Comments on: The Five Factors that Make a Brand “Community-able” http://kozinets.net/archives/100 Professor Robert Kozinets on Marketing Research, Social Media, and Marketing Strategy Thu, 17 May 2012 08:51:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: silvio http://kozinets.net/archives/100#comment-716 silvio Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:24:23 +0000 http://kozinets.net/archives/100#comment-716 In some way your grid reminds me of the lovemark typology from kevin robert / saatchi (you changed the axes: respect and love vs. community-able and loyalty), don't you think the same? But the question, what makes a brand community-able I can answer quite well. I got nine factors (descriptive approach). The goal of my dissertaion is to show, that brands which show a lot of correspondance with this factors show higher performance (social and price). I'd like to show that in an experiment that generally, hopefully mobile-based, I call it at the moment "new way of advertising" or brand consumption behavior (all community-, mobile-, blog-, cgc-approaches, etc.) Product Category: Is not really a criteria because you can find community-potetial everywhere. I agree that some categories do not have the community-fit(visibility i would say is a core criteria of product categories, split this argument in smaller parts). Further (discussion potential, involvement in some way (but view of the customer, low-involvement product can have a high-involvement impact on cosumers) Look and feel: I call this factor DESIGN History: I summarize that under story telling (because it's an activity, i try to discuss with a management perspective) and some more...you got my e-mail. Feel free to contact me and we can discuss about it. In some way your grid reminds me of the lovemark typology from kevin robert / saatchi (you changed the axes: respect and love vs. community-able and loyalty), don’t you think the same?

But the question, what makes a brand community-able I can answer quite well. I got nine factors (descriptive approach). The goal of my dissertaion is to show, that brands which show a lot of correspondance with this factors show higher performance (social and price). I’d like to show that in an experiment that generally, hopefully mobile-based, I call it at the moment “new way of advertising” or brand consumption behavior (all community-, mobile-, blog-, cgc-approaches, etc.)

Product Category: Is not really a criteria because you can find community-potetial everywhere. I agree that some categories do not have the community-fit(visibility i would say is a core criteria of product categories, split this argument in smaller parts). Further (discussion potential, involvement in some way (but view of the customer, low-involvement product can have a high-involvement impact on cosumers)

Look and feel: I call this factor DESIGN

History: I summarize that under story telling (because it’s an activity, i try to discuss with a management perspective)

and some more…you got my e-mail. Feel free to contact me and we can discuss about it.

]]> By: Daiane http://kozinets.net/archives/100#comment-557 Daiane Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:47:26 +0000 http://kozinets.net/archives/100#comment-557 It seems that some of the brands that inspire the most passionate communities are seen as “precious gems” by its members, as if those who are outside the community were not able to see how amazing the brand is. From that it occurs to me that if a brand is straightforward defined by the company or in its advertising, it is less likely to inspire the creation of communities. A complex, contradictory, provocative brand provides consumers with arguments to think about it, to take a position, to love it or hate it, to hold opinions, and to attribute to that brand a special meaning that suits to their lives. I think these brands may be more community-able because they allow consumers to co-create brand meanings. Maybe this is comprised in the five (six?) factors you propose, since I found no way to put it into a new dimension. Anyway, it really looks like a great research topic! It seems that some of the brands that inspire the most passionate communities are seen as “precious gems” by its members, as if those who are outside the community were not able to see how amazing the brand is.
From that it occurs to me that if a brand is straightforward defined by the company or in its advertising, it is less likely to inspire the creation of communities. A complex, contradictory, provocative brand provides consumers with arguments to think about it, to take a position, to love it or hate it, to hold opinions, and to attribute to that brand a special meaning that suits to their lives. I think these brands may be more community-able because they allow consumers to co-create brand meanings.
Maybe this is comprised in the five (six?) factors you propose, since I found no way to put it into a new dimension. Anyway, it really looks like a great research topic!

]]>