memo to marketers- quantitative evidence for change

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-52-1-053-064 March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 53

INTRODUCTIONThe social Web represents a paradigm shift in mar-

keting communicationsindeed, communication

as a whole. Brands that formerly were tightly con-

trolled by their managers increasingly are being

shaped by their consumer markets. It is, therefore,

important for managers to understand the driv-

ers of consumer online content creation and their

subsequent impact on brands (Berthon, Pitt, and

Campbell, 2008; Christodoulides, 2009).

User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly grow-

ing vehicle for brand conversations and consumer

insights. The growth of online brand communities,

including social-networking sites, has supported

the development of UGC (Gangadharbatla, 2008).

More than 82 million people in the United States

created content online during 2008, and this number

is expected to grow to nearly 114.5 million by 2013

(eMarketer, 2009). Following a similar trend, con-

sumers of UGC are expected to reach 155 million in

2013, up from 116 million in 2008 (eMarketer , 2009).

A significant amount of UGC concerns brand-

related material (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). For

example, recent evidence shows that about 70 percent

of brand-related searches on social-networking

sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter relate

to UGC, and only 30 percent of searches are for

marketer-created content (360i, 2009).

Despite the rapid increase in UGC and its poten-

tial effect on brands, however, there has been

limited research to date on the impact of consumer-

generated content on how brands are perceived.

Indeed, empowered consumers generating and

sharing their own brand-related content does not

fit into any current model of integrated marketing

communications (Ewing, 2009).

With the continued growth of online participa-

tion in content creation and sharing, consumers

are exerting greater influence over products and

brands (Jevons and Gabbott, 2000; Riegner, 2007).

Although the shift to more user-centered commu-

nication means there is growing interest in UGC,

there is little theory to inform managers about the

impact of UGC on brands.

Examples of poor practice abound, and UGC does

not always work as brand managers might hope

(Shenkan and Sichel, 2007). This limited understand-

ing of the nature of UGC and its effects on brand

Memo to Marketers:

Quantitative Evidence for ChangeHow User-Generated Content Really Affects Brands

GEORGE CHRISTODOULIDESHenley Business school,

University of ReadingG.christodoulides@henley.

reading.ac.uk

COLIN JEVONSMonash University/

Caulfield campus

colin.Jevons@ monash.edu

JENNIFER BONHOMMEDigital Planning

consultantJennifer.L.Bonhomme@

gmail.com

Developed in response to the new challenges of the social Web, this study investigates

how involvement with brand-related user-generated content (UGc) affects consumers

perceptions of brands. The authors develop a model that provides new insights into the

links between drivers of UGc creation, involvement, and consumer-based brand equity.

Expert opinions were sought on a hypothesized model, which further was tested through

data from an online survey of 202 consumers. The results provide guidance for managerial

initiatives involving UGC campaigns for brand building. The findings indicate that consumer

perceptions of co-creation, community, and self-concept have a positive impact on

UGc involvement that, in turn, positively affects consumer-based brand equity. These

empirical results have significant implications for avoiding problems and building deeper

relationships between consumers and brands in the age of social media.

54 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2012

HOW UsER-GEnERATED cOnTEnT REALLY AFFEcTs BRAnDs

equity can result in marketers engaging

with UGC in a way that is of no benefit to

the brand or even is damaging.

This research contributes toward under-

standing UGC creators and how their

engagement with brand-related UGC

affects their brand perceptions and hence

their communications about that brand. A

theoretical framework is drafted from the

limited literature to date, refined through

depth interviews with experts, and then

further tested with an online consumer

survey.

The study opens with a review of the

literature on UGC, offering a definition

of this emergent phenomenon and then

discussing its drivers, organized in four

categories. Then, based on the literature

and in-depth interviews with experts, the

authors develop a model postulating that

co-creation, empowerment, community, and

self-concept lead to involvement with UGC,

which, in turn, affects consumer-based brand

equity (CBBE). The article then presents the

method used to test the model, describes

the results, and discusses the findings in

light of the pertinent literature, highlighting

implications for managerial practice.

DEFINING USER-GENERATED CONTENTFrom its origins as a niche activity driven

by long-tail distribution (Daugherty, Eas-

tin, and Bright, 2008), early UGC was

characterized by participatory inequality

whereby creation used took place among

the few (Ochoa and Duval, 2008). In the

communication democracy that the Inter-

net is empowering more and more, how-

ever, all kinds of consumers express their

views publicly; influence has been shifting

from manager-generated content toward

key opinion leaders in the customer base

for many years, furthering the shift from

a conventional publisher-centric media

model to a more user-centric model

(Daugherty et al., 2008).

Perhaps because the subject is con-

tinuing to evolve and grow, there is no

one widely accepted definition for UGC.

It can be interchangeably referred to as

user-created content or, less commonly,

user-led content creation (Burmann and

Arnhold, 2008). One study described UGC

as media content primarily distributed

on the Internet (Daugherty et al, 2008).

This definition is too broad to be useful

in the current context, as it allows for all

levels of involvement on all types of plat-

forms, lacks specificity, and is difficult to

differentiate from e-word-of-mouth or

brand-originated content. The Interactive

Advertising Bureau in the United States

(2008) defined UGC as any material

created and uploaded to the Internet by

non-media professionals. The description

of non-media professionals as the crea-

tors of UGC is flawed, as media profession-

als can (and often do) use their expertise

and tools to create UGC as consumers,

not as part of their (paid) employment.

A looser definition described consumers

who generate UGC as ordinary people

who represent the end users of products

or services (Cheong and Morrison, 2008).

The most commonly cited definition

for UGC comes from the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), which, in 2007, defined UGC as

having three key characteristics:

content that is made publicly available

over the Internet;

content that reflects a certain amount of

creative effort; and

content created outside professional

routines and practices.

This definition appropriately excludes

ostensibly private modes of online com-

munication such as e-mail and instant

message. Even the OECD definition of

UGC, however, contains a few gaps. For

example, some UGC is not completely

public and is available only to designated

communities. Additionally, the OECD

definition of UGC cites the Internet as

the only publication medium, unreason-

ably limiting its range. Indeed, the OECD

acknowledged in other sections of its 2007

OECD report that UGC is driven by a

number of different media, which includes

emerging and converging mediaamong

them mobile applications, satellite naviga-

tion services, game consoles, and the like.

A public-domain definition of CGM

from Wikipedia is encompassing opin-

ions, experiences, advice and commen-

tary about products, brands, companies

and servicesusually informed by per-

sonal experiencethat exist in consumer-

created postings on Internet discussion

boards, forums, Usenet newsgroups and

blogs (Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008,

p. 1). This definition is limited in its plat-

form and content types but does include

a brand-related element that other UGC

definitions lack.

For the purpose of understanding the

impact of UGC on brands and brand

equity, this study focuses explicitly on

brand-related UGC, also referred to as

consumer-generated media (CGM) or

consumer-generated content (CGC)

terms specific to consumers generating

content about a brand, regardless of posi-

tive or negative connotation or intent.

The authors apply a brand-related focus

to the generally well-founded OECD defi-

nition, and for the purpose of this research,

they define UGC as consumers creating

content that

User-generated content (UGC) is a rapidly growing

vehicle for brand conversations and consumer insights.

March 2012 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 55


is made available through publicly

accessible transmission media such as

the Internet;

reflects some degree of creative effort;

and

is created for free outside professional

routines and practices.

In this study, the focus is on brand-related

UGC.

As UGC is an emerging field of study,

there is limited knowledge on the impor-

tant motivating factors of involvement

with branded UGC. Previous studies of

UGC suggested that consumers participate

in content creation for a variety of reasons,

including the notion that consumers are

driven to create their own advertisements

for self-promotion or intrinsic enjoyment

or in the hope of changing public percep-

tions (Berthon et al., 2008). Elsewhere, the

drivers of content creation were suggested

to be a desire to collaborate, information

dissemination, interaction, and creativity

(Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). Knowledge-

sharing, advocacy, social connections, and

self-expression were shown to be psycho-

logical motivators of UGC engagement

(Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008).

Social drivers of UGC specified in the

2007 OECD report are the desire to express

oneself and the development of communi-

ties and collaborative projects. Brand com-

munities can engage with UGC to fill a

void left by conventional media, often giv-

ing brands a new identity in the process

(Muniz and Schau, 2007).

Although the literature suggests a num-

ber of common drivers for UGC, it is impor-

tant to note that no such individual as an

average UGC user exists (Ochoa and

Duval, 2008). Further, in the related area

of word-of-mouth advertising, there are

interesting tensions between commercial

interests, the online user community, and

the individuals who participate in those

communities (Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki,

and Wilner, 2010), which adds complexity

to the drivers of UGC motivation.

Drawing together, summarizing, and

analyzing the embryonic literature on

UGC, the authors have identified four

types of factors as motivating factors for

creating UGC: co-creation, empowerment,

community, and self-concept (See Table 1).

Building on these factors, the authors

hypothesize that

co-creation, empowerment, community,

and self-concept have a positive impact

on UGC involvement;

UGC involvement has an impact on

consumer-based brand equity; and

a feedback loop is postulated allowing

consumers perceptions of the brand

to inform perceptions of co-creation,

empowerment, community, and self-

concept (See Figure 1).

Drivers of UGCBusinesses are not good at predicting con-

sumer preference and need the help of their

customers in getting their products right.

For example, the statistic that up to 80 per-

cent of new grocery products fail was cited

a half-century ago (Fourt and Woodlock,

1960). Product knowledge in new-product

development is both a barrier to and a

source of innovation (Carlile, 2002). The

value of lead users knowledge of needs

and potential solutions in developing new

products, however, was shown to be sig-

nificant more than 20 years ago (Urban

and von Hippel, 1988). Hence, the authors

interest in understanding lead users of

UGC as the phenomenon of online content

creation becomes more mainstream.

It is not new for consumers to be involved

in creating (or communicating about) the

products they consume. Word of mouth

(WOM) was one of the earliest subjects

looked at by the nascent market-research

industry (Dichter, 1966). More recently, the

volume of WOM produced about a brand

has been shown to be roughly proportional

to its market share (Uncles et al., 2010), and

positive WOM has been suggested as an

alternative voice to paid advertising (de

Matos and Rossi, 2008).

Consumers value the empowerment

offered by co-creation, which is greatly

facilitated by the Internet (see, for example,

Fuller et al., 2010) and strategies for trying

to involve customers in co-creation activi-

ties are particularly important in high-

technology enterprises (Kristensson et al.,

2007). Open-source software, in fact, drives

more than half of the worlds Web servers,

but it is difficult to research an area that

has no central organizing body, no uni-

fied voice, few written rules or standards

(Cromie and Ewing, 2008, p. 632).

WOM, in a social-media setting, has been

shown to be a highly complex system of

networked co-production of a variety of

narratives that is significantly changing our

previous understanding of how and why

WOM works (Kozinets et al., 2010). There

is little doubt, however, that WOM referrals

still do have stronger effects than traditional

marketing (Trusov et al., 2009). Where there

is doubt is in just how that will work in

future, as we know how much social media,

UGC, and WOM are increasing in signifi-

cance (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).

Co-creation is the consumers participa-

tion in the production of value at all points

For the purpose of understanding the impact

of UGC on brands and brand equity, this study

focuses explicitly on brand-related UGC.



in the value chain (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

Allowing access to the value-creation pro-

cess and giving consumers the tools and

encouragement to create UGC may further

the perception (and reality) of co-creation

(Muniz and Schau, 2007).

Co-creation encompasses all situations

wherein consumers collaborate with com-

panies or other consumers to generate

value such as online content (Humphreys

and Grayson, 2008). The growing number

of brand-related conversations taking place

onlineand on other multimedia plat-

formsdemonstrates a consumer interest

in collaboration and co-created dialogue.

The perceived value co-creation means

the consumers see themselves as an integral

part of the value-creation system, influenc-

ing when, where, and how value is gener-

ated through multiple points of exchange

(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2002). Con-

sumers no longer are satisfied with expe-

riences fabricated by companies; instead,

they want to shape experiences themselves

through co-created content such as UGC

(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000).

Consumer empowerment is activated

and advanced by marketing efforts

designed to satisfy consumer needs and

wants (Wright, Newman, and Dennis,

2006). One study suggested that there are

three core influences on the consumers

subjective empowerment experience: the

ability to specify and adjust the choice set;

progress cues in the consumer decision-

making process; and, information about

other consumers (Wathieu et al., 2002).

Consumer empowerment requires that

consumers have authority in decision

making (Pires, Rita, and Stanton, 2006).

Primary control occurs when people exert

authority directly on the environment,

such as in an online context (Hoffman,

Novak, and Schlosser, 2003). Greater con-

sumer control may not always result in the

subjective perception of empowerment. In

fact, greater perceptions of empowerment

sometimes may entail costs to the con-

sumer (Wathieu et al., 2002).

Considering consumer control in the UGC

arena, most UGC-driven sites operate under

some degree of self-organization and corpo-

rate governance (Bruns, 2007). UGC enables

TABLE 1Motivating Factors for creating Brand-Related UGcFactor Authors Descriptionco-creation Burmann and Arnhold (2008)

christodoulides (2009)

Daugherty, Eastin, and Bright (2008)

kozinets et al. (2010)

kristensson et al. (1997)

Muniz and schau (2007)

OEcD (2007)

Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2002; 2004)

shenkan and sichel (2007)

smith (2009)

Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009)

Uncles et al. (2010)

Co-customers as a social benefit factor

Risk reduction

Empowerment Berthon, Pitt, and campbell (2008)

Burmann and Arnhold (2008)

Dhar and chang (2009)

Fuller et al. (2010)

Gregoire, Tripp, and Legoux (2009)

Li and Bernoff (2008)


shenkan and sichel (2007)

OEcD (2007)

Changed perceptions and influence

people

Feelings of power and control

Increased willingness to engage online/

reveal personal information

Filling a void left by conventional media

Forum to request greater choice

community Burmann and Arnhold (2008)

christodoulides (2009)


Fieseler, Fleck, and Meckel (2010)

Gangadharbatla (2008)


krishnamurthy and Dou (2008)


OEcD (2007)

smith (2009)

stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008)

Uncles et al. (2010)

von Hippel (2001)

knowledge-sharing

Advocacy

social connections/contact

Wanting to be heard

Desire to interact and collaborate

social networking

self-concept Berthon, Pitt, and campbell (2008)

Burmann and Arnhold (2008)



krishnamurthy and Dou (2008)


OEcD (2007)

smith (2009)

stockl, Rohrmeier, and Hess (2008)

von Hippel (2001)

Personal documentation

self-expression

creativity

social functionexpressing attitudes/

behaviors that are agreeable to others

self promotion

Identity shaping

Ego defensiveminimize self-doubt,

create a sense of belonging



consumers to connect in new digital spheres

(Harrison, Hunter, and Waite, 2006), making

them feel powerful and able to define brand

values on their own (Christodoulides, 2009).

The perception of control is considered a

central theme to the experience of empow-

erment (Wathieu et al., 2002) and is shown

to have high correlations with responsibility

and choice (Wortman, 1975). It is recognized

that consumers use the Internet and content

creation as a way of exerting control over

brands. UGC involvement empowers con-

sumers with insights about other consumers

(Burmann and Arnhold, 2008) and a forum

to request greater choice (OECD, 2007).

The social Web enables communities.

These communities do not passively con-

sume but interact to co-create brand value

(de Chernatony and Christodoulides,

2004) through activities such as generating

branded content. People who are highly inte-

grated into brand communities may be emo-

tionally invested in the brand, have higher

loyalty, and identify strongly with the brand

(McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig, 2002).

It is noteworthy that UGC produc-

tion mainly is driven by a community of

digital nativesa group of young, digi-

tally skilled users who grew up using the

Internet and Web 2.0 platforms (Burmann

and Arnhold, 2008) and, as such, differ

behaviorally from their elders. Commu-

nity development and interaction often

are described as social drivers of UGC

(OECD, 2007; Burmann and Arnhold,

2008; Krishnamurthy and Dou, 2008).

UGC provides opportunities for indi-

viduals to express themselves through

sharing ideas with others. One study theo-

rized that brands could become vehicles

for self-expression, an integral part of self-

concept (Gardner and Levy, 1955; Sirgy,

1982). The social dimension of UGC also

can set the stage for self-presentation and

new identity creation, rewarding users

with recognition from their community

peers (Burmann and Arnhold, 2008). This

identity-based component of UGC is inter-

preted as a way that consumers can express

attitudes and behaviors that are agreeable

to others (Daugherty et al., 2008).

Of course, much UGC is not necessarily

agreeable to the marketer, as it is an out-

put of consumer self-expression. Consum-

ers self-concepts affect how they perceive

a brands personality. For instance, highly

preferred brands are shaped, in part, by

the preferred personality of the consum-

ers. Through piggy-backing on brands,

UGC allows consumers to draw attention

to themselves and, thus, to communicate

who they are from their own perspective

(Berthon et al., 2008).

The authors, therefore, postulate

H1: The stronger a consumer per-

ceives that a brand is co-created,

the higher his or her involvement

with that brand through UGC.


ceives that a brand is empowering,

the higher his or her involvement

with the brand through UGC.


ceives that a brand facilitates a

community, the higher his or

her involvement with that brand

through UGC.


ceives that a brand expresses

his/her self-concept, the higher

his/her involvement with that

brand through UGC.

INVOLVEMENT WITH UGC AND BRAND EQUITYIn the authors model, involvement is con-

ceptualized as the degree of personal rele-

vance and importance of a stimulusin this

case, brand-related UGCin achieving con-

sequences and values of importance to the

consumer (Peter, Olson, and Grunert, 2009).

UGC involvement is considered a

form of product involvement because

brand-related UGC can be viewed as

consumption-related activity. Product

involvement is the most commonly

researched area of involvement (Michaeli-

dou and Dibb, 2008) and has three plau-

sible antecedents: factors related to the

characteristics of a person, factors related

to the characteristics of a stimulus, and

factors related to the characteristics of

a situation (Bloch and Richins, 1983;

Zaichkowsky, 1985). One or several of

these factors could affect the level of

involvement with the stimulus in rela-

tion to the product (Hupfer and Gardener,

1971). Some product categories are more

susceptible to the influence of UGC than

others (Riegner, 2007), presumably in a

way analogous to other forms of WOM.

In-depth interviews for the current

study confirmed the view that brands that

encourage UGC can carve out relationship-

building opportunities with consumers.

Conversely, negative UGC can have harm-

ful implications for building and sustaining

a brands equityan issue compounded

by the notion that consumers of UGC often

consider it more credible than professional

content (Cheong and Morrison, 2008).

The authors introduce a feedback loop

to the model, suggesting that CBBE influ-

ences, in turn, perceptions of whether a

brand facilitates co-creation, empowers

consumers, fosters a community, and con-

veys the desired self-concept. For example,

a consumers affinity or loyalty to a brand

drives the desire to co-create in ways such

as UGC (Boyle, 2007). Additionally, brand

UGC provides opportunities for individuals to express

themselves through sharing ideas with others.



associations inspire further online dialogue

in value creation (Prahalad and Ramas-

wamy, 2000).

Higher levels of brand awareness and

associations may prompt perceptions

of choice and progress cues (Hoyer and

Brown, 1990), which are dimensions of

empowerment. Brand market share (which

can be seen as a proxy for brand equity)

recently has been shown to have reciprocal

causality with the share of voice of WOM

(Uncles et al., 2010), so the authors also

have considered a similar link with UGC.

A brand community is often the result

of brand loyalty, positive associations,

and a perception of high product quality

(Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Brand loy-

alty and personality can also contribute

to a consumers self-concept and function

as a means for self-expression (Aaker, 1997).

It, therefore, is postulated

H6a: The higher the CBBE, the

stronger a consumer perceives

that a brand is co-created.

H6b: The higher the CBBE, the

stronger a consumer perceives

that a brand is empowering.

H6c: The higher the CBBE, the more a

consumer perceives that a brand

facilitates a community.

H6d: The higher the CBBE, the higher

the consumer perceives that a

brand expresses his or her self-

concept (See Figure 1).

RESEARCH DESIGNBecause research in the field of UGC is

mostly conceptual, the authors consid-

ered it appropriate to test the conclusions

drawn from the literature through inter-

views with experts. These ideas then were

empirically tested with a sample of actual

consumers involved in the creation of

brand-related UGC.

The face-to-face, semi-structured in-

depth interviews utilized a judgment

sample of five industry experts in New

York City, each of whom had specific

experience in consumer engagement with

brand-related UGC and expertise in the

areas of branding, marketing, and adver-

tising. The experts job titles included

brand development director, marketing

strategist, marketing futurist, and con-

sumer insights manager. As such, they all

had professional interest in monitoring

and understanding consumers engage-

ment with UGC and provided a valuable

initial sounding board for the hypotheses

drawn from the sparse literature to date.

A questionnaire was subsequently

developed, targeting consumers engaged

in brand-related UGC. The quantitative

data were collected through an Inter-

net survey administered via e-mail, and

direct messaging on a variety of UGC plat-

forms such as blogs, social networks, and

video- and photo-sharing Web sites.

As the survey targeted consumers

engaging in brand-related UGC, an online

survey was considered the most suitable

method of recruiting this sample. Example

brands were selected based on their global

nature and their likelihood for UGC

engagement. Hundreds of searches were

undertaken to identify individual exam-

ples of UGC related to those brands. Then,

the creator of the content was contacted

with a tailored invitation to participate in

the survey, referring to their creation.

Each survey invitation included an

embedded link leading respondents to the

questionnaire. By providing participants

with an example of their own brand UGC,

the need for participant recall was reduced,

and filtering of participants was more

closely monitored. The example brands and

platforms used when disseminating the sur-

vey were recorded along with the number

of approaches, ensuring a wide variety of

brand categories and UGC typologies were

included. The screening record also con-

firmed that the examples of UGC evaluated

included a mixture of positive, negative,

and neutral sentiment toward the brand.

The survey was open for 11 days, during

which 760 survey invitations were sent out

and 374 responses were counted. Of those

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6a

H6b

H6c

H6d

UGC

PerceivedEmpowerment

PerceivedCommunity

PerceivedSelf-Concept

PerceivedCo-creation

Involvement BrandEquity

Figure 1 Drivers of Brand-Related UGc and its Impact on consumer-Based Brand Equity



replies, there was a total useable response

rate of 49.2 percent. Another 172 responses

were incomplete, and 202 responses were

fully completed, so the response rate for

the survey effectively was 26.5 percent.

MEASURESRespondents began the questionnaire by

identifying the brand about which they

last had created UGC. This was labeled

Brand X and operated as a constant

in most items. All items were measured

using five-point Likert scales ranging from

strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Co-creation was measured through four

items adapted from Prahalad and Ramas-

wamy (2002) and Vargo and Lusch (2004).

Empowerment items were adapted from

Pires et al. (2006), Conger and Kanungo

(1988), and Hoffman et al. (2003). Community

was measured by three items from McMillan

and Chavis (1986) and Muniz and OGuinn

(2001). The three items for self-concept were

adapted from Markus and Wurf (1987).

Involvement with UGC was measured

using Zaichkowskys (1994) set of nine

semantic differential scales (e.g., important

unimportant, boringinteresting).

The eight items used to tap CBBE

were from Pappu, Quester, and Cooksey

(2005) and captured the construct through

its theoretical facets, brand awareness (e.g.,

I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of

X), brand associations (e.g., I like X),

perceived quality (X is very reliable),

and brand loyalty (I feel loyal to X).

AnalysisThe respondents predominantly were

male (58 percent) and predominantly

in the 30- to 39-year age bracket (30.3

percent), spending on average 33 hours

per week online. The UGC assessed by

respondents was distributed through vari-

ous channels, including social networking

sites, photo- and video-sharing platforms,

forums, and blogs, and concerned an array

of brands in several product categories

including beverages (23 percent), automo-

tives (12 percent), electronics (12 percent),

and clothing (11 percent).

Before testing the model, the reliability

and validity of the measures were estab-

lished using standard procedures (Church-

ill, 1979; Gerbing and Anderson, 1988).

Reliability analysis first was performed for

each construct of the conceptual model,

and Cronbachs a was as follows: co-

creation, 0.74; empowerment, 0.63; commu-

nity, 0.77; self-concept, 0.78; involvement

with UGC, 0.88; and CBBE, 0.92. Cronbach

a for empowerment, although below the

optimum level of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), was

still higher than 0.6, satisfactory for further

analysis (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

Exploratory factor analysis was subse-

quently performed on each scale. All the

items loaded on a single factor, suggesting

that co-creation, empowerment, commu-

nity, and self-concept are unidimensional.

This finding was further corroborated

through confirmatory factor analysis (Ger-

bing and Anderson, 1988) performed on

each scale measuring UGC motivations as

shown in Table 2. Chi-square ranged from

0 (empowerment, community, and self-

concept) to 3.504 (co-creation) and was in

all cases insignificant. Correlations among

items of co-creation, empowerment, com-

munity, and self-concept ranged from 0.17

to 0.51 for items across different factors,

suggesting that multicollinearity is not

severe. (The detailed covariance table is

available from the first-named author on

request.)

To test the postulated hypotheses in

the conceptual model, structural equation

modeling (AMOS 16.01) was used with

maximum likelihood as the estimation

method. The models chi-square value

was small but significant: =68.67 (df = 49, p = 0.02). A more appropriate indicator of

global fit, however, is relative chi-square

(chi-square divided by degrees of free-

dom) that is not so sensitive to sample size.

The relative chi-square for the model was

below 2 ( = 1.46), which is indicative of an acceptable fit between the hypotheti-

cal model and the sample data (Carmines

and McIver, 1981). Other fit indices were

also considered including GFI (0.95), AGFI

(0.91), NFI (0.92), CFI (0.97), and RMSEA

(.048), suggesting an adequate overall fit.

The path analysis (See Table 3) shows

that co-creation ( = 0.505, p < 0.000); com-munity ( = 0.011, p = 0.036); and self-concept ( = 0.451, p < 0.000) have a positive impact on consumers involvement with

UGC. Conversely, the regression coefficient

from empowerment to UGC involvement

is statistically insignificant ( = 0.011, p = 0.863). The beta value associated with

H5 corroborates that consumers involve-

ment with UGC ( = 0.834, p < 0.000) has a positive impact on their brand perceptions

captured through CBBE. H6a, H6b, H6c,

and H6d capture the inverse effect of CBBE

perceptions on co-creation, empowerment,

community and self-concept.

Although the existing literature suggests

a correlation between the parameters of

empowerment and involvement in UGC, these

results do not show that empowerment has a

significant influence on UGC involvement.



The beta values from CBBE back to co-

creation ( = 0.814, p < 0.000), empower-ment ( = 0.578, p < 0.000), and community ( = 0.596, p < 0.000) provide support for a positive and statistically significant impact

(H6a, H6b, and H6c accepted). The path

from CBBE to self-concept was significant

only at the 10 percent confidence interval

(p = 0.094) but contrary to the hypoth-

esized direction ( = 0.166).

DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONSH1, H3, H4, H5, H6a, H6b, and H6c were

supported by the data (p < 0.05), whereas

H2 and H6d were rejected (p > 0.05).

These results suggest that three of the

four consumer perceptionsco-creation,

community, and self-concepthave a

positive impact on consumers involve-

ment with UGC and that UGC involve-

ment has a positive impact on brand

perceptions through CBBE.

Although the existing literature suggests

a correlation between the parameters of

empowerment and involvement in UGC,

these results do not show that empower-

ment has a significant influence on UGC

involvement. This could be because

UGC usually is not the result of brand-

marketing efforts and, therefore, normally

would not activate or advance consumer

empowerment. Another possible explana-

tion may be that consumers who engage

in UGC, by definition, already are empow-

ered to create their own content regardless

of the inclusion of a brand. In other words,

it may be that what empowers consumers

to engage with brand-related UGC is the

context (Web 2.0 technologies) rather than

the brand itself.

The findings also suggest that CBBE

through its theoretical dimensions of

brand awareness, loyalty, associations, and

perceived qualityhas a positive impact

on three of the initial UGC drivers (co-

creation, empowerment, and community).

Interestingly the hypothesis that higher

levels of CBBE would lead to higher lev-

els of self-concept is rejected, whereas an

inverse, negative relationship is supported

weakly by the data (at a 10-percent confi-

dence interval). This may suggest that

consumers who engage with UGC for

self-expression prefer doing so for less-

established brandsperhaps because they

TABLE 3sEM Path Analysis ResultsPath Std. Estimate C.R. Sig.

H1: co-creation Involvement 0.505 3.332 0.000

H2: Empowerment Involvement 0.011 0.173 0.863

H3: community Involvement 0.177 2.095 0.036

H4: self-concept Involvement 0.451 4.465 0.000

H5: Involvement cBBE 0.834 8.656 0.000

H6a: cBBE co-creation 0.814 7.626 0.000

H6b: cBBE Empowerment 0.578 4.692 0.000

H6c: cBBE community 0.596 6.068 0.000

H6d: cBBE self-concept 0.166 1.674 0.094

TABLE 2Measurement Model

Std. Loading C.R.

Co-Creation

cO1: I enjoy creating online content about [X] 0.639cO2: I want to be able to have online dialogue with [X] 0.712 6.971CO3: I find information from other consumers about [x] trustworthy 0.687 6.884CO4: If I can customize [x], then I feel more confident using [x] 0.582 6.232

a = 0.742Empowerment

EM1: I expect to be able to create whatever I want about [X] online 0.759EM2: Owning what I create online about [X] is important to me 0.509 4.059EM3: I produce online content about [X] because I want to be heard 0.544 4.080

a = 0.625Community

cM1: I feel a sense of community from posting my own content about [X] 0.749cM2: I engage with other people online because of a shared interest in [X] 0.829 7.872cM3: My membership in a social network encourages me to produce content about [X]

0.619 7.583

a = 0.766Self-concept

sc1: I use [X] to express myself online. 0.826sc2: My link with [X] says a lot about me. 0.719 8.126sc3: I make my point of view known by creating online content about [X]. 0.680 7.965

a = 0.784



feel they can be more creative or to have

more impact on other consumers percep-

tions (Berthon et al., 2008).

This notion, however, does run counter

to the use of the Internet for so-called anti-

branding activities (Klein, 2000). The find-

ings support the notion that involvement

with UGC has a significant correlation with

brand perceptions and that high regard for

a brand is likely to be positively related

with consumer perceptions of co-creation,

community, and empowerment. This sug-

gests that consumers are more involved

with UGC pertaining to brands that help

them define who they are and give them

the tools to express themselves creatively.

The increase in CBBE caused by UGC

involvement means that consumers are

more likely to consider a brand as part of

their evoked set for purchase. This leads to

a significant implication for brand manag-

ers involved in UGC campaigns. Carefully

created and managed, these campaigns

can enhance brand equity, particularly as

the social structure of digital networks has

been shown to play a critical role in the viral

spread of a message (Bampo et al., 2008).

A brand with stronger brand equity

is likely to lead a more involving user-

generated campaign through enhanced

perceptions of co-creation, community, and

empowerment. Armed with insights from

these research results, brand managers can

utilize UGC to build CBBE through an inter-

active strategy to improve brand positioning

according to consumer wants and needs.

For example, a promotion strategy encour-

aging self-expression through UGC that is

related to a strong brand association would

be a useful application of these research

results. Marketers seeking to engage con-

sumers with UGC campaigns should foster

a culture of co-creation that is reinforced

through dialogue and continual consumer

participation in value chain activities.

Practitioners may choose to drop subtle

reminders that consumers are in control

of UGC-brand activities and focus more

heavily on creating a strong sense of

shared community that consumers iden-

tify with by championing branded UGC.

Further, marketers should build a sense of

community around their brand, facilitat-

ing relationships not just between brand

and consumers but, importantly, among

consumers themselves.

For example, a blogger advocacy cam-

paign designed to use the brand to facili-

tate friendships among bloggers of similar

interests would be more likely to yield

positive UGC about that brand in those

blog networks.

To successfully penetrate UGC commu-

nities, marketers are advised to develop an

image of their brand that is congruent with

its target audiences desired self, in line with

self-brand congruity theory (Sirgy, 1982).

Finally, marketers need to thoroughly

monitor all UGC related to their brand, not

only from the defensive point of view of

adding value while avoiding damage but

to gain rich, unfiltered insights into cus-

tomer perceptions of the brand.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSUGC has been a concern and interest for

managers ever since it first emerged. The

current research has focused on creators of

UGC and provides empirical evidence on

how involvement with brand-related UGC

is capable of changing perceptions of the

brand. It addressed the impact of involve-

ment with brand-related UGC on brand

perceptions, measured by proxy of CBBE.

Through the development of a conceptual

model, the relationships between four ini-

tial consumer perceptions representing

UGC, involvement, and CBBE were criti-

cally analyzed.

The authors believe that this study pro-

vides the first empirical evidence to sug-

gest that UGC does have an effect on CBBE,

and it shows how that effect is created. It

adds further weight to the argument that

successful brand managers should change

their approach from a strict, top-down,

supervisory strategy to a more participa-

tive and interactive one (de Chernatony

and Christodoulides, 2004).

Further, it provides a solid basis for a

brand manager to engage in UGC; there

is now no excuse for simply following

the herd without sound reasoning. This

research has provided evidence to sug-

gest that, overall, involvement with UGC

can have a positive impact on CBBE,

which is just as well as more than twice

as many brand-related searches on social-

networking sites relate to UGC than to

marketer-created content.

Excitingly for managers, as brand equity

strengthens, the stronger the positive effect on

co-creation, community, and empowerment.

In conclusion: If managed correctly, UGC

and brand equity can grow together and

build from each other. Successful managers

will need to review the ways in which they

operate to maximize their benefits from

this. The authors, in fact, recommend that

they shift emphasis from the old-fashioned

practice of trying to control the brand

toward monitoring and influencing brand-

related communications, especially UGC.

A brand with stronger brand equity is likely

to lead a more involving user-generated

campaign through enhanced perceptions of

co-creation, community, and empowerment.



This research has demonstrated that the

critical areas to address are consumer per-

ceptions of co-creation, development of a

brand community, and congruence with a

consumers self-concept.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHFuture research may examine deeper con-

sumer empowerment and seek to validate

the notion that consumer empowerment in

the case of UGC derives from the context

rather than the brand itself. In addition,

further research may seek to understand

whether invited UGC empowers consum-

ers or whether it actually restricts creativ-

ity by asking consumers to comply with

a brief and accept the internal selection

procedures specified by the brand. Bet-

ter understanding of consumer empow-

erment in the context of UGC possibly

through qualitative research will help

achieve better internal consistency.

This research has made no distinction

between endorsed and non-endorsed UGC.

Further research may test the applicability of

the model and observe differences between

the two types of UGC. For instance, it may

be that UGC invited by a brand is driven

primarily by extrinsic motivations such as

monetary or other incentives and less so by

intrinsic motivations such as co-creation,

community, and self-concept.

Future research also may distinguish

between incentive- and non-incentive-

driven UGC and examine differences in

terms of drivers and brand perceptions.

Finally, the authors future research will be

directed at consumers of UGCthose indi-

viduals who get exposed to brand-related

UGC such as spoof advertisementsto

investigate whether simply viewing rather

than creating such material may cause a

change in consumer-based brand equity.

UGC offers enormous possibilities to

managers and, therefore, obligations to

researchers; this article provides some

foundation for that work.

GeoRGe chRiStoDouLiDeS is professor of marketing at Henley

Business school at the University of Reading, Uk. His

research interests lie in the areas of brand management

and e-marketing, particularly consumer-based brand equity

conceptualization and measurement and the impact of

interactive/social media on consumer-brand relationships.

Georges research has attracted funding from prestigious

external bodies including the Economic and social

Research council, the British Academy, and the chartered

Institute of Marketing. He is a regular presenter at

international conferences, and his research has appeared

in journals such as the Journal of Advertising Research,

Industrial Marketing Management, and European Journal

of Marketing. George has guest-edited a book and special

issues of the Journal of Business Research, Industrial

Marketing Management, and European Journal of

Marketing on various aspects of brand management.

coLin JevonS is associate professor in Marketing at

Monash University, Australia and holds a PhD in brand

management, his main research and teaching interest. He

is on the editorial boards of three international journals.

His work has been published in a variety of journals

including the Journal of Advertising Research, Journal

of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, European

Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review,

Journal of Marketing Management, and Journal of

Product and Brand Management. He has won best-paper

awards at conferences in both the United kingdom and the

United states, and he has guest-edited two special issues

of Journal of Business Research on brand management.

JennifeR Bonhomme is a digital strategist working in

interactive advertising planning. she has created

socially led campaigns for leading global brands while

at the London-based agencies Euro RscG and skive

creative. Jennifer now consults to a variety of sectors

on envisioning, positioning, and creating impactful

digital footprints. she also regularly contributes to the

marketing consultancy Faith Popcorns Brain Reserve

as a social media specialist and cultural trend-spotter

and has done so while living in Australia, Japan, and the

United kingdom. Her research interests include online

interaction branding and the evolution of the social Web.

REFEREncEs

360i. The State of Search. A 360i Working

Paper, November 2009.

aaKER, J. L. Dimensions of Brand Personality.

Journal of Marketing Research 34, 3 (1997): 347357.

BagoZZi, R. p., and y. yi. On the Evaluation

of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science 16, 1 (1988): 7494.

Bampo, m., m. t. EWing, d. R. matHER, d.

stEWaRt, and m. WaLLaCE. The Effects of the

Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral

Marketing Performance. Information Systems

Research 19, 3 (2008): 273290.

BERtHon, p., R. L. pitt, and C. CampBELL. Ad

Lb: When Customers Create the Ad. California

Management Review 50, 4 (2008): 630.

BLoCH, p. H., and m. L. RiCHins. A Theoretical

Model for the Study of Product Importance Per-

ceptions. Journal of Marketing 47, 3 (1983): 6981.

BoyLE, E. A Process Model of Brand Co-

Creation: Brand Management and Research

Implications. Journal of Product and Brand Man-

agement 16, 2 (2007): 121133.

BRuns, a. Produsage: Towards a Broader

Framework for User-Led Content Creation.

Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Creativity

& Cognition 2007. Washington, DC.

BuRmann, C., and u. aRnHoLd. User Generated

Branding: State of the Art Research. Berlin: LIT

Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Mnster, 2008.

CaRLiLE, p. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge

and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New

Product Development. Organization Science 13,

4 (2002): 442455.

CaRminEs, E. g., and J. p. mCivER. Unobserved

Variables. In Social Measurement: Current Issues,



G. W. Bohrnstedt, and E. F. Borgatta, eds. Bev-

erly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

CHEong, H. J., and m. a. moRRison. Con-

sumers Reliance on Product Information and

Recommendations Found in UGC. Journal of

Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 3849.

CHRistodouLidEs, g. Branding in the Post-Internet

Era. Marketing Theory 9, 1 (2009): 141144.

CHuRCHiLL, g. a. A Paradigm for Developing

Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Jour-

nal of Marketing Research 26, (1979): 6473.

CongER, J. a., and R. n. Kanungo. The

Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and

Practice. Academy of Management Review 13, 3

(1988): 471482.

CRomiE, J., and EWing, m. Squatting at the Digi-

tal Campfire: Reflections on Researching the

Open Source Software Community. International

Journal of Market Research 50, 5 (2008): 631653.

daugHERty, t., m. s. Eastin, and L. BRigHt.

Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating

User-Generated Content. Journal of Interactive

Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 1625.

dE CHERnatony, L., and g. CHRistodouLidEs. Taking

the Brand Promise Online: Challenges and Oppor-

tunities. Interactive Marketing 5, 3 (2004): 238251.

dE matos, C. a., and C.a.v. Rossi. Word-

of-Mouth Communications in Marketing: A

Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents and

Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science 36, 4 (2008): 578596.

dHaR, v., and E. CHang. The Impact of User-

Generated Content on Music Sales. Journal of

Interactive Marketing 23, 4 (2009): 300307.

diCHtER, E. How Word-Of-Mouth Advertising

Works. Harvard Business Review 44, 6 (1966):

147166.

EmaRKEtER. User Generated Content: More

Popular than Profitable. eMarketer Digital Intel-

ligence 2009.

EWing, m. Integrated Marketing Communica-

tions Measurement And Evaluation. Journal of

Marketing Communications 15, 2-3, (2009): 103117.

FiEsELER, C., m. FLECK, and m. mECKEL. Corporate

Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere. Journal

of Business Ethics 91, 4 (2010): 599614.

FouRt, L., and J. WoodLoCK. Early Prediction

of Market Success for New Grocery Products.

Journal of Marketing 25, 2 (1960): 3138.

FuLLER, J., muHLBaCHER, H., matZLER, K., and g.

JaWECKi. Consumer Empowerement Through

Internet-Based Co-Creation. Journal of Manage-

ment Information Systems 26, 3 (2010): 71102.

gangadHaRBatLa, H. Facebook Me: Collective

Self-Esteem, Need to Belong, and Internet Self-

Efficacy as Predictors of the Igenerations Atti-

tudes toward Social Networking Sites. Journal

of Interactive Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 515.

gaRdnER, B., and s. LEvy. The Product and the

Brand. Harvard Business Review 33, 2 (1955): 3339.

gERBing, d. W., and J. C. andERson. An Updated

Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating

Unidimensionality and its Assessment. Journal

of Marketing Research 25, 2 (1988): 186192.

gREgoiRE, y., t. m. tRipp, and R. LEgoux.

When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate:

The Effects of Relationship Strength and Time

on Customer Revenge and Avoidance. Journal

of Marketing 73, 1 (2009): 1832.

HaRRison, t., g. L. HuntER, and K. WaitE. The

Internet, Information and Empowerment. Euro-

pean Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10, (2006): 972993.

HoFFman, d. L., t. p. novaK, and a. E. sCHLossER.

Locus of Control, Web Use, and Consumer

Attitudes toward Internet Regulation. Journal of

Public Policy & Marketing 22, 1, (2003): 4157.

HoyER, W., and s. BRoWn. Effects of Brand

Awareness on Choice for a Common, Repeat-

Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research

17, 2 (1990): 141148.

HumpHREys, a., and K. gRayson. The Intersecting

Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Per-

spective on Co-Production, Co-Creation and Pro-

sumption. Sociology Compass 2, 3 (2008): 963980.

HupFER, n. t., and d. m. gaRdnER. Differ-

ential involvement in Products and Issues:

An Exploratory Study. Advances in Consumer

Research 2, (1971): 262270.

intERaCtivE advERtising BuREau. User-

Generated Content, Social Media and Adver-

tisingAn Overview. Interactive Advertising

Bureau Platform Status Report, April 3, 2008.

JEvons, C., and m. gaBBott. Trust, Brand Equity

and Brand Reality in Internet Business Relation-

ships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Journal of

Marketing Management 16, 6 (2000): 619634.

KapLan, a., and m. HaEnLEin. Users of the World,

Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social

Media. Business Horizons 53 (2010): 5968.

KLEin, n. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bul-

lies. London and New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

KoZinEts, R. v., dE vaLCK, K., WoJniCKi, a., and s.

WiLnER. Networked Narratives: Understanding

Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communi-

ties. Journal of Marketing 74 (2010): 7189.

KRisHnamuRtHy, s., and W. dou. Advertising

with User-Generated Content: A Framework

and Research Agenda. Journal of Interactive

Advertising 8, 2 (2008): 14.

KRistEnsson, p., J. mattHing, and n. JoHans-

son. Key Strategies for the Successful Involve-

ment of Customers in the Co-Creation of New



Technology-Based Services. International Journal

of Service Industry Management 19, 4 (1997) 474491.

Li, C., and J. BERnoFF. Groundswell: Winning

in a World Transformed by Social Technolo-

gies. Forrester Research Inc. MA: Boston, 2008.

maRKus, H., and E. WuRF. The Dynamic Self-

Concept: A Social Psychological Perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology 38 (1987): 299337.

mCaLExandER, J. H., J. sCHoutEn, and H.

KoEnig. Building Brand Community. Journal

of Marketing 66, 1 (2002): 3854.

mCmiLLan, d. W., and d. m. CHavis. Sense of

Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal

of Community Psychology 14, 1 (1986): 623.

miCHaELidou, n., and s. diBB. Consumer

Involvement: A New Perspective. The Market-

ing Review 8, 1 (2008): 8399.

muniZ, a. m., and t. oguinn. Brand Community.

Journal of Consumer Research 27, 4 (2001): 412432.

muniZ, a. m., and H. sCHau. Vigilante Market-

ing and Consumer-Created Communications.

Journal of Advertising Research 36, 3 (2007): 3550.

nunnaLLy, J. C. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.

oCHoa, x., and E. duvaL. Qualitative

Analysis of User-Generated Content on the Web.

Proceedings of the First International Workshop

on Understanding the Web Evolution. Web Science

Research Initiative 2008, Beijing, China, 1926.

oRganisation FoR EConomiC Co-opERation and

dEvELopmEnt. Participative Web and User-

Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Net-

working, 2007: OECD Information Technologies.

pappu, R., p. QuEstER, and R. CooKsEy.

Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Improving the

MeasurementEmpirical Evidence. Journal of

Product and Brand Management 14, 2/3 (2005):

143154.

pEtER, J. p., J. C. oLson, and K. g. gRunERt. Con-

sumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy, Euro-

pean ed. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, 2009.

piREs, g. d., p. Rita, and J. stanton. The Inter-

net, Consumer Empowerment and Marketing

Strategies. European Journal of Marketing 40,

9/10 (2006): 936949.

pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. Co-

opting Customer Competence. Harvard Busi-

ness Review 78, 1 (2000): 7987.

pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. The Co-

creation Connection. Strategy & Business 27

(2002): 5061.

pRaHaLad, C. K., and v. RamasWamy. Co-creation

Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Crea-

tion. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18, 3 (2004):

515.

RiEgnER, C. Word of Mouth on the Web: The

Impact of Web 2.0 on Consumer Purchase Deci-

sion. Journal of Advertising Research 47, 4 (2007):

436447.

sHEnKan, a. g., and B. siCHEL. Market-

ing with User Generated Content: Market-

ers Who Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom Risk

Losing Focus. McKinsey Quarterly (2007).

Retrieved from www.mckinseyquarterly.com/

Marketing_with_user-generated_content_2055

siRgy, m. J. Self-concept in Consumer Behav-

ior: A Critical Review. Journal of Consumer

Research 9, 3 (1982): 287300.

smitH, t. The Social Media Revolution. Interna-

tional Journal of Market Research 51, 4 (2009): 559561.

stoCKL, R., p. RoHRmEiER, and t. HEss.

Why Customers Produce User-Generated Content,

in Hass, B.H., G. Walsh, and T. Kilian (eds)

Web 2.0: Neue Perspektiven fr Marketing

und Medien. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2008:

271287.

tRusov, m., R. E. BuCKLin, and K. pauWELs. Esti-

mating the Dynamic Effects of Online Word-of-

Mouth on Member Growth of a Social Network

Site. Journal of Marketing 73 (2009): 90102.

unCLEs, m., R. East, and W. Lomax. Market Share

Is Correlated with Word of Mouth Volume. Aus-

tralasian Marketing Journal (2010): in press.

uRBan, g., and E von HippEL. Lead User Anal-

yses for the Development of New Industrial

Products. Management Science 34, 5 (1988):

569582.

vaRgo, s. L., and R. F. LusCH. Evolving to A

New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of

Marketing 68, 1 (2004): 117.

von HippEL, E. Innovation by User Commu-

nities: Learning from Open Source Software.

Sloan Management Review 42, 4 (2001): 8286.

WatHiEu, L., L. BREnnER, Z. CaRmon, Et aL.

Consumer Control and Empowerment: A

Primer. Marketing Letters 13, 3 (2002): 297305.

WoRtman, C. B. Some Determinants of Per-

ceived Control. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 31, 2 (1975): 282294.

WRigHt, L. t., a. nEWman, and C. dEnnis.

Enhancing Consumer Empowerment. Euro-

pean Journal of Marketing 40, 9/10 (2006): 925935.

ZaiCHKoWsKy, J. L. Measuring the Involve-

ment Construct. Journal of Consumer Research

12, 3 (1985): 341352.

ZaiCHKoWsKy, J. L. The Personal Involvement

Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Applica-

tion to Advertising. Journal of Advertising 23, 4

(1994): 5970.

Copyright of Journal of Advertising Research is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

memo to marketers- quantitative evidence for change

Documents

impact of ugc

brandrelated content

ugc campaigns

brand managers

sumers of ugc

nature of ugc

percent of brand

drivers of ugc creation