Parmentier & Fischer (2015): Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of...

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

This article examines how fans can contribute to
the destabilization of a brand’s identity and fuel the dissipation (verlies) of audiences of which they have been members.

Much prior work illuminates how fans of a brand can contribute to the value enjoyed by other members of its audience, but little is known about any processes by which fans contribute to the dissipation of that audience.

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

Serial brands = Those with two interrelated properties.

They are episodic
They are highly epistemic consumption objects (invites consumers to pay renewed attention)

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

Serial brands = Those with two interrelated properties.

They are episodic
They are highly epistemic consumption objects (invites consumers to pay renewed attention)

What is meant by brand audience dissipation?

The process of audience loss

Which two RQ's are adressed in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

What are the dynamics of audience dissipation?
How do consumers contribute to these dynamics?

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

The authors adopt the perspective that brands can be regarded as “assemblages”: comprising heterogeneous and evolving sets of components with varying capacities. It consist of different elements: cultural stories, people, things and technologie of distribution. Not all elements are under control of the brand itself.

Suitable for studying brand audience dissipation, because:

They are systems of diverse components that interact with one another which can either stabilize or destabilize the identity
They draw attention to the material and expressive “capacities” of components
The components of assemblages are not fixed

Which two types of capacities are mentioned in the article? And what do they entail (in terms of interaction)?

Material capacities: Can interact with capacities of non-sentiment and sentiment elements

Mechanical causation
Catalytic causation

Expressive capacities: Can interact with capacities of sentiment elements, normally involve catalysis

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

The authors adopt the perspective that brands can be regarded as “assemblages”: comprising heterogeneous and evolving sets of components with varying capacities. It consist of different elements: cultural stories, people, things and technologie of distribution. Not all elements are under control of the brand itself.

Suitable for studying brand audience dissipation, because:

They are systems of diverse components that interact with one another which can either stabilize or destabilize the identity
They draw attention to the material and expressive “capacities” of components
The components of assemblages are not fixed

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

Reframing

Focusing attention on new components entering the assemblage and framing them as contradictions

Remixing

Creating material artifacts that increase the heterogeneity and diminish the coherence of the assemblage

Rejecting

Interpreting the new components that replace old ones as having inadequate capacities to support the brand identity

To what perspective resembles (lijken op) the assemblage theory?

The psychology-based perspectives on consumers reactions
to branding initiatives that diminish the cognitive "fit" between salient brand characteristics

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

Reframing

Focusing attention on new components entering the assemblage and framing them as contradictions

Remixing

Creating material artifacts that increase the heterogeneity and diminish the coherence of the assemblage

Rejecting

Interpreting the new components that replace old ones as having inadequate capacities to support the brand identity

Result: When brands add narratives to create greater cultural resonance, they are more likely to be successful if....?

The new narratives are consistent

Are there any differences with the theory the article describes and the aforementioned perspective?

The described theory focuses more on interaction of consumers, while the psychological perspective doesn't focus on the active role of consumers

On which brand is this research focussing on?

America's Next Top Model (ANTM)

As can be seen in the figure, the ratings dropped over the years

What is the link between this article and the doppëlganger effect from Thompson et al. 2006?

Consumers can contribute to co-creation, but also to co-destruction
Engagement of attentive consumers

Which methods were used in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

The authors adopted a longitudinal approach. Several methods were used, such as:

Participant observations
Formal interviews
Monitoring ANTM social networking data
Collecting all ANTM cycles and promotional material, evidence of prizes and website materials
Purchasing national average TV ratings
Used press coverage from the New York Times

There are components of the brand assemblage that contributes to stabilizing or destabilizing the brand identity by complementing the founding narratives. Which 4?

Contestants (deelnemers)
Recurring (terugkerende) contestant character types (ugly duckling/ underdog/ mean girl)
Industry insider judges
Audience members

Will this destabilize the assemblage or not and why?
Introducing wildcards
Changing the jury

Introducing wildcards: It is contradicting to the winner narrative that suggests that only the best can win. It could be identified as Reframing.
Changing the jury: It will depend on whether the newly introduced judges will be seen as worthy replacements and whether they support and reinforce the key narrative. Rejecting might take place based on this decision

The assemblage perspective is a complementary element as opposed to (in tegenstelling tot).....? (3 aspects)

Satiation (= satisfaction):

Consumers become ‘bored’ with invariance” versus consumers experiencing diminished coherence of the assemblage

Psychology: lack of ‘fit’.

Brand elements that conflict with those that were previously enjoyed by the consumer. However, consumer has a very active role in adjusting perception in the assemblage view.

Semiotic (narratives, images, myths and stories)

Distinction between expressive and material capacities. Assemblage view argues that they should be looked at when they are combined

What is the main key finding of the article by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

If new components are added, components are replaced or increase the heterogeneity
Loyal fans can contribute to the dissipation of the audience by reframing, remixing or rejecting these new components as being contradicting/ inadequate to the brand assemblage.
They spread their 'new opinion' through these intersecting brand assemblages such as discussion boards.

What are the three key insights?

Viewing brands as assemblages allows consideration of dynamics within the brand itself that are not initiated by the brand manager
By reframing, remixing, and rejecting, consumers contribute to generating perceived inconsistency in the brand assemblage
Managing brands entails more than managing elements with largely expressive capacities

It entails managing elements with material capacities that can either support or undermine the expressive capacities of narratives

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

This article examines how fans can contribute to
the destabilization of a brand’s identity and fuel the dissipation (verlies) of audiences of which they have been members.

Much prior work illuminates how fans of a brand can contribute to the value enjoyed by other members of its audience, but little is known about any processes by which fans contribute to the dissipation of that audience.

Parmentier & Fischer (2015): Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation

22 important questions on Parmentier & Fischer (2015): Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

What is meant by brand audience dissipation?

Which two RQ's are adressed in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

Which two types of capacities are mentioned in the article? And what do they entail (in terms of interaction)?

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

To what perspective resembles (lijken op) the assemblage theory?

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

Result: When brands add narratives to create greater cultural resonance, they are more likely to be successful if....?

Are there any differences with the theory the article describes and the aforementioned perspective?

On which brand is this research focussing on?

What is the link between this article and the doppëlganger effect from Thompson et al. 2006?

Which methods were used in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

There are components of the brand assemblage that contributes to stabilizing or destabilizing the brand identity by complementing the founding narratives. Which 4?

Will this destabilize the assemblage or not and why?
Introducing wildcards
Changing the jury

The assemblage perspective is a complementary element as opposed to (in tegenstelling tot).....? (3 aspects)

What is the main key finding of the article by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

What are the three key insights?

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

Class notes - International Brand Management

Class notes - Marketing & Innovation

Indian Economics

Global politics

Essentials of international relations

Behavioral genetics

Management and organisational behaviour

Follow Up Engels idioom 4/5 H

International Business

Marketing fundamentals

Projectmanagement, A practical Approach-Engl…

Basic Management Accounting for the Hospital…

Parmentier & Fischer (2015): Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation

22 important questions on Parmentier & Fischer (2015): Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

The phenomenon of a once-powerful brand losing popularity is particularly visible among which kind of brands? And what do those kind of brands entail?

What is meant by brand audience dissipation?

Which two RQ's are adressed in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

Which two types of capacities are mentioned in the article? And what do they entail (in terms of interaction)?

Which perspective is adopted in this study? And for which 3 reasons is this one chosen?

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

To what perspective resembles (lijken op) the assemblage theory?

Which three ongoing elements of a process through which fans within a brand assemblage contribute to audience dissipation are identified (3 dynamics of audience dissipation)?

Result: When brands add narratives to create greater cultural resonance, they are more likely to be successful if....?

Are there any differences with the theory the article describes and the aforementioned perspective?

On which brand is this research focussing on?

What is the link between this article and the doppëlganger effect from Thompson et al. 2006?

Which methods were used in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

There are components of the brand assemblage that contributes to stabilizing or destabilizing the brand identity by complementing the founding narratives. Which 4?

Will this destabilize the assemblage or not and why?Introducing wildcardsChanging the jury

The assemblage perspective is a complementary element as opposed to (in tegenstelling tot).....? (3 aspects)

What is the main key finding of the article by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)?

What are the three key insights?

What is examined in the paper by Parmentier & Fischer (2015)? And why?

Summaries related to Keller (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity

Class notes - International Brand Management

Class notes - Marketing & Innovation

Indian Economics

Global politics

Essentials of international relations

Behavioral genetics

Management and organisational behaviour

Follow Up Engels idioom 4/5 H

International Business

Marketing fundamentals

Projectmanagement, A practical Approach-Engl…

Basic Management Accounting for the Hospital…

Will this destabilize the assemblage or not and why?
Introducing wildcards
Changing the jury