This document provides a concept for a diploma thesis on the impact of new media on organizations' brand communication strategies with multiple stakeholder groups. The concept outlines an introduction to the topic, relevant branding theory, new challenges presented by new media, proposed research methodology using case studies, plans for an in-depth analysis, proposed structure of the thesis, and timeline. It also provides an initial reference list.

1. CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS IN MARKETING
THE IMPACT OF NEW MEDIA ON ORGANIZATIONS' BRAND COMMUNICATION
STRATEGIES WITH MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
Andreas Mahringer | 0716538 | Supervisor: Dr. Oliver Koll

2. CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS
AGENDA
‣ INTRODUCTION
‣ BRANDING THEORY
‣ NEW CHALLENGES
‣ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
‣ IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
‣ THE STRUCTURE
‣ TIME SCHEDULE
‣ REFERENCE LIST

3. INTRODUCTION

4. C O N V E R S AT I O N S
ARE THE
PRODUCTS THE
NEW MARKETS
ARE MARKETING
TO ONE ANOTHER
ONLINE.
Source: Levine et al., 2000

5. ENGAGEMENT
ISN'T
OPTIONAL.
IT'S A
PREREQUISITE.
Source: Levine et al., 2000

6. SILENCE
IS
FATAL!
Source: Levine et al., 2000

7. HOW LONG
DOES IT TAKE
TO REACH
50 MIO PEOPLE?

8. 38 YEARS

9. 13 YEARS

10. 4 YEARS

11. 2 YEARS

12. 1 MONTH

13. CH
AN
SO GE
WHAT HAS D? !

15. WHAT HAS CHANGED?

16. NO
PHYSICAL
BOARDERS!

17. MULTIPLE
EXPECTATIONS
FROM
MULTIPLE
STAKEHOLDERS

18. FROM
ONE WAY
COMMUNICATION

19. TO A
MULTI-ANGLE
DISCUSSION!!!

20. NEW REALITIES
=
NEW CHALLENGES

21. WINNERS
LOSERS

22. IMPACT?
SUCCESS?
LONG-TERM ANALYSIS?

24. ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC
FACTORS OR CHARACTERISTICS
SHARED BY BRANDS WHO DEAL
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL WITH
THE CHALLENGES CREATED BY
THESE NEW REALITIES?

25. AND IF SO,
C A N T H E Y B E S TAT E D A S
FUNDAMENTAL PREREQUISITES
FOR A SUCCESSFUL BRAND
C O M M U N I C AT I O N I N T H E
DIGITAL LANDSCAPE?

26. BRANDINGTHEORY

27. BRANDS ARE A COMPLEX
SYMBOL. IT IS THE
INTANGIBLE SUM OF A
PRODUCT'S ATTRIBUTES,
ITS NAME, PACKAGING
AND PRICE, ITS HISTORY,
REPUTATION, AND THE
WAY IT'S ADVERTISED.

28. A BRAND IS ALSO DEFINED
BY CONSUMER'S
IMPRESSION OF PEOPLE
WHO USE IT, AS WELL AS
THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.
- DAVID OGILVY, 1955

29. BRANDING THEORY
INTEGRATIVE CONCEPT OF BRANDS
BRAND
INTEREST GROUPS
SOCIAL
DISCOURSE
BRAND BRAND
MANIFESTATIONS MEANING
Source: Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008

30. BRANDING THEORY
BRAND INTEREST GROUPS
"INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS & INSTITUTIONS INTERESTED IN A
SPECIFIC BRAND."
‣ BRAND CO-CREATION ‣ DIFFERENT ROLES FOR MEMBERS
‣ BRAND CO-DEVELOPMENT ‣ FROM BRAND ADVOCATES TO
‣ PHYSICAL OR VIRTUAL EXCHANGE BRAND ANTAGONISTS
‣ CONSTANT FLUX
Source: Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008

31. BRANDING THEORY
BRAND MEANING
"A SYSTEM IN CONSTANT FLUX AS PREVAILING BELIEFS AND
EVALUATIONS ARE NOT ONLY CHALLENGED IN DISCOURSE, BUT ALSO
DEPEND ON THE SITUATIONAL CONTEXT."
‣ INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS ‣ CONSENSUAL NOT UNIFORM
‣ DYNAMIC RATHER THAN STABLE ‣ EMERGING FROM SOCIAL
‣ CO-CONSTRUCTED BY BIGs DISCOURSE
Source: Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008

32. BRANDING THEORY
BRAND MANIFESTATIONS
"TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE OBJECTIFICATIONS OF BRAND
MEANING."
‣ EXPERIENCING A BRAND ‣ DEPENDING ON & DETERMINING
‣ NOT DETERMINED FROM INCEPTION BRAND MEANING
‣ CO-CONSTRUCTED BY BIGs ‣ STIMULATING SOCIAL INTERACTION
Source: Muehlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008

33. BRANDING THEORY
BRAND MANIFESTATIONS
"NEW MEDIA AS DIGITAL PERSONIFICATION OF BRAND
MANIFESTATIONS, WITH THE OBJECTIVE TO COMMUNICATE
RELEVANT BRAND MEANING TO AND WITHIN RESPECTIVE BIGs
AROUND THE GLOBE."

