Journal of Media Business Studies
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/romb20
Netflix’s community relationship management. An
analysis of its Facebook-USA page
Alana Hendrikx & Deborah Castro
To cite this article: Alana Hendrikx & Deborah Castro (2022) Netflix’s community relationship
management. An analysis of its Facebook-USA page, Journal of Media Business Studies, 19:2,
108-125, DOI: 10.1080/16522354.2021.1932396
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2021.1932396
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 07 Jun 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5488
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=romb20
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
2022, VOL. 19, NO. 2, 108–125
https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2021.1932396
Netflix’s community relationship management. An analysis of
its Facebook-USA page
Alana Hendrikx and Deborah Castro
Department of Media and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
This paper explores how Netflix employs brand community rela­
tionship management on its United States Facebook page.
Methodologically, this study uses qualitative thematic analysis to
dissect 100 posts published by Netflix’s community manager on
Facebook and 826 comments posted by the company and internetusers. Results suggest that Netflix keeps an active and regular
posting schedule with new content and portrays the brand as
a humorous and a relatable peer. However, Netflix does not encou­
rage Facebook users to engage in the content on the platform. The
brand also seems to ignore complaints received from Facebook
users as well as identified internaut-to-internaut conflicts. Findings
are relevant to researchers in the fields of digital media and market­
ing and to practitioners working in those two fields.
Received 4 August 2020
Accepted 18 May 2021
KEYWORDS
Netflix; Facebook; brand
communities; community
relationship management;
United States
Introduction
“Netflix” is no longer just the name of a company. It is a verb used to define a beloved
leisure activity, a concept used to describe an age (Barker & Wiatrowski, 2017). Netflix
has also been a source of fascination due to the way the company uses social media. In
fact, its innovative and engaging social media conduct has received the attention of both
academics (see Fernández-Gómez & Martín-Quevedo, 2018a) and practitioners. For
example, Duczeminski (2019) emphasised the unique tone of voice that Netflix uses in
speaking to its audiences, Letki (2016) highlighted the company’s efforts to give “atten­
tion and care” to all of its social media followers, and Beer (2019) stressed the “ongoing”
and “creative dialogue with the audience”. Analyses of how companies such as Netflix
manage their marketing strategy add value not only by advancing the field of media
management research but also, as Rahe et al. (2020) suggested, by inspiring media
managers who are building or leading media brands.
Social media platforms have proved to be useful for brands to build relationships with
their consumers and users, increase brand loyalty and brand trust (Laroche et al., 2012),
and foster and encourage the dispersion of positive electronic word of mouth (MartínezLópez et al., 2016). Creating effective strategies to manage social media-based brand
communities has become vital (Cottica et al., 2017). This is what Ang (2011, p. 32) calls
CONTACT Deborah Castro
castromarino@eshcc.eur.nl
Department of Media and Communication, Erasmus
School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Van Der Goot Building/Room M8-48, PO
Box 1738, Netherlands 3000 DR, Netherlands
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
109
community relationship management (CoRM), a key term in the present investigation.
According to Kuo and Hou (2017), the fast growth of online brand communities in
recent years should be accompanied by even greater academic attention for online brand
communities.
Despite the scholarly contributions made by, for example Fernández-Gómez and
Martín-Quevedo (2018a, 2018b), about how Netflix uses Twitter and Instagram
(Martín-Quevedo et al., 2019), there is a paucity of academic papers that explore how
Netflix uses Facebook, its largest social media platform (Chamat, 2019), in the country
that contributes the most to its number of subscribers—that is, the United States of
America (Barker & Wiatrowski, 2017; Ramsey, 2018). Consequently, and given the role
that marketing strategies play in media business, this field remains incomplete without
answering the question of how Netflix employs brand community relationship manage­
ment on its United States Facebook page.
To answer the above-mentioned research question, we draw on the CoRM framework
developed by Ang (2011) and on the results obtained through a qualitative thematic analysis
of 100 posts posted by Netflix’s community manager on Facebook and 826 comments
published by Netflix and Facebook users. The findings of this exploratory study contribute
to the growing body of literature on social-media management in the subscription video-on
-demand (SVoD) market. Furthermore, this investigation also provides a detailed thirdparty review of the workings of its community management, an approach that might
uncover aspects of its strategy that may be hard to spot, even by the company itself.
Literature review
Netflix’s content and, more precisely, its in-house production are of utmost importance
when talking about the ‘Netflix band’. Initially, Netflix strategically used the term ‘quality’
to legitimise so-called binge-watching. Later, this mode of viewing was replaced, and
“quality TV” became linked to the notion of “diversity” applied to, for example, the
characters that inhabit the platform’s content (Jenner, 2018). Given the different types of
subscribers for which Netflix creates content (Lotz, 2017) and the high number of stream­
ing titles available, having a powerful recommendation system that leads to the persona­
lisation of the ‘Netflix experience’ became key for Netflix’s success (Amatriain, 2013).
Print advertisement, live events combined with interactive storytelling (e.g. the “Crazy
Pyes Food Truck” of Orange is the New Black; see DeCarvalho & Fox, 2016), and
(controversial) billboards are other tools that Netflix has incorporated in its marketing
strategy, a complex machinery designed to distinguish itself from its global and local
competitors (Fernández-Gómez & Martín-Quevedo, 2018a). In this intricate context,
social media platforms have become one of the pillars of Netflix’s branding strategy, as
has also happened with other SVoD services (DeCarvalho & Fox, 2016) and traditional
broadcasters in countries such as Spain (Lacalle & Castro, 2016) and Germany (Stollfuß,
2019).
The motivations to use social media as a marketing tool are multiple. For example,
social media allow companies to be in direct contact with their consumers more
efficiently and at a relatively low cost (Jiao et al., 2018; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Furthermore, social media facilitate consumers’ engagement with the brand (FernándezGómez & Martín-Quevedo, 2018a) as well as the creation of online communities,
110
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
understood as social aggregations that unite like-minded individuals who share certain
goals and interests (J. Brown et al., 2007; Rheingold, 1993).
