Online Community Discourses Ahead of the iPhone 5 Release - a netnographic study

Institute of Marketing and Management January 2012 University of Southern Denmark, Odense MSc in Economics and Business Administration Brand Management and Marketing Communication

Authors: Academic supervisor: Rasmus Limkilde Markussen, 300389-1843 Gry Høngsmark Knudsen [email protected] Arish Ahmad, 090890-3307 [email protected]

Online Community Discourses Ahead of the iPhone 5 Release

Advanced Marketing Communication Exam

Declaration of Co-Authorship This paper is written jointly by the group except the following sections:

The sections”Social Constructivism - How Meaning is Generated”, ”Brand Communities and

the Mac-Cult”, “Discourses on Release Date Before Apple’s Official Marketing

Communication” and “Discourses on Release Date After Apple’s Official Marketing

Communication” are written by Arish Ahmad (090890-3307).

The sections ”Discourse Theory”, ”Method”, ”Discourses on Exterior Design Before

Apple’s Official Marketing Communication”, ”Presentation of Apple’s Official Marketing

Communication” and “Discourses on Exterior Design After Apple’s Official Marketing

Communication” are written by Rasmus Limkilde Markussen (300389-1843).

Table of Contents

Introduction  ......................................................................................................................  1  

Theoretical Foundations of Research  ................................................................................  2  

Social Constructivism - How Meaning is Generated  .................................................................  2  

Brand Communities and the Mac-Cult  .....................................................................................  3  

Discourse Theory  .......................................................................................................................  6  

Method  ..............................................................................................................................  7  

Discourse Analysis  ...........................................................................................................  10  

Conclusion and Critical Self-Reflexion  ...........................................................................  21  

Appendix - Profiles of Websites Used as Data Sources  ...................................................  23  

Presentation of Empirical Data  .......................................................................................  24  

References  .......................................................................................................................  26  

1

Introduction  This paper deals with the concept of online community discourses ahead of the release of the

Apple iPhone 5 in September 2012. The statement of intent is quoted in the following

paragraph:

“What meanings and communication incentives are represented through the online discourse

ahead of the release of Apple iPhone 5 and how are these affected by marketing

communication concerning the Apple iPhone 5?”

This paper thus only delves into the discourse among users. It should be noted though that the

discourse in the public and popular media is just as influential and important to grasp, as the

consumer-generated discourse in understanding the consumer behavior and market

communication aspects of this case, but time and effort devoted to this paper necessarily

called for some selectiveness in this study.

Firstly, the theoretical foundation of this paper is being presented, in which the ontological

and epistemological stance taken here is being discussed in relation to the concepts of

discourse theory, symbolic meaning generation and brand communities.

Secondly, the empirical foundation of the analyses conducted in this paper is presented. The

empirical data of this paper (i.e. news, blogs and forums) is selected from the time interval of

01/01/12 to 12/9/12. This was necessary in order to ensure that only discourses up to and

immediately after Apple’s first official market communication regarding the iPhone 5 was

used empirically in this paper.

Thirdly, the use of netnography and discourse analysis is described in the method section,

which also elaborate these concepts as well as discussing their usability in this particular case.

Fourthly, a thematic discourse analysis is conducted, with specific focus on discourses on the

release date of the new iPhone and the exterior design on the new iPhone.

The focus on these two topics of the discourses is a necessary, but also constraining, way of

structuring and thus grasping the analysis. The two topics only functions as a gateway or

starting point of understanding the discourse, which means the authors do not strictly limit

themselves to these topics, but embrace all the discursive themes/topics that are

interconnected with and flow from these two.

Finally, a summarising conclusion, which takes a self-critical stance towards the implications

of the findings of this paper, is provided.

Additionally, a list of profiles of the websites used as data sources in this paper and a

presentation of the specific empirical data can be found in the appendix.

2

Theoretical Foundations of Research This section reflects the theoretical foundations of this paper to study the interaction of online

communities ahead of the iPhone 5 release. As the phenomenon is a reflection of important

changes and dynamics of contemporary culture and society there are many possible and ever

new observations, conceptualizations and theories, which can be used to describe and analyze

it. This have necessitated the authors to be selective regarding the theories and concepts

elaborated in this article and choose what they have found the most relevant in relation to the

research question.

Social Constructivism - How Meaning is Generated The ontological standpoint of this paper is mainly of social constructivist character. This sets

through at two levels. Firstly there is the object of study. The phenomenon studied here is

enacted and practiced by individuals through their social interaction - mainly through the

language, but also other social practices (Hackley, 2003). It therefore seems suitable to

understand the reality of the individuals as the reality, which they in collaboration with

another individuals have agreed on or constructed, and not a reality, which objectively

preexists (Klausen, 2005). This means that different social processes or gatherings (such as a

(sub)culture) will construct different intersubjective realities (Nisbet & Perrin, 1977). In this

case, Apple and the iPhone only exist as part of our reality, and in that specific manner,

through humans, as we experience and construct our reality at the same time. Thus the iPhone

does not exist independently of the human experience of it. The definition and understanding

of Apple and the iPhone will be different across different social groupings, as knowledge is

understood as a result of a social process. In our analysis we will look into these social

processes, which in this case are enacted by online communities, and acknowledge that

discourse is a main driver of these social processes and thus creator and medium of meaning.

Because our research question is exactly about how meaning is enacted, we shall therefore

return to how we use discourse theory to approach this. A social constructivist understanding

pertains on a second level. It entails that the research and paper itself conducted here is not an

objective "reproduction" of the reality of the observed community members, but rather a

construction of a new research-domain, which in varying degrees reflects the educational,

cultural and ideological understanding of its authors (Hackley, 2003).

3

Brand Communities and the Mac-Cult Brand Communities - Definition and Perspective

Our perspective on communities is a sociological one. It is the fundamental way which

humans share their cognitive, emotional or material resources. A community is composed of

its members and their relationships and is identified on the basis of commonality or

identification among these. No matter composition or type the most essential and definitive

feature of communities is the human sharing and negotiation of meaning. In this paper we will

look at negotiation of symbolism of the marketplace (McAlexander et. al 2002). On this basis

we adopt the Muñiz and O'Guinn (2001) definition of brand communities: "a specialized,

non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships

among users of a brand". Muñiz and O'Guinn (2001) also identified three defining

characteristics of a brand community, which we also found with the online communities in

this paper: 1) consciousness of kind - which has to do with the perception of belonging

2) shared rituals and traditions - the manifestation of which becomes evident, when we go on

to talk about the Apple- and Mac-Cult and 3) moral responsibility (for your fellow members).

Conceptualizing brand communities as this entails "that the existence and meaningfulness of

the community inhere in customer experience rather than in the brand around which that

experience revolves" (McAlexander et. al. 2002). We must also stress that we adopt the

O'Guinn and Muñiz (2009) notion of brand communities being one of multiple actors (others

being marketers and institutions) in the social construction of a brand, which serves to

undermine a brand-consumer dyad understanding of branding.

The Importance of Brand Communities Today

The essentially sociological nature of brands today explains why brands inevitably lead to

communities and why the sociological perspective on brand communities is appropriate. This

is explained well by O'Guinn and Muñiz (2009): "We need to see brands as vessels of popular

meaning, where negotiation of the meaning is meaningful. Where consumers bring themselves

and a social world to them and thus create them. Brands are not just names of things, but an

increasingly important part of the social fabric and centers of social organization. Brands

work to bring people together, to divide them, to mark meaningful collectives of identity, to

meaningfully define human relationships”. This is closely related to the consequences of the

"embeddedness" of consumer society in the (post)modern reality. Brand communities have

the hallmarks of traditional communities but introduces their own market logic and expression

- postmodern surface orientation means many and ephemeral relationships with brands and

4

humans alike. Brand communities have thus replaced traditional communities and the

universal human need for a sense community is not compromised (McAlexander et. al.2002).

More Subtle Reasons for Brand Community Activity

We want to pinpoint some more subtle meanings attached to the brand community, which we

use as our frame of reference in approaching the online community activity and discourses

ahead of the iPhone 5 release. We believe that consumers in (post)postmodern societies

increasingly crave for going "behind the scenes" of brands and getting closer to the makers

behind these (McAlexander et al. 2002). Holt (2002) shows how this is related to a consumer

society where sense of authentic consumption gets more rare, which explains why corporate

transparency is highly valued today. We think that this may be a driving force of the

socializing effects of Apple-fanatics or mainstream iPhone-followers in the online

communities in this paper. Secondly, the consumption experience can be perfected through

community practice (O'Guinn and Muñiz, 2009). This explains why many people invest much

energy and time in brand communities - even before the respective product/brand is available,

as in this case of iPhone 5. Anticipation-building through community practice may thus

enhance the final experience of consuming the iPhone 5. In this sense we can also relate to

McCracken’s Diderot effect, which contends that the acculturating force of communities

drives the individuals to make increasingly larger investment in a new cultural interest

(Kozinets, 2002). The strong sense of community and distinctiveness among many Apple-

users, as we will elaborate in a moment, may explain why much academic literature often use

Apple communities as good examples. Thirdly, our data also makes us emphasize the

important role of rumors in the social construction of the brand (O'Guinn and Muñiz, 2009).

This is highly relevant in looking into the massive community activity ahead of the iPhone 5

release, as rumors representing what communities want to be true are a main driver of many

of the discourses.

Mac-Cult Studies and the Use of Religious Imagery

We are not the first to acknowledge the rich symbolic interaction in the discourses and people

surrounding the Apple brand and its products. We therefore necessarily incorporate the

insights, which have been made by Belk and Tumbla (2005) and Kahney (2007). They present

the community of Apple-devotees as a religious-like cult, in which the members adopt

religious metanarratives to construct a creation myth and hero myth, which often is extended

to drawing parallels to Steve Jobs as Christ figure and a saviour for Apple users. Furthermore,

5

there is a satanic or villain myth, in which Bill Gates is the enemy, PC-users are in need of

saving and a resurrection myth that labels Job's return to Apple in the 80’s as his "Second

Coming" (Campbell and La Pastina 2010).

Campbell and La Pastina (2010) explain how technology has long been connected to religion

trough myths and narratives, as it is part of the discourse on humanity and its limitations.

Some exemplary myths are 1) the use of technology offering godlike-qualities, 2) technology

as a divine and spiritual force in itself and 3) a magical and religious experience through the

interaction with technology. The following quote of the article explains the relevance of this

in brand communities: "[...] technological artifacts and activities can be framed in religious

terms in order to solidify user's investment in the product and used in the development of a

shared identity". They further contend: "[...] religious images are employed in popular

culture discourse in ways that are flexible rather than proscriptive [...] [free] from the

constraints of boundaries placed by traditional or official understandings of religious

meaning" - Religious-like devotion in Apple-communities seemed to have more to do with

creating and sharing a feeling of the superiority of Apple and the human craving of

community rather than with issues of belief and spirituality (as with traditional religion). This

paper understands these findings in the context of religion having been a social wellspring and

social guidance (or in other words: a social glue) for the human race in thousands of years,

which explains the ability of religion to connect and unite humans - now people have begun to

use this social feature of religion (which is only one of the many features of religion) to unite

around other entities/phenomena, in this case a brand like Apple. A psychologist and a "Mac-

nut" himself expressed a similar argument: "For a lot of people who are not comfortable with

religion, it provides a community and a common heritage" (Kahney, 2002). This is achieved

by adopting/importing religious language, metaphors and narratives, but leaving out the

prescription and creed aspects of the religion. This seems also to be the focal point of the

study of Campbell and La Pastina (2010). The use of religious intertextuality through the new

media was a powerful rhetorical tool with regard to the first iPhone release - used initially by

Apple-fans, and then by the media and Apple itself. This function of religious language is also

seen in other consumer collectives as in Kozinets (2002) netnographic study of "coffee-

fanatics".

6

Discourse Theory As mentioned earlier, the phenomenon studied in this paper is enacted and practiced by

individuals through their social interaction using language as the main tool. By this is meant

that these individuals construct their sense of social reality through language in interaction,

but also through other representational and interactional practices.

This construction of social reality through social interaction may be termed “discourse”,

which is referred to as a “system of statements than construct an object” (Parker, 1992). It has

already been established in this paper that the iPhone 5 does not exist independently of the

human experience of it, which is illustrated by Parker’s definition of discourse above. The

iPhone 5 (the object) only exists through the human experience of it, and that experience is

mediated by language and other interactional practices due to the construction of social reality

by individuals. The term “discourse” is given wider and broader definitions like “anything

that can be described, and hence can be represented as text; it therefore refers to booth

speech and writing” (Stubbs, 1983) or “all genres in which someone organizes language to

an audience” (Hackley 2003 via Benveniste 1971). When the term “discourse” is being used

in the thesis statement and throughout the entire paper it refers mainly to Parker’s definition

of discourses, since the paper focuses on identifying the meanings and communication

incentives, which are represented in the online discussions on the release of iPhone 5. It

should be noticed though that the broader definition used by Benveniste, in which “discourse”

is referred to in a less technical sense and therefore basically just means conversation, is

implicit as the term “online discourse” also refers directly to the empirical base of this paper

in the form of discussion threads among private users in online blogs, discussion boards,

forums or suchlike.

The authors of this paper acknowledge that the use of discourse in interpretive research, such

as this paper, implies that it is considered to be a central concept in understanding social

organisation and interaction, since discourses are ways of organizing, describing and talking

about certain events or things. Discourses can be used by individuals to form strategies of

social positioning and identify formation in local contexts, or simply be drawn upon in order

to make sense of the world (Hackley 2003). This means that the individuals discussing the

iPhone 5 online take part in the discourse in order to position themselves socially in the given

community and that they rely on the discourse in order to make sense of the world. This fits

the above-mentioned conclusion that the iPhone only exists through the human experience of

it and that this experience is partly a result of the discourse concerning iPhone 5, since

discourses act as ways of describing certain events or things.

7

Method As described in the thesis statement, this paper focuses on identifying the meanings and

communication incentives that are represented through the online discourses ahead of the

release of Apple iPhone 5 and how these are affected by the marketing communication

concerning iPhone 5. The empirical data for this paper was collected using netnographic

techniques presented in Kozinets’ “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for

Marketing Research in Online Communities” (Kozinets, 2002). Kozinets describes

netnography as “ethnography adapted to the study of online communities” and follow up by

stating that “it provides information on the symbolism, meanings, and consumption patterns

of online consumer groups”, which makes it an obvious choice as a method for identifying

meanings that are represented through online discourses.

Furthermore, Kozinets describes netnography in the following manner: “networked

computing as a novel medium for social exchange between consumers that changes the

particulars of these research procedures, concomitantly allowing an unprecedented level of

access to the heretofore unobservable behaviours of interacting consumers”, referring to the

common ethnographic procedures, which include making cultural entrée; gathering and

analysing data; ensuring trustworthy interpretation; conducting ethical research; and

providing opportunities for culture member feedback. However, since netnography is

inherently flexible to the interest and skill set of the individual marketing researcher, the

abovementioned procedures may act as a guide to researchers, who are interested in

rigorously applying the method to their own research (Kozinets, 2002). It is fair to conclude

that during the past decade, “networked computing” has gone from being “a novel medium

for social exchange” to an integrated part of daily life, at least for western consumers. The

increasing popularity of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr,

various blogs, discussion forums and other online communities, attests to the fact that

consumers have become much more savvy when it comes to interacting in social exchanges

online. The increased use of cyberspace as a platform for social exchange and the public’s and

the media’s interest in this every subject has made individuals aware about the visibility of

their social interaction online (Gonzalez-Herrero & Smith, 2008). Due to this change in the

visibility of social exchanges among individuals online, as well as the limited scope of this

paper and the skill set of the authors, the abovementioned (n)ethnographic procedures are not

applied rigorously here. The empirical data has been collected from several online discussion

forums without making cultural entrée. This opt-out was chosen as a direct result of the

8

changes in the ethnographic procedures brought about by the development in social

interaction online. The purpose of making cultural entrée is, among other things, to secure

obtainability of the empirical data in closed forums and to ethically justify the use of

individual’s social exchange in research (Kozinets, 2002). Since the discussion forums used

empirically in this paper are open to non-users, the individual users are obviously aware about

the fact that their posts and hence their social exchange online is publicly obtainable, for

which reason it was not considered ethically incorrect to use these without making cultural

entrée. The choice to opt-out of making cultural entrée implies that it is not possible to

provide opportunities for culture member feedback through presenting the findings to the

individual users being studied. This choice is in part due to the limited scope of and the focus

applied in this paper, which is on observation of meaning negotiation and myth manifestation

represented through the online discourses ahead of the release of Apple iPhone 5, rather than

the attitudes and thoughts of the individual users. The exclusion of culture member feedback

does not necessarily mean that the analysis findings will be untrustworthy, but only that the

validity and trustworthiness of the interpretations are alternatively pursued through sound

analytic arguments and referencing to quotations.

Netnography focuses on identifying shared norms and values among cultural members in

communities. However, since the focus of this paper is to identify the meanings and

communication incentives represented through online discourses and how these are affected

by marketing communication concerning iPhone 5, it was found necessary to employ a

method that could thematically process both agreements and disagreements.

Discourse analysis focuses on language and discourse as constitutive features of social

interaction, and on ideology and reproduction of relations of power through language and

social practice (Hackley, 2003). The focus on difference, ideology and power makes

discourse analysis a valuable tool for analysing advertisements or marketing communication

in general as constructive of interpretive communities. For this reason, discourse analysis was

chosen, since it critically evaluates how the interpretive practices reproduce and reshape

societal ideologies and myths in advertisements, thus making advertising constitutive of the

interpretive communities (Knudsen, 2012). The discourse analysis seeks to identify evidence

of structure regarding two overall topics: the release date of the iPhone 5 and the exterior

design of the iPhone 5, in order to reveal interpretive repertoires or discourses that account for

and justify particular ideas, actions or procedures (Hackley, 2003).

Firstly, the discourse analysis focuses on identifying themes in the online discourses before

Apple announced the arrival of a new iPhone and on how meaning is being negotiated among

9

cultural members regarding the release date of the iPhone 5 and the exterior design. It also

focuses on how these themes are manifested in myths or believes among the cultural

members. Secondly, the official marketing communication from Apple is being presented and

briefly analysed with regard to the theoretical concepts previously presented in the paper.

Finally, the discourse analysis identifies themes in the online discourses after the official

marketing communication from Apple was released. This latter part of the discourse analysis

takes the same focus and approach as the first part, with regard to meaning negotiation and

manifestation regarding the release date and the exterior design of the iPhone 5.

The discourses on iPhone 5, before as well as after the first official market communication

from Apple, is massive in quantity with numerous sites containing news, forums and

discussion threads on the subject. As just noted, we thus focus on two topics of the iPhone 5

discourse on the Internet: 1) The release date of the new iPhone and 2) The exterior design of

the new iPhone. In the appendix we present the data of this paper along with short arguments

of the relevance of each source. We also provide short profiles of some of the following

websites in the appendix, demonstrating the relevance of the data-sources.

10

Discourse Analysis Discourses on Release Date Before Apple’s Official Marketing Communication

Online discourse on the release date-topic is firstly characterized by forum-users who share

their excitement with an upcoming iPhone or just their longing for new groundbreaking

technology from Apple.

Kgd0630: “I'm becoming less content and bored myself. I'm jailbroken to pacify, but that's getting old too. It's

time for a new device”. and gammills08:“Can't wait!! Time to continue to blow everyone out of the water”.

This represents the low and ephemeral involvement with the community, but also the

imperative need of sharing feelings towards the iPhone 5. The interchanging of meaning is

limited but the large number of such comments shows one of the ways the notion of Apple’s

superiority and myths are discursively upheld and manifested. The more devoted users engage

in a lengthy and at times technical discourse about production and inventory schedules. Some

also enthusiastically include knowledge of production cycles of Apple products or share plans

of telecommunication companies in trying to predict the release date example of such extreme

occupation with the release date is:

Psyrix: “They need to have at least 18 to 20 million units on hand for an initial launch since this will be an LTE

World phone. Even if they began test production runs July 1st and got everything nailed down by July 15th they

still wouldn't make September. Using past ramp up performance of the manufacturing in China, Apple won't be

able to launch until the second week of October. With a new screen, radio, battery and CPU/GPU they will be

lucky to hit 8 million units a month by the beginning of August. That means they need all of August, September

and the first week of October to get to the inventory required”.

Imutter: “So we can say 100% Apple did not go back to it's June release cycle. I rather look at facts. iOS 6 is

announced for Fall. 1st day fall should be September 22nd. AT&T has a new share plan come some time in

August (there be no release before that). Everything else is rumor and speculation. What I love about getting the

new iphone is just that!”.

This last comment also shows the users’ reflexivity of their “pre-release activity”; other great

examples are:

Matthew Connelly: “According to Digitimes, Pegatron has started production of the next generation iPhone.

Rumors, rumors”.

imutter: “Keep the rumors coming I love it !!!”.

Zanthe: “I was gonna check on this [the release date] but my crystal ball is in the repair shop. ”.

chris: “I hope you purchased CrystalBallCare®” 1.

Zanthe: “Are you referring to iBall? If so, yes, I have it. Whew.”.

1 Referring to AppleCare, which is the official service- and support unit provided by the Apple.

11

This is an important characteristic of the discourse as it goes to show that the users themselves

are not unaware of the fact that an essential part of the value of consuming the upcoming

iPhone lies in their anticipation-building through rumor-sharing and fan-based joking as in

this case of Zanthe and chris.

The discourse on release date is also very characterized by the fact that it easily moves away

from the specific topic of speculating about the release date, and on to the inevitable

demeaning of Android or the Samsung Galaxy S III (Probably the main competitor), where

iPhone-devotees must justify the superiority of and their waiting for the new iPhone.

102JamesSawyer: "I just feel that I have been waiting it for a very long time".

Jerome G [response to 102JamesSawyer]: “you should switch to an Android phone then. They come out

with 2 or 3 a day”.

Hondamaker: “Ugh. Can't wait to see the 'New iPhone' destroy the Galaxy S III”.

Psyrix: “At present there are no Android phones worth owning. They all use a version of Google's OS that

allows a user, thru no fault of their own […] to cause the phone to no longer be able to receive/answer either

calls or text messages. […] And no, at present, that condition isn't possible under iOS [The iPhone software]”

(This user elaborates later in a lengthy post and in very technical detail, how the Android phones can not be

trusted to function - whereas an iPhone never lets you down).

This indicates the expectation-building discourse; that the new iPhone will eliminate the

threat of the Samsung Galaxy S III. This shows especially in the often recurring debates on

the name of the new iPhone. Many of the lead forum-users enjoy the idea, that it should be

called the New iPhone rather than iPhone 5 and thus insistently use this name when referring

to the upcoming phone. The use of this name may very well signify the expectation of the

devotees that Apple will release a new wonder-product, making a new “frogleap” within the

smartphone-market (leaving Samsung behind) and thus live up to the myths surrounding

Apple as being overly superior in technological innovation.

Macleod644: “Ya it seems logical that apple would call it "The New iPhone", especially if it IS truly going to

be redesigned and loaded with new features. I can def see them calling it The New iPhone, they called the iPad

the new one”.

Therealjohnson: “Why do you guys keep referring to it as the iPhone 5 when Apple will never call their 6th

iPhone device the iPhone 5? 1. Original iPhone. 2. iPhone 3G. 3. iPhone 3GS. 4. iPhone 4. 5. iPhone 4S. 6. The

new iPhone. just saying...”.

A last but maybe most important part of the discourse on the release date unfolds when one

popular blogger as early as in July predicts the announcement and release dates in September,

which spreads quickly around to rumor forums, news sites etc. - While many are ecstatic from

12

knowing the release date before everyone else and thus thank the blogger Rene for this

marvelous information on the release date,

Ctheo3: “Rene, you are my hero. Hopefully these sources of yours prove to be as accurate as they have in the

past. I was hoping for this news today, thank you iMore!” and Jjjwicks: “Wow Rene! Your story is huge on the

web right now. I saw it when I went to Google news, but everyone is citing the story now. Great job!”

there are some who persist, and still insist that the release date is mysterious:

richardgm#im: “Unlikely. Apple says "Fall" for iOS 6. Typically OS is released before the phone. Therefore

we can infer from that, that iOS 6 will be released after September 22, and the new iPhone thereafter”.

Reader010: “Actually I doubt this schedule, since for that date Intel is listed as event in Moscone Center […] I

would rather guess the Apple event will take place either at Sept. 4th (which might be too early) or Sept. 25th

(most likely)”.

KungFuGrip: "Leaks" are whatever you make of them. Never forget that, even if the rest of the internet-world

seems to be unable to grasp the concepts of "facts", "opinions", "rumors", "proof", etc. Last year, around this

time, there were not only hundreds of rumors and "leaks", there were also reports of actual "products" - new,

radically thinner cases - that were popping up at reputable stores. These were to serve as "proof" that the next

iPhone would be a drastic change in physical dimensions from the iPhone 4. That turned out to be the iPhone

4S. Not so much”.

We may understand these comments as trying to prevent killing the thrill of anticipation and

rumors and not take the fun out of speculating about the wonders and mystery of new moves

from Apple.

Hondaman: “People....It's been pretty much 'officially' announced. September 21 is the release date. Read the

interwebs”.

Dark Blu: “Soon, the rampant speculation and speculative renderings will be a thing of the past and we will

all see exactly what the iPhone 4G [This is what he expects it is called] is and is not and what it will and will not

be equipped with”.

These comments indicate that the show is over and that speculation carries no value anymore.

There seems to be a sad vibe to the comments. As a consequence the discourse moved

towards new areas which could be speculated about and uphold value-generating community-

activity. Examples are discussions on the place of the event or the number of units produced

at the time of release. This also helps explain why the discourse so easily flows towards

speculating about the new name instead of the release date.

13

Discourses on Exterior Design Before Apple’s Official Marketing Communication

This part of the discourse analysis focuses on identifying themes with regard to the exterior

design of the iPhone before Apple released any official marketing communication.

The starting comment of one of the discussion threads used empirically here shows

photographs and drawings of an iPhone as well as description of the new features allegedly

leaked from a Chinese subcontractor of Apple. The headline of this discussion thread is:

“Apple's new iPhone expected to be 18% thinner than iPhone 4S”, and thus fit the topic for

this part of the discourse analysis on the exterior design.

The first theme identified focuses on the attitudes toward the new thinner design, the exterior

design of the coming iPhone compared to the older models and how these changes will affect

the performance and user experience of the coming iPhone. The discourse on this theme is

supportive towards the exterior changes with praises for the new thinner design, but critical

towards the consequences of these changes. This is illustrated by the following comment by

Quadra 610: “LOVE the design. And As long as everything works, I'm all in for a thinner phone”. This

comment clearly shows appreciation for the rumours of a thinner design, but raises concern

towards the technical expenses of this change. A comment that clearly illustrates these

concerns is the following by cameronj, who refers directly to the thinner design: “Ugh, I hope

not! Keep the thickness, and give me 50% more battery life!”. In this comment concern is raised

towards a presumed negative effect of the new design on the battery life and it indicates that

the consumer has experienced problems with short battery life in previous iPhones. The

concern is however only of technical nature and it is difficult to conclude, whether cameronj

would prefer the new thinner design if the new iPhone actually provided both an 18% thinner

design and50% more battery lifespan.

The second theme identified in this section emerges from the first theme of this discourse and

is critical towards the praises of a thinner design and questions if “thinner” is a claim of

quality in itself. However, the concerns raised in this case are not just of technical nature, but

questions other aspects of the brand, as it is also concerned with the commercial motive

behind the new thinner design with regard to positioning and preferred target audience. This

is illustrated by the following comment by lilgto64 and the two replies by lnkling and

bryanyc, respectively.

Lilgto64: “Forget "thinner" just for the sake of some advertising campaign proclaiming thinnest. Back in 2007

being the thinnest was a claim due to the bloated nature of everything else on the market that came anywhere

close to having a similar feature set. There is a point at which thin is too thin - think Miley Cyrus,

LyndseyLohan, etc. Focus on "Best" and if that means it is 0.1 mm thicker than some other product so be it”.

14

Lnkling: “Forget the thin. [,,,] Apple needs to make their gadgets for people that actually work for a living.

Not just those wanting to make silly fashion statements. Thin makes about as much sense as diamond

encrusted”. Bryanyc: “Spot on ! Apple has been making those 100's of millions of phones for the unemployed and

fashionistas. Real working people use Blackberries and that is why Rimm is doing so well with their market

share. Fat and with buttons is where its at! /sarcasm off/”. The first comment here by lilgto64 is clearly critical towards the benefit of making the new

iPhone thinner than its predecessor, but suggests that a thinner look would have been

beneficial under previous market conditions, thereby implicitly implying that Apple have not

kept up with the developments in consumer needs. Furthermore, the comment is critical

towards the possible commercial considerations behind a thinner design, which is expressed

through an intertextual reference, where the names of two thin and famous young women are

being used as derogatory metaphors of something that is too thin and superficial. This is

followed up by lnkling’s comment, which questions the iPhone’s value in use for “people that

actually work” and states that it should be more than just a “silly fashion statement”, thereby

implying that it is a superficial object. These critical comments are supported additionally by

bryanyc, who is critical towards the potential of the iPhone’s target audience and describes it

in a derogatory manner. It also praises a competing product for its traditional buttons instead

of a touchscreen, a feature that the first iPhone introduced and used to revolutionize the entire

category of portable devices. Bryanyc emphasises his viewpoints by explicitly stating that his

comment is not sarcastic, thereby providing other users with information on how to interpret

his comment, which facilitates the negotiation of meaning.

The third theme identified in this section focuses on big design changes versus consistency in

the look with regard to looking distinctively “Apple-ish”. The discourse on this theme acts as

a discussion on whether revolutionary design changes should be brought about when new

Apple products are developed and revealed.

A comment that illustrates the opposing positions on this matter is the following by

kimys1022:“I love the design, but a part of me hopes that this is some kind of controlled leak. I think the

design is a little on the similar side with the iPhone 4/4S. […][but] there should be a big change every two

generations. Although, a larger screen is a huge improvement, which Apple might consider a big change”.

This comment is positive towards the changes in the design and kimys1022 even adjusts

his/her expectations to the changes by letting Apple decide, whether the implementation of a

larger screen should be considered a big change or not, thereby showing loyalty and devotion

towards the brand. The following reply by Flaneur is critical towards kimys1022’s demand of

big changes every two years:

15

“Companies that are serious about design do not think this way. Only if function can be improved should design

change. Good design is about the way it works, or words to that effect—Steve Jobs.[…] Edit: And if they make it

thinner, it's because it fits the hand better, or goes in and out of pocket better, not because it's a fashion

statement”. The critique towards the demand of big changes every two years is supported by

quoting Steve Jobs, thereby using the iconic status of Apple’s late co-founder and his view of

design as a warrant for the critique. Meaning is thus being negotiated through arguments that

aim to create a frame of reference, which all members of the social group can relate to.

16

Presentation of Apple’s Official Marketing Communication

This section presents and provides a brief analysis of the official marketing communication

from Apple ahead of the release of iPhone 5. The brief analysis will focus on the themes

identified in the first two sections of the discourse analysis.

Apple’s official marketing communication efforts ahead of the release of iPhone 5 consisted

of an email sent to news media containing an official invitation, which can be seen below2:

The invitation showed the number twelve, with the number five cleverly projected as its

shadow. The words “It’s almost here.” stood above the numbers and an Apple logo was

placed in the right hand corner. The emails contained information on the event, which was to

be held on September 12 at 10 A.M. P.T. at the Yerba Buena Center for Arts in San

Francisco, which had been used for previous product revelations by Apple. The word iPhone

was not mentioned. The aesthetics, textual expression and the font of the invitation are

distinctively “Apple-ish” and pay tribute to the late Steve Jobs and his obsession with

simplicity in design (Isaacson, 2011). These textual clues and the depiction of the Apple logo

reveal the sender of the communication, but Apple forces the consumers to engage in or at

least keep up with the discourses on Apple in order to interpret the message, as the discourses

are facilitating the reception of the invite, thereby letting consumers negotiate meaning

through their joint interpretation. Apple is, through this process of meaning negotiation,

where subtle clues and rumours from online discourses are combined like pieces of a jigsaw

puzzle by culture members of brand communities, fuelling the myth manifestation and thus

facilitating the online discourses themselves. Apple utilises in this way the concept of

retromarketing by deliberately limiting availability, by delaying gratification, by heightening

expectations and by fostering an enigmatic air of unattainability, thus creating demand or

interest (Brown, 2001). 2http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/4/3288940/official-apple-new-iphone-5-event-september-12th

17

Discourses on Release Date After Apple’s Official Marketing Communication

The event invite sparks off the expected positive reaction from a big scare of devotees. It is

interesting though how they discursively construct an arena in which they go as far as

celebrating this news. They also prepare and take off from duty/work on the day of the event

to be able to follow it live through online-streaming, all in a way, which resembles a football

fan's enthusiastic anticipation of a Super-Bowl game.

Hocestquisimus: “OMG. Are my Sunday clothes in order? The Shrine polished? Is my camping gear clean?

The cushion[n]s ready for me to kneel on them during the keynote? So much to do, so little time!”.

Rafagon: “CE-LE-BRATE i-PHONE Come on!!! [with an attached Youtube-link of Kool & The Gang –

Celebration music video]”.

Sharunda: “Man I got it all planned out! I do plan and have put it on my bosses calendar that I will be out on

Wednesday, September 12 AND Friday September 21st [Release date]. I am not playing around with this! I am

not going to work!”.

Many of the themes from before the event invite continue also in this second part of our

analysis. This means we can still identify the ephemeral, but not negligible, value-generating

community activity or the bashing of the Android phones. We will not elaborate on them

here, but it must be noted that they are still an important part of the discourse. There are

nevertheless some of the recurring themes which have extended and thus call for elaboration

here.

One of the biggest themes of the discourse following the event invite takes its starting point

by the strong indication, and for some Apple-enthusiasts painful realization, that it will be

called iPhone 5. This leads to heated discussions between those who criticize Apple for

confusing naming-policy and those who seem to express that users have no right to criticize

Apple for this.

TheNobleRobot: “They are seriously calling the 6th generation iPhone the "iPhone 5?" Lord, I didn't think

their naming scheme could get any worse or more arbitrary, but I should have known better”.

Organized Chaos: “Did they seriously call the 5th generation iPhone the "iPhone 4S?" Yes they did. [...] Get

over it. When you manufacture your own mobile phone, call it whatever the hell you like. Deal?”.

The meaning of negotiation here significantly displays the heterogeneity in the users of

iPhone, but more importantly a hate-love relationship between some of the loyal users and the

Apple corporation.

The third important theme of the “second” discourse is the widespread

acknowledgement/interpretation that the new iPhone will be named iPhone 5:

Hinezy: “And it will be called the 5!” [threat starter], DJ Sam House: “iPhone 5 : Apple announces special

event for September 12!!!” and Popkrull: “Look the shadow is a 5 meaning iphone 5 lol!”.

18

Because it has become so obvious that the 5 refers to the iPhone’s name there seems to be a

need to challenge the meaning of the image in a way, which blurs the obviousness of the

message. Many therefore feel the need to speculate or joke with the idea that Apple is teasing

their users and the five could stand for something else:

theorioles33: “Actually the 5 simply means it's the 5th anniversary of our beloved iPhone ”.

BergenCountyJC4Realz: “My take on the "5" on the invitation is that 2012 will be the 5th year of the

iPhone's existence […] remember it came out in 2007. Take it to the bank - will not be called iPhone 5. Apple

can troll too”.

Many also suggest the 5 could stand for five new products. That most probably don’t really

believe in this and rather express a kind of disappointment at the obviousness of what’s

coming, Boutros N: ”Everyone is so excited about this event, but leaked pictures and videos have been

posted 3 to 5 months ago that show clearly how the next iPhone 5 is”, is shown by a low response rate to

all the jokes and speculations. Related to this is the tendency to seek out new

speculation/rumor areas (also mentioned in the first part of the analysis), exemplified here by

clue-search in the event invite or in the artwork of the Yerba Buena Center, where the event

would take place. Of course these efforts are also implicitly encouraged by Apple through

their style of communication, which we also discussed in the short analysis of the event

invite.

EducatedToPerform: “Wow, I've only just realised. The 'gap' in-between the 1 and the 2 which breaks up the

5, is actually a physically raised iPhone. If you zoom in really close you can clearly make out a raised iPhone”.

Alex: “What secrets lie in the Arts of Yerba Buena? Only the shadow knows”.

The effort to maintain the thrill of surprise and mystery may be the most important theme of

the online community discourse as it exposes the nature and essence of brand communities

such as the Apple one. We also feel the need to stress again the user’s reflexivity and self-

awareness during the discourse, of their extreme preoccupation and of the fact, that this

enhances their brand and product experience:

Social NetWorking: “Sit back and enjoy the comments folks...”.

Aaron Benedict: “Time for the idiots to start overanalyze the invite is what is sure to be some of the worst

kremlinology ever”.

Unknown: “Now it's just a matter of time before we get word that some one dropped their iPhone at

Disneyland and it was swiped by some nefarious employee (my money's on Dopey, he can't be as dumb as he

looks) who discovers that it is The New iPhone (they were testing the new Disneyland flyover in Maps and

Passbook) and sells the info to every site out there”.

19

Discourses on Exterior Design After Apple’s Official Marketing Communication

Several themes emerged from the discourses used empirically for this section of the discourse

analysis and these turned out to be interconnected.

The first theme identified in this section focuses on the sense of sadness, which culture

members feel over the fact that the rumours seem to reveal everything right away, rather than

just build up excitement, thus robbing culture members of the gratifying experience of

surprise when the actual product is revealed. This is illustrated by the following comment by

Phone-UI-Guy: “I miss the days of bad photoshop "leaks", nuggets of information, and out right guesses.

Now all the parts are leaking all over the damn place. Takes the fun out of it”. This comment clearly states

how the user misses the online discourses ahead of previous product releases from Apple,

when information was more scarce, which led to excitement whenever small pieces of

information leaked from Apple or subcontractors. The comment paints a romantic picture of

former online discourses in which outright guesses on the exterior design and function of new

Apple products was considered charming in that they helped facilitating the intriguing

mystique. This view is supported by a replying comment by waverunnr: “At this point, I know

what every part of the new iPhone looks like. What happened to doubling down on security, Tim?”. The

disappointment of knowing too much about the new iPhone prior to its release, which is

expressed through this comment, is in stark contrast to very purpose of the online discourse

on the exterior design of the iPhone. The intertextual reference to the quote: “We are going to

double down on secrecy on products3” by Tim Cook, CEO of Apple in may 2012 makes the theme

even more paradoxical, as it clearly illustrates the fact that the very existence of the discourses

depend on the balance between culture members thinking they know everything and hoping

the know nothing at all.

The second theme identified in this section emerges from the first theme of this discourse and

is focused on attempts to bring back the romanticised conditions that characterized the former

online discourses ahead of product revelations. This is illustrated by the following comment

by Jozsoo: “What if all these leaks and photos are actually part of Tim's team's grand doubling down scheme,

and the actual new iPhone is nothing of the sort we are led to believe it is?”. By constructing a conspiracy

theory that questions the authenticity of the leaked information on the new iPhone and

considers it part of a manipulating strategy conducted by Apple, this comment shows how

some culture members reminisce about nostalgic conditions and hope they are being

deliberately misled by Apple in an attempt to sustain the tradition of total secrecy ahead of a 3http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/29/3051521/tim-cook-apple-will-double-down-on-secrecy-on-products

20

product revelation. This hope is considered quite naïve by other culture members, which is

illustrated by the following comment by SolipsismX: “That all seems highly unlikely to me. Creating

very intricate components that only a small part of the population cares about just to leak those photos just

doesn't do anything at all for Apple. Plus, we've seen components in the past and they've been legit. At this point

I'd say we can these are 6th gen iPhone parts”. This comment is critical towards the conspiracies of

Apple constructing fake information and deliberately leaking these. This critique is justified

through references to former leaks and the genuineness of these, thereby concluding that the

current leaks must originate from the yet unrevealed iPhone.

The third theme identified in this section emerges from the second theme and is, just as the

third theme in the previous section on exterior design, focused on the brand meaning

negotiation feud between those who demand revolutionary changes to the design and those

who prefer evolutionary perfection. A comment that illustrate the dislike of the new (leaked)

design is the following by Matthew Childs: “Ultimately i'll buy it even if it looks like the "leaks" claim,

but i'm really not crazy about the design. It’s sloppy, it's not fluid, it's just anti-Apple in my eyes”. This

criticism towards the changes in the design is questioned by Phloo in the following comment: “Most of the conspiracy theories believers point out as a major argument that Apple can't reveal a new iPhone

with a design this close to the old one. […]Actually, the only huge break in the iPhone's design was between the

3GS and the 4. This is without any doubt what the iPhone 5 will look like. And I think this design is much more

classy, compared to the other smartphones with their cheap chromed plastics”. It is obvious from the two

comments above as well as the similar discussion in the previous section that the attitude

towards the design and look of the new iPhone is a matter of personal taste. However, the

comments illustrate how meaning is being negotiated through a frame of reference, which all

members of the social group can relate to, in this case the common dislike of smartphones

from other producers than Apple.

Furthermore, additional themes emerged from the discourses on the exterior design after

Apple’s official marketing communication. These themes consists of short single comments

that acts to fulfill the users need to express their preferences on a variety of topics in relation

to the release of iPhone 5. However, these are left out of this analysis due to the limited scope

of this paper.

21

Conclusion and Critical Self-Reflexion Essentially this paper on online community discourses ahead of the release of the Apple

iPhone 5 has attempted to provide a detailed insight into the dynamics of the field of

marketing communication today by analyzing the interplay and reciprocity between Apple

users and the company in creating/negotiating the value-meaning of a product or brand. The

findings were necessarily interpreted in the context of the shared consciousness, myths and

rituals of Apple communities (as described in the theory section), as to make sense of the

motives and complex modes of engagement and interaction of the Apple community

members.

The first part of the analysis provided an insight in a wholly user-motivated and rumour-

driven discourse on a product, which Apple has officially communicated nothing about. The

discourse is characterized on the one hand by many culture members with ephemeral, but

nonetheless not negligible, community activity, and on the other the deeply engaged devotees

of the Apple brand, who nourish the discourse in order to position themselves socially in a

community and engage deeply, evaluative and critically with the upcoming iPhone, which

essentially enhance the perceived value and consumption experience of the iPhone when

buying it. This becomes apparent in the acknowledgement of the users’ reflexivity and

awareness of their own “pre-release” online activity. The discourse-engagement of both types

of members seems to culminate in a pursuit of the difficult balance between the value-

generating social practice of engaging with rumours and leaks as well as maintaining the thrill

of surprise and mystery.

The presentation of the event invite served to display how Apple marketers are aware of its

users’ value-generating social practice of online-community engagement, and thus utilizes the

myth manifestations and on-going discourse in their marketing communication. By hinting

and leaving clues, the event invite teasingly intensify and implicitly encourage the rumour-

and speculation-mill, thus reinforcing the myths surrounding the brand and creates interest

and awareness of the product.

The cleverly composed event invite combined with the nature of the preceding discourse

means that many themes are extended into the following discourse as well. The hints of Apple

effectively create a ground for emotional engagement through fanatic celebration and

anticipation of the event or trough heated discussions on the name of the iPhone. The

importance of the abovementioned balancing-act gets even more important as the more leaks

and speculations seem to reveal and predict essential features of the iPhone, which limits the

22

opportunities of discursive value-creating and online community engagement. The event

invite seems also to have intensified the bubbling brand meaning negotiation feud between

those expecting notable changes in design of the new iPhone and revolutionary, competitive

innovation from Apple and those who prefer consistency, and staying true to Steve Jobs’

vision of simplistic design and evolutionary perfection.

The necessarily limited empirical data used in this paper composed an analytical challenge to

the authors of going beyond merely describing themes of online-conversations and actually

finding deeper and subtle meanings of discursive dynamic of the online brand community.

The discourses mentioned in the analysis are based on those that were most often mentioned

or had most comments, but the reader of this paper has no way of checking this for him- or

herself, as the authors only provide one or two exemplary comments for each theme of the

discourse. Essentially the time and space spent on justifying of trustworthiness and validity of

findings is limited as a result of the limited scope and energy devoted to this paper.

The topic of the release date alone was actually found sufficient for a comprehensive and

sound analysis of iPhone 5 prerelease community activity, because from this topic easily

flows most of the other main discourses on the iPhone – be it the name, design, competitors,

internal improvements etc.

23

Appendix - Profiles of Websites Used as Data Sources

Everythingicafe.com

A site with massive information on Apple-products and a huge forum with the following

statistics (on 23.12.12): 86,558 discussions (threads), 969,714 messages (posts) and 332,695

members (but also thousands of guest visits and comments every day). This may thus be

characterized as an active Apple-community hub

Imore.com

Imore.com is part of a larger Internet-company called Mobile Nations, which markets five

sites on all the biggest brands in the smartphone-marketplace. Imore.com also contains a very

active forum with endless threats and posts every day on “Apple-issues”.

Gizmodo.com

Gizmodo is a very known and popular user-generated blog about gadgets and technology with

100 million page views a month. It is thus well known within Apple communities and a

frequently used as an information and rumour source.

Loopinsigt.com

One of the numerous and popular hubs for Apple-related blogs, news and forums.

Forums.appleinsider.com

This is also an Apple-focused site with many news, reviews and community-building. It

contains a huge forum with tens of thousands of threads and comments.

Theverge.com

TheVerge.com, founded 2011, “covers the intersection of technology, science, art, and

culture. Its mission is to offer in-depth reporting and long-form feature stories, breaking news

coverage, product information, and community content in a unified and cohesive manner”

24

Presentation of Empirical Data Discourses on the Release Date for the new iPhone

Before official announcement/hint at an iPhone 5 release:

1. http://www.everythingicafe.com/forum/threads/what-is-the-iphone-5-release-

date.96929/

A forum-discussion on the subject.

2. http://www.imore.com/apple-iphone-5-and-ipad-mini-event-planned-september-12-

iphone-5-release-date-september-21

An article that already in July seems to reveal the exact release date of the iPhone 5.

After official announcement/hint at an iPhone 5 release:

3. http://www.everythingicafe.com/forum/threads/official-apple-iphone-5-launch-

event.98122/

A thread on everythingicafe.com as a reaction on the event invite.

4. http://gizmodo.com/5940289/new-apple-stuff-is-coming-on-september-12

An article on the event invite, where the comment field of the article is used as data for the

changes in discourse as a result of Apple’s event invite (this was linked in the above forum of

everythingicafe.com).

5. http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/09/04/apple-announces-special-event-for-

september-12/

Another blog article on Apple’s event invite followed by interesting comment activity

25

Discourses on the Exterior Design of the new iPhone

Before official announcement/hint at an iPhone 5 release:

1. http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/28/3271017/iphone-5-rumors

An article, which, 2 weeks ahead of the official release (the date of which no one other than

Apple themself knew at the time), tries to sum up and present all the rumors concerning the

iPhone 5. Following this article there are also useful online user-discourses reflecting the

comments.

2. http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151811/apples-new-iphone-expected-to-be-18-

thinner-than-iphone-4s

After official announcement/hint at an iPhone 5 release:

1. http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151832/new-photos-of-rumored-next-gen-iphone-

display-shielding-surface-online

2. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/09/05/leaks-accurate-iphone-5-like-iphone4-

and-4s/

A blog, that is talking about how the new iPhone probably will look much like the 4s (one day

after the event invite and six days before potential presentation of iPhone).

3. http://www.everythingicafe.com/leaks-show-iphone-5-battery-packaging-ipad-mini-

die-cast/2012/09/05/

Not a discourse, but an example of the many “leaks” in these days (one day after the event

invite).

26

References Belk, R. W. & Tumblat, G. (2005)“The Cult of Macintosh”, Consumption, Markets and

Culture, 8 (3).

Benveniste, E. (1971) “Problems in General Linguistics”, University of Florida Press,

Miami.

Brown, S. (2001) “Torment Your Customers (They’ll Love It)”, Harvard Business Review, 79

(9).

Campbell, A. H.& La Pastina, A. C. (2010)“How the iPhone Became Divine: New Media,

Religion and the Intertextual Circulation of Meaning”, New Media and Society, 12 (7).

Gonzalez-Herrero, A. & Smith, S. (2008) “Crisis Communications Management on the Web:

How Internet- Based Technologies are Changing the Way Public Relations Professionals

Handle Business Crises”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16 (3) pp. 143-

153.

Hackley, C. (2003)“Doing Research Projects in Marketing Management and Consumer

Research”, Routledge, London.

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

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

Isaacson, W. (2011) “Steve Jobs”, Simon & Schuster, New York.

Kahney, L. (2002) “Worshipping at the Altar of Mac”, Wired, May 12.

Kahney L. (2007)“The Cult of Macintosh”, Starch Press, San Francisco.

Klausen, S. H. (2005) ”Hvad er videnskabsteori”, Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen.

27

Knudsen, G. H. (2012) ”Man’s last stand. Polysemy and Dialogue in Advertising”,

Advertising and Society Review, 13 (2).

Kozinets, R. V. (2002) “The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing

Research in Online Communities”, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (1).

Nisbet, R.& Perrin, R. (1977)“The Social Bond”, McGraw-Hill, New York.

McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., Koenig, H. F. (2002)“Building Brand Community”,

Journal Of Marketing, 66 (1).

Muñiz, A.&O’Guinn, T. (2001)“Brand Community”, Journal of Consumer Research, 27

(March).

Muñiz, A.& O’Guinn, T. (2009)“Collective Brand Relationships” in: Priester, J., MacInnis,

D., Park, C.W. Handbook of Brand Relations, N.Y.

Parker, I. (1992) “Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual

Psychology”, Routledge, London.

Stubbs, M. (1983) “Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language”,

Basil Blackwell, Oxford.