WE HAPPY FEW: Redefining Community in Marketing

ABSTRACT

Community has seen an increasing level of interest with marketing scholars both as a context for

a variety of consumer behaviors as well as a consumer behavior unto itself; however, the

investigation into community has seen its share of challenges. We attempt to subdue these

challenges by drawing upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological literatures to

define community, offering suggestions for what constitutes community. We then outline

various means by which marketing supports this definition and provide an overview of how this

definition may aid our understanding of brand communities and the notion of a community‟s

brand.

2

EXTENDED ABSTRACT

Community has seen an increasing level of interest with marketing scholars both as a

context for a variety of consumer behaviors as well as a consumer behavior unto itself. We have

seen marketers investigate the impact community has upon various consumption activities (Cova

1997; Hill and Stamey 1990), the rites and rituals of various consumption communities (Celsi,

Rose, and Leigh 1993, Schouten and McAlexander 1995), and as well as how certain

communities develop and grow around various brands (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig;

2002; Muniz and O‟Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau 2005). However, despite this growing

interest and the wealth of knowledge garnered by such studies, a consistent definition of

community in the marketing literature is elusive.

As a result, there are three main challenges to the exploration of community in marketing.

First of all, the notion of community is inexact in a definitional sense both in terms of how one

identifies a community and in how it is distinguished from subcultures or other such social units.

Second, a set of challenges arises when we attempt to outline the boundary conditions of what

constitutes a community, and third, there is a need to consider the variations between different

types of communities or, at the very least, the varieties of communal relationships that exist

within communities. Our purpose is to attempt to resolve these challenges and provide a

definition of community that allows marketers to move forward with an examination of

community both in theory and in practice.

To do so, we first draw upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological

literatures to understand the fundamental components that constitute community. Collectively,

these streams suggest that community is a social system that possesses two components, a

structural and an inter-relational component, that exist between and amongst its inhabitants. We

draw from Brint‟s (2001) notion that community is driven by “aggregates of people.” These

collections share something—be it a set of beliefs, ideals, desires, activities, or concerns—that

binds them together; yet, we also believe that there is something more to community than simple

collections of people. Brint‟s definition, though thorough, remains vague in that it may also

describe a family, a classroom, or a group of friends enjoying a camping trip.

Building upon the work of Giller (1984) who defined ecological communities as made up

of smaller “guilds” or groups of animals, plants, and bacteria as well as the efforts of Cooley

(1909), Durkheim (1893), and Simmel (1950), we argue that a community is formed when

subgroups of intimately related people who are bound by strong ties develop ties with other

subgroups of people. Ultimately, we arrive at the following definition: Community is a

structured and inter-related network between groups of people where each individual group as

well as the collective network of groups is bound together by relations that may include affect,

loyalty, common values, personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs and where the tie

strength of relationships within groups is relatively greater than the tie strength that exists

between groups.

From this definition, we attempt to align the components of our proposed definition with

the existing marketing literature on community. Then we apply our definition of community to

marketing and, specifically, brand community. We find that the extant literature suggests that

marketing can facilitate ties between groups of consumers (Cova 1997; Price and Arnould 2000);

and we argue that the current marketing thought reflects a variety of means through which

collective network of groups are bound together by relations that may include affect, loyalty,

common values, personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs. Two of the main arenas

3

in which these binding efforts have been explored has been through the utilization of brands

(Muniz and O‟Guinn 1995; Muniz and Schau 2005) as well as the construction of communitas

between consumers (Celsi et al. 1993; Arnould and Price 1993). Finally, marketing research has

alluded to collections of distinct sub-groups that form a broader aggregate community (Schouten

and McAlexander 1995).

We also submit that our definition of community aids in the conceptualization and

identification of brand community. We argue that a brand community occurs when the brand

facilitates the ties that bind subgroups together. Further, we suggest that if the ties that exist

between sub-groups are not a result of the brand but rather a result of other attributes associated

with affect, loyalty, common values, etc., then it is not a brand community. In this case, the

brand has been adopted by the community. We describe this structure as a community’s brand,

arguing that if the brand is consequently removed from the community, the community would

carry on without the brand.

Additionally, we posit that certain communal bodies may in fact constitute both brand

communities as well as a community‟s brands. For example, The Harley Davidson subculture of

consumption identified by Schouten and McAlexander (1995) appears to be a collection of

various subgroups such as the Mom-and-Pops, RUBs, Dikes on Bikes, and Hard Core bikers (to

name a few). Each subculture has strong ties within their specific groups; and these groups have

adopted Harley Davidson as a community brand. However, when the various subgroups come

together at Sturgis, the brand facilitates the between-group ties that bind these subgroups

together. The biker rally at Sturgis then helps facilitate a brand community.

Ultimately, we believe that community, both as a concept and a reality, is a complex and

difficult web of human relationships within varying environments; and the importance of

understanding such phenomena has been noted within sociology, ecology, psychology and

marketing. This paper is an attempt to provide one perspective that may aid in clarifying what

community is in terms of its structure and the various types of community that may appear. It is

our hope to take the study further and explore its ramifications within particular contexts.

4

WE HAPPY FEW: Redefining Community in Marketing

INTRODUCTION

Marketing researchers have paid increasing attention to the notion if community in the

context of and as a context for various consumer behaviors. Cova (1997) and Hill and Stamey

(1990) investigated the impact of community on consumption, Kozinets (2002b) explored the

consumer-driven community as an alternative marketplace, and Kates (2004) provided insight

into the use of various brands to develop and sustain a communal identity. Researchers have

also focused on various subcultures of consumption that may otherwise be considered

consumption communities (see Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993; Despande, Hoyer, and Donthu

1986; Schouten and McAlexander 1995), and others have examined the development and

maintenance of brand communities (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muniz and

O‟Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau 2005),

Despite this attention, marketers still appear to grapple with definitions of community

that fit across the various phenomena and contexts of interest to marketing academics. Kozinets

(2002a) argues that the communal ideal “can be characterized as a group of people living in close

proximity with mutual social relations characterized by caring and sharing” (21) while

McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) claim that a community “is made up of its member

entities and the relationships among them” (38). The distinction between these two definitions is

that the former is tied to a particular location while the other appears to not be tied to proximity.

This is echoed by Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) who assert that community transcends place,

becoming a “common understanding of a shared identity” (413). What all three of these basic

5

definitions share with each other as well as with other definitions contained in the literature is the

fact that communities are essentially relationships between and amongst people.

Another challenge lies in defining the boundaries of communities. In the research of

online communities, five different types of “virtual” communities have been identified—

newsgroups, thematically linked web-pages, listservs, multiuser dungeons, and chat rooms

(Kozinets 2002a)—but other than some ephemeral online connection between the individuals

engaging in these communities, what characteristics ensure that these are in fact communities?

A similar quandary exists in research on the North American gay men‟s community as explored

by Kates (2004). The author‟s findings suggest that a community and the producers of certain

brands co-create cultural meanings within the context of a community. However, other than the

fact that the men share a common characteristic, a clear indication of what makes this particular

collection of men a community appears to be absent.

Third, a lack of distinction exists between the varieties of communities and the variations

of the types of relationships that exist within these communities. How is the Harley Davidson

subculture of consumption (Schouten and McAlexander 1995), a community in its own right,

different from the communal tribe of skydivers (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993)? Furthermore,

what are the various communal relationships that exist within the Harley Davidson subculture?

As Schouten and McAlexander (1995) suggest, “hard-core bikers who consider themselves

„defenders of the faith‟ often will not acknowledge Moms-and-Pops and RUBs [Rich Urban

Bikers], whom they regard as inauthentic pretenders or „weekend warriers‟” (49).

Thus, there are three main challenges with the notion of community as it is explored in

marketing research. First of all, the notion of community is inexact in a definitional sense both

in terms of how one identifies a community and in how it is distinguished from subcultures or

6

other such social units. Second, a set of challenges arises when we attempt to outline the

boundary conditions of what constitutes a community, and third, there is a need to consider the

variations between different types of communities or, at the very least, the varieties of communal

relationships that exist within communities.

Our overarching purpose is to further outline the concept of community within marketing

research and practice. To that end, we draw from philosophy, sociology, ecology, psychology,

and marketing to answer three basic questions concerning the notion of community in marketing.

First, what do we know about community? Second, given our answer to the first question, how

does this relate to what constitutes a community? And finally, drawing upon the answers to the

first two questions, how is/should community within marketing be conceptualized? Ultimately,

this last question seeks to briefly lay out a research agenda that will potentially bear fruit to the

field and practice of marketing.

WHAT IS COMMUNITY?

Answering such a seemingly simple question is not, by any means, a simple task. The

notion of a community has been bandied about by scholars for at least a century. Community

has been explored within a variety of social science domains including sociology, psychology,

philosophy, and even marketing. The challenge inherent in this venture was acknowledged over

fifty years ago by the sociologist Hillery (1955) who identified no less than 94 definitions of

community that spanned a variety of domains. Early notions of community appear to be rooted

in the triumvirate of geography, proximity, and ownership of land. For example, Park‟s (1936)

definition characterized this land-based, geographic view, suggesting that a community is

constituted by: 1) a population that is territorially organized, 2) more or less completely rooted in

7

the soil it occupies, and 3) its individual units live in a relationship of mutual interdependence.

Similarly, Hollingshead (1948) grouped a variety of community definitions into three basic

categories—geographic area, socio-geographic structure, and group solidarity—but ultimately

concluded that a community could not be all three.

Sociological attempts to define community, however, began to veer away from

geographic or proximal bounds. Instead, these perspectives examined the organizational and

social structure of a community. Two themes arose as an undergirding philosophy to these

views—a mechanistic or structural component and a social, inter-relational component that is

inclusive of the relational, social , and emotional element of humans. Tönnies (1887)

distinguished between the structural and relational elements when he described gesellschaft and

gemeinschaft, roughly translated as society and community respectively. The gesellschaft is all

that is mechanistic and institutionalized, whereas gemeinschaft is characterized by all “intimate,

private, and exclusive living together” (33). Other sociologists have incorporated a similar

perspective in their examinations of communities and social systems. Merton‟s (1947) theory of

anomie presented a framework to describe social systems, such as communities. He suggested

two structural elements, one to describe the structural relations of its members and one intended

to describe the cultural component of the system.

More recently, Putnam (2000) and Keller (2003) have outlined structural and relational

components that are essential for “community” to occur. Putnam (2000) views the structural

building blocks of community as civic engagement and social contribution and the relational

components to be predominantly comprised of a sense of belonging. Similarly, Keller (2003)

suggests that community requires, “structural, cultural, and sentimental supports as well as an

altruistic outreach of affection and empathy to bind a totality” (7). In her thirty-year case study,

8

Keller describes the structural component of community as the collective framework that

“defines, names, encloses, [and] organizes aggregate activities and projects, and encompasses the

institution and rules that guide the collectivity” (7); and the relational system, as those social

elements that offer a sense of physical closeness, a shared sense of ideals and expectations or the

“life in common” of the people with the community, and a network of social ties and allegiances

that exist between and amongst collections of individuals.

In a similar vein, structural and relational themes are present in discussions regarding

community in the ecology literature. Community, according to Giller (1984), is the

“combination of plant, animal, and bacterial populations, interacting with one another within an

environment, thus forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure,

environmental relations, development and function” (1). In other words, a community is

distinguishable from another community (or the larger community) by the relationships between

its members as well as the function the community performs.

In this paper and flowing from the extant literature on community, we suggest that

community is a social system that possesses two components, a structural and an inter-relational

component, that exist between and amongst its inhabitants. While our conceptualization

specifies the need for mechanical structures that bind groups together in something resembling

order, we also include an essential inter-relational element that acknowledges that community is

composed of the relationships between and amongst people. By incorporating an inter-relational

element, we believe community is dynamic and adaptive (McGrath et al. 2000) in that it grows,

changes, and evolves as its members do. The inter-related parts of the community move and

work against one another even as they work together with one another. It is a fluid creature. It is

a living entity.

9

Furthermore, these collections of people share something—be it a set of beliefs, ideals,

desires, or other such concepts—that assists in distinguishing the collection from other

collections and in binding these individuals together in a structure of relationships. This level of

binding, (which appears to be related to Granovetter‟s (1973) notion of strong and weak ties)

aligns with the sociologist Steven Brint‟s (2001) notion of community. Brint (2001)

conceptualizes community as “aggregates of people who share common activities and/or beliefs

and who are bound together principally by relations of affect, loyalty, common values, and/or

personal concern (i.e., interest in the personalities and life events of one another)” (8).

While we find Brint‟s definition consistent with previous themes of inter-relational and

structural components, his definition may be too broad and, as a result, too inclusive. Such a

definition works for a family unit or a small group of friends or a four or five member smoking

club that congregates in front of a building at certain times during the day to partake in a

ritualistic habit. As our examples suggest, any sort of collectivity could be a community. In

order to form a definition of community, we believe that one elemental piece is missing. We

suggest that missing piece lies within a description of how collectivities of people form or

constitute a community.

WHAT CONSTITUTES COMMUNITY?

Returning for a moment to the ecology literature, Giller (1984) notes that communities

“are organized in some way, and… the role of the community ecologist is to unravel and explain

that organization” (2). In this section, we attempt to unravel the organization of community.

Giller (1984) and Brint (2001) both suggest that human communities, these aggregates of people,

are organized in some way such that they form a distinctive system. The range of literature on

10

community leads us to believe that these aggregates of people should be viewed in a distinct

manner. We suggest the starting point is to think not of collections of individual people but,

rather, to think about collections of small groups as the foundation of a community. This notion

of the building blocks of a community has been reflected in ecology, sociology, and psychology.

Introducing Small Groups

In ecology, Giller (1984) argues that a community consists of guilds which he defines as

small groups of species that utilize a particular resource in a functionally similar manner. These

guilds are smaller aspects of the total community. Members of these guilds “interact strongly

with one another and weakly with the remainder of the community” (3). For example, a

watering hole on the African savannah may provide water for a variety of groups of animals.

Herds of water buffalo, zebra, antelope, and elephants all huddle together at the watering hole,

each interacting strongly with other members of its particular herd as well as weakly interacting

with members of the other herds. In such a way, if the herd of antelope suddenly stirs as a result

of an approaching predator, the other herds react as well. This is an ecological community

consisting of a variety of guilds.

The ecological notion of the guild also aligns with a number of sociological perspectives

that suggest multiple groups form a collective. Two of the more well-known sociological

accounts of multiple groups forming a collectivity are Durkheim‟s work on polar types and

Cooley‟s discussion of small primary groups. Durkheim (1893) identified the mechanically

solidary society where people are both mentally and morally homogenous resulting in a uniform

and non-atomized social relationship. In this context exists, what he termed, the conscious

collective or the ideological beliefs and sentiments held common to all members of a particular

11

society. Within this exists the organically solidary society which works against this collective

consciousness. This is the community of people that has let slip the individualistic and

communal notions of differentiation. The social, in a sense, fractures into its various groups,

each co-existing in precarious balance with the collective order, each doing its own thing much

like the various herds of animals at the watering hole, but each willing, when necessary, to act en

masse.

Cooley (1909) viewed groups as the most important of social units in the development of

human nature and the development of the norms and institutions that result in a society. These

primary groups include such social units as the family or household group, neighborhoods, and

the spontaneous play-groups of children. Their chief characteristics include face-to-face

interaction, the unspecialized characteristics of these interactions, a relative degree of

permanence, a small number of persons, and a relative intimacy among the members of the

primary group. Half a century later, Simmel (1950) echoed Cooley‟s support of the small,

primary group within the context of the overall social structure. “It seems that in many places,”

Simmel contends, “groups originally consisted of subgroups which were tied to one another by

kinship and each of which formed a unit” (109-110). Most recently, Keller‟s (2003) studies

continue to reinforce this notion, in that a community includes a network of social ties and

allegiances that exist between and amongst collections of individuals.

Finally, this notion of groups as subunits of community appears to align with the

psychological perspective concerning groups. Specifically, some psychology scholars suggest

that we need to view “groups as open and complex systems (i.e. the members) imbedded within

them and the larger systems (e.g. organizations, communities) within which they are embedded”

(McGrath et al. 2000, 98). It follows, then, that communities are not simply made up of a

12

collection of individuals randomly thrown together because they share common activities and/or

beliefs. That can describe a classroom or strangers on a train or shoppers at a mall.

Communities, in the relational sense, are made up of aggregates of relatively smaller groups of

people, a network of subgroups.

The Ties that Bind

Thus, we believe that a community is marked by its ties between the various subgroups

and that these subgroups, at some level, exhibit both group homogeneity and heterogeneity. Let

us assume that we are examining a community as a network of subgroups. When examining an

individual group within the community, we would expect to see strong ties within the group due

to the homogeneity apparent as a result of some mutually held belief, loyalty, concern, etc.

When examining two groups that compose a community, we should then find that the two groups

display both heterogeneity and homogeneity between them. At some level, each group will be

distinct from one another; however, the groups will also reflect inter-group homogeneity at some

level. This homogeneity of beliefs, activities, affect, loyalty, etc., is what helps facilitate the

bonds between groups and create a community.

To further explain, we borrow an example from the physical sciences and liberally apply

our own poetic license to it. These relatively small groups, or guilds, of people are the

communal equivalent of a molecule which is comprised of several individual atoms working

together to form a cohesive unit. Furthermore, a molecule is the smallest particle of an element

or compound that retains the chemical and/or physical properties of that element or compound.

This molecule is then tied to other molecules to comprise some structure (e.g. a community).

While the atoms comprising a molecule interact with one another at some relatively greater

13

degree than they do with atoms of another molecule, they are still bound together due to an

overarching structure that holds the molecules together.

Returning to the watering hole analogy, we have a herd of antelope that are intimately

bound to one another through the protection the group affords, common lineage, geographical

proximity, instinct, familial relations, etc. and a herd of water buffalo that are intimately bound

in a like manner. Both groups approach the watering hole with relatively light interaction with

one another but are bound by their wariness of potential predators. When a lion approaches and

one of the water buffaloes catches wind of it, its startlement encourages its own group to flee

from the predator which, in turn, influences the small herd of antelope to also take flight. In this

case, a common adaptive concern unites these two distinctive sub-groups into a community.

A similar phenomenon occurs sporadically throughout human existence. We suggest that

the individuals that make up the sub-groups in human communities also interact relatively

intimately with one another and also interact with varying degrees of intimacy with other

subgroups and individuals in the community. This reflects a level of bonding that is relatively

stronger within a group than between groups. It logically follows, then, that if the tie strength

between the two groups grew as strong as the ties within each group separately, then the two

groups would absorb one another, leaving one homogenous group. This line of reasoning also

seems to suggest a greater level of homogeneity exists within a group and a relatively greater

level of heterogeneity exists between groups. The homogeneity within groups facilitates

subgroup formation because perceive a level of similarity (Moreland 1987) and the heterogeneity

between groups provides adaptive value, in that it provides a means to delineate groups, which

aids in recruitment (McPheerson et al. 1983) and allows groups to serve the distinctive needs of

their members (Carley 1991).

14

In summary, we propose that the literature in psychology, sociology, and ecology work

together in defining community and its boundaries. First, community is a social system that

includes mechanisms for both organization and social relations—a structured collection of

people and the relationships between them. Second, these collections of people share something

such as a set of ideals, concerns, values, activities and/or beliefs; and this commonality assists in

binding together these individuals in a structure of relationships. Third, we believe community is

an aggregate collectivity which is composed of subgroups and that the marker of a community

lies with its ties between these subgroups, facilitated by some mechanism such as some subset of

ideals, concerns, values, activities, beliefs, etc. shared by the two or more subgroups. Based

upon this line of reasoning, we offer the following definition of community:

Community is a structured and inter-related network between groups of people

where each individual group as well as the collective network of groups is bound

together by relations that may include affect, loyalty, common values, personal

concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs and where the tie strength of

relationships within groups is relatively greater than the tie strength that exists

between groups.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

Such a definition of community should provide assistance to marketing researchers in

further developing an academic study of community as both a context of consumer behavior as

well as a consumer behavior in and of itself. It provides a structure that allows one to identify or

recognize a community over crowds, small groups, or other types of aggregates of people. It

acknowledges that various ties exist both within the small groups of people exhibiting intimate

relationships and between other small groups that inhabit the community. As such, we can then

begin to identify various types of communities that may be of interest or importance to

marketing as well as the various attributes that make up those communities.

15

Identifying Communities

It is clear that community has an important part to play in an individual‟s relationship

with self and others, and it is also quite clear that marketing has taken notice of this emphasis on

the communal. Though offering valuable and fascinating insight into various communal

phenomena, the marketing literature appears to be slightly disparate in its attempts to identify

community in marketing, especially brand community. Therefore, using the proverbial metaphor

of standing on the shoulder of giants, we attempt to align the components of our proposed

definition with the existing marketing literature on community; then we apply our definition of

community to marketing, specifically brand community.

First, the literature appears to suggest that marketing can facilitate ties between groups

of consumers. Cova (1997) investigates the linking value of products and services to individual

consumers, showing how “the postmodern individual values the social aspects of life at the cost

of consumption,” finding that the “goods and services which are valued are mainly those which,

through their linking value, permit and support social interaction of the communal type” (307).

He goes on to explain that the importance of this to marketers is that products and services that

service to isolate consumers could decrease in favor of those that bring consumers together.

Building upon this, Arnould and Price (2000) explain the development of community through

marketing, in that” many consumers embrace authenticating acts and authoritative performances

to restore a sense of community, tradition, and self” (141).

Second, the literature reflects a variety of means through which collective network of

groups are bound together by relations that may include affect, loyalty, common values,

personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs. These binding mechanisms have been

noted in the marketing literature to include common activities, rituals, performances behaviors

16

and even a sense of religiosity. In their exploration of brand community, Muniz and O‟Guinn

(2001) indicate three core commonalities that distinguish brand communities: consciousness of

kind, shared rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility. Consciousness of kind is

the sense of connection that exists with and between members of a particular community and the

sense that the community and its members are different from others. The shared rituals and

traditions are those that permeate the community and tell its story to the members and to those

outside the community. And the sense of moral responsibility is that “felt sense of duty or

obligation to the community as a whole, and to its individual members” (413). Within the

context of European car clubs, Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005) explore the

influence upon consumer intentions and behaviors that relationships with brand communities

play; and in an exploration of the Apple Newton community, Muniz and Schau (2005) examine

the shared religiosity within some aggregates of consumers.

Additionally, marketers have introduced the notion of communitas into the literature as a

means by which this binding occurs. Celsi et al (1993) studied the phenomenon in the context of

sky-diving groups and defined it as a “sense of community that transcends typical social norms

and convention… [the] sense of camaraderie that occurs when individuals from various walks of

life share a common bond of experience, such as skydiving and flow, that all participants

consider special or „sacred‟” (12). For Arnould and Price (1993), communitas is that “feeling of

communion with friends, family, and strangers” (12), that sense that we‟re all in this together.

And for Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry (1989), communitas “frees participants from their normal

social roles and statuses and instead engages them in a transcending camaraderie of status

equality” (7).

17

Third, marketing research has alluded to collections of distinct sub-groups that form a

broader aggregate community. Research on subcultures of consumption appears to reinforce our

notion that ties between sub-groups form communities (Schouten and McAlexander 1995).

Subcultures of consumption align with the notion of community composed of sub-groups or even

guilds. Take for instance, Harley Davidson‟s subcultures of consumption, such as Moms-and-

Pops and RUBs [Rich Urban Bikers] (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). These are smaller

groups that reflect both levels of intra-group homogeneity, inter-group heterogeneity and

homogeneity. When these sub-groups form ties between them, they effectively form the Harley

Davidson community.

The definition that we have provided appears to be consistent with many findings within

the marketing literature on community. But beyond an organizing function, our proposed

conceptualization aids in designating what a community in marketing in fact is. A community is

not simply a collection of individuals; it is a collection of sub-groups. These sub-groups are

composed of relationships within the group. However, the community is constituted by

relationships between other sub- groups. With such a distinction, we can answer the questions

posed earlier in the paper concerning various “communal” contexts.

Brand Communities or a Community’s Brand

Based upon their exploration of Saab, Ford Bronco, and MacIntosh communities, Muniz

and O‟Guinn (2001) define a brand community as “a specialized, non-geographically bound

community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand” (412).

In whole, our proposed definition proximally aligns with Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001). However,

we believe our conceptualization further distinguishes a brand community from other forms of

18

community. First, our conceptualization aids in defining the collection of people that constitute a

brand community. The Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) falls prey to the same challenge as Brint‟s

(2001) definition. That it, both definitions lead us to asking, “What is a collection of people?”

and “Under these conditions, is a family a brand community?” Our definition suggests that a

community exists when sub-groups are brought together by ties of affect, loyalty, beliefs,

concern, etc.

Second, our conceptualization allows us to distinguish between a brand community and

other forms of community. Our proposed definition of community suggests that between-group

ties serve as essential mechanisms in distinguishing between different forms of community. We

posit that if the brand is the predominant entity that facilitates the ties between sub-groups, then

the resulting community is in fact a brand community. For example, research on Star Trek fan

gatherings (Kozinets 2001) suggests the Star Trek brand facilitates an interaction between

numerous sub-groups; and these groups share some level of affect, loyalty, common values,

personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs regarding the Star Trek community. We

would submit this constitutes a brand community.

Further, we suggest that if the ties that exist between sub-groups are not a result of the

brand but rather a result of other attributes associated with affect, loyalty, common values, etc.,

then it is not a brand community. In this case, the brand has been adopted by the community.

We describe this structure as a community’s brand. For example, Kates (2004) identified a

variety of brands that are viewed as legitimate attributes of the gay men‟s community. The

brands have been adopted by the community to reflect the distinctiveness of the community.

However, the brands he identifies—Levi‟s, Absolut, the Body Shop, etc.—do not constitute the

ties that bind the community together; rather, they are a shared attribute of the community itself.

19

If the brands were pulled from the market—or driven from the community for some slight—the

community itself would continue. These are a community‟s brands.

Further, we posit that certain communal bodies may in fact constitute both brand

communities as well as a community‟s brands. The Harley Davidson subculture of consumption

identified by Schouten and McAlexander (1995) appears to be a collection of various

communities such as the Mom-and-Pops, RUBs [Rich Urban Bikers], Dikes on Bikes, and Hard

Core bikers (to name a few). Each subculture has strong ties within their specific groups; and

these groups have adopted Harley Davidson as a community brand. However, when the various

communities come together at Sturgis, the brand facilitates the between-group ties that bind these

subgroups together. The biker rally at Sturgis then helps facilitate a brand community.

This conceptualization also suggests that marketers may choose two additional paths in

building their brands. They may either attempt to facilitate between-group ties in order to build a

brand community; or they may attempt to encourage existing groups to adopt their brand, and

therefore become a community‟s brand.

Finally, this conceptualization demonstrates community is an excellent case study of a

co-production between marketers and consumers (Vargo and Lusch 2004). In our perspective,

when marketers attempt to build brand communities, they must actively engage consumers. A

brand community will only be successful when the sub-groups develop ties between one another.

McAlexander et al.‟s (2002) research on Jeep brandfest demonstrates the use of a brand to

engage consumers into a larger community of Jeep owners. As the authors indicate, a sense of

community forms when ties form and reform between customer groups at successive events.

CONCLUSION

20

Community, both as a concept and a reality, is a complex and difficult web of human

relationships within varying environments; and the importance of understanding such

phenomena has been noted within sociology, ecology, psychology and marketing. Within

marketing, the communal phenomena has appeared in contexts featuring brands, hobbies, and

services; and it has had a major bearing in how marketing theorists approach a variety of

collectivities including brandfests, alternative markets, and subcultures of consumption. We

hope that we have added to marketing‟s understanding of community in a viable fashion.

Undoubtedly, our perspective possesses both advantages and disadvantages. However,

we do believe that our conceptualization of the communal phenomenon provides a unique, multi-

disciplinary perspective that may aid in clarifying what community is in terms of its structure

and the various types of community that may appear. It is our hope that we, as well as other

scholars, can further examine this conceptualization to understand community in other contexts

and explore its associated ramifications for both theoretical and practical purposes.

REFERENCES

Algesheimer, Rene, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The Social Influence of

Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3),

19-34.

Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the

Extended Service Encounter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 24-45.

Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (2000), “Authenticating Acts and Authoritative

Performances: Questing for Self and Community,” The Why of Consumption:

Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed. S.

Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman, New York: Routledge, 140-163.

Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (1989), “The Sacred and the

Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 16 (June), 1-38.

21

Brint, Steven (2001), “Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the

Community Concept,” Sociological Theory, 19 (1), 1-23.

Carley, K (1991), “A Theory of Group Stability,” American Sociological Review, 56, 331-354.

Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh (1993), “An Exploration of High-Risk

Leisure Consumption Through Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 1-

23.

Cooley, Charles H. (1909), Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind, New York: C.

Scribner‟s Sons.

Cova, Bernard (1997), “Community and Consumption: Towards a Definition of the „Linking

Value‟ of Product or Services,” European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), 297-316.

Despande, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu (1986), “The Intensity of Ethnic

Affiliation: The Study of the Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 13 (2), 214-220.

Durkheim, Emile ([1893]1947), Division of Labor in Society, trans. George Simpson, Glencoe,

IL: The Free Press.

Giller, Paul S. (1984), Community Structure and the Niche, New York: Chapman and Hall.

Granovetter, Mark (1973), “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6),

1360-1380.

Hill, Ronald Paul and Mark Stamey (1990), “The Homeless in America: An Examination of

Possessions and Consumption Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 303-

321.

Hillery, George A. (1955), “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement,” Rural Sociology,

20 (June), 111-123.

Hollingshead, August B. (1948), “Community Research: Development and Present Condition,”

American Sociological Review, 13 (2), 136-156.

Kates, Steven M. (2004), “The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay

Men‟s Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (Sept.), 455-464.

Keller, Suzanne (2003), Community: Pursuing the Dream, Living the Reality, Princeton NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Trek‟s

Culture of Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 67-88.

22

Kozinets, Robert V. (2002a), “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing

Research in Online Communities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (Feb.), 61-72.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2002b), “Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations

from Burning Man,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June).

Maffesoli, Michel (1996), The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society,

trans. Don Smith, London: Sage Publications.

McAlexander, James, Stephen K. Kim, and Scott D. Roberts (2003), “Loyalty: The Influences of

Satisfaction and Brand Community Integration,” Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 11 (4), 1-11.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand

Community,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (Jan.), 38-54.

McClenahan, Bessie A. (1929), The Changing Urban Neighborhood, Los Angeles: University of

Southern California Studies Series.

McGrath, Joseph E., Holly Arrow, and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2000), “The Study of Groups: Past,

Present, and Future,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (1), 95-105.

McPheerson, J.M. (1983), “An Ecology of Affiliation,” American Sociolgical Review, 48, 519-

532.

Merton, Robert K. (1949), Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of

Theory and Research, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Moreland, R.L. (1987), “The Formation of Small Groups,” In C. Hendrick (Ed) Review of

Personality and Social Psychology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 8, 80-110.

Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O‟Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of

Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432.

Muniz, Albert M., and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton

Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 737-747.

Park, Robert E. (1936), “Human Ecology,” American Journal of Sociology, 17 (1), 1-15.

Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Schouten, John W., and James H. McAlexander, (1995), “Subcultures of Consumption: An

Ethnography of the New Bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43-61.

Simmel, Georg (1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans. Kurt H. Wolff, Glencoe, Illinois:

The Free Press.

23

Tönnies, Ferdinand ([1887] 1957), Community and Society, trans. Charles P. Loomis, East

Lansing, MI: The Michigan State University Press.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for

Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17.