The popularity and related benefits of online communities have captured the attention
of marketing professionals, and many companies have invested in developing online
communities around their brands for years (McWilliam, 2000). Brand communities can
provide companies with a clear(er) understanding of their consumers’ experiences and
needs and allow them to facilitate a place where consumers can diffuse brand-related
electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Martínez-López et al., 2016). Brand communities
are also considered a great tool for positively influencing the relationship between brand
and consumers (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). They are also effective in building brand
loyalty since those members who feel emotionally attached to a brand are likely to remain
loyal to the community as well as to the brand (Martínez-López et al., 2016). Despite the
abovementioned benefits, social media platforms may be counterproductive for some
brands, as the next section illustrates.
Community relationship management
Rumours about a brand spread easily through social media-based brand communities
(SMBBCs). Moreover, the open-access nature of SMBBCs allow internet users to sabo­
tage the brand from within (Kähr et al., 2016; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) and the
heterogeneity of the community increases the risk of internal conflicts (Dineva et al.,
2017, p. 4). An active management of their SMBBCs has, thus, become crucial for brands
(Cottica et al., 2017; Noble et al., 2012). Ang (2011, p. 32) calls this community relation­
ship management (CoRM), which is built on four pillars: connectivity, conversations,
content creation, and collaboration.1
Connectivity and conversation
Connectivity and conversation are important in building a strong brand community.
These two pillars comprise brand-to-consumer and consumer-to-consumer interactions,
two types of communication that are essential for a brand’s success and reputation since
they involve acting (or not) on questions, complains and general comments raised by
consumers (Willemsen et al., 2012). On this front, there are two general approaches.
Proactive webcare happens when brands publish responses that are not preceded by
requests from consumers (Van Noort et al., 2015). This type of webcare can be con­
sidered as a tool for relationship building (Tsimonis & Dimitriadis, 2014). Contrarily,
reactive webcare is concerned with replying to requests from consumers (Van Noort
et al., 2015) and seeks to enhance their satisfaction with the brand. This includes, for
example, posts published by brands to explain legitimate complaints posted by consu­
mers but also posts where brands debunk malicious accusations (Noble et al., 2012).
As Husemann et al. (2015) noted, avoiding consumer-to-consumer conflicts (e.g.,
consumers who have conflicting experiences with a brand) is particularly important in
large communities that consist of people with loose social ties and different levels of
shared commitment to a brand. Concerning consumer-to-consumer conflict manage­
ment and moderating negative comments, Dineva et al. (2017) and Noble et al. (2012)
distinguished five strategies, which the following Table 1 summarises:
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
111
Table 1. Strategies for consumer-to-consumer conflict management.
Strategy
Non-engaging
strategy
Censoring
Pacifying
Bolstering
Informing
Promotion
Description
Brands choose to not intervene in conflicts and avoid resolving the conflict
Brands remove certain content that includes bad language or attacks on other consumers
Brands post comment to ask consumers to adjust their behaviour
Brands post a comment that affirms a consumer who is defending the brand
Brands post information to rectify a comment that has led to a consumer-to-consumer conflict
Brands promote their services by offering an explanation for the experienced shortcoming in
combination with a subtle promotion
The non-engaging strategy is the most often used conflict management strategy,
despite studies emphasising that brands should actively intervene in conflicts (Dineva
et al., 2017). Furthermore, and contrary to marketing specialists’ recommendations,
brands tend to also ignore or even censor negative comments (Dekay, 2012, p. 289).
All in all, establishing interactions with consumers as well as moderating interactions
between them is essential for a brand’s success and reputation (Schamari & Schaefers,
2015).
Content creation
The second pillar is content creation, which relates to the idea of brands fostering their
relationship with consumer by encouraging them to publish user-generated content on
the community page or endorsing them to respond to the content published by others
(Ang, 2011; Kumar & Reinartz, 2018). A brand asking for help in creating content also
establishes interdependence between brand and consumer, which in turn also positively
affects their relationship (Fournier, 1998). Together with encouraging user-generated
content, brands should also create their own content to add value to the community
(Tsimonis & Dimitriadis, 2014). This is especially true for Netflix managing its US
Facebook page, as American social media users are generally attracted to marketergenerated content (Jiao et al., 2018). With their content, brands can offer entertainment
benefits (Jiao et al., 2018) by posting content that is relevant for the community and lighthearted in nature and that makes consumers smile (Gummerus et al., 2012). Moreover,
consumers also look to brands to provide them with informational content that offers
them additional knowledge on the brands and their services (Jiao et al., 2018). Ideally,
brands should post content on a daily basis (Gummerus et al., 2012), as witnessing
inactivity can turn off (potential) consumers (Waters et al., 2009).
Also important along with the creation of original content is the tone of voice. Previous
studies have found that companies must humanize their brands (S. Brown et al., 2003;
Kuo & Hou, 2017; Martínez-López et al., 2016) since this allows consumers to establish
a self–brand connection. Self–brand connections are established when brands embody
traits that are seen as favourable by consumers (Kemp et al., 2012). Brands can humanise
their brands in several ways. For example, they can assign the brand human-like qualities
to enliven the brand as an actual thinking and feeling entity with a human-like mind
(Fournier, 1998; MacInnis & Folkes, 2017).
Some organisations even go so far as personifying and portraying a brand as
a person (Aaker, 1997; Veloutsou & McAlonan, 2012). When assigning personality
traits to their brands, brands should take into consideration their heritage, such as the
112
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
story of their origin, and their authenticity, their uniqueness, as consumers often value
these aspects (Martínez-López et al., 2016). According to Geuens et al. (2009), assigning
personality to brands can be done in four different ways, which we will explore in this
study: as (1) a symbol, (2) a product, (3) an organisation, and (4) a person. The brand
as a symbol is the most dehumanising and the brand as a person is the most
humanising. Brand dehumanisation occurs when brands are perceived as objects; this
leads to others denying a brand’s humanity (Fiske, 2013; MacInnis & Folkes, 2017).
