BRAND COMMUNITIES
​​​​​​​​​​​​
The following is a literature review of key concepts related to the “brand communities” theme. The text is an excerpt from my graduation thesis presented to the Advertising course in 2022 in Brazil, titled “The birth of a new global media franchise”.
__________________________________________________________
The primary theme of this project is brand communities. About brands, Pinho (2001) explains that their traditional definition is too narrow to cover all their aspects. The author begins his speech by illustrating the current context in which product development processes are so technological and close to each other that the consumer (nowadays also more selective) turns to brands to find a solid differentiation between competing products. However, as mentioned above, the author considers the traditional definition of a brand to be very restricted to a static plane, since it only refers to specific names, symbols, and designs that identify a product or service. The contemporary understanding of the brand concept is broader and more global: it is a “synthesis of the physical, rational, emotional and aesthetic elements present in it and developed over time” (PINHO, 2001, p. 178). In other words, it refers to the set of experiences related to the brand entity which, 11 years after Pinho's speech, is exacerbated by technological devices in constant use and worldwide connection via the internet. Cameira (2020) illustrates this point by stating that there are now a number of channels and types of media where brands can appear and, at the same time, consumers are more segmented and critical in their choice of brand, being guided by its symbolic attributes.Â
The concept of a brand has changed from its beginnings, when it served merely to identify a product or service, to today, when it is considered “something more flexible and tangible, in that it reflects the perceptions of the end consumer” (BISPO, 2016, p. 8). In other words, it goes beyond graphic elements or clever names, but also communicates a message, a personality, and an identity of its own. According to Bispo (2016, p. 8), “the brand then moved to a denser stage of human thought”.
A pragmatic summary of this brand concept is explained by Interbrand (2008):
A brand is a mixture of tangible and intangible attributes, symbolized by a trademark which, when handled appropriately, creates value and influence. “Value” has different interpretations: from a market or consumer perspective it is the promise and fulfillment of an experience; from a business perspective it is the security of future profits; from the perspective of the law it is an independent piece of intellectual property. Brands simplify decision-making, represent a certainty of quality, and offer relevant, differentiated, and credible alternatives to the competition (INTERBRAND, 2008, p. 20).
The point about brand value invites the associated technical term brand equity. Aaker (2009) defines brand equity as the “set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers” (AAKER, 2009, p. 16). In other words, it is the perceived value that the brand has. All its weight and presence are summed up by brand equity. Although the term covers a complex universe, Aaker explains five categories of elements that make it up: brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations in addition to perceived quality, and other assets such as patents and trademarks.
The author then explains the concept from the perspective of customers and companies. For the first group, brand equity helps to gather a large amount of information about brands in the consumer's mind, increases the likelihood of loyalty, and, above all, generates pre-satisfaction when consuming the product or service. In other words, a brand with a good perception of quality and positive brand equity makes customers more receptive and more likely to have a satisfactory experience with it.Â
From the companies' perspective, there are at least six ways in which brand equity brings advantages to the business. Firstly, it facilitates the communication and success of new products, since it creates a reputation for the brand that precedes the actual experience with these products. In a positive example, this dynamic can be translated into the colloquial maxim “if it's from brand X, it must be good”.
Secondly, strong brand equity brings consumer loyalty to the brand, which in turn protects the company's sales against competing brands. In addition to the financial aspect, loyalty works as an influencing element for the brand itself, increasing its perceived value as it serves the role of social proof.Â
Returning to a financial perspective, the third advantage of clear and positive brand equity is the possibility of charging premium prices even with more discreet or smaller promotion campaigns. In other words, it's easier to sell a well-established brand that has a place of affinity in customers' minds by paying more and not needing as much exposure to the advertising media in order to buy the products they already trust. The opposite is also true: a brand with negative brand equity will need to charge lower prices and invest in extensive campaigns in order to stay in consumers' minds and wallets, since they have negative feelings or very low perceptions of the brand's value.
The fourth advantage cited by Aaker is particularly related to the practice of brand licensing: once a strong and positive brand equity has been established, it can provide a “platform for future growth via brand extensions” (AAKER, 2009, p. 18), i.e. expanding the company's core business into other segments, taking the brand as a seal of approval that customers already recognize and appreciate.Â
Fifthly, companies have the possibility of gaining better space in distribution channels and more advantageous relationships with channel partners if their brand has solid brand equity.
Finally, the author discusses the barrier that brand equity creates for the brand when it is in competition with others. This is because, for the consumer, identifying a particular brand as the “best” or “most reliable” creates in their mind a hard positioning that takes a lot of work to replace. For example, if I have the iPhone as the series of cell phones to which I am loyal, it is more difficult for the manufacturer of an alternative cell phone to convince me to switch from the iPhone to their brand, even if they use objective data showing how much more advantages this other option offers. These practical arguments may have an effect, but the emotional influence of the iPhone brand makes brand competition a much more severe war in my mind.Â
This brand war is full of nuances and varies according to the expectations of each individual, a concept explored by Kotler et al (2021). According to the author, marketing professionals today have the challenge of serving five different generations: baby boomers, generation X, generation Y (also known as millennials), generation Z and generation alpha. Each of these groups has a different socio-cultural background and life experience, which reflects on their preferences for products, services and brands. According to Kotler et al (2021, p. 20), “most brand equity is being created when brands are being endorsed by generations Y and Z”.
Concerning each group, the author explains that baby boomers (the aging economic powerhouse) and generation X (the middle-brow leaders) gravitate towards established brands. Generation Y (Kotler considers those born between 1981 and 1996), on the other hand, distances itself from this preference. This is the first generation to be associated with digital social networking platforms and they use them to express themselves and compare themselves to their peers. As such, the opinion of peers is very important and is valued more than an established brand.Â
The next group is Generation Z, i.e., those born between 1997 and 2009. As the period already included constant use of the internet, this generation was born and raised in this environment and therefore tends not to see a distinction between the online and offline worlds. Like millennials, they are expressive on social networks, but with one key difference from the previous generation: they prefer more authentic images. In other words, polished photos with lots of filters are replaced by truer versions that show the world and themselves more honestly. For this reason, Generation Z detests brands that promote an over-produced image that is too good to be true, preferring more engaging and candid brands.Â
Still on the same generation, Kotler explains that their greater confidence in sharing personal data reflects a demand for brands: experiences, products and services must be more personalized with the possibility of customization to echo their own identities.
Generation Z is also more concerned about social causes and environmental sustainability which, combined with their natural pragmatism, makes them prefer brands aligned with the same purpose.Â
Finally, Kotler states that generation Z seeks a constant relationship with brands in such a way that they expect them to “be as stimulating as their mobile and gaming devices” (KOTLER et al, 2021, p. 26). If the brand experience is not frequently renewed, the possibility of consumer loyalty is much lower.
The youngest generation within the group of five is Alpha, born between 2010 and 2025. The individuals in this group are shaped by their Generation Y parents and the urban, diverse, and fast-paced context in which they live. Due to the parenting style of millennials, Alpha children are being educated about topics such as finance earlier and learning to be more inclusive. The author states that they are more open to branded content, such as toy reviews on YouTube. Â
Kotler's perspectives on branding according to generations direct our gaze outwards. In other words, the brand is designed to meet the expectations of a group of like-minded people rather than serving itself. When this work is successful and brands achieve strong positive brand equity with their audience, they can see their consumer group transformed into a community.​​​​​​​
Communities, in general, are understood by Bauman (2001, p. 7) as a “warm place, a comfortable and cosy place”. Brand communities, on the other hand, are more specific as they follow this concept but are focused on companies, organizations or similar. According to Muñiz Jr. and O'Guinn (2001, p. 412), they are a “specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand”. In other words, it is a group of people relating to each other because of their common interest in a specific brand. Just like a general community, this type has its rituals, traditions, and shared consciousness.
One of the most emblematic cases of a brand community is that created around Harley-Davidson. Fournier (2009) reports that the company made a successful turnaround in its trajectory by dedicating itself to creating a brand community, a term she defines as “a group of ardent consumers organized around the lifestyle, activities, and ethos of the brand” (FOURNIER, 2009, online). Her movement has inspired other companies to pursue the same goal, especially considering the consumer public's demand for connections and closeness.
Following on from her text and using Harley Davidson as an example, the author lists a series of myths and maxims that are instrumental in creating and maintaining brand communities.
The first point is that this should be an overall business strategy, not just a marketing effort — or worse, the responsibility of a single communication tool. The goal of establishing a brand community should be a concern for each and every area of the company.Â
The second point and, according to Fournier, a common misconception is that brand communities serve the brand when in fact they serve people. These organizations meet the needs and expectations of their members in ways that are sometimes only imaginable. In addition to obvious reasons such as gaining status and exploring their own identity, people may seek to be part of a community to find emotional support, contribute to the greater good, cultivate skills, among others. Fournier argues that sometimes the social connection with other people generated because of the brand is more interesting than the brand itself. “Brand loyalty is the reward for meeting people’s needs for community, not the impetus for the community to form” (FOURNIER, 2009, online). In other words, a consumer's loyalty is what happens after they have found what they need in a group of like-minded individuals with similar expectations or desires. For this reason, a brand community is more successful if it starts by focusing on the consumer as a person with human needs outside the scope of the company so that the brand can then gain attention and loyalty.Â
This point leads to the third myth cited by the author, “build the brand, and the community will follow”, which is replaced by the maxim of reality: “engineer the community, and the brand will be strong” (FOURNIER, 2009, online). To illustrate her point, the author recalls the three basic forms of community affiliation: pools, webs and hubs. The first term refers to a group of people who share the same appreciation for similar values or goals. As the focus is not on connecting individuals to each other, community links can be fragile. This makes the second form, webs, strong and stable: its focus is on enabling interpersonal relationships. In this way, the group's bond is varied and deep.Â
The third form of affiliation is the hub, which refers to a group of people brought together by admiration for an individual, such as a celebrity. Here again, the links are unstable and more focused on the brand than the community itself. However, when dealing with a combination of hubs and webs, the possibilities for expansion are greater.Â
The fourth point that Fournier (2009) makes about brand communities is regarding divisions. For a group to defend its brand, it needs something to defend against. Although it is tempting for companies to maintain a neutral position in relation to their competitors, communities benefit from coming into conflict with others. A striking example of this topic is Apple fans against Samsung fans, or Coke fans against Pepsi fans.Â
The fifth point explores the role that everyone should play in communities. Although opinion leaders within the group are essential, the community will only be robust when everyone has a valuable role. Therefore, when designing a community, it is important to design a wide variety of roles that each individual will feel drawn to perform. The author cites the example of non-profit organizations that offer various possibilities for their volunteers. Some common roles are teacher, historian, receptionist, guide, ambassador and others. Â
In the sixth point, Fournier (2009) delves into the digital world, stating that online platforms are only one tool for building a community, not its entire strategy. The author specifically criticizes online organizations (such as forums) that are supported by companies in an attempt to turn a group of people into a community. After all, life happens in the real offline environment, and losing touch with this is detrimental to a brand's community-building strategy. In addition, online tools should be used with clear purposes and in line with your audience.Â
Finally, Fournier (2009) challenges the notion that brand communities are objects to be firmly controlled. Because they are the result of interactions between different individuals, it is natural that they take on a freer, more changeable, and flexible form according to the behavior of their members.Â
Brand communities are not corporate assets, so control is an illusion. But relinquishing control does not mean abdicating responsibility. Effective brand stewards participate as community cocreators—nurturing and facilitating communities by creating the conditions in which they can thrive. (FOURNIER, 2009, online).
The author's theory on brand relationships is taken up by Mosaad et al (2022) who, with their speech, translate and summarize the subject:Â
There are four conditions to satisfy consumer-brand relationship: 1) consumer-brand relationship exists when there is a beneficial exchange between consumers and brands; 2) the interaction between consumers and brands is for a purpose; 3) the consumer-brand relationship takes different forms, and 4) the consumer-brand relationship is a process. (MOSAAD et al, 2022, p. 5).
After this brief understanding of brand communities, it is important to delve into their fundamental and most valuable aspect: fans.​​​​​​​
Fans, according to Troika (2017), are people who have an avid connection, marked by loyalty and continuous investment in something. As consumers, fans are the most active since they spend more time and money, and are more likely to share what they love.
The author goes on to explain that in order for companies to foster fan behavior among their consumers, they need to meet their psychosocial needs and expectations, which in general can be threefold: identity, self-care, and social connection. In other words, when a company, through its brand, establishes authentic (rather than transactional) relationships with the other end and makes this a means of fulfilling deep-seated demands, the path to having fans is easier. In return, these individuals compensate it with above-average loyalty, devotion, and support, which are highly desirable characteristics for building communities.
Troika carried out multimodal research in the United States to understand the phenomenon of fandom. One of the first conclusions is that, in general, fans understand themselves as fans when there is an avid attachment marked by loyalty and active investment in the OOF (object of fandom). Therefore, for fans, becoming one is not a casual decision, but a conscious and active one.
The relationship between the individual and their fandom is a constant exchange: the former eagerly engages in various behaviors (from passive ones like watching or listening to active ones like buying merchandise, participating in events and creating content) and the fandom promotes benefits in their lives. The most reported in the survey were “giving them something to look forward to in everyday life”, “helping them experience a wide range of human emotions”, “helping them get through difficult times” and “making them feel part of something bigger than themselves” (TROIKA, 2017, p. 9).
Troika makes a comparison between being a fan and maintaining a romantic relationship, a metaphor that helps us understand how this behavior takes place. Firstly, fans dedicate their time. Literally spending time consuming and engaging with OOF or the fandom, sometimes prioritizing them over other activities in your life, deepens connections and encourages ongoing commitment.Â
Secondly, fans know or want to know as much as they can about the thing they are passionate about. In other words, knowing about great features or even trivial factoids makes the individual feel closer to the OOF, as well as giving them authority over their peers (which, in practice, gives rise to dialogues such as “Prove you're a fan and tell me the name of the pet snake BeyoncĂ© had when she was a child”). For this reason, inbound content seen on social media, dedicated pages, and fan sites are instrumental in the dynamics of fandom.Â
Troika continues its talk with another aspect: fan advocacy. They tell other people about their passions, explain why it's special and can even continually invite others to become part of the fandom and admiration for OOF.Â
Fans also produce content. The most creative and practical part of the fandom constantly creates art, writes fiction, publishes memes and so on. These are activities that develop people's technical skills, but also function as an exercise in perspective, placing them within the universe they love and encouraging reflection.
Troika ends its metaphor with a point related to shopping: fans buy merchandise to fill their daily lives, including wearable products to present their proud identity as an OOF fan to the world.
The author then presents the results of one of the questions he asked 8,000 people in the United States during his survey: what are you a fan of? The first relevant fact is that 81% of respondents said they were fans of more than one OOF, with the average being 5 per person. In other words, the same person can actively participate in more than one fandom.Â
As the question was intentionally quite open and vague, the OOF categories vary, with the three most popular being sports (which appeared in 33% of the responses), entertainment (24%), and music (12%). Â
The next topic addressed by Troika is what inspires a fan relationship.Â
Fandom meets a set of psychosocial needs that scholars frequently compare to religion and certain political ideologies. As patterns in religious and spiritual practice, as well as political ideology, shift, we should watch for concomitant changes in the prevalence and importance of fandom. (TROIKA, 2017, p. 12).
One of the elements guiding this relationship is self-care. By engaging with and caring about their OOF, the fan embarks on a scenario of diverse and intense emotions, often nonexistent in their daily lives. In other words, participating in the fandom and consuming the content they love brings peaks of happiness, sadness, love, or anger, for example, which stimulate the individual and, in a way, prepare them for the emotional environment outside the fandom.Â
In addition, self-care comes in the form of comfort, since the fan community and the OOF itself tend to operate as a safe space for those engaged. Characteristics that build this emotional shelter are familiarity and the relative certainty that revisiting OOF will bring a predictable experience. This predictability also has an effect outside the community: during his daily life, the fan understands that it will be there for him when he needs it.Â
A second element that feeds a fan is the social connections generated by the fandom, which serves as a meeting point for people with a great chance of building deep and lasting relationships or strengthening existing ties by exchanging interests and aligning mindsets. In other words, your next best friend or spouse could be waiting for you in a fandom. Even if you don't know all the millions of members of your community intimately, you still know that they exist and that you are one of them.Â
Finally, the need to shape, reaffirm, or discover their own identity leads fans to form alliances with fandoms and OOFs. Engaging with these brings the possibility of expressing your moral compass, gender identity, sexuality, and personality.
How do we become fans? This question guided the next section of Troika's study, which asked the survey respondents a similar question. The finding is that sports fans tend to be born into fandom, that is, they follow the favoritism that their family and predecessors have for them. Individual entertainment fans, however, are more immediate and free: love for OOF was at first sight. Terms like “addicted” and “obsessed” appear frequently in their stories and relate to the stimulus (moral, emotional, intellectual, visual, or spiritual) that made them feel seen and understood. “An OOF takes hold because it speaks to something deep within us. It speaks to some part of our who we are — some facet of our identity” (TROIKA, 2017, p. 14).
Although it tends to be long-lived, the author explains that a fandom can be broken. If there is a violation of the morals that both fan and OOF share or there is a clear understanding that the owners of the OOF are prioritizing commercial interests over the purity and health of the OOF, the fandom can wither away.Â
Finally, Troika makes a distinction between commercial brands that position themselves as “lifestyle” and “identity” brands. The former seek to align themselves with their consumers' lifestyles, but the author argues that only the latter (identity brands that align themselves with who consumers are, rather than what they do) are successful in creating communities. This is because when people call themselves “fans” of things, they are communicating aspects of their own being and defining themselves to the world through that choice.
WORKS CITED
AAKER, David A. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, 2009.
BAUMAN, Zygmunt. The Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World (Themes for the 21st Century). Polity Press, 2003.
BISPO, Eugenio. GestĂŁo de Marketing e Branding: a arte de desenvolver e gerenciar marcas. Alta Books, 2016.
CAMEIRA, Sandra R. Branding + design: a estratégia na criação de identidades de marca. Senac, 2020.
FOURNIER, Susan. “Getting Brand Communities Right.” Harvard Business Review, 2009, https://hbr.org/2009/04/getting-brand-communities-right. Accessed 26 March 2022.
INTERBRAND. Glossário de Marcas: Inglês - Português. Bookman, 2008.
KOTLER, Philip, et al. Marketing 5.0: Technology for Humanity. Wiley, 2021.
MOSAAD, Mohamed, et al. “The Role of Brand and Fan Personalities in Building Fan-Brand Relationships.” International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management, vol. 13, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-21.
MUÑIZ, Albert JR, and Thomas O. Guinn. “Brand Community.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 27, no. 4, 2001, pp. 412-432.
PINHO, José Benedito. Comunicação Em Marketing. PAPIRUS, 2001.
TROIKA. “The Power of Fandom.” Troika, 2017, https://www.troika.tv/fandom/. Accessed 23 March 2022.