Connecting Value Co-Creation Practices and Consumer Relationships in Brand Communities
- A Comparative Multiple Case Study of Two Adidas Runners Communities
Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Department of Business Studies Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2020
Date of Submission: 2020-06-03
Simon Blüchert Mårten Nordbeck
Supervisor: Virpi Havila
ABSTRACT
A strong brand community is characterized by its value co-creation practices and brand community consumer relationships. Although previous brand community literature explains the contribution of brand community entities through these practices and relationships separately, no identified research has focused on how these practices are connected to the consumer relationships. In short, this body of literature has neglected to describe what practice corresponds to which consumer relationship. Therefore, the purpose of this study sought to describe the value co-creation practices within brand communities in relation to its consumer relationships. A comparative multiple case study of two Adidas Runners communities was applied to address this. The findings suggest that the higher level of brand community entity involvement in value-co creation practices, the stronger brand community consumer relationships. Furthermore, the study details the connections between the different value co-creation practices and their corresponding consumer relationships. Specifically, these connections are as follows; social networking and community engagement practices connected to the consumer-other consumers and consumer-marketer relationships, impression management practices connected to the consumer-brand relationship, and brand use practices connected to the consumer-product and consumer-marketer relationships. In addition, the findings suggest the practice of socializing to be added to the set of value co- creation practices.
KEYWORDS: Value co-creation practices, Consumer relationships, Brand community, Relationship marketing, Consumer participation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this thesis would like to express gratitude towards the people that made this thesis possible: our informants who devoted considerable time and effort to answer our questions and to our supervisor, Virpi Havila, who guided us throughout the course of this thesis.
Furthermore, the authors would like to acknowledge that one of the authors of this thesis is employed by the company in question. This enabled easy access to material and sources which facilitated the process to conduct the study.
Uppsala 2020-06-03
________________________________ ________________________________
Simon Blüchert Mårten Nordbeck
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.1BACKGROUND ... 1
1.2PROBLEMATIZATION&THETWOCASESOFADIDASRUNNERS ... 1
1.3PURPOSEOFTHESTUDY ... 3
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 4
2.1INTRODUCINGTHEBRANDCOMMUNITYANDITSENTITIES ... 4
2.2THECONSUMERANDITSRELATIONSHIPSWITHTHEFOURBRANDCOMMUNITY ENTITIES ... 5
2.3VALUECO-CREATIONPRACTICESINBRANDCOMMUNITIES ... 6
2.3.1 SOCIAL NETWORKING PRACTICES ... 7
2.3.2 IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ... 8
2.3.3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES ... 8
2.3.4 BRAND USE PRACTICES ... 10
3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK ... 11
4. METHODOLOGY ... 12
4.1RESEARCHSTRATEGYANDDESIGN ... 12
4.1.1 CASE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION ... 13
4.1.2 INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 13
4.2DATACOLLECTION ... 14
4.2.1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ... 14
4.2.2 SELECTION OF INTERVIEWEES FROM THE TWO CASES ... 15
4.3DATAANALYSIS ... 16
4.4LIMITATIONS ... 16
5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS & WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS ... 18
5.1THECASEOFARCOPENHAGEN ... 18
5.2WITHIN-CASEANALYSIS ... 24
5.3THECASEOFARSTOCKHOLM ... 27
5.4WITHIN-CASEANALYSIS ... 33
5. CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ... 37
6. CONCLUSION ... 41
6.1THEORETICALIMPLICATIONS ... 41
6.2MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS ... 42
6.3LIMITATIONSANDFURTHERRESEARCH ... 43
REFERENCES ... 45
APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 50
APPENDIX 2 - OPERATIONALIZATION SCHEME ... 51
APPENDIX 3 - CODING SCHEME AR COPENHAGEN ... 53
APPENDIX 4 - CODING SCHEME AR STOCKHOLM ... 58
APPENDIX 5 – PHYSIOLOGY OF THE PRACTICE SOCIALIZING ... 62
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Relationship marketing ultimately revolves around maintaining and developing long-term one- on-one consumer relationships through different types of marketing practices (Berry 1995;
Morgan & Hunt 1994) which subsequently provides a firm with strategic competitive advantages (Sheth & Parvatiyar 2005; Webster 1992). Nonetheless, even if considered a beneficial activity for firms, it is a challenging process. Recognizing and analyzing every individual consumer relationship is both time and resource consuming, which in practice makes it an inefficient process (Iacobucci 1994; Muniz & O’Guinn 2001). As a response to this challenge, the strategic concept of brand community was introduced in marketing management as a solution for integrating and serving consumer relationships, and has progressed to become one of the more prominent strategies among brands in reinforcing these relationships (McAlexander & Schouten 1998; McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig 2002; Muniz & O’Guinn 2001; Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009; Zhou et al. 2012). The concept of brand community was initially introduced in the marketing literature by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001 p. 412), who defined it as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand”. Its fundamental role in brand management is to serve multiple functions on behalf of the brand and to facilitate the process of realizing the values of relationship marketing - online and/or offline (Muniz & O’Guinn 2001).
1.2 PROBLEMATIZATION & THE TWO CASES OF ADIDAS RUNNERS
In line with the brand community literature, a strong brand community is characterized by its fundamental value co-creation practices (Schau, Muniz & Arnould 2009) and its members, i.e.
consumers, that form relationships with the brand community entities (i.e. product, brand, other consumers, marketers) (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig 2002). These practices and relationships, that all together reside in a brand community, have been systematically proven to impact the consumers' trust towards a brand (Laroche et al. 2012; Laroche, Habibi, & Richard 2013). This type of trust, which is referred as brand trust, i.e. “the willingness of the average consumer to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri &
2 Holbrook 2001 p. 82), has in turn been proven to act as mediator in converting the effects from the value co-creation practices and consumer relationships into brand loyalty (Laroche et al.
2012; Laroche, Habibi, & Richard 2013).
