Individual Essay - 2nd assessment PDF

Preview

Summary

2nd assessment...

Description

“Social media has enabled and accelerated the social construction of brand meaning. Are all brand communications (consumer, organization or other originated) within this environment authentic, and trustworthy? Discuss." Social Media In recent years, the presence of social media has empowered the consumers to participate in the brand communication process (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2010). Marketers are no longer the sole creators of the brand meaning but became a part of the brand meaning co-creation ecosystem (Vallaster & Von Wallpach 2013). Social media can be defined as “digital communication and information channels in which active consumers engage in behaviors that can be consumed by others both in real time and long afterwards regardless of their spatial location” (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2010, p. 312). Examples of social media may include Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and MySpace (Ghosh, Varshney, & Venugopal 2014). Social media websites create the platforms for users to “create, publish and share content and information with others” (Ghosh, Varshney, & Venugopal 2014, p. 294). Marketers and consumers all take parts in the process of brand message co-creation, and consumers are free to add their own stories to the brand message without any restrictions. This has led to the debate of whether the brand communications travel within social media are authentic and trustworthy. This essay aims to explain how social media has enabled and accelerated the social construction of brand meaning with regards to the pinball theory (Hennig-Thurau, Hofacker & Bloching 2010) and Brand meaning co-creation (Rosenthal & Brito 2017). Then it will evaluate the authenticity and trustworthiness of brand communications within social media by analyzing the factors of Online Brand Communities and Word of Mouth. Since the rise of social media, communication between consumers and marketers has changed from a one-way relationship to multidirectional, consumer-to-consumer communication (Hennig-Thurau, Hofacker & Bloching 2010; Berthon, Pitt, & Campbell 2008). Suggested by Hennig-Thurau, Hofacker & Bloching (2010), traditional marketing resembles a game of bowling in which marketers deliver the intended brand message (ball) directly to the consumers (pins) through the mass media channels (alley) in a one-directional manner. Consumers did not take part in the process of brand message creation. When social media arrived, marketing now resembles a pinball game (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2013). Consumers are empowered to share their opinions and experience on certain products with others within the online brand communities. The brand message (ball) might be sent out by marketers, however, it does not stop when striking the target consumers (bumpers and slingshots), instead it slows, accelerates or diverts from one to another carrying additional, opiniated information from consumers through different social media platforms (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2013). The message travels from the brand or the consumer and resonate with other consumers then come back to the brand as a form of consumer insight, thus, co-creating the meaning of the brand (Rosenthal & Brito 2017). Co-creation, the "function of interaction" (Gronroos & Voima 2013, p. 133), is one of the significant factors which directly affect the social construct of brand meaning in the modern days. Brands now have Facebook pages where fans could interact with the brand and each other and participate the iterative process of brand meaning co-creation through the comment function on the brand posts (Rosenthal & Brito 2017). For example, Nike’s Facebook page ‘Nike Run’ acts as a space for the online brand community to communicate and resonate with others of the same interests (Rosenthal & Brito 2017). By having the convenient, interactive, real time and free co-creation platform, social media encourages consumers to participate in the process of brand meaning co-creation. Thus, it enables and accelerates the social construction of brand meaning. However, the brand communications within social media is vulnerable to alterations and exaggerations. In certain situations, brand communications on social media can be authentic and trustworthy. Authenticity in terms of brand communication can be defined as “whether the message itself is perceived as a realistic and genuine

representation of a real-life scenario” (Orazi & Newton 2018 p. 2225). To understand whether brand communications within social media are authentic and trustworthy, evaluations of constructs such as online brand communities and online word of mouth is imperative. Online Brand Community (OBC) An online brand community (OBC) is “a specialized, non- geographically bound community based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand” (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001, p. 412). Members within the OBCs share similar values and product consumption interests, and consumer engagement is encouraged within the communities (Chang, Hsieh &Tseng 2013). In OBCs, members resonate with each other and the brand strongly and exhibits shared consciousness (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001) which build a trust bond among the members. In these online brand communities, consumers are willing to support, learn and share information with other members about the brand (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas 2015). Communications within the OBCs are considered to be authentic and trustworthy, as explained by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001), the members respect and appreciate the features of the brand, they have moral responsibility within the community and sincere devotion towards the brand. For example, after the Toyota recall of vehicles in 2009 due to defects, Toyota car owners made their voice be heard within the OBC, they reviewed their positive experiences with Toyota preventing its high-quality brand image from demolition. (Chang, Hsieh & Tseng 2013). This implies that there is trust within the community, consumers believe and take other members’ story/review under considerations when analysing a brand. In addition, communications within the OBCs are composed by the genuine, devoted, and appreciative consumers, it can be assumed that this information would return to the brand as feedback, contributing the brand meaning co-creation process. Thus, adding authenticity to future brand communications. Online Word of Mouth (eWOM) eWOM, can be defined as “internet-mediated written communications between current or potential consumers” (You, Vadakkepatt & Joshi 2015, p. 19). eWOM usually consists of personal experience and opinions that can be either negative or positive on speficic topics in written form, and unlike traditional word of mouth, consumers are able to read the message at their own pace and publicly via the Internet (Hennig-Thureu et al. 2004; You, Vadakkepatt & Joshi 2015). eWOM within OBCs are considered to be credible and trustworthy because the composers are also consumers who have no obligations to contribute to the profit of the product (Bickart & Schindler 2001), thus, making them less likely to be bias. In regard to marketing uses, eWOM could be used as consumer insights about actual consumer needs and wants, problems and experience (Antorini & MuEiz (2013) to contribute to the brand meaning co-creation process. According to Antorini & MuEiz (2013), the LEGO website allows their customers to design their own LEGO. To stimulate consumer engagements , “A motivational state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a brand) in focal brand relationships” (Brodie et al. 2011, cited in Hollebeek, Glynn& Brodie 2014, p. 151), they let other consumers participate in the decision process through voting for the design. When the design reaches 10,000 votes, LEGO would review and consider producing (Antorini & MuEiz 2013). Once the product is commercialized the designer would also have 1% of total net sale (Antorini & MuEiz 2013). Not only consumers get to design their own LEGO design and sound their demands, they also get paid for doing so. This is a win-win situation for company as it also benefits in terms of consumer insights, from the votes and the designs the company could analyse and produce products that meet the expectation of their customers. There is nothing more authentic, genuine, and trustworthy than getting insights directly from consumers who love the brand and voluntarily define their demands without any bias. In addition, it creates a more sincere brand image for LEGO when they are perceived as the brand that actually listen to

their customers. This implies that regarding to brand communications within social media platforms, there exist authencity and trustworthiness to an extent. However, eWOM has the potential to change the “intensity and even meaning of the original message in numerous possible ways” (Labrecque et al. 2013, cited in Hennig-Thurau, Hofacker & Bloching 2010 p. 238) and it can be argued that paid eWOM could potentially affect the authenticity of brand communications. According to a research by the Social Shopping Study, only 57% of shoppers trust online reviews of brands (Kim, Kandampully & Bilgihan 2018). This can be explained by the anonymity nature of eWOM, information is not certain to be credible or reliable and hired writers reviewing brands or defaming competitions is an example of that (Kim, Kandampully & Bilgihan 2018). To be a credible eWOM, source credibility is considered, source credibility is the implication that “a communicator's positive characteristics that affect the receiver's acceptance of a message.” (Kim, Kandampully & Bilgihan 2018, p. 246) and only when a person is perceived to be an expert then his/her source is considered to be credible. (Brown, Broderick & Lee 2007). This implies that in certain situations, eWOM on OBCs would lack authenticity and trustworthiness. In conclusion, the presence of social media has significantly changed the way marketing functions. The social construction of brand meaning has enabled and accelerated by social media from the freedom, innovative, real-time, multidirectional, direct and interactive features it offers. This new way of creating brand meaning has improve the quality of data in terms of consumer insights and contribute greatly to how companies can supply the real, authentic demands to consumers. However, as of everything in nature, imperfection is inevitable, there are certain situations where brand communication is manipulated and loses its authenticity and obstruct the path of brand meaning creation. It is recommended that branded communications within social media is analysed before taken into considerations.

References Berthon, P, Pitt, L & Campbell, C 2008, “Ad lib: when customers create the ad”, California Management Review, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 6–30. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_sage_s10_2307_41166454 Bickart, B & Schindler, RM 2001, “Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 31–40. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1002_dir_1014 Brown, J, Broderick, AJ & Lee, N 2007, “Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 2–20. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1002_dir_20082 Chang, A, Hsieh, SH & Tseng, TH 2013, “Online brand community response to negative brand events: the role of group eWOM”, Internet Research, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 486–506. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_emerald_s10.1108/IntR-06-2012-0107 Daugherty, T, Eastin, MS & Bright, L 2008, “Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 16–25. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_informaworld_s10_1080_15252019_2008_1072 2139 Dessart, L, Veloutsou, C & Morgan-Thomas, A 2015, “Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 28–42. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_emerald_s10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635 Ghosh, A, Varshney, S & Venugopal, P 2014, “Social media WOM: definition, consequences and interrelationships”, Management and Labour Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 293–308. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_sage_s10_1177_0258042X15577899 Hennig-Thurau, T, Hofacker, CF & Bloching, B 2013, “Marketing the pinball way: understanding how social media change the generation of value for consumers and companies”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 237–241. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_intmar_2013_09_005 Hennig-Thurau, T, Gwinner, KP, Walsh, G, Gremler, DD 2004, ‘Electronic word-of-mouth via consumeropinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 38–52. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1002_dir_10073 Hollebeek, LD, Glynn, MS & Brodie, RJ 2014, “Consumer brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 149–165.

https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_intmar_2013_12_002 Kaplan, AM & Haenlein, M 2010, “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 59–68. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_bushor_2009_09_003 Kim, S, Kandampully, J & Bilgihan, A 2018, “The influence of eWOM communications: an application of online social network framework”, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 80, pp. 243–254. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_chb_2017_11_015 Muniz, A, Jr & O’guinn, T 2001, “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 412–432. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_jstor_csp10.1086/319618 Orazi, DC & Newton, FJ 2018, “Collaborative authenticity”, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 2215–2231. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_emerald_s10.1108/EJM-10-2016-0610 Roma, P & Aloini, D 2019, “How does brand-related user-generated content differ across social media? Evidence reloaded”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 96, pp. 322–339. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_jbusres_2018_11_055 Rosenthal, B & Brito, EPZ 2017, “The brand meaning co-creation process on Facebook”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 923–936. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_emerald_s10.1108/MIP-09-2016-0171 Vallaster, C & Von Wallpach, S 2013, “An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multistakeholder brand meaning co-creation”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 1505–1515. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_elsevier_sdoi_10_1016_j_jbusres_2012_09_012 You, Y, Vadakkepatt, GG & Joshi, AM 2015, “A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity”, Journal of marketing, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 19–39. https://multisearch.mq.edu.au/permalink/f/1lmkbbh/TN_gbv822379953...