Marketing Intelligence & PlanningBrandscapes: contrasting corporate-generated versus consumer-generated mediain the creation of brand meaningWei Shao Richard Gyrd Jones Debra Grace

Article information:To cite this document:Wei Shao Richard Gyrd Jones Debra Grace , (2015),"Brandscapes: contrasting corporate-generatedversus consumer-generated media in the creation of brand meaning", Marketing Intelligence &Planning, Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp. 414 - 443Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-2013-0178

Downloaded on: 01 November 2016, At: 15:48 (PT)References: this document contains references to 96 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1246 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2015),"Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a social media perspective",Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 28-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635(2014),"Brand strategies in social media", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp.328-344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0056

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:349235 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Brandscapes: contrastingcorporate-generated versus

consumer-generated media in thecreation of brand meaning

Wei ShaoDepartment of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

Richard Gyrd JonesDepartment of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School,

Frederiksberg, Denmark andDepartment of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, and

Debra GraceDepartment of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to add to the growing literature addressing whether, and towhat extent, brand meaning is determined by corporate and consumer-generated processes. To do this,the authors compared the expression of brand meaning across three key sources i.e. first, brandstrategy (i.e. traditional marketing mix); second, corporate-generated media (i.e. web site); and third,consumer-generated media (Facebook).Design/methodology/approach – To address the research question of this study, the authorsconducted an in-depth investigation into consumer co-creation experiences in the context ofFacebook brand communities. The authors then interpreted the findings in relation to the brandstrategy (i.e. marketing mix) and brand meaning expressed via corporate-generated online media(i.e. corporate web site). The authors achieved this by applying a narrative discourse analysisto textual data. To effectively handle the high quantity of textual data spawned via consumer-generatedmedia (i.e. Facebook), the authors used a computer-assisted content analysis application (i.e. Leximancer).Findings – In the analyses the authors found that brand expressions varied considerably acrossthe chosen retail brands, but in all cases strong integration and alignment were present between thecorporate and consumer-generated media. Specifically, the authors found that Facebook interactionsechoed the brand meanings espoused on the corporate web sites. The findings indicate thatonline marketers can define the nature of brand co-creation, especially in the context of Facebookinteractions.Practical implications – For marketers who are eager to take advantage of Web 2.0 to build theirbrand, the findings of this research are highly significant. The authors showed that the brandsdeveloped their own interaction profiles, which allowed them to align the Facebook content with theircore brand values. The results indicate that sound brand governance is articulated through theeffective management of social media touchpoints by providing interactive, content rich, and relevantFacebook sites that echo core brand values.Originality/value – Even though businesses have now started to penetrate the online socialnetworks and offer direct links from corporate web sites to social networking sites like Facebook andTwitter, little is known regarding the relationship between social media and traditional media in brandbuilding. This research addresses this gap by undertaking an exploratory study of Facebook brandcommunities with implications for brand co-creation and brand governance.Keywords Social media, Facebook, Brand meaning, Brand co-creation, Brand governance,BrandscapesPaper type Research paper

Marketing Intelligence & PlanningVol. 33 No. 3, 2015pp. 414-443©EmeraldGroup Publishing Limited0263-4503DOI 10.1108/MIP-11-2013-0178

Received 4 November 2013Revised 24 February 201427 May 2014Accepted 18 July 2014

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

414

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

IntroductionIt is estimated that in 2013, 1.73 billion people will access social networking sites (SNS)and this will increase to 2.55 billion people by 2017 (Emarketer, 2013). One of the mostpopular SNS is Facebook with 699 million daily active users, an increase of 27 per centyear over year (Facebook, 2013).

Social media sites such as Facebook offer brand managers great opportunity forbrand advocacy (Wallace et al., 2012). As such, brand managers are embracingFacebook as a marketing tool to engage and mobilize consumers around their brands(Constantinides and Fountain, 2008, Mangold and Faulds, 2009). However, despite thegrowth of social media, the effective management of multiple and dissonant brandmeanings, that often emerge through this predominantly consumer-generated media(Berthon et al., 2009), remains largely unidentified.

Researchers argue that involving customers in brand building is an important sourceof brand equity (Keller, 2008; Parent et al., 2011). As more branding activity moves tosocial media, more consumers participate in online dialogue and interact with each otherin the process of co-creating products, services and experiences (Nambisan and Baron,2009; Payne et al., 2009; Rowley et al., 2007). Previous research indicates that consumersdemonstrate value-creating behaviors above and beyond that which the firm creates oranticipates ( Johnson and Rapp, 2010; Schau et al., 2009). Thus, it is argued that consumerco-creation is increasingly based on inputs provided by other consumers and partiesbeyond the control of online marketers (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008). In the case ofbranding, social media has sparked an increasing focus on brand co-creation (Vargo et al.,2008; Hatch and Schultz, 2010), virtual brand communities (Casaló et al., 2008; Barwise andMeehan, 2010) and the nature of the relationships and experiences that occur within onlinebrand communities (Quinton and Harridge-March, 2010). However, surprisingly, researchhas failed to explore the dynamics between brand strategy, corporate-generated onlinecommunications and consumer-generated online communications in defining brands(i.e. brand meaning). Herein resides the research gap upon which this study is framed, theresults of which provide significant food for thought in relation to contemporary brandingtheory and brand management practice.

Literature reviewThe service dominant logic posits that consumers are resource integrators (Vargo andLusch, 2004) and that “firm activity is best understood in terms of input for thecustomer’s resource-integrating, value-creation activities rather than it is in terms of itsown integration of customer resources for the ‘production’ of valuable output” (Vargoet al., 2008, p. 214). Edvardsson et al. (2011) emphasize the mutual interrelationshipbetween the firm (the brand) and the consumer. Whilst their argument supports thenotion that brand messages are often (usually) reinterpreted by consumers and otherstakeholders, they emphasize that meaning is constructed in the same social space.They go further to argue, from a service dominant logic perspective, that each actorbrings with them a separate set of resources and resource configurations that becomeavailable for all actors in the exchange. This ideology highlights the influence of allstakeholders in the exchange process and raises significance brand governance issues.

Brand governance issuesResearchers defined stakeholder participation in brand co-creation as an issue of brandgovernance and control (Ind and Bjerke, 2007). Fournier and Avery (2011) argue that

415

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

the emergence of Web 2.0 must lead us to question the current brand managementparadigm that assumes brand managers control the brands: “We’ve moved from aworld where the brand set the agenda, to a world where consumers decide if – andwhen – brands are invited in” (p. 14). This perception of loss of control is oftenthe hardest adjustment for marketers to make as brand governance shifts from thecompany to the dynamic outcomes of brand co-creation (Barwise and Meehan, 2010;Hatch and Schultz, 2010). Thus we see a shift in the role of the brand as provider ofconcrete brand messages that are directly consumed by consumers, to a model wherebrands must provide the consumer with operant resources from which they can pulland create their own value (Fournier and Avery, 2011). Therefore, a number of scholarsargue that the brand’s role is radically challenged in light of co-creational effects(Klaus and Maklan, 2007; Merz et al., 2009; Grönroos, 2011).

Researchers argue that the concept of co-creation is the participation of consumersin the creation of value for companies (Zwass, 2010; Skaržauskaitė, 2013). According tothis definition, co-creation can be initiated by companies or by consumers themselves.In fact, different platforms and social technologies have the potential to be effectivetools for companies to co-create with their consumers, leading to better products(Sawhney et al., 2005), better user experiences (Kietzmann et al., 2011), and moreengaged consumer bases (Casaló et al., 2008).

For brand managers, the development of social media requires a new strategicmindset that allows them to adapt to the co-creation paradigm (Vargo et al., 2008;Edvardsson et al., 2011). Fournier (1998) demonstrates that consumers’ attachment totheir brand can be of a highly intimate nature. The strength of these ties has led somescholars to describe the consumer as “an active partner with the marketer in brandmeaning formation” (Coupland, 2005, p. 106). Increasingly, brands, as holders of complexcultural meaning (Eckhardt and Houston, 2002; Holt, 2004), are not regarded as theproduct of the brand manager but as a result of the interaction between the brand and itsconsumers (Boyle, 2007). In other words, brands are realized as being increasinglyco-created with consumers (Merz et al., 2009). In the context of early attempts by brands tomanifest themselves on social media, Fournier and Avery (2011, p. 194) observed that“brand marketers no longer controlled the reach of their messages, consumers did”.The proactive role that consumers play in the co-creation of value is enabled via brandcommunities (Schau et al., 2009; Füller et al., 2009).

Brand communitiesA brand community, or brand tribe, is “any group of people that possess a commoninterest in a specific brand and create a parallel social universe (subculture) rife with itsown myths, values, rituals, vocabulary and hierarchy” (Cova and Pace, 2006, p. 1089).Brand communities enable consumers to exert greater influence on products andbrands they consider for purchase (Kozinets, 1999). Specifically, the development of brandcommunity in social media (i.e. online) has significantly increased consumers’ ability toengage in consumer-to-consumer interactions that transcends geographical limitations.Thus, online interactions have strong community-based emotional and social elements(Riegner, 2007) that parallel those of offline brand communities (’Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).

Brand communities facilitate the co-creation of value by means of increasing socialnetworking among brand community members, creating favorable impressions of thebrand in the social universe, engaging and reinforcing members of the brandcommunity, and improving or enhancing the use of the brand (Schau et al., 2009).As a result, social networking within brand communities leads to positive consequences

416

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

such as brand community participation, brand-related purchase, communityrecommendation by word-of-mouth, brand loyalty, consumer intentions and behavior(Algesheimer et al., 2005; McAlexander et al., 2003). However, the most frequentlydocumented effect of brand community on consumer behavior is consumer empowerment,articulated by the active and influential participation in the construction of brandexperiences, traditionally pre-determined by marketers (Cova and Pace, 2006; Firat andShultz II, 1997; Kozinets, 2002). As such, brand communities represent empoweringdomains which enable consumers to actively engage in brand problem solving andinnovation (Füller et al., 2008). On the other hand, brand communities also provideopportunities for marketers, who effectively “govern” social media domains such asYouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, to enhance profitability (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).

Brand co-creationAt the heart of brand co-creation is the idea that organizations share control over theirbrands with stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz, 2010). Fisher and Smith (2011) argue thatco-creation is chaotic and there is no guarantee that a predictable and satisfactoryoutcome, for the company, will result. Now, more than ever, consumers are empoweredto exert significant control over key brand expressions (Brodie and de Chernatony,2009; Fisher and Smith, 2011). For example, through social media, users can put forthideas about brands that may differ greatly from what brands share with the public(Aula, 2010). As a result, there is the perception that the brand manager is no longera custodian of the brand, but rather a host of consumer-generated content for the brand(Brodie and de Chernatony, 2009). However, other researchers argue that strongerbrands can result through the effective management of a homogeneous identity in bothsocial media and traditional media (De Chernatony and Christodoulides, 2004; Kaplanand Haenlein, 2010).

The co-creation of brands can be understood from two different perspectives.The first view espouses the consumer as a dominant player in the co-creation process.It is mainly focussed on the potential for individualization of consumer experiencesin relation to the brand. For example, Fisher and Smith (2011) examined brandcommunities that have developed around the film and character Indiana Jones; theyargue that the Indiana Jones brand has become a highly flexible set of symbols andworldviews, which allow consumers to find meanings in a multitude of ways.Furthermore, in their examination of 12 brand communities, Schau et al. (2009) focussedon the internal community logics, rituals and hierarchies and found that brandcommunities developed their own value systems and practices, distinct from the brand.As a result, Kozinets et al. (2010) argue that brand communities espouse brand values“through a complex process that transforms commercial information into culturalstories relevant to the members of particular communities” (p. 86). In fact, they foundthat commercial messages are systematically altered by brand bloggers in order toconfirm to their own cultural norms.

The second perspective is focussed on the management of the co-creation processfrom the company’s vantage point. It is based on the notion that controlling or influencingthe co-creation process with consumers ensures a predictable and satisfactory outcome forthe company. As the overall business direction is pointing towards greater communityspirit, brand co-creation takes place between the brand and consumers and betweenconsumers and consumers, across multiple online and offline media, many of which arebeyond the control of the company (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008). “The brandowner, therefore, has to navigate its brand content through the consumer-generated

417

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

content to ensure that consumers’ brand stories remain as close as possible to the brandowner’s desired story” (Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012, p. 190). Christodoulides (2009, p. 143)argues “a brand is a brand regardless of context”, therefore, branding in the post-internetera represents different enactment of the brand through different technologicalfunctionalities, such as Web 1.0 andWeb 2.0 technologies. Furthermore, Schlinke andCrain (2013) argue that social media tools are better suited to filling two importantmanagement requirements: brand extension and brand reputation. Therefore, it isimportant for marketers to manage the co-creation process through the strategicintegration of social media with traditional marketing activities (Barwise andMeehan, 2010; Schlinke and Crain, 2013).

Research agendaRegardless of the theoretical standpoint upon which one understands brandco-creation, there is no doubt that consumers do influence the co-creation of brands.However, this does not necessarily imply that consumers hold the balance of power, assome perspectives would suggest. What we know is that consumers are “actors” withinthe co-creation process but we know little, if nothing, of the so-called “balance of power”in the co-creation process. To this end we pose the following research question:

To what extent does consumer-generated online media (e.g. Facebook) create brand impressionsthat differ from those espoused through the brand’s marketing mix and its corporate-generatedonline media (e.g. web site).

Even though businesses have begun to penetrate online social networks and offerdirect links from corporate web sites to SNS such as Facebook and Twitter (Kaplan andHaenlein, 2010), little is known regarding the relationship between social mediaand traditional online media in brand building. Despite brand managers’ perceived need toengage with social media, much remains unclear about the processes involved in brandco-creation in the social media sphere (Hatch and Schultz, 2010; Fisher and Smith, 2011).

Research frameworkThis research aims to come to a better theoretical and empirical understanding of brandco-creation through the comparison of brand impressions (i.e. meaning) generated bythe marketer (i.e. controlled) and that generated by the consumer (i.e. uncontrolled). In theconsumers’ eyes, these two arenas are both part of the corporate image (Kaplan andHaenlein, 2010). Figure 1 demonstrates a theoretical framework where a distinction ismade between controllable marketing factors –marketing tools under the control of onlinemarketers – and uncontrollable marketing factors (Cheung et al., 2003; Constantinides,2004; Constantinides and Fountain, 2008).

In this model we juxtapose traditional marketing stimuli with web based ones(Constantinides and Fountain, 2008) in the context of a traditional consumerdecision-making model. We also differentiate the brand and the consumer as resourceintegrators (Edvardsson et al., 2011). The purpose of the model is to illustrate therelationship between the traditional marketing communication variables of price,promotion (adverting and PR), product and place, with the web-based experiencesprovided through corporate webpages and social media. We do not consider the impactof individual elements of the uncontrolled stimuli, such as gender, age, social,professional status, and ethnicity since, as Brown et al. (2007) argue, they become“filtered out” in computer-mediated environments as these cues are lacking (Keisler andSproull, 1992). Web interactions are typified by their relatively anonymous: “Readers of

418

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Con

trol

labl

e st

imul

i:

Web

Exp

erie

nce:

Trad

ition

al M

arke

ting

Mix

Unc

ontr

olla

ble

stim

uli:

Dem

ogra

phic

, per

sona

l, cu

ltura

l,

attit

udin

al, p

erce

ptua

l, so

ciol

ogic

al,

econ

omic

, leg

al, e

nviro

nmen

tal,

etc.

Cus

tom

er

(Res

ourc

ein

tegr

ator

/ben

efic

iary

)

Info

rmat

ion

proc

essi

ngC

usto

mer

dec

isio

n

Onl

ine

cont

rolla

ble

mar

ketin

g Fa

ctor

s:W

eb s

ite n

avig

abili

ty,

inte

ract

ivity

, atm

osph

ere,

onlin

e m

arke

ting

mix

Soc

ial m

edia

Exp

erie

nce:

Onl

ine

unco

ntro

llabl

eM

arke

ting

Fact

ors:

Soc

ial n

etw

orks

(i.e

. Fac

eboo

k),

Web

blog

s, P

odca

sts,

For

ums,

etc

.

Bra

nd/F

irm

(Res

ourc

ein

tegr

ator

/ben

efic

iary

)

Sour

ces:

Ada

pted

from

Con

stan

tinid

es a

nd F

ount

ain

(200

8) a

nd E

dvar

dsso

n et

al.

(201

1)

Figure 1.Conceptualframework

419

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

online community postings are thus faced with the task of evaluating the opinions ofcomplete strangers” (Brown et al., 2007, p. 7).

While the goal of the corporate web site is mainly to communicate a clear brandidentity, the social media site mainly focusses on increasing social interactions andestablishing relationship between consumers and brands (Fournier and Avery, 2011).Social media based brand communities can be classified as either firm-sponsored oruser-generated (Porter, 2004). Previous research examined entirely user-generatedbrand communities (Fisher and Smith, 2011). This model is based on the social mediabrandsphere (De Chernatony, 2006) where both companies and consumers share brandcontrol. Thus, the model is used as a appropriate framework upon which to base thisresearch, which has its focus on the relationship between corporate-generated andconsumer-generated brand meaning.

Research designThe branding literature supports the use of a narrative or storytelling perspective toexamine brands (Brown et al., 2003; Singh and Sonnenburg, 2012; Woodside et al.,2008). The approach used herein is a narrative discourse analysis, which focusses onmeaning in situ. Brand meaning is defined as the “mental links between brand names,images and cognitions in a consumer’s memory, which cause the brand to acquiremeaning” (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001). Understanding brand meaning cannot bedivorced from the social and cultural context in which brands are consumed (Holt, 2004;O’Reilly, 2005). Evaluating brands, therefore, requires an analysis of the context ordiscourse within which they are produced and consumed. Narrative discourse analysisprovides the opportunity to explore brand meaning in relation to corporate texts, suchas corporate web sites, and consumer texts, such as Facebook postings. Narrativeapproaches have been applied to brands to explain why some brands have compelling“stories” while others fail to break through the clutter (Woodside et al., 2008).

In line with our research framework (refer Figure 1), we focus our analysis on threespecific domains traditional marketing mix, corporate-generated online media andsocial media experience (i.e. consumer-generated online media).

Traditional marketing mixMarketing strategy (i.e. marketing mix) can be considered an internally developednarrative that attempts to justify organizational existence, convince others to invest inthe company and to build the tangible and intangible value of the company (O’Connor,2002). The marketing narrative specifically aims to position the company or brand ina positive and unique light in relation to customers and the market. To explore suchmarketing narratives, we analyzed each brand from available strategic documents andreported practices. Therefore, sources of data were company reports, magazine articles,journal articles and web sites. Reference to specific soruces can be found in Table II inthe ensuing results section.

Corporate web sitesWell-designed corporate web sites use narratives as planned articulations of core brandvalues through both functional attributes (i.e. layout, links, navigation, level andquality of information) and emotional and hedonic elements (i.e. Color schemes,imagery, typeface, message appeal) of the web site (Weisnewski, 2008). Researchersargue that the meaning of a brand is a cluster of functional, emotional and hedonic

420

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

values (De Chernatony, 2001, 2006). Functional value propositions capture theperformance benefits of the brand (Keller, 2008). Emotional value propositions refer tothe emotional responses the brand promises its customers in terms of feelings andimagery (De Chernatony, 2001). Hedonic value propositions are the specific functionaland emotional value propositions related to the individual person’s well-being andpersonal pleasure (De Chernatony, 2006). Thus, in this research we elicited brandmeaning by assessing the web sites’ narratives expressed through functionality,imagery and message elements.

Social media (i.e. Facebook)We explored consumer co-creation experiences in Facebook brand communities ina naturalistic context. Here we were inspired by the netnographic approach to studyingonline communities (Kozinets, 2002) and grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 2008).Netnography is both a method of study and analysis based on the principles ofethnographic research. Netnography “is built for social media, and it helps researchersfollow consumers into online social worlds without compromising their privacy”(Kozinets, 2010). Used to assist marketers to channel the genuine voice of the consumer,netnography offers advantages in understanding the world of social media articulatedin an authentic, emotionally charged and largely raw manner. Thus, its strength inrelation to this research is that it is “grounded in knowledge of the local, theparticularistic, and the specific” (Kozinets, 2002, p. 62). Netnography is particularlyappropriate for our research (i.e. exploring consumer-generated brand impressions) asit has, previously, been effectively used in the examination of brand meaning.For example, a number of authentic meanings were revealed when the Listerine brandwas the subject of netnographic research. Results indicated that “some consumersassociated the color of the mouthwash with alien beings; some found its smell reminiscentof a grandparent.” (Kozinets, 2010).

In terms of analysis, we used a new text analysis tool called Leximancer, which hasbeen used successfully by researchers across a range of disciplines in the socialsciences, including marketing and advertising in social media (Campbell et al., 2011;Dann, 2010; Hansson et al., 2010). Leximancer is “a relatively simple but powerfuldevice for visualizing and interpreting complex textual communication” (Campbellet al., 2011, p. 91). We examined the most recent Facebook activities lasting for onemonth, from 19 September, 2012 to 19 October, 2012. For each brand, we converted alltextual information on the Facebook wall in this period into PDF documents.This produced more than 100 pages of textual information for each of the brands; thisprovided the first initial set of codings of the data which were then analyzed andverified manually by each author spearately. The emerging themes were thencross-checked between the authors. It was important that the symbolic richness of thedata were not compromised by overreliance on the software package chosen in order toensure the trustworthiness of the interpretations (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). We followedthe interactive postings on the Facebook sites of three major online retail brands.We chose these official Facebook sites because most of the concentrated virtualinteractions related to the brand take place there. For each site, the Facebook wall wasthe major point of virtual interactions and thus served as the object of our study[1].

Research context. Three retail brands were chosen for this exploratory study: JonesSoda (carbonated beverage), Burt’s Bees (personal care products) and Bonobos (men’sclothing). The sample represents traditional retail marketplace offerings. As this paperwill detail, the product is not an end itself, but the means to a meaningful connection

421

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

and sharing of ideas and experiences with others within the Facebook brandcommunity (Fisher and Smith, 2011). The data also represent gender diversity(Schau et al., 2009). Bonobos is primarily male; Burt’s Bees is primarily female; andJones Soda is gender balanced. Table I provides a brief overview of the three retailbrands. There are three common elements in the selection of the sample. First, theyserve as good examples of entrepreneurial brands for creating a distinct brand image.Second, they enjoy relative popularity on Facebook. We assumed that a large numberof Facebook fans (people who “like” the brand’s Facebook page) represented a largecommunity of brand followers. Third, multiple interactions take place on the brands’Facebook wall, and dialogues appear on a daily basis (Campbell et al., 2011).

ResultsThe results in relation to the three brands, used as the brand stimuli for this study,(i.e. Jones Soda, Burt’s Bees and Bonobos) are presented in the ensuing sections. Eachanalyses present the findings in relation to the brands marketing mix; the functional,hedonic and emotional elements of the brand’s web site; and the emergent themesextracted from consumer discourse on the brand’s Facebook site. For each brand, thenarratives are summarized in a table of results (refer Table II).

In addressing the research question of this study, this table provides the foundationfor the comparative analysis of corporate-generated and consumer-generated brandmedia for each of the brands. Finally, for each brand, the comparative findings arediscussed and graphically depicted in a model of results.

Results: Jones SodaTraditional marketing mix. The central focus of this brand, through all its marketingelements, is the notion of being “alternate”. Marketed at a premium price, the productfocus is on unique flavors and labels and close contact with consumers in thedevelopment of such. Distribution is “alternative” in that it is sold “where nationalmainstream brands are not sold” ( Jones & Co, 2012) in surf, skate and snowboardingshops, fashion retailers, tattoo parlors, etc. In addition, there are direct-to-retailagreements with major retailers, such as Starbucks, Banes & Noble, Panera Bread,Target and Walmart. Promotion is highly reliant on word-of-mouth communications

Retailbrand Product Distribution Slogan Brief history

Sales(US$)

JonesSoda

Sodabeverage

Cannotpurchaseonline

Run with thelittle guy

A carbonated beveragecompany founded in 1996.

26 million in2009

Burt’sBees

Naturalpersonal careproducts

Both onlineand offlinepurchase

We makepeople’s lifebetter everyday – naturally.

A manufacturer of naturalpersonal care productsestablished in 1984

$250 million

Bonobos Men’sclothing

Onlinepurchase only

Better-fittingmen’s clothes

Online manufacturer andretail of men’s clothesestablished in 2007.

8 million in2010*

Sources: www.jonessoda.com; www.burtsbees.com.au/; www.bonobos.com; *CNN Money (2010);http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/08/taking-on-the-big-boys/ (accessed November 23, 2012)

Table I.Backgroundinformation for thethree retail brands

422

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Company Traditional Marketing Mix Brand web siteFacebook site(Leximancer map)

Jones Soda Product: focussed onalternative products (otherbrands) in the beverageindustry. Began ownproduction in 1995. Focus onunique flavors and labels.Ideas for flavors came fromconsumers on when theylaunched their Webpage in1997 (Underwood, 2005)

The functional value of thebrand is tied to the sodaflavors. The brand offersrefreshing flavors, such asGreen Apple and CrushedLemon, and untraditionalflavors, such as Turkey andGravy, Dirt and Perspiration

Four themes reflected thefunctional positioning of thebrand“soda” – a discussion thelove and the addiction toflavored soda“flavor” – focussed on thesoda flavors“guys” – informaldiscussions between theconsumer and the serviceprovider regarding thebrand/product“stores” – a discussionabout consumers trying tofind Jones Soda in stores

Place: alternativedistribution in surf, skateand snowboarding shops,fashion retailers, tattooparlors etc. (BusinessWeek,2005). Also, direct-to-retailagreements with majorretailers: Starbucks, Barnes& Noble, Target & Walmart(Wong, 2014)

The hedonic value pertains tothe use of consumer-createdphotos on every Jones Sodabottle or can – that is,individualization andcustomization of the labels.Consumers can design theirown label by submittingtheir photos to the onlinePhoto Gallery

Three themes were alignedwith the hedonic value of thebrand regarding the co-creation of soda bottles andcans“Jones Soda” – adiscussion about the JonesSoda bottles and labels“Photo” – submission ofphotos to the PhotoGallery“Cans” – Jones Soda cans

Price: Premium pricingstrategy (Wong, 2014)

The emotional value iscreated by the brandpersonality

Concepts such as “love”,“favorite”, “awesome”, and“bottles” reflected theemotional value of the brandin the Facebook postings“Love” – “Thank you somuch jones for pickingour picture to grace thefront of one of yourbottles. We love give backto our community and welove Jones Soda”“Favorite” – “Green Applesoda is my favorite flavor”“Awesome” – Dear JonesSoda, you have awesomesoda”“Bottles” – “I have tied somany memories to bottlesof Jones Soda”

Promotion: Slogan: “Runwith the little guy […] createsome change” (Jones & Co.,2014). Undertakes noadvertising (BusinessWeek,2005). Promotion is at P-O-S,events (Schau et al., 2009)and sponsorship of“alternative sports athletes”(Joseph, 2004). Highlyreliant on WOM promotedthrough these and theirwebpage and guerillamarketing (Seattle Business,2011)

The brand is genuinebecause it continues to useclear glass bottles andgives consumers thefreedom to label the bottleswith their own picturesThe brand is spirited inthat the retailer web site islively with images ofdifferent colored andflavored sodas. A bar onthe top portion of the website showcases thewinning photos

The brand is outdoorsy.In 2007, Jones Soda beat outmainstream soda providersto become the exclusive sodaprovider for the SeattleSeahawks at Quest Field.Jones Soda also sponsorssnowboarding, boxing andsurfing athletes

Strategic Positioning: Focuson counter-culture image:“We have built our brand toa large extent on ourindependent counter-cultureimage as well as byproviding unique andexciting flavors that appealto consumers who preferalternatives to the corporateCSD brands. This market is

(continued )

Table II.Relationship between

brand narrativesexpressed through

each brand’straditional marketingmix, their brand web

site and consumerpostings on their

corporateFacebook site

423

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Company Traditional Marketing Mix Brand web siteFacebook site(Leximancer map)

driven by trendy, youngconsumers looking for adistinctive tonality in theirbeverage choices” (Jones &Co, 2012).Thrust: defined as an“attack” on the marketplacethrough alternativedistribution strategy andclose contact withconsumers: “Jones Soda hasalways been about the peopleand interacting with theconsumer” (Jones & Co,2014). “People get fired upabout Jones because it’stheirs” (Underwood, 2005)

Burt’ Bees Product: Strong focus onnatural basis for the product:“Our ingredients – rightdown to the packaging – aresimple, natural, andresponsible. We practicewhat we preach—and wehope to set the example forothers to follow.” (Burt’sBees, 2014)

The brand’s functional valuecomes from the company’sproduction of earth friendly,natural personal careproducts to help consumersmaximize their well-being.The retailer’s web site has astrong product focus inwhich products arecategorized by demographics(“For Mum”, “Bath Time forBaby Bees”, “Men”),functions (“Lips”, “Face”,“Body”, “Hands & Feet”,“Hair”) and benefits (“BoostYour Glow”, “Smooth andFirm”)

Four themes conveyed astrong focus on productusage experience“Skin” – consumers notedthat their skin felt soft,clean and fresh after theyused the product“Products” – focussed onhow consumers lovednatural products“Samples” – a discussionabout the involvement inthe BzzAgent campaignand trying out newproducts“use” – focussed ondifferent types of users(loyal vs first-time users)and different usageexperiences (positive vsnegative)

Products reflect core brandvalues expressed in: “Natureknows best” and no animaltesting (Burt’s Bees, 2014).Focus on product lifecycle inrelation to sustainability

Burt’s Bees products arehigh in hedonic valuebecause they are experientialproducts for which theconsumption experience isthe end in itself (Cooper-Martin, 1991)

The four themes “skin”,“products”, “samples”, and“use” reinforced theexperiential value of thebrand

Place: Specialty stores, healthstores, drug stores. Websales with large number ofreviews (typically 500+ foreach product)

The emotional value of thebrand is attached to thebrand personalitiesperceived as honest, genuine,responsible and dependable

The brand personalitywas reflected in theFacebook postings aroundconcepts such as “soft”,“love”, “natural”, and“excited”

(continued )Table II.

424

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Company Traditional Marketing Mix Brand web siteFacebook site(Leximancer map)

“Soft” – “I love that it is allnatural and that mysensitive skin feels so soft”“Love” – “I just love yourproducts”“Natural” – “All naturalmeans no rash or itchingand that makes it worth itsweight in gold”“Excited” – “So excited toand thrilled to try out thisproduct thru BzzAgent”

Price: Premium pricing.(Bertini and Wathieu, 2010)

These personalities areclearly reflected in thebrand’s mission and visionstatements (www.burtsbees.com): “To makecertain that all ourproducts meet the higheststandards, […] ourproducts are carefullycrafted using ingredientsthat are the best naturehas to offer, […] these safe,effective ingredients havewithstood the test of time”

Promotion: Slogan: “To makepeople’s lives better everyday – naturally”. Strongemphasis on WOM butsupported throughtraditional print advertising,outdoor, innovative use ofviral marketing (Tooley,2014). Involvement ofcustomers in campaigns

The web site appears warmand inviting with a softyellow background. Thevisual appeal of the web sitereflects the core brand valueof caring for the well-being ofpeople and that of society

Strategic Positioning:Strongly positioned assustainably producedproducts based on theirbusiness model called TheGreater Good: “Mostcompanies look out for thebottom line. We do, too. Infact, we have a triple bottomline: people, profit, planet”(Burt’s Bees, 2014)Strategic Thrust: Companymantra: “We care.” (Molitor,2009). Core values are “noanimal testing, sustainabilityand a love of nature”

Bonobos Product: Male fashion retail.Strong focus on product andservice: “You’ve got to focuson the product, not themarketing.” (Kinsey, 2009)

The brand has a functionalpositioning as a smarter fit.The web site has a simplestructure with large picturesof the products (pants)

Two themes were related tothe function of the corporateweb site“Order” – Facebookpostings related to thedifficulties consumers hadwith placing orders usinga promotion code“Carts” – focussed ononline stock-outexperiences

Place: Sales are almostentirely online. They have8 “guideshops”: “Guideshopsare the Bonobos answer tobrick-and-mortar retail.We offer a one-on-oneexperience with a Guidewho will go through theproduct line with you.We’ll find your sizes, youpick the colors, andwe place your order, noshopping bags necessary.”(Bonobos, 2014). Also atselected Nordstromdepartment stores

The hedonic value isassociated with the pleasureof wearing a pair of better-fitting pants

One theme reflected thefunctional positioning of thebrand“Pants” – a discussionabout the brand promise: apair of better-fitting pants

(continued ) Table II.

425

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

through webpage and guerilla marketing as no advertising is undertaken. Promotionalactivities include P-O-S, events and sponsorship of “alternative sports athletes”.In summary, the brand’s strategic positioning is summarized in the following statement.“We have built our brand to a large extent on our independent counter-culture image aswell as by providing unique and exciting flavors that appeal to consumers who preferalternatives to the corporate CSD brands. This market is driven by trendy, youngconsumers looking for a distinctive tonality in their beverage choices” (Jones & Co, 2012).

Brand web site. The brand web site espouses the following functional, hedonic andemotional values. The espoused functional value of the brand resides in the soda

Company Traditional Marketing Mix Brand web siteFacebook site(Leximancer map)

Price: Competitive pricing The emotional value iscreated by the brandpersonalities perceived asgenuine, rugged, dependableand reliable

Concepts such as “fit”, “pair”,and “pants” reflected thehedonic value of the brand“Fit” – “The fit is like I havean in-house tailor makingpants for me”“Pair” and “pants” – “I maynever buy a pair of pantsfrom anybody but Bonobosagain!”

Promotion: Exclusivelyonline banner and Facebookadverting. Emphases fit asthe key POD

These brand personalitiesare inferred becauseBonobos is solely an onlinecompany and the web sitemainly uses gray and darkblue colors and the modelsin the pictures aremasculine and wear smartbut conservative outfits

Three themes were alignedwith the brand personality asbeing reliable anddependable“Bonobos” – focused onconsumer trust in theability of the ninjas(customer servicepersonnel) to solve theproblem“Guys” – informaldiscussions between theconsumer and the serviceprovider regarding theservice“Best” – a discussion thatBonobos provides the bestcustomer service

Strategic Positioning: “Styleshouldn’t be complicated.Looking your best doesn’tneed to be hard. It’s reallyabout being yourself andfinding what fits. We createdBonobos to help with both,offering well-crafted, great-fitting clothing and a top-notch shopping experiencethat’s simple and painless”(Bonobos, 2014)

The web site is functionalwith few frills

Strategic Thrust: “Ourmission became aboutdelivering two things thatmen want that no othercompany is providing:excellence in fit andexcellence in service.”(Kinsey, 2009). Bonobos is “ahighly data driven and verycustomer-centricorganization […]Since our inception in 2007,we’ve relied heavily oncustomer feedback and haveconsistently leveraged it tomake core marketingdecisions. Responses makecustomers ‘come alive’ forour marketing team, whichhelps us in terms of hyper-targeting for actionable adspends” (Retailtouchpoints,2012)Table II.

426

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

flavors such as Green Apple and Crushed Lemon, and untraditional flavors, such asTurkey and Gravy, Dirt and Perspiration. Consumers derive hedonic value from thebrand’s web site through their involvement in the individualization and customizationof the brand’s labels created from consumer-provided photos. The web site promotesemotional bonding between consumer and brand through the genuine, spirited andoutdoorsy espoused characteristics of the brand.

Facebook site. Figure 2 shows the Leximancer map for Jones Soda. Four main themesemerged from the Facebook interactions – namely, “soda”, “Jones Soda”, “flavor”, and“stores” – followed by a few less prominent themes (e.g. “photo”, “cans”, “guys”).The interpretation of the themes (circles) was based on a detailed analysis of theconcepts (dots) that were strongly and semantically linked to one another.

Reflecting the functional positioning of the brand in their traditional marketing mix,Facebook postings for Jones Soda were strongly focussed on the discussion of flavors.In the Leximancer map, the themes of “soda” and “flavor” reflected a discussion amongconsumers about their favorite flavors and their addiction to flavored soda. The two

Figure 2.Leximancer map for

Jones Soda

427

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

themes intersect on the concepts of “love” and “favorite”. Analysis revealed that manyFacebook postings around these themes were typical expressions of customer delightover their favorite flavors.

Jones Soda relies on physical distribution, making their products available in bothunique venues (e.g. snowboarding shops) and larger chain stores (e.g. Target).Although the product is highly offline, members of the brand community are sharingtheir purchase experience online. In the Leximancer map, the themes of “stores” and“guys” represented a dialogue where consumers were concerned about the retiring ofsoda flavors and the lack of product distribution. For example, one consumer asked,“Why are you guys retiring so many flavors?”Another consumer complained, “As soonas I fell in love with the cream soda, they stopped selling it in all together […] how canI get it back around here???” The use of the term “guys” strongly reflected the brandmeanings of informality on the retail webpage. A typical posting was: “What happenedto you guys? I’ve looked in over 30 different stores and traveled to 2 different states totry to find some jones soda […] every walmart […] winn dixie […] walgreens […] cvs[…] ingles […] publix […] chevron […] shell […] racetrac […] 7 eleven […] texaco […]and other random stores don’t have them […] it’s depressing really: I need some jonesyou guys!!!”

Since the beginning, the Jones Soda brand has had a strong focus on the co-creationof brand meaning. The photo gallery on the company’s web site allows for communitymembers to submit their own label photos, which increases the connectivity betweenthe brand and the brand community. In the Leximancer map, the themes of “JonesSoda” and “photo” and the key concepts of “bottles” and “picture” within the themesrepresent the intensive discussions online about the Jones Soda bottles and labels.A typical posting was “Thank you so much jones for picking our picture to grace thefront of one of your bottles. We love give back to our community and we love JonesSoda.” Many discussions focussed around these themes were laden with emotions,for example, “Is it legal to marry a soda bottle?” and “I’ve tied so many memories tobottles of Jones Soda.” At the time of the study, the company re-introduced cans ofsoda; thus, the theme of “cans” reflected a discussion of the soda can, “which featuresYOUR photos!”

Jones Soda research findings. For the sake of clarity, and to enable the comparison ofcorporate-generated and consumer-generated brand messages, the findings of thisresearch are modeled in Figure 3. Clearly, in Figure 3, the connection between themarketing mix variables and the expression of brand meaning through the Jones Sodaweb site is evident. For example, the flavors in the product mix, the individualism of thepremium price and non-traditional distribution channels and the brand’s positioningbased on counter-culture are all articulated in the functional, hedonic and emotionalaspects of the brand’s web site. However, the key aim of this research is to compare thecorporate espoused brand meaning with that generated from the consumer-dominantonline forum i.e. Facebook. Figure 3 demonstrates there is quite strong alignmentbetween consumer and corporate-generated brand messages. In fact, the themes ofproduct flavors, distribution, customization, individualism (or uniqueness) are allreflected in the social media forum. While the brand personality characteristics(i.e. outdoorsy, alternate, genuine) are not explicitly reflected in the consumer-generateddiscourse, they may indeed by reflected in the personality profiles of the brand’sadvocates (i.e. beyond this scope of this study). Furthermore, the emotional themes oflove, memories and brand preference may well be a consequence of personality

428

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

(or image) alignment between brand and consumer. Finally, it is interesting to note thatthe notion of distribution (i.e. non-traditional avenues of distribution) was stronglyreflected in the consumer data, albeit in a negative fashion. Consumers appeared to bedisadvantaged somewhat by distribution factors. This may well flag a brand strategy,which is not entirely working in favor of the brand.

Results: Burt’s BeesTraditional marketing mix. The product is differentiated on the basis of respect andsustainability of the environment evidenced through the manufacturing and packagingprocesses. This being the case, the physical products reflect core brand values such as“Nature knows best” and no animal testing (Burt’s Bees, 2014) with a focus on productlifecycle in relation to sustainability. Marketed at a premium price, the brand is sold viaspecialty and health related stores and via the Internet. Print and outdoor advertisingsupport the strong focus on word-of-mouth communications, with viral marketingbeing encouraged through consumer involvement in campaigns. Strongly positionedas sustainably produced products, the strategic focus is espoused though thebrand’s business model labeled The Greater Good: “Most companies look out forthe bottom line. We do, too. In fact, we have a triple bottom line: people, profit, planet”(Burt’s Bees, 2014).

Brand web site. The web site espouses the brand’s functionality stemming from thecompany’s production processes i.e. being earth friendly, using natural ingredients toproduce personal care products to help consumers maximize their well-being.The retailer’s web site has a strong product focus in which products are categorized byusers and usage situations (“For Mum”, “Bath Time for Baby Bees”, “Men”), functions(“Lips”, “Face”, “Body”, “Hands & Feet”, “Hair”) and benefits (“Boost Your Glow”,“Smooth and Firm”). Burt’s Bees products are communicated as high in hedonic valuebecause they are experiential products for which the consumption experience is the end

ProductFlavor

PricePremium

PlaceNon-Traditional

Promotion/Position

Counter-Culture

Marketing Mix

Brand Web site

FunctionalFlavor

HedonicIndividualismCustomization

EmotionalOutdoorsyAlternateGenuine

Social Media

CORPORATE-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

CONSUMER-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

FunctionalThemes:Flavors

Distribution

Hedonic Themes:Customization and

Individualism of Cans

Emotional Themes:Love

MemoriesBrand Preference

Figure 3.Model of results:

Jones Soda

429

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

in itself (Cooper-Martin, 1991). The brand is espoused as being honest, genuine,responsible and dependable and these form the basis of the emotional connection withconsumer. For example, the web site appears warm and inviting using a soft yellowbackground communicating the core brand value of caring for the well-being of peopleand that of society.

Facebook site. Figure 4 shows the Leximancer map of Facebook interactions forBurt’s Bees, including four prominent themes (i.e. “skin”, “products”, “samples”, and“use”) and a few less prominent themes (i.e. “product”, “cream”, and “lip”).

The four prominent themes of “skin”, “product”, “samples” and “use” conveyeda strong focus on product usage experience; also reflected in the traditional marketingmix’s focus on “Our ingredients”. Specifically, analysis of “skin” and “use” indicateda positive experience; consumers noted that their skin felt soft, clean and fresh after theyused the product. However, some negative comments were also present (e.g. “I startedtrying acne line last week, but now I have three large and very painful cysts”).The theme of “products” focussed on how consumers loved natural products (e.g. “I justlove your products”, “All natural means no rash or itching and that makes it worth itsweight in gold!!”); again reflected in their slogan: “Nature knows best.” It is in thiscontext that Burt’s Bees brand values are strongly reflected in the Facebookinteractions. The retailer web site states that “We make people’s lives better every day– naturally”. Facebook interactions echoed the functional brand benefits espoused onthe corporate web site. Such postings also indicate that the emotional value of thebrand remains true in the Facebook interactions.

The theme of “samples” featured a series of discussions, which had to do with theBzzAgent campaign. BzzAgent was a word-of-mouth campaign to encourage newproduct trial and consumer feedback. The social media site allowed these experiencesto be exchanged real time and with users around the globe, significantly strengtheningthe word-of-mouth communication of the brand experience. Analysis showed consumers’

Figure 4.Leximancer map forBurt’s Bees

430

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

excitement with this campaign. A typical posting was “So excited and thrilled to try outthis product thru BzzAgent.” As shown in the Leximancer map, BzzAgent promptedmany discussions, which increased the connectivity between the brand and the Facebookbrand community.

Burt’s Bees research findings. Figure 5 shows the comparative results between thecorporate-generated and consumer-generated media associated with Burt’s Bees.The marketing mix variables associated with the product (natural ingredients),price (premium) place (Web and heath outlets) and promotion/positioning (environmentcare and sustainability) are reflected by the functional (natural, healthy), hedonic(experience – usage benefits) and emotional (honest, dependable, responsible) elementsof the brand’s web site. When comparing the brand’s web site with the thematicanalyses of the social media site clear commonalities emerge. For example, consumerdiscourse reflected the natural and health properties of the product, the experience ofdifferent users and different usage situations and the evoked expressions of love,confidence and enthusiasm with the brand. Overall, the alignment was verystrong between corporate-generated and consumer-generated brand expressionsof Burt’s Bees.

Results: BonobosTraditional marketing mix. Bonobos is a competitively priced range of men’s clothingthat has a strong focus on product and service, with a strong point of differentiationbeing placed on product fit. Distribution is predominantly through “guideshops”.“Guideshops are the Bonobos answer to brick-and-mortar retail. We offer a one-on-oneexperience with a Guide who will go through the product line with you. We’ll find yoursizes, you pick the colors, and we place your order, no shopping bags necessary”(Bonobos, 2014). In addition, Bonobos clothing is also distributed through selected

ProductNatural

Ingredients PricePremium

PlaceWeb/Health Outlets

Promotion/PositionEnvironmental Care

Sustainability

Marketing Mix

Brand Web siteFunctional

NaturalHealthy

HedonicExperience

Usage Benefits

EmotionalHonest

DependableResponsible

Social Media

CORPORATE-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

CONSUMER-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

FunctionalThemes:Natural

And Healthy

Hedonic Themes:Users & Usage

Situations

Emotional Themes:Confidence

LoveEnthusiasm

Figure 5.Model of results:

Burt’s Bees

431

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Nordstrom department stores. Advertising is exclusive to online banner and Facebookadvertising. The following positioning statement summarizes the brand’s strategicfocus. “Style shouldn’t be complicated. Looking your best doesn’t need to be hard. It’sreally about being yourself and finding what fits. We created Bonobos to help withboth, offering well-crafted, great-fitting clothing and a top-notch shopping experiencethat’s simple and painless” (Bonobos, 2014).

Brand web site. The brand’s web site has a quite simple structure which espouses thefunctionality of the brand through an emphasis on garment fit and clearcommunication of garment aesthetics though large product photos. Hedonic value isespoused through the association of garment comfort through better fit. The web site isfunctional (i.e. with no frills), mainly comprised of gray and dark blue colors, anddisplays masculine models wearing smart but conservative outfits. Thus, emotionalbonding with the brand is encouraged through the brand’s inferred nature(or personality) as being genuine, rugged, dependable and reliable.

Facebook site. The Leximancer map of consumer interactions on the Bonobos Facebookpage shows three prominent themes – namely, “order”, “Bonobos”, and “cart” – followed bya few less prominent themes (e.g. “e-mail”, “guys”, “pants”, “best”; see Figure 6).

Bonobos is almost entirely an online company, with a marketing mix stronglyfocussed on one key product attribute (fit). Accordingly, we found that BonobosFacebook interactions were predominantly service oriented (online with the “Ninjas”and offline with the “Guidestores”). In the Leximancer map, the three most prominent

Figure 6.Leximancer map forBonobos

432

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

themes of “order”, “Bonobos”, and “cart” were exclusively related to online purchaseexperiences. Specifically, the theme of “order” reflected postings related to thedifficulties consumers had with placing orders using a promotion code. The large redcircle as shown in Figure 6 was symptomatic of the tremendous amount of discussionsabout the technical failure of the online retail web site during the sale promotion.

The theme of “cart” was focussed on online stock-out experiences. Analysis showedthat items in the shopping cart could soon be out of stock if the customer decided not tocheck out immediately. Some consumers even suspected that the company purposefullycreated the stock-out experience. For example, one consumer asked, “Any chance ofgetting any more Jawbone Jamboxes in stock before the sale ends? Or are theypurposefully out of stock for the sale?”

We also found that though consumers experienced difficulties with online purchase,they were not necessarily unhappy with the company. The theme of “Bonobos” waseffectively an expression of brand love and customer loyalty. In the theme of “e-mail”,consumers praised the Ninjas (customer service personnel) for working hard to fix theproblem. Examples are “I have faith the Ninjas will solve our worries”; “Know thateveryone is a little panicked about the promo code not working, but HUGE shout out tothe ninjas for their great customer service and urgency to resolve the problem”;“The Bonobos Ninjas could do anything short of murdering someone and still have myvote as the best customer service around”. The theme of “best” revealed further evidenceof consumer support and recognition that Bonobos provides the best customer service.The themes representing consumers’ confidence with the ninjas’ role to solve theirissues were clearly aligned with the brand personality and the strategic thrust of thefirm as being reliable and dependable. It is clear that the ninjas are not only a servicerole, but also an important connection between the brand and the brand community.In addition, the theme of “guys” was primarily an informal but extensive dialoguebetween the service provider and the consumers regarding online customer service.

The theme of “pants” emerging from the Facebook interactions strongly reflectedthe functional positioning of the brand. The key concepts of “fit”, “pair” and “pants”within the theme clearly underscored the brand promise of wearing a pair of better-fittingpants. Examples are “The fit is like I have an in-house tailor making pants for me” and“Safe to say it is the BEST pair of pants I have ever worn.”

Bonobos research findings. The findings associated with a comparative analysisundertaken on the corporate-generated and consumer-generated media content aregraphically depicted in Figure 7. The key corporate-driven differentiating factors inrelation to the Bonobos brand (i.e. men’s clothing line) was fit and service. This positioningis well defined in the marketing mix and espoused via the elements of the brand’s web site(refer Figure 7). In functional terms, the brand is positioned on fit; hedonically itis experienced through service and comfort in wear; and emotionally the brand ischaracterized by genuineness, ruggedness and dependability. All these elements areevident in consumer discourse (i.e. from Facebook) with the emotional consequences ofespoused brand personality (i.e. genuine, rugged and dependable) being as expectedi.e. trust, loyalty and brand preference. Interestingly, the consumer-generated discoursereflected brand perceptions not only in relation to the functionality of the product(i.e. fit) but also the functionality of the web site (i.e. order placing, stock shortages,interactions etc.). Given that the brand can only be purchased online, functionalityissues related to the only purchase mechanism available to consumers (i.e. the web site),influence consumers’ perception of the reliability and dependability of the brand.

433

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

On this basis, service-focussed brands should be approaching functionality not only fora product perspective but also a product-access perspective.

DiscussionThe literature is in strong agreement that for online marketers, a major challenge of theexpansion of social media is the loss of control over key brand expressions (Fisher andSmith, 2011; Brodie and de Chernatony, 2009; Hatch and Schultz, 2010). In ourconsideration of the issue surrounding brand governance, we focussed on the role ofthe consumer in co-creating brand meaning (i.e. within social media) as opposed to thebrand values espoused by the company’s strategy and corporate web site. Thus weposed the question: To what extent does consumer-generated online media(e.g. Facebook) create brand impressions that differ from those espoused through thebrand’s marketing mix and its corporate-generated online media (e.g. web site).

In our analysis we found that brand expressions varied considerably across thechosen retail brands, but in all cases strong integration and alignment were presentbetween the corporate web site and the Facebook site. Specifically, we found thatFacebook interactions echoed the brand values espoused on the corporate web sites.For example, Jones Soda is the web site that is most directly concerned with co-creationthrough personalized labels and voting on flavors. These elements were central themesin the interactive postings on the Facebook site, which strengthened the brand’s focuson co-creation and its values of informality and giving a voice to “the little guy.” Burt’sBees web site is structured around its product portfolio. Accordingly, Burt’s BeesFacebook interactions were heavily and distinctively focussed on discussions ofproduct experiences. With Bonobos, which only has a virtual presence as a retail salessite, analyses show that the Facebook site has become a key customer servicetouchpoint and the customer service role is played out by the ninjas. Importantly, the

ProductFit

PriceCompetitive

PlaceOnline

Promotion/Position

Fit and Service

Marketing Mix

Brand Web site

FunctionalFit

HedonicService

Comfort in Wear

EmotionalGenuineRugged

Dependable

Social Media

CORPORATE-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

CONSUMER-GENERATED BRAND MEANING

Functional Themes:Fit

WebsiteFunctionality

Hedonic Themes:Wear experience

Service

Emotional Themes:Trust

Brand PreferenceLoyalty

Figure 7.Model of results:Bonobos

434

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

concepts of “ninjas” and “guys” in the Leximancer map indicate that there are informal,but intimate relationships between the service provider and the consumers.

Overall, this research demonstrates significant consistency between corporate-generatedand consumer-generated brand messages in the online environment. As a result, weargue that our results contradict the notion that co-creation is chaotic (Fisher andSmith, 2011). Instead, this research indicates that Facebook interactions are central tothe co-creation of intended brand meaning and thus central to the development andsustainability of the brand itself. As such, Facebook interactions provide importanttouchpoints for brand managers wishing to effectively nurture their brands in theonline domain.

Nature of interactions in Facebook brand communitiesThrough a detailed analysis of Facebook postings we observed a few distinctcharacteristics that are peculiar to Facebook brand community interactions. First,Facebook interactions were informal and they were mediated through written wordsand other user-generated contents such as videos and images. Second, Facebookinteractions were always one-to-many or many-to-many and they always related to oneof several themes present on the Facebook wall. In other words, Facebook postingswere not directed at any one person, and they only formed part of often intermittent,incoherent interactions. Third, in Facebook interactions there were strong elementsof self-expression, such as expressions of members’ favorite flavor, or expressions ofdelight (i.e. “This makes my skin looks soft!”). Fourth, several themes were occurring atthe same time and the users chose which one theme to join in when choosing theirinteractions. These themes existed concurrently, where each was defined by commonframes of reference such as flavors, product usage, and service experience.

This is similar to Fisher and Smith’s (2011) findings where they describe the IndianaJones communities as a postmodern network. They found that the network interactionswere not centered on any particular member or set of consumer experts. We found thatconsumers established social links through the sharing of consumption-relatedexperiences. However, these social relationships were characterized by their arm’slength nature. We, therefore, consider that the nature of interactions in Facebook brandcommunity interactions should not be viewed as conversations, but rather as interactivepostings in that community members express their opinions in response to othermembers of the Facebook brand community. Fisher and Smith (2011) argue that socialmedia encourage communication between many more weak connections. There isincreasing evidence that the crucial links in a social network are in fact the weak linksbetween members (Fisher and Smith, 2011; Watts and Dodds, 2007; Granovetter, 1983).We believe that future research should focus on weak ties rather than strong ties amongparticipants (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Quinton and Harridge-March, 2010) in theformation of a successful social media based brand community.

Brand co-creationIn this research we examined three retail brands on Facebook. What we found throughour Leximancer analysis was that for each brand Facebook postings were centered ona few key themes. Each theme represented a unique set of meanings. This findingsuggests that brand meaning is open to interpretation in Facebook brand communities.We agree with Fisher and Smith (2011) that making the brand meaning ‘flexible’ in theeyes of the consumer is very important to consumers who are seeking and finding

435

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

individual differences. Confirming the brand co-creation literature (Prahalad andRamaswamy, 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2003), we found that Facebookinteractions were predominately focussed on consumer experiences of a functional,hedonic and/or emotional nature. Significantly these types of experiences weredifferent for each brand: Jones Soda focussed on flavor and bottles, Burt’s BeesFacebook was buzzing with product usage experiences, and Bonobos’ fans were mainlyconcerned with their online purchase experiences.

We also found that Facebook postings presented both favorable and unfavorableexperiences. This is not an unexpected finding because Hatch and Schultz (2009) argue thatsocial media has exposed company culture and management practices to close scrutiny.Thus, in the co-creation literature, research hasmainly focussed on consumer empowermentthrough co-creation activities, emphasizing that power is shifting from the company to theconsumers (Fisher and Smith, 2011; Fournier and Avery, 2011; Kozinets, 1999).

However, unlike previous research, this research suggests that online marketers candefine the nature of brand co-creation, especially in the context of Facebook interactions.For example, during the time sampled enormous problems arose with Bonobos’ onlineordering system. However, as soon as members of the community realized that the ninjaswere working hard to fix these problems, a sense of community developed around theproblem, and a strong sense of empathy emerged between the community members andthe service staff, which enabled the co-creation of brand meaning.

Fisher and Smith (2011) argue that co-creation is chaotic as consumers are seizinga significant control of different aspects of the marketing process (Fisher and Smith,2011). This is an important argument, but not one that our data supports. In thisresearch, the overall analyses indicate a strong alignment of brand meaning expressedon the Facebook site with that expressed in the traditional marketing mix. Althoughprevious research suggests that consumers are getting the upper hand in brandco-creation, our research shed some light on the balance of power between companiesand consumers in value co-creation. This research shows that in a Facebook brandcommunity empowered consumers are meeting with equally empowered companiesand both parties have the access to knowledge and skills that are developed,transmitted, and maintained in the social networks.

Managerial implicationsWe found that the brands studied here adopted strongly interactive social mediastrategies be it through functional integration of customer service through the Facebooksite or more hedonically oriented strategies encouraging customer self-presentation andexpression. Such levels of interaction and integration between the consumer and thebrand are clearly attributable to the characteristics of social media and the design ofthe respective sites in terms of their aesthetics, functionality and interactivity. Howeverthey also represent key brand attributes that each brand strives to define itself by.This close alignment between brand meaning across functional, hedonic and emotionalelements has not been noted explicitly in the literature before. It is significant in that itindicates that control over brand meanings is possible.

Singh and Sonnenburg (2012) suggest that brands should view their manifestationon social media as interactive performances that should constantly evolve: “Brandowners have to keep the performance going as co-creation can abate because ofuninteresting stories. Therefore, owners may need to reanimate the brand performanceby fostering diversity of opinions and stories that challenge one another” (p. 192).We found that the Facebook narratives told stories focussed around recognizable

436

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

archetypes (Woodside et al., 2008): nostalgia stories (“memories to bottles of Jones Soda”),brand heroes (Ninjas), the helping hand (customer recommendations), self-fulfillment(Jones flavors, soft skin), and mother of goodness (Burts Bees). Each brand successfullyreinforced these archetypes suggesting that successful brand meaning alignment restson defining the brand in terms of relatively simple narrative archetypes that allow fordiffusion of brand meaning across corporate and consumer-generated media. We findsupport for Woodside et al.’s (2008) proposition that: “Consumption stories protagoniststell about themselves consciously and/or unconsciously often match the plot linesscripted by brand controllers” (p. 107). Thus, as companies are advised to loosen theircontrol over the brand and open up to co-creation (Fisher and Smith, 2011), it appearsthat these brands (Jones Soda, Burt’s Bees, Bonobos) have maintained a strong influenceover the brand narratives and the core brand values. Our findings also suggest thatbrand managers are doing a fairly good job of connecting and engaging consumers insocial media to give their brands a more human voice and more credibility.

In line with Christodoulides (2009), our findings suggest that branding in socialmedia is about facilitating the co-creation of meaning. Social media is not a broadcasttool. Brands that are domineering or trying to take over the interactions have no placein social media. Our findings indicate that brands that consumers would like to engagewith the most in social media are the ones that can listen to what their consumers aresaying, add to what they say, and bring up new topics that interest their consumers.

In today’s modern networked society, marketers are eager to take the advantage ofWeb 2.0 to build their brand (Fournier and Lee, 2009). Our findings suggest that brandmanagers are still firmly in control over their brands. All of this seems to contradict thenotion of control loss (Hatch and Schultz, 2009). Barwise and Meehan (2010) argue thatthe key to successful branding in social media is the brand promise. They argue thatcompanies that can consistently deliver what they promise can use social media toamplify their reputation. Thus, the role of the brand manager is not to control word-of-mouth, but to facilitate the sharing of brand experiences and to monitor whether thebrand promise is delivered. In doing so, brand managers can determine the nature anddirection of brand co-creation in social media.

Limitations and future researchA number of limitations exist on the generalization of the results presented here. First,we stress the exploratory nature of the study. Second, we gathered data from threeonline brand communities that exist on Facebook. We note that the Facebook site ispaid, promoted and owned by the brand. Thus the generalizability of the finding islimited to the brand community that is sponsored by a corporate sponsor. Third, wenote that in this research, a possible confounding factor concerns the activity of thebrand manager on Facebook. One would expect that the brand values inferred viaFacebook with a more active brand manager will have better alignment withthe intended brand. There is a clear need to develop future research to investigate theprocesses associated with brand co-creation and control and the details of how onlinebrand communities operate. Such research should examine a wider range oforganizations and business sectors. Some potential areas of investigation include:

• investigate brand community success factors from the brand manager’sperspective and from the consumer’s perspective;

• investigate the role of the brand manager as a significant influence on socialmedia interactions around the brand;

437

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

• understand the co-creation process in corporate-sponsored brand communities ascompared to user-generated only communities;

• generalize the findings of this research by testing the conceptual frameworkacross a number of different social media sites (e.g. Twitter, YouTube); and

• analyze the nature of relationship and the importance of weak ties vs strong tiesin the formation of a successful online brand community that exist in the socialmedia sphere.

Incorporating these themes in future research will move us closer to understanding theco-creation process associated with brands and, in doing so, assist practitioners toeffectively capitalization on their brands.

Note1. Please note: in order to capture the interactional nature of the data, all text on the social

media sites were included in the analyses regardless of whether they were corporate orconsumer-generated. However, as the corporate-generated text represented less than5 per cent of the textual data (in all three cases), we argue that the analyses of these socialmedia sites represents predominantly consumer-generated media.

References

Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), “The social influence of brandcommunity: evidence from European car clubs”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 19-34.

Aula, P. (2010), “Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management”, Strategy &Leadership, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 43-49.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), “Antecedents and purchase consequences of customerparticipation in small group brand communities”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61.

Barwise, P. and Meehan, S. (2010), “The one thing you must get right when building a brand”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 12, pp. 80-84.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L.F. and Campbell C. (2009), “Does brand meaning exist in similarity orsingularity?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 356-361.

Bertini, M. and Wathieu, L. (2010), “How to stop customers from fixating on price”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 84-91.

Bonobos (2014), “About us”, available at: www.bonobos.com/about (accessed 14 February 2014).

Boyle, E. (2007), “A process model of brand cocreation: brand management and researchimplications”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 122-131.

Brodie, R.J. and De Chernatony, L. (2009), “Towards new conceptualizations of branding: theoriesof the middle range”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 95-100.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F. (2003), “Teaching old brands new tricks: retro brandingand the revival of brand meaning”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 19-33.

Brown, J., Broderick, A. and Lee, N. (2007), “Extending social network theory to conceptualiseon-line word-of- mouth communication”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3,pp. 2-19.

Burt’s Bees (2014), “Our philosophy”, available at: www.burtsbees.com/Our-Philosophy/story-philosophy,default,pg.html (accessed 14 February 2014).

438

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

BusinessWeek (2005), “Keep up with the Jones, Dude!”, 25 October, available at: www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-10-25/keep-up-with-the-jones-dude (accessed 26 May 2014).

Campbell, C., Pitt, L.F., Parent, M. and Berthon, P.R. (2011), “Understanding consumer conversationsaround ads in a web 2.0 world”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 87-102.

Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2008), “Promoting consumer’s participation in virtualbrand communities: a new paradigm in branding strategy”, Journal of MarketingCommunications, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-36.

Cheung, C.M.K., Zhu, L., Kwong, T., Chan, G.W.W., and Limayem, M. (2003), “Online consumerbehaviour: a review and agenda for future research” in Wigand, R.T., Tan, Y.H., Gricar, J.,Pucihar, A. and Lunar, T. (Eds), Bled eConference, Bled, Slovenia, pp. 194-218.

Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1,pp. 141-144.

Constantinides, E. (2004), “Influencing the online consumer’s behavior: the web experience”,Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 111-126.

Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S.J. (2008), “Web 2.0: conceptual foundations and marketingissues”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-244.

Cooper-Martin, E. (1991), “Consumers and movies: some findings on experiential products” inHolman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,pp. 372-378.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (Eds) (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Proceduresfor Developing Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), “Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customerempowerment – the case ‘my Nutella the community’ ”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, pp. 1087-1105.

Coupland, J.C. (2005), “Invisible brands: an ethnography of households and the brands in theirkitchen pantries”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 106-118.

Dann, S. (2010), “Redefining social marketing with contemporary commercial marketingdefinitions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 147-153.

De Chernatony, L. (2001), “Succeeding with brands on the internet”, The Journal of BrandManagement, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 186-195.

De Chernatony, L. (2006), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: The Strategic Process ofGrowing and Strengthening Brands, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

De Chernatony, L. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), “Taking the brand promise online: challengesand opportunities”, Interactive Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 238-251.

Eckhardt, G.M. and Houston, M.J. (2002), “Cultural paradoxes reflected in brand meaning:McDonald’s in Shanghai, China”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2,pp. 68-82.

Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B. and Gruber, T. (2011), “Expanding understanding of serviceexchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 327-339.

Emarketer (2013), “Social networking reaches nearly one in four around the world”, available at:www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Networking-Reaches-Nearly-One-Four-Around-World/1009976 (accessed 31 October 2013).

Facebook (2013), “Facebook reports second quarter 2013 results”, available at: http://investor.fb.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID¼ 780093 (accessed 31 October 2013).

Firat, A.F. and Shultz Ii, C.J. (1997), “From segmentation to fragmentation: markets and marketingstrategy in the postmodern era”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 183-207.

439

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Fisher, D. and Smith, S. (2011), “Cocreation is chaotic: what it means for marketing when no onehas control”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 325-350.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.

Fournier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”, Business Horizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 193-207.

Fournier, S. and Lee, L. (2009), “Getting brand communities right”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 105-111.

Franzen G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of Brands: Mind, Memory and BrandSuccess, World Advertising Research Centre, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire.

Füller, J., Matzler, K. and Hoppe, M. (2008), “Brand community members as a source ofinnovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 608-619.

Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K. and Jawecki, G. (2009), “Consumer empowerment throughinternet-based co-creation”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 71-102.

Granovetter, M. (1983), “The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited”, Sociologicaltheory, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 201-233.

Grönroos, C. (2011), “Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis”, Marketing Theory,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 279-301.

Hansson, T., Carey, G. and Kjartansson, R. (2010), “A multiple software approach tounderstanding values”, Journal of Beliefs & Values, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 283-298.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2009), “Of bricks and brands: from corporate to enterprise branding”,Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 117-130.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010), “Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications forbrand governance”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 590-604.

Holt, D.B. (2004), How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Ind, N. and Bjerke, R. (2007), Branding Governance: A Participatory Approach to the BrandBuilding Process, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Johnson, J.W. and Rapp, A. (2010), “A more comprehensive understanding and measure ofcustomer helping behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 787-792.

Jones & Co (2012), “Annual report”, available at: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1083522/000108352213000006/jsda1231201210-k.htm (accessed 12 February 2014).

Jones & Co (2014), “About us”, available at: www.jonessoda.com/company/about-us (accessed 12February 2014).

Joseph, D. (2004), “Jones Soda creates a pop culture”, Sun Sentinel, 27 October, available at: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2004-10-27/lifestyle/0410250361_1_jones-soda-van-stolk-soda-flavors (accessed 26 May 2014).

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010), “Users of the world, unite! The challenges andopportunities of social media”, Business Horizons, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keisler, S.L. and Sproull, L. (1992), “Group decision making and technology”, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 93-123.

Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., Mccarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. (2011), “Social media? Getserious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media”, Business Horizons,Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 241-251.

Kinsey, M. (2009), “Bonobos”, Advertising Age, Vol. 80 No. 39, p. 17.

440

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2007), “The role of brands in a service-dominated world”, Journal ofBrand Management, Vol 15 No. 2, pp. 115-122.

Kozinets, R.V. (1999), “E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual communitiesof consumption”, European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 252-264.

Kozinets, R.V. (2002), “The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research inonline communities”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 61-72.

Kozinets, R.V. (2010), “Netnography: the marketer’s secret ingredient”, MIT Technology Review,available at: www.technologyreview.com/news/421208/netnography-the-marketers-secret-ingredient (accessed April 24, 2015).

Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J. (2010), “Networked narratives:understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-89.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Mangold, W.G. and Faulds, D.J. (2009), “Social media: the new hybrid element of the promotion

mix”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 357-365.Mcalexander, J.H., Kim, S.K. and Roberts, S.D. (2003), “Loyalty: the influences of satisfaction and brand

community integration”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-11.Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009), “The evolving brand logic: a service-dominant logic

perspective”, Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 328-344.Molitor, D. (2009), “Burt’s buzz”, The Hub Magazine, September/October, pp. 12-13.

Muniz, A.M. and O’guinn, T.C. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27No. 4, pp. 412-432.

Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2009), “Virtual customer environments: testing a model ofvoluntary participation in value co‐creation activities”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 388-406.

O’Connor, E. (2002), “Storied business: typology, intertextuality, and traffic in entrepreneurialnarrative”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 36-54.

O’Reilly, D. (2005), “Cultural brands/branding cultures”, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 573-588.

Parent, M., Plangger, K. and Bal, A. (2011), “The new WTP: willingness to participate”, BusinessHorizons, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 219-229.

Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. and Knox, S. (2009), “Co-creating brands: diagnosingand designing the relationship experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3,pp. 379-389.

Porter, C.E. (2004), “A typology of virtual communities: a multi disciplinary foundation for futureresearch”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, Vol. 10 No. 1.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), “Co-creation experiences: the next practice in valuecreation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-14.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2003), “The new frontier of experience innovation”, MITSloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 12-18.

Quinton, S. and Harridge-March, S. (2010), “Relationships in online communities: the potential formarketers”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-73.

Riegner, C. (2007), “Word of mouth on the web: the impact of web 2.0 on consumer purchasedecisions”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 436-447.

Retailtouchpoints (2012), “Bonobos leverages surveys to harness voice of the customer”, availableat: www.retailtouchpoints.com/cross-channel-strategies/2152-bonobos-leverages-surveys-to-harness-voice-of-the-customer (accessed 14 February 2014).

441

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B. and Leeming, E. (2007), “Customer community and co-creation:a case study”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 136-146.

Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005), “Collaborating to create: the internet asa platform for customer engagement in product innovation”, Journal of InteractiveMarketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 4-17.

Schau, H.J., Muniz, A.M. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How brand community practices create value”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.

Schlinke, J. and Crain, S. (2013), “Social media from an integrated marketing and complianceperspective”, Journal of Financial Service Professionals, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 85-92.

Seattle Business (2011), “Saving Jones Soda”, 24 May, available at: www.seattlebusinessmonthly.com/article/saving-jones-soda/ (accessed 26 May 2014).

Singh, S. and Sonnenburg, S. (2012), “Brand performances in social media”, Journal of InteractiveMarketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 189-197.

Skaržauskaitė, M. (2013), “Measuring and managing value co-creation process: overview ofexisting theoretical models”, Social Technologies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 115-129.

Tooley, J. (2014), “Burt’s Bees: advertising, outreach, and community service worth buzzingabout”, available at: www.qualitylogoproducts.com/blog/burts-bees-advertising-outreach-service-efforts/ (accessed 26 May 2014).

Underwood, R. (2005), “Jones Soda’s secret”, Fast Company, available at: www.fastcompany.com/55371/jones-sodas-secret (accessed 26 May 2014).

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”,The Journalof Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008), “On value and value co-creation: a servicesystems and service logic perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 145-152.

Wallace, E., Buil, I. and De Chernatony, L. (2012), “Facebook ‘friendship’and brand advocacy”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 128-146.

Watts, D.J. and Dodds, P.S. (2007), “Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 441-458.

Weisnewski, M. (2008), “How tangible is your brand?”, Design Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 53-57.

Woodside, A.G., Sood, S. and Miller, K.E. (2008), “When consumers and brands talk: storytellingtheory and research in psychology and marketing”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 97-145.

Wong, V. (2014), “Jones Soda tries to recapture its long-lost sales fizz”, BusinessWeek, availableat: www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-02/jones-soda-tries-to-recapture-its-long-lost-sales-fizz (accessed 26 May 2014).

Zwass, V. (2010), “Co-creation: toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective”,International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-48.

Further reading

Divol, R., Edelman, D. and Sarrazin, H. (2012), “Demystifying social media”,McKinsey Quarterly,Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 66-77.

Fast Company (2005), “Jones Soda’s Secret”, available at: www.fastcompany.com/magazine/92/march-2005 (accessed 31 October 2013).

442

MIP33,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

About the authorsDrWei Shao is a Lecturer in Marketing at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. Her researchinterests include social media marketing, branding and consumer behavior. She is publishedin journals such as Australasian Marketing Journal and European Journal of Marketing.Dr Wei Shao is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: w.shao@griffith.edu.au

Associate Professor Richard Gyrd-Jones lectures in Marketing at Copenhagen BusinessSchool. His research focus is in the areas of brand management. He is interested in how bothfor-profit and not-for-profit organizations manage their brand in the context of their brandecosystems. His most recent research looks at safeguarding brand value and issues around theimplementation of branding strategies at a managerial level. Richard Gyrd-Jones is also anadjunct Senior Lecturer at the Department of Marketing, the Griffith University, Gold Coast,Australia.

Debra Grace is a Professor in Marketing at the Griffith Business School. Debra’s researchinterests lie in the areas of franchising, service sector marketing, individual decision-making andpsychological influences. Debra is highly published in internationally renowned academicjournals such as the Journal of Retailing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of ServicesMarketing European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Psychology &Marketing and many more.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

443

Brandscapes

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Niels Kornum, Richard Gyrd-Jones, Nadia Al Zagir, Kristine Anthoni Brandis. 2017. Interplaybetween intended brand identity and identities in a Nike related brand community: Co-existingsynergies and tensions in a nested system. Journal of Business Research 70, 432-440. [CrossRef]

2. LimWeng Marc Weng Marc Lim School of Business, Monash University Malaysia, BandarSunway, Malaysia and Faculty of Business and Design, Swinburne University of Technology,Kuching, Malaysia . 2016. Social media in medical and health care: opportunities and challenges.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34:7, 964-976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. HuhmannBruce A. Bruce A. Huhmann LimbuYam B. Yam B. Limbu Department of Marketing,New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA Department of Marketing, MontclairState University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA . 2016. Content and compliance of pharmaceuticalsocial media marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34:7, 977-999. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

4. Cassandra France, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2016. An integrated model of customer-brandengagement: Drivers and consequences. Journal of Brand Management 23:2, 119-136. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by J

ames

Mad

ison

Uni

vers

ity A

t 15:

48 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2016

(PT

)