34. - Muehlbacher, H. & Hemetsberger, A. (2008): ‘What the Heck is a Brand? An Attempt of
Integration and its Consequences for Research and Management’, Proceedings of the 7th
International Congress Marketing Trends, Venice.
BRAND
MANIFESTATIONS
BRANDING THEORY
BRAND
SOCIAL
DIGITAL
DISCOURSE
THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL
INTEREST GROUPS
BRAND
MEANING

35. NEWCHALLENGES

36. INTERACTIONCHALLENGE

37. NEW CHALLENGES
THE INTERACTION REALITY
‣ STAKEHOLDERS CHANGED FROM SIMPLE RECIPIENT OF
INFORMATION TO ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS
‣ STAKEHOLDER AS CO-CREATORS OF BRAND MEANING & BRANDS
‣ MULTI-CHANNEL USAGE: ON- AND OFFLINE

38. NEW CHALLENGES
THE INTERACTION CHALLENGE
"HOW TO IDENTIFY, ACTIVELY MANAGE, SHAPE AND LEVERAGE DIGITAL
INFLUENCERS AND ONLINE BRAND COMMUNITIES AND INTEGRATE
THEM INTO THE BRAND'S COMMUNICATION STRATEGY?"

39. GEOGRAPHICALCHALLENGE

40. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL REALITY
"THE INTERNET HAS THE ABILITY TO BREAK DOWN PHYSICAL
BARRIERS, IGNORE GEOGRAPHICAL BOARDERS AND PERMIT OPEN
COMMUNICATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO ONE
ANOTHER BEFORE."
Source: Kebbel, 2007

41. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
‣ DIGITAL PROMOTES A GLOBAL MARKET WITH GLOBAL STAKEHOLDERS
‣ SUPER-GLOBALIZATION
‣ CONVERGING DEMANDS, NEEDS & EXPECTATIONS ACROSS NATIONS
‣ INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR STANDARDIZATION

42. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
BUT:
"THE WEB DEMONSTRATES THAT NATIONAL CULTURES CONTINUE TO
EXERT A SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE. ESPECIALLY ON HOW CONNECTIONS
ARE MADE."
Source: Halavais, 2000

43. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
‣ CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
‣ LANGUAGE BARRIERS
‣ POLITICAL ISSUES
‣ GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS
‣ BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES
‣ ETC.

44. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE REPRESENTS THE DIFFICULT TASK OF HOW TO
COMMUNICATE IN AN ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT WAY WITHOUT TREATING EVERY
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE HOMOGENEOUSLY?
BRANDS NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL, CULTURAL, POLITICAL
AND BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES IN THEIR BRAND COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES.
HOW CAN BRANDS BREAK THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN
GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE CONSISTENCY & NEED FOR LOCAL ADAPTATION?

45. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
METCALFE'S LAW
THE VALUE OF A SOCIAL NETWORK INCREASES PROPORTIONAL TO THE
SQUARE OF ITS CONNECTIONS.
USERS CONNECTIONS VALUE
N N*(N-1)/2 [N*N(-1)/2]^2

46. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
METCALFE'S LAW
N=2
CONNECTIONS: 2*(2-1)/2 = 1

47. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
METCALFE'S LAW
N=3
CONNECTIONS: 3*(3-1)/2 = 3

48. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
METCALFE'S LAW
N=8
CONNECTIONS: 8*(8-1)/2 = 23

49. NEW CHALLENGES
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE
THE MORE PEOPLE ARE IN A NETWORK,
THE MORE CONNECTIONS,
THE MORE SOCIAL DISCOURSE,
THE BIGGER THE IMPACT ON (AND BY) THE BRAND.
FACEBOOK HAS CURRENTLY MORE THAN 800 MIO. ACTIVE USERS.

50. INTER-STAKEHOLDER BOUNDARY
CHALLENGE

51. NEW CHALLENGES
THE INTER-STAKEHOLDER BOUNDARY REALITY
THE DIGITAL LANDSCAPE IS CHARACTERIZED BY:
‣ BLURRING BOUNDARIES BETWEEN DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER GROUPS
‣ DIFFICULTY OF IDENTIFYING EACH GROUP
‣ DIFFICULTY OF IDENTIFYING PREFERRED CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION
‣ AFFILIATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

52. NEW CHALLENGES
THE INTER-STAKEHOLDER BOUNDARY CHALLENGE
EACH STAKEHOLDER GROUP HAS TO BE IDENTIFIED AND ACCOUNTED
FOR IN THE BRAND'S COMMUNICATION MIX.
HOW DO THESE DEVELOPMENTS IMPACT:
STAKEHOLDER-SPECIFIC
&
CORPORATE BRANDING ACTIVITIES?

53. RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

54. ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC
FACTORS OR CHARACTERISTICS
SHARED BY BRANDS WHO DEAL
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL WITH
THE CHALLENGES CREATED BY
THESE NEW REALITIES?

55. AND IF SO,
C A N T H E Y B E S TAT E D A S
FUNDAMENTAL PREREQUISITES
FOR A SUCCESSFUL BRAND
C O M M U N I C AT I O N I N T H E
DIGITAL LANDSCAPE?

56. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
METHODOLOGY: CASE STUDIES
‣ FLEXIBLE
‣ COMPLEX PHENOMENA
‣ EVOLVING RELATIONSHIPS & INTERACTIONS

57. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AN INDUCTIVE APPROACH
DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
THEORY THEORY
TENTATIVE
HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS
OBSERVATION PATTERN
CONFIRMATION OBSERVATION
Source: Trochim & Donnelly, 2006

58. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
EXECUTION
INFORMATION: SECONDARY RESERACH DATA
SAMPLING METHOD: PURPOSEFUL QUALITATIVE SAMPLING
‣ BEST-PRACTICE EXAMPLES (EXTREME CASE SAMPLING)
‣ SAMPLE SIZE: 2-3 BRANDS

59. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
EXECUTION
CRITERIA FOR SAMPLE SELECTION:
‣ MULTIPLE CITATIONS BY TRUSTED SOURCES FOR OUTSTANDING
INTEGRATION OF NEW MEDIA INTO THE COMMUNICATION MODEL.
‣ THE DECLARED FULL COMMITMENT OF TOP MANAGEMENT
‣ HISTORY OF LONG-TERM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

60. IN-DEPTHANALYSIS

61. IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
OVERVIEW
TIME FRAME: 2004 - 2011
WHAT: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED
BASIS OF ANALYSIS: CHALLENGE - GRID

62. IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
PROCEDURE
FRAMEWORK FOR INDUCTIVE ANALYSIS:
INITIAL READ IDENTIFY SPECIFIC LABEL SEGMENTS & REDUCE OVERLAP & CREATE MODEL INCL.
THROUGH TEXT DATA SEGMENTS OF INFO CREATE CATEGORIES REDUNDANCIES MOST IMP. CATEGORIES
MANY PAGES OF MANY SEGMENTS OF 30-40 CATEGORIES 15-20 CATEGORIES 3 CATEGORIES
TEXT TEXT
Source: Cresswell, 2002

63. IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
FINAL STEP
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL FOR GENERALIZATION OF CASE-SPECIFIC
FINDINGS
LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH DESIGN
AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Source: Cresswell, 2002

64. THESTRUCTURE

65. THE STRUCTURE
PART I
1. Introduction
1.1 A changing landscape
1.2 Problem statement 3. Theoretical background: The concept of brands
1.3 Aim of the thesis & research question 3.1 Definition of brands
1.4 Structure of the thesis 3.2 Brand meaning
3.3 Brand interest groups
2. Theoretical background: New media 3.4 Brand manifestations
2.1 Historical Overview
3.5 Interaction through social discourse
2.2 Web 2.0
2.3 User generated content 4. New challenges in brand communication arising through the
2.3.1 Metcalfe’s law advent of new media
2.3.2 Classification of Social Media 4.1 The geographic challenge
4.2 The inter-stakeholder boundary challenge
4.3 The interaction challenge

66. THE STRUCTURE
PART II
5. Research Methodology
6.Case Studies
6.1 Brand A
6.2 Brand B 8. Discussion of the results & management implications
6.3 Brand C
9. Research limitations & agenda for future research
7. In-depth analysis: Identification of success-factors in
the digital landscape 10. Appendix

67. TIMESCHEDULE

68. TIME SCHEDULE
OVERVIEW

69. REFERENCELIST

70. REFERENCE LIST
PART I
-Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York.
-Battelle, J. & O’Reilly, T. (2004), ‘Web 2.0 conference: The State of the Internet Industry’, podcast, 5 October, viewed 5 December 2011,
<http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail270.html#>.
-Beverland, M. & Lindgreen, A. (2010), ‘What makes a good case study? A positivist review of qualitative case research published in
Industrial Marketing Management, 1971 - 2006’, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 39, pp. 56-63.
-Committee on Communications (2005), ‘Children, Adolescents, and Advertising’, Pediatrics, vol.
118, no. 6, pp. 2563 -2569.
-Creswell, J.W. (2002), Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey.
-Doyle, P. (1992), ‘What are Excellent Companies?’, Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 8, pp. 101-116.
-Emerald Insights (2010), ‘Getting the social media on your side - Marketing specialists must embrace the world of technology’,
Strategic Direction, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 6-9.
-Grosso, C., McPherson, J. & Shi, C. (2005), ‘Retailing: What’s working online’, The McKinsey Quarterly, vol. 3, pp. 18-20.
-Halavais, A. (2000), ‘National borders on the world wide web’, New Media & Society, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7-28.

71. REFERENCE LIST
PART II
-Hanna, R., Rohm, A. & Crittenden, V.L. (2011), ‘We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem’, Business Horizons, vol.
54, pp. 265-273.
-Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2001), ‘Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for Your Corporate Brand?’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 79, no. 2,
pp. 128-134.
-Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. (2003), ‘Bringing the corporation into corporate branding’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 37, no. 7/8, pp.
1041-1064.
-Hearn, G., Foth, M. & Gray, H. (2009), ‘Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications - An action
research approach’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49-61.
-Helming, A. (1982), ‘Pitfalls lie waiting for unwary marketers’, Advertising Age, 17 May, pp. M-8.
-IBM Institute for Business Value (2002), ‘Integrated multi-channel retailing (IMCR): A roadmap to the future’, viewed 6 December 2011,
<ftp://ftp.boulder.ibm.com/software/websphere/pdf/ibv_imcr.pdf>
-Interactive Advertising Bureau (2011), ‘Q3 ’11 Internet Advertising Revenues Up 22% from Year Ago, Climb to Nearly $7.9 Billion,
According to IAB and PwC’, 30 November, New York, viewed, 5 December 2011, <http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/
recent_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-113011>.

72. REFERENCE LIST
PART III
-Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M. (2009), ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons, vol. 53,
pp. 59-68.
-Kapferer, J.N. (2004), The new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term, Kogan Page, London.
-Kebbel, G. (2007), ‘Rooted in Newspapering, Branching Out to Internet’ In: New Media - The Press Freedom Dimension. Challenges and
Opportunities of New Media for Press Freedom, viewed 5 December 2011, <http://unesco.org.pk/ci/documents/publications/New
%20Media.pdf>.
-Keller, K.L. (1993), ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
-Kotler, P. (1986), ‘Global standardization: courting danger’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 3, pp. 13-15.
-Levine, R., Locke, C., Searls, D. & Weinberger, D. (2000), ‘The Cluetrain Manifesto: 10th Anniversary Edition’, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge.
-Luoma-aho, V. & Vos, M. (2010), ‘Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: acknowledging multiple issue arenas’, Corporate
Communications: An International Journcal, vol. 15, no.3, pp. 315-331.
-Mangold, G.W. & Faulds, D.J. (2009), ‘Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix’, Business Horizons, vol 52., pp. 357-365.
-McDaniel, C.Jr. & Gates, R. (2010), ‘Marketing Research’ , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.

73. REFERENCE LIST
PART IV
-Media Dynamics, Inc. (2011), ‘What is our real exposure to Internet ads?’ , Media Matters, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 3, viewed 5 December 2011,
<https://www.mediadynamicsinc.com/UserFiles/File/MM_Archives/40111mm.pdf>.
-Muehlbacher, H., Hemetsberger, A., Thelen, E., Vallaster, C., Kittinger, C., Massimo, R., Füller, J., Pirker, C., Schorn, R. (2006), ‘Brands as
Complex Phenomena’, Proceedings of Thought, Leaders International Conference on Brand Management, Birmingham.
-Muehlbacher, H. & Hemetsberger, A. (2008): ‘What the Heck is a Brand? An Attempt of Integration and its Consequences for Research and
Management’, Proceedings of the 7th International Congress Marketing Trends, Venice.
-Otto, P.A. & Bois, J.R. (2001): ‘Brand Management Facilitation: A System Dynamics Approach for Decision Makers’ Rockefeller College of
Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, viewed 6 December 2006, <http://www.systemdynamics.org/
conferences/2001/papers/Otto_1.pdf>.
-Thomas, D.R. (2003), ‘A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis’, School of Population Health, University of Auckland, viewed
5 December 2011, <http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/Inductive2003.pdf>.
-Trochim, W.M.K. & Donnelly, J.P. (2006), ‘Research methods knowledge base’, viewed 5 December 2011, <http://
www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/>.
-Yovovich, B. E. (1982), ‘Maintain a balance of planning’, Advertising Age, 17 May, p. M-7.

74. THANKS!
THANKS!