Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology

BBA - BS PROJECT REPORT

“THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING ON BRAND LOYALTY”

HAFIZ HUZAIFA ANWAR

61723

Project submitted to Karachi Institute Of Economics And

Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of bachelor’s in business administration

SUPERVISOR
Naeem Bhojani

Department of Business Administration

KARACHI INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY
24TH APRIL 2021

I
 Dedication

I want to dedicate this work to my family, especially my Parent/Brother/

Sister, who gave me constant inspiration and guiding force to pursue the
highest educational achievement level.

II
 Acknowledgments

Firstly, I am very grateful to Almighty Allah for completing this study, which enabled me

to do something on the topic.

Secondly, my special thanks to my supervisor Naeem Bhojani, as he has guided me step by

step in all areas, and without his/her guidance, this study could not have been completed.

I am grateful to the teachers and staff of PAF-KIET as it was their guidance and inspiration

that helped me to go through with the procedure of the different research levels.

My parents and family members have offered continued support, encouragement, and love

as I progressed through this process.

After that, this study has been finalized through the efforts, motivations, and inspirations of

many, and I am personally grateful to all who have helped me during this study as it would

not have been possible without their valuable participation.

Hafiz Huzaifa Anwar

24th April 2021

III
ABSTRACT
Purpose- The purpose of this study is to identify the impact of social media marketing on
brand loyalty by using various platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, Instagram,
WhatsApp and YouTube.

Design/methodology/approach – This study is done through the deductive method and

quantitative approach. The data was collected by social media users to find the impact of
social media marketing on brand loyalty.

Findings – The findings of this study shows that brand loyalty has strong impact on
perceived quality, brand awareness, brand equity and brand association.

Practical implications – The overall social media industry can utilize these findings to
increase their profitability ratio so, that the users can get better benefits, ultimately this
industry can increase the contribution towards GDP.

Originality/value – This study surely is the very first that have focused on different social
media platforms to find the impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty. This study
is done by running different tests which includes descriptive statistics, correlations matrix,
regression results and diagnostic results to find the accuracy and reliability of the factors.

Keywords Social media platforms, social networking, brand loyalty, perceived quality,
brand awareness, brand equity, brand association

IV
 Table of Contents

S.NO PARTICULARS PG #
.
1 Background 1
2 Introduction 1-3
3 Literature review 3
4 Theoretical background 4-6
5 Conceptual framework 6-7
6 Research theory structure 7
7 Methodology 8-10
8 Results and discussion 10-13
9 Conclusion 13-14
10 References 15-18

V
VI
 1. BACKGROUND:

The rapidly evolving information revolution it would have a huge effect on the economy.
Most traditional business practices (one of them marketing activities) are being migrated
into the artificial world , new ways of business are evolving, and the array of means of
contact with consumers in the virtual world is also increasing (Sabaitytė & Davidavičienė,
2018). The significance of recognizing the past of SMM is not only the growth of the sites,
but rather how they provide consumers with something special and give companies an
unique but often disruptive form of advertisement. the utilisation of the internet and social
media had already altered market trends and the aspects in which firms run their
businesses. Social and digital marketing presents great facilities to corporations via low
premiums, greater recognition of the brand and growing revenue (Dwivedi et al., 2020).
The strong customer relationship attached to a specific commodity is brand loyalty. Buyers
who show brand loyalty are dedicated to a good or service that, throughout the competitive
endeavours to attract them away, is reflected by the repeated purchasing. Initial perceptions
of brand loyalty concentrate on the psychological approach; the trend of purchasing or the
likelihood of repurchasing (Srinivasan, Anderson, & Ponnavolu, 2002). This study will
show the impact of SMM on brand loyalty. In order to evaluate brand loyalty intention, the
scale validated by Algesheimer et al. (2005) to assess customers’ brand loyalty was used.
This scale is composed of three items and is aimed at measuring a company’s ability to
“reduce the customer’s transaction costs and perceived risk and encourage greater
customer loyalty, functioning as a formidable barrier to market entry” (Walsh, Mitchell,
Jackson, & Beatty, 2009, p. 193). Respondents were asked to rate their level of brand
loyalty intention towards the company following this scale.

2. INTRODUCTION:

Social media marketing is the application of digital advertising technologies of services

intended to impact the proactive actions of the target group to promote the distinctive well-
being and that of  the class over which they belongs (Andreasen, 1994). For billions of
people, the Web, social media, smart phone apps, and other new networking tools are
becoming part of daily life of people, across the globe. Recent figures for January, in 2020,
4.54 billion people, 59 percent of the world workforce, are active social media users
(Statista, 2020). Social media marketing is targeted to create and combine sales techniques
with other methods to impact behaviours that support the higher social good of society and

1
individuals. The art of social media marketing is governed by moral standards. It intends to
incorporate insight into analysis, best implementation, philosophy, and collaboration, to
encourage the conveyance of competitive and subdivided social services that are
productive, successful, structured and inclusive (Morgan, 2012). Social media has become
a nearly-ubiquitous environment for human interaction. In fact, a recent study by the Pew
Research Center on social media use in the United States found that over 80% of all
Americans use at least one form of social media, and greater than twothirds use Facebook
specifically—more than 75% of whom check their Facebook pages at least once a day
(Smith and Anderson, 2018). Consequently, as social media use becomes increasingly
common, firms seek to reach and interact with current and potential customers through
social media platforms. Trends in marketing budget allocations reflect this important shift;
data suggests that social media spending has increased by nearly 250% in the past ten
years, with analysts expecting even more growth as firms seek to capitalize on the unique
opportunities presented by social media (CMO Survey, 2018). One area of particular
growing interest for marketers is using personalized advertisements based on customers’
specific personal preferences, prior purchase histories, demographics, and recent searches
on the Internet (Li, 2016). Personalized ads allow producers to engage consumers in just
such a manner—on a personal level with the aim of developing a more effective
relationship and better meeting consumers’ needs. The effectiveness of personalization is
well-documented in traditional media such as direct mail (Baek and Morimoto, 2012),
telemarketing (Yu and Cude, 2009), mobile messaging (Xu, 2006), and website ad
personalization (Awad and Krishnan, 2006; Ho and Bodoff, 2014), but little is known
about the effects of personalization in social media given its recent emergence and the
disruptiveness of social media as compared to more traditional channels (Baird and
Parasnis, 2011). More precisely, while prior work on personalization in traditional
marketing channels reveals increases in brand engagement and attachment, and
consequently in perceived quality and brand loyalty, scholarship investigating these effects
in social media is needed given the different nature of the online environment. For
instance, social media is a more intimate setting than traditional channels like direct mail or
telemarketing as the customer is able to interact directly with the ad and the company, and
because many customers utilize social media frequently throughout the day creating an
enhanced opportunity to build a customer relationship (Sashi, 2012). Further, results
among emerging scholarship in this area have yet to paint a consistent picture with their
findings. For instance, while some work suggests personalizing web browsing experiences

2
increases sales (Oberoi et al., 2017), personalization on Facebook can engender brand
avoidance when users become skeptical of the personalization (Tran, 2017). In other
words, the intimate nature of social media may make consumers more resistant to
personalization when they view it as invasive.

The introduction of social media has modified the marketing process dramatically. This
rapidly developing social media marketing platform, which  n has been revolutionised by
2.77 billion internet users worldwide.  These are the new ways for businesses to meet,
connect and associate with consumers. Corporations spend in technology to boost their
social media reach, and advertisers plan to increase social media investment by 71 percent
of the advertising budgets over the next 5 years (Ebrahim, 2019). SMM is an enhancement
to conventional media. Digital marketing engagement tools (Tuten, 2020), that track and
promote consumer contacts, partnerships and experiences with, and enable their
engagement with, the organisation, its brands and other clients. It also determines the
impression of consumers on the social media site of the company's various marketing
efforts (Yadav & Rahman, 2018). In the light of social media, user reactions to different
forms of media are relationships which are concerned to confidence; this plays a major part
in the delivery of the effect of online operations and the translation of equity and
loyalty efforts by promoters (Tatar & Eren-Erdoğmuş, 2016; Warner-Søderholm et al.,
2018). Internet and SMM enables businesses to accomplish their promotional goals at
moderately low prices (Ajina, 2019).

Marketing people are very keen to know about, coordinate, and encourage brand networks
(McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002; Zhou, Zhang, Su, & Zhou, 2012), that involve
a variety of relations and interactions between individuals who value a brand (Muniz &
O'guinn, 2001). The benefits of understanding consumer expectations of new product
offerings and competitive behaviour are the factors behind such involvement in brand
communities; exploiting incentives to attract and work closely with highly committed
brand customers (Franke & Shah, 2003; McAlexander et al., 2002) affecting the
assessments of participants and quickly distributing actions (Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry Jr,
2003; Muniz Jr & Schau, 2005). Knowledge and, most significantly, the acquisition of a
"holy grail" from loyal customers (Laroche, Habibi, Richard, & Sankaranarayanan, 2012;
McAlexander et al., 2002). Marketing techniques like advertisement and promotions have
been revolutionised by the peculiar features of social media and its massive popularity
(Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011). Social networking also impacted the consumer

3
behaviour from the collection of data of after purchasing activities like; expressions of
disappointment or behaviours (Mangold & Faulds, 2009) and internet use habits (Ross et
al., 2009).

In such a digitalized environment, however, advances concerning marketing theory are

intertwined significantly with technological evolution and sociological changes. As proof
of this, real-world sociological constructs such as brand community—which is a “non-
geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among
admirers of a brand” (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001, p. 412)—are rapidly evolving in a digital
fashion. Due to the diffusion of platforms, a growing number of human interactions are
progressively moving from the real to the online world (Tiago & Veríssimo, 2014). Thus,
offline brand communities are significantly being replaced by SMBBCs, which are brand
communities that exist in the digital environment and are structured on triangular digital
relationships among users, other online users and, often, brand strategists (Habibi et al.,
2014a). Such a form of community, similarly to traditional brand communities, is
characterized by (a) recurrent rituals and common jargons shared by members; (b)
participants’ sense of belonging; and (c)reciprocal respect among members (Muniz &
O’Guinn, 2001).

Marketing as academic discipline and management activity has been the subject of
substantial transformations during the last twenty years. Many scholars and practitioners
agree that some of the old marketing tenets seem to lose ground while the popular in the
60s and 70’s mass marketing approaches become less effective (Brady and Davis, 1993;
Sheth and Sisodia; 1995; Bakos, 1998; Chaffey et. al., 2000; Coviello and Brodie, 2001;
Constantinides, 2006; Court, 2007). Media proliferation, market globalization and the
emergence of a new generation of Information and Communication Technologies – the
Internet being the most prominent of them – are changing the marketing rules and market
dynamics by weakening the corporate competitive position (Porter, 2001) while presenting
individuals with many new opportunities and empowerment (Christopher, 1989; Wind and
Mahajan, 1997; Rha et al, 2002; Bush, 2004, Urban, 2005).

In light of such developments the old debate on the need for a new marketing orientation
has gained new momentum. What seems to emerge is a consensus on the need to re-define
marketing approaches (Constantinides, 2006; Heaton, 2006; Thomas, 2007). Scholars have
argued in the past for a relationship-focused marketing as an alternative marketing

4
approach (Grönroos, 1994, Grönroos, 1997; Kumar, 2004; Gummesson, 2008) while others
suggest a customer-focused paradigm based on openness, engagement, cooperation,
cocreation and propensity to help customers rather than control them (von Hippel and Katz,
2002; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Urban, 2005; Deighton and Konrfeld, 2009). In the
changing marketing context the role of the Internet and especially the developments around
the Web 2.0 era as well the role the Social Media† become crucial. For marketing
strategists, the message is simple: surviving in the age of the empowered customer requires
less dependence on traditional mass-marketing tactics; understanding the role of
technology in shaping the marketplace and more importantly engaging the Social Media as
part of the marketing toolbox becomes a strategic imperative. This paper addresses the
increasing pressure on marketers to adjust their approaches in communicating and
interacting with their customers in the evolving marketing ecosystem where technology
plays an increasingly important role. It reviews the literature and field experiences on the
nature of the Web 2.0 domain, identifies and classifies the possible roles of the Social
Media as marketing parameters and explains their contribution to customer empowerment.
It argues that while developments in the Social Media domain are often perceived as
strategic threats by marketers there are several options for them to turn them into strategic
opportunities. The Social Media domain presents businesses with new opportunities of
improving their competitive position and creating new forms of customer value that will
attract new customers and help building strong relationships with them. The paper
proposes a classification of the various Social Media applications and identifies their roles
as part of the marketing toolbox of the 21st Century marketer.

The terms Web 2.0 and Social Media are new terms in the Internet and Marketing lexicon
and there is no general consensus as to their exact meaning. Tim O’Reilly (2005)
popularized the term Web 2.0 as the next stage in the Internet evolution by referring to it as
a wide collection of online applications sharing a number of common characteristics: “The
Web as a platform, Harnessing of the Collective Intelligence, Data is the Next Intel Inside,
End of the Software Release Cycle, Lightweight Programming Models, Rich User
Experiences”. The somehow fuzzy nature of the terms describing the Web 2.0 lead to a
new definition attempt: “Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social and technology trends that
collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet, a more mature,
distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects”
(Musser and O’Reilly, 2005). The ambiguity about the exact nature of the Web 2.0, even

5
after the second definition (mainly due to the use of terms like ‘trends’, ‘participation’ and
‘openness’), did not prevent its endorsement by Silicon Valley circles, followed by the
press, businesses and the wider public. A variety of definitions of the Web 2.0 can be
found in academic journals, press articles and white papers; a Google search query of the
term produces more than 300 million pages. In the academic literature there is also no
agreement as to what the term means. The reason for this is that Web 2.0 is by all means a
complex issue: computing technologies and techniques, software applications and social
effects are often blended creating confusion and ambiguity. Some definitions attempt to
avoid the confusion by oversimplifying the situation. Considering the complex character of
the Web 2.0 we argue that providing a clear picture of the domain requires identifying and
separating the three main dimensions of it: the main Application Types, the Social Effects
and the Enabling Technologies (Figure 1).

Two similar definitions are required to explain the idea of social media marketing. Basic:
Web 2.0 and Content Created by Users, known as user generated content (UGC). "The
Internet" in 2004, 2.0 "was used primarily to define a new approach in which the
environment should be used by application developers and final users could easily make
use of the WWW. This implies that Web 2.0 is a site where programming is used. Content
aren’t created and posted by separate corporations and individuals, but are continuously
and collaboratively produced and generated by multiple users. UGC reflects all the ways in
which, on the technical basis of Web 2.0.0, people generate content and use social media.
UGC, which gained mainstream prominence in 2005, such as abstract term that includes
different types of publicly accessible media content. Along with text to visual / voice
materials produced by end-users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Owing to the disclosure of
social media, customer opinions are becoming more influential and many people
understand them (Dwivedi et al., 2020).

The concept of SMM revolves around the variety of applications. The research gap is to
identify the impact of SSM on brand loyalty through different social media applications
which includes WhatsApp, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Google+. Brand
loyalty is maintained by the consumers of that specific brand. In this modern arena every
individual is seeking towards the innovation from every aspect, which explains the
importance of internet because this is the point where the brands try to compete with their
rivals in order to achieve the competitive edge.

6
 3. LITERATURE REVIEW:

Social networking helps businesses to communicate with potential consumers, build brand
awareness, impact the perceptions of buyers, gain input, help enhance existing goods and
services, and drive revenue (Algharabat, Rana, Dwivedi, Alalwan, & Qasem, 2018; Lal,
Ismagilova, Dwivedi, & Kwayu, 2020).

Social media marketing is a new trend and rapidly growing way in which businesses are
reaching out to targeted customers easily. Social media marketing can be simply defined as
the use of social media channels to promote a company and its products. This kind of
marketing can be thought of as a subset of online marketing activities that complete
traditional Web-based promotion strategies, such as e-mail newsletters and online
advertising campaigns (Barefoot & Szabo 2010). By encouraging users to spread messages
to personal contacts, social media marketing has injected a new term of exponential
dissemination and trust to masscommunication and mass marketing (Hafele, 2011). By this
new approach of outreach and marketing, new tools are being developed and increased in
turn for businesses. Social media marketers are now going better and more effective insight
through the introduction of analytic applications by official social network site platforms
(Hafele, 2011). There are numerous different social media sites, and they take many
different forms and contain different features. Undoubtedly, the most common social
networking site that first comes to our mind is Facebook. Facebook was first launched in
February 2004, owned and operated by Facebook, Inc. As of May 2012; Facebook has over
900 million active users. Users must register before using the site; they may create a
personal profile, add other users as friends, and exchange messages, including automatic
notifications when they update their profile (Facebook, 2012). In addition, users may join
common-interest user groups; categorize their friends into lists such as "People From
Work" or "Close Friends". Facebook‟s main mission is to give people the power to share
and make the world more open and connected (Facebook, 2012). Other social network sites
such as Twitter, Google plus, and LinkedIn may differ in some ways, but essentially they
work using the same principles.

The term “social media” is derived from 2 words which refers to; “MEDIA” which means
the delivering of different ideas and advertising information through various
channels/publications. Whereas, “SOCIAL” refers to the involvement of individuals. By
combining the both terms SOCIAL MEDIA, implies the publication/communications

7
platforms, formed by interpersonal interactions of different groups of individuals with the
help of required tool or medium (Neti, 2011). SM is classified as a collection of web
modules that generate on the conceptual and computerised systems of Web 2.0, and that
make the formation and distribution of information created by users (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). The power of virtual world is extracted through the network of Web 2.0, which
offers the basic structure and technology to promote the growth of user interaction and
allows information to be created and distributed (Berthon, Pitt, Plangger, & Shapiro, 2012).

Additionally, social media enables consumers to share information with their peers about
the product and service brands (Stileman, 2009; Mangold and Foulds, 2009). These
conversations between the peers provide companies another cost effective way to increase
brand awareness, boost brand recognition and recall, and increase brand loyalty (Gunelius,
2011). Thus, it can be said that social media helps firms to build brand loyalty through
networking, conversation, and community building (McKee, 2010).Staying competitive in
today's fast moving business landscape requires a solid social media strategy. Companies
hire social media experts and consultants to decide on content and characteristics of their
offers and activities in social media environments so that the hearts and minds of the
consumers are captured and brand loyalty follows (Coon, 2010). Within this perspective,
the aim of this paper is to shed light on consumer perspective on the social media effects
on brand loyalty so that implications can be drawn for firms to compose effective social
media marketing activities for their brands. Research by eMarketer has shown that
consumers go to social media sites to keep up with a brand's products and promotional
campaigns (Mangold and Foulds, 2009; Leggat, 2010). Consumers use social media to find
information about desired products with the best prices. Social media have inexorably
changed how consumers and marketers communicate (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Nambisan and Baron, 2007). Social media gives consumers a voice, and allows them to
interact and share their experiences with any person anywhere in the world (Kozinets et al.,
2010). In general, consumers have different orientations when making purchase decision.
Consumers are either brand conscious who view brands as symbols of status and prestige,
or value conscious, who use social media to check and compare the prices of different
brands, to get the best value for their money. Businesses are Consumers use social media to
find information about desired products with the best prices. Social media have inexorably
changed how consumers and marketers communicate (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Nambisan and Baron, 2007). Social media gives consumers a voice, and allows them to

8
interact and share their experiences with any person anywhere in the world (Kozinets et al.,
2010). In general, consumers have different orientations when making purchase decision.
Consumers are either brand conscious who view brands as symbols of status and prestige,
or value conscious, who use social media to check and compare the prices of different
brands, to get the best value for their money. Businesses are Social media gives consumers
a voice, and allows them to interact and share their experiences with any person anywhere
in the world (Kozinets et al., 2010). In general, consumers have different orientations when
making purchase decision. Consumers are either brand conscious who view brands as
symbols of status and prestige, or value conscious, who use social media to check and
compare the prices of different brands, to get the best value for their money. Businesses are
joining social media to target those two types of consumers and actively perform less
costly integrated marketing activities. An overwhelming majority of marketers worldwide
97 percent are participating in social media marketing to market their business (Stelzner,
2014). More than half of marketers 54 percent chose Facebook as their most important
platform. Social media being used as a marketing tool mainly for four purposes: market
research and feedback generation; publicity, branding, and reputation management;
business networking; and customer service and customer relationship management
(Thoring, 2011). Although businesses have joined social media to increase brand
awareness and acquire more customers, the question still remains of how brand loyalty can
be built and strengthened through social media? Understanding how social media
marketing activities influence brand loyalty is important for strategic marketing.

Social Media made customers more sophisticated and helped them develop new tactics in
searching, evaluating, choosing and buying goods and services (Albors et al., 2008).
Recent research reveals new customer behavioral trends rooted in Social Media usage. For
example the demand for customized products (Kera and Kaynak, 1997) and the willingness
of customers to get actively involved in the process of product development are increasing
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Piller and Walcher, 2006; Kim and Bae, 2008; Parise
and Guinan, 2008; Drury 2008; Eikelman et al., 2008); customers are anxious to have their
say in more stages of the business process. Such developments influence the way marketers
operate and affect marketing practices on strategic and tactical levels presenting marketers
with difficult choices and challenges (Sharma and Sheth, 2004; Thomas, 2007; Winer,
2009). Marketers become open to the idea of offering products that can be customized
according to the wishes of the final consumer; they are also often open to the idea of

9
creating the conditions that allow collaboration with customers in developing and testing
new products, a process known as co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Piller and
Walcher, 2006). Furthermore competitive pressure and the recognition by marketers that
they have to regain some control over the customer-controlled Social Media space has
prompted many businesses to invest in Social Media presence (Barwise and Styler 2003) or
develop plans to launch marketing activities in this domain in the near future. A 2009 study
by Center for Media Research found that over half of businesses surveyed plan to engage
social networks as part of their marketing plans in 2010. Research on the experiences of
marketers adopting Social Media as part of their marketing strategies is still limited but
some academic studies already indicate that marketers are in general positive about their
experiences of Social Media marketing (Kim and Bae, 2008; Steinfield et al., 2009).
Recently published studies from the practitioner’s quarters confirm these findings also: a
report by Stelzner (2009) identified the main benefits of Social Media Marketing: 81% of
the companies surveyed in this study indicate that their Social Media activities generated
more market exposure, 61% of them observed increased customer traffic, in 56% of the
cases Social Media marketing resulted in new business partnerships and 45% of the firms
reported reduced marketing expenses. A study of Zabin (2009) identified the effects of
Social Media Marketing for three types of companies, depending on the degree of their
adoption of Social Media.

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:

On social media platforms, there are several ways of online identity, such as connection
between citizens, community groups, and business relationships among firms.
individuals want to share their experiences and concerns, create relationships, and speak to
others about ideas (Zaglia, 2013). According to various evolving concepts for marketing in
social media (SMM), this could be generalised that SMM uses internet at first, then  use
this as a promotional platform for building a two-way contact channel and interacting with
consumers and offering valuable deals, thereby achieving greater value.  Moreover, SMM
allows connectivity, sharing of content and knowledge dissemination, and facilitates
customer engagement (Chang, Yu, & Lu, 2015). SMM describes consumer reactions to the
company or social media sites varying from expectations or ideologies (Chi, 2011;
Dwivedi, Kapoor, & Chen, 2015) behavioural reactions like happiness (Sano, 2014)
cognitive replies like personal reviews, desire to buy and devotion (Kim & Ko, 2012).
Having a well-designed web site is a necessity but by no means a guarantee of success; a

10
second important condition is that the marketing organization and the company back office
are in perfect shape and up to the job. Customer orientation reflected not only in the online
but also in the traditional marketing activities and fulfillment activities is very important.
The marketing organization must be geared to offer high value to customers by delivering
high quality products and services. Marketers should realize that Social Media users can
easily investigate and test the company quality or price claims, find alternatives or
substitutes and last but not least review products or services and report their own
experiences to large numbers of peers. No hotel marketer should attempt today to promote
his services by showing beautiful pictures of his hotel rooms or beautiful surroundings or
make claims about the hotel services that have nothing to do with reality. The online forum
Tripadvisor.com provides more than 15,000,000 traveler-generated reviews, pictures and
comments about practically every hotels, vacation destination, restaurant and anything else
having to do with the leisure industry on the planet that are viewed by millions of people
who want to book a vacation. Web logs and online forums like epinions.com,
reviewcenter.com and consumersearch.com publish thousands of customer generated
reviews about many categories of products or services allowing customers to very easily
compare products and learn about them before they buy. Therefore engaging the Social
Media as a marketing tool is not an isolated process but rather the final step of a consistent
strategic effort to improve the product / service, the organization and the traditional
corporate web site. This is illustrated in the E-Marketing Pyramid model (Figure 2)
presenting the relationship between the Social Media marketing (Web 2.0 marketing) with
the rest of the marketing program. The need for organizational transformation depends on
the firm itself. For some businesses the Internet has been proved to be a sustaining
technology, for others a disruptive one (Christensen, 1998): while Dell Computers was
thriving as an online PC producer in the 90s most of its traditional competitors like
Compaq or IBM never reached even remotely the levels of Dell’s online efficiency and
sales levels mainly due to organizational reasons (Christensen and Raynor, 2003). This
because Dell could very easily integrate the Internet into its existing operational model
(telephone orders, customized production and direct distribution). IBM and Compaq faced
major problems to adjust their businesses to the online model since their production and
distribution models were based on series production and sales / distribution through
intermediaries.

a. Brand loyalty:

11
Aaker and Equity (1991) claims brand loyalty as an important factor like the value of a
brand  that should be evaluated even though loyalty can create income. As per Assael
(1992) and Severi and Ling (2013) here have been 2 techniques which are used to clarify
the brand loyalty in the promotional context has completely outplayed it. In promotional
research, the first concept is a management style to brand loyalty, in which supporters
assume that the continuous purchase of one specific brand as an forecaster of brand loyalty.
In promotional research, the second method is a key recommendation to brand loyalty,
which promoters suggest that actions alone does not represent brand loyalty. Yoo, Donthu,
and Lee (2000) indicates that the essence of brand loyalty is brand recognition. Many
researchers have analysed the factors and implications of the brand loyalty throughout the
online sense (Khadim, Hanan, Arshad, Saleem, & Khadim, 2018; Tatar & Eren-Erdoğmuş,
2016). Unlike the conventional or offline framework, the drivers of loyalty to the virtual
world enable the organisation to concentrate on many factors due to the digital context,
such as accessibility, interactive elements, usability, comfort or efficiency usage,
development or importance of virtual data and network (Srinivasan, Anderson, &
Ponnavolu, 2002).

According to the loyalty and trust literatures, trust is one of the main antecedents of loyalty
(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Chiu, Huang, & Yen, 2010; Harris & Goode, 2004; Hong
& Cho, 2011; Kim, Chung, & Lee, 2011; Zhou et al., 2011a). Considering that online
communities, as a social structure, have positive effects on trust and loyalty (Ba, 2001;
Walden, 2000), we argue that the enhanced relationships in the customer centric model of
brand community should increase brand trust, which has a positive effect on brand loyalty,
i.e., brand trust has a mediating role in translating the effects of brand community into
brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is the result of brand trust or a promise to build a highly
valued connection (Morgan & Hunt 1994; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Then, Oliver
(1999) defines the concept of loyalty as a firmly held commitment to make repeat
purchases of products/services consistently in the future, leading to repeat purchases of the
same brand, even though there are situational influences that cause switching behavior.
Furthermore, it is said that brand loyalty is a reaction of dogmatic behavior in the buying
process of a brand and causes a tendency towards certain brands in making decisions. This
reaction is a function of the psychological process and one’s subjectivity in dealing with
the same product, so that customers often choose brands that are familiar, respectful, and
confirm (Vazifehdoost et al., 2014). An economical way to increase brand loyalty is

12
through social media. It can be said that social media helps companies to create brand
loyalty through networking, conversation, and socializing. Information that comes from
social media is indispensable in an increasingly competitive modern business. Therefore,
companies use social media as a consulting tool to create content, features, and activities
on social media which are expected to attract the attention and thoughts of consumers and
make consumers loyal to the brand (Gordhamer, 2009).

Brand equity consists of the most essential factor which is known as brand loyalty. Loyal
customers helps to the brand to come into a very powerful and good position to compete
more and more into the market. A brand loyalty is a state where the consumer have the
quality to retain on such brand without considering to any other competitive brand
(Aaker ,1991). The most essential promotion goal is to attain the consumer loyalty on the
higher percentage. (Aaker ,1991) has let us know some slabs or diameters of the brand
loyalty which consist of five stages as under.

Stage one: ‘switchers or price sensitive’

Stage two: ‘satisfied habitual buyer’

Stage three: ‘satisfied buyer with switching costs’

Stage four: ‘like the brand’

Stage five: ‘committed buyer’ they are considered as the most loyal and retained
customers. they also take part in positive words of mouth which directly gives the good
result to the brand as compared with the ads. As per Ravald and Gronroose (1996) the past
experience generate trust factor because trust results consumer loyalty the more. Keller
(2003) told that the more advertisements activities can generate the repetition of buying.
But this is not assure that those consumers will become sinha and verma 5 loyal. According
to kapferer (2012), the best loyalty is the brand loyalty rather than the price loyalty. In the
suggestion of De chernatony and Dall’olmo (1998) a great product can helps the firm to
become a great brand. To be a part of the market the advertisement activities are required.
To increase the market share, market reputation and to increase the repeat buying the
affective promotion is sales promotion. When the quality is absented from the product so

13
that brand can’t be retain for long in the market. Without advertisement activities the
consumer interest cannot be take place.

Making new consumers are more difficult as compare to retain the older ones.

b. Perceived quality:

The key element of brand equity, is perceived quality which is an integral feature of the
research in measuring brand equity (Aaker, 2009). In comparison to the competition
offering, perceived quality could be described as both the ultimate intention of users of
excellence and product or service quality. The product quality is distinct from the
perceived quality although the perceived quality is the empirical judgement of the good by
the user. Even though perceived quality itself would be a summary concept, perceived
quality may not inherently be reasonably calculated (Brunson, 1988; Erenkol & Duygun,
2010). Aaker and Equity (1991) declares that expected output will serve as a key variable
in deciding customer choices. Perceived quality is favorably connected to the equity of
brand (Motameni & Shahrokhi, 1998).

It is about consumer’s perception about product’s quality that varies according to the aim
of buying. (Zeithaml 1988). Then, (Aaker 1991 ) he describes it as , is the views of
consumer about the quality of particular product. It is subjective base and is build on the
basis of past experience and information. Here are seven dimensions mentioned by Aaker
about product quality. These are: ‘performance’, ‘reliability’, ‘conformance to
specifications’, ‘features’, ‘service ability’, ‘perfect fit’ and ‘finish’.
It is necessary to understand quality attributes for market because consumer uses this to
understand quality. (Fayrene & Lee, 2011). It is an important variable that affect the buyer
intention of purchase. (Kashi 2013). It is suddested to managers that work on this variable
so that it can develop brand equity. (Kimani & Zeithmal 1993). It is also reflected by some
studies that sale promotion have negative impact on consumer’s perception about quality.
(Neslin & Shoemaker, 1989; Clayton & Hoe, 2011). But according to DelVecchio and
Puligadda (2012) sales promotions not impact negatively and can be use to generate profit
and on evaluating two brands it is found that consumer views the higher priced- product as
higher quality. . It is also an opportunity to consumer who are financially constrain and
they assumed that it in the lowest opportunity cost they get quality product, (Reid et al,
2015). Hedonic benefits is also there such as fun and enjoyment that adds the perception of
quality, (Grohmann, 2003).

14
There is high relationship found between price and perceived quality. Price serves as
indicator of quality whenever the little risk is found. Stafford and Enis also summarizes
this all concept that perceived quality expectations varies directly with price. Whereas,
McConnell defines this relationship as non linear. Gabor and Granger determines that
expensive product expectrd to be highest quality possession. Thus, this relationship may be
direct or monotonic and little chances of non linear or discontinuous.

c. Brand awareness:

Brand awareness is a crucial and critical aspect of brand equity that is often neglected
(Aaker, 2009), and it is a common selection variable across clients (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble,
& Donthu, 1995). It is characterised as longevity of a firm that is ingrained in the mind of
the user. Brand knowledge, hence, will be generated by continuous awareness,
enhancement of knowledge and good relations with similar offers and purchasing
interactions (Aaker, 2009). Furthermore it stated that brand awareness may impact the
consumer decision-making through effective brand association in the purchasing of
products (Keller, 1993). Pitta and Katsanis (1995) concluded that by claiming that even the
brand awareness of a brand is indeed a based on cross-relation among brand recognition
and brand identification. Before the brand association of the brand is constructed and
ingrained in the mind of consumers, the brand can be created in the minds of consumers.

The primary obligation to generate purchase intention towards product is brand awareness.
It help consumers to differentiate the brand with competitive brands Aaker, 1991).Brand
awareness provide facilities to consumers to distinguish brand with other competitive
brands (Shrimp, 2010). Different stages of brand awareness are present that plays a
significant role in purchase decision. In the first stage, brand need to develop awareness
among potential consumers for purchasing. In the highest awareness stage the likelihood to
brand consideration increases (Rundle-Thiele & Bennet, 2001). The concept presented by
Aaker (1991) provides four distinguish stages of brand awareness. The first stage is “Brand
unawareness”, second “brand recognition”, third is “brand recall” and the last stage is “top
in mind”. The first stage which is “brand unawareness” where consumers have zero
information related to the brand. The second stage “brand recognition” is where consumers
have little information related to a brand. The next stage “brand recall” is in which
consumers have much information about the brand and they can recall it without any extra
efforts. The fourth and the last stage that is “top in mind”, is while considering purchase

15
decisions the brand is in the first position in the mind if consumers. The method to increase
brand awareness is repeated explication (keller, 2003).This can be done through
advertisement and promotional activities. Advertisement provide related information and
sales promotion develops interest in purchasing (keller, 2003) and the sale promotional
activities have positive effects on brand knowledge (Palazon-Vidal & Delgado-Ballester,
2005) . So, it is assumed that the utilitarian advantages and hedonic benefits of sales
promotion have positive impact on brand awareness.

d. Brand equity:

Here are several meanings, reflecting the marketing view of brand equity; nevertheless,
there is indeed an agreement on the concept of, Srivastava and Shocker (1991) the
additional profitability of the firm is brand equity. In terms of consumer decision making,
consumer’s brand equity could be interpreted as, “the comparative influence of brand
awareness on the consumer reaction” (Keller, 1993).Brand equity consists of 4 aspects:
brand recognition, brand identity, brand connections, and perceived brand quality (Keller,
1993).By its power or brand the consumer determines the brand equity affiliations and
importance or brand utilities considered and compared to their prices. The expectations of
the consumer about brand image affect their success and improves the company 's
monetary benefits (Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995).

Brand is very important for companies which stuck in the mind of consumers and
companies generate high revenue from its recognition. When consumer used brands they
associate with it because of the attributes of a brand so it is called brand equity (Del Rio,
Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001). Consumers have ability to spend more on branded
commodities due to the charm of brand equity. The desire of consumers is to buy those
products which have high brand equity in the market (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu,
1995). Brand equity cut down the brand switching. The buyers of the brand which have
low equity can easily shift to others brand with the comparability to the buyers of brand
which have high equity (Sloot, Verhoef, & Franses, 2005). 4 Global Business Reviews
19(6). In the ambience of companies, brand equity have high and strong profit margin
through the decrement in promotional activities (Aaker, 1991). Brand equity defend
companies on the time when it collapsing due to the failure of innovations (Sloot et al.,
2005). The four factors of brand equity given by Aaker (1996) were efficiently used in this
study to acquire more fine and authentic results.

16
The brand complements on the basis of distinct identifiers and these are name, symbol and
mix of these (Keller 1993; Kotler and Keller 2016). These units are used to differentiate
among the goods and services of firm’s from the competitors (Keller, 1993; Kotler and
Keller, 2016). In the abstract of branding, two brand equity approaches with a kind of
distinct factors have been leading. First, Aaker (1991, p.16) allocate brand equity as assets
and liabilities into five classes brand loyalty; name awareness; perceived quality; brand
associations; and other proprietary assets(e.g. patents). Second, Keller (1993) differentiates
two great elements of brand knowledge (seen as the brand equity distinguisher and
compared to brand equity assets and liabilities, as discussed by Aaker (1991): brand
awareness and brand image. Brand awareness defines the reflection of brand that fluently
come in the mind of consumers, on the other hand brand image imitate the types of
affiliation with the consideration ‘determining the different response ‘to the brand equity.
Maximum studies expose that the brand equity altitude is all-around and according to the
definition of a ‘value added’ to the product. The estimation tools such as price premiums
(Aaker, 1996), collections of consumer based perceptions (Agarwal and Rao, 1996), or
purchase behavior (Kamakura and Russell, 1993) be consistent with this view. In the
comparison, Yoo and Donthu (2001) design measurement of consumer brand equity scale
and analyze three factors: Loyalty, perceived quality and brand association (approved by
Washburn and Plank, 2002). Guizani, Triguero and Valette Florence (2008) added fourth
factor the social value of the brand, which describe that customers can serve the similar
value or that the brand can assemble the chain of consumers in brand community (Muniz
and O’ Guinn, 2001). This research exercises the 12 – item scale with the elements (brand
loyalty, brand knowledge, social value and perceived quality). Yoo and Donthu (2001)
come up with that the brand equity sum in inclusion to multidimensional brand equity
scale, the remarkable four factors added into a second order factor that determined the
range of brand equity or thorough added brand value. Schoenfeld (1985, p. 44) remarks,
"Not long ago, extending a brand name was seen as a prescripfion for failure." Despite the
frenzy of recent brand extensions, many new products will fail and some brands will lose
equity. Firms should have a brand plan to guide decisions about brand extensions. For
example, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance decided not to put its name on a new
banking operafion and Walt Disney created Touchstone Films rather than extend its name
to adult movies (Yovovich 1988).A category extension applies an exisfing brand name to a
new category. Recent category extensions include Jell-O Pudding Pops, Bic disposable
lighters, Woolite rug cleaner. Cracker Jack gourmet popping corn. Ivory shampoo, and

17
many others. Category extensions can also occur when a brand is licensed to another firm,
such as Coca-Cola clothing by Murjani. The potenfial benefifs of category extensions
include immediate name recognition and the transference of benefits associated with a
familiar brand. For example, ChipmanUnion's introduction of branded deodorizing athlefic
socks in 1980 was helped by licensing the Odor-Eaters name used originally by Combe,
Inc. for its successful line of deodorizing foot pads. Moreover, category extensions
eliminate the high costs of establishing a new brand and often reduce the costs of gaining
distribution (e.g., see Kesler 1987; Morein 1975). A well-known brand name does not
guarantee a successful exfension. Abrams (1981) points to Arm & Hammer antiperspirant
and Welch's prune juice as extensions that failed. Indeed, an extension can also weaken the
parent brand in the original category. Miller High Life sales were cannibalized by Miller
Lite beer. Tauber (1981) describes how the Carnation Company withdrew its plan several
years ago to introduce a contraceptive dog food. Lady Friskies, after tests showed it would
adversely affect sales of the parent brand, Eriskies. Therefore, leveraging a brand's equity
through extensions to new categories carries both opportunities and risks. The
opportunities are represented by the firm's growth potential in the new category. Risk
comes not only from a new product failure, but also from the success of a category
extension. Success carries the risk that the entire brand franchise can be diluted. Ries and
Trout (1986) describe many of the dangers of overextending a brand name and generally
advise against category extensions.

e. Brand association:

Keller, Parameswaran, and Jacob (2011) stated that, it is possible to establish a brand
association through the combination of behaviours, characteristics and advantages. Brand
association also serves as an affiliations system for information gathering, for conducting
market distinction and expansion of the brand, as per James (2005) it also addresses the
highly productive partnership that helps improve the brand and equity. Brand association is
all dimensions of brand external features, singularity, brand creativity, market place and it
could be taken by customers of products brands and  revolution. said that perceived quality
would lead to a high brand association (Chen, 2001; Yasin, Noor, & Mohamad, 2007)
Brand partnerships have been used by marketers to manipulate customers' emotions and
perceptions towards goods and to help purchase them (Foroudi, Jin, Gupta, Foroudi, &
Kitchen, 2018). Beneficial ties among customers and businesses are organisational
partnerships. That is because a good partnership has the anticipated effect on customer

18
behaviour and feelings about the brand. This is seen as more productive than relying on the
value of a particular device (Aaker, 2012)

Keller’s (1993) seminal paper on CBBE conceptualises brand knowledge as those

associations about a brand recalled from memory. Likewise, Christodoulides and de
Chernatony (2010) in their CBBE literature review conclude that the majority of
conceptual studies identify brand associations as a core component of CBBE. The extant
CBBE research extensively uses human associative memory (HAM) theory, derived from
cognitive psychology (Anderson and Bower, 1973; Wyer and Srull, 1989) to conceptualise
how brand association networks form and operate. The theory assumes that knowledge of a
brand is stored in a consumer’s memory as individual pieces of brand information which
are linked together to form a complex associative network of the brand (Anderson, 1983a;
Teichert and Scho¨ntag, 2010). Importantly, brand information is recalled from memory by
an “activation” process when one association stimulates the recall of another, linked
association (Anderson, 1983b). Activation “spreads” from an association to another or
others, producing a chain reaction and providing the “‘energy’ that runs the cognitive
machinery” (Anderson, 1983a, p. 86). Thus, the brand name Volvo may stimulate, through
spreading activation, associations such as cars, Swedish, well-built and safe. For any given
brand, its associations are core to decision making (Alba et al., 1991) as consumers use
them to “help process, organize and retrieve information in memory and to aid them in
their purchase decisions” (Low and Lamb, 2000, p. 351). Measuring brand association
strength 1357 Having identified the importance of the network of brand associations held
in memory for CBBE, it is apparent that not all associations are of equal importance.
Specifically, “the presence of strongly held, favourably evaluated associations that are
unique to the brand and imply superiority over other brands is critical to a brand’s success”
(Keller, 1993, p. 6). The strength of a brand’s associations is therefore a necessary
condition for high CBBE. Conceptually, the stronger an association, the more likely it will
be recalled from memory via the spreading activation process that underpins mental maps
(Anderson, 1983b; Keller, 1993). Despite this central role of brand associations and their
relative strength for CBBE, there has to date been no attempt to operationalise directly a
measurement of the strength of consumer generated associations of a brand. As such this
paper’s contribution is to fill this gap. It does this by providing a novel application of brand
mapping to CBBE measurement. The paper then provides a generally applicable measure
of brand association strength measurement from the maps, thus contributing to our

19
knowledge on what we have shown to be a core driver of CBBE. In addition, an important,
practical contribution is that it provides tools and methods to brand managers to facilitate
the task of building the equity of their brand. The brand mapping method and association
strength measurement are both practical and intuitive approaches with clear, easily
analysed outcomes that may be used to highlight appropriate marketing mix strategies for
building brand equity. The rest of this paper adopts the following structure. Firstly we
capture brand associations through brand mapping and then evaluate the literature on the
measurement of brand association strength within these maps. Next we produce two
comparative maps for McDonald’s, one based on respondents positive towards the brand,
the other for those negative towards the brand. We then develop our measure of brand
association strength before illustrating its application to McDonald’s. We conclude with a
discussion of the findings, practical applications and how the measure of brand association
strength may be developed further by future research.

While customer empowerment presents marketers with a substantial challenge there are
many ways marketers can also utilize the Social Media domain to their own advantage and
regain some control over the marketing process. A necessary condition is that they
understand the new market realities and adopt new attitudes: instead of looking to their
customers as a massive and passive audience they must treat them as sophisticated and
creative individuals or even as potential partners. The Social Media can play here a very
important and decisive role; they can be used as substitutes of traditional tools helping
marketers to carry out a number of marketing activities effectively and economically, very
often with the active participation of customers. The Social Media applications can be
engaged as marketing tools in different ways. They are low-cost yet valuable sources of
“live” customer voice allowing organizations to fine-tune their marketing activities and
often prevent calamities. Social Media can be also engaged as public relation and
promotional tools, as instruments of customer influence, as tools allowing customers to
customize their online experience and products they buy. Last but not least the Social
Media open a whole range of opportunities to corporations as platforms for harnessing the
collective intelligence and creativity; Social Media can be used to encourage customer
involvement with the brand in the form of contribution to the production and innovation
process. Strategic re-orientation and often radical change of business and management
attitudes is necessary in order to deal with the new realities in the customer dominated
marketplace. Marketers should understand the influence of the Internet and particularly the

20
importance of the Social Media movement on the market process and the buying behavior.
It is also essential to identify and understand the role of the Social Media as marketing
tools and as part of the total marketing program. In this sense the paper attempts to
contribute a basis for understanding the role of the Social Media in the changing marketing
landscape and to outline its effects on marketing strategy and practice. The paper attempts
to position the Social Media within the traditional marketing context and define a
framework of reference as basis for further analysis and research. In that respect the
reliance on literature and practical examples has resulted on a number of concepts of
descriptive and normative nature that presents researchers with a number of interesting
intellectual challenges and research issues. The intention of the paper is therefore to
contribute in the growing debate about the role of the Social Media as Marketing tools and
provide a number of bases for further research and experimentation. The most important
message of the paper is that market. Social media marketing is a new trend and rapidly
growing way in which businesses are reaching out to targeted customers easily. Social
media marketing can be simply defined as the use of social media channels to promote a
company and its products. This kind of marketing can be thought of as a subset of online
marketing activities that complete traditional Web-based promotion strategies, such as e-
mail newsletters and online advertising campaigns (Barefoot & Szabo 2010). By
encouraging users to spread messages to personal contacts, social media marketing has
injected a new term of exponential dissemination and trust to masscommunication and
mass marketing (Hafele, 2011). By this new approach of outreach and marketing, new
tools are being developed and increased in turn for businesses. Social media marketers are
now going better and more effective insight through the introduction of analytic
applications by official social network site platforms (Hafele, 2011). There are numerous
different social media sites, and they take many different forms and contain different
features. Undoubtedly, the most common social networking site that first comes to our
mind is Facebook. Facebook was first launched in February 2004, owned and operated by
Facebook, Inc. As of May 2012; Facebook has over 900 million active users. Users must
register before using the site; they may create a personal profile, add other users as friends,
and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile
(Facebook, 2012). In addition, users may join common-interest user groups; categorize
their friends into lists such as "People From Work" or "Close Friends". Facebook‟s main
mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected

21
(Facebook, 2012). Other social network sites such as Twitter, Google plus, and LinkedIn
may differ in some ways, but essentially they work using the same principles.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
PERCEIVED
QUALITY

BRAND
AWARENESS
BRAND
LOYALTY
BRAND EQUITY

BRAND
ASSOCIATION
f. Variable description:

H1: Relationship between brand loyalty and perceived quality

Ho: There is no relationship between brand loyalty and perceived quality

H2: Relationship between brand loyalty and brand awareness

Ho: There is no relationship between brand loyalty and brand awareness

H3: Relationship between brand loyalty and brand equity

Ho: There is no relationship between brand loyalty and brand equity

22
H4: Relationship between brand loyalty and brand association

Ho: There is no relationship between brand loyalty and brand association

5. RESEARCH THEORY STRUCTURE:

According to this study there are two theories which can be used to evaluate the accurate
findings based on the research methodology which are described below:

a. Social cognitive theory:

Social cognitive theory is a behavioral view of intellectual development that stresses the
essential role of emotional intelligence, knowledge and self regulation in the social sphere
(Schunk & Usher, 2019). In psychological terms, this principle has seen broad relevance.
In sectors such as engineering, industry, and health, and in many other sectors. In several
academic studies, the theory's predictions have been checked in different contexts.
Previous concepts of social cognitive theory, also referred to as' concepts of social
learning,' stressed the role of emotional intelligence and cultural characteristics in social
cognition.

