Table of Contents:
PAGE NUMBERS
CONTENTS MAIN BODY Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
4
1.1)………………Background and Rationale of the Study
4
1.1.1)………………………..The Background of the Study
4
1.1.2)………………………….. The Rationale of the Study
6
1.2)………………………………….The Research Problem
8
1.3)………………………………The Purpose of the Study
9
1.4)…………………………….The Structure of the Thesis
10
1.5)………………………………………………Methodology
11
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
12 12
Chapter 3
2.1) ………………..Media Convergence and Brands’ New Communication Environment 2.2)………….The Impact of Digital Prosumption on Brand Identity Communication Theory 2.3) Perspectives on Impacting User-Generated Content Online 2.3.1)……………Customer-Communicators: Resistant or Managable? 2.3.2) Integrated Marketing Communications in Web 2.0 2.3.3) Expereince Communication Management 2.3.4) …..The Role of Mobile Tactics in Communications Personal Interactivity METHODOLOGY
14 20 20 22 23 27 30
3.1)………. The Role of Literature Review in Determining Research Methodology 3.2) ……………………..Empirical Research Methodology
30
3.3) ………….Emprical Data Collection and Methodology
35
3.4) …………………………………Limitations of the Study
39
Chapter 4
EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE
40 40
Chapter 5
4.1)……….Louis Vuitton’s Case Study Findings’ Analysis and Discussion CONCLUSIONS 5.1)………….....Final Perspectives and Further Research Recommendations Regarding QR Code Applicability to Enhancing Luxury Brand Identity Projection
50
32
50
References
53
Bibliography
62
"!!
APPENDICES
72
Appendix 1
Louis Vuitton Brand-Generated Identity Audit
73
Appendix 2
Solicited and Unsolicited UGC Audit
76
Appendix 3
Louis-Vuitton Co-Created Brand Identity Audit
77
Appendix 4
Brand Experience Stimuli Behind Unsolicited UGC Audit
78
Appendix 5
Motivations Behind Unsolicited UGC Audit
80
Appendix 6
Unsolicited UGC Platform and Media Audit
81
List of Tables:
TABLE
TITLE
NUMBER
PAGE NUMBERS
1.1
Research Sub-Questions
8
1.2
Structure of the Thesis
10
3.1
37
3.4
Brand Identity Elements in Unsolicited User-generated Content Analysis Grid Brand Expereince Behind Unsolicited User Generated Content Analysis Grid Motivations Behind User-generated Content Induced by Brand Expereince Related to Elements of Physical Environment Analysis Grid Online Platorm and Type of Media Used Analysis Grid
1-
Facets of Identity Prism
74
3.2 3.3
37 38 38
Appendix List of Figures:
FIGURE
TIITLE
NUMBER
PAGE NUMBER
2.1
Brand Identity to Brand Image
16
2.2
Macromodel of the Communications Process
17
2.3
Multistep Communications Model
18
2.4
Brand-Customer Communication: Push Model
18
2.5
Integrated Transmedia Communications
25
2.6
QR Code
28
3.1
Primary Research Sample Analyses Procedure
36
4.1
Unsolicited Unplanned Brand Encounters Within Louis Vuitton Related User-Generated Content Brand Experience Stimuli Behind Unsolicited Unplanned Brand Encounters Sample
40
4.2
""! !
41
4.3
Louis Vuitton Brand-Generated Brand Identity
42
4.4
Louis Vuitton Co-Created Brand Identity
43
4.5
45
4.6
Self-expression and Belonging as Motivation Behind Creating UUBE Social Ties As Motivation Behind Creating UUBE
4.7
Self-Promotion and Credibility as Motivation Behind UUBE
48
1-
Transfer of Corporate Values onto Brand Identity Prism
73
Ralph Lauren Brand Identity Prism
74
Common Communication Platforms
79
46
Appendix 2Appendix 3Appendix
"""! !
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1) Introduction This chapter explains the research topic: QR codes as a tool for enhancing the communication of luxury brand identity; and the rationale behind its’ choice. It discusses
study’s
concentration
on
transformation
of
brand
communication
environment by customer empowerment in the milieu of Web 2.0. Furthermore, it outlines the purpose of the study and the research process.
1.1) The Background and Rationale of the Study 1.1.1) The Background of the Study
! ‘’ (…) I am a Louis Vuitton freak (…) and not (…) to show off but one of my subscribers asked me to show my collection. (…) Here goes one of my favorite bags. (…) which I like to take for like shopping (…). There is a pocket for I don’t know what and a pocket for a mobile phone. (…) I have like a huge variety of these, like (…). I think it’s like so cool, when a girl goes with like an expensive bag because you don’t have too many of those in your city or country. ‘’ (BeautifulYouTV, 2009) The quote, distant from sophisticated overtones of the brand in question, comes from a YouTube video uploaded by an American housewife. It grossed nearly 250,000 views in two years. There are thousands of similar videos on the site. In contrast, the brand’s key video content typically grosses 20 to 50 thousand views. Louis Vuitton is often depicted through price tags and ‘admire my swag’ attitude, instead of exotic journey through self-discovery and dreams, the prism through which the brand aims to be seen. Recent changes introduced by Web 2.0 and social networks make user-generated content online a mainstream trend with a considerable impact on brands’ marketing variables (Cova and Dalli, 2009), specifically for luxury brands keen to retain control over the brand message (Okonkwo, 2010). An environment that enables and encourages individuals to share their knowledge and expressions of creativity through technological advances, locates a degree of control over brand communications among the customers. Theorists discuss the emergence of a new empowered
"#! !
customer (Cova and Dalli, 2009), a digital prosumer (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010), leading to brands loosing control of brand-related media (Campbell et al, 2011). These cultural phenomena challenge the traditional understanding of brand identity and marketing communications. Brand identity as a framework for brand-to-customer message (Kapferer, 2004) is actively co-created on the customer part (Christodoulides and
Jevons,
2011).
Subsequently,
the
one-sided
model
of
the
marketing
communication process presented by Kotler et al (2009), where brand identity projected to customers should become brand image, is unsuitable to the computermediated communication environment. With an increasing amount of customer-tocustomer communications, the brand is not the only source of its’ message (Hereskovitz and Crystal, 2010). Integration of marketing communications shifts from a brand internal issue to encompassing synergy between brand- and customergenerated communications (Gurau, 2008). The vast amount of user-generated brand-related content online indicates that, as proposed by Simon (2011), consumption choices are used to project self-identity and further meanings online. While brands benefit from awareness created by online conversations and customers’ acting upon their existence (Arvidsson, 2005), undesired associations can be detrimental to the perception of brand’s preferred characteristics. Especially luxury brands, conditioned to maintain a coherent identity (Kapferer, 1997), should put the concept of customer-to-customer networked communications at the centre of brand management (Iglesias et al, 2011). Contemporary marketing theory (Christodoulides, 2009; Zwick et al, 2008; Arvidsson, 2005) suggests that brands can, to an extent, impact user-generated content in marketer-desired fashion through providing tools and platforms for such activity.
#!!
1.1.2) The Rationale of the Study Engaging customers in the brand communications is proposed to minimize the impact of customer-generated brand content (Wilson et al, 2010; Dahlen et al, 2009). The success of the approach is exemplified by Calvin Klein brand. Combining print, social media and mobile tactics, it launched a cross-platform campaign allowing exclusive access and sharing of censored content through scanning QR codes in various publications and locations (Galloway et al, 2012). The campaign engaged 117 million users (ibid.). However, the key question is whether such engagement can fulfill the motivations that drive the creation of user-generated content and therefore become a substitute for some of the activity? Transmedia, otherwise cross-platform, communications offer such possibility through interactive choice- and context- led delivery, turning personalized communications into networked personal ones. As customers’ desire being associated with brands in their personal communications, they strive for maximum enjoyment of the process (Wright et al, 2006). It suggests that transmedia communications might be a practically applicable solution. However, a further understanding of potential correlation between such communications and change in numbers of user-generated content is required. Since mobile phones became one of the most popular media-content sharing devices (Seongwoon et al, 2010), QR codes are seen as one of the key facilitators of transmedia communications. The two-dimensional barcodes connect physical objects with virtual environment through embedded URL codes linking to specific content (Simmons, 2010). While near-field communication enabled augmented reality is the newest technological enabler of mobile interactivity, QR codes wield the largest consumer awareness and understanding (Trendwatching, 2012; Tolliver-Nigro, 2011). An increased interest from luxury fashion brands to utilize it for customer engagement (Corcoran et al, 2009) is visible in brands, such as Louis Vuitton, already integrating QR codes into communication tactics (Trendwatching, 2012). ‘Prestige 100: Mobile IQ’ report (Galloway et al, 2012) reveals that sales of smartphones and tablets has overtaken those of personal computers and predicts the Mobile Era. Mobile Internet is particularly popular among high net-worth individuals and those actively sharing content, presenting an opportunity for luxury brands (Galloway et al, 2012). However, the report (ibid.) highlights a lack of adjustment among luxury fashion brands, lacking robust mobile marketing strategies such as interactive cross-
#"! !
platform communications. The index for interactivity, social media integration and mobile-accessible personalization is particularly low (Galloway et al, 2012). The impact of customer-generated brand identity communication on the synergy of brands’ integrated marketing communications has to be considered, as the fragmented information environment does not project brand identity in a linear brand-to-customer form. Lack of alignment can lead to negative impact on brand image (Christodoulides and Jevons, 2011). Careful engagement of customers in the communication process can potentially reduce such risk (Wilson et al, 2010). However luxury brands require specific management techniques (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009), and a need for testing the concept against their prerequisites occurs. Furthermore, use of QR codes within mobile communications presents a challenge of generating content engagement through serving the customer-receiver’s purpose (Sinisalo et al, 2007).
#""! !
1.2) The Research Problem In order to discuss the research problem: applicability of QR codes to enhancing luxury brand identity projection in customer-to-customer online communications; several other uncertainties have to be resolved. These are divided into sub-questions (Table 1.1), which create a basis for a case study of Louis Vuitton brand – one of the most often mentioned within customer-to-customer communications. Table.1.1) Research Sub-questions
Based on a specific luxury fashion brand case study, where does lack of 1
synergy between brand-generated and customer-generated brand identity communication occur, and how does it shape brand objectives for creating alignment through customer engagement?
Is there an empirical proof for correlation between personally interactive 2
Subquestion
Subquestion
RESEARCH SUBQUESTIONS
mobile enabled cross-platform communications and decrease in numbers of customer-generated content?
3
brand identity communications and how can these be, respectively, communicated and fulfilled by the brand through use of QR codes, as facilitators of integrated transmedia communications and brand identity synergy enablers?
Are there any conflicts between proposed use of QR codes for creating 4
Subquestion
Subquestion
What are the key experiences and motivations behind customer-generated
brand identity synergy and requirements of luxury brands’ identity projection?
#"""! !
1.3) The Purpose of the Study A limited amount of research exists into application of mobile-related technologies to retail brands; therefore a gap also exists in evaluating their use in integrated marketing strategies (Rudolph and Emerich, 2009). Kautonen and Karjauloto (2008) propose a need for examining brand identity management through mobile marketing strategies. This study aims to create a sense of understanding and evaluate, from the perspective of luxury marketing practitioners, the potential applicability of QR codes for enhancing brand-desired identity communication within customer-generated brand content.
"$! !
1.4) Structure of the Thesis The thesis is divided into five distinct chapters. Table 1.2) Structure of the Thesis STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS CHAPTER ONE
Introduction provides a background sketch of theoretical framework for the chosen topic and the practical motivation behind the study. The research objectives are formulated and the structure of the thesis and methodology are outlined.
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review outlines, from the marketing management perspective, the existing theoretical foundation for the study with regards to brand identity and its’ integrated marketing communications, and specifics of their management within the luxury industry. It compares them with perspectives introduced into
the
subject
by
consumer
empowerment
in
online
communications. Transmedia communications, with a specific focus on mobile marketing and QR codes, are discussed regarding customer engagement in brand communications and brands opportunities for channeling customer empowerment. It equips the reader with key definitions and concepts regarding discussed topics. CHAPTER THREE
Methodology finalizes the choice of operational definitions for the study and its’ final pathway based on literature review, as well as outlines methods for empirical research for a case study based discussion of the research sub-questions.
CHAPTER FOUR
Empirical Example presents the primary research findings in the context of a case study, literature review and research subquestions, whilst discussing case study based implications on the research objectives. The chapter evaluates key issues for luxury brands regarding countering negative aspects of cocreated brand identity through customer engagement, and conceptualizes potential directions for their solutions.
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions summarize the final perspectives on the research subject and outlines research based recommendation for further study.
$!!
1.5) Methodology The study follows a pattern of exploratory research, where the final perspectives and operational definitions are based on literature review (Iacobucci and Gilbert, 2009). It leads to gaining insights into and understanding of an unexplored subject and guides further research regarding its’ practical aspects (Iacobucci and Gilbert, 2009). The research strategy, a single, embedded case study of the Louis Vuitton brand, is based on several criteria. Firstly, research questions agenda primarily focuses on how and why structure, which according to Yin’s (1994) classification suggests such strategy. A single brand focus is motivated by exploratory research flexibility and informality, requiring one or few empirical examples (Parasuraman et al, 2006). Research objectives’ concentration on marketing communications, allows the study’s embedding in the specific aspect instead of a holistic approach. Achieving the research objective led to utilizing a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods, where appropriate, regarding analysis of the empirical data. Both primary and secondary sources were utilized for the purpose of primary research, all of which was based on observational tactics providing objectivity with regards to behavioral data. Detailed discussion of research methods can be found in Chapter Three.
!
$"! !
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW !
2) Literature Review This chapter reviews academic perspectives on the impact of media convergence and user-generated content online on the understanding of brand identity and marketing communications, focusing on luxury brands. It outlines the theories regarding brands’ potential management of user-generated brand-related content through transmedia delivery
and
mobile
tactics
for
maintenance
of
integration
of
marketing
communications. 2.1) Media Convergence and Brands’ New Communication Environment The contemporary communication environment is shaped by the media’s convergence. Jenkins (2004), the pioneer of subject’s research, defines it as a technological shift leading to an exponential growth and connectivity of communication channels, enabled by portability of computing devices. Eight years onwards, the ubiquity of smartphones and tablets, through which the society socializes, consumes culture or shops, moves Jenkins’ concept of omnipresent media from an abstract theory to the most apparent aspect of reality. The convergence leads to ‘reconfiguration of media power (…), aesthetics and economics’ (Jenkins, 2004: 4). It affects brands’ opportunities through altering the relationship between industries, markets and audiences (Jenkins, 2004). Levy (1997) conceptualizes the emergence of collective intelligence and knowledge culture as an outcome of convergence. Individuals, enabled to share knowledge online, alter commodity culture’s traditional order (Jenkins, 2004). The individuals, consumers in the commodity culture, are empowered through media technologies to gain control over corporate communications (Jenkins, 2004). Therefore, they are not passive receivers of communications but an active participant in the process (Jenkins, 2004). Anyone with Internet access can share brand-related input with numerous Internet users, who encounter their online contribution. Cova and Dalli (2009) highlight the appearance of a new empowered customer who, through user-generated content online, impacts brand communications in creative ways. Some theorists, like Arvidsson (2005), argue that freedom to produce context for branded goods existed even in times when Fordist scientific marketing aimed for standardized consumption practices and tastes. It is exemplified by youth cultures utilizing brands to signal group belonging, while forging their new meanings. However, following Ritzer and Jurgenson’s (2010)
$""! !
reasoning, the emergence of Web 2.0, ability of users to produce content collaboratively online, facilitated customer active participation in brand communications on an unprecedented scale. The phenomenon leads to considering consumer activity as new digital prosumption (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). Prosumption, a term coined by Toffler (1980), describes merging of production and consumption activities, where the consumer performs tasks typical to the producer (e.g. self-service). Cova and Dalli (2009) discuss online prosumption as consumer brand-related digital creativity forming a basis for empowerment through control over brand communications, impacting the way other consumers perceive them. A Google search for any of the luxury brands, delivers countless
user
posts
on
social
networks.
While
some
just
share
brands’
communications, such as viral videos, a great number is devoted to customers’ brand experiences. ‘Me shopping at Louis Vuitton in Dallas’ says a comment below a picture uploaded on Tumblr. ‘ ‘Unpacking my new Chanel purse’ begin numerous videos on YouTube. ‘Louis Vuitton kicks, they ma balling sneaks’ exclaims one of the top retweeted posts on Twitter. There are various forms of user-generated content online with high impact: blogs, shared link, video, photo, written message (e.g. review) (Blackshaw, 2006) and social networks content (Schultz, 2008). Users are active Internet contributors, putting in a degree of creative effort outside typical professional routines (Van Dijck, 2009). The importance of brand-related user-generated content on brand’s desired identity projection is supported by several theories. Firstly, Metcalf’s Law assumes a growing number of people in networks to lead to increased connectivity, provoking exponential impact of shared content (Hendler and Golebeck, 2007). Secondly, as Palmer and Koenig-Lewis (2009) identify, viewers often lack the ability to differentiate and assess the quality of the content, which, according to Lee and Park (2007), merges brand- and user- generated communications into one message. Since user-generated content online is a mainstream trend, its’ impact on brands’ marketing variables has to be considered (Cova and Dalli, 2009).
$"""! !
2.2) The Impact of Digital Prosumption on Brand Identity Communication Theory ‘Brand Identity is a unique set of brand associations (…) strategist aspires to create and maintain. These (…) represent what the brand stands for and imply a promise to customers from the organization (...).’ (Aaker, 2010: 68) A brand is a mark of distinction differentiating one thing from another; representing and expressing meanings embodied in it (Berthon et al, 2011). Identical products gain a variety of meanings through association with diverse symbols and contexts. Aaker (2010) defines brand identity: a means to establishing brand-customer relationship through generation of value proposition representing functional, emotional and selfexpressive benefits. As Baudrillard (1994) demonstrates, in the post-modern times building meanings is the new form of production. Brands stand for expressive illusions (ibid.). To customers’ brand choice becomes a tool for construction and communication of desired social identity and ideal self-image (Moore and Homer, 2008). The brand power lays in postmodern cultural anxiety, where not class belonging but ownership of goods indicates status and determines between social inclusion and exclusion (Ekstram and Glans, 2010). ‘Chief Executive of the Gucci group noted: ‘We are not in the business of selling handbags. We are in the business of selling dreams!’’ (Kotler et al, 2009: 427). Subsequently, brand identity is the most leveraged and influential part of the brand equity (Uppshaw, 1995). The concept is critical to luxury brands: a basis for long-term capitalization (Kapferer, 1997), as contemporary individuals ‘dream less of fashion than of brand names’ (Ekstram and Glans, 2010: 28). Contemporary luxury fashion brands, where demand for branded products stretches brands like Armani to diversify their proposition to operations such as hotels, capitalize on entry-level products: accessories, perfume and cosmetics. Defining luxury proves problematic due to an ongoing debate of its’ current meaning (Tynan et al, 2009). From purely economic perspective luxury brand is one continuously able to justify a significantly higher price than one of tangibly comparable products (Kapferer, 1997). However, the author (ibid.) disputes the definition as encompassing more common elements; creatively bringing value to the customer (Chevalier and Mazzalovo, 2008): global recognition and visibility of brand signature, application of beauty and art to functional items, arbitrage of good taste,
$"#! !
innovativeness for exceeding customer expectations, non-essential excessiveness (Kapferer, 1997), rarity, exclusivity, prestige, authenticity, offering symbolic and emotional value through experiences (Tynan et al, 2009), powerful advertising and leveraged heritage(Bruce et al, 2004). Luxury brand identity must create a specific value proposition, for which Tynan et al (2009) propose a framework: !
Utilitarian: Excellence and Craftsmanship
!
Symbolic/ Expressive:
Outer-directed: Status, Prestige, Esteem, Social Identity, Uniqueness, and Authenticity Self-directed: Social Belonging, Personal Identity, Aesthetics, Self-indulgence, Uniqueness, Nostalgia, and Authenticity !
Experiential/ Hedonic: Indulgence, Aesthetics, Experience
!
Relational: Brand Community, Brand – Customer Relationship
!
Cost/ Sacrifice: Perfectionism, Exclusivity, Rarity
Luxury goods are considered symbols projecting prestige and social status as a part of consumer personal and social identity (Vickers and Renand, 2003), therefore luxury brands must project all elements of luxury positioning and value as a constant but differentiate in its’ category (e.g. fashion) through cultivating uniqueness in traits of own culture and lifestyle (Kapferer, 1997; Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). The latter occurs if coherence of identity elements is recognizable in brand outputs (e.g. advertisement) without logo’s application (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). In case of luxury, building a distinction between ‘central and peripheral identity traits’ (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009: 126) is crucial. Central traits are a few those without which brand can no longer exist, while peripheral is dependant on circumstances (Kapferer and Bastein, 2009), such as seasonal inspirations. The explicit elements of luxury brand identity specify appropriate marketing communications’ requirements. Okonkwo (2010) depicts typical luxury marketing communication as one-way, imposing, attention capturing and tailored to traditional offline platforms (e.g. advertising). Luxury, different from classic goods, sees marketing communications’ function as creating a dream from brand’s values not just sales (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). The competitive advantage is built through intangible attributes – appealing to emotions and self - expression (Kotler et al, 2009). It implies creative and metaphorical communications, avoiding focus on price, discounts, and non-selective platforms like TV advertising (Kapferer and Bastien, 2009). This,
$#! !
however, is disputable. Majority of luxury brands indeed express brand identity through fantasy narratives rather than functional benefits. Prada’s ‘Trembled Blossoms’ animation is a compelling example. Depicting cyber woman’s fairytale journey, the animation does not even refer to products or logos. However, as entry-level product demand forced luxury brands to relinquish tangible exclusivity, social media expansion increases their presence on egalitarian media channels. Luxury brands, from Hermes to Chanel, maintain Facebook platforms. However, they still attempt maintaining elitist, one-way communication tactics through disabling user-initiated input and concealing reactions to content. The approach is typical to old luxury brands, solely defined by the brand (Florin et al, 2007), and aligns with traditional theories on marketing communications. Kapferer (2004) claims that brand identity is based on speech and existence upon communication. Therefore, brand identity is a framework internally specifying key messages to the audience to become brand image – a customer interpretation of brand meanings and associations (Kapferer, 2004) (Fig.2.1). Fig.2.1) Brand Identity to Brand Image (Kapferer, 2004: 174)
The framework supports McCraken’s (1986) notion of brand injecting its’ own meanings into the culture. Also Baudrillard (1970) argued that mass-media, such as advertising, shapes human perception of reality, impelling lives in the realm of hyperreality and defining cultural and social identities more than aspects of individual lives. Brands become relevant cultural resources (Holt, 2002), which benchmark lifestyle expectations and aspirations.
$#"! !
In this view, marketing communications, translating brand message into brand image (Kotler et al, 2009), affect audience’s behavior through developement and implementation of persuasive communication programs with customers or prospects (Kitchen and Pelsmacker, 2004). Its’ role is to communicate value proposition to the customer (Kotler et al, 2008), inform, persuade and remind customers about the brand (Kotler et al, 2009). Therefore, the linear macromodel of communication process (Fig.2.2) presents brand as a sender and customer as a receiver with optional response ability (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998) but only in form of accept or decline (Prahalad and Ramaswany, 2004). Fig. 2.2) Macromodel of the Communications Process (Kotler et al, 2009: 694)
Christodoulides (2009) argues the above model irrelevant to brand management in Web 2.0 era, where brand-to-customer communication is altered to many-to-many (Christodoulides and Jevons, 2011). The customers, too, send the brand message (ibid.). Also Varey (2002) outlines current marketing communication process as enabling and facilitating customer-to-customer dialogue. This leads to adoption of a diffused communication model (Fig.2.3), including opinion formers (e.g. celebrities), opinion leaders (e.g. customers actively discussing brand experiences), and receivers as communication sources (Smith and Zook, 2011). While brands often endorse opinion formers, communication objective becomes winning desired message interpretation from opinion leaders and receivers (Smith and Zook, 2011), ‘shared understanding is important’ (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998: 4).
$#""! !
Fig.2.3) Multistep Communications Model (Smith and Zook, 2011: 126)
For such communication environment, Balmer and Greyser (2002) propose differentiating multiple brand identities, inclusive of a communicated brand identity – revealed through intentional controllable communications (e.g. advertising) and noncontrollable communications (e.g. online word of mouth). Since in computer-mediated communications more brand interaction occurs on a consumer-to-consumer level (Hereskovitz and Crystal, 2010), the approach allows for differentiation between coexisting brand-controlled and co-created brand identity. Alongside parallel brand identities, two brand-customer communication models also coexist. Associated to brand-controlled identity, where customers only perceive offered meanings (Franzen and Moriarty, 2008), is the push model (Schultz et al, 2009) (Fig.2.4). Fig.2.4) Brand-Customer Communication: Push Model (Schultz et al, 2009: 5)
$#"""! !
This approach is visible in luxury brands’ attempt to control their social media communications, consenting to purely reactive actions on their platforms despite the two-way communication principles of Web 2.0. Currently, this model becomes less effective (Truong and Simmons, 2010), as customers develop and actively communicate their own perspectives on brands (Christodoulides, 2009). The opposite is pull model, appropriate to co-created brand identity, where customers take and exchange information in its’ free flow (Schultz et al, 2009). Customers interpret and adapt meanings accordingly to individual perspectives (Ligas and Cotte, 1999). BloggerA associates Louis Vuitton with ‘classic and will never go out of style’, while to blogger B the brand is predominantly reflected in price tags and prestige. Brand-controlled identity management becomes ineffective (Christodoulides and Jevons, 2011). Active consumers severely weaken the company-led brand identity creation, making associations meaningful through customers’ brand experiences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Brand becomes a collection of experiences, in which it engages the customer (Baker, 2003; Berthon et al, 2011). Marketing communications and customer experience morphed together (Smith and Zook, 2011a); therefore brand experience communicated by customers becomes an element of brand identity (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In this view, Smith and Zook (2011a) propose engagement as a substitute for marketing promotion. The arrival of Web 2.0 communications involves luxury brands in the pull model equally to other consumer brands. Florin et al (2007) describe the new luxury brands as defined by customers rather than brands. The customer participation is changing the landscape of luxury communications, yet luxury brands are not willing to share control over their message with non-exclusive parties (Okonkwo, 2010). From this perspective, it is crucial to assess if luxury brand identity’s coherence can be enhanced through opening to a multi-step communication model by way of management of brand experience communication. Luxury fashion brands, involved in mass-production, can no longer leverage attributes such as craftsmanship and rarity as constant elements of their luxury brand identity. Luxury status remains in symbolic, experiential and relational value proposition perceived by the customers; therefore impacting the negative aspects of online co-created brand identity projection is crucial. However, it poses a question if the brands have the aptitude to do so?
$"$! !
2.3) Perspectives on Impacting User Generated Content Online Brands loosing control over their message (Campbell et al, 2011) puts the intangible value at the focal point of brand leadership (Simon, 2011). If, as Franzen and Moriaty (2008) define, brands are just mental constructions, it implies customer interference as reducing the ability to leverage identity to build equity. Arvidsson (2005:4) suggests contemporary brand management should enable the freedom of empowered customers ‘to evolve in a particular direction’. However, the fundamental question is whether if meanings and associations are brands’ key asset, brands can still shape its’ production among customer-communicators with the same capability? 2.3.1) Customer-Communicators: Resistant or Manageable? Arvidsson (2005) proposes that the shift from brands’ taste dictatorship to consumer autonomy has centered the marketing efforts on the concept of brand as a shared property of meanings and consumption context. Brand identity management encompasses both internal issues and consistent quality of experiences across multiple channels (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), provoking relevant associations among individuals (Ligas and Cotte, 1999). Brand governance works through shaping the context in which customer freedom is exercised through offering materials that it employs (Hardt and Negri, 2000). Prada’s 24h Museum Facebook application exemplifies the approach. Users were encouraged to share own brand-related pictures but customized with Prada’s visual elements such as frames or crystal adornments. The problem regarding impacting vast user-generated content arises from access by invitation only, targeting brand-endorsed opinion formers rather than opinion leaders. The approach comes under critique from Arvidsson (2005) himself, who deems filtering customers’ organic creativity through brands’ artificial prism a reactionary practice leading to curbing of the potential flowing from such practices. Zwick et al (2008) also discuss brand-managed co-creation as against the empowered customers’ need for freedom and agency. Cova and Dalli (2009) propose that the empowerment is derived from producing cultural spaces in which consumers construct their identity through counteracting, disregarding and altering the companies’ communication. Kozinets et al (2010) also suggest that the problems arise not just due to co-production but resistance. Resistance changes the intent of identity projection (Muniz and Shau, 2007).
$$! !
However, following description of postmodern individuals as on a constant identity quest through consumption choices (Cova and Dalli, 2009), it can be argued, quoting Grant (1999), that brands are a stable element and a key tool for identity construction. Van Dijck (2009) discusses social identity’s direct link to belonging and participation, leading to a long standing longing of individuals for institutions, such as brands, to provide them with means to create it. After all, consumers willingly devote time to create content associating them with brands (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010) and content sharing communities often overlap with consumer groups (Van Dijck, 2009). Members of online communities such as Louis Vuitton Lovers, who religiously share both brand’s visuals and pictures of own brand experiences, are a strong example of desire for direct association with a brand. It is apparent from vast numbers of brand-related usergenerated content online, that Baurdillard’s (1970) concept of branded goods utilized for self-expression and distinction remains valid. Brands offer reassurance of consumer choices in a cultural environment that, as Ekstram and Glans (2010) portray, disorientates the insecure customer through lack of hierarchy and multifaceted fragmentation of fashion and norms of good taste. Especially within Web 2.0 where, as suggested by Beer and Burrows (2007), users construct self-presentations for fellow users. The
dichotomy
between
customers’
empowerment
and
brand-based
identity
construction requires an approach accommodating both. According to Wright et al (2006), despite the notion of empowered customer-communicator, instead of resistance they often strive for maximum enjoyment of the process. Therefore the better the companies enable them to do so, the higher the satisfaction (ibid.). The gratification comes purely from playing an active role in the process (Harrison and Barthel, 2009). The concept of customer empowerment is viewed as an illusion focused on adding value to the business (Bonsu and Darmody, 2008, Van Dijck, 2009). Smith and Zook (2011a) point to benefits of user-generated content for businesses, such as collaboration for product improvement. The problem is often caused by usergenerated brand communications rarely paying attention to brand-desired styles and themes (Campbell et al, 2011).
$$"! !
