.

Johnson, from a “brand” perspective B= 0.72** And consumer satisfaction B= 0.54** and CBBE
Wilkie, and through examining the effect of B= 0.21. Brand credibility has a direct positive impact on
De Araujo- consumers‟ emotional CBBE. B= 0.31**. Consumer satisfaction impact CBBE. B=
Gil (2019) attachment on SM consumer- 0.63**
based brand equity (CBBE).

Sehar et To investigate the impact of SMM impact brand awareness, image, quality, and brand
al. (2019) SM Marketing Efforts on loyalty (p< .05)
brand equity and consumer
behaviours towards the brand.

Seo and Analyzes the effects of SM SMM activities have a positive effect on brand awareness.
Park (2018) marketing activities on brand (p < 0.001) and brand image (p < 0.001) which in turn
equity and customer response influence e-WOM (p < 0.001)

Koay, To investigate the influence Perceived SM marketing activities impact CBBE (t value
Ong, Khoo, of perceived SM marketing 4.923**) and brand experience (t value 10.153**). Brand
and Yeoh activities on CBBE experience has a significant positive influence on CBBE (t
(2020) value 4.598**)

(Sharma Examine the relationship Brand salience, performance, judgment, image, feeling,
& Sahni, between Facebook and resonance are impacted by Facebook and Twitter
2015) Communities, Twitter Tweets, community and (sig < .05) to all dimensions
and Brand Equity.

SM marketing dimensions
Kim and Ko (2010) suggested SM marketing activities framework that includes five dimensions
(entertainment, interaction, trendiness, customization, and EWOM. Regarding entertainment, Netemeyer et al.
(2004) reported that entertainment impacts consumer attitude toward the brand and increases interaction between
customer and brand, which results in active participation. Further, Martin and Todorov (2010) proposed that
organizations use customization as a technique in SM to communicate the preference and uniqueness of brands
and to increase consumer loyalty. Additionally, Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit (2011) advocated that SM
trendiness provides information that consists of four motivations: surveillance, pre-purchase information,
knowledge, and inspiration. And lastly, the EWOM plays an important role since it creates buzz marketing. The
current study was consistent with previous studies as 18 studies identified those dimensions. Seven studies
(Ebrahim, 2020; Godey et al., 2016; Koay et al., 2020; Nobar et al., 2020; Sadek et al., 2018; Sehar et al., 2019;
Seo & Park, 2018; Vinh et al., 2019; Hawamleh et al., 2020) applied all five dimensions. Some other studies
have tested some of those dimensions, for example, WOM as a sole dimension appeared in one study (Severi et
al., 2014), similarly, interaction (Amoako et al., 2019; Ahmad et al., 2020). It worth noting that some studies
have not identified SM dimensions (Cheung et al., 2020; Colicev et al., 2018; Coulter et al., 2012; Khajuria,
2017; Owino et al., 2016; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015; Nusairat et al., 2017). Table 2 summarizes all
dimensions used in all studies.

Table 2: SM dimensions, platforms, and industry

Author SM dimensions platform application

__________________________________________________________________________________
4082
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

(Amoako et al., 2019) Interaction Facebook Vodafone and MTN

(Owino et al., 2016) Not specified N/A N/A

(Llopis-Amorós et WOM, Interaction, All Festival attendee
al., 2019) Customization
(Stojanovic et al., Customization, WOM N/A Tourist destination
2018)
(Severi et al., 2014) WOM N/A N/A
(Rachna, 2017) Not specified Facebook Retail brand
(Cheung et al., 2020) Not specified N/A Laptop-Pc and sportswear
(Coulter et al., 2012) Not specified N/A Tourism, Telecommunication
pharmaceuticals
(Vinh et al., 2019) Customization, WOM, Facebook Cinemas
Trendiness, Entertained,
(Wright et al., 2017) Trend, Customization, Facebook Fitness
Interaction,
WOM
(Nobar et al., 2020) Customization, WOM, N/A Leather industry
interaction
Trendiness, Entertained,
(Ebrahim, 2020) Customization, WOM, N/A Telecommunication
Interaction,
Trendiness, Entertained,
(Chahal & Rani, Interaction, Entertainment N/A Multinational corporations
Interaction,
2017)
(Godey et al., 2016) Customization, WOM, Facebook Luxury brand
Trendiness, Entertained,
Khajuria (2017) Not specified twitter
Facebook Beauty, & fashion products
Interaction,
Sadek et al. (2018) Customization, WOM, Facebook N/A
Trendiness, Entertained,
Colicev et al. (2018) Not specified N/A Retail
Interaction,
Sánchez-Casado et al. Entertainment, WOM Facebook N/A
(2018)
Schivinski and Not specified Facebook Beverages, clothing, and
Dabrowski (2015) mobile operators
Schivinski and Interaction, WOM Facebook Beverages, clothing, and
Dabrowski (2016) mobile operators
Dwivedi et al. (2019) Customization N/A Various brands
Sehar et al. (2019) Perceived risk
Customization, WOM, N/A Online store
Trendiness, Entertained,
Seo and Park (2018) Customization, WOM, N/A Airline industry
Interaction,
Trendiness, Entertained,
Koay et al. (2020) Customization, WOM, Facebook N/A
Interaction,
Trendiness, Entertained, and Twitter
(Sharma & Sahni, Interesting, Impressive, N/A Fashion
Interaction,
2015) likable, attractive, fun

