Managing the Brand in Online Communities Social Media and

							     Managing the Brand in Online Communities
Social Media and Technology in Sport Marketing Track




                                                       1|Page
Abstract
        The emergence of social media and the empowerment of customers have changed the
rules of brand management, eliminating corporate control of the creation of meaning behind their
brand. Communities of users have more power, some intentionally passed along by the brand
and other powers flowing from their ability to disseminate messages quickly and efficiently.
These communities of brand advocates can be empowered to serve as a voluntary workforce to
perform tasks such as marketing, product design, and customer service. However, embedded
within these networks are dangerous anti-brand activists with the ability to turn a renegade
community against the brand. Managing these communications represents one of the biggest
challenges for marketers. This conceptual paper will provide recommendations for sport
marketers to navigate this fertile, yet risky landscape. Given space constraints, qualitative data
from interviews with Nike brand marketers is not included in this document but will be included
in the presentation.

Introduction
        A dynamic shift is changing the way in which people interact with brands. No longer can
brands assume that their image will be shaped by the values, myths, and traditions created by
their organization. Managing a brand has become a two-way street with consumers playing an
integral role in co-creating themes, messaging, and meaning (Etgar, 2008). These activities are
not performed by an isolated brand community or subset of the brand’s followers, but rather
through the average consumer’s communications with social networks and voluntary promotion
of the products they use (McWilliam, 2000). What is more interesting is that the dissemination of
control to consumers is often instigated by the brand.
        In order to tap the power of social networks as word of mouth marketing, brands are
giving consumers the power to innovate and develop products and well as handle marketing and
customer service initiatives. While this can be a risky strategy, the influence of customers and
technology creates an environment where the brand is no longer something that a company can
completely control. Brands can mitigate these risks by providing an outlet for these creative
consumers, such that the brand can benefit from the tensions surrounding control, maximizing
the potential of the consumer workforce (Cook, 2008). This paper will explore this
phenomenon within the era of service-dominant marketing and investigate the conditions under
which users should be given control of a brand. In pursuing this agenda, information will be
presented on brand engagement strategies and areas of application within the sport industry will
be identified.

Background
        User generated content and new media have become popular as users seek avenues for
individual expression and communication within their social network. Examples of this new
frontier are evident in the growth of mass user websites such as YouTube and Facebook, but also
in the business models of companies such as Threadless and NikeID. As of 2009, approximately
40% of United States internet users participate in some form of social networking, 12% write
blogs, and 9% create their own videos (Interactive Advertising Bureau, 2009). Over 88 million
Americans were involved in creating user generated content during the past year (IAB, 2009).
As this segment only represents content producers, consumers of the content make up an even

                                                                                       2|Page
larger number of users. While these producers are involved in numerous activities that benefit
brands (blogging, podcasting, etc.), companies are unable to directly monetize this usage due to
the difficulty in identifying how the content is likely to be generated. Questions surrounding
how this content will impact a brand continue to emerge as the amount of internet content
generated by users is expected to exceed 50% by 2013 (IAB, 2009).
        The role of user generated content represents a fundamental shift in the way people
receive messages about a brand. The relationship between companies and customers has also
changed. Consumers have greater input over product and service development and delivery, as
well as an implicit marketing role. The role of marketers has changed from one of deciding what
people will buy and designing promotions, to that of creating a conversation with consumers,
encouraging participation in communities and cultivating relationships amongst these groups
(Muniz, Jr. and Schau, 2007; Garfield, 2005). The integration of new technologies and
marketing will be illustrated through service oriented marketing, open source brands, customer
empowerment, brand communities, customer interactions with brands, as well as applications of
these principles to sport organizations.

Literature Review
Service Orientation
        As the U.S. economy has shifted from a focus on manufacturing to service, marketing has
begun to derive a new foundation for understanding and facilitating the exchange process (Vargo
and Lusch, 2004). Consistent with this logic is an understanding that the firm exists to provide
solutions for a customer, regardless of whether the transaction requires a product (a car as
transportation) or service (a taxi ride as transportation). As products replace the need for direct
service, they serve as the embodiment of the service knowledge that is being transferred within
the exchange (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Likewise, this orientation also encompasses
experiences created around the service delivery (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Pine & Gilmore, 1999).
In this orientation, the customer is at the center of the relationship, dictating needs and desires,
rather than a firm deciding what the market can bear (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). Within this
paradigm, the consumer is equally involved in the co-production of output (Meuter, et al. 2005,
Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2006).
        The convergence of a service orientation of marketing and the growth of social media has
brought brands and consumers closer together than ever before. Both consumers and marketers
have the ability and incentive to collaborate as they improve the status of the other (Cook, 2008).
Technology has allowed the user to directly interact with and influence the direction of brands by
giving them the power to define meanings. Marketers, recognizing the need to integrate
customers into the firm and the power of new technologies, have begun to seek the benefits of
having customers co-produce output (including new products, customer service, marketing, etc.)
for the company (Cook, 2008).
       The shared benefits of consumer and marketer collaboration are illustrated in the
evolution of an open source brand (Pitt, et al. 2006). Examples include Linux and other software
companies, as well as hospitals where patients and medical professionals co-create the healthcare
experience. This is also evident in online social networks associated with Web 2.0 activities
(Kozinets, Hemetsberger, and Schau, 2008). As Pitt and colleagues (2006) state, “corporate

                                                                                         3|Page
brands cease to be exclusively “owned” by organizations and become the property of a wider
community.” They become “collective possessions in the minds of multiple constituents”
(Berthon, et al. 2008). This shift has forced companies to adopt a new paradigm where
consumers have greater control. To maintain these customers and create new ones, brands have
turned to customer empowerment.
Empowerment
       Inherent in any discussion of consumer ownership is a fundamental empowerment of the
customer (Wathieu, et al. 2002). Similar to the notion of empowering employees, firms may
wish to allow consumers to dictate the terms of the exchange in order to receive greater feelings
of commitment, satisfaction, and achievement. Seeking to enhance their consumption
experience (Cova and Dalli, 2009), and facilitated through mutual adaptation, consumers and
brands engage in a give and take process where each sets boundaries and conditions that advance
the process to meet each side’s needs.
         A brand’s consumers are said to be empowered when they have achieved enough
influence “to force companies to take actions that they would not otherwise take” (Cova and
Dalli, 2009). Through a set of controlled choices, progress cues, and information about the
choices of other customers, brands provide power to these consumers (Wathieu, et al. 2002).
These variables are predetermined by the brand, yet interpreted and modified by users (Cova and
Pace, 2006). As empowered consumers begin to take on these new roles, they often congregate
in groups to share ideas and experiences.
Brand Communities
        Brand communities serve many purposes for members and brands. As consumers have
become savvier in ignoring promotional messages, brand communities have filled the void for
corporations in disseminating information about companies and their offerings (Holt, 2003).
This can be direct or more covert in nature. These brand communities serve to counterbalance
the actions of corporations as a more personal communication method to describe the values and
virtues of products. Additionally, communities are able to serve as a check on corporations to
call out unethical or abusive behaviors (Thompson, et al. 2006).
        To allow brand communities to form, brand meanings should be flexible and created
through the lifestyles and dreams of a consumer (Roberts, 2004). By connecting with customers
on an emotional level, the firm creates a long term relationship with the customer that cannot be
duplicated by competitors, providing a sustainable competitive advantage. These connections
are enabled by the brand but formed independently by individuals to mean slightly different
things, each highly meaningful to the consumer (Fournier, 1998). In this manner, brands have
released control of their image to these individual consumers to derive specific meaning beyond
what could have been created by the company alone. As power is shared with a larger brand
community, greater benefits accrue, while the brand assumes the risk of anti-brand activists who
find conflicting values with an understood conceptualization of the brand. The challenge
becomes balancing these competing interests while maintaining consistent product or service
performance that matches defined values.



                                                                                       4|Page
         In determining the amount of power to share with brand communities, managers must
consider the purpose of the community, as well as collective creativity inherent within the
members. Historically, managers have viewed these communities as potential profit centers due
to their high degree of attachment and identity. However, a more appropriate strategy would be
to empower these communities through a partnership that seeks to share resources and ideas
(Walthieu, et al. 2002).
How Consumers Interact with a Brand
        Although empowered consumers provide benefits, there are many risks of allowing a user
community to serve as a workforce for the brand. Even within highly supportive communities,
there are persistent threats from anti-brand activists who can use the power of technology to
damage the company’s reputation. One such example of these risks is illustrated through the
concept of a doppelganger brand (Thompson, et al. 2006). Created as a parody of the original
brand, activists create doppelganger images to harm the brand’s reputation by describing new
stories using similar logos, symbols, and colors. The power of emotional branding can be used
to create equally strong negative narratives and emotions driving consumers away from the
brand. While a brand must devote significant resources to building an image of authenticity, an
anti-brand activist can destroy this aura with a few timely clicks of the mouse (Thompson, et al.
2006). Most doppelganger images derive from the incongruity between the perceived values of
the organization and the activist’s opposing view. These differences can be real or imagined, but
the burden is on the brand to maintain their relationship with consumers.
         Regardless of the tone of the conversations created by the brand communities, companies
can benefit by engaging in these communications (Muniz, Jr & Schau, 2007). Some may be
critical in nature, as evidenced by the anti-SUV ads created during Chevy Tahoe’s user generated
commercial campaign. Many users mocked the negative attributes of SUVs in doppelganger
videos using clips and music provided by Chevrolet (Bosman, 2006). However, Chevy can
benefit from these ads by creating a dialogue with their community around the negative attitudes.
Brands can learn as much, or possibly more, by hearing about what people do not like, rather
than what they prefer.
        While doppelganger branding and anti-brand activists can destroy a brand, harnessing the
power of the consumer can be immensely beneficial to a company. Serving as a volunteer
workforce, customers contribute to the operations of a firm, providing a significant cost and
knowledge advantage. The advantages and methods of allowing an online community to
perform marketing functions are relatively well discussed; however, customer knowledge can
also be utilized in areas of customer service, product design, and capital resource acquisition.
For example, many online communities in the software industry provide solutions for the
removal of virus and updates on antivirus software. Members freely assist anyone with internet
access, giving their time to solve the problem. Hilton has also developed a community-based
online concierge service to assist guests staying in their hotels (Cook, 2008). Threadless, the
online t-shirt seller, allows users to develop patterns on their clothing. Designs are voted on by
the community and winning creations are offered for sale on the website. Developing products
in this manner guarantees that there will be a market for any shirt sent to production. Finally,
Honda has created a traffic navigation system based on GPS devices built into their cars. The
system automatically directs the driver to the quickest and most efficient route around the


                                                                                        5|Page
congestion. Using consumers to generate this data allows Honda to offer this service without
making significant capital outlays for equipment (Cook, 2008).
        While the benefits of a brand utilizing community resources are evident, the rationale for
consumers to give up their knowledge is less understood. Some scholars have observed that
these consumers are rarely compensated for the benefits they provide to the company (Cova &
Dalli, 2009). These same loyal consumers are also willing to pay a premium to purchase some
of the same products they helped to create. This double exploitation may seem unethical to an
outsider, but community members perceive several benefits, including advancement of online
social status, self-expression, and altruism (Cook, 2008).

Application to Sport Marketing
         In comparison to other industries, sport organizations possess some of the most loyal
brand advocates. Despite this inherent advantage, few organizations have been able to capitalize
on the power of technology and brand communities. While Nike and other manufacturers (as
well as the professional leagues) have adopted mass customization of merchandise, potential
exists to give consumers greater control of brand messaging. Rather than strictly control many
of the official marks and channels, sport organizations would benefit from allowing fans to
dictate how they want to consume highlights, merchandise, and other intellectual property. As
Nike has had success using customer-generated shoe designs, other organizations could invite
consumers to generate and share unique brand experiences at the stadium (i.e. inside the
Cameron Crazies or the Black Hole). Mobile technology can also be used to coordinate efficient
traffic patterns for arriving at games or share information about favored golf courses or running
routes. After losing several legal battles in the area, sport organizations would benefit by
embracing rather than fighting the oncoming tide.

Conclusion
        Academic research has provided a comprehensive background of how brands have
evolved to meet the demands of technology-savvy consumers. This research has identified many
significant trends that describe a shift of power from corporations to customers. Conversations
between brands and consumers have produced significant tangible and intangible output for both
parties. What is now needed is an understanding of conditions under which consumers can
contribute to the betterment of the firm and individual. Further explanations are needed for
brands at other stages of a company life cycle as well as for differing types of communities.
New media will continue to allow consumers more power to dictate brand meanings. Harnessing
these communities will be the major marketing challenge of the next generation.




                                                                                        6|Page
References
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Campbell, C. (2008). Ad lib: when customers create the ad. California
Management Review, 50:4, 6-30.
Bosman, J. (2006). Chevy tries a write-your-own-ad approach, and the potshots fly, New York
Times, April 4, B3.
Cook, S. (2008), The contribution revolution: letting volunteers build your business, Harvard
Business Review, October, 60-69.
Cova, B. and Dalli, D. (2009). Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory?,
Marketing Theory, 9, 315-339.
Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: new forms of
customer empowerment – the case “my Nutella The Community”, European Journal of
Marketing, 40, 9/10, 1087-1105.
Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97-108.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-374.
Garfield, B. (2005). Listenomics, Advertising Age, 76, 41.
Holt, D. (2003). What becomes an icon most?, Harvard Business Review, March, 43-49.
Interactive Advertising Bureau, User generated content hard to monetize, accessed from
http://www.iab.net/insights_research/947883/1675/669304 on December 10, 2009.
Kozinets, R.V., Hemetsberger, A., and Schau, H.J. (2008). The wisdom of consumer crowds:
collective innovation in the age of networked marketing, Journal of Macromarketing, 28, 339-
354.
McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities, Sloan
Management Review, Spring, 43-54.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L, & Brown, S.W. (2005). Choosing among alternative
service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self service technologies, Journal of
Marketing, 69, 61-83.
Muniz, Jr. A. M., & Schau, H.J. (2007). Vigilante marketing and consumer-created communities.
Journal of Advertising, 36, 3, 35-50.
Pine, J.B., & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy: work is theater and every business
is a stage. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., Berthon, P., Wynn, D., and Zinkhan, G. (2006). The penguin’s window:
corporate brands from an open-source perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34:2, 115-127.

                                                                                         7|Page
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation, Harvard
Business Review¸68, 79-91.
Roberts, K. (2004). Lovemarks: the future beyond brands, New York: Powerhouse Books.
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., and Arsei, Z. (2006). Emotional branding and the strategic
value of the doppelganger brand image. Journal of Marketing, 70, 50-64.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of
Marketing, 68, 1-17.
 Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2006). Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1-10.
Wathieu, L., Brenner, L., Carmon, Z., Chattopadhyay, A., Wertenbroch, K., Drolet, A.,
Gourville, J., Muthukrishnan, A.V., Novemsky, N., Ratner, R., and Wu, G. (2002). Consumer
control and empowerment: a primer, Marketing Letters, 13:3, 297-305.




                                                                                      8|Page