ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING

ACTIVITIES ON CUSTOMER EQUITIES AND
ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH
Noorshella Che Nawi1, Abdullah Al Mamun2, Siti Nurul Shuhada Deraman3, Massila Kamalrudin4,
Huynh Thi My Dieu5, Naeem Hayat6
1
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, 16100 Kota Bharu,
Kelantan, Malaysia.
2
Associate Professor, Faculty of Business and Information Science, UCSI University, Malaysia. No. 1, Jalan
Menara Gading, UCSI Heights (Taman Connaught), Cheras, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
HP: 06-0133003630,
3
Lecturer, Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, 16100 Kota Bharu,
Kelantan, Malaysia.
4
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology Management and Enterpreneurship, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia
Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, 76100 Durian Tunggal,
Melaka, Malaysia.
5
Lecturer, Graduate School of Education – UFM Graduate School, University of Finance - Marketing, Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam
PhD Candidate, Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Pengkalan Chepa,
16100 Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.

Email: [email protected], [email protected],[email protected],

[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020

ABSTRACT: Purpose: Marketing activities are a form of investment to improve customer loyalties. The use of
social media has taken the place of the traditional marketing channel, and firms are placing more efforts on
social media. Social media marketing activities (SMMAs) are endorsed for the delivery of customer-based
value, relationship, and brand level equities. The broader objective of SMMAs is the achievement of electronic
word of mouth (eWOM) by respective brand-customers from the SMMAs. This study aimed to explore the
effects of SMMAs on customer value equity, relationship equity, and brand equity, and how customer equities
can influence eWOM among apparel customers.
Design/methodology/approach: The data were collected using convenience sampling from local university
students. The collected data were analysed with SmartPLS.
Findings: The data analysis revealed that SMMAs significantly influence the value equity for apparel
customers. However, entertainment and trendiness insignificantly influence the relationship between equity and
brand equity. Finally, the value equity and brand equity significantly influence the eWOM among apparel
customers.
Originality/value: The findings suggested that the SMMAs adopted by Malaysian apparel firms should focus
on the entertainment and trendiness to achieve positive eWOM for their respective brands.

KEYWORDS: Social Media Marketing Activities; Customer Equity; Partial Least Square-Structural Equation
Modelling; Electronic Word of Mouth; Malaysia.

I. INTRODUCTION
We are living in the technology era where several billion people are interconnected in real-time through the
internet and social media. Social media can enhance the marketing efforts of firms. Many local and international
brands are using social media as a regular marketing platform to promote their offerings and interact with
customers (Manthiou, Chiang & Tang, 2013). Social media marketing (SMM) is the second wave of customer
communication, which is based on two-way communication that offers faster, interactive, and timely
communication to customers (Kim & Ko, 2012).

Marketing activities are the investment for the brands to achieve customer attention and satisfaction (Aaker,
2009). Currently, every firm uses social media. The use of SMM is rising, and consumer brands are relying on
SMM activities to entertain and interact with their customers (Barreto, 2014). The SMM activities enable brands

4078
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

to work for the trendiness and customisation of the firms’ brand offerings. Firms enhance their presence on the
social media (SM), and the competition is getting tougher for the competing brands. SMMAs are conceptualised
differently (Bagozzi & Utpal, 2002). Kim and Ko (2012) stated that SMMAs are based on the functions of
entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and customisation. Besides, SMMAs are used for communication,
provision of information, and management of the social response from brand customers (Seo & Park, 2018).

SMM activities enable the brands to interact with their customer efficiently, obtain feedback, and perform
necessary activities to retain customers (King, Racherla & Bush, 2014). Customer interaction enables the firms
to offer product and services based on customer preferences that can reduce the effects of communication loss
due to intermediaries (Manthiou et al., 2013). The interaction and two-way communication enable the firms to
categorise customers that can directly satisfy the customers’ needs and wants (Seo & Kim, 2003). Customer
equity is an important objective of marketing efforts. Hence, SMM enables firms to build strong communication
and association with customers (Kim, Kim, Kim & Kang, 2008).

SMM activities received considerable attention from brands and academic scholars (Seo & Park, 2018).
SMMAs enable brands to interact with a large population with fewer resources and time (Sano, 2014). Besides,
SMMAs are effectively translated into 90% of consumer purchases (Seo & Park, 2018). The attention shows the
importance of SMMAs. However, the literature on the SMMAs in affecting the consumer level equities needed
more attention. The effective management of SMMAs enables brands to achieve customer satisfaction and deal
with adverse effects of customer experiences (Yoon, 2012; Zhang, Shabbir, Pitsaphol & Hassan, 2015).

Several consumer brands use SMM, which shows a different level of effectiveness according to the nature of the
product. Apparel brands use SMM to engage with their customers. The enhanced use of SMM among apparel
brands makes it imperative to explore the influence of SMM activities on brand equity evaluation and the effect
of brand equity evaluation on the eWOM of a brand.

The next section is about the literature of the SMMAs activities, equities derived for customer and outcome of
SMMAs as eWOM, and hypotheses development. The subsequent section describes the method of this study
based on the literature review. The analysis and results are reported in Section 4 and 5, respectively. Section 6
presents the conclusions, future research opportunities, and study limitations.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Social Media Marketing Activities

SMMAs are the marketing activities by a brand to interact with their customers for awareness, content sharing,
and joint working (Sano, 2014). The concept is popular and social media is used by brands for marketing
activities, and it can be used to develop a one-to-one relationship with customers (Seo & Park, 2018). Kim and
Ko (2012) categorise the SMMAs into four aspects: entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and customisation.
SMMAs are used by companies and brands for communication, provision of information, supporting daily life,
promotion, and sale besides managing the social response towards the brands (Seo & Park, 2018). Besides,
SMMAs are used by the brands for information, immediacy, response, and accessibility factors (King et al.,
2014).

Electronic Word of Mouth

Consumers share their positive responses about brands or services (Kim & Ko, 2012). The positive experience
of a brand can produce positive emotion and loyalty. The emotional and behavioural responses are displayed in
eWOM for the SMMAs of the brands (Sano, 2014). EWOM is the assessment of the consumers on the brands.
The user-level information that are shared online can reduce consumer-level anxiety and stress (Zhang et al.,
2015). Satisfied customers form an association with a brand that can be reflected in positive eWOM (King et al.,
2014). The brand level SMMAs enable users to develop value equity, relationship, and brand level equity that
influence eWOM (Seo & Park, 2018).

Entertainment
Social media is the source of fun and play for consumers (Zhang et al., 2014). The users of social media seek
entertainment and amusement. Therefore, social media managers are significantly adding entertainment aspects
to social media content (King et al., 2014). The entertainment urges social media consumers to engage with
virtual communities, promote positive emotions towards a brand, and develop a long-term association with a
brand (Sano, 2014).

4079
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

Interaction
Cyberspace offers a unique opportunity to social media users to interact, exchange ideas, discuss, and provide
honest opinions about the brands (Sano, 2014). The interaction is the hallmark of SMMAs. Interaction enables
the users to share experiences and help others to resolve issues (Zhang et al., 2014). Social media managers can
help customers in using the brands. User-generated content (UGC) on social media shows the level of customer-
brand association (King et al., 2014). Social media enables the brand to inform customers and achieve customer
trust (Kim & Ko, 2012).

Trendiness
A brand wants to create and follow trends. SMMAs enable a brand to develop a trend that can increase customer
satisfaction (King et al., 2014). The prompt response to social media describes the timelines and prevailing
trends (Sano, 2014). The trendiness describes the provision of new information about the brand and prevailing
acceptability of brand values that are combined in brand offerings (Zhang et al., 2014).

Customisation
Customisation is the reflection of the customers’ demands and improvements in brand social media
communication (King et al., 2014). Conventional media marketing is one-sided and it takes a long time to
provide responses. Social media provide prompt responses to customers’ demands and requests (Zhang et al.,
2014). The readily generated social response is optimised by social media in providing effective band response
(Kim & Ko, 2012). Customisation of social media can improve brand image and develop brand loyalty (Sano,
2014).

Value Equity
Value is the basic building block of a strong customer relationship with the products or services. A strong
relationship with customers may not be achieved unless the customers have a strong value proposition in the
organisation’s offerings (Lemon, Rust & Zeithaml, 2001). Value equity is the customer’s objective assessment
of brand utility. For example, what the customers received based on their expectation (Zhang, Doorn &
Leeflang, 2014). The key-value equity attributes of brand offers are price, quality, and convenience (Lemon et
al., 2001). Price is what customers gave in return for the firms’ offering (Kim et al., 2008). Price can determine
the value aspect of a product (Seo & Kim, 2003). Besides, price is a marketing tool that influences customer
behaviours (Keller, 2003). Quality is the objective physical and nonphysical aspects of a product that is within
the firm’s capacity (Zhang et al., 2014). Convenience is another valued aspect that deals with reducing
customers’ time, search cost, and conducting transection with the firm (Zhang et al., 2015).

Relationship Equity
Relationship equity is the process of building an association between the firm and customers (Lemon et al.,
2001). Having a brand name and value equity is not enough to retain customers (Zhang et al., 2014).
Relationship equity is the customers’ association with a firm (Seo & Park, 2018). Relationship equity is
enhanced with the company’s directed programmes like loyalty programmes, special recognition, and
community-building programmes (Zhang et al., 2014). Social media is the prime innovative source of building
relationship equity (Yoon, 2012). Relationship activities can strongly influence the structural bonds between a
firm and customers (Seo & Park, 2018).

