Keywords

eWOM, Value Consciousness, Customer Engagement, Brand Loyalty, Luxury Brands.

Introduction

The development of social media technology combines the media as a worldwide intriguing platform for individuals, especially among young people (Itani, et al. 2019; Loureiro & Lopes, 2019). Customer attachment to social media has increased with technological advancement (Barreda et al., 2020). The most popular and widely used social media platforms are Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter, where users may engage with businesses and with other users (So, et al. 2014; Li, et al. 2020). This development requires brand authorities to promote their products in order to reach more users throughout the world (Alalwan et al. 2017). Customers are spontaneously using social media to interact with companies and develop their connections (So, King, Sparks, & Wang, 2016). Hence, social media marketing becomes a key idea in contemporary marketing that may be used in practical ways that have a big impact (Leung et al. 2013; Li et al., 2020).

According to published research, consumers are more cautious when communicating with companies on social media platforms (Barreda et al., 2020; Bravo, et al. 2020; Harrigan et al. 2018; Mellinas & Reino, 2019). Consumers essentially use social media to learn more about the things they desire at the most affordable pricing. As a result, social media has substantially changed the way that consumers and advertisers interact (Nambisan & Baron, 2007). In reality, social media imposes a worldwide connected network system an artificially develops a platform for customers to discuss and share their opinions on a particular company with others across the globe (Kozinets et al., 2010). Sharing opinions can be both positive and negative. In this line, customers who share positive opinion about the brand and recommend the brand to the other potential customers and often encourage them to experience the brand can be addressed as creating loyalty on customers’ mind. As a cognitive aspect, this loyalty can be stated as the first thing come into the mind with the tolerance of the price of the brand (Bloemer et al., 1999). Brand loyalty is the most valuable abstract asset for conducting a business where the marketers are benefited with direct income and sharing positive views from other consumers creates trustworthy recommendations to the new customers (Moisescu, 2014; Jiang & Zhang, 2016).

So, from consumers’ perspective, they can be either conscious on brand value or conscious on brand value. The value of a brand can be stated as the maintenance of social status as well as social prestige whereas value conscious customers often search on different social media sites to find out the best price of different brand on a particular product category (Ismail, 2017). And form marketers’ perspective, they use social media platforms for several reasons like to research the markets, to generate more feedback, to create brand value, publicity and reputation, to enhance the network of business, to maintain customer-business relationship and to ensure best possible customer service (Thoring, 2011).

Despite joining the social media by the business authorities to reach more customers to be involved as well as to enhance the brand value, the challenge arises on creating brand loyalty and increasing the brand value by suing social media (Ismail, 2017). So, it is strategically important for the brands to recognize the social media attributes on building brand loyalty. Very often, the customers are not trusting the online platforms for not getting the exact products which is labeled in the social media sites. They sometimes get less value product and as a result the brand value goes downtown which is a challenge for the real marketers. So, the questions raised on the customers’ mind whether purchasing from social media is trustworthy as the customers are value-conscious. Besides, the customer trust is connected with the privacy issue whereas they are conservative to provide their personal information through online which is another challenge for the marketers although nowadays the verification process of different social media sites may lessen the risk factor regarding this issue. But people often make fake comments and reviews on the brands on social media (Ismail, 2017).

The mediating relations of customer engagement have been included in earlier research to address the issues (Bergel, Frank, & Brock, 2019; So et al., 2016), but no studies have been identified including the links among e- WOM, customer engagement, value consciousness, customer trust, and brand loyalty in a single framework. In a similar vein, a small number of research have found the mediating effect of value consciousness on the link between e-WOM and brand loyalty (Alim et al., 2017), however there are no studies that indicate how value consciousness and customer trust mediate e-WOM and consumers engagement, respectively, to generate brand loyalty. Consequently, the goal of this study is to fill that knowledge gap and examine how e-WOM and customer involvement impact brand loyalty both directly and through the mediating effects of value consciousness and customer trust.

Literature Review

The Social Exchange Theory

Homans (1958) introduced the idea of autonomous information sharing between several parties as part of his social exchange theory. According to Harrigan et al. (2018), this idea is more relevant to any research on consumer involvement in any research sector. Moreover, they stated that this interaction between consumers and marketers is significant from a social and economic perspective, and that it gives customers the knowledge they need to identify, be drawn to, and react to brands. This theory highlights the results of social investment, which results in both concrete and intangible costs, along with the advantages of engaging in interpersonal connections (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Customers need to eventually benefit more than they pay for this customer-brand connection to be fruitful (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2013; Hollebeek, 2011). Hence, social interactions can have both economic and social effects (Lambe, Wittmann, & Spekman, 2001). Customers now interact with other consumers to share thoughts and experiences. As a result, e-WOM can be an extension of this paradigm that uses client participation as advocacy. This kind of discussion involves forming bonds with people where trust serves as a better basis than legal requirements and both sides are more flexible as opposed to becoming entangled in clear-cut bargaining (Stafford, 2008). Customers connect with companies and other consumers to obtain a lot of accurate information that makes them value-conscious. The connection of social trade is based on the idea of reciprocity (Bagozzi, 1995). The idea is that by helping one partner, the other partner would reciprocate with excellent, trustworthy conduct (Omar et al. 2009). Benefits exchanged here may be monetary or social and emotional in nature, such as respect, dedication, trust, or loyalty (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003).

