1.

file:///C:/Users/Lilia%20Racila/Downloads/Anti-consumption-2009_discourses-and-
consumer-resistant-identities.pdf
The Journal of Business Research special issue dedicated to anti-consumption brings
forward a diversity of researches on consumer rebellion (Dobscha, 1998), consumer resistance
(Fischer, 2001; Fournier, 1998; Penaloza and Price, 2003; Ritson et al., 1991; Zavestoski,
2002a,b), boycotting (Herrman, 1993; Kozinets and Handelman, 1998, 2004), counter-cultural
movements (Victoria, 2002; Zavestoski, 2002a,b), ethical consumption (Shaw and Newholm,
2002), non-consumption (Stammerjohan and Webster, 2002), or emancipated consumption
(Holt, 2002). Common to each of these anti-consumption manifestations is the expression of an
aim “to withstand the force or affect of” consumer culture (Penaloza and Price, 2003, p. 123) at
the level of the marketplace as a whole, the marketing activities, and/or the brand/product
(Fournier, 1998). Zavestoski affiliates anti-consumption with “a resistance to, distaste of, or even
resentment of consumption” in general (Zavestoski, 2002a,b, p. 121) and Penaloza and Price
refer to a “resistance against a culture of consumption and the marketing of massproduced
meanings” (Penaloza and Price, 2003, p. 123)

Kozinets’ (2010) netnography offers a rigorous set of guidelines including: research

planning, entrée, data collection, interpretation/analysis, and research representation.
Underpinning these steps is the capacity to ensure ethical standards. Adapting Kozinets’
(2010:61) simplified flow of a netnographic research project, a neat representation of the
netnographic process is depicted in Figure 1 below:
Opportunities in exploring online cultures and communities
Netnography provides three main opportunities in research: (1) opportunity in researching
communities that may not exist without the Internet, (2) developed understanding of online
culture and meaning making processes, and (3) collecting data using an unobtrusive method to
explore sensitive issues.
(1) Opportunity in researching communities that may not exist without the Internet
Nind et al. (2012) claim that netnography offers researchers the opportunity to focus on new
areas of social life. According to Kozinets (2002), the Internet provides opportunities for
participation in social groups that are united around the achievement of particular lifestyle goals
and characteristics.
Importantly, netnography is appropriate to those communities that would not exist without the
Internet. Online communities are considered no less ‘real’ than their physical counterparts,
leading to consequential behavioural effects (Kozinets 2015). The use of netnography in
researching these online communities broadly allows researchers to examine human society and
social relationships online, as well as providing an insight in to people’s online behaviour, and an
understanding of how people negotiate their Internet activity. Beneito-Montagut (2011) affirms
that netnography is particularly relevant for understanding new forms of human interaction and
how people create and maintain personal relationships online.
(2) Developed understanding of online culture and meaning making processes
Culture and community are at the centre of netnography. Following anthropological and
sociological contested and shifting notions, the term ‘culture’ is referred to as ‘commonly held
beliefs, norms, values and ways of doing things’ (Wagner 2001:121) shared by a population, in a
particular place at a particular point in time (Jackson 1998). Culture is understood as a world of
shared social meanings (Hall 1996) and values (Wagner 2008), created by interacting
individuals, where there is a ‘momentary construction of common ground’ (Amit & Rapport
2002:11). It is vital to understand that these concepts are fluid ‘worlds of meaning’ (Kozinets
2015). Netnography has the potential to gather first-hand naturalistic data from computer-
mediated communication in exploring how culture and community are adopted, understanding
worlds of meaning. Through the researcher becoming a participant online within a specific
culture or community, not only do they see worlds of meaning created by interacting individuals,
but they are also offered the insight to understand their meaningfulness, and continuance.
Netnography offers the ability for the researcher to become involved in online communities, in
order to provide a ‘thick description’ of people’s worlds (Langer & Beckman 2005:192). It is
through the interactive nature of netnography that researchers can begin to understand the online
world, interaction styles relative to the exchange of meaning, and lived experiences of online
users (Kozinets 2015).
Specifically, linking to the study of online fitness communities, netnography allowed the
researcher to come to terms with new interactions, understanding rituals and norms from within
the created culture, and to note the transition from fitness culture to an online platform. Through
fieldnoting, the researcher documented people’s online behaviour within the community, as well
as language used, and the meanings given to some of the new neologisms. It was through
participation within the community that the researcher was also able to note developed social
hierarchies, for example, through large follower bases, and through popularity in posts (shown
through a thumbs up button on text or an image).
(3) Collecting data using an unobtrusive method to explore sensitive issues
The use of netnography offers the opportunity to explore sensitive topics within online
communities that may be difficult to access by more traditional means. Netnography offers
researchers a potentially less obtrusive method to research sensitive topics compared to other
methods of social investigation (Isupova 2011). For example, research in pro-ana (short for
anorexia) online communities has gained traction through using netnography (Brotsky & Giles
2007; Crowe & Watts 2014), as well as cosmetic surgery (Langer & Beckman, 2005), sex and
porn on the Internet (Jacobs 2010), and male bodybuilding (Smith & Stewart 2012).

2. https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/107404_book_item_107404.pdf

Netnography is a form of qualitative research that seeks to understand the cultural

experiences that encompass and are reflected within the traces, practices, networks and systems
of social media. These cultural experiences can be engaged with, communicated through, and
then reflected upon, forming the three fundamental elements of netnography: investigation,
interaction, and immersion. Ethnography is about more than rote practice, however. It is a way of
viewing data and thinking about how to understand the world. It is in this viewpoint about
understanding the world as a cultural matter that netnography is most like traditional
ethnography. Grand philosophical details, such as what constitutes ‘participation’ in
netnography, are not as important to the approach as the empassioned quest for social truths and
cultural understandings.

Netnography is centered on the study of online traces. Some netnographies exclusively

collect and analyze online traces. When people post images, video, or text online, or when they
comment, share, or do anything else that is accessible online to anonymous or networked others,
what they leave behind are online traces. However, the focus on online traces which, when
collected, become online data, is a key distinguishing element of netnography.

Online or virtual communities have been at the center of netnographic studies ever since
the inception of netnography as a research method

Brand communities
 Netnography has also become a tool for marketing researchers seeking to understand
different brand-related phenomena from within these brand communities.
For example, in an ethnography of three brand communities – Ford Bronco, Macintosh
and Saab – Muñiz and O’Guinn (2001) discovered the importance of internet forums for brand
communities. Since then, much research has been conducted on brand communities online with
the help of netnography. Examples include co-creation (Cova et al., 2015), value creation (Schau
et al., 2009), social networks (Zaglia, 2013), brand meaning creation (Broderick et al., 2003) and
rivalries within and between brand communities (Ewing et al., 2013) and anti-brand communities
(Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2010).

3. https://stosowana.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/670005_beckmann_langer_full_version.pd
f

Referring to common ethnographic procedures, Kozinets (2002, p. 63) recommends the

following methodological stages and procedures for netnographic studies:
1. Entrée: formulation of research questions and identification of appropriate online fora for
study
2. Data collection: direct copy from the computer-mediated communications of online
community members and observations of the community and its members, interactions and
meanings
3. Analysis and interpretation: classification, coding analysis and contextualization of
communicative acts
4. Research ethics: “(1) The researcher should fully disclose his or her presence, affiliations, and
intentions to online community members during any research; (2) the researchers should ensure
confidentiality and anonymity of informants; and (3) the researchers should seek and incorporate
feedback from members of the online community being researched… (4) The researcher should
take a cautious position on the private-versus-public medium issue. This procedure requires the
researcher to contact community members and to obtain their permission (inform consent) to use
any specific postings that are to be directly quoted in the research” (Kozinets, 2002, p. 65; cf.
Kozinets & Handelman, 1998). 5. Member checks: presentations of some or all final research
report’s findings to the people who have been studied in order to solicit their comments.

As Kozinets notes, netnography is “based primarily on the observation of textual

discourse” (2002, p. 64) and states that content analysis is used to expedite the coding and
analysis of data
There are, admittedly, a few differences between content analysis of conventional mass
media such as newspaper articles or TV-programmes on the one hand and online media
communication on the other (cf. Stempel II & Stewart, 2000). One difference is the fact that
mass media are by definition public media. On the Internet, however, it has to be decided from
case to case (i.e. from IMB to IMB, from Webpage to Webpage, from list to list, from dungeon
to dungeon) whether we deal with (semi-)private communication or public communication. The
key to this decision is the access criteria for observation of and/or participation in such
communication: if access is restricted (e.g. by use of passwords) and thus reserved for members
only, we can talk about a (semi-)private communication within the community and should apply
those guidelines and procedures, Kozinets recommends. If access is not restricted, i.e. if
anybody can participate in the communication without any restrictions, this can be defined
as public communication.