Branding of Non Profit Organizations, A Case Study of Collaborative Innovation and Commercialization in The U.S.A. Renewable Energy Industry

UNIVERSITEIT
MAASTRICHT BUSINESS SCHOOL (UMBS)

INSTITUT D 'ADMINISTRATION DES ENTREPRISES IAE AIX-‐EN-‐PROVENCE
AUDENCIA NANTES.ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT
ESCUELA DE ALTA DIRECCIÓN Y ADMINISTRACIÓN EADA, BARCELONA
LEON KOZMINSKY ACADEMY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGEMENT (LKAEM)
HHL LIEPZIG GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

And associated partner:
OPEN UNIVERSITEIT NEDERLAND

Master Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Euro*MBA

Branding of non-profit organizations, a case study of
collaborative innovation and commercialization in the U.S.A.
renewable energy industry.
Student:
James Flock
Version date: February 8th, 2010
Supervisor:
Dr. Clemens Bechter

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK:

I affirm that the attached work is entirely my own except where the
words or ideas of other writers are specifically acknowledged through
the use of inverted commas and in-‐text references. This thesis has not
been submitted for any other subject at Euro*MBA or any other
institution. I have revised, edited, and proofread this paper.

J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA
List of Tables and Figures
List of Tables
Table 1: Best Global Brands 2009 (Interbrand) ....................................................................................... 17
Table 2: Total Variance Explained............................................................................................................. 50
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix ......................................................................................................... 51
Table 4: Gender Differences ....................................................................................................................... 64
Table 5: Network Value Cycle (Estimate) ................................................................................................. 82
Table 6: Coefficients Regression................................................................................................................. 83
List of Figures

Figure 1: Research Framework .................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2: VENN-Diagram: Literature Review “Classic” Articles ......................................................... 13
Figure 3: Study 2 Mapping MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009) .............................................................. 16
Figure 4: Price and Product/image differentiation in commodity and branded markets (Pike, 2009)22
Figure 5: Taxonomy User Contribution Systems (Cook, 2008)............................................................... 25
Figure 6: Open Source Model of Wiki-Based Customer-Centricity (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007).... 27
Figure 7: Open and Closed Innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007) ............................................ 28
Figure 8: U.S. Energy Consumption by fuel (EIA, 2009) ......................................................................... 33
Figure 9: U.S. Energy Mix 2008 (EIA, 2009)............................................................................................. 35
Figure 10: Renewable / Nonrenewable Energy Centralized Grid Percentages taken from EIA (EIA,
2009) .............................................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 11: Schematic of an example CM (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007)....................................................... 43
Figure 12: Energy Flow within a Microgrid (Hatziargyriou et al, 2007)................................................ 44
Figure 13: Climate Change Targets, US World Resource Institute (National Grid, 2008) .................. 46
Figure 14: Cluster country distribution..................................................................................................... 66
Figure 15: Cluster variable User_content................................................................................................. 67
Figure 16: Cluster Networkcost.................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 17: Cluster Brand ............................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 18: Cluster Renewables ................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 19: Cluster Residential .................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 20: Cluster Handson ........................................................................................................................ 73
Figure 21: Cluster Leave ............................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 22: Cluster Need_gov....................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 23: Cluster Designers....................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 24: Cluster All_ok ............................................................................................................................ 79
Figure 25: Network Value Cycle (Estimated)........................................................................................... 82
Figure 26: Regression .................................................................................................................................. 84
Figure 27: Renewable Energy Innovation community model ................................................................. 87
List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 5
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................. 7
2
1.1 Rationale of study.................................................................................................................7

1.2 Research Objectives ...........................................................................................................10
1.3 Research Framework and Methodology ..........................................................................11
1.4 Limitations and Scope for Further Research ..................................................................14
2.0 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Branding..............................................................................................................................15
2.1.1 Brand Fundamentals.......................................................................................................15
2.1.2 The Non-Profit Brand .....................................................................................................18
2.1.3 The Commodity Brand ...................................................................................................21
2.1.4 Co-Branding.....................................................................................................................22
2.2 User Contribution Systems................................................................................................24
2.2.1 Innovation Community...................................................................................................24
2.3 Energy..................................................................................................................................32
2.3.1 Market Trends.................................................................................................................32
2.3.2 Conventional Energy Process.........................................................................................37
2.3.3 RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard ............................................................................37
2.3.4 FIT – Feed in Tariff.........................................................................................................39
2.3.5 Smart Grid .......................................................................................................................40
2.3.6 Micro-grid ........................................................................................................................41
2.3.7 Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................45
2.3.8 Technology Trends ..........................................................................................................46
3.0 Dimensions of User Perceptions .............................................................................. 49
4.0 Interpretation of Dimensions ................................................................................... 52
4.1 Innovation Community - Product......................................................................................52
4.2 Illusion of choice - Placement.............................................................................................53
4.3 Signal Processing – Placement ...........................................................................................54
4.4 The RenewShow - Placement .............................................................................................56
4.5 B^3 - Promotion...................................................................................................................57
4.6 Real Deal - Price ................................................................................................................58
4.7 The Man – Incumbent power ..............................................................................................60
4.8 Value for you – Price / Promotion......................................................................................62
5.0 Gender Differences ................................................................................................... 63
6.0 Geographical Grouping............................................................................................ 65
6.1 Gift Economy ......................................................................................................................67
6.2 Community Cost.................................................................................................................68
6.3 Brand ...................................................................................................................................70
6.4 Renewables..........................................................................................................................71
6.5 Residential...........................................................................................................................72
6.6 Learn by doing....................................................................................................................73
6.7 Support ................................................................................................................................75
6.8 Need for Government.........................................................................................................76
6.9 Designers .............................................................................................................................78
6.10 Conventional Wisdom ......................................................................................................79
7.0 Further Qualitative Findings ................................................................................... 80
7.1 Network Equation ..............................................................................................................81
8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 84
3
Appendix.......................................................................................................................... 89
Section A – Survey (Likert Scale) .............................................................................................89
Section B – Group Comparisons (T-Test) .................................................................................91
Section C – Network equation (variation) .................................................................................94
Section D....................................................................................................................................95
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 95
4
Abstract
This research is focused on branding of a renewable energy non-profit. Which
exists in the framework of network theory, open innovation, and methods for new
technology dispersal. To attract or draw members, clients, and supply-chain’s to this
network, a clearly defined value proposition must be embedded in the brand equity.
To create engagement with a potential network member of a non-profit, multi-
stakeholder perception, of renewable energy technologies, methods of brand
communication need to be determined, so as to deliver the value proposition of the brand,
thus influencing the dispersal of the network.
Apriori, the starting points for renewable energy sources are different than that of
non-renewable energy sources. The former are based along the thinking of Rachael
Carson [1962] (Karvonen, 2008) summarized in her breakthrough work titled ‘Silent
Spring.’ Under this view, society is viewed from the socio-bio eco-system perspective,
where the whole is viewed to be greater than the sum of the parts. Whereas the latter,
energy production from non-renewable sources, is based in the context of a synergy of
conventional machines, with defined rational for every part to serve the efficiency of
those controlling the divided parts. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Adam
Smith (1918) called this phenomena division of labor, in his influential book on
economics titled, ‘Wealth of Nations’.
In terms of usage as an energy source, non-renewables are considered an ideal
production source based upon the reliance on a tightly controlled and defined supply
chain from source to consumption. On the other hand, renewables are considered
sensitive in terms of a volatile input imposing environmental constrains, thus affecting
the output capacity, hampering the predictable energy quality and supply.
Early adopters of the Carson view, in the context of energy, accepted the risks
inherent with the output volatility and in turn created a local consumption environment
that seems to, on average, balance consumption with production of electrical energy.
Furthermore, the early adopters made this choice for many reasons, but one factor that all
the early adopters faced as a ramification of their decision was the hurdle of high initial
investment. This high initial investment coupled with other factors, beyond the scope of
5
this paper, is what many consumers consider to be the cause for the lack of real market
penetration of renewables in the U.S.A.
This paper will mainly focus on promoting alternatives in energy production as a
means to increase market penetration of renewable energy and energy efficiency
measures in the U.S.A. The market place has infinite segments and multiple stakeholders
and thus the idea proposed in this analysis is to create a network where open
communication can organically grow, but be monitored and directed. The goal of this
analysis is to address the barriers of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures
from a customer perspective of energy on a massive project scale.
Therefore, the proposal of this paper is to consider a web-based application to
develop an innovation community focused on addressing the issues of the deployment of
renewable energy and energy efficiency concepts for the average consumer. The mixing
of ideas in an open source forum to solve project-based issues should augment existing
programs with a reduced cost and learning curve for the end user. To achieve this
understanding on renewables and energy efficiency, a literature review will be conducted
to identify the fundamentals of an innovation community. More importantly though,
research into the branding process, specifically of a non-profit as a means to engage,
influence, and direct the potential market will be conducted. This project as proposed,
would be initiated in an effort to promote the mass penetration of renewables from a
demand point-of-view, minimizing the need for state intervention in the sector of energy
production and consumption.
To discover if this concept can be achieved or not a user perception survey was
distributed by the way of an online survey. The analysis of the results of the survey
found major dimensions of stakeholder perception combined with gender and
geographical differences. The results are further analyzing in the context of the
extensive literature review to determine a conclusion and also recommendations for
future research in this area.
6
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Rationale of study

In December 2008, a team formed that would create the business plan for a non-
profit business idea known as the Global Sustainability Center (GSC). An entrepreneur,
with little funding, led the project. Three MBA students – two students from Case
Weatherhead School of Management (Cleveland, OH) and one student from the
Euro*MBA (European Consortium) were tasked with constructing the business plan that
would assist them in gaining requirements towards their graduation. The author of this
paper’s role was in the area of the marketing budget and plan. The business plan was to
directly challenge the research findings from a report generated by the Greater Cleveland
Partnership (Greater Cleveland Partnership, 2008), that stated the concept of GSC was,
not a good fit for Cleveland, and would not attract membership beyond the local region,
which limited the concept’s effectiveness for the region.
The GSC concept (Norman, 2009), as initially understood by the MBA students,
was to be a network hub, or an innovation community, that was to target three specific
market segments. This innovation community’s sole purpose was to be the market
incubator for existing products in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector
related to building construction, and would have a physical space, in Cleveland, OH
U.S.A. During the course of the project, the MBA students, as the previous planners
(Greater Cleveland Partnership) before them discovered, that the business concept, as
was presented to them, had many financial short falls in terms of generating sustainable
revenue. The goal of what the business was to conceive was unable to be achieved on the
planned revenue stream. Furthermore, the business GSC, as it was uncovered in the
planning stages, had no real competitive advantage. Therefore, to attract potential
network members, the community of GSC was to rely on the targeted segment’s desire,
portion of their marketing budget, and good will to participate as a member of the
community.
The MBA team agreed that a key feature, namely the branding of the service, was
missing from the original concept. Despite the not-for-profit status, it was determined in
7
the marketing plan that the main competitive advantage for this business concept was
ultimately in the selected brand type. Branding of the business activity was a key factor
in driving the increase in membership. Additionally, as the membership base grew, the
value proposition of a well-connected supply chain could be realized, which would
achieve the mission of the non-profit acting as the market incubator for renewable energy
and energy efficiency technologies for all building types.
However, to develop and promote the brand, it was crucial to maintain a

substantial marketing budget. For the GSC marketing budget plan, as a benchmark,
another non-profit brand, ‘CLE+ / Simply Cleveland’ was referenced for justification of
the financial figures (Norman, 2009) of the planned marketing budget. ‘CLE+’ was used
based upon specific criteria, such as similar mission, region, and concept of creating a
brand to attract businesses to a common hub, Northeast Ohio, or network, business’ in
Northeast Ohio, with the intent to draw upon synergies that can exist once in the
community. Nevertheless, in the business plan, the cash flow curve timeline was very
long to achieve positive cash flow and demonstrated that an annual deficit was going to
occur based upon the large marketing budget and limited number of revenue sources.
After considerable debate, the budget for GSC, was created to move away from
philanthropic institutions as sole funding sources and to operate with less dependency
upon governmental assistance or grants. Therefore, it was then the realization occurred,
supported by the financial figures, that the concept, GSC, as defined initially, was to fail,
the intent to get funding not realized.
One of the M.B.A. students considered an alternative scenario might improve the
chances for sustainable income. That scenario first required feedback to demonstrate
how multi-stakeholders would respond to a renewable energy brand campaign.
Therefore, as the project for the GSC business plan drew to a close, this master’s thesis
began and was to focus on branding a non-profit, the concept of the network, an
interactive web-based community, for connecting supply chains for the renewable energy
and energy efficiency in buildings.
At the time of this writing, the mass market has not adopted renewable energy and
energy efficient technology for many reasons, of which will be the primary discussion of
8
this paper. As one reads this analysis, consider that most if not all, technology follow an
‘S-curve’ in their market share development, therefore, a key statement to make is why is
the distribution of electrical energy different? Is the energy network commodity not
ruled by market forces just as other commodities, products, and services? This paper will
focus on looking to the gap that has formed between multi-stakeholder expectations, the
market demand, and market supply related to renewable energy and energy efficiency
current product and service offerings. Secondly, it will expand upon the evolving
discussion around the innovation community concept, identifying the benefits in
promoting networks and furthering the supply chain connectivity, specifically related to
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
A critical goal of this research is to begin a discussion to determine whether these

open innovation communities truly channel latent innovation at the stakeholder level into
realistic economic activities? Furthermore, it is extremely important to identify the
specific stakeholder brand dimensions to create this engagement, attempting to close the
gap between multi-stakeholder demand and market supply in this U.S.A energy sector.
Throughout this discussion, will be looking to the activity of branding in the

context of a renewable energy in a not-for-profit innovation community. The goal being,
that to truly impact and make the most gains in terms of financial and social reward, the
mainstream stakeholders must feel a connection to this renewable energy technology and
begin to consider the commodity of energy similar to other consumer products where the
illusion of choice is plentiful. This, in turn, would move society towards a more efficient
path when considering the resources on the planet, striking a balance between the Carson
and Smith points of view. Maybe an innovation community for renewable energy can
consider a fresh method to communicate energy and energy efficiency ideas, for instance
what makes the most efficient use of resources: a market or central planning? Possibly a
brand is the tool that could assist in cultivating the demand embedded in the marketplace.
The rationale for organizing as an innovation community and looking to the value
of the user contribution model as a means to incubate technologies and connect unique
value chains; “without departing from the sense of urgency required to address the
pressing needs for sustainable energy systems, it is imperative that the involvement of
9
people at the grassroots level is harnessed and sound commercial and technical criteria
are applied” (Jefferson, 2008). As grass roots activities involve organizing various
disciplines around a common-mission or goal, and relying on time and talent from
volunteers contributing to the mission of the non-profit.
In addition, this research seeks to understand the perception of the stakeholders on

issues surrounding a renewable energy non-profit. This is based on the puzzling
perception, surrounding the latest push of the ‘green’ buzz, in the U.S.A. by the corporate
and political elite. Despite this enormous push, there continues to exist a lack of
proliferation of energy production as renewables, and mainstream efficiency
implementation into buildings. The increased usage, by mainstream media, of the word
‘green’ gives the perception that the stakeholders are interested in adapting the way in
which energy is consumed and produced. However, status quo on both side of the value
chain, for electrical energy, remains dominant in the U.S.A. marketplace.
The confusion on this point is echoed by the McKinsey (2009) Group in their
report titled ‘Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy.’ The preface of the
report introduces the topic as such: “How is it that so many energy efficiency
opportunities worth more than $130 billion annually to the U.S. economy can go
unrealized, despite decades of public awareness campaigns, federal, and state programs
and targeted action by individual companies, non-governmental organizations and private
individuals” (McKinsey, 2009).
Therefore, the scope of the research will focus on the following hypotheses:
Renewable energy products and solutions can gain market share in absence of
governmental support if non-profit innovation communities develop strong brands.
Furthermore, branding is the tool that can create engagement between the market and
information (supply) to make environmentally balanced decisions related to energy
consumption. See Section D in appendix for the historical motivation for this paper and
the connection to Northeast Ohio, U.S.A.
1.2 Research Objectives

It was seen from the GSC business plan that the concept of a market incubator
will not function; sustain revenue, as a brick and mortar entity, at least in Cleveland, OH
10
U.S.A. Either, attracting clients as a B2B hub or an end-user network center or even as
means to connect suppliers with end-users; it seems the concept is not financially
favorable. There is no incentive, as initially proposed in GSC business plan (Norman
2009), in the first instance to attract broad-based clients, the potential community
members, to the center. Therefore, the objectives for this paper are to analyze the
concepts:
1. Non-profit branding to create high level of stake-holder engagement
2. Innovation communities to drive innovation
3. Current U.S. energy market and its branding implications
4. Emerging trends in this area of open innovation and
5. Give recommendations for branding of non-profit organizations involved in

renewable energy.
The research questions are:
• What are the stakeholder’s perceptions of a renewable energy (RE) innovation

community?
• What method of promotion of the RE innovation community will maximize
network growth?
• What is U.S.A. market forecast for energy alternatives?
• Do innovation community’s assist in promoting RE solutions to the market?
1.3 Research Framework and Methodology
11
Figure 1: Research Framework

The focus of the research will be to determine if the weak penetration of
renewable energy and energy efficiency products, mainly in the U.S.A., despite high
degree of product and service differentiation, can be corrected to meet the growing
segment in this commodity sector, by branding a renewable energy innovation
community. The following will be the process to achieve this goal.

1. Perform literature review in the relevant areas
2. Create and distribute a stake-holder perception survey on the topic
3. Analyze the results, quantitatively and qualitatively
4. Draw conclusions from evidence considered in context of theory
5. Make recommendations
12
Literature Review – overview
Figure 2: VENN-Diagram: Literature Review “Classic” Articles
Survey Details
Insight into stakeholder perception on problem statement was to be addressed by

distribution of a survey. The survey was conducted utilizing an online survey tool. The
survey was opened on the 10th of March 2009. It was advertised and distributed on the
author’s personal Facebook and Linked-in pages and through personal emails to
colleagues. Two personal responses were gained from participants working in the
renewable industry; both were given the renewable energy portion of the survey. The
survey was closed online, on the 23rd of March 2009 with 81 respondents initiating the
survey.
The survey was intended to determine the perceptions of the end users of
electricity and renewable products. A non-attribute approach was used. The twenty-two
13
statements made in the survey gauged the respondent’s opinions on a one (low) to seven
(high) Likert scale ranging from least agreement (low) to most agreement (high) with a
four rating as neutral on the statement.
1.4 Limitations and Scope for Further Research

The primary strength of the research was the competence of respondents. Social
networking tools were used to obtain a wide variety of respondents as the network used
had a wide variety of opinions, cultures, and locations. In addition, various groups of
respondents from different nationalities and industry backgrounds responded to the
survey. Countries of the respondents were recorded for geographical clustering purposes.
A weakness of the data collection is that a more targeted audience (stake-holders)

in the form of a Quota sampling would potentially provide more specific details in the
actual brand construction and brand dimension for a potential value proposition.
Furthermore, the research was unable to get at the critical factors of a realistic
brand launch program. To achieve this, the survey requires revision and a more costly
distribution to target segments that would be potential members in the non-profit business
concept. Finally, this activity if placed more specifically, in the context of brand
perception, referencing other non-profit brands would possibly yield more specific details
on brand dimensions required to accurately address the problems of creating the brand
personality.
With the introduction, rationale, and framework established, the analysis will now
begin. The literature review will explore three primary areas, Branding, Innovation
Community, and Energy in the U.S.A. The section 2.1, branding, is a composite of
research based in theory throughout the 1990’s to the present, at the time of this writing.
2.0 Literature Review

14
2.1 Branding
“Steve Case co-founder of America Online stated in a May 2005 Wall Street
Journal article,that brand programs can contribute to ‘significant social change.’ I can't
agree more, but would add this: These programs (non profit-branding) will drive social
change that will endure” (Chiagouris, 2005).
2.1.1 Brand Fundamentals

Brand definitions include brands being a logo, legal instrument, image in the
consumer’s mind, risk reducer, value system, adding value, personality, relationship,
shorthand an evolving entity, a company and an identity system (Dickenson & Barker,
2007). Branding, endowing services and products with the power of a brand, is currently
and has in the past been an effective way to communicate meaning. The meaning
communicated often was important to the establishment of a shared set of values between
the individuals that recognized and respected the brand. For example, to brand is literally
to label, burn or mark. Even to place indelibly in the memory or stigmatize. Originating
in pre-Roman livestock, pottery, and medieval trades, brands marked identifiable
distinctions in property as proof of ownership or marks of infamy (Room, 1998) and
established differentiated and recognizable identities for goods and trades in competition
(Tregear, 2003). Brand names, signs and logos evolved to identify and articulate the
character of goods and services (Riezebos, 2003) and reassure consumers of quality
(Pike, 2009). Furthermore, successful brand managers “recognize that people do not
respond to objective reality but to their perception of reality” (Boulding 1956; Stride and
Lee, 2007). Therefore, if put into context of a brand campaign, a brand does not need to
provide the appearance of being connected to the product or service offered. This
statement is based upon the concept that, “a brand is used as an expression of one’s
personality” (Aaker, 1996).
Branding, currently, can be a costly endeavor. For example, the cost of
introducing a new brand in some consumer markets has been estimated to range from $10
million to more than $200 million (Kolter &Amstrong, 2004; Kwon, 2006). Branding is
extremely costly when gender specific brands are utilized. Instead of double branding to
15
meet the gender preferences, “ a growing trend of companies is using the same brand
name to target both sex segments” (Kwon, 2006).
Figure 3: Study 2 Mapping MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009)

As the figure 3 above demonstrates, contemporary brands are located in what
could be considered, in the range of slightly masculine to nearly neutral gender. The
grouping cluster on the chart in Figure 3 is measured by the y axis of masculine brand
personality [MBP] and x axis of feminine brand personality [FBP]. Research of the
critical role of gender in a brand demonstrates a strong factor that men will almost reject
feminine brands while women will most likely accept masculine brands (Kwon, 2006).
To go further on this, men tend to exaggerate the differences in brands more markedly
than women (Kwon, 2006). Essentially, men identify with a male oriented brand and will
reject a female oriented brand.
16
Brand ranking from 2009 demonstrates the value of equity in a brand. The data in
Table 1 can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but what should be noted, relevant to this
study; brand equity is extremely important for products that exist in markets where threat
of substitution are high and for products that are attempting to ‘pull the market up’ based
on the price point, which are dependent on the targeted segment’s image of social class.

Table 1: Best Global Brands 2009 (Interbrand)

Rank Company Country of Brand Value ($m)
ownership
1 Coca-Cola USA 68734

2 IBM USA 60211
3 Microsoft USA 56647
4 GE USA 47777
5 Nokia Finland 34864
6 McDonalds USA 32275
7 Google USA 31980
8 Toyota Japan 31330
9 Intel USA 30636
10 Disney USA 28447
11 HP USA 24096
12 Mercedes-Benz Germany 23867
13 Gillette USA 22841
14 Cisco USA 22030
15 BMW Germany 21671
16 Louie Vutton France 21120
17 Marlboro USA 19010
18 Honda Japan 17803
19 Samsung Republic of Korea 17518
20 Apple USA 15433

“Over time, branded objects and branding processes accumulate histories that
are social and spatial and matter to their evolution.” (Pike, 2009)
Brands are essential for communication in a society where value is exchanged.

These brands are costly to cultivate and thus typically drive to engage across gender
lines. “Similar to cultural or country stereotypes, gender stereotypes should influence
the perception and judgment of any object, including consumer products and brands”
(Alreck, Settle and Belch, 1982). Keller (1998) also argues that some brands in the
marketplace possess certain gender-specific associations so that consumers associate the
individual brand’s user as specifically from either sex.
Nevertheless, the concept of the brand and the relevance to the target segment is
of extreme relevance. The brand is “imbued with its own unique qualities and
17
characteristics, a brand can provide emotional and self-expressive benefits to the

consumer” (Stride and Lee, 2007). To engage the target, the brand must drive to the core
instinct, connecting with the inner self. “An understanding of the complex value
dimensions operating within the brand relationship provides the consumer with an
opportunity to express symbolically an actual self” (Belk, 1988), or an ideal self
(Malhotra, 1988). Brand image, or how the consumer perceives the brand, plays a central
role in the Customer Based Brand Equity model (Keller, 1998) where it is claimed that
the power of a brand lies in what resides in the minds of customers (Stride and Lee,
2007). Moreover, valued brands achieve this inner brain, emotional, connection with the
consumer.
Branding is primarily conducted to grab and maintain the attention of the

consumer. This activity, the grabbing attention, is an effect of the market that the product
or service resides within. Typically in markets where multiple products are competing
for attention, differentiation or the appearance of being different is natural. Being
different and expressing this difference, individuality, is the forward movement in the
social human experience. In the arena of product and service competition, the
brandscape, brands exhibit very similar characteristics. These characteristics beam to the
consumer the attempt to convey a difference, an attempt to stand-alone from the others.
However, whilst differentiation remains the key objective of branding (Kapferer,

1992), the focus of branding has shifted from the tangible aspects such as name and logo
to intangible elements such as brand personality and emotional benefits (Aaker, 1996;
Keller, 1998). With advances in technology that made it possible for companies to
replicate high quality products of their competitors it was no longer sufficient just to
promote a product, it had to be enhanced in some way (Kotler, 1997). Brands therefore
acquired an emotional dimension that reflected buyers' moods, personalities, and the
messages they wish to convey to others (de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1998;
Stride and Lee, 2007).
2.1.2 The Non-Profit Brand

Brands are the natural response of a desire for engagement in a competitive
environment. Competition for awareness or attention has been a constant for most brands
18
observed in the for-profit sector. Increasingly, as the climate of human consciousness

shifts to an increase in social concerns, many for profit companies are not prepared to
meet the new social requirements from an overly informed and aware market.
Recently, as of this writing, more and more non-governmental organizations have

been increasing their presence, attempting to meet a demand not being filled by the for
profit companies. With the rise in non-profit organizations, many of these organizations
have overlapping missions. While resources and capital are typically derived from the
same sources, the burden to standout, to attract the resources and capital, falls on the non-
profit organization. This requirement of needing resources and capital puts downward
pressure on the organization to meet its mission. “One of the ways in which non-profits
are responding to this increase in competition is by adopting branding techniques
developed in the corporate context” (Stride and Lee, 2007).
This shift in thinking, branding a non-profit, moves the organization away from
the typical cycle of dependence upon philanthropic donations and governmental funding.
Again, the branding activity seems to be a natural posture when value differences exists
and resources are limited. However, while branding a non-profit may seem natural in a
competitive world, it is argued by some, that brand orientation helps voluntary
organizations develop trust across key stakeholder communities (Tapp, 1996; Ritchie,
Swami et al., 1998), strengthen awareness amongst target audiences (Hankinson, 2000)
and build charity loyalty within donor and supporter groups (Ritchie, Swami et al., 1998),
other academics and practitioners have expressed concern that the unquestioned adoption
of techniques developed in the for-profit context has contributed to the charity sector
becoming over-commercialized (Sternberg 1998; Salamon 1999; Stride and Lee, 2007).
Despite the grumbling from the academics and pure practitioners, branding a non-
profit is extremely practical in terms of budget efficiency, if people are going to donate
time or money or become members, they want to know what the brand is all about; they
want to know the mission statement (Chiagouris, 2005). More importantly, “a
compelling brand image is more important to non-profits than commercial sector
companies for one fundamental reason: Nonprofits do not have the resources to send their
messages to large numbers of people through the media. They cannot solve awareness
19
challenges with more advertising weight, but must define and execute their branding
objectives right out of the gate” (Chiagouris, 2005).
Perhaps the academics and practitioners are concerned about the subtle
differences in branding between the for-profit and non-profit sector. The initial reaction
from the academic is first and foremost, skepticism. This skepticism is not unwarranted,
as the nuances between the profit and non-profit sector must be managed. Effective
brand management in the non-profit context is more complex than simply satisfying
donor needs. To be truly effective, non-profit brands need to address a number of
additional organizational objectives. The most widely cited include lobbying
(Hankinson, 2000), education and the communication of the cause itself (Tapp, 1996) and
image and reputation management (Polonsky and Macdonald, 2000; Stride and Lee,
2007).
The non-profit is thought to be meeting needs that focus on the common good,
where return on risk (financial) is not possible to be recovered. The common good is
structured or rather rests upon a foundation of a clearly defined value system. This value
system is what the non-profit typically promotes through its operations, working to fulfill
its mission. “For an organization to work towards a specific charitable purpose that is of
benefit to society, it must have a value system that both underpins and indeed drives the
charity's operations. This implies that the values are not optional or negotiable but are
integral to the organization itself” (Stride and Lee, 2003). This contrasts with the more
flexible nature of values in the commercial context, the objective of which is to ensure
survival in an external environment (Schein 1985; Stride and Lee, 2007).
Promotion of nonprofits typically come in the form of some benefit or activity

that generates interest based on personal gratification or social event but also has the
additional benefit that the money generated from the registration is destined for the
mission of the nonprofit. Athletic events typically bring the participants together and
thus their participation promotes the brand of the nonprofit furthering the mission. The
Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The USP is central to the brand message. Some call it
the brand promise; others refer to it as the net impression. Whatever the label, it is the
20
primary thought the target audience should take from encounters with the brand, a
composite of brand attributes and benefits (Chiagouris, 2009).
In this instance the non-profit with limited financial resources can now reach and
engage a customer base that will associate the mission favorably based on the already
existing equity in the commercial brand. These brands or products can be represented
physically (e.g. bundled package of two or more brands) or symbolically (e.g.
advertisement) by association of brand names, logos or other proprietary assets of the
brand. Various terminologies have been used to describe these alliances including cause
branding strategies (Cone et al., 2003) cause-marketing alliances (Till & Nowak, 2000),
co-branding (Dickinson & Ramaseshan, 2004a, 2004b), cross promotion, joint branding
and symbiotic marketing (Adler, 1966). Brand alliances generate a relationship that is
not necessarily ‘cause' specific (as in cause-related marketing) and as such, are an overall
collaboration between two partner brands without necessarily referring to a specific
charity drive event (Dickinson & Barker, 2007).
Lastly, whilst concentration upon mission and vision achievement and core values
is crucial to successful branding, so to remains the ability to differentiate through image
in a competitive and increasingly cluttered marketplace. The majority of non-profit
branding commentators would agree, is first achieved through effective logo, tagline and
identity design (Ind and Bell 1999, Naddaf 2004; Stride and Lee, 2007).
2.1.3 The Commodity Brand

Commodity branding is the alternative approach to marketing that could
potentially have value for the RE, renewable energy, innovation community.
Observations in other sectors demonstrate the success of this particular type of branding.
For example the, ‘got, milk?’ branding campaign was a tremendous success, in that it
influenced demand to meet the over production on the supply of milk in the US dairy
farmer market. Awareness of the ‘got milk?’ branding campaign rated of 90% nationally
(US), making it a highly successful brand (Christensen, 2008). “A commodity is a good
with very little differentiation. Beef, milk, cell phones, and PV, photovoltaic, are all
examples of commodities. When it comes to marketing a commodity an individual
company’s marketing expenditures tend to have a poor return.” (Renewable Energy
21
World, 2008). Furthermore, “Instead of putting so much emphasis into nickel and diming
the cost effectiveness of solar, perhaps the solar industry would be best served by
utilizing a collective branding effort in order to bring solar to the mainstream”
(Renewable Energy World, 2008). Note the chart below to gauge the stark difference
between commodity and branded markets.
Figure 4: Price and Product/image differentiation in commodity and branded markets (Pike, 2009)
2.1.4 Co-Branding
Brand alliances build brand equity by transferring new associations between

partner brands and increasing familiarity across established as well as new markets. From
a commercial entity perspective, developing brand capital is a financial burden making
branding alliances appealing as they result in image enhancement because nonprofit
brand knowledge structures usually have higher levels of trust and confidence that can be
transferred to the commercial entity (Austin, 2000; Dickenson & Barker, 2007).
22
Alternatively, “The twenty-first century will be the age of alliances. In this age,
collaboration between non-profit organizations and corporations will grow in frequency
and strategic importance (Dickenson & Barker, 2007).”
Possibly the largest hurdle for the branding of a non-profit is financing the brand
program. To meet this challenge, a particular technique, co-branding, is introduced to
further the brand of the non-profit to the market. Brand extension theory provides a
strong basis to understand evaluations in the context of co-branding. The key
assumptions of this theory are that if respondents view a match' or 'fit' between the
original brand and the extended brand (or in this case two individual partner brands) then
the positive associations that the respondent holds towards the original brand (each
individual partner brand) may be transferred to the new extension the brand alliance
(Aaker and Keller, 1990) and there may be resulting spillover effects on original brand
attitudes (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Dickinson & Barker, 2007).
Partnering with a commercial brand can introduce the less known non-profit
image to an already existing, ready and waiting audience. “Non profit entities can acquire
financial resources from the commercial partner through long term alliance sponsorships,
together with cause-related donations that the commercial brand may choose to support
as well as benefits of more favorable brand attitudes due to positive associations derived
from the commercial partner brand. Similarly, commercial entities want to gain more
from their brands and one way to do this is to form branding alliances with non-profit
organizations where response to their brand is attenuated as a result of the alliance
associations” (Porter and Kramer, 2002).
Ultimately, by having a brand alliance, organizations are able to transfer original

brand attitudes from a partner brand to their own brand, which is a more economical way
of managing brand knowledge (Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Given that a key motivation
of commercial entities is to transfer positive affect between a non-profit brand and their
commercial brand, the measure of how great an impact the brand alliance has had is
ultimately the spillover effects. These spillover effects relate to changes in brand
attitudes, brand image and brand equity (Javalgi et al., 1994; Dickinson & Barker, 2007).
The brand must be promoted in networks beyond the do-it-yourselfers, the early
23
adopters of RE technology. Various terminologies have been used to describe these

alliances including cause branding strategies (Cone et al., 2003) cause-marketing
alliances (Till and Nowak, 2000), co-branding (Dickinson and Ramaseshan, 2004a,
2004b), cross promotion, joint branding and symbiotic marketing (Adler, 1966). Brand
alliances generate a relationship that is not necessarily ‘cause' specific (as in cause-related
marketing) (Dickenson & Barker, 2007).
Perceived fit between two brand partners in an alliance has been seen to be
important for positive brand alliance evaluations (Keller and Aaker, 1992; Simonin and
Ruth, 1998). Indeed, the majority of the literature reviewed suggests that the most
important condition for brand enhancement is the fit between the core brand: and the
extension. Past research has shown that consumer perceptions of how well the products
together influenced attitudes toward the joint offering of the partners (Yadav, 1993;
Simonin and Ruth, 1995 Park et al, 1996; Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Dickinson & Barker,
2007).
With an increasing interest in non-profit and commercial alliances such as recent

high profile alliances between McDonald's and Diabetes Australia as well as Toyota and
Planet Ark, an understanding of how consumers receive these alliances is important.
Brand alliances rely on 'transfer’ affect (Dickenson & Barker, 2007). The synthesis of
the two forces is the brand and thus the promotional atmosphere must incorporate
participants from both of these factions in a non-compromising or non-threatening way.
The fundamentals of branding, in both a profit and non-profit framework are

important to the analysis underway in this document. Branding is the tool to connect to
the market. In this next section, will discuss the ‘what’ is suggested to connect to the
market. Therefore, the discussion will now turn to the innovation community or the
network and open innovation.
2.2 User Contribution Systems
2.2.1 Innovation Community

The concept of user contribution isn’t new. However, both the Internet highfliers
(E-Bay, Amazon, etc.) and the old-economy behemoths (General Motors, General
24
Electric, I.B.M. etc.) – have actively created something called a user contribution system.
That is, they’ve created methods, usually internet-based, for aggregating and leveraging
people’s contributions or behaviors in ways that are useful to other people (Cook, 2008).
In an innovation community, user content is the commodity or the currency that is
in circulation. The value of the community is made by the volume of subscriber content,
user contribution, in circulation in the respective network. “The discussion of user
contribution systems, a.k.a. innovation communities, involves two types: active and
passive systems” (Cook, 2008).
Figure 5: Taxonomy User Contribution Systems (Cook, 2008)

Active systems, such as these, focus the image of the network on specifically
attracting subscribers to contribute content. Conversely, passive systems tend to rely on a
25
technology or infrastructure that is designed to collect and log data and determine trends
in consumer behaviors.
User contribution systems turn to the consumers for the concepts that will
generate value. “These systems pose a challenge to the long unquestioned beliefs about
management and the role of management (in an organization), the value of experts and
the need for control of the customer experience and the importance of quality assurance
(Cook, 2008). User contribution systems inverses the traditional organization
information flow in that it, “creates value for a business as a consequence of the value it
delivers to users” (Cook, 2008).
The innovation community leverages a synergy that can naturally occur in a

community, the sharing and knowledge transfer between non-official partnerships,
facilitating the organic growth of a network. Once members, of the community, exist
utilizing and adding content to the network, the value of the network increases at a rate
greater than one for every new member (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007). This rate of
increase of membership is driven by a low entry barrier to join the network. A low,
financial, barrier to enter the community often drives the high subscription rates in these
communities because, for a user contribution system, payment can destroy participation
by undermining a sense of collaboration and trust. Rather, these systems rely on
motivations intrinsic to humanity (Cook, 2008).
The concept of the innovation community challenges the conventional thinking in

respect to the core drivers of value creation and human economic activity. The challenge
is that, “we are not only acquisitive economic beings but also inquisitive social beings
with a desire for other forms of interaction, oriented around shared identities, values and
community spirit, which enable us, in varying degrees, to shape our lived experience
outside the realm of commodities and prices” (Currah, 2007).
An open innovation platform is a framework that channels the user contribution to

value creation. In active systems, motivation by the participants is extremely critical to
developing the community. To attract members who would like to contribute, a certain
level of organization structure needs to be in place to allow the contribution to be
26
channeled effectively. The five factors that are important for facilitating participation in
an open source community are (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007):
• Value Proposition
• Community Expertise
• Governance of the community
• Processes for co-creation
• Technology
Figure 6: Open Source Model of Wiki-Based Customer-Centricity (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007)

These factors are considered the critical reference for the open source or wiki-
community to grow and cultivate value from the community. With these factors in place,
can then characterize the types of open and closed innovation platforms. Defined,
passive systems tend to be more ‘in-house’; where active systems lean towards a
27
community-driven approach.
“If we are to make strategic sense of innovation communities, ecosystems,

networks, and their implications for competitive advantage, we need a new approach to
strategy—what we call open strategy” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
Figure 7: Open and Closed Innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007)

An open innovation system creates value when community-driven. However, the
open innovation presents a challenge to the conventional method of conducting business
because “shifting the focus from ownership to the concept of openness requires a re-
consideration of the processes that underlies value creation and value capture. Our notion
of openness is defined as the pooling of knowledge for innovative purposes where the
contributors have access to the inputs of others and cannot exert exclusive rights over the
resultant innovation. In its purest form, the value created through an open process would
28
approach that of a public good. It would be ‘non-rival’ in that when someone ‘consumed’
it, it would not degrade the experience of a subsequent user. It also would be ‘non-
excludable’ so all comers could gain access...” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
Open innovation takes confidence and self-assurance on the part of the

management to allow value creation processes to become non-linear and incorporate the
intangibles of social interaction. However, the open innovation user contribution system
still must possess some structured role to utilize the value created in the community, as
noted in the model. Management of the company retains control of the system and may
choose to modify its design, the system, converting inputs into useful outputs in real time
with little or no intervention by the company (Cook, 2008). The company and
management processes become the conduit to channel innovation rather than being the
driver of innovation. “All of the traditional views are based upon ownership and control
as the key levers in achieving strategic success. All focus largely within the firm, or
within the value chain in which the firm is embedded. None take much notice of the
potential value of external resources that are not owned by the firm in question, but may
nonetheless create value for the firm. These external resources, such as volunteer
contributors, innovation communities and ecosystems, and surrounding networks
represent growing sources of value creation…” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
An effective open strategy will balance value capture and value creation instead
of losing sight of value capture during the pursuit of innovation (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). The members of the community are thus bound by sharing the value
that unfolds from their contributions. The circulation of gifts leaves a series of
interconnected relationships in its wake which imbues the community with a form of
decentralized cohesiveness (Hyde 2006: Currah, 2007). This cohesiveness begins to
form a commons not only of resources but also of shared values (Hess & Ostrom 2007;
Currah, 2007). Gifted information from a community member has higher content value
based upon the social value exceeding the commercial value (Currah, 2007). Which
supports the statement, “today we see communities with evolving patterns of
participation, value derived from co-created knowledge rather than software artifacts,
knowledge that evolves as it is used rather than treated as an object that is periodically
29
released, and technologies specifically suited for co-creation rather than adopted for
discussions and version control...” (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007).
Open innovation is a balance, a balance between the two extreme poles of

extreme commercial interests and those of extreme social connectivity. For example,
“an excessive degree of commodification and control (through property rights) risks the
enclosure and under-utilization of creative works ; while an excessive degree of sharing
and freedom (through gift exchange) risks the implosion and underproduction of creative
works…” (Currah, 2007). Determining this balance is where the role of management is to
be asserted in this emerging innovative environment. Similar to current transactions,
“the emergence of the digital networked environment has sparked a battle between, on
the one hand, the corporations and, on the other hand, advocates of digital freedom, free
culture, and cyber liberty…” (Currah, 2007).
As a result of the user contribution system a new economy is burgeoned to form.

This environment where users transfer ideas self-generated or a derivative of a copy
righted are collectively known as the realm of the gift economy. “These gift economies
operate within virtual spaces of social interaction that have been opened up by Internet-
based communications protocol… as a result the Internet actually comprises a network of
myriad gift economies, which continue to undergo expansion and diversification, both in
parallel and at the intersection of different communication protocols…” (Currah, 2007).
The gifts created by the users in a sense are advertisements. The contributions
lead to the formation of the contributor’s brand. Each contribution that is created for the
network or shared with the network has in a sense the elements of a personal
advertisement. Three dimensions motivate consumers to create advertisements: Intrinsic
enjoyment, Self Promotion and Change Perception (Berthon et al, 2008). These gifts
allow for cross-pollination between the centrally controlled market structures. This
mixing of markets based now on the preference of the actors within the networked
communities drives consumer preference at the source. The innovation community can
be the market place for most distant of market actors. This activity has been defined by
O’Reilly (2005) as web 2.0 or e-commerce.
30
The innovation community, which has been facilitated by improvements in

technology, from the centralized corporations, is the driver that has formed what is called
the web 2.0 commerce. The core competencies (of a web 2.0 business) O’Reilly listed
are:
• The company provides services, not packaged
software, and they can be cost-effectively scaled
• They have control over the content in their database,
which gets richer the more people use it
• They trust users as co-designers
• They harness collective intelligence
• They leverage "the long tail" of the Web through
customer self-service,
• Their software is not platform specific,
• Their user interfaces, development models and business models are
‘lightweight’ and can be "snapped together" and ‘mashed up,’” (O’Reilly,
Christopher, 2007)
The Web 2.0 based market tells the story of the natural or organic capacity of
human interaction, and that is witnessed through the myriad’s of web-based commercial
and social transactions daily. O'Reilly calls hyper-linking ‘the foundation of the Web’
because users add new content and new sites and as other users discover them, they
create hyper-links that bind them together into the network. The web of connections
grows organically (O’Reilly, Christopher, 2007).
“Simply put, commodities and gifts are both vital to the expression of creativity in
its myriad forms” (Currah, 2007).
From this point in the literature review, the theory is in place for the business
concept of the scope of this document. However, it is also of extreme importance to
place these concepts in a practical setting where it will serve the market. Therefore, the
next chapter will briefly address regulatory and market mechanisms from a historical
reference to what is currently attempting to meet the market’s demand for alternatives in
energy market in the U.S.A.
31
2.3 Energy
“Externalities are defined as benefits or costs generated as an unintended by-
product of an economic activity that do not accrue to the parties involved in the activity.
Environmental externalities are benefits or costs that manifest themselves through
changes in the physical– biological environment” (Owen, 2006).

2.3.1 Market Trends

“We are currently witnessing one of those rare events in history when there arises
a head-on conflict between a line of development in a society and a new social attitude.
Consider these alternatives:
• On the one side, we have a vigorous growth in energy consumption, closely

related to a rising standard of living.
• On the other side, we have a widespread public concern with preservation of the
environment, which has been translated into restrictive standards and regulations”
(Netschert, 1973).
The above was written in the early 1970’s. Below is the current prediction of fuel
consumption.
32
Figure 8: U.S. Energy Consumption by fuel (EIA, 2009)
The irony is that after a generation of awareness, the topic of energy production
and consumption remains under debate with no equitable solution for both sides of the
equation concretely developed. The social-bio concerns echoed by the ‘Carson’
philosophic view are being addressed by an attempt at a ‘race to the top’ global
legislation, yet the commercial burden of this will be passed onto the consumer in the
form of taxation. While the commerce business first, Laissez-faire market advocates
remain challenged and insecure as the transaction costs, the social costs to the commons,
of energy production remain debated. However, this area is currently under much debate
and the outcomes at the time of the writing have not been completely defined.
The energy market in the U.S.A. has been a tightly state regulated sector.
However, despite the strong controls imposed by state regulation related to the
production and transmission and distribution of electrical energy, only a handful of
private firms or holding companies manage the operations of these capital-intensive
activities. This oligopic control of the energy commodity, which in general allows growth
and progress, has brought unification to the U.S.A. market place, but has also been slow
to adapt to the changing social demands, related to conservation and efficiency.
“Consider first the matter of energy growth. The aggregate consumption of energy
33
in the United States has increased in almost every year of this century except during the
depression years in the 1930's. One of the causes of the growth in energy consumption is,
of course, population increase…” (Netschert, 1973). Also it was recognized then that
“the energy growth rate has been faster than that of population, indicating that per capita
consumption is also increasing. This is due in large part to the increasing ‘electrification’
of energy use. The growth in electricity consumption has consistently exceeded that of
aggregate energy consumption: the compound growth rate during the 1960's was 7.57%;
per-capita use increased at an annual rate of 6.2% (Netschert, 1973). In large measure,
this reflects general affluence, in which householders continue to acquire high-load
appliances and equipment such as electric dryers, quick-recovery water heaters, self-
cleaning ovens, frost-free refrigerators, color TV sets, air-conditioning, and electric space
heating (Netschert, 1973).
While holding the historical mirror to face of the U.S.A. policy makers and to the
politicians engaged in the control of energy in the U.S.A. (is somewhat enjoyable), the
scoff of pious disdain shouldn’t be left un-challenged. To be fair, there has been some
movement in the energy marketplace to address the concerns of Netschert’s (1973) article
addressing the Carson point-of-view concerns. The increasing presence of renewable
energy production demonstrates the means to produce energy can be achieved in balance
with environmental concerns. Figure 9 below provides a breakdown of the energy
sources in terms of BTU (British Thermal Units) for the U.S.A. in 2008.
“Thus, the promotion of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels involves a complex

process of interaction among a variety of actors” (Ogihara et al, 2007).

34
Figure 9: U.S. Energy Mix 2008 (EIA, 2009)
The planned centralized grid for 2020 provides a mix of energy production
sources of which renewables are expected to become 10% (EIA, 2009) of that production
mix. To achieve this increase there are to be regulatory instruments to assist this energy
production mix target. Feed in tariff, Renewable Portfolio Standards, Smart Grid, and a
possible Carbon Tax are regulatory techniques that are devised to proliferate market
penetration of energy from renewable sources along with improving the management of
individual building energy usage. The method least discussed to achieve higher
renewable energy production sources is a technique called decentralized energy, a.k.a.
Micro-grid.
Much of the literature on this topic states that the penetration of renewable energy
and energy efficiency lags far behind the stakeholder perspective in the first instance, and
in the second, in terms of financial gains made in energy savings. For example, “surveys
consistently reveal customer preference for green power.” (P&GJ, 2002) However,
despite the technologies for energy efficiency and production being readily available “the
consumer adoption has been slow…” (Caird & Roy, 2008). In addition, according to the
McKinsey (2009) report, the energy efficiency sector, if executed at scale, a holistic
35
approach would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion. For example,
just taking one portion of the renewable technologies production portfolio, photovoltaic
(PV) at $2 to $2.50 per installed watt, the annual market potential for grid-connected
residential and commercial building PV applications is estimated at 2,900 MW,
representing an annual market of about $6.6 billion, including equipment and
installations (Renewable Energy World, 2005). Nevertheless, the bottom line for
renewable energy systems, the starting points (for renewable energy systems) are very
low. Even 30% per annum increases in rated capacity (it) takes many years to make a big
impact at the global level (Jefferson, 2008).
From a financial rational perspective, slow adoption of renewable or green

technologies is slow, simply stated, because the risk premium of investment in these
technologies on conventional scaled implementation is too high. Energy as a commodity
has remained largely produced by non-renewable sources for the reason that non-
renewable commodities are non-stochastic, whereas renewable sources contain
uncertainty in supply, which increases the risk premium during investment planning.
This “uncertainty, of renewable resources, reduces rent and increases the rate of
extraction of the resource but has implications for the degree of regulation when property
rights cannot be assigned and maintained…” (Pindyck, 1984). However, if demand for
the nonrenewable “resource is elastic so that the extraction rate falls when the stock is
low, then less regulation may be needed…” (Pindyck, 1984). From the stakeholder
perspective, the basic human need to feel secure dominates the discussion on energy and
less about determining the risk premium on a stochastic resource. Nevertheless, “the
conventional wisdom has been that ecological uncertainty increases the need for
regulation” (Pindyck, 1984).
In the USA energy market the beginning of regulatory and policy level techniques
are being introduced as a method to meet the socio-ecologic concern from the market.
The following are a few of the predominant policy level techniques that promise to bring
higher penetration of renewables and energy efficiency to the market. However, it
remains difficult to predict that any of these techniques are reacting to the market demand
appropriately. This is based upon the fundamentals that, the speed of the development of
alternative energy is limited by the laws of physics and economics. Regardless of their
36
good intentions, legislators cannot circumvent these engineering and market realities by
simply ordering the purchase of specified percentages of RPS (renewable portfolio
standards) qualifying energy on a politically developed schedule (Greenwald, 2007).
2.3.2 Conventional Energy Process
Figure 10: Renewable / Nonrenewable Energy Centralized Grid Percentages taken from EIA (EIA,
2009)
FIT = FEED IN TARIFF (FIT Coalition, 2009); RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standard (FIT Coalition, 2009)
2.3.3 RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard

After reviewing the research on this subject the following definition provides the
most straightforward definition. “A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires
utilities to generate an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable
resources” (Goldstein, 2007). These standards are typically introduced, in the U.S.A., at
37
the state legislation level. Politicians and policy makers drafted the RPS targets and their
associated time frames to compliance.
From the research there demonstrates much lack of faith or credibility in the
ability of the RPS to meet social and economic demands. For example, “these initial
RPS initiatives have served their purpose: jump-starting the desired rejuvenation, and
promoting the accelerated development, of alternative energy projects. However,
imposition of RPS standards by themselves will not achieve the desired transition away
from our fossil fuel dominated generation facilities. In fact, exclusive resort to
increasingly more exacting RPS standards, along with a series of other regulatory and
utility practices, could actually inhibit the development of renewable resources, deprive
consumers of their benefits and, ironically, preserve thermal dominance…” (Greenwald,
2007).
The research continues to uncover that, one predominant theme in American

energy and electricity policy is the idea of a ‘portfolio approach’ or that society must
embrace an assortment of different energy technologies simultaneously. This strategy, in
practice, is (a) biased, since fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have been heavily
favored; (b) opaque, obscuring the different full social costs of energy systems; (c)
inequitable, promoting technologies that contribute to climate change; and (d)
unsophisticated, ignoring important qualitative differences among technologies
(Sovacool, 2008).
If indeed RPS is driving for a variety of sources for energy production, possibly
the proliferation of energy from a multiple sources would be greater. However, “the fact
that most hydroelectric resources are excluded from RPS-eligible status reveals an
unfortunate political reality: RPS status often reflects local political and competitive
situations, rather than objective scientific criteria. The California statute that generically
denies RPS eligibility to all combustion municipal solid waste generators, but for one
located in Stanislaus County and... operation prior to September 26. 1996, epitomizes the
partisan influences permeating RPS programs...” (Greenwald, 2007). At the time of this
writing there is no federal level RPS for the U.S.A.
38
2.3.4 FIT – Feed in Tariff

Recognizing the slow progress of RPS programs, an alternative known as a feed-
in-tariff (FIT) is promoted as the most effective and practical method for integrating
renewables onto the energy grid. A much simpler and comprehensive policy structure
known as the Feed-in-tariff (FIT) is able to achieve greater developments in renewable
energy, but at a far lower cost and with greater economic and social benefits to the local
environment. The FIT does this by establishing a pre-determined price for renewable
energy high enough to attract investment without being so exorbitantly high that it allows
for windfall profits. Instead of mandating a specific quantity of renewable electricity
based on the overall electricity consumption and leaving the market to determine the
price with a plethora of financial mechanisms and incentives, FITs mandate a specific
price (tariff) for renewable electricity sufficient to attract investors and leaves the market
to determine quantity (FIT, 2009).
The FIT is the technique utilized in Germany and Denmark, which allows for
more rapid penetration of renewable energy sources. “European nations additionally
require utilities to take responsibility for interconnecting renewable energy projects on
demand to higher voltage transmission lines and require them to offer uniform contracts
that include these interconnection requirements so that projects are guaranteed a grid
connection. A FIT thus provides a long term contract at a fixed price sufficient for a
reasonable return on investment (ROI)…” (FIT, 2009).
FIT is promoted as the regulatory technique that cuts through the beauracracy
meeting the needs of the market. Because of the stability, straightforwardness and
transparency of the FIT, the net costs and benefits of transitioning to renewable energy
generation are shared more uniformly between all rate payers and involved parties.
Prioritizing renewables and ensuring their rapid deployment with the FIT will bring the
net costs down quickly and in doing so will mitigate the need for peaking plants and help
ensure that the benefits of renewable energy will be substantial and far-reaching (FIT,
2009). It is found that investor risks are much lower in a FIT system, and that innovation
incentives are larger (Fouquet & Johansson, 2008). “Renewable power feed in laws
which give renewable power producers access to the grid with a guaranteed price for the
39
power specify a minimum amount of renewable energy that must be included in the
portfolio of energy resources of licensed electricity suppliers serving a state or country...”
(Ogihara et al, 2007).
The predictions currently are that energy demand is expected to increase by 20%
by 2020 (EIA, 2009) Therefore, maintaining the current non-renewable energy
production capacity will continue to suffice for day-to-day operations of the grid. The
renewables then as they come on line and connect to the grid can then be controlled to
meet this predicted 20% increase in demand. In conjunction with the planned increase in
demand and the increased penetration from renewable sources the smart grid technology
will curb the demand side, allowing the peaks or energy demand spikes to be flattened or
moderated in a controlled manner, reducing the demand side. The analysis is based on
recent development in EU with different models for support of installations based on
renewable energy. These include feed-in models with guaranteed minimum tariffs, tender
models for different bands of technologies, and green certificates trading models with
obligatory consumer quota. This describes the market situation in selected European
countries, including Germany, the UK, Holland and Denmark (Meyer, 2003).
2.3.5 Smart Grid

On the consumption and distribution section of the value chain, a tool or process
called ‘Smart Grid’ is to be deployed to bring about improvements on the efficiency of
the energy consumption devices. Smart Grid will allow homeowners or businesses to use
electricity as economically as possible (Caskey, 2008). The term ‘Smart Grid’ refers to a
modernization of the electricity delivery system so it monitors, protects and
automatically optimizes the operation of its interconnected elements—from the central
and distributed generator through the high-voltage network and distribution system, to
industrial users and building automation systems, to energy storage installations and to
end-use consumers and their thermostats, electric vehicles, appliances and other
household devices (Tuite, 2009). “The Smart Grid will be characterized by a two-way
flow of electricity and information to create an automated, widely distributed energy
delivery network. It incorporates into the grid the benefits of distributed computing and
40
communications to deliver real-time information and enable the near-instantaneous

balance of supply and demand at the device level…” (Tuite, 2009).
The RPS and FIT techniques are the regulators attempt to promote wider
renewable penetration onto the grid (FIT Coalition, 2009). They, RPS and FIT, are a
process or sequence of taxation or output quality standards that control the proliferation
of renewable energy onto the grid. These smart grid proposals would create a flexible,
interactive relationship between energy producers and consumers. "The grid needs to
evolve from one-way wires and cables to something where each power line would send
power in either direction — to or from homes, businesses, or industry. We need the
marriage of energy technology and information technology...” (Grant, 2010).
The Smart Grid will be mainly promoted by what is currently the service
provider’s portion of the value chain. The goal is to streamline consumption devices
usage through an elaborate communication network. The entire system is to set up to
ensure the base load, production from non-renewables are maintained. Smart grid is seen
as a more realistic alternative to building new power plants and transmission lines, which
are expensive in themselves and even more expensive if not impossible to build,
considering the difficulties in obtaining licenses (Tuite, 2009).
Therefore a base-load of non-renewables must be maintained until the market

produces technologies that can produce higher efficiency and less variable energy
production. This base load is to ensure predicted daily demand on the grid is factored to
have ample supply to accommodate for non-routine demand spikes. The Smart Grid
would allow a sort of auction in which rates would change minute by minute based on
present capacity and the cost of operations. Those rates would be regularly fed over the
grid to all users, whose electrical equipment would use complex algorithms to decide
whether or not to turn on (Tuite, 2009).
2.3.6 Micro-grid
A ‘micro-grid’ is a collection of energy sources that provide the location utilizing
them, to produce and consume energy more efficiently, as a distributed energy resource
41
rather than solely downstream from the central electricity energy grid. “Micro-grids are a
future power system configuration providing clear economic and environmental benefits
compared to expansion of legacy modern power systems. It is clear that development of
micro-grid concepts and technologies requires considerable effort to resolve numerous
economic, commercial, and technical challenges. Extensive RD&D efforts are therefore
in progress, especially in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Canada, to provide
efficient solutions and to demonstrate micro-grid operating concepts in laboratories and
in pilot installations…” (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007).
As an alternative to central grid planning, advocates of a decentralized electrical

energy system argue that micro-grids are more suited to hosting renewable energy and as
such could make a significant contribution to the overall reduction of carbon emissions
(Wilcox, 2009). One of the key advantages experienced in decentralized energy is in the
improved efficiency of the process during the transition from production to transmission.
For typical grid tied production sources, the power rating capacity of the production
source drops, as a large portion of the energy generated is lost as heat, sometimes referred
to as carbon.
In addition, the presence of generation close to demand can increase the power
quality and reliability (PQR) of electricity delivered to sensitive end uses. Indeed, DERs
(distributed energy resources) can be used to actively enhance PQR. In general, these
three perceived benefits, increased energy efficiency through combined heat and power
(CHP), reduced carbon emissions, and improved PQR, are the key drivers for DER
deployment, although many other benefits, such as reduced line losses and grid expansion
deferral, are also often discussed (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007).
Micro-grid as a technology incorporates the already marketed energy production

sources like photo voltaic (PV) and wind while the connection to the grid remains the
area under development. A method of transient suppression is required during the
switching in and out of the centralized grid, and it is in this area that much of the research
projects continue. “One of the events producing major transient interaction between a
WTG (wind generation) and a local grid is the grid connection itself” (Quinonez-Varela,
2008).
42
Despite this area of on-going development, “there has been significant progress
toward developing small (kW-scale) CHP applications. These systems, together with
solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, small wind turbines (WTs), other small renewables
(such as biogas digesters), heat and electricity storage, and controllable loads are
expected to play a significant role in future electricity supply. These technologies are
herein collectively called distributed energy resources (DERs) (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007).
Figure 11: Schematic of an example CM (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007)

Above, in Figure 11, is a model that represents a decentralized energy source
system with central grid connection, know as CERTS Microgrid [CM]. CERTS stands
for Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology Solutions and was formed in 1999
primarily to focus on energy alternatives in the area of improving the energy reliability
for the U.S.A. (Nikkhajoel & Lasseter, 2009). Micro-grid a.k.a island networks, stand as
the alternative for greater penetration of renewable, alternative energy. The development
of the ability to switch in the variable renewable source to the grid will gain the ability
43
for a truly independent market-demand-based and a resource optimized power generation

system. See Figure 12 for the energy efficient energy flow within a Microgrid. “While
the application of DERs can potentially reduce the need for traditional (power generation)
system expansion, controlling a potentially huge number of DERs creates a daunting new
challenge for operating and controlling the network safely and efficiently...”
(Hatziargyriou et al, 2007).
Figure 12: Energy Flow within a Microgrid (Hatziargyriou et al, 2007)
Micro-grid’s are being deployed in developing nations and the impact of

continuous and reliable power is tremendous on the society. For example a “micro-grid
in rural Kenya, demonstrated that access to electricity enables the use of electric
equipment and tools by small and micro enterprises, resulting in significant improvement
in productivity per worker (100–200% depending on the task at hand) and in a
corresponding growth in income levels in the order of 20–70%, depending on the product
made (Kirubi et al, 2009).” In another example, Stiren Hermansen, director of the
44
Energy Academy on the island of Samso, says, “Denmark decided to focus on many
different sources of decentralized energy production…” (Nielsen, 2009). Today Denmark
is perceived to be a leader in renewable energy production partly based on the
governance and the leadership’s ability to leverage the power of distributed energy
resources. “The amount of decentralized electricity generation (DG) connected to
distribution networks increases across EU member states. This increasing penetration of
DG units poses potential costs and benefits for distribution system operators (DSOs).
These DSOs are regulated since the business of electricity distribution is considered to be
a natural monopoly” (De Joode et al, 2009).
2.3.7 Carbon Tax

Carbon trading has been occurring in the European Union since 2005 (Jaehen &
Latmathe, 2010). The carbon is traded at a per ton price. Since the inception the price
per ton has traded between one and 30 Euro, which was an unpredicted volatility (Jaehen
& Latmathe, 2010). The trading scheme was billed to act as market solution to curb
‘dirty’ contributors in the energy business, specifically non-renewable sources of energy
production. The historical volatility in this market has given rise to speculation
surrounding market power, specifically on the influence of price. Besides market power,
the combination of information asymmetry and price interdependencies (between prices
of primary goods, especially electricity, and allowances) plays an important role in
explaining the emission trading paradox (Jaehen & Latmathe, 2010).
45
Figure 13: Climate Change Targets, US World Resource Institute (National Grid, 2008)

In addition to the regional GHG (green house gas) related activity, there is a
growing consensus at the national level] that the United States should reduce its GHG
emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050 to support the global efforts to reduce GHG
emissions. The leading proposals currently before US federal lawmakers recommend a
cap-and-trade system to reach GHG reduction goals. The figure above shows the
potential impact of the leading proposals on future emissions, according to an analysis
published by the World Resources Institute in December 2007. The Lieberman-Warner
bill, for example, proposes a 70 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050. The 2005
emissions were just over 7 billion metric tons CO2. 34 percent of 2005 emissions were
from electricity generation. Lieberman-Warner is not the most stringent proposal on the
table, but has received support from multiple parties to the debate. This bill was debated
and rejected in the US Senate in June 2008 (National Grid, 2008).” At the time of this
writing there is no US federal level Carbon tax in place.
2.3.8 Technology Trends

The multi-discipline nature of the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector
make it difficult to create goods and services by a single company. The idea of creating a
learning hub for renewable energy is not so radical as can be seen in the state of Indiana
46
in the USA. This ‘experiment’ is occurring elsewhere, such as in the community of 1,100
called Chew Magna, south of Bristol in the UK. There, residents of that community are
changing the way they shop, eat, travel, and think about rubbish: the goal in that
community is to be the first in the UK to cause no planet damage (BioCycle, 2005).
These communities are in essence taking the environmental challenge directly on and
bringing it to their locality. Instead of waiting for federal level regulation, bringing
greater market penetration pricing, their communities want to be recognized as leading
the environmental and energy efficiency charge.
The community-based initiatives are examples of government partnering with

commerce and community to drive change to meet environmental and green demands.
Additionally, these initiatives demonstrate a demand meeting supply on the topic of
environmental awareness and commerce. However to achieve full market capitalization,
the many claims made for the benefits of community RE suggest that a more holistic
evaluative frame needs to be adopted. Indeed, a key question is whether or not the
outcomes of government support for small-scale, localized community energy projects
can add up to more than the sum of the small parts of renewable energy generation
(Walker et al, 2007).
Despite this gap in the mainstream market’s preference, attempts are being made
to incorporate a synergy across the disciplines of renewable energy and energy
efficiency. For example, in the US state of Indiana, the governor of that state wants to
create a ‘BioTown’ in the community of 550 people, which is 25 miles north of
Lafayette. Deborah Abott, in the state’s agriculture department writes, “We want to
make this a model for other communities in the future…”(BioCycle, 2005). Perhaps the
legislators in this small Indiana community realize the market potential and desire to be
ahead of the market wave, as early adopters, and want to innovate their community and
become attractive to the capital markets, in addition to becoming a market incubator for
the burgeoning energy related technologies of the future. In this regard, this small town
in Indiana could capitalize upon deindustrialization and create the boom-town that might
just sustain the next wave of economic activity, by redefining the usage of energy.
47
Lastly, to date most RE products and energy efficient building technologies are
not user-focused products. Renewables and energy efficiency products have not been
designed for, or centered on, the customer. A key barrier to the massive scale distribution
is non-user centered design. “User-centered improvements are required to improve
functionality, ergonomics, inter-connectedness with other systems and symbolic value,
and to reduce cost and payback…” (Caird & Roy, 2008). Furthermore, the third instance
when demand generation occurs is when created wants are promoted to the market for the
product or service, typically appealing to emotions of the potential customer (Renewable
Energy World, 2003).
To create the connections or connect supply chains of the various different

specialties for a centralized corporation; to create source information on a product or
service would be extremely costly and the return sketchy at best. Instead of seeking
information from corporate sources, the product producers or service providers,
customers increasingly turn to other customers or customer-centric, third party web sites
(Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007).
A similar approach to implement into a business concept is to become more
customer-centric. Customer Centricity is an alternative marketing approach that can be
utilized for planning of new products and services (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2006). Wiki’s
are relevant in an era when business’ look to reduce overhead and large expansive cost
centers. Wiki’s are primarily web based. Since much of commercial activity is currently
accessed or transacted via the Internet, the relevance of wiki as a viable method for
channeling brand messages is becoming an increasingly important vehicle for marketing
departments. To achieve these ambitious and expensive targets, a well branded non-profit
RE innovation community could potentially augment existing programs in community
RE.
“There was widespread support for local generation and use of renewable energy,
with respondents expecting benefits from a project in terms of increased community spirit
and conservation of natural resources. However, desire for active involvement was
lower and residents viewed themselves participating as consulters, rather than project
leaders. We suggest community renewable energy projects are likely to gain public
48
acceptance but are unlikely to become widespread without greater institutional

support…” (Rogers et al, 2008).
The innovation community in proposal could be the institutional hub for these
forces to coordinate, compete, and cooperate for best position and attempt to uncover the
dominate design for the global energy network of the future. An RE innovation
community with the focus or centered concept on the consumer or user of energy
“supports new product-system design and development to promote more rapid adoption
and carbon-saving use of energy efficient and renewable technologies in homes...” (Caird
& Roy, 2008).
The literature review concludes the theoretical framework portion of this

document. The proceeding chapter will describe the measurement utilized to address the
research questions.
3.0 Dimensions of User Perceptions

Whereas a literature review can show ‘objective’ facts, see above analyses of
renewable energy market and user contribution systems, it is equally important to look at
perceptions. Users may not see things as they are. For this purpose a questionnaire was
developed. As statistical method Factor Analysis was chosen because it is appropriate,
for data reduction it was used to condense 22 branding for non-profit organizations
related statements, see Table 2.
49
Table 2: Total Variance Explained
Com Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
pone Total % Of Cumulative % Total % Of Variance Cumulative Total % Of Cumulative
nt Variance % Variance %
1 3.125 14.207 14.207 3.125 14.207 14.207 2.171 9.867 9.867
2 2.309 10.497 24.704 2.309 10.497 24.704 2.128 9.672 19.539
3 2.064 9.380 34.084 2.064 9.380 34.084 1.984 9.017 28.556
4 1.792 8.144 42.228 1.792 8.144 42.228 1.928 8.764 37.320
5 1.473 6.696 48.924 1.473 6.696 48.924 1.733 7.877 45.197
6 1.401 6.366 55.290 1.401 6.366 55.290 1.694 7.698 52.895
7 1.245 5.657 60.948 1.245 5.657 60.948 1.500 6.818 59.712
8 1.222 5.554 66.501 1.222 5.554 66.501 1.494 6.789 66.501
9 .967 4.395 70.897
10 .849 3.860 74.757
11 .843 3.832 78.589
12 .694 3.156 81.745
13 .690 3.137 84.882
14 .610 2.773 87.656
15 .570 2.592 90.247
16 .464 2.108 92.355
17 .423 1.924 94.279
18 .369 1.676 95.955
19 .285 1.297 97.251
20 .237 1.079 98.331
21 .197 .893 99.224
22 .171 .776 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis
The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. The statements centered around

two main concepts: branding and user contribution systems. Above result, after Varimax
rotation, showed that 22 statements can be narrowed down to 8 major dimensions
explaining 66.5% of variance. The range of variance explanation ranges from (6.8%) for
factor eight to (9.9%) for factor one in the rotated (Varimax version). Besides the
importance of the factor itself it is even more interesting, looking at the statements that
loaded high on each factor, see Table 3.
50
Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix

Component
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Designers .697 -.045 -.153 -.020 -.002 .223 -.189 .028
Supplychain .695 .092 .133 -.029 -.098 .082 .013 -.131
Handson .678 .038 .157 .100 -.020 -.039 -.019 .117
User_content .487 .442 -.195 .019 .040 .132 -.036 -.168
Leave .122 -.838 .002 -.006 -.117 .191 .103 -.012
Brand .198 .733 .127 .269 .078 .126 -.077 -.134
Webinars .144 .550 -.179 .340 -.163 -.120 .343 .066
Brand_televlsion .083 -.025 .865 .132 -.125 .069 -.017 .177
Brand_advertising .025 .004 .858 -.060 .122 -.002 .131 -.019
Residential .036 .274 .069 .724 -.131 .224 -.138 .201
Tradeshow .222 .134 -.274 .699 -.002 -.269 .159 -.067
Renewables -.130 .023 .256 .692 .086 .160 -.216 -.116
NONPROFIT_Brand -.088 .031 -.189 -.093 .881 .066 .076 .038
Brand_important -.061 .179 .182 -.012 .724 -.108 -.304 -.055
Control_brand .091 -.145 .197 .260 .456 .142 .307 -.262
network_cost .108 -.032 .065 -.031 -.116 .812 -.095 -.127
Brand_comp_adv .138 -.048 -.007 .167 .174 .784 .073 .201
all_ok -.129 -.142 .086 -.099 -.043 -.084 .753 .013
need_gov .440 -.305 -.057 .247 .038 -.155 -.537 -.005
Networkcost .256 .141 .260 .141 .188 -.184 .084 .660
Network -.142 -.308 .084 .035 -.084 .124 .237 .649
NONPROFIT_Compete .092 .019 .064 .136 .151 -.085 .308 -.578
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Design, Supply chain and Hands-on show high loadings.

They constitute factor 1, the most important dimension.

As mentioned, Factor Analysis resulted in 8 dimensions. High loadings are
marked in bold, see Table 3. In the following chapter, the author named these
dimensions and tried to find explanations. The interpretation of the results from the
measurement will follow in the next chapter. Defining the user perception dimensions
uncovered from the measurement results will determine the practical usefulness of this
discussion.
51
4.0 Interpretation of Dimensions
4.1 Innovation Community - Product

The term ‘Innovation Community’ maybe a good representation for the high loadings of
Designers / Supplychain / Handson, see Table 3.
Designers drive the integration of the RE technology (demand), the supply chain
and distribution of the products, the channels drives integration of technology (supply),
and the ability to have full access to the technology to experiment will drive technology
into the marketplace (laboratory). The ‘designer’ statement was: ‘The actual Architects /
Electrical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of renewable energy
products into mass market in the U.S.A.’ Apart from ‘Designers’ two more variables
correlate highly with factor 1, i.e. the dimension Innovation Community. Designers and
supply chain members working together creating a dynamic learning environment that
revolves around the basic function of learning by doing. Linking innovation community
with renewable energy is positive. The multi-stakeholders would be open or accepting of
these two items. The product and service concept is large in scope. The product or
service of this innovation community is information on how to create an alternative to the
centralized power grid and how to implement the massive scale change required to make
building structures increased efficiency.
Innovation Community will regulate the product of information within the
network on the topic of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The stakeholders
perceive this to be a dimension of a renewable energy non-profit. Need to determine the
segment in the market that wants an enhanced product in terms of energy; or as
marketing expert Theodore Levitt once (Forbes, 2003) told his M.B.A. students at
Harvard: "People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole."
The Renewable Energy innovation community is perceived to be congruent with
the stakeholder’s perceptions. This community will incorporate the critical segments
involved in the decision making of buildings, their suppliers all put connected by the way
of hands on learning lab environments. The stakeholders perceive this to be the RE
innovation community that will yield positive impact. Looking to literature this could be
considered an active system. Furthermore, this community could implement more user
52
centric labs as discussed in the literature, the use of wiki’s would be extremely valuable
to the RE innovation community.
4.2 Illusion of choice - Placement

Illusion of choice <= leave / brand
Illusion of choice, consists of the variables that consumers in certain cultures are
often responsive to brand placement in movies. Combined with, the current energy
commodity being controlled by ‘big’ business, no illusion of choice for the stakeholders.
Branding and movies is big business just look to Iron Man, Dark Night, and Avatar –
most recent movies that were box office marketing partnerships. Iron Man got synergies
from its marketing partners and an estimated $50 million of additional marketing
exposure. It worked with notable companies such as Audi, LG, Burger King and 7-
Eleven and ultimately gave back more to its sponsors with highly visible branded
integrations in the movie. ‘The Dark Knight’ had a wider list of marketing partners that
included Nokia, Verizon, Comcast, Domino's, Giorgio Armani, Xbox 360, Hershey and
General Mills, and incorporated highly organic brand integrations on its website (Young,
2008).
The high loading suggests that stakeholders could respond to renewable energy
brands if integrated into a movie context. Therefore the Non-profit – innovation
community should brand and invest appropriately in marketing partnerships.
The stakeholders want to have a ‘choice’ in the energy sector and they demand
change in the energy market place. Therefore, RE companies can invest in marketing
their mission in a movie or any civic event, the stakeholders will respond. The brands are
familiar and the movie setting is attractive in that it furthers the brands emotional
connection to the audience.
Specific cultures may respond greater than others to branding in movies. “First,
brands are entangled in an inescapable spatial association. As an identifiable kind or
variety of good or service, a brand is constituted of values or ‘equity’…” (Aaker, 1996)
such as associations, awareness, loyalty, origin and perceived quality –that are imbued to
varying degrees and in differing ways by spatial connections and connotations. As a
53
process that works to articulate, connect, enhance and represent the facets and cues
embodied in brands in meaningful ways, branding too is enmeshed in and cannot rid
itself of geographical associations and contexts (Pike, 2009). The stakeholders want to
make a choice on the energy product and would respond to branding placed in a movie.
Movies, if crafted properly, appeal or connect to the human emotions. Depending
on which emotions are favored based on cultural perceptions and ideologies, will
determine the amount of sales recorded for the production. Extending brands into a
movie is then to consider an appropriate placement of the brand to further the customer
engagement. Furthermore, the stakeholders want to be engaged on the topic of energy
and that engagement can come in the form of a brand placed into a movie setting.
Being the stakeholders perception of the energy market is in need of change, and
should not be left to big business, perhaps introducing or familiarizing the stakeholders in
the setting of a movie would attract them to the RE innovation community brand.
Connecting with the stakeholders in the movie theater is a very discrete method to enter
and connect on an emotional level on the sensitive subject of energy alternatives. The
concept of combining the stakeholders openness to change in the energy market
combined with the setting of a movie fits well together. The stakeholders perceive this
to be a setting that would yield a response to the brand if placed in this setting.
4.3 Signal Processing – Placement

Signal Processing <= Brand Television / Brand Advertising
Signal Processing consists, of the variables, high brand awareness can only be
communicated by way of advertising combined with, brand awareness is best
communicated by television. Consumers are now bombarded with choices. They are
‘commercials veterans’, inundated with up to 1,500 pitches a day. Far from being gullible
and easily manipulated, they are cynical about marketing and less responsive to entreaties
to buy. "Consumers are like roaches," says Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum in
their book ‘Under the Radar, Talking to Today's Cynical Consumer’. "We spray them
with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a
resistance..."(Economist, 2001). The means by which a brand is delivered to the
54
consumer base for the most return on a marketing budget has been historically by
television advertisements.
The Branding activity for much of the 20th century has been predominantly via
television and advertising. Television, by nature, was technology that limited the
interactivity from marketer to end-user, and therefore placement of the advertising was
critical to match the entertainment content. Consumers that tuned into nightly content for
entertainment paid for this service with their attention to the brand containing
advertisements (Godin, 2003). As such only a few participants could promote or place
advertisements communicating to the audience as the time allotment was limited and the
price for this time was sold at a premium. Conversely, in an age of increased interactivity
from product to consumer the innovation communities central brand placement on
television is less of a requirement.
The web 2.0 long tail of the web connections displaces the reliance on television
advertising communicating brand information. Furthermore, “at a time when the big six
US television networks have recorded absolute falls in ad spending, online social network
ad spending is forging ahead — a current spend of $ 525,000 on MySpace and $ 200,000
on other general social network sites like Facebook, Bebo, Piczo and Friendster, and all
the signs are that these sums will grow exponentially in the coming years…” (Uncles,
2009).
However, "hybrid ads," as IAG (Hampp, 2008) labeled them, allow the network
to plug a show, as well as the marketer's involvement, during the first commercial in the
pod. Bravo scored five of the year's top 20 most-recalled hybrid ads, while BlueFly.com's
sponsorship of this season's ‘Project Runway’ scored the highest brand recall of 2007,
with a score of 195 on IAG's index. (According to IAG, 100 is an average recall score on
the index) (Hampp, 2008). Possibly a two stage process to circulate the brand message
via the web is the first step to gain attention, grow the network, and engage consumers.
Second step would occur at the point when the network brand recognition garners a value
that translates to a substantial equity of the brand. Then at that time, the innovation
community can promote the brand via the centralized and very high priced television
medium, either as full-length traditional ad spots or as hybrid ads.
Therefore, the goal is to determine the preferred manner in which the current
55
stakeholder processes the brand information, either by single source or by the network.
“The democratization of access to information means that consumers have enhanced self-
confidence in their ability to perform behaviors related to consumption” (Uncles, 2008).
This increased connectivity and low barrier to information challenges the previous format
for signal processing of brand information and puts new requirements on specifically
how, when, and where the brand message will be accepted.
The stakeholder perception tells that getting the placement of the RE innovation
community brand correct is critical. Television advertising is very influential in terms of
positive feedback. However, as the literature stated, non-profits have many concerns that
differ from the for-profit company. Advertising first and foremost is influential and
advertising by television is influential and costly. These two points could prove to be a
hurdle for the non-profit RE innovation community. Possibly, looking to commodity
branding and partnering with a for profit company and creating the advertising for
television of the non-profit RE innovation community would prove to get achieve high
response rates.
4.4 The RenewShow - Placement

The RenewShow <= Residential / Trade show / Renewables
The RenewShow, consists of the variables residential home demand is
considered a critical driver for the integration of new renewable energy and energy
efficiency products. Combined with, trade shows have been an effective medium to
connect suppliers of emerging technology to market needs. Lastly, renewable energy
products involve tweaking or adapting a residence or building to vertically integrate the
concept of energy in one’s home or business.
The trade show is the safe zone the fabricated arena under which the producers or
service providers can showcase their brand presence in a controlled and regulated manner
(Friedman, 2004). Each one of the members that typically would attend the trade show
for the particular product need to conduct a similar promotion campaign to connect with
the market needs. The network can capitalize on improved connection efficiency and less
overhead by the web-based innovation community.
56
Tradeshows are the product of business needs for social interaction and
relationship building, via brand engagement to complete the sales process, at last count
there were more than 14,000 trade shows held in North America annually (Hosford,
2007). The key deliverable of a trade show is not the booths or the hundreds of pieces of
promotional junk that one walks away with, but rather the real message of the trade show
is in the social networking that occurs by the participants running the booths and how
exactly they communicate with the customer, supplier or distributor, and the need to
follow up on the contacts made (Hosford, 2007). An experiment to move away from
traditional tradeshow environment has already been attempted when, “…engineers and
chipmakers from 40 different countries recently gathered for the first virtual tradeshow
ever held within the semiconductor community. Roughly 1,200 participants from 600
different companies met over the internet during the week of May 22...” (Demers, 2000).
Placement of a RE innovation community brand at the residential home consumer
level would yield considerable customer engagement. Point of sale placement is
extremely important to the RE innovation community brand to reach a broader audience.
The renewshow dimension to the stakeholders is the wiki concept brought to renewable
energy and energy efficiency. Bringing the products to focus more upon the customer
and the ‘how-to’ needs in the home and utilizing the trade show atmosphere for the brand
placement would be accepted by the stake holder perceptions.
4.5 B^3 - Promotion

B^3 <= Nonprofit Brand / Nonprofit important
B^3, consists of the variables, a non-profit should have a recognizable brand, and
branding a renewable energy company is important. Branding is one method to promote
the mission of the nonprofit, as literature confirms. Currently, many renewable energy
promotion organizations exist, but only targeting selected segments within a narrow
geographical region. Therefore once the segments are studied and understood,
promotion events to bring the two segments together for common innovation will be the
natural or evolutionary step. The RE Non-profit should consider branding at all costs, as
the stakeholders will respond. Therefore for high engagement for the RE innovation
57
community it should just brand its service.

Literature uncovers the different types of branding that can be implemented for
this non-profit. Possibly a mixture of the different types can be implemented for the
largest return on financial and social investment. The RE innovation community could
chose to brand as a commodity and select a for-profit brand and leverage the transfer
effect from the co-branding experience. The RE innovation community could leverage
the for-profit’s financial resources and established equity to create space in the brand-
scape promoting its mission.
A brand for the RE innovation community will be accepted by the stakeholders as
the response from the perception survey indicates. Further research would need to be
conducted to directly pinpoint which specific brand attributes would yield the most
engagement from the targeted segments. However, simply looking to the literature as
guide leads the RE innovation community to brand as a gender-neutral brand, attracting
both gender’s to the brand.
4.6 Real Deal - Price

Real Deal <= Network_cost / Brand comp adv
Real Deal, combines the variables of, network can increase the cost of
membership if the brand is valued and a strong brand is a source of competitive
advantage. The price barrier to enter the network is critical to the subscription rate
increase. As the literature stated joining a group that has a core product and service of
circulating information should not have a cost, if there is a cost for membership the group
or network becomes like all other linear entities that already exist, exclusive and will
limit the amount of content of information. Which potentially will leave the door open
for missing mistakes in the information.
The cost is the gatekeeper to the network. Justice is accepted as central to the
well functioning of society with fairness being an expectation in day-to-day interactions.
Outcomes that are perceived to be unfair can result in protests, damaged relationships and
divided communities particularly when decisions are made which benefit some sections
of the community at the perceived expense of others (Gross, 2007). Setting a price to
58
membership to the community reinforces the concept of innovation is gained only

through a centralized controlled organization.
The feedback cycle of a price exclusive group is too long for the speed of
information. “Effective open strategy will balance value capture and value creation,
instead of losing sight of value capture during the pursuit of innovation. Open strategy is
an important approach for those who wish to lead through innovation” (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). The previous system of feedback was governed by the centralized and
hierarchical information and price exclusivity, product and social structure, which
fostered the in-group and out-group and cost was typically the reinforcing this condition.
Setting the price at the appropriate point is extremely critical for the RE
innovation community. While the literature continually states that price to entry will
destroy the community (Cook, 2008), it must be also understood that a community with
value can garner compensation for the value gained by access to the community. For
example having different access rights to the community can create the ability for
different price points. The ability to read and write information could effectively be one
level of price point. Whereas to read a specific set of information could be another albeit,
lower to none price point for access the community. The price points will effectively
create the in-group and out-group and hierarchy structure that typically defines centrally
controlled organizations, and therefore it is hyper-critical that the RE innovation
community define from the beginning the access rights and price point structure to the
users and potential network members.
The data suggests that stakeholders perceive the price of the potential RE
innovation community of extreme importance. Therefore, based upon the operational
cost structure of the RE innovation community and the value proposition and perceived
value to the network member, a pricing model could be established and published for the
potential community members. The transparency in the cost structure at how the price
was derived could potentially create even more value for the potential network member.
The transparency would compliment the non-profit’s mission in that it would reinforce
the agenda of incubating RE and energy efficiency technologies to the market place.
59
4.7 The Man – Incumbent power

The Man <= all ok
The Man is a single variable, stated as the current energy and energy efficiency
market functions appropriately. Make no changes to the energy and energy efficiency
market. The stakeholders, do they consider that the energy market is malleable like
information, in a web content-based economy? “Before you believe the naysayers who
lambast the government’s efforts at revamping our nation’s energy infrastructure, it is
important to remember that over the last one hundred years the federal government has
consistently provided financial support to promote the development of new energy
technologies deemed critical to our national security and the national interest. As critics
of government support of renewable energy so often ignored, over the last six years alone
the fossils fuels industry has had a little help from the federal government — nearly $73
billion worth in tax breaks — while the renewable energy industry has received less than
half that…”(Plaza, 2009). As information has permeated into many of the sectors of the
market place causing many of the marketers to at least get on the internet and look up the
term social networking.
The incumbent in the energy distribution has had the fortunate position of simply
creating a brand image, similar to milk or beef. As long as the lights continue to stay on
the brand matter of fact and it is what it is. And further more, with no real competition
and heavy subsidization along the value chain as long as electric per hour remain
relatively manageable within the average working persons monthly income, typically no
one in the mainstream is really itching to switch away from this time and trusted brand.
The grid as it is known today is the off shoot of years of trial and error and years of on
going subsidies that has propped up the centralized power grid in the name of national
security. “Would the dams at the Niagara Falls or Grand Coulee have been built by a
group of ambitious entrepreneurs and a handful of angel investors? It took a combination
of entrepreneurial spirit, back-breaking labor, long term vision and investments by the
federal government to create a network of regional — and ultimately national — power
generation facilities that literally supplied the energy for our country‘s growing economy
and helped propel us to global leadership and prosperity” (Plaza, 2009).
60
There is data that demonstrates the viability of competition to the centralized grid
in regions or nations where power quality is not a high as in the North American market.
The power typically has periodic outages and as such the alternatives for power
generation locally become more of a market competitor. So what is the cost of
continuous power, the real cost in terms of economic and social value? For example, in
Yilmaz’ s (2008) article there is mention of an educational campus located in Gebze,
Turkey. Here, the investigation is looking into, “a supply-side option with existing time
of use tariff may provide a cost effective energy production, particularly for the high
penetration level of the renewables” (Yilmaz et al, 2008). This is in reference to ‘grid
connected renewable energy plants’.
The brand of the RE innovation community must demonstrate the incredible cost
of centralized power, in terms of impact on the individual. The brand must be able to
communicate more than just being green, it must truly embody what centralized power is,
freedom. Power alternatives meeting multiple segments provide more options improving
efficiency. The brand must educate the consumer to the fallacy of low end user cost of
centralized continuous power. In the U.S.A., an individualistic based society, having a
critical component to personal freedom centrally controlled, seems very at odds with the
dogma of democracy. The RE innovation community brand has a very large opportunity
to take market share from incumbent by promoting this brand element.
This user perception dictates the specific personality of the brand for the RE
innovation community. Based upon the value proposition, once defined, of the RE
innovation community this would determine the starting point for the brand that is to
directly challenge the status quo, the incumbent in the energy sector. Based upon the
geography of the location where the brand for the RE innovation community is to be
promoted this user perception will dictate the brand element to harness the most
engagement from the market stakeholders. The market’s local perception of energy and
its relationship to energy consumption will effectively be the driver for this user
perception. Globally, this user perception will vary dramatically.

61
4.8 Value for you – Price / Promotion

Value for you <= Network cost / Network
Value for you, consists of the variables: network membership should always be
low and a network or association provides no value to an established company. The point
is then what value does the network actually provide, all the connections are defined, the
network we are referring to is typically a network in an established industrial sector, like
the builders association, the products and the skills and the client base network is already
established the goal of the trade association is then to act as the connector to support
business in the association with the perks of membership maybe a quality statement or
brand that communicates authentic service or product. That brand or association logo
communicates a reliable and trusted partner for the potential client to perform a business
transaction. The trade association is the network of the linear un-networked information
in a controlled economy. The linear annual revision type of innovative structure
centrally controlled allowing consumers incremental glimpses of improvement instead of
continuous improvement.
The associations had membership fees and that was seen as a cost of doing
business for the member business, similar to paying taxes. But as the association grew in
size and members, the hierarchy mechanism consumes the association and the loudest
members voice is head and thus communicates the direction or issues the association will
tackle. Perhaps the cost or price point to be admitted to the association is the limiting
factor. The trade association, fosters the in and out group which reinforces central
control by a few which reduces the heterogeneity of the information which essentially
reduces the strength or ability for the association to adapt to change and reduces
flexibility on dynamic issues. The in-group promotes the status quo. The out-group out
wants change and the information and power to effect change remains centralized to a
selected few to maintain the status quo system.
The RE innovation community brand must address this and leverage the numbers
of individuals in the out-group and demonstrate the power that is available to them in the
innovation community. One form observed of an in and out group in the measurement
results is along gender lines. The following chapter will discuss the user perception
differences along gender lines.
62
5.0 Gender Differences

Factor analysis results showed that user’s perception could be broken down into 8
major dimensions. The results were based on the whole sample. Literature review, see
figure 3, leads to hypothesis that relevant gender differences, in the context of this
research topic, exit. To determine whether male and female differences are statistically
significant (at a 95% level) a t-test was conducted. For detailed results, see Section B.
The result of this test was that the variables leave and network are viewed differently by
men and women see Table 4.
• The variable, Network = A network or Association provides no value to an
established company.
• The variable, Leave = Energy, renewable or non-renewable is a commodity that

should be left to big business and government.
Women have, are, and continue to be the minority in the big business of energy.
Compared to their male counterparts, they think that networks/associations can provide
value (‘group orientation’), and the energy issue should not be left to the government/big
businesses (‘involvement’). Possibly this difference demonstrates the significance of the
power of the current energy business and how the incumbents wield control. These
incumbents and key supply chain members are organizations that historically are male
operated industrial sectors. Therefore, women more strongly disagree that energy
business should NOT be left to the status quo men, but rather perceive the concept to
allow for change to have a chance and a woman’s perspective or sensibility to approach
this portion of this economy. The difference here could possibly be that women
responded more strongly to disagree with this statement based on the word NO in the
original statement in the survey. The combination of the word network and association
and no could possibly signal to woman a strong negative reaction.
Based upon already performed research women are more collective in general
than men. A network or an association could represent more the female interests than
that of the man. Perhaps renewable energy products and organizations should have
marketing directed to women. The innovation community RE could brand in the male
centered version, but the brand must fit so that a feminine extension will fit as well. The
63
brand of the RE innovation community must meet both genders. More research is
needed here to identify stakeholder reaction to specific RE community brands.
Table 4: Gender Differences
Gend N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

er Mean
NONPROFIT_Compete M 46 5.24 1.608 .237
F 28 4.89 1.750 .331
NONPROFIT_Brand M 46 5.93 1.511 .223
F 28 6.14 1.268 .240
Brand_important M 46 6.35 .971 .143
F 28 6.43 .836 .158
User_content M 46 5.59 1.343 .198
F 28 5.64 1.224 .231
Brand_advertising M 46 4.00 2.076 .306
F 28 3.71 1.922 .363
Brand_televlsion M 46 3.46 1.906 .281
F 28 2.89 1.663 .314
Networkcost M 46 4.80 1.544 .228
F 28 5.11 1.449 .274
Brand_comp_adv M 46 6.26 1.144 .169
F 28 6.18 1.249 .236
Control_brand M 46 5.17 1.717 .253
F 28 5.00 1.540 .291
network_cost M 45 4.53 1.358 .203
F 28 4.86 1.737 .328
Brand M 45 5.18 1.248 .186
F 28 5.57 1.814 .343
Network M 46 2.04 1.316 .194
F 28 1.96 1.201 .227
Supplychain M 46 5.41 1.185 .175
F 28 5.25 1.236 .234
Tradeshow M 46 4.93 1.237 .182
64
F 28 5.50 1.374 .260

Webinars M 46 5.13 1.222 .180
F 28 5.54 .962 .182
Renewable M 45 4.67 1.477 .220
F 28 4.18 1.362 .257
Residential M 46 4.22 1.474 .217
F 28 4.86 1.458 .276
Handson M 46 5.15 1.282 .189
F 28 5.11 .994 .188
Leave M 46 2.11 1.320 .195
F 28 1.89 1.166 .220
need_gov M 46 4.98 1.667 .246
F 28 5.25 1.578 .298
Designers M 46 4.50 1.574 .232
F 28 4.86 1.008 .190
all_ok M 45 2.62 1.642 .245
F 28 1.93 1.184 .224
Included in the analysis of the measurement results, geographical groupings were

discovered. The following chapter will interpret graphically as well as with text the
geographic clusters discovered during the analysis.
6.0 Geographical Grouping

Method for grouping was a cluster analysis resulting in two clusters country
clusters. The Netherlands (NL) is predominantly represented in cluster ONE as is the
United States (U.S.A.) in cluster TWO. The results are based on a Likert scale ranging
from one to seven for each survey statement. Seven being most agreement and one
being least agreement with, and four being neutral to the statement. As mentioned,
cluster ONE is dominated by NL (including some other European countries) cluster TWO
by U.S.A. see Figure 14.
65
Figure 14: Cluster country distribution
The following analysis looks at significant mean difference between cluster one and
cluster two.
66
6.1 Gift Economy
Figure 15: Cluster variable User_content
User generated content (ex. YouTube videos / Facebook content) can add value to
a brand. User generated content is directly from the individual, the consumer of energy.
One, NL respondents do not react favorably to words Youtube and Facebook possibly
other user generated sites are used. Whereas in the U.S.A., the respondents react more
positively to this statement that states user generated content adds value.
Could be the difference manifested between managerial oriented societies,

process driven like NL versus entrepreneurial oriented society like the U.S.A. This
qualitative data point looks to state that the U.S.A. stakeholder response to brands will be
more positive than NL via social media in the area of RE innovation community brands.
67
Potentially, the respondents from these two unique cultures view social media in
different manners. In the U.S.A., the respondents are more likely to utilize social
networking sites for business and learning.
6.2 Community Cost
Figure 16: Cluster Networkcost
A network can increase the cost of membership if the brand is valued. The
difference in the clusters demonstrates that NL respondents react with more neutrality
than the U.S.A. respondents. The U.S.A. respondents may feel with value there always
exists a cost! NL may simply not see the link between value and cost as written in the
survey statement and may simply focus on the word cost and react more negatively as the
data demonstrates.
68
Another perspective on this distinct difference between the clusters is that U.S.A.
respondents feel culturally any time a group gathers under an institutionalized logo, a
brand, that it is acceptable to hand over hard-earned money. The data could suggest that
if an organization desires to earn money, get money, from stakeholders in the U.S.A. all it
really needs to do is to create a nice looking brand. Conversely, in the Netherlands, the
respondents response to a membership or group gathering strictly on the grounds of the
gathering is supported by a logo, a brand, that event is less likely to take in revenue.
This qualitative data point could suggest that the two countries respondent’s
differing perspective on the core of what brings community together. The higher
response from the USA respondents suggests that in order for people to be together, if
they are not family, they must be spending money. This concept could be explored
further in a study area called ‘third place’. The areas in people’s lives are dominated by
two areas mainly, one’s home and the area where one does commercial activity (the place
of business or procurement of goods and services). However, there exists this concept of
a third place, and the understanding of this concept could be supported by this data point
difference between the two country’s respondents.
A branding program for an RE innovation community possibly will not be as
successful in the Netherlands as compare to a potentially higher success rate in the
U.S.A.
69
6.3 Brand
Figure 17: Cluster Brand
Placement of a renewable energy brand in a movie would be cool. Respondents

from the U.S.A. like to be entertained, spoon-fed choices to select from, whereas Dutch
are more ideological and like information in the pure and appropriate setting, not
packaged in a movie or so the assumption goes. The commodity of energy or energy
efficiency is not a topic to promote to the Dutch in the setting of a movie, as their
responsiveness will be less than brand engagement than in the U.S.A.
Dutch perhaps are less responsive to product positioning and advertisements in
movies. Whereas U.S.A. respondents identify with the product placement or brand in the
movie setting and react positively, thus purchasing or giving more value to the brand
promoted in the movie setting.
Brands to U.S.A. respondents are viewed to be tacitly implied in one’s reference
frame as breathing air during exercise. Brands in the institutional framework sense are
70
viewed by U.S.A. respondents to be the emotional engagement for connection to the

commercial world. Brands for the U.S.A. respondents are viewed as the guide to comfort
in a chaotic world. Therefore, it is a logical step for the U.S.A. respondents to accept
brand placement in a movie that they will be attending. The brand placement in the
movie creates the experience that the concept communicated by the logo, is real to the
emotional sense from which they make a majority of their commercial decisions.
Whereas in the Netherlands a brand placed in a movie will be less well received
than the U.S.A. counterpart stakeholders.
6.4 Renewables
Figure 18: Cluster Renewables
New renewable energy products are easy to implement into building construction
designs. Dutch could have reacted more neutral less positive to the word ‘easy’ as the
71
respondents may not be informed and thus gave the honest opinion. Where as the U.S.A.,
even if equally uninformed responded more positively, the ‘glass half full’. The myth
that American’s will rally quickly and unite around a central cause if the message is
‘easy’ and understood in basic terms could be revealed in this data point.
6.5 Residential
Figure 19: Cluster Residential
Residential home demand drives the integration of new renewable energy

products. The NL stakeholder response is more negative to the statement ‘residential’
could be attributed to a few things. One item that could influence in particular is the idea
of the residential home driving demand in the U.S.A. Homeownership and specifically
residential is often seen to be the driver of much of the economic activity in the US. The
tax structure and incentives are not set up the same as in the U.S.A. The taxation system
in the U.S.A. encourages debt to gain financial wealth and one sure method to go into
72
debt is to take on a home mortgage. In the U.S.A. the home was always promoted by the
banking sector as a tool for the homeowner to leverage the equitable value and thus
treating their home as a bank to increase their net asset value of their personal financial
status.
The residential home to Americans is considered to be equivalent to one’s
identity. The home for most American’s is the personal brand identity., that personal
statement of independence and personal freedom. For American society, the home,
collectively, is a barometer for the health of the society.
For the NL counterparts, this same sentiment is not echoed. Perhaps for the NL
stakeholders, the idea of independence begins first within one’s own thoughts, the
concept of self. The home is a place for the family and to raise a family. This key
difference could be demonstrated in the data point on this particular statement.
6.6 Learn by doing
Figure 20: Cluster Handson
73
‘Hands on’ product application training is the most effective means to increase
familiarity of renewable energy technology. Possibly the data confirms the U.S.A.
promotion of workshops that actively engage the participants such as, promoting learning
by doing. This is the opposite of the practice of the Dutch. Learning is not necessarily
best by doing. Doing causes or consumes resources, and resources are less plentiful in
the mind of the Dutch as opposed to the mind or culture of the American. Resources are
more plentiful in the consciousness of the American and thus learning by doing is a very
natural extension to be promoted to gain growth in an area that is not currently
performing optimally. This explanation plays well with the data found in the cluster
above. The Americans more positively respond to the ‘hands on’ and training statement
than the Dutch respondents.
74
6.7 Support
Figure 21: Cluster Leave
Energy, renewable or nonrenewable is a commodity that should be left to big

business and government. The energy markets in Europe and the U.S.A. have been
historically considered a concern of the state. However, in the U.S.A., the respondent
data from the stakeholders desires the power to be in the ‘market’ and less in the
government. In the U.S.A., the belief is to be a market function is most efficient and
most effective at meeting the needs of the individual. This again is based upon the
taxation structure for individuals. The state through regulation and taxation finalizes a
price that is suited to the level of income of the people. Perhaps the government of the
Netherlands is held to more closely resemble the electorate demands. The best interest of
the overall population is actually being served by the choices made at the governing
level. The government is more representative of the general population; this could be the
75
race to top approach to regulation of the Netherlands, or the perception of the race to the
top (note recent articles on Netherlands being a tax haven). Where as in the U.S.A., the
opposite is commonly perceived. The race to the bottom is the perception of the peoples
place with the government regulation. As such the people or stakeholders have less of
trust or confidence in the government doing what is best for the individual. As a ‘race to
the bottom’ regulation put forth by a government, does not represent the people’s best
interest and thus, by leaving the government in charge to centrally manage and direct
local energy policy is indeed out of line with personal benefit.
6.8 Need for Government
Figure 22: Cluster Need_gov
Renewable energy needs governmental support to be viable and integrate into the
market place in the U.S. U.S.A. respondents are demanding an expansion of government
76
when clearly the U.S.A. is typically a market-based, laissez-faire belief system society.
Where as the NL feels ‘everything’ is working ok.
This demonstrates the reality and view of the government in both societies among
a general sample size. But as the qualitative finding preceding this statement found this
too could be a representation of the stakeholder’s perception of the manifestation of the
race to the bottom regulation in the U.S.A. vs. the race to the top regulation in the
Netherlands. Expanding of the government not for corporations but expanding to suit the
individual needs could be the meaning behind the above data. The U.S.A. stakeholders
are demonstrating in the data that currently the governmental support is supporting the
infrastructure of the incumbents in the energy industry. The incumbent’s motives and
agenda is not representative of the people’s best interests. That is what the data could be
saying. The Dutch feel on the other hand that less government support is needed to
integrate RE technologies, perhaps the government is already large enough and taxing
heavy enough and this already is the right size to roll out RE technologies if it is best for
the Dutch citizens.
77
6.9 Designers
Figure 23: Cluster Designers
Architects / Electrical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of

the renewable energy products. Again, the Dutch do not feel qualified to answer such a
specific question and answer in the neutral. Whereas, in the U.S.A., the stakeholders
look to the glass half full.
78
6.10 Conventional Wisdom
Figure 24: Cluster All_ok

The current energy and energy efficiency market functions appropriately. Make
no changes to energy market. In NL heavy tax burdens historically have made the oil
economy costly. Energy and renewable solutions could be viewed more likely as a
function of the state in NL. And truly see the energy market for what it is, or is it the
effect of the heavy taxation of the oil economy in Europe with less taxation of the oil
economy in America. Possibly because the US the government does not have the
individual at the primary of the policies on energy, the response from the US cluster is
much more negative than the Dutch cluster. The Dutch have the benefit or burden of
taxation and through that heavy taxation the people’s demands are met. In the US the tax
burden is on the individual of middle income, but the benefits of this taxation are not
realized, uniformly. Thus leaving the system more influenced by the volatility of the
market. This volatility directly impacts communities. Further reinforcing the in-group vs.
79
out-group conflict. Fostering the endless hope of entering the in-group or creating their
own in-group based off their personal contribution or creation. The energy grid in NL is
moving progressing away from non-renewable production with a higher penetration of
decentralized energy production.
This data point could represent the difference between the differences in
economic cost burden loading. A front load, pay all social and state tax burdens up front
or a back load, with hidden or selectable costs. The concept of living in a trailer park in
the U.S.A., to avoid taxation burdens could be an exemplary example of this in action.
To live with least burden of taxation, it is possible in the U.S.A., if a life style, is chosen.
In the Netherlands, there is no choice of lifestyle, the tax burden is inescapable. More
research is needed in this area.
Defining and describing the qualitative results was important to the analysis it is
very important for the author’s to demonstrate the practical application of the results.
This application was in the form of an equation. The network equation is an attempt to
serve as a reference for organizations starting a firm in an area where no market for their
product or service exists. This equation combined with a regression plot is to
demonstrate the ‘real world’ application of the data analyzed and or begin the discussion
of an area where this type of analysis could be used in future research.
7.0 Further Qualitative Findings

To further understand the implications of branding upon the community network,
the respondent data was used to create the beginnings of measurement for looking to
network value. The formula was designed to use the stakeholder responses as
independent variables and use the respondent data as the range over which the output
would be measured against. The independent variable utilized for this first pass at the
measurement were brand equity combined with value of the innovation community. The
dependent variables were brand_important, control_brand, network_cost, and supply
chain. The theory of the formula is that network membership (equity and value) is a
function of branding of the RE innovation the method of control for the brand of the
community. In addition, the cost of the network membership, barrier to entry for
information and which target segment’s contribution will add value.
80
7.1 Network Equation

The author analyzed whether networks and associations are considered as helpful.
The original statement was: ‘A network or association provides no value to an established
company’ on a 1-7 Likert scale. A linear regression analysis showed following
predictors:

Network = 2.354 – 0.79 Brand_important – 0.464 Control_Brand + 0.016
Network_cost – 0.566 Supplychain

A network has a value and adds that value to an organization seeking value under
specific conditions. The formula demonstrates that the value of a network will respond
inversely to the quantities described by the remaining variables in the equation. A
network has less value when a brand is centrally controlled and the brand is important
and there exists a well-connected supply chain.
Description of variables:
• Network > Network can add value to a company

• Brand_important > Brand’s are important for renewable energy companies
• Control_Brand > Marketing departments should or should not control brand
internally
• Network_cost > As value of network increases cost should increase also
• Supplychain > A well-connected supply chain will add value to a network
81
Figure 25: Network Value Cycle (Estimated)

Table 5: Network Value Cycle (Estimate)

Network Brand Control_brand Network_cost Supply
Important Chain
1806.354 -1000 -1000 -1000 -1000
1838.354 -1000 -1000 1000 -1000
674.354 -1000 -1000 -1000 1000
706.354 -1000 -1000 1000 1000
-905.646 1000 -1000 -1000 1000
-873.646 1000 -1000 1000 1000
-1801.646 1000 1000 1000 1000
The values from Table 5 create the graph in Figure 25, which is an estimate for a
graphical ‘analogy’ for the process of moving from network to a fully branded institution.
The estimated values in Table 5 display chronologically the cycle of the potential
network as it transforms into an integrated branded organization. Time zero on the left of
Figure 25, represents the start of the network community in the marketplace. The dark
82
line interpolates the value of the network variable with time as a function of the Network
Equation in Section 7.1. If the sequence is repeated over an infinite time variable, the
graphical analogy can begin to validate assumptions on the transition from a network to a
branded organization. Further research is needed in this area, but the graphical analogy
could be used to reduce speculation for an organization as where to specifically make
investments in the growing organization. See appendix C for a more direct mathematical
translation of the network equation. Model fit is not very good. R square is 0.224, Figure
26 shows the residuals (observed – actual) of the model.
Table 6: Coefficients Regression
Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.531 1.500 2.354 .022
Brand_important -.128 .163 -.099 -.790 .433
Control_brand -.047 .101 -.059 -.464 .644
network_cost .002 .107 .002 .016 .987
Supplychain -.083 .147 -.077 -.566 .573
renewables -.050 .124 -.056 -.401 .690
Residential .074 .117 .086 .631 .530
handson .136 .160 .118 .852 .397
need_gov -.063 .098 -.082 -.645 .521
designers -.094 .127 -.104 -.738 .463
a. Dependent Variable: network
83
Figure 26: Regression

Now that the analysis, quantitative and qualitative have been completed, will
begin the conclusion. The conclusion will link the results to the literature review and
provide recommendations for future research in this area of study.
8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The analysis began based upon a rational, that market needs in the energy and
energy efficiency sector were not being met by the current market supply and or
regulatory instruments. The concept of the innovation community was proposed as an
option to connect the existing fragmented suppliers in this sector to the possible latent
stakeholder demand. To attract participants into this on-line community, a value
proposition had to be conveyed or made known to the stakeholders via some branding
effort. Which led to the starting point that based upon competitive elements for attention
in this sector, a brand was needed to raise a level of awareness and engage the customer.
84
The stakeholder perception data combined with the literature review in this area
begins the dialogue, at a minimum, to rationally discuss the viability of this type of
innovation community if specific branding elements are deployed. The analysis has
shown that stakeholder perceptions can be boiled down to 8 major dimensions.
Geographical (country) as well as gender differences do exist. Predicting the perception
of the participants on the usefulness of networks was inconclusive due to a low level of
model fit. However, the analysis can serve as preliminary finding for further research in
this area.
In the literature review, it was found that most brand programs must consider the
gender perspective and design brands to be more masculine than feminine. To add to
this, the stakeholder perception data did uncover specific gender differences related to the
control of the energy market, specifically if a network adds value or not to an
organization. There is a characteristic uncovered here that needs to be analyzed further,
possibly in the area of determining the specific brand and stakeholder perception
characteristics that unite the genders on the topic of renewable energy engagement.
Further findings in the literature were related to co-branding and how the 21st
century will be the age of alliances. Branding initiatives related to brands in movies as
the stake-holder perception demonstrated is an area that needs more research to determine
the specific elements of promotion for an RE innovation community. As the literature
explained, many for-profit companies are looking to find the appropriate non-profit to
align with, leveraging the transfer effect and engage broader market participants. These
two brand elements are areas where continued research would benefit and RE innovation
community brand.
In addition, the literature uncovered that commodity branding is a specific

technique to engage customers in markets where product differentiation is low. This is
an enormous opportunity for a potential RE innovation community brand, in that
currently the commodity of energy is only beginning to form a brand identity in terms of
green or non-green energy. The McKinsey (2009) group echoes this sentiment as well in
that much in the way of sales annually and savings from improved efficiency continues
un-realized. Branding, as the stake-holder perception data demonstrated, can be an
85
acceptable method to communicate an RE innovation community for the purpose of

promoting alternative energy techniques, but clearly more research is needed here to
quantify the brand elements to achieve this.
Continued in the literature review, the details related to an innovation community

were discussed. It was analyzed that the innovation community value grows when open
innovation strategies are deployed. Different types of systems, active and passive, were
discussed by Cook (2008). These two types of user contribution systems provide the
beginnings of a solid framework from which to develop the RE innovation community.
To uncover the details, for the actual construction, more research is required before
concrete steps can be taken to create a user contribution system for a RE innovation
community.
Open innovation strategies will further the confidence for a possible RE

innovation community in that the building blocks for open innovation were also
discussed in the literature covered. The RE innovation community will benefit from the
open innovation platform and e-commerce framework that O’Reilly (2005) has
discussed. Open innovation is critical for the potential RE innovation community, and
by creating the balance between social and commercial needs in this sector, value capture
can be achieved in these types of systems. The information shared with in the potential
RE innovation community will be the foundation of the gift economy acting as an
incubator for the real economy in renewable and alternative energy systems.
86
Figure 27: Renewable Energy Innovation community model
In the model displayed, see Figure 27 a single transaction is shown connecting the
community members along a common problem and arriving at a solution best suited for
the consumer, in the middle of the circle. The amount of connections possible are a
factor of the amount of member contribution in the community. The innovation
community serves to educate those within the network on the rational use of energy.
Based on the network equation, when there exists no other commercial structure,
the network is at its strongest. The strength of this potential RE innovation community
network will be in the circulation of gifts related to new innovations and basic
understanding instructions for end user of electricity. Together the complex problem of
living sustainably begins to take a manageable form once the information to achieve the
individual network member goal’s are in a common medium, the RE innovation
community. With these elements, traditional engagement devices that harness value
become less of a requirement.
87
The long tail of the internet allows the increasingly socially separated world to
find the common spaces, on the network, to create and rediscover the core of humanity,
social interaction by the way of exchanging digital gifts demonstrating to the other, the
recipient, one’s own social value. Furthermore, the mixing of ideas in an open source
forum to solve project-based problems should augment existing programs with a reduced
cost and learning curve for the end user.
The literature review covered the framework of the energy market in the U.S.A.
While this analysis was alarming in that it is difficult to understand the gap that has
occurred between technology and product implementation in this sector. However,
looking to the framework of the centralized energy grid, the answers become apparent as
to the source of the lack of penetration of renewable energy. Pindyck (1984) in his work
on the subject stated, it is simply a result of the increased risk premium that is dependent
on a stochastic supply and an assumption of in-elastic demand, that more regulation
would be required to increase the present rate of deployment of renewable energy
sources. For this reason, a generation of policy drafting and politics has ruled the energy
market for the U.S.A.
As was addressed in the literature review there are currently several options that
policy makers and lobbyists have created to increase the penetration rate of renewable
energy sources. However, it was also noted that many of the options on the proposal
table deal specifically with increasing the regulatory environment.
Decentralized energy as has been observed in the E.U. has rapidly advanced the
deployment of renewable energy sources and has reduced the concern related to volatility
from the environmental supply. It is specifically the microgrid concept that moves away
from the Pindyck problem of in-elastic demand for the variable energy sources. The
microgrid concept augments the central grid and begins to separate or segment electric
loads, more research is needed to confirm this. This segmentation of the daily energy
load begins to look at energy as no longer a one size fits all scenario but rather that by
creating a technology that matches load to supply as a time of use, efficiency is gained
and less strain is placed on the central grid, commonly referred to as demand flattening or
spike suppression.
88
The key to engaging or awakening the market is by promoting these complex

social and economic issues into a remarkable and familiar brand, which possibly can
drive market actors to engage in discussions on this topic, solving RE implementation
problems within the innovation community. With continued research in this area it is
possible that a well branded RE innovation community is the gift economy’s answer to
the real problems of the commercial world related to the energy resources of the planet.
Appendix
Section A – Survey (Likert Scale)
For each survey statement the respondent had the following options.
I completely disagree with this statement
I somewhat disagree with this statement
I slightly disagree with this statement
I am neutral for this statement
I slightly agree with this statement
I somewhat agree with this statement
I completely agree with this statement
1.Non-profits need to compete against other non-profits in the same industrial sector for influence
to communicate their mission
2.A non-profit should have a recognizable Brand.
3.Branding a renewable energy company is important.
4.User generated content (ex. Youtube videos / Facebook content) can add value to a Brand/
5. High brand awareness can only be achieved via advertising.
6. Brand messages are best communicated via television
89
7.The cost of network membership should always be low (Network membership is similar to being
enrolled in a Trade association)
8. A strong brand is a source of competitive advantage.
9.Branding of an organization should be controlled internal to the organization.
10. A network can increase the cost of membership if the brand is valued.
11.Placement of a renewable energy brand in a movie would be cool.
12.A network or association provides no value to an established company.
13. A well-connected supply chain in the building and construction industry can influence training
to designers and architects
14. A tradeshow effectively connects suppliers products to market needs
15. Webinars and online content are effective in the communication of renewable energy product
details.
16. New renewable energy products are easy to implement into building construction designs
17. Residential home demand drives the integration of new renewable energy products.
18.”Hands on” product application training is the most effective means to increase familiarity of
renewable energy products.
19. Energy, renewable or nonrenewable is a commodity that should be left to big business and
governmental control and distribution.
20. Renewable energy needs governmental support to be viable and integrate into the marketplace
in the USA.
21. Architects / Electical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of renewable
energy products into mass market in the USA.
22.The current energy and energy efficiency market functions appropriately. Make no changes to
the energy and energy efficiency market.
23. Please indicate in the space provided the following information.
Company
90
City / town
State
ZiP / Postal Code
Country
24. Please indicate in the space provided the following information.
Gender
Age
Business sector you work in
Section B – Group Comparisons (T-Test)
Table: Data Results
NONPROFIT_Compete Equal
variances .039 .843 .869 72 .388 .346 .399 -.448 1.141
assumed
Equal Appendix A: Independent Samples Test, t-test
variances not .851 53.423 .399 .346 .407 -.470 1.162

Levene's
assumed
Test for
NONPROFIT_Brand Equal Equality of
variances .540 .465 -.609
Variances 72 .544 t-test for Equality
-.208 of Means.342 -.889 .473
assumed
95%
Equal Confidence
variances not -.636 64.804 .527 -.208 .327 -.862 .446
Interval of
assumed Sig. the
Brand_important Equal (2- Std. Error Difference
variances F
1.222 Sig. -.365
.273 t df
72 tailed)
.716 Mean -.081
Difference Difference
.221 -.522 Upper
Lower .360
assumed
91
Equal
variances not -.379

.451 62.017
63.772 .654
.706 -.081
.174 .213
.386 -.507 .945
-.597 .345
assumed
User_content
network_cost Equal
-
variances 2.997
.232 .088
.631 -.889
-.179 72
71 .858
.377 -.056
-.324 .311
.364 -.677 .403
.565
1.050
assumed
Equal
-
variances not -.184 47.269
-.840 61.324 .405
.855 -.056
-.324 .304
.386 -.665 .452
.553
1.100
assumed
Brand_advertising
Brand Equal
- -
variances 6.294
.563 .014
.455 .590 72
71 .557
.276 -.394
.286 .484
.358 -.679 1.251
.321
1.098 1.108
assumed
Equal
- -
variances not .602 42.968
60.634 .319
.550 -.394
.286 .475
.390 -.664 1.236
.393
1.009 1.180
assumed
Brand_televlsion
Network Equal
variances .999 .988

.000 .321 1.293
.259 72 .200
.796 .564
.079 .436
.305 -.305 1.433
-.530 .688
assumed
Equal
variances not 1.337

.265 61.239
63.186 .792
.186 .564
.079 .422
.299 -.279 1.406
-.518 .676
assumed
Networkcost
Supplychain Equal
-
variances .772 .831
.046 .382 -.837
.565 72 .405
.574 -.303
.163 .362
.289 -.412 .738
.418
1.024
assumed
Equal
-
variances not -.850
.559 55.267
60.013 .578
.398 -.303
.163 .356
.292 -.421 .748
.409
1.015
assumed
Brand_comp_adv
Tradeshow Equal
- -
variances .038 .334
.946 .847 .290 72 .773
.072 -.565
.082 .284
.309 -.484 .051
.648
1.828 1.182
assumed
Equal
- -
variances not .284 52.512
53.278 .081
.778 -.565
.082 .290
.317 -.499 .071
.664
1.781 1.202
assumed
Control_brand
Webinars Equal
-
variances .162 .490
.481 .688 .439 72 .662
.139 -.405
.174 .396
.271 -.616 .135
-.946 .964
1.494
assumed
92
Equal
-
variances not 67.213 .238
71.769 .118 -.405
-.357 .256
.300 -.916 .241
-.956 .106
1.584
1.190
assumed
Renewable
all_ok Equal
variances 1.706 .014
6.286 .196 1.941
1.414 71 .162
.056 .488
.694 .345
.357 -.200 1.406
-.019 1.177
assumed
Equal
variances not 1.441 69.340

2.092 60.940 .040
.155 .488
.694 .339
.332 -.189
.032 1.355
1.166
assumed
Residential Equal
- -
variances .142 .707 72 .073 -.640 .352 .062
1.818 1.341
assumed
Equal
- -
variances not 57.656 .074 -.640 .351 .063
1.822 1.343
assumed
Handson Equal
variances 2.537 .116 .159 72 .874 .045 .283 -.520 .610
assumed
Equal
variances not .169 67.702 .866 .045 .266 -.487 .577
assumed
Leave Equal
variances .016 .900 .712 72 .479 .216 .303 -.388 .820
assumed
Equal
variances not .734 62.703 .466 .216 .294 -.372 .803
assumed
need_gov Equal
-
variances 1.335 .252 -.694 72 .490 -.272 .392 .509
1.052
assumed
Equal
-
variances not -.703 59.612 .485 -.272 .386 .501
1.045
assumed
Designers Equal
- -
variances 7.374 .008 72 .287 -.357 .333 .307
1.073 1.021
assumed
93
Section C – Network equation (variation)

Formula – proposal for innovation community and branding relationship to gain market share.
MS = ∫∫ (β(τ) ((Χ(ω))+Θ) + Ρ(α))

MS = Market Share capitalization
β = Brand
Χ = Non profit innovation community
Θ = Renewable energy Products quality (assumed constant- high)
Ρ = Governmental support
τ = equity
ω = value proposition
α = US dollars
94
Section D
Brush Windmill (First Electric Generation) Cleveland, OH 1888 (Motivation for paper)
Bibliography
95
Aaker, DA 1996, ‘Building Strong Brands’, New York Free Press.

