“FINE FEATHERS MAKE FINE BIRDS” –
Community Brands and Branded Communities
Roland Schroll*
Andrea Hemetsberger*
Johann Füller*
ABSTRACT
This article introduces the concept of branded communities. A qualitative study of Apache, an
Open Source software community, revealed that creative communities not only create brands but
have become brands themselves. We conclude that we should incorporate branded communities
and their members in an extended theory of brands and branding.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Sally Khudairi and the Apache community for their support, for their
willingness to serve as interview partners, and the kind reception at the ApacheCon 2009.
* University of Innsbruck School of Management
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism
Innsbruck, Austria
1
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
This paper elaborates on the notion of many well-recognized scholars that the predominant
branding concept needs to catch up with reality and that our current understanding of brands is
ripe for review (Holt 2002; Kozinets 2002; Pitt et al. 2006; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b).
Especially in the last decade of the previous century technological innovations, such as the
mobile phone, the Internet and social software portals, have fundamentally changed our lifestyles
and created opportunities for collaboration, participation in the market system, and sharing (Belk
2010; Giesler 2006; Kozinets, Hemetsberger, and Schau 2008; von Krogh et al. 2008).
Grassroots community activities have taken on institutionalized forms of community production,
and gradually developed into the realm of marketing and branding. While it is widely accepted
today, that consumers can and often do shape, appropriate, and co-create the meaning of
commercial brands (Cova and Pace 2006; Kozinets et al. 2004; Muniz and Schau 2005;
Thompson and Arsel 2004; Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006), we take the notion of
active consumers one step further. We argue that active consumers within communities of
production, and their creations have become brands in and of themselves, offering significant
symbolic meaning for themselves and others.
In our qualitative study of the Apache community, an Open Source software community,
we had the chance to talk to community members holding different positions and with different
levels of community engagement and experience. In total 12 interviews were conducted at the
ApacheCon 2009, the official conference of the Apache Software Foundation.
Our findings contribute to theory in at least two important ways. First, we were able to
show that brand development is not restricted to managerial strategy and action but in reality
emerges as grassroots activity of communities. Contrary to commercial brands, community
branding processes naturally evolve as side effect of the communities’ natural, everyday
activities. Second, we could demonstrate that freely available software can be monetized.
Apache’s market share and amount of sponsorship gained is telling in this regard. Voluntary
community work pays back in a number of ways, which are beneficial and of enormous value for
the community, the individual, and society at large.
In many cases the Apache brand does not differ from commercial brands. However, what
makes Apache unique is that every community member is able to and actually engages in
communicating about the brand and community identity. Every single member becomes a
marketer of the Apache brand. As identification with and self-expression through belongingness
to Apache is much stronger for community members than for employees of traditional
companies, Apache members turn out to be true and credible evangelists of the Apache brand.
This stands in stark contrast to profit-oriented companies where usually not all employees
consider themselves being ambassadors of their brands. The Apache foundation constitutes a
platform where all members actively contribute to the brand. In companies brand building and
execution is done by marketing, or is even outsourced to agencies. Moreover, with community
brands consumers are able to escape the branding mill of commercial brands who try to exploit
the brand’s value by attracting more and more customers thus diluting the brand’s power as a
source of identification for its consumers. Instead, as we have show above, the Apache brand
carefully selects its members and thus determines who is associated with the brand and who
represents the brand. On the one hand this increases the value of community membership and on
the other hand endows the community with some control over how the brand is perceived.
2
Recognizing the concept of community-created brands, we can draw several implications.
Similar to the concept of community-based and user-based innovation we touch on new
community-based marketing approaches that may emerge by trying to leverage the value of
community brands. Like open innovation concepts are trying to leverage the creativity and
innovative capabilities of users for new product development, open marketing concepts are able
to leverage the branding activities of communities. Community brands are much more organic
and holistic entities, marketed by the community, by its sponsors and users in a process of
constant mutual exchange of economic, financial, social, emotional and intellectual value.
Community brands have radically changed our view of brands and branding. The phenomenon of
community brands shows that the concept of brands and branding is not limited to the product
domain and that it is much better described as a complex social phenomena rather than a
marketers’ tool to increase sales. Furthermore our study demonstrates that the consumer‘s role in
the brand creation process is not limited to a co-creative position but rather consumers are able to
create brands themselves and in independence of any corporation. The consumer‘s ability to do
so poses new challenges onto commercial brands in terms of authenticity and customer
proximity.
3
“Fine Feathers Make Fine Birds” – Community Brands and Branded Communities
INTRODUCTION
Consumers create brands. With the diffusion of network technologies, consumer innovation and
creation is taking on new forms that are radically transforming the nature of consumption and
production, branding and meaning creation. This paper elaborates on the notion of many wellrecognized scholars that the predominant branding concept needs to catch up with reality and
that our current understanding of brands is ripe for review (Holt 2002; Kozinets 2002; Pitt et al.
2006; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004b). Especially in the last decade of the previous century
technological innovations, such as the mobile phone, the Internet and social software portals
such as Facebook, have fundamentally changed our lifestyles and created opportunities for
collaboration, participation in the market system, and sharing (Belk 2010; Giesler 2006;
Kozinets, Hemetsberger, and Schau 2008; von Krogh et al. 2008).
Similarly, for brands and branding new opportunities arise. Due to an increasing
availability of worldwide communication and production capabilities and a general revival of
community and tribes in our postmodern society (Cova 1997; Maffesoli 1996), communities are
given the means to create community brands (Füller, Lüdicke, and Jawecki 2007) and become
brands in and of themselves that members as well as consumers identify with. Meanwhile,
grassroots community activities have taken on institutionalized forms of communal production,
such as the Open-source organization and the Apache Foundation, and gradually developed into
the realm of marketing and branding.
Linux and Apache are well known examples where community members not only develop
their software but also create strong brands (Pitt et al. 2006). Community-driven brands like
1
Apache – comprising the leading open source web server and other software products, or Mozilla
with their main sub-brands Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, and many others, are initiated,
created, owned, and driven by user communities and not by companies and their marketing
departments. Community brands, in general, are gaining momentum. They emerge in a wide
range of consumer goods as well. Members of consumer communities, for example interested in
gaming, skiing, or beer-brewing create, brand, and market their own products - games, skies, or
beer, respectively (Kozinets et al. 2008). Those brands create significant brand value. Recent
research in this area has studied the value of community brands as compared to commercial
brands (Füller et al. 2007), and how brand community practices create value (Schau, Muniz and
Arnould 2009). However, how communities are creating brands and the value of the community
itself is yet to be studied.
To this end, we first problematize traditional views of brands and brand creation, and argue
that theories of co-creation and customer integration fall short to explain the dynamics of
branded communities. Second, we aim to show that communities have taken over important
brand functionalities typically fulfilled by brands. By introducing the concept of branded
communities we argue that creative communities have become brands in themselves, offering
significant meaning for members and non-members alike. Based on our findings, we discuss
community brands and branded communities in the context of existing theory and theorize on
how community brands may impact markets currently dominated by company brands.
2
BRANDS AND BRANDING
From proprietary towards open brands
Over the years, brands had transformed from simple markers of identification attached to
products to complex social phenomena (Berthon et al. 2007; Mühlbacher et al. 2006).
Furthermore, as brands are increasingly perceived as cultural agents that are also expected to
give back to the society and fulfill civic obligations (Holt 2002). According to Holt (2002), it is
this recurring mismatch between the predominant branding concept and consumer’s expectations
which results in an ongoing advancement of brands and branding. It is the inefficiency of the
predominant branding paradigm, which creates the necessity for brands and branding to move it
one step further. However, consumers according to Holt “are revolutionary only insofar as they
assist entrepreneurial firms to tear down the old branding paradigm and create opportunities for
companies that understand emerging new principles.” (Holt 2002, 89). Holt’s view implies that
consumers depend on branding efforts of corporations. Only then the advancement of brands and
branding under corporate control will continue.
One exception to this is the Open Source (OS) movement. Pitt et al. (2006) argue that, in
relation to the Open Source movement, brands and branding are moving towards a fourth and
final phase, in which brands will provide the same functions for consumers, but it is unclear
which benefits these brands provide for ‘producers’. This does not mean that profit-seeking
corporations cannot benefit from OS brands but rather that some of the traditional functions of
brands for producers, such as financial incentives, vanish when brands are nonproprietary (Pitt et
al. 2006). Indeed, the proliferation of information and communication technologies, together
with the re-emergence of new forms of communities (Cova 1997; Maffesoli 1996), challenges
the predominant understanding of the roles of corporations in building brand value. For instance,
3
the benefit of reducing consumer‘s search costs is challenged by the increasing availability of
search technologies. Similarly, the risk of buying the wrong product or brand is reduced by the
open access to other consumer’s reviews and ratings. Many of the benefits brands provided in
terms of risk reduction and limitation of search costs proved very valuable at a time when
communication and sharing was limited. In an open environment, such as the Internet, sources of
brand value have changed (Schau et al. 2009).
Active Consumers and the Brand
Recently, the active role of the consumer in the creation process of brand meaning has attracted
scholars’ attention. While traditionally the consumer was ascribed a rather passive role, the
advantage of integrating the consumer as a co-creator of value has been stressed by several
scholars (Payne et al. 2009; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a; Vargo and Lusch 2004). A recent
study shows that „where consumers are given large degrees of freedom to create or co-create
with organizers, they feel authenticity, a type of soulfulness and meaning, and they respond with
enthusiasm, energy, and action” (Sherry, Kozinets, and Borghini 2007, 30). Today, it is widely
accepted that consumers can and often do shape, appropriate, and co-create the meaning of
commercial brands (Cova and Pace 2006; Kozinets et al. 2004; Muniz and Schau 2005;
Thompson and Arsel 2004; Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006). Producers may develop
and introduce a brand on the marketplace, but consumers and other stakeholders, then, may
modify its meaning in unexpected ways. Consumers may openly denunciate brands (Klein 2000),
challenge the producer-intended meaning (Kates 2004; Thompson et al. 2006), decide upon
legitimate brand ownership (Kirmani, Sood, and Bridges 1999), or even hijack a brand (Muniz
and Schau 2005; Wipperfürth 2005).
4
Despite the influence consumers have on existing brands, an increasing desire among
consumers to interact with the market in new ways has been observed (Cova and Rémy 2007;
Szmigin, Carrigan, and Bekin 2007). Modernity has widely alienated workers from production
processes (Slater 1997), workers lost ownership of the products they produced (Bocock 1993).
This is a profound detachment of work from workers. Following Marx, the process of production
is an important means for self-expression and advancement (Marx, Engels, and Arthur 1970),
which led consumers to act out their creativity within their own private domain. New media
technology has fundamentally altered consumers’ possibilities to create and has taken much of
the constraints of organized, de-enchanted work. Producers’ lack of willingness to give off
control and integrate the consumer in the production process resulted in the emergence of new,
emancipated consumption communities. These communities have a strong influence on existing
brands, as shown above, but more importantly, they can also become active players on the
market themselves (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007).
It is our aim to carve out the specific idiosyncrasies of community brands and branded
communities. Communities as developers of brands are a very recent phenomenon which has not
yet been studied. Hence, if we are to study the value of those community brands we first need to
explore how the community perceives their brand; whether they think of their creations as a
brand at all; and how they describe the inner values of the brand of itself and in comparison with
other non-community brands. To this end, we researched a prominent and successful ‘creative
crowd’, members of the Apache Foundation and its contributor community.
5
METHOD
For our study we applied qualitative-inductive methodology (Denzin and Lincoln 1994) in order
to gain rich insights into the phenomenon studied (Creswell 1998; Maxwell 2005). First, we
identified informants from the Apache foundation using “theoretical sampling” as described in
grounded theory literature (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1990). All together 12
interviews were conducted. All of our respondents were between 29 and 48 years of age and
male due to the predominance of male community members. We only interviewed community
members, since we were interested in the brand’s and the community’s development and were
dependent on first hand information of people inside the community.
In order to look at the phenomenon from different perspectives, respondents were chosen
based on several criteria. Degree of community involvement was the first criterion. While some
respondents took over central roles within the community (e.g. President of the ASF), others
were only loosely connected to the community through their day-time job. Four of the
interviewees have either founded their own company based on Apache products or were working
for such a company. Second, we looked at the duration of community involvement. While four
of the respondents were members of the initial Apache Group or involved with the software
shortly after and thus community members since the very beginning, others could not look back
on such a long history of community membership. The status role respondents held in the
community was a third criterion. While nine out of the 12 interviewees were members of the
Apache Software Foundation, four respondents additionally were members of the Board of
Directors, which has the social oversight over the communities’ development. Other roles of
respondents included project chairman, documentation contributor, Vice President for
conference planning, and simple code committers (see Table 1 for interviewee profiles).
6
We used a semi-structured interview guide composed of four parts. Interviewees were first
asked to introduce themselves and report about their commitment and current role within the
Apache community. In a second part we asked for the respondents’ view of the historical
development of the community. The main part of the interview revolved around Apache as a
brand; whether community members perceived it as a brand; about the uniqueness of Apache as
a brand; their motives to contribute; and the perceived overall meaning of Apache. Finally, we
focused on the relationship of the Apache brands with other brands such as Microsoft, as well as
possible future developments of the community and the brand.
All interviews took place at the „ApacheCon Europe”, the official conference of the
Apache Software Foundation. The conference provided a perfect context to interview prominent
community members in their natural setting of discussing strategically important future
perspectives of Apache. The interviews lasted between 35 and 90 minutes and produced a total
of 7h and 50 min. of information. We tape-recorded the interviews and transcribed them
verbatim. The interviews were content-analyzed and interpreted until theoretical saturation
(Goulding 2002) was achieved. Typical verbatims were selected to demonstrate our main
findings.
Table 1: Profiles of Interview Participants
Pseudonym
Age
Community
Involvement
Role
Occupation
Adam
30
2003
ASF Member, BoD
Entrepreneur
Bill
41
1999
ASF Member,
Committer
Manager
Bruce
45
1997
Committer
CTO
Chris
44
2000
ASF Member, Former
Project Chairman
Software Developer
George
35
1996 (co-founder of the
ASF)
ASF Member, VP
Conference Planning
IT Consultant
7
Justin
30
2002
ASF Member,
Committer
CTO
Mike
29
2001
President of the ASF
Software Developer
Peter
46
2001
Committer
Entrepreneur
Roland
48
1996 (co-founder of the
ASF)
Chairman of the ASF
Software Developer
Robert
32
2003
Committer
Software Developer
Steven
38
1996
ASF Member,
Documentation Project
Contributor
Author
Thomas
44
1999
ASF Member, Director
Software Developer
of the BoD
ASF: Apache Software Foundation; BoD: Board of Directors; CTO: Chief Technology Officer; VP: Vice
President; IT: Information Technology
FINDINGS
The meaning of the Apache brand
At first sight, the Apache brand does not differ from any commercial brand. In this part of the
paper we describe the brand’s social, symbolic, and commercial value and demonstrate that the
community itself embodies a great part of the Apache brand value. An important aspect of the
brand’s social value is its ability to connect like-minded people, create a sense of community,
and provide a platform for exchange as the following statements demonstrate:
“It’s an immediate connection that we have ... So when I meet someone now there is
little chance that we actually have commonality on the project we are involved with.
But we are part of that larger community and there is an immediate connection.”
(Steven)
In this regard Apache is not very different from many commercial brands which also create a
sense of community among members, such as for instance Harley Davidson. However, in
contrast to many other brand communities, it is not the product which is at the centre of the
8
Apache community. The “community over code” principle present in the community
demonstrates that it is the community and the social relations between members which are
valued above everything else; or as the following interviewee put it:
“ ... there is this slogan that the community is more important than the code. And
that’s more than a slogan. If there are technical decision there is a real effort to
resolve the community issues before solving the code issues. It’s interesting to see
these folks putting aside technical issues in favor of interpersonal issues.” (Steven)
In contrast to Apache, many other OS communities did not survive,
“…because they did not put community first. This is where Apache has got it right.
They talk about the community ... and then the code. ... That’s one reason why
Apache survived ...” (Peter)
The importance of the community and the social relations between the individual members fits
well to Cova (1997)‘s notion that the link is more important than the thing, and further
corroborates Schau et al.’s (2009) notion of value creation through community practices. In their
search of meaningful relationships to others consumers are increasingly looking for brands,
which enable them to connect with others and enable them to engage in meaningful activities.
“...there is also a community of experts within the Microsoft community. But I
definitely think that we have the upper hand in terms of giving something back to
society ... our software can make a difference in life and I believe that is more
Apache than it is Microsoft.” (Thomas)
It is evidenced here that the Apache brand has much more to offer than many commercial
brands; much more than just functional and hedonic benefits. The Apache brand derives much of
its meaning from the motivation to give something back to society and thus find meaning in life.
Being a member of the Apache community is not just a personal expression of preferences and
social belongingness. The Apache brand can be seen as a lifetime partner, a valuable companion
9
for one’s identity construction and something that is worth living for. This idealistic and ethical
notion is hardly found in traditional, commercial brands. Whereas the value of many commercial
brands becomes evident in specific situations, such as the reduction of search costs in a shopping
situation or the display of a specific personality in a social situation, the value of the Apache
brand is less static and not only tied to specific moments in time. The brand stands for a life-time
project which enables community members to constantly derive meaning from. It is primarily the
connectedness and this self-transcending quality that differentiates community brands from
commercial endeavors.
Personal Branding - The value of community membership
Most commercial brands just need to be bought in order to provide symbolic and social value;
membership in brand communities is usually just a matter of brand ownership and expertise.
However, in the case of the Apache brand it is a bit more complex. The community has installed
a strict member selection process, which does not only demand significant effort on the side of
potential members but also gives the community control over who is being associated with the
brand and with whom the brand is associated with.
“It’s very hard to become a committer. You need to show quality over a long period
of time and also show commitment to the community. So there is this process in
place that guarantees the quality. That is also important to us. We do not want to
constantly check everything.” (Justin)
“You contribute and at some point someone tells you: ,Ok, become one of us!‘ And
that‘s it.” (Chris)
“... the way the people become members is through peer recognition. You have to
contribute for a certain amount of time and then someone might nominate you for
membership and as the members we vote on that membership.” (Steven)
10
Membership has to be earned by excellent contributions and commitment. The only way to
become a member is by acceptance of the existing members. During their first involvement with
the community, not only their work is under constant review but also their personality to
determine whether they fit the community and the so called “Apache Way“.
“But I think what is difficult is to teach the new committers the ‘Apache Way’, the
way you have to behave when you are in a project.” (Chris)
The „Apache Way” does not only guarantee that projects are executed in a specific way but also
safeguard the special community culture by teaching new members how to behave. While many
commercial brands have to deal with a rather heterogeneous user group and the resulting conflict
about who is a legitimate brand owner and who is not, this is different with the Apache brand. As
the brand cannot be separated from the individual community member it is essential for the
brand that the right people are chosen to represent the brand. The brand is the community, and
the individual members are the brand. What the brand stands for is not prescribed but rather
evolves through everyday community interaction, communal practices, andthe behavioral
patterns of its members.
A series of benefits arise from the member selection process described above. These
benefits result from the fact that group membership and thus brand association is not open to
everyone, as it is the case with most commercial brands, but rather a number of qualities need to
be fulfilled in order to be accepted as a member.
“The other side of the brand is personal branding. The fact that I am a member of
the Apache Software Foundation opens lots of doors.” (Bill)
“... they said: ‘You are just a contractor, we do not care what you say!’ Then I sent
an e-mail using my apache.org account and afterwards all the technical guys came
11
to me and said: ‘Oh you work for Apache. You said something yesterday?’ So it
changes perception.” (Chris)
As the above statements demonstrate, being associated with the Apache community does carry a
lot of value in the IT area. Community membership can be transformed into individual assets in
the workplace and beyond. This strict and extensive process of becoming a community member
upholds the high status and prestige associated with Apache. Referring to Simmel (1906),
especially in communities with restricted access, membership is perceived as more valuable. The
prestige and status associated with membership of the Apache community manifest itself in
various situations, such as for instance during job interviews.
“... there are stories, like people going to job interviews and mentioning that they
are a community member... It makes the people listen, because it does carry some
value.” (Roland)
Just as with commercial brands, members make us of the Apache brand to communicate their
identity. However with most commercial brands, use of a specific brand does only provide
limited information about the true personality of the brand owner. One might wear designer
shoes in order to be perceived as classy or elegant, however the receiver of the message has only
limited possibilities to check for the validity of these claims. Due to the members selection
process this is somehow different with the Apache brand. The receiver of the message can draw
conclusions on the person’s behavior and skills, his sub-cultural background, work ethics and
morality. Hence, not only the community brand creates value for its creators and users but also
membership in the branded community of Apache, in particular.
12
DISCUSSION
This paper explores the phenomenon of community-created brands using the example of Apache,
an open-source software community well known for its expertise in programming and its marketleading web server. Our findings contribute to theory in at least two important ways. First, we
were able to show that brand development is not restricted to managerial strategy and action but
in reality emerges as a grassroots activity of communities. Contrary to commercial brands,
community branding processes naturally evolve as side effect of the communities’ natural,
everyday activities. Freely available software can be monetized. Apache’s market share and the
amount of sponsorship for Apache demonstrate its market value. Second, voluntary community
work pays back in a number of ways, which are beneficial and of enormous value for the
community, the individual, and society at large.
In the case of Apache, every community member is able to and actually engages in
communicating about the brand and community identity. Every single member becomes a
marketer of the Apache brand. As identification with and self-expression through Apache
membership is much stronger for community members than for employees of traditional
companies, Apache members turn out to be true and credible evangelists of the Apache brand.
Additionally, the Apache foundation gives some guidance to members how to communicate, thus
ensuring that the values of the Apache community brand are passed on. This stands in stark
contrast to profit-oriented companies where usually not all employees consider themselves being
ambassadors of their brands. The Apache foundation constitutes a platform where all members
actively contribute to the brand. In companies brands are usually crafted and executed by
marketing departments, or even outsourced to agencies. The average employee plays a minor
role and is often a rather passive stakeholder. Admittedly, brands as Apache are not faced with
13
pricing or distribution issues as the brand is distributed via the Internet and for free. Hence the
community concentrates on product development and market communication tasks. Yet, they
provide a role model for authentic and sustainable brand buzz and cult as depicted by Holt
(2002) and others.
In addition to the unique brand building process, Apache offers an attractive and unique
brand meaning and value for its members and non members to identify with. Apache stands for
high quality software and a group of very knowledgeable, highly intellectual, self-motivated
computer geeks who aim to write the best software. The prestige and status granted from
outsiders manifests this position. Community values, such as “community over code”,
demonstrate their orientation towards the human element, which is solidly based in community
philosophy. The genuine belief in what they are doing, their independence and non-commercial
interest considerably enhance credibility and authenticity. As Apache is not following the
dominant market logic of increasing revenue and profit it is not forced to run after quantitative
growth but rather concentrates on fulfilling user expectations. With community brands
consumers are able to escape the branding mill of commercial brands who try to exploit the
brand’s value by attracting more and more customers thus diluting the brand’s power as a source
of identification for its consumers. Instead, as we have shown above, the Apache brand carefully
selects its members and thus determines who is associated with the brand and who represents the
brand. On the one hand this increases the value of community membership and on the other hand
endows the community with some control over how the brand is perceived. This stands in
contrast to many commercial brands, where brand association is largely determined through the
market.
14
Previous research (Schau et al. 2009) already demonstrates that brand community practices
create value. However the value created in these communities can almost exclusively be
retrieved inside the community and is mostly limited to the consumption of the brand. Our study
contributes to research in this area by showing that brand community practices can also create
value outside of the community and in contexts not related to consumption situations, for
instance on the job market. Due to careful member selection processes, Apache community
membership equals a strong ‘employer brand’. Also in traditional brand communities issues
evolving around members or brand user selection in the form of brand user legitimacy struggles
can be observed (Kirmani et al. 1999). As communities such as Apache do not only provide
desired meanings as citizen artists, but also provide consumable products, they may become true
alternatives to commercial and profit-oriented organizations, and build a new form of selforganized and volunteer-based organization, not only in terms of product innovation but also in
terms of branding.
Recognizing the concept of community-created brands, we can draw several implications.
Similar to the concept of community-based and user-based innovation we touch on new
community-based marketing approaches that may emerge by trying to leverage the value of
community brands. Like open innovation concepts are trying to leverage the creativity and
innovative capabilities of users for new product development, open marketing concepts are able
to leverage the branding activities of communities. Community brands are much more organic
and holistic entities, marketed by the community, by its sponsors and users in a process of
constant mutual exchange of economic, financial, social, emotional and intellectual value.
Consumers’ ability and capability to do so pose new challenges onto commercial brands in terms
of authenticity and customer proximity.
15
Community brands have radically changed our view of brands and branding. The
phenomenon of community brands shows that the concept of brands and branding is not limited
to the product domain and that it is much better described as a complex social phenomenon
including community membership into a new understanding of contemporary branded
communities.
REFERENCES
Belk, Russel (2010), "Sharing," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (February), 715-734.
Berthon, Pierre, Morris B. Holbrook, James M. Hulbert, and Leyland F. Pitt (2007), "Viewing
Brands in Multiple Dimensions," MIT Sloan Management Review, 48 (2), 37.
Bocock, Robert (1993), Consumption, New York, NY: Routledge.
Cova, Bernard (1997), "Community and Consumption: Towards a definition of the “linking
value” of product or services," European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), 297-316.
Cova, Bernard and Stefano Pace (2006), "Brand Community of Convenience Products: Now
Forms of Customer Empowerment - the Case ,My Nutella the Community‘," European
Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 1087-105.
Cova, Véronique and Eric Rémy (2007), "I Feel Good - Who Needs the Market? Struggling and
Having Fun with Consumer Driven Experiences," in Consuming Experience, ed.
Antonella Carù and Bernard Cova, New York, NY: Routledge, 17-33.
Creswell, John W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonne S. Lincoln (1994), "Introduction: Entering the Field of
Qualitative Research," in Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Yvonne S. Lincoln and
Norman K. Denzin, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1-17.
Füller, Johann, Marius K. Lüdicke, and Gregor Jawecki (2007), "How Brands Enchant: Insights
from Observing Community Driven Brand Creation " in Annual North American
Conference, ed. Association for Consumer Research, Memphis, USA.
16
Giesler, Markus (2006), "Consumer Gift Systems," Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 28390.
Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies
for Qualitative Research, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goulding, Christina (2002), Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and
Market Researchers, London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hemetsberger, Andrea and Christian Reinhardt (2006), "Learning and Knowledge-Building in
Open-Source Communities: A Social-Experiential Approach," Management Learning, 37
(2), 187-214.
___________ (2009), "Collective Development in Open-Source Communities: An Activity
Theoretical Perspective on Successful Online Collaboration," Organization Studies, 30
(9), 987-1008.
Holt, Douglas (2002), "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer
Culture and Branding," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 70-90.
Kates, Steven M. (2004), "The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay
Men's Community," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 455-64.
Kirmani, Amna, Sanjay Sood, and Sheri Bridges (1999), "The Ownership Effect in Consumer
Responses to Brand Line Stretches," Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 88-101.
Klein, Naomi (2000), No Logo, London, UK: Harper Collins.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), "Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations
from Burning Man," Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 20-38.
Kozinets, Robert V., John F. Sherry, Diana Storm, Adam Duhachek, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, and
Benét Deberry-Spence (2004), "Ludic Agency and Retail Spectacle," Journal of
Consumer Research, 31 (December), 658-72.
Kozinets, Robert V., Andrea Hemetsberger, and Hope J. Schau (2008), "The Wisdom of
Consumer Crowds: Collective Innovation in the Age of Networked Marketing," Journal
of Macromarketing, 28 (4), 339-54.
Maffesoli, Michel (1996), The Time of the Tribes, London, UK: Sage Publications.
17
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Christopher J. Arthur (1970), The German Ideology:
International Publishers Co.
Maxwell, Joseph A. (2005), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mühlbacher, Hans, Andrea Hemetsberger, Eva Thelen, Christine Vallaster, Rudolf Massimo,
Johann Füller, Clemens Pirker, Robert Schorn, and Christine Kittinger (2006), "Brands as
Complex Social Phenomena," in Proceedings of the Thought Leaders International
Conference on Brand Management, Birmingham.
Muniz, Albert M. and Hope J. Schau (2005), "Religiosity in the Abondened Apple Newton
Brand Community," Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 737-47.
Payne, A, K Storbacka, P Frow, and S Knox (2009), "Co-Creating Brands: Diagnosing and
Designing the Relationship Experience," Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 379-89.
Pitt, Leyland F., Richard T. Watson, Pierre Berthon, Donald Wynn, and George M. Zinkhan
(2006), "The Penguin's Window: Corporate Brand from an Open-Source Perspective,"
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 115-27.
Prahalad, Coimbatore K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2004a), The Future of Competition: CoCreating Unique Value with Customers, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Prahalad, Coimbatore K. and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2004b), "Co-Creating Unique Value with
Customers," Strategy & Leadership, 32 (3), 4-9.
Schau, Hope J., Albert M. Muñiz, and Eric J. Arnould (2009), "How Brand Community Practices
Create Value," Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 30-51.
Sherry, John F, Robert V. Kozinets, and Stefania Borghini (2007), "Agents in Paradise Experiential Co-Creation through
Emplacement, Ritualization, and Community," in
Consuming Experience, ed. Antonella Carù and Bernard Cova, New York, NY: Routledge,
17-33.
Simmel, Georg (1906), "The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies," American Journal of
Sociology, 11 (4), 441-98.
Slater, Don (1997), Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
18
Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Szmigin, Isabelle; Marylyn Carrigan, and Caroline Bekin (2007), "New Consumption
Communities and the Re-Enabling of 21st Century Consumers," in Consumer Tribes, ed.
Bernard Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar, Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 296-311.
Thompson, Craig J. and Gokcen Coskuner-Balli (2007), "Countervailing Market Responses to
Corporate Co-Optation and the Ideological Recruitment of Consumption Communities,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 135-52.
Thompson, Craig J. and Zeynep Arsel (2004), "The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers'
(Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization," Journal of Consumer Research, 31
(December ), 631-42.
Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel (2006), "Emotional Branding and the
Strategic Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image," Journal of Marketing, 70 (January),
50-64.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert Lusch (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17.
von Krogh, Georg, Sebastian Spaeth, Stefan Haeflinger, and Martin Wallin (2008), "Open
Source Softwares: What We Know (and Do Not Know) About Motives to Contribute," in
DIME Working Papers on Intellectual Property Rights 38.
Wipperfürth, Alex (2005), Brand Hijack: Marketing without Marketing, New York, NY:
Portfolio.
19