APPROVED: Jiyoung Kim, Major Professor Bharath Josiam, Committee Member Tammy Kinley, Chair of the Department of

Merchandising and Digital Retailing Judith A. Forney, Committee Member and

Dean of the College of Merchandising, Hospitality and Tourism

Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

FACEBOOK MARKETING FOR FASHION APPAREL BRANDS: EFFECT OF OTHER

CONSUMER POSTINGS AND TYPE OF BRAND COMMENT ON BRAND

TRUST AND PURCHASE INTENTION

Yeo Jin Jung

Thesis Prepared for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 2013

Jung, Yeo Jin. Facebook Marketing for Fashion Apparel Brands: Effect of Other

Consumer Postings and Type of Brand Comment on Brand Trust and Purchase Intention. Master

of Science (Merchandising), December 2013, 94 pp., 6 tables, 1 figure, references, 112 titles.

Social networking sites are a major networking tool for consumer interactions as they

provide a platform for communication, socialization, and learning activity. Subsequently, social

media has become an important marketing tool for advertising companies’ messages. As a

result, fashion brands such as H&M and Victoria’s Secret started to show more brand ads on

Facebook. Facebook is one of the most powerful social networking sties due to its ability to

reach to broad consumer groups through a brand page. However, research regarding this topic is

limited as the social networking sites is relatively a new phenomenon. Therefore, the purpose of

this research is to examine the effect of the brand’s comments in attenuating (enhancing)

negative (positive) influence of other consumer’s postings on brand trust and purchase intention

of other consumer’s postings on social media.

Findings from this study revealed that there is no moderating effect of brand comments

of the relationship between other consumer’s postings and brand trust, while positive other

consumer’s postings has a significant effect on consumers’ brand trust. Also, there were no

significant differences among other consumer’s postings, brand comments and purchase

intention relationships. These findings add to the previous literature explains that brand should

interact with consumers frequently in order to induce positive other consumer’s postings to

develop brand trust. By using the consumer socialization theory to investigate Facebook

marketing, this study provides insights and information on consumer attitudes and behaviors

related to Facebook brand page.

Copyright 2013

by

Yeo Jin Jung

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to give my greatest appreciation to God for His endless love and guidance in

my life. By His grace, I have the greatest blessing of meetings with my family, Dr. Jiyoung Kim,

Dr. Judith Forney, and Dr. Bharath Josiam as I am studying at University of North Texas.

First, I would like to express my greatest appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Jiyoung Kim for

her continued guidance and caring during all phases of my academia works at University of

North Texas. Her tolerance, support, encouragement, and inspirations helped me to start this

journey of earning Master’s degree. I would also like to extend my appreciation to my committee

members, Dr. Judith Forney, and Dr. Bharath Josiam for their precious guidance, comments and

suggestions which helped me improve my thesis.

Second, I would also like to thank my friends and mentors at churches of Dallas and

Busan, Korea. I thank them for understanding my joy and troubles and for their sincere prayers. I

also express appreciation to faculty and staff members for helping me as I was studying and

working at College of Merchandising, Hospitality & Tourism. The time spent together with them

was an inspirational lesson to me.

My special appreciation was saved for last and it goes to my family, my parents, my

brother, my grandmas and my aunt for their endless love, prayer and support. Especially my

parents, they are my motivation and role model for my life regardless at the time and distance

between us. I also want to thank my brother for being there and for encouraging and making me

laugh whenever I was discouraged and depressed. All this support helped me to complete this

degree.

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (Philippians 4:13 NKJV)

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES.............................................................................................. vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Significance of Research ......................................................................................... 5

1.3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 7

1.4 Hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 7

1.5 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 10

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 10

2.2.1 Social Media and Social Networking Site ................................................ 10

2.2.2 Facebook ................................................................................................... 12

2.2.3 Consumer Interaction with Other Consumers and Brands on Facebook .. 15

2.2.4 Brand Trust ............................................................................................... 17

2.2.5 Purchase Intention ..................................................................................... 19

2.3 Theoretical Background ........................................................................................ 20

2.4 Consumer Socialization Theory ............................................................................ 20

2.5 Hypothesis Development ...................................................................................... 22

2.5.1 Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comment and Brand Trust ............... 22

2.5.2 Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comment and Purchase Intention .... 24 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 28

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 28

3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................... 28

3.2.1 Stimuli Development ................................................................................ 29

3.2.2 Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 30

3.3 Pretest .................................................................................................................... 31

3.3.1 Procedure .................................................................................................. 31

v

3.3.2 Pretest Analysis ......................................................................................... 32

3.4 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 32

3.4.1 Main Test Participants .............................................................................. 32

3.4.2 Procedure .................................................................................................. 33 CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 34

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Sample Description ............................................................................................... 34

4.3 Scale Validation .................................................................................................... 35

4.4 Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................ 36

4.4.1 Other Consumer Postings, Brand Comment and Brand Trust (H1, H2a, H2b, H3) ................................................................................................... 36

4.4.2 Other Consumer Postings, Brand Comment and Purchase Intention (H4, H5a, H5b, H6) ........................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 39

5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 39

5.2 Empirical Findings ................................................................................................ 39

5.3 Implications ........................................................................................................... 43

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications ........................................................................... 43

5.3.2 Managerial Implications ........................................................................... 44

5.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ................................................. 45 APPENDIX A. PRETEST SURVEY .......................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX B. PRETEST ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX C. MAIN TEST SURVEY ...................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX D. MESSAGES FOR MAIN TEST EXPERIMENT .............................................. 69 APPENDIX E. MAIN TEST EXPERIMENT STIMULI............................................................ 76 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 86

vi

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Table 3.1 Factorial Design of Other Consumer’s Postings and Brand Comment ....................... 28

Table 4.1 Sample Description (N = 530) ..................................................................................... 34

Table 4.2 Reliability Scales of Brand Trust and Purchase Intention ........................................... 36

Table 4.3 ANOVA Summary for Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comments and Brand Trust....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 4.4 Mean Comparison between the Types of Other Consumer’s Postings and Brand Trust....................................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 4.5 ANOVA Summary for Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comments and Purchase Intention ........................................................................................................................................ 38

Table 4.6 Hypotheses Results Table ............................................................................................ 38

Figure 2.1. Proposed research framework. ................................................................................... 27

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

As the Internet evolved into a platform for communication, socialization, and learning

activity, social media and social networking sites have gained popularity as the major networking

tool for consumer interactions (Purnawirawan et al., 2012; Seraj, 2012). Social media has

become a medium that connects people with increasing numbers of digital media

options (Edosomwan et al., 2011), and often functions as an important platform not only for

strengthening friendship but also for advertising messages (Coulter & Roggeneen, 2012; Pinto &

Mansfield, 2011; Vallor, 2012; Yousif, 2012). The number of social media users around the

world has rapidly increased in the last few years with approximately 60% of Americans were

estimated to use social media in 2010 (Patterson, 2012).

Social networking sites, “especially friendship-oriented sites like Facebook,” support and

strengthen friendships as they reach not only common interests groups but also heterogeneous

population through the process of sharing lives (Vallor, 2012, p. 196). At 901 million users,

Facebook is often referred to as a “Friend-Network” and has the highest number of active

internet users (Coulter & Roggeneen, 2012; Wallace et al., 2012). On Facebook, users create

individual profiles where they can share personal information, such as messages and photos, with

people who they add as their friends (Coulter & Roggeneen, 2012; Edosomwan et al., 2011).

Facebook marketing refers to the process of gaining consumer’s attention through a

Facebook site. It has become a popular tool for public relations and advertising brands to reach

thousands or millions of people at once (Bushelow, 2012). Neff (2010) suggested Facebook has

become “the biggest relationship-marketing provider” for some brands. This has developed from

2

brands developing relationships with consumers by interacting through consumers’ user

generated contents on Facebook. Neff (2010) also implied Facebook has a larger web-presence

for brand marketers when compared to official websites and e-mail marketing because the sheer

number of users on Facebook exceeds those who visit the official websites and read promotional

emails (Neff, 2010).

According to Zastrow (2013), 51% of Americans age of 12 and up use Facebook, and

they spend average 6 hours 35 minutes on Facebook per month. In addition, 80% of U.S. social

networking users indicated Facebook is their most preferred network site for connecting with

brands (Zastrow, 2013). More consumers are migrating to Facebook while consumer traffic in

official websites is slowing down for various reasons (Neff, 2010; Zastrow, 2013). A basic

principal of Facebook marketing is that “people share, read, and generally engage more with any

type of content when it’s surfaced through Friends and people they know and chose to trust”

(Zastrow, 2013). These social connections enhance the ways marketers reach consumers (Delo,

2013).

A Facebook brand page refers to a public profile of the brand, operating in similar

manner to individual user profile, and allowing the brand to create a community of consumers

who collectively share information (Bushelow, 2012). This is an important venue for marketing

as it allows brands to communicate with both current and prospective consumers. It also builds

relationships when users find unique brand pages through Facebook’s internal search engine

(Zhang, 2010). A fundamental rule to increase consumer’s traffic on a Facebook brand page over

a brand’s official website is to increase the frequency of content updates and communication

with consumers (Neff, 2010).

3

Many fashion brands, including fashion apparel and retail brands started to use Facebook

brand pages as part of their promotion. Their common approach to attracting consumers is to

create a brand page that consumers can join when they click the “Like” button. Michaelidou et al.

(2011) found brands which use Facebook brand pages as their marketing tool for advertising, do

so by posting announcements about new collections, events, and promotions, and communicating

with consumers. For fashion brands, a Facebook brand page is a helpful marketing tool as it can

reach multiple audiences across the social media platform; increase brand awareness through

various promotional events and offerings with an exclusive price; and collect comments and

reviews from consumers regarding their products through a brand page wall (Indvik, 2010;

Pagani et al., 2011). These consumer postings provide valuable insight such as quality of

products and services, brand page contents and data for the brands from the consumer’s

perspective on (Harris & Rae, 2009). Among the top 50 pages in Facebook, Victoria’s Secret

was ranked 18 among brand pages over all categories and the number 1 as a fashion brand

(Tobin, 2013).Victoria’s Secret is an example of a company uses their Facebook brand page

effectively by facilitating consumer discussion on recent product lines, sharing related photos,

and the viral spreading of the promotional campaigns and events through its 22 million fans

(Facebook.com, 2012; Tobin, 2013).

While Facebook marketing is a popular strategy for brands, there is a debate over its

effectiveness due to a lack of control and its associated cost. A difficulty observed with

Facebook marketing, the difficulty to act quickly and decisively to avoid the risk of losing

money and consumers compared to traditional promotions (Social media marketing university,

2012). There also is a possible risk of damaged brand image due to uncontrollable consumer

posts which can be very difficult to undo (Social media marketing university, 2012). Delo (2013)

4

mentioned that although Facebook has an advantage to chase “easy money” with a strategic

mandate, it also has risk for brands to build stable relationship with people because they would

have their own preferred brand(s) already. Dumenco (2011) disagreed with Facebook data that

claims the 130 “friends” of average users are able to persuade both brands and consumers. He

maintained that users are tiring from an advertising overload, and this marketing exhaustion

makes Facebook “friends” leave Facebook (Dumenco, 2011).

In the midst of the debate over the effectiveness of Facebook marketing on brand pages, a

main concern is often the brand’s response strategy to control the direction of the conversation

on their page. For example, Mattila et al. (2012) found that when consumers felt they were being

neglected, greater negative emotions, attitudes and behavior were observed. Conversely,

qualitative responses with interesting content and information created perceptions that the brand

does care about its consumers. Although Facebook is an effective marketing tool for brands to

communicate with consumers, it is possible to have a zero-sum or losing game if the brand does

not respond to consumers in a timely manner. Thus, it is important for brands to understand that

their main focus for Facebook marketing is to engage in interactive communication with

consumers.

While the critical role of the brand’s response strategy is discussed among researchers

and brand marketers, there is very limited research that suggests appropriate response strategies

for brands especially on Facebook. Therefore, this study proposes to investigate the consumer

socialization process on a Facebook brand page, focusing on the effect of other-consumers’

posting, either negative or positive, and the brand’s response strategy on readers’ formulation of

brand trust and purchase intention.

5

1.2 Significance of Research

The significance of this study lies in applying the consumer socialization process in the

context of Facebook marketing using a brand page. Although social networking sites, such as

Facebook, are a major tool for consumer interactions, there is limited attention and research

regarding the consumer socialization process in social media. As consumer socialization theory

implies, consumers are affected through agent-learner communication when obtaining new skills

and knowledge, and forming attitudes in the marketplace (Ward, 1974). The agent is an external,

environmental source of influence on learning, there the learner is the one who received the

influence by the agent (Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Okazaki, 2009). In this study, the agent-

learner relationship in the consumer socialization process is applied to explain the influence

consumers have through a consumer-consumer interaction as well as consumer-brand interaction

on a Facebook brand page. For example, Purnawirawan et al. (2012) found that first comments

from a consumer on the posting can be considered as “the standard” as it affects next commenter.

