Title: Netnography as a Marketing Research Tool in the Fashion Industry in Southeast
Europe
Authors: Natyra Xharavina, Alexandros Kapoulas, George Miaoulis
Author Affiliations:
[Corresponding Author] Natyra Xharavina
Management School, University of Sheffield
Conduit Rd, Sheffield S10 1FL, United Kingdom
nxharavina1@sheffield.ac.uk
Dr Alexandros Kapoulas
Research Director of Business Administration and Economics Department, Senior
Lecturer in Marketing
Business Administration and Economics Department
The University of Sheffield International Faculty - CITY College
3 Leontos Sofou st., 54626, Thessaloniki, Greece
Thessaloniki, Greece
akapoulas@citycollege.sheffield.eu
Prof George Miaoulis, Jr.
Fulbright Specialist Scholar (2018-2021), Professor of Marketing
Business Administration and Economics Department
The University of Sheffield International Faculty - CITY College
3 Leontos Sofou st., 54626, Thessaloniki, Greece
gmarketguy@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This research paper explores the opportunities online communities present to
marketing researchers in collecting consumer insights. It intends to advance market
researchers’ understanding of netnography by introducing them to its concept,
procedures, and implications. Furthermore, it aims to uncover the perceptions of
managers and consumers towards netnography as a marketing research tool in Kosovo’s
fashion industry.
Design/methodology/approach: Given the purposes of this research, qualitative
method is used. The data are triangulated through: seven one-to-one interviews with
fashion designers, two focus groups with consumers, who actively congregate in online
communities, and through conducting netnography on a fashion-related online
community.
Findings: Netnography is easy to conduct and cost-effective; and it helps the brand in
understanding customer perceptions. First and foremost, it has great potential as a
marketing research tool in the fashion sector among Balkans’ countries. Nevertheless,
the majority of fashion designers in region are not aware of the procedures and
experiences of the method and a few have misconceptions about it. As for online fashion
community members, most of them preferred to be observed by marketing researchers.
Practical Implications: By showing the experiences and practices, practitioners may be
persuaded of the low risk of the method and apply it.
Originality/value: This paper provides further insights on procedures required to
successfully utilise netnography and effectively deal with the organisation around its
implementation. It is the first paper to consider fashion designers and consumer
perceptions on the implementation of the method.
Keywords: Online Communities, Netnography, Fashion Industry
Paper Type: Research Paper
Introduction
Apart from revolutionising the communication process, the development of Internet has
reshaped the working practices of businesses by successively creating unprecedented
opportunities for their activities (Patino et al. 2012; Quinton and Wilson, 2016). Among
these opportunities, this computer-mediated environment has created for businesses, are
the online consumption-oriented gatherings taking place between consumers, which have
been identified long ago by Rheingold (1993) and have been designated as virtual
communities. Information exchanges within such communities provide great insight to
marketers (Wang et al. 2013). These communities have grown and increased in number;
currently, more and more consumers are spending a lot of time having discussions about
market products and services within them (Zhu and Chen, 2015; Kumar et al. 2016). They
interact with each other to share opinions and experiences, to express feelings, and to
seek advice from others regarding such products and services (Chang et al. 2015;
Mahajan, 2015).
Emboldened by the important data that the existence of such virtual communities
dispenses, more and more scholars devote their research to studying the information
these communities provide regarding consumer interactions and their motives for
participating within them (Kumar et al. 2016; Yadav and Rahman, 2017). Even then,
Parrot et al. (2015) noted that further research is required in order to thoroughly
understand their potential and the benefits they can offer to marketers. According to
Kamboj and Rahman (2017), marketers can use the information such communities
provide in order to gauge consumer perceptions and preferences by studying their
activities and discussions.
Until now, consumer insights have mostly been collected using long-established
qualitative and quantitative marketing techniques (Kozinets, 2002). The rise of the
concept of Web 2.0, however, gave marketers the opportunity to develop new methods,
such as: online focus groups, consumer panels, interviews, or live chats (Mahajan, 2015).
Kozinets (2002) suggested a novel computer-mediated approach to marketing research
– netnography, which can be effectively used to collect information about consumer
behaviour on the Internet. Netnography is a qualitative method, based on ethnography,
which provides a greater understanding of consumer practices within online communities
and has already been applied in a few researches (e.g. Valck et al. 2009; Quinton and
Wilson, 2016).
Until today there has been little research on the use of netnography in the fashion sector.
Given that, this research aims to provide insights into marketing research in Kosovo’s
fashion industry by demonstrating the effectiveness and benefits of using netnography as
a research tool in their marketing practices, hence bringing closer its concept, procedures
and implications. The central focus of this research is to uncover the perceptions of both
managers and consumers regarding netnography and to demonstrate “the experiences
and practices of companies in creating netnography projects and in orchestrating their
activities” (La Rocca et al. 2014, p.701) by collecting data from online communities.
This paper is structured as follows. In the next section, it offers a critical analysis of the
most well-known works of academics and practitioners in the fields dealing with online
communities and netnography. Afterwards, it explains and justifies the chosen
methodology and methods. The forthcoming sector focuses on analysing the collected
data and on presenting findings, and lastly, the paper provides concluding remarks about
the usage of netnography in the fashion industry.
Relevant Literature
The Concept of Online Communities
Online communities, retroactively referred to as virtual communities, have been
recognised long ago by Rheingold (1993). Since then, they have grabbed the attention of
a large number of academics, who consider them to be a dominant research subject
(Kozinets, 1999; Malinen, 2015). Modern scholars view online communities as virtual
social gatherings between individuals, who have common interests and goals, and
intentionally share information and knowledge by interacting among each other (Grabher
and Ibert, 2013; Liou et al. 2016). In these communities, members become producers of
content, and their life cycle becomes directly dependent on the users’ content generation
(Malinen, 2015).
Since their emergence, online communities grabbed the attention of a large number of
Internet users (Healy and McDonagh, 2013; Wang et al. 2013). Rowe and Strohmaier
(2014) note that this is a result of the communities’ ability to “create, discuss, and evaluate
information (p. 433)”. Consequently, members of these communities express their
attitudes, feelings, experiences, and search for advice from other members (Chang et al.
2015). They voluntarily spend time within these communities (Dessart et al., 2015) and
consciously share information about various topics. The huge variety of topics discussed
within these communities – from fashion to health-related topics, has been observed by
scholars since their emergence (Zha et al., 2014). Among other, such communities offer
members “congenial information environments”; members post their queries freely, and
receive responses immediately from other members (Dessart et al., 2015). Zha et al.
(2014) and Riding et al. (2006) argue that this information exchange is the main reason
Internet users join online communities. Apart from finding information, they participate
within such communities in order to gain companionship, a sense of belonging, and social
resources (Wang et al., 2013).
The great number of participants and the insight provided from the existence of such
communities has been recognised by marketing researchers, who claim them to be
crucial for gathering consumers’ perceptions and analysing them (Prior and Miller, 2012;
Mahajan, 2015).
Methods for Analysing Consumer Insights in Online Communities
Online communities are mostly researched using quantitative methods, however, they
provide a limited understanding of communities’ interactions because they focus on the
content rather than the context. Therefore, a number of scholars (Prior and Miller, 2012;
Quinton and Wilson, 2016) suggest using qualitative methods instead since they offer
researchers opportunities to gain detailed understanding of consumer perceptions,
opinions, feelings and experiences (Parrot et al. 2015).
The majority of qualitative methods resemble traditional methods; nevertheless, they
have been modified in order to adapt to the new factor – Internet (Prior and Miller, 2012;
Mahajan, 2015). Subsequently, various scholars have recommended new Internet-
based, qualitative methods (Kozinets, 1999; Markham, 2005), the most prominent of them
being netnography (de Valck et al., 2009; Kulavuz-Onal, 2015).
The Concept of Netnography
Netnography is a relatively new Internet-based qualitative research method, based on
ethnography, and has been embraced by researchers worldwide (Prior and Miller, 2012;
Kulavuz-Onal, 2015). Netnography is used to study emerging online communities and
consumer behavior and it is conducted entirely online (Bartl et al. 2016).Kozinets is
considered to be the original developer of the concept of netnography; hence, his work is
paramount within the literature on this method. Kozinets recognised the presence of
anthropological ethnography elements in netnography; he argued, that without
ethnography, netnography would only be a coding exercise (Kozinets, 2006). Apart from
Kozinets, Hine was among the first advocates of this method. She views netnography as
a form of ethnography, adapted to the Internet (Hine, 2000). Markham (2005), however,
does not consider it as an Internet adaptation of ethnography; he considers this approach
to be groundbreaking.
During the last twenty years, this research method has gained momentum. This is the
result of the rapid growth of Internet usage by consumers, who are increasingly turning
to online communities in order to search for information and make purchasing decisions
(Kozinets, 2012; Wang et al. 2013). Consequently, researchers’ interest in understanding
the effects that membership within online communities has on consumer behavior has
appropriately increased (Mousavi et al. 2017). In the recent years, researchers have
noticed the potential of these communities, and of the research methods used to analyse
them (Wang et al., 2013). They have been content to use netnography as a method to
explore consumer behavior online (Xun and Reynold, 2010). Nevertheless, they have still
not recognised the full potential of it as a research method – meaning further research is
required in order to understand its potential (Wang et al., 2013; Costello et al. 2017).
Netnography’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Netnography is considered to be more economically viable than methods, that require
face-to-face contact; it does not require physical travel or any other expenses (de Valck
et al., 2009; Xun and Reynolds, 2010). The naturally occurring characteristic of this
method offers marketers significant advantages (Prior and Miller, 2012); it is unobtrusive
and it does not interfere with the interactions between members (Kozinets, 2012). Above
all, information is not controlled by researchers and the research allows for a more
comprehensive analysis (Kulavuz-Onal, 2015).
By making use of this method, marketers are able to discover the reasons behind
consumer loyalty to products or brands, which could be used by marketers to find ways
of encouraging greater consumer loyalty (Healy and McDonagh, 2013). Thus, they would
have access to the most authentic consumer responses (Costello et al., 2017). This
method enables marketers to have access to a considerable amount of data and various
contents which improves both, the breadth and depth of research (Prior and Miller, 2012).
Furthermore, netnography has a “voyeuristic quality (Kozinets 2015, p. 88)”. It is
considered to be a suitable method when the researcher has to deal with highly sensitive
topics (see Langer and Backman, 2005; Gurrieri and Cherrier, 2013). This approach is
also perceived as being very effective for developing new products and strategies. It
assists marketers in identifying the latest market trends, as well as it helps in developing
new innovative concepts (Costello et al., 2017).
On the other hand, one has to be aware of the fact that netnography, implementationwise still remains a not-fully-developed method, which inevitably leaves it with a few
shortcomings (Clemente-Ricolfe, 2017). Netnography faces three main issues:
“community scope, data validity and data reliability (Prior and Miller 2012, p. 508)”. Prior
and Miller (2012), similar to Wu and Pearce (2014), point out the fact that such
methodology focuses solely on the online interaction within communities. They believe
that this offers a ‘discrete research context’; however, it limits research’s potential
because it ignores the actual scope of the community being investigated, as its members
might communicate offline as well.
