Organising Customers: Learning from Big Brother

Long Range Planning 42 (2009) 320e340 http://www.elsevier.com/locate/lrp

Organising Customers:Learning from Big Brother

Tobias Fredberg

Many firms see a potential value in the communities of interested customers that havegrown around products in various industries. These ‘customer communities’ or ‘communi-ties of interest’ give enthusiasts the opportunity to socialise around a common focus. Theyseem to create more loyal customers and a potential flow of creative ideas that the firms canmake use of. However, although the benefits of customer communities are clear, the pro-cess of organising them is not. In this paper, we are interested in how firms can organisecustomers in communities that are productively used for customer interaction. The analysisis built on an in-depth study of how the producers of the reality TV series Big Brother useda combination of online and offline channels to organise customers. Theories of attentionare used to explain the organising process. The core argument is that the customer’s use ofdifferent channels (e.g. TV, web, newspapers, chat) directs and redirects his/her attentionand thereby influences behaviour in a way that can be beneficial for the broadcasting firm.The paper contributes to theory by advancing knowledge on how communities becomeorganised through combinations of online and offline sources that guide attention andbehaviour. For managers, the paper aims to develop actionable knowledge on how chan-nels can be structured to organise customer communities so as to increase and prolongcustomer attention and interaction, and hence enable extraction of value.� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

IntroductionStaging the interaction with customers remains a struggle for firms. The benefits are evident: success-ful business/customer relationships can increase loyalty and lead to important ideas, and feedback canhelp to improve products and services beyond incremental adjustments. Failure, on the other hand,may cause cynicism among customers and lead to loss of business. Customer communities have beenseen as a promising way to organise these relationships. There is already an established line of researchon online customer communities. It has been shown that they provide firms with important innova-tive ideas, as well as suggestions that influence their strategic direction.1 Much academic research hasbeen devoted to the task of understanding the network structure, communicative patterns andco-production that take place, and the possible extractable value from these communities.2

0024-6301/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.05.004

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/lrp

What is still needed is an understanding of how firms can organise communities to their benefit, andthe social processes that make this possible. This paper aims to contribute both by advancing our the-oretical understanding of this process and by providing practical guidance for firms that are interested inorganising customer communities. The paper focuses on how products and services guide attention to-wards a behaviour that allows the community to be formed. It applies theories of attention to commu-nity theory, to improve the understanding of how the organising process unfolds. An in-depth casestudy of the reality TV series Big Brother is used to advance our insights into the process. The BigBrother community was created through a combination of online and offline channels. The intentionwas to drive interest in the focus of the community e the television show. However, the show was onlyone part of the customer offering, which included the whole system of channels and the communityitself. The channels were offered according to an underlying structure e effectively a hierarchy of con-sumption alternatives e designed by the producers of the show. The underlying structure facilitated theprocess of organising customers, as attention could be guided towards products and services higher inthe consumption hierarchy.

What is still needed is an understanding of how firms can organise

communities to their benefit, and the social processes that make this

possible

Organising customers is a strategic issue in three respects. First, when a firm designs its product/service portfolio (as it needs to do to organise a community), it chooses the markets to be in andthe influence it can exert on these markets. Second, when customers co-produce content, they be-come strategically important resources. Third, when the firm engages customers, it redefines theturf of managerial action to include people whom it does not actually employ. This has wider im-plications for the firm, both because it changes the system of activities that is the foundation ofcompetitive advantage, and because it demands a new kind of leadership. Yet e perhaps becauseof the traditional emphasis on the difference between markets and hierarchies e management re-search has typically focused on the boundaries of the firm and assumes that the area of managerialinfluence is restricted to employees.3 In this paper we look beyond those conventional boundariesto the firm’s interaction with customers.

The much-loathed reality TV genre on which we are basing our insights has been criticised for its char-acter of ‘social Darwinism’, its lack of realism relative to its claim of reality, and its bad impact on the public.These aspects are dealt with elsewhere,4 and are not the focus of this paper. The media industry is an in-teresting object of study because of its history of using its products as channels for interaction, and becausethe use of information and communication is likely to be on an advanced level relative to other industries.As the information content of products and services is increasing in other industries, firms in these indus-tries are likely to find it attractive to adopt the use of the ideas and methods described in this paper.

Even though ‘viewers’ is the generally accepted expression for audiences of television shows, thispaper talks of customers, as they are also buying and co-producing material. The paper begins witha theoretical background, followed by an explanation of the research method. The Big Brother caseis then described and analysed. This is followed by a discussion on the practical and theoretical im-plications. The paper ends with conclusions and suggestions for further research.

Theoretical backgroundSocial network communities such as Facebook or MySpace have become an established part of lifefor many people. Closely related and often overlapping are brand/customer communities and com-munities of interest (here: customer communities). These are groups of customers or users that

Long Range Planning, vol 42 2009 321

form to discuss and develop interest in a company and/or its brands/products/services. The cus-tomer community literature draws heavily on cases from, for example, Harley Davidson, Jeep, Ap-ple computer and football teams.5 Studies have pointed to the connection between a passion for thebrand and customers’ contributions to product innovations, and to the potential of customer com-munities to increase the quality of the brand relationship.6 Authors in both academia and industryhave therefore engaged in analysing the most effective ways for organisations to extract value fromcommunity discussions.

Customer communities seem to create a symbiotic relationship between firms and their cus-tomers. The firms are interested in the communities because they are likely to lead to increased cus-tomer attention over the long run, because the ideas from these communities can be used as inputin firm R&D, and because the customers co-produce content about the brand/product/service ininformation channels e content which becomes part of the whole offering to customers. The cus-tomers, in turn, experience benefits in the form of learning more about the product/service (cog-nitive learning benefits), enjoying relationships with others in the community (social integrativebenefits), gaining in reputation and status (personal integrative benefits) and being stimulated bythe experience of consumption (hedonic benefits).7

Customer communities seem to create a symbiotic relationship

between firms and their customers

In Muniz and O’Guinn’s definition, a customer community ‘is a specialised, non-geographicallybound community based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand’.8 Not allmembers of the community are equally committed, and not all of them take equal part in commu-nity activities. The borders of the community are therefore not exact. The authors argue that thecohesion within the community is manifested to various degrees through a felt sense of obligationto support the community by contributing to it, through involvement in events, traditions anda common language, and through what they call ‘consciousness of kind’, which means that theyrecognise themselves and others as community members. On a practical level, the community isformed when its members share similar experiences in relation to the brand/product/service, andtalk about them in virtual or physical meetings. The storytelling enacts the organisation; it comesto life when its members discuss common experiences.9 For the process to start and continue, thebrand needs to attract the necessary attention. Attention is hence a pre-requisite for the commu-nity’s ability to become enacted e made real e for its members.10 How people allocate their atten-tion is normally seen as a choice based on personal preferences.11 As the amount of informationthat surrounds us increases, our attention becomes relatively scarcer.12 From a firm perspective,this means that it is increasingly difficult and important to grasp the attention of different targetgroups such as employees and customers. In marketing, this is a well-known fact. In managementtheory, more and more authors have begun to acknowledge the importance of attention as an or-ganising tool also inside organisations.13 A much-cited article by Ocasio14 argues that the connec-tion between attention and organising basically runs as follows:

What you do depends on where you put your attention / Where you put your attention dependson the context/situation that you are in / The context/situation you are in is created throughmanagerial decisions on how the organisation should function

An important managerial goal is to create a community of employees, so as to align them around thegoals and working principles of the firm (e.g. strategy, priorities, code of conduct). To follow Ocasio,managerial decisions should create a context/situation for employees that directs their attention to is-sues and messages important for the company. Such decisions could be in regard to communicationpatterns, organisational culture and the allocation of roles and authority. The decisions should convey

322 Organising Customers

the goals and working principles of the organisation, They are manifested through the internal chan-nels with which employees are in contact. For our purposes, we define channels as the conduits thatthrough attention guide human behaviour. Channels inside a firm include, for example, meetings,contracts, work descriptions, corporate communication, performance measurement systems and op-erating reviews. As an employee, you should ideally be guided to behaviour in line with the firm’s goalsand working principles (given that the messages of the channels are aligned).

Outside a firm, the brand/product/service can be seen as the focus around which the communityforms. The external channels include the products and services offered, the communication plat-forms, the marketing messages, discussion forums, brand fests and more. In comparison with anemployee, a relatively small proportion of a customer’s sphere of reference is accounted for by a sin-gle firm or product/service. But consider the example of an amusement park. The outlay of the parkis such that it leads attention in certain directions and produces desirable visitor behaviour. Forexample, visitors could be guided to the different merchandise outlets, the carousels, the marchingbands or the roller coasters, etc. This is possible because the management of the park exerts influ-ence on the attention of visitors. It can be assumed that the same basic principle applies for otherbrands/products/services that demand attention in some way, even when less of the physical envi-ronment is controlled by the firm. When there is only one channel in play, and your contact withthe channel is momentary, the impact on behaviour is small. However, if there are many channelsthat demand your attention, and if you repeatedly spend much time with them, it is not difficult tosee that the channels largely create the consumption context (which becomes similar to the amuse-ment park). The context influences what you attend to, and therefore influences the choices youmake in your consumption behaviour (e.g., you reduce the number of consumption alternatives,explore new interesting areas, make judgments on what to pay, and decide when to stop). Beinga member of a customer community strengthens this effect, as your peers use the same or similarchannels and you are likely to spend time in the community, which in turn becomes part of thecontext in which you make decisions regarding your consumption behaviour.

External channels include the products and services offered,

communication platforms, marketing messages, discussion forums,

brand fests and more

There is a long tradition in management research of studying the impact of channels such as workdescriptions, strategy or communication on firm performance and organisational life. The role ofchannels for organising customers has been less thoroughly researched. The marketing literature typ-ically treats channels as outlets for products or services, rather than ways to organise interaction andthereby to support community creation.15 In the innovation-oriented customer community litera-ture, authors look at the effectiveness of channels in extracting innovative ideas from customer com-munities.16 In the market-oriented customer community literature, authors tend to focus on how onespecific channel is used in the already existing community, and on the assignment of roles in that com-munity.17 This concentrated focus on the impact of one channel also applies in classical sociologicalliterature where the role of newspapers, local bulletin boards and town square meetings on the cohe-sion in a community is analysed.18 A common feature of the research on communities is that the com-munity already exists. The research typically does not concentrate on how they are created. In thisrespect, this paper aims to contribute. The research question in focus is:

How can firms organise customers into communities by using channels to guide attention?

A benefit of organising customers in communities is that they can become resources for innovationand co-production, and that attention to the brand/product/service can be upheld over a long period


of time to increase loyalty. Leading from the literature on the importance of managing attention, chan-nels shape the nature of the interaction and affect its outcomes. Instead of referring only to a place ora way of selling, channels serve an additional purpose eas a tool for reciprocity in firm-customer andcustomer-customer interaction. The resulting idea for this paper is that we can view channels as or-ganising tools, through their ability to direct attention and thus influence behaviour. Because manage-ment provides almost all channels, it can also influence what they are and how they interrelate.

A benefit of organising customers in communities is that they can

become resources for innovation and co-production

Research approachThe TV show Big Brother was chosen as a study object with the assumption that the informationand communication industries are ahead in the practice of involving and engaging customers. Ad-ditionally, a TV series has the advantage of demanding viewers’ attention over a long period. It istherefore suitable to study if we want to understand the role of attention in organising customers.Compared to, for example, a car, the ‘ownership’ period of a television show is much shorter, butthe attention given to the televised product is characterised by being very intense (whereas the ev-eryday use of car a car primarily is as a means of transportation). The reality TV genre, and BigBrother in particular, has been leading the development in customer co-production in television.19

Customers take part in various ways such as voting, debating in discussion forums or contributingwith new ideas for content. This interactivity is today central to the viewer’s experience of the show.

The format for Big Brother is similar in the 30 or so countries where it has been produced. The basicrules are simple: contestants live together in an isolated house under complete surveillance of camerasand microphones. One by one, they are voted out by viewers until one winner remains. This paper isbased on an in-depth case study20 of the production of the Swedish 2004 edition during the time ofproduction and broadcasting (JaneMay 2004). As the show was being produced during the time ofstudy, continuous monitoring of the show was required to understand its development. This wasdone via the TV show, the website, in related internet chat rooms, and in the evening press everyday during the broadcasting period. The focus was on critical incidents.21 Structured notes were takenon how these incidents were handled. The notes served as background data for interviews, to create anunderstanding of how the system of channels facilitated customer involvement.

Table 1. List of sources: Interviews and web survey, with aliases and positions of interviewees, in chronologicalorder

No. Interviewee/survey Source

1 Programme manager Programme manager, Kanal 5

2 Editor Entertainment editor, Aftonbladet web editon

3 Project manager Big Brother project manager, Meter

4 Webmaster Head of web services, BBKB

5 Producer Big Brother producer, Meter

6 Supervisor Supervisor, Kanal 5

7 Casting director Line producer/head of casting, Meter

8 Group interview: programme manager & supervisor Programme manager, Kanal 5; supervisor, Kanal 5

9 CEO CEO of BBKB

10 Web survey Survey conducted by BBKB in 2005

11 Programme manager Programme manager, Kanal 5

12 Endemol executive Director, content side, Endemol International

13 CEO CEO of BBKB


Twelve open-ended interviews were made with nine people: seven were involved in the manage-ment of the production of Big Brother Sweden 2004 (responsibility was divided among the broad-casting channel Kanal5, the production company Meter and the format licensee BBKB), one wasfrom the tabloid press and one worked in the central management of the format owner EndemolInternational. The interviewees were selected because of their central roles in the management ofthe show. The press representative was interviewed because of the close relationship between theshow and the press. Secondary data from a qualitative web survey that the producers made withthe customers of the 2005 season was also used. The answers indicate that the respondents wereprobably more engaged than the average customer was (hence, there is most likely a bias in the an-swers). The different sources of data are listed in chronological order in Table 1, together with in-terviewee aliases. The first nine interviews were conducted during the production period or in closeproximity to it. The last three were conducted as follow-up interviews in 2006. For further details ofthe research method, please consult the methodological appendix.

Case studyThis section describes how the producers of Big Brother created a system of products and servicesthat directed attention towards the show. The system had a structure that made it possible for cus-tomers to advance in status in the community that was created. The section starts with a descriptionof the problem of keeping viewer attention, then describes the channels focusing attention on theshow, and ends with an explanation of the structure behind the channels.

A central management issue in the television industry is to attract as much attention as possible.For advertisement-based television, that attention is sold to advertisers. A common scenario for TVshows is that viewing declines during the broadcasting period. As can be seen from Figure 1, BigBrother Sweden 2004 was no exception. The drop-out rate during the time of production is shownin terms of customer numbers for the Reality (weekday) and Weekend shows (combined figures),the number of visitors on the website, and the number of visits to the 24/7 live web cameras thatwere installed in the house (to improve comparison, all figures are shown as indices based on thefirst observation).

The most obvious solution in the battle against customer dropout is to make an interesting TVshow. Content-related factors such as creating the right ambience in the house by designing the‘stage’ for the show, choosing interesting and outspoken participants as inhabitants of the house,and moving the story forward by giving the participants assignments to fulfill, were of central im-portance to the production team. They are not core to this paper, however. Instead, we focus on theuse of channels as organising tools. To minimise dropout and increase engagement in the show(and thereby extract more value from the customers), the production staff produced material forseveral media products and services (here: controlled channels), as can be seen in Table 2. The

Figure 1. Development of viewer numbers for Reality & Weekend (1A), Web Site Visitors (1B) and Live Cam-era Visits (1C) during the broadcasting period of Big Brother 200422


Table 2. ‘Controlled’ media channels produced by the Big Brother production team (sources of income, and viewernumbers, when accessible, in parentheses)

Media format Controlled channel description

TV - a kick-off programme in which the participants entered the house with a live audience

outside. The program was produced as a gala with music performances (TV advertisement,

595,000)

- a 45-minute TV show Monday to Thursday, in production lingo called the ‘Reality’ (TV

advertisement, 380,000)

- daily reruns of the ‘Reality’ plus a two-hour special on Saturdays (TV advertisement,

110,000)

- a Sunday special (in Figure 1 called ‘Weekend’), of the same format as the ‘Reality’ (TV

advertisement, 440,000)

- a two-hour talk show, ‘Live’ each Thursday with a live audience, where participants in the

house were nominated by their fellow inhabitants and voted out by viewers, either through

SMS or by phone calls (extra charged SMS/phone prices plus TV advertisement, 505,000)

- a Grand Finale in which the winner was selected. This was also produced as a gala outside

the house with music performances and audience interviews, and comments by former

participants. (ticket sales plus TV advertisement, 655,000)

- a subscription-based 24/7 cable TV service constantly sending pictures from the house

(subscriptions)

Web - a chat room service where viewers chatted with each other (web advertisement)

- former participants or participants who had been voted out were available for chat

debating forums (web advertisement)

- ‘news’ from the house, published every hour (web advertisement)

- personal facts about the participants (web advertisement)

- capacity to send mail to the participants, some of which were read out loud in the

Thursday talk show (web advertisement)

- a news ticker service that viewers could install on their desktop. If something deemed of

special interest happened in the house, the viewer was alerted through the service

- a digital newsletter

- 24/7 live web camera from the house (subscription sales)

- Video clips from events in the house (piece sales)

Phone - SMS voting services (extra charged SMS prices)

- SMS services that functioned in the same way as the news ticker service

- Phone voting services (extra charged phone prices)

Other media - a Big Brother theme song was recorded by a Scandinavian pop artist and publicly released

(record sales)

- the participants recorded their own song from the house. This was publicly released in

a Big Brother CD together with the Big Brother theme song (and a compilation of other

songs in the charts) (record sales)

- a Big Brother ‘Best of 2004’ DVD purchasable through the web page (record sales)

programme manager spoke about the non-televised controlled channels as ‘extended television’. Hesaid: ‘They are there to build the brand, the name and the television series on other times than thelittle half an hour or hour [when the show is broadcast], many times only weekdays, these kinds ofthings, recognition, extension, keeping it alive.’ The CEO alluded to this and said: ‘The main pointis to drive people to the television show. Whilst the TV show is one hour, there are 23 other hoursin a day. During the day, you ramp up to get more viewers for the TV show. When the show is on,the internet activity drops and [afterwards], dependent on what happens, it either rises above orgoes back to the level it had before the show.’


To minimise dropout and increase engagement in the show, the

production staff produced material for several media products and

services

‘The main point is to drive people to the television show. Whilst the TV

show is one hour, there are 23 other hours in a day.’

Apart from the controlled channels, the production team pointed out that they relied heavily on‘independent channels’. These channels enabled the storytelling around Big Brother to continue be-yond the area of control of the production team. The argument from the production team was this:when people on the shop floor or in offices discussed what had recently happened in the show, thisincreased the influence of Big Brother, and made the connection between the customers and theshow stronger. The most important of these independent channels are explained in Table 3.They are: coverage in the tabloid press, offline storytelling (here called ‘coffee-break’ production)and online storytelling (webchat and discussions). As can be seen in the table, the independentchannels were supported by the production team in various ways.

The production team found ways to use information generated through the different channels todevelop both the televised show and the content and structure of the channels. For example, theproduction team felt that it was important to learn from the different debates. The supervisorsaid: ‘We get reports from the [web editorial office] saying: Now the people online have writtena protest list about how you handled that situation. If something likes that comes up, we needto take that seriously.’ The producer said: ‘[As a viewer] you can go online and suggest an assign-ment that we may use in the show. This interactivity is important, but more important is the feelingthat you can influence the content of the show.’ The supervisor seconded that, saying: ‘Althoughmany of the ideas cannot be taken seriously, we need to make it evident that we listen to the viewersand that we communicate with them. Sometimes, we do get a really good proposal.’ Indeed, as fansat one point chatted (on the Big Brother web page) about possible future assignments for the par-ticipants, the production team decided to put one of the ideas into practice. A few minutes after theassignment had been given to the participants, customers chatted about the assignment and the factthat the producers had listened to their suggestions. When asked in the web survey about ideas toinclude in the show, the respondents argued for even more customer participation: ‘Take back thelive microphones you had earlier. Then we would see and hear everything. Another thing could beif we could vote on the home page about what assignments the participants should do in the house,or the punishment that they should get if they cheat or misbehave. A fun thing would be a compe-tition on the homepage where the prize would be that during one hour in the morning or the even-ing, you could have influence over the light in the house, the wake up calls for the participants,music, or the heat of the water in the bathroom.’

As can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, the web channels are considered as being both controlled andindependent. The reason for this is that although the production team provided the platform, thecontent was produced by customers. The editor at Aftonbladet, the programme manager and theproducer coincided in their view that the controlled and independent channels fed attention toeach other, thereby creating a system of mutual dependency. The customers in the online surveyalso acknowledged the benefits of using several channels in concert. It made Big Brother into some-thing more than a TV show, they argued. The producer said: ‘You can see them as the three legs ofthe production: the reality show, the talk show and the web. The web is the narrowest of the three.


Table 3. Independent channels of the Big Brother production

Independent Channel Description

Press coverage According to the programme manager, no formal agreements of cooperation existed

between the channel and the tabloid press. But, as he said: ‘All commercial TV

channels have a non-official but intimate relationship with the press. The reality TV

shows have been very useful here, because they are broadcasted with the same rhythm

as the newspapers. The formats we broadcast have a very tabloid character.’ The editor

confirmed that the TV channel and the newspaper fed each other with attention.

Aftonbladet attempted to develop the coordination efforts to formal cooperation

agreements between the newspaper and reality TV shows.

Before the participants entered the house, they gave a press conference. The pro-

duction team prepared journalists with exclusive pieces of news about the partici-

pants. Chosen journalists were allowed interview the participants before this event.

The producer said: ‘They will not publish it right away, because the value of the

newspaper article will be higher after a while when [a female participant] has become

better known.’ Three of the eight female participants were photographed for men’s

magazines before the show started. The pictures were published while they were still in

the house but had become known.

Coffee-break

production

The ambition of the production team was to support storytelling about Big Brother in

social interactions among customers, for example at coffee breaks or around water

coolers where customers would talk about the show and its participants. The producers

could not exercise much influence on these debates other than providing fuel to keep the

fires burning (and thereby support the building of community). ‘It is a part of the

construction of the product that it should go on 24/7, but it is also to support the profile

of the show. to be the Talk of the Town’, the programme manager said. The internet site

of the programme was constructed to create an urge in viewers to go in repeatedly and

check if something new had happened. For this reason, the production team constructed

an alerting service for computer desktops and cell phones, indicating when something

new had happened. The webmaster said: ‘First we believed that the web would hurt the

television show. But it turns out to be a perfect extension. Because it happens now on the

web but will be on TV tomorrow, people having coffee with colleagues can say, ‘‘Do you

know what I just saw, what is happening right now in Big Brother?’’.’

Webchat and

discussions

Internet discussions around the production took place in the discussion forum and

chat room provided by the Big Brother production team at www.bigbrother.se. One

viewer said in the online survey: ‘As a faithful Big Brother fan, the homepage is the

backbone of everything. One is there 24/7 because the live feed is on. To keep up-

dated with news and of course the forum where everyone is gathered and hangs

around is a very important part of Big Brother. Personally I seldom saw the shows

on TV but followed it live online and through the homepage and the excellent web

forum.’ Several customers were also engaged by the production team to take roles as

moderators of the different forums on the site. Many scandals also leaked out at in-

dependent reality TV fan web rooms such as www.alltomtv.se.

Another example of online storytelling is the peak numbers of visitor on the site

depicted in Figure 1B. They reflect scandals that occurred in the house e showing that

visits went up when morally questionable events happened. At www.alltomtv.se, this

engagement reached a high with over 250,000 visitors taking part in one discussion

stream about Big Brother. The peaks in the numbers of visitors also coincided with

front page coverage of Big Brother in the major newspapers. Between seasons, the

official Big Brother site was closed, but provided links to the fan site www.dokusa-

pa.se. According to the production team this was necessary to keep attention up be-

tween seasons.


http://www.bigbrother.se

http://www.alltomtv.se

http://www.alltomtv.se

http://www.dokusapa.se

http://www.dokusapa.se

Those that visit the web are already converted. The talk show audience, there you find those thatonly watch because they think that [the host] is amusing. For the reality shows you have those thatzap among [different reality shows and soaps], a pretty disloyal audience. On the web we havethose that are already stuck.’

‘You can see them as the three legs of the production: the reality show,

the talk show and the web.’

As indicated in the quote, there was an architecture underlying the different channels. Accord-ing to the programme manager and the supervisor, it had to do with customers’ level of commit-ment. Together they created the first version of Figure 2 in a group interview. The verticaldimension was added afterwards as an estimate of the number of customers who used the differentchannels. The estimate was built on comments in the interview material about the popularity ofdifferent channels relative to others. As can be seen from the figure, the production team offereda multitude of channels that corresponded to a high level of commitment. According to them, theidea was to provide opportunities for customers to engage more and more in the show. The pro-gramme manager said: ‘You are talking about a ‘‘hard core’’ viewer group which is always there.And this is a core group of viewers which in the case of Big Brother is very, very large. Thatwould mean that they are more likely to spend money on services other than the television pro-gramme. the ones who buy the extra packages and are more engaged in chatting, they probablypay more.’

Customers with a higher level of commitment were of greater value to the producers, not onlybecause they spent more money through the purchase of subscriptions or by voting via telephone orSMS, but also because they were more exposed to advertising and co-produced more content.When asked about viewing behaviour in the web survey, one person answered: ‘The internet siteis the core of everything. I am there 24/7 because it also provides me with the live feed. To keepupdated with news and of course, the discussion forum where everyone meets and hangs out, isa very important part of Big Brother. Personally I seldom watched the TV shows, but followedBig Brother through the live feed, the home page and the excellent discussion forum.’ Accordingto the CEO, this was intended: ‘Yes, that is the way the web is built up now. We produce on averageone piece of news per hour. That is the baseline. [As a viewer] you are not supposed to go in oncea day, but you should go in and check continually.’

When creating Figure 2, the producer and the supervisor argued that an advanced Big Brothercustomer (far to the right in the figure) would not only use more channels (rather than a few chan-nels to a higher extent), but also use a different set of channels compared to the novice. The CEOsaid: ‘[We want to] create something to draw people in. [For example] this thing with the videoclips, that was something that we did not have from the start. But for those who can’t sit and watchthe live cameras, we created an editorial office that cuts out what they think is fun and puts it out asclips.’

The combination of channels used by a customer hence differed depending on his/her level inthe system of commitment. Among the very committed customers, the producers chose some whowere assigned roles as moderators in discussion forums. According to the CEO, the system ofproducts and services had developed through a trial and error process over the successive seasonsof Big Brother. The production seasons and the commitment from customers can therefore beseen as a continuous development process, rather than a set of discrete events. According tothe production team and the Endemol executive, ideas and methods were in most cases providedvia the international network of Big Brother, organised by the format owner EndemolInternational.


The combination of channels used by a customer differed, depending

on his/her level in the system of commitment

Making sense of Big BrotherThe ideas drawn from the theoretical background about how communities are formed through themanagement of attention will here be used as an analytical framework for the Big Brother case. Theanalysis will progress in the following steps: First, the interaction patterns of customers will bediscussed to analyse the extent to which a community was created. Second, the structure of thechannels will be analysed with respect to their ability to direct attention and influence behaviourthat could be beneficial for the organising firm. Third, the value that the Big Brother producersextracted from the community of customers will be highlighted.

The creation of communityThe strategy of the producers and the newspaper editor was built on the idea that the Big Brother showwould become the centre of attention at coffee breaks, in lunch breaks and at the water cooler. In thosediscussions, people would make sense of the show together with their peers. It has been shown that thesocial ties between people change when they create knowledge together.23 In the present context, thiswould mean that the discussion about the show in various social settings created social ties and a feel-ing of community that at least partly built on the common understanding of the Big Brother show.24

The process of organising customers in the community therefore took place whenever people sharedtheir views about the show, regardless of whether this occurred at work, in a chat room or in front ofthe TV. Because the organising process meant that people told stories and searched for new informa-tion, it made them attend even more to the show. The process itself hence became a reinforcing mech-anism that encouraged customers to become more committed. However, since all people do not sharethe same level of interest, or for other reasons do not participate equally fully in the discussions, onemay conclude that people were members of the community to a greater or lesser extent. The part ofthe community that acted online through web discussions demonstrated characteristics that accord-ing to Muniz and O’Guinn signify a customer community:25

(1) Consciousness of kind: In discussion forums and chat rooms, and in the web survey that wasdone by the production team in 2005, the customers spoke of themselves in terms such as: ‘Asa faithful Big Brother fan,’ and commented that ‘Big Brother is a lifestyle’. They also identifiedeach other over the different seasons, which would account for them being conscious of eachother as Big Brother fans.

(2) Rituals, traditions and language: The interaction between the firm and the customers, as well asamong the customers themselves, followed a temporal pattern because of the regularity of broad-casts and the development of the story of the show. Each week someone was voted out. Before andafter these events, activity levels in the discussions went up. The CEO described that they could seemore or less the same pattern of activity on the website day by day and week by week during thebroadcasting period. This rhythm arguably created a kind of tradition for the customers.

(3) Sense of obligation to the community: The most committed customers took part in controllingthe web discussions as moderators, and hence proved their sense of obligation to the commu-nity. People in chat rooms and discussion forums identified each other between seasons. Therespondents in the web survey spoke about how they had related to the show during earlierseasons. The relationship between the customers and Big Brother (with the possible exceptionof those who had seen the show abroad during 1999 and 2000) did not exist before the firstseason, which was broadcast in Sweden in the fall of 2000. It therefore seems that customercommitment to the show was built up over the seasons. Keeping commitment alive and makingit develop was the very reason for having channels outside the TV show, the programme


manager argued. The commitment to the show hence developed both over time and throughthe system of different channels.

The most committed customers took part in controlling the web

discussions as moderators, and hence proved their sense of obligation

to the community

Managing attention to influence behaviourThe producers of Big Brother chose what to include in the controlled channels, as well as which ofthe independent channels to influence. All channels were offered or influenced with the ambition ofcreating more interest and thereby better business for the Big Brother TV show. The producers al-lowed for a large variety in interest among the customers by creating the underlying architecture forthe system of different channels found in Figure 2. They tried to centre attention around the showby provoking discussion in the channels, and by actively using their relationship with the press. Thesystem of channels was built on a hierarchy among the offered products and services. Whereasa mind-blowing scandal in the show would momentarily direct a lot of attention to the show,the underlying structure worked to sustain attention and counteract customer dropout. By makingproducts/services correspond to different levels of commitment as in Figure 2, the firm createda consumption hierarchy. The intention was that customer interest would be directed towards prod-ucts and services positioned higher in the consumption hierarchy. As argued in community theory,one value that customers take from being part of a community is the rise in status.26 The producersassumed that prestige- or status-seeking behaviour by customers would help fuel customers’ inter-est in rising up the consumption hierarchy. The programme manager and the webmaster arguedthat people taking part in information streams such as the 24/7 live broadcasting or the hourly‘news’ that was sent out via SMS were one step ahead of their peers during coffee breaks or watercooler talks, and that would give the users of such services an advantage in discussions. Put differ-ently, the strategy of the production team was that the customers would gain social interaction util-ity by increasing their knowledge of the programme and its participants.27 This was evident froma series of statements relating to the importance of keeping the discussion about Big Brother alive

Figure 2. A system of commitment levels and different channels


outside the hours of the televised show. The producers of Big Brother played on the social interac-tion utility effect to improve the business case of the show. By definition, social interaction utility isa function of the way interaction supports the focus of the community (here: the Big Brother showand the discussions around it), the pleasure in consuming what the community is about (here:watching and discussing the show) and the satisfaction involved in being valued for the contribu-tions to the community (here: the feedback from other customers and from the producers if youwere listened to). In the process of gaining more knowledge and thereby greater social interactionutility, customers would seek information in channels higher up in the consumption hierarchy. Theachievement of status and prestige in the community was hence directly connected to increasedconsumption. The hierarchy among the products was mirrored in a community hierarchy wherea customer’s position was defined by his/her consumption pattern.

Gaining value from the communityFor the firms involved in the Big Brother production, the development of the community was ofsignificant importance. First, they argued, they were able to keep customer attention higher,both during the season and between seasons, than they otherwise would have been able to. Second,the production team did not need to produce all the content. They could make use of the customersas resources to produce material that would draw other customers in. The communication amongcustomers in the chats and discussion forums was in itself also an important attention-creatingmechanism. Third, through a combination of the controlled and independent channels, the mediasystem around Big Brother was much larger than that produced by the production team. This hadthe effect of gaining more widespread attention than otherwise would have been possible, and cre-ated more entry points to the community. Fourth, the close customer interaction led to the gener-ation of new ideas that helped develop the format further, and was hence a source of innovation.This was a part of a larger strategy by the format owner Endemol. The company had establisheda worldwide system for sharing improvements of the format between the different production sites.

Through a combination of the controlled and independent channels,

the media system around Big Brother was much larger than that

produced by the production team

DiscussionThis section relates the findings of the Big Brother case to established knowledge in the area anddescribes the contribution of the paper. It also suggests managerial implications, both by discussingthe possible areas of application and by proposing how other firms might analyse their own busi-nesses to find opportunities to use the findings from this study.

Contributions to knowledgeRecent years has seen a spreading interest in the potential benefits of involving customers via com-munities. The rationale is that involvement may lead to more innovative ideas through customerinteraction, to an improved and closer relationship between the firm and its customers, and therebygreater loyalty, and to a better understanding of the market. Relatively little attention has been givento the organising process of such communities, or to the question of why they become organised.These are both issues of vital importance in understanding how firms can achieve competitive ad-vantage through developing communities.

This paper gives insights into how such an organising process may look. It suggests that atten-tion is a key driver in organising customer communities. Different parts of the product/serviceoffering can be used to guide customer attention and subsequent behaviour. A customer


community generally builds on an interest in the product and on the social relations between con-stituents. This means that discussions on the focus of interest are acts of organising where socialties form, regardless of whether they take place in virtual or actual meetings. By providing moreinformation and new products/services/channels (i.e. new ways to consume, as in Table 2) thatfuel discussions on the underlying interest, the firm creates even more attention and thereby a re-inforcing mechanism for community creation. This has not been thoroughly highlighted in earlierliterature.

The community outlined in the case study differs from the general descriptions of customer com-munities found in the literature. First, it is neither online nor offline, but both. In the case describedhere, the community was organised both online, through chat rooms and discussion forums, andoffline during coffee breaks or gatherings in front of the television set. Second, whereas it is gen-erally assumed that communities mainly self-create and self-organise, the Big Brother communitydid not just arise. The production team offered channels to help it form, fueled the community withinformation about the focus of interest, and encouraged the community to form outside the team’straditional area of control. However, they did not cease to exert influence on these external forums.On the contrary, they used several means to attract further attention and set the agenda for whatpeople would be discussing. Third, a distinguishing feature of the Big Brother customer communitywas the underlying consumption hierarchy. The hierarchy provided a structure for the community.The structure made it worthwhile for the producers to influence behaviour, as this could meanmore sales. Interested customers had the opportunity to seek new channels to engage in e andin engaging more fully, they produced more content. In addition, these customers could be engagedas co-workers in the community, as they could be easily identified. Customers with a higher level ofsocial interaction utility would be valued highly for their contributions to the community. In theBig Brother community, some customers became more central than others did, and it is thereforereasonable to assume that the consumption hierarchy was at least partly mirrored in an organisa-tional hierarchy in the community.

