By means of analysis of the three presented cases, the author found that the types of brand, which engage in co-branding cannot be determined by their type of business. The case compiled three types of companies: a stationery company, a high-street clothing brand and an expensive, artisan jewellery brand. Thus, the empirical data cannot be used to categorise the type of businesses, which engage in co-branding on
international blogs. But, the cases revealed a way to categorise them by means of existing theory. Kapferer (2013) argues that there are different types of co-branding constellations, and the author finds that the following strategic intent could uncover the types of brands, which engage in co-branding. The author finds that case 1 WL is a case of using the blogger as an intermediary, and as access to a community. This was observable by means of how the T brand both engaged in the community (community access) and the intermediary function was clear in the comments from the blog readers, who rarely expressed affiliation or knowledge of the T brand. The author finds that case 2 GD is an example of two major strategic intents. The first strategic intent is to nurture specific traits from the brand’s identity of the RPC brand, by means of using the GD brand to appropriate the symbolic meanings. Furthermore, the author found clear indications of RPC using the co-branding as a means of using the blog as an intermediary for sales, as they established an online shop on the GD. Lastly, for case 3 AB, the author found that the collaboration’s strategic intent was based on nurturing specific traits of the brands’ identity for BB and borrowing from the image of AB. The case has this strategic intent, because BB left the co-brand arrangement hanging on AB’s image and BB’s association to her identity, exemplified by how BB never responded to requests, but left it up to AB to (not) answer the requests of the commenters. Thus, the author found that the use of strategic intent as a determinant of the type of companies that engage in co-branding.
Following the above analysis of the strategic intent, the author will now proceed to discuss whether companies deliberately seek co-branding opportunities of if the bloggers also decide which brands they present/partner with in their blogs. The analysis of the cases revealed that the answer is very different from case to case. In case 1, the blogger WL approached the brand T, with indications in her blog post that she had met the brand before, but not under which circumstances. For case 2, GD the blogger clearly stated that she had been looking for a co-brand to collaborate with for a long time and that when she found RPC, she found her match in terms of levels of ambitions. In case 3 AB, no intention was clearly indicated by the blogger nor the collaborating brand. However, the author gained knowledge of how the co-brands in case 2 and 3 have cooperated with other brands before their blogger collaborations, making an interesting case for further investigation as to why the brands choose to continually employ co-branding arrangement. Therefore, from
59
the producing brand’s side these companies chose to have an open type of co-branding, fulfilling Grebosz’s (2012) statement of the fact that companies often cooperate with more than one brand. The author finds that the question of whether the collaboration is a deliberate choice from either side of the collaboration cannot be generalised from the gathered data, as the cases may state who approached who, but the nature of the collaboration was not a focus of the author and therefore not generalizable to other cases. Case 1 and 2 do exemplify though, how the bloggers actively seek collaborations and case 2 and 3 exemplify how brands engage in multiple open collaborations, perhaps in effort to expand the symbolic meanings associated with their brand. All in all, the author finds that the answer to whether companies deliberately seek co-branding cannot be clearly specified, because the data does not allow the author to make sufficiently empirically founded generalisations based on the data material available.
The process of co-branding evolved on the international blogs by means of the stakeholders as creators of the co-created brand and its associated meanings. The author found by means of analysis of the three cases that symbolic meanings were explicitly stated through brand manifestations, that the brand manifestations created dominating and interplaying discourse and that the process was uncontrollable. The author found that the brands engaged in the co-branding arrangement were in a state of flux, by means of how the discourses developed, moulded and created associations. There were clear indications of this in case 2, GD, where the stakeholders actively applied their own interpretations of the co-brand arrangements, almost by means of word association games associated with the paper discourse. Case 1 WL highlighted how the stakeholders evolved the co-branding process, by means of using and contextualising their own stories into the
storytelling of the co-brand, thus creating new stories attached to co-brand. Case 3 AB highlighted how the process of co-branding may not turn out for the better for both brands. Common for all three cases were however how the process of co-branding showed that the stakeholders do develop the co-brand by symbolic meaning appropriation, and that individual stakeholders do play a role in the creation of the brand. Because the stakeholders applied their individual interpretations to the same discourses and the same co-brand
constellations, they exemplified how the co-brand is the exact definition of the many subversions of the same meaning system, as proposed by Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger (2008). Thus, the author found by means of investigating the process of symbolic co-branding on international blogs that the brands are indeed in a state of flux, that the meanings associated with the brands change continually and that discourses are a mediating factor in the process of the development.
What the author did not find was a common denominator for how the process developed. This is due to the fact that the author; 1) did not find a common denominator for the type of companies which engage in co-branding on international blogs; 2) the author did not find a common strategic intent for the co-co-branding arrangements. Both have the effect that no common ground was established for generalising the findings to other cases, unless they apply to the same types and categories of cooperation as mentioned. The author does find though, that the research adds valuable information within the limitations, by means of exemplifying
60
how meanings, discourses and stakeholders shape and evolve the process of co-branding on international blogs. Thus, the author finds that there is room for further research on the topic of how the process of co-branding evolves on international blogs, in order to find out whether the patterns that apply to these data, patterns sourced from theoretical propositions, also apply to other cases.
The focus on meanings leads to the next topic of discussion, which meanings are co-created for the brands involved. The author first and foremost finds that these meanings cannot be generalised from case to case.
The analysis showed a high degree of individual differences in terms of which meanings were co-created.
The author did find a common denominator in terms of the mechanisms the stakeholders used to co-create the meanings.
The first mechanism is discourses. The stakeholders in all the cases utilised the discourses surrounding the brands and then elaborated on the meanings, which had already been attached to this discourse as in case 2.
The stakeholders utilised the limits which the dominating discourses created, and then stretched the associations and the stories that could be told within these limits. The second mechanism is storytelling, which the stakeholders utilised to create the meanings within the discourses. This mechanism multiplied the meanings that could exist within the confined limits of the co-brand, by engaging the co-brand into the world of the stakeholder. The storytelling elements were evident in case 1 WL. The stakeholders thus defied the limits of the meanings that could be co-created, as these stories only existed individually and were not affirmed by other stakeholders. Thirdly, the stakeholders used brand manifestations as creators of their individual meanings about the brand. This was exemplified in case 3, B, where the stakeholders used their experiences with the co-brand front figure AB, to attribute meanings to the AB brand. Thus, the author found by means of the analysis that meanings were co-created by the stakeholders, and that the meanings defied the limits of imagination and association dictionaries. The meanings co-created for the brands involved had an overarching theme, a discourse to guide to the end of the route, while the stakeholders found themselves free to experiment, associate, and individually co-create their individual meanings concerning the co-brand within the limits of destined route. This, the stakeholders did by utilising the discourses individually and by creating their own stories within the story of the co-branding arrangement.
As discussed above, stakeholders do co-create meanings. The meanings are co-created by means of social interaction, but not as proposed by Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger (2008), where stakeholders gather around discourses. Rather than directly interacting with each other, the stakeholders used indirect interaction. This they did by ‘attaching’ their individual meanings to the dominating discourses. This can be found in case 2 GD within the paper discourse, where the commenters clearly inter-act with the discourse. The comment is not a response per se to another commenter’s view of paper, but rather the comment is an inter-play and inter-action with the discourse created by other stakeholders. Thus, the theoretical proposition that stakeholders are social co-creators of meaning and discourse proves to be both applicable and
non-61
applicable. The stakeholders did co-create meanings by means of social interaction, but the social element of interaction was no other commenters, but rather the discourse became a brand antagonist with a social life of its own, interpreted and interacted with individually by stakeholders to co-create their own desired symbolic meanings concerning the co-brand. Thus, the social interaction that co-created the meanings takes the shape of an indirect interaction, where the stakeholders, by utilising existing discourses, implicitly relate to previous comments concerning the co-brand.
Now, having discussed the theoretical topics covered by the research questions, the author will introduce the topic of involvement with the stakeholders. The author finds that involvement is an important factor, which should be discussed, because it determined the degree to which the co-branding arrangements were
successful or not in engaging with stakeholders and fostering a positive tone of voice concerning the co-branding collaboration.
Case 1 showed a high degree of involvement from both the blogger WL and the co-brand T. The
involvement had the effect in terms of symbolic meaning appropriation to the co-brand, that the co-brand T was able to enhance the brand manifestation (stories) and hereby positively influence the tone of voice concerning the collaborations, as well as the discourses and the mechanisms used by the stakeholders to describe their relationship with the co-brand. By positively enhancing and encouraging the sharing of the individual stories, T fostered a positive, affirmative environment for the co-brand. Furthermore, WL was also very active in commenting and answering questions, creating an interactive environment. Case 3 AB is an exemplification of how the lack of involvement hurts both brands, as a negative discourse developed throughout the period of the co-branding, both concerning AB and BB. Hereby, the author concludes that involvement from the co-brand should be part of a new model for the co-branding arrangement. The author found that when the co-brands involve themselves in the co-branding, they enhance and co-define the understanding of their brands in collaboration with the stakeholders. All in all, the author finds that the topic of involvement is thus a very important element for future research.