Exploring positively- versus

negatively-valenced brand engagement:

a conceptual model
Linda D. Hollebeek
Department of Marketing, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, and
Tom Chen
Department of Marketing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – After gaining traction in business practice the “brand engagement” (BE) concept has transpired in the academic marketing/branding
literature. BE has been defined as the level of a consumer’s “cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment in specific brand interactions”. Although
pioneering research provides exploratory insights, the majority of literature to-date addresses consumers’ specific positively-valenced BE; thus largely
overlooking potential negatively-valenced manifestations of this emerging concept and their ensuing implications. The purpose of this paper is to
propose a novel BE conceptualization that extends to cover focal negatively-valenced, in addition to positively-valenced BE expressions, thus providing
a more comprehensive theoretical model of BE. Specifically, while positively-valenced BE addresses consumers’ favorable/affirmative cognitive,
emotional and behavioral brand-related dynamics during focal brand interactions (e.g. brand-usage); negatively-valenced BE, by contrast, is exhibited
through consumers’ unfavorable brand-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during brand interactions.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on netnographic methodology, the authors develop a conceptual model addressing the key
characteristics of consumers’ positively-/negatively-valenced BE, and derive a set of key BE triggers and consequences.
Findings – Based on their analyses the authors develop a conceptual model, which addresses consumers’ positively/negatively valenced BE, and key
antecedents and consequences.
Research limitations/implications – Future research is required, which tests and validates the proposed model for specific categories and brands
using large-scale, quantitative analyses.
Practical implications – Generating enhanced managerial understanding of positively/negatively valenced BE, this research contributes to guiding
managerial decision making regarding the management of specific brands.
Originality/value – By proposing a conceptual model incorporating positively-/negatively-valenced BE, this paper extends current insights in the
branding/marketing literatures, thus contributing to managers and scholars.

Keywords Netnography, Brand engagement, Conceptual model

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction concept merits further investigation (Leeflang, 2011; Tripathi

After gaining traction in the business practice literature, the
“brand engagement” (BE) concept has started to transpire in
the academic marketing and branding literatures (Sprott et al.,
2009; Alloza, 2008; Gambetti and Graffigna, 2010; Briggs,
2010). Hollebeek (2011b, p. 555) defines BE as the level of a
consumer’s “cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment
in specific brand interactions”. Specifically, BE has been
posited to represent a strategic imperative for generating
superior organizational performance outcomes, including
enhanced customer loyalty (Bowden, 2009), sales growth
(Neff, 2007), and superior competitive advantage and
profitability (Voyles, 2007; Sedley, 2008). As such, the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
23/1 (2014) 62– 74
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0332]
and Vilakshan, 2009).
Although pioneering research provides exploratory insights
into the emerging BE concept, relatively little is known
regarding the nature, key hallmarks and specific implications
arising from consumers’ focal positively and negatively
valenced manifestations of BE, as addressed in this paper.
Specifically, the findings obtained from an extensive literature
search indicated that the majority of research conducted on
the “engagement” concept in marketing has tended to focus
on specific positively valenced, as opposed to negatively
valenced, expressions of BE. To illustrate, identifying the
“consumer engagement” (CE) dimensions of “enthusiasm”
and “extraordinary experience” Vivek et al. (2012) posit that
heightened levels on these dimensions generate greater overall
CE with focal, pre-specified objects (e.g. a brand).
Correspondingly, Hollebeek (2011b) identifies the
consumer BE dimensions of “immersion”, “passion” and
“activation”, each of which addresses individuals’ focal
positively valenced BE expressions. Analogously, Scott and
Craig-Lees (2010) identify “pleasure” as an “audience
engagement” dimension in specific media settings. Further,
Sprott et al.’s (2009, p. 92) measure of “brand engagement in

62
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
self-concept” (BESC) was designed to “predict consumers’
differential attention to, memory of, and preference for their
favorite brands” (italics added).
However, despite this predominant emphasis on focal
positively valenced expressions of “engagement” observed in
the literature, Higgins (2006) asserts that to be “engaged is to
be involved, occupied and interested in something”, which
may take not only focal positively, but also potentially specific
negatively, valenced forms. To illustrate, not only consumers
who regularly purchase a particular brand and post favorable
brand-related feedback within specific virtual brand
communities or blogs, but also individuals spreading
negative electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) on specific
social networking sites, would fall within the conceptual ambit
of Higgins’s (2006) definition. Thus, the development of a
broader conceptualization of “engagement” is required, which
incorporates within its theoretical ambit the notions of focal
positively, as well as potentially negatively, valenced consumer
expressions of the emerging BE concept.
Higgins posits that a consumer’s focal “engagement”
strength serves to affect the individual’s ensuing level of
perceived value from interacting with a specific object (e.g. a
brand; Rindell et al., 2011). Further, Higgins and Scholer’s
(2009) “regulatory engagement theory” (RET) posits that:
.
“engagement” strength may intensify an individual’s
perceived value of an object; and
.
higher “engagement” may not only render a consumer’s
perception of a focal positively perceived object more
positive, but also make a focal negatively perceived object
appear more negative.
As such, a consumer’s level of brand-related “engagement”
may exert an impact upon consumers’ ensuing brand-related
perceptions and behaviors (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), thus
warranting further scholarly and managerial scrutiny.
Higgins and Scholer (2009) view “engagement” as an
individual’s state of being involved, occupied, fully absorbed
or engrossed in something (i.e. sustained attention),
generating the consequences of a particular attraction to, or
repulsion force from, the object (e.g. a brand). Specifically,
the more engaged individuals are to approach or repel a target
the more perceived value is added to or subtracted from it. An
implicit notion exists within the authors’ rationale that while
consumers’ positively valenced “engagement” generates a
particular attraction force to the object, individuals’ negatively
valenced “engagement” is predicted to produce a specific
repulsion force from the object (Pham and Avnet, 2009).
Further, Brodie et al. (2011) outline the conceptual
distinctiveness between “engagement” and “involvement”.
Specifically, while “engagement” requires the occurrence of
an individual’s focal interactions with a specific object (e.g. a
brand), the conceptual scope of “involvement”, which is
focused on interest and personal relevance (Zaichkowsky,
1985), does not require the undertaking of any specific
interactions per se.
However, despite this expected dynamic, consumers
exhibiting focal negatively valenced BE may still choose to
continue interacting with the object (e.g. resulting from
perceived brand lock-in or switching costs), or disseminating
negative (e-)word-of-mouth (WOM) regarding the object.
Hence by explicitly incorporating consumers’ focal negatively
valenced BE in addition to their positively valenced BE, this
63
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
research builds on and extends Higgins and Scholer’s (2009)
RET.
Specifically, our proposed conceptual linkage between BE
and RET is not known to have received previous attention in
the literature to date. We anticipate that both scholars and
managers will benefit from developing an enhanced awareness
of the full potential range of consumer expressions of BE,
including focal negatively, as well as positively, valenced BE
manifestations, their respective key characteristics, triggers
and consequences. Further, we also discuss key ensuing
managerial and scholarly implications arising from our
findings.
Extending Hollebeek (2011b), we posit that while positively
valenced BE may center on particular favorable or affirmative
cognitive, emotional and behavioral brand-related dynamics
during specific brand interactions (e.g. deriving pleasure from
using a focal brand), negatively valenced BE, by contrast, is
exhibited through consumers’ unfavorable brand-related
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors during focal brand
interactions. We develop a conceptual model addressing the
key hallmarks of positively and negatively valenced
“engagement” with focal brands, their respective key
triggers and consequences, and draw a number of
implications arising from our analyses. This paper thus
contributes further insights into the conceptualization of BE,
and its associated key characteristics and dynamics.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section
provides a literature review addressing the “engagement”
concept in the marketing literature, followed by an overview
of the research approach adopted in this study. Next, we
provide the key results attained in this research, followed by a
discussion of the main scholarly and managerial implications
arising from this study.
2. Literature review: “engagement” research in
marketing
As addressed, the current state of research into “engagement”
in marketing is relatively nascent (Brodie et al., 2011). To
illustrate, the Marketing Science Institute has identified the
undertaking of further, particularly empirical, research within
this emerging topic area as a key research priority (Marketing
Science Institute, 2010). Correspondingly, Leeflang (2011)
calls for the establishment of further insights in this fruitful
topic area, which are expected to be conducive to furthering
specific organizational performance outcomes, including
enhanced customer experience and loyalty, and superior
expected bottom-line performance outcomes (Bowden, 2009;
Chen et al., 2012; Bijmolt et al., 2010).
Despite its expected contributions, the “engagement”
concept remains subject to a relatively sparse body of
empirical research to date. In this section we provide a
review of literature addressing the “engagement” concept in
the marketing discipline. An overview of key sources
identified is shown in Table I, from which we derive five key
observations.
First, Table I illustrates the existence of a multiplicity of
“engagement”-based concepts in the marketing literature,
including “brand engagement” (Sprott et al., 2009),
“customer brand engagement” (Hollebeek, 2011a, b, 2012),
“customer engagement” (Bowden, 2009), “consumer
engagement” (Mollen and Wilson, 2010), “advertising
engagement” (Phillips and McQuarrie, 2010), and “media
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74

Table I Overview: “engagement” research in marketing

Author(s)
Sprott et al. (2009)
Hollebeek (2011a)
Higgins and Scholer (2009)
Mollen and Wilson (2010)
Van Doorn et al. (2010)
Bowden (2009)
Patterson et al. (2006)
Brodie et al. (2011)
Phillips and MacQuarrie (2010)
Calder et al. (2009)
Algesheimer et al. (2005)
Scott and Craig-Lees (2010)
Concept
Brand engagement in self-concept
Customer brand engagement
Engagement
Consumer engagement
Customer engagement behavior
Customer engagement
Customer engagement
Customer engagement
Advertising engagement
Media engagement
Community engagement
Audience engagement
Definition
An individual difference representing consumers’ propensity to include
important brands as part of how they view themselves
The level of expression of an individual customer’s motivational, brand-related
and context-dependent state of mind characterized by a degree of activation,
identification and absorption in brand interactions
A state of being involved, occupied, fully absorbed or engrossed in something
(i.e. sustained attention), generating the consequences of a particular attraction
or repulsion force. The more engaged individuals are to approach or repel a
target, the more value is added to or subtracted from it
A cognitive and affective commitment to an active relationship with the brand
as personified by the website
Customers’ behavioral manifestation toward a brand or firm, beyond purchase,
resulting from motivational drivers, including word-of-mouth activity, helping
other customers, blogging and writing reviews
A psychological process that models the underlying mechanisms by which
customer loyalty forms for new customers of a service brand, as well as the
mechanisms by which loyalty may be maintained for repeat purchase customers
of a service brand
The level of a customer’s physical, cognitive and emotional presence in their
relationship with a service organization
A psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a brand) in focal service relationships
“Modes of engagement” are routes to persuasion
A motivational experience; being connected to a specific media
Positive influences of identifying with the brand community through the
consumer’s intrinsic motivation to interact/co-operate with community members
Consists of:
– cognitive effort, i.e. the level of processing capacity expended on a
particular task; and
– affective response, which comprises: pleasure/pleasantness (i.e. versus
unpleasantness), which represents differences in the degree of positive (versus
negative) feelings, and the overall valence of the mood stated toward the film;
and arousal, i.e. a feeling state that varies along a single dimension ranging
from drowsiness to frantic excitement

engagement” (Calder et al., 2009). While the “brand”
remains unspecified in many of the proposed definitions
(e.g. “customer engagement”, “media engagement”), this
may be implicit in specific conceptualizations. For example, in
Scott and Craig-Lees’ (2010) “audience engagement”,
specific individuals (i.e. audiences) may feel engaged with
focal brands to varying levels via specific media channels.
Further, Brodie et al.’s (2011) “customer engagement” may
be observed with focal objects, including specific brands.
Second, despite the apparent debate in the literature
regarding the specific interpretation of the “engagement”
concept, Brodie et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic review reveals the
existence of focal “interactive experiences” between a specific
“engagement subject” (e.g. a consumer) and “engagement
object” (e.g. a brand) as a core hallmark typifying
“engagement”, thus highlighting the concept’s two-way,
interactive nature, as consistent with the principles
underlying RET. Third, concurring with Van Doorn et al.
(2010), the authors identify “engagement” as a multi-
dimensional concept comprising relevant cognitive,
emotional and behavioral dimensions, thus exhibiting
conceptual consistency with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975)
finding that individuals’ cognitions, typically, produce specific
affective, and ensuing behavioral, responses. The specific
expression of “engagement” dimensions, however, may vary
across contexts. To illustrate, while Mollen and Wilson
(2010) identify “active sustained processing” and
“experiential/instrumental value” as focal consumer
“engagement” dimensions, offline CE applications have
been conceptualized by the dimensions of “absorption”,
“vigor” and “dedication” (Patterson et al., 2006; Schaufeli
et al., 2002).
Fourth, as stated in the Introduction, while the reviewed
research provides foundational insights into the nature of
“engagement”, studies addressing the concept’s potentially
negatively valenced expressions remain largely unexplored in
the literature to date. For example, in sociology, Fiorina
(1999) highlights the potentially dark side of “civic
engagement”, which may result in focal detrimental
outcomes for particular stakeholders. Similarly, particular
negatively valenced expressions of specific marketing-based
“engagement” sub-forms (e.g. “customer-”, “consumer-” or
“brand engagement”) may incur specific undesirable
outcomes (e.g. the dissemination of negative WOM), which

64
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
managers need to have an awareness of. This observation also
exhibits conceptual consistency with the RET-based
prediction that higher “engagement” may not only render a
consumer’s perception of a focal positively perceived object
more positive, but also make a focal negatively perceived
object appear more negative.
Hence we posit a more holistic perspective incorporating
focal positively as well as negatively valenced manifestations of
the “engagement” concept is required before managers are
able fully to understand, and leverage, the key dynamics
pertaining to this emerging concept. Correspondingly, the
anti-consumption literature addresses focal consumer
cognitions, emotions and behaviors, which may run counter
to (i.e. against) particular objects, including products, brands
or organizations (Lee et al., 2009a), and hence may have focal
detrimental effects for specific organizations or brands, which
managers need to have an understanding of.
Consumers may frequent, or found, specific anti-brand
communities, or distribute negative (e-)WOM, for the
purpose of venting their negative feelings and views about
particular brands (Lee et al., 2009b). To illustrate, a search
revealed the existence of five unique sub-communities titled
“McDonald’s Sucks” on the social networking site Facebook.
Specifically, the existence of such anti-brand communities
serves to illustrate the existence of consumers’ high potential
levels of “brand engagement”, yet expressed from a
negatively, as opposed to a positively, valenced perspective,
thus generating a need for further exploration of the full range
of (i.e. incorporating focal positively, as well as negatively,
valenced) consumer manifestations of BE.
The founders of, and visitors to, such anti-brand
communities obviously feel discontented regarding the
particular brand, and make the effort to display publicly (yet
frequently anonymously or under a pseudonym) their brand-
related discontent on the world’s most popular social
networking site. However, despite this observation, no
conceptualization capturing focal negative, as well as positive,
BE expressions is known to exist in the literature to date. We
therefore propose such conceptualization in the next section.
Fifth, the applicability of investigating BE in focal brand
community contexts has also been identified in the literature
(Brodie et al., 2013). Specifically, brand community
members’ shared interest is expected to produce affinity and
bonding (De Valck et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2011), and has the
potential to create and co-create value for members,
organizations and other stakeholders (Porter and Donthu,
2008; Schau et al., 2009; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). These
qualities, coupled with the level of perceived credibility of
specific consumer evaluations, render the virtual brand
community a powerful platform facilitating focal consumer-
to-consumer interactions and the development of BE and
focal consumer/brand relationships (Sawhney et al., 2005;
Kaltcheva et al., 2013a). In the next section we proceed to
address the research approach adopted in this study.
3. Research approach
The identified scarcity of research addressing consumers’
focal negatively as well as positively valenced BE, and the
ensuing need for the development of a conceptual model in
this area, provided the basis for guiding the research approach
adopted in this study. The specific research questions (RQs)
employed in this enquiry are:
65
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
RQ1. What are the key characteristics of focal positively and
negatively valenced BE in particular brand
communities?
RQ2. What are the key triggers and consequences of
consumers’ focal positively and negatively valenced
BE, as expressed in focal brand communities?
We selected netnography as the method to guide this enquiry,
which Kozinets (1999) introduced in the late 1990s.
Netnography is a qualitative research methodology that
adapts ethnographic research techniques to the study of
online communities (Kozinets, 1999, 2002). Since Kozinets’
pioneering work, a number of studies have adopted
netnographic methodology to investigate consumers’ online
discussions, and examine the specific cognitions, emotions
and behavior patterns of online user groups (e.g. Muñiz and
O’Guinn, 2001; Brodie et al., 2013).
To collect the data, we selected the specific brand
communities of “Fans of Apple” and “Fans of Samsung
Mobile” (i.e. reflecting consumers’ positively valenced BE),
and “Apple Sucks” and “Samsung Sucks” (i.e. reflecting
consumers’ negatively valenced BE) on the social networking
site Facebook, thus culminating in a total of four distinct
brand communities studied. Specifically, the four chosen
Facebook brand communities provided an adequate data
supply relevant to the stated research questions, as well as
generating a level of uniformity and consistency across the
data for the selected four brand communities (Gummerus
et al., 2012). We selected the “Apple” and “Samsung” brands
as the foci of our investigation based on the significant levels
of consumer interest in, awareness of, and familiarity with
these brands, as well as the strong rival market positions held
by these brands within the consumer electronics sector.
Further detail regarding the brand communities studied, as
stated on their respective Facebook pages, is provided in Table
II. The data comprised any consumer-generated content posted
to the respective brand communities during a specific one-
month period (i.e. from May 3 to June 3, 2013). We selected
this particular period based on its recency and the consequent
timeliness and high anticipated relevance of the data. Posts
made in languages other than English were translated using
Google Translate. Further, to help protect the community
members’ identities we cite their relevant posts by referring to
their first-name and surname initials only.
To analyze the data, Spiggle (1994) and Bogdan and Biklen
(1982) were consulted, which included thematic analysis to
interpret emerging characteristics of consumers’ positively
and negatively valenced BE (Boyatzis, 1998). In contrast to
content analysis, thematic analysis incorporates the entire
conversation as the potential unit of analysis (Thomsen et al.,
1998). The analysis was conducted at two levels, including
open and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The
findings were generated inductively from the raw data, and
deductively from the literature review (Taylor and Bogdan,
1984). Analytical emphasis, however, was placed on the data-
based, inductively emergent findings, as previous research
addressing focal positively and negatively valenced BE was not
found in the literature, as stated. The open/axial coding
represented an iterative process whereby themes initially
identified using open coding merited further scrutiny and/or
linking to positively/negatively valenced BE during axial
coding. Expert ratings provided by two academics and one
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement Journal of Product & Brand Management
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74

Table II Overview of brand communities studied

Brand
community Description
Fans of Apple Facebook’s LARGEST and most vibrant Apple
community with a MILLION worldwide fans!
If you LOVE Apple . . . then join us TODAY!
Fans of Apple is an independent Facebook
fan page and is not in ANY way affiliated
with Apple, Inc. in any way, shape or form.
Any logos or images shown on the page are
entirely owned and copyrighted by Apple,
Inc. and are used only for the purposes of
sharing images of products on status
updates, photo galleries, etc.
To contact “Fans of Apple,” or for press/
media or other general inquiries, please
contact us: fansofapple@yahoo.com
Fans of Welcome to the official fan page of Samsung
Samsung Mobile timeline, a place to share your stories
Mobile and get the latest news about Samsung
Mobile devices
Apple Sucks Ok, let’s discuss whether or not you like
Apple. If you like Apple then you can get out!
If you think Apple sucks, welcome aboard!
Samsung – –
Sucks
Mission
To become the premier and ultimate Apple
fan destination on Facebook . . . or
ANYWHERE!!! Should you like to reach out
to us regarding press/media information/
inquiries or for possible promotional
consideration, please email us at:
fansofapple@yahoo.com
– Website: www.samsungapps.com
Get the most likes and send a message
across the world explaining why Apple
sucks!
Company overview
Apple Inc. is an American multinational
corporation that designs and markets
consumer electronics, computer software,
and personal computers. The company’s
best-known hardware products include the
Macintosh line of computers, the iPod, the
iPhone and the iPad. Apple software includes
the Mac OS X operating system; the iTunes
media browser; the iLife suite of multimedia
and creativity software . . .
Are you a possessed Mac, iPad, iPod or
iPhone fanatic?
Are you obsessed with [Apple’s] next
revolutionary innovation? Is your
gravitational balance affected by Cupertino’s
Reality Distortion Field? If you answered
“yes” to the above, then you’re in the right
place . . . because we are . . . Fans of Apple!
Discuss Apple! Hate it or love it? Well, we
hate it! Explain why!
–

practitioner were also used to further substantiate the main
researcher’s analysis.
To delineate BE, we adopted Hollebeek’s (2011b)
conceptualization of BE, which builds on pioneering work
addressing the “engagement” concept in the marketing
discipline (e.g. Patterson et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
To illustrate, the author’s model reflects the generic, tri-
partite dimensionality underlying the “engagement” concept
identified in section 2. Further, we found the model to have
relevance in both online, and offline, contexts, thus indicating
its wide potential applicability.
Hollebeek (2011b, p. 555) defines BE as the level of a
consumer’s “cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment
in specific brand interactions”. Drawing on this model, we
provide an overview of our key findings attained in Table III.
Specifically, extending this author’s work we define
“immersion” as “the level of a consumer’s positively/
negatively valenced brand-related thoughts, concentration
and reflection in specific brand interactions”, thus revealing
the extent of individuals’ cognitive “engagement” while
interacting with particular brands.
Second, we define “passion” as “the degree of a consumer’s
positively/negatively valenced brand-related affect exhibited in
particular brand interactions”, thus reflecting the extent of
individuals’ emotional “engagement” in specific brand
interactions. Third, “activation” represents a “consumer’s
positively/negatively valenced level of energy, effort and time
spent on a brand in particular brand interactions”, thus
reflecting the behavioral facet of “engagement”. Hence in
contrast to Hollebeek (2011b), we observe not only focal
positively but also specific negatively valenced expressions of
consumers’ BE as articulated in the particular brand
communities studied, thus providing a more comprehensive
conceptual representation of the emerging BE concept.
4. Key findings
An overview of key data excerpts for each of the four brand
communities selected for investigation is provided in Table
III. Scrutiny of Table III reveals the following observations.
For each of the four brand communities selected, we observed
a combination of comments and “likes” predominantly
conveyed by text and/or images, in addition to a smaller
number of video posts. While the majority of users tended to
limit their “engagement” with the community to a single post
within the selected research period, a smaller number of users
were found to be more actively engaged with the respective
community, as reflected by the multiple postings and/or
“likes” posted by these individuals.
During the selected one-month research period, 93 postings
were observed in the “Fans of Apple” community studied.
While each of Hollebeek’s (2011b) three “engagement”
dimensions was observed in this brand community, we
identified a predominant focus on the “passion”
(i.e. emotional) facet of BE. To illustrate, KR posted in the
“Fans of Apple” community (June 2, 2013):
iPhone give me please:-).

66
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
Table III Data excerpts reflecting consumers’ positively-/negatively-valenced brand engagement with the brand communities studied
Brand
community Immersion
Fans of Apple “Oh dear . . . I was a fan, but . . . http://www.
guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2013/may/
29/apples-dirty-little-tax-secret-video”
(DS, May 31, 2013)
“Will the Macs be for less? Since it will
manufacture in the US?” (AL, May 28, 2013)
“When is iPhone 5s coming on the
market?:)” (AM, May 3, 2013)
Fans of Samsung “Heard Indian Railway is gonna sue Samsung
Mobile soon; http://www.mediabragger.com/?p ¼
823” (AA, May 18, 2013)
“Samsung Galaxy S4 v S4 Mini: What are the
Differences” [Translated from Italian] –
http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49800/
20130530/samsung-galaxy-s4-mini-note-
differenze-specifiche.htm” (MS, May 31,
2013)
Apple Sucks “I knew it would only be a matter of time
before Microsoft’s ads for the Surface made
fun of the fact that the iPad can’t multitask”
(TT, June 3, 2013)
“Just a fan of your page. I have an HTC One.
It’s more sleek and more advanced than the
iPhone 5. Why are those things so bulky?
iPhones suck!” (TH, June 3, 2013)
“I just sold an iMac for $30. I don’t know if I
should feel stupid for selling it really cheap
(especially since I bought it for $25), or feel
good about myself for getting rid of
something useless” (AS, June 2, 2013)
“I hate Apple because there are tons of
limitations: Lack of customization. They steal
ideas and call it revolutionary. They add two
new features every year and charge tons of
money and those ‘new’ features are often if
not always old and done before. If someone
uses or ‘steals’ their stolen idea, they start
suing left and right” (PM, May 5, 2013)
“I work[ed] with the public today I had 2
separate customers approach me and ask if I
had an iPhone. I told them I didn’t, and asked
why they were asking. They replied ‘I was
going to ask if you had a charger because this
phone just dies so fast . . .’ to which I
answered ‘one of the many reasons I don’t
have one, Lol’” (JC, May 4, 2013)
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
Passion
“iPhone give me please:-)” (KR, June 2,
2013)
“I love Apple” (NN, June 2, 2013)
“iOS 7 is coming!!!!!!!” (BB, May 30,
2013)
“Apple is best electronic product in the
world; I like Apple products” (ST, May
30, 2013)
“50 billion [i.e. regarding the number of
Apple app downloads]:) http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v ¼ LMGiZ
Cy1WAk&feature ¼ youtu.be” (MC,
May, 17 2013)
– –
“Hey fellow Apple haters, what about
more Windows phone, etc. things? Or
we might look like Android fan boys . . .
and it’s nice anyways:)” (EL, June 2,
2013)
“I’ll try buying another brand. Maybe
they’ll see the light. Their stock price
reflects my view of the company now.
Going down!” (SB, June 2, 2013)
“iDo, is now iDon’t! Has anyone else
experienced the Apple post nuptial
remorse, better known as iRegret? Going
through an iDivorce isn’t easy, but I
know I have support!” (CC, May 28,
2013)
“Apple devices look so nice . . . until you
turn them on” (DD1, May 21, 2013)
Apple ¼ Looks þ Logo . . . that’s it:P”
(TP, May 11, 2013)
67
Activation
“Just sharing!:) http://au.ibtimes.com/
articles/469789/20130522/apple-ipad-5-
new-tablet.htm#.Uaq7kNIwd4Q” (RS,
June 2, 2013)
“Do u want to know how to get a free
15$ iTunes card? First u need to get the
app FreeAppParty. Then make an
account. To get 50 party treats for free
you enter the referral code: assasin2u;
then once you get enough party treats
you can redeem a 15$ iTunes card:D”
(KL, May 20, 2013)
“Get rewarded with amazing iTunes Gift
Cards! Open on iOS and Android. http://
promotime.weebly.com/” (AP, May 17,
2013)
“Everybody help notify web site that
FLASH content will no longer play on
Android phones and that we are unable
to watch any videos they post in FLASH
Format. If enough networks and web
sites drop Apple Flash they will have to
allow us to install the player” (BG, May
15, 2013)
“When I hear someone say Android
sucks . . . Makes me wanna punch them
in the face” (FY, May 13, 2013)
(continued)
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
Table III
Brand
community Immersion
Samsung Sucks “I bought Samsung’s GT-S5360L, WIFI
reception is horrible. Sometimes I can’t pick
up WIFI standing right next to it” (LD, May
25, 2013)
“Their phones are designed to break ON
PURPOSE!” (DD, May 5, 2013)
“Samsung’s warranty is a joke” (MM, May 4,
2013)
Note: The column headings “Immersion”, “Passion” and “Activation” represent Hollebeek’s (2011b) proposed BE dimensions, as discussed in section 3 of the
paper
Further, a number of observations reflecting the other
(i.e. cognitive or behavioral) “engagement” dimensions also
extended to incorporate an emotional element reflecting the
individuals’ respective “engagement” with this community, as
predicted under RET. For example, DS posted (May 31,
2013):
Oh dear, I was a fan, but . . . www.guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2013/
may/29/apples-dirty-little-tax-secret-video
In this particular brand community, the role of “immersion”
(i.e. cognitive “engagement” facet) appeared to be less
prevalent. Moreover, we detected a number of users’ product-
related queries posted within the “Fans of Apple” community.
For example, JI posted (May 17, 2013):
I’m curious about how to control iPod classic through Bluetooth with
iPhone. Is it possible if I buy Bluetooth adaptor for iPod classic on eBay?
Further, on May 16, 2013 JK posted:
My iPhone won’t charge, and I’m sure the cable isn’t the problem, what
could it be? (It won’t turn on either).
Specifically, these statements illustrate the potential role of
virtual brand communities in creating, and co-creating, value
for individuals and/or organizations (Porter and Donthu,
2008; Schau et al., 2009); thus reflecting the principles
underlying RET.
Second, in contrast to the “Fans of Apple” community,
significantly fewer posts were detected in the “Fans of
Samsung” community during the period studied (i.e. n ¼ 3
posts). Further, user postings in this community were
significantly less emotional, yet more cognitive/rational in
nature, in contrast to those observed in the “Fans of Apple”
community. To illustrate, on May 31, 2013 MS posted:
Samsung Galaxy S4 v. S4 Mini: What are the Differences” [Translated from
Italian]: http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/49800/20130530/samsung-galaxy-s4-
mini-note-differenze-specifiche.htm
Moreover, while users in the “Fans of Apple” community
revealed a tendency to comment on specific postings relatively
frequently, consumers in the “Fans of Samsung” community,
typically, exhibited a higher probability to “like”, rather than
comment on, specific content provided within the
community. Hence overall, individuals participating in the
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
Passion Activation
“Six weeks into conversations with “Picked up a smart tv today, yeah, it’s a
Samsung still getting the run around, Samsung. I will return it tomorrow. It
Samsung sucks” (BB, June 2, 2013) refuses to stay connected via wifi.
“Samsung is bull shit. Samsung sucks. I Samsung Support says it will take 48 hrs
bought stsr duos and saala for level two support to call me back.
************************ Yeah right. I should have known better
************************ based on my cell phones. I will never buy
***** *************** Samsung goods ever!” (AH, May 27,
* * * * * * * mob it has frustrated me” 2013)
(BC, May 30, 2013)
“Never had a problem with Samsung
ever:)” (JG, May 25, 2013)
“Fans of Samsung” community appeared to be significantly
less passionate about the brand, relative to users observed in
the “Fans of Apple” community.
Third, we observed a total of 48 postings in the “Apple
Sucks” community during the selected research period.
Similar to the “Fans of Apple” community, considerably
higher levels of user interaction were observed within this
community, relative to the “Fans of Samsung” community.
However, as expected, postings predominantly reflected
negatively valenced expressions of consumer “engagement”
within this community, relative to the “Fans of Apple”
community. To illustrate, on May 21, 2013 DD posted:
Apple devices look so nice . . . until you turn them on.
The reverse was also observed; that is, a small number of
comments posted within the “Fans of Apple” community also
reflected specific feedback or critique of the Apple brand. To
illustrate, on 2 June 2013 TC posted:
Apple sucks!
Further, in the selected research period, we did not find any
positively valenced comments addressing the Apple brand in
the “Apple Sucks” community.
In contrast to the “Fans of Apple” community, the majority
of comments posted within the “Apple Sucks” community
adopted a predominant focus on the cognitive facet of BE
(i.e. by providing relatively rational arguments against the
Apple brand or company). To illustrate, PM posted (May 5,
2013):
I hate apple because there are tons of limitations: Lack of customization.
They steal ideas and call it revolutionary. They add two new features every
year and charge tons of money and those “new” features are often if not
always old and done before. If someone uses or “steals” their stolen idea,
they start suing left and right.
Fourth, similar to the “Fans of Samsung” community, a
relatively small number of postings was observed for the
“Samsung Sucks” community in the selected research period
(i.e. n ¼ 8 posts). Interestingly, the number of negatively
valenced postings observed for the Samsung brand in the
“Samsung Sucks” community exceeded that of the number of
68
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
positively valenced postings detected in the “Fans of
Samsung” community.
Based on this relative scarcity of data captured in the
“Samsung Sucks” and “Fans of Samsung” communities in
the selected research period, we also investigated the existence
of other, conceptually similar brand communities within the
Facebook social networking platform. However, the analysis
indicated that the other, similar pages identified had received
even lower levels of cognitive, emotional and behavioral
consumer “engagement” with the Samsung brand. For
example, while the selected “Samsung Sucks” community
had received 835 “likes”, the next most “liked” “Samsung
Sucks” Facebook community had registered a mere total of
191 “likes” (as of June 3, 2013); that is, even fewer than those
observed for our selected community.
Similar to the observation made in the “Apple Sucks”
community, a small amount of positively valenced content
was posted in the “Samsung Sucks” community. To illustrate,
JG posted (May 25, 2013):
Never had a problem with Samsung ever.
Within this brand community typified predominantly by
unfavorable brand-related content, the publication of specific
positive brand-related, user-generated content is expected to
represent a particularly valuable tool serving to counter other,
negatively-valenced brand-related content posted within the
community.
Moreover, user-generated content posted in the “Samsung
Sucks” community was found to be predominantly cognitive
in nature, that is; addressing specific product- or brand-
related issues, queries or problems. Similar to the “Apple
Sucks” community, these comments, typically, provided an
outlet for consumers to vent their negative feelings about the
brand, or their unfavorable brand- or company-related
experiences. Moreover, the nature of postings undertaken in
the brand communities studied may have also been affected
by the specific culture to which consumers belong (Hofstede,
1986), as well as particular country-of-origin effects (Bilkey
and Nes, 1982) for Apple and Samsung products, as
addressed further in section 6. In the next section we
proceed to introduce the conceptual model derived from this
analysis.
5. Conceptual model
Based on the preceding analysis, we develop a conceptual
model of BE, which, based on RET, incorporates not only the
concept’s positively valenced but also its focal negatively
valenced manifestations. The model hence provides a more
comprehensive view of the emerging BE concept, relative to
existing models observed in the literature to date. Specifically,
positively valenced BE centers on particular favorable or
affirmative cognitive, emotional and behavioral brand-related
consumer dynamics during focal brand interactions, such as a
consumer deriving a level of brand-related enjoyment.
By contrast, negatively valenced BE is exhibited through
consumers’ unfavorable brand-related thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors during focal brand interactions. Specifically, the
conceptual model proposed in Figure 1 addresses the key
characteristics of consumers’ positively and negatively
valenced BE, thus providing insights into RQ1. Further, the
model identifies a set of key triggers in the formation of focal
positively-, and negatively-valenced BE, as well as key BE
69
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
consequences observed from the data, thus shedding light on
RQ2.
On the left-hand side of the model, we commence by
identifying the key triggers (i.e. antecedents) generating focal
positively/negatively valenced BE. Specifically, we start by
designating those factors which generate consumers’ brand-
related “immersion”; that is, the cognitive facet of BE, which
we define as “the level of a consumer’s positively/negatively
valenced brand-related thoughts, concentration and reflection
in specific brand interactions”.
First, “perceived company actions” reflect consumer
perceptions of the firm’s operations and handling of specific
issues, including particular brand specifications, marketing
mix elements (e.g. product/pricing), or specific product
wrongdoings (e.g. product- or brand-related lawsuits;
Puzakova et al., 2013). To illustrate, MM posted in the
“Samsung Sucks” community (May 4, 2013):
Samsung’s warranty is a joke.
Further, AL posted in the “Fans of Apple” community (May
28, 2013):
Will the Macs be for less? Since it will manufacture in the US?
Second, “perceived brand/quality performance” addresses the
consumer’s perceived quality level of a focal brand; thus
reflecting the brand’s perceived utilitarian benefits; that is, the
degree of functionality, or instrumentality, of the brand (Batra
and Ahtola, 1991; Voss et al., 2003). To illustrate, AS posted
in the “Apple Sucks” community (June 2, 2013):
I just sold an iMac for $30. I do not know if I should feel stupid for selling it
really cheap (especially since I bought it for $25), or feel good about myself
for getting rid of something useless.
This suggests the particular item failed to perform its
intended utilitarian purpose adequately (Voss et al., 2003).
Third, “perceived brand value” represents a “consumer’s
overall assessment of the utility of a product/service based on
perceptions of what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml,
1988), thus reflecting a specific ratio, or trade-off, between
perceived quality and price (i.e. a value-for-money
conceptualization; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Kaltcheva
et al., 2013b), or an approach reflecting a consumer’s
perceived net benefits (i.e. total observed benefits less total
perceived costs) arising from specific interactions with a
particular brand. To illustrate, TT posted in the “Apple
Sucks” community (June 3, 2013):
I knew it would only be a matter of time before Microsoft’s ads for the
Surface made fun of the fact that the iPad can’t multitask.
Fourth, “perceived brand innovativeness” reflects a
consumer’s perception regarding the degree to which a
brand offers novel products, product features or other new
elements that have value to the consumer (Franzak and Pitta,
2011). To illustrate, comparing his specific HTC smart phone
to the iPhone, TH posted in the “Apple Sucks” community
(June 3, 2013):
I have an HTC One. It’s more sleek and more advanced than the iPhone 5.
Why are those things so bulky? iPhones suck!
Overall, we found these four factors to exert a predominant
impact upon consumers’ brand-related “immersion” – that is,
the cognitive facet of BE – as shown in Figure 1.
Further, we identify two factors asserting a key influence on
“passion”, the emotional dimension of BE, which is focused
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
Figure 1 Conceptual model: key hallmarks, triggers and consequences of positively-/negatively-valenced brand engagement (BE)
on the level of consumers’ brand-related fondness (for
positively valenced BE), or antipathy (for negatively
valenced BE). Specifically, we define “passion” as “the
degree of a consumer’s positively/negatively valenced brand-
related affect exhibited in particular brand interactions”.
First, “perceived brand/company responsiveness” reflects the
degree to which a consumer feels a brand, or company, to be
approachable and receptive to consumer queries or feedback,
as well as showing an ability to resolve these (Parasuraman
et al., 1988; Patterson et al., 2006). For example, BB posted
in the “Samsung Sucks” community (June 2, 2013):
Six weeks into conversations with Samsung still getting the run around,
Samsung sucks.
Hence a consumer-perceived lack of brand or company
responsiveness is expected to generate focal negatively
valenced expressions of BE, and vice versa.
Second, “perceived delivery of the brand’s promise” reflects
a consumer’s perception regarding the extent to which the
brand has produced its promised benefits, as set out by its
marketing communications (Grönroos, 1998). To illustrate,
on May 30, 2013 BC posted in the “Samsung Sucks”
community:
Samsung is bull shit. Samsung sucks. I bought stsr duos . . . it has frustrated
me
This indicates that a perceived lack of the brand’s delivery on
its promise is expected to generate focal negatively valenced
emotional BE.
Generally, for the six BE antecedents identified in Figure 1,
when these are perceived as favorable for a focal brand,
specific positively valenced BE is expected to ensue (as
observed, typically, within the respective “Fans of Apple/
Samsung” communities); however, when these are perceived
as unfavorable (as observed, typically, within the “Apple/
Samsung Sucks” communities), then negatively valenced BE
expressions are anticipated to occur.
70
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
Moreover, the three proposed BE dimensions and their
respective definitions, as outlined in the previous section, are
represented in the center column of Figure 1. This column
also incorporates the range from focal positively, to specific
negatively valenced BE, as shown in the model. Specifically,
we adapt Hollebeek’s (2011b) definitions of “immersion”,
“passion” and “activation” to account more explicitly for the
potential emergence of focal positively and negatively
valenced BE, as outlined in sections 2 and 3. Further, we
posit that consumers’ cognitive and emotional BE collectively
serve to generate their particular expressions of behavioral BE
(Dolan, 2002; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), as shown by the
“activation” (i.e. behavioral) facet of BE in Figure 1.
Furthermore, based on the analysis we identify two key BE
consequences:
1 “brand attitude”; and
2 “(e-)word-of-mouth”.
First, “brand attitude” has been defined as “a psychological
tendency expressed by evaluating a particular brand with
some degree of favor and/or disfavor” (Petty et al., 1983;
Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), which, typically, is relatively
enduring in nature. Further, “brand attitude” may be
observed along a continuum ranging from strongly
unfavorable to highly favorable attitudes (Walsh et al.,
2010). The model suggests “brand attitude” to represent a
BE consequence, with focal positively valenced BE expected
to generate favorable consumer attitudes to focal brands, and
vice versa. To illustrate, in the “Apple Sucks” community, SB
posted (June 2, 2013):
Their [i.e. Apple’s] stock price reflects my view of the company . . . Going
down!
This reflects a negative brand attitude held by this consumer.
Second, we identify the dissemination of consumers’
(e-)word-of-mouth (WOM) as a key BE consequence.
Specifically, the effects of e-WOM in virtual brand
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
communities may be significant (De Valck et al., 2009), as
recommendations can occur at virtually no cost and spread
rapidly, both within and beyond the virtual brand community
(Van Doorn et al., 2010; Brodie et al., 2013; Leach et al.,
2008). Further, Chatterjee’s (2001) findings support the
applicability of specific word-of-mouth dynamics of
traditional, offline contexts, in online environments.
The potential detrimental effects of negatively-valenced
brand-related WOM may exceed that of its positively-
valenced counterpart. To illustrate, Chevalier and Mayzlin
(2006) found that online book reviews affected book sales,
with negative reviews tending to have a greater detrimental
effect on sales, relative to positive reviews. Specifically,
consumer dissemination of focal positive/negative brand-
related WOM may also be viewed as a particular reflection of
the individual’s brand attitude, which we identified above as a
key BE consequence. Finally, we observed that consumer
expressions of positively-valenced BE were conducive to
generating focal positive (e-)WOM, and vice versa. To
illustrate, NN posted (June 2, 2013):
I love Apple.
In the next section we proceed to address the key
contributions and implications arising from these findings.
6. Implications
A number of authors, including Appelbaum (2001) and
Leeflang (2011), lament that conventional marketing
constructs, including “customer satisfaction”, have proven
inadequate in explaining and predicting specific consumer
behavior outcomes, including “customer loyalty”. Hence
instead, constructs gauging the interactive nature of
consumer/brand relationships have been advocated (Aaker
et al., 2004), with BE representing a prominent concept in
both the managerial and scholarly discourse addressing the
need for more effective marketing metrics (Marketing Science
Institute, 2010; Sprott et al., 2009; Voyles, 2007; Tripathi and
Vilakshan, 2009).
In this paper, we identified the need for a broader, more
comprehensive conceptualization of the emerging BE concept
incorporating not only focal positively- but also particular
negatively-valenced BE. Extending Hollebeek (2011b), we
developed a RET-informed broader conceptualization, which
includes specific positively- and negatively-valenced consumer
expressions of BE; thus generating an enhanced
understanding of the focal dynamics characterizing this
nascent concept. Further, we also identified a set of key
triggers (i.e. antecedents) and consequences of BE (Figure 1),
which we expect to be valuable to managers wishing to inform
their strategic decision making regarding their brand
portfolios.
The key managerial contributions arising from this study
are as follows. First, this paper serves to provide an enhanced
level of managerial understanding of the emerging BE
concept, which is expected to generate superior
organizational performance outcomes, including sales
growth (Neff, 2007), and superior competitive advantage
and profitability (Sedley, 2008; Voyles, 2007).
However, based on relative paucity of research in this area
to date, the development of a new, more comprehensive BE
conceptualization incorporating not only consumers’ focal
positively-, but also particular negatively-valenced BE, is
71
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
required before managers are able to leverage fully the
benefits expected to accrue from the adoption of key BE-
based organizational objectives and metrics. As such, this
exploratory research provides a pioneering step towards the
development of a valid, comprehensive BE conceptualization
comprising the concept’s focal positively and negatively
valenced manifestations.
Second, this paper serves to reinforce managerial
understanding that the metrics conventionally employed in
marketing, including “customer satisfaction”, may generate
sub-optimal organizational performance outcomes. In
contemporary, increasingly dynamic, interactive and
networked business environments, traditional metrics will
require replacement, with performance indicators accounting
for the new, highly interactive business environment
characterized by considerably higher levels of consumer
control and empowerment relative to that observed in the
traditional marketing communications landscape. Specifically,
BE has been heralded to generate superior organizational
performance outcomes (e.g. Bowden, 2009). This research
may therefore assist managers in reassessing the relevance and
relative importance of current strategic brand-based
objectives.
In order to capitalize fully on the expected benefits of BE,
we suggest the following avenues for future research. First, the
development of a psychometrically valid BE measurement
instrument is required not only to gauge focal consumers’ or
consumer segments’ BE levels, but also to investigate and test
empirically the conceptual model proposed in this paper.
While we anticipate this model to hold across a number of
research settings, the model’s empirical testing and validation
using large-scale quantitative methods (e.g. structural
equation modeling, or SEM), are first required (Leeflang,
2011).
Second, we identified the observed BE dynamics within the
context of the Apple and Samsung brands, which are leading
firms within their industry. However, despite the apparent
appeal of selecting these companies for investigation, the
proposed BE model is based on data collected merely from a
single sector (i.e. consumer electronics). Therefore, we
recommend further study and application of the proposed
model across a number of other industries and sectors,
including specific services (e.g. hospitality, airlines or financial
services), fast-moving consumer goods and other types of
consumer durables (e.g. cars) in order to further test the
model, and ensure its cross-category, cross-industry and
cross-brand validity.
Further, the culture to which consumers belong, as well as
specific country-of-origin effects pertaining to the specific
brands studied in this research, may have exerted an impact
upon the findings. Therefore, future research investigating
these effects is expected to provide useful additional insights
into this emerging area. Specifically, future researchers may
wish to employ SEM methodology to investigate these issues
(Bollen, 1989), and develop insights into specific points of
similarity and difference across categories, sectors, and
brands.
Third, this paper facilitates the development of managerial
and scholarly understanding that while consumers’ positively-
valenced BE may generate significant brand-related
opportunities, their negatively valenced counterpart may
pose a significant threat to brand health. Specifically, in
emerging virtual brand community settings, marketers are
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
losing a level of control over their brand-related
communications, which they traditionally owned exclusively
(Fournier and Avery, 2011). As such, practitioners need to
have an awareness of how to manage consumers’ positively-/
negatively-valenced BE in order to attain the optimal
organizational performance outcomes heralded for BE as a
key metric. Specifically, to what extent may specific consumer
“engagement” cognitions, emotions and behaviors drive the
formation of relatively enduring consumer attitudes, and what
is their ensuing effect on consumers’ motivation to undertake
particular positively or negatively valenced brand-related
communications (e.g. online and offline), and consumer
brand purchase intent?
Further, given that claims heralding the superior
contribution of BE, relative to other, more conventional
marketing constructs have been largely exploratory in the
literature to-date, researchers may also wish to explore the
specific extent to which BE serves to generate superior
organizational performance outcomes. Finally, the adoption
of longitudinal analyses investigating the development of focal
consumers’ BE dynamics over time also represents a useful
avenue for future research (Brodie et al., 2011).
References
Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), “When good
brands do bad”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005),
“The social influence of brand community: evidence from
European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 19-34.
Alloza, A. (2008), “Brand engagement and brand experience
at BBVA: the transformation of a 150 years old company”,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 371-379.
Appelbaum, A. (2001), “The constant customer”, available
at: http://gmj.gallup.com/content/745/constant-customer.
aspx (accessed April 15, 2013).
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic
and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., Leeflang, P.S.H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M.,
Hardie, B.G.S., Lemmens, A. and Saffert, P. (2010),
“Analytics for customer engagement”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 341-356.
Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982), “Country of origin effects on
product evaluations”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 89-99.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1982), Qualitative Research for
Education: An Introduction for Theory and Methods, Allyn
& Bacon, Boston, MA.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Bowden, J.L. (2009), “The process of customer engagement:
a conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Briggs, T. (2010), “Social media’s second act: toward
sustainable brand engagement”, Design Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 46-53.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
72
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
propositions and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2013),
“Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an
exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C. and Schaedel, U. (2009), “An
experimental study of the relationship between online
engagement and advertising effectiveness”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-331.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), “Online reviews: do consumers use
them?”, in Gilly, M.C. and Myers-Levy, J. (Eds), Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 28, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT, pp. 129-133.
Chen, T., Drennan, J. and Andrews, L. (2012), “Experience
sharing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 13/
14, pp. 1535-1552.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word-
of-mouth on sales: online book reviews”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G.H. and Wierenga, B. (2009),
“Virtual communities: a marketing perspective”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 185-203.
Dolan, R.J. (2002), “Emotion, cognition and behavior”,
Science, Vol. 298 No. 5596, pp. 1191-1194.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of
Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.
Fiorina, M.P. (1999), “Extreme voices: a dark side of civic
engagement”, in Skocpol, T. and Fiorina, M.P. (Eds), Civic
Engagement in American Democracy, Brookings Institution,
Washington, DC, pp. 395-397.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention
and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 193-207.
Franzak, F. and Pitta, D. (2011), “Moving from service
dominant to solution dominant brand innovation”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 394-401.
Gambetti, R.C. and Graffigna, G. (2010), “The concept of
engagement: a systematic analysis of the ongoing debate”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 52 No. 6,
pp. 801-826.
Grönroos, C. (1998), “Marketing services: the case of a
missing product”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 322-338.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. and Pihlström, M.
(2012), “Customer engagement in a Facebook brand
community”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 9,
pp. 857-877.
Higgins, E.T. (2006), “Value from hedonic experience and
engagement”, Psychological Review, Vol. 113 No. 3,
pp. 439-460.
Higgins, E.T. and Scholer, A.A. (2009), “Engaging the
consumer: the science and art of the value creation
process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 100-114.
Hofstede, G. (1986), “Cultural differences in teaching and
learning”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 301-320.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807.
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand
engagement: definition & themes”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 555-573.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2012), “The customer engagement/value
interface: an exploratory investigation”, Australasian
Marketing Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-24.
Kaltcheva, V.D., Winsor, R.D. and Parasuraman, A. (2013a),
“Do customer relationships mitigate or amplify failure
responses?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 4,
pp. 525-532.
Kaltcheva, V.D., Winsor, R.D., Patino, A.P. and Shapiro, S.
(2013b), “Impact of promotions on shopper price
comparisons”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7,
pp. 809-815.
Kozinets, R.V. (1999), “E-tribalized marketing? The strategic
implications of virtual communities of consumption”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 252-264.
Kozinets, R.V. (2002), “The field behind the screen: using
netnography for marketing research in online
communities”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Leach, M., Liu, A. and Winsor, R.D. (2008), “The impacts of
attitudes, word-of-mouth, and value congruence on
conference participation: a comparison of attending and
non-attending organizational members”, Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 246-269.
Lee, M.S.W., Fernandez, K. and Hyman, M.R. (2009a),
“Anti-consumption: an overview and research agenda”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 145-147.
Lee, M.S.W., Motion, J. and Conroy, D. (2009b), “Anti-
consumption and brand avoidance”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 169-180.
Lee, D., Kim, H.S. and Kim, J.K. (2011), “The impact of
online brand community type on consumers’ community
engagement behaviors: consumer-created vs. marketer-
created online brand community in online social
networking websites”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 59-63.
Leeflang, P. (2011), “Paving the way for ‘distinguished
marketing’”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Marketing Science Institute (2010), “2010-2012 research
priorities”, available at: www.msi.org/research/index.
cfm?id¼271 (accessed December 3, 2012).
Mollen, A. and Wilson, H. (2010), “Engagement, telepresence,
and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling
scholastic and managerial perspectives”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 919-925.
Muñiz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand
community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432.
Neff, J. (2007), “OMD proves the power of engagement”,
Advertising Age, available at: www.fipp.com/news/omd-
proves-the-power-of-engagement (accessed May 17, 2013).
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Patterson, P., Yu, T. and De Ruyter, K. (2006),
“Understanding customer engagement in services”,
Proceedings of the Australia-New Zealand Marketing
Academy Conference, Brisbane, December 4-6.
73
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983),
“Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness:
the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-146.
Pham, M.T. and Avnet, T. (2009), “Rethinking regulatory
engagement theory”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 115-123.
Phillips, B.J. and McQuarrie, E.F. (2010), “Narrative and
persuasion in fashion advertising”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 368-392.
Porter, C.E. and Donthu, N. (2008), “Cultivating trust and
harvesting value in virtual communities”, Management
Science, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 113-128.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H. and Rocereto, J.F. (2013), “When
humanizing brands goes wrong: the detrimental effect of
brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 81-100.
Rindell, A., Korkman, O. and Gummerus, J. (2011), “The
role of brand images in consumer practices: uncovering
embedded brand strength”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 440-446.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005),
“Collaborating to create: the internet as a platform for
customer engagement in product innovation”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 4-17.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M. Jr and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How
brand communities create value”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and
Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement
and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 71-92.
Scott, J. and Craig-Lees, M. (2010), “Audience engagement
and its effects on product placement recognition”, Journal
of Promotion Management, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 39-58.
Sedley, R. (2008), “Six theses on digital customer engagement
in a troubled economy”, available at: http://richard-sedley.
iuplog.com/default.asp?item¼298747 (accessed January 7,
2013).
Spiggle, S. (1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative
data in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 491-503.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The
importance of a general measure of brand engagement
on market behavior: development and validation of a
scale”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 92-104.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2001), “Consumer
perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-220.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. (1984), Introduction to Qualitative
Research Methods, Wiley, New York, NY.
Thomsen, S., Straubhaar, J. and Bolyard, D. (1998),
“Ethnomethodology and the study of online communities:
exploring the cyber streets”, Information Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, available at: http://informationr.net/ir/4-1/paper50.
html (accessed January 26, 2013).
Tripathi, M. and Vilakshan, N. (2009), “Customer
engagement: key to successful brand building”, XIMB
Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 131-140.
 Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced brand engagement
Linda D. Hollenbeek and Tom Chen
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.E., Mittal, V., Nab, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), “Customer
engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and
research directions”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S. and Morgan, R.M. (2012), “Customer
engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond
purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 122-146.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Grohmann, B. (2003),
“Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of
consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Voyles, B. (2007), “Beyond loyalty: meeting the challenge of
customer engagement”, Economist Intelligence Unit,
available at: www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/partI.pdf
(accessed January 31, 2013).
Walsh, M.F., Winterich, K.P. and Mittal, V. (2010), “Do logo
redesigns help or hurt your brand? The role of brand
commitment”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 76-84.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement
construct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-362.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-21.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
74
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 23 · Number 1 · 2014 · 62 –74
About the authors
Linda D. Hollebeek (PhD, University of Auckland) is a Senior
Lecturer at the Waikato Management School (Department of
Marketing), University of Waikato, New Zealand. Her
research interests include customer-, consumer- and brand
engagement, services marketing, and branding. Alongside her
work experience in management consulting, her work to-date
has appeared in Journal of Service Research (including a
2011 nomination for an IBM Journal of Service Research Best
Paper Award), Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Marketing Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Australasian Marketing Journal and Food Quality &
Preference. Linda D. Hollebeek is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: lhol@waikato.ac.nz
Tom Chen (PhD, Queensland University of Technology) is
a Lecturer at the Newcastle Business School (Department of
Marketing), University of Newcastle, Australia. His recent
work investigates how and why consumers voluntarily engage
in value co-creation processes. His recent publication in the
Journal of Marketing Management proposes “experience
sharing” as a particular type of value creation effort
essential to co-creation in service. His current research
interests include actor-to-actor value creation, transformative
service and consumer research, social business and
community engagement, social media and digital marketing,
and the diffusion of broadband-enabled service innovations.