cases that cover different theoretical conditions (Yin, 2002). For this paper, it was not clear from the start whether the chosen cases would provide literal or theoretical replication. However, it was decided to select cases differing in certain aspects, which will be elaborated in section 4.
In relation to the nature of intensive case studies, which are not aimed at knowledge production for generalization purposes but for exploration and understanding of the cases and their contexts (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008), it is noted that the researchers’ main aim is to identify the uniqueness of the cases while highlighting context-relation.
3.2.2 Focus group
As a first step in the primary research process, a focus group was conducted to gain insights into the thoughts, associations and behavioristics of the consumers in relation to the brands studied. The focus group provided a base for conducting the individual in-depth interviews, as additional questions and adaptations were needed.
By conducting focus groups, it is possible to observe the interaction between participants in a social setting (Morgan, 1997). It was sought to create a psychodynamic group as opposed to a dependent one, as the former allows for discussion to flow freely (Gordon, 1999). Concerning the role of the moderator, it was considered crucial not to be too limiting. The questions were semi-structured and followed a guide (see Appendix A) which gave the moderator enough freedom to ask follow-up questions if necessary.
During the design of the questionnaire for the focus group, attention was paid to ensuring a fluent sequence of questions, including an introduction, main and transition questions as well as a conclusion. In addition, most questions were designed as open-ended or closed with open-open-ended follow-up questions, in order to allow for discussion to flow. Questions were categorized according to the central themes studied in this thesis, for example consumers with regards to platforms and digital brands, trust, the
social aspect of brands and value co-creation, as well as the two brands in question - Airbnb and Uber.
Participants for the focus group were found in the researchers’ immediate environment, via acquaintances and friends, or simply online and were chosen according to their familiarity with the brands studied. Since primary research was conducted in Austria, participants were Austrian citizens. However, special attention was devoted to creating diversity among participants in relation to variables such as gender, age, profession and lifestyle. Participants were approximately between 20-30 years old, both male and female and professions ranged from full-time employees to students and part-time workers. Furthermore, a so-called over-recruiting strategy was applied (Bryman & Bell, 2011), by sending invitations to a total of seven people. The focus group was conducted at a group room at a university in Vienna, Austria. By doing so, it was ensured to offer participants a public, neutral space. The focus group was conducted on March 25th at 2 pm, and a total of five people participated.
3.2.3 In-depth interviews
In a next step, individual interviews were conducted. Individual in-depth interviews give the interviewees more time to give a more detailed answer. As focus groups bear the risk of group members’ tendency towards conformity and polarization (Sussman, Burton, Dent, Stacy, & Flay, 1991), i.e. conforming to the most popular opinion within the group provided by a dominant member, individual interviews were viewed to be a good addition to extend the previously gathered data and to counteract the limitations that come with focus groups.
For the in-depth interviews, again a semi-structure was chosen in order to be able to ask follow-up questions if the interviewers felt the need to explore a subject in more detail. By doing so, a more relaxed and open conversation was possible.
It was decided to have two separate sets of in-depth interview questionnaires: one focusing on Airbnb and the hotel industry and the other on Uber and the taxi industry.
The questions for the individual interviews were adapted and new questions were
added after conducting the focus group, as questions needed to be rephrased to achieve a better understanding and added in order to allow for more extensive insights into the topic. Both sets of interview guides comprised a base of questions about general topics such as services, digital brands, and platform usage; followed by a set of questions related to the industry and brand in question. A few introductory questions concerning research participants’ personalities and behavior were included, not because they were assumed to have a direct effect on the research, but primarily to allow for a contextual analysis of data. Additionally, it was deemed important to explain the central concepts discussed during the interviews to achieve a mutual understanding. Questions about consumer perceptions concerning the personalities and characteristics of the brands studied (such as sincerity, excitement, competence etc.) were designed based on Aaker’s brand personality dimensions (1997). The interview guides can be found in Appendix B.
With regards to potential participants for the interviews, the same recruitment strategy as for the focus group was used. Again, it was of importance that the interviewees were familiar with the brands in order to get valuable information. Three people per brand were interviewed, so a total of 6 in-depth interviews were conducted. In order to ensure a certain level of comfort, the interviews were held in a neutral environment in which the interviewees had the chance to feel secure and open to conversation.
3.2.4 Netnographic study
Netnography is suitable in cases when researchers want to gain insights into online communities and the social interactions online (Kozinets, 2010). In comparison to other types of methodology, a netnographic approach can provide “more naturalistic and unobtrusive” data (Kozinets, 2002, p.1). Information on meanings, symbolism, and consumption patterns can thus be observed online (Kozinets, 2002).
By conducting netnography, participant-observation procedures that are usually used in ethnographic studies are adapted to social interactions online (Kozinets, 2010). This allows for a better picture of how the brands and their platforms operate, and how consumers behave and interact with the brand and among themselves. When
conducting netnography, a non-participatory observation was applied. Netnography gives researchers the possibility to understand “a cultural or communal phenomenon”
(Kozinets, 2010, p.60). By having a non-participatory approach, the researchers will unobtrusively get data from online communities (Langer & Beckman, 2005).
Kozinets (2002) distinguishes between five types of communities a researcher should choose from to conduct netnography. These are boards, also called newsgroups or usegroups, which revolve around a particular service or lifestyle; independent websites that provide community resources for consumer-to-consumer exchanges; lists united by a common topic; and multi-user chatrooms (ibid.).
In order to counteract ethical concerns regarding privacy and due to the fact that agreed appropriate ethical procedures for this type of methodology have not been identified yet (Kozinets, 2002), names were not used in the course of the paper to ensure privacy of users. When talking about results from netnography, they will only be referred to as ‘Netnography’. Langer & Beckman (2005) claim that a pragmatic approach to covert research towards netnography is ethically sufficient for analyzing and interpreting online texts, which in this context implies that it would be unusual to seek permission for publicly available postings.
It is noted that the Internet gives individuals the possibility to gain a new sense of identity and room for experimentation due to the nature of anonymity online (Kozinets, 2010). Langer & Beckman (2005) suggest that this anonymity gives room to free expression of attitudes, opinions, and experiences, which in turn leads to deeper insights into motives, behaviors, and consumer experiences.
As recommended by Kozinets (2002), online communities were chosen based on their focus and relevance to the research questions, as there are high traffic of postings, a great number of discrete message posters, detailed rich data, as well as interaction between members.
For both brands in question, emphasis was put on forums and social media, and some comments under news articles and blogs were chosen in addition. For Airbnb, there are currently no specific country-related communities available, so other types of German-speaking communities were researched. Thus, online communities of two newspapers, a magazine, two rating and review platforms, and one travel blog were chosen. All of the mentioned communities had a high participation and a high topic relevance. For Uber, the social media channels Facebook and Twitter were chosen as a platform of observation. The accounts were chosen because they have a country-specific page, and a reasonably high user participation, thus representing a community suitable for netnography. Postings and comments of the last twelve months were observed and evaluated based on their relevance to the thesis topic. Netnography for Airbnb and Uber can be found in Appendix C.
3.2.5 Experts’ opinions
As mentioned previously, opinions on the topic from brand managers of the two brands studied were sought. This was done after having conducted primary research, and its purpose was to get the brands’ viewpoint on the data gathered.
A text including a short introduction on the thesis topic and a few questions for the brands were prepared before contacting the experts. However, neither brand provided any contact information in the form of a contact form, e-mail address, or phone number anywhere. Airbnb only offers customer service regarding specific problems in connection to the service in the form of contact via the website, and does not have a local social media presence in Austria. Uber could be reached via its local Facebook account, but a negative response was received as information was considered confidential. The researchers were instead referred to the website. This conversation can be found in Appendix D.
3.2.6 Note on data collection
The focus group and the interviews were voice-recorded with a special smartphone app, and were subsequently transcribed word-by-word and translated from German to English by the researcher who conducted the interview. It was not always possible to
use a word-by-word translation due to differences in language. However, a high focus was put on translating the exact meaning behind the German phrases that were used, which was enabled by the use of various online dictionaries.
King and Horrocks (2010) note that voice-recording might have an impact on interviewees, as it might evoke suspicion or hostility. On the other hand, it might be a sign of seriousness of the project. Keeping this in mind, it was of importance to brief participants of the focus group as well as interviews beforehand, ensure that their recordings will not be available to anyone but the researchers, and that no names will be used. By doing so, the researchers wanted to ensure that the participants speak without hesitation, as open and freely as possible.