E-WOM

Electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) was developed as an extension of conventional word-of-mouth and was made possible by the development of technology and the internet (Dellarocas, 2003; Shojaee, & Azman, 2013). E-WOM is a modern kind of communication in which strangers communicate on a public forum about a brand. In a similar vein, Litvin, Goldsmith & Pan (2008) included e-WOM as an informal communication system by which customers communicate with one another on the internet addressing their experience and thoughts on a specific brand, and the marketers frequently speak about their brands reacting to their followers. On the other side, e-WOM is an unofficial method of communication between customers that focuses on the ownership, characteristics, and experiences of a brand, particularly a luxury brand, on a digital platform utilizing their electronic devices (Muntinga, Moorman, & Smit, 2011; Berger, 2014; Alim et al., 2017). Social media provides a well-fit and convenient platform for e-WOM through which the drawbacks of the conventional word-of-mouth communication system may be eliminated as customers communicate about their experiences with a particular brand in their own social media profiles and on the businesses' pages on social media more (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008: Alim et al., 2017; Yadav & Rahman, 2018). As a result, e-WOM promotes social media content and draws in more clients in settings where they may engage in social interaction (Van Doorn et al., 2010; Wang, 2017). The online customer reviews that may be found on various social media pages were also mentioned by Duan, Gu, & Whinston (2008) as a significant source of e-WOM. These reviews had a significant impact on the choice of a brand that the real customer made (Cheung & Thadani, 2012). Customers therefore place greater trust in signals from other consumers' experiences than they do in the information offered by the firm (Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdury, 2009). As a result, more businesses interacted with consumers to gather more data and assess the effectiveness of the brand. Hence, e-WOM may be a successful marketing method to spread the word about a business to those who may not be familiar with its principles and benefits (Weber, 2009). As a consequence, the idea of e-WOM can result in consumers' involvement, which is found in prior studies (Leventhal, Hollebeek, & Chen, 2014; Wang, 2017). Yet, e-WOM has favorably improved customers' awareness of value (Alim et al., 2017). As a result, research shows that through sharing positive customer experiences, e-WOM greatly fosters brand loyalty (Budiman, 2021).

Thus, the following hypothesis may be drawn

H₁: The greater e-WOM imposes the more significant customers to be engaged with luxury brands.

H₂: The greater e-WOM creates more significant value conscious customers of luxury brands

H₄: The greater e-WOM generates more significant loyalty towards luxury brands

Customer Engagement

According to the social exchange theory, consumer involvement include reciprocal ties between customers and other customers as well as between customers and companies (Hollebeek, 2011). Customer engagement is different from customer involvement and contribution since it refers to a consumer's interaction and experience with a luxury brand (Brodie et al., 2013). These demonstrative messages encourage consumers to become brand evangelists rather than just being simple buy behaviors (Van Doorn et al., 2010; Wei, Lee, Chen & Wu, 2013). This cutting-edge sophisticated marketing strategy provides clients with abilities to develop brand loyalty. For instance, a certain consumer who leaves more evaluations and comments rather than frequently purchasing the products may influence other potential customers to encourage purchasing the premium brands (Kudeshia & Kumar, 2017). As a consequence, posting comments about businesses on social media that have an impact on consumers' minds and lead to brand loyalty is referred to as customer engagement (Li et al., 2020). According to prior studies, customer involvement increases brand loyalty, with highly involved customers more likely to be more brand loyal (Brodie et al., 2013; Dwivedi, 2015). Customer involvement is therefore discussed as a crucial concept to develop brand loyalty (Harrigan et al., 2017). Customer engagement and brand loyalty have been the subject of the studies stated (So et al., 2016; Harrigan et al., 2017), and some researchers have also looked into this relationship utilizing qualitative research methodologies (Brodie et al., 2013). Also, we employ different dimensions of this construct than what is described in the literature (Dwivedi, 2015). On the other side, social media platforms are crucial for helping consumers co-create value and making important judgments about purchases (Dewnarain, Ramkissoon, & Mavondo, 2019). Marketers must thus comprehend how to interact with consumers through social media platforms in order to foster brand loyalty. We only identified one study that used quantitative research techniques to evaluate the association between consumer interaction and brand loyalty in the tourist industry on social media platforms and that recommended additional research into the relationship in a different geographical location (Harrigan et al., 2017).

