WE HAPPY FEW: Redefining Community in Marketing
ABSTRACT
Community has seen an increasing level of interest with marketing scholars both as a context for
a variety of consumer behaviors as well as a consumer behavior unto itself; however, the
investigation into community has seen its share of challenges. We attempt to subdue these
challenges by drawing upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological literatures to
define community, offering suggestions for what constitutes community. We then outline
various means by which marketing supports this definition and provide an overview of how this
definition may aid our understanding of brand communities and the notion of a community‟s
brand.
2
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Community has seen an increasing level of interest with marketing scholars both as a
context for a variety of consumer behaviors as well as a consumer behavior unto itself. We have
seen marketers investigate the impact community has upon various consumption activities (Cova
1997; Hill and Stamey 1990), the rites and rituals of various consumption communities (Celsi,
Rose, and Leigh 1993, Schouten and McAlexander 1995), and as well as how certain
communities develop and grow around various brands (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig;
2002; Muniz and O‟Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau 2005). However, despite this growing
interest and the wealth of knowledge garnered by such studies, a consistent definition of
community in the marketing literature is elusive.
As a result, there are three main challenges to the exploration of community in marketing.
First of all, the notion of community is inexact in a definitional sense both in terms of how one
identifies a community and in how it is distinguished from subcultures or other such social units.
Second, a set of challenges arises when we attempt to outline the boundary conditions of what
constitutes a community, and third, there is a need to consider the variations between different
types of communities or, at the very least, the varieties of communal relationships that exist
within communities. Our purpose is to attempt to resolve these challenges and provide a
definition of community that allows marketers to move forward with an examination of
community both in theory and in practice.
To do so, we first draw upon various sociological, psychological, and ecological
literatures to understand the fundamental components that constitute community. Collectively,
these streams suggest that community is a social system that possesses two components, a
structural and an inter-relational component, that exist between and amongst its inhabitants. We
draw from Brint‟s (2001) notion that community is driven by “aggregates of people.” These
collections share something—be it a set of beliefs, ideals, desires, activities, or concerns—that
binds them together; yet, we also believe that there is something more to community than simple
collections of people. Brint‟s definition, though thorough, remains vague in that it may also
describe a family, a classroom, or a group of friends enjoying a camping trip.
Building upon the work of Giller (1984) who defined ecological communities as made up
of smaller “guilds” or groups of animals, plants, and bacteria as well as the efforts of Cooley
(1909), Durkheim (1893), and Simmel (1950), we argue that a community is formed when
subgroups of intimately related people who are bound by strong ties develop ties with other
subgroups of people. Ultimately, we arrive at the following definition: Community is a
structured and inter-related network between groups of people where each individual group as
well as the collective network of groups is bound together by relations that may include affect,
loyalty, common values, personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs and where the tie
strength of relationships within groups is relatively greater than the tie strength that exists
between groups.
From this definition, we attempt to align the components of our proposed definition with
the existing marketing literature on community. Then we apply our definition of community to
marketing and, specifically, brand community. We find that the extant literature suggests that
marketing can facilitate ties between groups of consumers (Cova 1997; Price and Arnould 2000);
and we argue that the current marketing thought reflects a variety of means through which
collective network of groups are bound together by relations that may include affect, loyalty,
common values, personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs. Two of the main arenas
3
in which these binding efforts have been explored has been through the utilization of brands
(Muniz and O‟Guinn 1995; Muniz and Schau 2005) as well as the construction of communitas
between consumers (Celsi et al. 1993; Arnould and Price 1993). Finally, marketing research has
alluded to collections of distinct sub-groups that form a broader aggregate community (Schouten
and McAlexander 1995).
We also submit that our definition of community aids in the conceptualization and
identification of brand community. We argue that a brand community occurs when the brand
facilitates the ties that bind subgroups together. Further, we suggest that if the ties that exist
between sub-groups are not a result of the brand but rather a result of other attributes associated
with affect, loyalty, common values, etc., then it is not a brand community. In this case, the
brand has been adopted by the community. We describe this structure as a community’s brand,
arguing that if the brand is consequently removed from the community, the community would
carry on without the brand.
Additionally, we posit that certain communal bodies may in fact constitute both brand
communities as well as a community‟s brands. For example, The Harley Davidson subculture of
consumption identified by Schouten and McAlexander (1995) appears to be a collection of
various subgroups such as the Mom-and-Pops, RUBs, Dikes on Bikes, and Hard Core bikers (to
name a few). Each subculture has strong ties within their specific groups; and these groups have
adopted Harley Davidson as a community brand. However, when the various subgroups come
together at Sturgis, the brand facilitates the between-group ties that bind these subgroups
together. The biker rally at Sturgis then helps facilitate a brand community.
Ultimately, we believe that community, both as a concept and a reality, is a complex and
difficult web of human relationships within varying environments; and the importance of
understanding such phenomena has been noted within sociology, ecology, psychology and
marketing. This paper is an attempt to provide one perspective that may aid in clarifying what
community is in terms of its structure and the various types of community that may appear. It is
our hope to take the study further and explore its ramifications within particular contexts.
4
WE HAPPY FEW: Redefining Community in Marketing
INTRODUCTION
Marketing researchers have paid increasing attention to the notion if community in the
context of and as a context for various consumer behaviors. Cova (1997) and Hill and Stamey
(1990) investigated the impact of community on consumption, Kozinets (2002b) explored the
consumer-driven community as an alternative marketplace, and Kates (2004) provided insight
into the use of various brands to develop and sustain a communal identity. Researchers have
also focused on various subcultures of consumption that may otherwise be considered
consumption communities (see Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993; Despande, Hoyer, and Donthu
1986; Schouten and McAlexander 1995), and others have examined the development and
maintenance of brand communities (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muniz and
O‟Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau 2005),
Despite this attention, marketers still appear to grapple with definitions of community
that fit across the various phenomena and contexts of interest to marketing academics. Kozinets
(2002a) argues that the communal ideal “can be characterized as a group of people living in close
proximity with mutual social relations characterized by caring and sharing” (21) while
McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) claim that a community “is made up of its member
entities and the relationships among them” (38). The distinction between these two definitions is
that the former is tied to a particular location while the other appears to not be tied to proximity.
This is echoed by Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) who assert that community transcends place,
becoming a “common understanding of a shared identity” (413). What all three of these basic
5
definitions share with each other as well as with other definitions contained in the literature is the
fact that communities are essentially relationships between and amongst people.
Another challenge lies in defining the boundaries of communities. In the research of
online communities, five different types of “virtual” communities have been identified—
newsgroups, thematically linked web-pages, listservs, multiuser dungeons, and chat rooms
(Kozinets 2002a)—but other than some ephemeral online connection between the individuals
engaging in these communities, what characteristics ensure that these are in fact communities?
A similar quandary exists in research on the North American gay men‟s community as explored
by Kates (2004). The author‟s findings suggest that a community and the producers of certain
brands co-create cultural meanings within the context of a community. However, other than the
fact that the men share a common characteristic, a clear indication of what makes this particular
collection of men a community appears to be absent.
Third, a lack of distinction exists between the varieties of communities and the variations
of the types of relationships that exist within these communities. How is the Harley Davidson
subculture of consumption (Schouten and McAlexander 1995), a community in its own right,
different from the communal tribe of skydivers (Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993)? Furthermore,
what are the various communal relationships that exist within the Harley Davidson subculture?
As Schouten and McAlexander (1995) suggest, “hard-core bikers who consider themselves
„defenders of the faith‟ often will not acknowledge Moms-and-Pops and RUBs [Rich Urban
Bikers], whom they regard as inauthentic pretenders or „weekend warriers‟” (49).
Thus, there are three main challenges with the notion of community as it is explored in
marketing research. First of all, the notion of community is inexact in a definitional sense both
in terms of how one identifies a community and in how it is distinguished from subcultures or
6
other such social units. Second, a set of challenges arises when we attempt to outline the
boundary conditions of what constitutes a community, and third, there is a need to consider the
variations between different types of communities or, at the very least, the varieties of communal
relationships that exist within communities.
Our overarching purpose is to further outline the concept of community within marketing
research and practice. To that end, we draw from philosophy, sociology, ecology, psychology,
and marketing to answer three basic questions concerning the notion of community in marketing.
First, what do we know about community? Second, given our answer to the first question, how
does this relate to what constitutes a community? And finally, drawing upon the answers to the
first two questions, how is/should community within marketing be conceptualized? Ultimately,
this last question seeks to briefly lay out a research agenda that will potentially bear fruit to the
field and practice of marketing.
WHAT IS COMMUNITY?
Answering such a seemingly simple question is not, by any means, a simple task. The
notion of a community has been bandied about by scholars for at least a century. Community
has been explored within a variety of social science domains including sociology, psychology,
philosophy, and even marketing. The challenge inherent in this venture was acknowledged over
fifty years ago by the sociologist Hillery (1955) who identified no less than 94 definitions of
community that spanned a variety of domains. Early notions of community appear to be rooted
in the triumvirate of geography, proximity, and ownership of land. For example, Park‟s (1936)
definition characterized this land-based, geographic view, suggesting that a community is
constituted by: 1) a population that is territorially organized, 2) more or less completely rooted in
7
the soil it occupies, and 3) its individual units live in a relationship of mutual interdependence.
Similarly, Hollingshead (1948) grouped a variety of community definitions into three basic
categories—geographic area, socio-geographic structure, and group solidarity—but ultimately
concluded that a community could not be all three.
Sociological attempts to define community, however, began to veer away from
geographic or proximal bounds. Instead, these perspectives examined the organizational and
social structure of a community. Two themes arose as an undergirding philosophy to these
views—a mechanistic or structural component and a social, inter-relational component that is
inclusive of the relational, social , and emotional element of humans. Tönnies (1887)
distinguished between the structural and relational elements when he described gesellschaft and
gemeinschaft, roughly translated as society and community respectively. The gesellschaft is all
that is mechanistic and institutionalized, whereas gemeinschaft is characterized by all “intimate,
private, and exclusive living together” (33). Other sociologists have incorporated a similar
perspective in their examinations of communities and social systems. Merton‟s (1947) theory of
anomie presented a framework to describe social systems, such as communities. He suggested
two structural elements, one to describe the structural relations of its members and one intended
to describe the cultural component of the system.
More recently, Putnam (2000) and Keller (2003) have outlined structural and relational
components that are essential for “community” to occur. Putnam (2000) views the structural
building blocks of community as civic engagement and social contribution and the relational
components to be predominantly comprised of a sense of belonging. Similarly, Keller (2003)
suggests that community requires, “structural, cultural, and sentimental supports as well as an
altruistic outreach of affection and empathy to bind a totality” (7). In her thirty-year case study,
8
Keller describes the structural component of community as the collective framework that
“defines, names, encloses, [and] organizes aggregate activities and projects, and encompasses the
institution and rules that guide the collectivity” (7); and the relational system, as those social
elements that offer a sense of physical closeness, a shared sense of ideals and expectations or the
“life in common” of the people with the community, and a network of social ties and allegiances
that exist between and amongst collections of individuals.
In a similar vein, structural and relational themes are present in discussions regarding
community in the ecology literature. Community, according to Giller (1984), is the
“combination of plant, animal, and bacterial populations, interacting with one another within an
environment, thus forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure,
environmental relations, development and function” (1). In other words, a community is
distinguishable from another community (or the larger community) by the relationships between
its members as well as the function the community performs.
In this paper and flowing from the extant literature on community, we suggest that
community is a social system that possesses two components, a structural and an inter-relational
component, that exist between and amongst its inhabitants. While our conceptualization
specifies the need for mechanical structures that bind groups together in something resembling
order, we also include an essential inter-relational element that acknowledges that community is
composed of the relationships between and amongst people. By incorporating an inter-relational
element, we believe community is dynamic and adaptive (McGrath et al. 2000) in that it grows,
changes, and evolves as its members do. The inter-related parts of the community move and
work against one another even as they work together with one another. It is a fluid creature. It is
a living entity.
9
Furthermore, these collections of people share something—be it a set of beliefs, ideals,
desires, or other such concepts—that assists in distinguishing the collection from other
collections and in binding these individuals together in a structure of relationships. This level of
binding, (which appears to be related to Granovetter‟s (1973) notion of strong and weak ties)
aligns with the sociologist Steven Brint‟s (2001) notion of community. Brint (2001)
conceptualizes community as “aggregates of people who share common activities and/or beliefs
and who are bound together principally by relations of affect, loyalty, common values, and/or
personal concern (i.e., interest in the personalities and life events of one another)” (8).
While we find Brint‟s definition consistent with previous themes of inter-relational and
structural components, his definition may be too broad and, as a result, too inclusive. Such a
definition works for a family unit or a small group of friends or a four or five member smoking
club that congregates in front of a building at certain times during the day to partake in a
ritualistic habit. As our examples suggest, any sort of collectivity could be a community. In
order to form a definition of community, we believe that one elemental piece is missing. We
suggest that missing piece lies within a description of how collectivities of people form or
constitute a community.
WHAT CONSTITUTES COMMUNITY?
Returning for a moment to the ecology literature, Giller (1984) notes that communities
“are organized in some way, and… the role of the community ecologist is to unravel and explain
that organization” (2). In this section, we attempt to unravel the organization of community.
Giller (1984) and Brint (2001) both suggest that human communities, these aggregates of people,
are organized in some way such that they form a distinctive system. The range of literature on
10
community leads us to believe that these aggregates of people should be viewed in a distinct
manner. We suggest the starting point is to think not of collections of individual people but,
rather, to think about collections of small groups as the foundation of a community. This notion
of the building blocks of a community has been reflected in ecology, sociology, and psychology.
Introducing Small Groups
In ecology, Giller (1984) argues that a community consists of guilds which he defines as
small groups of species that utilize a particular resource in a functionally similar manner. These
guilds are smaller aspects of the total community. Members of these guilds “interact strongly
with one another and weakly with the remainder of the community” (3). For example, a
watering hole on the African savannah may provide water for a variety of groups of animals.
Herds of water buffalo, zebra, antelope, and elephants all huddle together at the watering hole,
each interacting strongly with other members of its particular herd as well as weakly interacting
with members of the other herds. In such a way, if the herd of antelope suddenly stirs as a result
of an approaching predator, the other herds react as well. This is an ecological community
consisting of a variety of guilds.
The ecological notion of the guild also aligns with a number of sociological perspectives
that suggest multiple groups form a collective. Two of the more well-known sociological
accounts of multiple groups forming a collectivity are Durkheim‟s work on polar types and
Cooley‟s discussion of small primary groups. Durkheim (1893) identified the mechanically
solidary society where people are both mentally and morally homogenous resulting in a uniform
and non-atomized social relationship. In this context exists, what he termed, the conscious
collective or the ideological beliefs and sentiments held common to all members of a particular
11
society. Within this exists the organically solidary society which works against this collective
consciousness. This is the community of people that has let slip the individualistic and
communal notions of differentiation. The social, in a sense, fractures into its various groups,
each co-existing in precarious balance with the collective order, each doing its own thing much
like the various herds of animals at the watering hole, but each willing, when necessary, to act en
masse.
Cooley (1909) viewed groups as the most important of social units in the development of
human nature and the development of the norms and institutions that result in a society. These
primary groups include such social units as the family or household group, neighborhoods, and
the spontaneous play-groups of children. Their chief characteristics include face-to-face
interaction, the unspecialized characteristics of these interactions, a relative degree of
permanence, a small number of persons, and a relative intimacy among the members of the
primary group. Half a century later, Simmel (1950) echoed Cooley‟s support of the small,
primary group within the context of the overall social structure. “It seems that in many places,”
Simmel contends, “groups originally consisted of subgroups which were tied to one another by
kinship and each of which formed a unit” (109-110). Most recently, Keller‟s (2003) studies
continue to reinforce this notion, in that a community includes a network of social ties and
allegiances that exist between and amongst collections of individuals.
Finally, this notion of groups as subunits of community appears to align with the
psychological perspective concerning groups. Specifically, some psychology scholars suggest
that we need to view “groups as open and complex systems (i.e. the members) imbedded within
them and the larger systems (e.g. organizations, communities) within which they are embedded”
(McGrath et al. 2000, 98). It follows, then, that communities are not simply made up of a
12
collection of individuals randomly thrown together because they share common activities and/or
beliefs. That can describe a classroom or strangers on a train or shoppers at a mall.
Communities, in the relational sense, are made up of aggregates of relatively smaller groups of
people, a network of subgroups.
The Ties that Bind
Thus, we believe that a community is marked by its ties between the various subgroups
and that these subgroups, at some level, exhibit both group homogeneity and heterogeneity. Let
us assume that we are examining a community as a network of subgroups. When examining an
individual group within the community, we would expect to see strong ties within the group due
to the homogeneity apparent as a result of some mutually held belief, loyalty, concern, etc.
When examining two groups that compose a community, we should then find that the two groups
display both heterogeneity and homogeneity between them. At some level, each group will be
distinct from one another; however, the groups will also reflect inter-group homogeneity at some
level. This homogeneity of beliefs, activities, affect, loyalty, etc., is what helps facilitate the
bonds between groups and create a community.
To further explain, we borrow an example from the physical sciences and liberally apply
our own poetic license to it. These relatively small groups, or guilds, of people are the
communal equivalent of a molecule which is comprised of several individual atoms working
together to form a cohesive unit. Furthermore, a molecule is the smallest particle of an element
or compound that retains the chemical and/or physical properties of that element or compound.
This molecule is then tied to other molecules to comprise some structure (e.g. a community).
While the atoms comprising a molecule interact with one another at some relatively greater
13
degree than they do with atoms of another molecule, they are still bound together due to an
overarching structure that holds the molecules together.
Returning to the watering hole analogy, we have a herd of antelope that are intimately
bound to one another through the protection the group affords, common lineage, geographical
proximity, instinct, familial relations, etc. and a herd of water buffalo that are intimately bound
in a like manner. Both groups approach the watering hole with relatively light interaction with
one another but are bound by their wariness of potential predators. When a lion approaches and
one of the water buffaloes catches wind of it, its startlement encourages its own group to flee
from the predator which, in turn, influences the small herd of antelope to also take flight. In this
case, a common adaptive concern unites these two distinctive sub-groups into a community.
A similar phenomenon occurs sporadically throughout human existence. We suggest that
the individuals that make up the sub-groups in human communities also interact relatively
intimately with one another and also interact with varying degrees of intimacy with other
subgroups and individuals in the community. This reflects a level of bonding that is relatively
stronger within a group than between groups. It logically follows, then, that if the tie strength
between the two groups grew as strong as the ties within each group separately, then the two
groups would absorb one another, leaving one homogenous group. This line of reasoning also
seems to suggest a greater level of homogeneity exists within a group and a relatively greater
level of heterogeneity exists between groups. The homogeneity within groups facilitates
subgroup formation because perceive a level of similarity (Moreland 1987) and the heterogeneity
between groups provides adaptive value, in that it provides a means to delineate groups, which
aids in recruitment (McPheerson et al. 1983) and allows groups to serve the distinctive needs of
their members (Carley 1991).
14
In summary, we propose that the literature in psychology, sociology, and ecology work
together in defining community and its boundaries. First, community is a social system that
includes mechanisms for both organization and social relations—a structured collection of
people and the relationships between them. Second, these collections of people share something
such as a set of ideals, concerns, values, activities and/or beliefs; and this commonality assists in
binding together these individuals in a structure of relationships. Third, we believe community is
an aggregate collectivity which is composed of subgroups and that the marker of a community
lies with its ties between these subgroups, facilitated by some mechanism such as some subset of
ideals, concerns, values, activities, beliefs, etc. shared by the two or more subgroups. Based
upon this line of reasoning, we offer the following definition of community:
Community is a structured and inter-related network between groups of people
where each individual group as well as the collective network of groups is bound
together by relations that may include affect, loyalty, common values, personal
concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs and where the tie strength of
relationships within groups is relatively greater than the tie strength that exists
between groups.
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
Such a definition of community should provide assistance to marketing researchers in
further developing an academic study of community as both a context of consumer behavior as
well as a consumer behavior in and of itself. It provides a structure that allows one to identify or
recognize a community over crowds, small groups, or other types of aggregates of people. It
acknowledges that various ties exist both within the small groups of people exhibiting intimate
relationships and between other small groups that inhabit the community. As such, we can then
begin to identify various types of communities that may be of interest or importance to
marketing as well as the various attributes that make up those communities.
15
Identifying Communities
It is clear that community has an important part to play in an individual‟s relationship
with self and others, and it is also quite clear that marketing has taken notice of this emphasis on
the communal. Though offering valuable and fascinating insight into various communal
phenomena, the marketing literature appears to be slightly disparate in its attempts to identify
community in marketing, especially brand community. Therefore, using the proverbial metaphor
of standing on the shoulder of giants, we attempt to align the components of our proposed
definition with the existing marketing literature on community; then we apply our definition of
community to marketing, specifically brand community.
First, the literature appears to suggest that marketing can facilitate ties between groups
of consumers. Cova (1997) investigates the linking value of products and services to individual
consumers, showing how “the postmodern individual values the social aspects of life at the cost
of consumption,” finding that the “goods and services which are valued are mainly those which,
through their linking value, permit and support social interaction of the communal type” (307).
He goes on to explain that the importance of this to marketers is that products and services that
service to isolate consumers could decrease in favor of those that bring consumers together.
Building upon this, Arnould and Price (2000) explain the development of community through
marketing, in that” many consumers embrace authenticating acts and authoritative performances
to restore a sense of community, tradition, and self” (141).
Second, the literature reflects a variety of means through which collective network of
groups are bound together by relations that may include affect, loyalty, common values,
personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs. These binding mechanisms have been
noted in the marketing literature to include common activities, rituals, performances behaviors
16
and even a sense of religiosity. In their exploration of brand community, Muniz and O‟Guinn
(2001) indicate three core commonalities that distinguish brand communities: consciousness of
kind, shared rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility. Consciousness of kind is
the sense of connection that exists with and between members of a particular community and the
sense that the community and its members are different from others. The shared rituals and
traditions are those that permeate the community and tell its story to the members and to those
outside the community. And the sense of moral responsibility is that “felt sense of duty or
obligation to the community as a whole, and to its individual members” (413). Within the
context of European car clubs, Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005) explore the
influence upon consumer intentions and behaviors that relationships with brand communities
play; and in an exploration of the Apple Newton community, Muniz and Schau (2005) examine
the shared religiosity within some aggregates of consumers.
Additionally, marketers have introduced the notion of communitas into the literature as a
means by which this binding occurs. Celsi et al (1993) studied the phenomenon in the context of
sky-diving groups and defined it as a “sense of community that transcends typical social norms
and convention… [the] sense of camaraderie that occurs when individuals from various walks of
life share a common bond of experience, such as skydiving and flow, that all participants
consider special or „sacred‟” (12). For Arnould and Price (1993), communitas is that “feeling of
communion with friends, family, and strangers” (12), that sense that we‟re all in this together.
And for Belk, Wallendorf, and Sherry (1989), communitas “frees participants from their normal
social roles and statuses and instead engages them in a transcending camaraderie of status
equality” (7).
17
Third, marketing research has alluded to collections of distinct sub-groups that form a
broader aggregate community. Research on subcultures of consumption appears to reinforce our
notion that ties between sub-groups form communities (Schouten and McAlexander 1995).
Subcultures of consumption align with the notion of community composed of sub-groups or even
guilds. Take for instance, Harley Davidson‟s subcultures of consumption, such as Moms-and-
Pops and RUBs [Rich Urban Bikers] (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). These are smaller
groups that reflect both levels of intra-group homogeneity, inter-group heterogeneity and
homogeneity. When these sub-groups form ties between them, they effectively form the Harley
Davidson community.
The definition that we have provided appears to be consistent with many findings within
the marketing literature on community. But beyond an organizing function, our proposed
conceptualization aids in designating what a community in marketing in fact is. A community is
not simply a collection of individuals; it is a collection of sub-groups. These sub-groups are
composed of relationships within the group. However, the community is constituted by
relationships between other sub- groups. With such a distinction, we can answer the questions
posed earlier in the paper concerning various “communal” contexts.
Brand Communities or a Community’s Brand
Based upon their exploration of Saab, Ford Bronco, and MacIntosh communities, Muniz
and O‟Guinn (2001) define a brand community as “a specialized, non-geographically bound
community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand” (412).
In whole, our proposed definition proximally aligns with Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001). However,
we believe our conceptualization further distinguishes a brand community from other forms of
18
community. First, our conceptualization aids in defining the collection of people that constitute a
brand community. The Muniz and O‟Guinn (2001) falls prey to the same challenge as Brint‟s
(2001) definition. That it, both definitions lead us to asking, “What is a collection of people?”
and “Under these conditions, is a family a brand community?” Our definition suggests that a
community exists when sub-groups are brought together by ties of affect, loyalty, beliefs,
concern, etc.
Second, our conceptualization allows us to distinguish between a brand community and
other forms of community. Our proposed definition of community suggests that between-group
ties serve as essential mechanisms in distinguishing between different forms of community. We
posit that if the brand is the predominant entity that facilitates the ties between sub-groups, then
the resulting community is in fact a brand community. For example, research on Star Trek fan
gatherings (Kozinets 2001) suggests the Star Trek brand facilitates an interaction between
numerous sub-groups; and these groups share some level of affect, loyalty, common values,
personal concerns, common activities, and/or beliefs regarding the Star Trek community. We
would submit this constitutes a brand community.
Further, we suggest that if the ties that exist between sub-groups are not a result of the
brand but rather a result of other attributes associated with affect, loyalty, common values, etc.,
then it is not a brand community. In this case, the brand has been adopted by the community.
We describe this structure as a community’s brand. For example, Kates (2004) identified a
variety of brands that are viewed as legitimate attributes of the gay men‟s community. The
brands have been adopted by the community to reflect the distinctiveness of the community.
However, the brands he identifies—Levi‟s, Absolut, the Body Shop, etc.—do not constitute the
ties that bind the community together; rather, they are a shared attribute of the community itself.
19
If the brands were pulled from the market—or driven from the community for some slight—the
community itself would continue. These are a community‟s brands.
Further, we posit that certain communal bodies may in fact constitute both brand
communities as well as a community‟s brands. The Harley Davidson subculture of consumption
identified by Schouten and McAlexander (1995) appears to be a collection of various
communities such as the Mom-and-Pops, RUBs [Rich Urban Bikers], Dikes on Bikes, and Hard
Core bikers (to name a few). Each subculture has strong ties within their specific groups; and
these groups have adopted Harley Davidson as a community brand. However, when the various
communities come together at Sturgis, the brand facilitates the between-group ties that bind these
subgroups together. The biker rally at Sturgis then helps facilitate a brand community.
This conceptualization also suggests that marketers may choose two additional paths in
building their brands. They may either attempt to facilitate between-group ties in order to build a
brand community; or they may attempt to encourage existing groups to adopt their brand, and
therefore become a community‟s brand.
Finally, this conceptualization demonstrates community is an excellent case study of a
co-production between marketers and consumers (Vargo and Lusch 2004). In our perspective,
when marketers attempt to build brand communities, they must actively engage consumers. A
brand community will only be successful when the sub-groups develop ties between one another.
McAlexander et al.‟s (2002) research on Jeep brandfest demonstrates the use of a brand to
engage consumers into a larger community of Jeep owners. As the authors indicate, a sense of
community forms when ties form and reform between customer groups at successive events.
CONCLUSION
20
Community, both as a concept and a reality, is a complex and difficult web of human
relationships within varying environments; and the importance of understanding such
phenomena has been noted within sociology, ecology, psychology and marketing. Within
marketing, the communal phenomena has appeared in contexts featuring brands, hobbies, and
services; and it has had a major bearing in how marketing theorists approach a variety of
collectivities including brandfests, alternative markets, and subcultures of consumption. We
hope that we have added to marketing‟s understanding of community in a viable fashion.
Undoubtedly, our perspective possesses both advantages and disadvantages. However,
we do believe that our conceptualization of the communal phenomenon provides a unique, multi-
disciplinary perspective that may aid in clarifying what community is in terms of its structure
and the various types of community that may appear. It is our hope that we, as well as other
scholars, can further examine this conceptualization to understand community in other contexts
and explore its associated ramifications for both theoretical and practical purposes.
REFERENCES
Algesheimer, Rene, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann (2005), “The Social Influence of
Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3),
19-34.
Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the
Extended Service Encounter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 24-45.
Arnould, Eric J. and Linda L. Price (2000), “Authenticating Acts and Authoritative
Performances: Questing for Self and Community,” The Why of Consumption:
Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, ed. S.
Ratneshwar, David Glen Mick, and Cynthia Huffman, New York: Routledge, 140-163.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (1989), “The Sacred and the
Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 16 (June), 1-38.
21
Brint, Steven (2001), “Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the
Community Concept,” Sociological Theory, 19 (1), 1-23.
Carley, K (1991), “A Theory of Group Stability,” American Sociological Review, 56, 331-354.
Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh (1993), “An Exploration of High-Risk
Leisure Consumption Through Skydiving,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 1-
23.
Cooley, Charles H. (1909), Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind, New York: C.
Scribner‟s Sons.
Cova, Bernard (1997), “Community and Consumption: Towards a Definition of the „Linking
Value‟ of Product or Services,” European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3/4), 297-316.
Despande, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu (1986), “The Intensity of Ethnic
Affiliation: The Study of the Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (2), 214-220.
Durkheim, Emile ([1893]1947), Division of Labor in Society, trans. George Simpson, Glencoe,
IL: The Free Press.
Giller, Paul S. (1984), Community Structure and the Niche, New York: Chapman and Hall.
Granovetter, Mark (1973), “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6),
1360-1380.
Hill, Ronald Paul and Mark Stamey (1990), “The Homeless in America: An Examination of
Possessions and Consumption Behaviors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (3), 303-
321.
Hillery, George A. (1955), “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement,” Rural Sociology,
20 (June), 111-123.
Hollingshead, August B. (1948), “Community Research: Development and Present Condition,”
American Sociological Review, 13 (2), 136-156.
Kates, Steven M. (2004), “The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay
Men‟s Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (Sept.), 455-464.
Keller, Suzanne (2003), Community: Pursuing the Dream, Living the Reality, Princeton NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2001), “Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Trek‟s
Culture of Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (June), 67-88.
22
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002a), “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing
Research in Online Communities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (Feb.), 61-72.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002b), “Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations
from Burning Man,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June).
Maffesoli, Michel (1996), The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society,
trans. Don Smith, London: Sage Publications.
McAlexander, James, Stephen K. Kim, and Scott D. Roberts (2003), “Loyalty: The Influences of
Satisfaction and Brand Community Integration,” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 11 (4), 1-11.
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand
Community,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (Jan.), 38-54.
McClenahan, Bessie A. (1929), The Changing Urban Neighborhood, Los Angeles: University of
Southern California Studies Series.
McGrath, Joseph E., Holly Arrow, and Jennifer L. Berdahl (2000), “The Study of Groups: Past,
Present, and Future,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (1), 95-105.
McPheerson, J.M. (1983), “An Ecology of Affiliation,” American Sociolgical Review, 48, 519-
532.
Merton, Robert K. (1949), Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of
Theory and Research, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Moreland, R.L. (1987), “The Formation of Small Groups,” In C. Hendrick (Ed) Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 8, 80-110.
Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O‟Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 27 (March), 412-432.
Muniz, Albert M., and Hope Jensen Schau (2005), “Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton
Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 737-747.
Park, Robert E. (1936), “Human Ecology,” American Journal of Sociology, 17 (1), 1-15.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schouten, John W., and James H. McAlexander, (1995), “Subcultures of Consumption: An
Ethnography of the New Bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43-61.
Simmel, Georg (1950), The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans. Kurt H. Wolff, Glencoe, Illinois:
The Free Press.
23
Tönnies, Ferdinand ([1887] 1957), Community and Society, trans. Charles P. Loomis, East
Lansing, MI: The Michigan State University Press.
Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 1-17.