ANALYSING CONSUMER

BASED BRAND EQUITY

IN ONLINE FAN
COMMUNITIES
Sania Dawood
INTRODUCTION
SETTING THE SCENE
Fans/ admirers of brands are a devoted consumer base

Form online communities with no personal revenue
generated

Spend hours online discussing and sharing info
regarding the brand

In the past, brand managers tried to restrict the flow of
info

Fans reacted badly






Alternative approach is to embrace fan created online
communities even collaborate with them

Can the brand benefit from this?

Main areas of research:

Is it worth facilitating online fan communities?

What would be the best way to do so?

LITERATURE REVIEW
WHAT IS A BRAND?
Aaker (1996) A brand can be seen as a product,
organisation, symbol or person



American Marketing Association A brand is a
name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature
that identifies one seller's good or service as
distinct from those of other sellers

Main point: a successful brand needs to be unique
to differentiate it from the products and/or services
of competing brands.

It needs to have value that cannot be provided by
anyone else so that consumers will give preference
to it in their buying behaviour

WHAT IS BRAND EQUITY?
Aaker (1991) a set of assets and liabilities linked
to a brand, its name and symbol, that adds to or
subtracts from the value provided by its product or
service to a firm and/or to that firms customers

Successful brands have higher equity than less
successful ones because they provide value that
cannot be attained elsewhere.



ASSETS
Good reputation eg: German cars (Audi, BMW)

Trustworthy endorsement eg: Sunsilk shampoos
hair experts



LIABILITIES
Bad press coverage eg: salmonella in food
products





Decreases trustworthiness and perceived quality of
brand. Detracts from overall equity.


VALUE
Combination of all assets (good points) and liabilities (bad
points) which create the overall worth of a brand.

Eg: Cadburys salmonella case

Assets:
High quality reputation built over 100 years
Responsible company (Cadbury village)

Liability:
One bad batch of chocolate

Overall Equity:
Still high
WHAT IS CONSUMER BASED BRAND EQUITY?
Keller (1993) : CBBE is the differential effect of
brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand

Consumers with high CBBE for a product/service
will be more likely to buy it and recommend it.

This affects:
Immediate profit
Long term sustainability
WOM (online and offline= highly effective and
FREE advertising. Can reinvest in R+D, etc.)






4 PARTS OF CBBE
Brand awareness (That looks/ sounds familiar)

Brand associations (The colour/smell/taste is
good/bad)

Perceived quality (This is a high/low quality
product/service)

Loyalty (I will/ will not buy this againI will/will not
recommend this product/service)

BRAND AWARENESS
Percy and Elliott (2009) Recall v recognition:
Feel a need and recall which brand can satisfy the need v. see
the brand and feel a need to buy it.

De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Van den Bergh, 2007: consumers
have more faith in a well known brand This increases the
likelihood of purchase = profit.

Keller, (1993) the likelihood of brand purchase increases with a
brand being in the consideration set of consumers. This
increases the likelihood of brand loyalty = higher likelihood of
long term brand survival.

De Pelsmacker and Geuens, (1999): Brand awareness
increases the likelihood of effective brand communication.
Less advertising may be needed to maintain the brand
position = less marketing costs.
BRAND ASSOCIATIONS
Keller (2003) : Brand associations should be unique, strong and
desirable.

De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Van den Bergh (2007): brand associations
can be tangible (speed, taste) or intangible (friendliness, personality)

Aaker (1997): The five man personality traits within personality
psychology (rugedness, competence, sophistication, sincerity and
excitement) can be equated to brands


Bronciarczyk and Alba (1994) : Brand personality consists of associations
which differentiate the product/service from competitors.




Remember: successful brands give you something other brands cannot.

Criticism: too focused on the West
PERCEIVED QUALITY
Aaker (1996) Judgements that consumers make about a given
products/services superiority, as compared to alternative
brands. = Key factor in gaining competitive advantage.

De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Van den Bergh (2007):
dependent upon both intrinsic and extrinsic cues.
(Taste v. price)

Reynolds and Olson (2001) Brand name is an important
extrinsic cue.

De Chernatony and McDonald (1992) : 51% of consumers
preferred Pepsi to Coke Light in a blind taste test. This
decreased to 23% when the brand names were apparent.
Note: luxury itemswater diamond
paradoxaspirational brands
Perception of quality rather than the quality
itself is key in determining a brands equity.
LOYALTY
Perrier (1997): True value of a brand.

Satisfied and committed customers promote the brand = no
cost to the company itself.

Creates a competitive advantage (less marketing spend is
needed to attract new customers and retain existing ones).

Dekimpe, Steenkamp, Mellens, and Vanden Abeele (1997);
Retaining customers is up to six times more cost effective
than attracting new customers.

Why:
less market research to target segment
less advertising spend to attract segment
WOM from satisfied customers.

LOYALTY CONTINUED

Payne (1994): Ladder of
Customer Loyalty

Pelsmacker, Geuens and
Van den Bergh (2007)
suggest that one way of
retaining customers is to
offer them an experience

Eg: Brand Communities

WHAT IS A COMMUNITY?
Oldenberg (1989): We need three essential places in our
life; the home where we live with our loved ones, the office
where we spend the majority of our waking hours, and the
third place where we hang out.

Putnam (2000): We have become less inclined to socialise
over the past three decades.

This may explain the rise in online communities they fulfil
the need for a virtual third place, as it is becoming
increasingly hard to find in real life.

We increasingly use Facebook, Myspace and Twitter to
interact online, but is using social media the same as being
part of an online community?

WHAT IS AN ONLINE COMMUNITY?
Mohammed et al (2004): A set of interwoven relationships, built
upon shared interests, that satisfy individuals needs that would
otherwise be unattainable

Shared interests:

Hagel and Armstrong (1997: Virtual communities are groups of
people who share common interests and needs who come
together online

Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan (1998): Virtual communities
consist of people who share interests and who interact primarily
through electronic communication.

The shared interest can be a brand, eg: a person (Madonna), an
organisation (The Body Shop), a product (Goodfellows Pizza) or a
symbol (Nike)
Maslowe: need to belong (applied online)
COMMERCIAL V. NON COMMERCIAL ONLINE
COMMUNITIES
Mohammed et al (2004): Non commercial communities
are created from the ground up by a group of individuals
who share a particular interest and create a place where
their relationships could be developed and interwoven

Commercial: Non Commercial:
Starts
from:
Top down Ground up
Created
by:
Brand/parent firm Individuals
Based on: Brand/business activity Any shared interest (including
brands)
Purpose: Generate revenue/supplement brand
activity
Form relationships around
shared interest
Formation
stages:
Community created, then people join People feel a need, so create a
community

WHAT IS A BRAND COMMUNITY?
Muniz and OGuinn (2001): A specialised, non
geographically bound community, based on a structured
set of social relationships among admirers of a brand

Brand communities may be:
online or offline
commercial or non commercial
created by the brand/parent company or created by
fans/admirers
Eg: X-philes and Trekkies (Kozinets, 1997, 2001)

Gap: Studied consumer behaviour, not CBBE room for expansion
Fan reaction to the series
has become as much a part
of The X-Files story as the
show itself, from the
conventions that have
sprung up around the
country to the hours of chat
about the series whipping
around each week on the
Internet" (Lowry 1995: 239).
Gap: observing
such behaviour
does not
investigate how
to use these
communities to
benefit the
brand
MOTIVATIONS FOR JOINING ONLINE COMMUNITIES
Ridings and Gefen (2004): studied message boards

Information access primary motivation, but info may be weak if
generated purely by users

Social support Aid, emotional concern or appraisal (House,
1981). Unlikely in brand communities, more likely in community
for disfigurement, bereavement, etc.

Friendship seeking need for a third place (Oldenberg, 1989),
internet facilitates meeting others with shared interest

Recreation entertainment, like TV, fun

Gap: static, outdated, not representative of dynamic platforms
used today.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT CBBE IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES?
Loyalty:

Reicheld and Schefter (2000): Increasing customer retention
rates by 5% can increase profits by 25% to 95%.

Customer ladder = WOM (less marketing spend = more profit)

Also, less marketing spend = more resources to invest in R+D,
brand extension, etc.

Brand extension new products are created
under the same brand name

Eg: Jennifer Lopez makes movies, music
and perfume







Note: it is important to have the right fit between the
brand and new product

Eg: Bic pens are cheap and disposable

Their extension into perfume was not a success!

We want perfume to be of a good quality,
not cheap and low quality!

Jennifer Lopez is a star, so her perfume
fits well with her brand

It has aspirational value


Brand associations:

Aaker (1997): Brand personality measures how rugged,
competent, sophisticated, sincere and exciting a brand is

Sirgy (1982, 1985): Consumers are more likely to purchase
brands which they feel are congruent with their sense of self.

Characteristics of the brand match the characteristics of the
consumer = higher likelihood of purchase

Its important to carefully target a brand to the right type of
consumer - online community members are a ready base of
consumers who enjoy the product.

Gap: would members be more likely to purchase the brands
products or services than non members?
Brand associations continued:

Bronciarczyk and Alba (1994): Brand personality consists of
associations which differentiate the product/service from
competitors.

Gap: Do members of online communities have associations about
the brand which differentiate it, as compared to non members?

If so, they should be targeted more closely as they can be more
profitable.

How to target: test how unique the brand is considered to be
amongst members and non members of online communities.

Keller (2003) supports this: Brand associations should be
unique, strong and desirable in order to lend a competitive edge.


Something no other brand can offer
Brand awareness:

Consumers with high awareness of a brand are more likely to
purchase it than those with low awareness.

Thus, brand awareness is important in increasing sales and
thereby profit.

Keller (1993) supports this: The likelihood of brand purchase
increases with a brand being in the consideration set of
consumers.

This increases the likelihood of brand loyalty, thereby
increasing the likelihood of long term brand survival.

Hence, brand awareness is needed for long term loyalty as
well as short term sales profits.

De Pelsmacker and Geuens, (1999): Brand awareness
increases the likelihood of effective brand communication, as it
increases the level of processing.

Less advertising needed to maintain the brand position, thereby
saving on marketing costs.

Gap: are online community members more aware of a brand, or
do they just join the community and forget about it?

By targeting consumers with higher awareness, brands are more
likely to reach a group that is more willing to buy the brand.

De Pelsmacker, Geuens and Van den Bergh (2007) support this:
Consumers have more faith in a well known brand

How to measure: compare brand awareness of members and
non members of online communities



Perceived quality:

De Chernatony and McDonalds (1992) findings (remember the
blind taste test) show that the perception of quality rather than the
quality itself is key in determining a brands equity = valuable asset.

Gap: do online community members have higher perceived quality
of brands than non members?

If so, they would be a valuable group to target as they may be more
likely to buy a high quality brand (in their opinion) = profit

They may also recommend it to others = less marketing spend

How to measure: compare members of online community
members to non members for different brands

HOW CAN WE MEASURE CBBE IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES?
Look at previous research regarding CBBE - various
scales have been devised to measure each of the four
dimensions.

Yoo and Donthu (2001): used a 5 point scale to measure
CBBE in 3 brand categories (athletic shoes, televisions
and camera films) in the USA and Korea.

Not related to online communities - can be adapted and
applied to different brand categories within the realm of
online communities.

IF ONLINE COMMUNITIES ARE WORTH FACILITATING, HOW
SHOULD WE DO SO?
Assuming higher CBBE scores:

Marketing
communications



ELEMENTS OF THE MARCOMMS MIX
Advertising: paid, may not be suitable for non commercial
online communities, eg: made by fans/admirers of a
brand

Public relations: engaging the public, building goodwill

Personal selling: usually face to face or over phone, eg:
telemarketing, door to door sales may not be suitable
for online, non commercial communities

Sales promotion: giveaways, contests, builds awareness
and buzz


Interest around the brand (online and offline)
AIMS, OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS
AND HYPOTHESES
O1: Determine whether online fan community members have higher
CBBE scores for selected brands as compared to non members
RQ1: Are loyalty
scores higher for
members of online
fan communities
as compared to
non members
loyalty scores for
the same brands?
RQ2: Are brand
association scores
higher for members
of online fan
communities as
compared to non
members loyalty
scores for the same
brands?
RQ4: Are perceived
quality scores higher
for members of online
fan communities as
compared to non
members loyalty
scores for the same
brands?
RQ3: Are brand
awareness scores
higher for members
of online fan
communities as
compared to non
members loyalty
scores for the same
brands?
H1: Online fan
community
members will
have higher
loyalty scores
than non
members
H2: Online fan
community
members will
have higher
brand association
scores than non
members
H3: Online fan
community
members will
have higher
brand awareness
scores than non
members
H4: Online fan
community
members will
have higher
perceived quality
scores than non
members
A1: Discover if it is worthwhile to facilitate online fan communities
O2: Determine which marketing communication activities would be best
suited to facilitate online fan communities for selected brands
RQ5: What is the
most popular
platform to host an
online fan
community on?
RQ6: What is the
most popular method
of discovering an
online fan
community?
RQ8: What activity do
members of online
fan communities
most want to see an
increase in?
RQ7: What is the
most popular
motivation for joining
an online fan
community?
A2: Discover the best ways to facilitate online fan communities
METHODOLOGY
SURVEYS
Hypotheses testing requires quantitative analysis

Surveys are one way of doing this



Easy to distribute and analyse

Responses are standardised, so are easy to compare

Allow a wide sample of people to be reached necessary
as research needs to be representative of a chosen
population (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009)










Can be delivered in person, online over the phone, etc.
SELF COMPLETION QUESTIONNAIRE
Type of survey that respondents complete themselves

Dillman (2007): Self completion questionnaires are less
prone to result in data which is affected by the social
desirability bias.



Participants respond in a way that they believe will make them
look good affects the validity and reliability of results
How accurately does the data
represent reality? Are there
many errors in data collection?
If the investigation is repeated,
how similar will the results be to
the original results?
BRAND CATEGORIES
Brands that result in online communities being created
for them:

Books

TV shows

Music

Anime

Video games
Heavily influence
consumer culture:

Relevant to todays
population


BRANDS WITHIN EACH CATEGORY
How chosen:

Different genres represent the diversity
within each brand category

Current = relevant to the respondents

Reflect the views of modern consumers.
SURVEY DESIGN
Created and distributed online

Can use SurveyGizmo, SurveyMonkey, or other online
programmes

Existing templates prevent cramping and low response
rate (Dillman, 2007)

Can export results to data analysis programmes like
SPSS

Statistical analysis and graphical output






5 surveys 1 for each category

Four to eight pages in length (de Vaus 2002).

First page = introduction - purpose and contents of the
questionnaire (Dillman, 2007).

Online respondents = fear of information being traced
(Thompson and Surface, 2007). Clearly state anonymity
and option to discontinue survey at any time.

Ethics: over 18 and consent given to participate.


Additional ethics form in appendices
MEASURING CBBE IN DIFFERENT BRAND CATEGORIES
Adapted from Yoo and Donthu (2001): five point scale used,
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Eg: book category


2) Regarding the book you have selected above, please answer the following
questions

Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
I would not recommend the
book to my friends

I will most likely read the next
book in the series

The written quality of the
book is high

The book is not better than
other books in the market

I can easily recall the
characters and places in the
book

It is difficult to imagine the
front cover of the book

The book does not have a
unique story

I consider the book to be
special


Loyalty
Perceived
quality
Brand
awareness
Brand
associations
(uniqueness)
WHAT ARE THE RED DOTS?
Measure the same thing, but are alternate form questions
(Mitchell, 1996).

Asking the same question in a different way = improved
reliability

If a respondents results are not consistent = ignore that
questionnaire

Reverse coded, ie: when analysing data, strongly agree
gets a score of 1 instead of 5

Questionnaires for other brand categories: words slightly
altered, eg: book character becomes video game
character
MEASURING ONLINE PLATFORM POPULARITY
6 platforms rated on a 5 point scale

How often do you use the following fan communities for
the book?









If none selected, move onto demographic info
Section B this section contains questions about online fan communities.
(Please note: an online fan community refers to any community created by fans
which is for other fans to engage with online. It does not refer to official websites or
author blogs).

1) Please select how often you use the online fan communities for your chosen book.

Less than
monthly
Monthly A few
times a
month
Weekly A few
times a
week
Facebook
Twitter
LiveJournal
Online Forum
Fan Website
GoogleGroup
No, I have not joined any

MEASURING DISCOVERY METHOD POPULARITY
How did you first find out about online fan communities
for the book?

2) How did you first find out about online fan communities for the book? (Please
tick one option only)






Searched the web
Saw links on the author/publisher website
Met people involved in them at a convention
A friend told me
Were mentioned in newsletters by the
author/publisher

MEASURING MOTIVATIONS FOR JOINING THE
COMMUNITIES
What motivated you to join an online fan community for the book?

7 options 5 point scale (based on Ridings and Gefen, 2004)

3) What motivated you to join an online fan community for the book?

Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Wanted to chat to other fans
Wanted to read the latest
news

Wanted to be involved in
conventions

Wanted to be a part of fan
projects (eg: release party/
letter to author, etc.)

Wanted to browse the
pictures

Wanted to share artwork
and stories

Wanted to compete for
giveaways


Information
exchange
Friendship
seeking
Recreation
Social support
MEASURING THE POPULARITY OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
What would you like to see more or less of when on an online
fan community for the book?

7 activities 5 point scale

5) What would you like to see more or less of when on an online fan community for
the book?

A lot
less
A bit
less
No
change
A bit
more
A lot
more
Chatting options
News articles
Convention information and
opportunities

Fan projects (eg: release party/
letter to author, etc.)

Pictures
Artwork and stories
Giveaways

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
Age
Gender
Nationality

Used to spot trends and make specific recommendations



Explanation of study and email address provided for any
queries (Saunders, Lewis and Thorndike, 2009)

DEBRIEFING AND CONTACT DETAILS
SAMPLE
Convenience sampling used

To target community members post on the communities
themselves

To target non members ask friends/family

120 responses used after analysing data



Minimum 10 people no problems reported


PILOT
FINDINGS
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Canada
6%
China
8%
Taiwan
8%
USA
12%
UK
25%
Italy
2%
Germany
3%
Spain
5%
France
3%
India
5%
Malaysia
6%
Singapore
3%
Japan
5%
Pakistan
2%
Turkey
3%
Nigeria
1%
South Africa
2%
Iran
2%
Bangladesh
1%
Nationality

19 different nationalities

(Muniz and OGuinn
non geographically bound)

Biggest group is UK
may render results more
representative of West



Age


0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Books
TV shows
Games
Anime
Music
24-29
18-23
0 2 4 6 8
Books
TV shows
Games
Anime
Music
30-35
24-29
18-23
Online community members
Non members
Most community
members aged
between 18-23

Non members mostly
aged 24-29

Younger people are
online more = better to
target this age group if
CBBE scores found to
be higher

Gender


0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Books
TV shows
Games
Anime
Music
Female
Male
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Books
TV shows
Games
Anime
Music
Female
Male
Online community members
Non members
Most community
members are female

In categories of anime
and video games,
males responded more

May mean that more
males joined these
communities overall

Reflected in non
community members =
shows a gender
preference in both
brand categories
Group Statistics

on_offline N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
loyalty
dimensi on1
online 120 4.12 .747 .068
offline 120 3.10 .703 .064

CBBE SCORES OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS V. NON MEMBERS
Loyalty






On average,
community members
had higher loyalty
scores than non
members

Is this difference
significant?



1) Look at Levenes test for equality of
variance

2) Conduct a one tailed, independent
sample t-test

3) Look at the P value



TESTING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

1) Levenes test for equality of variance

Greater than 0.05 = significant evidence to accept null
hypothesis that there is no difference between samples

Look at the Equal Variances Assumed row

This is a two tailed test we must conduct a one tailed test





2) One tailed, independent t-test

One tailed = hypothesis stated that community members
will have higher scores than non members.

Had we said community members will have a different
score = two tailed (ie: assumes that score can be higher or
lower)

T-test = compares two means

Independent t-test = both groups (members and non
members) are not related to each other, ie: they do not
affect each other






3) Look at the P value

Not shown in SPSS, but can use Excel (0.000)

Less than 0.05 = significant evidence to reject null
hypothesis

Online community members have significantly higher
loyalty scores than non members

All four dimensions of CBBE showed significantly higher
scores for community members as compared to non
community members

Hypotheses one to five are accepted

WHAT WAS THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE FAN COMMUNITY
DISCOVERY METHOD?
Searching the
web = most
popular method
overall

Newsletters = not
chosen in any
category

Highlights a
possibility for future
facilitation efforts
0 2 4 6 8 10
Books
TV shows
Games
Anime
Music
Word of mouth
Convention
Official website link
Searched the web
WHICH WAS THE MOST POPULAR PLATFORM?






Websites = most popular platform overall

Video game category preferred forums

Consistent with idea of gamers wanting to chat more / discuss
gaming tactics


Category
Platform
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation


Overall
Platform_Facebook 60 1.00 5.00 2.9833 1.14228
Platform_Twitter 60 1.00 3.00 1.5667 .59280
Platform_Livejournal 60 1.00 3.00 1.4333 .56348
Platform_Googlegroups 60 1.00 2.00 1.2333 .42652
Platform_Website 60 3.00 5.00 4.2000 .73184
Platform_Forum 60 1.00 5.00 2.7000 1.51042


Books
Book_Facebook 12 3.00 5.00 3.5000 .67420
Book_Twitter 12 1.00 2.00 1.4167 .51493
Book_Livejournal 12 1.00 2.00 1.4167 .51493
Book_Googlegroups 12 1.00 2.00 1.3333 .49237
Book_Website 12 3.00 5.00 4.3333 .65134
Book_Forum 12 1.00 1.00 1.0000 .00000


Tv Shows
Tv_Facebook 12 3.00 5.00 4.1667 .71774
Tv_Twitter 12 1.00 3.00 1.5833 .66856
Tv_Livejournal 12 1.00 2.00 1.5000 .52223
Tv_Googlegroups 12 1.00 2.00 1.1667 .38925
Tv_Website 12 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .75378
Tv_Forum 12 2.00 3.00 2.4167 .51493


Games
Game_Facebook 12 1.00 3.00 1.5833 .66856
Game_Twitter 12 1.00 3.00 1.7500 .62158
Game_Livejournal 12 1.00 2.00 1.3333 .49237
Game_Googlegroups 12 1.00 2.00 1.3333 .49237
Game_Website 12 3.00 5.00 3.8333 .83485
Game_Forum 12 4.00 5.00 4.5833 .51493


Anime
Anime_Facebook 12 1.00 3.00 2.2500 .62158
Anime_Twitter 12 1.00 2.00 1.5833 .51493
Anime_Livejournal 12 1.00 3.00 1.6667 .77850
Anime_Googlegroups 12 1.00 2.00 1.1667 .38925
Anime_Website 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .79296
Anime_Forum 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .66856


Music
Music_Facebook 12 2.00 4.00 3.4167 .66856
Music_Twitter 12 1.00 4.00 1.6667 .98473
Music_Livejournal 12 1.00 2.00 1.2500 .45227
Music_Googlegroups 12 1.00 2.00 1.1667 .38925
Music_Website 12 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .52223
Music_Forum 12 1.00 2.00 1.4167 .51493

WHAT WAS THE MOST POPULAR MOTIVATION FOR
JOINING THE COMMUNITIES?








Most popular motivation = Getting the latest news

Classified as information exchange (Ridings and Gefen, 2004)

Video games category = most popular as chatting to other members

Classified as social support maybe due to discussing cheats with
members / help with difficult level

Area for focus shows trend within category





Category
Activity
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation



Overall
Chat 60 1.00 5.00 3.3167 1.25538
News 60 3.00 5.00 4.2667 .68561
Convention 60 1.00 5.00 2.0500 1.26792
Project 60 1.00 4.00 1.7333 .82064
Pictures 60 1.00 5.00 3.0667 1.36378
Stories 60 1.00 4.00 2.1500 .98849
Giveaway 60 1.00 5.00 3.6500 .86013
Books
Book_Chat 12 3.00 5.00 3.8333 .57735
Book_News 12 3.00 5.00 4.4167 .66856
Book_Convention 12 1.00 3.00 1.4167 .66856
Book_Project 12 1.00 2.00 1.3333 .49237
Book_Pictures 12 1.00 4.00 1.8333 1.02986
Book_Stories 12 1.00 3.00 1.9167 .66856
Book_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 4.1667 .71774
TV Shows
Tv_Chat 12 3.00 5.00 3.6667 .65134
Tv_News 12 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .42640
Tv_Convention 12 1.00 3.00 1.5000 .67420
Tv_Project 12 1.00 3.00 1.4167 .66856
Tv_Pictures 12 2.00 5.00 3.2500 .86603
Tv_Stories 12 1.00 4.00 2.6667 .77850
Tv_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 3.5833 .66856
Games
Game_Chat 12 4.00 5.00 4.6667 .49237
Game_News 12 3.00 5.00 3.8333 .83485
Game_Convention 12 1.00 3.00 2.0833 .66856
Game_Project 12 1.00 2.00 1.5000 .52223
Game_Pictures 12 1.00 3.00 1.7500 .75378
Game_Stories 12 1.00 2.00 1.4167 .51493
Game_Giveaway 12 1.00 4.00 2.8333 .93744
Anime
Anime_Chat 12 1.00 4.00 2.9167 .90034
Anime_News 12 4.00 5.00 4.5833 .51493
Anime_Convention 12 1.00 5.00 4.0000 1.20605
Anime_Project 12 1.00 4.00 2.5833 .99620
Anime_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 4.4167 .79296
Anime_Stories 12 2.00 4.00 3.3333 .65134
Anime_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 3.9167 .66856
Music
Music_Chat 12 1.00 3.00 1.5000 .67420
Music_News 12 3.00 5.00 4.5000 .67420
Music_Convention 12 1.00 2.00 1.2500 .45227
Music_Project 12 1.00 3.00 1.8333 .71774
Music_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .51493
Music_Stories 12 1.00 3.00 1.4167 .66856
Music_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .75378

WHAT WAS THE MOST POPULAR ACTIVITY?





Most popular activity = giveaways

Classified as recreation

May reflect age group (18 23) = mostly students (low income)


Category
Desired Activity
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation



Overall
More_Chat 60 2.00 5.00 3.5333 .72408
More_News 60 3.00 4.00 3.3667 .48596
More_Convention 60 1.00 5.00 3.5333 1.19981
More_Project 60 2.00 5.00 3.4833 .72467
More_Pictures 60 3.00 5.00 4.0500 .72311
More_Stories 60 3.00 5.00 3.9000 .79618
More_Giveaways 60 3.00 5.00 4.4167 .64550
Books
Book_More_Chat 12 2.00 4.00 3.0833 .66856
Book_More_News 12 3.00 4.00 3.4167 .51493
Book_More_Convention 12 3.00 5.00 3.6667 .77850
Book_More_Project 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .86603
Book_More_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 3.8333 .57735
Book_More_Stories 12 3.00 5.00 4.5000 .67420
Book_More_Giveways 12 4.00 5.00 4.5000 .52223
TV Shows
Tv_More_Chat 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .62158
Tv_More_News 12 3.00 4.00 3.1667 .38925
Tv_More_Convention 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .66856
Tv_More_Project 12 3.00 5.00 3.5833 .66856
Tv_More_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 4.5833 .66856
Tv_More_Stories 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .79296
Tv_More_Giveaways 12 3.00 5.00 4.3333 .65134
Games
Game_More_Chat 12 3.00 4.00 3.2500 .45227
Game_More_News 12 3.00 4.00 3.5000 .52223
Game_More_Convention 12 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .73855
Game_More_Project 12 3.00 5.00 3.3333 .65134
Game_More_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .75378
Game_More_Stories 12 3.00 5.00 3.4167 .66856
Game_More_Giveaways 12 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .75378
Anime
Anime_More_Chat 12 3.00 5.00 3.8333 .83485
Anime_More_News 12 3.00 4.00 3.4167 .51493
Anime_More_Convention 12 3.00 5.00 4.2500 .86603
Anime_More_Project 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .62158
Anime_More_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 4.0000 .73855
Anime_More_Stories 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .86603
Anime_More_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 4.4167 .66856
Music
Music_More_Chat 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .75378
Music_More_News 12 3.00 4.00 3.3333 .49237
Music_More_Convention 12 1.00 3.00 1.6667 .65134
Music_More_Project 12 2.00 4.00 3.0000 .60302
Music_More_Pictures 12 3.00 5.00 4.0833 .66856
Music_More_Stories 12 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .62158
Music_More_Giveaway 12 3.00 5.00 4.5833 .66856

DISCUSSION
HIGHER CBBE SCORES
Results were statistically significant = worthwhile to facilitate
such communities

Respondents:
Claimed to recommend brand to friends (WOM) = less
advertising costs + more opportunity to invest in other business
areas (eg; R+D, brand extension, etc)

Mohammed et al (2004): Online communities can reduce the
cost of acquiring new customers and significantly reduce
marketing costs

Bought/ watched/ played product = immediate profit

Interested in future activities of brand (next episode/ CD/
game) = sustainability

IS IT WORTHWHILE TO FACILITATE SUCH COMMUNITIES?
Yes! Provide a ready base of consumers who are ready and willing
to support brand

Not currently targeted opportunity to engage valuable segment

Mohammed et al (2004): online communities can build goodwill
and improve the relationship that the community members have
with the brand, through the mutual building of trust and
commitment

Supported by Morgan and Hunt (1994), who state that both trust
and commitment are key factors in maintaining a successful,
ongoing relationship = susainability


Relationship marketing
Communities can lower customer service costs for information
on brand specifics, such as price and quality.

Supported by Hagel and Armstrong (1977): What starts off
being a group drawn together by common interests, ends up
being a group with a critical mass of purchasing power-based
in part on the fact that in communities, members can exchange
information with each other on such things as a products price
and quality.

Facilitating existing communities online = saves considerable
costs required to maintain and host the community online.

Mohammed et al (2004): Can form focus groups for testing new
brand ideas = another cost benefit


HOW SHOULD BRANDS HELP COMMUNITIES GET DISCOVERED?
Most popular overall = searching the web, followed by word of
mouth.

Least popular = newsletters

Reveals a major gap in the promotion of online fan communities

Recommendation: use official newsletters and mailing lists to
promote trusted and reliable online fan communities

Provides cost and revenue benefits, eg: product and price info,
focus groups (Mohammed et al, 2004)

Improves relationship between brand and community = more
loyalty profit + sustainability

Marcomm area: PR as it involves endorsing the fan
communities.

HOW CAN BRANDS MOTIVATE CONSUMERS TO JOIN
COMMUNITIES?
Most popular = getting the latest news (classified as
information exchange)

Video games = chatting to other members (classified as
social support)

Gaming advice and strategy discussion = needs less
dynamism

Recommendation: focus on releasing timely information
to fan communities build a strong relationship to create
loyalty, trust and commitment

Marcomm area: PR as it engages the fans with the
brand



Secondary motivation for joining varies between the type
of online community (supported (Ridings and Gefen,
2004)

Books = competing for giveaways (recreation)

TV show = chatting to other members (social support)

Video games = getting the latest news (information
exchange

Anime and music = browsing the pictures and videos
(recreation)

Recreation = second most popular motivation overall for
joining online fan communities, as three of the five
categories rated it thus.


Book recommendation: Offer advanced reader copies
(ARCs) as giveaways to community members who successfully
compete in quizzes about the book in question.

Quizzes can be focused on key events and characters in the
book = increase brand awareness and increase the likelihood
of readers buying further books within the same series.

Keller (1993) supports: Likelihood of purchase increases with
increased brand awareness = likely to increase brand loyalty
as well.

de Chernatony and McDonald (1992): Perception of quality
rises when a brand is known and liked by consumers =
competitive edge

Marcomms area: promotions
Anime/ music recommendation: collaborate with
community creators, to provide behind the scenes
pictures and videos, eg: of concert preparation footage, or
the animation and voice over process

Marcomm area: PR as it engages fans and builds
goodwill WOM, loyalty, positive associations = profit,
sustainability, cost and revenue benefits

Video game recommendation: offer breaking news
updates, as they favour getting the latest news.

Marcomm area: PR as it would involve providing the
latest news about the game to loyal fans


TV show recommendation: arrange for the actors,
directors or producers of the shows to hold special chat
sessions with community members.

Marcomms area: PR as it builds goodwill.

May also improve brand associations, by helping the
brand to be considered unique and desirable (Keller,
2003).


WHICH PLATFORMS SHOULD BRANDS FACILITATE?
Most popular = websites, followed by Facebook

May be due to ability to host pictures, videos, discussion
boards, announcements etc.

GoogleGroups (least popular overall) = limited, mostly
discussions and announcements (less dynamic)

Recommendation: focus primarily on websites and
Facebook pages when choosing online fan communities to
collaborate with.


Video games = forums were most popular

Mostly discussion based

Reflects motivation for joining gaming communities
(chatting to other members)

Categorised as social support - primarily about solving
problems and asking others for advice (Ridings and
Gefen, 2004)

Discussions regarding strategy advice for difficult levels

Recommendation: focus on forums in gaming fan
communities



WHICH ACTIVITIES SHOULD BRANDS FACILITATE?
Most popular = competing for giveaways.

Most members = 18 23

Supported by Putnam (2000): Younger generations are less
inclined to engage in real life community activities, and may thus
be more likely to engage in online community activities

Students = low disposable income, thus particularly interested in
giveaways related to their favoured brand

Recommendation: facilitate communities by providing
merchandise/ freebies as giveaways to fans

Marcomm area: promotion and PR as its free for the consumer
and builds goodwill, positive associations loyalty + profit +
sustainability + WOM (less costs, more revenue)




TV shows = browsing pictures and videos followed by
giveaways

Books = tie between giveaways and browsing fan stories/fan art.

Thus simple giveaway may not be enough for some brand
categories = requires tie-in with the other activities

Book Recommendation: link giveaway prize to competitions
requiring community members to submit fan art/fan stories.

TV shows recommendation: make the giveaway prize a signed
photograph or video message from the stars of the show.

Both primary and secondary desired activities can be addressed
at once.

Marcomm area: promotions and PR

Games = giveaways followed by more opportunities to get
involved in conventions (friendship seeking)

Recommendation: make the giveaway prize a ticket to a
popular gaming convention, eg: Electronic Entertainment
Expo (E3)

Meet people, test new games, browse new consoles

Marcomm area: promotions and PR



FURTHER RESEARCH
Wider sample

More respondents within each category = more
representative of community member preferences

More countries = see if certain countries have different
preferences (currently focused on West)

Helps brand mangers to target such communities for future
facilitation.

More brand categories

Eg: clothing/ food


More classifications

Study brands as organisations/ symbols

Eg: environmentally friendly organisations (Ben and
Jerrys/ Innocent Smoothies)

Motivation for joining such communities may be linked
to personal values and beliefs

Supported by Sirgys self congruence theory


Age group
Survey younger age groups

Eg: teenage and lucrative tween market.

People up to the age of fourteen, who collectively
comprise a spending power of over two billion in the
Unites States alone (Research and Markets, 2009).

May prefer certain brands and certain activities over
others


Change in revenue

Compare before and after facilitating communities

Compare facilitated v. non facilitated communities for
same brand or in same category