Types of Consumption Communities

While everybody seems to understand and appreciate the community concept, scholars did not manage to reach a consensus about its definition (Loader, Hague, & Eagle, 2000, p. 84).

The same thing applies to consumer research, where literature has shed light on three types of consumer gatherings that can happen either online or offline. These are subcultures, tribes and brand communities.

- Subcultures of Consumption

The concept of subculture emerged based on the study of marginalized and deviant groups’ lifestyle (Goulding, Shankar, & Elliott, 2002). According to Schouten McAlexander (1995, p. 43) a subculture of consumption is “a distinctive subgroup of society that self-selects on the basis of a shared commitment to a particular product class, brand or

consumption activity...includes an identifiable, hierarchical social structure; a unique ethos, or set of shared beliefs and values; and unique jargons, rituals and modes of symbolic

expression.”

A subculture is similar to a brand community, as they both require three consumption aspects: A shared ethos, boundary maintenance and a hierarchical structure. A subculture is unique in the sense that the shared meanings and rituals are different from or are opposed to the main external culture (Brake, 1990, p. 13; Kates, 2002). In their ethnography of Harley Davidson riders, Schouten and McAlexander (1995) point out that this subculture has an

“outsider status”, which makes it a marginal subculture. The common meanings of the group can be homogeneous (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). For example, Harley Davidson fans adopt similar dressing style (biker). They can also be heterogeneous and dynamic (Kates, 2002). For example, within the homosexual community of San Francisco, members adopted clothing styles that were sometimes opposed such as the ‘gay high styled look’ vs. ‘the straight men care free look’.

- Tribes

Maffesoli (1988), discusses that societal fragmentation, has pushed the consumer to gather around ‘neotribes.’ These revolve around shared lifestyles, brand names and consumer

culture. People move from one tribe to the next based on their current desires and the role that they want to play within the community. These tribes are at the same time grouped virtually but spread physically. These are not similar to the traditional anthropological definition of tribes. They are gatherings that are characterized by the sociability of their members.

According to Maffesoli (1988), these tribes are differentiated by mutability, irregular get-together and heterogeneity. These are diverse fragments that are scattered and get get-together on an occasional basis. They are ephemeral as they disperse and re-construct in another form to meet the need of postmodern consumers to experience the multiple facets of their identity.

Extending Maffesoli’s (1988) sociological theories, Cova (1996, p. 495) explains that:

“Tribalism involves a re-emergence of quasi-archaic values – local identity, religious feeling and syncretism and group self-awareness. Tribes try to revive the community archetype of the village or district. But, they are not real communities as defined in spatial terms. Virtual tribes can be formed by communications technology like fax and the Internet – physical encounters are no longer necessary.”

Cova (1996) states that tribes lack stability, are small in size, based on emotions and do not comply with the recognized dimensions of modern society. Their formation is based on the dedication of their members that is enforced through the group’s rituals. Rules do not necessarily have to be respected and are not enforced by a sole executive leader. Geographical proximity and interaction do not cement these groups. They are in constant instability and are held together by the symbolism of their rituals. These gatherings can dissolve with the

members losing interest in the tribes’ rituals.

- Brand Communities

According the Muniz et O’Guinn (2001, p. 412) a brand community is “ a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand. It is specialized because it is formed around a branded good or service.

Like other communities, it is marked by a shared consciousness, rituals and traditions and a sense of moral responsibility. Each of these qualities is, however, situated within a

commercial and mass-mediated ethos, and has its own particular expression.” Hence the community’s shared interest to the brand is what unites its members.

On the other hand, Schouten, Mc Alexander and Koenig (2002) explain that brand communities differ on three main dimensions. These are geographical gathering, societal

situation and their time frame. When it comes to geography, brand communities can be rooted or dispersed or even emerge in a geography free space such as the Internet. From a societal perspective, these can include a high level and a low level of members’ interactions. This can happen in a face-to-face context, a virtual one or use mass media. Participants can have a high level of information about each other such as sociodemographic or personal information. Or they may only be aware of their pseudonym. As for time frame, some communities last over time, while others are transient and seasonal. Brand communities pertain to a wide variety of topics ranging from relationship building to religious faith to hobbies.

Unlike subcultures of consumption, Brand community does not adopt an opposing position to the views of the surrounding culture, rather it enhances it. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) compare them to communities of limited liabilities or urban neighborhoods that are tied by a common interest and where there are little ties and partial involvement among members. Yet these gatherings are quite constant with more or less high levels of dedication and restricted moral liability. Compared to subcultures of affiliation and tribes, brand

communities are explicitly commercial. Their members are consciousness and self-reflexivity about their commercial affiliation. Scholars also describe these gatherings as more stable than tribes.

From the review above, we notice that Brand communities, subcultures of consumption and consumer tribes are concepts that are not isolated from each other. The three forms of groupings are very similar from a conceptual standpoint and have substantial overlaps. Some scholars have indeed identified that there is little difference between subcultures of

consumption, brand communities and consumer tribes (Craig J. Thompson & Troester, 2002).

Others have used the word tribe and brand community in an interchangeable way (B. Cova &

Carrère, 2002; B. Cova & Pace, 2006).

- Stigmatized communities.

Stigmatized communities have been mostly investigated within the consumer research literature under the lens of subcultures of consumption (Kates, 2002; Kozinets, 2001;

Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). We believe that the concept of subcultures better captures the deviant and marginalized status of these groups. This is because they offer the opportunity to engage in social interactions that are countercultural. Hence nonmainstream topics such as

the stigma related ones can be expressed in such environments. Subcultures have been considered to offer solutions to adverse and marginalizing social circumstances (Canniford, 2011). Their members get together to overturn dominant social institutions and discourses that are considered to bar their increase in social status. Literature discusses how these could constitute gatherings where new norms, rituals and social ties are developed (Kozinets, 2002a).

While subcultures of consumption constitute a better fit with the stigma concept.

Stigmatized groups can also be investigated under the lens of brand communities. For

example, Weight Watchers groups that use the brand’s method to lose weight are stigmatized groups (Moisio & Beruchashvili, 2010). Since these revolve around the Weight Watcher’s brand they fall within the brand community concept. Also, consumer tribes can offer a lens to develop further understanding for stigmatized communities. For example, ephemeral

gatherings of stigmatized people such as rave parties could fall under the consumer tribe category (Henry & Caldwell, 2006).