Brand; “ A name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors.” (Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders and Wong, 2002:469) The concept of brands, branding and theories of brand loyalty have led to the creation of over 1.5 million registered brand names in Europe alone (Liebman, 1999) with many that have emerged as strong and well known. The brands Coca-Cola, Microsoft and IBM were ranked first, second and third – respectively – in 2000 in a list of 75 billion dollar brands (Kotler et al., 2002:472) and this wealth comes from being known worldwide. Brands are important because the consumer has learnt from evidence they have been exposed to – be it positive or negative – that different brands mean different things. The brand meaning is the emotional, often irrational consumer interpretation of a brand and this influences buyer behaviour. It is the perceived personality and character of the product or service that helps encourage or discourage brand loyalty by consumers (Fanning 1999). But brand loyalty is not the be all and end all of branding. A deeper, stronger level of a brand exists, where consumers become ‘members’ of the brand. They become part of a brand community. This report will explore the idea of brand community, through existing literature and through limited and simple research conducted in part, by the author. This research was undertaken in a presentation on brand community, with the sample being the small audience of Marketing Undergraduates who raised some interesting questions which will also be explored here in.

A brand community is defined by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) as a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand. From this we can see that brand communities are not limited to location, as the traditional idea of a community may entail. It is also clear that all members of a brand community share the same or at least similar strong, positive opinions – or to be more precise, emotions – towards the brand. However, little else can be taken from this definition until the concept of ‘community’ is evaluated and fully understood.

Community, in its traditional form, is a concept which many sociologists believe has been destroyed by its opposite – society – which is its replacement in today’s modern world. Muniz et al. (2001) quote Tonnies (1887) as defining community as a customary, familial, and emotional (rural) environment whilst society is defined as the mechanical, contractual, individualistic, and rational (urban) environment. Tonnies (1887 cf. Muniz et al. 2001) was saying that members of a community had a sense of belonging whilst members of society were simply statistics; depersonalised and unfamiliar to one-group as a whole. This can be explained better by breaking community down into what Muniz et al. (2001) describe as the three core community commonalities, accumulated from a variety of sociology literature. To explain the core commonalities we evaluate each separately, firstly defining the commonality from the literature, then demonstrating it. Here we introduce the example of a possible brand community in the form of the supporters of the team – the brand – Portsmouth Football Club (PFC), of which the author is a member. To demonstrate that Portsmouth Football Club is a brand we refer back to the definition provided by Kotler et al., (2002:469). PFC is identified in both name and in the moon and crescent crest, the symbol (see fig 1, to the right). It is used to identify the service of entertainment provided by Milan Mandaric, the chairman, the seller; for he receives payment in the form of gate receipts from the paying audience, the crowd. The brand is unique so as to differentiate itself from other teams, its competitors.

The first core community commonality is that of Gusfield’s (1978) consciousness of kind, which Muniz et al. (2001) state as the most important of the three core commonalities. Consciousness of kind is assessed as “the intrinsic connection that members feel toward one another, and the collective sense of difference from others not in the community” it is a type of “shared consciousness, shared knowing of belonging”. This shared consciousness is certainly one of the key parts of being a supporter of PFC and can be seen in the shared emotion of extreme delight when a goal is scored and immense disappointment when one is conceded. It is also seen at far deeper levels, where opinions are shared regarding performances of individuals in the team and decisions of “who had a good game”. The consciousness of kind is not bound to the area surrounding the stadium, and can be experienced often on another, higher level when abroad. Once, in Rome, whilst queuing to enter the coliseum, the author recalls noticing the person in front wearing a hat bearing the PFC symbol (fig 1) and so immediately started conversing. This intrinsic connection that the author knew existed destroyed any normal barriers to conversation and meant the two parties conversed as if they knew one another as long lost friends immediately. The collective sense of difference from others not in the community can also be shown through the various chants targeted at opposition supporters, and especially to PFC’s fierce rivals, Southampton Football Club. From this we can see that consciousness of kind is certainly apparent for the brand PFC.

The second core community commonality is in shared rituals and traditions.  Rituals “are conventions that set up visible public definitions” (Douglas, Isherwood 1979 cf. Muniz et al. 2001) “and social solidarity” (Durkheim 1915 cf. Muniz et al. 2001). This means that rituals are activities undertaken by group individuals to show their membership to the group to non-members. Rituals are used by group individuals to define themselves from non-group members, and to show unity. The most common ritual is that of wearing a PFC replica shirt, although this is extended to wearing any apparel or item that bears the PFC symbol (fig 1.) such as hats, scarves, coats, badges or a combination of any of these. Traditions are described as “sets of social practices which seek to celebrate certain behavioural norms and values” (Marshall 1994 cf. Muniz et al. 2001). These can be demonstrated in terms of PFC brand members through the chants sung (or more precisely, shouted) at matches; however these are not restricted to match day. The most famous PFC chant is the ‘Pompey Chimes’ – Pompey being the nickname for PFC – which ring out as “Play up Pompey, Pompey Play up!” and is repeated at matches continuously. Despite this though, it is well known supporters to end a conversation with a fellow supporter, with “Play up Pompey!”. From this evidence, it is plain to see that shared rituals and traditions are experienced with the brand PFC.

    The third and final core community commonality is that of a sense of moral responsibility (Muniz et al. 2001), where members feel a sense of “duty” or “obligation” to the brand and to the community as a whole. “This sense of moral responsibility is what produces, in times of threat to the community, collective action” (Muniz et al. 2001). To analyse this final commonality we must look at what has happened when the PFC brand has been threatened. Throughout the 1990’s the PFC brand was regularly threatened with relegation, often needing victories on the final day of the season, and throughout this period supports voiced their support in numbers at these matches and throughout the seasons. However, the biggest threat came on 03/02/99 (www.insolvency.co.uk) when PFC went into administration after several years of appalling financial management, which would result in PFC being kicked out of the league if a buyer was not found by July that same year. The fans immediately set about getting as much media attention as possible in an attempt to real in a buyer, which went as far as the fans dressing as under-takers and walking in precession, to the ground carrying a coffin with a PFC branded flag draped over it. These demonstrations of moral responsibility coupled with consciousness of kind, and rituals and traditions are proof that PFC supporters are indeed members of the community of Portsmouth Football Club. Referring back to the Muniz et al. (2001) definition of a brand community, we note that it is non-geographically bound, however, they maybe geographically concentrated (Holt 1995 cf. McAlexander, Schouten, and Koening 2002), scattered (Boorstin 1974 cf. McAlexander, et al., 2002), or even entirely non-geographical, based through the space of the internet (Granitz, Ward 1996 cf.  McAlexander, et al., 2002). In the example of PFC, we notice that the brand community is geographically concentrated in the Portsmouth area, but certainly not exclusive, with supporters club in/on the following; The Isle of Wight, Sussex, London, The Midlands, The North, South Wales, Scotland, The United States, and Australia. The brand is also spread throughout the internet, with at least 73 separate websites dedicated to the brand (www.pompeychimes.org). From this we can conclude that the brand of PFC does have a brand community in its supporters based worldwide.

    The example of PFC is used to demonstrate the theory of a brand community because of the existing knowledge of the author and because sport’s supporters are one of the most common form of brand communities, however many other brand communities can be found. Considering the evaluation of the third core community commonality, in that “this sense of moral responsibility is what produces, in times of threat to the community, collective action” (Muniz et al. 2001) we can suggest that brand communities maybe strongest where the brand is or has been threatened. This in turn suggests that the weaker the brand is within its market place, the stronger the sense of brand community. Further examples of this are provided by Muniz et al. (2001) and McAlexander et al. (2002) in IBM Apple Mac and Jeep. In these parties research it was noted that their were strong senses of community centered on both these brands, with Jeep users meeting at regular rallies, such as Jeep 101, and strong Apple Mac communities existing via the internet. Both these brands’ existence has been threatened, Jeeps strong heritage as a traditional four wheel drive by new modern 4WD makes such as Toyota, Nissan and Suzuki and Apple Mac by that of Microsoft. Muniz et al., (2001) propose that stronger brand communities form around brands with a strong image and a “rich and lengthy history” along with threatening competition. The use of existing history to the brand keeps communities vital and reproduces the culture, this in turn encourages both unity between generations and offspring of members to become members themselves. The sharing of brand stories from the past reinforces consciousness of kind between members and contributes to the heritage of the community; ensuring members know where it has come from and what it stands for – a type of internal brand meaning, a social construct of brand meaning. This promotes members to feel ownership of the brand. When a consumer feels ownership, they also become in their own sense, a legitimate member of the brand. Legitimacy is key to becoming a member as well as being a key part of being a member. “Legitimacy is a process whereby members of the community differentiate between true members of the community and those who are not” (Muniz et al., 2001:7). In this way, members self officiate the community, ensuring that members have the both the brands’ and the community’s interest at heart. This is seen as deciding whether a member “really knows the brand opposed to using the brand for the wrong reasons” (Muniz et al., 2001:7). This idea of ‘using’ a brand can be shown in the brand communities of successful football brands such as Manchester United, having only a small number of true supporters compared to the vast number of “glory hunters” following the brand purely because it is successful. Muniz et al. (2001) note that membership is not denied, but that there is the existence of status hierarchies, with those doing most within the community positioned highly. ‘Glory hunters’ in this hierarchy would be nearer at the bottom. Not all brand communities, however use this method of self officiating, with legitimacy far less noticeable in brand communities of more unsuccessful or more unpopular brands. Here a strong sense of anti-community is sensed, where members unite behind one brand due to their dislike of another brand. This is very evident with Apple Mac computer users, who are united due to the threat of Microsoft which instils an emotion of hatred to that of the dominant brand. As Muniz et al. (2001) discovered “Mac community members have a strong moral certainty, feeling that they are doing the right thing by resisting the Microsoft tide.” This anti-community is another aspect of consciousness of kind within the brand community. “Through opposition to competing brands, brand community members derive an important aspect of their community experience” (Muniz et al. 2001). The brand community is strengthened by the consciousness of kind of feeling unique, feeling as a minority.

    These aspects of brand community help strengthen the brand and makes its future easier to for-see, allowing investment to be made into the brand based on the security of a ‘fan base’. Because of this, brand community is a desirable aspect of branding and as such, marketers wish to be able to build them. However, as we have seen from the stages to brand community, they depend mainly on self officiation by those un-officially related to the brand. Jeep is an example of a brand who have taken successful steps to induce and expand brand community.

    Annually across America, Jeep, the 4WD brand host meetings known as Jeep 101 to which jeep owners are formally invited. At these events jeep owners are shown the various off road capabilities of their vehicles, features which other wise would remain un-used in their traditional school run lifestyle. The formal invitation is only a small factor in the strong after sales service, the relationship between brand and consumer maintained strongly by Jeep. At Jeep 101, owners are pushed to go further with their jeep than they would, by Jeep officials who know the limitations of the vehicles and push them to those This encourages Jeep owners to view the brand as more personal than they normally would, as shown in this analysis of the Jeep user, Susan, from McAlexander et al., (2002). “Susan viewed “Jeep”, a corporate entity as a caring institution, a family that provided her a sense of belonging and importance…Jeep was there in the form of a real person to support her in achieving a meaningful personal triumph…She feels and values a sense of community among Jeep owners”. This is because she went through these experiences not only with her vehicle but with other users similar to her, with their vehicles. Here Jeep setup the environment for the natural creation of brand community. This demonstrates how despite community crucially being created by its members; non-corporate entities, the brand community can be encouraged by the corporation without the members of the community feeling the brand has had any influence.  

    The research underwent by the author was designed to investigate whether the sample, Undergraduate Students, felt as if they were part of a brand community, or whether they believed they were individual. The research was completed by asking members of the sample to sit in one of two groups, those who felt they were members and those who felt they weren’t, and then their views towards these ideas were noted down. Our sample overwhelmingly felt they were not members of brand communities, because they believed it meant they were loosing their freedom of purchase. They did not like the idea that they were in anyway part of a segment that could be stereotyped although after the presentation of brand community, many realised they were in fact part of brand communities. This initial rejection could well have been influenced by the fact they were all marketing students and felt, possibly, that they knew marketing techniques and therefore could be less affected by such ideals. This cannot be tested as there were no non-marketing students present to compare results with. Due to problems with our data capture techniques however, much of our data – in the form of notes – was lost and so few conclusions can be made.

    From this report, we can conclude that brand communities do exist and that they can create a new dimension to customer loyalty, where members make purchases based on the community of which they are a part. We can also see that they must be formed naturally, and controlled by the members but that corporations can stimulate their creation and growth. We have also seen how brand community provides a new type of competitive advantage, based on a long-term fan (customer) base, instead of the tradition of product differentiation. This is a new concept which needs far more research into it for us to be able to understand and use it further.

Word count 2,741

Bibliography

Douglas, M, Isherwood, B, (1979) The World of Goods, New York: Basic

Fanning, J (1999) “tell me a story: the future of branding”, Irish Marketing Review, 12, 2, 3-15

Fournier, S (1998) “Consumers and Their brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research” Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March) 343-373

Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders, Wong (2002) Principles of Marketing: third European Edition Prentice Hall

Liebman, M (1999) “What’s in a name? How and why global branding is done” http://www.cpsnet.com/reprints/1999/11/NameBranding.pdf visited on 8/1/04

McAlexander, J.H, Schouten, J.W, Koening H.F (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, 66, 1, (Jan) 38-55

Muniz, AM Jr, O’Guinn, TC (2001) “Brand Community”, Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 4, (March) 412-32

Tonnies, F (1887), Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, translation by Loomis, CP (1957) Community and Society, Michigan State University Press.

www.insolvency.co.uk, visited 9/1/04 http://www.insolvency.co.uk/rec/admsum99.htm

www.pompeychimes.org, visited 9/1/04 http://www.pompeychimes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&POSTNUKESID=f893fd446ceac5acec29d26d57e9d3ad

www.port.ac.uk, visited 9/1/04 www.port.ac.uk/ournews/ 080702.htm