2.3.2) Integrated Marketing Communications in Web 2.0 From the marketing management perspective, Gurau (2008) proposes synergy of brand-to-customers and customers-to-customers communication modes as one of the key aspects of integrated marketing communications. In the consumer perception brand message from different platforms becomes a part of a single message (Lee and Park, 2007). Therefore conflicting messages negatively impact brand image and require coordination (ibid.). While a universal definition of integrated marketing communications (IMC) has not been yet established due to constant expansion of channels and tools (Lee and Park, 2007, Kitchen et al, 2008), drawing on existing definitions it is a systematic coordination of messages and channels into a consistent marketing communication mix (Lee and Park, 2007). According to Keller (2001) IMC should form a consistent brand voice across all platforms, reflecting each other’s existence. Also Kitchen et al (2004) propose complex coordination of information through complimentary channels for presentation of coherent image to the audience. Duncan (2002) outlines IMC to be strategic control of all messages sent, encouraging a purposeful dialogue. IMC should be a dynamic process (Lee and Park, 2007), recognizing customer ability to use a number of media simultaneously (Shultz, 2002) and offsetting weakness of one channel with strengths of others (Danaher and Rossitter, 2011). None of the IMC’s definitions directly relate to maintaining synergy between customerand brand- communication modes. Kotler et al (2009) partially reflect the approach recognizing word-of-mouth as a traditional communication tool. However, Kozients et al (2010) see it as stimulation rather than management of customer-to-customer dialogue. In fact, Kotler et al (2009) discuss buzz and viral marketing only as encouragement of sharing brand-generated message online. This reverts word-ofmouth to the concept of passive customers incited to spread internally created message (Oetting, 2009), disregarding active creation of content. On the contrary, Dahlen et al (2009) classify word-of-mouth communications as: !
Solicited
Planned
Brand
Encounters
–
brand-generated
but
through
intermediaries, with a degree of uncontrollability !
Unsolicited Unplanned Brand Encounters – user-generated, problematic to brand intended message
Duncan
and
Moriarty
(1998) also
suggest similar classification, leading
understanding of unsolicited communications as the most problematic.
$$""! !
to
Non-synergy of channels has strong impact on brand’s success; therefore IMC must send a consistent message about brand identity (Madhavaram et al, 2007). Brand identity requires clear integration across all communications (Keller, 1993), and therefore reinforcement in the perceptions of all brand stewards (Madhavaram et al, 2007). The new brand-customer relationship management is divided between an internal process and its’ conversational outputs (Blackshaw, 2011). The role of a brand becomes conversation impacting (Jones et al, 2009) and harnessing customer-tocustomer projection of its’ identity (Kozinets et al, 2010; Duncan and Moriarty, 1998). Enabling inclusion and participation is key to managing online word-of-mouth from the luxury perspective (Okonkwo, 2010), as opposite approach increases numbers of unsolicited communications interfering with building the intended dream from brand values. While Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) suggest consistence of brand experience as reinforcing customer understanding of identity, this study focuses on enabling experiences’ communication on brand desired terms. 2.3.3) Experience Communication Management Chan and Ngai (2011) propose that eWOM, electronic word-of mouth, is motivated by the need of social ties, opinion leadership, information giving, credibility, expertise showcasing, and knowledge sharing. The motivations for customer-generated brand identity communication are also divided into (Christodoulides and Jevons, 2011): !
‘Intrinsic Enjoyment’ – for the purpose of self-expression
!
‘Self-Promotion ‘– drawing on the brand to promote one-self, achieve belonging
!
‘Change Perception’ - making the other customers view the brand differently
While user-generated content intended to change perception is to remain problematic through resistance, other motivations can be potentially fulfilled by the brand. Engagement ladder for classification of online brand-related activity (Smith and Zook, 2011a) shows that upper brand engagement levels are ascribed to those actively cocreating communications, ideas, processes and products. Blackshaw (2006) proposes own content’s creators to also be most influential. In the initial phases of user-generated content ubiquity, luxury fashion brands acknowledged the most influential content creators, fashion bloggers, and their motivation by expertise showcasing. Moving the output of their activity from opinion leadership to brand-endorsed opinion forming, through event invitations and access to exclusive press releases, solicited a vast number of such content. However active content creators also include those who, instead of engaging in creative activities like amateur
$$"""! !
journalism, simply portray themselves with a branded product or during a store visit. This implies a potential number of content creators likely to participate in personalized yet brand-managed communications. Dahlen et al (2009) advise brand identity communication through integrated transmedia communications to minimize the negative impact of unsolicited unplanned brand encounters through interested customers’ interactive participation in the process. Interactivity, within a customer personal context, refers to users ability to communicate with other individuals (Ballantine, 2005), empowered and personalized communication process enabling impact on communication content (Simmons et al, 2008). Shimp (2008) defines surrounding customers with brand information across contact points to allow choice-led selection as key to IMC. Such interactivity is seen in digitally enabled store environments introduced by Diesel. Depending on store or product choice, customers with mobile Internet access are surrounded by relevant content and product information to share via social networks. Integrated transmedia communications (ITC) is a form of IMC (Cavallini, 2009), crosschannel integration of communications (Wang, 2009). Single brand narrative is simultaneously, non-linearly communicated across various media platforms in order to maximize customer encounters and involvement (Dahlen et al, 2009). Used mediums complement their messages, rather than substitute (Feldmann, 2005). Therefore, cross-media communication differs from use of various channels to share one message. A comparison of one image across print and online communications with augmenting a magazine advertisement with online content, where the viewer explores the image as a video, exemplifies the difference. While the strategy is widely used and discussed by practitioners, no academic studies draw empirical parallels between use of ITC and decrease of unsolicited unplanned brand encounters. However, the concept is supported by several theoretical approaches. ITC augments traditionally non-interactive media, such as advertising, often allowing non-linear co-creation of the received content (Dahlen et al, 2009) and setting specific touchpoints augmenting the brand experience (Wouters and Wetzels, 2006). A possibility of intertwining physical and virtual environments (Riva and Davide, 2001) through crossbreed communications (Fig.2.5) – merging personal and non-personal communications (e.g. physical object with a link to online content) (Dahlen et al, 2009) – is one such example. Increasing numbers of interactive brand touchpoints (Feldmann, 2005) leads to achieving brand-identity-driven communication objectives
$$"#! !
through a combination of pull and push communications with online and offline platforms, delivering high impact (Smith and Zook, 2011a). Fig.2.5) Personal and Non-Personal Marketing Communication Mix (Dahlen et al, 2009: 279)
Personal interactivity of ITC leads to further interaction with marketing communications and higher engagement in the process resulting in an increase of positive, from brand perspective, customer communications (Simmons et al, 2008), attitudes and understanding (Wang, 2009). The impact of cross-channel communications is particularly positive on those with existing high brand involvement (Wang, 2009), such as communications co-creators. Chu and Kamal (2011) point that increased media usage has a direct correlation with consumer belief in brand communications. This is further induced by the state of flow, which, according to Csikszentmihalyi (1997) who introduced the concept, occurs due to set of goals requiring appropriate responses and leading to immersion in a state where actions follow actions. Flow is induced, among others, through interactivity and control of the activity by the user (Csikszentmihalyi,
$$#! !
1997). This study, however, attempts to determine if ITC can also offer interactive communication tools directly fulfilling customers’ communication motivations. Davis and Sajtos (2008) differentiate between interactivity, customer taking further actions, and reactivity, customer-to-brand response (e.g. a comment on a social network). Interactivity takes on various forms: creating personalized yet branded moodboards from brand’s Instagram galleries or elaborate social gaming campaigns such as brand-endorsed crossbreed scavenger hunts. Interactivity leads to usercontextualized content delivery (Feldmann, 2005), creating personal but brand provided experiences (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In this view, communication ought to be customized and customizable (Rowley, 2004) to potentially eliminate purely user-generated content (Dahlen et al, 2009) but only when satisfying customer communication motivations, information and entertainment needs (Wang, 2005). Interactivity, fulfilling motivations and providing entertainment, derives its’ importance to marketing communications from, as deemed by Moore (2011), gamefication of culture. Concept of games is constantly introduced in the context of Web 2.0 activities (Moore, 2011). Brands reward customers for checking in store presence online, while individuals compete for the largest number of Tweeter followers or Facebook post likes. The nature of social media, with imaginative appeal of the digital world and performance for online identity creation, is playful by nature. Huizinga’s (1970) theory on play and games portrays players entering a magic circle separated from the demands of reality and excluded from social norms. However, according to Moore (2011), mobility of communication devices demolishes the boundaries of the magic circle and offer anytime, anyplace immersion. This perfectly aligns with luxury brands desire to maintain their position as vehicles transporting customers to the world of dreams, as well as Firat and Dholakia’s (2006: 29) conceptualization of successful post-modern marketing as facilitator ‘of means of playful co-construction of theatre’. This
allows
for
immediate
customer
performative
engagement,
introducing
participation-based gratification. Simultaneously. Eichentopf et al (2011) propose brand scripted interactivity should mirror customers’ existing activities to entice engagement with brand-desired processes. There is a rapid need for communication activities through media that individual customers are interested in (Sinisalo et al, 2007), which is soundly represented by the number of personal experience communications. The shift from customer management to engagement must account for both objectives of the brand
$$#"! !
and customer personal agendas (Baird and Parasnis, 2011). From the perspective of luxury brands it involves building strategies encompassing communication of their identity and luxury positioning, and directly tying in with key motivations behind usergenerated brand content. 2.3.4) The Role of Mobile Tactics in Communications’ Personal Interactivity Mobile devices are considered most valuable in enabling cross-media strategies (Hartmann et al, 2008). However despite marketing practitioner publications’ concentration on mobile strategies, Okazaki and Barwise’s (2011) deem academic research on the subject to remain limited. Mobile communications, where content is delivered via a wireless device such as smartphone (Hartmann et al, 2008) offer a spectrum of brand communications at customer-relevant timing and location (Rudolph and Emerich, 2009). Mobile marketing is an innovative form of direct marketing, where personalised
information,
delivered
to
mobile
phones,
builds
a
one-to-one
communication (Roach, 2009). It is conducted in two ways: purely mobile mode via mobile Internet portals and mobile enhancement of traditional media (Kautonen and Karjauloto, 2008). The latter method, involving QR codes, introduces cross-media communication programs (Jayawrdhena et al, 2009). It is considered a more prominent in current environment due to personalization of content, interactivity, time and location relevance (Kautonen and Karjauloto, 2008), therefore being a potential tool for fulfilling customer-communicators motivations. QR codes (Fig.2.6), Quick Response codes, are two-dimensional barcodes enabled, through embedded URL (uniform resource locator) (Tan et al, 2010), to reproduce any online content by scanning with enabled mobile phone with wireless Internet (Okazaki and Barwise, 2011). They are often utilized to augment printed advertising, billboards, physical locations and products (Cartman and Ting, 2008). QR codes are a tool for improving communications’ efficiency and personalization, as well as its’ level of spontaneity
and
entertainment
(Mort
and
Drenann,
2007).
However,
the
personalization and interactivity of mobile media communications presents a challenge of generating customer engagement through serving the customer-receiver’s purpose (Sinisalo et al, 2007), not just through adding to value proposition but, in the focus of this study, directly fulfilling motivations behind user-generated content.
$$#""! !
Fig.2.6) QR Code (Tan et al, 2010: 50)
QR codes lead to immediate, real-time interaction between physical and online environment (Ferris, 2007). Objects become sources of rich information delivery (Cartman and Ting, 2008) allowing personal choice of information (Rudolph and Emerich, 2009) through flexibility in brand-information gathering and changing stationary retail locations/products into interactive communication media. Such application of QR codes is visible in Valentino’s Red project. QR codes given out with purchases uncover exclusive elements of Fairytale of Valentino, ranging from Military to Romantic depending on the product. Also Norma Kamali, a pioneer of digital communications, created a campaign involving 30 QR code augmented mannequins scattered around Manhattan. Codes delivered a variety of location-related information about the designer, inspirations and brand vision. This aspect is defined as off-device, opt-in communication content enabler, ‘an interactive (…) call-to-action’ (Laszlo, 2009: 5). Communication process is less invasive, as customers self-select an interactive option from traditional media platform or element of physical environment proceeding to explore an online channel (Hartman et al, 2008).
Its’ importance lays in the opt-in feature due to customer sensitivity
regarding user privacy in other mobile marketing methods, which have lower acceptance due to push delivery methods (Kautonen and Karjauloto, 2008). The authors (ibid.) propose success criteria of opt-in mobile marketing: levels of personal information required and its’ security, delivery of economic or social value and conceptual attractiveness of the experience. The latter two are especially important from the perspective of customer engagement substituting promotion. Experience must offer value to the customer, such as fulfilling motivations behind creation of personal
$$#"""! !
social networks content. Simultaneously, Clarke and Flaherty (2005) propose QR code tactics strong alignment with brand identity management objectives, and therefore use of QR codes for fulfilling customer motivations ought to be juxtaposed with the principles of luxury identity and value creation.
!
$$"$! !
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY! 3) Methodology Following the literature review, this chapter finalizes the perspectives on researched topic, outlines the reasoning behind research methods’ choice and their framework. 3.1) Role of the Literature Review in Determining Research Methodology
Research is based on critical awareness of observed phenomena (Walliman, 2011). Due to a limited scope of direct research into impacting customer- generated brand identity communications through mobile tactics, the literature review provided final operational definitions and research delimitations through uncovering current debates around related concepts.
The integration of marketing communications was assumed as co-ordination of brand and customer-generated brand message. Therefore, enhancing the projection of brand identity was discussed as enhancing its’ synergy across customer-generated content. Accordingly, the adoption of dual communicated brand identity definition allowed uncovering points and scale of its’ potential distortion. While internal co-ordination of brand message is also crucial to maintaining brand image, such focus was not directly relevant to the study’s objectives.
Analysis of customer-generated brand identity led to focusing on most problematic active creation within unplanned unsolicited brand encounters. Sharing of brandgenerated communications was excluded as lacking direct relevance to distorting the synergy of IMC. These users were assumed likely to participate in brands’ new communications based on theoretical predictions. While it would be beneficial to test the hypothesis through a questionnaire, contact proved problematic due to social networks’ privacy issues. The actual negative influence of unsolicited content on brand image could have been tested, however lacking direct relevance to study’s objectives it was assumed based on the theoretical predictions. However, ascertaining the proportion of unsolicited content within all brand-related user-generated content was crucial for evaluation of the realistic scale of the phenomenon. Simultaneously, numbers of customers sharing intact brand communications is, under the Metcalf’s law,
$$$! !
beneficial to success of new tactics through offsetting weakness of one communication source through another’s strength.
Furthermore, brand experience communication constructing co-created brand identity (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) introduced a need for outlining experiences generating the vast majority of unsolicited content. Brand experience is a sum of sensations, feelings and behaviors in response to brand-provided stimuli (Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello, 2009). While the study was not concerned with stimuli management, enabling desired customer communication through QR codes is directly linked to their application to experience propelling stimuli. Simultaneously, QR codes must lead to appropriate media to enable desired cross-platform communications. In this case, understanding user choice of platforms and media (e.g. video) for content creation was necessary. Finally, as the literature review has not uncovered empirical proof for direct correlation between customer interactive participation in marketing communications and decrease of unsolicited content, an examination if such relationship exists was required.
Rooted in literature-based final research perspectives, use of empirical examples was necessary to test the applicability of QR codes to enhancing brand identity projection and juxtapose the findings with the requirements of managing luxury brand identity. Due to lack of relevant academic sources on the subject, further discussion required referring to industry publications for comparison of the findings with expert views.
$$$"! !
3.2) Empirical Research Methodology
Research is a procedure of systematically finding the resolution to a problem (Leedy, 1980). A limited subject-related academic research highlighted the key research objectives to be further formulation of the problem of unsolicited unplanned brand encounters in relation to luxury brand identity’s synergy and evaluation of QR codes as a practical solution. This is typical to exploratory research, focused on formulating problems, clarifying concepts, and eliminating impractical ideas to build further research priorities and gain insights regarding practical approaches to speculative hypothesis (Iacobucci and Gilbert, 2009). Exploratory research is an initial step for a new problem, only followed by descriptive and casual research (Iacobucci and Gilbert, 2009; Kotler et al, 2008). It is characterized by flexibility of methods for achieving research objectives (ibid.).
Yin (1994) divides research strategies based on types of questions posed, degree of researcher’s control over empirical subject, and historical/ contemporary perspective. Requirement for empirical examples from ever-evolving environment revealed a case study as the appropriate strategy. Case study is an empirical enquiry into a contemporary subject in real life context (Woodside, 2010) to test theoretical predictions (Gerring, 2007). There are two dimensions of case study design: single v. multiple and embedded v. holistic (Yin, 1994; Saunders et al, 2009).
The first refers to a number of examined subjects (e.g. brands). Research theory prefers multiple case studies as reliable for generalization; therefore single ones require strong justification (Saunders et al, 2009). However, the flexibility of exploratory research allows for such choice (Parasuraman et al, 2006). Louis Vuitton (LV) brand, chosen for the study, is the strongest luxury brand regarding brand equity worldwide (Intebrand, 2011). The sound luxury positioning allows assuming its’ reliability as a subject for comparison with luxury management requirements. The brand also operates personally interactive cross-platform communication strategies. The second dimension distinguishes between studying whole company and a logical choice of specific operations (Saunders et al, 2009). The study, focused on marketing communications, was logically an embedded one.
$$$""! !
As research must be objective, its’ reliability refers to the extent of delivering identical answers regardless of how and when it is conducted (Kirk and Miller, 1986). Reliability is distinguished as quixotic, diachronic and synchronic (ibid.). Quixotic reliability regards a single method yielding identical measurements, while diachronic refers to results’ stability over time (ibid.). Neither is achievable due to, respectively, lack of control over the variables (i.e. behavior) and evolving nature of the communication environment. Synchronic only requires consistency regarding particular features of interest (Kirk and Miller, 1986). This study’s reliability refers to transferability to luxury brands sharing common prerequisites of identity management. The generalization potential is also based in simplifying findings through theoretical prism (Yin, 1994) based on existing theoretical frameworks.
The empirical example analysis required both primary and secondary data. Primary data is collected specifically for the study, while secondary data from previously published sources (Boone and Kurtz 2011). Secondary data can be utilized for the purpose of primary research, when its’ purpose was other than research focus (Walliman, 2011). Walliman (2011) describes three types of secondary data: written and non-written materials, and survey data. Both written and non-written materials, such as brand’s marketing communication output and user-generated content online were utilized for primary research, as no secondary data directly discusses required information. Primary research is a survey strategy, based on collecting and questioning data specific to the investigated problem (Walliman, 2011). Communication and observation are the means of obtaining primary data (Gilbert and Iacobucci, 2009) and are classified as: survey, interview, observation and experiment (Walliman, 2011). Communication measures things not directly observable (e.g. attitude), however observation provides objectivity regarding behavioral data (ibid.). All primary research was conducted through non-participant observation, as any communication, according to Kumar (2008), cannot overcome respondent’s motivation to influence the results to preserve self-esteem.
The methods of data analysis depend on research objectives: measurement, comparison, examining relationships, forecasting, testing hypothesis, construction of theories, exploration, control, explanation (Walliman, 2011). Most research combines qualitative and quantitative methods to achieve satisfying results (Thomas, 2003). This study utilized both based on type of information needed. Quantitative research is defined as mathematical analysis revealing statistically significant differences
$$$"""! !
(McDaniel and Gates, 2006) through two classes of statistic analysis: parametric and non-parametric (Walliman, 2011). Parametric are descriptive statistics, quantifying data characteristics, bond between variables in coefficient correlation, and inferential statistics testing hypothesis (ibid.). Non-parametric are analysis measures nominal, differentiating dichotomy, or ordinal, displaying set of steps (e.g. first, second, third largest groups of data) (Walliman, 2011). Qualitative research analyses unquantifiable data, such as motivations (McDaniel and Gates, 2006), discusses characteristics and interpretation of phenomena through collection and analysis of empirical materials (Thomas, 2003). Data requires organization into subgroups: descriptive, interpretive, explanatory and astringent (Miles and Huberman, 1994), and analyses regarding themes and patterns, pre-structured case analysis, sequential analysis, matrices and networks (Walliman, 2011).
$$$"#! !
3.3) Empirical Data Collection and Analysis
Firstly characteristics of brand-generated identity of LV were audited (Appendix 1) for further comparison with co-created identity. As secondary data usage requires authentication of resources’ reliability (Walliman, 2011), only the brand’s resources, such marketing communications’ content on company’s online platforms, were utilized.
Secondly, a sample of brand-related user-generated content from top listing search results from fifty user posts on each of six most popular content sharing networks was audited. It is a convenience sample of readily available examples, deemed as prone to sampling bias. However, it can be argued that relaying on results dependant on recent user activity makes it a random sample. This ensures every member’s of the population of content creators equal chance of being selected. The sample supports the study’s validity from the perspective of credibility of results, corresponding to reality. Validity is concerned with the result’s potential for generalization and replicability, focusing on correctness of naming research variables and input into achieving research objectives (Kirk and Miller, 1986). The sample was further analyzed in accordance to research objectives (Fig. 3.1).
Firstly, all user-generated content was divided between solicited and unsolicited brand encounters to measure the scale of the latter through nominal analysis (Appendix 2). Further, the unsolicited content was utilized as a sample for interpreting projected brand identity (Table.3.1) (Appendix 3), and brand experiences (Table.3.2) (Appendix 4). The established brand identity was compared with brand-generated one in order to establish key discrepancies and subsequent brand objectives. The sample was consequently narrowed down to only examples induced by brand experience with noninteractive elements of physical environment and marketing communications. Its’ proportion within unsolicited communications was indicative of the extent of communications potentially prone to countering through interactivity. These were surveyed for propelling motivations (Table.3.3) (Appendix 5) in order to establish the potential for fulfillment by QR code communication tactics. All of the above was surveyed through auditing for themes enclosed in their respective theoretical models and frameworks. As brand communications are designed to induce consumption fantasy, this aspect of brand experience was also analyzed for related communication tools. Additionally, the content was examined for type of platform and media used (Table.3.4) (Appendix 6). The qualitative analysis, leading to interpretation and
$$$#! !
description of audited elements of user-generated content, was followed by parametric quantitative analysis quantifying most recurring characteristics and non-parametric analysis displaying the largest groups of data in order to generalize the findings.
Fig.3.1) Primary Research Sample Analyses Procedure
$$$#"! !
Table 3.1) Brand Identity Elements in Unsolicited User-generated Content Analysis
1 2
Relationship
Reflection
Self-concept
Culture
Personality
Physique
Elements
Sample Sample
Brand Identity
Grid (Appendix 3)
Table 3.2) Brand Expereince Stimuli Behind Unsolicited User Generated Content
1 2
Consumption
Environment Indirect
Shopping
Service
$$$#""! !
Use
Fantasy
Communi cation Tool
Direct
Physical
Fantasy Inducing
Product e
Experienc
Sample Sample
Brand
(Appendix 4)
Table 3.3) Motivations Behind User-generated Content Induced by Brand Expereince
Sample
1
Sample
2
Change perception
Self-expression
Intrinsic Enjoynment
Information/ Knowledge Sharing
Opinion Leadership/ Expertise
Self-promotion
Social Ties
Motivation Type
Related to Elements of Physical Environment (Appendix 5)
Table 3.4) Online Platorm and Type of Media Used (Appendix 6)
Platform/ Media
You
Tumblr
Sample
1
Sample
2
$$$#"""! !
Photo
Photo
Photo
Text
Video
Photo
Video
Video
Text
Photo
Tube
The second part of the case study focuses on comparison of number of unsolicited communications regarding a QR code enabled interactive LV Circus window display and a non-interactive one in order to test the impact of personal interactivity on such communications. For this element it would have been favorable to employ descriptive research, namely the experimental method. However, the timescale and budget, as well as researcher’s technical capabilities did not allow such extent of the study.
3.4) Limitations of the Study
Flyvbjerg (2004) deems CSR approach as perceived to have a number of limitations within scientific research. Firstly, a single case study’s claim of certainty can be undermined regarding validity and the subject’s representativeness of the whole market. Issue with potential generalization of a specific case study leads to questioning its’ contribution to scientific development (Flyvbjerg, 2004). The timescale and budget of the study limits attempts of conducting it on a larger scale. Its’ reliability is also limited as data collection was carried at a specific and limited time period, while dynamic evolvement of contemporary communication environment can inevitably alter the variables within a short time span. Furthermore, CSR approach, based on researchers
insights
and
interpretations,
can
potentially
lead
to
confirming
preconceptions (Flyvbjerg, 2004). The same applies to grounding it in qualitative research (Yin, 1994), especially based on unobtrusive measures of observation (Yin, 2010). Simultaneously, lack of contact methods did not allow for comparison of interpretations with samples self-reported insights. In this instance, the researcher was not able to know the meanings the participants impute on the observed events (Yin, 2010). Therefore, while all attempts where made to present adequate data, a potential issue of objectivity and bias presents itself as a limitation leading to prospective dismissal of research outcomes and evaluation. However, as a study on unexplored field of marketing communications, its’ key value is derived from contribution to the development of suggestions for new academic and practitioner research directions into new marketing opportunities.
$$$"$! !
CHAPTER FOUR: EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE! 4) Empirical Example This chapter presents Louis Vuitton brand case study with relation to research objectives and analyses them in the view of literature review findings. The discussion is supplemented by industry experts’ views due to a limited amount of academic research into mobile marketing, as well as additional literature necessary to discuss issues introduced only in the light of the case study. 4.1) Louis Vuitton Case Study Findings’ Analysis and Discussion The number of unsolicited unplanned brand encounters within the sample of Louis Vuitton related content accounted for !54%, confirming the great extent of the phenomena (Fig.4.1). Primary research also verified majority of such communications relating to non-interactive, physical elements of brand stimuli: 55% to early product consumption, 8% direct product experience and further 6% to store environment (Fig.4.2). These results suggested, from a technical perspective, potential applicability of QR codes as enablers of brand-desired communications through intertwining physical and virtual environments. Turning physical objects into interactive rich information sources could introduce brand desired styles and themes into personally interactive and therefore personal online communications. Fig.4.1) Unsolicited Unplanned Brand Encounters Within Louis Vuitton Related UserGenerated Content
$%! !
Fig.4.2) Brand Experience Stimuli Behind Unsolicited Unplanned Brand Encounters Sample
While non-interactive brand stimuli and unsolicited content online are clearly linked, further findings lead to uncertainty regarding conceptual perspective on QR codes suitability to enhancing luxury brand identity projection among unsolicited content creators. Firstly, the correlation between personally interactive communications and decrease in unsolicited unplanned brand encounters remains, in the view of conducted research, a theoretical prediction. Analysis of whether proportion of such encounters alters when personally interactive marketing communications are introduced was unfeasible, as the few results on content sharing networks referring to LV augmented reality mobile campaign were created by marketing practitioners not customers. While a further study of a different campaign is required in the future, such outcome provided valuable insights. In 2011 Louis Vuitton launched a personally interactive cross-platform mobile campaign ‘Louis Vuitton Circus’. Various elements of window displays where augmented with QR code enabled content revealing additional parts of the story told by the elements of visual merchandising. The campaign focused on communicating brand identity’s creative and metaphorical aspects, such as associations with cultural avantgarde and celebration of individuality and imagination, key to adding texture and maintaining its’ uniqueness. While it was unachievable to estimate the reason behind lack of relevant content, a question of luxury customers’ mobile engagement
$%"! !
expectations has to be posed. Concurrently, as mobile campaigns must present value through serving customer’s purpose for engagement, further knowledge of whether brand-related content creators utilize mobiles for entertainment is necessary. A successful mobile campaign identifies how the customers use their mobile Internet: to pass or save the time (Social Media Week, 2012). However, the comparison of brand-generated (Fig.4.3) and co-created (Fig.4.4) brand identity of LV revealed lack of the latter’s connection to aspects of brand identity shaping its’ uniqueness and providing completeness. This suggests the campaign, despite necessary alignment with internal brand identity management, might have lacked key criteria of opt-in mobile marketing: conceptual attractiveness of the experience and mirroring customer existing activities. Fig.4.3) Louis Vuitton Brand-Generated Brand Identity
$%""! !
Fig.4.4) Louis Vuitton Co-Created Brand Identity
!
! The large number of discrepancies confirms the importance of luxury brands’ integrated marketing’s focus on the synergy of the unsolicited customer-to-customer communication mode with brand-desired identity projection. The co-created brand identity predominantly focuses on associations typical to any luxury brand, such as global recognition and logo’s visibility, non-essential excessiveness and prestige, in order to signify wealth and privilege.
While luxury brand identity must convey the
brand’s positioning, projection of own culture and lifestyle is necessary to differentiate and cultivate uniqueness. Otherwise, signaling personal and social identity is not feasible (Vickers and Renand, 2003). Unfortunately, LV’s desired associations are substituted with celebration of hyper-consumption and culture of self-made excessive wealth of the contemporary novueau riche: hip-hop and reality TV celebrities; severely altering the image of brand community, a vital part of luxury value proposition.
$%"""! !
As Lasch (1997) argued, the contemporary narcissistic culture inclines individuals to prove own extraordinariness through consumption choices reflecting glow of celebrity. The society’s segregation between the rich and famous and the common herd, causes individuals’ perpetually fear belonging to the latter (Lasch, 1997). Such view is supported by the high demand for luxury products, as discussed regarding cultural anxiety and inclusion. However the author’s (Lasch, 1997) stance on narcissist society’s incapability of identifying with someone unless seeing an extension of self, leads to an assumption that celebrities of ordinary background or often no particular skill are simply easier to relate to by the masses. Niedzviecki (2009) suggests the grassroot celebrity, different to inaccessible star, as more relevant to contemporary culture driven by egalitarian nature of Web 2.0. The Forbes magazine Exposure List topped by reality TV’s media magnet Kim Kardashian, as wielding both highest media exposure and marketing effectiveness in consumer perception, is a testament to such reality. Unsolicited content’s focus on entry-level goods, such as wallets or handbags, indicates that its’ creators classify as aspirational customers, the masses not the privileged few. Canon (2011), luxury strategist, suggests that digital strategies must account for the duality of customers active online: most active aspirational customers, only purchasing entry-level goods, and actual customers, who less active in social media in fact purchase core goods and are a source of aspiration to the former group. The perception of exclusivity leading to aspiration is particularly important to contemporary luxury brands. Contemporary culture, as described by Lasch (1997), feeds of a desire to belong to the privileged while cultivating anti-elitist ideologies. It is a ‘paradox of egalitarian distinction’ (Redmond and Holmes, 2007: 146). The aspirational customers simultaneously desire the elitist allure of luxury and, perhaps subconsciously, resent its’ associations with traditional elites through seizing the culture of ordinary people’s ‘celebrification’ (Turner, 2009:14). Forshay (2011), a luxury mobile marketing strategist, proposes mobile marketing value creation through offering confirmation of prestige and affluence through exclusive content access and benefits only to customers. LV’s Amble mobile application allows for creating a branded world through tagging inspirational destinations, rewarding those attuned to brand’s intended message by featuring on Amble Inspirations website. Despite of campaign’s notion of egalitarian distinction, apart from 64 brand-endorsed suggestions no traces of similar activity exist online. A further analysis of user motivations suggests possible answers to such situation.
$%"#! !
The concept of egalitarian distinction in the audited content puts a degree of doubt on such consumers’ need for luxury brand identity texture and uniqueness at all. Challenging the luxury brand communications as lifestyle and cultural benchmarks, it shifts the function to egalitarian celebrity. Rein et al (1997) discuss such celebrity’s value as embedded in being known and therefore distinction but separated from other qualities. Neither fashions nor the intricate lifestyle dream are relevant to these consumers, pre-occupied with luxury brands purely as means to distinction distancing from the common herd. The findings related to self-promotion in order to achieve belonging were explicit (Fig.4.5). Whilst only 2.5% expressed themselves as the creative avant-garde, a great 63% utilized the content to signal wealth, 47% an unspecified privileged social standing, and 56% own celebrity-like remarkableness and noteworthiness. The fourth considerably smaller group (16%) presented themselves as successful. This implies that while co-created brand identity leaves an impression of associations with culture of self-made success, majority desires to be seen as naturally not come-to privileged. These findings highly contrast with notion of the contrary being the reality, suggested by visual elements of the content such as shoddy furniture or ordinary living spaces. Fig.4.5) Self-Promotion and Belonging as Motivation Behind Creating UUBE
$%#! !
Furthermore, a staggering 95% created content in order to communicate their social ties (Fig.4.6). Approx. 80% of the group communicated product ownership, while further 13% being in-the-know store customer, suggesting signaling social ties with the brand’s actual customers as a predominant motivation behind content creation. Only 7% communicated liking of or inspiration by brand experience, suggesting ties with brand fan communities as their objective. Alongside previous findings, such outcome reverts the focus to how convergence alters power relationships. Hume (2000) discusses competitive comparison, induced by proximity, where humans typically benchmark their realistic desires on those socially nearest to them. Hierarchically, neither far above nor far beyond an individual. Yet convergence erases social distance, increasing the online visibility of traditionally remote social groups. The gamefication of social media intensifies the competitiveness of online self-presentation by measuring it against a far broader group.
Suddenly the privileged become an actual reference
group, against whom individuals measure their own success. Fig.4.6) Social Ties As Motivation Behind Creating UUBE
If social ties with the ‘few privileged’ are a key motivation, would allowing their brandendorsed communication by aspirational customers, in order to ensure maintaining brand identity elements alongside, permit upholding the perception of exclusivity already impacted by mass-market production? As Tungate (2009) points out popularity does not translate to real value. Burberry’s case, luxury brand becoming ‘the ultimate symbol of nouveau riche naff’ through associations with aspirational football fans and TV celebrities (Tungate, 2008: 29), springs to mind as a warning of visible links with aspirational customers. While the brand escaped unscathed from the negative associations, it was only through public disassociation from such customers (Tungate, 2008). As Schultz et al (2009) advocate, aspiration to purchase luxury arises from
$%#"! !
pressures of class or status distinction. In this respect, enabling false social ties communication would require tactics concealing the aspirational identity of customercommunicators. Investigating how to simultaneously enable personal distinction and brand-desired communication emerges as a worthy solution. However, the issue of celebrity culture returns to the equation. Co-created brand identity suggests that customer-communicators simultaneously use brands to construct social identities and embrace the empowerment to communicate perspectives independent of brands’ desired associations. However, are the perspectives in fact their own? The observed sample emphasizes uniformity across large numbers of content, suggesting standardized consumption practice mistaken for empowerment. Actual power still lays among the mass media – not brand communications but celebrity media industries. Facsimile pictures of young women with LV bags styled with an uncanny resemblance to casts of popular reality TV shows, numerous videos of shopping trips mimicking video diaries of Hollywood starlets all hint to such state of affairs. Primary research, where none of the unsolicited communications referred to the brand’s marketing communication tools, supports this view. Cultural theorists portray such power liaison, not uncovered by marketing literature review on customer empowerment. It stems from illusive power shift disguising stagnant cultural order (Adorno, 2001) and contemporary celebration of self-absorption rather than individualism (Lasch, 1997). Also Turner (2009) indicates demotic image of the new communication environment demarcation from democratization. He (ibid.) ascribes perceived democratization to enthusiasm towards new possibilities of the virtual space, equating user-generated with alternative without analyzing the extent of consumer industries’ impact. Therefore, managing unsolicited communications through providing communication tools for brand experiences is questionable, as the meaning production does not in fact lay within customers’ power. Customer-communicators discussing personal experiences seem only intermediaries to meanings established by the celebrity-orientated media. Turner (2009) discounts media as a source of information about culture, proposing itself being driven by commercial power of meaning generation. Yet, already Boornstin (1962) pointed to a future, which is now the present, where media would not just communicate but also actively create events for financial motifs. While a debate on power struggle between brands and media in producing brand meanings is not directly significant, it has immediate relevance to brands’ ability to impact the unsolicited user-generated content.
$%#""! !
Firstly, brand engagement levels, ascribed as highest to brand-related content creators, ought to be tested to establish if the engagement occurs with the actual brand or its’ perception created by celebrity media. Therefore, would the content creators participate in brand communications outside the celebrity media context? Yet, such illusion of empowerment can be of advantage to luxury brands, if only by denying consumer organic creativity creating non-standardized cultural spaces among the sample. However, would participation in brands’ communications counter the desire to co-create brand identity inspired by celebrity media meaning production? The analysis of motivations behind the research sample confirmed the social value; social ties and self-promotion to achieve belonging, to be the hook for potential engagement with QR code enabled mobile marketing campaigns. However, the large percentage of cyber self-presentations signaling noteworthiness links directly to a number of content creators motivated by self-promotion as individual, or rather what Turner (2009) deems self-celebrification. 52% were motivated by individual selfpromotion to their audience, and subsequently by showcasing expertise and credibility as style icons (29%), luxury lifestyle and fashion experts (27%), or even a window into the world of wealth and privilege (14%) (Fig.4.7). Fig.4.7) Self-Promotion and Credibility as Motivation Behind UUBE
$%#"""! !
The prevalent desire to gain personal recognition and validation of individual distinction from an online audience is discussed by Turner (2009) as caused by perception of celebrity as a real career option and even a lifestyle expectation for population in general. Reverting to the theory of culture’s gamefication, the aspect of performative engagement does not appear beneficial to brands as gratification is most likely based in recognition not participation. Gamefication further drives the competitive edge of such behaviors through social networks quantifying recognition through widespread metric software, counting followers or measuring influence. Such perspective defies brands’ ability to involve unsolicited content creators in personally interactive communications while concealing their aspirational identities. Especially considering majority of content being visual rather than written - 71% of photos and 20% videos. In this instance, further discussion of QR code tactics, such as suitable media and platforms, would have been carried out in vain. Providing materials and platforms for exercising customer empowerment would not fulfill majorities’ motivations while remaining aligned with brand internal objectives. A further knowledge of mobile marketing’s immediacy and spontaneity potential, as instantaneous transportation into the world of dreams, is needed. How communication motivations vary at the very moment of purchase or store visit, and how likely are these to induce a state of flow discouraging further communications? Yet, Rojek (2001) suggests that ubiquitous celebrity culture leads to self-presentation molded by its’ conventions in any social communication, as these are fashioned on manners known from surrounding culture. Bell (2010: 95) suggests, in dialogue with Rojek (2001), ‘appearance of cool is (…) more important than actually being cool’ - not a particular image but image perceived as desirable is important. In this instance, marketing of cool regarding online behaviours and use of mobile capabilities is necessary prior to constructing insights into communications programmes enabling the output of such behaviours. In the light of the research findings, an initial step for luxury brands to shape the output of customers’ empowerment is focus on a broader milieu of the forces shaping the customer communications.
$%"$! !
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 5) Conclusions This
chapter
aims
summarize
answers
to
research
objectives
and
outline
recommendations for further inquiry into the subject. 5.1) Final Perspectives and Further Research Recommendations Regarding QR Code Applicability to Enhancing Luxury Brand Identity Projection Luxury brands’ marketing variables are greatly influenced by the impact of convergence and the sheer existence of user-generated content. However, management of new integrated marketing communications ought to be discussed within different dynamics than merely between brands and content creators. Rather than channeling customer communication empowerment, countering celebrity media impact on key modus operandi of such communications, self-celebrification, has to be considered. Fulfilling the motivations through enabling brand-endorsed communication would be detrimental to luxury brands’ identity projection, namely maintaining social identity, prestige, exclusivity, and desired aesthetics propelling symbolic and emotional value delivery. Therefore, it is necessary to establish how brand engagement levels of unsolicited content creators alter upon eliminating the celebrity culture’s context. Would the brands’ own culture be appealing enough to entice participation in personally interactive communications? If so, since the unsolicited content refers to luxury brand identity but not brand-specific identity, introducing elements providing uniqueness and completeness into customerto-customer communications ought to be a priority. However, despite a connection between non-interactive brand stimuli and unsolicited communications suggesting technical applicability of QR codes, enabling brand-desired personal communications through mirroring customer activities highlights a number of conceptual issues. Considering QR code mobile campaign’s need to deliver social value, it is necessary to establish
if
communication
of
brand-authenticated
ties
with
privilege
would
subsequently decrease desire for self-celebrification and not exist as a parallel activity. Insights into how otherwise such involvement could induce a state of flow, leading to
%!!
higher belief and understanding of brand message, is also necessary. However, impact of direct involvement of aspirational customers into brand-managed communications on luxury brand perception among not just actual customers but aspirational customers themselves remains another unknown. After all, luxury’s allure still comes from its’ elitist associations, despite customer inclination to egalitarian culture. The final statement reminds that luxury brands’ official initiation of egalitarian multistep communications must simultaneously preserve their elitist image. Perhaps retaining communication tools access limited to actual customers could maintain an aspirational image but also create a blueprint for unsolicited communications outside brand provided environment. By endorsing select among grandparents of brand-related usergenerated content, the fashion bloggers, luxury brands managed to build their exposure and influence, creating a blueprint for those aspiring to such approval. Understanding how to visibly involve inactive actual customers in social media communications could enable brands to commence marketing of cool regarding alternatives to celebrity media induced online behaviors. After all, it is the image of actual customer that the majority aspires to. To summarize the luxury brands’ potential to impact unsolicited content and production of the most prized commodity, meanings, within the fragmented communication environment, Broonstin’s testimony seems most appropriate: ‘Never have people been more masters of their environment. Yet never has a people felt more deceived and disappointed.’ (Boornstin, 1962: 4) Yet to regain power through offering solace to the masses’ desires, luxury brands must cease acting like Alice in Wonderland, who had known who she was before breakfast but hardly knew at present. Redefining luxury identity communication as compromise between elitist heritage and egalitarian future within the Web 2.0 is inevitable. Many unknowns require uncovering to determine mobile marketing tactics’ usefulness to managing unsolicited communications of brand identity. Yet, only Instagram gained 30 million users since launching 2 years ago, suggesting rapid popularity of content sharing networks accessible only via mobile. Therefore, indicating exploring such tactics exhaustively as fundamental. Particularly since customer empowerment rests, rather than in meaning production, in voting for symbols’ leading meanings through time investment captured and announced by media technologies (Fraim, 2003). And even the sheer visibility of the current vote of aspirational customers has an evident
%"! !
impact on luxury brands’ meanings vote. A vote announced from the modern realm of conspicuous consumption China, where online audiences’ ridicule of false slefcelebrification through luxury brands led to impact on sales of Hermes (Booker, 2011), to the U.S where yet another viral vote loudly spoils the luxury dream: ‘Gucci, Gucci, Louis, Louis, Fendi, Fendi, Prada, Basic bi****s wear that sh*t, so I don’t even bother, (…), Bi**h you ain’t no Barbie, I see you work at Arby’s (…)’ (Kreayshawn, 2011).
%""! !
References: Aaker, D. (2010) ‘Building Strong Brands.’ London: Simon and Schuster. Adorno, T. (2001) ‘The Culture Industry.’ London Routledge Arvidsson, A. (2005) ‘Brands: A Critical Perspective.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.5, No.2: 235 – 258. Baird, C.H. and Parasnis, G. (2011) ‘From Social Media to Social CRM: Reinventing the Customer Relationship.’ In Journal of Strategy and Leadrship, Vol.39, No.6: 27 – 34. Baker, S. (2003) ‘New Consumer Marketing: Managing a Living Demand System.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Ballantine, P.W. (2005) ‘Effects of Interactivity and Product Information on Consumer Satisfaction in an Online Retail Setting.’ In International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol.33, No.6: 461 – 471. Balmer, J. and Greyser, S. (2002) ‘Managing The Multiple Identities of The Corporation.’ [Online] Available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/management/external/pdf/workingpapers/Booklet_0205.pdf (Accessed: 18th July 2011) Baudrillard, J. (1970) ‘La société de consommmation.’ Paris: Editions Denoël. Baudrillard, J. (1994) ‘Simularca and Simulations.’ Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. BeautifulYouTV, dir. (2009) ‘My Louis Vuitton Collection’ [Online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoP8sTpOP88 29 September, 9min 59 sec [Online Video] (Accessed: 23 September 2011) Beer, D. and R. Burrows (2007) ‘Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations’ In Sociological Research Online Vol.12, No.5, Available at: http://wwww.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html (Accessed: 29th Jan 2012) Bell, C.E. (2010) ‘American Idolatry: Celebrity, Commodity and Reality Television.’ Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Berthon, P. with Pitt, L.F.; Chakrabarti, R. and Berthon, J.P. (2011) ‘Brand Worlds.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 182 – 188. Blackshaw, P. (2006) ‘Reconcilable Differences.’ In Marketing Management, Vol.15, No.5: 38 – 40. Blackshaw, P. (2011) ‘User-generated Content in Context.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51, March Supplement: 108 – 111. Bonsu, S.K. and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Co-creating Second Life: Market – Consumer Co-operation in Contemporary Economy.’ In Journal of Macromarketing, Vol.28, No.4: 355 – 368.
%"""! !
Booker, A. (2011) ‘The Decline of Conspicous Consumption in China?’ [Online] Available at: http://luxurysociety.com/articles/2011/09/the-decline-of-conspicuousconsumption-in-china (Accessed: 14 May 2012) Boone, L. and Kurtz, D. (2005) ‘Contemporary Marketing.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage). Brakus, J., Schmitt, B. and Zarantonello, L. (2009) ‘Brand Expereince: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? ’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.73: 52 – 68. Bruce, M. with Moore, C. and Birtwistle, G. (2004) ‘International Retail Marketing: A Case Study Approach.’ Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Campbell, C. with Leyland, P. ; Parent, M. and Berthon, P. (2011) ‘Tracking Talk-Back in Consumer-Generated Advertising.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, No.1: 224 – 238. Campbell, C. with Campbell, C. with Leyland, P. ; Parent, M. and Berthon, P. (2011a) ‘Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40, No.1: 87 – 102. Cartman, J. and Ting, R. (2008) ‘Strategic Mobile Design: Creating Enaging Expereinces.’ Upper Saddle River, NJ: New Riders. Cavallini, R. (2009) ‘Omnipresent Communication.’ [E-book] Available at: http://www.onipresentelivro.com.br/english/download/omnipresent-1.0.pdf (Accessed: 18th July 2011) Chan, Y.Y. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2011) ‘Conceptualising Electronic Word of Mouth Activity: An Input – Process – Output Perspective.’ In Journal of Marketing Planning and Intelligence, Vol.29, No.5: 488 – 516. Chevalier, M. and Mazzalovo, G. (2008) ‘Luxury Brand Management: A World of Privilage.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Christoulides, G. (2009) ‘Branding in the Post-Internet Era.’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.9, No.1: 141 – 144. Christodoulides, G. and Jevons, C. (2011) ‘User-Generated Content: The Voice of Consumers Speaks Forcefully in Brand Identity.’ In Journal of Adertising Research: March Supplement: 101 – 108. Chu. S.C. and Kamal, S. (2011) ‘An Investigation of Social Media Usage, Brand Consciousness and Purchase Intention Towards Luxury Products among Millenials.’ In Okazaki,S. (ed.) (2011) ‘Avdances in Advertising Research. Vol.2’: 179 – 189. Weisbaden: Gabler. Clarke,I. And Flaherty, T. (2005) ‘Advances in Electronic Marketing.’ Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing Corcoran, C. with Kaiser, A., Hirano, K. and Kitamura, T. (2009) ‘Fashion’s New Frontier: Shopping Via Cellphone Anywhere and Anytime.’ In Women’s Wear Daily, 14 July: 8.
%"#! !
Cova, B. and Dalli, D. (2009) ‘Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory?’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.9, No.3: 315 – 339. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997), “Finding flow.” Psychology Today, Vol. 30 No. 4. Dahlen, M. with Lange, F. and Smith, T. (2009) ‘Marketing Communications: A Brand Narrative Approach.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Danaher, P.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (2011) ‘Comparing Perceptions of Marketing Communication Channels.’ In European Journal of Marketing, Vol.45, No.1/2: 6 – 42. Davis, R. and Sajtos, L. (2008) ‘Measuring Consumer Interactivity in Response to Campaigns Coupling Mobile and Television Media.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.48, No.3: 375 – 391. Duncan, T. (2002) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands.’ New York: McGraw-Hill. Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998) ‘A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, No.2: 1-13. Eichetopf, T. and Kleinaltenkamp, M. with Stiphout, J. (2011) ‘Modelling Customer Process Activities in Interactive Value Creation.’ In Journal of Service Management, Vo.22, No.5: 650 – 663. Feldman, V. (2005) ‘Leveraging Mobile Media: Cross-Media Strategy and Innovation Policy for Mobile Media Communications.’ Wiesbaden: Verlag. Firat, A.F. and Dholakia, N. (2006) ‘Theoretical and Philosophical Implications of Postmodern Debates: Some Challenges to Modern Marketing.’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.6, No.2: 123 – 162. Ferris, M. (2007) ‘Insights on Mobile Advertising, Promotion and Research.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.1: 28 – 37. Florin D. with Callen, B., Mullen, S. and Kropp, J. (2007) ‘Profiting from Megatrends.’ In Journal of Brand Management, Vol.12, Issue 4:220–225. Flyjvbjerg, B. (2004) ‘Five Mis-Understandings About Case Study Research.’ In Seale et al eds. (2004) ‘Qualitative Research Practice.’: 420 – 434. London: Sage. Fraim, J. (2003) ‘Battle of Symbols: Global Dynamics of Advertising, Entertainment and Media.’ Einsiedlen: Daimon Verlag Franzen, G. and Moriarty, S. (2008) ‘The Science and Art of Branding.’ Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Galloway, S. with Gilbert,C. , Mullen, M. , Weinberg, J. , Patton, C. , Braga, J. and Bunge, A. (2012) ‘Prestige 100: Mobile IQ.’ [Online] Available at: http://L2ThinkTank.com/Prestige100Mobile2012/download.php (Accessed: 15th January 2012) Gerring, J. (2007) ‘Case Study Research: Practices and Principles.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
%#! !
Grant, J. (1999) ’The New Marketing Manifesto.’ London: Texere. Gurau, C. (2008) ‘Integrated Online Marketing Communication: Implementation and Management.’ In Journal of Communication Management, Vol.12, No.2: 169 – 184. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) ‘Empire’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harrison, T.M. and Barthel, B. (2009) ‘Wieldieng New Media in Web 2.0: Exploring the History of Engagement with the Collaborative Construction Of Media Products.’ In New Media & Society, Vol.11, No.1 & 2: 155 – 178. Hartmann, M. with Rossler, P. and Hoflich, J.R. (2008) ‘After the Mobile Phone: Social Changes and the Development of Mobile Communication.’ Berlin: Frank and Timme. Hendler, J. and Golbeck, J. (2007), “Metcalfe’s law, Web 2.0, and the Semantic Web”, Journal of Web Semantics, Vol.6, No.1: 14-20. Hereskovitz, S. and Crystal, M. (2010) ‘The Essential Brand Persona: Storytelling and Branding.’ In Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 31, Issue 3: 21-28. Huizinga, H. (1970) ‘Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.’ London: Temple Smith. Hume, D. (2000) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Iacobucci, D. And Gilbert, C. (2009) ‘Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage) Iglesias, O. and Singh, J.J. and Casabayo, M. (2011) ‘Key Changes and Challenges for Brands in an Uncertain Environment.’ In Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.20, No.6: 436 – 439. Jenkins, H. (2004) ‘The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence.’ In International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 7, No.1: 33 – 43. Kapferer, J. N. (1997) ‘Strategic Brand Management.’ New York: Free Press Publishing. Kapferer, J.N. (2004) ‘The New Strategic Brand Management.’ London: Kogan Page Kapferer, J.N. and Bastien, V. (2009) ‘The Luxury Strategy: Break the Rules of Marketing to Build Luxury Brands.’ London: Kogan Page. Kautonen, T. And Karjauloto, H. (2008) ‘Trust and New Technologies: Marketing and Management on the Internet and Mobile Media.’ Chelentham: Edward Elgar Publishing Keller, K.L. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Equity.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, No.1: 1-22. Keller, K.L (2001) ‘Mastering the Marketing Communication Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Communication Programmes.’ In Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.17, No.7/8: 819-847. Kitchen, P. with Kim, I. and Schultz, D. (2008) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: Practice Leads Theory.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.48, No.4: 531-546.
%#"! !
Kitchen, P. and Pelsmacker, P. (2004) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: A Primer.’ Abington: Routledge. Kotler, P. with Armstrong, G. ; Wong, V. and Sunders, J. (2008) ‘Priciples of Marketing. 5th European Edition.’ Harlow: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P. with Keller, K.; Brady, M.; Goodman, M.; Hansen, T. (2009) ‘Marketing Management.’ Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Kozinets, R. with de Valck, C.; Wojnicki, A. and Wilner, S. (2010) ‘Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.74, No.2: 71 – 89 Kreayshawn (2011) ‘Gucci, Gucci.’ [Online] Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WJFjXtHcy4 16 May, 3min 11 sec [Online Video] (Accessed: 10 May 2012) Kumar, R. (2008) ‘Research Methodology.’ New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation. Lasch, C. (1997) ‘The Culture of Narcissism.’ London: Routeledge. Laszlo, J. (2009) ‘The New Unwired World: An IAB Status Report on Mobile Advertising’ In Journal of Advertising Research; Vol.49, No.1: 27 -43. Lee, D.H. and Park, C.W. (2007) ‘Conceptualization and Measurement of Multidimesionality of Integrated Marketing Communications.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.3: 222-236. Leedy, P. (1980) ‘Practical Research: Planning and Design.’ London: Prentice Hall. Levy, P. (1997) ‘Collective Intelligence.’ Cambridge: Perseus. Ligas, M. and Cotte, J. (1999) ‘The Process of Negotiating Brand Meaning: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.’ In Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.26, No.1: 609 – 614. Madhavaram,S. with Badrinarayanan,V. and McDonald,E. (2007) ‘Integrated Marketing Communication and Brand Identity As Critical Elements of Brand Equity Strategy.’ In Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34, No.4: 69 – 80. McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.’ In Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13 (June): 71 – 84. McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2006) ‘Marketing Research Essentials. 5th Ed.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd Ed.’ London Sage. Moore, C. (2011) ‘The Magic Circle of the Mobility of Play.’ In Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, Vol.17, No.4: 373 – 387.
%#""! !
Moore, D. and Homer, P. (2008) ‘Self-Brand Connections: The Role of Attitude Strength And Autobigraphical Memory Primes.’ In Journal of Business Research, Vol.61: 707 – 714. Mort, G.S. and Drenann, J. (2007) ‘Mobile Communications: A Study of Factors Influencing Consumer Use of M-Services.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.3: 302 – 312. Muniz, A. and Shau, H.J. (2007) ‘Vigilante Marketing and Consumer Created Communications.’ In Journal of Advertising, Vol.36, No.3: 35 – 50. Naik, P. and Raman, K. (2003) ‘Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications.’ In Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.40, No.3: 375 – 388. Niedzviecki, H. (2009) ‘The Peep Diaries: How We’re Learning to Love Watching Ourselves and Our Neighbours.’ San Francisco, CA: City Lights Publishers. Oetting, M. (2009) ‘Ripple Effect: How Empowered Involvement Drives Word-ofMouth.’ Wiesbaden: Springer. Okazaki, S. and Barwise, P. (2011) ‘Has the Time Finally Come for the Medium of the Future?’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 59 – 71. Okazaki, S. with Morikazu, H. and Hairong, L. (2011) ‘QR Code Mobile Promotion: An Intial Inquiry.’ In Okazaki, S. (ed.) (2011) ‘Avdances in Advertising Research. Vol.2’ Weisbaden: Gabler. Okonkwo, U. (2007) ‘Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques.’ Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Okonkwo, U. (2010) ‘Luxury Online: Styles, Systems, Strategies.’ Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Palmer, A. and Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009) ‘An Experential, Social Network-based Approach to Direct Marketing.’ In Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.3: 162 – 176. Parasuraman, A. with Grewal, D. and Krishnan, R. (2006) ‘Marketing Research.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage). Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) ‘The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers.’ Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Redmond, S. and Holmes, S. (2007) ‘Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader.’ London: Sage Publications. Rein, I. with Kotler, P. and Stoller, M. (1997) ‘High Visibility.’ New York, NY: McGrewHill. Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010) ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital Prosumer.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.10, No.1: 13 – 36.
%#"""! !
Riva, G. and Davide, F. (2001) ‘Communications Through Virtual Technologies: Identity, Community and Technology in the Communication Age.’ Fairfax, VA: IOS Press. Roach, G. (2009) ‘Customer Percpetions of Mobile Phone Marketing: A Direct Marketing Innovation.’ In Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.2: 124 138. Rojek, C. (2001) ‘Celebrity.’ London: Reaktion Books. Rowley, J. (2004) ‘Just Another Channel? Marketing Communications in E-Business.’ In Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol.22, No.1: 24 – 41. Rudolph, T. and Emerich, O. (2009) ‘Situation-related Tasks for Mobile Services in Retailing.’ In The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol.19, No.5: 483 – 503. Saunders, M. with Tornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2009) ‘Research Methods for Business Students. 5th Ed.’ London: Financial Times Press. Schultz, D.E. with Barnes, B., Schultz, H. and Azzaro, M. (2009) ‘Building Customer – Brand Relationships.’ Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Seongwoon, K. with Inseong, L. ; Kiho, L. ; Seungki, L. ; Joonah, P. ; Yeun, K. ; SangRyong, K. and Jinwoo, K. (2010) ‘Mobile Web 2.0 with Multi-Display Buttons.’ In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 53, No.1: 136 – 141. Shimp, T. (2008) ‘Advertising, Promotion and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing. Simon, M. (2011) ‘Brands in Context.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 189 – 194. Simmons, G. with Brychan, T. and Truong, Y. (2008) ‘Managing I-Branding to Create Brand Equity.’ In European Journal of Marketing, Vol.44, No.9: 1260 – 1285. Smith, P. and Zook, Z. (2011) ‘Marketing Communications: An Integrated Approach.’ London: Kogan Page. Smith, P.R. and Zook, Z. (2011a) ‘Marketing Communications: Integrating Offline and Online with Social Media.’ London: Kogan Page Sinisalo, J. and Salo, J. and Karjauloto, H. with Leppaniemi, M. (2007) ‘Mobile Customer Relationship Management: Underlying Issues and Challenges.’ In Business Process Management Journal, Vol.13, No.6: 771-787. Tan, K.T. with Kato, H. and Chai, D. (2010) ‘Barcodes for Mobile Devices.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toffler,A.(1980) ‘TheThirdWave.’ New York: William Morrow. Tolliver-Nigor, H. (2011) ‘QR Codes for Marketing: Webinar Highlights.’ In Seybold Report: Analyzing Publishing Technologies, Vol.11, No.8: 7-8.
%"$! !
Thomas, R.M. (2003) ‘Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Thesis and Dissertations.’ London: Sage Publications. Trendwatching (2012) ’12 Trends for 2012: Point and Know.’ [Online] Available at: http://trendwatching.com/trends/12trends2012/?pointknow (Accessed: 20th January 2012) Truong, Y. and Simmons, G. (2010) ‘Perceived Intrusiveness in Digital Advetising: Strategic Marketing Implications.’ In Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18, No.3: 239 – 256. Tungate, M. (2008) ‘Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara.’ London: Kogan Page. Tungate, M. (2009) ‘Luxury World: The Past, the Present and Future of Luxury Brands.’ London: Kogan Page. Turner, G. (2009) ‘Ordinary People and The Media: The Demotic Turn.’ London: Sage. Tynan, C. , McKechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2009) ‘Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands.’ In Journal of Business Research, Vol.63 (2010): 1156 – 1163. Uppshaw, L.B. (1995) ‘Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Marketplace.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Van Dijck, J. (2009) ‘Users Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content.’ In Media, Culture, Society Vol.31, No.1: 41-58. Varey, R. (2002) ‘Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice.’ Abingdon: Routledge. Vickers, J. and Renand, F. (2003) ‘The Marketing of Luxury Goods: An Exploratory Study – Three Conceptual Dimenssions.’ In Marketing Review, Vol.3, No.4: 459 – 478. Walliman, N. (2011) ‘Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work.’ London: Sage Publications Wang, A. (2005) ‘‘The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 402-12. Wang, A. (2009) ‘Cross-channel Integration of Advertising: Does Personal Involvement Matter?’ In Management Research News, Vol. 32, No.9: 858 – 873. Wilson, H.J. with Guinan, P.J., Praise, S. and Weinber, B.D. (2010) ‘What’s Your Social Media Strategy.’ In Harvard Business Review, Vol.89, No.7/8: 23-25. Woodside, A. (2010) ‘Case Study Research: Theory, Methods and Practice.’ Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Wouters, J. and Wetzels, M. (2006), ‘‘Recall effect of short message service as a complementary marketing communications instrument’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 209-16. Wright, L.T., Newman, A. and Dennis, C. (2006) ‘Enhancing Consumer Empowerment’
%$! !
In European Journal of Marketing Vol.40, No.9/10: 925–35. Yin, K. (1994) ‘Case Study Research: Design and Methods’ Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications,. Yin, R.K. (2010) ‘Qualitative Research From Start to Finish’ New York: The Guilford Press. Zwick, D. with Bonsu, S. and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Putting Consumers to Work: Cocreation And New Marketing Govern-Mentality.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.8, No.2: 163 – 196.
%$"! !
Bibliography: Aaker, J. (1997) ‘Dimenssions of Brand Personality.’ In Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.34, No.3: 347 – 356. Aaker, D. (2010) ‘Building Strong Brands.’ London: Simon and Schuster. Aaker, D. and Biel, A. (1993) ‘Brand Equity & Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands.’ London: Psychology Press. Adorno, T. (2001) ‘The Culture Industry.’ London Routledge Aasael, H. (2011) ‘From Silo to Synergy.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 42 – 58. Arvidsson, A. (2005) ‘Brands: A Critical Perspective.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.5, No.2: 235 – 258. Baird, C.H. and Parasnis, G. (2011) ‘From Social Media to Social CRM: Reinventing the Customer Relationship.’ In Journal of Strategy and Leadrship, Vol.39, No.6: 27 – 34. Baker, S. (2003) ‘New Consumer Marketing: Managing a Living Demand System.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Ballantine, P.W. (2005) ‘Effects of Interactivity and Product Information on Consumer Satisfaction in an Online Retail Setting.’ In International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol.33, No.6: 461 – 471. Balmer, J. and Greyser, S. (2002) ‘Managing The Multiple Identities of The Corporation.’ [Online] Available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/management/external/pdf/workingpapers/Booklet_0205.pdf (Accessed: 18th July 2011) Baudrillard, J. (1970) ‘La société de consommmation.’ Paris: Editions Denoël. Baudrillard, J. (1994) ‘Simularca and Simulations.’ Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Beer, D. and R. Burrows (2007) ‘Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations’ In Sociological Research Online Vol.12, No.5, Available at: http://wwww.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html (Accessed: 29th Jan 2012) Bell, C.E. (2010) ‘American Idolatry: Celebrity, Commodity and Reality Television.’ Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Berthon, P. with Pitt, L.F.; Chakrabarti, R. and Berthon, J.P. (2011) ‘Brand Worlds.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 182 – 188. Bhatnager, N. and Fang, W. (2011) ‘Is Self-Character Similarity Always Beneficial.’ In Journal of Advertising, Vol.40, No.2: 39 – 50. Blackshaw, P. (2006) ‘Reconcilable Differences.’ In Marketing Management, Vol.15, No.5: 38 – 40.
%$""! !
Blackshaw, P. (2011) ‘User-generated Content in Context.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 51, March Supplement: 108 – 111. Bonsu, S.K. and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Co-creating Second Life: Market – Consumer Co-operation in Contemporary Economy.’ In Journal of Macromarketing, Vol.28, No.4: 355 – 368. Boone, L. and Kurtz, D. (2005) ‘Contemporary Marketing.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage). Brakus, J. , Schmitt, B. and Zarantonello, L. (2009) ‘Brand Expereince: What Is It? How Is It Measured? Does It Affect Loyalty? ’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.73: 52 – 68. Bruce, M. with Moore, C. and Birtwistle, G. (2004) ‘International Retail Marketing: A Case Study Approach.’ Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Burmann, C. and Arhold, U. (2010) ‘User Generated Branding.’ Wiesbaden: Springer Pblishing. Campbell, C. with Leyland, P. ; Parent, M. and Berthon, P. (2011) ‘Tracking Talk-Back in Consumer-Generated Advertising.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, No.1: 224 – 238. Campbell, C. with Campbell, C. with Leyland, P. ; Parent, M. and Berthon, P. (2011a) ‘Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 40, No.1: 87 – 102. Cartman, J. and Ting, R. (2008) ‘Strategic Mobile Design: Creating Enaging Expereinces.’ Upper Saddle River, NJ: New Riders. Cavallini, R. (2009) ‘Omnipresent Communication.’ [E-book] Available at: http://www.onipresentelivro.com.br/english/download/omnipresent-1.0.pdf (Accessed: 18th July 2011) Chan, Y.Y. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2011) ‘Conceptualising Electronic Word of Mouth Activity: An Input – Process – Output Perspective.’ In Journal of Marketing Planning and Intelligence, Vol.29, No.5: 488 – 516. Chevalier, M. and Mazzalovo, G. (2008) ‘Luxury Brand Management: A World of Privilage.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Christoulides, G. (2009) ‘Branding in the Post-Internet Era.’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.9, No.1: 141 – 144. Christodoulides, G. and Jevons, C. (2011) ‘User-Generated Content: The Voice of Consumers Speaks Forcefully in Brand Identity.’ In Journal of Adertising Research: March Supplement: 101 – 108. Chu. S.C. and Kamal, S. (2011) ‘An Investigation of Social Media Usage, Brand Consciousness and Purchase Intention Towards Luxury Products among Millenials.’ In Okazaki, S. (ed.) (2011) ‘Avdances in Advertising Research. Vol.2’: 179 – 189. Weisbaden: Gabler.
%$"""! !
Clarke,I. And Flaherty, T. (2005) ‘Advances in Electronic Marketing.’ Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing Cova, B. and Dalli, D. (2009) ‘Working Consumers: The Next Step in Marketing Theory?’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.9, No.3: 315 – 339. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997), “Finding flow”, Psychology Today, Vol. 30 No. 4. Dahlen, M. with Lange, F. and Smith, T. (2009) ‘Marketing Communications: A Brand Narrative Approach.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Danaher, P.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (2011) ‘Comparing Perceptions of Marketing Communication Channels.’ In European Journal of Marketing, Vol.45, No.1/2: 6 – 42. Danziger, P. (2005) ‘Let Them Eat Cake: Marketing Luxury to the Masses, As Well As the Classes.’ New York: Kaplan. Davis, R. and Sajtos, L. (2008) ‘Measuring Consumer Interactivity in Response to Campaigns Coupling Mobile and Television Media.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.48, No.3: 375 – 391. Duncan, T. (2002) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: Using Advertising and Promotion to Build Brands.’ New York: McGraw-Hill. Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998) ‘A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, No.2: 1-13. Eichetopf, T. and Kleinaltenkamp, M. with Stiphout, J. (2011) ‘Modelling Customer Process Activities in Interactive Value Creation.’ In Journal of Service Management, Vo.22, No.5: 650 – 663. Feldman, V. (2005) ‘Leveraging Mobile Media: Cross-Media Strategy and Innovation Policy for Mobile Media Communications.’ Wiesbaden: Verlag. Firat, A.F. and Dholakia, N. (2006) ‘Theoretical and Philosophical Implications of Postmodern Debates: Some Challenges to Modern Marketing.’ In Marketing Theory, Vol.6, No.2: 123 – 162. Firtman, M. (2010) ‘Programming the Mobile Web.’ Farnham: O’Reilly Media. Ferris, M. (2007) ‘Insights on Mobile Advertising, Promotion and Research.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.1: 28 – 37. Florin D. with Callen, B., Mullen, S. and Kropp, J. (2007) ‘Profiting from Megatrends.’ In Journal of Brand Management, Vol.12, Issue 4:220–225. Flyjvbjerg, B. (2004) ‘Five Mis-Understandings About Case Study Research.’ In Seale et al eds. (2004) ‘Qualitative Research Practice.’: 420 – 434. London: Sage. Fog, K. with Budtz, C. ; Much, P. and Blanchette, S. (2010) ‘Storytelling: Branding in Practice.’ New York: Springer. Fraim, J. (2003) ‘Battle of Symbols: Global Dynamics of Advertising, Entertainment and Media.’ Einsiedlen: Daimon Verlag
%$"#! !
Franzen, G. and Moriarty, S. (2008) ‘The Science and Art of Branding.’ Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Gerring, J. (2007) ‘Case Study Research: Practices and Principles.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grant, J. (1999) ’The New Marketing Manifesto.’ London: Texere. Gurau, C. (2008) ‘Integrated Online Marketing Communication: Implementation and Management.’ In Journal of Communication Management, Vol.12, No.2: 169 – 184. Handler-Miller, C. (2004) ‘Digital Storytelling: Entertainment.’ Waltham, MA: Focal Press.
Creator’s
Guide
to
Interactive
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) ‘Empire’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hardy, J. (2010) ‘Cross-Media Promotion.’ Witney: Peter Lang Ltd. Harrison, T.M. and Barthel, B. (2009) ‘Wieldieng New Media in Web 2.0: Exploring the History of Engagement with the Collaborative Construction Of Media Products.’ In New Media & Society, Vol.11, No.1 & 2: 155 – 178. Hartmann, M. with Rossler, P. and Hoflich, J.R. (2008) ‘After the Mobile Phone: Social Changes and the Development of Mobile Communication.’ Berlin: Frank and Timme. Hendler, J. and Golbeck, J. (2007), “Metcalfe’s law, Web 2.0, and the Semantic Web”, Journal of Web Semantics, Vol.6, No.1: 14-20. Hereskovitz, S. and Crystal, M. (2010) ‘The Essential Brand Persona: Storytelling and Branding.’ In Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 31, Issue 3: 21-28. Hoch, Stephen J. (2002), “Product Experience Is Seductive.” In Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 29 (December): 448–54. Huizinga, H. (1970) ‘Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.’ London: Temple Smith. Hume, D. (2000) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature.’ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Iacobucci, D. And Gilbert, C. (2009) ‘Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage) Iglesias, O. and Singh, J.J. and Casabayo, M. (2011) ‘Key Changes and Challenges for Brands in an Uncertain Environment.’ In Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.20, No.6: 436 – 439. Jayawardhena, C. with Kuckertz, A., Karjauloto, H. and Kautonen, T. (2009) ‘Antecedents to Permission Based Mobile Marketing: An Intial Examination.’ In European Journal of Marketing, Vol.43, No.3/4: 473 – 499. Jenkins, H. (2004) ‘The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence.’ In International Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 7, No.1: 33 – 43. Jenkins, H. (2006) ‘Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.’ New York, NY: New York University Press.
%$#! !
Jones, B. with Temperley, J. and Lima, A. (2009) ‘Corporate Reputation in the Era of Web 2.0: The Case of Primark.’ In Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.25, No.9: 927 – 939. Kapferer, J. N. (1997) ‘Strategic Brand Management.’ New York: Free Press Publishing. Kapferer, J.N. (2004) ‘The New Strategic Brand Management.’ London: Kogan Page Kapferer, J.N. and Bastien, V. (2009) ‘The Luxury Strategy: Break the Rules of Marketing to Build Luxury Brands.’ London: Kogan Page. Kautonen, T. And Karjauloto, H. (2008) ‘Trust and New Technologies: Marketing and Management on the Internet and Mobile Media.’ Chelentham: Edward Elgar Publishing Keller, K.L. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Equity.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, No.1: 1-22. Keller, K.L (2001) ‘Mastering the Marketing Communication Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Communication Programmes.’ In Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.17, No.7/8: 819-847. Keller, K.L. (2007) ‘Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 3rd Edition.’ Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kitchen, P. with Kim, I. and Schultz, D. (2008) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: Practice Leads Theory.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.48, No.4: 531-546. Kitchen, P. and Pelsmacker, P. (2004) ‘Integrated Marketing Communications: A Primer.’ Abington: Routledge. Kotler, P. with Armstrong, G. ; Wong, V. and Sunders, J. (2008) ‘Priciples of Marketing. 5th European Edition.’ Harlow: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P. with Kartajaya, H. and Setiawan, I. (2010) ‘Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Kotler, P. with Keller, K.; Brady, M.; Goodman, M.; Hansen, T. (2009) ‘Marketing Management.’ Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Kozinets, R. with de Valck, C. ; Wojnicki, A. and Wilner, S. (2010) ‘Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities.’ In Journal of Marketing, Vol.74, No.2: 71 – 89 Kumar, R. (2008) ‘Research Methodology.’ New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation. . Lancaster, G. and Reynolds, P. (2005) ‘Management of Marketing.’ Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Lasch, C. (1997) ‘The Culture of Narcissism.’ London: Routeledge. Laszlo, J. (2009) ‘The New Unwired World: An IAB Status Report on Mobile Advertising’ In Journal of Advertising Research; Vol.49, No.1: 27 -43.
%$#"! !
Lee, D.H. and Park, C.W. (2007) ‘Conceptualization and Measurement of Multidimesionality of Integrated Marketing Communications.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.3: 222-236. Leedy, P. (1980) ‘Practical Research: Planning and Design.’ London: Prentice Hall. Levy, P. (1997) ‘Collective Intelligence.’ Cambridge: Perseus. Lieb, D. and Huber, J. (2006) ‘The Impact of Prior Thinking on the Enjoyment of Expereinces.’ In Wang, J. (2006) ‘Lost in the Story: Factors That Affect Narrative Transportation and Advertising. Special Session Summary.’ In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.33, No.1: 406 – 408. Ligas, M. and Cotte, J. (1999) ‘The Process of Negotiating Brand Meaning: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.’ In Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.26, No.1: 609 – 614. Madhavaram,S. with Badrinarayanan,V. and McDonald,E. (2007) ‘Integrated Marketing Communication and Brand Identity As Critical Elements of Brand Equity Strategy.’ In Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34, No.4: 69 – 80. Madden, L. (2011) ‘Professional Augmented Reality Browsers for Smartphones.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods.’ In Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13 (June): 71 – 84. McCracken, G. (1990) ‘Culture and Consumption.’ Bloomington: Indiana University Press. McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2006) ‘Marketing Research Essentials. 5th Ed.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) ‘Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd Ed.’ London Sage. Moore, C. (2011) ‘The Magic Circle of the Mobility of Play.’ In Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, Vol.17, No.4: 373 – 387. Moore, D. and Homer, P. (2008) ‘Self-Brand Connections: The Role of Attitude Strength And Autobigraphical Memory Primes.’ In Journal of Business Research, Vol.61: 707 – 714. Mort, G.S. and Drenann, J. (2007) ‘Mobile Communications: A Study of Factors Influencing Consumer Use of M-Services.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.47, No.3: 302 – 312. Muniz, A. and Shau, H.J. (2007) ‘Vigilante Marketing and Consumer Created Communications.’ In Journal of Advertising, Vol.36, No.3: 35 – 50. Naik, P. and Raman, K. (2003) ‘Understanding the Impact of Synergy in Multimedia Communications.’ In Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.40, No.3: 375 – 388.
%$#""! !
Niedzviecki, H. (2009) ‘The Peep Diaries: How We’re Learning to Love Watching Ourselves and Our Neighbours.’ San Francisco, CA: City Lights Publishers. Oetting, M. (2009) ‘Ripple Effect: How Empowered Involvement Drives Word-ofMouth.’ Wiesbaden: Springer. Okazaki, S. and Barwise, P. (2011) ‘Has the Time Finally Come for the Medium of the Future?’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 59 – 71. Okazaki, S. with Morikazu, H. and Hairong, L. (2011) ‘QR Code Mobile Promotion: An Intial Inquiry.’ In Okazaki, S. (ed.) (2011) ‘Avdances in Advertising Research. Vol.2’ Weisbaden: Gabler. Okonkwo, U. (2007) ‘Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques.’ Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Okonkwo, U. (2010) ‘Luxury Online: Styles, Systems, Strategies.’ Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Ozuem, W.F. (2004) ‘Coceptualizing Marketing Communications in the New Marketing Paradigm: A Postmodern Perspective.’ Boca Raton, FL: Universal Publishers. Palmer, A. and Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009) ‘An Experential, Social Network-based Approach to Direct Marketing.’ In Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.3: 162 – 176. Parasuraman, A. with Grewal, D. and Krishnan, R. (2006) ‘Marketing Research.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing (Cengage). Poulsson, S. and Kale, S. (2004) ‘The Experience Economy and Commercial Expereinces’ In Marketing Review, Vol.4, No.3: 267 – 277. Prahalad, C. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) ‘The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers.’ Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Redmond, S. and Holmes, S. (2007) ‘Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader.’ London: Sage Publications. Rein, I. with Kotler, P. and Stoller, M. (1997) ‘High Visibility.’ New York, NY: McGrewHill. Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010) ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital Prosumer.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.10, No.1: 13 – 36. Riva, G. and Davide, F. (2001) ‘Communications Through Virtual Technologies: Identity, Community and Technology in the Communication Age.’ Fairfax, VA: IOS Press. Roach, G. (2009) ‘Customer Percpetions of Mobile Phone Marketing: A Direct Marketing Innovation.’ In Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol.3, No.2: 124 138.
%$#"""! !
Rojek, C. (2001) ‘Celebrity.’ London: Reaktion Books. Rowley, J. (2004) ‘Just Another Channel? Marketing Communications in E-Business.’ In Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol.22, No.1: 24 – 41. Rudolph, T. and Emerich, O. (2009) ‘Situation-related Tasks for Mobile Services in Retailing.’ In The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol.19, No.5: 483 – 503. Saunders, M. with Tornhill, A. and Lewis, P. (2009) ‘Research Methods for Business Students. 5th Ed.’ London: Financial Times Press. Sherry, J.F. (2005) ‘Brand Meaning.’ In Tybout, M. with Calkins, T. and Kellog School of Management (2005) ‘Kellog on Branding: The Marketing Faculty of the Kellog School of Management’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Schultz, D.E. (2008) ‘Actions, Not Promises.’ In Marketing Management, Vol.17, No.2: 10 – 11. Schultz, D.E. with Barnes, B., Schultz, H. and Azzaro, M. (2009) ‘Building Customer – Brand Relationships.’ Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Seongwoon, K. with Inseong, L. ; Kiho, L. ; Seungki, L. ; Joonah, P. ; Yeun, K. ; SangRyong, K. and Jinwoo, K. (2010) ‘Mobile Web 2.0 with Multi-Display Buttons.’ In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 53, No.1: 136 – 141. Shimp, T. (2008) ‘Advertising, Promotion and Other Aspects of Integrated Marketing Communications.’ Boston, MA: South Western College Publishing. Simon, M. (2011) ‘Brands in Context.’ In Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.51, March Supplement: 189 – 194. Simmons, G. with Brychan, T. and Truong, Y. (2008) ‘Managing I-Branding to Create Brand Equity.’ In European Journal of Marketing, Vol.44, No.9: 1260 – 1285. Simmons, L.C. (2010) ‘Get Scanning: QR Codes Offer PR Pros New Options to Connect.’ In Public Relations Tactics, Vol.17, No.11: 11. Smith, P. and Zook, Z. (2011) ‘Marketing Communications: An Integrated Approach.’ London: Kogan Page. Smith, P.R. and Zook, Z. (2011a) ‘Marketing Communications: Integrating Offline and Online with Social Media.’ London: Kogan Page Sinisalo, J. and Salo, J. and Karjauloto, H. with Leppaniemi, M. (2007) ‘Mobile Customer Relationship Management: Underlying Issues and Challenges.’ In Business Process Management Journal, Vol.13, No.6: 771-787. Tan, K.T. with Kato, H. and Chai, D. (2010) ‘Barcodes for Mobile Devices.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toffler,A.(1980) ‘TheThirdWave.’ New York: William Morrow. Thomas, R.M. (2003) ‘Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Thesis and Dissertations.’ London: Sage Publications.
%$"$! !
Truong, Y. and Simmons, G. (2010) ‘Perceived Intrusiveness in Digital Advetising: Strategic Marketing Implications.’ In Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18, No.3: 239 – 256. Tungate, M. (2008) ‘Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara.’ London: Kogan Page. Tungate, M. (2009) ‘Luxury World: The Past, the Present and Future of Luxury Brands.’ London: Kogan Page. Turner, G. (2009) ‘Ordinary People and The Media: The Demotic Turn.’ London: Sage. Tynan, C. and McKechnie, S. (2009) ‘Expereince Marketing: A Review and Reassesment.’ In Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.25, No.5/6: 501 – 517. Tynan, C. , McKechnie, S. and Chhuon, C. (2009) ‘Co-Creating Value for Luxury Brands.’ In Journal of Business Research, Vol.63 (2010): 1156 – 1163. Uppshaw, L.B. (1995) ‘Building Brand Identity: A Strategy for Success in a Hostile Marketplace.’ Chichester: Wiley and Sons. Van Dijck, J. (2009) ‘Users Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content.’ In Media, Culture, Society Vol.31, No.1: 41-58. Varey, R. (2002) ‘Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice.’ Abingdon: Routledge. Vickers, J. and Renand, F. (2003) ‘The Marketing of Luxury Goods: An Exploratory Study – Three Conceptual Dimenssions.’ In Marketing Review, Vol.3, No.4: 459 – 478. Walliman, N. (2011) ‘Your Research Project: Designing and Planning Your Work.’ London: Sage Publications Wang, A. (2005) ‘‘The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on audience response’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 402-12. Wang, A. (2009) ‘Cross-channel Integration of Advertising: Does Personal Involvement Matter?’ In Management Research News, Vol. 32, No.9: 858 – 873. Wang, J. and Caldder, B. (2006) ‘Narrative Transportation and Advertising Effectiveness.’ In Wang, J. (2006) ‘Lost in the Story: Factors That Affect Narrative Transportation and Advertising.’ In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.33, No.1: 406 – 408. Wilson, H.J. with Guinan, P.J., Praise, S. and Weinber, B.D. (2010) ‘What’s Your Social Media Strategy.’ In Harvard Business Review, Vol.89, No.7/8: 23-25. Woodside, A. (2010) ‘Case Study Research: Theory, Methods and Practice.’ Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Wouters, J. and Wetzels, M. (2006), ‘‘Recall effect of short message service as a complementary marketing communications instrument’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 209-16.
%$$! !
Wright, L.T., Newman, A. and Dennis, C. (2006) ‘Enhancing Consumer Empowerment’ In European Journal of Marketing Vol.40, No.9/10: 925–35. Yin, K. (1994) ‘Case Study Research: Design and Methods’ Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications,.
Yin, R.K. (2010) ‘Qualitative Research From Start to Finish’ New York: The Guilford Press. Zwick, D. with Bonsu, S. and Darmody, A. (2008) ‘Putting Consumers to Work: Cocreation And New Marketing Govern-Mentality.’ In Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol.8, No.2: 163 – 196.
%$$"! !
APPENDICES
%$$""! !
APPENDIX 1 LOUIS VUITTON BRAND-GENERATED IDENTITY AUDIT PROBLEM OBJECTIVE The objective of this part of research was to determine the brand-generated brand identity of Louis Vuitton for the purpose of further comparison with co-created identity.
HOW The audit of brand-generated brand identity of the Louis Vuitton brand is based on Kapferer’s (2004) Brand Identity Prism, which specifies brand identity communication objectives.
Fig.1-Appendix) Transfer of Corporate Values onto Brand Identity Prism (Kapferer, 2004: 206)
%$$"""! !
Kapferer (2004) divides brand identity into 6 facets (Table 1-Appendix): Table 1-Appendix) Facets of Identity Prism FACETS OF BRAND IDENTITY PRISM Culture
Brand ideology explanatory of how the brand grounds itself in broader social and cultural network (e.g. luxury, American, subculture orientated)
Physique
Brands tangible benefits but also key physical attributes of flagship products
Relationship Reflection Self-Concept Personality
Basis for brand-cutomer exchange on an emotional attributes level Self-expressive benefits of social belonging and participation Brand’s internal idea of self, what the customer aspires to How the brand speaks of itself, what kind of a person it would be if it were to be a human; often communicated by spokespersons and figureheads
Kapferer and Bastien (2009) propose an example of using the identity prism based on the Ralph Lauren brand (Fig.2-Appendix): Fig.2-Appendix) Ralph Lauren Brand Identity Prism
Assuming the specifics of luxury brand identity, the audit was carried out with focus on, as suggested by Kapferer and Bastien (2009), constant luxury defining elements of identity and those cultivating the brand’s uniqueness in its’ category. Luxury Brands
%$$"#! !
must project all elements of their luxury positioning but to differentiate in its’ category (e.g. fashion) must convey traits of own culture and lifestyle (Kapferer, 1997). Regarding identity traits, only central traits – those non-dependant on circumstances, such as seasonal trends – were taken into account. Research was conducted through researcher’s non-participant observation and interpretation of Louis Vuitton’s marketing communication outputs based on the discussed theoretical frameworks. WHERE To ensure the relaiability of the sources only communications on the brand’s own website
(www.louisvuitton.co.uk),
official
(http://www.facebook.com/LouisVuitton)
and
official
page
YouTube
channel
(http://www.youtube.com/user/LOUISVUITTON?ob=0) where audited. Despite auditing only online communication platforms, the choice of brand sources allowed a review of other marketing communication from offline platforms featured on the above websites: advertising, sales promotion, events and experiences, publicity, and interactive marketing. WHEN The marketing communications content was audited in March 2012. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Firstly, the audit is based on researchers insights and interpretations, which can potentially lead to confirming researchers preconceptions (Flyvbjerg, 2004). While all attempts where made to present adequate data, an issue of objectivity and bias presents itself as a limitation leading to potential dismissal of research outcomes and evaluation. Secondly, this is not an in-depth audit of LV’s brand identity but an analysis focused on key identity communication objectives. Therefore, a more elaborate breakdown of brand identity, such as one proposed by Aaker’s (2010) brand identity framework, was not undertaken. In this instance, the findings of the audit only refer to desired brand identity presented by the brand during the time of audit, and do not present potential identity projection problems derived from lack of coherence in LV’s communications over time, which might have affected the brand associations used for the customer co-creation of brand identity.
%$$#! !
APPENDIX 2 SOLICITED AND UNSOLICITED UGC AUDIT PROBLEM/ OBJECTIVE To divide the sample of user-generated content between solicited and unsolicited brand encounters in order to measure the dichotomy between the two and assess the scale of the latter through nominal analysis. HOW A sample of 300 user posts, top listing search results from fifty user posts on each of six most popular content sharing networks, was divided between solicited and unsolicited content. This was based on Dahlen et al (2009) classification, as seen in literature review. The scale of unsolicited unplanned brand encounters was assessed as a percentage of the whole sample. WHERE The sample’s content was derived from YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Instagram and 10 Facebook brand-community pages. Blogs, despite being suggested as high impact user-generated content by Blackshaw (2006), were not included in the sample as based on assumptions of literature review luxury brands are currently actively managing their output. WHEN All content was gathered on the 6th of March 2012. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY While all attempts have been made to confirm that unsolicited content was indeed created by a user, and not a shared brand or media source content, the networked and vast nature of Web 2.0 communications can lead to misunderstanding of the source and context of a given piece of content.
%$$#"! !
APPENDIX 3 LOUIS VUITTON CO-CREATED BRAND IDENTITY AUDIT PROBLEM/ OBJECTIVE To establish co-created brand identity of Louis Vuitton projected by unsolicited content creators in order to compare with brand-generated identity and establish points of nonsynergy requiring counter-measures. HOW A sample of 162 unsolicited brand-related user posts, remaining from the original sample of 300, was audited through the prism of brand identity theoretical frameworks (see Appendix 1) in order to interpret projected associations. Interpretations for each of the examples were noted in a grid (Table 3.1). The findings were generalized by nonparametric analysis of quantifying the largest groups of most repetitive characteristics in order to create an outline of co-created brand identity. Research was conducted through researcher’s non-participant observation and interpretation of Louis Vuitton-related unsolicited content based on the discussed theoretical frameworks, as according to Kumar (2008), cannot overcome respondent’s motivation to consciously influence the results, through non-true answers to preserve self-esteem. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The audit was based on researchers insights and interpretations, which can potentially lead to confirming researchers preconceptions (Flyvbjerg, 2004). While all attempts where made to present adequate data, an issue of objectivity and bias presents itself as a limitation leading to potential dismissal of research outcomes and evaluation. Lack of contact research methods did not allow for comparison of researcher interpretations with observed samples self-reported insights. In this instance, the researcher was not able to know the meanings the participants impute on the observed events.
%$$#""! !
APPENDIX 4 BRAND EXPERIENCE STIMULI BEHIND UNSOLICITED UGC AUDIT PROBLEM/ OBJECTIVE To establish the proportion of unsolicited content propelled by brand experience provided by a non-interactive brand stimuli, and therefore potentially countered by their interactivity. HOW A sample of 162 unsolicited brand-related user-posts, remaining from the original sample of 300, was audited through a framework of experience inducing brand-stimuli proposed by Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello, 2009 (Table 3.2). The authors define brand experience elements: !
Product Experience occurs through direct (physically) or indirect (e.g. advertisement) contact with product: searching, examining, evaluating (Hoch, 2002).
!
Shopping/ Service Experience occurs during contact with brand’s physical environment (Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello, 2009).
!
Consumption Experience occurs during direct product usage but can also happen indirectly through fantasies after exposure to brand communication (Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello, 2009).
As the authors point out, consumption fantasy can occur through contact with marketing communications, content propelled by such stimuli was also audited for propelling marketing communication tool based on Kotler et al (2009) framework (Fig.3-Appendix).
%$$#"""! !
Fig.3-Appendix) Common Communication Platforms (Kotler et al, 2009: 692)
The interpreted brand stimuli were quantified in order to generalize the most recurring characteristics and subsequently outline the proportion of communicated experiences propelled by non-interactive physical elements. These were also segregated by nonparametric analysis in order to display the key propelling stimuli among such communications. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The audit was based on researchers insights and interpretations, which can potentially lead to confirming researchers preconceptions (Flyvbjerg, 2004). While all attempts where made to present adequate data, an issue of objectivity and bias presents itself as a limitation leading to potential dismissal of research outcomes and evaluation. Lack of contact research methods did not allow for comparison of researcher interpretations with observed samples self-reported insights. In this instance, the researcher was not able to know the meanings the participants impute on the observed events.
%$$"$! !
APPENDIX 5 MOTIVATIONS BEHIND UNSOLICITED UGC AUDIT PROBLEM/ OBJECTIVE To establish user motivations for creation of unsolicited brand-related content for the purpose of further discussion of how can these be fulfilled by the brand? HOW A remaining sample of 112 user posts propelled by non-interactive brand stimuli was audited for motivations behind its creation, as outlined by Chan and Ngai (2011) and Christodoulides and Jevons (2011). Interpretations for each of the examples were entered into a grid (Table 3.4). Most recurring characteristics in each segment were quantified to display the largest groups of data.
Research was conducted through researcher’s non-participant observation and interpretation of Louis Vuitton-related unsolicited content based on the discussed theoretical frameworks, as according to Kumar (2008), cannot overcome respondent’s motivation to consciously influence the results, through non-true answers to preserve self-esteem.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The audit was based on researchers insights and interpretations, which can potentially lead to confirming researchers preconceptions (Flyvbjerg, 2004). While all attempts where made to present adequate data, an issue of objectivity and bias presents itself as a limitation leading to potential dismissal of research outcomes and evaluation. Lack of contact research methods did not allow for comparison of researcher interpretations with observed samples self-reported insights. In this instance, the researcher was not able to know the meanings the participants impute on the observed events.
%$$$! !
APPENDIX 6 UNSOLICITED UGC PLATFORM AND MEDIA AUDIT PROBLEM/ OBJECTIVE To establish appropriate media and platforms for cross-media tools enabling engagement of unsolicited content creators into brand communications. HOW A remaining sample of 112 user posts propelled by non-interactive brand stimuli was audited for type of media and platform used for content creation. Results for each of the examples were entered into a grid (Table 3.4), and each of the segments was quantified to display the largest groups of data revealing key content sharing platforms and used media. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY While all attempts have been made to confirm that unsolicited content was indeed created by a user, and not shared from a different source, the networked and vast nature of Web 2.0 communications can lead to misunderstanding of the original source (platform) and form (i.e. video still shared as an image) of the communication.
%$$$"! !