SOCIOCULTURAL BRAND MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING BRANDING
PRACTICES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE
Abstract
Consumer culture theory (CCT) has challenged many of the assumptions underpinning the
dominant “mind share” model of brand management. Since consumers are not passive
receivers of brand communications, brands may take on meanings not intended by their host
organizations. As well, brands gather strength from multiple storytellers, including
consumers, marketers, influencers, and the wider socio-culture. However, despite the
recognition that brand meaning is co-created or produced, researchers have yet to identify
principles for brand management under these conditions. Building on interpretive interviews
with managers of cultural brands we identified some characteristics of an emergent approach
to brand meaning, supported by a number of practices including locating, interaction,
experimentation, and living the brand that helped embed the brand within subcultural
networks.
Keywords: Cultural Theory; Brand Management; Interpretive Research; Emergent Strategy
1
SOCIOCULTURAL BRAND MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING BRANDING
PRACTICES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE
A central pillar of brand building models is the notion that the brand exists in the mind of the
consumer (Keller, 2003). Curiously however, the dominant model of brand management, the
customer-based-brand-equity model (CBBE) (Keller, 2003)—dubbed the mind share model
(which focuses on developing unique, favorable and strong brand associations with
consumers) (Holt, 2005, p. 277)—is under increasing strain in the face of culturally creative
consumers who are no longer passive receivers of marketing information (Arnould and
Thompson, 2005; Holt 2004; Merz, He, and Vargo, 2009; Ritson and Elliot, 1999; Thompson,
Rindfleisch and Arsel, 2006; Yannopoulou and Elliot 2008). Consumer culture theorists
identify consumers as active creators of brand knowledge, often imbuing brands with a
meaning the opposite of that intended by marketers (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). As a
result, many brands embracing a top-down one-way communication model are facing
decreased consumer trust, love, and as a result, seeing their equity diminish (Gerzema and
Lebar, 2008).
Recently, others have identified that not only are consumers co-creating brand
meaning, other influencers or storytellers also help co-create a brand’s image (Beverland,
2009; Holt, 2003). For example, Dove’s recent attempt to reposition from a functional-based
identity (focused on gentleness and softness) to a highly symbolic one (focused on inner
beauty) has suffered a variety of setbacks after groups such as Greenpeace openly parodied
the brand’s “talk to the beauty industry before it’s too late” with their own viral campaign
(with the tagline “talk to Dove before it’s too late”) focused on the use of Palm oil. Others
have also noted that a brand’s meaning is embedded in a socio-cultural network (akin to a
gestalt or complex system; Beverland and Ewing, 2005; Diamond et al. 2009). However,
despite over 25-years of research into consumer culture, few authors have examined the
implications for brand management of a networked, culturally creative consumer. The focus
of this paper is to explore this issue further.
This paper has the following structure. First, we review the relevant literature on
consumer cultural theory and its implication for approaches to brand management. Second,
we provide details of our interpretive method. Third, we present our findings. Finally, we
identify contributions to theory, research and practice.
Literature Review
The CBBE model of brand management is a strategic planning process aimed at “claim[ing]
virgin cognitive associations in a product category, and consistently communica[ting] these
associations in everything the brand does over time to sustain the brand’s hold on this
cognitive territory” (Holt, 2005, p.275). The focus on owning part of a consumer’s mind has
led some to dub CBBE the “mind-share” approach to branding (Holt 2005). Central to this
process is the consistent use of simple abstract associations such as core brand values and
brand mantra’s to develop strong, favorable and unique associations in the minds of
individual consumers (Holt, 2005). Paradoxically, although the CBBE is customer-based, the
model accords sole authorship of brand meaning to the marketer. Marketers are thus urged to
create a strong brand identity and then through a process of positioning and reinforcement,
build strong brand associations in the minds of consumers (Keller, 1999). Although
consumers may hold images contrary to the desired identity, brand managers are urged to
close this gap (measured by tracking studies) if they wish to increase the brand’s equity
(Keller, 2003). Despite the lack of empirical testing, this model represents the dominant
approach to brand management amongst academics and practitioners (Holt, 2005).
Recent research challenges the efficacy of this approach. For example, Holt’s (2004)
examination of iconic brands (brands with sustained socio-cultural power) identifies that the
power of a brand’s message is directly related to its ability to connect with the cultural
2
zeitgeist of the times. Holt builds on a hermeneutic tradition (Arnould and Thompson, 2005;
Thompson, 1997) that an individual’s expression about brands reflects wider social norms or
values. As a result, Holt (2004) identified that iconic brands sustained their power because
they regularly changed their message (see also Kates and Goh (2003) for examples of how
brands morph across different segments). Importantly, such messages were far from abstract;
rather, brand imagery reflected concrete situations and stories, thus enabling consumers to
effectively see themselves in the advertisement (Mick and Buhl, 1992). And, this desire on
behalf of consumers to build their identity (partially) through brands (Fournier, 1998) has led
others to speculate that brand value is co-created through “a continuous, social, and highly
dynamic and interactive process between the firm, the brand, and all stakeholders” (Merz et
al. p.331). Under this logic, consumers and the actors within their social influence networks
play a key role in brand identity creation and maintenance (Kates 2004).
The recognition that brand meaning is dynamic and partially (if not mostly) driven
from the ground up is reflected in the emerging metaphors used by popular writers on
branding. For example, brands have been hijacked (Wipperfürth, 2006), are accidents
(Vinjamuri, 2008), living objects (Nadeau, 2007), collectively told sagas and myths
(Beverland, 2009), citizens (Gobé, 2002), conversations (Jaffe, 2007), and develop through
collective jamming sessions (Gobé, 2007). These new metaphors for branding are a
recognition by practitioners that brands are collectively developed (i.e., meaning is created by
both, bottom-up and top-down communication), embedded in rich evolving networks of
cultural value creators, and finally, such metaphors shift the focus of brand management away
from static positioning towards the ongoing process of developing brand meaning (Merz et al.
2009).
Despite this shift in thinking about the development of brand meaning, models of
brand management that take this change into account have yet to emerge. For example,
consumer culture theory typically focuses on how consumers use brands for various identity
projects, or how consumers’ life projects and social identities effect brand meanings (Arnould
and Thompson, 2005; Kates, 2004). Those more focused on brand management have often
identified examples that contradict the mind share model (e.g., Holt, 2004; Merz et al. 2009),
but have stopped short of providing a strategic brand management framework to replace or
complement the CBBE framework (Diamond et al. 2009). The two attempts at bridging the
gap between consumer culture theory and brand management practice stop short of
developing a strategic management framework. For example, Diamond et al (2009) identify
that certain iconic brands exist within a complex social system akin to a gestalt, but beyond
suggestions to managers to embed the brand in the consumers life world through the use of
agents of popular culture (writers, singers, directors etc), emphasizing the experiential aspects
of meaning creation, and encouraging an open-source approach to story creation, they stop
short of offering a brand management framework based on co-creation (cf. Schau, Muñiz and
Arnould, 2009). Although the work of Schau et al (2009) identifies the process by which
communal brand activities create value, their work is heavily consumer focused, overly
tactical, and does not examine the practices used by marketing practitioners in creating brand
value.
To this end, we seek to address this gap by exploring how brand managers who have
created value without regard to CBBE principles continue to engage consumers and grow the
brand’s relevance. In particular we seek to identify several strategic and tactical approaches to
manage brands embedded within socio-cultural networks.
Method
Consistent with the lack of research on the brand management implications of consumer
culture theory we employed a theory-building approach using depth interviews (supplemented
with secondary information) with managers of brands that had achieved success without
3
employing a CCBE approach. Consistent with theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin,
1998), informants were selected based on what we believed they could contribute to our
emerging theory of brand management. As a result, the questions asked shifted throughout the
research process. Initially, we focused on rich descriptions of brand histories, key decisions,
key challenges, and day-to-day practices. During the mini-cases we examined day-to-day
practices in more detail. In the final case, we examined the process of change within the
organization that resulted from adopting an explicit network co-creation framework to brand
meaning. In each interview, preference was given to grand tour questions that allowed
informants to answer on their own terms (floating prompts aimed at seeking clarification and
following up interesting leads were also used were appropriate) (McCracken, 1986).
The starting point for our project involved an in-depth case study of a faded, but
iconic brand (case 1) that had been reborn through sub-cultural adoption. What was
interesting about this particular case was that the revitalization of the brand had more in
common with an emergent strategic approach than a planned one, even though the brand team
involved had started to reposition the brand via traditional methods (in effect, they allowed
the brand to be hijacked by the subculture and adopted a co-creation approach to meaning
development). Although the team desired to reposition the brand as a functional performer,
the adoption of the brand by the rave subculture resulted in a different positioning (an edgy,
local icon that delivered without the hype associated with large corporate footwear labels) and
importantly, higher equity and margins. Following this, we developed an extensive case study
on a sports-car brand that had always embraced co-creation as a means of meaning
development (case 2).
Based on the themes that began to emerge through this process, we began to develop a
series of mini-cases (Eisenhardt, 1989) of brands (cases 3-12) that achieved a high degree of
subcultural legitimacy (Kates, 2004). With each informant we explored the historical
development of the brand, key stories and myths that had enhanced the brand’s position, key
decisions made by the brand management team, and examples of the tactics and activities
undertaken on a day-to-day basis to enhance the brand’s position. Following this, a final set of
interviews were undertaken with managers of a local iconic brand (case 13) that had
deliberately embraced co-creation to launch a new line extension of their brand (the brand
team ran a web-based competition to name the new extension). Critically, this case was
developed in real time, and the authors were able to track web-based comments, the
marketing team’s actions and decisions, and finally, the result of initial poorly received
renaming exercise and the team’s response. Details of the cases are presented in Table 1.
Data was analyzed using standard coding procedures. First, both authors engaged in
open coding, whereby raw transcripts and secondary information were coded inductively.
Second, axial coding occurred when the initial categories began to emerge. During this
process, we began to examine the relationships between categories as well as coding for
processes. Finally, selective coding occurred to help ensure theoretical saturation (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). During this process, transcripts and secondary information and notes were reexamined for specific examples of particular relationships and categories. Standard grounded
theory quality checks were used to ensure trustworthiness, including using two researchers to
undertake the interviews, data triangulation, multiple coders, returning interpretations back to
informants for further discussion, longitudinal examination of brand management practices at
each site, the use of multiple cases from different industry contexts and seeking peer review
from colleagues and practitioners (Flint, Woodruff and Gardial, 2002).
Findings
As part of the coding process (and in the spirit of dialectical tacking), we examined the
practices used by the informants against the five axioms of CBBE as identified by Holt
(2005). Given that the informants breached all five axioms while building lasting brand value,
4
we then sought to capture the strategic approach and supportive practices underpinning their
approach. Strategically the firms took an emergent view of brand meaning, focusing on
strategies that ensured the brand was embedded in networks of like-minded people. In
particular, the informants focused on basic benefits and allowed consumers to ascribe higher
order meanings to the brand. Despite not having an explicitly defined position (or engaging in
segmentation-targeting-positioning) these brand owners did have a clear understanding of
what the brand was not. Supporting this strategic approach were a number of practices
including locating, interaction, experimentation, and living the brand. Each of these is detailed
in turn below.
Strategic Brand Management
Consistent across the informant interviews (and supported with secondary historical data) was
the open-ended nature of the brand’s identity. The brands studied had no formal positioning
statement, nor any other form of defined position (there were two counter examples, but this
formalization occurred in one case after 96 years and in the second, as part of a repositioning
exercise). Common responses and metaphors included “discovery,” “organic,” “lack of
control,” and “ground up.” The following two passages reflect this open-ended approach.
“Rather than a brand I think it’s more an attempt to interest the cult and keep the cult
going. We like providing stories that people can tell in the pub and feel that that makes
them part of the family. And so our brand is made up around a series of myths, some of
which are true, some of which are owned. The one about the wooden chassis in
France, we have tried and tried to get rid of that, but it is still persists. And I think
eventually we're going to have to say ok yeah yeah yeah it’s true.” (Morgan)
“It’s a brand that, it’s not like it’s pushed in your face saying “you have to have
Smiggle, you have to have Smiggle,” the customer feels that for themselves, they have
discovered it, they’ve watched it grow and they’ve grown with it. So it’s a brand that
they definitely feel that they’re, um, that they’ve discovered it and they’re part of it. It’s
a brand that they belong to.”
The two passages above run counter to the CBBE model given the explicit recognition
of the customer as an active meaning creator and the emphasis given to consumer’s role in
creating and maintaining meaning. The informant in the first passage identifies the
importance of individual stories that enable consumers to find a personally relevant
connection to the brand. Despite the story used by the consumer being factually false, the
informant recognizes the benefits such myths bring to the brand and through experience,
knows trying to convince French consumers otherwise is self-defeating. Even though the
second passage involves a brand far younger than that covered in the first, the sentiment is the
same (rather than reinforce a static brand message, the informant makes it clear that the
brand’s meaning coevolves with consumers’ life context). As a result the owners followed
this, allowing customers to suggest new products, new uses, and develop the brand’s
meaning. For example:
“When we first started out our target market was, um, we initially thought 14-24, before
we even opened a shop. Um, when we first opened it was really quite surprising, we
went to all the magazines, you know, Dolly, Girlfriend, Inside Out, Interiors, all those
sorts of things. And the people who picked us up initially were interior designers and
the older market, those who understood the design elements of it compared to the price
and, industrial designers, advertising executives, they’re the kind of people who picked
us up. Suddenly our core customer was 28 and 50 and then they started giving it to their
kids, and we discovered parents were prepared to spend money on stationary for their
children rather than fast food…” (Smiggle)
Such passages reflect a more emergent or ground-up approach to identity development
(Mintzberg, 1994) whereby managers effectively muddle through and allow strategy to
5
emerge through ongoing market interactions overtime. This approach is very different to that
of traditional strategic approaches that emphasize consistently of message and reinforcement
(Keller, 1999). Consistent with Mintzberg’s (1994) notion of emergent strategy, formalized
brand identities often emerge over time. The second passage is from a brand manager that
took this view, allowing the target market, uses, and product positioning and brand meaning
to emerge over time. As this meaning becomes clearer, brand managers use this clarity to
make more targeted decisions. For example, after 96 years the brand manager discussed in the
first passage developed a formal brand statement based on the brand’s history and owners’
view of the brand. This statement (“Driven at Heart”) encapsulates the history of the brand,
the connection owners’ feel towards the brand and provides a point of difference vis-à-vis
other, larger brands. Similarly, the Dunlop brand was repositioned after consumers adopted
the iconic products as part of an anti-global brand identity project. In each case, the team
managing the brand allowing the brand’s meaning to emerge in a co-evolutionary way until
an identity emerges, willing the team to move forward in a slightly more directed way.
The passages provided so far suggest that brand managers are not adopting explicit
models of segmentation-targeting-positioning. What constantly emerged from the interviews
was a clear understanding of what the brand was not (which guided action), even though the
opposite, a clear statement of identity was lacking. For example, Dunlop knew they were not
Nike or Adidas, Morgan knew they were not an identity-less “tin top” brand of car, and juice
maker Emma and Tom’s knew they were not Coke. These explicit statements were designed
to reinforce core product commitments (local community focus in the case of Dunlop,
handmade cars with individual “flaws” in the case of Morgan). For example:
“This is not Coke. So if you’re drinking one of these [points to bottle of competitors
Apple juice] you sort of, you know that you are doing yourself some good. The other
brands, they’ve been flash pasteurized for ten seconds. And I tell you right now it tastes
just the same as before it gets pasteurized as after. Burnt and boiled and all the oils and
stuff. So you know, these drinks taste just how they do before they go in. So it’s for the
sought of people who are confident enough not to have to go with a big mainstream
“addy” sort of brand, we are intensely not “addy”...” (Emma and Tom’s)
Thus, an explicit understanding of what the brand is not helped reinforce commitments
to certain practices and the rejection of others. In this way, brand identity was often emerged
because consumers were able to spot the differences in action between one brand and another.
In regards to segmentation, the explicit lack of positioning was reinforced in the loose
descriptions of target customers (such as the identification above of people who are confident
enough to reject unnatural products). For example:
Interviewer: do you cater for a specific target market?
“No, not really. I mean, um, we also love the fact that you know, I’ve seen little kids,
like walking down the street I’ll see, ah, you know, a dreadlocked bike courier flying
past with one of our bags and then I’ll see like a business women walking in the other
direction, same bag, and I’m like wow that’s pretty weird. So, we try and, we like the
fact that our products are very functional…. [Informant 2] People who are young at
heart I suppose as well….” (Crumpler)
The passage above is reflective of the lack of targeting and segmenting used by the
informants. Typically, these informants identified that their real target was a projection of
their own desired self—selling to “people like us” was a comment, and was also reflected in
the firm’s hiring practices (see “living the brand”). Across these passages it is evident that the
sampled brand managers have adopted a consistent reinforcing strategy, albeit one much
different to the CBBE model. An emergent approach to brand identity is reflected in the lack
of a pre-defined positioning statement, a subtle understanding of the firm’s capabilities (in
terms of what they are not), and the lack of an explicit segmentation-targeting-positioning
6
approach (i.e., if brand meaning is emergent, so to is the potential market). These strategic
outlook or orientation is reinforced by a set of practices—issues we turn to next.
Supportive Brand Practices
Supporting an emergent orientation to brand meaning management were the following
practices: locating, interaction, experimentation, and living the brand. Given the aim of the
informants was to embed their brands within networks, employees took action to ensure their
brand was simply located in the relevant sub-cultural space and ensured they themselves were
similarly immersed. Some brands had formalized this through club programs, such as the
Morgan Motor Company Owners Clubs (which were unofficial but supported by the firm),
while other brands used careful marketing programs and sponsorship events to place
themselves within the subculture. For example:
“I’d rather give someone a pen because every time they look in their bag, I can’t find a
pen, here’s a Smiggle pen oh gosh it writes well as well. I think that’s always going to
work much stronger than any advertisement. Also, um, being part of competitions and
what-not, creates desire and it creates a feeling of involvement… when we first started
the most effective way we could use our resources was to actually promote the
communities around the schools and what’s happened is, it’s, um, people have this
absolute faith and word of mouth has started….when we do photo shoots I’m like
“don’t send the stock back, keep it, give it to your friends, give it to your family, give it
to whoever, Aunt Betty down the street.” Because we believe in our product that they’re
going to love it and then they’re going to go “where’s our local store?” And you know,
they become fans that way.” (Smiggle)
“The way that we promote the product, we’re very focused towards the arts, film,
student, film, theatre etc. Um, so the brand itself, yeah I suppose it does actually, it does
play a little bit to that.” I: Why? “We like it, that’s the main thing I suppose, we’re into
it ourselves. So plus we realize that I suppose a lot of people who buy our stuff, they’re
student film makers and artists, you know, multi media dudes, or whatever, you know,
they all have cameras and laptops so it’s a pretty good market…we like supporting
grass roots stuff as well.” (Crumpler)
The above passages identify examples of locating. Both managers seek a background
role in the wider environment in which their customers are likely to be. The aim of this is
stated in both passages—the right people will be there, and they’re likely to engage in word of
mouth with like-minded others, and they’ll be seen as adopters of the product, thus building a
link between subcultural identity and the brand. The second passage from an informant at bag
manufacturer Crumpler identifies how the marketing team also locate themselves within these
communities and engages actively in the focal activities of such subcultures. In both cases the
desire to locate the brand within particular spaces and then let the subculture take over.
Through immersing themselves in the subculture, further credibility is built, plus market
information is gained which helps with innovation, and line and brand extensions.
The passages in the first section provide evidence of the second practice—interaction.
In each case, firms encourage interactivity with customers and staff, and other members of the
subculture. Typical of many transcripts was the emphasis on listening and adapting rather
than marketing communications. For example, in seeking to extend their product line, iconic
brand Vegemite ran a web-based competition on how people used the product. The results led
directly to the development of a Vegemite-Cream Cheese spread. Prior to launch, the brand
team then ran a competition to name the product. On choosing the final name, the brand team
made a fatal mistake, deciding the final name behind closed doors. The resulting furor
(including the disappointment of many staff who worked on the project) saw the team return
to a web based competition to chose the final name from the top five most popular (and
legally available) names. Throughout this process, the team kept in contact with many
7
influential bloggers, providing them with total access to the firm’s decision process (a level of
media support they had never received from large firms). A similar process informed changes
to the Morgan’s original Aero headlight design and Dunlop’s revitalization through the rave
culture. Such activities have obvious benefits in terms of consumer buy in and innovation
opportunities but more importantly reflect an emergent mindset whereby the firm recognizes
that the customers actually do own the brand (something Vegemite’s owners Kraft openly
recognize).
The third practice is experimentation. Many of these brands, including the older ones
are not averse to trying new ideas across the broad range of their business. Despite being
retaining the same design for close to 100 years, Morgan constantly experiment with new
production techniques, and prototypes, many of which resulted in the new Aero and Aeromax
and Aero SuperSports range. Such experiments drive continued discussion about the brand
within the subculture and wider motoring press, keeping the brand relevant. Smiggle provides
another example:
“Let’s see how it goes, we’ll give it a go and if it doesn’t work we will try something
else. Yeah so um, it has evolved into, you know, now we look at our designs and look at
trends and look at what’s coming next season. We are always prepared to evolve…”
(Smiggle)
Experimentation is done in order to take the brand into new areas, keep interest in the
brand going, and retain excitement about the brand among fans. Over and above these aims is
an open-ended approach akin to curiosity in which brand managers continue to see how far
they can push the brand. What was common was the refusal to accept that the brand’s
meaning was static and bound by history—managers saw the need to evolve the brand even
when they had little idea of where it might ultimately go. For example:
I: What do you think Crumpler’s main point of difference is?
“I suppose there’s no preconceived boundaries in a way. We don’t really have any
preconceived idea of how we want stuff or what we want to do other than outsourcing
things like graphic design.”
Finally, the firms had formal policies of hiring like-minded people because they had an
intimate understanding of the spirit behind the brand, the subculture in which the brand was
embedded and the focal activities of which the brand served. This practice of living the brand
is different to formal programs that attempt to inculcate employees with a set of brand
values—the fact that employees are so attuned to the subculture gives the brand a real
authenticity with target consumers because they are able to identify personally with the brand.
Conclusion
To our knowledge this is the first paper to examine the strategic and tactical brand
management implications of consumer culture theory. In doing so we identify some
characteristics of an emergent approach to brand meaning co-creation that run counter to the
tenets of the CBBE model. Consistent with this emergent approach we identify reinforcing
tactics or practices that helped firms embed their brands within subcultures and manage the
dynamism and open-ended nature of emergent meaning. In contrast to the CBBE model, we
identify a much greater focus on the process of brand building as opposed to a more static
focus on positioning. However, consistent with the exploratory approach, more research is
needed. First, further examinations of brands (including longitudinal studies) are needed to
identify more practices used to manage an evolving brand meaning as well as some of the
cultural variables underpinning this different strategic mindset. As well, attention needs to be
paid to how managers under these conditions measure brand success (our data suggest sales,
ubiquity, and buzz are important foci). Finally, since such an approach is likely to be useful
for certain categories of goods, future research is necessary to identify boundaries conditions
of such an approach.
8
References
Arnould Eric J. Thompson Craig J. Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of
research. Journal of Consumer Research 2005; 31(Mar): 868-882.
Beverland MB. Building Brand Authenticity: 7 Habits of Iconic Brands. London: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2009.
Beverland Michael B. Ewing Michael T. Slowing the adoption and diffusion process to
enhance brand repositioning: The consumer driven repositioning of Dunlop Volley. Business
Horizons 2005; 48(Oct): 385-392.
Diamond Nina Sherry John F. Muñiz Albert M. McGrath Mary A. Kozinets Robert V.
Borghini Stefania. American Girl and the brand Gestalt: Closing the loop on sociocultural
branding research. Journal of Marketing 2009; 73(May): 118-134.
