Many companies are experiencing real benefits from managing customer and partner relationships through online customer communities. Active communities provide valuable insight into customers’ challenges and motives, which in turn helps companies to create even better products and services. Providing an always-on network of peer-to-peer support can also lower customer service costs by taking some of the burden away from call centres and other support personnel. A study published from the journal of consumer research on The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities by Kozinets, R. V. (2002) suggest Online communities devoted to consumption-related topics are increasingly important source of data for marketing research. By carefully evaluating their innovative ideas, their knowledge base, and their consumer insights, marketing researchers can obtain useful information similar to that obtained from lead users. Ideas for innovative trends in particular realms of consumption such as novel product concepts may thus be initiated by investigations that begin with netnography. Now online communities do open doors for negative users (including trolls) to swing by and crash your party in terms of feedbacks. how to do we correct negative comments on the online community platform? Intuitively, there is freedom of comments and thus could be mismanaged by users. My Research area of interest have been on what benefit is there, participating in this online communities? These days all we hear is how Brand ambassadors are scandalized in this communities. Journal of Interactive marketing published an article titled we create, we connect, we respect, therefore we are: intellectual, social, and cultural value in online communities by Mina Seraj (2012). Well, Interesting and convincing result on aviation online community also with insightful managerial implications. The writer explored the main characteristics of an online community that can deliver value to its consumers and what instigate online and offline engagement. I noticed that for the above papers, netnography, online ethnography was employed. I googled, trying to understand intuitively this terms “netnography, virtual ethnography, online ethnography, digital ethnography” but all to no avail. My question is: is there a clear distinction among the aforementioned expressions? If I use the term “netnography”, how do I justify that I do not adopt the other expressions, which to me sound like synonyms? But overall its well-structured and interesting paper.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations from burning man. At Burning Man, when people think that they’ve somehow escaped or eluded the market, they have a great time. They are people who think that the social logics dominated by the market lead to a less expressive, less communal, less fulfilling life. In the absence of the market, life itself turns in art, and a festival. Kozinets says that it’s not necessary to escape the market at all to fulfil this hunger for community and even self-expression. There are many other ways that retailers can go about configuring the experience of retailing to satisfy these deeper, human, spiritual needs of consumers that we seem to shy away from as business people, but which I believe will be increasingly urgent as business plays a more therapeutic role in the 21st century social economy. There are lots of other implications: that consumption has become institutionalized as a “good” (and engine of progress no less) and thus invisible and impervious to many kinds of important social critiques. In addition, consumers generally tend to leave the future to people who know better, and simply pick and choose from the technology that they see as almost out of their control (rather than the opposite, current model that says technology is driven by consumer choice and demand). Comment: Some stigmatic groups, such as “Star Trek” fans, actually consider their communities to function like a religion, but what they are really saying is that popular culture is one of the few areas of social space in which human being can invest themselves emotionally, carving out a sense of unique identity and what matters to them in life. so what am saying is, In the long run with such beliefs, wont it lead to Communal Radicalism like what we see now with this terrorist groups ISIS?
Kettle, K. L., & Häubl, G. (2011) examines the possibility that the act of signing your name might influence your consumption-related behaviour in the article titled The signature effect: Signing influences consumption related behaviour by priming self-identity. Recalling the Theory of affordance: the general priming of one’s self-identity (here: signing) makes it more likely that situational affordance activates the relevant aspect of one’s self-identity which leads to behaviour that is congruent with the activated aspect. This suggests novel interventions that sellers could use in order to influence consumer behaviour. However, such signature interventions should be used cautiously, as signing tends to reduce engagement in consumers who lack such identification. Question: interesting findings but for me, couple of more real-life examples would be needed to fully grasp the intuition behind this view postulated by the researchers. Another consumer behaviour paper on consumption demonstrate through its research on the extent to which the body type of consumers affects the food choices and level of consumption of other consumers around them. McFerran et al and colleagues (2010) in this paper “I’ll have what she’s having: effects of social influence and body type on the food choices of others argue that consumers anchor on the choices and portion size of what other consumers around them choose. In other words, what choice of portion size a consumer will choose if they follow an obese vs. a thin consumer. They all agreed that consumers are likely to eat greater portions if those around them do the same. However, when there are multiple choices of food to select from and the authors did not witness any occurrences of mimicry by the consumers or the confederates in their findings. In our previous study on Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Fast-Food Meal Size Estimation by Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), they conclude that biases in calorie estimation are caused by meal size, not body size. Now my question is: if the person is an obes, and his or her friend happens to a normal weight (not Obes) does these findings in this paper still apply? Also in the study the participants were almost all of normal weight. So It is possible that these results would be duplicated in other settings, but it should be tested using different body types and different variables in the participants to verify (physical exercise acting as an influence) Possible identified limitations to this paper on my own view. *New research area*