Consumers’ Preferences for Digital Corporate Content on Company Websites: A Best–Worst Scaling Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Gratifying Characteristics of Digital Corporate Content
- Information value refers to digital corporate content that is perceived to be interesting, relevant, up-to-date, and of high quality.
- Entertainment value refers to digital corporate content that is entertaining, surprising, and relaxing and puts consumers in a good mood.
- Value in use refers to digital corporate content that offers functional, utilitarian performance in terms of inspiration, ideas, advice, tips, or help in everyday life or purchasing decisions.
- Social value stems from interacting with others about specific content, sharing content, or content that serves to better present or understand oneself.
- Process value stems from a gratifying process of using digital corporate content and may be related to, e.g., multimedia experiences, ease of use, or specific technologies that users perceive as pleasurable to use.
2.2. Best–Worst Scaling
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Construction of Choice Sets
3.2. Survey Structure and Implementation
3.3. Participants
3.4. Study Size
3.5. Statistical Analyses
3.5.1. Processing of the Sample
3.5.2. Counting Analysis
3.5.3. Modeling Analysis
3.5.4. Subgroup Analyses
4. Results
4.1. Participants’ Data
4.2. Counting Analysis
4.3. Conditional Logit Analysis
4.4. Subgroup Analyses
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Paths for Future Research
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beard, F.; Petrotta, B.; Dischner, L. A History of Content Marketing. J. Hist. Res. Mark. 2021, 13, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollebeek, L.D.; Macky, K. Digital Content Marketing’s Role in Fostering Consumer Engagement, Trust, and Value: Framework, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications. J. Interact. Mark. 2019, 45, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.-L.; Malthouse, E.C.; Calder, B.; Uzunoglu, E. B2B Content Marketing for Professional Services: In-Person versus Digital Contacts. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 81, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koob, C. Determinants of Content Marketing Effectiveness: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings from a Managerial Perspective. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahlen, M.; Rosengren, S. If Advertising Won’t Die, What Will It Be? Toward a Working Definition of Advertising. J. Advert. 2016, 45, 334–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, C.; ** Review of the Effect of Content Marketing on Online Consumer Behavior. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221093042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cyr, D.; Head, M.; Lim, E.; Stibe, A. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model to Examine Online Persuasion through Website Design. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 807–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jongmans, E.; Jeannot, F.; Liang, L.; Damperat, M. Impact of Website Visual Design on User Experience and Website Evaluation: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Usability and Pleasure. J. Mark. Manag. 2022, 38, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimov, F.; Brengman, M.; Van Hove, L. The Effect of Website Design Dimensions on Initial Trust: A Synthesis of the Empirical Literature. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2011, 12, 272–301. [Google Scholar]
- Voorveld, H.A.M.; Neijens, P.C.; Smit, E.G. Consumers’ Responses to Brand Websites: An Interdisciplinary Review. Internet Res. 2009, 19, 535–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Content Marketing Forum. Content Marketing Baseline Study 2022. Available online: https://content-marketing-forum.com/cmf-studie/ (accessed on 2 February 2023).
- Pelletier, M.J.; Krallman, A.; Adams, F.G.; Hancock, T. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: A Uses and Gratifications Analysis of Social Media Platforms. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2020, 14, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowden, J.; Mirzaei, A. Consumer Engagement within Retail Communication Channels: An Examination of Online Brand Communities and Digital Content Marketing Initiatives. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 1411–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.; Lings, I.; Islam, T.; Gudergan, S.; Flynn, T. An Introduction to the Application of (Case 1) Best–Worst Scaling in Marketing Research. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2013, 30, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hollis, G.; Westbury, C. When Is Best-Worst Best? A Comparison of Best-Worst Scaling, Numeric Estimation, and Rating Scales for Collection of Semantic Norms. Behav. Res. Methods 2018, 50, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heo, C.Y.; Kim, B.; Park, K.; Back, R.M. A Comparison of Best-Worst Scaling and Likert Scale Methods on Peer-to-Peer Accommodation Attributes. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, E.; Blumler, J.G.; Gurevitch, M. Uses and Gratifications Research. Public Opin. Q. 1973, 37, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, A.M. Uses-and-Gratifications Perspective on Media Effects. In Media Effects; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2009; pp. 181–200. ISBN 0-203-87711-X. [Google Scholar]
- Ruggiero, T.E. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Commun. Soc. 2000, 3, 3–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Avant, J.A.; Kim, K.; Hayes, J.L. Thirty Years of Advertising Research in Leading Communication and Marketing Journals: Learning from the Parent Disciplines. J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 2017, 38, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundar, S.S.; Limperos, A.M. Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2013, 57, 504–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haridakis, P.; Humphries, Z. Uses and Gratifications. In An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019; pp. 139–154. [Google Scholar]
- Valkenburg, P.M.; Peter, J.; Walther, J.B. Media Effects: Theory and Research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 315–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Voss, K.E.; Spangenberg, E.R.; Grohmann, B. Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude. J. Mark. Res. 2003, 40, 310–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbrook, M.B.; Hirschman, E.C. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. J. Consum. Res. 1982, 9, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morhart, F.; Malär, L.; Guèvremont, A.; Girardin, F.; Grohmann, B. Brand Authenticity: An Integrative Framework and Measurement Scale. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Shen, X.; Huang, X.; Li, Y. Research on Social Media Content Marketing: An Empirical Analysis Based on China’s 10 Metropolis for Korean Brands. SAGE Open 2021, 11, 21582440211052951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izogo, E.E.; M**anjira, M. Behavioral Consequences of Customer Inspiration: The Role of Social Media Inspirational Content and Cultural Orientation. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2020, 14, 431–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lou, C.; **. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Agrebi, M. The Internet User Relational Orientation: Towards a Better Understanding of Online Browsing Behaviour. J. Mark. Manag. 2021, 37, 1374–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, W.; Stump, R.; Li, Z. Global Use and Access of Social Networking Web Sites: A National Culture Perspective. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2014, 8, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodrich, K.; de Mooij, M. How ‘Social’ Are Social Media? A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Online and Offline Purchase Decision Influences. J. Mark. Commun. 2014, 20, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitirattarkarn, G.P.; Araujo, T.; Neijens, P. Challenging Traditional Culture? How Personal and National Collectivism-Individualism Moderates the Effects of Content Characteristics and Social Relationships on Consumer Engagement with Brand-Related User-Generated Content. J. Advert. 2019, 48, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sample | Target Population | ||
---|---|---|---|
n | % | % | |
Gender | |||
Female | 736 | 48.2 | 49.4 |
Male | 791 | 51.8 | 50.6 |
Age (years) | |||
16–29 | 369 | 24.2 | 23.7 |
30–39 | 338 | 22.1 | 20.1 |
40–49 | 324 | 21.2 | 19.0 |
50–65 | 496 | 32.5 | 37.2 |
Level of education | |||
Low | 334 | 21.9 | 25.7 |
Medium | 572 | 37.5 | 35.3 |
High | 621 | 40.7 | 39.0 |
Employment status | |||
