I was reading an interesting article yesterday about online communities, written by Fournier S and Lee L. in Harvard Business Review, April 2009 “Getting brand communities right”. It was saying that brands were busy creating brand communities, and that it was a good timing, because consumers are looking for connection and brands which add value. The article was describing the different forms of brand communities: POOL, WEB and HUBS. As I understood it, Pool community only gathers people around a share-value or lifestyle. Lonely Planet can have these kinds of community forms, they might only have people that loves the brand, stating it on one social platform and that is it without interacting more online with others users. Whereas as Web communities tend to create more one-to-one relationships among users. I think Lonely Planet is part of that form of community, because people use to create a real relationship exchanging tips and information’s about their travels to helps others users. Hubs community concerns people that are all connected and gathering around one central character. This last community forms concerns more communities building around singers, actress, and media people.
People around these communities aren’t bounding for the same reasons and interacting in the same ways and level of intensity. The main idea of this article was that brands need to create different platforms to attract brands communities, and that “to strengthen pools and hubs, brands need to create web communities".
It seems interesting for us. If I understood it well, I think Lonely Planet is both a POOL community and a WEB one, depending on the user point of view and motivations visiting the Lonely Planet website.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree, Lonely Planet is a hybrid of Pool and Web community. I also read in an article called "E-Tribalized Marketing?:
ReplyDeleteThe Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities" by Kozinets that online communities can be classified into 4 types.
1.Tourists who lack strong social ties to the group, and maintain only a superficial or passing interest in the consumption activity.
2.Minglers who maintain strong social ties, but who are only perfunctorily interested in the central consumption activity.
3.Devotees are opposite to this: they maintain a strong interest in and enthusiasm for the consumption activity, but have few social attachments to the group.
4.Insiders are those who have strong social ties and strong personal ties to the consumption activity.
I think people who visit Lonely Planet are Insiders who have strong social ties with their fellow members of the virtual community. As you said Amélie, people on Lonley Planet use the community to create a real relationship with each other by exchanging tips and information about their travels to help others users...
I wanted to find a link between the three different online community forms written by Fournier S. and Lee L with the different types of virtual community stated by Barnatt.
ReplyDeleteIndeed I can see a relation between the Pool Communities and the Communities around Hobbies, as both are communities around topics that interest the public. Regarding the Web communities I think this can be related with the two other types of communities stated by Barnatt so, the communities in collaboration with other organizations and the piggyback communities. The content of those is more specific and it’s trying to create a real relationship between the people that interact in the different communities.
But, Hubs Communities, concerning people that are connected around a central character can be both: Communities around hobbies and Communities that “piggyback” in other communities.
It seems that the classification of Fournier and Lee is more focused on the content of the community while the classification of Barnatt is more focused on the “form” of the online community.
And i’m glad reading your article. But should remark on some general things,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gorocketmarketing.com/about-us/