49
The commenter clearly expresses her affiliation by saying that she loves RPC and D. Hereafter the
commenter expresses her version of the match discourse, by describing how it is perfection combination in her eyes. Compared to the other brand stakeholder comments, this stakeholder does not describe the brands further and therefore does not appropriate any symbolic meanings to the co-brand. Overall, the author found that there were three distinctive brand stakeholder groups, who clearly expressed their affiliation with their stakeholder group.
B. Conclusion
The author finds, based on the analysis that on the GD blog there was a high meaning appropriation compared to the two other cases presented in this thesis. The symbolic meaning appropriation was high, because the commenter used many adjectives to describe their relationship with paper and stationery, the aesthetics of the collection and the match between the two brands. The meaning appropriation applied to all three brands, but not necessarily within the same comments.
Meaning is appropriated primarily via storytelling from the commenter’s own lives. This creates a meaning appropriation which is very individual and focused on the individual experience, rather than the collective experience of the co-brand. Therefore, there may be dominating discourses, but they do not share the same words or expressions except from those presented by the blogger in the blog post.
The analysis of the stakeholder affiliation group presented a clear picture of three distinct stakeholder groups. The majority expressed their affiliation with the GD brand, which the author would naturally expect as the platform on which the co-created brand is communicated is on GD’s blog.
The author finds that there was a clear stakeholder-driven development of the co-created brand. Thus, following the model developed by the author, the GD case is a clear example of how the stakeholder co-create the co-co-created brand, by means of using their own symbolic meanings and applying these to the discourses they themselves create or latch onto during the evolving interaction on the blog.
50
The collaborating brand is Bik Bok. BB was established in Norway in 1973 and now has 200 stores in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Austria (Historie, n.d.). BB call themselves an international fashion station for girls (Ibid). BB has done several design collaborations with it-girls such as Mary-Kate Olsen &
Ashley Olsen, Whitney Port and Jenny Skavlan besides AB (Collaborations, n.d.).
The collection for Bik Bok took 1½ year to create according to AB (Appendix 6, post 6). The collection consisted of 24 pieces of clothing and accessories (Ibid). The collection launched the 26th of April 2014 (Collaborations - Angelica Blick, n.d.). The collection was sold out online within 2 hours and took short in the physical stores a few days after the launch.
The data collection was done in January, 2015. The blog posts related to collection span from March 4th 2014 to June 22nd 2014 (see Appendix 3). These was found using the blogger’s archive, as AB uses tags to
categorise the posts. The comments varied in language, although Swedish and English dominated. As the author understands written Swedish, the comments were analysed in their original language in order to stay closest to the original text. Therefore, the analysed Swedish comments will be found in the assignment. The selected posts, which were used in the analysis, can be found translated into English in Appendix 6.
A. The analysis
After the initial data analysis which was guided by the netnographic methodology and can be found in Appendix 2, the dominating discourses were identified by means of an iterative coding process. This lead to the development of the following list of discourses, which can be applied to the blog posts:
A. i. Discourses
- AB Brand: All related to the B brand -Bik Bok: All related to the BB brand
- Collection: The co-created clothing and accessories collection
-Spokesperson: AB’s role as a spokesperson or the embodiment of the BB brand. Tthe discourse primarily relates to practical questions such as sales places, prices etc.
- Country: The country discourse concerns sales outlets, as well as it is related to where events are held.
-Fan: How AB is portrayed as an idol
-Collaboration: Comments stressing the collaborative efforts of the two brands
-Need: This discourse concerns how the blogger AB and her fans create a discourse concerning the desire to own items from the collection.
-Role model: This discourse is related to the fan discourse in the sense that these comments reflect on how AB is a positive role model
-Future: This discourse concerns future collaborations for the AB brand.
51
The following sections will present the results of the analysis, including how discourses shape the brand.
Therefore, the two overarching topics will be meaning appropriation by means of discourses and brand stakeholder affiliations. Lastly, the analysis will present the inter-stakeholder comments and their role in co-branding.
A. ii. Meaning appropriation
Overall, the author found that meaning was appropriated primarily to the co-brand and the AB brand. The major mechanism appropriating meanings were the use of discourses by the commenters. The discourses, which shaped the meaning appropriation were the AB Brand & Collection discourse, the country discourse and the spokesperson discourse.
AB Brand & Collection
The discourse concerning the AB is present throughout the blog posts. During the analysis, the author found that most often AB Brand discourse is found in the comments where the collection discourse is also present.
The first important characteristic of the AB discourse is that she is a brand and that, by linguistic actions by the stakeholders, AB is equal to the BB by AB brand.
The following comment appeared on the first blog post concerning the collection with AB for BB. The blog post was dominated by pictures and featured behind the scenes pictures from the photoshoot for the
collection.
Comment from Gianna: “woooow wow wow wow wow my mouth is open right now…………..THE THIRD PHOTO !!!! and your LEGS on the last one!!!!! damn girl!!! you are sooooooo soooo stunning!
(EMPHASIZE) and your collection is just as beautiful as you are (EMPHASIZE). i love every single piece so far…..I CANT WAIT. everything about this collection is just perfect (EMPHASIZE); the pieces, the photos of it and the model (YOU) !!! you and your photograph did such an amaaaazing job! (type of text:
comment; tone of voice: positive; topic:the collection)” (Appendix 6, Post 1)
The emphasized text highlights how the commenter attributes the symbolic meanings to the co-brand, by using the AB brand discourse as the generator. Gianna linguistically associates the collection with AB and her brand in the sentence “your collection is just as beautiful as you are”. The discoursive connection between the collection and the AB brand is thus established and symbolic meaning connections made. This linguistic mechanism is repeated by the commenters H, Eye Like Fashion, Niima Melusi +Boa and Marie, as all comments are connected to the same post as Gianna’s to the same blog post (See Appendix 6, Post 1).
They attach the following symbolic meanings to the collection that it is beautiful, but not necessarily very wearable (Appendix 6, Post 1, comment by H), that the collection is “stunning and high glam! You look so couture” (Appendix 6, Post 1, comment by Eyes Like Fashion), as well as sharp (Appendix 6, Post 1, comment by Niima Melusi +Boa). Thus, we can observe a discourse development around the co-branded
52
collection. The symbolic meaning apply to the symbolic co-brand, but at the same time the co-brand borrows a lot of the symbolic meaning from the AB Brand.
The author observed, by means of the analysis in Appendix 6, how the discourse develops, and how the posts concerning and appropriating symbolic meanings to the AB brand and the collection develop in complexity.
All in all the AB Brand + Collection discourse is present throughout the blogs posts, and the stakeholders shape their understanding of the co-brand, by appropriating their individual understandings of the AB brand, discursively equalled to the collection by the stakeholders by the use of linguistic mechanisms.
Country
The country discourse covers the issues of where the collection is available, as well as where the events concerning the launch of the collection are held. What is evident from the discourse analysis is that it creates an interplay of negative and positive comments relating to both AB, as well as BB. The first time the country discourse appears is in post 2 (Appendix 3), a blog post where AB releases pictures from her pre-launch event.
Comment by katarina lilius:
”Åååh så du kommer till Finland???(QUESTION) Orkar inte vänta! Ses då igen <3 (EMPHASIZE) (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: the country discourse)”(Appendix 6, post 2)
The comment is the first one stressing the events. What is interesting about the country posts is the fact that the brand manifestations, that is the events, also attaches meanings to the co-brand. This is done by means of association, because the events and the sales outlets only allows for purchases done in Scandinavia, the brand is positioned as exclusively Scandinavian by the commenters. This makes for an interesting dilemma, as the AB blog is an international blog and the fact that BB consider themselves an international fashion brand.
Thus, by means of association the co-brand indirectly attributes meaning to its own brand, by using the stakeholders as creators of the co-brand’s image. Thus, it is observable that the co-brand is created by the stakeholders. The country discourse becomes very important in shaping the stakeholder’s understanding of the co-brand. The discourse and the interplay between positive and negative associations are prominent in the post “Are You Ready” (see Appendix 6, Post 5) and can be observed in the blog post “So Much Love”
(see Appendix 6, Post 8).
The events become an actual physical brand manifestation of the symbolic brand meaning. Thus, the stakeholders identify the places where the brand sees itself as Finland, Northern Sweden and Norway, but not other parts of Sweden, nor internationally.
Because the stakeholders engage in the dialogue on the blog, they also try to shape their understanding of the brand by the use of these comments. Thus, we can observe how the linguistic actions reflect an attempt in a continuous social definition of what is the right and wrong manifestations for the co-brand. The stakeholders
53
simply do not find a coherence between the chosen places for events and the AB x BB brand meaning, and therefore they try to influence the co-brand to show up in their town. This effectively means that negativity flows in the direction of the co-brand, especially so because neither AB (who is discursively positioned as spokesperson) nor BB comment on the choice, leaving the commenters hanging. This allows as negative flow to be created between the stakeholders and the co-brand manifestations. The negative flow and negotiation of co-brand meaning continues into the AB x BB Stockholm post ( see Appendix 6, post 14).
All in all, the author finds that the country discourse is very important for the definition and attempted renegotiation of right and wrong brand manifestations by the brand stakeholders.
Spokesperson
As seen in with the previous analysis of discourses, the first blog post on the collaboration is central in developing the discourses surrounding the co-branding. The spokesperson function is an important and problematic discourse throughout the blog. The first commenter to discursively construct the role for AB as a spokesperson is the following:
Comment by REBECCA: “SÅ sinnessjukt vacker är du! Ber om att kollektionen även kommer till Finland, men det gör det säkert?! :) (QUESTION) (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive;
topic:sales outlets)” (Appendix 6, post 1)
Here, we can observe how REBECCA considers AB as a manifestation of the co-brand arrangement.
Because AB is the front figure of the collaboration, this translates into a discourse surrounding AB as the spokesperson for the collection. Because the meanings are attributed to the co-brand, the commenters implicitly expect AB to also be the physical manifestation and representation of the co-brand. By using the smiley at the end, the commenter indicates a positive hope of response. Thus, AB is constructed as a spokesperson for the brand, because the commenters request practical information (see Appendix 6, post 1, Maribelle), but AB fails to live up to the role given to her by the stakeholders.
Because AB personally engages with her brand in the collaboration, she becomes the focus, and thus not the collaboration, which enhances the fan-like discourse. The fact that the comments are rarely replied increases the negativity.
The negative discourse surrounding AB as a spokesperson continues to post 10, where a reader expresses her disappointment and thinks that it is not okay to run out of items for sale online (Appendix 6, post 10,
comment by Alexandra). Because AB is the front figure of the collaboration, her brand is then appropriated the negative discourses, see also Post 11 (Appendix 6).
At the same time, all the credit and positive comments are also directed at the AB brand, such as the appraisals for the collection. Therefore, the spokesperson discourse has a two-sided effect: at the one side
54
AB receives all the praise, at the same time AB is also the primary brand that is being blamed for the failing responses and the fact that neither brand responds to the country discourse.
All in all, the author found that the spokesperson discourse was very important for this case, because it shaped a negative angle on the country discourse, because none of the brands. By means of this negative tone of voice, the dynamics increase within the comments, as an interplay between the negative and positive discourses then occur. The author finds that although the interplay can be beneficial for the brands, the fact that there is no response to the negative discourse damages the brands, because the readers experience a distance from both brands in the collaboration to the stakeholders.
A. iii. Type of brand stakeholders
A focus of the model developed by the author is the different type of stakeholders, which belong to the different brands: Brand A (AB), Brand B (BB) and Brand C (Angelica Blick for Bik Bok). The author found in the data material, that some commenters directly expressed their affiliation with brand C. Therefore, the following examples will highlight how the commenters express their stakeholder group affiliation with AB and BB, brand C. The categorization as to which brand the commenters belonged depended on how they discursively positioned the brands. A few comments mentioned both brands, but this was rare occasion. One of these comments have been included in order to illustrate how some stakeholders may belong to both brands and thus the co-brand. The following comments highlight the two type of stakeholders found, the Angelica Blick stakeholder and how they appropriate symbolic meanings to the co-brand and the Bik Bok stakeholder.
Angelica Blick
AB’s stakeholders clearly indicate their stakeholder group affiliation. This, they do by means of the fan discourse. That is, they describe how they are fans of her and how it was meeting her in person at the events concerning BB.
The fan discourse starts with the first blog post concerning the collection. The commenter Nina expresses her adoration of AB with the following comment:
Comment by Nina: ” Hi ANGELICA, Im your fan from the beginning and I cant explain with word how amazing you are (EMPHASIZE). I wish you will come to Prague one day. I would love to meet you and give you a hug! Nina (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: fan culture) “ (Appendix 6, Post 1)
The fan discourse is continued throughout the blog posts. The discourse is intriguing, because it has an element of meeting the idol (see Appendix 6, post 3, comment by Rebecca Andersson). The events
55
effectively become the physical brand manifestations of the co-branded collection, with AB as the front figure. AB then, by physical presence becomes the textual and physical embodiment of the co-branded collection (see Appendix 6, post 3, comment by Diana). All in all, the discourses surrounding the fan experiences are positive and thus the brand manifestations positively affect the co-brand.
Silence is also a matter of AB for acting and discursively positioning herself as an idol who is very welcoming at events, but closed off when it comes to actually responding to comments on the blog (see Appendix 9, post 9, comment by Jessika). She rarely addresses comments, and when she does, it is collective such as post 8 named ‘So Much Love’ (Appendix 6). Thus, AB remains distant from her fans, who despite of the silence still idolise her.
All in all, the author finds that the stakeholders very clearly express their brand stakeholder group affiliation, by means of idolisation or flattering of AB.
Bik Bok
Besides being mentioned in the headlines or where the blogger describes the collection, the BB discourse is rarely used by the commenters. Therefore, the commenters also rarely express their BB stakeholder group membership. But when they do, they exhibit an interesting stakeholder mechanism, as it becomes clearly observable, which stakeholders are concerned with both brands or belong to one of the stakeholder groups.
The commenter Tess is an example of a BB stakeholder group member:
Comment by Tess: ”Jag jobbar på BIKBOK och ska bli otroligt roligt att vi ska göra ett samarbete med dig! (EMPHASIZE) Du har grym stil så ska bli super kul att se hur kollektionen blir! (EMPHASIZE) (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic:the collection)”(Appendix 6, post 1)
Here, we can clearly see how the stakeholder belongs to the BB group, as she works there. It is very interesting that no stakeholder who identifies him/herself with BB are present in the later blog posts.
Co-brand stakeholder
Another comment in which BB is mentioned, in a case where the stakeholder belongs to both the BB stakeholder group and the AB stakeholder group, hereby according to the model fitting into the co-brand stakeholder group.
Comment by Mona: “Oh my god, your collection is peeeeeeeerfect(EMPHASIZE)! I have been admiring your behind the scene pictures from BIKBOK’s website and trough your blog also (EMPHASIZE). I read that you are coming to Helsinki next week to launch your collection and I literally started to freak out. I try my very best to come because it would be so amazing to meet you again (EMPHASIZE) (met you in Helsinki at the Bloggers day event and at the Blog Awards last year if you remember) and of course to get few stunning clothes from your collection! If I can’t make it, I wish you all the best and I hope that your
56
collection will be a huge success. I believe that it WILL be. Gosh … I would like to have every piece…
mmm! <3 With love, Mona http://beyondwordsinmyshoes.blogspot.fi
(type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: the collection, Bik Bok Brand and Angelica Blick's brand)” (Appendix 6, post 6, comment by Mona)
Here we can see a stakeholder, who can be categorised as belonging to both brands. This indicates that in the model developed by the author, not only may a brand stakeholder be in both the Brand A group, the Brand B group, but also the co-brand group. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the stakeholder has researched both brand and then becomes a fan of the co-brand and not just AB, although she is the front figure for the story of a previous meeting with her.
All in all, the author thus found clear affiliation with brand A, brand B and brand C from the stakeholders in this case.