Excerpt I: AFOL, TFOL, Parent, Blogger, Other (RB4)
5. Conclusion
5.2 Managerial implications
The following paragraph will address in which ways the findings of the analysis can be of value to LEGO and companies alike that are exposed to similar conditions regarding multi-stakeholder interactions. Further, it can be addressed how the appearance of online interpretive communities of interest can be exploited by companies in other industries without the premises’ of typical ‘fan-communities’. These companies can also turn the tables and exploit stakeholder-interactions to create value. By applying the netnographic methodology companies can gain insights into stakeholder-interactions in an online sphere, which can guide tactical and strategic decisions for long-term value co-creation.
First, the findings suggest that stakeholder relationships (either internal vs. external and external vs. external) exist online and in these relationships continuous interests or interpretive strategies are put forth in different interpretive communities. This is done on a highly frequent basis engaging multi-stakeholders in the process of co-creation of brand meaning at all times. Therefore, the understanding of interpretive communities of interest provides companies with opportunities that must be seized. As complex as it seems the essential outcome of multi-stakeholder interaction is an opportunity to engage and build closer relations to all
125 members of the brand interest group. By understanding the complex stakeholder-interactions and identify them as persons or as having different roles, companies can exploit these insights in several ways.
First, the stakeholder interaction in interpretive communities of interest foster opportunity for real-time brand monitoring of ongoing insights and trends in their stakeholder networks. In that sense the company can gain quick insights to its brand meaning characteristics at different points in time and potentially balancing expectations of stakeholders better and faster. Further, it gives the opportunity to respond. Examples of topics that amplifies potential crisis can be avoided by responding to stakeholder’s comments before discussions or accusations escalates. Companies also have severe customer service advantages as they have direct contact and dialogue with many stakeholders at the same time. It is possible to exploit and amplify current positive activity or tone from stakeholders by referrals and recommendations (as observed on Rebrick, Facebook) and foster communities or just strengthens its markers of community.
Finally, companies can seize opportunities to lead changes in sentiment or behavior of stakeholders through brand content awareness, product launches, targeted deals, offers and stakeholder input and feedback (e.g.
LEGO Cuusoo, LEGO Facebook – DUPLO, Shop, Education etc.). Companies should accept the existence of shared and conflicting interpretive strategies and how it affects brand meaning either positively or negatively. By initiating online platforms where stakeholders meet it is inevitable to be exposed to negative discourses, but in the context of concentrated exposure the company can really differentiate itself by providing extraordinary service etc. And by understanding different stakeholders’ roles across platforms the task becomes more evident – potential to affect sentiment, attitude and behavior towards many. Further, certain stakeholders as brand-related ‘content-creators’ can be identified and embraced for the long-term benefit of positive brand-meaning co-creation from interactions between ‘content-creators’ and other stakeholders. As proven through the empirical study stakeholders also often respond to each other’s comments providing guidance or help on specific matters thus adopt roles as ambassadors or service-practices as ‘employees’ based form their own experiences.
All companies have different stakeholders, and some companies even have a product that is more attractive or creates greater value or sentiment on its own (such as LEGO). But companies that are not as privileged from the true loveable nature of the product as LEGO (e.g. Telecommunication, Bank- or insurance companies), value are still to be exploited. Stakeholders have an interest and the more the company engage and is able to create or initiate opportunities for stakeholders to interact – they probably will. By amplifying social motivators for co-creation of brand meaning (or innovation) between stakeholders, other companies can foster engagement, feedback and sharing. These companies should then not fear the probability of negative discourses surrounding them, but seize the opportunity to engage in interactions. Thereby, companies will learn faster and better fulfill the discrepancies between stakeholder expectations and company behavior.
126 5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research
Having concluded and provided the final overview of this extensive research and the new knowledge found on multi-stakeholder interaction and co-creation of brand meaning online, suggestions for future research are now presented. Stakeholder-, discourse- and brand community literature consists of a wide range of different topics, and this study is by no means exhaustive in dealing with all these, but a data collection of this caliber collected specifically for this purpose invites other interesting relations to be investigated. These are inspired by both the discrepancies found between theory and empirical evidence as well as the consequence of our delimitation. And as touched upon in the reliability and validity section qualitative research is inadequate of drawing generalizing conclusions. Further, the limitations of the study lead to other interesting research avenues.
First, the findings suggest that several stakeholders participate simultaneously in the discursive activities collected, which makes it difficult to distinguish between brand meaning co-creation put forth by which individual stakeholder or group. By focusing more on comprehending specific relationships between different types of stakeholders (e.g. employees vs. bloggers), findings might suggest brand meaning co-creation relationships that seems more influential in terms of affecting discursive activities and the adoption of interpretive strategies the most. Thereby, a deeper categorization of certain stakeholder relationships seems promising and fruitful to understand the discursive activities that amplify the co-creation of brand meaning in interpretive communities of interest more. That being said, the same notion can be made for a deeper categorization of the types of interpretive communities of interest that seem to gather more diverse stakeholders and maybe a fair distribution of brand interest group members. The identified ‘cloud’ of interpretive communities of interest has shed light on other interesting community-gatherings such as Flickr, MOCpages, blogs etc. Future research should entail same practices as this study, thereby being able to compare and comprehend the complex and arbitrary environment of brand-meaning co-creation that exist online; outlining specific characteristics of other community-gatherings as well as concrete stakeholder relationships.
Second, by understanding new community-gatherings in a dynamic and evolving context online can shed light on a deeper understanding of the differences between classic brand communities and new types of communities (e.g. related LEGO micro groups on Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo49) with different characteristics and stakeholders as the case with Rebrick and Facebook. Third, multiple stakeholders in an online environment can interact independently of brand management. This study took departure in two LEGO-initiated communities where LEGO and its employees are active participants towards stakeholders.
Future research should try to identify stakeholder relationships where the brand itself or employees do not
49 E.g. many other groups of LEGO related content and social discourse have been found on Facebook (e.g. LEGO Batman etc.), as well as anti-brand communities. Further, Flickr consist of more than 5.000 LEGO-related groups as well as YouTube and Vimeo contains considerably amounts of video data.
127 participate. Hence, future investigation should focus on stakeholder interactions and social discourse between ‘external to external’ stakeholders.
Fourth, it can be concluded that several stakeholders obtain different roles and are active on several platforms and communities. Future research should try to better identify and categorize these actors to evaluate their individual roles and adoption of these across platforms. Further, other examples of social discourse gaining quick viral effect across platforms has been observed outside the data collection (e.g. as in the case of the launch of LEGO Friends), where politicians, former employees, parents, neutrals etc. took part of the discursive activities making it a high-priority discussion among multi-stakeholders. Other situations of high-priority cases gaining viral effect can be fruitful to understand the flow of social discourse across platforms to better understand how discourses gains ground in other contexts e.g. in different interpretive communities of interest.
128
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.Aaker 1997
Aaker, J. L. (1997), Dimensions of Brand Personality. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Abric, J.C. (1993), Central System, Peripheral System: Their Functions and Roles in the Dynamics of Social Representations, Papers on Social Representations, 2 (2), 107-26.
Anderson et. al (1999) – ‘Assessing social presence in asynchronous computer conferencing transcripts’. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71
Antorini Yun M, Brand Community Innovation. PhD Series 35. 2007. Copenhagen Business School, 2007.
Armstrong, A. and Hagel, J. (1996) ‘The real value of on-line communities’. Harvard Business Review May–Jun, 134–
141
Arnould, E. J., Price, L, Zinkhan, G. M. (2004), Consumers. International 2nd edition. McGraw Hill.
Arnould, E. (2005), Animating the Big Middle, Journal of Retailing, 81(2), 89-96.
Arnould, E. (2007), Consuming experience – Retrospects and prospects, in Carù, A. and Cova, B. (eds.), Consuming Experience, New York: Routledge, 185-194.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 24-45.
Barsalou, L.W. (1999), Perceptual Symbol Systems, Behavioural Brain Science, 22, 577-660.
Belk, R. (1988) ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September).
Belk, R. W., & Costa, J. (1998), The mountain man myth: A contemporary consuming fantasy. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 218-240.
Berry, L. L. (2000), Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L. and Campbell, C. (2009) ‘Does brand meaning exist in similarity or singularity?’, Journal of Business Research 62 (3): 356–361
Bruns, Axel and Joanne Jacobs (2006), Uses of Weblogs. New York: Peter Lang
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Broderick, A., P. Maclaran & P.-Y. Ma (2003) ‘Brand Meaning Negotiation and the Role of the Online Community: A Mini Case Study’, Journal of Customer Behaviour, 2: 75-103.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., and Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2003), Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67, 19–33.
Bruns, Axel and Joanne Jacobs (2006), Uses of Weblogs. New York: Peter Lang.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 157–179.
129
Clerc, S.J. (1996) ‘DDEB, GATB, MPPB, and Ratboy: the X-files’ media fandom, online and off. In Deny all Knowl- edge: Reading the X-Files, eds D. Lavery, A. Hague and M. Cartwright, pp. 36–51. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Clont, J. G. (1992) ‘The concept of reliability as it pertains to data from qualitative studies’. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the South West Educational Research Association. Houston, TX.
Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2002), Tribal Marketing: The Tribalisation of Society and its Impact on the Conduct of Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, 36 (5/6), 595–620
Csaba FF, Bengtsson A. (2006), Rethinking identity in brand management. In: Schroeder JE, Salzer-Mö rling M, editors. Brand culture. London: Routledge; 2006.
Czarniawska, B. (1997a) ‘A Four Times Told Tale: Combining Narrative and Scientific Knowledge in Organization Studies’, Organization4: 7–30.
Czarniawska, B. (1997b) Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dant, T. (1999), Material Culture in the Social World. Values, Activities, Lifestyles, Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Davies, B. and R. Harré (1990) ‘Positioning: The discursive production of selves’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), pp. 44-63
de Valck, K., G. van Bruggen & B. Wierenga (2005) Patterns of Participation in Virtual Communities of Consumption:
A Member Typology’,working Paper presented at the EMAC Conference, Milan.
Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Text: Linguistic Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society 3(2): 193-217
Fairclough, Norman (1995) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ Boston: Addison Wesley
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 24, March, pp. 343-373
Fournier S., Sensiper S., McAlexander J.H. and Schouten J.W. (2000), Building Brand Community on the Harley-Davidson Posse Ride, Harvard Business School Cases, Boston
Fournier, S. and Maas, J. (2001), Building Brand Community on the Harley-Davidson Posse Ride, Teaching Note, Harvard Business School Cases, Boston
Fournier, S. (2002) ’Building Brands by Building Brand Relationships’, presentation at Brand Lab Maiden Voyage, September.
Füller, J. Jawecki, G. & Mühlbacher, H. (2007), Innovation creation by online basketball communities, Journal of Business Research, vol. 60, issue 1, pp. 60-71
Fuglsang, Lars (2004): Videnskabsteori i samfundsvidenskaberne - på tværs af fagkulturer og paradigmer, Roskilde Universitetsforlag
Gilly, M. C., & Wolfinbarger, M. (1998), Advertising's Internal Audience, Journal of Marketing, 98(1), 69–88.
Gilpin, Dawn R. (2008), Narrating the organizational self: Reframing the role of the news Release, Public Relations Review, 34, 9-18.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, P. (1992) ‘Becoming qualitative researches: An introduction’. New York, NY: Longman.
130
Gobe, M. (2001), Emotional Branding: The new Paradigm for Connecting Brands to People, New York, N.Y.: Allworth Press.
Golafshani, N (2003) ‘Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research’, The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Gregory, A. (2007), Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: the communication dimension, Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (1-2), 59-73.
Grönroos, C. (2000). Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Guba, G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Handelman, J. M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 107-114.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance.
Journal of Brand Management, 17 (8), 590-604.
Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2008) ‘Taking brand initiative – how companies can align strategy, culture, and identity through corporate branding’
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997) ‘Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers’. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.
Holt, Douglas B. (1995), “How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 1–16.
Holt, D.B. and Thompson, C.J. (2004). Man-of-Action Heroes: The Pursuit of Heroic Masculinity in Everyday Consumption, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 425-441.
Hope Jensen Schau, Albert M. Muñiz Jr., & Eric J. Arnould (2009) ‘How Brand Community Practices
Create Value, 2009, American Marketing Association, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 (September 2009), 30–51 Hymes, D. (1974) ‘Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach’, the University of Pennsylvania Press Ind, N., & Bjerke, R. (2007). The Concept of Participatory Market Orientation: An Organisation-Wide Approach to
Enhancing Brand Equity. Journal of Brand Management, 15(2), 135–145 Jenkins, H. (1992b) ’Textual poachers’ in Politics of Fandom, New York: Routledge.
Jensen Schau, H. & A. M. Muniz (2002) ’Brand communities and personal identities: negotiations in cyberspace’, Advances in Consumer Research (29).
Johansen, S. (2008) ‘Social Corporate Selves – Relational Identity Construction’, ASB Centre for Corporate Communication, University of Aarhus
Jones, R. (2005). Finding Sources of Brand Value: Developing a Stakeholder Model of Brand Equity. Brand Management, 13(1), 10–32
Kapferer, J.-N. (1992). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity. New York, NY: The Free Press
Kapferer, J.-N. (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term.
London: Kogan Page Limited
131
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1– 22
Keller, K.L. (2003), Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science, 25 (6), 740–759
King, S. (1991), Brand-Building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management, 7(1), 3–13
Kline, David and Dan Burstein (2006), Weblog!: How the Newest Media Revolution is Changing Politics, Business, and Culture, Squibnocket Partners, L.L.C.
Koll, O., Hemetsberger, A., von Wallpach, S. and E. A. Pichler (2007), The Nature and Social Dynamics of Brand Interest Groups, Provided by Sylvia von Wallpach
Koll, O. and Wallpach, S. V., (2004), One brand perception? Or many? The heterogeneity of intra-brand knowledge.
Journal of Product & Brand Management Vol.18/5, pp. 338–345
Komito, L. (1998) ‘The Net as a foraging society: flexible communities’. Information Society 14, 97–106.
Kornberger, M., 2010, Brand Society. How Brands Transform Management and Lifestyle, Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge
Kornum, N. (2007), Company Stakeholder Responsibility - A Resource Based Perspective, Working Paper no. 1, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School.
Kornum and Jones (2010) ‘Brand reach as co-negotiated: value and cultural complementarity’
Kozinets, R. V. (1999), E-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption, European Management Journal, vol. 17, no 3, pp. 252-264
Kozinets, R. V. (2002), The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 39, issue 1, pp. 61-72
Kozinets, R. V. (2010), Netnography, Doing Ethnographic Research Online, Sage Publications
Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J.M. (1998) Ensouling consumption: a netnographic exploration of boycotting behavior. In Advances in Consumer Research, eds J. Alba and W. Hutchinson, Vol. 25, pp. 47 Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
Kumar, Ravi, Jasmine Novak, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Andrew Tomkins (2004), Structure and Evolution of Weblogspace, Communications of the ACM, 47 (12), 35-39.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985): ‘Hegemony and Socialist Strategy - Towards a Radical Democratic Politics’ Second Edition. London: Verso.
Leone, R. P., Rao, V. R., Keller, K. L., Luo, A. M., McAlister, L., & Srivastava, R. (2006). Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 125–138
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985) ‘Naturalistic inquiry’ Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lipkowitz, D. (2009) ‘The LEGO Book’, Dorling Kindersley
132
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., and O'Brien, M. (2007). Competing Through Service: Insights From Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5–18.
Marlow, Cameron (2004), “Audience, Structure and Authority in the Weblog community,” Proceedings of the International Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.
McAlexander James H., Schouten John W., Koenig, Harald F (2002). Building Brand Community. Journal of Marketing 2002; 66 (1): 38-54.
McAlexander, J. H., J. W. Schouten & H. F. Koenig (2002) ‘Building Brand Community’, Journal of Marketing, (66):
38-54. McLuhan, M. (1970) Culture is our Business. McGraw-Hill, New York.
McCracken (1986). Culture and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June), 71- 84.
Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: a service dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 328-344.
Moscovici, S. (1984) ‘The Phenomenon of Social Representation’, in R.M. Farr and S. Moscovici, et al. (eds.) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-70.
Mühlbacher H. Hemetsberger A. Thelen E. Vallaster Ch. Kittinger Ch. Massimo R. Füller J. Pirker C. Schorn R. Brands as Complex Social Phenomena. Proceedings of the Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand
Management 2006, Birmingham, CD-ROM.
Mühlbacher, H., & Hemetsberger, A. (2008). What the heck is a brand? An attempt of integration and its consequences for research and management, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress Marketing Trends, Venice 2008.
Mühlbacher H, Füller J. Bartl M.. Ernst H. Community Based Innovation: How to Integrate Members of Virtual Communities into New Product Development. Electronic Commerce Research Journal 2006
Muniz, A. M. and O’Guinn, T. C. (2001), ‘Brand Communities’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 27, issue 4, pp.
412-432
Parker, I. (1992) ‘Discourse dynamics – Critical analysis for social and individual psychology’, New York, Routledge
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K. and Frow, P., (2008a), Managing the co-creation of value, Academy of Marketing Science 2007, August
Payne, A. F., Storbacka K., Frow, P., and Knox, S. (2009), Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 379-389.
Peitersen, Birger (2006) Jeg slår mig - derfor er jeg!, Agenda (Radioprogram), P1, DR, April.
Phillips, Louise and Jørgensen, Marianne (2002) ‘Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method’, reprinted 2004 Pollock, C. M., Roberts, L. D. & Smith, L. M. (2002): MOOing till the cows come home: The sense of community in
virtual environments. I C. C. Sonn (Ed.). Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, implications. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., (1987) ‘Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour’, London: Sage Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000), Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–87.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a), The future of competition: Creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
133
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b), Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, volume 18, number 3
Schouten J. W. and McAlexander J.H. 1995, ‘Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 22, issue 1, pp. 43-61
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In Handbook of qualitative research (1994) Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Raymond, E. S. (1999) ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’, first presented in 1997, O’Reilly.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Ricoeur, Paul (1976) ‘Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning’, fourth edition
Sawhney, M., Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005) ‘Collaborating to create: The Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (4), 4-17.
Schouten, J. W. & J. H. McAlexander (1995) ‘Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers’, Journal of Consume Research Inc., 22 (June): 43-61.
Schultz, M. (1994) On studying organizational cultures. Diagnosis and understanding, Germany: Walter de Gruyter &
Co.
Schultz, M. & M. J. Hatch (2003) ‘The Cycles of Corporate Branding: the case of the LEGO company’, California Management Review, 46 (1).
Shumar, W. & Renninger, K.A. (2002) ‘On community building’. In K.A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 1-17) . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551-555 Thomke, S.H., and von Hippel, E. (2002), Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value, Harvard Business
Review, 80(4), 74–81.
Thompson, C. (2004). Marketplace Mythology and Discourses of Power, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 162-180.
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., and Arsel, Z. (2006) ‘Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image’, Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50-64.
Thompson, Craig J., Howard R. Pollio, and William B. Locander (1994), “The Spoken and the Unspoken: A Hermeneutic Approach to Understanding the Cultural Viewpoints That Underlie Consumers' Expressed Meanings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 432-52.
Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. Simon and Schuster, New York.
By Yun Mi Antorini, Albert M. Muñiz, Jr. and Tormod Askildsen (2012) ‘Collaborating With Customer Communities:
Lessons From the Lego Group’
Vallaster Ch., de Chernatony L. von Wallpach S. Weblogs: How they contribute to co-construct a corporate brand: The case of Gate Gourmet. The Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management 2006,
Birmingham, CD-ROM.
Van Laer, J. & Van Aelst, P. (2010): Internet and Social Movement Action Repertiores -
134
Opportunities and Limitations, Information, Communication and Society 2010, pp. 1-26, Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Van Dijk (1997) ‘Discourse as Social Interaction’, ‘Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary Introduction, Volume 2’
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F (2006), Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements,” Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2008a). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., and Lusch, R. F. (2008b). From Products to Service: Divergences and Convergences of Logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 254–259.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2001). Perspective: User Toolkits for Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 247–
257.
von Hippel, E. 2005, Democratizing innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge
Wallpach, Sylvia v. (2009) ‘Dissertation: A Multi-stakeholder Approach to Brand Meaning’
Walther, J.B. (1992) Interpersonal effects in computermediated interaction. Communication Research 19, 52–90.
Walther, J.B. (1995) Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: experimental observations over time.
Organization Science 6, 186–203.
Winter, G. (2000) ‘A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research’. The Qualitative Report, 4(3&4).
Woodilla, J. (1998) ‘Workplace Conversations: The Text of Organizing’, in D. Grant, T. Keenoy and C. Oswick (eds) Discourse and Organization, pp. 31–50. London: Sage.
Woodside, Arch, Suresh Sood, and Kenneth A. Miller (2008), When Consumers and Brands Talk: Storytelling Theory and Research in Psychology and Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, 25 (2), 99-147.
Wooffitt, Robin (2005) ‘Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis – A Comparative and Critical Introduction’
Zikmund, W. G. (2000) ‘Business Research Methods’, The Dryden Press, 6th edition
135
Appendix
#1: LEGO Facbook frontpage and related sub-sites (http://www.facebook.com/LEGOGROUP)
#2: LEGO Rebrick frontpage (http://rebrick.lego.com/)
136
#3: Excerpt A: LEGO, AFOLs and others (FB1), 5TH May 2011
#4: Excerpt B: LEGO, AFOLs, LEGO community, parents and LEGO employee (FB6), 21th June 2011
137
#5: Excerpt C: LEGO, AFOLs parents, others, and (FB8), 21th July 2011
#6: Excerpt D: AFOLs, parents and others (FB12), 17th August 2011
138
#7: Excerpt E: LEGO, AFOLs, TFOL, parents, LEGO employee and other (FB16), 3rd November 2011
#8: Excerpt F: AFOLs and others (FB20), 31st January 2012
139
#9: Excerpt G: LEGO, AFOLs, employee, parents, bloggers and others (FB23), 16rd February 2012
#10: Excerpt H: LEGO, AFOLs, others and employees (FB 29), 5th of April 2012
140
#11: Excerpt I: LEGO and parents (FB39), 20th of February 2012
#12: Excerpt J: LEGO DUPLO and parents (FB42), 10th of July 2012
141
#13: Excerpt K: LEGO Shop, AFOLs, others (FB46), 7th of July 2012
#14: Excerpt L: LEGO Education, teachers, others and parents (FB47), 24th of February 2012
142
#15: Excerpt A: LEGO employee, AFOL (RB12), 13th of November 2011
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/lego-rebrick--upcoming-project----brickipedia-the-lego-wiki/a8gyyo http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Rebrick_%28Upcoming_Project%29
#16: Excerpt B: LEGO employee, AFOL, TFOL, Other (RB20), 25th of October 2011
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/lego-titanic/ifnnon
143
#17: Excerpt C: LEGO employee, Other (RB5), 16th of February 2011
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/futuristic-lego-lessons---australian-teacher-magazine---no-1-national-education-/oqnxag
#18: Excerpt D: LEGO employee, LEGO Brand Retail, Blogger, TFOL (RB27), 18th of June 2012
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/BottomMenu/Blog/061812-ReBrick-Building-Competition.aspx
144
#19: Excerpt E: LEGO employee, Parent, Other (LEGO stop-motion animator) (RB28), 11th of June 2012
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/lego-inception/opy7f8
#20: Excerpt F: LEGO employee, Blogger (RB43), 12th of January 2012
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/a-kockagyar-i-olvasok--erre-hajt-anak----2012----kockagyar---lego-blog---hirek--/28n3fi
145
#21: Excerpt G: LEGO employee, Other (RB50), 21th of May 2012
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/bookmark/sheepos-garage--land-rover-defender-110/mg4cge
#22: Excerpt H: AFOL, TFOL, Parent, LEGO employee, Other (RB3), 18th of May 2012
http://rebrick.lego.com/en-US/BottomMenu/Blog/05182012-presidents-never-seen-builds-like-this.aspx