1、 1 外文翻译 Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance Material: Business Source Premier Author: Hatch, Mary Jo; Schultz, Majken. ABSTRACT In 2004, Prahalad and Ramaswamy analyzed co-creation as a relatively new and critical development within the field of innovation. Th
2、ey provided examples of four building blocks by which co-creation occurs: dialogue, access, transparency and risk. In this article, we relate these elements to the phenomenon of branding, extending the building block framework, using the marketing concepts of brand community and brand co-creation. W
3、e use data from a longitudinal case study of the LEGO Group and its brand community LUGNET to derive propositions from our marketing-based reframing of co-creation. Our findings suggest a simplified model based on the dimensions of company / stakeholder engagement and organizational self-disclosure,
4、 which we recommend as central concerns to the developing theory of brand co-creation. We conclude by presenting the implications that our work suggests for brand management and brand governance, including the possibility that brands may allow society to regain control over massive international cor
5、porations lost during the recent period of globalization. Keywords: brands and branding ; brand governance ; co-creation ; company / stakeholder engagement ; organizational self-disclosure Introduction Considerable research points to the proactive roles consumers play in the creation of value for co
6、mpanies. The concept of co-creation was an extension of the idea developed by researchers interested in user driven product innovation. As the co creation efforts they studied demonstrated impressive increases in value, the phenomenon garnered considerable attention outside the innovation field in w
7、hich it spread to marketing and, more recently, to branding. In the case of branding, co-creation expands to embrace other stakeholders than consumers. Merz and Vargo, Christodoulides and Gregory 6 have all equated co-creation with the era of stakeholder-focused branding, with Merz 2 and Vargo calli
8、ng co creation a new brand logic . Meanwhile, Ind and Bjerke defined stakeholder participation in brand co-creation as an issue of brand governance, largely because it implies that organizations share control over their brands with stakeholders. These studies indicate that co-creation resonates with
9、 an ever increasing number of scholars who take the view that brand meaning and value(s) emerge from stakeholder engagement with a company. However, in spite of the importance these researchers place on considering all stakeholders to be co-creators, the only stakeholder groups branding researchers
10、have empirically examined thus far have been consumers and marketers. 8 10,4 Thus, the work of describing how brands are co-created with their stakeholders has barely begun. In this article, we extend ideas about co-creation to the study of brands and branding, using a full stakeholder perspective.
11、Prahalad and Ramaswamy defined co-creation as the joint product of four building blocks dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency. We use these building blocks first because they converge with two key issues distilled from the stakeholder-era of branding dialogue and engagement 4 and second
12、, because they provide basic dimensions on which to begin building a theory of brand co-creation. We begin by establishing connections between key findings from the branding literature and Prahalad and Ramaswamys four building blocks to show the implications of applying a full stakeholder model to b
13、rand co-creation based in dialogue, access, transparency and risk. Later in the article, we offer a way to integrate the four building blocks, as Prahalad and Ramaswamy indicated needed to be done. To examine this integration in practice, we provide examples of co-creating the LEGO brand. The argume
14、nt concludes with the presentation of an integrative framework based on two dimensions: stakeholder / company engagement (dialogue + access) and organizational self disclosure (transparency + risk). Presentation of our 2 2 model will be followed by the questions that our framework raises for future
15、research, and discussion of its managerial implications as they relate to brand governance. CO-CREATION IN BRANDING As brand community researchers were among the first to focus attention on the role consumers play in creating brand value, we begin by examining what this literature says about how con
16、sumers co-create brands. Stepping outside the context of brand communities, we then review marketing studies specifically 3 focused on brand co-creation. The set of ideas explored in this literature will allow us to compare Prahalad and Ramaswamys building blocks with ideas derived from the branding
17、 literature. We take particular note of the fact that the full stakeholder approach, increasingly accepted within the field of branding, extends Prahalad and Ramaswamys conceptualizations considerably. Brand communities as contexts forco-creation Although their focus is on how brand community member
18、s participate in dialogue and interact with one another, the findings of brand community studies are equally relevant to brand co-creation. For example, Muniz and O Guinn 11 analyzed the social relationships constituting brand communities and found them to be based in shared consciousness, the ritua
19、ls and traditions of the community, and a sense of moral responsibility, all of which stakeholder groups bring into their relationships with the companies that stand behind their brands. They also identified several functions that brand communities perform, one of which is sharing information, a fun
20、ction that will circulate information and thus magnify any transparency with regard to the brand or the company behind it. They also observed that: Communities provide social structure to the relationship between marketer and consumer a relationship that affects access. Fournier and Lee picked up on
21、 Muniz and Guinns idea of structuring the relationships between companies and brand community members to argue that these structures can take the form of a hub, pool or network. These researchers recommended that companies seeking to initiate or enable brand community consider the specific social st
22、ructure they will use to provide access and set up dialogue with their consumers. Fournier and Lee further argued that the companys relationship to brand communities should not reside only within the marketing function because it is a strategic involvement that potentially involves every employee in
23、 the company. This is a backdoor admission of the full stakeholder model, because involving other functions will bring along the different. stakeholders they serve (for example, communication will bring investors, the public and the media). In their review of brand community studies, Schauetal added
24、 to Muniz and Guinns list of brand community practices: community engagement, social networking, impression management and brand use. They argued that these practices create cultural capital for the brand communicate its members. Practices of co-creation as brand engagement 4 Many brand co-creation
25、researchers conceptualize the phenomenon as a new branding paradigm. For example, Christodoulides called for breaking free from the industrial age paradigm of branding , while Merz and Vargo took this idea further, calling for development of the paradigmatic premises of co-creation. Merz and Vargo 4
26、 suggested: (1) disentangling stakeholder perceptions and (2) developing dynamic and interactive conceptualizations of brand co-creation based in an appreciation of the full stakeholder model. In their words, brand value is: co-created through network relationships and social interactions among the
27、ecosystem of all stakeholders . Defining brand co-creation as an emergent phenomenon based in networks of different and constantly changing stakeholder configurations, Hatch and Schultz proposed the concept of enterprise branding . In their view, an enterprise brand represents not only the organizat
28、ion (what a corporate brand does), but also all stakeholders engaged by its purpose and in its activity. Thus, the enterprise brand not only emerges as a co-creation of all stakeholders, but is also driven by the identity they create together and define for themselves, supported by the interdependen
29、t activity that ranges from buying and selling products and services, to dialoguing about dreams, plans, hopes and fears. One study focused on the co-creation of brand experiences moves in this direction. Payne et al 9 explained how co-creation between consumers and marketers develops through a seri
30、es of encounters . Similar to community studies, they pointed to community involvement and knowledge sharing as foundations for co-creation, stressing that consumers rarely engage in co-creation alone. Moreover, they addressed engagement with employees arguing that the outcome of co-creation is the
31、development of service experiences, such as quality management, self-service and technological development. Their study of the City Car Club identified three phases involved in building brand relationships acquisition, stabilization and enhancement and showed how consumers grow into each development
32、al phase via increasingly higher levels of access that form and transform their service experiences. Potts and his co-authors described how new social media enable co-creation by generating new forms of situated creativity. Their focus was on the contribution of social media to the digital co-creati
33、on of products, services and experiences. As with most of the studies mentioned earlier, they restricted their 5 view to co-creation between consumers and marketers, but, by inference, they showed how social media expand access for all stakeholders enabling organizations to create more transparency
34、and dialogue, that is, if and when they learn to use social media effectively. Focusing on creative industries, Degree observed that marketers and consumers co create meaning whenever creatives apply empathy to sense how audiences engage with brand offerings. Although there is reason to believe this
35、 is possible, based on a strict definition of empathy (feeling the feelings of others), there are dangers in sidestepping the proactive involvement of consumers. For instance, their position could be read as suggesting that marketers interpretations of consumers meanings are sufficient to make claim
36、s to co-creation (thereby negating the co in co-creation ). Berth on and his colleagues 17 remind us that the meaning of brands is most often defined in plural among a multiplicity of stakeholders, who produce and reproduce an ever shifting and often ambiguous variety of brand interpretations. This
37、suggests another risk of relying on the empathy of creatives: the failure to access the energy that stakeholders bring to the organization along with their co-creation efforts, thereby directly increasing the brand s capacity to be productive of both meaning and value. Gregory conceptualized a full
38、stakeholder brand engagement process by exploring how engagement, knowledge and action, along with the brand itself, align internal and external stakeholders. Her findings echo insights from both community and co-creation studies and extend them by showing how brand use mobilizes co-creation through
39、 personal engagement and the sharing of experiences and knowledge. The implications of her model of communication practices include the need to differentiate between stakeholder groups on the basis of their power and interests. However, her emphasis on what is essentially a segmentation strategy (th
40、at is, she suggests that companies adapt their communication to specific targets) does not seem to account for the implications of transparency in brand co-creation, namely that everyone is more connected to everyone else and any group of stakeholders contains people from other groups, making segmen
41、tation difficult. In our reading of the studies reviewed above, brand communities serve as important contexts for companies seeking to engage their consumers in co-creation. Community activities including engagement, social networking, 6 information sharing and the structuring of relationships with
42、the company behind the brand, all could or do involve access and dialogue between the company and community members (including their extended networks). They also encourage, if not demand, greater transparency on the part of the organization. The cultures these brand communities maintain and the mor
43、al responsibility they feel toward their brand can either help or hinder an organization, and therefore they represent risk as well as potential value. The brand co-creation literature adds to this picture the view that consumer brand use and the impression management practices used by companies are
44、 inputs to brand co-creation, which will celebrate or criticize the best and worst of these activities more or less continuously. This creates a dialogue between stakeholders and companies, which provides a source of feedback to the brand as well as a window (of transparency), on the processes of it
45、s co-creation. Co-optation of these processes and the potential for their exploitation will be a constant risk accompanying transparency. By comparing the building blocks to ideas on brand community and co-creation found in the marketing literature, we developed some preliminary ideas for an integra
46、tive framework for brand concretion. First, it is clear that branding is now recognized for its ability to create dialogue inside organizations (for example, between functions) as well as between members of the organization and its customers, consumers, fans and critics. Second, from the stakeholder
47、s points of view, branding serves as a point of access to at least some members of the organization, as companies start to manage stakeholder engagement, typically through the functions of marketing, corporate communication and, increasingly, HR. Those giving access to the organization, on the other
48、 hand, gain access to the networks of those who take advantage of the access given. Third, once stakeholders gain access to the organization, more of the organization becomes visible to them and consequently available to those in their extended networks, thereby revealing more of the organization s
49、culture, decision-making and management practices, and the technical knowledge on which its business is based. And finally, in the context of branding, this increased transparency exposes the company to added risk. Beyond that of doing harm to consumers, to which Prahalad and Ramasway referred, companies are exposed to reputation risk, the risk of losing distinctiveness as a result of others copying your culture and / or management 7 practices, and control loss, as governance shifts from the traditional board to the dynamic outcomes of s
