Download We Happy Few: Redefining Community in Marketing

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
We Happy Few: Redefining Community in Marketing
Aubrey R. Fowler III, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Michael Krush, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Community has seen an increasing level of interest with marketing scholars both as a context for a variety of consumer behaviors as
well as a consumer behavior unto itself; however, the investigation into community has seen its share of challenges. We attempt to
subdue these challenges by drawing upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological literatures to define community, offering
suggestions for what constitutes community. We then outline various means by which marketing supports this definition and provide
an overview of how this definition may aid our understanding of brand communities and the notion of a community’s brand.
[to cite]:
Aubrey R. Fowler III and Michael Krush (2008) ,"We Happy Few: Redefining Community in Marketing", in NA - Advances in
Consumer Research Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages:
851-852.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/13421/volumes/v35/NA-35
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
We Happy Few: Redefining Community in Marketing
Aubrey Fowler III, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
Michael Krush, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Community has seen an increasing level of interest with
marketing scholars both as a context for a variety of consumer
behaviors as well as a consumer behavior unto itself. We have seen
marketers investigate the impact community has upon various
consumption activities (Cova 1997; Hill and Stamey 1990), the
rites and rituals of various consumption communities (Celsi, Rose,
and Leigh 1993, Schouten and McAlexander 1995), and the process
of how certain communities develop and grow around various
brands (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig; 2002; Muniz and
O’Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau 2005). However, despite this
growing interest and the wealth of knowledge garnered by such
studies, a consistent definition of community in the marketing
literature is elusive.
As a result, there are three main challenges to the exploration
of community in marketing. First of all, the notion of community is
inexact in a definitional sense both in terms of how one identifies a
community and in how it is distinguished from subcultures or other
such social units. Second, a set of challenges arises when we
attempt to outline the boundary conditions of what constitutes a
community, and third, there is a need to consider the variations
between different types of communities or, at the very least, the
varieties of communal relationships that exist within communities.
Our purpose is to attempt to resolve these challenges and provide a
definition of community that allows marketers to move forward
with an examination of community both in theory and in practice.
To do so, we first draw upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological literatures to understand the fundamental components of community. Collectively, these streams suggest that
community is a social system that possesses two components, a
structural and an inter-relational component, that exist between and
amongst its inhabitants. We draw from Brint’s (2001) notion that
community is driven by “aggregates of people.” These collections
share something—be it a set of beliefs, ideals, desires, activities, or
concerns—that binds them together; yet, we also believe that there
is something more to community than simple collections of people.
Brint’s definition, though thorough, remains vague in that it may
also describe a family, a classroom, or a group of friends enjoying
a camping trip.
Building upon the work of Giller (1984) who defined ecological communities as made up of smaller “guilds” or groups of
animals, plants, and bacteria as well as the efforts of Cooley (1909),
Durkheim (1893), and Simmel (1950), we argue that a community
is formed when subgroups of intimately related people who are
bound by strong ties develop relatively weaker ties with other
subgroups of people. Ultimately, we arrive at the following definition: Community is a structured and inter-related network between
groups of people where each individual group as well as the
collective network of groups is bound together by relations that may
include affect, loyalty, common values, personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs and where the tie strength of relationships within groups is relatively greater than the tie strength that
exists between groups.
From this definition, we attempt to align the components of
our proposed definition with the existing marketing literature on
community. Then we apply our definition of community to marketing and, specifically, brand community. First, we find that marketing research has alluded to collections of distinct sub-groups that
form a broader aggregate community (Schouten and McAlexander
1995). Second, the extant literature suggests that marketing can
facilitate ties between groups of consumers (Cova 1997; Price and
Arnould 2000). For example, two of the main arenas in which
marketing exhibits its ability to bind sub groups into a larger entity
is through the utilization of brands (Muniz and O’Guinn 1995;
Muniz and Schau 2005) as well as the construction of communitas
between consumers (Celsi et al. 1993; Arnould and Price 1993).
We also submit that our definition of community aids in the
conceptualization and identification of brand community. We argue that a brand community occurs when the brand facilitates the
relatively weaker ties that bind subgroups together. We also make
a further delineation. Specifically, we examine the ties within
subgroups, suggesting that if the ties that exist within sub-groups
are not a result of the brand but rather a result of other attributes
associated with affect, loyalty, common values, etc., then it is not a
brand community. In this case, the brand has been adopted by the
community. We describe this structure as a community’s brand,
arguing that if the brand is consequently removed from the community, the community would carry on without the brand. These
brands, rather than assisting the formation and development of a
community and its rituals, are invited into the community much as
Kates’ (2004) informant suggests when he states “if a company
chooses to acknowledge us, we will tend to shop there, or purchase
that product with an almost blind devotion… Levi-Strauss has been
in the community for years” (458).
Thus, we posit that certain communal bodies may in fact
constitute both brand communities as well as a community’s
brands. For example, The Harley Davidson subculture of consumption identified by Schouten and McAlexander (1995) appears to be
a collection of various subgroups such as the Mom-and-Pops,
RUBs, Dikes on Bikes, and Hard Core bikers (to name a few). Each
subculture has strong ties within their specific groups based on such
elements as loyalty, affect common values, personal concerns,
common activities or beliefs; and these groups have adopted Harley
Davidson as a community brand. However, when the various
subgroups come together at Sturgis, the brand facilitates the between-group weak ties that bind these subgroups together. Harley
Davidson’s marketing vis a vis the biker rally at Sturgis then helps
facilitate a brand community.
Ultimately, we believe that community, both as a concept and
a reality, is a complex and difficult web of human relationships
within varying environments; and the importance of understanding
such phenomena has been noted within sociology, ecology, psychology and marketing. This paper is an attempt to provide one
perspective that may aid in clarifying what community is in terms
of its structure and the various types of community that may appear.
It is our hope to take the study further and explore its ramifications
within particular contexts.
References
Algesheimer, Rene, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann
(2005), “The Social Influence of Brand Community:
Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing,
69 (3), 19-34.
Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic:
Extraordinary Experience and the Extended Service
Encounter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 2445.
851
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 35, © 2008
852 / We Happy Few: Redefining Community in Marketing
Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (2000), “Authenticating Acts
and Authoritative Performances: Questing for Self and
Community,” The Why of Consumption: Contemporary
Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed.
S. Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman,
New York: Routledge, 140-163.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr.
(1989), “The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior:
Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research,
16 (June), 1-38.
Brint, Steven (2001), “Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and
Reconstruction of the Community Concept,” Sociological
Theory, 19 (1), 1-23.
Carley, K (1991), “A Theory of Group Stability,” American
Sociological Review, 56, 331-354.
Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh
(1993), “An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption
Through Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(June), 1-23.
Cooley, Charles H. (1909), Social Organization: A Study of the
Larger Mind, New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.
Cova, Bernard (1997), “Community and Consumption: Towards
a Definition of the ‘Linking Value’ of Product or Services,”
European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), 297-316.
Despande, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu (1986),
“The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: The Study of the
Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (2), 214-220.
Durkheim, Emile ([1893]1947), Division of Labor in Society,
trans. George Simpson, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Giller, Paul S. (1984), Community Structure and the Niche, New
York: Chapman and Hall.
Granovetter, Mark (1973), “The Strength of Weak Ties,”
American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360-1380.
Hill, Ronald Paul and Mark Stamey (1990), “The Homeless in
America: An Examination of Possessions and Consumption
Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 303-321.
Hillery, George A. (1955), “Definitions of Community: Areas of
Agreement,” Rural Sociology, 20 (June), 111-123.
Hollingshead, August B. (1948), “Community Research:
Development and Present Condition,” American Sociological
Review, 13 (2), 136-156.
Kates, Steven M. (2004), “The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy:
An Interpretive Study in the Gay Men’s Community,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (Sept.), 455-464.
Keller, Suzanne (2003), Community: Pursuing the Dream,
Living the Reality, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating
the Meanings of Star Trek’s Culture of Consumption,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 67-88.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002a), “The Field Behind the Screen:
Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online
Communities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (Feb.),
61-72.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002b), “Can Consumers Escape the
Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June).
Maffesoli, Michel (1996), The Time of the Tribes: The Decline
of Individualism in Mass Society, trans. Don Smith, London:
Sage Publications.
McAlexander, James, Stephen K. Kim, and Scott D. Roberts
(2003), “Loyalty: The Influences of Satisfaction and Brand
Community Integration,” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 11 (4), 1-11.
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F.
Koenig (2002), “Building Brand Community,” Journal of
Marketing, 66 (Jan.), 38-54.
McClenahan, Bessie A. (1929), The Changing Urban Neighborhood, Los Angeles: University of Southern California
Studies Series.
McGrath, Joseph E., Holly Arrow, and Jennifer L. Berdahl
(2000), “The Study of Groups: Past, Present, and Future,”
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (1), 95-105.
McPheerson, J.M. (1983), “An Ecology of Affiliation,”
American Sociolgical Review, 48, 519-532.
Merton, Robert K. (1949), Social Theory and Social Structure:
Toward the Codification of Theory and Research, Glencoe,
IL: The Free Press.
Moreland, R.L. (1987), “The Formation of Small Groups,” In C.
Hendrick (Ed) Review of Personality and Social Psychology,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 8, 80-110.
Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand
Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March),
412-432.
Muniz, Albert M., and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity
in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 737-747.
Park, Robert E. (1936), “Human Ecology,” American Journal of
Sociology, 17 (1), 1-15.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community, New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Schouten, John W., and James H. McAlexander, (1995),
“Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New
Bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43-61.
Simmel, Georg (1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans.
Kurt H. Wolff, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Tönnies, Ferdinand ([1887] 1957), Community and Society,
trans. Charles P. Loomis, East Lansing, MI: The Michigan
State University Press.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a
New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing,
68 (January), 1-17.