Brand Personification in the Digital Age: How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships?

Brand Personification in
the Digital Age
How has the evolution of social media
impacted consumer-brand relationships?
Keely Galgano
Independent Study, Winter 2013
Dr. Dae Hee Kwak
April 2013

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the marketing landscape through the
lens of digital and social media, and, ultimately, to discuss how this evolution
impacts the establishment, maintenance, and characteristics of consumer-
brand relationships. Past studies of consumer-brand relationships have focused
heavily on the elements of social psychology reflected in the connections
formed with brands. However, many researchers have questioned the
application of human relationship theory as applied to inanimate objects or
brands. With the advent of social media as a marketing tool, brands are quickly
taking on human characteristics and working to engage consumers in
conversation. With this increased personification, relational norms can be
applied to current and future consumer behavior with new relevance.

Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into consumer-brand relationships
through the specific lens of social and digital media. Inspired by the realization
that, through social media, brands are taking on more and more human
characteristics, this paper works to apply relational norms to consumer behavior
in order to investigate how the evolution of the medium impacts the formation,
maintenance, and general characteristics of the relationships brands form with
their customers.
Methods of analysis include a thorough examination of previous research
conducted in the fields of consumer-brand relationships and social media
identity theories as well as in-depth case studies evaluating the usage of social
and digital media by various well-known and culturally ingrained brands.
From the analysis, conclusions are drawn in order to tie together the case
applications and previous research while deriving new conclusions through the
specific lens of social and digital media. Finally, concrete managerial
implications and potential directions for future research are provided.
While new media might certainly be described as a double-edged sword, it
offers more opportunities for positive brand interactions and innovative
integrations with digital and interactive media that can work to enhance the
brand’s standing with both old and new customers alike.
Potential beneficiaries of this research include marketing and advertising
professionals who hope to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms at
work within social and digital media in order to form more sustainable
relationships with current and future customers.

Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................iii
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review............................................................................................................. 3
Consumer-Brand Relationships................................................................................. 3
Overview ................................................................................................................ 4
Functions of Consumer-Brand Relationships...................................................... 6
Brand Love and Self-Expansion ........................................................................... 7
Relationship Norms and Transgressions............................................................... 9
Personal, Social, and Brand Identity in the Digital Age ....................................... 10
Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 12
Oreo........................................................................................................................... 12
Heineken ................................................................................................................... 17
Nike & Adidas – Transgressions ............................................................................... 23
Conclusions & Implications .......................................................................................... 25
Managerial Implications.......................................................................................... 27
Future Research........................................................................................................ 28

Brand Personification in the Digital Age
1
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the marketing landscape through the
lens of digital and social media, and, ultimately, to discuss how this evolution
impacts the establishment, maintenance, and characteristics of consumer-
brand relationships. Past studies of consumer-brand relationships have focused
heavily on the elements of social psychology reflected in the connections
formed with brands. However, many researchers have questioned the
application of human relationship theory as applied to inanimate objects or
brands. With the advent of social media as a marketing tool, brands are quickly
taking on human characteristics and working to engage consumers in
conversation. With this increased personification, relational norms can be
applied to current and future consumer behavior with new relevance.
While it might be unthinkable that a brand would lack an online presence in
today’s world, it is important to note that digital marketing is a relatively new
discipline. To a large extent, the history of digital is a by-product of the history of
the Internet – and when you think about it, it was only twelve years ago that the
tech bubble burst, wiping out a number of smaller start-ups and paving the way
for magnates like Yahoo! and Google. Facebook? That’s only been around
since 2004. And Twitter? A mere seven years old. So when it comes to social
media’s impact on consumer-brand relationships, in terms of research, this is
nearly uncharted territory.
The study of consumer-brand relationships is not much older, with Susan
Fournier’s seminal work written in 1998. In an interview with The Atlantic’s Hans
Villarica, Fournier told the story of how she began:
Over 20 years ago, I was promoted to vice president of consumer-brand
relationship ideas at Young & Rubicam, an acclaimed advertising agency

2
in New York. I was to translate the revolutionary business-to-business
relationship marketing paradigm into the consumer marketing world, but I
quit two weeks later on the heels of a stark realization: the frameworks
and concepts I would need to do my job had yet to be created. So off I
went to the University of Florida PhD program to develop brand
relationship theory in consumer research myself. (Villarica, 2012)
Since then, much has been written about the topic, ranging from the types of
relationships created, their inherent functions, correlations with social
psychology, the impact of brand transgressions, the motivation on consumers’
part to form relationships with inanimate objects and brands, and much, much
more. Fournier noted that UF’s experimental cognitive psychology community
was skeptical of the application at first; but as ample research has shown over
the last fifteen years, there is much to be gained both academically and
managerially from further research in the area of consumer-brand relationships.
The application of social media to this area of research provides an interesting
lens through which to view the formation, maintenance, and characteristics of
these relationships. With a multitude of platforms through which brands can
communicate and connect with consumers, there are more opportunities to
both build sustainable relationships and ruin them. This paper strives to use this
lens to answer the question of how the evolution of social and otherwise digital
media impacts these relationships.

3
Methodology
In the subsequent sections of this paper, I will conduct a literature review of
previous research conducted in the fields of consumer-brand relationships, more
specifically, their background, functions, specific frameworks including brand
love and self-expansion, and the application of norms and transgressions on
relationship theory. I will also briefly examine previous research concerning social
and brand identity in the era of social media. Later, I will present three case
studies concerning successful brands in the social sphere – Oreo and Heineken –
and brands that have had to deal with transgressions – Nike and Adidas. Finally,
I will offer conclusions that integrate the case studies with theoretical concepts,
discuss managerial implications, and propose directions for future research.
Literature Review
This section delves into the previous research available in the fields of consumer-
brand relationships and social and brand identity in the digital age. It pays
special attention to fields that provide insight into viewing consumer-brand
relationships through a social media lens.
Consumer-Brand Relationships
While it is relatively speaking a new field of study, much research has been
conducted to learn more about both the functionality of and reasoning behind
the existence of consumer-brand relationships. Considerable research has
focused on understanding and describing the different relationships consumers
might have with brands (Reimann and Aron 2009; Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel
2004; Carroll and Ahuvia 2006; Escalas and Bettmann 2005; Fournier 1998). This
research has yielded myriad ways to categorize consumers based on the
intensity of their relationships (Fournier 1998) and has branched out to include
studies of brand attachment (Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), commitment
(Warrington and Shim 2000), connectedness (Winterich 2007), love (Batra,

4
Ahuvia, and Bagozzi 2011; Merunka and Valette-Florence 2007; Carroll and
Ahuvia 2006; Fournier 1998), loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Jacoby and
Chestnut 1978), passion (Bauer, Heinrich, and Martin 2007), and trust (Chaudhuri
and Holbrook 2001), among others. Each of these presents its own framework
within the context of consumer-brand relationships, but a unifying theory is
lacking; for the purposes of this paper, however, it will be more important to
understand the nature of the formation and maintenance of relationships rather
than develop a singular theoretical framework.
When examining these relationships through the lens of social media and the
evolving digital age, it is helpful to have a background in the various frameworks
that have been utilized to best understand the impact on the establishment,
maintenance, and characteristics of relationships between brands and
consumers. In this section of the literature review, several components of past
research will be touched upon including background, functions, norms, and
specific applications including brand love and self-expansion. Later, we will
examine how personal, social, and brand identities have been impacted by the
digital age, and how this might impact our view of consumer-brand
relationships.
Overview
A thorough study of field pioneer, Susan Fournier, offers insight into the defining
elements of consumer-brand relationships. Published ten years after her original
publication on developing relationship theory in consumer research, Fournier
reflects on what she has learned by offering three key tenets: purpose, diversity,
and dynamics. In terms of purpose, it is important to note that there is not a
singular purpose that can be applied to these relationships in general; rather,
we can understand the driving force behind the relationship by looking at the
broader context of the consumer’s life to find out what needs the relationship

5
with the brand or company services (Fournier 2009). These needs can fall
anywhere within Maslow’s hierarchy, ranging from the merely functional to those
needs related to self-actualization (Maslow 1943). Therefore, it follows, the needs
fulfilled by different products and consequently the relationships formed with
different brands differ based on the consumer. Fournier (2009) states, “Robust
brand relationships are built not on the backs of brands, but on a nuanced
understanding of people and their needs, both practical and emotional” (p. 6).
Identifying the relationship potential of a given brand is important for
researchers and marketers alike. Often, this is determined by category
involvement; but it is most useful to screen criteria from the contexts of people’s
lives, with the key being to uncover how meanings attain significance within a
consumer’s world. As the relationship is grounded in need fulfillment, an
important insight lies in the fact that consumers actively make meaning in their
brand relationships – adapting the marketer’s given brand meaning to fit their
own life. In response to this concept, Fournier, Solomon, and Englis (2008)
developed a multifaceted resonance model that focuses not on what the
brand itself means, but rather how it comes to mean something to the consumer
who uses it in order to recognize the developmental mechanisms that drive the
establishment and maintenance of these relationships (as cited in Fournier, 2009,
p. 7).
Further, it is important to recognize the diverse nature of consumer-brand
relationships, as they range across several dimensions and take many forms. As
applied to person-to-person relationships, these forms can include casual
acquaintances, childhood buddies, business partners, master and slave,
teammates, flings, parent-child, rivals, best friends, marriage partners, and many
more. Again, the formation of any of the above kinds of relationships is
dependent upon the need fulfilled and the behavior of the consumer in the

6
relationship. Figure 1 (Appendix A) plots brands and relationships on axes
ranging from superficial/weak to intense/strong in the x-direction and
utilitarian/functional rewards to socio-emotional rewards in the y-direction.
Finally, the dynamic nature of consumer-brand relationships indicates that they
are evolving and change over a series of interactions in response to contextual
change (Fournier 2009). Fluctuations in person, brand, and the overall
environment may trigger change within the relationship and therefore it is
important to note that these relationships require ongoing maintenance over
time. Contract theory provides a useful lens when it comes to both the
relationship’s development and maintenance. As will be discussed later in this
section, brand transgressions can have significant impact on the way consumers
view their relationship; therefore, everything a brand “does” affects the
trajectory and course of a given relationships, from the brand’s outward
personality (which can be as simple as colors and fonts used on their website) to
the tonality of each and every brand communication (Fournier 2009). What is
most interesting, perhaps, is the psycho-socio-cultural context wherein these
relationships exist – the relationship the brand has with the culture affects the
relationship the consumer as with the brand, and vice versa (Fournier 2009),
which is an important characteristic to note when examining these relationships
through a social media lens.
Functions of Consumer-Brand Relationships
The functionality of these relationships is, as indicated above, determined by the
need fulfilled, and thus can range from knowledge, utilitarianism, hedonism, and
external factors such as social acceptance, self-presentation, and affiliation
(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009). Relationships that exist for knowledge’s
sake do so because of the inherent understanding they provide consumers
about their situation. Utilitarian relationships are based on the brand’s ability to
consistently and reliably aid in the achievement of other goals. For hedonic

7
relationships, the brand directly inspires a variety of affective responses.
(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009) The final three functions, which the
authors term value-expressive, social-adjustive, and affilation, exist because of
their consistency with the values central to the consumer; their ability to create
a desired impression, and the fact that they serve basic needs for belonging
respectively.
Research suggests that relationship between brands and consumers – regardless
of type – have a sizeable effect on important marketing outcomes including
repeat purchase, word-of-mouth, and willingness to pay (Ashworth, Dacin, and
Thomson 2009; see also, Stern 1997; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995). With
relationships in place, brands enjoy benefits including reduced marketing costs,
ease of access, access to new customers, customer retention, brand equity,
and ultimately, an increase in profits (Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009; see
also, Blackson 2000; Dowling 2002; Reichheld 1996; Winer 2001). Returning to the
ultimate underpinning of need-fulfillment, the implicit assumption is that
consumer-brand relationships serve some function or goal for the consumer and
are possibly formed as a result of the brand’s consistent fulfillment of these goals
(Ashworth, Dacin, and Thomson 2009).
Brand Love and Self-Expansion
As mentioned previously, there are many dimensions of consumer-brand
relationships that have been touched upon in previous research. Two of the
most salient theories when it comes to the examination of these relationships
through the social media lens are brand love and self-expansion. For Batra,
Ahuvia, and Bagozzi, the elements of the brand love prototype are as follows:
great quality, strongly-held values and existential meaning, intrinsic rewards, self-
identity, positive affect, passionate desire and a sense of natural fit, emotional
bonding and anticipated heartbreak, willingness to invest, frequent thought and

8
use, and length of use (2011). Both theories incorporate the idea of depth,
where brands are more likely to be loved when they connect to something the
consumer felt was ‘deeper’ such as self-actualization, interpersonal relationships
(Richins 1984), existential meaning, or cultural identities (Batra, Ahuvia, and
Bagozzi 2011). The authors offer two examples in Canon and Apple, where these
‘deeper’ connections are felt because of the ties to social relationships and
creativity and self-actualization, respectively.
In the brand love context, “talking about it” is an important part of identity-
construction and ultimately results in high levels of word-of-mouth (Batra, Ahuvia,
and Bagozzi 2009). Word-of-mouth, in the online context sometimes termed
“word-of-mouse,” is hugely important for marketers and is only magnified in the
social setting. When it comes to this idea of brands as part of identity
construction, Reimann and Aron present a self-expansion approach wherein
brands are included in the self as resources, perspectives, and identity (2009).
The main difference between these three types of inclusion is that a brand’s
resources can be viewed as part of the owner’s self, while perspective means
seeing the world from the brand’s point of view and identity refers to the brand
identity becoming part of the “cognitive structure” of the owner’s self (Reimann
and Aron 2009).
They argue that for each of these, expansion varies based on the time of brand
acquisition and the length and intensity of relationship; specifically, that for
newly acquired brands, consumers may rapidly self-expand, enlarging their self-
definitions and experiencing positive affect. Further, they state that self-
expansion continually decreases over time. In this setting, the effect is stronger
for high-involvement brands than low-involvement brands. In addition to the
length aspect, interaction intensity should also be taken into account; as high
interaction intensity also reduces the rate of rapid self-expansion, thus

9
functioning as an accelerator of the relationship-length effect (Reimann and
Aron 2009). In this setting, the effect is stronger for low-involvement brands than
high-involvement brands. This has clear implications on marketers who must be
careful not to saturate consumers with communications – a mistake many
brands make on social media.
Relationship Norms and Transgressions
Yet another vein of consumer-brand relationship research revolves around how
consumers deal with transgressions on the part of brands, and more broadly,
how relational norms direct behavior on the part of both the brand and the
consumer. Pankaj Aggarwal has concentrated heavily on this line of research
and presented extensive findings that allow us to use relationship norms to
understand consumer-brand interactions: “When consumers form relationships
with brands, they use norms of behavior underlying these relationships as a
guide in their brand interactions in two unique ways: (a) as a lens to evaluate
the actions of the brand, and (b) as a tool to guide their own behavior” (2009).
In the first sense, norms are what set consumer expectations, and the
subsequent actions of the brand are judged on whether the expectation is met
or not. In the studies Aggarwal conducted, the same action was evaluated
differently depending on whether or not it was perceived to be consistent with
the norms described in the case (either exchange or communal), which
indicates that it is not the action itself but whether or not it is in keeping with
expectations that determines the consumer’s evaluation of the brand (2009). In
the latter, norms determine how consumers process brand information, with
those in a communal relationship processing information at a higher level of
abstraction (Aggarwal 2009). This knowledge is important for marketers who can
manipulate the tools at their disposal to develop the kind of relationship they
wish to pursue with consumers, ultimately determining the position they hold in
the mind of the consumer. As Aggarwal points out, “The dynamic and repeated

10
interactions pursued by marketers in the form of ads, interactive media, direct
mail, and telemarketing, as well as the use of brand mascots and spokespersons
strengthen the type of ongoing relationship that is formed between the brand
and the consumer” (2009).
With the increasing durations of relationships and increasing frequencies of
interaction – spurred on heavily by brand usage of social media – the likelihood
of transgressions grows (Gray and Ambler 1999); it is therefore important for
brands to understand how to best respond in order to maintain the relationships
they have worked to begin. For Paulssen and Bagozzi, attachment theory plays
heavily into how consumers respond. They propose that the positive
expectations that securely attached customers place on brands help them to
positively interpret transgressions and buffer potential emotional distress (2009).
Here, the implication for marketers is to identify the “right” customers who are
most likely to develop long-term relationships (Reinartz and Kumar 2000), with
the key goal being to build and maintain strong and stable consumer-brand
relationships, investing considerable resources in various relationship marketing
tactics in order to achieve this goal (De Wulf, Odekerken-Schroeder, and
Iacobucci 2001; Reinartz and Kumar 2003).
Personal, Social, and Brand Identity in the Digital Age
There is no doubt that social media has become a cornerstone of the
communications world in recent years – and that it has presented both
incredible opportunities and a myriad of new challenges for both individuals
and brands alike. With categories ranging from egocentric, community, and
opportunistic, to passion-centric and media sharing, there are more social
media outlets than there is room to touch on here (Parent, Plangger, and Bal
2011). Taken as a whole, these outlets attract millions of users, many of whom
utilize the sites as part of their daily lives and business practices, building

11
networks of friends, peers, and potential connections that can help them
achieve their future goals (Wang, Yu, and Wei 2012) – personally, socially, and
professionally.
For brands, social media represents a new, hybrid element of the marketing mix
by allowing for even further integrated marketing communications (IMC), or the
attempt to coordinate the various elements of the promotional mix (advertising,
personal selling, public relations, publicity, direct marketing, and sales
promotion) in order to produce a unified customer-focused message (Boone
and Kurtz, 2007 as cited in Mangold and Faulds, 2009). Within the scheme of
IMC, social media fulfills two roles: first, most traditionally, companies can use
social media to talk to their customers through various platform; second, and
unique to social media, customers can use social media to communicate with
one another. This means that word-of-mouth spreads faster and farther than
ever before: “Conventional marketing wisdom has long held that a dissatisfied
customer tells ten people. But that is out of date. In the new age of social
media, he or she has the tools to tell 10 million” consumers virtually overnight
(Gillin 2007 as qtd. in Mangold and Faulds 2009).
As consumers turn away from the traditional sources of advertising gand
consistently demand more control over their media consumption, they require
on-demand access to information at their own convenience (Rashtchy et al.,
2007; Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). As a result, they are turning to various social
media outlets to conduct information searches and make purchasing decisions
(Lempert, 2006; Vollmer & Precourt, 2008) and have been shown to perceive
social media as a more trustworthy source of information regarding brands than
corporate-sponsored communications through traditional media (Foux, 2006).

12
With social media shaping the way consumers communicate with both each
other and brands, methods of engagement are at an all-time high. Experiences
of all kinds are being shaped by these spaces of collective consumption, and
our networks – with whom, when, and why we connect – are changing as a
result (Wilcox-Ugurlu, 2011). The trick, for brands, is how to transform the medium
into a proactive rather than reactive realm of “listen and respond.” With explicit
commercial references typically avoided in social media communications,
companies need to be ready to engage consumers and members of their
virtual network in ways that create authentic experiences, rather than contrived
self-promotion (Wilcox-Ugurlu, 2011). In doing so, they are readily able to tap into
one of the previously discussed topics: identity-building. By creating authentic
experiences that consumers can and willingly relate to, brands will be better
positioned to insert themselves into the regular lives of their customers, thereby
building sustainable relationships.
Case Studies
Oreo
The Super Bowl is advertising’s (and sport’s) biggest stage year in and year out.
This year, brands spent a great deal of time, effort, and money on mobilizing the
social aspects of their campaigns – from Twitter hashtags on television spots to
campaign build-up on Facebook and YouTube. The effort paid off for many
brands that took to heart the concept of the 3 C’s – content, context, and
conversation (Goldstein, 2013). For others, their efforts missed the mark,
rendering brand-irrelevant hashtags in order to “join a conversation” that would
never take off. Too often, when it comes to social media strategy, brands are
more concerned with timing than content; but to succeed in engaging
conversation, the strategy must lie at the relevant intersection of context and
content (Goldstein, 2013). Merely inserting yourself in a consumer’s feed with a
message that is either off-brand or off-topic will not encourage the engagement

13
necessary to form consumer-brand relationships, and might go so far as to turn
off the consumer.
Will Scougal, Twitter brand strategist, noted that the most successful brands have
“strategies, processes, and foundations in place [that] enable them to be able
to do this in a way that stays true to themselves and carries brand values
forward while encouraging engagement and conversation” (2013). By having
these mechanisms in place, brands can be readily prepared for the
unexpected. This was the case for Super Bowl XLVII’s most successful brands
including Audi, Tide, Buffalo Wild Wings, Walgreens, and perhaps most notably,
Oreo.
Oreo is an excellent case to
examine when it comes to the
impact of social media. For a
seasoned brand that’s been
around since 1912, their position
within the marketing funnel lies at
the end: the ‘consume’ and
‘connect’ portions, meaning that
the business problem inherent to the strategy deals with repeat purchase and
loyalty – major components to consumer-brand relationship theory. For instance,
are a number of people buying the product but not advocating it? Are there
lost opportunities to connect with consumers to make them aware of other
products? (Cole, 2013)
With agency partners DraftFCB, 360i, Weber Shandwick, and Mediavest, Oreo
launched a remarkably successful digital campaign over the summer of 2012
called The Daily Twist. Reminiscent of retro print ads but perfected for social

14
platforms, each day’s ‘twist’ was thought up in timely fashion and consistently
culturally relevant. The brand began with a controversial bang, offering a ‘twist’
in honor of gay pride on June 25, 2012 that garnered more than 154,000 likes
and 20,000 comments on Facebook within a single day (Hsu, 2012). This was just
the beginning, with daily offerings ranging from the Mars Rover landing to a
tribute to panda Shin-Shin’s newborn cub and culminating in a live-in-Times-
Square finale where the final ‘twist’ was designed in real-time in a pop-up
agency, based on fan suggestions both in person and through social media.
What made this particular campaign so successful was its ability to spark
conversation and sharing by utilizing milestones and popular-culture events to
engage. Oreo successfully fulfilled the “3 C’s” by offering relevant, timely,
simple, humorous, and shareable content without pandering for likes,
comments, or shares. And it paid off; as of September, Oreo had experienced
“110% growth in fan interaction per social-media post – defined as any
combination of shares, likes, or comments. The company averaged 7,000 per
post before the “Daily Twist” launch. After, they reached an average of 14,700”
(Diaz, 2012). But this was just the beginning; Oreo would reach even further
social heights with their successful Super Bowl through both planned and
unplanned efforts.
Marking yet another milestone after celebrating its 100th birthday in 2012, Oreo
tasked Wieden + Kennedy with creating its first-ever Super Bowl commercial.
Having observed fans routinely asking one another “cookie or creme?” Oreo
saw the Super Bowl as an opportunity to portray the debate in a fun way – the
spot is entitled “Whisper Fight” – and inspire even more of it. At the end of the
commercial, viewers are directed to Oreo’s Instagram account where they are
asked to vote by submitting photos hashtagged with #cookiethis or #cremethis.
Oreo began promoting its Instagram account on Facebook (to its 32 million

15
followers) on the Thursday prior to game day. “Before the commercial aired,
Oreo had around 2,200 followers. Shortly after, its following climbed to nearly
20,000, and is now nearing the [87,000] mark” (Indvik, 2013).
With this background, it is no surprise that Oreo was ready for anything on Super
Bowl Sunday. As Scougal pointed out, with the right mechanisms in place, a
brand can be ready to respond in real-time on a moment’s notice. For Oreo,
success was largely due to the efforts of agency partner 360i:
"We had a mission control set up at our office with the brand and 360i,
and when the blackout happened, the team looked at it as an
opportunity," agency president Sarah Hofstetter told BuzzFeed. "Because
the brand team was there, it was easy to get approvals and get it up in
minutes." Oreo had already aired a solid TV ad with their "Cookie or
Creme" spot. But they were ready to capitalize on social media as well
when the lights went out. “The big question is, what happens when
everything changes, when you go off script?" Hofstetter said. "That was
where it got fun." The key? Having OREO executives in the room, and
ready to pull the trigger. (Terdiman, 2013)
To digress and set the stage, Super Bowl XLVII presented a unique set of
circumstances for marketers when, during the third quarter, a power outage at
the Superdome caused some of the lights to go out for an unprecedented 34
minutes. With Oreo executives in the room, 360i executed a now famously
brilliant tweet ad that read, “Power out? No problem. You can still dunk in the
dark.” The tweet caught fire, garnering a total of 16,056 retweets, 6,219 favorites,
and the attention of not only the Twittersphere, but also the entire mainstream
media. Hoffstetter told Wired, “The new world order of communications today
incorporates the whole of the way people are interacting with brands right now.
Once the blackout happened, no one was distracted – there was nothing going

16
on. The combination of speed and cultural relevance propelled it to the
forefront” (Watercutter, 2013).
With the increased prevalence of the second (or even third) screen experience,
marketers have to do more than the standard 30-second spot to get fans’
attention. According to an overnight study conducted by the Mobile Marketing
Association and Session M, 59% of viewers used their phones more during the
game as compared with 41% who did so more during commercial breaks. 91%
of viewers used their mobile device during the commercial breaks, with 35%
completing a follow-up action on their mobile device based on a commercial
they saw during the Super Bowl. 64% used their mobile device for something
unrelated to commercials. Interestingly, nearly a quarter of respondents noted
that they’d like to see more commercials that incentivized taking action on their
phones, or offered additional content. (Mobile Marketing Association) For those
brands that did this successfully, Oreo included, the effort paid off.
Looking at Google Search Trends over the last 12 months, we can tangibly see
the impact of these social campaigns on the Oreo brand, with peaks during the
week of the gay pride ‘twist’ and again the week following the Super Bowl (the

17
peak in December is likely related to increased search for Oreo recipes around
the holidays).
For a brand that has been around for such a long time and is inherently
ingrained in American culture, the sheer effort Oreo has put into their digital and
social brand experience has been impressive. The juxtaposition of “old school”
and “new school” – whether that’s the Daily Twist’s retro print campaign in a
digital setting or simply the traditional cookie taking advantage of hot new
platforms like Instagram – brings Oreo staunchly into the twenty-first century,
inserting it into the cultural conversation and engaging consumers in ways that
drive fandom and encourage sustainable relationships.
Heineken
Globally, there is not a sport more followed or beloved than soccer. As
Americans, we’re more often than not late to the game, only truly paying
attention every two years: at the World Cup or the Olympics. But year round,
soccer is a megalith, with players being bought and sold for upwards of £50m,
shirt deals valued at upwards of £20m per year, and the most valuable team,
the Barclays Premier League’s Manchester United, worth over two billion USD
(Soccer Bible, The Telegraph, Forbes). Suffice it to say, for global brands, soccer
is an extremely valuable platform for marketing and sponsorship – and there is a
great deal that can be and is already done when it comes to social, digital, and
interactive strategy.
With this background in mind, another excellent case study in regards to the
study of consumer-brand relationships is Europe’s biggest brewer, Heineken. In
2011, Heineken agreed to extend its sponsorship of UEFA Champions League
soccer for a further three years, through the end of the 2014/2015 football
season, a deal that is estimated to be worth around 20 million euros (£17m)

18
(Vanguard). Heineken’s Chief Commercial Officer, Alexis Nasard, told Reuters,
“the new deal gives [us] wider digital rights and broadens [our] broadcast rights
to cover Germany” (Jones, 2011).
What makes Heineken such an interesting case to study is that they activate
around all of their partnerships in the most innovative fashion. Whether it’s
soccer, music festivals, or James Bond films, the brand team at Heineken knows
how to engage consumers and keep them coming back for more. Their digital
footprint is ever growing and they work diligently to keep it that way, diversifying
their partnerships so that they’re not only known as “the Champions League
beer.” That being said, around their Champions League partnership in
particular, they have conducted plenty of activations that are worth examining.
As the title sponsor of the league in 2010, Heineken created a fully integrated
marketing strategy that incorporated social and digital outreach, consumer
sweepstakes, and sales-driven retail components. Activating across 60 markets
and leveraging a multitude of messaging channels, Heineken executed a wide
range of engaging activations. They hosted a heavily branded watch party in
Dubai that featured live music. They built an 8m x 6m x 3m model of Santiago
Bernabeu Stadium with 40,000 cans under the messaging the “The UEFA
Champions League is art. And the art of football is brought to life by Heineken”
(Bernabeu Stadium). They teamed up with Heineken for the fourth time to bring
the Champions League trophy to the United States for five weeks, touring major
cities across the nation. They created an “Ultimate Fan Page” featuring
exclusive footage, Trophy Tour updates, and a sweepstakes to win a trip to the
league final. They built custom POS at retail locations and implemented a very
well done “ritual” series of commercials across various markets.
Finally, perhaps most memorably, they utilized guerilla marketing in Italy around
the matchup between Real Madrid and AC Milan. Staging a fake event at the

19
same time the game was to be played, an event where classical music met
poetry in an Italian theater, Heineken teamed up with over 200 people –
girlfriends, bosses, and journalists – to help get over 1,000 people away from their
TVs and into the event. Broadcast live on SkySport, viewers watched much of
the audience get increasingly bored until the stage slowly revealed clues to
involve the crowd. Finally realizing what was going on, a live projection of the
entire game for the entire audience began, revealing Heineken as the savior. A
hugely successful stunt, all of this went hand-in-hand with Heineken’s campaign
idea that men were increasingly losing the ability to spend “that sacred time”
with friends watching the big game. (RalfGroen)
While none of these are explicitly social-focused (they did utilize the medium for
promotional purposes), they are certainly relationship-focused, using Heineken
as a bridge to unite soccer fans globally and offering the opportunity for self-
expansion through their brand. Moving forward – remember, this is only 2010:
Twitter’s been around for just four years – Heineken would begin their run at the
forefront of digital engagement through a number of interactive initiatives, both
related to their UEFA partnership and not.
As far back as 2008-09, Heineken has been invested in experiential marketing,
creating a captivating mobile marketing tour called the Heineken Extra Cold
Experience, which toured major cities across the globe with a collection of
engaging elements, including a big igloo experience (where premiums were
distributed), an ice bar (with free samples), a live stage, live DJ entertainment,
Heineken models, and lounging stations with giant ice cube chairs (Gainor,
2009). They supported the campaign with a Facebook fan page and an
experiential microsite geared toward the European marketplace. This, again,
was just the beginning of Heineken’s foray into the digital and experiential
space.

20
In 2012, Heineken launched a multitude of innovative social campaigns to
engage their increasingly global fan base. In Singapore, for instance, the brand
created what they called a “Social Christmas Tree” out of 48 LED screens
towering eleven meters high. The “tree” became a destination for consumers to
send messages to friends and family during the holidays. Heineken allowed
consumers across the globe to submit greetings and messages in an effort to
unite people from across the world and visibly bring social media to life in the
public square (Heineken Singapore 1, 2). Later, they utilized social to enhance
the experience for attendees at the Heineken Open’er Music Festival in Poland,
with the brand message to “Open Your World” (Kamil Kowalczyk). Utilizing giant
QR codes (referred to as U-Codes), Heineken drove engagement amongst
attendees by featuring a footprint on-site where fans could videotape a
personal message – detailing who they were, where they were from, what their
interests were – and have it embedded into a giant QR code sticker that was
printed out and placed on their clothing. These U-Codes served as great
icebreakers for festival attendees and generated such buzz that over 5,000
people received them over a 4-day period, exceeding the brand’s
expectations by 200% (Gainor, 2012).
On the social gaming front, Heineken has been equally as innovative. Returning
to the brand’s UEFA partnership, the brand partnered with creative agency
AKQA to launch a live football game, StarPlayer, which allowed players to
predict what would happen at key moments in Champions League matches in
order to score points. The game tapped into the growing “dual screen” habit
discussed earlier in this paper. Starplayer worked in real-time, with players invited
to forecast the outcome of corners, free kicks, and penalties by choosing a
number of options. Different point scores were rewarded depending on the
outcome’s likelihood; and at the start of the game, players were given the

21
chance to guess when goals would take place, with points awarded on a
sliding scale based on how early the goal was anticipated. To add to the
game’s social dimension, players were allowed to form leagues with friends,
share their scores via Facebook, and receive badges for successfully predicting
the events of a game. (Williams, 2011)
Finally, most recently, Heineken created two TV ads with supporting digital
elements. First, in February 2012, the brand launched a hugely successful
Bollywood-themed ad called “The Date.” Coinciding with this, the brand
created “The Serenade,” a Facebook app that creates personalized messages
through which users were able to invite potential partners on a date. They were
directed to choose the person they’d like to date, why they’d like to date them,
and suggest why they themselves were date material. Then, Paul “Kiss” Kissaun,
the star of “The Date,” performed the invitation. Created by Wieden + Kennedy
Amsterdam, the app was available in over 20 languages and 640 variations. To
extend this idea, the brand hosted “Serenade Live,” an online event where
personalized serenades, custom written for selected Facebook and Twitter
submissions, were performed live. Each couple witnessed their love song live via
Skype, and their reactions were broadcast simultaneously on Heineken’s
YouTube channel (Fera, 2012).
Next, the brand paired up with the James Bond franchise’s summer blockbuster,
Skyfall, to further their “Open Your World” campaign with a theatric ad that led
viewers to an online and live-action game called “Crack the Case.” The lively
ad, which pays homage to the Bond franchise without being explicitly about
James Bond, retains the spirit of the brand’s previous “Open Your World” work.
As Cyril Charzat, Senior Director, Global Heineken Brand, told Fast Company,
“Two years ago we shifted our communications from being about ourselves to
trying to show our man of the world in situations that can be an inspiration –

22
elevating the image of the drinker. Each time we tried to take a real human
truth, a consumer insight we believe is talking to our guys in their daily life. Here
it’s the idea that each guy might think about a time where he has to save the
day like a legend.” (Fera, 2012, 2)
The supporting digital element in this case was the ability to aid Skyfall’s Bond girl
Severine (Bérénice Marlohe) in an interactive web setting. While slightly less
robust than that of “The Serenade,” the tactic was nonetheless effective and
had the added benefit of creating a live-action world tour coinciding with the
film release, where locals were able to demonstrate their resourcefulness by
undergoing a similar gauntlet of challenges in person. Altogether, the “Crack
the Case” launch was a massive $50 million media investment that was well-
worth it, with Charzat noting the “interaction from all the countries around the
world talking about the campaign at the same time and engaging with these
events [created] a huge opportunity for us to create something that’s
meaningful in relation to the Open Your World story” (Fera, 2012, 2).
Analyzing Heineken with the social conversation monitoring tool, Topsy, it is clear
that the brand’s efforts have paid off, with 323,000 social mentions all-time.
When compared with a similar European beer brand in Beck’s, which has a
mere 2,800 mentions all-time, there is a massive 115-times increase in social
activity. Beer is a crowded marketplace, with an already vast number of big-
name brewers in addition to the fast-growing craft beer market, so the ability to
engage consumers in on-going fashion is an important one. By consistently
innovating in the way they communicate with their large fan base as well as the
consumer-world at large, Heineken is able to secure brand loyalty and
increased word-of-mouth presence while encouraging new consumers to learn
more about their brand, forming new relationships with every partnership and
innovation they embark upon.

23
Nike & Adidas – Transgressions
Social and digital media isn’t a wholly green pasture; in fact, there are many
more potential missteps that can impact brands in a way that is more magnified
than ever before. As indicated in the literature review portion of this paper,
brand transgressions can have a significant impact on the relationships they
maintain with consumers. With the ever-present nature of social media, these
transgressions are immediately public, eliciting the genuine, real-time reactions
of angry consumers in a way that was never before possible. Sport giants, Nike
and Adidas, made two such transgressions in the last year. While these brands
are certainly “too big to fail,” each transgression caused tremendous social
outcry, necessitating brand action in the aftermath.
For Nike, the mess-up was at the hands of footwear designer Jason Petrie and
somewhat akin to those brands whose employees accidentally post damaging
client commentary to the company account. After Chicago Bulls star Derrick
Rose went down with a season-
ending ACL injury in April 2012, Petrie
suggested that Rose hurt himself
because of the Adidas shoes he was
wearing. Petrie, who is the designer
behind Lebron James’ Nike sneakers,
fired off the tweet much to the dismay
of his many followers:
The tweet, predictably considering Rose’s beloved nature in the league and the
visible agony he experienced on the court following his injury, incited a flurry of
online criticism, with followers calling it “in bad taste” and “classless” (Smith,
2012). Nike, realizing that the tweet was bad for public relations, issued a
statement on the issue:

24
“As a brand that is passionate about sport, we recognize the intense level
of play that every athlete has engaged in during this basketball season
and respect the dedication it takes to compete. One of our basketball
footwear designers posted comments online that we feel are
inappropriate, and he has since apologized. We wish anyone who is
injured a speedy recovery.”
While this certainly did not impact Nike’s overall brand standing in the
marketplace, it goes to show that employees must be diligent in maintaining
their personal social accounts, as they are a public reflection of the company. It
was well done on Nike’s part to recognize the public relations implications in
sufficient time to do damage control and distance themselves from Petrie’s
comments.
In a more damning transgression, Adidas was
forced to cancel production in June 2012 on a
(albeit ill-designed) shoe before it was to hit the
market in August. Designed by Beverly Hills
eccentric Jeremy Scott, the shoe came with a
set of plastic shackles and a tagline on Adidas’ Facebook page that struck a
playful tone: “Got a sneaker game so hot you lock your kicks to your ankles?”
(Lynch, 2012)
Critics, unsurprisingly, took issue with the shoe, saying it called up painful images
of slavery, and made their displeasure known on social media. Adidas dismissed
the criticism, defending the design in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The
design…is nothing more than the designer Jeremy Scott’s outrageous and
unique take on fashion and has nothing to do with slavery” (Lynch, 2012). The
outspoken Reverend Jesse Jackson provided one of the highest-profile

25
condemnations of the shoe, noting that civil rights groups had contacted NBA
Commissioner David Stern asking him to intercede and proposed a boycott in
about 50 markets if the shoe was released. He went on to state, “The attempt to
commercialize and make popular more than 200 years of human degradation,
where blacks were considered three-fifths human by our Constitution is
offensive, appalling, and insensitive.” (Solomon, 2012) While not everyone was
offended by the design, Adidas decided to discontinue production, stating,
“We apologize if people are offended by the design and we are withdrawing
our plans to make them available in the marketplace” (Solomon, 2012).
In this instance, offensive or not, public sentiment, pressure from various
advocacy groups, and heated media coverage contributed heavily to
management’s decision to pull the product. While it is hard to definitively state
that such a decision would not have been made in the pre-social era, it is
certain that public outcry was immediately magnified through the release of the
shoe’s photo on outlets like Facebook and Twitter. In the pre-social era, the
shoe’s design would have first been viewed through more traditional media
outlets and likely would’ve undergone more intense scrutiny from advertising
and media executives who may well have preempted the controversy.
These are only two sport-centric examples of a multitude that could be
discussed in relation to transgressions. Brands, company employees, and
athletes and other public figures alike must be more careful than ever to stay in
line without harming their public perception – and in doing so, impacting the
relationships that they have worked hard to develop with consumers and fans.
Conclusions & Implications
In each of the three case studies presented, we see brands that are highly
ingrained in culture working hard to establish, maintain, and in the case of Nike
and Adidas, salvage, relationships with their consumers. In each case, the

26
brand’s presence on various social media outlets – Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
– allowed consumers to view them as a sort of friend, making determinations
about the expectations of their relationship and interacting with them on a
more personal level. Advertising mogul, the late David Ogilvy, once said, “You
now have to decide what ‘image’ you want for your brand. Image means
personality. Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or
break them in the marketplace.” The “personality” aspect of a brand’s image is
today more important than ever before.
The idea of brands in conversation goes back to at least 1999, when The
Cluetrain Manifesto warned Madison Avenue that the Internet would disrupt the
way the industry was used to operating. This notion is confirmed by many of the
most prominent figures in the industry. Mark O’Brien, president of DDB North
America, told Fast Company, “We learned that people kept finding way to tune
out the messages and were only paying attention to what they wanted. We’ve
begun to realize we have to engage them in a relevant way so they want to
engage with us.” For Esther Lee, former chief creative officer at Coca-Cola and
current head of advertising at AT&T, it’s not just about customers anymore, it’s
about people. (Sacks 2013) Shops that wouldn’t have existed, say, twenty years
ago, in storytelling shop Campfire and word-of-mouth agency Affinitive, echo
these sentiments:
“It really is about being in the moment. Any strict road map moves it out of
conversation” – Mike Monello, Campfire
“Brands need to step into those conversations, but you can’t opt-out of
those conversations; you have to be invited to those conversations”
– Bob Troia, Affinitive

27
While some marketers might argue that true personification of brands is a step
too far, there are many who believe that for a brand to be successful, it has to
find its soul. JWT’s Jeff Benjamin is part of that camp: “Consumers don’t want to
have a relationship and a conversation with just this cold logo. [A brand] has to
settle on the kind of human it wants to be. So this brand is what – the professor,
the teacher, the cool uncle?” (Sacks 2013) The answer varies with the target
audience and also with the medium of communication. It is important for
brands to be consistent across all of their messaging – and in the cases of Oreo
and Heineken, this is one of their greatest strengths. By creating a consistent
persona and building a stable relationship, brands can sustain the types of
mistakes made by Nike and Adidas. Monello, in his interview with Danielle Sacks,
likens it to how you would react to someone you’re close to in real life: “If your
friend says something you are offended by, you don’t turn around and call them
sexist or racist; you go, ‘Hey man, that really bothered me.’”(2013).
Managerial Implications
With all of this in mind, the managerial implications are plentiful. Social media
truly can be considered a hybrid element of the traditional (“4 P’s”) marketing
mix (Mangold and Faulds, 2009), making it an important aspect of any
successful brand strategy. By acting through the medium in ways that are
relevant, timely, and ultimately, engaging, brands can go a long way in
securing long-lasting relationships built on mutual interaction. That being said, if
the content they produce is off-brand, ill timed, or simply uninteresting, social
media can serve as a detriment to the overall marketing strategy. Therefore, it is
important to have teams and strategies in place to ensure that they are able to
utilize the medium in ways that stay true to the brand’s core values while
encouraging engagement and conversation.
On the other side of the coin, social media holds brands publicly accountable
for their actions in ways traditional media never could. Public forums like

28
Facebook and Twitter have made the world almost entirely interconnected and
have given voice to the everyday consumer as well as the brand. As a result,
opinions – both positive and negative – are spread much faster and much
farther than those in the age of traditional media. Because of this, brand (as well
as human, government, and anyone else on social media) transgressions are
magnified. That being said, the medium also offers the opportunity to rectify
issues in efficient and widespread fashion, allowing, in some cases, the brand to
leave the situation in a better position than they’d been previous to the
transgression.
For both the positive and negative sets of managerial implications, the
underlying cause is the brand personified. By allowing two-sided conversation
rather than unilateral messaging, social media offers brands a new outlet for
forming relationships with consumers. As with any new friend, brands run the risk
of “talking too much” – of saturating the consumers with simply too much
messaging because of the ease with which the outlets can be utilized. While
social media can certainly be viewed as a double-edged sword, it offers more
opportunities for positive brand interactions and innovative integrations with
digital and interactive media that can work to enhance the brand’s standing
with both old and new customers alike.
Future Research
While the implications for marketers are many, there remains significant room for
future research in regards to digital media and consumer-brand relationships.
With the advent of things like the second-screen experience, native advertising,
brand-generated content, and transmedia storytelling, the ways in which
brands connect with and engage consumers are more plentiful than ever
before. With more intense and varied interactions and less delineation between
public and private selves, there is much to be studied in regards to the impact
on consumer behavior and the relationships that consumers form with brands.

29
Works Cited
Aaker, J., Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004). “When Good Brands
Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1) 1-16.
Aggarwal, Pankaj (2009). Using Relationship Norms to Understand
Consumer-Brand Interactions. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester
(Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ahuvia, Aaron, Rajeev Batra, and Richard Bagozzi (2012). “Brand Love,”
Journal of Marketing, 76 (March) 1-16.
Aron, A., & Reimann, M. (2009). Inclusion of Brands in Self: Toward a Theory
of Brand relationships. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.),
Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009). Why on
Earth Do Consumers Have Relationships with Marketers: Toward
Understanding the Functions of Brand Relationships. In D. MacInnis, C.
Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Marcel Paulssen (2009). Customer Coping in
Response to Relationship Transgressions: An Attachment Theoretic
Approach. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.), Handbook of
Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Bauer, Hans H., Daniel Heinrich, and Isabel Martin (2007). “How to Create
High Emotional Consumer-Brand Relationships? The Causalities of Brand
Passion.” In Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy, Dunedin,
New Zealand, 2189-2198.
BernabeuStadium. (2010, May 20). Heineken Stadium of Stars. Retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_
embedded&v=pgBrTmPYDzo#!.
Blackston, Max (2000). “Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing
the Brand’s Relationships,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (3), 79-84.

30
Boone, L.E., & Kurtz, D.L. (2007). Contemporary Marketing (13th ed.).
Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Carroll, Barbara A., and Aaron C. Ahuvia (2006). “Some Antecedents and
Outcomes of Brand Love,” Marketing Letters, 17 (2) 79-89.
Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris B. Holbrook (2001). “The Chain of Effects from
Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand
Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (2) 81-93.
Cole, Julian. (2013). Working Out the Business Problem [PowerPoint Slides].
Retrieved from http://byjuliancole.com/Week-2-Creating-a-Great-Social-
Media-Strategy/solo
De Wulf, K., Gaby Odekerken-Schroder, and Dawn Iacobucci (2001).
“Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-
Industry Exploration,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (October), 33-5.
Diaz, Ann-Christine. “Oreo’s 100-Day ‘Daily Twist’ Campaign Puts Cookie in
Conversation.” Ad Age. N.p., 10 September 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <
http://adage.com/article/digital/oreo-s-daily-twist-campaign-puts-
cookie-conversation/237104/>.
Dowling, Graham (2002). “Customer Relationship Management: In B2C
Markets, Often Less Is More,” California Management Review, 44 (3) 87-
106.
Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettmann (2005). “Self-Construal,
Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research,
32 (3), 378-389.
Fera, Rae Ann. (2012, February 9). Heineken Plays Cupid With Serenade
Live. Fast Company Create. Retrieved from http://www.fastco
create.com/1679815/heineken-plays-cupid-with-serenade-live.
Fera, Rae Ann. (2012, September 21). James Bond and Heineken Want

31
You to “Crack the Case.” Fast Company Create. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681648/james-bond-and-heineken-want-
you-to-crack-the-case.
Football’s Most Expensive Shirt Sponsorship Deals: In Pictures. (2012)
Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/
football/picturegalleries/8194085/Footballs-most-expensive-shirt-
sponsorship-deals-in-pictures.html.
Fournier, Susan (1998). “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (4), 343-353.
Fournier, Susan (2009). Lessons Learned About Consumers’ Relationships
with their Brands. In D. MacInnis, C. Whan Park & J. Priester (Eds.),
Handbook of Brand Relationships (65-81). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Fournier, Susan, Michael Solomon, and Basil Englis (2008). “When Brands
Resonate.” In Handbook of Brand and Experience Management, eds.
Bernd H. Schmitt and D.L. Rogers, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar, 35-57.
Foux, G. (2006, May 8). Consumer-Generated Media: Get Your Customers
Involved. Brand Strategy, 38-39.
Gainor, Brian. (2009, December 31). For Heineken, It’s All About the
Experience. Partnership Activation. Retrieved from
http://www.partnershipactivation.com/headlines/2009/12/31/for-
heineken-its-all-about-the-experience.html.
Gainor, Brian. (2012, January 22). Heineken Gives Teams a Few Ideas to
Drive Fan Engagement and Socialization. Partnership Activation.
Retrieved from http://www.partnershipactivation.com
/headlines/2012/1/22/heineken-gives-teams-a-few-ideas-to-drive-fan-
engagement-and.html.
Gillin, P. (2007). The New Influencers: A Marketer’s Guide to the New Social

32
Media. Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books.
Goldstein, Michael. (2013). #0Retweets: Things I Hate About Digital
Advertising [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slide
share.net/michaelgoldstein/0retweets-things-i-hate-about-digital-
advertising.
Google Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from
http://www.google.com/trends.
Grayson, Kent, and Tim Ambler (1999). “The Dark Side of Long-Term
Relationships in Marketing Services,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36
(February), 132-141.
HeinekenSingapore. (2010, August 12). Heineken Social Christmas Tree:
17-26 Dec, Clarke Quay. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRp4TjqhDdo.
HeinekenSingapore. (2010, August 12). The Heineken Social Christmas
Tree: Coming Soon to Clarke Quay. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgiG2myzzC0.
Hsu, Tiffany. "Gay Pride Rainbow Oreo Sparks 20,000 Facebook
Comments, Debate." Los Angeles Times. N.p., 26 June 2012. Web. 20
Mar. 2013. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/26/business/la-fi-mo-gay-
pride-oreo-20120626>.
Indvik, Lauren. “Oreo Super Bowl Spot Attracts Thousands of Instagram
Followers.” Mashable. N.p., 03 February 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013. <
http://mashable.com/2013/02/03/oreo-super-bowl-instagram/>.
Jacoby, Jacob, and Robert W. Chestnut (1978). Brand Loyalty:
Measurement and Management. New York, NY: Wiley.
Jones, David. “Heineken Sponsors 3 More Years of Champions League.”
Reuters. N.p., 27 May 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2013.
<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/uk-heineken-champions-
league-idUKTRE74P8P720110526>.

33
Kamil Kowalczyk. (2012, January 3). Heineken U-Code. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0RrXcm
89FAo.
Kybch, Rene. (2012, June 18). ‘Slave’ Imagery? Controversy Over Adidas
Shoes. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/18/nation/la-na-nn-adidas-jeremy-
scott-slavery-controversy-20120618.
Lempert, P. (2006). Caught in the Web. Progressive Grocer, 85 (12), 18.
Levine, Rick. (2000). The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business as Usual.
New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Mangold, Glynn, and David J. Faulds, “Social media: The new hybrid
element of the promotion mix,” Business Horizons, Volume 52, Issue 4, July–
August 2009, Pages 357-365
Maslow, A.H. (1943). “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological
Review, 50, 370-396.
Mobile Marketing Association. (2013). Mobile Smart Fundamentals. San
Francisco, CA: Hidden River.
Most Valuable Soccer Teams 2012. (2012). Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45edfgm/1-manchester-united/.
Parent, Michael, Kirk Plangger, Anjali Bal (2011). “The new WTP: Willingness
to participate,” Business Horizons, 54 (3) 219-229.
RalfGroen. (2010, March 17). Heineken: Guerilla Marketing – Real Madrid
vs AC Milan. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dInhX6ED15Y.
Rashtchy, F., Kessler, A.M., Bieber, P.J., Shindler, N.H., & Tzeng, J.C., (2007,
February). The User Revolution: The New Advertising Ecosystem and the
Rise of the Internet as a Mass Medium. Minneapolis, MN: Piper Jaffray
Investment Research.
Reichheld, Frederick (1996). “Learning from Customer Defections,”

34
Harvard Business Review, 74 (2), 56-68.
Reinartz, Werner J., and V. Kumar (2000). “On the Profitability of Long-Life
Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and
Implications for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (April), 17-35.
Reinartz, Werner J., and V. Kumar (2003). “The Impact of Customer
Relationship Characteristics on Profitable Lifetime Duration,” Journal of
Marketing, 67 (January), 77-99.
Sacks, Danielle. (2013, January 15). From Denny’s to Charmin, Brands Try to
Crackthe Social Conversation. Fast Company. Retrieved from
http://www.fastcompany.com/3004364/dennys-charmin-brands-try-
crack-social-conversation.
Scougal, W. (2013, March). Keeping It Real-Time: How to Talk to the
People That Talk to You. Presented at Advertising Week Europe, London,
England.
Sevenzro1. (2012, April 28). You got one guy only getting stronger, and
one guy breaking down before our very eyes. You chose poorly
Pooh…#shouldasignedwithNIKE #GWS [Twitter Post]. Retrieved from
https://twitter.com/sevenzro1/statuses/196363865188085760
Sheth, Jagdish N., and Atul Parvatiyar (1995). “Relationship Marketing in
Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 255-271.
Smith, Steven. (2012, April 30). Nike Shoe Designer Apologizes for Mocking
Derrick Rose After Injury. CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-57424098-10391697/nike-shoe-
designer-apologizes-for-mocking-derrick-rose-after-injury/.
Soccer Bible. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from
http://www.soccerbible.com/news/general/archive/2012/08/30/most-
expensive-football-transfers-ever.aspx.

35
Solomon, Jesse. (2012, June 20). Adidas Cancels ‘Shackle’ Shoes After
Outcry. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/us/adidas-
shackle-shoes.
Stern, Barbara B. (1997). “Advertising Intimacy: Relationship Marketing and
the Services Consumer,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (4), 7-20.
Terdiman, Daniel. “How Oreo’s Brilliant Blackout Tweet Won the Super
Bowl.” CNET. N.p., 03 February 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2013 <
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57567384-93/how-oreos-brilliant-
blackout-tweet-won-the-super-bowl/>.
Thomas, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park (2005). “The
Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional
Attachments to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.
Topsy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://www.topsy.com.
Villarica, H. (13 April 2012). This is Why You Fall in Love With Brands. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business
/archive/2012/04/this-is-why-you-fall-in-love-with-brands/255448/
Vollmer, C., & Precourt, G. (2008). Always On: Advertising, Marketing, and
Media in an Era of Consumer Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Warrington, Patti, and Soyeon Shim (2000). “An Empirical Investigation of
the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment,”
Psychology and Marketing, 17 (9), 761-782.
Watercutter, Angela. “How Oreo Won the Marketing Super Bowl with a
Timely Blackout Ad on Twitter.” Wired. N.p., 04 February 2013. Web. 20
Mar. 2013 < http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/02/oreo-twitter-super-
bowl/>.
Wilcox-Ugurlu, Caroline C. (2011). “Social Media, Existence, Identity
Dynamics, and Experiential Consumption.” Dissertation, University of
Rhode Island, Kingstown, RI.
Williams, Eliza. (2011, April 27). Heineken Launches Live Football Game

36
StarPlayer. Creative Review. Retrieved from
http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/april/heineken-starplayer.
Winterich, Karen P. (2007). “Self-Other Connectedness in Consumer Affect,
Judgments, and Action.” Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Joseph M.
Katz Graduate School of Business, Pittsburgh, PA.

Brand Personification in the Digital Age: How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships?

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Brand Personification in the Digital Age: How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships?

Ähnlich wie Brand Personification in the Digital Age: How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships? (20)

Mehr von Keely Galgano

Mehr von Keely Galgano (8)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Brand Personification in the Digital Age: How has the evolution of social media impacted consumer-brand relationships?