Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: 0965-254X (Print) 1466-4488 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and

gratifications perspective

Rebecca Dolan, Jodie Conduit, John Fahy & Steve Goodman

To cite this article: Rebecca Dolan, Jodie Conduit, John Fahy & Steve Goodman (2016) Social
media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications perspective, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
24:3-4, 261-277, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222

Published online: 23 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3442

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2016
Vol. 24, Nos. 3–4, 261–277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095222

Social media engagement behaviour: a uses and gratifications

perspective
Rebecca Dolana*, Jodie Conduita, John Fahyb and Steve Goodmana
a
School of Marketing and Management, Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, Australia; bManagement and Marketing, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
(Received 29 September 2014; accepted 9 September 2015)

The proliferation of social media platforms and corresponding consumer adoption in

recent years has precipitated a paradigm shift, significantly altering the ways
customers engage with brands. Organisations recognise the social and network value
of engagement within social media, and practitioners are endeavouring to build
engagement through their social media content. However, theoretically based
academic guidance concerning marketing practice and engagement in new media
social networks is limited. This article provides a theoretical model to explicate the
role of social media content in facilitating engagement behaviour within a social
media context. Based on uses and gratifications theory, it provides a model for how
an organisation can stimulate positively valenced engagement behaviour through
social media and dissuade negatively valenced engagement behaviour in this forum.
A typology of social media engagement behaviour is proposed and a series of
hypotheses exploring the relationships between social media content and
engagement behaviour are presented.
Keywords: social media engagement behaviour; social media content; uses and
gratifications theory

Introduction
Social media has become a mainstream media platform that connects one-third of the
world’s population (Nelson-Field & Taylor, 2012). It offers advertisers access to 80% of
global consumer expenditures, a $29 trillion market (Nuttney, 2010). Over 15 million
brands globally are registered with the social media site, Facebook (Koetsier, 2013).
Customers are inundated with a proliferation of messages and marketers will not succeed
in their efforts without an understanding of how to effectively engineer their content to
facilitate engagement (Lee, Hosanagar, & Nair, 2013). Practitioners have largely been at
the forefront of efforts to advise businesses on their social media strategy. Whilst the list
of guidelines and strategies for social media marketing efforts appears endless, academic
research and empirical evidence in the area remains scarce.
The interactive properties of social media have transformed consumers from passive
observers to active participants, with social media platforms serving as an ideal forum
for product and brand-related advocacy (Chu & Kim, 2011), customer-led content gen-
eration (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012) and customer-created product innovations
(Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 2010). Therefore, there is a significant

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

262 R. Dolan et al.

amount of social and network value provided to both users and organisations through
social media sites, as customers comment, review and share information online.
While recent research has explored both the antecedents and consequences of cus-
tomer engagement (Gambetti, Graffigna, & Biraghi, 2012; van Doorn et al., 2010),
studies that consider engagement with social media are only beginning to emerge.
There is a need to develop a theoretical understanding of the nature of engagement
behaviour in response to marketing practices within a social network structure (Sashi,
2012). This paper explains the role of social media content in facilitating engagement
behaviours within social media platforms. It contributes a deeper recognition of the
nature and dynamics facilitating engagement behaviour within social media platforms.
The model explores the processes for stimulating positively valenced social media
engagement behaviour (SMEB) and/or dissuading neutral and negatively valenced
SMEB through the use of social media content. As such, it addresses one of the chal-
lenges in the implementation of organisational tactics and strategies centred on the
increasing role of non-paying customers, and focuses on a MSI (2014) key topic of
interest. Specifically, the MSI (2014) advocate research on customer behaviours in
multi-media environments; the role of social media within customer experiences; the
conceptualisation, definition and measurement of engagement; and how social media
marketing activities create customer engagement (MSI, 2014).
The paper is organised as follows. We begin with a review of uses and gratifica-
tions theory (UGT) which explores customers’ motivation to engage with specific types
of media content, and consequently examines emerging literature within social media
marketing that implicitly or explicitly adopts this perspective. This is followed by an
examination of the SMEB construct, and we present a typology of SMEBs. We outline
a series of hypotheses which demonstrate how differing forms of social media content
impact upon these engagement behaviours. The model and hypotheses are discussed
and implications for both research and practice are outlined.

Uses and gratifications theory

UGT is an approach to understanding why and how individuals actively seek out and
use specific media to satisfy specific needs (Katz & Foulkes, 1962). Herzog (1944)
used the term gratifications to describe specific types or dimensions of satisfaction
reported by audience members of daytime radio programmes. Subsequently, researchers
became interested in why audiences engaged with various forms of media, such as
listening to the radio and reading the newspaper (Wimmer & Dominick, 1994). UGT
addresses how individuals choose media that satisfies their needs, allowing one to rea-
lise gratifications such as knowledge enhancement, entertainment and relaxation, social
interaction and reward or remuneration (Ko, Cho, & Roberts, 2005). UGT was one of
the first approaches to consider the active role of the audience in media choice, sug-
gesting that individuals actively search for, identify with and employ media to fulfil
specific gratification needs (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2013). This perspective recognises that
consumers are active, rather than passive, recipients of media.
While a UGT perspective has been applied in the context of television and elec-
tronic bulletins (Leung & Wei, 2000), the rapid growth of the Internet and social media
platforms has created mediums in which a higher level of interactivity from users is
required (Ko et al., 2005; Ruggiero, 2000). The well-established theoretical perspective
of UGT provides valuable insights into this new medium. As the underlying assump-
tion of UGT is that users are actively involved in media usage, the theory has become
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 263

increasingly relevant in studies of media channels that allow for consumer choice and
interaction, such as social media (Ruggiero, 2000).
Swanson (1987) advocated the need to understand the role of message content
within UGT research. Early research in this area indicated audience members seek and
find different gratifications within media content, affecting consumption of the content.
For example, entertainment and information gratifications, derived through the content
of television programmes contribute to substantial increases in television viewing levels
(Rubin, 1983). Similarly, a UGT perspective has more recently been used to predict
specific behaviours as a result of consumers’ motivations for using social media sites
(Smock, Ellison, Lampe, & Wohn, 2011). In social media, a brand’s overt goal is to
attract an audience by providing value, or gratification, through its content (Malthouse,
Haenlein, Skiera, Wege, & Zhang, 2013). Content must therefore be designed in a way
which creates value for individual consumers to build a stronger level of engagement
and facilitate value outcomes (Malthouse et al., 2013). Constructs based on the theoreti-
cal underpinnings of UGT, such as the need for social interaction, the need for enter-
tainment, information seeking and sharing needs, and the desire for reward or
remuneration have all been explored in recent literature that has investigated consumer
choices of online and social media.
We posit that social media content can be categorised into four main groups, based
on its level of information (de Vries, Gensler, & Leeflang, 2012; Cvijikj & Michahelles,
2013), entertainment (de Vries et al., 2012; Taylor, Lewin, & Strutton, 2011), remunera-
tive (Lee et al., 2013; Cvijikj & Michahelles, 2013) and relational (Muntinga, Moorman,
& Smit, 2011) content. Delivery of these varying forms of content will gratify customer
motives for social media use, therefore, resulting in expressions of SMEBs.

Informational content
The informational construct of UGT represents the extent to which the social media
content provides users with resourceful and helpful information (Chen, Clifford, &
Wells, 2002). The relationship between the ability of an advertisement to provide infor-
mation to viewers and advertising acceptance has been well documented (Bauer &
Greyser, 1968). Further, attaining various forms of information has been suggested as
the most important reason consumers use the internet (Maddox, 1998) and levels of
information and attitude to the website have been found to be positively related (Chen
et al., 2002). Whilst the importance of delivering information through advertisements
has been recognised for traditional media (Rubin, 2002), the role of informational con-
tent in the online, social domain has only recently received attention. Searching for and
receiving information about a brand is one of the main gratifications of consumer
participation in online brand communities (Muntinga et al., 2011; Raacke & Bonds-
Raacke, 2008). The desire to seek information directly from brands is a motivating
factor for consumers to use social media (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004; Lin &
Lu, 2011; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009).

Entertaining content
The entertainment construct of UGT refers to the extent to which social media content
is fun and entertaining to media users (Eighmey & McCord, 1998). The value of enter-
taining media is embedded in its ability to fulfil user needs for escapism, hedonistic
pleasure, aesthetic enjoyment and emotional release (McQuail, 1983). The concept of
264 R. Dolan et al.

entertaining advertising has been discussed extensively in the literature, with empirical
evidence demonstrating that an entertaining advertisement leads to positive attitudes
toward the advertisement (Taylor et al., 2011) and a desire to return to the website
(Raney, Janicke, & Tamborini, 2013). Entertaining advertisements are said to cause
users to consume, create or contribute to brand-related content online (Muntinga et al.,
2011). Through the application of UGT in the context of online brand communities,
authors have shown that consuming entertaining content is an important factor for par-
ticipation (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). The entertainment value of a social media
platform can be an important reason consumers adopt it (Dholakia et al., 2004; Lin &
Lu, 2011; Park et al., 2009).

Remunerative content
The level of remuneration offered to the consumer through social media content has
been studied as a driver of consumer decisions to contribute to online communities
(Muntinga et al., 2011). Consumers engage in social media use as they expect to gain
some kind of reward such as an economic incentive, job-related benefit or personal
wants (Muntinga et al., 2011). Social media content that offers a reward or remunera-
tion includes monetary incentives, giveaways, prize drawings or monetary compensa-
tions (Füller, 2006). This type of content is expected to gratify users’ needs for
remuneration and rewards within social media.
Whilst managers often believe that social media content offering monetary incen-
tives such as bonus points, prize draws or sharing product success are important, they
are often mistaken. Rather, factors such as the ability to learn something new, the possi-
bility to get exclusive content, and the ability to gain acknowledgement and support
from other consumers have a far greater impact on consumers’ motivation to engage
and contribute to virtual communities (Füller, 2006).

