No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to introduce the concept of storygiving as a co-creation tool and provides a guideline for its successful use by luxury brand managers. Design/methodology/approach A study of Tiffany and Co.’s social media-based site and its use of stories as co-created marketing content provides us with managerial strategies applicable to luxury brands in general. The authors emphasize how luxury brands deal with co-created brand images compared to mainstream brands. Findings Storygiving enables consumers to share their personal experiences through narratives and provides contextualized connections among community members through shared experiences. One successful example of storygiving is Tiffany & Co.’s ‘What Makes Love True’ campaign. Research limitations/implications Only one luxury brand was used in this case study of online co-creation and storygiving. Further research, especially comparative case studies, would expand understanding of brand image management in the age of social media and consumer empowerment. Practical implications This paper presents a strategic guideline for luxury brand managers highlighting a customer-centric insight into ways luxury brands can develop marketing strategies incorporating co-creation. Originality/value To differentiate it from storytelling, the co-creation of brand stories through consumer-generated content is known as storygiving. The use of social media marketing in the process of storygiving is a powerful tool for luxury brands. The changed narrative from the brand’s point of view to that of the brand’s community is a major point made in this research.

Social media provide consumers with a platform for interactivity, and interactivity leads to consumer empowerment by providing the consumer with a platform to make their voice heard. This paper contributes to the marketing literature exploring the voice of the consumer in consumer-generated advertisements (CGAs). The objective of this research is to find ways to measure consumer response to CGAs. We measure whether they differ from firm-generated ads in the responses they elicit and also observe whether they generate different responses by ad type, or if some categories have similar responses. We review CGAs for Apple's MacBook Air lightweight laptop and run a text mining application to understand the common themes and conduct text analysis on the responses to both CGAs and firm-generated ads to answer the question "Is the source of the advertisement important?" Text analytics also enable us to measure consumers' attitude toward products, companies, and ads. We then work toward understanding why and under what circumstances CGAs are effective and how companies may handle or foster different types of CGAs.

No abstract

Purpose Privacy considerations have become a topic with increasing interest from academics, industry leaders and regulators. In response to consumers’ privacy concerns, Google announced in 2020 that Chrome would stop supporting third-party cookies in the near future. At the same time, advertising technology companies are developing alternative solutions for online targeting and consumer privacy controls. This paper aims to explore privacy considerations related to online tracking and targeting methods used for programmatic advertising (i.e. third-party cookies, Privacy Sandbox, Unified ID 2.0) for a variety of stakeholders: consumers, AdTech platforms, advertisers and publishers. Design/methodology/approach This study analyzes the topic of internet user privacy concerns, through a multi-pronged approach: industry conversations to collect information, a comprehensive review of trade publications and extensive empirical analysis. This study uses two methods to collect data on consumer preferences for privacy controls: a survey of a representative sample of US consumers and field data from conversations on web-forums created by tech professionals. Findings The results suggest that there are four main segments in the US internet user population. The first segment, consisting of 26% of internet users, is driven by a strong preference for relevant ads and includes consumers who accept the premises of both Privacy Sandbox and Unified ID (UID) 2.0. The second segment (26%) includes consumers who are ambivalent about both sets of premises. The third segment (34%) is driven by a need for relevant ads and a strong desire to prevent advertisers from aggressively collecting data, with consumers who accept the premises of Privacy Sandbox but reject the premises of UID 2.0. The fourth segment (15% of consumers) rejected both sets of premises about privacy control. Text analysis results suggest that the conversation around UID 2.0 is still nascent. Google Sandbox associations seem nominally positive, with sarcasm being an important factor in the sentiment analysis results. Originality/value The value of this paper lies in its multi-method examination of online privacy concerns in light of the recent regulatory legislation (i.e. General Data Protection Regulation and California Consumer Privacy Act) and changes for third-party cookies in browsers such as Firefox, Safari and Chrome. Two alternatives proposed to replace third-party cookies (Privacy Sandbox and Unified ID 2.0) are in the proposal and prototype stage. The elimination of third-party cookies will affect stakeholders, including different types of players in the AdTech industry and internet users. This paper analyzes how two alternative proposals for privacy control align with the interests of several stakeholders.