Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age

Understanding
Customer
Engagement
in the
Digital Age.
Emmanuel Peype - Dissertation Project

3
Abstract
Social media has become a real challenge for marketers likely to connect with an
audience. The rising empowerment of customers in these new media tends to change
marketing landscape and oblige companies to start a conversation with them. The
concept of customer engagement highlights the imminent need to focus on building
personal two-way relationships with the audience and engaging them on new media
platforms.
The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of customer engagement on customer
brand interactions, specifically in social media platforms using IKEA as a focal
company. In addition to customer engagement, the study was measuring two other
concepts likely to impact on those interactions: passion and brand utility.
The research was elaborated through the use of conceptual models of engagement. In
complement, motivations for engaging with brand in social were identified in current
literature. Conceptual frameworks were indeed tested along the study.
The empirical study was conducted in summer 2011. An online questionnaire was used
to collect information from 305 respondents. The questionnaire aimed at measuring
insights related to IKEA as well as testing constructs in the process of engagement.
The result of this study proves the validity of conceptual model of engagement used.
Results show that customer engagement had several implications with concepts related
customer brand relationships such as satisfaction, loyalty and passion. However,
customer engagement in social media was indirectly related to those constructs, as it did
not impact positively on some variables. The study also identified the importance of
intrinsic motivations for customers likely to engage with IKEA, such as getting fun and
getting information.
Finally the study identified passion and brand utility as two important aspects of
customer-brand interactions likely to encourage customers in engaging.

7
Table of Contents
Contents
Abstract....................................................................................................................3
Declaration & Statements.........................................................................................4
Ethical Evaluation Form ............................................................................................5
Record of Supervision...............................................................................................6
List of Tables.............................................................................................................9
List of Figures .........................................................................................................10
1 Introduction....................................................................................................11
2 Literature Review............................................................................................15
2.1 Customer Engagement.....................................................................................................................15
2.2 Social Media..........................................................................................................................................17
2.2.1 Types of Social Media ..........................................................................................................................17
2.2.2 Characteristics of Social Media.......................................................................................................19
2.2.3 User participation on social media...............................................................................................19
2.3 Customer engagement on social media.....................................................................................22
2.3.1 Types of Customer Engagement on social media...................................................................22
2.3.2 The Engagement Ladder....................................................................................................................24
2.3.3 Measuring
the
overall
“Engagement
Score”.............................................................................26
2.4 Motivations for engaging in social media.................................................................................27
2.5 Customer-Brand relationship........................................................................................................30
2.5.1 Emotional attachment and Passion..............................................................................................31
2.5.2 Brand Utility............................................................................................................................................32
3 Statement of research and hypotheses............................................................33
4 – Methodology................................................................................................37
4.1 Research Purpose...............................................................................................................................37
4.2 Research Strategy...............................................................................................................................38
4.3 Research Method................................................................................................................................38
4.4 Sample Selection.................................................................................................................................39
4.5 Data collection .....................................................................................................................................39
4.6 Questionnaire Design........................................................................................................................40
4.7 Pilot study..............................................................................................................................................42
4.8 Validity and Reliability.....................................................................................................................42
4.9 Measurement implications.............................................................................................................42
5 Results and analysis ........................................................................................43
5.1 Profile of respondents ......................................................................................................................43
5.2 Consumer Behaviour with IKEA...................................................................................................44
5.2.1 IKEA purchases over the last 12 months....................................................................................44
5.2.2 Offline Engagement..............................................................................................................................45
5.2.3 Reasons for visiting an IKEA store.................................................................................................46
5.3 The use of Social Media among respondents..........................................................................47
5.3.1 Frequency of Use....................................................................................................................................47

8
5.3.2 Level of Participation ..........................................................................................................................48
5.4 User Engagement with IKEA in Social Media..........................................................................49
5.5 Motivations for engaging with IKEA...........................................................................................51
5.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis..........................................................................................................51
5.5.2 Reliability of scale .................................................................................................................................51
5.5.3 Construct Validity..................................................................................................................................52
5.5.4 Exploratory Factor analysis.............................................................................................................53
5.6 Relationship Quality..........................................................................................................................54
5.6.1 Satisfaction...............................................................................................................................................54
5.6.2 Loyalty........................................................................................................................................................54
5.6.3 Passion........................................................................................................................................................54
5.6.4 Brand Image............................................................................................................................................54
5.6.5 Product Image ........................................................................................................................................55
5.7 Passion points and brand utility ..................................................................................................55
5.7.1 Passion points..........................................................................................................................................55
5.7.2 Brand Utility............................................................................................................................................56
5.8 Regression analyses ..........................................................................................................................58
5.8.1 Consumption............................................................................................................................................58
5.8.2 Predictors of User Engagement......................................................................................................59
5.8.3 Predictors of Offline Engagement..................................................................................................60
5.8.4 Relationship Quality and User Engagement.............................................................................61
5.9 Brand Utility .........................................................................................................................................63
5.9.1 Predictors of Perceived Brand Utility...........................................................................................63
5.9.2 Predictors of Brand Utility types....................................................................................................64
5.10 Additional findings.............................................................................................................................65
5.10.1 Effect of Age on the study.............................................................................................................65
5.10.2 User Engagement and Relationship Quality .......................................................................66
5.11 Evaluation of Hypotheses................................................................................................................67
5.11.1 Initial Hypotheses............................................................................................................................67
5.11.2 Additional results.............................................................................................................................68
5.11.3 Final Model of Engagement........................................................................................................70
6 Conclusions & Discussion............................................................................71
6.1 The Process of Engagement ...........................................................................................................71
6.2 Motivations for engaging in social media.................................................................................73
6.3 Customer engagement and Passion............................................................................................73
6.4 Customer engagement and Brand Utility .................................................................................74
6.5 Customer engagement and Consumption................................................................................75
6.6 Managerial implications ..................................................................................................................75
6.7 Limitations and further research.................................................................................................76
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................78
Appendices.............................................................................................................84

11
1 Introduction
Background of the study
For decades, companies relied on traditional push marketing to sell products and
services to both newly acquired or existing customers (Urban, 2004). Overwhelming
people with approximately 3000 messages everyday was apparently an efficient way to
generate profits based on company’s marketing efforts. However studies estimated the
cost of acquiring new customers to be 5 to 10 times higher than the cost involved in
satisfying its own customers (Murphy et al. 2002). As a consequence, companies have
emphasized the idea of strengthening relationships with customers to build advocacy
over time. According to Urban (2004), quality of products, customer satisfaction and
transparency appeared as critical conditions to develop consumer trust towards
companies and to maintain long-lasting relationships. For instance, relationship
marketing programs such as loyalty card or airline flyer programs were established in
order to maximize customer value and profitability for companies, rather than focusing
on consumers ‘expectations (Ashley et al., 2011). Thus, relational tactics didn’t manage
at fully engaging with people by a lack of commitment with consumers as well as the
use of one-way communication.
With the rise of the Internet, traditional communication channels have been challenged
on the basis of a wide media fragmentation. Described by Chaffey (2008) as “a trend to
increasing choice and consumption of media channels”, media fragmentation has
implied new obstacles to marketers in the process of reaching a relevant audience. As
cable TV did with TV networks in the 1980s, the Internet and new media such as social
networking platforms tend to split audience across all the available channels, thus
making the capture of people’s attention harder (Forrester Research, 2004). For
instance, individuals among young generations may prefer to watch streaming video
online rather than traditional TV programs. Thus, consumers dedicate far less attention
to each media, which strongly impact on advertising effectiveness (Hennig-Thurau et
al., 2010).
In the meantime, new media have contributed to the emergence of empowered
consumers. Individuals have become more acknowledged about brands by “gathering
and exchanging information about products, how they obtain and consume them”.

12
Thanks to the plethora of available social media platforms, consumers have increased
their opportunities to experience new roles such as “authors on Wikipedia, retailers on
eBay or content generators on YouTube” (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Above all,
consumers have reached the status of influential referents concerning buying decision;
according to Nielsen (2009), consumers used to trust more in peer recommendations
(90%) and consumer opinions (70%) than in paid media channels.
The rise of social networking platforms has intensified eWOM communication and
therefore made it a powerful voice against untruthful marketing practices. As recently
seen this year with the Jasmine revolution in Tunisia, social media helped protestors in
connecting each other and spreading their ideas, that contributed in the ignition of a
revolution (Buhl, 2011).
From a company perspective, the social media phenomenon seems to provide extensive
opportunities for brands to connect with target audience. In 2010, it represented about
23% of the time spent online and was one of the most important activity for Internet
users (AOL, 2010). Despite assumptions about their ability to reach mainstream
segments, social media platforms have enabled brands to listen people, to identify their
interests and motivations, and then, to start a conversation with mass markets. For
instance, Facebook recently reached 750 million users. Twitter had about 200 million
users last January whereas geo-location social service Foursquare surpassed 10 million
members (Rao, 2011; Chiang, 2011, LA Times, 2011). Consequently, social media is
now considered as a mass medium. Indeed, Forrester Research defined Internet-based
services as mass media with regards to the number of influence impressions for
products and services, the users’ consumption, their impact on information media as
well as their consideration by large companies such as Procter & Gamble (Ray, 2010).
Nevertheless, this recently appeared mass channel tends to require a disruptive approach
for companies likely to enter in.
In the era of conversation, brands are supposed to adopt a two-way communication
process and engage with the audience. As stated by Antony Young, CEO of Optimedia
US, “social media is not a strategy, but a venue for marketers (…) that enables them to
amplify and elevate brands” (Young, 2011). That seems to imply that success on this
medium is not depending on brands, but on what people say. Furthermore, marketers
need to understand that “the currency on social media is not euros, pesos or dollars, but
meaningful engagement, participation and value creation” (Qualman, 2009).

13
Given this new marketing environment, marketers have been increasingly considering
“the imminent need to focus on building personal two-way relationships” as an
opportunity to amplify interactions between their brands and customers (Kumar et al.,
2010). This strategic approach of customer-brand interactions is known as customer
engagement, and is partially connected to various major concepts in today’s marketing
such as customer satisfaction, customer value or services quality.
Scope of the study
Customer engagement can be defined as “a customer’s behavioural manifestation
toward a brand or firm” (Van Doorn et al., 2010). This concept is an emerging research
topic for marketing academics as a consequence of empowered consumers and an
increasingly digital world. Generally considered as reluctant to brands, “connected
consumers” seem to embrace brands on new media platforms. In 2009, Razorfish FEED
survey highlighted that “78% of consumers welcomed brand advertising on social
networks” and “40% of them were actually friends with a brand on Myspace and
Facebook”. Thus, digital consumers seem to have 15% stronger relationships with
brands than offline consumers (Jack, 2009). This interesting fact regarding digital users
seems to be confirmed with people’s interest for deals, a status of real consumers/fans
and a search of entertaining contents (Razorfish, 2009).
For instance Starbucks succeeded in driving customers to its outlets while providing
them relevant rewards, such as discounts or free products through the use of Foursquare
(Van Grove, 2011). Moreover, a US based food truck Kogi BBQ succeeded in engaging
with 86000 twitter users as it uses social networks to indicate them where it will deliver
its Korean tacos (Gelt, 2009). Both initiatives enabled Starbucks and Kogi BBQ to
benefit from increased traffic and to maximize revenues compared to competitors.
Indeed, a deep correlation between engagement on social media and financial
performance seems to exist, as stated in a 2009 Altimeter study performed among Top
100 Brands (Altimeter, 2009).
Objectives of the study
As highlighted previously, customer engagement on social media can become a source
of business opportunities or even competitive advantage for companies. The purpose of

14
this study is to understand the process of customer engagement and consumers’
motivations to engage with a specific brand and finally to investigate potential
opportunities for this brand. To enable an in-depth analysis, this research project will
focus on one company, IKEA as this Swedish furniture retailer is involved in
international markets and targets wide range of market segments. Research questions
will be introduced further.

15
2 Literature Review
This chapter aims to develop a better understanding of concepts that seem to play an
important role in the area of customer engagement. Current literature provides relevant
material related to the specific research objectives, a large part of this background will
consist in investigating customers’ motivations to engage with a brand on social media,
the importance of customers’ bonds with a brand, as well as the type of outputs that
customers are likely to benefit from such a relationship. By referring to various notions
connected to engagement and social media usage, this review will provide pertinent
theoretical foundations for the design of a conceptual framework.
2.1 Customer Engagement
The notion of engagement used to be investigated in various academic disciplines, such
as psychology and organizational behaviour. Prior studies on employee-firm
interactions identified “positive consequences at both individual and organizational
levels” (Bowden, 2009), such as positive individuals’ behaviour (Saks, 2006), job
satisfaction and high organizational commitment and performance (Salanova et al.,
2005). Furthermore, academics also reveal that employee engagement positively
contributes in increasing customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bowden, 2009).
As a matter of fact, authors have extended the scope of engagement to customer-firm
interactions. McEwen (2004) refers to engagement as “a measure of the overall strength
of company’s customer relationships”, that is to say that it encompasses “both
emotional and rational bonds formed by customers with particular brands”. In addition
to McEwen (2004), Patterson et al. (2006) define this concept as “the level of
customer’s physical, cognitive and emotional presence in their relationships with a
company” (Hollebeek, 2010). On the other hand, it tends to emphasize that customer
engagement is not restricted to transactions, but also behavioural manifestations related
to a brand (Van Doorn et al. 2010). Therefore, investigating the concept of customer
engagement implies to consider all types of direct brand interactions such as word-of-
mouth, customer recommendations and referrals as well as physical interactions
commonly defined as customer touchpoints (Hollebeek, 2010). In practice, customers

16
who regularly discuss a brand with peers, interact via online channels with a specific
brand or visit a store are considered as individuals who engage. Furthermore, these
manifestations can be both positive or negative and even extended to company’s
stakeholders (Van Doorn et al. 2010)
A number of studies tend to clarify the position of customer engagement among other
marketing concepts, as literature suggests that engagement has a predictive power on
customer loyalty (Hollebeek et al. 2010). Based on McEwen’s definition, Bowden
(2009) investigates how rational and emotional bonds might impact on customer
loyalty. The model developed from this research underlines that “engagement, as a
process, arises out of a combination of calculative commitment, following by the
development of trust, involvement and eventually affective commitment” (Bowden,
2009).
While conceptualising the process of customer engagement, Hollebeek (2010) identifies
distinct relationships between engagement and a series of marketing constructs related
to customer – brand interactions. Firstly, involvement and interactivity appear being two
antecedents whereas the concept of flow may act as a psychological antecedent state
encouraging customer engagement (Hollebeek, 2010; Patterson et al. 2006). The author
classifies as engagement consequences “rapport, value co-creation, brand experience
and perceived quality”. Thus, these concepts refer to output behaviours of customer-
brand relationships, although “rapport” can be considered as an inhibitor in the process
of engaging existing customers (Hollebeek, 2010). Furthermore, as proposed in Bowden
(2009), customer satisfaction, empowerment, trust, commitment, customer value and
brand loyalty are viewed as “consequences of engagement with potential positive
relationships between these” (Hollebeek, 2010).
Figure 1 - Process of Engagement

17
Conceptual models tend to emphasize customer engagement as a holistic approach to
consumer behavioural manifestations over time. Customer involvement and interactivity
with a specific brand are considered as two initial steps of engagement whereas
satisfaction, trust and commitment (both affective and calculative) may enhance it over
time, by strengthening customer-brand relationships. Fig.1 shows the process of
engagement as conceptualized by Hollebeek (2010; 2011).
Besides, it is advisable to consider other dimensions of customer engagement behaviour
when investigating such a process. Van Doorn et al. (2010) highlight the choice of
channels as well as consumer’s purpose when engaging with a brand.
2.2 Social Media
Although it is commonly restricted to social networking sites (SNS), the notion of social
media, as defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2009), refers to “Internet-based applications
that help consumers share opinions, insights, experience and perspectives”. This
concept encompasses several types of platforms, from collaborative projects to social
networks. Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) distinguish 6 distinct types of social media as
followed: collaborative projects, blogs, content communities, social networking sites,
virtual game worlds and virtual social worlds.
2.2.1 Types of Social Media
Collaborative projects emphasize the creation of content through participation of many
end-users. Users involved into collaborative platforms may be responsible for
generating a specific content (i.e: writing or editing an article on Wikipedia) or simply
sharing and organizing relevant media content available online (Solis, 2010). The idea
underlying applications such as Wikipedia and social bookmarking service Delicious is
to lead to a better outcome by joining users’ efforts (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). As an
example, Wikipedia had over 18 million articles but only 90000 active contributors
(Reagle, 2010).

18
Blogs and microblogs are given as one manifestation of user-generated content.
Generally managed by a single user, blogs give individuals an opportunity to express
and share their opinions through a dedicated medium. However this type of platform
enables interaction with other Internet users via comments and may help them in
spreading positive or negative feelings related to a brand among other consumers
(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). In August 2011, there are over 168 million blogs
available online according Nielsen’s Blogpulse (Nielsen, 2011).
To another extent, content communities have enabled users to publish and share “a wide
range of different media types” on the Internet. YouTube (videos), FlickR (pictures) and
Slideshare (presentations and documents) are among the most popular platforms to
publicly publish and share content (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). For example, YouTube
members upload 48 hours of video every minute while more than 3 billion videos are
watched on a daily basis (YouTube, 2011). As a result, the success of video sharing
communities is challenging traditional media such as TV and it also empowers
individuals to generate online content (Hennig-Thurau et al, 2010).
Currently considered as a high popular new media, social networks are applications that
enable individuals to create a personal profile and interact with other users. Being active
on social communities consists of sharing and publishing any type of objects (i.e:
photos, videos, audio files or links) communicating with online contacts and posting
updates about his/her activity (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Solis, 2010). In fact,
Facebook allows 750 million users to share various types of information with friends
and experience a real social life online whereas Twitter provides its 200 million users a
microblogging platform on which they can share instant messages (Rao 2011; Chiang,
2011). With a common purpose, geo-location social service Foursquare allows its 10
million users to check-in places they used to go and share personal tips to their online
contacts. Furthermore, some authors emphasize the fact that “online communities
complement their real world counterparts and serve as forums for consumers
exchanging their thoughts and ideas” (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2010). In this way, social
networking platforms provide possibilities for consumers to share and interact directly
with both individuals and brands (i.e. Facebook pages, Twitter corporate accounts and
Foursquare’s places).

