1

Brands as Complex Social Phenomena

Hans Mühlbacher, Andrea Hemetsberger, Eva Thelen*, Christine Vallaster, Rudolf Massimo, Johann Füller, Clemens Pirker, Robert Schorn, Christine Kittinger University of Innsbruck, Department of value-process management, Marketing group

Abstract Contemporary marketing literature describes brand creation from either a company perspective, or from the consumer’s side. We argue that this rather dualistic restriction on either the organization as the dominant driver in establishing brands or the focus on consumers’ reaction to marked objects largely ignores the possibility that a more varied group of interested individuals and organizations actively co-participate in brand-related interactions and so contribute to brand development. The objective of this paper is to re-conceptualize the brand as a complex, social phenomenon. To this end, we will first present a brief review and discussion of how brands have become depicted in contemporary literature. Secondly, we develop an integrative perspective, which conceptualizes a brand as encompassing brand manifestations, brand meaning, and a brand interest group that constructs brand meaning as well as brand manifestations in an ongoing public discourse. Finally, implications of such an approach for theory and future research will be discussed.

* Contact person: Eva Thelen Associate professor Department of value-process management Marketing group University of Innsbruck Universitätsstraße 15 6020 Innsbruck, Austria, EUROPE phone: 0043 (0)512 507 7213 Fax: 0043 (0)512 507 2842 e-mail: [email protected]

2 Introduction In a business environment where global competition and rapid transfer of technology in most industries have made differentiation by product features increasingly difficult, brands and branding have attracted rising interest from marketing managers and academics. Although the successful creation and management of brands is, nowadays, considered to be the essence of an enterprise, there are brand phenomena, such as brands getting under attack by consumers, which can not be explained within the confines of the discipline of marketing (Holt 2002). Reasons for this seem to be rooted in assumptions about (1) what a brand consists of, (2) how a brand develops, and (3) who participates in that process. Regarding the brand’s ontological foundation, conceptualizations in the literature range from viewing a brand as a marked product, or as a bundle of features (e.g. Kotler 1991, Park and Srinivasan 1994), to defining the brand at a corporate level (e.g. Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, Kapferer 2004, de Chernatony and Harris 2000, Hatch and Schultz 2001, 2003). Consumer research, on the other hand, has put brands into the domain of the consumers. While some authors refer to brands as individual consumers’ cognitive concepts, images, and beliefs (Keller 1998, 2003; Aaker 1997, Troiano 1996), others contend that brands derive their value from their social meaning, and are used by consumers as symbols in social interaction (Solomon 1983; Elliott 1994). Hence, brands are regarded as individual and social systems of meaning on the one hand. On the other hand, brands are considered being material objects, comprising also immaterial components, and are carriers of the identity of its creators. Each definition puts a certain perspective into the focus of interest, thus leaving a patchwork of theoretical approaches towards brand research that calls for a synthesis. With regard to participation in brand creation, contemporary marketing literature describes brand creation from either a company perspective (e.g. Kapferer 2004, Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000, or Keller 1998), or from the consumer’s side (e.g. McAlexander et al. 2002). We argue that this rather dualistic restriction on either the organization as the dominant driver in establishing brands or the focus on consumers’ reaction to marked objects largely ignores the possibility that a more varied group of interested individuals and organizations actively co-participate in brand-related interactions and so contribute to brand development (see also Schultz and de Chernatony 2002). A unifying framework could serve as a first step for studying the complex interplay among the elements of brand objects, brand meaning, and the brand interest group. This in turn may stimulate new research questions and enhance our understanding of brands and brand related phenomena. The objective of this paper is to re-conceptualize the brand as a complex, social phenomenon. To this end, we will first present a brief review and discussion of how brands have become depicted in contemporary literature. Secondly, we develop an integrative perspective, which conceptualizes a brand as encompassing brand manifestations, brand meaning, and a brand interest group that constructs brand meaning as well as brand manifestations in an ongoing public discourse. Finally, implications of such an approach for theory and future research will be discussed. A brief review of brands and branding Looking at how brand concepts have developed and proliferated over time, we can detect distinct conceptualizations of what constitutes a brand. One of the most recognized and still widely used definition of brands refers back to Kotler (1991). He considers brands to be a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. Hence, one of the main functions of a brand is to protect the owner of the trademark from imitation. Closely related to this definition of a brand is its conceptualization as a bundle of material and immaterial features (Park and Srinivasan 1994), which increase

3 the attractiveness of a product beyond its functional value (Farquhar 1989). Both views reflect a utilitarian focus of a branded object, or the trademark. The brand identity perspective, as proposed by Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000), and Kapferer (2004), has considerably widened the brand research horizon. By adding characteristics of the organization, the intended brand personality, as well as the symbolic value of a brand, they succeeded in changing the long-standing utilitarian and individualistic branding paradigm. By doing so, corporate behavior, the behavior of sales personnel, and central organizational values have become part of a renewed brand concept on a corporate level (e.g. de Chernatony 2001, Hatch and Schultz 2001, 2003). Brands have also been conceptualized from a consumer perspective, for instance as individual cognitions (Richards et al. 1998, Keller 1998, Aaker 1997, Troiano 1996). By looking at the meaning that consumers attach to the brand as a reaction to environmental stimuli, research interest revolves around how individuals perceive brand personality and develop brand knowledge. Related research still remains firmly focused on a modernist perspective of branding, which ascribes the active brand creation activity to the firm, and a passive, receptive role to the consumer. An extension to this has been provided by Fournier’s (1998) contribution to the branding literature. By engaging in relationships with brands consumers are considered to take a more active role in the creation of brand meaning. Authors who adopt a more social perspective conceive brands as meanings shared by a group of people who use them as symbols in social interaction (Solomon 1983, Elliott 1994, Richins 1994, Elliott and Wattanasuwan 1998). This stream of research puts emphasis on the role of the social meaning and social symbolism of brands, particularly for consumers’ selfconcept and social identity (Belk 1988, Ahuvia 2005). Brands provide an important role in identity creation, and consumers often decide whether to accept or reject brands on the basis of its symbolic value (Belk et al. 1982, Belk et al. 1984). More recently, consumer behavior literature has adopted a postmodern view on consumers and consumer behavior, looking at the active role of the consumer in the creation of brands. For instance, the importance of consumption activities in the making of brands has been demonstrated by authors such as Wallendorf and Arnould (1991), Arnould and Price (1993), Belk and Costa (1998) and Penaloza (2001). It has been argued that “brands belong to and are created in concert with groups of communities” (Brown et al. 2003). Consumers are actively creating lively brandscapes (Sherry 1989, Kozinets et al. 2004, Thompson 2004) and brand cultures (Schouten and McAlexander 1995, Muniz and O’Guinn 2000, McAlexander, et al. 2002, Muniz and Schau 2005). In getting involved in such interactions, consumers’ cognitions are continuously (re-)shaped (McAlexander et al. 2002). Schultz and de Chernatony (2002) identify engaging stakeholders in the co-production of brands as one of the challenges in creating brand coherence. The literature on brand cultures provides useful insights into the complex processes underlying the cultural co-construction of brands. Yet, despite this groundbreaking turn towards an emancipatory view of the consumer (Kozinets 2002), it falls short of considering other relevant and important (social) actors in the (co-)creation of brands. There is little doubt, that brands like Nike, for instance, are strongly dependent on a variety of brand ‘co-creators’, apart from marketers and consumers. Social brand co-creators, for example, are Nike’s celebrities, who are only functional for the brand if the media regularly broadcast and report about them, if consumers trust in Nike’s suppliers and franchisees, and if members of the brand out-group would never consider wearing Nike. Hence, a wide variety of people may contribute in the creation of brands. The above discussion calls for an integrative conceptualization of brands as complex social phenomena, which covers the interplay between the various brand components and

4 social actors, who continuously develop brand meaning. Such a conceptualization has to consider (1) a socially relevant system of brand meanings and brand manifestations, and (2) the dynamic development of those meanings and manifestations emerging from ongoing interaction processes within a social entity of interested individuals and organizations. Brands as complex social phenomena Drawing on our previous arguments, we consider brands to comprise three closely interrelated concepts: brand interest groups, brand meaning, and brand manifestations (see Figure 1). People and organizations, who are interested in a brand, form the interest group of a brand. Brands are subject to a continual, ongoing process of discourse among and between the members of the interest group. Brand meaning emerges, is reinforced, or changed within this process. Brand meaning becomes ‘tangible’ through the manifestations of the brand, which are socially constructed by the members of the brand interest groups, using, consuming, and co-producing them. In the following we will describe the three concepts in more detail.

Context BRAND INTEREST GROUP

Social discourse

BRAND MANIFESTATIONS

BRAND MEANING

Figure 1: the brand as a social complex phenomenon

Brand Interest Group A brand interest group is defined as a social entity of individuals and organizations more or less intensively communicating in a brand-related direct and indirect, verbal and nonverbal, manner, meeting on physical and/or virtual platforms. Individuals can meet on purpose, or get together coincidentally in order to share their experiences, or to express their beliefs and convictions regarding a certain company, product, service, event, or person. Although members of the brand interest group may be in constant flux, they contribute to the development of the brand by disseminating their knowledge, expectations, evaluations and ways of usage during an ongoing interaction process from which brand meaning continually emerges (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Members of a brand interest group may be

5 suppliers of products or services, their staff, intermediaries and their staff, customers and sympathizers of the offer, customers and sympathizers of competitive offers, or journalists. The relevance of the brand determines how intensively individuals participate in the ongoing discourse about the brand. Highly brand involved people may form an inner circle. For example, brand communities have developed as subcultures of consumption, as brand tribes, or as a network of social interrelationships among individuals, who are highly interested in a brand and have developed emotional bonds among each other (McAlexander et al. 2002, Muniz and O´Guinn 2001, Cova and Cova 2003, Muniz and Schau 2005, Wipperfürth 2005). Such bonds find their expression in celebrating brand manifestations and sharing a brand’s history and tradition. Members construe themselves as ‘belonging’ to a community, because this membership is functional for the development and maintenance of their social identity. Members of such brand communities develop a certain consciousness-ofkind (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001), camaraderie and kinship (McAlexander et al. 2002). Shared rituals and traditions are central social processes, reproducing the shared meaning, history, and culture of the group. Despite of the tendency in the literature to implicitly restrict brand communities to consumer communities, empirical evidence shows that such strong ties also develop among retailers, employees, media representatives, and many other stakeholders. Members of the core act and communicate differently as compared to members of the periphery. In many cases, such highly involved members of a brand interest group become innovative and take an active role in the creation of brand manifestations and brand meaning (Füller 2005, Hemetsberger 2002, Cova and Cova 2002, Wipperfürth 2005). Hence, they shape the manifestations and meaning of a brand in a sustainable manner. However, the core of the brand interest group is embedded in a much bigger – peripheral - group of individuals and organizations, who have a certain personal and/or professional interest in the brand. Less involved consumers, employees, retail sales personnel, celebrities, journalists, consumer advocates, and even members of interest groups of alternative brands participate in the ongoing creation of brand meaning and brand manifestations to a certain extent. The adversarial contributions of brand antagonists to brand-related discourse, for instance, may reinforce brand meanings and the social cohesion of the core members of a brand interest group (Luedicke 2005). Hence, conceptualizing a brand by omitting antagonist members of a brand interest group would mean to disregard potentially important co-creators of brand meaning. Brand Meaning Brand meaning is a dynamic collective knowledge and evaluation system continually emerging from interactions among the members of a brand interest group. Brand meaning is not a stable system of thought, but in constant flux as prevailing beliefs are constantly challenged and recharged in discourse. Hence, our concept of brand meaning stands in contrast to the idea of brand image or brand knowledge, which is commonly viewed as comprising descriptive brand attributes that characterize the brand (Keller 2003). In our conception brand meaning is consensual, but not uniform. Building on the work of Abric (1993), Barsalou (1989, 1999), and Moscovici (1984) we consider individual cognitive structures of members of a brand interest group as having the same essence (=core), that comprises context independent knowledge and evaluations that are logically interrelated. In addition, brand meaning contains specific time and context related cognitions and evaluations, which are distributed across members (= periphery). Each member of the brand interest group holds part of the collective knowledge and evaluation system. The core meaning ensures a common ground for the interpretation and evaluation of brand manifestations and other members of the brand interest group. The peripheral system serves the purpose of situation specific interpretations without raising conflict when contradictory elements appear.

6 Therefore, a substantial amount of sub-versions of the same meaning system do exist, not only across individuals but also for each individual. They converge in terms of their core. The core of brand meaning may be strongly shaped by the "vision of life", the cultural and social practice of the core group, those who participate most intensively in the brandrelated discourse. The core meaning of the brand Gucci, for example, might include exclusivity, Italian culture, and design. Brand meaning might also be influenced through various other forms of social interaction, for instance by innovating or displaying a possession, thus symbolically articulating the brand. Hence, varying meanings may become additionally relevant in different social situations. Carrying a Gucci bag can demonstrate wealth when taking part in a social event. A Gucci bag can also signal being a trendy person when meeting friends, or might reinforce the person’s image of belonging to higher organizational levels at the workplace. However, the bag may also simply serve as a ‘container’ for carrying groceries just bought in a supermarket, signalling understatement or even brand resistance. In any of these cases, the Gucci bag is used to communicate symbolically with relevant others. This is possible because the bag is an important carrier of the meaning of the brand. However brand meaning might manifest itself in various ways. Brand Manifestations Brand manifestations are the material expressions of the meaning of a brand. Hence, brand manifestations allow individuals and groups to sensually experience the meaning of a brand. Brand manifestations are not determined from the very beginning of a brand, nor are they to be exclusively thought of as branded objects. They may comprise a number of elements, which can be objects as well as people, organizations, or activities. The brand “Red Bull”, for example, can be experienced not only by tasting and smelling the drink or seeing the can or the logo, but also by watching an interview with the owner, or a Formula 1 race with the Red Bull Racing Team participating, or by taking part in the “Red Bull Flugtag”. Hence, the brand manifests itself in a variety of ways, depending on different situations. Brand meaning is often reflected in persons or a group of persons. This “personification” of a brand contributes to its ontological reality. In the case of luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, or Coco Channel often it is the owner or the founder of the company, who is perceived as the brand. Even celebrities, employees, typical consumers, or groups of consumers may be conceived of as being part of a brand. Brand manifestations are socially constructed by the members of the brand interest group (Dant 1999). It is not only the company that plays an active part in this process but also other members of the interest group. With special merchandise presentations or the organization of brand related events retailers, for example, may contribute to the development of brand manifestations. Consumers may engage in brand related activities, which are adopted by others and might become constituent elements of a brand. The Posse ride is an often cited example of a consumer initiated activity, which, in part, represents the Harley Davidson brand. Brand personifications can also happen unintentionally, like the association of the “Hells Angels”, a violent rocker’s gang, to the brand Harley Davidson. Brand manifestations can be subject to productive actions of members of the brand interest group (Füller et al. 2006, Hemetsberger 2003, Franke and Shah 2003, Shawhney and Prandelli 2000, von Hippel 2005). Some members of the “Harley Owners Group”, for example, turned into innovators and co-created their own products (www.hog.com). Concepts of individualized motorbikes and accessories discussed within this community were later included in the company’s development process (McWilliam 2000). Although Apple stopped producing the Apple Newton, its fans decided to stay with their favourite handheld computer and created plenty of software applications in their community (Muniz et al. 2005). All these examples show that consumers take a central role in the creation of brand manifestations.

7 Successful manifestations are those ones, which are used in discourse, and which are accepted by most of the members of the interest group. Some manifestations therefore are central for the meaning of the brand. They represent a stable core, whereas other manifestations may vary across situations. Brand manifestations are the object of consumption or use and at the same time, the simplified experiential representation of the brand in terms of a sign. By using those signs, brand communities constitute themselves as such (Durkheim 1994), even in the absence of face-to-face contact. Brand manifestations continually stimulate social interaction and thereby the reproduction of brand meaning. Implications and Future Research In this paper we presented an integrated understanding of the brand, which develops through a vivid social discourse among the members of the brand interest group. By increasingly acknowledging the power of diverse stakeholders in co-constructing brand meaning and brand manifestations, the development of brands has to be viewed as a more complex process within a social system of interrelated actors. The understanding and integration of such brand coconstructing processes into brand management will be one of the biggest challenges for the future. However, it also opens up new fields for brand research and insights. As, for instance, with regard to product innovation and brand extensions, researchers typically focus on the fit among the original branded product and a new product or service. A good fit is argued to increase the likelihood of a successful new product introduction. This basic contention may also be transferred to the above brand conception. However, because a brand, from our point of view, consists of the brand interest group, the brand meaning, and the brand manifestations all of these aspects need to be considered simultaneously. Accordingly, the fit dimensions which usually focus on brand knowledge need to be expanded to the other brand aspects. The associations concerning a new product or service may fit to the originally branded product but attract a different group of users which is in conflict with the existing ones. This may have adverse effects on the success of brand extensions. Besides drawing attention to additional relevant fit dimensions our conception suggests that brand research needs to expand its effort to identify core and peripheral brand meanings. The fit assumption only holds true for the core elements of brand meaning, manifestations, and group members, which largely determine the meaning of the brand. Peripheral meanings may be diverse without having any negative influence on the success of a brand extension. However, this requires a deep and elaborate understanding of the core of a brand across situations. Moreover, according to our view, innovation and brand extension does not only take place within organizations. On the contrary, members of a brand interest group take a prominent role in the construction of a brand, not only in a social constructivist sense, but also in terms of product and service innovation. Hence, the integration of innovative members of the brand interest group into innovation processes will become a major issue in the marketing literature. As many stakeholders are taking part in brand creation, brand discourse should be viewed as a more complex process of social interaction, potentially resulting in a more complex and contradictory system of meaning. Disregarding these effects, researchers and practitioners alike have been faced with brand resistance and antagonistic brand discourse, without knowing how to handle those brand-related phenomena. Taking our integrated view seriously, we will have to incorporate all members of a brand interest group into brand research, including brand resisting groups of individuals. This should, for instance, open up our eyes with respect to our understanding of the ‘ownership’ and the deep meaning of brands. The Apple Newton community, for example (Muniz and Schau 2005), successfully demonstrated its ownership with regard to the Newton brand. In a similar vein, the deep meaning of brands often unfolds through the interplay of consumers, resistant consumers, and

8 companies, as for instance in the Benetton case. Its highly disputed communication campaigns have brought forward highly committed advocates as well as antagonists, thus sharpening its position and brand meaning. Hence, in order to get a hold of the core of brand meaning, it seems necessary to investigate the whole range of individual and social brand meanings of all relevant members of what we termed the brand interest group. Furthermore, members of this brand interest group may form various relationships with a brand. Up until now, brand relationships in the literature have been primarily viewed from a dyadic, consumer towards branded object, view. However, those brand relationships are forming in the private, as well as in the public domain (Richins 1994), which leads to different implications with regard to brand relationship building and private and symbolic consumption. Whereas private relationships may form independently from other members of the brand interest group, relationships which are public are used for social interaction and may derive much of their meanings from being a core member of the brand interest group. Ferrari fans, for instance, build up strong relationships with the Ferrari brand, have become part of the brand by publicly displaying their fandom through the use of rituals, showing up in ‘red masses’, expressing their love and passion for Ferrari with a number of totemic merchandise items. Moreover, with regard to brand manifestations, members of the interest group might build up relationships with different manifestations of a brand. They might even produce their own brand manifestations, for instance in the form of fetishes and shrines. Madonna fans, for instance, in absence of the person (or brand) Madonna, are building their own shrines consisting of color prints, flowers, CD’s, concert tickets, and other devotional objects for the purpose of adoration. Other manifestations of such brands might be brand rituals, which help strengthen the relationship between members of a brand interest group and the brand. Relationships may as well be formed with persons and activities who or which constitute the central manifestation of a brand, as for instance with the personalized brand Harry Potter, or a brand activity such as the ‘Red Bull Flugtag’. The integrated view of brands, however, is not restricted to iconic brands. Particularly with so called service brands, the development of appropriate brand manifestations is crucial. Financial services, for instance, derive much of their brand equity by actively promoting the members of their brand interest group, comprising key customers, partners, financial consultants, and many more. Moreover, platforms may be provided as meeting places for members of the brand interest group, like for instance seminars and workshops. Brand manifestations, as for instance ‘branded’ pencils or files, may be designed, which may be placed in public spaces as social signals for being a smart insider with regard to financial issues. It is this integrated view that should help researching and developing brands differently and more carefully. According to our view, the future challenge in branding will be to find appropriate ways of how to effectively integrate the core and peripheral elements of brands, persons and objects, brand discourse and activities, various forms of brand relationships, and members of a brand interest group into a coherent and inspiring frame for the continual, collective and mutual co-construction of successful brands of the future.

9 References Aaker, J. L., 1997. Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(August), 347 - 356. Aaker, J. L. and Joachimsthaler, 2000. Brand Leadership. New York: Free Press. Abric, J. C., 1993. Central System, Peripheral System: Their Functions and Roles in the Dynamics of Social Represenations, Papers on Social Representations, 2(2), 107 126. Ahuvia, A. C., 2005. Beyond The Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers' Identity Narratives, Journal of Consumer Research, 32(June), 171 - 184. Arnould, E. and Price, L. L., 1993. River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24 - 45. Barsalou, L. W., 1989. Intraconcept Similarity and its Implications for Interconcept Similarity. In: (Eds, Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A.) Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, New York: Cambridge University Press, 101 - 131. Barsalou, L. W., 1999. Perceptual Symbol Systems, Behavioural Brain Science, 22, 577 660. Belk, R., 1988. Possessions and The Extended Self, Journal of Consumer Research, 15(March), 139 - 168. Belk, R. and Costa, J. A., 1998. The mountain man myth: A contemporary consuming fantasy, Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 218 - 240. Belk, R. and Mayer, R., 1984. Children's Recognition of Consumption Symbolism in Children's Products, Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 386 - 397. Belk, R. W., Bahn, K. D. and Mayer, R. N., 1982. Developmental Recognition of Consumption Symbolism, Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 4 - 17. Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V. and Sherry, J. F., 2003. Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning, Journal of Marketing, 67(July), 19 - 33. Cova, B., Cova, V., 2002. Tribal Marketing: The Tribalisation of Society and its Impact on the Conduct of Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 595 – 620. Dant, T., 1999. Material Culture in the Social World. Values, Activities, Lifestyles. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. de Chernatony, L., 2001. From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation - Strategically Building and Sustaining Brands. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. de Chernatony, L., Harris, F., 2000. Developing corporate brands through considering internal and external stakeholders, Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), 268-274. Durkheim, E., 1994. Die elementaren Formen religiösen Lebens. TB Wissenschaft No. 1125. Frankfurt a. M.: Shurkamp. Elliott, R., 1994. Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of Brands, British Journal of Management, 15, 13 - 19. Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K., 1998. Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity, International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131 - 144. Farquhar, P. H., 1989. Managing Brand Equity, Marketing Research, 1, 24 - 33. Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 343 - 373. Franke, N. and Shah, S., 2003. How Communities Support Innovative Activities: An Exploration of Assistance and Sharing Among Innovative Users of Sporting Equipment, Research Policy, 32(1), 157 - 178. Füller, J., Bartl, M., Mühlbacher, H. and Ernst, H., 2006 (forthcoming). Community Based Innovation: How to Integrate Members of Virtual Communities into New Product Development, Electronic Commerce Research Journal, 6(1).

10 Füller, J., Jawecki, G. and Mühlbacher, H., 2005.Equipment-Related Knowledge Creation in Innovative Online Basketball Communities. In: Renzl, B., Matzler, K. and Hinterhuber, H. H.,eds. Future of Knowledge Management, Houndsmills, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 161 – 183. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M., 2001. Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for Your Corporate Brand, Harvard Business Review, Feb, 128 - 134. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M., 2003. Bringing the corporation into corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, 37, 1041 - 1064. Hemetsberger, A., 2002. Fostering Cooperation on the Internet: Social Exchange Processes in Innovative Virtual Consumer Communities. In: Broniarczyk, S. M. and Nakamoto, K., eds. Advances in Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 354 - 355. Holt, D., 2002. Why Do Brands Cause Troubles? A Dialectic Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(June), 70 - 90. Kapferer, J. N., 2004. The new strategic Brand Management. London / New York: Kogan. Keller, K. L., 1998. Strategic Brand Management - Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Upper Saddle River, NY. Keller, K. L., 2003. Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(March), 595 - 600. Kotler, P., 1991. Marketing Management. Stuttgart: Schäfer-Poeschel. Kozinets, R. V., 2002. Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 20 - 38. Kozinets, R. V., J. F. Sherry Jr., et al. (2004). "Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle." Journal of Consumer Research 13(3), 658-672. Luedicke, M., 2006 (forthcoming).Brand Community Under Fire: The Role of Social Environments for the Hummer Brand Community. In: Pechmann, C. and Price, L. L., eds. Advances in Consumer Research. McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W. and Koenig, H. F., 2002. Building Brand Community, Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38 - 54. McWilliam, G., 2000. Building Strong Brands through Online Communities, Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 43 - 54. Moscovici, S., 1984.The Phenomenon of Social Representation. In: Farr, R. M. and Moscovici, S., eds. Social Representations, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 3 - 70. Muniz Jr, A. M. and O'Guinn, T. C., 2001. Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412 - 432. Muniz Jr, A. M. and Schau, H. P., 2005. Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(March), 737 - 747. Park, C. S. and Srinivasan, V., 1994. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendibility, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 31(2), 271 - 288. Peñaloza, L., 2001. "Consuming the American West: Animating Cultural Meaning and Memory at a Stock Show and Rodeo." Journal of Consumer Research 28(3), 369-398. Richards, L., Foster, D. and Morgan, R., 1998. Brand Knowledge Management: Growing Brand Equity, Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 47 - 54. Richins, M. L., 1994. Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 522 - 533. Schouten, J. W. and McAlexander, J. H., 1995. Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers, Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43 - 61.

11 Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L., 2002. The challenge of corporate branding, Corporate Reputation Review, 5, 105 - 112. Shawney, M. and Prandelli, E., 2000. Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets, California Management Review., 42, (4), 24-54. Solomon, M. R., 1983. The role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 10(December), 319 - 329. Thompson, C. J. and Arsel, Z., 2004. The Starbucks Brandscabe and Consumers' (Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 631 - 642. Troiano, J., 1996.Classifying Consumers Instead of Looking for Magic Numbers. In: Ed, Schönerberg, U.) The Big Brand Challenge. Are we jumping on the Brand Wagon?, ESOMAR Seminar Berlin, October 1996: ESOMAR Publication Series, 69 - 82. von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wallendorf, M. and Arnould, E., 1991. We Gather Together: Consumption Rituals of Thanksgiving Day, Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 13 - 31. Wipperfürth, A., 2005. Brand Hijack: Marketing without Marketing. New York: Portfolio.