Also, Wang et al. (2012) found that peer communication through social media does affect

purchase intention. In line with their study, brand trust and purchase intention are encouraged to

be investigated based on consumer socialization theory with new factors such as other

consumer’s postings and brand comment.

This study is significant as its result will provide implications to a brand’s marketing

strategy, such as social media. Facebook is an important social media internet platform for

consumer interactions and an important marketing tool for companies. After Facebook became

the world’s leading social networking website (Zukerberg, 2010), many researchers examined its

impact on consumer behaviors and its value for marketing companies, such as consumers’

responses on Word Of Mouth in social networking sites (brand pages) to establish long-term

6

relationship with consumers (Coulter & Roggeneen, 2012; Patterson, 2012; Pinto & Mansfield,

2011; Tierean, 2010; Vallor, 2012; Yousif, 2012). Coulter & Roggeveen (2012) investigated

consumers’ responses to WOM in social networking sites and found that creating brand pages on

social networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter, and encouraging consumers to join the

page are important processes to establish long-term relationships. Yousif (2012) concluded that

when users have high interest in advertising messages on Facebook, they review those messages

very credible. However, specific studies about consumer-to-consumer interaction on Facebook

are limited. This study aims to address the importance of consumer-to-consumer interaction on a

Facebook brand page, and provide insight of how consumers gain information and learn through

other consumer’s postings and brand comments in the brand page.

Further, this study extends to the current literature on Facebook marketing in using

consumer socialization theory. Based on the theoretical framework for the consumer

socialization theory, the impact of other consumer’s postings and brand comment in Facebook

brand page on consumer learning process was examined. Although Ward (1974) acknowledged

four agents that include family, school, mass media, and peers as key factors in the consumer

socialization process, the influence of other consumers and brand factors through the Facebook

brand pages on consumer behavior has not been investigated. To fill this void, this study

investigated the impact of both other consumers and brand on consumer behavior, specifically

brand trust and purchase intention, through the Facebook brand page from the consumer

socialization perspective. In this study, the Facebook brand page is considered as a consumer

socialization platform, where agents are other consumers and brand. By investigating the effect

of the consumer socialization process on the Facebook brand page, this study will provide

7

insights on the importance of the effect of socialization agents, other consumer’s postings and

brand comment.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

Consumers consider peer communication as more trustful and “less intrusive” than

brand-generated-content (Purnawirawan et al., 2012). However, there is a question not answered:

Does the brand’s response to consumer generated content build brand trust and purchase

intention? Further, will the type of brand comment differ by level of brand trust and purchase

intention?

The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of the brand’s comment in

attenuating (enhancing) negative (positive) influence of other consumer’s postings on brand trust

and purchase intention. Specifically, this study proposes to investigate the consumer

socialization process on the Facebook brand page by focusing on the effect of other consumers’

posting, either negative or positive, and the brand’s response strategy, either personalized,

automated or no comment, on the readers’ formulation of brand trust and purchase intention.

Objectives of the study are three fold: 1) to investigate the effect of consumer socialization

process from other consumer’s postings on social media, 2) To assess if the brand’s response to

other consumer’s postings facilitates consumer socialization process; and 3) to attest that the

consumer socialization process leads to brand trust and purchase intention.

1.4 Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer postings present higher brand trust.

Hypothesis 2a. As compared to no comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings

8

Hypothesis 2b. As compared to an automated comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

Hypothesis 3. Brand comment on other consumer’s postings moderates the relation between other consumer’s postings and brand trust.

Hypothesis 4. As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer postings present higher purchase intention.

Hypothesis 5a. As compared to no comment from a brand, purchase intention will be higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings

Hypothesis 5b. As compared to an automated comment from a brand, purchase intention will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

Hypothesis 6. Brand comment on other consumer’s postings moderates the relation between other consumer’s postings and purchase intention.

1.5 Definition of Terms

The following terms were used in this study.

• Brand comment: A response from brand on a Facebook brand page to other

consumer’s postings using the “reply” function. The comment can be automated or personalized

depending on the brand.

• Brand trust: The trust a consumer has in a specific brand (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,

2001).

• Modeling behavior: Involves imitation of the agent’s behavior during the

socialization process (Ward, 1974).

• Other consumer’s postings: Postings presented by other customers on a Facebook

brand page regarding product information, services and questions about a brand

• Purchase intention: Consumers’ intention to buy a specific brand after a certain

evaluation (Khan et al., 2012).

9

• Reinforcement: A process which indicates the learner is motivated to adopt (or not)

behaviors, motivations, or intentions because of the reward (or punishment) offered by the

socialization agent (Ward, 1974).

• Socialization agent: A source of influence, which transmits norms, attitudes,

motivations and behaviors to the learner (Ward, 1974).

• Social interaction: A mechanism that involves interactions with socialization agents

in a social context, which combines modeling and reinforcement (Ward, 1974).

• Social media: A form of electronic communication or media through which

communication occurs. It includes television, radio, telephone, Skype, e-mail, and mobile

messengers in addition to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn (Babin & Harris, 2012).

• Social networking: The exchange of information or services among individuals,

groups, or institutions. Consumers are connected with one another based on common interests,

associations, or goals (Babin & Harris, 2012).

• Social networking site: Also referred to as “online social network sites.” It facilitates

online social networking including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, etc., that provides a

platform for social networking (Babin & Harris, 2012).

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of the brand’s comment in the

attenuating (enhancing) negative (positive) influence of other consumer’s postings on brand trust

and purchase intention. This chapter builds the foundation of current research. In the next

sections, previous studies on social media, Facebook, and consumer behavior on social media are

reviewed. In the following section, consumer socialization theory is discussed as the theoretical

framework. In the next section, limitations from previous studies are discussed. Finally, the

proposed model was provided along with the hypotheses.

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Social Media and Social Networking Site

While the conceptual distinction between social media and social network sites are vague

in some academic research and in industry use, Edosomwan et al. (2011) clearly defined the

meaning of social media and social networking. Social media is a “form of electronic

communication” to enhance the social interaction, while social networking is “the exchange of

information or services among individuals, groups, or institutions” (Edosomwan et al., 2011, p.

79).

Social media is a form of social interaction and a communication tool that transmits and

shares information with broad audiences as an outlet for broadcasting (Edosomwan et al., 2011).

Chua and Banerjee (2012) defined social media as a collection of online services that support

interactions among users and allowed them to co-create, find, and evaluate the online

11

information repository. It also includes a group of Internet-based applications that are built on

the ideological and technological foundation of Web 2.0 which allows exchange of user-

generated content.

Social networking sites are defined as one form of social media services that enable users

to construct and present their profiles within a bounded system, and articulate lists of other users

with whom they share connections. A social networking site is the space that facilitates online

social networking (Babin & Harris, 2012). Through social networking sites, consumers have an

opportunity to connect with other consumers who might have better information and experiences

and provides a broader and greater reach to other consumers with similar interests (Chua &

Banerjee, 2012; Sashi, 2012). A social networking site’s utility is to connect people so that those

with common interests can engage and build relationships through networking (Edosomwan et

al., 2011). Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are examples of social networking sites. Social

networking sites are a global phenomenon for consumer engagement (Chu & Choi, 2011) as they

allow people to create a community where they can share their common interests and

information (Hsiao, 2011) and comments through the inbox message service, wall post and

comment box (Khalil et al., 2013). Moreover, according to the Nielson Global Online Survey

(2011), 70% of active online social networkers use social networking sites as their shopping

place (Khalil et al., 2013). As Facebook developed its potential as a marketing tool,

approximately 1.5 million businesses/brands have been actively participating in Facebook

(Schmidt & Ralph, 2011).

From a small entrepreneur to a large corporation, social networking sites have become an

important marketing strategy for business success. For example, PepsiCo Beverage America,

withdrew advertising from Super Bowl 2011 (Looney & Ryerson, 2011), a 23 years old tradition,

12

and invested the budgeted $20 million to Twitter and Facebook, (Looney & Ryerson, 2011).

Also, despite its recent sales balance, caused mostly by high gasoline price (Buss, 2012), Ford

Motor Co. experienced marketing success from the 2009-2010 Ford Fiesta Campaign Facebook

marketing (Roba, 2010). Throughout this campaign, Ford selected 100 influential consumers on

the Internet and observed their behaviors with a Ford Fiesta before it was released to the market

(Roba, 2010). Without any restrictions, the selected consumers filmed a video clip, published

blog postings, wrote wall postings on Facebook, sent out tweets, everything they shared on the

social media being broadcasted through the official Ford website in timely manner (Roba, 2010).

From this Facebook campaign, brand awareness of Ford Motor increased 60% and 23,000 Fiesta

were sold in 2010 in just half a year (Roba, 2010; Buss 2012). With the proven success record of

Facebook marketing, most brands use social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) as a marketing

tool to sell products and services or keep in touch with their customers and/or friends

respectively (Khalil et al., 2013).

2.2.2 Facebook

Among several different social media channels, by the second half of 2012 Facebook had

become the most representative social media channel with 901 million users (Coulter &

Roggeneen, 2012). This social networking site was designed by Mark Zukerberg to enable

students at Harvard University to exchange news, photos, opinions and information (Chris,

2007). Facebook is now one of the most popular social networking sites with over 400 million

visitors per month which ranks it as one of the biggest websites in the world (Chua & Banerjee,

2012; Yousif, 2012). Further, it was reported that on Facebook, 50% percent of active users

connect to an average of 130 friends per day (Harris & Dennis, 2011). This popularity was

13

gained through various features that Facebook provides to its users: 1) communication with

friends and unknown-people through the exchange of messages, pictures, and videos; 2) joining

interest groups; 3) finding friends; 4) building social capital for users based on the personal

information, talents, activities and other information and notes; 5) social searching for specific

information about offline acquaintances; and 6) less web surfing for general information about

both friends and other consumers (Yousif, 2012).

Facebook is recently considered more as a website which has particular advertising

abilities because its users are wide-spread across many countries (Yousif, 2012). Previously,

Facebook was not about commercial usage for brand marketers but was all about socializing with

friends, family and colleagues (Donston-Miller, 2012). However, as the population of Facebook

users increased, business started to see the marketing potential of Facebook which resulted in a

commercialized Facebook (Donston-Miller, 2012). To exploit this phenomenon better, it was

suggested that companies attain nine goals to reach consumers on Facebook (Yan, 2011): 1)

building a sense of membership or citizenship with the organization; 2) encouraging the

acceptance and communication of brand values; 3) encouraging the audience (both prospective

and current consumers) to engage in dialogue and promote the brand; 4) helping the company to

find and maintain a competitive advantage; 5) informing the vision behind the brand and build

differentiation for it; 6) acting as a check on whether the brand is being property communicated

and understood by the audiences; 7) building positive brand association; 8) building the

perceived quality of the brand; and 9) building greater awareness of the brand to audiences that

it has not yet reached. These goals focused on the importance of community and its relationship

to consumer’s involvement in the Facebook.

14

In 2007, Facebook started a non-private personal space, also known as Page (Hönisch &

Strack, 2012). Page is considered a public profile that enables public figures, businesses and

other organizations to create an online presence and engage with people in Facebook (Hönisch &

Strack, 2012). After Facebook was identified as a great marketing tool, brands started to use this

Page service to reach their consumers (Schmidt & Ralph, 2011; Hönisch & Strack, 2012). It

permits brands and companies to create their own dedicated Facebook brand pages to connect

with their customers who then receive regular updates (Chua & Banerjee, 2012). It also connects

people with other members, and allows them to become a fan of a brand. Consumers can be

united in the brand pages by their common interests in the brand in addition to becoming a friend

to other members (de Vries et al., 2012).

For consumers, communication with brands is facilitated on the brand page by “Liking”

it, while the number of “likes” and comments on a brand’s posting indicate the brand’s

popularity (Harris & Dennis, 2011; de Vries et al., 2012). For brand pages, the number of

“Likes” is considered as currency on the Facebook (Donston-Miller, 2012). On the brand page,

administrators post meaningful content as these postings ultimately end up in consumers’ news

feeds (Donston-Miller, 2012). Coulter & Roggeveen (2012) investigated consumers’ responses

to WOM in social networking sites and found that creating brand pages on social networking

sites, including Facebook and Twitter, and encouraging consumers to join the page were

important processes to establish a long-term relationship. In order to avoid being “unliked” by

consumers, some good marketing tools that are suggested include posting coupons, promotional

events, and discounts to keep customers happy (Donston-Miller, 2012). Further, de Vries et al.

(2012) found that not only are the number of “Likes” and customers’ comments important but

15

also the content of comments, either positive or negative, that can facilitate consumer

engagement on the brand’s blog.

There are number of successful Facebook marketing that document the importance of

adequately using the “Likes,” user-generated-contents, and brand pages while success is not

always granted for brands using Facebook marketing (Diaz, 2012). The Creative Director for

Pereira & O’Dell, Jaime Robinson, worked successfully to engage consumers through a social

film by letting consumers to be part of the storyline of the social film (Diaz, 2012). Consumers

loved to engage with the film and thanked the brand for the opportunity and experiences they had

through the campaign (Diaz, 2012). In another case, Jung Von Matt Limmat’s Obermutten

campaign was built into a PR strategy (Diaz, 2012). Its Facebook fans were invited to like the

Swiss town and the brand posted these fans’ profile picture on the bulletin board of the town

community (Diaz, 2012). Through this successful PR story, the number of participating fans

exceeded the space of bulletin board: fans from 32 countries participated and the campaign

generated about $2.4 million worth of media from a budget of only about $10,800 (Diaz, 2012).

2.2.3 Consumer Interaction with Other Consumers and Brands on Facebook

There are several different platforms on the Internet where consumer- to- consumer

(C2C) interaction, transactions, and communications occur such as a consumer-opinion web site,

discussion forum, chat room, online brand communities, and online auctions (Pollach, 2008;

Adjei, 2010; Leonard, 2012). Many consumers gather in the online brand communities when

they want to communicate prior to making purchase decisions. The risk and uncertainty of the

purchase can be reduced in this interaction based on the quality of four communication

dimensions: 1) timeliness of information exchanges (speed of responses to the posted messages),

16

2) relevance (whether the information exchange is task related or non-task related), 3) frequency

of information (the number of responses to the message postings), and 4) duration/length of

encounter/interaction (Adjei, 2010). Consumer-opinion websites are another source for

consumers gathering information through C2C interactions, as they obtain important feedback,

help and experience about products and services from other consumers (Pollach, 2008). Lu et al.

(2012) found that trust is the strongest aspect of consumer satisfaction in the C2C interactions

and platforms. As C2C interactions and communications start to take place mainly on the

Internet, credibility of sources and trust between consumers becomes a crucial aspect in building

relationships and developing interactions for successful C2C transactions (Pollach, 2008; Lu et

al., 2012).

Social networking sites allow users to be connected to peers and brands while they

exchange user-generated-content such as product reviews (Wang et al., 2012). Social networking

sites offer companies a successful interactive channel for getting customer feedback as brands

can utilize the social networking sites to develop consumers’ brand trust to enhance consumer-

to-consumer interaction (Seraj, 2012). On social networking sites, the information flow is open

to its members, with consumers’ willingness to ask questions to gain increased information along

with the expectation of comments from people who share the interest or problem, facilitating

two-way communication (Patino et al., 2012). Consumers can communicate to other consumers

with different methods, such as Facebook wall postings, online forums, etc., regarding brand

information and reviews prior to making a purchase decision.

C2C interaction on social networking sites has received increased attention as it is

expected to ultimately lead to the transaction process (Leonard, 2012). For example, Khalil et al.

(2013) found that other consumer’s postings on social networking sites positively affected on

17

individual’s trust and purchase behavior. For brands, Facebook is considered a suitable platform

to develop customer relationships through customer engagement (Gummerus et al., 2012) since

the exchange of user- generated- content is the most prevalent activity on Facebook (Gummerus

et al., 2012; Purnawirawan et al., 2012; Seraj, 2012; Wang et al., 2012). Hence, C2C

communication on social networking sites has facilitated a new form of consumer socialization

process as consumers are interacting with peers and brands to learn about product and service

consumptionsthrough social media (Wang et al., 2012).

2.2.4 Brand Trust

Brand trust is the outcome from consumers’ learning process and it leads to confidence in

expectations from the brands (Patterson, 2012). Previous literature defined brand trust as the trust

a consumer has in a specific brand, which is the willingness of the average consumer to rely on

the ability of the brand to perform its stated function (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Alam &

Yasin, 2010). Albert et al. (2012) referred to brand trust as a consumer’s expectation about a

brand’s reliability in an unexpected situation which is critical to relational marketing. In other

words, higher trust often derives higher sales, brand loyalty, and satisfaction from consumers

(Lin & Wang, 2006; Porter et al., 2012). As consumers gain higher levels of brand trust, the

value of the consumer-brand relationship increases (Albert et al., 2012). Further, a higher level

of trust will bring strong brand loyalty where a more satisfied experience supports a higher trust

level (Lin & Wang, 2006; Aghdaie et al., 2011; Porter et al., 2012). Also, strong brand trust

predicts brand loyalty, commitment, and credibility that can lead consumers to repurchase,

satisfaction, and willingness to communicate about the brand with their peers (Alam & Yasin,

2010; Jones & Kim, 2010; Herbst et al., 2011). Therefore, the brand should have a thorough

18

understanding of the factors influencing consumers’ perception of brand trust (Alam & Yasin,

2010).

Because brand trust is a key factor in building and maintaining the brand relationship

with a consumer, keeping promises and responsibilities is critical for brand managers (Jones &

Kim, 2010; Rajput et al., 2011). Albert et al. (2012) stated that brand trust is established based on

the brand’s ability to deliver promises such as quality, service and innovation. Previous literature

also found that consumers build brand trust according to their knowledge of the brand in addition

to the strong reputation of the brand and a positive review/popularity of the brand (Jones & Kim,

2010). Xiangyuan et al. (2010) found that brand knowledge significantly contributes to brand

trust along with information from other sources (e.g., other consumer’s experiences and Word of

Mouth), while advertisements have very limited influence on building brand trust. Brand

marketers are recommended to enhance the understanding to consumers the role of information

sources on (Xiangyuan et al., 2010).

To improve consumer brand trust, brand marketers need to have a deep understanding of

consumers and how they interact in the marketplace (Albert et al., 2013). Consumers tend to

consider people like themselves as a trusted source for their on-line shopping information (Lu et

al., 2010; Harris & Dennis, 2011). This suggests that the familiarity, similarity, and structural

assurance of their friends (both offline and on-line) and opinion leaders positively influence their

trust propensity (Lu et al., 2010; Harris & Dennis, 2011). Moreover, positive reviews/postings

strengthen the trust between the consumer and the on-line shopping mall (Cheung et al., 2009).

Because reviews/postings play a significant role in creating a satisfied experience, they should be

considered a booster to the consumer-brand relationship (Cheung et al., 2009).

19

2.2.5 Purchase Intention

Purchase intention describes the consumer’s decision making process regarding the deal,

product, and services from sellers in the marketplace (Khan et al., 2012). According to Khan et al.

(2012), purchase intention is an individual’s intention to buy a product from a specific brand

after a certain evaluation process regarding, for example, brand image and attitude. Barber et al.

(2012) stated that purchase intention is made by customers based on whether they were satisfied

or not with their previous experience. They implied that in order to increase the purchase

intention of customers, promotions should focus on where customers find their satisfaction

(Barber et al., 2012). For example, if the target customers have a strong concern about

environmental issues, the marketers should promote environmentally responsible products to

them (Barber et al., 2012). Khan et al. (2012) also concluded that brand loyalty and brand

knowledge have the highest effect on customer’s purchase intention.

A higher quality relationship between a brand and consumer leads to higher purchase

intention, while positive experiences with brand, brand loyalty, and knowledge improve the

quality of the brand and consumer relationship (Canniere & Pelsmacker, 2010; Huang, 2011;

Khan et al., 2012). Developing quality relationships with customers is a key factor that

eventually leads to customer retention (Canniere & Pelsmacker, 2010). Higher quality brand-

consumer relationships generally results in higher level of purchase intention since relationship

strength plays an important role in customer behavior (Canniere & Pelsmacker, 2010).

While the brand-consumer relationship is critical in forming purchase intention,

consumers also consider information from other consumers as an accurate and influential source

in making purchase decisions (Lee & Lee, 2009). As the Internet and technology have improved,

consumers are able to access more product information before they make a purchase decision

20

(Khalil et al., 2013). Lee and Lee (2009) found that consumers’ purchase intention is determined

by estimating the value of a product based on their standards of evaluation, experiences, and

information from other consumers.

2.3 Theoretical Background

This research examines gaps in the previous literature, and aims to study the consumer

socialization process on Facebook by focusing on the agent-learner interaction that takes place

on a Facebook brand page. In this study, other consumers and brand comments are considered as

agents while visitors to the Facebook brand page are considered as learners. Therefore, this study

adopts consumer socialization theory to develop a conceptual model investigating consumers’

socialization process on Facebook.

2.4 Consumer Socialization Theory

Consumer socialization theory is one aspect of broader theories of socialization (Ward,

1978). For consumer researchers, consumer socialization theory provides the fundamental

perspective to analyze and research consumer behaviors. While socialization theory covers the

effective process of present and eventual behavior (e.g., external influences on one’s motivation

and his/her later attempt in a new environment), consumer socialization is defined as “the

process by which young people acquire skills, knowledge, and attitudes relevant to their

functioning as consumers in the marketplace” (Ward, 1974). In other words, consumer

socialization explains how individuals become consumers (Lueg & Finney, 2007). The consumer

socialization framework represents a consumer learning process and provides insight into now

individuals perform as consumers in society (Moschis & Churchill, 1978). Contributions to

21

consumer socialization theory include research related to: 1) youth and development, 2)

interaction of factors affecting consumer behavior, 3) linkage between intra-individual processes

and overt behavior, 4) interactions between environmental influences and intra-individual

processes, and 5) specification of key-dependent variables (Ward, 1978).

Based on this definition, Moschis and Churchill (1978) arranged a conceptual model of

consumer socialization, introducing three key constructs, antecedents, socialization process and

outcomes. In the socialization process, the agent-learner relationship is established with three

main components: 1) modeling behavior, 2) reinforcement behavior, and 3) social interaction;

and learning properties are developed as the outcomes of consumer socialization (Moschis &

Churchill, 1978). According to consumer socialization theory, socialization agents such as

family, peer, school and mass media play a critical role as individuals develop into consumers

(Lueg & Finney, 2007; Moschis & Churchill, 1978). The theory addresses younger individuals

that would be directly influenced by socialization agents on their psychological, emotional, and

moral development (Moore et al., 2002).

This study adopts consumer socialization theory to explain consumer learning process in

Facebook brand page as consumers gain knowledge and form behavior through the interaction

with other consumers and a brand. According to the theory, consumers are socialized more

through a social learning process than through purposive and systematic training by others

(Ward, 1974). As Facebook facilitates social interaction among users, it is a representative

platform for socialization agents and the social learning process as it expedites social presence,

promotes social feedback, and improves inter-connectivity (Piotrowski, 2012). Facebook users

are exposed to socialization agents such as peers and media on social network pages (Vries et al.,

2012). In this study, other consumers and the brand present on a Facebook brand page are the

22

agents; the socialization process takes place as consumers read other consumer’s postings and

brand comments; and brand trust and purchase intention are outcomes.

2.5 Hypothesis Development

2.5.1 Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comment and Brand Trust

As consumers develop stronger relationship with other consumers and brand through

communication and interaction, they establish trust (Canniere & Pelsmacker, 2010; Wang et al.,

2012). Consumers often gain brand knowledge through social networking sites which serve as a

base to build brand trust (Mochis & Churchill, 1978; Sen & Lerman, 2007; Cheung et al., 2009;

Karakaya & Barnes, 2010; Harvey et al., 2011; Patterson, 2012; Sashi, 2012; Tsai & Pai, 2012).

Xiangyuan et al. (2010) found that brand knowledge significantly contributes to brand trust along

with information from other sources (e.g., other consumer’s experiences and WOM), while

advertisements have very limited influence on building brand trust. As consumers learn about the

brand through both other consumers and the brand on social media, they have more confidence

about the information they received compared to other consumers who receive information

through brand generated content only (Herbst et al., 2011). As most consumers tend to consider

people like themselves as a trusted source (Lu et al., 2010; Harris & Dennis, 2011), positive

reviews/postings strengthen the trust between the consumer and the brand (Cheung et al., 2009).

To improve consumer brand trust, brand marketers need to keep up with time for interaction, and

have a deep knowledge of both consumers and how they interact with marketplace (Albert et al.,

2013). Thus, Kim and Song (2010) suggested that brands marketers need to build and maintain

trust with consumers through social media, such as the Facebook page.

23

To build consumers’ brand trust in the Facebook brand page, other consumer’s postings

and brand comments play a role as opinion leaders as both provide influential information to

consumers or opinion seekers (Ertekin & Atik, 2012). There are several different definitions of

opinion leadership. This study takes the definition from Rogers (1995) as the “degree to which

an individual in able to informally influence other individuals’ attitudes or overt behavior in a

desired way with relative frequency.” As Watts and Dodds (2007) recently argued, interactions

between opinion leaders and opinion seekers in a group can easily influence individuals. This

suggests that other consumer’s postings in the Facebook brand page would easily influence

consumers’ brand trust.

Both other consumer posting and brand comments are able to informally influence other

individuals’ (consumers’/opinion seekers’) attitudes and/or behavior (e.g. posting contents of

new products and/or promotions, commenting on other consumer’s postings, etc.). The content

and type of brand comment could be helpful to consumers, who seek information or opinions

from interpersonal sources (i.e. other-consumer’s postings and brand comments) to evaluate

products and services (Feick et al., 1986). Therefore, this study hypothesizes following:

Hypothesis 1. As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer

postings present higher brand trust.