Although proven their impact on brand trust, the value co-creation practices presented by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) and the consumer relationships presented by McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) have been studied separately. In their research, Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) argue that when building a strong brand community, the community should perform a variety of value co-creation practices that involve brand community entities. On the other hand, McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig (2002) argue that a strong brand community is the result of its inherent consumer relationships with the brand community entities, suggesting that the brand community should provide a context where relationship(s) can develop. As such, both theories indicate the involvement of brand community entities in the value co-creation practices and consumer relationships in brand communities.
Adidas Runners (AR) is an Adidas brand community, considered to be one of the largest running communities in the world with over 350,000 registered members in more than 65 cities.
The community operates both in the offline world with local AR’s dispersed in different key cities around the world, as well as in the online world of social media (i.e. Facebook), with separate local accounts. Each respective AR is assigned a brand manager, however, it is primarily managed and organized by crew members, who work part-time for the community.
(Hammoudah et al. 2020) AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm are two running brand communities of the global AR community. With identical rules and guidelines as well as equally funded, the two communities largely shared the same disposition of brand community practices. However, despite near identical foundations, thus arguably housing a similar variety of practices, the communities seemed to differ significantly when it came to their relationship- building. From initial probing interviews with the brand manager of the two communities, there appeared to be stronger consumer relationships in AR Copenhagen than in AR Stockholm. The brand manager explained: “When comparing the Danish and the Swedish community, you could say that the Danish one is doing far better on several levels. Over there, they seem to grow much closer, and it’s like they have become real friends. For example, last week some of the people went out to grab a cup of coffee together, and sometimes they even attend dinners outside of the community”. Despite following the same global AR strategy, the Danish community seemed to have grown closer to each other than their Swedish peers. As the described disparities
3 in relationships between the communities could not be explained by a difference in their compositions of brand community value co-creation practices, existing theory is not sufficient to describe how the two cases have reached this status quo.
While previous brand community literature explains the contribution of brand community entities through practices and relationships separately, no identified research has focused on how value co-creation practices are connected to brand community consumer relationships. In short, this body of literature has neglected to describe what practice corresponds to which relationship. As presented, the example of AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm argued for a similar composition of brand community practices, yet different outcomes of relationships. As brand community literature fails to explain this through existing theory on practices, the disparity in relationships between the two communities is utilized to further understand value co-creation in brand communities. Furthermore, as both theories involve brand community entities, brand community literature would benefit from a higher integration of these theories to further understand value co-creation practices within brand communities in relation to its consumer relationship.
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The main purpose of this study was to describe the value co-creation practices within brand communities in relation to its consumer relationships. This has been done through a comparative multiple case study of two Adidas Runners communities, AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm. To achieve the main purpose, the thesis employed two main ambitions. First, the study sought to explain the involvement of brand community entities in the value co-creation practices of the two brand communities. Secondly, the study sought to detail the two brand communities' value co-creation practices connection to its consumer relationships.
4
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCING THE BRAND COMMUNITY AND ITS ENTITIES
A brand community is typically formed around a specific brand, thus commercially situated (Muniz & O’Guinn 2001). Just like a traditional community, a brand community is composed of people, and their relationships among them (ibid.). Furthermore, the people in a brand community also tend to share, discuss and support each other but in regard to their mutual interest in a brand (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Hermann 2005; McAlexander, Schouten, &
Koenig 2002). However, the raison d’etre is not only to connect with each other, but a brand community also serves as a tool for brands to better interact with their consumers and to build closer relationships to the benefit of both (Coelho, Bairrada, & Peres 2019). This need for connection and the interaction between consumer and brand has evolved alongside technology to further involve social media. Increasing social media usage has sparked the use of social networking sites to support the creation of brand communities. Brand communities previously existing in the offline realm are breaching previous geographical constraints by connecting with their consumers as well as enhancing the brand communities in what is labelled social media- based brand communities. (Laroche et al. 2012)
The brand community literature has provided different ways in how to study the different dimensions that forms a brand community. For instance, Boorstin (1974) was one of the first researchers that introduced the traditional consumer-brand dyad in a brand community. In their work around brand communities, Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) extended this dyad into a consumer-brand-consumer triad by acknowledging consumers involvement in the social construction of a brand community, and the brand. Specifically, Muniz and O’Guinn (ibid.) highlight the importance of how consumers are connected with other consumers and how they together can benefit from the brand community. While supporting their triad, McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) critically reflect upon Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) view and argue that there are other entities as well that need to be appraised within a brand community.
McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) propose that consumers establish a variety of relationships within a brand community and not just between the brand and other consumers.
5 Here, they specifically explain that consumers tend to forge relationships with branded goods, marketers, as well as institutions that both own and manage a brand.
2.2 THE CONSUMER AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FOUR BRAND COMMUNITY ENTITIES
In their research, McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) particularly points out four central entities that together form a brand community; the product, the brand, other consumers, and the marketing agents. In regard to this, they further highlight four elemental brand community relationships that connect the consumer to each entity presented: (1) consumer- product, (2) consumer-brand, (3) consumer-other consumers, and (4) consumer-marketer.
When it comes to the (1) consumer-product relationship, McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) refers to the relationships consumers will have/are having with products of the focal brand. This type of relationship is argued to be impacted by product exposure (e.g. the possibility for the consumer to see, feel, and try the product which affects the relationship) (ibid.). Regarding the (2) consumer-brand relationships, the literature refers to the relationship a consumer will have/are having with the focal brand. This type of relationship is too set to be affected by exposure, but here it is more about exposure to marketing material (e.g.
advertisement) (ibid.). The (3) consumer-other consumers relationship refers to the relationship consumers and other consumers have/will create among themselves. This type of relationship is situated around the usage and consumption of the focal brand (ibid.). Finally, the (4) consumer-marketer relationship is about the relationship that is built between the member and the firm, but towards an entity that is approachable (e.g. marketer). Compared to the consumer- brand relationship with its traditional marketing/communication approach, this type of relationship is more about how the firm, on a personal level, can build relationships with consumers (ibid.).
