Memo to Marketers: Quantitative Evidence for Change

How User-Generated Content Really Affects Brands

George Christodoulides Henley Business School, University of Reading G.Christodoulides@henley. reading.ac.uk Colin Jevons Monash University/ Caulfield campus Colin.Jevons@ monash. edu Jennifer Bonhomme Digital Planning Consultant Jennifer.L.Bonhomme@ gmail.com INTRODUCTION The social Web represents a paradigm shift in marketing communicationsindeed, communication as a whole. Brands that formerly were tightly controlled by their managers increasingly are being shaped by their consumer markets. It is, therefore, important for managers to understand the drivers of consumer online content creation and their subsequent impact on brands (Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell, 2008; Christodoulides, 2009). User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly growing vehicle for brand conversations and consumer insights. The growth of online brand communities, including social-networking sites, has supported the development of UGC (Gangadharbatla, 2008). More than 82 million people in the United States created content online during 2008, and this number is expected to grow to nearly 114.5 million by 2013 (eMarketer, 2009). Following a similar trend, consumers of UGC are expected to reach 155 million in 2013, up from 116 million in 2008 (eMarketer , 2009). A significant amount of UGC concerns brandrelated material (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). For example, recent evidence shows that about 70 percent DOI: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-053-064 of brand-related searches on social-networking sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter relate to UGC, and only 30 percent of searches are for marketer-created content (360i, 2009). Despite the rapid increase in UGC and its potential effect on brands, however, there has been limited research to date on the impact of consumergenerated content on how brands are perceived. Indeed, empowered consumers generating and sharing their own brand-related content does not fit into any current model of integrated marketing communications (Ewing, 2009). With the continued growth of online participation in content creation and sharing, consumers are exerting greater influence over products and brands (Jevons and Gabbott, 2000; Riegner, 2007). Although the shift to more user-centered communication means there is growing interest in UGC, there is little theory to inform managers about the impact of UGC on brands. Examples of poor practice abound, and UGC does not always work as brand managers might hope (Shenkan and Sichel, 2007). This limited understanding of the nature of UGC and its effects on brand March 2012 JOURNAL

Developed in response to the new challenges of the social Web, this study investigates how involvement with brand-related user-generated content (UGC) affects consumers perceptions of brands. The authors develop a model that provides new insights into the links between drivers of UGC creation, involvement, and consumer-based brand equity. Expert opinions were sought on a hypothesized model, which further was tested through data from an online survey of 202 consumers. The results provide guidance for managerial initiatives involving UGC campaigns for brand building. The findings indicate that consumer perceptions of co-creation, community, and self-concept have a positive impact on UGC involvement that, in turn, positively affects consumer-based brand equity. These empirical results have significant implications for avoiding problems and building deeper relationships between consumers and brands in the age of social media.

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 53

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly growing vehicle for brand conversations and consumer insights.
equity can result in marketers engaging with UGC in a way that is of no benefit to the brand or even is damaging. This research contributes toward understanding UGC creators and how their engagement with brand-related UGC affects their brand perceptions and hence their communications about that brand. A theoretical framework is drafted from the limited literature to date, refined through depth interviews with experts, and then further tested with an online consumer survey. The study opens with a review of the literature on UGC, offering a definition of this emergent phenomenon and then discussing its drivers, organized in four categories. Then, based on the literature and in-depth interviews with experts, the authors develop a model postulating that co-creation, empowerment, community, and self-concept lead to involvement with UGC, which, in turn, affects consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). The article then presents the method used to test the model, describes the results, and discusses the findings in light of the pertinent literature, highlighting implications for managerial practice. DEFINING USER-GENERATED CONTENT From its origins as a niche activity driven by long-tail distribution (Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright, 2008), early UGC was characterized by participatory inequality whereby creation used took place among the few (Ochoa and Duval, 2008). In the communication democracy that the Internet is empowering more and more, however, all kinds of consumers express their views publicly; influence has been shifting from manager-generated content toward key opinion leaders in the customer base content that is made publicly available over the Internet; content that reflects a certain amount of creative effort; and for many years, furthering the shift from a conventional publisher-centric media model to a more user-centric model (Daugherty et al., 2008). Perhaps because the subject is continuing to evolve and grow, there is no one widely accepted definition for UGC. It can be interchangeably referred to as user-created content or, less commonly, user-led content creation (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). One study described UGC as media content primarily distributed on the Internet (Daugherty et al, 2008). This definition is too broad to be useful in the current context, as it allows for all levels of involvement on all types of platforms, lacks specificity, and is difficult to differentiate from e-word-of-mouth or brand-originated content. The Interactive Advertising Bureau in the United States (2008) defined UGC as any material created and uploaded to the Internet by non-media professionals. The description of non-media professionals as the creators of UGC is flawed, as media professionals can (and often do) use their expertise and tools to create UGC as consumers, not as part of their (paid) employment. A looser definition described consumers who generate UGC as ordinary people who represent the end users of products or services (Cheong and Morrison, 2008). The most commonly cited definition for UGC comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which, in 2007, defined UGC as having three key characteristics:

content created outside professional routines and practices. This definition appropriately excludes ostensibly private modes of online communication such as e-mail and instant message. Even the OECD definition of UGC, however, contains a few gaps. For example, some UGC is not completely public and is available only to designated communities. Additionally, the OECD definition of UGC cites the Internet as the only publication medium, unreasonably limiting its range. Indeed, the OECD acknowledged in other sections of its 2007 OECD report that UGC is driven by a number of different media, which includes emerging and converging mediaamong them mobile applications, satellite navigation services, game consoles, and the like. A public-domain definition of CGM from Wikipedia is encompassing opinions, experiences, advice and commentary about products, brands, companies and servicesusually informed by personal experiencethat exist in consumercreated postings on Internet discussion boards, forums, Usenet newsgroups and blogs (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008, p.1). This definition is limited in its platform and content types but does include a brand-related element that other UGC definitions lack. For the purpose of understanding the impact of UGC on brands and brand equity, this study focuses explicitly on brand-related UGC, also referred to as consumer-generated media (CGM) or consumer-generated content (CGC) terms specific to consumers generating content about a brand, regardless of positive or negative connotation or intent. The authors apply a brand-related focus to the generally well-founded OECD definition, and for the purpose of this research, they define UGC as consumers creating content that

54 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

For the purpose of understanding the impact of UGC on brands and brand equity, this study focuses explicitly on brand-related UGC.
is made available through publicly accessible transmission media such as the Internet; reflects some degree of creative effort; and is created for free outside professional routines and practices. In this study, the focus is on brand-related UGC. As UGC is an emerging field of study, there is limited knowledge on the important motivating factors of involvement with branded UGC. Previous studies of UGC suggested that consumers participate in content creation for a variety of reasons, including the notion that consumers are driven to create their own advertisements for self-promotion or intrinsic enjoyment or in the hope of changing public perceptions (Berthon et al., 2008). Elsewhere, the drivers of content creation were suggested to be a desire to collaborate, information dissemination, interaction, and creativity (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). Knowledgesharing, advocacy, social connections, and self-expression were shown to be psychological motivators of UGC engagement (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008). Social drivers of UGC specified in the 2007 OECD report are the desire to express oneself and the development of communities and collaborative projects. Brand communities can engage with UGC to fill a void left by conventional media, often giving brands a new identity in the process (Muniz and Schau, 2007). Although the literature suggests a number of common drivers for UGC, it is important to note that no such individual as an Drivers of UGC Businesses are not good at predicting consumer preference and need the help of their customers in getting their products right. For example, the statistic that up to 80 percent of new grocery products fail was cited a half-century ago (Fourt and Woodlock, 1960). Product knowledge in new-product development is both a barrier to and a source of innovation (Carlile, 2002). The value of lead users knowledge of needs co-creation, empowerment, community, and self-concept have a positive impact on UGC involvement; UGC involvement has an impact on consumer-based brand equity; and a feedback loop is postulated allowing consumers perceptions of the brand to inform perceptions of co-creation, empowerment, community, and selfconcept (See Figure 1). average UGC user exists (Ochoa and Duval, 2008). Further, in the related area of word-of-mouth advertising, there are interesting tensions between commercial interests, the online user community, and the individuals who participate in those communities (Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, and Wilner, 2010), which adds complexity to the drivers of UGC motivation. Drawing together, summarizing, and analyzing the embryonic literature on UGC, the authors have identified four types of factors as motivating factors for creating UGC: co-creation, empowerment, community, and self-concept (See Table 1). Building on these factors, the authors hypothesize that

and potential solutions in developing new products, however, was shown to be significant more than 20 years ago (Urban and von Hippel, 1988). Hence, the authors interest in understanding lead users of UGC as the phenomenon of online content creation becomes more mainstream. It is not new for consumers to be involved in creating (or communicating about) the products they consume. Word of mouth (WOM) was one of the earliest subjects looked at by the nascent market-research industry (Dichter, 1966). More recently, the volume of WOM produced about a brand has been shown to be roughly proportional to its market share (Uncles et al., 2010), and positive WOM has been suggested as an alternative voice to paid advertising (de Matos and Rossi, 2008). Consumers value the empowerment offered by co-creation, which is greatly facilitated by the Internet (see, for example, Fuller et al., 2010) and strategies for trying to involve customers in co-creation activities are particularly important in hightechnology enterprises (Kristensson et al., 2007). Open-source software, in fact, drives more than half of the worlds Web servers, but it is difficult to research an area that has no central organizing body, no unified voice, few written rules or standards (Cromie and Ewing, 2008, p.632). WOM, in a social-media setting, has been shown to be a highly complex system of networked co-production of a variety of narratives that is significantly changing our previous understanding of how and why WOM works (Kozinets et al., 2010). There is little doubt, however, that WOM referrals still do have stronger effects than traditional marketing (Trusov et al., 2009). Where there is doubt is in just how that will work in future, as we know how much social media, UGC, and WOM are increasing in significance (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Co-creation is the consumers participation in the production of value at all points March 2012 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 55

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

in the value chain (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Allowing access to the value-creation process and giving consumers the tools and

encouragement to create UGC may further the perception (and reality) of co-creation (Muniz and Schau, 2007).

Co-creation encompasses all situations wherein consumers collaborate with companies or other consumers to generate value such as online content (Humphreys and Grayson, 2008). The growing number of brand-related conversations taking place onlineand on other multimedia platformsdemonstrates a consumer interest in collaboration and co-created dialogue. The perceived value co-creation means the consumers see themselves as an integral part of the value-creation system, influencing when, where, and how value is generated through multiple points of exchange (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). Consumers no longer are satisfied with experiences fabricated by companies; instead, they want to shape experiences themselves through co-created content such as UGC (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). Consumer empowerment is activated and advanced by marketing efforts designed to satisfy consumer needs and wants (Wright, Newman, and Dennis, 2006). One study suggested that there are three core influences on the consumers subjective empowerment experience: the ability to specify and adjust the choice set; progress cues in the consumer decisionmaking process; and, information about other consumers (Wathieu et al., 2002). Consumer empowerment requires that consumers have authority in decision making (Pires, Rita, and Stanton, 2006). Primary control occurs when people exert authority directly on the environment, such as in an online context (Hoffman, Novak, and Schlosser, 2003). Greater consumer control may not always result in the subjective perception of empowerment. In fact, greater perceptions of empowerment sometimes may entail costs to the consumer (Wathieu et al., 2002). Considering consumer control in the UGC arena, most UGC-driven sites operate under some degree of self-organization and corporate governance (Bruns, 2007). UGC enables

Table 1 Motivating Factors for Creating Brand-Related UGC

Factor Co-creation Authors Burmann and Arnhold (2008) Christodoulides (2009) Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008) Kozinets et al. (2010) Kristensson et al. (1997) Muniz and Schau (2007) OECD (2007) Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2002; 2004) Shenkan and Sichel (2007) Smith (2009) Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009) Empowerment Uncles et al. (2010) Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell (2008) Burmann and Arnhold (2008) Dhar and Chang (2009) Fuller et al. (2010) Gregoire, Tripp, and Legoux (2009) Li and Bernoff (2008) Muniz and Schau (2007) Shenkan and Sichel (2007) Community OECD (2007) Burmann and Arnhold (2008) Christodoulides (2009) Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008) Fieseler, Fleck, and Meckel (2010) Gangadharbatla (2008) Kozinets et al. (2010) Krishnamurthy and Dou (2008) Muniz and Schau (2007) OECD (2007) Smith (2009) Stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008) Uncles et al. (2010) Self-Concept von Hippel (2001) Berthon, Pitt, and Campbell (2008) Burmann and Arnhold (2008) Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008) Kozinets et al. (2010) Krishnamurthy and Dou (2008) Muniz and Schau (2007) OECD (2007) Smith (2009) Stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008) von Hippel (2001) Risk reduction

Description Co-customers as a social benefit factor

Changed perceptions and influence people Feelings of power and control Increased willingness to engage online/ reveal personal information Filling a void left by conventional media Forum to request greater choice

Knowledge-sharing Advocacy Social connections/contact Wanting to be heard Desire to interact and collaborate Social networking

Personal documentation Self-expression Creativity Social functionexpressing attitudes/ behaviors that are agreeable to others Self promotion Identity shaping Ego defensiveminimize self-doubt, create a sense of belonging

56 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

consumers to connect in new digital spheres (Harrison, Hunter, and Waite, 2006), making them feel powerful and able to define brand values on their own (Christodoulides, 2009). The perception of control is considered a central theme to the experience of empowerment (Wathieu et al., 2002) and is shown to have high correlations with responsibility and choice (Wortman, 1975). It is recognized that consumers use the Internet and content creation as a way of exerting control over brands. UGC involvement empowers consumers with insights about other consumers (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008) and a forum to request greater choice (OECD, 2007). The social Web enables communities. These communities do not passively consume but interact to co-create brand value (de Chernatony and Christodoulides, 2004) through activities such as generating branded content. People who are highly integrated into brand communities may be emotionally invested in the brand, have higher loyalty, and identify strongly with the brand (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig, 2002). It is noteworthy that UGC production mainly is driven by a community of digital nativesa group of young, digitally skilled users who grew up using the Internet and Web 2.0 platforms (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008) and, as such, differ behaviorally from their elders. Community development and interaction often are described as social drivers of UGC (OECD, 2007; Burmann and Arnhold, 2008; Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008). UGC provides opportunities for individuals to express themselves through sharing ideas with others. One study theorized that brands could become vehicles for self-expression, an integral part of selfconcept (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Sirgy, 1982). The social dimension of UGC also can set the stage for self-presentation and new identity creation, rewarding users with recognition from their community peers (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). This

UGC provides opportunities for individuals to express themselves through sharing ideas with others.
identity-based component of UGC is interpreted as a way that consumers can express attitudes and behaviors that are agreeable to others (Daugherty et al., 2008). Of course, much UGC is not necessarily agreeable to the marketer, as it is an output of consumer self-expression. Consumers self-concepts affect how they perceive a brands personality. For instance, highly preferred brands are shaped, in part, by the preferred personality of the consumers. Through piggy-backing on brands, UGC allows consumers to draw attention to themselves and, thus, to communicate who they are from their own perspective (Berthon et al., 2008). The authors, therefore, postulate H1: The stronger a consumer perceives that a brand is co-created, the higher his or her involvement with that brand through UGC. H2: The stronger a consumer perceives that a brand is empowering, the higher his or her involvement with the brand through UGC. H3: The stronger a consumer perceives that a brand facilitates a community, the higher his or her involvement with that brand through UGC. H4: The stronger a consumer perceives that a brand expresses his/her self-concept, the higher his/her involvement with that brand through UGC. INVOLVEMENT WITH UGC AND BRAND EQUITY In the authors model, involvement is conceptualized as the degree of personal relevance and importance of a stimulusin this case, brand-related UGCin achieving consequences and values of importance to the consumer (Peter, Olson, and Grunert, 2009). UGC involvement is considered a form of product involvement because brand-related UGC can be viewed as consumption-related involvement is the activity. most Product commonly

researched area of involvement (Michaeli dou and Dibb, 2008) and has three plausible antecedents: factors related to the characteristics of a person, factors related to the characteristics of a stimulus, and factors related to the characteristics of a situation (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Zaichkowsky, 1985). One or several of these factors could affect the level of involvement with the stimulus in relation to the product (Hupfer and Gardener, 1971). Some product categories are more susceptible to the influence of UGC than others (Riegner, 2007), presumably in a way analogous to other forms of WOM. In-depth interviews for the current study confirmed the view that brands that encourage UGC can carve out relationshipbuilding opportunities with consumers. Conversely, negative UGC can have harmful implications for building and sustaining a brands equityan issue compounded by the notion that consumers of UGC often consider it more credible than professional content (Cheong and Morrison, 2008). The authors introduce a feedback loop to the model, suggesting that CBBE influences, in turn, perceptions of whether a brand facilitates co-creation, empowers consumers, fosters a community, and conveys the desired self-concept. For example, a consumers affinity or loyalty to a brand drives the desire to co-create in ways such as UGC (Boyle, 2007). Additionally, brand March 2012 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 57

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

associations inspire further online dialogue in value creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). Higher levels of brand awareness and associations may prompt perceptions of choice and progress cues (Hoyer and Brown, 1990), which are dimensions of empowerment. Brand market share (which can be seen as a proxy for brand equity) recently has been shown to have reciprocal causality with the share of voice of WOM (Uncles et al., 2010), so the authors also have considered a similar link with UGC. A brand community is often the result of brand loyalty, positive associations, and a perception of high product quality (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Brand loyalty and personality can also contribute to a consumers self-concept and function as a means for self-expression (Aaker, 1997). It, therefore, is postulated H6a: The higher the CBBE, the

sample of five industry experts in New York City, each of whom had specific experience in consumer engagement with brand-related UGC and expertise in the areas of branding, marketing, and advertising. The experts job titles included brand development director, marketing strategist, marketing futurist, and consumer insights manager. As such, they all had professional interest in monitoring and understanding consumers engagement with UGC and provided a valuable initial sounding board for the hypotheses drawn from the sparse literature to date. A questionnaire was subsequently developed, targeting consumers engaged in brand-related UGC. The quantitative data were collected through an Internet survey administered via e-mail, and direct messaging on a variety of UGC platforms such as blogs, social networks, and video- and photo-sharing Web sites. As the survey targeted consumers engaging in brand-related UGC, an online survey was considered the most suitable method of recruiting this sample. Example

brands were selected based on their global nature and their likelihood for UGC engagement. Hundreds of searches were undertaken to identify individual examples of UGC related to those brands. Then, the creator of the content was contacted with a tailored invitation to participate in the survey, referring to their creation. Each survey invitation included an embedded link leading respondents to the questionnaire. By providing participants with an example of their own brand UGC, the need for participant recall was reduced, and filtering of participants was more closely monitored. The example brands and platforms used when disseminating the survey were recorded along with the number of approaches, ensuring a wide variety of brand categories and UGC typologies were included. The screening record also confirmed that the examples of UGC evaluated included a mixture of positive, negative, and neutral sentiment toward the brand. The survey was open for 11 days, during which 760 survey invitations were sent out and 374 responses were counted. Of those

stronger a consumer perceives that a brand is co-created. H6b: The higher the CBBE, the stronger a consumer perceives that a brand is empowering. H6c: The higher the CBBE, the more a consumer perceives that a brand facilitates a community. H6d: The higher the CBBE, the higher the consumer perceives that a brand expresses his or her selfconcept (See Figure 1). RESEARCH DESIGN Because research in the field of UGC is mostly conceptual, the authors considered it appropriate to test the conclusions drawn from the literature through interviews with experts. These ideas then were empirically tested with a sample of actual consumers involved in the creation of brand-related UGC. The face-to-face, semi-structured indepth interviews utilized a judgment

UGC
H6a Perceived Co-creation H1 H6b Perceived Empowerment H2 H3 Perceived Community Perceived Self-Concept H4 Involvement H5 Brand Equity

H6c

H6d

Figure 1 Drivers of Brand-Related UGC and its Impact on Consumer-Based Brand Equity

58 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

replies, there was a total useable response rate of 49.2 percent. Another 172 responses were incomplete, and 202 responses were fully completed, so the response rate for the survey effectively was 26.5 percent. Measures Respondents began the questionnaire by identifying the brand about which they last had created UGC. This was labeled Brand X and operated as a constant in most items. All items were measured using five-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Co-creation was measured through four items adapted from Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2002) and Vargo and Lusch (2004). Empowerment items were adapted from Pires et al. (2006), Conger and Kanungo (1988), and Hoffman et al. (2003). Community was measured by three items from McMillan and Chavis (1986) and Muniz and OGuinn (2001). The three items for self-concept were adapted from Markus and Wurf (1987). Involvement with UGC was measured using Zaichkowskys (1994) set of nine semantic differential scales (e.g., important unimportant, boringinteresting). The eight items used to tap CBBE were from Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey (2005) and captured the construct through its theoretical facets, brand awareness (e.g., I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X), brand associations (e.g., I like X), perceived quality (X is very reliable), and brand loyalty (I feel loyal to X). Analysis The respondents predominantly were male (58 percent) and predominantly in the 30- to 39-year age bracket (30.3 percent), spending on average 33 hours per week online. The UGC assessed by respondents was distributed through various channels, including social networking sites, photo- and video-sharing platforms, forums, and blogs, and concerned an array

Although the existing literature suggests a correlation between the parameters of empowerment and involvement in UGC, these results do not show that empowerment has a significant influence on UGC involvement.
of brands in several product categories including beverages (23 percent), automotives (12 percent), electronics (12 percent), and clothing (11 percent). Before testing the model, the reliability and validity of the measures were established using standard procedures (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Reliability analysis first was performed for each construct of the conceptual model, and Cronbachs a was as follows: cocreation, 0.74; empowerment, 0.63; community, 0.77; self-concept, 0.78; involvement with UGC, 0.88; and CBBE, 0.92. Cronbach a for empowerment, although below the optimum level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), was still higher than 0.6, satisfactory for further analysis (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Exploratory factor analysis was subsequently performed on each scale. All the items loaded on a single factor, suggesting that co-creation, empowerment, community, and self-concept are unidimensional. This finding was further corroborated through confirmatory factor analysis (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988) performed on each scale measuring UGC motivations as shown in Table 2. Chi-square ranged from 0 (empowerment, community, and selfconcept) to 3.504 (co-creation) and was in all cases insignificant. Correlations among items of co-creation, empowerment, community, and self-concept ranged from 0.17 to 0.51 for items across different factors, suggesting that multicollinearity is not severe. (The detailed covariance table is available from the first-named author on request.) To test the postulated hypotheses in the conceptual model, structural equation modeling (AMOS 16.01) was used with maximum likelihood as the estimation method. The models chi-square value was small but significant: =68.67 (df = 49, p = 0.02). A more appropriate indicator of global fit, however, is relative chi-square (chi-square divided by degrees of freedom) that is not so sensitive to sample size. The relative chi-square for the model was below 2 ( = 1.46), which is indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the sample data (Carmines and McIver, 1981). Other fit indices were also considered including GFI (0.95), AGFI (0.91), NFI (0.92), CFI (0.97), and RMSEA (.048), suggesting an adequate overall fit. The path analysis (See Table 3) shows that co-creation ( = 0.505, p < 0.000); community ( = 0.011, p = 0.036); and selfconcept ( = 0.451, p < 0.000) have a positive impact on consumers involvement with UGC. Conversely, the regression coefficient from empowerment to UGC involvement is statistically insignificant ( = 0.011, p = 0.863). The beta value associated with H5 corroborates that consumers involvement with UGC ( = 0.834, p < 0.000) has a positive impact on their brand perceptions captured through CBBE. H6a, H6b, H6c, and H6d capture the inverse effect of CBBE perceptions on co-creation, empowerment, community and self-concept. March 2012 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 59

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

Table 2 Measurement Model

Std. Loading C.R. Co-Creation CO1: I enjoy creating online content about [X] CO2: I want to be able to have online dialogue with [X] CO3: I find information from other consumers about [X] trustworthy CO4: If I can customize [X], then I feel more confident using [X] a = 0.742 Empowerment EM1: I expect to be able to create whatever I want about [X] online EM2: Owning what I create online about [X] is important to me EM3: I produce online content about [X] because I want to be heard a = 0.625 Community CM1: I feel a sense of community from posting my own content about [X] CM3: My membership in a social network encourages me to produce content about [X] a = 0.766 Self-concept SC1: I use [X] to express myself online. SC2: My link with [X] says a lot about me. SC3: I make my point of view known by creating online content about [X]. a = 0.784 The beta values from CBBE back to cocreation ( = 0.814, p < 0.000), empowerment ( = 0.578, p < 0.000), and community ( = 0.596, p < 0.000) provide support for a positive and statistically significant impact (H6a, H6b, and H6c accepted). The path from CBBE to self-concept was significant only at the 10 percent confidence interval (p = 0.094) but contrary to the hypothesized direction ( = 0.166). DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS H1, H3, H4, H5, H6a, H6b, and H6c were supported by the data (p < 0.05), whereas H2 and H6d were rejected (p > 0.05). These results suggest that three of the four consumer perceptionsco-creation, community, and self-concepthave a positive impact on consumers involvement with UGC and that UGC involvement has a positive impact on brand perceptions through CBBE. 0.826 0.719 0.680 8.126 7.965 0.749 7.872 7.583 CM2: I engage with other people online because of a shared interest in [X] 0.829 0.619 0.759 0.509 0.544 4.059 4.080 0.639 0.712 0.687 0.582 6.971 6.884 6.232

Although the existing literature suggests a correlation between the parameters of empowerment and involvement in UGC, these results do not show that empowerment has a significant influence on UGC involvement. This could be because UGC usually is not the result of brandmarketing efforts and, therefore, normally would not activate or advance consumer empowerment. Another possible explanation may be that consumers who engage in UGC, by definition, already are empowered to create their own content regardless of the inclusion of a brand. In other words, it may be that what empowers consumers to engage with brand-related UGC is the context (Web 2.0 technologies) rather than the brand itself. The findings also suggest that CBBE through its theoretical dimensions of brand awareness, loyalty, associations, and perceived qualityhas a positive impact on three of the initial UGC drivers (cocreation, empowerment, and community). Interestingly the hypothesis that higher levels of CBBE would lead to higher levels of self-concept is rejected, whereas an inverse, negative relationship is supported weakly by the data (at a 10-percent confidence interval). This may suggest that consumers who engage with UGC for self-expression prefer doing so for lessestablished brandsperhaps because they

Table 3 SEM Path Analysis Results

Path H1: Co-creation Involvement H2: Empowerment Involvement H3: Community Involvement H4: Self-concept Involvement H5: Involvement CBBE H6a: CBBE Co-creation H6b: CBBE Empowerment H6c: CBBE Community H6d: CBBE Self-concept Std. Estimate 0.505 0.011 0.177 0.451 0.834 0.814 0.578 0.596 0.166 C.R. 3.332 0.173 2.095 4.465 8.656 7.626 4.692 6.068 1.674 Sig. 0.000 0.863 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.094

60 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

feel they can be more creative or to have more impact on other consumers perceptions (Berthon et al., 2008). This notion, however, does run counter to the use of the Internet for so-called antibranding activities (Klein, 2000). The findings support the notion that involvement with UGC has a significant correlation with brand perceptions and that high regard for a brand is likely to be positively related with consumer perceptions of co-creation, community, and empowerment. This suggests that consumers are more involved with UGC pertaining to brands that help them define who they are and give them the tools to express themselves creatively. The increase in CBBE caused by UGC involvement means that consumers are more likely to consider a brand as part of their evoked set for purchase. This leads to a significant implication for brand managers involved in UGC campaigns. Carefully created and managed, these campaigns can enhance brand equity, particularly as the social structure of digital networks has been shown to play a critical role in the viral spread of a message (Bampo et al., 2008). A brand with stronger brand equity is likely to lead a more involving usergenerated campaign through enhanced perceptions of co-creation, community, and empowerment. Armed with insights from these research results, brand managers can utilize UGC to build CBBE through an interactive strategy to improve brand positioning according to consumer wants and needs. For example, a promotion strategy encouraging self-expression through UGC that is related to a strong brand association would be a useful application of these research results. Marketers seeking to engage consumers with UGC campaigns should foster a culture of co-creation that is reinforced through dialogue and continual consumer participation in value chain activities. Practitioners may choose to drop subtle reminders that consumers are in control

A brand with stronger brand equity is likely to lead a more involving user-generated campaign through enhanced perceptions of co-creation, community, and empowerment.
of UGC-brand activities and focus more heavily on creating a strong sense of shared community that consumers identify with by championing branded UGC. Further, marketers should build a sense of community around their brand, facilitating relationships not just between brand and consumers but, importantly, among consumers themselves. For example, a blogger advocacy campaign designed to use the brand to facilitate friendships among bloggers of similar interests would be more likely to yield positive UGC about that brand in those blog networks. To successfully penetrate UGC communities, marketers are advised to develop an image of their brand that is congruent with its target audiences desired self, in line with self-brand congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982). Finally, marketers need to thoroughly monitor all UGC related to their brand, not only from the defensive point of view of adding value while avoiding damage but to gain rich, unfiltered insights into customer perceptions of the brand. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS UGC has been a concern and interest for managers ever since it first emerged. The current research has focused on creators of UGC and provides empirical evidence on how involvement with brand-related UGC is capable of changing perceptions of the brand. It addressed the impact of involvement with brand-related UGC on brand perceptions, measured by proxy of CBBE. Through the development of a conceptual model, the relationships between four initial consumer perceptions representing UGC, involvement, and CBBE were critically analyzed. The authors believe that this study provides the first empirical evidence to suggest that UGC does have an effect on CBBE, and it shows how that effect is created. It adds further weight to the argument that successful brand managers should change their approach from a strict, top-down, supervisory strategy to a more participative and interactive one (de Chernatony and Christodoulides, 2004). Further, it provides a solid basis for a brand manager to engage in UGC; there is now no excuse for simply following the herd without sound reasoning. This research has provided evidence to suggest that, overall, involvement with UGC can have a positive impact on CBBE, which is just as well as more than twice as many brand-related searches on socialnetworking sites relate to UGC than to marketer-created content. Excitingly for managers, as brand equity strengthens, the stronger the positive effect on co-creation, community, and empowerment. In conclusion: If managed correctly, UGC and brand equity can grow together and build from each other. Successful managers will need to review the ways in which they operate to maximize their benefits from this. The authors, in fact, recommend that they shift emphasis from the old-fashioned practice of trying to control the brand toward monitoring and influencing brandrelated communications, especially UGC. March 2012 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 61

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

This research has demonstrated that the critical areas to address are consumer perceptions of co-creation, development of a brand community, and congruence with a consumers self-concept. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Future research may examine deeper consumer empowerment and seek to validate the notion that consumer empowerment in the case of UGC derives from the context rather than the brand itself. In addition, further research may seek to understand whether invited UGC empowers consumers or whether it actually restricts creativity by asking consumers to comply with a brief and accept the internal selection procedures specified by the brand. Better understanding of consumer empowerment in the context of UGC possibly through qualitative research will help achieve better internal consistency. This research has made no distinction between endorsed and non-endorsed UGC. Further research may test the applicability of the model and observe differences between the two types of UGC. For instance, it may be that UGC invited by a brand is driven primarily by extrinsic motivations such as monetary or other incentives and less so by intrinsic motivations such as co-creation, community, and self-concept. Future research also may distinguish between incentive- and non-incentivedriven UGC and examine differences in terms of drivers and brand perceptions. Finally, the authors future research will be directed at consumers of UGCthose individuals who get exposed to brand-related UGC such as spoof advertisementsto investigate whether simply viewing rather than creating such material may cause a change in consumer-based brand equity. UGC offers enormous possibilities to managers and, therefore, obligations to researchers; this article provides some foundation for that work.

George Christodoulides is professor of marketing at Henley Business School at the University of Reading, UK. His research interests lie in the areas of brand management and e-marketing, particularly consumer-based brand equity conceptualization and measurement and the impact of interactive/social media on consumer-brand relationships. Georges research has attracted funding from prestigious external bodies including the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy, and the Chartered Institute of Marketing. He is a regular presenter at international conferences, and his research has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Advertising Research, Industrial Marketing Management, and European Journal of Marketing. George has guest-edited a book and special issues of the Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, and European Journal of Marketing on various aspects of brand management.

References
360i. The State of Search. A 360i Working Paper, November 2009. Aaker, J. L. Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34, 3 (1997): 347357. Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16, 1 (1988): 7494. Bampo, M., M. T. Ewing, D. R. Mather, D. Stewart, and M. Wallace. The Effects of the Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral Marketing Performance. Information Systems Research 19, 3 (2008): 273290. Berthon, P., R. L. Pitt, and C. Campbell. Ad Lb: When Customers Create the Ad. California Management Review 50, 4 (2008): 630. Bloch, P. H., and M. L. Richins. A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions. Journal of Marketing 47, 3 (1983): 6981. Boyle, E. A Process Model of Brand CoCreation: Brand Management and Research Implications. Journal of Product and Brand Management 16, 2 (2007): 121133. Bruns, A. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Creativity & Cognition 2007. Washington, DC. Burmann, C., and U. Arnhold. User Generated Branding: State of the Art Research. Berlin: LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Mnster, 2008. Carlile, P. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science 13, 4 (2002): 442455. Carmines, E. G., and J. P. McIver. Unobserved Variables. In Social Measurement: Current Issues,

Colin Jevons is associate professor in Marketing at Monash University, Australia and holds a PhD in brand management, his main research and teaching interest. He is on the editorial boards of three international journals. His work has been published in a variety of journals including the Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, European Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review, Journal of Marketing Management, and Journal of Product and Brand Management. He has won best-paper awards at conferences in both the United Kingdom and the United States, and he has guest-edited two special issues of Journal of Business Research on brand management.

Jennifer Bonhomme is a digital strategist working in interactive advertising planning. She has created socially led campaigns for leading global brands while at the London-based agencies Euro RSCG and Skive Creative. Jennifer now consults to a variety of sectors on envisioning, positioning, and creating impactful digital footprints. She also regularly contributes to the marketing consultancy Faith Popcorns Brain Reserve as a social media specialist and cultural trend-spotter and has done so while living in Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Her research interests include online interaction branding and the evolution of the social Web.

62 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

G. W. Bohrnstedt, and E. F. Borgatta, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981. Cheong, H. J., and M. A. Morrison. Consumers Reliance on Product Information and Recommendations Found in UGC. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 3849. Christodoulides, G. Branding in the Post-Internet Era. Marketing Theory 9, 1 (2009): 141144. Churchill, G. A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 26, (1979): 6473. Conger, J. A., and R. N. Kanungo. The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review 13, 3 (1988): 471482. Cromie, J., and Ewing, M.  Squatting at the Digital Campfire: Reflections on Researching the Open Source Software Community. International Journal of Market Research 50, 5 (2008): 631653. Daugherty, T., M. S. Eastin, and L. Bright. Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User-Generated Content. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 1625.
de Chernatony, L., and G. Christodoulides. Taking

e M arketer .

User Generated Content: More

Attitudes toward Internet Regulation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 22, 1, (2003): 4157. Hoyer, W., and S. Brown. Effects of Brand

Popular than Profitable. eMarketer Digital Intelligence 2009. Ewing, M. Integrated Marketing Communications Measurement And Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Communications 15, 2-3, (2009): 103117. Fieseler, C., M. Fleck, and M. Meckel. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal of Business Ethics 91, 4 (2010): 599614. Fourt, L., and J. Woodlock. Early Prediction of Market Success for New Grocery Products. Journal of Marketing 25, 2 (1960): 3138. Fuller, J., Muhlbacher, H., Matzler, K., and G. Jawecki. Consumer Empowerement Through Internet-Based Co-Creation. Journal of Management Information Systems 26, 3 (2010): 71102. Gangadharbatla, H. Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong, and Internet SelfEfficacy as Predictors of the Igenerations Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 515. Gardner, B., and S. Levy. The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business Review 33, 2 (1955): 3339. Gerbing, D. W., and J. C. Anderson. An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25, 2 (1988): 186192.

Awareness on Choice for a Common, RepeatPurchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 141148. Humphreys, A., and K. Grayson. The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Perspective on Co-Production, Co-Creation and Prosumption. Sociology Compass 2, 3 (2008): 963980. Hupfer, N. T., and D. M. Gardner. Differential involvement in Products and Issues: An Exploratory Study. Advances in Consumer Research 2, (1971): 262270. Interactive Advertising Bureau. User-

Generated Content, Social Media and AdvertisingAn Overview. Interactive Advertising Bureau Platform Status Report, April 3, 2008. Jevons, C., and M. Gabbott. Trust, Brand Equity and Brand Reality in Internet Business Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Journal of Marketing Management 16, 6 (2000): 619634. Kaplan, A., and M. Haenlein. Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons 53 (2010): 5968. Klein, N. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. London and New York: HarperCollins, 2000. Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A., and S.

the Brand Promise Online: Challenges and Opportunities. Interactive Marketing 5, 3 (2004): 238251. Matos, C. A., and C.A.V. Rossi. Word-

de

of-Mouth Communications in Marketing: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents and Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 4 (2008): 578596. Dhar, V., and E. Chang. The Impact of UserGenerated Content on Music Sales. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23, 4 (2009): 300307. Dichter, E. How Word-Of-Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review 44, 6 (1966): 147166.

Gregoire, Y., T. M. Tripp, and R. Legoux. When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate: The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time on Customer Revenge and Avoidance. Journal of Marketing 73, 1 (2009): 1832. Harrison, T., G. L. Hunter, and K. Waite. The Internet, Information and Empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10, (2006): 972993.

Wilner. Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing 74 (2010): 7189. Krishnamurthy, S., and W. Dou. Advertising with User-Generated Content: A Framework and Research Agenda. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 14. Kristensson, P., J. Matthing, and N. Johans-

Hoffman, D. L., T. P. Novak, and A. E. Schlosser. Locus of Control, Web Use, and Consumer

son.

Key Strategies for the Successful Involve-

ment of Customers in the Co-Creation of New

March 2012 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 63

HOW USER-GENERATED CONTENT REALLY AFFECTS BRANDS

Technology-Based Services. International Journal of Service Industry Management 19, 4 (1997) 474491. Li, C., and J. Bernoff. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Forrester Research Inc. MA: Boston, 2008. Markus, H., and E. Wurf. The Dynamic SelfConcept: A Social Psychological Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 38 (1987): 299337. McAlexander, J. H., J. Schouten, and H. Koenig. Building Brand Community. Journal of Marketing 66, 1 (2002): 3854. McMillan, D. W., and D. M. Chavis. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14, 1 (1986): 623. Michaelidou, N., and S. Dibb. Consumer Involvement: A New Perspective. The Marketing Review 8, 1 (2008): 8399. Muniz, A. M., and T. OGuinn. Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research 27, 4 (2001): 412432. Muniz, A. M., and H. Schau. Vigilante Marketing and Consumer-Created Communications. Journal of Advertising Research 36, 3 (2007): 3550. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Ochoa, X., and E. Duval. Qualitative

MeasurementEmpirical Evidence. Journal of Product and Brand Management 14, 2/3 (2005): 143154. Peter, J. P., J. C. Olson, and K. G. Grunert. Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy, European ed. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Pires, G. D., P. Rita, and J. Stanton. The Internet, Consumer Empowerment and Marketing Strategies. European Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10 (2006): 936949. Prahalad, C. K., and V. Ramaswamy. Coopting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review 78, 1 (2000): 7987. Prahalad, C. K., and V. Ramaswamy. The Cocreation Connection. Strategy & Business 27 (2002): 5061. Prahalad, C. K., and V. Ramaswamy. Cocreation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18, 3 (2004): 515. Riegner, C. Word of Mouth on the Web: The Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer Purchase Decision. Journal of Advertising Research 47, 4 (2007): 436447. Shenkan, A. G., and B. Sichel. Marketing with User Generated Content: Marketers Who Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom Risk Losing Focus. McKinsey Quarterly (2007). Retrieved from www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ Marketing_with_user-generated_content_2055 Sirgy, M. J. Self-concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer

in Hass, B.H., G. Walsh, and T. Kilian (eds) Web 2.0: Neue Perspektiven fr Marketing und Medien. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008: 271287. Trusov, M., R. E. Bucklin, and K. Pauwels. Estimating the Dynamic Effects of Online Word-ofMouth on Member Growth of a Social Network Site. Journal of Marketing 73 (2009): 90102. Uncles, M., R. East, and W. Lomax. Market Share Is Correlated with Word of Mouth Volume. Australasian Marketing Journal (2010): in press. Urban, G., and E Hippel. Lead User Anal-

von

yses for the Development of New Industrial Products. Management Science 34, 5 (1988): 569582. Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. Evolving to A New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68, 1 (2004): 117. Hippel, E. Innovation by User Commu-

von

nities: Learning from Open Source Software. Sloan Management Review 42, 4 (2001): 8286. Wathieu, L., L. Brenner, Z. Carmon,
et al . 

Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer. Marketing Letters 13, 3 (2002): 297305. Wortman, C. B. Some Determinants of Perceived Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 2 (1975): 282294. Wright, L. T., A. Newman, and C. Dennis. Enhancing Consumer Empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10 (2006): 925935. Zaichkowsky, J. L. Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12, 3 (1985): 341352.

Analysis of User-Generated Content on the Web. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Understanding the Web Evolution. Web Science Research Initiative 2008, Beijing, China, 1926. Organisation Economic Co-operation

for

and

Research 9, 3 (1982): 287300. Smith, T. The Social Media Revolution. International Journal of Market Research 51, 4 (2009): 559561. Stockl, R., P. Rohrmeier, and T. Hess. 

Development. Participative Web and UserCreated Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking, 2007: OECD Information Technologies. Pappu, R., P. Quester, and R. Cooksey.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising 23, 4 (1994): 5970.

Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the

Why Customers Produce User-Generated Content,

64 JOURNAL

OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.