Università della Svizzera italiana

Faculty of Communication Sciences

Millennials customers’
expectation from online
interaction with brands

Master’s Thesis
of
Silvia Arcire
14-989-305

Thesis Supervisor: Prof.Omar Merlo

Academic year: 2015-16

Handing date: 09/2016
Contents

1. Chapter I: Introduction

1.1. Managerial problem, research problem, gap in literature

1.1.1. The managerial problem

1.1.2. The research problem

1.1.3. The Gap in literature

1.1.4. Importance of understanding consumer online behavior

1.2. Background

1.2.1. The internet

1.2.2. Social Networking Sites

1.2.3. State of research around millennials

1.2.4. The importance of social media and SNS

1.2.5. Brands and the digital environment

1.3. Chapter summary

2. Literature review

2.1. Why Millennials

2.1.1. Age cohort considered

2.1.2. Characteristics of millennials

2.1.3. Millennials in Europe

2.1.4. Millennials in UK

2.1.5. Millennials in Italy

2.1.6. BCG - reciprocity principle

2.2. Why Social media and Social Networking Sites

2.2.1. Research about the internet

2.2.2. The emergence of social media

 2.2.3. Definition of social media

2.2.4. Social Networking Sites

2.2.5. Relevance of SNS for this study

2.2.6. Facts and figures about social media and SNS impact on marketing

2.2.7. SNS and engagement

2.3. Consumer engagement: theoretical foundations

2.3.1. Engagement behaviours

2.3.2. Social media and engagement

2.3.3. Theories around customer engagement behaviour (CEB), interactivity and

social media

2.3.4. Uses and Gratification theory

2.3.5. Past research using Uses and Gratification framework

2.3.6. Motivation and sub-motivation under uses and gratification

2.4. COBRA MODEL

2.4.1. Motivations and COBRAs

2.4.2. Motivations and COBRAS in literature

2.5. Personality traits as antecedents of customer engagement behavior with FBP

3. Methods and methodology

3.1. Approach of the study

3.2. Measurement and scaling

3.3. Questionnaire form and design

3.4. Sampling

4. Data analysis

4.1. Data collection and preparation

4.2. Selecting the data analysis strategy

 4.3. Data analysis- British sample

4.3.1. Qualitative analysis

4.4. Data analysis- Italian Sample

4.4.1. Qualitative analysis

4.5. Results- Comparisons of psychographic dimensions

5. Interpreting the results of the data analysis

6. Recommendation

6.1. Limitations

6.2. Conclusion and further research

7. Citations

8. Appendix
 Millennials customers‘ expectation from online interaction with brands

The concept of social media is top of the agenda for many businesses executives today. Decision
makers, as well as consultants, try to identify ways in which firms can make profitable use of
applications such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Second Life, and Twitter (Kaplan et al., 2010,
p.59). Key issue for marketers resulting from the dramatic rise of social media is how brand pages
can be leveraged to engage customers and enhance relationships with brand (De Varies et al., 2014)
as online customer engagement is likely to impact the success of firms.

This paper has as goal to research into the millennials expectation from online interaction with
brands, more precisely, to understand why and how millennials interact with brands on SNS. Based
on theoretical dynamics outlined in past academic research, an exploratory research is done to get
more insights into millennials customer engagement behaviour, more precisely with a Facebook
brand page (FBP). Specifically, the aim of the research is to provide managers with a clearer idea
about why do millennials like a FBP in the first place and second what do they want to find on the
―liked‖ Facebook brand pages. Furthermore, see if any significant difference on these
motivationsexists between UK and Italy. Along the way, using secondary data, specifically
academic and trade publications, constructs such as- personality traits and motivations- are analysed
as for their impact on consumer online brand- related activities (COBRAs) and level of
engagement.

As research shows, organizations have begun to realize the importance and beauty of online brand
communities on social networking sites as a tool for consumer-brand relationship building and
loyalty nourishment (Chan et al., 2014, p.82; Bagozzi, 2002; Dholakia, 2004).

From the results of this research, brand managers could better organize their social media strategy
directed to the millennials segment and give guidance in achieving better engagement on Facebook.
This research is an important step in understanding the factors affecting millennials consumers‘
Facebook behaviour within FBP and useful for practitioners intending to use Facebook as part of
their marketing strategy (Paquette, 2013).

This study wants to enrich the present literature on customer engagement in online brand
communities, and to shed light for further research on millennials engagement in the context of
social networking sites (Chan et al., 2014), specifically FBP.

Keywords: Millennials; social media; social networking sites; antecedents; customer brand
engagement; customer engagement behavior.
1. Chapter I: Introduction
1.1. Managerial problem, research problem, gap in literature
The present study provides initial insights into understanding millennials consumer engagement on
Facebook by including a set of antecedents that might influence their interaction with FBP and
further, brand engagement.Few papers have studied the motivation and antecedents of customer
engagement with brand pages on SNS (Muntinga et al. 2013; Sunny Tsai et al. 2013; Brodie,
2013)and none with a focus on millennials generation. To give structure and shape to this research
in the following paragraphs, the managerial problem and its relevance is discussed then it is
translated into a research statement which is latter translated into research questions.

1.1.1. The managerial problem

The managerial problem starts with the rising popularity of web 2.0, the people web. Social media
(SM), is a relatively new and challenging channel of communication but empirical evidence of the
benefits of it on brand awareness, loyalty and indirectly sales, raises enthusiasm and fear at the
same time, among brands. There is no proved way, no definitive guidelines form a recognized
research of how to use SM so to get the most from your customers through it. Moreover, the ones
that have highly adopted these media in their daily lives are the digital natives, the so called
millennials. Millennials are the next big generation to have the purchasing power in their hands, and
they are very selective when choosing which brand deserve their money. They inspect brands from
numerous point of view and they love and use this freedom boosted by the power given to them by
the two-way communication on social media. These consumers have the power and brands are
vulnerable in front of these pretentious, critic customers. Research on millennials shows that even
though they are harder to engage than other generations, once engaged they are also more active in
interacting with a brand in the online environment, they are happy to spread the word if they
consider the brand worthy and of most interest to marketers is their high influence on friends and
family.

Given this context, the managerial problem here is that marketers don‘t know how to effectively use
social media with millennials.

The managerial problem is a broad statement and it is used to identify the specific components of
the marketing research problem. With this first idea in mind, which is the managerial problem, a
deeper analysis of the environmental context like trade research done on social media and users and
general, studies done on millennials and of the secondary data like academic literature around the
social media, online engagement and millennials, has been made in order to understand the
background of the problem and understand what are the main drivers. The contextual research can
be found in the background chapter of this paper.

1.1.2. The research problem

The contextual search was made in order to define best and translate the management problem into
a clear marketing research problem. Little as none literature around millennials was done, and even
less on their online behaviour. So this research takes retrospective view on the issue and tries to find
out, what do millennials really wish from brands on social media in order to feel engaged. More
precisely, this research wants to discover what is the actual motivation of millennials in reaching a
FBP and explore their engagement behaviour in relationship with FBP.

As previously said, little research has in its center millennials consumers and also little academic
research is done having as focus brand social media pages in relationship with customers, and the
available research is done from the brand perspective instead of the user perspective. This study
takes the customer view and uses an exploratory design to understand what do customer want
exactly from brands online in order to be and stay engaged.

In conclusion, mangers want to understand how to effectively use social media in relationship with
millennials therefore the central topic is online customer engagement and motivations behind it, so
that marketers will know better what to emphasize when they communicate with millennials trough
social media.

1.1.3. The Gap in literature

This research is a comparative study between two big European countries, Italy and UK. It is
interesting to see if differences into engagement type and behaviour exists between these different
nationalities for reasons that will be discussed in the Background section. This study has as theory
base the model developed by Muntinga et al. (2013), but it is unique in its way by tapping into a
segment of increasing interest in the practitioner world, the so called millennials. Moreover,
Muntinga et. al. (2013) research takes into account only the motivations behind the Uses and
Gratification theory to explain online engagement and behaviour, which is restrictive, other factors
could also be strong influencers of customer engagement and behaviour. Also by being a
comparative study between a country with high internet penetration and low internet penetration, it
also shows marketers if internet penetration has an impact on CEBs (customer engagement
behaviours). It is important to know as much about millennials online behaviour because, as
practitioners already noticed, they are a connected generation which has very little contact with
television advertising and they demand a two-way opened communication.

Here, a description of the actual gap in literature regarding millennials CEB (customer engagement
behaviours) and why is it important to cover it.

Customer engagement sub concept stands under the umbrella term ‗engagement‘(Cheung et al.,
2015). The engagement concept has been adopted in multidisciplinary academic fields like
psychology, communication, consumer behaviour but the interpretation of customer engagement is
still vague and a reason for academic disagreement.

In marketing, the study of the engagement construct lagged behind other fields so to facilitate
knowledge accumulation, the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) has encouraged academics to
further explore this important and emerging concept making it one of the research priorities in the
(2010-2012) period (Chan et al., 2014).

Since the MSI call to research there have been some new important researches around the consumer
engagement construct (Morgan, 2012; Brodie et al., 2013; Sunny Tsai et al., 2013).

In the new technological era, a new sub concept of engagement should be in the attention of both
researchers and practitioners, specifically customer online engagement. Individuals engage and
behave in entirely different way in the online environment specially on social media because of the
enhanced power given to them by two-way communication and a virtual identity.

Although customer engagement with social media brand page is likely to impact the success of
company or brand, little is known about how and why people engage with brands on social
networking sites(SNS).

It is important to understand the motivation behind millennials engagement to official social media
pages of Brands as these special communication channels have become an integrated part of the day
to day life of this generation.

Although SNS are growing in importance along with the benefits that it can bring to companies,
literature that tries to explain the motives behind the interaction with brand on SNS is small at the
moment. Some researchers explored reasons for individuals to use social media and virtual worlds
(Kuan-Yu Lin 2010; Paganni 2011; Moore 2012; Hsi-Peng Lu 2013; Gironda etal. 2014; Zhou
2015; Yadav et al. 2016). Others showed the beneficial outcomes that a company could have from a
FBP (Araujo, Neijens 2011; Laroche et al., 2013; Schoen et al., 2013; Adams et al.,2013).
Some have gone a step forward and researched into the online relationship between buyer and seller
(Lee et al., 2011; Sashi, 2012).

But few researches till now, managed to create frameworks that capture the interactive essence of
the social media environment and the two-way relationship and communication by adopting a user
perspective and researching in the motivations and antecedents that push consumers to actually
interact with a brand on social media (Cabiddu, 2014; Muntinga, 2013; Sunny Tsai et. Al., 2013;
Zhang et al., 2015).

Most of the researchers, used the Uses and gratification theory (U&G) to explain the motivation
behind interacting with a brand online (Zhang et al., 2015) others used more psychological and
communication related antecedents like personality traits, self-esteem and communication
apprehension.

Muntinga et al. (2013), developed an interesting model that not only studies the motivation behind
the interaction with brand SNS page but also allows the measurement of the level of engagement
(consuming, contributing, creating) and link it with the specific activity (i.e liking; commenting;
sharing).

Following this line of thought, in this study the COBRA (customer online brand related activities)
framework developed by Muntinga et al. (2013) will be used to study millennials customer
engagement with FBP. Also, there is no research into millennials motivation to interact with a FBP.
This an important gap to cover, since they are the net savvy, they were born in the internet era and
social media is already part of their daily lives and activities.

1.1.4. Importance of understanding consumer online behavior

Few of the benefits that show the importance of knowing as much as possible on the online
behaviour of millennials are given in the next paragraphs. First, brands are able to reach consumers
using both their own communications and the communications of other customers. Thus, one brand
post can receive thousands of comments from Facebook users interacting with the brand, providing
a platform for dialogue from which it is easy to solicit information, gain feedback and
betterunderstand the consumer (Kabadayi et al., 2014; Malhotra et al., 2013).

Knowing that millennials are hard to satisfy and to retain as customers and also that social media
has been beneficial for brands that know how to communicate with their customers, makes it crucial
to know their CEB online.
Second, consumers‘ brand-related activities havebeen identified as factors contributing to
consumers‘ word-of-mouth behavior on SNSs (Chu et al., 2011) and suggested that partaking in
brand-related SNS groups and virtual communities is positively related to attitudes toward viral
campaigns and commercial messages in social media (Chi et. Al., 2011).

Third, even though millennials represent small portion of the population in Europe, research shows
that they act as influencers on the purchasing behavior of previous generations this being an
important motive to increase research interest.

In the next section a more detailed overview about the environmental context of the managerial
problem is laid down in order to better understand the issue, to contextualize the problem and
advance a research problem.

1.2. Background

The ―background‖ chapter starts with an introduction of the key elements of the digital era, like
internet and social media, which radically changed the way people lived before the invention of the
world wide web. It further continues with the purpose of the study and its importance in general. In
following paragraphs, a description containing characteristics of millennials, the generational cohort
to be studied. Beside a psychographic description of the millennials, some particularitiesfrom
research are discussed in order to support the importance of analysing them in relation with online
customer engagement. Recently, managers noticed the positive impact that social media might have
on brand image and so, the scope of this research is narrowed to social media, more precisely a part
of it called social networking sites. Short definitions and arguments for choice are provided in this
chapter. Versus the end, the purpose of the study is rephrased and implications for management as
underling arguments for the need of such study are discussed. Lastly, a description of the structure
of this work is provided.

1.2.1. The internet

Internet diffusion had a great impact on marketing practices and company-customer relationship,
especially since web 2.0 and the rise of Social Media. This interactive communication media is
transforming how businesses and users communicate with one and so, the passive audience of the
pre-social media era to become an active and engaging community (Rauniar et. al., 2014).

More and more companies are including social media as part of the promotional mix due to the
impact it might have on purchase intention (Adams et. Al.,2013). By correctly understanding
customers‘ usage behavior and the goal they are trying to satisfy by engaging with a company
online, marketers can increase their target customers‘ positive attitude and engagement with the
brand.

The purpose of this research is to explore the drivers that affect millennials to follow the social
networking site official page of a brand and what keeps them engaged.

1.2.2. Social Networking Sites

To reach this purpose, this study considers social networking sites (i.e. Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube) with a focus on Facebook Brand Official Pages, in the context of two different countries:
United Kingdom and Italy.

Facebook is the social networking site with the highest popularity among millennials. As a matter
of fact, at the time there are larger numbers of Millennials on Facebook than other age groups
(Weigand,2009). Furthermore, the features that social networking sites (SNS) have, allow
interaction between retailer and consumers and makes the communication customer- firm
potentially beneficial both ways. In the case of Facebook these interactions create new feeds, which
are seen by "friends" when they log in (Womack, 2012; Weigand,2009) and this can act in favour of
a company by spreading awareness for free. Pages also allow the user to post messages and further
engage with the brand. Many brands have already adopted social media strategies and out of the
various social networking sites that enable consumer engagement tactics, the most heavily used by
brands is undoubtedly Facebook (Kabadayi, 2014, p.206).

1.2.3. State of research around millennials

Millennials, also known as Generation Y, generation Why or the net generation, are the
demographic cohort following Generation X. The precise time delineation for this cohort varies
from a source to another but the most popular definition is given by Howe and Strauss (1991),
credited for coming with the term ―millennials‖, which place this generation between 1982 and
2004.

This digital generation, aged between 12 and 34 years, are said to change the face of marketing
since they are distinguished from older generations by their spending habits, brand preferences,
values, personalities, and general outlook on life (BCG, 2014). For the purpose of this study,
millennials aged between 20- 35 are considered, for reasons to be explained more in-depth in the
literature review.Brand engagement is also different compared to other generations, millennials
engage more extensively, personally, and emotionally—expecting a two-way, mutual relationship
with companies and their brands (BCG, 2014). Although they can be avid fans, they can also be
harsh critics and it is not easy to engage with them, marketers having to try hard to win their hearts.
Researchers found that millennials are more civic minded than previous generation, results talk
about the propensity of millennials in buying a brand that have CSR activities. In addition, data
shows that they are also more educated consumers; in the United Kingdom for example only 4% of
the millennial population has followed no education form as compared to 13% in previous
generations.

Millennials are transforming marketing from a funnel conventional framework, in which the
company have control on all the variables that are sent to customer, to a marketing ecosystem where
marketers, consumers and potential customers perpetually exchange experiences, reactions, emotion
and buzz (BCG, 2014).

In the US, Millennials raised more interest in researchers compared to Europe. One of the reasons is
their future purchasing power as millennials are becoming the largest generation of all times
overtaking even the boomers in the United States.Millennials aged from 18-34, numbered in 2015,
75.4 million, surpassing the 74.9 million Baby Boomers (aged 51-69) (Fry, 2016).

Europe has lagged far behind US in its research related to millennials and their behavior. This could
be due to various reasons like the fact that Europe it‘s becoming an aging continent, where
population over fifty accounts for 47% overall and so the researchers interest is focused on that
segment. The young millennial population accounts only for 24% of the adult population in the 28-
member European Union in 2013 (Stokes, 2015).

Another barrier is the difficulty to have a clear common identity of European Millennials. Cultural
differences are very strong between countries and even though thy share the same age, millennials
may show different behaviors in similar situations. They are not a homogeneous group but, despite
this deep cultural roots they were affected by some common historical events which made them
develop also some behavioral similarities. In this category we have, the technological revolution
and the Global Economic crisis that affected all Millennials specially the ones that were entering the
labor market in the recession period.

Nevertheless, millennials population will hold more and more purchasing power as time goes by
and should be given proper attention in Europe also.

Millennials were born at the start of a new technological era. They feel very comfortable with new
technologies and they adopt it gladly in their daily lives, traditional media like television advertising
having a decreasing impact on them. Millennials communicate with each other far more than any
advertising campaign can. When trying to figure out whether something is worth buying,
millennials will go to their friends and social networks to see what people think (Newman, 2015).

Millennials living in Western Europe spend as much as five hours per day surfing the internet
(Statista, 2013). Amount of time and data shows a trend in expanding the time and purpose of
Internet and social media usage.

Given the decreased time dedicated to watch television and allocated to surf online, social media
and networks have a growing role in marketing, which has important implications for how
consumers interact with channels, and how companies perform (Srinivasan, 2014).

1.2.4. The importance of social media and SNS

Social Media is described by Bryer and Zavatarro (2001) as: ―technologies that facilitate social
interaction, make possible collaboration, and enable deliberation across stakeholders‖. These
technologies now include blogs, wikis, media (audio, photo, video, text) sharing tools, networking
platforms (including Facebook), and virtual worlds (Retta, 2012; Zavatarro et al., 2001). For the
purpose of this research, Social Network Sites (SNS) will be the focus. SNS are an important part of
Social Media, which are increasingly attracting the attention of academics and industry researchers
due to their affordance and reach. Since their spread, social network sites (SNS) have attracted
millions of people around the world, being now an integer part of our lives.

Social network sites (SNS) are those web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a
public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom
they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others
within the system (boyd et al., 2007, p.1).

Social Network Sites are not all the same, differences are based on the way they work and the
purpose they have. Most sites support the maintenance of preexisting social networks, but others
help strangers connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities. Some sites cater to
diverse audiences, while others attract people based on common language or shared racial, sexual,
religious, or nationality based identities (Elison et al., 2007).

Academics and practitioners have long talked about the benefits that a brand can have from their
presence on social media and yet few brands manage to have the much desired attention from their
customers in the online environment.
Although SNS are growing in importance and there is a noticeable rise in the interest for social
media topic by academics, there has been relatively little research about millennial generation
online behavior specifically into the drivers behind the engagement with a SNS Official Brand
Page.

When analyzing a target group, marketers are interested in both similarities and differences between
the individuals within a group. For this reason, this study compares two important European
countries, United Kingdom and Italy, which have strong similarities and dissimilarities on
dimensions important for the aim of the study. The two countries were early members of the
European Union, which implies some common cultural characteristics, also in terms of size they are
both big countries with a population of 59 800 307 in Italy and 65,027,808 in UK.

Equally important are the differences between technology adoption and internet penetration among
these two countries. Italy has a 60% penetration (IStat, 2014) and UK 90% internet penetration
(Office of National Statistics, 2015), which may imply different usage behavior of technology
savvy compared to the ones less experienced.

The implications for management are multiple, starting with the increasing social media spending
with the purpose of engaging customers and attracting new customers. The global spending on
media is forecasted to rise 5.1 percent during next five years from 1.6 trillion in 2014 (CMOcouncil,
2014). There is a trend among US, Canada and UK companies to increase their digital marketing
spending and it was forecasted to grow by 8 percent in 2015 with the purpose of enabling
companies to better connect with customer (Gartner Survey, 2014). Increasing digital advertising
budgets are mandatory actions for all companies, as millennials have incredible purchasing power
and specific interests, they are much more likely to communicate their ideas and feelings over social
media platforms (Newman, 2015).

To better connect with customers using the online environment, managers have to have information
about the behavior of their targeted audience as the impact of two-way communication on social
media is different than the usual one-way advertising.

With this paper, managers will understand the motives behind Millennials interaction with a brand
page the Social Network Sites so they can encourage this behavior, raise the number of followers
and keep them interacting.

The more managers know about the desires of Millennials and their online usages, the more they
will have an impact on their buying behavior. It is estimated that, in the near future, revenue
generated by fruitfully using social networking sites will be almost half of that created by all user-
generated content sites (Gangadharbatla, 2008, p.5). Millennials are harder to satisfy as consumers
than previous generations, traditional advertising barely gets to them as they are primarily
influenced by peers and endorsers. US Millennials are watching less TV and that their spare time
shifts online (Forrester, 2014).

1.2.5. Brands and the digital environment

In Europe, academic research about Millennials generation is nearly inexistent, no published study
has attempted to research and verify their online behavior, specifically the motives behind their
interaction with official SNS pages.

The study of customer engagement in the online environment and their motivation to interact with
brand social media pages is newly emerging. Social media have changed how brand related content
is created, distributed and consumed, by transferring the power to shape brand images from the
hands of advertisers to the word of consumers‘ (Tsai et al., 2013) creating scope for research about
the how and the why of interacting with SNS Brand pages.

Advertisers who wish to tap into social media‘s potential thus face the challenge of inspiring and
facilitating consumers‘ engagement in COBRAs (Muntinga et al., 2010; Muñiz et al., 2011; Parent
et. al. 2011). Increasing digital advertising budgets are mandatory actions for all companies, as
millennials have incredible purchasing power and specific interests, they are much more likely to
communicate their ideas and feelings over social media platforms (Newman, 2015).

Hence, this research comes to support brand managers to understand the underlying motives of
millennials that visit a SNS Brand page, enhance positive attitude and so Brand Image. By knowing
the usage behaviour, they can develop the kind of content that keep millennials coming back and
interacting. A second purpose of this study is to give insights to firm content generators about
differences, if any, in customer online engagement behaviour between the millennials in a country
where internet penetration is high and one with relatively low penetration.

1.3. Chapter summary

The argument of this paper tries to unfold the reasons behind millennials customers‘ interaction
with brand social media. In order to address this issue, academic literature regarding, millennials,
social media, usage behaviour and customer engagement will be reviewed. Drivers of customer
engagement offline and online found by research until now will help define the antecedents to
customer engagement. In this research the goal is to, first discover the millennials user engagement
as for level of engagement to brand SNS pages but also specific activities in their engagement
behaviour and second, see if antecedents like personality trait have a relationship with millennials
customer engagement behaviour (CEB) on Facebook brand page (FBP) and for the most explore,
with open-ended question the motivations of millennials for reaching and interacting with a FBP.

In the end, differences between United Kingdom and Italy regarding antecedents and gratification
sought of millennials when interacting with brand Facebook page will be unveiled. Demographic
variables will be taken into account when doing this comparison. Beside the demographic variables
it is interesting to explore if internet penetration has an impact on millennials engagement behaviour
related to brand social media page, in this two countries. Other variables could cause the differences
between these two countries and this could be scope for further research.

Until now, the goal of this dissertation research and its importance were presented. The related
topics like millennials, engagement and social media were shortly described to sustain the relevancy
of the research goal.
The investigation will proceed to section 2 whereby literature around the topic is presented to
inform the study. In section 3, the research approach, analytical model, research questions and
assumptions are discussed. In section 4 the methods and methodology are discussed following with
data analysis procedures. Findings will be explained in sanction 5and 6 with theinterpretation of
theresults in relationship to existing literature. The last chapter will comprise the conclusions of the
research, guidelines for marketers as well as future research recommendations.

2. Literature review

Given the exploratory nature of the research design, a review of secondary data containing
academic and trade literature, information from official sources, is necessary. The objective of it is
to better define the problem and further develop and approach to it, by identifying key variables.
The criteria for evaluating the secondary data lays in the recency of the article, dependability of the
academic journal or trade journals, number of citations, public institution releases, syndicated
sources.

2.1. Why Millennials

Section two, the literature review, starts with a broad description of millennials in general and
millennials in UK and Italy in detail so to lay a clear image of the information already available on
this generational cohort. First, an academic definition of millennials is given, followed by the
reasoning of the age span chosen for this study (20-35). Second, the importance of doing research
specifically on this generation is outlined as until now the most considerable research about them
has been done around employment and learning. It then continues with the characteristics of
millennials also compared to other generations and contradictions in research findings. Despite the
fact that European academic research about millennials is nearly inexistent, a considerable amount
of research is done by independent agencies, research made specifically on British and Italian
millennials and so an overview of this findings is provided. Towards the end, the ―reciprocity
principle‖ is used to unfold what millennials want from brands these days, moving from push
communications towards a two-way, reciprocal communication. Evidence shows that millennials
engage with brands more deeply on SNS and so a cross-media; cross channel & cross-device
strategy is mandatory for companies.

The focal point of this study are the individuals found in the boundaries of generation Y, the often-
called millennials. One of the main reason for this choice is the fact that they are the first generation
in world history, which in their adult age are so much familiar with digital technology and digital
communication codes.

The time delineation of this generational cohort is blurred and differs from a source to another. The
most accepted delineation is the one provided by Howe and Strauss (1991), which define the
millennial cohort as consisting of individuals born between 1982 and 2004 (Haughn, 2015).

2.1.1. Age cohort considered

For the purpose of this research, the millennials aged 20 to 35 are considered. The major reason for
this relies in the fact that millennials under 20 are still adolescents and may show a highly different
and quickly changing behavior and needs than those above this age. Furthermore, this generation is
affected by fast paced innovation so the differences in technology use, named also digital inequality
(Hargittai et. Al., 2008) between an age range and another may be huge. In addition, it is also
narrow enough to be manifest similar demographic traits. At the same time, this age span is more
relevant for marketers because they are more independent and have increasing buying power.

2.1.2. Characteristics of millennials

What is interesting about this generation, especially for marketing purposes, is that they consume
less and less television so they are less affected by television advertising. Millennials use the
internet as main source of information and news, much more than older generations that still rely on
television news and advertising.Specific research about millennials buying behavior is scarce and
even less research is done about their behavior in the online environment. Most of the research
about this generation is trying to uncover them as employees (Rogelberg et. al., 2010; Myrers, et al.,
2010; Coca-Cola Company, 2013; Deloitte, 2015) and students (McGlynn, 2005; Strauss et. al.,
2007; Nimon, 2007). Only recently, academics have raised interest in this age cohort especially in
the US, as they are becoming the biggest generation of all time. In Europe, the situation is slightly
different, as an aging population predominantly characterizes the continent. Nevertheless, the
subject should gain importance also for European researchers, as this will be the next generation to
hold the buying power. To cover up this big gap of research regarding millennials, an important
initiative was started this year (2016) by European Broadcasting Union, the project ―Generation
What‖, with the participation of 12 European countries. This initiative will be the first research that
will comprehensively provide a clearer profile of the European Millennials on six important
dimensions: family, friends, colleagues, perception of self, work and society, future and Europe.
This paper comes to the upfront of this initiative with important insight of millennials online
interaction with brands.

Not only the size of millennials cohort and their increasing buying power impose research, but also
their characteristics, which are offbeat compared to the previous generations. This means that,
marketing concepts studied until now, like customer engagement, buying behaviors, and brand
loyalty and their effects drive different reactions on millennials than on previous generations.
Especially considering their developed immunity towards traditional advertising and their adoption
of the web as part of their daily lives. Given this facts, marketers have to find new ways of reaching
these new customers and test the effects of the already known constructs, to see how different they
react.

Due to insufficient research having this generation as focal attention, many contradictory opinions
gravitate around millennials characteristics.

In general, millennials positive features refer to the fact that they are result oriented, digital natives
and have a nomadic communication style. Coupled with the wish to have a span of options to
choose from, flexibility and, the confidence that they will be more financially successful compared
to their parents also leading to a more balanced life (Pew Research, 2014; Sweeney, 2006; Strauss
et. Al. 2003). Although this may be true, millennials feel pressured and believe that their
performance in the present will influence their success in the future (Pate, 2013). As a result, they
are very busy fulfilling their free time with extracurricular activities to improve their chances for a
better future (Sweeney, 2006; Strauss et. Al., 2003).
Maybe the most impactful characteristic of millennials on marketing is that they have grown up in a
digital world and are at home with a constantly connected, consumer driven, networked world (Pate
et al., 2013; Stauss et. Al., 2003; Paul, 2001; Sweeney 2006). They use the digital world to
multitask and accomplish more with the time they have. Jacobsen and Forste (2010) underline the
importance of networks and social networking sites in the life of the digital negatives and suggest
that Millennials are not only technologically savvy but are also excellent at multi-tasking and
visiting friends on multiple social networks (Pate et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2009; Sweeney, 2006).

That is to say, millennials are demanding consumers. They want it all, from a large variety of items
to choose from, to personalization and customization of goods and services, as well as instant
gratification (Pate et al., 2013; Strauss et. Al., 2003; Paul 2001; Sweeney, 2006). This gratification
sought further provides empirical sustainability to the uses and gratification framework to be further
used for the purpose of this study.

Millennials are distinguished from older generations by their spending habits, brand preferences,
values, personalities, and general outlook on life. Furthermore, they engage with brands far more
extensively, personally, and emotionally—and in entirely different ways—than have other
generations (Barton et al., 2014, p.1).

Other opinions contrast the overwhelmingly optimistic view on millennials. On this matter of
thought, Daily Mail describe millennials as ―unrealistic,‖ ―self-centered,‖ ―fickle‖and―greedy‖, 20
and Times newspaper (2013) analyze a pool of research data and argue that they are lazy, entitled,
selfish and shallow.

2.1.3. Millennials in Europe

In Europe there is a big gap in the research that tries to understand this special generational cohort.
Some form of formal information is found in trade publications and some academic papers.

A broad research made by Pew research regarding millennials worldwide, found that in Europe they
account for 24% of the adult population in the 28-member European Union in 2013. The results of
this research are based on the survey made in seven European countries. Some similarities between
US and European millennials were also found, both generations suffered the effects of an economic
crisis since 2008. This was a strong strike for that part of millennials, which at that time were just
entering the labor market. A delimitating difference between US and EU millennials is that while in
the US the economy started blossoming, in Europe the economic crisis doesn‘t seem to end yet.
Consequently, European millennials are less optimistic and satisfied about the future of their
countries, Greeks and Spaniards aged 18 to 33 being the less satisfied (Stokes, 2015).

Among the most optimistic millennials, United Kingdom leads the way with 70% of them being
satisfied about the direction of their country. By contrast, a more pessimistic attitude is found in
Italy with only 11% of satisfied digital natives (Stokes, 2015).

To showcase the recent increasing interest in millennials, in the UK several independent agencies
started investigating on this generation habits. The same happens in Italy. Based on this evident
increasing interest, a glimpse into UK and Italy Millennials is given.

2.1.4. Millennials in UK

An overview about the situation of UK millennials is given by a report made by Aimia Inc. (2012).
In this country, the cohort is represented by 9.7 million individuals (aged 19-29 years at the time of
the survey) from the total population of 64.1 million (Wikipedia, 2013). Because of the great
recession, they were affected by dark employment prospects, their income supressed from the
beginning of their careers all of which may have profound effects of their future spending habits
(Ferguson, 2012).
Even though they represent a smaller portion of the population, their purchasing power will become
increasingly important even tough three-quarters of UK Millennials (75 per cent) earn under
£50,000 per year; 78 per cent of older consumers do so as well. Research and markets report stated
that Millennials already accounted for nearly 10 per cent of disposable income for adults by 2007,
when most Millennials were still teenagers (Ferguson, 2012).

UK millennials are willing to engage in relationships with their favourite brands, and this supports
furthermore the direction of this research, together with the important disposable income and their
increasing spending. As Baby Boomers slow their spending, Millennials will become the primary
engine of the UK consumer economy (Ferguson, 2012). Another important fact is that they are
willing to spend as long as they perceive immediate value form their purchase.

2.1.5. Millennials in Italy

Research on millennials cohort was made also specifically on the Italian population by consulting
agencies. Reliable companies like Deloitte, Yahoo and Nilsen through their survey have managed to
provide a broader picture into the life of this new generation. Furthermore, Rai television is actively
taking part in the big European project named ―Generation Why‖ that will provide a comprehensive
view on this generation.
Even tough statistically Italy has the lowest rate of Internet penetration among the developed
countries of Europe (Chinn et al., 2006), the millennial generation seems to be a driving force in
overcoming this historical trend.

Researching millennials consumer habits in Italy, with data from a survey done on 1 510 individuals
aged 18-24, on consumer habits in Italy and the relationship they have with the digital world, one
interesting result show that the smartphone is their preferred digital tool (Yahoo, 2015). Millennials
in Italy represent 11,2 million from a population of 59.83 million, out of which 76% confirm to be
usually connected. In mean, they spend 66 minutes per moth online, and more than three thirds
come from the usage of smartphone (Yahoo, 2015). Therefore, most of the internet usage comes
from smartphones, which they use for a medium time of 2 hours and 41 minute per day. As for their
buying habits, 69% of the interviewees say they choose and buy their product with full autonomy,
this showing a high decisional confidence. Although 59% of surveyed Italian millennials declare to
associate brand with quality they score low on brand loyalty, choosing based on promotions or
novelty. On the one side, millennials disregard advertising but on the other side, they recognize the
value of online advertising. Overall, they do not appreciate TV spots but they find online
advertising useful and interactive, 57% declare that advertising on the web allows them to search
for more information.

Another interesting fact that raises form this broad Yahoo (2015) research is that Italian millennials
use the internet for three main reasons: first,solve daily matters (information search),second,
entertainment, not only as a pastime but also to keep themselves updated with their passions and
third, use of the internet as a channel that keep them updated in real time providing a way to learn
new things. Branded content has the highest chances to influence a millennial by creating a
relationship (Yahoo, 2015).

In general, millennials can show brand loyalty, but they will engage only with brands that resonate
with their personal values and by delivering genuine advertising and content (Elite Daily, 2014).
What‘s more, besides values and authenticity, some other engaging factors came out of this
research, like the need of an active dialogue with the brand on social networking sites, they want to
co-create and so participate in the innovation of brands they love and what‘s more important in that
they appreciate brands that support local communities and value their customers.

2.1.6. BCG - reciprocity principle

To reveal more about what millennials, want from a brand, Boston Consulting Group (2014)
developed the ―Reciprocity Principle‖ which is a framework build on the expectation that
millennials have regarding the two-way mutual relationship with companies and their brands.

The ―Reciprocity Principle‖ framework was developed based on data raised from 1500 millennials
and 1000 non-millennials covering values, brand engagement, and marketing tactics (Barton, 2014).
The research, found 5 key elements that influence likability of a company brand and positive brand
experience for millennials: reach, relevance, reputation, relation, and referral.

The available evidence highlights the importance of creating a positive brand experience for
millennials. They are highly influential, being always connected and having a broad online network,
they have the freedom and potential to share their disappointing experience with a brand trough all
their network. Millennials won‘t hesitate to turn into a vocal critic and spread negative word trough
social media, reviews and blogs (Barton, 2014).

To create this positive experience, marketers will need to have a comprehensive view of Millennials
across channels and media so to create a reciprocal-marketing ecosystem, moving from push
communication to two ways. Companies have to reach out to Millennials with a cross-media, cross-
channel, and cross-device brand presence with a system where stakeholders perpetually exchange
experiences, reactions, emotions and buzz (Barton,2014).

The results of the BCG (2014) research, provide confirmatory evidence that millennials engage
more deeply with brands trough social networks by linking and sharing the brand page or content
and involving in product reviews. They desire opportunities to interact with brands about their
concerns and experiences and trust more companies with social media pages as well as digital
advertising, than those who don‘t own any. Furthermore, they perceive brands as an extension of
their own values and status.

In conclusion, millennials have a special relationship with technologies and the internet, social
media in particular and they are prone in using it and adopting it in their daily lives. As well as
other generations, millennials, spend hours on these social media sites and retailers, manufacturers,
and advertisers have added social networking to their promotion mix (Pate, 2013; Millermaier et.
al., 2009; Weigand, 2009). From here the importance to acknowledge their behaviour within the
online channel, specifically on social media and in relationship with brands.

2.2. WhySocial media and Social Networking Sites

To understand online customer engagement, an overview about the online environment and
research done in the field of social media and social networking sites is needed. At the beginning,
the importance of internet and studies done around users in relationship with the internet is
described, much research being related to ―typologies of internet users‖. In further paragraphs the
―social media phenomenon‖ and its importance to marketers is explained. The growth of social
media brought new dynamics in marketing, what is social media and its specificities, social media
relevance for marketing and for this research are discussed in this chapter.The most popular side of
social media are social networking sites (SNS) which are strongly characterized by relationship and
networking. SNS like Facebook attracts millions of users and is the platform with most millennials
users. The study for this research will be made on SNS, specifically Facebook, versus the end of
this chapter research findings and definition of SNS are discussed.

2.2.1. Research about the internet

As internet has become one of the most important, if not the most important, channel of
communication and information, many researchers have studied users in relationship with this new
medium. Because of this a considerable niche of research has been dedicated to categorize
typologies of internet users trying to test variables like usage, attitude towards, participation and
other to see how individuals interact with the online environment. Studying the online affective
states of internet users, six typologies of internet users were found: ―Positive Online Affectivists‖,
―Offline Affectivists‖, ―On/Off-line Negative Affectivists‖, ―Online Affectivists‖,
―Indistinguishable Affectivists‖, and ―Negative Offline Affectivists (Christodoulides et al.,2013).
This six affective states may be used by marketers in order to predict customer perceptions toward
online brands. Another research categorizes users by frequency and participation in using the
internet, underling the variables that may influence a digital divide in Europe: Non-Users, Sporadic
Users, Instrumental Users, Entertainment Users, and Advanced Users (Bradtzaeg et al., 2011).
Considering psychographic, culturally‐specific and purchasing behavior‐relevant features, with a
more marketing oriented segmentation, a research made by J.Barnes (et al., 2007) clustered three
users typologies: risk‐averse doubters, open‐minded online shoppers, and reserved
information‐seekers, best described by constructs like, ―neuroticism‖, ―willingness to buy‖ and
―shopping pleasure‖(Barnes et al., 2007).

Traditionally, consumers used the Internet to simply expend content: they read it, they watched it,
and they used it to buy products and services (Kietzmann et al., 2011). However, there is a trend,
called the ―social media phenomenon‖ where users are handling available platforms like blogs,
content sharing sites, social networking sites and wikis for various purposes among which
generating content, modifying information, discussing and sharing Internet content. This
phenomenon has high relevance for companies as it can impact its reputation, success and existence
in the market. Social media has a variety of benefits that await to be harvested by marketers. For
example, social media content can be used to predict real-world outcomes (Asur, 2010, p.492).
Also, a research done for the tourism industry proves that social media is animportant part of the
search results, indicating that search engines direct travelers to social media sites as they try to plan
their journey (Gretzel, 2010).As communication channels, social media provides consumers with
informational and instrumental value. Informational value motivates participants to gather
information and share that information with a group (Pate, 2013, p.95; Weigand, 2009; Russell et.
Al., 1999).

2.2.2. The emergence of social media

The emergence of Internet-based social media has made it possible for one person to communicate
with hundreds or even thousands of other people about products and the companies that provide
them (Mangold et al., 2009). This consumer-to-consumer communication and the growth of social
media has established new dynamics in marketing. Numerous social media platforms provide
consumers with a wide variety of ways to engage with brands. For example, they can read reviews
of an Acer computer on Amazon.com, discuss about movies and TV series on Facebook, they can
watch product tutorials on Youtube.com and ask questions about how to use and even upload their
own ―How to Use‖ product tutorial. By providing access to online content and facilitating
communication, social media may connect consumers and organizations, thus fostering consumer
‗engagement‘ (Hollebeek et al, 2014; Wierenga 2009; Cox et. Al., 2013). It offers unprecedented
opportunities for brand communicators to reach online stakeholders in their social communities and
build relationships with consumers on a more personal level (Tsai et al., 2013; Drennan et.
al.,2010).

Trade publications have reported that consumers now use social media more frequently than
corporate websites when searching for information on a company, brand, or product (Tsai et
al.,2013). Social media has a high contribution in transforming online consumer behaviour
(Haenlein et. al., 2010).

There is little doubt that social media has consumer behavior implications for all the business
domains and other, even in B2B industry there is plenty of research going on around this topic,
noticing the impact that social media might have on B2B brand image (Michaelidou,2011; Stelzner,
2012; Jussila, 2014).
 2.2.3. Definition of social media

Despite the continuous talk around this topic, it is pretty difficult to define social media because it is
continuously changing. By reviewing literature in this area, some commonalities unique to current
social media have arisen.

Social media are Web 2.0 internet-based applications having user-generated content as the lifeblood
of the social media organism (Kaplan et al., 2010; Obar, et al.2015). Users create service-specific
profiles for the site or app that are designed and maintained by the social media organization
(Kaplan et al., 2010; boyd, 2007). As it is now, social media facilitate the development of online
social networks by connecting a user's profile with those of other individuals and/or groups (Kaplan
et al. 2010; boyd, 2007). The interactivity of social media has enabled the passive audience of the
pre-social media era, to become an active and engaging community (Rauniar et al.,2014).

For further clarification, some examples of the forms that social media technologies might take are
provided. Social media, generally refers to, blogs, business networks, enterprise social networks,
forums, microblogs, photo sharing, products/services review, social bookmarking, social gaming,
social networks, video sharing, and virtual worlds (Aichner, 2015).

In the past decade the development of social media has skyrocketed, it started off with simple
platforms such as sixdegrees.com (Kirkpatrick, 2011) different from instant messaging like IRC or
other chatting providers, sixdegrees.com was the first platform that was created for people to use
their real names and identities. Gradually users lost interest in this first form of SNS making place
to newer more complex platforms.

2.2.4. Social Networking Sites

As part of social media also SNS are difficult to be provided with a singular final definition as they
have multiple facets and are continuously changing. Emphasising the relational nature of this social
platforms, Finin et Al. (2005, p.419) define a social network as an ―explicit representation of the
relationship between individuals and groups in the community‖ (Dunne et al.,2010).

Social networking sites are considered to be based on the premise of relationship creation and
maintenance, either with existing members of a social circle or connecting people with similar or
shared interest (Boyd et. al., 2008). Similarly, Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) indicate that social
networks provide a virtual platform where people of similar interests may gather to communicate,
share and discuss ideas (Zaglia et al., 2013). Furthermore, among the primary reasons for using
SNSs- identity creation and management were found (Dunne, 2010; Ellison et al., 2008; Liu,
2008;Tong et al., 2008; Walther et al., 2008; Boyd, 2007). Online social networking sites SNSs are
a form of virtual community and many of the users integrated these sites into their daily routines
(Boyd, 2007). Components that form these social media platforms are: the unique profile pages and
the power that page owner has to literally ―type oneself into being‖ (Dunne, 2010; Sunden, 2003).
The technicalities of the social networking profile comprise the following - inclusion of personal
details and photographs, friends and comments (Boyd, 2007). Some of the highly appreciated
feature of SNS is that besides being a fine communication channel, through Facebook, Twitter, and
YouTube, consumers can receive recommendations from ―friends‖, followers of a retailer or
manufacturer, or they can just choose to "like" a product (Pate, 2013;Russell et. al., 2009). From a
marketer point of view, SNS offers the facility for engaging in two-way communication with
members in terms of personalized messages and content. Moreover, SNSs has taken the place of e-
mail when it comes to the most popular activity online and little by little it becomes primary source
of information (Fuscaldo,2011; Albanesius,2010) so thanks to SNS popularity, marketers have the
opportunity to access substantial information about site members (Dunne et al., 2010).

Research to date in this areas have considered, understanding advertiser‘s communication

strategies, (Seltzer et.al., 2009; Tsai et. al., 2012; Smith, 2010; Waters et al., 2009) and have
focused more frequently on one‘s profile page, primarily regarding how people portray themselves
through their profile page and how they connect with friends and acquaintances via the network
(Dunne et al., 2010; Boyd et. al., 2008; Tong et al., 2008; Liu, 2008; Boyd, 2007). Leaving many
gaps in the literature to be covered, for instance how people interact in the SNSs and for the purpose
of this research how and why they interact with SNS brand pages.

Even though it is important to have a compelling brand social media presence and strategy,
blogging has declined in popularity among both teens and young adults since 2006 (Lenhart, 2010).
Meanwhile, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook and Myspace) are considered the main driving
force of the digital media revolution (Vogt et. al., 2008). Given the above reasons, this study will
focus on customer relationship with brands on SNS.

