| Literature DB >> 35846680 |
C H Li1, O L K Chan2, Y T Chow2, Xiangying Zhang3, P S Tong4, S P Li5, H Y Ng5, K L Keung5.
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of Digital Content Marketing (DCM) on a Mixed Reality (MR) training platform environment with the consideration of online purchase intention (OPI) through social media. E-commerce today encounters several common issues that cause customers to have reservations to purchase online. With the absence of physical contact points, customers often perceive more risks when making purchase decisions. Furthermore, online retailers often find it hard to engage customers and develop long-term relationships. In this research, a Structural Equation Model (SEM) is proposed to examine the efficacy of DCM from both immediate and long-term OPI. The results examine whether adopting DCM on an MR training platform environment through social media brings positive results in OPI. Empirical research was carried out through online questionnaires collected in 2021 and 2022. A total of 374 questionnaires were qualified for data analysis in this study, conducted with IBM SPSS and AMOS. The results imply that DCM is critical to stimulating both immediate and long-term OPI. The immediate OPI is positively affected by increasing perceived value through MR in DCM. Regarding the long-term OPI, increased customer engagement with DCM under MR environment can cultivate brand trust and significantly affect the long-term OPI.Entities:
Keywords: customer engagement; customer loyalty; digital content marketing; marketing; mixed reality; social media marketing; structural equation modeling
Year: 2022 PMID: 35846680 PMCID: PMC9280672 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.881019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1A conceptual framework of digital marketing.
Figure 2Conceptual model: digital content marketing (DCM).
Respondents’ characteristics.
| Attributes | Total sample ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Frequent | Percentage | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 178 | 47.59% |
| Female | 196 | 52.40% |
| Age | ||
| Below 18 | 6 | 1.60% |
| 19–24 | 184 | 49.20% |
| 25–34 | 133 | 35.56% |
| 35–44 | 32 | 8.56% |
| 45–54 | 13 | 3.48% |
| Above 55 | 6 | 1.60% |
| Highest education level (/pursuing) | ||
| Primary school or below | 1 | 0.27% |
| Secondary school | 14 | 3.74% |
| Associate degree/higher diploma | 189 | 50.53% |
| Bachelor degree or above | 168 | 44.92% |
| Prefer not to say | 2 | 0.53% |
| Using habit of social media | ||
| Using monthly | 3 | 0.80% |
| Using weekly | 3 | 0.80% |
| Using daily but less than 2 h a day in average | 81 | 21.66% |
| More than 2 h a day in average | 287 | 76.73% |
| Social media platform (can choose multiple answer) | ||
| 331 | 88.50% | |
| 367 | 98.13% | |
| YouTube | 362 | 96.79% |
| WeChat moments | 138 | 36.90% |
| 121 | 32.35% | |
| Snapchat | 82 | 21.92% |
| 56 | 14.97% | |
| 22 | 5.88% | |
| TikTok | 121 | 32.35% |
| 17 | 4.54% | |
| Times of online shopping in the past 12 months | ||
| Never | 12 | 3.21% |
| One time | 13 | 3.48% |
| 2–4 times | 70 | 18.71% |
| 5–10 times | 217 | 58.02% |
| 11 times or above | 62 | 16.58% |
| Reasons of often online shopping (can choose multiple answer) | ||
| Convenience | 370 | 98.93% |
| No crowds and queues | 187 | 50.00% |
| Competitive price | 260 | 69.52% |
| Wide selection of choices | 301 | 80.48% |
| Free returns or exchanges | 68 | 18.18% |
| Easy to compare price | 247 | 66.04% |
| Can refer to others’ comments and reviews | 224 | 59.89% |
| The online shopping platform is easy to use | 150 | 40.11% |
| The online store is almost never closed | 94 | 25.13% |
| The online store is trustworthy | 57 | 9.89% |
| The product I can get from online shop only | 33 | 8.82% |
The measurement model (convergent validity).
| Constructs items (reflective) | Number of items | Number of items deleted |
|
| C.R. > 0.7 | AVE > 0.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCM in social media | 3 | 0 | 0.761 | 0.743 | 0.502 | ||
| DCM1: DCM under MR environment provides enough details and information about the Product/Service (e.g., the materials of the product/the functions of the product/some ideas to better utilize the product). | 0.765 | 0.58 | |||||
| DCM2: The Product/Service described in DCM under MR environment is attractive. | 0.751 | 0.56 | |||||
| DCM3: DCM under MR environment is relatively less intrusive than the paid-advertisement marketing campaign. | 0.821 | 0.27 | |||||
| Perceived value of the Product/Service | 3 | 0 | 0.863 | 0.749 | 0.503 | ||
| V1: I can perceive a great value of the Product/Service described in DCM. | 0.835 | 0.72 | |||||
| V2: It is worth the price to have the Product/Service described in DCM under MR environment. | 0.812 | 0.66 | |||||
| V3: The description in DCM under MR environment let me realized that the Product/Service can cater to my needs. | 0.873 | 0.76 | |||||
| Immediate OPI | 5 | 0 | 0.834 | 0.833 | 0.621 | ||
| IPI 1: I want to buy the Product/Service because I found it has powerful features. | 0.731 | 0.53 | |||||
| IPI 2: The more I know the Product/Service, the more OPI on it. | 0.671 | 0.44 | |||||
| IPI 3: I want to buy the Product/Service because I believe I can make good use of it to improve my living quality. | 0.702 | 0.49 | |||||
| IPI 4: I want to buy the Product/Service because the excellent quality described in DCM. | 0.773 | 0.59 | |||||
| IPI 5: I want to buy the Product/Service because I believe it can create great value. | 0.773 | 0.59 | |||||
| Customer engagement | 3 | 0 | 0.862 | 0.717 | 0.499 | ||
| CE1: DCM under MR environment is interactive that the communication between me and the company is bilateral. | 0.861 | 0.73 | |||||
| CE2: I have different ways to contact the companies/sellers, which adopted DCM under MR environment, either like, comment, direct message, story interaction, or hashtags in social media. | 0.892 | 0.77 | |||||
| CE3: I have positive customer experiences as I can get assistance in time. | 0.791 | 0.83 | |||||
| Trust on seller | 4 | 0 | 0.840 | 0.803 | 0.505 | ||
| T1: More communication with the editor can leverage the trust on the company. | 0.761 | 0.58 | |||||
| T2: I can gain more Brand Trust by reviewing the comments from other users. | 0.753 | 0.56 | |||||
| T3: The continuous interaction makes me believe the company is trustworthy and reliable. | 0.774 | 0.59 | |||||
| T4: I believe that more customer engagement interprets the company cares what its customer wants so that they can offer a better and suitable Product/Service. | 0.771 | 0.55 | |||||
| Long-term OPI | 4 | 0 | 0.829 | 0.798 | 0.501 | ||
| LPI 1: I will be at ease if the company cares about their followers, for example: gives a response to any enquires in time. | 0.852 | 0.73 | |||||
| LPI 2: The company is reliable if the company tackles the customer’s problem reasonably. | 0.811 | 0.65 | |||||
| LPI 3: I will shop online if the seller gains positive comments from other users. | 0.753 | 0.58 | |||||
| LPI 4: The reliable seller can leverage my OPI. | 0.632 | 0.39 |
Discriminant validity (correlations between constructs).
| Latent constructs | DCM | Perceived value | Customer engagement | Brand trust | Immediate OPI | Long-term OPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCM | 0.709 | |||||
| Perceived value | 0.620 | 0.709 | ||||
| Customer engagement | 0.486 | 0.629 | 0.788 | |||
| Brand trust | 0.414 | 0.604 | 0.635 | 0.706 | ||
| Immediate OPI | 0.458 | 0.535 | 0.778 | 0.628 | 0.710 | |
| Long-term OPI | 0.527 | 0.528 | 0.538 | 0.632 | 0.578 | 0.708 |
Model absolute fit measures.
| Model fit | GFI | AGFI | SRMR | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.901 | 0.912 | 0.042 | 0.031 |
Model comparison fit measures.
| Model fit | NFI | NNFI | RFI | CFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.907 | 0.905 | 0.911 | 0.921 |
Model parsimonious fit measures.
| Model fit | PGFI | PNFI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.777 | 0.676 | 0.741 |
Figure 3Structural Equation Model (SEM) result. ***< 0.01.
Summary of the hypothesis testing results.
| Hypothesis | Path |
| Sign. | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | DCM → Perceived value | 0.97 | <0.01 | 14.842 |
|
| H2 | Perceived value → Immediate OPI | 0.87 | <0.01 | 9.503 |
|
| H3 | DCM → Customer engagement | 0.89 | <0.01 | 13.146 |
|
| H4 | DCM → Brand trust | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.935 | Rejected |
| H5 | Customer engagement → Brand trust | 0.59 | <0.01 | 3.128 |
|
| H6 | Customer engagement → Long-term OPI | 0.12 | 0.252 | 1.146 | Rejected |
| H7 | Brand trust → Long-term OPI | 0.66 | <0.01 | 5.685 |
|
The mediation impact.
| Hypothesis (indirect effect) path | Path coefficient | Result |
|---|---|---|
| DCM → Perceived value → Immediate OPI | 0.621*** | Partial mediation |
| DCM → Customer engagement → Long-term OPI | 0.462 | / |
| DCM → Brand trust → Long-term OPI | 0.567 | / |
| Customer engagement → Brand trust → Long-term OPI | 0.564*** | Partial mediation |
***< 0.01.