User Generated Content vs. Corporate Generated Content

Introduction

User Generated Content (UGC) refers to any brand related subject matter that has not been created inside professional practices (Christodoulides et al., 2012), while Corporate Generated Content (CGC) is created and published by organizations. At contemporary times, consumers have increasingly begun to trust UGC substantially more than CGC. This is a current issue in marketing as organizations have no control over UGC and possible unfavourable remarks made regarding a brand are negatively associated with successfully communicating a brand message and capturing the target market. As appealing to the target market enables customer acquisition, retention and growth, failure to communicate the brand message appropriately would make the organization experience stagnant growth, strategic incompetency and below-average returns. Therefore, marketers of this day and age are expected to find a means of effectively managing UGC and use it for the betterment of the organization.

Figure A – Source: http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2015/global-trust-in-advertising-2015.html

Review of Literature

(Shao, Jones & Grace, 2015) propose that prior to the internet era, brand managers alone built their brand image by content marketing. However, at recent times, content marketing has become twofold as UGC and CGC; and “brand co-creation” with consumers has come to be. The role of UGC in content marketing is still obscure to many organizations and they have not tried to distinguish the causations for consumers being more likely to trust UGC.

(Chari, Christodoulides, Presi, Wenhold & Casaletto, 2016) have stated that the pre-eminent reason for consumers trusting UGC over CGC is the ability to relate more to consumers than brand managers. The authors have also presented ad-scepticism as a reason as individuals with high levels of ad-scepticism and believing UGC over CGC were found to be positively correlated. Furthermore, the authors argue that developing consistency between UGC and CGC will help organizations to effectively communicate their brand values and norms. To assess the causes presented by (Chari, Christodoulides, Presi, Wenhold & Casaletto, 2016)   from a critical perspective, comprehension regarding the consumers’ rationale behind producing UGC is needed. It is often either to praise the brand for living up their brand promise or criticize the brand for failing to do so. Therefore, customers find that consumers have no reason to be dishonest while reviewing a brand while an organization does so in order to sell the product. Consumers are also drawn towards psychology of social proof, finding comfort in sharing the same opinion society has about a certain product. Ad-scepticism arises from believing that organizations are only honest in communicating the positive aspects of a product and not the negative ones. Therefore, it is evident that a person who is highly sceptical towards advertisements would more willingly trust UGC.

(Shao, Jones & Grace, 2015) correspond to (Chari, Christodoulides, Presi, Wenhold & Casaletto, 2016), as the brands used by the research were able to clearly define their brand values and norms to consumers. When aiming to find consumer attitudes towards UGC and CGC individually and identify the inconsistencies between them, their research found notable consistencies between UGC and CGC.

Social media interactions of consumers with organizations have been about their utilitarian and hedonic experiences concerning the organization’s products. These interactions could depict both positive and negative experiences about the brand. Positive reviews add value to the brand and are doubtlessly beneficial. However, negative reviews also present organizations with an opportunity to stand for their brand values and communicate it to their customers. For example, upon receiving unfavourable reviews from customers, Hotel Shangri-La Hambanthota reply to the customers by personally addressing them, apologizing appropriately and offering accommodation free of charge or at a discounted price. This manner of interaction has the ability to generate positive thoughts in the customer about the brand. By delivering what is promised, organizations have the ability to incentivize the customer to withdraw the negative reviews and replace it with positive reviews. This would ensure that companies do have the ability to manage UGC and it is possible to achieve consistencies between UGC and CGC and maximize the positive effects of brand co-creation.

Conclusion and Implications for Marketers

The aforementioned critique revealed that the unfavourable remarks added by negative UGC to brand co-creation can be overcome by creating consistencies between UGC and CGC.

·       This can be achieved by being exceptionally interactive with consumers by responding to their comments, reviews and feedback as it would present consumers with a chance to shape their perception about the brand.

·       Consumer involvement campaigns such as contests, sweepstakes and giveaways are another excellent way of incentivizing consumers to align UGC with CGC. A recent example is the one-year anniversary giveaway held by BakesByBella where customers were asked to post pictures of them having a good time at the café and the most creative one was to be chosen. Such a campaign would publicize many positive experiences at the café and humanize the brand.

Figure B – Source: https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/11/de/f0/a0/photo1jpg.jpg

Finally, organizations can use UGC to determine the degree to which their brand promise is fulfilled. If time was spent to make changes and grow based on customer feedback and constructive criticism, then positive UGC that are aligned with the organization’s CGC will follow.

Articles Reviewed

Shao, W., Jones, R., & Grace, D. (2015). Brandscapes: contrasting corporate-generated versus consumer-generated media in the creation of brand meaning. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(3), 414-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/mip-11-2013-0178

Chari, S., Christodoulides, G., Presi, C., Wenhold, J., & Casaletto, J. (2016). Consumer Trust in User-Generated Brand Recommendations on Facebook. Psychology & Marketing, 33(12), 1071-1081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20941

    Works Cited

Christodoulides, G., Jevons, C., & Bonhomme, J.(2012). Memo to marketers. Quantitative evidence for change: How user-generated content really affects brands?Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 53–64.