Contentious theoretical dualisms pervade the cross-cultural field, pitting autonomy against
interdependence; personal agency against social structure; and individualism against
collectivism and communality. Most of the current theorising and research on cultural
variations is structured around these categorisations. One duality inappropriately equates
self-efficacy with individualism and pits it against collectivism (Schooler, 1990). A
contentious correlative duality regards any reference to self in psychological theorising as
championing self-centeredness and self-indulgence in contrast to communal attachments
and civic responsibilities (Seligman, 1990; Sampson, 1977). These jaundiced views are
grounded in a number of erroneous assumptions. Perceived self-efficacy does not come
with a built-in individualistic value system. Therefore, a sense of efficacy does not
necessarily spawn an individualistic lifestyle, identity, or morality. If belief in the power to
produce effects is put to social purposes, it fosters a communal life rather than erodes it.
People with resilient efficacy and strong prosocial purpose often subordinate self-interest
to the benefit of others. For example, parents in impoverished environments with a resilient
sense of efficacy refuse to have their children’s development dictated by adverse
circumstances by bringing their influence to bear on things that matter through resourceful
effort and self-sacrifice (Bandura, 1997). The same is true for tenacious social reformers.

23
Gandhi provides a striking example of self-sacrifice in the exercise of tenacious personal
efficacy. He spearheaded the triumph over oppressive rule through unceasing nonviolent
resistance and repeatedly forced concessions from ruling authorities by going on life-
threatening fasts. He lived ascetically, not self-indulgently. Similarly, Mandella and King
spurred extraordinary social changes that altered the course of sociopolitical life in their
societies in the face of daunting challenge through an enormously resilient sense of
personal efficacy. Without a robust sense of self, people are easily overwhelmed by
adversities in attempts to change their lives for the better through collective effort. A sense
of collective efficacy is not disembodied from perceived personal efficacy. A collectivistic
culture with members plagued by self-doubts about their capabilities to perform their roles
would achieve little. A strong sense of personal efficacy to manage one’s life
circumstances and to have a hand in effecting societal changes contributes substantially to
perceived collective efficacy to shape their society’s social future (Fernández-Ballesteros,
Díez-Nicolás, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2002). The conjoint influence of
perceived political efficacy and trust in the governmental system predicts the form and
level of people’s political activity (Craig, 1979; Pollock, 1983; Seligson, 1980). These
belief systems function similarly regardless of whether the political activism is by United
States’ citizenry or Costa Rican peasants seeking social reforms. People who believe they
can achieve desired changes through their collective voice, and who view their
governmental systems as trustworthy, are active participants in conventional political
activities. Those who believe they can accomplish social changes by perseverant collective
action, but view the governing systems and office-holders as untrustworthy, favor more
confrontive and coercive tactics outside the traditional political channels. The politically
apathetic have little faith that they can influence governmental functioning through
collective initiatives and are disaffected from the political system, believing it ignores their
interests. Social cognitive theory accords a central role to cognitive, vicarious, selfr e g u l
a t o r y, and self-reflective processes. An extraordinary capacity for symbolization
provides humans with a powerful tool for comprehending their environment and creating
and regulating environmental events that touch virtually every aspect of their lives. Most
external influences affect behavior through cognitive processes rather than directly.
Cognitive factors partly determine which environmental events will be observed, what
meaning will be conferred on them, whether they leave any lasting effects, what emotional
impact and motivating power they will have, and how the information they convey will be
organized for future use. It is with symbols that people process and transform transient

24
experiences into cognitive models that serve as guides for judgment and action. Through
symbols, people give meaning, form, and continuity to their experiences. People gain
understanding of causal relationships and expand their knowledge by operating
symbolically on the wealth of information derived from personal and vicarious
experiences. They generate solutions to problems, evaluate their likely outcomes, and pick
suitable options without having to go through a laborious behavioral search. Through the
medium of symbols people can communicate with others at any distance in time and space.
However, in keeping with the interactional perspective, social cognitive theory devotes
much attention to the social origins of thought and the mechanisms through which social
factors exert their influence on cognitive functioning. The other distinctive human
capabilities are founded on this advanced capacity for symbolization. Because of the
influential role the mass media play in society, understanding the psychosocial mechanisms
through which symbolic communication influences human thought, affect, and action is of
considerable import. Social cognitive theory provides an agentic conceptual framework
within which to examine the determinants and mechanisms of such effects. Human
behavior has often been explained in terms of unidirectional causation, in which behavior
is shaped and controlled either by environmental influences or by internal dispositions.
Social cognitive theory explains psychosocial functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal
causation (Bandura, 1986). In this transactional view of self and society, personal factors in
the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events, behavioral patterns, and
environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence each other
bidirectionally. Social cognitive theory is founded in an agentic perspective (Bandura,
1986, 2001b). People are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating, not
just reactive organisms shaped and shepherded by environmental events or inner forces.
Human self-development, adaptation, and change are embedded in social systems.
Therefore, personal agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences.
In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems.
Personal agency and social structure operate as codeterminants in an integrated causal
structure rather than as a disembodied duality.

b. Social marketing theory:

Theory of social marketing (SM) highlights the significance for communicating effectively
and strategy development of a powerful theoretical source (Levit & Cismaru, 2020). The
theory of social marketing is a set of concepts focusing on how to encourage socially

25
useful content. Social welfare agencies used this principle to support or prevent different
behaviours. The object of the SM theory is to apply to manly acts and reactions to stimuli
and meaning. Whilst hypotheses are often viewed as "intellectual," theory founded on
experimental methodology and rigorous experiments can greatly enhance SM practise
through the effect of various settings and circumstances. A theory is a set of principles that
defines, simplifies, explains and predicts a concept centered on reality (Brennan, Binney,
Parker, Aleti, & Nguyen, 2014).

Social marketing is no different from any other discipline in that its theories and concepts
are based on explicit or implicit assumptions. When applying social marketing solutions to
social problems in which these assumptions are met, social marketing solutions can
produce relatively effective outcomes. When applying social marketing solutions to social
problems in which these assumptions are not met, social marketing solutions are less
effective. When a discipline’s underlying assumptions are tacit, as they are in social
marketing, it is much more difficult to determine if the relative ineffectiveness of a social
marketing program is affected by whether or not the assumptions of reality it was based on
were actually met. The focal social problem is represented as a curve because it changes, is
complex, and is not bound by the assumptions of theory. Social marketers’ perceptions of
the causes of social problems are influenced by the norms and preferences of the discipline.
A social marketer’s causal perception is represented by a straight line because it cannot
move beyond the limits of its own assumptions. Social marketers perceive the causal
foundation of social problems through the filters of the mental models of their social
marketing framework. Social marketing solutions to correct social problems are based
upon their understanding of the cause of the social problem.

Social marketing is the design, implementation, and control of programs calculated to

influence the acceptability of social ideas and involving considerations of product
planning, pricing, communication, distribution and marketing research. Andreasen (1994,
p. 110) criticises these early attempts to define and justify social marketing, which he
argues caused confusion, proposing the following: Social marketing is the adaptation of
commercial marketing technologies to programs designed to influence the voluntary
behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of society of
which they are a part. This definition emphasises the use of marketing techniques to
change behaviour, rather than merely to promote ideas or provide information. Although
there is now general agreement that social marketing concerns behaviour change, there is

26
no consensus on the most appropriate target audience. Gordon (2011) points out that the
vast majority of social marketing thought and practice has been applied “downstream”, in
other words directed at individual “consumers”. There is an argument that social marketing
should focus more on up-stream activities and audiences in an attempt to influence policy
makers, managers, etc. to improve the socio-economic environment in which individuals
find themselves (Hoek and Jones, 2011). So, rather than “blaming” individuals, social
marketers should focus on enabling them to make healthier choices by improving the
environment, addressing inequalities and encouraging policy makers to address the
underlying causes of health and social problems (Wymer, 2011). Shortly after Kotler and
Zaltman (1971), Lazer and Kelley (1973) offered a rather different definition of social
marketing: Social marketing is concerned with the application of marketing knowledge,
concepts, and techniques to enhance social as well as economic ends. It is also concerned
with analysis of the social consequence of marketing policies, decisions and activities.
Marketing social marketing 95 Downloaded by La Trobe University At 08:01 02 February
2016 (PT) Gordon (2011) cites this article in his paper on critical social marketing (critical
social marketing is concerned with the negative impact on society of marketing and with
reducing inequalities), in which he shows support for this view of social marketing
(although he acknowledges its rather exceptional nature). As mentioned above, most
subsequent definitions and approaches have been of a downstream, non-critical nature, in
other words the focus of attention is individual behaviour change rather than socio-
economic structures and systems. Gordon also admits that critical social marketing itself
can be confused with the terms critical marketing, societal marketing or socially
responsible marketing. So, social marketing can be defined as the application of
commercial marketing principles to influence behaviour for the benefit of individuals or
wider society (Kotler and Lee, 2008). Others believe social marketing should be more
critical with a much greater up-stream focus (Gordon, 2011). They argue social marketing
should be more concerned with the negative consequences of commercial activity and in
influencing policy to reducing inequality and improve the life chances of disadvantaged
groups (Hastings, 2011).

6. METHODOLOGY:

The purpose of this study is to find the impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty
through WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Google+. For this purpose
a defined methodology is designed.

27
Research approach:

The selection of right methodology is important for the research because it effect the result
extracted from the whole research. Quantitative is the basic nature of this research which
helps to find the impact of SMM on brand loyalty. Ultimately, deductive approach is used
in this study. As discussed, there is a debate over the issues of social media, marketing and
branding activities on social media, and few systematic studies with clear empirical results
can be relied upon. Beside few exceptions, all we find in the literature are descriptive
narratives about social media, its capabilities, and potentials in leveraging business
activities. In addition, there are contradictions among scholars on these issues. For example
some believe that social media is an ideal environment for businesses to reach their
customers, while others believe brands crash the environment that is supposed to be for
people and their friends (Fournier & Avery, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

7.1. Research design:

This research is based on questionnaire in which the data is collected by selecting the
sample size based on the population variance. This study is consist of a research problem
which is proceeded through data collection from the selected sample size. This research is
designed to increase the accuracy of data collected so, the outcomes would be more
relevant.
7.2. Data analysis tool:
The sample size for this study is calculated through Raosoft. It is a sample size calculator
which calculates the sample size on the given population variance.
7.3. Research method:
This is a quantitative research in which responses are collected from the target audience to
get the accurate view of the study. The calculated sample size of this study is 384. The
responses are collected through the questionnaire based on likert scale so the reliability of
each response would be analysed efficiently.
7.4. Sampling:
To calculate the sample size Raosoft calculator is used so that the findings would become
more accurate and reliable.

