Effects of 

Social Media on Consumers’ Sports

Brand Experiences and Loyalty

Juha Munnukka, Heikki Karjaluoto, Tommi Mahlamäki, and Ville Hokkanen

Abstract  Brand experience has been noted as a key attribute affecting buying
behavior. Although research into the determinants of brand loyalty in sport context
has grown in recent years, the focus has predominantly been on brand experience,
brand personality and satisfaction, not on social media variables. In addition, we
lack empirically verified evidence of the brand experience and brand loyalty rela-
tionship mediated through brand identification. In this research the authors address
the role of four different social media platforms and how they drive brand loyalty
through different types of brand experiences, brand identification and satisfaction to
the brand experience. Structural equation modelling is used to test the model based
on data from a survey of 815 ice hockey fans of a particular ice hockey team. The
results show that brand experience is positively affected by brand engagement in
social media and the relationship is strengthened when more different social media
platforms are used for following the brand. Brand experience affects brand loyalty
mainly indirectly through brand identification and satisfaction constructs.

Keywords  Brand experience • Social media • Brand engagement • Brand loyalty

• Brand identification • Sports brand

J. Munnukka (*) • H. Karjaluoto • V. Hokkanen

Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics, Jyväskylä, Finland
e-mail: juha.munnukka@jyu.fi; heikki.karjaluoto@jyu.fi; vivahokk@student.jyu.fi
T. Mahlamäki
Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: tommi.mahlamaki@tut.fi

© Academy of Marketing Science 2017 1051

M. Stieler (ed.), Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing
Trends, Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy
of Marketing Science, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-45596-9_194
1052 J. Munnukka et al.

Introduction

Social media presents growing importance for organizations by providing opportu-

nities for value creation through interaction, collaboration and sharing of content on
various applications and platforms (Richter and Koch 2007). These value creation
activities have an impact on several aspects of customer relationships, such as rela-
tionship commitment, brand attachment, value perceptions, and buying intentions
(Kim and Ko 2012). Thus, although previous research has presented social media as
an effective platform for marketing communication (Fetchko et al. 2013, 11–12,
259–260; Walker et al. 2010), the key benefit of social media for companies arises
from the features of it that enable and foster customer experience (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2004). We consider customer experience to be the focal driver of cus-
tomer value and the core of an offering of especially a service brand offering. We
further understand that experiences are co-created in numerous interactions between
customers and the service provider (see Zomerdijk and Voss 2010). This is espe-
cially true for customer-customer interactions about brand experiences and inter-
ests, which influence customers’ brand perceptions and satisfaction (De Ruyter and
Wetzels 2000; Rihova et al. 2013). Although brand experience is considered to be
an essential part of brand and customer relationship management, little research has
addressed the consequences of social media use on brand experience.
The symbolic nature of brands allows organizations to employ consumers’ brand-
related associations to strengthen customer-brand relationships. Brand ­identification
explains the relationship between brand associations and customer behavior. Prior
research has suggested that brand is a part or extension of self, which can affect cus-
tomer behavior and the length and strength of a customer relationship (Bhattacharya
and Sen 2003; Carlson et al. 2009; Fisher and Wakefield 1998). Social identity theory
proposes that individuals categorize themselves as belonging to social groups (Hogg
and Abrams 1988), which members are seen similar to the self (Stets and Burke
2000) and the individual’s characteristics or personality are seen similar to the char-
acteristics or personalities of the group’s members. By this identification or categori-
zation process, individuals create their social self (Fisher and Wakefield 1998). As a
consequence of social group identification, individuals become more committed to
the group and less eager to leave the group even in times when the group’s status is
low (Ellemers et al. 1997). Identification with a group also leads to mutual percep-
tions and reinforces them (Turner et al. 1987) and behavior (Stets and Burke 2000).
Thus, social groups and consumers’ identification with them strongly affects con-
sumers’ behavior and therefore is an essential aspect of the sports industry.
The consequences of social group identification in the sports industry are best
explained through sports brands and the communities built around those brands. In
the context of brands and brand communities, the propositions of social identity
theory hold (Carlson et al. 2009). Identity of other brand users can be connected to
the self (Lam et al. 2010; Marzocchi et al. 2013). Due to the strong role of social
groups and communality among sport fans, social identity is the focal force affect-
ing individuals’ relationships with the sports brand (Tsiotsoun 2012; Underwood
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1053

