SOCIOCULTURAL BRAND MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING BRANDING PRACTICES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE

Abstract Consumer culture theory (CCT) has challenged many of the assumptions underpinning the dominant “mind share” model of brand management. Since consumers are not passive receivers of brand communications, brands may take on meanings not intended by their host organizations. As well, brands gather strength from multiple storytellers, including consumers, marketers, influencers, and the wider socio-culture. However, despite the recognition that brand meaning is co-created or produced, researchers have yet to identify principles for brand management under these conditions. Building on interpretive interviews with managers of cultural brands we identified some characteristics of an emergent approach to brand meaning, supported by a number of practices including locating, interaction, experimentation, and living the brand that helped embed the brand within subcultural networks. Keywords: Cultural Theory; Brand Management; Interpretive Research; Emergent Strategy

1

SOCIOCULTURAL BRAND MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING BRANDING PRACTICES IN THE POSTMODERN AGE

A central pillar of brand building models is the notion that the brand exists in the mind of the consumer (Keller, 2003). Curiously however, the dominant model of brand management, the customer-based-brand-equity model (CBBE) (Keller, 2003)—dubbed the mind share model (which focuses on developing unique, favorable and strong brand associations with consumers) (Holt, 2005, p. 277)—is under increasing strain in the face of culturally creative consumers who are no longer passive receivers of marketing information (Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Holt 2004; Merz, He, and Vargo, 2009; Ritson and Elliot, 1999; Thompson, Rindfleisch and Arsel, 2006; Yannopoulou and Elliot 2008). Consumer culture theorists identify consumers as active creators of brand knowledge, often imbuing brands with a meaning the opposite of that intended by marketers (Arnould and Thompson, 2005). As a result, many brands embracing a top-down one-way communication model are facing decreased consumer trust, love, and as a result, seeing their equity diminish (Gerzema and Lebar, 2008).

Recently, others have identified that not only are consumers co-creating brand meaning, other influencers or storytellers also help co-create a brand’s image (Beverland, 2009; Holt, 2003). For example, Dove’s recent attempt to reposition from a functional-based identity (focused on gentleness and softness) to a highly symbolic one (focused on inner beauty) has suffered a variety of setbacks after groups such as Greenpeace openly parodied the brand’s “talk to the beauty industry before it’s too late” with their own viral campaign (with the tagline “talk to Dove before it’s too late”) focused on the use of Palm oil. Others have also noted that a brand’s meaning is embedded in a socio-cultural network (akin to a gestalt or complex system; Beverland and Ewing, 2005; Diamond et al. 2009). However, despite over 25-years of research into consumer culture, few authors have examined the implications for brand management of a networked, culturally creative consumer. The focus of this paper is to explore this issue further. This paper has the following structure. First, we review the relevant literature on consumer cultural theory and its implication for approaches to brand management. Second, we provide details of our interpretive method. Third, we present our findings. Finally, we identify contributions to theory, research and practice.

Literature Review The CBBE model of brand management is a strategic planning process aimed at “claim[ing] virgin cognitive associations in a product category, and consistently communica[ting] these associations in everything the brand does over time to sustain the brand’s hold on this cognitive territory” (Holt, 2005, p.275). The focus on owning part of a consumer’s mind has led some to dub CBBE the “mind-share” approach to branding (Holt 2005). Central to this process is the consistent use of simple abstract associations such as core brand values and brand mantra’s to develop strong, favorable and unique associations in the minds of individual consumers (Holt, 2005). Paradoxically, although the CBBE is customer-based, the model accords sole authorship of brand meaning to the marketer. Marketers are thus urged to create a strong brand identity and then through a process of positioning and reinforcement, build strong brand associations in the minds of consumers (Keller, 1999). Although consumers may hold images contrary to the desired identity, brand managers are urged to close this gap (measured by tracking studies) if they wish to increase the brand’s equity (Keller, 2003). Despite the lack of empirical testing, this model represents the dominant approach to brand management amongst academics and practitioners (Holt, 2005).

