Determinants of Fan Engagement in Social Media-Based Brand Communities: A Brand Relationship Quality Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with an interesting topic suitable for the Journal. As the authors mention, brand-quality relationships within social media are generating a large number of references nowadays. Although the topic is not new, I think it is interesting to publish papers that explain the mechanisms that provide more light relating to online communities and in this sense I think this paper might have a potential contribution to the journal.

I have some minor concerns that I have included in the file I attach in notes with yellow highlights. Please review the PDF. I will summarize them here.

It appears that a careful review of the main constructs in the study has been carried out. The paper presents a very broad theoretical framework but I miss some references that I have included within the PDF related to marketing 4.0 stage and also I recommend the authors to check some new papers that could have appeared in 2021 just in case they were not published before they submit the papers.

Moreover, there are some issues that concern me about the concepts and its dimensionality. Please see my notes regarding both BRQ and engagement. Moreover, I have not included the note in the PDF but there is something that the authors must clarify before submitting the new version. There are some related concepts that do not appear and I think they are important although they were not measured here: brand attachment, brand love and brand addiction. Please see some papers to delimit the boundaries of your research and justify why you choose BRQ and not the other concepts. For instance:

Ferreira et al. (2019) DOI: 10.2478/mmcks-2019-0020

Gómez-Suárez, M. 2019. DOI: 10.3390/admsci9010010

In the second paper, you will find seminal quotations relating to brand attachment, engagement and love.

Regarding the methodology please see the notes I have included in the PDF file, especially those related to explaining better the method of gathering the information (adequately explained in the limitations section but it needs more detail in the methods section). Moreover, please see the effect on the bias due to some demographic variables and give more details about the 100 brands mentioned in the study, composing the communities.

The use of PLS-SEM is well motivated. The scales are correctly designed and adapted. Although not original, the PLS-SEM methodology is accurately applied and the authors have measured the common method bias. The reliability, validity, and structural analysis of the model suggest a robust model. However, include the HTMT index as well.

The results are presented in an adequate and clear manner. In addition, they are in accordance with the theoretical part. I enjoy reading this section of the paper, because it is well explained step by step, but it is also very well summarized with no complications related to statistical jargon. Thus, the explanations are synthetic and the regular reader can understand all the applications. The results are very well presented and tie to the theory perfectly.

Implications of the research for theory and practice can be clearly identified. However I have too suggestions here:

To improve managerial implications with more examples based on brands more mentioned in the brand communities that were included. It could illustrate better the recommendations that the authors are giving to the companies.

To state how covid-19 pandemic crisis is affecting BQR, maybe promoting online relationships? Please see if you could add a sentence related to this. Although it is not the objective of the paper it can be a nice future research line. You could pose some research questions or quote some references that are looking at this phenomena.

The clarity of expression and the use of the English language seem to be as expected for a scientific publication. The readability of the paper is appreciated. However, please check the repetition in the abstract and the use of samples instead of participants (see my notes).

To sum up, I found the text very interesting to read and after those minor changes I think it will be suitable for the Journal. Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented in the document is very interesting. The structure of the document is correct, all relevant information is included and it is easy to read. The hypotheses are well developed and the methodology is correct, it is applied systematically. The results of the study are important and relevant. The conclusions are very relevant, the authors include the theoretical and practical implications as well as the limitations.
My only suggestion and recommendation is: the discussion section change to conclusions. Add one more section that is Discussion and in it state each of the hypotheses and to what extent they are corroborated or not by the relevant literature (similar studies in which the hypotheses were studied).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Are there any compelling reasons why the authors omitted the topic of prosumers and the phenomenon of prosumers as a form of brand relationship?
2. I definitely miss the topic of social media as a marketing tool - or rather, the path it has taken - in the literature analysis. Moreover, it should be noted that each social network is more or less suitable as a marketing tool and affects the customer in various ways, channels and forms. Since the authors focused on Facebook, the topic of Facebook as a marketing tool should be expanded. A brief mention in lines 298-300 is not enough.
3) As marketers say, "Social media crises happen on weekends". Did the study in any way specify and examine the effectiveness of crisis communication in Facebook (e.g. with the H1 study)? Did it take into account the impact of those situations on BRQ? I see no such references, and in my opinion, this is a weakness of this study. Do the authors see any way to fill this gap?
4. we know far too little about the criteria and methods of selecting the study sample. How were participants recruited? Was it random or intentional selection? Can we talk about the representativeness of the sample? If so, for which society/community/social group is it, representative? Were the respondents from the same country, the same nationality - or not? There are too many question marks here to accept the article as it stands.
5. the text does not have Conclusions. It should be supplemented. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors understood my suggestions very precisely and implemented them. I believe that the revised version of the article can be published. Thank you for your effective cooperation!