From fandom to fad: are millennials really

engaged with and loyal to their loved brands

on social media?
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
School of Economics and Management, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – Exerting a peculiar fascination on both managers and academics, Millennials can be distinguished from other cohorts by their intense
exposure to the internet and heavy use of social media, which, in turn, affect their identity formation, brand engagement, loyalty and purchase
behaviour. Yet, uncertainties regarding online engagement and the real benefits brands can reap from Millennials’ avid use of social media remain.
Therefore, by developing a holistic model of drivers and outcomes, this study aims to understand how Millennials engage with their most loved, self-
expressive brands across social media platforms and its impact on loyalty-related intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Data was gathered using a self-administered survey, answered by 343 millennial generation social media users
and based on self-selected self-expressive, loved brands. Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, a holistic model was developed and tested
using partial least squares-structural equation modelling, emphasizing not only the role of social media engagement but also including brand love,
experience and identification as direct and indirect antecedents.
Findings – Findings suggest a disconnection between online and offline brand relationships: though Millennials love and are very loyal to their
favourite brands, they are not actively engaged in social media, which helps to explain the non-significant effect of engagement on brand loyalty.
Moreover, together with brand identification, brand experience was found to play a major role in developing brand love, which, in turn, is positively
related to engagement and loyalty.
Originality/value – Theoretically, this study contributes to bridging a gap in the literature, as research on engagement, its drivers and outcomes is
scant and there is no robust evidence about its impact on brand loyalty, particularly among Millennials. Moreover, research on disengaged
consumers who exhibit limited willingness to engage is still scant. Managerially, this study provides insights for brand managers wishing to
successfully engage and build relationships with Millennials and to identify key routes to Millennials’ loyalty.
Keywords Brand identification, Brand loyalty, Brand experience, Brand love, Millennials, Self-expressive brands, Social media engagement
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Although general agreement exists on Millennials’ frequent

The Millennial generation or Gen Y, roughly born between the
mid-1980s and early 2000s (Soares et al., 2017; Petrescu et al.,
2018), exerts a “peculiar fascination” on both managers and
academics (Bolton et al., 2013). Besides being the biggest
generational group since the Baby Boomers and enjoying high
buying power (Bilgihan, 2016), Millennials can be
distinguished from other cohorts in their intense exposure to
the internet from a very young age and their heavy use of social
media, which became an essential part of their very existence
(Soares et al., 2017). A need to interact with others is a key
reason for Millennials’ use of social media, which also affects
their identity formation, engagement with firms, brand loyalty
and purchase behaviour. Engaging this unique cohort to win
their hearts and minds and to foster their loyalty became a key
priority for most marketers (Kandampully et al., 2015).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
30/2 (2021) 320–334
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2262]
use of social media, the variety of ways in which they engage
with brands online deserves more research attention (Bolton
et al., 2013; Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016; Bento et al.,
2018): are they mainly passive observers or are they actively
engaged with their loved brands? Prior research is limited and
inconclusive: some studies suggest that Millennials actively
participate (Hayes et al., 2015), while others suggest that they
spend a considerable amount of time passively lurking (Bento
et al., 2018) and exhibit “an alarming lack of willingness”
(Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016, p. 507) to engage with
brands through social media-based brand communities
(SMBBC). According to generational theories, Millennials’
needs and habits may significantly differ from those of previous
generations (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Lissitsa and Kol,
2016) given their similar experiences, technologies and
adaptation to cultural and environmental changes (Chuah
et al., 2017). Millennials are surrounded by technology like
other generations never have been (Soares et al., 2017), which
Received 27 February 2019
Revised 2 August 2019
4 December 2019
8 March 2020
15 March 2020
Accepted 31 March 2020

320
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
may potentially cause variations in brand engagement and
social media behaviours (Bento et al., 2018; Florenthal, 2019).
Hence, further insights into Millennials “fans” and their brand
relationships are still needed (Wallace et al., 2017).
Moreover, there is no robust evidence regarding the real
benefits that Millennials’ avid use of social media can bring to
brands and its role in fostering their loyalty. In fact, empirical
validation of social media brand engagement (SMBE)
antecedents and consequences (specifically, brand loyalty)
remains nebulous to date (Islam et al., 2018; Loureiro et al.,
2017) and little is known on whether social media investments
pay-off (Lim et al., 2020). Generational theories highlight the
differences between Millennials and other cohorts in how they
relate to brands. Millennials are the least satisfied and more
disloyal customers compared to other generations (Bilgihan,
2016) and tend to emphasize emotional value more than their
predecessors (Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 2019). Considering
that Millennials are not only notoriously fickle (Lazarevic,
2012) but also heavy social media users, the digital landscape
should allegedly be a natural environment to engage and retain
them. However, businesses often fail to capture the attention of
Millennials, who perceive brands’ online presence as “cold and
distant” (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Accordingly, the
Marketing Science Institute (2018) elected consumers’
inattention, especially among Millennials, as a 2018-2020
research priority. Therefore, although this segment is very
desirable to brands, uncertainties regarding its online
engagement remain and call for research devoted to Millennials
social media use and its impact on loyalty-related outcomes.
Given the limitations of previous research, this study aims to
understand how Millennials relate with their most loved, self-
expressive brands across social media platforms and how this
contributes (or not) to foster their loyalty. As such, the study
addresses the following research questions (RQ):
RQ1. What are the key routes to Millennials loyalty? and
RQ2. How (and if) does SMBE contribute to fostering brand
loyalty among this challenging market segment?
Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, a holistic model
was developed, emphasizing not only the role of SMBE but also
including brand love, experience and identification as direct
and indirect antecedents. The model was tested across social
media platforms and considers both online and offline
relationships Millennials build with their favourite, self-
expressive brands. Self-expressive brands (i.e. those that
enhance one’s social self and/or reflect one’s inner self) were
considered in this study given its relevance while studying
Millennials. The consumption of brands and the use of social
media among Millennials is strongly motivated by needs of self-
expression (Doster, 2013; Ruane and Wallace, 2015; Wallace
et al., 2017) and Millennial consumers need to feel strong
positive emotions to activate the engagement process (Loureiro
et al., 2017).
The current study contributes to two main research fields.
Firstly, it contributes to the literature on social media
marketing and online brand communities (OBC), which has
mainly focussed on active engagement within these platforms
(Hollebeek et al., 2019). While analyzing disengaged
consumers, i.e. those who exhibit limited willingness to engage
321
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
with brands, this study extends previous research, which has
overlooked the topic and is inconclusive about the active vs
passive nature of Millennials’ fans. Additionally, the study
presents specific insights on SMBBC, which current research
(Dessart, 2017; Islam et al., 2018) examines through the lens of
traditional OBC, where members are highly engaged. Yet, in
SMBBC, substantial differences may exist in the levels of
members’ engagement and participation (Pasternak et al.,
2017). Secondly, the study contributes to consumer-brand
relationship theory, by adopting an expanded
conceptualization of brand loyalty and providing a holistic
understanding of the online and offline relationships that
Millennials develop with the brands they love. The study not
only supports previous findings regarding the role of emotional
consumer-brand connections but also extends prior research by
considering drivers and causal relations that were yet to be
empirically testes, such as the key influence of brand love and
brand experience. Moreover, the study challenges prior
assertions regarding the role of SMBE in fostering loyalty and
suggests a discrepancy between Millennials’ online and offline
brand relationships. Managerially, this study contributes to
helping brands seeking to understand the role played by social
media in their customer-oriented strategies, to understand key
routes to Millennials’ loyalty and to gain insights into
Millennials and their brand relationships.
2. Social media and consumer brand engagement
The growth of social media has established a new dynamic in
marketing, providing consumers a variety of ways to voluntarily
engage and nurture relationships with brands (Veloutsou and
Ruiz Mafe, 2020). Consumers engaged with brands on social
media tend to exhibit higher levels of trust, satisfaction,
emotional bonding and loyalty to the brand (Brodie et al.,
2011). Engagement is particularly relevant within the so-called
“fan pages” or SMBBC (Hook et al., 2018), through which
consumers engage with brands, while simultaneously sharing
their activities within their social group (Coelho et al., 2019).
SMBBC are vast reaching and very popular; do not have an
implicit or explicit structure; their social context is unique; and
members are more heterogeneous and participate on a bigger
scale (Habibi et al., 2014).
Consumer brand engagement (CBE) has been
conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, defined as a
“consumer’s positively valence brand-related cognitive,
emotional and behavioural activity during or related to focal
consumer/brand interactions” (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 154).
Afterward, Dessart (2017) further defined SMBE as:
[. . .] the state that reflects consumers’ positive individual dispositions
towards the community and the focal brand as expressed through varying
levels of affective, cognitive and behavioural manifestations that go beyond
exchange situations (p. 377).
Following extant research on SMBE (Table 1), the
multidimensional perspective of engagement will be used as a
basis for the analysis presented further in this paper.
SMBE has a significant role and growing importance for the
management of brands (Hollebeek et al., 2014) and can help
companies create an emotionally loyal customer base
(Kandampully et al., 2015). Yet, despite the growing interest
among academics and practitioners on how to engage
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 1 Overview of empirical research on multidimensional SMBE and its nomological network
Author(s) Context Sample Drivers Outcomes
Hollebeek et al. (2014) Social media brands Non-specific Consumer involvement Self-brand connection
Brand usage intent
Dessart (2017) SMBBC (Facebook) Non-specific Online interaction propensity Brand trust
Attitude towards participation Brand loyalty
Product involvement Brand commitment
Loureiro et al. (2017) SMBBC (Facebook) Millennials Brand involvement Satisfaction
Online brand experience Brand love
Self-brand image congruency Word-of-mouth
Harrigan et al. (2018) Tourism social media brands Non-specific Consumer involvement Self-brand connection
Brand usage intent
Islam et al. (2018) SMBBC (Facebook) Students Self-brand image congruity Brand loyalty
Value congruity
Carvalho and Fernandes (2018) SMBBC (Facebook) Non-specific Consumer involvement Satisfaction
Participation Word-of-mouth
Interactivity Brand trust
Flow experience Brand commitment

customers on social media (Dessart, 2017), scholarly and
managerial understanding on the nature and dynamics of
SMBE is limited to date (Hollebeek et al., 2017). Until 2013,
most studies on CBE have been conceptual and without a
social media focus (Dessart, 2017), with SMBBC deserving
only recent attention (Hook et al., 2018). As then, research on
the topic has evolved, but still, only a handful of empirical
studies on SMBE explore its antecedents and consequences,
most limited to Facebook-based communities and with no
generational focus (Table 1).
As such, many research gaps remain: the nomological
network of the construct is still in an embryonic stage of
development (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018; Wang and Lee,
2020); empirical validation of its drivers and loyalty-related
outcomes remains nebulous to date (Islam et al., 2018;
Loureiro et al., 2017); and further insights into social media
“fans” and their relationships with brands are still needed
(Wallace et al., 2017). Although many researchers believe that
social media is the ideal environment to develop consumer-
brand relationships, it is still unclear how the process of being
more loyal happens in SMBBC (Laroche et al., 2012).
Moreover, extant research on SMBE tends to study SMBBC
through the lens of traditional OBC, where members are highly
active and have a strong interest in the community and its
activities. However, in SMBBC, substantial differences may
exist in the levels of members’ engagement and participation
(Pasternak et al., 2017; Dessart et al., 2019; Florenthal, 2019).
Recent studies argue that most social media users are actually
“lurkers” (Chen et al., 2019) who merely read or watch brand-
related content, and therefore, are not actively engaged
(Maslowska et al., 2016). In this regard, the 90–9-1 rule states
that only 1% of users create content on a permanent basis, 9%
contribute from time to time, while roughly 90% remain silent
during social interactions (Simon et al., 2016). Moreover,
research by Forrester (2015) analyzed more than 3 million user
interactions with more than 2,500 brand posts on seven social
networks and concluded that brands achieve less than a 0.1%
engagement rate on six of the seven social networks. The
exception was Instagram, with an engagement rate of 4.21%;
however, it fell dramatically to 2.3% in 2015, barely half of
what it was in 2014 (Forrester, 2015). Considering that
engagement must overcome a certain intensity threshold to
unfold its effect (Fehrer et al., 2018), establishing a truly
engaging social media presence is a major challenge for brands
(Schultz and Peltier, 2013). Hence, although businesses are
increasingly exploring SMBBC to engage consumers, little is
known on whether the so-called “fans” are really loyally
engaged with the brand (Wallace et al., 2017; Munnukka et al.,
2015) and whether social media investments pay-off (Lim et al.,
2020).
3. Social media brand engagement among
millennials: fandom or fad?
Roughly born between the mid-1980s to the early 2000s
(Soares et al., 2017; Petrescu et al., 2018), Millennials are a very
desirable group for brands given their hefty number and high
buying power (Bilgihan, 2016). Yet, Millennials are also a
challenging market segment as they are notoriously fickle and
difficult to reach (Duffet, 2015; Lazarevic, 2012), turning them
into the most disloyal, value-conscious and least satisfied
customers compared to other generations (Bilgihan, 2016;
Chuah et al., 2017). Considering that this age group comprises
avid users of social media (Helal et al., 2018), the digital
landscape should be a natural environment to engage them
(Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Moreover, the boundaries
between online and offline activities may be less evident in this
age group (Petrescu et al., 2018), given that social media is an
essential part of their existence (Soares et al., 2017).
Yet, despite the widespread recognition of Millennials as a
unique, emerging consumer segment, insufficient research
attention has been devoted to their social media use and its
impact on loyalty-related intentions, both online and offline
(Soares et al., 2017). Although Millennials represent more than
80% of social media users (Helal et al., 2018), the way how they
engage with brands online is not clear (Bolton et al., 2013;
Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016; Bento et al., 2018): are they
mainly passive observers or are they actively engaged with and

322
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
loyal to their loved brands? Prior research is limited and
inconclusive on this matter: some studies suggest that
Millennials actively contribute (Hayes et al., 2015), while
others suggest that youngsters spend considerable time online
simply consuming content (Pempek et al., 2009; Duffet, 2015).
Within SMBBC, previous studies (Royo-Vela and
Casamassima, 2011) found that young consumers (<35 years
old) exhibited mainly non-participative forms of engagement,
with only a few highly involved in active participation. In their
qualitative study, Rissanen and Luoma-Aho (2016) further
show that young Millennials are not as enthusiastic about
SMBE as it would be expected, with the vast majority
exhibiting “an alarming lack of willingness” (p. 507) to engage
with brands on social media. Market research studies
corroborate these findings, with GlobalWebIndex (2018)
reporting that Millennials are visiting social networks but not
posting: 38% of Facebookers and 31% of Instagrammers say
they logged in just to see what’s going on. Previous managerial
studies have also concluded that younger, more mobile, brand-
conscious consumers show higher levels of boredom regarding
social media (Yazdanparast et al., 2015) and are beginning to
experience notorious social media fatigue (Logan et al., 2018),
leading to a decline in time spent on social media, brand
exposure and active engagement. Given the current debate on
SMBE effectiveness, namely among Millennials, further
insights are needed. Focusing on this generational cohort, this
study aims to understand how Millennials engage with brands
in social media; and if and how SMBE contributes to fostering
their loyalty.
4. Theoretical background and research
hypotheses
Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, this study
develops a holistic model to examine its potential drivers
among Millennials, including SMBE, brand love, brand
experience and brand identification as direct and indirect
antecedents. The hypotheses development draws from prior
SMBE literature (Table 1) and is supported by consumer-
brand relationship and generational theories. Following the
relationship perspective (Fournier, 1998; Veloutsou and
Ruiz Mafe, 2020), current loyalty paradigms have identified
meaningful relational determinants, such as brand love
(Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), brand identification (Albert
and Merunka, 2013), brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009)
and, particularly from 2014 onwards, brand engagement
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Yet, no consensus exists about
what type of brand relationships are more effective at
generating brand loyalty (Khamitov et al., 2019).
Additionally, generational theories state that generational
cohorts such as Millennials develop similar attitudes and
beliefs regarding market behaviours (Parment, 2013) given
their similar formative experiences, technologies, and
adaptation to environmental changes (Chuah et al., 2017).
Therefore, Millennials’ needs and habits may differ from
those of previous generations, potentially causing variations
in brand engagement, social media behaviours and loyalty
decisions (Bento et al., 2018).
323
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
4.1 The impact of social media brand engagement on
brand loyalty
CBE can help companies create an emotionally loyal customer
base (Kandampully et al., 2015). Conceptual work associates
CBE with positive attitudes towards the brand, retention and
word-of-mouth behaviour (Hollebeek, 2011). With the advent
of the digital age, opportunities to foster loyalty have increased
through virtual interactions and engagement with brands
(Schau et al., 2009; Schultz and Peltier, 2013). When
consumers allocate cognitive capacity, develop affective bonds
and invest time and effort interacting with a brand, they are
more likely to develop brand loyalty (Leckie et al., 2016). Yet,
empirical evidence of this relationship remains limited to date
(Harrigan et al., 2018; Coelho et al., 2019; Dessart et al., 2019),
namely, in a social media context, where only a few studies
(Table 1) concluded that SMBE and its dimensions impact
loyalty-related outcomes. As avid users of social media,
Millennials should allegedly interact with brands in a more
active, natural and intuitive way than older generations (Bento
et al., 2018), which, in turn, should contribute to engage and
retain them (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Thus, it is
expected that:
H1. There is a positive relationship between (a) affective, (b)
cognitive and (c) behavioural SMBE and brand loyalty.
4.2 The impact of brand love on social media brand
engagement and brand loyalty
Brand love can be defined as “the degree of passionate
emotional attachment a satisfied customer has for a particular
trade name” (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006, p. 81), and entails
feelings of passion and connection towards the brand (Batra
et al., 2012), such that the loved brand is considered
irreplaceable (Albert and Merunka, 2013). Consumers with
passionate feelings towards a brand are expected to engage
more actively with it (Fetscherin et al., 2019). Loved objects
tend to demand investments of time and energy, which helps to
make them existentially meaningful (Ahuvia, 2005). As such,
investing a high level of resources, having frequent interactions
with or thoughts and feelings about a brand (i.e. engaging with
it) are important indicators of brand love and signal attachment
to the brand and its integration into the self (Batra et al., 2012).
Although corresponding to different constructs, brand love is
conceptually close to involvement (Karjaluoto et al., 2016),
which has been found to be an antecedent of affective, cognitive
and behavioural SMBE (Table 1) thus offering a first indication
that brand love is related to CE and its three dimensions. In an
offline context, further evidence exists regarding this
relationship (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Islam and
Rahman, 2016). Furthermore, brand love has been positively
associated with brand loyalty and advocacy (Carroll and
Ahuvia, 2006; Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Fetscherin et al., 2019).
According to Roy et al. (2013), a consumer who falls in love
with a brand will develop much stronger loyalty compared to
those without brand love. Love-based brand relationships have
been identified as the most strongly linked to brand loyalty
(Khamitov et al., 2019). Loving a brand is a unique and
valuable relationship (Loureiro et al., 2017), which consumers
may wish to recommend and preserve in the future. Brand love
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
matters particularly to Millennials, who tend to emphasize
more emotional value than their more price-conscious
predecessors (Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 2019) and need to feel
especially positive emotions to activate the engagement process
(Loureiro et al., 2017). The significance of brand love to
Millennials and extending previous studies developed in offline
contexts that relate brand love, CBE and loyalty, it is predicted
that:
H2. There is a positive relationship between brand love and
(a) affective, (b) cognitive and (c) behavioural SMBE.
H3. There is a positive relationship between brand love and
brand loyalty.
4.3 Brand identification and brand experience as
antecedents of brand love and brand loyalty
4.3.1 The impact of brand identification and brand experience on
brand love
Brand identification (Albert and Merunka, 2013) and brand
experience (Roy et al., 2013) have been identified as
antecedents of brand love. Scholars posit that brand love
involves the integration of a brand into a consumer’s sense of
identity (Batra et al., 2012) and that a certain brand can be
particularly loved if it reflects consumers’ identity (Huber et al.,
2015). Consumer-brand identification (CBI) has been defined
as a “consumer’s perceived state of oneness with a brand”
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 407) or as “the extent to
which the consumer sees his or her own self-image as
overlapping the brand’s image” (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen,
2010, p. 506). Consumers may use brands to build their
identity (Ahuvia, 2005) and to express their self-concept
(Tuškej et al., 2013), with loved objects (or brands) frequently
perceived as an integral part of one’s self (Karjaluoto et al.,
2016). Self-expressive brands are defined as “the customers’
perception of the degree to which the specific brand enhances
one’s social self and/or reflects one’s inner self” (Carroll and
Ahuvia, 2006, p. 82). The ubiquity of social media has offered
consumers additional opportunities for self-expressiveness
(Ruane and Wallace, 2015), which may be more critical online
than offline (Wallace et al., 2017): in social media, consumers
may use brands as a “shorthand” or as “subtle cues about
themselves” (Hollenbeck and Kaikati, 2012, p. 396), to create
a self-identity (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Therefore,
consumers who follow brands online may do so to allow that
brand to express their own ideals or actual selves (Vernuccio
et al., 2015; Wang and Lee, 2020). This may be particularly
true among Millennials (Islam and Rahman, 2016; Wallace
et al., 2014). Compared to older generations, young consumers
are more likely to use brands to create a self-identity (Doster,
2013) and to be affected by the degree of congruence between
their self-image and brand image (O’Cass and Frost, 2002),
which, in turn, increases brand love (Hwang and Kandampully,
2012).
In combination with brands that shape consumers’ identity,
positive brand experiences, defined as subjective, internal
consumer responses evoked by brand-related stimuli (Brakus
et al., 2009) stored in consumers’ memory (Maslowska et al.,
2016) are expected to predict strong emotional responses such as
brand love (Junaid et al., 2019). According to Fournier (1998), a
324
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
love relationship is the outcome of cognitive, emotional and
behavioural brand experiences. Brand experiential value may be
more relevant antecedents of consumer-brand relationships than
merely functional product characteristics (Delgado-Ballester and
Sabiote, 2015). Therefore, the “increasingly interactive and
experiential nature of consumer relationships” (Dessart et al.,
2015, p. 28), brand experience can contribute to increasing the
hedonic value of a brand (Ding and Tseng, 2015), which has
been identified as an antecedent of brand love (Carroll and
Ahuvia, 2006). Brand experience has also been considered a part
of the engagement ecosystem (Maslowska et al., 2016).
However, there is still scant research on brand experience
impacts (Khan and Fatma, 2017), particularly in the consumer-
brand relationship domain, with few empirical studies relating it
with brand love (Prentice et al., 2019) or CBE (Hepola et al.,
2017) and even less with SMBE (Loureiro et al., 2017). Yet,
according to Roy et al. (2013, p. 128), “it is plausible to argue
that the affective component of brand experience contributes to
generating romantic brand love”. Additionally, to develop brand
love a consumer must have not only feelings of identification
with a brand, but also positive experiences with it (Karjaluoto
et al., 2016). This is particularly so when applied to youngsters
(Hwang and Kandampully, 2012). Since Millennials were raised
in a time when almost everything is branded and their loyalty is
difficult to attain (Bilgihan, 2016), to become a viable option for
this generation brands have to add value to their lives through
new hedonic and/or experiential dimensions (Lissitsa and Kol,
2016); in essence, all the Millennial generation cares about is the
experience itself (Williams and Page, 2011). Considering that
the compound effect of these two constructs on brand love is yet
to be examined, specifically regarding Millennials, it is predicted
that:
H4. There is a positive relationship between brand
identification and brand love.
H5. There is a positive relationship between brand
experience and brand love.
Moreover, positive and affectively charged brand experiences
capable of playing a defining role in a person’s sense of self have
been acknowledged as drivers of CBI (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
2012). CBI can develop or consolidate over time through
multiple experiences with a product or brand (So et al., 2013).
Yet, as empirical evidence to support it is currently lacking (So
et al., 2017), it is expected that:
H6. There is a positive relationship between brand
identification and experience.
4.3.2 The impact of brand identification and brand experience on
brand loyalty
According to Ahearne et al. (2005, p. 5), consumers who
strongly identify with a certain brand “tend to purchase more
and recommend the company’s products more often” as a
means of self-expression. Previous conceptual research
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) suggests that CBI positively
influences loyalty-related outcomes, which all may be
particularly true among youngsters (Hwang and Kandampully,
2012; Lu and Xu, 2015) given that their consumption of
brands is strongly motivated by needs of self-expression
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
(Doster, 2013). However, prior research presents mixed results
on the direct or indirect nature of this link (Khamitov et al.,
2019). While some empirical studies (Kuenzel and Halliday,
2008; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Tuškej et al., 2013) claim
that CBI has a direct impact on brand loyalty, others found the
relationship insignificant (Leckie et al., 2016) or mediated by
customer judgments (Lu and Xu, 2015; So et al., 2013) such as
brand love (Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016; Bergkvist and Bech-
Larsen, 2010). Considering that when customers identify with
a brand, they develop a strong emotional attachment, which
leads to favorable attitudes and behaviours towards the brand,
it is stated that:
H7. There is a positive relationship between brand
identification and brand loyalty.
H8. Brand love mediates the relationship of brand
identification with brand loyalty.
Although brand experience has been receiving increasing
research attention (Andreini et al., 2018), the direct or indirect
link with brand loyalty remains controversial in the literature.
Prior studies have found a direct relationship between brand
experience and loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009), whereas others
argue that no direct relationship exists, but rather one fully
mediated by commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011), trust (Khan
et al., 2020) or relationship quality (Francisco-Maffezzolli et al.,
2014). According to Ramaseshan and Stein (2014), experience
itself may not be capable of generating brand loyalty unless it
elicits strong emotional responses such as brand love, which
may be the case regarding Millennials, given their emotional-
driven nature. Thus, it is predicted that:
H9. There is a positive relationship between brand
experience and brand loyalty.
H10. Brand love mediates the relationship of brand
experience with brand loyalty.
5. Research methodology
Data collection. To test the research hypotheses, a survey
method was adopted to describe and interpret the relationships
among existing variables. In line with purposive sampling
techniques, a convenience sample of friends, college students
and personal acquaintances belonging to the Millennial
generation was invited through mail and social media posts to
participate in a web-based, cross-sectional survey about the
relationships established with loved brands on social media.
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Brands were self-
selected by respondents, an approach commonly used in
previous branding studies. When starting the survey,
respondents were instructed to choose a loved, self-expressive
brand, specifically defined as a brand to which they had a strong
emotional attachment, that reflected their self-concept (Carrol
and Ahuvia, 2006; Tuškej et al., 2013) and which they followed
on social media. Respondents then completed the
questionnaire with reference to the brand they had named. The
questionnaire had 26 mandatory questions based on multi-item
scales previously established in the literature, assessed in a
seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “totally disagree” to
325
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
“totally agree” (Table 2). Information on demographics and
social media habits was also collected. Age, gender, education,
employment position, social media usage frequency and social
media platform were measured as control variables. A total of
343 responses from Millennial social media users were
received.
Data analysis. Following recent research on CBE (Hepola
et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2018), partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using the Smart
PLS 3.0 software (Ringle et al., 2012) was used. PLS-SEM is a
robust modelling technique, with few identification issues and
well-suited for assessing complex predictive models and testing
the strength of relationships between latent variables (Hair
et al., 2014). Main results are shown in the next section.
6. Research findings
Sample. Respondents’ ages spanned from 18 to 29 years old,
with 66% at 22 years old or less, including 47% undergraduates
and 32% graduates. Moreover, respondents were
predominantly (80%) women, in agreement with the
population of interest: recent studies (Pew Research Center,
2018) indicate that women are the most active social media
users across all platforms (except YouTube). Additionally,
54% of the respondents spent 1 to 3 h per day on social media,
while only 12% were light users (<1 h). Seventy per cent were
students, while the remaining 30% had a part or full-time job,
which is in line with the millennial generation, who includes
either students or relatively recent entrants to the workforce
(Bolton et al., 2013). The inclusion of both student and non-
student respondents offers a contribution to prior research,
which mainly focussed on the former over the latter (Ruane and
Wallace, 2015; Wallace et al., 2014). Self-selected brands were
very diverse and mostly commercial (72 per cent), with Zara
(8%), Adidas (3.5%) and Apple (3%) among the top cited.
Regarding social media platforms, 52.2% follow self-selected
brands on Instagram, 37.9% on Facebook and the remainder
on e.g. YouTube or Snapchat. As previous research has mainly
focussed on Facebook (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018; Bento
et al., 2018; Table 1), the validation of the model across social
media platforms also stands as a contribution of this study.
Measurement model. Composite measures of identified factors
are unidimensional and demonstrate good scale reliability
according to accepted standards (Nunnally, 1978). All factors
show strong Cronbach’s alpha, whereas composite reliabilities
(CR) and average variances extracted (AVE) are above-
recommended minimums of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, all factors demonstrate
good internal consistency and high levels of convergence
(Table 2).
Convergent and discriminant validity are demonstrated by
factor loadings and by investigating the latent constructs
correlations and the square root of their specific AVE,
respectively. All factor loadings for indicators measuring the
same construct are statistically significant (p < 0.01),
supporting convergent validity. Moreover, estimated pairwise
correlations between factors do not exceed 0.85 and are
significantly less than 1 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); and the square
root of AVE for each construct is higher than the correlations
between them (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), supporting
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 2 Measurement scales, reliability and dimensionality statistics

Measures Loadings t-value Mean value CR (AVE)
Consumer-brand identification (a = 0.817) 0.892 (0.733)
Tuškej et al. (2013)
I feel that my values and the values of [brand] are very similar 0.869 20.085 4.872
I feel that my personality and the personality of [brand] are very similar 0.899 24.993 4.644
I have a lot in common with other people using [brand] 0.797 14.204 4.574
Brand experience (a = 0.915) 0.946 (0.854)
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012)
I have had a lot of memorable experiences with [brand] 0.904 28.924 5.277
Thinking of [brand] brings memorable experiences to mind 0.942 47.071 4.688
I have fond memories of experiences with [brand] 0.927 34.016 4.711
Brand love (a = 0.867) 0.909 (0.715)
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen(2010)
I would miss [brand] if it was no longer available 0.795 19.161 5.665
I am very attached to [brand] 0.853 36.554 5.306
[Brand] is totally awesome 0.854 17.484 6.082
I love [brand]! 0.879 26.967 6.020
Affective SMBE (a = 0.897) 0.936 (0.829)
Dessart (2017)
I feel enthusiastic while interacting with [brand] and its community 0.918 23.389 4.026
I get pleasure from interacting with [brand] and its community 0.919 25.062 4.341
When I interact with [brand] and its community, I feel happy 0.894 16.198 3.650
Cognitive SMBE (a = 0.852) 0.911 (0.773)
Dessart (2017)
When I interact with [brand] and its community, I get carried away 0.909 18.282 3.554
Time flies when I am interacting with [brand] and its community 0.914 16.285 3.545
When I interact with [brand] and its community I forget everything else 0.812 10.595 2.405
Behavioral SMBE (a = 0.760) 0.813 (0.592)
Dessart (2017)
I share/comment/like content about [brand] and its community 0.783 11.277 4.172
I seek ideas or information about [brand] from its community 0.818 12.551 4.924
I ask questions and seek help from [brand] and its community 0.703 6.601 2.746
Brand Loyalty (a = 0.882) 0.908 (0.586)
Yoo and Donthu, (2001), Ramaseshan and Stein (2014)
I am dedicated to [brand] 0.763 28.536 4.210
I would be willing to pay a higher price for [brand] over other brands 0.761 19.863 4.341
I would recommend [brand] to friends and family 0.745 17.008 6.070
I say positive things about [brand] to other people 0.727 11.977 5.991
I prefer to buy [brand] even if another brand has the same features 0.839 18.675 4.930
I will not buy other brands if [brand] is available at the store 0.717 12.338 4.120
[Brand] would be my first choice in its category 0.796 13.801 5.472

discriminant validity (Table 3). After establishing the strength
and psychometric properties of the scales underpinning the
model, the degree of multicollinearity among the model
variables was examined through the variance inflation factor
(VIF). Values vary from 1.263 to 4.218, which is below the
common cut-off threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2014) and thereby
suggest that the factors are not highly correlated to one another.
To reduce potential common method bias (CMB), the
survey used existing scales, counterbalanced the order of the
measurement variables and ensured the respondents’
anonymity (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In addition, CMB was
examined by performing the Harman’s single-factor test
(Harman, 1976), which demonstrated that none of the factors
accounted for most of the covariance among items.
Structural model. The structural model (Figure 1) was
estimated through a bootstrap resampling tool to determine
path significances. The results indicate, which paths are
statistically significant, with the structural model explaining
54.5% of the variance in brand love, 56.9% of CBI, 64.8% of
brand loyalty and 18.5% of affective, 11.1% cognitive and
17.3% behavioural SMBE. Findings provide support for H4,
H5 and H6, with a significant direct positive effect of CBI ( b =
0.197) and brand experience ( b = 0.578) on brand love; as well
as between brand experience and CBI ( b = 0.754). Support

326
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 3 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations of control variables and model constructs
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
a
1.Gender
2.Age 0.027

3.Usage freqb 0.101
0.121
4.Employmentc 0.010
0.474 0.050

5.Educationd 0.087
0.362 0.013
0.073

6.Social platforme 0.013
0.093
0.019
0.054
0.062

7.CBI 0.231 0.015
0.010
0.053
0.037
0.048
0.856
8.Brand Exp 0.168 0.042
0.012
0.110
0.020
0.041
0.753 0.924
9.Brand love 0.083
0.093
0.041
0.028
0.010
0.047
0.633 0.727 0.816
10.Affective SME 0.209 0.020
0.037
0.073
0.030
0.055
0.537 0.627 0.430 0.911
11.Cognitive SME 0.223 0.035
0.015
0.040
0.077
0.076
0.458 0.511 0.333 0.828 0.879
12.Behavior SME 0.129 0.030
0.003
0.041
0.052
0.077
0.501 0.519 0.416 0.755 0.681 0.770
13.Brand loyalty 0.157 0.027
0.005
0.045
0.009
0.069
0.641 0.692 0.758 0.516 0.419 0.499 0.765
Notes: The square roots of AVE of each factor are in boldface on the diagonal; the remaining figures represent correlations. 1 = female, 2 = male; 1 = 1 h a b

or less, 2 = 1 to 3 h, 3 = more than 3 h; c1 = student, 2 = non-student; d1 = undergraduate, 2 = graduate, 3 = postgraduate; e1 = Facebook, 2 = Instagram,


3 = Other Non-significant correlations (p > 0.05)

Figure 1 PLS results for the full structural model [dotted lines indicate non-significant path coefficients (p > 0.05)]
 = 0.142 (p = 0.012)

 = 0.518 (p = 0.000)
R2 = 0.569 R2 = 0.185

Consumer Affective  = 0.071

Brand  = 0.197 R2 = 0.545  = 0.430 SMBE (p = 0.293)
R2 = 0.648
Identification (p = 0.000) (p = 0.000)
R2 = 0.111
 = 0.754 Brand  = 0.333 Cognitive  = 0.012 Brand
(p = 0.000) Love Loyalty
(p = 0.000) SMBE (p = 0.827)

Brand  = 0.578 R2 = 0.173

(p = 0.000)  = 0.416
Experience (p = 0.000)  = 0.015
Behavioral
(p = 0.521)
SMBE

 = 0.0115 (p = 0.093)

was also found for H2 and H3, with a significant, positive
relationship between brand love and affective ( b = 0.430),
cognitive ( b = 0.333) and behavioural ( b = 0.416) SMBE, as
well as between brand love and brand loyalty ( b = 0.518).
However, the effect of all three dimensions of SMBE on brand
loyalty was found non-significant (affective ( b = 0.071),
cognitive ( b = 0.012), behavioural ( b = 0.015; p > 0.05) and
so H1 was not supported.
Regarding the direct effects of CBI and brand experience on
brand loyalty (H7, H9) and their potential indirect effects
through brand love (H8, H10), a mediation analysis was
conducted by applying a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher
and Hayes, 2008) based on 5,000 samples. Regarding total
effects (i.e. without controlling for mediating effects), results
provide support for H7 and H9, with a significant, positive
relationship of brand loyalty with CBI ( b = 0.256) and brand
experience ( b = 0.648). Results further suggest that brand love
only partially mediates the CBI to loyalty path (indirect effect =
0.114; p = 0.000): the direct effect is lower, but still significant
( b = 0.142; p = 0.012) when controlling for brand love (H8).
Finally, the indirect effect of brand experience on loyalty is
significant ( b = 0.533; p = 0.000) while the direct effect
becomes non-significant when controlling for brand love ( b =
0.115; p = 0.093), indicating full mediation (H10).
While controlling for potentially relevant consumer variables,
only gender was found to be significantly related to model
constructs (Table 3). To test for gender effects, the sample was
split into two groups: male (Group 1; n = 70) and female (Group
2; n = 273). Although the sub-samples have different dimensions,
respondents’ profiles were similar in both data sets, as required
for comparability of male (mean age: 22.1; undergraduates:
51.1%; students: 71.4%; 56% spend 1 to 3 h per day on social
media) and female (mean age: 21.9; undergraduates: 48.2%;
students: 70.4%; 53% spend 1 to 3 h per day on social media)
groups. Separate models were estimated for each group and a
non-parametric PLS multi-group analysis was run to compare
differences in path coefficients, an approach considered robust
even when it comes to unequal group sizes (Sarstedt et al., 2011).
Bootstrap estimates were used to assess the robustness of group-
specific parameter estimates. Path models were consistent across
gender, except for brand love effects on affective, cognitive and
behavioural SMBE (Table 4), which were significantly higher
(p = 0.000) for Group 1 when compared to Group 2, revealing
gender’s moderating role.

327
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
Table 4 Results of the PLS multi-group analysis
Group 1
Paths b R2
Brand love ! Affective SMBE 0.586
Brand love ! Cognitive SMBE 0.499
Brand love ! Behavioural SMBE 0.607
Note: The column “Sig. Diff” shows whether the correspondent path coefficients significantly differ between groups (
p < 0.05)
7. Discussion and contributions
This study aimed to understand how Millennials relate and
engage with their most loved, self-expressive brands in social
media and to understand if and how SMBE contributes to
fostering brand loyalty among this challenging market segment.
Several key routes to Millennials loyalty were identified
(RQ1). Firstly, the vital role of developing emotional
relationships between Millennials and brands (Loureiro et al.,
2017), findings support previous assertions regarding the
impact of brand love on brand loyalty (H3). Secondly, CBI was
identified as a direct and indirect antecedent of brand loyalty
(H7, H8), preceding brand love (H4). Although the literature
presents mixed results on this matter, the direct impact could
be explained since self-expressive brands possess high levels of
symbolic meaning (Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016). According to
Lazarevic (2012), a brand can overcome Millennials disloyal
nature if it delivers the values and has the identity of this
generation; this can be particularly true for self-expressive
brands (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Lu and Xu, 2015).
Thirdly, this study further expands previous research while
identifying brand experience as an indirect antecedent of brand
loyalty among Millennials (H10), preceding brand love (H5)
and CBI (H6). This finding follows Roy et al.’s (2013) assertion
that “brand experience contributes to generate romantic brand
love by inducing brand-related arousal” (p. 328) and which was
yet to be empirically tested.
However, unlike CBI, brand experience had no direct impact
on brand loyalty. In the branding literature, the link between
experience and loyalty remains controversial, with most studies
failing to provide empirical evidence on whether a direct impact
exists (Brakus et al., 2009) or if it is mediated by relational
constructs (Khan et al., 2020). Experience itself may not be
capable of generating true customer loyalty unless it elicits a
psychological, emotional connection (Ramaseshan and Stein,
2014), which might help to explain this result. Moreover, brand
experience also directly impacts CBI (H6), proving So et al.’s
(2013) assertion that consumers can develop identification
with a brand through multiple encounters. Therefore, brands
that focus on meaningful, emotional experiences may be
capable of generating brand loyalty (Ding and Tseng, 2015)
through its powerful effect on brand love and CBI. In fact,
brand experience was found as the most significant antecedent
of brand loyalty (H9) with a total effect of 0.648, surpassing
brand love (with a total effect of 0.588) and CBI (with a total
effect of 0.256). Millennials are known to spend more money
on experiences than in materialistic items (Bilgihan, 2016) and
to respond positively to hedonic consumption (Chuah et al.,
2017). For example, a study by Forrester (2018) found that
almost half of Millennials (47%) value experiences more than
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
Group 2
b R2 Sig. Diff.
0.343 0.370 0.137 0.011

0.249 0.259 0.067 0.010

0.369 0.352 0.124 0.003

products. Moreover, a recent study found that technological,
experiential brands such as YouTube or Netflix are among the
most beloved by Millennials (Business Insider, 2018). As
affective, shareable experiences in social media may be a
significant part of the consumer experience with a brand, both
realities (brand experience and social media) may be
intertwined. Finally, brand love appears in this study as
informing Millennials’ online and offline relationships, given its
direct influence on SMBE (H2) and its direct (H3) and indirect
role in fostering brand loyalty, leveraging CBI impacts (H8)
and unfolding brand experience effects (H10).
However, SMBE was not found as a significant predictor of
brand loyalty among Millennials (H1), and even if brand love
did positively relate to SMBE (H2), its predictive capability was
rather weak (RQ2). Additionally, the average level of
engagement in this study was very low, with the majority of
SMBE items rating below four in a seven-point scale (Table 2).
These results suggest a disconnection between online and
offline brand relationships developed by Millennials: although
they love and are very loyal to their preferred brands, they are
not very active or engaged online. Therefore, they are online
“apathists” (Hollebeek, 2011) or “lurkers” (Chen et al., 2019),
who consider their online connections as a mere routine or a
“recreational appendage” (Smith and Gallicano, 2015, p. 87)
to their offline relationships. This might explain the non-
significant effect of SMBE on brand loyalty, since engagement
may have to overcome a certain threshold to unfold its effect
(Fehrer et al., 2018). Additionally, since the effects of online
communities may “evolve over time as consumer engagement
deepens and practices are integrated” (Schau et al., 2009, p.
37), it is possible that “the effects of practices in SMBBC may
not have evolved enough to significantly affect brand loyalty”
(Laroche et al., 2012, p. 1763). This implies that SMBE
strategies may work only with a small fraction of actively
engaged users that promote a more complex and diverse set of
practices.
The reason for this apparently limited willingness of
Millennials to engage may be grounded in their own
characteristics and social media habits, coupled with the
unique features of SMBBC. As avid users of social media,
Millennials may be the most likely “victims” of information
overload. As such, they may become “overwhelmed with too
many sites, too many pieces of content, too many friends and
contacts, and too much time spent keeping up with these
connections” (Logan et al., 2018, p. 358). Similarly, since most
brands use SMBBC to massively broadcast brand-related
content (Zaglia, 2013), followers and their friends become
overwhelmed with excessive unsolicited information round-
the-clock. As a result, social media users may pay less attention
to brand messages and become more selective about their
328
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
media exposure, which affects their decision to disengage (or
reduce engagement) with SMBBC. Prior studies concluded
that consumers who show higher levels of social media fatigue
are young, early social media adopters (Logan et al., 2018),
such as Millennials.
Moreover, there is a general agreement that Millennials are
social media savvy and highly brand conscious. As such,
Millennials see through many promotional tactics (Rodrigues
and Rodrigues, 2019), trust people over brands (Soares et al.,
2017) and may not expect organizations to interact with them
directly because these are perceived as either too big to care or
as too small to respond (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). As
such, Millennials do not hope to develop brand relationships
through their engagement activities online (Smith and
Gallicano, 2015) and only the “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO)
may still explain their heavy social media usage (Logan et al.,
2018).
Finally, gender effects were also assessed, revealing that the
impact of brand love on SMBE was significantly higher for
male vs female respondents (Table 4). This was a
counterintuitive result given that research ascertains that
women process information in a more emotional way, while
men are more analytical (Islam et al., 2018). One possible
explanation for this finding is that male fans develop SMBE
mainly because they are genuinely interested in the brands they
love. Conversely, women may develop SMBE with their
favourite brands for a variety of self-related needs (e.g.
socialization, special offers), which may be stronger drivers
than their admiration/love for the brand itself. Results offer
preliminary support to gender effects and corroborate a similar
pattern recently found regarding the impact of involvement on
SMBE (Wang and Lee, 2020). Yet, given the exploratory
nature of the analysis, this finding may need further validation
with a more representative, gender-balanced sample.
7.1 Theoretical and managerial contributions
Theoretical contributions. This study contributes to two main
research fields. Firstly, it extends previous literature on social
media marketing and OBC, which has overlooked disengaged
consumers and has traditionally regarded community members
as actively engaged. This study contends that this may not hold
in SMBBC, a weaker form of brand community (Zaglia, 2013),
where members are more heterogeneous and may develop
different levels of SMBE (Dessart et al., 2019). Regarding
Millennials, the study concludes that this cohort exhibits
limited willingness to engage with their loved brands in
SMBBC. Hence, this study contributes to previous research,
which was inconclusive about the active vs passive nature of
Millennials’ fans. Still, Millennials love and are very loyal to
their preferred brands, suggesting a previously unexplored
inconsistency between their online and offline brand
relationships. Additionally, these findings seem to support
previous assertions regarding increasing social media fatigue
among SMBBC members, particularly when it comes to tech-
savvy, brand-conscious and overwhelmed Millennial users.
Consumers’ inattention, especially among Millennials, was
identified as a 2018-2020 research priority (Marketing Science
Institute, 2018) and as far as is known this is one of the first
studies to address the topic.
329
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
Secondly, the study contributes to consumer-brand
relationship theory, given that no consensus exists about what
brand relationships are more effective at generating brand
loyalty nor on their shared nomological network (Khamitov
et al., 2019). Adopting a generational focus, this study identifies
key routes to Millennials’ loyalty and provides a holistic
understanding of the online and offline relationships that
Millennials develop with the brands they love. Findings not
only corroborate previous research regarding the significance of
strong emotional consumer-brand connections to brand loyalty
but also extend prior studies by considering causal relations
that were yet to be empirically tested. Specifically, brand love,
which has been rather absent from previous studies on SMBE
(Table 1) appears in this study as informing both online and
offline routes to Millennials loyalty. The study validates its
mediating role in the relationship of loyalty with CBI and brand
experience. This is also one of the few studies to simultaneously
examine the compound effect of CBI and brand experience on
brand love and to validate its significant impact on SMBE.
Results also empirically support the role of brand experience as
the most important (indirect) driver of Millennials loyalty.
Brand experience was found to directly impact CBI and brand
love, revealing an incremental contribution to prior limited and
mostly conceptual research. Finally, and more interestingly,
this study challenges previous assertions regarding the role of
SMBE in fostering brand loyalty, a novel and surprising finding
within the literature.
Managerial implications. This study provides insights for
brand managers who wish to successfully use social media to
stimulate engagement and build relationships with
Millennials. Businesses are increasingly exploring social
media to engage consumers, but little is known on whether
those investments pay-off. This study questions their
effectiveness and suggests brands should develop new
approaches to capture Millennials attention, to assess their
loyalty and to measure the success of their brand
relationships. Regarding attention, the study contends that
social media investments may not be worthwhile if
Millennials are overloaded with unsolicited brand content,
which they are not able to process or give attention to.
Accordingly, the study portrays this cohort as online
disengaged users, which likely explains why SMBE is a non-
significant driver of Millennials’ loyalty. Organizations
should, thus, be aware that simply maintaining a brand page
is no longer effective and should further innovate and develop
emotional interactions to enhance Millennials’ curiosity,
interest and connection. Yet, many brands still approach
social media as a collection of tactics (Schultz and Peltier,
2013), such as “developing a Facebook presence, doing a few
promotions, tweeting a few links and posting videos” (Logan
et al., 2018, p. 364). Although the intention is to boost their
business, these practices may fail to capture Millennials’
attention, who often perceive organizations as “cold and
distant” (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). As suggested by
Munnukka et al. (2015), brands should instead design
SMBBC to effectively influence the members’ emotions
towards the brand and to encourage them to interact with the
brand and with one another.
When it comes to assessing Millennials’ loyalty and brand
relationships, the study found that, although this cohort may
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
not be very active online, they love and are very loyal to their
preferred brands. Therefore, merely counting the number of
“likes” may not be enough to identify loyal consumers and may
even be misleading. Brands are, thus, advised to triangulate
social media metrics with other brand metrics and to follow the
key routes for Millennials’ loyalty presented in this study. For
instance, given that experience plays a major role in developing
loyalty, managers should use brand stimuli at their disposal to
create pleasant experiences to Millennials while interacting
with their favourite brands, both online and offline.
Additionally, given the significance of CBI, it may also be
valuable for brand managers to get an in-depth understanding
of the values their followers identify with to ensure relevant and
targeted content for their audiences. Finally, although the
analysis developed was exploratory, brands may need to
consider gender differences while developing their relationship
and engagement strategies.
7.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research
A convenience sample of brand lovers was used, including
mainly young women. Although this target represents most
social media users, generalizations should be taken with
caution, namely, regarding gender effects. Given the
exploratory nature and theoretical contribution of this study, it
is recommended that future research should address validity
concerns. Moreover, respondents self-selected loved brands
they considered self-expressive; although this enhances external
validity, it also implies having no control over selected brands
or any guarantee that respondents accurately chose brands that
reflect their self-concept. This criteria selection may also
encompass some favourability bias, which can lead to over-
estimated measures of model constructs. Additionally, while
there is support in the literature for the directionality of the
relationships hypothesized in this study, previous research has
identified reversed causal effects. For example, brand
experience (Islam et al., 2019) and brand love (Loureiro et al.,
2017) have been considered as outcomes (and not drivers) of
CBE. Given the iterative nature of the engagement process, this
may be explained by a “feedback loop” effect (Brodie et al.,
2011, p. 259) whereas relational antecedents can also be
relational consequences in subsequent customer-brand
interactions. Hence, a longitudinal study, capturing the
dynamics and interrelations among variables over time, could
be a promising avenue for future research. A longitudinal study
could also be useful to understand how much of Millennials’
behaviours reflect generational traits or age effects, i.e. if
changes occur as they grow older. Furthermore, although this
study focussed on the role of emotional connections in
leveraging SMBE and loyalty, other drivers (e.g. special offers),
should also be examined, as well as motives for disengagement
(e.g. social media fatigue). Moreover, respondents selected
mostly product brands they followed on Facebook or
Instagram, with only a few choosing other platforms and/or
service, company or human brands. Other studies may focus
other social media platforms such as YouTube and compare
different brand categories. Finally, Millennials may not be a
single homogeneous cohort, as distinct subgroups vary in terms
of age and life cycle stage and may, therefore, differ in their
social media use as well (Bolton et al., 2013); thus, intra-cohort
330
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
heterogeneity within Millennials’ SMBE could be further
explored in future studies.
References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. and Gruen, T. (2005),
“Antecedents and consequences of customer-company
identification: expanding the role of relationship
marketing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
pp. 574-585.
Ahuvia, A. (2005), “Beyond the extended self: loved objects
and consumers’ identity narratives”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 171-184.
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in
consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
Alnawas, I. and Altarifi, S. (2016), “Exploring the role of brand
identification and brand love in generating higher levels of
brand loyalty”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 111-128.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
modeling in practice – a review and recommended Two-Step
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., Zarantonello, L. and Soleruio, C.
(2018), “A renaissance of brand experience: advancing the
concept through a multi-perspective analysis”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 91, pp. 123-133.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural
equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R. (2012), “Brand love”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Bento, M., Martinez, L. and Martinez, L. (2018), “Brand
engagement and search for brands on social media:
comparing generations X and Y in Portugal”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 234-241.
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of
consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 504-518.
Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Bilgihan, A. (2016), “Gen Y customer loyalty in online
shopping: an integrated model of trust, user experience and
branding”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61,
pp. 103-113.
Bolton, R., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N.,
Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y. and Solnet, D.
(2013), “Understanding generation Y and their use of social
media: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267.
Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. and Zarontello, L. (2009), “Brand
experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect
loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
“Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
Business Insider (2018), “These are the 25 brands that
millennials love the most”, available at:www.businessinsider.
com/millennials-favorite-brands-2018-7
Carroll, B. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some antecedents and
outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 79-89.
Carvalho, A. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Understanding
customer brand engagement with virtual social communities:
a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and
moderators”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Vol. 26 No. 1-2, pp. 23-37.
Chen, X., Li, X., Yao, D. and Zhou, Z. (2019), “Seeking the
support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to
UGC platforms?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 986-1004.
Chuah, S., Marimuthu, M., Kandampully, J. and Bilgihan, A.
(2017), “What drives gen Y loyalty? Understanding the
mediated moderating roles of switching costs and alternative
attractiveness in the value-satisfaction-loyalty chain”, Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 124-136.
Coelho, A., Bairrada, C. and Peres, F. (2019), “Brand
communities’ relational outcomes, through brand love”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 154-165.
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Sabiote, E. (2015), “Brand
experiential value versus brand functional value: which
matters more for the brand?”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 49 Nos 11/12, pp. 1857-1879.
Dessart, L. (2017), “Social media engagement: a model of
antecedents and relational outcomes”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 375-399.
Dessart, L., Aldás-Moreno, J. and Veloutsou, C. (2019),
“Unveiling heterogeneous engagement-based loyalty in
brand communities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53
No. 9, pp. 1854-1881.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015),
“Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a
social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 28-42.
Ding, C. and Tseng, T. (2015), “On the relationships among
brand experience, hedonic emotions, and brand equity”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 7/8,
pp. 994-1015.
Doster, L. (2013), “Millennial teens design and redesign
themselves in online social networks”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 267-279.
Duffet, R. (2015), “Facebook advertising¨s influence on
intention-to-purchase and purchase amongst millennials”,
Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 498-526.
Fehrer, J., Woratschek, H., Germelmann, C. and Brodie, R.
(2018), “Dynamics and drivers of customer engagement:
within the dyad and beyond”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 443-467.
Fetscherin, M., Guzmán, F., Veloutsou, C. and Cayolla, R.
(2019), “Latest research on brand relationships:
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 133-139.
Florenthal, B. (2019), “Young consumers’ motivational drivers
of brand engagement behavior on social media sites”, Journal
331
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 351-391.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Forrester (2015), “How does your brand stack up on
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram?”, available at: https://go.
forrester.com/blogs/15-09-15-how_does_your_brand_stack_
up_on_facebook_twitter_and_instagram/
Forrester (2018), “Millennials drive the sharing economy”,
available at: www.forrester.com/report/Millennials1Drive1
The1Sharing1Economy/
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Francisco-Maffezzolli, E., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.
(2014), “Construing loyalty through brand experience: the
mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
GlobalWebIndex (2018), “Millennials report 2018: online
behaviors, attitudes & interests”, available at: www.
globalwebindex.com/reports/millennials
Habibi, M., Laroche, M. and Richard, M. (2014), “The roles
of brand community and community engagement in
building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 152-161.
Hair, J. Hull, J. Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling(PLS-
SEM), SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Harman, H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2018),
“Customer engagement and the relationship between
involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand
usage intent”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88,
pp. 388-396.
Hayes, M., van Stolk-Cooke, K. and Muench, F. (2015),
“Understanding Facebook use and the psychological affects
of use across generations”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 49, pp. 507-511.
Helal, G., Ozuem, W. and Lancaster, G. (2018), “Social media
brand perceptions of millennials”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 10,
pp. 977-998.
Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Hintikka, A. (2017), “The effect
of sensory brand experience and involvement on brand
equity directly and indirectly through consumer brand
engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 7-8, pp. 785-807.
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer
brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale
development and validation”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Tang, W. (2017), “Virtual brand
community engagement practices: a refined typology and
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 204-217.
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD logic –
informed customer engagement: integrative framework
revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 161-185.
Hollenbeck, C. and Kaikati, A. (2012), “Consumers’ use of
brands to reflect their actual and ideal selves on Facebook”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 395-405.
Hook, M., Baxter, S. and Kulczynski, A. (2018), “Antecedents
and consequences of participation in brand communities: a
literature review”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 277-292.
Huber, F., Meyer, F. and Schmid, D. (2015), “Brand love in
progress–the interdependence of brand love antecedents in
consideration of relationship duration”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 567-579.
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012), “The role of emotional
aspects in younger consumer-Brand relationships”, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 98-108.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J. and Batista-Foguet, J. (2011), “The role
of brand experience and affective commitment in
determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582.
Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Examining the effects of
brand love and brand image on customer engagement: an
empirical study of fashion apparel brands”, Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Islam, J., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L. (2018), “Consumer
engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of
congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 23-45.
Islam, J., Hollebeek, L., Rahman, Z., Khan, I. and Rasool, A.
(2019), “Customer engagement in the service context: an
empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 50, pp. 277-285.
Junaid, M., Hou, F., Hussain, K. and Kirmani, A. (2019),
“Brand love: the emotional bridge between experience and
engagement, generation-M perspective”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 200-215.
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015),
“Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a
special focus on the hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 379-414.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand
love and positive word of mouth: the moderating effects of
experience and price”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 527-537.
Khamitov, M., Wang, X. and Thomson, M. (2019), “How
well do consumer-brand relationships drive customer brand
loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand
relationship elasticities”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 435-459.
Khan, I. and Fatma, M. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of
brand experience: an empirical study”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 439-452.
332
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
Khan, I., Hollebeek, L., Fatma, M., Islam, J. and Rahman, Z.
(2020), “Brand engagement and experience in online
services”, Journal of Services Marketing, doi: 10.1108/JSM-
03-2019-0106.
Kuenzel, S. and Halliday, S. (2008), “Investigating
antecedents and consequences of brand identification”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 293-304.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M., Richard, M. 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.
Lazarevic, V. (2012), “Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle
generation Y consumers”, Young Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 45-61.
Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. and Johnson, L. (2016),
“Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand
loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
pp. 558-578.
Lim, J., Pham, P. and Heinrichs, J. (2020), “Impact of social
media activity outcomes on brand equity”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, doi:10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2298.
Lissitsa, S. and Kol, O. (2016), “Generation X vs generation Y
- a decade of online shopping”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 304-312.
Logan, K., Bright, L. and Grau, S. (2018), “Unfriend me,
please!: social media fatigue and the theory of rational
choice”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 357-367.
Loureiro, S., Gorgus, T. and Kaufmann, H. (2017),
“Antecedents and outcomes of online brand engagement:
the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-
mouth”, Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 985-1005.
Lu, J. and Xu, Y. (2015), “Chinese young consumers’ brand
loyalty toward sportswear products: a perspective of self-
congruity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 365-376.
Marketing Science Institute (2018), Research Priorities 2018-
2020, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. and Collinger, T. (2016), “The
customer engagement ecosystem”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 469-501.
Munnukka, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Tikkanen, A. (2015), “Are
Facebook brand community members truly loyal to the
Brand?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51,
pp. 429-439.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining
the effects of non-product-related brand associations on
status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88.
Parment, A. (2013), “Generation Y vs. Baby boomers:
shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for
retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Pasternak, O., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2017),
“Self-presentation, privacy and electronic word-of-mouth in
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
social media”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 415-428.
Pempek, T., Yermolayeva, Y. and Calvert, S. (2009), “College
students’ social networking experiences on Facebook”,
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 227-238.
Petrescu, M., Dobre, C. and Milovan-Ciuta, A. (2018),
“Social bonds and millennial consumers’ activity in social
networks”, International Journal of Internet Marketing and
Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 290-304.
Pew Research Center (2018), “Social media use in 2018”,
available at: www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-
use-in-2018/
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. and Podsakoff, N. (2012),
“Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Preacher, K. and Hayes, A. (2008), “Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Prentice, C., Wang, X. and Loureiro, S. (2019), “The
influence of brand experience and service quality on
customer engagement”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 50, pp. 50-59.
Ramaseshan, B. and Stein, A. (2014), “Connecting the dots
between brand experience and brand loyalty: the mediating
role of brand personality and brand relationships”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8, pp. 664-683.
Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D. (2012), “A critical look
at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Rissanen, H. and Luoma-Aho, V. (2016), “(Un)willing to
engage? First look at the engagement types of millennials”,
corporate communications”, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 500-515.
Rodrigues, C. and Rodrigues, P. (2019), “Brand love matters
to millennials: the relevance of mystery, sensuality and
intimacy to neo-luxury brands”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 830-848.
Roy, S., Eshghi, A. and Sarkar, A. (2013), “Antecedents and
consequences of brand love”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 325-332.
Royo-Vela, M. and Casamassima, P. (2011), “The influence of
belonging to virtual brand communities on consumers’
affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth
advertising: the ZARA case”, Online Information Review,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 517-542.
Ruane, L. and Wallace, E. (2015), “Brand tribalism and self-
expressive brands: social influences and brand outcomes”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 333-348.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J. and Ringle, C. (2011), “Multi-
Group analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling:
Alternative methods and empirical results”, Advances in
International Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 19-21.
Schau, H., Muniz, A. and Arnould, E. (2009), “How brand
community practices create value”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.
333
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
Schultz, D. and Peltier, J. (2013), “Social media’s slippery
slope: challenges, opportunities and future research
directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 86-99.
Simon, C., Brexendorf, T. and Fassnacht, M. (2016), “The
impact of external social and internal personal forces on
consumers’ brand community engagement on Facebook”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 409-423.
Smith, B. and Gallicano, T. (2015), “Terms of engagement:
analyzing public engagement with organizations through
social media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53,
pp. 82-90.
Soares, R., Zhang, T., Proença, J. and Kandampully, J. (2017),
“Why are generation Y consumers the most likely to
complain and repurchase?”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 520-540.
So, K., King, C., Hudson, S. and Meng, F. (2017), “The
missing link in building customer brand identification: the
role of brand attractiveness”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59,
pp. 640-651.
So, K., King, C., Sparks, B. and Wang, Y. (2013), “The
influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand
evaluation and loyalty development”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 31-41.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012),
“Drivers of consumer-Brand identification”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Tuškej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of
consumer–Brand identification in building brand
relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
pp. 53-59.
Veloutsou, C. and Ruiz Mafe, C. (2020), “Brands as
relationship builders in the virtual world: a bibliometric
analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 39, p. 100901.
Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C. and Pastore, A.
(2015), “Antecedents of brand love in online network-based
communities. A social identity perspective”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 706-719.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and deChernatony, L. (2014), “Consumer
engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and
WOM outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. and deChernatony, L. (2017),
“Consumers’ self-congruence with a “liked” Brand:
cognitive network influence and brand outcomes”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 367-390.
Wang, T. and Lee, F. (2020), “Examining customer
engagement and brand intimacy in social media context”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 54,
p. 102035.
Williams, K. and Page, R. (2011), “Marketing to the
generations”, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Yazdanparast, A., Joseph, M. and Qureshi, A. (2015), “An
investigation of Facebook boredom phenomenon among
college students”, Young Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 468-480.
 From fandom to fad
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Zaglia, M. (2013), “Brand communities embedded in social
networks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 2,
pp. 216-223.
About the authors
Teresa Fernandes (BS, MBA and PhD from University of
Porto) is an Assistant Professor at the School of Economics
and Management, University of Porto, where she is the
director of the MSc in Services Management and lectures in
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
334
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334
the area of Services and Digital Marketing. Her main research
focus is on consumer relationships, customer engagement, brand
experience and social media marketing. Her research has been
published in the Journal of Product & Brand Management, Journal
of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, etc. Teresa Fernandes is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: tfernandes@fep.up.pt
Inês Inverneiro holds a Master in Services Management
from the Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Portugal.
She has professional experience in the areas of marketing and
social media and currently works in an important group of
Casinos and Hotels in Portugal.