1 Consumer Dominant Semiotics: Aspects of an Emerging Marketing Paradigm Abstract: Extant research has established consumer dominance as a significant phenomenon in contemporary marketing. Theoretical groundwork has convincingly argued for a distinctive consumer dominant paradigm. However, the conceptual underpinnings of consumer dominance are yet to be explored. This paper builds on and progresses existing research in the area through a semiotic analysis of consumer dominant brand narratives and their potential impact on brands. Drawing on Peirces theory of signs, the focal point of the paper is the notion of consumer dominant sign-chains and their impact on consumer interpretants and brands understood as both a phenomenological and ontological object. Keywords: Brand narrative; consumer dominance; marketing paradigms; Peirces theory of signs; semiotics. Track: Marketing Theory and New Paradigms 2 1. Context Consumer dominance occurs when consumers interact with a corporate entity (e.g., a brand or product) independently from any relations with corporate agents and in ways that both create consumer value and have the potential to impact significantly on corporations, for better or worse. Although a nascent stream of research, the existence of consumer dominance is well-established in marketing theory. Heinonen et al. (2010) argue that the predominant service dominant paradigm has insufficient explanatory power to account for a number of ways in which consumers create value independently from providers. Against this background, they call for a new consumer dominant paradigm of marketing. Recently, Grnroos and Voima (2013) adopted the notion of consumer dominant value creation to release the dependence of the service dominant paradigm on the concept of value co-creation. In a paper on future paradigms in marketing, Achrol and Kotler (2012) describe consumer dominant activities (without using the term) as a significant development that will influence future marketing practice and thinking. Taking a more applied and managerial focus, Fournier and Avery (2011) provides strategic analyses of the cultural landscape of consumer dominance in connection with open source, consumer-driven branding. Consumer dominance, however, is still an emerging paradigm the conceptual underpinnings of which are still to be analysed. The aim of this paper is to add to the theoretical understanding of consumer dominance by describing significant aspects of consumer dominant semiotics. The paper achieves this through a semiotic analysis of three short cases of consumer dominance (see Appendix). The analysis draws on Peirces theory of signs, which continues to influence contemporary semiotics and therefore provides an important theoretic reference point (Chandler, 2007). To provide the conceptual foundation for the analysis, the next section introduces the semiotic framework. Broadly, semiotics is the study of meaning conveyed by signs in wider sign systems. To this end, semiotic theories provide detailed accounts of the nature of signification, representation and interpretation. The notion of sign fluctuates across specific theories, but in semiotics as a general academic discipline sign is broadly defined as any given unit of communication that conveys meaning to a set of interpreters. Thus, the category of sign ranges over a broad terrain of symbols, words, utterances, customs and behaviours. Semiotics play an increasingly important role in the domain of marketing, notably in consumer culture theory and brand management (Oswald, 2012). Semiotics is characterised by a linguistic and philosophical tradition, tracing back to the groundwork of Saussure and Peirce. While linguistically grounded semiotics (Saussure) still offers relevant perspectives to marketing, the epistemological and ontological dimensions of philosophical semiotics (Peirce) explain the ongoing shift away from linguistics as a dominating frame of reference within marketing semiotics (Oswald & Mick, 2006). 2. The Semiotic Process: Object, Sign, Interpretant Peirces theory of signs rests on three foundational concepts: the sign, the object and the interpretant (1982, vol. 2). Although his semiotic theory is developed and refined over a period of more than 40 years, the interplay between these three constructs remain the focal point (Atkin, 2013). The basic idea is that any given object, tangible or intangible, can be referred to through signs, and that these sign-mediated semiotic relations are the main types of meaning in scientific and everyday contexts (Atkin, 2013; Chandler, 2007). 2.1 Signs According to Peirce (1977; 1982, vol. 2), signs are a broad category of signifying entities such as words, utterances, body movements, symbols, visuals and expressions. There are no ontological points of demarcation in that all types of tangible and intangible entities can 3 signify and function as signs in semiotic contexts. A sign refers to an object and conveys meaning to the object through interpretation. However, it is not all elements of a sign that are key to semiotics: signs contain a signifying core, which is necessary and sufficient to establish meaningful references to objects. As Atkin (2013) explains, a molehill on my lawn refers to the existence of a specific animal living in my garden. Yet, it is not all aspects of the molehill taken as a sign that establishes the signifying relation through my interpretation. The soil may be greyish, yellowish or reddish relative to its type. The molehill may be big or small. The key semiotic feature is the inferred causal correlation between the molehill and the physical existence of moles in my garden. Thus, for any given sign there is a core, signifying element, which establishes the semiotic reference and conveys meaning: the sign-vehicle. 2.2 Objects The main semiotic feature of the object is that it places signifying constraints on the sign (Atkin, 2013; Peirce, 1982, vol. 2). This means that the sign-vehicle can meaningfully refer to the object in a number of different ways, but the object ultimately determines the scope for meaningful interpretation and signification. The object does not cause or generate signs, but it possesses a set of defining characteristics, which signs have to reflect in order to establish meaningful semiotic references. Peirce identifies two dimensions of any object. The immediate object is the object as it appears to a given agent at any given time in the process of interpreting the meaning of that object (subjective meaning). The dynamic object is the object as understood by a group of interpreters at the end of the semiotic process (inter-subjective meaning). A distinctive feature of the dynamic object is that it generates sign-chains. This notion is elusive, but a reasonable interpretation is that a given object is open to a series of different interpretations, i.e., can appear as a number of immediate objects, but that these interpretations are thematically constrained by the dynamic object. The dynamic object defines boundaries or themes of possible meaning within which interpretations must fall. Dynamic objects lend themselves to certain themes of interpretations (e.g., smoke as a natural sign of fire), but there is nonetheless scope for different types of interpretation within the interpretive theme (e.g., the smoke is a sign of my neighbour barbecuing, of his house at fire, of his son playing with matches, etc.). Thus, sign-chains are themes of possible interpretation, which tie immediate objects to a dynamic object and determine the set of possible meanings interpreters can assign to the object. 2.3. Interpretants An interpretant is an agents understanding of an object arrived at through an interpretation of a sign at any given point in time during the semiotic process of arriving at full understanding of the object (Atkin, 2013; Peirce, 1982, vol. 2). Like objects semiotically constrain signs, signs constrain interpretants. The idea is that a given sign due to its inherent properties is open to a potentially very large but eventually finite set of meaningful interpretations (called interpretants), the scope of which is determined by the sign. Peirce distinguishes between three types of interpretants. The dynamic interpretant is an agents subjective interpretation of a sign. The immediate interpretant is a general propositional understanding of the relationship between a sign and its dynamic object. The final interpretant is the totality of understanding, which a group of agents hold at the end of a series of sign-chains. 2.4. Overview Model 1 summarises Peirces theory of signs as interpreted above. 4 Model 1. Interpretation of Peirces theory of signs. The next section demonstrates how our interpretation of Peirces theory of signs facilitates a rich conceptualisation of semiotic aspects of consumer dominance. The section opens with a short characteristic of different types of consumer dominance. 3. Consumer Dominant Semiotics Consumer dominance materialises in a number of different forms, three of which are increasingly common (Fournier & Avery, 2011). First is when groups of consumers work creatively with brand narratives as forms of personal expression in ways that change the core, intended meaning of the brand. Second is when consumers engage creatively with a product and changes and redevelops it into a new type of product. Third is when consumers, independently from providers, engage in brand communities to share their love or hate for brands among and for peers. Our focus is on brand narratives. A consumer brand narrative is a brand-mediated pattern of actions performed by individual consumers or groups thereof in order to express personal values, attitudes and social status (Schembri, Merrilees, & Kristiansen, 2010). The Appendix comprises three cases of consumer dominant brand narratives, which form the basis for the following analysis. 3.1. Consumer dominant sign-chains We will now conceptualise consumer dominant brand narratives as the creation of provider-independent brand sign-chains, which impact on brand positioning. As described, the immediate object constrains the sign semiotically, which generates a series of potential sign-chains. The brand as immediate object comprises certain key properties, which an associated sign such as an advertisement must reflect in order to meaningfully signify the brand. Moreover, this semiotic dependency between object/sign/sign-chain underpins the specific marketing technique of brand positioning. Brand positioning is marketers attempt to create a set of unique and desirable associations to a given marketing entity in the consumer mind-set (Keller, 2008). Defined in Peircean terminology, brand positioning is the semiotic management of brand sign-chains by imposing semiotic constraints via brand communications (e.g., advertising, product placements, sponsorships, etc.) and defining the sign-vehicle (e.g., logo, brand mantra). However, brand communications are semiotically open, and semiotic constraints are susceptible to deconstruction: at any time, a large set of alternate sign-chains that may radically diverge from the intended brand meaning is possible. The brand narratives described in the three short cases (see Appendix) are significant examples of how consumers deconstruct the semiotic constraints imposed by marketers as part of brand positioning and thereby generate unique series of sign-chains disconnected from the intended brand position. 5 Most vividly in the Lonsdale and Run-D.M.C. cases, the consumer dominant agents employ brands as narrative material to establish a set of new and managerially unintended brand sign-chains (i.e., the references to Hitlers party, NSDAP, and to black inmate customs), which associate the agents with, for them, desired values and behaviours. Drawing on the semiotic dependency relation between object/sign/sign-chain, consumer dominant brand narratives can then be conceptualised as intentional, consumer driven attempts to deconstruct managerially created brand positions through the creation of a series of unique sign-chains. These consumer dominant sign-chains convey multiple possible brand interpretations, semiotically disconnected from the managerially intended brand position. Consumer dominant sign-chains can possess immense semiotic power. Acknowledging that these sign-chains may also be entirely disconnected from the official brand position, this semiotic phenomenon can have significant impact on marketing processes. In all three cases, the consumer dominant brand narratives create a series of potential sign-chains, which translate into actual sign-chains that wider groups of consumers come to hold for the deconstructed brands. The implication is that although brand owners are able to impose very strong semiotic constraints that tend to trigger desired sign-chains in the consumer mind-set, consumer dominant brand narratives are sufficiently powerful to deconstruct these semiotic constraints and initiate new, independent sign-chains, which eventually may influence the actual brand position. Effectively, consumer dominant brand narratives shift brand positions through semiotic deconstruction of brands and generation of new sign-chains. 3.2. Consumer dominance, interpretants and dynamic objects The distinction between immediate and dynamic objects also applies to brands. The subjective representation of a brand in the mind of individual consumers represents the immediate object. The dynamic object, by contrast, is an expression of the brand as generally perceived across larger sets of consumers. Brands are thereby dynamic objects associated with a number of immediate objects semiotically linked to the brand through sign-chains. The brand as dynamic object is identical to the set of interpretations that consumers hold at the end of each individual sign-chain. This plays well with psychological contextualisations of brands, stressing that a core feature of a brand is the set of associations (i.e., sign-chains) that consumers hold for the brand (Keller, 2008). We argue that consumer dominant sign-chains may have sufficient power to influence the brand as dynamic object. We assume that dynamic objects are physical products and ignore the theoretical challenges raised by intangible objects/services. We also need to distinguish between phenomenological and ontological characteristics of dynamic objects/products. Let a products ontological dimension comprise of all its actual features and characteristics. Let a products phenomenological dimension be identical to the set of perceived features and characteristics, which a group of consumers attribute to the product. We then argue that within a given time section consumer dominant brand narratives may impact across all types of interpretants in a wider group of consumers and, eventually, affect both the ontological and the phenomenological dimensions of the dynamic object/product. The phenomenological dimensions susceptibility to consumer dominance is evident from the above analysis of consumer created sign-chains. We will now explain how the brand understood as ontological dynamic object is susceptible to semiotic impact of consumer dominance. All three cases of consumer dominance impact on the dynamic, immediate and final interpretant: (a) the individual consumers integration of brands in personal narratives (dynamic brand interpretant) receives social recognition in peer-groups; (b) this leads to the consumer created sign-chains being adopted by distinct social groups as general expressions 6 of the groups values and aspirations (immediate brand interpretant); (c) the consumer created sign-chains are so powerful that they are adopted as actual brand sign-chains among very large groups of consumers and thereby come to define, or at least heavily influence, the official perception of the brand (final brand interpretant). Interestingly, the Burberry case demonstrates how consumer dominant sign-chains impact on the brands final interpretant (i.e., the official brand meaning as influenced by consumer dominant brand narratives), which again impact on the brand as ontological dynamic object (product re-development). The down market negative brand associations, which the consumer dominant brand narratives created using entry level Burberry items with the trademark check, tarnished the brand image amongst the core up market target group. As a response, Burberry re-designed and re-positioned their product lines in order to not appeal to the down market segments and regain confidence amongst the core consumers. 3.3. Overview Model 2 provides an overview of Peirces theory of signs applied to consumer dominant brand narratives as discussed above. Model 2. Peirces theory of signs applied to consumer dominance. 4. Concluding Discussion: Future Explorations of the Consumer Dominant Paradigm This paper has shown how semiotic theory can be used to conceptualise the phenomenon of consumer dominance in the marketing domain. Conceptualisations of this type do not have any immediate managerial implications, but are paramount to the fertility of scholarly research. Systematic, coherent conceptualisations function as structural lenses that shape the context of discovery (what we are looking for), the context of exploration (how we are looking at it) as well as the context of interpretation (how we are making meaning of it) (MacInnis, 2011). Seen as a structural lens, this study has provided a number of potential paths, which future research can adopt to study consumer dominance. Theoretically, there is a need for future research to analyse in greater depth the conceptual relationship between intended semiotic constraints, semiotic deconstruction embedded in consumer dominant brand narratives and the creation of new, provider independent sign-chains. Empirically, future research needs to understand the shared characteristics of consumer dominant sign-chains that come to influence for better or worse actual brand positions. This empirical stream of research the starting point of which will be defined by conceptualisations of consumer dominance are of immediate managerial importance: behavioural models of how consumer dominant sign-chains will impact on brand images are necessary, because consumer dominant sign-chains have the potential to substantially harm and benefit businesses. 7 Appendix: Three Short Cases of Consumer Dominance References Achrol, R., & Kotler, P. (2012). Frontiers of the marketing paradigm in the third millennium. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 35-52.Atkin, A. (2013). Peirce's theory of signs. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics. London and New York: Routledge. Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193-207.Grnroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133-150.Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K.-J., Edvardsson, B., Sundstrm, E., & Andersson, P. (2010). A customer-dominant logic of service. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 531-548.Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education. MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136-154.Oswald, L. (2012). Marketing semiotics: Signs, strategies, and brand value. New York: Oxford University Press. Oswald, L., & Mick, D. (2006). The semiotic paradigm on meaning in the marketplace. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in M3arketing. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Peirce, C. S. (1977). Semiotics and significs. Bloomington I.N.: Indiana University Press. Peirce, C. S. (1982). The writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition (Vol. 16, and8). Bloomington I.N: Indiana University Press. Schembri, S., Merrilees, B., & Kristiansen, S. (2010). Brand consumption and narrative of the self. Psychology and Marketing, 27(6), 623-637.

Lonsdale. During the 1990s, right-wing extremists adopted the boxing brand, Lonsdale. A public ban on racist symbols caused right-wing extremists in Northern Europe to work creatively with brand narratives to find a vehicle to express their racist values. Lonsdale became a popular brand of choice: when wearing their branded shirts under an open jacket only the following brand letters were visible: NSDA. According to the unwritten, semiotic rules among the extremists, these letters were a direct reference to NSDAP, Hitlers Nazi party. Profits plummeting, Lonsdale responded by launching the counter-marketing campaign, Lonsdale Loves All Colours. This is an example of consumer dominance because the extremists semiotic brand re-construction changed the brand associations in a wider consumer group, impacting on brand performance Run-D.M.C. During the 1980s, the hip-hop group, Run-D.M.C., developed a signature fashion style and group image intimately connected with the sports brand, Adidas. The group wore Adidas tracksuits and Adidas sneakers with no laces and the tongue pushed out to imitate fashion among black prison inmates. In 1986 they devoted a rap, My Adidas, to the brand and lyrically expressed the brands embodiment of their attitude to life. The rap became a megahit and transformed Run-D.M.C.s signature style into a global fashion statement adopted by crowds of fans. When playing gigs, fans would take off their Adidas sneakers and wave them in the air. Subsequently, Adidas approached the group and signed a historical 1.6 million dollar product endorsement deal. Run-D.M.C.s creative use of the Adidas brand is an example of consumer dominance, because they profoundly impacted on a significant number of consumers perception of the brand image before the corporation offered a sponsorship deal. Burberry. Established in 1856, Burberry soon came to epitomise the cultivated taste of the conservative upper class. The high-end brand position was unchallenged for nearly 150 years, but came under pressure in the UK in 1990s. The young, white, lower-middleclass men and women, popularly known as chavs, adopted Burberry as their favourite clothing brand. Chavs were particularly keen on entry-level items (baseball caps, t-shirts and sunglasses) with clearly visible prints of Burberrys signature check. Chavs were frequently involved in social disorder, resulting in a regional club and pub ban on brands associated with chav culture. Burberry included. The association to chavs tarnished Burberrys brand image and upset the core consumer base. The brand responded by removing their signature check from most of their products and outfacing entry-level product lines likely to appeal to chavs. The Burberry case is an example of consumer dominance, because the specific consumer-initiated brand narratives unfolding as class-identifiers in a very large group of consumers dramatically impacts on the brand image in the core target group.