28
The population size is selected according the research gap which is to identify the impact
of social media marketing on brand loyalty through various social media platforms. So, the
target audience is online buyers or dealers who interact with various social media
marketing activities on daily basis. The population size was analysed nationally which was
a huge number so that number is reduced by dividing it provincially. For the more accurate
results the population size is reduced more by only capturing the audience of Karachi
which is 5,00,000. The margin of error is considered to be 5%, the confidence level is 95%.
By considering these percentages the sample size calculated is 384.

7.5. Reliability test:

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Cronbach's N of Items

Alpha Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items

.851 .858 5

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Brand loyalty total 3.3000 1.34164 20

Perceived quality total 4.0000 1.16980 20
29
Brand awareness total 3.7000 1.08094 20
Brand equity total 3.7000 1.08094 20
Brand association total 3.6500 1.18210 20
 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted

Brand loyalty total 15.0500 14.050 .572 . .849

Perceived quality total 14.3500 15.924 .462 . .870
Brand awareness total 14.6500 13.713 .840 . .776
Brand equity total 14.6500 13.713 .840 . .776
Brand association total 14.7000 14.326 .658 . .821

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

8.1. Descriptive statistics:

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic

Respondent gender 174 2 1.75 .054 .707 .499

Respondent age 174 4 2.40 .102 1.347 1.814
Respondent qualification 174 4 2.42 .092 1.217 1.482
Respondent job 174 4 3.13 .111 1.458 2.127
Respondent monthly income 174 4 2.75 .104 1.374 1.887
Social media platform 174 5 3.51 .110 1.446 2.090
Valid N (listwise) 174

This descriptive statistics shows that gender (M=1.75, SD=0.707) with the total number of
respondents of 174. Age (M=2.40, SD= 1.347), Qualification (M=2.42, SD=1.217), Job
(M=3.13, SD=1.458), Monthly income (M=2.75,SD=1.374).

8.2. Correlation:
Coefficient Correlationsa

30
Model Brand Perceived quality Brand Brand equity
association total total awareness total total

Brand association total 1.000 -.402 .032 -.871

Perceived quality total -.402 1.000 -.249 .233

Correlations
Brand awareness total .032 -.249 1.000 -.361

Brand equity total -.871 .233 -.361 1.000

1
Brand association total .044 -.007 .001 -.040

Perceived quality total -.007 .008 -.002 .004

Covariances
Brand awareness total .001 -.002 .011 -.008

Brand equity total -.040 .004 -.008 .047

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty total

8.3. Regression:

The hypothesis 1 predict that brand loyalty has effect on perceived quality. Hypothesis 2
predict that brand loyalty has effect on brand awareness. Hypothesis 3 predict that brand
loyalty has effect on brand equity and hypothesis 4 predict that brand loyalty has effect on
brand association. Linear regression analysis was used to calculate the effect. The abstract
results are shown in the following table;

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate

1 .743a .552 .541 .68915

a. Predictors: (Constant), Brand association total, Perceived quality

total, Brand awareness total, Brand equity total

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 98.870 4 24.717 52.045 .000b

1 Residual 80.263 169 .475

Total 179.132 173

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty total

b. Predictors: (Constant), Brand association total, Perceived quality total, Brand awareness total,
Brand equity total

Coefficientsa

31
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .095 .326 .292 .770

Perceived quality total .360 .089 .299 4.050 .000

1 Brand awareness total .500 .104 .429 4.805 .000

Brand equity total -.225 .217 -.188 -1.037 .301

Brand association total .324 .209 .284 1.548 .124

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty total

The result of brand loyalty explain that 55.2% difference of the dependent variable on
perceived quality, brand awareness, brand equity and brand association (R2=.552,
F=52.045 & P value <0.05)

8.4. Collinearity diagnostics:

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) .095 .326 .292 .770

Perceived quality
.360 .089 .299 4.050 .000 .485 2.061
total

Brand awareness
1 .500 .104 .429 4.805 .000 .333 3.001
total

Brand equity total -.225 .217 -.188 -1.037 .301 .080 12.466

Brand association
.324 .209 .284 1.548 .124 .079 12.676
total

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty total

Collinearity statistics shows that the brand equity and brand association are proper with
each other because both have variance ˃ 0.10. brand equity variance is 12.466 and brand
association variance is 12.676.

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

32
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Variance Proportions
Index (Constant) Perceived Brand Brand Brand
quality awareness equity total association
total total total

1 4.950 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

2 .024 14.260 .71 .01 .03 .01 .02

1 3 .014 18.567 .20 .86 .03 .01 .00

4 .009 23.016 .02 .00 .88 .03 .06

5 .001 58.050 .06 .13 .06 .94 .92

a. Dependent Variable: Brand loyalty total

Condition index is calculated of eigen values and for this condition index there are cutoff
values. Condition index ˃ 15 = possible problem with multicollinearity whereas, condition
index ˃ 30 = strong sign for problems of multicollinearity. In this case there are 3 values
less than 15, 2 are above 15 and 1 is above 30 which is the strong sign of problem with
respect to multicollinearity. The variance proportions are of different predictors are
distributed on different dimensions so each column sums up to one or two 100% for those
dimensions with a high condition index with variance proportions. Brand equity and brand
association both variances are above 0.9 which shows that these predictors have
collinearity problem, although these two factors are linearly dependent. Although all the
hypothesis are accepted according to the results.
9. CONCLUSION:
9.1. Research methodology

This study is done through the deductive method and quantitative approach. The data was
collected by social media users to find the impact of social media marketing on brand
loyalty. The sample size was calculated through Raosoft software which was 384 but 174
responses were collected due to this Covid-19 pandemic. The reliability test was
implemented on the sample size to trust the collected information. The Cronbach alpha
shows the value of 0.851 which is greater than 0.7. it ultimately shows the reliability of this
study.

9.2. Findings of the study

The findings of this study shows that brand loyalty has strong impact on perceived quality,
brand awareness, brand equity and brand association. This study reveals the proportional

33
value of each variable so it could be easy for industry and organizations to find out the
relevant variables according to the requirements of industry of business.

9.3. Implications of the study for theory, managers and policy makers

This is a digital era where every individual is moving towards ease. By addressing the
online shopping this study is done by focusing the essential variables which have greater
impact on social media marketing. The overall social media industry can utilize these
findings to increase their profitability ratio so, that the users can get better benefits,
ultimately this industry can increase the contribution towards GDP. The drivers of e-
loyalty presented in the framework above have immediate implications for marketing
management in terms of developing and maintaining brand loyalty in e-space. However,
the relative importance of the drivers of e-loyalty in brand strategy formulation depend on
the type of e-business as well as the type of market situation. Figure 2 presents a
contingency framework, which can be used to derive brand loyalty management strategies
for different marketing situations. One dimension of the framework is whether a business is
a pure e-business or whether it is a traditional business moving into e-space (bricks to
clicks). The other dimension is the market position of the business in terms of being a
market share leader or a market follower.

Organizations can be benefited through this study if the managers focus on key variables
which are brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness, brand equity and brand
association. Management have to work on these factors so that they can have more targeted
market, high profitability ratio, increase in sales and generates more data which helps in
forecasting in terms of demand, trend and supply.

Policy makers are the one who create strategies, make plans for government or businesses.
Policy makers can analyze the impact of social media marketing on brand loyalty through
various factors mentioned above by studying the results as these are the most affecting
factors throughout the study.

9.4. Limitations of the study

As this study is done in the period of COVID-19 so, limited sample size was selected,
although the findings are reliable. Collecting data from individuals was something difficult
due to this pandemic. If the time duration was increased than more variables would be
considered but time limit was also short to conclude this study as every individual is in a

34
hurry because of this current economic situation. Our study contributes to the existing
brand community and social media literatures and provides its own theoretical implications
as well. First, we developed a new model of how a brand community can affect brand
loyalty. As discussed earlier, previous studies emphasized that one main function of brand
communities is to increase brand loyalty but our model shows how this can happen. We
especially identifified the role of brand trust as a translator of these effects, a role which
was mostly neglected in previous studies. Although we tested our model in the context of
social media, we believe this model might be valid in other contexts as well. Second, as
some researchers stated, social media has its own unique characteristics that demand
researchers to treat it as a distinct research area (Hu & Kettinger, 2008; Soliman &
Beaudry, 2010), and this research extends the concept of brand community to social media
and helps scholars have more insight about brands operating in social media contexts.

9.5. Future recommendations

Future studies can be conducted by considering more broader factors such as role of
artificial intelligence (AI) in social media marketing. If the current study’s factors would be
considered and expert’s opinion would be taken than this research got a strong base which
contribute in betterment of economical condition by providing more facilitation to
individuals. More sample size would be selected to get a more clear view of the picture
based n social media marketing. social media could produce positive effects for brands, it
might be considered that social media is not always an ideal environment for brands in
which to operate. In some cases it might be a risky environment for businesses (Fournier &
Avery, 2011), as customers are becoming more powerful than ever before. They can easily
interact, speak and broadcast their thoughts while companies have less power to manage
the information available about them in the new space (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Moreover, customers could easily get involved in online complaints if they are dissatis-
fified, or upset with the brand (Ward & Ostrom, 2006). Mangold and Faulds (2009) give
some interesting examples of how fatal the negative user generated information could be.
Therefore, we advise businesses to be cautious about their activities on social media in
terms of establishing their brand communities as well as other efforts, and researchers to
conduct more studies about the potential negative consequences of social media based
brand communities and introduce effective techniques to manage communities in such
environments. A second potential limitation surrounds the context of the study. While the
work sets forth and supports a model of brand perceptions following exposure to social

35
media advertising personalization, we were not able to directly compare the effects of
personalization in social media as opposed to direct channel personalization. Though we
would suggest that the social media environment is unique and distinct given its
interaction-based structure, and that the findings addressed in the discussion section
suggest differences in perceptions from the social media context as opposed to other
contexts, more work is necessary to explore in greater detail how the social media context
affects user perceptions. An opportunity for future research, then, is in direct comparison of
these contexts within a single study. Finally, the current research uses online data collected
from Amazon Mechanical Turk and tests the conceptual model using that data set.
Although there is an increasing body of research that collects data from MTurk (Tran,
2017; Ross et al., 2010; Huff and Tingley, 2015), attitudes toward using this type of data
are mixed. Future research should incorporate data from more representative groups of
customers or viewers, such as students, or millennials who account for majority of social
media users. Alternatively, we suggest that future research employ multiple studies with
each using different groups of users, thereby improving generalizability.

REFERENCES:

Aaker, D. A. (2009). Managing brand equity: simon and schuster.

Aaker, D. A. (2012). Building strong brands: Simon and Schuster.
Aaker, D. A., & Equity, M. B. (1991). The Free Press. New York, 206.
Algharabat, R., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Alalwan, A. A., & Qasem, Z. (2018). The effect of
telepresence, social presence and involvement on consumer brand engagement: An
empirical study of non-profit organizations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
40, 139-149.
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Boston. MA: Pws-Kent Publishing
Company.

36
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0, social
media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy.
Business horizons, 55(3), 261-271.
Brennan, L., Binney, W., Parker, L., Aleti, T., & Nguyen, D. (2014). Social marketing and behaviour
change: Models, theory and applications: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brunson, G. D. (1988). A modified personalized system of instruction approach to educational
computing for preservice teachers. Texas Tech University.
Chang, Y.-T., Yu, H., & Lu, H.-P. (2015). Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion, and message
diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of business research, 68(4), 777-782.
Chen, A. C. H. (2001). Using free association to examine the relationship between the
characteristics of brand associations and brand equity. Journal of product & brand
management.
Chi, H.-H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: Exploratory study of
user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 12(1), 44-61.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent. Journal of advertising, 24(3), 25-40.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kapoor, K. K., & Chen, H. (2015). Social media marketing and advertising. The
Marketing Review, 15(3), 289-309.
Erenkol, A. D., & Duygun, A. (2010). Customers perceived brand equity and a research on the
customers of Bellona which is a Turkish furniture brand. The Journal of American
Academy of Business, 16(1), 93-109.
Foroudi, P., Jin, Z., Gupta, S., Foroudi, M. M., & Kitchen, P. J. (2018). Perceptional components of
brand equity: Configuring the Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Paths to brand loyalty and
brand purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 89, 462-474.
James, D. (2005). Guilty through association: brand association transfer to brand alliances. Journal
of consumer marketing.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic brand management: Building,
measuring, and managing brand equity: Pearson Education India.

37
Khadim, R. A., Hanan, M. A., Arshad, A., Saleem, N., & Khadim, N. A. (2018). Revisiting antecedents
of brand loyalty: Impact of perceived social media communication with brand trust and
brand equity as mediators. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 1-13.
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business research, 65(10), 1480-1486.
Lal, B., Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kwayu, S. (2020). Return on Investment in Social Media
Marketing: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research Digital and Social
Media Marketing (pp. 3-17): Springer.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of
consumer marketing, 12(4), 11-19.
Levit, T., & Cismaru, M. (2020). Marketing social marketing theory to practitioners. International
Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 1-16.
Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective. Journal of
product & brand management.
Neti, S. (2011). Social media and its role in marketing. International journal of enterprise
computing and business systems, 1(2), 1-15.
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension.
Journal of consumer marketing.
Sano, K. (2014). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer satisfaction, promote
positive WOM and affect behavior intention. Doshisha Commerce Journal, 66(3-4), 45-69.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. The Oxford handbook
of human motivation, 11.
Severi, E., & Ling, K. C. (2013). The mediating effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand
image and perceived quality on brand equity. Asian Social Science, 9(3), 125.
Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an
exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of retailing, 78(1), 41-50.
Srivastava, R. K., & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Brand equity: a perspective on its meaning and
measurement.
Tatar, Ş. B., & Eren-Erdoğmuş, İ. (2016). The effect of social media marketing on brand trust and
brand loyalty for hotels. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(3), 249-263.
Yasin, N. M., Noor, M. N., & Mohamad, O. (2007). Does image of country‐of‐origin matter to brand
equity? Journal of product & brand management.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and
brand equity. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 28(2), 195-211.

38
Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of business
research, 66(2), 216-223.

Ajina, A. S. (2019). The perceived value of social media marketing: an empirical study of online
word-of-mouth in Saudi Arabian context. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(3),
1512-1527.
Andreasen, A. R. (1994). Social Marketing: Its Definition and Domain, journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 34 (1): Spring.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry Jr, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding
and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of marketing, 67(3), 19-33.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., Carlson, J., Filieri, R., Jacobson, J., . . . Krishen, A. S.
(2020). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and
research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 102168.
Ebrahim, R. S. (2019). The role of trust in understanding the impact of social media marketing on
brand equity and brand loyalty. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1-22.
Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of
assistance and sharing among end-users. Research policy, 32(1), 157-178.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social
media ecosystem. Business horizons, 54(3), 265-273.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M.-O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of social
media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices,
brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1755-1767.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of
marketing, 66(1), 38-54.
Morgan, W. (2012). The iSMA, ESMA and AASM1 consensus definition of social marketing.
International Social Marketing Association.
Muniz, A. M., & O'guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of consumer research, 27(4), 412-
432.
Muniz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand
community. Journal of consumer research, 31(4), 737-747.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality
and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-
586.
Sabaitytė, J., & Davidavičienė, V. (2018). The analysis of internet marketing research directions.
Маркетинг і цифрові технології, 2(1), 7-20.
Srinivasan, S. S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-commerce: an
exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of retailing, 78(1), 41-50.
Tatar, Ş. B., & Eren-Erdoğmuş, İ. (2016). The effect of social media marketing on brand trust and
brand loyalty for hotels. Information Technology & Tourism, 16(3), 249-263.
Tuten, T. L. (2020). Social media marketing: SAGE Publications Limited.
Warner-Søderholm, G., Bertsch, A., Sawe, E., Lee, D., Wolfe, T., Meyer, J., . . . Fatilua, U. N. (2018).
Who trusts social media? Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 303-315.
Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. (2018). The influence of social media marketing activities on customer
loyalty. Benchmarking: An International Journal.

39
Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., & Zhou, N. (2012). How do brand communities generate brand
relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business research, 65(7), 890-895.

Statista (2020a). Global digital population as of January 2020. Available at https://www.

statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/. Accessed on 9 April

2020.

Alvarez, B. A., & Casielles, R. V. (2005). Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: The
effect on brand choice. European Journal of Marketing, 39(1–2), 54–70. Anderson, J. C., &
Gerbing, D. W. (1988).
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. Bollen, K. A.
(1989).
Çal, B., & Adams, R. (2014). The effect of hedonistic and utilitarian consumer behavior on
brand equity: Turkey– UK comparison on Coca Cola. Procedia–Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 150(September), 475–484.
Chandon, P., Brian, W., & Gilles, L. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.
Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by design: The role of
hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.
Clayton, M., & Heo, J. (2011). Effects of promotional-based advertising on brand
associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(4), 309–315.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference,
and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25–40.
Davis, S. J., Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1992). Promotion has a negative effect on brand
evaluations – or does it? Additional disconfirming evidence. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29(1), 143–148.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo, R. F. (1998). Modelling the components of the brand.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(11–12), 1074–1090.

Del Rio, A. B., Vazquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effects of brand associations on
consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.

DelVecchio, D., & Puligadda, S. (2012). The effects of lower prices on perceptions of
brand quality: A choice task perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(6),
465–474.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the
uninitiated. London: SAGE Publications.

Examining the role of advertising and sales promotions in brand equity creation. Journal
of Business Research, 66(1), 115–122.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

40
 Huang, R., & Sarigöllü, E. (2012). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand
equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 92–99.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Kirmani, A., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). Advertising, perceived quality, and brand image.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liao, S. L., Shen, Y. C., & Chu, C. H. (2009). The effects of sales promotion strategy,
product appeal and consumer traits on reminder impulse buying behavior. International
Journal of Consumer Studies Journal, 33(3), 274–284.

Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2006). Consumer perception of value:

Literature review and a new conceptual framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19(1), 40–58.

Singh, P. K., & Pattanayak, J. K. (2016). Study of the relationship among the factors of
brand equity: A study on fast-food brands. Global Business Review, 17(5), 1227–1239.

Srivastava, K., & Sharma, N. K. (2016). Consumer perception of brand personality: An

empirical evidence from India. Global Business Review, 17(2), 1–14.
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Buil, I., De Chernatony, L.,
& Martínez, E. (2013).
van Riel, A. C., De Mortanges, C. P., & Streukens, S. (2005). Marketing antecedents of
industrial brand equity: An empirical investigation in specialty chemicals. Industrial
Marketing Management, 34(8), 841–847.

Villarejo-Ramos, A. F., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2005). The impact of marketing

communication and price promotion on brand equity. The Journal of Brand Management,
12(6), 431–444

41