Employed (incl. actively seeking work) | 1189 | 77.9 | 76.9 |
Education/training | 127 | 8.3 | 10.3 |
Pension | 104 | 6.8 | 5.5 |
Housemen/-wives | 107 | 7.0 | 7.3 |
Content Characteristics | B | W | BW | Mean Standardized BW | SD | BCa 95% CI | Sqrt BW | Standardized Sqrt BW | Rank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LL | UL | |||||||||
Information value | 2972 | 484 | 2488 | 0.407 | 0.438 | 0.386 | 0.430 | 2.478 | 100.0 | 1 |
Value in use | 1920 | 791 | 1129 | 0.185 | 0.409 | 0.165 | 0.205 | 1.558 | 62.9 | 2 |
Entertainment value | 1217 | 1433 | −216 | −0.035 | 0.449 | −0.058 | −0.012 | 0.922 | 37.2 | 3 |
Process value | 797 | 1691 | −894 | −0.146 | 0.420 | −0.168 | −0.124 | 0.687 | 27.7 | 4 |
Social value | 729 | 3236 | −2507 | −0.410 | 0.540 | −0.438 | −0.383 | 0.475 | 19.2 | 5 |
Content Characteristics | β | SE | p | SP | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Information value | 1.480 | 0.027 | <0.001 | 36.9 | 1 |
Value in use | 1.082 | 0.026 | <0.001 | 24.8 | 2 |
Entertainment value | 0.677 | 0.025 | <0.001 | 16.5 | 3 |
Process value | 0.473 | 0.025 | <0.001 | 13.5 | 4 |
Social value | reference | 8.4 | 5 |
Information Value | Value in Use | Entertainment Value | Process Value | Social Value | N | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||
Gender | female | 0.373 | 0.413 | 0.233 | 0.427 | −0.010 | 0.458 | −0.191 | 0.442 | −0.405 | 0.538 | 736 |
male | 0.440 | 0.458 | 0.140 | 0.386 | −0.059 | 0.439 | −0.105 | 0.393 | −0.416 | 0.543 | 791 | |
t-value, p, d | −3.00, <0.01, −0.153 | 4.42, <0.001, 0.227 | 2.15, <0.05, 0.110 | −3.97, <0.001, −0.204 | 0.39, 0.699 | |||||||
Age (years) | 16–29 | 0.341 a | 0.445 | 0.124 1 | 0.406 | −0.018 1 | 0.442 | −0.152 | 0.450 | −0.295 a | 0.552 | 369 |
30–39 | 0.345 a | 0.467 | 0.106 1 | 0.395 | 0.008 1 | 0.461 | −0.150 | 0.416 | −0.309 a | 0.552 | 338 | |
40–49 | 0.418 a,b | 0.429 | 0.184 1 | 0.411 | 0.009 1 | 0.438 | −0.172 | 0.421 | −0.440 b | 0.528 | 324 | |
50–65 | 0.491 b | 0.405 | 0.284 2 | 0.400 | −0.107 2 | 0.445 | −0.122 | 0.398 | −0.546 c | 0.498 | 496 | |
F-value, p, | 11.74, <0.001, 0.022 | 17.25, <0.001, 0.033 | 6.64, <0.001, 0.013 | 1.02, 0.381 | 21.47, <0.001, 0.040 | |||||||
Personality type | Resilient | 0.449 1 | 0.437 | 0.248 a | 0.391 | −0.041 1,2 | 0.481 | −0.202 1 | 0.424 | −0.453 1 | 0.537 | 308 |
Overcontroller | 0.427 1 | 0.449 | 0.211 a | 0.415 | −0.004 1,2 | 0.440 | −0.106 1,2 | 0.402 | −0.528 1 | 0.524 | 186 | |
Undercontroller | 0.304 2 | 0.435 | 0.088 b | 0.388 | 0.004 1 | 0.433 | −0.132 1,2 | 0.423 | −0.263 2 | 0.536 | 489 | |
Reserved | 0.498 1 | 0.426 | 0.250 a | 0.383 | −0.105 2 | 0.424 | −0.107 2 | 0.423 | −0.537 1 | 0.523 | 287 | |
Vul.-resilient | 0.439 1 | 0.417 | 0.202 a | 0.458 | −0.048 1,2 | 0.464 | −0.180 1,2 | 0.410 | −0.413 1 | 0.522 | 257 | |
F-value, p, | 11.33, <0.001, 0.029 | 11.93, <0.001, 0.028 | 2.93, <0.05, 0.008 | 2.98, <0.05, 0.008 | 16.29, <0.001, 0.041 | |||||||
Lifestyle | Social Elite | 0.388 1 | 0.447 | 0.138 1 | 0.402 | −0.047 1,2 | 0.429 | −0.135 | 0.408 | −0.344 a | 0.536 | 529 |
Traditionalists | 0.498 2 | 0.412 | 0.336 2 | 0.390 | −0.097 1 | 0.458 | −0.094 | 0.364 | −0.643 b | 0.451 | 152 | |
Middle Class | 0.431 1,2 | 0.430 | 0.202 1 | 0.418 | −0.048 1,2 | 0.472 | −0.155 | 0.442 | −0.429 a | 0.537 | 475 | |
Avantgarde | 0.377 1,2 | 0.426 | 0.167 1 | 0.412 | −0.002 1,2 | 0.438 | −0.168 | 0.425 | −0.373 a | 0.554 | 241 | |
Und.-Modernized | 0.350 1 | 0.468 | 0.173 1 | 0.378 | 0.069 2 | 0.436 | −0.181 | 0.435 | −0.412 a | 0.570 | 130 | |
F-value, p, | 3.11, <0.05, 0.008 | 7.39, <0.001, 0.019 | 3.02, <0.05, 0.008 | 1.12, 0.343 | 12.41, <0.001, 0.025 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Koob, C. Consumers’ Preferences for Digital Corporate Content on Company Websites: A Best–Worst Scaling Analysis. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 1301-1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18030066
Koob C. Consumers’ Preferences for Digital Corporate Content on Company Websites: A Best–Worst Scaling Analysis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2023; 18(3):1301-1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18030066
Chicago/Turabian StyleKoob, Clemens. 2023. "Consumers’ Preferences for Digital Corporate Content on Company Websites: A Best–Worst Scaling Analysis" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 3: 1301-1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18030066