1
EIASM 9th Interpretive Consumer Research Workshop
Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University, 27th and 28th April 2017
Title : Rethinking Communities
Key word: Brand communities, criticism, activities, socialization practices.
Vincent Fournier
Département de communication sociale et publique
Faculté de communication
Université du Québec à Montréal
Introduction
For this workshop, I will present a critical reflection on the concept of community as we use it to
define and understand brand communities. The community is first and foremost a vernacular
concept. It is a concept that is evocative, which in my opinion explains its popular use, but which
makes it risky at the scientific level. I will briefly expose five problems which taint the concept of
community. I will then propose an analytical framework focusing on activities to apprehend in a
pragmatic way the socialization practices regarding brands and consumption. I will illustrate the
value of this framework by analyzing some works on brand communities.
Criticism of the concept of community.
First, I believe that all communities are imagined communities (Anderson, 1983) and the
literature demonstrate that it is actually impossible to draw a clear definition of this concept.
More than fifty years ago Hillery (1955) emphasized how it was actually impossible to define
what a community is. This, I think, comes from the fact that communities are an idealization. As
we all, the scientific use of the concept of community goes back to the reflections of Toennies
(1977 [1887]) regarding the opposition between gemeinschaft and gesellschatf. This distinction
was part of the evolutionary paradigm of the time, which served to explain the diversity of human
societies. In this paradigm, Toennies definition of the community was an idealization of a certain
traditional way of life. At the time of Toennies, communities as he defines them don’t exist and
never have existed, as demonstrated by historians and sociologists (Bell and Newby, 1971;
Frankenberg, 1966; Stone, 1977; Williams, 1973). Similarly, many of the attributes that Toennies
associates with traditional communities - relationships of affection, solidarity and moral support still exist today in society. This illustrates the unfounded and idealized nature of Toennies’
distinction.
This leads to the second problem. Because of its idealized aspects, even with a precise and
restricted definition of the community, the concept still remains vague and conveys the imaginary
of the “traditional community”. If I speak of a group or a collective, I only convey the idea of a
collection of people gathered on the basis of a criteria or an activity. But if I speak of a
community, I then evoke the ideas of solidarities, affections, common beliefs, etc. And it is
actually what we want: to evoke, implicitly or explicitly, in full or in parts, the characteristics
idealized by Tonnies. The problem is that, even with a strict definition, this concept still convey
the imaginary of the community. If some authors give clears and precises’ definitions of the
community, I’ve never seen one specifying explicitly which characteristics of the community that
should not be found. The use of the concept creates vagueness as to whether the situation
described and analyzed through this concept includes the other non-specified characteristics
2
idealized defined by Toennies. This gets exacerbate when authors don’t even use a precise
definition of the community. Finally, even as an ideal type (Weber, 1971), I believe this concept
is ill-indicated, because again it can implicitly add to our object of study, characteristics that it
may not possess. In this sense, the concept of community constitutes an epistemological obstacle
(Bachelard, 2011(1938)) since it skews our understanding of the phenomena studied.
Third, since the concept is now well accepted and the space available in a paper is limited,
authors now use the concept of community to characterize and define their object of study
without demonstrating or arguing why and how it actually corresponds or not to a community. It
now seems to be assumed that all forms of socialization around consumption lead to the creation
of communities. I am not saying that we do not find around brands and consumption different
forms of socialization that correspond to certain characteristics of the community: affections,
solidarities, common beliefs, etc. But I think we only meet them in very specific situations. I
doubt that they are always found, and I think that the cases that closely match the definition of
brand communities (Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001) are actually very rare.
Fourth, the way we approach brand communities must also be rethink because of the wide and
non-critical use made of this concept outside the academic world. It is we, the researchers, who
actually construct brand communities into reality through our discursive practices (Foucault,
1966). We must then be aware of how we are actually making communities conceptually
accessible to individuals (who can believe they belong to one) and organizations wishing to use
and intrumentalize them. Since peoples may believe that communities actually exist - in part
because of their media coverage and the publicity made by journalists, public authorities and
private companies - they may then, depending on the circumstances, imagine belonging to one.
This also calls for precautions when interviewing research participants on their implication with
brand communities, especially regarding the sense of consciousness of kind.
Fifth, the brand community concept raises the question of how to draw boundaries between
communities. Traditional communities were identified and circumscribed in space following
geographical criteria. The mass media would enable the emergence of communities no longer
restricted or define by geography. In this context, how do we identify the boundaries between
these multi-sited communities? Does each brand and consumers practice, which are often global,
has a concomitant brand community which is also globalized? Do all the people in these
globalized brand communities share a sense of consciousness of kind? If not, how do we draw
and delimit boundaries between communities formed around the same brands or the same
consumption practices? To my knowledge, no study on brand communities has yet studied the
definition of their boundaries.
For all these reasons, I think the concept of community is too risky to be use. I believe that the
only communities that exist are imagined communities (Anderson, 1983; Cohen 1989). This
explains why communities can actually match very different sociological realities, such as a
religious congregation, a neighborhood, a village, a homosexual community, a nation-state, an
online community or a brand community. As for ethnicity, we cannot presuppose from outside
the nature and form of a community. I believe then that the community concept should not be
used as a sociological (or marketing) category to defined and identify groups that form around
brands. It also worth noting that, except for its evocative aspect, this concept is not especially
useful. We are in fact not interested in communities per se, if we compare to the sociologist
3
studying communities in the 1940s and the 1950s. What we want to understand is the types of
social relations and collectives imaginaries that people build together with, around and through
brands. Rather than starting from an idealized definition, such as the community, and try to fit in
our objects of research, I suggest that we should look more pragmatically at how and why people
develop specific forms of socialization around brands and consumption. And if we’re still
interested in communities, we might then study, from and interpretative perspective, what people
actually think, say and feel about these different collectives.
Operational Approach
Following Michel Verdon’s social anthropology operational approach (1991), I suggest that we
focus on activities as the foundation for analyzing the forms of socialization that emerge around
brands. It is not because of brands or products in themselves that people develop a sense of
belonging or solidarity, but because of the social activities they practice with others around these
brands. Using activities as our object of analysis sheds light on the foundations around which
people meet, socialize and eventually develop a shared vision of the world, a sense of belonging
and/or bonds of affection and solidarity. In short, it shed light on the reasons why some people, in
certain circumstances develop the qualities commonly associated with communities. Also,
different activities will be characterized by distinct forms of socialization which will in turn
influence people’s experience of specific groups (Wenger, 1998). In short, the activities practiced
by a group around a brand determine then the modalities of participation and involvement
influence the behaviors and actions that individuals adopt and, finally, the benefits they derive
from them.
In the same way, it is contacts and social exchanges around specific activities that can lead to a
common vision of the world (Wenger, 1998). Brands are, between other thing, discourses and
they offer a vision of the world. A brand can be a factor of interest and attraction. But to produce
the characteristics associated with communities, there must be socialization and, ideally, a
continuous one. For practices to become traditions and rituals, people must meet periodically for
a long time. For a sense of moral responsibility to develop, it needs repeated exchanges and
contacts that lead to the development of bonds of affection and solidarity. Thus, it is not the
brands in themselves that lead to the emergence of the characteristics associated with the brand
communities, but rather the socialization practices that develop around them. Rather than
presupposing the existence of brand communities, I believe that we should try to understand more
clearly how specific activities contribute to the production of distinct forms of socialization,
whether or not resulting in bonds of affection, solidarity, or common beliefs and values.
Re-analyzing brand communities
I will now attempt to illustrate this approach by looking at some examples of brand communities’
studies. Also, if I criticize the concept of community, I do not criticize the research results that
have been made by invoking this concept. I only criticize the use of the concept of community,
for the reasons previously mention. My objective here is to demonstrate the importance of
activities as a factor of socialization in the formation of consumer collectives that tend to be
called communities. Doing so, I also wish to highlight how activities could be use has a building
block for our analysis of consumption. Because of the available space, my analysis will be
superficial. I will limit myself to three articles in which the ethnographic data make it possible to
appreciate the importance and the influence of specific activities in the formation of these
collectives.
4
The first article is the seminal work by Muñiz and O’Guinn (2001). The authors first define brand
communities and then identify and analyze two brand communities: Saab and Macintosh. The
Macintosh brand community basically consists in two clubs whose people meet and socialize
periodically in person and online. One of the groups is particularly active, illustrating the role of
activities within it: “members were very active and very “into their Macs.” Most were engaged in
tasks for the club, such as creating pieces of software or patches for the Macintosh” (417).
Concerning the Saab brand, interviews were conducted with customers at a Saab dealer, while
other informants were met and recruited at the Midwest Saab club. The authors do not explain or
specify the activities of this club, but we can think that they are also important to the socialization
within it. By taking into account the intense socialization associated with three of four of these
research contexts, we can reasonably ask how much of the community’s characteristics are in fact
link to these contexts.
The second article is that of McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002), in which they identify
and analyze different brand communities (mostly the Jeep brand in terms of the ethnographic data
presented in the article). Here too, the authors meet interviewees in specific activities contexts
that create socialization (Jeep jamborees and Camp Jeep): “Some had come with friends or
members of local club, but many had only passing acquaintanceships, if that, with other Jeep
owners. One couple from Illinois was illustrative. Their prior connections to brand community
were limited to the purchase transaction with their dealer, direct mail from Jeep, and advertising”
(43). The authors themselves underline the importance of these activities in the solidification and
intensification of social ties (ibid). In my opinion, these activities are rather the foundation of
these social bonds: “Events like Jeep Jamboree, Camp Jeep, and HOG rallies bring together
people, or parties of people, who often share no other connection than an interest in a brand and
its consumption. » (ibid).
The third article is that of Schau, Muñiz and Arnould (2009), which focus on community
practices, and in which they analyze nine brand communities. This article is interesting, because
some of these communities correspond to the criteria defined by Muñiz and O’Guinn (2001),
while others do not, illustrating some of the criticisms I have presented before. The three cases
most congruent with Muñiz and O'Guinn brand communities are Audrey (3Com), Newton
(Apple) and Lomo and Holga. In all three cases, these are cult products for which exist
collectives, notably online, through which you can buy these products, learn about them,
including how to repair and modify them: “Numerous sites sell new and hacked Audreys, and
there are several users forums in which users can find assistance in repairing and extending the
functionality of their Audreys” (33). In short, sites for activities that foster socialization. In the
case of the other brands, the presence and consistency of brand communities is weakly
demonstrated. In the cases of TPATH and Xena: Warrior Princess, we seems to be dealing more
with an examples of Fans rather than brand communities: “The group’s fan are active in attending
concerts, hosting tailgates and concert parties, turning into the radio show, posting on the online
forums, and participating in fan chats” (ibid). The cases of Garmin and StriVectin are presented
as communities, but without demonstrations in the article, illustrating the third point of my
critique. The case of Garmin is not sufficiently documented in this article to assess it properly.
Regarding the case of StriVectin, I would rather define it as an online participating public.
Finally, in the cases of Jones Soda and Mini Cooper, we see attempts by these organizations to
create activities and events in order to bring consumers together around their brands, but the data
5
of the article do not tell us whether they succeed or not in producing socialization: “Through
numerous local chapters and its elaborate web site, the North American community promotes
chat, discussion of all aspects of the various Mini models, frequent roads trips and rallies,
customization of interiors and exteriors, and racing, and it facilitates both lateral recycling of
parts and supplies and limited aftermarket sales by qualified vendors” (ibid). This last example
demonstrates again the role and importance of activities as the basis for socialization, while
illustrating the fourth point of my critique, which is the instrumental use of brand communities by
organizations.
Conclusion
I think the community concept should not be used as a sociological (or marketing) category to
defined and identify the socialization practices that develop around brands. I propose to look at
and categorize the different activities through which individuals actually develop socializing
practices with and around brands. From there, we could analyze what peoples actually say about
these forms of socialization from a phenomenological and interpretative perspective. We could
eventually discover discrepancies between their interpretations of community belonging and the
ones made by researchers. We could find new criteria to define the participation and experience
of the community. Theoretical studies and reflections on the concepts of ethnicity and identity
may be useful and open new conceptual and methodological avenues, for example by raising the
question of power. To this scope, I would advocate for the publication of richer and more detailed
works, under the form of ethnographic monographies, dealing with consumers’ practices.
References
Anderson, Benedict (1983), Imagined Communities. London and New York: Verso.
Bachelard, Gaston (2011), [1938] La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Éditions Vrin.
Bell, Collin, and Howard Newby (1972), Community Studies. New York: Prager
Brint, Steven (2001), “Gemeinshaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community
Concept,” Sociological Theory, 19 (1) 1-23.
Cohen, Anthony, (1989), [1985] The symbolic construction of community. London: Routledge.
Frankenberg, Ronnie, (1957), Village on the Border. London: Cohen and West.
Foucault, Michel, (1966), Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.Hillery
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand
Community,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 38-54.
Muñiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community”, Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412-432.
Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz, and Eric J. Arnould (2009), “How Brand Communitu
Practices Create Value,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 30-51.
Stone, L. (1977). The Familly, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. London: Weidenfeld
and Nicholson.
Toennies, Ferdinand (1977), [1887] Communauté et société. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Verdon, Michel (1991), Contre la culture. Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines.
Weber, Max (1971), [1922] Économie et société, tome 1. Paris : Plon.
Wenger, Etienne (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identities.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Raymond (1973), The Country and the City. London: Chatto and Windus.