19
In comparison with aforementioned platforms, virtual game worlds and social worlds
might be considered differently as these applications are associated with entertainment
and differing from real life (i.e. Second Life, World of Warcraft). Through the creation
of virtual representations of themselves, users interact with others “within the constructs
and missions of dedicated worlds” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010;; Solis, 2010). Despite a
virtual context, these applications provide opportunities for companies to promote
themselves via game mechanics platforms. For instance, British bank Barclays unveiled
in 2010 a virtual game to reach a younger audience.
2.2.2 Characteristics of Social Media
Generally, digital innovations have enabled audiences “to talk back and talk to each
other” without any effort and encouraged them to play a more active role (Deighton &
Kornfeld, 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). According to Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010),
5 distinct characteristics define the concept of “new media”: “digital, pro-active, visible,
real-time, ubiquitous and networks”.
With regards to digitality and ubiquity, any consumer with an Internet connection is
able to blog, write reviews and share content with peers. Otherwise, instantaneity and
visibility of consumers’ new media activities may strengthen relationships between
users and contribute in developing intangible but more powerful networks. As a result,
proactivity of new media highlight their potential contributions in creating value for
both individuals and organisations; i.e: reporting flaws to a company or participating
into co-creation projects (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2010).
2.2.3 User participation on social media
Due to the bulk of social media platforms available to Internet users, it is advisable to
make a distinction in terms of user participation. Early studies have investigated user
participation on the Internet, online shopping platforms and social media
In the process of identifying opportunities for brands, Li & Bernoff (2007) provide a
general classification of user participation on new media, known as “Social
Technographics ladder”. This framework aims at grouping users according to six
increasing levels of participation they may reach in their online activities (Li & Bernoff,
2007)

20
Figure 2 - Social Technographics ladder (Forrester, 2010)
Spectators
As explained in Li & Bernoff (2007), Spectators defines people who generally perform
activities such as “reading blogs and customer reviews, listening podcasts or watch
videos on Youtube”. In 2010, 68% of adult online population frequently participated in
similar activities (Forrester, 2010). Although this level of participation is compatible
with others, Spectators appear less likely to adopt Creator, Conversationalists or Critics
behaviours and remain in a traditional way to consume new media platforms (Li &
Bernoff, 2007).
Joiners
To the next level, researchers identify Joiners as users who are active on SNS by
maintaining a profile and visiting regularly sites such as Facebook, Myspace or Orkut.
Forrester (2010) estimates that Joiners represent 59% of online population and was the
youngest category in 2007 Social Technographics (Li & Bernoff, 2007; Forrester,
2010). A study from Pew Research corroborates it as 65% of online adults use SNS in
2011, including 83% in the 18-29 age group (Madden & Zickuhr, 2011).

21
Collectors
This third level of participation tends to introduce a variation concerning users’
motivations. Internet users who use RSS feeds or bookmark websites in the process of
collecting and aggregating information are considered by Li & Bernoff (2007) as
Collectors. Collectors behaviour can be related to a professional use of social media and
only represent 19% of adult online population (Forrester, 2010).
Critics
This category of online consumers correlates with the idea of active role offered to the
audience enhanced by Hennig-Thurau (2010). Critics are users who respond to content
from others “by posting reviews of products, commenting on blogs or contributing to
online forums”. About 33% of online population participated regularly in Critics
activities (Forrester, 2010).
Conversationalists
Conversationalists are defined in the typology as “people who update their statuses on
platforms like Facebook and Twitter at least weekly” (Ray, 2010). Considering
implications of social media in terms of instantaneity and user connectivity,
Conversationalists, who represent 31% of online population, are likely to play an
important role among other users. Indeed, 83% of them generally share opinions or give
product advice to friends and relatives (Forrester, 2010; Ray, 2010).
Creators
The most active level of participation identified by Li & Bernoff (2007) is Creators,
which emphasizes the involvement of people who frequently “publish a blog or a
website, upload videos and write articles and post them”. About 23% of online
population are frequently expressing themselves by creating on the Internet (Forrester,
2010). In their 2007 study, Li & Bernoff underlined the fact that some of them (14%)
were endorsing this role on several platforms.

22
On the contrary, Inactives represent those who do not perform any of the social
computing activities aforementioned. These non-participating users represent 19% of
online population, and are less likely to engage in electronic word of mouth and
influence others (Forrester, 2010). But, Li & Bernoff (2007) point out the fact that
Inactives “can be affected when the activities of others get covered in the news media”.
The “Social Technographics ladder” provides a unique and versatile classification of
user participation towards the investigation of customer engagement. First, applying the
ladder of participation to SNS enables researchers to measure the level of participation
on these platforms, and then to identify differences related to engagement on media. To
another extent, it enables measurement of brand-related involvement by classifying user
behaviours towards brand-related content.
In the process of investigating customer engagement with IKEA, these constructs form
a relevant basis to measure the level of customer participation with the brand.
Nevertheless, it implies to successively address customer motivations for engaging on
these platforms.
2.3 Customer engagement on social media
The definition of customer engagement refers to direct brand interactions as customer
involvement and interactivity with a specific brand represent two main antecedents to
engagement (Hollebeek, 2011). For instance, watching an IKEA commercial on
YouTube, liking an official IKEA page on Facebook or checking into an IKEA store via
Foursquare will be considered as examples of consumer brand-related online activities
(Muntinga et al. 2010). Nevertheless, indirect brand interactions such as electronic word
of mouth on blog platforms should be also integrated into the scope of brand-related
online activities. For instance, a user-generated blog entry about IKEA might be
assimilated to a brand-related content as it enhances user manifestations towards the
brand.
2.3.1 Types of Customer Engagement on social media
Muntinga et al. (2010) propose a typology of consumer online brand related activities
based on Li & Bernoff (2007; 2008). Thus, consumers who perform brand-related

23
online activities can have three usage behaviours: from consuming, contributing, to
creating brand related content (see Fig.3).
Figure 3 - Typology of Consumers online brand-related activities (Muntinga et al. 2010)
These usage types are inherent to the process of engagement as they determine the level
of user participation on brand-related online activities. It helps in differentiating
consumers based on their involvement, assuming that creating a brand-related content is
the highest level of online engagement a consumer may have towards a brand
(Muntinga et al., 2010; Li & Bernoff, 2007).
Based on the previous usage types, the level of user participation has been
conceptualized for 5 social media platforms IKEA consumers are likely to engage with
the brand (Fig.4).
Nevertheless, it is compulsory to adapt these typologies to each online platform, in
order to measure the overall level of customer participation in brand-related activities.

24
Figure 4 - The User Participation ladder (author generated)
2.3.2 The Engagement Ladder
In regards to previous frameworks, the level of customer engagement can be ranged
according to users’ behaviours. In order to quantify engagement, a 4-point measurement
scale is elaborated and applied to a number of new media allowing consumers to engage
with IKEA. 5 distinct platforms have been selected based on the existence of customer-
brand interactions as well as their recent use by brands in advertising campaigns.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Foursquare are the most popular platforms for online
advertising in 2011, meaning that brands are encouraging both indirect and direct
interactions with users (eMarketer, 2011). In complement to social networks and
content communities, blogs are the most popular user-generated platforms and deserves
great attention in customer engagement as they enable consumers to express themselves
and interact about a certain brand (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2011).

25
Figure 5 - The Engagement ladder (author generated)
Fig. 5 exhibits 4 levels of engagement consumers have on specific social media
platforms. This “engagement ladder” takes a full consideration of existing variations on
the basis of customer-brand interactions. For instance, Twitter enables customers and
brands to engage in a conversation. Thus, the highest level of engagement is reached
when a direct customer-brand interaction (i.e: a direct message (DM) or a mention (@))
occurs.
While it is assimilated to other social media in Fig.4, Foursquare does not let users
assume a role of creator in brand interactions. Except sharing tips about users, the
ultimate level of brand engagement is to obtain the “mayor” status of a brand-related
place (i.e an IKEA store), awarded to the user who visited the more frequently a place
over a 60 days period (Foursquare, 2011). As a matter of fact, a Foursquare “mayor” is
assumed to be a loyal customer, therefore a brand advocate among other users.
Nevertheless, this minimal difference does not affect the measurement of interactivity
between IKEA and its customers.

