The Role of Online Brand Community Engagement on the Consumer–Brand Relationship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

As one of the reviewers, I read your manuscript. I think the model you developed can be useful for future use in academic studies, however I think your hypotheses development needs to be explained in a better way. I suggest you to enrich the literature with more citations in the subject of co-creation in MDPI journals, especially sustainability. Also your introduction is really insufficient.

I left comments in the attached file. please read the carefully and revise your manuscript. I would be ready to positively review your revision.

Best of luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Reviewer’s comment. As one of the reviewers, I read your manuscript. I think the model you developed can be useful for future use in academic studies, however I think your hypotheses development needs to be explained in a better way. I suggest you to enrich the literature with more citations in the subject of co-creation in MDPI journals, especially sustainability. Also your introduction is really insufficient.

I left comments in the attached file. Please read the carefully and revise your manuscript. I would be ready to positively review your revision.

Authors’ response. Thank you very much for your comments. We have built on your feedback and suggestions to add new references to scholarly work in this field, including research articles published in Sustainability. We have also extended and improved the Introduction section so that readers of this article can gain a better understanding of this topic, the positioning of this study, its objectives and contribution to existing knowledge. We have also addressed the comments kindly added by this reviewer directly to the manuscript. We remain ever so grateful for this reviewer’s assistance in improving the original version of this manuscript. Below, we set out in further detail the emendments made to this manuscript.

Comment 1. I suggest the authors to cite definitions from the literature.

Authors’ response 1. Thank you for your feedback. In the Introduction and Background sections, we have included definitions of key terms drawn from the literature and we have improved their description (see pages 1-5).

Comment 2. Is OBC is a medium? what the authors mean from the medium? I searched in my resources and as an expert in media management I believe that use of the word medium for OBC must be clearly explained for the readers to distinguish it from the established word in the field.

Engagement is one of the areas that media management focus on, and use of the word medium without clarifications mislead newbie students and researchers.

Authors’ response 2. Thank you for your feedback. The term “medium” has been replaced by “site” as it was noticed by the authors that there had been a mistake made here with the English translation of the original concept (Laroche et al., 2012).

Reference:

Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1755-1767.

Comment 3. The first three paragraphs cannot convey the problem and even failed to prepare the mind of the reader about what this article wants to say. The main idea is that engagement is the central subject in study of OBC. Ok, but what is the main point? what is the problem? what is the detailed issue that this article aims to address?

Authors’ response 3. Thank you for your feedback. We have rewritten the Introduction section substantially in order to clarify the challenges related to this topic and position this research study within that context (see pages 1-2).

Comment 4. The last paragraph claims that it wants to point out the research gap. what are research gaps? 1) there is a need to integrated models, 2) there is no consensus on the relations, 3) the role needs to be discussed and analyzed (simplified). These are not the gaps that inspire a research to be done for filling the gaps.

Authors’ response 4. Thank you for your feedback. In order to address this feedback, we have rewritten the last part of the Introduction so as to better explain the research objectives of this study as well as its contribution to knowledge (see page 2).

Comment 5. I strongly believe that the introduction needs to be rewritten.

Authors’ response 5. Thank you for your feedback. As mentioned earlier in this response to reviewers and in line with this suggestion, we have re-written large parts of the Introduction section (see pages 1-2).

Comment 6. It is necessary to review the concept (for example: Consumer-brand Relationship) and previous theories in this field.

Authors’ response 6. Thank you for your feedback. We have included definitions of key concepts related to this model and linked them to previous theories, including Social Identity Theory (see pages 1-6).

Comment 7. I suggest the authors to preset an operational definition for identification with the community. Development of hypotheses can be more stronger.

Authors’ response 7. Thank you for your feedback. We have included a definition for the variable named “identification with the [online] community” (see pages 2-3). In addition to this, the justification of the hypotheses used has been strengthened within the theoretical framework adopted (see pages 2-6).

Comment 8. I suggest the authors to add a descriptive statistic table to expand the descriptions.

Authors’ response 8. Thank you for your feedback. A table has been included here to outline the characteristics of the study’s sample (see Table 1, page 7).

Comment 9. There is a potential for improving the discussion and conclusion based on the background.

Authors’ response 9. Thank you for your feedback. The Discussion section has been expanded, especially with regards to the implications of the findings of this study, its limitations and future research. A new Conclusions section has also been added (see pages 11-14).

Comment 10. It is necessary to compare the research findings with previous similar studies to show the contribution of this research.

Authors’ response 10. Thank you for your feedback. In section “5.1 Theoretical Implications” and in the new “Conclusions” section, the research findings of this study have been compared to those of similar earlier studies to show clearly the theoretical contributions of this research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject under study in this research is very interesting. The structure of the article is adequate and the methodology applied is adequate to achieve the stated objective. The methodology is developed in a systematic and correct way.

My comments and suggestions are:

1. The article is submitted to the Journal Sustainability, however the template used is from the Journal of Theoretical and Applied ..., which is more appropriate for the subject of the document. Check if it is an error when uploading the document to the platform.

2.- The introduction section is very poor, it lacks a lot of information necessary for the reader. Better contextualize the subject under study. What studies exist on the subject? see what they contribute, depending on them clarify, what gap do the authors identify? Why do they raise the research? What is the novelty of the proposed research?

In the introduction it should appear clearly what the objective is, and briefly the methodology, and the population under study.

Finish the section with a paragraph in which the sections into which the document is divided are explained.

3.- Perform the Harman test to avoid the Common Bias limitation.

4.- The discussion section does not contain such discussion, in this section it is necessary to describe what results are obtained and compare them with previous studies, providing whether or not the results of the study are corroborated by previous studies.

5.- It is necessary to include a section of conclusions.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Reviewer’s comment. The subject under study in this research is very interesting. The structure of the article is adequate and the methodology applied is adequate to achieve the stated objective. The methodology is developed in a systematic and correct way.

Authors’ response. Thank you very much for your kind words.

Comment 1. The article is submitted to the Journal Sustainability, however the template used is from the Journal of Theoretical and Applied ..., which is more appropriate for the subject of the document. Check if it is an error when uploading the document to the platform.

Authors’ response 1. Thank you very much for your feedback. The template used was a mistake, which the corresponding author would like to personally apologize for. The re-submission of this manuscript has now been done using the template provided by Sustainability.

Comment 2. The introduction section is very poor, it lacks a lot of information necessary for the reader. Better contextualize the subject under study. What studies exist on the subject? see what they contribute, depending on them clarify, what gap do the authors identify? Why do they raise the research? What is the novelty of the proposed research?

Authors’ response 2. Thank you for your feedback. The Introduction section has been extensively re-written to improve the rationale of this research study, its research objectives, knowledge gaps addressed and the novelty of this study (see pages 1-2).

Comment 3. In the introduction it should appear clearly what the objective is, and briefly the methodology, and the population under study.

Authors’ response 3. Thank you for your feedback. As outlined elsewhere in our response to reviewers, the Introduction section has been extensively re-written to better explain the research objectives of this study, its methodology and sampling strategy (see page 2).

Comment 4. Finish the section with a paragraph in which the sections into which the document is divided are explained.

Authors’ response 4. Thank you for your feedback. The revised Introduction now contains a new paragraph in which the structure of the article is outlined (see page 2).

Comment 5. Perform the Harman test to avoid the Common Bias limitation.

Authors’ response 5. Thank you for your feedback. The revised manuscript now includes

Harman’s single factor test to assess the impact of common method bias (CMB). The results show that in this study CMB does not pose an issue for the data analysis performed (see page 8).

Comment 6. The discussion section does not contain such discussion, in this section it is necessary to describe what results are obtained and compare them with previous studies, providing whether or not the results of the study are corroborated by previous studies.

Authors’ response 6. Thank you for your feedback. The Discussion has been extensively re-written, especially as regards the practical implications of this study, its limitations and further research in this field (see pages 11-13).

Comment 7. It is necessary to include a section of conclusions.

Authors’ response 7. Thank you for your feedback. A new Conclusions section has been included (see pages 13-14).

Reviewer 3 Report

This study investigated the role of brand community on brand loyalty. This study have to consider these two critical comments.

1. More explanation is required for the role and cases of Brand Community in building long-term relationship with customers. 

2. This study has few theoretical background about the cause and effect of OBC engagement and participation (H3).
 
Moreover, OBC Engagement has positive WOM and brand co-creation. But it does not consider the relationship between OBC engagement and Brand Loyalty. 
Why OBC identification has no direct effect to positive WOM and brand loyalty? 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Reviewer’s comment. This study investigated the role of brand community on brand loyalty. This study have to consider these two critical comments.

Authors’ response. Thank you very much for your feedback.

Comment 1. More explanation is required for the role and cases of Brand Community in building long-term relationship with customers.

Authors’ response 1. Thank you for your feedback. In the Introduction, an explanation of the role of OBCs has been expanded with specific emphasis on the development of stable relationships with brand customers (see pages 1-2).

Comment 2. This study has few theoretical background about the cause and effect of OBC engagement and participation (H3)

Authors’ response 2. Thank you for your feedback. The theoretical underpinning of the hypotheses used has been improved, especially for H3 (see pages 2-6).

Comment 3. Moreover, OBC Engagement has positive WOM and brand co-creation. But it does not consider the relationship between OBC engagement and Brand Loyalty.

Authors’ response 3. Thank you for your feedback. As the reviewer has kindly suggested, the theoretical framework adopted in this study could include more relationships. More specifically, the relationship between OBC engagement and Brand Loyalty has been proven in earlier studies (e.g., Kumar & Kumar, 2020; Kumar & Navak, 2018). In spite of this, the research model adopted in this study contains 14 relationships. As a result of this, it was deemed appropriate not to increase it complexity, particularly given that it already explains a large percentage of Brand Loyalty variance (61%). In fact, Reviewer 4 commented on the large number of hypotheses used in this study. Nevertheless, the relationship suggested here has been discussed in the section on “Limitations and Future Research” so that it is explored by further studies.

References:

Kumar, J., & Kumar, V. (2020). Drivers of brand community engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 101949.

Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2018). Brand community relationships transitioning into brand relationships: Mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45, 64-73.

Comment 4. Why OBC identification has no direct effect to positive WOM and brand loyalty?

Authors’ response 4. Thank you for your feedback. As outlined earlier, the model tested as part of this research could have included more relationships between variables, which would have increased its complexity. As regards the relationships tested, earlier studies do not show a clear effect of OBC identification on Brand Loyalty given that, for instance, this relationship was not supported in research carried out by Yoshida et al. (2018) and Kumar & Navak (2018). Also, the model posited in this study already explains the high percentages of variance for Brand Loyalty (61%) and Positive WOM (63%). Nevertheless, the relationship suggested here has been discussed in the section on “Limitations and Future Research” so that it is explored by further studies.

References:

Kumar, J., & Nayak, J. K. (2018). Brand community relationships transitioning into brand relationships: Mediating and moderating mechanisms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45, 64-73.

Yoshida, M., Gordon, B. S., Nakazawa, M., Shibuya, S., & Fujiwara, N. (2018). Bridging the gap between social media and behavioral brand loyalty. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 28, 208-218.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is well-written and reads well. It clearly defines its research hypotheses and applies robust statistical analysis to test them. The paper is interesting and well composed, therefore, it is hard to fault such a classic structure.
The research is designed very well, the authors used advanced methods for evaluating the data. The econometric toolset is fine, the data set used too. 
The conclusions are supported by detailed analyzes. Their practical use has been indicated.
My only feedback: hypotheses are really numerous and are prepared in accordance with the existing literature, which is correct as such, but it may be worth extending the theoretical basis of the hypotheses and paying more attention to the validation of the scale.  
Good luck! 

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Reviewer’s comment. The paper is well-written and reads well. It clearly defines its research hypotheses and applies robust statistical analysis to test them. The paper is interesting and well composed, therefore, it is hard to fault such a classic structure.

The research is designed very well, the authors used advanced methods for evaluating the data. The econometric toolset is fine, the data set used too.

The conclusions are supported by detailed analyzes. Their practical use has been indicated.

Authors’ response. Thank you very much for your kind words.

Comment 1. My only feedback: hypotheses are really numerous and are prepared in accordance with the existing literature, which is correct as such, but it may be worth extending the theoretical basis of the hypotheses and paying more attention to the validation of the scale.

Authors’ response 1. Thank you for your feedback. In line with your suggestion, we have elaborated further on the theoretical grounding of this model’s hypotheses (see pages 2-6). As regards the validation of the scales used, it is worth pointing out that the scales used here for the measurement of all constructs have been drawn from a review of relevant literature, which included widely cited studies (e.g., Algesheimer et al., 2005; Casaló et al., 2008; Laroche et al., 2012, Porter and Donthu, 2008), as shown in page 8. Additionally, in section “4.1. Analysis of the Measurement Model”, we have included the necessary statistics and tests to evaluate the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement scales, such as Cronbach’s alpha (CA), indicator loads, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and confidence intervals (see pages 8-10).

References:

Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing 2005, vol. 69, pp. 19-34.

Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M. The role of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking services. International Journal of Bank Marketing 2008, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 399-417.

Laroche, M.; Habibi, M.R.; Richard, M-O.; Sankaranarayanan, R. The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior 2012, vol. 28, pp. 1755-1767.

Porter, C.E.; Donthu, N. Cultivating trust and harvesting value in virtual communities. Management Science 2008, vol. 54, pp. 113-128.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your careful revision and for the answers to my comments. I feel satisfied from the revision and have no more comments.

Best of luck

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have followed the comments and suggestions correctly and exhaustively.
I congratulate the authors for their research and document

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments were considered in the revised version.