Brand loyalty towards BMW: an analysis of why are consumers and fans are loyal, and

whether social media has impacted on this loyalty

Alexander Collyer
Janice Young
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, UK

Abstract
This paper looks at brand loyalty and the impact and influence it has over consumers. This research focuses on
BMW owners and fans, seeking to find out what creates this sense of loyalty towards one particular brand, and
whether social media has influenced brand loyalty. This research uses existing literature and frameworks to
support primary data collected through a questionnaire. The paper concludes that a range of product attributes
and social media usage are the most likely factors to generate brand loyalty.

Keywords
Brand Loyalty, Social Media, Consumer Allegiance, BMW

Introduction
Cars have long been an important part of many people’s lives for a variety of reasons. Some people like the
experience of driving, others like maintaining vehicles and restoring them, whilst others see them as a symbol of
success or of their wealth. BMW combines these elements in their vehicles, marketing themselves particularly
towards those who enjoy driving. Their strapline ‘The Joy of Driving’ highlights the company’s commitment to
producing products that people want to drive.

In 2017, BMW became the first global car manufacturer to reach over 1 million followers on Instagram, a well-
known image sharing site. BMW engages with its customers over Instagram, with images being shared from all
over the world of people and their cars. In the year leading up to 2017, BMW Group in the UK achieved its best
ever sales, with the BMW brand setting new UK records (BMW UK, 2017).

The global car manufacturing industry grew by 4.3% in 2016 to reach a value of $815.5 billion (MarketLine,
2016). In 2016, a total of 251,577 BMW and MINI vehicles were registered, an increase of 8.9 per cent over 2015
(BMW UK, 2017). The BMW brand accounted for 182,593 sales, an increase of 9.0 per cent compared to 2015
and over 15,000 vehicles more than its previous UK sales record in 2015 - at the same time, BMW significantly
outperformed the total new car market which grew by two per cent over the same period (BMW UK, 2017).

Brand loyalty, therefore, is of relevance when looking at why the company has continued to see growth and
success. In 2011, it was reported that BMW experienced 31.7% repeat customers, one of the highest in the luxury
automotive segment at that time (Gorzelany, 2011). Thus, it can be argued that without brand loyalty, BMW may
not have experienced such significant growth.

Research Aims and Objectives

This project aimed to explore and analyse the key driving forces behind consumers’ allegiance to BMW. It
provided an opportunity to assess what it is that generates such a sense of belonging to a brand. The objectives of
this project are as follows;

1. To gather information regarding consumers’ thoughts and feelings towards BMW

2. To analyse the range of factors that create brand loyalty towards BMW
3. To identify whether social media can enhance owners’ and fans’ sense of loyalty towards BMW

In order to meet these research objectives, a questionnaire was created using Qualtrics that used a mix of both
closed, investigative questions, combined with some open answer boxes, whereby respondents could add more
information if they saw fit. In order to reach the desired audience - BMW owners and fans - this questionnaire
was distributed using snowball sampling, but was semi-targeted, with links to the survey being posted on BMW
forums and fan pages in order to ensure valid results were gathered. The first question also helped to ensure that

1
the results were representative of true BMW owners and fans, as anybody that responded ‘no’ was taken to the
end of the survey and -not able to complete the rest of the questions.

The following section comprises a critical review of literature around some of the key areas, particularly focusing
on existing brand loyalty ideas, themes and definitions. The subsequent section is an introduction to the research
methodology and justifies how the research was completed, and explains in detail the process that was followed
to ensure that all key criteria were met. After this, the research findings are presented, along with a discussion that
analyses some of the key themes from each question, utilising bar charts to display the data in an efficient manner.
The last section comprises conclusions and highlights some of the key findings from the research project.

Literature Review
This section discusses some of the key theories and ideas surrounding brand loyalty, such as the idea that brand
loyalty can be generated from a ‘social village’ (Oliver, 1999) and how the emergence of social media has altered
the way in which products are marketed to consumers, and how this may influence loyalty. By combining long
established ideas with modern themes, such as social media and e-commerce, the aim is to justify how brand
loyalty has evolved to encompass these themes over time. This section also covers buyer behaviour, which is
strongly linked to brand loyalty.

Brand Loyalty
Before looking at the causes behind brand loyalty, the impact that a ‘brand relationship’ can have on both the
consumer and business must be taken into consideration. This can be characterised into four key dimensions;
‘behavioural loyalty, attitudinal attachment, sense of community, and active engagement’ (Keller, 2013 p.346).

The concept of customer loyalty first appeared in scientific literature in the 1940s (Rundle-Thiele, 2005). At this
stage, loyalty was considered to be a one-dimensional construct. Researchers primarily focused their efforts on
the behavioural side of loyalty (Bodet, 2008), not taking into consideration the thoughts and feelings of the
consumers that they were targeting (Caruana, 2002).

One definition of brand loyalty, by Oliver (1999) states that brand loyalty is a deeply held commitment to rebuy
a preferred product or service consistently in the future, thus causing repetitive same-brand purchasing,
irrespective of situational influences and marketing efforts which have the potential to cause switching behaviour
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001).

Oliver (1999) also discusses the idea of a social organisation creating brand loyalty, which he calls ‘The Village’.
This is social alliance, whereby the primary motivation of consumers is being considered as part of the group, and
the primary motivation of the group overseers is to please the members of the social alliance.
This concept is commonly referred to as a ‘consumption community’, an idea first coined by David Boorstin in
1973. Boorstin suggests that consumer usage of certain brands and models performs an unexpected social function
by engendering feelings of community among those who share the same commercial identification. In a scenario
such as this, the consumer becomes a willing participant due to the attention provided by the various members of
the ‘village’.

When looking at what causes customers to exhibit loyal behaviour in regard to a product or a brand, researchers,
including Howard and Sheth (1969) and Engel et al. (1978) point to the relevance of satisfaction with previous
services as the determining factor in the buyer decision process. Latterly, authors have realigned their focus onto
other possible components of loyalty. As such, most authors now agree that loyalty is a multidimensional
construct, with a combination of attitudinal and behavioural components playing an important role (Velazquez et
al., 2011). The direction of influence on a brand’s perception and image is no longer one-sided, but has become
increasingly bilateral.

Today, consumers are no longer simply regarded as ‘recipients’ of brand-related and company information.
Instead, they now operate as ‘senders' of this information. For example, consumers can now give brand
recommendations, express criticism, and share information with others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Consumers
therefore play an important role in forming a company’s or brand’s perception and value in the marketplace
(Keller, 2007).