26
2.3.3 Measuring the overall “Engagement Score”
The endeavour to measure the overall level of engagement requires considering at
channel importance for customers when engaging with a brand.
A recent study from digital agency Razorfish focused on the channel importance and
frequency of use to identify the most important consumer engagement channels
(Razorfish, 2011:14). Apparently, Google company websites, word of mouth and e-mail
are the most preferred channels to connect online with a brand while social media
platforms seem to fail at meeting people’s expectations (Razorfish, 2011:16). As this
study aims to investigate customer engagement on new channels, it is advisable to
consider frequency of use and channel importance into the measurement.
Media Richness Theory
To date, there have not been academic studies, which have investigated channel
importance among new media. In their attempt to define social media, Kaplan &
Haenlein (2009) provide a classification of social media platforms according to the
degree of self-disclosure required and media richness of a specific platform. The
concept of self-disclosure is related to “the amount of personal information that one
person is willing to disclose to another” in order to develop close relationships (Jourard,
1959). Applied to engagement, self-disclosure is compared to the level of interaction
between consumers and brands. Alternatively, media richness is concerned with
existing variations between media in “their ability to enable users to communicate and
change understanding” (Dennis et al. 1999; Draft & Lengel, 1984). It suggests that the
richer the medium is, the better understanding it may provide.
Figure 6 - Classification of Social Media by media richness and self-disclosure (from Kaplan & Haenlein,
2009)

27
In the context of social media, Kaplan & Haenlein (2009) consider blogs, microblogs
and collaborative projects as leaner mediums than SNS and content communities. For
example, blogs and collaborative projects are often text-based and do not allow the
same level of user interactivity available on social networks (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009).
This classification suggests that certain social media are more appropriate to enhance
communication between brands and customers, thus to enable a stronger level of
customer engagement. In practice, it means that a fan from one IKEA Facebook page
would be able to engage than someone following IKEA on twitter. Although similar
assumptions can be raised for other platforms, the determination of a “media richness”
coefficient into the calculation of engagement requires preliminary studies and cannot
be applied in this research. Therefore, to simplify the measurement, engagement scores
by platforms will be cumulatively aggregated to obtain an overall “Engagement score”.
2.4 Motivations for engaging in social media
In complement to the level of user participation, identifying key motivations of
customers to engage with IKEA on social media is inherent to the process of
understanding engagement.
Early theories on traditional media, based on television, focused on identifying
behaviours and reasons why individuals use a specific media (Quan-Haase & Young,
2010). “Uses and Gratifications” approach provides a “user-centric functionalist
perspective”, that appears to be appropriate in the context of engagement in social
media, as it emphasizes the importance of media content to gratify audience needs
(Calder et.al, 2009; Muntinga et al. 2010; Ruggiero, 2000).
McQuail (1983) classifies into four categories motivations for using media:
Information, Personal Identity, Integration and social integration and Entertainment
(Fig.1). Studies on interactive marketing tend to confirm the validity and potential
application of U&G theory to social media (Calder et al. 2009; Bronner and Neijens,
2006; Nambisan and Baron, 2007). However, recent applications of U&G approach
include additional motivation categories compared to McQuail’s framework (Muntinga
et al. 2010).

28
Figure 7 – McQuail’s
typology
of
motivations
in using media
Information
This type of motivation covers information-related outputs provided by the use of
media. Media tend to help people in “finding out relevant events and conditions,
seeking advices and opinions, satisfying curiosity and general interest” or even reducing
risks in decision choices (Calder et al. 2009). Therefore, it is possible to connect
consumer’s motivation for information to the growth of customer review platforms,
blogs, and social networking sites, on which users generally share information.
Applying U&G approach to Twitter, Johnson & Yang (2009) identify that information
gratifications are main motivations of using Twitter, as positive relationships exist with
Twitter use.
Personal Identity
As stated in Muntinga et al. (2010), media gratifications induced by the personal
identity motivation are related to the shelf. Sub-motivations are for example “finding
reinforcement for personal values”, self-identification to others and recognition among
peers. Identity expression, self-fulfilment and self-enhancement are generally the most
important motivations for social using networks and blogs (Muntinga et al. 2010). For
instance, being fan on Facebook is a way to promote its shelf by supporting a brand, an
organisation or celebrities.
Integration and Social Interaction
In comparison to Personal Identity, this dimension refers to media gratifications
obtained by the interaction with other people. It covers several sub-motivations such as
“identifying with others and gaining a sense of belonging, connecting with friends and

29
family, finding a basis for conversation and substituting real-life companionship”
(McQuail, 1987; Muntinga et al 2010). Considering social connectivity on SNS, Quan-
Haase & Young (2010) discovered that about 85% of their research participants had
joined Facebook because of social pressure, being as one of their friends had suggested
it.
Entertainment
As identified in McQuail (1987), media can provide users with four entertainment
gratifications including “escaping or being diverted from problems, relaxing, getting
cultural or aesthetic enjoyment, passing time and emotional release”. While
investigating users’ active participation on YouTube, Hanson & Haridakis (2008)
figure out that entertainment is one primary motivation for users to watch and share
videos among their peers. Otherwise, Lindqvist et al. (2011) identify that Foursquare
rewards (i.e. badges, mayorships) are entertainment gratifications, which motivates in
engaging on this location-based service.
New types of motivation for U&G approach have emerged from recent academic
studies focusing on new media as reviewed in Liu et al. (2010) (Wang & Fesenmaier,
2003; Cheung and Lee, 2009). Muntinga et al. (2010) introduce two relevant
motivations while considering brand-related social media use: empowerment and
remuneration.
Empowerment
New media have offered opportunities for individuals to “extert their influence or
power” on other users. As consumers have become aware of it, previous studies suggest
that empowerment is a driver of participation in online communities (Cova & Pace,
2006) and in UGC practices (Berthon et al., 2008). Additionally, social networking
sites tend to enhance consumers’ empowerment by encouraging the emergence of
influencers. Johnson & Wang (2009) show that the ability to express himself freely on
Twitter is an important social motive for users compared to groups on facebook which
succeed in changing the behaviour of brands, such as Cadbury and Nestlé (Meadows-
Klue, 2008).

30
Remuneration
Consequently to growing brand’s presence on social media, remuneration appears as a
driver for people to engage on some platforms. Economic incentives (e.g: money,
prize), job-related benefits (e.g. information) or personal wants have been identified in
Muntinga et al. (2010) as examples of rewards people may expect. In location-based
services, the possibility of getting discounts and special offers generally motivates the
use of Foursquare (Lindqvist et al., 2011), whereas Facebook launched local deal
services as a way to reward Facebook Places’ users (Chang & Sun, 2011). Otherwise,
Zhao & Rosson (2009) underline through a series of interviews the usefulness of
microblogging service Twitter in informal communication at work.
In accordance to prior studies, the U&G approach identifies relevant motives to user
participation. Unlike Rodgers’ Web Motivation Inventory that 4 general motives of uses
(Rodgers et al., 2007), the 6 motivation categories focus on audience needs and provide
a better understanding of how a brand may gratify it through online interactions with
customers.
2.5 Customer-Brand relationship
While conceptualizing impacts of customer engagement, Hollebeek (2010; 2011)
suggests the importance of Relationship Quality, defined as a “higher-order construct
comprising the dimensions of trust, commitment and customer satisfaction”. According
to prior studies, these concepts are positively correlated to the development of
relationships between customers and brands, and may lead further to the development of
brand loyalty (Bowden et al., 2009). For instance, the dimension of trust tends to turn a
customer-brand relationship into more “emotionally-oriented and affective connections,
associated with affiliation, identification and attachment” (Hess & Story, 2005; Bowden
et al., 2009).
McEwen (2004) enhances the requirement of emotional bonds in building strong
relationships and defines 4 levels of customer engagement that reflect important
emotional bonds in customer-brand relationships: “Confidence, Integrity, Pride,
Passion”. While confidence refers to customer trust, integrity stands for “the belief that
a brand will treat its customers with fairness”. Beyond the level of pride a consumer

31
benefits from its personal relationship with brand, the ultimate level of engagement,
passion, is defined as “the belief that the brand is irreplaceable” and perfectly “fits with
the customer’s personal needs” (McEwen, 2004).
2.5.1 Emotional attachment and Passion
A number of studies continue to investigate passion and emotional attachment in
customer-brand interactions (Albert et al., 2008; Yim et al., 2008; Grisaffe & Nguyen,
2010; Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011). Grisaffe & Nguyen (2010) distinguish 5
antecedents of emotional attachment to brands between controllable (i.e. superior
marketing characteristics, customer outcomes and user-derived benefits) and less
controllable (i.e. socialization, sentimental memory). Based on their study, authors
highlight a need to outperform customers’ expectations “to achieve attachment-inducing
satisfaction”. To another extent, Yim et al. (2008) suggest that “affectionate ties that
comprise both intimacy and passion” are inherent in order to cultivate customer loyalty
and require a dynamic approach, as “passion fades and intimacy gets challenged”.
However, as explained in Patwardhan & Balasubramanian (2011), emotional attachment
is not compulsory in building relationships: according to Park et al. (2009) consumers
can be strongly involved with a brand without having developed emotional connections
with. For instance, such a behavior may result in people engaging in social media with
IKEA but with a poor personal consideration for the brand.
Otherwise, the notion of passion and emotional attachment with a brand can be
approached from a different manner. Marketers tend to develop customer engagement
through the use of passion branding. In an attempt to target an audience, it aims at
creating associations between a specific passion platform (i.e. sports, art events) and a
brand in order to generate real emotions for potential customers (Duffy & Hooper,
2003). For example, sport events and celebrity endorsements provide opportunities for
brands to promote brand attributes as well as brand personality. In the UK, Orange
succeeded in engaging customers through innovative arts sponsorships (Duffy &
Hooper, 2003).
In the context of social media, the notion of passion branding may appear in terms of
online published content. A recent AOL study considers content as the fuel of social

32
web as “23% of social media messages include links to content” and “60% of content
sharing message mention a brand name or product” (AOL, 2010). Implications toward
content are important, as it tends to create motivations for engaging with a brand, such
becoming a Facebook fan or a follower. On social networking sites, IKEA tends to raise
its brand awareness among customers by sharing content dealing with art, home
decorating, and provides a subjective value of engagement.
2.5.2 Brand Utility
In addition to emotional bonds, McEwen emphasizes the need of rational bonds in
customer engagement. Besides the emergence of customer engagement, brands have
introduced the notion of brand utility in the way to offer extra value to customers. As
explained in Contagious Magazine (2008), brand utility redefines customer-brand
relationships as “it is about giving something away to earn people’s time and attention”.
For example, releasing a branded mobile application and offering an extra free service
on social networks are ways to improve brand value for customers and to generate a
unique brand experience compared to competitors.
To date, there haven’t been academic studies which have been investigated the concept
of brand utility and its impact on consumer engagement. However, a large number of
communication campaigns tend to confirm positive impacts on customer-brand
relationships. Trend consultancy Trendwatching (2010) identifies 8 categories of
utilities brand were likely to provide for their customers including Transparency
(information utility), Saving money, Finding, Connectivity, Health, nutrition &
exercise, Skills & advice, Eco-friendly (environmental utility) and Tools & amenities
This classification is seemingly related to existing motivations of customers to engage
with brands, but may provide accurate insights concerning customers’ expectations
from a focal brand such as IKEA.
Fig.8 provides a summarized approach of engagement within customer – brand
relationships. Even though academics have different views on the importance of
emotional ties on loyalty, it appears possible for brands to reach consumers using
appropriate passion points and offering a strong brand utility.
Figure 8 - The impact of Engagement in Customer-
Brand relationship (author generated)

33
3 Statement of research and hypotheses
The preceding discussion reviews existing literature and frameworks of customer
engagement as well as other related marketing constructs. Additionally, it makes an
attempt to apply conceptual models of customer engagement to social media platforms,
while considering specific attributes that may create variations towards traditional
engagement. A measurement scale, the engagement ladder, has been generated in order
to estimate user engagement on social media. Thus, further research is required to
provide a better understanding of how engagement on social media impacts on
traditional engagement, consumption as well as customer loyalty. Since there are
variations in terms of consumer behaviour towards social media, this study will focus
on the following research problem.
“How does user engagement impact on customer-brand interactions and to what
extent it may leverage the overall customer engagement with a focal brand such as
IKEA?”
This research problem will be investigated in four different sections.
First, the impact of both traditional engagement and online engagement on consumption
will be tested. Then, the model of engagement conceptualized by Hollebeek (2010;
2011) will be applied to online engagement and an attempt to define predictors of user
engagement will be made. In complement to the identification of predictors, a third
section aims to point out how user engagement affects concepts related to customer-
brand relationships (i.e satisfaction, loyalty and passion). Finally, a fourth part will
focus on possibilities to leverage customer engagement through extra value proposition
(brand utility)
A – Consumption Hypotheses
H1: Consumers who engage offline with IKEA consume more than others.
H2: Consumers who engage in social media with IKEA consume more than
others.

34
The preceding review does not refer to the impact of consumer engagement on the level
of consumption, even though Bowden (2009) make a distinction between new and
existing customers concerning the process of engagement. Nevertheless, consumption is
inherent to customer-brand relationships and the impact of engagement deserves to be
tested.
B – Predictors of User Engagement Hypotheses
H3: People who participate in social media engage more in social media with
IKEA.
H4: People who engage offline with IKEA engage in social media platforms.
H5: Motivations for engaging with IKEA impacts positively on user engagement
H6: Consumers who are satisfied with IKEA experience engage more in social
media than others.
H7: Consumers who are loyal to IKEA engage more in social media than others.
H8: Customers’ passion about IKEA impacts positively on user engagement.
H9: The more positive IKEA image is, the more people engage in social media.
H10: People who purchase from IKEA engage more than others.
Figure 9 - The Process of Online Engagement (adapted from Hollebeek, 2010; 2011)

35
The conceptual model of Hollebeek (2011) identifies customer involvement and
interactivity as antecedents of engagement. Furthermore, the author emphasizes
satisfaction and other constructs related to relationship quality as potential antecedents
for existing customers. Usually seen as consequences of engagement, loyalty and
passion are tested to identify if there are recursive associations with customer
engagement.
C – Impacts of User Engagement Hypotheses
H11: User engagement in social media impacts positively on satisfaction.
H12: IKEA consumers who engage in social media are more loyal.
H13: User engagement impacts positively on customer passion about IKEA.
Hollebeek (2010; 2011) and Bowden (2009) propose that customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty are consequences of engagement with potential positive relationships
between these constructs. To another extent, McEwen (2004) underlines passion as the
apex of customer engagement.
D – Brand Utility Hypotheses
The notion of brand utility refers in this study to the extra value proposition IKEA is
able to offer in the process of strengthening its current bonds with customers. In order to
link this concept to customer engagement, it is relevant to test whether the level of
IKEA brand utility perceived by customers is predicted by brand passion, loyalty,
satisfaction and user engagement. In case one of these constructs is related to customer
perceived brand utility, it might infer that IKEA value proposition can influence the
process of engagement on social media.
Figure 10 - Perceived Brand Utility and User engagement

36
H14: User engagement in social media impacts positively on IKEA perceived
brand utility.
H15: Consumers who are satisfied with IKEA experience have more positive
perceptions of IKEA brand utility.
H16: Passion impacts positively on perceptions of IKEA brand utility.
H15: Consumers who are loyal to IKEA have more positive perceptions of
IKEA brand utility.

37
4 – Methodology
This chapter tends to describe the research approach and design used in the course of
the study. It will provide the different steps of the research process (i.e. questionnaire
design, data sources, data collection) conducted in order to investigate the research
problem.
The main purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact of user engagement on
customer-brand interactions and to identify potential ways to leverage engagement,
using IKEA as focal brand.
4.1 Research Purpose
The first objective is to determine which research design the study will follow by
considering information requirements. Generally, a research problem can be
investigated according to three different purposes: exploratory, descriptive and causal
(Hair et al., 2003).
On one hand, exploratory research is conducted to “clarify a problem, or identify
opportunities”. Either secondary or primary data can be used in an unstructured process
to provide more information on the basis of the investigation (Hair et al., 2003;
Zikmund et al., 2009).
On the other hand, descriptive research is generally used as a procedure to describe an
existing situation. It focuses on “collecting raw data and creating data structures” in
order to determine relations between variables and aspects of a phenomenon (Hair et al.,
2003).
To another extent, an explanatory or causal approach aims to model “cause-and-effect
relationships between several variables” in order to highlight their impacts on the
“outcome predicted” (Hair et al., 2003). Zikmund & Babin (2009) emphasize the use of
causal research in complement to exploratory and descriptive research, as this technique
requires “a good understanding of a situation”.
Based on the objectives of the study, the research problem is twofold and requires both
descriptive and exploratory researches. First, it aims to describe the concepts of offline

38
and online engagement in order to understand to what extent measured variables tend to
impact on the process of engagement. Then, the research will try to explore potential
effects of passion and brand utility on the same process among IKEA consumers.
4.2 Research Strategy
A research study can be conducted through quantitative and qualitative methods.
Quantitative refers to the use of “formalized surveys with predetermined response
options” submitted to a large number of respondents while qualitative methods put on
emphasis on less structured approaches to collect detailed insights from a small sample
(Hair et al., 2003). It is often used in the preliminary stages of research to gain a better
understanding of research problems whereas quantitative methods are appropriate to test
and verify the validity of hypotheses on a large sample (Zikmund et al., 2009).
The process of customer engagement applied throughout the study is based on a
conceptual model elaborated from existing literature by Hollebeek (2011). As pointed
out by the author, a few academics have investigated the concept of customer/brand
engagement to date through the use of qualitative and quantitative researches (Ilic,
2008; Sprott et al., 2009 in Hollebeek, 2011) while motivations of engagement were
identified in Muntinga et al. (2010) by using qualitative techniques such as interviews.
In addition, aforementioned authors emphasize the need of empirical testing and
validation in order to evaluate the consistency of their researches.
As this study investigates two forms of customer engagement, quantitative methods will
be used to test empirically conceptual models for “offline” and “online” engagements,
as defined in Chapter 2. Thus, key findings will potentially help to confirm the
relevance of Hollebeek’s model for traditional engagement and provide insights about
engagement with IKEA.
4.3 Research Method
Consequently to the selection of quantitative methods, customer engagement with IKEA
was addressed through an online questionnaire. Zikmund et al. (2009) considers that
Internet surveys allow the research “to reach a large audience quickly and cost-

39
effectively” with a higher response rate. Furthermore, it appears as the most appropriate
research method to connect with individuals who participate in social media platforms,
as the study aims to do.
4.4 Sample Selection
The main objective of the study is to evaluate the process of engagement among IKEA
consumers. As IKEA is currently established in 42 countries (IKEA, 2011), no
restriction related to geographic locations or age was applied. Being an IKEA customer
and engaging at least offline with the brand (i.e. visiting stores) was the only
requirement to access the study.
As defined in Zikmund et al (2009), two general sampling techniques can be used based
on a nonzero probability of selection (probability sampling) or personal judgement and
convenience (nonprobability sampling). In this study, probability sampling such as
snowball technique was used at the launch (i.e. peer recommendations) while
nonprobability procedures such as random sampling occurred later (i.e: mass mailing,
website links).
The use of various sampling techniques tends to minimize risks of sampling errors. For
example, using only mass mailing among university students would increase errors
related to the representativeness of students and the accuracy of data (Hair et al., 2003).
4.5 Data collection
The data were collected through an online questionnaire available in English and French
for 5 weeks.
Initially, the link was shared via e-mails and social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter,
Foursquare) to users who were actually engaging with the brand (i.e. Facebook fans,
Foursquare mayors etc.). Furthermore, the questionnaire was also displayed on the
home page of IKEA Hackers (http://www.ikeahackers.net/), an online community of
IKEA lovers interested in “modifications on and repurposing of IKEA products” (IKEA
Hackers, 2011). Moreover, a participation incentive (2 £15 gift cards) was given away
to respondents in order to increase level of participation in this 15 minute questionnaire.
About 310 individuals took part in the study from early August h
to early September but
248 respondents were finally kept for data analysis because of missing data.

40
4.6 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was developed to measure the constructs highlighted in the
theoretical framework, which are “consumption”, “offline engagement”, “user
participation”, “user engagement”, “motivations for engaging”, “satisfaction”,
“loyalty”, “passion”, “brand image”, “product image” as well as “brand utility”
(Appendix 1)
The questionnaire was structured with regard to the four sections underlined in the
statement of research (Table 1). It was made up with 25 questions including 7
demographic items. In order to reduce time and effort required by respondents, most of
the questions were close ended, allowing the sample to select an item or a level of
intensity (Hair et al., 2003). For example, the level of consumption in the last 12 months
was measured on 5-point scale, ranging from “Never” to “7+ times”. Moreover, the
level of agreement was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, considered as the norm.
Although academics consider a 7-point scale more reliable, Colman et al. (1997) point
out that scores from 5-point and from 7-point are virtually equivalent. Otherwise,
respondents had the opportunity to provide extra information related to “brand utility”
and “passion” thanks to open questions.
Besides, a ratio scale was developed in order to evaluate the level of user participation
and level of engagement on social media. As emphasized in Chapter 2, respondents
were asked to select the level of participation in social media platforms, ranked on 4
distinct behaviours, from “Inactives” to “Creators”. This ratio scale elaborated from Li
(2008) and Muntinga et al. (2010) offers the opportunity to identify types of
participation and to compare it with other variables (Hair et al., 2003). The same 4-point
scale was applied to the concept of user engagement in order to enhance the validity of
comparisons between those variables (see Fig 4 and 5, Chapter 2).
Table 1 provides further information about the questionnaire design in terms of
constructs. Except the development of user participation and engagement scales, the
questionnaire integrated some constructs applied in other studies. In fact, reliable and

41
valid scales for Loyalty and Passion were used from a recent research on customer
intimacy and passion (Yim et al., 2008).
Table 1 - Questionnaire Design
Constructs and Questions Scale Adopted from
Consumption & Offline Engagement
Q1 - Frequency of purchase from IKEA
selling points (consumption)
5 point scale
(Ordinal)
Researcher
Q2 - Frequency of visits to IKEA selling
points (offline engagement)
5 point scale
(Ordinal)
Researcher
Q3 - Reasons for visiting an IKEA store Rank order scale Researcher
Q4 - Loyalty Program Member Yes / No Researcher
User Participation
Q5 - Frequency of use of social media
platforms
5 point scale
(Ordinal)
Researcher
Q6 - Level of Participation in social
media
4 point scale
(Ratio)
Li (2008), Muntinga et
al. (2010)
User Engagement
Q7 - Level of Engagement with IKEA in
social media
4 point scale
(Ratio)
Li (2008), Muntinga et
al. (2010)
Motivations for engaging
Q8 - Motivations to connect with IKEA 5 point Likert scale Muntinga et al. (2010),
ExactTarget (2010)
Brand Image
Q9 - Perceptions of IKEA as a brand 5 point Likert scale Researcher
Product Image
Q10 - Perceptions of IKEA products 5 point Likert scale Researcher
Satisfaction
Q11 - Overall Satisfaction 5 point Likert scale Researcher
Loyalty
Q12 - Level of loyalty 5 point Likert scale Yim et al. (2008)
Passion
Q13 - Level of Passion 5 point Likert scale Yim et al. (2008)
Q14 - Passion platforms Nominal scale Researcher
Brand Utility
Q15 - Types of Brand Utility 5 point Likert scale Contagious (2008),
TrendWatching (2010)
Q16 - Brand Utility platforms 5 point Likert scale Researcher

42
4.7 Pilot study
As shown in the previous section, a number of research questions were newly
developed based on Chapter 2. In order to evaluate the validity of the framework, a pilot
study was conducted. According to Hunt et al.1989, it might help in avoiding issues
with “ambiguous word, inappropriate vocabulary and scaling methods”.
Thus, an initial questionnaire was pre-tested among a sample of 17 students to ascertain
the adequacy of the framework with the investigated research problem as well as the
need for introducing more questions. On one hand, pre-testing the questionnaire
contributes in evaluating items related to motivation factors and brand utility. Factor
analyses highlight a need for reformulating some variables while a new question related
to brand utility platforms was introduced into the final questionnaire.
4.8 Validity and Reliability
Although a pilot study was run prior the launch of final questionnaire, it is advisable to
assess the quality of results by looking at the validity and reliability of constructs.
Validity refers to the extent a measure of a concept is accurate while reliability
represents the internal consistency of a measure (Zikmund et al. 2009). In the process of
statistical analyses, these two concepts will have to be verified to avoid measurement
issues, for instance, when running confirmatory factor analyses.
4.9 Measurement implications
Due to the inexistence of reliable measurement scales, Chapter 2 introduced the notion
of user engagement score as an aggregate score of the engagement level a respondent
has on each platform. For example, an individual who only engages with IKEA on
Facebook as a fan will have an overall engagement score of 6 (Facebook: 2; Twitter: 1;
Youtube: 1; Foursquare: 1; Blogs: 1). This empirical measurement scale implies that the
higher the overall score is, the more an individual engages with IKEA.

43
5 Results and analysis
5.1 Profile of respondents
The total number of respondents who took part in this study was 305. However, missing
values were identified on engagement-related variables, contributing in the exclusion of
57 respondents from the analysis. Table 1 (in Appendix 2) shows the basic information
about the surveyed population.
The sample was divided between 185 females (74,6%) and 63 males (25,4%), therefore
it was not equally representative in terms of gender. Respondents were relatively young
as the mean age was 27.99 years old. Indeed, 48.4% of the respondents were aged 24
and below whilst the total number of the 35+ respondents was approximately equal to
17% (see Fig.11).
Consequently to the use of both French and English surveys, 41.5% of the sample was
living in France while the UK and the US accounted respectively for 24.6% and 16.1%
of respondents’ provenance. The remaining 18% of respondents were from 22 other
countries, including Germany, Spain, Australia, Canada and China (see Fig.12).
When considering their current occupations, 50% of respondents were students whilst
36.7% of them were employed in organizations. Moreover, only 5.6% of the sample are
considered as economically inactive (i.e. retired, housewives and unemployed persons)
Figure 11 - Age of Respondents
Figure 12 - Country of Residence

44
while “Others” mainly consisted of apprentices, entrepreneurs and the self-employed
person.
Furthermore, the proportion of respondents who were living
in close proximity to an IKEA store was
approximately equal to 47%, which implies
potential variations in terms of frequency of
visits among respondents.
5.2 Consumer Behaviour with IKEA
The starting point of this study is to investigate respondent behaviour as an IKEA
consumer. It aims to define the level of consumption, the level of offline engagement
with the brand as well as their loyalty over the last 12 months.
5.2.1 IKEA purchases over the last 12 months
In order to identify the level of consumption among respondents, three different types of
purchases were considered according to the available selling points used by IKEA:
stores, official websites and catalogues. Respondents were asked to estimate the number
of times they purchased items at IKEA during the year.
Figure 13 - Current Occupation
Figure 14 - IKEA purchases over the last 12 months

45
First, 35.1% of respondents used to purchase 2 to 3 times in IKEA stores over the last
years whereas a quarter of the total (25.8%) purchased more than 4 times. Nevertheless,
only 12.5% of the sample did not consume in any IKEA store during the same period.
When considering other selling points, a large majority of respondents (respectively
89.1% and 89.9%) have never purchased from the IKEA websites and catalogues. 5.2%
of the respondents purchased once from the website while 5.6% of them ordered online
more than 2 times over the last 12 months. In contrast, 6.4% ordered more than 2 times
using the catalogues as selling points.
Results show that the respondents were not familiar with purchasing on IKEA websites
and via the official IKEA catalogue. Based on these findings, an overall score for
consumption is calculated for each respondent. As shown in Appendix 3, consumption
score has a mean equal to 5.2258, which is quite low (min= 3; max = 14).
5.2.2 Offline Engagement
With regards to Hollebeek’s definition of customer engagement, this study will define
as “offline engagement” direct interactions occurring between IKEA and customers
outside social media environment. Thus, offline engagement will refer to the level of
interactivity respondents experienced with the brand on the aforementioned selling
points along the last 12 months.
Figure 15 - Offline Engagement in the 6 months

46
Results point out that catalogues and websites are the two most frequently used touch-
points (see Appendix 4). Indeed, when considering respondents interacting regularly
with IKEA, 25.7% of the sample visited IKEA websites, 20.9% of them browsed
through an IKEA catalogue while a tenth (9.7%) went to an IKEA store more than once
a month. In fact, a majority of respondents estimated to have visited a store less than 12
times during the last year (66,9%). Nevertheless, IKEA stores appear as the most used
touch-points, as only 24.2% of the sample admitted visiting it less than once a year,
compared to 40.7% for catalogue readings.
Similarly to consumption variables, an overall score for offline engagement is
calculated. The mean of offline engagement among respondents is 5.8 (min= 3; max=
12).
5.2.3 Reasons for visiting an IKEA store
Reasons for visiting stores are inherent to understand variations in consumer behaviour
as IKEA provides non-related in-stores services such as low cost catering. All
respondents were asked to rank from 1 to 5 possible reasons for going to an IKEA store.
Based on analysis of frequencies (Fig.16), “looking for furniture” is the primary reason
for visiting an IKEA store according to 37.9% of respondents. The second reason
appears to be “looking for furnishing items” for 37.5% of the sample whereas the third
motive consists of getting some inspiration (35.9%). Finally, “window-shopping” and
“going to an IKEA restaurant” are respectively the fourth and fifth reasons to visit a
Figure 16 - Reasons for visiting an IKEA store

47
store. Nevertheless, results highlight some variations among respondents; with for
example 37.5% of them stating that “looking for furnishing items” is the main reason.
These differences will be considered later on in the discussion.
5.3 The use of Social Media among respondents
As this research focuses on social media platforms, the use of new media was
investigated among the sample. Indeed, respondents were asked to define the frequency
of use as well as the level of participation in 5 of the most commonly used platforms:
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Foursquare and blogs.
5.3.1 Frequency of Use
The questionnaire addressed the use of social media by asking respondents to estimate
the frequency of use over the last 6 months according to a 5-point Likert scale (from
Never to Very Often). First, the analysis of means points out the fact that Facebook
(4.37) and YouTube (4.15) are the two platforms most frequently used. Meanwhile,
respondents appear to be less familiar with the use of Foursquare (1,46) (see Appendix
6).
Figure 17 - Use of Social Media

48
As displayed in Fig. 12, respondents often use Facebook (72.6%), YouTube (48.4%)
and blogs (29%). On the contrary, Twitter and Foursquare are two platforms that
respondents use less frequently with respectively 48.4% and 82.7% of them who did not
connected recently
5.3.2 Level of Participation
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the level of participation in social media was measured
according to a 4 point-scale. Thus, respondents were required to select the most relevant
item towards their type of participation in these platforms, for example from “I’m
inactive” to “I have created a fan page” in Facebook.
Considering blogs (Fig.18), 42.3% of all respondents tend to be spectators by reading
blog posts whereas almost 16.9% participates one step further by reading and writing
comments. Equally, 16.9% of the sample consists of creators, as these users write
themselves posts.
As previously shown with the frequency of
use, a large majority of respondents (98%)
are active on YouTube. It consisted in
watching videos (73.4%), watching and
commenting (17.7%) while the remaining
6.9% of respondents publish videos (Fig.19).
Facebook tends to encourage user
Figure 20 - User participation in Facebook
Figure 19 - User participation in YouTubeFigure 18 - User participation in blogs

49
contribution and creation as 56.9% of respondents share content with their friends and
18.5% of the sample has even created a fan page or group. Nonetheless, about 7.7% of
the respondents are not active on this particular social network (Fig.20)
As shown in Fig.21 and 22, Twitter and Foursquare have the largest proportion of
inactive users, with respectively 54.4% and 83.5% of respondents. However, 14.1% of
respondents were using micro-blogging platform Twitter to create conversation with
other users. Concerning Foursquare, 6% of the sample was actually participating as
creators, by sharing tips about places.
Even though further analysis will be carried out on user online participation, previous
outputs emphasize probable impacts of demographics on the adoption and use of social
media platforms. Otherwise, the study takes into account an aggregate score of user
participation in order to evaluate its whole impact on consumer engagement. On
average, the user participation score among respondents is equal 10,6 (min= 5; max 20).
5.4 User Engagement with IKEA in Social Media
Chapter 2 referred to user engagement as the level of interactions occurring on social
media between users and a particular brand. The level of engagement was measured
similarly to user participation, using a 4-point scale based on 4 existing user types and
adapted to each platform (see Appendix 7). For example, respondents could define their
engagement with IKEA on YouTube from “Never” (Inactives) to “I have published a
video about IKEA” (Creators).
Figure 22 - User participation in Twitter Figure 21 - User participation in Foursquare

50
Fig. 23 highlights variations among respondents who had already engaged with IKEA
on new media platforms at the time of the study.
As a consequence of low user participation and their newness, Foursquare and Twitter
are two digital platforms on which the sample engages with IKEA the least. When
considering the tenth of respondents engaging in Foursquare, 4.8% of them have
already checked-in an IKEA store while 4.4% have contributed by sharing tips within
platform users. Moreover, Twitter was used by 7.2% of all respondents in the process of
engaging with IKEA. Even though only 8 individuals were following an IKEA account
(3.2%), 8 have already retweeted an IKEA related message (3%) while 2 respondents
experienced previously a direct exchange with the brand.
Besides, 21% of all respondents have already interacted with an IKEA fan page on
Facebook. While 10.9% of the sample was fan of the brand, 22 individuals (8.9%) have
endorsed a role of contributor by liking or commenting an entry.
Otherwise, YouTube and blog platforms consisted of two relevant engagement
platforms as they represent respectively 32.2% and 37.1% of all respondents. In a
similar way, a large majority of individuals engaging with IKEA via such a platform act
generally as spectators by watching videos (27%) or reading a blog entry about the
brand (26.2%). Nevertheless, results underline that individuals are more likely to
express themselves about IKEA by writing blog entries (2.0%) than editing a video
(0.4%) or writing on a Facebook page (1.2%).
Figure 23 - User Engagement with IKEA

51
When aggregating a “user engagement” score for each respondent, the level of
engagement in this sample appears to be low (mean= 6,45 with min=5; max=17).
5.5 Motivations for engaging with IKEA
Based on literature review, a series of 13 statements were used to measure 6 potential
motivations for respondents to engage in social media. A confirmatory factor analysis
was carried out to reduce items into smaller factors and later, to test prior assumptions
identified in Chapter 2. (Pallant, 2001)
5.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
In regards with motives predefined in Chapter 2, “Renumeration”, “Information”,
“Personal Identity”, “Empowerment”, “Integration Social” and “Entertainment” were
tested through confirmatory factor analyses (see Appendix 8). It requires an assessment
of the suitability and factorability by looking at the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity. According to Tabachnik &
Fidell (1996), the KMO measure should be higher than .6 while the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity must be significant (p < .005) in order to provide a good factor analysis
(Pallant, 2001).
According to Pallant (2001), the appropriateness of these factors has to be confirmed
with two characteristics: reliability and validity. In case each factor appears to be
reliable and valid, it implies that motives can be generalized to other studies.
5.5.2 Reliability of scale
The reliability of scale must be tested for each factor in order to control the internal
consistency of measurement and confirm their relevance (Pallant, 2001).
To confirm the consistency of a factor, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient has to be ideally
above 0.7 however values between 0.6 and 0.7 are acceptable. Furthermore, it is
advisable to consider a high sensitivity of Cronbach’s alpha which is sensitive towards
the number of items (Pallant, 2001:85). Results displayed in Table 1 confirm the
reliability of 4 factors (“Renumeration”, “Information”, “Personal Identity” and

52
“Enpowerment”) while 2 others (“Entertainment” and “Integration Social”) fail to reach
an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha value. A closer look at the validity will provide more
information about issues occurring with these two factors.
Table 2 – Motivation factors and Reliability of Scale
Factors
KMO
Total
Variance
explained
Cronbach
α
Renumeration
I want to receive discounts and promotions.
0.5 81,99% 0.780
I want to get free products.
Information
0.5 74,30% 0.653I want to learn about IKEA as a company.
I want to stay informed about IKEA (future products).
Personal Identity
0.5 74,20% 0.652A friend recommends me to like / follow IKEA.
I want to show to others my support to IKEA.
Empowerment
0.669 65,50% 0.736
I want to benefit from customer service.
I want to share my opinions and ideas directly with IKEA.
I want to get access to exclusive content.
Integration Social
0.5 69,60% 0.564
I want to interact and share my interest with people about
IKEA.
I want to take part in challenges or events organised by IKEA.
Entertainment
0.5 68,37% 0.537I want to get fun and entertainment from content.
I want to enter a contest organised by IKEA.
5.5.3 Construct Validity
Campbell & Friske (1959) distinguish two subcategories of construct validity as
requirements “for the justification of novel measures”: convergent validity and
discriminant validity. Convergent validity is demonstrated if higher correlations
between items occur within the same factor. In complement, discriminant validity is
achieved if the strength of correlation is higher with items apart of the same factor than
with other factors’ items. Therefore, it is required to look carefully at correlations
between all 13 items, to detect factors that overlap.
Appendix 9 shows inter-correlations between items. Except “Renumeration” factor,
other predefined motivation factors are invalid, because of not meeting conditions
above. According to Bagozzi et al. (1991), measurement errors, such as invalid
constructs, might potentially threaten the validity of research results. Thus, the research

53
will not consider previous motivation categories and an exploratory factor analysis must
be carried out to define valid factors.
5.5.4 Exploratory Factor analysis
As a result, two components with an eigenvalue over 1 were extracted (Appendix 10).
Factor 1 consisted of 9 items (explaining 34.686 of total variance) whereas Factor 2 was
made of 4 items (for 23,458 of total variance). Nonetheless, several cross-loading items
were found and deleted as they load above 0.32 on both factors (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). A second EFA excluding cross-loading items was run and resulted in 2 factors
explaining 62,767% of total variance. Factor 1, named as “Brand Interaction” and
Factor 2 “Extra value for Customers” met respectively conditions of reliability with
Cronbach’s alphas above 0.7, as displayed in Table 2.
Motivations of “Brand interaction” are related to the intrinsic value that IKEA may
provide to individuals through online interaction. For example, providing information,
listening to customer opinions or offering entertainment may enhance customer
experience and IKEA core values. On the opposite, motivations of “extra value” are
restricted to IKEA products and services and enhance consumer interests in extrinsic
rewards such as vouchers and free products.
Table 3 - Motivation factors
Factors Cronbach α
Factor 1 - Brand interaction
0.816
I want to get fun and entertainment from content.
I want to interact and share my interest with people about IKEA.
I want to share my opinions and ideas directly with IKEA.
I want to learn about IKEA as a company.
I want to show to others my support to IKEA.
Factor 2 - Extra value for customers 0.773
I want to receive discounts and promotions.
I want to get free products.
I want to benefit from customer service.
Items deleted due to cross-loading
I want to stay informed about IKEA (future products).
I want to enter a contest organised by IKEA.
I want to take part in challenges or events organised by IKEA.
I want to get access to exclusive content.
A friend recommends me to like / follow IKEA.

54
5.6 Relationship Quality
5.6.1 Satisfaction
Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction from “not at all” to
“extremely”. Generally, most of the sample (79%) was more than very satisfied with the
IKEA experience while about 18.5% of respondents were moderately satisfied (see.
Appendix 11).
5.6.2 Loyalty
As mentioned in methodology, a series of 3 items was used to measure loyalty among
respondents. Almost 66% of the sample tends to agree that IKEA was their first
furniture store they chose in order to buy furniture. To another extent, less than 40% of
all respondents would remain IKEA customers if prices increase (Appendix 12).
To consider the impact of loyalty on customer engagement, a factor analysis was carried
out. One component with an eigenvalue over 1 was extracted and explained 65.444% of
total variance. Furthermore, this component was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .722),
therefore it will be integrated in further analyses (Appendix 12).
5.6.3 Passion
Like loyalty, consumers’ passion for IKEA was measured with 3 items. More than 60%
of all respondents agree that going to an IKEA store will never bored them, whereas
40% of them stated that they love IKEA.
A factor analysis was also used to extract a single component of passion (explaining
73.07% of total variance) and the high coefficient of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha =
0.815) implies its use further (Appendix 13).
5.6.4 Brand Image
Moreover, IKEA brand image among the sample was evaluated with three items related
to reputation, ethics and eco-friendliness. Respondents have generally positive opinions

55
toward IKEA as a company. A majority of them (87%) agreed that it is a well-reputed
company even though 45% were neutral about ethical practices.
To measure potential impacts of brand image on engagement, one reliable factor was
extracted (Total variance explained = 70,195; Cronbach alpha = 0.788).
5.6.5 Product Image
Consumers’ opinions about IKEA were measured with 5 items in relation with product
characteristics for design, price and functionality (Appendix 14). A factor analysis was
used to extract smaller factors but two items were cross-loadings (i.e. functionality) or
simply inaccurate (i.e. unconventional design). Once irrelevant variables dismissed, two
factors “Product Design” and “Price attractiveness” were finally extracted (explaining
75,815% of total variance). “Product Design” (3 items) was reliable (Cronbach alpha=
.732) where “Price attractiveness” was only made of one item.
5.7 Passion points and brand utility
Chapter 2 widens the notion of customer–brand interactions to the development of
emotional and rational bonds. Investigating IKEA-related passion platforms and brand
utility in social media platforms aimed at providing insights about existing bonds
between IKEA and respondents. For instance, some passion platforms could enhance
motivations for brand interaction while the perceptions of IKEA brand utility could
raise the interest of people in engaging with the brand.
5.7.1 Passion points
To discover IKEA-related interests, respondents were invited to choose out of 20, 3
centres of interest likely to evoke their passion for IKEA. However, the questionnaire
enabled respondents to propose other interests.

56
Respondents tend to frequently associate IKEA with “Do-it-Yourself”, “Art/Design”,
“Crafts”, “Cooking” as well as “time with relatives”. These particular interests might
evoke IKEA as they imply a close proximity with IKEA products or shared values with
the brand. Consequently, people may refer to the brand when practising for example a
do-it-yourself activity. Further implications of passion platforms will be discussed later
(Appendix 15).
5.7.2 Brand Utility
Brand utility was measured through the use of 14 concrete examples of utilities IKEA
may provide to improve daily life of consumers. Respondents were asked to select their
level of interest for each proposition. (Appendix 15)
An exploratory factor analysis was carried out to identify distinct categories of brand
utility and their potential impact on customer passion and engagement. Indeed, the more
interesting utilities are, the more consumers should be likely to interact with IKEA.
Four factors assuming conditions of factorability and reliability were finally extracted.
To strengthen factor structures, two items with high cross-loadings were withdrawn
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Table 3 summarizes several types of brand utility IKEA
might provide to its consumers, as presented in Chapter 2: “Connectivity”, “Altruism /
Eco-friendliness”, “Skills & Advices” and “Saving Money”.
Figure 20 – IKEA-related interests

57
Table 4 - 4 types of IKEA Brand Utility
Factors
KMO
Total
Variance
explained
Cronbach
α
Factor 1 - Connectivity / Transparency
By enabling me to connect in real life with people living in my city
0.694 49,82% 0.655
By sponsoring and curating art events (exhibitions, performance)
By sharing tips about Best Things to do in the city I live at the
moment
By learning me Cultural tips about Sweden and Swedes
Factor 2 - Altruism / Eco-friendliness
0.637 59,57% 0.6583
By providing more information about environment impact of product
I buy
By creating an online service to support non-profit organizations (..)
By giving 1% of consumers' spending to a local charity consumers
choose
Factor 3 - Skills & advices
0.653 58,48% 0,644
By offering online How to video guides to help me in assembling
furnitures
By launching online based consumer community
By offering me in-store tutorials on how to assemble furnitures
Factor 4 - Saving Money
0.500 72,54% 0,621
By offering vouchers, free samples to reward my regular coming in
stores
By helping consumers to customize their furnitures at low price
Items deleted due to cross-loading
By helping me in adopting eco-responsible behaviour in my daily
routine
By letting me know promotional offers about products I'm interested
in
Similarly to previous constructs, an overall score of brand utility is measured and will
be integrated in further analyses as “perceived brand utility” variable (mean= 49,07
with min=25; max=70) (see Appendix 15).
Otherwise, the importance of brand utility platforms was also subjected to analysis.
Respondents were asked to evaluate their preferences between mobile apps, blogs,
printed magazines or branded entertainment. By looking at statistical means (Table 4.),
the sample appeared considering a traditional blog (mean= 3.29), an extra service in
stores (mean=3.20) or a mobile app as a valuable platform to provide them brand utility.
Even though widgets and branded entertainment were seen less useful, differences in
terms of user participation in social media will require a closer look.
Table 5 - Preferences in terms of brand utility platforms
Brand utility platforms Means
Official blog/website 3.29
Extra service in store / streets 3.20
Mobile applications 3.03
Print media (magazine…) 3.00
Branded entertainment 2.70
Widgets 2.70

Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age

Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age

Similar to Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Understanding Customer Engagement in the Digital Age