Brand dehumanisation usually occurs when brand values are not in line with consumer
values; consumers are then likely to reject the brand’s humanising efforts (Puzakova
et al., 2009).
Hitherto, Netflix has been praised by marketing and branding professionals for being
relatable and speaking the language of its audience (Duczeminski, 2019) through the
usage of a unique tone of voice, as well as consistently offering entertaining content,
listening to its subscribers, and giving ‘attention and care’ to all social media users who
post content on its pages (Beer, 2019; Stevens, 2018).
Based on the literature discussed, and to further understand the business strategy of
a key media player, this paper aims to answer the following research questions:
RQ: How is Netflix employing brand community relationship management (CoRM)
on its United States Facebook page?
SQ1: How is Netflix employing ‘connectivity’ and ‘conversation’ in its posts and
comments?
SQ2: How is Netflix employing ‘content creation’ in its posts and comments?
SQ3: How are Facebook users using Netflix’s United States Facebook page to com­
municate with Netflix?
This paper offers one of the first overviews of Netflix brand community relationship
management (CoRM) on Facebook. Specifically, the study is focused on a qualitative
analysis of those posts and comments published by both Netflix and Facebook users on
the Netflix US Facebook page. The next section explains the methodology used in this
exploratory qualitative study, which is followed by a presentation of the results obtained.
Finally, the main conclusions and the limitations of this investigation are presented and
discussed.
Method
To address the stated research questions, this study conducted a qualitative thematic
analysis on a sample of a total of 926 texts posted from 20/03/2019 to 03/05/2019 and
collected from the Netflix US Facebook page on 5 May 2019. A netnographic approach
was used to assess both Netflix’s and Facebook users’ interactions on this social network
and develop a holistic view of Netflix’s CoRM approach.
Data collection
To prevent any cookies, algorithms, or other systems from possibly influencing the
sample, the first author cleared all history from the browser before starting the data
collection process and did not log in to any account on Facebook, therefore keeping an
unidentified profile. The 926 units of analysis collected in this exploratory qualitative
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
113
study were divided into posts (n = 100) and comments (n = 826). We understand posts
as those blocks of content published by Netflix on its Facebook page to either inform or
engage the community of Facebook-users. In this case, both textual and visual elements
(e.g. images and videos) were analysed (McKenna et al., 2017). Comments are those
messages that were published underneath Netflix’s posts and which could be published
by either Netflix or Facebook users. Our interest in exploring the interactions between
Netflix and Facebook users justifies the decision to analyse 8 times more comments
than posts. The usage of these two sources of data (i.e., posts and comments) has
allowed us to depict a more complete overview (Stemler, 2001) of Netflix’s community
relationship management. It is also worth noting that copying and pasting the units of
analysis into .doc files (primary documents) tackled the short-lived nature of the online
content through the creation of static copies.
Concerning the type of sampling applied, non-probability purposive sampling
(Babbie, 2017) was used. The collection was based on the following requirements relevant
for this study (Table 2):
Table 2. Units of analysis and requirements.
Type of unit of analysis
Post
Comment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Requirements
Be posted on the Netflix US Facebook page;
Be posted by Netflix itself;
Be one of the 100 most recent published posts as of 5 May 2019 and
Be written in English.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Be posted underneath one of the sampled 100 posts;
Be one of the top 8 ‘most relevant’2 comments underneath those posts;
Include at least one word of text;
Be written by either Netflix or Facebook users and
Be written in English.
Interestingly, the dataset showed a remarkable lack of comments from Netflix’s side.
From all the comments collected initially, a mere 3% (n = 24) were written by Netflix. To
further gain insight into Netflix’s webcare strategy, 26 more comments published by the
company were gathered, bringing the total number of Netflix comments in the final
dataset to 50. These extra 26 comments were gathered from within the most recent posts
that were already a part of the dataset. To be included in the sample, these comments
had to:
Be posted by Netflix;
Be posted underneath one of the sampled 100 posts;
● Not be already part of the initial dataset;
● Include at least one word of text;
● Be written in English.
●
●
The sample proved to be broad enough to allow for an in-depth analysis and the reaching
of data saturation.
114
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
Data analysis
The 926 units of analysis were analysed by the first author of the paper by means of
a qualitative thematic analysis. The researcher strictly followed the quality criteria for
coding suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006), such as “each data item has been given
equal attention in the coding process” (p. 96).
Qualitative thematic analysis allows for the systematisation of the analysis and inter­
pretation processes and follows a three-phase iterative coding process (Boeije, 2010)—
namely, open, axial, and selective coding—that builds on Strauss and Corbin’s Grounded
Theory Method. Before starting, the researcher read the complete dataset multiple times
to become familiar with the units of analysis. After that, and with the research questions
in mind, the researcher broke down all the data. The initial codes consisted of both
descriptive and sometimes in-vivo codes (see Table 3, example 1) and more interpretive
codes, which already started to be connected to the literature (see Table 3, example 2).
Table 3. Example of open codes.
Example of codes
● Complaint about show cancellations
* Humanising the brand
Illustrative quote
“You’ll just cancel it after a few seasons”
“Me in every meeting”
Posted by: ● Facebook user * Netflix
The entire dataset was carefully re-read again during the axial coding, and the open
codes were assessed on their relevance to the research question and interpreted in
relation to Ang’s (2011) pillars of CoRM. Codes formed during the open coding were
merged into overarching, mutually exclusive groups, and redundant codes were
removed. The result of the axial coding process was a list of 9 overarching groups and
35 codes. For example (see Table 4):
Table 4. Example of axial codes.
Example of group
Disloyalty within the community
Example of codes
- Threatening to cancel subscription
- Notifying of subscription cancellation
- Leaving Netflix for competitor
- Brand saboteurs
Based on these groups and codes, a final list of dominant codes, or themes, was created
during the selective coding phases. The previously discussed literature was heavily taken
into consideration when defining the themes and subthemes, whilst still keeping an open
mind towards identifying themes that might not be explained by previous literature. As a
result of this coding phase, three overarching themes with each three subthemes were
defined (see Table 5).
All in all, the content was coded using a codebook that was designed both inductively
(e.g. ‘FB user: questions unanswered’) and deductively (e.g. ‘Netflix: human-like’). This
codebook was developed in Atlas.ti, a software designed for qualitative research that
reduces the margin of error intrinsic in manual coding. Atlas.ti also allows the researcher
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
115
Table 5. Themes of selective coding.
Theme
Lopsided dedication
Predominant brand humanisation
Rejection induced entitlement
Subtheme
Prevailing content management
Non-engaging passivity
Scarce proactive webcare
Netflix as a living, feeling peer
Arbitrary distance
Lacking self-brand connections
One-sided relationships
Facebook user entitlement
Disloyalty
to generate simple totals and percentages of the number of messages falling into each
identified theme. In the final step of the coding process, a list of three core themes was
defined (Boeije, 2010).
Ethics
All the data used are publicly available online. McKenna et al. (2017) refer to an overall
academic agreement which states that researchers are free to use public data (e.g. social
media comments) in their project. However, we believe that researchers should still be
actively involved in protecting social media users and their privacy. Therefore, none of
the (nick)names from the internauts whose comments were included in the sample were
mentioned in the paper to ensure a level of anonymity. All direct quotations included in
this
article
were
attributed
to
either
‘(Netflix)’
or
‘(Facebook
user)’. In addition, if Facebook users or Netflix tagged (other) internauts in their
comments, these tagged (nick)names were replaced in the dataset with <tagpeerinter­
naut> or <taginternaut>.
Analysis
The analysis of the 100 posts and 826 comments collected from the Netflix-US Facebook
page led to the identification of three overarching themes and nine sub-themes, as the
following table illustrates.
Lopsided dedication
The analysis of Netflix’s comments and posts represents the company's willingness
towards maintaining its social media-based brand community. However, this dedication
seems to be lopsided and almost solely concentrated on a rather small part of community
management.
Prevailing content management
The 100 unique posts analysed in this study were posted in 44 days, averaging Netflix’s
posting ratio to roughly 2 posts per day. This suggests Netflix constant dedication to
generating its own and new content. A closer look at the dataset, however, reveals that the
brand generally posts 3 to 5 times a day, although there were 4 out of 6 weekends in
116
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
which Netflix did not post any content on Facebook-US. This not only lowered the
average, but it also suggests an interesting pattern within Netflix’s posting schedule—that
is, a low posting activity during the weekends.
Concerning the role of the content posted, 27% of the posts aimed to entertain
(n = 27), 16% played an informational role (n = 16) (e.g., explanations about creative
choices, information about the casting), and a majority of them combined both (57%,
n = 57). Furthermore, every post within the dataset contained a visual component such as
an image or video, of which videos were most prevalent (n = 89).
Besides providing brand-related information, Netflix addressed controversial topics
(e.g. minority representation) in its posts by linking them to the shows included in its
library or to the actors working in those shows. For example:
1:16 Video of interview [Seen & Heard] with ‘Special’ creator and star Ryan O’Connell
talking about his experience with being gay and disabled and how ‘Special’ has helped
him in accepting himself more. (Post 41: 04/18/2019 03:24PM | Netflix)
Results also revealed that Netflix tended to forget to add either the title or (expected)
streaming date in posts that promote streaming titles. This practice was identified in 26%
of the posts (n = 26). In some cases, these details were later added in a separate comment
underneath the post and, interestingly, all of these comments were posted approximately
9 hours after the initial posts, possibly indicating a certain strategy. More than once,
however, fans have indicated that they find this strategy “annoying” and “unprofes­
sional”. The hypothesis that Netflix is deliberately leaving out information to later
publish it in a comment to generate social buzz seems to be plausible.
Non-engaging passivity
Netflix’s US Facebook page is filled with complaints from its subscribers, suggesting a low
level of brand satisfaction. These are related to complaints on price hikes (n = 17), current
content offered (n = 44), and show cancellations (n = 68). Out of all of the complaints
addressing show cancellations and price hikes, none of them received a response from
Netflix.
“You keep raising prices and dropping the best shows. You do have competition now.
I’m one more price hike or show cancellation away from cancelling you.” (Facebook
user | 04/27/2019 06:23PM)
“Wtf Netflix?!! They just said on the news that you’re raising prices AGAIN!
You just did!!! Time to shop around I guess.” (Facebook user | 04/03/2019 12:20AM)
“Netflix Why should I watch anything you put out? You’ll just cancel it after a few
seasons for something new and cheaper after you raise prices again.” (Facebook user |
05/01/2019 07:09PM)
The fact that around a third of the collected subscriber comments contained a negative
sentiment towards Netflix suggests that the brand does not engage in censorship. The
passivity of Netflix’s moderation extends beyond the intervention of negative comment­
ing situations. Additionally, a significant part of the negative comments posted by
subscribers is directed towards their peers.
“Piss off, and whine somewhere else.” (Facebook user in response to peer internaut |
04/30/2019 12:59AM)
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
117
“<tagpeersubscriber> You’re annoying alright.” (Facebook user in response to peer
internaut | 05/03/2019 12:55PM)
Despite personal attacks from subscribers to subscribers being pretty common (n =
64), the results of this study suggest that Netflix employs a non-engaging strategy, where
the brand does not intervene at all in subscriber conflicts.
Scarce proactive webcare
From the 826 comments collected, Netflix wrote 6.1% (n = 50). Of these 50 comments, 16
were comments in which Netflix provided some details about its streaming titles (e.g.
airdate of the show) which it seemingly forgot to include in the initial post. In only 6
comments, the company made public this type of information in response to a request
from a subscriber. This leaves 28 comments from Netflix that were actually in response to
subscriber comments. All in all, Netflix seems to use its scarce responses to answer to
messages that do not directly require or request a response from the company, which is
consistent with a proactive webcare strategy.
Predominant brand humanisation
Netflix as a living, feeling peer
In its comments, Netflix’s portrays the brand as a humorous, relatable peer and uses a human
voice. Brand humanisation can be employed in several ways, ranging from a limited form of
humanisation that assigns some human-like qualities to a brand, to actually fully humanising
a brand by enlivening it with a human-like mind (Fournier, 1998; MacInnis & Folkes, 2017).
Netflix chooses the latter, and enlivens the brand as if it is an actual person (Aaker, 1997;
Veloutsou & McAlonan, 2012), by using singular terms such as ‘me’, ‘my’ and ‘I’ and
transferring personal feelings in statements such as “sums up all my feelings”. Moreover,
Netflix aims to give the brand a distinct, humorous personality, as it continuously uses
humour in both its posts and comments.
In addition, Netflix seems to portray the brand as a living peer by mirroring the language of
its subscribers. For instance, Netflix does not use capital letters at the beginning of a sentence,
adds extra vowels, uses abbreviations, and capitalises words to emphasise certain ideas (see
table 6).
Table 6. Netflix’s peer language.
Netflix
“tbh wish i was invited”
“that sounds like a lot of
fun tbh!”
“LISTEN it could work”
“its SO good”
“love her!!!!”
“right??????!”
sameeee
Enjoyyyyy
Facebook user
“Tbh, I can understand that you might not
like . . . ”
Similarity
Use of popular abbreviation ‘tbh’.
Meaning: to be honest
“I STILL call him Fox”
“put some RESPECK on her name”
“I’m really PROUD of you guys”
“OMG!!!”
“Casper and The Dark Crystal?!?!?! I am so
excited for May!!!!”
“boyeeee”
Using all capitals to emphasise
a word
Using extra punctuation marks for
emphasis
Use of extra vowels
118
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
Arbitrary distance
In some (seemingly) arbitrary moments (n = 7), Netflix stops portraying its brand as
a person and breaks its ‘class clown’ character. It is in these moments when the company
suddenly starts presenting its brand as an organisation (Geuens et al., 2009) and refers to
itself in a more neutral and distant way by using, for example, plural pronouns instead of
single pronouns.
“Here’s everything that’s coming to Netflix US in May!” (post 26: 04/24/2019 07:16AM
| Netflix)
“Here’s the photo Ross and Noah Centineo sent us to accompany this news.”
(post 73: 04/01/2019 11:47AM | Netflix; Post includes a photo of both actors in a weird
position with laughing faces.)
This inconsistency could, to some extent, undo the effort that Netflix is putting into
characterising its brand as a person. For example, post number 26 could have been
written along the following lines to keep in line with the humanising brand strategy:
“Here’s everything that’s coming in May!” or “here’s everything that’s coming to Netflix
US in May! I’m so excited!”
Lack of self-brand connections
Even though Netflix tends to humanise its brand as a person, this humanisation does not
seem to resonate with its subscribers, who do not identify Netflix as a singular, living
peer. Despite a few examples of subscribers using the second-person-singular pronoun
‘you’ (n = 18), subscribers are twice as likely to address the brand as “you guys”, “itself”,
“they”, or any other plural or objective way (n = 38). They are, this way, creating a certain
distance between them and Netflix, and dehumanising the brand (MacInnis & Folkes,
2017).
Rejection-induced entitlement
One-sided relationships
As stated before, Netflix hardly ever responds to comments from its subscribers, redu­
cing, this way, the likelihood of building long-term relationships with them. Moreover,
there are plenty of examples (n = 367) in which subscribers compliment either Netflix
streaming titles (n = 316) or Netflix in general (n = 51), which the brand ignores. In some
comments, subscribers establish a connection with their personal lives and they share it
on Netflix’s Facebook page (7.9%, n = 62). For instance, subscribers connect the airdates
of certain shows with their birthdays: “Yay on my birthday! Thanks Netflix” (Facebook
user | 04/26/2019 07:13AM). Others get more personal and share detailed information
about themselves:
“My grandmother has Alzheimer’s and it is very hard to get her to watch anything, but
for a week straight like 3 or 4 times a day, when we needed her to calm down, we
would just play Our Planet and she was transfixed, each time we pressed play it was
new to her again. Thank you for making something that helped us with her!”
(Facebook user | 4/06/2019 03:49PM)
By not responding to these types of comments Netflix is, in a sense, rejecting those
subscribers who are externalising the connection they experience with the brand. The
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
119
lack of action from Netflix’s side could potentially be perceived as hurtful by subscribers
who, despite opening up on Netflix's Facebook page, are left in a one-sided relationship.
The following comment illustrates these feelings: “Netflix you don’t care about your
viewers” (Facebook user | 05/01/2019 7:11PM).
Entitlement
Subscribers seem to get agitated over Netflix ignoring them. As one subscriber stated:
“Never understood why Netflix needs a commentary thread on something they’re going
to show regardless of what people say” (Facebook user | 03/24/2019 11:17PM). This
dismay pushes some of them to keep posting messages until they are finally heard. “I’m
asking this on every post until they respond! Join the cause!” (Facebook user | 05/01/2019
04:21PM) and “We’re not going away Netflix” (Facebook user | 05/02/2019 06:09PM) are
two examples that reflect this irritation. There are also a few instances (3.9%, n = 31) in
which subscribers are using the content of a post to mention a different streaming title,
presumably in the hopes of finally getting a response from Netflix.
Disloyalty
Within the entire database, only one comment contained a subscriber's expression of loyalty
to Netflix. Conversely, subscribers threatened the company with the idea of cancelling their
subscription in 27 comments; while in 6, they communicated that they had already cancelled
it. Most of these subscribers were complaining about their favourite shows being cancelled
“without consideration for the viewers” (Facebook user | 05/02/2019 10:07PM). In fact, more
than once subscribers indicated that they were “heart-broken” and “devastated” by the
cancelation of a show, an action that the company did not justify to their satisfaction. One
subscriber actually argued that if Netflix listened to its subscribers more and gave them more
consideration, the company would have a very loyal subscriber base.
“Hey Netflix here’s an idea maybe if you stop cancelling great shows on their third
season without any consideration for the viewers you would retain a huge loyal
customer base. For now I’m waiting for Disney Plus.” (Facebook user | 05/02/2019
10:07PM)
As the previous comment illustrates, Netflix’s subscribers end up comparing the brand
to its competitors, such as Disney Plus, and even to linear television. In these compar­
isons, Netflix is generally presented in negative terms in opposition to its competitor,
presented often in positive terms.
“Netflix cancelled. Too many other apps out there to put up with their BS [bullshit].”
(Facebook user | 04/27/2019 08:28AM)
“Bye bye Netflix. Hello Hulu and Amazon Prime!!” (Facebook user | 04/28/2019
07:56AM)
The missing feeling of we-ness can be considered as another factor that contributes to
the environment of disloyalty within the Netflix brand community. Data reveal that in
2.9% (n = 23) of comments, subscribers express a certain feeling of belonging with the
community. This is, for instance, the case of those subscribers who speak for the
community as a whole while addressing certain feelings: “Netflix why would we get
120
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
attached to anything ever again after your broke our hearts with Santa Clarita” (Facebook
user | 05/01/2019 11:04PM).
Furthermore, there is another small group of comments (0.9%, n = 7) in which
internet users not only Express disloyalty but also attempt to sabotage the Netflix
brand by encouraging others to cancel their Netflix subscriptions.
“DON’T WATCH NETFLIX DON’T SUPPORT NETFLIX.” (Facebook user | 03/22/
2019 03:38PM)
“Everyone should ‘unfollow’ Netflix to retaliate.” (Facebook user | 04/27/2019
07:05AM)
“We should cancel Netflix too!!!” (Facebook user | 04/27/2019 08:49AM)
Conclusion
Social media-based brand communities are strong tools for building relationships with
Facebook users and for brand promotion, which explains their popularity amongst SVoD
services (Laroche et al., 2012; Martínez-López et al., 2016). However, for organisations,
social media is not exclusively about “joining the conversation” but requires central
community management skills and practices (McCosker, 2017, p. 123). Netflix, a digital
brand very responsive to new technological developments (Lobato, 2018), is often
applauded by field professionals for its innovative and engaging social media conduct
(see Beer, 2019; Duczeminski, 2019). Consequently, one could assume that Netflix is also
revolutionary, or at the very least adequate, in managing its brand communities.
However, the analysis of 100 posts published by Netflix, and 826 comments published
by Netflix and Facebook users on the company’s Facebook-USA page suggests
that Netflix’s community relationship management (CoRM) hardly exists (RQ1), even
on the Facebook page of its leading market. For instance, results from the empirical study
suggest that Netflix only rarely answers comments from its subscribers. At the base of this
analysis lies Ang’s (2011) pillars of community relationship management, namely con­
nectivity and conversation (SQ1) and content creation (SQ2). This study has shown that
activity on all interacting pillars is necessary to reach an adequate social media manage­
ment strategy effective for the brand and its followers.
Results from this study suggest that Netflix employs little of any CoRM on its US
Facebook page, as its efforts are almost solely focused on only half of one of the above­
mentioned three pillars (RQ1). The first pillar of CoRM, which is connectivity, contains
two important concepts: interaction facilitation and interaction management. Both of
these concepts seem strangers to Netflix. The brand does not seem to be taking any steps
towards stimulating positive interactions between Facebook users (Gummerus et al.,
2012; Sung et al., 2010) or managing interactions that turn vicious (Berry & Seiders, 2008;
Dineva et al., 2017; Sibai et al., 2015) (SQ1). By not engaging in connectivity measures,
Netflix’s conduct reflects a lack of care for internet users who express themselves on its
Facebook page. The brand seemingly does not have any interest in helping Facebook
users fulfil their interaction needs or in protecting Facebook users who are being attacked
by other internauts (SQ1). In a community as heterogeneous as Netflix’s brand commu­
nity, the brand should be providing much more guidance and management (Dineva
et al., 2017).
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
121
The second pillar of CoRM, which is content creation, relates to two important
concepts: the encouragement of user-generated content creation and marketergenerated content creation. As has been established, Netflix is strongly focussed on its
own content creation, and data show that the brand is employing many recommendable
strategies to make its content relevant for Facebook users (SQ2). The brand is keeping an
active posting schedule, providing informational and entertainment benefits (Gummerus
et al., 2012; Waters et al., 2009), and it uses a predominantly humanising approach to give
its posts character and make them appealing to Facebook users (Fournier, 1998;
MacInnis & Folkes, 2017). Netflix, however, does not encourage sharing of usergenerated content to be shared on the platform or any other engaging behaviours such
as commenting, sharing, and liking, therefore only focussing on half of the content
creation pillar (SQ2).
The third pillar of CoRM, which is conversation, is also very much neglected in
Netflix’s CoRM. The brand hardly ever seizes opportunities to indulge in positive
interactions with Facebook users, therefore missing numerous chances that could be
very beneficial for the brand. Moreover, the brand seems to blatantly ignore negative
messages, therefore in all likeliness only increasing the number of negative messages that
it receives (Schamari & Schaefers, 2015; Van Noort et al., 2015) (SQ3).
The findings of this study also corroborate what several other researchers (e.g.
Dineva et al., 2017) have previously found, which is that brands generally tend to
ignore negative interactions within communities, such as internaut-to-internaut con­
flicts and complaints from Facebook users. Despite scholars and marketing specialists
encouraging brands to consider negative interactions as community opportunities,
Dekay (2012, p. 289) has found that brands generally tend to ignore these negative
interactions, which is also a characteristic of Netflix’s passive approach to CoRM.
In sum, and despite Netflix’s being a strong content creator and using a human
voice to engage its audience, data suggest that the brand is sometimes lacking
some consistency in its content and is not taking full advantage of its marketing
and branding skills when it comes to managing its community on its US Facebook
page.
Limitations and future research
This article presents the results obtained by means of a thematic analysis of more than
900 messages published on the Netflix-US Facebook page within a time frame of 44 days.
Despite the accuracy of this exploratory analysis, a longitudinal study would shed more
nuanced light on Netflix’s CoRM, allowing, for example, to identify potential changes
over an extended period of time. It would be also interesting for future research to focus
on a comparative analysis on different Netflix Facebook pages (e.g. the US, the
Netherlands, and Spain) and platforms (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) and to
complement the netnographic approach taken in this study with focus groups and/or
interviews with Netflix subscribers. This would allow researchers to go deeper into
subscribers’ thoughts and feelings on this subject. Furthermore, accessibility to the
inner workings of the company (e.g. interviews with the community managers) and to
the direct messages that Netflix potentially receives from its subscribers would provide
122
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
a deeper understanding of the brand’s strategy, as well as the possibility of identifying
whether some comments have been deleted or not.
Despite its limitations, this project has provided new insights into a body of literature
on social media-based brand community management, with a special emphasis on how
the biggest SVoD platform of the moment, Netflix, manages its social media marketing
strategy in its leading market. The investigation has also helped identify new lines of
research, and its findings can be used in future studies to inform the creation of, for
example, an interview guide used to interview Netflix brand community managers about
their conduct on the US Facebook page.
Notes
1. As the fourth pillar, collaboration, is mostly used in project-related communities such as
Wikipedia (Ang, 2011, p. 35), this pillar is not taken into consideration for this study.
Furthermore, and due to the intersections between pillar one (connectivity) and pillar three
(conversation), we discuss these together.
2. The comments were sampled using Facebook’s ‘most relevant’ setting, which sorts com­
ments to show those that received many interaction or that have been replied to by a verified
account, such as Netflix’s account, first (“Wat betekent meest relevant bij een paginaber­
icht?”, n.d.).
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Alana Hendrikx finished her master's programme in media studies in 2019 and is currently
employed as a copywriter at a social media agency. She is particularly interested in audience
studies.
Dr. Deborah Castro is a lecturer at the Department of Media & Communication at Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests lie in the fields of television and
audience studies.
ORCID
Deborah Castro
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7980-0964
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304
Amatriain, X. (2013). Big & personal: Data and models behind Netflix recommendations. BigMine
‘13: proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on big data, streams and heterogeneous source
mining: Algorithms, systems, programming models and applications,Chicago, USA, August 2013,
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2501221.2501222
Ang, L. (2011). Community relationship management and social media. Journal of Database
Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 18(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1057/dbm.2011.3
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
123
Babbie, E. (2017). The basics of social research (7th edition). Cengage Learning.
Barker, C., & Wiatrowski, M. (2017). The age of Netflix: Critical essays on streaming media, digital
delivery and instant access. McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Beer, J. (2019). Inside the secretly effective–and underrated–way Netflix keeps its shows and movies
at the forefront of pop culture [webpage]. FastCompany. https://www.fastcompany.com/
90309308/by-any-memes-necessary-inside-netflixs-winning-social-media-strategy
Berry, L. L., & Seiders, K. (2008). Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons, 51(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2007.09.002
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage Publications Ltd.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online
communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21
(3), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20082
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding
and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.67.3.19.18657
Chamat, R. (2019). How Netflix uses Social Media to Dominate the Online Streaming Industry
[webpage]. 8 Ways Media. Retrieved from https://www.8ways.ch/en/digital-news/how-netflixuses-social-media-dominate-online-streaming-industry
Cottica, A., Melancon, G., & Renoust, B. (2017). Online community management as social
network design: Testing for the signature of management activities in online communities.
Applied Network Science, 2(1), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-017-0049-9
DeCarvalho, L. J., & Fox, N. B. (2016). Extended “visiting hours”. Deconstructing identity in
Netflix’s promotional campaigns for orange is the new black. Television & New Media, 17(6),
504–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476416647495
Dekay, S. H. (2012). How large companies react to negative Facebook comments. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 17(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13563281211253539
Dineva, D. P., Breitsohl, J. C., & Garrod, B. (2017). Corporate conflict management on social
media brand fan pages. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(9–10), 679–698. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0267257X.2017.1329225
Duczeminski, M. (2019). Netflix: The biggest innovator in marketing? [webpage]. Retrieved from
Fernández-Gómez, E., & Martín-Quevedo, J. (2018a). Connecting with audiences in new markets:
Netflix’s Twitter strategy in Spain. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(2), 127–146. https://doi.
org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1481711
Fernández-Gómez, E., & Martín-Queveod, J. (2018b). La estrategia de engagement de Netflix
España en Twitter. El Profesional de la Información, 27(9), 1292–1302. https://doi.org/10.3145/
epi.2018.nov.12
Fiske, S. (2013). Varieties of (de) humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. Gervais,
(Ed.), Objectification and (De)Humanization, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 53–71).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6959-9_3
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1086/209515
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulff, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijres
mar.2008.12.002
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in
a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877. https://doi.org/
10.1108/01409171211256578
Husemann, K. C., Ladstaetter, F., & Luedicke, M. K. (2015). Conflict culture and conflict manage­
ment in consumption communities. Psychology and Marketing, 32(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20779
124
A. HENDRIKX AND D. CASTRO
Jenner, M. (2018). Netflix and the re-invention of television. Palgrave. https//doi.org/10.1007/9783-319-94316-9
Jiao, Y., Ertz, M., Jo, M., & Sarigollu, E. (2018). Social value, content value, and brand equity in
social media brand communities: A comparison of Chinese and US consumers. International
Marketing Review, 35(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-07-2016-0132
Kähr, A., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2016). When hostile consumers wreak
havoc on your brand: The phenomenon of consumer brand sabotage. Journal of Marketing, 80
(3), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0006
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kemp, E., Childers, C. Y., & Williams, K. H. (2012). Place branding: Creating self-brand connec­
tions and brand advocacy. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(7), 508–515. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10610421211276259
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2018). Customer relationship management: Concept, strategy, and
tools. Berlin Heidelberg, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55381-7
Kuo, Y., & Hou, J. (2017). Oppositional brand loyalty in online brand communities: Perspectives
on social identity theory and consumer-brand relationship. Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, 18 (3), 254–268. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1933854966?accountid=
13598
Lacalle, C., & Castro, D. (2016). Promotion of Spanish scripted television on the Internet:
analyzing broadcast-related websites' content and social audience. El Profesional de la
Información, 25(2), 246–253. doi:doi: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.mar.11
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M., & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The effects of social
media based brand communities on brand community markers, value creation practices, brand
trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28(5), 1755–1767. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2012.04.016
Letki, G. (2016). How Netflix is winning social media – Case study [webpage]. Brand24. https://
brand24.com/blog/how-netflix-is-winning-social-media-case-study/
Lobato, R. (2018). Rethinking International TV flows research in the age of Netflix. Television &
New Media, 19(3), 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476417708245
Lotz, A. (2017). Portals: A treatise on internet-distributed television. Michigan Publishing,
University of Michigan Library. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9699689
MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part
of me, and in a relationship with me. Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcps.2016.12.003
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Aguilar-Illescas, R., & Molinillo, S. (2016). Online brand
communities: Using the social web for branding and marketing. Springer. International
Publishing.
Martín-Quevedo, J., Fernández-Gómez, E., & Segado-Boj, F. (2019). How to engage with younger
users on instagram: A comparative analysis of HBO and Netflix in the Spanish and US Markets.
International Journal on Media Management, 21(2), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14241277.
2019.1585355
McCosker, A. (2017). Socia media work: Reshaping organisational communications, extracting
digital value. Media International Australia, 163(1), 122–136. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/
10.1177/1329878X17693702
McKenna, B., Myers, D. M., & Newman, M. (2017). Social media in qualitative research:
Challenges and recommendations. Information and Organization, 27(2), 87–99. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.03.001
McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 41 (3), 43–54. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/
Muniz, M. A., & O’Guinn, C. T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4),
412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618
JOURNAL OF MEDIA BUSINESS STUDIES
125
Noble, C. H., Noble, S. M., & Adjei, M. T. (2012). Let them talk! Managing primary and extended
online brand communities for success. Business Horizons, 55(5), 475–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.bushor.2012.05.001
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. (2009). Pushing the envelope of brand and personality:
Antecedents and moderators of anthropomorphized brands. Advances in Consumer Research,
36 (1), 413–420. http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/14399/volumes/v36/NA-36
Rahe, V., Buschow, C., & Schlütz, D. (2020). How users approach novel media products: Brand
perception of Netflix and Amazon Prime video as signposts within the German
subscription-based video-on-demand market. Journal of Media Business Studies, 18(1), 45–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2020.1780067
Ramsey, C. (2018). Netflix to reach 201 million subscribers by 2023 [webpage]. TV Tech.https://
www.tvtechnology.com/news/netflix-to-reach-201-million-subscribers-by–2023
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. AddisonWesley Publishing Co.
Schamari, J., & Schaefers, T. (2015). Leaving the home turf: How brands can use webcare on
consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 30(20–33). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2014.12.001
Sibai, O., De Valck, K., Farrell, A. M., & Rudd, J. M. (2015). Social control in online communities
of consumption: A framework for community management. Psychology and Marketing, 32(3),
250–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20778
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7
(17). http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
Stevens, J. (2018). 5 social media marketing lessons from Netflix [webpage]. AdWeek. https://www.
adweek.com/creativity/5-social-media-marketing-lessons-from-netflix/
Stollfuß, S. (2019). Is this social TV 3.0? On Funk and social media policy in German public
post-television content production. Television & New Media, 20(5), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1527476418755514
Sung, Y., Kim, Y., Kwon, O., & Moon, J. (2010). An explorative study of Korean consumer
participation in virtual brand communities in social network sites. Journal of Global
Marketing, 23(5), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2010.521115
Tsimonis, G., & Dimitriadis, S. (2014). Brand strategies in social media. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 32(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0056
Van Noort, G., Willemsen, L. M., Kerkhof, P., & Verhoeven, J. (2015). Webcare as an integrative
tool for customer care, reputation management, and online marketing: A literature review. In
P. Kitchen & E. Uzunõglu (Eds.), Integrated communications in the postmodern era (pp. 77–99).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Veloutsou, C., & McAlonan, A. (2012). Loyalty and or disloyalty to a search engine: The case of
young millennials. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/
07363761211206375
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2),
102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006
Willemsen, L., Van Noort, G., & Bronner, F. (2012). Een menselijk geluid: Het effect van reactieve
en proactieve webcare op merkevaluaties. In A. Bronner, P. Dekker, D. De Leeuw, L. Paas, K. De
Ruyter, A. Smidts, & J. Wieringa (Eds.), Ontwikkelingen in het marktonderzoek (pp. 27–43).
SpaarenHout Haarlem.