Even if the relationships are separated into four defined categories, McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002 p. 48) emphasizes that each one connects to one another through consumer experiences and practices which accordingly creates what they refer to as “...the holistic sense of a surrounding community”. In addition, they also argue that the more points of attachments induce a stronger level of interaction in a brand community (ibid.). Thus, by following this notion and the rational view of McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002), the overall level
6 of interaction a consumer will have with the brand community, depends on these four brand community consumer relationships, which in turn builds upon the level of interaction a consumer will have with each entity presented (i.e. the product, the brand, other consumers, and the marketing agents). By interacting with each entity, consumers are able to extract value from their different brand community relationships established (Stokburger-Sauer 2010; Zhou et al. 2012).
2.3 VALUE CO-CREATION PRACTICES IN BRAND COMMUNITIES
Historically, consumers have been viewed and treated as passive recipients of value (Deshpande 1983). Today, modern marketing literature adopts a different logic in which the consumers are considered to be more involved and active in different practices related to value co-creation (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). This understanding of consumers' active role in value co- creation practices are particularly important in consumer collectives (Muniz & Schau 2007), and especially within brand-centered communities (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). The fact that consumers are considered co-creators of value further highlights the need for interaction (Payne, Storbacka, Frow, & Knox 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). Several studies have suggested that value co-creation practices not only reinforce the level of interaction in a brand community, but also help build a stronger cohesion among the members and further increase their emotional connection to the brand (Carlson, Suter, and Brown 2008; Lemon, Rust, and Zeithaml 2001; Zaglia 2013).
In this context, when talking about practices, Schau, Muniz and Arnould (2009 p. 31) specifically refer to the “.... nexus of behaviors that include practical activities, performances, and representation or talk.”. What further characterize a practice is that it has to be linked to (1) procedures (i.e. explicit rules, principals, etc.), (2) understandings (i.e. knowledge of what to say and do), and (3) emotional engagements (i.e. ends and purposes that are emotionally charged) (Duguid 2005; Warde 2005). In their meta-analytic review of nine brand communities, Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) specifically used these three traits to develop twelve common value co-creation practices present in brand communities. In turn, they have concretized these practices into four categories: (1) social networking, (2) impression management, (3) community engagement , and (4) brand use. (ibid.)
7 Moreover, given that these practices are conducted in a process of collective value creation entails that one practice could have the potential to yield another one, and so forth. As described by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009), these practices not only work together, they also drive one another. However, this does not imply that a marketer can impinge the organic-like development, suggesting that brand communities in fact are a source for inducing potential value to the marketer, and thus the brand (ibid.).
2.3.1 SOCIAL NETWORKING PRACTICES
Practices connected to social networking are typically focused around creating, enhancing, as well as maintaining the bonds among community members (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009).
Specifically, Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) suggest three practices within this category:
welcoming, empathizing, and governing, which together enhance the homogeneity in a brand community. When describing practices related to welcoming, Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) talks about greeting people, inviting them into the brand community or to a specific event/activity. Practices related to empathizing are described as lending emotional and/or physical support in brand-related or non-brand-related issues (ibid.). Finally, governing practices revolve around demonstrating behavioral expectations within the brand community (ibid). Accordingly, these practices generally revolve around emphasizing the normative behaviors, thus the expectations that community members have around themselves and to others within the community. These social networking practices serve the intangible emotional domain inside the community and further stresses the social and moral glue around its members (ibid).
Social networking practices can have the potential to go beyond brand community boundaries, opposing Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) assertion around brand communities limitation in liability (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). This has mainly been accomplished through the establishment of social media-based brand communities. Given its characteristics of being non- geographically bound, information transparent, and available at all time, social media-based brand communities serve an important role when it comes to maintaining and creating new relationships (Ba 2001). Through it, consumers can easily interact and share information/experiences on the platform (Muniz and Schau 2005) which in turn makes it a useful tool for brand managers, both in terms of listening and responding to the consumers (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). Essentially, such platforms can work as venues for consumer
8 insights and needs, and it is also a place where relationships can develop at insignificant costs (Kim, Sung, & Kang 2014; McWilliam 2012; Webb et al. 2011).
2.3.2 IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Impression management practices largely revolve around developing positive and favorable impressions of the brand that goes beyond the community (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009).
Practices that reside within this category are evangelizing and justifying (ibid.). Evangelizing practices are described as sharing good news about the brand, inspiring others to use it.
Justifying practices are described as spreading motivations and justifications for devoting time and effort towards the brand (ibid.). Accordingly, in these practices, members of a community act as philanthropists and ambassadors of goodwill (ibid). Laroche et al. (2012) explain these practices in a way where members ‘preach the brand’, encouraging others to consume products of the specific brand. This can be equated to what Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005) refer to as brand advocates. Here, they explain that brand advocates are consumers who support the brand, its values and relationships, thus becoming a valuable information source to outsiders. This largely resonates with the practices related to impression management.
The reason consumers engage in impression management practices are mainly because of altruistic values or the possibility in attaining a higher position (Dichter, 1966; Gatignon &
Robertson, 1986). Yet, Kozinets, de Valck, Wojinicki, and Wilner (2010) argue that the intention of doing such practices is not that simple. They go on to argue that regardless of what the community members intentions are, they are more or less involved in these practices. In line with how Bolino, Long and Turnley (2016) argues, the level of motivation in engaging in these practices depends on whether their behaviour is publicly exhibited or not. Given the capabilities of social media platforms, displaying this through such channels would not only facilitate the process, but it would also enhance the level of motivation among members regarding their engagement in these types of practices. Social media-based brand communities provide the ability to foster this impressionable information (Laroche et al. 2012).
2.3.3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES
Community engagement practices revolve around enhancing members' level of engagement within a brand community (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). Particularly, they identified these as staking, milestoning, badging, and documenting. Practices related to staking generally
9 revolve around how members of a brand community define themselves in regard to a particular domain of participation (ibid.). Practices related to milestoning refers to significant brand experiences (ibid.). Whenever a milestone has been reached or created, badging often occurs.