Hypothesis 2a. As compared to no comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher

when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings

Hypothesis 2b. As compared to an automated comment from a brand, brand trust will be

higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

Hypothesis 3. Brand comment on other-consumer’s postings moderates the relation

between other consumer’s postings and brand trust.

24

2.5.2 Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comment and Purchase Intention

Social networking sites are capable of increasing customer’s purchase intention by

providing positive affective involvement through social media interactions (Huang, 2011). In

order to increase consumers’ purchase intention by utilizing social networking sites, (Kaplan &

Haenlein, 2010), companies started to create brand communities in Facebook to maximize their

influence on consumers (Gummerus et al., 2012). In Facebook, both brands and consumers can

find new ways to engage with both brands and other consumers such as learning from and about

consumers, and gaining values through variety of practices from brands prior to developing

interest in a product and purchase intention (Gummerus et al., 2012). Moreover, both passive

(reading postings; information seeking) and active (writing postings) participation are possible

consumer engagement behaviors (van Doorn et al., 2010; Gummerus et al., 2012). It follows that

consumers may have impact on numerous brand-related behaviors and they possibly deliver both

positive and negative consequences (e.g. positive and negative postings) for the brands

(Gummerus et al., 2012). Such behaviors include online reviews, online discussions, forums,

opinion polls, information search and commenting (Gummerus et al., 2012). Consumers want

enough information at their disposal to help when they are making a purchase decision (Bloch et

al., 1986). Claxton et al. (1974) reported that consumers gather information in a continuous

process regardless of whether or not they make a purchase.

A previous study (Qualman, 2012) predicted that if brands understand their consumers

and market trends by following four steps, developing strategies to understand consumers’

purchase intentions would not be a challenge: 1) listen to consumers’ conversations about the

brand; 2) participating the communication; 3) provide the products and services based on their

feedback; and 4) sales will occurs as the previous steps are successfully completed. Most brands

25

skip the first three steps, even in social media, which is very inefficient and ineffective

(Qualman, 2012). Especially, the first two steps are very important strategies for brands to

mitigate the impact of negative experiences on the consumer’s behavior such as purchase

intention. Brands need to listen and interact with their consumers before participating

consumers’ communication so they are able to fix the problems and ease any negative emotions

and feelings held by the consumers.

Yang (2012) found that consumer involvement in Facebook influences other consumer’s

advertising attitude, brand attitude and purchasing intention; and it will mediate the effect of

brand messages on the attitudes of consumers (Yang, 2012). When consumers are involved in

other consumer’s decision making process by posting information and/or being involved in

dialogues, it will have mediating effect on consumer’s purchase decision making process (Yang,

2012).

Hoffman and Novak (1996) introduced several marketing communication models that

reflected the involvement of media (e.g., television, word-of-mouth, the Internet, social

networking sites). Those models show the incorporation of interactivity between content/firm

and content/consumers, with media mediating the communication and interaction effect of

content (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). In this study, the reflections from Hoffman and Novak’s

models can be applied as brand comments, where the brand’s response mitigates the impact of

negative and positive postings that consumers see on Facebook when forming purchase

intention.

When brands maintain deeper interactions on their Facebook brand page, consumers

prefer the brand more (Maeve, 2011). Maeve (2011) cited research from Starcom MediaVest

Group, which found that 78 percent of consumers visiting and interacting with a brand in a

26

Facebook brand page are likely to continue the relationship by visiting the official website or

considering it for a future purchase. Although interaction on Facebook is considered as an

important attribute, research on a brand’s response to the dialogue between and among the

consumers is still insufficient. A previous study investigated consumer reaction when their

complaints are ignored by a company (e.g., Mattila et al., 2012). For the pre-Facebook era, the

best and/or only method to contact a brand was by e-mail due to the easiness and speed of this

form of communication (Mattila, et al., 2012). Understanding the negative consequences of

being ignored by brands, Mattila et al. (2012) investigated consumers’ reaction to an “automatic

reply” and “no reply” regarding their complaint through e-mail. These findings suggested there

are no significant differences between “automatic reply” and “no reply” on consumer reactions

(Mattila, et al., 2012). Consumers felt ignored not only when there was no reply, but they also

felt same way when the response was an automatic reply. When consumers are ignored by the

brand, it has a strong impact on consumer’s negative emotions, attitudes, behaviors, satisfaction,

and purchase intention toward the brand (Mattila et al., 2012). These findings suggest that a

brand should focus on maintaining customer loyalty and mitigate negative outcomes through

consistent responses to consumers (Mattila et al., 2012). Therefore, this study hypothesized the

following:

Hypothesis 4. As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer

postings present higher purchase intention.

Hypothesis 5a. As compared to no comment from a brand, purchase intention will be

higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings

Hypothesis 5b. As compared to an automated comment from a brand, purchase intention

will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

27

Hypothesis 6. Brand comment on other consumer’s postings moderates the relation

between other consumer’s postings and purchase intention.

Figure 2.1. Proposed research framework.

H 5 a, b H 4

H 1. H 2 a, b

Brand Trust

Purchase Intention

Automated

Personalized

None

H 3 & H 6

Positive

Negative

Other Consumer Postings

Brand Comments

28

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

This research was proposed to examine the effect of the brand’s comment as a attenuating

(enhancing) negative (positive) influence of other-consumer’s postings on brand trust and

purchase intention. This chapter presents the description of method and procedures used to

develop the instruments and collect data.

3.2 Research Design

To develop more precise results for this study, a 3 (consumer post: positive, negative, and

mixed) X 3 (brand comment: automated, personalized, and no comments) experimented design

was used. This study employed the Internet experiment using a mock Facebook brand page. A

questionnaire on brand trust and purchase intention was given after the experiment. A pretest

was conducted to develop accurate mock other-consumer’s postings such as if the positive

(negative) posting indeed sounded positive (negative) to participants. See Appendix D and E for

examples of the mock Facebook brand page screenshots and messages.

Table 3.1

Factorial Design of Other Consumer’s Postings and Brand Comment

Brand Comment Other Consumer Posting Positive Negative Mixed

Automated Positive Automated

Negative Automated

Mixed Automated

Personalized Positive Personalized

Negative Personalized

Mixed Personalized

None Positive No

Negative No

Mixed No

29

3.2.1 Stimuli Development

First, for a mock Facebook brand page, the brand name and all content on the page were

created by the author to avoid subjects having any previous brand experience, fixed brand image,

prejudiced attitudes, or purchase intention for the brand name. The mock brand page included all

the content that actual Facebook brand pages have including brand logo, brand information, and

postings from both the brand and customers. None of images on the mock page show faces of

models to avoid extraneous factors. For each stimulus, each consumer’s name and face, and

posting time were deleted to avoid any psychological effect on the attitudes and behaviors on the

experiment and survey.

The fictitious fashion brand created for the purpose of this study was named Jon & Joy.

For other consumer’s postings, three postings of positive, negative, and mixed (positive and

negative) conditions, and two dummy postings were created. In developing the messages, several

Facebook brand pages were referenced to understand how consumers really talk about brands’

apparels. Other consumer’s postings only included content of apparel, and excluded shoes,

accessories and handbags, as the focus of this study was female consumers and apparel. During

the process, the content of other consumer’s postings were carefully designed to avoid potential

bias by removing factors such as names, gender, age group and religion.

There were three versions of brand comment stimuli, no brand comment, automated and

personalized brand comment, along with two dummy comments. To develop the automated and

personalized comments, numerous Facebook brand pages were also referred. For automated

brand comment, the same content was posted regardless of the comments given in other

consumer’s postings. The automated brand comment included only a formal greeting and

apology, customer service contact information, and the message that the brand contacted the

30

customer. On the other hand, each personalized brand comment was developed to be closely

related to the content of the other consumer’s postings so that it shows more interest of the brand

toward its consumers than the automated brand comment. Through the personalized comment,

the brand tried to share the consumers’ feelings from other consumer’s postings by replying each

of them. Each dummy posting showed neither a positive nor negative nuance but included

content about the brand and the apparel product. In each condition, these two dummy postings

were placed randomly.

3.2.2 Survey Questionnaire

Survey items for brand trust were adopted from the literature and were altered to fit this

study as needed. Four questions measured brand trust after observing of the mock Facebook

brand page: 1) This brand is safe; 2) This is an honest brand; 3) I trust this brand; and 4) I rely on

this brand (Cheung et al., 2009).

Survey items for purchase intention were also adopted from a previous literature. For

purchase intention, six questions were asked: 1) It is likely that I will transact with this brand in

the near future; 2) Given the chance, I intend to use this brand’s web site for purchasing items; 3)

Given the chance, I predict that I should use this brand’s web site in the future for purchasing

items; 4) I am experienced with using items of the brand; 5) I feel competent using items of the

brand; and 6) I feel comfortable using items of the brand (Ling et al., 2010). The first three items

are from the online purchase intention factor and the other three items are from the prior online

purchase experience (Ling et al., 2010). Ling et al. (2010) reported the Cronbach’s reliability

coefficients for these scales: where alpha as 0.867 for first three variables and 0.797 for the other

three variables: As both alpha values are exceeding the threshold of 0.70, both scales were

31

considered reliable. A 5-point Likert rating scale was adopted with endpoints of 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In the survey, questions for Facebook behaviors and demographic information were also

asked. Facebook behaviors were measured regarding the following factors: 1) Identify a

retailer/brand page that you visited most recently on / Facebook; 2) When did you first “like” this

brand’s Facebook page; 3) How often do you visit this brand’s Facebook page; 4) How many

hours do you spend on Facebook per day; 5) Do you use Facebook for communicating with your

friends; 6) Do you use Facebook for a brands’ promotion and special offers; and 7) How many

brands’ pages do you “Like.” Demographic information was also collected and included age,

gender, occupation, marital status, education, and income. Refer to Appendix C.

3.3 Pretest

3.3.1 Procedure

A pretest of other consumer’s postings and brand comments was conducted for a

manipulation check. The goal was to build accurate stimuli for the main test experiment and to

maximize the potential impact of the mock Facebook brand page on brand trust and purchase

intention.

During the pretest, all participants evaluated eight other consumer’s postings (three

positive, three negative and two dummy other consumer’s postings) and 10 brand comments

(two automated brand comments, three personalized brand comments for positive other

consumer’s postings, three personalized brand comments for negative other consumer’s postings,

and two personalized brand comments for dummy other consumer’s postings) in addition to

answering questions related to demographic information and social media behavior. For brand

32

comments, the following four answer options were given; less sincere & seems like it’s an

automatic reply, seems like it’s from a person, neutral, and do not know. For other consumer

postings, the following four answer options were given; negative, neutral, positive, do not know).

Refer to Appendix A.

3.3.2 Pretest Analysis

A total of 75 college students and college graduates voluntarily participated in the pretest,

using Qualtrics and received course credit. After eliminating unusable responses due to

incomplete questionnaires, there were 62 usable responses.

In order to test if each condition (postings and comments) were perceived as intended, a

chi-square frequency analysis for the 19 evaluated items was conducted. From the frequency

analysis, the effective observed percentage was tested for each condition. As there were 4 answer

options, the expected score was 25%, degree of freedom was 3, when p ≤ 0.05. The chi square

results indicated that all conditions except two had significant result as 0 ≤ Χ2 < 7.82. The two

items that pretest participants did not agree with the authors were from positive/negative other

consumer’s postings and automated/personalized brand comments. Therefore, those items were

revisited by the researchers and the wordings were modified to better reflect the conditions they

are in. Refer to Appendix B for detailed results.

3.4 Data Collection

3.4.1 Main Test Participants

The population is Facebook users age 25 to 49 who view fashion and lifestyle brand

pages. This study focused on female consumers who use Facebook, are interested in apparel (i.e.

33

apparel brands), and live in the United States. By hiring a third party marketing research firm to

recruit consumer panels through Qualtrics, a total of 530 usable data were collected for this study.

3.4.2 Procedure

To conduct both the experiment and online survey together, Qualtrics was used for the

main test. The main test was conducted 100% on the Internet through Qualtrics.com. A total of

nine conditions (i.e. 3 other consumer postings X 3 brand comments) were created in Facebook

and converted to image files for participants to observe. Each condition was randomly distributed

to recruited participants.

Before conducting the main test, participants responded to four questions to confirm their

qualifications to participate. They were screened based on their gender (i.e. female), age (i.e.

between 25 to 49 years old), and most importantly, social media usage (i.e. users of Facebook

and/or blog). If anyone did not satisfy one of these four questions, they were disqualified for the

main test and were unable to proceed.

34

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS

4.1 Overview

This chapter presents the results of the hypothesis testing for the proposed conceptual

framework. In the next section, a description of the main test sample is discussed. In the

following section, the results of reliability testing in the scale validation for brand trust and

purchase intention is provided. In the final section, results of hypothesis testing are analyzed.

4.2 Sample Description

The mean age of participants was 35. The majority were married (60.1%) and had at least a

bachelor’s degree (53.3%) (See Table 4.1). They visited a Facebook brand page at least once a

month (32.3%), and spent less than an hour once they visit the brand page (41%). Over 89% of

participants used a Facebook brand page to communicate with friends, with over 71% of them

visiting a Facebook brand page for special offers and promotions from the brand as well. More

than 46% of the participants have “Liked” more than 10 Facebook brand pages.

Table 4.1

Sample Description (N = 530)

Characteristics f %

Age

25 - 29 151 28.7 30 - 34 113 21.5 35 - 39 101 19.3 40 - 44 84 16 45 - 49 76 14.5

Marital Status

Single 129 24.5 Married 316 60.1 Divorced 26 4.9 Domestic Partnership 50 9.5 Widowed 5 1

(table continues)

35

Table 4.1 (continued).

Characteristics f %

Education

Elementary/Middle School 0 0 Some high school 4 0.8 High school graduate 67 12.7 Some college/no degree 102 19.3 Associate/technical degree 74 14 Bachelor's degree 195 36.9 Graduate/professional degree 87 16.4

First Like Facebook Brand Page

Less than 6 months ago 180 34.5 6 months to 1 year ago 128 24.5 1 to 2 years ago 105 20.1 More than 2 years ago 109 20.9

Facebook Brand Page Visiting Frequency

Everyday 54 10.3 1-5 Days per Week 96 18.4 6-10 Days per Week 82 15.7 Once a month 169 32.3 Others 122 23.3

Hours spending on Facebook Brand Page per Day

Less than an hour 217 41.5 1-2 hour(s) 161 30.8 3-4 hours 84 16.1 More than 4 hours 61 11.7

Communicating with Friends on Facebook Brand Page

Yes 467 89.5 No 55 10.5

Special offers and promotions on Facebook Brand Page

Yes 377 71.5 No 150 28.5

Number of "Like" Facebook Brand Pages

1 to 3 111 21.3 4 to 6 86 16.5 7 to 10 80 15.3 More than 10 245 46.9

4.3 Scale Validation

In the main test survey, both brand trust and purchase intention have multi-item scales.

Reliability testing was conducted to determine if all items were addressing one core construct

(See Table 4.2). Measurement for brand trust (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.906) and purchase intention

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.945) can be considered reliable as the alpha value exceeds the threshold of

0.70.

36

Table 4.2

Reliability Scales of Brand Trust and Purchase Intention

Mean SD Chronbach's Alpha

Brand Trust

I trust this brand 3.08 0.924

0.906 I rely on this brand 2.67 1.059 This is an honest brand 3.29 0.857 This brand is safe 3.29 0.889

Purchase Intention

It is likely that I will interact with this brand in the near future. 2.68 1.201

0.945

Given the chance, I intend to use this brand’s web site for purchasing items. 2.67 1.176

Given the chance, I predict that I will use this brand’s web site in the future for purchasing items.

2.68 1.177

I am experienced with the use of items of the brand. 2.41 1.233

I feel competent using items of the brand. 2.95 1.098

I feel comfortable using items of the brand. 2.96 1.081

4.4 Hypothesis Testing

4.4.1 Other Consumer Postings, Brand Comment and Brand Trust (H1, H2a, H2b, H3)

Results from the two-way ANOVA (see Table 4.3) indicated that the main effect the

other consumer’s postings on brand trust was significant (F = 4.921, p = 0.008) while there was

no significant difference in brand trust between the types of brand comments (F = 1.607, p =

0.201), supporting H1 yet rejecting H2a and H2b. The interaction of the other consumer’s

postings by brand comments level is not significant (F = 1.189, p = 0.313), which showed that

there is no moderating effect of brand comments on other consumer’s postings and brand trust.

Thus, H 3 was rejected.

Results from the pair wise comparison between the means of the types of other

consumer’s postings shows that there is a significant difference in developing brand trust

37

between the positive and negative other consumer’s postings (p = 0.031) while there were no

significant difference in developing brand trust between mixed and positive (p = 0.168), or

mixed and negative (p = 0.728) (Table 4.4). Since the main effect of the types of brand

comments showed insignificant difference in brand trust, pair wise comparison between the

means of the types of brand comments was unnecessary.

Table 4.3

ANOVA Summary for Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comments and Brand Trust

Source Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Postings 6.637 2 3.318 4.921 0.008* Comments 2.167 2 1.084 1.607 0.201 Postings * Comments 2.405 3 0.802 1.189 0.313 Significant at the p < 0.05 level*

Dependent Variable: Brand Trust Table 4.4

Mean Comparison between the Types of Other Consumer’s Postings and Brand Trust

(I) Postings (J) Postings Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Mixed Positive -0.1577 0.08723 0.168 -0.3627 0.0473 Negative 0.06636 0.08736 0.728 -0.139 0.2717

Positive Mixed 0.1577 0.08723 0.168 -0.0473 0.3627 Negative .22406* 0.08857 0.031 0.0159 0.4322

Negative Mixed -0.06636 0.08736 0.728 -0.2717 0.139 Positive -.22406* 0.08857 0.031 -0.4322 -0.0159

* p = 0.05

4.4.2 Other Consumer Postings, Brand Comment and Purchase Intention (H4, H5a, H5b, H6)

For purchase intention, the main effect the other consumer’s postings and brand

comments in purchase intention were not significant (other consumer’s postings, F = 1.736, p =

38

0.177; brand comments, F = 1.812, p = 0.164) rejecting H4, H5a and H5b. Table 4.5 also shows

the interaction of the other consumer’s postings by brand comments level was not significant (F

= 0.556, p = 0.644), rejecting H6. Since the main effect of both the types of brand comments and

other consumer’s postings showed insignificant differences in purchase intention, pair wise

comparison between the means of the types of brand comments and other consumer’s postings

was unnecessary. See Table 4.6 for the hypotheses testing results.

Table 4.5

ANOVA Summary for Other Consumer’s Postings, Brand Comments and Purchase Intention

Source Type III Sum of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

Postings 3.683 2 1.841 1.736 0.177 Comments 3.843 2 1.922 1.812 0.164 Postings * Comments 1.769 3 0.59 0.556 0.644 Significant at the p < 0.05 level.

Dependent Variable: Purchase Intention.

Table 4.6

Hypotheses Results Table

Hypothesis Result

Brand Trust

H1 As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer postings present higher brand trust. Supported

H2a As compared to no comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings.

Not supported

H2b As compared to an automated comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

Not supported

H3 Brand comment on other-consumer’s postings moderates the relation between other consumer’s postings and brand trust.

Not Supported

Purchase Intention

H4 As compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other consumer postings present higher purchase intention.

Not supported

H5a As compared to no comment from a brand, purchase intention will be higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer’s postings.

Not supported

H5b As compared to an automated comment from a brand, purchase intention will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized.

Not supported

H6 Brand comment on other consumer’s postings moderates the relation between other consumer’s postings and purchase intention.

Not supported

39

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview

The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of the brand’s comment in

attenuating (enhancing) negative (positive) influence of consumer posted content on brand trust

and purchase intention based on the consumer socialization theory. In this chapter, empirical

findings and implications from this thesis are discussed and the limitation and suggestion for

future research are presented.

5.2 Empirical Findings

This research examines the gaps in previous studies on social media and consumer

socialization behavior on social networking sites and attempts to find the impact of other

consumer’s postings and brand comment on consumer trust and purchase intention. The results

revealed that other consumer’s postings have an impact on consumer’s brand trust indicating that

positive postings lead to better brand trust compared to negative postings. This supports one of

initial hypotheses that stated as compared to negative other consumer postings, positive other

consumer postings present higher brand trust. According to Nielson Global Online Survey

(2011), 70% of active online social networkers use social networking sites where Facebook had

become the most representative social networking sites with 901 million users (Coulter &

Roggeneen, 2012). Facebook brand page is a good platform for consumers to exchange user-

generated-contents such as product reviews, information and feedbacks on the wall. Our result

concurs with a study conducted by Herbst et al. (2011) who found that consumers are more

confident about the information they received from other consumers compared to brand

40

generated contents. The result is also in line with Cheung et al. (2009)’s study that implied that

positive reviews/postings strengthen the trust between the consumer and the brand. Lu et al.

(2010) also maintained that most consumers tend to consider people like themselves as a trusted

source which lead consumers to build brand trust through other’s positive reviews/postings.

According to the result and previous literatures, consumers gain brand knowledge through

communications with other consumers, while brand trust is established especially when they

were exposed to positive other consumer postings (Cheung et al., 2009; Harvey et al., 2011;

Karakaya & Barnes, 2010; Moschis & Churchill, 1978; Patterson, 2012; Sashi, 2012; Sen &

Lerman, 2007; Tsai & Pai, 2012; Wang et al., 2012).

However, contrary to our expectations, results of this study revealed that consumers’

brand trust is not influenced by the type and existence of brand comments. This indicates that

there is no significant difference in the level of consumers’ brand trust whether they are exposed

to personalized, automated or no brand comments. These results do not support three of initial

hypotheses that proposed: 1) as compared to no comment from a brand, brand trust will be

higher when there is comment from a brand on other consumer postings; and 2) as compared to

an automated comment from a brand, brand trust will be higher when the comment from a brand

is personalized. This may be explained with Mattila et al.’s (2013) findings that consumers do

not consider brand response as agents in learning trusting attitudes toward the brand. In their

study of customer email complaints, Mattila et al. (2013) found that whether receiving no-reply

or automated reply to email complaints did not change the customers’ feelings, as they already

have established a negative feeling toward the company when consumers wrote their e-mail

complaints. Further, Xiangyuan et al. (2010) revealed that while information from other

consumers contributes to establishing brand trust, brand advertisement has very limited influence

41

on building brand trust. Brand response to other consumer’s posting in the current study may

have been considered as a form of brand advertisement which did not help the brand earn trust,

especially when the response was to other consumers not the participant herself.

Another explanation for the insignificant result of brand comment on brand trust can be

based on our sample being female consumers only. Female consumers are different from males

specifically in terms of adopting new technological environment (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000),

and building brand trust on the Internet (Midha, 2012). Female consumers focus on the ease of

use as they spend more time on the new technological environment (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000).

They also build trust as they are exposed to the information source on the internet for a longer

time period in the absence of physical interaction and engagement with other people (Midha,

2012). Females build online trust through interactional relationship when males need to go

through policies (Midha, 2012). Our research design was based on mock brand and mock

Facebook page limiting the female consumers to have long term relationship or repeated

exposure to the target. While the study design may give valuable implication to the newly

established brands, the fact that female participants were unable to interact with the brand or gain

long term experience may have led them to not base their trust on brand’s response.

This study predicted that other consumer’s postings and brand comments would impact

consumer’s purchase intention. The results indicates that other consumer’s postings, type of

brand comments and moderating effect of brand comments were insignificant in developing

consumer’s purchase intention when visiting a Facebook brand page. These results do not

support the last four hypotheses: 1) as compared to negative other consumer postings, positive

other consumer postings present higher purchase intention; 2) as compared to no comment from

a brand, purchase intention will be higher when there is comment from a brand on other

42

consumer’s postings; 3) as compared to an automated comment from a brand, purchase intention

will be higher when the comment from a brand is personalized; and 4) brand comment on other

consumer’s postings moderates the relation between other consumer’s postings and purchase

intention. One possible explanation is that because Facebook brand pages usually do not provide

a direct purchase option for consumers, consumers usually would not consider purchasing a

product when they visit a Facebook brand page. While positive purchase related outcomes are

found in social media in previous literature (e.g. Laroche et al., 2013), the financial outcome of

utilizing Facebook is still under doubt. According to Sashittal et al. (2012), none of the study

participants reported buying a product or service as a result of seeing an ad or promotion on

Facebook; neither did any considered Facebook as a influencer to his/her consumption behavior.

Maeve (2011) found that when consumers have interaction with brand on a Facebook brand page,

they are likely to continue the relationship on the official websites. This relational motivation of

Facebook visitors are also reflected in our sample. According to this study’s sample description,

they are looking for communication with friends (89%), or special offers and promotions from

the brand (71%) when visiting the Facebook brand page. This may indicate that motivation to

use Facebook is limited to social networking, sharing information, and expressing opinions

rather than to look for product related information or reviews that will directly lead to purchase

such as in online product review sites.

Further, previous studies linking purchase intention revealed that consumers use social

media to help make purchases because they rely on “recommendations from friends” (The

Economist, 2009). The notion of “friend” is established through numerous encounters with the

information provider, either it be the brand or other consumers (Auter, 1992). In addition, Wang

et al. (2012) found that online consumer socialization through peer communication affects

43

purchasing decisions in two ways: directly (i.e., conformity with peers) and indirectly by

reinforcing product involvement. The research design of the current study focused on the

exposure to other consumers’ interaction with the brand yet did not examine the direct

interaction between the participant and the brand or other consumers. This may have posed a

limitation to accurately observe the purchase decision making process based on peer

communication or consumer-brand interaction.

5.3 Implications

5.3.1 Theoretical Implications

The findings of this research advance our knowledge of consumers’ trust and purchase

intention on Facebook brand page in both a theoretical and practical sense. First, this study

extends Ward’s (1974) consumer socialization theory to Facebook marketing and provides

insight to Facebook marketing strategies by focusing on other consumer’s postings and brand

comments regarding brand trust and purchase intention. In this study, the agent-learner

relationship in the consumer socialization process is applied to explain the influence consumers

have through other consumers’ posting and brand response on a Facebook brand page. This

study provides theoretical insight that the agent-learner relationship proposed by Ward (1974) is

partially supported in Facebook brand pages. Moreover, other consumer’s postings and brand

comments play an agent role for learners (consumers) when developing brand trust.

Second, this study extends to the current literature on Facebook marketing by utilizing

experimental research design to test the impact of other consumer’s postings and brand comment

in Facebook brand page on consumer learning process was examined. As there is limited

research on Facebook marketing, this study contributes an accurate perception of the consumer

44

socialization process with consumers on Facebook through an experimental design. Key findings

of this study were: 1) consumers appear to be influenced by positive other consumer’s postings

when establishing brand trust, 2) consumers appear to not consider type of brand comments

when developing brand trust, and 3) purchase intention appears did not result from other

consumer’s postings or type of brand comments. From this study, scholars need to examine

further the importance of Facebook brand page regarding consumer attitudes, and its impact on

the brand trust.

5.3.2 Managerial Implications

This study provides managerial insights that practitioners can use to develop their

Facebook marketing activities. By conducting an experiment through a mock Facebook brand,

this study suggest that consumers are influenced by positive other consumer postings on brand

trust on Facebook brand page. As positive feedback toward the brand from other consumers is

influential to consumers, brand marketers have to focus on positive other consumer posting on

the Facebook brand page. It provides opinion leadership (Ertekin & Atik, 2012) that foster

interaction between opinion leader and opinion seekers (consumers) (Watts & Dodds, 2007).

This study also shows that purchase intention was not influenced by either other consumer’s

postings or brand comments. Implication from this result is that purchase is not of the visitor’s

interest as Facebook brand page does not present direct purchasing options. Most consumers use

Facebook for social networking for friends as Mark Zukerberg designed at the first place (Chris,

2007). As brand -consumer relationship and peer communication are a critical part of consumer

purchase intention (Lee & Lee, 2009), marketers should focus more on relationship building

rather aiming for immediate increase in sales after launching the Facebook brand page. As higher

45

quality of relationship can be built through Facebook, there would be an increased chance of the

brand being places in consumers’ choice set when making purchasing decision in the future

(Canniere & Pelsmacker, 2010). Thus, brand managers should provide positive experiences and

establish a social bond (e.g. trust) with users so that they can build stronger brand knowledge that

will improve the quality of the relationship.

5.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The following limitations were identified by this study. First, due to the lack of

technological skills and limitation in the online survey delivery method, the experiment was done

with static images of Facebook pages rather than with an actual Facebook brand page. Since the

participants had to read the content in the images, it could have resulted in less accurate findings

because it is less exciting than using an actual Facebook brand page where participants can

interact. Thus, future research may explore in using an actual Facebook brand page when

conducting the experiment. Further, future study can be suggested to test the positive outcome of

the active interaction between participant - other consumer or participant - brands. As agent-

learner relationship defined in Consumer Socialization Theory incorporates interaction between

the two followed by modeling and reinforcement behavior (Moschis & Churchill, 1978),

extending the current study by including interactive component to the experimental design may

help provide a richer implication to marketers. Especially to investigate the relationship between

brand response strategy and brand trust, future study may focus on different mechanisms that

lead to increased brand trust. As repeated interactions and long term relationships are counted as

key in developing trust (Holmes,1991) , examining features that enable repeated contacts

between the brand and customers may add value to the understanding of the role brands play in

46

developing brand trust through Facebook brand page. Furthermore, relationship enhancement

results from information sharing and dissemination of the brand, which decreases information

asymmetry between consumer and brand and reduces uncertainty and increases predictability of

the brand (Ba, 2001; Lewicki & Bunker, 1995) . Therefore, future study may investigate the type

of brand information shared on Facebook page that increase brand trust.

Second, brand trust and purchase intentions are considered broader outcomes from social

networking sites, especially on Facebook because it was developed as a networking tool for

friendships and networking, not for businesses. Sashittal, et al. (2012) found that every

participants in their study indicated that “advertisings on Facebook to be annoying, intrusive,

insensitive to their needs, and peripheral to their interest.” Unlike general online review websites,

Facebook users expect less business centered messages and have less intention to make purchase

decision based on Facebook (Fu & Chem, 2012; Sashittal, et al, 2012). Therefore, future study

can focus on outcomes that focus on relationship building such as value of experience or fan

behavior (Smith, 2012).

Finally, the utilization of mock brand and mock Facebook page limit the generalizability

of the research as the result may only apply to unknown brands with less exposure to consumers.

Even though the mock Facebook brand page was carefully designed and validated through

manipulation check, using existing brand with established Facebook page in experiment may

provide better understanding of consumer’s decision making process related to purchase and

their intention to engage. As this study initially stated, in order to develop brand trust, consumers

should know about the brand first because brand knowledge is a significant contributor building

brand trust (Xiangyuan et al., 2010). Also, consumers gain higher level of brand trust when there

47

were high level of brand-consumer relationships and brand loyalty (Lin & Wang, 2006; Aghdaie

et al., 2011; Albert et al., 2012; Porter et al., 2012).

48

APPENDIX A

PRETEST SURVEY

49

Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page. As you read each posting, we would like you to rate each statement’s characteristic, either negative, neutral, or positive. Please indicate the extent to which you think with each of the following.

N e N e P o D o

Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress for this season for my date, and it turns out I was proposed! Yes! I’m engaged!

Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products at Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm looking for a wallet.

The life of my Jon & Joy: Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 23.30pm until 4.30am on 25-26/5 at two different parties. The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves by a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts?

Love the Jon & Joy Tunics for summer!! I hate the new stretchy material you are using. I bought a pair last week and found out that they are made poorly. The belt loops are uneven in the front and there isn't one on the left side. No way can I wear them, because they slide down without a belt, and I can't wear a belt without a loop on one side. I now will have to find a new brand to buy. So unhappy after all the years I have worn JON & JOY.

I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I love it anyways!

UNLIKE...stuffs are not that great for the price in any case

Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to rate each statement. Please indicate the extent to which you think with each of the following

L e M o N D o

Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy! Please visit our website for more information. www.jjpromise.com

50

Hi! Thanks for choosing Jon & Joy! I add more information about your question! Please see below! Have a lovely day! GLOBAL TIME R.F.C. SRG-12061144A Chimalhuacan #3574 Torre A Lado B Colonia Ciudad del Sol 45050 Zapopan Jalisco Tel.(33).31.21.60.64 Email: servicio@jjpromise.com.mx

This is the most pleasant moment for us ever! I guess your fiancé has the best sense of fashion and YOU! We wish you the happiest and fabulous wedding and your life!

That does not sound so good! I’m so sorry to hear that you had to have such a bad experience. How can we assist you to fix it? We are more than welcome to provide coupon and exchange the product! Send the information through here social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann and she will help you!

We are so sorry to hear about your bad experience. We are more than happy to fix this problem and please send us your email address and specify the problem through the JON & JOY inbox. We will contact you as soon as we hear from you. Thanks!

Thanks for your compliment! Fabulous ;) It is always my pleasure to have customers like you. XOXO!

We are so sorry for your bad experience and the inconvenience you experienced! Please, please contact us at social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann: She will help you in any way to make you feel better!

Aww! Your message has been sent to the product team so that they can share your compliment! We really do appreciate your love and support!!

Hi! I want to thank you first for your patience! It is time to prepare for spring/summer, isn’t it? Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. Or, you may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677. Our employees will help you right away! Your question is always helpful to us! Thanks!

We request general demographic information to help with our analysis, but your information will NOT be used to identify you. What is your gender?

o Male o Female

What year were you born? _______

51

What is your occupation? _______________________ What is your Marital Status?

o Married o Single o Other

What is the highest level of education you completed?

o High school graduate o Some college, no degree o Associate/technical degree, o Bachelor's degree o Graduate/professional degree

What is your annual income range? o Less than $10,000 o $10,000 to $19,999 o $20,000 to $29,999 o $30,000 to $39,999 o $40,000 to $49,999 o $50,000 to $59,999

o $60,000 to $69,999 o $70,000 to $99,999 o $100,000 to $149,999 o $150,000 to $199,999 o $200,000 or more

Thank you for Participating!

52

APPENDIX B

PRETEST ANALYSIS

53

Chi-square Table

X2 = Σ ((observed value – expected value) 2/expected value) Df = 3 because we have four options for each question P = 0.05 Expected value = 25% Significant level -> 0≤ X2 < 7.815 Insignificant level -> 7.815 < X2

*Choice indications: For Postings, 1 = Negative 2 = Neutral 3 = Positive 4 = Do Not Know For Comments, 1 = Less Sincere, automated 2 = Sincere, personalized 3 = Neutral 4 = Do Not Know

54

Positive Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 5 8.1 8.1 8.1 3 54 87.1 87.1 95.2 4 2 3.2 3.2 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns out I was proposed! Yes! I'm engaged!

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.0659 ∴ significant

Neutral Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 47 75.8 75.8 75.8 3 8 12.9 12.9 88.7 4 6 9.7 9.7 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products at Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm looking for a wallet.

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 1.4035∴ significant

55

Negative Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 55 88.7 88.7 88.7 2 3 4.8 4.8 93.5 4 3 4.8 4.8 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-The life of my Jon & Joy - Duration: 3 weeks, Washed: twice, Worn: 5 times, Dance floor visits: 1, Worn torn: 5 hours from 23.30pm until 4.30am on 25-26/5 at two different parties. The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves by a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.1685∴ significant

56

Neutral Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 3 4.8 4.8 4.8 2 51 82.3 82.3 87.1 3 7 11.3 11.3 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is on line but not shorts?

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 1.7706 ∴ significant

Positive Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 3 59 95.2 95.2 96.8 4 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-Love the Jon & Joy Tunics for summer!!

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.6282∴ significant

57

Negative Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 58 93.5 93.5 93.5 2 1 1.6 1.6 95.2 3 1 1.6 1.6 96.8 4 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-I hate the new stretchy material you are using. I bought a pair last week and found out that they are made poorly. The belt loops are uneven in the front and there isn't one on the left side. No way can I wear them, because they slide down without a belt, and I can't wear a belt without a loop on one side. I now will have to find a new brand to buy. So unhappy after all the years I have worn JON & JOY.

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.7529∴ significant

58

Positive Posting Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3 59 95.2 95.2 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I love it anyways!

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.3803∴ significant

Negative Posting

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

1 56 90.3 90.3 90.3 2 3 4.8 4.8 95.2 3 1 1.6 1.6 96.8 4 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Below are consumers’ postings from a Facebook brand page.As you read each posting, we would like you...-UNLIKE...stuffs are not that great for the price in any case

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.5258∴ significant

59

Less Sincere/automated Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 33 53.2 53.2 53.2 2 6 9.7 9.7 62.9 3 22 35.5 35.5 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy!

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 0.6748∴ significant

Less Sincere/automated Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 58 93.5 93.5 93.5 3 3 4.8 4.8 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Please visit our website for more information. www.jjpromise.com

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.2591∴ significant

Sincere/personalized Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6 2 59 95.2 95.2 96.8 3 1 1.6 1.6 98.4

60

Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-This is the most pleasant moment for us ever! I guess your fiancé has the best sense of fashion and YOU! We wish you the happiest and most fabulous wedding and life!

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.6282 ∴ significant

** Neutral Comment4 Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 8 12.9 12.9 12.9 2 21 33.9 33.9 46.8 3 25 40.3 40.3 87.1 4 7 11.3 11.3 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Hi! Thanks for choosing Jon & Joy! I have provided more information about your question! Please see below! Have a lovely day! : GLOBAL TIME, R.F.C. SRG-12061144A, Chimalhuacan #3574,Torre A Lado B, Colonia Ciudad del Sol, 45050 Zapopan Jalisco, Tel.(33).31.21.60.64, Email:

1 1.6 1.6 100.0

61

servicio@jjpromise.com.mx Total 62 100.0 100.0

** This comment was intended to be “Sincere/personalized comment” but the result shows that it is more likely neutral. So it needs to be changed to have more sincere/personalized comment.. X2 = 0.478∴ significant

Sincere/personalized Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2 57 91.9 91.9 95.2 3 2 3.2 3.2 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-That does not sound so good! I’m so sorry to hear that you had to have such a bad experience. How can we assist you to fix it? We are more than happy to provide you with a coupon to exchange the product! Please go to this site to send your information social@jjpromise.com Subject: Attention Joann and she will help you!

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 2.1704 ∴ significant

62

Sincere/personalized Comment6 Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 4 6.5 6.5 6.5 2 49 79.0 79.0 85.5 3 7 11.3 11.3 96.8 4 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Thanks for your compliment! Fabulous :) It is always my pleasure to have customers like you. XOXO!

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 1.8164 ∴ significant

Sincere/personalized Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 27 43.5 43.5 43.5 2 29 46.8 46.8 90.3 3 5 8.1 8.1 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-We are so sorry to hear about your bad experience. We are more than happy to fix this problem and please send us your email address and specify the problem through the JON & JOY inbox. We will contact you as soon as we hear from

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

63

you. Thanks! Total 62 100.0 100.0

X2 = 0.6602 ∴ significant

Sincere/personalized Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 6 9.7 9.7 9.7 2 51 82.3 82.3 91.9 3 4 6.5 6.5 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Aww! Your message has been sent to the product team so that they can share your compliment! We really do appreciate your love and support!!

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 1.7628 ∴ significant

** Less Sincere/automated Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 40 64.5 64.5 64.5 2 13 21.0 21.0 85.5 3 8 12.9 12.9 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-We are so sorry for your bad experience and the inconvenience you experienced! Please, please contact us at

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

64

social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann: She will help you in any way to make you feel better! Total 62 100.0 100.0

** This comment was intended to be “Sincere/personalized comment” but the result shows that it is more likely Less sincere/automated. So it needs to be changed to have more sincere/personalized comment. Changed condition has been sent to Dr. Kim and Rebecca. X2 = 0.9881∴ significant

Sincere/personalized Comment Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1 13 21.0 21.0 21.0 2 40 64.5 64.5 85.5 3 7 11.3 11.3 96.8 4 1 1.6 1.6 98.4 Below are comments from a brand for consumers’ postings on Facebook brand page. We would like you to...-Hi! I want to thank you first for your patience! It is time to prepare for spring/summer, isn’t it? Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. Or, you may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677. Our employees will help you right away! Your question is always helpful to us! Thanks!

1

1.6

1.6

100.0

Total 62 100.0 100.0 X2 = 1.1436 ∴ significant

65

APPENDIX C

MAIN TEST SURVEY

66

1. Facebook Behavior Identify a retailer/brand page that you visited most recently on Facebook

Facebook Page When did you first “like” this brand’s Facebook page?

o Less than 6 months ago o 1 to 2 years ago

o 6 months to 1 year ago o More than 2 years ago

How often do you visit this brand’s Facebook page?

o Everyday o 6 - 10 days per month o Others: ( )

o 1- 5 days per week o Once a month

How many hours do you spend on Facebook per day?

o Less than an hour o 3 – 4 hours

o 1 – 2 hours o More than 4 hours

Do you use Facebook for communicating with your friends?

o Yes o No

Do you use Facebook for brands’ promotion and special offers?

o Yes o No

How many brands’ pages do you “Like”?

o 1 to 3 o 7 to 10

o 4 to 6 o More than 10

2. Brand Trust

We would like to know your brand trust. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following.

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

I trust this brand

67

I rely on this brand This is an honest brand

This brand is safe

3. Purchase Intention

We would like to know your purchase intention. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following.

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

It is likely that I will transact with this brand in the near future.

Given the chance, I intend to use this brand’s web site for purchasing items.

Given the chance, I predict that I should use this brand’s web site in the future for purchasing items.

I am experienced with the use of items of the brand. I feel competent of using items of the brand. I feel comfortable of using items of the brand.

4. Demographic Information

Please answer the following questions about your demographic background. The personal information will only be used to help with statistical analysis. Any information you provide will not be used to identify you. What is your age? _______ What is your gender?

o Male o Female

What is your occupation? _______________________ What is your Marital Status?

o Single o Married o Divorced o Domestic Partnership o Widowed

68

What is the highest level of education you completed?

o Elementary/middle school o Some high school o High school graduate o Some college, no degree o Associate/technical degree, o Bachelor's degree o Graduate/professional degree

What is your annual income range?

o Less than $35,000 o $35,001 - $55,000 o $55,001 - $75,000 o $75,001 - $95,000 o $95,001 - $105,000 o $105,001 - $125,000

o $125,001 - $145,000 o $145,001 or higher

Thank you for Participating!

69

APPENDIX D

MESSAGES FOR MAIN TEST EXPERIMENT

70

1. Mixed/none A. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. B. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns

out I received a proposal! Yes! I’m engaged! C. The life of my Jon & Joy:

Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30pm until 4.30am on May 25-26 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves with a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

D. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

E. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I love it anyways!

F. UNLIKE...your stuff is not that great for the price in any case.

2. Mixed/auto A. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. i. Please visit our website for more information. www.jjpromise.com

B. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns out I received a proposal! Yes! I’m engaged!

i. Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy! C. The life of my Jon & Joy:

Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30pm until 4.30am on May 25-26 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves with a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

i. We're sorry that you're having a trouble. We would be happy to help. Please contact us at social@jjpromise.com for assistance.

D. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

71

i. Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. You may also contact our customer service at 1-888-996-5677, whom can better answer your question. Thanks!

E. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I love it anyways!

i. Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy! F. UNLIKE...your stuff is not that great for the price in any case.

i. We're sorry that you're having a trouble. We would be happy to help. Please contact us at social@jjpromise.com for assistance.

3. Mixed/personal A. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. i. Hi! This is such a great moment to hear all the way from Mexico! Thanks for

choosing Jon & Joy! I have provided more information about your question! Please see below! Have a lovely day! GLOBAL TIME R.F.C. SRG-12061144A Chimalhuacan #3574 Torre A Lado B Colonia Ciudad del Sol 45050 Zapopan Jalisco Tel.(33).31.21.60.64 Email: servicio@jjpromise.com.mx

B. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns out I received a proposal! Yes! I’m engaged!

i. This is the most pleasant moment for us ever! I guess your fiancé has the best sense of fashion and YOU! We wish you the happiest and most fabulous wedding and life!

C. The life of my Jon & Joy: Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30pm until 4.30am on May 25-26 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves with a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

i. That does not sound so good! I’m so sorry to hear that you had to have such a bad experience. How can we assist you to fix it? We are more than happy to provide you with a coupon to exchange the product! Please go to this site to send your information social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann and she will help you!

72

D. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

i. Hi there! Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. You may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677 to answer your question. Thanks!

E. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I love it anyways!

i. Aww! Your message has been sent to the product team so that they can share your compliment! We really do appreciate your love and support!!

F. UNLIKE...your stuff is not that great for the price in any case. i. It is so sad that we could not satisfy you anyhow. We are so sorry for any bad

experience and inconvenience you went through! Please, please contact us at social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann: She will help you in any way to make you feel better!

4. Positive/none A. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns

out I received a proposal! Yes! I’m engaged! B. Love the Jon & Joy Tunics for summer!! C. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I

love it anyways! D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the

dress is online but not the shorts. 5. Positive/auto

A. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns out I received a proposal! Yes! I’m engaged!

i. Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy! B. Love the Jon & Joy Tunics for summer!!

i. Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy! C. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer, but I

love it anyways! i. Thanks for sharing your love for Jon & Joy!

D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm looking for a wallet.

i. Please visit our website for more information. www.jjpromise.com E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the

dress is online but not the shorts. i. Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. You may also

contact Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677to answer your question. Thanks!

6. Positive/personal A. Thanks Jon & Joy for making things right! I wore your dress on my date, and it turns

out I received a proposal ! Yes! I’m engaged!

73

i. This is the most pleasant moment for us ever! I guess your fiancé has the best sense of fashion and YOU! We wish you the happiest and most fabulous wedding and life!

B. Love the Jon & Joy Tunics for summer!! i. Thanks for your compliment! Fabulous :) It is always my pleasure to have

customers like you. XOXO! C. I love the red ribbed fit and flare dress!!!! It is perfect as my hair gets longer!

i. Aww! Your message has been sent to the product team so that they can share your compliment! We really do appreciate your love and support!!

D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm looking for a wallet.

i. Hi! This is such a great moment to hear all the way from Mexico! Thanks for choosing Jon & Joy! I have provided more information about your question! Please see below! Have a lovely day! GLOBAL TIME R.F.C. SRG-12061144A Chimalhuacan #3574 Torre A Lado B Colonia Ciudad del Sol 45050 Zapopan Jalisco Tel.(33).31.21.60.64 Email: servicio@jjpromise.com.mx

E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

i. Hi! I want to thank you first for your patience! It is time to prepare for spring/summer, isn’t it? Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. Or, you may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677. Our employees will help you right away! Your question is always helpful to us! Thanks!

7. Negative/none

A. The life of my Jon & Joy: Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30pm until 4.30am on May 25-26 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves with a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

B. I hate the new stretchy material you are using. I bought a pair of pants last week and found out that they are made poorly. The belt loops are uneven in the front and there isn't one on the left side. No way can I wear them, because they slide down without

74

a belt, and I can't wear a belt without a loop on one side. I now will have to find a new brand to buy. So unhappy after all the years I have worn JON & JOY.

C. UNLIKE...your stuff is not that great for the price in any case. D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the

dress is online but not the shorts.

8. Negative/auto A. The life of my Jon & Joy:

Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30pm until 4.30am on May 25-26 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves with a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

i. We're sorry that you're having a trouble. We would be happy to help. Please contact us at social@jjpromise.com for assistance.

B. I hate the new stretchy material you are using. I bought a pair of pants last week and found out that they are made poorly. The belt loops are uneven in the front and there isn't one on the left side. No way can I wear them, because they slide down without a belt, and I can't wear a belt without a loop on one side. I now will have to find a new brand to buy. So unhappy after all the years I have worn JON & JOY.

i. We're sorry that you're having a trouble. We would be happy to help. Please contact us at social@jjpromise.com for assistance.

C. UNLIKE...your stuff is not that great for the price in any case. i. We're sorry that you're having a trouble. We would be happy to help. Please

contact us at social@jjpromise.com for assistance. D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm

looking for a wallet. i. Please visit our website for more information. www.jjpromise.com

E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

i. Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. You may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677to answer your question. Thanks!

9. Negative/personal

A. The life of my Jon & Joy: Duration: 3 weeks Washed: twice

75

Worn: 5 times Dance floor visits: 1 Worn torn: 5 hours from 11:30p.m. until 4.30a.m. on 25-26/5 at two different parties The unwanted ventilation system certainly sparked a lot of conversation that night, but you can be assured that these conversations were not very favorable towards your brand. Be assured that I am neither a break-dancer nor able to do splits. I am talking conventional dance moves by a conventional guy who thought this is the stuff worn by cowboys...

i. That does not sound so good! I’m so sorry to hear that you had to have such a bad experience. How can we assist you to fix it? We are more than happy to provide you with a coupon to exchange the product! Please go to this site to send your information social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann and she will help you!

B. I hate the new stretchy material you are using. I bought a pair last week and found out that they are made poorly. The belt loops are uneven in the front and there isn't one on the left side. No way can I wear them, because they slide down without a belt, and I can't wear a belt without a loop on one side. I now will have to find a new brand to buy. So unhappy after all the years I have worn JON & JOY.

i. It is such a shame for all of us and I am so sorry to hear about your experience. We are more than happy to fix your inconvenience and bad experience! What is your email address? Please advise us through inbox and we will contact you as soon as we hear from you! Thanks!

C. UNLIKE...stuffs are not that great for the price in any case. i. It is so sad that we could not satisfy you anyhow. We are so sorry for any bad

experience and inconvenience you went through! Please, please contact us at social@jjpromise.com. Subject: Attention Joann: She will help you in any way to make you feel better!

D. Hi guys! Do you know where I can buy your products in Guadalajara, Mexico? I'm looking for a wallet.

i. Hi! This is such a great moment to hear all the way from Mexico! Thanks for choosing Jon & Joy! I have provided more information about your question! Please see below! Have a lovely day! GLOBAL TIME R.F.C. SRG-12061144A Chimalhuacan #3574 Torre A Lado B Colonia Ciudad del Sol 45050 Zapopan Jalisco Tel.(33).31.21.60.64 Email: servicio@jjpromise.com.mx

E. When will the aqua and navy blue geometric print shorts be available? I see the dress is online but not the shorts.

i. Hi there! Please stay tuned as we are constantly updating our website. You may also contact our Customer Service at 1-888-996-5677 to answer your question. Thanks!

76

APPENDIX E

MAIN TEST EXPERIMENT STIMULI

77

Stimulus 1: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some of the consumers give compliments when the others complain about the apparel products. The brand has not commented any of the posting.

78

Stimulus 2: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some of the consumers give compliments when the others complain about the apparel products. The brand has commented on all the postings without any particular content regarding each posting.

79

Stimulus 3: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some of the consumers give compliments when the others complain about the apparel products. The brand has commented on all postings with particular contents regarding what each consumer posted.

80

Stimulus 4: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of compliment regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has not commented any of the posting.

81

Stimulus 5: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of compliment regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has commented on all of the postings without any particular contents regarding each posting.

82

Stimulus 6: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of compliment regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has commented on all of the postings with particular contents regarding each posting.

83

Stimulus 7: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of complain regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has not commented on all of the postings.

84

Stimulus 8: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of complain regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has commented on all of the postings without any particular contents regarding each posting.

85

Stimulus 9: Consumers posted their thoughts and questions about the apparel products to the brand. Some ask questions when others give full of complain regarding the apparel product of the brand. The brand has commented on all of the postings with particular contents regarding each posting.

86

REFERENCES

Adjei, M.T. et al. (2010). The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38, pp. 634-653.

Aghdaie, S.F.A. et al. (2011). An analysis of factors affecting the consumer’s attitude of trust and their impact on Internet purchasing behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2, No. 23, pp. 147-158.

Alam, S.S. & Yasin, N.M. (2010). What factors influence online brand trust: Evidence from online tickets buyers in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 78-89.

Albert, N. et al. (2012). Brand passion: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 7, pp. 1-6.

Ba, S. (2001). Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system. Decision Support System, Vol. 31, pp. 323–336.

Barber, N. et al. (2012). Measuring psychographics to assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 147-158.

Babin, B. J. & Harris, E. G. (2012). CB 4. Mason, Ohio. South-Western Cengage Learning.

Bloch, P. H. et al. (2009). Consumer search: an extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 119-126.

Brown, R. et al. (2009). Business and consumer communication via online social networks: a preliminary investigation. Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference.

Bushelow, E. E. (2012). Facebook pages and benefits to brands. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 5-17.

Buss, D. (2012). Ford fiesta sales slump despite 'groundbreaking' social media marketing campaign. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/05/02/fiesta-sales-slump-suggests-the-end-of-the-movement/.

Canniere, M.H.D. & Pelsmacker, P.D. (2010). Relationship quality and purchase intention and behavior: The moderating impact of relationship strength. Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 87-98.

Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, April, pp. 81-93.

87

Cheung, M.K. et al. (2009). The impact of positive electronic word-of-mouth on consumer online purchasing decision. Visioning and Engineering the Knowledge Society, pp. 501-510.

Chris, W. (2007). Facebook wins Manx battle for face-book.com. Retrieved from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/01/facebook_domain_dispute/.

Chu, S.C. & Choi, S.M. (2011). Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites: A cross-cultural study of the United States and China. Journal of Global Marketing, 24(3), 263-281.

Chua, Y.K.A. & Benerjee, S. (2012). Customer knowledge management via social media: the case of Starbucks. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 237-249.

Claxton, J.D. et al. (1974). A taxonomy of prepurchase information gathering patterns. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 35-42.

Coulter, K.S. & Roggevenn, A. (2012). “Like it or not”: Consumer responses to word-of-mouth communication in on-line social networks. Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 878-899.

Crain, R. (2012). Despite the buzz, social-media users still not really interested in your ads. Advertising Age, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 13-13.

Dekay, S. H. (2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 289-299.

Delo, C. (2012a). Getting more from your brand's Facebook data. Advertising Age, Vol. 83, No. 7, pp. 23.

Delo, C. (2012b). To deliver for Wall St., Facebook needs to convince Madison Ave. Advertising Age, Vol. 83, No. 21, pp.1-1 & 18.

Delo, C. (2013). Who are Twitter and Facebook’s gatekeepers?: Gnip, DataSift and Topsy are sanctioned tweet resellers; Facebook keeps its conversations under wraps. Advertising Age, Vol.84, No. 11, pp. 18.

De Vries, L. et al. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, pp. 83-91.

Diaz, A.C. (2012). Facebook 101: Is your brand worth a like? Advertising Age, Vol. 83, No. 5, pg. 6.

Djamasbi, S. & Loiacono, E.T. (2008). Do men and women use feedback provided by their Decision Support Systems (DSS) differently? Decision Support Systems, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 854–869.

88

Donston-Miller, D. (2012). Facebook marketing: How to keep your brand liked. Informationweek-Online, July, 23. Retrieved from https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027584928?accountid=7113.

Dumenco, S. (2011). Five reasons google+ is exploding--and could actually hurt Facebook. Advertising Age, Vol. 82, No.28, pp.16.

Endosomwan, S. et al. (2011). The History of social media and its impact on business. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 79-91.

Ertekin, Z. Ö. & Atik, D. (2012). Word-of-mouth communication in marketing: An exploratory study of motivations behind opinion leadership and opinion seeking. METU Studies in Development, Vol. 39, pp. 323-345.

Feick, L. F. et al. (1986). People who use people: The other side of opinion leadership. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 301-305.

Gummerus, J. et al. (2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No.9, pp. 857-877.

Harris, L. & Dennis, C. (2011). Engaging customers on Facebook: Challenges for e-retailers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 338-346.

Harris, L. & Rae, A. (2009). Social networks: The future of marketing for small business. Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 24-31.

Harvey, C.G. et al. (2011). Forward or delete: What drives peer-to-peer message propagation across social networks? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 365-372.

Herbst, K. C. et al. (2011). On the dangers of pulling a fast one: Advertisement disclaimer speed, brand trust, and purchase intention. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp. 909-918.

Hoffman, D. L. & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 50-68.

Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H. Jones, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 2, pp. 57–104. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hönisch, L. & Strack, M. (2012). My brand and I – Facebook brand pages and self-completion. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 12-22.

Hsiao, K.L. (2011). Why Internet users are willing to pay for social networking services. Online Information Review, 35 (5), pp. 770-788.

89

Huang, E. (2012). Online experiences and virtual goods purchase intention. Internet Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 252-274.

Indvik, L. (2012). Facebook “like” increase referral traffic to blog by 50%. Mashable, 14th June. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2010/06/13/facebook-like-increases-blog-referral-traffic/.

Jones, C. & Kim, S. (2010). Influences of retail brand trust, off-line patronage, clothing involvement and website quality on online apparel shopping intention. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 627-637.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Karakaya, F. & Barnes, N.G. (2010). Impact of online reviews of customer care experience on brand or company selection. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 447-457.

Khalil, D.M.N. et al. (2013). Factors influencing individuals’ trust in online purchase through social networking sites. International Journal of Information Science and Management, Special Issue, pp.1-16.

Khan, I. et al. (2012). Impact of brand related attributes on purchase intention of customers. A study about the customer of Punjab, Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 194-200.

Kim, L. (2012). Google Display Network vs. Facebook Advertising (Infographic). Word Stream, retrieved from http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2012/05/15/ipo-facebook-vs-google-display-advertising.

Kim, H. & Song, J. (2010). The quality of word-of mouth in the online shopping mall. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 376-390.

Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. & Richard, M-O (2013). To be or not to be in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33, pp. 76-82

Lee, J. & Lee, J.N. (2009). Understanding the product information inference process in electronic word-of-mouth: An objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy perspective. Information & Management, Vol. 46, pp. 302-311.

Leonard, L.N.K. (2012). Attitude influencers in C2C e-commerce: Buying and selling. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 52, Is. 3, pp. 11-17.

Lewicki, R. J. & Bunker, B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. In B. Bunker, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice, pp. 133–173. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

90

Lin, H.H. & Wang, Y.S. (2006). An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 271-282.

Ling, K.C. et al. (2010). The effects of shopping orientations, online trust and prior online purchase experience toward customers’ online purchase intention. International Business Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pg. 63-76 (Table.1).

Looney, B. A. & Ryerson, A. (2011). “So, you’re a millenial – create us a Facebook Presence.” The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.157-163.

Lu, Y. et al. (2010). From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Application, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 346-360.

Lu, J. et al. (2012). How do technology readiness, platform functionality and trust influence C2C user satisfaction? Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13, Is. 1, pp. 50-69.

Lueg, J. E. & Finney, R. Z. (2007). Interpersonal communication in the consumer socialization process: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 25-39.

Mattila, A.S. et al. (2012). The impact of cyberostracism on online complaint handling - Is “automatic reply” any better than “no reply”? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 45-60.

Maeve, H. (2011). Written word speaks volumes for the brand. Marketing Week, London, United Kingdom. No. 2, pp. 26-28, Centaur Communications Ltd.

Michaelidou, N. et al. (2011). Usage, barriers and measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medium B2B brands. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40, No.7, pp. 1153-1159.

Midha, V. (2012). Impact of consumer empowerment on online trust: An examination across genders. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 198 – 205.

Moore, J. N. et al. (2002). Age and consumer socialization agent influences on adolescents’ sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: Implications for social marketing initiatives and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 37-52.

Moschis, G. P. & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 599-609.

Moschis, G. P. et al. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, No.4, pp. 599-609.

Neff, C. (2010). What happens when Facebook trumps your brand site? Advertising Age, Vol.81, No. 30, pp. 2.

91

Okazaki, S. (2009). The tactical use of mobile marketing: How adolescents’ social networking can best shape brand extensions. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(1), 12-26.

Owyang, J. et al. (2010). The 8 success criteria for Facebook page marketing. Altimeter Group, July. Retrieved from http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2010/07/27/altimeter-report-the-8-success-criteria-for-facebook-page-marketing/.

Pagani, M. et al. (2011). The influence of personality on active and passive use of social networking sites. Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 441-456.

Park, H. & Cho, H. (2012). Social network online communities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 400-411.

Patino, A. et al. (2012). Social media’s emerging importance in market research. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 233-237.

Patterson, A. (2012). Social-networkers of the world, unite and take over: A meta-introspective perspective on the Facebook brand. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 527-534.

Pinto, M.B. & Mansfield, P. (2011). Facebook as a complaint mechanism: An investigation of millennials. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol. 4, pp. 1-12.

Piotrowski, C. (2012). Where is the organizational-business research regarding Facebook? Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 79-84.

Pollach, I. (2008). Media richness in online consumer interactions: An exploratory study of consumer-opinion Web Sites. Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.49-65.

Porter, C.E. et al. (2012). Gender differences in trust formation in virtual communities. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 39-58.

Purnawirawan, N. et al. (2012). Balance and sequence in online review: How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, pp. 244-255.

Qualman, E. (2012) Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and do business. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

Rajpu, A. et al. (2011). Brand trust: A true gestalt of unethical advertisement and brand positionsing in conservative economies. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research Business, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 319-327.

Roba. (2010). Learn social media by example: The Ford Fiesta campaign analyzed. Retrieved from http://blog.thoughtpick.com/2010/02/learn-social-media-by-example-the-ford-fiesta-campaign-analyzed.html.

92

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York.

Sashi, C.M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management Decision, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 253-272.

Sashittal, H.C., Sriramachandramurthy, R., & Hodis, M. (2012). Targeting college students on Facebook? How to stop wasting your money. Business Horizons, Vol. 55, Iss. 5, pp. 495–507.

Sen, S. & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer review on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 76-94.

Schmidt, S.M.P. & Ralph, D.L. (2011). Social media: More available marketing tools. The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 37-43.

Seraj, M. (2012). We create, we connect, we respect, Therefore we are: Intellectual, social, and cultural value in online communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, pp. 209-222.

Social media marketing university. (2012). Is Spirit airlines’ response too little, too late? Marketing Weekly News, May 26, pp.840.

Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 73-93.

Tierean, O. (2010). Social media - instrument al marketingului politic. Romanian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 4, Oct-Dec, pp. 117-135.

Tobin, J. (2013). Top 50 branded Facebook pages of 2012: 10 new brands make the list. Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/jimtobin/1125691/top-50-branded-facebook-pages-2012-versus-2011-10-new-brands-make-list.

Tsai, H.T. & Pai, P. (2012). Positive and negative aspects of online community cultivation: Implications for online stores’ relationship management. Information & Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 111-117.

Ulusu, Y. (2010). Determinant factors of time spent on Facebook: Brand community engagement and usage type. Journal of Yasar University, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 2949-2957.

Vallor, S. (2012). Flourishing on Facebook: Virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 185-199.

van Doorn, J. et al. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 253-266.

Venkatesh, V. & Morris, M. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 115 – 139.

93

van Sack, J. (2011). Study: More cos. using Facebook, Twitter for marketing. Retrieved from http://bostonherald.com/business/technology/technology_news/2011/01/study_more_cos_using_facebooktwitter_marketing.

Vuori, V. & Okkonen, J. (2012). Refining information and knowledge by social media applications. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 117-128.

Wallace, E. et al.(2012). Facebook ‘friendship’ and brand advocacy. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 128-146.

Wang, X. et al. (2012). Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26, pp. 198-208.

Ward, S. (1974). Consumer socialization. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-14.

Ward, S. (1978). Contributions of socialization theory to consumer behavior research. The American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 501- 514.

Watts, D. J. & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 441- 458.

Wu, P. C. S. & Wang, Y. C. (2011). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 448- 472.

Xingyuan, W. et al. (2010). How do they really help? An empirical study of the role of different information sources in building brand trust. Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 243-252.

Yan, J. (2011). Social media n branding: Fulfilling a need. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18, No. 9, pp. 688-696.

Yang, T. (2012). The direction behavior of Facebook users. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 50-59.

Yousif, R.O. (2012). The extent of facebook users’ Interest in the advertising messages. International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 122-133.

Yousif, R.O. & Alsamydai, M.J. (2012). The impact of the political promotion via Facebook on individuals’ political orientations. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 85-98.

Zastrow, S. (2013). Infographic: Why your business needs Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.cloudtactix.com/infographic-why-your-business-needs-facebook/.

94

Zhang, J. (2010). To play or not to play: An exploratory content analysis of branded entertainment in Facebook. American Journal of Business, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 53-64.