1

Building Brand Communities Through Online Interaction: The Case of Social

Media

Laura Jones

Durham Business School

Hazel H. Huang

Durham Business School

Presented at 2nd International Colloquium on Consumer-Brand Relationships

Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. 17-19 March 2011

2

Abstract

This study used netnography to examine three online brand communities, namely, Dell (high

involvement, functional product), Starbucks (low involvement, symbolic product) and Toyota

(high involvement, symbolic product). The results identified three types of online community

practices: knowledge based, interpersonal, and empowerment practices. Unlike offline brand

communities where brands are not necessarily welcomed, these online brand communities

appreciated the interactions with their brands. In turn, these consumer-brand interactions fostered

emotional bonding between the members and brands.

Keywords: brand community, online brand community, social media

3

Extended Abstract

Brand communities are comprised of collective brand relationships (O'Guinn and Muiz 2009) which are created through social forces (Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Hermann 2005; Belk and Tumbat 2005; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muiz and Schau 2005, 2007; Schau, Muiz, and Arnould 2009). With the advent of the Internet and emergence of social media, offline brand communities spill out into virtual space (Kozinets 2006: 280). Unlike traditional consumer-created brand communities where the brands appear to occupy minimal presence, online brand communities are increasingly hosted by the brands. While brands have been eager to create and maintain a presence online, research into these online communities remains relatively sparse. What consumption practices might exist in these communities hosted by the brands? How is value created by such practices? Using Schau et al.s (2009) research into value creation as a foundation, these questions will be explored in this study.

This study takes the form of a netnography, which is a research methodology that adapts the traditional, in-person ethnographic research techniques to the study of the online cultures and communities (Jupp 2006: 193). With this methodology, the subject of analysis is not consumers themselves, but their behaviour (Kozinets 2002: 64), which translates to the participating and producing activities online (Shao 2009) through textual discourse. This approach provides a powerful window into the naturally occurring reality of consumers and affords up-to-the-minute assessments of consumers collective pulse (Kozinets 2006: 281).

The selection of brands was based on the following criteria: (i) high engagement levels in social media in terms of brand-sponsored websites and groups, (ii) an active online community surrounding the brand, and (iii) contrast between brands; i.e. symbolic or functional brands (Bhat and Reddy 1998; Ratchford 1987; Vaughn 1980, 1986). In using contrasting brands, maximum variation was accounted for, ensuring that a variety of consumption practices were represented. Three brands were selected: Dell (high involvement, functional product), Starbucks (low involvement, symbolic product) and Toyota (high involvement, symbolic product).

The selection of websites was based on high membership levels and high levels of activity in terms of interactions and participation. Close observation of the brand communities was conducted prior to website sampling. Among various types of social media sites, six types were used, namely, branded social network, external social network, innovation community, content aggregation sites, blogs and micro-blog. Eleven websites were chosen for Dell, nine for Starbucks, and five for Toyota. The definition for the types of social media sites and the details of the websites selected are shown in Table 1.

4

The data collected included posts which dated from March 2008 to August 2010. Data collection and analysis were intimately linked throughout the research process. The analysis was conducted in an iterative manner (Dey 2004), with ongoing interpreting, categorising and refining of the practices until sufficient interpretive convergence (Muiz and Schau 2007: 190) was achieved. The practices were therefore generated inductively through interpretation of the netnographic data.

Three types of online community practices were identified; namely, knowledge-based, interpersonal, and empowerment practices, involving eight core activities: information seeking, mentoring and advising, communing, performing, appraising, advocating, criticising and innovating (see Figure 1). Although these practices are conceptually separate, they were not mutually exclusive.

Knowledge-based practices served instrumental, functional purposes for consumers and developed their relationship with the branded product. For new or inexperienced members, information seeking practices were a way of entering the community and building brand competence, as well as acquiring desired knowledge. Experienced members shared their personal experiences and brand expertise through mentoring and advising activities and, in doing so, cultivated consumption opportunities through collective, aggregate knowledge.

Knowledge-based practices were complemented by interpersonal practices, with the latter often developing out of the former as motivations for interacting progressed from functional to social purposes. These practices, communing and performing, were found to build affiliations in the community. Consumers shared details of how they experienced the consumption object through empathising and more playful, socialising interactions; for example, they exchanged comments and repartee to entertain and amuse each other. While communing contained more lively social interactions, performing practices were more outwardly focused on enhancing distinction and constructing a visible self-identity through self-expression. These practices often affirmed the strength of the consumers association with the brand by exhibiting loyalty to the brand and credibility of their brand relationships.

The empowerment practices revealed attempts by consumers to shape or groom the focal brand, its values and, sometimes, the perceptions of its community. The results suggested that members were empowered through contributing content via appraising, advocating or criticising the brand, and innovating. These interactions were personal and experience-based. They appeared to engender further content contribution and interpersonal practices. Moreover, consumers were found to explicitly and collaboratively contribute to the enhancement and amelioration of the brand and their brand experience. However, whilst positive experiences were presented in advocating activities, negative experiences too were broadcasted in criticising activities which sought to appeal to the brand for help or shape the perceptions of others. Via these practices, subtle instances of negotiating brand values and meaning were prevalent.

5

This research builds on Schau et al.s (2009) research into collective value creation within brand communities. It was found that social media as an interactive technology both enables and becomes a site of value creation for the individual consumers, the brand community and the brand itself. The facilitation of this social intercourse resulted in co-creation of value (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and consumer empowerment (Cova and Pace 2006; Wathieu et al. 2002). Unlike user-generated brand communities where brands are not necessarily welcomed, these online brand communities revealed that brand content contributions on their brand offerings and interactions with consumers content contributions were appreciated by the community. These consumer-brand interactions, functional and otherwise, fostered emotional bonding between the members and brands because the brand has become individual and approachable, and the boundaries between consumer and brand interactions have somewhat blurred. This study demonstrated that the on-going dialogue with and between consumers encouraged deep consumer-brand relationships (Fournier 1998) through a collective power (O'Guinn and Muiz 2009).

6

References

Algesheimer, Ren, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Hermann (2005), "The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs," Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 19-34.

Belk, Russell W. and Gulnur Tumbat (2005), "The Cult of Macintosh," Consumption, Markets and Culture, 8 (3), 205-217.

Bhat, Subodh and Srinivas K. Reddy (1998), "Symbolic and Functional Positioning of Brands," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15 (1), 32-41.

Cova, Bernard and Stefano Pace (2006), "Brand Community of Convenience Products: New Forms of Customer Empowerment - The Case "my Nutella The Community"," European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 1087-1105.

Dey, Ian (2004), "Grounded Theory," in Qualitative Research Practice, eds. Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium and David Silverman: London, 80-94.

Fournier, Susan (1998), "Consumer and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343-373.

Jupp, Victor (2006), The Sage Dictionary of Social and Cultural Research Methods, London: Sage.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), "The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities," Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIX (February), 61-72.

_____ (2006), "Click to Connect: Netnography and Tribal Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (September), 279-288.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), "Building Brand Community," Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 38-54.

Muiz, Albert M. Jr. and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), "Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 737-747.

_____ (2007), "Vigilante Marketing and Consumer-Created Communication," Journal of Advertising, 36 (3), 35-50.

O'Guinn, Thomas C. and Albert M. Jr. Muiz (2009), "Collective Brand Relationships," in Handbook of Brand Relationships, eds. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan Park and Joseph R. Priester, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 173-194.

Ratchford, Brian T. (1987), "New Insights About the FCB Grid," Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (August/September), 24-38.

Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Jr. Muiz, and Eric J. Arnould (2009), "How Brand Community Practices Create Value," Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 30-51.

7

Shao, Guosong (2009), "Understanding the Appeal of User-Generated Media: A Uses and Gratification Perspective," Internet Research, 19 (1), 7-25.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17.

Vaughn, Richard (1980), "How Advertising Works: A Planning Model," Journal of Advertising Research, 20 (October), 27-33.

_____ (1986), "How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited," Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (February/March), 57-66.

Wathieu, Luc, Lyle Brenner, Ziv Carmon, Amitava Chattopadhyay, Klaus Wertenbroch, Aimee Drolet, John Gourville, A. V. Muthukrishnan, Nathan Novemsky, Rebecca K. Ratner, and George Wu (2002), "Consumer Control and Empowerment: A Primer," Marketing Letters, 13 (3), 297-305.

8

Table 1 Dell Starbucks Toyota

Branded social network1 Dell community (includes forums): http://en.community.Dell.com Dell Tech Center (includes forums and wikis): http://Delltechcenter.com

None None

External social network2 Facebook pages: Dell: http://www.facebook.com/Dell Dell home UK: http://www.facebook.com/DellHomeUK Dell Spot: http://www.facebook.com/DellCanada Dell Lounge: http://www.facebook.com/DellUniversity

Facebook pages: Starbucks: http://www.facebook.com/Starbucks Starbucks UK: http://www.facebook.com/StarbucksUK Starbucks Canada: http://www.facebook.com/Starbuckscanada Starbucks Frappuccino: http://www.facebook.com/frappuccino

Facebook pages: Toyota USA: http://www.facebook.com/Toyota Toyota Prius: http://www.facebook.com/prius

Innovation hub3 Dell Ideastorm: http://www.ideastorm.com My Starbucks Idea:

http://myStarbucksidea.force.com/ None

Content aggregation sites4 Flickr: http://flickr.com/photos/Dellphotos YouTube (Dell Vlog): http://www.youtube.com/user/DellVlog

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/Starbuckscoffeecompany/ YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Starbucks

YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/ToyotaUSA

Blog5 Direct2Dell blog: http://en.community.Dell.com

Ideas in action: http://blogs.Starbucks.com/blogs/Customer/default.aspx

Toyota Today/Tomorrow: http://blog.Toyota.co.uk/

Micro-blog6 Twitter pages: @DellOutletUK; @DellHomeUK; @DellUK

Twitter pages: @Starbucks; @StarbucksTweets; @Frappuccino

Twitter pages: @ToyotaUSA; @theToyotaprius

1. Branded social networks: These websites are created by the brand as customised platforms for interacting with consumers. They often include a fusion of applications, such as discussion forums or wikis.

2. External social networks: Whilst some brands prefer to create their own community websites (i.e. the branded social network), others only have a presence on external social networks such as Facebook and MySpace, which are currently acknowledged as the most popular social networking sites online. They refer to the brand pages created by the brands on these social networks.

3. Innovation hubs: They are a unique platform provided by the brands for users to post their ideas to the company. These ideas are then scrutinised, voted on, rated, and commented on by other users of the community, which creates a process of collective innovation.

4. Content aggregation sites: They refer to the websites where users share media content with other users. Type of media content includes texts (e.g. BookCrossing), photos (e.g. Flickr), videos (e.g. YouTube), and PowerPoint presentations (e.g. Slideshare). The websites we sampled feature brand-sponsored channels, through which the brand distributes media content and allows users to engage with and comment.

5. Blogs: Blogs refer to electronic diary entries, which blog owners are able to interact with viewers by adding comments. The blogs we selected are the corporate blogs.

6. Micro-blogging: A micro-blogging website (such as Twitter) allows for the creation of a small personal profile and miniature blog entries. Brand-owned Twitter pages are selected for our data collection.

Figure 1

Knowledge-based activities

Empowerment activities

Existing membership in the community

Interpersonal activities

Interpersonal activities

New membership in the community

Communing Performing

Information seeking

Mentoring and advising

Appraising Criticizing Innovating Advocating

9