The Big Brother community was organised both online, through chat

rooms and discussion forums, and offline during coffee breaks or

gatherings in front of the television set

In one of the most widely cited papers on customer communities, McAlexander, Schouten andKoenig speak of a customer community that is organised through ‘brand fests’ among Jeepowners.28 They found that participation in organised events supports integration in the customercommunity, especially for people who are not as connected to the community as they were before.Likewise, Algesheimer, Dholakia and Herrmann29 find that connection with the brand is whatmakes a person want to become a member of a community, rather than the attractiveness of thecommunity itself. They also propose that: ‘community membership is more useful as a customerretention device than as a customer acquisition tool’ (p.30). The case presented here complementsand expands these authors’ findings. The consumption hierarchy found in Figure 2 came into playafter the customers had been introduced to the show through coffee-break discussions, through thepress or through occasional zapping. In the Jeep case, the firm-customer and customer-customerrelationship was created through temporary geographic concentrations of customers of a singleproduct. In the Big Brother case, there was a continuous connection between the producers andthe audience. Customers became co-producers not only of the experience (as in the Jeep commu-nity) but also of the content that supported the experiences. McAlexander, Schouten and Koenigalso report a hierarchy among users in the community. It seems, however, that the achievement


of status was not connected to additional consumption but only to experience with the technologyand lifestyle. In another study, Nambisan and Baron do not find any evidence for status being im-portant for the formation of a community.30 The Big Brother study indicates that, on the contrary,such benefits can exist. A reason for the difference may be that the communities described by Nam-bisan and Baron were strictly product development focused and did not include an underlying hi-erarchical structure. Nor were the social relations around the product development activitiesimportant in the communities they studied.

Managerial implicationsEarlier studies have found that customer communities are attractive from a business perspective.This paper suggests that firms have an important role to play in the organisation of such commu-nities. Furthermore, the paper indicates that a firm can use its products and services to guide at-tention and therefore behaviour. This requires a plan explaining how the offered products andservices relate to one another (such as in a hierarchy), and an idea of how they capture attention.

Products and services in most industries are becoming increasingly complemented by many com-munication channels. These include both online (communication through mobile phones, RFIDchips in products, communication systems in cars, a website etc.) and offline (physical meetingsbetween the firm and the customers, and between customers). Whether a channel is interactiveor not is determined both by managerial decisions and by the character of the channel. Most firmsdo not plan the use of products and services to involve customer interaction. Customer feedback isgenerally a task for marketing research or for the technical complaints department. This paper sug-gests that it is worthwhile to invest in the creation of a system of channels that can lead and keepattention. Figure 3 contains a four-step analysis of how to change the product-service portfolio to

Analytic step Key questions What Big Brother did

View products/

services as channels

of interaction

can a dialogue with customerstake place? How should that

dialogue be organised?

Through what products/serviceThe producers found ways to make the non

interactive channels (TV, newsletters, CD etc.) fueldiscussions in the interactive channels.

Create opportunities

for interaction among

customers

Around what focus cancustomers become

organised? How canwe learn from their interaction?

The focus of interest was the TV show. The producersoffered many forums for discussions and also spurred

interaction in discussion forums that were notarranged by them. Discussions were monitored andused to improve the show and the channel system.

Regard ownership as

a period of business

opportunities

How can we modularise ourproducts/services to create

more points of sale andinteraction during the ownership

period?

During the whole broadcasting period (correspondingto the ownership period), almost all of the differentchannels were continuously offered to customers.

From customer comments, it seems that themodularity created a compound experience for many.

Provide a

consumption

hierarchy among

products/services

What is the structure betweenproducts/services in theportfolio? How can a pull

towards the higher ends of theconsumption hierarchy be

created?

Different channels corresponded to different levels ofinterest/commitment. Customers were encouraged to

seek more information and were then led to moreadvanced channels. The most committed users were

given roles in moderating discussions.

Figure 3. Analysis scheme for the creation and use of a customer organisation, with examples from the BigBrother case


make it more apt for organising customers. Examples from the Big Brother case have been added asillustrations.

Whether a channel is interactive or not is determined both by

managerial decisions and by the character of the channel

Not all firms think of their products and services as contact points or channels. A first step(Figure 3) is therefore to assess the firm’s different channels to customers. Managers need to askthemselves what the customer is alerted to in the case of each channel. Is there something in thechannels that suggests to customers that they should search for more information, or spendmore time with the channel? How can customers communicate with the firm through the differentchannels? If customers indeed try to initiate a dialogue with the firm, it is important that they areencouraged to do so and are given space to do it. Alas, there are several examples of occasions whenfirms have been overwhelmed by the massive response they have received from customers and havefailed to provide the room for a proper dialogue. For example, when the sporting goods companyAdidas opened a channel for customer feedback and ideas, a manager described the demand forinteraction from customers as ‘almost frightening’.31

A second step is to understand where there are opportunities for interaction between customers.Some firms are afraid of this, as the discussion may not be positive. Regardless of the tone of voice,however, the firm generally receives feedback in such circumstances, and the interaction amongcustomers can lead to the formation of a community. The firm needs to support this formationwith topics for discussions, arenas (meetings, chat rooms, fairs etc.). It is also up to the firm toview a negative customer comment as a point of learning. Simply engaging in a dialogue is likelyto lead to increased goodwill from customers, just as open conversations lead to less resistance fromemployees in times of difficult organisational change.32

A third step is to view the whole ownership period as a time of business opportunities for up-grades and sales of related services. Though many may see this as obvious, there are numerous ex-amples of failures. In an internal (unpublished) study of a major car manufacturer, it was foundthat although the company made most of its profits after the car had been sold, after-sales and ser-vice was not seen as core to the business. The company practically saw the ownership period as anempty period. Yet by using the ownership period as a business opportunity, a modular structure ofthe product offering could potentially be created. This is an idea that groups inside the company inquestion played with, but were not able to pursue.

The fourth step is to establish a consumption hierarchy where different parts of the offering cor-respond to different levels of knowledge or commitment. The basic suggestion is to provide oppor-tunities for customers to grow in the use of the product. Many customer care programmes includebenefit levels. However, most such programmes focus almost completely on the relation betweenthe firm and the customer, rather than on creating customer interaction through a communitythat can uphold interest in areas outside the firm’s control. A firm that aims to create such inter-action should think in terms of a product offering rather than a single product, in order to provideexpanded possibilities for customers to communicate in a multitude of channels.

The four steps provide an analysis scheme for the opportunities to use product-guided attentionto form a customer community. To take a strictly hypothetical example about a car, there are sev-eral opportunities to create customer interaction through the car software, a web page about the carand/or a specific use of it, or offline meetings in repair shops or car dealerships. Customers couldengage with each other in a multitude of areas, for example in discussions about a specific detail viaa car homepage, by taking part in tests to which they could be invited, and through interest-specificcommunities such as vacation by car. The manufacturer could focus on the ownership period by


putting more emphasis on the extra equipment available for travel (for example a software moduleto save petrol on long trips by curbing the effect of the engine), and on extra service if desired. Themanufacturer may also help the owner to sell the car on the second-hand market to keep up theprice. Through the web page, or by automatically monitoring how a person drives, the manufac-turer may find members who can be invited to take part in tests, or award these members with extraservice for having adopted energy-saving driving practices (there is car software that monitors this).By offering extra benefits and opportunities to upgrade the product or service, the manufacturercan create a hierarchy in which customers may grow in their consumption. These are all just exam-ples of ideas that seem to be possible for car manufacturers, should they be interested. It is impor-tant to note here that the car community may not be the most influential part of a person’s life, butthat they are guided to a pattern of consumption via the use of the channels.

Another hypothetical example is the use of running wear. There are opportunities today for run-ners to record biometrical measurements via their shoes and clothes, and via for example heart ratemonitors. Sporting goods companies and heart rate monitor specialists such as Polar have engagedin developing online training programmes for athletes, people who want to lose weight and thoseinterested in running for other training purposes. There are opportunities to channel customers’interests in a particular application of the running wear by using a combination of the interactionopportunities provided by the biometrical sensors, or through online discussions and offline meet-ings. Biometrical information (both from the sporting equipment and from other measurementssuch as weight, height, blood sugar, etc.) can be registered on the website and help to guide cus-tomer attention towards training tips, dietary advice generated by customers, offline meetings atevents or places such as marathons, gyms or other training events, or even travel arrangementsfor runners taking part in the same marathon, for example. There are extensive opportunities tocreate a hierarchy of consumption, as the sporting gear needs to be updated regularly. There arealso opportunities to use several more biometrical sensors depending on what customers want tomonitor. Further, tests have been made with shoes that emit pharmaceuticals (for instance insulin),and it does not seem farfetched that the same idea could be used for other medications or dietarysupplements. Customers’ success and level in the hierarchy may depend both on their consumptionpattern and on results gained in training and competitions.

A probable prerequisite for pursuing the ideas presented here is that customer demand for theproduct is based not only on function but also on interest. Communication also needs to be pos-sible between customers. For a media or communications product, this is fairly natural. For othergoods such as cars, fashion brands, sports equipment or kitchenware, firms need to think laterallyon how to combine online and offline channels so as to direct attention towards communication inthe community, and towards more advanced forms of (additional) consumption during the owner-ship period.

Firms need to think laterally on how to combine online and offline

channels so as to direct attention towards communication in the

community

ConclusionsThis paper has described and analysed the creation of a customer community that was used by theproducers of the TV show Big Brother to increase customer attention over a long period, therebydriving interest in the show, improving sales of additional products/services and providing feedbackand innovative ideas on how to improve the show. The community was built on an underlying con-sumption hierarchy where different channels corresponded to different levels of customer commit-ment. The customer community was organised as its members continuously gathered to share the


experiences of watching. The producers of Big Brother consciously created a way to direct customerattention towards the building of a community in which customers were encouraged to spendmore, to hold discussions with peers, to contribute ideas and to co-produce content that wasread by others, and which became a part of the complete customer offering. As customers usedthe channels to make sense of the TV show, their attention was directed towards gaining more in-formation. The producers offered such information through more advanced (and more expensive)channels. According to the strategy of the producers, customers would be drawn towards usingmore information channels to gain status in the community.

The paper adds to the literature by showing how channels can direct customer attention and sup-port community creation. A key element is to create an underlying hierarchy in the customer com-munity through a differentiated product offering. For industry, the paper suggests that firms shouldseek a modular, hierarchy-based structure in which products and services lead customer attentiontowards communication with peers and more advanced levels of consumption through the wholeownership/consumption period. The paper suggests a series of questions to guide the analysis.

This single case study needs to be complemented by larger and broader studies, as well as by re-search carried out over longer periods. Longitudinal research is needed in four different fields. First,more studies are needed to understand how dialogues with customers and different forms of cus-tomer communities are developing in various industries. There still seems to be untapped potentialfor firms to initiate dialogues with customers and customer communities, to improve their strategicdirection and innovative work. Second, although there is now an established line of literature in thecustomer involvement field, there is still relatively little research on how such practices affect theorganisations that pursue them. Third, creating and upholding attention that leads to the formationof a customer community and thereby to customer commitment and interaction is a delicate pro-cess, especially as there are numerous competing interests. In addition, the firm is using its cus-tomers as resources, and cannot control the development of the community but only influenceit. Further studies should investigate examples of occasions when this process has not worked,so as to gain a better understanding of the contingencies involved. Fourth, other studies shoulddig further into how the products and services of a firm can be used to organise customers. Onepossible route would be to measure the attention given to certain products and services at severalpoints in time and analyse how attention patterns develop.

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to the LRP editor and three anonymous reviewers for extremely valuablecomments for improving this manuscript. Anne Huff, Flemming Norrgren, Maria Elmquist, KarenWilliams, Bjorn Frossevi, and Susanne Ollila helped with important input to the writing of the pa-per. The Wallander Foundation provided generous funding that made the research possible.

Methodological appendixQualitative data was collected by means of 12 interviews with nine people closely involved withthe production of the show, and through access to an online customer survey conducted bythe production team. Eleven of these interviews were held at the workplace and lasted betweenone and two hours. Nine interviews were recorded and transcribed. In the event that recordingwas not appropriate (one telephone interview for technical reasons, two face-to-face interviewsby request of the respondents), careful notes were taken. The questions focused on the produc-tion, and used examples from the broadcast show to address complex issues that the managementof the production dealt with. The theoretical contributions developed through several iterations.Intermediate theories were used to drive analysis forward. New observations were continuouslytested for consistency against the intermediate theories, which developed as observations wereadded. For example, the interview with the editor resulted in an intermediate theory about therelationship between Big Brother and the press. The intermediate theory was captured in a researchnote that was discussed by the research team. The theory was that the reality TV series and the


press were increasingly finding that they could mutually gain from each other, and therefore thatthey therefore could be expected to maximise activities that would draw viewer attention to eachother. Moreover, we speculated that there was an unofficial, silent agreement that they would co-operate. The project manager, who was involved with issues of sponsorship, contributed to thetheory by adding an interpretation of the reactions to a crisis in the house. Sponsors withdrew,and there was an outcry in the tabloid press. The level of activity on the website rose dramatically.The research note was updated with the new findings, and the intermediate theory was revisited.At this point, it was expanded with the new insights gained, and it started becoming more a fieldof different theories, rather than a single finding. One reason for this was that the project managerexpressed dissatisfaction with the coverage in the press, complaining that the media pressure,which increased because of the crisis in the house, made it harder for them to produce theshow. This indicated that the relationship was problematic and multifaceted. The project manageralso mentioned other discussion forums that focused on Big Brother. These findings led to thedevelopment of ideas about attention as being shared and cross-fed between a multitude of chan-nels. The intermediate theory about reliance on independent channels such as the press and dis-cussion forums was further developed in the subsequent interview with the supervisor, who wasthe person who typically answered public questions about the show. Yet again, the intermediatetheories were further developed as insights were gained on how crises in the house were handled.During the course of the study, the intermediate theories became more structured and moved to-wards theoretical maturation. The models that developed were tested and verified by respondentsin the follow-up interviews. All interview transcripts, research notes on the critical incidents, somechat comments (because of the immense amount, and often low quality of data, a choice wasmade not to include all chat comments found on the Big Brother site and on the fan sites),and the answers to the online customer survey were collected and systematically analysed withthe help of qualitative data analysis software (Nvivo). We were able to analyse ten people’s an-swers to the online customer survey. The survey had been created by the Webmaster and includedanswers, in many cases lengthy, to 16 questions. The research team used a non-edited version ofthe answers. In two rounds of coding, the interviews were tested for consistency with the devel-oped theories (the answers to the online customer survey were received after the first round ofcoding and were therefore only part of the second round). Practically, this meant that importantpassages from the research data were allocated to categories that were central in those theories, forexample ‘hierarchy among customers’ or ‘a whole system of media’. Coding in this way has twoeffects. First, it fleshes out the data by finding occurrences and representative examples. Second, ittests whether the intermediate theory is correct. If it is not correct, this is revealed when one doesnot find the relevant details, or when the found data goes against the theoretical propositions. Inthe current example, several details were questioned and changed. For example, some intervieweesplayed down the importance of a core group of customers as being lead users in the community.The first round of coding of the interviews, however, pointed to the production team’s reliance onsuch a group to test different concepts that were new to the show. When the research team gainedaccess to the online customer survey, it showed that the producers in fact did test different ideasand concepts on a group of dedicated Big Brother customers (the survey was one example of this),although there did not seem to be a structured process for such testing.

References
1. J. Fuller, K. Matzler and M. Hoppe, Brand community members as a source of innovation, Journal of
Product Innovation Management 25(6), 608e619 (2008); M. Sawhney and E. Prandelli, Communities ofcreation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets, California Management Review 42(4),24e54 (2000); F. T. Piller and D. Walcher, Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrateusers in new product development, R & D Management 36(3), 307e318 (2006).

2. L. Dahlander and M. Magnusson, How do firms make use of open source communities?, Long RangePlanning 41, 629e649 (2008); J Hagel III and A. G. Armstrong, Net Gain: Expanding Markets through


Virtual Communities, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass (1997) p. 235. F. T. Rothaermel and S.Sugiyama, Virtual internet communities and commercial success: individual and community-level theorygrounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com, Journal of Management 27, 297e312 (2001); L. B. Jep-pesen and L. Fredriksen, Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of com-puter-controlled music instruments, Organization Science 17(1), 45e63 (2006).

3. L. Heracleous, Boundaries in the study of organization, Human Relations 57(1), 95e103 (2004).4. E. Mathijs and J. Jones (eds.), Big Brother International: Formats, Critics and Publics, Wallflower Press,

Chippenham, 224 (2004); G. Bagley, A mixed bag: negotiating claims in MTV’s the real world, Journalof Film and Video 53(2/3), 61e76 (2001); D. Biltereyst, Big Brother and its moral guardians: reappraisingthe role of intellectuals in the Big brother panic, in E. Mathijs and J. Jones (eds.), Big Brother International:Formats, Critics and Publics, Wallflower Press, Chippenham, 9e15 (2004); K. Murray, Surviving survivor:reading mark Burnett’s field guide and de-naturalizing social darwinism as entertainment, Journal ofAmerican & Comparative Cultures 24(3/4), 43e54 (2001).

5. A. M. Muniz and H. Jensen Schau, Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community, Journalof Consumer Research 31(4), 737e747 (2005); B. Richardson and E. O’Dwyer, Football supporters andfootball team brands: a study in consumer brand loyalty, Irish Marketing Review 16(1), 43e54 (2003);J. W. Schouten and J. McAlexander, Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers, Jour-nal of Consumer Research 22(June), 43e61 (1995); A. M. Muniz and T. C. O’Guinn, Brand community,Journal of Consumer Research 27(March), 412e432 (2001).

6. J. McAlexander, S. K. Kim and S. D. Roberts, Loyalty: the influences of satisfaction and brand communityintegration, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 11(4), 1e11 (2003); J. Fuller, K. Matzler, andM. Hoppe (2008), op. cit. at Ref 1.

7. S. Nambisan and R. A. Baron, Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications for productsupport and customer relationship management, Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(2), 42e62 (2007).

8. A. M. Muniz and T. C. O’Guinn (2001), p. 412, op. cit. at Ref. 5.9. K. E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1979).

10. T. Johansson, Lighting the campfire: the creation of a community of interest around a media company,International Journal on Media Management 4(1), 4e12 (2002).

11. T. H. Davenport and J. C. Beck, The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts (2001) p. 255.

12. H. A. Simon, Designing organizations for an information-rich world, in D. M. Lamberton (ed.), TheEconomics of Communication and Information, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 187e203(1996); H. E. Pashler, The Psychology of Attention, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1998) p. 494.

13. T. S. Cho and D. C. Hambrick, Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristicsand strategic change: the case of airline deregulation, Organization Science 17(4), 453e469 (2006); M. T.Hansen and M. R. Haas, Competing for attention in knowledge markets: electronic document dissemina-tion in a management consulting company, Administrative Science Quarterly 46(1), 1e28 (2001).

14. W. Ocasio, Towards an attention-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 18(S1), 187e206(1997).

15. D. W. Cravens, T. N. Ingram and R. W. LaForge, Evaluating multiple sales channel strategies, Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing 6(3e4), 37e48 (1991); G. L. Frazier, Organizing and managing channelsof distribution, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science 27(2), 226e240 (1999).

16. J. Fuller, K. Matzler and M. Hoppe (2008); M. Sawhney and E. Prandelli (2000), op. cit. at Ref. 1.17. J. McAlexander, J. W. Schouten and H. F. Koenig, Building brand community, Journal of Marketing

66(January), 38e54 (2002); J. W. Schouten and J. McAlexander (1995), op. cit. at Ref. 5.18. R. E. Park, The natural history of the newspaper, American Journal of Sociology 29(3), 273e289 (1923);

B. Wellman, J. Salaff, D. Dimitrova, L. Garton, M. Gulia and C. Haythornthwaite, Computer networksas social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community, Annual Review of Sociology22, 213e238 (1996); A. Etzioni and O. Etzioni, Face-to-face and computer-mediated communities,a comparative analysis, The Information Society 15, 241e248 (1999).

19. J. Deery, TV.com: participatory viewing on the web, Journal of Popular Culture 37(2), 161e183 (2003);P. Bazalgette, Billion dollar game: how three men risked it all and changed the face of television, TimeWarner Books, London, (2005) p. 306. J. Jones, Emerging platform identities: Big Brother UK andinteractive platform usage, in E. Mathijs and J. Jones (eds.), Big Brother International: Formats, Criticsand Publics, Wallflower Press, Chippenham, 210e231 (2004).

20. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, (1994) p. 171.


21. B. Edvardsson and I. Roos, Critical incident techniques: towards a framework for analysing the criticalityof critical incidents, International Journal of Service Industry Management 12(3), 251e268 (2001).

22. MMS, Hot Top. Available from: http: //www.mms.se/HotTop/hottop.asp, (2008) (accessed 7 December2008).

23. M. Sawhney and E. Prandelli (2000), op. cit. at Ref. 1.24. K. E. Weick (1979), op. cit. at Ref. 9.25. A. M. Muniz and T. C. O’Guinn, op. cit. at Ref. 5.26. L. B. Jeppesen and L. Fredriksen (2006) op. cit. at Ref. 2.27. S. Balasubramanian and V. Mahajan, The economic leverage of the virtual community, International

Journal of Electronic Commerce 5(3), 103e138 (2001).28. J. McAlexander, J. W. Schouten, and H. F. Koenig (2002), op. cit. at Ref. 5.29. R. Algesheimer, U. M. Dholakia and A. Herrmann, The social influence of brand community: evidence

from European car clubs, Journal of Marketing 69(3), 19e34 (2005).30. S. Nambisan and R. A. Baron (2007), op. cit. at Ref. 7.31. T. Fredberg and F. T. Piller, The Paradox of Strong and Weak Ties: Organizing Customers for Innovation

and Change, presented at the Academy of Management Conference, 2006: Atlanta.32. M. Beer and R. A. Eisenstat, Developing an organization capable of implementing strategy and learning,

Human Relations 49(5), 597e619 (1996).

BiographyTobias Fredberg is associate professor in the department for Technology Management and Economics at the

Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, and a fellow in the TruePoint Research Centre. He engages in

collaborative research with several major firms in Europe on how to engage employees and customers in innovation

and strategic change. His recent research has been published in journals such as the Harvard Business Review and

the International Journal of Technology Management. [email protected]


http://www.mms.se/HotTop/hottop.asp

mailo:[email protected]

Organising Customers: Learning from Big Brother

Documents

Transcript of Organising Customers: Learning from Big Brother