At the beginning of 2016, there were 2.3 billion consumers with active social media accounts, and, on average, these consumers each had five social media accounts.1 Such pervasiveness points to a need for marketers to focus on engaging consumers on social media and other digital environments. Successful branding today requires engaging consumers both in person and via digital means for effective integrated brand promotion.
More than ten years ago, I collaborated on a field study about the power of in-person consumer engagement in a sponsored event/experiential context (Close, Finney, Lacey, and Sneath, 2006). Our research explored in-person customer engagement in branding, or an experience and connection that a consumer makes with a brand, company, or even other users of a brand. Subsequent field studies further have confirmed the power of in-person consumer–brand engagement.
My research has provided marketers with some building blocks for engaging the consumer via community involvement and branding strategies. It has been the in-person, event-marketing setting providing consumers an emotional experience that transfers to the sponsoring brand—and this has set the stage for engaging consumers in a meaningful way.
Engagement is a concept that originates from psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, and Ilic, 2011). From a community perspective, engagement entails a consumer's intrinsic motivation to interact and cooperate with community members (Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann, 2005). Other definitions cite engagement as the customer's behavioral manifestation that goes beyond purchase behavior (Van Doorn et al., 2010). In other words, consumer engagement is a behavior that stems from motivational drivers.
Some scholars specifically have addressed the multidimensional nature of engagement to comprise cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Brodie et al., 2011). In that context, engagement has been conceptualized as a psychological state, and not necessarily a behavior—a definition some argue as being muddied (Bolton, 2011).
The lack of a digital, mobile, or social media focus in three key studies (c.f. Bolton, 2011; Brodie et al., 2001; Close et al., 2006) presents an opportunity to develop specific models and theories that explain or predict consumer engagement in a digital environment.
WHAT IS DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT?
From a consumer-centric standpoint, digital engagement is an online behavior resulting from a consumer's thoughts, emotional connection, and intrinsic motivation to interact and cooperate with a brand or its community members in a digital, mobile, or social media setting. This definition includes the community and motivational component (Algesheimer et al., 2005), the multidimensional component (Brodie et al., 2011; Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie, 2014), as well as the crux of the behavioral component (Bolton, 2010).
As such, online consumer behavior, observable in online, mobile, and social media channels, may or may not mirror in-person consumer behaviors. Again, human engagement could be conceptualized as a psychological state that is multidimensional in nature (with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components). I suggest, however, that digital engagement is conceptualized in a more operationalized way as an online behavior resulting from a particular psychological state of felt connection.
Digital engagement is characterized by thoughts, emotional connections, and/or consumer actions (e.g., “likes,” clicks, reactions, comments, shares, check-ins, posts) in the context of mobile and/or social media. Consumer actions include online behaviors with video, apps, advertisements, or sponsored content. Such online consumer behaviors represent the behavioral component that is recognized as evidence of digital engagement.
It is important to consider digital engagement from both a brand/practitioner and a consumer-centric viewpoint—as there are subtle distinctions therein. Practitioners see digital engagement as an opportunity to create active and interested relationships with the public's use of Internet channels (Bowen, 2013, p. 119). Whereas the practitioner's definition entails a firm or organization's behavior, the consumer-centric definition relates to a consumer's interactions with a brand, or its community members, in a digital media, mobile, or social media setting.
Perhaps the reason for the lack of a consistent and clear agreement on what constitutes digital engagement is that it legitimately could be conceptualized from either the company's or the consumer's distinct perspectives. Indeed, engagement means different things to different people (Bolton, 2011).
Practitioner Context
There is limited work on digital engagement from the company's (advertiser's) perspective. In one scenario, a “digital engagement segment” entails brands that have a high usage of digital marketing and recognition of a high level of benefits from digital marketing (Tiago and Veríssimo, 2014). At the opposite end of the spectrum is the “dead-road” advertiser—companies that are aware of the high benefit of digital marketing but have low investments or use of it.
Other researchers have identified the customer as having an engagement value to a company. In their view, customer engagement value has four components—the customer lifetime value, customer referral value, customer influencer value, and customer knowledge value (Kumar et al., 2010).
Consumer Context
From the consumer lens, extant theory could help scholars develop knowledge on social media for digital engagement from a social identity dimension, a social comparison dimension, a cognitive dimension, and an extended digital self-dimension, as follows:
Cognitive dimension. A cognitive dimension related to consumer digital engagement with a brand entails the consumer's thinking, learning, or knowledge-acquisition aspect associated with digital engagement in social media. An advertiser of a health- or fitness-related brand, for example, may provide sponsored content that “teaches” the consumer about a related aspect of his or her fitness or health and then tie that content into the good or service advertised.
Social identity dimension. Much of digital engagement hinges on the consumer's perceived fit, or sense of belonging to a group—a key component of a consumer's social identity. Individuals' affiliations with their groups comprise their social identity, and the relationships and conflicts among their social groups therein (Tajfel, 2010). In a social media setting, group memberships often are visible. On Facebook, for instance, when a “friend” digitally engages with a particular brand by “liking” it, consumers can see what that friend likes about a brand or its sponsored content. The group membership or network components of a consumer's digital engagement with a brand, firm, or organization are, therefore, an important, theory-based aspect worthy of future research.
Social comparison dimension. This refers to the natural tendency for consumers to compare themselves with other social media users in terms of the status or quantity of connections, “likes,” comments, or other indicators of consumer-based digital engagement. Social media, in particular, provide a visible platform for social comparisons with other consumers along with the brands they use. These social comparisons could take two different forms: Downward comparisons occur when a consumer who feels negative affect or emotions enhances his or her subjective well-being via comparison with someone less fortunate, whereas upward comparisons are with someone more fortunate (Wills, 1981). The social comparisons can explore people, their digitally displayed lifestyles, and/or the branded services or products used by others in one's social network. There is a special interest in the upward comparisons because consumers may tend to digitally showcase their engagement with certain brands.
Extended digital self-dimension. The consumer's “extended self” is intertwined with his or her “digital self” (Belk, 2013). Services, goods, and brands always have been a part of a consumer's extended self; now, however, the digital dimension includes the consumer's digital engagement with brands. Moreover, with regard to community engagement (Algesheimer et al., 2005), the extended digital self-dimension of a consumer's digital engagement includes connections with other consumers who use those services, products, and brands.
DIGITAL ENGAGEMENT IN PRACTICE
In considering a relevant context of advertising with social media, advertisers plan for and create engagement-worthy content and measure it in evolving ways. Here are some practical considerations for digital engagement in a social media context.
Setting Objectives For Digital Engagement
As with most successful integrated brand promotion, measurable objectives can relate to achieving certain types or levels of digital engagement with one's consumers. Traditionally, marketing objectives generally appear in two formats—sales related and communication related, with a strong focus on behavioral factors. One example might be for a brand to garner a specific number of online consumer behaviors, such as “follows,” “likes,” comments, or shares. Sales-related objectives relate better to sales linked from digital advertisements with e-commerce capabilities.
Budgeting for Digital Engagement
Traditionally, a few advertising budget strategies (i.e., percentage of sales, market share, objective and task method) have been used in ad budgeting. Now, there are additional considerations. For instance, with bidding and optimization strategies, when an advertiser's bid is lost, the advertisement will not be shown on the social media site, but the advertiser can “boost” its sponsored content with web pages and posts. At the same time, the extra, unused funds can be budgeted for enhancing exposure and potential for digital engagement. Budgets and expenditures vary depending on whether the advertiser seeks a high-value audience, as bigger budgets are needed to reach high-value customers.
Selecting a Fitting Audience
A fitting audience has more propensity for digital engagement, which in social media settings may include psychographics, detailed demographics, geographics, group memberships, and other information that traditionally advertisers did not have access to. To maximize digital engagement potential, it is beneficial to consider the person whom an advertiser wants to reach as a person rather than a target. One way of doing so is with personalized content, which should have a higher propensity for digital engagement.
The advertiser, for instance (on the basis of the consumer's social media profile), can send a tennis-related advertisement to a tennis player. As consumers may tend to exhibit distaste for irrelevant sponsored content, a more consumer-centric and personal approach with desirable content is a win–win for the consumer and marketer (Simon, van den Driest, and Wilms, 2016). Instead of a pushed, one-way conversation with a predetermined “target market,” the brands that can engage with customers in a digital setting can do so in a way that personalizes the content as if it were designed with that person in mind.
At the same time, optimized or retargeted media placements of digital and social content also can help those brands by offering a more personalized experience. Consumers and brands may have a two-way conversation that often is visible within social networks. As facial-recognition software, voice-activated commands, and related technology evolve, the room for personalized creative will open if the consumer feels authenticity and value.
Measuring Digital Engagement
Marketers can conduct quasi-experiments to manipulate a change in content, design, audience, or a combination of these to access which ways digital engagement objectives most efficiently are met. Especially in the case of e-commerce-based advertisements, for instance, the engagement seen as any sales conversion can be captured. Social media performance metrics also include clicks, cross-device behavior, and the number of online actions that occur as a result of the advertisement.
There is a difference between digital engagement measures, which most easily are seen as consumer actions and online behaviors, and delivery measures. Most established measures are not digital engagement measures but delivery measures, which traditionally include reach, frequency, cost per 1,000 customers reached, and impressions. A newer measure is what Facebook calls an overall advertising relevance score, based in part on these delivery measures. It is important to note that these measure deliveries more so than engagement; just because an online advertisement was delivered does not mean that the consumer was engaged. In other words, marketers should strive for both delivery measures and digital engagement.
A consumer leaving an online comment with brand-related, social media-sponsored content is another measurable action indicating digital engagement. The number of comments and a sentiment analysis of the content of the comments can serve as visible indicators of digital engagement. Check-ins can further indicate digital engagement, especially in retail or sponsored event/experiential settings. Although the number of comments can be a measurable indicator of a digitally engaged consumer, the sentiment in some comments may be negative and harmful to the brand. There can be some nasty sentiments spread about brands, products, and companies on social media in a very visible—at times, public—platform. Indeed, not all consumer digital engagement (i.e., online actions) with a brand necessarily is beneficial for the brand.
Last, an important measure or indicator of digital engagement is the number of shares that an advertisement or sponsored content obtains. Shares especially are fruitful as the consumer becomes a brand ambassador, and consumers tend to be viewed as less biased than advertisers. Online sharing behavior implies that this content or sponsored post is worth checking out and is perceivably of interest to others in the social network.
From an advertiser's lens, a threat to digital engagement is underdelivery of sponsored content on social media. A main reason for content underdelivery on certain social media platforms is constraints in copywriting. Namely, the advertisement may be too copy heavy for digital delivery. Facebook, in its business support,2 sets a limit that only 20 percent of an advertisement can be text. This percentage does include numbers, logos, and watermark content. Messages have to be simple and image heavy to gain exposure—a precursor for delivery and potential opportunity for digital engagement. While simplicity has been an advertising adage for years, it seems especially difficult to use simplicity for complex products, services, or ideas. Consider direct-to-consumer advertising or pharmaceutical advertising; there are issues related to content delivery of many important details crucial to communicate to the consumer in direct-to-consumer advertising.
DIGITAL OVERENGAGEMENT
Consumer engagement with brands remains a crucial topic—especially in a social media setting with a digital engagement focus. The Internet and social media provide an exciting degree of opportunity for businesses, organizations, and brands to connect and engage with consumers.
There may be such a thing as what I call “digital overengagement,” however. Opportunities to digitally engage consumers present new risks with newer media platforms. Digital overengagement with a social media-related game, such as Pokémon Go, could be associated with unintended consequences in the offline world or even accidents caused by lack of attention to one's surroundings. Unfortunately, the Pokémon Go game purportedly already has been associated with crimes, automobile accidents, deaths, and even exposure of infidelity.3,4
Digital overengagement may blur into social media-related obsessions—even social media-related addictions. A consumer can be tempted to keep up with various social media platforms—both professionally and personally. Future research is warranted in this area of digital overengagement, as well as regarding antecedents and consequences to digital engagement from the suggested theoretical domains.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Angeline Close Scheinbaum is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin's Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations. Since 2006, she has consulted for brands and events, offering a consumer-based strategy approach to measuring event sponsorship impact. Much of this fieldwork has resulted in scholarship, with more than 20 peer-reviewed articles in journals such as the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, and the Journal of Advertising. Close Scheinbaum also coauthored a textbook, Advertising & Integrated Brand Promotion (Cengage, 2015).
Footnotes
Editor's Note
Angeline Close Scheinbaum's research has focused on the relationships among consumer attitude, affect, cognition, intent, and behavior, particularly with regard to event sponsorship, which, she has suggested, deserves distinct models. The theories she tends to work with are in-affect transfer, resistance, cognitive schema, social identity, image transfer, and congruency domains. In this issue's Speaker's Box, Close Scheinbaum examines the importance of digital consumer engagement within a social media context. Digital consumer engagement, she cautions, offers a route to engage consumers with a brand or message in an online or mobile platform, where marketers should consider both the consumer viewpoint and practical components. Intense digital consumer engagement, such as the 2016 Pokémon Go augmented reality phenomenon, may lead to some unintended and unwanted consequences. Close Scheinbaum points out that it is possible for a brand to “overengage,” which may lead to a diminishing return on investment.
Douglas West
Professor, King's College London
Contributing Editor, Journal of Advertising Research
↵1 K. Smith, (2016, March 7). “Marketing: 96 amazing social media statistics and facts for 2016.” Brandwatch. Retrieved from https://www.brandwatch.com/2016/03/96-amazing-social-media-statistics-and-facts-for-2016/
↵2 Facebook. “Help center.” Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/business/search/?q=20%25
↵3 CBS News. (2016). “Terrible things happening to Pokémon Go players.” Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/terrible-things-happening-to-pokemon-go-players/
↵4 S. Rosenbaum. (2016, July 12). “I got caught cheating through Pokémon Go.” New York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/woman-uses-pokemon-go-to-catch-cheating-boyfriend/
- © Copyright 2016 The ARF. All rights reserved.