et al. 2001). Within fan groups or fan communities created around a specific club or
sports brand individuals have different roles such as a true fan or other fans (Wann
et al. 2001). By the means of socializing and communicating with other members
the fans communicate and define their roles (Riley and Burke 1995), which further
deepens the members’ attachment and identification to the community (cf. Burke
and Stets 1999). Further, social identification has an impact on perceptions, affect,
and behavior (Stets and Burke 2000). Therefore, we propose that social media pro-
vides the key means through which sports brand communities form, endure,
advance, and further form and create customer value through enhanced brand expe-
riences. However, prior research is still scarce in confirming the relationships
between consumer social media engagement and brand identification, and that
between brand identification and brand experience.
This study contributes to the literature on brand identification and brand experi-
ence by addressing the identified limitations. First, we are among the first proposing
and testing a conceptual model that integrates brand engagement behavior in social
media, brand identification, and brand experience. Second, we show how consumer
engagement in online brand communities fosters brand experience. Finally, we
extend the literature by showing how sports brand loyalty is fostered by the means
of brand engagement in social media mediated by brand identification and the
dimensions of brand experience. The conceptual model is tested by using online
survey data collected from 815 Finnish ice hockey fans.

Conceptual Model and Research Hypotheses

Social media enables organizations to effectively reach the most potential consum-
ers, who are active in searching information about the organization and its brands and
services, whereas, traditional media mostly reaches only the passive consumers. This
is especially well seen in the sports brand context, where consumers are highly active
in information search and social interaction with other consumers (Tapp and Clowes
2002). This social interaction is found to foster customer loyalty (Pronschinske et al.
2012; Waters et al. 2011). To better understand the influence patterns through which
social media engagement drivers sport consumers’ loyalty toward the sports brand,
we construct and test a conceptual model and related hypotheses (Fig. 1). The model
proposes that sport consumer engagement with brand-related content and brand
communities constructed around the sports brand drives brand loyalty through brand
identification, brand experience, and brand satisfaction.
Managing brands is about managing individuals’ brand perceptions created dur-
ing brand encounters across multiple situations, contexts, and channels that evoke
feelings and cognitions about the brand. Following Brakus et al. (2009) we concep-
tualize these brand-related feelings and cognitions as brand experience, which is
defined as subjective, internal, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related
stimuli communicated via brand identity and communications. Brand experience is
a multidimensional construct, which in the original conceptualization includes
1054 J. Munnukka et al.

Brand
experiences H31a-e+
H1a-e+
H3a-e +

Social H3a-e+
H3a-e+ Satisfaction Loyalty
media
engagement H2+
H3a-e+

H3a-e+
Brand
H4+ H5a-e+ identification

Number of social media

platforms

Fig. 1  Conceptual model. 1The direct effect is added for testing the mediation effects only

s­ ensory, affective, intellectual, and behavioral aspects (Brakus et al. 2009). Recently,
relational or social experience has been proposed as the fifth dimension of brand
experience, which was also considered by Brakus et al. but was not identified in
their study. However, Nysveen et al. (2013) reconstructed and tested a scale measur-
ing this social dimension of brand experience. They found strong support that it
should be accounted as an integral element of a service brand experience. Therefore,
in line with prior research (Brakus et al. 2009; Schmitt 1999; Zarantonello and
Schmitt 2010) we define brand experience through five dimensions: (1) a sensory
experience, which relates to sensory and aesthetics stimuli, such as visual, auditory,
tactile, gustative, and olfactory stimuli; (2) affective dimension, relating to moods,
feelings, and emotions; (3) intellectual dimension, referring to the brand’s ability to
influence and engage the customers’ convergent/analytical and divergent/imagina-
tive thinking; (4) behavioral dimension, lifestyles, and the customer-brand interac-
tions; and finally (5) relational dimension, understood as experiences arising from
social interactions and feelings of community.

 ffect of Social Media Engagement on Brand Experience

E
and Brand Identification

As brands and especially sport brands are emotionally charged constructs and brand
experiences are co-created through their interaction with other fans and the sports
team, the social interaction is seen as a key element of sports brand experience and
loyalty. For example Oliver (1999) postulates that brand communities and social
bonding are the focal forces that drive brand loyalty. Consumers consume and patron-
age brands and take part in brand communities that are congruent with and support
their self-identity and values. These communities are found as self-­sustaining and
self-fostering in the sense that the communication within the community is pound to
support and reinforce the accepted perceptions and behavior. In the present research
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1055

social media is understood as platforms of virtual communities where individuals

with same interests interact with each other (Fetchko et al. 2013, 259). Evidence also
suggests that individuals have different roles in brand communities which are formed
and maintained through the communication or interactions within those communi-
ties (McCall and Simmons 1978) leading to greater attachment and satisfaction to the
group (Riley and Burke 1995). In the case of sports brand communities, the members
are also expected to hold different roles (such as “true fans” and “others”), which are
the result of and reinforced in the social interactions with other members.
The sense of community is a highly important aspect of brand experience
(Stavros et al. 2013). As consumers interact with each other and share information
and experiences about the sports team and maintain the brand culture, we expect
these social interactions foster brand experiences (cf. Shang et al. 2006). Prior
research also shows that participation in virtual brand communities is positively
associated with brand commitment and loyalty (Casaló et al. 2008; Raïes and
Gavard-Perret 2011; Wang et al. 2013). Further, active brand community participa-
tion increases satisfaction toward the brand (Royo-Vela and Casamassima 2011)
and identification with the brand (Marzocchi et al. 2013). Against this backdrop, we
postulate that engagement with a brand in social media drives the five types of brand
experiences and brand identification. Thus, the following hypotheses are set:
H1a–e  Brand engagement in social media is positively related to (a) a sensory type
of brand experiences, (b) an affective type of brand experiences, (c) an intellectual
type of brand experiences, (d) a behavioral type of brand experiences, and (e) a
relational type of brand experiences.

H2  Brand engagement in social media is positively related to brand identification.

Brand Identification Outcomes

Sports brand identification is understood as a degree to which a consumer feels

psychological, personal, experiential, and emotional connection to the sports team
(Wann et al. 2001, 3–4; Stevens and Rosenberger 2012). Strongly identified fans of
a sports team care more about the success of the team and feel similar with one’s
self-image (Branscombe and Wann 1992). According to the social identity theory,
identification with a brand is strongly linked with identity formation of a consumer
(Tsiotsou 2012; Bodet and Bernache-Assollant 2011). Beech and Chadwick (2004,
408) further state that as a sports team brand is strongly symbolic in nature, it
enables the team’s fans to use it as an extension of themselves.
Previous evidence of strong identification to a sports brand is strongly connected
with cognitive and emotional brand experiences as well as with behavior. Strongly
identified fans are more prone to trying to influence the game result (e.g., by cheer-
ing) and are better informed about the team (Wann et al. 2001, 4), experience stron-
ger feelings in following the game (Wann and Branscombe 1993), more likely do
1056 J. Munnukka et al.

not grow away from the team (Branscombe and Wann 1992) and experience stron-
ger delight in the team’s success (Madrigal 1995). Brand identification also has
behavioral outcomes such as higher willingness to use time and money on the team
(Wann and Branscombe 1993) and higher engagement in word-of-mouth communi-
cation (Fetchko et al. 2013, 34). Identification to a sports team increases the atten-
dance in sport events (Wann et al. 2001; Stevens and Rosenberger 2012; Matsuoka
et al. 2003) and decreases price sensitivity (Milne and McDonald 1999, 14).
Identification also positively affects satisfaction and loyalty to the team (Stevens
and Rosenberger 2012). In addition, strongly identified fans of a sports team bring
more revenues (Wann and Branscombe 1993; Stevens and Rosenberger 2012) and
are more likely to continue the similar patterns of behavior (Wu et al. 2012).
Morrison and Crane (2007) posit that brand experiences play a focal role in con-
sumers’ brand choices, service satisfaction and brand loyalty. Also Brakus et al.
(2009) and Nysveen et al. (2013) show that different types of brand experiences
affect satisfaction and loyalty to the brand. Zarantello and Schmitt (2010) suggest
that brand experience influences buying behavior, which however may differ
between consumer segments. These studies provide congruent evidence of the con-
sequences of brand experiences by suggesting that it has only a weak and either
positive or negative direct effect on satisfaction and loyalty. Iglesias et al. (2011)
further support these findings by showing that brand experiences have no direct
effect on brand loyalty. They suggest that brand experiences create “true brand loy-
alty” only when affective commitment to the brand exists. Based on the prior evi-
dence we expect that the effects of the five types of brand experiences on brand
loyalty are mediated by brand identification and satisfaction. Thus, the following
hypotheses are set:
H3a–e  The effects of (a) a sensory, (b) an affective, (c) an intellectual, (d) a behav-
ioral, and (e) a relational type of brand experiences on brand loyalty are mediated
by identification and satisfaction.

Moderating Effect of the Number of Social Media Platforms

Choi and Yoh (2011) examined sponsorship activities and their effects. The study
found that using multiple communication channels instead of one, the sponsorship
activities became more effective. Similarly in this study we expect that the number
of different platforms or channels used for following the team in social media
strengthens the communication effectiveness. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H4  The number of social media platforms moderates the positive relationship
between social media engagement and brand identification such that when the num-
ber of social media platforms used is high, the stronger is the relationship between
social media engagement and brand identification.
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1057

H5a–e  The number of social media platforms moderates the positive relationship
between social media engagement and (a) a sensory, (b) an affective, (c) an intel-
lectual, (d) a behavioral, and (e) a relational type of brand experiences such that
when the number of social media platforms used is high, the stronger is the relation-
ship between social media engagement and brand experiences.

Data Collection

An online survey was conducted to collect data for testing the model and the hypoth-
eses. A total of 815 fans of a Finnish ice hockey team completed the questionnaire.
Respondents represented well the average fan base of the team with 75 % male
respondents and 25 % female. Majority of the respondents (70.5 %) were under 36
years of age. Around half of the respondents (48.3 %) attend the team’s matches at
least once a month and 22.1 % on a weekly basis. More than three out of four
(76.4 %) had been a fan of the team for more than 10 years. Around one fourth
(23.1 %) owned a season ticket.
The team is being followed through several social media platforms. Facebook is
the most commonly used (89.1 %), followed by Instagram (42.5 %), Twitter
(40.4 %), and YouTube (36.9 %). Social media is mostly used for reading, “liking”
or “retweeting” updates as well as visiting the team’s fan page. For instance, 98 %
of Facebook followers and 88 % of Instagram followers regularly or often read the
team’s updates. A total of 48 % and 43 %, respectively, “liked” the updates, but only
6 % and 5 % regularly or often commented the updates.

Measurement

The research instrument was constructed of scales validated in earlier studies. A

five-point scale for social media engagement was adapted from Gummerus et al.
(2012). The scale was originally constructed for Facebook context only, but it has
been adapted to the present study to enable the measurement of engagement in sev-
eral different social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube).
The scale of social media engagement that measured separately engagement in the
four different social media platforms was summed together in the final analyses as
a four-item composite scales that measure engagement in all the social media plat-
forms. The brand experience items measuring affective, sensory, behavioral, and
intellectual aspects are based on the scales proposed by Nysveen et al. (2013), who
adapted the instrument of Brakus et al. (2009). Relational component was added as
the fifth dimension of brand experience based on the study of Gentile et al. (2007).
For measuring brand identification we applied Sport Spectator Identification Scale
(SSIS) by Wann and Branscombe (1993). The scale has been verified in a number
of studies to measure reliably sport fans identification with a sports team (e.g.,
1058 J. Munnukka et al.

Madrigal 2000). A ten-point scale of cumulative satisfaction adapted from Homburg

et al. (2005) was constructed to measure sport consumers’ satisfaction to the team.
The scale measuring attitudinal loyalty was adapted from Heere and Dickson
(2008). Behavioral loyalty was measured with a scale from Bauer et al. (2008).

Results

The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded the final measurement
scale (Table 1) consisting of nine out of ten of the measured constructs. In the data
purification stage, the behavioral element of brand experienced was dropped due to
its poor fit to the model.
The convergent and discriminant validity and unidimensionality of the scales
were tested with CFA using AMOS. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .75 to .95, thus
demonstrating good internal reliability. The AVEs of the factor constructs (Table 2)
ranged from 0.59 to 0.84, exceeding the cut-off value 0.5. The component loadings
of each item also exceeded 0.5 confirming convergent validity. As the square roots
of the AVEs were clearly below the between-factor correlations in all cases, the fac-
tors are found distinctive, showing acceptable discriminant validity. Furthermore,
common method bias (CMB) was minimized by mixing the items in the survey and
keeping the respondents’ identities confidential. To rule out the chance that CMB
interferes with the results, we run a common latent factor (CLF) test (Podsakoff
et al. 2003). The results show that CMB is unlikely to have a significant effect on
the findings as the average method-based variance was just 0.06.

Structural Model

The results of the structural model are shown in Table 3. The model fit was assessed
through several indices, which suggest a good fit, despite the high chi-square mea-
surement. In addition, RMSEA value of 0.057 indicates a reasonable fit. The results
support most of the hypotheses. Four dimensions of brand experience were included
in the final model as the behavioral experience construct did not show adequate
discriminant validity. The model accounts for 53 % of the variance in behavioral
loyalty, 29 % in attitudinal loyalty, 47 % in satisfaction, and 68 % in identification
with the brand.
The team’s fans engagement in the team-related social media communities were
expected to be positively associated with five types of brand experiences (H1a–e) and
brand identification (H2). The results support hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1e
as the positive relationships between social media engagement and sensory, affec-
tive, intellectual, and relational experiences were detected. The positive relationship
between engagement and identification (H2) was also verified. To test the mediation
hypotheses (H3a–e), we first assessed the conditions for mediation by looking at the
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1059

Table 1  Measurement model

Factor Item Loading
Social media Frequency of reading/acknowledging updates 0.904
engagement Frequency of visiting the team’s fan pages in social media 0.946
(α 0.947) Frequency of “liking” the updates of the team 0.946
Frequency of commenting the team’s updates 0.840
Brand experience
Sensory The team’s visual brand image makes a strong impression 0.626
(α 0.782) on my senses
… home matches gives me strong visual experiences 0.833
… are always spectacular events 0.858
Affective I have strong emotions for the team 0.901
(α 0.851) The team brand often engage me emotionally 0.822
Intellectual Brand often challenge my way of thinking 0.624
(α 0.753) Being a customer of the team induces to broaden my 0.968
world view
Relational When participating the team’s home matches I feel like I 0.855
(α 0.893) am part of a community
I feel like I am part of the team family 0.947
When I participate in the team’s events I don’t feel left 0.733
alone
Identification How strongly do you consider yourself as the team’s fan? 0.916
(α 0.853) How strongly do your friends consider you as the team’s 0.874
fan?
How often do you convey the team’s name or sign… 0.835
Satisfaction All in all, how satisfied are you with the team’s match 0.871
(α 0.784) events?
Overall, how well the team’s events meet your 0.852
expectations?
Overall, how well the team has performed competitively? 0.519
Attitudinal loyalty I would still be committed to the team regardless of the 0.796
(α 0.877) lack of any star players
… not give up my loyalty to the team even though my 0.728
family stops supporting the team
… switch my loyalty from the team even if my close 0.811
friends were fans of another team
It would be difficult to change my beliefs about the team 0.852
Behavioral loyalty I will purchase a lot of team-related merchandise 0.826
(α 0.923) I often wear the colors and/or the logo of the team 0.958
In the future, I will often wear… 0.951

relationships between the independent variables (sensory, affective, intellectual, and

relational brand experiences) and the dependent variables (attitudinal and behav-
ioral loyalty) without the mediators (identification and satisfaction), the relationship
between the independent variables (experiences) and the mediators (identification
and satisfaction), and finally between the mediators and the dependent variable
1060 J. Munnukka et al.

Table 2  Discriminant validity, means, and standard deviations (SD)

AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Attitudinal loyalty .637 .798
(1)
Social media .828 .282 .910
engagement (2)
Relational .722 .547 .381 .850
Experience (3)
Sensory Experience .607 .307 .337 .573 .779
(4)
Intellectual .663 .225 .365 .516 .343 .814
Experience (5)
Affective .744 .634 .381 .687 .508 .385 .862
Experience (6)
Satisfaction (7) .585 .319 .274 .507 .648 .350 .395 .765
Behavioral Loyalty .835 .477 .428 .573 .327 .490 .569 .351 .914
(8)
Identification (9) .767 .676 .373 .669 .380 .395 .772 .406 .696 .876
Means 6.75 5.77 6.05 3.95 6.02 8.82 4.19 5.75
SD 4.21 1.36 0.99 1.62 1.19 1.10 1.97 1.40

(Hair et al. 2014, p. 222). These conditions were mostly met. The significant differ-
ences were: (a) of the brand experience dimensions, only affective and relational
experiences had a positive effect on identification, while sensory experience had
negative effect and intellectual dimensions had no effect on identification, and (b)
three types of brand experiences exhibits a positive effect on satisfaction while
affective experience was negatively related with satisfaction. No direct relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty was found.
Finally, to examine the indirect and mediating effects we calculated the signifi-
cance of the indirect effects by bootstrapping the sampling distribution and calculat-
ing the Variance Accounted For (VAF). The results in Table 4 reveal that the
hypothesized mediation effects exist only in the cases of affective and relational
brand experiences. The effects of affective experiences on attitudinal loyalty were
partially mediated through brand identification and satisfaction on attitudinal loy-
alty (VAF = .73). In the case of behavioral loyalty the indirect effects exceeded total
effects and thus the VAF value exceeds 1, indicating full mediation. This was due to
the inconsistent indirect effects. Affective experiences were positively related with
identification but negatively with satisfaction. The effects of relational brand experi-
ences on attitudinal loyalty (VAF = .53) and behavioral loyalty (VAF = .49) were
both partially mediated by identification and satisfaction. Sensory brand experi-
ences had no significant effect on attitudinal or behavioral loyalty. Intellectual brand
experiences has no indirect effect on brand loyalty.
In addition, we expected that the use of several social media platforms strength-
ens the effects of social media engagement on brand identification (H4) and the five
types of brand experiences (H5a–e). Of these hypothesized moderation effects only
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1061

Table 3  Testing the conceptual model and moderating effect of the number of channels used
H4 and H5a–e
2–4 Sig. of
Direct effects β 1 channel channels diff.
H1a SomeEng → ExpSens .335*** .306 .317 ns
H1b SomeEng → ExpAff .389*** .196 .442 p < .001
H1c SomeEng → ExpInt .384*** .178 .426 p < .001
H1e SomeEng → ExpRel .382*** .341 .443 ns
H2 SomeEng → Identy .116*** .091 .136 ns
Identy → Satis .199***
Identy → AttLoyal .569*** R squared
Identy → BehLoyal .527*** AttLoyal ??
ExpSens → Identy −.076* BehLoyal .529
ExpAff → Identy .520*** Satis .467
ExpInt → Identy .048ns Identy .684
ExpRel → Identy .279*** ExpSens .113
ExpSens → Satis .557*** ExpAff .152
ExpAff → Satis −.171** ExpInt .147
ExpInt → Satis .081* ExpRel .146
ExpRel → Satis .121*
ExpSens → AttLoyal −.022ns
ExpAff → AttLoyal .108ns
ExpInt → AttLoyal −.133***
ExpRel → AttLoyal .142**
ExpSens → BehLoyal −.020ns
ExpAff → BehLoyal .006ns
ExpInt → BehLoyal .258***
ExpRel → BehLoyal .079ns
Satis → AttLoyal .026ns
Satis → BehLoyal .012ns
Control ReLenth → Identy −.279***
Model fit χ2(283) = 1037.66; IFI = .955; TLI = .944;
RFI = .924; CFI = .955 RMSEA = .057
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns not significant, SomeEng social media engagement,
Identy identification with a brand, ExpSens sensory brand experience, ExpAff affective brand expe-
rience, EspInt intellectual brand experience, ExpRel relational brand experience, Satis satisfaction
with the brand experience, AttLoyal attitudinal brand loyalty, BehLoyal behavioral brand loyalty,
ReLength relationship length with the brand

H5b and H5c were supported as affective and intellectual experiences were more
strongly affected by social media engagement if several platforms were used.
Relationship length construct was control variable for the respondents’ identifica-
tion with the team. The analyses show that it has negative effect on identification
with the team.
1062 J. Munnukka et al.

Table 4  Indirect and total effects of the five types brand experiences on attitudinal and behavioral
loyalty
Indirect effects (β) Total effects (β) VAF Mediation
H3a ExpSens → AttLoyal −.030ns −.052ns n/a b No
ExpSens → BehLoyal −.034ns −.054ns n/ab No
H3b ExpAff → AttLoyal .294*** .402*** .73 Partial
ExpAff → BehLoyal .273*** .267*** n/a n/aa
H3c ExpInt → AttLoyal .029ns −.104* n/ab No
ExpInt → BehLoyal .026ns .284*** n/ab No
H3e ExpRel → AttLoyal .163** .305*** .53 Partial
ExpRel → BehLoyal .149** .305*** .49 Partial
Note: significant *** at the 0.001 level, ** at the 0.01 level, * at the 0.05 level; ns = not significant;
a
not applicable since the indirect effects exceed the total effects; bnot applicable since indirect
effects are not significant

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, we constructed and tested a conceptual model that extends prior
knowledge by examining the effects of social media engagement on brand experi-
ence, brand identification, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. The results show that the
proposed model accounts very well for brand loyalty. Consumers’ brand loyalty is
largely explained by their identification with the sports team, brand experiences and
their social media engagement with the team. The results add to current knowledge
by showing that social media engagement affects four types of brand experiences
(sensory, intellectual, affective, and relational). The results also show that in terms
of the effects of brand experiences on loyalty, only the effects of affective and rela-
tional experiences are mediated through identification and satisfaction on loyalty
whereas intellectual brand experience has only a direct effect on loyalty. This adds
to the findings of Brakus et al. (2009) and Nysveen et al. (2013). New insights are
also provided by showing that the use of multiple social media platforms for follow-
ing a brand strengthens the relationship between social media engagement and
intellectual and affective types of brand experiences.
The results of the study have strong managerial implications. Firstly, sports orga-
nizations should encourage social media participation, which is shown to positively
affect brand experience, brand identification, and, ultimately, satisfaction and loy-
alty towards the brand. As well as attracting new community members, organiza-
tions should pay attention to the needs of current community members. Sports
organizations should be active in social media, to which they should provide regular
and relevant content. Secondly, organizations should utilize more than one social
media platform. The brand experience of sports fans is, in relative terms, more posi-
tively affected when they use more than one social media channel. Thirdly, sports
organizations should concentrate particularly on the relational and intellectual
aspects of brand experience as these components most influence satisfaction loyalty.
In addition, sensory experience has a strong influence on fans’ satisfaction.
Effects of Social Media on Consumers’ Sports Brand Experiences and Loyalty 1063

References

Bee, C. C., & Kahle, L. R. (2006). Relationship marketing in sports: a functional approach. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 15, 102–110.
Beech, J., & Chadwick, S. (2004). The business of sport management. Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Bodet, G., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2011). Consumer loyalty in sport spectatorship services: The
relationships with consumer satisfaction and team identification. Psychology & Marketing,
28(8), 781–802.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1992). Role of identification with a group, arousal, categoriza-
tion processes, and self-esteem in sports spectator aggression. Human Relations, 45(10),
1013–1033.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2008). Promoting consumer’s participation in virtual
brand communities: A new paradigm in branding strategy. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 14(1), 19–36.
Choi, Y. S., & Yoh, T. (2011). Exploring the effect of communication channels on sponsorship
effectiveness: A case study of Super Bowl XLII. International Journal of Sport Management
and Marketing, 9(1), 75–93.
Cunningham, G. B., & Kwon, H. (2003). The theory of planned behaviour and intentions to attend
a sport event. Sport Management Review, 6(2), 127–145.
Fetchko, M. J., Roy, D. P., & Clow, K. E. (2013). Sports marketing. NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Jue, A. L., Alcalde Marr, J., & Kassotakis, M. E. (2010). Social media at work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting event
attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 205–227.
Marzocchi, G., Morandin, G., & Bergami, M. (2013). Brand communities: Loyal to the commu-
nity or the brand? European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 93–114.
Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and interaction effects of team identi-
fication and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(4),
244–253.
Milne, G. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999). Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process.
Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.
Morrison, S., & Crane, F. G. (2007). Building the service brand by creating and managing an
emotional brand experience. Journal of Brand Management, 14(5), 410–421.
Podsakoff, P., Lee, J.-Y., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Pronschinske, M., Groza, M., & Walker, M. (2012). Attracting facebook ‘fans’: The importance of
authenticity and engagement as a social networking strategy for professional sport teams. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 21, 221–231.
Raïes, K., & Gavard-Perret, M. L. (2011). Brand loyalty intention among members of a virtual
brand community: The dual role of commitment. Recherche et Applications en Marketing
(English ed.), 26(3), 23–41.
Royo-Vela, M., & Casamassima, P. (2011). The influence of belonging to virtual brand communi-
ties on consumers’ affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising. Online
Information Review, 35(4), 517–542.
Shang, R. A., Chen, Y. C., & Liao, H. J. (2006). The value of participation in virtual communities
on brand loyalty. Internet Research, 16(4), 398–418.
Stavros, C., Meng, M. D., Westberg, K., & Farrelly, F. (2013). Understanding fan motivation for
interacting on social media. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 455–469.
Stevens, S., & Rosenberger, P. J. (2012). The influence of involvement, following sport and fan
identification on fan loyalty: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Sports
Marketing & Sponsorship, 13(3), 221–234.
1064 J. Munnukka et al.

Tapp, A., & Clowes, J. (2002). From “carefree casuals” to “professional wanderers”: Segmentation
possibilities for football supporters. European Journal of Marketing, 56(11/12), 1248–1269.
Tsiotsou, R. (2012). Developing a scale for measuring the personality of sport teams. Journal of
Services Marketing, 26(4), 238–252.
Walker, M., Kent, A., & Vincent, J. (2010). Communicating socially responsible initiatives: An
analysis of U.S. professional teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 187–195.
Wang, Y., Chan, S. F., & Yang, Z. (2013). Customers’ perceived benefits of interacting in a virtual
brand community in China. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), 49–66.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with
their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1–17.
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology
and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.
Waters, R. D., Burke, K. A., Jackson, Z. H., & Buning, J. D. (2011). Using stewardship to cultivate
fandom online: Comparing how national football league teams use their web sites and facebook
to engage their fans. International Journal of Sport Communication, 4, 163–177.
Wu, S., Tsai, C. D., & Hung, C. (2012). Toward team or player? How trust, vicarious achievement
motive, and identification affect fan loyalty. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 177–191.