A typical badging practice could be when a consumer receives a reward or celebration as a result from reaching/creating a milestone, thus it is about translating milestones into symbols (ibid.). Documenting is seen as the final step and refers to the practice of detailing a narrative based upon previous community engagement practices which then evolves into personal brand narratives (ibid.). In other words, it is about detailing important milestones within a brand community (Laroche et al. 2012). In general, community engagement practices particularly recognize the differences among the community members (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009).
Even if this category specifically refers to practices that intend to motivate member’s level of engagement, it is essential to understand that community engagement practices are conducted interactively and collaboratively (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann 2005; Laroche et al.
2012). By doing so, the opportunity to share brand and consumptional experiences is enabled (Arnould & Price 1993; McAlexander & Schouten 1998; Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009) which in turn could amplify interpersonal ties and support mutual appreciation for products, brands, and marketing agents (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig 2002). This is further supported by Habibi, Laroche, and Richard (2014), who demonstrates that a higher level of community engagement translates into stronger cooperation, more interactions, positive attitudes and trust beliefs which in turn further reinforce the quality and strength of the different consumer relationships that reside within a brand community. In addition, they suggest that developing and maintaining strong brand community consumer relationships “...might be one of the main points of branding and community building” (Habibi, Laroche, & Richard 2014, p.
159). Taking part in practices not only influence the different brand community consumer relationships, but also, in accordance with Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005), generates a stronger knowledge of the brand, resulting in a positive impact on community engagement.
Moreover, community engagement practices are exceedingly relevant in social media contexts (Habibi, Laroche, & Richard 2014). Through its relatively high level of accessibility, social media-based brand communities provide members with the opportunity to effortlessly engage themselves and others into practices connected to the brand community (Brodie et al. 2011;
Harmeling et al. 2017; Oh et al. 2017; Pansari & Kumar 2016; van Doorn et al. 2010). Engaging
10 in interactive practices provided by a social media-based brand community (e.g. sharing stories, photos, videos, liking and commenting) grants a possibility for consumers to procure a better self-esteem and a stronger empowerment, which subsequently generates a feeling of consumer affinity with the brand (Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan 2012).
2.3.4 BRAND USE PRACTICES
The practices derived from brand use mainly cover different ways to improve or enhance the use of the focal brand (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). Specifically, these practices consist of grooming, customizing, and commoditizing (ibid.). Practices related to grooming are described as caring for the brand and optimizing the usage of it (ibid). For instance, this could include sharing information to other members within the community, both new and old, in how to deal with products (Laroche et al. 2012). Obtaining significant information in how to better use products is of particular interest for consumers. To obtain such information from peers and like- minded people is more favorable than getting it from other sources (Zaglia 2013). Practices related to customizing are described as modifying or transforming the brand to better suit one’s needs and/or to improve brand performance (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009). Practices related to commoditizing are described in a way where the firm and/or consumers either distance or approach oneself to the marketplace with a new product/service (ibid.). A typical example of this can be demonstrated in the case of Garmin users, provided by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009). In this example, users developed a grooming routine to better clean the product, which then later became commoditized. As a result, the brand use was improved within the Garmin community. Accordingly, commoditizing occurs when practices related to grooming or customizing are commoditized in the eyes of the consumer (ibid).
11
3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework presented above particularly serves as a foundation for the following analytical framework. Specifically, the theoretical framework indicates a connection between the value co-creation practices in a brand community presented by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) and the brand community consumer relationships identified by McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002). Given the involvement of brand community entities in both theories, describing value co-creation practices within brand communities in relation to its consumer relationships entails an importance to first analyze each practice and the entities involved in that particular practice. This will provide a detailed description regarding the connection between the value co-creation practices and their proposed corresponding brand community consumer relationships. Accordingly, the theoretical framework for this thesis propose the following analytical framework:
Model 1. The model used when analyzing the connection between a value co-creation practice and consumer relationship within a brand community
Model 1 visualizes the framework used when analyzing the connection between a value co- creation practice and consumer relationship within a brand community. By analyzing which entities that are involved in the respective practices essentially help the authors to describe the value co-creation practices within brand communities in relation to its consumer relationships.
Applying model 1 in the two cases helped structure the analysis in a systematic manner.
12
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DESIGN
In order to get a better understanding of the phenomenon, a qualitative orientation was deemed appropriate (Denscombe 2014). Given that this thesis's main purpose was to describe value co- creation in a particular setting (i.e. brand community), a qualitative strategy was selected. Since the thesis aimed to achieve this by both explaining the involvement of brand community entities in the value co-creation practices of the two brand communities and by detailing the two brand communities’ value co-creation practices connection to its consumer relationships, the study takes on an explanatory approach. Moreover, while no question was posed for this thesis, the purpose still largely entailed an abductive approach. An abductive approach employs a process in moving back and forth between theory and empirics (Bryman 2012, p. 401), which enabled the detailing of the connections between the value co-creation practices and consumer relationships within brand communities.
The thesis applied a case study design which is considered suitable when trying to understand
“...the complexity and particular nature of the case in question.” (Bryman & Bell 2011, p 59).
Since the study specifically seeks to explain value co-creation practices in a particular setting (i.e. brand community), the motivation for applying such design becomes justifiable. Moreover, due to the fact that there are differences identified in the relationship-building between the two brand communities, a comparative multiple case study design was deemed further relevant for the study. A comparative multiple case study design is appropriate when comparing cases (Bryman & Bell 2011, p. 63), which enable the authors “...to compare and contrast the findings deriving from each of the cases”. The comparative design was particularly important for the thesis when trying to explain the involvement of brand community entities in the value co- creation practices of the two brand communities. Moreover, a multiple case study, as compared to single case study, is further eligible in creating new theories and generalizations (Yin 2003).
Even if generalization in this study can be questioned, the two cases support more sufficient means to create new theory as well as more possibilities in finding contrasting results, as compared to a single case study.