Yet, several research have discussed the elements that either help the customer engagement process (Yen, Teng, & Tzeng, 2020; Rather, Hollebeek, & Islam, 2019) or hurt it (Chathoth et al., 2014). Customers' trust and brand loyalty are favorably impacted by customer involvement, according to academic research on the subject (Li et al., 2020; Harrigan et al., 2017; Bergel, Frank, & Brock, 2019). Scholars, however, have also demonstrated that the connection between brand loyalty and customer involvement is not entirely established (Steinhoff, Witt, & Eggert, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to study different constructs to better understand the link between the consequences of consumer engagement and brand loyalty.. Therefore, we incorporate the following hypothesis

H₃: The more engaged customers have more trust toward luxury brands H5: The more engaged customers are more loyal towards luxury brands Value Consciousness

Value consciousness is the term for the consumer attitude that reflects their desire to purchase goods at competitive rates and of the highest quality (Lichtenstein, Ridgway, & Netemeyer, 1993). Actually, three aspects of a brand—the standards it upholds, the price it costs to obtain, and the ease with which customers may get it—have an impact on consumers' perceptions of value (Vogel, Evanschitzky, & Ramaseshan, 2008). Consumers are specifically more interested in the advantages of a brand than the price they spend (Alim et al., 2017). Under this idea, customers are more interested in finding the best items by evaluating quality and pricing to satisfy their needs than in concentrating on social standing (Sharma, 2011). When clients shop online and analyze the quality of the services they receive carefully, the influence of value consciousness differs depending on their selections. Ismail (2017) continued by saying that the relationship between a brand's price and quality, as well as how simple it is to purchase, how effective the products are, and how much time is required, can all affect a consumer's value consciousness. As a result, even the product with the highest quality may not be the best option for a particular customer depending on other factors like price, convenience, and time to purchase. The conscious desire to purchase a brand frequently transcends its specific advantages and level of quality. It has been noted that clients who are extremely aware of a product's value occasionally consider the unique value of a good or service (Bao & Mandrik, 2004). Since it satisfies the underlying need to feed the values of the brand, value consciousness is linked to consuming and purchasing utilitarian products (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990). Customers who are aware of the brand's values are expected to use more social media sites to study topics, think carefully before buying, and make informed decisions (Pillai & Kumar, 2012). Hence, consumers frequently view social media as a time-saving tool where they can compare the cost of similar brands at a fair price with the best quality before making a purchase (Sharma, 2011; Riorini, 2018). E-WOM is a frequent source of this opportunity to learn about various products. Hence, e-WOM mediates the connection between brand loyalty and value consciousness (Alim et al., 2017). The concept is still ignored in the literature on luxury brands, despite the fact that value consciousness is a crucial element in building brand loyalty. Thus, past research showed that consumers who are more value sensitive become more devoted to a brand (Ismail, 2017; Alim et al., 2017; Ismail, Nguyen, & Melewar, 2018). It was determined that buyers who care about pricing, quality, and brand value are adamant about sticking with a single brand. Yet, it is also proposed by writers that the link between e-WOM and brand loyalty is mediated by value consciousness (Alim et al., 2017). Therefore, we can draw the hypothesis as below.

H₆: The consumers who are more value conscious are to be more loyal to luxury brands

H₈: The value consciousness towards luxury brands mediates the relationship between e-WOM and brand loyalty

Customer Trust

Customer trust plays a crucial part in fostering relationships between clients and service providers, with the result that clients preserve consistent, dependable relationships with the connected brand (So et al., 2016). So, higher- trusting clients should establish a long-lasting bond with the premium brand. According to social exchange theory, consumers who trust brands are more likely to interact with such brands (Cheng et al., 2017). Building a trustworthy tie between a brand and a consumer is made possible by increasing client engagement (Sashi, 2012). Hence, increasing consumer engagement can increase trust (Brodie et al., 2013).Highly engaged customers are more driven to uphold a trustworthy relationship with the companies (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan,2012). Customer involvement and customer trust are therefore positively correlated (So et al., 2014). Also, consumers who interact with companies on social media platforms are more likely to establish a trustworthy relationship with those firms (Li et al., 2020). Yet, research has demonstrated how customer loyalty to a business is impacted by consumer trust. For instance, studies have found that consumer trust significantly raises a brand's worth in terms of consumer loyalty (Veloutsou, 2015; Huang, 2017; Palacios-Florencio et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020). Hence, the results of the research stated above showed that brand loyalty and consumer trust are strongly correlated.

Customers that are very loyal to a luxury brand have a high level of confidence in that brand (So et al., 2016). And customer trust has a beneficial impact on brand loyalty (Li et al., 2020). As a result, customer trust can foster a connection between brand engagement and brand loyalty. In other words, customer engagement leads to positive trust-building and brand loyalty. Researchers have demonstrated how consumer trust mediates the interaction between customer and brand repercussions (Huang, 2017; Palacios-Florencio et al., 2018).

Hence, the following hypotheses are formed:

H₇: The more customer trust on brands creates more loyalty towards luxury brands

H₉: The customer trust on luxury brands positively mediates the relationship between customer engagement and brand loyalty

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty refers to a consumer's favorable attitude toward a certain brand that leads to them purchasing the brand on a frequent basis (Fullerton, 2003). Developing brand loyalty is critical to the success of marketing initiatives and the completion of associated research (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). A brand's loyalty is shown in a customer's attitude and conduct (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973). Attitudinal loyalty is the favorable attitude that customers have about recalling a brand (Cosso-Silva et al., 2015). As a result, customers who have strong attitudinal attachment to a brand are more likely to recommend it to others in their communities (Li et al., 2020). Behavioral loyalty, on the other hand, refers to the recurrent purchasing of a certain brand (Li et al. 2020).

Customers with greater levels of brand loyalty demonstrate a close bond with the brands and are more likely to purchase those brands frequently than consumers with lower levels of brand loyalty (Seric & Pranievi, 2018). They regularly support and encourage the brands as well. Building brand loyalty benefits a company's market share and aids the brand in remaining competitive (Yoo & Bai, 2013). Many luxury marketers create and implement loyalty- building initiatives to attract new clients and hold onto existing ones (Li et al. 2020).

So, in order to create a maintain apremium brand in the marketplace, brand loyalty among consumers is crucial Figure 1.

Methodology

The measurement items used in this investigation, whose validity and reliability had been examined in the pertinent literature of this field of study and were further validated in the current study, were adapted to measure the suggested conceptual framework. The present study's survey instrument consists of five latent constructs, and the items were taken from earlier research that was similarly focused. These constructs are value consciousness (Lichtenstein et al., 1990), customer engagement (Zaichkowsky, 1994), electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Yadav & Rahman, 2018), customer trust (Holden, 1990), and brand loyalty (Zeithaml, et al. 1996). Purposive sampling was used to get the information from online customers of luxury brands. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling was used to estimate the number of completed answers, which came to 523 in total (PLS-SEM). The sample size employed in this investigation satisfied the requirements for the minimal sample size required to perform PLS-SEM, as suggested by Hoyle (1995). The survey questionnaire utilized a six-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting strong disagreement and 5 denoting strong agreement.

Data Analysis

The measuring model's convergent validity was established in this work using factor loading, Cronbach's Alpha (CA), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (also see Table 1) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As a consequence, the study's convergent validity adequately complied with each of the three criteria because the findings were above the indicated threshold levels. Additionally, the criteria proposed by Fornell & Larcker (1981) as the conventional technique and the criteria proposed by Henseler, et al. (2015) as the HTMT method as the better way may be used to assess discriminant validity. The better criterion that best suited this investigation was the latter one, which was adopted in this study. According to the HTMT, discriminant validity can be established with a threshold value of less than 0.90 between two research constructs. The following are the results of the survey. As a result, the study's criteria for discriminant validity were fulfilled.

Table 1 Results Of Measurement Model
Construct	Item	Factor	CA	CR	AVE
		Loading
Brand Loyalty (BL)	BL1	0.79	0.85	0.89	0.63
	BL2	0.77
	BL3	0.84
	BL4	0.77
	BL5	0.79
Customer Engagement (CE)	CE1	0.60	0.91	0.92	0.53
	CE10	0.78
	CE11	0.81
	CE2	0.67
	CE3	0.71
	CE4	0.74
	CE5	0.74
	CE6	0.66
	CE7	0.74
	CE8	0.77
	CE9	0.76
Customer Trust (CT)	CT1	0.68	0.79	0.87	0.62
	CT2	0.83
	CT3	0.83
	CT4	0.79
Value Consciousness (VC)	VC2	0.82	0.79	0.86	0.61
	VC3	0.72
	VC4	0.78
	VC1	0.79
Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)	eWOM1	0.74	0.87	0.90	0.58
	eWOM2	0.78
	eWOM3	0.80

Table 2 Htmt Result
	Brand Loyalty	Customer Engagement	Customer Trust	Value Consciousness	eWOM
Brand Loyalty
Customer Engagement	0.76
Customer Trust	0.82	0.77
Value Consciousness	0.49	0.33	0.55
eWOM	0.79	0.86	0.74	0.35

Structural Model

This study uses a bootstrapping approach to assess the route connections using 5000 subsamples, ensuring the importance of the correlations between the used components (Hair et al. 2017). The findings in Table 3 demonstrate that the direct effects of eWOM on CE, eWOM on VC, and CE on CT were all positive and significant, as were the direct impacts of eWOM, CE, VC, and CT on BL. H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, and H7 were therefore supported. Also, the indirect effects (mediation effects) of VC on the links between eWOM and BL as well as the indirect effects of CT on the associations between CE and BL were both positive and significant. As a result, the H8 and H9 theories were confirmed.

Table 3 Results Of Structural Model
Direct Effect	Beta	S.E.	t-Value	p-Value	LLCI	ULCI	Decision	f2	R2	VIF	Q2
H1: eWOM -> CE	0.86	0.01	70.57	0.00	0.84	0.88	Supported	2.86	0.74	1.00	0.39
H2: eWOM -> VC	0.30	0.04	7.13	0.00	0.23	0.36	Supported	0.10	0.09	1.00	0.05
H3: CE -> CT	0.65	0.03	25.82	0.00	0.61	0.69	Supported	0.75	0.43	1.00	0.26
H4: eWOM -> BL	0.27	0.06	4.55	0.00	0.18	0.37	Supported	0.05	0.66	3.95	0.41
H5: CE -> BL	0.10	0.06	1.88	0.03	0.01	0.18	Supported	0.01		4.26
H6: VC -> BL	0.10	0.03	2.81	0.00	0.04	0.15	Supported	0.02		1.24
H7: CT -> BL	0.49	0.04	11.00	0.00	0.42	0.56	Supported	0.34		2.01
Mediating Effects	Beta	S.E.	t-Value	p-Value	LLCI	ULCI	Decision
H8: eWOM -> VC -> BL	0.03	0.01	2.47	0.01	0.01	0.05	Supported
H9: CE -> CT -> BL	0.32	0.03	10.27	0.00	0.26	0.38	Supported

The blindfolding method was then used to assess the structural model's prediction accuracy (Hair et al., 2017; Ringle, et al. 2015). Specifically, the coefficient of determination (R²), which was anticipated from the independent variables, was used to evaluate the proportion of variance in the endogenous construct. The study used Stone-criteria Geisser's to evaluate the cross-validated predictive relevance (Q²). Also, the PLSpredict approach was used in this work, and the effect sizes (f2) that indicated the degree of the relative influence of a certain independent variable on a dependent variable were significant (Chin, 2010) presents these findings in more depth, whereas Table 4 presents the PLS predict findings.

Table 4 Results Of Plspredict
Items	PLS- RMSE	MAE	Q2	LM- RMSE	MAE	Q2	PLS-LM RMSE	MAE	Q2	Predict Power
BL1	0.940	0.729	0.249	0.936	0.735	0.255	0.004	-0.006	-0.006	High
BL2	0.947	0.755	0.234	0.945	0.752	0.236	0.002	0.003	-0.002
BL3	0.971	0.758	0.345	0.967	0.753	0.350	0.004	0.005	-0.005
BL4	1.072	0.835	0.325	1.075	0.829	0.321	-0.003	0.006	0.004
BL5	0.979	0.759	0.297	0.973	0.757	0.305	0.006	0.002	-0.008
CE1	1.263	0.984	0.237	1.267	0.985	0.232	-0.004	-0.001	0.005
CE2	1.143	0.909	0.288	1.147	0.921	0.283	-0.004	-0.012	0.005
CE3	1.196	0.930	0.302	1.211	0.950	0.283	-0.015	-0.020	0.019
CE4	0.980	0.760	0.415	0.983	0.768	0.411	-0.003	-0.008	0.004
CE5	0.925	0.725	0.431	0.914	0.719	0.444	0.011	0.006	-0.013
CE6	0.971	0.751	0.323	0.978	0.759	0.313	-0.007	-0.008	0.010
CE7	1.183	0.941	0.408	1.187	0.929	0.404	-0.004	0.012	0.004
CE8	1.011	0.798	0.459	1.022	0.803	0.447	-0.011	-0.005	0.012
CE9	1.011	0.778	0.443	1.022	0.778	0.431	-0.011	0.000	0.012
CE10	0.923	0.726	0.468	0.933	0.732	0.456	-0.010	-0.006	0.012
CE11	1.019	0.773	0.484	1.025	0.771	0.477	-0.006	0.002	0.007
CT1	0.981	0.780	0.251	0.978	0.763	0.256	0.003	0.017	-0.005
CT2	1.071	0.842	0.221	1.075	0.842	0.217	-0.004	0.000	0.004
CT3	1.025	0.795	0.253	1.034	0.791	0.240	-0.009	0.004	0.013
CT4	0.959	0.753	0.200	0.957	0.754	0.203	0.002	-0.001	-0.003
VC1	1.152	0.896	0.073	1.147	0.889	0.083	0.005	0.007	-0.010
VC2	1.113	0.885	0.056	1.118	0.888	0.047	-0.005	-0.003	0.009
VC3	1.074	0.842	0.019	1.071	0.840	0.025	0.003	0.002	-0.006
VC4	1.094	0.876	0.039	1.087	0.862	0.051	0.007	0.014	-0.012

The prediction significance of the endogenous construct was investigated using the PLS predict method (Shmueli et al., 2019). Table 4 shows that, with the exception of BL1, BL2, BL3, BL5, CE5, CT1, CT4, VC1, VC3, and VC4, most values for BL, CE, CT, and VC items had lower prediction error (i.e., RMSE, and MAE) than the linear model, indicating that BL, CE, CT, and VC had excellent predictive potential (Shmueli et al., 2019).

Discussion

In addition to looking at how value consciousness and customer trust affect brand loyalty, this study also looked at how electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) and consumer involvement affect these two key brand loyalty components. On the interaction between electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) and consumer engagement on brand loyalty, the mediating roles of value consciousness and customer trust were also investigated. The study's findings are consistent across all of the assumptions, and it has significant practical implications for luxury companies in Bangladesh. Hence, the study found that e-WOM has a considerable influence on consumer involvement, which is consistent with the literature (Leventhal, et al. 2014; Wang, 2017). The study discovered a substantial link between e-WOM and value consciousness. The findings of earlier investigations are consistent with this observation (Ismail, 2017; Alim et al., 2017). The research revealed that premium firms with more e-WOM had more devoted consumers, which is comparable to Budiman (2021). Nonetheless, this study's findings show that customers who are more involved have a greater level of faith in premium businesses. Studies from the past provide support for this evidence (Li, et al., 2020). The outcome findings also demonstrated that customers who are more involved are more devoted to premium companies. The results from earlier investigations supported this conclusion as well (Bergel, et al. 2019; Harrigan et al. 2017). Additionally, the study's findings demonstrated that both value consciousness and customer trust had a favorable influence on brand loyalty, although other research have supported this assertion in terms of both value consciousness and customer trust (Ismail, 2016; Alim et al., 2017; Ismail, et al. 2018; Huang, 2017; Veloutsou, 2015; Li et al., 2020).

In terms of mediating effects, Alim et al. (2017) claimed that the link between e-WOM and brand loyalty is favorably strengthened by value consciousness. Also, customer trust serves as a positive mediating factor in the link between customer engagement and brand loyalty, which is similar to the findings of the earlier studies (Huang, 2017; Palacios-Florencio et al., 2018). As a result, it can be shown that all of the constructs employed in this study have a positive link to one another and a strong mediating impact, which shows how favorably consumers see social networking sites as e-commerce platforms. These statistics really highlight the effectiveness of social media marketing.

Implications

Brand loyalty is a crucial element in understanding how customers really behave when making brand purchases. So, it is important to comprehend the steps and elements that make up the interaction between customers and brands. The study's findings demonstrate how e-WOM has a beneficial effect on consumer involvement. So, marketers need to have a solid social media marketing strategy so they can interact with clients on social media more successfully. For instance, consumers are now searching for, obtaining, and sharing the essential information for themselves on social media platforms. Consequently, marketers may reward both active and highly engaged consumers to encourage them to promote and spread the word about the business.

Another strategy to raise e-WOM and attract more customers is through celebrity endorsements. To keep their clients informed of brand updates, luxury businesses might post current information on social media platforms. Customers' awareness of value will grow as a result of receiving accurate information, and this will lead to the development of devoted consumers.

The results also show that value consciousness and customer trust have complete mediating effects in the relationships between e-WOM and brand loyalty as well as in the relationships between customer engagement and brand loyalty. Hence, increasing customer interaction helps to strengthen brand loyalty, but managers must also take consumer trust and value awareness into account. Trust is a more important component to engage customers and foster loyalty when compared to value consciousness. Managers should, in fact, prepare and prioritize trust-related concerns by creating privacy rules and promptly providing genuine products. Luxury brands should employ cutting- edge virtual technology so they may alter the client experience and foster emotional engagement to their brands. Also, managers should enhance the social media sites' features as they conduct business with clients. Customers should be led to feel that transactions are safe and that each customer's information is protected by high security. Luxury marketers should be more careful and discriminating when choosing suppliers in order to guarantee the necessary product quality at a fair price. This will boost the value of the brand.

Last but not least, sophisticated technical algorithms and software should be used to handle promotional activities properly and to pay attention to online comments, reviews, and ratings produced by consumers in order to know the customers' insides so that marketers can sustain brand loyalty.

Limitations and Future Study Directions

Future research has the potential to benefit from some of the study's shortcomings. First of all, this study is quantitative, and some dimensions, such as customer involvement and customer trust, are assessed using numerical items. Nonetheless, it is advised in the literature to quantify client involvement utilizing a thorough examination of the contents, postings, and messages on social networking platforms (Bilro, Loureiro, & Guerreiro, 2019). Reviewing, rating, discussing, and exchanging messages with consumers might help paint a more accurate image of client participation, according to Loo (2020). Hence, qualitative and quantitative research approaches can both be used in the future. Second, the majority of the respondents to this survey were between the ages of 21 and 30. Data for this study were gathered utilizing a purposive sample approach.

Although young individuals use social media more often than older people, replies from other consumer groups— particularly those who work and are more mature and have more disposable income to spend on luxury goods— could help generalize the study's findings. So, future study may focus on gathering data from various types of people so that the results can be broadly used. Finally, despite the fact that social media marketing has spread beyond the country's borders, the study was exclusively undertaken from the perspective of Bangladesh. So, future studies might look at the impact of different nationalities on the constructs that were employed in this study. Lastly, there are many more structures that may be added in future research to fully understand brand loyalty because assessing brand loyalty has a much larger scope.

References

Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media in marketing: A review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1177-1190.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alim, M.A., Ali, M.B., Ara, M.A., Rokonuzzaman, M., Mousumi Sultana, M. A., & Biswas, R. (2017). Social Media Marketing Activities and Its Effects on Brand Loyalty: A Fashion Brand Perspective. Rajshahi University Journal of Social Science and Business Studies, 25, 49-62.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(5), 491-509.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bagozzi, R.P. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 272-277.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bao, Y., & Mandrik, C.A. (2004). Discerning store brand users from value consciousness consumers: the role of prestige sensitivity and need for cognition. ACR North American Advances.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Barreda, A.A., Nusair, K., Wang, Y., Okumus, F., & Bilgihan, A. (2020). The impact of social media activities on brand image and emotional attachment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bergel, M., Frank, P., & Brock, C. (2019). The role of customer engagement facets on the formation of attitude, loyalty and price perception. Journal of Services Marketing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of consumer psychology, 24(4), 586-607.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bilro, R.G., Loureiro, S.M.C., & Guerreiro, J. (2019). Exploring online customer engagement with hospitality products and its relationship with involvement, emotional states, experience and brand advocacy. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2), 147-171.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K.O., & Wetzels, M. (1999). Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multi? dimensional perspective. European journal of marketing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2020). Intergenerational differences in customer engagement behaviours: An analysis of social tourism websites. International Journal of Tourism Research, 22(2), 182-191.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-114.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Budiman, S. (2021). The Effect of Social Media on Brand Image and Brand Loyalty in Generation Y. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(3), 1339-1347.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Altinay, L., Chan, E. S., Harrington, R., & Okumus, F. (2014). Barriers affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer engagement in tourism service interactions. Tourism Management, 42, 181-193.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M.B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cheng, J.C., Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Teng, H.Y. (2017). Building customer satisfaction with tour leaders: The roles of customer trust, justice perception, and cooperation in group package tours. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(4), 395-407.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

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.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chin, W.W., (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655-690).Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Google Scholar

Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1621-1625.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407-1424.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dewnarain, S., Ramkissoon, H., & Mavondo, F. (2019). Social customer relationship management: An integrated conceptual framework. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(2), 172-188.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A.B. (2008). Do online reviews matter?—An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision support systems, 45(4), 1007-1016.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dwivedi, A. (2015). A higher-order model of consumer brand engagement and its impact on loyalty intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 100-109.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty?. Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 333-344.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M.P., & Daly, T. (2018). Customer engagement and the relationship between involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand usage intent. Journal of Business Research, 88, 388-396.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer- opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance- based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Holden, R.K. (1990). An exploratory study of trust in buyer-seller relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University).

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hoyle, R.H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Huang, C.C. (2017). The impacts of brand experiences on brand loyalty: mediators of brand love and trust. Management Decision.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ismail, A.R. (2017). The influence of perceived social media marketing activities on brand loyalty: The mediation effect of brand and value consciousness. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29(1), 129-144.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ismail, A.R., Nguyen, B., & Melewar, T.C. (2018). Impact of perceived social media marketing activities on brand and value consciousness: roles of usage, materialism and conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 12(3), 233-254.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Itani, O.S., Kassar, A.N., & Loureiro, S.M.C. (2019). Value get, value give: The relationships among perceived value, relationship quality, customer engagement, and value consciousness. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 78-90.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D.B. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(1), 1-9.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 60(11), 2169-2188.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jiang, H., & Zhang, Y. (2016). An investigation of service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty in China's airline market. Journal of air transport management, 57, 80-88.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. C., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: a review and future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C., & Wilner, S.J. (2010). Networked narratives: Understanding word- of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of marketing, 74(2), 71-89.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kudeshia, C., & Kumar, A. (2017). Social eWOM: does it affect the brand attitude and purchase intention of brands?. Management Research Review, 40(3), 310-330.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M., & Spekman, R.E. (2001). Social exchange theory and research on business-to- business relational exchange. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(3), 1-36.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 3-22.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Leventhal, R.C., Hollebeek, L.D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Li, M. W., Teng, H.Y., & Chen, C.Y. (2020). Unlocking the customer engagement-brand loyalty relationship in tourism social media: The roles of brand attachment and customer trust. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 184-192.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54-67.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-245.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458-468.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Loo, P.T. (2020). Exploring airline Companies' engagement with their passengers through social network: An investigation from their Facebook pages. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34, 100657.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Loureiro, S.M.C., & Lopes, J. (2019). How corporate social responsibility initiatives in social media affect awareness and customer engagement. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(3), 419-438.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mellinas, J.P., & Reino, S. (2019). eWOM: the importance of reviews and ratings in tourism marketing. In Strategic Perspectives in Destination Marketing (pp. 143-173). IGI Global.

Moisescu, O.I. (2014). Assessing customer loyalty: A literature review.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Muntinga, D.G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand- related social media use. International Journal of advertising, 30(1), 13-46.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R.A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(2), 42-62.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Omar, Z., Zainal, A., Omar, F., & Khairudin, R. (2009). The influence of leadership behaviour on organisational citizenship behaviour in self-managed work teams in Malaysia. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 1-11.á

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Palacios-Florencio, B., Garcia del Junco, J., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Rosa-Díaz, I.M. (2018). Trust as mediator of corporate social responsibility, image and loyalty in the hotel sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1273-1289.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Pillai, K.G., & Kumar, V. (2012). Differential effects of value consciousness and coupon proneness on consumers’ persuasion knowledge of pricing tactics. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 20-33.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rather, R.A., Hollebeek, L.D., & Islam, J.U. (2019). Tourism-based customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. The Service Industries Journal, 39(7-8), 519-540.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M., (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bonningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved October 30, 2017.

Google Scholar

Riorini, S. V. (2018). Social media marketing toward perceptual consciousness and its impact on online purchasing intention.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sashi, C.M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer?seller relationships, and social media. Management decision.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Šeri?, M., & Prani?evi?, D.G. (2018). Consumer-generated reviews on social media and brand relationship outcomes in the fast-food chain industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27(2), 218-238.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sharma, A. (2011). Take?off of online marketing: casting the next generation strategies. Business Strategy Series.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Cheah, J.H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Shojaee, S., & Azman, A.B. (2013). An evaluation of factors affecting brand awareness in the context of social media in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(17), 72.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

So, K.K.F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304-329.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A., Wang, Y., & Kandampully, J. (2016). Enhancing customer relationships with retail service brands: The role of customer engagement. Journal of Service Management.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Steinhoff, L., Witte, C., & Eggert, A. (2018). Mixed effects of company-initiated customer engagement on customer loyalty: the contingency role of service category involvement. SMR-Journal of Service Management Research, 2(2), 22-35.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Thoring, A. (2011). Corporate tweeting: analysing the use of Twitter as a marketing tool by UK trade publishers.

Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P.C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.

Indexed at, Cross Ref

Veloutsou, C. (2015). Brand evaluation, satisfaction and trust as predictors of brand loyalty: the mediator-moderator effect of brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing.

Indexed at, Cross Ref

Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., & Morgan, R.M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 20(2), 122-146.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Vogel, V., Evanschitzky, H., & Ramaseshan, B. (2008). Customer equity drivers and future sales. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 98-108.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of consumer control.

Indexed at

Wei, J.T., Lee, M.C., Chen, H.K., & Wu, H.H. (2013). Customer relationship management in the hairdressing industry: An application of data mining techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(18), 7513-7518.

Cross Ref

Wei, W., Miao, L., & Huang, Z.J. (2013). Customer engagement behaviors and hotel responses. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 316-330.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yadav, M., & Rahman, Z. (2018). The influence of social media marketing activities on customer loyalty.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yen, C.H., Teng, H.Y., & Tzeng, J.C. (2020). Innovativeness and customer value co-creation behaviors: Mediating role of customer engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102514.

Cross Ref

Yoo, M., & Bai, B. (2013). Customer loyalty marketing research: A comparative approach between hospitality and business journals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 166-177.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 22-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13400; Editor assigned: 24-Jun-2023, PreQC No. AMSJ-23-13400(PQ); Reviewed: 08-Jul-2023, QC No. AMSJ-23-13400; Revised: 20-Jul-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13400(R); Published: 27-Jul-2023