From fandom to fad: are millennials really

engaged with and loyal to their loved brands

on social media?
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro
School of Economics and Management, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – Exerting a peculiar fascination on both managers and academics, Millennials can be distinguished from other cohorts by their intense
exposure to the internet and heavy use of social media, which, in turn, affect their identity formation, brand engagement, loyalty and purchase
behaviour. Yet, uncertainties regarding online engagement and the real benefits brands can reap from Millennials’ avid use of social media remain.
Therefore, by developing a holistic model of drivers and outcomes, this study aims to understand how Millennials engage with their most loved, self-
expressive brands across social media platforms and its impact on loyalty-related intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Data was gathered using a self-administered survey, answered by 343 millennial generation social media users
and based on self-selected self-expressive, loved brands. Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, a holistic model was developed and tested
using partial least squares-structural equation modelling, emphasizing not only the role of social media engagement but also including brand love,
experience and identification as direct and indirect antecedents.
Findings – Findings suggest a disconnection between online and offline brand relationships: though Millennials love and are very loyal to their
favourite brands, they are not actively engaged in social media, which helps to explain the non-significant effect of engagement on brand loyalty.
Moreover, together with brand identification, brand experience was found to play a major role in developing brand love, which, in turn, is positively
related to engagement and loyalty.
Originality/value – Theoretically, this study contributes to bridging a gap in the literature, as research on engagement, its drivers and outcomes is
scant and there is no robust evidence about its impact on brand loyalty, particularly among Millennials. Moreover, research on disengaged
consumers who exhibit limited willingness to engage is still scant. Managerially, this study provides insights for brand managers wishing to
successfully engage and build relationships with Millennials and to identify key routes to Millennials’ loyalty.
Keywords Brand identification, Brand loyalty, Brand experience, Brand love, Millennials, Self-expressive brands, Social media engagement
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Although general agreement exists on Millennials’ frequent

use of social media, the variety of ways in which they engage
The Millennial generation or Gen Y, roughly born between the
with brands online deserves more research attention (Bolton
mid-1980s and early 2000s (Soares et al., 2017; Petrescu et al.,
et al., 2013; Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016; Bento et al.,
2018), exerts a “peculiar fascination” on both managers and
2018): are they mainly passive observers or are they actively
academics (Bolton et al., 2013). Besides being the biggest
engaged with their loved brands? Prior research is limited and
generational group since the Baby Boomers and enjoying high
inconclusive: some studies suggest that Millennials actively
buying power (Bilgihan, 2016), Millennials can be
participate (Hayes et al., 2015), while others suggest that they
distinguished from other cohorts in their intense exposure to
the internet from a very young age and their heavy use of social spend a considerable amount of time passively lurking (Bento
media, which became an essential part of their very existence et al., 2018) and exhibit “an alarming lack of willingness”
(Soares et al., 2017). A need to interact with others is a key (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016, p. 507) to engage with
reason for Millennials’ use of social media, which also affects brands through social media-based brand communities
their identity formation, engagement with firms, brand loyalty (SMBBC). According to generational theories, Millennials’
and purchase behaviour. Engaging this unique cohort to win needs and habits may significantly differ from those of previous
their hearts and minds and to foster their loyalty became a key generations (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Lissitsa and Kol,
priority for most marketers (Kandampully et al., 2015). 2016) given their similar experiences, technologies and
adaptation to cultural and environmental changes (Chuah
et al., 2017). Millennials are surrounded by technology like
other generations never have been (Soares et al., 2017), which
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
Received 27 February 2019
Revised 2 August 2019
Journal of Product & Brand Management
4 December 2019
30/2 (2021) 320–334 8 March 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 15 March 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2262] Accepted 31 March 2020

320
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

may potentially cause variations in brand engagement and with brands, this study extends previous research, which has
social media behaviours (Bento et al., 2018; Florenthal, 2019). overlooked the topic and is inconclusive about the active vs
Hence, further insights into Millennials “fans” and their brand passive nature of Millennials’ fans. Additionally, the study
relationships are still needed (Wallace et al., 2017). presents specific insights on SMBBC, which current research
Moreover, there is no robust evidence regarding the real (Dessart, 2017; Islam et al., 2018) examines through the lens of
benefits that Millennials’ avid use of social media can bring to traditional OBC, where members are highly engaged. Yet, in
brands and its role in fostering their loyalty. In fact, empirical SMBBC, substantial differences may exist in the levels of
validation of social media brand engagement (SMBE) members’ engagement and participation (Pasternak et al.,
antecedents and consequences (specifically, brand loyalty) 2017). Secondly, the study contributes to consumer-brand
remains nebulous to date (Islam et al., 2018; Loureiro et al., relationship theory, by adopting an expanded
2017) and little is known on whether social media investments conceptualization of brand loyalty and providing a holistic
pay-off (Lim et al., 2020). Generational theories highlight the understanding of the online and offline relationships that
differences between Millennials and other cohorts in how they Millennials develop with the brands they love. The study not
relate to brands. Millennials are the least satisfied and more only supports previous findings regarding the role of emotional
disloyal customers compared to other generations (Bilgihan, consumer-brand connections but also extends prior research by
2016) and tend to emphasize emotional value more than their considering drivers and causal relations that were yet to be
predecessors (Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 2019). Considering empirically testes, such as the key influence of brand love and
that Millennials are not only notoriously fickle (Lazarevic, brand experience. Moreover, the study challenges prior
2012) but also heavy social media users, the digital landscape assertions regarding the role of SMBE in fostering loyalty and
should allegedly be a natural environment to engage and retain suggests a discrepancy between Millennials’ online and offline
them. However, businesses often fail to capture the attention of brand relationships. Managerially, this study contributes to
Millennials, who perceive brands’ online presence as “cold and helping brands seeking to understand the role played by social
distant” (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Accordingly, the
media in their customer-oriented strategies, to understand key
Marketing Science Institute (2018) elected consumers’
routes to Millennials’ loyalty and to gain insights into
inattention, especially among Millennials, as a 2018-2020
Millennials and their brand relationships.
research priority. Therefore, although this segment is very
desirable to brands, uncertainties regarding its online
engagement remain and call for research devoted to Millennials 2. Social media and consumer brand engagement
social media use and its impact on loyalty-related outcomes. The growth of social media has established a new dynamic in
Given the limitations of previous research, this study aims to marketing, providing consumers a variety of ways to voluntarily
understand how Millennials relate with their most loved, self- engage and nurture relationships with brands (Veloutsou and
expressive brands across social media platforms and how this Ruiz Mafe, 2020). Consumers engaged with brands on social
contributes (or not) to foster their loyalty. As such, the study media tend to exhibit higher levels of trust, satisfaction,
addresses the following research questions (RQ): emotional bonding and loyalty to the brand (Brodie et al.,
2011). Engagement is particularly relevant within the so-called
RQ1. What are the key routes to Millennials loyalty? and
“fan pages” or SMBBC (Hook et al., 2018), through which
consumers engage with brands, while simultaneously sharing
RQ2. How (and if) does SMBE contribute to fostering brand
their activities within their social group (Coelho et al., 2019).
loyalty among this challenging market segment?
SMBBC are vast reaching and very popular; do not have an
Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, a holistic model implicit or explicit structure; their social context is unique; and
was developed, emphasizing not only the role of SMBE but also members are more heterogeneous and participate on a bigger
including brand love, experience and identification as direct scale (Habibi et al., 2014).
and indirect antecedents. The model was tested across social Consumer brand engagement (CBE) has been
media platforms and considers both online and offline conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, defined as a
relationships Millennials build with their favourite, self- “consumer’s positively valence brand-related cognitive,
expressive brands. Self-expressive brands (i.e. those that emotional and behavioural activity during or related to focal
enhance one’s social self and/or reflect one’s inner self) were consumer/brand interactions” (Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 154).
considered in this study given its relevance while studying Afterward, Dessart (2017) further defined SMBE as:
Millennials. The consumption of brands and the use of social [. . .] the state that reflects consumers’ positive individual dispositions
media among Millennials is strongly motivated by needs of self- towards the community and the focal brand as expressed through varying
expression (Doster, 2013; Ruane and Wallace, 2015; Wallace levels of affective, cognitive and behavioural manifestations that go beyond
exchange situations (p. 377).
et al., 2017) and Millennial consumers need to feel strong
positive emotions to activate the engagement process (Loureiro Following extant research on SMBE (Table 1), the
et al., 2017). multidimensional perspective of engagement will be used as a
The current study contributes to two main research fields. basis for the analysis presented further in this paper.
Firstly, it contributes to the literature on social media SMBE has a significant role and growing importance for the
marketing and online brand communities (OBC), which has management of brands (Hollebeek et al., 2014) and can help
mainly focussed on active engagement within these platforms companies create an emotionally loyal customer base
(Hollebeek et al., 2019). While analyzing disengaged (Kandampully et al., 2015). Yet, despite the growing interest
consumers, i.e. those who exhibit limited willingness to engage among academics and practitioners on how to engage

321
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 1 Overview of empirical research on multidimensional SMBE and its nomological network
Author(s) Context Sample Drivers Outcomes
Hollebeek et al. (2014) Social media brands Non-specific Consumer involvement Self-brand connection
Brand usage intent
Dessart (2017) SMBBC (Facebook) Non-specific Online interaction propensity Brand trust
Attitude towards participation Brand loyalty
Product involvement Brand commitment
Loureiro et al. (2017) SMBBC (Facebook) Millennials Brand involvement Satisfaction
Online brand experience Brand love
Self-brand image congruency Word-of-mouth
Harrigan et al. (2018) Tourism social media brands Non-specific Consumer involvement Self-brand connection
Brand usage intent
Islam et al. (2018) SMBBC (Facebook) Students Self-brand image congruity Brand loyalty
Value congruity
Carvalho and Fernandes (2018) SMBBC (Facebook) Non-specific Consumer involvement Satisfaction
Participation Word-of-mouth
Interactivity Brand trust
Flow experience Brand commitment

customers on social media (Dessart, 2017), scholarly and however, it fell dramatically to 2.3% in 2015, barely half of
managerial understanding on the nature and dynamics of what it was in 2014 (Forrester, 2015). Considering that
SMBE is limited to date (Hollebeek et al., 2017). Until 2013, engagement must overcome a certain intensity threshold to
most studies on CBE have been conceptual and without a unfold its effect (Fehrer et al., 2018), establishing a truly
social media focus (Dessart, 2017), with SMBBC deserving engaging social media presence is a major challenge for brands
only recent attention (Hook et al., 2018). As then, research on (Schultz and Peltier, 2013). Hence, although businesses are
the topic has evolved, but still, only a handful of empirical increasingly exploring SMBBC to engage consumers, little is
studies on SMBE explore its antecedents and consequences, known on whether the so-called “fans” are really loyally
most limited to Facebook-based communities and with no engaged with the brand (Wallace et al., 2017; Munnukka et al.,
generational focus (Table 1). 2015) and whether social media investments pay-off (Lim et al.,
As such, many research gaps remain: the nomological 2020).
network of the construct is still in an embryonic stage of
development (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018; Wang and Lee, 3. Social media brand engagement among
2020); empirical validation of its drivers and loyalty-related millennials: fandom or fad?
outcomes remains nebulous to date (Islam et al., 2018;
Loureiro et al., 2017); and further insights into social media Roughly born between the mid-1980s to the early 2000s
“fans” and their relationships with brands are still needed (Soares et al., 2017; Petrescu et al., 2018), Millennials are a very
(Wallace et al., 2017). Although many researchers believe that desirable group for brands given their hefty number and high
social media is the ideal environment to develop consumer- buying power (Bilgihan, 2016). Yet, Millennials are also a
brand relationships, it is still unclear how the process of being challenging market segment as they are notoriously fickle and
more loyal happens in SMBBC (Laroche et al., 2012). difficult to reach (Duffet, 2015; Lazarevic, 2012), turning them
Moreover, extant research on SMBE tends to study SMBBC into the most disloyal, value-conscious and least satisfied
through the lens of traditional OBC, where members are highly customers compared to other generations (Bilgihan, 2016;
active and have a strong interest in the community and its Chuah et al., 2017). Considering that this age group comprises
activities. However, in SMBBC, substantial differences may avid users of social media (Helal et al., 2018), the digital
exist in the levels of members’ engagement and participation landscape should be a natural environment to engage them
(Pasternak et al., 2017; Dessart et al., 2019; Florenthal, 2019). (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Moreover, the boundaries
Recent studies argue that most social media users are actually between online and offline activities may be less evident in this
“lurkers” (Chen et al., 2019) who merely read or watch brand- age group (Petrescu et al., 2018), given that social media is an
related content, and therefore, are not actively engaged essential part of their existence (Soares et al., 2017).
(Maslowska et al., 2016). In this regard, the 90–9-1 rule states Yet, despite the widespread recognition of Millennials as a
that only 1% of users create content on a permanent basis, 9% unique, emerging consumer segment, insufficient research
contribute from time to time, while roughly 90% remain silent attention has been devoted to their social media use and its
during social interactions (Simon et al., 2016). Moreover, impact on loyalty-related intentions, both online and offline
research by Forrester (2015) analyzed more than 3 million user (Soares et al., 2017). Although Millennials represent more than
interactions with more than 2,500 brand posts on seven social 80% of social media users (Helal et al., 2018), the way how they
networks and concluded that brands achieve less than a 0.1% engage with brands online is not clear (Bolton et al., 2013;
engagement rate on six of the seven social networks. The Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016; Bento et al., 2018): are they
exception was Instagram, with an engagement rate of 4.21%; mainly passive observers or are they actively engaged with and

322
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

loyal to their loved brands? Prior research is limited and 4.1 The impact of social media brand engagement on
inconclusive on this matter: some studies suggest that brand loyalty
Millennials actively contribute (Hayes et al., 2015), while CBE can help companies create an emotionally loyal customer
others suggest that youngsters spend considerable time online base (Kandampully et al., 2015). Conceptual work associates
simply consuming content (Pempek et al., 2009; Duffet, 2015). CBE with positive attitudes towards the brand, retention and
Within SMBBC, previous studies (Royo-Vela and word-of-mouth behaviour (Hollebeek, 2011). With the advent
Casamassima, 2011) found that young consumers (<35 years of the digital age, opportunities to foster loyalty have increased
old) exhibited mainly non-participative forms of engagement, through virtual interactions and engagement with brands
with only a few highly involved in active participation. In their (Schau et al., 2009; Schultz and Peltier, 2013). When
qualitative study, Rissanen and Luoma-Aho (2016) further consumers allocate cognitive capacity, develop affective bonds
show that young Millennials are not as enthusiastic about and invest time and effort interacting with a brand, they are
SMBE as it would be expected, with the vast majority more likely to develop brand loyalty (Leckie et al., 2016). Yet,
exhibiting “an alarming lack of willingness” (p. 507) to engage empirical evidence of this relationship remains limited to date
with brands on social media. Market research studies (Harrigan et al., 2018; Coelho et al., 2019; Dessart et al., 2019),
corroborate these findings, with GlobalWebIndex (2018) namely, in a social media context, where only a few studies
(Table 1) concluded that SMBE and its dimensions impact
reporting that Millennials are visiting social networks but not
loyalty-related outcomes. As avid users of social media,
posting: 38% of Facebookers and 31% of Instagrammers say
Millennials should allegedly interact with brands in a more
they logged in just to see what’s going on. Previous managerial
active, natural and intuitive way than older generations (Bento
studies have also concluded that younger, more mobile, brand-
et al., 2018), which, in turn, should contribute to engage and
conscious consumers show higher levels of boredom regarding
retain them (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Thus, it is
social media (Yazdanparast et al., 2015) and are beginning to
expected that:
experience notorious social media fatigue (Logan et al., 2018),
leading to a decline in time spent on social media, brand H1. There is a positive relationship between (a) affective, (b)
exposure and active engagement. Given the current debate on cognitive and (c) behavioural SMBE and brand loyalty.
SMBE effectiveness, namely among Millennials, further
insights are needed. Focusing on this generational cohort, this
study aims to understand how Millennials engage with brands 4.2 The impact of brand love on social media brand
in social media; and if and how SMBE contributes to fostering engagement and brand loyalty
their loyalty. Brand love can be defined as “the degree of passionate
emotional attachment a satisfied customer has for a particular
trade name” (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006, p. 81), and entails
4. Theoretical background and research feelings of passion and connection towards the brand (Batra
hypotheses et al., 2012), such that the loved brand is considered
Considering brand loyalty as a key outcome, this study irreplaceable (Albert and Merunka, 2013). Consumers with
develops a holistic model to examine its potential drivers passionate feelings towards a brand are expected to engage
more actively with it (Fetscherin et al., 2019). Loved objects
among Millennials, including SMBE, brand love, brand
tend to demand investments of time and energy, which helps to
experience and brand identification as direct and indirect
make them existentially meaningful (Ahuvia, 2005). As such,
antecedents. The hypotheses development draws from prior
investing a high level of resources, having frequent interactions
SMBE literature (Table 1) and is supported by consumer-
with or thoughts and feelings about a brand (i.e. engaging with
brand relationship and generational theories. Following the
it) are important indicators of brand love and signal attachment
relationship perspective (Fournier, 1998; Veloutsou and
to the brand and its integration into the self (Batra et al., 2012).
Ruiz Mafe, 2020), current loyalty paradigms have identified
Although corresponding to different constructs, brand love is
meaningful relational determinants, such as brand love
conceptually close to involvement (Karjaluoto et al., 2016),
(Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006), brand identification (Albert which has been found to be an antecedent of affective, cognitive
and Merunka, 2013), brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009) and behavioural SMBE (Table 1) thus offering a first indication
and, particularly from 2014 onwards, brand engagement that brand love is related to CE and its three dimensions. In an
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Yet, no consensus exists about offline context, further evidence exists regarding this
what type of brand relationships are more effective at relationship (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, 2010; Islam and
generating brand loyalty (Khamitov et al., 2019). Rahman, 2016). Furthermore, brand love has been positively
Additionally, generational theories state that generational associated with brand loyalty and advocacy (Carroll and
cohorts such as Millennials develop similar attitudes and Ahuvia, 2006; Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Fetscherin et al., 2019).
beliefs regarding market behaviours (Parment, 2013) given According to Roy et al. (2013), a consumer who falls in love
their similar formative experiences, technologies, and with a brand will develop much stronger loyalty compared to
adaptation to environmental changes (Chuah et al., 2017). those without brand love. Love-based brand relationships have
Therefore, Millennials’ needs and habits may differ from been identified as the most strongly linked to brand loyalty
those of previous generations, potentially causing variations (Khamitov et al., 2019). Loving a brand is a unique and
in brand engagement, social media behaviours and loyalty valuable relationship (Loureiro et al., 2017), which consumers
decisions (Bento et al., 2018). may wish to recommend and preserve in the future. Brand love

323
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

matters particularly to Millennials, who tend to emphasize love relationship is the outcome of cognitive, emotional and
more emotional value than their more price-conscious behavioural brand experiences. Brand experiential value may be
predecessors (Rodrigues and Rodrigues, 2019) and need to feel more relevant antecedents of consumer-brand relationships than
especially positive emotions to activate the engagement process merely functional product characteristics (Delgado-Ballester and
(Loureiro et al., 2017). The significance of brand love to Sabiote, 2015). Therefore, the “increasingly interactive and
Millennials and extending previous studies developed in offline experiential nature of consumer relationships” (Dessart et al.,
contexts that relate brand love, CBE and loyalty, it is predicted 2015, p. 28), brand experience can contribute to increasing the
that: hedonic value of a brand (Ding and Tseng, 2015), which has
been identified as an antecedent of brand love (Carroll and
H2. There is a positive relationship between brand love and Ahuvia, 2006). Brand experience has also been considered a part
(a) affective, (b) cognitive and (c) behavioural SMBE. of the engagement ecosystem (Maslowska et al., 2016).
However, there is still scant research on brand experience
H3. There is a positive relationship between brand love and
impacts (Khan and Fatma, 2017), particularly in the consumer-
brand loyalty.
brand relationship domain, with few empirical studies relating it
with brand love (Prentice et al., 2019) or CBE (Hepola et al.,
4.3 Brand identification and brand experience as 2017) and even less with SMBE (Loureiro et al., 2017). Yet,
antecedents of brand love and brand loyalty according to Roy et al. (2013, p. 128), “it is plausible to argue
4.3.1 The impact of brand identification and brand experience on that the affective component of brand experience contributes to
brand love generating romantic brand love”. Additionally, to develop brand
Brand identification (Albert and Merunka, 2013) and brand love a consumer must have not only feelings of identification
experience (Roy et al., 2013) have been identified as with a brand, but also positive experiences with it (Karjaluoto
antecedents of brand love. Scholars posit that brand love et al., 2016). This is particularly so when applied to youngsters
involves the integration of a brand into a consumer’s sense of (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012). Since Millennials were raised
identity (Batra et al., 2012) and that a certain brand can be in a time when almost everything is branded and their loyalty is
particularly loved if it reflects consumers’ identity (Huber et al., difficult to attain (Bilgihan, 2016), to become a viable option for
2015). Consumer-brand identification (CBI) has been defined this generation brands have to add value to their lives through
as a “consumer’s perceived state of oneness with a brand” new hedonic and/or experiential dimensions (Lissitsa and Kol,
(Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012, p. 407) or as “the extent to 2016); in essence, all the Millennial generation cares about is the
which the consumer sees his or her own self-image as experience itself (Williams and Page, 2011). Considering that
overlapping the brand’s image” (Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen, the compound effect of these two constructs on brand love is yet
2010, p. 506). Consumers may use brands to build their to be examined, specifically regarding Millennials, it is predicted
identity (Ahuvia, 2005) and to express their self-concept that:
(Tuškej et al., 2013), with loved objects (or brands) frequently
H4. There is a positive relationship between brand
perceived as an integral part of one’s self (Karjaluoto et al.,
identification and brand love.
2016). Self-expressive brands are defined as “the customers’
perception of the degree to which the specific brand enhances H5. There is a positive relationship between brand
one’s social self and/or reflects one’s inner self” (Carroll and experience and brand love.
Ahuvia, 2006, p. 82). The ubiquity of social media has offered
consumers additional opportunities for self-expressiveness Moreover, positive and affectively charged brand experiences
(Ruane and Wallace, 2015), which may be more critical online capable of playing a defining role in a person’s sense of self have
than offline (Wallace et al., 2017): in social media, consumers been acknowledged as drivers of CBI (Stokburger-Sauer et al.,
may use brands as a “shorthand” or as “subtle cues about 2012). CBI can develop or consolidate over time through
themselves” (Hollenbeck and Kaikati, 2012, p. 396), to create multiple experiences with a product or brand (So et al., 2013).
a self-identity (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). Therefore, Yet, as empirical evidence to support it is currently lacking (So
consumers who follow brands online may do so to allow that et al., 2017), it is expected that:
brand to express their own ideals or actual selves (Vernuccio
et al., 2015; Wang and Lee, 2020). This may be particularly H6. There is a positive relationship between brand
true among Millennials (Islam and Rahman, 2016; Wallace identification and experience.
et al., 2014). Compared to older generations, young consumers
are more likely to use brands to create a self-identity (Doster, 4.3.2 The impact of brand identification and brand experience on
2013) and to be affected by the degree of congruence between brand loyalty
their self-image and brand image (O’Cass and Frost, 2002), According to Ahearne et al. (2005, p. 5), consumers who
which, in turn, increases brand love (Hwang and Kandampully, strongly identify with a certain brand “tend to purchase more
2012). and recommend the company’s products more often” as a
In combination with brands that shape consumers’ identity, means of self-expression. Previous conceptual research
positive brand experiences, defined as subjective, internal (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) suggests that CBI positively
consumer responses evoked by brand-related stimuli (Brakus influences loyalty-related outcomes, which all may be
et al., 2009) stored in consumers’ memory (Maslowska et al., particularly true among youngsters (Hwang and Kandampully,
2016) are expected to predict strong emotional responses such as 2012; Lu and Xu, 2015) given that their consumption of
brand love (Junaid et al., 2019). According to Fournier (1998), a brands is strongly motivated by needs of self-expression

324
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

(Doster, 2013). However, prior research presents mixed results “totally agree” (Table 2). Information on demographics and
on the direct or indirect nature of this link (Khamitov et al., social media habits was also collected. Age, gender, education,
2019). While some empirical studies (Kuenzel and Halliday, employment position, social media usage frequency and social
2008; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012; Tuškej et al., 2013) claim media platform were measured as control variables. A total of
that CBI has a direct impact on brand loyalty, others found the 343 responses from Millennial social media users were
relationship insignificant (Leckie et al., 2016) or mediated by received.
customer judgments (Lu and Xu, 2015; So et al., 2013) such as Data analysis. Following recent research on CBE (Hepola
brand love (Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016; Bergkvist and Bech- et al., 2017; Harrigan et al., 2018), partial least squares
Larsen, 2010). Considering that when customers identify with structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using the Smart
a brand, they develop a strong emotional attachment, which PLS 3.0 software (Ringle et al., 2012) was used. PLS-SEM is a
leads to favorable attitudes and behaviours towards the brand, robust modelling technique, with few identification issues and
it is stated that: well-suited for assessing complex predictive models and testing
the strength of relationships between latent variables (Hair
H7. There is a positive relationship between brand et al., 2014). Main results are shown in the next section.
identification and brand loyalty.

H8. Brand love mediates the relationship of brand 6. Research findings

identification with brand loyalty. Sample. Respondents’ ages spanned from 18 to 29 years old,
with 66% at 22 years old or less, including 47% undergraduates
Although brand experience has been receiving increasing
and 32% graduates. Moreover, respondents were
research attention (Andreini et al., 2018), the direct or indirect
predominantly (80%) women, in agreement with the
link with brand loyalty remains controversial in the literature.
population of interest: recent studies (Pew Research Center,
Prior studies have found a direct relationship between brand
2018) indicate that women are the most active social media
experience and loyalty (Brakus et al., 2009), whereas others
users across all platforms (except YouTube). Additionally,
argue that no direct relationship exists, but rather one fully
54% of the respondents spent 1 to 3 h per day on social media,
mediated by commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011), trust (Khan
while only 12% were light users (<1 h). Seventy per cent were
et al., 2020) or relationship quality (Francisco-Maffezzolli et al.,
2014). According to Ramaseshan and Stein (2014), experience students, while the remaining 30% had a part or full-time job,
itself may not be capable of generating brand loyalty unless it which is in line with the millennial generation, who includes
elicits strong emotional responses such as brand love, which either students or relatively recent entrants to the workforce
may be the case regarding Millennials, given their emotional- (Bolton et al., 2013). The inclusion of both student and non-
driven nature. Thus, it is predicted that: student respondents offers a contribution to prior research,
which mainly focussed on the former over the latter (Ruane and
H9. There is a positive relationship between brand Wallace, 2015; Wallace et al., 2014). Self-selected brands were
experience and brand loyalty. very diverse and mostly commercial (72 per cent), with Zara
(8%), Adidas (3.5%) and Apple (3%) among the top cited.
H10. Brand love mediates the relationship of brand Regarding social media platforms, 52.2% follow self-selected
experience with brand loyalty. brands on Instagram, 37.9% on Facebook and the remainder
on e.g. YouTube or Snapchat. As previous research has mainly
focussed on Facebook (Carvalho and Fernandes, 2018; Bento
5. Research methodology et al., 2018; Table 1), the validation of the model across social
Data collection. To test the research hypotheses, a survey media platforms also stands as a contribution of this study.
method was adopted to describe and interpret the relationships Measurement model. Composite measures of identified factors
among existing variables. In line with purposive sampling are unidimensional and demonstrate good scale reliability
techniques, a convenience sample of friends, college students according to accepted standards (Nunnally, 1978). All factors
and personal acquaintances belonging to the Millennial show strong Cronbach’s alpha, whereas composite reliabilities
generation was invited through mail and social media posts to (CR) and average variances extracted (AVE) are above-
participate in a web-based, cross-sectional survey about the recommended minimums of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively
relationships established with loved brands on social media. (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, all factors demonstrate
Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Brands were self- good internal consistency and high levels of convergence
selected by respondents, an approach commonly used in (Table 2).
previous branding studies. When starting the survey, Convergent and discriminant validity are demonstrated by
respondents were instructed to choose a loved, self-expressive factor loadings and by investigating the latent constructs
brand, specifically defined as a brand to which they had a strong correlations and the square root of their specific AVE,
emotional attachment, that reflected their self-concept (Carrol respectively. All factor loadings for indicators measuring the
and Ahuvia, 2006; Tuškej et al., 2013) and which they followed same construct are statistically significant (p < 0.01),
on social media. Respondents then completed the supporting convergent validity. Moreover, estimated pairwise
questionnaire with reference to the brand they had named. The correlations between factors do not exceed 0.85 and are
questionnaire had 26 mandatory questions based on multi-item significantly less than 1 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); and the square
scales previously established in the literature, assessed in a root of AVE for each construct is higher than the correlations
seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “totally disagree” to between them (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), supporting

325
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 2 Measurement scales, reliability and dimensionality statistics

Measures Loadings t-value Mean value CR (AVE)
Consumer-brand identification (a = 0.817) 0.892 (0.733)
Tuškej et al. (2013)
I feel that my values and the values of [brand] are very similar 0.869 20.085 4.872
I feel that my personality and the personality of [brand] are very similar 0.899 24.993 4.644
I have a lot in common with other people using [brand] 0.797 14.204 4.574
Brand experience (a = 0.915) 0.946 (0.854)
Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2012)
I have had a lot of memorable experiences with [brand] 0.904 28.924 5.277
Thinking of [brand] brings memorable experiences to mind 0.942 47.071 4.688
I have fond memories of experiences with [brand] 0.927 34.016 4.711
Brand love (a = 0.867) 0.909 (0.715)
Carroll and Ahuvia (2006), Bergkvist and Bech-Larsen(2010)
I would miss [brand] if it was no longer available 0.795 19.161 5.665
I am very attached to [brand] 0.853 36.554 5.306
[Brand] is totally awesome 0.854 17.484 6.082
I love [brand]! 0.879 26.967 6.020
Affective SMBE (a = 0.897) 0.936 (0.829)
Dessart (2017)
I feel enthusiastic while interacting with [brand] and its community 0.918 23.389 4.026
I get pleasure from interacting with [brand] and its community 0.919 25.062 4.341
When I interact with [brand] and its community, I feel happy 0.894 16.198 3.650
Cognitive SMBE (a = 0.852) 0.911 (0.773)
Dessart (2017)
When I interact with [brand] and its community, I get carried away 0.909 18.282 3.554
Time flies when I am interacting with [brand] and its community 0.914 16.285 3.545
When I interact with [brand] and its community I forget everything else 0.812 10.595 2.405
Behavioral SMBE (a = 0.760) 0.813 (0.592)
Dessart (2017)
I share/comment/like content about [brand] and its community 0.783 11.277 4.172
I seek ideas or information about [brand] from its community 0.818 12.551 4.924
I ask questions and seek help from [brand] and its community 0.703 6.601 2.746
Brand Loyalty (a = 0.882) 0.908 (0.586)
Yoo and Donthu, (2001), Ramaseshan and Stein (2014)
I am dedicated to [brand] 0.763 28.536 4.210
I would be willing to pay a higher price for [brand] over other brands 0.761 19.863 4.341
I would recommend [brand] to friends and family 0.745 17.008 6.070
I say positive things about [brand] to other people 0.727 11.977 5.991
I prefer to buy [brand] even if another brand has the same features 0.839 18.675 4.930
I will not buy other brands if [brand] is available at the store 0.717 12.338 4.120
[Brand] would be my first choice in its category 0.796 13.801 5.472

discriminant validity (Table 3). After establishing the strength (Harman, 1976), which demonstrated that none of the factors
and psychometric properties of the scales underpinning the accounted for most of the covariance among items.
model, the degree of multicollinearity among the model Structural model. The structural model (Figure 1) was
variables was examined through the variance inflation factor estimated through a bootstrap resampling tool to determine
(VIF). Values vary from 1.263 to 4.218, which is below the path significances. The results indicate, which paths are
common cut-off threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2014) and thereby statistically significant, with the structural model explaining
suggest that the factors are not highly correlated to one another. 54.5% of the variance in brand love, 56.9% of CBI, 64.8% of
To reduce potential common method bias (CMB), the brand loyalty and 18.5% of affective, 11.1% cognitive and
survey used existing scales, counterbalanced the order of the 17.3% behavioural SMBE. Findings provide support for H4,
measurement variables and ensured the respondents’ H5 and H6, with a significant direct positive effect of CBI ( b =
anonymity (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In addition, CMB was 0.197) and brand experience ( b = 0.578) on brand love; as well
examined by performing the Harman’s single-factor test as between brand experience and CBI ( b = 0.754). Support

326
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 3 Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations of control variables and model constructs
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
a
1.Gender
2.Age 0.027

3.Usage freqb 0.101
0.121
4.Employmentc 0.010
0.474 0.050

5.Educationd 0.087
0.362 0.013
0.073

6.Social platforme 0.013
0.093
0.019
0.054
0.062

7.CBI 0.231 0.015
0.010
0.053
0.037
0.048
0.856
8.Brand Exp 0.168 0.042
0.012
0.110
0.020
0.041
0.753 0.924
9.Brand love 0.083
0.093
0.041
0.028
0.010
0.047
0.633 0.727 0.816
10.Affective SME 0.209 0.020
0.037
0.073
0.030
0.055
0.537 0.627 0.430 0.911
11.Cognitive SME 0.223 0.035
0.015
0.040
0.077
0.076
0.458 0.511 0.333 0.828 0.879
12.Behavior SME 0.129 0.030
0.003
0.041
0.052
0.077
0.501 0.519 0.416 0.755 0.681 0.770
13.Brand loyalty 0.157 0.027
0.005
0.045
0.009
0.069
0.641 0.692 0.758 0.516 0.419 0.499 0.765
Notes: The square roots of AVE of each factor are in boldface on the diagonal; the remaining figures represent correlations. 1 = female, 2 = male; 1 = 1 h a b

or less, 2 = 1 to 3 h, 3 = more than 3 h; c1 = student, 2 = non-student; d1 = undergraduate, 2 = graduate, 3 = postgraduate; e1 = Facebook, 2 = Instagram,


3 = Other Non-significant correlations (p > 0.05)

Figure 1 PLS results for the full structural model [dotted lines indicate non-significant path coefficients (p > 0.05)]
 = 0.142 (p = 0.012)

 = 0.518 (p = 0.000)
R2 = 0.569 R2 = 0.185

Consumer Affective  = 0.071

Brand  = 0.197 R2 = 0.545  = 0.430 SMBE (p = 0.293)
R2 = 0.648
Identification (p = 0.000) (p = 0.000)
R2 = 0.111
 = 0.754 Brand  = 0.333 Cognitive  = 0.012 Brand
(p = 0.000) Love Loyalty
(p = 0.000) SMBE (p = 0.827)

Brand  = 0.578 R2 = 0.173

(p = 0.000)  = 0.416
Experience (p = 0.000)  = 0.015
Behavioral
(p = 0.521)
SMBE

 = 0.0115 (p = 0.093)

was also found for H2 and H3, with a significant, positive becomes non-significant when controlling for brand love ( b =
relationship between brand love and affective ( b = 0.430), 0.115; p = 0.093), indicating full mediation (H10).
cognitive ( b = 0.333) and behavioural ( b = 0.416) SMBE, as While controlling for potentially relevant consumer variables,
well as between brand love and brand loyalty ( b = 0.518). only gender was found to be significantly related to model
However, the effect of all three dimensions of SMBE on brand constructs (Table 3). To test for gender effects, the sample was
loyalty was found non-significant (affective ( b = 0.071), split into two groups: male (Group 1; n = 70) and female (Group
cognitive ( b = 0.012), behavioural ( b = 0.015; p > 0.05) and 2; n = 273). Although the sub-samples have different dimensions,
so H1 was not supported. respondents’ profiles were similar in both data sets, as required
Regarding the direct effects of CBI and brand experience on for comparability of male (mean age: 22.1; undergraduates:
brand loyalty (H7, H9) and their potential indirect effects 51.1%; students: 71.4%; 56% spend 1 to 3 h per day on social
through brand love (H8, H10), a mediation analysis was media) and female (mean age: 21.9; undergraduates: 48.2%;
conducted by applying a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher students: 70.4%; 53% spend 1 to 3 h per day on social media)
and Hayes, 2008) based on 5,000 samples. Regarding total groups. Separate models were estimated for each group and a
effects (i.e. without controlling for mediating effects), results non-parametric PLS multi-group analysis was run to compare
provide support for H7 and H9, with a significant, positive differences in path coefficients, an approach considered robust
relationship of brand loyalty with CBI ( b = 0.256) and brand even when it comes to unequal group sizes (Sarstedt et al., 2011).
experience ( b = 0.648). Results further suggest that brand love Bootstrap estimates were used to assess the robustness of group-
only partially mediates the CBI to loyalty path (indirect effect = specific parameter estimates. Path models were consistent across
0.114; p = 0.000): the direct effect is lower, but still significant gender, except for brand love effects on affective, cognitive and
( b = 0.142; p = 0.012) when controlling for brand love (H8). behavioural SMBE (Table 4), which were significantly higher
Finally, the indirect effect of brand experience on loyalty is (p = 0.000) for Group 1 when compared to Group 2, revealing
significant ( b = 0.533; p = 0.000) while the direct effect gender’s moderating role.

327
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Table 4 Results of the PLS multi-group analysis

Group 1 Group 2
Paths b R2 b R2 Sig. Diff.
Brand love ! Affective SMBE 0.586 0.343 0.370 0.137 0.011

Brand love ! Cognitive SMBE 0.499 0.249 0.259 0.067 0.010

Brand love ! Behavioural SMBE 0.607 0.369 0.352 0.124 0.003

Note: The column “Sig. Diff” shows whether the correspondent path coefficients significantly differ between groups (
p < 0.05)

7. Discussion and contributions products. Moreover, a recent study found that technological,
experiential brands such as YouTube or Netflix are among the
This study aimed to understand how Millennials relate and
most beloved by Millennials (Business Insider, 2018). As
engage with their most loved, self-expressive brands in social
affective, shareable experiences in social media may be a
media and to understand if and how SMBE contributes to
significant part of the consumer experience with a brand, both
fostering brand loyalty among this challenging market segment.
realities (brand experience and social media) may be
Several key routes to Millennials loyalty were identified
intertwined. Finally, brand love appears in this study as
(RQ1). Firstly, the vital role of developing emotional
informing Millennials’ online and offline relationships, given its
relationships between Millennials and brands (Loureiro et al.,
direct influence on SMBE (H2) and its direct (H3) and indirect
2017), findings support previous assertions regarding the
role in fostering brand loyalty, leveraging CBI impacts (H8)
impact of brand love on brand loyalty (H3). Secondly, CBI was
and unfolding brand experience effects (H10).
identified as a direct and indirect antecedent of brand loyalty However, SMBE was not found as a significant predictor of
(H7, H8), preceding brand love (H4). Although the literature brand loyalty among Millennials (H1), and even if brand love
presents mixed results on this matter, the direct impact could did positively relate to SMBE (H2), its predictive capability was
be explained since self-expressive brands possess high levels of rather weak (RQ2). Additionally, the average level of
symbolic meaning (Alnawas and Altarifi, 2016). According to engagement in this study was very low, with the majority of
Lazarevic (2012), a brand can overcome Millennials disloyal SMBE items rating below four in a seven-point scale (Table 2).
nature if it delivers the values and has the identity of this These results suggest a disconnection between online and
generation; this can be particularly true for self-expressive offline brand relationships developed by Millennials: although
brands (Hwang and Kandampully, 2012; Lu and Xu, 2015). they love and are very loyal to their preferred brands, they are
Thirdly, this study further expands previous research while not very active or engaged online. Therefore, they are online
identifying brand experience as an indirect antecedent of brand “apathists” (Hollebeek, 2011) or “lurkers” (Chen et al., 2019),
loyalty among Millennials (H10), preceding brand love (H5) who consider their online connections as a mere routine or a
and CBI (H6). This finding follows Roy et al.’s (2013) assertion “recreational appendage” (Smith and Gallicano, 2015, p. 87)
that “brand experience contributes to generate romantic brand to their offline relationships. This might explain the non-
love by inducing brand-related arousal” (p. 328) and which was significant effect of SMBE on brand loyalty, since engagement
yet to be empirically tested. may have to overcome a certain threshold to unfold its effect
However, unlike CBI, brand experience had no direct impact (Fehrer et al., 2018). Additionally, since the effects of online
on brand loyalty. In the branding literature, the link between communities may “evolve over time as consumer engagement
experience and loyalty remains controversial, with most studies deepens and practices are integrated” (Schau et al., 2009, p.
failing to provide empirical evidence on whether a direct impact 37), it is possible that “the effects of practices in SMBBC may
exists (Brakus et al., 2009) or if it is mediated by relational not have evolved enough to significantly affect brand loyalty”
constructs (Khan et al., 2020). Experience itself may not be (Laroche et al., 2012, p. 1763). This implies that SMBE
capable of generating true customer loyalty unless it elicits a strategies may work only with a small fraction of actively
psychological, emotional connection (Ramaseshan and Stein, engaged users that promote a more complex and diverse set of
2014), which might help to explain this result. Moreover, brand practices.
experience also directly impacts CBI (H6), proving So et al.’s The reason for this apparently limited willingness of
(2013) assertion that consumers can develop identification Millennials to engage may be grounded in their own
with a brand through multiple encounters. Therefore, brands characteristics and social media habits, coupled with the
that focus on meaningful, emotional experiences may be unique features of SMBBC. As avid users of social media,
capable of generating brand loyalty (Ding and Tseng, 2015) Millennials may be the most likely “victims” of information
through its powerful effect on brand love and CBI. In fact, overload. As such, they may become “overwhelmed with too
brand experience was found as the most significant antecedent many sites, too many pieces of content, too many friends and
of brand loyalty (H9) with a total effect of 0.648, surpassing contacts, and too much time spent keeping up with these
brand love (with a total effect of 0.588) and CBI (with a total connections” (Logan et al., 2018, p. 358). Similarly, since most
effect of 0.256). Millennials are known to spend more money brands use SMBBC to massively broadcast brand-related
on experiences than in materialistic items (Bilgihan, 2016) and content (Zaglia, 2013), followers and their friends become
to respond positively to hedonic consumption (Chuah et al., overwhelmed with excessive unsolicited information round-
2017). For example, a study by Forrester (2018) found that the-clock. As a result, social media users may pay less attention
almost half of Millennials (47%) value experiences more than to brand messages and become more selective about their

328
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

media exposure, which affects their decision to disengage (or Secondly, the study contributes to consumer-brand
reduce engagement) with SMBBC. Prior studies concluded relationship theory, given that no consensus exists about what
that consumers who show higher levels of social media fatigue brand relationships are more effective at generating brand
are young, early social media adopters (Logan et al., 2018), loyalty nor on their shared nomological network (Khamitov
such as Millennials. et al., 2019). Adopting a generational focus, this study identifies
Moreover, there is a general agreement that Millennials are key routes to Millennials’ loyalty and provides a holistic
social media savvy and highly brand conscious. As such, understanding of the online and offline relationships that
Millennials see through many promotional tactics (Rodrigues Millennials develop with the brands they love. Findings not
and Rodrigues, 2019), trust people over brands (Soares et al., only corroborate previous research regarding the significance of
2017) and may not expect organizations to interact with them strong emotional consumer-brand connections to brand loyalty
directly because these are perceived as either too big to care or but also extend prior studies by considering causal relations
as too small to respond (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). As that were yet to be empirically tested. Specifically, brand love,
such, Millennials do not hope to develop brand relationships which has been rather absent from previous studies on SMBE
through their engagement activities online (Smith and (Table 1) appears in this study as informing both online and
Gallicano, 2015) and only the “Fear of Missing Out” (FoMO) offline routes to Millennials loyalty. The study validates its
may still explain their heavy social media usage (Logan et al., mediating role in the relationship of loyalty with CBI and brand
2018). experience. This is also one of the few studies to simultaneously
Finally, gender effects were also assessed, revealing that the examine the compound effect of CBI and brand experience on
impact of brand love on SMBE was significantly higher for brand love and to validate its significant impact on SMBE.
male vs female respondents (Table 4). This was a Results also empirically support the role of brand experience as
counterintuitive result given that research ascertains that the most important (indirect) driver of Millennials loyalty.
women process information in a more emotional way, while Brand experience was found to directly impact CBI and brand
men are more analytical (Islam et al., 2018). One possible love, revealing an incremental contribution to prior limited and
explanation for this finding is that male fans develop SMBE mostly conceptual research. Finally, and more interestingly,
mainly because they are genuinely interested in the brands they this study challenges previous assertions regarding the role of
love. Conversely, women may develop SMBE with their SMBE in fostering brand loyalty, a novel and surprising finding
within the literature.
favourite brands for a variety of self-related needs (e.g.
Managerial implications. This study provides insights for
socialization, special offers), which may be stronger drivers
brand managers who wish to successfully use social media to
than their admiration/love for the brand itself. Results offer
stimulate engagement and build relationships with
preliminary support to gender effects and corroborate a similar
Millennials. Businesses are increasingly exploring social
pattern recently found regarding the impact of involvement on
media to engage consumers, but little is known on whether
SMBE (Wang and Lee, 2020). Yet, given the exploratory
those investments pay-off. This study questions their
nature of the analysis, this finding may need further validation
effectiveness and suggests brands should develop new
with a more representative, gender-balanced sample.
approaches to capture Millennials attention, to assess their
loyalty and to measure the success of their brand
7.1 Theoretical and managerial contributions relationships. Regarding attention, the study contends that
Theoretical contributions. This study contributes to two main social media investments may not be worthwhile if
research fields. Firstly, it extends previous literature on social Millennials are overloaded with unsolicited brand content,
media marketing and OBC, which has overlooked disengaged which they are not able to process or give attention to.
consumers and has traditionally regarded community members Accordingly, the study portrays this cohort as online
as actively engaged. This study contends that this may not hold disengaged users, which likely explains why SMBE is a non-
in SMBBC, a weaker form of brand community (Zaglia, 2013), significant driver of Millennials’ loyalty. Organizations
where members are more heterogeneous and may develop should, thus, be aware that simply maintaining a brand page
different levels of SMBE (Dessart et al., 2019). Regarding is no longer effective and should further innovate and develop
Millennials, the study concludes that this cohort exhibits emotional interactions to enhance Millennials’ curiosity,
limited willingness to engage with their loved brands in interest and connection. Yet, many brands still approach
SMBBC. Hence, this study contributes to previous research, social media as a collection of tactics (Schultz and Peltier,
which was inconclusive about the active vs passive nature of 2013), such as “developing a Facebook presence, doing a few
Millennials’ fans. Still, Millennials love and are very loyal to promotions, tweeting a few links and posting videos” (Logan
their preferred brands, suggesting a previously unexplored et al., 2018, p. 364). Although the intention is to boost their
inconsistency between their online and offline brand business, these practices may fail to capture Millennials’
relationships. Additionally, these findings seem to support attention, who often perceive organizations as “cold and
previous assertions regarding increasing social media fatigue distant” (Rissanen and Luoma-Aho, 2016). As suggested by
among SMBBC members, particularly when it comes to tech- Munnukka et al. (2015), brands should instead design
savvy, brand-conscious and overwhelmed Millennial users. SMBBC to effectively influence the members’ emotions
Consumers’ inattention, especially among Millennials, was towards the brand and to encourage them to interact with the
identified as a 2018-2020 research priority (Marketing Science brand and with one another.
Institute, 2018) and as far as is known this is one of the first When it comes to assessing Millennials’ loyalty and brand
studies to address the topic. relationships, the study found that, although this cohort may

329
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

not be very active online, they love and are very loyal to their heterogeneity within Millennials’ SMBE could be further
preferred brands. Therefore, merely counting the number of explored in future studies.
“likes” may not be enough to identify loyal consumers and may
even be misleading. Brands are, thus, advised to triangulate
social media metrics with other brand metrics and to follow the References
key routes for Millennials’ loyalty presented in this study. For Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. and Gruen, T. (2005),
instance, given that experience plays a major role in developing “Antecedents and consequences of customer-company
loyalty, managers should use brand stimuli at their disposal to identification: expanding the role of relationship
create pleasant experiences to Millennials while interacting marketing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
with their favourite brands, both online and offline. pp. 574-585.
Additionally, given the significance of CBI, it may also be Ahuvia, A. (2005), “Beyond the extended self: loved objects
valuable for brand managers to get an in-depth understanding and consumers’ identity narratives”, Journal of Consumer
of the values their followers identify with to ensure relevant and Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 171-184.
targeted content for their audiences. Finally, although the Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013), “The role of brand love in
analysis developed was exploratory, brands may need to consumer-brand relationships”, Journal of Consumer
consider gender differences while developing their relationship Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 258-266.
and engagement strategies. Alnawas, I. and Altarifi, S. (2016), “Exploring the role of brand
identification and brand love in generating higher levels of
7.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research brand loyalty”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2,
A convenience sample of brand lovers was used, including pp. 111-128.
mainly young women. Although this target represents most Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation
social media users, generalizations should be taken with modeling in practice – a review and recommended Two-Step
caution, namely, regarding gender effects. Given the approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
exploratory nature and theoretical contribution of this study, it pp. 411-423.
is recommended that future research should address validity Andreini, D., Pedeliento, G., Zarantonello, L. and Soleruio, C.
concerns. Moreover, respondents self-selected loved brands (2018), “A renaissance of brand experience: advancing the
they considered self-expressive; although this enhances external concept through a multi-perspective analysis”, Journal of
validity, it also implies having no control over selected brands Business Research, Vol. 91, pp. 123-133.
or any guarantee that respondents accurately chose brands that Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural
reflect their self-concept. This criteria selection may also equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
encompass some favourability bias, which can lead to over- Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R. (2012), “Brand love”,
estimated measures of model constructs. Additionally, while
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
there is support in the literature for the directionality of the
Bento, M., Martinez, L. and Martinez, L. (2018), “Brand
relationships hypothesized in this study, previous research has
engagement and search for brands on social media:
identified reversed causal effects. For example, brand
comparing generations X and Y in Portugal”, Journal of
experience (Islam et al., 2019) and brand love (Loureiro et al.,
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 43, pp. 234-241.
2017) have been considered as outcomes (and not drivers) of
Bergkvist, L. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2010), “Two studies of
CBE. Given the iterative nature of the engagement process, this
consequences and actionable antecedents of brand love”,
may be explained by a “feedback loop” effect (Brodie et al.,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 504-518.
2011, p. 259) whereas relational antecedents can also be Bhattacharya, C. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company
relational consequences in subsequent customer-brand identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
interactions. Hence, a longitudinal study, capturing the relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
dynamics and interrelations among variables over time, could No. 2, pp. 76-88.
be a promising avenue for future research. A longitudinal study Bilgihan, A. (2016), “Gen Y customer loyalty in online
could also be useful to understand how much of Millennials’ shopping: an integrated model of trust, user experience and
behaviours reflect generational traits or age effects, i.e. if branding”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61,
changes occur as they grow older. Furthermore, although this pp. 103-113.
study focussed on the role of emotional connections in Bolton, R., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N.,
leveraging SMBE and loyalty, other drivers (e.g. special offers), Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y. and Solnet, D.
should also be examined, as well as motives for disengagement (2013), “Understanding generation Y and their use of social
(e.g. social media fatigue). Moreover, respondents selected media: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Service
mostly product brands they followed on Facebook or Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 245-267.
Instagram, with only a few choosing other platforms and/or Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. and Zarontello, L. (2009), “Brand
service, company or human brands. Other studies may focus experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect
other social media platforms such as YouTube and compare loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
different brand categories. Finally, Millennials may not be a Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011),
single homogeneous cohort, as distinct subgroups vary in terms “Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
of age and life cycle stage and may, therefore, differ in their propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of
social media use as well (Bolton et al., 2013); thus, intra-cohort Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.

330
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Business Insider (2018), “These are the 25 brands that of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3,
millennials love the most”, available at:www.businessinsider. pp. 351-391.
com/millennials-favorite-brands-2018-7 Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), “Structural equation
Carroll, B. and Ahuvia, A. (2006), “Some antecedents and models with unobservable variables and measurement
outcomes of brand love”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 79-89. pp. 382-388.
Carvalho, A. and Fernandes, T. (2018), “Understanding Forrester (2015), “How does your brand stack up on
customer brand engagement with virtual social communities: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram?”, available at: https://go.
a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and forrester.com/blogs/15-09-15-how_does_your_brand_stack_
moderators”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, up_on_facebook_twitter_and_instagram/
Vol. 26 No. 1-2, pp. 23-37. Forrester (2018), “Millennials drive the sharing economy”,
Chen, X., Li, X., Yao, D. and Zhou, Z. (2019), “Seeking the available at: www.forrester.com/report/Millennials1Drive1
support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to The1Sharing1Economy/
UGC platforms?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing
Science, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 986-1004. relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of
Chuah, S., Marimuthu, M., Kandampully, J. and Bilgihan, A. Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
(2017), “What drives gen Y loyalty? Understanding the Francisco-Maffezzolli, E., Semprebon, E. and Prado, P.
mediated moderating roles of switching costs and alternative (2014), “Construing loyalty through brand experience: the
attractiveness in the value-satisfaction-loyalty chain”, Journal mediating role of brand relationship quality”, Journal of
of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 124-136. Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 446-458.
Coelho, A., Bairrada, C. and Peres, F. (2019), “Brand GlobalWebIndex (2018), “Millennials report 2018: online
communities’ relational outcomes, through brand love”, behaviors, attitudes & interests”, available at: www.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, globalwebindex.com/reports/millennials
pp. 154-165. Habibi, M., Laroche, M. and Richard, M. (2014), “The roles
Delgado-Ballester, E. and Sabiote, E. (2015), “Brand of brand community and community engagement in
experiential value versus brand functional value: which building brand trust on social media”, Computers in Human
matters more for the brand?”, European Journal of Marketing, Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 152-161.
Vol. 49 Nos 11/12, pp. 1857-1879. Hair, J. Hull, J. Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on
Dessart, L. (2017), “Social media engagement: a model of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling(PLS-
antecedents and relational outcomes”, Journal of Marketing SEM), SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Management, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 375-399. Harman, H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of
Dessart, L., Aldás-Moreno, J. and Veloutsou, C. (2019), Chicago Press, Chicago.
“Unveiling heterogeneous engagement-based loyalty in Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2018),
brand communities”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 “Customer engagement and the relationship between
No. 9, pp. 1854-1881. involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), usage intent”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88,
“Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a pp. 388-396.
social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Hayes, M., van Stolk-Cooke, K. and Muench, F. (2015),
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 28-42. “Understanding Facebook use and the psychological affects
Ding, C. and Tseng, T. (2015), “On the relationships among of use across generations”, Computers in Human Behavior,
brand experience, hedonic emotions, and brand equity”, Vol. 49, pp. 507-511.
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 7/8, Helal, G., Ozuem, W. and Lancaster, G. (2018), “Social media
pp. 994-1015. brand perceptions of millennials”, International Journal of
Doster, L. (2013), “Millennial teens design and redesign Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 10,
themselves in online social networks”, Journal of Consumer pp. 977-998.
Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 267-279. Hepola, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Hintikka, A. (2017), “The effect
Duffet, R. (2015), “Facebook advertising¨s influence on of sensory brand experience and involvement on brand
intention-to-purchase and purchase amongst millennials”, equity directly and indirectly through consumer brand
Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 498-526. engagement”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Fehrer, J., Woratschek, H., Germelmann, C. and Brodie, R. Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-293.
(2018), “Dynamics and drivers of customer engagement: Hollebeek, L. (2011), “Demystifying customer brand
within the dyad and beyond”, Journal of Service Management, engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 443-467. Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 7-8, pp. 785-807.
Fetscherin, M., Guzmán, F., Veloutsou, C. and Cayolla, R. Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer
(2019), “Latest research on brand relationships: brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale
introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Product & Brand development and validation”, Journal of Interactive
Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 133-139. Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Florenthal, B. (2019), “Young consumers’ motivational drivers Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Tang, W. (2017), “Virtual brand
of brand engagement behavior on social media sites”, Journal community engagement practices: a refined typology and

331
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3, Khan, I., Hollebeek, L., Fatma, M., Islam, J. and Rahman, Z.
pp. 204-217. (2020), “Brand engagement and experience in online
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD logic – services”, Journal of Services Marketing, doi: 10.1108/JSM-
informed customer engagement: integrative framework 03-2019-0106.
revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Kuenzel, S. and Halliday, S. (2008), “Investigating
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, antecedents and consequences of brand identification”,
pp. 161-185. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
Hollenbeck, C. and Kaikati, A. (2012), “Consumers’ use of pp. 293-304.
brands to reflect their actual and ideal selves on Facebook”, Laroche, M., Habibi, M., Richard, M. and Sankaranarayanan,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, R. (2012), “The effects of social media based brand
pp. 395-405. communities on brand community markers, value creation
Hook, M., Baxter, S. and Kulczynski, A. (2018), “Antecedents practices, brand trust and brand loyalty”, Computers in
and consequences of participation in brand communities: a Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1755-1767.
literature review”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 25 Lazarevic, V. (2012), “Encouraging brand loyalty in fickle
No. 4, pp. 277-292. generation Y consumers”, Young Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 1,
Huber, F., Meyer, F. and Schmid, D. (2015), “Brand love in pp. 45-61.
progress–the interdependence of brand love antecedents in Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. and Johnson, L. (2016),
consideration of relationship duration”, Journal of Product & “Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand
Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 567-579. loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6,
Hwang, J. and Kandampully, J. (2012), “The role of emotional pp. 558-578.
aspects in younger consumer-Brand relationships”, Journal Lim, J., Pham, P. and Heinrichs, J. (2020), “Impact of social
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 98-108. media activity outcomes on brand equity”, Journal of Product
Iglesias, O., Singh, J. and Batista-Foguet, J. (2011), “The role & Brand Management, doi:10.1108/JPBM-03-2019-2298.
of brand experience and affective commitment in Lissitsa, S. and Kol, O. (2016), “Generation X vs generation Y
determining brand loyalty”, Journal of Brand Management, - a decade of online shopping”, Journal of Retailing and
Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 570-582. Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 304-312.
Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2016), “Examining the effects of Logan, K., Bright, L. and Grau, S. (2018), “Unfriend me,
brand love and brand image on customer engagement: an please!: social media fatigue and the theory of rational
empirical study of fashion apparel brands”, Journal of Global choice”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 26
Fashion Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-59. No. 4, pp. 357-367.
Islam, J., Rahman, Z. and Hollebeek, L. (2018), “Consumer Loureiro, S., Gorgus, T. and Kaufmann, H. (2017),
engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of “Antecedents and outcomes of online brand engagement:
congruity theory”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, the role of brand love on enhancing electronic-word-of-
pp. 23-45. mouth”, Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 7,
Islam, J., Hollebeek, L., Rahman, Z., Khan, I. and Rasool, A. pp. 985-1005.
(2019), “Customer engagement in the service context: an Lu, J. and Xu, Y. (2015), “Chinese young consumers’ brand
empirical investigation of the construct, its antecedents and loyalty toward sportswear products: a perspective of self-
consequences”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, congruity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24
Vol. 50, pp. 277-285. No. 4, pp. 365-376.
Junaid, M., Hou, F., Hussain, K. and Kirmani, A. (2019), Marketing Science Institute (2018), Research Priorities 2018-
“Brand love: the emotional bridge between experience and 2020, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
engagement, generation-M perspective”, Journal of Product Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. and Collinger, T. (2016), “The
& Brand Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 200-215. customer engagement ecosystem”, Journal of Marketing
Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bilgihan, A. (2015), Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 469-501.
“Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a Munnukka, J., Karjaluoto, H. and Tikkanen, A. (2015), “Are
special focus on the hospitality industry”, International Facebook brand community members truly loyal to the
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 Brand?”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51,
No. 3, pp. 379-414. pp. 429-439.
Karjaluoto, H., Munnukka, J. and Kiuru, K. (2016), “Brand Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
love and positive word of mouth: the moderating effects of New York, NY.
experience and price”, Journal of Product & Brand O’Cass, A. and Frost, H. (2002), “Status brands: examining
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 527-537. the effects of non-product-related brand associations on
Khamitov, M., Wang, X. and Thomson, M. (2019), “How status and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of Product &
well do consumer-brand relationships drive customer brand Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 67-88.
loyalty? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand Parment, A. (2013), “Generation Y vs. Baby boomers:
relationship elasticities”, Journal of Consumer Research, shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for
Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 435-459. retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20
Khan, I. and Fatma, M. (2017), “Antecedents and outcomes of No. 2, pp. 189-199.
brand experience: an empirical study”, Journal of Brand Pasternak, O., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2017),
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 439-452. “Self-presentation, privacy and electronic word-of-mouth in

332
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

social media”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Schultz, D. and Peltier, J. (2013), “Social media’s slippery
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 415-428. slope: challenges, opportunities and future research
Pempek, T., Yermolayeva, Y. and Calvert, S. (2009), “College directions”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
students’ social networking experiences on Facebook”, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 86-99.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, Simon, C., Brexendorf, T. and Fassnacht, M. (2016), “The
pp. 227-238. impact of external social and internal personal forces on
Petrescu, M., Dobre, C. and Milovan-Ciuta, A. (2018), consumers’ brand community engagement on Facebook”,
“Social bonds and millennial consumers’ activity in social Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
networks”, International Journal of Internet Marketing and pp. 409-423.
Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 290-304. Smith, B. and Gallicano, T. (2015), “Terms of engagement:
Pew Research Center (2018), “Social media use in 2018”, analyzing public engagement with organizations through
available at: www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media- social media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53,
use-in-2018/ pp. 82-90.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. and Podsakoff, N. (2012), Soares, R., Zhang, T., Proença, J. and Kandampully, J. (2017),
“Sources of method bias in social science research and “Why are generation Y consumers the most likely to
recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of complain and repurchase?”, Journal of Service Management,
Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569. Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 520-540.
Preacher, K. and Hayes, A. (2008), “Asymptotic and So, K., King, C., Hudson, S. and Meng, F. (2017), “The
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect missing link in building customer brand identification: the
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research role of brand attractiveness”, Tourism Management, Vol. 59,
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891. pp. 640-651.
Prentice, C., Wang, X. and Loureiro, S. (2019), “The So, K., King, C., Sparks, B. and Wang, Y. (2013), “The
influence of brand experience and service quality on influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand
customer engagement”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer evaluation and loyalty development”, International Journal of
Services, Vol. 50, pp. 50-59. Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 31-41.
Ramaseshan, B. and Stein, A. (2014), “Connecting the dots Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S. and Sen, S. (2012),
between brand experience and brand loyalty: the mediating “Drivers of consumer-Brand identification”, International
role of brand personality and brand relationships”, Journal of Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 406-418.
Brand Management, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8, pp. 664-683. Tuškej, U., Golob, U. and Podnar, K. (2013), “The role of
Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D. (2012), “A critical look consumer–Brand identification in building brand
at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, relationships”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14. pp. 53-59.
Rissanen, H. and Luoma-Aho, V. (2016), “(Un)willing to Veloutsou, C. and Ruiz Mafe, C. (2020), “Brands as
engage? First look at the engagement types of millennials”, relationship builders in the virtual world: a bibliometric
corporate communications”, Corporate Communications: An analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 500-515. Vol. 39, p. 100901.
Rodrigues, C. and Rodrigues, P. (2019), “Brand love matters Vernuccio, M., Pagani, M., Barbarossa, C. and Pastore, A.
to millennials: the relevance of mystery, sensuality and (2015), “Antecedents of brand love in online network-based
intimacy to neo-luxury brands”, Journal of Product & Brand communities. A social identity perspective”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 830-848. Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 706-719.
Roy, S., Eshghi, A. and Sarkar, A. (2013), “Antecedents and Wallace, E., Buil, I. and deChernatony, L. (2014), “Consumer
consequences of brand love”, Journal of Brand Management, engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 325-332. WOM outcomes”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Royo-Vela, M. and Casamassima, P. (2011), “The influence of Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
belonging to virtual brand communities on consumers’ Wallace, E., Buil, I. and deChernatony, L. (2017),
affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth “Consumers’ self-congruence with a “liked” Brand:
advertising: the ZARA case”, Online Information Review, cognitive network influence and brand outcomes”, European
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 517-542. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 367-390.
Ruane, L. and Wallace, E. (2015), “Brand tribalism and self- Wang, T. and Lee, F. (2020), “Examining customer
expressive brands: social influences and brand outcomes”, engagement and brand intimacy in social media context”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 54,
pp. 333-348. p. 102035.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J. and Ringle, C. (2011), “Multi- Williams, K. and Page, R. (2011), “Marketing to the
Group analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: generations”, Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol. 3
Alternative methods and empirical results”, Advances in No. 1, pp. 37-53.
International Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 19-21. Yazdanparast, A., Joseph, M. and Qureshi, A. (2015), “An
Schau, H., Muniz, A. and Arnould, E. (2009), “How brand investigation of Facebook boredom phenomenon among
community practices create value”, Journal of Marketing, college students”, Young Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 4,
Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51. pp. 468-480.

333
 From fandom to fad Journal of Product & Brand Management
Teresa Fernandes and Inês Inverneiro Volume 30 · Number 2 · 2021 · 320–334

Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a the area of Services and Digital Marketing. Her main research
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”, focus is on consumer relationships, customer engagement, brand
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14. experience and social media marketing. Her research has been
Zaglia, M. (2013), “Brand communities embedded in social published in the Journal of Product & Brand Management, Journal
networks”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, of Services Marketing, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
pp. 216-223. Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, etc. Teresa Fernandes is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: tfernandes@fep.up.pt
About the authors Inês Inverneiro holds a Master in Services Management
Teresa Fernandes (BS, MBA and PhD from University of from the Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Portugal.
Porto) is an Assistant Professor at the School of Economics She has professional experience in the areas of marketing and
and Management, University of Porto, where she is the social media and currently works in an important group of
director of the MSc in Services Management and lectures in Casinos and Hotels in Portugal.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

334