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 signchains 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

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 wellestablished 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
2

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 (intersubjective meaning). A distinctive feature of the dynamic object is that it generates signchains. 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.

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 providerindependent brand sign-chains, which impact on brand positioning. As described, the
immediate object constrains the sign semiotically, which generates a series of potential signchains. 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.
4

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
5

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 signchains 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.

Appendix: Three Short Cases of Consumer Dominance

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 reconstruction 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, tshirts 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 entrylevel 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.

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, and 8). 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.