Relational content
Consumer needs for integration and social interaction and their desire for social benefits
have been identified as key motivations for users to access the internet (Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Motivations for social media use include gaining a
sense of belonging, connecting with friends, family and society, seeking support, and
substituting real-life partnership (Muntinga et al., 2011). Users find the internet a com-
fortable place to reveal their feelings, share views and experiences, and to let their
family and friends know about their latest information (Leung, 2009). Internet users
expressed that through the online content generation process, they would have the
opportunity to be recognised, publicise their expertise, learn more of the world, socia-
lise with friends and be entertained (Leung, 2009). Socialising involves motivations
such as gaining peer support, meeting interesting people, belonging to a community
and staying in touch with friends (Park et al., 2009).
The above discussion illustrates that UGT provides a framework through which we
understand the motivations of individuals seeking a specific type of media. In a social
media context, users are not passive in their media selection or their use of specific
media. Social media is constructed to enable customer interaction and engagement.
Therefore, it is imperative that we expand the application of UGT to determine the
engagement behaviour that results from the selection of, and interaction with, different
types of social media content.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 265

Social media engagement behaviour

With the growing prevalence of social media, there has been an emergent focus from
both academics and practitioners on the concept of engagement in social media
platforms (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). Social media is one of the more
prevalent channels through which customers engage with a brand or firm, and busi-
nesses are recognising the need to engage where current and potential customers are
paying most attention (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Social media platforms provide users
with an interactive avenue to create value and engage with the firm (Brodie et al.,
2013; Gummerus, Liljander, Weman, & Pihlström, 2012). Users create social media
content through their contributions, comments and likes. Subsequently, their input facil-
itates the engagement and interaction of other members. Therefore, companies want to
encourage their followers to not just passively consume content, but actively exhibit
SMEBs in such a way that they comment and create new content (Baird & Parasnis,
2011; Gummerus et al., 2012).
The notion of engagement has been studied in many fields, including psychology
(Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006), education (Baron & Corbin, 2012) and management
(Saks, 2006). A recent focus in marketing has centred on customer engagement with a
brand (Hollebeek, 2011; van Doorn et al., 2010). Customers engage with a firm or
brand through multiple touch-points and service encounters. Examples of this engage-
ment include interactions with staff, use of products, physical retail spaces, social
media pages and other forms of communication. Authors recognise that there are
various focal objects of customer engagement, including product or service offerings
(Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011), activities and events (Vivek et al., 2012) and
media (Calder, Malthouse, & Schaedel, 2009). Together, these interactions constitute
the brand experience of the customer. Engagement is interactive and therefore context
dependent and can only be properly understood through an examination of each of
these service experiences (Brodie et al., 2011; Calder et al., 2009; Gummerus et al.,
2012). However, there is little research that examines customer engagement at this
focused level. Our examination of social media engagement focuses attention on a sin-
gular touch-point in the service experience. It therefore does not reflect customer brand
engagement in its entirety, but rather a singular component of that engagement. Consis-
tent with calls from previous researchers (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012), it is
argued that this in-depth examination within a context-specific environment (e.g. social
media) will provide greater insight into the behavioural manifestations of engagement.
Extant literature contains several definitions of customer engagement (see Brodie
et al., 2011; Vivek, Beatty, Dalela, & Morgan, 2014), including the perspective that
customer engagement constitutes cognitive, affective and behavioural components
(Brodie et al., 2013). Whilst we recognise the role and importance of cognitive and
affective engagement, this paper focuses on the examination of the behavioural mani-
festations of engagement consistent with previous examinations of engagement in a
social media context (e.g. Gummerus et al., 2012; van Doorn et al., 2010). We adapt
the definition of customer engagement from van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) to reflect
social media engagement:
Social media engagement behaviours go beyond transactions, and may be specifically
defined as a customer’s behavioural manifestations that have a social media focus
[adapted], beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers.
Importantly, this definition reflects that engagement behaviours are a result of motiva-
tional influences, consistent with the theoretical underpinning of UGT.
266 R. Dolan et al.

