Overall, the author found that meaning was appropriated to both the WL brand and the T brand. The major mechanism appropriating meanings to the brands were via storytelling, via the discourses of romance, meaning and via interaction between the brand and the commenters.
Storytelling
Storytelling is an overarching theme for many comments to the blog post, as the commenter either create their own stories or when they say they like the video or the story behind the co-brand. The following comment clearly highlights both the symbolic meaning appropriation made by the commenter and how the commenter uses his own situation to create a storytelling concerning the brand:
Comment by: aaq
39
“I wanted to share as a man (EMPHASIZE), that when I watched the videos(EMPHASIZE), and saw the meaning behind of what the Promise Bracelet represents (EMPHASIZE) , I was very moved by it (EMPHASIZE). After 10 years of marriage, I could see the promises fulfilled, but also those that will be fulfilled in the years to come (EMPHASIZE). I am typically not much of a jewelry person myself, but knowing the story behind it, translating it to the promises in our own lives, I can really embrace this (EMPHASIZE). I feel (EMPHASIZE)that this bracelet can have for us the representation of new
beginnings for the next part of our years (EMPHASIZE). I would love to see my wife wear one. If I may present a further thought for you, as a father to my little girl, I tell her often that I will always love her and that I will always be her daddy (EMPHASIZE). I was thinking how great it would be to have a piece of jewelry such as this, potentially with a modified design in the "Promise" series to represent a promise of parental love (EMPHASIZE), for her heart to be entrusted to me as her daddy until the day comes that it is time for me to give it to another man she would marry one day (EMPHASIZE). (type of text:
comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: the storytelling behind the product)” (Appendix 4, post 1)
The commenter discursively starts the storytelling by setting a scene, as he emphasizes that as a man this is his story. The scene is also a way of appropriating symbolic meanings to the cobrand, because it indicates that he finds that the co-brand can also appeal to men. The commenter then goes on to put his tale into context and creates a discourse of emotions. He then goes on to describe how he is able to see the meaning the bracelets represents, hereby appropriating the symbolic meanings emotions and meaning to the co-brand.
Furthermore, the commenter emphasizes how the product can represent both past, present, and future. By means of using this storytelling, the commenter connects to the romance discourse by mentioning his wife and appropriates romance as a symbolic meaning to the co-brand. He then goes on to appropriate the symbolic meaning of ‘eternal’ to the co-brand. This is done by means of describing his past, present and future story. Lastly, the commenter describes his relationship with his daughter, hereby appropriating the values of ‘parental love’, ‘parent-child relationship’ and ‘marriage’ to the co-brand.
Thus, the author observed in the above post and other post categorised as storytelling, that by means of using storytelling, the commenter themselves create their own stories concerning the brand and hereby appropriate symbolic meanings to the co-brand.
Via Discourses
As mentioned previously, the dominating discourses which appropriate meaning to the co-brand are the discourses of romance and meaning and. As the comments on this blog post are fairly long, the author has chosen to let the comment in storytelling represent the romance discourse. Continuing to the discourse of meaning, this discourse concerns how the commenters find a connection between the material in the blog post, that is the photos, the text and the videos and the final product The Promise Bracelet. The comments
40
emphasize the connection that they see between the thoughts behind the product and the actual physical product. This meaning discourse is highlighted by both text and video created by the blogger WL to present the product.
Comment by Mun:
“ Great concept WENDY :) I realise that I appreciate a design more when I understood the story behind it (EMPHASIZE)... It makes fashion a lot more meaningful :) (EMPHASIZE) wllwproject.wordpress.com (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: storytelling)” (Appendix 4, post 1)
For this commenter, we can see how the symbolic meaning of ‘meaning’ is appropriated. The video has set the stage for her understanding of the co-brand, that is the symbolic meanings she attaches to the brand, and she contrasts the meaning discourse with fashion, because not only does it have a meaning, it also explains the story behind the product. Hereby the commenter also appropriates the symbolic meanings of
‘meaningful’ and ‘coherent’ to the co-bran. By understanding a design, the co-brand can be understood as coherent with the story behind the product and the actual physical product. All in all, the author finds that within these individual comments, the authors of the comments try to explain their individual version of what the overarching theme of a meaningful products means to them.
Via Interaction
The commenter’s interactions also appropriate the meaning to the brand. In terms of this specific case, the commenters that respond are representatives of the two brands WL and T. The following example highlights how the commenter appropriates meanings to the co-brand and how the T brand responds and reaffirms that these meanings are appropriate for the co-brand.
Comment by: Luxtreia
“First: Congratulations for being able to see your design become reality and for giving all of us the chance to participate in it (ENCOURAGE). And Second: I'd love to get this one from a special person because the picture of locking on to another is so a strong and passionate (EMPHASIZE). And I can imagine how funny and sweet it must have been to see MM trying to not break anything!
It would be sooo nice being able to also get it in Europe (ENCOURAGE). But the only store with TACORI jewelry is in the UK (EMPHASIZE) and only sells the rings :( (type of text: comment/opinion;
tone: positive; topic: romance as the primary topic, Tacori brand sales outlets as secondary topic)”
(Appendix 4, Post 1)
In the comment, a clear meaning appropriation is visible. In the second emphasized sentence, the stakeholder emphasizes the brand meaning that she finds to be important for the product: romance. She attributes the
41
symbolic brand meaning to a special person hinting at marriage or in general romantic relationships, as well as she hints at love and romance with the words strong and passionate. Furthermore, the stakeholder notices how T lacks physical brand manifestations, that is sales outlets, in the Europe. Thus, she makes an implicit invitation for interaction and for others to comment. This T takes up, with the following response from Tacori:
“Hi Luxtreia, Thank you so much for your words of support(EMPHASIZE); we're thrilled that so many people have understood and connected with the meaning and intent of the Promise bracelet
(ENCOURAGE).
Regarding availability to purchase in the UK, our stockist Joule in Hampstead will be able to carry the Promise Bracelet in March, 2013 (JUSTIFY). Until then, we are looking at ways to bring the Promise to all of WENDY's international fans and community. Stay tuned for more details coming soon (ENCOURAGE), and again, thank you!
Best,
TACORI (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: tacori sales outlet)” (Appendix 4, Post 1) The comment from T is an example of how T tries to direct and negotiate the symbolic meanings attributed to the brand. By saying that they are thrilled and emphasizing that people have “understood and connected with the meaning and intent”, T is via linguistic action, positive emphasis and a positive tone of voice with affirmative language (“thank you for your support”), trying to affect the discourses by directly emphasizing the romance discourse. Thus, the author argues that by means of interaction and negotiation of which symbolic meanings are right and wrong, meaning is appropriated to the co-brand via these discursive mechanisms.
42 Wendy’s Lookbook stakeholder
Comment by Julia: “It is absolutely beautiful, WENDY, both the film and the bracelet!(EMPHASIZE) I don't always get the "explanations" for designs and sometimes even go all out out and think it's bullshitting one's way through, but Your explanation, Your idea... I love it (EMPHASIZE). I truly share you view on womanhood (EMPHASIZE), and I think sometimes it's so hard being a woman, we have to be... perfect, in everything, I think graceful yet strong quite illustrates it (EMPHASIZES), to put it in your words. Thank you so much for this design, but thank you above all things, from the bottom of my heart, for your words and the time you dedicate to this blog, not only enlightening us with your unbelievable sense of style, but reminding us all that we can achieve our dreams, that things can change, and that we just have to keep trying. (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: the video and the Wendy brand)”
(Appendix 4, Post)
This is a very interesting post, because it holds both a clear affiliation declaration by mentioning the blogger’s dedication to the blog. In the same comment as the brand stakeholder group affiliation is stresses, so is the meaning element: the co-brand collaboration is a physical manifestation of how WL is seen by her stakeholder: graceful, yet strong, represents womanhood, love, and how enlightenment transferred from WL to her readers. Here we can observe how the commenter discursively establishes a connection to WL’s brand, not connected to the product, more to the idea of the product and its inspirational quality because WL has crafted the brand. In general, the author found that rarely did the commenters only express their
affiliation with the WL brand, they also commented on the collaboration and appropriated meaning to it.
Tacori brand stakeholders.
The second group of stakeholders are the one who have affiliation with the T brand, brand B.
Comment by Anh-Thu Nguyen: “Hi WENDY, Congrats!! I love TACORI and recently I've
been blessed with a TACORI engagement ring! (EMPHASIZE) Such a classic piece (EMPHASIZE)...
and I am even more excited to discover that you are part of the TACORI family! (EMPHASIZE) I really love your styles and most important the soul in your writing (EMPHASIZE). Thank you for making me feel inspired :) (type of text: comment; tone of voice: positive; topic: the Tacori brand)” (Appendix 4, Post 1)
From the emphasized sections of the comments, it is clear that the commenters know T from previosuly and thus belongs to the T brand stakeholder group, and therefore lets T take the lead in her discourse concerning the collaboration. In this sense, WL becomes a bi-figure as she 'becomes part of the family', indicating that T is by far the more powerful of the two according to the commenter. The author found that within the data material, fewer people expressed their affiliation with the T brand than with the WL brand.
43 B. Conclusion
Case 1 shows that 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.
Stakeholder affiliation is clear with the two brands, thus drawing a clearer line between the two stakeholder groups and lacking in interaction in terms of brand manifestation negotiations.
The brand most spoken about is the co-brand and the blog brand WL. The stakeholders focus on the brand, which presents the collaboration, which becomes WL.
The more times the brands engage, the more they are able to shape/enhance the meanings being appropriated to the brand. The more they own up to their spokespersons role, the fewer questions they get as information is accumulated and stakeholders are satisfied
The case does not evolve very much during the period of investigation, because the comments are very heterogenous in terms of discourses. There is a lack of interplay between positive and negative comments, creating a sugarsweet environment surrounding the co-branded collaboration.
All in all, the author finds that the case is a good example of how brands can engage in the discourse creation in co-branding cases on social online platforms, that discourses shape the brands and that the more times the brands engage, the more they are able to shape/enhance the meanings being appropriated to the brand.
B. CASE 2- Garance Doré
The case chosen concerns the collaboration and co-branding between the blogger Garance Doré (hereafter GD) and the stationery brand Rifle Paper Co (hereafter RPC). The collection is named “Rifle Paper Co.
presents Garance Doré” (Appendix 2)
The blogger is named Garance Doré, and is a French woman, who works with within high fashion and photography. The blog started in June, 2006 (Dore, About - Meet Garance, 2015). GD has a team of five behind her (The Studio, n.d.). Her team at the studio also contribute to content on the blog, but when they do so it is with specific statement (see http://www.garancedore.fr/en/author/brie/).
The collaborating brand Rifle Paper Co. is an American stationery and gift brand from Florida (History, n.d.). The paper products are made and assembled in the USA (Ibid). The company has had partnerships with Hygge & West, Chronicle Books, Tattly and Villanova Fabric (Ibid). During the research period, the
44
company webpage highlighted and displayed the GD collaboration on their website. The collection created consists of 66 items (Collections - Garance Dore, n.d.) and is displayed on the front-page of the thesis.
The data collection was done in January 2015 and consisted of gathering all the blog posts concerning the collection. This was done by means of using the blogger’s own internal archive and investigating the categories which applied to the RPC collaboration. This resulted in 6 blog posts with a varying number of comments, dating from which 24.02.2014 to end March, can all be found in Appendix no. 2. The blog is written both in English and in French, the author chose to use the English blog posts as the basis of interpretation. As the blog is bi-lingual, so were the comments regarding the blog posts. In order to get a better understanding of the subject, the author used Google Translate to translate the French texts into English. Due to the language restraints, the author therefore chose to analyse specific comments and the translated chosen French texts can be found in Appendix 5. Initially all comments were translated via Google Translate by the author, but not all comments were found valuable for further analysis. Therefore, the
following analysis will feature translated French comments.
A. The analysis
The following analysis will focus on firstly the types of discourses found on the blog posts concerning the collaboration. Secondly, the analysis will focus on the meaning appropriation and highlight specific
comments in order to exemplify how meaning is appropriated within the dominating discourses. Thirdly, the analysis will continue onto defining the type of brand stakeholders that show up in the comments on the blog posts, that is the analysis will exemplify how the commenters express their allegiance to a specific brand stakeholder group.
A.i. Discourses
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:
- Garance, related to GD as a person and GD as a brand.
- Rifle, related to RPC and RPC as a brand
- Paper, related to the dominating discourse, where the commenters describe their relationship with paper or appropriate meanings via the paper discourse
- Spokesperson, related to when the commenters discursively expects GD to act as a spokesperson regarding the practical questions concerning the collection
- Sales, related to when the commenters discuss or comment the sales outlets and the possibilities of purchasing the collection, as well as the rate with which the collection will sell out and the events related to the collection
- Match, related to how the readers find a match between the two brands GD and RPC
45
- Future, related to when the commenters describe how they are looking forward to the future or future collections
- Collection, related to when the commenters comment on the collection.
The discourses the author found to be dominating discourses in terms of meaning appropriation were the paper, collection and match discourse. The following section will describe the meaning appropriation by means of the dominating discourses and examples from these.