Brand Equity
Brand equity is the prospective consumers’ perceptions of brand name or symbol as their brand preference or
also known as brand value (Zhang et al., 2015). Brand awareness and brand image are vital aspects of brand
equity (Lemon et al., 2001). Consumers develop a unique perception of a brand that differentiates a specific
brand with other relevant brands based on their properties (Aaker, 2009). Brand equity is the perceived brand
that has a social and cultural positioning (Seo & Park, 2018). Brand awareness is associated with retaining a
brand in one’s memory to identify the brand among other brands (Lemon et al., 2001). Brand awareness can
develop to become brand image. Band image is the structured positioning of a brand in the prospective
consumers’ mind (Seo & Kim, 2003). Brand image initiates brand acceptance as a product of the sensory
reflection in the consumers’ mind (Keller, 2003).

Hypothesis Development
SMMA Effects on Value Equity
The marketing efforts are performed to communicate with current and prospective customers (Keller, 2003).
Marketing is an investment, which can help firms to engage with customers (Kim et al., 2008). Social media is
an effective platform to perform marketing activities and provide entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and

4080
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

customisation (Seo & Park, 2018). Kim and Ko (2012) claimed that SMMAs can influence equity for airline
customers. This study proposed the following hypotheses according to Kim and Ko (2012):

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Entertainment has a positive effect on value equity.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Interaction has a positive effect on value equity.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Trendiness has a positive effect on value equity.
Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Customisation has a positive effect on value equity.

SMMA Effects on Relationship Equity

Furthermore, another objective of the marketing efforts is to build a relationship for equity among customers
(Aaker, 2009). Relationship equity can develop a strong association of brand loyalty; the relationship equity
restricts the existing customer from selecting other competing brands (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner & Gremler,
2002). Social media enables can engage customers with marketing activities (King et al., 2014). Social media
marketing interacts with customers by providing relevant and current attributes of the brands (Seo & Park,
2018). Customisation in social media enables firms to deal with customers’ needs and wants. Kim and Ko
(2012) suggested that SMMA can influence equity for airline customers. Social media marketing activities are
based on the conceptualisation by Kim and Ko (2012), and we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Entertainment has a positive effect on relationship equity.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Interaction has a positive effect on relationship equity.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c): Trendiness has a positive effect on relationship equity.
Hypothesis 2d (H2d): Customisation has a positive effect on relationship equity.

SMMA Effects on Brand Equity

Moreover, brand equity is the prime objective for the marketing efforts on social media (Seo & Park, 2018).
Marketing is an investment to influence positive perceptions from customers on the firm’s offerings (Rust,
Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004). According to Kim and Ko (2012), social media as a source of entertainment can
bring positive brand equity for the firms’ offerings. Social media provides improved interaction that is trendy
and up-to-date. Kim and Ko (2012) claimed that SMMA can influence equity for airline customers. Seo and
Park (2018) postulated that the brand equity of airline customers can be significantly influenced by SMMA. The
flexibility in social media marketing facilitates the customisation that influences brand equity among customers
(Manthiou et al., 2013). Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Entertainment has a positive effect on brand equity.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Interaction has a positive effect on brand equity.
Hypothesis 3c (H3c): Trendiness has a positive effect on brand equity.
Hypothesis 3d (H3d): Customisation has a positive effect on brand equity.

Customer Equities on eWOM

Value equity is a salient feature of the firm’s offerings that indicates a positive influence in the consumers’
mindset (Lemon et al., 2001). This perception of value equity as the satisfaction for brand offers can lead to
positive eWOM (Seo & Park, 2018). Furthermore, firms’ relationship with equity efforts can strongly influence
brand satisfaction and brand purchase (Keller, 2003). Relationship equity prompts users to provide positive
eWOM on social media (Sano, 2014). The brand equity provided by the firm’s offering enables customers to
have better brand satisfaction and they will provide positive eWOM about the brand (King et al., 2014). Seo and
Park (2018) affirmed that brand equity influences eWOM for airline SMMAs among airline customers.

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): Value equity has a positive effect on eWOM.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): Relationship equity has a positive effect on eWOM.
Hypothesis 4c (H4c): Brand equity has a positive effect on eWOM.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study employed a cross-sectional design and quantitative method to examine factors that influence SMMAs
and enhance the level of equity and eWOM in fashion apparel brands among undergraduate students from
Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK). Figure 1 presents all the associations hypothesized and tested in this
study. The data were collected through structured face-to-face interviews from the undergraduate
students. Then, the data were imported into Statistical Package Social Science (SPSS) and PLS-SEM for further
analyses.

4081
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

Figure 1. Research Framework

Sample Size
The sample frame was taken from the undergraduate students from Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK), which
has 5,168 undergraduate students. The sample size was estimated with the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table, and
the minimum sample for this study was 357. This study used convenience and collected data from 361
university students.

Research Instrument
Table 1 presents the questions for social media marketing (entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and
customisation) that were adapted from Seo and Park (2018). The following are the items adopted from several
studies: value equity (Wiedmann et al., 2009; Rust et al., 2009); relationship equity (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002;
Ju & Chung, 2002); brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Yun, 2006); and eWOM (Seo & Park, 2018). This study used a
five-point Likert scale (1 to 5 from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) for all variables. The questionnaires
were designed in English and Bahasa Melayu.

