From Motivation troughParticipation to Loyalty
The Differential Effect of product type in Online Communities
Master’s Thesis
Author: Rosa Boomsma BCom
Student id: 306444
Master Marketing
ErasmusSchool of Economics
ErasmusUniversityRotterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Remco Prins
Second supervisor: Dimitrios TsekourasMSc
Rotterdam, 2009
Index
Abstract
Chapter 1.Introduction
1.1.Motivation and contribution
1.2.Research questions and sub research questions
1.3.Thesis outline
Chapter 2.Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1.Introduction and contribution of this research
2.2.Online communities
2.3.passive vs. activeparticipation
2.4.participation as an antecedent of loyalty
2.5.motives for participation
2.6.Product category as a moderator
Chapter 3.Methodology
3.1.Approach
3.2.Questionnaire construct
3.3.Variables
3.4.Regression analysis
Chapter 4.Results
4.1.passive participation:
4.2.activeparticipation
4.3.loyalty
Chapter 5.Conclusion
5.1.Discussion
5.2.Implications of this research
5.3.Limitations of this research
References
Appendix 1.Items used
Appendix 2.Questionnaire
Appendix 3.Survey invitations
Appendix 4.Research results Thorsten Hennig-Thurau et al
Appendix 5.FCB Grid
Abstract
Members of online communities view (passive participation) or post (active participation) content for multiple reasons. This present research will examine the moderating effect of ‘product type’ on the relationship between several ‘motives’ to participate and ‘participation’. To underline the marketing relevance of this research, the relationship between participation and customer loyalty is examined as well.
In order to generate data to test both the direct and moderating effects, two surveys were taken. For the first survey, a sample was used of some 305 internet users. This survey provided data on motives for participation, the type and level of participation and the type of product. For the second survey, a sample was used of some 130 members from tweakers.net. This survey provided data on the level of participation and the level of loyalty towards a certain brand.
After defining all variables, the direct effect of several motives on participation was measured, using the linear regression model. Here, a distinction was made between motives for ‘passive’ participation and ‘active’ participation. Furthermore, there was support for two out of six motives to have a significant effect on passive participation. However, there was no proof of a moderating effect caused by ‘product type’. There was support for four out of five motives to have as significant effect on active participation. For one out of five motives, there was also evidence for a moderating effect, caused by ‘product type’. Finally, the analysis showed that passive participation has a significant effect on brand loyalty. However, there was found no relationship between active participation and brand loyalty.
In general, online communities try to strive for the highest participation. This present research indicates what motives are important in both passive or active participation. Moreover, lessons can be drawn from differences between product types. Finally, the relevance and importance of both active and passive participation within online communities is explained.
Chapter 1. Introduction
With the growing importance of the internet, a new phenomenon, called web 2.0, is growing in popularity as well. The term web 2.0 was introduced by Tim O’Reilly (2004), describing an emerging new user-centered web. On this web, websites are using different interactive web applications which are created for the people to use. Well-known examples of this approach are online forums and social networking sites like Facebook or Hyves. These applications are based on the principle of user generated content, where the content is mainly provided by the user. The concept can differ and therefore the purposes and benefits differ among websites and applications. Within the social context for example, the web 2.0. enablespeople to establish communities online while it enables offline communities to move toward an online environment. Maintaining and building relationships is less time consuming, and seeking information with other subject enthusiasts becomes more efficient. Within a more knowledge based context, (online) companies can use online user behavior and user generated content to adjust their offerings to meet specific customers’ needs.
1.1.Motivation and contribution
Implications in the Field of Marketing
Online communities, web 2.0 and virtual worlds have been the subject of attention for many researchers the last decade. Rightly so, because in 2009 over 67% of the global online population visited “member communities”, including social networks and blogs (Nielsen Online; 2009). Developing a platform for customers and potential customers to interact with each other in relation to a certain brand or product can be an advantage in different ways (Kumar et al.; 2006) (McWilliam; 2000). For instance, customers are an infinite source of knowledge for innovation. Moreover, community members can be used as a database with people who share characteristics (e.g. interests, attitude towards a brand, etc.). Members seem to be willing to interact with producers during development, driven by interests in innovation (Füler et al.; 2008). Another advantage is the opportunity to create a buzz by multiplying a brand’s popularity through consumer articulations on the web. Bringing people together that have a common interest in a brand, is a type of viral marketing that improves sustainable brand cult (Cova and Pace; 2006). Another reason in support of using online communities as a marketing tool are the studies on Word-of-Mouth. These communities provide a platform for sharing experiences, concerning a brand or product, between the community members. It will add to the company’s brand equity when more people are interested in, and are talking about, a product or brand. There is even a good reason to maintain the negative comments. Although bad reviews can have negative influence, it also helps containing the trustworthiness of the community (Shang et al. 2006).
In general, an online community can only exist if sufficient members participate (Koh et al.; 2007). This can either be in the form of viewing content (passive participation), or actually post content yourself (active participation). For company initiated communities, interaction among participants is even more important, the participation has to lead to some extend of brand or customer loyalty in order to be an attractive investment.
As a consequence, lot has been written about what drives people to participate and contribute to these online communities (e.g.: Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2003), Hennig-Thurau et al.; (2003)), Jang et al; (2008). Or more importantly, how can this be stimulated (e.g.: Koh et al; (2007), Beenen et al. (2004))? Although these motives and stimuli are relevant, some researchers have been questioning whether findings on participation would differ between different kinds of products (Hennig-Thurau and Walsh; 2003), (Shang et al.; 2006). This present research will examine whether there is a difference between the effect that ‘motives to participate’ have on participation for different product types. Furthermore, the relationship between participation and customer loyalty is examined as well.
1.2.Research questions and sub research questions
Main research question
What are the differences between motives between different levels of participation and different product types, and does this lead to loyalty intentions?
To make assumptions about what motivates people to read information that is posted on websites, or to actually contribute content to an online community, influences on participation have to be examined. Consequently the following research question is formed to examine this.
Research question 1
What motives have a significant influence on passive participationand what motives tend to evoke active participation?
As described above, it is important to see whether some motives have a stronger influence on either passive or active participation than others. Although conclusions will be drawn from these measures (question 1), the relationship primarily serves as a benchmark in measuring the effect of the moderator (question 2):
Research question 2
Do motives for participation differ between product types?
However, even if there appears to be a relationship between one or both forms of participation and loyalty intentions, the motives behind participating may be the true explanatory variable. The attitude may already be formed before an internet user reads or posts information in the community.
Research question 3
To what extent does motivation leading to participation explain the influence on loyalty intention?
Actual value for companies is only created if the customer grows loyalty intentions, directly or indirectly, caused by passive or active participation. Whether participation has a significant influence on loyalty intentions, which will be further explained in paragraph 2.5, is to be answered by research question 3a.Although passive participation cannot exist without the presence of consumer created content, passive participants may be more inclined to buy the product than active participants, the other way around, or neither. Moreover, if motives differ between both forms of participation (research question 1), it is very well possible that the attitude towards a product, differs as well (question 3b).
Research question 3a
Is participation an antecedent of loyalty intention?
Research question 3b
What form of participation has a stronger influence on loyalty intention?
In the following research model, the three research questions are depicted.
1.3.Thesis outline
The results of the literature review are divided into three chapters. In chapter 2, an introduction is given on the topic online communities, web 2.0. and how these can be used for business purposes. Furthermore, the relationship between both forms of participation and loyalty will be discussed. The set of potential motives for participation will also be discussed in this chapter. To what extent the relationship between motivation and participation is influenced by the type of product is discussed at the end of this chapter. The hypotheses will formulated based on and resulting from the theoretical background. In chapter 3 the design and methodology of the research is explained. Research results and analyses are given and elaborated on in chapter 4. The results are discussed in chapter 5, and finally the restrictions and implicationsof the research are explained.
Chapter 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1.Introduction and contribution of this research
In former research, different influences that encourage participation have been investigated. Some researchers have focused on platform characteristics e.g. information quality , usefulness , size, levels of interaction (Koh and Kim; 2003), (Jang et al.; 2008). Others have looked at the basic motivation for participants to exchange information or communicate with each other (Gruen et al. 2005), (Hennig-Thurau et al.2004). These characteristics or motivators to participate are indeed important to take into consideration, but may vary when other variables such as product type or community type are taken into account as well. Mot Jang et al. (2008) for example have shown that the characteristics, influencing community commitment, vary between consumer initiated communities and company initiated communities. The same differences between motives to participate could arise between different product types being the topic of a certain community. Shang et al. (2006) discuss the influence of participation on loyalty in a virtual community of Apple, but question whether the outcomes would be the same for different types of products. These authors argue that computers are informational and high involvement products, and therefore, satisfying informational needs may be the main motivation for participation. Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2003) indicated the same limitations to their research. They questioned whether their conclusions on motives for viewing online content would be the same for high and low involvement products.
To prove potential differences in member participation among product categories, a direct influence on participation is used as a benchmark. Instead of examining how Website attributes or characteristics affect member participation, motivation to participate will be examined. Arguing that fulfilling a need is the main driver in becoming a member of an online community, this serves as a basis on which the moderating effects of the type of product are tested.
Two product types are chosen in such a way that differences are most likely to occur. For each of these product types, examples of empirical communities are gathered to serve as a background for the research. In chapter 2, this will be described in further detail.
Both reasons for community members to read customer articulations on the internet, as to post articulations themselves, are researched (Hennig-Thurau and Walsh; 2003) (Hennig-Thurau et al.; 2004). The former form of participation can be described as passive participation or Lurking, while the latter is referred to as active participation or Posting. Although these authors elaborated on the motives for both types of member behavior, these were never combined in one study. This research aims to measure both forms of participation combined in one research.
2.2.Online communities
The definition of the term “Community” has been formulated many times, over many disciplines, including psychology, sociology and biology. Although these definitions vary across disciplines and authors, there is some significant overlap. There are three major criteria in order to explain communities, which we can find in most of the definitions. 1) Members of a community tend to come or live together, in physical or virtual spaces. 2) There has to be some interaction in order to build relationships. 3) Community members bond through common characteristics, experiences or values (Jang et al.; 2008), (Koh and Kim; 2003). Gusfield (1975) describes two different types of communities. The traditional territorial or geographic community and the relational community revolving around member relationships. Considering the absence of a physical place to meet, virtual communities could be regarded as relational communities. However, members can become attached to these virtual spaces which eventually can become a substitute for a geographical place.
The term “Online Communities”, as the term “Communities”, comes with multiple definitions. What these definitions have in common, is that online communities are regarded as a computer-mediated space. The definition by Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002), captures the main idea: “We view virtual communities to be mediated social spaces in the digital environment that allow groups to form and be sustained primarily through ongoing communication processes”. This can either serve as supplement or substitution to physical communities (Bagozzi and Dholakia; 2002). Although it is often described as a social space, communities not always serve solely as means to build social relationships, as will be explained.
According to Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002) communities share several characteristics. 1) Communities often exist around a certain common interest. 2) Members from the community feel a certain belonging to this group, which separates them from other groups. 3) Most communities have written or unwritten rules and habits in expressing themselves. These are so called netiquettes. 4) Unlike traditional media, content is created and published by active participants.This concept is in line with the core concept behind Web 2.0 mentioned earlier. Web 2.0 applications have shifted online activities from browsing to interacting and contributing. 5) Nonverbal expressions and physical appearance is often filtered out. However, with the continues technological developments, image supported communication becomes more easy.
Rheingold (2000) argues that although there are resemblances between online (virtual) communities and physical communities, a large difference lies within the interaction. Outside the virtual world, people first meet face to face, get to know one another, and possible form relationships. Within online communities, people get to know one another, build relationships, and possible get face to face. Another difference is whether or not participation is voluntary or not. participation in online communities is often a matter of choice, while in the physical world membership may be imposed by, for example, geographic location (Bagozzi and Dholakia; 2002). For that reason the entry and exit barriers are often lower for virtual communities, which makes motivating participation more important (Valtersson; 1996).
As mentioned earlier communities vary in purpose. Hagel and Armstrong have among others classified online communities. According to these authors, there are four types of communities (Armstrong and Hagel; 2000): 1) Communities of transaction facilitate the buying and selling of products or services, often supported with information and customer reviews. Examples are Amazon.com and ebay.com. 2) Communities of interest serve as a platform for participants to interact about specific topics or content of interest. Examples are tweakers.net and flickr.com. 3) Communities of relationship is a platform for building relationships, based on experiences, interests, skills, etc. Examples are facebook.com or myspace.com. 4) Communities of fantasy allow members to create a personality, and take on this persona, which can be different from who they are or look like in real life. Communication often takes place between these characters in a virtual fantasy world. Examples are secondlife.com or theworldofwarcraft.com.
Besides classifications based on the purpose that the online community serves, it can also be either company initiated or not company initiated (Plant; 2004). It can even be classified based on functionalities. L.Casaló et al. (2007) have defined ‘Brand community’ as: ‘a set of individuals who voluntarily relate to each other for their interest in some brand or product’. Therefore, these brand communities are, from a marketing perspective, an interesting kind.
In seeing whether there are differences in motives between product types, the focus of the research will be on communities concerning a specific product group. Although opinions are spread in all kinds of forms and ditto communities, communities of interest and communities of transaction are the most common places for consumer articulations (Hennig-Thurau et al.; 2004). For this reason, this study uses communities of interest and transaction as units of observation. Another reason is the popularity of these websites. Bol.com, for example, is a Dutch community of transaction with reviews and ratings on multimedia products and has had 80 million unique visitors last year (NRC Handelsblad; 2009). The more popular a community is, the more likely people are familiar with the website which will be beneficial for the research.
2.3.passive vs. active participation
As stated before, one of the characteristics of online communities is that the content is delivered mainly by members of that community. In order to make online communities viable, attracting people to become member and motivating these members to actively participate, are two crucial factors.