Engagement valence duality and spillover effects in online brand communities

Abstract

Purpose Online brand communities (OBCs) are an effective avenue for brands to engage consumers. While engaging with the brand, consumers simultaneously interact with other OBC members; thus engaging with multiple, interrelated engagement objects concurrently. The purpose of this paper is to explore both positively and negatively valenced consumer engagement with multiple engagement objects, the interplay between these, and the spillover effect from consumers’ engagement with the OBC to their engagement with the brand. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on 16 in-depth interviews with OBC members of a luxury accessory brand, a constant comparative method was adopted using axial and selective coding procedures. The objective was to understand the nature of participants’ engagement with the brand, the OBC, and the interplay between individuals’ engagement with these objects. The coding framework and resultant interpretive frameworks address engagement valence, outcomes, and direction. Findings This study illustrates consumer expressions of consumers’ positively and negatively valenced engagement with a focal brand, and with the OBC. Further, it demonstrates the interplay (spillover effect) that occurs between consumers’ engagement with the OBC, to their engagement with the brand. While the existence of positively valenced engagement with the OBC was found to further enhance consumer brand engagement (i.e. reflecting an engagement accumulation effect), negatively valenced engagement with the OBC was found to reduce consumer brand engagement (i.e. reflecting an engagement detraction effect). Originality/value While consumer engagement has been recognized to have both positive and negative manifestations, this study demonstrates that consumers’ engagement valence may differ across interrelated engagement objects (i.e. the brand and the OBC). Further, we demonstrate the existence of engagement spillover effects from the OBC to the brand for both positively and negatively valenced engagement.

Conceptualizing negatively valenced influencing behavior: forms and triggers

“…Despite its influencing power and relationship to key outcomes for firms such as loyalty, lifetime, and shareholder value (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014;Van Doorn et al, 2010;Verleye, Gemmel and Rangarajan, 2014), the majority of studies address positively valenced CEB; thus largely overlooking the negative side and its ensuing implications (Bowden et al, 2017;Hollebeek and Chen, 2014;McColl-Kennedy et al, 2015).…”

“…Additionally, apart from a recent study that identified cognitive (subjectivity) and emotional (irritation and community intimacy) triggers of community engagement (Heinonen, 2017), the majority of existing studies on the negative valence of engagement have identified only emotional triggers, such as hatred, anger and stress, towards a service provider, brand or firm (e.g. Bowden et al, 2017;Juric, Smith and Wilks, 2016;Naumann et al, 2017).…”

“…Hence, influencing behavior may affect attitude and intentions of other customers towards these providers (Bolton and Drew, 1991;Bowden et al, 2017;Oliver, 1980). Favorable/unfavorable customer experiences emerge when customers are exposed to events that have physical, perceptual, affective and cognitive aspects that they recognise, interpret and respond to (McKnight and Sechrest, 2003).…”

“…Specifically, negatively valenced influencing behavior (NVIB) which is expected to have potentially detrimental impacts being contagious and viral in nature (Bowden et al, 2017). However, despite its potentially detrimental effects, research is skewed towards positively valenced while understanding NVIB remains scant in literature, especially empirically, and specifically regarding its forms and triggers Van Doorn et al, 2010).…”

Epilogue – service innovation actor engagement: an integrative model

“…more variable) service innovation actor engagement (SIAE) facets. In addition, we distinguish between these actors' positively (vs. negatively) valenced service innovation engagement expressions (Bowden et al, 2017;Hollebeek and Chen, 2014;Alexander et al, 2018), which are synthesized in a conceptual model.…”