European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences

ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 98 April-July, 2018

© FRDN Incorporated
http://www.europeanjournalofeconomicsfinanceandadministrativesciences.com

Effect of Youtube-Based Advertising Effectiveness and

Brand Community on Purchase Decision

Wahyu Eko Prasetyanto

Student of Doctoral Program of Management Science
Graduate Program of Jenderal Soedirman University – Indonesia

Suliyanto
Lecturer on Economics & Business
Faculty of Jenderal Soedirman University – Indonesia

Sri Murni Setyawati

Lecturer on Economics & Business
Faculty of Jenderal Soedirman University – Indonesia

Abstract

The existence of social media on the internet allows the formation of virtual brand
communities, both transactional and relational. This brand community has potential to
influence consumer purchase intentions, as has been shown in a number of studies in the
real world. This study examines the relationship between advertising and brand community
effectiveness on purchasing decisions based on youtube advertising. In addition, the study
hypothesizes that the brand community moderates the relationship between advertising
effectiveness and purchasing decisions. Youtube was chosen because it is a social medium
that allows ads to show in visual form. Purchase decisions are measured indirectly based on
ad memory ("like" and "dislike" on advertising). The analysis was performed using linear
regression method on 59 video samples from major brands in Indonesia. The analysis
results show a significant correlation between the effectiveness of advertising and the brand
community on purchase intentions. However, the brand community moderates the
advertising effectiveness and purchase intentions negatively. Dominant consumer logic
theory is offered as an explanation for this negative relationship.

Keywords: advertisement effectiveness, purchase decision, brand community, Youtube

Introduction
The development of digital media in the millennium era provides greater opportunities for companies
to market their products. Youtube has become a wonderful alternative to WoM (Word of Mouth)
features through sharing video links on other social media platforms as well as comments and various
forms of interaction that can occur inside or outside this website (DeWitt et al, 2013). Youtube.com
was established in 2005 and continues to function as a video sharing website for free with content
created and shared by users themselves (Biddinika et al, 2015). Currently, Youtube.com is the second
most visited website in the world after Google.com, with one person visiting an average of 9 minutes
per day, 5 videos per day, and linking links with 2.2 million other websites in the world (Alexa.com,
2017).
41 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

Advertising on Youtube takes shape ranging from just TV commercials that are converted into
Youtube videos, special ads designed only to be aired on Youtube, a company-specific channel on
Youtube devote to marketing the product, to people (Youtuber) hired by the company for market their
products in the form of celebrity endorsing. The advertising alternative is broader than a 10-second,
30-second ad, to between 3 to 10 minutes viewed as the appropriate length for the human attention
range (Green et al, 2017).
Studies on the use of Youtube in the field of education show great promise such as increased
student satisfaction, increased test scores, to a positive impetus on student behavior (Green et al, 2017).
Meanwhile, a study comparing television, online (including Youtube), and print media, found that
proton car sales were strongest influenced by advertisements in online media (Hadadi and Almsafir,
2015). However, Can and Kaya's (2016) study shows that ads on social networking sites (including
Youtube) are not as effective as expected as many users say they are unhappy or concerned about
existing ads. Many of them even skip ads when they appear before they end. Research Pikas and
Sorrentino (2014) shows that 88% of 388 respondents always skip the Youtube ad if there is a chance.
Therefore, the question arises as to how effective the ads are displayed on Youtube media in
encouraging buying interest.
Of course, many factors have an effect on purchasing decisions beyond the media itself. Ad
creativity (Hadadi and Almasfir, 2015), product characteristics (Rau et al, 2015), and attitudes (Can
and Kaya, 2016) can play a major role in determining purchasing decisions. One of the concepts that
can be raised to encourage advertising on Youtube is the brand community. The study on social media
Youtube shows that the brand community is more able to give a positive effect on consumer
confidence than advertising or information provided by the company itself (Schmidt and Iyer, 2015).
This is due to the social influence of the brand community among members of the community, because
of the feeling that they are both consumers of the product (Aspasia and Ourania, 2015).
Studies show that today's consumers rely heavily on information generated by other users in
networks and social media to make online purchasing decisions (Bahtar and Muda, 2016). Studies in
Turkey show that 49% of consumers make purchasing decisions based on information they get from
social media (Kirtis and Karahan, 2011). On the other hand, the company's efforts to provide richer
information through online media also have a role in purchasing decision making (Higgins et al, 2014).
This study examines the effectiveness of Youtube-based advertising in influencing the
involvement of respondents in the brand community and purchasing decisions. In an effort to examine
this effectiveness, researchers will review a number of ads on Youtube in Bahasa Indonesia in ad
categories specifically directed to this medium and see respondents' responses to advertising as a proxy
decision to buy.

Ad Effectiveness, Community Brand, and Purchase Decision

The effectiveness of advertising is basically the degree to which the goal of an ad or ad campaign
(Kariuki, 2012) is achieved. Direct measurement of ad effectiveness typically uses a 5-scale Likert
response measure of the respondent's reactions to advertising and intent to purchase advertised
products, once they are presented to consumers (Diedrichs and Lee, 2010; Sachdeva, 2015). Other
measurements may be aimed at the model within the ad, the ad's content, or the brand in the ad
(Simpson et al, 2008). Other indicators share the effectiveness of advertising in seven dimensions:
realism, entertaining, relevance, reinforcement, information, buying intentions, and attention (Linh,
2017). The indicator from Julian (2011) uses three items, one of which asks the customer directly how
effective the ad is.
Indeed, all of the above indicators are traditional indicators. In the online context, various new
indicators have been put forward. In general, these indicators are classified as indicators of exposure
and interactive indicators (Tai et al, 2005). Exposure indicators include viewing ads, ad impressions,
and viewing pages, while interactive indicators can include ad clicks, view time, and so on (Tai et al,
2005). Changes in how to measure advertising effectiveness are due to the advancement of digital
42 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

technology has allowed advertisers to quantitatively and real-time measurements of the ads they have
ejected (Sturges, 2013). However, research on the effectiveness of advertising on Youtube, still using
traditional indicators, so it is general and does not lead to certain products (eg Rodriguez, 2017).
In addition to opening up the possibility of measuring the effectiveness of advertising in real
time, advances in information technology also provide a real-time overview of the brand community
situation. The brand community is a group of consumers with the same mind and is identified with a
particular brand and possesses the same traits, such as awareness, ritual, tradition, and shared moral
responsibility (Kalman, 2005). Another definition suggests that the brand community is "a
geographically unbound but specialized community based on a set of structured social relationships
among admirers of a brand" (Acosta and Devasagayam, 2010). Meanwhile, in a cultural context, the
brand community is defined as "a group of loyal consumers who are organized in the lifestyle, activity,
and ethos of the brand" (Tenderich, 2013). In an online context, this brand community is demonstrated
by official discussion groups, personal websites, webring, and offline conventions (Schau and Russell,
2004).
Devasagayam et al (2010) builds a brand community typology based on two dimensions:
spatial and corporate relationships. Each dimension consists of two types of choices: the spatial
dimension includes both geographic and virtual, while the dimensions of the relationship include
transactional and relational. Consequently, there are four types of brand communities: (1) the
transactional geographic brand community, (2) the transactional virtual brand community, (3) the
relational geographic brand community, and (4) the relational virtual brand community. Geographic
brand groups are connected within a certain region, while virtual brand groups are more bound online
than region. Brand groups with transactional properties are simply present because they are consumers
of the brand without being actively involved in brand development, while the relational community
does intense interaction in an effort to improve the brand with the active involvement of brand-building
companies in the community.
Bal et al (2016) builds a brand community typology based on corporate control over brands and
community strength. According to them, there are four types of brand communities, the dutiful
community, the believer community, the reformist community, and the invisible community.
Dedicated communities have companies that are weak in brand control and hand over brand power to
consumers while communities have strong ties. The community believes otherwise, the company has
great brand power and does not share it with consumers but the community remains a strong
community. The reformer community has weak companies and strong members, while communities
are weak. The invisible community is weak in the strength of the community as well as the consumer is
also weak in determining the development of the brand.
Purchasing decisions are the expected outcome element of an advertisement. Purchase decision
is "the possibility of consumer willingness to buy certain specific product" (Javed and Hasnu, 2013).
The general predictor of buying decisions is consumer satisfaction with the product (Kim et al, 2014).
In addition, economic status, education, income, and status in the household also play a role in
determining purchasing decisions (Plabdaeng, 2010). Risk perceptions are also known to have an effect
on purchasing decisions, particularly on the online and tourism context (Kazeminia et al, 2013). In the
field of advertising, existing relationships can be reciprocal. Research shows that the involvement of
respondents in purchasing decisions gives an effect on the evaluation of respondents to the elements of
the message in the ad (Kim, 2013: 15). On the other hand, purchasing decisions have a positive effect
on brand loyalty (Ou et al, 2017).

Hypothesis and Design Research

Hypothesis
Ads are designed to increase purchases. Therefore, it becomes natural that ads are expected to
contribute to an increase in purchases. In video ads, many factors play a role. Brand awareness and
43 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

persuasion, for example, can drive advertising effectiveness (Huhmann and Albinsson, 2012).
Huhmann and Albinsson (2012) argue that the length of the ads have an effect on the effectiveness of
advertising. However, this should not happen in video ads. Insofar as advertising is able to engage
consumers, long enough ads can still be tolerated and can even have a positive effect as it provides
enough space for the audience's emotional engagement. In line with this, we hypothesize that youtube
ads, as far as samples in this study, will be effective in increasing the intentions of buying respondents.
Therefore, the first null hypothesis is that there is no effect of advertising effectiveness in increasing
the intention of buying audiences of Youtube ads.
H1: There is a positive effect of advertising effectiveness in improving the intention of buying
Youtube ad viewers.
The Hur's et al (2011) study demonstrates that trust in brand communities, affection in the
brand community, and commitment to the brand community have a significant effect on Word of
Mouth repurchase intentions, and constructive complaints on brands. In the meantime, Zhou et al
(2012) found that the identification and commitment of the brand community had a significant effect
on brand attachment, brand identification, and brand commitment, moderated by the perception of
community-brand similarity. Jones and Kim (2011) show a significant influence of the brand
community on brand loyalty. Algesheimer et al (2005) suggests that the identification of the brand
community significantly negatively affects normative community pressure, which in turn has a positive
effect on reactance, which in turn negatively affects brand loyalty intentions. Brand loyalty intentions
have a positive effect on brand buying behavior. Interestingly, the study of Habibi et al (2014) suggests
that social relationships between individuals in brand groups negatively affect brand trust, but these are
described as product characteristics, not on all product types.
The above description shows that the brand community has a positive effect on purchasing
decisions. Therefore, we consider the following hypotheses for our empirical research:
H2: The brand community will have a positive effect on buying intentions.
Furthermore, the brand community can influence a person in making purchase decisions. One
can weigh to buy if they see that the brand has many fans. The study of Algesheimer et al (2005)
suggests that the size of the brand community moderates the brand's influence on the behavior of
community members. Their research shows that the larger the brand community, the greater the brand's
influence in driving consumers' car buying demands. Therefore, formally the next hypothesis is:
H3: The Brand Community moderates the relationship between advertising effectiveness and
positive buying intentions.

Research Design
This study was designed as an observational study by observing advertising videos derived from major
brands in Indonesia. All proxies for research indicators are online proxies as they provide a real-time
overview of the effectiveness of existing advertising. The mechanism assumed to occur is that a
respondent will first visit the ad page, then respond in the form of likes or dislikes or neutral to the ad.
It could be, the ad just came to the respondent. In this case, the ad does not give space to respond like
or dislike. The only response that can be done by the respondent is to see the ad until it finishes or skip
it after 10 seconds. Under any circumstances, respondents will be exposed first by advertisement
before making a decision. To reduce the effects of these ads at a glance, samples will be taken directly
from the advertiser's page. On this page, decisions to like or dislike may be influenced by the number
of comments or the size of the subscriber of the advertiser. Both of these indicators are brand
community indicators. There can be a reciprocal effect, in which the respondent becomes a subscriber.
However, this is unlikely if the respondent is exposed to a single ad or does not have a large brand
awareness of the ad. Therefore, we assume that the brand community is formed before the respondent
comes to visit the ad. This can happen because usually, to drive the number of subscribers, some of the
advertisers' internal employees will be encouraged by their superiors to subscribe the ads to bring in
more subscribers or other responses from outside visitors.
44 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

Population and Sample

The population in this study was obtained from two sources, namely Brand Directory.com site (Brand
Finance, 2017) and Brand Index.com. Site Brand Directory annually selects the 100 best brands in each
country based on the brand value held in the currency unit. Population data used based on company
financial data (Swa, July 22, 2016). However, Brand Directory data only includes listed companies
listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. Therefore, the population is also withdrawn from the Brand
Index list. The Brand Index list only covers the top 20 brands. However, the brands used include
brands of closed and multinational corporations, thereby expanding the scope of the brand under study.
The method used by Brand Index does not look at the value of money, but in a survey that asks
respondents about "have you heard anything about the following brand in the last two weeks, whether
through advertising, news, or word of mouth, and if ever, or negative? ". All populations are taken
from the 2016 ranking.
Combination from the above two sources produces a population of 120 brands. However, some
brands listed on the Brand Index are also listed in the Brand Directory, leaving 117 brands. For
samples, we decided to check the presence of ads of all these brands on Youtube. We took out
advertisements that were posted not from the official brand page, thus avoiding manipulation of the
advertisements exposed to the audience..
Many of these brands do not have ads officially released from their original pages. A brand can
generate multiple ads in the course of its existence on Youtube. We decided to choose the most popular
ads on the page. This ensures the variability of data that can be obtained. Based on this method, we
obtained a sample of 59 ads.

Measurement
Bergkvist (2014) argues that marketing academics should use a single item rather than a multiple-item
indicator to measure concrete constructs. Single item indicators do not provide general method variant
effects and provide identical results between delayed indicators and real time indicators. Following this
suggestion, we used a single indicator in measuring the variables studied in the present study.
For measuring ad effectiveness, we use the page view indicator. Page view is justified because
it is a common indicator of the effectiveness of advertising in online media (Tai et al, 2005). Although
there is a possibility that consumers are being exposed forcibly because of YouTube itself, most
potential customers will come voluntarily to the ad page because many of the ads in the research
sample are not appropriate as flash ads because of the long duration. Status as a popular ad for the
brand also reflects that the ad is visited voluntarily, especially through a sharing facility that allows the
first person to view the ad and then share it with social media to invite other respondents to come to
view.
Brand Community Measurement is done by looking at the number of subscribers of the brand.
Subscribing indicates that someone is interested to follow the subsequent impressions of the brand, so
it can be interpreted as a community of its own brand. This is in accordance with the definition of the
Kalman brand community (2005) that the brand community is a consumer group with the same mind
and is identified with a particular brand.
For variable on buying intentions, it will be difficult to measure directly whether the respondent
will intend to buy or not immediately after exposure to Youtube videos. However, it is well known that
preference for an advertisement has a positive impact on buying intentions (Huhmann and Albinsson,
2012). The use of indicators based on respondents' preferences over Youtube videos is an indirect
indicator. Previous research used direct indicators of traditional questionnaires (eg Dehghani et al,
2016). However, it has been argued above that indicators for the online world should be different than
traditional advertising indicators as they are more real time and quantitative.
1408/5000
45 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

The use of likability is criticized by Bergkvist and Rossiter (2008) as an indecisive indicator
because someone who likes advertising does not necessarily intend to buy, and someone who is not
exposed to advertising can buy it without liking or dislike advertising. This is evidenced in the research
Hutter et al (2013) who did not find a significant relationship between eWOM positive (fondness) with
the intention of buying on facebook social media. Similarly, Pope et al (2004) also said that disliking
an advertisement does not mean that consumers will reject the brand and refuse to buy. However, it is
well known that likes and dislikes of advertising are strong predictors of advertising memory (Kenning
et al, 2009). Ad recall is one of the two strongest predictor variables of buying intention derived from
advertising, in addition to advertising attitudes (Huang et al, 2010). Therefore, it can be concluded that
likes and dislikes can be used as indirect indicators for buying intentions. Their own preferences and
dislikes do not work, but when they are combined, they provide a strong memory of advertising and
encourage purchases, rather than neutrality or ignore advertising. In line with this argument, the
indicator of buying intent is measured by the total number of respondents' preferences and dislikes for
the advertisement.
Actually the number of comments can also be raised as an indicator. However, this may be
biased because some of the comments may come from some of the same people who are involved in
the debate or conversation, which may, have gone far beyond the actual discussion with respect to the
advertisement. Moreover, commenting has a greater cognitive burden on consumers than likes or
dislikes. On some platforms like smartphones, comment features are more difficult to access and even
blocked. On computer platforms, the comment feature is well below the video, while the likes feature
can be obtained directly from the bottom of the video ad. Coupled with the argument about the
preferences and dislikes above, the disability-likability indicator would be more appropriate to measure
buying intentions.

Data
Data collection is done by visiting the brand page successfully obtained through the video search
feature on the Youtube site. After entering the brand page, the number of subscribers is recorded as a
brand community indicator. Furthermore, the videos are sorted by popularity. Most popular videos are
visited and page view and "Like" and "Dislike" values are recorded. The indicator of purchase intent is
the sum of "Like" and "Dislike".
The data analysis was done by linear regression method with emphasis on the variant explained
in variable purchase intention. The linear regression formula used is:
ܻ = ߙ + ߚଵ ܺଵ + ߚଶ ܺଶ + ߚଷ ܺଵ ܺଶ + ݁
with X1is the effectiveness of advertising, X2is a brand community, Y is the intention of buying, α is
intercept, β1, β2, and β3is the coefficient of independent variable, and e is the error rate.
Graphically stated, the research model is as follows:

Figure 1: Research Model

H1
Ad
Effectiveness

H3 Purchase
intentions
The Brand
H2
Community
46 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

Results and Discussion

Table 1 shows all the samples used in this study. The brands involved cover a wide range of fields,
from aviation, retail, to everyday products. The ads displayed also vary from product offerings,
company profile, to recipes. Sprite, Samsung, and Air Asia ads are global advertisements, but they are
still included considering their vital position for consumers in Indonesia.

Table 1: Sample Research

No Brand Subscriber Iklan Page View Like Dislike Memory

1 Air Asia 57.638 We'll Take You There - Jaipur 3.392.360 2.364 2.153 4.517
2 Alfa Mart 3.973 Alfa Gift 817.793 15 5 20
3 Aqua 15.669 Tonton Pertemuan Rangga dengan Cinta 4.296.697 324 18 342
4 Astra International 422 Astra Virtue 24.651 63 5 68
5 Bank Danamon 587 Danamon Connect 737.081 27 2 29
6 Bank Jatim 190 Company Profile Bank Jatim 17.649 46 4 50
7 Bank Mandiri 6.080 Do You Have It 1.617.457 732 67 799
8 Bank OCBC NISP 205 Kebaikan yang Menginspirasi 753.098 127 2 129
9 Bank Permata 515 Dream Bigger 204.843 20 3 23
10 BCA 6.653 BCA Klikpay 1.600.996 8 8 16
11 Beng-Beng 215 Beng-Beng Happiness Hunt Promo 37.639 19 5 24
12 Bimoli 998 Resep Udang Saus Padang 87.472 264 14 278
13 Bir Bintang 173 Bintang Karena Bersama 866.257 10 1 11
14 BJB 140 Mars Bank BJB 23.723 147 9 156
15 Blue Bird 382 Makna sebuah kesederhanaan 567.395 141 1 142
16 BNI 868 Rejeki BNI Taplus 471.254 9 3 12
17 BRI 2.046 Untung Beliung Britama 541.737 11 - 11
18 BTPN 142 BTPN Sinaya 197.153 7 1 8
19 Bukalapak 66.997 Nego Cincai Bukalapak 11.189.976 38.967 6.482 45.449
20 Charoen Pokphand 385 Manajemen Ayam Petelur 114.982 279 26 305
21 CIMB Niaga 1.045 CIMB Niaga - Forward Your Dreams 475.991 39 9 48
22 CNN Indonesia 174.393 Detik-Detik Kedatangan Raja Salman 2.366.311 16.586 1.634 18.220
23 Electronic City 60 Smart Way of Modern Shopping 21.237 7 1 8
24 First Media 707 Time Machine Café 274.015 107 5 112
25 Garuda Indonesia 27.051 Coming Soon 2.873.220 201 28 229
26 Gas Negara 361 Gerakan Sadar Energi 40.068 265 3 268
27 Global TV 17.879 Christo, Tasya "In the Name of Love" 688.227 7.856 244 8.100
28 Google 176.466 Youtube Offline 10.818.774 6.295 3.819 10.114
29 Gudang Garam 1.034 GG SM - Extraordinary Surprise 44.737 104 19 123
30 Honda 13.769 All New Honda CBR250RR 1.324.853 2.756 736 3.492
31 Huawei 2.595 Tukar Untung Bareng Toni Tareek! 176.881 363 101 464
Video Tutorial Cara Bermain Indomilk
32 Indofood 2.726 996.448 - - -
Jagoan Boboiboy
Selalu ada Indomie untuk menemani
33 Indomie 13.056 2.330.703 36 20 56
Kesibukan
34 Indosat Ooredo 26.207 Baru Data Rollover 3.215.390 1.514 1.479 2.993
35 Jasa Marga 311 Video Jalan Tol Jakarta Cikampek II Elevated 79.896 332 21 353
36 Kalbe Farma 432 Sekuntum Bunga untukmu Ibu 397.746 5 - 5
37 Malaysian Airlines 42.258 Lundang to New Castle 2.463.149 3.006 495 3.501
38 MAP Mitra Adiperkasa 71 Why Work Here? 9.374 14 - 14
39 Matahari 1.504 MDS Holiday 576.964 3 - 3
40 MNC Publishing - Persepuluhan 138 1 - 1
41 Multipolar 38 PT Multipolar Technology 1.384 21 - 21
42 Panin Bank 365 Panin Super Bonanza 322.438 3 - 3
Pembangunan
43 48 Garuda Pancasila 2.337 286 1 287
Perumahan
44 Popmie 1.296 Friendship Day 889.974 59 8 67
45 Ramayana 32.162 Bahagianya adalah Bahagiaku 5.765.613 15.434 1.607 17.041
46 Samsung 93.034 Samsung Galaxy S8 3.882.798 6.155 3.646 9.801
47 SCTV 472.745 Drama Musikal Mermaid in Love 4.265.085 13.577 1.086 14.663
48 Semen Indonesia 161 MBSI 17.354 126 6 132
49 Smartfren 15.304 Membangun Indonesia bersama Smartfren 4G 772.195 75 1 76
50 Sprite 145.828 2016 Lyrical Collection 19.741.476 991 311 1.302
47 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)
No Brand Subscriber Iklan Page View Like Dislike Memory
51 Supermi 246 Momen Kreasi Supermi - Lupa Hari Ibu 435.922 63 5 68
52 Telkom Indonesia 2.549 Telkom Digitize Your Life (TVC) 104.438 155 - 155
53 Telkomsel 30.588 Jangan Kedip 6.038.947 7.859 434 8.293
Jadi Lelaki Idaman, Bisa dimulai dari
54 Tokopedia 41.243 12.823.869 433 344 777
Tokopedia
55 Torabika - Trailer Filosofi Kopi 210.652 25 6 31
56 Toyota 73.606 All New Sienta 4.446.729 2.360 698 3.058
57 United Tractors 977 Komatsu PC200-8 92.785 105 13 118
58 Xiaomi - Panduan Lengkap Update MIUI 7 95.435 323 5 328
59 XL 50.819 Youtube Tanpa Kuota 2.854.200 2.048 1.447 3.495

As indicated from Table 2, the average brand community of Indonesia's major brands on
Youtube is about 28 thousand people. The three brands from the sample do not have a brand
community, MNC Publishing, Torabika, and Xiaomi, while four of them have more than 100,000
brand communities Sprite, CNN Indonesia, Google and SCTV. Meanwhile, for the effectiveness of
advertising, the average favorite video has 2 million viewers. Ads with the lowest pageviews, under
10,000 views are ads from MNC Publishing, Multipolar, Housing Development, and MAP Partner
Adiperkasa. While the highest pageview ads, over 10 million views, are ads from Google, Bukalapak,
Tokopedia, and Sprite.

Table 2: Summary of Ad Video Stats

Average Standard Deviation Min Max

Subscriber 27.579,86 71.204,28 0 472.745
PageView 2.025.389,25 3.632.783,57 138 19.741.476
Like 2.257,08 6.093,26 0 38.967
Dislike 62,51 162,15 0 736
Memory 2.715,41 7.046,79 0 45.449
Comment 87,97 197,21 0 919

The average "" Like "" of the Youtube ad video is 2,257. One video does not have "Like", that
is Indofood, while there are four brands with "Like" above 10,000 ie SCTV brand, Ramayana, CNN
Indonesia, and Bukalapak. The value of "Dislike" is lower, the average video is only 62.51 "Dislike".
18 videos do not have "Dislike", while eight videos have "Dislike" above 100, with advertisements
Honda, Toyota and Malaysian Airlines having the highest "Dislike" amount. One ad has no memory at
all, Indofood ads. Meanwhile, the average video has 2.715 memory. Five videos have memory above
10 thousand, which is advertisement from Bukalapak, CNN Indonesia, Ramayana, SCTV, and Google.
The following table shows the regression results of the research model. The independent
variable can explain 39.99% variation of bound variable, marked with value of Adj. R2of 0.3999.The
model has a very significant degree, ie p <0.001, with a value of F = 13.848.

Table 3: is the Summary of Regression Results

Adj. R2 = 0,3999, n = 59, F = 13,848***

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -637,406 891,222 -0,715 0,478
Subscriber 0,081 0,018 0,819 4,527 0,000
Interaction -1,337E-008 0,000 -0,984 -3,601 0,001
PageView 0,002 0,000 0,880 4,536 0,000

As expected, the effectiveness of advertising and brand communities has a significant positive
effect on purchasing intentions. The effectiveness of advertising in significantly affecting buying
48 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

intentions (t = 4,536; p <0.001). Similarly, the number of brand communities has a significant effect on
purchasing intentions (t = 4,527; p <0.001). Hence, H1 and H2 are accepted.
However, the interaction variables that signify the moderating effects of the brand community
provide a negative sign. This is different in direction from hypothesis 3 which states that the effects of
moderation should tend to be positive. This has actually been predicted by Algesheimer et al (2005).
They suspect that the moderation relationship should be negative. The reason is, the smaller the brand
community, the greater the social pressure among members, forcing them to make purchases.
Meanwhile, the larger brand community the ties between members increasingly tenuous which allow
greater freedom to not behave according to group norms. This explanation may apply to the offline
brand community. Indeed, the subscriber indicator in this study has strong online characteristics. Each
subscriber can not have a strong relationship with each other or even not know each other, no matter
how big the size of the brand community.
A more plausible explanation comes from the results of Habibi et al (2014). They also found
that a negative relationship occurred between the relationship between consumers and brand trust. The
explanation put forward is that small community members online do not have a clear hierarchical
structure, making the credibility of each member questionable. It may be that a consumer thinks that a
small number of subscribers shows that they are all employees of the company. However, this
explanation is less acceptable if applied to purchase intentions. Properly, in the context of purchasing,
this will lead to positive, rather than negative, effects of moderation. The greater the number of
members of the brand community, the greater their buying intent should be because there is a clear
structure of the community.
The second explanation offered by Habibi et al (2014) is the greater the brand community, the
greater the expectation of advertising. Companies should be as good as possible in generating ads to
meet the needs of the brand community. This impacts on the quality of ads that are positive in the eyes
of the audience, so quality always goes hand in hand with the number of brand communities. The
problem of this explanation is the same. As a result, the larger the brand community, the greater the
purchasing intention because of the better ad quality
The third explanation offered by Habibi et al (2014) is that the larger the brand community, the
more Dislike it appears, thereby inhibiting larger purchases than the small brand community. However,
it has been argued that merely based on "Dislike" itself, buying intent is unpredictable. The point is not
whether someone likes or dislikes an advertisement, but whether there is a strong memory of the ad,
shown by a combination of "Like" and "Dislike". This picture appears to contradict the eWOM theory
which states that negative eWOM can have a major impact on purchasing intentions (See-To and Ho,
2014). This finding has been disputed because other empirical studies show that even negative
publicity can increase the likelihood of a purchase. The point is to create awareness, so the phrase that
applies is "every publicity is good publicity" (Cheung and Thadani, 2012). What is actually found in
eWOM theory is that eWOM negatively affects the reputation of the brand, but still gives a positive
effect on purchasing intentions. For example, a new consumer can buy after seeing "Dislike" from
others, just to try it yourself if it is true that negative comment.
A more probable explanation lies in consumer autonomy. Consumer autonomy is an important
issue in marketing in online media (Stockdale, 2007). Social media has long been a source of dilemma
for corporations between relationship management efforts with the effort to provide autonomy to
consumers. Relationship marketing theory says that companies need to build relationships with
consumers closely. But this theory can not apply in online media. In contrast, a more applicable theory
is the dominant logic theory of customers (Consumer Dominant Logic - CDL) (Anker et al, 2015). The
CDL emphasizes that purchases can increase if consumers have the power and ability to make
decisions independently based on their abilities and experience. Purchasing decisions are an important
decision, especially in risky situations like in online media. It is true that consumers can take comments
as a consideration, but more importantly is the ability of the company to advertise its products. The
existence of subscriber in large numbers challenges consumers to think differently, thus making it
stand out from the group. The consumer is concerned that a large number of subscribers will influence
49 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

him / her to buy the product, so he/she takes the opposite step, ie not to buy, so that the effect is
negative.
Furthermore, Habibie et al (2014) claims that the effect of "Dislike" is five times greater than
the amount of "Like". In other words, a "Dislike" is equivalent to five "Like". Following this thought,
the value of "Dislike" is multiplied by five before being added with "Like" to generate memory.
Furthermore, the regression test is repeated. Regression results are shown in the following table.

Table 4: Summary of Regression Results with Dislike five times more

Adj. R2 = 0,430, n = 59, F = 15,556***

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -490,417 762,319 -0,643 0,523
Subscriber 0,074 0,015 0,849 4,814 0,000
Interaction -1,260E-008 0,000 -1,056 -3,966 0,000
PageView 0,002 0,000 0,937 4,956 0,000

The above results show the ability to explain even better, by 43%, from the previous 40% (F =
15.556; p <0.001). The resulting sign does not change while the relationship is even more significant,
with all relationships between variables <0.001. Brand community positions remain as quasi
moderators because they have a significant influence in role as moderator (interaction variable) and
also significant in role as independent variable.

Figure 2: Test Result of Research Model

H1 = 0,849*** R2 = 0,430
Ad
Effectiveness
Purchase
H3 = -1,056*** intentions
The Brand
H2 = 0,937***
Community

Our findings empirically support why the brand community is important in the relation to
Youtube ads. First, the brand community can drive purchasing intent independently regardless of the
effectiveness of the ad. Purchases become more likely if a brand has a strong community on the
internet, marked by a large number of subscribers. Previous research has shown that brand
communities have a positive effect on buying intent, while the positive eWOM variable tested together
with the brand community (referred to as the brand page commitment) has no effect on buying intent
(Hutter et al, 2013).
Second, the brand community gives negative moderation effects when brand effectiveness
variables are taken into account. The more visits, with a brand community that is too large, will result
in a decrease in buying intent. In contrast, in a small brand community, large traffic can lead to
increased purchases.

Conclution
This study shows that the effectiveness of ads, measured by the number of pageviews from Youtube ad
pages, has a significant effect on purchase intentions, measured by the ad memory that the audience
has. Meanwhile, the brand community is measured by the advertiser company subscriber, being both a
50 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

free variable and a moderator variable in the relationship between the effectiveness of the ad and the
purchase intent. The moderator relationship of the brand community to the relationship between
advertising effectiveness and buying intentions is negative while the brand community's direct
relationship to buying intentions is positive.
This study has a weakness because it uses indirect indicators in measuring consumer buying
intentions. In addition, the sample size is still relatively small (n <100), so it still requires examination
on larger sample quantities and different populations to be generalizable. Subsequent research also
needs to take into account the characteristics of advertising as a new free variable that can also explain
the variant of consumer buying intentions.

References
[1] Acosta, P. M., & Devasagayam, R. (2010). Brand cult: Extending the notion of brand
communities. Marketing Management Journal, 20(1), 165-176.
[2] Alexa (2017) The Top 500 Sites on the Web. http://www.alexa.com/topsites
[3] Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of marketing, 69(3), 19-34.
[4] Anker, T. B., Sparks, L., Moutinho, L., & Grönroos, C. (2015). Consumer dominant value
creation: A theoretical response to the recent call for a consumer dominant logic for marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 532-560.
[5] Aspasia, V., & Ourania, N. (2015). Greek Food Manufacturing Firms’ Social Media Efforts:
Evidence from Facebook. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 308-313.
[6] Bahtar, A. Z., & Muda, M. (2016). The Impact of User–Generated Content (UGC) on Product
Reviews towards Online Purchasing–A Conceptual Framework. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 37, 337-342.
[7] Bal, A. S., Weidner, K., Hanna, R., & Mills, A. J. (2016). Crowdsourcing and brand control.
Business Horizons.
[8] Bergkvist, L. (2015). Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay. Marketing
Letters, 26(3), 245-255.
[9] Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2008). The role of ad likability in predicting an ad's campaign
performance. Journal of advertising, 37(2), 85-98.
[10] Biddinika, M. K., Indrawan, B., Nakhshiniev, B., Tokimatsu, K., Yoshikawa, K., & Takahashi,
F. (2015). Internet video sharing as a public engagement tool on renewable energy. Energy
procedia, 75, 2785-2790.
[11] Brand Finance (2017) Indonesia 100 2016: The Most Valuable Indonesian Brands of 2016.
http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/indonesia-100-2016
[12] Brand Index (2017) Indonesia: Top Buzz Rankings 2016.
http://www.brandindex.com/ranking/indonesia/2016-annual
[13] Can, L., & Kaya, N. (2016). Social Networking Sites Addiction and the Effect of Attitude
towards Social Network Advertising. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 484-492.
[14] Cheung, C. M., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision support systems, 54(1),
461-470.
[15] Dehghani, M., Niaki, M. K., Ramezani, I., & Sali, R. (2016). Evaluating the influence of
YouTube advertising for attraction of young customers. Computers in Human Behavior, 59,
165-172.
[16] Devasagayam, P. R., Buff, C. L., Aurand, T. W., & Judson, K. M. (2010). Building brand
community membership within organizations: a viable internal branding alternative?. Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 19(3), 210-217.
51 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

[17] DeWitt, D., Alias, N., Siraj, S., Yaakub, M. Y., Ayob, J., & Ishak, R. (2013). The potential of
Youtube for teaching and learning in the performing arts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 103, 1118-1126.
[18] Diedrichs, P. C., & Lee, C. (2010). GI Joe or Average Joe? The impact of average-size and
muscular male fashion models on men's and women's body image and advertisement
effectiveness. Body Image, 7(3), 218-226.
[19] Green, J. C., Aziz, T., Joseph, J., Ravanam, A., Shahab, S., & Straus, L. (2017). YouTube
Enhanced Case Teaching in Health Management and Policy. Health Professions Education.
[20] Habibi, M. R., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2014). The roles of brand community and
community engagement in building brand trust on social media. Computers in Human
Behavior, 37, 152-161.
[21] Hadadi, K., Almsafir, M. K. (2015). The Impact of Media Advertising on Proton Sales.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 1405-1410.
[22] Higgins, L. M., Wolf, M. M., & Wolf, M. J. (2014). Technological change in the wine market?
The role of QR codes and wine apps in consumer wine purchases. Wine Economics and Policy,
3(1), 19-27.
[23] Huang, C. Y., Chou, C. J., & Lin, P. C. (2010). Involvement theory in constructing bloggers'
intention to purchase travel products. Tourism Management, 31(4), 513-526.
[24] Huhmann, B. A., & Albinsson, P. A. (2012). Does rhetoric impact advertising effectiveness
with liking controlled?. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11/12), 1476-1500.
[25] Hur, W. M., Ahn, K. H., & Kim, M. (2011). Building brand loyalty through managing brand
community commitment. Management Decision, 49(7), 1194-1213.
[26] Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in
social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: the case of MINI on Facebook.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(5/6), 342-351.
[27] Javed, A., & Hasnu, S. A. F. (2013). Impact of country-of-origin on product purchase decision.
Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research, 1, 31-51.
[28] Jones, R., & Kim, Y. K. (2011). Single-brand retailers: Building brand loyalty in the off-line
environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 333-340.
[29] Julian, A. K. (2011). Digital manipulation warning labels as a protective measure against
negative body image (Doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University).
[30] Kalman, D. M. (2005). Brand communities, marketing, and media. Terrella Media Inc, 1-5.
[31] Kariuki, M. (2012). A critical analysis of advertising as a communication medium in the beer
industry in Kenya: a case study of East African Breweries Limited (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nairobi, Kenya).
[32] Kazeminia, A., Del Chiappa, G., & Jafari, J. (2015). Seniors’ travel constraints and their coping
strategies. Journal of Travel Research, 54(1), 80-93.
[33] Kenning, P., Deppe, M., & Schwindt, W. (2009). The Good, the Bad and the Forgotten-An
fMRI-study on Ad Liking and Ad Memory. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36.
[34] Kim, H. (2013). Exploring the Effects of Perceived Relevance and Privacy Concerns on Consumer
Responses to Online Behavioral Advertising (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Minnesota).
[35] Kim, M. J., Lee, C. K., Chung, N., & Kim, W. G. (2014). Factors affecting online tourism
group buying and the moderating role of loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 380-394.
[36] Kirtiş, A. K., & Karahan, F. (2011). To be or not to be in social media arena as the most cost-
efficient marketing strategy after the global recession. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 24, 260-268.
[37] Tran, L. (2017). Narrative Advertising for Hedonic and Utilitarian Products. Aalto University.
[38] Ou, Y. C., Verhoef, P. C., & Wiesel, T. (2016). The effects of customer equity drivers on loyalty
across services industries and firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-21.
52 European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences Issue 98 (2018)

[39] Pikas, B., & Sorrentino, G. (2014). The effectiveness of online advertising: consumer's
perceptions of ads on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. The Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, 16(4), 70.
[40] Plabdaeng, C. (2010). Gender Influence On Purchase Intention The Case Study Of Thailand
(Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia).
[41] Pope, N. K. L., Voges, K. E., & Brown, M. R. (2004). The effect of provocation in the form of
mild erotica on attitude to the ad and corporate image: Differences between cause-related and
product-based advertising. Journal of advertising, 33(1), 69-82.
[42] Rau, P. L. P., Zhang, Y., Biaggi, L., Engels, R. A., Qian, L., & Ribjerg, H. (2015). How Large
is Your Phone? A Cross-cultural Study of Smartphone Comfort Perception and Preference
between Germans and Chinese. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2149-2154.
[43] Rodriguez, P. R. (2017). Effectiveness of YouTube Advertising: A Study of Audience
Analysis.
[44] Sachdeva, R. (2015). Assessment of Advertising Effectiveness: A Scale Validation Exercise.
SAMVAD, 9, 15-25.
[45] Schau, H. J., & Russell, C. A. (2004). Special Session Summary Consuming Television:
Connectedness and Community in Broadcast Media. NA-Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 31.
[46] Schmidt, K. N., & Iyer, M. K. S. (2015). Online Behaviour of Social Media Participants’ and
Perception of Trust, Comparing Social Media Brand Community Groups and Associated
Organized Marketing Strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 432-439.
[47] See-To, E. W., & Ho, K. K. (2014). Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network
sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Computers in
Human Behavior, 31, 182-189.
[48] Simpson, P. M., Sturges, D. L., & Tanguma, J. (2008). The eyes have it, or do they? The effects
of model eye color and eye gaze on consumer ad response. The Journal of Applied Business
and Economics, 8(2), 60.
[49] Stockdale, R. (2007). Managing customer relationships in the self-service environment of e-
tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(3), 205-219.
[50] Sturges, J (2008). The Evolution of Media. Master Thesis. WCSU
[51] Swa (22 Juli 2016) Indonesia Top 100 Most Valuable Brands. https://swa.co.id/business-
champions/ranking/indonesia-top-100-valuable-brands
[52] Tai, H. T., & Chang, S. S. (2005). The causal model of internet advertising effectiveness. Asia
Pacific Management Review, 10(1), 78-92.
[53] Tenderich, B. (2013). Design elements of transmedia branding. USC Annenberg Innovation Lab.
[54] Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., & Zhou, N. (2012). How do brand communities generate brand
relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 890-895.