Several studies have focused on trying to understand the concept of brand loyalty and the factors that can influence
it. “Product attributes, after sales service/usage, marketing capabilities, perceived quality/aesthetics, depth of
product line and brand popularity are key differentiating factors that can influence the behaviour of repeat

2
purchasers and brand switchers with regards to consumer durables, thus having an impact on brand loyalty” (Lin
et al., 2000).

Studies have also found that for true brand loyalty to occur, brand commitment is a necessary condition (Bloemer
and Kasper, 1995; Amine, 1998). Consumers’ demographic characteristics such as age and household income are
also associated with high levels of brand loyalty (East et al., 1995).

Brand loyalty can therefore be interpreted as a consistent consumer preference to make purchases with the same
brand for a specific product or a specific service category (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2004). Similarly, consumers
now interactively shape the image and perception of companies and brands, which may in turn influence economic
performance, for example, changes in sales (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Sawhney et al., 2005). Brand loyalty is
also of paramount importance for marketers, because it helps to retain customers, and often requires less marketing
resources than it would to acquire new customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990).

Social Media
The emergence of social media networks has revolutionised marketing practices and led to a shift towards ‘user
driven technologies’ (Smith, 2009, pp.559; Cheung et al., 2011). Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are some of the
most widely known social media sites. The popularity of social networks highlights how media consumption has
changed over time.

Social media is now a vital tool for brands, due to the idea that when making a purchasing decision, people
typically both listen to and trust, recommendations from their family and friends (Chen et al., 2013; Choi and
Bazarova, 2014). Product recommendations are regularly used, with social media providing a platform from which
brands can monitor and engage in this dialogue, to help influence potential customers’ product choices (Choi and
Bazarova, 2014). By utilising social media marketing techniques carefully, it is possible to reinforce and increase
the awareness of particular brands amongst consumers, who spend increasing amounts of time using social media.

Successful viral marketing campaigns can be achieved through business working to ensure that the deliverance of
their online customer service is exceptional, so people tell others in their network about it, which generates
effective word-of-mouth marketing (Grieve et al., 2013). Arndt (1967) characterised word-of-mouth marketing
as oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as
non-commercial, regarding a brand, product or service. The rising popularity of social media sites offers brands
the opportunity to both listen and engage with their customers, which may encourage them to become long term
advocates for their products (Malthouse et al., 2013).

Similarly, Malthouse et al. (2013) argue that brands can incorporate social media into their marketing efforts to
retain existing customers and to maintain ongoing relationships with them. They express how social media has
become an enabler for companies, by which they can combine the acquisition and retention processes. As such,
marketing activities have changed to reflect this, with the new ability to reach both potential and current customers
simultaneously.

The acquisition of user interest is vital for companies to expand their customer base, but this should not be done
to the detriment of current customers, who could become dissatisfied and leave - thus, long term user loyalty
should be sought by all firms (Kwon and Wen, 2010). When interacting with customers over the Internet, Ryan
(2016, p.122) suggests effective social media marketing is based upon subtle consumer engagement and ‘leaving
the sledgehammer approach to product promotion at home.’

Typically, this involves listening to and engaging with customers, providing help and information as opposed to
forcefully advertising products to them. Social media can assist humanising a brand by connecting with customers
and giving it a greater personality (Ellison et al., 2007). This two-way communication is important, and
demonstrates a benefit that social media can embody (Grieve et al., 2013). Other theorists argue that many
businesses also empower their social media audience, enabling them to engage with one another, with several
cases of participants finding the answer they were looking for by asking a fellow social media user, not asking the
business directly (Chaffey and Ellis-Chadwick, 2012).

Customers can also use social media to discuss, in real-time, their likes and dislikes - this enables businesses to
see how market trends change, giving them the ability to be more agile when responding to customer wants and
having less out-dated stock (Ellison et al., 2007; Grieve et al., 2013). Social networks, due to their non-
transactional nature, are well suited for information gathering and the collection of feedback from customers
(Dholakia et al., 2004), which could be utilised to discover trends amongst users. Edelman (2010) claims

3
marketers should target stages in the new consumer decision journey; the existing trend is for customers to enter
an open-ended relationship with a brand and share experiences via social media after purchase.

Buyer Behaviour
Abraham Maslow (1943) formulated a hierarchy of needs which divides motives according to five different levels
of significance. The basic needs are at the bottom of the hierarchy, with the highest needs in its top part. These
needs however, do not have to be fully satisfied. The higher up the scale, the lower the percentage of satisfaction
deemed necessary for a higher need to emerge (Solomon et al., 2006). According to Sheth et al. (1999) Maslow
does not distinguish between wants and needs, but they have classified physiological and safety as being needs,
with the latter three being wants.

1. Physiological needs – hunger and thirst

2. Needs of safety and security – security and protection
3. Social needs – sense of belonging and love
4. Need of recognition – self-esteem, recognition and love
5. Self-fulfilment – self-development and realisation

Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs can be adapted towards buyer behaviour and helps to determine what it is
that motivates people to buy goods. With Sheth et al. (1999) arguing that the first two are deemed as needs with
the latter being wants, social motives are evident when customers seek to buy products which others regard highly.
In this instance, the type of car you drive will be in-keeping with people that you associate yourself with.

Similarly, the need for recognition also suggests that people will buy goods that are deemed to be fitting of their
own esteem. Finally, with self-fulfilment, once the previous two ‘wants’ have been satisfied, perhaps customers
would seek to buy something that they had once regarded as being aspirational, and realise their dream.

Over time, buyer behaviour has changed, with trends emerging that illustrate a shift towards online purchasing,
also referred to as e-commerce. Research has identified that consumers typically cite convenience as the main
reason to shop from home (Darian, 1987) due to the time that they can save (Ganesh et al., 2010; Overby and Lee,
2006). When considering convenience, this relates to the lesser effort that a customer must expend when
purchasing online, be this physical (Shamdasani and Yeow, 1995), psychological (Childers et al., 2001), or
cognitive (Bosnjak et al., 2007). In addition to this, convenience relates to flexibility and ubiquity (Chang et al.,
2010; Gehrt et al., 2007). This flexibility embodies an increased tendency for consumers to purchase impulsively
(Konus et al., 2008).

Recently, BMW has launched their new initiative, called ‘BMW Retail Online’, that enables consumers to
purchase a vehicle from the comfort of their own home in as little as 10 minutes (McNamara, 2015). This is
something that is uncommon in the automotive world, with traditional, physical sales outlets remaining dominant.
BMW Retail Online is not set to take over these traditional sales outlets, but will complement them and serve as
an additional outlet. It is as yet unclear whether consumers will utilise BMW Retail Online ahead of traditional
sales outlets. For smaller purchases, such as groceries or light bulbs, buying online is a perfectly feasible way to
procure these goods, but a car is a significant purchase and invariably takes a lot of consideration.

Different Types of Loyalty

It has been argued by various theorists that brand loyalty has two different dimensions - attitudinal and behavioural
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Kim et al., 2008; Kimmel, 2010; Oliver, 1999).

The behavioural dimension defines loyalty with regards to purchases being repeated time after time (Kim et al.,
2008). Attitudinal loyalty, however, defines loyalty in terms of psychological factors, such as preferences and
intentions (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). With a mixture of repeat purchases and a positive attitude towards
the brand, it is apparent that a combination of both behavioural and attitudinal loyalty contributes directly towards
brand loyalty (Kimmel, 2010).

Repeat purchasing behaviour does not always result in strong commitment to a brand (Bowen and Chen, 2001),
thus it can be argued that repeat purchases do not necessarily equate to loyalty. Bowen and Chen (2001) use an
example of a traveller using only one hotel to illustrate this point. The traveller may always stay in the same hotel
due to its convenient location. However, if a new hotel were to open with better offers in a similar location, the
traveller is likely to switch. Therefore, Bloemer and Kasper (1995) suggest that “true loyalty implies commitment
toward a brand and not just repurchase due to inertia”.

4
Dick and Basu (1994) also highlight that attitudinal commitments to a brand are a pre-requisite for forming real
loyalty. These can be measured by investigating how many people have positive feelings towards a brand, whether
they like it and have a strong commitment towards that brand, and whether they would make recommendations
to others.

From this, Dick and Basu (1994) found that loyalty is more favourable to a brand when compared to repeat
patronage. An approach that combines elements of both behavioural and attitudinal loyalty is referred to as the
‘composite measurement’ and has been regarded as a valuable tool when looking to understand customer loyalty
(McAndrew and Jeong, 2012; Nadkarni and Hofmann, 2012).

Research Methodology
This section outlines the research methodology that was adopted to achieve the research aims and objectives,
encompassing the following topics:
1. Research Philosophy, including methodological choice
2. Research Design
1. Population and sampling
2. Data collection method
3. Data analysis
3. Research Limitations
4. Ethical Considerations

Research Philosophy
Saunders et al. (2016 p.726) argue that the term ‘research philosophy’ correlates to “the development of
knowledge and the nature of that knowledge”. Similarly, Burrell and Morgan (1979) determined that a research
philosophy is concerned with the nature of science. The nature of science relates to the ontology, epistemology
and methodology of research. The first two of these terms - ontology and epistemology - influence how the
research methodology is created.

Ontology considers the ideas that a researcher has about the existence of, and the relationship between a range of
stakeholders, identified by Eriksson (2007) as people, society and the world in general. Under the general term of
ontology, two main schools of thought exist: objectivism and subjectivism. Objectivism represents “the position
that social entities exist in reality external and independent of social actors” (Saunders et al., 2007 p.108).
Subjectivism, however, “asserts that social phenomena are created from the perceptions and consequent action of
social actors” (Saunders et al., 2007 p.108).

Epistemology, unlike ontology, concerns what is regarded as acceptable knowledge in a field of study. One thing
that both ontology and epistemology have in common though, is the fact that they are both made up of two key
components. In this instance, epistemology is made up of positivism and interpretivism. Positivism involves
‘working with an observable social reality and that the end product of such research can be law-like generalisations
similar to those produced by the physical and natural scientists’ (Remenyi et al., 1998 p.32). Interpretivism,
however, is an epistemology that advocates the necessity of the researcher understanding differences between
humans in their role as social actors (Saunders et al., 2007). Fundamentally, positivism seeks to explain human
behaviour, whereas interpretivism emphasises understanding human behaviour (Graham and Thomas, 2008).

With this piece of research, it was identified that a questionnaire would be the most effective way to reach the
largest number of people. A quantitative questionnaire was developed, which took into consideration the
objectivist ontological position, combined with the epistemological positivist approach. These were utilised to
achieve both the research aims and objectives. For this piece of research, the interpretivist approach was deemed
to be unsuitable, and its application would have been wasted as this research was seeking to explain human
behaviour, not to understand it. Although this piece of research considered people’s subjective views, a positivist
approach was used for a number of reasons, as highlighted below.

Firstly, even though people’s thoughts and perceptions can be deemed subjective, this piece of research aimed to
understand what it is that makes people feel a sense of allegiance and loyalty towards BMW. As such, some pre-
determined responses were developed that encompassed a wide range of thoughts and ideas regarding the brand.
The purpose of this was to be able to quantify results once the data had been collected, thus giving the researcher
the ability to break down a large amount of data and be able to draw conclusions from this.

5
Secondly, since it was intended that many people’s views would be analysed objectively, a significant amount of
data had to be gathered to provide the researcher with the ability to generalise and to draw conclusions where
necessary. Pellisier (2008) states how a positivist, quantitative approach is most suitable when large numbers of
data need to be gathered.

Research Design
The research design is ‘the blueprint for fulfilling research objectives and answering questions’ (Cooper and
Schindler, 2014 p.665). This section is the plan and structure of the investigation, and includes an outline of what
the researcher will do, from writing the hypotheses and any issues that may be encountered, to the final analysis
of data (Kerlinger, 1986). Nandagopal et al. (2007) argue that an effective research design will aim to save both
time and money, but will still result in the creation of reliable information.

Saunders et al. (2012) argue that when collecting large quantities of data, a questionnaire is widely used. A
questionnaire can be defined as a set of questions in a structured order that is given to a person deemed suitable
and in-keeping with the target population to complete (DeVaus, 2002). Questionnaires can either be self-
administered or interview-administered (Saunders, 2012). This research project utilises a self-administered
approach, as this helps to eliminate respondents giving answers that are not necessarily a reflection of their true
feelings, also known as ‘socially desirable’ answers (Dillman, 2007). This also allows the participant to feel a
higher sense of anonymity (Cooper and Schindler, 2014).

In addition to this, the research involved a descriptive approach, which then needed to be explained in order to
form conclusions. Saunders et al., (2016 p.175) define this combination of descriptive and explanatory research
as ‘descripto-explanatory’

Population and Sampling

Sampling is necessary when conducting research of this size, as the number of responses would simply be
overwhelming. It is impractical to measure every member within a population for several reasons, as identified
by Oakshott (2012); it would take too long and it is too expensive.

For this piece of research, snowball sampling was identified as being an effective way of reaching many people.
Individuals are discovered through referrals, and are not pre-selected by the researcher (Cooper and Schindler,
2014). Snowball sampling is primarily used as an ‘informal’ method to reach a target population. As this piece of
research is aiming to gather explorative and descriptive data, snowball sampling offers practical advantage
(Hendricks et al., 1992). Atkinson and Flint (2001) propose a range of advantages that exist for snowball sampling,
namely;

• It has enabled access to previously hidden populations.

• It has been found to be economical, efficient and effective in various studies.
• It can also produce in-depth results and can produce these relatively quickly.

Saunders et al. (2016) identify one of the issues with snowball sampling as being the initial contact – however,
once this has been completed, these initial contacts identify further members of the population and they in turn do
the same, hence this method is referred to as ‘snowballing’ – it gathers pace as more and more people complete
it. Another potential issue with this method is the scope for bias (Lee, 2000), but as this survey was aimed solely
at BMW owners and fans, the bias was reduced, as these participants were part of the desired population.

In this instance, the researcher had links with various prominent figures on social media, and links with BMW
forums that enabled the survey to be distributed to those that it was designed for – BMW owners and fans.

Data Collection Method

This research project lent itself perfectly towards the use of an online survey, whereby large amounts of data could
be gathered and analysed. Using Qualtrics software, a questionnaire was drawn up that included a range of
questions with pre-populated, closed answers, to enable the researcher to narrow down the analysis. Throughout
this survey there were short answer text boxes that could be utilised by the participants if they felt the need to
share more than the closed responses. By using closed questions, the data could be analysed and presented in
graphical form to highlight the key trends. Please refer to Appendix 1 for the questions used in the survey.

According to Saunders et al. (2016 p.439) the way a questionnaire is designed can ‘affect the response rate and
the reliability and validity of the data’. Misleading questions can cause unnecessary confusion among participants,

6
therefore this needs to be avoided. Similarly, the length of time taken for a survey is a key factor in its success
rate – if participants become bored whilst completing the survey, they may be inclined to exit before finishing
fully. One issued highlighted to the researcher in the preliminary stages of the survey creation was the issue of
using the word ‘and’ in questions, as this can confuse participants, again causing uncertainty. As such, all of the
closed responses did not include the word ‘and’. Three key steps were followed when creating the survey.

Firstly, a pilot survey was identified as being a good way to test the survey before issuing it to the targeted
population. This is ‘intended to reveal errors in the design and improper control of the extraneous or environmental
conditions’ (Cooper and Schindler, 2014 p.199). The pilot survey helped to determine whether the questions were
understandable and could be easily understood by the population.

Secondly, the questionnaire was structured in a way that allowed the participant to flow easily from one question
to another. Initially, during the pilot survey, this was identified as a potential issue and could lead to confusion.
This was promptly rectified by the introduction of ‘page breaks’ whereby different questions/sections appeared
on different pages of the survey. Due to the targeting of the survey at BMW owners and fans, a question was
introduced that would limit the use of this survey to only these people, and would re-direct non-owners/non-fans
to the end of the survey.

Finally, explaining the reasoning behind a survey is an important way to gain the trust of participants. The
researcher made clear that the survey was going towards a piece of research being conducted on behalf of
University of Plymouth Business School, and complied with the ethical guidelines as set out below in Section 3.4.
In this explanation, it was made clear that the survey should take around 5 minutes of people’s time, and thanked
them at the end for their participation.

Data Analysis
Likert scales were used where possible to gauge how strongly people feel about particular statements. This
produces ordinal data which can be ranked (Curwin and Slater, 2007). It was not possible to use Likert scales for
all questions though, with some opinion based questions being asked, to allow participants to select more than
one response. Jones (1968) found that binary answer formats were easier for respondents to complete. Similarly,
Likert scales can suffer from response style bias. This is defined as ‘a systematic tendency to respond to a range
of questionnaire items on some basis other than the specific item content’ (Paulhus, 1991, p.17). For example,
people may be dissuaded from answering ‘strongly agree’ to all answers, and may deliberately vary their
responses, even though it may not be reflective of their true opinion.

This research involved quantitative data analysis, with responses translated into numerical form to allow for data
summarisation and to generate inferences about the population. To enable this, a process of three stages was
utilised;

• Graphically displaying the shape of the data

• Summarising the measures of location
• Summarising the measures of spread

Graphically displaying the shape of the data

Bar charts were used to display the data, as they allow for a clear display of how the data is distributed among the
responses and the shape of the data can help to illustrate how popular certain responses were. These were
complemented by tables that display the measures of location and the measures of spread, using the Inter-Quartile
Range (IQR).

Summarising the measures of location

This stage of data analysis involved determining the measure of location. Typically, there are three commonly
used locations when analysing data; the mean, the median and the mode. Anderson et al. (2016) argue that all
three location types should be adopted to create an accurate representation of the data and the averages for each
question. However, the mean cannot be calculated for nominal or non-nominal ordinal data. Even though the
mean can be calculated for numerical ordinal data, many times it does not give a meaningful value (Manikandan,
2011). As this research primarily involved ordinal data, it would have been ineffective to use the mean. Another
disadvantage of the mean is its sensitivity to extreme values/outliers, especially when the sample size is small
(Dawson-Saunders and Trapp, 2004).

7
For example, when a Likert scale is used, opinions are gauged using a scale of 1-7, from Strongly Disagree through
to Strongly Agree. If the mean were to be calculated, there is no guarantee that it would be a whole number, and
it would not be possible to accurately represent the responses if the mean were 3.7, for instance. As such, only the
mode and median were calculated.

Summarising the measures of spread

Finally, the measure of spread needs to be identified when analysing data. For this, the inter-quartile range was
calculated, as it was not possible to generate a standard deviation which derives from the mean calculation. A
smaller IQR signifies a consensus between participants, and a larger IQR demonstrates that there was a wider
number of varying opinions (Anderson et al., 2016).

Research Limitations
Most research projects are subjected to limitations in their design and completion. These tend to be a combination
of both methodological and researcher limitations.

Methodological Limitations:
• Snowball sampling cannot be controlled by the researcher, and as such, there are no guarantees that the
sample collected will accurately represent the population.
• With pre-determined responses, people may be unwilling to select the ‘other’ box to elaborate further on
their thoughts. They may just select a response that does not necessarily reflect their true feelings to save
time.
• Response rate is another issue that needs to be considered. To have a reliable survey, ideally over 100
responses are needed to provide valid data.
• Partly finished responses, whereby participants do not fully complete the survey before stopping, cannot
be used in the overall data analysis.

Researcher Limitations:
• Having a relatively narrow target audience, the survey had to be aimed solely at BMW owners (past and
present) and fans. As such, the researcher had to gain access to fan pages and forums to reach this target
audience.
• Targeting the survey solely at BMW owners and fans could be seen to generate unintentional bias, but
this research project is only interested in the opinions of owners and fans, so the bias needs to exist.

Ethical Considerations
When conducting research, it is of utmost importance that the ethical treatment of participants and their responses
is taken into consideration. As a questionnaire was used to gather data, people were volunteering information that
may not necessarily be readily available to others, and as such, the ethical considerations were particularly
pertinent. In addition to this, University of Plymouth (2015) has a range of ethical considerations that must be
adopted when human participation is involved in research. These considerations are outlined below:
• Informed consent: participants were explicitly asked if they were happy to proceed with the survey.
• Openness and honesty: participants were aware of how their responses would be used and what they
were contributing to.
• Withdrawal: participants were made aware of their ability to withdraw from the survey either during or
after completion.
• Confidentiality: anonymity ensured that all participants information was confidential.
• Protection from harm: as above, confidentiality through anonymity meant that participants were
protected from harm.

8
Research Results

Figure 1 - Graphs to display gender and ages of respondents

Figure 2 - A graph displaying consumers’ feelings towards BMW

9
Figure 3 - A graph displaying respondents’ sense of loyalty towards BMW

Definitely Probably I’m Probably Definitely

# Mode Median IQR
yes yes uncertain not not
Definitely
1 46.67% 34.22% 12.00% 4.44% 2.67% 2.00 1
yes

Table 1 - A table displaying the mode, median and IQR for respondents’ sense of loyalty

Median Key Value Range

Definitely yes 1.00 - 1.99
Probably yes 2.00 - 2.99
I’m uncertain 3.00 - 3.99
Probably not 4.00 - 4.99
Definitely not 5.00 - 5.99
Table 2 - Median Key for Table 1

10
 # Question
1 I intend to buy from BMW in the future
2 I intend to buy other products from BMW (e.g. if you own a motorbike, you may buy a car and vice versa)
3 I say positive things about BMW to other people
4 I have, or would recommend BMW to people that ask for advice
5 I don't look for alternative brands, BMW is good enough for me
6 If BMW were to raise their prices, I would continue to buy their products

Table 3 - A table displaying the questions asked for Question 6

Neither
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
# Agree Agree nor Disagree Mode Median IQR
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
1 48.67% 29.65% 12.83% 4.87% 0.88% 0.88% 2.21% 2.00 1
Agree
Neither
2 17.33% 16.00% 16.89% 23.11% 5.33% 14.22% 7.11% Agree nor 3.00 3
Disagree
Strongly
3 53.54% 31.42% 8.85% 3.10% 1.33% 0.88% 0.88% 1.00 1
Agree
Strongly
4 50.00% 32.74% 9.29% 4.42% 0.88% 1.33% 1.33% 1.50 1
Agree
Somewhat
5 22.22% 12.00% 27.56% 9.78% 12.44% 9.78% 6.22% 3.00 3
Agree
Somewhat
6 10.18% 17.26% 25.66% 22.57% 13.72% 5.75% 4.87% 3.00 2
Agree

Table 4 - A table displaying the percentage of choices, mode, median and IQR as per Table 3

Figure 4 - A graph showing how respondents’ engage with BMW online

11
Response to Various Visiting Liking their Following Following Looking out I do not Other
Q6 social media their brand page them on them on for news engage with (please
platforms website on Facebook Twitter Instagram stories them online specify)
Definitely 58.03% 51.09% 59.42% 62.86% 60.00% 51.14% 29.41% 20.00%
yes
Probably 28.79% 34.31% 30.43% 22.86% 32.50% 30.68% 35.29% 50.00%
yes
I’m 10.71% 9.45% 8.70% 8.57% 5.00% 11.36% 17.65% 20.00%
uncertain
Probably 1.79% 2.92% 1.45% 2.86% 2.50% 4.55% 8.82% 10.00%
not
Definitely 1.79% 1.46% - 2.86% - 2.27% 8.82% -
not

Table 5 - A table displaying how respondents sense of loyalty links with how they engage with BMW online

Figure 5 - A graph displaying whether respondents’ feel they are part of a consumption community

12
Figure 6 - A graph displaying respondents’ feelings towards buying from brands

Figure 7 - A graph displaying the key characteristics that attracts respondents to BMW

13
 Figure 8 - A graph displaying respondents’ feelings towards BMW Online Retail, and whether they would utilise it when
making a future purchase

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably Not Definitely Not I don’t know Mode Median IQR
Probably
13.78% 27.56% 33.78% 22.67% 2.22% Probably Not 2
Not (3.00)

Table 5 - A table displaying the percentage of choices, mode, median and IQR for Figure 8

Figure 9 - A graph displaying respondents’ feelings on BMW Online Retail and its impact on the brand

14
Findings and Discussion
This section covers the findings of the research, the analysis of the results and discusses these findings. This
research was completed to meet the set research objectives discussed on Page 2, and the analysis of the data
produced enabled this to happen. Firstly, the questionnaire sought to determine the profiles of the respondents and
whether they currently own, have owned, or would like to own a BMW. Secondly, their sense of loyalty towards
BMW was questioned. Finally, using a range of opinion based and Likert scale questions, the factors determining
their sense of loyalty were established.

A total of 230 responses was achieved, with respondents taking part from all over the world. The GeoIP tool on
Qualtrics enabled the researcher to gain a rough idea as to where the participants were. Locations included
Yokohama, Auckland, Durban, Philadelphia, Munich, The Hague and Dubai.

Of the 230 responses, 89.6% of people currently own or have previously owned a BMW. 8.7% of respondents
would like to own a BMW in the future, and the remaining 1.7% had never owned and would not like to own a
BMW. For the purposes of the research, anybody that answered ‘no’ at this stage was immediately taken to the
end of the survey, leaving a final sample size of 226 people.

Respondents’ Feelings Towards BMW

This section of the survey sought to understand how people feel towards the BMW brand. Respondents were
given a range of pre-populated responses and they could choose more than one response. 22.07% of respondents
like what the brand stands for, and this was the most frequently selected answer. Similarly, 19.25% of participants
felt that BMW have good products, and this was the reason they made repeat purchases. As Figure 2 shows, 4.93%
of respondents chose the ‘Other’ option and provided some insight as to their choice, discussed below.

Qualitative Examples
One respondent claimed that:
“BMW deliver a car and not transportation”

Another interesting quote highlights affection towards the brand but also claims that they have experienced issues
with the brand:
“I love my BMW, but it has its mechanical issues. The reason this is such a problem, is because my car is relatively
new. It has less than 42,000 miles on it and has many mechanical issues.”

Linked with this is another example of a respondent who had experienced issues but still loves the brand:
“Love the brand and cars but my last car cost me a fortune to repair when the chain snapped within the engine
just out of warranty. I also had issues with the alloy wheels failing.”

The next question asked respondents to assess their sense of loyalty towards BMW with five pre-populated
responses. An IQR figure of 1 highlights a consensus among participants, with a strong tendency towards
participants considering themselves to be loyal to BMW. This is in-keeping with the research objectives, as the
survey aimed itself towards BMW owners and fans in particular.

Analysing Consumer Loyalty

The next questions utilised a Likert scale and asked participants to rate 6 different statements from Strongly Agree
through to Strongly Disagree (See Table 3). Table 4 denotes the responses. As previously stated, a smaller IQR
figure indicates a consensus between respondents, whereas a larger figure shows that respondents are not aligned
in their thinking.

As was to be expected, there was a consensus among participants when they were asked about their future buying
plans, with 48.67% of respondents strongly agreeing that they would purchase a BMW. Similarly, there was a
consensus when participants were asked about how they ‘represent’ the brand in the form of recommendations or
in their conversations with other people. 53.54% of respondents strongly agree that they say positive things about
BMW to other people, with 50.00% of respondents strongly agreeing that they would recommend BMW to people
that ask for advice.

This is in-keeping with the idea that Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010) discuss, whereby consumers are no longer
regarded as being “recipients” of brand related information, but instead act as “senders” for the brand, by engaging
with others and sharing their opinions, experiences and recommendations.

15
Question 5 asked participants if they would look to other brands when purchasing, or whether BMW was the only
brand they would buy from. There was less of a consensus on this question with an IQR figure of 3. The most
common response to this was ‘somewhat agree’ with 27.56% of participants selecting this option. This seems to
contradict the ideas put forward by Oliver (1999) and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) who argued that if a
consumer is truly loyal, they would repeatedly buy from the same brand, despite situational influences and the
marketing efforts of competing brands, which tend to cause switching behaviour. If this was the case, we would
expect to see consumers opting for the ‘strongly agree’ option on this question. It is worth noting, however, that
22.22% of respondents did indeed choose this option, which suggests that there could be two different ‘levels’ of
loyalty.

Breaking this down further, of the 62 people who responded with ‘somewhat agree’ to this question, we can look
back to Question 6 where consumers were asked to gauge their loyalty to BMW. Of these 62 people, 46.77%
considered themselves to be ‘probably’ loyal to BMW, whereas 43.55% people regarded themselves as definitely
being loyal to BMW. 6.45% were uncertain of their loyalty and 3.22% people thought of themselves as probably
not being loyal to BMW.

Interestingly, of the 50 people that ‘strongly agree’ that BMW is good enough for them, 88.00% regard themselves
as being ‘definitely loyal’ to BMW, with the remaining 12.00% being ‘probably’ loyal.

From this, we can see that those who regard themselves as being ‘definitely loyal’ to BMW are more likely to
disregard other brands when looking to purchase, whereas those who are ‘probably’ loyal are perhaps more likely
to seek alternatives instead of buying solely from BMW.

Online Engagement and Social Media

As discussed in the literature review, social media, it can be argued, has an impact on brand loyalty, and this
questionnaire sought to determine if there is indeed a link between consumer’s social media habits and their sense
of loyalty to BMW.

As shown in the table above, participants who regard themselves as ‘definitely loyal’ to BMW as per Figure 3 are
more likely to engage with the company in a range of ways. This is to be expected, and falls in line with the idea
that Malthouse et al. (2013) discussed, when they highlighted that the emergence of social media has given both
consumers and brands the opportunity to interact, which may encourage consumers to become long term
advocates for that brand.

This is supported by the questions relating to whether people say positive things about BMW, and whether they
would recommend them to a friend, with both questions being answered with a modal answer of ‘strongly agree’.

Consumption Community
Discussed in the literature review, the idea of a consumption community has been talked about widely in the field
of ‘brand loyalty’ with Boorstin first coining the term in 1973. This links with the idea that social media can also
be a source of brand loyalty, with a group of people sharing a common interest, in this case, BMW, coming
together to share their thoughts and experiences with the brand. One of the questions in this survey asked
participants whether they felt that they were in a consumption community themselves.

Figure 5 highlights how respondents feel when posed with the question:

The idea of a 'consumption community' has been discussed widely in academic literature. Oliver (1999) argues
that a 'consumption community' occurs when customers loyal to one particular brand identify with one another,
which furthers their sense of loyalty to that brand. With this in mind, do you feel that you are part of a 'consumption
community' with regards to BMW?

With this question, it was important to highlight what a ‘consumption community’ is using a widely available
definition. This would enable the participant to make a judgment based on their feelings. The results were in-
keeping with what the researcher was expecting, with many respondents agreeing that they do feel part of a
consumption community. However, with 43.36% of participants agreeing that they are part of a consumption
community, it is important to note that 31.42% of people responded to this question with ‘maybe’, signifying an
uncertainty towards this topic. Interestingly, 21.24% of people answered with ‘no’ - this was to be expected, with
some participants feeling a different level of loyalty towards the brand, as mentioned previously in this section.

16
Alon, Brunel, and Siegal (2002) show that ongoing engagement of community members leads to the formation of
personal relationships, which, in turn, increase the social interaction with other community members and result in
the individual being socially embedded within the community (Alon, Brunel, & Schneier Siegal, 2004). As a side
note, it is worth mentioning here that in the circulation of the research, BMW forums were utilised, and a link to
the research was posted on the BMW Group page on LinkedIn. The response that this gathered was almost
overwhelming, with fans from all over the world coming together and circulating it among their friends and other
fans that they may have known. This supports the idea that there is a ‘consumption community’ among BMW
owners and fans.

Purchasing Thought Process

The next question sought to understand what it is that consumers take into consideration when looking to buy a
product. There were a range of options to choose from, with the option for participants to input their own answers
if they felt the pre-determined responses did not fit with their habits.

The results of this were not as predicted, with consumers showing a staunch loyalty to brands that they were
already aware of. A combination of consumers liking or loving the brand, and the brand consistently delivering
appear to be the key drivers behind this loyalty. This combination has been referred to widely in academia, with
Kimmel (2010) stating that both behavioural and attitudinal loyalty contribute directly towards brand loyalty.

The data collected on this question appears to support this idea that consumers’ perceptions and feelings
surrounding a brand can be attributed towards brand loyalty. As shown in Figure 6, consumers were more likely
to stay with a brand that they knew delivered and that they could rely on.

Brand Attractors
The next question asked respondents to consider what it is that attracts them to the BMW brand. They were offered
a range of different responses, and were invited to select as many as possible. There was also an option for
participants to input any other reasons that they are attracted to the brand, with 1.43% choosing to add their own
response. Some of these responses ranged from vehicle characteristics to maintaining older vehicles.

Qualitative Examples
One response was quite pertinent and is likely to reflect many modern buyers’ feelings towards the brand:
“Engine performance in both power and efficiency far outweighs the competition”

Similarly, another response like this is likely to be representative of many modern buyers:
“Performance, economy & road tax - all better than the competition”

These two responses above seem to place vehicle performance as one of the main attractors to the BMW brand.
This sentiment is also reflected in pre-determined responses, as demonstrated in Figure 7. ‘Driving dynamics’
was the most common response to this question, constituting 21.81% of the total responses.

There is a distinct trend amongst the responses that highlights an importance on product characteristics. With
‘driving dynamics’ occupying the top sport, ‘superior product quality’ and ‘product design’ are also regarded as
being important in the decision-making process, occupying 18.36% and 18.24% of the responses respectively.

At this point, it is worth noting that in contrast to 43.36% of respondents feeling that they are part of a consumption
community with regards to BMW, ‘brand popularity’ only accounted for 5.36% of responses to this question.

Online Purchasing
Respondents were then asked to answer questions regarding BMW Online Retail. The results to this question
seemed quite broad, with an IQR figure of 2, indicating that there was not a consensus among participants. Overall
though, ‘probably not’ was the most popular response, occupying 33.78% of the responses provided. This is
interesting, and seems to contradict the idea that consumers are more likely to make an impulse purchase online,
particularly when it comes to BMW.

This relates to the next question, where respondents were asked about whether e-commerce strengthens or
weakens the brand. Figure 9 demonstrates that the introduction of e-commerce, by quite some margin, does not
alter people’s opinion of the BMW brand, with 60.71% of respondents selecting this option. This was to be

17
expected following the previous question, whereby many respondents did not seem interested in in e-commerce,
therefore it is unlikely to alter their opinion of the brand. It is worth noting here though, that 29.46% of respondents
felt that the introduction of e-commerce improved the brand.

Conclusion
Revisiting the Research Aims and Objectives
As previously stated, the research aims and objectives were, as follows;
1. To gather information regarding consumers’ thoughts and feelings towards BMW
2. To analyse the range of factors that create brand loyalty towards BMW
3. To identify whether social media can enhance owners and fans sense of loyalty towards BMW

In relation to the first research objective, information was gathered through a survey that sought to identify the
thoughts and feelings of respondents towards BMW. This was achieved, as highlighted in the data analysis section,
whereby it was discovered that people like what the brand stands for, and that it is BMW’s wide product range
that generates repeat sales. With regards to social media, Figure 9 highlighted that people who regard themselves
as being loyal to BMW are more likely to engage with them online, using a wide array of platforms. This is
important to note, and highlights how the Internet has become another source of loyalty.

Referring to the second objective, it was identified that a range of both emotional and physical product factors are
deemed to generate a sense of loyalty towards BMW. For example, many respondents to the survey felt that they
were part of a ‘consumption community’ whereby they feel part of a ‘society’ toward BMW. This too can be
regarded as a source of loyalty, with people not wanting to leave the group that they are accustomed to. With
43.36% of respondents selecting this option, it can be argued that there is a sense of community amongst BMW
owners. At the same time, product factors also play an important role. As a result of this, people are likely to want
to buy from BMW time after time, as demonstrated in Figure 6, which highlighted that a strong brand is likely to
win repeat custom, even if they are faced with cheaper alternatives.

Finally, in relation to the final objective, it was highlighted that consumers who feel that they are ‘definitely loyal’
to BMW are more likely engage with them using a variety of social media and online tools. Interestingly, Twitter
was the most popular response, with 62.86% of ‘definitely loyal’ respondents selecting this option ahead of
Instagram, with 60.00%. As per Table 5, it was clear to see that the higher the sense of loyalty, the more likely
consumers are to engage with BMW online. This is interesting, and supports the idea that brand loyalty is no
longer a one-sided affair, with consumers having the ability to actively interact with the brand, which paves the
way to further enhance brand loyalty.

In summary, BMW owners and fans worldwide have come together to contribute their thoughts and feelings to
this piece of research, providing an insight into what the BMW brand means to them and why they feel loyal to
BMW. This piece of research has determined that social media can indeed influence brand loyalty, and that a
blend of physical product factors and emotional feelings towards the brand are the primary reasons that consumers
feel a sense of allegiance. To many, BMW is so much more than just a car manufacturer - it is an expression of
their personality, and what makes them, them.

Suggestion for Future Research

This research project followed a quantitative positivist approach, identifying frequencies and ranges of opinions
to create an objective reality on the factors behind brand loyalty towards BMW. Future research projects adopting
a qualitative approach with focus groups which probe further and give a deeper investigation into people’s
thoughts would be beneficial, especially as it permits the researcher to identify where participants may be willing
to divulge more information.

18
References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. and Herrmann, A. (2005). The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence
from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), pp.19-34.
Amine, A. (1998). Consumers’ true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 6(4), pp.305-319.
Anderson, D., Sweeney, D., Williams, T., Camm, J., Cochran, J., Fry, M. and Ohlmann, J. (2016). Quantitative
methods for business. 13th ed.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of
Marketing Research, 4(3), pp.291-295.
Atkinson, R. and Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies.
Social Research Update, 33.
Bloemer, J.M.M. and Kasper, J.D.P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and
loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 311–29.
Bodet, G. (2008). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: Two concepts, four constructs, several
relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(3), pp.156–162.
Bosnjak, M., Galesic, M. and Tuten, T. (2007). Personality determinants of online shopping: Explaining online
purchase intentions using a hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), pp.597-605.
Bowen, J. and Chen, S. (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty and customer
satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(5), pp.213-217.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, USA
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the
sociology of corporate life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Publishers
Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer
satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7), pp.811–828.
Chaffey, D. and Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Digital marketing. 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Chang, M.L., Lai, M. and Wu, W.Y. (2010). The influences of shopping motivation on adolescent online-
shopping perceptions. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), pp.2728–2742.
Chaudhuri, A, and Holbrook, M. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand
Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal Of Marketing, 65(2), pp. 81-93.
Chen, A., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhao, L. and Li, M. (2013). What drives content creation behavior on SNSs? A
commitment perspective. Journal of Business Research, 66(12), pp.2529-2535.
Cheung, C., Chiu, P. and Lee, M. (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook?. Computers
in Human Behavior, 27(4), pp.1337-1343.
Childers, T., Carr, C., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail
shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), pp.511-535.
Choi, Y. and Bazarova, N. (2014). Self-Disclosure Characteristics and Motivations in Social Media: Extending
the Functional Model to Multiple Social Network Sites. Human Communication Research, 41(4),
pp.480-500.
Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2014). Business research methods. 12th ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Darian, J.C. (1987). In-home shopping: Are there consumer segments? Journal of Retailing, 63(3), pp.163–186.
Dawson-Saunders, B. and Trapp, R. (2004). Basic & clinical biostatistics. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
deVaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. (5th ed). London: Routledge.
Dholakia, U., Bagozzi, R. and Pearo, L. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network-
and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3),
pp.241-263.
Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), pp.99-113.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Survey: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
East, R., Harris, P., Willson, G. and Hammond, K. (1995). Correlates of first‐brand loyalty. Journal of
Marketing Management, 11(5), pp.487-497.
Edelman, D. C. (2010). Branding in the digital age: you’re spending your money in all the wrong places.
Harvard Business Review, 63(69). Dec 2010.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and
College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12(4), pp.1143-1168.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Kollat, D.T. (1978) Consumer Behavior. 3rd ed. Hinsdale: Free Press.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K., Luckett, M. and Pomirleanu, N. (2010). Online Shopper Motivations, and e-Store
Attributes: An Examination of Online Patronage Behavior and Shopper Typologies. Journal of
Retailing, 86(1), pp.106-115.

19
Gehrt, K., Onzo, N., Fujita, K. and Rajan, M. (2007). The Emergence of Internet Shopping in Japan:
Identification of Shopping Orientation-Defined Segments. The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 15(2), pp.167-177.
Gorzelany, J. (2011). Cars With The Most Brand-Loyal Buyers. [online] Forbes.com. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2011/10/13/cars-with-the-most-brand-loyal-
buyers/#1411c06b4984 [Accessed 1 Feb. 2017].
Graham, B. and Thomas, K. (2008). Building Knowledge – Developing a Grounded Theory of Knowledge
Management for Construction. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (6)2. pp.115 -
122
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Anne Tolan, G. and Marrington, J. (2013). Face-to-face or Facebook: Can
social connectedness be derived online?. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), pp.604-609.
Hendricks, V. M., Blanken, P. and Adriaans, N. (1992) Snowball Sampling: A Pilot Study on Cocaine Use,
Rotterdam: IVO
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A. and Skiera, B. (2010).
The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), pp.311-330.
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. 1st ed. New York: Wiley.
Jones, R.R. (1968). Differences in Response Consistency and Subjects' Preferences for Three Personality
Inventory Response Formats. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, pp.247-248.
Keller, E. (2007). Unleashing the Power of Word of Mouth: Creating Brand Advocacy to Drive Growth.
Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), pp.2-7.
Keller, K. (2013). Strategic brand management. 1st ed. Harlow: Pearson, pp.346-358.
Kerlinger, F. (1986) Foundations of behavioural research. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston p.279
Kim, J., Morris, J. and Swait, J. (2008). Antecedents of True Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertising, 37(2),
pp.99-117.
Kimmel, A.J. (2010). The psychological basis of marketing. In M. Baker and M. Saren, (Eds.), Marketing
Theory: A student text (pp. 119-143). UK: Sage.
Konus, U., Verhoef, P. and Neslin, S. (2008). Multichannel Shopper Segments and Their Covariates. Journal of
Retailing, 84(4), pp.398-413.
Kwon, O. and Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), pp.254-263.
Lin, C., Wu, W., and Wang, Z. (2000). A study of market structure: Brand loyalty and brand switching
behaviors for durable household appliances. International Journal of Market Research, 42(3), pp.277-
300.
Malthouse, E., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E. and Zhang, M. (2013). Managing Customer Relationships in
the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(4),
pp.270-280.
Manikandan, S. (2011). Measures of central tendency: The mean. Journal of Pharmacology and
Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(2), p.140.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp.370-396.
McAndrew, F. T., and Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on Facebook? age, sex, and relationship status as
predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), pp.2359-2365.
McNamara, P. (2015). Buy a BMW in just 10 minutes, with new online platform. [online] CAR Magazine.
Available at: http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/bmw/buy-a-bmw-in-just-10-
minutes-with-new-online-platform/ [Accessed 1 February 2017].
Nadkarni, A., and Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual
Differences, 52(3), pp.243-249.
Nandagopal, R., Rajan, A. K. and Vivek, N. (2007). Research methods in business. New Delhi: Excel Books
Oakshott, L. (2012). Essential quantitative methods for business, management and finance. 5th ed. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty?, Journal Of Marketing, 63(4), pp. 33-44
Overby, J. and Lee, E. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer
preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 59(10-11), pp.1160-1166.
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Pellissier, R. (2007). Business research made easy. 1st ed. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.
Plymouth University (2015). Plymouth University Ethical Guidelines. [online] Available at:
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/6/6912/Plymouth_University_Researc
h_Ethics_Policy.pdf [Accessed 6 Feb. 2017].

20
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 5, September–October, pp.105–11.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business and management: an
introduction to process and method, London, Sage.
Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). Exploring loyal qualities: Assessing survey-based loyalty measures. Journal of
Services Marketing, 19(7), pp.492–500.
Ryan, D. (2016). Understanding Digital Marketing. 4th ed. London: Kogan Page, p.122.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students. 5th ed. Harlow,
England: Financial Times Prentice Hall
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. 6th ed. England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students. 7th ed. Harlow,
England: Financial Times Prentice Hall
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for
customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), pp.4-17.
Schiffman, L. and Kanuk, L. (2004). Consumer behavior. 1st ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Shamdasani, P. and Yeow, O.G. (1995). An exploratory study of in-home shoppers in a concentrated retail
market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(1), pp.15-23.
Sheth, J., Mittal, B. and Newman, B. (1999). Customer behaviour. 1st ed. Dryden Press.
Smith, T. (2009). Conference notes – The social media revolution. International Journal of Market Research,
51(4), pp.559-561.
Solomon, M., Marshall, G. and Stuart, E. (2006). Marketing: Real People, Real Choices. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ:
Pearson.

21
9. Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1 - Survey Questions

22
23
24