2.2.5. Relevance of SNS for this study

The study of SNS it is also more relevant for this research since, advertisers realize that using these
platforms is the best way to reach Millennials as more than 55% of teens and young adults use these
sites (Lenhart, 2010). Another primary reason is related to financials, it is estimated that in the near
future, revenue created by social networking sites will be almost half of that created by all user-
generated content sites (Gangadharbatla, 2008).Social networking sites can be used effectively as
marketing tools and is widely used for consumers to participate in marketing activities (Rauniar,
2014; Fogel, 2010; Diffley et al., 2011). However, it is argued that an effective business model in
terms of the commercial leveraging of SNS continues to elude marketers (Dunne et al., 2010, p. 48).
This confirms the need of research regarding consumer behavior in the SNSs, specially relating to
brand Pages.

The Social Network Revolution has led to the rise of the networking sites. Research, shows that the
audience spends 22 percent of their time on social networking sites(Nielsen, 2015), this being the
prove of the rising success of the social platforms.

In the history of the raising popularity of social media, social networking sites have been thought of
as a key factor. The power of social networking is such that, the number of worldwide users is
expected to reach some 2.5 billion by 2018, around a third of Earth‘s entire population. (Statista,
2016).

2.2.6. Facts and figures about social media and SNS impact on marketing

Market potential of social media is still increasing as user figures and user engagement continues to
grow. Globally internet users spend around 101.4 minutes per day (Statista,2016), in average,
surfing social networks prompting worldwide brands and marketers to use this opportunity and
reach their customers or potential‘s by promoting via social media and social advertising.

2015 Social Network popularity by

country
100
80
60
40
20
0
Facebook Youtube Twitter Google Plus

UK Italy

Fig. 1. % of internet users, who have visited/ used the service last month

It is interesting to see the difference in social media use between the two countries. Despite the fact
that Italy have a lower internet penetration they are more avid users of social media than UK
individuals.
The best social networks usually have a high number engaged users. For example, Facebook is the
only social network having more than one billion monthly active users and has as of 2015 it reached
almost 1.5 billion monthly active users worldwide (Statista, 2016).

Fig. 2. Digital Audience Penetration vs. Engagement of Leading Social Networks (Adam,2015)

Surveys such as that conducted by ComScore (2015) show that in the niche of interest for this
research, the millennials aged 18-34, Facebook scores highest in terms of reach and in terms of time
spent on the platform compared to all other SNS platforms. Furthermore, at the moment there are
larger numbers of Millennials on Facebook than other age groups (Pate et al., 2013; Weigand,
2009). In the UK the reasons that steams consumers to follow businesses on Facebook and Twitter
are mentioned in the below chart made available by Statista (2016) research.
Fig. 3. Leading reasons for interacting with companies on social media platforms in the United
Kingdom (UK) in 2015, by network (President, 2016)

2.2.7. SNS and engagement

The social, communal, and participatory environment of brand SNS pages constitutes virtual brand
communities where advertisers can engage consumers at a more intimate and interactive manner,
rather than a mere advertising platform (Sunny Tsai et al., 2013). So, the brand Facebook page
should be treated more like a community page than a mere one-way communication firm generated
page. Research has shown that a Facebook official brand page has the potential to integrates the
Facebook ―groups‖ functions.

Given the above facts, to deepen consumer engagement, advertisers should present and administer
the brand‘s SNS pages as virtual communities, where a continuous exchange of opinions and
feelings takes place and building and enhancing meaningful relationships with their SNS fans and
visitors (Tsai, 2013) rather than official websites or online forums where the communication is
mostly directed by the brand representatives(Tsai, 2013).

Such paradigm shift, from brand to consumer communication to two-way interactive

communication, makes it imperative for marketers to understand how and why individuals interact
(engagement behaviour) with brands on SNSs in order to cultivate effective relationships with
today‘s technology-savvy consumers (Tsai et al., 2013).
The internet, social media and social networking sites profoundly changed the way people live and
communicate and by this, inevitably change the face of marketing by the way people interact with
brands. Millennials have a special relationship with social networking sites and they are said to
mostly engage with brands on these social platforms (Barton, 2014). This chapter provides the
definition of these platforms and what makes them so important and relevant for research but also
and argumentation of how are they relevant for this research.

2.3. Consumer engagement: theoretical foundations

2.3.1. Engagement behaviours

The goal of this research is to unfold the reasons behindmillennials interaction with brands on social
media in other words, to uncover the motives that drive customer engagement behaviour and lead to
customer engagement. To achieve this goal, general theoretical and empirical knowledge about
‗customer engagement‘ and ‗engagement behaviours‘ is reviewed. It is difficult to provide a clear
definition of customer engagement concept. Literature in marketing around the engagement concept
is narrow and unclear but researchseems to agree on the multidimensionality of the concept. The
most common dimensions are- cognitive; emotional; behavioural- this dimensions, along with the
definition and literature around customer engagement and customer online engagement behaviour
are reviewed. In the second part of the ―consumer engagement chapter‖ two theoretical frameworks
– Consumers‘ online brand-related activities (COBRA) framework and the uses and gratification
theory- that will be the base of this research are presented and reviewed. COBRAs lead to the so
much desired customer engagement and the uses and gratification theory help derive the
motivations that lead to COBRAs. Using these theoretical frameworks, some research questions are
drawn.

Customer engagement has received many definitions, for example, some researchers believe that
customer engagement is a ―motivational state that occurs by virtue of interactive, co-creative
customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a brand) in focal brand relationships‖ (Brodie
et al., 2015 p.57).

The ‗customer engagement‘ concept fits within the broader theoretical perspectives of consumer
culture theory (Thompson et. al., 2005), the service-dominant logic (Lukas et. al., 2012; Lusch et.
al. 2004, 2008), and relationship marketing (Morgan et. al., 2012)

Hollebeek (2011) has conceptually researched customer engagement specifically with a brand to
further test it in an empirical qualitative way. The level of an individual customer‘s motivational,
brand-related and context-dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of cognitive,
emotional and behavioural activity in brand interactions (Hollebeek et al., 2011). Phillips and
McQuarrie (2010) in their empirical qualitative research have described the concept of ‗advertising
engagement‘ as routes to persuasion.

A relationship between goal oriented behaviour and engagement have been discussed. This is an
important point for the purpose of this research since it is being assumed that millennials have a
goal they want to satisfy by interacting with Brand SNS Fan page. People ―pursue a goal in a
manner that sustains their orientation (e.g. eagerly if they have a promotion focus; vigilantly if they
have a prevention focus), they experience their engagement in that goal pursuit more strongly than
they do when pursuing the goal in a way random way (e.g. pursuing a goal eagerly if their
orientation is more preventative),‖ (Higgins et al., 2006, p.2). When the manner of their goal pursuit
fits their orientation, they experience a stronger evaluative reaction to the activity (Higgins et. al.,
2000).

Most of the researches regarding ‗customer engagement‘ recognize the multidimensionality of the
concept. Engagement,‘ in contrast to ‗satisfaction,‘ is focused on consumers‘ cognitive, emotional
and behavioural dynamics during specific brand interactions (whereas satisfaction may largely arise
thereafter) (Hollebeek et al., 2014). Because of this factor most of researchers place the
‗engagement concept‘ on cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions (Brodie et al. 2011;
Hollebeek, 2011; Brodie et al. 2013, Higgins et. al., 2006).

Brand community engagement‘ behaviour is also described as the positive influences of identifying
with the brand community through the consumer‘s intrinsic motivation to interact/ co-operate with
community members (Hollebeek et al., 2014). In their empirical research, the authors found also
three dimensions of the concept: 1. Utilitarian (cognitive), 2. Hedonic (emotional) and 3. Social
(behavioural/emotional) (Hollebeek et al., 2014).

Abdul-Ghani, Hyde, and Marshall (2010), discovered that in order to reach engagement, consumer
connection with a specific media is required. Their research findings, further sustain the importance
of customer-brand interaction within the social media environment as customer are more and more
engaged with this social platform.

2.3.2. Social media and engagement

Controlling today‘s media-centred lifestyle, social media are radically changing how customers
interact with brands and companies (Tsai et al., 2013). This new channels are drastically changing
the way companies manage the relationship with their customer. So firms have to investigate the
consumer behaviour in relation to this new media and how to profit from it. As use of the new
media increases also empirical evidence that social media activity can have a positive impact on
customer loyalty and further purchase behaviour arises. Given this reasons, ‗online engagement‘
concept have been rising high interest lately both for managers and academics.

It is of primary importance to engage audiences with the media context as it was discovered in
research that it is an antecedent that leads to leads to outcomes such as usage, affect, and responses
to communication messages (Malthouse et. Al., 2009).All media are potentially emotive triggering
both positive and negative emotions (Jones et al., 2008). However, characteristics specific to the
internet such as interactivity and engagement ―confer emotion-evoking advantages that offline
media lacks (Christodoulides et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2008).

The emerging literature on consumers‘ brand-related activities has identified factors contributing to
consumers‘ word-of-mouth behavior on SNSs (Tsai et al., 2013; Choi et al.,2011) and suggested
that interacting in brand-related SNS groups and virtual communities is positively related to
attitudes toward viral campaigns and commercial messages in social media (Chi, 2011; Chu, 2011).

It has been noticed that customer engagement in the online environment is a phenomenon worth
exploring. In this direction, Brodie et al (2013) has expanded its conceptual research and enriched
the initial ‗customer engagement‘ definition, taking into consideration also the web 2.0 and
acknowledging the interactive nature of this process and its role in brand communities. From this
research, the following more complete definition of ‗customer engagement‘ has arisen: ‗A
multidimensional concept comprising cognitive, emotional, and/ or behavioural dimensions,
[which] plays a central role in the process of relational exchange where other relational concepts are
engagement antecedents and/or consequences in interactive engagement processes within the brand
community‘ (Kleine-Kalmer, 2016; Brodie et al ,2013). This definition goes hand in hand with the
relational nature of social media and the networking behaviour of people.

One of the first quantitative researches, considers ‗online engagement‘ with the medium, as being a
consequence of the ‗experience‘ construct and so, ‗experience‘ is found to be: ―a consumer‘s beliefs
about how a (web)site fits into his/her life.‖ (Malthouse et. al,2009). The authors found eight
dimensions of online engagement: 1. Stimulation & inspiration I; 2. Social facilitation I; 3.
Temporal I; 4. Self-esteem & civic mindedness I; 5. Intrinsic enjoyment; 6. Utilitarian; 7.
Participation & socializing; 8. Community (Malthouse et. al,2009).
The aforementioned research considers ‗engagement‘ and ‗customer engagement‘ in a more
traditional perspective and does not reflect fully the interactive facet of the brand relationship.
Recent research has explored the ‗customer brand engagement‘ concept known also as CBE.

2.3.3. Theories around customer engagement behaviour (CEB),interactivity and

social media

‗Consumer brand engagement‘ is a concept that more comprehensively reflect the nature of
consumers‘ particular interactive brand relationships,relative to traditional concepts, including
‗involvement‘ (Hollebeek et al., 2011). Meaning that, compared to other ‗engagement‘-based
concepts, including ‗consumer-‘ and ‗customer engagement‘ (Brodie et al. 2011; van Doorn et al.
2010), ‗community engagement‘ (Hermann et. al., 2005), ‗consumer brand engagement‘ includes a
two-way interactive communication and ‗new forms of customer empowerment‘ (Cova et. al,
2006).

It is of high interest for the managers to pay attention to CBE construct because increasing levels of
consumers‘ brand engagement (CBE)-in other words, if consumer are engaged with a brand online-
are expected to lead to higher organisation performance like sales growth, cost reductions and also
online and offline referrals, (Hollebeek, 2014; Bijmolt et al., 2010; Nambisan et. al., 2007;
Prahalad, 2004; Prandelli et. al., 2005).

The notion that best incorporates both the ―interactive experience‖ sustained by the social media
system and the ―engagement‖ concept is the customer brand engagement (CBE) notion (Brodie et
al., 2013). CBE research has lagged behind, resulting in a limited understanding of the concept and
its measurement to date (Hollebeek et al., 2014; Bolton, 2011; Krafft et. al., 2010).

As found in previous research regarding customer engagement, CBE concept rises on the same
dimensions: cognitive processing, affection, and activation. For the purpose of creating a CBE
analysis model, Linda D. Hollebeek et al. (2014) developed a framework considering consumer
brand ‗involvement‘ as a CBE antecedent and consumer ‗self-brand connection‘ and ‗brand usage
intent‘ as a key CBE consequence.

‗Customer brand involvement‘ construct reflects the consumer‘s level of interest in, and personal
relevance of a brand gaining significant attention (Feick et. al., 2003; Zaichkowsky, 1985 and
1994). The scale of the model created by Linda D. et al. (2014) helps generate managerial
knowledge regarding the attainment of enhanced organizational performance outcomes, including
heightened consumer brand loyalty.
When you think about social media engagement, it is useful to break it down into something
tangible, such as a long-term relationship. Engagement is particularly relevant to SNS given their
relationship centric and inherently participatory nature which naturally leads to the cultivation of
meaningful relationship (Sunny Tsai, 2013).

Recently, scholarly attention is shifting to concepts and theoretical perspectives that focus on the
interactivness of customer engagement with the brand, specifically in the online environment
(Hollebeek et al. 2014;Boltonet. al., 2009; Malthouse et. al., 2010).

Similarly, COBRA- consumers‘ online brand-related activities, developed by Muntinga, Moorman

and Smith (2013) is one of the models created to analyse the CBE in the social media environment.
Specifically, the COBRA concept is used as a behavioral construct that provides a unifying
framework to think about consumer activity pertaining to brand-related content on social media
platforms (Mutinga et al., 2011).

2.3.4. Uses and Gratification theory

Customer engagement as found in literature is caused by antecedents which are found to be the
motivations for interacting with a website, social media platform, brands and companies. One
common framework used also in the marketing literature to uncover these motivations is the ―uses
and gratification‖ theory (U&G). In this subchapter, at the beginning, an overview of the theory,
containing academic research and application of the theory until now is provided. This theory can
be used to uncover motivations of using certain media but it can also be used to uncover the motives
behind following a Facebook brand page. Towards the end of the subchapter, the motivations part
of the U&G theory is explained and how theyapply to this research. Moreover, the U&G theory is
the base of the COBRA model further to explained and used in this research. So initially, the
gratification sought when first following a brand page are to be uncovered using the U&G theory.
Afterwards, using COBRA framework the activities that such motivation can drive in millennial
customers.

2.3.5. Past research using Uses and Gratification framework

The U&G (uses and gratification) framework have been used also by researchers in marketing with
the purpose of examining people motivations for using social media. In the following table some
examples are provided:
Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) They study the reasons behind people use of
the SNS MySpace and Facebook.

Okazaki (2009) Uses the framework to study social influence in

E-WOM (electronic word of mouth)

Hollenbaugh (2011) Uses the U&G framework in order to discover

why people use blogs as personal journal

Taylor et al., (2011) ―Examine consumers‘ attitudes towards social

media advertising‖ (Mintinga et al., 2013)

Kwak (2012) Why people choose to use a particular online

media an not another.

There is a meagre of empirical research having the goal of exploring the possible applications of U
and G in an online context. Dunne et al., (2010) mentions researchers like Grant (2005) who‘s
scope was to explore youngsters‘ relationship with digital marketing and Raacke and Bonds-
Raacke‘s (2008) who studied more in-depth the application of the U&G framework in the social
networking sites context.

Uses and Gratification communication theory, normally used to find the gratification sought in the
mass media ―is an audience-oriented approach to understanding why and how people actively seek
out specific media to satisfy specific needs‖ (Wikipedia, 2009).

U&G was originally developed to examine people‘s motivations for using ―traditional‖ media such
as television, radio and newspapers (Katz et. al., 1974) but its theoretical assumptions have been
found applicable by Thurau et al. (2010); Baron et. al. (2009) and others also to other types of
media, including the Internet and social media (Muntinga, 2013).

Another interesting definition of Uses and gratifications, related also to the needs that users want to
satisfy is given by O‘Donohoe, (1994) and Cantril, (1942) and - U and G theory is the study of the
gratifications or benefits that attract and hold audiences to various types of media and the types of
content that satisfy their social and psychological needs (Ruggiero, 2000).

One appreciated characteristic of the U&G theory is that ―as opposed to effect-orientated research
traditions that take the view of the communicator, the U&G approach to communication research
examines media effects from the viewpoint of the individual user (Aitken et al. 2008)‖ (Muntinga et
al., 2011) .U&G uniquely considers what people do to media rather the opposite which was the
general belief till this framework was developed (Katz 1959; Katz et al. 1974; Rubin, 2002;
Ruggiero, 2000; O‘Donohoe, 1994).

Beside this, U&G theory assume that consumer media use is goal directed and it reflects thinking
among psychologists and communication researchers of behavior as goal directed (Kleinginna,
1981).

Some problematics of this theory is that ―it has not always been clear what constituted a motivation
in U&G research, and the lack of a clear definition of a key concept has probably added to the
criticism that U&G has received‖ (Muntinga et al., 2011) for having a ―vague conceptual
framework and a lack of precision in major concepts‖ (Ruggiero, 2000; Palmgreen et al., 1981).

Also some other researchers find some flaws in this theory framework. For example, Severinet et
al.(1988) argues that there is an over-reliance on respondents due to the fact that the studies are
using self-reporting to generate data (Dunne, 2010) and Lometti et al. (1977) who argues that it is
assumed that there is an active audience who is according full attention to the media, which is not
always the case (Rugiero, 2000).

2.3.6. Uses and gratification criticism

U&G researchers have dealt with such criticism by establishing a line of research that aligns more
with other research traditions, and differences between antecedents and consequences of media
behavior. Antecedents of behavior are referred to as ‗gratifications sought‘, consequences of
behavior are referred to as ‗gratifications obtained‘ (Rubin, 2002).

Motivation is seen as the key driving forces behind behavior ad demonstrated by Dichter
(1964)andJoinson (2003) (Muntinga, 2013). Motivations here are understood as gratifications
sought: if media behavior is a means to attain a goal (i.e. gratifications obtained), then motivation is
the activation of that goal-directed behavior (Pervin, 1989).

The most cited and widely recognized U&G categorization is that of McQuail et al. (1972), which
distinguish four gratification categories: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity and
surveillance (Muntinga, 2013).

McQuail‘s (1983) four-category classification of motivations for general media use has been found
relevant and applicable to modern-day media use, including the internet by researchers like Bronner
et al. (2006), Malthouse, (2008, 2010) (Muntinga, 2013).
The category labels have undergone some changes, but no considerable modifications have been
made to the category description. Labels like: entertainment, integration and social interaction,
personal identity and information are more commonly used nowadays when talking about the uses
and gratifications. Under this primary categories of motivations usually some second-order
motivations called ‗sub-motivations ‗are found. For example, the Entertainment category, covers
motivations such as enjoyment and relaxation.

2.3.7. Motivation and sub-motivation under uses and gratification

A complete list and description of motivations and sub-motivations is provided in the underneath
table:

Motivations Sub-motivation Description

Entertainment  enjoyment  Enjoyment:―denotes consuming brand-

 relaxation related content because people ‗just enjoy
 escapism being on the Björn Borg Hyve‘
 pastime ―(Muntinga, 2011, p. 28)
 Relaxation: ―consuming brand-related
content as a means to unwind from
everyday life.‖ (Muntinga, 2011, p. 28)
 Pastime: ―browsing a brand profile on a
social networking site ‗in absence of
nothing else to do‖
Integration and  social interaction  Social interaction: people contributing to
social interaction  social identity brand-related social media platforms in
 helping order to meet like-minded others, and
 social pressure interact and talk with them about a
particular brand (Muntinga, 2011, p.30)
 Social identity: people noting a ―critical
demarcation between users of their brand
and users of other brands‖ (Muñiz et. Al.,
2001); (Muntinga, 2011).
 Helping: contributing to brand-related
content to help and get help from each
other
  The social pressure motivation in the
creating COBRA type refers to people
uploading brand-related content because
other people do so.
Personal identity  self-expression  self-expression: people contributing to
 self-presentation brand related content in order to provide
 self-assurance others with an image of their personality;
 Self-presentation: express and shape one‘s
identity and/or personality: who you are
and what you stand for.
 Self-assurance: people contributing to
brand-related content in order to receive
other members‘ recognition and gain self-
assurance (Muntinga et al. 2011; Lampel
et. Al., 2007).
Information 1. surveillance 1. Surveillance: stands for observing and
2. knowledge staying updated about one‘s social
3. pre-purchase environment
information 2. Knowledge: denotes people consuming
4. inspiration brand-related information to profit from
other people‘s knowledge and expertise in
order to learn more about a product or
brand
3. Pre-purchase info: reading product
reviews or threads on brand communities
in order to make well-considered buying
decisions
4. Inspiration: people consuming brand-
related information to ‗get new ideas‘ –
like a source of inspiration
Remuneration X brand-related online activities may be partly
driven by prospects of money, job-related benefits
or other rewards (e.g Thurau et al.
 2004)(Muntinga et al. 2011).

Empowerment X

―Two extra motivations emerged from general social media motivations literature and that do not
correspond with any of the entertainment, integration and social interaction, personal identity, or
information motivations‖ (Muntinga 2011, p.19). This social media specific motivations, worth
considering it this paper, are: remuneration and empowerment (Muntinga et. al., 2013).

The internet and more specifically SNS, constitute newer media formats, with their own defining
characteristics, which are ripe for examination under the theoretical lens of U and G theory (Dunne
et. al., 2010)

Basing on the uses and gratification found by Muntinga et al. (2013) this research wants to see what
are the goals for reaching a SNS brand page independently of the behaviour that this motivation
might drive. As such, this information can be used in the initial phase of the AIDA model and so to
drive attention and interest in the Brand Social networking page.

2.4. COBRA MODEL

COBRA developed by Muntinga et al. (2013) is the first framework that attempts to shed light on
(a) the importance of motivation in explaining customer online brand related activities (COBRAs)
and (b) the motivational patterns that govern consumers‘ consuming, contributing, and creating of
brand-related content (Muntinga et al., 2013).The COBRA typology provides a single unifying
framework to categorize all brand-related activity on social media. By knowing the motivations that
affect COBRAs, managers can strategically use this information to their advantage since it has been
demonstrated to have significant influence on brand perceptions, brand loyalty and brand
engagement.

In this chapter, the constructs and the variables underlying COBRA model are presented. In the first
few paragraphs the importance and applicability of this model is explained. Further, a short
description of the COBRA typologies and motivation are provided in two different tables.
Motivations are broadly recognized as the most important antecedents of consumer behaviour
(Dichter, 1964; Joinson, 2003).

Basing on the Uses and gratification framework, COBRA model by Muntinga et al. (2013) was
created to quantify motivations for brand-related social media use as motivations gain predictive
power when COBRAS become more active.
With regard to the motivation structures underlying COBRAs, this study demonstrates that all
brand-related activity on social media is primarily motivated by information and entertainment.

The COBRA MODEL is developed based on the Uses and Gratifications theory framework.

Consumers‘ online brand-related activities, hereafter- COBRAs-, (Muntinga, 2013) ―have been
demonstrated to significantly influence other consumers‘ purchase behavior (Prendergast et. Al.,
2010), brand perceptions (Berthon, et. Al., 2011), brand loyalty (Casal et. Al., 2010), and brand
engagement (Bagozzi et. Al., 2006)‖ (Muntinga, 2013). Also from here, the applicability and
importance of the study of such activities so for managers to strategically affect COBRAs to their
advantage, and the importance of having ―a proper understanding of the driving forces behind
COBRAs (Chen et. Al.,2011; Chu et. Al., 2011)‖ (Muntinga, 2013).

―The internet as a mass media form, especially lends itself to a U and G approach, in part due to its
interactive nature‖(Dunne, 2010).

2.4.1. Motivations and COBRAs

Motivations are at the core of brand-related activities, for example, online brand community
participation may be motivated differently than creating brand related user generated content and a
different strategy may be required to stimulate participation. Motivations are broadly recognized as
the most important antecedents of consumer behaviour (Dichter, 1964; Joinson, 2003).

Separate contributions have examined the motivations of isolated activities such as posting reviews
(Thurau et. al., 2004), participating in online brand communities (Bagozzi et. al., 2006) and creating
consumer-generated advertisements (Campbell et. al., 2008).

The COBRA typology ―provides a single unifying framework to categorize all brand-related
activity on social media. A passive-to-active continuum of three types of online consumer activities
pertaining to brand-related content, this typology includes three types of brand-related behaviour on
social media: 1. Consuming, 2. Contributing, 3. Creating‖ (Muntinga, 2013).

A short description of the CORBA typology is provided:

COBRA typology Level of brand related Activities related to the typology

activeness on social
media

Consuming brand- Minimum / passive  ―consulting product reviews, reading

related content activities brand-related discussions on forums, and
viewing brand-related videos‖ (Muntinga,
2013).
Contributing to brand- Middle  ―covers both consumer-to-content and
related content consumer-to-consumer interactions about
brands‖ (Muntinga, 2013).
 ―participating in brand-related
conversations on social networking sites,
forwarding brand content, commenting on
brand-related weblogs, and rating
products/brands and other consumers‘
brand related contributions (e.g. Chu,
2011; Porter et al., 2011)‖ (Muntinga,
2013).
Creating brand- related High  ―are actively producing and publishing the
content content that other consumers consume and
contribute to‖ (Muntinga, 2013).
 ―creating and uploading user-generated
advertisements, writing brand-related
articles, and posting product reviews
(Campbell et. al., 2011; Jawecki et. al.,
2010; Trusov et. al., 2011; Hove, et. al.,
2011)‖ (Muntinga, 2013).

The COBRA typology together with the UG theory, develops ―an instrument for quantitatively
investigating the motivations underlying different online brand-related activities‖ (Muntinga, 2013).
―As such, the COBRA concept uniquely allows to assess how, for instance, consumers‘ motivations
for viewing brand-related videos on YouTube (consuming) relate to their motivations to discuss
these videos with other consumers (contributing) and their motivations to create and upload their
own brand-related videos to YouTube (creating)‖ (Muntinga, 2013).

Motivation is being recognized in academic literature, as the most important antecedent of

consumer behaviour making this framework applicable also for the purpose of the present research:
finding millennials motivations for interacting with a Brand SNS page and moreover, find what
happens if that gratification is satisfied.

―Within a social media marketing context‖, motivations ―can be understood as the forces that drive
consumers‘ selection and use of social media platforms and brand-related content (Rubin, 2002)‖
(Muntinga, 2013).

Only a short description of uses and gratification theory will be provided here to explain how this
theory fits the COBRA framework. ―U&G was developed to examine people‘s motivations for
using ―traditional‖ media such as television, radio and newspapers (Katz et. al., 1974), but its
theoretical assumptions and broader motivation categories have been found stable over all sorts of
media, including the Internet and social media (Thurau et al., 2010; Baron et. al., 2009)‖ (Muntinga,
2013). Drawing from previous research, U&G has also application in the social media channels.

―A part of U&G theory proposes that motivations for media use depend on user activity levels.
High activity media use is linked to more purposive motivations (e.g., information), while low
activity media use is linked to passive motivations (e.g., relaxation or killing time). This idea that
active and passive media use are driven by different motivations fits with the three levels of brand-
related activeness of the COBRA typology (i.e., consuming, contributing, creating) and this article‘s
premise that these may be driven by different motivations (Hanson et. al., 2009; Rubin, 1983)‖
(Muntinga, 2013, p.54). The two countries under study have different levels of using social media,
it will be interesting to acknowledge the typology of Cobra in this countries and compare them.

Motivation that drive consumers‘ Description

brand-related social

media use

Information ―motivations such as staying informed and updated about

one‘s brand-related social environment, learning and profiting
from other consumers‘ knowledge, making well-considered
buying decisions and getting inspired (Hanson et. al., 2009;
Thurau et. al., 2003; Valenzuela et. al., 2009)‖ (Muntinga,
2013,p.54)

Entertainment represents enjoyment, unwinding from everyday life through

relaxation, and filling time because of boredom (Bronner et.
 al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2011; Quan-Haase et. al, 2010)

Personal identity ―motivations that are self-related and identity-related such as

using brand-related content to provide other consumers and/or
peers with an image of their personality and to show off, to
express and shape one‘s identity or personality and to gain
self-assurance by receiving other consumers‘ recognition
(Gangadharbatla, 2008; Marwick et. al., 2010; Mehdizadeh,
2010)‖ (Muntinga, 2013,p.55)

Integration & social interaction ―motivations such as meeting like-mindedothers and

conversing with them about brands, gaining a sense of
belonging by bonding with others around a common passion,
and helping others (Dholakia et.al., 2006; Bright, et. al., 2008;
Hanson et. al., 2009; Okazaki,2009)‖ (Muntinga, 2013,p.55)

Empowerment ―consuming, contributing or creating brand related

content on social media platforms to influence other

consumers, companies or brands (Berthon et al., 2008; Füller
et. al., 2010; Porter et al., 2011)‖ (Muntinga, 2013,p.55)

Remuneration Consumers expect to gain any kind of reward

Table 1. ―Motivation for COBRA (Muntinga et al., 2011; Malthouse et. al., 2010; McQuail, 1983)‖
(Muntinga, 2013)
Fig 4. Subcategories of motivations (Muntinga et al., 2011)

―The motivation categories and the COBRA types previously described cover the full spectrum of
motivations and the full spectrum of brand-related social media uses‖ (Muntinga, 2013). This
enabled Muntinga et al. (2013) to examine the motivations of a specific COBRA type.

Practical implications knowing that different sets of motivations account for different COBRAs
enables brand managers to anticipate and stimulate consumers‘ online brand-related activities.
Knowing that creating brand-related content is partially driven by motivations of personal identity
makes it possible for brand managers to manipulate such motivations (Muntinga et al., 2011).

2.4.2. Motivations and COBRAS in literature

Rubin (2002) have found that U&G has 6 major topical areas, for instance: ―1. linking the media-
use motives with media attitudes and behaviours, 2. comparing motivations across media forms, 3.
examining the different social and psychological circumstances of media use, 4. evaluating the link
or difference between gratifications sought (GS) and gratifications obtained (GO), 5. exploring
whether variations in backgrounds affect behaviour and attributes and 6. consideration of the
methods, reliability and validity of measuring motivation‖ (Dunne, 2010, p.47). This findings,
further support the applicability and reliability of the COBRA model for the purpose of this
research.

This model is adequate also to measure consumer engagement with brand SNS pages, firstly
because it was created considering the engagement behaviour in a social media context and
secondly its consideration towards the interactive, relationship oriented nature of consumers and of
this new media platforms. COBRA Model, developed by Muntinga, Moorman and Smith (2013)
provides a good tool to research into the millennials engagement behaviour with brand SNS sites.

2.5. Personality traits as antecedents of customer engagement behavior with FBP

The COBRA framework developed by Muntinga et al. (2013) is e very good framework to describe
the motivations behind millennials use of FBP and how they use it, but considers only motivation as
antecedent of the level of customer engagement. There are a lot of factors that could influence
customer engagement with FBP. For example, ―personality traits ―constructhas successfully been
used as antecedent that explain how and how much consumers use SNS (Krishnan et al., 2014).

―Personality traits are the characteristics that are distinct to an individual. Psychologists determined
that there are five major personality traits and that everyone falls into at least one of them‖
(Reference.com, 2016). The Five Factor Model was initially proposed by Costa & McCrae in the
year 1992 and often describes the relation between an individual‘s personality and various
behaviours (Wikipedia, 2016).

This subchapter explains, first what variables represent the construct and a short description,
secondit reviews the literature about the construct and third how ―personality traits‖ as-
extraversion; neuroticism; openness to experience; agreeableness; conscientiousness and
narcissism- fits into the COBRA framework.

As the U&G theory, ―personality traits‖ have been used to study the media adoption but its scope
has been expanded to examine various forms of computer mediated communication. Precisely,
personality traits encompass the Five Factor Model (FFM)– extraversion, neuroticism, openness to
experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Atkin et. Al., 2011; Goldberg, 1993; Langstedt et.
Al., 2014; McCrae et. Al., 1999).

Personality Trait Description

Extraversion  ―driving force in relationship formation

and maintenance on SNSs (Back et al.,
 2010)‖ (Krishnan et al., 2014)
 ―significantly related to the size of
one‘s network and to level of activity
and self-presentation on SNSs (Acar,
2008; Krämer et. Al., 2008)‖ (Krishnan
et al., 2014)
 Dimensions: outgoing/energetic vs.
solitary/reserved
 Characteristics: ―Energy, positive
emotions, assertiveness, sociability and
the tendency to seek stimulation in the
company of others, and talkativeness‖
(Wikipedia.org, 2016)
 ―High extraversion is often perceived as
attention-seeking, and domineering‖
(Wikipedia.org, 2016)
 ―Low extraversion causes a reserved,
reflective personality‖ (Wikipedia.org,
2016), which can be perceived as aloof
or self-absorbed.

Neuroticism  Dimension: sensitive/nervous vs.

secure/confident
 ―The tendency to experience unpleasant
emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety,
depression, and vulnerability.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―Neuroticism also refers to the degree
of emotional stability and impulse
control and is sometimes referred by its
low pole, "emotional stability". ―
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―A high need for stability manifests as a
stable and calm personality, but can be
 seen as uninspiring and unconcerned.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―A low need for stability causes a
reactive and excitable personality, often
very dynamic individuals, but they can
be perceived as unstable or insecure.‖
(Conlatio, 2016)

Openness to experience  a significant predictor of SNS use

(Banczyk et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2009)
 experiencing new forms of
communication
 Dimensions:inventive/curious vs.
consistent/cautious
 Characteristics: ―appreciation for art,
emotion, adventure, unusual ideas,
curiosity, and variety of experience.
Openness reflects the degree of
intellectual curiosity, creativity and a
preference for novelty and variety a
person has. Extent to which a person is
imaginative or independent, and depicts
a personal preference for a variety of
activities over a strict routine.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―High openness can be perceived as
unpredictability or lack of focus.
Moreover, individuals with high
openness are said to pursue self-
actualization specifically by seeking out
intense, euphoric experiences, such as
skydiving, living abroad, gambling.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―Low openness individuals, seek to
 gain fulfillment through perseverance,
and are characterized as pragmatic and
data-driven—sometimes even perceived
to be dogmatic and closed-minded.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)
 ―Some disagreement remains about
how to interpret and contextualize the
openness factor.‖ (boundless.com,
2016)

Agreeableness  Dimensions: friendly/compassionate vs.

analytical/detached;
 Characteristics: Tendency to be
compassionate and cooperative rather
than suspicious and antagonistic
towards others.
 A measure of one's trusting and helpful
nature, and whether a person is
generally well-tempered or not.
 ―High agreeableness is often seen as
naive or submissive. Low agreeableness
personalities are often competitive or
challenging people, which can be seen
as argumentative or untrustworthy.‖
(boundless.com, 2016)

Conscientiousness  Dimensions: efficient/organized vs.

easy-going/careless;
 Characteristics: A tendency to be
organized and dependable, show self-
discipline, act dutifully, aim for
achievement, and prefer planned rather
than spontaneous behavior.
 ―High conscientiousness is often
perceived as stubborn and obsessive.
 Low conscientiousness is flexible and
spontaneous, but can be perceived as
sloppy and unreliable.‖ (boundless.com,
2016)

Table 2: Characteristics of ―the BIG FIVE‖ personality traits

The traits described in the table are the most used one in academic literature but ―Ross et al. (2009)
maintain that researchers should not limit themselves to studying personality traits derived from the
Big-Five schema (McCrae et. Al., 1992)‖ (Krishnan et al., 2014).―Pearse (2013) argues, for
instance, that social media are a stage for narcissism and preliminary research (Bergman et al.,
2011; Valkenburg et al., 2006) has uncovered a link between the two‖ (Krishnan et al., 2014).Since
millennials were characterized to be the most narcissistic generation of all and (Stain, 2013;
Ahadzadeh, 2014;Leung, 2013) SNS have been demonstrated to be an ideal platform to practice
narcissistic behaviors, narcissism trait could also have an impact on COBRAs and level of
engagement on FBP. Because of this, narcissism will be included in the studied personality traits.

Narcissism is characterized byan inflated self-concept, a sense of uniqueness and entitlement, and
positive self-view of traits like intelligence and extraversion (Brown et. Al., 2004; Emmons, 1987).
―In order to maintain their inflated sense of self, narcissists rely on multiple strategies including
domineering and exhibitionist behaviors (Buss et. Al , 1991; Campbell et. Al., 2003)‖ (Krishnan et
al., 2014).

Individual personality traits have a high influence on the way we act and the choices we make.
Considering the theory that sustain that human behavior is goal oriented and so that motivation
drive us to do something(Dichter, 1964; Joinson, 2003), an assumption that personality traits impact
human motivation is grounded. In this case for example, the fact that a millennial may show strong
extraversion personality trait could impact for what motives he reach a FBP, could be more for
entertainment than for information. Moreover, being an extrovert can influence also the level of
engagement on FBP because they have the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others,
and are talkative which can drive them to have a contributing level of engagement. Also, Finn
(1997) suggest that to explain the motivation of U&G theories a ―broad range of become a more
tractable endeavor‖.

In this subchapter, the personality traits construct and its variables are reviewed. The relationship
between this construct and engagement explained previously, leads to the following hypothesis and
research question.
3. Methods and methodology

In methods and methodology chapter the following will be presented: first, a description of the
approach of the study including- analytical model, research questions and assumptions, research
design and factors that influenced the research design. Second the description of measurements and
scaling choosed for this study are provided. Third, the process of questionnaire creation and
distribution is presented along with the sampling frame.

3.1. Approach of the study

As also specified in previous chapters, this is study adopts an exploratory research design, using
secondary data to back up researcher assumption and open ended question to gather insightful
information about the assumptions. Based on the research problem, research questions were crated
which will not be demonstrated by hypothesis given the qualitative nature of the research. Instead
the researcher will analyse the answers in a qualitative way and will judge if the results support
these assumptions made, or if new, insightful information stands out from the research. The
exploratory research design of this study is also influenced by the fact that little literature and
academic research related to millennials relationship with brands online exists. So without much
background information on these specific factors, first exploratory research must be done in order to
proceed and analyse factors in a quantitative way.

To have a clearer picture about the constructs to be analysed a verbal analytical model its presented,
backed up by a visual representation.

The constructs used in this research, both to support the creation of surveys, both to analyse results
are derived from the research question. There are two main constructs in this research paper,
motivation and customer online engagement. Moreover, this constructs will be analysed also in
relation with other demographical and psychographic data. Research has shown that personality
traits are a driver of behaviour and also in relationship with behaviour on social media (Krishnan et.
al., 2014). This study wants to see if personality trait influences somehow the behavior in relation
with a FBP. Motivation construct is broad, in order to have some structure, the uses and
gratification motivations are used to categorize answers. The research wants to find out - 1. What
are the motives behind simply liking a FBP; 2. What is the actual level of engagement of
millennials based on the three levels developed by Muntinga et. Al. (2013); 3. What are the motives
behind each level of engagement (consuming; contributing; creating); 4. Does personality traits
have an effect on level of engagement.
So in this study, a relationship between engagement and motivation is assumed. Moreover,
motivation is thought to be different depending on the level of engagement and behavior shown on
the FBP. To align this constructs to the final goal of this research which is: finding out what do
millennials want from the interaction with FBP online, unstructured question will be used, given
also the fact that little secondary data is available of this precise topic.

Figure 5. Conceptual framework of this research paper.

The research questions build on the research goal and assumption, build on the base of secondary,
contextual research, are presented in the underneath table.

Research questions: Assumptions

1. What are the motives behind simply liking a Millennials are not a homogeneous group and
FBP; developed by Muntinga et. Al. (2013); have different motivation for ―Liking‖ a FBP

2. What is the actual level of engagement of Millennials predominant level of engagement is

millennials based on the three levels consuming (passive) level.

3. What are the motives behind each level of Each behaviour described by the level of
engagement (consuming; contributing; engagement have different motivations behind.
creating);

4. Does personality traits have an effect on Personality traits have influence on level of
level of engagement. engagement

Because, from empirical evidence not much creating behaviour is seen in millennials, an extra
unstructured question is added in order to see what would drive millennials to create content.
Marketers can use this information to elicit the creating behaviour in millennials.

Furthermore, content is the heart of social media, the assumption is that millennials reach the FBP
in search of some kind of content. Also here, little information is available to marketers and trough
this study and unstructured questions, the answers to what content would millennials prefer will be
covered.

Next, the way the analytical model will be conducted in this study is presented.

3.2. Measurement and scaling

The constructs of interest in this research are-personality traits; motivation for choosing a FBP,
level of engagement on FBP; COBRAS (customer online brand related activities)- further in this
chapter each of the measurements will be discussed in detail.

Generally, the itemized scales are balanced and even, ―about half of the time ―delimiting the
middle. The respondents will have to evaluate single statements. Moreover, the scaled items used in
this study were already developed and adapted from secondary data and so theories of academic
research, being already tested for reliability and validity. The scaling techniques were chosen
considering: the exploratory design of the research, characteristics of the stimulus objects are
discussed along the next paragraphs and the method of administration which is online questionnaire.

Personality traits are the characteristics that are distinct to an individual. Psychologists determined
that there are five major personality traits and that everyone falls into at least one of them. The Five
Factor Model was initially proposed by Costa & McCrae in the year 1992 and often describes the
relation between an individual‘s personality and various behaviours (Wikipedia.org, 2016).

For measuring personality traits, this paper uses the ―Big Five‖ theoretical framework consisting of
five factors- extraversion, neuroticism, consciousness, openness to experience, agreeableness-
developed by Costa & McCrae (1992) to which in this paper narcissism will be added as research
and trade publications have often attribute this trait to millennials. To operationalize the personality
trait construct, 5-point Likert scales (never; sometimes; about half of the time; most of the time;
always) will be used to rate statements created around each of the personality trait. The
characteristics used to represent each personality trait and so to create the statements to be rated are
found in the literature chapter, table X. The description of the characteristics contained in each
personality trait were taken from Costa & McCrae (1992). Personality traits will be further analysed
in relationship with the level of engagement to see if the predominant personality trait influence the
level of engagement. This measure uses itemized rating scales, each personality traits being
measured independently of the other and the data obtained will be treated as interval.

To better understand our research problem, what do millennials want form brand interaction in the
online environment, we must see what are their motives to visit a certain FBP, what do millennials
seek from such a FBP.

Motivation within a social media marketing context, can be understood as the forces that drive
consumers‘ selection and use of social media platforms and brand-related content (Muntinga, 2013).

Motivation will be researched in relation with user reasons for reaching a FBP and with the wanted
content on the FBP.

So the motivation for interacting with a FBP will be uncovered using two open ended questions.
First the motivation behind the ―linking behaviour‖ will be studied using the question- What drives
you to like a brand official page on Facebook?

As motivation for liking a FBP may be different from the gratification sought on frequent basis
from the page and as Facebook page can be translated in content and interaction respondents were
asked to describe the type of content they would like to find on a Facebook brand page. Open ended
question may be difficult to analyse in the statistical software, so the data will be coded using as
categories the motivations found in the Uses& Gratification framework tested by McQuail (1983)
and Meyen (2004).

The level of engagement with FBP is a construct taken from Muntinga et al. (2013) and it is
characterized by measuring level of engagement by the level of contribution a person has on the
FBP. Level of engagement on FBP is given by the COBRAframework that categorize all brand-
related activity on social media, using a passive-to-active continuum of three types (Muntinga,
2013) of brand-related behaviour on social media: 1. Consuming, 2. Contributing, 3. Creating
(Muntinga et al.,2011).

The scales used for this measure are 6 point Likert scale (never, rarely, about half of the time,
frequently and very frequently) and the statements are taken from the framework used by Muntinga
et. Al. (2013) and adapted to this research. Each Cobra typology is sliced into the characteristic
behaviour that helped create the statements meant to represent each typology. The three typologies
were represented by 3 statements each and were scaled on a 6 point Likert.

Last, activities that an individual do on a FBP are directly related to level of engagement as
demonstrated by Muntinga et. Al. (2013) and so it is interesting to have a first eye peek into
millennials motivation per typology. In this paper, by using open ended question regarding each
level of engagement, the motives behind such behaviour are grasped. After the data will be
gathered, the answers will be categorized and coded. Furthermore, another open question which
ask the respondent to describe circumstances that would persuade them to create content on the
FBP, tries to uncover also what would motivate a millennial to show more contributing behaviour,
which is the highest level of engagement.

Along with the above mentioned measurements, some demographic and psychographic
measurements are added using primary scales, so to make a profile of the selected age cohort. The
following table describes the primary scales variables to be analysed in this research. Nominal
scales consist in: device to access social media; ordinal scales are: the rank of online activities,
favourite social media platform, Facebook activities.

Primary scale of measurement Variable

Nominal Device to access social media

Like of FBP

Gender

Nationality

Occupation

Ordinal Online activities rank

Favourite social media platform rank

Facebook activities rank

Interval Facebook visits

Average time spent on Facebook

Ratio Age
Furthermore, this is a comparative study and the results will be compared between Italian and
British millennials, for example, which personality traits are more dominant in British versus Italian
millennials and also differences in level and engagement and motivation will be unveiled. For this
average respondent rating for each item measured will be compared.

3.3 Questionnaire form and design

The questionnaire was created using an online software, namely ―Qualtrics‖ and is divided in five
blocks, each block representing different constructs to be measured or needed information. The
blocks will be discussed singularly along with the objectives, the design, question structure and type
of information to be obtained. Also the pretesting procedure and results will be discussed. The
questionnaire was distributed online, and respondents were recruited on Facebook, Reddit and using
university data bases e-mail of students.

Online distribution of survey is the most used approach in master dissertations and it is particularly
fitted to this research frame given the fact that the problem of the study is related to the online
environment and also the population studied are digital natives. So, respondents were recruited over
the internet, using a self-selection method.

The questionnaire of this research uses a combined technique of structured and unstructured
questions. Sometimes several questions are needed to obtain the required info, the why questions to
help in getting insights into the influences leading to a certain construct.

The structured questions take the form of multiple choices, dichotomous and scale and the type of
information to obtain is basic information like age and gender and classification information with
the goal of classifying respondents and understand the results.

The unstructured questions are open ended because final goal is to get more insight about
millennials interaction on a FBP since information is not readily available.

A pretesting of the questionnaire was sustained with 2 Italian and 1 English students. The
evaluation criteria were content, wording, sequence, form and layout, questions difficulty and
instructions. From the pretesting, the initial questionnaire was considerably modified. First, the
length was inadequate and the responded stated that they would have renounced at the middle of the
survey. The sequence was also modified, at the beginning having questions regarding online habits
continuing with personality trait statements which instead of 4 statements for each trait, one
comprehensive statement was created to reduce length and complexity. Another important
modification was transforming five structured questions into unstructured open ended questions for
two main reasons: first because the respondents couldn‘t find themselves in the descriptions of the
scales and stated that they had other combination of reasons for using a FBP and second, available
secondary data frameworks and theories are not directly researched on millennials, making an
evident need of exploratory qualitative research. Still, the theories and frameworks will be used as
guidelines and support the data coding process and the structure of the analysis.

As previously said, the questionnaire is divided in five blocks. The first block contains ten questions
and the information needed is related to the respondent habits on the internet and on social media.
The form of the questions varies from multiple choices to ranking.

The second block represents the personality trait construct and it contains six statements,
representing the personality traits factors, scaled on a 5 point Likert. The goal of block number two
is to find which is the dominant personality trait in the millennials respondents to further analyse if
there is a relationship between personality trait and level of engagement.

Block number three is formed by two open ended questions. The information that needs to be
discovered are related to the motives behind millennials interaction with a FBP. To make the
analysis possible, the uses& gratification framework, discussed previously in the literature chapter,
will be used to categorize the answers and hopefully, new categories will emerge.

The last two parts of the survey are represented by customer online level of engagement and last,
four demographic questions. To research into millennials online level of engagement, first three
statements adapted from Muntinga et. al. (2013) were used to describe the three factors representing
COBRAS (customer online brand- related activities), specifically consuming, contributing and
creating. Furthermore, three opened questions were added to this in order to determine millennials
motivation for showing different COBRA behaviour on Facebook Brand Page. The last open-ended
question in block four is not directly related to the framework of the paper but it is interesting and
important to lay down some foundations regarding what would motivate millennials to show a
creating behaviour on the Facebook Brand Page.

The questionnaire was distributed for a two weeks‘ period until the necessary answers to the
questionnaire were raised.

In this sub- chapter the questionnaire design and method were discussed, next the respondents‘
selection model, specifically the sampling process and techniques.
 3.4. Sampling

In this subchapter, the sampling process consisting of: population, sampling frame, technique,
sample size and the executions of the questionnaire will be discussed. One important specification
is related to the determination of the sample size is the qualitative procedure to evaluate it.

The number of elements to be included in the sample is evaluated in a qualitative way given the
nature of the research which is exploratory. Also this evaluation method is further supported by the
small number of important variables for the analysis, not more than 20, consisting of- time online,
online activities, time on Facebook, dominant personality trait, motivation, the three levels of
COBRA: consuming, contributing and creating and the affiliated motivations.

Sample sizes used in similar study was a determinant criterion for the choice of the sample size of
this research. Most of researches using an exploratory design, use samples between fifty and two
hundred respondents. Given the nature and the resources constraints of this research, a sample of
one hundred respondents will be selected for each of the two countries, subject of the research. Also
the small sample is justified by the fact that no sophisticated analysis will be done with the data,
most of the analysis will be based on simple procedures like frequencies, cross-tabulation and
analysis of variance.

The target population in this study are millennials aged between twenty and thirty-five years old
from Britain and Italy,the same for the sampling elements and sampling units. The geographical
boundaries, as stated before are Italy and Britain. As for the sampling frame, the target will be
approached on the internet, checking for sampling error by imposing some conditions as age to
complete the survey. The sampling frame is composed by individuals, aged between 20-25 years
old, being part of the millennials cohort. Respondents have to have an active Facebook account and
preferably have been interacting at least once with a brand on Facebook. In the next paragraphs the
sampling technique will be discussed.

To implement the sampling design decision, a non-probability sampling technique, specifically a

judgmental sample is used. Although judgmental sampling may have many disadvantages like non-
representability it is an accepted technique given the exploratory objectives of the research meaning
generating insights into millennial motivation to interact with a FBP and generate and test some
relationship in order to generate hypothesis to be tested in future research.

A judgmental sampling was chosen also because the researcher had to choose the elements that are
representative for the research to be included in the sample, as for twenty to thirty-five years old
millennials. Findings will be treated as preliminary, the sample consists of millennials aged twenty
to thirty-five years old from two different countries, namely Britain and Italy.

Respondents are recruited online based on researcher personal judgement. An invitation to complete
the questionnaire is sent in particular platforms and groups, which are representative to the group
wanted. A specific requirement is asked before permitting the access to the questionnaire which is
age and owning a Facebook account. For the rest, it is a self- selection process, an email was sent to
university students, messages containing an anonymous link of the questionnaire and the invitation
to complete it were posted a Facebook Fan created groups and on Reddit. To raise more answers, an
incentive consisting of a small booklet on privacy online was offered at the completion of the
survey.

4. Data analysis
4.1. Data collection and preparation

For the process of data analysis, IBM statistical software, SPSS, was used. This is an exploratory
research, statistical procedures will be used more to analyse some relationships and testing some
assumption but for the rest, the analysis will be based on the judgement of the researcher in relation
with the theory reviewed. Data collection procedure was discussed in the methodology chapter so
here the data preparation process is described. As a first step, the questionnaire answers were
checked for incomplete, inconsistent and ambiguous responses and some respondents were
discarded for irrelevant responses. If not so important responses were missing the answers were
kept because of small sample size.

Indexes were created where needed, and will be discussed more in-depth when used in the data
analysis process.

After questionnaire was checked for completeness and edited where necessary, codes were checked
for correctness, no codes were assigned manually as ―Qualtrics‖ survey offers a customized
document for Spss. For example, yes and no answers were coded 1 and 2, the Likert scales were
coded 1 to 5 and so on.

Since the questionnaire contained six open ended questions, coding of this unstructured questions
were made. Codes are developed and assigned based on previous theoretical consideration like uses
and gratification theory and COBRA framework. If respondents don‘t fall in any category code,
new categories are created. In this case, being an exploratory study, the researcher decides the
categories based on judgement.
The unstructured questions used in the questionnaire are:

1.What drives you to like a brand official page on Facebook?

2. Describe the type of content you would like to find on a Facebook brand page?

3. Why do you consume (view; read) content on the brand Facebook page?

4. What do you want to obtain when you interact on the brand Facebook page showing behaviours
like commenting, engaging in discussions with other community members liking and sharing?

5. Describe some situations when you created some content (post photos of you using the brand;
write detailed reviews; any kind of advertising; #tagging the brand etc.) and please write your
motivation for doing so. * if you didn't have any similar behaviour as the one described please skip
to the next question

6. Describe some circumstances that would persuade you to create (post photos of you using the
brand; write detailed reviews; any kind of advertising; #tagging the brand etc.) some content and
contribute to the Facebook Brand page

The categories that are assigned a code in Spss are the following: ―did not interact with a brand on
Facebook‖; ―Information‖; ―Integration and social Interaction‖; ―Personal Identity‖;
―Entertainment‖; ―remuneration‖; ―Empowerment‖ and ―Other‖ for the answers that could be coded
otherwise.

Categ: No interaction Info I& SI PI Enter. Renum. Empow. Other

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

During the analysis process some variables were receded in order to reach the objective of the
study. For example, personality trait was recoded into ―weak presence‖, ―strong presence‖
categorical variable and level of engagement and a ―strong‖ or ―weak‖ presence for each
engagement behaviour.

A composite of variables was created for each engagement level variable since 3 individual
statement per variables were used to measure level of engagement.
 4.2. Selecting the data analysis strategy

In the introduction part of this research paper, a first glimpse in the data analysis strategy was
provided.

Taking into account the exploratory design, the small experience of the researcher the purpose and
underlying assumptions, basic statistical techniques, like frequencies and cross-tabs, will be used to
address the research problem.

Furthermore, this is an international research and a within country data analysis approach is taken.
This means that data will be analysed for each country and then the results are compared.

4.3. British sample

In the previous section, the cleaning of data and the data analysis strategy was described. Basic
techniques as- frequency distribution, and cross-tabs are used to answer specific research questions.
This is an exploratory research, statistical procedures will be used more to analyse some
relationships and testing some assumption for the rest, data will be analysed in a qualitative way,
based on the judgement of the researcher in relation with the theory reviewed. Interesting simple
charts from ―Qualtrics‖ software are presented about general use of internet and social media.
Towards the end of this chapter, new information discovered through the open questions are
discussed.

Before trying to answer the research questions, an overview of the demographic characteristics of
the British sample is presented.
Fig. 5: Results SPSS frequencies

As it can be seen the sample is composed by eighteen respondents with age 20-25, thirty between
26-30 and only two between 31 and 35. For this reason and to avoid further bias, the two
respondents will be excluded from the analysis. The sample is overrepresented by female
respondents with thirty-six females and fourteen males. As can be also seen in the data, as many as
thirty-eight responses are missing in this demographical questions. In a quantitative research this
would be unacceptable, but this is an exploratory research and conclusion provided here have the
purpose to be insightful rather than straight-forward suggestions. Even though some question
answers are incomplete, the answer will be taken into consideration due to the small sample size.
Next, results are analysed reported to each research question and assumption.

Research questions 1: What are millennials motivations for interacting with brand online? Do
millennials have different motivation for following a FBP?

Data analysis: Descriptive statistics will be developed to understand what are the predominant
motivation of millennials and cross-tabs between motivation and different demographic variables
will help understand if motivation is influenced by some psychographic variables like amount of
time spent on social media.

To answer this research question, the unstructured answers were coded using the uses and
gratification framework and the affiliated motivations- information, social interaction and
integration, personal identity and entertainment. Although most of the answers were integrated into
these dimensions, some answers could not be coded in the given motivation and so classified in
―other‖ category and will be further discussed after answering the research questions.

Interestingly, some answers at the open ended question had two motivations instead of only one, so
by only by looking at the unstructured answers we can see that millennials have more than one
motivation to simply like and interact with brand Facebook page.
The assumption here is that millennials have different motivations for following a FBP.

To confirm this assumptions, frequency will be run in Spss, to see the split of motivation among
millennials:

As we can see, in this study sample, the motivation for ―liking‖ a FBP is different among
respondents. The main motivation arisen is information followed by entertainment and personal
Identity. What we see in this frequency table and is also interesting is that millennials have more
than one motivation to follow a brand on Facebook. Also, there are more than one single motivation
for liking a FBP, from the reviewed papers none had acknowledge this.

For more insightful data, the ―other‖ category will be discussed more in-depth.

When trying to see what influences motivation to like a Facebook brand page, and initial
assumption was that time spent on Facebook was a major influence. By taking a look at the cross-
tabs table, no major eye-caching information comes out. So to see if any demographic variables
influence motivation for linking a FBP test of associations will continue by doing cross-tabulation.

When analysing motivation by primary occupation, gender and age, only age showed some
interesting insights:
As it can be deducted from the table, millennials under 31 liked more FBP and those between 26-30
have as major motivation, information seeking compared to those between 20-25 who mostly seek
entertainment.

Research Question 2: What is the millennials predominant engagement level on FBP?

To find the predominant level of engagement, descriptive statistics was used to get the means of the
statements used. Level of engagement was measured, using statements that describe activities that a
user usually does on a FBP and measured on a 5 point Likert scale. The statements and the
measurements were adopted from the Muntinga et. Al.(2013) COBRA framework. In total nine
statements were used to describe consuming, contributing and creating level of engagement.
The table shows that, ―searching for customer review about brand products‖,‖ look at videos and
pictures posted the brand page‖ followed by ―read articles posted by brand‖, have the highest mean
which means that the respondents rated those activities as their most frequent behaviour when
thinking of FBP interaction.

This three statements are all part of the consuming level of engagement and so, the low level of
engagement.

When running frequencies for these three statements, we notice that also this low level of
engagement is not highly practiced. Most of the respondents rated this activities ―about half of the
time‖. Interestingly, the statement ―look at videos and pictures posted the brand page‖, has received
positive frequency results, as most of the respondents said that they do this frequently.

Research question: Does different level of engagement have different motivation behind it?

Data analysis: The answers to open ended questions are coded and for each level of engagement
motivations are uncovered. The technique used are frequencies and cross-tabs that relate
motivations to level of engagement.

When asked about what motivates them to do consuming activities related to low level of
engagement, information was the answer in 22% of the cases. Also personal identity has an
important role in consuming content.

For contributing, the main motivations are social interaction and ―other‖. The other motivation
category will be discussed in the conclusion chapter. What is interesting here is that more
respondents affirm that they don‘t engage in contributing behaviour. This results are aligned with
the fact that the most present level of engagement in this sample is consuming.
Although not many respondents said that they show contributing behaviour, the ones that do, have
as motivation remuneration and empowerment.

Research question 4: Are personality traits related to level of engagement on FBP?

The assumption of this research is that personality traits have an influence of level of engagement.
To show this, chi-square test of association will be done. Given the fact that initially both variables
were metric and also difficult to relate, they were recorded in order to define the presence or the
absence of each personality trait found in the sample and also, to have a unique variable describing
separately each level of engagement.

Using cross-tabs and the chi-square test of significance, we can see that between personality trait
and level of engagement there is a significant relationship. We take in consideration only
consciousness as personality trait given the fact that it is the strongest traits shown in the British
millennials of the sample. It can be seen that the presence of consciousness personality trait explains
50% of the consuming behaviour.
The bar-chart help us to visualize more clearly that when consciousness personality trait is present,
strong consuming behaviour its shown.

The same procedure was used for all the personality traits and the engagement level but no
significant relationship was seen. This fact can be also due to the little willingness of millennials to
contributing and creating activities on FBP.

4.3.1. Qualitative analysis

To find more insights into the research problem, knowing what millennials want from a FBP, two
additional unstructured questions were added to the questionnaire.

One of the important questions here is related to what kind of content do millennials wish for.
Content is inseparable from social media, it‘s like the thread for the needle. If brands don‘t know
what their customer would like to get from them in terms of content they‘ve failed from default.
Content is closely related to motivation, the interest from news from the brand as it was
demonstrated is a primary motivation for liking a brand.
Coded motivation for liking a brand hides interesting details about what people expect to find on
that page.

For example, millennials want information from a FBP but information is a broad category. In
terms of content related to information motivation, millennials expect to find ―information about
product category‖, product features, new collections, they want tutorials of how to use it, tips and
tricks, how other people use the product (situation) and alternative usage. Congruently with the
BCG findings, that millennials want to know as much information about the brand and the company
in order to engage with it, millennials want to know how products are made, so the manufacturing
process in order to decide if they really like or not the brand.

Always related to information, millennials want to know more about the company like CSR
activities, ―mission, vision, facts‖ said one respondent, they want to see ―stories behind the brand‖,
how employees work and interact with them.

One major mention is the need for reviews and feedback from other consumers. One person said:‖
It would be nice to see testimonials of people that used the product.‖

Surprisingly, from this unstructured answers, it results that people do want to know more about the
products and services the brand has to offer, updated versions of the products, prices for products
promoted and so on. It can be deducted that British millennials perceive more the functional nature
of a FBP.

Other desired content that relates to remuneration motivation. Millennials would like to find more
contents and prizes and also discount coupons on FBP. ―Offers‖ is a keyword often mentioned, this
could be interesting for further research since it has been empirically proven that people associate
the online environment with minor prices. Oddly little evidence of remuneration motivation arisen
from the ―motivation for liking a FBP‖ question.

There are some answers that could be related to the entertainment dimension, such as: ―interesting
videos and informative articles‖, ―lifestyle articles‖, ―funny and interesting things about the brand‖.
So, the entertainment dimension doesn‘t necessarily relate to pass-time or relaxation like it was
found in the literature. For the millennials in this sample, entertainment has to have also a functional
value, the funny content has to be somewhat related to the product category and to what the brands
stands for. It is more like seeking for information related to the industry but written or displayed in
a smart funny way.
For example, for a fashion brand, the page should contain ―fashion and beauty content‖, ―photos of
products/people using products, employees having fun at work‖.

From here we can see that motivation is related to the content that millennials would like to find on
FBP but it is more important to know in detail what motivates contributing level of engagement.

The second question that was addressed is related to what would motivate millennials to create
content for the FBP. Results from the previous unstructured questions sowed that one of the major
sub motivations of visiting a FBP was seeing what other had to say about the brand, how other use
it, feedback from other customers and so on. For this reason, to increase level of involvement of
millennials, managers have to encourage UGC on their FBP. This question was created as back-up
question because from previous research it resulted that people don‘t show strong creating
behaviour so with these questions marketers will know how to appeal to millennials in order to
make them contribute to FBP.

The activities that would encourage millennials to create content to the FBP are mostly related to
remuneration motivation. Key-words like: contests, money, gain, discounts, prize, free products are
found in 85% of the answers.

Another strong motivation found here was empowerment but not only as it was seen in literature,
mostly to criticize the brand. Millennials will give feedback if service failed or product didn‘t work
accordingly but also they will give very positive reviews if they are happy with the brand.

Cases in which millennials will voice their feeling are described by answers like:

―After dealing successfully with customer service for (I.e.) problems with products‖;

―If I would be so proud and satisfied with a product that I want the product to get more attention.

Millennials are aware of their power of influencing others.

―I would write a detailed review, #tag or post a photo if the product is extremely good.‖

―If I liked a product of a certain brand I would give it a 'shout out' via hashtag or other means.‖,

Personal Identity can be also a strong motivator if well emphasized by marketers. As found also in
answers from motivation behind creating content the keyword ―show off‖ was pretty frequent.
People want to show others when they feel proud of buying something, like a respondent said:‖ If
it's an expensive brand sometimes I like to show off and I will probably post something related to
the brand on my page.‖ Also if brand performs above expectation like in this case ―If I find out that
the brand is really different than the others (I need to have experience with other brands as well)‖.
Other reasons are correlating ones-self with the brand, ―a brand I am interested in‖, ―if it really
looks good on me If I like it a lot/it resonates with my personal values/vision; ―.

Some social interaction reasons arise like, being an expert and contradicting people that are wrong
about something: ―I could only imagine a situation that contains a topic I am expert in and someone
is writing complete nonsense‖. And also in this case ―If I buy something which I think my
Facebook friends would be interested in, I would share a photo of me using it‖

4.4. Italian data analysis

For the Italian sample, the same procedures, as in the case of British sample, in SPSS, will be used
to analyse the results. Also, being a comparative study, the same research questions are addressed
with the purpose of comparing the results further on.

Before answering the research questions, an overview of the demographic characteristics of the

Italian sample is presented.

As it can be seen from the tables the samples have differences of only one respondent measuring
eighty-eight in the British sample versus eighty-seven in the Italian sample. There are some slight
differences also between male and female respondents but in both samples we have predominant
female respondents, which is a potential bias.

In the Italian sample we have more student respondents and less full time workers than in the
British sample. Even though some question answers are incomplete, the answer will be taken into
consideration due to the small sample size.

Research questions 1: What are millennials motivations for interacting with brand online? Do
millennials have different motivation for following a FBP?

As well as in the British sample, also Italians have more than one motivation for liking a FBP. The
assumption here is that millennials are not homogeneous and do have different motivations for
liking a brand.

To test this assumption, frequencies will be run to see the split of motivation among Italian
millennials:

We can see that 7% of the sample did not ―Liked‖ a FBP. For the rest, the main reason behind
linking a FBP is information as it is also in the case of British respondents (It: 19% vs. Brit: 14%).
Information is a broad category, containing different sub motivation underneath. This aspect will be
discussed latter on together with ―other‖ category, and so motivations that could not be classified.

Interestingly, entertainment was not one of the important motivation for Italian respondents.
Instead, they ―like‖ a FBP if they perceive that the brand tells something about their own
personality, that the brand shares the same values. For British people entertainment was the
secondary motivation. Already from here we can see that British respondents are less involved with
a FBP than Italian. Italians are more affective when deciding wheatear to ―like‖ or not a FBP, they
put more consideration into this decision.
Even though there is a predominant motivation, there are different motivations to like a FBP also
among Italian respondents and most interestingly, motivation between British and Italians also
differ.

When trying to see what influences motivation to like a Brand Facebook page, and initial
assumption was that time spent on Facebook was a major influence.

Compared to the British sample, here we can draw some insights. As it can be seen in the cross-tabs
table, the major motivation for the ones categorized as medium users is reaching for information on
a FBP.

When doing cross-tab for motivations and work, it could be seen that students more than others
choose to like a FBP for personal identity motivation, information that could fruitfully be used by
managers.

Research Question 2: What is the millennials predominant engagement level on FBP?

Also here, means are computed for each statement describing consuming, contributing and creating
behaviour.

For Italians the statement with the highest mean is ―I search for customer reviews about brand
products‖. Also trough this we can notice the difference between Italians and British respondents.
While for British persons the main consuming activity is watch pictures and videos, Italians are
more focused on reviews and opinions the products. This could imply for managers to encourage
feedback behaviour on Facebook which in return would attract more interested users.

The Italian sample show also a contributing level activity which is rating the products. Also from
here we can see the desire and need of Italian respondents for empowerment and information need.
The third most frequent behaviour is of course, ―looking at pictures and videos on FBP‖.
In conclusion, although the strongest level of engagement is the low, consuming level, compared
with British respondents Italians show also an active contributing behaviour by giving reviews of
FBP.

When running frequencies for each proposed engagement activities some trends also arise. For the
consuming level of engagement, the most predominant activity is ―looking for customer reviews
about products‖ which was rated as a frequently done activity. The sharing and liking behaviour on
the FBP is a rarely done activity.

Again, rating brand products is rated as half of the time or frequent activity by most of the
respondents.

For the creating level of engagement, few respondents say they rarely create detailed reviews about
products but they show more hash tagging behaviour than their British counterparts.

Research question 3: Does different level of engagement have different motivation behind it?

Since motivation behind each level of engagement is uncovered using unstructured question, the
answers were coded and the and the techniques used are frequencies and cross-tabs to answer this
research question.

When asked about what motivates them to show a consuming behaviour, Italian respondents
answered with information as primary motive and interestingly, similar to the answers of British
and different from the results of Muntinga et. Al. (2013), they placed personal identity as secondary
motivation. This could mean that, they read, articles and information on the FBP if that information
represents themselves and their lifestyle and interest.

For contributing, aligned with the findings of Muntinga et. Al. (2013) social interaction and
integration is the most predominant motivation.
For creating reasons, result cannot be interpreted clearly as 90% of the respondents said they don‘t
engage in creating behaviour. For those that do, oddly, they are motivated manly by show-off,
proudness of buying or wearing a product also here we can see the more affective behaviour of
Italians towards brands than the more functional one of British who showed the contributing and
creating behaviour only if some kind of prize is in stake.

Research question 4: Are personality traits related to level of engagement on FBP?

The initial assumption is that personality traits have an influence onbehaviour and so on level of
engagement.

First, frequencies were done to search for the predominant personality trait in Italian respondents.
Interestingly and different from British respondents, in this sample, the respondents perceive
themselves as opened to experience, consciousness and also as extroverts. The means resulted for
this their personality traits are very close to one another, 3.52 for extraversion, 3.72 for openness to
experience and 3.70 for consciousness. So most of all, Italian respondents see themselves as
creative persons that are always looking to discover new things. For the British respondents, the
only predominant personality trait was consciousness, meaning that they perceive themselves as
efficient, organized and with strong ethical behaviour. Consciousness is the second strongest feature
as perceived for Italian respondents.

Now, each personality trait and level of engagement will be cross-tabulated and the chi-square test
of significance will be done so to see if any significant relationship exists between the two. The
results of the operation show that the aforementioned personality traits- openness to experience,
extraversion and consciousness have a statistically significant relationship with consuming level of
engagement (see appendix).

The same is done for the contributing categorical variable and the result here show that most of all,
openness to experience and so curiosity, has the strongest impact in encouraging the contributing
behaviour (for SPSS result, see appendix).

For creating level, no relevant resultswere found maybe due to the lack of creating behaviour in this
small sample of millennials.

4.4.1. Qualitative analysis

As in the case of the British sample also Italians gave some insightful answers, congruent with the
uses and gratification motivations.
Under information motivation, we have content related to the products: ―post with new offers and
related prices‖; new product arrival, ―videos with detailed description of products/ clothing cut‖,
how ―to use the product‖ like tips and tricks. CSR activities of the company, ―where do products
come from‖, so information about the manufacturing process, ―interviews with workers in order to
have transparency in all their production process.‖. Moreover, also Italian millennials are interested
in the corporate image of the brand along with the values, the story and the vision all wrapped up in
nice entertaining story.

Italian millennials mentioned also the importance of community members content sharing, which is
supporting the importance of encouraging ―creating behaviour‖.

A particular answer covers the complexity of the wants of a millennial user, the following answers
contain most of the motivation encountered till now: ―The brand page should contain content that
shows in an entertaining way how the functionalities of a product brand could improve my life (i.e.
fun, pleasure, profoundness) ―. In this statement right here we have four motivations- information of
new ways of using the product, brand points of differentiation, personal identity with the need of
lifestyle tips and affiliation with brand values, entertainment within the way of exposing things.

When talking about entertainment, the same trend is found at Italian sample as for British sample,
content has to be more than funny, it has to be relevant, it has to be aligned with what the brand
stands for and must be in some way insightful, as a responded nicely called it, the content must be
―infotaining‖. Here some examples of statements: ―interesting videos and news about the industry
in which the brand operates‖, ―How to wear, especially for fashion industry, suggestions of how to
combine clothes and make-up for specific situations with underneath the link to shop online, by this
to facilitating the buying process and the life of the buyer.‖ Little tricks about how to use the brand,
for example how to make some easy and smart commands with Iphone. Another interesting insight
found also in the British sample is that millennials would like to know about events done by the
company and why not, to be given the chance to participate.

The second unstructured question that we analyse qualitatively is related to what would motivate
millennials to contribute more to a FBP. This is important for marketers as discussed previously
because the more a person contributes the more it engages and also contributing millennials offer
gratification to the millennials that have information as main motivation for ―liking‖ a FBP.

In this paragraph an enumeration of main reasons for contributing for Italian millennials is given, in
order of mentions. A pie chart is created in order to simplify the understanding.
 Hypothethical contribution

remuneration empowerment Entertainement Personal Identity

The main reason for millennials to contribute in any way to a FBP are contests, potential discounts,
prizes, with an 80% proportion of the sample. Interesting here is a detail two respondents mentioned
regarding the type of contest, one said: ―create ads for the brands would be funny‖ and another said
―the contest has to go beyond share and like this post and tag your friends, it has to have a fun
mechanism‖.

The next thing that would push Italian millennials to create is to give them a reason to talk about.
Millennials are split between those who would spread the word in case something bad happen with
the brand and those who would write positive complete reviews if the brand creates a good
experience for them. As saw also in the British sample, if a millennial is glad about the product, if it
―fits him particular well‖ (as a respondent said) they would post a photo with them using the brand
or a nice review about the qualities of the product or service.

There is one reason, that is recurrent in all the unstructured question, is participating or see what
happens to events organized by brand. This is a unique insight as is it not found in any other
research done until now.

Other particular insights are related to personal identity, as some respondents said they would create
something for the brand just because they like the brand so much or if the brand convinces
millennials that it cares and that it is doing the best to follow the shared values end to support the
customer always. Here another interesting and recurring answer appears, millennials would spread
the word about a brand if they feel that particular company is ethical and if it does CSR campaigns
of interest to their target market.
Social interaction is also present in one of the answers and shouldn‘t be excluded ―I share my
interest towards a brand because I believe it would be interesting also for others to know about it‖.

4.5. Results- Comparisons of psychographic dimensions

The psychographic, specifically the internet uses and usage, questions were asked in order to notice
differences between the two studied countries. The eventual differences are noticed in the
underneath tables.

Time online

British respondents Italian respondents

 4.48%  11.11% of the sample are light users of

 26.87% internet (less than an hour)
 68.66%  31.75% are medium users (1-2 hours)
 57.14 % are heavy (with more than 3
hours per day)

The ranking of the favourite online activities:

British respondents Italian respondents

1. Web Browsing 1. Activities on SNS

2. Activities on social networking sites 2. Web Browsing
3. Looking for news 3. News
4. Music (iTunes; Spotify) 4. Music
5. Instant Messaging 5. Facebook messenger
6. Facebook messenger 6. Online Shopping
7. Forum 7. Forums
8. Online Shopping 8. Other Messenger
9. Gaming 9. Gaming
By analysing the favourite online activity, marketers can understand what type of content to post on
their brand page. As it can be seen British and Italian respondents are frequently on SNS, they are
looking for news and music. In the case marketers can relate music and news to their brand identity,
it could be a way to attract millennials to FBP.

Preferred social media:

British respondents Italian respondents

1. Facebook 1. Facebook
2. Instagram 2. Instagram
3. YouTube 3. Other
4. LinkedIn a. Reddit
5. Other: b. Imgur
a. WhatsApp c. Tumblr
b. Google d. Badoo
c. Blogger 4. YouTube
6. Pinterest 5. LinkedIn
7. Twitter 6. Twitter
7. Snap Chat
8. Pinterest
9.
Knowing where to find the audience is important. Related to the FBP, here we can see that blogging
is among the top preferred social media, on the FBP, popular bloggers, that have values aligned
with the brand can be used to write articles on the page.

Favourite Facebook activities:

British respondents Italian respondents

1. Use F. messenger to get in contact with 1. Like other people content

friends 2. Read articles
2. Read articles 3. Read news
3. ―like‖ content posted by others 4. Use F. Messenger to talk to friends
4. Read news stories 5. Look at videos on the news feed
5. Watch videos on news feed 6. Upload my own content
6. Upload my own content 7. Other
7. Other a. Gaming
a. Look for places b. Scroll news feed to see what
Scroll the news feed others are doing
Scrolling into the news feed is an activity that brands should consider in their strategy. Many
respondents said the they ―liked‖ a brand because they saw it in the news feed and because the title
and the picture raised their curiosity.

Device used to access social media:

British respondents Italian Respondents

1. Smartphone 77.19% 1. Smartphone 80.70%

2. Laptop 19.30% 2. Desktop 10.53%
3. Desktop 3.51 % 3. Laptop 19.13%
4. Other
a. More devices at the same time
This is interesting because in the research made by yahoo on Italian Millennials confirmed that even
tough Italy lags behind other EU countries with internet penetration, internet use among youngster
is high due to smartphones.

Daily access on Facebook:

British respondents Italian respondents

 5-10 times/day 33.33%  5-10 times/day 33.34%

 3-4 times/day 29.82%  3-4 times/day 22.81%
 More than 11 times 22.81%  More than 11 times 19.30%
 1-2 times 7.02%  1-2 times 17.54%
 Not every day 7.02%  Not every day 7.02%

Time on Facebook daily:

British respondents Italian respondents

 60 minutes 22.81%  30 minuti 17.54%

 90 minutes 17.54%  10 minuti 15.79%
 30 minutes 14.04%  45 minuti 15.79%
 20 minutes 12.28%  20 minuti 14.04%
 45 minutes 12.28%  90 minuti 10.53%
 5 minutes 8.77%  5 minuti 8.77%
 10 minutes 7.02%  60 minuti 8.77%
 120 minutes or more 5.26%  120 minuti
o di più 8.77%

If most of the respondents are heavy users of internet, with more than three hours spent on the
internet daily, we can see that from that amount of time a big portion is allocated to social media
use.

Like brand on Facebook

British respondents Italian respondents

 Yes 70.18 %  Yes 61.40 %

 No 29.82 %  No 38.60 %

Popular brands

British respondents Italian respondents

 Hiking Trails  H&M

 Coca-Cola  Michael Kors
 H&M*2  Marimekko
 DigiKey  Roberto Cavalli
 Dolce&Gabbana  Nike *3
 Zara*3  Oakley
 Volvo  Burberry
 Inc.  Zara
 L‘Oreal  Channel
 Pan di stelle  Coca-Cola
 WTA Tennis
 Nikon
 National Geographic
 Tom Ford
 Balmain
Favourite FBP was asked in order to help the respondents to answer next question about
motivations and level of engagement. But it is also interesting to see that mostly fashion brands
were mentioned.

5. Interpreting the results of the data analysis

In this chapter the results from data analysis are interpreted. First, the management and the research
problem are brought into discussion and the results are discussed in this light. Second, the key
findings are emphasized. In the next subchapters, limitations of the present research, conclusions
and suggestions for further research are also discussed. The structure will be comparative between
the two samples along the way.

The management problem

Marketers need to know more of how to use social media in an effective way with millennials in
order to engage them more with the brand.

The research problem

As stated in the first chapter the research has a retrospective view, and take millennials and their
needs and behaviour in the center of it. So the research problem is discovering what do millennials
really wish from Brands on social media in order to feel engaged. More precisely, what is the actual
motivation of millennials in reaching a FBP and explore their engagement behavior in relationship
with FBP.

The main keywords into this study approach are motivation and engagement. Here the interpretation
of the results related to this variable will be discussed. Further another construct, which is
personality traits, results will be confronted. Moreover, the relationship between this three
constructs will be interpreted. The structure of the interpretation of results will start with the
interpretation of the two samples separately and then underline similarities and difference between
them, for each research question. Moreover, for each of these steps, implication for management
will be emphasized.

Motivation was measured using unstructured questions, first, in relationship with the ―liking‖ FBP
behavior then in relationship with the engagement behavior. Congruent with the findings of
Muntinga et. al. (2013), discussed in the literature review, the behavior of liking a FBP are
primarily motivated by information and entertainment in both samples. Information stands for
surveillance, knowledge, pre-purchase information, inspiration. The surveillance sub-motivation
didn‘t stand out from this study samples, instead the knowledge motivation and the pre-purchase
info were dominant, also inspiration had an important role.
In the British sample, for example, answers like ―keep up to date with brand's news and insights‖,
―News about brand‖ were frequently found. It is important to notice that in the incipient phase
which is ―liking‖ a FBP no intentions of searching for reviews arise. The information wanted is
more company released information than user released information and as a respondent said it has
to be based on ―Image & content (complex, insightful and useful)‖. The implication for marketing
here is that the brand persona should publish detailed content about brand products and way of use
in an illustrative way, show videos containing activities in which the brand/company takes part to
and address it to the target users in a catchy way.

Of more interest are the answers that could not be categorized, among which motivations like
―curiosity‖ and ―if a celerity I like endorse the brand‖ were present. Implication for marketers
depends on the objectives they have in their social media strategy. In the case they want to attract
new followers than the first social touch point should raise curiosity and for some, if the brand is
endorsed by an admired face, they would most likely follow also the brand.

Three respondents said that they like a FBP because ―Most of the time if it appears at the
suggestions section and if it has a profile picture that I like‖. So again, curiosity plays a role and
also a good targeted advertising, may ―hit‖ the right potential followers.

In the case of the Italian sample, the primary motivation for liking a FBP were information and
personal identity. Respondents said that they want to get news from the brand, new
products/arrivals, news about the brand and the company.

The Italian respondents showed a strong involvement towards the liked brads, answers like
―because I very much appreciate the brand‖, ―I admire the brand‖ or ―because I feel the brand says
something about myself‖, ―because it represents me‖ are frequent answers. These answers are
related to the personal identity motivation. Italian respondents will like a FBP if they feel the brand
represents them.

Of major importance here is that 13 out of 44 answers included the purchasing intention. Answers
like ―I like a Facebook brand page because I want to get news from the brand ad make future
purchases‖ or ―I will like a FBP if I really like something and I want to buy it in the future‖. The
implication here is that Italians could hide purchasing intention behind the simple click of the
―Like‖ button. Also it is noticed that they use FBP as bookmarks for their products wish list.

The main motivations behind liking a FBP in the British sample is information and entertainment
and for the Italian sample is information and personal identity. They want news, detailed products
information, new arrivals and a clear image about what the brand stands for. Although similar in
their answers, Italian respondent‘s showed major involvement in the decision of linking a brand
than British respondents‘. Italians, tend to like a brand if they feel admiration for the brand, or at
least they perceive that the identity of the brand is something they appreciate and affiliate with and
so a strong motivation of personal identity is involved. Something also unique for the Italian sample
are the plural mentions of pre-purchase intentions. Meaning that, if they like a Brand is either
because they bought the brand in the past or because they want to buy it in the future.

Frequent answers in bot sample are related to the way millennials discover a brand with which they
didn‘t interact until then. One of the most popular activities on Facebook within the sample for both
British and Italian respondents, is scrolling the news feed. Five out of 44 responses said they liked a
Brand because they saw it on the news feed and because the products and the image was of their
interest. Here the implication for marketing is that, with a smart social media targeted advertising
they could engage potential millennial customers.

This are the implications for the motivations for liking a FBP. One more specification and unique
finding here is that although other researches assign only one motivation per individual, from this
study results that millennials have more than one motivation pushes them to reach a brand page.
Form the data analysis it was found that information and entertainment goes often together and also
information and remuneration.

When referring to the present level of engagement in Italian and British respondents the data shows
that the major respondents from both samples show manly a consuming thus low level of
engagement.

Most frequent activity, in the British sample is, ―watch videos and pictures on the FBP‖ followed
by ―look for reviews and information posted by other customers‖.

The Italian sample shows some interesting results, first, they engage also in the consuming level but
instead of watching pictures they search for reviews from other customers. If initially when liking a
page, they don‘t directly search for reviews, along the way they do engage in this behaviour.
Second, Italian respondents show also a stronger contributing behaviour rating a second most
frequent COBRA which is giving ratings to brand products.

Creating level of engagement is low in both samples, but they do search for this kind of behaviour
the FBP. Thus, the implication for management here is to understand how to encourage quality
engagement behaviour.

Thus the difference between Italian and British in this study sample is that Italians show also a
higher contributing behaviour.

Level of engagement doesn‘t tell much about what do millennials wish from interaction with FBP,
so in order to make it fruitful for marketers, the motivation behind each level of engagement was
uncovered trough unstructured questions. Managers can use this information by trying to satisfy
millennials gratification sought for the specific level of engagement and obtain the desired user
behaviour

When asked about what motivates them to do consuming activities related to low level of
engagement, information was the answer in 22% of the cases. Further, personal identity has an
important role in consuming content in the British sample. Even though pre- purchase information
was not evident in the ―liking a FBP motivation‖ here, in the consuming motivation appears
frequently. Respondents find FBP as reliable, convenient source of information about products and
identity of the brands like stories of the people behind the brand.

A respondent even stated that consuming content on a fashion brand page, looking at new release,
gives her the same state of mind as if she would go shopping.

Again, appearance on the news-feed is a reason for some respondents to consume content from
brand. Implication for management is that once they got the user to like the page, it will be easier to
stay at the tip of the mind of their customer.

Italian sample

For consuming, Italians stay aligned with the motivation for liking a brand and so, they consume
when interested in purchasing the product. Italians respondents want to stay updated with the latest
services and products but also to see lifestyle tips and personality of brand.

For contributing, aligned with the findings of Muntinga et. Al. (2013) social interaction and
integration is the most predominant motivation, supported by answers like: ―I contribute because I
like the feeling of the community created‖, ―I get updated with contents that I later discuss with
friends‖, ―talk to people who used the same product‖, ―exchange ideas with other users‖. On the
other side, Italian millennials wouldn‘t contribute not even with a like if the content doesn‘t reflect
their personality and values.

As said previously, there is low contribution level among the sample, information in the
unstructured answers brings up the privacy concerns motive for not contributing to the brand page.

Data shows that, actual contributing behaviour is weak for both samples. For consuming behaviour
both samples search for repurchase information like other users‘ reviews, brand released
information about the product. Also the personal identity, if individual feels that he affiliates with
the brand will engage in consuming behaviour. Differences stand in the contributing behaviour.
Italian millennialseem more prone in contributing as they desire and search for that within group
interaction.

It can be seen that motivation for consuming are pretty similar to the ones for ―liking‖ a FBP. This
could mean that initially and appealing message could attract them to the website but the relevant
information (the gratification sought) has to be found on the page.

The need for ―interesting content‖ was mention 10 times out of 44 but the important thing here is
that respondents specified that the content must be product, brand, company or industry related. So
marketers should avoid using content just because it‘s funny if that content has no relation with the
brands identity. British millennials want to know more about different aspects of the products like
mentioned in 15 out of 44 responses.

Neither of the sample groups show considerable creating behaviour but some interesting insights
were gathered by answering to what would motivate them to create content for the brand. This
information should be pretty valuable for marketers since no other research has touched this point
and will be discussed in the recommendation chapter.

One of the last assumption of this study was that personality trait measures level of engagement.
This result could not be entirely interpreted because even tough millennials show a predominant
personality trait, they all show small level of creating and contributing behaviour. For the record,
the British sample scored high only on the consciousness personality trait, which means that British
individuals perceive themselves as organized and dependable, self-disciplined, dutifully, aim for
achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behaviour. On the other side, Italian
millennials scored almost the same for extroversion, openers to experience, traits that express the
need for knowledge and novelty in the state of new adventures and try new things. The extroversion
trait strongly present in Italian millennials, could explain the contributing behaviour, but further
research must be done specifically on this to get real results.

These are the main interpretation of results. In the conclusion and recommendation subchapter, a
summary of the most important findings of this study will be enumerated along with
recommendation for management.

6. Recommendation

In these chapter the most meaningful and new discoveries will be discusses along with suggestions
for management. After this research study, a clearer image about what do millennials wish from
FBP interaction is given.

The first interesting discovery is that the motivation that pushed millennials to ―Like‖ a brand in the
first place doesn‘t mean that they will be engaged in coming back to the brand page. For example,
some of the reasons to ―like‖ a FBP is related to the frequent scrolling the Facebook news feed,
behaviors of millennials, if they see an interesting image with an interesting title advertised on their
newsfeed they would most likely check it out. Other interesting discoveries, that are supported by
trade research, is that millennials are influenced by endorsers, person they appreciate. If these
persons endorse a certain FBP they would most likely consider that page. But, as said at the
beginning, if users that are not engaged with the brand offline previously of ―liking‖ the brand
online, even if they liked the FBP for motives stated above, they will need stronger motivation to go
back on the FBP. So marketers have to see what gratification do millennials seek on the FBP and
try and gratify it. Related to this, content desired explain best what will keep millennials coming
back on the FBP.

In terms of content, when appealing to British millennials the content should be informational, in
terms of user generated reviews but also info-tutorials about the use of the products and lifestyle
tips generated by firm. The content has to be entertaining all along.

Italians will seek content that represents them, their personality and their values. Personal Identity is
strong among all the behaviors of Italian millennials related to the FBP, they won‘t engage in any
kind of activity with the brand if the brand image reflected trough the FBP doesn‘t fit their
personality and values.

Valid for both samples is the need to know the stories behind the brand, transparency in terms of all
the processes of the production, technicalities about the product and purposefulness of the product.
They attribute to the FBP a functional more than emotional value. They want many kinds of
information but most importantly for marketers, they want it in a smart entertaining way. A
respondent described it in a best way as ―infotaining‖. A huge social media success is the example
of TIDE detergent, a P&G brand. With over five million followers, the content reflects exactly the
―infotaining‖ content, they also do lots of CSR activities and they are very active in each of the
local realties.

The need for ―interesting content‖ was mention 10 times out of 44 but the important thing here is
that respondents specified that the content must be product, brand, company or industry related. So
marketers should avoid using content just because it‘s funny if that content has no relation with the
brands identity. British millennials want to know more about different aspects of the products like
mentioned in 15 out of 44 responses.

Millennials like to watch pictures and videos on FBP, but as previously said they need to find a
functional value also in that. A girl said that when she looks at outfits or new arrivals posted on the
ZARA page she gets almost the same pleasure as shopping.

Frequently, British and Italian millennials expect to see ongoing special offers, discounts, prices of
products. This could be due to the fact that people in general associate the online environment with
lower prices than in brick and mortar store and also a thing that arise from this research, they seek
FBP for convenience, ease of obtaining information about product features and prices.

Related to motivation for liking a brand, in the Italian sample lots of respondents included the
purchasing intention motivation. They either both the product or want to buy the brand in the future.
Even more interesting is that, they like the page so to remember that they want that special
something, so they use the FBP as a sort of bookmark or wish-list. So marketer can adapt the
content in the way to recall this user why they bought the brand or give them reasons to buy it.

When talking about level of engagement, the many nuances were discussed in the previous chapter.
One important specification, of interest for marketers is that, European millennials want information
both from other users and form company. Since it is difficult for marketers to demand creating
behavior there is a high risk that the major gratification sought of millennials will stay ungratified.
This study provides a series of insight into how to encourage millennials to exert creating behavior.
The major motivations mentioned by millennials that would encourage them to contribute and
create content for the FBP are remuneration and empowerment. Remuneration in the sense that bot
samples confirmed that they would probably hashtag or share brand content if there were some kind
of contest and prizes in stake. Social media responsible have to pay attention because if they want
more than a superficial contribution they have to develop ―smart and entertaining contest‖ as one
respondent said. Am idea suggested from a respondent is to challenge people to create an ad for the
brand and win a considerable prize. This type of contents beside generating high awareness can also
generate brand advocacy in participants and is a strategy that is not frequently used tough examples
like Heinz successfully used this strategy. Furthermore, respondents said they would actively
contribute and create if they would have the chance to participate at an event organized by the
brand, this motivation is aligned with the need to feel the essence of the brand, know the back
stages.

Show-off was a recurrent motivation for creating content, if the brand is a price-premium brand or
if it fits the user particularly well, millennials will want to brag about it. Show-off behavior goes
hand in hand with the extraversion personality trait. Even though this research is exploratory and
cannot reliably and validly prove a relationship between the two, it is one step forward for future
research.

The reason for which this paper adopts a comparative study approach is because in international
marketing, companies must be aware that what appeals to one culture will not engage in the same
manner another one. The Italian sample showed strong results in this study as compared to British
sample. Italians have a deeper relationship with brands on Facebook than British do. When they like
a page and when they consume content, during the unstructured answers there were keywords like:
admiration, interest, buying intention, interest for what brand stands for (brand personality) that
showed a real involvement (predecessor of engagement). Most of the time, at least as it results from
this sample, Italian millennials were more aware of the why they liked or they would like a FBP.

The last important point in this chapter is related to the why millennials show such low contributing
and creating behavior. Although, Italian respondents show a higher contributing behavior compared
to British sample, and have as main motivation, social interaction and integration, by wanting to
talk with people with similar interest and share ideas, there are barriers in adopting such behavior.
The barriers are related mainly to the privacy concerns, they don‘t want to be under the eye of other
people and they also perceive the risk of being stalked or trolled. One respondent said that she
prefers to find a person on the FBP that she perceives as knowledgeable and contact that person in
private. Again, the importance of encouraging creating behavior specially related to complete
product reviews arises so management should take a proactive role and to encourage public
feedback on their FBP.

Other guidelines for managers based on the main findings discussed above.
The social media responsible should publish detailed content about brand products and way of use
in an illustrative way, show videos containing activities in which the brand/company takes part to
and address it to the target users in a catchy way. Also it should humanize the brand, explain the
brand identity in a relevant, complete and entertaining was maybe using methods such as
storytelling.

Depending on the objectives marketers have in their social media strategy they should adopt
different approaches to attract followers. In the case they want to attract new followers, then the
first social touch point should raise curiosity and for some, if the brand is endorsed by an admired
person, they would most likely follow also the brand. Curiosity plays an enormous role in attracting
new followers and potential customers.

Marketers have to keep in mind that respondents find FBP as reliable, convenient source of
information about products and identity of the brands like stories of the people behind the brand.
They have the responsibility of keeping this perception by offering precise information and offering
transparency. Besides, they want to be involved directly with the brand, in both samples the need
for events from the brand raised.

This are the implications for the motivations for liking a FBP. One more specification and unique
finding here is that although other researches assign only one motivation per individual, from this
study results that millennials have more than one motivation pushes them to reach a brand page.
Also, managers have to be alert, because liking motives won‘t keep followers coming back. This
has to be supported with content, fitted to the gratification sought of millennials. For now, managers
cannot rely on personality trait construct to foresee behavior on the FBP, even though some signs
arise from this research, a more focused and causal research must be done.

6.1. Limitations

This study is based on an exploratory research design and the data was analysed mostly in a
qualitative way. Statistical representativeness is an issue to this study. The results and the affiliated
suggestions are made on small sample of respondents and it is not significant although it provides
higher validityty of insights about the motivation of interacting with a brand on Facebook and what
would make them to engage more. These findings may be further tested in a quantitative way by
future research.

Even though one of the assumption was that personality trait impact somehow behaviour and level
of engagement, given the small sample and the low contributing behaviour showed, valid
conclusions could not be drawn. One of the strongest evidence found here was the fact that Italians,
which perceives themselves as extraverts and opened to experience show higher contributing
behaviour and need for social interaction that British.

For future research the following hypothesis can be tested:

 There is no relationship between personality traits and level of engagement.

 Content affect the level of engagement of millennials.
 Personal identity motivation affects liking behaviour.

Interesting insights were found from this study, but all of them must be tested in a quantitative way.
Secondary data theories and findings provide support and prove consistency to the results of this
exploratory study.

6.2 Conclusion and further research

The exploratory research of this paper started from the need to better understand millennials in
relationship with the brand. Until now, only few researchers attempted to explore or to test
marketing concepts on millennials tough it is empirically proven that millennials react quite
different to marketing inputs compared to older generations. For this study, the interaction between
brands and millennials is explored in the online environment because this generation spends most of
the time online.

Using the uses and gratification, COBRAs and the Big Fives frameworks, as constructs and their
affiliate variables, some new information emerged that can enrich the existing body of literature.

The paper confirms some already developed theories like- millennials mostly search for information
when they interact with the brand online- and- they see as a must for a company to have presence
on social media and to provide transparency trough information. Millennials feel the need to be
appreciated by the brands they invest in and they seek engagement on a deeper level shown by the
desire to know more about the company at a process level and also to feel that the brand really
represent who they are.

There are many common grounds between British millennials and Italian millennials. One unique
finding from this research is that the previous differences in internet adoption between these two
countries is quickly being overcome by the fast adoption of mobile internet by Italian millennials.
This research has discovered that Italian millennials engage to a more personal level with brands,
and more than information, they want to see if the brand align with their values and this is
consistent with theory findings. Italian millennials want guidance from brands they like about how
to upgrade their lifestyle, aligned of course with the industry the brand represents.

Millennials in this study show mostly a consuming behaviour and so, a low level of engagement
although, Italians show higher contributing behaviour than British. This could relate with the fact
that Italians show both consciousness and strong extraversion personality trait.

Another discovery that stands out from this research is that, millennials have different reasons for
engaging with a brand for the first time by liking the FBP and staying engaged by periodically
follow and interacting with the brand.

The motivation behind millennials ―liking‖ a brand for the first time are: the fact that the individual
knows and appreciate the brand and the fact that they see brand Ad on their news feed, they check it
out and if they like the content and the offering they like the page. A new motivation for liking a
FBP came out from this research and it was predominantly mentioned by Italian Millennials and it
relates to the fact that they use FBP as bookmarks for what they want to buy in the future in order to
stay updated with reviews and new products and tips and tricks. This is important because it shows
that behind liking a brand there is buying intention. On the other side, for staying engaged, a higher
effort from the social media responsible is requested. From this research the word that describes
best what millennials want from brands on social media is ―infotaining‖ which is a combination
between entertaining and information. They want to know everything about a company and its
brand, from how it is produced to how it is distributed and how to use it but in a funny entertaining
way, like storytelling. Moreover, they want the brand to inspire them in their daily lives, to provide
them with news and novelty in the industry.

Contributing and creating behaviour could be encouraged by contest but also by exceeding
customer expectation on the quality of the product or service. Moreover, it was recurrent in both
nationality answers that ―show-off‖ is the main reason for high level of engagement to FBP. For
example, to post a photo using the brand and so, to endorse it, is done mainly because the individual
feels some kind of proudness of owning that brand and he perceives that by showing others makes
him special.

This exploratory study is among the few that take into consideration personality traits as potential
antecedent for type of engagement. The assumption is that the predominant personality trait may
influence the type of brand related behaviour on FBP. Due to the nature of the research and the
small sample size, no noticeable relations between the big five and the Cobra was noticed but as it
may have important implications for management it would be interesting to test this relationship in
a quantitative way.

One of the most interesting findings in the research is that Italian millennials use FBP as bookmarks
for brand and products they want to buy in the future. In this way, they can stay updated about what
others have to say about the product and also what new products and innovation does the brand
plan. This could be an opportunity for further research in order to study how this purchase intention
manifest, why do millennials use FBP as bookmarks and not any other source and if it is a general
thing among worldwide millennials or a specific thing for certain nationalities.

Further research can focus on – redefining the framework of Muntinga et. al. 2013 by making it
more flexible; the relationship between personality trait and level of engagement; and the
phenomena of using FBP as bookmark for further purchase.

7. Citations:

References

Ahadzadeh, A. S., Pahlevan Sharif, S., Khong, K. W., & Emami, H. (2014). Narcissism, self-
esteem, communication apprehension, and need for affiliation: Difference between social
networking site users and non-users. Ahadzadeh, AS, Pahlevan Sharif, S., Emami, H.& Khong,
KW (2014) Narcissism, Self-Esteem, Communication Apprehension, and Need for Affiliation:
Difference between Social Networking Site Users and Non-Users.Taylor’s Business Review,
4(2), 135-146.
Aichner, T., & Jacob, F. (2015). Measuring the degree of corporate social media use
. International Journal of Market Research, 57(2), 257-275.

Cheung, C. M., Shen, X. L., Lee, Z. W., & Chan, T. K. (2015). Promoting sales of online games
through customer engagement. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4), 241-
250.

Montgomery, J. D. (1991). Social networks and labor-market outcomes: Toward an economic

analysis. The American economic review, 81(5), 1408-1418.

Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of
organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 26(5), 417-435.

Khajeheian, D. (2013). New Venture Creation in Social Media Platform; Towards a Framework for
Media Entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Social Media Management (pp. 125-142). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.

Mäntymäki, M., & Islam, A. N. (2014). Social virtual world continuance among teens: Uncovering
the moderating role of perceived aggregate network exposure. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 33(5), 536-547.

Dwivedi, Y. K., Mäntymäki, M., Ravishankar, M. N., Janssen, M., Clement, M., Slade, E. L., ... &
Simintiras, A. C. (Eds.). (2016). Social Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 15th IFIP
WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2016, Swansea, UK,
September 13–15, 2016, Proceedings (Vol. 9844). Springer.

Ferguson, R. (2012). BORN THIS WAY: THe UK Millennial Loyalty Survey. Retrieved June 22,
2016, from
http://www.aimia.com/content/dam/aimiawebsite/CaseStudiesWhitepapersResearch/english/Ai
mia_GenY_Whitepaper_UK.pdf

Alversia, Y. (2013). To engage or not: Identifying the consumer-based antecedents of online

consumer engagement behaviour. Universitas Indonesia, Graduate School of Management
Research Paper, (13-77)
American Press Institute. (2015). Millennials’ nuanced paths to news and information. Retrieved
15/04, 2016, from https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-
research/millennials-paths-to-news-and-information/

Angela Hausman, D., Kabadayi, S., & Price, K. (2014). Consumer–brand engagement on Facebook:
Liking and commenting behaviors. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(3), 203-
223.

Araujo, T., & Neijens, P. (2012). Friend me: Which factors influence top global brands participation
in social network sites. Internet Research, 22(5), 626-640.

Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N. & Auh, S. (2014). The application of the technology acceptance
model under different cultural contexts: The case of online shopping adoption. Journal of
International Marketing, 22(3), 68-93.

Barnes, S. J., Bauer, H. H., Neumann, M. M., & Huber, F. (2007). Segmenting cyberspace: A
customer typology for the internet. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 71-93.

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide—A
typology of internet users in europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(3),
123-138.

Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand
community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-114.

Bruce Stokes. (2015). Who are Europe’s millennials? Retrieved 28/04, 2016, from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/09/who-are-europes-millennials/

Cabiddu, F., De Carlo, M., & Piccoli, G. (2014). Social media affordances: Enabling customer
engagement. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 175-192.

Chan, T. K., Zheng, X., Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Lee, Z. W. (2014). Antecedents and
consequences of customer engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Marketing
Analytics, 2(2), 81-97.
Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide–within and between countries. IT &
Society, 1(7), 39-45.

Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie R. W. (2006). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-
country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers,

Chris Evans and Professor Raymond Hackney, Dr. Rauniar, R. Rawski, G., Yang, J. & Johnson, B.
(2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on
Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6-30.

Barton C., L. Koslow, C., Koslow, L., & Beauchamp, C. (2014). How Millennials Are Changing
the Face of Marketing Forever. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/marketing_center_consumer_customer_insig
ht_how_millennials_changing_marketing_forever/

Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Theofania Siamagka, N. (2013). A typology of internet
users based on comparative affective states: evidence from eight countries. European Journal
of Marketing, 47(1/2), 153-173.

Chi, Hsu-Hsien (2011), ―Interactive Digital Advertising vs. Virtual Brand Community: Exploratory
Study of User Motivation and Social Media Marketing Responses in Taiwan,‖ Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12 (1), 44-61.

Kleine-Kalmer, B. (2016). Brand Page Attachment: An Empirical Study on Facebook Users‘

Attachment to Brand Pages. Springer.

Chu, Shu-Chuan (2011), ―Viral Advertising in Social Media: Participation in Facebook Groups and
Responses among College-Aged Users,‖ Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12 (1), 30-43.

Chu, Shu-Chuan. and Sejung Marina Choi (2011), ―Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Social
Networking Sites: A Cross-cultural Study of the United States and China,‖ Journal of Global
Marketing, 24 (3), 263-281.

Chung, T. S., Wedel, M., & Rust, R. T. (2015). Adaptive personalization using social networks.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 66-87.
Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). How current feedback and chronic effectiveness influence
motivation: Everything to gain versus everything to lose. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 30(4), 583-592.

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and
opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1-10.

Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., & Conduit, J. (Eds.). (2015). Customer engagement: contemporary
issues and challenges. Routledge.

Barnes, S. J., Bauer, H. H., Neumann, M. M., & Huber, F. (2007). Segmenting cyberspace: a
customer typology for the internet. European journal of marketing, 41(1/2), 71-93.

Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide—A
typology of Internet users in Europe. International journal of human-computer studies, 69(3),
123-138.

Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and
social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 27(1), 6-30.

Kabadayi, S., & Price, K. (2014). Consumer–brand engagement on Facebook: liking and
commenting behaviors. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(3), 203-223.

Daniel, N. (2015). Research shows millennials don't respond to ads. Retrieved 01/05, 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/research-shows-millennials-dont-
respond-to-ads/#57e2d3a5599e

Paquette, Holly, "Social Media as a Marketing Tool: A Literature Review" (2013). Major Papers by
Master of Science Students. Paper 2. Retrieved 16/04, 2016, from

http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/tmd_major_papers/2

Fry, R. (2016, April 25). Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America's largest generation.
Retrieved 09/07/2016, from
 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

Stokes, B. (2015). Who are Europe‘s Millennials? Retrieved March 12, 2016, from

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/09/who-are-europes-millennials/

Newman, D. (2015, April 28). Research Shows Millennials Don't Respond To Ads. Retrieved
March 1, 2016, from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/research-shows-millennials-dont-
respond-to-ads/#41573c815599

Srinivasan, R. (2014, July). Online Social Media and Networks: Impact on Marketing Practice.
Retrieved September 07, 2016, from

https://www.ama.org/publications/E-publications/Pages/ama-journal-reader-july-14-social-
media.aspx

De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications of
customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. Journal of Brand
Management, 21(6), 495-515.

Chloe Albanesius August 2, 2010 11:33am EST 10 Comments. (2010, August 2). Social
Networking More Popular Than E-Mail, Report Says. Retrieved May 08, 2016, from
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367267,00.asp

Deliotte. (2016). The 2016 deloitte millennial survey winning over the next generation of leaders.
Retrieved 06/06, 2016, from
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-
millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf

Deloitte. (2016). The 2016 deloitte millennial survey winning over the next generation of leaders.
Retrieved 06.05, 2016, from
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-
millenial-survey-2016-exec-summary.pdf
De Vries, Natalie Jane, Carlson, Jamie. Palgrave Macmillan; 2014. Examining the drivers and brand
performance implications of customer engagement with brands in the social media
environment.

Dwivedi, Y. K., & Lal, B. (2007). Socio-economic determinants of broadband adoption. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 107(5), 654-671.

Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2011). Social media and public administration: Theoretical
dimensions and introduction to the symposium. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 325

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010, February 03). Social Media and Young
Adults. Retrieved April 07, 2016, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults

Guy, Retta (2012) "THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA FOR ACADEMIC PRACTICE: A REVIEW
OF LITERATURE," Kentucky Journal of Higher Education Policy and Practice: Vol. 1: Iss. 2,
Article 7. Available at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjhepp/vol1/iss2/7

Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151-172.

Fuscaldo, D. (2011, August 9). More Consumers Turn to Social Media for Health Care Information
| Fox Business. Retrieved June 07, 2016, from
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2011/08/09/more-consumers-turn-to-social-media-for-
health-care-information.html

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Volume 13, Issue 1, Version of Record online: 17

DEC 2007. (2008). Retrieved September 07, 2016, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/pdf

Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of
Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2010). Developing a Classification of Motivations
for Consumers‘ Online Brand-Related Activities. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol.
1) (pp. 235-247). Gabler.
Muntinga, D. G. (2011). Explaining COBRAs Quantifying motivations for brand-related social
media use2. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/121154

Muntinga, D. G. (2013). Catching COBRAs. SWOCC.

Wikipedia. (2009, July). Uses and gratifications theory. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_and_gratifications_theory

Dunne, Á., Lawlor, M. A., & Rowley, J. (2010). Young people's use of online social networking
sites-a uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(1),
46-58.

Grant, I. C. (2005). Young Peoples' Relationships with Online Marketing Practices: An Intrusion
Too Far? Journal of Marketing Management, 21(5-6), 607-623.

Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing customer
relationships in the social media era: introducing the social CRM house. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 27(4), 270-280.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11(2),
169-174.

Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship
between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
23(4), 321-331.

Nilsen. (2010, June 15). SOCIAL NETWORKSBLOGS NOW ACCOUNT FOR ONE IN EVERY
FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES ONLINE. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2010/social-media-accounts-for-22-percent-of-
time-online.html

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Social media. Retrieved May 14, 2016, from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media#Patents

Finin, T., Ding, L., Zhou, L., & Joshi, A. (2005). Social networking on the semantic web. The
Learning Organization, 12(5), 418-435.
Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of business
research, 66(2), 216-223.

Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong,and Internet

Self-Efficacy as Predictors of the iGeneration's Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites.
Retrieved May 07, 2016, from http://jiad-org.adprofession.com/article100.html

Elite Daily. (2015). Elite daily millennial consumer study 2015. Retrieved 12/06, 2016, from
http://elitedaily.com/news/business/elite-daily-millennial-consumer-survey-2015/

Newman, D. (2015, April 28). Research Shows Millennials Don't Respond To Ads. Retrieved May
4, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2015/04/28/research-shows-
millennials-dont-respond-to-ads/#780369d55599

Elliott, L. J., & Polyakova, V. (2014). Beyond facebook: The generalization of social networking
site measures. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 163-170.

Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. (2013). .Sociality through social network sites.

Ganesh, J., & Kumar, V. Capturing the cross-national learning effect: An analysis of an industrial
technology diffusion. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 328-337.

Gayo-Avello, Panagiotis Takis Metaxas, Eni Mustafaraj, Markus Strohmaier, Harald Schoen and
Peter Gloor, Daniel, Schoen, H., Gayo-Avello, D., Takis Metaxas, P., Mustafaraj, E.,
Strohmaier, M., et al. (2013). The power of prediction with social media. Internet Research,
23(5), 528-543.

Gironda, J. T., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (2014). Understanding consumers‘ social networking site
usage. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(5-6), 571-605.

Gironda, J. T., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (2014). Understanding consumers‘ social networking site
usage. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(5-6), 571-605.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults' use of the
internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621.
Hassouneh, D., & Brengman, M. (2014). A motivation-based typology of social virtual world users.
Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 330-338.

Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
28(2), 149-165.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1992). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069 Harper
Collins.

Istat. (2015). Il 'digital divide' in italia: L'uso di internet da parte di cittadini e imprese.Retrieved
03.04, 2016, from http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/176502

Janessa, R., & Rob, v. d. M. (2014). Gartner survey reveals digital marketing budgets will
increase by 8 percent in 2015. Retrieved 01/05, 2016, from
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2895817

Joel , t. (2013). Millennials: The me me me generation. Retrieved 08/05, 2016, from

http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/

Jussila, J. J., Kärkkäinen, H., & Aramo-Immonen, H. (2014). Social media utilization in business-
to-business relationships of technology industry firms. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
606-613.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities
of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? get
serious! understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons,
54(3), 241-251.

Vogt, C., & Knapman, S. (2008). The anatomy of social networks.

Rupak Rauniar Greg Rawski Jei Yang Ben Johnson , (2014),"Technology acceptance model (TAM)
andsocial media usage: an empirical study on Facebook", Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol.27 Iss 1 pp. 6 - 30
Kirkpatrick, D. (2012). The Facebook Effect: The Real Inside Story of Mark Zuckerberg and the
World's Fastest Growing Company. Random House.

Ko, H., Cho, C., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). INTERNET USES AND GRATIFICATIONS: A
structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 57-70.

Krishnan, A., & Atkin, D. (2014). Individual differences in social networking site users: The
interplay between antecedents and consequential effect on level of activity. Computers in
Human Behavior, 40, 111-118.

Boundless.com. (n.d.). The Big Five Personality Traits - Boundless Open Textbook. Retrieved
March 08, 2016, from https://www.boundless.com/management/textbooks/boundless-
management-textbook/organizational-behavior-5/personality-42/the-big-five-personality-traits-
220-3935/

Conlatio. (2016, February 27). Big Five personality traits. Retrieved June 08, 2016, from
https://conlatio.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/big-five-personality-traits/

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 54(5), 890.

Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker customer
orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
marketing, 68(1), 128-146.

Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., & Kannan, P. (2016). From social to sale:
The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. Journal of
Marketing, 80(1), 7-25.

Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). From social to
sale: The effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. Journal of
Marketing, 80(1), 7-25.

Lara O'Reilly. (2015). Most young people say they have stopped watching TV. Retrieved 01/05,
2016, from http://uk.businessinsider.com/forrester-video-and-tv-consumption-report-2015-
1?r=US&IR=T
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., & Richard, M. (2013). To be or not to be in social media: How brand
loyalty is affected by social media? International Journal of Information Management, 33(1),
76-82.

Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior
experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331-339.

Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating
network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161.

Marilyn, J., Mark, S., & Christine, V. (2008). Creating emotions via B2C websites. Bond Business
School Publications,

Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). Usage, barriers and measurement
of social media marketing: An exploratory investigation of small and medium B2B brands.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1153-1159.

Ku, Y. C., Chu, T. H., & Tseng, C. H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A
comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 226-234.

Warren, J. W., & Hanno, P. M. (2013). Symptoms of bladder pain syndrome. In Bladder Pain
Syndrome (pp. 177-188). Springer US.

Swart, J., Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (2016). Navigating cross-media news use: Media repertoires
and the value of news in everyday life. Journalism Studies, 1-20.

Karlsson, T., & Wigren, C. (2012). Start-ups among university employees: the influence of
legitimacy, human capital and social capital. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 297-
312.

Darley, W. K., Blankson, C., & Luethge, D. J. (2010). Toward an integrated framework for online
consumer behavior and decision making process: A review. Psychology & marketing, 27(2),
94-116.

Azar, S. L., Machado, J. C., Vacas-de-Carvalho, L., & Mendes, A. (2016). Motivations to interact
with brands on Facebook–Towards a typology of consumer–brand interactions. Journal of
Brand Management, 23(2), 153-178.
Schivinski, B., Christodoulides, G., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). Measuring Consumers' Engagement
With Brand-Related Social-Media Content. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 64-80.

Reinders, M. J., Dabholkar, P. A., & Frambach, R. T. (2008). Consequences of forcing consumers
to use technology-based self-service. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 107-123.

Lev-On, A. (2012). Communication, community, crisis: Mapping uses and gratifications in the
contemporary media environment. new media & society, 14(1), 98-116.

Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J., & Goodman, S. (2015). Social media engagement behaviour: A
uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1-17.

Muk, A., & Chung, C. (2014). Driving consumers to become fans of brand pages: A theoretical
framework. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 1-10.

Chen, W., & Choi, A. S. K. (2011). Internet and social support among Chinese migrants in
Singapore. New media & society, 13(7), 1067-1084.

Haughn, M., & Rouse, M. (2015, January). What is Millennials (Millennial generation)? -
Definition from WhatIs.com. Retrieved June 07, 2016, from
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation

Emerging and Developing Economies Much More Optimistic than Rich Countries about the Future.
(2014, October 09). Retrieved July 07, 2016, from
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-
optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/

Big Five personality traits. (2016, May 25). Retrieved February 08, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Reference.com. (n.d.). What does "personality trait" mean? Retrieved April 08, 2016, from
https://www.reference.com/world-view/personality-trait-mean-94691f46d88e0cfa

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Voss, G. B., & Grewal, D. (2003). Determinants of online channel use and
overall satisfaction with a relational, multichannel service provider. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 31(4), 448-458.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Voss, G. B., & Grewal, D. Determinants of online channel use and overall
satisfaction with a relational, multichannel service provider. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 31(4), 448-458.

Moore, M. (2012). Interactive media usage among millennial consumers. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 29(6), 436-444.

Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring
motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13-
46.

McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: A revised perspective.
Media studies: A reader, 271, 284.

McQuail, D. (1983). Mass communication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Muniz, A. M., & O'guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of consumer research, 27(4),
412-432.

Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion
of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350-360.

Naylor, R. W., Lamberton, C. P., & West, P. M. (2012). Beyond the ―like‖ button: The impact of
mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions in social media settings.
Journal of Marketing, 76(6), 105-120.

Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T., & Chen, J. (2015). Brand innovation and social media:
Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating role of social
media strategic capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 11-25.

Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T., & Chen, J. (2015). Brand innovation and social media:
Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating role of social
media strategic capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 11-25.

Nisar, T. M., & Whitehead, C. (2016). Brand interactions and social media: Enhancing user loyalty
through social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 743-753.
Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S. (2015). (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge:
An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745-750,

Office for National Statistics. (2015). Home internet and social media usage. Retrieved 03/04,
2016, from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinterne
tandsocialmediausage

Office for National Statistics. (2015). Population and migration. Retrieved 03/04, 2016, from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration

Pagani, M., Hofacker, C. F., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2011). The influence of personality on active and
passive use of social networking sites. Psychology & Marketing, 28(5), 441-456.

Park, M., Shin, J., & Ju, Y. (2015). A taxonomy of social networking site users: Social surveillance
and Self‐surveillance perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 32(6), 601-610.

Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment:
Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
12(6), 729-733.

Pate, S. S., & Adams, M. (2013). The influence of social networking sites on buying behaviors of
millennials. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 2(1), 7.

Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Newark: New Jersey Institute of
Technology. Accessed on, 12(3), 10.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2003). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new generation on
campus. American Association of Collegiate Registrars, Washington, DC.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and facebook: Applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2),
169-174.

Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media
effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 41(5), 547-566.
Ratchford, B. T., Pan, X., & Shankar, V. (2003). On the efficiency of internet markets for consumer
goods. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(1), 4-16.

Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and
social media usage: An empirical study on facebook. Journal of Ent Info Management, 27(1),
6-30.

RICHARD, F. (2016). Millennials overtake baby boomers as America’s largest generation.

Retrieved 01/05, 2016, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-
overtake-baby-boomers/

S. Asur, & B. A. Huberman. (2010). Predicting the future with social media. Web Intelligence and
Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on, ,
1. pp. 492-499.

Sago, B. (2010). The influence of social media message sources on millennial generation
consumers. International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, 2(2)

Sarbo, W. S. Clustering consistency analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 10(3),
217-234.

Sashi, C. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management
Decision, 50(2), 253-272.

Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create
value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30-51.

Smit, E. G., Van Noort, G., & Voorveld, H. A. (2014). Understanding online behavioural
advertising: User knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping behaviour in europe.
Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 15-22.

Statista (2016, February 12). Topic: Social Networks. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from
https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/

Stelzner, M. A. (2011). Social media marketing industry report (41st ed.) Social Media Examiner.

Stokburger‐Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychology & Marketing,
27(4), 347-368.
T. Chung, M. Wedel, Roland T. Rust. (2016). Adaptive personalization using social networks.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 44(Issue 1), 66-87.

Teresa, N. (2015). I millennials in italia? sono 11,2 milioni e oltre 8 quelli abitualmente connessi.
lo smartphone mezzo preferito Retrieved 12/05/2016, from:

http://www.engage.it/ricerche/i-millennials-in-italia-sono-112-milioni-e-oltre-8-quelli-
abitualmente-connessi-lo-smartphone-mezzo-preferito/39927#d7bbyVAqT77tzgOE.99

The Nilsen Company. (2010). Social networksblogs now account for one in every four and a half
minutes online. Retrieved 15/06, 2016, from:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2010/social-media-accounts-for-22-percent-of-
time-online.html

Adam, L. (2015, April 2). Which Social Networks Have the Most Engaged Audience? Retrieved
May 16, 2016, from

https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Blog/Which-Social-Networks-Have-the-Most-Engaged-
Audience

President, B. S. (2016). UK: Reasons for interacting with companies on social media 2015 |
Statistic. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from

http://www.statista.com/statistics/476164/main-reasons-for-interacting-with-companies-on-social-
media-in-the-uk

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional
marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90-
102.

Tsai, W. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand
pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76-87.

Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications
approach. Qualitative Mrkt Res: An Int J, 16(4), 362-369.

Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication &
society, 3(1), 3-37.
Wikipedia. (2016). Social media. Retrieved 1/04/2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media#Definition_and_classification

Uses and gratifications theory. (2009, July). Retrieved September 08, 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_and_gratifications_theory

Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search. Tourism
Management, 31(2), 179-188.

Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer-mediated environments: Research

synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 20-40.

Zhang, M., Guo, L., Hu, M., & Liu, W. (2016). Influence of customer engagement with company
social networks on stickiness: Mediating effect of customer value creation. International
Journal of Information Management,

Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion
mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365.

Zhou, Z., Jin, X., Vogel, D. R., Fang, Y., & Chen, X. (2011). Individual motivations and
demographic differences in social virtual world uses: An exploratory investigation in second
life. International Journal of Information Management, 31(3), 261-271.

Ganesh, J., & Kumar, V. (1996). Capturing the cross-national learning effect: An analysis of an
industrial technology diffusion. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 328-337.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach. Pearson
Education.

Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. W., & Johnson, L. W. (2016). Antecedents of consumer brand
engagement and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 558-578.
8. Appendix:

British Survey:

Survey_english

Q1 Thank you for being so nice and helping me finish my master thesis by completing this 10
minutes survey. My research has as main focus generation Y ( people born between 1982-2004)
relationship with a brand online, specifically on Facebook. For my research I will be focussing on
Millennials between 20-35 years. The survey starts with general questions regarding your online
habits, it then continues with some personality trait questions and finishes with question regarding
your motivations to interact with a brand Facebook page. Be kind and answer all the questions
because if not I won't be able to interpret the data. Thank you again and don't forget to download
the offered privacy booklet at the end of the survey :)
Q2 On average how many hours per day do you spend on the Internet

 Less than 1 hour per day (1)

 1-2 hours (2)
 3-4 hours (3)
 More than 5 hours (4)

Q3 Please,rank your top online activities by time spent doing those activities - 1 represents the
activity to which you dedicate more time. *If you don't do certain activities, please don't consider
them in your ranking.

______ Forums (1)

______ Music e.g. ITunes; Spotify (2)
______ News (3)
______ Facebook Messenger (4)
______ Other Instant messaging (5)
______ Activities on social networking platforms (Facebook; Twitter; Instagram; Snap Chat (6)
______ Gaming (7)
______ Shopping (8)
______ Web browsing (9)

Q4 Please rank the social networking sites by time spent on the social platform - 1 represents the
platform to which you dedicate most of the time. * If you don't use one or more platforms please
don't consider them in your ranking.

______ Twitter (1)

______ Facebook (2)
______ LinkedIn (3)
______ Instagram (4)
______ Snap Chat (5)
______ Pinterest (6)
______ YouTube (7)
______ Other(please specify) (8)

Q5 Do you have a Facebook account?

 Yes (1)
 No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey
Q6 On the Facebook platform: please rank which of the following activities you do most? (1 the
most predominant; 5 the less predominant)

______ Use Facebook messenger to get in contact with friends (1)

______ "Like" content posted by others (2)
______ Watch videos (3)
______ Read articles (4)
______ Read news stories (5)
______ Upload my own content (6)
______ Other(please specify) (7)

Q7 What device do you use most to access social networking sites (i.e. Facebook; Twitter;
Instagram)

 Laptop (1)
 Tablet (2)
 Smartphone (3)
 Desktop (4)
 Other(please specify) (5) ____________________

Q8 How often do you visit Facebook per day?

 I don't visit Facebook everyday (1)

 Once-twice (2)
 3-4 times (3)
 5-6 (4)
 7-8 (5)
 9-10 (6)
 More than 11 times (7)

Q9 On average how long do you spend on Facebook per day?

 5 minutes (1)
 10 minutes (2)
 20 minutes (3)
 30 minutes (4)
 45 minutes (5)
 60 minutes (6)
 90 minutes (7)
 120 minutes or more (8)
Q10 Did you "LIKE" any brand official page on Facebook? (eg. Nike, Zara etc.)

 Yes (1)
 No (2)

Q11 If you have any favorite official brand page on Facebook, please write it/them underneath:

Q12 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
I get a state of
tension or
turmoil as I
think over my
recent
concern and
interests, it
takes me time
    
to get over
shyness in
new
situations and
I get stressed
very easily.
(1)
Q13 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
It is always a
pleasure in
knowing new
persons. I am
generally
friendly
towards all
people, I
prefer to be in
company all
the time, i am
an energetic
person     
always
searching for
things to do
and I am
satisfied with
myself as a
person,
generally
experiencing
positive
feelings. (1)
Q14 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
I am a
creative
person, I take
time to
appreciate
beauty and
art, I prefer
novelty and
new     
experience
over routine,
I search for
new ideas and
try to
innovate
myself. (1)
Q15 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
I generally
believe that
people are
sincere and
have good
intentions, i
am interested
in the welfare
of others,
when I get
involved in
tension or     
disagreement
I try to
extinct the
conflict with
a friendly
attitude and I
pretty much
like
everybody.
(1)
Q16 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
In doing my
daily tasks, at
home and at
work, i
believe I am
an efficient,
organized
person, when
i start a task, i
follow
through and I
don't let
myself
affected by     
boredom or
distractions, I
think twice
before i say
or do
something
and once I've
made a
promise, i
feel the moral
duty to fulfill
it no matter
what. (1)
Q17 Please rate how well the statement below describes you:

Never (1) Sometimes About half Most of the Always (5)

(2) the time (3) time (4)
I enjoy being
in the cernet
of attention, I
like having
authority over
other people
finding it
easy to
manipulate     
others
moreover i
believe i am a
successful
person and
more capable
than others in
anything. (1)

Q18 What drives you to like a brand official page on Facebook?

Q19 Describe the type of content you would like to find on a Facebook brand page?
Q20 Select the behaviors you exhibit most on a Facebook brand page:

Never (1) Rarely (2) About half of Frequently Very

the time (4) (5) frequently (6)
READ
articles posted     
by brand (1)

Search for
customers
reviews about     
brand
products (2)

Look at
videos and
pictures
posted on the     
brand page
(3)

I comment on
video, images
and articles
on the brand     
Facebook
page (4)

I rate the
brand     
products (5)

Participate in
brand related
conversations.     
(6)

Share and like

brand
generated     
content (7)

Write detailed
reviews about     
the brand (8)
 I create and
share Brand-
related videos
or other brand
related     
content like
advertisment.
(9)

I post pictures
consuming
the brand
products     
(tagging
brand is
included) (10)

Q21 Why do you consume (view; read) content on the brand Facebook page?

Q22 What do you want to obtain when you interact on the brand facebook page showing behaviors
like commenting, engaging in discussions with other community members liking and sharing?

Q23 Describe some situations when you created some content(post photos of you using the brand;
write detailed reviews; any kind of advertising; #tagging the brand etc.) and please write your
motivation for doing so. * if you didn't had any similar behavior as the one described please skip to
the next question

Q24 Describe some circumstances that would persuade you to create (post photos of you using the
brand; write detailed reviews; any kind of advertising; #tagging the brand etc.)some content
and contribute to the Facebook Brand page

Q25 Age:

 20-25 (1)
 26-30 (2)
 31-35 (3)
Q26 Gender:

 Male (1)
 Female (2)

Q27 Nationality:

Q28 What is your primary occupation

 Employed full time (1)

 Employed part time (2)
 Unemployed looking for work (3)
 Unemployed not looking for work (4)
 Student (5)
 Self-employed (6)

Italian Survey:

Survey_Italian

Q1 Grazie di essere cosi gentili ed aiutarmi a finire la mia tesi di master compilando questo
questionario. Il tempo necessario per completarlo sono meno di 10 minuti. La ricerca ha come focus
la generazione dei cosiddetti "Millennials" ( individui nati tra il 1982 e 2004) e la loro relazione con
le marche nel mondo online, specificamente la loro relazione con un brand su Facebook. La mia
ricerca e dedicata ai Millennials tra i 20-35 anni. Il questionario comincia con domande generali
sulle vostre abitudini online, continua con demande relative a tratti di personalita e continua con
domande legate alle vostre motivazioni di interagire con le marche(brand) sulla loro pagina ufficiale
di Facebook. Per favore rispondete a tutte le domande sicome senza un questionario completo mi
sarà molto difficile analizzare i dati e finire la mia tesi. Vi ringrazio di cuore e non dimenticate di
scaricare l'opuscolo sulla privacy online, offerto alla fine del questionario :)

Q2 Quante ore al giorno passi in media in Internet?

 Meno di 1 ora al giorno (1)
 1-2 ore (2)
 3-4 ore (3)
 più di 5 ore (4)
Q3 Per favore, fai un top delle tue attività online secondo il tempo dedicato a esse - 1 rappresenta
l'attività alla quale dedichi più tempo. * Se certe proposte non si trovano nelle tue attività abituali
online per favore non le prendere in considerazione.
______ Forum (1)
______ Muzica eg. ITunes; Spotify (2)
______ Notizie (3)
______ Il messenger di Facebook (4)
______ Altri servizi di messaggistica istantanea eg. Msn; Yahoo (5)
______ Attività sui social network (Facebook; Twitter; Instagram; Snapchat) (6)
______ Giochi (7)
______ Shopping (8)
______ Navigare su Internet (9)

Q4 Per favore, fai un top dei social networks che usi , considerando il tempo dedicato a ognuno - 1
e il piattaforma dove dedichi più tempo. *Se non usi uno o più dei social nella domanda, per favore
non gli prendere in considerazione nella classifica
______ Twitter (1)
______ Facebook (2)
______ LinkedIn (3)
______ Instagram (4)
______ SnapChat (5)
______ Pinterest (6)
______ Youtube (7)
______ Altro (Prego specificare) (8)

Q5 Possiedi un account di Facebook?

 Si (1)
 No (2)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

Q6 Per favore, classifica le seguenti attività che svolgi su Facebook - 1 rappresenta l'attività che
esegui più spesso.
______ Uso il messenger di Facebook per parlare con amici (1)
______ Faccio "LIKE" al contenuto degli altri (foto; posts etc.) (2)
______ Guardo video nella "news feed" (3)
______ Leggo diversi articoli (4)
______ Leggo diverse notizie (5)
______ Carico il mio proprio contenuto (6)
______ Altro (prego specificare) (7)
Q7 Quale dispositivo usi più spesso per accedere ai social? (eg. Facebook; Twitter; Instagram)
 Portatile (1)
 Tablet (2)
 Smartphone (3)
 Desktop (4)
 Altro (per favore precisare) (5) ____________________

Q8 Quante volte al giorno accedi a Facebook?

 Non vado su Facebook ogni giorno (1)
 Una-due volte (2)
 3-4 volte (3)
 5-6 volte (4)
 7-8 volte (5)
 9-10 (6)
 Più di 11 volte (7)

Q9 Quanto tempo dedichi, in media al giorno, a Facebook?

 5 minuti (1)
 10 minuti (2)
 20 minuti (3)
 30 minuti (4)
 45 minuti (5)
 60 minuti (6)
 90 minuti (7)
 120 minuti o di più (8)

Q10 Hai fatto "MI PIACE" a qualche pagina ufficiale di una marca su Facebook? (eg. Nike, Zara
etc.)
 Si (1)
 No (2)

Q11 Se hai qualche pagina pagina preferita, di un brand(marca) su Facebook, per favore scrivilo
qua:
Q12 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

Mi viene
l'agitazione e
l'ansia quando
penso a
interessi o
preoccupazioni
recenti. Ci
metto un po'
prima di     
superare la
timidezza in
nuove
situazioni e
divento
stressata/o
molto
facilmente. (1)
Q13 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa la meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

Mi fa sempre
piacere
conoscere
gente nuova,
ho un
comportamento
amichevole
verso gli altri e
preferisco
essere sempre
in compagnia.
Sono una
persona molto     
energica, mi
piace interagire
e cerco sempre
cose da fare.
Sono
soddisfatto/a
della persona
che sono e in
generale sento
emozioni
positive. (1)
Q14 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa la meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

Trovo di
essere una
persona
creativa che
dedica tempo
per
apprezzare la
bellezza
intorno e
l'arte.
Generalmente
preferisco la     
novità e le
nuove
esperienze
invece che la
routine.
Cerco sempre
nuove idee
per
migliorare me
stesso/a. (1)
Q15 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa la meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

In generale
credo che la
gente sia
sincera e ha
buone
intenzioni.
Sono
interessata/o
del benessere
degli altri.
Quando capita
che mi trovo in     
una situazione
conflittuale
cerco di
stoppare la
tensione con un
comportamento
amichevole.
Praticamente
mi piacciono
tutte le
persone. (1)
Q16 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa la meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

Credo di
essere una
persona
efficiente e
organizzata
quando faccio
i compiti
giornalieri, a
casa oppure
al lavoro.
Quando
comincio un
compito lo
porto a buon
fine senza
lasciarmi     
influenzata da
distrazioni
oppure noia.
Prima di agire
ci penso due
volte e una
volta che ho
fatto una
promessa
sento dovere
morale di
mantenerla a
qualsiasi
costo. (1)
Q17 Per favore, scegli quanto l' affermazione sotto ti descrive:
Mai (1) Ognitanto (2) Circa la meta La major Sempre (5)
del tempo (3) parte del
tempo (4)

Mi piace
essere il
centro
dell'attenzione
e mi piace
avere autorità
sulle persone.
Mi risulta
facile
manipolare la     
gente e credo
io sia una
persona di
successo
molto più
capace di tutti
in qualsiasi
cosa. (1)

Q18 Perche decidi di fare "Mi Piace" su una pagina di una marca su Facebook?

Q19 Descrivi il tipo di contenuto che vorresti trovare sulla pagina Facebook di un brand?
Q20 Scegli quando si adatta alla tua situazione la dichiarazione scritta sotto:
Mai (1) Raramente Circa la meta Spesso (4) Molto spesso
(2) del tempo (3) (5)

Sulla pagina
Facebook di
una marca
(brand), leggo     
articoli
pubblicati dal
brand. (1)

Cerco
recensioni e
commenti di     
altri clienti.
(2)

Guardo video
e foto
pubblicate
sulla pagina     
Facebook
della marca.
(3)

Sulla pagina
Facebook
della marca,
aggiungo
commenti ad     
articoli,
imaggini e
video. (4)

Condivido e
faccio mi
piace sul
contenuto
della pagina     
Facebook
della marca.
(5)

Valuto i     
prodotti della
marca. (6)

Sulla pagina
ufficiale di un
brand su
Facebook,
scrivo     
recensioni
dettagliate sui
prodotti. (7)

Creo e
condivido
video relativi
al brand
oppure altri
contenuti     
legati al
brand come
memes o
pubblicita. (8)

Pubblico foto
consumando
il prodotto
della marca (
e.g. foto     
indossando
un paio di
NIke air
#Nike). (9)

Q21 Perche decidi di consumare(guardare; leggere) contenuto sulla Pagina di una marca che ti
piace?

Q22 Cosa ti spinge interagire(commentare; parlare con altri membri della comunità online; fare like
e condividere contenuto del brand) sulla pagina di Facebook di una marca?
Q29 Descrivi delle situazioni quando hai creato dei contenuti (pubblicare foto con il brand; creare
publicità ; contribuire con recensioni dettagliate; #tagg la marca) sulla pagina Facebook di un brand,
e perfavore spiega qual'è stata la tua motivazione. *se non hai mai creato contenuto sulla pagina
Facebook di un brand, salta alla prossima domanda

Q23 Descrivi delle situazioni che ti determinerebbero di contribuire (pubblicare foto con il brand;
creare publicità ; contribuire con recensioni dettagliate; #tagg il brand) alla pagina Facebook della
marca

Q24 Età:
 20-25 (1)
 26-30 (2)
 31-35 (3)

Q25 Sesso:
 Femmina (1)
 Maschio (2)

Q26 Nazionalità:

Q27 Occupazione principale:

 Lavoro a tempo pieno (1)
 Lavoro 50% (2)
 Cercando lavoro (3)
 Disoccupato, ma non cerco (4)
 Studente (5)
 Lavoratore autonomo (6)

British psychographic results:

Time online:
Favorite online activity:

Preferred Social media:

Other preferred social media:

Favorite Activities on Facebook:

Other favorite activities on Facebook:

Device to access social media:

Facebook visits/day:

Time spent on Facebook:

Italian psychographic:

Online activities

Preferred Social media:

Preferred Facebook activities:
Device used to access social media: