Social mediable Brand eligibility in the relationship era

Prévia do material em texto

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Catching COBRAs
Muntinga, D.G.
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Muntinga, D. G. (2013). Catching COBRAs Amsterdam: SWOCC
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),
other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating
your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask
the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date: 27 Oct 2017
67
 4
Social mediable 
Brand eligibility in the relationship era3
4.1 Abstract
Social media are increasingly recognized as a brand-building instrument and many 
companies consider a social media marketing strategy for their brands. To date it 
remained unclear if a social media marketing approach can be beneficial for every 
brand. The current study contributes to the existing literature by arguing that some 
characteristics, or the lack thereof, make brands more or less eligible, or “social 
mediable” than others. In a first effort to identify the intrinsic qualities of such brands, 
this study focuses on three key concepts: brand personality (BP), brand relationship 
quality (BRQ), and consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs). While this 
study’s findings reveal little BP and BRQ differences with regard to different COBRAs, 
it is demonstrated that there are certain BP and BRQ dimensions that characterize 
the brands with which consumers engage on social media.
4.2 Introduction
By facilitating the viewing, sharing, and creating of content, the surge of social 
media greatly expands people’s possibilities to communicate about brands. Because 
platforms such as YouTube and Facebook boost the exponential dynamics of word-
of-mouth (Verlegh & Sodderland, 2009), the persuasive strength of consumer-
generated content exceeds by far that of marketer-generated content (Trusov, 
Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009). As a result, the balance of influence and control over 
brands increasingly shifts towards consumers (Campbell, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 
2011).
3 Manuscript submitted for publication as: Muntinga, D. G., Smit, E. G., & Moorman, M. 
Social mediable: Brand eligibility in the Relationship Era. 
An early version of this chapter was published as: Muntinga, D. G., Smit, E. G., & Moorman, 
M. (2012). Social media DNA: How brand characteristics shape COBRAs. In M. Eisend, 
T. Langner, & S. Okazaki (Eds.), Advances in advertising research (Vol. 3, pp. 121-136). 
Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
The authors would like to thank Philip Boven for his assistance in collecting the data for this 
study.
68 socIAl mEdIABlE
For marketing practice this development requires a different mindset (Varadarajan & 
Yadav, 2009). Rather than focusing on mass media advertising and usually short-lived 
persuasion, social media prescribe that marketers encourage consumers to engage 
in brand-related activities and build and maintain strong relationships with them 
(Brodie, Hollenbeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Payne, Storbacka, Frow, & Knox, 2009). To do 
so successfully, they need to understand whether consumers would want to engage 
and enter into long-term relationships with their brands on social media. Essentially, 
the question is: is my brand “social mediable?”
Academic research on this matter is scarce. Although there is a growing body of 
literature on social media marketing, little theory exists to inform practitioners 
whether or not their brand should be able to engage consumers in ways described. 
Various papers praise social media as the marketing instrument that may eventually 
render all others redundant (e.g., Campbell, Conaré, & Hernandez, 2010; Mangold 
& Faulds, 2010) and indeed, social media have been proven a successful strategy 
for many brands. Numerous other social media marketing efforts however end up 
failing. For all we know, a brand’s chances of becoming a social media champion 
thus are as high as becoming a social media loser. This article therefore contributes 
to the existing literature by offering a first understanding of the elements that make 
a brand (un)fit for a social media approach. 
Providing insight in the make-up of social mediable brand, this study focuses on 
three concepts: brand personality (BP), brand relationship quality (BRQ), and 
consumers’ online brand-related activities (COBRAs). The paper opens by drafting 
a theoretical framework from the existing literature. In this framework, it is first 
discussed how brand personality is an important differentiator between brands in an 
online environment. Second, the concept of brand relationship quality is discussed 
and it is set out why this concept is key to social media marketing. Last, the role 
of both concepts vis-à-vis consumers’ online brand-related activities is explained. 
In the sections following, the method used to investigate the research questions 
is presented, the study’s findings are described, and its contributions are discussed 
in light of existing literature. The paper closes by highlighting implications for 
managerial practice and offering paths for future research.
4.3 Three key concepts for social mediable brands
4.3.1 Brand personality
The first key concept for social mediable brands is brand personality (hereafter: BP). 