13 4.1.1 CASE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
The study was built upon two case studies of two brand communities: AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm. The time frame for the two cases was the same and spanned between the founding of the AR communities in 2016 up until the conduct of this case study in the spring semester of 2020. The selection of these two cases was motivated by their organizational similarities, both communities being the local market filial of the global concept Adidas Runners, but primarily in regard to their disparity in relationship-building. When illuminating their similarities, both cases involve crew members, who work part-time for their respective community, and community members. In addition, both cases have an assigned brand manager from the Adidas organization who the crew members report to. Moreover, both AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm cater running/training sessions and events for their community members and they both operate in their respective city/country. In their respective home city, the AR communities had a meeting point or studio called a running-hub where members and crew gathered in preparation for running sessions as well as for social activities. Furthermore, the communities both utilized a loyalty program in order to maintain continuous participation from the members.
The loyalty program entailed a member earning one point per session attended, the accumulation of points then resulted in receiving merchandise for achieving different tier levels (e.g. 5, 15 or 30 points). Although initial conditions between the communities were identical (i.e. guidelines, rules and financing), the two cases seemed to differ in their approach to relationship-building, which makes the comparison of this relevant in regard to the purpose of this study.
4.1.2 INTERVIEW GUIDE
For this study, each generated question was based upon the theory around value co-creation practices presented by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009). Additionally, existing relevant questions have been identified through the work conducted by Laroche et al. (2012). Despite the fact that these questions derived from the work of Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) and that they have been designed to fit a quantitative study, they have all been carefully examined and modified in correspondence with the thesis purpose. In the interview guide (see appendix 1), questions 1-6 has been grounded in the category of social networking and its underlying practices of welcoming, empathizing, governing. Questions 7-9 revolve around the category of impression management and its underlying practices of evangelizing and justifying. Questions 10-14 specifically addresses the category of community engagement and its underlying practices of staking, milestoning, badging, and documenting. Finally, questions 15-17 revolve
14 around the category of brand use and its underlying practices of grooming, customizing, and commoditizing. In order to strengthen the dependability of the study (Bryman & Bell 2011, p.
473), and to get a more detailed overview regarding how the interview guide has been created, an operationalization scheme was developed (see appendix 2).
4.2 DATA COLLECTION
4.2.1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
This thesis utilized qualitative interviewing in the form of semi-structured interviews. The semi- structured interviews provided a flexibility for the interviewer to go beyond prepared questions in order to better understand the investigated phenomena. In addition, the level of flexibility provided by this type of interview is further deemed important whenever encountering any inconsistency or ambiguity. It not only helps the interviewer to clarify but it also enables the interviewer to follow up on leads generated through the interview process (Bryman & Bell 2011, p. 467). A semi-structured interview, as opposed to an unstructured ditto, is further eligible when it comes to the process of analyzing data. Moreover, since this thesis employs a comparative multiple case study design with several different informants constituting the empirical results, a semi-structured interview is preferable. This further helped ensure the thesis cross-case comparability (Bryman & Bell 2011, pp. 472-473).
The semi-structured interviews were enabled through internet-mediated software (i.e. Skype, FaceTime) which placed the interviewer and interviewee in a non-face-to-face context. When conducting the interviews, it was important that both authors partook, which is considered to enforce the level of objectivity regarding the data collection (Guba & Lincoln 1994). The interviews followed a scripted interview guide consisting of 17 questions. These questions were asked in an open format meaning that the interviewees could reply in any way they wanted.
Even if there are several advantages to this type of format there are still some concerns that need to be raised. For example, they are relatively time-consuming to administer and require a stronger effort from the interviewees (Bryman & Bell 2011, pp. 248-249). Another issue is maintaining answers relevant to the study as interviewees move from the desired topic. The interview guide aided this issue, helping guide the interviewer and interviewee in the right direction. Perhaps one of the best advantages to this approach is that it provides the interviewer with the opportunity to ask complimentary questions. For example, whenever the interviewee did not reply in a sufficient manner, the original questions were supplemented with sub- questions in order to retrieve additional data.
15 4.2.2 SELECTION OF INTERVIEWEES FROM THE TWO CASES
When it comes to the selection of interviewees, a critical case purposive sampling method was favored over sampling methods such as snowball- or self-selection sampling (Saunders, Lewis,
& Thornhill, 2016, pp. 296-302). In practice, this meant that the semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals possessing critical data for the research purpose. Crew and community members deemed critical to each respective case were selected with the help of the brand manager who was responsible for both communities in question.
Table 1. Detailed list of interviewees for the case of AR Copenhagen
THE CASE OF AR COPENHAGEN
INTERVIEWEE
ROLE/POSITION INTERVIEW METHOD INTERVIEW
DURATION DATE OF INTERVIEW
Brand Manager Skype 58:37 min 31/03-2020
Crew Member Skype 46:07 min 06/04-2020
Crew Member Skype 47:56 min 09/04-2020
Community Member Skype 53:48 min 11/04-2020
Community Member Skype 46:09 min 14/04-2020
Table 2. Detailed list of interviewees for the case of AR Stockholm
THE CASE OF AR STOCKHOLM
INTERVIEWEE
ROLE/POSITION INTERVIEW METHOD INTERVIEW
DURATION DATE OF INTERVIEW
Brand Manager Skype 58:37 min 31/03-2020
Crew Member Skype 48:17 min 07/04-2020
Crew Member Skype 52:07 min 08/04-2020
Community Member FaceTime 45:23 min 14/04-2020
Community Member Skype 46:34 min 15/04-2020
As detailed in Table 1, the selection of interviewees in the case of AR Copenhagen consisted of the responsible brand manager for AR Copenhagen and AR Stockholm, two Danish crew members, and two Danish community members. As detailed in Table 2, the selection was similar but instead with two Swedish crew members and two Swedish community members.
The motive for including three different sources in the study was primarily to get a legitimate and cohesive picture of how the value co-creation practices are connected to the consumer relationships within each case. Their relevance as sources are based around the fact that they are considered more or less involved in the social settings, processes and practices in and around
16 their respective community, which makes them vital to include into the analysis of each case.
