Download Social Construction of Meanings: Advancing the Notion of Africa as

Social Construction of Meanings: Advancing the Notion of Africa as a
Continental Brand
Introduction
The subject of place branding is beginning to gain some momentum. In part, this may be due
to researchers’ bourgeoning interest in extending knowledge by inquiring into brand
phenomenology beyond products. It may also be fuelled by the need among marketers to
draw resources to particular destinations through tourism (Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Pitt
Berthon, Watson & Zinkhan, 2007). On the Internet, places are emerging as objects of
extensive discussions especially among online communities. For instance, a search in Google
for ‘tourist community’ fetches over 10.5million results. To boot, the proliferation of online
communities is witnessing the gathering of rival groups around a common brand (Luedicke,
2006; Thompson & Zeynep, 2006). Hence the idea of co-creation, as in virtual (Fueller,
2010), brand (Payne, Storbacka, Frow & Simon, 2009) and experience co-creation (Prahalad
& Ramaswamy, 2004) is steadily turning into some conventional wisdom. However, the
implications of such developments, particularly in view of meaning co-creation for a place
brand have not yet been fully articulated.
Applying the paradigm of social construction, we inquire into the constitutional processes
through which online communities potentially construct meanings for the continent of Africa.
To this end, we conduct netnographic research with two online communities. Our findings
lead us to conclude that a continent potentially attains general meanings based on perceived
core personality features, which however vary across groups and prompt particular collective
relationships with the brand. Such continental interpretations derive from direct and indirect
experiences with the continent and/or its associated semiotic entities. Our study is deemed
relevant in that it introduces the concept of a continental brand, and describes the evolution of
such brand in the absence of a designated marketing authority. This paper is organised as
follows, the literature review revisits the conception of brands and brand meanings. The social
construction paradigm is then outlined to facilitate the development of a theoretical
background for the study. Social construction is then drawn upon to visualise the possible
joint creation of a continental brand meaning. In the subsequent part of the discussion, the
research methodology is then presented prior to a discussion of the research findings,
implications and limitations at the end.
Literature review
Contemporary literature presents a host of definitions for the concept ‘brand’. In a historical
analysis, Stern (2006) summarises the key operating definitions as literally denotations, and
metaphorically, connotations. Literally, brand signifies an entity or a noun which can be a
name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, aimed at differentiating a
seller’s/sellers’ goods or services from those offered by competitor(s), as defined by the
American Marketing Association in 1988 (Kotler & Armstrong, 1996). Metaphorically, brand
represents a connotation of an image that may exist in the consumer’s mind as a bundle of
associations such as ‘a killer brand’ (Stern, 2006). More recently, scholars have started to
look at brands as complex social phenomena, taking into account the roles played by various
interest groups in co-creating the brand (Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008). Some
scholars, appearing to caution against radical reinterpretations of brands, have proposed
theories of the middle range (Brodie & de Chernatony, 2009). However, at the core of the
various definitional approaches lies the notion of attached meanings. Thus, a brand is
interpreted in this study as a cluster of meanings (Batey, 2008), ascribed to a product, place,
person, service, organisation or even process.
The controversy embossing the definition of a brand brings along conflict on the expositions
of brand meaning (Batey, 2008). One stream of research mainly perceives brand meaning as
consumer-ascribed value to some knowledge set for a given brand (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell,
2009). Another stream conceptualises it as the image of a brand held by the consumer in his
or her head (Aaker, 1996). While there may be competing definitions of brand meaning, we
construe it from an interpretive perspective, as a dynamic collective system of knowledge and
evaluations constantly produced by the social discourse among members of a brand interest
group (Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008). We adopt this relatively new paradigm
(Hulberg, 2006) owing to its recognition of knowledge as a basis of meanings ―a conceptual
element that is however accounted for by most definitions―, and most fundamentally, its
assimilation of discourses and webs of relationships cultivated around brands. In that way
Muehlbacher and Hemetsberger’s (2008) definition provides space for philosophising on the
potential virtual creation and co-existence of manifold brand realities, as documented
elsewhere (Kates & Goh, 2003).
Conventionally, the development of a brand has been conceived of as a managerial process
(Stern 2006; Batey 2008), whereby the marketer or brand owner is tasked with defining the
brand, focussing on the core identity elements (Aaker, 2002; Balmer, 1998; Schultz, Hatch &
Larsen, 2000). When established and communicated to the target audience, the brand identity
should gain some level of significance for the brand (Balmer, 1998; Schultz et al., 2000).
Thus a brand identity is conceived of as the essence of the brand meaning. Because the
creation of a brand identity is an internally and strategically planned process, allocated a
budget with clear objectives and time scope for their achievement set out, it does not integrate
consumer input. Rather consumers are regarded as inactive perceivers of the brand identity, in
its externalised form as brand image (Schultz et al., 2000). Evidently, this approach has its
own merits as documented by the researchers noted above, among many more others.
However, the current co-creation processes open a knowledge gap vis-à-vis how a brand may
develop in the absence of a clearly designated marketing authority to set the brand identity.
Our work draws on the social construction paradigm, as an attempt at filling this void.
Social construction: Epistemological underpinnings
The philosophical underpinnings inherent in social construction paradigm can be traced back
to Alfred Schutz’s (1967) reflection on the phenomenology of the social world, originally
published in German in 1932 (Walsh & Lehnert, 1967). In his thesis, Schultz advances the
view that individuals’ interpretation of social phenomena is rooted in human action and
networks of socio-cultural objects operating in their societies. Social construction, therefore,
refers to the human actions (Schutz, 1967) of consciously generating ideas, conceptual
categories or classifications and experiences as representations of some known phenomenon
(Hacking, 1999). Social constructs are subject to historical events, social forces and ideology.
Also, they are embedded, manifested and sustained within specific socio-cultural contexts
(Hacking, 1999; Searle, 1995). Expressed in somewhat plain terms, the names, ideas,
categories, signs and even performances that a group of people or a society employs to make
sense of something within their environment, are not naturally pre-determined descriptions
that bear some essentialism. Rather they are products of human interaction, launched and
sustained through collective intentionality, which represents a consensus among a group of
individuals upon the ontology of phenomenon (Searle, 1995). Social constructs are also liable
to change anytime, should a group decide upon such modification (Hacking, 1999).
Berger and Luckmann (1966) follow up on Alfred Schutz with a thesis they refer to as the
social construction of reality. Their theory ―which partly derives from a sociological
epistemology―, articulates the constitutional processes through which societies or groups of
individuals construct meanings of objects to the extent that the interpretations are taken for
granted as a self-evidential and objective reality. Yet, the objective state is only legitimate to
the group (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Hacking, 1999). Emphasising on what they denote as
the sociology of knowledge, Berger and Luckmann (1966) contend that reality is founded in
knowledge about a phenomenon, embedded in the socio-cultural formations of a society. In
any collective, stimuli of diverse forms, be they myths, rituals, symbols or linguistic codes
regarding a phenomenon of interest, are jointly constructed and interpreted as the reality. Yet,
for the meanings to become significant to the whole group, knowledge about them has to be
passed on from one member to the next, including future generations (ibid.). Therefore,
attempts to study the social construction of meanings should be concerned with the processes
by which knowledge is collectively developed, spread and preserved; in such a way that it
attains establishment as the true representation of a phenomenon (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
As social constructs reside in society or group members’ minds, they have to be legitimised
(Hacking, 1999). Hence, they are persistently explained and justified, while knowledge about
them is constantly transmitted. To this end, systems of visual and linguistic signs are
employed, of which language is the most decisive tool for concretising meanings (Berger &
Luckmann, 1966). Language crystallises an ontological world by packing it into broader
categories and referencing to a variety of past, present and future experiences (ibid.). In
viewing language this way, Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) thinking partially conflates with
Michel Foucault’s philosophising on discourse. In Foucaldian terms, the meaning of an object
is conveyed by and through all discourses that name, describe and assess it, map its progress,
dissect its correlations, and potentially give the object its own speech “by articulating, in its
name”, discourses that are regarded as its own (Foucault 2002, p35). Foucault’s contention is
further buttressed by Bourdieu’s assertion that words not only describe or state facts, but also
create objects of which they speak. Through performative utterances, discourse executes
actions of various kinds, for example it makes or destroys an object (Bourdieu, 1977, 1991).
Social construction and the potential creation of continental brand meanings
The paradigm of social construction provides theoretical lenses for visualising the processes
through which online communities establish collective meanings for a continent, as their
reality. We delineate online communities as groups of people who interact with each other on
the Internet (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). As afore mentioned, online communities tend to
engage in a variety of brand co-creation activities. We refer to such performances as virtual
discourses, and define these as a mélange of discursive interaction, storytelling and verbal
exchanges performed by community members (Jones & Rafael 2000, 2000a; Matei, 2005).
Through social construction, we seek to observe how brand knowledge is created and shared
within online communities, and we engage in this analysis as means towards: (a) identifying
and articulating the concepts, ideas, and experiences jointly produced and employed by
community members in reference to the continent being studied, and; (b) locating the position
of each meaning in terms of dominance or submergence, given that social construction
presupposes the subjectivity of constructs, and an ensuing struggle between them for global
acceptance (Hacking 1999; Hamilton, 1996). The last author particularly notes that a meaning
considered relevant by one group may be confronted by another as a social misconstruction of
reality, aimed at serving special interests at the expense of others (Hamilton, 1996).
Research units
The Continent Africa: Officially with over 50 countries and approximately a billion people,
Africa is not only the World’s second largest continent after Asia, but also, it is characterised
by immeasurable socio-cultural differences across nations (see, Abraham Index, 2011). Yet
researchers often encounter general categories such as ‘African food, music and clothes’; with
the list appearing inexhaustible, and motivating an inquiring into how such labelling
materialises. The decision to explore the concept Africa as a potential continental brand is
motivated by two observations, firstly by the growing interest in research on place brands
appears to be a quest for knowledge that needs redressing (Abimbola, 2006; Kotler & Gertner,
2002; Pitt et al., 2007). Secondly, it is triggered by some academic inquisitiveness vis-à-vis
the ontology of brands in the era of extensive brand co-creation.
Online communities: Two online communities were selected from a list obtained through
Google. The selection of the communities was particularly based on discussion themes,
volume and relevance of their contributions to the research objectives, in line with Kozinets
(2002, 2010). Our decision to study online communities is grounded in that, first, they often
aggregate individuals from across the World and thereby provide access to a broad scope of
material required for addressing the research question. Further, some market evidence
substantially demonstrates that online communities are characterised by group-specific
knowledge, values, beliefs, ideas and behaviours (culture) (Kozinets, 2002, Schau & Muñiz,
2002), which constitute a shared basis for interaction between members with the brand and
with one another, as well as set off the ground for social action vis-à-vis brand should there be
reason to do so (Schau, Muñiz & Arnould, 2009).
Research methods
The method of netnography was conducted for gathering data (Kozinets, 2002). Netnography
adopts a lot of the research techniques applied in ethnography, with the major difference
being that the former is conducted on the Internet. Therefore, analogous with ethnographic
inquiry, netnography seeks to document how “collective beliefs, values and customs” as
culture, “order, guide and direct” (see, Arnould & Wallendorf, 1994, p.485) virtual
discourses, and how the culture dualistically draw from the discourses. Data collection
consists of downloading texts -serving as the equivalent of taking field notes in
ethnography―, digital and graphic material from a community’s archives (Kozinets, 2002), in
order to obtain an elaborate documentation of the community’s behavioural patterns (Arnould
& Wallendorf, 1994; Hammersley, 1990). To makes sense of the collected material,
qualitative analysis was then performed, as it was considered more practical than other
methods such as semiotics, due to the large bulk of the text material available for analysis.
Research Findings
Our research discovers that despite immense diversity across the continent, Africa tends to be
ascribed sets of core features that clearly categorise, recognise and reinforce its nature of
being, as perceived by each online community. We identify two major distinct meanings that
are apparently taken to be self-evidential interpretations of the continent, and which derive
from direct and indirect experiences with the Africa. The direct experiences entail being, or
having been a resident on the continent, and other forms of personal contact with semiotic
devices originating from the continent, such as products, perceived behaviours and/or
characteristics of people. On the other hand, indirect experiences entail knowledge obtained
through media channels, and deconstructions of the chronicled history of the continent.
The two distinct meanings emerge based on the personification of Africa as: (a) an incapable
woman, contradictorily with rich reserves of potential; and (b) a burdensome and
disagreeable person. By tracing the origins of some discourse material posted within the
online communities ―which is rather an easy task due to copyright acknowledgements or
posted website links―, we observe some substantial overlapping of the themes around the
latter personification, between the bigger online community and selected popular media
channels. We therefore consider the features burdensome and disagreeable to be more
prevalent attributions, and therefore inclined to be the dominant continental brand meaning.
Furthermore, based on the personification, online communities tend to project particular
relationship tendencies towards the brand Africa. We note that for the community associated
with burdensome and disagreeable, frustration, anger and contempt seem to be widespread
sentiments among group members. Interestingly, anger appears to manifest in the other
community as well, which tends to regard Africa as an incapable woman. The anger is
directed at the woman’s incapacity to act and change, whereas the anger in the first
community seems to be linked to a number of several semiotic entities. We conclude that
combined, the direct and indirect experiences sculpture a continental brand personality as
perceived by a particular brand interest group, without the members being necessarily
conscious of the personality construct. A continental brand, akin to any other brand can be
controversial, exhibiting favourable (positive) and unfavourable (negative) personalities,
which appear to battle each other for global acceptance.
Research Implications
The finding that a massive and diverse place like Africa can be ascribed with a unitary
meaning by one community, suggests that collectives tend to draw on a few fundamental
dimensions to make sense of complex phenomena. The discovery also challenges researchers
to start thinking around, and integrating the construct continental brand into the marketing
discipline. Apparently, our study is the first to precisely push forth the idea of a continental
brand, despite the observations that at least, products and cultures are often identified under
distinct classifications such as American, European, Latin American, Asian and African, and
these categories are in operation within societies and communities where we live. As
Feyerabend (1975) opined elsewhere, in order to enrich our understanding of ontological
matters such as brands within the permanently evolving social world, we ought to start by
embracing new hypotheses, even if they may be contrary to established tenets.
Our research also implies that, a continental brand meaning potentially undermines (or
buttresses) initiations by individual countries and brands originating from the continent, to
differentiate themselves. Therefore, a continental brand ought to be strategically managed.
This claim appears to be supported further by the observation that most online community
members reproduce the information supplied by popular media sources. Yet according to Jean
Baudrillard, popular media has an inclination towards generating hyperrealities, and
exaggerated experiences in order to celebrate the bad, because news is something bad. Hence,
we witness some predisposition towards negativity among collectives who may welcome bad
news and show some immunity to good news (Baudrillard, 1983). This, among other points
noted above, makes the case for designating, a brand management authority for brand Africa,
even more critical.
Limitations and future directions
Our research is limited by its failure to extend beyond the Internet. Further studies ought to be
conducted with offline research subjects so as to facilitate more knowledge about the
conceivable development of a continental brand. Focus groups and surveys represent two
potential methods for data collection within physical environments, as conducting
ethnographic studies across the world would be hindered by space and time constraints.
References
Aaker, D.A. (2002). Building Strong Brands. UK: Simon and Schuster.
Abimbola, T. (2003). Consumer Brand Equity: A Model for the Measurement and Evaluation
of Consumer Perceived Value (Doctoral Dissertation). Birmingham: Aston Business
School.
______________(2006). Market Access for Developing Economies: Branding in Africa.
Place Branding, 2 (April), 108–117.
______________(2009). Brand, Organisation Identity and Reputation: Bold Approaches To
Big Challenges, (Ed.). Journal Of Brand Management, 16, 219–220.
______________(2010). Brand Strategy As a Paradigm for Marketing Competitiveness,
(Ed.). Journal of Brand Management18, 177–179.
Abraham Index (2011). Retrieved from http://www.africa.com/Ibrahim_Index
African Addition (2011). Retrieved from http://www.africanaddiction.com/forum/
African Village Path (2011). Retrieved from http://africanpath.ning.com/
Armstrong, A. & Hagel, J. III. (1996). The Real Value of Online Communities. Harvard
Business Review, 1 (May–June), 134–141.
Arnould, E.J., & Wallendorf, M. (1994). Market Oriented Ethnography: Interpretation
Building and Marketing Strategy Formulation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31,
(Nov), 484–504.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995). Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship. Journal of General
Management, Vol. 21, Pp. 22–46.
______________(1998). Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate Marketing. Journal
of Marketing Management, 14, 8, 963–996.
______________(2001), Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate Marketing:
Seeing Through the Fog, European Journal Of Marketing,35, 3/4, 248–291.
Balmer, J.M.T., Stuart, H, & Greyser, S. A. (2009), Aligning Identity and Strategy: Corporate
Branding at British Airways in the Late 20th Century. California Management Review, 51,
3, 6–23.
Batey, M. (2008). Brand Meaning. Oxon: Routledge.
Baudrillard, J. (1983), Simulations, Translated By Foss, Paul, Paul Patton and Philip
Beitchman, New York: Semiotext[E]
______________(1988), Selected Writings, Ed. Mark Poster, Cambridge: Polity.
______________(1996), The System of Objects. London: Verso.
______________(1998) The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage.
British
Broadcasting
Corporation
(2011).
Retrieved
from
http://www.facebook.com/bbcafricahaveyoursay.
Belk, R.W., Sherry, J.F. Jr., & Wallendorf, M. (1988). A Naturalistic Inquiry into Buyer And
Seller Behavior at a Swap Meet. Journal Of Consumer Research, 14, (March), 449–470.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Creation of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge, New York: Doubleday.
Berthon, P., Pitt L.F., Campbell, C. (2009). Does Brand Meaning exist in Similarity or
Singularity? Journal of Business Research, 62, 356–361.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
______________(1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brodie, R.J. & de Chernatony, L. (2009). Towards New Conceptualizations of Branding:
Theories Of The Middle Range. Marketing Theory, 9 (March), 95–100.
Brown, S., Kozinets R.V. & Sherry, J.F. Jr. (2003). Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro
Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning, Journal of Marketing, 67, 3, 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.
Cova, B. & 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.
Debate Afrika (2011). Retrieved from http://www.debateafrika.com/.
de Chernatony, L., (1999). Brand Management through Narrowing the Gap between Brand
Identity and Brand Reputation, Journal of Marketing Management, 5, 157–179.
______________(2001). Succeeding with Brands on the Internet, Brand Management, 8, 3,
February, 186–195.
______________(2009), Towards the Holy Grail of Defining 'Brand', Marketing Theory, 9,
101–105.
Feyerabend, P. (1975), Against Method: An Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.
London: New Left Books.
Firat, F.A. & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of
Consumption. Journal Of Consumer Research, 22 (December), 239–267.
Fueller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a Consumer Perspective. California
Management Review, 52, 2 (Winter), 98–123.
Fueller, J., Luedicke, M.K., & Jawecki, G. (2008a). How Brands Enchant: Insights from
Observing Community Driven Brand Creation. Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 359–
366.
Fueller, J., Matzler K. & Melanie, H. (2008). Brand Community Members as a Source of
Innovation, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 25, 608–619.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Macmillan.
Glasser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). Grounded Theory: The Discovery of Grounded Theory
Strategies for Qualitative Research. California: Sociology Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Massachussettes: Harvard University
Press.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research. UK: Longman.
Hillery, G.A. Jr. (1955). Definition of Community: Areas of Agreement. Rural Sociology, 20,
2, 111–123.
Holt, D.B. (2004). How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding. Boston:
Harvard University Press.
Huffingtonpost (2011). Retrieved from http://www. huffingtonpost.com.
Hulberg, J. (2006). Integrating Corporate Branding and Sociological Paradigms: A Literature
Study. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 1/2, 60–73.
Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual-Communities, Virtual Settlements & Cyber-Archaeology: A
Theoretical Outline. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3, 3, 1–29.
Jones, Q. & Rafael, S. (2000). Time To Split Virtually: ‘Discourse Architecture’ and
‘Community Building’ Create Vibrant Virtual Publics. Electronic Markets, 10, 4, 214–223.
Jones, Q. & Rafael, S. (2000a). What Do Virtual Tells Tell? Placing Cybersociety Research
into a Hierarchy of Social Explanation. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International
Conference
on
System
Sciences.
Retrived
from
http://gsb.haifa.ac.il/~sheizaf/publications/tells.pdf.
Kates, S.M. (2004). The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay
Men’s Community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 455–464.
Kates, S.M. & Goh, C. (2003), Brand Morphing: Implications for Advertising Theory and
Practice. Journal of Advertising, 32, 1 (Spring), 59–68.
Kim, H., Park, J.Y. & Byoungho, J. (2008). Dimensions of Online Community Attributes:
Examination of Online Communities Hosted by Companies. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 36, 1, 812–830.
Kotler P., & Armstrong, G. (1996). Principles of Marketing, 7 (Ed.), Prentice Hall: N.J.
Kozinets, R.V. (1997). I Want To Believe: A Netnography of the X-Philes' Subculture of
Consumption. Advances In Consumer Research, 24, 1, 470–475.
_____________(1999). E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual
Communities of Consumption. European Management Journal, 17, 3, 252–264.
______________(2002). The Field Behind The Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing
Research in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 1 (February), 61–72.
______________(2010) Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. London: Sage.
Levy, S. (1959). Symbols For Sale. Harvard Business Review, 117–124.
Luedicke, M.K. (2006). Brand Community Under Fire: The Role of Social Environments for
The HUMMER Brand Community. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 486–493.
Matei, S.A. (2005). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Virtual Community Discourse and
the Dilemma of Modernity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 3.
Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/matei.html.
McCracken, G. (1986). Culture Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and
Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods. Journal of Consumer Research,
13, 1 (June), 71–84.
Muehlbacher, H. & Hemetsberger, A. (2008), What The Heck is a Brand? An Attempt of
Integration and its Consequences for Research and Management. Paper presented at the 7th
International Congress, Marketing Trends, Venice. Retrieved from http://www.marketingtrends-congress.com/2008_cp/Materiali/Paper/Fr/Muhlbacher_Hemetsberger.pdf.
Muñiz, A.M. Jr. &. O’Guinn, T.C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27, 412–32.
Muñiz, A.M. Jr. & Schau, H.J. (2007). Vigilante Marketing and Consumer Created
Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 36, 3 (Fall), 35–50.
Niggermania (2011). Retrieved from Niggermania: http://niggermania.com/tom/index.shtml
Olins, W. (1989). Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy through Design. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston.
O’Guinn, T.C. & Muñiz, A.M. Jr. (2009). Collective Brand Relationships. In D.J. Macinnis,
C. Whan, & P.J.R. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (pp. 107–123). New
York: M E Sharpe.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. & Simon, K. (2009). Co-Creating Brands: Diagnosing and
Designing the Relationship Experience. Journal of Business Research, 62, 379–389.
Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R, Watson, R.T. & Zinkhan, G.M. (2002). The Internet and the Birth of
Real Consumer Power, Business Horizons, 45 (July/August), 7–14.
Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., Berthon, P.R., Wynn, D. & Zinkhan, G.M. (2006). The Penguin's
Window: Corporate Brands From An Open-Source Perspective. Journal of The Academy
of Marketing Science, 34, 2, 115–127.
Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V.K. (2004). Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in
Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, 3 (Summer), 5–14.
Thompson C.J. Rindfleisch, A & Zeynep, A. (2006). Emotional Branding and the Strategic
Value of the Doppelgaenger Brand Image. Journal of Marketing, 70, 1, 50–64.
Schau, H.J. & Muñiz, A.M. Jr. (2002). Brand Communities and Personal Identities:
Negotiations in Cyberspace. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 344–349.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M. Jr. & Arnould, E.J. (2009). How Brand Community Practices
Create Value. Journal Of Marketing, 52, 73 (September), 30–51.
Schutz, A. (1954). Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation in Human Action. Philosophy
And Phenomenological Research. 14, 1–38.
______________(1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World. In G., Walsh And F.,
Lehnert (Eds.), London: Heinemann.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. & Larsen, M.H. (Eds.). (2000). The Expressive Organization:
Linking Identity, Reputation and the Corporate Brand, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press.
Stern, B.B. (2006). What Does Brand Mean? Historical-Analysis Method and Construct
Definition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 2, 216–223.
Topix (2011). Retrieved from http://www.topix.com
Wassermann, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis. Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.