Does non-hard-sell content really work?

Leveraging the value of branded content

marketing in brand building
Chen Lou
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Quan Xie
Temerlin Advertising Institute, Meadows School of the Arts, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA
Yang Feng
School of Journalism and Media Studies, San Diego State University College of Arts and Letters, San Diego, California, USA, and
Wonkyung Kim
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, United International College, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to test the role of branded content marketing on YouTube in brand building and explicates the mechanism through which
brand content influences brand loyalty and purchase intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a quantitative, Web-based, three-step randomized intervention design and recruits YouTube
users through the Amazon Mechanical Turk (n = 925).
Findings – Post-intervention results (n = 596) show that consumers’ repeated exposure to branded content facilitates their social learning
processes. Consumers derive value from the relevant content and subsequently form more favorable brand attitudes, greater brand loyalty and
heightened purchase intentions. Brand loyalty mediates the effect of perceived brand content value on purchase intentions.
Practical implications – This study’s findings support the advantages of investing in the creation and dissemination of valuable brand content
through a brand’s own social media channel(s). While informative content and entertaining content can both drive brand loyalty, high product-
involvement brands are advised to emphasize on informative content to precipitate brand–consumer attachment. Low product-involvement brands,
on the other hand, are advised to feature more enticing and captivating content to stimulate consumer devotion.
Originality/value – This study reveals the positive impact of branded content marketing within social media on consumers’ brand attitudes, brand
loyalty and purchase intentions. It also explicates the mechanism through which content marketing influences brand evaluation and purchase
intentions by coordinating consumer learning and value derivation.
Keywords Purchase intentions, Brand loyalty, Content marketing, Consumer social learning, Content value
Paper type Research paper

In today’s computer-mediated world, consumers are
continually exposed to digital messaging. For this reason,
value-rich content is more likely to make a lasting impression by
breaking through the noise clutter. This practice of “content
marketing” has been in existence since the earliest days of
advertising. For example, the tire company, Michelin, has been
creating and distributing travel planning guides annually since
1900 (with the exception of during WWI). This practice
promoted the Michelin brand to tire consumers via its
provision of alternative yet useful information (Miller, 2016).
The Content Marketing Institute (CMI) defines content
marketing as “a strategic marketing approach focused on
creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience – and,
ultimately, to drive profitable customers action” (Content
Marketing Institute, 2018a). Drawing on empirical evidence,
Holliman and Rowley (2014) defined digital content marketing
as “the activity associated with creating, communicating,
distributing, and exchanging digital content that has value for
customers, clients, partners, and the firm and its brands”
(p. 287).
While content marketing may share the same defining goal as
advertising, it differs in its approach (Neff, 2015). Advertising
The authors would love to thank the two reviewers for their invaluable
suggestions in revising and strengthening the theory building and
arguments of this manuscript.
This study was funded by 2017 Nanyang Technological University Start-
up Grant [grant number M4081983.060].

Received 19 July 2018

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Revised 19 December 2018
28/7 (2019) 773–786 20 January 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 16 February 2019
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-07-2018-1948] Accepted 19 February 2019

773
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
adopts persuasive tactics to sell products, whereas content
marketing intends to educate (impart knowledge on specific
topics), to expose (opinion sharing) and to entertain (provide
enjoyment) (Harad, 2013). Branded content marketing is
considered an offshoot of traditional advertising, despite it not
exhibiting the same explicit selling intentions (Content
Marketing Institute, 2018a). Different from advertising’s clear
persuasive intents, content marketing aims to produce relevant,
valuable content that meets customer needs (Holliman and
Rowley, 2014; Schultz, 2016).
By continually offering valuable content, brands can generate
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), build trust and credibility
and achieve significant reach and impact (du Plessis, 2017;
Muntinga et al., 2011), as well as mold engaged and loyal
customers (Walters, 2015). Specifically, content marketing can
be seen as an open conversation between a brand and its
customers (Pulizzi, 2012). As such, this new phenomenon
warrants new research on its mechanisms and effectiveness.
Prior literature on digital content marketing primarily offered
theoretical assumptions, or descriptive analyses, concerning the
correlations between the key factors of content marketing,
including content strategies, brand health, consumer learning
and brand building (Ahmad et al., 2016; du Plessis, 2015,
2017; Gagnon, 2014; Holliman and Rowley, 2014; Hutchins
and Rodriguez, 2018; Kee and Yazdanifard, 2015; Rowley,
2008). In one study, Rowley (2008) carried out an extensive
qualitative review of relevant issues in digital content marketing
and emphasized the learning demands that were placed on
customers during this type of process. Later, Holliman and
Rowley (2014) delineated the critical tenets of effective digital
content marketing for B2B practitioners.
Currently, there is a lack of research that explicates the causal
relationships between content marketing and consumer
evaluation or brand building (Coursaris et al., 2016; Vivero,
2016). Vivero (2016) explored the roles of particular content
elements (i.e. novelty and the use of statistical data) in
customers’ engagement rates (i.e. click rates, likes and shares).
In addition, Coursaris et al. (2016) studied the causal link
between brands’ social media marketing and some effectiveness
indicators, such as brand equity, consumer engagement and
purchase intentions. However, these studies did not investigate
the unique mechanism(s) through which content marketing
affects brand evaluation, facilitates consumer social learning
and influences value acquisition.
Using these studies as a backdrop, this current study seeks to
investigate the mechanism through which branded content
marketing affects consumers’ brand evaluation and social
learning. In so doing, it makes three contributions. First, our
study provides empirical evidence to support the advantages of
content marketing by showing that exposure to content
marketing (vs non-exposure) improves consumers’ perceived
brand loyalty and enhances their purchase intentions. Second,
based on Bandura’s (1997) social learning theory, we
developed a theoretical framework to explicate the mechanism
of content marketing by uncovering the role of content value in
consumers’ brand evaluations. In particular, this study
demonstrates that social media-based content marketing
enhances brand loyalty by facilitating consumers’ own learning
processes to procure content value. Third, managerially, our
findings endorse the positive role of branded content marketing
774
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
in brand-building, which could be relevant to both high- and
low-product involvement brands.
Branded content marketing and YouTube
As one of the fastest growing trends in the realm of marketing
communication, content marketing has gained increasing
traction. In 2018, marketers spent over 25 per cent of their
budgets, on average, on content marketing, and 80 per cent of
them believed that brand content was an integral part of their
brand’s marketing communication (Cox BLUE, 2018). The
brands Land Rover, Sephora, Nike and Dell are examples of
successful content marketing practitioners (NewsCred, 2018).
However, in recent research conducted by the CMI, only 36
per cent of their survey’s respondents believed that their own
organizations were sufficiently sophisticated in terms of content
marketing, which suggests there is still room for improvement
(Content Marketing Institute, 2018b).
Although one major objective of content marketing is to drive
inbound traffic to branded websites, brands now tend to create
content on social media, such as Facebook and YouTube.
From the perspective of marketing, Kaplan and Haenlein
(2010) classified social media sites into different categories in
accordance with their structures and features. For example,
they defined Facebook as a social networking site that requires
high levels of self-presentation and self-disclosure, whereas they
perceived YouTube as a content community that requires low
levels of self-presentation and self-disclosure. Content
communities that attract the current generation of social media
users (Nielson, 2009) can facilitate user learning (Thompson,
2011). Some commentators even view the creation of quality
and engaging content, especially videos, as the top challenge for
branded content marketing (Ad Age, 2015), with pre-produced
video being ranked as the most effective and successful format
of content marketing (Content Marketing Institute, 2018b).
In another marketer survey, the results showed that B2C
marketers used blogs and videos three times more than any
other media format for brand-building (Lam, 2016). Marketers
have leveraged popular content community, especially
YouTube, to distribute their brands’ video content (Content
Marketing Institute, 2018b). With 1.58 billion global users
(Statista, 2018) and three billion searches per month (Wagner,
2017), YouTube has quickly become the ideal platform for
disseminating branded video content. YouTube reaches more
18-49 year olds than any cable network through mobile
communication, and nearly 48 per cent of surveyed marketers
planned to add YouTube to their marketing plan in the
upcoming year (Collins, 2018). For this reason, this study
focused on examining branded content marketing on YouTube
and extracted video content from brands’ YouTube channels.
The existing body of literature on digital content marketing
generally suggests that content marketing plays a beneficial role
in brand building (Ahmad et al., 2016; Harad, 2013; Hutchins
and Rodriguez, 2018; Pulizzi, 2012, 2014; Koljonen, 2016;
Schultz, 2016). First, content marketing is effective, under the
premise that appealing brand content or storytelling can go
viral while selling attempts are removed from it (Pulizzi, 2012,
2014). Under the priming principle (Fazio and Olson, 2003),
people tend to associate with or be influenced by earlier
experiences/learned information while judging or behaving in
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
the actual moment. For example, the word racing may activate
people’s memory and prompt them to associate it with words
such as speed or winning. When activated, these associations
can influence changes in attitudes and behavioral intentions
(Chang et al., 2018; Rydell et al., 2008). Waiguny et al. (2013)
studied how advergame content influenced brand attitudes.
They found that the positive associations offered by the game
content could be transferred to the brand itself. Within the
context of content marketing, when consumers are exposed to
branded videos on YouTube, including tutorials, product trials
and storytelling, they are likely to be primed by these plentiful
associations and thus to activate positive brand associations.
Likewise, if participants are repeatedly exposed (vs not
exposed) to relevant and valuable branded content marketing,
they are likely to form favorable brand attitudes.
Ahmad et al. (2016) proposed that brands should create
brand-related content on social media to enhance brand health,
and in particular brand awareness and brand equity. Hutchins
and Rodriguez (2018) used content analyses to emphasize how
content marketing can enhance brand image. Other researches
have proposed that marketing content on social media
accelerates trust building (Harad, 2013), enhances brand
awareness and customer engagement (Koljonen, 2016) and
drives brand loyalty (Walters, 2015). Moreover, Coursaris et al.
(2016) confirmed a causal link between exposure to social
media branded posts and increased purchase intentions.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, we argue that
relevant branded content marketing can also heighten brand
loyalty and drive purchase intentions. Collectively, we propose:
H1. Participants who have been repeatedly exposed to
branded content marketing information will indicate a)
more positive brand attitudes; b) greater brand loyalty;
and c) higher purchase intentions than those who have
had no contact with branded content marketing
information.
Value of branded content marketing
Ducoffe (1995) defined advertising value as “a subjective
evaluation of the relative worth or utility of advertising to
consumers” (p. 1) and further identified advertising value as
consisting of three components: advertising informativeness,
entertainment and irritation (Ducoffe, 1996). Advertising
informativeness refers to advertising’s role in providing
information about product and brand alternatives, which can
help consumers make informed decisions and in turn boosts
purchase satisfaction. Advertising entertainment describes
media users’ entertainment needs (McQuail, 1983) and
illustrates advertising content’s function in entertaining
consumers. Advertising irritation is where advertising provokes
a negative reaction from the audience, such as annoying or
distracting them or by simply being offensive. Ducoffe (1996)
argued that consumers’ perceived advertising value contributed
to their formation of positive attitudes toward online ads.
Recent research has explored the role of social media
advertising value in brand awareness (Dehghani et al., 2016)
and purchase intentions (Van-Tien Dao et al., 2014).
Advertising value theory accounts for the unique nature of
content marketing, explaining that it offers valuable
775
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
information that potentially interests customers (du Plessis,
2017). In other words, content marketing creates value by
providing informative information and/or entertaining content
about a brand. Moreover, content marketing information
facilitates brands’ efforts to establish ongoing relationships with
potential customers and to transform them into actual
customers. Alternately, content marketing can reinforce
existing brand-customer relationships by educating customers
to use the provided content and, thus, causing them to believe
that they are making informed purchase decisions (Lieb, 2011).
Under the lens of advertising value, we argue that consumers
can derive content value from their exposure to, and interaction
with, useful and/or entertaining brand content. In line with
previous research, which suggests that the concept of
advertising irritation does not capture the constructive value of
ads (Sun et al., 2010), this study adopts the two positive value
elements – informativeness and entertainment – and uses these
to capture the value of branded content marketing.
Social learning theory and consumers’ acquisition of
value
Consumers’ exposure to, and interaction with, branded
content places learning demands on them and requires them to
apply learning skills to navigate the learning process (Rowley,
2008). Originating in Bandura’s (1977) early research, social
learning theory serves as an overarching approach to
understanding human learning and behavioral development
and has been applied in many diverse domains, including
criminal behavior (Akers, 1990), health-related behavior
(Rosenstock et al., 1988) and organizational learning (Berkes,
2009). Bandura (1997) proposed two types of individual-level
social learning processes: reinforcement learning and
observational learning. Reinforcement learning is learning from
the consequences of one’s own behavior and it increases
(decreases) the occurrence of behaviors similar to those that
had already engendered beneficial (detrimental) outcomes
(Bandura, 1994). In contrast, observational learning is learning
by observing and/or modeling acceptable behaviors that are
exhibited by others to avoid errors. Bandura (1977) categorized
four stages that underpin this modeling behavior: attention,
retention, reproduction and motivation. Specifically, for
modeling behavior to occur, individuals must pay attention to
the modeled behavior, retain that knowledge, convert the
observed behavior to accomplishable acts and actually be
motivated to behave.
Despite its critical role in consumer behavior, Moretti (2011)
suggested that social learning was difficult to quantify and
identify, saying that it can be hard to track the actual
consumption data or to isolate any other confounding factors.
From the social learning perspective, recent research has tried
to explicate the relationship between consumers’ interactions
with consumption-related information on social media and
their behaviors (Chen et al., 2017; Cheung et al., 2015). In one
study, Cheung et al. (2015) explicated how consumers’
observational learning from online postings and their
reinforcement learning of peers’ recommendations affected
their information contribution behavior in online social
shopping communities. Chen et al. (2017) proposed that
customers learn from their exposure to reviews and ratings on
social commerce websites and, thereafter, form both cognitive
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
and affective evaluations of that information, which in turn
shapes their purchase intentions. Chen et al. (2017) defined
cognitive appraisals as the assessment of information’s
utilitarian value and affective appraisals as derived emotions
and feelings.
Premised on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and
extant arguments (Chen et al., 2017), we propose that branded
content marketing information acts as “modeling behavior”, to
which consumers pay attention. Furthermore, consumers’
repeated exposure to such content leads to the retention of
useful information (Drèze and Hussherr, 2003). As their
observational experiences accumulate, they are more likely to
internalize such modeled behavior (Bandura, 1977) and may
later retrieve and replicate the modeled behavior (Geen, 1994).
However, unlike advertisements that have explicit selling
intents, branded content marketing messages are less likely to
showcase modeled behaviors such as purchasing or
consumption. Instead, many brands today, place a greater
emphasis on informing consumers about product usage (e.g.
tutorial videos, “how-to”/hack videos) and storytelling (e.g.
emotional narratives). In this manner, branded content
marketing offers practical or emotional stimuli that channels
consumers’ social learning. In this way, consumers derive value
by engaging in cognitive appraisal – rating the informative
value – and emotional appraisal – assessing the entertainment
value of the content (Chen et al., 2017). Subsequently,
consumers’ value acquisition is expected to accelerate their
brand attachment or loyalty (Harad, 2013; Walters, 2015).
Brand loyalty
Brand loyalty refers to “the attachment that a customer has to a
brand” (Aaker, 1991, p. 39), which enhances repurchase
behavior and brands’ competitiveness (Matzler et al., 2008).
Recent research has espoused the positive impact of social
media marketing communication (Orzan et al., 2016) and
social media brand communities (Laroche et al., 2012) on
brand loyalty. This study aims to explicate the link between
branded content marketing and brand loyalty. In particular,
because consumer–brand engagement continually switches to
digital platforms, recent research has focused more on the
impact of brands’ social media marketing communications on
brand loyalty and brand building (Habibi et al., 2016; Laroche
et al., 2012, 2013; Luo et al., 2015; Schivinski and Dabrowski,
2015; Stojanovic et al., 2018). Laroche et al. (2012) examined
the mediating role of value creation in the impact of brand
communities on brand trust and loyalty, wherein value creation
referred to “practices through which customers co-create value
in brand communities: social networking, impression
management, community engagement, and brand use”
(p. 1758). Additionally, Luo et al. (2015) built on Laroche
et al.’s (2012) work to explore whether such value co-creation
practices positively influenced consumer–brand/other
consumers’ relationships, community commitment and brand
loyalty.
Although the above-mentioned studies touched upon the
role of value-creation practices in the relationship between
consumer responses on social media and brand loyalty, they
tended to consider value creation in terms of customer–
community interaction and information use (Habibi et al.,
2016; Laroche et al., 2012; Luo et al., 2015). Only a few of
776
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
them considered the role of content features (e.g. content
value) (Cleff et al., 2018; Yoshida et al., 2018) in the consumer–
content interaction process. In addition, none of them
examined how consumers’ derived content value may play a
role in the mechanism through which branded content
marketing affects brand loyalty and purchase intentions, which
this study believes warrants further testing.
To address this research gap, this study explores how
branded content marketing on social media (i.e. YouTube)
affects consumers’ perceived brand loyalty through the
consumer learning process. Drawing on the prior arguments,
and the theories of social learning and advertising value, we
posit that consumers engage in social learning when they are
repeatedly exposed to branded content marketing information.
Through this exposure, they derive value from viewing and
evaluating marketing information (Chen et al., 2017; Jiao et al.,
2018), which in turn increases their perceived brand loyalty.
Additionally, consumers brand loyalty positively relates to
purchase intentions (Raza et al., 2018).
Thus, we argue that participants will derive content value from
their repeated exposure to branded content, which will foster
elevated brand loyalty and subsequent purchase intentions. We
propose the following mechanism of content marketing:
H2. Among participants who have been repeatedly exposed
to branded content marketing messages, their
perceptions of the a) informative value and b)
entertainment value of that content will positively
influence their perceived brand loyalty, which in turn
will heighten their c) purchase intentions (see Figure 1).
To increase the ecological validity of this study’s findings, the
authors tested the two hypotheses on brands of both high- and
low-product involvement.
Methodology
This study used a three-day randomized online intervention
design. Specifically, this study extracted existing brand content
from YouTube to heighten its ecological validity so that
participants’ exposure to content marketing approximated their
real-world experiences. A flow chart of the study’s procedure is
presented in Figure 2 for visual clarification.
Pretests
Pretest 1 on the selection of product category
This study adopted a two-stage process to determine the main
study design. Pretest 1, which was conducted in early March
Figure 1 Proposed structural model
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
Figure 2 Flow chart of the study procedure
2018, aimed to locate two product categories: one that had a
high involvement among the target audience and another with a
low involvement. First, the authors identified a series of brands
from various product categories (e.g. apparel, soft drinks,
automobile, instant coffee) that actively engaged in content
marketing on YouTube. A total of 148 participants were
recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). They were
asked to rate their product category-involvement levels with a
series of 11 product categories (using five semantic differential
scales from Mittal [1995], which included “unimportant/
important,” “of no concern/of concern,” “means nothing to
me/means a lot me,” “doesn’t/don’t matter to me” and
“insignificant/significant” on a seven-point scale). It took
around 10 min to complete the survey, and the participants
were each paid $1.02 for their participation. The age range of
MTurk participants in the USA is considered to align with that
of internet users (Ross et al., 2010), who are the potential
targets of this study. MTurk data quality outperformed some
professional panels – Qualtrics and Lightspeed – and was
comparable to student samples (Kees et al., 2017). In addition,
recent research supports the feasibility and effectiveness of
conducting online intervention using participants recruited
through MTurk (Cunningham et al., 2017).
The participants had an average age of 36.51 years (SD =
10.32), with 53.4 per cent of them being male. Of the
participants, 79.1 per cent were white, 12.8 per cent were
African American and 5.4 per cent were Asian. More than half
of them had a bachelor’s degree (51.4 per cent), and 49.3 per
cent of them had an annual household income of between
$10,000 and $49, 999. Among the eleven product categories
(e.g. chain restaurant, apparel, laundry detergent, automobiles,
car insurance), laptops (including related hardware) were rated
as having the highest involvement level (M = 6.02, SD = 1.04),
and instant coffee had the lowest involvement level (M = 2.98,
777
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
SD = 2.05). We then selected a series of brands – all being
active on YouTube – from these two product categories.
Pretest 2 - selection of brands
Pretest 2 was conducted in early March 2018, following
Pretest 1. It aimed to identify two specific brands – one from
the high-involvement product category and the other from the
low-involvement category – that would have similar medium
levels of brand attitude and familiarity among the target
audience. Brands that had a medium level of brand attitude and
familiarity among the target audience were chosen to appeal to
the majority of the target audience and to facilitate potential
noticeable changes in consumer learning/exposures.
We identified five instant coffee brands and ten laptop
brands that had US YouTube channels (international brands
can have different YouTube channels across different
countries). A total of 144 participants were recruited from
MTurk. The participants had an average age of 37.37 years
(SD = 10.96), with 54.2 per cent of them being male. Of the
participants, 83.3 per cent were white, 11.1 per cent were of
African American and 6.3 per cent were Asian. More than half
of them had a bachelor’s degree (51.4 per cent), and 50.0
per cent of them had an annual household income between
$10,000 and $49, 999. They were paid $1.51 each. The
participants were asked to rate their brand attitudes and
familiarity with the 15 brands. They did this using four
semantic differential scales from Kelly et al.’s (2002) that
included “not at all appealing/appealing,” “not at all cool/very
cool,” “not at all in-style/very in-style” and “not at all likable/
very likable,” as well as familiarity scale – “not at all familiar/
familiar” – on a seven-point scale. Among the 15 brands,
Nescafé and Lenovo were rated as having medium levels of
brand attitudes (Nescafe: Mattitude = 4.52, SD = 1.23; Lenovo:
Mattitude = 4.54, SD = 1.31) and familiarity (Nescafe: Mfamiliarity =
4.73, SD = 1.76; Lenovo: Mfamiliarity = 4.62, SD = 1.95). Paired-
samples T test analysis results indicated that participants’
attitudes toward Nescafé did not differ significantly from that of
Lenovo [t (143) = 0.182, p = 0.86]; non-significant results also
emerged when comparing the two brands’ familiarity levels [t
(143) = 0.548, p = 0.58]. Therefore, Nescafé and Lenovo were
selected to represent brands from the low and high product-
involvement categories, respectively, in the main study.
Experiment stimuli
During the current study, Nescafé USA had a total of 2,319
followers and 36 videos on its YouTube channel, whereas
Lenovo USA had 154,059 followers and 1,484 videos on its
YouTube channel. Four videos were extracted from each
brand’s YouTube channel, with two videos being categorized
as tutorial (or “how-to”) videos, one video illustrating a recent
brand event or campaign and one showcasing a consumer story
video (see Appendix). A total of eight videos were extracted for
the main study. In line with the definition of content marketing
(Content Marketing Institute, 2018a), all of the eight videos
comprised brand content that did not exhibit any sales pitch or
promotional messages. To eliminate the effects of virality (e.g.
number of likes, followers), which could have been intrinsic in
the videos or their YouTube channels, all of the videos were
embedded in Qualtrics, with all engagement metrics
 Branded content marketing in brand building Journal of Product & Brand Management
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786

(i.e. number of likes, comments or shares) removed before they
were shown to the participants.
Study procedure and participants
Day 1
In mid-March 2018, this study recruited 925 participants from
MTurk. They were randomly assigned to one of the four
baseline conditions [Lenovo: control (N = 235) vs treatment
(N = 229); Nescafé: control (N = 231) vs treatment (N = 230)].
In the treatment conditions, participants completed a baseline
survey on the first day and were then exposed to brand videos
over two days (two videos per day) before they completed a
post-treatment survey on the third day. Those in the control
conditions completed only a baseline survey on the first day and
a post-survey on the third day without viewing any brand
content in between. Table I illustrates the demographic
characteristics and between-group statistics at baseline, where
no significant differences were found between groups in any
background variables.
Participants were asked to fill in a series of questions
regarding their perceived brand loyalty, brand attitudes and
purchase intentions for the respective brands to which they
were assigned and were asked to answer questions about their
social media use and demographics. At the end of the survey,
participants were asked to indicate whether they would
consider participating in the following task(s) (i.e. treatment
conditions: watching two videos on the second day and also on
the third day, as well as filling in surveys on both days; control
conditions: only filling in a survey on the third day). If the
participant agreed, he/she was prompted to enter his/her e-mail
address for follow-up communication. It took around 10 min to
complete the survey, and each participant was paid $1.01 for
his/her participation.
A total of 902 participants agreed to participate in the follow-
up study (starting on the second day for treatment conditions
and the third day for control conditions). They had an average
age of 36.69 (SD = 10.95). Most of the participants were
female (57.5 per cent) and white (81.3 per cent). Almost half of
them had a bachelor’s degree (47.1 per cent), and 38.9 per cent
of them had an annual household income of between $10,000
and $49, 999, followed by 25.5 per cent who had an annual
household income of between $50,000 and $74,999.
Day 2
Different e-mails were sent to participants who had agreed to
participate, depending on whether they were in either the
Lenovo treatment condition or the Nescafé treatment
condition. No tasks were sent to participants in the Lenovo
control or Nescafé control conditions. Participants (treatment
conditions) were asked to access a specific task that was
embedded on Qualtrics using a password. In the Nescafé
treatment condition, participants were prompted to watch two
Nescafé’s YouTube videos and to answer two questions (i.e.
content check questions) after watching them. Additionally,
demographic questions were asked once again. Similarly, in the
Lenovo treatment condition, participants were prompted to
watch two Lenovo YouTube videos and to answer two
questions. Each task took around 4-5 min to complete.
Participants who completed the second day’s task were paid
$0.40 each. A reminder e-mail was sent twelve hours after the
first e-mail.
In the Nescafé condition, 187 participants completed the
task. They had an average age of 38.96 years (SD = 11.09), and
most of them were female (68.4 per cent) and white (85.6 per
cent). In the Lenovo treatment condition, 188 participants
completed the task. They had an average age of 38.39 (SD =

Table I Demographic characteristics and between-group statistics at baseline

Total sample Lenovo treatment Lenovo control Nescafé treatment Nescafé control
Variable (n = 925) (n = 229) (n = 235) (n = 230) (n = 231) Test for difference
Age (M, SD) 36.66 (11.02) 36.90 (11.31) 36.31 (10.63) 36.84 (10.80) 36.59 (11.39) F (3, 924) = 0.14,
p = 0.94
Gender (n, %) x 2 = 5.83
Male 386 (41.73) 106 (46.29) 98 (41.70) 74 (32.17) 108 (46.75) p = 0.44
Female 533 (57.62) 123 (53.71) 135 (57.44) 155 (67.39) 120 (51.95)
Transgender 6 (0.65) 0 (0) 2 (0.87) 1 (0.43) 3 (1.30)
Race x 2 = 4.24,
White 748 (80.86) 181 (79.04) 191 (81.28) 185 (80.43) 191 (82.68) p = 0.89
African American 99 (10.70) 23 (10.04) 25 (10.64) 31 (13.48) 20 (8.66)
Asian 64 (6.92) 23 (10.04) 14 (5.96) 13 (5.65) 14 (6.06)
Other 14 (1.51) 2 (0.87) 5 (2.13) 1 (0.43) 6 (2.60)
Education x 2 = 1.12
High school 284 (30.70) 77 (33.62) 68 (28.94) 71 (30.87) 68 (29.44) p = 0.98
Bachelor 435 (47.03) 102 (44.54) 116 (49.36) 103 (44.78) 114 (49.35)
Other 206 (22.27) 50 (21.83) 51 (21.70) 56 (24.35) 49 (21.21)
Income x 2 = 0.52
$10,000-49,999 363 (39.24) 87 (37.99) 92 (39.15) 92 (40) 92 (39.83) p = 0.99
$50,000-74,999 236 (25.51) 65 (28.38) 58 (24.68) 54 (23.48) 59 (25.54)
Other 326 (35.24) 77 (33.62) 85 (36.17) 84 (36.52) 80 (34.63)

778
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
12.56), and most of them were female (53.9 per cent) and
white (78 per cent).
Day 3
E-mails were sent to those who were not only in the treatment
conditions but also had completed the second day’s task. In the
Nescafé treatment condition, participants were prompted to
watch two other YouTube videos from Nescafé and to answer
two follow-up questions (i.e. content check questions).
Additionally, they were asked to answer questions that had
been asked in the pre-survey (e.g. brand loyalty, brand attitude,
purchase intention in relation to the brand condition,
demographic questions) and to describe the perceived content
value of the four videos that they have watched. Similarly, in the
Lenovo treatment condition, participants watched another two
videos and answered similar questions in relation to Lenovo.
Each of the participants was paid $2.01 for watching the two
videos and completing the post-treatment survey.
In the Nescafé treatment condition, 137 participants
completed the post-treatment survey on the third day. They
had an average age of 38.09 years (SD = 10.84), and most of
them were female (69.3 per cent) and white (81 per cent). In
the Lenovo treatment condition, 136 participants completed
the post-treatment survey. They had an average age of 38.48
years (SD = 11.46), and most of them were female (57.4 per
cent) and white (82.4 per cent).
Simultaneously, and also on the third day, e-mails were sent
to those participants who were in the baseline control
conditions (i.e. Nescafé and Lenovo) and who had agreed to
participate in the follow-up study. In both control conditions,
participants were asked to answer the same questions that were
included in the baseline-survey. They were each paid $1.61 for
their participation. In the Nescafé control condition, 156
participants completed the post-control survey. They had an
average age of 37.58 years (SD = 11.49), and most of them
were female (53.8 per cent) and white (83.3 per cent). In the
Lenovo control condition, 167 participants completed the
post-control survey. They had an average age of 36.92 years
(SD = 11.78), and most of them were female (62.9 per cent)
and white (79 per cent).
Measures
Brand loyalty
Participants rated their agreement level with three items that
were designed to examine brand loyalty related to consumer-
based brand equity (Yoo and Donthu, 2001), with options
varying from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” on a seven-
point Likert scale. Items included “I consider myself to be loyal
to X (brand name),” “(When buying relevant products) X
would be my first choice” and “I will not buy other brands if X
is available at the store” (Cronbach’s a range: 0.84-0.91).
Brand attitude
Participants rated their brand attitudes on four semantic
differential scales extracted from Kelly et al.’s (2002), which
included “not at all appealing/appealing,” “not at all cool/very
cool,” “not at all in-style/very in-style” and “not at all likable/
very likable” on a seven-point scale (Cronbach’s a range: 0.92 -
0.95).
779
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
Purchase intention
Four statements that had been extracted from previous
literature and subsequently revised examined the participants’
purchase intentions (Baker and Churchill, 1977; Baek et al.,
2017). The participants rated their agreement level on a seven-
point scale, using four statements. They were: “I would like to
try products of X (brand),” “I would buy products of X,” “I
would buy its products if I happen to see this brand” and “I
would actively seek out products of X when I happen to need
one” (Cronbach’s a range: 0.93-0.95), with options varying
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Brand content value
Participants reported their perceived content value of the
videos they watched by rating their agreement with eight
statements (Ducoffe, 1995). The statements were: “Those
YouTube videos that I have watched in the past two days
provide relevant/timely/useful/valuable product information”
and “Those YouTube videos that I have watched in the past
two days are entertaining/enjoyable/exciting/pleasing”
(Cronbach’s a range: 0.93-0.94), with options varying from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Data analysis
To test H1, the study conducted MANOVA analyses using
SPSS 22. For model testing, the study performed confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 22 to establish construct
validity and reliability. Structural equation modeling was then
run to test the model fit and to test H2.
Results
Being exposed to branded content marketing vs no
exposure
H1 hypothesized that participants who have been repeatedly
exposed to branded content marketing information will
indicate:
 more positive brand attitudes;
 greater brand loyalty; and
 higher purchase intentions than those who have had no
contact with branded content.
To test H1, MANOVA tests were conducted among the groups
under Lenovo conditions (high product involvement) and
Nescafé conditions (low product involvement), respectively.
Lenovo conditions
This study’s results indicated that the mean scores of the
dependent variables (brand attitudes, brand loyalty and
purchase intentions) differed significantly across the four
Lenovo conditions [Wilk’s lambda K = 0.88, F (9, 1852) =
11.12, p < 0.001, partial h 2 = 0.04]. Specifically, brand
attitudes [F (3, 763) = 25.05, p < 0.001, partial h 2 = 0.09],
brand loyalty [F (3, 763) = 6.82, p < 0.001, partial h 2 = 0.03]
and purchase intentions [F (3, 763) = 9.01, p < 0.001, partial
h 2 = 0.03] differed significantly across the four conditions.
With regard to brand attitudes, the results of the study’s
pairwise comparisons showed that between the baseline
conditions, participants’ brand attitudes in the Lenovo baseline-
control condition were not significantly different from those in
the Lenovo baseline-treatment condition (mean difference =
 Branded content marketing in brand building Journal of Product & Brand Management
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786

0.11, p = 0.39) (see Table II for descriptives). Additionally, the Nescafé conditions [Wilk’s lambda K = 0.97, F (9, 1821) =
mean difference between participants’ brand attitudes in the 2.71, p < 0.01, partial h 2 = 0.01]. Specifically, brand attitudes
baseline-control condition and post-control condition were not [F (3, 750) = 4.89, p < 0.01, partial h 2 = 0.02], brand loyalty
significant (p = 0.73). However, participants who were exposed [F (3, 750) = 4.36, p < 0.01, partial h 2 = 0.02] and purchase
to two days’ brand content (the post-treatment condition) intentions [F (3, 750) = 2.60, p = 0.05, partial h 2 = 0.01]
showed significantly higher brand attitudes than those in the differed significantly across the four conditions.
baseline-treatment condition (mean difference = 1.06, p < 0. Results of pairwise comparisons showed that participants’
001). Moreover, participants in the post-treatment condition brand attitudes in the Nescafé baseline-control condition were
showed significantly higher brand attitudes than those in post- not significantly different from those in the baseline-treatment
control condition (mean difference = 1.12, p < 0. 001). condition (mean difference = 0.11, p = 0.44). Additionally, the
Results of the pairwise comparisons showed similar patterns mean difference between the participants’ brand attitudes in
in brand loyalty and purchase intentions. Participants’ brand the baseline- and post-control conditions was not significant
loyalty in the baseline-control condition did not differ (p = 0.85). However, participants who were exposed to two
significantly from the baseline-treatment condition (mean days’ brand content (the post-treatment condition) showed
difference = 0.18, p = 0.20). The mean difference between significantly higher brand attitudes than those in the baseline-
participants’ brand loyalty in the baseline- and the post-control treatment condition (mean difference = 0.59, p < 0. 001).
condition was not significant (p = 0.79) either. However, Moreover, participants in post-treatment condition showed
participants in the post-treatment condition demonstrated significantly higher brand attitudes than those in post-control
significantly higher brand loyalty than those in the baseline- condition (mean difference = 0.46, p < 0. 01).
treatment condition (mean difference = 0.73, p < 0. 001), and In addition, and with regard to brand loyalty, participants in
participants in the post-treatment condition indicated higher the post-treatment condition rated Nescafé with higher brand
brand loyalty than those in post-control condition (mean loyalty than those in baseline-treatment condition (mean
difference = 0.51, p < 0. 01). difference = 0.59, p < 0. 01) and those in the post-control
With regard to purchase intentions, participants expressed condition (mean difference = 0.46, p < 0.05). No significant
higher purchase intentions in the post-treatment condition than difference emerged between baseline-control and baseline-
those in the baseline-treatment condition (mean difference = treatment conditions (p = 0.78) or between baseline- and post-
0.59, p < 0.001) or those in the post-control condition (mean control conditions (p = 0.61).
difference = 0.86, p < 0.001). This study found no significant With regard to purchase intentions, participants expressed
difference between the baseline-control and baseline-treatment higher purchase intentions in the post-treatment condition than
conditions (p = 0.63) or between the baseline- and post-control those in baseline-treatment condition (mean difference = 0.39,
conditions (p = 0.19). Therefore, H1 was supported for the p < 0.05) or those in post-control condition (mean difference =
high-product-involvement Lenovo conditions. 0.40, p < 0.05). The study found no significant difference
Nescafé conditions between baseline-control and baseline-treatment conditions
Results of the MANOVA analysis indicated that the mean (p = 0.52) or between baseline- and post-control conditions
scores of dependent variables – brand attitudes, brand loyalty (p = 0.61). Therefore, H1 was also supported in the low
and purchase intentions – differed significantly across the four product-involvement Nescafé conditions.
Measurement validation (CFA)
Table II Descriptives of dependent variables across eight conditions We performed a first-order CFA to test the measurement model
Brand fit for the latent variables in the Lenovo post-treatment condition.
attitudes Brand loyalty Purchase One entertainment value item and one purchase intention item
DVs conditions (M, SD) (M, SD) intentions (M, SD) were removed because they did not exceed the stringent 0.70
factor-loading threshold (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Based
Baseline Lenovo on recommendations from earlier research (Hair, 2010), the
control 4.47 (1.36) 2.56 (1.55) 4.16 (1.50) revised CFA model generated an acceptable model fit: X2 =
Baseline Lenovo 85.56, X2/df = 1.45, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.91,
treatment 4.58 (1.34) 2.38 (1.46) 4.22 (1.44) RMSEA = 0.05. As concerns the Nescafé post-treatment
Baseline Nescafé condition, the CFA testing also showed an acceptable model fit:
control 4.59 (1.57) 3.03 (1.71) 4.23 (1.76) X2 = 78.29, X2/df = 1.33, CFI = 0.99, NFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.92,
Baseline Nescafé RMSEA = 0.05. Regarding both the Lenovo and Nescafé post-
treatment 4.49 (1.44) 2.99 (1.58) 4.33 (1.65) treatment conditions, the reliability analyses results indicated
Post-survey Lenovo overall reliable measurement instrument for the latent variables
control 4.52 (1.51) 2.60 (1.48) 3.96 (1.58)
(Cronbach’s a and composite reliability values all above 0.70)
Post-survey Lenovo
(see Tables III and IV). All latent constructs’ average variance
treatment 5.64 (1.23) 3.11 (1.59) 4.82 (1.44)
extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50. The square root of the
Post-survey Nescafé
AVE for each construct was greater than its correlation to other
control 4.63 (1.45) 3.12 (1.41) 4.31 (1.61)
constructs (see Tables V and VI), Therefore, all the construct
Post-survey Nescafé
treatment 5.08 (1.41) 3.57 (1.66) 4.72 (1.66)
measurements generated adequate convergent and discriminant
validities.

780
 Branded content marketing in brand building Journal of Product & Brand Management
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786

Model testing results
We adopted the following indices to determine the model fit:
X2/df (less than 2) (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), GFI
(close to 1.00) (Kang, 2014), NFI (greater than 0.90)
(Bentler, 1992), CFI (greater than 0.90) (Bentler, 1992)
and RMSEA (less than 0.08) (Hu and Bentler, 1999). For
the Lenovo post-treatment condition, the proposed model
indicated an overall good fit with the sample: X2/df = 1.81,
GFI = 0.89, NFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97,
RMSEA = 0.08. H2 predicted that participants’ perceived
informative value and entertaining value of the branded
content would positively influence their brand loyalty, which
in turn would heighten their purchase intentions. The
results demonstrated that their perceived informative ( b =
0.32, p < 0.01) and entertainment values ( b = 0.26, p <
0.05) positively affected the participants’ perceived brand
loyalty, which subsequently elevated purchase intentions
( b = 0.78, p < 0.001) (see Figure 3). Additionally, in
support of H2, results of bootstrapping analysis (with 90 per
cent bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals based on
2,000 bootstrap samples) showed that perceived informative
value demonstrated a significant indirect effect on purchase
intentions via brand loyalty (indirect b = 0.25, p < 0.01),
and perceived entertainment value also indirectly affected
purchase intentions via brand loyalty (indirect b = 0.20, p <
0.05).
With regard to the Nescafé post-treatment condition, the
proposed model indicated a good fit with the sample: X2/df =
1.33, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99,
RMSEA = 0.05. The study’s results demonstrated that perceived
informative value ( b = 0.33, p < 0.001) and perceived
entertainment value (b = 0.44, p < 0.001) both positively
influenced perceived brand loyalty, which in turn heightened
purchase intentions (b = 0.80, p < 0.001) (see Figure 4).
Similarly, results of bootstrapping analysis demonstrated that the
indirect effect of perceived informative value on purchase
intentions, via brand loyalty, was significant (indirect b = 0.26,
p < 0.01). Similarly, perceived entertainment value also
indirectly influenced purchase intentions via brand loyalty
(indirect b = 0.35, p < 0.01). Therefore, H2 was supported.

Table III Lenovo post-treatment condition – assessment of the measurement model

Constructs Items Standardized Loadings Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach's a CR AVE
Informative value “relevant” 0.93 0.74 0.18 0.96 0.96 0.87
“timely” 0.93 0.57 0.41
“useful” 0.94 0.58 0.63
“valuable” 0.92 0.53 0.68
Entertainment value “entertaining” 0.93 0.92 0.48 0.92 0.92 0.80
“enjoyable” 0.87 0.95 0.58
“exciting” 0.88 0.61 0.02
Brand loyalty “loyal to the brand” 0.85 0.82 0.29 0.90 0.91 0.76
“be my first choice” 0.93 0.18 0.96
“not buy others if it is available” 0.83 0.53 0.49
Purchase intentions “would buy products of the brand” 0.88 0.49 0.23 0.92 0.93 0.82
“would buy if I happen to see the brand” 0.97 0.32 0.44
“would actively seek out the products if I need one” 0.86 0.16 0.78
Notes: CR = composite reliabilities; AVE = average variance extracted

Table IV Nescafé post-treatment condition – assessment of the measurement model

Constructs Items Standardized Loadings Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach's a CR AVE
Informative value “relevant” 0.92 0.25 0.84 0.97 0.97 0.88
“timely” 0.91 0.18 0.80
“useful” 0.96 0.08 10.02
“valuable” 0.96 0.15 0.91
Entertainment value “entertaining” 0.93 0.93 0.42 0.96 0.96 0.88
“enjoyable” 0.95 0.26 0.59
“exciting” 0.94 10.04 0.75

Brand loyalty “loyal to the brand” 0.85 0.47 0.88 0.90 0.89 0.73
“be my first choice” 0.89 0.17 0.72
“not buy others if it is available” 0.85 0.36 0.78
Purchase intentions “would like to try products of the brand” 0.93 0.73 0.17 0.96 0.96 0.90
“would buy products of the brand” 0.98 0.71 0.17
“would buy if I happen to see the brand” 0.93 0.53 0.16
Notes: CR = composite reliabilities; AVE = average variance extracted

781
 Branded content marketing in brand building Journal of Product & Brand Management
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786

Table V Lenovo post-treatment condition – correlations among the latent ubiquitous social media and leveraging it to accelerate their
constructs brand building.
Theoretically, this study’s findings have advanced the
Latent constructs 1 2 3 4
current theoretical arguments concerning the relationship
1. Informative value 0.93 between branded content marketing and brand building
2. Entertainment value 0.58 0.90 (Ahmad et al., 2016; du Plessis, 2015; Gagnon, 2014;
3. Brand loyalty 0.45 0.40 0.87 Holliman and Rowley, 2014; Kee and Yazdanifard, 2015;
4. Purchase intentions 0.47 0.59 0.77 0.90 Rowley, 2008) and have shown a causal relationship between
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE for each them. More importantly, premised on social learning theory
construct and advertising value literature, this study elucidated the
underlying mechanisms through which branded content
marketing exerts influence on brands and consumers. For
Table VI Nescafé post-treatment condition – correlations among the practitioners, this study’s findings provide evidence that using
latent constructs branded content marketing can facilitate consumers’ derivation
Latent constructs 1 2 3 4 of value through their social learning processes and that it in
turn can drive beneficial brand evaluations and purchase
1. Informative value 0.94 intents. Such practices showed potential benefits for both high-
2. Entertainment value 0.62 0.94 and low-involvement brands. We elaborate on the major
3. Brand loyalty 0.60 0.63 0.85
contributions, below.
4. Purchase intentions 0.48 0.57 0.80 0.95
This study’s first contribution lies in its finding that branded
content marketing positively affects consumers’ brand
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE for each construct
attitudes, brand loyalty and purchase intentions. This study’s
hypothesis testing used both high and low product-involvement
brands, which yielded consistent results. After having been
Figure 3 Lenovo post-treatment condition – the structural model with exposed to two days’ branded content, the participants
standardized path coefficients demonstrated more positive brand attitudes, greater brand
loyalty and higher purchase intentions than their original
baseline responses or than participants in the post-control
condition. This finding is consistent with arguments from other
recent research that has advocated the beneficial role of content
marketing in brand building and consumer behavior (Ahmad
et al., 2016; du Plessis, 2017; Gagnon, 2014; Holliman and
Rowley, 2014; Hutchins and Rodriguez, 2018; Kee and
Yazdanifard, 2015; Rowley, 2008). More importantly, this
finding revealed a causal link between valuable branded
content on social media and improved brand loyalty and
purchase intentions. Under social learning perspective, social
media facilitates more efficient communication between brands
and their customers, which in turn more readily enables the
Figure 4 Nescafé post-treatment condition – the structural model with realization of consumer learning. We believe that branded
standardized path coefficients content marketing facilitates consumer learning in an
(previously) unexpectedly accessible manner, wherein
consumers navigate, assess and derive value from relevant
information and thereafter coordinate their brand evaluations
and purchase intentions, over time, to align with the brands.
As a second contribution, this study advances the current
literature on the relationship between consumer responses to
social media marketing and brand loyalty by explicating the role
of content value. It confirms and furthers Yoshida et al.’s
(2018) findings on the indirect effect of entertainment value on
brand loyalty; our results demonstrated that entertainment
value had a direct effect on brand loyalty. This study’s content
value corresponds with what Cleff et al. (2018) termed
“cognitive” and “affective” online brand experience. However,
this study further corroborates their findings through using
Discussion
more defined conceptualization and operationalization of
In a similar way to Michelin being known for its trip planning online content value. Future studies might further investigate
guides, other brands now have more versatile and affordable the role of content value in the effectiveness of brands’
means of creating engaging and enticing content by using marketing communications.

782
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
Third, in line with Colicev et al.’s (2018) arguments, our
results show that brand-generated content on YouTube is
becoming an important driver of brand loyalty, for both high-
and low-involvement utilitarian brands (i.e. Lenovo and
Nescafé). Retailers of utilitarian bands are therefore
encouraged to emphasize social media and to devote more
resources to meet their customers’ needs (Holliman and
Rowley, 2014). Similar to Cleff et al.’s (2018) reports on the
effects of affective and cognitive online brand experience on
brand loyalty, this study found that for low-involvement brand
Nescafé only, entertainment value exerted a stronger effect on
brand loyalty than information value. Conversely, for high-
involvement brand Lenovo, informative value had a slightly
bigger effect on brand loyalty than entertainment value. We
postulate that for high-involvement brands, consumers will
instinctively place more emphasis on information seeking and
validation from varied sources before making informed
decisions. Branded informative content can satisfy consumers’
informative needs and facilitate their learning, which in turn
accelerates their value acquisition and subsequent brand
attachment. In contrast, for low product-involvement brands,
consumers tend to invest lower efforts in information seeking
when compared to high product-involvement brands.
Providing entertaining content promotes potentially emotional
and engaging brand experiences and is, thus, more likely to
create a bond with consumers (than informative content).
In summary, this study ascertained the positive impact of
social media-based branded content marketing on consumers’
brand attitudes, brand loyalty and purchase intentions. It also
explicated the mechanisms through which content marketing
influences brand evaluation and purchase intentions by
coordinating consumer learning and value derivation. The
theoretical framework proposed in this study lays the
foundation for more comprehensive theory building and
testing, which could explain the effectiveness of brands’
proactive marketing communications on social media.
Practical implications
This study’s findings advocate the advantages of investing in
the creation and dissemination of valuable brand content via
social media. Brands could use social media-based content to
engage with consumers and to reinforce their brand loyalty, as
well as to the benefit of their long-term brand building.
Specifically, high-involvement product brands such as cars and
computers are advised to produce both informative and
entertaining content to trigger brand-consumer attachment or
bonds. They are also advised to place slightly more emphasis on
providing informative news feeds than entertaining pieces. On
the other hand, low-involvement product brands such as
instant coffee and shampoos, besides issuing instructive or
informational updates regularly, could feature more content
that is enticing and captivating to stimulate consumer devotion.
More importantly, brands could manage the learning
demands that are placed on customers during the content
marketing process via producing digestible yet intriguing brand
content (e.g. brand anecdotes, product usage tutorials,
education videos and user-generated content) to facilitate
smooth consumer learning and value derivation. Furthermore,
brands might consider integrating their social media-based
content marketing efforts into their e-commerce functions (e.g.
783
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
online retailing sites, sales promotions, virtual try-on apps), as
consumers’ repeated exposure to content marketing leads to a
potential increase in purchase intentions. Lastly, a brand needs
to treat its content marketing as long-standing open
conversation between itself and its customers, which will
undoubtedly yield fruitful branding outcomes and robust
brand-customer relationships.
Limitations and future studies
This study also bears its limitations. First, it extracted videos
from the YouTube channels of two brands. The inherent
differences in these two brands may have constituted
potentially confounding factors, which might have accounted
for the difference in the results of the model testing. Second, in
line with earlier research, this study draws on social learning
theory to account for consumers’ cognitive and affective
reactions to social media marketing communications.
However, the study did not quantify social learning per se.
Future research may calibrate the role of social learning with a
more nuanced approach. Although all the construct
measurements had adequate convergent and discriminant
validity, we do acknowledge the high correlation between brand
loyalty and purchase intention, which could have inflated the
strength of their relationship in model testing. Future studies
need to be more cautious when investigating the link between
similar constructs. Additionally, future research may further
validate the current findings by investigating other types of
branded content (e.g. image or text-based) and by using a
wider range of brands and products and/or testing them among
international samples.
The increasing popularity of branded content marketing
urges more future studies. Specifically, future research could
compare the role of non-hard-sell branded content with that of
brand advertising in brand building and consumer behavior
and further explicate the mechanisms of branded content
marketing through which it affects current customers and
potential customers. Although this study advanced and
combined the literature on consumer social learning and brand
building via examining a social media content community (i.e.
YouTube), future studies could resort to applying and/or
testing other theories (e.g. parasocial relationship/interaction,
persuasion knowledge model) or other social media platforms
(e.g. Instagram, Facebook) to deepen our understanding of this
new phenomenon. Finally, future research may explore the
roles of social media platforms’ affordances and consumer traits
(e.g. personality, decision-making styles) in the effectiveness of
branded content marketing to advance the current literature.
References
Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Akers, R.L. (1990), “Rational choice, deterrence, and social
learning theory in criminology: the path not taken”, Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 653-676.
Ad Age (2015), “The future of content: marketers explore
expanding opportunities to reach consumers”, available at:
http://adage.com/d/resources/resources/whitepaper/exploring-
future-content-marketing (accessed 14 December 2018).
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
Ahmad, N.S., Musa, R. and Harun, M.H.M. (2016), “The
impact of social media content marketing (SMCM) towards
Brand health”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 37,
pp. 331-336.
Baek, W.Y., Byon, K.K., Choi, Y.H. and Park, C.W. (2017),
“Millennial consumers' perception of sportswear brand
globalness impacts purchase intention in cause-related
product marketing”, Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 1319-1335.
Baker, M.J. and Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1977), “The impact of
physically attractive models on advertising evaluations”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 538-555.
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control,
Freeman, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1994), “The social cognitive theory of mass
communication”, In Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (Eds),
Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 61-90.
Bentler, P.M. (1992), “On the fit of models to covariances and
methodology to the bulletin”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112
No. 3, pp. 400-404.
Berkes, F. (2009), “Evolution of co-management: role of
knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social
learning”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90
No. 5, pp. 1692-1702.
Chang, Y., Ko, Y.J. and Carlson, B.D. (2018), “Implicit and
explicit affective evaluations of athlete brands: the associative
evaluation–emotional appraisal–intention model of athlete
endorsements”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 497-510.
Chen, A., Lu, Y. and Wang, B. (2017), “Customers’ purchase
decision-making process in social commerce: a social
learning perspective”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 627-638.
Cheung, C.M., Liu, I.L. and Lee, M.K. (2015), “How online
social interactions influence customer information
contribution behavior in online social shopping
communities: a social learning theory perspective”, Journal of
the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 66
No. 12, pp. 2511-2521.
Cleff, T., Walter, N. and Xie, J. (2018), “The effect of online
brand experience on brand loyalty: a web of emotions”, IUP
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 7-24.
Colicev, A., Malshe, A. and Pauwels, K. (2018), “Social media
and customer-based brand equity: an empirical investigation
in retail industry”, Administrative Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 1-16.
Collins, A. (2018), “YouTube marketing: a complete guide to
creating, promoting, and optimizing your video content”,
available at: www.hubspot.com/youtube-marketing (accessed
14 December 2018).
Content Marketing Institute (2018a), “What is content
marketing?”, available at: http://contentmarketinginstitute.
com/what-is-content-marketing/ (accessed 14 December
2018).
Content Marketing Institute (2018b), “B2C content marketing:
2018 benchmarks, budgets, and trends – North America”,
available at: http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/wp-content/
784
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
uploads/2017/12/2018_B2C_Research_Final.pdf (accessed 14
December 2018).
Coursaris, C.K., van Osch, W. and Balogh, B.A. (2016), “Do
Facebook likes lead to shares or sales? Exploring the empirical
links between social media content, brand equity, purchase
intention, and engagement”, 49th HI International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS), HI, IEEE, pp. 3546-3555.
Cox BLUE (2018), “90 per cent of all organizations using
content marketing”, available at: www.coxblue.com/90-of-all-
organizations-using-content-marketing-infographic/ (accessed
14 December 2018).
Cunningham, J.A., Godinho, A. and Kushnir, V. (2017), “Can
Amazon's mechanical Turk be used to recruit participants for
internet intervention trials? a pilot study involving a randomized
controlled trial of a brief online intervention for hazardous
alcohol use”, Internet Interventions, Vol. 10, pp. 12-16.
Dehghani, M., Niaki, M.K., Ramezani, I. and Sali, R. (2016),
“Evaluating the influence of YouTube advertising for
attraction of young customers”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 165-172.
Drèze, X. and Hussherr, F.X. (2003), “Internet advertising: is
anybody watching?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 8-23.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1995), “How consumers assess the value of
advertising”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Ducoffe, R.H. (1996), “Advertising value and advertising on
the web”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 21-21.
Du Plessis, C. (2015), “An exploratory analysis of essential
elements of content marketing”, ECSM2015 Proceedings of
the 2nd European Conference on Social Media, Portugal, 2015,
Academic Conferences Publisher International, pp. 122-129.
Du Plessis, C. (2017), “The role of content marketing in social
media content communities”, South African Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Fazio, R.H. and Olson, M.A. (2003), “Implicit measures in
social cognition research: their meaning and use”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 297-327.
Gagnon, E. (2014), “Goodbye, B2B Brand marketing:
developing content-based marketing programs for the post-
marketing era”, International Management Review, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 68-71.
Geen, R.G. (1994), “Television and aggression: Recent
developments in research and theory”, ” in Zillmann, D.,
Bryant, J. and Huston A.C. (Eds.), Media, Children, and the
Family: Social Scientific, Psychodynamic, and Clinical
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 151-162.
Habibi, M.R., Laroche, M. and Richard, M.O. (2016),
“Testing an extended model of consumer behavior in the
context of social media-based Brand communities”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 292-302.
Hair, J.F. Jr (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harad, K.C. (2013), “Content marketing strategies to educate
and entertain”, Journal of Financial Planning, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 18-20.
Holliman, G. and Rowley, J. (2014), “Business to business
digital content marketing: marketers’ perceptions of best
 Branded content marketing in brand building
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim
practice”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 269-293.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria
versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hutchins, J. and Rodriguez, D.X. (2018), “The soft side of
branding: leveraging emotional intelligence”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 117-125.
Jiao, Y., Ertz, M., Jo, M.S. and Sarigollu, E. (2018), “Social
value, content value, and Brand equity in social media Brand
communities: a comparison of Chinese and US consumers”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 18-41.
Kang, S. (2014), “Factors influencing intention of mobile
application use”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 360-379.
Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world,
unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S. and Sheehan, K. (2017), “An
analysis of data quality: professional panels, student subject
pools, and Amazon’s mechanical Turk”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 141-155.
Kee, A.W.A. and Yazdanifard, R. (2015), “The review of
content marketing as a new trend in marketing practices”,
International Journal of Management, Accounting and
Economics, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 1055-1064.
Kelly, K.J., Slater, M.D. and Karan, D. (2002), “Image
advertisements’ influence on adolescents’ perceptions of the
desirability of beer and cigarettes”, Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 295-304.
Koljonen, T. (2016), “Content marketing’s role in company
branding and business”, master’s thesis, International
Business Management, Lahti University of Applied
Sciences, Lahti.
Lam, B. (2016), “7 ways B2C content marketing is evolving in
2018”, available at: www.conductor.com/blog/2016/06/b2c-
marketing-content-data/ (accessed 14 December 2018).
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R. and Richard, M.O. (2013), “To be
or not to be in social media: how Brand loyalty is affected by
social media?”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 76-82.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O. and
Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012), “The effects of social media
based Brand communities on Brand community markers,
value creation practices, Brand trust and Brand loyalty”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1755-1767.
Lieb, R. (2011), Content Marketing: Think like a Publisher – How
to Use Content to Market Online and in Social Media, Que
Publishing, Indianapolis, IN.
Luo, N., Zhang, M. and Liu, W. (2015), “The effects of value
co-creation practices on building harmonious Brand
community and achieving Brand loyalty on social media in
China”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 492-499.
McQuail, D. (1983), Mass Communication Theory: An
Introduction, Sage, London.
Matzler, K., Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Bidmon, S. (2008),
“Risk aversion and Brand loyalty: the mediating role of
Brand trust and Brand affect”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 154-162.
785
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786
Miller, J. (2016), “Astonishing tales of content marketing: the
Michelin guide”, available at: https://business.linkedin.com/
marketing-solutions/blog/best-practices–content-marketing/
2016/astonishing-tales-of-content-marketing–the-michelin-
guide (accessed 14 December 2018).
Mittal, B. (1995), “A comparative analysis of four scales of
consumer involvement”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12
No. 7, pp. 663-682.
Moretti, E. (2011), “Social learning and peer effects in
consumption: evidence from movie sales”, The Review of
Economic Studies, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 356-393.
Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M. and Smit, E.G. (2011),
“Introducing COBRAs: exploring motivations for Brand-
related social media use”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 13-46.
Neff, J. (2015), “Is it content or is it advertising?”, available at:
http://adage.com/article/ad-age-research/content-advertising/
300858/ (accessed 14 December 2018).
NewsCred (2018), “The NewsCred top 50 awards: best
content marketing brands 2018”, available at: https://
insights.newscred.com/best-content-marketing-brands/
#about (accessed 14 December 2018).
Nielson (2009), “The global online media landscape:
identifying opportunities in a challenging market”, available
at: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/nielsen-news/online-
global-landscape-0409/ (accessed 14 December 2018).
Orzan, G., Platon, O.E., Stefanescu, C.D. and Orzan, M. (2016),
“Conceptual model regarding the influence of social media
marketing communication on Brand trust, Brand affect and
Brand loyalty”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics
Studies and Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 141-156.
Pulizzi, J. (2012), “The rise of storytelling as the new
marketing”, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 116-123.
Pulizzi, J. (2014), Epic Content Marketing: How to Tell a Different
Story, Break through the Clutter, and Win More Customers by
Marketing Less, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.
Raza, M., Frooghi, R., Binti Rani, S.H. and Qureshi, M.A.
(2018), “Impact of brand equity drivers on purchase
intention: a moderating effect of entrepreneurial marketing”,
South Asian Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 69-92.
Rosenstock, I.M., Strecher, V.J. and Becker, M.H. (1988),
“Social learning theory and the health belief model”, Health
Education Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-183.
Ross, J., Irani, I., Silberman, M., Zaldivar, A. and Tomlinson,
B. (2010), “Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting
demographics in mechanical Turk”, Proceedings of CHI'10
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Atlanta, pp. 2863-2872.
Rowley, J. (2008), “Understanding digital content marketing”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6,
pp. 517-540.
Rydell, R.J., McConnell, A.R. and Mackie, D.M. (2008),
“Consequences of discrepant explicit and implicit attitudes:
cognitive dissonance and increased information processing”,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1526-1532.
Schivinski, B. and Dabrowski, D. (2015), “The impact of
Brand communication on brand equity through Facebook”,
 Branded content marketing in brand building Journal of Product & Brand Management
Chen Lou, Quan Xie, Yang Feng, Wonkyung Kim Volume 28 · Number 7 · 2019 · 773–786

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, Further reading

pp. 31-53.
Schultz, D. (2016), “The future of advertising or whatever Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
we're going to call it”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 45 No. 3, quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis of
pp. 276-285. evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Statista (2018), “Number of YouTube users worldwide from
2016 to 2021”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/ Corresponding author
805656/number-youtube-viewers-worldwide/ (accessed 14 Chen Lou can be contacted at: chenlou@ntu.edu.sg
December 2018).
Stojanovic, I., Andreu, L. and Curras-Perez, R. (2018), Appendix
“Effects of the intensity of use of social media on Brand List of brand videos.
equity: an empirical study in a tourist destination”, European
Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 83-100. Lenovo
Sun, Y., Lim, K.H., Jiang, C., Peng, J.Z. and Chen, X. (2010),
“Do males and females think in the same way? An empirical Day 1.
investigation on the gender differences in web advertising Content type: content/campaign-specific video.
evaluation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, Highlights from Mobile World Congress 2018.
pp. 1614-1624. www.youtube.com/watch?v=11_J-tMVZEE
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate
Content type: tutorial.
Statistics, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, New York, NY.
What is AI?.
Thompson, P. (2011), “Social networking sites and content
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdyZNVCDWJc
communities: similarities, differences, and affordances for
learning”, Proceedings, Volume 2: Selected Papers on the Day 2:
Practice of Educational Communications and Technology, Content type: tutorial.
Jacksonville, FL, AECT, pp. 462-466. How to Pretend You’re Working This Holiday Week.
Van-Tien Dao, W., Nhat Hanh Le, A., Ming-Sung Cheng, J. www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIl4y5B3K8w
and Chao Chen, D. (2014), “Social media advertising value:
Content type: consumer contest/story.
the case of transitional economies in Southeast Asia”,
Lenovo Day in The Life: Jukka The Banjo Man & YOGA 3
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 271-294.
Vivero, D.P. (2016), “The effect of educational content Pro.
marketing on Facebook brand engagement”, master thesis, www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jIQuM4GzQ&list=PLs18h
Cat olica Lisbon School of Business & Economics, Catholic w3X0NC6DVR74rXZ246KP28ClFE14
University of Portugal, Lisbon.
Waiguny, M.K., Nelson, M.R. and Marko, B. (2013), “How
advergame content influences explicit and implicit Brand Nescafé
attitudes: when violence spills over”, Journal of Advertising, Day 1.
Vol. 42 Nos 2/3, pp. 155-169. Content type: content/campaign-specific video.
Wagner, A. (2017), “Are you maximizing the use of video in your NESCAFÉ #GoodMorningWorld 2016.
content marketing strategy?”, available at: www.forbes.com/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5eI__zP-kw
sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/05/15/are-you-maximizing-the-
use-of-video-in-your-content-marketing-strategy/#6a6e806735 Content type: tutorial.
84 (accessed 14 December 2018). NESCAFÉ- The Origami Coffee Mug.
Walters, K. (2015), “Mastering the marketing maze”, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xx-1aMNdlM&list=PL2m
www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/ HIKzzZrP_fIpyi23nx6C432-wTKu8X&index=2
Publications/Company-Director-magazine/2015-back-editions/ Day 2:
April/Walters-Mastering-the-marketing-maze (accessed 14 Content type: tutorial.
December 2018). NESCAFÉ - Mocha Stencil Tutorial Video
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpRllzRywvQ&list=PL2mHI
multidimensional consumer-based Brand equity scale”, KzzZrP_fIpyi23nx6C432-wTKu8X
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Yoshida, M., Gordon, B.S., Nakazawa, M., Shibuya, S. and Content Type: Consumer contest/story.
Fujiwara, N. (2018), “Bridging the gap between social media NESCAFÉ co-creation consumers contest - Winner #1.
and behavioral brand loyalty”, Electronic Commerce Research www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJsYJ4yEH8E&index=2&list
and Applications, Vol. 28, pp. 208-218. =PL2mHIKzzZrP97n7KI5Wj1qt67qlT3Dxe5

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

786