Onderzoeksmethoden Research Methods

Tag: Scales

  • Immersiveness Measuring with Scales

    Immersiveness is a key aspect of film that refers to the degree to which viewers feel engaged and absorbed in the cinematic experience (Tamborini, Bowman, Eden, & Grizzard, 2010). Measuring immersiveness in film can be challenging, as it is a subjective experience that can vary across individuals and films (Calleja, 2014). In this discussion, I will explore some of the methods that have been used to measure immersiveness in film, with reference to relevant literature.

    One way to measure immersiveness in film is through the use of self-report measures, which ask viewers to rate their subjective experience of immersion. For example, Tamborini et al. (2010) developed a multidimensional scale of perceived immersive experience in film, which includes items related to spatial presence (e.g., “I felt like I was in the same physical space as the characters”), narrative transportation (e.g., “I was completely absorbed in the story”), and emotional involvement (e.g., “I felt emotionally connected to the characters”). Participants rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater levels of immersiveness. Other self-report measures of immersiveness include the Immersive Experience Questionnaire (Chen, Huang, & Huang, 2020) and the Immersion Questionnaire (Jennett et al., 2008).

    Another way to measure immersiveness in film is through the use of physiological measures, which assess changes in bodily responses associated with immersion. For example, Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) is a measure of the electrical conductance of the skin that can indicate arousal and emotional responses (Kreibig, 2010). Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is another measure that can be used to assess physiological changes associated with immersion, as it reflects the variability in time between successive heartbeats, and is influenced by both parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system activity (Laborde, Mosley, & Thayer, 2017).

    In addition to self-report and physiological measures, behavioral measures can also be used to assess immersiveness in film. For example, eye-tracking can be used to measure the extent to which viewers focus their attention on different elements of the film, such as the characters or the environment (Bulling et al., 2016). Eye-tracking data can also be used to infer cognitive processes associated with immersion, such as mental workload and engagement (Munoz-Montoya, Bohil, Di Stasi, & Gugerty, 2014).

    Overall, measuring immersiveness in film is a complex and multifaceted process that involves subjective, physiological, and behavioral components. Self-report measures are commonly used to assess viewers’ subjective experience of immersion, while physiological measures can provide objective indicators of bodily responses associated with immersion. Behavioral measures, such as eye-tracking, can provide insights into cognitive processes associated with immersion. Combining these different methods can help to provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of immersiveness in film.

    References

    Bulling, A., Mansfield, A., & Elsden, C. (2016). Eye tracking and the moving image. Springer.

    Calleja, G. (2014). In-game: From immersion to incorporation. MIT Press.

    Chen, Y.-W., Huang, Y.-J., & Huang, C.-H. (2020). The Immersive Experience Questionnaire: Scale development and validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 49-61.

    Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641-661.

    Kreibig, S. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A review. Biological Psychology, 84(3), 394-421.

    Laborde, S., Mosley, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2017). Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone in psychophysiological research–recommendations for experiment planning, data analysis, and data reporting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 213.

    Munoz-Montoya, F., Bohil, C. J., Di Stasi, L. L., & Gugerty, L. (2014). Using eye tracking to evaluate the cognitive workload of image processing in a simulated tactical environment. Displays, 35(3), 167-174.

    Tamborini, R., Bowman, N. D., Eden, A., & Grizzard, M. (2010). Organizing the perception of narrative events: Psychological need satisfaction and narrative immersion. In P. Vorderer, D. Friedrichsen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 165-184). Routledge.

    , , , , ,

  • Brand Luxury Scale

    The Brand Luxury Index (BLI) is a tool designed to measure consumers’ perceptions of luxury brands[1]. Developed by researchers Jean-Noël Kapferer and Vincent Bastien, the BLI assesses various aspects of a brand’s luxury status through seven sub-categories[1].

    Components of the BLI

    The BLI consists of seven key dimensions:

    1. Price
    2. Aesthetics
    3. Exclusivity
    4. Client Relationship
    5. Social Status
    6. Hedonism
    7. Quality

    Each dimension is scored on a scale of 0-10, with a total possible score of 70[1].

    Scoring and Interpretation

    The scoring rules vary slightly for different sub-categories:

    • For most sub-categories, higher scores indicate higher levels of luxury[1].
    • The Client Relationship category is reverse-scored, where lower scores indicate higher luxury[1].

    Survey Questions

    The BLI survey includes questions for each dimension. Here are some example statements for each category:

    Price

    • The brand’s products are highly priced.
    • The brand’s pricing reflects its exclusivity.

    Aesthetics

    • The brand’s products are visually appealing.
    • The brand’s designs are aesthetically pleasing.

    Exclusivity

    • The brand’s products are not easily accessible to everyone.
    • Owning this brand’s products makes me feel unique.

    Client Relationship

    • The brand provides excellent customer service.
    • The brand has a personal connection with its customers.

    Social Status

    • Owning a product from this brand is a status symbol.
    • The brand is associated with high social status and prestige.

    Hedonism

    • The brand’s products provide a luxurious and indulgent experience.
    • Owning a product from this brand is a form of self-indulgence.

    Quality

    • The brand’s products are of exceptional quality.
    • The brand uses the best materials and craftsmanship[1].

    Criticisms and Limitations

    Despite its widespread use, the BLI has faced some criticism:

    1. Subjectivity: The scale relies heavily on consumer perceptions, which can be subjective[1].
    2. Lack of objective measures: It does not account for tangible aspects of luxury such as materials or craftsmanship[1].
    3. Limited applicability: Some researchers argue that the BLI may not be suitable for all luxury brands, as different brands may prioritize different aspects of luxury[1].

    Revisions and Improvements

    Recognizing these limitations, researchers have proposed modifications to the original BLI. Kim and Johnson developed a revised version with five dimensions: quality, extended-self, hedonism, accessibility, and tradition[2]. This modified BLI aims to provide a more practical tool for assessing consumer perceptions of brand luxury[2].

    Conclusion

    The Brand Luxury Index Scale remains a valuable tool for measuring consumer perceptions of luxury brands. While it has limitations, ongoing research and revisions continue to improve its effectiveness and applicability in the ever-evolving luxury market.

    Citations:
    [1] https://researchmethods.imem.nl/CB/index.php/research/concept-scales-and-quationaires/123-brand-luxury-index-scale-bli
    [2] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFMM-05-2015-0043/full/html
    [3] https://premierdissertations.com/luxury-marketing-and-branding-an-evaluation-under-bli-brand-luxury-index/
    [4] https://www.proquest.com/docview/232489076
    [5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247478622_Measuring_perceived_brand_luxury_An_evaluation_of_the_BLI_scale
    [6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31968013_Measuring_perceptions_of_brand_luxury
    [7] https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/brand-luxury-index-a-reconsideration-and-revision-dOTwPEUCxt

    , , , ,

  • Brand Parity Scale

    Brand parity is a phenomenon where consumers perceive multiple brands in a product category as similar or interchangeable[1]. This concept has significant implications for marketing strategies and consumer behavior. To measure brand parity, researchers have developed scales to quantify consumers’ perceptions of brand similarity.

    The Brand Parity Scale

    James A. Muncy developed a multi-item scale to measure perceived brand parity for consumer nondurable goods[3]. This scale has been widely used in marketing research to assess the level of perceived similarity among brands in a given product category.

    Scale Components

    The Brand Parity Scale typically includes items that assess various aspects of brand similarity, such as:

    1. Perceived quality differences
    2. Functional equivalence
    3. Brand interchangeability
    4. Uniqueness of brand features

    Survey Questions

    While the exact questions from Muncy’s original scale are not provided in the search results, typical items on a brand parity scale might include:

    1. “The quality of most brands in this product category is basically the same.”
    2. “I can’t tell the difference between the major brands in this category.”
    3. “Most brands in this category are essentially identical.”
    4. “Switching between brands in this category makes little difference.”
    5. “The features offered by different brands in this category are very similar.”

    Respondents usually rate these statements on a Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.”

    Impact of Brand Parity

    High levels of perceived brand parity can have significant effects on consumer behavior and brand management:

    1. Reduced Brand Loyalty: When consumers perceive brands as similar, they are less likely to develop strong brand loyalty[4].
    2. Increased Price Sensitivity: Brand parity can lead to greater price sensitivity among consumers, as they may not see added value in paying more for a particular brand[1].
    3. Diminished Marketing Effectiveness: High brand parity can make it challenging for brands to differentiate themselves through marketing efforts[1].
    4. Impact on Repurchase Intention: Brand parity can moderate the relationship between brand-related factors (such as brand image and brand experience) and consumers’ repurchase intentions[2].

    Critiques and Limitations

    While Muncy’s Brand Parity Scale has been widely used, it has also faced some critiques:

    1. Context Specificity: The scale may need to be adapted for different product categories or markets[8].
    2. Evolving Consumer Perceptions: As markets change, the relevance of specific scale items may need to be reassessed[8].
    3. Cultural Differences: The scale may not account for cultural variations in brand perceptions across different regions or countries.

    Conclusion

    The Brand Parity Scale provides a valuable tool for marketers to assess the level of perceived similarity among brands in a product category. By understanding the degree of brand parity, companies can develop more effective strategies to differentiate their brands and create unique value propositions. As markets continue to evolve, ongoing research and refinement of brand parity measurement tools will be crucial for maintaining their relevance and effectiveness in guiding marketing decisions.

    Citations:
    [1] https://www.haveignition.com/what-is-gtm/the-go-to-market-dictionary-brand-parity
    [2] https://www.abacademies.org/articles/impact-of-brand-parity-on-brandrelated-factors-customer-satisfaction-repurchase-intention-continuum-an-empirical-study-on-brands-o-13401.html
    [3] https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/gcd:83431944?crl=f&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A83431944&sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar
    [4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4733786_The_Role_of_Brand_Parity_in_Developing_Loyal_Customers
    [5] https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/econ-2022-0054/html?lang=en
    [6] https://researchmethods.imem.nl/CB/index.php/research/concept-scales-and-quationaires/137-brand-perception-scale
    [7] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270158684_Differentiated_brand_experience_in_brand_parity_through_branded_branding_strategy
    [8] https://www.europub.co.uk/articles/perceived-brand-parity-critiques-on-muncys-scale-A-5584

    , , , ,

  • Brand Personality Scale

    Jennifer Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale (BPS) is a widely used tool in marketing research to measure and quantify the personality traits associated with brands. Developed in 1997, the BPS identifies five key dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness[1][2].

    The Five Dimensions

    Sincerity

    This dimension reflects traits such as honesty, wholesomeness, and cheerfulness. Brands scoring high in sincerity are often perceived as down-to-earth and genuine[2].

    Excitement

    Excitement encompasses traits like daring, spirited, and imaginative. Brands strong in this dimension are often seen as contemporary and youthful[2].

    Competence

    Competence relates to reliability, intelligence, and success. Brands excelling in this dimension are typically viewed as dependable and efficient[2].

    Sophistication

    This dimension includes traits such as upper class, charming, and glamorous. Sophisticated brands are often associated with luxury and prestige[2].

    Ruggedness

    Ruggedness reflects traits like outdoorsy, tough, and masculine. Brands strong in this dimension are often perceived as durable and adventurous[2].

    Survey Questions

    The BPS consists of 42 personality traits, with each dimension measured by specific items. Respondents rate each trait on a 7-point Likert scale. Here are some example items for each dimension[2]:

    Sincerity:

    • Down-to-earth
    • Honest
    • Wholesome
    • Cheerful

    Excitement:

    • Daring
    • Spirited
    • Imaginative
    • Up-to-date

    Competence:

    • Reliable
    • Intelligent
    • Successful
    • Technical

    Sophistication:

    • Upper class
    • Charming
    • Feminine
    • Elegant

    Ruggedness:

    • Outdoorsy
    • Tough
    • Masculine
    • Western

    Significance and Applications

    The BPS has become a fundamental tool in brand management and consumer behavior research. It allows marketers to:

    1. Quantify brand perceptions
    2. Compare brand personalities across different markets
    3. Align brand strategy with consumer perceptions
    4. Differentiate brands within competitive markets

    Limitations and Criticisms

    Despite its widespread use, the BPS has faced some criticisms:

    1. Cultural limitations: The scale was developed in the United States and may not fully capture brand personalities in other cultures[2].
    2. Interdependence of dimensions: Some argue that the five dimensions are not entirely independent of each other[2].
    3. Complexity: Critics suggest that the scale may not adequately capture the full complexity of brand personality[2].

    In conclusion, while the Brand Personality Scale has its limitations, it remains a valuable tool for understanding and measuring brand perceptions. Its five dimensions provide a framework for brands to differentiate themselves and connect with consumers on a more personal level.

    Citations:
    [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0256090920080304
    [2] http://researchmethods.imem.nl/CB/index.php/research/concept-scales-and-quationaires/125-brand-personality-scale-bps
    [3] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=945432
    [4] https://essay.utwente.nl/76375/1/DANIEL_MA_BMS.pdf
    [5] https://howbrandsarebuilt.com/some-thoughts-about-brand-personality/
    [6] https://liveinnovation.org/brand-personality-understanding-aakers-5-dimension-model/
    [7] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019850111001313
    [8] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32011287_Do_brand_personality_scales_really_measure_brand_personality

    , , , ,

  • Brand Experience Scale

    The Brand Experience Scale, developed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello in 2009, is a significant contribution to the field of marketing and brand management. This scale provides a comprehensive framework for measuring and understanding how consumers experience brands across multiple dimensions.

    Conceptualization of Brand Experience

    Brand experience is defined as the sensations, feelings, cognitions, and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli[1][3]. These stimuli can include a brand’s design, identity, packaging, communications, and environments. The concept goes beyond traditional brand measures, focusing on the subjective, internal consumer responses to brand interactions.

    Dimensions of Brand Experience

    The Brand Experience Scale comprises four key dimensions:

    1. Sensory: How the brand appeals to the five senses
    2. Affective: Emotions and feelings evoked by the brand
    3. Intellectual: The brand’s ability to engage consumers in cognitive and creative thinking
    4. Behavioral: Physical actions and behaviors induced by the brand

    Scale Development and Validation

    The authors conducted six studies to develop and validate the Brand Experience Scale[3]. They began with a large pool of items, which were then refined through exploratory factor analysis. The final scale was validated using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.

    Importance and Applications

    The Brand Experience Scale offers several advantages:

    1. Reliability and validity: The scale has demonstrated strong psychometric properties across multiple studies[1][3].
    2. Distinctiveness: It is distinct from other brand measures such as brand evaluations, involvement, and personality[2].
    3. Predictive power: Brand experience has been shown to affect consumer satisfaction and loyalty both directly and indirectly[3].

    Implications for Marketing Practice

    Marketers can use the Brand Experience Scale to:

    1. Assess the effectiveness of brand-related stimuli
    2. Compare brand experiences across different products or services
    3. Identify areas for improvement in brand strategy
    4. Predict consumer behavior and loyalty

    Brand Experience Questionnaire

    The following is the Brand Experience Scale questionnaire, using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)[3]:

    Sensory Dimension:

    1. This brand makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.
    2. I find this brand interesting in a sensory way.
    3. This brand does not appeal to my senses.

    Affective Dimension:

    1. This brand induces feelings and sentiments.
    2. I do not have strong emotions for this brand.
    3. This brand is an emotional brand.

    Intellectual Dimension:

    1. I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter this brand.
    2. This brand does not make me think.
    3. This brand stimulates my curiosity and problem solving.

    Behavioral Dimension:

    1. I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I use this brand.
    2. This brand results in bodily experiences.
    3. This brand is not action oriented.

    By utilizing this scale, marketers and researchers can gain valuable insights into how consumers experience and interact with brands, ultimately leading to more effective brand management strategies.

    Citations:
    [1] http://essay.utwente.nl/82847/1/Schrotenboer_MA_BMS.pdf
    [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1960358
    [3] https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/4243/Brand%20Experience%20and%20Loyalty_Journal_of%20_Marketing_May_2009.pdf
    [4] https://www.ntnu.no/documents/10401/1264433962/KatrineArtikkel.pdf/963893af-2047-4e52-9f5b-028ef4799cb7
    [5] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/jpbm-07-2015-0943/full/html
    [6] https://jcsdcb.com/index.php/JCSDCB/article/download/117/160
    [7] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/bm.2010.4
    [8] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.052

    , , ,

  • The Emotional Attachment Scale

    The Emotional Attachment Scale (EAS) is a tool used in media and marketing research to measure emotional attachment and brand loyalty. The scale was developed by Thomson, MacInnis, and Park (2005) and has been widely used in various fields, including advertising, consumer behavior, and psychology.

    The EAS consists of three sub-scales: affection, connection, and passion. Each sub-scale includes five items, resulting in a total of 15 items. Participants rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

    The affection sub-scale measures the emotional bond that a person has with a brand or product. The connection sub-scale assesses the extent to which a person feels a personal connection with the brand or product. The passion sub-scale evaluates the intensity of a person’s emotional attachment to the brand or product.

    Example statements from the EAS include:

    • “I feel affection for this brand/product”
    • “This brand/product is personally meaningful to me”
    • “I would be very upset if this brand/product were no longer available”

    To score the EAS, the responses to the five items in each sub-scale are summed. For the affection and connection sub-scales, higher scores indicate a stronger emotional attachment to the brand or product. For the passion sub-scale, higher scores indicate a more intense emotional attachment to the brand or product.

    However, it is important to note that some of the items in the EAS are reverse-scored, meaning that a response of 1 is equivalent to a response of 7 on the Likert scale. For example, the statement “I would feel very upset if this brand/product were no longer available” is reverse-scored, so a response of 7 indicates a weaker emotional attachment, while a response of 1 indicates a stronger emotional attachment.

    While the EAS has been widely used and validated in previous research, it is not without criticisms. Some researchers have argued that the EAS is limited in its ability to capture the complexity of emotional attachment and brand loyalty, and that additional measures may be needed to fully understand these constructs (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2012). Others have suggested that the EAS may be too focused on the affective aspects of attachment and may not fully capture the behavioral aspects of brand loyalty (Oliver, 1999).

    Overall, the EAS can provide valuable insights into consumers’ emotional attachment to brands and products, but it is important to use it in conjunction with other measures to fully understand these constructs.

    the complete questionnaire for the Emotional Attachment Scale (EAS):

    Affection Sub-Scale:

    1. I feel affection for this brand/product.
    2. This brand/product makes me feel good.
    3. I have warm feelings toward this brand/product.
    4. I am emotionally attached to this brand/product.
    5. I love this brand/product.

    Connection Sub-Scale:

    1. This brand/product is personally meaningful to me.
    2. This brand/product is part of my life.
    3. I can relate to this brand/product.
    4. This brand/product reflects who I am.
    5. This brand/product is important to me.

    Passion Sub-Scale:

    1. I am enthusiastic about this brand/product.
    2. This brand/product excites me.
    3. I have a strong emotional bond with this brand/product.
    4. I am deeply committed to this brand/product.
    5. I would be very upset if this brand/product were no longer available.

    Participants rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

    To score the EAS, the responses to the five items in each sub-scale are summed. For the affection and connection sub-scales, higher scores indicate a stronger emotional attachment to the brand or product. For the passion sub-scale, higher scores indicate a more intense emotional attachment to the brand or product. However, it is important to note that some of the items in the EAS are reverse-scored, meaning that a response of 1 is equivalent to a response of 7 on the Likert scale.

  • Emotional Attachment Scales

    Several scales measure emotional attachment:

    1. Emotional Attachment Scale (EAS)[1]
    • 15 items across 3 sub-scales: affection, connection, and passion
    • 7-point Likert scale responses
    • Measures emotional attachment to brands/products
    1. Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)[3]
    • 18 items measuring 3 dimensions:
      • Close (comfort with closeness)
      • Depend (willingness to depend on others)
      • Anxiety (fear of abandonment)
    1. Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR)[3]
    • Measures attachment avoidance and anxiety
    • Widely used and validated
    1. Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ)[3]
    • 40 items measuring 5 dimensions:
      • Confidence
      • Discomfort with Closeness
      • Need for Approval
      • Preoccupation with Relationships
      • Relationships as Secondary
    1. Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i)[2]
    • Measures emotional intelligence, including aspects of attachment
    • Assesses interpersonal relationships and emotional self-awareness

    These scales provide various approaches to measuring emotional attachment in different contexts, from general relationships to specific brand attachments.

    , , , ,

  • Scales that can be adapted to measure the quality of a Magazine

    Quality assessment scales that could potentially be adapted for magazine evaluation:

    CGC Grading Scale

    The Certified Guaranty Company (CGC) uses a 10-point grading scale to evaluate collectibles, including magazines[1]. This scale includes:

    1. Standard Grading Scale
    2. Page Quality Scale
    3. Restoration Grading Scale

    The Restoration Grading Scale assesses both quality and quantity of restoration work[1].

    Literature Quality Assessment Tools

    While not specific to magazines, these tools could potentially be adapted:

    1. CASP Qualitative Checklist
    2. CASP Systematic Review Checklist
    3. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)
    4. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) Tool
    5. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (QATQS)
    6. Jadad Scale[2]

    Impact Factor

    The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) is a scientometric index used to reflect the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in academic journals[4]. While primarily used for academic publications, this concept could potentially be adapted for magazines.

    Customer Experience (CX) Scales

    Two scales used in customer experience research that could be relevant for magazine quality assessment:

    1. Best Ever Scale: A nine-point scale comparing the product or service to historical best or worst experiences[5].
    2. Stated Improvement Scale: A five-point scale assessing the need for improvement[5].

    While these scales are not specifically designed for magazine quality evaluation, they provide insights into various approaches to quality assessment that could be adapted for magazine evaluation.

    Citations:
    [1] https://www.cgccomics.com/grading/grading-scale/
    [2] https://bestdissertationwriter.com/6-literature-quality-assessment-tools-in-systematic-review/
    [3] https://www.healthevidence.org/documents/our-appraisal-tools/quality-assessment-tool-dictionary-en.pdf
    [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor
    [5] https://www.quirks.com/articles/data-use-introducing-two-new-scales-for-more-comprehensive-cx-measurement
    [6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10542923/
    [7] https://measuringu.com/rating-scales/
    [8] https://mmrjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8

    , , , ,

  • Engagement Scale

    The Engagement Scale for a Free-Time Magazine is based on the concept of audience engagement, which is defined as the level of involvement and interaction between the audience and a media product (Kim, Lee, & Hwang, 2017). Audience engagement is important because it can lead to increased loyalty, satisfaction, and revenue for media organizations (Bakker, de Vreese, & Peters, 2013). In the context of a free-time magazine, audience engagement can be measured by factors such as personal interest, quality of content, relevance to readers’ lives, enjoyment of reading, visual appeal, length of articles, and frequency of publication.

    References:

    Bakker, P., de Vreese, C. H., & Peters, C. (2013). Good news for the future? Young people, internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 40(5), 706-725.

    Kim, J., Lee, J., & Hwang, J. (2017). Building brand loyalty through managing audience engagement: An empirical investigation of the Korean broadcasting industry. Journal of Business Research, 75, 84-91.

    Questions 

    Engagement Scale for a Free-Time Magazine:

    1. Personal interest level:
    • Extremely interested
    • Very interested
    • Somewhat interested
    • Not very interested
    • Not at all interested
    1. Quality of content:
    • Excellent
    • Good
    • Fair
    • Poor
    1. Relevance to your life:
    • Extremely relevant
    • Very relevant
    • Somewhat relevant
    • Not very relevant
    • Not at all relevant
    1. Enjoyment of reading:
    • Very enjoyable
    • Somewhat enjoyable
    • Not very enjoyable
    • Not at all enjoyable
    1. Visual appeal:
    • Very appealing
    • Somewhat appealing
    • Not very appealing
    • Not at all appealing
    1. Length of articles:
    • Just right
    • Too short
    • Too long
    1. Frequency of publication:
    • Just right
    • Too frequent
    • Not frequent enough

    Subcategories:

    • Variety of topics:
      • Excellent
      • Good
      • Fair
      • Poor
    • Writing quality:
      • Excellent
      • Good
      • Fair
      • Poor
    • Usefulness of information:
      • Extremely useful
      • Very useful
      • Somewhat useful
      • Not very useful
      • Not at all useful
    • Originality:
      • Very original
      • Somewhat original
      • Not very original
      • Not at all original
    • Engagement with readers:
      • Excellent
      • Good
      • Fair
      • Poor

  • Digital Presence Scale

    The Digital Presence Scale is a measurement tool that assesses the digital presence of a brand or organization. It evaluates a brand’s performance in terms of digital marketing, social media, website design, and other digital channels. Here is the complete Digital Presence Scale for a magazine, including the questionnaire, sub-categories, scoring, and references:

    Questionnaire:

    1. Does the magazine have a website?
    2. Is the website responsive and mobile-friendly?
    3. Is the website design visually appealing and easy to navigate?
    4. Does the website have a clear and concise mission statement?
    5. Does the website have a blog or content section?
    6. Does the magazine have active social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.)?
    7. Does the magazine regularly post content on their social media accounts?
    8. Does the magazine engage with their followers on social media (e.g., responding to comments and messages)?
    9. Does the magazine have an email newsletter or mailing list?
    10. Does the magazine have an e-commerce platform or online store?

    Sub-categories:

    1. Website design and functionality
    2. Website content and messaging
    3. Social media presence and engagement
    4. Email marketing and communication
    5. E-commerce and digital revenue streams

    Scoring:

    For each question, the magazine can score a maximum of 2 points. A score of 2 indicates that the magazine fully meets the criteria, while a score of 1 indicates partial compliance, and a score of 0 indicates non-compliance.

    References:

    The Digital Presence Scale is a measurement tool developed by the International Journal of Information Management. The sub-categories and questions for a magazine were adapted from existing literature on digital marketing and media.

    , , , ,