Brand Community: Drivers

and Outcomes
Nicola Stokburger-Sauer
University of Innsbruck, Austria

ABSTRACT

Groups of users and admirers of a brand who engage jointly in group

actions to accomplish collective goals and/or to express mutual senti-
ments and commitments are known as brand communities. Lately,
brand communities have been a heavily researched topic in market-
ing science. While the positive consequences of brand communities
are well documented in the literature, little is known about how
brand communities can be facilitated and how consumer–brand
relationships can be fostered. This research empirically assesses the
relevance of offline (i.e., events) and online marketing management
tools (i.e., Web sites with online bulletin boards and online expert
chats) to strengthen brand communities by facilitating shared cus-
tomer experiences and multi-way interactions. Additionally, the
importance of consumer–brand identification as a consequence of
such relationship-building activities is investigated, and the out-
comes of a consumer’s identification with a brand are analyzed.
Important management implications can be derived. © 2010 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.

Strong consumer–brand relationships are known to produce positive outcomes

for both relationship partners. While the customer can achieve social need sat-
isfaction through building and maintaining relationships, the brand benefits from
the loyalty and advocacy of such customers (e.g., Algesheimer, Dholakia, &
Herrmann, 2005; Fournier, 1998; McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). Brand
communities are one instrument that helps in strengthening consumer–brand
relationships (e.g., Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). A brand community can be defined as
a “. . . group of consumers with a shared enthusiasm for the brand and a

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27(4): 347–368 (April 2010)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20335
347
well-developed social identity, whose members engage jointly in group actions
to accomplish collective goals and/or express mutual sentiments and commit-
ments” (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006, p. 45). While the positive consequences of
brand communities are theoretically and empirically well documented in the
literature (e.g., Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; McAlexander,
Schouten, & Koenig, 2002), little quantitative empirical research exists on how
brand communities can be facilitated. Exceptions are the studies by McAlexander,
Schouten, and Koenig (2002) as well as Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006). The first
examined whether the Camp Jeep Brandfest enhances community integration
of event visitors, and found that all integration measures were significantly
increased for the less-integrated visitors after their participation in the event.
Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) investigated several antecedents to brand com-
munity participation and brand behavior (i.e., behavioral brand loyalty). They
found that “social identity,” consisting of the cognitive self-awareness of mem-
bership in the brand community, affective commitment, and perceived impor-
tance of membership, influences brand behavior. On the other hand, social
desires influence social intentions (i.e., the intention to participate in group
activities), which affect group behavior (i.e., the number of predicted future
group behaviors) and finally result in brand behavior. The major finding is that
group behavior is strongly affected by group members’ social desire and social
intentions.
It has to be noted that the sole investigation of the relationship between the
customer and the brand in examining brand communities misses additional
connections between the customer and other important entities. McAlexander,
Schouten, and Koenig (2002) proposed a customer-centric model of brand com-
munity that consists of four relevant relationships: those between the customer
and (1) the product, (2) the brand, (3) the company, and (4) other customers/own-
ers. The authors call this set of relationships community integration and propose
a scale to measure it (i.e., the community integration scale—IBC). Following
this customer-centric model of brand community, it is one of the objectives of this
current study to investigate the potential of online and offline marketing man-
agement activities to build and foster community integration through multi-
way interactions. Additionally, the relative importance of these tools (i.e., offline
vs. online) is investigated. Before testing the effectiveness of such marketing
management actions, however, a slightly modified brand community integra-
tion model originally proposed by McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) is
reinvestigated.
A key consequence of the formation of strong ties between consumers and
brands is the establishment of consumer–brand identification, which can be defined
as the individual consumer’s perception of similarity between the brand and the
consumer (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). The concept of
identification, which originated in the field of psychology and organization sci-
ence, has recently caught the attention of marketing researchers as well (e.g.,
Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Fournier, 1998; Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2007). In mar-
keting practice, however, only a few companies have succeeded in turning cus-
tomers into champions “who [are] not only utterly loyal but also enthusiastically
promote the company and its products to others” (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003,
p. 76). Apple, Harley-Davidson, Porsche, and Saab are some of the few exceptions
whose relationship-building activities have resulted in identified, loyal customers
who are advocates of the brand. The relationship between community integration

348 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
and consumer–brand identification is of special interest. A second objective of this
paper is thus to analyze the relative importance of the four customer-centric rela-
tionships in brand communities for creating consumer–brand identification.
Finally, the relationships between consumer–brand identification and marketing
success variables (i.e., satisfaction, loyalty, advocacy) are investigated.
The present manuscript shows two key contributions. First, it empirically
assesses the relevance of marketing management tools (i.e., events as a personal,
offline tool and Web sites that provide an added-value entry point as an online
tool) to strengthen brand communities by facilitating shared customer experiences
and multi-way interactions. Second, the importance of consumer–brand identi-
fication as a consequence of such relationship-building activities is investigated,
and the outcomes of a consumer’s identification with a brand are analyzed.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Brand Communities and Research Setting

As outlined above, a brand community is characterized though a four-relationship
structure: the relationships between a customer and the product, the brand,
the company, and other customers/owners (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig,
2002). Additionally, brand communities show three traditional principles of com-
munity: shared consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral respon-
sibility. According to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001), consciousness of kind, which is
understood as an “intrinsic connection that members feel toward one another,
and the collective sense of difference from others not in the community” (p. 413)
is the key component of a brand community. Second, rituals and traditions are
important to help preserve and continue the community’s meanings, history,
and culture. Third, community members feel an obligation to the community as
a whole and to its individual members (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). McAlexander,
Schouten, and Koenig (2002) add three context-dependent markers which help
in describing brand communities in more detail. The geographic concentration
depicts the distribution of its members with regard to their locations/places,
the social context classifies brand communities according to the personal (or
sole virtual) knowledge of its members, and the temporality indicates whether
brand communities are stable and enduring or temporary and periodic.
The subjects studied in this paper are German individuals who suffer from dia-
betes and are owners/users of a certain brand blood sugar meter. Since the com-
pany whose customers build the sample of this study requested anonymity, its
name was disguised throughout the manuscript and is referred to as “Brand X.”
Over the years, this pharmaceutical company has gathered mainly socio-
demographic information of its customers, forming a remarkable customer data-
base, which is primarily used for market research purposes. Some of the customers
registered online on the company Web page to form an initial relationship with
the company; others used offline methods, for instance, registering through fly-
ers distributed by the company’s sales force in pharmacies. The diabetes market
is chosen as the research context because it per se elicits high levels of cognitive
and emotional response and involvement of the individuals who suffer from dia-
betes. A majority of diabetes patients are organized in self-regulating communities
in their neighbourhoods, which are recommended by each patient’s physician,

BRAND COMMUNITY 349

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
pharmacy, or diabetes meter brand. Brand X, for instance, provides information
to its customers through its online channel or through the monthly club/brand
magazine. Thus, many Brand X diabetes patients meet face-to-face on a regular
basis. Due to their disease, they feel a consciousness of kind with other patients.
This differentiates them from individuals not suffering from diabetes. The pro-
cedures they need to undertake in order to live with the disease can be viewed
as rituals that they share.