Typologies of SMEB
In order to provide a deeper understanding of the behaviours consumers’ exhibit when
they engage with social media, this paper proposes a typology of behaviours. The
SMEB construct identifies and explicates the different types of engagement behaviours
that users exhibit in social media platforms. It demonstrates that SMEB consists of
seven distinct types; co-creation, positive contribution, consumption, dormancy, detach-
ment, negative contribution and co-destruction. While co-creation, positive contribu-
tion, negative contribution and co-destruction represent active engagement behaviours
that potentially impact on other social media users, consumption, dormancy and detach-
ment are more passive and/or individualised forms of engagement.
While the majority of current literature concerning customer engagement has
focused on positively valenced engagement (van Doorn et al., 2010), the engagement
concept can be extended to capture negatively valenced engagement (Hollebeek &
Chen, 2014). The construct of SMEB highlights the critical role of negatively valenced
engagement behaviour within social media platforms. Negatively valenced SMEB
includes detachment, negative contribution and co-destruction, exhibited through
consumers’ unfavourable brand-related behaviours during interactions (Hollebeek &
Chen, 2014). Comparatively, positively valenced SMEB involves particular favourable
or affirmative behavioural brand-related consumer dynamics. Positively valenced SMEB
includes consumption, positive contribution and co-creation. In addition, the potential
for an inactive, neutral state of engagement (termed dormancy) from the social media
platform is recognised (Brodie et al., 2013).
Previous research has suggested that engagement behaviour may occur at varying
levels, such as high and low (Malthouse et al., 2013; Muntinga et al., 2011). However,
such interpretations fail to clearly define the specific actions undertaken by users within
these high and low engagement levels. Our construct provides discrete engagement
behaviour levels that vary in intensity and valence as presented in Figure 1 and
described in Table 1.
We position SMEB on a continuum of intensity, from low (passive) to high (active)
activity (Muntinga et al., 2011). Additionally, the intensities of engagement vary in
valence. Positively valenced engagement levels are low (consuming), medium (positive
contribution) and high (co-creation). Negatively valenced engagement levels are low
(detaching), medium (negative contribution) and high (co-destruction). A neutral,
dormant state of engagement exists. Each of the engagement behaviours are discussed
in the following sections.

Co-creation
Co-creating customers represent the highest level of positively valenced SMEB.
Co-creators act as co-developers of the content on the social media page, through the
initiation of positive, active contributions and subsequent interaction with the brand,
and other members. These members create various forms of content in order to dissem-
inate their resources, knowledge and experience to the focal firm and other consumers
(Brodie et al., 2013; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014). Activities engaged in by co-creators
reflect interactive creation behaviours including learning, sharing, advocating,
socialising and co-developing (Brodie et al., 2013).
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 267

Figure 1. Social Media Engagement Behaviour Typologies.

Positive contribution
Positively contributing customers represent a moderate level of positively valenced
SMEB. Social media users engage in this form of behaviour through making positive,
active contributions to existing content on the social media brand page. Customers also
contribute to the popularity of social media content by indicating their preferences
through the ‘Like’ function on Facebook and Instagram, or the ‘Favourite’ function on
Twitter. Through these actions, customers become message senders for the focal brand,
passing on content to actors within their own networks. When users like, share, retweet
or favourite content, they become endorsers of the focal brand, increasing the
likelihood of friends to also engage with the content (Chu, 2011).

Consumption
Consumption reflects the lower level of positively valenced SMEB. This behaviour is
passive, denoting a level of participation without actively contributing to or creating
content. Although individual value will be extracted from the consumption of social
media content, consumption behaviour is individualistic and will not impact on other
members. Scholars have suggested that reading discussions (e.g. to find information) is
a form of passive participation, whereas posting comments is active participation
(Shang, Chen, & Liao, 2006). Research supports the notion that users access social
Table 1. Social media engagement behaviour (SMEB) construct.
268

Label Definition Supporting literature Examples

Co-creation The highest possible level of positive, active SMEB Muntinga et al. (2011) Publishing a brand-related weblog
whereby users initiate un-prompted, positive and Uploading brand-related video, audio, images
active contributions to social media communities Writing brand-related articles, reviews and
testimonials
Positive A moderate level of positive, active SMEB whereby Muntinga et al. (2011) Rating products, brands
contribution users make positive and active contributions to Brodie et al. (2011) Contributing to brand forums
existing content on social media brand pages Comment positively on posts, blogs, videos and
pictures
‘Like’ and share brand-related content
Inviting a friend to like the page
Tagging friends in brand-related content
Consumption The minimum level of positive, passive SMEB Muntinga et al. (2011) Viewing brand-related video
whereby users consume content without any form of Listening to brand-related audio
active reciprocation or contribution Viewing pictures and photos posted by the brand
Reading brand posts
Reading product/brand reviews
Dormancy A temporary state of inactive, passive SMEB by users Brodie et al. (2011) Brand-related content is delivered to the user but
R. Dolan et al.

who have previously interacted with the social media the user has no response
community
Detachment The minimum level of negative, active SMEB Brodie et al. (2011) ‘Unliking’ or ‘unfriending’ social media brand page
whereby users temporarily or permanently conclude ‘Unfollowing’ a brand on social media
their membership Terminating a subscription for further updates and
content from the brand
Negative A moderate level of negative, active SMEB whereby Hollebeek and Chen Conversing negatively on brand-related content
contribution users make negative contributions to existing content (2014) Making negative contributions to brand forums
within the social media community Publicly rating products and brands negatively
Co-destruction The highest possible level of negative, active SMEB Hollebeek and Chen Writing a public complaint, negative product reviews
whereby users initiate unprompted, negative (2014) and testimonials
contributions to the social media community Publishing a negative brand-related blog
Initiating adverse social media brand pages for fellow
community members to join (e.g. ‘I hate Apple
Facebook Page’)
Reporting the brand for misconduct of use on social
media
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 269

media to consume content as a source of information, without contributing through

likes, shares and comments (Gummerus et al., 2012). We define this form of SMEB as
the passive consumption of brand-related content. This consumption is achieved
through reading reviews, discussions and comments, in addition to viewing photos,
watching videos and clicking on content and links.

Dormancy
Dormancy reflects a temporary state of inactive, passive engagement by consumers
who may have previously interacted with the focal brand (Brodie et al., 2013). Social
media users exhibiting a state of dormancy are often referred to as ‘lurkers’, defined by
criteria such as making zero contributions, or fewer contributions than other users
(Muller, Shami, Millen, & Feinberg, 2010). We define dormant users following the first
definition; a dormant user is a consumer who has made zero active or passive contribu-
tions to the social media brand post. They do not engage with social media through the
consumption, contribution to or creation of any content. Similarly, dormant customers
do not undertake any forms of active negatively valenced SMEB, such as detachment
or co-destruction.

Detachment
Detachment represents a low level of negatively valenced SMEB. Detached customers
privately remove themselves from the social media page and related content through
selecting to hide all future content, or ‘unlike’ or ‘unsubscribe’ from the page. This
reflects a termination of the interaction, meaning there is a temporary or permanent
conclusion to the consumers’ behavioural engagement with the social media page. The
detachment of individual users does not impact on other users of the social media site.
Detachment from a brand relationship or brand community can be observed in previous
scholarly research through the concept of relationship ending, explored more commonly
in interpersonal relationship literature (Duck & Perlman, 1985). Other terms related to
the concept have included termination, withdrawal, dissolution, discontinuation, uncou-
pling and break-up (Stewart, 1998). Bowden, Gabbott, and Naumann (2015) provide a
comprehensive review of relationship ending and disengagement literature. They define
disengagement as:
A process by which a customer-brand relationship experiences a trauma or disturbance
which may lead to relationship termination; which involves a range of trigger based
events; which varies in intensity and trajectory; which occurs within a specific set of cate-
gory conditions and which is dependent on prior levels of customer engagement. (Bowden
et al., 2015, p. 6)
Concurring with Bowden et al. (2015), detachment within social media can be referred
to as ‘termination’, representing a state of more perpetual disengagement and referring
to the end of a customer’s engagement with the focal brand page (Brodie et al., 2013).
This view suggests a permanent state of detachment, however, it may be posited that
detachment with a social media brand page may be temporary in nature, as users may
choose to rejoin at a later date.

Negative contribution
Negatively contributing customers represent a moderate level of negatively valenced
engagement behaviour. These social media users can make negative, active
270 R. Dolan et al.

contributions to existing content posted on social media brand pages. These contribu-
tions may be directed toward either the brand, or members. Users exhibiting this form
of negatively valenced SMEB may do so with the aim of influencing other actors’ per-
ceptions, preferences or knowledge regarding the focal firm (Jaakkola & Alexander,
2014). Negative contributions made within social media are comparable to the concept
of negative word of mouth (WOM). The significance of WOM in influencing consumer
decision-making has been well recognised in marketing and advertising literature (Gilly,
Graham, Wolfinbarger, & Yale, 1998). Social media platforms offer an ideal tool for
negative WOM, as customers freely create and disseminate brand-related information in
their established social networks (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). Negatively discussing
focal brands and service experiences through WOM behaviours may affect the purchase
behaviour of focal as well as other customers (van Doorn et al., 2010).

Co-destruction
Co-destructive social media users display high level of negatively valenced SMEB.
Co-destructive customers actively create negative content on social media brand pages,
interacting with the brand, other customers and the general public. Scholars have
recently distinguished between the destruction of value during interactive value forma-
tion, and the co-creation of value. While co-creation refers to the process in which
providers and customers collaboratively create value, co-destruction refers to the collab-
orative destruction, or diminishment of value by providers and customers (Plé &
Cáceres, 2010). This form of content is created within social media platforms, with the
aim to vent negative brand-related feelings causing a destruction of brand value
(Bowden et al., 2015; Hollebeek & Chen, 2014; Plé & Cáceres, 2010).

Social media content and engagement behaviour

Building on the previous discussion, we propose an integrative model of social media
content and SMEB (Figure 2). The model suggests that social media content facilitates

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Social Media Content and SMEB.

 Journal of Strategic Marketing 271

SMEB. There are seven discrete types of SMEB exhibited by users. The following
paragraphs detail the emerging hypotheses.

Engaging with informational content

Scholars have demonstrated that consumers engage when motivated by informational
needs (Ko et al., 2005). This behavioural engagement manifests through actions such
as clicking on links, staying on websites longer, reading details and threads and using
multimedia features. This denotes passive engagement with the brand, rather than active
engagement in the form of commenting, or contributing to online communities (Ko
et al., 2005).
In the social media context, de Vries et al. (2012), Cvijikj and Michahelles (2013)
and Lee et al. (2013) have empirically demonstrated a relationship between informative
content and customer engagement. Informative content has been found to negatively
impact levels of user engagement in the form of likes and comments, when compared
to persuasive content such as emotional and philanthropic content (Lee et al., 2013).
Cvijikj and Michahelles (2013) found that posts which contain information about the
brand cause a lower level of engagement compared to entertaining content. Compara-
tively, no significant relationship was found between the provision of information
within a brand post and the number of likes or comments obtained (de Vries et al.,
2012). This could be explained by the fact that highly informational brand-related con-
tent may be considered as specific to the brand page on which it is posted, and hence
it may lose its significance when shared by fans on their own walls. Further, informa-
tional content is often not designed to appeal to engagement behaviours that elicit inter-
action with other users in the same way as entertaining or relational content. Hence,
H1: Informational content facilitates passive, positively-valenced social media engagement
behaviour.

Engaging with entertaining content

Extant studies within the social media context highlighted the importance of entertain-
ing content as one of the antecedents to engagement behaviour. Entertaining content
can be found in messages which include small talk or banter, an attempt to gain trust
and contain philanthropic content to appeal to a person’s emotions (Lee et al., 2013).
Cvijikj and Michahelles (2013) defined entertaining content as posts that did not refer
to a brand or particular product, rather were written in the form of a teaser, slogan or
word play. Entertaining content was a significant factor in increasing the number of
likes, comments and shares made on social media content (Cvijikj and Michahelles
(2013). Conflicting research has shown negative effects of entertaining content. de
Vries et al. (2012) found that entertainment is marginally significant and negatively
related to social media content popularity (the number of likes on a Facebook post).
The study also found that whether the content was entertaining or not, it did not influ-
ence the number of comments made on the content.
Consistent with the rationale of UGT, entertaining content is proposed as an antece-
dent of positively valenced SMEB, such as positive contribution and co-creation. If
social media content is entertaining, customers’ motivations to engage with the content
are met. Hence, customers will exhibit a positive response toward entertaining social
media content. Thus:
272 R. Dolan et al.

H2: Entertaining content facilitates active, positively-valenced social media engagement

behaviour.

Engaging with remunerative content

Scholars have suggested that social media content that offers remuneration may cause
lower levels of engagement, compared to informative content (Cvijikj & Michahelles,
2013). Remunerative social media content includes contests and sweepstakes and was
found to be negatively related to the number of likes that a post received, but was a
significant factor in predicting the number of comments (Cvijikj & Michahelles, 2013).
Whilst the study demonstrated the effect of remunerative content on facilitating engage-
ment behaviour through comments, the valence or content of customer comments were
not considered or analysed. It is expected that a low level of behavioural engagement
would occur as a result of a post containing a reward or offer, for example, consump-
tion behaviour, rather than positive contribution or co-creation (Muntinga et al., 2011).
In contrast, Lee et al. (2013) found that social media content which includes economic
or remunerative information such as a product mention, price mention or deals and pro-
motions has a negative impact on comments. Further, this form of content also has a
negative impact on the number of likes obtained on the post. Thus:
H3: Remunerative content facilitates passive, positively-valenced social media engagement
behaviour.

Engaging with relational content

Brodie et al. (2013) recognise ‘socialising’ as one of five sub-processes of customer
engagement which may occur within a virtual brand community. Socialising refers to
two-way, non-functional interactions through which consumers develop attitudes, norms
and/or a common language (Brodie et al., 2013, p. 7). Customers with high social inter-
action motivations are more likely to engage in human-to-human interaction whether in
an offline or online context. This interaction includes behaviours such as providing
comments, feedback, personal information and participating in online discussion (Ko
et al., 2005). These behaviours are reflective of the positive contribution and co-cre-
ation levels of the SMEB typology. These studies suggest that social gratification is a
significant predictor of SMEB. Based on this reasoning, it can be hypothesised that
relational brand content which stimulates social participation and interaction amongst
consumers will be successful in facilitating positively valenced SMEB. Thus:
H4: Relational content facilitates active, positively-valenced social media engagement
behaviour.

Discussion and conclusions

This paper responds to the call for the development of theoretical models describing
the roles of customers in online social networks. Through the examination of the role
of social media content using UGT, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of
engagement behaviour within social media platforms. We explored the influence of
informational content, entertaining content, relational content and remunerative content
on positively and negatively valenced engagement behaviour. The theoretical model
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 273

and corresponding hypotheses address the dynamic nature of how social media content
impacts on SMEB.
Further research using the theoretical model will demonstrate how an organisation
can enhance, mitigate or neutralise different forms of SMEB through strategic develop-
ment of social media content. It will provide further understanding of how marketers
structure and deliver communication content in such a way that it promotes positively
valenced engagement behaviours. Managers of brands that utilise social media plat-
forms such as Facebook and Twitter can be guided by this research in deciding which
characteristics of content to place within posts in order to elicit favourable behavioural
responses among users. Further research should also incorporate developing a greater
understanding of what drives negatively valenced engagement as suggested by
Hollebeek and Chen (2014) and Bowden et al., (2015).
The proposed construct of SMEB contributes to the literature, through the develop-
ment of a deeper understanding of the nature of engagement behaviour. It encompasses
a new typology of SMEB; specifically describing co-creation, positive contribution,
consumption, dormancy, detachment, negative contribution and co-destruction beha-
viour. Whilst previous engagement scholars have explored the customer engagement
cycle, a construct for understanding both positive and negative SMEB has not yet been
developed. The typology captures both positively valenced engagement behaviours and
negatively valenced engagement behaviours and considers the intensity of this engage-
ment, reflected at both ends of the spectrum. Further, the development of the SMEB
construct provides clarity to managers who wish to understand not only why, but also
how customers engage with a focal brand.
Previous research in customer brand engagement has considered the construct an
overarching phenomenon, even when examining specific focal objects such as online
engagement (e.g. Mollen & Wilson, 2010) or advertising/media engagement (e.g.
Gambetti et al., 2012). Despite recognition that the brand experience consists of multi-
ple interactions with discrete resources, and hence is context dependent (Brodie et al.,
2011), there has been little research focused on specific experience settings. This
research examines social media engagement; while being a constituent of customer
brand engagement, we recognise it does not embody the construct in its entirety. Hav-
ing a focus on customer engagement with social media content has enabled a deeper
examination of the nature of engagement in this context and the behaviours that mani-
fest. This provides greater clarity into the specific expressions of both positively and
negatively valenced engagement behaviour in a social media context and what
facilitates it.
The application of UGT to examine the influence of social media content on
engagement behaviours recognises the interactive nature of the media and extends the
use of the theory. Historically, UGT has examined the motivations for seeking specific
types of media through recognition that customers are active and not passive. The
active nature of customers in their decision-making and selection of media is consistent
with the social media context, where customers choose not only to consume but to
engage with the media. We seek to understand the impact of this decision-making and
therefore it is reasonable that we extend the application of UGT to determine the
engagement behaviour.
274 R. Dolan et al.

Future research directions

The positioning of social media content as an antecedent to SMEB, in addition to the
development of a construct typifying seven categories of SMEB, serves as a basis for
further exploration. This further exploration would focus on engagement and the role
of marketing activities in online, dynamic environments. Whilst we hypothesise that
social media content facilitates SMEB, empirical analysis is required to further explore
this relationship.
The extent to which SMEB is caused by factors beyond social media content is an
important consideration. For example, customer expressions of co-destructive behaviour
may arise as a result of a brand-related experience outside of the social media platform.
Theoretical and empirical investigation of the factors beyond social media content
which may facilitate positively and negatively valenced engagement behaviour will fur-
ther the understanding of SMEB. For example, antecedents of customer engagement
such as identification, trust, involvement, commitment and interaction (Brodie et al.,
2011; Gambetti et al., 2012) could be applied to future studies examining the drivers of
SMEB. The dynamic nature of the levels of engagement behaviours proposed in the
SMEB construct merit further attention. For example, analysis of customer progression
through or within the seven proposed categories provides an interesting area for further
research. Knowledge of this process will offer substantial managerial value. The extent
to which the levels proposed occur in an interactive, cyclical or unpredictable pattern
warrants further research. Whilst this model focuses on the specific interactive experi-
ences between customers and the social media content of brands, interactions between
customers, business, governments and other agencies merit further examination as
called for in Brodie et al. (2011).
This paper investigates one marketing activity; the provision of social media con-
tent. Other marketing activities that merit attention include the use of paid and targeted
advertising, brand endorsements by influential bloggers or celebrities, and social distri-
bution tools such as the ‘Facebook Store’. Further research regarding other forms of
marketing activities within social media will enhance our understanding of how users
engage in this medium.
Some proponents of customer engagement argue for a three-dimensional construct
of customer engagement, with cognitive, affective and behavioural components (e.g.
Brodie et al., 2011). This study focused exclusively on the behavioural manifestation of
engagement. Future research could theorise and examine the influence of social media
content on cognitive and affective engagement. This would provide a more comprehen-
sive understanding of the engagement attributed to social media content and conse-
quently could be a better predictor of future behaviour.
As outlined in earlier discussions, social media engagement reflects only one cus-
tomer brand touch-point within the broader brand experience. Customer brand engage-
ment is a broader notion that encapsulates a series of multiple touch-points between the
customer and the brand. Future research should seek to consider engagement beha-
viours across all channels that customer use to engage with a firm. Future research
should compare these various customer brand touch-points and seek to understand the
synergistic effects of multiple forms of customer engagement with the brand. Embed-
ded within this would be a comparison of online versus offline customer engagement.
An examination of individual customers would likely reveal that some customers
have a higher likelihood to actively engage through social media, rather than passively
engage, and that some customers would be more likely to engage through negatively
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 275

valenced expression, rather than positively valenced expression. Further research to

understand the characteristics of these individuals would allow for targeted strategies
and responses. By understanding SMEB and examining this in context of a customer
profitability analysis, customer segments can be created that may be better targeted and
more profitably managed (Gummerus et al., 2012).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Baird, C., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer relationship management.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 30–37.
Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education
Research & Development, 31, 759–772.
Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising in America, the consumer view. Boston, MA:
Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University.
Bowden, J. L. H., Gabbott, M., & Naumann, K. (2015). Service relationships and the customer
disengagement – Engagement conundrum. Journal of Marketing Management, 31, 774–806.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service
Research, 14, 252–271.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66, 105–114.
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship
between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
23, 321–331. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
Chen, Q., Clifford, S. J., & Wells, W. D. (2002). Attitude toward the site II: New information.
Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 33–46.
Chu, S.-C. (2011). Viral advertising in social media: Participation in Facebook groups and
responses among college-aged users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12, 30–43.
Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-
mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30, 47–75.
Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages.
Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3, 843–861.
de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages:
An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
26, 83–91.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 21, 241–263. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004
Duck, S. E., & Perlman, D. E. (1985). Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary
approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Eighmey, J., & McCord, L. (1998). Adding value in the information age: Uses and gratifications
of sites on the world wide web. Journal of Business Research, 41, 187–194.
Füller, J. (2006). Why consumers engage in virtual new product developments initiated by
producers. Advances in Consumer research, 33, 639–646.
Gambetti, R. C., Graffigna, G., & Biraghi, S. (2012). The Grounded Theory approach to con-
sumer-brand engagement: The practitioner’s standpoint. International Journal of Market
Research, 54, 659–687.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A dyadic study of
interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 83–100.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a
Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35, 857–877.
276 R. Dolan et al.

Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different? can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist,
11, 119–127.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves
on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 38–52.
Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F. Lazarsfeld &
F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research, 1942–1943, (pp. 3–33). New York: Duell, Sloan &
Pearce.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 19, 555–573.
Hollebeek, L. D, & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand
engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23, 62–74.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation
in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283–296.
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value
co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17, 247–261.
doi:10.1177/1094670514529187
Katz, E., & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of the mass media as ‘escape’: Clarification of a
concept. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 277–388.
Ko, H., Cho, C.-H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equa-
tion model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34, 57–70.
Koetsier, J. (2013). Facebook: 15 million businesses, companies, and organizations now have a
Facebook page. San Francisco, CA: VentureBeat.
Ku, Y.-C., Chu, T.-H., & Tseng, C.-H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A
comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 226–234.
Lee, D., Hosanagar, K., & Nair, H. S. (2013). The effect of advertising content on consumer
engagement: Evidence from Facebook. Available at SSRN. Retrieved from http://www.re
searchgate.net/publication/257409065.
Leung, L. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic
engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media & Society, 11, 1327–1347.
Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of the
cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 308–320.
Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H.-P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study inte-
grating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
1152–1161.
Maddox, K. (1998). E-commerce becoming reality. Advertising Age, 69, S1–S2.
Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing customer
relationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. Journal of Interac-
tive Marketing, 27, 270–280.
McQuail, D. (1983). Mass communication theory. London: Sage.
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 63, 919–925.
MSI. (2014). 2014-2016 research priorities. Retrieved from http://www.msi.org/research/2014-
2016-research-priorities/
Muller, M., Shami, N. S., Millen, D. R., & Feinberg, J. (2010). We are all lurkers: Consuming
behaviors among authors and readers in an enterprise file-sharing service. In Proceedings of
the 16th ACM international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 201–210), New York:
ACM.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducting COBRAs: Exploring motiva-
tions for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30, 13–46.
Nelson-Field, K., & Taylor, J. (2012, May) Facebook fans: A fan for life? Admap, pp. 25–27. Retrieved
from http://www.warc.com/Content/LinkResolver.aspx?AID=96814&M=admap_may12.
Nuttney, A. (2010). The social networking market opportunity. Birmingham, AL: Insights.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
12, 729–733.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 277

Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation: Introducing interactional co-destruction
of value in service-dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 430–437.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifica-
tions theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174.
Raney, A. A., & Janicke, S. H. (2013). How we enjoy and why we seek out morally complex
characters in media entertainment. In Tamborini, R. (Ed.), Media and the moral mind
(pp. 152–170). London: Routledge.
Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 27, 37–51.
Rubin, A. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In B. Jennings
(Ed.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication
& society, 3, 3–37.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.
Sashi, C. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer–seller relationships, and social media. Manage-
ment Decision, 50, 253–272.
Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Liao, H.-J. (2006). The value of participation in virtual consumer
communities on brand loyalty. Internet Research, 16, 398–418.
Smock, A. D., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., & Wohn, D. Y. (2011). Facebook as a toolkit: A uses
and gratification approach to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
2322–2329.
Stewart, K. (1998). The customer exit process – A review and research agenda. Journal of
Marketing Management, 14, 235–250.
Swanson, D. L. (1987). Gratification seeking, media exposure, and audience interpretations: Some
directions for research. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 237–254.
Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: Do ads work on
social networks? How gender and age shape receptivity. Journal of Advertising Research, 51,
258–275.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 253–266. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, V., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A generalized multidimensional
scale for measuring customer engagement. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
22, 401–420.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer
relationships beyond purchase. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20, 122–146.
Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of
consumer control. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1994). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.