The Impact of the Perceived Values of Social Network Services (SNSs) on Brand Attitude and Value-Co-Creation Behavior in the Coffee Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. While I think it is a solid paper, I think it suffers from a number of issues, which I outline below.
- I am not sure why you specifically couch this paper to only coffee brands. Do you think these results would only apply to coffee brands? Or do you think these results would be more generalizable across different product categories, which would make your paper much more impactful?
- I think this paper and the observed effects are very intuitive, making the paper less interesting and impactful than it otherwise could be. Are there maybe any moderators that could be derived from the VAB theoretical model that may reverse any of these expected relationships?
- Why did you use a sample size of 406 participants in your main study? Why this number exactly? You should provide some justification (e.g., power analysis) for the sample size that you use in your study.
- Why did you not collect data on purchase intentions or actual purchase behavior? This would really help with your practical contributions, as marketers ultimately want to know if consumers will be more or less likely to purchase their brand.
- Why are the items for customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior worded in the past tense, while the other constructs are in the present tense? This is a little confusing.
- Regarding the theoretical implications, how did you extend or inform the overarching theory you leverage in this research, the VAB model? It seems like you just applied it to this new context, but I am not sure how you are extending or informing the theory in any way.
Thank you again for the opportunity to read this research. I wish you the best as you continue to progress your work!
Author Response
- Point 1: I am not sure why you specifically couch this paper to only coffee brands. Do you think these results would only apply to coffee brands? Or do you think these results would be more generalizable across different product categories, which would make your paper much more impactful?
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. Drawing on the rapid growth of the coffee industry in Korea, the coffee industry has been struggling with a highly competitive management environment. Most major coffee brands run their brand pages on Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter to communicate with customers as a tool for differentiated marketing strategies. Therefore, we collected the data from customers of the coffee brand, who have both online (SNS) and on-site brand experiences. However, it can surely be generalized across other industries, especially other foodservice segments. SNSs have been utilized as interpersonal communication channels for various industries. Also, customer value co-creation behavior could happen in any business.
As you pointed out, we added the possibility of future studies regarding the expansion of the research across other industries in the limitation section (page 12).
- Point 2: I think this paper and the observed effects are very intuitive, making the paper less interesting and impactful than it otherwise could be. Are there maybe any moderators that could be derived from the VAB theoretical model that may reverse any of these expected relationships?
Response 2: The main research objective of this study was to investigate the structural relationships among values of using SNS, brand attitude, and customer value co-creation behaviors by applying the VAB model. We mentioned the limitations of the lack of moderators and suggested it as a future study opportunity based on your comment (page 13).
- Point 3: Why did you use a sample size of 406 participants in your main study? Why this number exactly? You should provide some justification (e.g., power analysis) for the sample size that you use in your study.
Response 3: According to Kock & Hadaya (2018), a fairly accurate minimum sample size estimation for PLS-SEM analysis can be calculated using the inverse square root method by WarpPLS 8.0 software. We assessed the minimum required sample size using the software based on the following elements; the minimum level used for the significant path coefficient (0.13), the significance level used (0.05), and the power level required (0.80). The answer was a minimum of 350 samples. We collected the data via the research company in Korea, and the online survey included screening questions to select qualified respondents. Then, unqualified questionnaires or responses with missing data were eliminated. Finally, a total of 406 responses were used for the data analysis. A sample size of 406 in this study exceeds the minimum required sample size of 350, thus the sample size was deemed adequate. Thanks for your understanding.
Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information systems journal, 28(1), 227-261.
Kock, N. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: an application in tourism and hospitality research. In Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research. Emerald Publishing Limited.
- Point 4: Why did you not collect data on purchase intentions or actual purchase behavior? This would really help with your practical contributions, as marketers ultimately want to know if consumers will be more or less likely to purchase their brand.
Response 4: The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among the values of SNS, brand attitude, customer participation behavior, and the customer citizenship behavior. In this study, customer participation behavior refers to the buying behaviors of customers that can essentially happen in the service process, such as; 1. searching for information about the brand (menu, location, promotion, etc.) 2. sharing information about what the customers want with the employees from the purchasing behavior of the brand (menu ordering, answering service-related questions, etc.), 3. communication attitude to the employees (being polite, mannered behavior, etc.), and 4. fulfillment of required behavior as customers (responsible behavior). Therefore, dealing with customer participation behavior reflects the actual purchase behavior of customers.
- Point 5: Why are the items for customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior worded in the past tense, while the other constructs are in the present tense? This is a little confusing.
Response 5: The values of using SNS and brand attitude were also answered based on the past experiences of the respondents. Thank you for pointing out the tense of the measurement items. The tense of measurement items was modified based on your comment.
- Point 6: Regarding the theoretical implications, how did you extend or inform the overarching theory you leverage in this research, the VAB model? It seems like you just applied it to this new context, but I am not sure how you are extending or informing the theory in any way.
Response 6: The authors believe that this study extends the VAM model in various ways. First, the current research explored diverse dimensions of values derived from using the SNS of a brand. Information-seeking value, entertainment value, expressive value, and economic value were contained in the model and most of them were significant. Therefore, we think the VAB model was extensively employed in the current study. Second, the measuring items regarding customer value co-creation behavior, which stands for B of the model, usually reflect either online or offline brand experiences in prior research. However, the current study comprehensively considered both online and offline service settings. Thus, the result of the study can suggest that perceived values of using SNS, which are formed by online communication experience, can lead to the general brand attitude, and also actual value co-creation behaviors of customers. The VAB model in the current study explains the significant and indirect impacts of interactive communications via SNS on both online and offline behaviors as well.
Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments for the improvement of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Well executed work. Clear objectives, well formulated hypotheses, understandable results. Good statistical analysis. Graphs would have raised the quality of the paper.
Author Response
- Point 1: Well executed work. Clear objectives, well formulated hypotheses, understandable results. Good statistical analysis. Graphs would have raised the quality of the paper.
Response 1: We will add another model representing the final result of hypothesis testing. We appreciate for your comments to improve the quality of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your revision. I think the paper looks good. However, regarding the tenses of some of the measurements, you stated, "The values of using SNS and brand attitude were also answered based on the past experiences of the respondents. Thank you for pointing out the tense of the measurement items. The tense of measurement items was modified based on your comment.” I am a little confused by this response. How were the items that you used in the actual study worded? That is what needs to be included in the paper. You should report them exactly how the respondents saw them. Did you use the past or current tense for the customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior measures in the actual study that you conducted?
Author Response
- Point 1: Thank you for your revision. I think the paper looks good. However, regarding the tenses of some of the measurements, you stated, "The values of using SNS and brand attitude were also answered based on the past experiences of the respondents. Thank you for pointing out the tense of the measurement items. The tense of measurement items was modified based on your comment.” I am a little confused by this response. How were the items that you used in the actual study worded? That is what needs to be included in the paper. You should report them exactly how the respondents saw them. Did you use the past or current tense for the customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior measures in the actual study that you conducted?
Response 1: Including customer participation behavior and customer citizenship behavior, all the measurement items in the survey were measured based on the past brand experiences of respondents, so past tense was used in the questionnaire as below.
|
Information Seeking value |
Using SNSs of the brand provided me with exact information. |
|
Using SNSs of the brand provided me with useful information. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand provided me with updated information. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand provided me with various information. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entertainment value |
Using SNSs of the brand made me pleasant. |
|
Using SNSs of the brand made me entertained. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand did not make me bored. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand was interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
Expressive Value |
Using SNSs of the brand held meaning for me. |
|
Using SNSs of the brand helped me express myself. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand helped me identify myself. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand seemed to help others express themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
Economic value |
Using SNSs of the brand helped me get better prices than others. |
|
Using SNSs of the brand helped me receive faster services than others. |
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand helped me receive higher-quality service. |
|
|
|
Using SNSs of the brand helped me receive more customized services.
|
|
Brand attitude |
I felt that I like the brand. |
|
I felt that the brand is likable. |
|
|
I felt that the brand is valuable. |
|
|
I felt that the brand is attractive.
|
|
Customer Participation Behavior |
Information seeking |
I asked others for the products/services of the brand. |
|
I searched for information on the products/services of the brand. |
||
|
I paid attention to how others used the brand well. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Information sharing |
I clearly explained what I wanted to the brand employee(s). |
|
|
I provided the necessary information so that the brand employee(s) could perform appropriate duties. |
||
|
I answered all the employee(s)' service-related questions. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Personal interaction |
I was kind to the brand employee(s). |
|
|
I was polite to the brand employee(s). |
||
|
I respected the brand employee(s). |
||
|
I didn't act rudely to the brand employee(s). |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Responsible behavior |
I performed all required tasks for the successful delivery of service while visiting the brand shop. |
|
|
I properly completed all the expected behaviors for the successful service delivery while visiting the brand shop. |
||
|
I fulfilled responsibilities for the successful service delivery while visiting the brand shop. |
||
|
I followed the employee(s)’ directives or orders for the successful service delivery while visiting the brand shop. |
||
|
|
|
|
Customer Citizenship Behavior |
Feedback |
When I had a good idea for improving the service of the brand, I let the employee(s) know. |
|
When I received good service from the brand employee(s), I commented. |
||
|
When I experienced a problem, I let the brand employee(s) know. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy |
I said positive things about the brand and the employee(s) to others. |
|
|
I recommended the brand and the employee(s) to others. |
||
|
I encouraged friends, family, and relatives to visit the brand. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Helping |
I assisted other customers if they needed my help with the brand. |
|
I helped other customers if they seemed to have problems with the brand. |
||
|
I taught other customers to use the products/services of the brand correctly. |
||
|
I advised other customers about the products/services of the brand. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolerance |
When the service was not delivered as expected, I accepted the deficiency. |
|
When the employee(s) made a mistake during the service, I was patient and waited for corrections. |
||
|
When I had to wait longer than I usually expected to receive the service, I adapted. |
||
|
|
|
Thank you very much for the reviewer’s valuable comments for the improvement of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