Table 1. Sources of Survey Instrument

Variable Items Source

Entertainment 4 Seo & Park (2018)
Interaction 4 Seo & Park (2018)
Trendiness 4 Seo & Park (2018)
Customization 4 Seo & Park (2018)
Value Equity 4 Wiedmann et al., (2009) and Rust et al., (2009)
Relationship Equity 5 Hennig-Thurau et al., (2002), and Ju and Chung (2002).
Brand Equity 5 Aaker (1991) & Yun (2006)
Electronic word of mouth 6 Seo & Park (2018)

Assessment of Common Method Variance (CMV)

Scientific methods of measurement in social science research are associated with common method bias because
they use a single source and single point of time data (Podsakoff, Mackenzie Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Harman’s
(1976) one-factor test was suggested to access the impact of CMV on the study constructs (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). The one-factor Harman’s test confirmed that CMV is not a critical issue for the study because the highest
factor accounted for 30.59% variance, which is less than the suggested limit of 50%.

4082
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

Multivariate Normality
The data should not have multivariate normality because SEM-PLS is a non-parametric analysis tool (Hair,
Risher, Sarstedt & Ringle, 2019). Peng and Lai (2012) suggested an online tool of web power to confirm data
normality. The test results confirmed that the data set is not normal because the Mardia’s multivariate
coefficient p-values should be less than 0.05 (Cain, Zhang & Yuan, 2017).

Data Analysis Method

This study used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with the Smart-PLS software 3.1
to evaluate the respondents’ data. PLS-SEM is a multivariate exploration instrument that assesses path models,
which have latent constructs with composites (Hair et al., 2019). PLS-SEM can exploit non-normal and small
data set. Besides, PLS-SEM is associated with the casual-predictive nature that can work with composites based
complex models and it has no postulation of goodness-of-fit estimation that can be seen in covariance-based
SEM (Chin, 2010). PLS-SEM has a two-steps analysis. The first step deals with model measurement, where the
reliability and validity of the study construct are evaluated (Hair et al., 2019), and the discriminant validity is
achieved by the old and newly proposed methods (Fornel; & Larcker, 1981; Henseler, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2015).
The second step assesses the structural model associations and study hypotheses with significance levels (Chin,
2010). Model estimation is performed with r2, Q2, and the effect size f2 that describe the path effect from
exogenous construct to endogenous construct (Hair et al., 2019).

The importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) categorises the exogenous model constructs into relatively
high to low by the importance and performance of endogenous constructs (Chin, 2010). IPMA identifies and
distinguishes the conceptual constructs to enhance the performance of endogenous constructs. IPMA builds on
the total effect of the rescaled variables scores in the unstandardised procedure (Ringle & Sarstedt, 2016).
Rescaling establishes each exogenous latent variable score between 0 and 100. The mean value of the
exogenous latent variable score represents the performance of the latent endogenous construct, where 0
represents the least and 100 represents the most important in the performance of endogenous constructs (Hair et
al., 2019).

IV. DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive Statistics
This study selected 361 respondents who used the social media platform to purchase apparel online. The sample
respondents were as follows: 62% were females and 38.1% were males. The majority of the respondents
(43.4%) were in the fourth year of their studies. Regarding their race, 58% of the respondents were Malay,
followed by Chinese (24.7%), Indian (13.6%), and others (3.6%). For the frequency in using social media, most
of the respondents agreed that they used it every day (77.6%).

Validity and Reliability

We conducted the study and reported the Smart PLS results following the methods by Hair et al. (2019). The
reliabilities of study constructs were estimated with Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and DG
rho-A. The results revealed that all the reliability scores were within the acceptable range. The minimum value
(α) was 0.705, CR was 0.820, and DG rho-A was 0.710. The values of α, CR, and rho-A for each construct are
above the threshold of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2019) as reported in Table 2. The outcomes indicate that the model
constructs are reliable. AVE for all the constructs must be above the threshold of 0.50 score to confirm
convergent validity as an indication of the uni-dimensionality for each construct (Hair et al., 2019). Table 2
presents the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each construct and all the VIF values were less than 3.3, which
reveals the lack of multi-collinearity issues for the model constructs. The items of the constructs have acceptable
convergent validity (see Table 2). The item loading and cross-loading were reported for the validation of
construct discriminant validity. The study constructs have acceptable discriminant validity (see Table 3).
Additionally, the Fornell-Larcker criterion (1981), Hetro-trait and mono-trait, and HTMT ratio test confirmed
that the study constructs have discriminant validity. The Fornell-Larcker criterion for each construct must be
higher than other latent constructs to establish the discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2019). The HTMT ratio
should be less than 0.90 to provide evidence of discriminant validity for study constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).
Table 3. shows that the study has discriminant validity.

4083
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

Table 2. Reliability analysis

Variables Number Cronbach’s Composite Rho-A Average Variance

of Items Alpha Reliability Variance Inflation
Extracted Factor
Entertainment 4 0.720 0.826 0.721 0.543 1.745
Interaction 4 0.705 0.826 0.721 0.530 1.910
Trendiness 4 0.720 0.826 0.727 0.565 2.096
Customization 4 0.743 0.890 0.747 0.561 1.721
Value Equity 4 0.707 0.820 0.710 0.532 1.284
Relationship Equity 5 0.850 0.889 0.884 0.616 1.177
Brand Equity 5 0.846 0.890 0.846 0.619 1.345
Electronic Word of Mouth 6 0.858 0.894 0.859 0.585 -

Table 3. Outer Loading and Cross Loadings

ENT INT TRD CTN VEQ REQ BEQ eWOM

ENT. Item – 1 0.758 0.176 0.245 0.429 0.426 0.314 0.487 0.408
ENT. Item – 2 0.739 0.156 0.370 0.351 0.431 0.231 0.511 0.406
ENT. Item – 3 0.738 0.239 0.332 0.280 0.296 0.324 0.521 0.372
ENT. Item – 4 0.712 0.053 0.415 0.404 0.293 0.292 0.552 0.397
INT. Item – 1 0.340 0.685 0.439 0.425 0.300 0.246 0.528 0.375
INT. Item – 2 0.311 0.740 0.458 0.341 0.480 0.229 0.567 0.308
INT. Item – 3 0.222 0.729 0.433 0.378 0.468 0.241 0.327 0.353
INT. Item – 4 0.245 0.757 0.475 0.392 0.433 0.255 0.304 0.325
TRD. Item – 1 0.268 0.379 0.771 0.317 0.398 0.205 0.313 0.400
TRD. Item – 2 0.390 0.377 0.756 0.201 0.481 0.194 0.412 0.394
TRD. Item- 3 0.370 0.386 0.729 0.188 0.440 0.234 0.267 0.376
TRD. Item- 4 0.332 0.376 0.687 0.230 0.481 0.295 0.239 0.395
CTN. Item-1 0.333 0.348 0.317 0.786 0.481 0.129 0.244 0.322
CTN.Item-2 0.370 0.397 0.367 0.710 0.464 0.218 0.293 0.230
CTN. Item- 3 0.330 0.433 0.334 0.736 0.471 0.237 0.337 0.177
CTN. Item – 4 0.355 0.415 0.336 0.774 0.499 0.176 0.371 0.176
VEQ. Item -1 0.411 0.371 0.266 0.365 0.731 0.188 0.316 0.182
VEQ. Item – 2 0.360 0.431 0.398 0.416 0.715 0.209 0.357 0.453
VEQ. Item – 3 0.386 0.415 0.409 0.358 0.716 0.157 0.329 0.426
VEQ. Item – 4 0.340 0.438 0.321 0.383 0.754 0.141 0.319 0.325
REQ. Item – 1 0.311 0.361 0.338 0.248 0.436 0.763 0.220 0.239
REQ. Item – 2 0.222 0.391 0.419 0.482 0.394 0.831 0.222 0.455
REQ. Item – 3 0.245 0.391 0.408 0.369 0.449 0.808 0.262 0.370
REQ. Item – 4 0.268 0.399 0.416 0.373 0.340 0.748 0.392 0.383
REQ. Item –5 0.390 0.412 0.531 0.353 0.216 0.770 0.312 0.496
BEQ. Item – 1 0.370 0.392 0.421 0.420 0.167 0.203 0.737 0.576
BEQ. Item – 2 0.332 0.504 0.457 0.415 0.211 0.188 0.806 0.567
BEQ. Item – 3 0.333 0.379 0.390 0.365 0.140 0.185 0.792 0.490
BEQ. Item – 4 0.370 0.377 0.441 0.416 0.473 0.079 0.806 0.522
BEQ. Item – 5 0.511 -0.492 0.411 0.420 0.482 0.301 0.791 0.551
eWOM. Item – 1 0.506 -0.509 0.451 0.415 0.428 0.240 0.118 0.749
eWOM. Item – 2 0.071 -0.337 0.474 0.411 0.439 0.034 0.176 0.764
eWOM. Item – 3 0.192 -0.030 0.383 0.392 0.436 0.263 0.237 0.748
eWOM. Item – 4 0.110 0.006 0.431 0.209 0.394 0.763 0.441 0.774
eWOM. Item – 5 0.130 -0.007 0.514 0.451 0.449 0.831 0.451 0.772
eWOM. Item- 6 0.471 -0.110 0.450 0.452 0.430 0.441 0.440 0.783
Fronell-Larcker Criterion
Entertainment 0.737
Interaction 0.526 0.728
Trendiness 0.573 0.621 0.736
Customization 0.501 0.523 0.604 0.752

4084
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

Value Equity 0.595 0.594 0.619 0.630 0.729

Relationship Equity 0.246 0.367 0.228 0.296 0.358 0.785
Brand Equity 0.355 0.475 0.448 0.453 0.448 0.358 0.787
E-Word of Mouth 0.463 0.537 0.500 0.526 0.588 0.295 0.690 0.765
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratios
Entertainment -
Interaction 0.810 -
Trendiness 0.834 0.861 -
Customization 0.681 0.728 0.834 -
Value Equity 0.829 0.840 0.866 0.866 -
Relationship Equity 0.282 0.425 0.861 0.347 0.840 -
Brand Equity 0.450 0.613 0.517 0.866 0.567 0.404 -
E-Word of Mouth 0.588 0.690 0.622 0.659 0.749 0.322 0.807 -
Note: ENT: Entertainment; INT: Interaction; TRD: Trendiness; CMT: Customization; VEQ: Value equity;
REQ: Relationship equity; BEQ: Brand equity; eWOM: Electronic word of mouth.

Path Analysis
The model measurement is achieved after the attainment of model validity and reliabilities. In this step, the
impact of entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and customisation on the value equity, relationship equity, and
brand equity were examined. The adjusted r2 values for four exogenous constructs (entertainment, interaction,
trendiness, and customisation) explained the following: 54.9 per cent of change in value equity, 14.3 per cent of
change in relationship equity, and 27.8 per cent of change in brand equity. The adjusted r2 value for three
exogenous constructs (value equity, relationship equity, and brand equity) explained 57 per cent of change in
electronic word of mouth. The following are the predictive relevance (Q2) values: the value equity of the model
is 0.274, which indicates medium predictive relevance (Chin, 2010); the relationship equity of the model is
0.076, which indicates small predictive relevance (Chin, 2010); the brand equity of the model is 0.162, which
indicates medium predictive relevance (Chin, 2010); and the electronic word of mouth of the model is 0.312,
which indicates medium predictive relevance (Chin, 2010).

Table 4. Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Coefficient t-values Sig. r2 f2 Decision

H1a ENT  VEQ 0.226 3.929 0.000 0.066 Supported
H1b INT  VEQ 0.185 3.404 0.000 0.040 Supported
H1c TRD  VEQ 0.191 2.713 0.003 0.039 Supported
H1d CTN  VEQ 0.304 3.619 0.000 0.554 0.120 Supported
H2a ENT  REQ 0.029 0.379 0.353 0.001 Not Supported
H2b INT  REQ 0.315 4.219 0.000 0.061 Supported
H2c TRD  REQ -0.086 0.943 0.173 0.004 Not Supported
H2d CTN  REQ 0.167 2.143 0.016 0.153 0.019 Supported
H3a ENT  BEQ 0.023 0.320 0.374 0.000 Not Supported
H3b INT  BEQ 0.286 4.195 0.000 0.060 Supported
H3c TRD  BEQ 0.074 0.808 0.210 0.004 Not Supported
H3d CTN  BEQ 0.246 2.925 0.002 0.286 0.049 Supported
H4a VEQ  eWOM 0.349 6.638 0.000 0.222 Supported
H4b REQ  eWOM 0.002 0.043 0.483 0.000 Not Supported
H4c BEQ  eWOM 0.533 9.076 0.000 0.574 0.495 Supported
Note: ENT: Entertainment; INT: Interaction; TRD: Trendiness; CMT: Customization; VEQ: Value Equity;
REQ: Relationship Equity; BEQ: Brand Equity; eWOM: Electronic Word of Mouth.

Table 4 shows the study standardised path values, t-values, and significance level. The path coefficient between
ENT and VEQ (β = 0.226, p = 0.000) indicates a significant and positive effect of ENT on VEQ; hence, H1a is
accepted. The path value for INT and VEQ (β = 0.185, p = 0.000) indicates a positive and significant impact;
thus, H1b is accepted. The path value for TRD and VEQ (β = 0.191, p = 0.003) shows a significant and positive
impact; thus, H1c is accepted. The influence of CTN and VEQ (β = 0.304, p = 0.000) shows a positive and
significant impact; hence, H1d is supported. The path coefficient between ENT and REQ (β = 0.029, p = 0.353)
shows an insignificant but positive effect; thus, H2a is rejected. The path value for the INT and REQ (β = 0.315,
p = 0.000) shows a positive and significant impact; thus, H2b is supported. The path value for TRD and REQ (β
= -0.086, p = 0.173) shows an insignificant and negative impact; thus, H2c is rejected. The influence of CTN

4085
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

and REQ (β = 0.167, p = 0.016) shows a positive and significant effect; thus, H2d is supported. The path
coefficient between ENT and BEQ (β = 0.023, p = 0.374) shows an insignificant but positive effect. This result
provides no statistical support to accept H3a. The path value for INT and BEQ (β = 0.286, p = 0.000) shows a
positive and significant impact; thus, H3b is supported. The path value for TRD and BEQ (β = 0.074, p = 0.210)
shows an insignificant but positive impact; thus, H3c is rejected. The influence of CTN and REQ (β = 0.246, p =
0.002) shows a positive and significant effect; hence, H3d is supported. The path coefficient for VEQ and
eWOM (β = 0.349, p = 0.000) shows a positive and significant effect. It provides statistical evidence to support
H4a. The path coefficient for REQ and eWOM (β = 0.002, p = 0.483) shows a positive but insignificant effect.
It provides no statistical evidence to support H4b. Moreover, the path coefficient for BEQ and eWOM (β =
0.533, p = 0.000) shows a positive and significant effect; thus, H4c is accepted. Table 4 presents the path
coefficients.

Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

Table 5 shows the outcomes of the IPMA and it reveals that VEQ is the most crucial factor in the performance
of eWOM (0.403; 76.547), followed by CMT (0.259; 74.044), BEQ (0.467, 72.225), INT (0.243; 72.045), ENT
(0.103; 72.143), TRD (0.115; 71.007), and REQ has the least effect (0.002; 64.733).

Table 5. Importance-Performance Matrix

Target Construct eWOM

Variables Total Effect Performance
Entertainment 0.103 72.143
Interaction 0.243 72.045
Trendiness 0.115 71.007
Customization 0.259 74.044
Value Equity 0.403 76.547
Relationship Equity 0.002 64.733
Brand Equity 0.467 72.225

V. DISCUSSION
The results reveal that entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and customisation are essential contributors to the
value equity of consumers. It was found that entertainment (f2 = 0.066) has a significant but small effect on the
perceived VEQ, interaction (f2 = 0.040) has a significant but small effect on the perceived VEQ, trendiness (f2 =
0.039) has a significant but small effect on the perceived VEQ, and customisation (f2 = 0.120) has a significant
and small effect on the perceived VEQ (Cohen, 1988). The results accepted H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d. The result
is consistent with the result by Seo and Park (2018).

However, entertainment (f2 = 0.001) has an insignificant effect on the perceived REQ, interaction (f2 = 0.061)
has a significant but small effect on the perceived REQ, trendiness (f2 = 0.004) has an insignificant effect on the
perceived REQ, and customisation (f2 = 0.019) has a significant but small effect on the perceived REQ (Cohen,
1988). The results are inconsistent with the results by Seo and Park (2018). The result indicates that the
Malaysian apparel brands lacked entertainment and trendiness in their use of SMMAs. The results provide
supports to accept H2a and H2d. Moreover, entertainment (f2 = 0.000) has an insignificant effect on the
perceived BEQ, interaction (f2 = 0.060) has a significant but small effect on the perceived BEQ, trendiness (f2 =
0.004) has an insignificant effect on the perceived BEQ, and customisation (f2 = 0.049) has a small and
significant effect on the perceived BEQ (Cohen, 1988). The results supported H3b and H3d. The results are
different from the results by Seo and Park (2018). For the Malaysian apparel brands, SMMAs lacked
entertainment and trendiness as perceived by consumers of Malaysian apparel brands.

Moreover, VEQ (f2 = 0.222) primarily and significantly affect the perceived eWOM, REQ (f2 = 0.000)
insignificantly affect the perceived eWOM, and BEQ (f2 = 0.495) has a significant and substantial effect on the
perceived eWOM (Cohen, 1988). The result provides support to accept H4a and H4c (Kim & Ko, 2012; Seo &
Park, 2018). However, the results did not support H4b. The relationship equity is insignificant for the customers
of Malaysian apparel brands for the SMMAs by the Malaysian apparel brands.

Moreover, results of IMPA show that the most significant factor for the effect the eWOM is VEQ, followed by
CMT, BEQ, ENT, INT, TRD, and REQ. The results indicate that the SMMAs of Malaysian apparel brands
focus on VEQ compared to other types of customer level equities. Among the SMMAs, CMT and ENT are the
focus to achieve eWOM from customers of the apparel brand.

4086
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

VI. CONCLUSION
The SMM activities became the new tool of marketing strategy. Firms used brand strategies to improve value
equity, relationship equity, and brand equity for the customers. In the social media age, the outcome of SMM is
not to use or reuse the firms’ brand but it is more on the positive eWOM on the SM by brand customers.

The SMM activities (i.e., entertainment, interaction, trendiness, and customisation) significantly affect the value
equity of a brand. SMM activities of interaction and customisation significantly influence the relationship
equity. However, SMM efforts of apparel brands such as interaction and customisation had affected brand
equity. The results reveal that Malaysian apparel brands focus on social media. The marketing efforts were
intended to strengthen customer equities. The SMM activities of the entertainment and trendiness did not
improve customer relationship and brand equities. The efforts undertaken by the apparel brands on SM lacked
entertainment and trendiness appeal. Malaysian apparel brands should focus on entertainment content to
improve the relationship and brand equity. The SM contents of the apparel brands lacked entertainment and
interest to attract more SM consumers. Besides, the SMM activities lacked the following: trendiness, not
updated frequently, and lack of innovative style in SMM activities.

This study has its strengths and the following three limitations. The data were collected in a cross-sectional
fashion from a single source. The data would have more insights if they were collected from multiple sources in
a longitudinal manner. This strategy will offer a broader generalisability of the results. The users of the apparel
industry were young technology-savvy users that have different expectations from the SMM activities. This
study explored the SM content users with their respective personal attributes of the innovativeness and pleasure-
seeking orientation. The result is used to segment the SM users of the apparel industry. The third limitation is
associated with the selection of apparel brands. The inclusion of other consumer brands can explore the brand
equity phenomenon at the state or industry level. Moreover, replicating the same research model using data
collected from different locations can identify the global effects of SMMAs on eWOM.

Acknowledgement:
This study was funded by University Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) by granted RM5000 allocation to conduct the
research.

VII. REFERENCES

[1]. Aaker, D.A. (2009). Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation, Energy, Leverage, and
Clarity. Simon and Schuster, New York.
[2]. Bagozzi, R.P., & Utpal, M.D., (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of
Interactive Marketing. 16 (2), 2–21.
[3]. Barreto, A.M., (2014). The word-of-mouth phenomenon in the social media era. International Journal of
Marketing Research. 56 (5), 631–654.
[4]. Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K.-H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for
measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence, and estimation. Behaviour Research Methods, 49(5):
1716–1735.
[5]. Chin, W.W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses, In Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J.
and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer, Berlin.
[6]. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
[7]. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.
[8]. Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 31(1): 2-24.
[9]. Harman, H., H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, 3rd Edition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
[10]. Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner K, & Gremler D (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes:an
integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3):230–47
[11]. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. (2015), A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modelling, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-
135.

4087
 ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 14, 2020

[12]. Ju S.R., & Chung, M.S. (2002). The effects of relational benefits between fashion retail stores and
customers of relationship quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and
Textiles. 26(7):1043–55.
[13]. Keller, K.L., (2003). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity,
Second ed.s. Pearson Education Inc, NJ.
[14]. Kim, A.J., & Ko, E., (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical
study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research. 65 (10), 1480–1486.
[15]. Kim, K.H., Kim, K.S., Kim, J.H., & Kang, S.H., (2008). Brand equity in hospital marketing. Journal of
Business Research. 61 (1), 75–82.
[16]. King, R.A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V.D., (2014). What we know and don't know about online word-of-
mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 28 (3), 167–183.
[17]. Krejcie, R. V. and D. W. Morgan (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement. 30(3), 607-610.
[18]. Lemon, K. N., Rust, R. T., & Zeithaml, v. A., (2001). What drives customer equity? Marketing
Management, 10(1), 20-25.
[19]. Manthiou, A., Chiang, L., & Tang, L., (2013). Identifying and responding to customer needs on Facebook
Fan pages. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 9 (3), 36–52.
[20]. Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012). Using partial least squares in operations management research: A practical
guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations Management. 30(6): 467-480.
[21]. Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
[22]. Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the importance-
performance map analysis. Industrial Management Data Systems. 116, 1865–1886.
[23]. Rust, R., Lemon, K., & Zeithaml, V. (2004). Return on marketing: Using customer equity to focus
marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 109–127.
[24]. Sano, K., (2014). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer satisfaction, promote positive
WOM and affect behavior intention? Doshisha University of Commerce, 66 (3/4), 45–69.
[25]. Seo, W.S., & Kim, M.K., (2003). A study on the effect of consumer behavior intention of brand equity in
hotel. Korean Journal of Tourist Reserach. 18 (2), 111–127.
[26]. Seo, Eun-Ju, & Park, Jin-Woo (2018). A study on the effects of social media marketing activities on brand
equity and customer response in the airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management. 66, 36-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.09.014
[27]. Wiedmann KP, Hennings N, Siebels A (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption
behavior. Psychological Marketing. 26(7),625–51.
[28]. Yoon, S.J., (2012). A Social network approach to the influences of shopping experiences on E-WOM.
Journal of Electronic Commerical Research. 13 (3), 213–223.
[29]. Yun S.Y. (2006) A study on measuring and defining customer equity of fashion brand. Unpublished
master's thesis, Yonsei University.
[30]. Zhang, S., Doorn, V. J., & Leeflang, P., S. H. (2014). Does the importance of value, brand and relationship
equity for customer loyalty differ between Eastern and Western cultures? International Business Review.
23, 284-292.
[31]. Zhang, J., Shabbir, R., Pitsaphol, C., & Hassan, W., (2015). Creating brand equity by leveraging value
creation and consumer commitment in online brand communities: a conceptual framework. International
Journal of Business Management. 10 (1): 80-91

4088