Recent research challenges the efficacy of this approach. For example, Holt’s (2004) examination of iconic brands (brands with sustained socio-cultural power) identifies that the power of a brand’s message is directly related to its ability to connect with the cultural

2

zeitgeist of the times. Holt builds on a hermeneutic tradition (Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Thompson, 1997) that an individual’s expression about brands reflects wider social norms or values. As a result, Holt (2004) identified that iconic brands sustained their power because they regularly changed their message (see also Kates and Goh (2003) for examples of how brands morph across different segments). Importantly, such messages were far from abstract; rather, brand imagery reflected concrete situations and stories, thus enabling consumers to effectively see themselves in the advertisement (Mick and Buhl, 1992). And, this desire on behalf of consumers to build their identity (partially) through brands (Fournier, 1998) has led others to speculate that brand value is co-created through “a continuous, social, and highly dynamic and interactive process between the firm, the brand, and all stakeholders” (Merz et al. p.331). Under this logic, consumers and the actors within their social influence networks play a key role in brand identity creation and maintenance (Kates 2004).

The recognition that brand meaning is dynamic and partially (if not mostly) driven from the ground up is reflected in the emerging metaphors used by popular writers on branding. For example, brands have been hijacked (Wipperfürth, 2006), are accidents (Vinjamuri, 2008), living objects (Nadeau, 2007), collectively told sagas and myths (Beverland, 2009), citizens (Gobé, 2002), conversations (Jaffe, 2007), and develop through collective jamming sessions (Gobé, 2007). These new metaphors for branding are a recognition by practitioners that brands are collectively developed (i.e., meaning is created by both, bottom-up and top-down communication), embedded in rich evolving networks of cultural value creators, and finally, such metaphors shift the focus of brand management away from static positioning towards the ongoing process of developing brand meaning (Merz et al. 2009).

Despite this shift in thinking about the development of brand meaning, models of brand management that take this change into account have yet to emerge. For example, consumer culture theory typically focuses on how consumers use brands for various identity projects, or how consumers’ life projects and social identities effect brand meanings (Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Kates, 2004). Those more focused on brand management have often identified examples that contradict the mind share model (e.g., Holt, 2004; Merz et al. 2009), but have stopped short of providing a strategic brand management framework to replace or complement the CBBE framework (Diamond et al. 2009). The two attempts at bridging the gap between consumer culture theory and brand management practice stop short of developing a strategic management framework. For example, Diamond et al (2009) identify that certain iconic brands exist within a complex social system akin to a gestalt, but beyond suggestions to managers to embed the brand in the consumers life world through the use of agents of popular culture (writers, singers, directors etc), emphasizing the experiential aspects of meaning creation, and encouraging an open-source approach to story creation, they stop short of offering a brand management framework based on co-creation (cf. Schau, Muñiz and Arnould, 2009). Although the work of Schau et al (2009) identifies the process by which communal brand activities create value, their work is heavily consumer focused, overly tactical, and does not examine the practices used by marketing practitioners in creating brand value.

To this end, we seek to address this gap by exploring how brand managers who have created value without regard to CBBE principles continue to engage consumers and grow the brand’s relevance. In particular we seek to identify several strategic and tactical approaches to manage brands embedded within socio-cultural networks.

Method Consistent with the lack of research on the brand management implications of consumer culture theory we employed a theory-building approach using depth interviews (supplemented with secondary information) with managers of brands that had achieved success without

3

employing a CCBE approach. Consistent with theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), informants were selected based on what we believed they could contribute to our emerging theory of brand management. As a result, the questions asked shifted throughout the research process. Initially, we focused on rich descriptions of brand histories, key decisions, key challenges, and day-to-day practices. During the mini-cases we examined day-to-day practices in more detail. In the final case, we examined the process of change within the organization that resulted from adopting an explicit network co-creation framework to brand meaning. In each interview, preference was given to grand tour questions that allowed informants to answer on their own terms (floating prompts aimed at seeking clarification and following up interesting leads were also used were appropriate) (McCracken, 1986).

The starting point for our project involved an in-depth case study of a faded, but iconic brand (case 1) that had been reborn through sub-cultural adoption. What was interesting about this particular case was that the revitalization of the brand had more in common with an emergent strategic approach than a planned one, even though the brand team involved had started to reposition the brand via traditional methods (in effect, they allowed the brand to be hijacked by the subculture and adopted a co-creation approach to meaning development). Although the team desired to reposition the brand as a functional performer, the adoption of the brand by the rave subculture resulted in a different positioning (an edgy, local icon that delivered without the hype associated with large corporate footwear labels) and importantly, higher equity and margins. Following this, we developed an extensive case study on a sports-car brand that had always embraced co-creation as a means of meaning development (case 2). Based on the themes that began to emerge through this process, we began to develop a series of mini-cases (Eisenhardt, 1989) of brands (cases 3-12) that achieved a high degree of subcultural legitimacy (Kates, 2004). With each informant we explored the historical development of the brand, key stories and myths that had enhanced the brand’s position, key decisions made by the brand management team, and examples of the tactics and activities undertaken on a day-to-day basis to enhance the brand’s position. Following this, a final set of interviews were undertaken with managers of a local iconic brand (case 13) that had deliberately embraced co-creation to launch a new line extension of their brand (the brand team ran a web-based competition to name the new extension). Critically, this case was developed in real time, and the authors were able to track web-based comments, the marketing team’s actions and decisions, and finally, the result of initial poorly received renaming exercise and the team’s response. Details of the cases are presented in Table 1. Data was analyzed using standard coding procedures. First, both authors engaged in open coding, whereby raw transcripts and secondary information were coded inductively. Second, axial coding occurred when the initial categories began to emerge. During this process, we began to examine the relationships between categories as well as coding for processes. Finally, selective coding occurred to help ensure theoretical saturation (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). During this process, transcripts and secondary information and notes were re-examined for specific examples of particular relationships and categories. Standard grounded theory quality checks were used to ensure trustworthiness, including using two researchers to undertake the interviews, data triangulation, multiple coders, returning interpretations back to informants for further discussion, longitudinal examination of brand management practices at each site, the use of multiple cases from different industry contexts and seeking peer review from colleagues and practitioners (Flint, Woodruff and Gardial, 2002).

Findings As part of the coding process (and in the spirit of dialectical tacking), we examined the practices used by the informants against the five axioms of CBBE as identified by Holt (2005). Given that the informants breached all five axioms while building lasting brand value,

4

we then sought to capture the strategic approach and supportive practices underpinning their approach. Strategically the firms took an emergent view of brand meaning, focusing on strategies that ensured the brand was embedded in networks of like-minded people. In particular, the informants focused on basic benefits and allowed consumers to ascribe higher order meanings to the brand. Despite not having an explicitly defined position (or engaging in segmentation-targeting-positioning) these brand owners did have a clear understanding of what the brand was not. Supporting this strategic approach were a number of practices including locating, interaction, experimentation, and living the brand. Each of these is detailed in turn below.

Strategic Brand Management Consistent across the informant interviews (and supported with secondary historical data) was the open-ended nature of the brand’s identity. The brands studied had no formal positioning statement, nor any other form of defined position (there were two counter examples, but this formalization occurred in one case after 96 years and in the second, as part of a repositioning exercise). Common responses and metaphors included “discovery,” “organic,” “lack of control,” and “ground up.” The following two passages reflect this open-ended approach.

“Rather than a brand I think it’s more an attempt to interest the cult and keep the cult going. We like providing stories that people can tell in the pub and feel that that makes them part of the family. And so our brand is made up around a series of myths, some of which are true, some of which are owned. The one about the wooden chassis in France, we have tried and tried to get rid of that, but it is still persists. And I think eventually we're going to have to say ok yeah yeah yeah it’s true.” (Morgan) “It’s a brand that, it’s not like it’s pushed in your face saying “you have to have Smiggle, you have to have Smiggle,” the customer feels that for themselves, they have discovered it, they’ve watched it grow and they’ve grown with it. So it’s a brand that they definitely feel that they’re, um, that they’ve discovered it and they’re part of it. It’s a brand that they belong to.” The two passages above run counter to the CBBE model given the explicit recognition

of the customer as an active meaning creator and the emphasis given to consumer’s role in creating and maintaining meaning. The informant in the first passage identifies the importance of individual stories that enable consumers to find a personally relevant connection to the brand. Despite the story used by the consumer being factually false, the informant recognizes the benefits such myths bring to the brand and through experience, knows trying to convince French consumers otherwise is self-defeating. Even though the second passage involves a brand far younger than that covered in the first, the sentiment is the same (rather than reinforce a static brand message, the informant makes it clear that the brand’s meaning coevolves with consumers’ life context). As a result the owners followed this, allowing customers to suggest new products, new uses, and develop the brand’s meaning. For example:

“When we first started out our target market was, um, we initially thought 14-24, before we even opened a shop. Um, when we first opened it was really quite surprising, we went to all the magazines, you know, Dolly, Girlfriend, Inside Out, Interiors, all those sorts of things. And the people who picked us up initially were interior designers and the older market, those who understood the design elements of it compared to the price and, industrial designers, advertising executives, they’re the kind of people who picked us up. Suddenly our core customer was 28 and 50 and then they started giving it to their kids, and we discovered parents were prepared to spend money on stationary for their children rather than fast food…” (Smiggle) Such passages reflect a more emergent or ground-up approach to identity development

(Mintzberg, 1994) whereby managers effectively muddle through and allow strategy to

5

emerge through ongoing market interactions overtime. This approach is very different to that of traditional strategic approaches that emphasize consistently of message and reinforcement (Keller, 1999). Consistent with Mintzberg’s (1994) notion of emergent strategy, formalized brand identities often emerge over time. The second passage is from a brand manager that took this view, allowing the target market, uses, and product positioning and brand meaning to emerge over time. As this meaning becomes clearer, brand managers use this clarity to make more targeted decisions. For example, after 96 years the brand manager discussed in the first passage developed a formal brand statement based on the brand’s history and owners’ view of the brand. This statement (“Driven at Heart”) encapsulates the history of the brand, the connection owners’ feel towards the brand and provides a point of difference vis-à-vis other, larger brands. Similarly, the Dunlop brand was repositioned after consumers adopted the iconic products as part of an anti-global brand identity project. In each case, the team managing the brand allowing the brand’s meaning to emerge in a co-evolutionary way until an identity emerges, willing the team to move forward in a slightly more directed way.

The passages provided so far suggest that brand managers are not adopting explicit models of segmentation-targeting-positioning. What constantly emerged from the interviews was a clear understanding of what the brand was not (which guided action), even though the opposite, a clear statement of identity was lacking. For example, Dunlop knew they were not Nike or Adidas, Morgan knew they were not an identity-less “tin top” brand of car, and juice maker Emma and Tom’s knew they were not Coke. These explicit statements were designed to reinforce core product commitments (local community focus in the case of Dunlop, handmade cars with individual “flaws” in the case of Morgan). For example:

“This is not Coke. So if you’re drinking one of these [points to bottle of competitors Apple juice] you sort of, you know that you are doing yourself some good. The other brands, they’ve been flash pasteurized for ten seconds. And I tell you right now it tastes just the same as before it gets pasteurized as after. Burnt and boiled and all the oils and stuff. So you know, these drinks taste just how they do before they go in. So it’s for the sought of people who are confident enough not to have to go with a big mainstream “addy” sort of brand, we are intensely not “addy”...” (Emma and Tom’s) Thus, an explicit understanding of what the brand is not helped reinforce commitments

to certain practices and the rejection of others. In this way, brand identity was often emerged because consumers were able to spot the differences in action between one brand and another. In regards to segmentation, the explicit lack of positioning was reinforced in the loose descriptions of target customers (such as the identification above of people who are confident enough to reject unnatural products). For example:

Interviewer: do you cater for a specific target market? “No, not really. I mean, um, we also love the fact that you know, I’ve seen little kids, like walking down the street I’ll see, ah, you know, a dreadlocked bike courier flying past with one of our bags and then I’ll see like a business women walking in the other direction, same bag, and I’m like wow that’s pretty weird. So, we try and, we like the fact that our products are very functional…. [Informant 2] People who are young at heart I suppose as well….” (Crumpler) The passage above is reflective of the lack of targeting and segmenting used by the

informants. Typically, these informants identified that their real target was a projection of their own desired self—selling to “people like us” was a comment, and was also reflected in the firm’s hiring practices (see “living the brand”). Across these passages it is evident that the sampled brand managers have adopted a consistent reinforcing strategy, albeit one much different to the CBBE model. An emergent approach to brand identity is reflected in the lack of a pre-defined positioning statement, a subtle understanding of the firm’s capabilities (in terms of what they are not), and the lack of an explicit segmentation-targeting-positioning

6

approach (i.e., if brand meaning is emergent, so to is the potential market). These strategic outlook or orientation is reinforced by a set of practices—issues we turn to next.

Supportive Brand Practices Supporting an emergent orientation to brand meaning management were the following practices: locating, interaction, experimentation, and living the brand. Given the aim of the informants was to embed their brands within networks, employees took action to ensure their brand was simply located in the relevant sub-cultural space and ensured they themselves were similarly immersed. Some brands had formalized this through club programs, such as the Morgan Motor Company Owners Clubs (which were unofficial but supported by the firm), while other brands used careful marketing programs and sponsorship events to place themselves within the subculture. For example:

“I’d rather give someone a pen because every time they look in their bag, I can’t find a pen, here’s a Smiggle pen oh gosh it writes well as well. I think that’s always going to work much stronger than any advertisement. Also, um, being part of competitions and what-not, creates desire and it creates a feeling of involvement… when we first started the most effective way we could use our resources was to actually promote the communities around the schools and what’s happened is, it’s, um, people have this absolute faith and word of mouth has started….when we do photo shoots I’m like “don’t send the stock back, keep it, give it to your friends, give it to your family, give it to whoever, Aunt Betty down the street.” Because we believe in our product that they’re going to love it and then they’re going to go “where’s our local store?” And you know, they become fans that way.” (Smiggle) “The way that we promote the product, we’re very focused towards the arts, film, student, film, theatre etc. Um, so the brand itself, yeah I suppose it does actually, it does play a little bit to that.” I: Why? “We like it, that’s the main thing I suppose, we’re into it ourselves. So plus we realize that I suppose a lot of people who buy our stuff, they’re student film makers and artists, you know, multi media dudes, or whatever, you know, they all have cameras and laptops so it’s a pretty good market…we like supporting grass roots stuff as well.” (Crumpler) The above passages identify examples of locating. Both managers seek a background

role in the wider environment in which their customers are likely to be. The aim of this is stated in both passages—the right people will be there, and they’re likely to engage in word of mouth with like-minded others, and they’ll be seen as adopters of the product, thus building a link between subcultural identity and the brand. The second passage from an informant at bag manufacturer Crumpler identifies how the marketing team also locate themselves within these communities and engages actively in the focal activities of such subcultures. In both cases the desire to locate the brand within particular spaces and then let the subculture take over. Through immersing themselves in the subculture, further credibility is built, plus market information is gained which helps with innovation, and line and brand extensions.

The passages in the first section provide evidence of the second practice—interaction. In each case, firms encourage interactivity with customers and staff, and other members of the subculture. Typical of many transcripts was the emphasis on listening and adapting rather than marketing communications. For example, in seeking to extend their product line, iconic brand Vegemite ran a web-based competition on how people used the product. The results led directly to the development of a Vegemite-Cream Cheese spread. Prior to launch, the brand team then ran a competition to name the product. On choosing the final name, the brand team made a fatal mistake, deciding the final name behind closed doors. The resulting furor (including the disappointment of many staff who worked on the project) saw the team return to a web based competition to chose the final name from the top five most popular (and legally available) names. Throughout this process, the team kept in contact with many

7

influential bloggers, providing them with total access to the firm’s decision process (a level of media support they had never received from large firms). A similar process informed changes to the Morgan’s original Aero headlight design and Dunlop’s revitalization through the rave culture. Such activities have obvious benefits in terms of consumer buy in and innovation opportunities but more importantly reflect an emergent mindset whereby the firm recognizes that the customers actually do own the brand (something Vegemite’s owners Kraft openly recognize).

The third practice is experimentation. Many of these brands, including the older ones are not averse to trying new ideas across the broad range of their business. Despite being retaining the same design for close to 100 years, Morgan constantly experiment with new production techniques, and prototypes, many of which resulted in the new Aero and Aeromax and Aero SuperSports range. Such experiments drive continued discussion about the brand within the subculture and wider motoring press, keeping the brand relevant. Smiggle provides another example:

“Let’s see how it goes, we’ll give it a go and if it doesn’t work we will try something else. Yeah so um, it has evolved into, you know, now we look at our designs and look at trends and look at what’s coming next season. We are always prepared to evolve…” (Smiggle) Experimentation is done in order to take the brand into new areas, keep interest in the

brand going, and retain excitement about the brand among fans. Over and above these aims is an open-ended approach akin to curiosity in which brand managers continue to see how far they can push the brand. What was common was the refusal to accept that the brand’s meaning was static and bound by history—managers saw the need to evolve the brand even when they had little idea of where it might ultimately go. For example:

I: What do you think Crumpler’s main point of difference is? “I suppose there’s no preconceived boundaries in a way. We don’t really have any preconceived idea of how we want stuff or what we want to do other than outsourcing things like graphic design.” Finally, the firms had formal policies of hiring like-minded people because they had an

intimate understanding of the spirit behind the brand, the subculture in which the brand was embedded and the focal activities of which the brand served. This practice of living the brand is different to formal programs that attempt to inculcate employees with a set of brand values—the fact that employees are so attuned to the subculture gives the brand a real authenticity with target consumers because they are able to identify personally with the brand.

Conclusion To our knowledge this is the first paper to examine the strategic and tactical brand management implications of consumer culture theory. In doing so we identify some characteristics of an emergent approach to brand meaning co-creation that run counter to the tenets of the CBBE model. Consistent with this emergent approach we identify reinforcing tactics or practices that helped firms embed their brands within subcultures and manage the dynamism and open-ended nature of emergent meaning. In contrast to the CBBE model, we identify a much greater focus on the process of brand building as opposed to a more static focus on positioning. However, consistent with the exploratory approach, more research is needed. First, further examinations of brands (including longitudinal studies) are needed to identify more practices used to manage an evolving brand meaning as well as some of the cultural variables underpinning this different strategic mindset. As well, attention needs to be paid to how managers under these conditions measure brand success (our data suggest sales, ubiquity, and buzz are important foci). Finally, since such an approach is likely to be useful for certain categories of goods, future research is necessary to identify boundaries conditions of such an approach.

8

References Arnould Eric J. Thompson Craig J. Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research 2005; 31(Mar): 868-882. Beverland MB. Building Brand Authenticity: 7 Habits of Iconic Brands. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009. Beverland Michael B. Ewing Michael T. Slowing the adoption and diffusion process to enhance brand repositioning: The consumer driven repositioning of Dunlop Volley. Business Horizons 2005; 48(Oct): 385-392. Diamond Nina Sherry John F. Muñiz Albert M. McGrath Mary A. Kozinets Robert V. Borghini Stefania. American Girl and the brand Gestalt: Closing the loop on sociocultural branding research. Journal of Marketing 2009; 73(May): 118-134. Eisenhardt Kathleen M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 1989; 14(4): 532-550. Flint Daniel J. Woodruff Robert B. Gardial Sarah F. Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing 2002; 66 (4): 102-117. Fournier Susan. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 1998; 24(Mar): 343-373. Gobé M. Citizen Brand. New York: Allworth Press, 2002. Gobé M. Brand Jam: Humanizing Brand through Emotional Design. New York: Allworth Press, 2007. Gerzema J. Lebar E. The Brand Bubble: The Looming Crisis in Brand Value and How to Avoid It. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Holt DB. How Brands Become Icons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Holt Douglas B. How societies desire brands: Using cultural theory to explain brand symbolism. In: S. Ratneshwar and David Glenn Mick, editors. Inside Consumption, London: Routledge, 2005. pp. 272-291. Jaffe J. Join the Conversation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2007. Kates Steven M. The dynamics of brand legitimacy: An interpretive study in the gay men’s community. Journal of Consumer Research 2004; 31(Sept): 455-464. Kates Steven M. Goh Charlotte. Brand morphing: Implications for advertising theory and practice. Journal of Advertising 2003; 32(1): 59-68. Keller Kevin-Lane. Managing brands for the long run: Brand reinforcement and revitalization strategies. California Management Review 1999; 41(3): 102-24.

9

Keller KL. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Sydney: Prentice Hall, 2003. McCracken G. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1986. Merz Michael A. He Yi Vargo Stephen L. The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2009; 37: 328-344. Mick David G. Buhl Claus. A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of Advertising 1992; 19 (Dec): 317-338. Mintzberg H. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Prentice Hall, 1994. Nadeau RA. Living Brands: Collaboration=Innovation=Customer Fascination. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Ritson, Mark Elliot Richard. The social uses of advertising: An ethnographic study of adolescent advertising audiences. Journal of Consumer Research 1999; 26: 260-277. Schau Hope J. Muñiz Albert M. Arnould Eric J. How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing; 2009 73(Sept): 30-51. Strauss A. Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1998. Thompson Craig J. Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving marketing insights from the texts of consumers’ consumption stories. Journal of Marketing Research 1997; 34 (Nov):438-455. Vinjamuri D. Accidental Branding: How Ordinary People Build Extraordinary Brands. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008. Wipperfürth A. Brand Hijack: Marketing Without Marketing. London: Portfolio, 2005. Yannopoulou, Natalie Elliott Richard Open versus closed advertising texts and interpretive communities. International Journal of Advertising 2008; 11(1): 9-36.

10

11

Table 1: Details of Sample Case Industry Origin Age Data collected 1. Dunlop Footwear Australia 100+

years Interviews with all six members of the marketing team; 43 documents and reports; 32 examples of brand materials

2. Morgan Motor Company

Automotive UK 100 years Interview with CEO and Marketing manager, factor, and 33 owners; factory tour; club membership for 4 years; monitoring two fan web pages; over 200 club magazines, marketing materials and books.

3. Smiggle Stationary Australia 6 years Interviews with founder and head of marketing.

4. Emma and Tom’s

Beverage Australia Interview with both founders.

5. Crumpler Fashion Australia 14 years Interviews with founders and marketing manager.

6. Boost Juice Health food Australia 9 years Interview with marketing manager.

7. Nudie Beverage Australia 6 years Interview with two founders. 8. Real Groovy Music

retail New Zealand 31 years Interview with 3 founders and

members of brand team; club membership for 15 years.

9. Untouched World

Fashion New Zealand 29 years Interviews with CEO, chief designer and marketer.

10. Atomic Coffee New Zealand 17 years Interview with founder. 11. Beauty Engineered Forever

Household cleaners

New Zealand 5 years Interview with founder.

12. Antipodes Water New Zealand 6 years Interview with co-founder. 13. Vegemite Snacks Australia 87 years