Brand purchase intention

Purchase intention is customer’s self-reported likelihood of the purchase in the future (Seiders, Voss, Grewal & Godfrey 2005, 39). It is a widely used construct in many domains because it is an easily applicable proxy for customer behavior (Chandon, Morwitz & Reinartz 2005, 1). It can be used to evaluate whether a current customer remains as a customer of specific company (Zeithaml, Berry &

Parasuraman 1996, 31). Measuring purchase intention is important since companies with low defection rate are likely to outperform its rivals because

their customers are, for example, cheaper to serve and they buy more (Reichheld & Sasser 1990). However, also contradictory findings exist in the marketing literature (e.g. Reinartz & Kumar 2002). Moreover, purchase intention doesn’t necessarily lead to actual purchasing behavior (Seiders et al.

2005) which makes the application of purchase intention sometimes problematic. The relationship between purchase intention and actual purchase behavior varies depending on contextual factors such as product category (Kalwani & Silk 1982).

One of the most well-known models of behavior intention and behavior is proposed by Ajzen (1991). According to this model, three interrelated factors have an impact on behavior intention (i.e. purchase intention). These are 1) attitude towards the behavior, 2) subjective norm, and 3) perceived behavioral control. Execution of actual behavior (i.e. purchase) depends both on intention and perceived behavioral control. (Ajzen 1991.) In general, the marketing literature has identified many constructs that have a positive influence on purchase intention. These include for example brand confidence (Laroche, Kim

& Zhou 1996), perceived value (Chang & Wildt 1994), satisfaction (Yi & La 2004), perceived risk (Wu, Yeh & Hsiao 2011), perceived quality, and – in some contexts – perceived price (Eunju, Kim & Zhang 2008).

Purchase intention has also been studied as an outcome of customer engagement. Dwivedi (2015) studied consumer brand engagement in mobile phone context. His study gave support to the positive relationship between consumer brand engagement and loyalty intentions, which included both purchase intention and WOM intention. Moreover, consumer brand engagement was considered a superior predictor of loyalty intentions since it explained variations in loyalty intentions significantly better than satisfaction, customer perceived value, and quality. (Dwivedi 2015.) Similarly, loyalty is a culmination point in the customer engagement process models provided by (Bowden 2009a/b). Furthermore, similar results have been obtained from related disciplines. For instance, Saks (2006) discovered that engaged employees were more unlikely to quit their jobs. Algesheimer et al. (2005) studied engagement in European car clubs in offline context. The ones who had higher engagement levels also reported higher intentions to continue their memberships and to participate in community activities in the future (Algesheimer et al. 2005) thus indicating that the phenomenon doesn’t exist exclusively in online context.

In their quantitative study, Hollebeek et al. (2014) examined the relationship between customer brand engagement (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions) and brand usage intent in social media context. They found that highly engaged Linkedin.com users reported a higher intention to keep using Linkedin.com (Hollebeek et al. 2014). This study supported the evidence provided by Brodie et al. (2013) who described customer engagement process in a virtual community. In their qualitative study, both loyalty to the brand and community were identified as consequences of customer engagement (Brodie et al. 2013). Wirtz et al. (2013) also proposed that online

brand community engagement leads to several brand-related outcomes – including brand engagement and loyalty. Cheung, Zheng & Lee (2014) conducted a longitudinal customer engagement study in which cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement towards Chinese online shopping platform was examined. The positive relationship between customer engagement and repurchase intention was supported in this study (Cheung et al. 2014). Zheng et al. (2015) found that online community commitment had a positive impact on brand loyalty, which was partly measured through purchase intention.

Consumers are also exposed to eWOM when they consume content online.

Unlike traditional WOM recommendations, eWOM recommendations come from unknown individuals (Park & Lee 2009, 61). The marketing research has identified two aspects of eWOM: quantity and quality (Fan, Miao, Fang & Lin 2013). Park, Lee & Han (2007) found support that both the amount of eWOM and the quality of eWOM have a positive impact on purchase intention.

Similarly, Jalilvand & Samiei (2012) found support to the positive relationship between eWOM and purchase intention in travel industry. However, their measurement scale actually emphasized customer’s online travel review consumption behavior. As brand is mentioned more often in online discussions, it is perceived more popular (Cheung & Thadani 2010). Thus, the more often consumer consumes brand-related content online, the more likely consumers is to find (positive) eWOM. Moreover, if online reviews are persuasive, they have a stronger impact on purchase intention (Park et al. 2007).

Gupta & Harris (2010) investigated the influence of eWOM on product consideration and choice. They discovered that the influence of eWOM varies across customer motivation. Customers with low motivation used eWOM recommendations as decision heuristics. Customers with high motivation, instead, spend more time on analyzing information and considering the recommended product. (Gupta & Harris 2010.) Moreover, Harris & Gupta (2008) found that eWOM has a significant effect on buyer confidence when consumer is choosing the product. Yet, Bickart & Schindler (2001) didn’t find support that reading online forums has an effect on purchase likelihood. However, they proposed that the intention formation process may take longer than 12 weeks, which was the time frame of their study (Bickart & Schindler 2001). Prendergast et al. (2010) discovered that both similarity between consumer’s interests and topic of the online forum, and consumer attitudes towards the forum were good predictors of consumer’s purchase intention. Finally, de Valck et al. (2009) stated that virtual communities influence through membership characteristics (e.g. attachment to community), consumer interaction characteristics (e.g.

frequency and duration of visit), and general consumer characteristics (e.g. age and education) on purchase process.

Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H16: Behavioral online brand engagement has a positive effect on brand purchase intention in content consumption context.