Visual Modality of Engagement: Conceptualization, Typology of Forms, and Outcomes

Abstract

Customers proactively engage with firms’ offerings through behavioral manifestations such as brand-related social media posts, influencing other customers in online networks and, consequently, affecting brand value. With the growth of visually oriented social media platforms, interest has increased in understanding customer engagement behavior (CEB) using visual content. In this paper, we build on CEB, image acts, visual content, and communication theories to conceptualize the Visual Modality of Engagement (VME). Using both field and lab studies, we develop a typology of four distinct positive (experiential, evidential) and negative (mocking, dissuasive) forms of VME and offer empirical evidence revealing they induce different brand-related (purchase intentions, brand evaluation) and other customer-related (willingness to imitate, resharing intentions) outcomes. Additional results also reveal outcomes vary by the interplay of social and brand interactions with the various VME forms. The findings of this research offer guidance to content managers for the development of more effective engagement strategies in social media marketing.

Understanding and managing engagement journeys

“…affect their disposition) toward a focal organization (Fehrer et al, 2018;Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014). A growing body of research has identified types of CEBs that emerge within particular social/external touchpoints; these include online reviews (Azer and Alexander, 2018), social media (Azer et al, 2023;Dessart et al, 2015;Dolan et al, 2019), and specific contexts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Azer and Alexander, 2022).…”

“…As levels of interaction increase, so does the sharing of brand-related values and content and levels of social exchange between actors (Vivek et al, 2014). Indeed, the presence of other engaged customers affects the likelihood that others will engage and maintain engagement levels, with engagement creating strong bonds between actors around, for example, learning, sharing, and endorsing activities (Alexander et al, 2018;Azer et al, 2023;Dessart et al, 2015;Fehrer et al, 2018). However, in balancing multiple parallel engagement contexts, actors may be exposed to a range of conflicting social norms and engagement contexts, which could result in role conflicts and affect individual customers' dispositions and future intentions to (dis)engage (Alexander et al, 2018).…”

“…When CEBs directed at a focal object are increased, reduced, or even withdrawn, the quantity and extent of interactions are altered, and the introduction of new customers, partner organizations, and stakeholders to the wider service ecosystem is affected (Alexander et al, 2018;Dessart et al, 2015). Understanding the range of engagement behaviors, alongside their valence and intensity, can aid organizations in their social listening, helping them to identify key individuals who occupy central positions within a network, to incentivize certain behaviors at certain key journey stages, and to encourage imitation (Azer et al, 2023;Wang et al, 2023).…”

“…Here again, interactivity is central to engagement (Brodie et al, 2019) and fosters a sense of connectedness among actors in a network or ecosystem (Fehrer et al, 2018). Ubiquitous and accessible exogenous touchpoints afford ongoing access to brand-related information, stimulation, and support, increasing customer interactions (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014;Azer et al, 2023). In this way, engagement prompts a marked increase in interactions, as customers are more inclined to seek and share information through co-experiences of the firm or brand (Brodie et al, 2013;Dessart et al, 2015).…”

“…, 2018). Ubiquitous and accessible exogenous touchpoints afford ongoing access to brand-related information, stimulation, and support, increasing customer interactions (Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014; Azer et al. , 2023).…”