Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Virtual Internal Brand Communities: Exploring the Types, Motivations and Outcomes
Fathima Zahara Saleem, ESADE, Spain
Oriol Iglesias, ESADE, Spain
Introduction
The prevalence of interactive technology and exponential growth of social media has changed the face of branding both
externally and internally (Stuth & Mancuso, 2010). The use of virtual internal brand communities (VIBC) is gaining
momentum in organizations in order to increase employee support, especially among multinational corporations, such
as Emirates Airlines, Ernst & Young, IBM, and educational institutions. However, the literature lacks a clear
understanding of VIBC (Devasagayam, Buff, Aurand, & Judson, 2010).
As such, this paper develops theory on VIBC, which is relevant because of the growing importance of VIBC in practice.
Additionally building theory demarcates this field and gives focus to future theoretical advancements. In this respect,
the aim of this paper is two-fold: firstly, to create a typology of VIBC; and secondly, to study the motivations for and
barriers to joining a specific VIBC.
The following section highlights the key literature, showing the progression from internal branding to VIBCs.
From Internal Branding to VIBC
With a sharpened focus on corporate and service brands the role of employees and consequently the role of internal
branding has increased in importance. At the heart of internal branding lies the challenge of aligning employee
behaviour with corporate brand values. This alignment is crucial since corporate brands interact with several
stakeholders (Ind, 1997), who form their perceptions of the brand based on their overall interaction with employees
(Klaus & Maklan, 2007). Therefore, misalignment between external brand communication and brand promise delivery
poses a serious threat to corporate brand credibility (e.g. Anismova & Mavondo, 2010).
Internal branding facilitates brand citizenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005) and increases brand performance
(Punjaisiri, Evanschitzky, & Wilson, 2009). Internal branding is also crucial in maintaining consistency between
external communication and brand promise delivery, reducing the variability of service offering, and aligning staff
behavior with brand values (Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2005). Desired outcomes of internal branding are achieved
through the dissemination of brand ideologies, internal brand communication (e.g. Thomson, de Chernatony,
Arganbright, & Khan, 2000), brand centered HR (e.g. Punjaisiri et al., 2009), and brand leadership (e.g. Morhart,
Herzog, & Tomczak, 2009).
An emerging area in this field explores internal brand communities (IBC) (Devasagaym et al., 2010), which fosters
employee identification with the brand. Since IBC research is relatively new, the starting point for theory building is
taken from existing literature on communities, especially consumer based communities. Specifically, authors have
studied consumption communities (e.g. McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002), marketplace communities (e.g. Jae,
Choi, Qualls, & Han, 2008), brand communities (e.g. Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann 2005), and online
communities (e.g. Schau & Muniz, 2002). Since internal brand communities are unique because it concerns employees,
consumer based communities simply serve as a guide to start theory building.
At a broad level in the consumer communities literature, there are user-initiated and company-initiated brand
communities. User-initiated brand communities (Schau & Muniz, 2002) are those created by fans or enthusiasts,
whereas company-initiated ones are created or sponsored by a certain brand (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Secondly, there
are virtual and physical brand communities. The former includes social interaction not bound by geography and exists
in cyberspace, whereas the latter includes social interaction regarding a particular brand during the physical
congregation of members (e.g. Muniz & O‘Guinn, 2002). The emotional attachment to both types of consumer brand
communities is suggested to be similar (Jae et al., 2008). Lastly, sociologists distinguish between two types of virtual
communities, namely small group based virtual communities and network based virtual communities. The former
entails close-knit online groups with strong relationships, whereas the latter includes loosely knit geographically
dispersed groups that interact for specific reasons (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo 2004). As we can see, several typologies
have been created for consumer brand communities‘ literature; however, typologies haven‘t been developed for internal
brand communities.
Drawing from virtual consumer communities research by Dholakia et al., (2004), a model identifying the motives for
consumers participating in virtual communities is presented. The authors identify the different motives for partaking in
network and small group based virtual community types. Social bonding, relationship maintenance, problem solving,
persuasion, and informational purposes are additional user needs fulfilled by different technologies (Flanagin &
Metzger, 2001). At a more basic level the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM) explains how employees decide to
45