Community Integration Framework

The belongingness hypothesis claims that human beings have a pervasive drive
to form and maintain interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Such interpersonal ties can also be established through consumption and are
many-faceted. The possession of products can foster such ties. It has been found
that products, for instance, are valued because they remind the owner of some-
one close and therefore symbolize social relationships (Csikszentmihalyi &
Rochberg-Halton, 1981). Products are further valued because of the relation-
ship the individual forms with the brand (Chang & Chieng, 2006; Fournier,
1998) and because of the opportunity to socialize with kindred “souls.” McAlexan-
der, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) propose two additional relationships in their
brand community integration model: that between the customer and the com-
pany and that between the customer and other owners. This notion is followed
here, and thus brand community integration is viewed as consisting of these
four customer-centric relationships:

H1: Integration in the brand community consists of the customer’s perceived

relationships with their own product, the brand, the company, and other
owners.

Marketing Management and Community Integration

The construction of identities by an individual is linked to his or her need for self-
definition and social relationships and occurs with reference to specific audiences
and situations (Scott & Lane, 2000). An individual’s social identity is part of his
or her self-concept. Building on this notion, social identity theory posits that indi-
viduals show a predisposition to classify themselves and others into various social
categories such as religious or political affiliation, gender, and so on (Tajfel &
Turner, 1985). Thus, in the context of this current research, individuals suffering
from diabetes classify themselves into the group of diabetes patients using a spe-
cific diabetes meter brand. They feel a connection with group members that dif-
ferentiates them from “out-groups.” This consciousness of kind is believed to be the
key component of a brand community (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001).
The theory of social capital (e.g., Bourdieu, 1983; Coleman, 1988) further helps
in explaining brand community integration. Social capital can be viewed as the
totality of actual and future resources that result from having a continuous net-
work of more or less institutionalized relationships with other individuals; in short,
they comprise those resources that are based on the belonging to a group (Bourdieu,
1983). Social capital is an intangible asset and results from interpersonal rela-
tionships. As discussed, the belongingness hypothesis posits that individuals
strive to form and maintain interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary,

350 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
1995). Brand communities are one of many options through which individuals can
gather in groups to build and foster social relationships and thus to maximize their
social capital. McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) found that marketers
can strengthen brand communities by facilitating shared customer experiences
through event marketing activities. Similar to these authors, who included recent
Jeep purchasers into their quantitative study of how a Camp Jeep event can
strengthen the relationship network and thus facilitate community integration
(McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002), here, customers of a German pharma-
ceutical company that sells blood sugar meters to individuals suffering from dia-
betes are included.
Brand communities are found not only offline, but also in online environments
(e.g., Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006; Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Social interactions
can be face-to-face, but they can also be mediated by electronic devices. Due to the
rising importance of online communities, it is of interest to know how well brand
community integration can be fostered by online interactions. It is believed that
marketers can enhance community integration through marketing tools; how-
ever, it is proposed that community integration strength depends on the nature
of the marketing activity. Are offline or online marketing tools superior in strength-
ening a customer’s community integration? The Internet is a widely used tool for
the gathering of (consumption-related) information, purchasing of products, and
communication. In 2006, it was estimated that worldwide about 694 million peo-
ple used the Internet (comScore Networks, 2006). In its early stages people hesi-
tated to purchase products through the Internet due a number of risks involved
with online purchases, such as financial and performance risks. Nowadays, these
issues do not seem to impact online consumption behavior any more. Additionally,
IT infrastructure, such as improved bandwidth, enhances online shopping, which
in 2006 amounted to an estimated $102.1 billion spent solely by American con-
sumers online (comScore Networks, 2007). It is further known that the majority
of Internet users (about 90%) use the Internet for communication via e-mail and
about one-fourth additionally use interactive online features such as bulletin
boards or chat rooms (Shoham, 2004; SIQSS, 2007a). With regard to social rela-
tionships, however, it should be noted that online relationships complement face-
to-face relationships; they do not replace them (Peris et al., 2002). It has even
been claimed that there is a high correlation between the intensity of Internet use
and social isolation as an unintended consequence of the Internet (SIQSS, 2007b).
Furthermore, it has been found that most relationships that started in cyber-
space become more personal, with individuals getting in touch via telephone and
finally meeting face-to-face, because people strive for personal contact (McCown
et al., 2001). It is thus believed that the desire of human beings for face-to-face inter-
actions and for physical and direct experiences make events superior to online
tools in strengthening relationships and brand community integration.

H2a: The level of brand community integration can be facilitated through brand
community marketing activities. It is higher for offline marketing activ-
ities versus online initiatives in creating (a) customer–product relationships,
(b) customer–brand relationships, (c) customer–company relationships, and
(d) customer–other owner relationships.

In investigating online consumer behavior, or as in the current case, in ana-

lyzing the effect of online versus offline stimuli in creating brand community

BRAND COMMUNITY 351

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
integration, the age of consumers should not be ignored. Findings suggest that
American individuals 65 years and older access the Internet more than 40% less
than those under 25 (SIQSS, 2007b). In Germany, this difference should be even
stronger and the age of individuals with limited or no Internet access should be
even lower than in the U.S. It can be assumed that older people in general are
not as acquainted with the Internet as younger individuals and therefore prefer
offline, personal communication as compared to online communication. Thus, to
specify the effect described in the above hypothesis, the effect should be stronger
for older customers than for younger customers.

H2b: The level of brand community integration can be facilitated through brand
community marketing activities. The preference of older customers for offline
marketing activities versus online initiatives in creating (a) customer–
product relationships, (b) customer–brand relationships, (c) customer–
company relationships, and (d) customer–other owner relationships is
stronger than for younger customers.

Community Integration and Consumer–Brand Identification

An important part of identification is the perception of belonging to a group
(e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Social identity theory
explains identification in the light of social need satisfaction. Even though a
formal membership does not exist in the majority of customer–supplier rela-
tionships (exceptions are found in services such as insurance, banking, utility,
or phone services), individuals as consumers also show predispositions to clas-
sify themselves and others into social categories. Brands and brand consump-
tion, for instance, can build the basis for the classification of individuals into social
categories. Brand community integration comes into play here. Rao, Davis, and
Ward (2000) advocate a strong connection between social interactions and social
identity. Considering the way individuals develop and enhance their social iden-
tity, embeddedness in social structures represents a starting point for the con-
struction of identities. Consumer–brand identification (CBI), which is understood
as the individual consumer’s perception of similarity between the brand and
the consumer (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000) can be a con-
sequence of such processes.
There is research, however, that views identification among their members
as the basis of communities (e.g., McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002),
which implies a reversed direction of the relationship (i.e., identification influ-
ences social interactions). Other research (e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003) sug-
gests that social interactions (the authors call this “embeddedness”) are a
moderator of the relationship between antecedents of identification, such as
identity attractiveness, and identification. Furthermore, there is research (e.g.,
Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006) that, although a direct relationship between identi-
fication and members’ social interactions is not hypothesized, still reports the
correlation of the variables. Future interactions in the brand community were
integrated as one of the two major dependent variables in Bagozzi and Dholakia’s
(2006) model of small group brand communities. The authors found significant
correlations between brand identification and group behavior (i.e., future inter-
actions in the brand community) of 0.31 for the brand user and 0.42 for
the non-brand user groups. Finally, research suggests that social interaction

352 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
variables are important antecedents to identification (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich,
and Harquail, 1994; Hall & Schneider, 1972). Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn
(1995), for instance, found that the length of the membership and activity char-
acteristics, such as the visiting frequency, significantly influence identification.
Additionally, in a sport-specific context, for instance, a number of studies
have been conducted into the construct of affiliation as an antecedent to iden-
tification. Donovan, Carlson, and Zimmerman (2005) empirically showed that
the need for affiliation, which they define as “a tendency to form common inter-
est groups thereby cooperating with others and receiving enrichment from social
interaction” (p. 33), is a strong antecedent to identification. Sutton et al. (1997)
consider community affiliation to be the most significant correlate of fan iden-
tification. They further state that it forms one of the most instrumental aspects
in building fan identification. This notion can be applied to traditional
consumer–supplier dyads. Examples of CBI-management activities through
embeddedness and social interactions are “member conferences” (e.g., Holiday
Inn; Cross, 1992) and other company-sponsored forums such as Camp Jeep or
the Harley-Davidson Brandfest (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). It is
thus proposed that increased interactions and relationships between entities
lead to higher degrees of CBI.

H3: The higher the customer’s integration into the brand community—that is,
the (a) customer–product relationships, (b) customer–brand relationships,
(c) customer–company relationships, and (d) customer–other owner rela-
tionships—the higher his or her level of consumer–brand identification.

Similar to the arguments presented to propose H2, it is believed that the

level of CBI is dependent on the kind of marketing activity a company applies.
Due to the desire for face-to-face interactions and physical experiences, it should
be higher for offline (i.e., event marketing) than for online activities (e.g., bul-
letin boards or chat rooms). Additionally, it is hypothesized that the level of com-
munity integration interacts with the marketing activities in driving CBI. It is
believed that CBI is highest for the highly integrated customers who participate
in offline marketing initiatives:

H4: Brand community marketing activities moderate the relationship between

brand community integration and consumer–brand identification. Con-
sumer–brand identification is higher for offline versus online interactions
for customers with a high versus low level of (a) customer–product rela-
tionships, (b) customer–brand relationships, (c) customer–company rela-
tionships, and (d) customer–other owner relationships.

Consumer–Brand Identification and Success Outcomes

The consequences of identification have been subject to scholarly interest both
in organizational behavior (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Dutton, Dukerich, &
Harquail, 1994) and the marketing literature (e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003;
Kwon & Armstrong, 2004). In organizational science it was found that identifi-
cation has a positive effect on so-called citizenship behavior (e.g., Bergami &
Bagozzi, 2000; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Mael and Ashforth (1992) showed that
there is a positive relationship between identification of alumni with their alma

BRAND COMMUNITY 353

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
mater and satisfaction with the school. Likewise, Smidts, Pruyn, and van Riel
(2001) found a positive correlation between organizational identification and
job satisfaction. Transferred to the customer–supplier dyad, it can be assumed
that CBI positively influences satisfaction with the consumption object (i.e.,
brand) because CBI supports self-definitional goals of the consumer, and thus
represents the basis for added consumption value (Fournier, 1998). This should
lead to more positive performance evaluations. Thus, the following hypothesis
is put forward:

H5a: The higher the level of consumer–brand identification, the more likely
the consumer is to be satisfied with the brand.

Because of its potential as one the most important company success variables,
customer loyalty has been a heavily studied phenomenon over the years (e.g.,
Bloemer & Kasper, 1995; Fornell et al., 1996). In organization science, Bergami
and Bagozzi (2000) were able to empirically verify a strong connection between
identification and commitment. In marketing science, customer loyalty is nowa-
days often conceptualized as a construct consisting of an attitudinal (i.e., com-
mitment) and a behavioral component (e.g., Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2002;
Dick & Basu, 1994), with a high correlation between them. Similarly, it can
be assumed that identification-based commitment is expressed through a
sustained, long-term preference for the identified-with brand’s products
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Thus, customer loyalty is viewed as a key conse-
quence of CBI:

H5b: The higher the level of consumer–brand identification, the more likely
the consumer is to be loyal to the brand.