Plummer (1984/1985), Keller (1993) and Aaker (1997) introduced the idea of giving 
symbolic, human-like meanings to brands. Commonly defined as the “set of human 
characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347), BP entails that each 
brand has a specific choice of perceived personality traits that distinguishes it from 
other brands. For instance, Marlboro is “rugged,” “masculine,” and “outdoorsy;” 
69
and Volvo is “responsible,” “down to earth,” and “innovative.” Such traits are 
important positioning tools, helping marketers tell their brand apart from other 
brands in the same product category, where functional differentiation is increasingly 
hard to achieve (Burmann, Hegner, & Riley, 2009). Further, consumers may relate to 
brands with particular personality traits, and deter from brands with other traits 
(e.g., Park & Roedder John, 2010). 
As a symbolic attribute associated with the inherently intangible construct “brand,” 
BP distinguishes brands from tangible products with functional attributes (e.g., ease 
of use, reliable). Fournier (1998) therefore argues that BP is particularly relevant 
in environments that lack physical materiality, where every object is intangible by 
definition (cf. O’Guinn & Muñiz, 2009). Social media is a nonmaterial world par 
excellence; in cyberspace, physical boundaries are non-existent. More than in the 
offline world does the Internet (i.e., social media) allow marketers to separate 
the brand (intangible; symbolic attributes) from its physical essence, the product 
(tangible; functional attributes). In the words of anti-brand activist Naomi Klein 
(2000, p. 22): “It is on-line that the purest brands are being built.” 
Supporting this view, in their conceptualization of “open-source brands” (brands 
such as Linux and Wikipedia that only exist online) Pitt, Watson, Berthon, Wynn, and 
Zinkhan (2006) suggest that such brands differ in terms of BP from brands thatreside 
offline (cf. Christodoulides, De Chernatony, Furrer, Shiu, & Abimola, 2006). O’Guinn 
and Muñiz (2009) further add that BP may be a valid tool for exploring consumer 
activity in online brand communities. In line with this, Kelleher (2009) and Van Noort 
and Willemsen (2012) argue that on social media, brands may benefit from being 
an actual personality with a so-called “conversational human voice.” BP therefore is 
considered an interesting concept for investigating how brands differ with regard to 
their ability to engage consumers in online brand-related activities. In this study, it is 
argued that differences in brand personality are likely to resonate in differences in 
consumers’ online brand-related activities. 
4.3.2 Brand relationship quality
The second key concept for social mediable brands is brand relationship quality 
(hereafter: BRQ). The consumer-brand relationship metaphor was introduced by 
Blackston (1992) and further developed and popularized by several authors (e.g., 
Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Fournier, 1998; Veloutsou & Moutinho, 2009). It asserts 
that consumers may entertain brands as relationship partners analogous to how they 
develop relationships with individuals. Similar to human relationships, consumer-
brand relationships differ with regard to the quality of the relationship (Fournier, 
1998; Sweeney & Chew, 2002). In a marketing context, high quality consumer-brand 
relationships represent more endurance and effort of consumers and therefore are 
more desirable than low quality relationships (e.g., Aggarwal, 2004; Esch, Langner, 
Schmitt, & Geus, 2006). 
70 socIAl mEdIABlE
The quality of a consumer-brand relationship thus is an important marketing factor 
to consider, which is why Fournier (1998) developed a model for understanding the 
strength and depth of consumer-brand relationships: brand relationship quality 
(hereafter: BRQ). BRQ distinguishes seven dimensions: (1) love reflects a feeling of 
missing something when a brand is removed; (2) self-connection is the extent to 
which a brand activates a consumer’s identity; (3) passionate attachment stands for 
the way a brand is woven into a consumer’s life; (4) personal commitment refers 
to a consumer’s wish to engage in a sustainable relationship with a brand, and 
mutual faithfulness; (5) intimacy reflects the psychological depth of the relationship 
between a consumer and a brand; (6) nostalgic connection stands for the idea that 
the consumer links the brand to events in his/her past and certain memories; and (7) 
partner quality is a consumer’s assessment of a brand’s performance and reliability as 
a partner (see also Aaker et al., 2004; Smit, Bronner, & Tolboom, 2007).
In a recent contribution, Levy and Garfield (2012) characterize the new mindset that 
social media bring about as the “Relationship Era.” In this era, consumers increasingly 
“expect brands to act more like friends than corporations” (Campbell et al., 2010, p. 
5). As a result, consumer-brand relationships are an increasingly important feature 
of the marketing landscape (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Kane, Fichman, 
Gallaugher, & Glaser, 2009; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Accordingly, BRQ is considered an 
interesting concept for investigating how brands differ with regard to their ability to 
engage consumers in online brand-related activities. It is argued that differences in 
brand relationship quality are likely to resonate in differences in consumers’ online 
brand-related activities. 
4.3.3 Consumers’ online brand-related activities
The third key concept for social mediable brands is the concept of consumers’ 
online brand-related activities (hereafter: COBRAs; see chapter 2, pp. 29-30). The 
COBRA concept merges the wealth of brand-related behaviors that occur on 
social media (Hutton & Fosdick, 2011; Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit, 2011) into a 
passive-to-active framework that discriminates between three types of behavior: 
consuming, contributing, and creating. Examples are viewing TED videos on the 
brand’s YouTube channel (consuming); discussing H&M’s Super Bowl commercial on 
Twitter (contributing); or posting consumer-generated advertisements about Doritos 
on Facebook (creating). As a result of this gradient, the COBRA-concept helps to 
understand how a single brand-related activity relates to a range of other brand-
related activities, as well as the particular ways in which consumers engage with 
brands on social media. 
71
4.3.4 How do BP and BRQ relate to COBRAs?
Because the COBRA concept allows for assessing a consumer’s level of brand-related 
activity, it is an appropriate concept for studying how consumer activity on social 
media differs by BP and BRQ. Research into offline consumer behavior shows that 
BP shapes consumer purchase behavior (Freling & Forbes, 2005) and word-of-mouth 
activity (Morschett, Jara, Schramm-Klein, & Swoboda, 2007). However, no empirical 
evidence exists to support the idea that BP also plays a role in online consumer 
environments. In fact, the field’s understanding of how brand/product characteristics 
relate to COBRAs is limited to Berger and Schwartz’ (2011) recent exploration of 
how different products get different online “buzz” going. They find that interesting 
and publicly visible products generate more immediate and sustained online word-
of-mouth than uninteresting and invisible brands. More than “interesting” and 
“publicly visible,” the BP concept may offer a comprehensive insight into why certain 
brands induce more COBRAs than others. As empirical evidence with regard to the 
role of BP in relation to COBRAs is lacking, a first research question is posed: 
RQ1. To what extent are different BP dimensions related to COBRAs?
The rise of social media and the subsequent empowerment of consumers have made 
marketing practitioners realize that building consumer-brand relationships may 
greatly benefit from COBRAs (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2009). 
Conversely, it has also been theorized that COBRAs reflect BRQ (Park, MacInnis, & 
Priester, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010); in this view, the quality of a consumer-brand 
relationship determines a consumer’s level of brand-related activeness. However, 
despite several suggestions about a relationship between BRQ and COBRAs and 
despite the fact that the idea of a relationship between BRQ and COBRAs is by no 
means an unrealistic idea, whether, how, and to what extent BRQ plays a role in 
COBRAs remains empirically undocumented. Therefore, a second research question 
is posed: 
RQ2. To what extent are different BRQ dimensions related to COBRAs? 
4.4 Research method
4.4.1 Brand profiles on social networking sites
 
The social media phenomenon covers a wide range of more and less known web 
2.0-based venues. These often have few things in common but one: they capitalize on 
their users’ “hyper-social” nature (Moran & Gossieaux, 2010). Foursquare for instance 
allows its subscribers to upload their location and inform their friends where they 
are; tools such as iCloud, SkyDrive, and Dropbox permit their users to save and share 
all types of files with whoever they wish; and the smartphone application Grindr 
makes it possible for gay men and women to find and contact people nearby that 
72 socIAl mEdIABlE
are willing to engage in short-term relationships. The most popular and most used 
social media venues, however, are social networking sites (SNSs). Facebook, Bebo, 
Google Plus and many more SNSs are being used by billions of people worldwide and 
are commonly regarded as “the key feature of the social media landscape” (Hutton 
& Fosdick, 2011, p. 1). 
SNSs are therefore concerned perfect venues for fielding a study about the 
relationships between BP and COBRAs on the one hand, and BRQ and COBRAs on the 
other. An important feature of SNSs is that they allowtheir users to initiate profiles, 
which consumers use for a wide variety of passive-to-active behaviors. While these 
profiles are usually about themselves (boyd & Ellison, 2007), many people also start 
profiles about things they are passionate about – including brands. Many companies 
have also set up profiles that center on their brands. Such brand profiles (effectively 
online brand communities; Trusov et al., 2009; Zaglia & Maier, 2011) are increasingly 
important to a company’s marketing activities (Moran & Gossieaux, 2010; Economist, 
2012). Brands may use SNSs profiles for launching advertising campaigns, as web-
care tool, to get information about how consumers feel about their brand, or for 
providing loyal consumers with unique content and special offerings. 
4.4.2 Pretest, selection of brand profiles, and respondents
An online survey was used for data collection. This survey was pretested using a 
number of their Facebook contacts that responded positively to the question whether 
they were member of any brand profile (N = 34). As most constructs were developed 
and vetted in previous research, confusions or conflicts turned out minimal and no 
alterations were made. All respondents reported that they completed the survey 
within ten minutes.
For the main study, respondents were recruited from a variety of brand fan groups as 
found on Facebook. The authors contacted the administrators of 20 different brand 
profiles, randomly chosen from an author-collected list of active brand profiles 
in North America. The administrators of eight brand profiles agreed to distribute 
the online survey to their profiles’ members using an email that contained a brief 
explanation of the study and a hyperlink to the survey. Ultimately, the survey was 
completed by 315 respondents between 11 and 65 with a mean age of 28 (SD = 9.8; 
56.7% male).
4.4.3 BP measurement
BP was measured with the validated twelve-item brand personality scale (7-point 
Likert scales; 1 = not at all characteristic for this brand, 7 = very characteristic for this 
brand) that Geuens, Weijters, and De Wulf (2009) recently developed in response 
to criticism on Aaker’s (1997) 44-item BP scale (e.g., Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003). 
73
Although widely used, Aaker’s scale has been criticized for, among other things, 
including demographic and socio-demographic traits such as age, feminine and 
upper class, whereas the “Big Five” human personality scale – the original basis 
for BP – intentionally excludes such non-personality-specific traits. In addition, in 
Aaker’s scale, only three out of five dimensions relate to the Big Five (Geuens et al., 
2009). Geuens and colleagues’ BP scale lacks these shortcomings: all five dimensions 
(activity, responsibility, emotionality, simplicity, and aggressiveness) relate to the Big 
Five. PCA factor analysis and reliability analysis revealed that the items formed the 
expected five dimensions (see Table 4.1). 
Brand Personality Dimension
Items (rotated) Activity Responsibility Emotionality Simplicity Aggressiveness
Down-to-earth .00 .80 .11 .18 .18
Stable .39 .78 .11 -.01 .11
Responsible .40 .75 .08 .04 .15
Active .83 .23 .24 .06 .14
Dynamic .87 .19 .24 -.07 .13
Innovative .80 .21 .12 -.11 .25
Aggressive .19 .15 .18 .04 .81
Bold .18 .17 .08 .08 .83
Ordinary -.04 .09 .04 .88 .05
Simple -.04 .06 .01 .89 .05
Romantic .27 .02 .88 .08 .08
Sentimental .19 .23 .85 -.02 .19
EV 2.46 2.14 1.67 1.59 1.51
R2 81.91 71.20 83.85 79.69 75.43
Cronbach’s alpha .89 .79 .81 .75 .67
Number of items 3 3 2 2 2
Mean 5.80 5.05 4.68 2.97 4.68
SD 1.25 1.34 1.71 1.72 1.68
Table 4.1 Factor loadings for brand personality measurement.
Note: factor loadings based on PCA Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation; bold factor loadings indi-
cate that the item is selected for the dimension mentioned in the column.
4.4.4 BRQ measurement
BRQ was measured using a fourteen-item scale adopted from Smit and colleagues 
(2007) based on Fournier’s (1998) pioneering study. Examples of items used are “It 
is a feeling of loss when I have not used X for a while,” “X is my favorite brand 
compared to other related brands,” and “It feels like I have known X for a long time” 
(7-point Likert scales; 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). 
Factor analysis revealed that the items formed the expected seven dimensions. The 
factor loading of two of the fourteen items corresponded to different dimensions 
than expected. “X has always been good to me” loaded on the personal commitment 
74 socIAl mEdIABlE
dimension rather than on the partner quality dimension; “X can always count on 
me” loaded on the partner quality dimension instead of the commitment dimension. 
Because grouping the items “X has always been good to me” and “I will continue 
using X in the near future” was theoretically and methodologically reasonable, the 
authors combined both into the dimension personal commitment. Similarly, the item 
“X can always count on me” was combined with “X treats me as an important and 
valuable customer” to form the dimension partner quality (see Table 4.2).
BRQ dimensions
Items (rotated) PC SC PA NC LO PQ IN
It is a feeling of loss when I have not used [brand X] 
for a while
.10 .26 .87 .10 .10 .12 .07
Something would definitely be missing if [brand X] 
would not exist anymore
.22 .16 .76 .17 .31 .08 .23
I have a feeling that [brand X] really understands me .14 .38 .47 .16 .09 .34 .53
It feels like I have known [brand X] for a long time .35 .07 .19 .23 .20 .13 .80
[Brand X] reminds me of things I have done or 
places I have been
.19 .12 .05 .77 .20 .32 .24
[Brand X] will always remind me of a certain period 
in my life
.22 .15 .21 .87 .14 .03 .08
I have feelings for [brand X] that I do not have for a 
lot of other brands
.14 .21 .31 .31 .76 .22 .16
[Brand X] is y favorite brand compared to other 
related brands
.45 .23 .17 .13 .76 .09 .14
[Brand X] has always been good to me .70a .19 .14 .25 .22 .33b .28
[Brand X] treats me as an important and valuable 
customer
.30 .34 .13 .21 .18 .76 .16
[Brand X] can always count on me .56a .14 .31 .23 .18 .57b .16
I will continue using [brand X] in the near future .86 .12 .15 .22 .23 .14 .18
[Brand X] reminds me of who I am .09 .90 .23 .12 .08 .16 .04
[Brand X] and I have lots in common .18 .81 .20 .15 .30 .15 .15
EV 1.76 1.78 1.68 1.67 1.74 1.71 1.58
R2 .89 .89 .84 .84 .87 .85 .79
Cronbach’s alpha .86 .88 .81 .80 .85 .83 .73
Number of items 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mean 5.85 5.39 4.82 5.35 5.72 5.29 5.27
SD 1.38 1.58 1.84 1.65 1.47 1.50 1.41
Table 4.2 Factor loadings for brand-relationship quality measurement.
Note: factor loadings based on PCA Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation; Bold factor loadings indi-
cate that the item is selected for the dimension mentioned in the column; ab Items switched based on 
factor loadings and theoretical considerations; IN = intimacy; LO = love; NC = nostalgic connection; 
PA = passionate attachment; PC = personal commitment; PQ = partner quality; SC = self-connection.
75
4.4.5 COBRA measurement
Consumers’ online brand-related activities were measured using three statements 
derived from Muntinga and colleagues’ (2011) COBRA concept (7-point Likert scales; 
1 = never, 7 = very frequently). Each respondent scored all three statements. For the 
COBRA type consuming, the statement was “On Facebook, I look at weblogs, videos, 
pictures, music, articles, or reviews about X” (M = 4.40, SD = 2.09). For the COBRA-
type contributing, the statement was “On Facebook, I comment on weblogs, videos, 
images or forums about X” (M = 3.26, SD = 2.02). For the COBRA type creating, the 
statement was “On Facebook, I create weblogs, reviews, videos, music, pictures, or 
articles about X” (M = 2.68, SD = 2.01). The mean scores ofeach statement formed a 
separate variable. 
4.4.6 Additional measurements
Additionally, respondents’ education (range = 1 – 5; M = 2.96; SD = .82) and 
respondents’ familiarity with the brand (single-item “I am familiar with this brand;” 
7-point Likert scale anchored by 1 = completely disagree and 7 = completely agree; 
M = 6.02, SD = 1.37) were measured.
4.5 Results
4.5.1 How BP relates to COBRAs
Because several BP dimensions correlated significantly with age and brand familiarity 
(see Appendix 4.1), these two factors were included in the analyses as covariates. 
Linear regression analysis was used to test whether different BP dimensions relate 
to different COBRAs (research question 1). The five BP dimensions made the 
independent variables that were regressed on the three COBRA types (consuming, 
contributing, and creating). The three regression models are summarized in Table 
4.3. 
BP explains 14% of the variance in the consuming COBRA type. The BP dimension 
“emotionality” (b* = .31, p < .01) is demonstrated to particularly predict this kind 
of brand-related activity. BP explains 9% of the variance in contributing, which is 
shown to be significantly predicted by the BP dimensions activity (b* = .16, p < .05) 
and, again, emotionality (b* = .19, p < .01). For the creating COBRA type, BP explains 
7% of the variance; the BP dimensions emotionality (b* = .15, p < .05) and simplicity 
(b* = .16, p < .01) best predict this type of brand-related behavior.
76 socIAl mEdIABlE
COBRA type
Consuming Contributing Creating
Control variables
Age -.02 -.01 .03
Brand familiarity .00 .05 .03
BP dimensions
Activity .09 .16* .10
Responsibility .07 -.01 .09
Emotionality .31** .19** .15*
Simplicity -.04 .08 .16**
Aggressiveness .05 .05 .02
df1,2 7,239 7,239 7,239
F-value 6.84** 4.61** 4.03**
Adjusted R2 .14 .09 .07
Table 4.3 Summary of linear regression for control variables and BP dimensions predicting COBRA 
types (standardized regression coefficients (b*) reported).
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.
4.5.2 How BRQ relates to COBRAs 
 
To test whether a relationship exists between different BRQ dimensions and different 
COBRAs (research question 2), these variables were included in regression analysis. 
Because several BRQ dimensions correlated significantly with age, sex, education, 
and brand familiarity (see Appendix 4.1), these were also included in the analysis. 
Results are displayed in Table 4.4.
Analyses reveal that BRQ explains 16% of the variance in the consuming COBTA 
type. The BRQ dimensions “self-connection” (b* = .21, p < .01) and “passionate 
attachment” (b* = .23, p < .01) significantly predict this brand-related behavior. For 
contributing, results show that BRQ explains 11% of the variance in this behavior, 
which is predominantly predicted by the dimensions self-connection (b* = .18, p < 
.05) and, negatively, nostalgic connection (b* = -.17, p < .05). The variance in creating 
explained by BRQ is 10%; similar to the consuming COBRA type, the dimensions self-
connection (b* = .21, p < .05) and passionate attachment (b* = .19, p < .05) play a role 
in predicting consumers’ creation of brand-related content.
77
COBRA type
Consuming Contributing Creating
Control variables
Age -.02 -.08 -.05
Sex .08 .12* .05
Education -.02 .04 .06
Brand familiarity -.03 -.04 .02
BRQ dimensions
Personal commitment .02 -.06 -.13
Self-connection .21** .18* .21*
Passionate attachment .23** .13 .19*
Nostalgic connection -.11 -.17** -.04
Love -.02 .09 -.09
Partner quality .09 .14 .18
Intimacy .08 .07 .05
df1,2 11,235 11,246 11,246
F-value 5.37** 3.72** 3.67**
Adjusted R2 .16 .11 .10
Table 4.4 Summary of linear regression for control variables and BRQ dimensions predicting COBRA 
types (standardized regression coefficients (b*) reported).
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.
4.6 Conclusion and discussion
As social media are increasingly recognized as a brand-building instrument, many 
companies consider a social media marketing strategy for their brands. Despite the 
sizeable body of knowledge about social media marketing that has accumulated in 
recent years, to date it remained unclear if a social media marketing approach can 
be beneficial for every brand. The current study contributes to the existing literature 
by arguing that some characteristics, or the lack thereof, make brands more or less 
eligible, or “social mediable” than others. In a first effort to identify the intrinsic 
qualities of such brands, this study focuses on three key concepts: brand personality 
(BP), brand relationship quality (BRQ), and consumers’ online brand-related activities 
(COBRAs). While this study’s findings reveal little BP and BRQ differences with 
regard to different COBRAs, it does demonstrate that there are certain BP and BRQ 
dimensions that characterize the brands that consumers frequently engage with on 
social media.
78 socIAl mEdIABlE
4.6.1 Social mediable brands: minor differences between 
 COBRAs
Because social media environments lack physical materiality where tangible 
differences are hard to achieve (Burmann et al., 2009), BP was employed to shed light 
on the symbolic, intangible differences between more and less social mediable brands. 
This study’s findings suggest that indeed, social mediable brands can be defined 
based on human characteristics associated with those brands. It is demonstrated that 
in general, brands that are perceived as having an emotional brand personality – 
characterized by the personality romantic and sentimental – engender more COBRAs 
than brands that lack such perceived personality traits. With respect to differences 
between individual COBRAs, minor differences are revealed. While consuming is 
solely driven by the BP dimension “emotionality,” contributing is additionally driven 
by “activity” (traits: active, dynamic, and innovative), and creating is additionally 
driven by “simplicity” (traits: ordinary and simple). These findings concur that brand 
personality is a valid way of differentiating between brands as drivers of consumer 
activity in online environments, as suggested previously, yet never tested, by authors 
such as Pitt et al. (2006), Christodoulides et al. (2006), and O’Guinn and Muñiz (2009).
Social media are often heralded for their potential for strengthening the ties between 
consumer and their brands (Kane et al., 2009; Levy & Garfield, 2012). As a second way 
of distinguishing between more and less social mediable brands – like BP a way of 
anthropomorphizing brands – a measure for the strength and depth of consumer-
brand relationships was therefore used: BRQ. The relationship between BRQ and 
COBRAs is often referred to but to date was never tested empirically (Hennig-Thurau 
et al., 2012; Nambisan & Baron, 2009; Park et al., 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010). The 
current study therefore is the first to show that consumer-brand relationships that 
can be characterized by certain dimensions engender more COBRAs than consumer-
brand relationships that lack these dimensions. Specifically, authors demonstrate 
that the BRQ dimension “self-connection” strongly relates to all three COBRA 
types. This indicates that brands that consumers perceive to have relationships with 
that are based on identity-similarity (Burmann et al., 2009; Swaminathan, Page, & 
Gürhan-Canli, 2007) are particularly social mediable; they are capable of engaging 
consumers in a variety of COBRAs. With regard to differences between COBRAs: 
these are, again, minor. Both consuming and creating are additionally driven by 
“passionate attachment,” which indicates that these types of behavior are driven 
by perceptions of particularly passionate consumer-brand relationships (see Belk, 
Ger, & Askegaard, 2003; Veloutsou & Moutinho, 2009). The dimension “nostalgicconnection” additionally drives contributing. This dimension stands for the idea 
that a consumer links a brand to events in his/her past. The negative direction of 
this effect may indicate that consumers who contribute to brand-related content on 
social media do so not for brands that they link to events in their past. 
79
4.6.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic drivers
This study’s findings suggest that the proportion variance in COBRAs explained by BP 
and BRQ decreases as COBRAs become more active (i.e., from consuming to creating). 
For consuming brand-related content on social media, brand characteristics appear 
more important than for contributing and creating brand-related content on social 
media. As an explanation for this inversely proportional relationship, is it proposed 
that as behavior becomes more active, intrinsic drivers such as motivations become 
more important than extrinsic, brand-related factors such as BP and BRQ. Thus 
while the brand, as an extrinsic factor, is relatively important for relatively passive 
behaviors, it is less important for relatively active behaviors. Such behaviors are 
better predicted with intrinsic motivations (see for an extensive discussion of the 
relationship between brand-related activeness and intrinsic/extrinsic motivations, 
chapter 3, p. 61). 
While this study’s findings with regard to BP and BRQ thus attest that some brands 
are better able to induce COBRAs than others, it also demonstrates that the brand 
has only got so much explanatory power. COBRAs are less about the brand itself than 
about other factors. For viewing brand-related videos, talking to other consumers 
about a brand, or creating consumer-generated advertisements, then, motivations 
(e.g., information, entertainment, the need to belong to a group or self-expression) 
are more prominent drivers than the brand itself. This bears resemblance to the 
notion, discussed in chapter 3, that online brand engagement is less about the 
brand than about the needs that are satisfied while engaging with a brand. As 
Cova and Cova (2002) put it, today’s consumers are “less interested in the objects 
of consumption than in the social links and identities that come with them” (p. 595) 
(see also Fournier & Lee, 2009). 
4.6.3 Practical implications
 
According to Levy and Garfield (2012), social media is “about tapping into the Human 
Element” (p. 2). This study demonstrates that indeed, brands that have certain 
perceived human personality- and relationship characteristics may be better able 
to engage their consumers in brand-related activities on social media than brands 
that lack these characteristics. These brands may find themselves “perceptually 
incapable” of engaging consumers as much as they would like. For marketers that 
seek to understand whether a social media marketing strategy would be beneficial 
for their brand, it is essential that they first investigate how consumers perceive their 
brand. If they find that consumers perceive the brand as having a brand personality 
characterized by emotionality – supplemented with activity and simplicity – and when 
consumers perceive the consumer-brand relationship as identity-similar (self-brand 
connections) and giving “fire of desire” (Belk et al., 2003) (passionate attachment), 
then their brand should be able to successfully engage consumers in COBRAs. 
80 socIAl mEdIABlE
If they find that their brand is not perceived as such, then there is work to be done: 
managers need to imbue their brands with the perceptions necessary to engage 
consumers. Recent academic work demonstrates that such an approach can be 
successful. Aral and Walker (2011) for instance show that products can be engineered 
with such characteristics that they are most likely to become talked about online and 
generate consumer-to-consumer influence, and Berger and Milkman (2012) show 
that some elements of online content make content more prone to virality than 
others, that is, are more likely to be forwarded and shared. While specifically brand-
related research on this matter remains scarce, based on this study’s findings, it would 
seem possible that brands could be invested with the human-like characteristics that 
are vital for persuading consumers to engage in COBRAs. 
4.6.4 Limitations and directions for future research
This study provides insights in the personality and brand relationship quality of more 
or less social mediable brands. Although it is shown that brands with which consumers 
actively engage on social media share certain characteristics, a causal relationship 
is not demonstrated. For instance, while BP/BRQ may well predict COBRAs, the 
reverse is no less conceivable – if not equally likely. Certain BP/BRQ dimensions may 
induce more brand-related activities on social media, which then feeds back into 
stronger perceptions of those BP/BRQ dimensions and again to more brand-related 
activities, and so forth, in a constantly evolving fashion. Such a dynamic system 
in which positive feedback loops continuously affect behavior is very common in 
communication (Slater, 2007) and has, in the context of social media, been suggested 
(e.g., Aral, 2011; De Valck, Van Bruggen, & Wierenga, 2009) and even demonstrated 
(e.g., Christodoulides et al., 2011). In this research, causal relationships were not 
empirically tested, since the aim was to explain COBRAs. Nevertheless, such positive 
feedback loops remain to be further investigated. Future research thus may want to 
conduct longitudinal research to examine the extent to which such positive feedback 
loops indeed occur between the variables taken into account. Such research would 
significantly contribute to the academic understanding of the dynamics of COBRAs 
and, importantly, may shed light on the question whether a social media presence 
may only prove an effective strategy for brands with specific characteristics. If 
positive feedback loops are empirically established, then perhaps any brand may 
benefit from a social media approach and be perceived as social mediable, with 
the corresponding characteristics. Effectively, this would mean that when managed 
properly, every brand might eventually become a social media winner.
 
81
Main variables Control variables
BP dimensions Sex Age Education Brand familiarity
Active -.08 .08 -.02 .12*
Responsible -.00 .09 -.07 .14*
Emotional .02 .10 .10 .02
Simple .06 -.25** -.04 -.01
Aggressive .10 .18** -.05 .06
BRQ dimensions
Passionate attachment -.07 .10 .12* .16*
Self-connection -.17** .05 -.01 .08
Intimacy .02 .15* .15* .24*
Nostalgic connection -.03 -.04 .03 .11
Love -.12 .10 .13* .13*
Personal connection -.01 -.03 .04 .17**
Partner quality -.02 .07 .04 .18**
COBRAs
Consuming .04 .04 .01 .04
Contributing .07 .01 .07 .07
Creating .09 .02 .07 .07
Appendix 4.1 Results of bivariate correlations between the observed variables.
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01.