Digital Content Marketing's Role in Fostering Consumer Engagement, Trust, and Value: Framework, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications

Abstract

In a landscape of growing online consumer/firm interactions digital content marketing (DCM), which aims to foster consumers’ brand engagement and trust, is on the rise. However, despite significant practitioner interest academic DCM research is lagging, resulting in an important knowledge gap. Based on an extensive review we conceptualize DCM as the creation and dissemination of relevant, valuable brand-related content to current or prospective customers on digital platforms to develop their favorable brand engagement, trust, and relationships (vs. directly persuading consumers to purchase). We also develop a conceptual framework that identifies important consumer-based DCM antecedents, including uses-and-gratifications (U&G)-informed functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based motives for DCM interactions. DCM’s first-tier, intra-interaction consequences include consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement that foster brand-related sense-making, identification, and citizenship behaviors, respectively. These in turn trigger DCM’s second-tier, extra-interaction consequences of brand trust and attitude, which successively contribute to the development of DCM’s third-tier, value-based consequences of consumer and firm-based brand equity. We summarize our findings in a set of Fundamental Propositions (FPs) of DCM and conclude by deriving key implications from our analyses.

Full text

1
Digital Content Marketing’s Role in Fostering Consumer Engagement, Trust, and
Value: Framework, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications
Abstract
In a landscape of growing online consumer/firm interactions digital content marketing
(DCM), which aims to foster consumers’ brand engagement and trust, is on the rise.
However, despite significant practitioner interest academic DCM research is lagging,
resulting in an important knowledge gap. Based on an extensive review we conceptualize
DCM as the creation and dissemination of relevant, valuable brand-related content to current
or prospective customers on digital platforms to develop their favorable brand engagement,
trust, and relationships (vs. directly persuading consumers to purchase). We also develop a
conceptual framework that identifies important consumer-based DCM antecedents, including
uses-and-gratifications (U&G)-informed functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based motives
for DCM interactions. DCM’s first-tier, intra-interaction consequences include consumers’
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement that foster brand-related sense-making,
identification, and citizenship behaviors, respectively. These in turn trigger DCM’s second-
tier, extra-interaction consequences of brand trust and attitude, which successively contribute
to the development of DCM’s third-tier, value-based consequences of consumer and firm-
based brand equity. We summarize our findings in a set of Fundamental Propositions (FPs) of
DCM and conclude by deriving key implications from our analyses.
Keywords: Digital content marketing, engagement, trust, brand equity, conceptual
framework.

2
Introduction
With companies like Rolex, Nike, Coca-Cola, New York Times, and Random House
successfully implementing digital content marketing (DCM) initiatives, DCM represents an
important and growing vehicle for fostering consumer awareness (Carranza 2017),
engagement (Ashley and Tuten 2015; Raso 2016), sales lead conversion (Kakkar 2017), trust
(Duhon 2015), and loyalty (Wang et al. 2017; Roggio 2017). Correspondingly, global DCM
revenue, which has risen from $87.2b in 2009 to $144.8b in 2014, is forecast to grow further
to $313.4b by 2019 (Statista 2017).
DCM, which has been defined as “the management process responsible for
identifying, anticipating, and satisfying customer requirements profitably” through relevant
digital content (Rowley 2008, p. 522), is thus heralded as an important relationship marketing
tool. That is, it has been viewed to aid the development of consumer connections and
attachment to brands, thereby contributing to firm performance (Kakkar 2017; Carranza
2017). With “70% of consumers [indicating they] want to learn about products through [e.g.
blog-based] content, as opposed to traditional advertising” (MGDA 2014), DCM’s growing
importance is evident (Carmody 2017; Hollebeek and Brodie 2016).
Contrary to advertising that is designed to persuade consumers to purchase focal
offerings, DCM focuses on increasing (potential) customers’ appreciation of the brand or
firm by adding value to their lives, such as by educating them about the brand (e.g. via e-
newsletters, ebooks, quizzes, blogs, or podcasts; Järvinen and Taiminen 2016). That is, while
advertising aims to foster sales in the short run, DCM is “the art of communicating with
[prospective] customers without selling products” either overtly or directly (Bicks 2016).
Thus, while DCM (like advertising) intends to boost consumer brand perceptions and
ultimately sales, it (unlike advertising) does so by developing consumer engagement, trust,
and relationships, which are intended to cultivate sales indirectly and in the long run. DCM is
therefore based on the social exchange theoretical premise that the firm’s delivery of

3
valuable, consistent content to (prospective) buyers will see these rewarding the firm in
exchange with their future loyalty (Blau 1964). Bicks’ (2016) definition above also suggests
that not only firms, but also consumers may execute DCM, including by offering user-
generated content (e.g. via electronic brand-related word-of-mouth), thereby exhibiting
alignment with the trend of increasingly proactive, empowered consumers (Baumöl et al.
2016). Daugherty et al. (2008, p. 16) define user-generated content as “media content created
or produced by the general public, rather than paid professionals and primarily distributed on
the Internet.”
Firm-based DCM advantages include more engaged audiences at a reduced marketing
cost, which may consequently diminish the need for advertising or personal selling activity
(Pulizzi 2014; Duhon 2015). Correspondingly, anecdotal evidence suggests that content
marketing “costs 62% less than traditional marketing efforts, [while] generat[ing] three times
as many [sales] leads” (Bicks 2016). For consumers, DCM can improve access to that content
most relevant to their personal needs, including by offering opportunities for brand-related
learning, entertainment, or heightened convenience (e.g. through time savings), resulting in
greater value (Lieb 2011).
However, despite DCM’s growing importance, academic understanding in this area
lags behind to date (Holliman and Rowley 2014), generating an important knowledge gap
that we address in this paper. To investigate this gap, we conceptualize DCM and develop a
conceptual framework that outlines DCM and its association to its key consumer-based
antecedents and consequences, thereby reflecting MacInnis’ (2011, p. 138) delineating,
differentiating, and integrating roles of conceptual research. The framework in turn serves as
a theoretical foundation for the development of a set of Fundamental Propositions (FPs) of
DCM that offer useful insight for DCM practice and further research (Vargo and Lusch 2016;
Hollebeek et al. 2016; Brodie et al. 2011, 2016).

4
Our contributions are as follows. Given the scattered insight into DCM (Vollero and
Palazzo 2015), we begin by defining the concept based on an extensive review. Second and
relatedly, following MacInnis’ (2011, p. 141) position that “knowledge advancement occurs
not only by studying and developing [concepts] but also by conceptualizing their relationship
to other concepts, often in a nomological network,” we develop a framework of DCM and its
consumer-based antecedents and first, second, and third-tier consequences. While DCM’s
first-tier consequences occur within focal interactions, its second and third-tier consequences
develop over multiple interactions. That is, its second-tier consequences occur as a direct
result of consumers’ particular DCM interactions, followed by its third-tier outcomes that
center on consumer and firm-based value attained through DCM. Our analyses thus enhance
insight into DCM’s value-creating processes for consumers and firms, thereby advancing our
understanding in this growing area (Yadav 2010).
Third, based on our analyses we develop a set of FPs that synthesize the conceptual
associations shown in the framework. Unlike empirically testable research propositions, our
FPs outline DCM’s conceptual domain and relationships, following Hollebeek et al.’s (2016)
and Brodie et al.’s (2011, 2016) approach. Our FPs therefore reflect a higher level of
theoretical abstraction and are not designed for empirical testability per se (Vargo and Lusch
2016, 2017; Helson 1993). Given the limited insight into DCM, we expect our FPs to offer a
useful guide for stakeholders wishing to better understand DCM and its theoretical
associations. For scholars, the FPs offer a platform for further study in this nascent area. For
managers, they aid the development of understanding of DCM’s nature and consumer-based
drivers (motives) and outcomes that have important implications for customer experience and
relationship management (Vollero and Palazzo 2015; Homburg et al. 2017).
The paper’s remainder is structured as follows. We next review literature on DCM,
followed by the development of a theoretical framework of DCM and its consumer-based

5
antecedents and consequences. We proceed by deriving a set of FPs of DCM and conclude
with an overview of academic and managerial implications that emerge from this research.
Digital Content Marketing: A Review
Today’s consumers are becoming increasingly sceptical of advertising and other
traditional marketing communications, thereby paving the way for DCM’s development
(Matteo and Dal Zotto 2015; Denning 2016). That is, DCM is based on the premise of a
genuine, sincere desire to add value to the consumer’s life in some relevant way (e.g. by
educating them about a brand’s use), thereby facilitating customer acquisition or retention
(Taylor 2012).
Since the term was coined around 2001 (Wang et al. 2017), DCM has been deployed
across a range of sectors, including consumer durables (e.g. BMW; Wakefield 2012),
packaged goods (e.g. Thornton’s; Davis 2016), and services (e.g. Fitness First; Wright 2016),
to name a few. Designed to form, enhance, or maintain (prospective) customer relationships,
DCM can be used to foster brand awareness, engagement, and trust, convert or nurture sales
leads, offer (enhanced) customer service, or contribute to customer loyalty development
(Kakkar 2017; Holliman and Rowley 2014). While DCM has prime relevance to the
promotion element of the marketing mix, content may also be viewed as a product in its own
right (Steck 2016).
Despite its growing adoption, a level of debate surrounds DCM’s conceptualization.
To derive insight into this issue, we first address the concept’s component parts, content and
marketing. First, Halvorson and Rach (2012, p. 13) view content as “what the user came [to
the DCM platform for] to read, learn, see, or experience,” thereby “[propel]ing [the] brand
into the hearts and minds of prospects, customers, and others” (Wuebben 2012, p. 5), and
illustrating the importance of content’s relevance to its audience (Carranza 2017; CMI 2016).
In publishing content denotes a communication’s information, words, images, graphics, etc.