One of the major consequences of identification that have been proposed in

the literature is the promotion of the identified-with organization or company
(e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Dutton & Dukerich,
1991). Such company promotion or advocacy can take place both socially and
physically. In social terms, company promotion includes the recommendation
of the company (and its offerings, such as products and services or as an employer)
to others or the defense of the company when it is attacked by others. Company
promotion in physical terms can involve buying and using additional company
merchandise that shows the company logo or name, collecting memorabilia,
apparel, or even wearing tattoos (Katz, 1994).
In organizational research, Mael and Ashforth (1992), for instance, found
that there is a strong positive relationship between identification of alumni
with their alma mater and both social promotion (e.g., advising others to attend
the school) and physical promotion (e.g., attending the college banquet). Indeed,
in a consumer–brand context, both forms of promotion can take place. Compa-
nies such as Porsche or Harley-Davidson have, for instance, successfully man-
aged to distribute highly demanded brand collectibles. It is thus believed that
there is a positive relationship between CBI and company advocacy:

H5c: The higher the level of consumer–brand identification, the more likely
the consumer is to actively promote the brand.

354 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
METHOD

Procedure
The study empirically tests the hypothesized relationships using a mixed
(between-subjects) experimental and survey design. Similar to McAlexander,
Schouten, and Koenig (2002), events as a means of strengthening social inter-
actions are tested. Whereas they conducted a field study, the event in this paper
is hypothetical in nature. Applying experimental scenario techniques, an offline
marketing tool is tested against that of an online marketing tool. Specifically,
the online tool offers customers a Web site that provides an added-value entry
point with the possibility to participate in a bulletin board to exchange experi-
ences with other customers and get in touch with experts through online chats.
A full description of the scenarios is provided in the Appendix.
Data analysis includes exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory fac-
tor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM), as well as tests of
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Diabetes patients using Brand X blood sugar
meters were selected as test subjects. A small sample (n ⫽ 24) pretested the
generated questionnaire with respect to clarity and understanding of items.
This process resulted in some minor changes in wording. The majority of the
items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale with the endpoints “strongly dis-
agree” and “strongly agree.”
Methods used to analyze H1, H3, and H5 are EFA, item-to-total-correlation
(ITTC) and Cronbach’s alpha (␣) (e.g., Campbell, 1960; Churchill, 1979). The
model parameters are estimated with the help of CFA using LISREL 8.7
(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The data show moderate violations of a normal dis-
tribution. Hence, the study applies the maximum likelihood (ML) method of
estimation with the Satorra–Bentler (SB) adjustment for non-normality in CFA
(Satorra & Bentler, 1994) to receive a corrected SB-x2 and robust standard
errors. Global and local goodness of fit measures assess the reliability and valid-
ity of the measurement model and the SEM (e.g., Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994;
Sharma, 1996). Methods used to assess H2 and H4 include ANOVAs and t-tests.
To transform the multi-item community integration dimensions into four one-
item variables, mean values are calculated. A median split allows for low and
high group categorization. Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests and normal distribution
plots (Q-Q diagrams) were evaluated to test for the applicability of ANOVA.

Participants
With a known average response rate of their “offline customers” of approxi-
mately 10%, a total of 4000 Brand X customers were randomly selected from the
database and sent the questionnaire containing the event stimulus via mail
with a prepaid return envelope. Using a random design to select “online respon-
dents,” 4000 customers were chosen from the online database and were sent an
e-mail newsletter with the link to the online questionnaire. With an expected
response rate about twice as high as in the offline group, half of those customers
who went online to participate were randomly given the discussion group stim-
ulus and half were selected as a control group. The response rate in all condi-
tions was higher than expected, however, especially in the offline condition,
where it was more than twice as high (i.e., 24% response rate). Thus, 941 (37%

BRAND COMMUNITY 355

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
female) customers participated in the mail sampling. The questionnaire con-
taining the online stimulus was taken by 423 (22% female) respondents, and 533
(24% female) respondents were part of the control group. Overall 2.2% of the
respondents were below the age of 20, 10.8% between 20 and 39 years old, 16.8%
between 40 and 49, and 70.2% above 50 years in age. The age does not differ
across the stimuli [F(1,882) ⫽ 1.35, p ⬎ 0.10].

Measures
The dimensions of community integration, consumer–brand identification,
and the success variables (i.e., satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy) were meas-
ured. The independent variable “brand community management initiatives”
was manipulated. To select adequate community marketing stimuli (CMS) for
the main study a pretest was carried out with 20 respondents (45% male, aver-
age age 31.5 years). More specifically, the goal of the pretest was to select one
offline and online marketing stimulus scenario that were comparable and would
lead to similar overall evaluations of the stimuli. This is necessary in order to
rule out bias as a result of different attitudes toward the stimuli and reduce
the effect to the type of communication measure. Respondents rated their level
of agreement on a 4-point Likert-scale with the endpoints “strongly disagree” and
“strongly agree.” Results show that both CMS were able to create a feeling of com-
munity (Moffline ⫽ 3.4 and Monline ⫽ 3.2, t ⫽ 1.83, p ⬎ 0.05) and generate rela-
tionships with the product, brand, company, and other users. This indicates the
general suitability of the selected scenarios for this study of brand community
facilitation. Additional evidence of the quality of the CMS is given by the following
results. Both scenarios were able to elicit an interest in attending the described
event and visit the online platform (Moffline ⫽ 3.3 and Monline ⫽ 3.1, t ⫽ 1.45, p ⬎
0.10). Results of an open-ended question that asked respondents to give sug-
gestions for improvement were integrated into the scenarios (e.g., the visual
design of the scenarios). The Appendix shows translated English versions of the
offline (i.e., event marketing) and online (i.e., online platform including a bul-
letin board and chats with experts) stimuli.
The community integration scale of McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig
(2002) built the basis for the items to measure the relationships between the cus-
tomer and (a) the product, (b) the brand, (c) the company, and (d) other
customers/owners. Since the number of items that make up the questionnaire
were restricted to a minimum, only between three and four items to measure each
dimension could be selected. Additionally, only those items were selected that
measured neither loyalty nor advocacy since these constructs were used as
dependent variables in the tests of hypotheses. All dimensions show goodness
of fit measures with alphas between 0.72 and 0.81 and between 64.2% and 72.2%
of variance extracted by EFA (Table 1).
Due to the space constraints, consumer–brand identification was measured
by only one item. The item “Brand X and I are very much alike” was adapted from
Bergami and Bagozzi’s (2000) two-item scale and measures the cognitive per-
ception of similarity between the brand and the consumer. The use of a single-
item measure to operationalize brand identification is not unusual, as the
research by Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) shows.
Additionally, to operationalize customer satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy,
only one item per construct could be selected from existing scales. Customer

356 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Operationalization of IBC and CBI.

Brand Community Integration (IBC)

Customer–product relationship (adapted Customer–company relationship (adapted

from Kleine, Kleine, & Allen, 1995;
McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002),
a ⫽ 0.80
1. My Brand X blood sugar meter has a
great deal of personal meaning for
me.
2. I love my Brand X blood sugar
meter.
3. My Brand X blood sugar meter
satisfies my needs.
Customer–brand relationship (adapted
from Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004;
McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig,
2002; one new item), ␣ ⫽ 0.79
1. Brand X is of highest quality.
2. Brand X helps me to live my life.
3. Brand X understands my needs as
diabetic.
Note: Consumer–brand identification (CBI, adapted from Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Brand X and I are
very much alike.
from McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig,
2002; one new item), a ⫽ 0.76
1. The employees of Brand X understand
my needs.
2. The employees of Brand X care about
my opinions.
3. I trust the employees of Brand X.
Customer–other owners relationship
(adapted from McAlexander, Schouten, &
Koenig, 2002), ␣ ⫽ 0.72
1. I have met wonderful people because
of Brand X.
2. I feel a sense of kinship with other
customers of Brand X.
3. I have interest in a club for Brand X
customers.

satisfaction was measured by the item “I am completely satisfied with Brand X”

(adapted from Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004), customer loyalty was meas-
ured through the item “I am very loyal to Brand X” (adapted from Aaker,
Fournier, & Brasel, 2004), and customer advocacy was measured through the
item “I often talk favorably about Brand X to my friends and colleagues”
(adapted from Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

RESULTS

Brand Community Integration

H1 is a reexamination of a modified scale of the four-component model of brand
community integration suggested by McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002).
Since the respondents in each treatment condition received different stimuli, the
fit of the community integration model was evaluated separately for each of the
conditions. All three CFAs (i.e., the offline, online, and control groups) show good
fit measures; however, serious problems of discriminant validity occurred using
the CFA x2 difference test method. Here, the correlation between the two con-
structs is constrained to one and the x2 value of the constrained model is com-
pared to that of the unconstrained model (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). As Table 2
shows, discriminant validity is not evident between the customer–brand relation-
ship and the customer–product relationship in the offline and control group (marked

BRAND COMMUNITY 357

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Results of a Test for Discriminant Validity of IBC Dimensions (X 2 Difference Test).

Offline Group Online Group Control Group

CP CB CC CO CP CB CC CO CP CB CC CO

CP — — —
CB 0.38 — 16.15 — 3.09 —
CC 76.99 25.85 — 134.88 7.39 — 222.65 29.47 —
CO 237.05 255.98 238.67 — 132.67 101.11 108.81 — 262.17 218.95 247.58 —
Note: Numbers in cells represent x 2 differences. Numbers in italics point to missing discriminant validity. CP ⫽ Customer–product relationship; CB ⫽ Customer–brand relationship;
CC ⫽ Customer–company relationship; CO ⫽ Customer–other owners relationship.
Table 3. CFA Goodness of Fit of a Three-Dimensional Community Integration
Model.

Indicator t-Value of Factor

Construct/Item Alpha CR AVE Reliability Loading

Customer–brand 0.79 0.81 0.58

relationship
CB_1 0.56 21.08
CB_2 0.65 21.01
CB_3 0.70 23.95
Customer–company 0.91 0.76 0.52
relationship
CC_1 0.51 20.55
CC_2 0.47 17.38
CC_3 0.57 21.69
Customer–other 0.72 0.73 0.48
owners relationship
CO_1 0.44 18.13
CO_2 0.73 26.14
CO_3 0.29 14.41
Global measures: SB-x 2/df ⫽ 53.65/24; RMSEA ⫽ 0.04; SRMR ⫽ 0.02; CFI ⫽ 0.99;
NFI ⫽ 0.99; TLI ⫽ 0.99
Note: AVE ⫽ Average variance explained; CFA ⫽ Confirmatory factor analysis; CFI ⫽ Comparative fit
index; CR ⫽ Construct reliability; EFA ⫽ Exploratory factor analysis; ITTC ⫽ Item-to-total-correlation;
NFI ⫽ Normed fit index; RMSEA ⫽ Root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ Standardized root
mean square residual; TLI ⫽ Tucker Lewis index.
CB ⫽ Customer–brand relationship; CC ⫽ Customer–company relationship; CO ⫽ Customer–other owners
relationship.
Correlations between CB and CC ⫽ 0.72, CB and CO ⫽ 0.62, CC and CO ⫽ 0.58.
Second-order factor loadings: CB ⫽ 0.89, CC ⫽ 0.83, CO ⫽ 0.62.

in italics), as the results indicate that the critical value [⌬x2(1) ⫽ 3.84] was not
exceeded in the pairwise comparison tests.
Thus, because the customer–product relationship is less interesting theoret-
ically and managerially and the measures might confound the brand with the
product, the customer–product relationship1 was dropped from parts of the fur-
ther analyses. The three-dimensional community integration construct now
shows excellent fit measures, as demonstrated in Table 3 for the pooled sample.
To sum up, H1 can only be partially supported.

Brand Community Integration and CMS

When estimating the proposed dependence of community integration on CMS
(H2a), ANOVAs and t-tests were performed. First, however, manipulation checks
were used to demonstrate the adequacy of the selected treatments. To test the com-
parability of the manipulation (i.e., the formulations used in the offline and online
scenario), two-sided t-tests were run in order to detect whether there are any dif-
ferences in the offline versus online treatments. With respect to the customer–
product relationship, the item “The event/home page makes me interested in
any new blood sugar meter (BSM) of Brand X” (adapted from Bhattacharya &
1
The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for this valuable comment.

BRAND COMMUNITY 359

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Sen, 2003) was used to make sure treatments are a priori perceived to be sim-
ilar by the respondents. Results demonstrate that there are no perceived dif-
ferences (Moffline ⫽ 4.42 and Monline ⫽ 4.35, t ⫽ 1.13 p ⬎ 0.10). The item “The
event/home page makes me know the offers of Brand X very well” (adapted from
Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004) was used to test the adequacy of the formula-
tions with respect to the customer–brand relationship. Differences are not sig-
nificant (Moffline ⫽ 3.97 and Monline ⫽ 3.96, t ⫽ 0.19, p ⬎ 0.10). The
customer–company relationship was tested using the item “I would like to talk
to Brand X employees at the event/online about my experiences with BSM or
about diabetes in general (own item),” resulting in Moffline ⫽ 3.33 and Monline ⫽
3.34 (t ⫽ ⫺0.43, p ⬎ 0.10). The item “Using Brand X just like other event/home
page visitors lets me be a part of a shared community of like-minded people
(own item)” is used to assess the adequacy of the customer–other owners rela-
tionship. Differences between treatments are not significant (Moffline ⫽ 4.04 and
Monline ⫽ 3.98, t ⫽ 0.90, p ⬎ 0.10).
Results of the analyses support H2a. As the upper part of Table 4 shows, the
mean values of the dependent community integration variables in the offline
treatment are significantly higher than those in the online treatment. Although

Table 4. Means of IBC Dimensions as a Function of Stimuli.

Dependent Variables (H2a) Offline Group Online Group Control Group

CP** 4.44 (0.70) 4.08 (0.82) 4.12 (0.77)

CB** 4.41 (0.67) 4.13 (0.67) 4.12 (0.69)
CC** 4.20 (0.65) 4.01 (0.61) 3.99 (0.65)
CO* 2.65 (0.99) 2.60 (0.77) 2.51 (0.84)

Offline Group Online Group Control Group

Dependent Variables (H2b) Younga Oldb Younga Oldb Younga Oldb

CP** 3.97 4.57 3.87 4.18 3.96 4.24

CB** 4.05 4.50 4.02 4.18 4.05 4.19
CC** 3.97 4.27 3.97 4.03 3.91 4.06
CO 2.50 2.69 2.62 2.60 2.51 2.51

Low Relationships Group High Relationships Group

CBI Means (H4) Offline Online Control Offline Online Control

Independent variables

CP** 2.52 2.08 2.20 4.05 3.26 3.29

CB** 2.36 2.12 2.30 3.82 3.35 3.32
CC◊ 2.69 2.33 2.26 3.92 3.22 3.13
CO 2.77 2.17 2.31 3.97 3.31 3.28
Note: Numbers in cells are means, numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
** Differences are significant at p ⬍ 0.01; * Differences are significant at p ⬍ 0.05; ◊Differences are signifi-
cant at p ⬍ 0.10.
a
Up to 49 years of age; b 50 years and older.
CP ⫽ Customer–product relationship; CB ⫽ Customer–brand relationship; CC ⫽ Customer–company rela-
tionship; CO ⫽ Customer–other owners relationship.

360 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
(as the results of H1 showed) discriminant validity is missing between the
customer–product relationship and some of the other relationships, for the sake
of completeness and because tests were independent of each other, the dimen-
sion was kept in this part of the analysis. ANOVAs showed that the following
stimuli differences are significant: customer–product relationship [F(2,1892) ⫽
49.67, p ⬍ 0.01], customer–brand relationship [F(2,1889) ⫽ 41.54, p ⬍ 0.01],
customer–company relationship [F(2,1885) ⫽ 23.54, p ⬍ 0.01], and customer–
other owner relationship [F(2,1892) ⫽ 3.99, p ⬍ 0.05]. Thus, H2a(a–d) are
supported.
H2b proposed that the offline marketing communication is significantly supe-
rior to the online communication for older than for younger customers. This dif-
ference is expected to be relevant for younger individuals versus individuals 50
years of age and older. Indeed, older customers’ (age 50 and older) versus younger
customers’ relationships with the product, brand, and company are more sig-
nificantly facilitated when using offline CMS than when using online CMS. All
main and interaction effects are strong and significant. Interaction effects
show the following results with respect to the relationships with the product,
brand, and company: F(2,1878) ⫽ 7.91, p ⬍ 0.01; F(2,1872) ⫽ 9.34, p ⬍ 0.01; and
F(2,1871) ⫽ 4.53, p ⬍ 0.05. The main effects in the ANOVAs (presented in the same
order as previously mentioned) are the following for CMS: F(2,1878) ⫽ 15.34,
p ⬍ 0.01; F(2,1872) ⫽ 12.00, p ⬍ 0.01; and F(2,1871) ⫽ 7.10, p ⬍ 0.01; and the
following for age: F(2,1878) ⫽ 108.95, p ⬍ 0.01; F(2,1872) ⫽ 51.95, p ⬍ 0.01;
and F(2,1871) ⫽ 24.15, p ⬍ 0.01. In the case of the customer–other owners
relationship, no significant effects are prevalent. Thus, H2b(a–c) are sup-
ported, whereas H2b(d) is not.

Brand Community Integration and CBI

H3 proposed that the community integration dimensions have a positive effect
on consumer–brand identification. To analyze this influence, SEM was per-
formed. As Table 5 shows, with the exception of the influence of the customer–
company relationship on CBI, all other relationships are positive and significant.
Of the three effects, that of the customer–other owners relationship on CBI is
highest (b ⫽ 0.53), followed by the influence of the customer–brand relationship
(b ⫽ 0.46). The relationship between the customer–company construct and CBI
(H3c) is at ⫺0.15 (n.s.). This result should be investigated in future research.
Hypothesis H3b and H3d can be accepted. A closer look at these relationships
is taken next.
To test for H4, the moderating influence of CMS on the relationship between
the community integration dimensions and CBI, several 2 (stimulus: offline vs.
online) ⫻ 2 (customer–product relationship/customer–company/customer–other
owners: low vs. high) ANOVAs were performed. Again, the customer–product
relationship was kept in the analysis since it cannot do any harm there. The lower
part of Table 4 shows the mean values of the analyses. Significant interac-
tion effects at p ⬍ 0.01 were detected for the customer–product relationship
[F(2,1831) ⫽ 8.06, p ⬍ 0.01], the customer–brand relationship [F(2,1830) ⫽ 6.36,
p ⬍ 0.01], and the customer–company relationship [F(2,1829) ⫽ 5.43, p ⬍ 0.01].
Finally, CMS does not moderate the relationship between the customer–other
owner relationship and consumer–brand identification [F(2,1826) ⫽ 1.82,
p ⬎ 0.10].

BRAND COMMUNITY 361

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 5. Results of the Structural Equation Model.

Parameter Squared Multiple

Relationship Estimates Correlations Global Fit

H3b: Customer–brand 0.46** CBI 0.27⌬ SB-x2 289.23

relationship → CBI
H3c: Customer–company ⫺0.15 Satisfaction 0.17 df 68
relationship → CBI
H3d: Customer–other owners 0.53** Loyalty 0.28 RMSEA 0.06
relationship → CBI
H5a: CBI → Customer satisfaction 0.42** Advocacy 0.21 SRMR 0.10
H5b: CBI → Customer loyalty 0.53** CFI 0.95
H5c: CBI → Customer advocacy 0.46** NFI 0.95
Satisfaction ↔ Customer loyalty 0.31** TLI 0.93
Satisfaction ↔ Customer advocacy 0.23**
Customer loyalty ↔ Customer 0.26**
advocacy
Note: CFI ⫽ Comparative fit index; CBI ⫽ Consumer–brand identification, df ⫽ Degrees of freedom;
NFI ⫽ Normed fit index; RMSEA ⫽ Root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR ⫽ Standardized root
mean square residual; TLI ⫽ Tucker Lewis index.
** Significant at p ⬍ 0.01; * Significant at p ⬍ 0.05; ⌬ ⫽ One minus the standardized error.

The main effects in the ANOVAs (presented in the same order as previously men-
tioned) are the following for CMS: F(2,1831) ⫽ 64.12, p ⬍ 0.01; F(2,1830) ⫽ 17.83,
p ⬍ 0.01; and F(2,1829) ⫽ 56.56, p ⬍ 0.01; and the following for IBC: F(2,1831) ⫽
580.20, p ⬍ 0.01; F(2,1830) ⫽ 504.95, p ⬍ 0.01; and F(2,1829) ⫽ 304.71,
p ⬍ 0.01. Thus, H4a–c are supported: It can be said that those customers that
have a strong relationship with the product, brand, and company, and those in
the offline condition have higher CBI means than those that have a less strong
relationship and are in the online condition. Hypothesis H4d is not supported.

CBI and Company Success Variables

H5 claimed positive effects of CBI on (a) satisfaction, (b) loyalty, and (c) advo-
cacy. As Table 5 shows, the relationships between CBI and the three variables
are high (g ⫽ 0.42 to 0.53) and significant. The global goodness of fit indices are
good. Additionally, as the SMC (squared multiple correlation) values, which
are comparable to a regression’s R2, show, the analyses are able to explain a
large amount of the variance of all constructs. The CFA x2 difference test fur-
ther shows that discriminant validity is given between the study constructs.
Therefore, H5(a–c) can be accepted: Identification has a positive effect on
satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary
The results of this paper are relevant for research regarding the concepts of brand
communities, customer–brand relationships, and consumer–brand identification

362 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
(CBI). Strong relationships between the customer and the brand and other cus-
tomers encourage CBI. Additionally, the study shows that a strong CBI has a pos-
itive effect on satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy. To foster these and to facilitate
brand community relationships, community marketing activities targeting cus-
tomers should be put forward. However, analyses show that—consistent with the
proposition—such relationships are more strongly influenced by offline activities,
such as organizing an event, than by online activities, such as offering Web sites
that provide an added-value entry point including an online bulletin board and
expert chat room. Even when taking the age of customers into consideration
(i.e., examining younger customers), online initiatives are not superior to offline
activities in relationship building. These results provide the basis for deriving
important implications for marketing practice.

Management Implications
The study shows that community marketing activities have the power to influ-
ence the strength of the relationships between the customer and the product,
the brand, the company, and other customers/owners. There do exist non–
company-managed, self-regulating communities that are successful and help
in strengthening the brand’s image. Lugnet, an international LEGO users group
network, for instance, builds the global community of LEGO enthusiasts and
unites LEGO fans worldwide through forums, Web pages, and services. However,
not all self-regulated communities are in the favor of the company’s goals as
the community “Hell’s Angels,” formed in 1948 by Harley-Davidson owners,
showed. Such non–company-run communities bear the risk of community mem-
bers conveying brand information in a non–company-intended way. Companies
should thus try to integrate their customers into company-run communities by
facilitating the above-mentioned relationships. Harley-Davidson, for instance,
reacted to the negative outcomes posed by the members of Hell’s Angels by cre-
ating the communities of “H.O.G.” (Harley Owner’s Group) in 1983. Although
H.O.G.s are extremely successful and are believed to unite more than a million
Harley-Davidson owners worldwide, Hell’s Angels still exists and conveys neg-
ative user images. Companies should thus be advised to start community mar-
keting activities early in the life cycle of their products and brands.
It was found that the effect of offline initiatives, such as event marketing, is
significantly stronger than that of online tools, such as bulletin boards and
expert chats, in creating relationships. Although the difference in effects is much
stronger for older customers, the same pattern results for younger customers as
well. Marketers should thus be aware that in an effort to facilitate such rela-
tionships, event marketing is a much more powerful tool than online activities
are. This is not surprising, since social relationships are known to benefit most
from face-to-face interactions. Online relationships can only complement face-
to-face relationships; they cannot substitute for them. Most relationships that
started in cyberspace develop to a more personal stage when the relationship
partners get in touch via telephone and finally meet face-to-face. The desire of
human beings for face-to-face interactions is complemented through market-
ing events, where companies give their customers the opportunity to physically
inspect (new) products and learn more about the company and its offerings by
direct communications to employees and other customers.

BRAND COMMUNITY 363

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Additionally, the identification of customers with a brand is positively influ-
enced by these relationships. CBI in turn positively affects the satisfaction, loy-
alty, and advocacy of customers. Companies should keep these effects in mind
when putting activities into action that promote community integration. Thus,
community marketing is a powerful tool for company success.

Theoretical Implications
This research provides support for the role of external sources, such as com-
munity marketing initiatives, in influencing a customer’s community integra-
tion (i.e., his or her relationships with the product, brand, company, and other
customers/owners). Findings of the reinvestigation of a modified community
integration model provide the basis for additional theoretical implications. The
analysis showed that the strength of the correlations between the customer–
product and customer–brand relationship is at a level that might not allow for
discriminant validity between the dimensions (as measured in this study).
Researchers should be aware of these possible overlaps since they can pose the
risk of serious misinterpretations of findings. The suggestion is thus to elimi-
nate the customer–product relationship from frameworks where results are
estimated simultaneously, such as in structural equations models. Keeping all
four dimensions in the analysis does not create problems of discriminant valid-
ity in frameworks, however, where the analyses are run iteratively (as is the
case in the current ANOVA-models).
Although this study makes important contributions to the understanding of
community integration, brand identification, and company success variables, it
entails several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the research
reported here entails only one company and one product category, and the results
must be proved for other contexts as well. Second, the recommendations
made with respect to community marketing communication are based on only
one offline and one online stimulus. In future research, additional stimuli should
be developed and tested.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 31, 1–16.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69, 19–34.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models
and hypothesis testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research
(pp. 386–422). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). On the evaluation of structural equation mod-
els. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. D. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of cus-
tomer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23, 45–61.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–509.

364 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group
self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identi-
fication: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing, 59, 46–57.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework
for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing,
67, 76–89.
Bloemer, J. M., & Kasper, H. D. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer sat-
isfaction and brand loyalty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 311–329.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. In G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–260). New York: Greenwood Press.
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait,
or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.
Chang, P.-L., & Chieng, M.-H. (2006). Building consumer–brand relationship: A cross-cul-
tural experiential view. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 927–959.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain effects from brand trust and brand
effect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-
structs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
comScore Networks. (2006). 694 million people currently use the Internet worldwide.
Retrieved April 4, 2007, from http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press⫽849.
comScore Networks. (2007). US Internet sales pass $100 billion. Retrieved April 2, 2007,
from http://digital-lifestyles.info/2007/01/15/us-internet-sales-pass-100-billion/.
Cross, R. H. (1992). Five degrees of customer bonding. Direct Marketing, 55, 33–35.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic sym-
bols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual frame-
work. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99–113.
Donovan, D. T., Carlson, B. D., & Zimmerman, M. (2005). The influence of personality
traits on sports fan identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 31–42.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: The role of image
and identity in organizational adaptation, Academy of Management Journal, 34,
517–554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organisational images and mem-
ber identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The Ameri-
can customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Market-
ing, 60, 7–18.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function
of career pattern and organizational type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 340–350.
Jeppesen, L. B., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user
communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Sci-
ence, 17, 45–63.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scien-
tific Software International.
Katz, D. R. (1994). Just do it: The Nike spirit in the corporate world. New York: Random
House.

BRAND COMMUNITY 365

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Kleine, S. S., Kleine, R. E., & Allen, C. T. (1995). How is a possession “me” or “not me”?
Characterizing types and an antecedent of material possession attachment. Journal
of Consumer Research, 22, 327–343.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2004). An exploration of the construct of psychological
attachment to a sport team among college students: A multidimensional approach.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 94–103.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organisational Behav-
iour, 13, 103–123.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.
Journal of Marketing, 66, 38–54.
McCown, J. A., Fischer, D., Page, R., & Homant, M. (2001). Internet relationships: Peo-
ple who meet people. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 593–597.
McDonald, M., Milne, G., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational factors evaluating sport spec-
tator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100–113.
Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27, 412–432.
Peris, R., Gimeno, M. A., Pinazo, D., Ortet, G., Carrero, V., Sanchiz, M., & Ibáñez, I. (2002).
Online chat rooms: Virtual spaces of interaction for socially oriented people. CyberPsy-
chology & Behavior, 5, 43–52.
Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why
firms leave the New York stock exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45,
268–292.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables
analysis (pp. 399–419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organisational identity. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 25, 43–62.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: Wiley.
Shoham, A. (2004). Flow experiences and image making: An online chat-room ethnography.
Psychology & Marketing, 21, 855–882.
Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS). (2007a). The Internet
study. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/
press_detail.html.
Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society (SIQSS). (2007b). Internet use
and mental wellness in America. Preliminary Report 06-29-05. Retrieved April 2,
2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/research/wellness.htm.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee commu-
nication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., Sen, S., & Bauer, H. H. (2007). Antecedents and con-
sequences of consumer–brand identification: Theory and empirical test. In S. Lee (Ed.),
Advances in consumer research, Vol. 35. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., & Milne, G. R. (1997). Creating and fostering fan iden-
tification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6, 15–22.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In
S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.

The author thanks Kerstin Kienzle for the data collection, and gratefully acknowledges
the support from the company whose diabetes customers build the basis for the study sam-
ples. The author also thanks the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful

366 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
and constructive comments, as well as Stefanie Exler for her comments on an earlier
version of the article.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Nicola Stokburger-Sauer,

Institute for Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck,
Universitaetsstr. 15, 4th Floor East, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria (nicola.stokburger-
sauer@uibk.ac.at).

BRAND COMMUNITY 367

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX

Offline Stimulus
Imagine Brand X organized an event about diabetes in your area. You are there
and quickly get to talk to other Brand X customers. The atmosphere at the nicely
decorated booths is great. You have the chance to talk to the Brand X staff. Now
you can ask whatever you have always wanted to know; about product manu-
facturing, distribution, the precise usage of the product, and also about various
treatment methods.
In addition to the discussions with the Brand X staff, you also have the chance
to attend some lectures. The topics comprise foot, eye, and kidney disorders as
well as various secondary diseases. In addition, experts are prepared to meas-
ure your eye pressure, blood pressure, and blood sugar. The entire product port-
folio of Brand X is being introduced and you can try every device.
Above all, fun is not neglected! The event does not only provide all kinds of
information, there is also a lottery you can participate in.

Online Stimulus
Imagine the activities of the Brand X.de Web site were extended.
Extensive information on diabetes, Brand X products, sport, nutrition, and
travel continue to be offered. Additionally, a discussion forum is set up. There
you can exchange experiences related to diabetes or other topics with other dia-
betics who also use Brand X devices. You can give other Brand X customers
advice for everyday life and receive some in return. Regular visits to the forum
give you the chance to get information on the newest developments on Brand X,
such as products, events, etc.
If you wish to get to know your discussion partners better, you can have a look
at the guest book. Here, everybody can post his or her contact information in addi-
tion to a photo and write about his or her most interesting experiences with
Brand X or diabetes. If you are lucky, you might even be chosen for a Brand X
advertising campaign.
Experts and Brand X staff will regularly answer specific questions concern-
ing diabetes in a chat room. Here you have the chance to seek professional advice
on foot, eye, or kidney problems as well as various secondary diseases.
Above all, fun is not neglected! The new Brand X.de does not only provide all
kinds of information, but also good entertainment. There are interesting online
games to try.

368 SOTKBURGER-SAUER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar