988482

research-article2021
ANZ0010.1177/1839334920988482Australasian Marketing JournalCheung et al.

Article

Australasian Marketing Journal

Investigating the role of social media 2021, Vol. 29(2) 118­–131

© 2020 Australian and New Zealand
Marketing Academy
marketing on value co-creation and Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

engagement: An empirical study in DOI: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.03.006

journals.sagepub.com/home/anz

China and Hong Kong

Man Lai Cheung1, Guilherme D. Pires2, Philip J. Rosenberger III3,

Wilson K.S. Leung4 and Hiram Ting5

Abstract
Despite promising conceptual developments in value co-creation and consumer-brand engagement (CBE), the scholarly attention afforded
to the importance of social media marketing (SMM) activities in strengthening consumers’ intention for value co-creation and CBE is limited.
SMM is conceptualised as a hierarchical construct with five dimensions: entertainment, customisation, interaction, electronic-word-of-mouth
(EWOM) and trendiness. This study examines the role of SMM in building value co-creation and CBE, as well as repurchase intention and
on-going search behaviour as behavioural responses. Based on primary data from a survey of 392 smartphone users in China and Hong
Kong, we use partial least squares - structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypotheses. The findings show that effective SMM
strategies lead to the strengthening of value co-creation, CBE, repurchase intention and ongoing search behaviour. It is also found that there
is a significant difference in the impact of CBE on repurchase intention between China and Hong Kong consumers. These findings contribute
to the marketing literature by empirically validating the five elements in the SMM construct, providing intelligence on how SMM can drive
value co-creation and CBE. The findings also enrich the marketing literature by showing that value co-creation acts as an antecedent of CBE,
driving consumers’ behavioural intention, reflected by on-going search behaviour and repurchase intention.

Keywords
Social media marketing, Engagement, Co-creation, Repurchase intention, On-going search behavior, China, Hong Kong

Date received: 23 July 2019; revised: 3 March 2020; accepted: 26 March 2020

1. Introduction 2013). This explains why, amongst various other types of consumer-
brand interactional activities, interactions elicited by SMM activity
In the contemporary customer-centric world, the study of service- have received considerable scholarly attention, given SMM’s appar-
dominant logic (SDL) has attracted increasing scholarly attention ent power in influencing the behaviours of geographically dispersed
regarding its application in brand-building research through exploring consumers (Sitta et al., 2018; Zadeh et al., 2019).
ways of retaining empowered customers (Akaka et al., 2019; Vargo The wide diffusion of social media has changed the means of
and Lusch, 2008). Value co-creation and consumer-brand engage- communication between marketers and customers by encouraging
ment (CBE) stand out in research as critical brand-building mecha- more than 65 million firms to reach customers using social media
nisms, because of their potential to positively influence customers’ platforms, offering an effective pathway relative to traditional mar-
behaviour (Hollebeek, 2013; Schivinski et al., 2016). This influence keting efforts (Hinson et al., 2019; Kaplan, 2015; Morra et al., 2018).
is reflected in the building of customer satisfaction, consumer-brand
relationships, customer retention, brand equity and competitive
advantage (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014; Pansari and Kumar, 2017). 1
 he Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
T
Importantly, recognising that these mechanisms can be enhanced by 2
Newcastle Business School, University of Newcastle, Australia
social media marketing (SMM) activities justifies their recognition 3
Central Coast Business School, University of Newcastle - Central Coast,
as a key research priority (Tier 1) in marketing (MSI, 2018). SMM is Australia
conceptualised as involving marketing strategies using social media 4
College of Professional and Continuing Education, An affiliate of The Hong
platforms to communicate brand-related information and to man- Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kon
5
age consumer-brand relationships (Godey et al., 2016; Schultz and Faculty of Hospitality and Tourism Management, UCSI University, Sarawak,
Peltier, 2013; Solem and Pedersen, 2016). Malaysia
The advancement of social media - e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Corresponding author:
YouTube and WeChat - has prompted scholarly interest in the process Man Lai Cheung, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, 999077, Hong
of driving value co-creation and CBE through consumer-brand inter- Kong.
actions (Abdul-Ghani et al., 2019; Hinson et al., 2019; Hollebeek, Email: [email protected]
Cheung et al. 119

Since brand value is created by marketers and by consumers, the use 2. Theoretical background
of social media allows consumers to play active roles in connecting
with brands. Brands empower consumers by creating opportunities 2.1. Service-dominant logic and co-creation
to co-create brand value in the process of coming up with and shar- Vargo and Lusch (2004a) initially proposed SDL to explain a para-
ing ideas with brands and like-minded users (Laroche et al., 2012; digm shift in marketing orientation, fundamentally providing a ser-
Peters et al., 2013). Clearly, how to use social media and SMM to
vice-based view of exchange involving businesses/brands, markets
attract and retain empowered customers is an area warranting schol-
and society. In simple terms, SDL contends that products have no
arly attention (Barger et al., 2016; Singaraju et al., 2016).
embedded value for those who hold them (whether brands or con-
Reflecting its breakthrough contribution and reach potential,
sumers), with value residing on what benefits they (brands or con-
recent estimates of social media refer to a global penetration rate
sumers) perceive to gain from their ownership/consumption (Vargo
of 42% (Statista, 2018a), with more than 3 billion monthly users
and Lusch, 2004b; Vargo et al., 2008). Encompassing the applica-
(Statista, 2018b) and more than 10% incremental growth per year
tion of knowledge and skills (competences) for the benefit of a party
(Kemp, 2018). Notably, more than 50% of consumers obtain brand-
(http://sdlogic.net/index.html), SDL advances a theory of value co-
related information by following brand pages (Ismail, 2017), and
creation between business (brands) and consumers whereby, beyond
intend to engage with their relevant brands, by leaving comments or
being simple receivers of brand information, consumers are also
sharing content (Lee, 2018). For example, more than 80% of Fortune
value co-creators in the process of value exchange with brands. The
500 companies have adopted SMM as their primary marketing
propositions of SDL introduce a framework describing how brand
strategy to interact with consumers, thereby co-creating value and
value is created, arguing that creation occurs when multiple actors
fomenting consumer engagement (Hinson et al., 2019; Schivinski
interact to exchange resources. Therefore, value co-creation can be
et al., 2016). Clearly, social media provides opportunities for market-
more accurately referred to as brand value co-creation (Vargo, 2009;
ers to share brand-related information with consumers (Tess, 2013),
Vargo and Lusch, 2008).
almost irrespective of their location, leading to value co-creation and
Recent developments saw the evolution of SDL as a dynamic sys-
CBE opportunities.
tem, in which value co-creation is coordinated through firm-initiated
Notwithstanding the growing importance of social media and
communication and interaction with consumers to drive consumers’
SMM, SMM studies have focused mostly on appeals of user-gen-
intention to create value for brands (Lusch and Vargo, 2014Vargo
erated content (Han et al., 2018), on content analysis (Shen and
Bissell, 2013), on creative strategies (Ashley and Tuten, 2015) and and Lusch, 2016). Accordingly, brands attempt to create brand value
on consumers’ behaviour as part of a social media brand commu- by communicating the inherent attributes and benefits to consumers
nity (Kamboj et al., 2018). This has resulted in limited understanding from using multiple media channels, such as print advertisements,
of the link between SMM strategies and either value co-creation or their own website, and social media platforms (Hinson et al., 2019;
CBE. Indeed, SMM, co-creation and CBE are typically studied sepa- Keller, 2013). For example, upon receiving the branded messages
rately, with limited studies looking to empirically link them. This is consumers co-create brand value when they provide suggestions for
why understanding how SMM can be used to build value co-creation improving the brands, offer solutions for brands to solve identified
and CBE, along with its impact on consumers’ behavioural inten- problems, or become involved in the brands’ new product develop-
tion, stand out as a key research priority, justifying the need for the ment process (Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). Ultimately, the con-
research reported in this study. sumer-brand interaction process is valuable for brands because it
Drawing on service-dominant logic (SDL) theory, this study helps them improve the quality of their products (Merz et al., 2018).
examines the antecedents and consequences of value co-creation and Hence, brands increasingly focus on how to initiate marketing activi-
CBE. More specifically, the study examines CBE by exploring the ties to facilitate the value co-creating process, which reflects the
influence of firm-initiated SMM on consumers’ value co-creation recognised importance of co-creation in marketing (France et al.,
process with brands, ultimately leading to on-going search behaviour 2015; France et al., 2018; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Vargo
and repurchase intention. Accordingly, two research questions (RQs) and Lusch, 2004a; 2004b).
guide this study: Co-creation refers to the collaborative (joint) activities between
consumers and brands for creating material and symbolic value for
RQ1. What is the impact of SMM on value co-creation and both parties (Gummesson et al., 2014). Brands increasingly use social
CBE? media platforms - e.g. Facebook, Instagram and WeChat - to foster
RQ2. What are the behavioural consequences of CBE? interactive marketing activities that facilitate consumer-brand inter-
actions, driving value co-creation (Ind and Coates, 2013). For exam-
We address RQ1 by investigating the impact of specific SMM ple, using Starbuck’s Facebook brand page on MyStarbucksIdea.
activities on value co-creation and CBE, whilst RQ2 is addressed by com, consumers can collaborate with Starbucks to co-design prod-
examining the impact of CBE on consumers’ repurchase intention ucts and packages, as well as to offer suggestions on how to improve
and on-going search behaviour. In addition, by collecting data from the Starbuck’s products, services and brand image (Lee and Suh,
consumers in mainland China and Hong Kong, the study also sheds 2016).
light on the influence of culture on the issues being examined. The importance of SDL and co-creation explains the increasing
Overall, this study contributes to the marketing literature by offer- scholarly attention on the impact of co-creation activities on consum-
ing a comprehensive framework demonstrating how SMM activities ers’ behaviour. For example, examining the value co-creation process
influence consumers’ value co-creation and CBE, along with repur- in the furniture market recognised the importance of consumer-brand
chase intention and on-going search behaviour. The rest of the paper interactions in accumulating and integrating brand knowledge,
presents the theoretical background of the study and conceptual facilitating subsequent product-quality improvement (Andreu et al.,
model, followed by the methodology and results. The implications 2010). Similarly, Cossio-Silva et al. (2016) examined the importance
for theory and practice are then discussed, followed by limitations of value co-creation in driving consumer loyalty, revealing that con-
and suggestions for future research. sumers’ sharing of brand information with others, helping them to
120 Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)

use the brand and to provide feedback to brands for improvements, consumers’ effective reach and strengthening perceived brand value
are critical drivers in building consumers’ attitudinal loyalty. More (Seo et al., 2018). For example, advances in social media tech-
recently, Hidayanti et al. (2018) found that social media interaction nologies allow brand-message customisation whilst maintaining
has a significant impact on consumers’ value co-creation intention, a dialogue with customers (Miller and Lammas, 2010), creating
thereby driving customer loyalty. remarkable opportunities for brands to reach consumers, strengthen-
Overall, the emerging view is that marketers should facilitate ing consumer-brand relationships (Kim and Ko, 2012).
consumer-brand interactions to encourage collaboration, thus build- The wide reach of social media strengthens the interaction
ing strong consumer-brand relationships (Cossio-Silva et al., 2016; between brands and consumers (Cheung et al., 2020; Manthiou et al.,
Galvagno and Dalli, 2014; Hsieh and Chang., 2016) through value 2013), enabling brands to create and facilitate two-way communi-
co-creation. This supports calls for further empirical research on cations with consumers, and allowing consumers to exchange their
co-creation’s antecedents and consequents (Chathoth et al., 2016), ideas about the brands with like-minded peers (Heggde and Shainesh,
including firm-initiated social media communication, CBE and its 2018; Muntinga et al., 2011). Interaction between consumers and
behavioural intentions (France et al., 2015; Hollebeek, 2013). These brands is strengthened when brands create spaces (opportunities)
are areas that remain under-researched, as discussed in the following on social media for consumers to share and discuss brand-related
sections. information (Dessart et al., 2015) whilst building consumers’ posi-
tive brand perceptions (Godey et al., 2016). Notably, the promising
development of social media brand pages can motivate consumers
2.2. Social media marketing (SMM)
to participate in the interaction by discussing brand stories, attrib-
Social media refers to online applications, platforms, web tools or utes and beneits, with their peers, as well as sharing their needs with
technological systems that facilitate collaboration and content shar- the brand. Such participation has the potential to strengthen the con-
ing between community members (Kaplan and Haen-lein, 2010); sumer-brand relationship, leading to positive value-exchange out-
examples include Facebook, Instagram, Linkedln, WeChat, Blog and comes (Algharabat et al., 2020; Kamboj et al., 2018; Seo and Park,
Twitter (Tess, 2013). Social media is regarded as an effective channel 2018).
in reaching consumers at a lower cost than traditional media, such The creation and sharing of EWOM are akin to interaction.
as print, TV and radio (lankova et al., 2019), warranting increasing EWOM refers to communication by former, actual or potential cus-
scholarly attention to the importance of SMM activities in the brand- tomers about a brand using social media platforms (Hennig-Thurau
building process (Islam et al., 2017). et al., 2004). Because it involves consumers’ communications about
Marketers have multiple ways to perform SMM, including the their own experiences and opinions, EWOM is perceived by con-
consideration of different messages and activities, resulting in con- sumers as highly credible and trustworthy information (Cheung
ceptual richness that anchors SMM as a multidimensional concept et al., 2019), which explains why consumers increasingly evaluate
(Ngai et al., 2015; Pham and Gammoh, 2015). For example, Kim and product attributes by searching the EWOM available on social media
Ko (2012) empirically investigated the importance of SMM activities platforms (Sijoria et al., 2018). This also explains marketing schol-
for brand building, recommending the use of social media platforms ars’ appetence for asserting the usefulness of EWOM in building
to communicate SMM content that features entertaining, customisa- consumer-brand relationships, ultimately shaping consumers’ posi-
tion, interaction, electronic word of mouth (EWOM) and trendiness tive attitudinal intention (Kudeshia and Kumar, 2017).
activities. Similarly, Godey et al. (2016) conceptualised SMM as a Finally, trendiness refers to the extent to which a brand communi-
process used by brands to communicate brand-related information cates up-to-date and trendy information (i.e. current ‘hot topics’) rel-
to build consumer-brand relationships, by providing entertaining evant to the brand (Naaman et al., 2011). Arguably, the trendier the
content, personalised information, interaction, EWOM and trendi- information carried by social media brand pages, the more effective
ness dimensions. More recently, Yadav and Rahman (2017) endorsed these are in increasing consumers’ motivation to understand more
SMM as a multidimensional concept, with an influential role in about the brand (Dessart et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2020). This is why
building consumer-based brand equity. marketers seek to attract consumers’ attention by constantly updating
Along with the relevant literature (Algharabat, 2017; Bianchi and social media brand pages - including sharing the latest news about
Andrews, 2018; Cheung et al., 2019; Godey et al., 2016; Seo and brands, new product development and latest offerings - aiming to
Park, 2018; Yadav and Rahman, 2017), this study also conceptualises build strong and positive consumer brand knowledge (Kim and Ko,
SMM as a multidimensional set of brand-initiated activities, com- 2010).
prising five dimensions - entertainment, customisation, interaction, Along similar research practice (Cheung et al., 2019; Gomez
EWOM and trendiness - discussed below. et al., 2019; Kim and Ko, 2012), the five dimensions of SMM
Entertainment refers to marketers’ creation of experiences (such activities just discussed - entertainment, customisation, interaction,
as games, video sharing and participation in contests) that consum- EWOM and trendiness - collectively combine to form an overall
ers perceive as fun and playful when using social media platforms SMM construct, represented in Fig. 1. Accordingly, we conceptualise
(Agichtein et al., 2008; Manthiou et al., 2013). Arguably, playful SMM as a hierarchical, reflective-formative Type II construct. The
experiences can build a sense of consumer intimacy with the brand, adoption of the reflective-formative approach is appropriate, because
strengthening consumers’ engagement with the brand and brand- the five SMM dimensions are distinct in nature and not interchange-
related purchase intention (Dessart et al., 2015). This is supported by able (Becker et al., 2012; Diamantopoulos et al., 2008; Jarvis et al.,
recent indings of a positive association between entertaining content 2003; Sarstedt et al., 2019). That is, the overall SMM strategy may
available on social media platforms and brand attitude (Godey et al., be influenced by one or all five of the components, and a change
2016; Moro and Rita, 2018; Yoshida et al., 2018), inviting the con- in one component is not necessarily accompanied by changes in
clusion that entertaining content can effectively stimulate consumer- the other components (Carlson et al., 2019a; 2019b; Cheung et al.,
brand interactions, as well as strengthen consumers’ brand loyalty 2019). For example, marketers may introduce entertaining content
(Kamboj et al., 2018). without customised content (Cheung et al., 2019).
ln terms of customisation, it refers to the extent that services Conceptualising SMM using a hierarchical, reflective-form-
are tailored to satisfy consumers’ personal preferences, facilitating ative approach allows for meaningful implications to be drawn,
Cheung et al. 121

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of this study. ‘Note: Social Media Marketing and Consumer-brand Engagement are hierarchical, second-
order constructs; H6-H9 are moderating effects.

helping marketers to understand the impact of specific SMM activi- products with consumers, inviting them to share their positive expe-
ties (dimensions) in forming an overall SMM strategy, including riences with the brand, to provide suggestions for improvements, and
their subsequent effect on endogenous variables, such as value co- to share their ideas about new product development (Lin et al., 2018).
creation. Along this rationale, the following hypotheses are devel- Importantly, customised content tailored to consumers’ prefer-
oped for this study: ences delivers personalised brand experiences. This facilitates value
Continue5H1a-a The SMM construct comprises the first-order co-creation by arousing consumers’ interests in reading information
dimensions of: (a) entertainment, (b) customisation, (c) interaction, about the brand, driving their intention to interact with brands on
(d) electronic word-of-mouth and (e) trendiness. the topics of their personal interest (Cheung et al., 2019). Similarly,
While there is an abundance of empirical research examining EWOM on social media platforms reflects brand users’ prior expe-
the impact of SMM on consumers’ brand knowledge in general rience, attracting consumers’ attention and facilitating their social
(e.g. Godey et al., 2016; Kim and Ko, 2012; Seo and Park, 2018), media interaction with other like-minded users to discuss and review
the literature gives little attention to its impact on value co-creation. branded products (Seifert and Kwon, 2019). Hence, using interactive
Similarly, research examines the link between SMM and value co- brand posts invites consumers to actively participate in brand-related
creating behaviour (e.g. liking, commenting and sharing) on social discussions and activities on social media platforms, motivating
media platforms (e.g. De Vries et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2020), but consumers’ resource integration into co-creating brand meaning and
the consequences for value co-creation are typically overlooked. value (Gummesson et al., 2010; Simeoni and Cassia, 2019). Since
Therefore, empirical research examining the impact of SMM on the above interactive processes are considered effective in engag-
value co-creation and its consequences is needed, as discussed in the ing consumers in a brand’s value-creation processes (Singaraju et al.,
next section. 2016), the following hypothesis is justified:

2.3. Value co-creation H2 SMM has a positive effect on value co-creation.

The advancement of social media awakened attention to branding-

2.4. Consumer brand engagement (CBE)
related issues (Ahn et al., 2019), because social media provides a
virtual space for consumers to share their brand experiences, acting Rooted in the concept of customer engagement (Hollebeek et al.,
as an essential driver in brand value co-creation (Luo et al., 2015). 2014; Kosiba et al., 2018) and applying SDL principles, CBE is
For instance, brands can create entertaining content that attracts con- conceptualised as consumers’ cognitive, emotional and behavioural
sumers’ attention, driving consumer-brand interactions and strength- responses concerned with consumer-brand interactions (Brodie
ening consumers’ intention to share their ideas and feedback about et al., 2013) and deemed critical in influencing consumer behav-
the entertaining content (Liu et al., 2020). Brands can also use posts iour (Brodie and Hollebeek, 2011). To drive CBE, marketers seek to
and activities on social media platforms to share their latest news and motivate and empower consumers’ voluntary contribution to a focal
122 Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)

brand (Harmeling et al., 2017), thus driving consumers’ positive per- Recent research validates the positive associations between CBE
ceptions towards the brand (Kosiba et al., 2018). and a wide array of consumers’ on-going behaviours (e.g. Abdul-
Recent marketing literature strives to better understand CBE’s Ghani et al., 2019; Harrigan et al., 2015). For example, a focus on
antecedents (e.g. Gavilanes et al., 2018; Hollebeek, 2018; Leckie marketing practitioners’ perspectives found that CBE and customer
et al., 2016), highlighting the importance of consumers’ co-creation relationship management (CRM) outcomes are positively related,
activities. Focus is on the sharing of consumer-initiated content for explaining why consumers search for the brand-related informa-
brand-value creation (such as discussing consumers’ personal needs, tion on an on-going basis (Harrigan et al., 2015). Similarly, Abdul-
their suggestions for improvements and ideas for product develop- Ghani et al. (2018) posit that CBE drives consumers’ on-going
ment), building consumer-brand relationships and, therefore, CBE participation in brand-related activities, including on-going usage
(Hsieh and Chang, 2016; Nysveen and Pedersen, 2014). and intention to experience their favourite brands by on-going
Firm-initiated value co-creation activities encourage consumers’ search for brand-related information. More recently, Carlson et al.
feedback and ideas about products, an encouragement that is criti- (2019a; 2019b) found that highly engaged consumers are willing
cal in strengthening satisfaction and consumer-brand relationships to use a brand’s webpages to regularly search for brand- and brand-
(Andreu et al, 2010). In support, Hsieh and Chang (2016) found category-related information. The understanding that CBE plays a
a positive relationship between firm-initiated, brand co-creation considerable role in driving consumers’ on-going search behaviour,
activities and CBE, positing that when consumers are active in con- justifies hypothesis 5:
necting with the brand during the idea-generation process, they are
deeply immersed with the brand and have a strong sense of dedica- H2 CBE has a positive effect on on-going search behaviour.
tion, hence driving CBE (Carlson et al., 2018). The proposition is
that value co-creation process positively influences consumer-brand 2.7. Cultural differences
relationships, thus evoking CBE (Hsieh and Chang, 2016), ground-
ing hypothesis 3: The notion of national culture refers to the patterns of thinking, feel-
ing and acting that are rooted in common values and societal con-
H2 Value co-creation has a positive effect on CBE. ventions (Nakata and Sivakumar, 2001). A plethora of studies assert
the importance of cultural differences amongst countries, and within
specific regions within countries (Lin and Ho, 2009; Sin et al., 2003),
2.5. Repurchase intention in conditioning SMM’s effectiveness in shaping consumers’ behav-
Repurchase intention reflects consumers’ loyalty behaviour, denoting iour (Barnes et al., 2009; Godey et al., 2016; Khan et al., 2016).
their intention to buy the same product from the same firm on more Culture is deemed to moderate the relationship between social
than one occasion (Hellier et al., 2003). Empirical research confirms media use and consumer-brand relationships in France, in the UK
that consumers’ past consumption experience (Kuo et al., 2009) and and in the USA (Hudson et al. 2016), and an examination of the
participation in sharing brand-related information (Carlson et al., impact of SMM on consumers’ behavioural responses on social
2018) influence the building of brand-loyalty outcomes (Vazquez- media platforms - including the number of likes, comments and
Casielles et al., 2017). Hence, highly engaged consumers are deeply shares, all regarded as engagement behaviours (Muntinga et al.,
involved with their brands of interest and motivated to choose 2011) - identified culture as a partial moderator in Australia, in the
the focal brand as the priority in their decision-making process UK and in the USA (Khan et al., 2016). In the Asian context, Chen
(Hollebeek, 2013). Congruency with recent research supporting the et al. (2016) examined the role of culture in moderating the relation-
existence of a positive link between CBE and consumer outcomes, ship between social media political information sharing and online
such as purchase intention (Carlson et al., 2019a; 2019b), intention democratic engagement (i.e., online activism) in Hong Kong, main-
to use (Abdul-Ghani et al., 2018) and repurchase intention (Lee land China, and in Taiwan. They concluded that the Hong Kong
et al., 2019), justifies hypothesis 4: respondents participate in online democratic engagement by sharing
political information on social media, but this is not the case for the
H2 CBE has a positive effect on repurchase intention. mainland Chinese respondents. An explanation for the inconsistent
findings with respect to consumers’ behaviour in social media usage
is attributable to cultural differences in national contexts (Elliot and
2.6. On-going search behaviour
Tam, 2014; Khan et al., 2016) and at the regional level, as in the case
On-going search behaviour (OSB) refers to customers’ regular of Hong Kong and mainland China (Goodrich and de Mooij, 2013).
external search for information that is not associated with the solv- Research also recognises significant differences in advertising
ing of a recognised and immediate purchase problem (Bloch et al., effectiveness relative to the shaping of consumers behaviours in dif-
1986). Empirical research demonstrates the association between ferent regions within a country, as in the case of Hong Kong and
consumers’ intrinsic motivation and OSB (Beatty and Smith, 1987; mainland China (Barnes et al., 2015; Elliot and Tam, 2014). This is
Cheung et al., 2020; Schmidt and Spreng, 1996), suggesting that also the message conveyed by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, with
when consumers are interested in the category of specific brands, significant differences in five out of six cultural dimensions for Hong
they are willing to exert considerable cognitive effort in search- Kong and China, namely: power distance (Hong Kong = 68, China
ing for brand- and brand-category-related information (McColl- = 80), individualism (Hong Kong = 25, China = 20), long-term ori-
Kennedy and Fetter, 2001). Arguably, CBE reflects consumers’ entation (Hong Kong = 61, China = 87), masculinity (Hong Kong
psychological state concerning their interactive and co-creative = 57, China = 66) and indulgence (Hong Kong = 17, China = 24)
experience with brands (Algharabat et al., 2020; Brodie et al., (Hofstede Insights, 2018).
2011; Carlson et al., 2018), strengthening their interest in the focal Finally, the discussion of cultural differences above identifies
brand, and motivating them to search for brand- and brand-cate- moderating effects of culture on the relationship between various
gory- related information on an on-going basis (Bloch et al., 2009; forms of SMM and consumers’ behavioural intention. However, no
Mathwick and Rigdon, 2004; Yeoh, 2005). research to date has investigated the eventual moderating role of
Cheung et al. 123

cultural differences on the impact of SMM on value co-creation and To ensure the content validity of the measurement items, we
its outcomes in Hong Kong and mainland China. The suggestion is sought feedback from three marketing experts familiar with SMM
that culture also has a moderating role on the impact of SMM on research. Feedback on their review of the wording, coverage and
value co-creation, CBE, on-going search behaviour and repurchase appropriateness of the items was used to reine the survey instrument.
intention as assessed for Hong Kong and China, justifying the fol-
lowing hypotheses: 3.3. Data Collection
H2 Culture moderates the impact of SMM on value co-creation. We sent the invitation to potential respondents using email, along
H3 Culture moderates the impact of value co-creation on CBE. with posting the link on several Facebook brand pages in Hong
H4 Culture moderates the impact of CBE on on-going search Kong and WeChat brand pages in mainland China. The survey took
behaviour. approximately 10 min to complete and remained available for com-
H5 Culture moderates the impact of CBE on repurchase pletion for 12 weeks in early 2019. Given the use of a purposive
intention. sampling technique, respondents were restricted to consumers who
had purchased the focal product used in this study -a smartphone
-along with having experience in using social media platforms and
3. Methodology in reading brand-related information on social media platforms. We
3.1. Population and Sample checked respondents’ eligibility using several screening questions,
such as “Have you ever bought a smart-phone”, “Have you ever
Hosted on the online-survey platform Qualtrics, a self-administered visited social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and
online survey in Chinese collected primary data from consumers in WeChat?” and “Have you ever read information about brands on
Hong Kong and mainland China via a purposive sampling technique, social media platforms/blogs/forums?”.
with selection (screening) criteria determined at the outset to ensure Of the 485 consumers invited to partake in the survey, 455 were
collection of valid data, relevant to the study. Target respondents eligible to participate but 63 incomplete responses were discarded. The
were experienced social media users with a WeChat account in China final sample comprised 392 usable responses from smartphone con-
or a Facebook account in Hong Kong. The focus was on respond- sumers who were over 18 years old (186 responses from Hong Kong,
ents’ perceptions because Hong Kong and China are both regarded 206 responses from mainland China), equivalent to an 80.8% partici-
as social media friendly markets, with high social media penetration pation rate. All respondents were active social-media users - signing in
rates, as well as with significant knowledge of social media plat- to Facebook or WeChat an average 6-10 times per day -and owned the
forms, such as Facebook and WeChat (Chan and Guillet, 2011). The focal product at the time of data collection. Most of the respondents
focal product for the research was the smartphone, a product that were female (69.6%), aged 1825 years (69.4%) and educated at the
allows consumers to exert their personalised imagination in meeting bachelor’s degree level or above (68.6%). Only 42.4% were engaged
their individual needs, facilitating co-creation of value in the usage in full-time work. Checks were done to ensure there were no hetero-
process and creating a unique brand experience in consumers’ minds geneity issues due to different usage rates, gender and late response.
(Vivek et al., 2012).
3.4. Data analysis
3.2. Measurement
The study adopted a partial least squares structural equation mod-
Adopted from the literature, items were measured using seven-point
elling (PLS-SEM) approach for the data analysis, using the recom-
Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). SMM was
mended 50 0 0-bootstrap procedure (Hair et al., 2018) in SmartPLS
modelled as a hierarchical, reflective-formative Type II construct,
v3.2.8 (Ringle et al., 2015). The repeated-indicator approach was
comprising the first-order dimensions of entertainment, customisa-
used for the hierarchical, second-order constructs (Becker et al.,
tion, interaction, EWOM and trendiness (Algharabat, 2017; Duarte
2012; Hair et al., 2018), meaning that the indicators of the first-order
and Amaro, 2018; Kim and Ko, 2012). Twelve items measured the
constructs were repeated to measure the second-order construct.
five SMM dimensions (Godey et al., 2016).
PLS-SEM is a suitable technique for testing the hypotheses devel-
Ten items were adopted from Leckie et al. (2016) to measure
oped in this study for three reasons. First, PLS-SEM is appropriate
the multidimensional CBE construct. CBE was operationalised as a
for a study with prediction-oriented goals and with complex model
hierarchical, Type I reflective-reflective construct featuring cognitive
structures (Haenlein and Kaplan, 2004; Hair et al., 2017); Second,
processing, affection and activation as first-order dimensions (Islam
PLS-SEM supports the simultaneous analysis of a conceptual model
et al., 2018). Prior CBE research found a positive correlation amongst
with both reflective-reflective and reflective-formative hierarchical
the three first-order dimensions (Dwivedi, 2015; Harrigan et al., 2017;
constructs (Sarstedt et al., 2019); Third, PLS-SEM is suitable for
Hinson et al., 2019), meaning that when consumers invest cognitive
studies with smaller sample sizes (e.g. ⩽ 500) (Hair et al., 2017;
processing efforts in understanding more about their favourite brands,
Leung et al., 2019).
those efforts correlate closely with their positive emotional attach-
ment (i.e. affection) and with their intention to choose the focal brand
as their priority in the consumption process (i.e. activation). This posi- 4. Results
tive first-order dimension correlation supports the reflective-reflec-
4.1. Measurement model
tive Type I operationalisation (Javis et al., 2003). Other recent CBE
studies also conceptualise CBE as a hierarchical, reflective-reflective Following the recommended two-step approach (Hair et al., 2018),
Type I construct, reporting satisfactory results (e.g. Algharabat et al., the measurement (outer) model was assessed first. Evaluation of
2018; Hinson et al., 2019; Islam et al., 2018). internal consistency used Cronbach’s alpha and composite reli-
Regarding the behavioural outcomes in the model, the study ability (CR), achieving a satisfactory level of internal consistency
adopted four items from McColl-Kennedy and Fetter (2001) to (all values >.782). Additionally, all item loadings were significant
measure on-going search behaviour. Three items from Wu et al. and exceeded.764, being well above the recommended.70 thresh-
(2014) were adopted to measure repurchase intention. olds (see Table 1). We also assessed the convergent validity of the
Table 1. Outer model results.
124

Construct Loading t-value Alpha Composite AVE

reliability

Entertainment .85 .93 .87

The content found in Brand X’s social media seems interesting. .935 117.82
It is fun to collect information on products through Brand X’s social media. .926 84.36
Customisation .83 .92 .86
It is possible to search for customised information on Brand X’s social media. .929 98.98
Brand X’s social media provide customised services. .922 68.69
Interaction .90 .94 .84
It is easy to convey my opinion through Brand X’s social media. .921 94.13
It is easy to convey my opinions or conversation with other users through Brand X’s social media. .923 97.51
It is possible to have two-way interaction through Brand X’s social media. .901 63.06
Electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM) .78 .90 .82
I would like to pass information on brands, products or services from Brand X’s social media to my friends. .915 91.74
I would like to upload content from Brand X’s social media on my Facebook page or my blog. .897 59.56
Trendiness .86 .93 .88
Using Brand X’s social media is very trendy. .940 130.48
The content on Brand X’s social media is the newest information. .931 97.68
Value co-creation .91 .93 .73
I often suggest how Brand X can improve its products and services. .862 54.28
I often express my personal needs to Brand X. .875 47.83
I often find solutions to my problems together with Brand X. .864 46.26
I am actively involved when Brand X develops new products. .877 69.95
Brand X encourages consumers to create solutions together. .791 27.20
Consumer-brand engagement - Cognitive processing .87 .92 .79
Using this brand get me to think about Brand X. .803 28.51
I think about Brand X a lot when I am using it. .764 29.57
Using this brand stimulates my interest to learn more about Brand X. .803 34.21
Consumer-brand engagement - Affection .92 .94 .80
I feel very positive when I use Brand X. .905 77.06
Using Brand X makes me happy. .932 117.10
I feel good when I use Brand X. .921 96.17
I am proud to use Brand X. .819 40.06
Consumer-brand engagement - Activation .83 .90 .75
I spend a lot of time using Brand X compared with other brands. .788 25.60
Whenever I am using smartphones, I usually use Brand X. .917 96.10
I use Brand X the most. .887 49.24
On-going search behaviour .82 .88 .65
I am interested in browsing catalogs, advertisements and articles about smartphones. .800 29.26
I am interested in visiting stores, just to look around or get information, rather than to make a specific purchase. .802 28.61
I would be interested in reading information about how smartphones can be used. .808 40.35
I have compared attributes and characteristics among firms that provide smartphone products. .805 30.81
Repurchase intention .90 .94 .83
The probability that I will use Brand X again is high. .930 85.59
I consider myself a loyal customer of Brand X. .882 45.80
If I had to do it over again, I would choose Brand X. .931 108.05
Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)
Cheung et al. 125

Table 2. Discriminant validity of measurement model: Fornell-Larcker criterion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. CBE 0.79
2. CBE - Activation 0.835 0.866
3. CBE - Affection 0.936 0.671 0.895
4. CBE - Cognitive processing 0.889 0.615 0.764 0.889
5. Value co-creation 0.608 0.518 0.536 0.575 0.854
6. Customisation 0.414 0.306 0.424 0.356 0.209 0.926
7. EWOM 0.614 0.441 0.582 0.601 0.553 0.465 0.906
8. Entertainment 0.381 0.271 0.395 0.332 0.175 0.645 0.415 0.93
9. Interaction 0.615 0.442 0.609 0.566 0.462 0.534 0.741 0.492 0.915
10. On-going search behaviour 0.511 0.379 0.454 0.528 0.525 0.268 0.476 0.272 0.397 0.804
11. Repurchase intention 0.773 0.774 0.702 0.596 0.53 0.326 0.475 0.263 0.516 0.414 0.913
12. Trendiness 0.678 0.537 0.646 0.61 0.469 0.493 0.719 0.438 0.734 0.471 0.547 0.936

Note: Diagonals (bold) represent the square root of the AVE, while the off-diagonals represent the correlations.

Table 3. Discriminant validity of measurement model: HTMT ratio.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. CBE
2. CBE -Activation N/A
3. CBE -Affection N/A 0.766
4. CBE -Cognitive processing N/A 0.725 0.854
5. Value co-creation 0.654 0.591 0.578 0.642
6. Customisation 0.471 0.368 0.489 0.419 0.233
7. EWOM 0.715 0.547 0.684 0.728 0.654 0.573
8. Entertainment 0.429 0.322 0.45 0.385 0.191 0.769 0.506
9. Interaction 0.668 0.51 0.668 0.639 0.506 0.616 0.88 0.563
10. On-going search behaviour 0.58 0.46 0.518 0.625 0.606 0.324 0.596 0.326 0.462
11. Repurchase intention 0.843 0.893 0.769 0.674 0.579 0.377 0.565 0.299 0.572 0.479
12. Trendiness 0.756 0.639 0.726 0.708 0.527 0.582 0.876 0.512 0.834 0.562 0.622

Note: HTMT values < 0.90 indicate a satisfactory result for discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2017).

model using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). All AVE scores the CR (.943) and AVE (.624) of the second-order CBE construct
exceeded.646, hence greater than the recommended.50 threshold, exceeded the recommended thresholds, supporting its reliability and
and confirming convergent validity (see Table 1). validity. Hence, the study supported modelling CBE as a second-
Using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion (see Table 2), all order, reflective-reflective construct.
AVE square roots exceeded the corresponding correlations, satisfy- Second, we assessed the reflective-formative SMM construct
ing the discriminant validity of the model (Hair et al., 2017). Using by examining the VIF values and t-values for the first-order con-
the more conservative Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Henseler structs. All five first-order SMM dimensions had a significant posi-
et al., 2015) also confirmed discriminant validity (see Table 3), with tive impact on the second-order SMM construct as hypothesised,
all HTMT values smaller than the.90 threshold value (Hair et al., with the impact of trendiness on the second-order SMM construct
2017). We also examined multicollinearity by checking the Variance being the strongest (β=.280, p =.0 00), followed by EWOM (β=.275,
Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all exogenous constructs. All VIF p =.00 0), interaction (β=.268, p =.0 00), customisation (β=.207,
values for all constructs fall below the common 5.0 threshold (Hair p =.000) and entertainment (β=.190, p =.000). Additionally, with
et al., 2017), indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern. all VIF values falling below the recommended 5.0 threshold, rang-
Because of the single-source nature of the self-reported data, we ing from 1.70 to 3.11, this suggests that collinearity amongst the
assessed the common method bias (CMB) by conducting Harman’s five first-order SMM dimensions is not an issue (Hair et al., 2018).
single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The single factor accounted Hence, the results support SMM being modelled as a second-order,
for 41.593% of the variance, hence lower than the 50% threshold, reflective-formative construct, being formed by the five first-order
indicating that the questionnaire was not affected by CMB. SMM dimensions, supporting H1a-e.
Lastly, we assessed the hierarchical constructs. First, we assessed
the CBE construct using standard reflective criteria. The first-order
4.2. Structural (inner) model
loadings of the CBE dimensions were strong (⩾.835) and signifi-
cant (p =.00 0) for the three first-order dimensions, with affection The remaining hypotheses were assessed using the inner (structural)
(β=.936, p =.0 00) the strongest, followed by cognitive processing (β model results, by examining the t-values, standardised coefficient
=.889, p =.0 00) and then activation (β=.835, p =.000). Additionally, beta values and coefficient of determination (R2 value). The results
126 Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)

Table 4. Results of PLS-SEM analysis.

Relationship Whole sample Hong Kong China Differences

Path p-value. Path p-value Path p-value Mean p-value

coefficient coefficient coefficient Difference
Value co-creation (R2 =.289) .487 .000*** .498 .000*** .492 .000*** .006 .468
SMM → Value co-creation.
CBE (R2 =.471)
Value co-creation → CBE. .608 .000*** .647 .000*** .576 .000*** .071 .185
Repurchase intention (R2 =.553)
CBE → Repurchase intention. .773 .000*** .658 .000*** .837 .000*** .180 .001***
On-going search behaviour (R2 =.259)
CBE → On-going search behaviour. .511 .000*** .529 .000*** .488 .000*** .042 .325

Note: paths significant at p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

Fig. 2. Results of theoretical model in this study. Note: paths significant at p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001.

for the whole sample support H2, H3, H4 and H5 (see Table 4 and (β=.136, p =.000), followed by EWOM (β =.134, p =.000), interac-
Fig. 2). In particular, the impact of SMM on value co-creation was tion (β =.130, p =.000), customisation (β =.101, p =.000) and enter-
strong and significant (β =.487, p =.000), whilst value co-creation tainment (β =.093, p =.000). Collectively, the five SMM dimensions
had a significant positive impact on CBE (β =.608, p =.000), sup- are deemed useful individual drivers of value co-creation. It was also
porting H2 and H3. In addition, CBE had a strong and positive found that SMM had a positive and significant indirect effect on CBE
impact on repurchase intention (β =.773, p =.000) and on-going (β =.296, p =.000), repurchase intention (β =.229, p =.000) and on-
search behaviour (β =.511, p =.000), supporting H4 and H5. going search behaviour (β =.151, p =.000). The indirect effects of
The R2 values were used to evaluate the explanatory power of the value co-creation on repurchase intention (β =.470, p =.000) and on-
conceptual model. The R2 values for value co-creation, CBE, repur- going search behaviour (β =.311, p =.000) were strong, positive and
chase intention and on-going search behaviour were .289, .471, .553 significant.
and .259 respectively, with an average variance accounted (AVA) We also assessed the predictive relevance of the structural model
being .393. This suggests that the model is good at explaining varia- using the Q2 criterion (Hair et al., 2017). The results revealed that
tion in the target constructs (Chin, 1998). the Q2 values for value co-creation, CBE, on-going search behaviour
Additionally, examining the indirect effects amongst the paths and repurchase intention exceeded zero, supporting the predictive
revealed that each SMM dimension had a significant indirect effect relevance of the conceptual model (Hair et al., 2017).
on value co-creation through the hierarchical SMM construct, with Finally, the study examined the path differences for Hong Kong
the impact of trendiness on value co-creation being the strongest and China using PLS-MGA (multiple group analysis) (see Table 4)
Cheung et al. 127

to explore cultural differences (Ting et al., 2019). The MGA results SMM drives value co-creation and CBE. Thus, this study contributes
revealed a significant difference (p <.05) for the relationship between to the marketing literature by providing a comprehensive framework
CBE and repurchase intention. In particular, the impact of CBE on of the interrelationships between SMM and a range of consequents,
repurchase intention is significantly higher in mainland China than including consumers’ value co-creation, engagement and behav-
in Hong Kong, supporting H8. In contrast, nonsignificant differences ioural intentions. The findings support the important role played by
between the two groups were found for the influence of SMM on SMM in driving value co-creation and CBE, ultimately driving on-
value co-creation (p =.468), the influence of value co-creation on going search behaviour and repurchase intention.
CBE (p =.185) and the influence of CBE on on-going search behav- In terms of the growing importance of SDL in the marketing lit-
iour (p =.325); therefore, H6, H7 and H9 were not supported. erature, empirical studies on value co-creation and CBE attracted
increasing scholarly attention (Harrigan et al., 2015; Hidayanti et al.,
2018; Quach and Thaichon, 2017). Having noted the importance
5. Implications
of value co-creation and CBE for the brand-building process, their
The marketing literature calls for empirical research to examine the interrelationship has not been conclusively established. While earlier
importance of SMM in the brand-building process, capturing how studies recognised the intertwined nature of value co-creation with
brands can utilise SMM activities to build consumer-brand rela- CBE (Hollebeek, 2013 Hollebeek et al., 2014), more recent research
tionships, strengthening consumers’ behavioural intention (Cheung argued that value co-creation and CBE must be considered as clearly
et al., 2019; Godey et al., 2016; Kim and Ko, 2012). To answer these independent constructs in the brand-building process (France et al.,
calls, the present study developed a theoretically grounded model 2018; Quach et al., 2019). Accordingly, France et al. (2015) iden-
examining the role of SMM in driving value co-creation and CBE, tified CBE and co-creation as two distinct concepts, because CBE
on-going search and repurchase intention in Hong Kong and in main- reflects consumers’ intrinsic motivation in engaging with brand-
land China. Substantial theoretical and managerial implications of related activities, driving consumers to be involved in value co-
the research findings are discussed next. creating behaviours. More recently, France et al. (2018) empirically
confirmed that CBE is a critical driver of value co-creation, strength-
ening consumers’ perceived value of a brand. In this context, the pre-
5.1. Theoretical implications
sent study adds to the marketing literature by theoretically arguing
Prior studies conceptualised SMM as a multidimensional construct, for, and empirically validating, value co-creation as an antecedent of
confirming the importance of SMM in building consumer-based CBE. This justifies the importance of consumers’ value co-creating
brand equity (Godey et al., 2016; Kim and Ko, 2012; Seo and Park, behaviours in driving CBE, thereby strengthening consumers’ behav-
2018). But the extant literature overlooked the importance of various ioural intention. In other words, value co-creation facilitates discus-
SMM activities in forming overall SMM strategies, along with the sions between consumers and brands, such as product improvements
overall SMM’s indirect effects on important marketing constructs, and new product development, which are influential in driving CBE.
such as value co-creation and CBE. To deal with this, we used a In terms of ongoing search behaviour, extant literature empiri-
multidimensional, reflective-formative Type II configuration for cally confirms the importance of value co-creation and CBE in
the SMM construct, adding new insights to the marketing literature driving consumers’ behavioural intention, including brand loyalty
(Gomez et al., 2019). We examined the importance of SMM activi- (Algharabat et al., 2020), brand equity (Hepola et al., 2017), positive
ties in the brand-building process by conceptualising and testing referrals (Islam and Rahman, 2016), purchase intention (Islam et al.,
an SMM second-order, reflective-formative Type II model (Cheah 2017) and repurchase intention (Lim et al., 2019). We contribute to
et al., 2019; Javis et al., 2003; Sarstedt et al., 2019). Hence, this the branding literature by linking CBE with ongoing search behav-
study contributes empirical support to the conceptualisation of SMM iour, confirming that highly engaged consumers are regularly active
as a Type II hierarchical construct with five distinctive dimensions in searching for brand-related information.
- entertainment, customisation, interaction, EWOM and trendiness - A further theoretical contribution is made in terms of cross-cul-
which form the overall SMM construct. Importantly, the hierarchical tural examination of antecedents and consequents of CBE and co-
SMM construct used in this study can also help explain consumers’ creation. This study advances theoretical understanding in this area
behavioural intention by understanding its indirect effects in acting by using multi-group analysis (MGA) to provide insights on the dif-
through value co-creation, CBE, repurchase intention and on-going ferences between Hong Kong and mainland China within its concep-
search behaviour. tual model (Chen et al., 2016). We found that the impact of CBE on
Additionally, prior SMM research examined SMM influences repurchase intention was stronger for mainland Chinese consumers,
on dependent variables such as brand love (Algharabat, 2017), suggesting that CBE plays a more important role in affecting repur-
consumer-based brand equity (Godey et al., 2016), brand commit- chase intention in mainland China than in Hong Kong. Since SMM
ment (Seo and Park, 2018), customer loyalty and purchase intention plays a considerable role in building CBE, we conclude that SMM
(Yadav and Rahman, 2017). However, how SMM activities drive plays a more important role in stimulating the behavioural response
value co-creation and CBE has not been examined. Hence, this study of Chinese consumers than that of Hong Kong consumers.
also contributes a nomological framework linking SMM with value In summary, our findings contribute to marketing literature in the
co-creation and CBE, which also accounts for inherent behavioural area of SDL and SMM, by introducing a framework describing how
consequences. The findings advance SMM as a direct driver in the brand value is created. We posited that value co-creation occurs when
value co-creation process, indirectly influencing CBE, consumers’ multiple actors interact together to exchange resources, driving CBE
repurchase intention, and on-going search behaviour. The implica- and, ultimately, strengthening consumers’ behavioural intention. The
tion here is that SMM activities are useful stimuli in the brand-build- findings forward value co-creation and CBE as central themes for
ing process. SDL, being conceptualised as important concepts for brand building.
The importance of SMM in the brand-building process is Because SMM is regarded as a set of firm-initiated drivers in the
acknowledged in the literature (e.g. Kim and Ko, 2012; Godey et al., process of value co-creation and engagement, it is confirmed as an
2016; Seo and Park, 2018), but empirical findings are scant on how antecedent of the SDL process. The findings also support repurchase
128 Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)

intention and on-going search behaviour as behavioural conse- personalised information for consumers. Overall, the aforementioned
quences of the SDL process. actions are deemed to be useful in driving consumers’ intention to co-
create value for brands and for themselves.
5.2. Managerial implications Additionally, this study shows that value co-creation drives CBE
and strengthens consumers’ intention to engage in regular ongoing
From a managerial perspective, the findings of this study call on search for brand-related information and to repurchase the same
marketers to consider strengthening consumers’ on-going search brand. This implies that marketers should take measures to encour-
behaviour and repurchase intention by deploying SMM strategies age consumers to be engaged in value co-creation activities available
that facilitate value co-creation and CBE. on social media platforms (Algharabat et al., 2020). As noted earlier,
Marketers should start by deploying SMM strategies that encour- marketers may consider offering rewards and discounts to those who
age consumers to create unique benefits for the brand and for share interesting brand-related messages, along with offering sweep-
themselves, promoting CBE by active participation in the value stakes and contests to encourage consumers to share their positive
co-creation process. Implied in the conceptualisation of SMM as a brand experiences on social media platforms.
hierarchical, reflective-formative construct with five dimensions is Finally, this study demonstrates that CBE is more influential in
the suggestion that each of those dimensions can contribute to over- driving repurchase intention in mainland China than in Hong Kong.
all SMM strategic effectiveness. Hence, the recommendation is for As such, we suggest global marketers to allocate more resources in
marketers/brands to consider, in their respective contexts, how each preparing SMM activities for consumers in mainland China in order
dimension can contribute to the overall SMM success, enabling the to drive CBE, and thereby strengthens repeated purchases and atti-
timely development of suitable activities supported by a discerning tudinal loyalty.
allocation of resources to support those strategies.
For example, our findings highlight trendiness as the most influ-
ential dimension of the overall SMM strategy. Accordingly, mar- 5.3. Conclusion, limitations and future research
keters might consider developing content about trendy ‘hot’ topics, This study reveals that the SMM elements are predictors of con-
along with news and brand updates using social media platforms. sumers’ value co-creation intention and CBE, influencing consumer
Additionally, thought might be given to strategic updating of their behaviours. While extant research mostly examines the conceptu-
social media brand pages -i.e. on Facebook, WeChat and Instagram alisation of value co-creation intention and CBE, this study offers
- ensuring they communicate the latest news and brand-related offer- a new perspective by positing that SMM elements are predictors
ings. The aim is to attract consumers’ attention, motivating them of consumers’ value co-creation intention and CBE. ln the contem-
to spend more cognitive effort to better understand the focal brand porary business world, brands realise that social media is one of
(Moro and Rita, 2018; Zolkepli and Kamarulzman, 2015). the most important marketing tools, making it crucial to understand
Marketers’ attention should also be directed to becoming familiar the role played by SMM in the brand-building process. To this end,
with the EWOM available on social media platforms. This allows this study explored the role of SMM in driving consumer-brand
them to become acquainted with consumers’ value contributions, relationships and consumers’ behavioural intention. The conclu-
as well as to develop intelligence to facilitate and promote peer-to- sion is that SMM is an important driver of value co-creation, with
peer interactions as well as consumer-brand interactions (Chu et al., ensuing effects on CBE, on-going search behaviour and repurchase
2018). To foster consumer engagement with the brand, marketers intention.
may consider developing and offering interactive content using social Referring to the limitations, the study is cross-sectional in nature
media platforms. For example, marketers can provide quality live and features a sample of respondents from Hong Kong and main-
streaming and online chat rooms, encouraging and possibly reward- land China. Future research might consider adopting a longitudi-
ing active consumer engagement with the brand and like-minded nal research design to foster understanding of the effects of SMM
peers, possibly generating useful feedback and ideas for existing and on value co-creation over time, and to consider distinct settings to
new products. Clearly, the EWOM available on these social media test the model in various cross-regional/national cultural contexts.
platforms should be monitored, assessed and acted upon, especially Moreover, although this study assessed differences in the effects of
in the case of consumer reviews and comments relevant to the focal SMM between Hong Kong and mainland China, Hofstede’s cultural
brand performance. Positive comments might justify pushing the dimensions were not included as constructs in the study, limiting the
positive messages, perhaps by providing acknowledgements and comprehensiveness of this comparison. Thus, future research might
sharing across the various online channels, such as product-review include measurement items to assess the perceptions of cultural
platforms, brand website and their stores. By doing so, consumers dimensions, such as Hofstede’s, to act as a manipulation check of
will understand the merits of their contribution to the focal brand, respondents’ cultural perceptions.
becoming more actively engaged with the brand on the social media ln terms of research design and methodology, this study relied on
platforms. In the case of negative reviews, marketers should seek to self-reported survey data to test the proposed model. Future research
improve their real or perceived performance, whilst providing empa- may wish to consider using secondary data to assess the impact of
thetic feedback to demonstrate their understanding of consumers’ SMM on sales revenue and consumers’ on-going search frequency
problems, while also offering supportive services or compensation to test the explanatory power of the model for a real-world phenom-
that addresses the identified problems. Taken collectively, market- enon. Finally, this study focused only on SMM usefulness in the
ers can benefit by regarding both positive and negative EWOM as brand-building process; future research might seek to compare the
opportunities for them to interact with consumers enthusiastically, relative impact of SMM and traditional marketing elements, so as to
aiming at strengthening consumer-brand relationships. identify which marketing variables are more useful.
Although entertainment and customisation dimensions appear to
be of lesser importance, they are still essential pillars of the over-
all SMM strategy. As such, marketers should consider displaying Declaration of conflicting interests
content that is both trendy and entertaining, such as photos, vid- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
eos and games on social media platforms, along with incorporating to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Cheung et al. 129

Funding Chan, N.L., & Guillet, B.D. 2011. lnvestigation of social media marketing:
how does the hotel industry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- media websites? J. Travel Tour. Mark. 28 (4), 345–368.
ship, and/or publication of this article. Chathoth, P.K., Ungson, G.R., Harrington, R.J., & Chan, E.S. 2016.
Co-creation and higher order customer engagement in hospitality and
tourism services. lnt. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 28 (2), 222245.
References Cheah, J.H., Ting, H., Ramayah, T., Memon, M.A., Cham, T.H., &
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K.F., & Marshall, R. 2019. Conceptualising engage- Ciavolino, E. 2019. A comparison of five reflective-formative estimation
ment in a consumer-to-consumer context. Australas. Mark. J. 27 (1), approaches: reconsideration and recommendations for tourism research.
2–13. Qual. Quant. 53 (3), 14211458.
Agichtein, E., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Gionis, A., & Mishne, G. 2008. Chen, H.-T., Chan, M., & Lee, F.L. 2016. Social media use and democratic
Finding high-quality content in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2008 engagement: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China.
International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, California, Chin. J. Commun. 9 (4), 348–366.
USA. ACM, pp. 183–194. Cheung, M.L., Pires, G.D. & Rosenberger III, P.J. 2020. Exploring con-
Ahn, J., Lee, C.K., Back, K.J., & Schmitt, A. 2019. Brand experiential value sumer–brand engagement: a holistic framework. Eur Bus Rev, 33 (1).
for creating integrated resort customers’ co-creation behavior. Int. J. Cheung, M.L., Pires, G.D., & Rosenberger, lll, P.J. 2019. Developing
Hosp. Manag. 81, 104–112. a conceptual model for examining social media marketing effects
Algharabat, R.S. 2017. Linking social media marketing activities with brand on brand awareness and brand image. lnt. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 17 (3),
love: the mediating role of self-expressive brands. Kybernetes 46 (10), 243–261.
1801–1819. Cheung, M.L., Pires, G., Rosenberger, P.J., & De Oliveira, M.J. 2020.
Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Alalwan, A.A, Baabdullah, A, & Gupta, A. 2020. Driving consumer-brand engagement and co-creation by brand interactiv-
Investigating the antecedents of customer brand engagement and con- ity. Mark. lntell. Plann. doi:10.1108/MlP-12-2018-0587.
sumer-based brand equity in social media. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 53. Chin, W. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019. 01.016, ln-press. modelling. In: G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business
Research. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295–336.
Algharabat, R., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Alalwan, A, A., & Qasem, Z.
Chu, S.C., Lien, C.H., & Cao, Y. 2018. Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)
2018. The effect of telepresence, social presence and involvement on con-
on WeChat: examining the influence of sense of belonging, need for self-
sumer brand engagement: an empirical study of non-proit organizations.
enhancement, and consumer engagement on Chinese travellers’ eWOM.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 40, 139–149.
Int. J. Advert. 38 (1), 26–49.
Andreu, L., Sanchez, I., & Mele, C. 2010. Value co-creation among retailers
De Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P.S. 2012. Popularity of brand posts on
and consumers: new insights into the furniture market. J. Retail. Consum.
brand fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media market-
Serv. 17 (4), 241–250.
ing. J. Interact. Mark. 26 (2), 83–91.
Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. 2015. Creative strategies in social media marketing:
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. 2015. Consumer engage-
an exploratory study of branded social content and consumer engage-
ment in online brand communities: a social media perspective. J. Product
ment. Psychol. Mark. 32 (1), 15–27.
Brand Manag. 24 (1), 28–42.
Barger, V., Peltier, J.W., & Schultz, D.E. 2016. Social media and consumer Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K.P. 2008. Advancing formative
engagement: a review and research agenda. J. Res. lnteract. Mark. 10 (4), measurement models. J. Bus. Res. 61 (12), 1203–1218.
268–287. Duarte, P., & Amaro, S. 2018. Methods for modelling reflective-formative
Barnes, B.R., Leonidou, L.C., Siu, N.Y., & Leonidou, C.N. 2015. lnterper- second order constructs in PLS: an application to online travel shopping.
sonal factors as drivers of quality and performance in Western-Hong J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 9 (3), 295–313.
Kong interorganizational business relationships. J. lnt. Mark. 23 (1), Dwivedi, A., 2015. A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and
23–49. its impact on loyalty intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 24, 100–109.
Barnes, B.R., Siu, N.Y., Yu, Q., & Chan, S.S. 2009. Exploring cosmet- Elliott, G., & Tam, C.C.C. 2014. Does culture matter to Chinese consumers?
ics advertising in southern China: an investigation of Hong Kong and Empirical evidence. Australas. Mark. J. 22 (4), 314–324.
Shenzhen. lnt. J. Advert. 28 (2), 369–393. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
Beatty, S.E., & Smith, S.M. 1987. External search effort: an investigation unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
across several product categories. J. Consum. Res. 14 (1), 83–95. France, C., Grace, D., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. 2018. Customer brand
Becker, J.M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. 2012. Hierarchical latent variable co-creation behavior: conceptualization and empirical validation. Mark.
models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type mod- Intell. Plann. 36 (3), 334–348.
els. Long Range Plann. 45 (5-6), 359–394. France, C., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. 2015. Customer brand co-creation: a
Bianchi, C., & Andrews, L. 2018. Consumer engagement with retail irms conceptual model. Mark. Intell. Plann. 33 (6), 848–864.
through social media: an empirical study in Chile. lnt. J. Retail Distrib. Gavilanes, J.M., Flatten, T.C., & Brettel, M. 2018. Content strategies for
Manag. 46 (4), 364–385. digital consumer engagement in social networks: why advertising is an
Bloch, P.H., Commuri, S., & Arnold, T.J. 2009. Exploring the origins of antecedent of engagement. J. Advert. 47 (1), 4–23.
enduring product involvement. Qual. Mark. Res.: lnt. J. 12 (1), 49–69. Godey, B., Manthiou, A., Pederzoli, D., Rokka, J., Aiello, G., Donvito, R.,
Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D.L., & Ridgway, N.M. 1986. Consumer search: an & Singh, R. 2016. Social media marketing efforts of luxury brands:
extended framework. J. Consum. Res. 13 (1), 119–126. influence on brand equity and consumer behavior. J. Bus. Res. 69 (12),
Brodie, R.J., & Hollebeek, L.D. 2011. Advancing and consolidating knowl- 5833–5841.
edge about customer engagement. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3), 283–284. Gomez, M., Lopez, C., & Molina, A. 2019. An integrated model of social
Brodie, R.J., llic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. 2013. Consumer engagement media brand engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 96, 196–206.
in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 66 Goodrich, K., & De Mooij, M. 2013. How ‘social’ are social media? A cross-
(1), 105–114. cultural comparison of online and offline purchase decision influences. J.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M.M., Taylor, A., & Voola, R. 2019a. Feel the VlBE: Mark. Commun. 20 (1-2), 103–116.
examining value-in-the-brand-page-experience and its impact on satis- Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. 2014. Theory of
faction and customer engagement behaviours in mobile social media. J. value co-creation: a systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 46, 149–162. Gummesson, E., Mele, C., Polese, F., Mele, C., Spena, T.R., & Colurcio, M.
Carlson, J., Rahman, M., Voola, R., & De Vries, N. 2018. Customer engage- 2010. Co-creating value innovation through resource integration. Int. J.
ment behaviours in social media: capturing innovation opportunities. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2 (1), 60–78.
Serv. Mark. 32 (1), 83–94. Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. 2017. A Primer on
Carlson, J., Wyllie, J., Rahman, M.M., & Voola, R. 2019b. Enhancing brand Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.
relationship performance through customer participation and value crea- Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
tion in social media brand communities. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 50 Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., & Gudergan, S.P. 2018. Advanced
(September), 333–341. Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling. Sage
Cassio-Silva, F.J., Revilla-Camacho, MA, Vega-Vazquez, M., & Palacios- Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Florencio, B. 2016. Value co-creation and customer loyalty. J. Bus. Res. Han, W., McCabe, S., Wang, Y., & Chong, A.Y.L. 2018. Evaluating user-
69 (5), 1621–1625. generated content in social media: an effective approach to encourage
130 Australasian Marketing Journal 29(2)

greater pro-environmental behavior in tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (4), Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and
600–614. Managing Brand Equity, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, London.
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J., & Carlson, B.D. 2017. Toward Kemp, S. (2018). Digital in 2018: World’s Internet Users Pass the 4 Billion
a theory of customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), Mark. Accessed on 22 March 2019 from: https://wearesocial.com/
312–335. blog/2018/01/ global- digital- report- 2018.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. 2017. Customer engagement Khan, I., Dongping, H., & Wahab, A. 2016. Does culture matter in effective-
with tourism social media brands. Tour. Manag. 59, 597–609. ness of social media marketing strategy? An investigation of brand fan
Harrigan, P., Soutar, G., Choudhury, M.M., & Lowe, M. 2015. Modelling pages. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 68 (6), 694–715.
CRM in a social media age. Australas. Mark. J. 23 (1), 27–37. Kim, A.J., & Ko, E. 2010. Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s social media
Heggde, G., & Shainesh, G. (Eds.), 2018. Social Media Marketing: Emerging marketing on customer relationship and purchase intention. J. Glob.
Concepts and Applications. Palgrave Macmillan, Singpore. Fashion Mark. 1 (3), 164–171.
Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A., & Rickard, J.A. 2003. Customer Kim, A.J., & Ko, E. 2012. Do social media marketing activities enhance cus-
repurchase intention: a general structural equation model. Eur. J. Mark. tomer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J. Bus. Res. 65
37 (11/12), 1762–1800. (10), 1480–1486.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. 2004. Kosiba, J.P.B., Boateng, H., Okoe Amartey, A.F., Boakye, R.O., & Hinson,
Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what moti- R. 2018. Examining customer engagement and brand loyalty in retail
vates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? J. Interact. banking: The trustworthiness influence. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 46
Mark. 18 (1), 38–52. (8), 764–779.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. 2015. A new criterion for assessing Kudeshia, C., & Kumar, A. 2017. Social eWOM: does it affect the brand atti-
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. tude and purchase intention of brands? Manag. Res. Rev. 40 (3), 310–330.
Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1), 115–135. Kuo, Y.F., Wu, C.M., & Deng, W.J. 2009. The relationships among ser-
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H., & Hintikka, A. 2017. The effect of sensory brand vice quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase
experience and involvement on brand equity directly and indirectly intention in mobile value-added services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25 (4),
through consumer brand engagement. J. Prod. Brand. Manag. 26 (3), 887–896.
282–293. Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. 2012.
Hidayanti, I., Herman, L.E., & Farida, N. 2018. Engaging customers through The effects of social media based brand communities on brand com-
social media to improve industrial product development: the role of cus- munity markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty.
tomer co-creation value. J. Relationsh. Mark. 17 (1), 17–28. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (5), 1755–1767.
Hinson, R., Boateng, H., Renner, A., & Kosiba, J.P.B. 2019. Antecedents Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M.W., & Johnson, L.W. 2016. Antecedents of con-
and consequences of customer engagement on Facebook: an attachment sumer brand engagement and brand loyalty. J. Mark. Manag. 32 (5-6),
theory perspective. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 13 (2), 204–226. 558–578.
Hofstede Insights (2018). Country Comparison: Hong Kong and China. Lee, I. 2018. Social media analytics for enterprises: typology, methods, and
Accessed on 22 June 2019 from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/ processes. Bus. Horiz. 61 (2), 199–210.
country-comparison/ hong-kong/. Lee, Z.W., Chan, T.K., Chong, A.Y.L., & Thadani, D.R. 2019. Customer
Hollebeek, L.D. 2013. The customer engagement/value interface: an explora- engagement through omnichannel retailing: the effects of channel integra-
tory investigation. Australas. Mark. J. 21 (1), 17–24. tion quality. Ind. Mark. Manag. 77, 90–101.
Hollebeek, L.D. 2018. Individual-level cultural consumer engagement styles: Lee, H., & Suh, Y. 2016. Who creates value in a user innovation community?
conceptualization, propositions and implications. Int. Mark. Rev. 35 (1), A case study of MyStarbucksIdea. com. Online Inf. Rev. 40 (2), 170–186.
42–71. Leung, W.K.S, Shi, S, Chow, W.S, et al., 2019. Impacts of user interactions
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., & Brodie, R.J. 2014. Consumer brand engage- on trust development in C2C social commerce: The central role of reci-
ment in social media: conceptualization, scale development and valida- procity. Internet Res. 30 (1), 335–356.
tion. J. Interact. Mark. 28 (2), 149–165. Lim, X.J., Cheah, J.H., Waller, D.S., Ting, H., & Ng, S.I. 2019. What s-com-
Hsieh, S.H., & Chang, A. 2016. The psychological mechanism of brand co- merce implies? Repurchase intention and its antecedents. Mark. Intell.
creation engagement. J. Interact. Mark. 33, 13–26. Plann. doi:10.1108/ MIP- 03- 2019- 0145, In press.
Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S., & Madden, T.J. 2016. The influence of Lin, L.H., & Ho, Y.L. 2009. Confucian dynamism, culture and ethical
social media interactions on consumer-brand relationships: a three-coun- changes in Chinese societies-a comparative study of China, Taiwan, and
try study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. Int. J. Res. Mark. Hong Kong. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 20 (11), 2402–2417.
33 (1), 27–41. Lin, S., Yang, S., Ma, M., & Huang, J. 2018. Value co-creation on social
Iankova, S, Davies, I., Archer-Brown, C., Marder, B., & Yau, A. 2019. A media: examining the relationship between brand engagement and dis-
comparison of social media marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed play advertising effectiveness for Chinese hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
business models. Ind. Mark. Manag. 81, 169–179. Manag. 30 (4), 2153–2174.
Ind, N., & Coates, N. 2013. The meanings of co-creation. Eur. Bus. Rev. 25 Liu, X., Shin, H., & Burns, A.C. 2020. Examining the impact of luxury
(1), 86–95. brand’s social media marketing on customer engagement: Using big data
Islam, J.U., & Rahman, Z. 2016. Linking customer engagement to trust and analytics and natural language processing. J. Bus. Res. doi:10.1016/j.jbus-
word-of-mouth on Facebook brand communities: An empirical study. J. res.2019.04.042, ln press.
Internet Commerce 15 (1), 40–58. Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Liu, W. 2015. The effects of value co-creation prac-
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L.D. 2017. Personality factors as pre- tices on building harmonious brand community and achieving brand loy-
dictors of online consumer engagement: an empirical investigation. Mark. alty on social media in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 492–499.
Intell. Plann. 35 (4), 510–528. Lusch, R., & Vargo, S. 2014. The Service-dominant Logic of Marketing:
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., & Hollebeek, L.D. 2018. Consumer engagement Dialog, Debate, and Directions. Routledge, New York.
in online brand communities: a solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Manthiou, A., Chiang, L., & Tang, L.R. 2013. ldentifying and responding to
Res. 28 (1), 23–45. customer needs on Facebook fan pages. lnt. J. Technol. Hum. lnteract. 9
Ismail, A.R. 2017. The influence of perceived social media marketing activi- (3), 36–52.
ties on brand loyalty: the mediation effect of brand and value conscious- Mathwick, C., & Rigdon, E. 2004. Play, flow, and the online search experi-
ness. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 29 (1), 129–144. ence. J. Consum. Res. 31 (2), 324–332.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. A critical review of McColl-Kennedy, J.R., & Fetter, Jr, R.E. 2001. An empirical examination of
construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in market- the involvement to external search relationship in services marketing. J.
ing and consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 30 (2), 199–218. Serv. Mark. 15 (2), 82–98.
Kamboj, S., Sarmah, B., Gupta, S., & Dwivedi, Y. 2018. Examining branding Merz, M.A., Zarantonello, L., & Grappi, S. 2018. How valuable are your
co-creation in brand communities on social media: applying the paradigm customers in the brand value co-creation process? The development of
of stimulus-organism-response. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 39, 169–185. a Customer Co-Creation Value (CCCV) scale. J. Bus. Res. 82, 79–89.
Kaplan, A.M. 2015. Social media, the digital revolution, and the business of Miller, R., & Lammas, N. 2010. Social media and its implications for viral
media. Int. J. Media Manag. 17 (4), 197–199. marketing. Asia Pac. Public Relat. J. 11 (1), 1–9.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. 2010. Users of the world, Unite! The chal- Moro, S., & Rita, P. 2018. Brand strategies in social media in hospitality and
lenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53 (1), 59–68. tourism. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30 (1), 343–364.
Cheung et al. 131

Morra, M.C., Ceruti, F., Chierici, R., & Di Gregorio, A. 2018. Social vs tradi- Simeoni, F., & Cassia, F. 2019. From vehicle suppliers to value co-creators:
tional media communication: brand origin associations strike a chord. J. the evolving role of ltalian motorhome manufacturers. Curr. lssues Tour.
Res. Interact. Mark.g 12 (1), 2–21. 22 (2), 218–236.
MSI, 2018. 2018- 2020 Research Priorities. Marketing Science Institute, Sin, L.Y., Tse, A.C., Yau, O.H., Chow, R., & Lee, J.S. 2003. Market orienta-
Boston, MA. tion and business performance: a comparative study of irms in mainland
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E.G. 2011. Introducing COBRAs: China and Hong Kong. Eur. J. Mark. 37 (5/6), 910–936.
exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Int. J. Advert. Singaraju, S.P., Nguyen, Q.A., Niininen, O., & Sullivan-Mort, G. 2016.
30 (1), 13–46. Social media and value co-creation in multi-stakeholder systems: a
Naaman, M., Becker, H., & Gravano, L. 2011. Hip and trendy: characterizing resource integration approach. lnd. Mark. Manag. 54, 44–55.
emerging trends on Twitter. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62 (5), 902–918. Sitta, D., Faulkner, M., & Stern, P. 2018. What can the brand manager expect
Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. 2001. Instituting the marketing concept in a from Facebook? Australas. Mark. J. 26 (1), 17–22.
multinational setting: the role of national culture. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 29 Solem, B.AA., & Pedersen, P.E. 2016. The effects of regulatory fit on cus-
(3), 255–275. tomer brand engagement: an experimental study of service brand activi-
Ngai, E.W., Moon, K.L.K., Lam, S.S., Chin, E.S., & Tao, S.S. 2015. Social ties in social media. J. Mark. Manag. 32 (5-6), 445–468.
media models, technologies, and applications: an academic review and Statista (2018a). Global Social Network Penetration Rate as of January 2018,
case study. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (5), 769–802. by Region. Accessed on 22 March 2019 from: https://www.statista.com/
Nysveen, H., & Pedersen, P.E. 2014. Influences of cocreation on brand expe- statistics/269615/social-network-penetration-by-region/.
rience. Int. J. Mark. Res. 56 (6), 807–832. Statista (2018b). Active Social Network Penetration in Selected Countries as
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. 2017. Customer engagement: the construct, ante- of January 2018. Accessed on 22 March 2019 from: https://www.statista.
cedents, and consequences. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 294–311. com/statistics/282846/regular-social-networking-usage-penetration-
Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A.M., Ognibeni, B., & Pauwels, K. 2013. Social worldwide-by-country/.
media metrics—a framework and guidelines for managing social media. Tess, P.A. 2013. The role of social media in higher education classes (real and
J. Interact. Mark. 27 (4), 281–298. virtual)-a literature review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29 (5), 60–68.
Pham, P.H., & Gammoh, B.S. 2015. Characteristics of social-media market- Ting, H., Fam, K.S., Hwa, J.C.J., Richard, J.E., & Xing, N. 2019. Ethnic food
ing strategy and customer-based brand equity outcomes: a conceptual consumption intention at the touring destination: the national and regional
model. Int. J. Internet Mark. Advert. 9 (4), 321–337. perspectives using multi-group analysis. Tour. Manag. 71, 518–529.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolu-
Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of tion. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36 (1), 1–10.
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. 2016. lnstitutions and axioms: an extension and update
879. of service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 44 (1), 5–23.
Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation experiences: the next Vargo, S., 2009. Toward a transcending conceptualization of relation-
practice in value creation. J. lnteract. Mark. 18 (3), 5–14. ship: a service-dominant logic perspective. J. Bus. lnd. Mark. 24 (5/6),
Quach, S., Shao, W., Ross, M., & Thaichon, P. 2019. Customer engagement 373–379.
and co-created value in social media. Mark. lntell. Plann. doi:10.1108/ Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. 2004a. Evolving to a new dominant logic for market-
MlP- 04- 2019- 0218, ln press. ing. J. Mark. 88 (1), 1–17.
Quach, S., & Thaichon, P. 2017. From connoisseur luxury to mass luxury: Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. 2004b. The four service marketing myths remnants of
value co-creation and co-destruction in the online environment. J. Bus. a goods based, manufacturing model. J. Serv. Res. 6 (4), 324–335.
Res. 81, 163–172. Vargo, S., Maglio, P., & Akaka, A. 2008. On value and value co-creation: aser-
Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Becker, J. 2015. Smartpls 3.0. SmartPLS GmbH, vice systems and service logic perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 26 (3), 145–152.
Boenningstedt http://www.smartpls.com. Vazquez-Casielles, R., lglesias, V., & Varela-Neira, C. 2017. Co-creation and
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Jr, Cheah, J.H., Becker, J.M., & Ringle, C.M. 2019. service recovery process communication: effects on satisfaction, repur-
How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS- chase intentions, and word of mouth. Serv. Bus. 11 (2), 321–343.
SEM. Australas. Mark. J. 27 (3), 197–211. Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., & Morgan, R.M. 2012. Customer engagement:
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. 2016. Measuring con- exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. J. Mark. Theory
sumers’ engagement with brand-related social-media content: devel- Pract. 20 (2), 122–146.
opment and validation of a scale that identiies levels of social-media Wu, L.Y., Chen, K.Y., Chen, P.Y., & Cheng, S.L. 2014. Perceived value,
engagement with brands. J. Advert. Res. 56 (1), 64–80. transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: a relational
Schmidt, J.B., & Spreng, R.A. 1996. A proposed model of external consumer exchange perspective. J. Bus. Res. 67 (1), 2768–2776.
information search. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24 (3), 246–256. Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. 2017. Measuring consumer perception of social
Schultz, D., & Peltier, J. 2013. Social media’s slippery slope: challenges, media marketing activities in e-commerce industry: scale development &
opportunities and future research directions. J. Res. lnteract. Mark. 7 (2), validation. Telematics lnform.s 34 (7), 1294–1307.
86–99. Yeoh, P.L. 2005. A conceptual framework of antecedents of information
Seifert, C., & Kwon, W.S. 2019. SNS eWOM sentiment: impacts on brand search in exporting: importance of ability and motivation. lnt. Mark. Rev.
value co-creation and trust. Mark. Intell. Plann. doi:10.1108/MlP- 11- 22 (2), 165–198.
2018- 0533, In press. Yoshida, M., Gordon, B.S., Nakazawa, M., Shibuya, S., & Fujiwara, N. 2018.
Seo, E.J., & Park, J.W. 2018. A study on the effects of social media marketing Bridging the gap between social media and behavioral brand loyalty.
activities on brand equity and customer response in the airline industry. J. Electron. Commerce Res. Appl. 28, 208–218.
Air Transp. Manag. 66, 36–41. Zadeh, A.H., Zolfagharian, M., & Hofacker, C.F. 2019. Customer-customer
Shen, B., & Bissell, K. 2013. Social media, social me: a content analysis value co-creation in social media: conceptualization and antecedents. J.
of beauty companies’ use of Facebook in marketing and branding. J. Strat. Market. 27 (4), 283–302.
Promot. Manag. 19 (5), 629–651. Zolkepli, l.A., & Kamarulzaman, Y. 2015. Social media adoption: the role
Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S., & Datta, B. 2018. lmpact of the antecedents of of media needs and innovation characteristics. Comput. Hum. Behav. 43,
eWOM on CBBE. Mark. lntell. Plann. 36 (5), 528–542. 189–209.