6
that tell the brand’s story in order to capture or maintain the target audience’s attention
(Holliman and Rowley 2014, p. 271). Thus, while DCM (like other marketing
communications) tells a particular product- or brand-related story, DCM does so with the
intent of building long-term consumer engagement, trust, and relationships (versus adopting
an overt selling approach; Gagnon 2014; Naidoo 2016).
Second, the AMA (2013) defines marketing as “the activity, set of institutions, and
processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value
for customers, clients, partners, and society at large,” thus highlighting the concept’s value-
creating focus that is also inherent in content (Taylor 2012). Therefore, combining the
notions of content and marketing, we observe content marketing’s core content relevance and
thus, value to its audience, which can come in differing forms (e.g. through consumer
education or entertainment; Calder et al. 2009, p. 322; Denning 2016), as discussed further in
the section titled Conceptual Framework.
Within broader content marketing, DCM represents those activities executed through
digital (online) platforms, including the company website, virtual communities, blogs, vlogs,
social media, mobile apps, and so on (Rowley 2008; Gensler et al. 2013; Breidbach et al.
2014). Sample content formats disseminated on these platforms include e-newsletters, ezines,
podcasts, live streaming/video, quizzes, whitepapers, infographics, downloadable templates
or checklists, case studies, guides, virtual conferences, content hubs, webinars, and longform
content (i.e. free content available to subscribers; Taylor 2012; Harris 2017; Viswanathan et
al. 2017). Given digital channels’ high reach at relatively low cost, DCM represents the most
rapidly growing content marketing form (Elkin 2017; Bloomstein 2012).
Insert Table 1 about here
We next review DCM definitions (see Table 1), which reveals the following
observations. First, philosophically, successful DCM requires a firm’s paradigmatic shift

7
from selling to to helping consumers by offering them relevant, valuable content free-of-
charge (Holliman and Rowley 2014; Jefferson and Tanton 2015). DCM therefore reflects the
firm’s genuine attempt to optimize consumer-perceived value, while maintaining a profit
(Pulizzi 2014; Malthouse et al. 2013). Important DCM success factors include in-depth
knowledge of the target audience’s needs, shared consumer/firm values, interdependence,
quality communication, and non-opportunistic behavior (Peppers and Rogers 2014). To
illustrate, while Rolex customers desire sleek, sophisticated content presented through
beautiful photography or high-quality editorial matter, Denny’s Don’t Be Too Serious DCM
campaign centers on entertaining consumers via a humorous appeal (Patel 2016).
Second, unlike advertising DCM is designed to build and maintain consumers’ long-
term engagement, trust, and relationships, rather than attempt to convince prospects to
purchase the firm’s offerings directly (Ahmad et al. 2016; Duhon 2015). Thus, while DCM is
still focused on increasing long-term sales, it attempts to do so by first developing consumer
engagement and trust (vs. selling the firm’s offerings directly or overtly; Bicks 2016). For
example, Dove’s Real Beauty Sketches on the company website or YouTube serve to educate
(female) consumers and help raise appreciation for their own body, without an apparent sales
appeal. However, while car manufacturers’ provision of detailed product information on their
website to educate consumers can be viewed as part of DCM, dealer information, prices, or
opening hours offered on the same website exist outside of DCM’s scope, given their (more)
overt selling purpose (Pulizzi 2014; Rowley 2008).
DCM also differs from native advertising (e.g. advertorials, infomercials), which -
like DCM - offers valuable, useful content to (prospective) customers. However, native
advertising is disguised to resemble the hosting media’s content or format, thereby attempting
to mislead consumers more akin to traditional advertising’s explicit consumer persuasion
objective (Wojdynski 2016; Wojdynski and Evans 2016). This in stark contrast to DCM,

8
which tries to genuinely add value to its audience (e.g. a consulting firm’s whitepapers
informing readers regarding focal topics of interest). In addition, while native advertising is
limited to communications placed on paid-for platforms (e.g. Amazon.com; Armarnathan
2018), DCM can appear on any platform type, because content remains content irrespective
of its location (e.g. firm’s website, social media; Jefferson and Tanton 2015, p. 15). User-
generated content therefore also comes within DCM’s scope, given its nature as a particular
content form (Holliman and Rowley 2014; Agius 2017).
Third, unlike advertising that interrupts consumers’ activities (e.g. television
commercials interjecting people watching their chosen programs; Krugman 1983), DCM is
based on the premise of consumer consent, permission, or opt-in, which may be attained
through tools including e-newsletters, ebooks, blogs, etc. (Deighton and Kornfeld 2009;
Godin 1999). That is, DCM is “sought out and discovered by consumers and is consumed
when they [choose] to consume it, thereby reflecting a more active consumer stance
compared to advertising, which is received relatively passively. In DCM, [individuals] have
[thus] given their permission to be marketed to” with personalized, relevant, and desired
content that they are willing to actively search for (Bicks 2016). As such, DCM delivers
value to these individuals and thereby facilitates subsequent two-way communication with
them (e.g. via social media; Singh and Sonnenburg 2012; Koiso-Kanttila 2004).
Fourth and relatedly, DCM “earns its audience by offering something of value [to
consumers]” (Bicks 2016). That is, because consumers seek out particular DCM content they
are referred to as an earned audience that will tend to appreciate the content, rendering them
more highly engaged not only with the content, but also with the brand (Nagy and Midha
2014). Advertising, by contrast, relies on a rented audience that comes to the platform for a
different purpose (e.g. to listen to the radio or watch television) and is then inadvertently
exposed to advertising messages (Shastry 2018), thereby reflecting advertising’s outlined

9
interruption issue. Consequently, advertising has a less voluntary audience that (sometimes
only barely) tolerates the content (Banks and De Pelsmacker 2014). Incorporating these
observations, we conceptualize DCM in our first FP:
FP1: DCM denotes the creation and dissemination of relevant, valuable brand-related
content to current or prospective customers on digital platforms to develop their
favorable brand engagement, trust, and relationships (vs. directly persuading
consumers to purchase).
Conceptual Framework
We next develop a conceptual framework of DCM and its key consumer-based
antecedents and consequences, as outlined below and shown in Figure 1. The framework is
read as follows. First, based on a uses-and-gratifications (U&G) perspective, consumers’
functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based motives (shown in the framework’s inner part)
drive their decision to interact with DCM communications (Calder et al. 2009, p. 323;
Ruggiero 2000), thereby existing as DCM antecedents. Consumers seeking informative
content are acting on their functional DCM motive (e.g. wishing to learn more about the
brand, such as Nike+’s running platform), as shown in Figure 1. However, hybrid (e.g.
functional/hedonic) motives can also occur. For example, consumers initiating DCM
interactions based on a functional motive, but then finding themselves enjoying the content
may differently express their behavioral engagement to those acting solely on a functional
motive (Hollebeek, Malthouse and Block 2016).
Insert Table 2 about here
Interacting with DCM prompts a particular level of consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral DCM engagement (Schamari and Schaefers 2015), as shown in the framework’s
next layer. While consumers’ cognitive engagement emerges from their functional and
authenticity-based motives, emotional engagement stems from individuals’ hedonic and

10
authenticity motives, as shown. Finally, behavioral engagement primarily results from
consumers’ functional and hedonic motives that collectively, inspire brand-related activity
(e.g. responding to DCM content; Hollebeek et al. 2014). Consumer engagement thus acts as
DCM’s first-tier, intra-interaction consequence that will in turn foster brand-related sense-
making (through cognitive engagement), identification (via emotional engagement), and
citizenship behavior (through behavioral engagement). For example, consumers interacting
with LG’s digital content will invest cognitive resources in those interactions (thus exhibiting
cognitive engagement), which in turn develops into brand-related sense-making (e.g. by
better understanding the brand, its identity, or usage).
Consumers’ brand-related sense-making, identification, and citizenship behaviors will
subsequently drive the development of DCM’s second-tier consequences of cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral brand attitudes, as shown in Figure 1. We also model the effect of
consumers’ brand-related sense-making on brand trust’s credibility dimension, and the
influence of brand identification on brand trust’s benevolence facet, thereby formalizing
DCM’s effect on consumer engagement and trust discussed in our review. Finally, DCM’s
outlined consumer-based effects will culminate in a particular level of the third-tier, value-
centric outcomes of consumer and firm-based brand equity, as shown in the framework’s
exterior ring. Overall, the framework outlines the process by which DCM creates consumer
and firm value through a series of consumer-based subprocesses that we detail further below.
While these concepts will sequentially emerge (by reading the framework from its inner,
to outer parts), focal preceding concepts (antecedents) may continue to co-exist with their
respective consequences depicted in the framework’s relevant next layer (e.g. coinciding
brand-related sense-making and credibility). Focal concepts’ theorized sequential occurrence
thus primarily relates to their emergence (vs. continuation). We proceed by introducing

11
DCM’s consumer-based antecedents below. Definitions of the framework’s component
concepts are also included in Table 2.
DCM Antecedents
Our review identified three U&G-informed, consumer-based DCM antecedents
(Whiting and Williams 2013). The U&G perspective seeks to explain individuals’ motives
for selecting or interacting with particular media content or channels to satisfy their needs
(Calder et al. 2009), which we apply to DCM below (Logan et al. 2012).
Functional Motive. Consumers may select media content for utilitarian (e.g.
informational) reasons, including to learn more about brands to facilitate their purchase
decision-making (Ruggiero 2000; see Table 2). For example, Microsoft’s Stories “offer a
collection of visual statistics about Microsoft products and services” that can be shared,
including via webpages, ebooks, checklists, or case studies (Dholakiya 2015). Functional
motives can be gauged by deploying instruments such as O’Brien’s (2010) or Voss et al.’s
(2003, p. 312) utilitarian measurement scales (e.g. practical – impractical). DCM is suited
for the dispersion of brand-related (e.g. new product/usage) information, which may also be
integrated with more hedonic (e.g. entertaining) content (Pulizzi 2012). While consumers’
functional motive typically exists prior to (i.e. drives) DCM interactions, it is likely to
continue during these interactions until the individual has fulfilled their functional need (e.g.
by extracting the required brand information; Baumöl et al. 2016). As the consumer develops
further brand-related functional needs, this cycle will repeat.
Hedonic Motive. The U&G perspective also highlights the role of consumers’
emotively-driven, experiential needs in DCM selection and interactions, including a desire
for entertainment, diversion, fun, transportation, or relaxation (e.g. through brand-related
gamification, videos, or quizzes; Harris 2017; Holbrook and Hirschmann 1982; see Table 2).
Hedonic motives can be measured by using Batra and Ahtola’s (1991) or O’Brien’s (2010)

12
hedonic measurement scales (e.g. interesting – boring; Batra and Ahtola 1991, p. 167).
Hedonic motives may also reflect the consumer’s desire to project their identity by
interacting with DCM (e.g. through content that aligns with their values; Wang and Calder
2006). Similar to the functional motive, consumers will typically continue interacting with
hedonic content until their need is met, ceteris paribus.
Authenticity Motive. While consumers’ functional and hedonic motives represent
generic U&G-informed antecedents, we adapt its third (social) driver that reflects actors’
need to connect with salient others (including brands), as also mirrored in DCM’s helping
nature outlined in our review. In today’s cluttered environment, consumers increasingly
require or prefer more authentic brand communications (Sasser et al. 2014), for which DCM
offers a suitable vehicle (e.g. Coca-Cola’s Hello Happiness campaign supporting low-paid,
foreign workers in Dubai to call home by purchasing a Coke, thereby evidencing the
company’s genuine concern for their wellbeing; Leigh et al. 2006).
We view DCM’s authenticity motive as consumers’ underlying desire for brand-
related continuity, integrity, and symbolism as sought through DCM (Grayson and Martinec
2004; see Table 2). Here, continuity denotes “the extent to which consumers perceive [DCM]
to be faithful to [the brand],” integrity refers to the consumer’s perceived degree to which the
brand is motivated by caring and responsibility, and symbolism is the degree to which the
brand is able to support consumers in being true to themselves (Morhart et al. 2015, p. 202).
Consumers’ DCM-related authenticity motive thus represents a particular subset of their
broader U&G-informed social driver. To measure DCM’s authenticity, Morhart et al.’s
(2015) or Starr’s (2011) scales can be used. For example, a sample item to gauge symbolism
includes [Viewing this content I] feel like [my]self (Morhart et al. 2015). Based on these
analyses, we derive our second FP of DCM:

13
FP2: Important consumer-based DCM antecedents include functional, hedonic, and
authenticity motives.
DCM Consequences
We next discuss DCM’s first, second, and third-tier consumer-based consequences
(outcomes), as addressed below.
First-Tier Consequences
Our review revealed consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement as
first-tier, intra-interaction DCM consequences. While Brodie et al. (2011, p. 253) define
engagement as a consumer’s interactive experience with an object (e.g. DCM content),
Hollebeek et al. (2016, p. 6) denote the concept as a consumer’s (e.g. cognitive, behavioral)
investment in [DCM] interactions (Kumar et al. 2017). Despite this lack of definitional
consensus, engagement is widely acknowledged to (a) center on consumers’ focal object
interactions (Hsieh and Chang 2016; Kumar and Pansari 2016), and (b) comprise cognitive,
emotional and behavioral dimensions (Harmeling et al. 2017). We detail DCM’s effect on
consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement below.
Cognitive DCM Engagement refers to consumers’ intra-DCM interaction brand-
related thought and mental elaboration (see Table 2). In the framework, cognitive
engagement emanates from consumers’ functional and authenticity motives. Therefore,
consumers’ need to acquire brand-related information (i.e. functional motive), coupled with
their desire for this information’s genuineness (i.e. authenticity motive), will infuse their
cognitive engagement (Pronschinske et al. 2012). For example, consumers may seek online
information regarding Toms’ shoe quality (i.e. functional motive) and the company’s socially
responsible stance (i.e. authenticity motive).
In Figure 1, cognitive DCM engagement generates consumers’ brand-related sense-
making (see the outward-pointing arrow connecting these concepts), which denotes “a

14
process by which [consumers] develop cognitive [brand-related] maps” over time (Basu and
Palazzo 2008, p. 123; Liu et al. 2018; Weick et al. 2005). This theorized cognitive
engagement to sense-making transition thus uncovers engagement’s cumulative learning or
knowledge development effect (McArdle and Coutts 2010; Hollebeek et al. 2016). Moreover,
while cognitive engagement’s focal object is the DCM communication, sense-making centers
on the object of the brand, thus signaling an associated engagement object shift as cognitive
engagement transfers to brand-related sense-making over multiple interactions (Dessart et al.
2016).
Emotional DCM Engagement. Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154) define emotional
engagement as a consumer’s degree of positively valenced, intra-[DCM] interaction brand-
related affect. However, such affect may also be negatively (e.g. through unfavorable brand-
related word-of-mouth) or differentially valenced (e.g. through co-existing positive/negative
engagement with different brand elements; Bowden et al. 2017; Hollebeek and Chen 2014).
We therefore extend these authors’ definition by denoting emotional DCM engagement in a
valence-neutral manner. Correspondingly, we define emotional DCM engagement as a
consumer’s brand-related affect during DCM interactions (see Table 2).
In the framework, emotional DCM engagement arises from consumers’ hedonic and
authenticity motives. That is, individuals’ desire for affective gratification (e.g. fun) through
DCM, coupled with their need for obtaining genuine brand-related information will elicit a
level of emotional DCM engagement (Pagani and Malacarne 2017). For example, My
Starbucks Rewards’ gamified content offers stars with each purchase that consumers can later
redeem for specific items or prizes (OU 2017). The framework also shows emotional
engagement’s capacity to generate DCM-derived brand identification, a process by which
consumers ascribe a brand’s qualities or characteristics to themselves through repeated DCM
interactions (Pansari and Kumar 2017; Tuskey et al. 2013; see the outward-pointing arrow

15
connecting these concepts in Figure 1). For example, Adidas GamePlanA’s tagline Tackling
Work Life with an Athlete’s Heart inspires its members with ideas to stay fit and active while
in an office job, thereby eliciting their DCM and brand-related identification.
The higher a consumer’s positively valenced emotional DCM engagement, the more
likely they are to view the brand as part of themselves (Sprott et al. 2009; Wallace et al.
2014), signifying a positive association between these concepts (Teixeira et al. 2012).
However, for adversely valenced engagement we expect a negative association with brand
identification (e.g. disliked DCM interactions lowering brand identification). In assessing
brand identification, recognizing the distinction between consumers’ actual and desired self-
identification is also important (e.g. while one’s desired self may identify with a McLaren
car, the actual self may be unable to afford this product; Belk 1988).
Behavioral DCM Engagement reflects a consumer’s [intra-DCM interaction] level of
energy, effort, and time spent on a brand (see Table 2). In the framework, behavioral
engagement emanates from consumers’ functional and hedonic DCM motives and relatedly,
has underlying cognitive and emotional engagement (Groeger et al. 2016). Therefore, to
foster behavioral engagement managers are advised to first build consumers’ cognitive and/or
emotional engagement, thereby stimulating behavioral engagement’s subsequent
development. For example, by offering entertaining content M&M’s Eye Spy Pretzel aims to
raise consumers’ emotional DCM engagement that is intended to in turn drive their future
behavioral engagement, brand-related citizenship behaviors, and attitudes (OU 2017).
In contrast to brand-related sense-making and identification, consumers’ brand
citizenship behaviors can (but will not necessarily) occur, as shown by the dashed-lined
circle in Figure 1. Consumer citizenship behaviors are “helpful, constructive [consumer]
gestures…that are valued or appreciated by the firm, but not related directly to, enforceable,
or explicit requirements of the [consumer’s] role” (Gruen 1995, p. 461; Alexander et al.

16
2017). Thus while consumers’ behavioral DCM engagement spans their in-role (i.e.
expected/predicted, e.g. product usage) behaviors, citizenship behaviors reflect consumers’
extra-role (i.e. unexpected/addditional) brand-related behaviors (Yi et al. 2013; Hollebeek et
al. 2016). Examples include positive word-of-mouth, blogging, helping other customers, or
writing brand-related reviews (e.g. Apple Support Communities where brand users offer each
other advice, thereby creating user-generated content that may emanate from a firm’s DCM
efforts or exist independently thereof; Mosteller and Poddar 2017; Van Doorn et al. 2010).
Based on these analyses, we develop our third FP of DCM:
FP3: First-tier DCM consequences include consumers’ (a) cognitive and emotional
engagement, which over multiple interactions will trigger brand-related sense-making
and identification, respectively, and (b) behavioral engagement, which can foster
consumer citizenship behavior.
Second-Tier Consequences
Our review suggested that DCM’s second-tier consequences, which result from
consumers’ brand-related sense-making, identification, and citizenship behaviors include
consumer brand trust and brand attitude, as discussed below.
Brand Trust comprises two dimensions, including (a) a consumer’s expectancy that
the word or promise made by a brand/firm can be relied upon (i.e. credibility), and (b)
confidence in another party’s motives, or the consumer’s belief of the firm acting in their best
interest (i.e. benevolence; Ganesan and Hess 1997, p. 440; see Table 2). While credibility will
primarily arise from consumers’ cognitive brand-related sense-making, benevolence will
derive from their more emotive brand identification, as shown in Figure 1’s upper left and
right parts, respectively (Sprott et al. 2009; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Recognizing these
dynamics, McDonald’s Our Food, Your Questions campaign aims to improve consumers’

17
perceived brand credibility and benevolence by offering them the opportunity to ask
questions and engage in brand-related learning (Starkman 2014).
Brand Attitude reflects a consumer’s “psychological tendency that is expressed by
evaluating a brand with some degree of (dis)favor” (Dimara and Skuras 2001, p. 693; Eagly
and Chaiken 1993). Attitudes have been recognized to comprise cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral components, thereby yielding a three-dimensional model that is known as the ABC
(affect-behavior-cognition) model of attitudes (Le and Nguyen 2014). Correspondingly,
Baron and Byrne (1994, p. 21) define attitudes as “relatively lasting clusters of feelings,
beliefs, and behavioral tendencies directed towards specific persons, ideas, objects or
groups.” Here, we theorize that DCM-induced brand-related sense-making, identification,
and citizenship behaviors contribute to brand attitude formation, maintenance, or potentially,
change (Park et al. 2010).
While brand-related sense-making (identification) primarily affects consumer brand
attitude’s cognitive (emotional) facet, respectively, behavioral brand attitude will emanate
from consumers’ behavioral DCM engagement that may subsequently develop into
citizenship behaviors (see the bottom part of Figure 1). Therefore, consumers’ behavioral
brand engagement (and extra-role citizenship behaviors, if observed) act as important drivers
of brand attitude. For example, HootSuite’s Game of Social Thrones educates consumers
about its offering through social media, thereby aiming to foster behavioral engagement (e.g.
by consumers reading up on the content online). This process in turn is intended to drive the
development of consumers’ behavioral brand attitude, thereby stimulating their future
propensity to purchase the brand. Based on these analyses, we derive our fourth FP of DCM:
FP4: Consumers’ DCM-induced brand-related sense-making, identification, and
citizenship behavior affect DCM’s second-tier consequences of consumer (a) brand
trust, and (b) brand attitude.

18
Third-Tier Consequences
Brand trust and attitude will in turn stimulate the development of DCM’s third-tier,
value-based consequences of consumer and firm-based brand equity, as shown in the
framework’s exterior ring and discussed below.
Consumer-Based Brand Equity has been defined as “the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to…a brand” (Keller 1993, p. 8), thereby implying a
consumer’s perceived value level of a brand (i.e. through brand knowledge; Keller 1998).
The higher consumer-perceived brand equity, the greater the customer’s perceived value of,
and the more favorable their response to the brand and its communications, including DCM
(Kamakura and Russell 1991; Ailawadi et al. 2003). One way in which high-equity brands
offer value to consumers is by facilitating the interpretation, processing, and storage of brand
information, thereby reducing perceived (e.g. purchase) risk and facilitating decision-making
(Aaker 1991; Rao et al. 1999).
Given consumer-based brand equity’s perceived (vs. behavioral) nature (Hoeffler and
Keller 2002), it is predominantly affected by consumers’ cognitive and emotional DCM
engagement and their respective consequences of brand-related sense-making and
identification, as depicted in the framework. As shown, these in turn trigger individuals’
cognitive brand attitude and credibility, and emotional brand attitude and benevolence,
respectively, each of which also exerts an effect on consumer-based brand equity’s
development. Correspondingly, consumer-based brand equity is represented in the
framework’s upper part that sees the development of consumer-perceived DCM value.
Philosophically, consumer-based brand equity development is a core DCM objective that
drives consumers’ future brand-related behaviors, thereby directly contributing to firm-based
brand equity development (Ashley and Tuten 2015), as discussed next.

19
Firm-Based Brand Equity. As shown in the framework’s lower part, firm-based
brand equity derives from consumers’ behavioral DCM engagement, brand-related
citizenship behaviors, and behavioral brand attitude. Firm-based brand equity denotes “the
assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the
value provided by a product or service to a firm” (Aaker 1991, p. 7). Similarly, Yoo and
Donthu (2001) synthesize brand equity as the incremental (marginal) value attributable to a
branded (vs. unbranded) product, reflecting firm-based brand equity’s core financial value,
including the value inherent in (in)tangible brand assets and the brand’s capacity to build or
maintain customer relationships (Doyle 2000).
High-equity brands thus represent an important source of sustainable competitive
advantage (Barney 1991) and superior firm performance (Srivastava et al. 1998), which can
be stimulated through DCM (Shaoolian 2017). Like its consumer-based counterpart the
development of firm-based brand equity, ideologically, represents a key DCM objective. For
firm-based brand equity to develop, brand sales - facilitated through high brand engagement
and attitudes - are required (Kumar et al. 2010). Based on these analyses, we develop our
final FP of DCM:
FP5: Consumer brand trust and brand attitude influence the development of DCM’s
third-tier consequences of (a) consumer-based brand equity, and (b) firm-based
brand equity.
Discussion and Implications
Limitations and Future Research
In this paper, we conceptualized DCM (FP1), explored its key consumer-based
antecedents (FP2), and its first, second, and third-tier consequences (FPs 3-5), respectively.
We proceeded by mapping these in a conceptual framework and developing an associated set
of FPs of DCM, thereby directly responding to calls for the development of enhanced insight
into DCM and its dynamics (Pulizzi 2014; Pulizzi and Barrett 2009).

20
Notwithstanding its contributions, this research also has a number of limitations. First,
the study’s purely theoretical nature renders a need for further (empirical) investigation,
testing, and validation of the proposed framework and FPs of DCM. For example, researchers
may wish to explore the identified DCM characteristics or antecedents (FP1, 2) across
contexts (e.g. sectors, industries, or cultures) and refine our findings based on their results, as
relevant. We also recommend further study on our identified first, second, and third-tier
DCM consequences and their occurrence across consumer segments or differing brand or
firm characteristics (e.g. reputation, size, core capabilities, B2B/B2C firms).
Second, while we derived a specific set of consumer-based DCM antecedents and
consequences, we encourage further research to explore DCM within alternate or broader
nomological networks that may be guided by differing theoretical perspectives (Suddaby
2010). That is, while our analyses are informed by a U&G perspective, how may alternate
theoretical lenses be used to understand DCM, such as social identity theory or attachment
theory (Hogg 2016; Park et al. 2010)? Further research that empirically tests and validates the
framework or investigates DCM within different nomological networks as guided by
alternate or complementary perspectives is therefore recommended (Hollebeek et al. 2016).
Insert Table 3 about here
Third, given DCM’s relatively short history little is known regarding its optimal
design and implementation. Sample research questions include: What type of (e.g. textual,
image/video-based) content do consumers prefer for focal brands or in particular contexts?
How is DCM suitably incorporated into a firm’s broader integrated marketing
communications (IMC) strategy? How should DCM be designed to optimize consumers’
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement and their respective second and third-tier
consequences? Additional sample research questions organized by our FPs of DCM are
offered in Table 3.

21
Managerial Implications
Our analyses also generate important managerial implications. First, our review
highlighted DCM as a prospective and existing customer relationship marketing tool, thereby
revolutionizing the scope of relationship marketing that to date, has been largely confined to
existing customer relationships (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Given DCM’s importance in
converting prospects into buying customers through engaging content (Järvinen and
Taiminen 2016), content’s nature and execution are pivotal to DCM success. Anecdotal
evidence suggests the utmost importance of content clarity, appealing presentation, a user
value focus, and opt-out at any stage of the process (Saleh 2016; Hollebeek 2013).
Managers are encouraged to utilize DCM as an important element in their IMC mix
(Hollebeek and Solem 2017). Unlike traditional media (e.g. magazines, television), digital
channels offer significantly greater flexibility in terms of content length, availability, format,
and customization at relatively low cost, thereby warranting DCM’s integration in a firm’s
well-rounded marketing strategy (Malthouse et al. 2013). For example, by allowing users to
select and scrutinize that content most relevant to their personal needs, DCM can help firms
optimize their targeting strategy (Couldry and Turow 2014).
DCM can also be used to support a firm’s inbound marketing strategy that is based on
permission-based communications with an earned audience (FP1; Halligan and Shah 2010;
Lusch and Vargo 2009). Digital media’s two-way communication capability can be leveraged
to assist consumers (e.g. by educating them, answering brand-related queries), thereby
reflecting DCM’s core helping nature outlined in our review and further stimulating the
development of consumer engagement, trust, and relationships (FPs 3-4; Pulizzi and Barrett
2009). For example, British Airways not only unite global destinations with their travel hub
services, but also connect their online users through a content hub, thus offering value to
users that in turn helps retain its earned audience.

22
To optimize DCM effectiveness, managers require an adaptive mindset, a willingness
to engage in continuous learning, and the ability to visualize and implement unique, value-
creating DCM within broader IMC portfolios (Lusch et al. 2010). Thus, agile marketing is of
growing importance, which can be facilitated by using automated software to increase DCM
quality, flexibility, effectiveness, and insight (e.g. Content Manager, OutGrow; Rooderkerk
and Pauwels 2016; Poolton et al. 2006), thereby contributing to consumer and firm-based
brand equity development (FP5). In addition, user-generated content requires careful
monitoring and agile firm response.
FP2 highlights the role of our U&G-informed consumer-based DCM antecedents,
including functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based drivers. Depending on the brand’s
nature and target audience, managers need to determine (e.g. through market research) the
desired ratio of informational versus experiential DCM content to trigger consumers’ relevant
motives, thereby generating implications for DCM design and implementation (Storey and
Larbig 2018). For example, while Oreo’s Power Out? No Problem. You Can Still Dunk in the
Dark campaign primarily caters for consumers’ hedonic motive, others may be more
utilitarian in nature (e.g. BMW’s Genius How-To that helps resolve brand-related queries),
thereby necessitating different DCM design approaches. To propel consumers’ DCM-related
motivations search engines are key, which reward content quality and consistency (e.g. by
displaying popular brand-related content at the top of search results; CMI 2018), thereby
helping DCM grow its earned audience.
Hybrid consumer motives may also exist that can be catered for by using a
combinatorial DCM approach (e.g. DCM in the fashion industry that not only informs
consumers about the latest couture, but also offers entertainment via virtual fashion shows).
To optimally target different or hybrid consumer motives, it is recommended to incorporate
DCM as a key part of a firm’s broader integrated communications portfolio. For example, it

23
may be combined with native advertising to stimulate the development of consumer brand
awareness and engagement, followed by advertising to remind the consumer about the
offering and explicitly propel them towards purchase.
FP3 identifies consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral DCM engagement as
important first-tier, intra-interaction DCM consequences. First, cognitive DCM engagement
fosters the development of brand-related sense-making, by which consumers develop mental
brand maps over time, thereby stimulating their brand-related learning (Brodie et al. 2013).
Informative, highly textual DCM tools (e.g. ebooks, checklists) are suitable vehicles to
facilitate their learning process (e.g. Deloitte’s topical whitepapers). Second, emotional DCM
engagement generates brand identification, which primarily develops through image or
video-based (vs. highly textual) content (e.g. Lonely Planet’s travel-related content designed
to inspire consumers to travel). Third, while consumers’ behavioral DCM engagement can
spawn brand-related citizenship behaviors, these will not necessarily occur. To nurture
citizenship behaviors, prospect conversion into paying customers - thus deepening the
individual’s brand experience and customer journey - is essential (Lemon and Verhoef 2016;
Chen et al. 2018). That is, while DCM can be used to convert prospects into buyers, the
development of citizenship behaviors will concentrate in the firm’s paying customer base that
has first-hand brand exposure and experience (Yi et al. 2013).
FP4 theorizes that DCM-induced brand-related sense-making, identification, and
citizenship behaviors will affect consumer brand trust and attitude, which will in turn drive
the development of consumer and firm-based brand equity (FP5). To safeguard DCM’s
value-generating capabilities for consumers and firms, DCM design innovation is pivotal,
particularly given DCM’s rapidly evolving digital nature (Ashley and Tuten 2015). For
example, augmented reality, which overlays digital information onto the physical world
(Goldman Sachs 2016) offers novel DCM capabilities that can help deepen consumers’ DCM

24
engagement (Meißner et al. 2017). To illustrate, McDermott (2017) observes that “62% of
consumers…feel more engaged with brands [offering augmented reality content].” Volvo
Reality’s pioneering augmented reality test drive offers a case in point in this regard
(Marchilena 2018).
Content’s nature can also be revolutionized through additive manufacturing (AIM;
Taube 2015; Weller et al. 2015). That is, while content has been largely limited to two-
dimensional representations, AIM enables the development of 3D content that can further
advance consumer engagement and its ensuing second and third-tier consequences (e.g. by
offering specific content components free of charge, consumers are encouraged to purchase
the content’s complementary elements; Copulsky et al. 2016). Finally, we note that while our
suggestions are expected to hold practical value, the purely conceptual nature of our analyses
renders these subject to careful evaluation prior to being applied in particular business
contexts, as also acknowledged under Limitations above.

25
Table 1: DCM Conceptualizations
Author(s)
DCM Definition
Wang et al. (2017, pp.
1-2)
“Creating, distributing and sharing relevant, compelling and timely content to engage customers at the appropriate point in their buying consideration
processes, such that it encourages them to convert to a business building outcome.”
CMI (2016)
“Attracting an audience to an experience (or destination [etc.]) that you own, build, and optimize to achieve your marketing objectives.”
Vollero & Palazzo
(2015, p. 37)
“A marketing technique of creating and sharing relevant and valuable content to position company as a ‘thought leader’ in its sector with the aim of
developing engagement and trusted relationships with customers.”
“An integrated marketing and communications strategy with the aim of driving profitable customer action.”
Kilgour et al. (2015)
“The active role of consumer participation [in] sharing…in [a] media space that becomes their interest.”
Holliman & Rowley
(2014, p. 285)
“Creating, distributing and sharing relevant, compelling and timely content to engage customers at the appropriate point in their buying consideration
processes, such that it encourages them to convert to a business building outcome.”
Rancati & Gordini
(2014)
“Attracts potential consumers and increases their engagement and empowerment…through the creation, dissemination and sharing of free content, and
being relevant, meaningful, valuable and able to inspire confidence in existing and potential customers” (p. 92).
“A tool to share content, but also to create value and high returns along with the financial means of customer distribution, attraction, involvement,
acquisition and retention (p. 96).”
Pulizzi (2014, p. 5)
“The marketing and business process for creating and distributing valuable and compelling content to attract, acquire, and engage a clearly defined and
understood target audience - with the objective of driving profitable customer action.”
Steimle (2014)
“A marketing technique of creating and distributing valuable, relevant and consistent content to attract and acquire a clearly defined audience, with the
objective of driving profitable customer action.”
Rahim & Clemens
(2012, p. 897)
“Creating and publishing unique and interesting content that focuses on prospects or customers. It educates them, helps them solve problems, and invites
them to engage with a company’s brand...content marketing aims to deliver meaningful, original content to engage prospects and customers, and help
them make well-informed decisions.”
Pulizzi (2012, p. 116)
“CM is the creation of valuable, relevant and compelling content by the brand itself on a consistent basis, used to generate a positive behavior from a
customer or prospect of the brand.”
Rose & Pulizzi
(2011, p. 12)
“A strategy focused on the creation of a valuable experience.”
Bloomstein (2012, p.
101)
“The practice of planning for the creation, delivery and governance of useful, usable content.”
Silverman (2012, p.
14)
“[CM’s key purpose is to] draw in leads and supplement brand credibility.”
Pulizzi & Barrett
(2009, p. 8)
“The creation and distribution of educational and/or compelling content in multiple formats to attract and/or retain customers.”

26
Table 2: Concepts in Framework
Concept
Definition
Digital content marketing
(DCM)
The creation and dissemination of relevant, valuable brand-related content to current or prospective customers on digital platforms to
develop their favorable brand engagement, trust, and relationships (vs. directly persuading consumers to purchase; Rancati & Gordini
2014; Holliman & Rowley 2014; Pulizzi 2014).
Consumer-based DCM antecedents
Functional motive
A consumer’s underlying utilitarian desire for brand-related information or learning as sought through DCM (Ruggiero 2000; Voss et al.
2003).
Hedonic motive
A consumer’s underlying emotional desire for brand-related entertainment, diversion, fun, transportation, or relaxation as sought through
DCM (Ruggiero 2000; Holbrook & Hirschmann 1982).
Authenticity motive
A consumer’s underlying desire for brand-related continuity, integrity, credibility, and symbolism as sought through DCM (Morhart et
al. 2015; Ruggiero 2000; Leigh et al. 2006; Grayson and Martinec 2004).
First-tier consumer-based DCM consequences
Cognitive DCM engagement
A consumer’s [intra-DCM interaction] brand-related thought and mental elaboration (Hollebeek et al. 2014, p. 154; Harrigan et al. 2017).
Over multiple interactions, triggers “brand-related sense-making:” A process by which [consumers] develop cognitive [brand-related]
maps over time (Basu & Palazzo 2008, p. 123).
Emotional DCM engagement
A consumer’s [intra-DCM interaction] brand/firm-related affect (Hollebeek et al. 2014, p. 154; Harrigan et al. 2017).
Over multiple interactions, triggers “brand identification:” A process by which a consumer ascribes a brand’s DCM-depicted qualities
or characteristics to themselves over time (Tuskey et al. 2013; Sprott et al. 2009).
Behavioral DCM engagement
A consumer’s [intra-DCM interaction] energy, effort and time spent on a brand (Hollebeek et al. 2014, p. 154; Harrigan et al. 2017).
Can trigger “brand-related citizenship behavior:” Helpful, constructive [consumer] gestures…that are valued or appreciated by the firm,
but not related directly to enforceable or explicit requirements of the [consumer’s] role (Gruen 1995, p. 461).
Second-tier consumer-based DCM consequences
Brand trust
A consumer’s expectancy that the word or promise made by a brand/firm can be relied upon (i.e. credibility), and confidence in the
brand/firm’s motives (i.e. benevolence; Ganesan & Hess 1997, p. 440; Morgan & Hunt 1994).
Brand attitude
A psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a brand with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken 1993; Dimara
& Skuras 2001, p. 693).
Third-tier consumer-based DCM consequence
Consumer-based brand equity
The differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand (Keller 1993, p. 8).
Third-tier firm-based DCM consequence
Firm-based brand equity
The assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service
to a firm (Aaker 1991, p. 7).

27
Table 3: Future Research Avenues
FP of DCM
Sample Research Questions
FP1: DCM denotes the creation and dissemination of relevant,
valuable brand-related content to current or prospective customers
on digital platforms to develop their favorable brand engagement,
trust, and relationships (vs. directly persuading consumers to
purchase).
o How are DCM communications created, executed, and disseminated for optimal consumer and
firm-based outcomes, including customer/firm-based equity?
o How can DCM be leveraged to (a) heighten brand loyalty for existing customers (e.g. by
increasing their willingness-to-pay; Grewal et al. 2010), and (b) attract new customers?
o Which content techniques or practices optimize DCM’s first, second, and third-tier
consequences?
o How does firm-initiated content drive user-generated-content (Ratchford 2015, 2009)?
FP2: Important consumer-based DCM antecedents include
functional, hedonic, and authenticity motives.
o What is the relative importance of consumer-based functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based
drivers in particular DCM contexts?
o How may consumers’ functional, hedonic, and authenticity-based drivers interact to produce
focal consumer and firm-based DCM outcomes?
o How may the U&G perspective combine, or be substituted with, (an)other salient theoretical
perspective(s) to explain or predict consumers’ salient DCM drivers?
FP3: First-tier DCM consequences include consumers’ (a) cognitive
and emotional engagement, which over multiple interactions will
trigger brand-related sense-making and identification, respectively,
and (b) behavioral engagement, which can foster consumer
citizenship behavior.
o Which factors characterize cognitive (emotional) DCM engagement’s conversion process to
brand-related sense-making (identification), and what is their relevance across contexts?
o How can big data be used to better understand consumers’ DCM engagement (Ratchford 2015)?
o Under what conditions will behavioral DCM engagement generate optimal consumer citizenship
behaviors?
FP4: Consumers’ DCM-induced brand-related sense-making,
identification, and citizenship behavior affect DCM’s second-tier
consequences of consumer (a) brand trust, and (b) brand attitude.
o In which contexts do DCM-induced brand-related sense-making, identification, and citizenship
behaviors predominantly occur, and how do these drive the development of consumer brand trust
and brand attitude?
o How do brand trust and brand attitude relate to one another, conceptually, in the DCM context?
o May any overlap exist between consumers’ brand-related sense-making, identification, and
citizenship behaviors, and if so, how does this play out across contexts?
FP5: Consumer brand trust and brand attitude influence the
development of DCM’s third-tier consequences of (a) consumer-
based brand equity, and (b) firm-based brand equity.
o What are the key characteristics of the black box through which DCM-induced brand trust and
brand attitude convert into consumer and firm-based brand equity?
o Will consumer and firm-based brand equity always develop by virtue of the sequential process
outlined in the framework, or may relevant framework-based concepts have less (or heightened)
importance in some contexts?
o How can DCM’s contribution to consumer/firm-based brand equity development be expedited?

28
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Notes - DCM: Digital content marketing; Br. Sense-making: Brand-related sense-making; Br. Identification: Brand
identification; Br. Citizenship Behaviors: Brand-related citizenship behaviors; Br. Trust: Brand trust; Br. Att.: Brand
attitude.

29
References
Aaker, David (1991). Managing Brand Equity, New York: Free Press.
Agius, Aaron (2017), “User-Generated Content: Where Does It Fit In Your Content Marketing Strategy?,”
Accessed (March 2, 2018) at: http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2017/10/ugc-content-marketing-
strategy.
Ahmad, Nur, Rosidah Musa, and Mior Harris Harun (2016), “The Impact of Social Media Content Marketing
(SMCM) towards Brand Health,” Fifth International Conference on Marketing and Retailing, 37, 331-
336.
Ailawadi, Kusum, Donald Lehmann, and Scott Neslin (2003), “Revenue Premium as an Outcome Measure of
Brand Equity,” Journal of Marketing, 67, Oct, 1-17.
Alexander, Matthew and Elina Jaakkola (2017), “Zooming Out: Actor Engagement beyond the Dyadic,” Journal
of Service Management, In press.
AMA - American Marketing Association (2013), Definition of Marketing,
https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.
Armarnathan, Vichitra (2018), “The Difference between Paid PR and Native Advertising, and Why You Should
Know It,” Accessed (March 15, 2018) at: https://nativeadvertisinginstitute.com/blog/difference-paid-pr-
native.
Ashley, Christy and Tracy Tuten (2015), “Creative Strategies in Social Media Marketing: An Exploratory Study
of Branded Social Content on Consumer Engagement,” Psychology & Marketing, 32, 1, 15-27.
Banks, Ivana and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2014), “Involvement, Tolerance for Ambiguity, and Type of Service
Moderate the Effectiveness of Probability Marker Usage in Service Advertising,” Journal of Advertising,
43, 2, 196-209.
Barney, Jay (1991), Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17, 1, 99-
120.
Baron, Robert and Donn Byrne (1994). Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction, Boston: Allyn &
Bacon (7e).
Basu, Kunal and Guido Palazzo (2008), “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking,”
Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 122-136.
Batra, Rajeev and Olli Ahtola (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,”
Marketing Letters, 2, 2, 159-170.
Baumӧl, Ulrike and Reinhard Jung (2016), “Dynamics of Customer Interaction on Social Media Platforms,”
Electronic Markets, 26, 3, 199-202.
Belk, Russell (1988), “Possessions and the Extended Self,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 2, 139-168.
Bicks, Becky (2016), “All You Need to Know about Content Marketing vs. Traditional Marketing,” Accessed
(April 3, 2018) at: https://ozcontent.com/blog/content-marketing-vs-traditional-marketing/.
Blau, Peter (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Bloomstein, Margot (2012), Content Strategy at Work, Waltham, MA; Elsevier.
Bourdaa, Melanie (2014), “This Is Not Marketing. This Is HBO: Branding HBO with Transmedia Storytelling,”
Available at: http://ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/328 (Accessed December 3,
2017).
Bowden, Jana, Jodie Conduit, Vilma Luoma-Aho, and Birgit Solem (2017), “Engagement Valence Duality and
Spillover Effects in Online Brand Communities,” Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27, 4, 877-
897.
Breidbach, Christoph, Roderick Brodie and Linda Hollebeek (2014), “Beyond Virtuality: From Engagement
Platforms to Engagement Ecosystems,” Managing Service Quality, 24, 6, 592-611.
Brodie, Roderick, Julia Fehrer, Jodie Conduit, Linda Hollebeek and Elina Jaakkola (2016), “From Customer to
Actor Engagement: Exploring a Broadened Conceptual Domain,” European Marketing Academy
Conference Proceedings, Oslo, Norway, May 2016.
Brodie, Roderick, Linda Hollebeek, Biljana Juric and Ana Ilic (2011), “Customer Engagement: Conceptual
Domain, Fundamental Propositions & Implications for Research in Service Marketing,” Journal of
Service Research, 14, 3, 252-271.
Brodie, Roderick, Ana Ilic, Biljana Juric and Linda Hollebeek (2013), “Consumer Engagement in a Virtual Brand
Community: An Exploratory Analysis,” Journal of Business Research, 66, 1, 105-114.
Carmody, Bill (2017), “The Four Most Important Content Marketing Changes in 2017,” Accessed (Nov 3, 2017)
at: https://www.inc.com/bill-carmody/the-4-most-important-content-marketing-changes-in-2017.html.
Carranza, Anthony (2017), “The Importance of Content Marketing in 2017 and Beyond,” Accessed (Oct 7, 2017)
at: https://www.business2community.com/content-marketing/importance-content-marketing-2017-
beyond-01861200.
Chen, Tom, Judy Drennan, Lynda Andrews and Linda Hollebeek (2018), “User Experience Sharing:
Understanding Customer Initiation of Value Co-Creation in Online Communities, European Journal of

30
Marketing, In press.
CMI - Content Marketing Institute (2016), “Definition of Content Marketing,” Accessed (Sep 7, 2017) at:
http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2016/11/content-marketing-definitions/.
CMI - Content Marketing Institute (2018), “What Is Content Marketing?” Accessed (Jun 20, 2018) at:
https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/what-is-content-marketing/.
Copulsky, Jonathan, Amy Bergstrom, and Simone Michael (2016), “One Tweak at a Time: How Analytics
Improved Our Content Marketing,” Applied Marketing Analytics, 2, 3, 201-212.
Couldry, Nick and Joseph Turow (2014), “Advertising, Big Data and the Clearance of the Public Realm:
Marketers’ New Approaches to the Content Subsidy,” International Journal of Communication, 8, 1710-
1726.
Daughtery, Terry, Matthew Eastin and Laura Bright (2008), “Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User-
Generated Content,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 2, 16-25.
Davis, Ben (2016), “How Thorntons Uses Content Marketing to Gain an Edge at Easter,” Accessed (Aug 7, 2017)
at: https://econsultancy.com/blog/67587-how-thorntons-uses-content-marketing-to-gain-an-edge-at-
easter/.
Deighton, John and Leora Kornfeld (2009), “Interactivity’s Unanticipated Consequences for Marketers and
Marketing,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 1, 4-10.
Denning, Josh (2016), “Content Not Converting? Start with Your Buyer’s Journey,” Accessed April 3, 2017 at:
https://www.authorityfactory.net/buyer-journey/.
Dessart, Laurence, Cleopatra Veloutsou, and Ana Morgan-Thomas (2016), “Capturing Consumer Engagement:
Duality, Dimensionality and Measurement, Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 5-6, 399-426.
Dholakiya, Pratik (2015), “Content Marketing Done Right: 8 Examples You Can Learn From,” Accessed (March
2, 2018) at: https://marketingland.com/content-marketing-done-right-8-examples-can-learn-
149088/amp.
Dimara, Efthalia and Dimitris Skuras (2003), “Consumer Evaluations of Product Certification, Geographic
Association and Traceability in Greece,” European Journal of Marketing, 37, 5-6, 690-705.
Doyle, Peter (2000), Value-Based Marketing, Chichester: Wiley.
Duhon, Bryant (2015), “Putting the ‘Engagement’ in Your Content Marketing,” Accessed (Nov 3, 2017) at:
http://documentmedia.com/article-1979-Putting-the-'Engagement'-in-Your-Content-Marketing.html.
Eagly, Alice and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Elkin, Tobi (2017), “Global Content Marketing Revenues Poised for 14% Growth in 2017,” Accessed (Jan 18,
2018) at: https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/305786/global-content-marketing-revenues-
poised-for-14-g.html.
Gagnon, Eric (2014), “Goodbye, B2B Brand Marketing: Developing Content-Based Marketing Programs for the
Post-Marketing Era,” International Management Review, 10, 2, 68-71.
Ganesan, Shankar and Ron Hess (1997), “Dimensions and Levels of Trust: Implications for Commitment to a
Relationship,” Marketing Letters, 8, 4, 439-448.
Gensler, Sonja, Franziska Völckner, Yuping Liu-Thompkins, and Caroline Wiertz (2013), “Managing Brands in
the Social Media Environment,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 4, 242-256.
Godin, Seth (1999), Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers into Friends and Friends into Customers, New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Goldman Sachs (2016), “Profiles in Innovation: Virtual and Augmented Reality,” January 13.
Grayson, Kent and Radan Martinec (2004), “Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and Indexicality and Their
Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 2, 296-
312.
Grewal, Dhruv, Ramkumar Janakiraman, Kirthi Kalyanam, P. Kannan, Brian Ratchford, Reo Song, and Stephen
Tolerico (2010), “Strategic Online and Offline Retail Pricing: A Review and Research Agenda,” Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 24, 2, 138-154.
Groeger, Lars, Lara Moroko, (2016), “Capturing Value from Non-Paying Consumers’ Engagement Behaviours:
Field Evidence and Development of a Theoretical Model,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 3-4, 190-
209.
Gruen, Thomas (1995), “The Outcome Set of Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets,” International
Business Review, 4, 447-469.
Halligan, Brian and Dharmesh Shah (2010), Inbound Marketing, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Halvorson, Kristina and Melissa Rach (2012), Content Strategy for the Web, New Riders, Berkeley, CA.
Harmeling, Colleen, Jordan Moffett, Mark Arnold, and Brad Carlson (2017), “Toward a Theory of Customer
Engagement Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 3, 312-335.
Harrigan, Paul, Uwana Evers, Morgan Miles, and Tim Daly (2017), “Customer Engagement and the Relationship
between Involvement, Engagement, Self-Brand Connection and Brand Usage Intent,” Journal of
Business Research, In press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.046.

31
Harris, Jodi (2017), “Cover All the Bases with 21 Winning Content Marketing Techniques,” Accessed (March 2,
2018 at): http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2017/05/winning-content-marketing-tactics/.
Helson, H. (1993), “The Fundamental Propositions of Gestalt Psychology,” Psychological Review, 40, 1, 13-32.
Hoeffler, Steve and Keller, Kevin (2002), “Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing,”
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21, 1, 78-89.
Hogg, Michael (2016), “Social Identity Theory,” In: Understanding Peace and Conflict through Social Identity
Theory, 3-17.
Holbrook, Morrise and Elizabeth Hirschmann (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer
Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 2, 132-140.
Hollebeek, Linda (2013), “The Customer Engagement/Value Interface: An Exploratory Investigation,”
Australasian Marketing Journal, 21, 1, 17-24.
Hollebeek, Linda and Rod Brodie (2016), “Non-Monetary Social and Network Value: Understanding the Effects
of Non-Paying Customers in New Media,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 3-4, 169-174.
Hollebeek, Linda and Tom Chen (2014), “Exploring Positively- vs. Negatively-Valenced Brand Engagement: A
Conceptual Model,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23, 1, 62-74.
Hollebeek, Linda, Mark Glynn and Rod Brodie (2014), “Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media:
Conceptualization, Scale Development and Validation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 2, 149-
165.
Hollebeek, Linda, Edward Malthouse and Martin Block (2016), “Sounds of Music: Exploring Consumers’
Musical Engagement,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33, 6, 417-427.
Hollebeek, Linda and Birgit Solem (2017), “The Consumer Engagement/Return on Social Media Engagement
Interface: Development of a Conceptual Model,” In: Rishi, B. & Bandyopadhay, S. (Eds.), Contemporary
Issues in Social Media Marketing, London: Routledge, 132-148.
Hollebeek, Linda, Rajendra Srivastava, and Tom Chen (2016), “S-D Logic-Informed Customer Engagement:
Integrative Framework, Revised Fundamental Propositions, and Application to CRM,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, In press, DOI: 10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5.
Holliman, Geraint and Jennifer Rowley (2014), “Business to Business Digital Content Marketing: Marketers’
Perceptions of Best Practice,” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8, 4, 269-293.
Homburg, Christian, Danijel Jozic, and Christina Kuehn (2017), “Customer Experience Management: Toward
Implementing an Evolving Marketing Concept,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 3,
377-401.
Hsieh, Sara and Aihwa Chang (2016), “The Psychological Mechanism of Brand Co-creation Engagement,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 13-26.
Jӓrvinen, Joel and Heini Taiminen (2016), “Harnessing Marketing Automation for B2B Content Marketing,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 164-175.
Jefferson, Sonja and Sharon Tanton (2015), Valuable Content Marketing, London: Kogan Page.
Kakkar, Garima (2017), “Top 10 Reasons behind Growing Importance of Content Marketing,” Accessed (Dec 3,
2017) at: http://www.digitalvidya.com/blog/importance-of-content-marketing/.
Kamakura, W. and G. Russell (1991), Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Brand Quality with Scanner Data:
Implications for Brand Equity, Report No. 91-122, Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.
Keller, Kevin (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1, 1-22.
Keller, Kevin (1998), Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall.
Kilgour, Mark, Sheila Sasser, and Roy Larke (2015), “The Social Media Transformation Process: Curating
Content into Strategy,” Corporate Communications, 20, 3, 1-32.
Koiso-Kanttila, Nina (2004), “Digital Content Marketing: A Literature Synthesis,” Journal of Marketing
Management, 20, 45-65.
Krugman, Herbert (1983), “Television Program Interest and Commercial Interruption,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 23, 1, 21-23.
Kumar, V., Lerzan Aksoy, Bas Donkers, Rajkumar Venkatesan, Thorsten Wiesel, and Sebastian Tillmans (2010),
“Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer Engagement Value,” Journal of
Service Research, 13, 3, 297-310.
Kumar, V., Bharath Rajan, Shaphali Gupta, and Ilaria Dalla Pozza (2017), “Customer Engagement in Service,”
Journal of the Academy in Marketing Science, In press.
Kumar, V. and Anita Pansari (2016), “Competitive Advantage through Engagement,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 53, 4, 497-514.
Le, Tri Dinh and Bao-Tran Nguyen (2014), “Attitudes toward Mobile Advertising: A Study of Mobile Web
Display and Mobile App Display Advertising,” Asian Academy of Management Journal, 19, 2, 87-103.
Leigh, Thomas, Cara Peters and Jeremy Shelton (2006), “The Consumer Quest for Authenticity: The Multiplicity
of Meanings within the MG Structure of Consumption,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

32
34, 4, 481-493.
Lemon, Katherine and Peter Verhoef (2016), “Understanding Customer Experience throughout the Customer
Journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80, Nov, 69-96.
Lieb, Rebecca (2011), Content Marketing: Think Like a Publisher, Indianapolis: QUE.
Liu, Richie, David Sprott, Eric Spangenberg, Sandor Czellar, and Kevin Voss (2018), “Consumer Preference for
National vs. Private Brands: The Influence of Brand Engagement and Self-Concept Threat,” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 90-100.
Logan, Kelty, Laura Bright, and Harsha Gangadharbatla (2012), “Facebook versus Television: Advertising Value
Perceptions among Females,” Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6, 3, 164-179.
Lusch, Robert and Stephen Vargo (2009), “Service-Dominant Logic: A Guiding Framework for Inbound
Marketing,” Marketing Review St Gallen, 26, 6, 6-10.
Lusch, Robert, Stephen Vargo, and M. Tanniru (2010), “Service, Value-Networks, and Learning,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 1, 19-31.
MacInnis, Deborah (2011), “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing,
75, Jul, 136-154.
Malthouse, Edward, Michael Haenlein, Bernd Skiera, Egbert Wege, and Michael Zhang (2013), “Managing
Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House,” Journal of
Interactive Marketing 27, 4, 270-280.
Marchilena, Greg (2018), “The 10 Best Virtual Reality Marketing Campaigns,” Accessed (March 7, 2018) at:
https://www.youvisit.com/insight/virtual-reality/the-10-best-virtual-reality-marketing-campaigns/.
Matteo, Stephane and Cinzia Dal Zotto (2015), “Native Advertising, or How to Stretch Editorial to Sponsored
Content within a Transmedia Branding Era,” In: Gabriele Siegert, Kati Forster, Sylvia Chan-Olmsted
and Mat Ots (Eds.), Handbook of Media Branding, Springer.
McArdle, Karen and Norman Coutts (2010), “Taking Teachers’ Continuous Professional Development (CPD)
Beyond Reflection,” Studies in Continuing Education, 32, 3, 201-215.
McDermott, Clare (2017), “How Virtual Reality Could Change Content Marketing,” Accessed (Aug 29, 2017) at:
http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2017/01/virtual-reality-change-marketing/.
Meißner, M., J. Pfeiffer, T. Pfeiffer, and Harmen Oppewal (2017). Combining virtual reality and mobile eye
tracking to provide a naturalistic experimental environment for shopper research. Journal of Business
Research, In press.
MGDA (2014), “The Shift to Native Advertising in Marketing,” Accessed (Nov 7, 2017) at:
http://www.mdgadvertising.com/blog/the-shift-to-native-advertising-in-marketing-infographic/.
Morgan, Robert and Shelby Hunt. (1994), "The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal
of Marketing, 58, July, 20-38.
Morhart, Felicitas, Lucia Malar, Amelie Guevremont, Florent Giardin, and Bianca Grohmann (2015), “Brand
Authenticity: An Integrative Framework and Measurement Scale,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25,
2, 200-218.
Mosteller, Jill and Amit Poddar (2017), “To Share and Protect: Using Regulatory Focus Theory to Examine the
Privacy Paradox of Consumers' Social Media Engagement and Online Privacy Protection Behaviors,”
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 27-38.
Nagy, Judit and Anjali Midha (2014), “The Value of Earned Audiences: How Social Interactions Amplify TV
Impact: What Programmers and Advertisers Can Gain from Earned Social Impressions,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 54, 4, 448-453.
Naidoo, Vik (2016), “Higher Education Brand Alliances: Investigating Consumers’ Dual-Degree Purchase
Intentions,” Journal of Business Research, 69, 8, 3113-3121.
O’Brien, Heather L. (2010), “The Influence of Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations on User Engagement: The
Case of Online Shopping Experiences,” Interacting with Computers, 22, 5, 344-352.
OU - Ohio University (2017), “Gamification Marketing Examples Being Used in Business,” Accessed (March 2,
2018) at: https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/gamification-marketing-examples-being-used-in-business.
Pagani, Margharita and Giovanni Malacarne (2017), “Experiential Engagement and Active vs. Passive Behavior
in Mobile Location-Based Social Networks: The Moderating Role of Privacy,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 37, Feb, 133-148.
Pansari, Anita and V. Kumar (2017), “Customer Engagement: The Construct, Antecedents, and Consequences,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 3, 294-311.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas Eisingerich, and Dawn Iacobucci (2010), “Brand
Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical
Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing, 74, 6, 1-17.
Patel, Neil (2016), “8 (More) Absolutely Brilliant Content Marketing Innovations from the World’s Best Brands,”
Accessed (March 20, 2018) at: http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2016/07/content-marketing-best-
brands.

33
Peppers, Don and Martha Rogers (2011), Managing Customer Relationships: A Strategic Framework, 2e, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Poolton, Jenny, Hossam Ismail, Iain Reid, and Ivan Arokiam (2006), “Agile Marketing for the Manufacturing-
Based SME,” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24, 7, 681-693.
Pronschinske, Mya, Mark Groza, and Matthew Walker (2012), “Attracting Facebook Fans: The Importance of
Authenticity and Engagement as a Social Networking Strategy for Professional Sport Teams,” Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 21, 4, 221-231.
Pulizzi, Joe (2012), “The Rise of Storytelling as the New Marketing,” Publishing Research Quarterly, 28, 2, 116-
123.
Pulizzi, Joe (2014), Epic Content Marketing, McGraw-Hill.
Pulizzi, Joe (2015), “Native Advertising Is Not Content Marketing,” Accessed (Sep 1, 2017) at:
http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2015/08/native-advertising-content-marketing/.
Pulizzi, Joe and Newt Barrett (2009), Get Content, Get Customers, Bonita Springs: Voyager.
Rahim, Kaba and Bechter Clemens (2012), “Organizational Goals and Performance Measurement Criteria for
Content Marketing,” Journal of Communication and Computer, 9, 896-904.
Rancati, Elisa and Niccolo Gordini (2014), “Content Marketing Metrics: Theoretical Aspects and Empirical
Evidence,” European Scientific Journal, 10, 34, 92-104.
Rao, Akshay, Lu Qu, and Robert W. Ruekert (1999), Signalling Unobservable Product Quality through a Brand
Ally, Journal of Marketing Research, 36(May), 258-268.
Raso, Andrew (2016), “How to Measure Engagement the Right Way,” Accessed (Sep 2, 2017) at:
http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2016/03/measure-engagement-right/.
Ratchford, Brian (2009), “Online Pricing: Review and Directions for Research,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
23, 1, 82-90.
Ratchford, Brian (2015), “Some Directions for Research in Interactive Marketing,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 29, v-vii.
Roggio, Armando (2017), “Content Marketing May Boost Customer Lifetime Value,” Accessed (Aug 3, 2017)
at: http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/132772-Content-Marketing-May-Boost-Customer-
Lifetime-Value.
Rooderkerk, Robert and Koen Pauwels (2016), “No Comment?! The Drivers of Reactions to Online Posts in
Professional Groups,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35, 1-15.
Rose, Robert and Joe Pulizzi (2011), Managing Content Marketing, Cleveland: CMI Books.
Rowley, Jennifer (2008), “Understanding Digital Content Marketing,” Journal of Marketing Management, 24, 5-
6, 517-540.
Ruggiero, Thomas (2000), “Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century,” Mass Communication & Society,
3, 1, 3-37.
Saleh, Khalid (2016), “13 Surprisingly Effective Tips for Conversion-Oriented Content,” Accessed (March 2,
2018 at): http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2016/06/tips-conversion-content/.
Sasser, Sheila and Mark Kilgour (2014), “Marketing in an Interactive World,” In: Harnessing the Power of Social
Media and Web Analytics, 29-52.
Schamari, Julia and Tobias Schaefers (2015), “Leaving the Home Turf: How Brands Can Use Webcare on
Consumer-Generated Platforms to Increase Positive Engagement,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 30,
May, 20-33.
Shaoolian, Gabriel (2017), “Content Marketing Musts: 5 Keys to Driving Sales with Content,” Accessed (March
2, 2018) at: www.forbes.com/sites/gabrielshaoolian/2017/06/29/content-marketing-musts/5-keys-to-
driving-sales-with-content/amp/.
Shastry, Krishna (2018), “Content vs. Traditional Marketing: What’s the Difference?,” Accessed (March 2, 2018)
at: https://landerapp.com/blog/content-vs-traditional-marketing.
Silverman, Michael (2012), Capturing Community: How to Build, Manage and Market Your Online Community,
Cleveland: Content Marketing Institute.
Singh, Sangeeta and Stephan Sonnenburg (2012), “Brand Performances in Social Media,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26, 4, 189-197.
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009), “The Importance of a General Measure of Brand
Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 46, 1, 92-104.
Srivastava, Rajendra, Tussuq Shervani, and Liam Fahey (1998), “Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value:
A Framework for Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 62, 1, 2-18.
Starkman, Naomi (2014), “What McDonald’s New Transparency Campaign Is Hiding,” Time (Health), Accessed
(March 2, 2018) at: http://time.com/3501921/mcdonalds-transparency-campaign/.
Starr, Rick (2011), The Certification of Authenticity, PhD Thesis (Marketing), University of Auckland.
Statista (2017), “Content Marketing Revenue Worldwide in 2009, 2014 and 2019 (in Billion U.S. Dollars),”

34
Accessed (March 13, 2017) at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/527554/content-marketing-revenue/.
Steck, Emily (2016), “Back to Basics: How the 4 Ps of Marketing Fit into Content Marketing,” Accessed (Jul 7,
2017) at: https://blog.quiet.ly/industry/how-the-4ps-of-marketing-fit-into-content-marketing/.
Steimle, Josh (2014), “What Is Content Marketing?” Accessed (Jun 25, 2017) at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/09/19/what-is-content-marketing/.
Storey, Chris and Christine Larbig (2018), “Absorbing Customer Knowledge: How Customer Involvement
Enables Service Design Success,” Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 101-118.
Suddaby, Roy (2010), “Editor’s Comments: Construct Clarity in Theories of Management and Organization,”
Academy of Management Review, 35, 3, 346-357.
Taube, Aaron (2015), “MakerBot Wants to Spark a 3D Printing Revolution through Content Marketing,”
Accessed (Nov 1, 2 017) at: https://contently.com/strategist/2015/09/14/makerbot-wants-to-spark-a-3d-
printing-revolution-through-content-marketing/.
Taylor, Gabriela (2012), Digital Content Marketing, USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Teixeira, Thales, Michel Wedel, and Rik Pieters (2012), “Emotion-Induced Engagement in Internet Video
Advertisements,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 2, 144-159.
Tuskey, Urska, Ursa Golob, and Klement Podnar (2013), “The Role of Consumer-Brand Identification in Building
Brand Relationships,” Journal of Business Research, 66, 1, 53-59.
Van Doorn, Jenny, Katherine Lemon, Vikas Mittal, Stephan Nass, Doreeen Pick, Peter Pirner and Peter Verhoef
(2010), “Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions,” Journal
of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.
Vargo, Stephen and Robert Lusch (2016), “Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-
Dominant Logic,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 1, 5-23.
Vargo, Stephen and Robert Lusch (2017), “S-D Logic 2025,” International Journal of Research in Marketing,
34(1), 46-67.
Viswanathan, Vijay, Edward Malthouse, Ewa Maslowska, Su Jung Kim, and Wei Xie (2017), “The Dynamics of
Consumer Engagement with Mobile Technologies,” Service Science, 9, 1, 36-49.
Vollero Agostino and Maria Palazzo (2015), “Conceptualizing Content Marketing: A Delphi Approach,” Mercati
& Competitività, 1, 25-44.
Voss, Kevin, Eric Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian
Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 3, 310-320.
Wakefield, Kylie Jane (2012), “BMW Shows ‘The Road Home’ for the Holidays,” Accessed (Jan 23, 2017) at:
https://contently.com/strategist/2012/12/21/bmw-shows-the-road-home-for-the-holidays-video/.
Wallace, Elaine, Isabel Buil, and Leslie DeChernatony (2014), “Consumer Engagement with Self-Expressive
Brands: Brand Love and WOM Outcomes,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23, 1, 33-42.
Wang, Jing and Bobby Calder (2006), “Media Transportation and Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research,
33, 2, 151-162.
Wang, Wei-Lin, Edward Malthouse, Bobby Calder, and Ebru Uzunoglu (2017), “B2B Content Marketing for
Professional Services: In-Person versus Digital Contacts,” Industrial Marketing Management, In press,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.11.006.
Weick, Karl, K. Sutcliffe and D. Obstfeld (2005), “Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking,” Organization
Science, 16, 4, 409-421.
Weller, Christian, Robin Kleer, and Frank Piller (2015), “Economic Implications of 3D Printing: Market Structure
Models in Light of Additive Manufacturing Revisited,” International Journal of Production Economics,
164, Jun, 43-56.
Whiting, Anita and David Williams (2013), “Why People Use Social Media: A Uses and Gratifications
Approach,” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16, 4, 362-369.
Wojdynski, Bartosz and Nathaniel Evans (2016), “Going Native: Effects of Disclosure Position and Language on
the Recognition and Evaluation of Online Native Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 45(2), 157-168.
Wojdynski, Bartosz (2016), “The Deceptiveness of Sponsored News Articles: How Readers Recognize and
Perceive Native Advertising,” American Behavioral Scientist, 60, 12, 1475-1491.
Wright, Sally (2016), “Fitness First: Medium Rare Content,” Accessed (Sep 7, 2017) at:
http://mediumrarecontent.com/work/fitness-first/.
Wuebben, Jon (2012), Content is Currency, Nicholas Brealey, Boston, MA.
Yadav, Manjit (2010), “The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development,”
Journal of Marketing, 74, 1, 1-19.
Yi, Youjae, Taeshik Gong and Hyojin Lee (2013), “The Impact of Other Customers on Customer Citizenship
Behavior,” Psychology & Marketing, 30, 4, 341-356.
Yoo, Boonghee and Naveen Donthu (2001), “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Brand Equity
Scale,” Journal of Business Research, 52, 1, 1-14.