By doing so, the study aimed to achieve triangulation (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016, p.
207), where the same information could be provided from different sources within each case.
Given that there are two different nationalities in the selection, Danish and Swedish, the interviews were conducted in English. All of them were digitally recorded and transcribed, which facilitated the process of presenting the empirical results and creating the analysis.
However, when conducting interviews, it is important to consider ethical features (Denscombe 2014). Therefore, recording the interviews was not done without permission from the interviewees. Moreover, all interviewees were notified about their anonymity in this study and that the collected data will be treated confidentially.
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis was conducted on two levels. First, analysis of the two respective cases were made separately which provided a description regarding each community's involvement of entities in their respective value co-creation practice. Secondly, a cross-case analysis of the two cases was made which particularly targeted the differences in their value co-creation practices.
This laid the foundation in detailing the connections between the value co-creation practices and their corresponding brand community consumer relationships.
Two separate coding schemes were developed (see appendix 3 and 4) which facilitated the process of the cross-case comparison. In terms of coding the data, the process revolved around identifying specific quotations across the data set of the two studied cases that fitted into the different value co-creation practices. This was followed by investigating and highlighting involved entities that were connected to these practices, which enabled the authors to assert value co-creation practices to the brand community consumer relationships.
4.4 LIMITATIONS
As previously discussed, the case study design per definition generally lacks transferability and generalizability simply because every case is unique. However, utilizing a comparative multiple-case study partly addresses this issue by using the comparison of the two cases, in order to facilitate theoretical replication where theory correctly predicts variation in the findings. Furthermore, the multiple case study employs triangulation, which provides the data
17 collection with more than one source of data in order to confirm the validity and reliability of the research findings (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016, p. 207).
Formulation of non-leading interview questions is arguably always an issue of varying degrees in qualitative research. Formulating questions that allow the respondent to voluntarily provide the data required to answer the research question is crucial for the reliability of the research.
The challenge when designing the interview guide laid in formulating questions that did not lead the respondent towards the right answer. This challenge existed particularly because the study treated specific subjects such as value co-creation practices and the brand community consumer relationships. When designing the interview guide this problem was considered as a way to cope with reliability issues related to leading questions. Another concern to the validity and reliability of the research revolved around a potential observer effect during data collection.
In essence, the observer effect entails the respondents in the semi-structured interviews would work harder and answer more ethically correct knowing their answers are recorded as well as the presence of the researchers (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016, pp. 364-365). For this study the concern primarily revolved around interview respondents interpreting the researchers as representatives of Adidas, or that their responses would be collected and presented to Adidas.
As a measure to cope with a potential observer effect, the study’s independence from Adidas was clarified upon initial contact with the respondents as well as prior to data collection i.e.
before interviewing commenced.
Given that one of the authors of this study is employed by the company in question, it should be further recognized that having an insider not only provides advantages for this thesis but it could also affect the objectivity of this research. That is why it was deemed important to have an author with an outsider perspective as well to relieve the subjectivity of the study.
18
5. EMPIRICAL RESULTS & WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS
In this section, the empirical results for each case will be presented. The results are based on the brand manager, crew members, and community members' perspective on their value co- creation practices for each separate case. After each case, a within-case analysis is presented that particularly highlights the involvement of brand community entities in the value co- creation practices of each community.
5.1 THE CASE OF AR COPENHAGEN
Welcoming practices (i.e. greeting people, inviting them into the brand community or to a specific event/activity) mainly revolved around greeting and introducing newcomers to the community. In particular, the community members primarily accentuate the role of the crew in making newcomers feel more comfortable when attending the different running/training sessions. Conversely, the crew emphasized the community members role in creating a comforting atmosphere. A crew member explained: “It is our role to make sure that everybody feel happy and accepted in the community, but during the years one of the things that have made the community so successful is that we also kind of give responsibility to other runners as well, and we try to make sure that they also understand that this is very important, both for their well-being but also for the new ones.”. Furthermore, welcoming was not only situated in the physical sphere. The crew also point out how they digitally work to welcome and introduce newcomers to the brand community through their own personal social media accounts and through AR Copenhagen’s local Facebook page.
Empathizing practices (i.e. lending emotional and/or physical support in brand-related or non- brand-related issues) mainly covered different ways to show support whenever members of the community expressed personal concerns or coping with different types of physical challenges.
A crew member explained how both crew and community members took part in these practices:
“...when you run, you struggle, you are fighting hard and sometimes you do not succeed and then you cry, and then you need the support from us and other members. But you also need the support in other situations like when you have problems at home...”.
19 Governing practices (i.e. demonstrating behavioral expectations within the brand community) largely revolved around briefing and guiding members into a direction that seemed appropriate and acceptable for the Danish community. However, what is appropriate does not necessarily mean an alignment between the local AR community and corporate’s view of the AR community. Instead, it was deemed important for the crew to establish social norms and expectations that were aligned with the community members view of the community and particularly highlighted common sense as a strong directional guide. A crew member elaborated on this: “...there is a clear strategy and if you talk to people within the global organization, they would follow their strategy to the point, but we don’t, and they know that. There are a lot of things that we don’t do, but that we could do, but then I am sure that would kind of kill our community. Instead, we listen to the people and consider their values when making the community a place for everyone.“.
When asked about how the community works to improve and maintain bonds, all interviewees particularly highlighted social events such as big parties, regular hangouts, and traveling together. It was evident that these types of social events were highly appreciated among the members since a lot of members seemed to attend these events. A crew member commented:
“... we always have a big summer and Christmas party where we have a limit of 95 people.
That is because of the limited space and it’s very popular where the spots are taken immediately.”. Another crew member further explained: “It has become some kind of a DNA for us now to do these things. People in the community expect us to have these social gatherings and they all enjoy it.”. Even if these types of social events are merely connected to physical meetings, both the brand manager and the crew emphasized the role in continuing socializing and staying connected through the brand community’s Facebook page. Community members didn’t reflect upon this as a way for them to socialize with other members in the community.
For them, the platform was merely used in terms of attaining information and schedules, utilizing it for practical reasons. Instead they particularly appraised the physical meetings because it stressed the social bonds in the community to an extent which the virtual platforms could not.
Evangelizing practices (i.e. sharing good news about the brand, inspiring others to use it) were largely connected to word-of-mouth, ambassadorship, and posting on social media platforms.
In terms of word-of-mouth, i.e. spreading the word/message orally from person to person, the members mainly advocated the brand community as opposed to the brand itself. A crew
20 member explained: “Yes, we have adidas as a brand but adidas runners is for me a stronger brand so in showing up in our run-hub people talk about Adidas. But when they talk about Adidas they think of Adidas runners...”. In terms of ambassadorship, newcomers in the community slowly progressed into wearing Adidas gear. A crew member explained: “...when you saw them at the start, you saw them having all Nike, but then slowly progressing to Adidas gear from head to toe...”. This was not in any way encouraged or prompted by the crew. Instead, this type of commitment to the brand was the product of time spent in the community as well as influences from other members. Starting off with the crew as brand ambassadors subsequently gave a cumulative effect within the brand community and the level of commitment grew organically. A crew member explained: “...I could imagine it starts with us, the crew, because we get the newest gear and when they see it they get “wow”, excited.”. When it comes to posting on social media platforms, both crew and community members posted images/information on the community’s Facebook page, primarily in an altruistic manner. The posts mainly revolved around helping and inspiring other members in the community. In addition, both crew and community members also posted on their own personal social media accounts.
Justifying practices (i.e. spreading motivations and justifications for devoting time and effort towards the brand) existed not only because members were publicly exhibited on social media platforms, but it was also because of their feeling of belonging to something bigger. The fact that members in the Danish community identified themselves with the brand further inflated their motivation to preach the brand. However, it was apparent that the motivation not only revolved around this. The members also engaged in these types of practices because they felt good about doing it, especially because it enabled them to give something back to the community. A community member commented: “...the community enables me to do this, and I generally feel good about representing the brand, because it is kind of a way for me to give something back to the community.”. This recurring altruistic behavior in their impression management practices framed a desired picture of AR Copenhagen that was in line with how the crew and the brand manager wanted the AR community to be perceived.
Staking practices (i.e. how members of a brand community define themselves in regard to a particular domain of participation) mainly covered different types of running/training sessions for different types of members. These were primarily based on community members' performance and their running capability. The brand manager explained: “...the sessions are
21 almost always divided into different paces so if you run really fast, you can be part of a smaller group… and if you think you are between fast and slow you can be part of that group, and if you feel like you want to go slow and light jog you can be part of that.“. These different types of sessions provided by the community did not exist in the beginning, however, through time AR Copenhagen identified and adapted to the different needs. By providing different types of sessions, the Danish community enabled its members to stake out their social domain, to meet other members who are on the same level. Even if it could be considered as a potential status divider, distinguishing groups like this made the members feel more comfortable in engaging themselves in the community. As an example, the mighty beginners group were viewed as a gateway preparing the newcomers. In this group, the crew not only supported the community members during the sessions, they also taught them about the community and the brand. In this group, the members also bonded as equals and became friends, alleviating the process when entering the other sessions hosted by the community. Furthermore, staking out the social domain in this way motivated members in the community to reach a higher running level, and could only be done if members engaged themselves in additional sessions provided by the community.
Milestoning practices (i.e. significant brand experiences) mainly revolved around big race events and personal achievements. These were particularly important in terms of motivating the community members to continue engaging in sessions hosted by the community. However, the case suggests that the level of motivation to engage in the sessions varied due to the level of ambition the community members have when it comes to personal milestones, and thus not only because of their intrinsic motivation to join a community. For example, community members who engage in sessions with the ambition to complete a marathon usually did not engage in equal amounts of sessions as community members with the ambition to achieve a personal record in a marathon run.
Badging practices (i.e. translating milestones into symbols) were primarily connected to the milestones earlier described. As the case revealed, the celebrations mainly consisted of small ceremonies, mentioning the members names and what they had accomplished along with applause and cheers. This did not only enhance the confidence of the community members, but as the case further unfolds, recognizing them in front of the whole community also gave inspiration to other members in the community. As explained by a community member: “… if we had the Copenhagen marathon, they will know which runner who ran and then they will ask
22 out in the room if anyone made a personal record. The people who did that will raise their hands and then they get a round of applause and cheers which is a real confidence-boost. It makes you want to accomplish the same things”. Receiving gifts from the loyalty program, was another badging practice for the Danish community. By wearing and showcasing the gifted items during sessions essentially provided members with a higher status which, as suggested by the case, further stimulated a higher level of engagement among other community members.
For example, a community member stressed the importance of reaching the first level within the loyalty program to get the AR t-shirt which in turn radiated that you are now officially a part of the community.
Documenting practices (i.e. detailing important milestones) were executed physically in relation to either special race events or personal achievements (e.g. taking photos, writing personal bests on a pillar). As suggested by the case, practices related to documenting are first being executed after one of the previous practices related to community engagement have been fulfilled (e.g. milestoning, badging). However, even if the practices related to documenting are primarily emphasized in the physical sphere, there were members in the community who utilized the Facebook page to share their experiences. For example, sharing group-photos on the platform enabled members to see other members who participated in a session. Nonetheless, the case showed that the community members have infrequently used the local platform when it comes to documenting and detailing experiences/events. The circumstances that followed the pandemic, entailed the utilization of the platform more frequently because of the inability to connect physically. As a result, both crew and community members have become far more engaged on the social media platforms when it comes to posting, sharing and responding to each other. Paradoxically, this is now both highly encouraged and appreciated by both the crew and community members in the Danish community.
Grooming practices (i.e. caring for the brand and optimizing the usage of it) can be summarized in terms of experts' opinions, exposure to products, trials, and coaching. The community had product specialists on a continuous basis that not only recommended products for the members but also guided them in a direction that better suited their needs. In addition, the crew were educated about the products, further enabling them to teach and guide the community members.
A crew member elaborated on this: “We try our best to educate all the crew members, and to make sure they know all about the adidas running products, so they are able to teach the community members… So we do our best to really help them out and you know that is also
23 because we are hosting a lot of long-runs… we are responsible for explaining to them or to make sure that they don’t get any injuries, so we do have a responsibility to make sure to guide them and help them in the best possible way.”. In terms of product exposure and trials, the community also offers products in place. The wall filled with running shoes inside the running- hub enables members to both see and feel the products, and they were further offered to try the products during sessions. A crew member explained: “We have more than 500 test-shoes, so different running shoes for different types of runners. And they can all grab a pair if they want to and then we help them out by finding the right shoes… We always explain to them that it is a good idea to try out different shoes before buying a pair.”. As the case showed, this impacted the members of buying more adidas branded products. A community member explained:
“...being a person with zero adidas products, I think that I can honestly say that around 80- 90% of my sports apparel is adidas now.”. Additionally, the community offered services of coaching during sessions as well. The grooming processes identified in AR Copenhagen merely takes place in the physical sphere during sessions.
When it comes to customizing practices (i.e. modifying or transforming the brand to better suit one’s needs and/or to improve brand performance) the brand manager commented: “I don’t really have experienced that people in the community are customizing their products… I mean there are models with different types of colors, but that is standard. And, as far as I am concerned, there is not so much you can do with running apparel and shoes.”. Despite the limited ways in customizing running products the case showed that to a certain extent it is possible. However, the customization is merely related to embellishing the standardized products, like printing the AR logo or personalizing the products with text/name.
Given the palpable presence of grooming, practices related to this have arguably been commoditized (i.e. the firm and/or consumers either distance or approach oneself to the marketplace with a new product/service) in the community. For example, coaching and guiding was available for all members within the community. Given that both coaches and product specialists figured inside the community, their services have been normatively established in the community. As the case further revealed, members inside the community are adopting their services, which similarly can be located elsewhere outside the boundaries of the community.
Accordingly, the case suggests that the services related to coaching and guidance that the community are offering have been commoditized in the eyes of the community members.
24
5.2 WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS
Across the data set, social networking practices were found to include both crew and community members. In terms of McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002), crew and community members are translated to the two entities of marketing agents and other consumers.
Describing the social networking practices in detail, welcoming practices encompassed these entities as both crew and community members emphasized their respective role in creating a welcoming atmosphere during sessions. While both these entities were trying to make the members in the community feel welcomed in the physical sphere, the crew also used social media platforms to do this, which in accordance with Ba (2001) helped facilitate the process in welcoming new members beyond AR Copenhagen's physical boundaries. In regard to the practices related to empathizing, the case further indicates a strong involvement of crew and community members as the community as a whole saw it as their responsibility to support its members through both brand-related as well as non-brand related issues. Governing practices entailed briefing and guiding of members. While the actual briefing and guiding was largely executed by crew, the rules, norms and expectations were determined by both crew and members in line with their own view of the community. The crew built governing practices on the values of community members. As such, following global directions was not deemed important by the crew members who instead prioritized creating a community based on both crew and community members' ideas and values. In addition to three common social networking practices presented by Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009), the case exclaimed a fourth practice that involved crew and community members. Practices related to social events such as big parties, regular hangouts, travelling together were popular and well-attended by the members of the community. This practice can arguably not be explained by any of the common three practices within social networking. Instead, the case suggests a new form of practice that revolves around socializing. As the case suggested, this practice did not only describe different ways for members to develop and maintain their bonds, it also contributed to the homogeneity and the social glue of the brand community, similar to the other three common social networking practices. Even if socializing were highly appreciated in the physical sphere, this practice could also be executed online via social media platforms which stresses its pertinence as an additional social networking practice. To further claim its relevance, the authors applied this new practice of socializing to the three required anatomical parts (Schau, Muniz, & Arnould 2009) that characterize a practice (see appendix 5). In short, all four social networking practices in the case of AR Copenhagen indicated a clear involvement of both crew and community
25 members, who in the words of McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) are translated to the entities of marketing agents and other consumers.
The impression management practices in the case of AR Copenhagen largely involved both the focal brand as well as the brand community which in terms of McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) can be translated to the entity of the brand. In the evangelizing practices, the members of the community could be treated as community advocates, rather than brand advocates. However, while advocating and supporting the community, it should be acknowledged that they subconsciously preached the brand, thus becoming what Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Hermann (2005) refer to as brand advocates. This was especially apparent through the example where newcomers in the community slowly progressed into wearing Adidas gear, becoming what Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) refers to as brand ambassadors which meant that the members acted like brand philanthropists. Moreover, due to the fact that AR Copenhagen had a Facebook page facilitated and enhanced their impression management practices in the same way Laroche et al. (2012) argue. In addition, both crew and community members not only posted images/information on the community’s Facebook page, but also on their own personal social media accounts, which translates to a level of engagement that stretches beyond the brand community boundaries. As the case suggested, engaging in evangelizing practices was primarily justified through their strong connection with the community, to give something back to the community and the brand, which further stresses the involvement of the brand in these practices when executed by the crew and community members. In line with McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002), the primary entity in the impression management practices of AR Copenhagen was the brand.
The community engagement practices, apart from milestoning, indicated an involvement of both crew and community members, which in accordance with McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) can be translated to the entities of marketing agents and other consumers. In staking practices, while crew members were largely responsible for the different levels of running/training groups offered, community members seem to have created status differences among the different staked groups. By staking out their social domain in this way seemed to have motivated the members in the community to become better runners and could only be done if members engaged themselves in additional sessions provided by the community.
Accordingly, the case indicated that members became more engaged in the Danish community due to the practices related to staking, as Schau, Muniz, and Arnould (2009) also suggests.
