Shopping cart
0 Items | US$ 0.00
IX
Table of contents
Abstract ... VII
A - Introduction ... 11
1.
Aim of this study ... 11
2. Study
outline
...
12
3. Study
relevance
...
14
B - Critical Literature Review ... 16
1.
Brands and their social meaning ... 16
2. Consumer
Brand
Relationships
...
16
2.1.
Consumers and their brands ... 17
2.2.
Consumer brand relationships criticism ... 17
2.3.
Internet as relationship facilitator ... 18
2.4. Online
relationships
...
18
2.5.
Fandom and consumer-brand devotion ... 19
3.
Brand Community Research ... 20
3.1. Brand
community
...
22
3.1.1. Characteristics of brand communities ... 23
3.2. E-tribes
... 23
3.3. Virtual
communities
...
24
3.4. Social
Networking
...
26
3.4.1. Empowered consumers through Social Networking ... 27
3.4.2. Social Networking on Facebook ... 28
3.5. Interpersonal
relationships
online
...
29
4.
Value Creation Practices ... 30
4.1. Empowered
consumers
...
30
4.2.
Additional value of relationships ... 31
4.3.
Brand community practices creating value ... 31
4.4. Co-creation
of
value
...
32
4.5.
How value is co-created ... 33
C - Research Methodology ... 34
X
1. Research
philosophies
...
35
1.1. Positivism
...
35
1.2. Interpretivism
...
35
2.
Qualitative vs. quantitative data ... 36
3.
Adopted research philosophy and research approach ... 36
3.1. Interpretivist
paradigm
...
36
3.2.
Qualitative netnographic approach ... 37
3.2.1. Netnography
...
37
3.2.2. Data
collection
explained
...
38
3.2.3. Facebook Fan Pages ... 38
4. Data
collection
process
...
40
4.1. Archival
Data
...
40
4.2. Elicted
Data
...
40
4.3. Fieldnotes
...
41
5.
Data analysis and interpretation procedures ... 42
5.1.
Hermeneutic data analysis ... 42
6. Trustworthiness
of
study
...
43
6.1. Reliability
... 43
6.2. Validity
... 44
D - Data Analysis ... 46
1. Exchanging
brand
narratives
...
46
2. Celebrating
brand
love
...
52
3.
Support and information resource ... 57
4.
Pressure valve for discontent... 61
E - Conclusions ... 64
F - Recommendations ... 68
G - References ... 72
H Appendix ... 83
1. Interview
themes
...
83
11
A - Introduction
Working in advertising today, one cannot oversee the hype of Social Networking platforms
and its influence on online marketing. Brands increasingly focus their marketing activities on
social media and a growing number of advertising agencies specialising in this field further
highlight the importance of Social Networking for contemporary marketing. Moreover social
media platforms are constantly evolving and introducing new features and thus develop
further impact. These features allow consumers to get in close contact with brands and to
develop a relationship. But social media activities are seldom based on deep understandings
of what consumers gain from online engagement and what they expect from brands on
Social Networking platforms.
1.
Aim of this study
This study investigates online social practices on brand communities, builds on findings of
Schau et al. (2009) and extends this research to Facebook brand Fan Pages. These Fan Pages
are used as brand communities and depict how consumers discuss and share their devotion
for brands. This study explores how online social practices create value for brand
communities and it explains how consumers generate value on these Fan Pages by jointly
renegotiating brand meaning.
Previous research highlighted the importance of brands in the lives of consumers (Albert et
al. 2008), investigated brand communities in detail (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001) and explored
how consumers establish close relationships with brands (Fournier 1998), e.g. through brand
fandom (Pichler & Hemetsberger 2007). Moreover, studies emphasised on online brand
communities granting postmodern consumers with more power and capabilities to actively
co-create value. These consumers want to be active and also desire links with other
consumers to establish relationships through dialogue and interaction. Especially Facebook
12
Fan Pages depict how community members share and celebrate their brand love and also
how members support each other. Also, transactional marketing has been updated and
focuses now on relationships, where brands aim to become part of consumers' everyday
dialogue. Social Networking platforms like Facebook can be employed by brands to get
closer to consumers and develop intimate consumer-brand-relationships, where consumer-
generated value seems to be catalyst for the success.
However, research so far neglected to combine both popular marketing research streams of
Social Networking and brand community practices, to discover how these activities create
value. Hence this study explores Facebook brand Fan Pages to discover comprehensible
online social practices and extends understanding of consumer-generated value creation.
Findings of this study help to understand why consumers engage in Facebook brand Fan
Pages and what they gain from interaction with other members and with the brand itself.
2.
Study outline
Firstly this study will investigate existing academic and practitioner based literature to build
on prior studies. Brands and their social meaning in consumers' lives are reviewed, and also
how brands are used to interact socially with others. Additionally consumer-brand-
relationship-concepts will be investigated critically and it will be explored how internet
leverages these relationships, where real-time dialogue and two-way communication are
vital. Moreover concepts of brand fandom and brand devotion are analysed, as special forms
of relationships which consumers hold with brands and which have influence on brand
communities. For the investigation of communities established around brands a brief
distinction of relevant concepts of subcultures of consumption, consumer tribes and brand
communities is given. Further, different types of online consumer communities are explored
like e-tribes and virtual communities. As this study aims to explore Facebook brand Fan
13
Pages, Social Networking and its influencing factors are studied. It is explored how social
media empowers consumers and enables marketers to establish intimate consumer-brand-
relationships online. Special emphasis is paid to the most popular Social Networking
platform, Facebook. It is highlighted how consumers establish interpersonal relationships
online and how important these inter-member bonds are in virtual brand communities.
Lastly value and its practices creating it are investigated, where consumers´ hold
empowered roles and demand participation in brands and co-create value. Besides
exploration of how relationships add value, key findings of Schau et al. (2009) are
highlighted, as this study builds on the results of this influential work.
The research methodology chapter explains and justifies the adopted study approach. As
this study investigates online social consumer behaviour, a qualitative netnographic research
approach is employed by using hermeneutic analysis techniques to thoroughly understand
intrinsic meaning within particular brand communities. The data is gathered from three
sources, which leverages the findings: Archival data from observations of online
communities, elicted data from interviews of brand fans and lastly fieldnote data from
researcher's enhanced understanding of the chosen communities.
The data analysis chapter builds on its proceeding chapters and explores the discovered gap
of the literature review, using the adopted research approach. It describes the result of in-
depth hermeneutic studies of three brand Fan Pages and executed interviews. In the course
of this chapter four practices are introduced and explained, resulting from qualitative data
analysis. These online social practices have been found influential on all three studied brand
Fan Pages and each of these are creating value for the community, the brand and its
members. Practices and their value are explained in detail and supported by examples of
relevant data quotes and screenshots of the Fan Pages.
14
In conclusion, findings are summarised from data analysis, methodological approach and
literature review. Key findings are highlighted how online social practices create value for
brand communities and how this is achieved on Facebook brand Fan Pages. Lastly
recommendations are given how findings can be used by online marketing practitioners and
also how findings interplay with existing marketing theory in this field. Moreover limitations
impacting on the results of this study are highlighted.
3.
Study relevance
Besides a discovered gap in the literature, trends in the field of Social Networking make this
study relevant, as it discovers significant insights exploring contemporary topics of marketing
with relevance for online marketing. Through constant growth of Facebooks` user numbers
and shifts of user demographics active on this website, this platform increases its impact on
modern online marketing. Moreover ad spending on Facebook increased by 281% between
2010 and 2011 (Online Marketing Trends 2011) and the graph depicted below highlights how
ad revenues on Facebook will further grow in the future.
Source: Tech Crunch (2011)
15
All this emphasis how important Facebook is for contemporary marketing. Brands have the
opportunity to employ Facebook brand Fan Pages to develop close relationships with their
consumers and even understand them better. However for the success of brands´ social
media ventures it is vital to comprehend what consumers gain from these consumer-brand-
relationships on Facebook and especially what consumers expect. Decisive insights provided
by this study are that consumers receive value from interaction between brands and other
community members, but also it is explained how this value is developed. Therefore this
study develops crucial findings helpful for online marketing practitioners to understand
value created through online social practices which can be applied to brand strategies.
16
B - Critical Literature Review
This study investigates brands and their symbolic meaning. Besides an overview of
consumer-brand-relationships, the concepts of fandom and brand devotion are explored.
Moreover brand community research is investigated with focus on virtual brand
communities and Social Networking. Additionally, the value co-creating role of consumers is
reviewed.
1.
Brands and their social meaning
"Brands are omnipresent in the everyday life of consumers" (Albert et al. 2008), provide
value and comprise two areas, functionality and emotional/symbolic meaning (Kotler et al.
2005); with the latter being focus of this study. Symbolic meaning of brands is vital especially
for postmodern consumers, as it conveys what brands communicate to consumers (self-
symbolism), but also what is conveyed to others through consumption (social symbolism).
Not only advertising gives meaning to brands, but also cultural context (Rosenbaum-Ellliott
et al. 2011). Studies have shown how brands and their symbolic meaning are consumed and
how empowered consumers take an active role in this process (Kelly 2010). Brands have
multiple meanings and the brand gestalt is developed through manifold, reciprocal
influencers (Diamond et al. 2009; Kelly 2010). Moreover consumption of symbolic brand
meaning is a social process, where relationships consumers have with brands find impact
(Rosenbaum-Ellliott et al. 2011).
2.
Consumer Brand Relationships
The term brand relationship is postulated by Blackston (1992), who suggests that brand
equity creation is an interactive process, including consumers. The brand-consumer-
relationship construct enhances understanding how important brands are in consumers'
lives (Breivik & Thorbjørnsen 2008).
17
2.1.
Consumers and their brands
Fournier (1998) advances this idea and states that consumers engage in close relationships
with brands, which is supported by scholars like Schouten & McAlexander (1995); Muñiz &
O'Guinn (2001); Pichler & Hemetsberger (2008); Barnes (2003). To develop brand
relationships, consumers need to feel an affective connection, which illustrates emotionality
and the similarity with interpersonal bonds (Barnes 2003). Furthermore, consumers build
various types of relationships with brands, which are formed in private but also in public.
Private brand relationships are not influenced by others, whereas establishment of public
brand relationships are means for social engagement with other consumers (Mühlbacher et
al. 2006).
Central to Fournier`s study (1998) are findings, that brands can become important partners
in relationships and that these brands add meaning (functional, utilitarian, psychological and
emotional) to the lives of consumers.
2.2.
Consumer brand relationships criticism
However Bengtsson (2003) criticises that consumers build relationships with brands, as
these cannot reciprocate; and interaction is essential for relationships (Grönroos 2000).
Moreover Patterson & O´Malley (2006) do not concur with Fournier's understanding of
consumer-brand-relationships. The authors recommend a person-object-person relationship
type, rather than a consumer-brand-relationship, as interpersonal relationships between
consumers impact on the type of relationship consumers hold with brands. Furthermore
brands are utilised as social exchange medium and as means to affiliate consumers to groups
(Patterson & O´Malley 2006). Consequently interdependence and interaction are essential
for relationships (Grönroos 2000). For Fournier (1998) this is achieved through
animation/personalisation and anthrophormphization of brands.
18
2.3.
Internet as relationship facilitator
Relationships are complex, not static, constantly renegotiated (Brown et al. 2003) and it is
acknowledged that internet facilitates development of consumer-brand-relationships
(Armstrong & Hagel 1996; Hagel 1999; Thorbjørnsen et al. 2002; Schau & Gilly 2003; Carlson
2008). The concept of relationship marketing has advanced to a new level, focusing on
online communities, where companies can build close relationships with consumers (Hagel
1999; Mathwick 2002; McWilliam 2000). Additionally relationships built online are advanced
through member interaction (Mathwick 2002; Nambisan & Watt 2010) and online
communication (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke 2008; Kent 1998; Briones et al. 2011; Colgate et al.
2005; Kane et al. 2009; Thorbjørnsen et al. 2002). New online features like bulletin boards
facilitate the development of relationships between consumers and companies (Sheth &
Parvatiyar 2000). The internet is even considered to be more capable of achieving
relationships with consumers than traditional targeted communication (Geissler 2001).
However, O`Malley & Tynan (2000) cited in Szmigin et al. (2005) doubt that companies are
capable of initiating the development of bonds through interactive relationships. Although
synergy between relationship marketing and functionalities of the internet are accredited,
there is still a lack of understanding of consumers´ internet-based relationships, and
differences between online and offline relationships are emphasised (Colgate et al. 2005).
Still major issue on the internet is the privacy concern (Colgate et al. 2005; Colgate & Smith
2005; O'Malley & Mitussis 2001), which is the case on Social Networking sites (Taylor et al.
2011; Boyd & Ellison 2008).
2.4.
Online relationships
Aspects like two-way communication, dialogue (McWilliam 2000; Kozinets 2006; Prahalad &
Ramaswamy 1999; Maklan et al. 2008; Baker et al. 1998; Colgate & Smith 2005), interactivity
19
(Geissler 2001; Srirojanant & Thirkell 1998; Kelleher 2009) and one-to-one conversations
(Maclaran & Catterall 2002; O'Malley & Mitussis 2001) enhance development of online
relationships. Moreover virtual communities allow members to connect with brands (Sicilia
& Palazón 2008); share and engage in personal dialogue and express feelings for brands
(Jayanti 2010; Kozinets 2002).
Relationships need interaction and dialogue, as emphasised by the Nordic School of
relationship marketing (Palmer et al. 2005; Sheth & Parvatiyar 2000; Baker et al. 1998;
Grönroos 2004). Interactivity is a central aspect for two-way communication (Duncan &
Moriarty 1998), where both parties influence each other equally (Szmigin et al. 2005; Finne
& Grönroos 2009). Hence relationship communication is defined as conveying messages and
meaning for both relationship parties resulting in shared knowledge (Lindberg-Repo 2001
cited in Finne & Grönroos 2009). The key aspects of relationship marketing are delivered
through the internet and online brand communities advance this (Szmigin et al. 2005;
Srirojanant & Thirkell 1998).
On the contrary it is claimed that internet inhibits development of meaningful relationships,
as consumers cannot convey their identity through online communication. Nevertheless,
studies show relationships can be based on textual cues (Presi et al. 1999) and it is
acknowledged that internet assists consumers to interact and hence build deep relationships
with other consumers or brands (Armstrong & Hagel 1996).
2.5.
Fandom and consumer-brand devotion
Some consumers develop a feeling of devotion for brands, which is an intensified form of
consumer-brand-relationship (Pichler & Hemetsberger 2007). Devotion goes beyond feelings
of desire or simple attachment (Pichler & Hemetsberger 2008); it is an emotional concept,
20
high in intensity, with love feelings and a form of religious fervour (Pimentel & Reynolds
2004; Pichler & Hemetsberger 2007).
Additionally brand love is a more specific type of consumer-brand-relationship, extending
devotion and depicting how consumers are attached to brands and how consumption is
used to achieve identity (Ahuvia 2005). It influences on consumers´ self-concept
(Hemetsberger 2009), and adds meaning to life, through long-lasting emotional love-like
relationships with brands (Fromm 1976 cited in Pichler & Hemetsberger 2007; Carroll &
Ahuvia 2006).
Fans want to support brands and take part in brand communities (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001).
However, for Chung & Farrelly (2005) fandom goes beyond normal love feelings and can be
considered as dysfunctional, since fan-behaviour is mostly regarded as not normal.
But, concepts of brand fandom gained importance with an increase of brand community
research and emotional branding (Smith et al. 2007). It is claimed that consumers seek a new
sense of life and this might be achieved through development of a close fan relationships
with brands. These brands are loved for non-utilitarian attributes, rituals and consumption
activities which bind groups together and develop communities (Pichler & Hemetsberger
2007; Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001). But not all consumers engaging in brand communities are
necessarily fans. Many search for information in communities but may become brand
admires sooner or later (Andersen 2005).
3.
Brand Community Research
Brand community (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001; Schau et al. 2009), subculture of consumption
(Schouten & McAlexander 1995; Schouten et al. 2007) and consumer/brand tribe (Cova &
21
Cova 2002; Cova et al. 2007) are concepts, which have been used almost interchangeably in
the literature. However these are distinct constructs and are differentiated in the following.
A brand community describes a group of consumers, creating their own society around
brands (Cova et al. 2007). Decisive for this community are interpersonal relationships (Sicilia
& Palazón 2008) with relatively stable bonds and rather strong commitment (Muñiz &
O'Guinn 2001). Brand communities are investigated further in the following chapter.
A subculture of consumption is characterized by commitment of a "distinctive subgroup of
society" (Schouten & McAlexander 1995: 43) to a specific product, brand or consumption
activity. Members of this group have a hierarchical social structure, share emotions and have
social unity through interaction, common consumption values, rituals and expressions
(jargon) (Schouten et al. 2007; Rosenbaum-Ellliott et al. 2011). However meaning created in
subcultures can oppose generally accepted opinions, whereas brand communities welcome
surrounding culture and take it into negotiation (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001).
Tribes develop through consumers sharing similar passion or ethos (Maffesoli 1996 cited in
Cova et al. 2007) and are networks of people who have different characteristics e.g.
demographics (Rosenbaum-Ellliott et al. 2011; Luedicke & Giesler 2007; Cova & Cova 2002).
Tribes are diffuse and fluctuating social constructs, which are unified by a common state of
mind (Goulding et al. 2002; Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001). Moreover tribes are local objects,
whereas brand communities are non-geographical bound and unlike brand communities,
follow tribes no common rules (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001; Cova & Cova 2002).
In conclusion commercialisation is the main aspect differentiating these constructs. Brand
communities are commercial, with the brand at the centre of attention. However, tribes and
22
subcultures of consumption can be, but are not necessarily focused commercially (Cova &
Cova 2002).
3.1.
Brand community
Communities have their research origin in anthropology and sociology, where they are
defined as regular gatherings of people acquiring common interest (Andersen 2005).
Community is an elementary construct in social thought (Sicilia & Palazón 2008) and has
been studied for decades (Szmigin et al. 2005). But recently it has found interest in the field
of consumer behaviour and marketing, as brand communities participate in brands´ larger
social environment (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001). Brand community research was the first to
focus on the active role of consumers in value co-creation (Hatch & Schultz 2010).
Brand communities are defined as a "specialized, non-geographical bound community,
based on a structured set of social relationships among admires of a brand" (Muñiz &
O'Guinn 2001: 412). This shows that not only relationships between consumers and brands
exist, but also between members (Sicilia & Palazón 2008). Brand communities are stable
constructs, usually established around brands with solid image, long history and challenging
competition (Muñiz & O'Guinn 2001). However, other authors criticise that brand
communities are not homogenous, as subcultures within communities might develop (Cova
et al. 2007; Kozinets 2001). Carlson (2008) confirms the social structure of brand
communities, where members engage in structured social relations. However particular
types of communities, e.g. psychological brand communities depict that fans connect and
experience a feeling of community without social engagement (Carlson 2008).
Brand communities own powerful cultures and may trigger religious experiences, which can
explain fandom (Muñiz & Schau 2005). Furthermore are these communities described as
23
forms of postmodern tribes, connecting consumers through brands (Luedicke & Giesler
2007).
3.1.1.
Characteristics of brand communities
For Muñiz & O'Guinn (2001) brand communities have three common characteristics:
· Consciousness of kind: This emphasises social bonds among members and feeling of
connection to the community. Dholakia et al. (2004) advance this and assert that
conscious of kind (renamed as social identity) consists of three main aspects:
cognitive identification with the group, affective commitment and collective self-
esteem (Sicilia & Palazón 2008; Dholakia et al. 2004). For consumers brand
communities are facilitators to achieve meaningful relationships (Muñiz & Schau
2005).
· Shared rituals and traditions: This behaviour reinforces brand meaning and
strengthens community ties.
· Moral responsibility: Members develop a feeling of obligation towards the
community.
These characteristics of brand communities are accepted by various authors: Nambisan &
Watt (2010); Luedicke (2006); Mühlbacher et al. (2006); Hatch & Schultz (2010); Cova et al.
(2007); Cova & Pace (2006); Komito (2001).
3.2.
E-tribes
Neo-tribes employ meaning of consumption and brands to develop a sense of community in
today's individual society (Patterson 1998). Tribalization ties people together through
interpersonal relationships, which can be enhanced through features of online communities
(Moran & Gossieaux 2010). The internet enables the development of e-tribes, which aim to
24
take part in decisions of companies (Cova & Cova 2002). These tribes do not need face-to-
face meetings (Cova 1999), because members share beliefs and develop social relationships
online (Simmons 2008).
Postmodern consumers aim to liberate themselves from social bonds, as seen in the
fragmentation of society where individuals maintain few strong social links. However, once
individualism is achieved, consumers start again to establish social links, but with free
emotional choice (Cova 1999; Patterson 1998). "The link is more important than the thing",
this depicts that social aspects of life are essential in postmodernism (Cova 1997: 307).
Herewith Cova (1997) takes the position of the Latin School, which postulates, that
products/services are not only consumed for utilitarian value, but especially for a linking
value and facilitation of social interactions (Cova 1999). Postmodernism is characterized by
new tribalism where products/services are "totem" for the tribe and centre of attention
(Cova, 1997: 307). The value of the totem serves the individual and the group; and through
its meaning it establishes bonds (Cova 1997). Tribe members possess strong feelings of
attachment, which enables marketers to develop meaningful relationships (Mitchell & Imrie
2011).
3.3.
Virtual communities
New web technologies facilitate brand community practices (Andersen 2005) and accelerate
evolution of brand communities online (Cova & Pace 2006). Hagel (1999) states that virtual
communities develop as spontaneous social online events, where people gather around
shared interest and develop a sense of community and interpersonal relationships. Dholakia
et al. (2004: 248) define virtual community as a "specialized, geographically dispersed
community, based on a structured and dynamic network of relationships among participants
sharing a common focus".
Excerpt out of 82 pages
- scroll top
Details
- Quote paper
- , 2011, Online brand communities: Value creating capabilities of brand communities on Facebook, Hamburg, Bedey Media GmbH, https://www.anchor-publishing.com/document/294699
Similar texts
Any Questions? Contact us!
Anchor Academic Publishing
E-Mail: info@anchor-publishing.com
Telephone: Monday to Friday
9.00 a.m. – 4.00 p.m. CET
+49-(0)40 - 655 99 20
Comments