Selected Differences and Relationships of Consumers’ Online Brand-Related Activities and Their Motives
Maria Giovanna CONFETTO
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a well-written paper. However, there are several points that need to be addressed by the authors.
1- The novelty of this paper is not clearly stated. It is important to highlight the significance of conducting this research. Alternatively, it is vital to identify the main problems or gaps exist in the literature that the paper aims to address. Such novelty also should be reflected in the abstract.
2- The theoretical support for each and every hypothesis need to be reported separately.
3- The authors are advised to report the conclusion and the discussion in two separate sections.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Note: Dear reviewer, please note that the article also takes into account recommendations from other reviewers, so there are more edits made that do not only address these recommendations. In some cases, the recommendations were somewhat contradictory, so we have also tried to come up with compromise solutions that are acceptable to all reviewers.
Point 1: The novelty of this paper is not clearly stated. It is important to highlight the significance of conducting this research. Alternatively, it is vital to identify the main problems or gaps exist in the literature that the paper aims to address. Such novelty also should be reflected in the abstract.
Response 1: This recommendation has been incorporated and we have argued the research gap in the introduction section as well as in the abstract.
Point 2: The theoretical support for each and every hypothesis need to be reported separately.
Response 2: We indicated the research sources from the theoretical part, which served as the basis for forming the research hypotheses. These are presented in the methodology section.
Point 3: The authors are advised to report the conclusion and the discussion in two separate sections.
Response 3: The related parts of the paper have been divided into separate discussion and conclusion sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is suggested that the authors:
In the introduction, reinforce the importance of social media by mentioning recent studies.
Reinforce the theory with more authors that use the chosen constructs and give more reasons why they were chosen.
For each group of hypotheses (h1 to h3 and h4 to h6) mention the authors that support their elaboration.
Present the scales that support the different constructs used.
Present the means by which the questionnaire was carried out.
Present the concrete contributions of the study to business and academia, as well as the limitations of the study (not only "research results cannot be generalized").
Present further research directions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Note: Dear reviewer, please note that the article also takes into account recommendations from other reviewers, so there are more edits made that do not only address these recommendations. In some cases, the recommendations were somewhat contradictory, so we have also tried to come up with compromise solutions that are acceptable to all reviewers.
Point 1: In the introduction, reinforce the importance of social media by mentioning recent studies.
Response 1: In the introduction section, wording has been refined and resources have been added to better support the timeliness and relevance of social media research.
Point 2: Reinforce the theory with more authors that use the chosen constructs and give more reasons why they were chosen.
Response 2: Regarding the form of consumers'brand-related activities and motives that we have examined, to our knowledge, we have cited almost all of the studies discussing the same or related construct. The construct we examined was published at the exploratory analysis level in late 2019, so we did not identify other explicitly related studies yet. It is also the reasoning supporting the importance of this research gap.
Point 3: For each group of hypotheses (h1 to h3 and h4 to h6) mention the authors that support their elaboration.
Response 3: We indicated the research sources from the theoretical part, which served as the basis for forming the research hypotheses. These are presented in the methodology section.
Point 4: Present the means by which the questionnaire was carried out.
Response 4: In the methodology section, a formulation on how we conducted the research questionnaire was added.
Point 5: Present the concrete contributions of the study to business and academia, as well as the limitations of the study (not only "research results cannot be generalized"). Present further research directions.
Response 5: Other more specific forms of potential future research have been added to the conclusion section, and we have also argued more specifically for the main limitations.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author(s),
This is an interesting paper on a topical research area. While the topic is clearly aligned with the journal’s aim and scope, there are several concerns regarding the practical relevance and conceptual foundation for your study, as well as the research design, that make it difficult to determine if or how your study makes a significant contribution to previous research in this area.
It is recommended that the authors address the following comments and suggestions.
TITLE
Your study's title is too long. Consider changing it to shorter and eye-catching title.
ABSTRACT
The aim of the article is too broadly defined. There are two sentences that proposes the main goal:
“This paper analyzes consumers' online brand-related activities (COBRAs) as their importance in managerial and marketing practice is undeniable. The goal of the paper is to assess the statistical significance of the differences in the motives and activities of COBRAs in the context of the frequency of use of these platforms and also the driving forces and motivations behind the brand-related activities”, they should be linked and summarised, as there is a lack of specification of how this aim will be achieved through the different elements of the article.
Please add a clear research objective in the abstract. As this should be the starting sentence for the abstract, you have to try to sharpen its focus.
In the abstract, there aren’t any statements that highlight the implications of the current study nor theoretically, nor practically.
The sentence “Based on this, several statistically significant differences and relationships were identified in all cases” is very generic.
INTRODUCTION
The motivation for this study in the introduction is not strong enough.
You stated that: “However, it should be noted that without a sufficient degree of knowledge in this area, marketers’ abilities to create marketing strategies that take into account the important laws of social media are greatly reduced”. But the statement is not sustained by other researcher and do not properly shows the importance of filling the existing gap.
Be clearer about why we should care about this topic and what the gap is in the literature.
Moreover, as the introduction is very brief, my chief concern is that the originality of the paper is not clearly explained nor in the abstract, nor in the introduction.
In fact, the introduction section is quite confusing. Please rewrite it following the items below:
- Establish the importance of research.
- Establish a theory-based gap.
- Explain contribution.
- Present the overall paper structure.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Your introduction and literature review should be like a story to read. This means that they should be interrelated: the introduction presents the main topics, then they have to be explored in deep in the literature review. This is not the case.
The section: “2. Current state of research and theoretical background” is circumscribed and do not introduce the section 3: “3. Materials and Methods”
Moreover, in the whole paper, the authors used several old citations, and it is suggested to read the recent papers and add citations.
In addition, please make sure you add enough justification regarding the relationships between each hypothesis.
Hypotheses presented in section “3. Materials and Methods” are not supported by any literature in section 2.
The conceptual background section needs to be clear and more related to the research framework.
METHODOLOGY
Methodology section mainly is the paper’s argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas. The method and methodology employed should be explained and correctly interpreted considering the reason for choosing the current methodology and adding information about past studies that applied the same methods in similar areas.
Please, pay attention to these issues.
Moreover, it would be beneficial to explain why you decided to explore the Slovak market.
You stated that: “The dataset of this analysis consists of data obtained during the period of the first 6 months of 2021. The dataset reflects the conditions of the Slovak market”.
Can you explain why it is interesting? Do you know if other research analyse this market?
More information are also needed about the questionnaire.
You just said: “The analysis made use of 401 valid questionnaires. This standardized-form questionnaire was presented in the study”.
RESULTS
This section is very concise. Thus, the originality of the paper is not clearly explained.
DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS
Revisit the Discussion (not provided) and Conclusions sections to better answer the "So What" question. There should be four sub-sections under this section: (1) Discussions, (2) Theoretical Implications, (3) Practical Implications and (4) Limitations and Future Research (5) Conclusions.
In fact, there is a need for more discussion on how achieved findings can be connected to the previous conceptual background. Please link the discussion of the research problem with the highlighted gaps in the conceptual background. Actually, it is expected to use and criticise any relevant literature (in the literature review section) in order to reach the main purpose of the study to explain how the paper succeeded in enriching the development of the selected topic as well as to explore different views.
You should try to answer to the following questions: What kinds of objective evidence can you offer that would make industry leaders sit up and pay attention to your study? What makes this topic a big deal right now, and perhaps in the immediate future?
Answers to these and related questions will help make a much stronger case for pursuing this line of inquiry.
CONCLUSIONS
This section is very concise as well and it is presented together with discussions (“5. Discussion and conclusions”).
I encourage you to clearly and cogently explain final section: (1) how the focal study addresses an important priority; (2) how the topic is connected to existing theory; (3) what we already know about practice and theory; (4) what specifically we do not know; (5) why we need to know what we do not know; and (6) how this study or inquiry will help close the practical and theoretical gaps between what we know and do not know.
Limitations and future research briefly outlined in the conclusions section should be extended and became a separate paragraph.
Best Regards
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Note: Dear reviewer, please note that the article also takes into account recommendations from other reviewers, so there are more edits made that do not only address these recommendations. In some cases, the recommendations were somewhat contradictory, so we have also tried to come up with compromise solutions that are acceptable to all reviewers.
Point 1: Your study's title is too long. Consider changing it to shorter and eye-catching title.
Response 1: We proposed more consiced title.
Point 2: The aim of the article is too broadly defined. There are two sentences that proposes the main goal.
Response 2: We modified the formulation of the study objective as recommended and placed it in the beginning of the abstract as suggested. There is no longer misleading duplication of the research objective in the abstract. We have also reformulated the abstract section on results and implications.
Point 3: The motivation for this study in the introduction is not strong enough. Be clearer about why we should care about this topic and what the gap is in the literature..
Response 3: In the paper, we have better articulated the motivation for the research as well as more clearly identified a research gap that was not sufficiently argued for in the introduction. We have added corresponding studies for the indicated claim as well as the structure of the article.
Point 4: Literature review, old citation.
Response 4: Studies supporting our fomrulated hypotheses were more clearly indicated in the section below. While there are a few older citations in the paper, the background to the relationships examined is the U&G theory, which is older but still relevant. One of its current applications is our study, so we find it necessary to cite the original sources as well and thus indicate how the research has progressed. However, we have also added some more recent sources expanding on the issue.
Point 5: Methodology.
Response 5: In this section, we have added the main studies supporting the formulation of our hypotheses, arguing in more detail the chosen sample and market, as well as the reason for its selection. Information about the questionnaire used and its conduct has been expanded, as has the rationale for the statistical tests used.
Point 6: Discussion, conclusions and implications.
Response 6: As a result of a compromise between several reviewers, we have divided this section into two main sections, Discussion and Conclusions. In the discussion, we argued more clearly the implications for practice and their relevance or overlap to KPIs. Passages on future research and its limitations were also more elaborated.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I congratulate the authors for their effort in following the recommendations given.
I believe that the article would be more robust if the authors had presented the scales that support the various constructs in a table.
Author Response
Point 1: To present the scales used in analysis.
Response 1: In the section on research methodology, we have added information detailing the scales that would be used in the research and on the basis of which we present the given results. The paper also incorporates a few other edits from other reviewers, so the final paper may be slightly different.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author(s),
Thanks a lot for improving your paper taking into account my suggestions.
There are still issues with Implications, limitations and future research.
In the paper, these are several generic issues that need to be explored point by point, answering to the following questions:
(1) what we already know about practice;
(2) what specifically we do not know;
(3) why managers need to know what they do not know; and
(4) how this study or inquiry will help close the practical gaps between what managers know and do not know.
This is the core issue of the study’s limitation and needs to be better explored.
Finally, a future research section is not provided. You should structure a proper research agenda.
Best Regards
Author Response
Point 1: Implications, limitations and future research.
Response 1: In conclusion, we have reworked each section to further describe these areas of limitations, directions for future research, and what practice knows, doesn't know, and needs. The above section is considerably more extensive and we believe better fleshes out the idea.