Eisenhardt Kathleen M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review 1989; 14(4): 532-550.
Flint Daniel J. Woodruff Robert B. Gardial Sarah F. Exploring the phenomenon of customers’
desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing 2002; 66 (4):
102-117.
Fournier Susan. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research 1998; 24(Mar): 343-373.
Gobé M. Citizen Brand. New York: Allworth Press, 2002.
Gobé M. Brand Jam: Humanizing Brand through Emotional Design. New York: Allworth Press,
2007.
Gerzema J. Lebar E. The Brand Bubble: The Looming Crisis in Brand Value and How to Avoid It.
New York: Jossey-Bass, 2008.
Holt DB. How Brands Become Icons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
Holt Douglas B. How societies desire brands: Using cultural theory to explain brand
symbolism. In: S. Ratneshwar and David Glenn Mick, editors. Inside Consumption, London:
Routledge, 2005. pp. 272-291.
Jaffe J. Join the Conversation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2007.
Kates Steven M. The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretive study in the gay men’s
community. Journal of Consumer Research 2004; 31(Sept): 455-464.
Kates Steven M. Goh Charlotte. Brand morphing: Implications for advertising theory and
practice. Journal of Advertising 2003; 32(1): 59-68.
Keller Kevin-Lane. Managing brands for the long run: Brand reinforcement and revitalization
strategies. California Management Review 1999; 41(3): 102-24.
9
Keller KL. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.
Sydney: Prentice Hall, 2003.
McCracken G. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1986.
Merz Michael A. He Yi Vargo Stephen L. The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant
logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2009; 37: 328-344.
Mick David G. Buhl Claus. A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of
Advertising 1992; 19 (Dec): 317-338.
Mintzberg H. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Prentice Hall, 1994.
Nadeau RA. Living Brands: Collaboration=Innovation=Customer Fascination. New York:
McGraw Hill, 2007.
Ritson, Mark Elliot Richard. The social uses of advertising: An ethnographic study of
adolescent advertising audiences. Journal of Consumer Research 1999; 26: 260-277.
Schau Hope J. Muñiz Albert M. Arnould Eric J. How brand community practices create value.
Journal of Marketing; 2009 73(Sept): 30-51.
Strauss A. Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1998.
Thompson Craig J. Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving
marketing insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing
Research 1997; 34 (Nov):438-455.
Vinjamuri D. Accidental Branding: How Ordinary People Build Extraordinary Brands.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008.
Wipperfürth A. Brand Hijack: Marketing Without Marketing. London: Portfolio, 2005.
Yannopoulou, Natalie Elliott Richard Open versus closed advertising texts and interpretive
communities. International Journal of Advertising 2008; 11(1): 9-36.
10
Table 1: Details of Sample
Case
Industry
1. Dunlop
Footwear
Origin
Australia
Age
100+
years
2. Morgan
Motor Company
Automotive UK
100 years
3. Smiggle
Stationary
Australia
6 years
4. Emma and
Tom’s
5. Crumpler
Beverage
Australia
Fashion
Australia
6. Boost Juice
Health food Australia
9 years
7. Nudie
8. Real Groovy
Beverage
Music
retail
Australia
New Zealand
6 years
31 years
9. Untouched
World
10. Atomic
11. Beauty
Engineered
Forever
12. Antipodes
13. Vegemite
Fashion
New Zealand
29 years
Coffee
Household
cleaners
New Zealand
New Zealand
17 years
5 years
Water
Snacks
New Zealand
Australia
6 years
87 years
14 years
Data collected
Interviews with all six
members of the marketing
team; 43 documents and
reports; 32 examples of brand
materials
Interview with CEO and
Marketing manager, factor,
and 33 owners; factory tour;
club membership for 4 years;
monitoring two fan web pages;
over 200 club magazines,
marketing materials and
books.
Interviews with founder and
head of marketing.
Interview with both founders.
Interviews with founders and
marketing manager.
Interview with marketing
manager.
Interview with two founders.
Interview with 3 founders and
members of brand team; club
membership for 15 years.
Interviews with CEO, chief
designer and marketer.
Interview with founder.
Interview with founder.
Interview with co-founder.
11