Netnographers observe that it is difficult to determine the quality of data because of the
ability to establish a false and anonymous identity. Because of this issue, Prior and Miller
(2012) suggest to put greater emphasis on external validity, and they recommend the
triangulation of data; for instance, by conducting face-to-face interviews with members of
online communities.
Netnography’s Procedures
Costello et al. (2017) and Pollak et al. (2014) recognise numerous misconceptions about
netnography and its procedures. They have noticed that a number of researchers
consider any analysis of interaction in online communities to be a netnographic approach.
Only a small number of researchers describe, explore and evaluate the procedures used
for conducting netnography. According to Costello et al. (2017), even the self-identified
netnographers have a tendency to narrow the scope of its procedures – they select easyto-collect data and easier techniques to analyse them. This has created a need for future
researches to report on and discuss netnography’s procedures (Pollak et al., 2014).
Despite the previously mentioned misconceptions, netnography already has established
procedures for conducting research (Kozinets, 2012). Considering the similarity between
the ethnography and netnography, Kozinets (2002) suggested adopting the common
structure approach in order to adjust the processes of netnography to those of
ethnography. Ethnographers use the following structure: “1) making cultural entrée, 2)
gathering and analysing data, 3) ensuring trustworthy interpretation, 4) conducting ethical
research, and 5) providing opportunities for feedback (Kozinets, 2002, p. 63)”.
The Divergence of Netnography’s Procedures
The procedure proposed by Kozinets has been providing helpful guidelines to
researchers that have implemented it (see Chua and Banerjee, 2013; Quinton and
Wilson, 2016). Many researchers, such as Gurrieri and Cherrier (2013), strictly followed
the Kozinets guidelines. However, this method has gone through several changes. De
Valck et al. (2009), for instance, omitted Kozinets’ recommendations regarding the ethical
approach, while Bratucu et al. (2014) disregarded the research planning step. A number
of other researchers, including Langer and Beckman (2005) and Prior and Miller (2012)
even suggested further changes to the procedure.
The ethical issue and triangulation lies at the heart of the discussion on these suggested
changes. While Kozinets (2002) emphasised the necessity of having permission to use
the data community members provide, many other researchers believe that this would
make netnography lose its main advantage – unobtrusiveness (DiGuardo and Castriotta,
2013; Quinton and Wilson, 2016). These different standpoints in netnography are known
as the active and passive approaches. Most researchers prefer the active stance due to
its ethical value, and the fact that the research is less authentic, if it adopts a passive
approach (Lima et al., 2014). However, numerous scholars have adopted the passive
approach (Fisher and Smith, 2011; Di Guardo and Castriotta, 2013) and they consider
that this provides them with a naturalist analysis of data, which makes the research
unobtrusive and free from researcher bias.
Kozinets (2002) believes that netnography has the potential to be a standalone method
and suggested to use triangulation only when the generalisation of findings is needed,
although there is some disagreement regarding this among other researchers. Their
suggestion is to combine it with other methods for the purposes of validating data quality
(Prior and Miller, 2012), or “generating data, rich in detail and rigour (Chua and Banerjee,
2013)”.
Application of Netnography
A number of academics have developed literature on netnography, but its potential is still
untapped (Xun and Reynolds, 2010; Sloan et al. 2015). The paucity of its implementation
is a result of the anticipated risk often associated with new research methods (Kozinets,
2012). Hence, a research providing helpful guidelines to companies on the use of
netnography is needed (La Rocca et al., 2014). While netnographic studies could be used
in various sectors, researchers stress the great opportunity of netnography in the fashion
sector (Mohr, 2013; Kozinets, 2015; Mortara and Roberti, 2017) and they recommend
further research into its use, in order to understand its possible influence on this sector
(Mohr, 2013). A few researches have been conducted on online communities on luxury
fashion, and a few centred on green fashion communities (see Wu, 2010; Shen et al.,
2014),
yet
this
sector
is
under-studied
by
netnographers
(Parrott
et
al.,
2015).Netnography, as a research tool, also has significant potential in developing
countries, however it has been rarely used by them.
Zhang and Hitchcock (2017)
recommended that a study evidencing its latent quality among these countries would
enhance the effectiveness of netnography. As a result, this paper decided to focus on
Kosovo, a developing country located in Southeastern Europe.
Methodology
Data Collection
Considering the requirements of this research, the primary data is gathered through: faceto-face interviews, focus groups and netnography. Seven one-to-one semi-structured
interviews with Kosovar fashion designers have been conducted in order to provide an
in-depth comprehension of fashion designers’ views on netnography. Besides, two focus
groups consisting of six to eight people have been assembled in order to attain a better
understanding of consumer perception towards online communities and netnography, as
a marketing research tool. This research has also used netnography, in a passive role, to
analyse the most famous fashion-related online community in Kosovo “MM” (paramount
importance has been given to the privacy of the community; thus, it has been given a
coded name - MM). The data is gathered through a three-month period, and it is
interpreted using thematic analysis. The use of these techniques gives the researcher the
possibility to triangulate, verify and validate findings. They provide multiple perspectives
and the ability to assess the veracity of the data, which is crucial for research credibility
(Kapoulas and Mitic, 2012; Saunders et al. 2016).
Sample
The sample methods that are used are the non-probability sample, which is common for
qualitative research, and snowball sampling, because of the possibility that the
interviewees introduce the researcher to members of the desired population (Noy, 2008).
The target population of this research are Kosovar citizens, who regularly use Internet.
Two subsets have been determined: seven fashion designers in the fashion industry in
Kosovo and Kosovar citizens, who are fashion aficionados and are active members of
fashion-related online communities. The same sample as for focus groups is used for
netnography, however, due to its nature, only purposive sampling type is used.
Data Analysis
The interpretation of the results of this paper is performed through a thematic analysis,
as this type of analysis is considered suitable for researchers, who aim to understand the
perceptions of participants regarding a specific topic (Clarke and Braun, 2013; Vaismoradi
et al. 2013). Thematic analysis offers researchers the ability to create meaningful results,
instead of merely summarising the data (Clarke and Braun, 2016; Saunders et al.,
2016).This research has followed Clarke and Braun’s (2013) six-phase framework for
conducting thematic analysis and found it useful.
Data Analysis and Findings
Online Fashion Communities
The data analysis of the members of “MM” shows that customer perceptions about online
communities do not differ significantly from the views of the modern scholars in the field.
The analysis finds that the common interest all these members have is fashion; they are
all fashion-enthusiasts, and have therefore gathered in a community of that kind.
Common interest joins people in traditional communities as well (Chan and Li, 2010),
nevertheless, people these days, prefer online communities (Yan et al., 2013), as they
have no geographic boundaries, and offer an easier access to communities (Leal et al.,
2014). This preference is noticed among members of “MM” as well; for example, R11
claimed, “We do not need to travel to meet each other and discuss, we go online, and
there we meet all the people, who have the same interests. It is the power of Internet”.
The majority of participants describe their activities in the group similarly to Liou et al.
(2016), who defined a virtual community as an “online social network, constructed on the
basis of social interactions for sharing information and knowledge. (p. 188)”. A number of
scholars, such as Cristofari and Guitton (2014), and Leal et al. (2014), argued that sharing
information and experiences among members is more difficult to evaluate when
interactions occur online, because members trust each other less in such formats.
Interestingly, only participant R9 had a similar view to these scholars,“a lot of people
express themselves differently online, compared to how they are in real life.” While, the
majority of other members stated that they consider the interactions within that community
to be honest and straightforward.
The members of such communities have a considerable impact on businesses, because
they recommend, promote, or criticise brands, and share their experiences and
knowledge among each other (Baldus, 2015; Mahajan, 2015). Evidently, their impact on
brand perceptions is not recognised only by marketing researchers, members of the
community are aware of it as well. R6 is among them, they said, “Businesses have
profited a lot for different reasons, but mainly because a member of the group has posted
about buying an item there, and that is what particular businesses had previously needed
to be more frequented.”
R4, on the other hand, noted that members’ impact is the greatest on brand promotion,
especially the recently established ones,”…there are designers who are not famous, but
they post something in the group and immediately become more appreciated and wellknown.”
User Participation Motives
Marketing researchers are intrigued by the fact that consumers share all the relevant data
for market research freely within online communities (Chang et al. 2015; Dessart et al.,
2015). These communities offer numerous advantages to brands; thus, researchers are
interested in the motives that drive members to participate within such communities. The
analysis of focus groups shows that members of “MM” have been motivated to engage in
the community for various reasons, among them:
Active Community
Immediate Response
Biggest Fashion
Community
Easier Access
Fashion Enthusiasts
Congenial Information
Environment
Suggested by Friends
Information Exchanges
Anticipated Reciprocity
Reputation
Sense of Efficiency
Sense of Belonging
Altruism
Table 1: User Participation Motives
Zha et al. (2014) and Riding et al. (2016) considered that people engage in the community
to share information. According to them, this is among the most significant motivators,
and the analysis of focus groups presents similar results. Almost all the participants at
one point during the interviews reiterated the importance of information sharing and its
value in the community; R9 said, “Members in the group share almost everything…”. At
the same time, the netnographic study, conducted within this community, noted the
willingness of people to share information, either based on their experience, or that of
their friends.
Moreover, participants claimed that they engage in “MM” because the community is very
active, and members respond to their queries in a very short time. R12 said that “followers
there are really active…”, while R6 noted, “…Whenever one posts, they get an immediate
response”. The netnographic analysis showed similar results – members post
approximately 200 messages per day, and during the research, the immediacy of
members' responses was noted and recorded in field notes. This data supports Dessart
et al. (2015), and Riding et al. (2016) claims that an active community and immediate
response are among the reasons members interact in online communities.
Members participate in “MM” for a number of other reasons, which have not been
discussed by scholars, such as: for self-improvement, out of curiosity, to get inspired, or
even due to group diversity.
R9: “I have always needed to follow posts of people about
IMPROVEMENT
fashion, so that I am able to know more about this aspect.”
R13: “I become inspired and want to be inspired by different
INSPIRATION
trends in Kosovo and abroad.”
R12: “..to see what trendy people are wearing…”
CURIOSITY
Table 2: Participants' Motives to Engage Online
The Concept of Netnography
Netnography, as a qualitative marketing research method, is considered to be relatively
new for practitioners in the field; there is almost no evidence that marketing researchers
implement this method in fashion industry when analysing consumer perceptions (La
Rocca et al., 2014). Although Kozinets (2012) stated that this is the result of the fear of
adopting new research methods, the analysis shows that, at least among emerging
countries such as Kosovo, the neglect of such a method is the consequence of a lack of
knowledge about it and its implementation. Only a few Kosovar fashion designers are
aware of it, and even a lesser number of them use it.
As for members of online fashion communities, none of them have ever heard before of
this method, and many of them have never considered that their interactions in community
can be analysed by marketing researchers in the field. As R6 said, “I have no idea what
netnography is…I never gave it a thought that there are people on that professional scale
that might look very deeply into our posts”. Although unaware of netnography as a
method, a few participants were aware that their social interactions in such communities
are observed by marketing researchers. R12 noted,“People’s posts, comments and likes
are usually observed,that is why I am usually careful in what I show the world”.
On the other hand, fashion designers were more informed about netnography. P4, who
is familiar with the method, views it as a marketing tool that ”provides an in-depth
understanding of the consumer perceptions on online sites.” His perception is similar to
Bartl et al. (2016) definition of netnography – “Netnography is a qualitative research
method that explores digital tribes and consumer behaviour (p. 165)”. Besides P4, P6,
who is the only fashion designer in Kosovo, whose team uses this method, gave a detailed
explanation of the method, “I am familiar with the term; actually, it is one of the methods
used by my brand... Netnography, or as I refer to it – online ethnography, is an online
method that is very similar to ethnography, and it studies the online social interactions”.
His perception of netnography is similar to the definition given by the original developer
of this method – Kozinets (2002). Nevertheless, for some fashion designers, netnography
was a new term, and they heard it for the first time when they were informed about the
interview.
Perceptions about Netnography
Fashion designers’ perceptions about netnography as a research method in the industry
are mostly positive, and resemble with the claims of a number of scholars, such as: Healy
and McDonagh (2013), or Costello et al., 2017.
Prior and Miller (2012) and Kulavuz-Onal (2015) considered netnography as an effective
tool for gaining access to, and understanding consumer perceptions, needs, experiences,
and feelings with products and brands. P1 had a similar opinion. She stated:
“…nowadays, people tend to express themselves freely on the Internet, specifically on
social media. This offers us – the brands – the opportunity to understand their
preferences, their opinions on a garment, a new style, or trend, their favourite colours
during a season”.
Additionally, P6 emphasised the following,”It offers the possibility to obtain information
about social interactions naturally”, which is, according to Kozinets (2010) and Pollok et
al. (2014), the most significant strength of this method. P6 noted some of the other
advantages that this method provides marketers, such as, “… it offers relevant and
detailed data. The brand learns consumer motives and reasons behind their brand
loyalty.” The relevance and quality of data is mentioned also by Xun and Reynolds (2010)
and Prior and Miller (2012), whereas, Healy and McDonagh (2013) noted the importance
of the method in understanding consumer loyalty.
P1 recognised a characteristic of the method, which has not been discussed by scholars
in the field – “It provides us with other information, such as their opinion on prices, fabrics
and on competitive brands.” Although scholars have not discussed it, it is clear that this
data can offer a great amount of insight about competitors; this is noted also during the
netnographic research conducted in “MM”.
In addition, fashion designers expressed their views on the role of netnography as a trend
setter. Loanzon et al. (2013) and Pollok et al. (2014) considered the method to be
significant in creating innovative designs. Kosovar fashion designers, however, did not
agree with such a statement. While they recognised the significance of the method in the
process of developing new trends, they did not deem it as essential to the process.
Similarly to fashion designers, the majority of members of “MM” had mostly positive views
about netnography as a research method. R11 stated, “I find it very positive to have my
posts observed, because that means the people who observe them are interested in my
posts”, whereas R10 said, “I would be happy to have my posts read or observed because
sometimes it may help a company advance.” They even suggested the researcher to
thoroughly consider members’ posts in the community.
These views were not expected by the researcher, because Kamboj and Rahman (2017)
mentioned the unwillingness of members of online communities to participate in such
observations. Among participants, only R4 and R5 were against such a method, and
showed reluctance to participate. R4 stated, “I would not post, if I knew I was being
observed, because I would not like for my posts to be used in such a way, because they
include my personal ideas”.
Perceptions on Netnography’s Challenges
The revised literature presented a number of challenges that researchers face whenever
conducting the method. Prior and Miller (2012), and Clemente-Ricolfe (2017) stressed
three crucial challenges: “community scope, data validity and data reliability”. The data
analysis shows that Kosovar fashion designers’ perceptions about these challenges do
not differ significantly from the scholars on the field. P1, for instance, considered that “the
main challenge is the large amount of data; it is too hard to go through everything
consumers post and it takes a lot of time.”
Fashion designers considered that the large amount of data challenges the process of
research because the analysis of data takes a considerable amount of time. Even one of
the members of “MM” noticed such a drawback; R9, who stated, “I would advise
marketers to not go too deep into every person’s post, because sometimes it might be
just a waste of time.” At the same time, the researcher noticed the issue with the scope
of the data when analysing the insights collected from “MM” - when performing the
netnographic research, the researcher was overwhelmed with data and the analysis took
a long time.
Besides, the difficulty in validating the data is noticed by both, the fashion designers and
the researcher. In this regard, the possibility of creating false and anonymous identities
is considered a major challenge (Prior and Miller, 2012; Wu and Pearce, 2014).
Netnography’s Procedures and Experiences
Both, the fashion designers', and the researcher’s perspectives have been considered in
order to understand the experiences of fashion brands of Kosovar fashion designers on
conducting netnography. Out of seven of the interviewees, only one fashion designer –
P6, was familiar in detail with the method and had utilised netnography. A few of them
had never conducted such a research, and a small number of them followed a similar
research method, which they have not yet labelled. The research has followed Kozinets’
(2002) established procedures, with a few divergences.
The analysis shows that the fashion designer – P6 does not follow strictly the established
rules by Kozinets (2002), yet, the method used by him is considered to be netnography,
unlike P1 and P2, whose research method resemble netnography, but are not categorised
as such. P6 has a marketing research team which deals with the process of collecting
and analysing data. The team also conducts a few other research methods; thus, it is not
dedicated to netnographic purposes only and it does not have trained experts in the
method. The fashion designer regards the team as sufficient for the process, although
Pajo et al. (2017) noted that a team would require trained experts in order to perform a
successful analysis. Similarly to P6, the researcher conducting the netnographic study of
“MM” does not have a team of trained experts – in fact, the research is conducted only
by one person, who is familiar with netnographic procedures through scholarly studies.
The analysis shows that both of these teams have succeeded in conducting such a
method, therefore, Pajo et al. (2017) suggestion – trained experts – is not crucial to the
success of the research.
P6 emphasised the importance of team collaboration – “It is vital for the team to
cooperate, because sometimes the team gets inundated with data.” He shortly described
the process, “The team considers various online sites, but mostly focuses on the brand’s
pages on Facebook and Instagram. Only the data relevant to the research is collected.
The selection of data is among the first steps of the process. Then follows its analysis,
our team uses a data analysis tool that has been purchased for this purpose. Whenever
useful feedback is noted, the team records it, and informs the fashion forecasting team.
The process takes a lot of time, but it is very useful for the brand.”
This process does not resemble Kozinets’ (2002) five guidelines; P6, like De Valck et al.
(2009) and Bratucu et al. (2014), changed the procedure. Similar to De Valck et al. (2009),
P6 omitted the ethical approach aspects suggested by Kozinets (2002), because, like
many scholars, P6 assumed a passive stance. However, P6 did not omit all of the
Kozinets (2002) guidelines; P6 followed Kozinets’ (2002) suggestion on simplifying the
process by categorising the data into relevant and irrelevant, and analysing only the
relevant ones. In general, P6 seemed to follow a more traditional approach of data
collection; he focused mostly on brand’s online communities. Although this is acceptable
and many practitioners have implemented it, scholars (Zaglia, 2013; Malinen, 2015)
argued that this enables “passive consumption of information by consumers”; thus, online
communities created by consumers are more desired.
On the other hand, the research of ‘MM’ is more similar to Kozinets' (2002) researches.
The research went through all of his suggested steps. It gave special attention to the first
step - research planning, because it helped the researcher set the primary goals and
prepare better for the research. Even though this step has been omitted by certain
scholars (Bratucu et al. 2014), the analysis of netnography shows that it is important to
the process. The research evaluated potential online communities using Kozinets’ (2002)
five criteria; this step aided in identifying the most appropriate online fashion community
– “MM”. Afterwards, the researcher spent a considerable amount of time studying the
community and getting familiarised with it. It was only then, that the process of data
collection started. Similarly to Kozinets (2002) and P6, the research classified the data as
– on-topic and off-topic. In addition to this, the research also identified four types of
members: Tourists (36 %), Minglers (38 %), Devotees (19 %) and Insiders (7 %). Similarly
to P6, the research took a passive stance.
As for data analysis, P6 and the researcher followed different approaches. P6 stated that
his team used a data analysis tool - a software; whereas, the researcher conducted a
manual analysis through a thematic analysis. Kozinets (2002) stated that this process can
be done by utilising both of them. However, a manual analysis is deemed too time
consuming. While P6 provided no information on the method they used to ensure data
validity, the research followed the suggestions of Prior and Miller (2012) and Cherif and
Miled (2013), and has thus tried to ensure its validity by triangulating data with the aid of
two focus groups composed of members of ‘MM”.
While P6 conducts an ongoing research, the researcher investigated “MM” for just three
months due to time limitations. Scholars like de Valck et al. (2009), preferred longer period
studies. Nevertheless, the time does not seem to be a determining factor since Kozinets
himself conducted two to three month long studies during all of his researches. As for the
number of communities involved, Pollok et al. (2014) and Weijo et al. (2014), suggested
simultaneously analysing several online communities, unless research purposes can be
achieved through using only one community. Thus, the research focused on only one
community, the most relevant of them.
Perceptions Regarding the Active-Passive Stance
Although scholars generally prefer taking the active approach, due to its ethical value
(Alavi et al., 2010; Lima et al., 2014), many of them take the passive stance (see Di
Guardo and Castriotta, 2013). As it was mentioned previously, both P6 and the
researcher took a passive stance. P6 said that they took such an approach for the
following reason: “it provides a naturalist analysis of data, because, when informed
participants might decide to cease commenting, or be more careful with their posts, it
might create fake data.”
His view resembles Mateos and Durand’s (2012), who claimed that a passive approach
provides a naturalist analysis of data. Additionally, P6 concern of the active stance’s
impact on the activities of participants was noted also by Fisher and Smith (2011), who
claimed that the active approach pushes participants away, and therefore limits the
research from gaining in-depth information.
On the other hand, P5 agreed with Alavi et al. (2010), and Lima et al. (2014), who
favoured the active stance due to ethical issues. P5:”An active stance is more ethical,
and I believe all participants should be informed, otherwise, their privacy is invaded.”
Until now, researches were only concerned with the opinion of other researchers on the
subject, and neglected community members’ views. This analysis, however, shows the
perceptions of online fashion communities' members regarding the approach that the
researcher should follow when conducting netnography. Members of “MM” were asked
whether they would prefer to be informed about the research prior to its implementation,
and these were their responses:
R6:“If you are going to analyse my posts, at least inform me about it”
R8:“It is everyone’s right to be asked for permission”
Table 3: Views of Members on the Active Approach
Their views are similar to Lima et al. (2014) claim – participants would want to be informed
in advance. However, R4 disagreed with these views; they stated, “We would not be so
authentic anymore”, which led to a discussion in both focus groups about the impact of
the active approach on members’ activities.
While three members stated that the observation would not impact them at all, the rest of
them admitted that their consciousness of them being observed would impact them, either
entirely or partially.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study provides significant insights for both, marketing researchers and academics.
First and foremost, it increases the knowledge of marketing researchers regarding the
concept of netnography and its procedures. The perceptions of fashion designers and
online fashion community members on netnography advance the understanding of
netnography’s concept. Additionally, they provide a contribution to academia, which lacks
studies on consumer perceptions of netnography as a method. The research discusses
and reports in detail on all of netnography’s procedures, which can be found useful by
marketing researchers who intend to use this method. Moreover, it reveals the
experiences of the brand in the area of conducting netnography, which can convince
marketers, particularly of the small risk of the approach, and hence, it can persuade them
to make use of it. Above all, the study investigates the role of netnography as a research
tool in the fashion industry, which is rarely covered by netnographers.
Furthermore, it reveals insights on user participation, which is still considered an
emerging subject in academia. It discusses user participant motives, and it proposes a
few other reasons, which have not been discussed by scholars, such as: diversity of the
group, curiosity, and inspiration. The research shows that online fashion community
members are willing to participate in a netnographic research – an unexpected response;
thus, by sharing this knowledge it helps brands overcome a potential barrier. Lastly, the
research reveals that fear of risk is not the only reason that companies do not implement
a not well-established method. The lack of knowledge and practice is the main reason,
and this fear can be overcome by this study – since it explains thoroughly both,
experiences and procedures of netnography.
References
Alavi, S., Ahuja, V., & Medury, Y. (2010). Building participation, reciprocity and trust:
Netnography of an online community of APPLE using regression analysis for prediction.
Apeejay Business Review, 11, p. 82–96.
Baldus, B. J. (2015) Insight Generation with Marketing Research Online Communities
(MROCs). Journal of Internet Commerce, 14(4), p. 476-491.
Bartl, M., Kannan, V. K. and Stockinger, H. (2016) A Review and Analysis of Literature
on netnography Research. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(2), p. 165196.
Bratucu, R., Gheorghe, I. R., Radu, A. and Purcarea, V. L. (2014) The Relevance of
Netnography to the Harness of Romanian Health Care Electronic Word-of-mouth.
Journal of Medicine and Life, 7(3), p. 363-367.
Chan, K. W. and Li, S. Y. (2010) Understanding consumer-to-consumer interactions in
virtual communities: The salience of reciprocity. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), p.
1033-1040.
Chang, Y. T., Yu, H. and Lu, H. P. (2015) Persuasive messages, popularity cohesion,
and message diffusion in social media marketing. Journal of Business Research, 68(4),
p. 777-782.
Chua, A. Y. and Banerjee, S. (2013) Customer knowledge management via social
media: the case of Starbucks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), p. 237-249.
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2013) Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges
and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), p. 120-123.
Clemente-Ricolfe, J. S. (2017). Consumer perceptions of online banking in Spain using
netnography: a positioning story. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(6), p. 966982.
Costello, L., McDermott, M. L. and Wallace, R. (2017) Netnography: Range of
Practices, Misperceptions, and Missed Opportunities. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 16(1), p. 1-12.
De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G. H. and Wierenga, B. (2009) Virtual communities: a
marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), p. 185-203.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015) Consumer engagement in
online brand communities: a social media perspective. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 24(1), p. 28-42.
Di Guardo, M. C. and Castriotta, M. (2013) The Challenge and Opportunities of
Crowdsourcing Web Communities: an Italian Case Study. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce Studies, 4(1), p. 79-92.
Fisher, D. and Smith, S. (2011). Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing
when no one has control. Marketing theory, 11(3), p. 325 – 350.
Grabher, G. and Ibert, O. (2013) Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid
virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), p. 97-123.
Gurrieri, L. and Cherrier, H. (2013) Queering beauty: Fatshionistas in the Fatosphere.
Qualitative Market Research, 16, p. 276–295.
Healy, J. C. and McDonagh, P. (2013) Consumer roles in brand culture and value cocreation in virtual communities. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), p. 1528-1540.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London, England: Sage.
Kamboj, S. and Rahman, Z. (2017) Understanding customer participation in online
brand communities: Literature review and future research agenda. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 20(3), p. 306-334.
Kapoulas, A. and Mitic, M. (2012). Understanding Challenges of Qualitative Research:
Rhetorical Issues and Reality Traps. Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, 15(4), p. 354-368.
Kozinets, R. V. (1999) E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual
communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), p. 252-264.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing
research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIX, p. 61-72.
Kozinets, R. V. (2012) Marketing netnography: prom/ot(ulgat)ing a new research
method. Methodological innovations Online, 7(1), p. 37-45.
Kozinets, R. V. (2015) Netnography: Redefined. 2nd edition. London, Sage.
Kulavuz-Onal, D. (2015). Using netnography to explore the culture of online language
teaching communities. Calico Journal, 32(3), p. 426-448.
Kumar, A., Bezawada, R., Rishika, R., Janakiraman, R. and Kannan, P. K. (2016) From
social to sale: the effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80(1), p. 7-25.
La Rocca, A., Mandelli, A. and Snehota, I. (2014) Netnography approach as a tool for
marketing research: the case of Dash-P&G/TTV. Management Decision, 52(4), p. 689704.
Langer, R., and Beckman, S. C. (2005) Sensitive Research Topics: Netnography
Revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), p. 189-203.
Leal, G. P. A., Hor-Meyll, L. F. and de Paula Pessôa, L. A. G. (2014). Influence of virtual
communities in purchasing decisions: The participants' perspective. Journal of Business
Research, 67(5), p. 882-890.
Lima, M., Namaci, L., & Fabiani, T. (2014). A netnographic study of entrepreneurial
traits: Evaluating classic typologies using the crowdsourcing algorithm of an online
community. Independent Journal of Management & Production, 5, 171-187.
Liou, D. K., Chih, W. H., Hsu, L. C. and Huang, C. Y. (2016) Investigating information
sharing behavior: the mediating roles of the desire to share information in virtual
communities. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(2), p. 187-216.
Mahajan, R. (2015) Use of Social Media as a New Investigative Tool in Marketing
Research for Small Business. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, eManagement and e-Learning, 5(3), p. 129-150.
Malinen, S. (2015) Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic
literature review of empirical studies. Computers in human behavior, 46, p. 228-238.
Markham, A. N. (2005) The Methods, Politics, and Ethics of Representation in Online
Ethnography. 1st edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
Mateos, P. and Durand, J. (2012). Residence vs. ancestry in acquisition of Spanish
citizenship: a ‘netnography’ approach. Migraciones Internacionales, 6(4), p. 9-46.
Mohr, I. (2013) The Impact of Social Media on the Fashion Industry. The Journal of
Applied Business and Economics, 15(2), p. 17-22.
Mortara, A. and Roberti, G. (2017) The Spread Fashion: an Explorative Research of
Italian Fashion Blog. Italian Sociological Review, 7(1), p. 87-104.
Mousavi, S., Roper, S. and Keeling, K. (2017) Interpreting Social Identity in Online
Brand Communities: Considering Posters and Lurkers. Psychology & Marketing, 34(4),
p. 376- 393.
Noy, C. (2008) Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in
qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research methodology, 11(4), p.
327-344.
Pajo, S., Vandevenne, D., and Duflou, J. R. (2017). Automated feature extraction from
social media for systematic lead user identification. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 29(6), p. 642-654.
Parrott, G., Danbury, A. and Kanthavanich, P. (2015) Online behaviour of luxury fashion
brand advocates. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(4), p. 360-383.
Patino, A., Pitta, D. A. and Quinones, R. (2012) Social media's emerging importance in
market research. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(3), p. 233-237.
Pollok, P., Lu¨ttgens, D., and Piller, F. T. (2014). Leading edge users and latent
consumer needs in electromobility: Findings from a nethnographic study of user
innovation in high-tech online communities. RWTH-TIM Working Paper, February 2014.
Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2412081 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2412081.
Prior, D. D. and Miller, L.M. (2012) Webethnography towards a typology for quality in
research design. International Journal of Market Research, 54(4), p. 503-520.
Quinton, S. and Wilson, D. (2016) Tensions and ties in social media networks: towards
a model of understanding business relationship development and business performance
enhancement through the use of LinkedIn. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, p. 1524.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Finding commection in a Computerized
World. Boston, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc..
Ridings, C., Gefen, D. and Arinze, B. (2006) Psychological barriers: Lurker and poster
motivation and behavior in online communities. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 18(1), p. 16.
Rowe, M. and Strohmaier, M. (2014) The semantic evolution of online communities.
In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, p. 433-438.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill A. (2016) Research Methods for Business
Students. 6th edition. Harlow, FT Prentice Hall.
Shen, B., Zheng, J. H., Chow, P. S. and Chow, K. Y. (2014) Perception of fashion
sustainability in online community. The Journal of the textile institute, 105(9), p. 971979.
Sloan, S., Bodey, K. and Gyrd-Jones, R. (2015). Knowledge sharing in online brand
communities. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 18(3), p. 320-345.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013) Content analysis and thematic
analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health
sciences, 15(3), p. 398-405.
Wang, K. Y., Ting, I. H. and Wu, H. J. (2013). Discovering interest groups for marketing
in virtual communities: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), p.
1360-1366.
Weijo, H., Hietanen, J. and Mattila, P. (2014). New insights into online consumption
communities and netnography. Journal of Business Research, 67(10), p. 2072-2078.
Wu, J. (2010) Co-design communities online: Turning public creativity into wearable and
sellable fashions. Fashion Practice, 2(1), p. 85-104.
Wu, M. Y., and Pearce, P. L. (2014). Appraising netnography: towards insights about
new markets in the digital tourist era. Current Issues in Tourism, 17(5), p. 463-474.
Xun, J. and Reynolds J. (2010) Applying netnography to market research: the case of
the online forum. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18(1),
p. 17-31.
Yadav, M. and Rahman, Z. (2017) Social media marketing: literature review and future
research directions. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 25(2), p.
213-240.
Yan, Y., Davison, R. M. and Mo, C. (2013) Employee creativity formation: The roles of
knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and flow experience in Web 2.0 virtual
communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), p. 1923-1932.
Zaglia, M. E. (2013) Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of
business research, 66(2), p. 216-223.
Zha, X., Zhang, J., Yan, Y. and Xiao, Z. (2014) User perceptions of e-quality of and
affinity with virtual communities: The effect of individual differences. Computers in
Human Behavior, 38, p. 185-195.
Zhang, Y., and Hitchcock, M. J. (2017). The Chinese female tourist gaze: a netnography
of young women's blogs on Macao. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(3), p. 315-330.
Zhu, Y. Q. and Chen, H. G. (2015). Social media and human need satisfaction:
implications for social media marketing. Business horizons, 58(3), p. 335-345.