brand personification in the digital age: how has the evolution of social media impacted...

Brand Personification in the Digital Age How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships?

Keely Galgano

Independent Study, Winter 2013 Dr. Dae Hee Kwak April 2013

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the marketing landscape through the

lens of digital and social media, and, ultimately, to discuss how this evolution

impacts the establishment, maintenance, and characteristics of consumer-

brand relationships. Past studies of consumer-brand relationships have focused

heavily on the elements of social psychology reflected in the connections

formed with brands. However, many researchers have questioned the

application of human relationship theory as applied to inanimate objects or

brands. With the advent of social media as a marketing tool, brands are quickly

taking on human characteristics and working to engage consumers in

conversation. With this increased personification, relational norms can be

applied to current and future consumer behavior with new relevance.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into consumer-brand relationships

through the specific lens of social and digital media. Inspired by the realization

that, through social media, brands are taking on more and more human

characteristics, this paper works to apply relational norms to consumer behavior

in order to investigate how the evolution of the medium impacts the formation,

maintenance, and general characteristics of the relationships brands form with

their customers.

Methods of analysis include a thorough examination of previous research

conducted in the fields of consumer-brand relationships and social media

identity theories as well as in-depth case studies evaluating the usage of social

and digital media by various well-known and culturally ingrained brands.

From the analysis, conclusions are drawn in order to tie together the case

applications and previous research while deriving new conclusions through the

specific lens of social and digital media. Finally, concrete managerial

implications and potential directions for future research are provided.

While new media might certainly be described as a double-edged sword, it

offers more opportunities for positive brand interactions and innovative

integrations with digital and interactive media that can work to enhance the

brand’s standing with both old and new customers alike.

Potential beneficiaries of this research include marketing and advertising

professionals who hope to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms at

work within social and digital media in order to form more sustainable

relationships with current and future customers.

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3

Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 3

Consumer-Brand Relationships ................................................................................. 3

Overview ................................................................................................................ 4

Functions of Consumer-Brand Relationships ...................................................... 6

Brand Love and Self-Expansion ........................................................................... 7

Relationship Norms and Transgressions ............................................................... 9

Personal, Social, and Brand Identity in the Digital Age ....................................... 10

Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 12

Oreo ........................................................................................................................... 12

Heineken ................................................................................................................... 17

Nike & Adidas – Transgressions ............................................................................... 23

Conclusions & Implications .......................................................................................... 25

Managerial Implications .......................................................................................... 27

Future Research ........................................................................................................ 28

Brand Personification in the Digital Age

1

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine the marketing landscape through the

lens of digital and social media, and, ultimately, to discuss how this evolution

impacts the establishment, maintenance, and characteristics of consumer-

brand relationships. Past studies of consumer-brand relationships have focused

heavily on the elements of social psychology reflected in the connections

formed with brands. However, many researchers have questioned the

application of human relationship theory as applied to inanimate objects or

brands. With the advent of social media as a marketing tool, brands are quickly

taking on human characteristics and working to engage consumers in

conversation. With this increased personification, relational norms can be

applied to current and future consumer behavior with new relevance.

While it might be unthinkable that a brand would lack an online presence in

today’s world, it is important to note that digital marketing is a relatively new

discipline. To a large extent, the history of digital is a by-product of the history of

the Internet – and when you think about it, it was only twelve years ago that the

tech bubble burst, wiping out a number of smaller start-ups and paving the way

for magnates like Yahoo! and Google. Facebook? That’s only been around

since 2004. And Twitter? A mere seven years old. So when it comes to social

media’s impact on consumer-brand relationships, in terms of research, this is

nearly uncharted territory.

The study of consumer-brand relationships is not much older, with Susan

Fournier’s seminal work written in 1998. In an interview with The Atlantic’s Hans

Villarica, Fournier told the story of how she began:

Over 20 years ago, I was promoted to vice president of consumer-brand

relationship ideas at Young & Rubicam, an acclaimed advertising agency


2

in New York. I was to translate the revolutionary business-to-business

relationship marketing paradigm into the consumer marketing world, but I

quit two weeks later on the heels of a stark realization: the frameworks

and concepts I would need to do my job had yet to be created. So off I

went to the University of Florida PhD program to develop brand

relationship theory in consumer research myself. (Villarica, 2012)

Since then, much has been written about the topic, ranging from the types of

relationships created, their inherent functions, correlations with social

psychology, the impact of brand transgressions, the motivation on consumers’

part to form relationships with inanimate objects and brands, and much, much

more. Fournier noted that UF’s experimental cognitive psychology community

was skeptical of the application at first; but as ample research has shown over

the last fifteen years, there is much to be gained both academically and

managerially from further research in the area of consumer-brand relationships.

The application of social media to this area of research provides an interesting

lens through which to view the formation, maintenance, and characteristics of

these relationships. With a multitude of platforms through which brands can

communicate and connect with consumers, there are more opportunities to

both build sustainable relationships and ruin them. This paper strives to use this

lens to answer the question of how the evolution of social and otherwise digital

media impacts these relationships.


3

Methodology

In the subsequent sections of this paper, I will conduct a literature review of

previous research conducted in the fields of consumer-brand relationships, more

specifically, their background, functions, specific frameworks including brand

love and self-expansion, and the application of norms and transgressions on

relationship theory. I will also briefly examine previous research concerning social

and brand identity in the era of social media. Later, I will present three case

studies concerning successful brands in the social sphere – Oreo and Heineken –

and brands that have had to deal with transgressions – Nike and Adidas. Finally,

I will offer conclusions that integrate the case studies with theoretical concepts,

discuss managerial implications, and propose directions for future research.

Literature Review

This section delves into the previous research available in the fields of consumer-

brand relationships and social and brand identity in the digital age. It pays

special attention to fields that provide insight into viewing consumer-brand

relationships through a social media lens.

Consumer-Brand Relationships

While it is relatively speaking a new field of study, much research has been

conducted to learn more about both the functionality of and reasoning behind

the existence of consumer-brand relationships. Considerable research has

focused on understanding and describing the different relationships consumers

might have with brands (Reimann and Aron 2009; Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel

2004; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Escalas and Bettmann 2005; Fournier 1998). This

research has yielded myriad ways to categorize consumers based on the

intensity of their relationships (Fournier 1998) and has branched out to include

studies of brand attachment (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), commitment

(Warrington and Shim 2000), connectedness (Winterich 2007), love (Batra,


4

Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2011; Merunka and Valette-Florence 2007; Carroll and

Ahuvia 2006; Fournier 1998), loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Jacoby and

Chestnut 1978), passion (Bauer, Heinrich, and Martin 2007), and trust (Chaudhuri

and Holbrook 2001), among others. Each of these presents its own framework

within the context of consumer-brand relationships, but a unifying theory is

lacking; for the purposes of this paper, however, it will be more important to

understand the nature of the formation and maintenance of relationships rather

than develop a singular theoretical framework.

When examining these relationships through the lens of social media and the

evolving digital age, it is helpful to have a background in the various frameworks

that have been utilized to best understand the impact on the establishment,

maintenance, and characteristics of relationships between brands and

consumers. In this section of the literature review, several components of past

research will be touched upon including background, functions, norms, and

specific applications including brand love and self-expansion. Later, we will

examine how personal, social, and brand identities have been impacted by the

digital age, and how this might impact our view of consumer-brand

relationships.

Overview

A thorough study of field pioneer, Susan Fournier, offers insight into the defining

elements of consumer-brand relationships. Published ten years after her original

publication on developing relationship theory in consumer research, Fournier

reflects on what she has learned by offering three key tenets: purpose, diversity,

and dynamics. In terms of purpose, it is important to note that there is not a

singular purpose that can be applied to these relationships in general; rather,

we can understand the driving force behind the relationship by looking at the

broader context of the consumer’s life to find out what needs the relationship


5

with the brand or company services (Fournier 2009). These needs can fall

anywhere within Maslow’s hierarchy, ranging from the merely functional to those

needs related to self-actualization (Maslow 1943). Therefore, it follows, the needs

fulfilled by different products and consequently the relationships formed with

different brands differ based on the consumer. Fournier (2009) states, “Robust

brand relationships are built not on the backs of brands, but on a nuanced

understanding of people and their needs, both practical and emotional” (p. 6).

Identifying the relationship potential of a given brand is important for

researchers and marketers alike. Often, this is determined by category

involvement; but it is most useful to screen criteria from the contexts of people’s

lives, with the key being to uncover how meanings attain significance within a

consumer’s world. As the relationship is grounded in need fulfillment, an

important insight lies in the fact that consumers actively make meaning in their

brand relationships – adapting the marketer’s given brand meaning to fit their

own life. In response to this concept, Fournier, Solomon, and Englis (2008)

developed a multifaceted resonance model that focuses not on what the

brand itself means, but rather how it comes to mean something to the consumer

who uses it in order to recognize the developmental mechanisms that drive the

establishment and maintenance of these relationships (as cited in Fournier, 2009,

p. 7).

Further, it is important to recognize the diverse nature of consumer-brand

relationships, as they range across several dimensions and take many forms. As

applied to person-to-person relationships, these forms can include casual

acquaintances, childhood buddies, business partners, master and slave,

teammates, flings, parent-child, rivals, best friends, marriage partners, and many

more. Again, the formation of any of the above kinds of relationships is

dependent upon the need fulfilled and the behavior of the consumer in the


6

relationship. Figure 1 (Appendix A) plots brands and relationships on axes

ranging from superficial/weak to intense/strong in the x-direction and

utilitarian/functional rewards to socio-emotional rewards in the y-direction.

Finally, the dynamic nature of consumer-brand relationships indicates that they

are evolving and change over a series of interactions in response to contextual

change (Fournier 2009). Fluctuations in person, brand, and the overall

environment may trigger change within the relationship and therefore it is

important to note that these relationships require ongoing maintenance over

time. Contract theory provides a useful lens when it comes to both the

relationship’s development and maintenance. As will be discussed later in this

section, brand transgressions can have significant impact on the way consumers

view their relationship; therefore, everything a brand “does” affects the

trajectory and course of a given relationships, from the brand’s outward

personality (which can be as simple as colors and fonts used on their website) to

the tonality of each and every brand communication (Fournier 2009). What is

most interesting, perhaps, is the psycho-socio-cultural context wherein these

relationships exist – the relationship the brand has with the culture affects the

relationship the consumer as with the brand, and vice versa (Fournier 2009),

which is an important characteristic to note when examining these relationships

through a social media lens.

Functions of Consumer-Brand Relationships

The functionality of these relationships is, as indicated above, determined by the

need fulfilled, and thus can range from knowledge, utilitarianism, hedonism, and

external factors such as social acceptance, self-presentation, and affiliation

(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009). Relationships that exist for knowledge’s

sake do so because of the inherent understanding they provide consumers

about their situation. Utilitarian relationships are based on the brand’s ability to

consistently and reliably aid in the achievement of other goals. For hedonic


7

relationships, the brand directly inspires a variety of affective responses.

(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009) The final three functions, which the

authors term value-expressive, social-adjustive, and affilation, exist because of

their consistency with the values central to the consumer; their ability to create

a desired impression, and the fact that they serve basic needs for belonging

respectively.

Research suggests that relationship between brands and consumers – regardless

of type – have a sizeable effect on important marketing outcomes including

repeat purchase, word-of-mouth, and willingness to pay (Ashworth, Dacin, and

Thomson 2009; see also, Stern 1997; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). With

relationships in place, brands enjoy benefits including reduced marketing costs,

ease of access, access to new customers, customer retention, brand equity,

and ultimately, an increase in profits (Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009; see

also, Blackson 2000; Dowling 2002; Reichheld 1996; Winer 2001). Returning to the

ultimate underpinning of need-fulfillment, the implicit assumption is that

consumer-brand relationships serve some function or goal for the consumer and

are possibly formed as a result of the brand’s consistent fulfillment of these goals

(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009).

Brand Love and Self-Expansion

As mentioned previously, there are many dimensions of consumer-brand

relationships that have been touched upon in previous research. Two of the

most salient theories when it comes to the examination of these relationships

through the social media lens are brand love and self-expansion. For Batra,

Ahuvia, and Bagozzi, the elements of the brand love prototype are as follows:

great quality, strongly-held values and existential meaning, intrinsic rewards, self-

identity, positive affect, passionate desire and a sense of natural fit, emotional

bonding and anticipated heartbreak, willingness to invest, frequent thought and


8

use, and length of use (2011). Both theories incorporate the idea of depth,

where brands are more likely to be loved when they connect to something the

consumer felt was ‘deeper’ such as self-actualization, interpersonal relationships

(Richins 1984), existential meaning, or cultural identities (Batra, Ahuvia, and

Bagozzi 2011). The authors offer two examples in Canon and Apple, where these

‘deeper’ connections are felt because of the ties to social relationships and

creativity and self-actualization, respectively.

In the brand love context, “talking about it” is an important part of identity-

construction and ultimately results in high levels of word-of-mouth (Batra, Ahuvia,

and Bagozzi 2009). Word-of-mouth, in the online context sometimes termed

“word-of-mouse,” is hugely important for marketers and is only magnified in the

social setting. When it comes to this idea of brands as part of identity

construction, Reimann and Aron present a self-expansion approach wherein

brands are included in the self as resources, perspectives, and identity (2009).

The main difference between these three types of inclusion is that a brand’s

resources can be viewed as part of the owner’s self, while perspective means

seeing the world from the brand’s point of view and identity refers to the brand

identity becoming part of the “cognitive structure” of the owner’s self (Reimann

and Aron 2009).

They argue that for each of these, expansion varies based on the time of brand

acquisition and the length and intensity of relationship; specifically, that for

newly acquired brands, consumers may rapidly self-expand, enlarging their self-

definitions and experiencing positive affect. Further, they state that self-

expansion continually decreases over time. In this setting, the effect is stronger

for high-involvement brands than low-involvement brands. In addition to the

length aspect, interaction intensity should also be taken into account; as high

interaction intensity also reduces the rate of rapid self-expansion, thus


9

functioning as an accelerator of the relationship-length effect (Reimann and

Aron 2009). In this setting, the effect is stronger for low-involvement brands than

high-involvement brands. This has clear implications on marketers who must be

careful not to saturate consumers with communications – a mistake many

brands make on social media.

Relationship Norms and Transgressions

Yet another vein of consumer-brand relationship research revolves around how

consumers deal with transgressions on the part of brands, and more broadly,

how relational norms direct behavior on the part of both the brand and the

consumer. Pankaj Aggarwal has concentrated heavily on this line of research

and presented extensive findings that allow us to use relationship norms to

understand consumer-brand interactions: “When consumers form relationships

with brands, they use norms of behavior underlying these relationships as a

guide in their brand interactions in two unique ways: (a) as a lens to evaluate

the actions of the brand, and (b) as a tool to guide their own behavior” (2009).

In the first sense, norms are what set consumer expectations, and the

subsequent actions of the brand are judged on whether the expectation is met

or not. In the studies Aggarwal conducted, the same action was evaluated

differently depending on whether or not it was perceived to be consistent with

the norms described in the case (either exchange or communal), which

indicates that it is not the action itself but whether or not it is in keeping with

expectations that determines the consumer’s evaluation of the brand (2009). In

the latter, norms determine how consumers process brand information, with

those in a communal relationship processing information at a higher level of

abstraction (Aggarwal 2009). This knowledge is important for marketers who can

manipulate the tools at their disposal to develop the kind of relationship they

wish to pursue with consumers, ultimately determining the position they hold in

the mind of the consumer. As Aggarwal points out, “The dynamic and repeated


10

interactions pursued by marketers in the form of ads, interactive media, direct

mail, and telemarketing, as well as the use of brand mascots and spokespersons

strengthen the type of ongoing relationship that is formed between the brand

and the consumer” (2009).

With the increasing durations of relationships and increasing frequencies of

interaction – spurred on heavily by brand usage of social media – the likelihood

of transgressions grows (Gray and Ambler 1999); it is therefore important for

brands to understand how to best respond in order to maintain the relationships

they have worked to begin. For Paulssen and Bagozzi, attachment theory plays

heavily into how consumers respond. They propose that the positive

expectations that securely attached customers place on brands help them to

positively interpret transgressions and buffer potential emotional distress (2009).

Here, the implication for marketers is to identify the “right” customers who are

most likely to develop long-term relationships (Reinartz and Kumar 2000), with

the key goal being to build and maintain strong and stable consumer-brand

relationships, investing considerable resources in various relationship marketing

tactics in order to achieve this goal (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroeder, and

Iacobucci 2001; Reinartz and Kumar 2003).

Personal, Social, and Brand Identity in the Digital Age

There is no doubt that social media has become a cornerstone of the

communications world in recent years – and that it has presented both

incredible opportunities and a myriad of new challenges for both individuals

and brands alike. With categories ranging from egocentric, community, and

opportunistic, to passion-centric and media sharing, there are more social

media outlets than there is room to touch on here (Parent, Plangger, and Bal

2011). Taken as a whole, these outlets attract millions of users, many of whom

utilize the sites as part of their daily lives and business practices, building


11

networks of friends, peers, and potential connections that can help them

achieve their future goals (Wang, Yu, and Wei 2012) – personally, socially, and

professionally.

For brands, social media represents a new, hybrid element of the marketing mix

by allowing for even further integrated marketing communications (IMC), or the

attempt to coordinate the various elements of the promotional mix (advertising,

personal selling, public relations, publicity, direct marketing, and sales

promotion) in order to produce a unified customer-focused message (Boone

and Kurtz, 2007 as cited in Mangold and Faulds, 2009). Within the scheme of

IMC, social media fulfills two roles: first, most traditionally, companies can use

social media to talk to their customers through various platform; second, and

unique to social media, customers can use social media to communicate with

one another. This means that word-of-mouth spreads faster and farther than

ever before: “Conventional marketing wisdom has long held that a dissatisfied

customer tells ten people. But that is out of date. In the new age of social

media, he or she has the tools to tell 10 million” consumers virtually overnight

(Gillin 2007 as qtd. in Mangold and Faulds 2009).

As consumers turn away from the traditional sources of advertising gand

consistently demand more control over their media consumption, they require

on-demand access to information at their own convenience (Rashtchy et al.,

2007; Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). As a result, they are turning to various social

media outlets to conduct information searches and make purchasing decisions

(Lempert, 2006; Vollmer & Precourt, 2008) and have been shown to perceive

social media as a more trustworthy source of information regarding brands than

corporate-sponsored communications through traditional media (Foux, 2006).


12

With social media shaping the way consumers communicate with both each

other and brands, methods of engagement are at an all-time high. Experiences

of all kinds are being shaped by these spaces of collective consumption, and

our networks – with whom, when, and why we connect – are changing as a

result (Wilcox-Ugurlu, 2011). The trick, for brands, is how to transform the medium

into a proactive rather than reactive realm of “listen and respond.” With explicit

commercial references typically avoided in social media communications,

companies need to be ready to engage consumers and members of their

virtual network in ways that create authentic experiences, rather than contrived

self-promotion (Wilcox-Ugurlu, 2011). In doing so, they are readily able to tap into

one of the previously discussed topics: identity-building. By creating authentic

experiences that consumers can and willingly relate to, brands will be better

positioned to insert themselves into the regular lives of their customers, thereby

building sustainable relationships.

Case Studies

Oreo

The Super Bowl is advertising’s (and sport’s) biggest stage year in and year out.

This year, brands spent a great deal of time, effort, and money on mobilizing the

social aspects of their campaigns – from Twitter hashtags on television spots to

campaign build-up on Facebook and YouTube. The effort paid off for many

brands that took to heart the concept of the 3 C’s – content, context, and

conversation (Goldstein, 2013). For others, their efforts missed the mark,

rendering brand-irrelevant hashtags in order to “join a conversation” that would

never take off. Too often, when it comes to social media strategy, brands are

more concerned with timing than content; but to succeed in engaging

conversation, the strategy must lie at the relevant intersection of context and

content (Goldstein, 2013). Merely inserting yourself in a consumer’s feed with a

message that is either off-brand or off-topic will not encourage the engagement


13

necessary to form consumer-brand relationships, and might go so far as to turn

off the consumer.

Will Scougal, Twitter brand strategist, noted that the most successful brands have

“strategies, processes, and foundations in place [that] enable them to be able

to do this in a way that stays true to themselves and carries brand values

forward while encouraging engagement and conversation” (2013). By having

these mechanisms in place, brands can be readily prepared for the

unexpected. This was the case for Super Bowl XLVII’s most successful brands

including Audi, Tide, Buffalo Wild Wings, Walgreens, and perhaps most notably,

Oreo.

Oreo is an excellent case to

examine when it comes to the

impact of social media. For a

seasoned brand that’s been

around since 1912, their position

within the marketing funnel lies at

the end: the ‘consume’ and

‘connect’ portions, meaning that

the business problem inherent to the strategy deals with repeat purchase and

loyalty – major components to consumer-brand relationship theory. For instance,

are a number of people buying the product but not advocating it? Are there

lost opportunities to connect with consumers to make them aware of other

products? (Cole, 2013)

With agency partners DraftFCB, 360i, Weber Shandwick, and Mediavest, Oreo

launched a remarkably successful digital campaign over the summer of 2012

called The Daily Twist. Reminiscent of retro print ads but perfected for social


14

platforms, each day’s ‘twist’ was thought up in timely fashion and consistently

culturally relevant. The brand began with a controversial bang, offering a ‘twist’

in honor of gay pride on June 25, 2012 that garnered more than 154,000 likes

and 20,000 comments on Facebook within a single day (Hsu, 2012). This was just

the beginning, with daily offerings ranging from the Mars Rover landing to a

tribute to panda Shin-Shin’s newborn cub and culminating in a live-in-Times-

Square finale where the final ‘twist’ was designed in real-time in a pop-up

agency, based on fan suggestions both in person and through social media.

What made this particular campaign so successful was its ability to spark

conversation and sharing by utilizing milestones and popular-culture events to

engage. Oreo successfully fulfilled the “3 C’s” by offering relevant, timely,

simple, humorous, and shareable content without pandering for likes,

comments, or shares. And it paid off; as of September, Oreo had experienced

“110% growth in fan interaction per social-media post – defined as any

combination of shares, likes, or comments. The company averaged 7,000 per

post before the “Daily Twist” launch. After, they reached an average of 14,700”

(Diaz, 2012). But this was just the beginning; Oreo would reach even further

social heights with their successful Super Bowl through both planned and

unplanned efforts.

Marking yet another milestone after celebrating its 100th birthday in 2012, Oreo

tasked Wieden + Kennedy with creating its first-ever Super Bowl commercial.

Having observed fans routinely asking one another “cookie or creme?” Oreo

saw the Super Bowl as an opportunity to portray the debate in a fun way – the

spot is entitled “Whisper Fight” – and inspire even more of it. At the end of the

commercial, viewers are directed to Oreo’s Instagram account where they are

asked to vote by submitting photos hashtagged with #cookiethis or #cremethis.

Oreo began promoting its Instagram account on Facebook (to its 32 million


15

followers) on the Thursday prior to game day. “Before the commercial aired,

Oreo had around 2,200 followers. Shortly after, its following climbed to nearly

20,000, and is now nearing the [87,000] mark” (Indvik, 2013).

With this background, it is no surprise that Oreo was ready for anything on Super

Bowl Sunday. As Scougal pointed out, with the right mechanisms in place, a

brand can be ready to respond in real-time on a moment’s notice. For Oreo,

success was largely due to the efforts of agency partner 360i:

"We had a mission control set up at our office with the brand and 360i,

and when the blackout happened, the team looked at it as an

opportunity," agency president Sarah Hofstetter told BuzzFeed. "Because

the brand team was there, it was easy to get approvals and get it up in

minutes." Oreo had already aired a solid TV ad with their "Cookie or

Creme" spot. But they were ready to capitalize on social media as well

when the lights went out. “The big question is, what happens when

everything changes, when you go off script?" Hofstetter said. "That was

where it got fun." The key? Having OREO executives in the room, and

ready to pull the trigger. (Terdiman, 2013)

To digress and set the stage, Super Bowl XLVII presented a unique set of

circumstances for marketers when, during the third quarter, a power outage at

the Superdome caused some of the lights to go out for an unprecedented 34

minutes. With Oreo executives in the room, 360i executed a now famously

brilliant tweet ad that read, “Power out? No problem. You can still dunk in the

dark.” The tweet caught fire, garnering a total of 16,056 retweets, 6,219 favorites,

and the attention of not only the Twittersphere, but also the entire mainstream

media. Hoffstetter told Wired, “The new world order of communications today

incorporates the whole of the way people are interacting with brands right now.

Once the blackout happened, no one was distracted – there was nothing going


16

on. The combination of speed and cultural relevance propelled it to the

forefront” (Watercutter, 2013).

With the increased prevalence of the second (or even third) screen experience,

marketers have to do more than the standard 30-second spot to get fans’

attention. According to an overnight study conducted by the Mobile Marketing

Association and Session M, 59% of viewers used their phones more during the

game as compared with 41% who did so more during commercial breaks. 91%

of viewers used their mobile device during the commercial breaks, with 35%

completing a follow-up action on their mobile device based on a commercial

they saw during the Super Bowl. 64% used their mobile device for something

unrelated to commercials. Interestingly, nearly a quarter of respondents noted

that they’d like to see more commercials that incentivized taking action on their

phones, or offered additional content. (Mobile Marketing Association) For those

brands that did this successfully, Oreo included, the effort paid off.

Looking at Google Search Trends over the last 12 months, we can tangibly see

the impact of these social campaigns on the Oreo brand, with peaks during the

week of the gay pride ‘twist’ and again the week following the Super Bowl (the


17

peak in December is likely related to increased search for Oreo recipes around

the holidays).

For a brand that has been around for such a long time and is inherently

ingrained in American culture, the sheer effort Oreo has put into their digital and

social brand experience has been impressive. The juxtaposition of “old school”

and “new school” – whether that’s the Daily Twist’s retro print campaign in a

digital setting or simply the traditional cookie taking advantage of hot new

platforms like Instagram – brings Oreo staunchly into the twenty-first century,

inserting it into the cultural conversation and engaging consumers in ways that

drive fandom and encourage sustainable relationships.

Heineken Globally, there is not a sport more followed or beloved than soccer. As

Americans, we’re more often than not late to the game, only truly paying

attention every two years: at the World Cup or the Olympics. But year round,

soccer is a megalith, with players being bought and sold for upwards of £50m,

shirt deals valued at upwards of £20m per year, and the most valuable team,

the Barclays Premier League’s Manchester United, worth over two billion USD

(Soccer Bible, The Telegraph, Forbes). Suffice it to say, for global brands, soccer

is an extremely valuable platform for marketing and sponsorship – and there is a

great deal that can be and is already done when it comes to social, digital, and

interactive strategy.

With this background in mind, another excellent case study in regards to the

study of consumer-brand relationships is Europe’s biggest brewer, Heineken. In

2011, Heineken agreed to extend its sponsorship of UEFA Champions League

soccer for a further three years, through the end of the 2014/2015 football

season, a deal that is estimated to be worth around 20 million euros (£17m)


18

(Vanguard). Heineken’s Chief Commercial Officer, Alexis Nasard, told Reuters,

“the new deal gives [us] wider digital rights and broadens [our] broadcast rights

to cover Germany” (Jones, 2011).

What makes Heineken such an interesting case to study is that they activate

around all of their partnerships in the most innovative fashion. Whether it’s

soccer, music festivals, or James Bond films, the brand team at Heineken knows

how to engage consumers and keep them coming back for more. Their digital

footprint is ever growing and they work diligently to keep it that way, diversifying

their partnerships so that they’re not only known as “the Champions League

beer.” That being said, around their Champions League partnership in

particular, they have conducted plenty of activations that are worth examining.

As the title sponsor of the league in 2010, Heineken created a fully integrated

marketing strategy that incorporated social and digital outreach, consumer

sweepstakes, and sales-driven retail components. Activating across 60 markets

and leveraging a multitude of messaging channels, Heineken executed a wide

range of engaging activations. They hosted a heavily branded watch party in

Dubai that featured live music. They built an 8m x 6m x 3m model of Santiago

Bernabeu Stadium with 40,000 cans under the messaging the “The UEFA

Champions League is art. And the art of football is brought to life by Heineken”

(Bernabeu Stadium). They teamed up with Heineken for the fourth time to bring

the Champions League trophy to the United States for five weeks, touring major

cities across the nation. They created an “Ultimate Fan Page” featuring

exclusive footage, Trophy Tour updates, and a sweepstakes to win a trip to the

league final. They built custom POS at retail locations and implemented a very

well done “ritual” series of commercials across various markets.

Finally, perhaps most memorably, they utilized guerilla marketing in Italy around

the matchup between Real Madrid and AC Milan. Staging a fake event at the


19

same time the game was to be played, an event where classical music met

poetry in an Italian theater, Heineken teamed up with over 200 people –

girlfriends, bosses, and journalists – to help get over 1,000 people away from their

TVs and into the event. Broadcast live on SkySport, viewers watched much of

the audience get increasingly bored until the stage slowly revealed clues to

involve the crowd. Finally realizing what was going on, a live projection of the

entire game for the entire audience began, revealing Heineken as the savior. A

hugely successful stunt, all of this went hand-in-hand with Heineken’s campaign

idea that men were increasingly losing the ability to spend “that sacred time”

with friends watching the big game. (RalfGroen)

While none of these are explicitly social-focused (they did utilize the medium for

promotional purposes), they are certainly relationship-focused, using Heineken

as a bridge to unite soccer fans globally and offering the opportunity for self-

expansion through their brand. Moving forward – remember, this is only 2010:

Twitter’s been around for just four years – Heineken would begin their run at the

forefront of digital engagement through a number of interactive initiatives, both

related to their UEFA partnership and not.

As far back as 2008-09, Heineken has been invested in experiential marketing,

creating a captivating mobile marketing tour called the Heineken Extra Cold

Experience, which toured major cities across the globe with a collection of

engaging elements, including a big igloo experience (where premiums were

distributed), an ice bar (with free samples), a live stage, live DJ entertainment,

Heineken models, and lounging stations with giant ice cube chairs (Gainor,

2009). They supported the campaign with a Facebook fan page and an

experiential microsite geared toward the European marketplace. This, again,

was just the beginning of Heineken’s foray into the digital and experiential

space.


20

In 2012, Heineken launched a multitude of innovative social campaigns to

engage their increasingly global fan base. In Singapore, for instance, the brand

created what they called a “Social Christmas Tree” out of 48 LED screens

towering eleven meters high. The “tree” became a destination for consumers to

send messages to friends and family during the holidays. Heineken allowed

consumers across the globe to submit greetings and messages in an effort to

unite people from across the world and visibly bring social media to life in the

public square (Heineken Singapore 1, 2). Later, they utilized social to enhance

the experience for attendees at the Heineken Open’er Music Festival in Poland,

with the brand message to “Open Your World” (Kamil Kowalczyk). Utilizing giant

QR codes (referred to as U-Codes), Heineken drove engagement amongst

attendees by featuring a footprint on-site where fans could videotape a

personal message – detailing who they were, where they were from, what their

interests were – and have it embedded into a giant QR code sticker that was

printed out and placed on their clothing. These U-Codes served as great

icebreakers for festival attendees and generated such buzz that over 5,000

people received them over a 4-day period, exceeding the brand’s

expectations by 200% (Gainor, 2012).

On the social gaming front, Heineken has been equally as innovative. Returning

to the brand’s UEFA partnership, the brand partnered with creative agency

AKQA to launch a live football game, StarPlayer, which allowed players to

predict what would happen at key moments in Champions League matches in

order to score points. The game tapped into the growing “dual screen” habit

discussed earlier in this paper. Starplayer worked in real-time, with players invited

to forecast the outcome of corners, free kicks, and penalties by choosing a

number of options. Different point scores were rewarded depending on the

outcome’s likelihood; and at the start of the game, players were given the


21

chance to guess when goals would take place, with points awarded on a

sliding scale based on how early the goal was anticipated. To add to the

game’s social dimension, players were allowed to form leagues with friends,

share their scores via Facebook, and receive badges for successfully predicting

the events of a game. (Williams, 2011)

Finally, most recently, Heineken created two TV ads with supporting digital

elements. First, in February 2012, the brand launched a hugely successful

Bollywood-themed ad called “The Date.” Coinciding with this, the brand

created “The Serenade,” a Facebook app that creates personalized messages

through which users were able to invite potential partners on a date. They were

directed to choose the person they’d like to date, why they’d like to date them,

and suggest why they themselves were date material. Then, Paul “Kiss” Kissaun,

the star of “The Date,” performed the invitation. Created by Wieden + Kennedy

Amsterdam, the app was available in over 20 languages and 640 variations. To

extend this idea, the brand hosted “Serenade Live,” an online event where

personalized serenades, custom written for selected Facebook and Twitter

submissions, were performed live. Each couple witnessed their love song live via

Skype, and their reactions were broadcast simultaneously on Heineken’s

YouTube channel (Fera, 2012).

Next, the brand paired up with the James Bond franchise’s summer blockbuster,

Skyfall, to further their “Open Your World” campaign with a theatric ad that led

viewers to an online and live-action game called “Crack the Case.” The lively

ad, which pays homage to the Bond franchise without being explicitly about

James Bond, retains the spirit of the brand’s previous “Open Your World” work.

As Cyril Charzat, Senior Director, Global Heineken Brand, told Fast Company,

“Two years ago we shifted our communications from being about ourselves to

trying to show our man of the world in situations that can be an inspiration –


22

elevating the image of the drinker. Each time we tried to take a real human

truth, a consumer insight we believe is talking to our guys in their daily life. Here

it’s the idea that each guy might think about a time where he has to save the

day like a legend.” (Fera, 2012, 2)

The supporting digital element in this case was the ability to aid Skyfall’s Bond girl

Severine (Bérénice Marlohe) in an interactive web setting. While slightly less

robust than that of “The Serenade,” the tactic was nonetheless effective and

had the added benefit of creating a live-action world tour coinciding with the

film release, where locals were able to demonstrate their resourcefulness by

undergoing a similar gauntlet of challenges in person. Altogether, the “Crack

the Case” launch was a massive $50 million media investment that was well-

worth it, with Charzat noting the “interaction from all the countries around the

world talking about the campaign at the same time and engaging with these

events [created] a huge opportunity for us to create something that’s

meaningful in relation to the Open Your World story” (Fera, 2012, 2).

Analyzing Heineken with the social conversation monitoring tool, Topsy, it is clear

that the brand’s efforts have paid off, with 323,000 social mentions all-time.

When compared with a similar European beer brand in Beck’s, which has a

mere 2,800 mentions all-time, there is a massive 115-times increase in social

activity. Beer is a crowded marketplace, with an already vast number of big-

name brewers in addition to the fast-growing craft beer market, so the ability to

engage consumers in on-going fashion is an important one. By consistently

innovating in the way they communicate with their large fan base as well as the

consumer-world at large, Heineken is able to secure brand loyalty and

increased word-of-mouth presence while encouraging new consumers to learn

more about their brand, forming new relationships with every partnership and

innovation they embark upon.


23

Nike & Adidas – Transgressions

Social and digital media isn’t a wholly green pasture; in fact, there are many

more potential missteps that can impact brands in a way that is more magnified

than ever before. As indicated in the literature review portion of this paper,

brand transgressions can have a significant impact on the relationships they

maintain with consumers. With the ever-present nature of social media, these

transgressions are immediately public, eliciting the genuine, real-time reactions

of angry consumers in a way that was never before possible. Sport giants, Nike

and Adidas, made two such transgressions in the last year. While these brands

are certainly “too big to fail,” each transgression caused tremendous social

outcry, necessitating brand action in the aftermath.

For Nike, the mess-up was at the hands of footwear designer Jason Petrie and

somewhat akin to those brands whose employees accidentally post damaging

client commentary to the company account. After Chicago Bulls star Derrick

Rose went down with a season-

ending ACL injury in April 2012, Petrie

suggested that Rose hurt himself

because of the Adidas shoes he was

wearing. Petrie, who is the designer

behind Lebron James’ Nike sneakers,

fired off the tweet much to the dismay

of his many followers:

The tweet, predictably considering Rose’s beloved nature in the league and the

visible agony he experienced on the court following his injury, incited a flurry of

online criticism, with followers calling it “in bad taste” and “classless” (Smith,

2012). Nike, realizing that the tweet was bad for public relations, issued a

statement on the issue:


24

“As a brand that is passionate about sport, we recognize the intense level

of play that every athlete has engaged in during this basketball season

and respect the dedication it takes to compete. One of our basketball

footwear designers posted comments online that we feel are

inappropriate, and he has since apologized. We wish anyone who is

injured a speedy recovery.”

While this certainly did not impact Nike’s overall brand standing in the

marketplace, it goes to show that employees must be diligent in maintaining

their personal social accounts, as they are a public reflection of the company. It

was well done on Nike’s part to recognize the public relations implications in

sufficient time to do damage control and distance themselves from Petrie’s

comments.

In a more damning transgression, Adidas was

forced to cancel production in June 2012 on a

(albeit ill-designed) shoe before it was to hit the

market in August. Designed by Beverly Hills

eccentric Jeremy Scott, the shoe came with a

set of plastic shackles and a tagline on Adidas’ Facebook page that struck a

playful tone: “Got a sneaker game so hot you lock your kicks to your ankles?”

(Lynch, 2012)

Critics, unsurprisingly, took issue with the shoe, saying it called up painful images

of slavery, and made their displeasure known on social media. Adidas dismissed

the criticism, defending the design in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The

design…is nothing more than the designer Jeremy Scott’s outrageous and

unique take on fashion and has nothing to do with slavery” (Lynch, 2012). The

outspoken Reverend Jesse Jackson provided one of the highest-profile


25

condemnations of the shoe, noting that civil rights groups had contacted NBA

Commissioner David Stern asking him to intercede and proposed a boycott in

about 50 markets if the shoe was released. He went on to state, “The attempt to

commercialize and make popular more than 200 years of human degradation,

where blacks were considered three-fifths human by our Constitution is

offensive, appalling, and insensitive.” (Solomon, 2012) While not everyone was

offended by the design, Adidas decided to discontinue production, stating,

“We apologize if people are offended by the design and we are withdrawing

our plans to make them available in the marketplace” (Solomon, 2012).

In this instance, offensive or not, public sentiment, pressure from various

advocacy groups, and heated media coverage contributed heavily to

management’s decision to pull the product. While it is hard to definitively state

that such a decision would not have been made in the pre-social era, it is

certain that public outcry was immediately magnified through the release of the

shoe’s photo on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In the pre-social era, the

shoe’s design would have first been viewed through more traditional media

outlets and likely would’ve undergone more intense scrutiny from advertising

and media executives who may well have preempted the controversy.

These are only two sport-centric examples of a multitude that could be

discussed in relation to transgressions. Brands, company employees, and

athletes and other public figures alike must be more careful than ever to stay in

line without harming their public perception – and in doing so, impacting the

relationships that they have worked hard to develop with consumers and fans.

Conclusions & Implications

In each of the three case studies presented, we see brands that are highly

ingrained in culture working hard to establish, maintain, and in the case of Nike

and Adidas, salvage, relationships with their consumers. In each case, the


26

brand’s presence on various social media outlets – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram

– allowed consumers to view them as a sort of friend, making determinations

about the expectations of their relationship and interacting with them on a

more personal level. Advertising mogul, the late David Ogilvy, once said, “You

now have to decide what ‘image’ you want for your brand. Image means

personality. Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or

break them in the marketplace.” The “personality” aspect of a brand’s image is

today more important than ever before.

The idea of brands in conversation goes back to at least 1999, when The

Cluetrain Manifesto warned Madison Avenue that the Internet would disrupt the

way the industry was used to operating. This notion is confirmed by many of the

most prominent figures in the industry. Mark O’Brien, president of DDB North

America, told Fast Company, “We learned that people kept finding way to tune

out the messages and were only paying attention to what they wanted. We’ve

begun to realize we have to engage them in a relevant way so they want to

engage with us.” For Esther Lee, former chief creative officer at Coca-Cola and

current head of advertising at AT&T, it’s not just about customers anymore, it’s

about people. (Sacks 2013) Shops that wouldn’t have existed, say, twenty years

ago, in storytelling shop Campfire and word-of-mouth agency Affinitive, echo

these sentiments:

“It really is about being in the moment. Any strict road map moves it out of

conversation” – Mike Monello, Campfire

“Brands need to step into those conversations, but you can’t opt-out of

those conversations; you have to be invited to those conversations”

– Bob Troia, Affinitive


27

While some marketers might argue that true personification of brands is a step

too far, there are many who believe that for a brand to be successful, it has to

find its soul. JWT’s Jeff Benjamin is part of that camp: “Consumers don’t want to

have a relationship and a conversation with just this cold logo. [A brand] has to

settle on the kind of human it wants to be. So this brand is what – the professor,

the teacher, the cool uncle?” (Sacks 2013) The answer varies with the target

audience and also with the medium of communication. It is important for

brands to be consistent across all of their messaging – and in the cases of Oreo

and Heineken, this is one of their greatest strengths. By creating a consistent

persona and building a stable relationship, brands can sustain the types of

mistakes made by Nike and Adidas. Monello, in his interview with Danielle Sacks,

likens it to how you would react to someone you’re close to in real life: “If your

friend says something you are offended by, you don’t turn around and call them

sexist or racist; you go, ‘Hey man, that really bothered me.’”(2013).

Managerial Implications

With all of this in mind, the managerial implications are plentiful. Social media

truly can be considered a hybrid element of the traditional (“4 P’s”) marketing

mix (Mangold and Faulds, 2009), making it an important aspect of any

successful brand strategy. By acting through the medium in ways that are

relevant, timely, and ultimately, engaging, brands can go a long way in

securing long-lasting relationships built on mutual interaction. That being said, if

the content they produce is off-brand, ill timed, or simply uninteresting, social

media can serve as a detriment to the overall marketing strategy. Therefore, it is

important to have teams and strategies in place to ensure that they are able to

utilize the medium in ways that stay true to the brand’s core values while

encouraging engagement and conversation.

On the other side of the coin, social media holds brands publicly accountable

for their actions in ways traditional media never could. Public forums like


28

Facebook and Twitter have made the world almost entirely interconnected and

have given voice to the everyday consumer as well as the brand. As a result,

opinions – both positive and negative – are spread much faster and much

farther than those in the age of traditional media. Because of this, brand (as well

as human, government, and anyone else on social media) transgressions are

magnified. That being said, the medium also offers the opportunity to rectify

issues in efficient and widespread fashion, allowing, in some cases, the brand to

leave the situation in a better position than they’d been previous to the

transgression.

For both the positive and negative sets of managerial implications, the

underlying cause is the brand personified. By allowing two-sided conversation

rather than unilateral messaging, social media offers brands a new outlet for

forming relationships with consumers. As with any new friend, brands run the risk

of “talking too much” – of saturating the consumers with simply too much

messaging because of the ease with which the outlets can be utilized. While

social media can certainly be viewed as a double-edged sword, it offers more

opportunities for positive brand interactions and innovative integrations with

digital and interactive media that can work to enhance the brand’s standing

with both old and new customers alike.

Future Research

While the implications for marketers are many, there remains significant room for

future research in regards to digital media and consumer-brand relationships.

With the advent of things like the second-screen experience, native advertising,

brand-generated content, and transmedia storytelling, the ways in which

brands connect with and engage consumers are more plentiful than ever

before. With more intense and varied interactions and less delineation between

public and private selves, there is much to be studied in regards to the impact

on consumer behavior and the relationships that consumers form with brands.


29

Works Cited

Aaker, J., Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004). “When Good Brands

Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1) 1-16.

Aggarwal, Pankaj (2009). Using Relationship Norms to Understand

Consumer-Brand Interactions. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester

(Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Ahuvia, Aaron, Rajeev Batra, and Richard Bagozzi (2012). “Brand Love,”

Journal of Marketing, 76 (March) 1-16.

Aron, A., & Reimann, M. (2009). Inclusion of Brands in Self: Toward a Theory

of Brand relationships. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.),

Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009). Why on

Earth Do Consumers Have Relationships with Marketers: Toward

Understanding the Functions of Brand Relationships. In D. MacInnis, C.

Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81).

Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bagozzi, Richard P., and Marcel Paulssen (2009). Customer Coping in

Response to Relationship Transgressions: An Attachment Theoretic

Approach. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of

Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Bauer, Hans H., Daniel Heinrich, and Isabel Martin (2007). “How to Create

High Emotional Consumer-Brand Relationships? The Causalities of Brand

Passion.” In Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Dunedin,

New Zealand, 2189-2198.

BernabeuStadium. (2010, May 20). Heineken Stadium of Stars. Retrieved

from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_

embedded&v=pgBrTmPYDzo#!.

Blackston, Max (2000). “Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing

the Brand’s Relationships,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (3), 79-84.


30

Boone, L.E., & Kurtz, D.L. (2007). Contemporary Marketing (13th ed.).

Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.

Carroll, Barbara A., and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006). “Some Antecedents and

Outcomes of Brand Love,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2) 79-89.

Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris B. Holbrook (2001). “The Chain of Effects from

Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand

Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (2) 81-93.

Cole, Julian. (2013). Working Out the Business Problem [PowerPoint Slides].

Retrieved from http://byjuliancole.com/Week-2-Creating-a-Great-Social-

Media-Strategy/solo

De Wulf, K., Gaby Odekerken-Schroder, and Dawn Iacobucci (2001).

“Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-

Industry Exploration,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (October), 33-5.

Diaz, Ann-Christine. “Oreo’s 100-Day ‘Daily Twist’ Campaign Puts Cookie in

Conversation.” Ad Age. N.p., 10 September 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <

http://adage.com/article/digital/oreo-s-daily-twist-campaign-puts-

cookie-conversation/237104/>.

Dowling, Graham (2002). “Customer Relationship Management: In B2C

Markets, Often Less Is More,” California Management Review, 44 (3) 87-

106.

Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettmann (2005). “Self-Construal,

Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research,

32 (3), 378-389.

Fera, Rae Ann. (2012, February 9). Heineken Plays Cupid With Serenade

Live. Fast Company Create. Retrieved from http://www.fastco

create.com/1679815/heineken-plays-cupid-with-serenade-live.

Fera, Rae Ann. (2012, September 21). James Bond and Heineken Want


31

You to “Crack the Case.” Fast Company Create. Retrieved from

http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681648/james-bond-and-heineken-want-

you-to-crack-the-case.

Football’s Most Expensive Shirt Sponsorship Deals: In Pictures. (2012)

Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/

football/picturegalleries/8194085/Footballs-most-expensive-shirt-

sponsorship-deals-in-pictures.html.

Fournier, Susan (1998). “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing

Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 24 (4), 343-353.

Fournier, Susan (2009). Lessons Learned About Consumers’ Relationships

with their Brands. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.),

Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Fournier, Susan, Michael Solomon, and Basil Englis (2008). “When Brands

Resonate.” In Handbook of Brand and Experience Management, eds.

Bernd H. Schmitt and D.L. Rogers, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA:

Edward Elgar, 35-57.

Foux, G. (2006, May 8). Consumer-Generated Media: Get Your Customers

Involved. Brand Strategy, 38-39.

Gainor, Brian. (2009, December 31). For Heineken, It’s All About the

Experience. Partnership Activation. Retrieved from

http://www.partnershipactivation.com/headlines/2009/12/31/for-

heineken-its-all-about-the-experience.html.

Gainor, Brian. (2012, January 22). Heineken Gives Teams a Few Ideas to

Drive Fan Engagement and Socialization. Partnership Activation.

Retrieved from http://www.partnershipactivation.com

/headlines/2012/1/22/heineken-gives-teams-a-few-ideas-to-drive-fan-

engagement-and.html.

Gillin, P. (2007). The New Influencers: A Marketer’s Guide to the New Social


32

Media. Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books.

Goldstein, Michael. (2013). #0Retweets: Things I Hate About Digital

Advertising [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slide

share.net/michaelgoldstein/0retweets-things-i-hate-about-digital-

advertising.

Google Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from

http://www.google.com/trends.

Grayson, Kent, and Tim Ambler (1999). “The Dark Side of Long-Term

Relationships in Marketing Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36

(February), 132-141.

HeinekenSingapore. (2010, August 12). Heineken Social Christmas Tree:

17-26 Dec, Clarke Quay. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRp4TjqhDdo.

HeinekenSingapore. (2010, August 12). The Heineken Social Christmas

Tree: Coming Soon to Clarke Quay. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgiG2myzzC0.

Hsu, Tiffany. "Gay Pride Rainbow Oreo Sparks 20,000 Facebook

Comments, Debate." Los Angeles Times. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 20

Mar. 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/26/business/la-fi-mo-gay-

pride-oreo-20120626>.

Indvik, Lauren. “Oreo Super Bowl Spot Attracts Thousands of Instagram

Followers.” Mashable. N.p., 03 February 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <

http://mashable.com/2013/02/03/oreo-super-bowl-instagram/>.

Jacoby, Jacob, and Robert W. Chestnut (1978). Brand Loyalty:

Measurement and Management. New York, NY: Wiley.

Jones, David. “Heineken Sponsors 3 More Years of Champions League.”

Reuters. N.p., 27 May 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.

<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/uk-heineken-champions-

league-idUKTRE74P8P720110526>.


33

Kamil Kowalczyk. (2012, January 3). Heineken U-Code. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0RrXcm

89FAo.

Kybch, Rene. (2012, June 18). ‘Slave’ Imagery? Controversy Over Adidas

Shoes. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/18/nation/la-na-nn-adidas-jeremy-

scott-slavery-controversy-20120618.

Lempert, P. (2006). Caught in the Web. Progressive Grocer, 85 (12), 18.

Levine, Rick. (2000). The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual.

New York, NY: Perseus Books.

Mangold, Glynn, and David J. Faulds, “Social media: The new hybrid

element of the promotion mix,” Business Horizons, Volume 52, Issue 4, July–

August 2009, Pages 357-365

Maslow, A.H. (1943). “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological

Review, 50, 370-396.

Mobile Marketing Association. (2013). Mobile Smart Fundamentals. San

Francisco, CA: Hidden River.

Most Valuable Soccer Teams 2012. (2012). Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45edfgm/1-manchester-united/.

Parent, Michael, Kirk Plangger, Anjali Bal (2011). “The new WTP: Willingness

to participate,” Business Horizons, 54 (3) 219-229.

RalfGroen. (2010, March 17). Heineken: Guerilla Marketing – Real Madrid

vs AC Milan. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dInhX6ED15Y.

Rashtchy, F., Kessler, A.M., Bieber, P.J., Shindler, N.H., & Tzeng, J.C., (2007,

February). The User Revolution: The New Advertising Ecosystem and the

Rise of the Internet as a Mass Medium. Minneapolis, MN: Piper Jaffray

Investment Research.

Reichheld, Frederick (1996). “Learning from Customer Defections,”


34

Harvard Business Review, 74 (2), 56-68.

Reinartz, Werner J., and V. Kumar (2000). “On the Profitability of Long-Life

Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and

Implications for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (April), 17-35.

Reinartz, Werner J., and V. Kumar (2003). “The Impact of Customer

Relationship Characteristics on Profitable Lifetime Duration,” Journal of

Marketing, 67 (January), 77-99.

Sacks, Danielle. (2013, January 15). From Denny’s to Charmin, Brands Try to

Crackthe Social Conversation. Fast Company. Retrieved from

http://www.fastcompany.com/3004364/dennys-charmin-brands-try-

crack-social-conversation.

Scougal, W. (2013, March). Keeping It Real-Time: How to Talk to the

People That Talk to You. Presented at Advertising Week Europe, London,

England.

Sevenzro1. (2012, April 28). You got one guy only getting stronger, and

one guy breaking down before our very eyes. You chose poorly

Pooh…#shouldasignedwithNIKE #GWS [Twitter Post]. Retrieved from

https://twitter.com/sevenzro1/statuses/196363865188085760

Sheth, Jagdish N., and Atul Parvatiyar (1995). “Relationship Marketing in

Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 255-271.

Smith, Steven. (2012, April 30). Nike Shoe Designer Apologizes for Mocking

Derrick Rose After Injury. CBS News. Retrieved from

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-57424098-10391697/nike-shoe-

designer-apologizes-for-mocking-derrick-rose-after-injury/.

Soccer Bible. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from

http://www.soccerbible.com/news/general/archive/2012/08/30/most-

expensive-football-transfers-ever.aspx.


35

Solomon, Jesse. (2012, June 20). Adidas Cancels ‘Shackle’ Shoes After

Outcry. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/us/adidas-

shackle-shoes.

Stern, Barbara B. (1997). “Advertising Intimacy: Relationship Marketing and

the Services Consumer,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (4), 7-20.

Terdiman, Daniel. “How Oreo’s Brilliant Blackout Tweet Won the Super

Bowl.” CNET. N.p., 03 February 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013 <

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57567384-93/how-oreos-brilliant-

blackout-tweet-won-the-super-bowl/>.

Thomas, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005). “The

Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional

Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.

Topsy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.topsy.com.

Villarica, H. (13 April 2012). This is Why You Fall in Love With Brands. The

Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business

/archive/2012/04/this-is-why-you-fall-in-love-with-brands/255448/

Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always On: Advertising, Marketing, and

Media in an Era of Consumer Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Warrington, Patti, and Soyeon Shim (2000). “An Empirical Investigation of

the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment,”

Psychology and Marketing, 17 (9), 761-782.

Watercutter, Angela. “How Oreo Won the Marketing Super Bowl with a

Timely Blackout Ad on Twitter.” Wired. N.p., 04 February 2013. Web. 20

Mar. 2013 < http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/02/oreo-twitter-super-

bowl/>.

Wilcox-Ugurlu, Caroline C. (2011). “Social Media, Existence, Identity

Dynamics, and Experiential Consumption.” Dissertation, University of

Rhode Island, Kingstown, RI.

Williams, Eliza. (2011, April 27). Heineken Launches Live Football Game


36

StarPlayer. Creative Review. Retrieved from

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/april/heineken-starplayer.

Winterich, Karen P. (2007). “Self-Other Connectedness in Consumer Affect,

Judgments, and Action.” Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Joseph M.

Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA.