top of page
Search

Thoughts on Topic 3 – Brand Communities

  • Writer: Michael O'Connor
    Michael O'Connor
  • Dec 18, 2020
  • 5 min read

Updated: Dec 20, 2020

DESCRIBE

Like actual communities, online communities are based on shared values, common interests and meaningful connections. Post-modernism facilitated individualism where the interests of one took precedence over the interests of the state or social group. This ‘meta-narrative’ recontextualised truth, prioritising lived experience over set values. Nowadays, people gravitate towards each other based on lifestyle choices, opinions and consumption practices. The internet enables and accelerates this like never-before and one’s community or tribe is no longer limited to those with whom they attended primary school with. On the surface, the internet seemingly connects us all, but perhaps, in a more literal sense, the internet also simultaneously isolates us. We’ve never had so much access to virtual connections. That being said, we’re no longer required to venture outside to experience community. Living out our community life online leaves an immense digital footprint. Therefore, brand communities can be easily identified and categorised. This is positive when it allows us to find like-minded people, but unfortunately, it also presents more opportunities for us to be controlled and thus, limitless connection can also lead to the creation of unsavoury communities.

INTERPRET

Dick Hebdige’s discourse around subcultures was the catalyst for my thoughts around the dangers of the internet. While he’s referring to how subcultures exhibit a distinct fashion sense which defines their image and makes them more easily identifiable, I can’t help but think of how one’s use of social media similarly demonstrates their distinct image or sense of self. Sites like Twitter or Instagram sort of pre-package our views or aesthetics en masse, expanding the confines of subcultures beyond purely aesthetics or geographic location which aligns with Muniz and O’Guinn’s definition of brand communities as “specialised” and “non-geographic-bound.”


However, as the internet is omnipresent and we’re constantly bombarded with images all day, everyday, many people tend to blindly follow what they see or hear online without fact checking anything. Interestingly, at a time of peak technological advancement, this mentality is at odds with that which originated during the Enlightenment Era. The Enlightenment Era, or Age of Reason, was an intellectual and philosophical movement stemming from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was a time of questioning society, challenging ideas and a move towards the scientific method. Regurgitating what you read or see online could not be more dissimilar to the spirit of this era.


Reading about the Enlightenment Era made me think about how far society has strayed from those ideals. We encounter clickbait articles, pseudo-scientific posts and unresearched opinions daily on the internet and these are routinely celebrated. Social media is the metaphorical podium for self-appointed experts to preach to the masses. Of course, people are entitled to have and express their own opinions but something about this feels a tad dangerous and lacking restraint. We’ve never had more access to information but somehow, despite being able to ask Google any question, misinformation is as rife as ever. An amusing example is the internet’s aversion to gluten. It’s estimated that 1 in 133 Americans suffer from celiac disease, but countless American’s opt not to consume gluten due to its perceived negative effects. In 2014, Jimmy Kimmel took to the streets of LA to ask people ‘what even is gluten?’ Hilariously, the vast majority, many of whom identified as gluten-free, could not explain what gluten is or the apparent reasons why it is bad for them. What happened to the Age of Enlightenment’s desire for scientific knowledge? The New York Time’s ‘Rabbit Hole’ podcast reveals a less amusing, more sinister possible consequence of online communities. It documents how the internet is changing and how we change with it. People who found their tribe or community online are interviewed with stories about how participating in these online communities radicalised them. The power of the internet to shape views, specifically those of young men, is explored along with the rise of the far right. The podcast challenges the framing of the internet as a neutral place where we can connect and learn things, looking at how people can become products of their online environment, moulded by the multitude of recommended videos on YouTube, for example.


EVALUATE

The pre-recorded lecture about Reformation also got me thinking about the positive and negative potential of brand communities. The optimistic perspective - brand communities can be advantageous for business and community. For example, Reformation identified 'link value' associated with their brand and noted, for many shoppers, they were viewed as a place to buy bridal party dresses in bulk and created a wedding collection in response. In turn, they better serviced their audience and sold more products. Building from this, I began thinking about this idea's implications when applied to politics. The sheer access to data, at present, is unparalleled. Potential political candidates could tailor their campaigns to appeal to, and even intentionally rile up, the tribes and communities they identify online. With so many opinions in the public domain today, there’s an argument that this could be leveraged to achieve something significant and potentially dangerous. Initially, at the beginning of the referendum and election campaigns, both Brexit and Trump’s odds of victory felt unlikely. Sinn Fein never won as many seats as they did in the most recent election. Brazil elected a polarising nationalist Prime Minister. Would these results have been the same in a world where most voters didn’t use the internet? This is difficult to quantify but I have my suspicions. Are today's anti-mask/vaccination communities, with their rallies and demonstrations, powered by the internet or would they still exist and thrive in its absence?


PLAN

I fully believe that brand communities can be beneficial. Communities based on mutuality and emotional bonds are fine when they are a force for good or even if they simply advocate for something frivolous and inoffensive. However, the key pillars of brand communities - shared consciousness, rituals and traditions and moral responsibility – are characteristics also shared with many cults and Fascist groups. Accordingly, I think we must proceed with caution. We need to vacate the online echo chambers, embrace digital detoxing, expose ourselves to a range of opinions and undergo rigorous critical thinking before arriving at decisions. I don’t believe in censorship of any kind, especially the irresponsible university petitions that try to prevent speakers who don’t align with student’s beliefs from giving lectures. Whether you’re a Ben Shapiro fan or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fan, I subscribe to the idea that one should research things to the best of our abilities, regardless of our political or cultural inclinations, to ensure that we are not used as a pawn in a bigger game. A realignment with the independent thinking objectives of the Enlightenment Era is what I believe is needed.


Reading/Media References

Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting Brand Communities Right. Retrieved 18 December 2020, from https://hbr.org/2009/04/getting-brand-communities-right

Levin, S. (2017). Millionaire tells millennials: if you want a house, stop buying avocado toast. Retrieved 18 December 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/15/australian-millionaire-millennials-avocado-toast-house

O'Neill, B. (2015). Stepford Students safe in their little PC world. Retrieved 18 December 2020, from https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/stepford-students-safe-in-their-little-pc-world-31580241.html


Jimmy Kimmel Live! ‘Pedestrian Question’ Segment

New York Times ‘Rabbit Hole’ Podcast

Topic Three pre-recorded lectures



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page