Master Thesis
Greta Thunberg’s Friends and Foes: Understanding the Dynamics of Person-to-Person Brand Co-creation
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism The University of Innsbruck School of Management
Submitted by Laura VAZ KREUZ
Innsbruck, May 31, 2021 ABSTRACT
This thesis studies the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics by using Greta Thunberg as a case study. Since Greta started to gain recognition, her person brand was co-created by third parties, such as the media and the public opinion. The person brand co-creation literature studies mainly considers other actors, such as endorsed products, the audience, and the media. There is a gap in the literature regarding how person brands co-create each other. Nevertheless, the interactions between person brands impact the public‘s opinion, especially on social media. This thesis answers the following research question: how are brand co-creation dynamics between person brands in online environments? The most suitable methodology to answer this question is a netnography, observing Greta‘s interactions with other person brands on Instagram. The findings identified five person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics: fame-seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers.
Keywords: person brand, person brand co-creation, co-creation dynamics, person-to- person brand co-creation.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ...... 7
2.1. The various perspectives of person brands...... 7 2.2. Person brands and the co-creation perspective ...... 14 2.3. The role of brand relationship theory for person branding...... 20 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 21
3.1. Context ...... 22 3.2. Research method ...... 22 4. FINDINGS ...... 26
4.1. Person-to-person brand relationships ...... 27 4.2. The person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics ...... 41 5. DISCUSSION ...... 51
6. CONCLUSION ...... 56
6.1. Contributions ...... 56 6.2. Managerial implications ...... 57 6.3. Limitations and future research ...... 57 7. REFERENCES ...... 59
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Description of the person brands ...... 40
Table 2: Description of the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics ...... 51
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The topic of this thesis is Greta Thunberg's person brand. More specifically, this thesis will study how a person brand can be co-created by other person brands. Greta Thunberg is a Swedish environmental activist who rose to the public's attention in 2018 when she incited school strikes for the climate. Since then, she has created a significant presence online: she has over 10.5 million followers on Instagram and 4.4 million on Twitter. Most authors in the person brand literature use the definition from Thomson (2006): "any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communication efforts." Firstly, Greta's presence on social media indicated that she is a widely recognized persona. Secondly, she uses marketing communication strategies (such as interviews, speeches, and social media posts) to fight for the environment. Therefore, Greta Thunberg can be considered a person brand.
Another aspect that makes Greta a unique person brand is that she defends a cause. Unlike traditional celebrities, Greta did not become famous for her talents or for being on television. Instead, she achieved global recognition by advocating for the environment at a young age – she became the girl who skips school to strike. The choice of defending the environment while her counterparts study or party made Greta stand out. Additionally, her person brand was created around a social cause, and, as such, it is of interest to most people. Due to her unusual behavior for her age and the social aspect that she defends, soon, Greta became the headline of countless newspapers. She became a topic of conversation, and everyone seemed to have an opinion about her. Hence, Greta is a unique type of person brand because (1) her person brand was built around a social cause, and (2) her person brand is typically co-created by third parties.
What is interesting about Greta is that her person brand is co-created by other person brands. Consequently, she develops her brand through a process of person-to-person- brand co-creation. For instance, when Time Magazine nominated Greta as person of the year in 2019, former President Donald Trump tweeted: "So Ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill, Greta, Chill‖. One year later, when Trump lost the election, Greta replied, also on Twitter: ―So ridiculous. Donald must work on his Anger Management problem, then go to a good old-fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Donald, Chill". Her response went viral: the tweet has received 1.8 million likes and over 375 retweets. The interaction between Greta and Trump also received attention from other media, such as 4 the newspaper The Guardian, which enhances the reach of the interaction. This example illustrates that one of the aspects that co-create a person brand is the interactions between the co-created person brand and other person brands. It raises the following question: how are person brands co-created in person-to-person interactions? More specifically, the example shows how this process happens to the Greta Thunberg person brand. Hence, Greta is an appropriate case study to analyze person brand co-creation dynamics.
Person-to-person brand co-creation is also a gap in the person brand literature. There are three main perspectives of person brand in the literature. The first is the product perspective, which analyzes person brands through product brands theories and frameworks. The second is the persona perspective, which studies person brands as an independent concept and develops frameworks specifically for this type of brand. Finally, the celebrity perspective researches person brands with massive recognition, typically from the entertainment or sports industry. For this research, the co-creation perspective is also relevant. It analyzes how third parties, such as endorsed products, the media, and the audience contribute to co-create person brands. However, none of these perspectives studies how the interactions between person brands affect the co-creation dynamics. This research fills this gap by considering other person brands as co-creators.
The study of person-to-person brand co-creation is relevant due to two factors. The first is the high impact of the interactions between person brands. Social media increases the reach of the interaction between person brands. Consequently, these interactions have more significant impacts on a person brand. For example, Greta's pictures receive up to 30.000 comments and even more likes, demonstrating the substantial reach of her social media. The second reason why filling this gap is relevant is that the person brand has no control over these interactions. Although Greta controls what she posts on social media, she does not control the person brands who interact with her or the effects the interaction has on her person brand. For instance, in the interaction described earlier with Trump, Greta has no control over what he says about her. When someone as influential as a former President of the United States says something about Greta, it affects the public's perception of her. At the same time, if Greta develops a friendship with another person brand, such as the German environmental activist Luisa Neubauer, her person brand is associated with Luisa‘s person brand. In this case, if Luisa does something that heavily harms her brand, it could have an impact on Greta's person brand
5 as well. In both scenarios, Greta has no control over (1) what people say about her and (2) the actions of other person brands, and both aspects can potentially impact her person brand. Since it impacts person brands at such a high level, filling this gap could help the person brands to have some control.
This thesis aims to study the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics, using Greta Thunberg as a case study. The co-creation happens through interaction between the person brands on social media. Another important aspect is that the response of the audience will assess the effects of the co-creation. Considering that Greta sells an idea – and not a product –, her audience functions as her customers. In this sense, their responses will be the judgment, assessing whether the interactions with other person brands are positive or not. Finally, this research aims to fill the gap in the person brand literature by adding other person brands as co-creators.
With the research gap and the context in mind, this thesis aims to answer the following question:
1) How are brand co-creation dynamics between person brands in online environments?
In order to conceptualize brand co-creation dynamics, this thesis will draw on brand relationship theory. Besides, the response of the audience is another substantial variable in the co-creation dynamics. This logic brings us to the following sub-questions:
2) What types of person brand relationships do person brands form online with each other?
3) How do person brand audiences react to these types of relationships?
To answer these research questions, the methodology of this thesis consists of a netnography. For this study, the purpose of the netnography is to observe the interactions between Greta Thunberg and other person brands on Instagram. The decision to use a netnography as the methodology is because person brands interact publicly on social media. Hence, social media is an appropriate context to analyze both the interactions and the audience's response. Furthermore, social media offers the channel for the interactions between the person brands. It also maximizes the reach of the interactions by (1) showing it in countless Instagram feeds and (2) encouraging the audience to engage as well through comments and likes. Since netnographies study
6 people's behavior online, it is an appropriate methodology to answer the research questions.
This thesis is organized in the following chapters: theoretical background, methodology, findings, discussion, and conclusion. The goal of the theoretical background is to look at the different perspectives of the person brand literature, identify the most appropriate perspective for the analysis, and provide the foundation for the analysis of the findings. The methodology describes the decisions made to analyze the findings, such as sampling, data collection, and data analysis. Finally, the findings and the discussion explain the co-creation dynamics between Greta and the other person brands and establish how each type of relationship contributes to the co-creation of Greta's person brand.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The theoretical background has three chapters: "the various perspectives on person brands," ―the co-creation perspective," and "the role of brand relationship theory for person branding." The first chapter aims to gather insights on the current status of person brand literature and set the basis for the following chapters. The second chapter establishes the dynamics of person brand co-creation with other actors, such as the media and the audience. It also allows us to analyze the person-to-person brand co- creation dynamics. Finally, the third chapter describes the brand relationship theory. This line of research will provide frameworks (such as the customer-brand relationship typology and the brand relationship quality) that enlighten the dynamics of how brands relate to each other. Those frameworks will be insightful for the analysis of the person- to-person brand co-creation dynamics.
2.1. The various perspectives of person brands
This chapter carves out different streams of thought in the person branding literature to identify which perspective is most helpful in analyzing person-to-person brand co- creation dynamics. Another goal of this chapter is to comprehend the status quo of the person brand literature and where the co-creation perspective stands concerning person brand literature. Before diving into the different perspectives of the person brand
7 literature, one must comprehend the definition of person brand. While there are various definitions for person brand, most authors use the one from Thompson (2006), who describes human brands as "any well-known persona who is the subject of marketing communication efforts." Since Thompson (2006) offered the most utilized definition, this thesis will utilize it as well.
2.1.1. The product perspective
The product perspective analyses person brands as a sub-category of marketing and branding. In fact, some authors use the product perspective to create the definition of person brands. For example, Fournier (2010) and Parmentier & Fischer (2010) derive their definitions from Keller‘s (1993) argument, which states that brands are the set of associations that customers have from products or services. From this approach, Fournier (2010) defines person brands according to their associations in their specific field: ―a person engaged in a field of practice as the sets of associations that audiences within and beyond the field identify with the individual." Parmentier & Fischer (2010) offer a similar but broader approach: ―a person brand can be considered to be the set of associations identified with a particular person."
Initially, the literature has analyzed person brands through the lens of traditional marketing theories, mainly applied to products. Kotler and Levy (1969) extended the concept of marketing, arguing that it is applicable beyond traditional businesses selling a product. Hence, this argument suggests that marketing strategies for product brands are applicable for person brands as well. One of the earliest studies in the person brand literature follows this logic: Rein, Kotler, and Stoller (1997) studied person brands through the lens of the 4Ps. The authors indicate that, similarly to companies, celebrities can use this framework to gather attention and generate profits. Both pieces of research demonstrate how authors initiated the study of person brands by applying frameworks and theories from marketing concepts without making adjustments or creating specific concepts for person brands.
Research has evolved to study person brands by comparing them to products and the branding area. For instance, De Chernatony and McDonald (2003) argue that, in the branding area, person brands work similarly as products. According to the authors, people can be branded just like products. In this sense, the theories and frameworks
8 from product brands should apply to person brands as well. Other authors also follow this line of research and compare person brands and product brands. For example, Kaputa (2005) argues that person brands should use strategies traditionally associated with product brands, such as target audience, and market a person's unique strengths. Schwabel (2009) enhances this line of thought and offers a framework for people who would like to create a person brand. Another contribution from the author is the comparison between offline and online environments for the marketing strategy. Even though these authors have enhanced the research on person brands by being more specific and bringing concepts of the branding area, they mainly adjust product brand theories to person brands.
Furthermore, other researchers analyze how person brands relate to more specific product branding concepts. For example, Bendisch, Larsen, and Trueman (2013) analyzed the relationship between CEO brands and the company brand. They argue that CEO brands can be conceptualized by traditional branding concepts, such as brand equity creation, brand positioning, brand authenticity, and brand reputation. In addition, Close et al. (2011) analyze person brands through the concept of brand quality to assess how doctoral candidates use person brand strategies in their application process. Likewise, Labreque (2011) introduces brand identity to the person brand literature by researching how people build their person brand identity online. Those authors have taken one step further by analyzing person brands by using specific branding concepts instead of the branding area in general. Nevertheless, this line of research uses frameworks from product brands and still does not study person brands as an independent concept.
Greta is a distinct type of person brand. She is not a celebrity; instead, she built her person brand around a social cause: the environment. However, as a person brand, Greta behaves like a product brand from time to time since, unconsciously or not, she uses product strategies to build her brand. For instance, when she criticizes Trump's actions during his mandate, she positions herself regarding a topic – in this case, against Trump. At the same time, criticizing Trump is a way to use some type of co-creation strategy to leverage her brand, since he is a person brand with more authority than her. Traditional product brands widely use this positioning strategy. Therefore, the product perspective of person brands can help us to analyze Greta‘s person-to-person co-creation dynamics.
9
2.1.2. The persona perspective
The persona perspective puts the person brand in the center of the discussion. It assumes that person brands develop a persona-like aura, which differs from product brands. Therefore, they argue that transferring product brand concepts to person brands may not provide sufficient insights to fully comprehend person brands. Shepherd (2005) is the first author to suggest that person brands should be studied as an independent concept (instead of a sub-category of branding or marketing). The research deepens the understanding of person brands by separating them from other areas. Besides, the author argues: ―personal branding is essentially an inside-out process that serves to encapsulate the current strengths and uniqueness of the individual in relation to a targeted market." This inside-out process represents a difference between product brand and person brand frameworks. It demonstrates that people have their strengths and unique value from internal aspects, such as their personality and values. On the other hand, a product brand may have values and personality, but they will be derived from external sources, such as customer preferences and market data. Parmentier, Fischer, and Reuber (2013) follow this line of research and argue that there are differences between the product brand and person brand frameworks. The authors have studied how individuals can use person brand strategies to position themselves in established organizations. Their research states that, for person brands, the best positioning strategy is to "stand out" and "fit in," which differs from positioning strategies for product brands. The concept of ―stand out‖ means that the person can use relational and professional competencies to position themselves in the organization. As for "fit in," the individual has to comply with the expectations from other people inside the organization. Considering that (1) products do not have the same relational competencies as people and (2) customers have different expectations for people and products, this represents a divergence between person brand and product brand strategies. Therefore, studying person brands from a persona perspective enables us to see how person brands navigate the tension between the concepts of 'standing lout' and 'fitting in.'
Although the main perspective in the literature is to analyze person brands through product brand frameworks, some researchers put person brand at the center of the discussion. Fournier and Eckhardt (2019) have studied person brands by analyzing the "person part" and "brand part" separately and focusing on the person. In this sense, they bring a more humane perspective to person brands. The authors have identified an
10 interdependent relationship between the person and its brand. Additionally, they have established four aspects that can negatively impact this relationship: mortality, hubris, unpredictability, and social embeddedness. Besides, the authors argue that person brands have two personas: the human and the brand. However, this separation gets blurry from the public's perspective, and it gets impossible to delineate what is what. Thus, this perspective implies that person brands have different dynamics as product brands since those aspects refer exclusively to people. Dion and Arnould (2011) also study person brands independently from product brands by analyzing the role of the charismatic persona for luxury brands in the fashion industry. The authors imply that some luxury brands have their marketing strategy anchored in the charismatic persona, which differs from traditional branding strategies. This difference happens because product brands that do not have their strategy anchored on a person (such as Calvin Klein) cannot benefit from the personality and charisma of a person. Instead, the brand has to find other means to differentiate itself in the market. Another research from Dion and Arnould (2016) also puts person brands at the heart of the debate. They describe two strategies of brand management based on person brands: "(1) the distributed or fragmented persona-fication of the brand, which is based on a disjunction of different facets of the brand persona, each embodied in different persons; and (2) the unified persona-fication of the brand, which is based on the conjunction of the different facets of the brand persona". These strategies focus on the person brand and their attributes instead of the product and its attributes. The analysis studies the case study of chef Joël Robuchon and his restaurants. The authors argue that Robuchon is more than a person brand; he is a trademark, which allows him to transfer the characteristics of his person brand to other services or products. Hence, a marketing strategy with a person brand in its core differs from traditional product brand strategies: when the product is in the center of the strategy, there is no transference of attributes (as seen in the Robuchon case). Finally, Lair et al. (2005) examine the concept of person brands extensively. They argue that someone's talent or competencies do not determine personal success. Instead, what defines it is how people brand themselves. This argument implies that people have more professional opportunities when they build an authentic image and, therefore, they become more successful. The research also indicates that social media is one platform through which people promote their person brands and craft their image to reach the job market.
11
Other authors study the persona perspective by comparing it with the product perspective and pointing out similarities and differences between product brand and person brand strategies. The research from Rangarajan, Gelb and Vandaveer (2017) also argues that there are similarities and differences between product brand and person brand strategies. Their study indicates that similarly to products, person brands can create methods to distinguish themselves from the competition and focus on their strengths and competencies. Nonetheless, the authors imply that person brands change when they advance in their career or life. This logic means that the strategy for person brands should consider these changes. Muniz, Norris, & Fine (2014) have analyzed person brands in the art industry, and they have used Picasso as a case study. They argue that artists can create person brands, and creating a person brand for the artist has similarities with marketing strategies for luxury and cultural brands. However, the research indicates that Picasso built his person brand by creating a complex public identity through personal relationships with key stakeholders. This particular finding indicates that there is some type of co-creation when it comes to developing person brands. Considering that Greta's person brand is highly affected by the discourses of the media, this line of research seems to be a good fit for analyzing her person brand. It also represents a difference between a person brand and traditional product brand strategies since products cannot have the same personal touch as people. These findings indicate that creating a person brand is more complex than a product brand and, therefore, it reinforces the gap in the person brand literature when it comes to co-creation dynamics.
The persona perspective relates to Greta due to her type of person brand. As Greta's person brand is detached from product brands, she uses her personality and beliefs to position herself and defend the environment. In this sense, she uses her strong personality to gather attention from the media, as seen in the famous speech when she says: “how dare you? You destroyed my future”. When Greta uses this emotional strategy, it is an example of how her person brand is created around a persona, making this perspective appropriate to analyze her person brand dynamics.
2.1.3. The celebrity perspective
The celebrity perspective studies the person brands who have massive recognition, the intangible people we watch on television or a stage. These people often use their image
12 to endorse products or even build companies around their person brand to maximize their profits. In this sense, another concept that is closely related to person branding is brand personification. According to Lieb (2013), a celebrity person-brand is ―a productized, branded entity that derives its equity from association with a celebrity that serves as creator, muse, and steward of the brand." The author still argues that celebrities are at the same time celebrities and products and theorizes that the current consumer culture reinforces the benefits of commercializing celebrities' brands in the form of products. In this sense, another research that reinforces celebrities as companies is from Rindova, Pollock, and Hayward (2006). The authors introduce the concept of celebrity firms: ―as those firms that attract a high level of public attention and generate positive emotional responses from stakeholder audiences." Even though Greta is not a celebrity, nor does she sell products under her brand, she seems to fit the description of celebrity firms due to two aspects. First, she has worldwide public attention. Secondly, she generates emotional responses from stakeholder audiences, both positive and negative. Besides celebrity firms, another concept in this line of thought is brand personification. According to Cohen (2014), a brand personification means that a brand is ―personified by the person—and typically named after the person—who founded, built, owned, or otherwise is (or was) known to be the dominant force in the life of the brand." Some examples of this concept occur in the fashion industry when designers use their name for the clothing brand, such as Calvin Klein and Michael Kors (Fournier and Eckhardt, 2019). Another industry in which brand personification occurs is the artistic environment, especially the classical artists, like Picasso (Muniz, Norris, & Fine, 2014). In this sense, the celebrity perspective on person brands helps us analyze Greta's person brand dynamics, and it may also allow us to understand her dynamics with such celebrities.
The literature review indicated that there are three main perspectives on the person brand literature. First, the product perspective is the most common, and it analyzes person brands through frameworks traditionally created for product brands. This perspective brings valuable insights, from broad marketing concepts to specific branding theories, such as brand identity and brand authenticity. Nevertheless, the person brand received criticism for not studying person brands as independent from product brands. Those critics argue that person brands require frameworks of their own instead of borrowing theories from product brands. Secondly, the persona perspective
13 solves the previous criticism by putting person brands on the center and creating theories specific to person brands. Finally, the celebrity perspective studies one particular type of person brand: the celebrities, who built their image mainly through their talents, such as acting, singing, or sports. Considering that Greta at times behaves like a product brand, and, at times, as a persona, both the perspectives of product and persona are appropriate for studying Greta's person brand. However, the celebrity perspective is not as insightful for Greta's case since these are two very different types of person brands.
2.2. Person brands and the co-creation perspective
Greta is not the typical person brand: she is not a celebrity, a sports person, or a digital influencer. Instead, Greta built her person brand around the environmental cause, and, as such, she leads a social movement. Consequently, people from everywhere comment about her, whether positively or negatively. In this sense, Greta is a singular case because her person brand is co-created by various public discourse in several media. In this sense, bringing the co-creation perspective to the person brand literature is appropriate to examine Greta's person brand dynamics. Therefore, this section will analyze different actors and their impacts on person brand co-creation. The main co- creating actors found in the person brand literature are endorsed product brands, audiences/customers, and the media.
2.2.1. Product endorsement
The co-creation perspective for person brands revolves mainly around product endorsement, in other words, the co-creation dynamics between the person brand and the endorsed product. As for the definitions of person brand endorser, McCracken (1989) defines them as: ―any individual who enjoys public recognition and who uses this recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement." Therefore, there are two main characteristics: being a well-recognized persona and associating the person's image with a product in marketing communications.
In the case of endorsement, the co-creation dynamics happen primarily between the person brand and the product brand, in which both brands affect each other. Therefore,
14 endorsement strategies bring consequences for the person brand. For example, Doss (2011) argues that a product brand influences the credibility and expertise of a person brand. The research still implies that a product brand with a low reputation will negatively affect a person brand's trustworthiness and attractiveness. Conversely, a product brand highly admired by the customers will not transfer its positive attributes to a person brand with a negative reputation.
Considering that both the person brand and the product brand affect each other, there are also effects on the endorsed product brand. Lieb (2013) proposes that well- established person brands can use their reputation to create new revenue streams, including selling an endorsed product, such as perfumes and clothes. Hence, the endorsement of a person brand directly impacts the number of sales of the endorsed product and, therefore, on the product brand itself. Till, Stanley, and Priluck (2008) contribute to this line of research by including the concept of conditioning in celebrity endorsement. The research repeatedly paired an image of a celebrity (person brand) with a product to correlate this conditioning with brand attitude. The findings indicate that celebrity endorsement has a positive correlation with brand attitude toward the product brand. Keel and Nataraajan (2012) made the correlation between brand personality and product endorsement. They argue that person brand endorsement is a good strategy for a product brand that lacks personality since the person's personality gets transferred to the product. As a result, the authors imply that the endorsement improves customer attitude towards the product brand. Miller and Allen (2012) have also studied conditioning in the context of product endorsement and the concept of meaning transfer. The research indicates that when a person brand is paired with a product brand, it transfers the meaning from the person to the brand. The customers manifest this meaning transfer by a change of beliefs regarding the product brand. Finally, Bartz, Molchanov, & Stork (2013) conclude that when person brands commit transgressions, it affects the person brand and the product brand. Therefore, when person brands endorse product brands, both brands go through a co-creation process. These researches illustrated the multiple aspects in which a product brand is affected by a person brand.
There is a consensus among researchers in the product endorsement literature: a positive result depends on a good matching between person and product. Till, Stanley, and Priluck (2008) emphasize the importance of finding an appropriate match between the
15 person brand and the product brand. According to them, conditioning is more expressive when the person brand and the product have the same values, as exemplified by Michael Jordan sponsoring a sports drink. These findings imply that the previous associations with the person brand will have impacts on the product brand. Another research that emphasizes the relevance of a person-product fit is from Keel and Nataraajan (2012). The authors have identified three strategies for product endorsement: mono-branding, co-branding, and non-celebrity branding; however, the co-branding strategy is more relevant for this research. In their definition, the results of this strategy depend heavily on the match between person brand and product brand, and complementary partnerships have a better attribute profile. Furthermore, a good person- product fit also depends on the product category. These findings imply that the previous associations with the person brand will have impacts on the product brand. Finally, Hackley & Rungpaka (2015) bring the cultural perspective to analyze the endorsement of products. They argue that culture affects how people perceive the performance of a person brand in the media. This finding reinforces Keel and Nataraajan's (2012) conclusion, which states that previous associations and mindsets influence the effectiveness of the endorsement and affect the image of the person brand. Therefore, this line of research implies that a good matching between product and person impacts the final result of the endorsement strategy. This conclusion reinforces the idea that both the product and the person affect and co-create each other.
Although Greta does not sell a product and is not actively involved in marketing campaigns, she is the endorser of the cause. For instance, Greta organizes the movement Fridays for Future, which consists of weekly student strikes for the environment. Hence, Greta's person brand is strongly associated with these strikes. Another occasion in which Greta acted as an endorser is when she promoted the event R20 Austrian World Summit, in 2019, with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In this case, two person brands with different backgrounds worked together as endorsers of the same event. In this sense, co- endorsement is an influencing factor of Greta's person-to-person co-creation dynamics.
2.2.2. Audiences and customers
Besides endorsed product brands, audiences and customers are also co-creators of a person brand. Social media enable them to switch from passive spectators to active
16 contributors. Jenkins (2008) has extensively studied social media environments and emphasizes that these online environments encourage the customer's active participation. Furthermore, Centeno and Wang (2017) argue that audiences are the most expressive co-creators of person brands in online environments. These co-creation dynamics happen through the social exchange within a brand community (such as interactions and communications); thus, a brand community is a channel in which human brand identities are co-created, especially on social media. The authors describe these co-creation dynamics as "the explicit and implicit indicators of their involvement: participation, interaction, production, and consumption." According to these co-creation activities, it is possible to classify the participants in the co-creation process into focal, primary, and instrumental co-creators. Another research that stresses audiences as co- creators is from Schau Muñiz & Arnould (2009). They argue that social media encourages customers to express their opinions regarding a specific brand and even engage online with the brand by interacting with its profile. Besides, the authors bring a new perspective by analyzing brand communities' dynamics and how those interactions co-create value. Payne et al. (2009) further analyze how customers co-create value through the service dominant logic perspective (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). They propose a process-based model to assess this co-creation. Da Silveira, Lages, & Simões (2013) contribute to this line of research by studying how brand identities are co-created online. They propose a framework for this co-creation dynamics, which includes four aspects: brand identity, brand face, consumers' face, encounters, and contextual factors. This logic reinforces the relevance of consumers in the co-creation process. The authors still argue that customers are encouraged to express their opinions on social media, and these opinions and interactions become influencing inputs in the co-creation dynamics. Those researches indicate that customers co-create person brands through their interactions. Hence, this line of research reinforces that interactions between people are a means of co-creating person brands. In this sense, person-to-person brand interactions are also valid for the co-creation dynamics.
Greta has gathered an expressive audience on Instagram: 10.9 million followers. Considering that most person-to-person brand interactions happen on social media, the audience works as a co-creator agent. In this case, the audience is the judge who says whether the interactions were positive or negative for Greta's brand. For instance, when Greta posted a picture of Trump to celebrate the end of his mandate, someone
17 commented: "Greta for President," in evident support of Greta. Hence, the audience has a crucial role in the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics.
2.2.3. Media
The traditional media is another stakeholder for person brand co-creation. Béroard & Parmentier (2014) have identified the two components of person brand capital: the media image and the professional image. This argument demonstrates the importance of the media and its impacts on person brands. Their research focuses on person brand image during scandals. The authors argue that the traditional media is of extreme relevance since they can act in three different roles: allies, enemies, and judges of the person brand. Hence, the traditional media are a co-creator agent when person brands face scandals by shaping their image towards the audience. Another research that studies characteristics of person brands is from Parmentier & Fischer (2012). They have studied how athletes build their person brands, and the findings indicate that two aspects characterize person brands: professional image and mainstream media persona. This way, the authors identify how person brands can use those aspects to enhance their brand equity. These findings imply that the media persona created by the person brand has impacts on other concepts, such as person brand equity. Considering that brand equity is an indicator of the popularity of the person brand, the finding demonstrates the relevance of the media in the co-creation dynamics. Smart (2007) has also studied person brands in the sports industry. He conducted a historical analysis in which he identified that the attention from the media is one of the aspects that transform regular people into person brands. According to this line of research, the media has a crucial role in creating person brands since they put person brands in the spotlight and introduce them to the mainstream audience. Murphy (2010) also argues that the traditional media works as a co-creator for person brands. The author studied person brands in the context of how the media shapes their reputation and used Martha Stewart as a case study. The findings state that once the media has defined its themes and patterns about a person brand, there is little that public relations can do to shape the person's reputation. Thus, through creating a person's reputation, the media becomes a co-creator of the person brand. In summary, the media acts as a co-creator agent for person brands since it directly affects person brand reputation, person brand equity, and person brand image. 18
The media works as a channel where the person-to-person brand dynamics occur. For instance, in an interview with Mehdi Hasan on the television channel MSNBC, Greta argues about the policies of Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Even though it was not a direct interaction with the other person brands, it is a way to position herself for or against the attitudes of another person brand. Hence, Greta‘s person-to-person co- creation dynamics can also happen through traditional media.
2.2.4. Other stakeholders
Besides endorsement of products, audiences, and media, two more stakeholders can be considered co-creators of person brands: (1) in the case of CEOs, the company itself is a co-creator, and (2) the market and culture of the person brand. Murphy (2010) brings another perspective by arguing that when CEOs become person brands, as in the example of Martha Stewart, the person brand and the company brand are interconnected. This finding implies that the CEO's person brand is co-created by the company brand. On the other hand, Muniz, Norris, & Fine (2014) bring an entirely different perspective by analyzing how Picasso created his person brand. The author identifies the process used by Picasso to build his successful brand: "to succeed, artists must be conscious of three interrelated domains: the market and the culture in which it is embedded, their support system (their various constituencies), and their competition." Therefore, according to the authors, three stakeholders co-created Picasso‘s person brand: the market, the support system, and the competition.
While previous research has focused on person brand co-creation, this literature review demonstrates how little information is available on person-to-person brand co-creation. This gap in the person brand literature is relevant due to the complex process of developing and maintaining a person brand, particularly in online environments. In addition, social media makes the interactions between person brands accessible to a broader audience, enhancing the consequences of these interactions. In this sense, the interactions between person brands online have significant potential for the co-creation of person brands. Hence, the gap of how person-to-person brand interactions affect person-to-person co-creation is relevant to the person's brand literature. Filling this gap is also relevant for managers of person brands, who can reflect on how their interactions
19 online affect their brand, and for managers of person brands, who can find a better fit for product endorsement strategies.
2.3. The role of brand relationship theory for person branding
The brand relationship theory (Fournier, 1998) argues that there are relationships between customers and brands. The research brings three main contributions: it legitimizes brands as active participants of relationships, introduces a framework to comprehend the types of relationships, and creates the concept of brand relationship quality. Both frameworks enlighten the dynamics of the relationship between customers and brands. Likewise, those dynamics (mainly described in the relationship typology and the brand relationship quality) will enlighten the dynamics of person-to-person brand co-creation.
The relationship typology offers a perspective to analyze person-to-person brand relationships. The types of customer-brand relationships were defined according to 7 dimensions identified in Fournier‘s (1998) data. The dimensions are: voluntary/imposed, positive/negative, intense/superficial, enduring/short-term, public/private, formal/informal, and symmetric/asymmetric. According to the author, there are 15 types of relationships: arranged marriages, casual friends/buddies, marriages of convenience, committed partnerships, best friendships, compartmentalized friendships, kinships, rebounds/avoidance-driven relationships, childhood friendships, courtships, dependencies, flings, enmities, secret affairs, and enslavements. The author emphasizes the relevance of analyzing relationships through the lens of the typology. Firstly, each relationship has different benefits and contributions to personality development. Secondly, relationships have different maintenance requirements. Therefore, the typology allows us to observe (1) the effects of a relationship in someone's life and (2) how much effort one needs to maintain the relationship.
The customer-brand relationship theory (Fournier, 1998) also analyzes person-to-person brand relationships: the brand relationship quality construct (BRQ). BRQ is a hierarchical construct, which starts with behaviors from both the brand and the customer and the interactions between them. These behaviors and interactions create meaning and reinforce the relationship. The BRQ construct establishes six variables that affect strength and durability in relationships: love/passion, self-connection, interdependence,
20 commitment, intimacy, and brand partner quality. Hence, the BRQ allows us to assess the strength and durability of the relationship. Besides, it implies that customers seek more than the practical benefit when purchasing a brand; instead, the purchase is guided by the meaning a specific brand has for the customer.
While the customer-brand relationship provides us with the relationship typology and the BRQ frameworks, it does not provide some aspects for analyzing person-to-person brand relationships. For instance, it does not explain how the relationship affects person brand equity, brand positioning, brand targeting, and brand identity. It also does not provide a specific framework for person brands – and, as seen previously, there are differences between product brand and person brand frameworks.
However, it is a proper perspective to analyze the dynamics between person brands. Both the relationship typology and the BRQ framework allow us to assess the dynamics of relationships in general. Specifically, the BRQ argues that the interactions between customers and brands create meaning. Likewise, the present thesis will analyze the interactions between Greta Thunberg and other person brands, which means the framework applies to this case study. Another reason why the customer-brand relationship theory is a good fit for this study is the dimensions used to define the types of relationships. These dimensions can enlighten the dynamics (such as length and intensity of the relationship) between person-to-person brands. In this sense, those dimensions will provide the basis for analyzing the co-creation dynamics by comparing the interactions with the different person brands. For instance, interactions with Trump (an "enemy") may be more intense than interactions with another environmental activist (an ally), and those differences might have different impacts on the co-creation dynamics.
3. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology chosen to answer the research question. It explains the context in which Greta built her person brand, research method, sampling, data collection, and data analysis. Since this research's main topic is the interactions between Greta and other person brands on social media, these interactions should set the basis for the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics.
21
3.1. Context
Person brands often create and adapt their identities on social media (Burgess & Green, 2009). This study, therefore, chooses Instagram to investigate the person-to-person brand co-creation of Greta Thunberg. The development of Greta's person brand relied heavily on the media's attention – whether it is positive or not. From the beginning of her activism, she received media attention because she skipped school to strike for the environment. As a consequence, the dynamics of her person brand have relied on external discourses from the start. This study investigates one particular external agent that co-creates Greta's brand: other person brands.
Instagram is one channel through which Greta interacts publicly with other person brands and where the audience reacts to these interactions. In fact, with the help of social media, these interactions reach thousands of people in minutes, which creates a perfect scenario for the person-to-person brand co-creation. Therefore, this study relies on the interactions between Greta and other person brands on Instagram.
3.2. Research method
The methodology of this thesis consists of a netnography, the observation of people‘s behavior online. Most public interactions between Greta and other person brands occur in online environments, making netnography an appropriate methodology. Besides, previous literature establishes that person brands can create their image online (Burgess & Green, 2009), meaning that studying online environments can help understand how Greta shapes her person brand. Another reason netnography is appropriate to answer this research question is that it identifies the multidimensional realities of social interactions (Kozinets, 2015). Assuming that one factor that shapes Greta's person brand is the interaction with another person brand, a netnography should allow us to understand the meanings and implications of these interactions. Since netnographies unravel complex social interactions, it is an appropriate methodology to study these person brand dynamics. This netnography studies the interactions between Greta Thunberg and other person brands, specifically how these interactions co-create Greta's person brand.
22
There are three types of data collection in netnographies, archival data, co-created data, and fieldnote data (Kozinets, 2015). For this research, the archival data is the most appropriate. It has two main characteristics: (1) acts as a historical record, and (2) does not require the active participation of the researcher. The interactions on social media (comments, pictures, and likes) are a historical record of the person brands' behavior. After all, Instagram displays this information publicly for an extended period, making it possible to analyze the person brands' behavior historically. Hence, archival data is the most appropriate type of data for this research.
As for the data collection, Kozinets (2015) describes it as capturing a snapshot of the screen. This snapshot includes a visual image of the information in its original formatting. Furthermore, capturing images is helpful when the context and other elements are helpful to answer the research question. In Greta's case, the interactions with the person brands depend on the context, and so does the audience's response. For instance, when Greta posts a picture of Trump to celebrate the end of his mandate, this interaction depends on the political context. The same happens with the audience's response: some comments answer a question on the captions; in this case, the captions are the context that drives the comments of the audience. Therefore, the data collection captures the overall context since the picture, comment, and responses contribute to creating meaning together. In this sense, the data collection for this research included snapshots of:
The pictures when there is an interaction with another person brand. The screenshots include all pictures with relevant interactions (in the picture itself or the comments) between Greta and another person brand. The pictures could be either on Greta's or in the other person brand's profile. The response of the audience as comments in the picture with another person brand. The screenshots selected include only the comments that demonstrate a clear opinion, whether positive or negative. For instance, comments that are only emojis are not included. Another way to identify the relevant comments is the ones that received more likes. The comment of a person brand on Greta's picture. The screenshots include all comments from the selected person brands in the established timeframe.
23
The response of the audience on comments of person brands. The screenshots include all responses to comments from the selected person brands on Greta‘s pictures.
The data collected includes all the interactions between Greta and the person brands from January 2019 to the time of collection, in March 2021. It was a total of 1.418 screenshots. This data will allow us to identify patterns in the person brands' behavior and to categorize the person brands according to the typology of relationships, as defined by Fournier (1998). Next, through a content analysis, it will be possible to analyze how each type of relationship co-creates Greta's person brand.
Instagram was the social media chosen to answer the research question. It is the social media where Greta has a larger audience of 10.9 million followers, against 4.9 million on Twitter and 3 million likes on her Facebook page. Additionally, Instagram offers more suitable affordances for this research since it allows people to reply to specific comments. For instance, if Greta posts a picture on her feed and Malala comments, the followers can comment on the picture and reply specifically to Malala‘s comment. This functionality makes it easier to identify the public's response to specific interactions. Therefore, due to (1) Greta's higher presence and audience on Instagram and (2) the affordance that allows replies to specific comments, Instagram is the more suitable social media for this study.
3.2.1. Sampling
The sampling strategy for this research is purposeful sampling, described by Patton (2015) as the selection of information-rich cases that are best suitable to answer the research question because of specific characteristics. For Greta's case, only a limited number of person brands interact with her in a frequent or relevant manner. Hence, the sampling strategy considered the specific person brands that include the characteristics and behavior to co-create Greta's person brand.
The selection criteria that qualified a person brand to be included in this research are:
They have to be person brands, as described by Thompson (2006) since it is the definition used to qualify Greta as a person brand.
24
They must have interacted with Greta on Instagram either by posting a picture of a live meeting with her or by commenting on her profile. This aspect is relevant because the interactions are how the co-creation process occurs. The interactions must have happened after January 2019. This timeframe is helpful because 2019 was the year when Greta started getting attention from the media and when she started to create her audience and fight more actively for her cause. Therefore, it is when she became a person brand, and it is the most applicable timeframe to answer the research question.
The following person brands are qualified for the sample: Alexandria Pascalidou, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama, Caitlin Cimini, Donald Trump, Elliot Page, Emma Elwin, Gisele Bünchen, Jamie Margolin, Luisa Neubauer, Malala, Patti Smith, and Pope Franciscus.
3.2.2. Data analysis
Once the person brands are identified and the data is collected, the next step is to identify patterns to establish the typology for the relationships between Greta and the person brands. The supporting framework to organize the findings is types of relationships from Fournier (1998). It will provide the first categorization of the data. Furthermore, Aggarwal (2004) describes relationships as ―a sequence of interactions between parties where the probable course of future interactions between them is significantly different from that of strangers." Therefore, the interactions between the person brands on social media are appropriate to form a relationship. When each person brand is categorized in a type of relationship, it should be possible to analyze how each type of relationship affects Greta‘s person brand co-creation dynamics.
The subject of analysis of this research is (1) the interactions between Greta Thunberg and other person brands and (2) the audience's response. Considering that Greta does not sell a product, the ―marketing communication efforts‖ (Thomson, 2006) that make her a person brand are directed towards spreading her message of the environmental cause. In this sense, her "customers" are the audience to which she advocates her cause, and they provide helpful insight to analyze Greta's brand. Hence, the analysis of the interactions between Greta and other person brands will happen by observing the
25 audience's response, which should allow us to assess public perception regarding Greta and hopefully identify impacts on her person brand.
The methodology also includes content analysis, defined as the analysis of the content of a communicated material, which leads to the identification of its meanings (Krippendorff, 2009). A research technique used in content analysis is sentiment analysis. It expresses the emotional attitude of the online text concerning an object. In this technique, the text is categorized into three sentiments: positive, negative, or neutral (Pang and Lee, 2008). In Greta's case, this research will analyze the sentiment of the audience towards the relationship between Greta and other person brands. Considering that Greta's person brand is built on a social cause, her "customers" are her audience. Hence, the audience's perception is the thermometer that tells us if Greta's person brand is perceived as positive or negative. The content that will be analyzes is the interactions between Greta and the person brands happen in the form of text (comments), pictures, and likes; hence, this is the content of the analysis. The content analysis will provide insights into the co-creation dynamics by illuminating the intention and the meaning of the interactions between the person brands. Besides, the sentiment analysis allows us to identify the consequences of these dynamics for Greta's person brand.
The co-creation dynamics between Greta and the other person brands will be distilled firstly by identifying behavior patterns among the person brands. In order to identify these patterns, we will observe the frequency of interactions, the relevance of the person brand, attitude towards the environmental issues, and area of expertise. Therefore, we will look at individual interactions and the person brand's overall behavior when interacting with Greta in the long term. These behaviors should illuminate the original intention of the person brand with these interactions. Finally, the audience's reaction should tell us how the interactions impact Greta's person brand. Hence, the co-creation dynamics will be analyzed by going from the person brand's initial positioning, the overall behavior when interacting with Greta, the interactions themselves, and the audience's response.
4. FINDINGS
The findings of this study into Greta Thunberg‘s co-creation dynamics show how other person brands relate to Greta Thunberg and collectively co-create her person brand
26 through five dynamics: fame-seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers. The following sections outline the person brands involved in the co-creation of Greta, the relationships they develop through their interactions, and how other person brands contribute to the co-creation of Greta‘s person brand.
4.1. Person-to-person brand relationships
The section describes the person brands who co-create Greta‘s brand. At the same time, we identify the types of relationships they have with Greta. The supporting framework for this analysis is Fournier‘s (1998) relationship typology. From the 15 types of relationship identified by Fournier (1998), the person brands in this study only fit in 5: casual friends/buddies, committed partnership, best friendship, courtship, fling, and enmities.
Three main variables determine the typology of the relationship. The first variable is the relevance of the person brand interacting with Greta. For this study, relevancy is considered (1) the number of followers on Instagram compared to Greta and (2) the authority in their respective field. The second variable is the frequency of interactions. There is a wide range in the number of interactions between the person brands and Greta. While some only met her once, others comment weekly on her pictures. The smaller number of interactions is one, and the highest is 61. The third moderating variable is the person brand‘s expertise and values. The person brands who interact with Greta have various backgrounds, such as politicians, models, founders, and even other environmental activists. Interactions with people from the same background as Greta may result in a more amicable relationship. In contrast, interactions with people who have different views can be troublesome, such as the case with Donald Trump.
4.1.1. Casual friends/buddies
Fournier (1998) described casual friends as ―friendship low in affect and intimacy, characterized by infrequent or sporadic engagement, and few expectations for reciprocity or reward.‖ Among our sample, two people fit this typology: Elliot Page and Gisele Bünchen.
27
Elliot Page
Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page, started his acting career in the 2000s. His breakthrough happened when he starred in the romantic comedy Juno in 2007. Among his well-known movies are Inception and X-Men: The Last Stand, and more recently, he is in the Netflix series The Umbrella Academy. Elliot is a vegan, pro-choice feminist and supports the human rights cause. In 2014, Page came out as gay, and in December of 2020, he announced himself as transgender and switched his name from Ellen to Elliot. In addition, the actor produced a documentary for Netflix in 2019 that discusses the issue of environmental racism. Therefore, Elliot supports both LGBT and environmental causes. He currently has 4.8 million followers on Instagram. The total number of interactions between Elliot and Greta is 4, and they occurred from 02/06/2019 to 27/09/2019.
The interactions between Elliot and Greta are sporadic comments, mainly on Greta‘s profile. Considering that their interactions happened through comments – instead of pictures on in-person meetings -, this behavior indicates that their relationship is low in intimacy. Besides, Elliot mainly comments on strategic pictures, for instance, a picture of Greta holding an LGBT flag. This behavior from Elliot indicates a strategy to either promote his cause or find a common interest between him and Greta. However, this relationship is one-sided since Greta barely replies to him, and she has never posted pictures or commented on his pictures. Overall, it feels like Elliot tries to force some intimacy through a common topic, but it is a failed attempt. It fits the casual friends type of relationship due to (1) infrequent interactions and (2) no expectation of reciprocity.
Gisele Bündchen
Gisele Bündchen is a Brazilian supermodel who started her international modeling career at the end of the 90s. In the 2000s, she became a Victoria‘s Secret‘s angel, and soon she started modeling for luxury brands, such as Givenchy and Versace. Nowadays, she is on the list of the highest earner supermodels and has achieved worldwide recognition. Gisele is involved with countless philanthropic activities, particularly in Brazil, where she supports environmental causes, such as the rescue of the Amazon rainforest. In 2011, Gisele won the Greenest Celebrity award from the Green International event, and in 2016 she joined a documentary, Years of Living
28
Dangerously, which discusses the climate crisis. Gisele is a high authority figure in her field and on Instagram, with 17 million followers. The total number of interactions between Gisele and Greta is 2, and they happened from 20/09/2019 to 03/03/2020.
The relationship between Gisele and Greta is a casual friendship due to the lack of frequency and intimacy of the interactions. Gisele usually comments on Greta‘s pictures; however, the comments do not demonstrate a clear statement or opinion. Consequently, the interactions are quick and low on commitment, and this lack of positioning makes the interactions look shallow. Gisele‘s most popular comment received only 165 likes and one comment, which is expressively low, considering her 17 million followers. This low engagement from the audience reinforces how shallow the relationship is.
Additionally, Gisele openly defends the environment on her profile and, although this attitude does not show in the interaction with Greta, it is part of Gisele‘s person brand. Due to the shallow interactions and lack of reply from Greta, Giselle comes across as someone trying to promote her brand on Greta‘s profile. By attaching her brand with Greta, Gisele reinforces the idea that she is environmentally friendly. Gisele has a high presence on social media (she has 17 million followers, which is more than Greta, with 10.6 million). However, her person brand is typically associated with her career and the modeling industry. Nevertheless, although she has a bigger audience, it is from a different niche, thus, justifying the need to attach her brand to Greta‘s.
In Greta‘s case, the casual friends/buddies type of relationship is characterized by shallow and infrequent interactions. They are people from different industries, such as modeling and acting, and they are interested in the environment. However, the interactions between them and Greta come across as unnatural and as a forced relationship. This behavior does not seem to have a significant impact on Greta‘s person brand. Since the interactions are scarce and shallow, the audience does not react much, thus, reducing the effects of this interaction in Greta‘s brand.
4.1.2. Committed partnership
The second type of relationship identified in Greta‘s interactions is committed partnership. Fournier (1998) describes it as: ―long-term, voluntarily imposed, socially
29 supported union high in love, intimacy, trust, and a commitment to stay together despite adverse circumstances. Adherence to exclusivity rules expected‖. The person brands with this type of relationship with Greta are Alexandria Pascalidou, Caitlin Cimini, Emma Elwin, and Patti Smith.
Alexandria Pascalidou
Alexandria Pascalisou is a Greek-Swedish journalist and author with 31.100 followers on Instagram. She started her public career when she became the host of the television show Mosaik on a Swedish public channel. Alexandria has published books on motherhood and feminism: The Mothers and Me Too –Then We Proceed to Voices, Tools and Advice. To fight for the feminist cause, she started the Mothers Manifestations. Besides, Alexandria is also an ambassador of Kvinna Till Kvinna, a Sweden non-profit organization that helps women in areas of political conflict. Besides, Alexandria got involved in the human rights issue: she is also an ambassador of Mentor Sweden, a non-profit organization that helps young people to build their future. These actions represent some of the values that she stands for: feminism and human rights. However, there is no explicit action or statement regarding the environmental cause in her profile. The total number of interactions between Alexandria and Greta is 31, and they occurred from 30/11/2019 to 10/02/2021.
Alexandria interacts with Greta by commenting on her pictures in multiple opportunities. The comments vary from emojis and elaborated comments in English and Swedish. Overall, the interactions are friendly since Alexandria always speaks in support of Greta‘s actions. The aspects that classify her as a committed partnership are (1) a high volume of interactions, which indicate a long-term commitment and intimacy, and (2) the support in Greta‘s projects. For instance, Greta posted a picture in November 2020 to promote an interview for the New York Times Magazine. In the caption, she wrote:
“There’s a misconception that I see the world in black in white. Of course I don’t see the world in black and white. It’s just that when it comes to the climate and environment, you can’t be a little bit sustainable. Either you are sustainable or you are unsustainable.”
30
Alexandria commented:
“Those that accuse you of seeing the world in black and white are colorblind. Don’t bother. Keep painting! Awaken us.”
The comment received 1.007 likes, which is an expressive response; especially considering the picture itself received 2.539 comments. This behavior from the audience shows a massive engagement and states that they agree with Alexandria‘s comment. So the interactions between Greta and Alexandria are friendly. However, this behavior was an outlier – most comments from Alexandria receive less than 100 likes, which shows that the audience is not interested in these interactions. Additionally, some aspects make the interactions seem fake: (1) Greta never replies, (2) Alexandria is from another niche, and (3) Alexandria has a smaller audience. These circumstances raise the suspicion that Alexandria interacts with Greta only to promote her person brand and associate her image with the environment.
Caitlin Cimini
Caitlin Cimini is an American and founder of Rancho Relaxo, a non-profit organization that rescues at-risk animals. She is also an animal rights advocate and a social media influencer with 253.000 followers on Instagram. While the animal rights issue is one of her core values, there is no direct statement on her social media regarding environmental issues. The total number of interactions between Caitlin and Greta is 19, and they occurred from 13/08/2019 to 26/12/2020.
As an animal rights activist, Caitlin‘s comments on Greta‘s profile often speak in favor of her cause. Caitlin argues that animal factories are prejudicial for the environment and, hence, the environmental crisis and the animal issues are complementary in her view. In this sense, the aspects that make Caitlin a committed partnership are (1) a high volume of interactions, which indicates a long-term relationship, and (2) a high level of intimacy, since the similar values indicate that both person brands fight for complementary causes. Thus, Caitlin has established the correlation between animal rights and the environment by arguing that animal agriculture is harmful to the environment. In this sense, the interactions between them are legitimized, since ultimately, they have the same goal. Furthermore, since their causes are complementary,
31 both person brands reinforce each other‘s storytelling of a social advocate when they interact.
Emma Elwin
Emma Elwin is a Swedish influencer, and co-founder of We Make it Last, a sustainable fashion brand. She promotes a conscious lifestyle on her social media, and since her brand is sustainable, her company is also branded as environmentally friendly. She currently has 42.000 followers on Instagram. Emma and Greta‘s total number of interactions is 36, and they occurred from 22/03/2019 to 08/03/2021.
Emma is the second person brand with the highest number of interactions with Greta. Even though most of her comments are short and usually do not present controversial opinions, they still receive a decent number of likes and responses. As the founder of a sustainable fashion brand, Emma‘s actions defend the environmental cause directly. Therefore, Emma is a committed partnership due to (1) the high volume of interactions and (2) the similarity of values.
Considering that Emma owns a sustainable fashion brand, associating her person brand with Greta is a way to reinforce her image as environmentally friendly. Besides, it is in her interests as a marketing move. Emma‘s behavior can be seen as a strategy due to (1) she is the owner of a sustainable business that would certainly benefit from Greta‘s person brand, (2) she has a smaller audience, and (3) she frequently comments on Greta‘s pictures, but Greta never replies. Although the interactions are friendly and it fits a committed partnership, the behavior indicates a secret agenda.
Patti Smith
Patti Smith is an American singer and songwriter who became popular in the 60s and 70s. Patti is known for breaking gender stereotypes since the 60s and still influences the current pop culture. Besides defending the feminist cause, Patti also got involved in politics by supporting Ralph Nader in the presidential election of 2000 and Senator John Kerry in 2004. Furthermore, Patti is the author of the book Just Kids, for which she won the National Book Award. Patti is a high authority figure due to her well-established
32 career, and she has 899.000 followers on Instagram. The total number of interactions between Patti and Greta is 32, and they happened from 17/03/2020 to 12/03/2021.
Even though Patti has a high volume of interactions with Greta, they are pretty similar. Greta has organized the Fridays for Future movement, in which she incites students to strike for the environment. So Greta posts a picture every Friday, holding a sign to advertise the movement. Every week, Patti comments on Greta‘s picture to support her. Hence, the relationship between Greta and Patti is a committed partnership due to (1) the weekly interactions, which make it a long-term relationship, and (2) the explicit support of Patti for Greta‘s movement, indicating some intimacy as well.
However, Patti comes from a different background, she has not spoken openly about the environmental cause in her profile, and she has a smaller audience than Greta. Thus, although the interactions are positive and friendly, these aspects make the interaction look forced – as if Patti is using Greta‘s brand to promote herself. These efforts, however, seem to be misdirected since Patti‘s message and brand do not connect directly to the environment; thus, the relationship between Patti and Greta gets confusing to the audience.
Overall, people in the committed partnership type of relationship have positive and frequent interactions with Greta. However, the interactions can feel unnatural and confusing at times, indicating that these people interact with Greta due to a second agenda to promote themselves or their cause. Nevertheless, this behavior does not appear to affect negatively Greta‘s person brand in the eyes of the audience. Although these people often comment on Greta‘s profile, the audience does not show a high engagement. Hence, this lack of response diminishes the effects of these interactions for Greta‘s brand.
4.1.3. Best friendship
According to Fournier (1998), best friendships are ―voluntary union based on reciprocity principle, the endurance of which is ensured through continued provision of positive rewards. Characterized by revelation of true self, honesty, and intimacy. Congruity in partner images and personal interests common‖. According to the
33 interactions on Instagram, the person brands who fit the best friendship typology are Jamie Margolin and Luisa Neubauer.
Jamie Margolin
Jamie Margolin is an American climate justice activist who reached public recognition when Ali J sued Washington, demanding that the government take actions regarding the environment. She founded the Zero Hour movement, which seeks to educate and involve people in the climate crisis. Besides, Jamie came out as a lesbian, which means she supports both environmental and LGBT causes. Additionally, her audience is quite niched compared to other environmental activists: she 58.600 followers on Instagram, while Greta has 10.9 million. The total number of interactions between Jamie and Greta is 61, and they happened from 03/01/2019 to 03/02/2021.
Jamie is the person brand who had the most interactions with Greta. These interactions vary between comments on Greta‘s pictures and posting pictures with Greta in meetings and strikes. Hence, the person brands shared online and offline interactions, which indicates a higher level of intimacy. This relationship is a best friendship due to (1) reciprocity, represented by the interactions in both profiles, (2) intimacy, and (3) personal interests in common since both person brands are environmental activists.
The relationship between Jamie and Greta has a good synergy. Many factors contribute to this synergy: both of them are environmental activists, fight for the same cause, met in person on multiple occasions, and interact quite often on social media. Hence, when they interact, it reinforces each other‘s positioning as environmental activists, and it is well accepted by the public.
Luisa Neubauer
Luisa Neubauer is a German climate activist with 231.000 followers on Instagram. She is a leading figure of the Fridays for Future movement, which organizes school strikes for the environment. Luisa is the author of the book Vom Ende der Klimakrise: Eine Geschichte unserer Zukunft and she has a TED Talk called Why You Should Be a Climate Activist. The total number of interactions between Luisa and Greta is 18, and they happened from 29/03/2019 to 03/01/2021.
34
Unlike the other person brands, Luisa and Greta‘s interactions are mainly with pictures instead of comments. This behavior means that they met on multiple occasions for events and strikes. Furthermore, both Greta and Luisa post pictures on their profiles, indicating a high level of intimacy. Hence, the relationship between them is a best friendship because of (1) reciprocity, of both of them posting pictures together, (2) intimacy, since they often participate in the same events, and (3) personal interests, since Luisa is also an environmental activist, and they defend the same cause.
Similar to Jamie, Luisa and Greta also show a good synergy. The audience perceives the interactions as legitimate and positive. For instance, since both Luisa and Greta are involved in the Fridays for Future movement when the two girls meet publicly to promote the movement and post it on social media, this interaction reinforces that both of them combine forces for a greater goal.
In Greta‘s case, the best friends are people who frequently interact, both in comments and pictures, and have a goal in common. In addition, these people are deeply involved in environmental activism, which makes the interactions seem natural. As a result, the repetitive interactions establish both person brands as environmental activists in the audience's minds.
4.1.4. Courtship
The courtship type of relationship is an ―interim relationship state on the road to committed partnership contract‖ (Fournier, 1998). Among the person brands who interacted with Greta, the ones who fit this category are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama, and Pope Franciscus.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American actor, bodybuilder, and former politician, who has 21.5 million followers on Instagram. He first became known for his bodybuilding career, which later opened the opportunity to work in Hollywood. The Terminator movies gave him worldwide recognition. Arnold started his political career in 2003 when he replaced Governor Gray Davis for the Republican Party and became the Governor of California. Afterward, he got reelected, and after the term, he ended his
35 political career in 2011. During his years as Governor, Arnold took measures to help the environment, such as signing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and started the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in California with Northeast. After his mandate, he maintained his environmental activism by founding the R20 Regions of Climate Action. Therefore, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a former political figure who has an explicit concern with the environment, particularly the carbon footprint issue. He is also a high authority figure online and offline due to (1) his political career and (2) the high following on social media. The total number of interactions between Arnold and Greta is 4, and they happened from 27/05/2019 to 28/05/2019.
The interactions between Greta and Arnold occurred when both of them endorsed and participated in an event, the R20 Austrian World Summit. At the time, they met in Vienna and posted pictures together to promote the event. Considering (1) Arnold‘s great relevance on social media and (2) his previous political career, there are reasons why Greta would be interested in developing a committed partnership with him. So their relationship is a courtship since Greta can use these interactions for her cause.
As a person brand who held power to take action in the environment issue, starting a friendly relationship with Arnold is of great interest to Greta. When Greta interacts with a politician, it is a way to pressure them to act on the climate crisis. Besides, meeting someone as famous and influential as Arnold establishes Greta as a relevant person brand.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama became known worldwide when he became the 44th President of the United States, from 2009 to 2017. During his mandate, he took some measures in favor of LGBT and environmental causes, for instance, by legalizing same-sex marriage. As for the environment, Obama presented regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and he also vetoed a bill that authorized petroleum exploration in the Arctic. These decisions imply that even though his government is not known to focus on the environment, it does not deny the climate crisis. Obama is a figure of high authority, as demonstrated by his former position. This authority is reflected on social media: he has 34.6 million followers on Instagram. The total number of interactions between Obama and Greta is 2, and they happened from 15/06/2019 to 17/09/2019.
36
Barack Obama and Greta met in person once, and both of them posted pictures together in their Instagram profiles. During his mandate, Obama has presented a positive perspective regarding environmental issues, and he remains an influential figure even after his mandate. Therefore, he could be a valuable ally for Greta in her mission to save the environment. However, due to the lack of frequency of interactions, and the lack of intimacy, they are not yet a committed partnership. Hence, Obama is considered a courtship relationship because it is a positive relationship that can become an alliance in the future.
Although Greta and Obama only met once, this interaction is powerful. One of Greta‘s biggest challenges is demonstrating that she is credible; after all, she is still very young – and many people criticize her for that. However, by speaking to a former President of the United States as equals, Greta shows that she is powerful and establishes her as a serious and credible figure.
Pope Franciscus
Pope Franciscus is currently the head of the Catholic Church. He comes from Argentina and has 7.7 million followers on Instagram. Even though he still adopts the traditional views on some topics, Franciscus is known for being a liberal and modern Pope. He has established this image by advocating for current topics, such as gender equality and the climate crisis. Additionally, the Pope has demonstrated a positive attitude towards the environmental cause through several measures: encouraging countries to sign the Paris Agreement, challenging CEOs from oil companies to switch their mindset, and supporting the energy transition. Another aspect of Franciscus‘ papacy is that he welcomes the LGBT movement, contrary to the traditional views of the Church. Therefore, Pope Franciscus supports both the environment and LGBT causes. The total number of interactions between Pope Franciscus and Greta is 1, on 17/04/2019.
Pope Franciscus is a figure who has immense authority. Even though his presence on social media is lower than Greta‘s (he has 7,7 million followers, while she has 10,9 million), his role as the head of the Catholic Church provides him with significant influence and power. At the same time, his statements regarding the environment agree with what Greta believes. However, the low number of interactions between them indicates that the relationship has not yet evolved into a committed partnership.
37
Therefore, the relationship between Greta and Pope Franciscus is considered a courtship due to his high relevance, the low number of interactions, and the similarity of opinions regarding the environment.
The interaction with the Pope follows the same logic as the interaction with Obama. Even though he is from a different area of expertise, the Pope is a figure of authority. By associating her image with him, Greta sends a message that she also has authority in her field. The fact that the Pope has a more open-minded approach to conducting the Catholic Church, by the LGBT causes and the environment, gives even more synergy to the interactions with Greta. As a result, the audience perceives this courtship positively.
Overall, the courtship relationship includes people who have higher power and authority than Greta. The interactions are not frequent, but they have a high impact on her brand. They unconsciously say that Greta is a credible person brand, and they give her an aura of authority, despite her young age. The dynamics work as if Greta was recruiting these people to fight for the environment by pressuring them to take action. Finally, all person brands in this typology have demonstrated positive attitudes towards the environment. Hence, when Greta courts these people, the audience perceives it positively.
4.1.5. Fling
Fournier (1998) describes flings as ―short-term, time-bounded engagements of high emotional reward, but devoid of commitment and reciprocity demands.‖ Among the person brands who interacted with Greta, the only one who fits this description is Malala Yousafzai.
Malala is a Pakistani who advocates for female rights, and she has 1.6 million followers on Instagram. At a very young age, she started blogging about her life as a Pakistani girl during a military occupation. As she gathered public recognition, Malala started giving interviews and getting more and more popular. When she was 15, Malala was a victim of a murder attempt when she got shot. The episode received worldwide attention, and it led Malala to the spotlight, as many people spoke in her support. She is the youngest winner of the Nobel Prize and the author of the book I Am Malala: The Story of the Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Although Malala does not speak much about the environment, she defends human rights, female rights, and the
38 right to education. The total number of interactions between Malala and Greta is 4, and they happened all on 25/02/2020.
The interactions between Greta and Malala happened once when they met in Oxford. At the time, they posted a picture in their feed and commented on each other‘s pictures. The meeting did not happen due to a special event; instead, it seems like two friends meeting. The type of relationship established between Malala and Greta is a fling due to (1) it is short-term since they did not interact publicly on social media anymore, (2) the comments on each other‘s pictures demonstrate some level of intimacy, especially since there is synergy between the human rights and the environmental activism, and (3) there is not a high commitment or demands, as indicated by the lack of interactions afterward. It was a one-time interaction between two people with similar values.
For Greta‘s person brand, the interactions with Flings are when people are from different areas team up and share this on social media. As a well-known human rights activist, when Malala and Greta interact in a friendly way, they state to the public that they support each other. In this sense, Malala‘s cause gets transferred to Greta and, since both causes are social, they have a very high synergy. Thus, the interaction with Malala expands Greta‘s person brand, giving her a ―social activist‖ aura instead of being limited to being an environmental activist. However, in this example, it works well because the causes are complementary.
4.1.6. Enmities
According to Fournier (1998), Enmities are: ―intensely involving relationship characterized by negative affect and desire to avoid or inflict pain on the other.‖ The only person brand who fits this category is Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is an American businessman who inherited the family business and started his media career by hosting the TV show The Apprentice. He was the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2021. During his mandate, Trump ignored the climate crisis and the advice from scientists. He reversed policies established by the former President, Obama, which includes the gas emission reduction policy and the prohibition to drill petroleum in the Arctic. He also withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, which seeks to reduce climate change effects. Therefore, Trump has
39 immense political power and presents highly negative attitudes towards the environment. Currently, he has 24.4 million followers on Instagram. The total number of interactions between Trump and Greta is 2, and they occurred from 20/01/2021 to 08/03/2021.
The first interaction on Instagram between Greta and Trump is when she posted a picture of him, celebrating that his mandate had ended. The second is a video interview with Mehdi Hasan when Greta states that Trump‘s mockery is ―hilarious,‖ demonstrating a disregard for his opinions. Even though there is no clear intention to hurt each other, both interactions are hostile and have a negative connotation. Hence, this is the category that fits best for this relationship.
The relationship with enmities is the most emotional and controversial. Although these interactions do not occur often, they have a higher engagement from the audience and significantly impact Greta‘s person brand. These interactions represent a clash of opinions between the person brands. In this specific example, however, Greta is opposing a figure of massive authority. As a former President of the United States, Trump remains an influential figure. Hence, when Greta opposes him as an equal and receives support from the audience, it establishes her as a powerful figure.
The following table provides an overview of the person brands who co-create Greta‘s person brand. It comprises the most relevant information for this analysis. First, the occupation helps to understand the person‘s authority on the field and the positioning towards the environment. Second, the number of followers on Instagram establishes the person brand‘s relevance and influence on the platform. Finally, the number of interactions helps establish the type of relationship (Fournier, 1998).
NAME OCCUPATION INTERACTIONS FOLLOWERS TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP Alexandra Journalist, author, Pascalidou TV speaker 31 31,1k Committed partnership Arnold Actor/politician 4 21.5M Courtship Schwarzeneger Barack Obama Politician 2 34.6M Courtship Caitlin Cimini Animal rights activist 19 253k Committed partnership Donald Trump Environmental activist 18 231k Best friendship Elliot Page Actor 4 4.8M Casual friends/buddies Co-founder/ Committed partnership Emma Elwin sustainable fashion 36 42,4k
40
Gisele Model 2 17M Casual friends/buddies Environmental Jamie Margolin activist/director/writer 61 58,6k Best friends Luisa Neubauer Environmental activist 18 231k Best friends Malala Human rights activist 4 1.6M Fling Patti Smith Musician 32 899k Committed partnership Pope Religious authority 1 7,7M Courtship Table 1 – Description of the person brands
4.2. The person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics
This section unravels the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics. The data obtained from observing the interactions between Greta and other person brands on social media resulted in five different dynamics: fame-seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers. Each dynamic contributes differently to co-create Greta‘s brand.
4.2.1. Fame-seekers
The fame-seekers are people who use Greta to leverage their person brands and establish themselves as environmentally friendly. On every occasion, they are the ones who started the interactions, which generally take the form of comments on Greta‘s pictures. The person brands who presented these dynamics with Greta are Patti Smith, Gisele, Elliot, Alexandria Pascalidou, and Emma Elwin. They are from either the committed partnership or the casual friends/buddies type of relationship.
Patti Smith has the most interactions with Greta, and the dynamics between them are unique. Greta organizes the Fridays for Future movement, in which she encourages students to strike for the environment weekly. To support and advertise the movement, Greta posts a picture every Friday with a striking sign. Patti interacts with Greta every week by commenting ―Thank you, Greta‖ in the picture of the movement, almost as a ritual. Although Patti supports Greta and the movement, her person brand image is not traditionally associated with the environment. Since Greta has higher exposure than Patti, many people from the audience see these interactions with hostile eyes: they believe Patti is using Greta to leverage her brand and gather exposure.
“you try so hard to get exposure on all her posts. Utterly pathetic”
41
The following aspects may explain this negative perception: (1) Patti is not traditionally associated with the environment, (2) she has a lower number of followers, and (3) the interactions are constant and standardized. As a result, it does not feel genuine. However, the comment does not refer to Greta herself but the interaction with Patti.
Gisele presents a similar dynamic as Patti. Although her person brand has more exposure than Greta‘s, it is built on her modeling career. Gisele has made efforts to help the environment, and the interactions with Greta feel like an attempt to establish herself as environmentally friendly. Additionally, Gisele is a person brand with enough financial resources to have an impact on the environment. Nevertheless, instead of creating projects in collaboration with Greta to save the environment, she limits herself to comment on Greta‘s pictures. Consequently, the lack of action gives the impression that she only interacts with Greta to establish her brand, not due to a genuine motivation to help the cause.
Elliot Page has a similar dynamic with Greta but with a different agenda. Instead of associating his image with the environment, he attempts to promote his LGBT cause through Greta‘s high exposure. The interactions occur mainly when Elliot comments on strategic pictures of Greta, for instance, a selfie of her holding an LGBT flag. This behavior does not demonstrate an intimate relationship nor shows support for Greta‘s cause. Instead, it is an attempt by Elliot to promote his movement. However, Greta‘s person brand is barely associated with the LGBT cause, and, consequently, the interactions with Elliot appear superficial.
The fame-seekers dynamic has a potential that Greta does not use. If she chooses to engage with them and make their interactions legit, both person brands can benefit from it. For instance, if Greta engages more frequently with Elliot and speaks for the LGBT cause, she can transform this dynamic into complementary forces. The LGBT cause is a social issue and, as a person brand who is created around a social cause, Greta can benefit from defending other social issues as well, potentially widening her brand from environmental activist to social activist. As a result, this dynamic could broaden her person brand positioning (Keller, 2011). Considering that the fame seekers typically come from different areas of expertise, when Greta interacts with them, it forces her to position herself regarding a topic. For instance, when she interacts with Elliot in a friendly manner, it is a way of saying unconsciously that she also supports the LGBT cause. Therefore, it would benefit Elliot, who advertises his cause, and Greta, who 42 extends her person brand to become a social persona. However, since Greta does not use this relationship properly, this dynamic remains an unfulfilled potential.
4.2.2. Best friend
The best friends are person brands who meet Greta on multiple occasions and are also deeply involved in the cause – they are often environmental activists. Therefore, there is a high synergy between both person brands. The interactions are friendly and take form in pictures and comments in both profiles. In addition, they often reinforce Greta‘s positioning as an environmental activist. The person brands who presented these dynamics are Luisa Neubauer and Jamie Margolin.
The best friend dynamics mean that when Greta interacts with other environmental activists for a common purpose, it reinforces her positioning as an activist. One interaction that demonstrates this was when Greta advertised her documentary series about her activism. She posted a picture on her Instagram feed, and Jamie commented:
“Can’t wait for it to come out! I’m excited to see it! Keep up all the amazing work!”.
This comment indicates a positive sentiment from Jamie, who shows her support for Greta‘s work. As for the audience's response, the comment has received 744 likes, which is an expressive number and shows a positive attitude towards the interaction. Likewise, most interactions between them are friendly, reinforcing each other‘s activism.
Luisa has similar views as Greta when it comes to the environment, and the two girls have a high number of interactions on Instagram. Additionally, Luisa has a smaller audience than Greta: she has 231 thousand followers, while Greta has 10.9 million. Both activists are involved in the Fridays for Future movement, which is organized by Greta and consists of weekly strikes for the environment. The protests happened in multiple places and gathered a big crowd, but after March 2020, they happen online. Greta and Luisa have met in person on multiple occasions to strike for the Fridays for Future movement, and now both of them post pictures quite frequently to keep the movement alive. There are five interactions in which Greta and Luisa promote Fridays for Future together. On two occasions, Greta posted a picture with Luisa and used the hashtag #fridaysforfuture. On three occasions, Luisa posted a picture with Greta and
43 used the hashtag #fridaysforfuture. In August 2019, Luisa posted a picture with Greta, celebrating one year since she first started striking, and used the #fridaysforfuture. The picture received 269 comments, and considering that Luisa has 231k followers on Instagram, it represents 10% of engagement from her audience. One of the followers commented:
“Great picture of two tough female inspirational leaders! Keep this up! It is so important! We are with you!”
The comment represents a positive sentiment towards the friendship and also towards the strikes. Although there are few negative comments, most of them are either positive or neutral. This behavior from the audience and the high engagement indicate a successful partnership and organization of the Fridays for Future movement. Furthermore, this partnership indicates a positive dynamic between Greta and Luisa. Since both of them defend the same cause and support each other, it intensifies the connection between Greta and the environmental cause when they interact publicly on social media. Therefore, Greta‘s person brand becomes inextricably connected to the cause.
Another consequence of these dynamics is that they create an aura of a political leader for Greta. The interactions with the best friends enhance her positioning as an environmental activist, but they also position her as a leader for the other environmental activists. For example, in a picture of the girls striking, someone commented:
“can’t you put someone else on the top of the german movement than Luisa, she’s so wrong.”
By suggesting that Greta has the power to remove Luisa from the movement, the comment reinforces the idea of Greta as an authority figure for environmental issues. The contrast of Greta with other environmental activists puts her in a leadership position, which also reflects on her social media engagement – she has 10.9 million followers, expressively more than Luisa and Jaime. In this sense, Greta has more power and authority than Luisa when it comes to environmental activism. She is a leader who enjoys both the glory and the disgrace. The glory comes in the form of recognition, while the disgrace comes in the form of the constant attacks she suffers online.
44
This dynamic has consequences for Greta‘s person brand when it comes to product endorsement. Person brand endorsement, as defined by McCracken (1989), is ―any individual who enjoys public recognition and who uses this recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement.‖ As a social person brand, Greta typically does not use her person brand to promote products. However, she behaves as a co-endorser by promoting the Fridays for Future movement with Luisa. As stated previously, the interaction between Greta and Luisa when promoting Fridays for Future is perceived quite positively by the audience, as indicated by the 10% of engagement on the comment section. Consequently, when Greta co-endorses a strike for the environment with a best friend, it enhances her person brand image as an environmental activist. Furthermore, since the movement is a long-term project, so is the co-endorsement – both person brands are promoting it since its start. With repetitive promotion associating Greta with other environmental activists and strikes for the environment, she becomes even more established as an authority figure for the environment movement in the customer‘s mind.
Another consequence of the best friend dynamic is regarding person brand identity. The literature defines brand identity as the aspects that make a brand unique, as well as its essential idea (Aaker, 1996). Greta created her person brand as an environmental activist, and as such, it is the essential idea of her brand. In this sense, the environmental crisis is the aspect that stands out the most in Greta‘s person brand identity. At the same time, the best friends are people who come from the same background and frequently interact with Greta, thus, reinforcing her identity as an environmental activist. Thus, the best friend dynamic ensures that Greta remains deeply connected to her cause and her person brand identity. Previous researchers have argued that customers are active co- creators of person brand identities (Da Silveira, Lages, & Simões, 2013). These findings extend this argument and indicate that interactions between person brands also co-create person brand identity.
4.2.3. Power providers
The power providers are people who are or were in a position of power, and, by interacting with them, Greta pressures them to take action in the environment. In a way, she borrows their power for her cause. These people are often political or religious
45 figures with high authority. They legitimize Greta not only as an environmental activist but almost as a political figure herself. The person brands who presented these dynamics are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Pope, and Barack Obama.
As the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Franciscus is a highly influential figure. Greta met him in person once, in 2019. At the time, she posted a picture with the following caption:
“Today I met with pope @franciscus I thanked him for speaking so clearly about the climate crisis. He told me to carry on. #fridaysforfuture #schoolstrike4climate #climate strike”
Although it is not his area of expertise, the Pope has enough influence to address the climate issues. Greta‘s caption and the hashtags attempt to use this power in favor of her cause. The comments of the audience seem to perceive this movement with positive eyes. While most reactions are either positive or neutral, few incite the Pope to act:
“I really wish he take place with the climate crisis and about how to help, he has a big empire is not a big deal to do a couple of things.”
The comment takes a similar approach to Greta‘s caption by pressuring the Pope to use his power to help the environment. These dynamics indicate that the audience becomes an ally of Greta to demand a firm stand from authority figures. Therefore, when Greta interacts with power providers, it is a way to use their power on behalf of her cause.
As former President of the United States, Barack Obama remains a figure of authority – more authority than Greta. Greta and Obama met in person in 2019, and she posted a picture with the caption “Yes we can. #fridaysforfuture #schoolstrike4climate #climatestrike”. This caption and the hashtags indicate that she incites Obama to use his power to help the environment cause, almost as an ultimatum. The comments section shows that the audience sees this interaction with positive eyes and also encourages Obama to take action:
“When leaders act like children, the children have to take the lead. Let’s start.”
The comment received 4.060 likes, which is an extremely high engagement, mainly because the picture itself only received 8.000 comments. It also pressures Obama by stating that he did not take enough action for the environment. Additionally, it implies that Greta is the appropriate person brand to take action, putting her in a more
46 authoritative position than Obama when it comes to the environment. Hence, the interaction with Obama takes her to the next level as an environmental activist by suggesting that Greta establishes herself as a political figure with enough power to make a change.
These relevant political and religious figures have an untouchable aura due to their high positions. The fact that Greta has reached enough recognition to interact with them in person demonstrates that she is becoming more and more powerful. Consequently, her person brand goes beyond an environmental activist; she becomes almost a political figure as well. When she interacts with these person brands, Greta (1) borrows their power by pressuring them to take action on her cause, and (2) establishes her person brand as a figure of authority in her field and a political figure herself.
Besides establishing Greta as a figure of authority in the overall political scenario, the dynamics of the power providers also impact her brand awareness. Brand awareness is defined as the brand's strength in the customer‘s memory, and one indicator is how quickly they recognize or recall a brand (Keller, 2013). In Greta‘s case, the power providers influence her brand awareness due to (1) their relevancy and authority in their fields and (2) their different backgrounds. When Greta interacts with people who have a bigger audience, it affects Greta‘s person brand awareness due to the exposure to a massive number of people. As a result, Greta‘s person brand gets recognized by more people (Keller, 2013). For instance, when she posted a picture with Obama, she received 8 thousand comments, which demonstrates a higher engagement when compared to other pictures. However, when Obama posted a picture with Greta, he received 18 thousand comments, over twice as much. Hence, the people from Obama‘s profile who were not familiar with Greta gained awareness of her, regardless if they sympathize with her or not.
4.2.4. Complementary forces
The complementary forces dynamic occurs when people from different backgrounds have friendly interactions with Greta. Similar to Greta with the environment cause, these people also created their person brands around a societal cause, such as the animal rights and the human rights cause. Overall, these interactions broaden Greta‘s person
47 brand to establish her as a social persona, not only the environment girl. The person brands who presented this dynamic are Malala and Caitlin Cimini.
Malala and Greta met in person once, in 2019. At the time, both of them posted pictures on their profiles and commented on each other‘s photos. Their interactions are pretty personal since they seem to be extremely friendly with each other. For example, in Greta‘s picture, she wrote the following caption:
“So… today I met my role model. What else can I say? @malala”
The picture has 16.918 comments, which shows a significant engagement from the audience. When Greta affirms that Malala is her role model, she supports Malala‘s view and the human rights cause. Malala replied: “Hope you liked Oxford.” The comment has an even higher engagement: 5.065 likes. Both person brands built an amicable relationship in public, and the audience seems to believe it is genuine and positive. This positive response from the public also shows that Greta and Malala are seen with positive eyes in each other‘s fields: human rights and environmental activism.
Greta and Malala have built their person brands around different causes. Nevertheless, the interactions between them and the positive attitude from the audience demonstrate that these causes have a good synergy. When Greta meets Malala, and they show an amicable relationship, she unconsciously says that she supports Malala‘s cause. Hence, this is a way for Greta to position herself for human rights as well, in this case, to support the movement. This positioning is positively accepted by her audience, which perceives both causes as almost complementary. As a consequence, Greta widens her person brand. Although her main focus is the environment, this dynamic amplifies her person brand to defend social causes, such as human rights.
The same dynamic applies to Caitlin Cimini. She is an animal rights activist who also created her person brand around a social cause. Caitlin and Greta interact more frequently, mainly when Caitlin comments on Greta‘s pictures. In this comment, Caitlin defends veganism:
―People should consider going vegan. The meat and dairy industry is destroying the planet – amongst other things‖.
In this sense, Caitlin makes the connection between the two topics: the environment and veganism. According to this logic, defending animal rights is a means of defending the
48 environment. The audience shows a positive response to the comment: it received 1.868 likes. This response means that the audience generally agrees with this argument and supports the idea of Greta also defending animal rights. Furthermore, due to the interdependency of both causes, the repetitive and positive interactions with Caitlin establish Greta as a secondary supporter of the animal rights issue. Therefore, Greta‘s person brand becomes more than simply an environmental activist; but it expands to other social causes and creates an aura of the social persona.
Besides giving Greta the aura of the social persona, the complementary forces also impact her person brand positioning. Keller (2011) describes three components of brand positioning: point of reference, points of differentiation, and points of parity. In Greta‘s case, the points of reference are the topics defended by the person brands. For instance, when she interacts with Malala, who created her person brand based on the human rights cause, Greta is positioning herself regarding this topic. The point of reference is the human rights cause, and the points of differentiation and parity are how Greta and Malala address the topic. In this sense, the interactions with person brands from different fields have a higher impact on Greta‘s person brand positioning since they force her to state a position on a new topic. These findings are aligned with the person brand positioning theory by Parmentier, Fischer, and Reuber (2013). They argue that when person brands want to position themselves, their strategy is to ―stand out‖ and ―fit in‖ simultaneously. In Greta‘s case, she stands out because of her activism towards the environment, which is the foundation of her person brand. However, at the same time, she fits in because she looks for allies (both from the activism field and other complementary fields as well) to support her mission.
4.2.5. Trouble makers
The trouble makers have more power and authority than Greta and a negative relationship with her. The interactions are often emotional, mocking Greta and her cause or listing reasons she is not qualified to be an environmental activist. Since these people are more powerful than Greta, this relationship becomes a David and Goliath dynamic. In this case, the troublemaker is a strong and influential figure, and Greta is the underdog. It establishes Greta as a martyr of the environment movement since she suffers constant criticism and attacks due to her job – and, despite the challenges, she is
49 brave enough to face the strong enemies. The only person brand who presented this dynamic with Greta is former President Donald Trump.
The interactions between Greta and Trump are the most aggressive, especially when compared to the other person brands. On two occasions, Greta criticizes Trump‘s decisions during his mandate as President of the United States, particularly his actions against the environment. The interactions are not restrained to a debate about the environment, but they get rather personal: during an interview, Greta states that Trump‘s tweets about her are ―laughable.‖ Considering that Trump is a figure who had tremendous power when Greta challenges him so openly, she looks powerless; after all, she is a young girl fighting a President.
The dispute between the two seems to affect Greta‘s engagement on Instagram: the picture she posted when Trump‘s mandate ended had 38 thousand comments. In both cases, the responses were mainly supporting Greta, like ―Greta never disappoints.‖ These comments and the high engagement reinforce the David and Goliath dynamic since they show that the audience roots for the underdog. However, even though most comments are in support of Greta, there are some negative comments. For example, one person said: ―go back to school, your spoiled brat.‖ The comment reinforces Greta‘s role as David since it outlines her weakness: she is young still in school.
When Greta argues with someone as powerful as a former President of the United States, it is a way to reaffirm her person brand authenticity. According to Fine (2003), authenticity is defined as ―sincere, innocent, original, genuine, and unaffected, distinct from strategic and pragmatic self-presentation.‖ A former President of the United States has enough power to affect a person‘s decisions. Still, when facing Trump, Greta keeps her opinions unaffected and stands by her beliefs. In Greta‘s person brand, authenticity means acting genuinely instead of following orders, and when she fights a former President, it makes her person brand even more authentic. Additionally, brand authenticity has positive consequences for brand equity when the message is consistent with the brand's overall values (Alexander, 2009). Throughout the interactions, Greta criticizes Trump mainly for his neglectful attitude towards the environment, and this is a positioning consistent with her overall values as an environmental activist. Finally, person brands that are perceived as authentic tend to be more successful (Lair et al., 2005), which is seen as Greta maintains her relevancy through the years.
50
The following table provides an overview of the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics: fame-seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers. It comprises a short description of each dynamic and how they impact Greta‘s person brand.
DYNAMIC DESCRIPTION People who use Greta‘s brand as a means to promote their brand. Although this behavior does not harm Greta‘s brand, it represents an unfulfilled potential. If Greta decides to establish a partnership with the people from this dynamic, they can potentially evolve to the complementary forces Fame Seekers dynamic. The best friends dynamic includes people with similar values and positioning as Greta. This dynamic reinforces Greta‘s positioning as an environmental activist. Besides, this Best Friends dynamic establishes Greta as a leader of the movement. The power providers dynamic includes person brands who have more authority than Greta. Greta establishes her brand as a serious and reliable environmental activist by interacting with powerful and relevant people. Besides, when Greta pressures these people to take action on the environment, it Power Providers represents a way to borrow their power to help her cause. The complementary forces dynamic includes people from different areas of expertise. When Greta interacts with these people and the causes have synergy, it expands her person brand. This dynamic gives Greta an aura of a social activist, Complementary Forces representing one step further than an environmental activist. The trouble makers are people who are more powerful than Greta and disagree openly with her. When these hostile interactions come from a person with high authority, it makes Greta look vulnerable. As a result, it creates a David and Goliath narrative, when there is an influential figure and the underdog who challenges it. When Greta speaks up and defends her cause against someone with such relevance, she Trouble Makers becomes the underdog, and the audience tends to root for her. Table 2– Description of the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics
5. DISCUSSION
The main contribution of this thesis is that it outlines the person-to-person brand co- creation dynamics. More specifically, this research studies how the interactions between Greta Thunberg and other person brands co-create her person brand. In this section, the discussion is organized according to the research questions.
51
1) How are brand co-creation dynamics between person brands in online environments?
In Greta‘s case, there are five person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics: fame- seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers. These dynamics demonstrated a similar functioning as Fournier‘s (1998) types of relationships, especially regarding the frequency of interactions, relevancy, and attitude towards a topic. Additionally, the types of relationships between the person brands evolve into different person-to-person brand dynamics. For example, the courtship evolved into power providers, the enmities evolved into trouble makers, the fling evolved into complementary forces, the casual friends and committed partnership evolved into fame-seekers. Finally, the best friends evolved into the best friends dynamic.
Each dynamic offers something unique to Greta‘s person brand. The best friends reinforce her positioning as an environmental activist. The power providers take her person brand to the next level by legitimizing her as an authority figure. The complementary forces dynamic enlarges Greta‘s positioning, giving her a social activist aura. The fame-seekers are a natural consequence of creating a large audience and being recognized in a specific field. Finally, the enmities create a David-Goliath aura and legitimize a person brand‘s authenticity and strength. Therefore, the dynamics are complementary and contribute to creating the overall picture of Greta‘s person brand.
Person brand image on social media and traditional media have some parallels. There are three prominent roles: the traditional media works simultaneously as allies, enemies, and judges of the person brand and, by adopting these roles, it shapes a person brand‘s image (Béroard & Parmentier, 2014). The person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics demonstrated similar roles, although they are not all taken by the same agent (as in the case with traditional media). In Greta‘s case, the allies are the person brands who presented fame-seekers, best friends, complementary forces, and power providers dynamics. These people are allies because they reinforce Greta‘s person brand image as an environmental activist or bring another positive contribution to her brand. The enemies are the person brands in the trouble maker dynamic, who challenge Greta‘s person brand image as an environmental activist by criticizing her. Finally, the judges of the interactions are the audience: anyone who replies and comments in a way to make a
52 judgment. The interactions of all these characters result in Greta‘s person brand co- creation.
The parallels between the person-to-person brand co-creation and the media-person brand co-creation go further. Although both co-creation dynamics affect person brand image and awareness (Béroard & Parmentier, 2014), the person-to-person brand co- creation carries a humane aspect. While the traditional media tends to remain impartial, person brands tend to have explicit opinions and personalities. Consequently, the interactions between different person brands have more meaning since the person brand carries its previous associations on the public‘s mind and positioning to the conversation. For instance, when Greta interacts with Malala, as a human rights activist, she brings this meaning to the conversation. This humane aspect tends to bring more engagement from the audience, and thus, these interactions have interesting repercussions for the co-creation dynamics.
The committed partnership dynamic demonstrated an interesting behavior when it comes to person brand positioning, mainly because this dynamic includes person brands from other areas of expertise. When Greta interacts with a person brand from another field, such as the human rights or the animal rights cause, it is an unconscious way to position her brand regarding a new topic. On these occasions, she uses the ―stand out‖ and ―fit in‖ strategy (Parmentier, Fischer, and Reuber, 2013). Greta ―stands out‖ due to her relational and professional competencies, which allow her to create a solid positioning. In addition, the relationship with other social activists, such as Malala, allows her to establish her positioning. When she ―fits in,‖ she complies with the expectation of her audience. The complementary forces dynamic results in the expansion of Greta‘s brand from an environmental activist to a social persona. However, this phenomenon is only possible because both causes are perceived as complementary and, thus, have a good synergy. Considering that the environment is a social cause, expanding to a social persona is the next step. Therefore, since the causes are intrinsically connected, this expansion is a way to ―fit in‖ and meet the public‘s expectations.
The person-to-person brand dynamics also have impacts on product co-endorsement. The best friend dynamic demonstrates that when two person brands co-endorse another brand, there is a higher synergy between all brands – two person brands and the endorsed brand (Keel and Nataraajan, 2012). The fact that the brands involved in the co- 53 endorsement have the same core values – in Greta‘s case, the environment – ensures that the promotion has a good match. For instance, when Greta and Luisa co-endorse the Fridays for Future movement, all brands have the same message: to fight the climate crisis. As a result, the brands reinforce their positioning in the consumer‘s mind.
Once the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics are defined, we can move on to the second research question. The second question goes into more detail about the types of relationship and how they helped establish the co-creation dynamics.
2) What types of person brand relationships do person brands form online with each other?
The types of relationship (Fournier, 1998) identified in Greta‘s interactions are best friends, committed partnership, courtship, casual friends/buddies, fling, and enmities. As mentioned previously, the types of relationship have settled the ground to identify the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics.
The variables that determine the co-creation dynamics have parallels with the dimensions that define the types of relationship, which are: voluntary/imposed, positive/negative, intense/superficial, enduring/short-term, public/private, formal/informal, and symmetric/asymmetric (Fournier, 1998). Thus, the dimensions applicable to the interactions between the person brands are:
Voluntary/imposed. The interactions that form the co-creation dynamics are (1) voluntary, when Greta starts the interaction by posting a picture or commenting, or (2) imposed when other person brands comment on her pictures or post pictures with her. Positive/negative. Most dynamics are positive since the interactions are friendly and supportive of Greta and her cause. The only exception is the trouble maker dynamic. Although the overall impact on Greta‘s brand is positive – with the David and Goliath storytelling –, the interactions are pretty hostile. Intense/superficial. Some dynamics demonstrated a more intense relationship than others. For instance, the best friends meet multiple times in person and interact more often. On the other hand, the fame seekers interact superficially and never express their opinion.
54
Enduring/short-term. Some dynamics are developed throughout the years, and others are established with few interactions. The best friend dynamic requires a higher number of interactions and reaches this stage by repeating the same message to the audience: ―we fight for the environment together.‖ The power providers dynamic required fewer interactions, but it still had a significant impact due to the high authority of the person brands.
The types of relationship (Fournier, 1998) had a significant role in shaping the co- creation dynamics between Greta and the other person brands. However, another relevant player in this process is the audience, which brings us to the final research question:
3) How do person brand audiences react to these types of relationships?
The audience has a significant role in the person-to-person co-creation process. Since Greta‘s person brand is created around a social cause, the audience is her customer. As mentioned previously, the audience takes the role of the judge (Béroard & Parmentier, 2014) of the interactions. Whenever two person brands make efforts to promote their image together, the person brands will ultimately be the ones who dictate the consequences of the interaction or not. For instance, if Greta and Obama interact, and the audience does not perceive this partnership as a good match, they have the power to criticize it online and, thus, shape the perception of everyone who sees the interaction. The opposite scenario is also possible: when Trump criticizes Greta, the audience can defend her and reshape the narrative so that Trump is the villain who attacks Greta. So the audience has the power to take a negative interaction and reframe it, so it reflects positively on Greta. Hence, the audience has an active role in the co-creation dynamic. No matter what person brands do, they ultimately need to go through the audience's judgment to legitimize their interactions and achieve the desired results.
Furthermore, there are some parallels between audience co-creation and person-to- person brand co-creation. There are four elements in the audience co-creation process: participation, interaction, production, and consumption (Centeno and Wang, 2017). While the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics include participation and interaction, this study did not identify production and consumption. Another difference is that person brands are more influential and, as such, their interactions have a higher
55 impact than interactions with the audience. For instance, it only takes one tweet from Donald Trump to take Greta to the headline of newspapers. On the other hand, audience co-creation lies heavily on the power of the crowd – it requires that more people have the same opinion to legitimize it. The more comments, likes, and responses a picture has, the more the picture's message is established.
6. CONCLUSION
This thesis unraveled the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics. Through the case study of Greta Thunberg, we analyzed how the interactions with other person brands on Instagram co-create her brand. These interactions occur on social media, whether Greta consents to it or not, and consequently, the interactions have a participatory aspect. For example, anyone from the audience can reply to the interactions and, thus, co-create the interaction's meaning.
It was possible to determine five different dynamics: fame-seekers, best friends, power providers, complementary forces, and trouble makers. The relationship typology helped to establish the dynamics. Besides, some dimensions from the relationship typology are also applicable for the co-create dynamics. Finally, the audience is a relevant player in the co-creation process, acting as the judge of the interactions.
6.1. Contributions
This thesis adds to the co-creation perspective in the person brand literature by outlining the person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics. It fills a gap in the person brand literature by analyzing how the interactions between different person brands affect and co-create a person brand. This thesis also established the role of the audience – as a judge – in the person-to-person brand co-creation process.
Another contribution to the person brand co-creation literature is to introduce the concept of person-to-person brand co-creation. While previous literature on person brand co-creation studied multiple agents, such as the media and the audience, there was a gap concerning other person brands as active co-creators. Hence, this thesis fills two gaps in the person brand co-creation literature.
56
6.2. Managerial implications
This thesis has managerial implications for those who build person brands online and for product brand managers. Comprehending these dynamics allow person brands to have a strategic view of their interactions on social media. Although they cannot control what other person brands say about them, they can control their response to the interaction. For instance, Greta cannot control what Trump says about her, but she can reply in a way that shapes her brand favorably. Thus, understanding the person-to- person brand co-creation dynamics can give insights for person brands when responding to interactions.
The person-to-person brand co-creation dynamics are also insightful for person brands who want to seek partnerships with other person brands. For instance, if Greta plans to co-endorse a product related to the environment, the dynamic that will likely provide better results is the best friendship dynamic. Hence, it helps person brands to identify the most suitable partners according to their specific needs.
This thesis also has managerial implications for product brand managers. The person-to- person brand co-creation dynamics provide insights regarding a person brand‘s values and authority. By understanding the dynamics, companies that utilize product endorsement strategies can better assess what factors influence the person brand positioning. Therefore, the company can select a person brand with the same values as the product brand, and, thus, the partnership tends to be more effective.
6.3. Limitations and future research
This research has three main limitations. The first is of the type of person brand. Greta is not the typical celebrity, who gathered recognition through entertainment or sports, nor does she sponsor products openly for lucrative purposes. Instead, Greta has created her person brand around a social cause, and, therefore, her type of person brand does not necessarily apply to celebrities. Future research may benefit from studying other types of person brands and, thus, expanding the co-creation dynamics. Some examples of types of person brands are celebrities and social media influencers.
The second limitation is social media. While Instagram is extremely popular and many interactions happen there, its interface may limit the interactions between the person
57 brands. For instance, a person brand cannot include a picture in a comment. Additionally, although Instagram allows users to post videos, it is still heavily based on pictures. On the other hand, videos are richer in information and could provide more insights into the co-creation dynamics. Hence, future research can benefit from studying the interactions on social media based on videos, such as TikTok.
The final limitation is the research design. This research is based on a qualitative netnography methodology, which means it is mainly exploratory. It provides the initial insights for understanding the co-creation dynamics. Future studies can have even more profound insights from using a quantitative approach to make the analysis even more robust. This way, both methods would complement each other.
58
7. REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California management review, 38(3).
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of consumer research, 31(1), 87-101.
Alexander, N. (2009). Brand authentication: Creating and maintaining brand auras. European Journal of Marketing.
Bartz, S., Molchanov, A., & Stork, P. A. (2013). When a celebrity endorser is disgraced: A twenty-five-year event study. Marketing Letters, 24(2), 131-141.
Bendisch, Franziska, Gretchen Larsen, and Myfanwy Trueman (2013), ―Fame and Fortune: A Conceptual Model of CEO Brands,‖ European Journal of Marketing, 47 (3/4), 596–614.
Béroard, É., & Parmentier, M.-A. (2014). Les rôles et les pratiques des médias lors d‘un scandale impliquant une marque-personne. Gestion, 39(1), 24–37
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: Participatory culture beyond the professional/amateur divide (pp. 89-107). National Library of Sweden.
Centeno, D., & Wang, J. J. (2017). Celebrities as human brands: An inquiry on stakeholder-actor co-creation of brand identities. Journal of Business Research, 74, 133–138.
Close, A., Moulard, J. G., & Monroe, K. (2011). Establishing human brands: determinants of placement success for first faculty positions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 922–941.
Cohen, R. J. (2014). Brand personification : Introduction and overview. Psychology & Marketing, 31 (1), 1–30.
Da Silveira, C., Lages, C., & Simões, C. (2013). Reconceptualizing brand identity in a dynamic environment. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 28–36.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003), Creating Powerful Brands, 3rd ed., Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
59
Dion, Delphine and Eric Arnould (2011), ―Retail Luxury Strategy: Assembling Charisma Through Art and Magic,‖ Journal of Retailing, 87 (4), 502–20.
Dion, Delphine and Eric Arnould (2016), ―Persona-fied Brands: Managing Branded Persons Through Persona,‖ Journal of Marketing Management, 32 (1/2), 121–48.
Doss, S. (2011). The transference of brand attitude: The effect on the celebrity endorser. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 7, 1–11.
Fine, G. (2003), ―Crafting authenticity: the validation of identity in self-taught art‖, Theory and Society, Vol. 32, pp. 153-80.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-373.
Fournier, S. (2010) Taking Stock in Martha Stewart: A Cultural Critique of the Marketing Practice of Building Person-Brands. In: Campbell, M.C., Inman, J. and Pieters, R., Eds., NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 37, Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, 37-40.
Fournier, S., & Eckhardt, E. (2019). Putting people back in person brands: Understanding and managing the two-bodied brand. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 602–619.
Hackley, C., & Rungpaka, A. H. (2015). Marketing and the cultural production of celebrity in the era of media convergence. Journal of Marketing Management, 31, 461– 477.
Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Kaputa, Catherine (2005), UR a Brand! How Smart People Brand Themselves for Business Success. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Keel, Astrid and Rajan Nataraajan (2012), ―Celebrity Endorsements and Beyond: New Avenues for Celebrity Branding,‖ Psychology & Marketing, 29 (9), 690–703.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
60
Keller, K. L., Parameswaran, M. G., & Jacob, I. (2011). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Pearson Education India.
Keller, K. L. (2013). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment. In The Evolution of Integrated Marketing Communications (pp. 73-90). Routledge.
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of marketing, 33(1), 10-15.
Kozinets, R. V. (2015). Netnography. The international encyclopedia of digital communication and society, 1-8.
Krippendorff, K. (2009). The content analysis reader. Sage.
Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Online personal branding: Processes, challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(1), 37–50.
Lair, D. J., Sullivan, K., & Cheney, G. (2005). Marketization and the recasting of the professional self: the rhetoric and ethics of personal branding. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 307–343.
Lieb, Kristin (2013), Gender, Branding, and the Modern Music Industry: The Social Construction of Female Popular Music Stars. New York: Routledge.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310.
Miller, Felicia and Chris Allen (2012), ―How Does Celebrity Meaning Transfer? Investigating the Process of Meaning Transfer with Celebrity Affiliates and Mature Brands,‖ Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3), 443–52.
Muniz, A. M., Norris, T., & Fine, G. A. (2014). Marketing artistic careers: Pablo Picasso as brand managers. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 68–88.
Murphy, P. (2010). The intractability of reputation: Media coverage as a complex system in the case of Martha Stewart. Journal of Public Relations, 22(2), 209–237.
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008, August). Using very simple statistics for review search: An exploration. In Coling 2008: Companion volume: Posters (pp. 75-78).
61
Parmentier, M., & Fischer, E. (2010). Branded Like Beckham? An Examination of Dynamic Processes in Human Branding.
Parmentier, Marie-Agnes, Eileen Fischer, and A. Reuber (2013), ―Positioning Person Brands in Established Organizational Fields,‖ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41 (3), 373–87.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., & Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379– 389.
Rangarajan, D., Gelb, B. D., & Vandaveer, A. (2017). Strategic personal branding— And how it pays off. Business Horizons, 60(5), 657–666.
Rein, Irving, Philip Kotler, and Martin Stoller (1997), High Visibility: The Making and Marketing of Professionals and Celebrities. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Rindova, Violina P., Timothy Pollock, and Mathew Hayward (2006), ―Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity,‖ Academy of Management Review, 31 (1), 279–92.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A.M., Jr., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.
Schwabel, Dan (2009), Me 2.0: A Powerful Way to Achieve Brand Success. New York: Kaplan Publishers.
Shepherd, I. (2005), ―From cattle to Coke to Charlie: meeting the challenges of self marketing and personal branding‖, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 589-606.
Smart, B. (2007) ‗Not playing around: global capitalism, modern sport and consumer culture‘, Global Networks, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.113–134.
Thomson, Matthew (2006), ―Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers‘ Strong Attachments to Celebrities,‖ Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 104–19.
Till, Brian, Sarah Stanley, and Randi Priluck (2008), ―Classical Conditioning and Celebrity Endorsers,‖ Psychology & Marketing, 25 (2), 179–96.
62
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). The four service marketing myths: remnants of a goods-based, manufacturing model. Journal of service research, 6(4), 324-335.
63
Affidavit
I hereby declare that this Master‘s thesis has been written only by the undersigned and without any assistance from third parties. I confirm that no sources have been used in the preparation of this thesis other than those indicated in the thesis itself.
This Master‘s thesis has heretofore not been submitted or published elsewhere, neither in its present form, nor in a similar version.
Innsbruck, 27/05/2021,
Place, Date Signature
64