5.2 Creating luxurious relationships on Facebook
5.2.5 Navigating in accessibility without losing exclusivity
(Kapferer&Bastien 2012), or celebrity endorsements (Kapferer&Bastien 2012, Skjold 2012) as mentioned continuously in this research.
In August 2011 the Facebook administration removed the option for brands to turn off the ability for fans to post wall comments. This might be interpreted as a sign of brands using it as a one-‐way platform. This removal fortified Crandell’s (2012) sixth success factor ‘enable everyone to participate’ and made user reactions hard to avoid for brands on Facebook. Aconis states that the accessibility luxury brands have experienced have changed them from being closed clubs to accessible luxury brands, and according to Aconis this have created a challenge for luxury brands to prove their luxuriousness (Aconis 2012.
Facebook have a vast amount of tools and can be considered favourable for luxury brands according to Aconis, as “… it allows a more customercentric and complex way of
communicating” (Aconis 2012) and it can be perceived as an “… effective communication tool for luxury brands to communicate what they are about and why they are a luxury brand and what kind of luxury they can offer us” (Aconis 2012). That being said many general brands meet their users by adopting the communication trend ‘flawsomeness’ (Appendix 9) i.e. showing human characteristics that ensure the fans that it is peer-‐to-‐peer communication prone to generate WOM. Even though Kapferer and Bastien (2012) have the anti-‐law ‘Does your product have enough flaws’ one should not confuse the product with the communication. Considering the ‘coherent system of excellence’ including exclusive communication (Corbellini&Saviolo 2010) one could tend to believe that flaws in the communication could result in mistrust of the luxuriousness of the luxury brand. Further, Aconis refers to exclusive communication when he states that a luxury brand is about a tightly controlled illusion (Aconis 2012). Kapferer and Bastien note that the ‘flaw’ in the product reflects a source of emotion or a touch of madness (Kapferer&Bastien 2012). One might say that the madness and emotion i.e. flaw of the product could be communicated through Facebook. Though taking the exclusive communication into consideration it would presumably not speak in favour of the luxury brand identity to follow the advice ‘be unprofessional’ by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) and incorporate ‘the human flaws’
(Appendix 9). However, luxury brands could incorporate a human aspect through the use of
celebrities or internal ‘celeb’ personalities e.g. Bailey and Tom Ford in order to stay ‘flawless’
and controlled.
The images below show examples of how Burberry tries to cope with the challenge of navigating in accessibility without losing exclusivity:
‘The personal note’ post and one of the ‘Behind the scenes of the Burberry Autumn/Winter Campaign’ images from Burberry’s Facebook brand page87
The personal note from Bailey portrays a simulation of two-‐way communication and dialogue between the users and Burberry’s CCO. Burberry does not ask for any response from the receivers, but merely informs that a show experience is ahead of the fans today. It comes across as personal and shows a high level of intimacy in terms of wording. The ‘simulated dialogue’ is reinforced by the fact that Burberry has 14 million fans on Facebook and arguably they cannot be friends with each and every single one of them i.e. ‘HI facebook friends’. The message shows accessible characteristics by welcoming the people, who have opened up their
87 http://www.facebook.com/burberry?fref=ts
Facebook channel to Burberry, and it shows superior features considering the message not having any interrogative sentences. As mentioned in the semiotic analysis the connotators of this image draws on exclusive and traditional standards in its format e.g. the personal note paper by Christopher Bailey, handwritten, the golden fabric it rests upon, which enhances the luxurious brand identity.
The second image, below the note from Bailey, has the same functionality of maintaining exclusivity while staging accessibility. The user is invited backstage in a photo album named
‘Behind the scenes of the Burberry Autumn/Winter Campaign’, but arguably only as far as Burberry allows it. We discussed these images in previous chapters, but communicating a luxury brand identity is also a means to bond with the users i.e. creating a relationship, which makes it indispensable for us to mention again.
The two images come across as honest because of the framing and editing i.e. handwriting and cameras on the set, thus they seem to keep the media in mind. The text connected to the images does not encourage two-‐way communication, but controls that emotional feeling of bonding in an intimate way by being a ‘real’ personal note for ‘you’ and inviting ‘you’ behind the scenes of a campaign. Burberry one might argue provides an example of creating a user-‐
centric experience beyond traditional media without devaluating the luxury brand identity and values. Moreover, the relationship can be characterised as PSI as it arguably creates the illusion of a close relationship (Colliander&Dahlen 2011).
Whereas Burberry stages an illusion of two-‐way communication Acne neither communicates two-‐way nor creates an illusion of two-‐way communication. Acne uses Facebook to promote new collaborations, the launch of their magazines and creating product awareness as seen in the semiotic analysis. The collaborations are kept exclusive by using strong semiotic meanings e.g. Lord Snowdon’s heritage and the clowns in Acne Paper ‘the body issue’. Thereby, one might say that Acne does not make the Acne universe accessible and only strengthens their exclusivity. When not communicating two-‐way or staging two-‐way communication they arguably miss out on the opportunities of Facebook and the communication loop.
Below image shows how Prada might not embrace the communication loop. The image shows a celebrity at the Cannes International Film Festival.
A Facebook brand page post by Prada, which shows how Prada’s own luxury brand values are overshadowed by other brands88
One can argue that Prada would not have used this image in a traditional campaign, as it does not promote Prada, but instead one might say that it devalues the luxury brand by creating connotations to other brands such as ‘Chopard’, ‘The Cannes International Film Festival’ and
‘L’Orèal in the background, and they might not enhance Prada’s luxury values. The image seems as if it has not been edited in favour of Prada. Bøilerehauge underlines the need of editing images online to unfold the luxury brand values (Bøilerehauge 2012). One might argue that posting a ‘glossy’ image on Facebook merely favours the accessibility of the growth tradeoff, but undermines the exclusivity. On the other hand an image such as this might benefit the PR value. In terms of creating a bond to the users, the image nor the text seem to create or stage two-‐way communication, as we saw in the case of Burberry. Okonkwo (2010) characterises luxury users as empowered and influential, informed with luxury offerings, which makes them specialist detectives in spotting relevant material, as well as they seek to connect, share and dialogue online. One might question if Prada with this image live up to online luxury user’s
88 http://www.facebook.com/Prada?fref=ts
needs and expectations. It does not seem to: extend the luxury brand experience, invite the user to feel connected, and enhance the exclusivity of Prada. One might suggest based on previous examples that features such as a storytelling about the product, reasoning for the celebrity Milla Jovovich as a brand ambassador, or an image without other brands could have enhanced and justified the connection to the brand and its relevance to the user.
Therefore one should take the following challenges when navigating in accessibility without losing exclusivity:
Above section provides challenges for luxury brands when creating relationship and engagement on Facebook. Considering above findings from a luxury brand management viewpoint it seems to be difficult for luxury brands to fully integrate dialogue and two-‐way communication in their presence on Facebook. The contradiction in creating luxurious relationships on Facebook is arguably underlining the importance of creating an engagement strategy to consider to what extent the luxury brand would like to make dialogue with the user, i.e. the degree of accessibility. Different examples have provided an insight into different ways
• Seek to stage a simulated dialogue by creating inclusive communication e.g. the level of formality in a personal note
• Seek to control the user reaction by not overtly encouraging dialogue i.e. interrogative sentence structures
• Try to communicate top-‐down to avoid being on equal terms with the users in order to maintain the luxury status as defined by Kapferer and Bastien (2012)
• Emphasise luxury connotations to maintain exclusivity and do not ‘remove barriers to participate’ as mentioned by Crandell (2012) nor include ‘flawsomeness’ (Appendix 9)