Next Article in Journal
Impact of Fixed/Variable Speed Hydro, Wind, and Photovoltaic on Sub-Synchronous Torsional Oscillation—A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
International Students’ Nostalgic Behaviour towards the Purchase of Products and Services
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Vehicle Active Steering Stability Control Based on Variable Time Domain Input and State Information Prediction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010115
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Consumer Interaction and Community Relationships on Value Co-Creation Willingness: A Mediation Model of Chinese Sports Brands

by
Xiaowei Jiang
1,
Brandon Mastromartino
2,
Qian Yang
1,*,
Jianwei Zhang
1 and
James J. Zhang
3
1
School of Economics and Management, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai 200438, China
2
L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
3
Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 115; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010115
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 5 December 2022 / Accepted: 11 December 2022 / Published: 21 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management and Consumer Behavior Studies)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Existing research reveals the significance of understanding consumer interactions as an increasingly important determinant of sports consumption behaviors; yet, few studies have focused on the virtual communities of sporting goods brands, particularly for the Chinese marketplace that is becoming the largest globally. This study aimed to examine the relationships among consumer interaction, brand-community relationship, and consumer value co-creation willingness in the sports virtual brand communities of China. Research participants (n = 445) were consumers participating in online community activities of two leading sporting goods brands in China, Li-NING and Anta Sports. A questionnaire survey study was conducted. Regression analyses revealed that three out of four consumer interaction factors—cultural identity behavior, experiential communication behavior, and community maintenance behavior—exert a significant and positive impact on consumer value co-creation willingness. The strength of community relationship played a mediating role in these relationships. The other one, member screening interaction, did not find support. This study extends knowledge of sports brand marketing and management of virtual brand communities and recognizes the effectiveness of consumer value co-creation aspirations by highlighting the importance and reliance of customer-to-customer interaction and the strength of brand-community relationships.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, sports brand development followed commodity-leading logic, meaning the manufacturing end outputs products to end-consumer consumption to obtain exchange value. In this process, the value of sports products was determined by the manufacturing end. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the needs of consumers [1] Feelings of anxiety and insecurity have escalated users’ discontent to be passive recipients of the product value and their desires for more control. It would be beneficial for sports products to be produced with the help of the consumer [2].
At the same time, driven by emerging network technology and social media, virtual brand community has become an important platform for consumers to participate in the creation of sports products or services [3] and for brands to enhance innovation ability, cultivate consumer brand loyalty, and establish competitive advantages [4,5]. The community economy is a decentralized, multilateral, and boundless new economic business model. It establishes emotional trust and value feedback between producers and user communities through the Internet [6], forming a “self-organization and reproduction” economy of scope [7]. The system is an important part of the modern economic system, having influenced the way sport organizations market their products and engage with their fans [8,9]. With this type of relationship, consumers have realized the change in their role through active participation in virtual brand community interaction [10]. The consumer situation has changed from information scarcity to perfection, identity isolation to network connection, passive acceptance to active participation [11], and sports consumption to production. This has formed new consumption styles and influenced consumer preferences, attitudes, and behaviors. As an important channel for consumer–consumer and consumer–enterprise communication, the virtual brand community provides convenience for consumers to participate in product design, production, consumption, and circulation [12]. In this new decentralized business model, community members are partners in product production. Sport organizations and consumers can accomplish diversified cooperation, based on their resource attributes and needs. These communities represent a strong industrial driving force that can create significant commercial value [13] and present a new economic industrial chain [14].
In recent years, the marketing strategies that brands utilize to create value through virtual brand communities have attracted academic attention. Previous studies in this area call for future research to build on and clarify the specific relationship between consumer interaction, community relationship strength, and value co-creation willingness [15,16,17,18]. Fuller [19] emphasized that a virtual brand community is an important platform, and interaction is a behavioral path for value co-creation. Online communities provide more interactive opportunities than offline communities. Interactions of virtual brand communities mainly occur between consumers and brands and among consumers. Of these, interaction among consumers is also a typical form of value co-creation, which can improve consumers’ service experience and affect their satisfaction and brand loyalty [20,21]. The driving factors of consumer interaction mainly include income, entertainment, utilitarian, and social [22]; while the main forms of consumer interaction are interpersonal, product, and cognitive [23]. Simultaneously, timeliness, frequency, and duration of interaction also impact consumer attitudes and behaviors [10]. Understanding the influence of consumer interaction on product innovation behavior in a virtual brand community enables enterprises to obtain brand value and co-create related information, share problem solutions, and positively affect consumer community satisfaction [24]. The development of digital economy has promoted the innovation of value creation mode; connectivity under social network technology has brought new value realization methods to sports enterprises [25]. When consumers enter the virtual brand community and form a strong community connection through interactions, they will further form brand loyalty and increase involvement and co-creation behavior [25,26]. Under the continuous impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual communities, as the media for effective communication and coordination among stakeholders, play an increasingly important role in creating and managing ecosystems [27]. With the help of virtual communities as interactive media, sports consumers are included in the process of value service development to promote the cooperation between sports enterprises and consumers, forming a dynamic and two-way value creation model. The community economy is an experience economy based on emotion and values. Sports brands can create sustainable economic value if they have loyal and highly emotional user groups [28]. An increasing number of sports enterprises have taken the initiative to build their brand community and platforms for consumer activities, strengthening the relationship between brands and consumers.
However, most current research focuses on specific forms of consumer interaction, and less on the essence and characteristics of the virtual brand community. Consumer interaction in a virtual brand community is a concept with rich connotations and multi-dimensional value. The timeliness, frequency, and duration of interaction are only some of the dimensions, and do not fully encapsulate the value connotations of the virtual brand community [29]. Value co-creation of consumers in virtual brand communities is complex, and research on consumer interaction is still lacking. The process and the influencing variables—derived from consumers’ interaction with other consumers in the virtual brand community, leading to participation in value co-creation—are still a “black box.”
At present, the number of middle class consumers in China has reached 225 million, and China’s consumption elevation is quietly underway [30]. China accounts for 65% of the world’s sports goods production share and has, more importantly, become one of the world’s major sports goods consumption markets [31] However, the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 put significant pressure on the Chinese economy and sport industry [32]. The Chinese economy was hit especially hard in the early days of the pandemic and, as a result, logistics and supply chains were suspended, stores were closed, and sport stadiums were empty. For sport consumers, the scope of consumer interaction in fan communities (i.e., Nike+, Anta, and Li-NING fan communities) had shifted from offline to online, and for sport brands, the importance of virtual community spaces increased rapidly [16]. Therefore, based on the new era background, it is of great practical significance to explore the consumer interaction of China’s sports brand virtual community to promote the transformation and upgrading of China’s sports manufacturing industry, improve the quality and efficiency of its sports service industry, and promote the high-quality development of its sports industry.
We propose the following questions in the context of virtual sports brand community: (a) What is the direct impact on the willingness of customer to co-create value? and (b) Does community relationship strength mediate the impact of consumer interaction on consumer willingness to participate in value co-creation? This study takes the virtual brand community as the research perspective, the value co-creation theory as the theoretical basis, the members of the virtual community of Chinese sports brands as the research object, the interactive way of brand community members as the operating variable, and the strength of community relationship as the intermediary variable, to explore the formation mechanism of consumers’ willingness to co-create value in the virtual community of sports brands. It is hoped that the research conclusions can promote research on the interaction between customers in the virtual community of sports brands, and provide certain support on the research tools. At the same time, it can also provide some useful enlightenment for sports enterprises to understand, manage, guide, and make reasonable use of the interaction between customers.

2. Review of Literature

2.1. Virtual Brand Community

Boorstin [33] was the first to associate community with consumer behavior, and believed that a consumer community is a consumption collective composed of consumption patterns and consumer products. The concept of a brand community originates from the idea of consumer community. When a consumer community cluster gathers around a certain brand, a brand community is formed [34]. Due to the rise of the Internet and online social networking, virtual brand communities have begun to appear, becoming a new form of brand community. A virtual brand community comprises the characteristics of the brand and of virtual communities [35]. It not only reflects the characteristics of a virtual community but is also a relationship group composed of brand fans. Schau [36] emphasizes that the virtual brand community is a place where members of the community gather, and users can create value for the organization through personal and communal cooperation.
Zhang [37] proposes that the quality of the interface, the incentive mechanisms adopted, and the degree of membership integration of the virtual brand community will affect the quality of the relationship and, ultimately, the willingness of consumers to participate in value co-creation. A virtual brand community has the characteristics of cross-regional virtuality, human interaction, and openness. At the same time, it can also reflect characteristics that are distinctive of the brand community, such as a common community concept, culture, and sense of responsibility [38]. Islam and Rahman [39] propose that the virtual brand community is a place for brand fans to interact in the form of word-of-mouth forums and blogs, without geographic restrictions. Wang [40] defines a virtual brand community as a group composed of consumers or potential consumers. These consumers are fans of the same brand and are willing to participate in activities related to the brand. Based on previous notions, this study operationally defines the virtual sports brand community as follows: Users of sports brands who gather on mobile Internet platforms to share common interests, cognitions, and values in groups. Through interaction, communication, collaboration, and mutual influence, the brand generates emotional trust and value feedback, thus forming a self-operating and self-circulating system.

2.2. Value Co-Creation Willingness

In recent years, the theory of value co-creation has gradually shifted from production to consumption [41]. Enterprises are inclined to allow consumers to actively create value, involving them in every link of the value creation chain. Lusch and Vargo [42] then proposed Service Dominance Logic (SDL), which assumes that customers assume different roles and gain common value through the use of products to further share their expectations and experience, and then participate in and develop product value propositions. In order to obtain personalized benefits, customers make efforts and are willing to share information, which is the value co-creation willingness [43]. Niu [44] believe that the initial superficial interaction is the driving force that stimulates consumers’ willingness to create value. Novani [45] highlights that interactive behaviors, such as communicating, sharing information, or learning from each other, play a positive role in value co-creation. Through social exchange theory, we know that members of the community interact with other members to meet their needs regarding relevant information and resources and mutual psychological affirmation. Further, they will be willing to share their experiences with other community members; to help other members solve problems or share some of the brand’s activities, this engenders the will to create value.

2.3. Customer Interaction

Interaction is the mutual behavior of two or more participating parties that influence each other. Interaction is the core of the virtual brand community, and therefore vital to its development. Within the sport context, a brand community can give members a sense of identity and well-being through interactions with other members of the community [17,46]. This interaction can encourage sport consumers to grasp more corporate information and brand-related knowledge, prompting them to form brand loyalty and self-worth recognition [18]. This strong connection within a team’s brand community can also lead to a strong identity as a fan of the team [47]. Interaction has been studied in various fields, and the research is extensive and complex. Most scholars divided the required dimensions according to their research perspectives, meaning that there is currently no unified definition. We categorize the literature according to the divisions of interaction dimensions.
The first group regards interaction as an overall concept, basing their definitions on communication among community members. Zhang [37] uses empirical analysis to verify the positive correlation between consumer interaction in enterprise service quality and consumer satisfaction. Liu [48] researches the connection mechanism of members of virtual brand communities, and finds that interaction has a significant effect on consumer brand identity. The interaction of a virtual brand community is mainly a two-way interaction: consumers’ attitudes toward corporate brands and the influence of corporate brands on consumers [49].
The second group of studies views interaction from two perspectives. Hoffman and Novak [50] divide interaction into machine and interpersonal interaction, according to the impact of consumer interaction on brand experience; whereas Liu [49] categorizes it into interpersonal and human–computer interaction. Interpersonal interaction refers to the interaction between consumers, and human–computer interaction means communication through network technology. Massey and Levy [51] divided interaction into content and interpersonal interaction. Content interaction is also a human–computer interaction. Harris [52] divided consumer interaction into on-site and off-site forms, according to whether there is a clear interaction environment. Huang [53] believes that consumer interaction can be divided into two types, intra- and inter-group interaction, based on whether the communication object is familiar. Lu [54] studied network interaction and divides virtual brand community interaction into information and interpersonal interaction.
The third group presents three perspectives. Zhou [6] broadly divides interaction dimensions from the perspective of participation into consumer and two-way communication and joint resolution. Consumer participation means that community members actively participate in topic discussions, and two-way communication means that community members have a clear pathway for information. Unhindered, joint resolution means that members of the community will use their wisdom to solve problems. Nambison [22] analyzed the virtual environment and divides the interaction into product content, identification, and interpersonal interaction.
Another group found four perspectives. Chan [55] explains the quantity and quality of member interaction in the community according to the degree of interaction, the width of member interaction in the community (derived from the frequency of interaction), the environmental background and community atmosphere of member interaction, and the effect of member interaction on the community (derived from the effectiveness of information). Fan [56] divides interaction into interactive: features, places, ways, and content in their research on the interaction of virtual brand communities. Jia studied the influence of virtual brand community interaction on consumers’ online consumption behaviors and divides the interaction into: degree and frequency; emotional strength; and mutual benefit. The interaction between consumers of a brand community is a continuous communication process between consumers of the brand community and other consumers [23]. Wang [40] constructed a theoretical model that included social interpersonal interaction, quasi-social interaction, relational social capital, and brand relationship quality. Based on the connotation of brand community, Liu [57] divides consumer interaction in online brand communities into four behaviors: (a) Member screening interaction: Consumers of the brand community will classify other consumers based on whether they truly appreciate the culture, history, rituals, traditions, and symbols of the brand and the community; (b) Cultural identity interactions: Consumers of the brand community will often tell the history of the brand and exchange the culture of the brand with other consumers to inherit the meaning and culture of the brand and its community; (c) Communication and interaction experience: Consumers in brand communities often share their brand-related experiences with other consumers and post their brand experience online, to gain emotional resonance, and to strengthen the awareness of the group; (d) Community maintenance interactions: Consumers of the brand community will endeavor to maintain brand loyalty among existing consumers in the community and strive to quickly integrate new consumers.
Compared with traditional marketing methods, sports marketing has multi-dimensional characteristics, including experience, interaction, culture, social welfare, and systematicity [8]. Based on the current literature on the dimension division of virtual brand community interaction, we divide virtual sports brand community interaction into member screening interaction, cultural identity interaction, experience communication interaction, and community maintenance interaction.

2.4. Member Screening Interaction

The behavior of member screening suggests that consumers can judge whether other members really like the brand. In the process of communicating with other consumers, if they find that they truly appreciate the brand’s culture and share a good feeling about the brand, consumers in the brand community will regard them as true fans of the brand. When a new consumer in the brand community is accepted and affirmed by other consumers, they gain “official” membership to the community. People who really like the brand are accepted, because they truly understand the brand, identify with the brand’s culture and traditions, and will continue to like and buy the brand. Conversely, people who do not really like the brand may have bought related products for other reasons. However, they do not continue to participate in brand value creation [54]. The behavior of member screening enables brand admirers to identify other people who really like the brand, conduct effective communication and interaction, and obtain high-quality brand-related information, thereby enhancing consumers’ trust in the brand and promoting value and creativity. Therefore, in this study, we hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1a. 
Member screening behavior in the virtual sports community would have a positive impact on the willingness of consumers to co-create value.

2.5. Cultural Identity Behavior

Cultural identity behavior is the interaction between the consumers of the brand community and other consumers to recount the brand history and inherit community culture [34]. Consumers in the brand community communicate with other members about the brand, such as history, heritage, brand, brand-related characters, and events, to enhance and form brand identity and the willingness to create value [58]. In addition, cultural identity behavior involves communication among consumers about the brand. Such interpersonal communication enables consumers to receive support from one another, thus enhancing value and creating behavioral intentions [55]. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1b. 
Cultural identity behavior in the virtual sports community would have a positive impact on the willingness of consumers to co-create value.

2.6. Experiential Communication Behavior

Experiential communication behavior is the interactive behavior in which community members can actively share brand experiences and assist one another on the virtual brand community platform [56]. Sharing brand experiences in the community can enable consumers to understand brand products fully and reduce their uncertainty, thus influencing consumers’ willingness to create value. In addition, consumers can also communicate and interact with each other in the community to communicate promptly and solve product-related problems, thus improving consumer satisfaction [59]. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1c. 
Experiential communication behavior in a virtual sports community would have a positive impact on the willingness of consumers to co-create value.

2.7. Community Maintenance Behavior

Community maintenance behavior is an interactive behavior in which members of an online brand community voluntarily contribute to the long-term survival and development of the community. It is an important aspect of consumer citizenship behavior in the context of online brand communities. Consumers can contribute to the community by actively attracting new members, maintaining old members, and demonstrating their love and loyalty to the brand and the community. There are some tacit norms among brand community consumers, such as loyalty to the community and friendship with other consumers. When consumers “betray” their mutual love for the brand, other consumers will impose moral pressure and punishment on the “defector,” damaging the relationship between consumers. Scholars believe that consumer citizenship behavior can positively influence consumer perceptions of service quality and is likely to promote consumers’ willingness to create value [60]. Therefore, we proposed:
Hypothesis 1d. 
Community maintenance behavior in a virtual sports community would have a positive impact on the willingness of consumers to co-create value.

2.8. Mediating Effect of Brand Community Relationship Strength

Relationship strength reflects the extent to which individuals are influenced by other nodes in the social relationship network [61]. Granovetter [62] proposes that within a group, there are strong relationships between members. The stronger the relationship, the higher the homogeneity among members, and, therefore, the more enthusiastic members will be to share information. Kim [63] believes that the stronger the relationship, and the higher the level of trust between the two parties, the closer the emotional connection between them will be. In this way, the uncertainty in the environment can be greatly reduced so that individuals can be in a comfortable state in such an environment. Brown [64] believe that when the intensity of the relationship between people is higher, people will be more willing to express their ideas, leading to understanding without doubts. Brand community relationship emphasizes the establishment of consumer-centered network relationships, including the relationships between consumers and products, enterprises, brands, and other consumers in the community [24]. The stronger the relationships between consumer communities, the more willing consumers are to actively publicize brand information and repeatedly purchase products. Moreover, they are more receptive to brand extensions and more tolerant of brand defects [65]. The continuous interaction of consumers in the community will inevitably enhance the relationships between consumers and community elements, consumers’ in-depth understanding of brand products, brand cultural identity, the attention paid to corporate behavior, and awareness of the feelings of other consumers in the community [66,67]. All of these promote the consumers’ willingness to create value. Therefore, it could be that community relationship strength plays a mediating role between consumer interaction and the willingness to co-create value in the brand community.
Member screening interaction promotes the development of brand community relations and enables consumers to find other consumers who also like the brand [34]. This provides social approval for consumers to love of the brand and helps to strengthen the brand’s recognition, thus improving the relationship between consumers and the brand [22]. After identifying like-minded consumers, brand community consumers can obtain information and support them with product purchase and use, thereby improving the product experience for others. The relationships between consumers, products, and enterprises are strengthened, motivating the willingness to co-create value. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a. 
Consumer member screening interaction would positively affect the willingness of consumers to co-create value through community relationships.
Cultural identity interaction has a positive impact on brand communities. Through the online brand community, consumers can understand the brand culture and history, learn the meaning and value of the brand, obtain a good brand experience, strengthen consumer identity and loyalty to the brand, and enhance the value of the community [68,69]. In addition, consumers in the brand community may also communicate with other consumers about important figures and events in the brand’s history and discuss their positive views on corporate personnel related to the brand, to improve the relationship between consumers and enterprises. Consumers in the brand community will deepen their willingness to create value by socializing with like-minded consumers and positively influence consumers’ intentions to co-create value [70]. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2b. 
Cultural identity behavior would positively affect consumers’ willingness to co-create value through community relationships.
Experiential communication behavior helps improve brand community relations. The sharing of brand experience among consumers helps to enhance their sense of belonging to a group, to further understand the values of the community, and to help consumers perceive their commonality and sense of belonging [34]. New consumers have more problems when using products, and information can be shared by the community by asking questions, commenting, and/or obtaining solutions. These are discussed in the community and the atmosphere is built to further enhance the consumer’s perception of products and brands [59]. Companies can also obtain new product ideas and can deepen the relationship with the consumer in the discussion. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2c. 
Experiential communication behavior would positively affect the willingness of consumers to co-create value through community relationships.
Community maintenance behavior positively affects brand community relationships. Consumers in brand communities strengthen their identity similarity to other consumers through community maintenance behaviors, thus helping to improve the relationships among consumers. Community maintenance behavior will also strengthen consumers’ recognition of the brand and improve the relationships between consumers and the brand [71]. The recognition of a brand community through community maintenance behavior may also be transformed into participation in product support activities, thus strengthening the relationship between consumers and products [22]. In addition, the commitment to the brand community brought about by community maintenance behavior can strengthen the relationship between consumers and the enterprise and its employees, enhancing the consumers’ recognition of the enterprise [35]. Combined with the above deduction regarding the influence of brand community relationships on the willingness of consumers to co-create value, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2d. 
Community maintenance behavior would positively affect the willingness of consumers to co-create value through community relationships.

3. Method

3.1. Measurements

First, we considered the dimensions and attributes of interaction in virtual sports brand communities. Specifically, we aim to answer the following: Based on community characteristics, what impact does the interaction between consumers in the virtual sports brand community have on consumer behavior? Moreover, what is the path of influence? Following guidelines from Nambisan [22] and Liu [57] this study divides the interaction of virtual sports brand communities into the following member screening interactions: cultural identity, experience communication, and community maintenance. The scale to measure community relationship strength is adapted from Schouten [61] and Stokburger-Sauer [24]. Value co-creation willingness is measured on a scale developed by Zwass [72] and Li [8]. Since the survey was conducted in China, items were translated into Chinese following Brislin’s [73] back-translation procedures to ensure accuracy and meaning equivalence when translating the items from English to Chinese.
We empirically analyze the impact of consumer interaction on value co-creation in the virtual sports brand community of Li Ning and Anta sports online brand community. We focus on three aspects: consumer interaction, community relationship strength, and willingness of consumer to co-create value. We select virtual sports brand communities as the research object for several reasons. First, in the era of the sharing economy, an online environment, and big data technology, the development of Chinese sports manufacturing enterprises is facing great opportunities and challenges, and the business innovation models in the new environment are very important. The results of this research can guide innovation in sports manufacturing enterprises. Second, because sports consumption is closely related to our daily life, the respondents have a certain understanding of the sports brand community, which improves the availability and accuracy of the data.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

Before the formal questionnaire survey, in order to further improve the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, this study first conducted a small sample pre-survey of the initial questionnaire. First of all, three doctoral students who did not participate in the initial questionnaire design and improvement were invited to pre-answer, and the time required for completing the questionnaire was counted. It was found that the three respondents took 181 s, 204 s and 166 s, respectively, with an average time of 184 s. Therefore, 180 s is set as the time boundary for the validity of filling in the questionnaire. Secondly, we pre-tested the questionnaire with 32 Anta brand community consumers, resulting in slow word changes; the formal survey data are all from online questionnaires. The survey respondents were consumers participating in Li-NING and Anta sports online community activities. First, the questionnaire was edited through the questionnaire network and the questionnaire link and a QR code was created. Next, questionnaires were distributed through online channels such as Li Ning’s Irun running community, Weibo community, Anta’s WeChat community, and Tik Tok community. To encourage participants to fill in the questionnaire, those who successfully completed the questionnaire received compensation of two Yuan. Four weeks after the questionnaire collection, 522 participants were contacted to view the questionnaire, with 492 completed questionnaires being returned for a response rate of 94%; out of the responses, 445 of 492 (90.4%) were found to be usable. The demographic characteristics of the questionnaire responses are shown in Table 1.

4. Result

4.1. Measurement Propertie

The authors conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test convergent and discriminant validity. AMOS23 software was used to perform the CFA on member identification behaviors, cultural identity behaviors, experience communication behaviors, community maintenance behaviors, community relationship strength, and consumer value co-creation willingness. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to perform parameter analysis. The measurement results indicate that the model shows a good degree of fit. The factor loadings of all construct items are greater than 0.50 (Table 2). The average extraction variance of each construct is greater than 0.5, indicating that all constructs had good convergence validity. Simultaneously, this study compared the square root of the AVE of each construct and the correlation coefficient between each construct and other constructs and found that the square root of the AVE value of each construct was greater than the square value of the correlation coefficient between the construct and other constructs. This indicates that the constructs have good discriminative validity (Table 3). Based on the above analysis, the scale used in this study has good reliability and validity.
Reliability testing was used to assess the consistency of results, measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and composite reliability. We used the SPSS Version 20 to test the reliability of the scale. The results show that the Cronbach’s alphas of member selection behavior, cultural identity behavior, experience communication behavior, community maintenance behavior, community relationship strength, and value co-creation willingness are all between 0.831 and 0.979, indicating that there is good agreement between the measurement indicators. The combined reliability value of all variables is greater than 0.8, which shows that the reliability of the internal combination of each variable is good, so the measurement model meets the reliability requirements.
The data were then tested for common method bias. First, the correlation coefficient between variables is tested. The correlation coefficient between all variables is less than the standard of 0.9; Secondly, Harman’s single factor test was used to test the common method deviation of all items. The results are shown in Table 4. The fitting effect of the modified model is very poor. X2/DF changes from 2.154 of the original model to 16.564, RMSEA changes from 0.051 to 0.187, and CFI decreases from 0.960 to 0.519. To sum up, there is no serious problem of common method deviation in the data, which is suitable for further analysis and hypothesis testing.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the impact of consumer interaction behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness in virtual brand communities. In this study, we investigated the possible interference of control variables in the model and included age and gender as control variables in the structural model for testing. The results showed that control variables had no significant influence on other variables and paths, as shown in Table 5. Cultural identity behavior (β = 0.228, p < 0.01), experiential communication behavior (β = 0.134, p < 0.01), and community maintenance behavior (β = 0.152, p < 0.01) were consistent with hypotheses H1b, H1c, and H1d. In other words, member screening behavior has no significant positive impact on consumer value co-creation willingness, while cultural identity behavior, experience communication behavior, and community maintenance behavior have significant positive impacts on consumer value co-creation willingness. However, member screening behavior (β = −0.046, p > 0.05) has no significant impact on consumer value co-creation willingness, which is inconsistent with Hypothesis H1a. Perhaps this occurred due to the development of social media and fierce market competition, coupled with the topic and event attributes of sports itself, people can interact with consumers related to brands through various online channels, such as official forums, QQ groups, and WeChat groups that are established by enterprises, and product purchase is not required. This makes the hierarchical status difference of community members in the brand community weaken day by day, with the communication between people becoming increasingly equal. Therefore, the member screening behavior in the virtual sports brand community is weakening, and the influence of member screening behavior on consumer value co-creation is becoming smaller.
To test hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d, four types of consumer interaction behaviors were used as independent variables; the strength of community relationship was used as an intermediate variable, and consumer value co-creation willingness was used as a dependent variable. The PROCESS program based on bootstrap path analysis, examines the mediating effect of the strength of community relations. We selected model 4 in the PROCESS plug-in: 5000 for the sample size and 95% for the confidence interval (CI). The calculation results are presented in Table 6.
The data show that the CI of the indirect effect of members’ selection behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness is (−0.01, 0.03), and the interval includes 0; this means that the influence of a member’s selection behavior on consumer value co-creation is not affected by the strength of the community relationship. Using the same method to analyze the interaction between the other three types of consumers, the results show that the CI of the indirect effect of cultural identity behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness is (0.002, 0.112); the content of the CI does not contain 0, and cultural identity behavior affects consumers. The CI of the direct effect of value co-creation does not include 0 (0.19, 0.40), and it can be judged that the influence of cultural identity behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness is partially mediated by the strength of community relationships; the CI of the indirect effect of community maintenance behavior on consumer value co-creation is (0.02, 0.08), the interval does not contain 0, and the CI of the direct effect of community maintenance behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness (0.12, 0.30) does not contain 0. Therefore, the influence of community maintenance behavior on consumer value co-creation is partly mediated by the strength of community relationships. The CI for the indirect effect of experiential communication on consumer value co-creation willingness is (0.03, 0.11), the interval does not contain 0, and the CI for the direct effect of experiential communication behavior on consumer value co-creation willingness (0.10, 0.30), which also does not contain 0, which shows that the influence of experiential communication behaviors on consumers’ purchase intention is partly mediated by the strength of social relations. That is to say, only H2a is not supported in the intermediary effect test. The main reason is that the purpose of member screening by consumers is only to find and communicate with people who like the sports brand and have topics in common. This does not necessarily lead to an in-depth understanding of the value of the sports brand and/or the forming of a shared creative desire to create value. Previous literature points out that an important manifestation of consumer interaction in online brand communities is interpersonal interaction, which refers mainly to meeting consumers’ social needs and enhancing their mindsets on the brand [74,75]. However, this is only the interaction of social behavior, which has little impact on consumers’ willingness to create value. Therefore, member screening behavior can promote the formation of good relationships among community members, even though it does not ultimately encourage consumers to generate value and common creative wishes.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of Findings

The sports community economy has arrived in the digital economy era. This economic model enables sports consumers to form various social ways in the virtual and real world, promoting the establishment of a new sports economy and the return of business value. Consumer interaction and virtual community socialization are issues that must be considered in the strategic layout of sports enterprises. Community management of sports enterprises will probably become the norm. Based on the theory of the characteristics of virtual brand communities, we examine the influence of consumer interaction behaviors and the impact of virtual sports brand communities on consumer value co-creation willingness.
A key finding from this study is that cultural identity behavior can significantly and positively affect consumer value and creative willingness to co-create, with the strength of community relationships playing a mediating role. Consumers’ recognition of the cultural history and the sport brand’s story enables consumers to feel the emotional significance and value of the brand and enhance the strength of consumers’ community relations—thereby enhancing the relationships between consumers and brand products, the brand itself, brand enterprises, and other consumers in the community [17,18]. At the same time, cultural identity behavior is the recognition of the brand’s history and culture, as well as the prospect of the brand’s future, which shows that the brand itself has a strong attraction to consumers and can encourage consumers to produce value and common creative willingness [63].
Secondly, this study also shows that experiential communication behaviors can have a significant positive effect on consumer value co-creation willingness, with the strength of community relationships playing a mediating role. The quality of communication between consumers in the virtual brand community, such as timeliness, relevance, frequency, and time of interaction, can positively affect consumer value and creativity [23]. When consumers share consumer experience stories and actively interact with other consumers in a virtual sports brand community, they gain a sense of belonging and emotional value in the community, which promotes friendships and strengthens consumers’ social relationships [16]. As the strength of the community relationship increases, consumers will trust the brand’s products and brand culture more, improving perceptions of the brand’s image and ultimately promoting consumer brand loyalty and participating in value creation [58].
This study also finds that community maintenance behavior in the virtual sports brand community can significantly and positively affect consumer value co-creation willingness, with the strength of the community relationship playing a mediating role. The characteristics of consumer citizenship behavior are voluntary [76]. The voluntary and gratuitous nature of the consumer’s contribution to the community reflects the consumer’s recognition and support of the entire community. It is specifically expressed as the consumer’s appreciation of the sports brand’s products, culture, corporate image, and community members, and for maintaining such a community that sustains itself and contributes to it voluntarily and free of charge. The increase in this behavior leads to consumers fully realizing the advantages of the brand’s products, feeling the brand’s brand culture, receiving the brand’s timely and high-quality online platform communication services, and generating positive and effective interactions with other consumers on the platform.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

Based on the value co-creation theory, this paper provides a systematic theoretical framework for the study of sports consumer value co creation under the background of virtual brand community, and tries to clarify the concept of consumer interaction in sports virtual brand community. The previous research on consumer interaction in virtual brand community is mainly based on the perspective of communication theory and social exchange theory to explore the impact of virtual brand community interaction on enterprises and consumers. Moreover, most researches regard consumer interaction in virtual communities as a whole concept for analysis, rather than trying to extend this concept to its internal operating mechanism. Our multi-dimensional consumer interaction includes four basic elements—member screening behavior, cultural identity behavior, experience communication behavior, and community maintenance behavior—which enhances our understanding of consumer interaction in the virtual sports brand community, and expands the research on sports marketing theory from the perspective of concept clarification.
Additionally, previous studies on sports brand community have focused on the promotion and impact of digitalization on brand community, but most of the studies only took digitalization as the research background, and did not concentrate the characteristics of virtual community into variables in the empirical analysis of sports marketing. Through empirical analysis, this paper concentrates the key variables of the creation of value co-creation intention in virtual communities, breaks through the limitation of the previous researches, and discusses the influence mechanism of each subdivision dimension. We find that community relationship strength, containing reliance, thankfulness, gratefulness, and appreciation of the sports brand play an important role in customer value co-creation intention. This study recognized that community relationship strength becomes the basis of customer-organizer relationships and builds linkages among customer interaction and other focal constructs. That is, the interaction among virtual sports community serves as an emotional core and can augment the influence of customer co-created value intention in a context. It provides a new tool and perspective for the research of sports brand community under the digital background.

5.3. Practical Implications

The findings of this study have several practical implications for sports marketers. First, under the background of Internet development, virtual brand community has become a high-quality platform for sports enterprises to create value with customers. Sports enterprises must face the core position of customers in the value creation of virtual brand community, and constantly tap the potential customers to join the virtual brand community, from product research and development to product manufacturing, and then to the whole process of product consumption. In the virtual brand community, the most ideal marketing state is that the value creation is not only linked to the product or brand, but also enables the community members to express themselves and gain respect, while losing pleasure and fun which have the potential to improve their perception of functional value, emotional value, and social value. In this way, the marketing mode of virtual brand community has been transformed into a commercial competition mode, and the customer value has been sublimated to become the brand communicator of sports enterprises.
Second, the operation of sports virtual brand community should focus on the relationship dimension of sports brand community network. Specifically, it includes (1) promoting interaction among members of the virtual community and strengthening the relationship within the community. Through interaction with sports brand as the core, it can enhance customers’ understanding and cognition of the brand, enrich and enhance the way to create community value, and then realize the transformation of community member relationship from “weak connection” to “strong connection”; (2) Construct unified values. Virtual brand community is essentially a “specific field”, which has its own unique culture and spirit [77]. A sports marketer can create a fun etiquette or common ritual, or make a conscious effort to set rules that are not mandatory; and (3) Many sports enterprises focus on training the core personnel of virtual communities, ignoring those inactive and silent non-core members of brand communities. This should be changed, because the virtual brand community should have an overall concept, and non-core members are also a force that cannot be ignored in the community. In fact, most of the “negative” people in the community do not just want to browse information. They are also psychologically willing to communicate with other community members, and they are also eager to express themselves and get care and respect. They simply lack appropriate content, activities, or channels to activate them. Sports enterprises should actively guide and encourage each community member to participate in the discussion, constantly tap the concerns of non-core personnel, and actively absorb the opinions of non-core personnel. By setting appropriate activities, more people can easily participate in and expand the coverage of activities [78]. Only by mobilizing the enthusiasm of non-core community members can the interaction between customers in the sports virtual brand community be thriving, and the vitality of the brand community can always be maintained.

5.4. Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

This study innovatively discusses consumer interaction and value co-creation intention in the context of Chinese sports brand community, but does not distinguish different kinds of sports brand virtual community, mainly because the virtual environment is not like the concrete physical environment, which will have significantly different impacts on the interaction between customers. Therefore, it is possible, and the author also hopes to obtain a research conclusion with universal significance to help sports enterprises practice and support related research. Although this study basically achieves the purpose of this research, different kinds of virtual communities of sports brands in fact have different influences on the interaction between customers. In the future, more diversified samples should be collected in a larger scope to further verify the applicability of the proposed model.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.Y.; Methodology, J.J.Z.; Investigation, X.J. and J.Z.; Data curation, X.J.; Writing—original draft, X.J.; Writing—review & editing, B.M. and J.J.Z.; Supervision, Q.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stavros, C.; Smith, A.C.; Lopez-Gonzalez, H. A media sport typology for transformative relationships: Enlargement, enhancement, connection and engagement beyond COVID 19. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2022, 22, 72–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, J.H.; Fu, Y.F.; Tao, J. Impact of COVID-19 epidemic on consumer economy and countermeasures analysis. Consum. Econ. 2020, 36, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hedlund, D.P. Creating value through membership and participation in sport fan consumption communities. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2014, 14, 50–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mastromartino, B.; Wang, J.J.; Suggs, D.W.; Hollenbeck, C.R.; Zhang, J.J. Dimensions of Sense of Membership in a Sport Fan Community: Factors, Outcomes, and Social Capital Implications. Commun. Sport 2020, 10, 1229–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M. Understanding the intention to follow the advice obtained in an online travel community. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhou, Z.; Wu, J.P.; Zhang, Q.; Xu, S. Transforming visitors into members in online brand communities: Evidence from China. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2438–2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, Y.G.; Ma, S. An empirical study on the driving factors of consumer interaction in virtual brand communities and its impact on consumer satisfaction. Chin. J. Manag. 2013, 10, 375–383. [Google Scholar]
  8. Li, Z.H.; Jin, Y.S.; Bo, Q.J. Research on the impact of consumer participation in virtual brand community value co-creation on brand equity the mediating role of brand experience. J. Mark. Sci. 2014, 10, 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mastromartino, B.; Zhang, J.J.; Hollenbeck, C.R.; Suggs, D.W.; Connaughton, D.P. Conceptualizing sense of membership in a sport fan community. J. Sport Behav. 2019, 42, 332–364. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dong, J.J.; Xu, F.L.; Fang, Q.; Han, Y.X. The influence of consumer interaction on product innovation behavior in virtual brand communities. J. Technol. Econ. 2019, 38, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  11. Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 117, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bruhn, M.; Schnebelen, S.; Schaefer, D. Antecedents and consequences of the quality of econsumer-to-consumer interactions in B2B brand communities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Walker, M.; Hodge, C.; Bennett, G. The freeloader effect: Examining the influence of engagement and attitudes in a virtual fan community. Sport Mark. Q. 2017, 26, 130–139. [Google Scholar]
  14. Alonso-Dos-Santos, M.; Guardia, F.R.; Campos, C.P.; Calabuig-Moreno, F.; Ko, Y.J. Engagement in sports virtual brand communities. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kolyperas, D.; Maglaras, G.; Sparks, L. Sport fans’ roles in value co-creation. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2019, 19, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Mastromartino, B.; Ross, W.J.; Wear, H.; Naraine, M.L. Thinking outside the ‘box’: A discussion of sports fans, teams, and the environment in the context of COVID-19. Sport Soc. 2020, 23, 1707–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yoshida, M.; Gordon, B.; Heere, B.; James, J.D. Fan community identification: An empirical examination of its outcomes in Japanese professional sport. Sport Mark. Q. 2015, 24, 105. [Google Scholar]
  18. Yoshida, M.; Heere, B.; Gordon, B. Predicting Behavioral Loyalty through Community: Why Other Fans Are More Important Than Our Own Intentions, Our Satisfaction, and the Team Itself. J. Sport Manag. 2015, 29, 318–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Füller, J.; Matzler, K.; Hoppe, M. Brand Community Members as a Source of Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2008, 25, 608–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nambisan, S.; Baron, R.A. Different Roles, Different Strokes: Organizing Virtual Customer Environments to Promote Two Types of Customer Contributions. Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ibrahim, B. The Nexus between Social Media Marketing Activities and Brand Loyalty in Hotel Facebook Pages: A Multi-Group Analysis of Hotel Ratings. Tourism 2021, 69, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nambisan, S.; Baron, R.A. Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2009, 26, 388–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adjei, M.T.; Noble, S.M.; Noble, C.H. The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on consumer purchase behavior. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010, 38, 634–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stokburger-Sauer, N. Brand community: Drivers and outcomes. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 27, 347–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, B.J.; Li, N.N.; Chen, J. Value generation logic of digital platform ecosystem. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2022, 39, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pongsakornrungslip, S.; Bradshaw, A.; Schroeder, J. Brand community as co-creation value in the service-dominant logic of marketing. In Proceedings of the 2008 Customer Research Academy Workshop (CRAWS), Glasgow, UK, 30 March–3 April 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. Abbate, T.; Codini, A.; Aquilani, B.; Vrontis, D. From Knowledge Ecosystems to Capabilities Ecosystems: When Open Innovation Digital Platforms Lead to Value co-creation. J. Knowl. Econ. 2022, 13, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hüttermann, S.; Ford, P.R.; Williams, A.M.; Varga, M.; Smeeton, N.J. Attention, Perception, and Action in a Simulated Decision-Making Task. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2019, 41, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, L.Y.; Yuan, D.H.; Hao, J. The impact of consumer participation in brand co creation on brand commitment in virtual brand communities. Chin. J. Manag. 2018, 16, 262–271. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. China Academy of Social Science Survey. 2019. Available online: https://www.ssap.com.cn/c/2019-09-23/1080848.shtml (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  31. Du, J.J. Research on enhancing international competitiveness of China’s sporting goods industry under the strategy of “Made in China 2025”. J. Sport. Res. 2017, 31, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu, K. COVID-19 and the Chinese economy: Impacts, policy responses and implications. Int. Rev. Appl. Econ. 2021, 35, 308–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boorstin, D. The Americans: The Democratic Experience; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muniz, A.M.; O’Guinn, T.C. Brand community. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 27, 412–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Schau, H.J.; Muñiz, A.M.; Arnould, E.J. How Brand Community Practices Create Value. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 30–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, X.S.; Li, X.G. A study on the impact of virtual brand community characteristic on consumers’ value co-creation willingness—Explanation based on the mediating role of satisfaction and trust. China Bus. Mark. 2017, 31, 70–82. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dong, X.B.; Chang, Y.P.; Xiao, L. The influence of virtual brand community atmosphere on brand loyalty. Chin. J. Manag. 2018, 15, 1697–1704. [Google Scholar]
  39. Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z. The impact of online brand community characteristics on customer engagement: An application of Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, X.H.; Feng, W.Q. The influence of social interpersonal interaction and quasi social interaction on brand relationship quality in virtual brand communities. Collect. Essays Financ. Econ. 2017, 5, 77–78. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jiang, X.; Kim, A.; Kim, K.A.; Yang, Q.; García-Fernández, J.; Zhang, J.J. Motivational antecedents, value co-creation process, and behavioral consequences in participatory sport tourism. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lusch, R.F.; Vargo, S.L. Service-Dominant Logic: Reactions, Reflections and Refinements. Mark. Theory 2006, 6, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Handrich, M.; Heidenreich, S. The willingness of a customer to co-create innovative, technology based services: Conceptualization and measurement. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Niu, Z.B.; Bai, C.H.; Zhang, H.; Chen, Y. Does light interaction inspire the customer’s willingness to cocreate? A mixing effect model of brand experience and value proposition engagement. Sci. Sci. Manag. Sci. Technol. 2015, 36, 112–123. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. Novani, S.; Putro, U.S.; Hermawan, P. Value Orchestration Platform: Promoting Tourism in Batik Industrial Cluster Solo. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 169, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Heere, B.; Walker, M.; Yoshida, M.; Ko, Y.J.; Jordan, J.S.; James, J.D. Brand Community Development Through Associated Communities: Grounding Community Measurement Within Social Identity Theory. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Heere, B.; James, J.D. Sports Teams and Their Communities: Examining the Influence of External Group Identities on Team Identity. J. Sport Manag. 2007, 21, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, C.; Liu, F.Y. The impact of consumer participation on value co-creation in online brand communities. J. Commer. Econ. 2020, 21, 95–99. [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu, X.; Yang, W.W. Ways and countermeasures of virtual brand community affecting brand loyalty. Price Theory Pract. 2010, 12, 78–79. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoffman, D.L.; Novak, T.P. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Massey, B.L.; Levy, M.R. Interactivity, Online Journalism, and English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia. J. Mass Commun. Q. 1999, 76, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harris, K.; Baron, S.; Parker, C. Understanding the consumer experience: It’s good to talk. J. Mark. Manag. 2000, 16, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huang, J.; Hsu, C. The Impact of Customer-to-Customer Interaction on Cruise Experience and Vacation Satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2010, 49, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Lin, L.Y.; Lu, C.Y. The influence of corporate image, relationship marketing, and trust on purchase intention: The moderating effects of word-of-mouth. Tour. Rev. 2010, 65, 16–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chan, K.W.; Li, S.Y. Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in virtual communities: The salience of reciprocity. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 1033–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Fan, Z.G. An empirical study on the impact of virtual brand community experience on consumers’ purchase intention: Based on the mediating effect of perceived uncertainty. J. Ind. Technol. Econ. 2014, 11, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  57. Liu, R. Research on the Influence of Customer Interaction on Community Performance Based on Brand Community; Sun Yat-sen University: Guangzhou, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  58. Doney, P.M.; Cannon, J.P. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wu, S.-C.; Fang, W. The effect of consumer-to-consumer interactions on idea generation in virtual brand community relationships. Technovation 2010, 30, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. The antecedents and consequences of service customer citizenship and badness behavior. Seoul J. Bus. 2006, 12, 145–176. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schouten, J.W.; McAlexander, J.H.; Koenig, H.F. Transcendent customer experience and brand community. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 35, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Granovetter, M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78, 1360–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Kim, C.K.; Han, D.; Park, S.-B. The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Jpn. Psychol. Res. 2001, 43, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brown, J.J.; Reingen, P.H. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Strateg. Mark. 1998, 14, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McAlexander, J.H.; Schouten, J.W.; Koenig, H.F. Building Brand Community. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Rejikumar, G.; Jose, A.; Mathew, S.; Chacko, D.P.; Asokan-Ajitha, A. Towards a theory of well-being in digital sports viewing behavior. J. Serv. Mark. 2022, 36, 245–263. [Google Scholar]
  67. Huang, M.X.; Liao, J.Y.; Zhou, N. Can community experience enhance consumer brand loyalty: A study on the role and influence mechanism of different experience components. Nankai Manag. Rev. 2015, 18, 151–160. [Google Scholar]
  68. Brakus, J.J.; Schmitt, B.H.; Zarantonello, L. Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? J. Mark. 2009, 73, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Holt, D.B. Does cultural capital structure American consumption? J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bagozzi, R.P.; Dholakia, U.M. Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2006, 23, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Laroche, M.; Habibi, M.R.; Richard, M.O. To be or not to be in social media: How brand loyalty is affected by social media? Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zwass, V. Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2010, 15, 11–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Akrout, H.; Nagy, G. Trust and commitment within a virtual brand community: The mediating role of brand relationship quality. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 939–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Naraine, M.L.; Pegoraro, A.; Wear, H. #WeTheNorth: Examining an Online Brand Community through a Professional Sport Organization’s Hashtag Marketing Campaign. Commun. Sport 2021, 9, 625–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liang, Y.X. The impact of consumer experience on consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty. Tax. Econ. 2017, 1, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ibrahim, B. Social Media Marketing Activities and Brand Loyalty: A Meta-Analysis Examination. J. Promot. Manag. 2021, 28, 60–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ibrahim, B.; Aljarah, A. The era of Instagram expansion: Matching social media marketing activities and brand loyalty through customer relationship quality. J. Mark. Commun. 2021, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Research respondents’ background and characteristics.
Table 1. Research respondents’ background and characteristics.
Respondent’s CharacteristicsFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male30869.20%
Female13730.80%
Age
18–2419744.3%
25–3414632.8%
35–445813.0%
45–54357.9%
55–6592.0%
Education
Vocational8418.9%
Undergraduate20345.6%
Master9220.7%
Higher6614.8%
Professional situation
Student22149.7%
Laborial Staff439.7%
Farmer81.8
Professional Technician7015.7%
Self-Employment327.2%
Public Servant398.8%
Other327.2
Economic situation
Bad (<3000 RMB)11826.5%
Average (3000–6000 RMB)20145.2%
Good (6000–10,000 RMB)10323.1%
Very Good (>10,000 RMB)235.2%
Table
Table 2. Findings of Measurement Model Testing (n = 445).
Table 2. Findings of Measurement Model Testing (n = 445).
ConstructItemFactor Loading
Member screening behaviorI like the brand for the same reasons everyone else does0.756
I have the same feelings about the brand as others0.920
I always judge if they really like the brand0.899
I always judge if they really appreciate the brand0.860
Cultural identity behaviorI always share the story of the brand with others0.927
I always talk to them about the rise and decline of the brand0.926
I always discuss the future of the brand with others0.942
I always introduce the history of the brand to others0.914
Experience communication behaviorI always communicate with others how I like or use the brand0.711
I always advise others to buy products of this brand0.643
I always share information about the brand with others0.795
I always ask others for suggestions on purchasing or using products of this brand0.821
Community maintenance behaviorI always try to prevent others from turning to buy products of competitive brands0.840
I always tell others negative news and stories about competitive brands0.825
I feel uncomfortable when others turn to competitive brands0.857
Community relationship strengthI love the products of this brand0.941
I trust the products of this brand0.897
I appreciate the products of this brand0.855
I like the brand0.908
I appreciate the culture of the brand0.904
The brand is of great significance to my life0.926
The staff of the brand understand my needs0.897
The staff of the brand value my opinion0.917
I trust the staff of the brand0.912
I have many close friends in this community0.935
Value
co-creation intention		I am willing to participate in the creative solicitation of new products initiated by the brand community0.857
I am willing to participate in the design solicitation of new products initiated by the brand community0.767
I am willing to participate in the brand community’s evaluation of new products0.795
I am willing to participate in the promotion of new products launched by the brand community0.812
I am willing to share my experience about products or brands with others0.752
I am willing to interact with other members of the community0.786
I am willing to participate in the topic of brand or product in the community0.77
I am willing to feedback my use questions and improvement suggestions in the community0.648
Table
Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables.
Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables.
Construct123456
Member screening behavior0.741
Cultural identity behavior0.0460.86
Experience communication behavior0.0440.058 ***0.556
Community maintenance behavior0.0530.067 ***0.063 ***0.707
Community relationship strength0.0530.07 ***0.066 ***0.074 ***0.827
Value co-creation intention0.0570.07 ***0.066 ***0.0790.077 ***0.601
CR0.9190.9610.8330.8790.9800.923
AVE square root0.9280.9630.8640.9170.9540.880
*** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Overall fitting coefficient table (common method deviation test).
Table 4. Overall fitting coefficient table (common method deviation test).
X2/DFRMSEANFIRFIIFITLICFI
Original model2.1540.0510.9480.9390.9820.9560.960
Single-factor test16.5640.1870.5050.4500.5210.4660.519
Table
Table 5. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis.
Table 5. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis.
Independent VariableDependent VariableStandardized CoefficientstpVIF
Member screening behaviorValue co-creation intention−0.046−1.0410.2981.010
Cultural identity behaviorValue co-creation intention0.2284.6400.0001.252
Experience communication behaviorValue co-creation intention0.1342.7840.0061.192
Community maintenance behaviorValue co-creation intention0.1523.2070.0011.165
Table
Table 6. Bootstrap Intermediary Analysis Results.
Table 6. Bootstrap Intermediary Analysis Results.
ConstructDirect EffectIndirect Effect
βSEtpInterregionalβSEInterregionalProportion
Member screening behavior−0.040.05−0.740.46−0.13, 0.060.010.01−0.01, 0.03----
Cultural identity behavior0.290.065.320.000.19, 0.400.060.030.002, 0.11215.9%
Experience communication behavior0.200.054.010.000.10, 0.300.060.020.03, 0.1123.53%
Community maintenance behavior0.210.054.670.000.12, 0.300.050.010.02, 0.0818.10%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiang, X.; Mastromartino, B.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.J. Influence of Consumer Interaction and Community Relationships on Value Co-Creation Willingness: A Mediation Model of Chinese Sports Brands. Sustainability 2023, 15, 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010115

AMA Style

Jiang X, Mastromartino B, Yang Q, Zhang J, Zhang JJ. Influence of Consumer Interaction and Community Relationships on Value Co-Creation Willingness: A Mediation Model of Chinese Sports Brands. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010115

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Xiaowei, Brandon Mastromartino, Qian Yang, Jianwei Zhang, and James J. Zhang. 2023. "Influence of Consumer Interaction and Community Relationships on Value Co-Creation Willingness: A Mediation Model of Chinese Sports Brands" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010115

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop