Content-Type: text/html
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Jan 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Toward Developing Conceptual Foundations of Internet Brand Community
Juran Kim, Doctoral Student, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Submitted to Advertising Division,
2005 AEJMC Annual Conference, San Antonio, Texas
Contact Information:
Juran Kim
476 Communication Bldg.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Knoxville, TN 37996
ABSTRACT
Recently, Internet brand communities are attracting attention from
advertisers. One purpose of this study is to offer conceptual
foundations of Internet brand community by developing an integrated
overview of the current research. Concepts from the Structuration
theory are used for synthesizing the consumer behavior literature.
This study attempts to find and fill the gaps between brand community
and Internet brand community in the literature by considering
critical characteristics of the Internet environment.
Toward Developing Conceptual Foundations of Internet Brand Community
Introduction
The concept of community has been a core construct in social thought
among scholars in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (i.e.
Dewey 1927; Durkheim 1933; Weber 1978) as well as among modern
contributors (i.e. Boorstin 1973; Etzioni 1993; Fischer 1975; Putnam
1995). Further, the concept of brand community has been studied by a
number of marketing scholars (i.e. Schouten and McAlexander 1995;
Muniz and O' Guinn, 2001; McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig 2002),
while the term "brand community" was first used by Goldman in Adweek
(1995).
Recently, Internet brand communities are attracting attention from
advertisers. Internet brand communities are growing, taking various
forms include extensions of a brand community built by corporations
(i.e. Harley-Davidson, Jeep) and Internet-centric brand communities
built by consumers (i.e. Luv Coca-Cola, Hello Kitty Lover). Online
communities have already created financial value. For example,
Classmates Online Inc., an operator of online communities for friends
and acquaintances from school, work and the military, is valued at
approximately $100 million (Taylor 2004). Broadband access, expected
to be in 29 million U.S. households by the end of 2004, is driving
some of the Internet's renaissance (Taylor 2004). PwC expects
broadband penetration to almost double to 54 million by 2008 (Taylor
2004). The growth of broadband access will support and promote the
increasing importance of Internet brand community.
However, despite the widely acknowledged significance of Internet
brand community, consumer behaviors within such a context have rarely
been studied in the advertising literature, particularly when
considering critical characteristics of the Internet environment.
This paper seeks to address this distinctive absence. Furthermore,
many researchers differentiate the Internet environment from
traditional marketing communication environments in terms of
interactivity and structure (i.e. Zeff and Aronson 1999; Leckenby and
Li 2000; Stewart and Pavlou forthcoming). Stewart and Pavlou
(forthcoming) highlight the fact that in order to undertake a
comprehensive study of consumer behavior in an interactive context,
researchers must consider the structural context of the interaction.
Thus, capturing insights and building conceptual foundations of
Internet brand communities considering structure will be especially
important to academics and marketers.
In this paper, concepts that lie within the Structuration theory
(Giddens 1984) will be used as a framework for integrating literature
and conceptualizing Internet brand community. In fact, Stewart, and
Pavlou (forthcoming) propose to consider the Structuration theory for
the study of any given interactions in the Internet
environment. This study would synthesize and evaluate the literature
based on the Structuration theory. This paper's objectives are as
follows: One purpose of this study is to offer conceptual foundations
of Internet brand community by developing an integrated overview of
the current research. Concepts from the Structuration theory will be
used for synthesizing the consumer behavior literature. Brand
community and Internet brand community are compared based on the
concepts in the Structuration theory. A second purpose of this study
is to find and fill the gaps between brand community and Internet
brand community in the literature. Internet brand community is a new
concept in academic literature. There are particular gaps between
brand community and Internet brand community. To fill the gaps in the
literature, potential research questions and future research
directions will be suggested. The future research directions for
conceptualizing Internet brand communities will be discussed by
considering basic concepts in the theory of Structuration and
critical characteristics of the Internet environment. Critical
characteristics of the Internet environment will be discussed. Then,
by considering those characteristics, the future research direction
for the Internet brand community will be suggested to fill gaps in
the literature.
Conceptual Background: Theory of Structuration
The theory of Structuration originally developed by Giddens (1984)
has been applied to various interactive situations over time. A
comprehensive study of consumer behavior in an interactive context
must consider the structural context of the interaction (Stewart and
Pavlou, forthcoming). The structure of interaction which is jointly
determined by the marketer and the consumer has a significant impact
on the consumer-marketer interaction and is a critical factor in
marketing communication effectiveness (Stewart, and Pavlou
forthcoming). The theory of Structuration (Giddens 1984) will be a
useful framework for studying any given interactions of consumers
with marketers or one another in the structural contexts. Thus, the
theory of Structuration will be used to assess the literature of
brand community and Internet brand community, which are jointly
determined by the marketer and the consumer. Basic elements of the
theory of Structuration will be discussed as follows:
Agent, Agency. Human agency is defined as in terns of the capacity to
make a difference, which is known as transformative capacity (Giddens
1984). Agency is intimately connected with power, because the loss
of the capacity to make a difference is powerlessness. Power
involves the exploitation of resources. Resources are "structured
properties of social systems, drawn on and reproduced by
knowledgeable agents in the course of interaction" (Giddens 1984 pp
15). There are two kinds of resources: authoritative resources and
allocative resources. Authoritative resources derive from the
co-ordination of the activity of human agents, and allocative
resources stem from control of material products or aspects of the
natural world (Giddens 1984). Power is not itself a
resource. Actions have intended and unintended consequences.
Structure / Structuration. Structure is defined as being comprised of
three dimensions: significance, dominance and legitimation. "The
structural properties of social systems are both the medium and
outcome of the practices they recursively organize" (Giddens 1984, p.
25). Structure refers to the structuring properties which allow the
binding of time and space in social systems.
Structuration is the process whereby the duality of structure evolves
and is reproduced over time space. In the duality of structure,
human agents communicate by employing interpretative schemes to help
interactions (Giddens 1984). At the same time, those interactions
reproduce and modify those interpretative schemes which are embedded
in social structure as signification (Giddens 1984). Also, at the
same time, those interactions reproduce and modify the interpretive
schemes which are embedded in social structure as signification
(Giddens 1984). Similarly the facility to allocate resources is
enacted in the use of power, and produces and reproduces social
structures of domination. Norms help determine what can be sanctioned
in human interaction, which repetitively produces structures of
legitimation (Giddens 1984).
Social Integration / Social System Integration. Giddens distinguishes
between the cohesive effects of social interactions which take place
when actors are physically present and systemic effects of
interactions across distance. "The reflexive monitoring of action in
situations of co-presence is the main anchoring feature of social
integration"(Giddens 1984 p. 191). Whereas social integration refers
to face-to-face reciprocities between agents who meet in
circumstances of co-presence, social system integration refers to
reciprocities between absent agents, who are physically and/or
temporally situated in different settings. These situations admit the
possibility of inter-situational articulations of systemic patterns.
Time and Space. Time-space distanciation involves the extension of
social systems across time-space, on the basis of mechanisms of
social and system integration (Giddens 1984). The recursive and
reflexive structuration of social interaction extends between people
over geographical distance and over time.
Routines. Routines constitute "the habitual, taken-for-granted
character of the vast bulk of the activities of day-to-day social
life" (Giddens 1984, p. 376). All social interaction is situated
interaction—situated in time and space. Routinized occurrence of
encounters fades away in time and space, but is constantly
reconstituted within different areas of time-space. The routine
features of encounters situated in time and space "represent
institutionalised features of social systems" (Giddens 1984, p.86)."
The Current Research Status and Conceptual Foundations: Brand
Community versus Internet Community
A community consists of its member entities and the relationships
among them. A brand community tends to be identified on the basis of
commonality or identification among their members (i.e. devotion to a
brand). Among the basic concepts of Structuration theory, structure,
social/ social system integration, time and space, and routines will
be employed for comparing the concepts of brand community and
Internet brand community in the literature synthesis. Conceptual
foundations of brand community and Internet brand community will be
discussed by each of the conceptual dimensions of structure,
integration, time, space, and routines. The discussion will be guided
by Table 1.
1.1 Structure: Brand Community
Hierarchy. The structure of a brand community presents hard-core
members, soft-core members and peripheral groups as aspirants of
subcultures (Kinsey 1982; Klein 1985; Fox 1987). Fox (1987) proposes
that hard-core members show a commitment to a certain subculture
(e.g. punk style) and an enduring ideology. Hard-core or high-status
members achieve a status as opinion leaders. The soft-core members
show less complete commitment to the subculture and their roles are
subordinate to and dictated by the hard-core members. Peripheral
groups, made up of aspirants, are fascinated by the subculture and
delve superficially into it. For example, peripheral to the hard- and
soft-core punks is a group of punk aspirants.
Outlaw biker clubs show a structure of hard-core and soft-core
members and a peripheral group of subcultures. Outlaws with full club
membership constitute a hard core that is absolutely committed to the
club's ideology, bylaws, norms, and welfare (Thompson 1966). The soft
core is composed of prospective and pilot members. Non-affiliated,
peripheral bikers as pretenders also have been observed (Watson 1980).
Formalization. Further, the structure of a brand community presents
both a formal hierarchy and an informal hierarchy of commitment and
authenticity (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Brand communities
maintain a formal hierarchy of officers that is subsumed by an
informal hierarchy based on within-group status. For example, each
subgroup within the Harley-Davidson brand community maintains a
formal hierarchy of officers that is subsumed by an informal
hierarchy based on within-group status (Schouten and McAlexander 1995).
Status in brand community can be conveyed to members according to
their seniority, participation and leadership in group activities,
expertise and experience, topic-specific knowledge, and the results
of an individual's commitment to the group's consumption
values.Schouten and McAlexander (1995) also propose a complex social
structure of multiple, coexisting subgroups. Each subgroup has its
own separate hierarchy. Moreover, although each subgroup is highly
committed to the Harley-Davidson motorcycle and to a related set of
consumption values, each subgroup also has its own unique
interpretation of the biker ethos.
1.2 Struture: Internet Brand Community
Super Memebership. Schau and Muniz (2003) suggest super membership as
being similar to the concept of hard-core members of subcultures.
They propose that super membership is evidenced by legitimacy and
authority and an active and visible author identity. Legitimacy
refers to the idea that the consumer "understood" the brand and used
it for the "right reasons" (Muniz and O' Guinn, 2001). Authority
refers to the amounts of expertise, experience and knowledge that are
attributed to the author. Appreciating the brand is the lowest form
of involvement, and therefore it carries the least amount of status.
Increasing a member's involvement would raise the member's status.
Summary and Future Research Questions
In sum, while the literature offer insights into defining the
structure of brand community by discussing hierarchy and
formalization, the structure of Internet brand community has only
been discussed in terms of the super membership (Schau and Muniz
2003). Further, super membership in an Internet brand community is
discussed not in an Internet-centric context but as an extension of
offline brand community. It is imperative that the gaps between brand
community and Internet brand community studies be filled, in order to
clarify the Internet brand community structure. Thus, the following
questions may be drawn upon in future research endeavors to fill the gaps:
1) How can the structure of Internet brand community be conceptualized?
- How can hierarchies of Internet brand community be conceptualized?
- How can formalization of Internet brand community be conceptualized?
2) What are the differences and similarities in structure between
brand community and Internet brand community?
3) What are the differences and similarities in structure between
Internet brand community as an extension of offline brand community
and Internet-centric brand community?
2.1 Integration: Brand Community
Customer-Brand Relationship. A number of studies (Aaker 1996; Aaker
1997; Gardner and Levy 1955; Grubb and Grathwohl 1967) support the
notion of construing brand community as a social aggregation of brand
users and their relationships to the brand itself as a store of meaning.
Customer-Customer-Brand Relationship. Muniz and O'Guinn (2001)
consider a brand community as a customer-customer-brand relationship.
Muniz and O'Guinn (2001, 412) define a brand community as "a
specialized, on-geographically bound community, based on a structured
set of social relationships among users of a brand." The
relationships of brand communities are characterized by a shared
consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral
responsibility (Muniz and O'Guinn 2001). Muniz and O'Guinn's
customer-customer-brand relationship
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
of brand community corresponds to the findings of several other
studies of consumer collectives (Holt 1995; Schouten and McAlexander
1995). The studies of consumer collectives propose that
inter-customer relationships are significantly incorporated into the
loyalty equation.
Customer-Centric Relationship and Brand Community Integration.
McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002) propose customer-centric
models as extensions of the CCB model as well as offering a shift of
perspective. McAlexander et al. (2002) conceptualize brand community
integration as a multi-component construct, consisting of a
customer's relationship with brand, product, company, and other
customers. The brand component reflects the brand associations that
informants conveyed to McAlexander et al. (2002) in the qualitative
work, as well as an indicator of the consumers' willingness to
identify with the brand. The study concerned itself with consumer
perceptions of a casino. The brand associations revealed to
McAlexander et al. (2002) include what qualities consumers perceive
as being unique to the casino, such as a welcoming feeling. Later,
the brand component is operationalized as a desire to wear
casino-branded apparel (McAlexander Kim and Roberts 2003). The
product component is operationalized as a customer's experience with
twelve attributes of casino services (McAlexander et al. 2003). The
company component is operationalized as a customer's perception of
the friendliness and fairness of staff and employees at the casino
(McAlexander et al. 2003). The other customer component is
operationalized as the extent to which a customer enjoys the company
of other customers at the casino.
Brand Community Integration, Satisfaction, and Loyalty. McAlexander
et al. (2002; 2003) and Garbarino and Johnson (1999) offered insights
on brand community as it relates to building customer loyalty.
McAlexander et al. (2002) proposed the existence of a significant
impact of brand community integration upon consumer loyalty. Further,
McAlexander et al. (2003) emprirically determined that brand
community integration is positively related to customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty as indicators of purchase behavior and repurchase intent.
2.2 Integration: Internet Brand Community
While the previous literature has rarely dealt with the integration
of Internet brand community, Tambyah (1996) proposes social
interrelatedness of "Net Communitas." Net Communitas refers to how an
individual Net user bonds with other Net users. Many Net users
demonstrate exceptional bonds with the people whom they interact with
on the Net (Rheingold 1993). For example, John Perry Harlow,
co-founder of the WELL community commented "Those strangers, who had
no arms to put around my shoulders, no eyes to weep with mine,
nevertheless saw me through [various personal crises] as neighbors
do" (Hafner 1995, p.56; Tambyah 1996). Net Communitas also reveals
the existence on the Internet of expressions of basic human needs for
community, engagement and dependence (Tambyah 1996).
Summary and Future Research Questions
In sum, while the literature conceptualized integration of brand
community as Customer-Brand Relationship, Customer-Customer-Brand
Relationship and Customer-Centric Relationship, the integration of
Internet brand community has not been conceptualized. Further,
loyalty and satisfaction related to the Internet brand community have
not been discussed. It is imperative to fill the gaps between brand
community and Internet brand community studies, in order to clarify
the Internet brand community integration. Thus, the following
questions can be drawn upon during future research efforts:
1) How can Internet brand community integration be conceptualized?
2) What are the differences and similarities in integration between
brand community and Internet brand community?
3) How can loyalty and satisfaction be conceptualized and measured in
Internet brand community integration?
3.1 Time and Space: Brand Community
Brand communities are identified by the multiple factors in which
they differ, including geographical space (i.e. geographic
concentration), time (i.e. temporality) and social context
(McAlexander et al. 2002). The multiple dimensions of a brand
community are studied as static typologies (Fischer, Bristor, and
Gainer 1996; Granitz and Ward 1996; Tambyah 1996). It is necessary to
fully examine the viable and multifaceted factors of brand community
in order to understand them as dynamic phenomena.
Time. One important factor of brand communities is time (i.e.
temporality). Schouten and McAlexander (1995) propose that the time
factor of brand communities is stable or enduring. Others propose
that the time factor is temporary or periodic (Arnould and Price
1993; Holt 1995; McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993). McAlexander et
al. (2002) highlight the notion that the temporality of a community
can offer benefits to marketers inasmuch as longevity equates with a
long-term, stable market. Even periodic communities have been
observed to share meaningful consumption experiences (Arnould and
Price 1993; McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993; McAlexander et al.
2002). While those studies emphasize time factors such as temporality
and stability as an important factor of brand community, they did not
discuss the relationship between time factors (i.e. temporality and
longevity) and the brand community integration.
Space. Another factor in which brand communities differ from one
another is geographical space. While Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) find
that brand communities have been defined as non-geographically
bounded, several other studies consider the geographic concentration
as being a critical dimension of brand communities (Park 1926; 1979;
Holt 1995; Boorstin 1974; Granitz and Ward 1996; Kozinets1997; Tambyah 1996).
Park (1979) emphasizes common geographic locality as the starting
point for defining community. Holt (1995) focuses on brand community
as being geographically concentrated. Boorstin (1974) highlights
brand community as geographically scattered. McAlexander and Schouten
(1998) also suggest that scattered brand communities respond to
temporary geographic concentrations. Those studies have tended to
emphasize geographic space as an important factor by which brand
communities differ. And the studies proposed that geographic space
can be identified by degree of concentration: concentrated geographic
space versus scattered geographic space.
3.2 Time and Space: Internet Brand Community
Time and Space Compression. A number of authors (Granitz and Ward
1996; Kozinets1997; Tambyah 1996) study brand communities that exist
in entirely in Internet space. Tambyah (1996) points out "time-space
compression" in the Internet community. Time-space compression
refers to "processes that revolutionize the objective qualities of
space and time which force us to alter how we represent the world to
ourselves" (Harvey 1989, p.240). The time it takes to get from one
place to another diminishes through innovations in transportation and
telecommunications (Ellul 1964; Tambyah 1996). The consequences are
that "distance no longer exists and man has vanquished space" (Ellul
1964, p.328; Tambyah 1996). Through time-space compression, the
Internet environment provides instant travel in real time. The
Internet allows people situated in distant locations to communicate
and exchange ideas immediately with one another.
Summary and Future Research Questions
In sum, Internet brand community studies clearly propose time-space
compression in the Internet environment. By considering time and
space, the following questions can be drawn upon for the future
research efforts which will consider the Internet environment:
1) How does time-space compression affect the structure of Internet
brand community?
2) How does time-space compression affect the integration of Internet
brand community?
4. 1. Routines, Shared Consumption patterns, Shared Values: Brand Community
Shared Consumption Patterns. Schouten and McAlexander (1995) focus on
shared consumption patterns of brand communities as subcultures of
consumption. They define a subculture of consumption as a distinctive
subgroup of society that self-selects on the basis of a shared
commitment to a particular product class, brand, or consumption
activity (Schouten and McAlexander 1995).
Brand community as a subculture of consumption acquires existence as
people identify with certain objects or consumption activities and,
through those objects or activities, identify with other people.
Brand communities as a subculture of consumption are identified set
of shared beliefs and values, rituals and symbolic expression. A
subculture typically encounters certain products or activities which
convey cultural meanings that ultimately become articulated as
unique, consumption patterns or ideologies of consumption (Hebdige
1979; Kinsey 1982; Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1985). The unifying
consumption patterns are governed by a set of common values. The
structure of the brand community, which governs social interactions
within it, is a direct reflection of the commitment of individuals to
the values.
Schouten and McAlexander (1995) also propose that coexisting
subgroups in a brand community are identified by shared values,
rituals and symbolic expression. For example, coexisting subgroups
of Harley-Davidson brand community claim the biker designation and
wear the biker uniform (i.e., some combination of jeans, black boots,
and T-shirts, a black leather jacket, and a vest that may carry
insignias of club affiliation). Unique and homogeneous consumption
patterns created in the brand community as subculture can be shared
by everyone from peripherals to the core members of the subculture
(Fox 1987; Klein 1985) and may even become imitated and
commercialized for mass consumption (Blair and Hatala 1991; Fox 1987;
Gottdiener 1985; McCracken 1986; Schwendinger and Schwendinger 1985).
4. 2. Routines, Shared Consumption Patterns, Shared Values: Internet
Brand Community
The previous literature has rarely deal with routines, shared
consumption patterns, shared values of Internet brand community,
although Tambyah (1996) has commented that Net Communitas refers to
how net users bond through experiences a sense of a common, shared
destiny. And Kozinets (1997) found the "X-Philes" as a fan culture
are characterized by enthusiastic devotion to the TV series The
X-Files. He proposed the "X- Philes" as subculture of consumption and
explored shared values.
Summary and Future Research Questions
In sum, brand communities as subcultures of consumption are
characterized by sets of shared beliefs and values, rituals, symbolic
expression, shared consumption patterns and ideologies of
consumption. But discussions of routines, shared consumption
patterns, or shared values in the Internet brand community were
hardly found in the literature. The following questions can be drawn
upon in future research efforts considering Internet brand community:
1) What are shared beliefs and values, rituals, consumption patterns
and ideologies of consumption in the Internet brand community as subculture?
2) How do Internet brand community members present symbolic
expression in the Internet environment?
Discussion
In sum, this study offered an integrated overview of the current
status of the research of Internet brand community. The concepts in
the theory of constitution were used for synthesizing consumer
behavior literature. Brand community and Internet brand community are
compared based on the concepts in the Structuration theory. Then,
this study formulated and proposed future research questions to be
directed toward filling the gaps between brand community and Internet
community in the literature. Internet brand community is a new
concept in academic literature. There are significant disparities
between brand community and Internet brand community.
Advertising practitioners already recognize the
importance of Internet brand community for amplifying relationships
with consumers. This study offers the insights to help marketing
practitioners in understanding consumer behaviors in Internet brand
communities. Advertising practitioners will benefit from new ideas
regarding how to develop and manage Internet brand communities by
understanding consumer behaviors.
Although this study proposed future research questions directed
toward filling the gaps which it identified between brand community
and Internet brand community in the literature, an integrated
conceptual model of Internet brand community was not discussed. A
conceptual model of Internet brand community might be suggested by
providing theoretical underpinnings of Structuration theory in the
Internet environment. The Structuration theory offers insights into
the relationship between structure and interactivity, by providing
the concept of the duality of structure.
In fact, interactivity is a central issue in the Internet
environment. However, few articles in the literature offered partial
information toward interaction in the Internet brand community (i.e.
Schau and Muniz 2003). Future exploratory research is strongly
recommended to investigate interactivity in the context of Internet
brand community.
It is noteworthy that interactivity that differentiates Internet
environment from traditional media (Zeff and Aronson 1999; Stewart
and Pavlou forthcoming). Interactivity in the Internet environment
allows interaction between consumers in complex ways. Consumers
exchange information by navigating websites, customizing their
preferences, and communicating with marketers. Consumers communicate
and share their preferences and experiences with marketers and/or
product and service providers, and offer recommendations to one
another (Stewart and Pavlou forthcoming). Thus, interactivity is
essential for conceptualizing Internet brand community in the
internet environment. Also, structure is a dynamic factor that
influences interactive marketing communications, and is
simultaneously affected by the interaction. A key insight of
Structuration theory is that as consumers and marketers interact,
changes in structure influence any measure of success. Stewart and
Pavlou (forthcoming) propose that "any meaningful measure of
interactive marketing communication must take in account the role of
the structural context." Thus, in order to build a conceptual
framework for Internet brand community in the Internet environment,
the relationships between structure and interactivity would need to
be thoroughly captured into the model.
Reference
Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), "Dimensions of Brand Personality," Journal of
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
Marketing research, 35 (August), 347-56.
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.
Zeff, R.L. and B. Aronson (1999), Advertising on the Internet, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Table 1
The Current Research Status: Brand Community versus Internet Brand Community
Dimensions
Brand Community
Internet Brand Community
Authors
Contributions
Authors
Contributions
Structure
Hierarchy
Kinsey 1982; Klein 1985; Fox 1987;
Schouten and McAlexander 1995
Hard core, Soft core and Peripheral
Propose hierarchies of brand community as hard-core, soft core
members and peripheral groups as aspirants
Schau and Muniz 2003
Super Membership
Formal/
Informal
Schouten and McAlexander 1995
Formal/ Informal
Propose brand community have both formal structure and informal structure.
Integration
Aaker 1996; Aaker 1997; Gardner and Levy 1955; Grubb and Grathwohl 1967
Customer--Brand Relationship
-Define a brand community as customer-band Relationship
Tambyah *
1996
Net Communitas
Net users' social interrelationship
as social
interrelatedness
refers to
how an individual net user bond with other net users
and experience
a sense of common and shared destiny.
Muniz and O'Guine 2001
Customer-Customer-Brand Relationship
-Define a brand community as customer-customer-
band Relationship
-Define a brand community a structured set of social relations among
admirers of a brand.
McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002
Customer-Centric Relationship
-Define a brand community as customer-centric Relationship
-Conceptualize brand community integration as a multi-component
construct: a customer's relationship with brand, product, company,
and other customers and empirically test it.
Garbarino and Johnson (1999); McAlexander et al. 2003
Outcome Loyalty and Satisfaction
Examine the brand community integration is positively related to
customer loyalty and satisfaction
Time, Space
Time
Schouten and McAlexander 1995
Stable or Enduring
Tambyah
1996 *
Time Compression
Arnould and Price 1993; Holt 1995; McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley 1993
Temporary or Periodic
Space
Park 1926; 1979; Holt 1995
Geographically Concentrated
Propose geographically concentrated brand community
Granitz and Ward 1996; Kozinets1997; Tambyah 1996
*
Internet Space
Space Compression
Boorstin 1974; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002
Scattered
Propose geographically scattered brand community
Muniz and O'Guine JCR 2001
Non- Geographic bounded
Routines
Consumption Pattern
Values
Muniz and O'Guine 2001
Shared Consciousness and Ritual
Propose three traditional markers of community as shared
consciousness, rituals & traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility.
Kozinets1997 *
Shared Value
the X Philes as Sub culture of consumption
Online community
Schouten and McAlexander 1995
Shared Consumption Pattern
as a distinctive subgroup of society that self-selects on the basis
of a shared commitment to a particular product class, brand, or
consumption activity
Shared Values
Characterized by a set of shared beliefs and values, rituals and
symbolic expression.