Advertisement

Social Media Conversations: When Consumers Do Not React Positively to Brands’ Kindness to Others

  • Andria AndriuzziEmail author
  • Géraldine Michel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11579)

Abstract

In the context of consumers’ advertising digital literacy, this research examines the impact of brand-consumer social media conversations. Based on Goffman’s ‘face-work’ as a theoretical lens, we investigate to which extent consumers can feel like brands show human traits when they interact with consumers on social media. Taking into account online communication’s multiple audience dilemma, we analyze how brand attachment influences the effect of brands’ interaction strategies on consumers’ attitude. Using an experimental method, we find that appreciative expressions from the brand have a positive effect on brand anthropomorphism when consumers are not attached to the brand. In contrast, appreciation does not show such an effect when consumers are attached to the brand. Therefore, this research contributes to the brand-consumer interactions and brand anthropomorphism literature and suggests that managers could segment their online conversation platforms depending on the kind of consumer brand relationships.

Keywords

Anthropomorphism Brand attachment Brand-consumer interactions Conversation Face-work Social media 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Sorbonne Business School’s brands and values research group and Entrecom for their support.

References

  1. Aaker, J.L.: Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 34, 347–356 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.2307/3151897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aaker, J.L., Fournier, S.: A brand as a character, a partner and a person: three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Adv. Consum. Res. 22, 391–395 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. Andriuzzi, A.: La conversation de marque à la lumière de la théorie du face-work : impact de la stratégie d’interaction des marques sur l’attitude des internautes. Ph.D. thesis, Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne University, France (2017)Google Scholar
  4. Andriuzzi, A.: The tweeting brand: when conversation leads to humanization. In: Levallois, C., Marchand, M., Mata, T., Panisson, A. (eds.) Twitter for Research Handbook 2015-2016, pp. 232–242. EMLYON Press, Lyon (2016)Google Scholar
  5. Berthelot-Guiet, K.: Extension du domaine de la conversation: discours de marque et publicitarité. Commun. Lang. 3, 77–86 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.4074/S0336150011003073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, P., Levinson, S.: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, C., Ferraro, C., Sands, S.: Segmenting consumer reactions to social network marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 48, 432–452 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2012-0165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, R.J.: Brand personification: introduction and overview. Psychol. Mark. 31, 1–30 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cruz, R.E., Leonhardt, J.M., Pezzuti, T.: Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. J. Interact. Mark. 39, 104–116 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Montety, C., Patrin-Leclère, V.: La conversion à la conversation: le succès d’un succédané. Commun. Lang. 3, 23–37 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.4074/S0336150011003036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epley, N., Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J.T.: On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 864–886 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleck, N., Michel, G., Zeitoun, V.: Brand personification through the use of spokespeople: an exploratory study of ordinary employees, CEOs, and celebrities featured in advertising. Psychol. Mark. 31, 84–92 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fombelle, P.W., Bone, S.A., Lemon, K.N.: Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 44, 685–706 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0469-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fournier, S., Alvarez, C.: Brands as relationship partners: warmth, competence, and in-between. J. Consum. Psychol. 22, 177–185 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCPS.2011.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman, E.: On face-work; an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry J. Study Interpers. Process. 18, 213–231 (1955).  https://doi.org/10.1162/15241730360580159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman, E.: Interaction Ritual. Aldine, Oxford (1967)Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E.: La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne. 2: Les relations en public. Editions de Minuit, Paris (1973)Google Scholar
  18. Gouteron, J.: L’intégration d’une mesure de l’attachement à la marque dans les études de satisfaction. La Rev. des Sci. Gest. 6, 109–117 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.3917/rsg.252.0109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gretry, A., Horváth, C., Belei, N., Van, Riel A.C.R.: “Don’t pretend to be my friend!” when an informal brand communication style backfires on social media. J. Bus. Res. 74, 77–89 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths, M., Mclean, R.: Unleashing corporate communications via social media: a UK study of brand management and conversations with customers. J. Cust. Behav. 14, 147–162 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1362/147539215X14373846805789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, M., Kaltcheva, V.D., Rohm, A.J.: Hashtags and handshakes: consumer motives and platform use in brand-consumer interactions. J. Consum. Mark. 33, 135–144 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hudson, S., Huang, L., Roth, M.S., Madden, T.J.: The influence of social media interactions on consumer–brand relationships: a three-country study of brand perceptions and marketing behaviors. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1, 27–41 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.: Le discours en interaction. Armand Colin, Paris (2005)Google Scholar
  24. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.: L’analyse du discours en interaction : quelques principes méthodologiques. Limbaje si Comun. IX, 13–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A.R., Hess, J.A.: Attentive facework during instructional feedback: key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning environment. Commun. Educ. 57, 312–332 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520802027347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., et al.: From social to sale: the effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. J. Mark. 80, 7–25 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lacoeuilhe, J.: L’attachement a la marque : Proposition d’une échelle de mesure. Rech. Appl. en. Mark. 15, 61–77 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1177/076737010001500404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li, X., Chan, K.W., Kim, S.: Service with emoticons: how customers interpret employee use of emoticons in online service encounters. J. Consum. Res. 1–50 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy016
  29. Livingstone, S., Helsper, E.J.: Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of advertising on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in relation to obesity and food choice. J. Commun. 56, 560–584 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00301.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacInnis, D.J., Folkes, V.S.: Humanizing brands: when brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. J. Consum. Psychol. 27, 355–374 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Donohoe, S., Tynan, C.: Beyond sophistication: dimensions of advertising literacy. Int. J. Advert. 17, 467–482 (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1998.11104733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Packard, G., Moore, S.G., McFerran, B.: (I’m) Happy to Help (You): the impact of personal pronoun use in customer–firm interactions. J. Mark. Res. LV, 541–555 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0118
  33. Schamari, J., Schaefers, T.: Leaving the home turf: how brands can use webcare on consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. J. Interact. Mark. 30, 20–33 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2014.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlosser, A.E.: Posting versus lurking: communicating in a multiple audience context. J. Consum. Res. 32, 260–265 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1086/432235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L.M.: Online damage control: the effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. J. Interact. Mark. 26, 131–140 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vonk, R.: Self-serving interpretations of flattery: why ingratiation works. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 515–526 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, Y., Chaudhry, A.: When and how managers’ responses to online reviews affect subsequent reviews. J. Mark. Res. 55, 163–177 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whan Park, C., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., et al.: Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. J. Mark. 74, 1–17 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Coactis - Université Jean MonnetSaint EtienneFrance
  2. 2.Gregor - Sorbonne Business SchoolParisFrance

Personalised recommendations