Regarding platforms that have been used in included studies showed that majority of papers tested Facebook
platforms (Amoako et al., 2019; Khajuria, 2017; Rachna, 2017; Sadek et al., 2018; Sánchez-Casado et al., 2018;
Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016; Vinh et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2017). Further, Twitter was examined in
two studies with Facebook (Godey et al., 2016; Koay et al., 2020). The remaining studies have left the choice to
consumers based on the platforms they use ( see table 2).

A large number of researches have examined one type of industry in most of the articles. However, in this
article, we intend to add a classification for the industry examined in each article as shown in table 2. Some
studies have tested more than one industry, for example, Coulter et al. (2012) examined tourism,
telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, similarly, Colicev et al. (2018) investigated Supermarket, restaurant,
clothing, pharmacy, electronics retail, and Nonalcoholic beverages, clothing and mobile network operators was

__________________________________________________________________________________
4083
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

presented in two studies (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015, 2016). Further, evidence was found for Fashion
(Khajuria, 2017; Sharma & Sahni, 2015), the airline industry (Seo & Park, 2018), Online store (Sehar et al.,
2019), luxury brand (Godey et al., 2016), multinational corporations (Chahal & Rani, 2017; Nusairat,Rashid &
Rembielak, 2015), telecommunication (Amoako et al., 2019; Ebrahim, 2020), leather industry (Nobar et al.,
2020), fitness (Wright et al., 2017), cinema (Vinh et al., 2019), tourist destination (Stojanovic et al., 2018),
festival attendee (Llopis-Amorós et al., 2019). It worth noting that several studies kept open choice for
respondents to choose the brand that they follow (Koay et al., 2020; Owino et al., 2016; Sadek et al., 2018;
Sánchez-Casado et al., 2018; Severi et al., 2014).
Discussion
This paper has summarized and synthesized the academic literature about the impact of SM marketing on
brand equity that was conducted between 2008 and 2021 and has enabled a categorization of the keys research
themes and offering a rich indication of SM marketing studies on brand equity. According to all included studies,
SM marketing activities successfully increase value proposition by offering a unique value to businesses and
consumers.
Aaker (1991) CBBE model gives an accurate measure of brand strength, and how customers perceive, feel
and act in regards to the brand. Aker CBBE model is very simple that the process of building CBBE starts at the
bottom with creating brand identity, then build brand knowledge that people will like, trust and which will
ultimately achieve goals. The model provides companies with beneficial understandings about consumers‟
preferences, customers‟ needs and wants, and purchase intention, the brand choices indicate individual
favourable responses to elements of the brand when comparing with other brands, which allow companies to
achieve the benefits of brand equity. The success of marketing activities is largely depending on customers‟
response, which in turn, depends on the knowledge that has been printed in customers‟ minds about brands.
Building brand equity process must build step by step starting from building awareness to establishing a unique
association, appeal functional and emotional concern and ended by achieving consumers loyalty.
Previous literature largely focused on the effect of SM marketing on brand equity, in addition to the
properties and attributes of SM. The dimensions of SM (entertainment, trendiness, interaction WOM, and
customization) could be further highlighted and investigated to understand how each element can be managed to
advance the usage of such mechanisms and how could contribute to building brand equity. Those dimensions are
in need more explorations in term of understanding the factors that motivate consumers to post and share
opinions, how to adopt new trends within the existing scenario, how to communicate a piece of customized
information that directly corresponds to the taste and consumers preferences, how to create contents relates to
entertaining elements.
Results of this study indicating that SM platforms and their content revealed a significant relationship with
CBBE for entire types of industries. According to Carranza (2015), SM has shown the impact of seven
industries; which include entertainment, real estate, marketing, retail, education, restaurants, and fashion. The
result of included studies reported and a piece of evidence that influenced industries by SM of extra, that‟s is,
festival attendee, tourist destination, laptop-Pc, tourism, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, leather industry,
multinational corporations, beauty, & fashion product, airline industry. It can be beneficial for the research
agenda to test more industries so results can be generalized.
SM platforms offer a chance for users to socialize and interact, connect with countless groups, fan pages, and
gaining a sense of community in a virtual world. SM Platforms enhanced opportunities allow firms to interact
with consumers and gain feedback about their brands, understand their needs and wants. There are many SM
platforms online, the most popular are Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Linked In, QZone, Tumblr, WhatsApp,
Twitter, Weibo, TikTok, Snapchat. It worth noting that Facebook has quickly become the most popular as well
the most used by private users and businesses. Facebook marketing is one hot topic that gains the interest of
researchers in a way that has never been bigger before. This review showed that Facebook was the dominant
platform. This could be related to the fact that Facebook is the most popular platform with the highest number of
users, as well as the largest for SM marketing expenditures (Stelzner, 2018).

__________________________________________________________________________________
4084
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

By carefully reviewing the previous literature on the impact of SM marketing on brand equity (26 studies),
researchers found out that there are numerous marketing implications in this field. The value of this paper
derives from its uniqueness in providing an extensive overview of current research undertaken on this topic and a
critical systematization of the emerging key research sub-topics. Academic literature systematic review about
SM marketing activities brand equity is very limited, thus, the provided systematic literature review contributes
in filling this gap some ways; an empirical assessment of the influence of several SM platform activities
outcomes on CBBE. furthermore, this study classified the impact of SM dimensions (entertainment, interaction,
trendiness, word of mouth, and customization) on brand equity elements as well as the type of industry which
have not been done previously. Further, this paper contributes to the academic literature by providing an updated
critical mapping and systematization of present studies of how SM influence brand equity elements, also, to
identify the gaps of the prior studies in this topic. by exploring the state of academic research of SM marketing
studies and brand equity, this could promote future interest in brand equity and SM marketing academic research
and directs a potential further research development.
The results also provide firms with a comprehensive understanding of SM activities outcomes and how it
could benefit brands, and how it can be used in managing SM more effectively. Most firms worldwide are
looking forward to advancing SM to attract new consumers or to improve loyal consumers experience to
increase profit and sales. SM is an innovative and cost-effective media, enable to interact with consumers,
customize, and personalize with consumers. consequently, this will assist firms to complete their marketing
strategies more professionally and successfully. This study provides evidence of how using SM could contribute
to the position of organizations. Further, brand managers, who need extensive market knowledge to relate with
customers, can gain insights into how previous studies formulate a SM marketing strategy informing and
determining a firm's brand equity.
Conclusion
SM has advanced to become a challenging and useful instrument in the marketing field and brand
communication. Consequently, SM marketing is significantly assisting businesses and consumers find new
communication channels. Brands increase their communication with the target audience and enhance customer
loyalty constantly. As a major component of IMC, SM marketing activities successfully boost CBBE by
providing a value proposition to consumers compared with traditional media. Evolving brand equity is very
important because it enables businesses to more successfully engage with their consumers in a way that boosts
brand loyalty and allowing the business to continually grow. On-line brand social presence can be an asset that
builds brand equity and adding value to the consumer and the brand.
Limitation and Future research
The emphasis of this paper to examine the whole previous literature related to the impact of SM marketing on
brand equity. However, this study has some limitations. First, the current paper ignored a large part of studies
that have examined some elements of CBBE components. Therefore, future researches it may consider these
papers that conducted over different context. Second, although this research contributes by searching,
classifying, and synthesizing the main body of literature, it could be more beneficial to perform statistical
evidence by conducting meta-analysis research, particularly there are several quantitative studies that have
conducted over the area of SM marketing and brand equity.

References
1. Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of business strategy.
2. Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California management
review, 38(3).
3. Ahmad, A., Madi, Y., Abuhashesh, M., M Nusairat, N., & Masa‟deh, R. E. (2020). The Knowledge,
Attitude, and Practice of the Adoption of Green Fashion Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 107.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4085
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

4. Al-Gasawneh, J., & Al-Adamat, A. (2020). The mediating role of e-word of mouth on the relationship
between content marketing and green purchase intention. Management Science Letters, 10(8), 1701-
1708.
5. Amoako, G. K., Okpattah, B. K., & Arthur, E. (2019). The impact of social media marketing on brand
equity-A perspective of the telecommunication industry in Ghana. Journal of Business and Retail
Management Research, 13(03).
6. Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., Aksoy, S., & Kaynak, E. (2009). Customer-based brand equity for global
brands: A multinational approach. Journal of Euromarketing, 18(2), 115-132.
7. Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business market.
Industrial marketing management, 33(5), 371-380.
8. Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media,
and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business horizons, 55(3),
261-271.
9. Bhardwaj, V., Kumar, A., & Kim, Y.-K. (2010). Brand analyses of US global and local brands in India:
The case of Levi's. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(1), 80-94.
10. Bilgin, Y. (2018). The effect of social media marketing activities on brand awareness, brand image and
brand loyalty. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(1), 128-148.
11. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying
the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of systems and
software, 80(4), 571-583.
12. Carranza, A. (2015). 7 Industries That Benefit Most from Social Media. Social Media Today.
13. Chahal, H., & Rani, A. (2017). How trust moderates social media engagement and brand equity. Journal
of Research in Interactive Marketing.
14. Cheung, M. L., Pires, G., & Rosenberger III, P. J. (2020). Exploring synergetic effects of social-media
communication and distribution strategy on consumer-based Brand equity. Asian Journal of Business
Research, 10(1), 126-149.
15. Christodoulides, G., & De Chernatony, L. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and
measurement: a literature review. International journal of market research, 52(1), 43-66.
16. Colicev, A., Malshe, A., & Pauwels, K. (2018). Social media and customer-based brand equity: an
empirical investigation in retail industry. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 55.
17. Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for
clinical decisions. Annals of internal medicine, 126(5), 376-380.
18. Coulter, K. S., Bruhn, M., Schoenmueller, V., & Schäfer, D. B. (2012). Are social media replacing
traditional media in terms of brand equity creation? Management research review.
19. Dwivedi, A., Johnson, L. W., Wilkie, D. C., & De Araujo-Gil, L. (2019). Consumer emotional brand
attachment with social media brands and social media brand equity. European Journal of Marketing.
20. Ebrahim, R. S. (2020). The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media marketing on brand
equity and brand loyalty. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 19(4), 287-308.
21. Farjam, S., & Hongyi, X. (2015). Reviewing the concept of brand equity and evaluating consumer-
based brand equity (CBBE) models. International Journal of Management Science and Business
Administration, 1(8), 14-29.
22. Filo, K., Lock, D., & Karg, A. (2015). Sport and social media research: A review. Sport management
review, 18(2), 166-181.
23. Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., & Singh, R. (2016). Social
media marketing efforts of luxury brands: Influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 69(12), 5833-5841.
24. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ganeshkumar, P. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding
the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2(1), 9.
25. Hawamleh, A. M. A., Alorfi, A. S. M., Al-Gasawneh, J. A., & Al-Rawashdeh, G. (2020). Cyber
Security and Ethical Hacking: The Importance of Protecting User Data. Solid State Technology, 63(5),
7894-7899.
26. 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.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4086
Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

27. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal
of marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
28. Khajuria, I. (2017). Impact of Social Media Brand Communications on Consumer-Based Brand Equity.
Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 8(3), 124.
29. Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2010). Impacts of luxury fashion brand‟s social media marketing on customer
relationship and purchase intention. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 1(3), 164-171.
30. Koay, K. Y., Ong, D. L. T., Khoo, K. L., & Yeoh, H. J. (2020). Perceived social media marketing
activities and consumer-based brand equity. Asia Pacific journal of marketing and logistics.
31. Kuhn, K. A. L., Alpert, F., & Pope, N. K. L. (2008). An application of Keller's brand equity model in a
B2B context. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal.
32. Llopis-Amorós, M.-P., Gil-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M. E., & Fuentes-Blasco, M. (2019). Social media
communications and festival brand equity: Millennials vs Centennials. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 40, 134-144.
33. Martin, K., & Todorov, I. (2010). How will digital platforms be harnessed in 2010, and how will they
change the way people interact with brands? Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 61-66.
34. Muka, T., Glisic, M., Milic, J., Verhoog, S., Bohlius, J., Bramer, W., . . . Franco, O. H. (2020). A 24-
step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in
medical research. European journal of epidemiology, 35(1), 49-60.
35. Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for
brand-related social media use. International Journal of advertising, 30(1), 13-46.
36. Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., . . . Wirth, F. (2004).
Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business
Research, 57(2), 209-224.
37. Ngah, A. H., Gabarre, S., Han, H., Rahi, S., Al-Gasawneh, J. A., & Park, S. H. (2021). Intention to
Purchase Halal Cosmetics: Do Males and Females Differ? A Multigroup Analysis. Cosmetics, 8(1), 19.
38. Nobar, H. B. K., Kalejahi, H. K., & Rostamzadeh, R. (2020). Impact of social media marketing
activities on brand equity and brand commitment in the leather industry. International Journal of
Business Excellence, 20(2), 191-204.
39. Nusairat, N. M., Akhorshaideh, A. H. O., Rashid, T., Sahadev, S., & Rembielak, G. (2017). Social cues-
customer behavior relationship: the mediating role of emotions and cognition. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 9(1), 1-17.
40. Nusairat, N., Rashid, T., & Rembielak, G. (2015). Design factors-customer behaviour relationship: The
mediating role of emotions and cognition.
41. Ogunnaike, O. (2017). Conceptualization of the relationship between brand equity and purchase
behavior. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(2), 403-408.
42. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 33-44.
43. Owino, J., Cherotich, M., Karuri, W., Gitonga, V., Kimuya, L., & Kaumbulu, K. (2016). The influence
of social media on brand equity in Kenyan banking industry. Pyrex Journal of Business and Finance
Management Research, 2(1), 001-005.
44. Rachna, I. K. (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.
45. Sadek, H., Elwy, S., & Eldallal, M. (2018). The impact of social media brand communication on
consumer-based brand equity dimensions through Facebook in fast moving consumer goods: The case
of Egypt. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 12(2).
46. Sánchez-Casado, N., Confente, I., Tomaseti-Solano, E., & Brunetti, F. (2018). The Role of online brand
communties on building brand equity and loyalty through relational benefits. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 26(3), 289-308.
47. Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2015). The impact of brand communication on brand equity through
Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.
48. Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). The effect of social media communication on consumer
perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), 189-214.
49. Sehar, R., Ashraf, S., & Azam, F. (2019). The Influence of Social Media‟s Marketing Efforts on Brand
Equity and Consumer Response. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, XVIII (2).
50. Seo, E.-J., & Park, J.-W. (2018). A study on the effects of social media marketing activities on brand
equity and customer response in the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 66, 36-41.
__________________________________________________________________________________
4087
 Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education Vol.12 No.6 (2021), 4073-4088
Research Article

51. Severi, E., Ling, K. C., & Nasermoadeli, A. (2014). The impacts of electronic word of mouth on brand
equity in the context of social media. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(8), 84-96.
52. Sharma, R. B., & Sahni, M. M. (2015). Evaluating the efficacy of facebook communities & Twitter
tweets on brand equity: an empirical study on fashion brands. Advances in Economics and Business
Management (AEBM), 2(5), 503-508.
53. Stojanovic, I., Andreu, L., & Curras-Perez, R. (2018). Effects of the intensity of use of social media on
brand equity. European journal of management and business economics.
54. Vinh, T. T., Phuong, T. T. K., Nga, V. T. Q., & Nguyen, N. P. (2019). The effect of social media
communication on brand equity through Facebook: evidence from CGV Cinemas, Vietnam.
International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, 12(2), 143-166.
55. Wamba, S. F., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015). How „big data‟can make big
impact: Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. International Journal of
Production Economics, 165, 234-246.
56. Whitelock, J., Cadogan, J. W., Okazaki, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2013). Social media and international
advertising: theoretical challenges and future directions. International marketing review.
57. Wright, B. K., Williams, A. S., & Byon, K. K. (2017). BRAND MARKETING VIA FACEBOOK: AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE MARKETING MIX, CONSUMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY, AND
PURCHASE INTENTION IN THE FITNESS INDUSTRY. Marketing Management Journal, 27(2).
58. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand
equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1-14.

__________________________________________________________________________________
4088

View publication stats