Aaker, DA & Keller, KL 1990, ‘Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions’, Journal
of Marketing January, p.27-41.
Adler, L 1966, ‘Symbiotic Marketing’, Harvard Business Review, Vol.
November/December, p.59-71.
Alreck, PL & Settle, RB & Belch, MA 1982, ‘Who Responds to Gendered Ads and
How?’, Journal of Advertising Research, p.22, 25-32.
Austin, JE 2000, ‘The Collaboration Challenge’, The Collaboration Challenge,
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Belk, RW 1988, ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 15, Issue 2, p.139-168.
Berthon, P & Pitt, L & Campbell, C 2008, ‘Ad Lib: When Customers Create the Ad’,
California Management Review, Vol. 50 (4), p.6-30.
‘Governor Wants to Turn Town Into Renewable Energy Model’, BioCycle, Vol. 46,
Issue 11, p.14.
‘British Village Seeks to be First in the UK “to Cause No Planet Damage”’, BioCycle,
Vol. 46, Issue 6, p.12.
Caskey, J 2008, ‘What Language Does your Appliance Speak?’, Appliance Design,
Vol. 56, Issue 9, p.64.
Caird, S & Roy, R 2008, ‘User-Centered Improvements to Energy Efficiency
Products and Renewable energy systems: Research on household adoption and Use’,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, Issue 3, p.327-355.
Chiagouris, L 2005, ‘Non Profit Brands Come of Age’, Marketing Management, Vol.
14 Issue 5, p.30-33.
Chesbrough, H & Appleyard, M 2007, ‘Open Innovation and Strategy’, California
Management Review, Vol. 50, Issue 1, p.57-76.
Christopher, C 2007, ‘Understanding Web 2.0’, The Seybold Report, Vol. 7 (11), p.7-
8.
Cone, CL & Feldman, MA & DaSilva, AT 2003, ‘Best Practice-Causes and Effects’,
Harvard Business Review July.
96
Cook, S 2008, ‘The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your

Business’, The Harvard Business Review, October, p.60-69.
Currah, A 2007, ‘Managing Creativity: The Tensions Between Commodities and Gifts
in Digital Networked Environment’, Economy and Society, Vol. 36 (3), p.467-494.
Dickinson, S & Barker, A 2007, ‘Evaluations of Branding Alliances Between Non-
Profits and Commercial Brand Partners: the Transfer Affect’, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12, Issue 1, p.75-89.
De Chernatony, L & Dall’Olmo Riley 1998, ‘Defining a Brand: Beyond the Literature
with Experts’ Interpretations’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, Issue 3, p.
157-179.
De Joode, J & Jansen, J.C &Van der Welle, AJ &Scheepers, MJJ, 2009, ‘Increasing
Penetration of Renewable and Distributed Electricity Generation and the Need for
Different Network Regulation’, Energy Policy, Vol. 37, Issue 8, p.2907-2915.
Demers, ME 2000, ‘Tradeshow Minus the Trip’, Electronic News, Vol. 46, Issue 25,
p.52.
‘Who’s Wearing the Trousers?’, The Economist, Vol. 360 (8238) p.26-28.
EIA 2009, US Energy Consumption by Fuel 1980-2030, viewed 20 October 2009,
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html>
EIA, 2009, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics
2008, viewed 20 October 2009,
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.htm
l>
FIT Coalition 2009, Feed In Tariff: Making RPS Real, viewed 21 September 2009,
<http://www.fitcoalition.com/>
Friedman, H 2004, ‘No Business like trade show business’, Businessweek online,
9/22/2004, pN. PAG, 0p.
Fouquet, D & Johansson, T 2008, ‘European Renewable Energy Policy at Crossroads-
Focus on Electricity Support Mechanisms’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4079-
4092.
Forbes. 2003, Ceating A Killer Product, viewed 16 November 2009,
<http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/082_print.html>
97
Godin, S 2003, ‘In Praise of the Purple Cow’, viewed 15 November 2009,
<http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/purplecow.html>
Grant, A 2010, ’A Smart Makeover for the Electrical Grid’, Discover, Vol. 31, Issue 1,
p.48.
Greater Cleveland Partnership 2008, ‘Global Sustainability Center Assessment
Executive Summary (Draft)’, Internal Publication, December 2008.
Greenwald, S 2007, ‘Designing an RPS Program’, Electric Light and Power, Vol. 85,
Issue 3, p.44-45.
Grohmann, B 2009, ‘Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 46, Issue 1, p.105-119.
Gross, C 2007, ‘Community Perspective of Wind Energy in Australia: The
Application of a Justice and Community Fairness Framework to Increase Social
Acceptance’, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 5, p.2727-2736.
Hampp, A 2008, ‘Why Brands win in reality competitions’, Advertising Age, Vol. 79,
Issue 1 p.4-25.
Hankinson, P 2000, ‘Brand Orientation in Charity Organisations: Qualitative Research
into Key Charity Sectors’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 5, Issue 3, p.207-219.
Hatziargyriou, N & Asano, H & Iravini, R &Marany, C 2007, ‘Microgrids An
Overview of Ongoing Research, Development, and Demonstration Projects’, IEE Power
& Energy Magazine, July-August.
Hess, C & Ostrom, E 2007, ‘Understanding Knowledge as Commons: From Theory to
Practice’, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hosford, C 2007, ‘Avoiding Trade Show Faux Pas Six Tips Exibitors Should Know’,
Inc, Vol.29, Issue 6, p.33-34.
Hyde, L 2006, ‘The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World’, London:
Canongate.
Ind, N & Bell, M 1999, ‘Freedom and Order: A Participative Approach to Corporate
Branding’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7, Issue 1, p.19-26.
Jaehn, F & Letmathe, P 2010, ‘The Emissions Trading Paradox’, The European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 202, Issue 1, p.238-254.
98
Javalgi, RG & Traylor, MB & Gross, AC & Lampman, E 1994, ‘Awareness of

Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, p.47-58.
Jefferson, M 2008, ‘Accelerating the Transition to Sustainable Energy Systems’,
Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4116-4125.
Kapferer, JN 1992, ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Strategic Brand Management,
New York Free Press.
Karvonen, A 2008, ‘The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the
Rise of the Environmental Movement’, Technology and Culture, Vol. 49, Issue 1, p.242-
244.
Keller, KL 1998, ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Prentice-Hall.
Keller, KL & Aaker, DA 1992, ‘The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand
Extensions’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, p.1-11.
Kirubi, C & Jacobson, A & Kammen, D & Mills, A, 2009, ‘Community-Based
Electric Micro-Grids Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya’, World
Development, Vol. 37, Issue 7, p.1208-1221.
Kotler, P 1997, ‘Marketing Management’, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolter, P & Armstrong G, 2004, ‘Principles of Marketing’, 10th Edition, Prentice Hall.
Kwon, J 2006, ‘Cross-Gender Brand Extensions: Effects of Gender of the Brand,
Gender of the Consumer, and Product Type on Evaluation of Cross-Gender Extensions’,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, Issue 1, p.67-74.
Malhotra, NK 1988, ‘Self Concept and Product Choice, an Integrated Perspective’,
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, Issue 1, p.1-28.
McKinsey 2009, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, viewed 10
November 2009,
<http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy
_efficiency_full_report.pdf>
Meyer, N 2003, ‘European Schemes for Promoting Renewables in Liberlised
Markets’, Energy Policy, Vol. 31, Issue 7, p.665.
Naddaff, A 2004, ‘Branding by Design’, Communication World, Vol. 21, Issue 5,
p.18-19.
99
National Grid, 2008, ‘The West’s Renewable Energy Future’, National Grid.
Netschert, B 1973, ‘Energy vs. environment’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. Jan.-
Feb.
Nielsen, T 2009, ‘Blowing in the Wind’, Director, Vol. 63, Issue 4, p.34-36.
Nikkhajoel, H & Lasseter, R 2009, ‘Distributed Generation Interface to the CERTS
Microgrid’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 24, Issue 3, p.1598-1608.
Norman, M 2009, ‘Global Sustainability Center Business Plan’, Internal Publication.
Ogihara, A & Kamal Gueye, M & King, P & Mori, H 2007, ‘Policies to Ease the
Transition to a Post-Fossil Fuel Era’, International Review for Environmental Strategies,
Vol.7 (1), p.63-80.
O’Reilly, T 2005, What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software, viewed on 6 February 2010,
<http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228>
Owen, AD 2006, ‘Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Renewable Energy
Technologies’, Australian Economic Review, Vol. 39 Issue 2 p.207-215.
P&GJ, 2002, ‘Green Energy Gurus Say 10% Penetration Level Possible’, Pipeline &
Gas Journal, Vol.229, Issue 3, p.38.
Park, CW & Jun, SY & Shocker, AD 1996, ‘Composite Branding Alliances an
Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
33, p.453-466.
Pindyck, R 1984, ‘Uncertainty in the Theory of Renewable Resource Markets’
Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 51, Issue 165, p.289.
Pike, A 2009, ‘Geographies of Brands and Branding’, Progress in Human
Geography, Vol. 33, Issue 5, p.619-645.
Plaza, J 2009 ‘The U.S. Government Has a Long History of Financing Energy
Infrastructure’ Renewable Energy World online.
Polonsky, MJ & MacDonald, EK 2000, ‘Exploring the Link Between Cause-Related
Marketing and Brand Building’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, Vol. 5, Issue 1, p46-57.
Porter, ME & Kramer, MR 2002, ‘The Competitive advantage of Corporate
Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, December, p.5-16.
100
Ritchie, RJB & Swami, S et al 1998, ‘A Brand New World for Nonprofits’,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p.26-
42.
Renewable Energy World March 10, 2005, Solar Power Market Potential is on the
Roof, viewed 20 September 2009,
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2005/03/solar-power-market-
potential-is-on-the-roof-23585>
Renewable Energy World 2009, US Installs 1600MW of Wind in Q3, viewed 17
October 2009, <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/us-
installs-1600-mw-of-wind-in-q3>
Renewable Energy World, 2008, The Solar Industry Needs Branding to Foster
Mainstream Acceptance, viewed 20 September 2009,
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/04/the-solar-industry-
needs-branding-to-foster-mainstream-acceptance-52090>
Riezebos, R 2003, ‘Brand Management’, Harlow: Pearson.
Rogers, JC & Simmons, EA & Convery, I & Weatherall, A 2008, ‘Public Perceptions
of Opportunities for Community – Based Renewable Energy Projects’, Energy Policy,
Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4217-4226.
Room, A 1998, ‘History of Branding’, Branding, p.13-23.
Salamon, LM 1999, ‘The Nonprofit Sector at a Crossroads: The Case of America’,
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, Vol. 10, Issue
1, p.5-23.
Schein, EH 1985, ‘Organizational Culture and Leadership’, Organizational Culture
and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Simonin, BL & Ruth, JA 1995, ‘Branding as a Strategy for New Product Introduction:
Effects on Consumer’ reservation prices for the bundle, the new product, and its tie-in’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, p219-230.
Siminon, BL & Ruth, JA 1998, ‘Is a Company known by the Company it Keeps?
Assessing the Spill-Over Effects of Brand Aliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, p.30-42.
101
Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin
Cannan ed. 1904. Library of Economics and Liberty. viewed 15 January 2010
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html>.
Sternberg, P 1998, ‘The Third Way: The Repositioning of the Voluntary Sector’,
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 3, Issue 3, p.209-217.
Stride, H & Lee, S 2007, ‘No Logo? No Way. Branding in the Non-Profit Sector’,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Issue ½, p.107-122.
Sovacool, B 2008, ‘The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American Energy
Policy’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 41, Issue 3, p.245-261.
Tapp, A 1996, ‘Charity Brands: A Qualitative Study of Current Practice’, Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 1, Issue 4, p. 327-336.
Till, BD & Nowak, LI 2000, ‘Toward Effective Use of Cause-Related Marketing
Alliance’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9, Issue 7, p.472-484.
Tregear, A 2003, ‘From Stilton to Vimto: Using Food History to Re-think Typical
Products in Rural Development’, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 43, p.91-107.
Tuite, D 2009, ‘EPRI’s Smart Grid Report Offers Best Hope Ahead’, Electronic
Design, Vol. 57, Issue 25, p.24-25.
Uncles, M 2008, ‘Know thy changing consumer’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.
15, p.227-231.
Wagner, C & Majchrzak, A 2007, ‘Enabling Customer-Centricity Using Wikis and
the Wiki Way’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 (3), p.17-43.
Walker, G & Hunter, S & Devine-Wright, P & Evans, B & Frey, H 2007, ‘Harnessing
Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating Community-Based Localism in
Renewable Energy Policy in the UK’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, Issue 2,
p.64-82.
Yadav, MS 1993, ‘How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A model of Anchoring and
Adjusting’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, p.342-353.
Yilmaz, P & Hocaoglu, H & Konukman, A 2008, ‘A Pre-feasibility Case Study on
Integrated Resource Planning Including Renewables’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 3,
p.1223-1232.
102
Young, A 2008, ‘Iron Man VS. The Dark Knight’, Advertising Age, Vol. 79, Issue 29,
p.8.
103

Branding of Non Profit Organizations, A Case Study of Collaborative Innovation and Commercialization in The U.S.A. Renewable Energy Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Branding of Non Profit Organizations, A Case Study of Collaborative Innovation and Commercialization in The U.S.A. Renewable Energy Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITEIT

MAASTRICHT BUSINESS SCHOOL (UMBS)

Version date: February 8th, 2010

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK:

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Rationale of study.................................................................................................................7

1.1 Rationale of study

However, to develop and promote the brand, it was crucial to maintain a

A critical goal of this research is to begin a discussion to determine whether these

Throughout this discussion, will be looking to the activity of branding in the

In addition, this research seeks to understand the perception of the stakeholders on

1.2 Research Objectives

1. Non-profit branding to create high level of stake-holder engagement

2. Innovation communities to drive innovation

3. Current U.S. energy market and its branding implications

4. Emerging trends in this area of open innovation and

5. Give recommendations for branding of non-profit organizations involved in

The research questions are:

• What are the stakeholder’s perceptions of a renewable energy (RE) innovation

1.3 Research Framework and Methodology

Figure 1: Research Framework

2. Create and distribute a stake-holder perception survey on the topic

3. Analyze the results, quantitatively and qualitatively

4. Draw conclusions from evidence considered in context of theory

Literature Review – overview

Figure 2: VENN-Diagram: Literature Review “Classic” Articles

Insight into stakeholder perception on problem statement was to be addressed by

1.4 Limitations and Scope for Further Research

A weakness of the data collection is that a more targeted audience (stake-holders)

2.0 Literature Review

2.1.1 Brand Fundamentals

Figure 3: Study 2 Mapping MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009)

Table 1: Best Global Brands 2009 (Interbrand)

1 Coca-Cola USA 68734

Brands are essential for communication in a society where value is exchanged.

characteristics, a brand can provide emotional and self-expressive benefits to the

Branding is primarily conducted to grab and maintain the attention of the

However, whilst differentiation remains the key objective of branding (Kapferer,

2.1.2 The Non-Profit Brand

observed in the for-profit sector. Increasingly, as the climate of human consciousness

Recently, as of this writing, more and more non-governmental organizations have

Promotion of nonprofits typically come in the form of some benefit or activity

2.1.3 The Commodity Brand

Brand alliances build brand equity by transferring new associations between

Ultimately, by having a brand alliance, organizations are able to transfer original

adopters of RE technology. Various terminologies have been used to describe these

With an increasing interest in non-profit and commercial alliances such as recent

The fundamentals of branding, in both a profit and non-profit framework are

2.2 User Contribution Systems

2.2.1 Innovation Community

Figure 5: Taxonomy User Contribution Systems (Cook, 2008)

The innovation community leverages a synergy that can naturally occur in a

The concept of the innovation community challenges the conventional thinking in

An open innovation platform is a framework that channels the user contribution to

• Governance of the community

• Processes for co-creation

“If we are to make strategic sense of innovation communities, ecosystems,

Figure 7: Open and Closed Innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007)

Open innovation takes confidence and self-assurance on the part of the

Open innovation is a balance, a balance between the two extreme poles of

As a result of the user contribution system a new economy is burgeoned to form.

The innovation community, which has been facilitated by improvements in