Social value, content value, and brand equity in social media brand communities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of culture, personality, and motivation on social and content value, which in turn affect brand equity in social media brand community (SMBC) setting. Design/methodology/approach Online surveys were conducted with 595 SMBC participants in China and the USA. AMOS is used in SEM analysis. Findings Consumers with collectivistic, extroverted, and extrinsic orientation experience social value through social media participation. In contrast, consumers with individualistic and intrinsic orientation demonstrate content value. Furthermore, Chinese consumers show more social value and the US consumers more content value. Accordingly, the effect of social value (content value) on brand equity is stronger for Chinese (US) consumers. Research limitations/implications Culture was assessed only by individualism/collectivism, personality by extroversion/introversion and motivation by extrinsic/intrinsic. Future research should verify external generalizability beyond China and the USA. Practical implications Enhanced social and content value through consumers’ social media participation can increase brand equity. Thus, companies should motivate consumers to experience more value via social media participation, and, cultivate a multicultural climate and facilitate the exchange of culture. Originality/value First, this research redefines customer value into two components: social and content value. Second, this paper is the first to investigate the antecedents (i.e. culture, personality, and motivation) and the consequence (i.e. brand equity) of customer value in social media community settings. Third, this study illustrates differences in social media customer value experiences of Chinese vs US consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it