The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Brand Communities and New Product Adoption: The Influence and Limits of Oppositional Loyalty
Abstract
Brand communities have been cited for their potential not only to enhance the loyalty of members but also to engender a sense of oppositional loyalty toward competing brands. However, the impact of brand community membership on actual new product adoption behavior has yet to be explored. This study examines the effects of brand community participation and membership duration on the adoption of new products from opposing brands as well as from the preferred brand. Longitudinal data were collected on the participation behavior, membership duration, and adoption behavior of 7506 members spanning four brand communities and two product categories. Using a hazard modeling approach, the authors find that higher levels of participation and longer-term membership in a brand community not only increase the likelihood of adopting a new product from the preferred brand but also decrease the likelihood of adopting new products from opposing brands. However, such oppositional loyalty is contingent on whether a competitor's new product is the first to market. Furthermore, in the case of overlapping memberships, higher levels of participation in a brand community may actually increase the likelihood of adopting products from rival brands. This finding is both surprising and disconcerting because marketing managers usually do not know which other memberships their brand community members possess. The authors discuss how managers can enhance the impact of their brand community on the adoption of the company's new products while limiting the impact of opposing brand communities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,322
Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators
Hansen, L. P. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912775 · Cited by 13,467
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030130202 · Cited by 5,755
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/319618 · Cited by 3,998
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.38.18451 · Cited by 2,624
Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination
Tajfel, H. (1970) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96 · Cited by 2,577
The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363 · Cited by 2,387
COX, D. R. (1975) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/62.2.269 · Cited by 2,292
Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209434 · Cited by 2,228
The Econometric Analysis of Transition Data
Lancaster, T. (1990) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/ccol0521265967 · Cited by 2,097
Cited by
Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustafsson, A., Sousa, R., & Walkowiak, T. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014 · Cited by 489
Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations
Jahanmir, S. F., & Cavadas, J. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.058 · Cited by 177
Antecedents of an experienced sense of virtual community
Tonteri, L., Kosonen, M., Ellonen, H.-K., & Tarkiainen, A. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.018 · Cited by 154
Feng, N., Su, Z., Li, D., Zheng, C., & Li, M. (2018) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.05.012 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 65-80
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2125099709
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 63.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.