Woodbury School of Business Working Paper 2-10

Defining Brand Tribalism

Harry A. Taute Assistant Professor of Marketing

Woodbury School of Business Utah Valley University

600 W. University Parkway, Orem, UT 84058 Phone: 801-863-8227 Fax: 801-863-7218

Email: tauteha@uvu.edu

Jeremy J. Sierra Assistant Professor

Department of Marketing McCoy College of Business Administration

Texas State University – San Marcos 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666

Phone: 512-245-3819 Fax: 512-245-7475 Email: js204@txstate.edu

Robert S. Heiser

Assistant Professor of Marketing School of Business

University of Southern Maine Box 9300, Luther Bonney 216, Portland, ME 04104

Phone: 207-228-8364 Fax: 207-780-4662 Email: robert.heiser@maine.edu

Please send all correspondence regarding this manuscript to Jeremy J. Sierra.

© 2010 by Harry A. Taute, Jeremy J. Sierra, and Robert S. Heiser

Defining Brand Tribalism

ABSTRACT

Much of the current popular and academic literature on branding suggests that marketers should

develop deeper, more affective, relationships with their customers. Some authors suggest that

competitive advantage can no longer be sustained on the basis of product attributes and

perceived positions; today’s consumers want products and brands they feel are part of them and

they can be a part of. Brand managers are advised to allow the consumer to co-create the brand

and brand image; the brand community, cult, or consumer tribe facilitates the creation,

communication, and, indeed, the evolution of the brand. This may move the branding discussion

from brand culture or community to a more closely linked group of tribal members sharing more

than the brand ownership and use. This research, therefore, develops a social and anthropological

theory based measure of how closely consumers identify themselves as members of a consumer

or brand tribe. The research follows accepted measure development paradigms to arrive at a

brand tribalism scale allowing academicians and practitioners to measure, compare, and evaluate

the level of consumer identification with a product or brand.

Defining Brand Tribalism

1. Introduction

Consumers are now developing unique and vibrant relationships with their brands

(McAlexander, Schouton, and Koenig 2002) and conceptualizing the nature of these

relationships has become increasingly important (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009;

Veloutsou 2007). As Fournier (1998) illuminates, brand relationships are salient in the mind of

the consumer, take a variety of forms, and have a number of life cycle variations. A singular and

important characterization of the consumer-brand relationship has been in terms of a brand

community (Cova and Pace 2006; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muniz and

O’Guinn 2001; O’Guinn and Muniz 2005; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009). However,

consumer-brand relationships may also be characterized and measured in terms of brand

personality, brand attachment, brand love, and the brand experience (Aaker, 1997; Brakus,

Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005).

Strong brand relationships have also been characterized as cults (Atkin 2004; Belk and

Tumbat 2005; Wipperfurth 2005) and tribes (Cova and Cova 2002; Dinisio, Leal, and Moutinho

2008; Moutinho, Dinisio, and Leal 2008). In this sense, the brand unites ardent consumers in a

structured social relationship (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001); binding members together through a

shared social and interpersonal experience (Cova 1997). The consumer or brand tribe is both

internally supportive of its members and resilient to external criticism (Luedicke and Giesler

2007); yet members of tribes may have limited relationships with one another outside that

created by allegiance to the brand (Park et al. 2007). Further, loyal members of the tribe invest

time, effort, and emotion in the brand, gain a sense of shared ownership (Cova and Pace 2006),

alter the tangible and intangible characteristics of the brand through prosumption (Langer 2007),

2

and manage parts of the brand and its image (Deighton 2002; O’Guinn and Muniz 2005;

Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006; Wipperfurth 2005).

Much of the literature describing tribal behavior in brands relies on the postmodern or

Latin perspective (e.g. Cova 1997; Cova and Cova 2002; Cova and Pace 2006; Dinisio, Leal, and

Moutinho 2008; Moutinho, Dinisio, and Leal 2008). From this point of view, consumers seek

self-expression, self-fulfillment, and shared experiences (i.e. personal sovereignty, Holt 2002)

with the brands, products, and leisure experiences they favor (Brownlie, Hewer, and Traynor

2007; Henry and Caldwell 2007); it is the ‘linking value’ of the brand rather than utilitarian or

hedonic value (Cova and Cova 2001, p. 67). Thus, brand or consumer tribes are so designated

because they are characterized by the shared cultures, common languages, social conventions,

and shared experiences that primitive tribes were known for (Sahlins 1961). The ethnographic

nature of this research tells us much about the social structure, community interactions, and

shared experiences of specific consumer or brand tribes; however, in contrast to other aspects of

brand relationships the literature has yet to yield specific dimensions, measures, or effect sizes of

tribal phenomena.

Thus, while some brands have been characterized as cult or tribal brands and others not

(Holt 2002), these differences are currently unquantified. The purpose of this research is,

therefore, to investigate the linkage between Sahlin’s (1961) anthropological theory of tribal

behavior and today’s brand relationships. We develop a measure of brand tribalism in

accordance with six aspects of tribes advanced by Sahlin’s (1961) segmentary lineage theory as

well as Maffesoli’s (1996) conceptualization, and subsequently apply the measure in a study of

loved and loathed brands. Our procedure is consistent with scale development paradigms

proposed by Churchill (1979), and advanced by Gerbing and Anderson (1988). We begin by

3

developing a list of potential items from a review of the literature, reduce the item set through

factor analysis, and subsequently illustrate the statistical validity and reliability of the new

measure in a study of consumers’ loved and loathed brands. Our manuscript continues by

discussing how defining and measuring tribal branding contributes to the brand management and

consumer behavior research streams.

2. Brand Relationships

Consumer-Brand and consumer-to-consumer with-in brand relationships are undoubtedly

the most important discussion in brand management today (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello

2009; Veloutsou 2007). Much of the reawakening in consumer-brand relationships and the

communities these relationships build is due to research by Fournier (1998) and Muniz and

O’Guinn (2001), although other lines of research were investigating the personal and social value

of brands at about that time (Cova 1997). Fournier (1998) points to brand relationships as a

dynamic process; relationships may have a myriad of forms (e.g. kinship, friendships, affairs,

enslavements, etc.) and may take a number of life cycle paths (e.g., biological, passing fling,

roller-coaster, stable maturity, etc.). In introducing brand communities, sociological thought on

communities is extended to include those who are allegiant to a brand; members brought together

with a ‘shared consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility’ (Muniz

and O’Guinn 2001, p. 412). Others see the significance of brand relationships as uniting those

emancipated from the dominance of modern marketing and the culture of individualism (Cova

1997, Maffesoli 1996).

Much of the literature on brand communities takes an anthropological and sociological

view (Thompson 2004); rather than a physical place, of the brand in the community

(McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). The idea of community,

4

as opposed to modern urban culture, is one of familiarity and respect, where everybody knows

everybody; communities are bonded emotionally through shared values and ideals (Maffesoli

1996; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001). An additional distinction can be made between the

functionality of an individual in modern society and the social role of the person in his or her

community (Maffesoli 1996, emphasis added); people of the community are conscious of a

difference between themselves and others, share unique customs and traditions, and feel a sense

of moral responsibility for each other and the community as a whole (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001;

O’Guinn and Muniz 2005).

The brand community research thus suggests that in order to build truly lasting

relationships, the brand must be seen as a worthy relationship partner (Fournier 1998). Where the

brand relationship was once conceived primarily as interactions between the company and its

customers, brand relationship discussions now include customer interactions with other

customers, the product itself, the brand, and the marketing entity (McAlexander, Schouten, and

Koenig 2002). Consumption or brand communities may differ as local, regional, national, or

global entities, may involve relatively minor to intense social contexts, and vary as to duration

(Fournier 1998; McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002). However different they may be,

however, all brand communities have unique ways of doing things, e.g., culturally accepted rules

and procedures; there are common understandings, e.g., a common vernacular, expressions, and

modes of operation; and community members are committed morally, intellectually, and

emotionally to common goals and values (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; O’Guinn and Muniz 2005;

Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009).

Brands have also been shown to have a personality in the minds of their consumers

(Aaker 1997). In this sense, brands are seen as being sincere, exciting, competent, sophisticated

5

or rugged; consumers develop a relationship with the brand as a symbolic extension of their own

personalities (Aaker 1997). The personality of a brand seems to matter; brand transgressions

damage consumers’ relationships with a brand seen as sincere but may help brands with an

exciting image (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004). Research has also shown that individuals

who believe that personalities can be modified tend to accept brand extensions more readily

(Yorkston, Nunes, and Matta 2010). The influence of brand personality has been demonstrated in

sports (Braunstein and Ross 2010; Heere 2010), student support of universities (Sung and Yang

2008), consumer goods (Thomas and Sekar 2008), retailers (Zentes, Morschett and Schramm-

Kleine 2008), and charitable giving (Venable et al. 2005). When measures of a brand’s sensory,

affective, behavioral, and intellectual qualities, e.g. the brand experience, are modeled in

conjunction with a brand’s personality, there are positive effects on brand satisfaction and loyalty

(Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009).

The affective side of brand relationships has been investigated as far back as Shimp and

Madden’s (1981) research; it seems that recent research on consumer behavior towards brands

has disclosed anything but reasoned economic processes and rational choice (Belk, Ger, and

Askegaard 2003). This research stream suggests that, in some cases, consumers go beyond mere

enjoyment and pleasure from products, services, and leisure activities; becoming very passionate

about them and perhaps developing an emotional attachment to this consumption (Belk, Ger, and

Askegaard 2003; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005). Emotional brand attachment has been

shown to have three distinct dimensions of affection, connection, and passion (Thomson,

MacInnis, and Park 2005); although passion is thought to be both exhilarating and, at the same

time, an unsettling source of motivation (Belk, Ger, and Askegaard 2003).

6

Other research in this stream suggests that feelings for brands that have significant

hedonic and symbolic benefits which go beyond satisfaction to a declared ‘love’ and integration

of the product into the individual self concept (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006, p. 81). In this regard,

practitioners are advised that the future goes beyond branding to the creation of ‘lovemarks’

(Pawle and Cooper 2006; Roberts 2004). Zaltman (2003) concurs, insisting that today’s

consumers do not think in straight-line economic equations, often don’t know why they do

things, experience life holistically rather than dimensionally, have faulty memories, and cannot

be expected to interpret and respond to brand strategies correctly. From this viewpoint,

consumers feel their way to and bond with those brands that understand and enrich their lives,

real or imagined (Roberts 2004); consumers form relationships with brands that play a positive,

proactive role in their real and aspirational existences (Gobe 2002). In response, brand managers

are advised to understand what consumers want from the brand, allow them to manage and co-

create that brand experience, and draw these positive emotions into their way of life (Aitkin

2004; Gobe 2002; Roberts 2004; Solomon 2003; Wipperfurth 2005).

3. Brand and Consumer Tribes

Consumer tribes may be defined as “people who are devoted to a particular brand”

(Arnould, Price, and Zinkhan 2004, p. 441). From the Latin or postmodern perspective, the brand

becomes valued for its ability to link or unite consumers in a social order of their own device,

hence, a tribe (Cova 1997; Maffesoli 1996). Brands, products, and leisure activities are

consumed less for their utilitarian or hedonic values and more for their social linking value

(Cova and Cova 2002). Consumer or brand tribes depart from the typical segmentation variables

of social class, demographics, or product benefits; they are instead characterized as: a) sustained

admirers of a specific brand, b) having common traditions, stories, lived experiences, even

7

rituals, c) share a common consciousness and kinship, and d) have a felt moral obligation to each

other and the brand community (Henry and Caldwell 2007). In, addition, one of the most

important aspects of tribal groups is their common opposition towards an adversary (Kozinets

and Handelman 2004).

Cova and Pace (2006) offer a perspective on tribes as being endowed with several

characteristics: there is an ethnocentric mentality, there are ceremonies, rituals, and traditions

associated with the brand, and a there is a sense of shared commitment and responsibility to the

community. In an extensive delineation of the tribal paradigm, Maffesoli (1996, pp. 72-103)

offers six characteristics of tribes. First, there is a collective and tactile understanding of being in

the community, a material sense of belonging. Second, tribal social life is established only in

relation to the group; tribes are highly ethnocentric and one must either be for or against the

group. Third, there is a mysterious, even religious aspect to the social network which governs

group behaviors without central management (see also Belk and Tumbat 2005). Fourth, it is an

elective, affective society where the group is put before the individuals composing it. Fifth, there

is a level of mystery; tribes protect themselves, their members, and their rituals with a vow of

secrecy. Lastly, tribes may have goals and objectives, however, what is most important is the

affective effort expended to create , constitute and maintain the group itself.

Much of the research from this stream suggests that these tribal groups insist that their

brand become part of them rather than the other way around; they don’t consume-they prosume

(Firat and Schultz 1997; Kozinets 2007; Langer 2007). For instance, ‘cruisers’ find individuality

and authenticity through styling and customizing their cars as well as social affiliation from

informal gatherings (Brownlie, Hewer, and Traynor 2007). The Harley-Davidson brand may be

defined as much by the people who ride it and by what they do with it as by any company

8

generated marketing efforts (Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Nutella, a well-known hazelnut

spread, empowers aficionados by hosting a web site where loyal fans shape and reshape the

brand and brand image by posting stories, images, and videos of themselves (Cova and Pace

2006). Such consumer empowerment does not come without risks; once the tribe takes control or

hijacks the brand, brands are seen as independent of the control of brand managers and the

company for better or worse (O’Guinn and Muniz 2005; Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel

2006; Wipperfurth 2005).

Tribal behaviors, as well as their responses to management actions, may not always be

positive and must be planned for strategically (Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006); the

global anti-branding, anti-commercialism movement is an increasingly disruptive social force

(Holt 2002). For example, management eventually had to respond to grassroots’ protest sites and

successful hacking attempts in protest of Nike’s employment practices (Holt 2002; Solomon

2003). Newton brand aficionado’s worked tirelessly to keep an outdated technology alive long

after Apple had abandoned the brand (Muniz and Schau 2005). When Quaker tried to mass

market the acquired brand Snapple, tribal response was decidedly negative and quite vocal

(Deighton 2002). Research also indicates that relationships with those brands thought of as

sincere suffer after a perceived brand transgression while relationships with those brands

perceived as exciting may be enhanced by such actions (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004).

Consumer tribes have been delineated in such diverse markets as motorcycles (Schouten

and McAlexander 1995), computer products (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001; Muniz and Schau

2005), cars (Brownlie, Hewer, and Traynor 2007; Muniz and O’Guinn 2001) and sports (Cova

and Cova 2002; Dinisio, Leal, and Moutinho 2008; Moutinho, Dinisio, and Leal 2008; Taute,

Sierra, and Heiser 2010). More importantly, whether you take the postmodern or Latin

9

perspective (Cova 1997; Cova and Cova 2002; Cova and Pace 2006; Dinisio, Leal, and

Moutinho 2008; Henry and Caldwell 2007; Moutinho, Dinisio, and Leal 2008) or an

anthropological or sociological view (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002; Muniz and

O’Guinn 2001; Taute, Sierra, and Heiser 2010), consumer tribes have distinct cultures, attitudes,

social relationships and behavioral characteristics. However, since most of the research has

centered on interpretive studies of individual brand communities and tribes, there exists no

definitive dimensions or measurement characteristics independent of the context in which they

are inductively generated.

4. Segmentary Lineage

Sahlins (1961) proposed a theory of segmented lineage to explain the predatory behavior

of tribes. This theory describes tribes as social-cultural-ethnic entities and different from political

organizations; tribes are more organized by threat than by cohesive political or social structure

(Sahlins 1961). The behavior of highly brand allegiant consumer tribes may be analogous to

tribal behavior in that primitive tribes had basic characteristics in common with the

characteristics of current consumer communities and brand tribes described in the academic and

popular literature (Atkin 2004; Fournier 1998; Maffesoli 1996; Muniz and O’Guinn 1995;

O’Guinn and Muniz 2005; Wipperfurth 2005).

First, there is segmentary lineage, a linearity or common thread that binds segments of

the tribe together. In the primitive tribes studied, this association was hereditary as, for the most

part, primitive tribes were descendants of a few family groups banded together (Sahlins 1961). In

postmodern terms, Maffesoli (1996) suggests that consumer or brand tribes are similar to rural

agrarian communities of the 1700-1800’s, where the descendants of a few founding families

worked and lived. The brand tribe is thus characterized as a close knit, affectively joined society

10

which exists without effective central control or government (Cova and Cova 2002; Maffesoli

1996). For example, users of Apple products may be linked through the use of a certain product

(e.g., Muniz and Schau, 2005) or as a member simply of Apple brand aficionados whether they

use a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Other authors suggest that brand allegiances may be formed in

childhood by social and cultural conditioning then passed from generation to generation

(Blumenthal 2005, Moore and Wilkie 2005; Roberts 2004).

Second, while members of primitive tribes shared a sense of oneness, there was great

social and economic sovereignty among the respective tribe members (Sahlins 1961). Current

conceptualizations of brand tribes suggest there is a broad range of social contexts; members

may be on an intimate basis or share little other than the brand (McAlexander, Schouten, and

Koenig 2002). Consumer tribe members may come from a myriad of backgrounds with their

affection for the brand as the only thing linking them (Cova 1997), and segments of the tribe can

be easily identified as different from other, segments of the tribe’s brand e.g. surfers, surfing

fans, and less authentic imitators (Moutinho, Leal, and Dionisio 2007). Cova and Cova (2001)

suggest that tribal members have a feeling of identification with other brand members; this may

include conspicuous use of the product, identifying apparel, or some sort of badging (Cialdini et

al., 1976).

Third, primitive tribes had limited sociability and the normal state of affairs is toward

political fragmentation (Sahlins 1961). However, the common thread that binds them allows

them to coexist in relative harmony without a permanent social structure in place, yet band

together to achieve common objectives or celebrate through rituals and ceremonies. Current

behaviors akin to these tribal manifestations are activities such as participation in a virtual

community for a brand (Cova and Pace 2006) or as a brandfest participant (McAlexander,

11

Schouten, and Koenig 2002). Discussants of consumer tribes describe a shared religiosity where

symbols and ceremonies give the group a shared meaning (Cova and Cova, 2001). Cova and

Cova (2002) suggest that tribes cannot rely on authority to maintain their community and social

structure; hence tribal brands are often described as co-created by the company and the

community (Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009).

The fourth aspect suggests, however, when in competition for resources or under threat,

there is a tribal massing effect, where members will band together to oppose a stronger tribe or to

take advantage of another weaker tribe (Sahlins 1961). Modern day examples of tribal behavior

where any opposition between groups extends automatically to any and all members of other

tribes include football fans (Taute, Sierra, and Heiser 2010), motorcycles (Schouton and

McAlexander, 1995) and electronic devices (Muniz and Schau 2005). O’Guinn and Muniz

(2005) suggest that this opposition to other brands is a crucial aspect of brand communities or

tribes; members may also turn against the company when brand community members feel

betrayed by the company (e.g. Deighton 2002) or act as double agents (Cova, Kozinets, and

Shankar 2007).

Fifth, there is structural relativity in which the members are essentially peers; leadership

is relatively weak at the tribal level yet members tended not to think of themselves as a people

but the people (Sahlins 1961). The group thus forms a social identity (Tajfel and Turner 1985);

members self-identify with the group such as when fans use the term “we” when they speak of

their favorite team (Cialdini et al., 1976). Maffesoli (1996) suggests that the creation and

continuation of the tribe is the most important social function of micro-groups in today’s

postmodern environment. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) refer to this aspect of tribes as the sense of

inclusion in the in-group; Cova and Cova (2001) refer to this trait as group narcissism. Other

12

descriptions of such tribal behaviors outline a distinct class structure; true believers can be

distinguished from “wanna-be’s” (Moutinho, Dionisio, and Leal 2007)

Lastly, the tribes see themselves as having no boundaries or limitations imposed by other

social structures, and can only be described as ethnocentric (Sahlins 1961). Physical boundaries

such as mountains or rivers were common for ancient tribes; in today’s tribes the boundaries are

conceptual (Cova and Cova 2002), particularly in tribes organized and perpetuated on the

internet (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2002). Each tribe is a culture unto itself, members have their own

language, conventions and customs; rejecting the norms imposed by other cultures (Brownlie,

Hewer, and Treanor 2007). Tribes are an elective sociality where individuals freely associate

without centralized management; in fact, much of tribe formation may be a response to market

capitalism and the strictures of modern society (Maffesoli 1996).

5. Item Generation

Both Sahlin’s (1961) anthropological description of primitive tribes and Maffesoli’s (1996)

postmodern view of consumer tribes hold that there are six distinct attributes of tribes and tribal

behavior. While there are differences in these views, the research streams built upon such

sociological and anthropological theories have much in common. Consistent with Churchill’s

(1979) measure development paradigm, we therefore turned to the literature on brand

community, brand tribalism, and social identity theory for items indicative of tribes and tribal

behaviors.

Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) suggest that brand communities exhibit at least three

attributes of pre-industrialized society: members are conscious of a bond between themselves,

they share rituals and traditions, and there is a shared sense commitment to one another and the

brand. Algesheimer, Dholokia, and Herrmann (2005) develop a five item measure of

13

identification with the brand community; this construct is consistent with their shared social

identity (Tajfel and Turner 1985) and an adversarial relationship to other competing brands

(Taute, Sierra, and Heiser 2010). The literature on brand community suggests that brand

relationships exists between the individuals, the product itself, representations of the brand, the

company, and other brand owners (McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig 2002).

In adopting the tribal brand metaphor, Cova and Cova (2002) reject the modern construct

of community as denoting a body of people aggregated by residence, occupation, or interest. For

them, the modern community construct is devoid of the emotion, passion, and feelings which

exemplify consumer and brand tribes (Cova and Cova 2002). In this sense, consumer tribes

essentially reconstitute archaic value systems including a more local sense of group

identification, morality, and ethnocentrism; tribes are held together by shared emotions,

lifestyles, and consumption behaviors (Cova and Cova 2001). This line of research suggests that

tribes may be defined as any group of people having interests in a specific brand or product

through which they create a distinct society with its own ‘myths, values, rituals, vocabulary and

hierarchy’ (Cova and Pace 2006, p. 1089).

Both the brand community and consumer tribalism research streams point to social

identity theory as fundamental to the formation and description of these social orders

(Algesheimer, Dholokia, and Herrmann 2005; Moutinho, Dinisio, and Leal 2008). According to

social identity theory, social group members self-identify with the group and hold themselves out

as representative of the group; in turn modeling their attitudes, emotions, and behaviors

according to group norms (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). These normative controls solidify group

membership and define the group’s unique position in society (Reed, 2002; Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel

and Turner, 1985). In this sense, consumer or brand tribes function as micro or sub-cultures

14

defined through their own shared experiences, emotions and realities (Cova and Cova 2001;

Cova and Pace 2006; Holbrook and Hirschman 1982).

Data Collection

We drew fifty-five items from the literature review.

15

References

Aaker, Jennifer (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research,

34 (3), 347-356.

Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004), “When Good Brands Do Bad,”

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

Algesheimer, Rene, Utpal M. Dholokia, and Andreas Hermann (2005), “The Social Influence of

Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2),

19-34.

Arnould, Eric, and Linda L. Price (1993), “River Magic: Extraordinary Experience and the

Extended Service,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (1), 24-45.

Arnould, Eric J., Linda L. Price and George Zinkhan (2004) Consumers, New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Atkin, Douglas (2004), The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers, New

York: Portfolio.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2002), “Intentional Social Action in Virtual

Communities, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (2), 2-21.

Belk, Russell W., Guliz Ger, and Soren Askegaard (2003), “The Fire of Desire: A Multi-sited

Inquiry into Consumer Passion,” The Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 326-351.

Belk, Russell W. and Gurner Tumbat (2005), “The Cult of Macintosh,” Consumption, Markets,

and Culture, 8 (3), 205-217.

16

Bergami, Massimo and Richard P. Bagozzi (2000), “Self-Categorization, Affective

Commitment, and Group Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in an

Organization,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (4), 555-577.

Blumenthal, Howard J. (2005), Branded for Life: How Americans are Brainwashed by the

Brands They Love, Cincinnati OH: Emmis Books.

Brakus, J. Josko, Bernard H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), “Brand Experience: What is

it? How is it Measured? Does it Affect Loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 52-68.

Braunstein, Jessica R. and Stephen D. Ross 2010), “Brand Personality in Sport: Dimension

Analysis and General Scale Development,” Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19 (1), 8-16.

Brooks, David (2000), Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Brownlie, Douglas, Paul Hewer, and Steve Treanor (2007), “Sociality in Motion: Exploring

Logics of Tribal Consumption Among Cruisers,” in Consumer Tribes, Bernard Cova,

Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.) Oxford: Elsevier, 109-128.

Carroll, Barbara A. and Aaron Ahuvia (2006), “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand

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

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

Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing,

65 (2), 64-73.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2002), “Product-class Effects on Brand Commitment

and Brand Outcomes: The Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect,” Brand Management,

10 (1), 33-58.

17

Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing

Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.

Cialdini, Robert B., Richard J. Borden, Arril Thorne, Marcus R. Walker, Stephen Freeman, and

Lloyd R. Sloan, (1976), “Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (football) Field Studies,”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Cova, Bernard (1997), “Community and Consumption: Towards a Definition of the ‘linking

value’ in Products and Services,” European Journal of Marketing, 31 (3-4), 297-316.

Cova, Bernard and Veronique Cova (2001), “Tribal Aspects of Postmodern Consumption

Research: The Case of French In-line Skaters,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1 (1),

67-76.

Cova, Bernard and Veronique Cova (2002), “The Tribalization of Society and Its Impact on the

Conduct of Marketing,” European Journal of Marketing, 36 (5-6), 595-620.

Cova, Bernard, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (2007), “Tribes Inc.: The New World of

Tribalism,” in Consumer Tribes, Bernard Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar

(Eds.) Oxford: Elsevier, 3-26.

Cova, Bernard and Stefano Pace (2006), “Brand Community of Convenience Products: New

Forms of Customer Empowerment – the case of “my Nutella The Community,”

European Journal of Marketing, 40 (9/10), 1087-1105.

Deighton, John (2002), “How Snapple got its Juice Back,” Harvard Business Review, 80,

(January), 47-52.

Delgado-Ballester, Elena, Jose Munuera-Aleman, and Maria J. Yague-Guillen (2003),

“Development and Validation of a Brand Trust Scale,” International Journal of Market

Research, 45 (1), 35-53.

18

Dinisio, Pedro, Carmo Leal, and Luiz Moutinho (2008), “Fandom Affiliation and Tribal

Behaviour: A Sports Marketing Application,” Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal, 11 (1), 17-39.

Firat, A. Fuat, and Clifford J. Schultz (1997), “From Segmentation to Fragmentation: Markets

and Marketing Strategy in the Postmodern Era,” European Journal of Marketing,

31 (3/4), 183-207.

Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-373.

Gerbing, David W., and James C. Anderson (1988), “An Updated Paradigm for Scale

Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment,” Journal of

Marketing Research, 25 (2), 186-192.

Gobe, Marc (2001), Emotional Branding: The New Paradigm Connecting Brands to People,

New York: Allworth Press.

Henry, Paul, and Marylouise Caldwell (2007), “Imprinting, Incubations and Intensification:

Factors Contributing to Fan Club Formation and Continuance,” in Consumer Tribes,

Bernard Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.) Oxford: Elsevier, 163-173.

Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “The Experiential Aspects of

Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research,

9 (2), 132-140.

Holt, Douglas B. (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? “A Dialectical Theory of Consumer

Culture and Branding,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70-90.

Keller, Kevin L. (2003), “Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Consumer Knowledge,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (4), 595-600.

19

Kim, Jooyoung, Jon D. Morris, and Joffre Swait (2008), “Antecedents of True Brand Loyalty,”

Journal of Advertising, 37 (2), 99-117.

Kozinets, Robert V. (2007), “Innotribes: Star Trek as Wikimedia,” in Consumer Tribes, Bernard

Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.) Oxford: Elsevier, 194-211.

Langer, Roy (2007), “Marketing, Prosumption, and Innovation in the Fetish Community,” in

Consumer Tribes, Bernard Cova, Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.) Oxford:

Elsevier, 243-259.

Li, Fuan, Nan Zhou, Rajiv Kashyap, and Zhilin Yang, (2008), “Brand Trust as a Second-order

Factor: An Alternative Measurement Model,” International Journal of Market Research,

50 (6), 817-839.

Luedicke, Marius K. and Marcus Giesler (2007), “Brand Communities and Their Social

Antoganists: Insights from the Hummer Case,” in Consumer Tribes, Bernard Cova,

Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.), Oxford: Elsevier, 275-295.

Maffesoli, Michel (1996), The Time of the Tribes: the Decline of Individualism, London: Sage.

McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand

Community,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 38-54.

Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship

Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 29 (3), 20-38.

Moore, Elizabeth S. and William L. Wilkie (2005), “We Are Who We Were: Intergenerational

Influences in Consumer Behavior,” in Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals,

and Desires, S. Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick (Eds.), New York: Routledge,

208-232.

20

Moutinho, Luiz, Pedro Dinisio, and Carmo Leal, (2008), “Surf Tribal Behaviour: A Sports

Marketing Application,” Market Intelligence & Planning, 25 (7), 668-690.

Muniz, Albert M. Jr. and Thomas C. O’Guinn, (2001), “Brand Community”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412-432.

Muniz, Albert M. Jr. and Hope Jensen Schau, (2005), “Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple

Newton Brand Community”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (4), 737-747.

O’Guinn, Thomas C. and Albert M. Muniz Jr. (2005), “Communal Consumption and the Brand”,

in Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives Goals and Desires, S. Ratneshwar and David

Glen Mick (Eds.), New York: Routledge, 252-272.

Park, David J., Sameer Deshpande, Bernard Cova and Stefano Pace (2007), “Seeking

Community through Battle: Understanding the Meaning of Consumption Processes for

Warhammer Gamers’ Communities across Borders,” in Consumer Tribes, Bernard Cova,

Robert V. Kozinets, and Avi Shankar (Eds.) Oxford: Elsevier, 212-223.

Pawle, John and Peter Cooper (2006), “Measuring Emotion- Lovemarks, The Future Beyond

Brands,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (1), 38-48.

Roberts, Kevin (2004), Lovemarks: The Future Beyond Brands, New York: Powerhouse Books.

Sahlins, Marshall D. (1961), “The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory

Expansion,” American Anthropologist, 63 (2), 332-345.

Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muniz Jr. and Eric J. Arnould (2009), “How Brand Community

Practices Create Value,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 30-51.

Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995), “Subcultures of Consumption: An

Ethnography of the New Bikers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (1), 43-61.

21

Shimp, Terrence and Thomas Madden (1981), “Consumer-Object Relations: A Conceptual

Framework Based Analogously on Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love,” in Advances

in Consumer Research, Volume 15, M. Houston (Ed.), 163-168.

Solomon, Michael R. (2003), Conquering Consumerspace: Marketing Strategies for A Branded

World, New York: Amacom.

Sung, Minjung and Sung-Un Yang (2008), “Toward the Model of University Image; The

Influence of Brand Personality, External Prestige, and Reputation,” Journal of Public

Relations Research, 20 (4) 357-376.

Swaminathan, Vanitha, Karen L. Page and Zeynap Gurhan-Canli (2007), “My” Brand and “Our”

Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand

Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2) 248-259.

Tajfel, Henri (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups, New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner (1985), “The Social Identity Theory of Group Behavior,” in

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Steel Worchel and William G. Austin (Eds.),

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 6-24.

Thomas, Bejoy John, and P. C. Sekar (2008) “Measurement and Validity of Jennifer Aaker’s

Brand Personality Scale for Colgate Brand,” Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers,

33 (3), 49-61.

Thompson, Craig J. (2004), “Beyond Brand Image: Analyzing the Culture of Brands,” in

Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 31, Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances Luce

(Eds.), 98-100.

Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel (2006), “Emotional Branding and the

Strategic Value of the Doppelganger Brand Image,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50-64.

22

Thomson, Mathew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005), “The Ties That Bind:

Measuring Emotional Attachment to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1),

77-91.

Veloutsou, Cleopatra (2007), “Identifying the Dimensions of the Product-Brand and Consumer

Relationship,” Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (1/2), 7-26.

Veloutsou, Cleopatra and Luiz Moutinhou (2009), “Brand Relationships through Brand

Reputation and Brand Tribalism,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (3), 314-322.

Venable, Beverly T., Gregory M. Rose, Victoria D. Bush, and Faye W. Gilbert (2005), “The

Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 33 (3), 295-312.

Wipperfurth, Alex (2005), Brand Hijack: Marketing Without Marketing, New York: Portfolio.

Yorkston, Eric A., Joseph C. Nunes, and Shashi Matta (2010), “The Malleable Brand: The Role

of Implicit Theories in Evaluating Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (1),

80-93.

Zaltman, Gerald (2003), How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zentes, Joachim, Dirk Morschett, and Hanna Schramm-Kleine (2008), “Brand Personality of

Retailers- An Analysis of its Applicability and Effect on Store Loyalty,” The

International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (2), 167-184.