The Effects of Social Media Communication and e-WOM on Brand Equity: The Moderating Roles of Product Involvement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic addressed is interesting and actual. The objectives are correctly set, the methodology is correctly written, the conclusions and implications are relevant. We suggest a final revision of the text in English, there are some small deficiencies of expression. It would also be necessary to add some more recent bibliographic sources, preferably after 2020, to support the theoretical arguments.
Author Response
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
- We suggest a final revision of the text in English, there are some small deficiencies of expression.
Response: We have employed the English writing services of ED-IT to improve the writing style and correct many of the grammatical errors.
- It would also be necessary to add some more recent bibliographic sources, preferably after 2020, to support the theoretical arguments.
Response: As suggested we have carefully searched and reviewed the recent literature related to this topic and have now cited these references and included this information within the revised manuscript. Specifically, references 4, 5, 10, 41, 47, 55, 57, 76 and 77 represent the additional references that are now included in our revised manuscript.
- Reveilhac, M.; Blanchard, A., The framing of health technologies on social media by major actors: Prominent health issues and COVID-related public concerns. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (1), 100068.
- Hafez, M., Unpacking the influence of social media marketing activities on brand equity in the banking sector in Bangladesh: A moderated mediation analysis of brand experience and perceived uniqueness. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (2), 100140.
- Muda, M.; Hamzah, M. I., Should I suggest this YouTube clip? The impact of UGC source credibility on eWOM and purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 2021, 15, (3), 441-459.
- Zollo, L.; Filieri, R.; Rialti, R.; Yoon, S., Unpacking the relationship between social media marketing and brand equity: The mediating role of consumers’ benefits and experience. Journal of Business Research 2020, 117, 256-267.
- Rungruangjit, W.; Charoenpornpanichkul, K., Building Stronger Brand Evangelism for Sustainable Marketing through Micro-Influencer-Generated Content on Instagram in the Fashion Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, (23), 15770.
- Seo, E. J.; Park, J.-W.; Choi, Y. J., The Effect of Social Media Usage Characteristics on e-WOM, Trust, and Brand Equity: Focusing on Users of Airline Social Media. Sustainability 2020, 12, (4), 1691.
- González-Rodríguez, M. R.; Díaz-Fernández, M. C.; Bilgihan, A.; Okumus, F.; Shi, F., The impact of eWOM source credibility on destination visit intention and online involvement: a case of Chinese tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 2022, 13, (5), 855-874.
- Assaker, G., Age and gender differences in online travel reviews and user-generated-content (UGC) adoption: extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) with credibility theory. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 2020, 29, (4), 428-449.
- Kumar, S.; Prakash, G.; Gupta, B.; Cappiello, G., How e-WOM influences consumers' purchase intention towards private label brands on e-commerce platforms: Investigation through IAM (Information Adoption Model) and ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) Models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2023, 187, 122199.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-written, and quite interesting. Pay attention to the following comments:
1. Include a brief problem statement in the abstract to strengthen the case/justification of conducting this study.
2. In the introduction, the topic of brand equity appears abruptly, after discussing SMC. The flow of ideas have to be smooth and seamless.
3. Also in the introduction, the problem is not well positioned. Yes, lack of studies or limited research is the common argument among researchers, but the authors need to think deeper on the underlying issue (pertaining to brand equity) that has not been effectively addressed theoretically. Refer to 'limitatons & future research directions' on research papers, and also refer to Review articles (systematic literature review, analysis) for more insights on eWOM, brand equity.
4. In the literature review, the structure is fine. But its unclear what is the main underpinning theory. Brand equity reflects the dependent variable, and other sub-section headings reflect conditions/contexts (e.g. SMC, FGC). Perhaps, the social identity theory? There must be a theoretical paradigm (lens) in which your framework (Fig. 1) is modelled upon.
5. In section 2.6 (Product involvement), the operationalization is not clear. Please also relate this variable to co-production (how similar or different?) The imporance of PI is also not well articulated. For instance, consumers who have a high level of product involvement tend to be more interested in learning about the product's features and benefits, and are more likely to engage in behaviors such as researching, evaluating, and purchasing the product. Explore on this idea.
6. In line 174 (Generally speaking,.. ), rephrase it to be more academic.
7. When formulating hypothesis, include the direction of the relationship. Such as:
FGC exerts positive impact on e-WOM.
8. In the literature review or other sections, consider citing recent works on eWOM & social media as follows:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2020-0072
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-11-2021-0321
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315770
9. In section 4.2, the data collection procedure is unclear. For instance, how did the researchers collect the data? Why do the selection of respondents focus on young people (you may want to relate with social media use)?
10. Referring to section 5. In terms of the chosen analysis methods, common method bias (CMV) should be assessed in more detail, as it can be an issue here considering the samples involving single-source informants
11. Please disclose the full wordings/questions for each of the items in Table 3; either in the table itself or in the appendix.
12. In Table 4, are you referring to discriminant validity test? The caption should be renamed to "Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker)"
13. Overall, the anlayses involving EFA, CFA, and moderation analysis (via PROCESS) were done and reported accordingly. Well done on this. However, for mediation results reporting (lines 285-291), state that the Upper Level and Lower Level confidence intervals 'did not straddle a zero in between'. To determine mediation effect, this is the primary indicator (rather than using p-values).
14. In line 203, you did not need to describe the full name of the IBM software, which is too long.
15. In Table 6, the number 2 in R2 needs to be formatted in superscript form. F needs to be reword as F-statistics or F-stats. Besides, the R-square change value (inclusion of moderator) is missing.
16. Reword section 6 as "Discussion and conclusion". Shift section 6.1 (conclusion) to the most bottom section, since its not appropriate to conclude prior to discussing implications.
Overall, with these amendments in place, the paper would be in a better shape to be published. Good luck in this stream of research.
Author Response
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
- Include a brief problem statement in the abstract to strengthen the case/justification of conducting this study.
Response: As requested, a brief statement regarding the main issue of this report is now included within the Abstract (Page1， Lines 15-19).
- In the introduction, the topic of brand equity appears abruptly, after discussing SMC. The flow of ideas have to be smooth and seamless.
Response:. We have altered this statement to improve the flow (On Page 1, Lines 41-46).
- Also in the introduction, the problem is not well positioned. Yes, lack of studies or limited research is the common argument among researchers, but the authors need to think deeper on the underlying issue (pertaining to brand equity) that has not been effectively addressed theoretically. Refer to 'limitatons & future research directions' on research papers, and also refer to Review articles (systematic literature review, analysis) for more insights on eWOM, brand equity.
Response: Please review lines 64-72 on Page 2 of the Introduction. We believe this revised section addresses this concern of the reviewer.
- In the literature review, the structure is fine. But its unclear what is the main underpinning theory. Brand equity reflects the dependent variable, and other sub-section headings reflect conditions/contexts (e.g. SMC, FGC). Perhaps, the social identity theory? There must be a theoretical paradigm (lens) in which your framework (Fig. 1) is modelled upon.
Response: We agree with this point. Accordingly, we have clarified the theory underlying research in this report. To accomplish this goal, several sentences have been altered in the revised manuscript as based on the information contained within the supplemental literature review (Page 4, Lines 163-183).
- In section 2.6 (Product involvement), the operationalization is not clear. Please also relate this variable to co-production (how similar or different?) The imporance of PI is also not well articulated. For instance, consumers who have a high level of product involvement tend to be more interested in learning about the product's features and benefits, and are more likely to engage in behaviors such as researching, evaluating, and purchasing the product. Explore on this idea.
Response: Please review Lines 146-159 on Pages 3-4, which represent our efforts at addressing this concern as based on information resulting from the supplemental literature review performed.
- In line 174 (Generally speaking,.. ), rephrase it to be more academic.
Response: The term “Generally speaking” has been deleted and rephrased within the revised manuscript (Page 5, Line 237).
- When formulating hypothesis, include the direction of the relationship. Such as:
FGC exerts positive impact on e-WOM.
Response: This was a good point and we have included a number of sentences in the revised manuscript which more specifically describe/explain the development of our hypothesis (Page 5, Lines 210-211, Lines 226-227 & Line 244).
- In the literature review or other sections, consider citing recent works on eWOM & social media as follows:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2020-0072
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-11-2021-0321
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315770
Response: This was very helpful. We have reviewed these sites and included relevant information from these sites within our revised manuscript.(Pages 4-5, Lines 195-198; Page 5, Lines 233-235; Page 5, Lines 202-207).
- In section 4.2, the data collection procedure is unclear. For instance, how did the researchers collect the data? Why do the selection of respondents focus on young people (you may want to relate with social media use)?
Response: In the revised manuscript we have now described the methods used for data acquisition (Page 7, Lines 283-297).
Several sentences have been added in the Study Design and Methods of the revised manuscript (Page 7, Lines 311-314) to address this issue.
- Referring to section 5. In terms of the chosen analysis methods, common method bias (CMV) should be assessed in more detail, as it can be an issue here considering the samples involving single-source informants
Response: To address this concern regarding method bias we have included a statistical test which provides an objective means to assess this issue (Page 8, Lines 340 to 345).
- Please disclose the full wordings/questions for each of the items in Table 3; either in the table itself or in the appendix.
Response:. We have included this information within an Appendix within the revised manuscript (Page 15-16, Lines 552-554).
- In Table 4, are you referring to discriminant validity test? The caption should be renamed to "Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker)"
Response: Based on your suggestion, table name has been changed in the data analysis and results of the revised manuscript (Page 9, Line 351) to address this issue.
- Overall, the anlayses involving EFA, CFA, and moderation analysis (via PROCESS) were done and reported accordingly. Well done on this. However, for mediation results reporting (lines 285-291), state that the Upper Level and Lower Level confidence intervals 'did not straddle a zero in between'. To determine mediation effect, this is the primary indicator (rather than using p-values).
Response: As suggested, we have altered our data analysis and results to utilize the primary indicator in the revised manuscript (Page 10, Line 381).
- In line 203, you did not need to describe the full name of the IBM software, which is too long.
Response: We have deleted this description in the revised manuscript (Page 11, Line 394).
- In Table 6, the number 2 in R2 needs to be formatted in superscript form. F needs to be reword as F-statistics or F-stats. Besides, the R-square change value (inclusion of moderator) is missing.
Response: These designations have been changed, please see Table 6 for details (Page 10, Line 409).
- Reword section 6 as "Discussion and conclusion". Shift section 6.1 (conclusion) to the most bottom section, since its not appropriate to conclude prior to discussing implications.
Response:
As suggested, we have corrected this presentation arrangement (Page12, Line 413-414).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper examined the structural relationships among social media communication, electronic word of mouth, and brand equity and also explored the moderating effect of product involvement. The paper seems well-written and I suggest minor changes before your final submission to the Journal.
On Page 5, I suggest the authors separate the subsection called “data collection” and explain in detail about data and data collection procedures, for example, what is the sample frame for random sampling; how the data were collected, e.g., online or offline, etc.
Good luck with your work.
Author Response
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
- On Page 5, I suggest the authors separate the subsection called “data collection” and explain in detail about data and data collection procedures, for example, what is the sample frame for random sampling; how the data were collected, e.g., online or offline, etc.
Response:
We have separated “data collection” and now describe in detail the means involved with the data collection procedures within the revised manuscript (Page 7, Lines 283-297).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The effects of social media communication and e-WOM on brand equity: the moderating roles of product involvement
This manuscript addresses an interesting topic. Please see my comments below:
· First of all, the introduction part isn’t enough to introduce this research. The flow and the paragraph are too rushed to explain this research background in only two paragraphs.
· The introduction lacks explaining about the gap and the theory used that will benefit this research, for example, explaining why the theory is used to address the gap.
· For the hypotheses, I suggest you put the directions A to B. If the hypotheses only measure the impacts without any direction, the discussion and implication will not be impactful for general research since this research will only measure the significance between variables.
· It would be better if this research put all the models together as a framework figure (adding a picture) instead of only showing the model on the results since it seems PI didn’t appear there as the moderation.
· This research shows the demographics of the respondents. This will be good if this research puts the demographics as the control variables to get better results and understanding of this research.
· This research also shows how some items are measured and how many are there. It would be better if this research showed all the items (with the details of the question) in the appendix to make the reader easier to understand which items are used in this research.
· In the table of the results, it should be better if the writer put the number of hypotheses before the Path. Or put the summary of the result to make the reader more clear about the result.
· There is no further discussion on the result.
Author Response
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
- First of all, the introduction part isn’t enough to introduce this research. The flow and the paragraph are too rushed to explain this research background in only two paragraphs.
Response: Please review lines 41-46, lines 64-72 on Page 1-2 of the Introduction. We believe this revised section addresses this concern of the reviewer.
- The introduction lacks explaining about the gap and the theory used that will benefit this research, for example, explaining why the theory is used to address the gap.
Response: We agree with this point. Accordingly, we have clarified the theory underlying research in this report. To accomplish this goal, several sentences have been altered in the revised manuscript as based on the information contained within the supplemental literature review (Page 4, Lines 163-183).
- For the hypotheses, I suggest you put the directions A to B. If the hypotheses only measure the impacts without any direction, the discussion and implication will not be impactful for general research since this research will only measure the significance between variables.
Response: This was a good point and we have included a number of sentences in the revised manuscript which more specifically describe/explain the development of our hypothesis (Page 5, Lines 210-211, Lines 226-227 & Line 244).
- It would be better if this research put all the models together as a framework figure (adding a picture) instead of only showing the model on the results since it seems PI didn’t appear there as the moderation.
Response: This was a good point and we have included a Figure in the revised manuscript which more specifically describe/explain the our research model (Page 6, Lines 268-272).
- This research shows the demographics of the respondents. This will be good if this research puts the demographics as the control variables to get better results and understanding of this research.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have performed a statistical analysis which included the demographics as control variables. (Page 11-12, Lines 402 to 412)
- This research also shows how some items are measured and how many are there. It would be better if this research showed all the items (with the details of the question) in the appendix to make the reader easier to understand which items are used in this research.
Response: We have included this information within an Appendix within the revised manuscript (Page 15-16, Lines 552-554).
- In the table of the results, it should be better if the writer put the number of hypotheses before the Path. Or put the summary of the result to make the reader more clear about the result.
Response: These number of hypotheses have been included, please see Table 5 and Figure 2 for details (Page 10, Lines 370 & 388).
- There is no further discussion on the result.
Response: As suggested, we have corrected this presentation arrangement (Page12, Lines 413-414).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors,
Your article is fine but there some issies that must be better approched such as: the litterature review section needs a consistent improvement since there are many papers dealing this subject
The method must be more clearly presented esspecially the instrument used to gather data.
The results must be commented within the highlight of previos researches.
The future directions should be presented.
Author Response
Thanks for your insightful suggestions.
- Litterature review section needs a consistent improvement since there are many papers dealing this subject.
Response: We have been added a number of more recent reference citations of relevance to our report in the revised manuscript (Page 1, Lines 15-19 and Lines 41-46; Page 4, Lines 163-183; Pages 3-4, Lines 146-159; Pages 4-5, Lines 195-198; Page 5, Lines 202-207 and Lines 233-235).
- The method must be more clearly presented esspecially the instrument used to gather data.
Response: We have revised our description regarding the methods instruments used for of data acquisition (Page 7, Lines 283-297).
- The results must be commented within the highlight of previos researches.
Response: We have re-reviewed the literature and have now included some more recent studies as related to our study within the Results section of the revised manuscript (Pages 12, Lines 427-429, Lines 433-436 and Lines 440-443).
- The future directions should be presented.
Response: This was a very interesting point. Therefore, within the limitations described in our revised manuscript are suggestions for future work on this topic (Page 14, Lines 536-541).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for your effort and revisions. However, there are still serious matters to consider:
· Please include a comprehensive table showing ALL your hypotheses and the results (accepted/rejected). That includes all main hypotheses, mediation and moderation (H1~H5)
· In Table 2 for income show the approximate equivalent of CNY is US$ for international readers
· In Table 4 and throughout the paper use consistent abbreviations and order of appearance for variables. In Table, Brand Equity should be BE, doe example.
· Please be consistent with the presentation of variables and their orders. If the order is FGC, UGC, e-WOM, BE, PI, starting from the Literature review to the end, please keep the same order in all tables for consistency and ease of reading.
· Please create a pictorial version of your research model showing ALL hypotheses on your research model, including H4a and H4b
· Include credible and updated sources for your reference. Your addition of sources in the revised version is not credible journals. Sustainability is high IF SSCI journal. Please avoid lower journals as your citation, For example
o 4. Reveilhac, M.; Blanchard, A., The framing of health technologies on social media by major actors: Prominent health issues 557 and COVID-related public concerns. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (1), 100068. 558
o 5. Hafez, M., Unpacking the influence of social media marketing activities on brand equity in the banking sector in Bangladesh: 559 A moderated mediation analysis of brand experience and perceived uniqueness. International Journal of Information 560 Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (2), 100140.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving our manuscript and these comments/suggestions have been incorporated with the revised version of our manuscript.
- Please include a comprehensive table showing ALL your hypotheses and the results (accepted/rejected). That includes all main hypotheses, mediation and moderation (H1~H5)
Response: As requested, a comprehensive description of all hypotheses is contained within Table 7. These results are included within the Data Analysis and Results sections (Page 12, Lines 421-424 ).
- In Table 2 for income show the approximate equivalent of CNY is US$ for international readers
Response: As requested, we have replaced CNY with USD as presented within Table 2. (Page 8 , Lines 326-327)
- In Table 4 and throughout the paper use consistent abbreviations and order of appearance for variables. In Table, Brand Equity should be BE, doe example.
Response: As requested, we have replaced Brand equity with the abbreviation BE in Table 4 and throughout the paper.
- Please be consistent with the presentation of variables and their orders. If the order is FGC, UGC, e-WOM, BE, PI, starting from the Literature review to the end, please keep the same order in all tables for consistency and ease of reading.
Response: This was a valid point. Accordingly, we have now maintained the same order in all tables for consistency and ease of presentation. (Page 9, Lines 356-357, Pages 15-17, Lines 580-582)
- Please create a pictorial version of your research model showing ALL hypotheses on your research model, including H4a and H4b
Response: As requested, all hypotheses regarding the research model as illustrated are now included within the Research model and hypothesis development (Page6， Lines 281-282).
- Include credible and updated sources for your reference. Your addition of sources in the revised version is not credible journals. Sustainability is high IF SSCI journal. Please avoid lower journals as your citation, For example
Reveilhac, M.; Blanchard, A., The framing of health technologies on social media by major actors: Prominent health issues 557 and COVID-related public concerns. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (1), 100068. 558
Hafez, M., Unpacking the influence of social media marketing activities on brand equity in the banking sector in Bangladesh: 559 A moderated mediation analysis of brand experience and perceived uniqueness. International Journal of Information 560 Management Data Insights 2022, 2, (2), 100140.
Response: This was very helpful. We have reviewed these sites and included relevant information from other sites within our revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for your answer. You really improved your paper
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your comments. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving our manuscript and these comments/suggestions have been incorporated with the revised version of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript satisfactorily.
