Co-created Brand Meaning in Online Communities Regarding CSR

A Case of Tesla Motors

Master Thesis

Christian Toft Rasmussen, 081191-2859 Michel Niclas Larsson, 300690-1831

Copenhagen Business School Cand.merc.(kom.)

Hand in date: 17 May 2016 Supervisor: Anne Vestergaard 119 pages (~254,600 strokes)

Executive Summary

CSR has increasingly become an important factor in branding. Consumers are becoming

increasingly aware about sustainability, and companies can develop a strategic advantage by

engaging in CSR related activities. At the same time consumers are able to seek out information

online regarding those CSR related activities and discuss this information with users of various

online communities. Greenwashing will most likely be exposed and companies are therefore

forced to be genuine about their efforts if they decided to engage in CSR related activities.

The purpose of this thesis is to find out how user­generated online discourse regarding CSR

can affect and form brand meaning. This is done by using the case of Tesla Motors as they are

a company with clear articulated CSR goals. The thesis will investigate if online community

users subscribe to the brand promises of Tesla or if those stakeholders perceive the brand

differently.

Relevant literature within the fields of CSR and branding have focused and formed the data

collection of this thesis. By identifying and choosing relevant online communities, a

netnographic study of online discourse on the Danish market has been conducted in order to

compare the online users’ perception of Tesla’s brand with Tesla’s own perception. In order to

do this, an interview with Tesla’s Regional Marketing Manager of the Nordic countries Rasmus

Pedersen has been conducted. In accordance with the chosen literature, themes within the

fields of CSR and branding were identified, and thus provided a foundation of appropriate

concepts used to interpret the two streams of empirical data.

The findings of this thesis suggest that there generally is a coherence between Tesla’s

perception of their brand and various stakeholders’ perception. However, there were gaps

identified in the perceived brand meaning. CSR was a big part of the discussions on the online

communities. Amongst the most salient topics were green technology, political regulations in

Denmark, and batteries used for EVs. However, not everyone agreed that Tesla are as

sustainable as they claim to be.

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem Identification and Research Question

1.2 Case Study

1.3 Delimitations

1.4 Relevance

1.5 Theoretical Approach

2. Literature Review

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

2.1.1 Institutional CSR

2.1.2. Explicit and Implicit CSR

2.1.3 Strategic CSR

2.1.4 CSV: Creating Shared Value

Critique of the CSV concept

2.1.5 Aspirational CSR

2.2 Branding

2.2.1 Brand Evolution

2.2.2 Brands as Knowledge

2.2.3 Brands as Identities

2.2.4 Brands as Persons and Relationship Partners

2.2.5 Brands as Cultural Icons

2.2.6 Brands as Processes

2.2.7 Brand Management Paradigms

2.2.8 Stakeholder Brand Co­creation

2.3 CSR Integrated in Branding

2.4 Theoretical Synthesis

3. Methodology

3.1 Scientific Approach

3.1.1 Philosophy of Science (Epistemology)

3.2 Data Collection

2

3.2.1 Semi­structured Qualitative Interview

Interview guide

Conducting the interview

Ethical Concerns

3.2.2 Netnographic Data Collection

Choosing the Right Communities

Gathering Data

Reddit: r/Denmark

Tesla Owners Club Denmark (TOCD)

Bilgalleri.dk

Research Ethics

3.3 Data Coding

Quantification: Content Analysis

Qualitative Analysis

3.3.1 Coding the Interview

3.3.2 Coding the Online Stakeholder Comments

3.4 Implications and Limitations of the Chosen Methods

4. Analytical Framework

5. Results and Analysis

5.1 The Danish market

5.2 Interview with Tesla Representative

5.2.1 Quantification: Content Analysis

5.2.2 Qualitative Analysis

Brand Image

Brand Identity

Brand Relationship

Co­creation

Product Brand

CSR

5.3 Online Stakeholder Perceptions

5.3.1 r/Denmark

5.3.2 Tesla Owners Club Denmark on Facebook

5.3.3 Bilgalleri.dk

3

5.3.4 Qualitative Analysis

Product

Green Tech

Political

Branding

Service

Innovation

Battery

Elon Musk

Range

5.4 Summary and Comparison

5.4.1 Overview of Tesla’s own Brand Perception

5.4.2 Overview of Stakeholders’ Perception of Tesla’s Brand

5.4.3 Comparison of the Findings

6. Discussion and Further Research

6.1 Usefulness and Applicability of Our Approach

6.2 Implications for Tesla Denmark

6.3 Further Research

7. Conclusion

8. Bibliography

9. Appendix A

10. Appendix B

11. Appendix C

12. Appendix D

13. Appendix E

4

1. Introduction

In this first chapter, we will identify the problem of this thesis, explain the rationale behind it, and

formulate a research question based on it. Then, we will introduce the case of Tesla Motors

(Tesla), delimit the scope of the thesis, and present three sub­questions which will assist us in

answering the research question. Finally, we will explain the relevance of choosing Tesla

Motors as a case, and form a theoretical approach to the problem.

1.1 Problem Identification and Research Question

In today’s world, sustainability and responsible ways of conducting business have become more

prevalent than ever before. Consumers have become more knowledgeable as they have gained

increased access to information (Holt, 2002). Technology has evolved in a way that makes it

possible for companies to produce their goods in a sustainable way. This has resulted in a

market trend where Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be a competitive advantage for

companies if implemented in the right manner (Vogel, 2005).

It is not only the demand from consumers and customers that drive companies to implement

CSR into their business plans. Pressure and demands from other stakeholders in society also

add to the competitive advantage of implementing CSR activities (Campbell, 2007). This is

namely because such implementations can help strengthen the brand of a company. In brand

literature we are seeing a shift from static to dynamic approaches. In the dynamic perception of

branding a form of co­creation of the brand takes place (Merz, He & Vargo, 2009). This entails

that brand meaning is made up by the perceptions of the brand between the company and its

consumers in a dyadic relationship, but also between other stakeholders who are independent

from the company. Thus, brand management in a company should make sure that their brand is

well regarded by all stakeholders.

CSR literature has also been evolving and many understandings and approaches to CSR exist,

and the mix between CSR and branding is a fairly recent construct. Since the turn of the

millennium, companies have increasingly started to integrate CSR initiatives in their corporate

branding strategies in alignment with cultural and political focus on green technology and

5

sustainability. Earlier, companies had to fulfill certain requirements regarding the environment

from political institutions (Campbell, 2007). Later, the tendency has been that consumers could

be attracted to products which are made in an ethical and responsible manner by companies

pro­actively (Matten & Moon, 2008). The level of which CSR has been a part of different

companies’ branding strategies is dependent on the industry in which the company operates,

and which segment they are trying to attract (Vallaster et al., 2012).

In a competitive environment there is a risk of losing profit if a company invests too much in

CSR initiatives. Being pro­active also means to set new standards in efficient technology and

the likes, and by doing this, a lot of money has to be invested in research and development.

Such investments have to be justified to shareholders and other immediate stakeholders, and a

way to justify this is to point to brand preference amongst stakeholders. But then the question

arises. How does brand management identify and evaluate brand preference? It is hard to

quantify, but there are ways to identify stakeholders’ perceptions of brands. One way to do that

is to look at the online discourse in different fora regarding a certain brand and thus distill

meaning from that (Kozinets, 2002). This gives brand management an idea of how their brand is

doing and how it is positioned in the minds of consumers and stakeholders.

This creates the basis for the following research question: How can user­generated online discourse regarding CSR, affect and form brand meaning?

1.2 Case Study

The research question is arguably wide in its definition. We introduce the case of Tesla Motors

to narrow the area of research for our thesis. By introducing a case, we focus our search for

data to include sources with regards to Tesla and its brand. Introducing a case makes it easier

for us to grasp data from various sources as they all have common ground in the given case.

The reasons for choosing Tesla Motors as a case include that there has been lots of

stakeholder attention surrounding the company and increasingly more public discourse

regarding it, as they are trying to set new standards on the automobile market making electric

6

Vehicles (EVs) that can compete with conventional gasoline cars. Another reason for choosing

Tesla Motors is their take on producing EVs not just for the sake of making a profit but as a way

to make the world a better place, and thus explicitly including CSR as an important element in

their branding efforts (Matten & Moon, 2008).

Tesla Motors is named after inventor Nikola Tesla, who invented the AC induction motor and

patented it in 1888 (Tesla Motors, n.d.). Tesla Motors was founded by a group of engineers in

Silicon Valley, California in 2003 (Tesla Motors, n.d.). Their objective was to create an electric

car which could compete with gasoline cars on the consumer market. Today, about 13 years

later, Tesla has produced three different models for the consumer market with a fourth one on

the way. Tesla has sold more than 50,000 cars worldwide and more than 2,700 in Denmark (De

Danske Bilimportører, n.d.). Tesla cars can be charged from home outlets, but the company

also offers free charging at their charging stations which are to be found at different locations

throughout their geographical markets. Besides cars, Tesla has produced battery packs for

consumers’ homes, which is made for storing energy (Tesla Motors, n.d.(b)).

It is fairly rare that a non­governmental company is so highly ambitious about sustainable

high­end products as it is the case with Tesla Motors. With CEO Elon Musk as the frontrunner,

Tesla is building a giga­factory in the Nevada desert with more to come in the future. The

giga­factory is going to mass produce batteries for Tesla’s products and it will run on solar and

wind energy, making the production of Tesla’s products completely CO2 neutral and energy grid

independent (Tesla Motors, n.d.(c)). This corresponds well with the company’s mission

statement:

“Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable transport.” (Tesla Motors,

n.d.)

In order to reach this point, a lot of time and money has been invested in research and

development as the technology they are producing has not before been available for the

consumer market. But what is interesting about this, is that they are releasing all of their patents

for other companies to use in order to reach the goal of a greener world. This means that other

car manufacturers can create very similar products without investing nearly as much time and

money in research and development. From a traditional viewpoint this is seen as giving up

7

competitive advantage but CEO Elon Musk states that: “We believe that applying the open

source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this

regard.” (Musk, 2014). This implies that Tesla expects to gain a competitive advantage due to the added brand value that the company philosophy is based on. We wish to find out how

Tesla’s brand is perceived by brand interest groups by analyzing online discourse about Tesla

and the electric vehicle industry on the Danish market. This is done order to analyze and

discuss if there is a coherence between Tesla’s perception and stakeholders’ perception, and if

these ambitious CSR objectives are salient elements in consumers and stakeholders perceived

brand meaning of Tesla Motors.

1.3 Delimitations

This thesis seeks to investigate CSR and branding and the correlations between the two by

using Tesla Motors as a case. Therefore, all empirical data is collected to be a basis for an

analysis and discussion with regards to the subject and the theoretical framework.

Tesla is a company that operates primarily in the automotive industry in a context influenced by

various stakeholders. Therefore this thesis will identify some of the most significant stakeholders

and identify which arguments they use when discussing Tesla.

CSR as a concept has been interpreted in several ways. In this thesis, CSR is both viewed as a

strategic tool (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2011), a communicative tool (Matten & Moon, 2008;

Christensen et al., 2013) but also as a sort of institutional field, including expectations for the

entire industry from the external environment; governments, media, NGOs, consumers and

social movements (Campbell, 2007). Other views on CSR will not be taken into account, either

because they are not relevant to the problem or the case as such, or because including them

would complicate the situation unnecessarily.

As for the term branding, this thesis differentiates between various interpretations of branding.

Brands and their meanings are co­created and manifested within interest groups of multiple

stakeholders, all taking place and influenced by an external socio­cultural context (Mühlbacher

& Hemetsberger, 2008).

8

Specifically the Danish market will be the socio­cultural context within which we wish to answer

the problem statement. This is partly due to the fact that the Danish discourse we can identify

online is almost certainly by Danish people as mainly Danes speak Danish. English fora can

have users from all over the world speaking English making it hard to identify people that belong

to a certain nationality and market. Another reason is that Denmark has had tax exemptions for

EVs making Teslas a relatively popular car in the landscape (Skat.dk, n.d.). Given the limitations

we will address the research problem by answering the following sub­research questions:

­ How does Tesla’s brand management in Denmark define Tesla’s brand meaning?

­ How is Tesla’s brand co­created by different stakeholder groups through online

discourse?

­ What are the potential gaps between Tesla’s perception of their brand’s meaning and online community users’ perception of Tesla’s brand meaning?

1.4 Relevance

Tesla has already proven to have created a strong brand with a high demand for their products

from consumers. Their latest car, the ‘Model 3’ is meant to be the car that ‘regular people’ can

afford. It will not be on the streets before the end of 2017, however, almost 400,000 pre­orders,

which require a deposit of 1,000 dollars per reservation, have been made worldwide (Yip, 2016).

So, why is it relevant to research if Tesla’s brand is well perceived amongst consumers if sales

are already going up? The thing is that Tesla have more or less had the market for themselves.

When the big established car manufacturers realize that there is money to be made by selling

electric vehicles, or maybe rather money lost by not doing it, they will most likely do so. Also,

because it is possible for them to make products by using a technology which is fully developed

and with no patent protection (Musk, 2014). We are already now seeing a range of producers

preparing to launch electric cars, and some variations are already on the market. This includes

the Nissan Leaf, the BMW i3, the Mercedes Benz B­Class Electric, and the Chevrolet Bolt

(Shahan, 2016).

9

We have also seen companies completely copy the business model of Tesla, with the same

objectives and the same steps of doing it. An example is ‘Faraday Future’ which also is located

in Silicon Valley, California. They state that: “Our global team leverages the talents of leading thinkers and passionate creators from the technology and automotive industries to bring

premium, intuitive, and seamlessly connected electric vehicles to people worldwide.” (Faraday Future, n.d.).

It seems that competition will only increase in the EV product category in the future. Consumers

will be able to choose between an electric Mercedes, Audi, Ford, BMW, Toyota, Faraday Future

and a Tesla. Tesla is the first mover and the company that popularized this EV movement, but

does this matter to consumers? Do stakeholders develop a brand preference for Tesla? Is Tesla

regarded as more than a corporation? That is what we wish to find out by analyzing Tesla’s

brand meaning.

1.5 Theoretical Approach

The theoretical approach for this thesis consist of two different stages. We will relate all of the

brand related discourse which we have gathered to the concepts which we have identified in our

literature review. This is why the literature review is quite substantial and covers many theories

regarding CSR and branding. It gives us the terminology to analyze what is being said about the

brand.

The first stage will be to identify and summarize existing literature regarding Corporate Social

Responsibility and branding. This is done in order to show how the terms CSR and branding

have been used by different authors and researchers, and in order to develop a foundation of

concepts in the discourse regarding the two fields. Furthermore, we will identify and summarize

relevant scientific articles regarding CSR used in, and as, branding to exhibit how this specific

mix of disciplines has been approached before. From the literature review, we will also develop

a theoretical synthesis and framework.

The second stage is to develop an analytical framework based on the theoretical synthesis and

framework, which can be used to best categorize and analyze our empirical findings.

10

Theoretically driven themes from branding and CSR literature are used to scope the collection

of data. These theoretically driven themes will also help us to interpret brand meaning within this

data.

2. Literature Review

This chapter aims to outline scientific research articles within the fields of CSR, branding, and

the integration of those two fields. This is done in order to identify theoretical themes within CSR

and branding which will assist us in conceptualizing brand meaning throughout our empirical

data. All aspects of CSR will not be covered, but only the ones that are relevant in the case of

Tesla Motors. Literature is mainly focused on environmental CSR.

In chapter 2.1 we will start by presenting relevant literature within the field of CSR. This will be

institutional CSR (Campbell, 2007), explicit and implicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008), strategic

CSR (Vogel, 2005), CSV (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2011) and aspirational CSR (Christensen et al.,

2011). In chapter 2.2 we will present relevant literature within the field of branding. First we will

summarize the history of branding. Moving on from that we will cover brands as knowledge (e.g.

Keller, 1993), brands as identities (e.g. Kapferer (2012), brands as persons and relationship

partners (e.g. Aaker, 1997), brands as cultural icons (e.g. Holt, 2002), brands as processes (e.g.

Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008), brand management paradigms (Louro & Cunha, 2001),

and stakeholder brand co­creation (Merz, He & Vargo, 2009). Finally, in chapter 2.3 we will

present and summarize research papers which have the scope of finding out how CSR has

been integrated in branding in different industries (e.g. Vallaster et al., 2012).

The chosen literature has been carefully selected in order to provide us with theoretical

concepts which will assist us in deriving meaning from our selected data sources. On the basis

of the concepts derived from the literature review we will develop a theoretical synthesis and

framework which will be used for the analysis.

11

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility can be identified as an umbrella term, which covers many

different activities in which a company can engage. These activities are a way for a company to

meet or set its own standards of being an entity in the surrounding stakeholder network.

Christensen et al. (2003, p. 372) said the following about CSR:

“Throughout its history, the meaning of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been in

constant flux, a moving target, shaped by interpretations, enactments and negotiations of

legislators, corporations and other agenda­setters. CSR, therefore, is an unstable arena of

exploration where ideals, standards and goals are continuously expanding and evolving.”

2.1.1 Institutional CSR

Many aspects can be said to affect the probability for corporations to act in responsible ways.

The profitability of the organization and the level of competition within the industry are both

significant. According to John L. Campbell (2007), if the level of competition is moderate (i.e. not

too low and not too high) and the company is profitable it increases the probability for them to

behave responsibly. A variety of forces outside the organization may also affect the probability

to act responsibly. State regulation, collective industrial self­regulation, NGOs and other

independent organizations all encourage responsible behaviour from organizations.

“Corporations will be more likely to act in socially responsible ways if there are strong and well

enforced state regulations in place to ensure such behavior, particularly if the process by which

these regulations and enforcement capacities were developed was based on negotiation and

consensus building among corporations, government, and the other relevant stakeholders.”

(Campbell, 2007, p. 955)

Institutional forces can make actors, being corporations or consumers, behave in a certain way

through the use of positive incentives and rewards. Another important argument by Campbell

(2007) is that organizations are likely to act socially responsible if independent organizations or

salient stakeholders, monitor them:

12

“Corporations will be more likely to act in socially responsible ways if there are private,

independent organizations, including NGOs, social movement. organizations, institutional

investors, and the press, in their environment who monitor their behavior and, when necessary,

mobilize to change it.” (Campbell, 2007, p. 958)

Corporations that are monitored and pressured by stakeholders are likely to adapt to the

changing institutional environment. The institutional environment cannot be seen as static.

Instead, it is dynamic since the institutional pressures shift over time in a constant flow.

Campbell (2007) states that some governments have off­loaded some of their regulatory

responsibilities to the private sector in response to globalization and he believes that this move

has made private independent actors such as social movements, unions, NGOs and other

stakeholders put more pressure on the corporations to behave responsibly. He argues that corporations that are willing to engage in dialogue with institutional stakeholders are likely to

behave responsibly over time. Institutional dialogue can encourage new standards of corporate

conduct, certification procedures and (self­)monitoring mechanisms.

2.1.2. Explicit and Implicit CSR

Matten & Moon (2008) also discuss institutional CSR. They suggest that CSR can be viewed as

a “dual construct” ­ the explicit and the implicit. Implicit CSR is when corporations operate by the

expectations of their environment. These expectations can be mandatory or voluntary

requirements for corporations to address issues in collective terms. A point made here is that

corporations may participate in the continuous formation of such requirements if they wish to.

But they would normally not explicitly communicate about practising implicit CSR, since it can be

viewed as a reaction to the institutional environment. In other words, corporations comply with

the institutional laws and norms but do not claim distinctive authorship of the practices.

Corporations that comply to institutional standards can be regarded as behaving responsibly,

but they do not use it in their communication.

Explicit CSR refers to organizational policies that suppose and articulate responsibility for

societal interests. This could for example be voluntary programs and strategies that combine

societal and business value. Such a strategy could address issues perceived as being relevant

13

for the organization's stakeholders while still holding a potential to creating a strategic

advantage. Explicit CSR may be a response to stakeholder pressure. It may involve (strategic)

governmental, NGO, or corporate partnerships.

“The point remains that explicit CSR rests on corporate discretion, rather than reflecting either

governmental authority or broader formal or informal institutions.“ (Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 409)

Matten & Moon (2008) state that companies in the USA are more likely to have an explicit

approach to CSR whereas European companies are more likely to have an implicit approach to

CSR. The authors distinguish between liberal market economies and coordinated market

economies. The contrast is explained by the respective national business systems. Although

Europe and USA have corresponding national commitments to democracy, capitalism and

welfare, they have different historically grown institutional frameworks.

“CSR in the United States is embedded in U.S. institutions and culture, particularly in the

traditions of individualism, democratic pluralism, moralism, and utilitarianism. We argue that the

distinctive elements of European CSR are embedded in the European NBSs, such as industrial

relations, labor law, and corporate governance.” (Matten & Moon, 2008, p. 409)

Companies express and pursue social responsibilities in ways that correspond to the

institutional framework they exist in with regards the political system, the financial system, the

education and labor system and the cultural system (Matten & Moon, 2008). But is seems that

explicit CSR has become very popular in Europe as well since corporations can take advantage

of political incentives and position themselves strategically to gain from them. Matten & Moon

(2008) mention the term “new institutionalism”. They describe the shifting European focus from

implicit to explicit CSR as a result of homogenization of institutional environments across

national boundaries due to globalization. When organizational practices are considered as being

legitimate, they become institutionalized. Legitimacy may be produced by three key factors;

coercive isomorphisms, mimetic processes, and normative pressures (DiMaggio & Powell,

1983).

14

2.1.3 Strategic CSR

“While profitability may not be the only reason corporations will or should behave virtuously, it

has become the most influential.” (Vogel, 2005, p. 1)

Researchers have been studying CSR from a business oriented point of view for quite some

time. In 1970, Milton Friedman shared his often quoted thoughts on corporate responsibility. He

argued that the only responsibility of managers is to ensure increased shareholder value over

time (Friedman, 1970). Corporate social policies should always benefit the shareholders or

employees of a company. They do not have to benefit the society as a whole. This view seems

to have been challenged by the opinions of others over time. In recent times, it has been

suggested that engaging in CSR would have some positive results for the corporation. It has

been suggested that a more responsibly managed company would face fewer risks than its less

virtuous competitors. On the other hand, companies that are ignorant or unwilling to adapt to

new competitive realities would be unfavored in the marketplace by investors who would regard

them as too risky of an investment. But as Vogel (2005) concludes, there is no evidence that

companies that behave responsibly are more profitable than less virtuous ones (Vogel, 2005).

He further argues that this finding is important since making profits is probably the most

attractive incentive of all. On the other hand, there is no evidence that suggests that CSR

should make companies less profitable either. In other words, companies could invest in CSR

without facing the risk of becoming less competitive in time (Vogel, 2005). But, improving the

bottom line is not the only possible reason for wanting to engage in CSR.

“Many executives genuinely care about conducting their businesses in ways that are more

environmentally sustainable, that respect human rights, and that foster economic development.”

(Vogel, 2005, p. 1)

Engaging in CSR voluntarily may also increase the employee morale or create a better

reputation for the company and its brand, and put a company in a favorable position for

continued institutional regulation. These aspects will not appear on a traditional balance sheet

but are all examples of positive effects on the business when engaging in CSR. But having said

that, behaving responsibly is not the magic key to long­term business success. There are

15

certainly examples of companies that are both profitable and responsible but the list is not too

long (Vogel, 2005).

“It is of course possible that in ten years the number of financially successful "responsible"

companies will be much larger. But the historical record to date gives few grounds for such

optimism.” (Vogel, 2005, p 69).

2.1.4 CSV: Creating Shared Value

“Businesses acting as businesses, not as charitable donors, are the most powerful force for

addressing the pressing issues we face.“ (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 64)

As Porter & Kramer (2011) see it, since the corporations of the world started embracing CSR,

they have increasingly been blamed for society’s failures. Business legitimacy has fallen and the

diminished trust of society in corporations has pushed politicians to regulate in ways that

undermine competitiveness and prevent economic growth. They call it a vicious circle and

corporations are unable to escape it (Porter & Kramer, 2011). In recent years a new concept

has been coined. A concept that according to Porter & Kramer (2011) supersedes CSR when it

comes to creating a business relevant return through responsible investments. The concept is

called ‘Creating Shared Value’ (CSV). Business objectives are an integral part of CSV. This lies

in contrast to traditional CSR where investments only have a limited connection to the business

of the firm. CSV leverages on a company’s unique resources and expertise. The point is to

create economic value by investing in social value. The authors themselves call it a reinvention

of capitalism that will unleash a wave of innovation and growth (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

“The concept of shared value can be defined as policies and operating practices that enhance

the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social

conditions in the communities in which it operates. Shared value creation focuses on identifying

and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress.”

(Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 66)

16

Shared value is not perceived as social responsibility, philanthropy or sustainability. It is seen as

a new way to create economic success. Porter & Kramer (2011) think that most companies are

stuck in a “social responsibility” mindset where societal issues are seen as something

peripheral. They argue that companies need a deeper understanding of societal needs and a

willingness to engage in non­profit collaborations to create shared economic value in the long

run (Porter & Kramer, 2011). They think that capitalism can be the key to making the world

better and argue that capitalism until now has been interpreted too narrowly which has

prevented business from harnessing its full potential to help with society’s broader issues. They

say that the opportunity to make things better has existed all along but have been overlooked so

far. There are three ways that companies can create shared value:

­ By reconceiving products and markets

­ By redefining productivity in the value chain

­ By enabling local cluster development

All three ways are seen as mutually reinforcing from a CSV perspective (Porter & Kramer,

2011). Touching upon one factor may positively improve another one. The authors call it the

next step of evolution in capitalism and argue that the concept holds the key to the next wave of

economic growth and business innovation.

Critique of the CSV concept

After the CSV concept was coined in 2011 its main arguments have been contested and

criticized by other researchers. Crane et al. (2014) criticize CSV for various reasons. They call

the concept unoriginal as it distances itself from existing CSR literature while actually using the

points of much literature in the field without any mention of it. Crane et al. (2014) argue that

CSR as a concept is critically misrepresented in Porter & Kramer’s (2011) text by being

regarded as add­on philanthropy while Porter & Kramer position their own CSV­concept as

something new and entirely different that exists at the core of business strategy. The CSV

concept is also called naive in its assumption of business compliance with legal and moral

standards:

“It wants to rethink the purpose of the corporation without questioning the sanctity of corporate

self­interest.” (Crane et.al, 2014, p. 140)

17

The CSV concept is further criticized for ignoring the tensions between social and economic

goals (Crane et al., 2014). The view on the matter is shared with Karnani (2011) who argues

that it is not always realistic for companies to do good by doing well because in reality there is

often a divergence between optimal private profits and optimal public interests. He argues that

there exist two different market forms: “Efficient Markets” and “Market Failure”. In efficient

markets, the profit of a company is equal to public interest and a company can perfectly adapt to

the interest of all stakeholders with regards to what is best for everyone (including our planet)

while still making optimal profits. In efficient markets, CSR is irrelevant as the market will always

correct itself. In reality we often see corporate success and social welfare as being in some sort

of conflict. This is what is referred to as market failure. The profit­maximizing behaviour of

corporations will often have negative consequences to public interest. This could for example be

a negative environmental impact. Karnani (2011) suggests that constraints are needed to

control corporate behaviour in these situations, whether it be corporate CSR­guidelines,

government regulation, (industry) self­regulation, pressure from civil society or a combination of

all (Karnani, 2011).

2.1.5 Aspirational CSR

The aspirational view of CSR focuses on organizational communication about CSR.

Christensen et al. (2013) propose that the CSR communication has the potential to stimulate

positive social change even when organizations do not actually live up to what is said.

Aspirational talk can be said to hold some ideals and intentions that do not necessarily reflect

actual behaviours although it may lead to some positive social change. Behind the view is a

proposition of language as being performative as opposed to being a neutral vehicle through

which reality is described. Communication is seen as creation.

The main argument is that the difference between words and actions may in fact be vital in

order to move changes within the field of CSR towards higher goals and superior standards

(Christensen et al., 2013). The authors also include an argument about hypocrisy being

regarded as inevitable because organizations and also people talk, decide and act at separate

times and in different contexts. Discrepancies between what is said, what is decided, and what

18

is done are therefore inevitable. Aspirational hypocrisy can be confused with hypocrisy as

duplicity, which can be regarded as intentional fraud or misleading.

“We face the second type of [aspirational] hypocrisy when an organization, in order to stimulate

action, incants a wished­for future, pretending that this future (or parts thereof) already exists.

While such behaviour, conceptually speaking, belongs to the sphere of hypocrisy, we argue that

it is of a different and more positive nature.” (Christensen et al., 2013, p. 378)

From these various aspects of CSR which have been covered in this chapter, we now have a

theoretical background which will make us able to fathom and identify CSR activities in our

empirical data. In the next sub­chapter we will uncover branding theories. These theories will

function as a basis for our analysis. They serve as definitions which will make us able to identify

various elements of brand meaning.

2.2 Branding

This section will line out the history and evolution of branding in terms of definitions and

approaches, and how it can be used strategically by a company in today’s world. First we go

through brand evolution to exhibit how brands have been perceived from a managerial

perspective throughout the last century up until today. In the following sub­chapters we uncover

various ways in which brands can be perceived.

2.2.1 Brand Evolution

Branding as a concept has evolved significantly over the last century. Merz, He and Vargo

(2009) identify four brand eras since 1900. This division of the eras, as they point out, is not

conclusive and the eras do overlap and do not start and end abruptly. The eras are:

Individual Goods­Focus Brand Era (1900s ­ 1930s) In this first era of branding, brands function as identifiers. This means that it is a way for a

consumer to identify a product. A good product means a good brand, as the customer will

associate the quality of the product with the brand/logo/corporation which is behind it.

Customers remain passive recipients of the brand.

19

Value­Focus Brand Era (1930s ­ 1990s) After 30 years of the individual goods­focus era, there is a shift towards value­focus. In this era

brands are perceived as functional and symbolic images. As products became more and more

alike, companies created unique brand images for the consumer to associate the brand with.

This meant that a company could differentiate itself through its brand images rather than

through its products. Customers still remain passive recipients of the brand.

Relationship­Focus Brand Era (1990s ­ 2000) In this 10 year period at the end of the 20th century relationship­focus with customers is

dominant. In this era brands become knowledge. This means that whatever customers know

about the brand translates into brand meaning. Also, brands are relationship­partners, meaning

that brands are perceived as being entities with identities and personalities, and therefore

customers will develop a dyadic relationship with the brand, making customers co­creators of

the brand. Furthermore, brands function as promises. This is because employees are seen as

internal customers and important value co­creators. They become a part of the brand promise.

Stakeholder­Focus Brand Era (2000 and Forward) In the current brand era all stakeholders are in focus. This means that all stakeholders are a

part of the brand­creation rather than only customers. Brands become dynamic and social

processes in which the brand meaning co­creation process is continuous, social and highly

dynamic. This process is interactive between the company, stakeholder groups, brand

communities, and the brand, but the process does not need to involve the brand.

Vargo and Lusch (2004) argue that there has been a shift throughout the different eras from a

‘goods­dominant logic’ to a ‘service­dominant logic’ (S­D logic), which indicates that the

dominant focus of branding in the later branding eras has moved towards a notion of providing

the best service for the company’s stakeholders as possible.

This kind of logic puts emphasis on a process orientation rather than an output orientation,

meaning that the goods and services are still of importance but the relationship with

stakeholders is valued higher. In addition to that, customers and other stakeholders are

perceived as co­creators of brand meaning instead of a unilateral point of view where brand

meaning is created, defined and projected by the company only (Merz, He & Vargo, 2009, p.

20

328). To support this idea of stakeholder­focus, Louro and Cunha (2001) sums up what

branding means for brand management today:

“Dominant conceptualizations of brands and brand management evolved from unidimensional approaches, focused on role of brands as legal instruments and visual identification and

differentiation devices, toward multidimensional views emphasizing holistic conceptions of

brands comprising functional, emotional, relational and strategic dimensions” (Louro & Cunha, 2001, p. 851).

Considering this definition of the various aspects of a brand, it becomes evident that managing

a brand is a task which requires a lot of consideration. The different dimensions mentioned by

Louro and Cunha (2001) can be more or less important depending on what kind of brand is at

hand. Emphasizing the right dimension to the right degree is a challenge for brand

management.

The various dimensions of the brand are also important to identify in order to best analyze how

a certain organization's brand is constructed. The following sections will portray how brands can

be seen and understood within various dimensions.

2.2.2 Brands as Knowledge

One way to understand the meaning of a brand is the mental associations that goes along with

it. What a person know about a brand becomes the brand. This way brands can be seen as

knowledge. Sounds, smells, images, facts or other feelings which emerge when a person thinks

about a brand is a part of the meaning of the brand for that person. Kevin Keller wrote in 1993

that:

“Understanding the content and structure of brand knowledge is important because they

influence what comes to mind when a consumer thinks about a brand — for example, in

response to marketing activity for that brand.” (Keller, 1993, p. 2).

21

Keller wrote this within the relationship­focus brand era during the 1990’s and the focus of

branding in this sense is between the firm and the customer, and what the customer associates

with that brand.

Keller identifies two main dimensions of brand knowledge which is part of the totality of the

brand and therefore the brand equity (Keller, 1993). Those two dimensions are brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness is what a consumer recognizes about a brand if exposed to the name or if a consumer can recall a brand name when being exposed to a

product category. The brand awareness is closely related to the consumer’s memory and ability

to identify a certain brand under different conditions. Brand image, on the other hand, relates to

the perception of the brand in relation to those brand associations held in the consumer’s

memory. It embodies the equity of the brand for consumers. It can be the perceived uniqueness,

favorability and strength of the brand.

Sylvia Von Wallpach and Maria Kreuzer wrote in 2013 that brand knowledge also could be seen

as multi­sensory metaphors which they called ‘multi­sensory sculpting’ (Von Wallpach &

Kreuzer, 2013). They created a model of framework which would show the way of encountering

a product and how it becomes brand knowledge. The idea is that when a consumer engages

with a product, the consumer’s senses will record the experience of that product. So, vision,

smell, taste, sounds, introspection, and so on all become verbal and non­verbal figurative

elements of the experience, and thus the knowledge of what that consumer associates with the

brand.

2.2.3 Brands as Identities

Another way to perceive a brand is that of an identity. This way the brand is perceived as being

real and being its own entity which embodies the organization’s strategy, vision, and values.

The brand identity also contains those associations which consumers have regarding a brand.

Jean­Noel Kapferer (2012) created a matrix, in which the different facets of the brand can be

categorized. He called this matrix the “brand identity prism”. It comes in a hexagonal form and is

meant to identify the essence of the brand. In the prism exist six different dimensions which are

what the brand wants to represent but also what the consumer of that brand represents. The

22

three dimensions for the brand are personality, physique and culture, and for the consumer they

are self­image, reflection and relationship. The totality of those six should point to the essence

and meaning of the brand. Kapferer notes that:

“Consumers and prospects are often asked what their ideal brand would be and what attributes it would need in order to get universally approved. This approach fails to segment properly the

expectations and thus produce any definition other than average brand ideal. (…) These

expectations are also ideal in the sense that they are often incompatible. In pursuing them, such

brands may lose their identity and regress to the average level” (Kapferer, 2012, p. 164).

Mats Urde also sees brands as identities. However, he thought that there was a need for a

better framework in order to explicitly explain the corporate brand of an organization (Urde,

2013). On this basis he developed the ‘corporate brand identity mix’ or ‘CBIM’. The CBIM

consists of a totality of nine elements which together form the meaning of an organization’s

brand or the core and promises of that brand. Similar to Kapferer’s identity prism, the CBIM

pinpoints internal, internal and external, and external components. Of the internal components

are ‘mission & vision’, ‘culture’ and ‘competencies’. Of the internal and external components are

‘expression’ and ‘personality’. Of the external components are ‘value propositions’,

‘relationships’ and ‘position’. Urde notes that:

“The CBIM first places strong emphasis on the internal component of a corporate brand identity. It thereby sets itself clearly apart from frameworks developed for product brands, and also from

existing corporate brand identity frameworks, by including competences as a critical element of

the model” (Urde, 2013, p. 758).

2.2.4 Brands as Persons and Relationship Partners Brands can also be perceived as persons. If brands can be seen as entities with identities the

metaphor of looking at a brand as a person seems appropriate. The different attributes, qualities

and values which a brand might be associated with all can add into a brand’s personality. When

looking at a brand as a person with a personality, a consumer can also form a relationship with

that brand, as its value propositions and meaning may benefit that consumer.

23

Jennifer Aaker (1997) described brands as having a set of human characteristics which

translates into the brand personality. When a brand contains a personality it is possible for a

consumer to use that brand in order to emphasize or extend their own personality by

associating with that brand. Aaker points out that there are differences in defining a human’s

personality traits and a brand’s personality traits. The understanding of a human’s personality

traits can be supported by the individual’s behavior, physical characteristics, attitude, beliefs,

and demographic characteristics. On the other hand, the perception of a brand’s personality is

associated with any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with the brand.

This means that a brand’s personality can be associated in a direct way by the people

associated with the brand, such as the brand’s user imagery which is ‘the set of human characteristics’ of the typical user of a brand. That could be the CEO, the employees of the

company, and the endorsers of the brand’s products. This way, the personality traits of the

people who are associated with the brand are transferred directly to the brand itself. On the

other hand, attributes of the product, the brand name, form of logo, advertising style, and

distribution channels all become indirect personality traits which can be associated with the

brand (Aaker, 1997).

Susan Fournier (1998) also saw brands as people but highlighted the idea that brands as

persons could be active, contributing partners in dyadic relationships with consumers. She

points out that for a relationship to truly exist, there must be some sort of interdependency

between partners and they must collectively affect, define and redefine the relationship.

“One way to legitimize the brand­as­partner is to highlight ways in which brands are animated,

humanized or somehow personalized. The human activity of anthropomorphizing inanimate

objects has been identified as a universal in virtually all societies” (Fournier, 1998, p. 344).

The types of relationships that consumers and brands engage in can vary a great deal. Some

relationships are voluntary and some are involuntary. The classic example is a voluntary

relationship between a consumer and a brand as that brand’s personality traits can match,

emphasize and/or strengthen that of the consumer. However, involuntary relationships also

occur and they do not necessarily have to be unpleasant. An exemplification of this can be that

a mother buys products from a brand because the daughter likes that brand. The mother did not

24

choose a relationship with that brand nor have any preferences towards it, but because of the

daughter’s preference, the mother purchases products from that brand. Fournier notes that:

“a brand may enjoy selected animistic properties, but it is not a vital entity. In fact, the brand cannot act or think or feel ­ except through the activities of the manager that administers it. In

accepting the behavioral significance of marketing actions, one accepts the legitimacy of the

brand as a contributing relationship partner” (Fournier, 1998, p. 345).

2.2.5 Brands as Cultural Icons

One criterion for producing a successful brand is that the brand is perceived as unique and that

it stands for something. This tends to be a general truth regarding branding according to various

brand scholars. One way for a brand to stand for something unique is when it captures and

frames a particular aspect of culture, which consumers of that brand will understand and

appreciate.

Douglas Holt wrote a research paper in 2002 called ‘Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A

Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding’. This was written just after the turn of the

century, where branding had moved into the stakeholder­focus era, and branding was no longer

seen only as a dyadic relationship between an organization and its consumers. Holt describes in

the introduction to this text that brands were under attack by an emerging counter­culture

movement. This corresponds well with the idea of stakeholder groups creating brand meaning

independent from the brand. Brands are said to cause trouble because branding efforts of

global consumer goods by companies have invoked a destructive societal consumer culture.

“Consumers are beginning to break down marketers' dominance by seeking out social spaces in

which they produce their own culture, apart from that which is foisted on them by the market.

These spaces allow people to continually rework their identities rather than let the market

dictate identities for them” (Holt, 2002, p. 72).

This counter culture and trend from the beginning of the millennium will be something that

companies and brand management probably want to learn from and adapt to. Holt (2002)

explains that brands can be relevant and authentic cultural resources, but they have to act in a

25

market of informed and empowered consumers who are willing to take actions against a brand.

For a brand to stay successful in this type of consumer environment, it must be able to inspire,

provoke, stimulate and help interpret the world around us, and have an original point of view

which is their own. It must adapt to whatever culture exists among the consumers by identifying

the most relevant identity myths and connect itself to this myth. Furthermore, the brand

promises must be aligned with the corporate culture, so that the brand is perceived as being

credible and trustworthy (Holt, 2002).

Two years later Douglas Holt (2004) published another article called ‘How Brands Become

Icons ­ The Principles of Cultural Branding’. In this short article, he highlights the importance of

creating or adapting relevant identity myths for the brand’s consumers. Identity myths are seen

as a specific kind of story which fulfills their consumer’s identity needs. He explains:

“The right identity myth, well performed, provides the audience with little epiphanies ­ moments

of recognition that put images, sounds, and feelings on barely perceptible desires. Customers

who find this kind of identity value in a brand forge intensive emotional connections. Emotional

attachment is the consequence of a great myth” (Holt, 2004, p. 28).

Holt (2004) compares the art of creating an identity myth (which he also refers to as cultural

branding) to viral branding efforts. In viral branding ­ which has been a popular approach before

the millennium, branding efforts are focused on aligning the brand with a trend or a fad. It

becomes fashion and successfully the brand will be pushed by influencers or taste leaders who

set trends. Criticism of this technique is based on the notion that trend setters like to establish

the next big thing, but when that has been done, they will move on from that thing and in this

case the brand. Iconic brands are the ones which can address contradictions in society and

create identity myths which deal with identity desires and anxieties which arises from those

contradictions. They rely on breakthrough performances, rather than consistent communication,

and create meaning through their corporate actions.

2.2.6 Brands as Processes

Another perspective on branding is that it is a dynamic process which develops continuously.

This relates to the stakeholder­focus era as stakeholders are included in this way of seeing a

26

brand. The perspective becomes dynamic rather than static as consumers and other

stakeholders are seen as active rather than passive recipients. Brand management in this

perspective will seek to identify and nurture brand­related public discourse.

Robert Chia published an article in 1999 called ‘A Rhizomic Model of Organizational Change

and Transformation: Perspective From a Metaphysics of Change’. In this article he explained

that we live in an age of unprecedented change and transformation, and because of that brands

constantly have to creatively adapt and respond to the ever­changing environments in which

they exist in order to remain profitable and attractive. At the same time brand management must

think processually and temporally as they are a part of a larger, constantly changing social

system (Chia, 1999). Chia (1999) also criticized extant literature of being too focused on fixed

and static phenomena which is used to describe the environment in which an organization

exists. He stated that:

“Typologies, taxonomies and classification schemas are convenient but essentially

reductionistic methods for abstracting, fixing and labelling what is an intrinsically changing,

fluxing and transforming social reality. Whilst they may serve as convenient handles for

identifying the different types of organizational change processes observed, they do not get at

the heart of the phenomenon of change itself” (Chia, 1999, p. 210).

Hans Mühlbacher and Andrea Hemetsberger also saw branding as a process in their work

‘What the Heck is a Brand? An Attempt of Integration and its Consequences for Research and

Management’ from 2008. They wrote:

“In a continuous process of social discourse, members of the brand interest group co­construct

brand meaning. Brand meaning becomes subject to experience through the manifestations of

the brand, which are produced, constructed and used by the members of the brand interest

group in an individual manner, as well as in social and cultural contexts” (Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008, p. 7).

They created a framework called ‘an integrative concept of brands’. In this framework, brand

interest groups, brand manifestations and brand meaning all exist in a continuous process of

discourse.

27

An integrative concept of brands. (Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008)

The process in this sense becomes the social discourse between people in different brand

interest groups, and through this interaction meaning is created. Brand meaning thus becomes

a dynamic collective system of knowledge and evaluations between members of a brand

interest group in a continuous discourse which is (possibly) set apart from the organization.

Brand meaning is first individually determined, but if this meaning is socially relevant it can be

shaped into socially shared meaning. Brand meaning consists of context dependent and context

independent elements of knowledge and that meaning is not perceived as stable but as being in

constant flux (Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008).

When brand meaning exists it translates into brand manifestations, which are tangible and

intangible objectifications. Brand interest group members can sensually experience brand

meaning through these objectifications. Brand meaning can manifest itself in objects such as

organizations, people, activities, events or patterns of behavior. These manifestations of the

brand are constantly co­constructed in a system of brand interest group members, and at the

same time the manifestations will stimulate more social interaction which leads to re­production

of brand meaning (Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008).

28

The brand discourse between members of brand interest groups is an ongoing interaction

process which produces brand meaning. Brand discourse can take place in real life or in virtual

forums, where brand interest group members share knowledge, beliefs and other experiences

regarding a brand, company, person and so on. Brand discourse can be direct and indirect, and

verbal and non­verbal (Mühlbacher & Hemetsberger, 2008).

The development of brands thus becomes the result of complex and interactive processes

which is stimulated by the socio­cultural context in which the organization and its stakeholders

exist.

2.2.7 Brand Management Paradigms

In order to best approach this challenge of emphasizing the right dimensions for brand

management, Louro & Cunha (2001, p. 855) offers a framework in which four different brand

management paradigms emerge. These paradigms are a way of categorizing how an

organization acts in terms of branding and which dominant logic is used.

“In this sense brand management paradigms constitute an organization's portfolio of implicit assumptions, collective beliefs, values and techniques concerning the why (the objectives and

performance measures of brand management), the what (the concept of brands), the who (the

organizational structure of brand management) and the how of branding (the variables of brand

management).” (Louro & Cunha, 2001, p. 853).

The four different paradigms exist inside a matrix on a horizontal and a vertical axis. The four

paradigms are; product paradigm, adaptive paradigm, projective paradigm and relational

paradigm.

The product paradigm can be seen as the more traditional way of branding. The focus is on the

product and the brand is used as an identifier for that product. There is no customer co­creation

involved and there is no emphasis on the brand as an entity or identity. “In particular organizations use brands to designate legal ownership, protect against imitation and support

product communication and visual differentiation” (Louro & Cunha, 2001, p. 856).

29

The adaptive paradigm takes the focus away from the product and places it on the customer

instead. The brand is a product of the competitive context, where a firm will analyse and learn

from its customers, competitors, and the market in which the company exists. The competitive

advantage is a result of the firm’s ability to generate customer satisfaction. However, the brand

as an identity is still not prioritized in this paradigm and brand management seeks to tailor its

product by listening to the needs of consumers (Louro & Cunha, 2001, p. 864).

The projective paradigm has a low degree of customer involvement for brand co­creation but

also has a high emphasis on brand as an identity. Projecting, in this sense, also means

complementing and amplifying the product paradigm by highlighting the strategic dimension of

branding. The organization defines its own identity, and projects that identity onto their

consumers through various media channels (Louro & Cunha, 2001, pp. 859 ­ 860).

The relational paradigm combines the forces from the adaptive and projective paradigm. The

adaptive paradigm provides customer evaluation on products but fails to take into account an

evaluation of the value of the brand behind the products. The value of the brand is taken into

account in the projective paradigm, but fails to acknowledge the active role of consumers as

co­creators of brand meaning.

“Relational perspectives conceptualize brand management as an ongoing dynamic process, without a clear beginning and ending, in which brand value and meaning is co­created through

interlocking behaviours, collaboration and competition between organizations and consumers”

(Louro & Cunha, 2001, p. 865).

2.2.8 Stakeholder Brand Co­creation

Where Louro & Cunha offers a framework in which four paradigms of brand management

emerge, the understanding of creating brand meaning is seen as a relationship between a

company and its consumers. As earlier mentioned, Merz, He and Vargo (2009) portrayed the

latest and current branding era as the “stakeholder­focus brand era”. This means that

organizations take all stakeholders into account as being co­creators of brand meaning. This

does not make the framework provided by Louro & Cunha obsolete, however, it adds another

dimension to it.

30

Merz, He and Vargo (2009, p. 337) state that:

“(1) brand value is co­created within stakeholder­based ecosystems, (2) stakeholders form networks, rather than only dyadic, relationships with brands, and (3) brand value is dynamically

constructed through social interactions among different stakeholders.”

In this regard, the brand is classified as a continuous social process, where the value of the

brand is co­constructed through interactions and negotiations between the firm and its

stakeholders, but also between stakeholders of the firm, without the presence of the firm. (Merz,

He & Vargo, 2009, p. 337). This is where the current stakeholder­focus era diversifies from

earlier eras of branding. Brand management and brand scholars have largely accepted that

brand meaning is constructed between people in different networks, such as brand

communities, and that this co­creation of brand meaning can be independent from the firm.

Earlier, brand meaning has been seen as something that would form between the firm and its

internal (employees) or external customers in a dyadic relationship (Merz, He & Vargo, p. 337).

2.3 CSR Integrated in Branding

This section aims to illustrate how branding and CSR have been combined in the past decade.

This is done in order to see what the literature tells us about the combination of the two

academic disciplines, and in order to identify potential research gaps within it.

In 2009 Michael Polonsky and Colin Jevons wrote an article called ‘Global branding and

strategic CSR: an overview of three types of complexity’. In this article they identify three areas

of complexity; social issue, organizational and communication. According to Polonsky and

Jevons (2009), organizations must understand these three types of complexity in depth in order

to successfully leverage responsible activities as a part of their brand. Another aspect to these

three types of complexity is that the scope for the organization in this case is global. “Being global means that organisations will likely need to ensure they address the highest set of global

expectations, as any lower level may be criticised as being less than appropriate” (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009, p. 327).

31

Polonsky and Jevons also note that:

“However, what has not been proposed is a process by which issues can be assessed and/or

prioritised. There is limited discussion in the literature about how organisations can assess the

appropriate emphasis to give to CSR in general, and what specific aspects should be

considered both in terms of their own priorities and those of their stakeholders” (Polonsky & Jevons, 2009, p. 340).

In relations to Tesla Motors, they are indeed a global company with a mission of changing the

world’s transport to fulfill very ambitious CSR goals. Thus, it is important that stakeholders

perceive these goals as being appropriate. From the quote above it is evident that the field of

CSR integrated in branding has not been covered thoroughly up until 2009 as Polonsky and

Jevons suggest that there has not been proposed ways in which issues can be assessed and/or

prioritized. This indicates to us as researchers that it is relevant to contribute to this field of

research.

Matthew Liu, Ipkin Wong, Guichen Shi, Rongwei Chu and James Brock published an article

called ‘The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand

quality on customer­based brand preference’ in 2014. In this research paper Liu et al. examined

the importance of CSR strategies in the hotel industry in China (Liu et al., 2014). They noted

that since 1980’s the hotel industry in China had been highly commercialized and

market­oriented. This meant that brand preferences had been of gradually more importance to

the consumers. The researchers conducted a study in which they asked hotel guests various

CSR­related questions. Those questions were about the guests perception of the hotel’s CSR

activities in relation to society, the environment and other stakeholders. Their sample size

included 243 guests at hotels, which had CSR programmes in place, in five different Chinese

cities. They concluded the following:

“Brands can be more attractive to Chinese consumers when brands take appropriate

investments in CSR activities. A socially responsible brand is not guaranteed to yield a

competitive advantage. Instead a competitive advantage will more likely result through the

employment of the appropriate CSR strategies, with a focus on stakeholders’ interests” (Liu et al., 2014, p. 181).

32

Liu et al.’s study indicates to us that it is relevant to find out if stakeholders perceive Tesla’s

CSR efforts as being appropriate if these efforts should be considered a competitive advantage

and a part of the overall brand equity.

Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgren and François Maon published an article in 2012 called

‘Strategically Leveraging Corporate Social Responsibility: A Corporate Branding Perspective’ in

which they conducted a qualitative empirical study to find out the relationship between CSR and

corporate branding.

In this article they note that there is a tendency for consumers, employees, shareholders,

media, NGO’s and the financial community to demand meaningful consumption culture and

companies that can offer socially and environmentally conscious goods (Vallaster et. al., 2012).

This means that branding efforts has been moving towards fulfilling those demands.

They subscribe to the view that CSR is something that companies do which goes beyond legal

obligations and their own interests, and seek to manage and improve the impact their activities

have on the environment and society. At the same time the authors acknowledge that

stakeholders have different expectations regarding CSR, and when CSR activities turn out to be

nothing more but window dressing and not bound in true guiding value systems, “customers and consumer groups put violators on trial in the court of popular opinion” (Vallaster et. al., 2012, p. 35).

They divide stakeholders into two groups; primary and secondary. They note that branding

efforts are primarily and traditionally aimed at primary stakeholders which include customers,

shareholders and business partners etc. Secondary stakeholders which include social and

political actors can give the company intangible assets in the form of vocal support and better

reputation, which will strengthen the brand of the company if the brand has a strong emphasis

on CSR. Vallaster et al. note that in general branding practitioners have been in a state of

confusion when trying to figure out how to balance CSR activities in a way that benefits both the

company and society at large (Vallaster et al., 2012).

33

The authors differentiate between product branding and corporate branding. They emphasize

the importance of aligning the two in order to avoid creating a perception of ‘brand hypocrisy’

among their stakeholders. Such an example of brand hypocrisy is given about Toyota:

“Toyota received a reputation for environmental responsibility by introducing its celebrated

hybrid, the Prius. However, even as Toyota enjoyed phenomenal awareness levels and positive

associations, in addition to sales bumps, it suffered from increased attention to its corporate

actions. Loyal Prius owners, special interest groups, and NGOs vigorously challenged Toyota’s

lobbying efforts (in cooperation with Ford and General Motors) against tougher U.S. fuel

economy standards.” (Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 38).

In this case the product brand being the Prius, which was supposed to be an element in the

process of moving away from fossil fuels, was not aligned with the corporate brand being the

the corporation which was working against the promise of the product brand. The misalignment

can be understood as having hurt the totality of the brand equity of Toyota.

In the article they wanted to create a strategic CSR framework for brands to use. In order to do

that they did a study where they conducted 12 interviews with different leaders of organizations

regarding their perception of their own brands and compared that to their stakeholders’

perception of the brand. Combining this with existing branding literature and with regards to the

specific industry, they were able to develop a strategic framework. Their method of getting there

can be seen in the figure underneath.

34

From the data gathering process and analysis, they developed a matrix which included different

categories of CSR engagement. These categories were ‘vocal CSR converts’, ‘Quietly

conscientious’, ‘CSR performers’, and ‘CSR entrepreneurs’. The different categories were

decided on the basis of three factors being ‘level of CSR integration’, ‘initiators and drivers’, and

‘objectives’.

Vocal CSR converts are firms which has CSR as an add­on to their brand, because of stakeholder demands. It’s a reactive approach to CSR and considered to be market­based.

Their objective is to protect their economic value. “Unlike CSR performers, they have not convinced the public that their efforts are genuine or long­term, but this list of companies

continues to grow as more global brands work to integrate CSR into their business and brand

strategy.” (Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 52).

Quietly Conscientious are firms which are in the middle of all the different factors as seen in figure 2. “None of these companies explicitly makes sustainability part of their brand, though all of them work hard to minimize their negative social and environmental impacts or contribute to

the benefit of society.” (Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 53). This is partly because it is a way of ‘staying under the radar’ when it comes to stakeholder demands.

CSR performers are firms where CSR is ingrained in their corporate DNA. Their drivers for engagement is stakeholder led and reactive, and their objective is to generate economic and

35

social value. “CSR performers include privately owned companies with strong and visible corporate brands in industries that are scrutinized by powerful secondary stakeholders.”

(Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 51).

CSR entrepreneurs are firms which engage proactively in CSR. They do it based on values which are dictated from management and are ingrained in CSR. “When companies design their

corporate identity around CSR, because they have been founded with CSR in mind and

embrace CSR as part of who they are and what they do, they are CSR entrepreneurs.”

(Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 49).

Besides being able to categorize companies in regards to their level of CSR engagement, the

authors also found from their study that ‘greenwashing’ never works. This means that the

company should evaluate and decide to which degree it wants to engage in CSR, and thus

communicate appropriate and accordingly in their brand communication. The authors offer

companies four suggestions (Vallaster et al., 2012, p. 55) which can minimize the chance of

being accused of greenwashing:

­ Reduce stakeholder ambiguity by doing as you say.

­ Define your strategic aspiration: Leader or follower.

­ Provide necessary resources with a long­term perspective.

­ If you get caught in the act: What to do. Make sure to have a plan.

36

Vallaster et al.’s research is relevant for this thesis as it also points to the fact that stakeholders’

perception of CSR related activities are important if the company performing them does not

want be accused of window dressing or green washing. We identify Tesla Motors as being a

CSR entrepreneur in regards to the Vallaster et al.’s CSR Brand framework. We let us inspire by

their data gathering and analysis approach, which will be clarified in chapter 4: Analytical

Framework.

2.4 Theoretical Synthesis

This section relates the different streams of research that we have presented in the above to

each other. We will use the theoretical synthesis as our theoretical basis for the further process.

As we stated previously, sustainability and responsible ways of conducting business have

become more prevalent than ever before. Consumers have become more knowledgeable as

they have gained increased access to information (Holt, 2002). Brands have been attacked by

emerging counter­culture movements, due to global companies using branding efforts to invoke

a destructive societal consumer culture. If a brand in today’s world wishes to be successful, it

must have an original point of view, which is its own, and thus create an identity myth that

consumers can associate with (Holt, 2002; Holt, 2004). In this way, brands can be perceived to

have identities and personalities, just like people can. Consumers can engage in a dyadic

relationship with such brands and their personalities. Brand personalities can also represent the

persons who surround the organization and their behaviour. Be accepting this, one accepts the

brand as a contributing relationship partner (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998).

Technology has evolved in a way that makes it possible for companies to produce their goods in

sustainable ways. This has resulted in a market trend where CSR can be a competitive

advantage for brands if implemented in the right manner, according to the company’s strategic

intent, and with regards to market and stakeholder expectations (Vogel, 2005; Porter & Kramer,

2011). If CSR activities are not implemented in the right manner, companies risk being accused

of window dressing or greenwashing. (Vallaster et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Polonsky &

Jevons, 2009). However, it has been proposed that aspirational CSR communication,

addressing issues which are relevant to the organization’s stakeholders, has the potential to

37

stimulate positive social change even when organizations do not actually live up to what is said

(Christensen et al., 2013; Matten & Moon, 2008). When companies communicate openly about

internally­driven intentions to CSR it is referred to as explicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008). It is

not only the demand from consumers and customers that drive companies to implement CSR

into their business plans. Pressure and demands from other stakeholders in society also add to

the competitive advantage of implementing CSR activities, including market regulators

(Campbell, 2007). When corporations operate by the expectations of their environment it is also

referred to as implicit CSR (Matten & Moon, 2008).

CSR implementations can thereby help strengthen the brand of a company. In brand literature

we are seeing a shift from static to dynamic approaches. In the dynamic perception of branding

a form of processual co­creation of the brand takes place (Merz, He & Vargo, 2009; Chia,

1999). Thus in this dynamic view, brand management in a company should make sure that their

brand is well regarded by all stakeholders. Within the process view of brands there are multiple

ways the elements of brand meaning can be understood. One element is brand knowledge

which refers to stakeholders’ perception of the brand, including the multi­sensory elements of a

brand experience (Keller, 1993; Von Wallpach & Kreuzer, 2013). It holds the two dimensions

brand awareness and brand image which can determine the perceived uniqueness, favorability and strength of a brand (Keller, 1993). Another element is brand identity, which relates to the

internal perception of a brand, i.e. what the brand wants to represent but also what the

consumer of that brand represents. Among others, brand identity refers to the personality,

culture and physique of a brand, and this identity should mirror a brand ideal that reflect the

organization’s values to avoid the organization to be perceived as average (Kapferer, 2012;

Urde, 2013; Aaker, 1997).

In the above subchapters we have portrayed the various aspects of branding, CSR and the

combination of the two fields. Chapter 2.3 has indicated to us that the integration of CSR in

branding have to be carefully practiced for it to have the intended effect in relations to

stakeholders. The research articles regarding the integration of CSR in branding have also

illustrated how an empirical approach has been done before, which issues to look for, and which

considerations to make (Vallaster et al., 2012). From the literature review and the theoretical

synthesis we now have a basis for conducting research regarding co­creation of the brand

meaning of Tesla Motors.

38

3. Methodology

So far, we have presented the research question which is the point of departure for our work in

this thesis. The case presentation narrowed the scope of the paper to focus solely on the Tesla

Motors brand with regards to CSR. Afterwards, the literature review explained preexisting

theories and viewpoints within the field of CSR, then within the field of branding, and finally a

review of literature that involve both CSR and branding. This created the basis for the

theoretical synthesis in the above sub­chapter. This chapter that explains the underlying

methodological approach for this thesis. It accounts for the scientific and empirical approach

which establishes the foundation for the research and analysis. In this chapter we explain how

we work with our theories and how we collect and analyze data.

3.1 Scientific Approach

3.1.1 Philosophy of Science (Epistemology)

In basic philosophy of science there exist two contrasting poles: the objective stream and the subjective stream (Birkler, 2013; Löebler, 2009). Löebler argues that in the objective view, researchers find the universal ‘truth’ about objects (the matter that they research). This means

that the reality exists independent of the researcher. In other words, researchers develop and

use theories to explain and describe the objective reality.

As researchers we acknowledge that there may exist an objective reality independent from our

understanding of what reality is. But from the point where we try to understand the world, we

interpret it. In our view, any given data does not just speak for itself. Data is always interpreted

by people who may have their own subjective opinion on the matter that they are trying to

understand, and thus will form the way they process new information and describe the reality as

they see it. This is the subjective stream (Löebler, 2009).

With regards to CSR, environmental worries may be built upon facts and numbers which can be

measured. This could be increasing levels of CO2 in the air or rising temperatures in the

oceans. These may be objective facts, but the worries are created by the people who interpret

39

the data. Explaining the meaning or consequences of this data will require some form of

subjective interpretation. When one or several subjects interpret data it is no longer 100 %

objective and therefore knowledge becomes socially constructed. The point made here is that it

is very hard if not impossible to say that objective information exists, because people are

involved in the creation of meaning.

The subjective stream in philosophy of science focuses on the subject investigating the object,

i.e. the researcher’s subjectivity or the researcher as a subject. In this stream exists for example

constructivism. An important point of Löebler (2009) is, that in the subjective stream,

researchers are unable to get the same picture of an object or any entity (Löebler, 2009). The

subjective stream seems to ignore the aspect of social relations and meaning­forming discourse

(Löebler, 2009). Language is in itself not creating meaning but is rather a neutral vehicle for

transferring observations into another person’s mind (Talja, et. al., 2005). In other words,

meaning in constructivism is solipsistic since minds are separated from each other (Löebler,

2009). On the basis of these arguments we subscribe to Löebler’s view (2009) as he sees

“intersubjectivity” as a separate stream in philosophy of science because it offers a new

dimension. This new dimension is the plurality of subjects continuously trying to objectify a

common understanding of meaning through interaction. Vargo and Lusch (2008), as earlier

mentioned, have proposed a mindset of Service­Dominant logic, which will be explained in the

following with regards to intersubjectivity:

“Our characterization of a generalized S­D logic is that it is a mindset, a lens through which to

look at social and economic exchange phenomena so they can potentially be seen more clearly.

That is, S­D logic functions at the pre­theoretic, paradigm level—though it is also not a paradigm

because it does not have “worldview” status.” (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, p 9)

The main point of S­D logic is that service is the fundamental basis of exchange. Vargo and

Lusch (2008) explain how material goods in their view are seen as merely distribution

mechanisms for service provision. They suggest that the service provider, e.g. a company or a

brand, cannot deliver value, but only offer value proposition. Thereby, the receiver of service,

the customer, is always co­creator of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Vargo and Lusch (2008)

explain that S­D logic is not categorized as a paradigm. But Löebler (2009) applied the points of

the S­D logic and linked them to philosophy of science. In doing so, Löebler (2009) has

40

developed a framework where he links S­D logic to the intersubjective stream of philosophy of

science.

In his framework, Löebler explains the traditional streams of philosophy of science as mentioned

in the above; the objective and the subjective stream. In addition to the objective and subjective

categories, an intersubjective category is introduced, which is not a mixture of the other two, but

an addition to them that goes beyond. The constructionist view lies within the intersubjective category. The constructionist approach sees the social world and its meaning as co­constructed

or co­created. Constructivism (in the subjective stream) and constructionism are alike in so far

as both are concerned with reality as being constructed. The difference between the two is that

for constructivists, the process of world construction is psychological as it takes place in the head. In contrast, for constructionists, reality is an outcome of social relations and discourse taking place between people. In constructionism, language itself is constitutive for the formation

of meanings (Talja et al., 2005). We share this view and the constructionist view is therefore at

the basis of our scientific approach. Constructionism is the epistemology of this thesis.

Ontological Implications Choosing constructionism as our scientific approach has some ontological implications. The

constructionist argues for a social reality. A reality where meaning is formed through discourse.

Meaning is objectivised in language and may be materialized in writing. Therefore,

constructionism takes discursive practices as its research object (Talja et al., 2005). Discourse

takes place in many ways these days. New platforms for interaction are constantly emerging

and the people who interact create new sources of meaning. The latest wave of media and

platforms for interaction is connected with the creation of the internet. The internet has provided

a basis for so much more interaction than there was before. People around the world with

internet can find specific online communities or social media pages where they can interact and

discuss with people who share their interest in a subject. They co­create new meaning as they

agree or disagree on things.

We see reality as being something that people agree (or disagree) on, rather than something

objectively true. Communicators may have an interest in influencing the way others see and

interpret a certain object, say a brand, in a way that corresponds with their objectives. This may

very well be true in the case of corporate communication, as corporations have organization

41

objectives. But this issue will be covered in a later section where we describe our strategy for

data collection. As we explain in the following section we will gather data from online

communities as one of the main elements for our analysis. The meanings created through

interaction in online communities are valuable to us as researchers. But we will also hold it up

against data from other sources.

3.2 Data Collection

This section describes the two interrelated methods for data collection in this thesis. We have

chosen two different methods for primary data collection. The two primary methods for data

collection are included to uphold the data against each other, as their findings represent each

side of Tesla’s brand.

The first method for data collection is a semi­structured qualitative interview with Tesla’s

Regional Marketing Manager for Denmark, Sweden and Finland Rasmus Pedersen (Kvale,

1996; Kvale, 2007). We conducted this research interview in order to thoroughly explore Tesla’s

own presentation of their intended brand meaning and in a Danish context. The findings

represent an internal perception of Tesla’s brand.

Then, we conducted a netnographic data collection (Kozinets, 2002). With the netnographic

method we have gathered data from three different Danish online fora. The findings from these

online foras collectively form the basis of the analyzed external co­created stakeholder

perception of Tesla’s brand.

The ultimate point of including the two different data collection methods is to triangulate the

data, i.e. to compare the co­created brand meanings as seen from Tesla’s external

stakeholders’ perspective with Tesla’s internal brand perception. This way we have been able to

interpret how the externally co­created brand meanings differ from Tesla’s own brand

perception, determined from the qualitative interview.

Finally, we have gathered secondary data from Tesla’s own website and other articles which are

applied throughout the analysis to cross­check statements made by respondents in the

netnographic data collection method or by Rasmus Pedersen in the qualitative interview. We will

42

also collect data from Tesla’s website to obtain knowledge about its mission, values, strategic

intentions, objectives and so on.

In the following we will explain how we have collected and interpreted data from the qualitative

interview and from the netnography. In sub­chapter 3.2.1, we will introduce our interview guide,

explain how we conducted the interview, and which ethical concerns were considered (Kvale,

1996; Kvale, 2007). In sub­chapter 3.2.2 we will outline which steps were made in order to seek

out and choose the right online communities, and how the data was gathered (Kozinets, 2002).

Furthermore we will explain the ethics concerns we have had throughout the data collection and

interpretation. Finally, we present an overview of our gathered data.

3.2.1 Semi­structured Qualitative Interview

We have conducted a semi­structured qualitative interview with Rasmus Brandt Pedersen who

is Marketing Manager of Tesla Motors in Denmark, Sweden and Finland (Appendix B; Appendix

C). The point of doing the interview was to form a second point of departure for the analysis to

uphold against the findings from the netnographic data collection. The data from this interview

can be perceived as meanings and knowledge representing the internal perspective of Tesla’s

brand. The data produced from this interview provides insights on Tesla’s own brand perception

and brand management.

“The qualitative interview cannot be objectively characterized as either an objective or a

subjective method.” (Kvale, 1996). We argue that by conducting an interview with a Tesla

representative we extract valuable meaning about the Tesla brand which is objectified in the

discourse. We produce dialogical intersubjective knowledge which in our opinion is a validation of the data on its own since the interviewee is a specialist in the topic of discussion (Kvale,

1996). In this interview, knowledge is produced and objectivized through interaction between the

interviewer and the interviewee which ties in well with our underlying scientific approach;

constructionism (Löebler, 2005).

“The research interview is an interview where knowledge is constructed in the interaction

between two people.… The knowledge produced in a research interview is constituted by the

43

interaction itself, in the specific situation created between an interviewer and an interviewee.”

(Kvale, 2007, p. 13­14)

We have focused on letting the interviewee describe the Tesla brand as he perceives it. We did

not want to influence his opinion, but we inevitably set the topic of discussion with the questions

asked. We pointed the interviewee to a specific theme but we did not point him to a given

opinion (Kvale, 2007). There was plenty of room for the interviewee to talk about things that he

found interesting within the themes. The structure of our interview allowed the discussion to go

in different directions as we will describe in a later section. We argue that the knowledge

obtained from the interview is a mix of factual and subjective knowledge. Even though the

interviewee holds specific knowledge on the topic, he is still a person who makes his statements

subjective in some way. We consider the knowledge derived from the interview as valuable and

truthful, but any concrete claims made by the interviewee have been cross­checked with other

sources of data if possible.

Interview guide

Our interview guide was formed with regards to Kvale (2007) regarding semi­structured

interviews. The loose structure allowed us to have a discussion with the interviewee. A

discussion that went in different directions but still within the thematic frames we built the

interview guide upon. We chose to include a well­balanced amount of theoretical and practical

weight in our questions. The interview guide was built to target Rasmus Brandt Pedersen

specifically, with the assumption that he would understand the theoretically affected language

as his practical function as Marketing Manager indicated so. We built the interview guide up by

seven core themes that were extracted from our field of chosen literature. Each theme had

some questions that sought to cover the most vital elements of the literature (Appendix B).

The loose structure of our interview allowed us to ask spontaneous follow­up questions within a

specific theme if we wanted to discover further aspects of the theme, or if we thought that the

answers given were too ambiguous, which made the interview rather dynamic in its form. The

open interview form helped us broaden our scope and cover unexpected areas that were

brought up by the interviewee. Before conducting the interview, we knew that we would only

have around one hour total, so time was a constraint that played an important role in the way we

formed the question guide. Having seven themes that we wanted to touch upon, we decided to

44

only include a few questions in the majority of the themes. To begin with we had included more

questions in each theme, but as we took the limited time into account and to avoid repetition, we

decided to remove the questions we felt were not vital for our interview.

Conducting the interview

Kvale (2007) distinguishes between different dimensions of conversation in an interview. Even

though the interview is professional in its being, there should be a good balance between

questions about professional topics and questions that build a relationship between the

interviewer and the interviewee. Setting the stage and ensuring a positive social relation in the

interview is a vital part in making the interviewee ready to answer the questions. Kvale (2007)

argues that the quality of the answers is directly linked to the social relation. We were not really

able to set a stage for interview as it was conducted at Tesla Motors in Bredgade, Copenhagen,

but on the day of the interview we arrived a bit early to show respect for the interviewee’s busy

work schedule. As soon as Rasmus introduced himself we started talking about the project and

we had a cup of coffee and a good talk before we begun the interview.

This eased the situation and made everyone feel comfortable and relaxed before the interview

started. In the beginning of the interview we introduced ourselves, the project and briefed him

about the process of the interview. During the interview, we were not only focused on asking the

right questions. We each had separate, dynamic roles as one was in charge of asking the

questions and the other was focused on our reactions to the answers Rasmus provided.

Sometimes we probed for further information and in other situations we summed up what had

been said to verify our understanding of the answers he provided. We also made sure to allow

short pauses in the interview where Rasmus could continue to explain his views on a certain

subject if he had more to say. But again, we knew that our time with Rasmus was limited, so we

had to ensure that there was a certain progress in the interview.

We made our questions easy to understand by keeping them short. We were also focused on

making the questions simple, but as we took the interviewee’s position into account we decided

that we would not worry about his interpretation of our questions. We did encounter a situation

where he did not completely understand the meaning of a term. We asked him the question

regarding CSV in the theme “CSR integrated in branding” (Appendix B). He replied in a way that

made us realize that he may not have understood the term CSV. As a response to that, we

45

explained the basic theoretical assumptions behind the term, and then we asked him a similar

question, which he then replied to thoroughly. We ended up with a 45 minutes long interview

that was transcribed into 10 pages.

Ethical Concerns

Following Kvale (2007) we see ethical issues that do not only involve the live situation of the

interview. They go beyond and encompass further stages of the project too. Kvale (2007) even

mentions macro­ethics which regards the interview­produced knowledge in a larger context

outside the project. To start with, we will touch upon some ethical concerns we had in the

situation where we actually conducted the interview. Right before the interview started we asked

Rasmus if he would like to make a confidentiality contract. He did not regard this to be relevant

and he explicitly gave us consent to quote him in the thesis. We do not think that any

statements from the interviewee could have negative consequences for him since the

knowledge he provided us with in the interview was not confidential as he mentioned before the

interview started.

We agree with Kvale (2007) in the sense that there are no standard rules to be followed in

ethics. It is up to us as researchers to evaluate every situation that occur and behave in an

ethical way. Both before and during the interview we made on­the­spot decisions about not

asking too critical questions. This is first due to the fact that we wished for the social

atmosphere during the interview to be good (Kvale, 2007). But it also has something to do with

us not wanting to put the interviewee in a sensitive situation. For example we had a discussion

while creating the interview guide about whether or not we should ask about the critique of the

batteries in Tesla’s products we had come across on different online fora.

We decided that there was no reason to put our interviewee on the spot by specifically asking

into the matter. Instead, we decided to ask more ambiguously about it. The question we ended

up with was: “Is there any part of the value­ / supply chain which is not as sustainable as Tesla would like it to be?” (translated from Danish; Appendix B). We hoped that he would mention the

batteries himself after he was asked this question, but we can already reveal now that it was not

the case. We decided not to add a specific follow­up question about the matter during the

interview according to Kvale’s (2007) arguments about implications of sensitive follow­up

questions. So, ethical decisions in our interview are based on respect for our interviewee and for

46

the project as a whole with regards to making future researchers able to use our findings in

other contexts if they find it relevant.

3.2.2 Netnographic Data Collection

In the above sections we presented the first part of our data collection; a qualitative interview

that provides us with insights on how Rasmus Brandt Pedersen perceives the Tesla Motors

brand. The data can be described as covering an internal perspective on the Tesla brand.

Additionally, we apply netnography as one of the main methods for empirical data collection.

The data will provide key insights to how users of online communities interpret Tesla Motors’

brand. Netnography is a qualitative research methodology that adapts ethnographic research

techniques to study cultures and communities in the digital world:

“As a marketing research technique, netnography uses the information that is publicly available

in online forums to identify and understand the needs and decision influences of relevant online

consumer groups.” (Kozinets, 2002, p 62)

Kozinets (2002) proposed this method in 2002 as a way to reach interest groups of a certain

topic in the digital sphere. He argues that consumers go online to share ideas, build

communities and discuss specific topics with other consumers. In doing so they may influence

each other and create new meanings through their discussions. By carefully collecting and

evaluating such discussions we may discover innovative ideas, brand knowledge and fruitful

consumer insights all made available by the users of online communities.

“Deriving from naturally occurring, communal, cross­consumer interaction that is not found in

focus groups or personal interviews, netnography reveals interesting consumer insights,

impressions, linguistic conventions, motivations, consumption web linkages, and symbols. It

provides feedback on brands and products that has not been elicited in any way by marketers,

eliminating the researcher­induced demand effects of these methods and of traditional

ethnographic inquiry and interview. The method achieves all this in a manner that is far more

unobtrusive, convenient, and accessible than traditional ethnography. It is also far more

economical.” (Kozinets, 2002, p. 70)

47

Netnography is a very flexible method. It is less time consuming than ethnography and it can be

made in an unobtrusive manner. Context is not fabricated by the researcher, it occurs naturally

in online communities created and kept alive by its users. Therefore data is almost always

relevant by being on­topic and the communities are often rich in data due the common interest

of the users who participate in discussions. The method is described as open­ended, but

Kozinets (2002) proposes to follow some common ethnographic procedures and suggests that

researchers make a general description of the steps and procedures they choose to follow. In

the following sections we will describe how we choose to work with the netnographic method.

These are the steps involved:

1. choosing the right communities

2. gathering data

3. ethical research

As our analysis will be based on several sources of data and not just the data we collect from

netnography, we have included a section that describes our combined strategy for analysis.

This section will in part be based on the recommendations of Kozinets (2002) for example with

regards to ensuring a trustworthy interpretation. The data analysis section is placed after the

presentation of all other data collection methods.

Choosing the Right Communities

Following Kozinets’ (2002) approach, communities should have a high traffic of postings and a

large number of posters (i.e. active users). The data itself should be detailed and rich and there

should be a large number of member­to­member interactions with relevance to the research

question (Kozinets, 2002). We will therefore identify online communities to be relevant if the

users discuss aspects that are relevant to the research question. The research question of this

thesis is arguably wide in its definition as it covers the subjects of CSR and branding. But the

scope of our thesis is narrowed by the introduction of Tesla Motors’ brand case. Therefore we

decide that online communities of relevance are identified in correspondence to both the

research question and the case of Tesla Motors. Kozinets (2002) further suggests 5 different

forms of online communities to be distinguished between but the internet has evolved a lot since

the text was written in 2002 so it is quite difficult to label online communities according to his 5

48

forms. We will therefore not divide the online communities into categories but instead we will

describe each one and their users in the following sections.

In some online communities such as Facebook the users’ profiles are based on their real life

identities. In other communities such as Reddit the users’ profiles are relatively anonymous, and

it can therefore be difficult to describe the users’ real identities. Facebook and Reddit are very

different in the way they are built. Both sites were created years after 2002, where Kozinets

(2002) wrote his text on netnography. When choosing online communities we have not favored

positive brand­interaction over negative brand­interaction. We have identified communities that

hold different aspects of brand related interaction with the purpose of including not just

enthusiastic views. The aim has been for us to discover a realistic, balanced and complete

picture of the brand meaning­creation in online communities. We have searched for

communities that hold enthusiastic as well as relatively critical discourse regarding Tesla’s

brand. As a result we have chosen to include data from the following sites:

Facebook, Tesla Owners Club Denmark (TOCD): “Brand Enthusiasts”

Bilgalleri.dk: “Car Enthusiasts”

Reddit (r/Denmark): “General Danish Public”

On these sites it is possible to search for specific topics with regards to our chosen literature

and we have been able to find some relevant hits because of the sites’ large number of users

and the high levels of activity. The chosen online communities all have in common that the

users are from Denmark. All empirical findings are geographically limited to come from Danish

people. The conversations produced by the members are generally rich in content because of

the members’ willingness to communicate openly about their opinions and thoughts on various

subjects. The users are enthusiastic and they co­create new meaning as they share new ideas

and thoughts that they may agree or disagree on. The process of meaning creation is exciting

as it may happen in several ways. Some users may be more devoted to the brand than others,

and some may have some specific knowledge on a topic. We have found many insights,

thoughts and ideas that have been cross­validated and contested by the many peers who

participate in the meaning creation in these online communities. The more useful or exiting the

49

topic is for the users of the community, the more they participate in the conversations and

thereby in the meaning creation.

Gathering Data

As data are often plentiful and easy to obtain there lies an important task for us in choosing the

right data with rich content and high relevance to the topic. We have therefore not wasted

energy on categorizing off­topic material. The data we collected has been used to explore and

analyze brand meanings surrounding Tesla Motors with specific regard to conversations and

threads about CSR and branding created by us. As mentioned before, fora have been chosen

first and foremost with regards to the Tesla Motors case. We have carefully read through

threads from the chosen communities. Kozinets (2002) states that interesting and useful

conclusions might be drawn from a relatively small number of messages, if these messages

contain sufficient descriptive richness and are interpreted with considerable analytic depth and

insight.

User profiles on Facebook assimilate users’ real life identities and much information is to be

found there about the users. Reddit and Bilgalleri on the other hand are much more private

online community and users are typically more anonymous as their profiles are not related to

their real identities. Whether or not the identity of users is visible depends on “rules” of each

social medium. Online communities are freed of the usual social restraints during in­person

interaction. In the digital world, people are likely to communicate what they want with little risk of

being confronted in real life. Kozinets calls the online world an “explosive environment”

(Kozinets, 2002). As we will explain in a later section when we describe our data collection from

Reddit where we created our own thread, we have experienced this so­called “explosive

environment” in the online world. The point is that we have made sure to come by these

difficulties by distinguishing extreme statements from moderate statements. It seems as if

sometimes people just want to cause a commotion without any reason on the internet. As

mentioned earlier, we have chosen to diversify the data to include discourse from several

diverse online fora/communities. This initiative further reduces the risk of getting stuck in data

where users all share the same opinion. It is thereby ensured that this thesis is based on

diverse opinions and meanings.

50

The posters in the chosen threads can generally be characterized as devoted, enthusiastic and

knowledgeable. We argue that the chosen threads hold valuable knowledge that is relevant to

our research question. Some users are knowledgeable on the topic of cars, some on electric

vehicles, some are specifically attached to the Tesla brand and others on environmental politics.

At the time where these actors communicate and share their thoughts they objectify them.

When other users in the communities reply to them, they form a meaning creating discussion.

We have looked through the chosen communities with the overall purpose of finding such

meaning creating discussions that hold the opinions of many users. They may agree or

disagree, depending on the situation but the point is that they all have a part in objectifying a

co­created meaning. In the following we will make a short description of each of the chosen

online communities and their users along with our specific approach for collecting data within

them.

The questions for the three different online fora were all created on the basis of the literature

review and the theoretical synthesis regarding CSR and branding. We have produced

theoretically driven questions, but adapted them to an audience who are not familiar with brand

or CSR literature. This way the answers to the different questions can be categorized under

each theme in our analysis.

Reddit: r/Denmark

The first online community chosen for data collection is “r/Denmark” which is a subcategory for

Danish people in the online community Reddit. It is open for everyone to join, but the far

majority of the posts written there are in Danish. Every poster of content must follow the specific

rules of the subreddit (Reddit, n.d.) but aside from that there are no limitations regarding the

topic of discussions. Because of this, most of the content found in the subreddit is off­topic in

regards to this thesis. But we thought that this subreddit could be a very valuable source of

information from Danish Reddit users as they can be classified as being more “general” and

neutral towards Tesla and cars than the users of TOCD and Bilgalleri.

We decided to create our own on­topic thread with questions for the Danish users of Reddit

about Tesla Motors. The thread is publicly available on Reddit to read at any time (Appendix D,

1). The purpose of creating the thread was to create a place for discussions to take place that

are relevant to our thesis. We knew that only Danish people would reply since we posted it in

51

r/Denmark and wrote the text in Danish. We decided to create the post on a sunday afternoon

because we thought that people would be most active at that time. Shortly after we created the

original post, we started receiving meaningful answers to our questions. We were positively

surprised by the amount of detailed and long answers we received from the users of r/Denmark.

Though one user made a rather explosive (Kozinets, 2002) comment about how we by

encouraging people to include critical views in their answers were making the data unusable. He

suggested that we should rephrase some of the text in the original post which we did because

we wanted to keep a proper tone and stay positive in the project. We have included the original

text in Appendix A with the title: “Hvad synes r/Denmark om Tesla Motors?” (Appendix D, 1).

Due to the fact that we were criticized for framing the question too much in the thread by

requesting critical answers and views, we created a follow up thread on r/Denmark called “Hvad

synes r/Denmark om Tesla Motors part 2” (Appendix D, 2). In this thread we explained that we

were thankful for the answers given in the previous thread but we wanted to follow up with more

questions about the Tesla brand, also to see if the answers would be different given that we

didn’t frame the questions in the sammer manner this time. We were also given many answers

in the second thread and they did not deviate much from the answers in the first thread. We

intend to use both threads as data for our analysis.

In a way we can also been seen as co­creators of meaning as in this case we created the arena

for discussion of a specific subject, and as we kept feeding the users with follow­up questions

as they replied. Even though we have put big effort into not influencing our respondents’ opinion

we cannot say that we have not been part of the construction of meaning. It is important to

mention here that we followed Kozinets’ (2002) suggestions about ensuring a certain ethical

standard for data collection. All aspects regarding ethical data collection are thoroughly

described in the section called “Research Ethics”.

Tesla Owners Club Denmark (TOCD)

In this online community which is located on Facebook the threads all have some relevance to

Tesla Motors. As the group’s name indicates many of the members are Tesla­owners

themselves although you do not have to own a Tesla to achieve membership in the group. We

categorize the users of the community as brand enthusiasts. TOCD gives us access to unique

first­hand user experience threads. They are highly knowledgeable about Tesla’s products and

52

have strong opinions about politics, sustainability, and other car manufacturers. They are more

than willing to express these opinions too. It is important to note that the users of TOCD may be

much alike in the sense that they are all enthusiastic about the Tesla brand. If the majority of the

users agree on a subject, there is a risk that their discussions could miss some critical

reflections. Users attached to the Tesla Motors brand are enthusiastic about the brand as a

whole. Their thoughts are meaningful and important but to avoid getting a one­sided view on the

matter, we have included data from other fora too. For this forum we created a discussion

thread with the same questions as in our follow up thread on r/Denmark. (Appendix D, 3)

Bilgalleri.dk

We have also identified threads on “Bilgalleri.dk” regarding Tesla Motors or electric vehicles.

The users of this forum are what we define as car enthusiasts, and thereby not specifically EV

enthusiasts. The users are knowledgeable and devoted to cars in general, and they are happy

to share their thoughts and discuss with other users. Most of them are not particularly attached

to the Tesla Motors brand, though some may be. The amount of relevant threads identified on

this page is limited. For this forum we therefore created a discussion thread with the same

questions as in our follow up thread on r/Denmark. (Appendix D, 4)

Research Ethics

To ensure that the data collection approach is conducted ethically we have followed the

principles of Kozinets (2002) but with our own interpretation. Kozinets (2002) suggests to follow

the same principles as in ethnography but we argue that there is a big difference between the

netnography and ethnography. The ethical concerns about netnography should be seen in the

light of the online reality we face today, and not in the offline reality of another, similar method.

Our point is that there is no universal recipe for conducting netnographic research. We have

made our own research ethics guidelines which are presented in the following.

Disclose presence and intentions

Ensure confidentiality and anonymity

Seek to incorporate member feedback

Be cautious on the private­versus­public medium issue (online specific)

53

First of all, we see netnography as having two different approaches attached with their own

attributes: The “objective method” and the “involved method”. The difference lies in the level of

involvement of the researcher. As we have mentioned before, we have read through many

threads on each of the chosen online communities to locate relevant data. These threads are

made by internet users regardless of our intention. However, we have chosen not to include

these existing threads, due to the fact that the threads we created ourselves contained a

substantial amount of comments.

The involved method covers the data we have collected by starting threads with the objective of

gaining insight on a specific subject. We are involved in these threads as we have argued

earlier because we set the arena for the discussion. Therefore we have made sure to inform the

users of the online communities about our presence. We have disclosed our intentions behind

the data collection and ensured that the users have a clear understanding of the purpose of the

threads. Any feedback that we have received by users have been taken into account and

replied to. An example of this lies in the already mentioned modification made in our Reddit

thread where we incorporated the feedback of a user into the continued data collection.

Data Overview By quantifying the data it has become evident which themes appear most frequently in the

discussion threads. We can then interpret this data in accordance with the literature from the

theoretical synthesis. Later, we compare it to the interpreted data from the interview with

Rasmus Pedersen. Finally, we find similarities and differences in the brand related discourse

and brand perceptions. In the table below it can be seen how many respondents answered our

questions across the different fora, how many comments were made, how many words were

typed and how many words per comment there were averagely. The sum of data approximately

corresponds to 35 pages.

Respondents Comments Words Words pr. comment

r/Denmark 27 73 8.900 122

TOCD 11 22 1.683 77

Bilgalleri 4 4 544 136

54

Total 42 99 11.127 112

In the table it can be seen that r/Denmark was the community with the most respondents,

comments, and words. This is in part due to the fact that we initiated two separate threads,

whereas we only initiated a single thread for each of the other two fora. We experienced that the

users across the three fora provided us with very elaborate answers to our questions. We

illustrate this fact by including words per comment for each of the fora. With a 136 words per

comment in average, it seems that the users on Bilgalleri provided us with the most elaborate

answers. However, our experience was that the users on r/Denmark wrote the longest

comments, but there were many comments which were short follow up questions in discussions

between the users which made the average be 122 words per comment. On the basis of a total

of 42 respondents, 99 comments, 11.127 words and an average of 112 words per comment

across the three fora, we argue that we have collected plentiful data to be able to conduct a

thoroughly analysis without including existing threads that were initiated by other users

independent from this thesis.

3.3 Data Coding

We base our data coding approach on the figure below by DeCuir­Gunby et al. (2011). They

developed a tool called a codebook for the analysis of interview data. We will use this approach

to code both the data we collected from our interview with Tesla’s Regional Marketing Manager

and from the various online communities. DeCuir­Gunby et al. (2011) explain how a codebook

consists of both data­driven and theory­driven themes. Discovering the themes and coding the

data requires a lot of time and the authors argue that if the creation of the codebook is a team

effort, researchers will get more divergent viewpoints than if done single­handed (DeCuir­Gunby

et al., 2011). Since we are two researchers writing this thesis, we first coded separately and then compared and negotiated the codes. In this way, we were less ‘narrow minded’ when

analyzing the data, since we have different background knowledge. This allowed us to see

alternative possibilities of interpreting the data. A main point of the codebook approach is that: “Creating codes and subsequently coding interview data is about meshing all of the theoretical

underpinnings of a study with the data that has been generated by the study.” (DeCuir­Gunby et al., 2011, p. 152).

55

DeCuir­Gunby et al., 2011, p. 142

As mentioned before, we have given much thought to the analysis of the interviews and the

netnographic data from before we started collecting the data. The questions in the interview

guide for the qualitative interview and the questions for the online communities following the

netnographic method were both designed to hold themes that can be directly linked to our

chosen theory. According to Kvale (2007) this enhances the quality of the analysis while also

making it easier for us to do.

There are many different ways to code and analyze data. Kvale (2007) mentions meaning

condensation, meaning categorization and meaning interpretation. He mentions that analyses

that focus on language may include linguistic analysis, conversation analysis or meaning

interpretation. But he also mentions a few less systematic approaches to analysis which we find

interesting. One is the “analysis as bricolage” and the other is “analysis as theoretical reflection”

(Kvale, 2007). We find the theoretically based approach to be very interesting as it draws from

theoretical concepts that can be used to analyze the content of the data. Kvale (2007) states

that we are not bound to apply any elaborate analytic technique during the theoretically reflected

reading of data to develop meaning. We regard our theoretical knowledge as being the basis of

56

our point of departure for the analysis. But having said that, we base our analysis on more than

one approach, which is presented in the following sections.

Quantification: Content Analysis

Kvale (2007) presents several ways for coding and analyzing data. As we determined in the

section above, it is allowed to pick and choose from different approaches. Our “bricolaged”

approach starts with understanding the data and deriving themes from it, and then identify

frequencies of those themes (Kvale, 2007; Kozinets, 2002). This involves writing down

keywords from text segments to permit for the further creation of themes that constitute a certain

amount of similar keywords. This approach allows for a systematic quantitative

conceptualization of statements. We count how often specific chained keywords are mentioned

in each data sources that together encompass a whole theme. This way, the meaning of long

textual statements from any source of data are reduced to a limited amount of themes in an

Excel sheet. Excel sheets provide a good overview of large amounts of data and a good leap

point for further analysis. The frequency of themes from one data source can then be compared

to and measured with the frequency of themes in other data sources (Kvale, 2007; Kozinets,

2002).

In the data from online communities the coding involves the determination of whether a

statement is negative or positive with regards to its theme. We argue that this is not relevant in

the coding of the data from our interview with Rasmus Pedersen, considering his relation to the

company being an employee. We identify an important implication of this approach as the

categorization involves either/or decisions in determining whether a mention of a theme is

regarded as positive or negative. As Kozinets mentions, quantitating qualitative data inevitably

involves trading off meaning­richness for construct clarity (Kozinets, 2002). This is an issue that

we are aware of and have taken into account in the subsequent steps of the data analysis

where we take a different approach. A quantitative analysis is a good first step of the complete

analysis, as we see it.

Qualitative Analysis

Identifying the different codes and quantifying those codes into larger themes is the first part of

the analysis process. The next step is related to discourse interpretation as we seek to interpret

the meaning from our data sources too. Here we try to identify the meaning that stands behind

57

the identified themes. We reflect upon the theoretical synthesis as we interpret the meaning of

data in the qualitative analysis. In qualitative research the term “trustworthiness” is used rather

than “validity” which relates more to quantitative research. Kozinets (2002) describes the

interpretive process of data as playful, intuitive, subjective, particularistic, transformative,

imaginative and representative (Kozinets, 2002).

3.3.1 Coding the Interview

We have extracted 64 arguments from the interview in total. Each argument was translated into

English, since the interview was conducted in Danish. All arguments were boiled down to a

significant code. The code can be said to describe or sum up the argument in one or two

coherent words. It is a buzzword that in a way represents most possible sense of the argument

in a single word or rarely two coherent words. As we coded the interview, we found out that the

amount of different codes that emerged was unintendedly high. Some were data­driven and

some were theory­driven (DeCuir­Gunby et al., 2011). In order to make the data quantifiable we

had to transform the codes into more general themes. So we re­read and reviewed our codes to

transform them into overarching themes.

3.3.2 Coding the Online Stakeholder Comments

In order to find out how external stakeholders perceived Tesla’s brand, we initiated discussions

about Tesla, their brand, and the industry on the three different online fora. We were able to

derive codes from the discourse within these discussion threads, and we classified the various

codes in a codebook (Appendix E) for each of the online fora, so that the codes are separated

according to the forum which they were derived from. In each codebook we identified who

posted something on the forum, what they stated, and under what topic that statement could be

categorized. One user might have posted a long comment answering all of our questions from

which we were able to derive several different codes.

When a user made an argument, we included it in its raw Danish form in the codebook. Then

we took the quote and boiled it down to a short argument in English which we believe

represented the Danish quote in the best way. Also, every argument or point that the user made

was regarding a specific topic, which could be the car itself, the vision of the company, or the

political regulations in Denmark. These topics of discussions were classified into one word

58

themes, so that we were able to quantify the totality of the topics discussed. Furthermore, we

labeled each user with a stakeholder position in regards to their argument. This means that if a

user made an argument saying that ‘EVs are something that our society needs’, his or her

stakeholder position would be ‘environmental’. In addition to the aforementioned classifications

each argument was also classified as being positive, neutral or negative towards Tesla.

All of the different classifications will in the following sections be quantified in order to illustrate

which topics were the most mentioned, which percentage of stakeholders argued for or against

Tesla, and which stakeholder positions were the most frequent. It is important to note that one

user might have made several arguments in one post. This means that those arguments each

receive a classification. Thus, one user might account for several arguments in the totality of

quantifications. Also, the user might be classified into different stakeholder positions with shifting

attitudes towards Tesla depending on the argument being made. If a user made the same

argument twice in order to clarify his argument to another user, this argument was not counted

twice.

3.4 Implications and Limitations of the Chosen Methods

The methods that we have used in this thesis do have some limitations. With netnography being

a method that only deals with digital interaction, it means that all data collected with this method

is produced by the users of online communities. The online community users are not completely

representative to the world’s population. Also, the sample size is not representative to all the

different brand interest groups of Tesla Motors’ brand. But the data does give a good indication

of how and which brand meanings are created. So, the limitations of netnography include the

method’s rather narrow focus on online communities (Kozinets, 2002).

An implication could be that it is the first time that we collect and analyze data with the

netnographic method. There is arguably a learning curve involved when using new methods

which may affect our ability to benefit from the full potential of this method at this point. This

could also lead to difficulty in generalizing results (Kozinets, 2002). Generalizing the findings of

netnographic research of a particular online group demands inclusion of multiple methods for

triangulation (Kozinets, 2002). For this reason, we have evaluated the findings from the

netnography by doing a qualitative interview with Tesla Motors’ Regional Marketing Manager of

59

Scandinavia Rasmus Pedersen. The interview does not necessarily give a perfect answer to

what Tesla’s brand means to the organization.

As Rasmus was not familiar with all of the branding and CSR theories which we presented to

him, his answers were not necessarily reflecting the deeper meaning behind those theories. In

other words, he is marketing manager, not a brand manager or CSR manager. Therefore he

may not be fully aware of Tesla’s relationship to branding and CSR, and his answers are

therefore based on his immediate knowledge of the subjects we presented him to.

Finally it should be stated that from an analytical perspective, the validity of findings are

naturally not bound to the applicability in other contexts. This is an important implication to be

mentioned. In a qualitative analysis, the findings are closely related to the ability of the

researchers to conduct a trustworthy and theoretically based analysis. We would not argue that

our findings in this thesis can be perceived as being objectively true. Our findings should rather

be seen as ‘constructions of knowledge’ made on the basis of our understanding and

interpretation of theoretical and empirical data.

4. Analytical Framework

Having reviewed the different perspectives and concepts on both branding and CSR theory, and

research papers conducting studies on the use of CSR in branding, we now have the basis for

an analytical framework which can address our case study of Tesla Motors.

In order to compare the brand perception of Tesla’s brand seen from Tesla’s point of view and

the Danish consumers’ point of view, we will start by analyzing the interview which we

conducted with Tesla’s Regional Marketing Manager Rasmus Pedersen. We will apply a

deductive approach by having created theoretical themes to structure the interview. However,

some of the themes were derived from the data and are therefore data driven, indicating a

deductive­inductive approach. After coding this interview we have developed several themes

from the conversation regarding Tesla’s own brand perception. By quantifying these themes we

have found which ones are more pronounced than others, and thus which themes are more

prevalent than others. For the netnography we will use an inductive approach. We have

analyzed the data from our netnographic research by coding it, deriving themes from it and then

60

quantifying the themes in terms of which ones have been mentioned the most. We will then

match those themes with the concepts we gathered from our literature review.

Finally we will compare how Tesla define their brand meaning from the interview with Rasmus

Pedersen with the brand meaning we have extracted from online fora. We will evaluate if the

specific market context creates certain circumstances that might be a factor in the perceptions,

and then identify potential gaps in the perceptions regarding the Tesla brand, and thus

demonstrate how brand literature can help identify different variations of meaning.

This analytical approach is in part inspired by the approach done by Vallaster, Lindgren and

Maon, who conducted the study shown in chapter 2.3.3 about CSR as corporate branding

(Vallaster et al., 2012). We have taken their model of analysis and made a version which

complies with our problem and research. Thus this model here illustrates the analytical

framework which we have developed:

This model is our own development inspired by Figure 1 by Vallaster et al. (2012)

We recognize that the questions we asked and the way we framed those questions have had an

impact on the types of answers we received. This is true for both the interview and for the online

fora. However, we argue that we asked Rasmus Pedersen enough questions which gave him

the opportunity to present his opinion many times, as the questions related to each other and

that they were broad in their definition. The same is true for the online fora. The questions were

open and we encouraged a discussion. Thus, people online answered the questions they

61

thought were relevant. Their frame of references are different than ours, and when we asked

about how people perceived Tesla’s brand, one person did not see the relevance in that. He

would rather discuss Tesla’s values and visions. This indicates to us, that he thought we meant

‘logo’, when we asked about the brand. Misinterpretations like this may have happened, but we

were aware of this possibility and thus tried to avoid it.

We also acknowledge that the quantification of arguments could have been done differently. In

our coding process, each argument made by a user were seen as equally valid. This means that

we did not factor in the amount of likes that one comment received. There may have been users

on the different online fora who did not comment but liked a comment instead, if that user felt

like that comment represented his or her opinion. If we would have factored in the likes of each

comment the salience of the different themes might have been prioritized differently. However,

since this thesis is focused on extracting meaning from the comments, we argue that our

findings are substantial for answering our research question.

5. Results and Analysis

In the following we will present our findings from our analyses. First we present specific Danish

market conditions, to establish a fundament for the rest of the analysis. We then present the

quantitative and the qualitative findings from our interview research with Rasmus Pedersen.

After this, we present the findings from our netnographic research. First the quantitative

findings, and then the qualitative findings. Finally we sum up and compare the findings from the

two separate analyses.

5.1 The Danish market

Since 2011 we have seen a significant increase in the number of EVs sold in Denmark

(danskelbilalliance.dk, n.d.(a)). The combination of generally improving product specifications

on EVs and a tax exemption on EVs and hybrid cars in Denmark (Skat.dk, n.d.) made it more

attractive for Danish consumers to choose EVs over normal diesel and gasoline cars. In

comparison, until 2015, there was 180 % registration tax on factory­new gasoline and diesel

vehicles in Denmark. The sales of EVs especially boomed in 2015 in Denmark where we went

62

from having around 3,300 electric vehicles on the road in January 2015 to almost 8,000 in

December 2015 (danskelbilalliance.dk, n.d.(a)).

Figure from danskelbilalliance.dk (n.d.(a))

In 2015 the amount of EVs in Denmark increased exponentially. What may have caused the

acceleration of EV sales was that in October 2015 the Danish government decided to gradually

introduce taxes on EVs from the beginning of 2016, starting with a registration tax of 20 %

(skm.dk, 2015). The formerly complete tax exemption on fabric­new EVs and hydrogen cars

(Skat.dk, n.d.) is currently being phased out, and the gradual tax introduction will affect the price

of all fabric­new electric vehicles in Denmark onwards, including the price of Tesla’s cars. As a

consequence, in 2016 the sales numbers of EVs in Denmark have plummeted (skm.dk, 2015).

In the first 3 months of 2016 a total of 120 new EVs were registered in Denmark

(danskelbilalliance.dk, n.d.(b)).

From a Danish market perspective, Tesla seems to have had a busy 2015 with extraordinary

high sales followed by a very slow 2016 with very little sales. Tesla sold 2,738 cars in 2015 and

only 41 so far in 2016. There are now 3,748 Tesla cars registered in Denmark (bilimp.dk, n.d.).

We therefore argue that the higher price on Tesla’s cars have seriously affected the sales of

Tesla. The gradual­tax introduction can onwards potentially affect the perception of the car from

63

a simple cost­benefit point of view. But whether it may have an impact on the brand perception

is yet to be uncovered.

5.2 Interview with Tesla Representative

We initiate our data analysis with the interview with Tesla’s Regional Marketing Manager

Rasmus Pedersen. As earlier argued, the results of the interview analysis is an important part of

our total base of findings. The findings will uncover Tesla’s brand from the view of the company

itself. As written in the delimitation the purpose of the interview research has been to gain

knowledge about the Tesla Motors’ brand on the Danish market. Being a representative from

Tesla who works with marketing, Rasmus Pedersen is a trustworthy source of information, who

can explain the brand seen from a Danish corporate perspective. Having said that, some

statements made by Rasmus have been cross­checked on e.g. Tesla’s official website and

other external sources. The questions we asked Rasmus Pedersen were developed in order to

make him explain certain aspects of the brand with regards to our chosen literature from the

fields of branding and CSR. The question guide can be found in Appendix B. The transcription

of the interview is to be found in Appendix C. After the interview was transcripted, a codebook

was made, first with focus on quantifying data, i.e. finding out which theme had more volume

than others. A quick interpretation of this quantified data is to be found in the first main section

of this analysis, and it will provide a good overview of the data before we interpret on content of

the arguments. Second, we will present our qualitative analysis on the basis of the quantitative

findings. The themes that had the most volume will be the most significant sub­sections in the

qualitative analysis. Here we will present and interpret on relevant findings from the interview

with regards to the chosen theory.

5.2.1 Quantification: Content Analysis

The figure below shows the 12 different themes we identified. The themes with the highest

percentage are the ones that contain most of the 64 arguments derived from the data. It is

relevant to state here, that any theme can potentially contain different and even contrasting

arguments. What they have in common is not the argument itself, or its position or attitude. It is

the overarching theme that binds them together. They are related by topic, and not by content

as the section heading may suggest. In a later section, we will shed some more light on the

actual arguments in the themes as we interpret them. This section will only focus on the findings

64

that can be derived with quantification. A final single remark about the themes is, that some

single arguments can fit under several themes. We have put a lot of effort into categorizing each

argument in the theme that it relates mostly to. But we cannot deny that some arguments could

have fitted other themes too.

The figure indicates that some themes received more attention than others in the interview. 27

% of the arguments we derived from the interview were categorized to fit in a theme of CSR.

The fact that 27 % of the Tesla representative’s arguments has something to do with CSR is

interpreted as evidence for relevance of this thesis as a whole, and especially our research

question. However, it is not possible for us to investigate the specific arguments within the CSR

theme without further interpreting the data. A division of the arguments into a few CSR specific

themes would have been preferable with regards to easing the further analysis of the theme.

But a sub­division of the CSR theme was not easy to make at this point because the 17

arguments within the CSR theme were theoretically spread. This complicates our further

analysis as we have to lead the 17 arguments into theoretically relevant themes, but it does

make a significant difference at this point as we will not interpret on the data here.

It should be noted that the four branding­specific themes in the figure relates to branding theory.

It was relevant for us to lead the totality of brand­related arguments into theoretically driven

themes as there were more structure in Rasmus Pedersens flow of arguments in this section of

the interview. Each sub­theme are theoretically based and have a substantial amount of

arguments in them. The 4 brand themes are:

65

15.5 % related to Brand Image (Keller, 1993)

14 % related to Brand Identity (Jean­Noel Kapferer, 2012; Urde, 2013)

12.5 % related to Brands as Relations (Fournier, 1998)

9.5 % related to Product Brand Paradigm (Louro & Cunha, 2001)

If we had decided to put all brand­related arguments into a single theme there would have been

a total of 33 arguments in the brand theme, which is more than 50 % of all the arguments. The

most significant brand theme is the Brand Image theme which accounts for 10 arguments (16

%). Brand Identity holds 9 arguments. Brands as relations counts for 8 arguments and Product

Brand Paradigm holds 6 arguments. It is important to emphasize that we will not conclude

anything qualitatively yet about the content of specific arguments within these themes. What we

can conclude from this part of the quantitative analysis is that there seems to be a good match

between the questions asked and the answers received during the interview.

The remaining 14 arguments were fitted into 6 themes with a few arguments in each. These

themes are ‘Customers’, ‘Elon Musk’, ‘Business Strategy’, ‘Communication’, ‘Culture’ and

‘Mission’. The arguments in these themes can prove to be important in the qualitative interview

and should not be ignored. We will merge the arguments of these remaining 6 themes into the

sub­sections of the above mentioned main themes. In the beginning of each sub­section we will

state which themes the arguments in the text are based on.

As mentioned before some arguments could have been placed under more than one theme. In

our view, this shows that there is a strong coherence between the themes that have been

developed. A big part of the reason for the high amount of CSR and brand­related arguments

likely lies in the fact that we asked specifically about aspects that were theoretically grounded in

these themes. Nevertheless, the weight in the CSR and brand­related themes shows that the

questions asked opened up for a variety of arguments from the interviewee’s perspective. The

arguments that form the base of this analysis are all made by the Tesla representative Rasmus

Pedersen. As for now, we can say that the interviewee had an understanding of the questions

we asked. We can vaguely start to argue that there indeed could to be a link between the

formation of Tesla Motor’s brand and CSR. At this point we are ready to conduct further

qualitative analysis with the coded arguments from our codebook (Appendix E, 1)

66

5.2.2 Qualitative Analysis

In this section we will conduct a qualitative analysis of the coded data from our interview with

Rasmus Pedersen. The analysis will be based on the approach we described in the

Methodology chapter. On the basis of the findings in the quantitative analysis, we will focus on

the themes that hold the most weight of arguments within them, as we identify them to be the

most salient themes. In the coming sections, we will then go through relevant and significant

arguments by Rasmus Pedersen, and we will seek to uphold and interpret the arguments

against relevant literature. Each section identifies possible flows or groups of arguments within

each theme. We start by presenting the brand­related findings, which we have created 5

sections for: ‘Brand Image’, ‘Brand Identity’, ‘Brand Relationship’, ‘Co­creation’, and ‘Product

Brand’. After this, we move on to the CSR related findings which have been divided into the

sections: ‘Outside Perspective’, ‘Organizational Perspective’, ‘Strategic CSR & CSV’, ‘Corporate

Politics’ and ‘Communication’.

Brand Image

We have derived 10 arguments from the codebook which have been categorized in the ‘Brand

Image’ theme. The arguments are alike in some way, as they all relate to an outside perspective

on Tesla’s brand. As mentioned in the Literature Review, Keller (1993) distinguishes between

two main dimensions of ‘Brand Knowledge’; ‘Brand Awareness’, and ‘Brand Image’. Both are

very similar as they relate to the perception of brands from the consumer’s perspective. Brand

Image is the term we will focus on in this section, as it relates to the brand associations held in

the consumer’s memory. These associations, diverse as they may be, jointly form a total sense

of uniqueness of a brand which can be related to a favorability, disability, strength or weakness

in comparison to other brands. We can only derive a sought or wished for brand image of Tesla

Motors from this interview, as Rasmus Pedersen’s arguments do not represent ‘the mind of the

consumers’. He is a Tesla representative, and therefore, any argument found here will be

compared to our results from the findings of the netnographic data analysis, which is presented

after this analysis.

Market differences

67

According to Rasmus Pedersen, Tesla’s brand might be perceived differently across markets

due to market differences. Consumers in one country may have a higher purchasing power than

consumers in other less wealthy countries. Also, market regulations such as tax reductions

make it more attractive for consumers to buy a Tesla, simply because of cost­benefit. Because

of the aforementioned Danish tax exemption, consumers have been able to buy a product that

exceed their expectations for a car. By purchasing a Tesla, they have been able to buy a car

that is more “luxurious”, because a gasoline car in the same class would be 180 % more

expensive due to registration taxes on new cars. So, people who would not normally be able to

afford a “high­end” or “luxury” car have had an opportunity to buy a Tesla because of the tax

exemption (Skat.dk, n.d.).

The essence of the statement from Rasmus lies in the pricing of Tesla’s products seen in

relation to the citizens’ purchasing power in a country. The equation looks different across all

markets because of varying purchasing power and market regulations that affect the price of

electric vehicles. The interesting aspect is then, that the perception of a brand might also

therefore change within a market. If regulations that affect the price of a product change, then

the perception of the brand behind that product might also change. As the tax exemption on the

Danish market is being phased out (stated in the section “The Danish Market”) there may follow

a brand­related reaction, along with the mentioned price increase (skm.dk, 2015). In the future

people may perceive Tesla’s products as being even more “for the few” than it had been before

2015. As presented in the literature review, Campbell (2007) states that a variety of forces

outside the organization affect the probability to act responsibly, including state regulation. What

Campbell (2007) does not seem to touch upon though is whether the perception of a brand from

the consumers’ perspective, here understood as the brand image, is affected by state

regulation, as we have seen in Denmark.

Stakeholder Perception Rasmus Pedersen states that the Danes generally perceive the Tesla brand as ‘exclusive’ and

‘extremely innovative’. This is a corporate one­sided view, so the statement will be compared to

the findings from the online communities. The brand will arguably become more exclusive in a

sense due to the increasing price in Denmark in the years to come. Rasmus Pedersen also

stated that Tesla itself, does not want different stakeholders to perceive them differently. He

also said that it is an objective to make everyone know about Tesla’s mission (Tesla Motors,

68

n.d.). This is interpreted as a wished for brand image. When people visit Tesla’s store in

Bredgade they should experience a form of education regarding Tesla’s products. The

education relates to understanding the difference between an electrical car compared to an

internal combustion engine car. People should feel informed, and any prejudice towards EVs

should be broken down with education. We interpret that the word ‘educative’ could be covering

for the above statements. We will cross­check if Tesla’s (represented by Rasmus Pedersen)

view on its brand image, being ‘exclusive’, ‘extremely innovative’ and ‘educative’ is coherent

with our findings from the online community data. This will be discussed in a later section.

Customer Perception From Tesla’s point of view, they see their brand being affected by what their customers say

about them. As Rasmus puts it: “They are our brand ambassadors”. This is a strong statement, and we interpret it as evidence that Tesla recognizes the opinion of their customers to be highly

significant. The customers live the brand and they create ‘the Tesla movement’ in doing so.

Rasmus thinks that their customers identify themselves with the brand, though in various ways.

Whether it is about strengthening a ‘sustainable’ sense of self. Some people might call

themselves ‘economically sustainable’, which may relate to the lower price due to tax exemption

combined with a low cost of electricity compared to the price of gasoline. It can also be about

supporting being ‘innovative’, as previously mentioned. Then there may be people who relate to

the ‘fastness’ or ‘sporty’ quality of the car. The point is, that there may be several aspects from

the brand, that can strengthen a given identity virtue (Kapferer, 2012; Aaker, 1997). When

asked if there are any sensual impressions they want give the customers, Rasmus replies that

they are very aware of the visual sense (Von Wallpach & Kreuzer, 2013). The brand experience

is based on something visual, more than other senses. This may be due to the fact that Rasmus

interpreted the question as having to do with the in­store experience, rather than a product

experience.

Brand Identity

We have derived 9 arguments that have been categorized to belong under the Brand Identity

theme. Additionally, 5 more arguments have been added to this section from the themes ‘Elon

Musk’ and ‘Culture’ as we regard them as relevant to Tesla’s Brand Identity. These 14

arguments all have in common that they somehow relate to an inside perspective on Tesla’s

brand, i.e. how Tesla perceives its own identity. We argue that Rasmus Pedersen’s arguments

69

are especially trustworthy in this aspect, as an identity is something seen from the inside, as

opposed to the Brand Image which is the outside perception.

Brand identity consists of an organization’s strategy, vision, culture and values, but goes further

too. The brand can be perceived as being alive in some way. As presented in Kapferer’s (2012)

‘Brand Identity Prism’ a brand identity consists of six different dimensions. As the three first

dimensions; ‘personality’, ‘physique’, and ‘culture’ relate to what the brand itself represents, or at

least intends to represent, we will focus on these three. The other three dimensions;

‘self­image’, ‘reflection’ and ‘relationship’ relate to the associations that consumers have

regarding a brand. But since we have already analysed the brand image of Tesla in the above,

these last three will be left out. In the following we will analyse Tesla’s brand identity with the

three dimensions ‘personality’, ‘physique’, and ‘culture’ on the basis of the coded data from our

interview with Rasmus Pedersen.

Personality The personality of a brand relates to the values and virtues that can be said to describe it. As

with a person’s personality, it refers to what makes a brand unique and possibly attractive to

consumers. According to Rasmus Pedersen, Tesla’s brand is and should always be ‘easily

accessible’ and ‘welcoming’. These two aspects are interrelated. In the car industry, the term

‘premium’ is often used in terms of branding and positioning. Some car brands emphasise being

‘premium’. Employees would probably wear suits and ties to work and they would maybe only

welcome ‘premium customers’ in their stores. At Tesla Motors, there are no such behaviour.

According to Rasmus Pedersen, everyone is welcome at Tesla’s stores, and this is a big part of

their brand. In his opinion, they have a product that might attract a certain group of people with a

higher income than average, as we will get back to in the later section ‘Product Brand’. The

brand itself does not intend to attract a certain group of people. Tesla wishes to be open to

everyone who has an interest in Tesla and its products, Rasmus said. They seek not only to sell

products, but also to educate and inform anyone who are interested in learning about the

products. They put a lot of effort into being educative towards potential customers depending on

their needs. The type of information spans from being about the environmental effects of

electrical cars contra gasoline cars to specific information regarding for example charging or

driving range.

70

We argue that there could be a future perspective hidden in the motivation behind this educative

behaviour. Young people who do not yet have a driver’s license or people who simply cannot

afford Tesla’s products yet may be potential future buyers of future products of Tesla. But as the

purpose of this analysis is to identify Tesla’s current brand identity, we will save the discussion

of Tesla’s brand’s future for a later chapter.

Introducing a product that works entirely different from conventional products in the market is

not done without having something extra to offer. Another big part of the brand personality is

therefore being technologically innovative, according to Rasmus. The development of the

products relies on the innovative mindset behind it more than anything. In connection to this,

Aaker (1997) describes brands as having a set of human characteristics which translates into

the brand personality. This can be understood as human characteristics that consumers can

associate with. In Tesla’s case, there is a clear understanding of who represents the brand the

most. Rasmus Pedersen specifically said, that if Tesla was a person it would be Elon Musk. He

is the core example of the American Dream, something that Tesla represents as we will explain

in the below section regarding ‘culture’. Everything about Elon Musk somehow connects to

Tesla. For example, the fact that Tesla’s CEO is an engineer probably has some kind of impact

on the brand. It may suggest that ‘technology’ and ‘products’ are something that relates to the

brand.

Physique The physique of the brand relates to how it looks. The aspects in this dimension are more

visible than the ones of personality and culture. A human body could be a good metaphor for

explaining the physique of the brand. Tesla’s logo is one thing that was discussed during the

interview that could relate to the brand’s physique. The logo looks like a T and it is shaped to

look like a part in an electrical motor. Rasmus did not specify exactly which part in the electrical

motor the logo imitates, but the fact that the logo is developed on the basis of an actual part of

the product shows a strong physical coherence in the brand, and it is therefore a

mention­worthy aspect of the brand identity.

Tesla mirrors its brand in Apple’s brand. Rasmus Pedersen mentioned a couple of things that

relate to this argument. Tesla Motors’ Retail Executive, George Blankenship, used to work for

Apple before Tesla hired him in 2010 to develop Tesla’s stores. He possessed the strategic

71

knowledge and experience to develop store concepts comparable to Apple’s stores, that in their

own way have raised the bar for customer experience in retail stores (Tesla Motors, 2010).

Rasmus Pedersen described their own stores as being open and easy to access. The staff are

not meant to be salesmen, they are product specialists much like Apple’s Geniuses (Apple,

n.d.). The idea is that they will educate and inform people about their products. Tesla’s staff are

good salesmen, but their primary function is to provide information.

Culture Regarding cultural aspects, Rasmus Pedersen stated Tesla brands itself homogeneously

through all the market it operates in. They do not have different brand strategies across markets

and therefore Tesla itself does not do anything to make interest groups from different countries

perceive their brand in different ways. With Tesla being an American company, the brand of

Tesla can be perceived as being American too. He said that there could be two ‘cultural myths’ behind the history of Tesla. One is the ‘American Dream’. The idea that anyone with an idea

and the right amount of knowledge and motivation can start from nothing and create something

great with their lives. Another part of the cultural myth relates to ‘disruptive innovation’, which

relates to the idea that new technologies, approaches and ways of doing things can challenge

the functionality of entire markets and industries, and in the end displace well established

competitors. Holt (2002) explains that brands can be relevant and authentic cultural resources, but these days they have to act in a market of informed and empowered consumers who are

willing to take actions against companies, possibly for ideological reasons. For a brand to stay

successful in this type of consumer environment, it must be able to inspire, provoke, stimulate

and help interpret the world around them, and have an original point of view which is their own.

We will therefore seek to analyse a stakeholder perception on the brand with regards to culture

and cultural myths in a later section.

According to Rasmus, there is a complete coherence between their corporate brand and their

product brands. This aspect is relevant because Vallaster et. al. (2012) argue that brand hypocrisy, meaning a misalignment or discrepancy between a corporate brand and product

brand, can harm brands. As we explained earlier, there is an example in Vallaster et al. (2012)

regarding a discrepancy between Toyota’s corporate brand and its product brand Toyota Prius

that damaged the totality of the brand and reputation of Toyota. As we have so far only

72

analyzed Tesla’s corporate brand, and only from Tesla’s own perspective, we cannot argue

whether there could be a discrepancy or misalignment.

The name ‘Tesla Motors’, was also mentioned by Rasmus Pedersen to have a cultural value

attached to it. The company is named after the Serbian­American engineer and physicist Nikola

Tesla, who invented, predicted or contributed to the development of hundreds of technologies

that play huge parts in life today, including the induction motor and AC current power

transmission (Biography.com, n.d.). Although Nikola Tesla was a brilliant scientist, he was also

known to be a horrible businessman. His history deserves more space than we can provide in

this thesis, but we confidently argue that there is a historical and valuable connection of respect

and gratitude from Tesla Motors to Nikola Tesla and his legacy (Tesla, 2007).

Brand Relationship

This section’s findings are based on the 3 arguments from the theme “Brands as Relationships”

in the Codebook (Appendix E). The section focuses on the relationship between Tesla and its

customers. In the aspect, brands, like people, can be contributing partners in dyadic

relationships with consumers. For a relationship to truly exist, there must be some kind of

interdependency between partners and they must collectively affect, define and redefine the

relationship (Fournier, 1998). If this statement accurately describes relationships between

brands and consumers, we must accept that a brand, the products of the brand, and the

employees who work behind the brand, are able to act in correspondence with a relationship

partner’s (consumer’s) expectations for a relationship. Rasmus Pedersen states that Tesla

Motors’ customers are part of the common journey. Customers are valuable to Tesla because

they possess key information for product improvement. As Rasmus describes it, it might be that

Tesla’s has some of the most competent engineers in the world. But from a corporate

perspective, why not also include valuable insights from dedicated consumers to improve its

products? In his words, customers of Tesla are product co­creators. From Tesla’s perspective,

this is a valuable part of the relationship. The classic example of a voluntary relationship

between a consumer and a brand is that the brand’s personality traits can match, emphasize

and/or strengthen that of the consumer (Fournier, 1998; Kapferer, 2012). Maybe the effect is

reversed in this case, if Tesla’s brand is strengthened by the relationship with its customers.

73

According to Merz, He and Vargo (2009) consumers might also be involved in relationships that

go further than a dyadic relationship with the brand itself. According to Rasmus Pedersen, there

is a very strong tie between Tesla customers and this may very well be the strongest aspect

about the brand relationship; the connection to other customers. In this view, Tesla can be

perceived as the rallying point between customers who all have in common that they are Tesla

owners. This might very well be the most powerful thing that Tesla can offer to its customers, in

terms of relationships. This is a relevant aspect because it adds a new dimensions to the

traditional brand relationship, changing it from being perceived as dyadic to something more

network­based. We will discuss this aspect further in the section below.

Co­creation

This section’s findings are based on a combination of the arguments from the themes ‘Brands

as Relationships’ and ‘Customers’. We argue that there is an overlap between the two themes

and that some of the arguments belonging to the theme ‘Brands as Relationships’ fit better in

this section, as they regard co­creation. When it comes to brand co­creation, the brand is

classified as a continuous social process, where the value of the brand is co­constructed

through interactions between the firm and its stakeholders, but also between stakeholders of the

firm, without the presence of the firm (Merz, He & Vargo, 2009). Exactly this example could be

the case in the formation of Tesla Motors’ brand. As we mentioned in the above, Rasmus

argues that the customers are part of the journey. They are product co­creators, and Tesla

listens to its customers. But, when asked specifically about brand co­creation the direction of

arguments changes. Rasmus specifies, that Tesla’s customers are perceived as product

co­creators, but not brand co­creators. Tesla’s customers are very welcome to make products related comments but according to him, Tesla would not react on comments about other

aspects than product.

Merz, He and Vargo (2009) suggest that brands do not themselves necessarily have to be a

part of the brand co­creation, as it can happen between external stakeholders of the firm,

without the presence of the firm. By saying that customers are not part of the brand co­creation, it might be argued that Tesla neglects or ignores a significant aspect of the brand creation. We

will keep this possible discrepancy in mind as we move on. Because, seen from another

perspective, one could argue that Tesla’s brand management strategy relates to a unilateral

brand paradigm, as presented by Louro and Cunha (2001). If this is the case, Tesla’s brand

74

management would not be interested in the opinion of the consumers, or any other stakeholder

interest group regarding the brand. As for now, we argue that Tesla’s own view on brand

management could belong to the Product Paradigm or the Projective Paradigm (Louro & Cunha,

2001). We will have to go through more data to get closer to an answer.

Louro & Cunha (2001)

Product Brand

In this section we present the arguments from the theme ‘Product Brand’ and 2 arguments from

the theme ‘Business Strategy’ as we argue that they correlate to the topic (Appendix E, 1). As

found in Merz, He and Vargo (2009), there have been different eras in branding through history.

In the early 1900s there was a great focus on the functionality of the products in front of the

brands. And brands themselves were much related to identifying a product. There was a clear

and strong relation between the product and the brand, as the customer would associate the

quality of the product with the brand, logo, and corporation behind it. In this era, customers were

passive recipients of the brand. According to Rasmus Pedersen, Tesla’s brand is in fact based

in their products. The products reflect exactly what they want the brand to be: “I actually think that speaking with you makes it even more clear. Our brand is the product.” (translation: Appendix C, p. 139). The actual business strategy also seems to be very product focused, as

the current goal is to create an affordable electric car.

75

We therefore argue that the way Tesla perceives its own brand relates to the Product Brand

Paradigm (Louro & Cunha, 2001). As argued in the above, it can be seen as the more traditional

way of branding. Theoretically, from a product brand perspective there is no customer

co­creation involved and there is no real emphasis on the brand as an entity or identity. Any

communication from the brand would be related to the product in some way. And this is

something that covers Tesla’s communication strategy well, as a story from Tesla would always

involve the product.

Going into more detail about the product brand, Rasmus mentioned a few things that attract our

attention. As we have touched upon earlier, Rasmus told us that Tesla itself is not targeting a

premium segment through its branding. Instead, they focus on being ‘open’, ‘accessible’ and

‘welcoming’ to all types of people in short terms. But the product itself currently appeals to what

is determined as ‘premium customers’ by Rasmus Pedersen. We argue that there might be a

gap here between the way Tesla wants its brand to be perceived and what the product brand(s)

reflects. Specifically for Tesla Model S, it is referred to by Rasmus Pedersen as ‘different’,

‘innovative’ and ‘environmental’. He compared Tesla’s products to Apple’s products, which is

something he had already mentioned once in the interview. Apple seems to be some kind of

brand idol for Tesla regarding several aspects.

In the following sections, we will identify the findings that relate to CSR.

CSR

This section regards all arguments by Rasmus Pedersen that relate to CSR. We have identified

17 arguments in the theme. The following sections will introduce all arguments seen in

comparison to our chosen litterature. We will go through the arguments, and explain how they

relate to specific theoretically driven CSR­aspects with the purpose of analysing what CSR

means to Tesla’s brand. First, we look at the matter from an outside perspective, including

market, political and stakeholder conditions. Then, we shift focus and analyze from a corporate

perspective, including arguments about Tesla’s vision, strategy, corporate policies and

communication.

Outside Perspective

76

As previously discussed, Tesla operates in a regulated market here in Denmark. A previous

Danish government introduced a complete tax exemption on fabric­new EVs for Danish

consumers (Skat.dk, n.d.). This tax exemption can be interpreted from different perspectives.

From a market perspective it creates an advantage for car­manufacturers that are dedicated in

making EVs competitive to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Tesla Motors is

one of them, but they are not alone. In recent years, some of the larger players in the car

industry have also invested heavily in developing decent EVs. Nissan, Chevrolet and BMW

have all introduced EV models to their product portfolios, although not all of them can be said to

perform equally regarding for example driving range (Davies & Nudelman, 2013).

A big difference between the three car companies just mentioned and Tesla regarding products

is, that they have a majority of conventional cars in their product portfolios where Tesla only has

EVs.

Nissan, Chevrolet and BMW are all well established brands in the car industry as they have all

been in the market for decades. Their business strategies have arguably changed along with

fluxing market conditions. One could argue from their perspective, that developing and

introducing EVs is a reaction to changing market conditions as theoretically suggested by

Campbell (2007). As we have touched upon before, Campbell (2007) says that many aspects

can affect the probability for corporations to act in responsible ways. With governments making

regulations that favour sustainable products, such as the ones we have seen in Denmark, they

make it more likely for companies to produce products that fit into this category (Skat.dk, n.d.).

As we see it, Tesla was established in another market, that was not regulated in the same way

as the Danish market. They come from a market where there is no such thing as a registration

tax on cars, i.e. the American market. But they have still reaped the benefits of the Danish tax

exemption on electric vehicles.

Rasmus Pedersen stated that Tesla seeks to affect the political system in Denmark through

dialogue. This argument may very well refer to Tesla’s work for preventing the before mentioned

gradual tax introduction on EVs from 2016 (skm.dk, 2015). In September 2015, Elon Musk

visited Denmark with the purpose of doing an interview with the Danish newspaper Børsen. In

this interview he spoke about Denmark being pioneers in the production of renewable energy,

especially with wind energy (Pedersen & Rosenvang, 2015). He argued that Denmark has a

unique opportunity to become pioneers in sustainable transportation too, as the sometimes

77

heavy amounts of produced wind energy could be directed to electric vehicles for consumption

or to Tesla’s home batteries for storage. He suggested for Denmark to keep the positive

incentives on electric cars for at least a few years to come, to make sure that we keep

increasing the amount of electric cars in Denmark. We regard this as evidence that Tesla

actively seeks to affect the political situation in Denmark (Pedersen & Rosenvang, 2015). In

Rasmus’ words, Tesla wants to educate politicians in the same way they wish to be educative

towards their consumers.

Organizational Perspective This section will present our findings from the interview with Rasmus Pedersen that relate to an

organizational view on CSR. One of the first things we noticed about Tesla’s relation to CSR is

that the company’s very ideological mission is much focused on sustainability. The fact that

Tesla calls it a mission and not a vision is itself an interesting perspective. Normally, companies would have a vision that is near impossible to reach. A guiding star for the organization to aspire

for. But it is rarely found that companies are accused of hypocrisy if they do not actually outlive

their vision (Christensen, et. al., 2013). Tesla does seem to be very serious about their

aspirational and ideological mission, which is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable

transport (Tesla Motors, n.d.).

Rasmus confirmed that the mission is about saving the world. He explained the mission like he

really meant it. It arguably takes some confidence and belief in the cause to do so. From a

critical perspective, it may seem like a bold mission to have. But as Christensen, et al. (2013)

state there might be a positive effect linked to having aspirational visions for companies. They

may indeed spur a positive attitude, moral and motivation amongst employees of the

organization who all support the ideological cause, manifested in the mission (Christensen et

al., 2013; Vogel, 2005). If Tesla can convince their own employees that the mission is

accomplishable, then they might also be able to convince other people to buy their cars. And, as

Rasmus Pedersen said, if they can move people’s opinion about electric cars, they might also

be able to change opinions about other things later. Here, he referred to the introduction of their

new product Tesla Powerwall (Tesla Motors, n.d.(b)), which is a product that indeed also could

help Tesla accomplish their aspirational mission if they can sell it to a mass of consumers. It is

even possible to suggest that Tesla could widen their mission to include other types of energy

factors than just ‘transport’. Tesla’s products now seem to spread and merge into other areas of

78

energy, from energy consumption in the form of vehicles to now also include energy storage for

households.

Strategic CSR & CSV This section will introduce our findings that relate to a strategic perspective of CSR for Tesla

Motors. As presented in the literature review, researchers have worked immensely to prove or

disprove if investing in CSR and/or generally behaving virtuously will increase profitability for

firms. Although, the search of profitability may not be the most honorable reason for behaving

responsibly, it seems to be an effective motivator at least. Vogel (2005) concludes that there is

no evidence that companies that behave responsibly are more profitable than less virtuous

ones. On the other hand, there is no evidence that suggests that putting effort into CSR makes

companies less profitable either. We mentioned the subject in the section above; there are

definitely other aspects that can drive companies to behave responsibly besides direct

profitability. Engaging in CSR voluntarily may increase the employee morale, create a better

reputation for the brand and put a company in a favorable position for continued institutional

regulation.

Our findings from the interview with Rasmus Pedersen cohere with the conclusions of Vogel

(2005), in so far that Tesla’s ideological approach to CSR may not make the company profitable

as for now, but there are other aspects that can be positively affected. But as stated by Rasmus

Pedersen, in the long run, profit is the key to success. Without profits Tesla cannot continue on

its mission. According to him, Tesla’s relation to CSR as for now is completely integrated in ‘the

master plan’ ­ their business plan. Regarding CSR, Tesla’s business strategy is prioritized over

concrete corporate CSR politics as for now, as Tesla can make the largest positive

(environmental) impact if the company succeeds in its strategy. The successful implementation

of Tesla Model 3 is, and has always been, the clear goal for Tesla.

Rasmus Pedersen did not know about the term CSV before we mentioned it, but he argues that

Tesla’s products have a positive impact on the world. This argument explores the connections

between societal and economic progress, also known as CSV (Porter & Kramer, 2011). He also

explained how the Gigafactory in Nevada desert is going to run completely on renewable energy

from solar and wind (Tesla Motors, n.d.(c)). From the data we have received, we can argue that

Tesla itself definitely believes that changing the world’s fleet of gasoline and diesel cars to

79

electric cars will have a positive impact on the environment. We will look into our other sources

of data to find whether there are any arguments against this confidence from Tesla in that the

more products they sell, the better the impact it has on the environment.

Corporate Politics This section explores the arguments from our interview with Rasmus Pedersen that relate to

corporate politics. As we have not presented specific literature on this aspect in the literature

review, this section’s analysis will only be based on empirical findings. As mentioned in the

above, the corporate politics are prioritized under the successful implementation of their

business strategy, which is explained by the argument that the impact will be more immense.

According to Rasmus Pedersen, there is always room for improvements throughout the value

and supply chain when it comes to sustainability. When the company matures, he said, those

‘smaller improvements’ will follow. With regards to this, he mentioned the Fremont factory. It is

not yet possible for Tesla to run it from 100 % renewable energy, but there is a continuous focus

on energy improvements and optimization. He believes that Tesla has one of the most energy

efficient production facilities in the world, even though he did not mention any specific numbers

to prove it. He also said that Tesla does not have any specific CSR politics on store level yet.

Focus is on the bigger picture:

“The only thing that is constant in Tesla is that we can always improve, in all aspects. It all

comes down to Model 3 and 500,000 cars … That’s how many we want to produce … Once we

are close enough to reaching this target, we will have the time and energy to focus on other

aspects. At that point, I might receive an internal e­mail about the introduction of a new bottle recycling system. But you can be 100 % sure, that if we are just an inch away from reaching the

target of 500,000 cars… Then fuck the plastic bottles! Because the big impact lies in creating an

electric car that people want and can afford. Collecting say 10,000 plastic bottles would be

good, but 500,000 Model 3s will make a larger impact, so this is the target.” (translation: Appendix C, p. 147)

This does not mean that Tesla completely disregards other aspects of CSR. But a majority of

Tesla’s CSR initiatives are found in America, which is where most of its employees work and

reside.

80

Communication A final aspect from our interview regards CSR communication. Rasmus talked about how Tesla

communicates and which channels they use. Generally speaking, Tesla does not spend a lot of

money on advertising. You would not see TV commercials with Tesla like you would with other

products in Denmark. They rely on other media for communication. They use channels such as

Facebook, e­mail and their website to communicate about sustainability achievements. When

Tesla Model S drivers collectively reached 1 billion electric miles, enough to prevent over

570,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, Tesla communicated it through Twitter and their

website (Fingas, 2015). We do not know how Tesla came to this conclusion, but the statement

is evidence of an explicit approach to CSR communication (Matten & Moon, 2008). Tesla’s

mission seems to be clearly communicated as well. Rasmus Pedersen also told us this during

the interview. The communication strategy seems to rely a lot on owned media and word of

mouth. Rasmus also stated that they rely on their customers to advertise for them. We will

cross­check all findings from the interview with the findings from the online communities, and

analyze whether external interest groups perceive the brand and the CSR aspects in a similar

way, with regards to all the different aspects we have been through so far in the analysis.

5.3 Online Stakeholder Perceptions

In this subchapter we will present the findings for each of the three online fora. We will illustrate

which themes, stakeholder positions, and attitudes towards Tesla were identified. In addition to

that we will give examples of arguments used by different stakeholders. Finally we will extract

and analyze meaning from stakeholders’ utterances to show how brand meaning is co­created

independently from the company.

5.3.1 r/Denmark

On r/Denmark, we initiated two coherent but separate threads in order to ask a neutral danish

online community what their thoughts were regarding Tesla Motors. The questions we asked

can be seen in Appendix A (part 1 & 2) and links to the threads can be found in Appendix D

(part 1 & 2).

The threads provided us with 62 different arguments from 19 different users on r/Denmark.

Some of the 27 respondents’ comments were thereby not included as we perceived them as

81

irrelevant. We found that 26 of the arguments were in one way or the other in favor of Tesla

Motors, 21 were objective observations regarding Tesla, the industry, the political environment

or other things, and 15 arguments were not in favor of Tesla. The chart below shows the

distribution in percentage of arguments for, against or neutral towards Tesla.

The data from our r/Denmark threads represent the general Danish public, as this specific

subreddit is not about cars, green technology or politics. It is a forum for Danish reddit users

who can speak about topics which relate in any way to Denmark. One user did point out in one

of the threads, that there was a ‘circle jerk’ regarding Tesla on r/denmark, which is a way of

saying that there is an overrepresentation of Tesla enthusiasts. However, as illustrated in the

pie chart, 24.2 % of the arguments identified were in some way critical of Tesla and their

operations. The 33.9 % neutral observations and answers to our questions indicate that people

were able to discuss Tesla and the EV industry in a balanced manner. The majority of

arguments making up 41.9 %, were in favor of Tesla, and this indicates that what we first

identified as being a neutral forum in regards to Tesla, actually mostly had a positive attitude

towards the EV company.

Identified Themes The findings have been derived into 14 different themes. The percentage distribution can be

seen in the chart below. The themes cover all arguments for or against Tesla, and also

discourse which is not directly about Tesla. It is relevant to state here, that any theme can

potentially contain different and even contrasting arguments. The figure illustrates which topics

82

are the most salient for the Danish online community. It is important to note that the different

topics might overlap in one way or the other, but the segregation is made as we saw the

differentiation as substantial for the interpretation of the brand related discourse. ‘Green Tech’

and ‘Battery’ could have been categorized under ‘Product’ as these are a part of the product of

Tesla, and thus product as a category would have appeared to be more salient. In the same

way ‘Political’ and ‘Sustainability’ could have been grouped together and named ‘CSR’.

The questions we asked were based in literature, but the loose structure of the internet medium

made the respondents pick and choose freely from any question they found relevant to answer.

Accordingly, the answers branched out in discussions that were no longer necessarily linked to

the original questions. Therefore, the themes in this analysis, and the 2 more to come from

other online communities, are empirically based, rather than theoretically based as in the

analysis of the interview with Rasmus Pedersen.

Thematic Explanations through Examples As it is illustrated in the chart above, ‘Green Tech’, ‘Political’, ‘Branding’, and ‘Battery’ received

the most attention in the discussions and made up more than half of the total discourse. In the

following we will explain each theme and exemplify arguments within that theme.

Green Tech

83

We have identified 12 arguments to fit in the ‘Green Tech’ theme, meaning green technology.

This is discourse regarding green technology in general. Within this theme it was stated that ‘we

need EVs in our society’, ‘Tesla are not as green as they claim to be’, and ‘it is possible to make

electricity without using fossil fuels’. Not all arguments within this topic regard Tesla, and not all

arguments that do regard Tesla are in favor of the EV company.

Political We have identified 9 arguments to fit in the ‘Political’ theme, referring to the political climate and

conditions for EVs in Denmark. Within this theme it was stated that ‘Danish taxes will burden EV

sales’, ‘Tesla and EVs are wrongly prioritized’, and ‘Tesla has no future in Denmark’.

Branding We have identified 8 arguments to fit in the ‘Branding’ theme, referring to the Tesla brand and

their way of branding themselves. Within this theme it was stated that ‘their product is their

brand’, ‘Tesla was the underdog who now is considered a serious player’, and ‘Tesla made EVs

cool’.

Battery We have identified 6 arguments to fit in the ‘Battery’ theme, referring to the battery technology

and performance. Within this theme it was stated that ‘batteries are bad for environment’, ‘the

production of the raw materials for the batteries are not the cleanest thing in the world’, and

‘lithium batteries are better for the environment than using fossil fuels’.

Product We have identified 5 arguments to fit in the ‘Product’ theme, referring to the actual car that Tesla

makes, and in some cases EVs in general. Within this theme it was stated that ‘Tesla’s EV is

better than gasoline cars’, ‘Tesla’s design is excellent and the car’s acceleration matches a

Ferrari’, and ‘Tesla Model S 70 D is a fantastic car’.

Elon Musk We have identified 4 arguments to fit in the ‘Elon Musk’ theme, referring to the CEO of Tesla.

Within this theme it was stated that ‘everything Elon Musk says is branding’, ‘Elon Musk’s

mission is to save the world’, and ‘Elon Musk wants to help humanity’.

84

Innovation We have identified 4 arguments to fit in the ‘Innovation’ theme, referring to Tesla’s ability to be

innovative. Within this theme it was stated that ‘Tesla made a smart car like Apple made the

iPhone’, ‘the old car manufacturers are not ready to adapt’, and ‘I love the new autopilot

feature’.

Charging We have identified 3 arguments to fit in the ‘Charging’ theme, referring to EVs ability to charge

and the implications regarding charging an EV opposed to filling up a conventional car with gas.

Within this theme it was stated that ‘charging takes too long’, ‘it’s a good thing that you are able

to charge the car at home’, and ‘I would hate having to wait more than five minutes to charge

my car’.

Profit We have identified 3 arguments to fit in the ‘Profit’ theme, referring to the motives behind

Tesla’s mission. Within this theme it was stated that ‘Elon Musk just wants to make a profit’,

‘Tesla is a capitalist company’, and ‘a company needs to make a profit if it wants to have an

impact’.

Value We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Value’ theme, referring to value for money

regarding buying a car. Within this theme it was stated that ‘I would buy a Tesla if it was

affordable’, and ‘people are buying Tesla’s because it’s a favorable luxury product’.

Range We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Range’ theme, referring to the distance an EV is

able to travel. Within this theme it was stated that ‘the batteries give good range’, and ‘the range

is not as good as gasoline cars’.

Sustainability

85

We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Sustainability’ theme, referring to a general

discussion about sustainability. Within this theme it was stated that ‘there should be less cars in

general’, and ‘all cars are bad for the environment’.

Production We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Production’ theme, referring to the production of the

cars. Within this theme it was stated that ‘production of the car is polluting’.

Service We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Service’ theme, referring to the post purchase

service which Tesla offers. Within this theme it was stated that ‘it is possible to have your battery

pack upgraded in the Tesla Roadster’.

Stakeholder Positions The third finding we derived from the netnographic data was the different users’ attitude when

making an argument. Attitude in this sense is not whether they are for or against Tesla in their

argumentation as earlier illustrated. Attitude in this sense is what we refer to as ‘stakeholder

position’. It is the interpreted code of which viewpoint a stakeholder makes his or her argument.

I.e. if a user makes an argument saying that he would buy a Tesla because it makes sense

financially, his stakeholder position in regard to that specific argument would be classified as

‘Economical’. If he on the other hand makes an argument saying that EVs contribute to the

process of saving the planet, his stakeholder position would be classified as ‘Environmental’.

One user might be identified as having several different stakeholder positions in a single post,

depending on the different arguments he or she makes. The percentage distribution of

stakeholder positions can be seen in the chart below.

86

Stakeholder Explanations and Exemplifications As it is illustrated in the chart above the most frequent stakeholder positions were ‘Enthusiast’,

‘Spectator’, ‘Sceptic’, and ‘Environmental’. In the following we will explain each stakeholder

position and exemplify what such a position entails.

Enthusiast ‘Enthusiast’ occurred 18 times. An enthusiast is someone who in their argumentation exclaimed

excitement about Tesla. Examples include arguments that stated ‘Tesla are pioneers’,

‘supporting Tesla means supporting green tech research’, and ‘Tesla’s EV is better than

gasoline cars’.

Sceptic ‘Sceptic’ occurred 14 times. A user was classified as a sceptic when their argument was

sceptical towards Tesla or the EV­technology. Examples of a sceptical arguments include

‘batteries are bad for the environment’, ‘Tesla have been wrongly prioritized by the government

with the tax exemptions on EVs’, and ‘EVs are not greener than gasoline cars’.

Spectator ‘Spectator’ occurred 18 times. Users were classified as spectators when their arguments were

more of an observation about the situation without displaying a substantial amount of sympathy

or criticism towards the Tesla. Examples of a spectator include arguments that stated ‘current

87

car taxes are ridiculous’, ‘Tesla cars have been purchased due to value for money’, and ‘Tesla

has no future in Denmark due to the car taxes’.

Environmental ‘Environmental’ occurred 12 times. A user was classified as being environmental when their

argument was in one way or the other concerning the environment. Examples of environmental

arguments include ‘electricity for EVs can be made without fossil fuels’, ‘technology can help

reduce environmental impact from cars’, and ‘EVs should be taxed less’.

5.3.2 Tesla Owners Club Denmark on Facebook

On Facebook we went to the Tesla Owners Club Denmark group to retrieve data. This group is

meant to represent Danish Tesla owners and we therefore assume that they generally have a

positive association with the brand. The questions are the same ones that we asked the Reddit

users the second time, as those questions were optimized from the first Reddit thread. The

questions we asked can be seen in Appendix A and the link to the thread can be found in

Appendix D (3).

The threads provided us with 37 different arguments from 8 different users on TOCD. We found

that 24 of the arguments were in one way or the other in favor of Tesla Motors, 5 arguments

were rather neutral being objective observations regarding Tesla, the industry, the political

environment or other things, and 8 arguments were not in favor of Tesla. The chart below shows

the distribution in percentage of arguments pro, against or neutral towards Tesla.

88

As the Tesla Owners Club Denmark on Facebook are made up of what we must consider to be

mainly Tesla owners or other enthusiast, we expected there to be a large segment of the

arguments which would be in favor of Tesla and a small segment being against. As the numbers

show a very large segment of 64.9 % of all arguments were in favor of Tesla. However, we did

not expect for 21.6 % of all arguments to be against Tesla.

Identified Themes Just like we did with the threads on Reddit, we have derived themes from the discourse on

Tesla Owners Club Denmark on Facebook. This way we are able to identify which topics are the

most relevant for an online community consisting of mainly Tesla owners. In chapter 5.3.4 we

will then illustrate and reflect upon the differences and similarities between the three different

online fora through a qualitative analysis. The distribution of themes in percentages can be seen

in the chart below.

89

Thematic Explanations through Examples As many of the themes are the same ones as the ones identified on r/Denmark, these specific

themes will not be explained in detail. We will though provide a few examples of arguments from

this specific online community, as they may differ from the ones presented from r/Denmark.

Each topic will be exemplified underneath with a selection of the identified arguments in order to

illustrate how the discourse takes form amongst Tesla owners.

Product We have identified 10 arguments to fit in the ‘Product’ theme. Within this theme it was stated

that ‘Tesla is a really nice car’, ‘First generation of Teslas have flaws’, and ‘The Model S is like

Ford’s Model T’.

Service We have identified 7 arguments to fit in the ‘Service’ theme. Within this theme it was stated

amongst other things that ‘Tesla service is non­existing’, ‘Tesla has the worst service in

Denmark’, ‘Tesla has great service personal’, and ‘political decisions can have influenced bad

service’.

Political

90

We have identified 4 arguments to fit in the ‘Political’ theme. Within this theme it was stated that

‘policies were made in order to tax Tesla Model S specifically’, ‘the Jantelaw won over the

climate’, ‘taxes hurt the goal of a fossil free future’, and ‘the state is hurting the EV evolution’.

Range We have identified 3 arguments to fit in the Range theme. Within this theme it was stated that

‘the range is not as good as promised’, ‘range is not good in the winter’, and ‘range is great in

the summer’.

Branding We have identified 3 arguments to fit in the ‘Branding’ theme. Within this theme it was stated

that ‘Tesla is like a family member’, ‘Tesla is an honest car manufacturer’, and ‘Tesla’s way of

communicating is spot on’.

Sustainability We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Sustainability’ theme. Within this theme it was

stated that ‘EVs will not save the climate’ and ‘meat production is worse for the climate than

fossil fueled cars’.

Corporation We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Corporation’ theme. Corporation as a theme entails

that the users were talking about what Tesla does or has done. Within this theme it was stated

that ‘Tesla made it possible for us to drive an EV’ and ‘Tesla is suffering due to their success’.

Elon Musk We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Elon Musk’ theme. Within this theme it was stated

that ‘Elon Musk is very inspiring’ and ‘Elon Musk is like Nicola Tesla’.

Mission We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Mission’ theme. Mission as a theme refers to the

mission of Tesla. Within this theme it was stated that ‘Tesla has their heart in the right place’

and ‘Tesla’s mission makes buying their car an easy choice’.

91

Green Tech We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Green Tech’ theme. Within this theme it was stated

that ‘The technology used in EVs is greener than in gasoline cars’.

Innovation We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Innovation’ theme. Within this topic it was stated that

‘Tesla is incredible innovative and talented’.

Stakeholder Positions The different stakeholder positions within the data from Tesla Owners Club Denmark on

Facebook were categorized according to the respondents’ arguments. In the chart below we

illustrate the distribution of stakeholder positions in percentage.

Stakeholder Exemplifications The stakeholder positions identified for Tesla Owners Club Denmark were the same positions

as on r/Denmark. Therefore the different positions will not be explained in this section as they

already have been explained. They will, however, be exemplified to illustrate how the users in

this forum express their position.

Enthusiast

92

‘Enthusiast’ had 17 occurrences. Examples of enthusiastic arguments include ‘driving the Tesla

car cannot be described’, ‘EVs are definitely the future’, and ‘the digital technology and the

opportunities it provides is really cool’.

Spectator ‘Spectator’ had 7 occurrences. Examples of a spectator’s comments include ‘Tesla service is

not terrible but not great’, ‘Tesla is suffering due to their own success’, and ‘the state is hurting

the EV evolution’.

Sceptic ‘Sceptic’ had 7 occurrences. Examples of sceptical comments include ‘worst service in

Denmark’, ‘Tesla removed two Supercharger stations from their map’, and ‘the first generation

Tesla has flaws’.

Environmental ‘Environmental’ had 6 occurrences. Examples of environmental comments include ‘EV

technology is greener than gasoline cars’, ‘EVs will not save the climate’, and ‘the Jantelaw won

over the climate’.

5.3.3 Bilgalleri.dk

We also started a thread on Bilgalleri.dk in order to find an audience that would represent car

enthusiasts of Denmark, but not specifically Tesla or EV enthusiasts. We did not get as many

responses as we had hoped, but we have chosen to include the data in the analysis anyway.

The questions we asked can be seen in Appendix A and links to the threads can be found in

Appendix D (4). The coded data can be found in Appendix E.

The thread provided us with 11 different arguments from 4 different users on Bilgalleri.dk. We

found that 3 of the arguments were in one way or the other in favor of Tesla Motors, 2 were

neutral observations regarding Tesla, the industry, the political environment or other things, and

6 arguments were not in favor of Tesla. The chart below shows the distribution in percentage of

arguments for, against or neutral towards Tesla.

93

We expect that there is a majority of gasoline car owners amongst the users of Bilgalleri.dk. We

therefore thought that there would be more arguments against Tesla here than in the data from

Tesla Owners Club Denmark. As the numbers show, a very large segment of 54.5 % of all

arguments were not in favor of Tesla.

Identified Themes Just like we did with the threads on Reddit and TOCD on Facebook, we have derived themes

from the discourse on Bilgalleri.dk. This way we are able to identify which themes are the most

significant within the online community that consists of what we identify as ‘car enthusiasts’. The

distribution of themes in percentages can be seen in the chart below.

94

Topic Exemplifications As all of the themes are the same ones as the ones identified on r/Denmark and TOCD those

specific themes will not be explained in detail. However, each theme will be exemplified

underneath in order to illustrate how the discourse takes form amongst car enthusiasts.

Product We have identified 3 arguments to fit in the ‘Product’ theme. Within this topic it was mentioned

that ‘the design of the Tesla is not that great’, ‘EVs are not value for money’, and ‘I will buy the

car that has the best value for money, whether that is an EV or gasoline car’.

Innovation We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Innovation’ theme. Within this topic it was

mentioned that ‘Tesla has been very successful with their innovation’ and ‘Tesla has

revolutionized the car industry’.

Green Tech We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Green Tech’ theme. Within this topic it was

mentioned that ‘Teslas are not environmentally friendly’ and ‘consumers are naive in thinking

that Tesla is a sustainable company’.

95

Service We have identified 2 arguments to fit in the ‘Service’ theme. Within this theme it was mentioned

that ‘Tesla service in Denmark does not exist’ and ‘Tesla only has two different service centers

in Denmark’.

Branding We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Branding’ theme. It was mentioned that ‘Tesla’s

products and values are aligned’.

Political We have identified 1 argument to fit in the ‘Political’ theme. It was mentioned that ‘It is a

disgrace that a country like Denmark chooses to tax green technology’.

Stakeholder Positions The different stakeholder positions within the data from Bilgalleri.dk have been categorized

arccording to the respondents’ arguments. In the chart below we illustrate the distribution of

stakeholder positions in percentage.

In this data we have identified a majority of the respondents to be ‘Spectators’ (45,5 %). We will

not explain or exemplify the different stakeholder positions as all four of them already have been

explained in the previous sections. Furthermore, all the 11 arguments from this data set has

already have been mentioned in the above section.

96

Quantitative Findings Summed up At this stage we have identified themes within the discourse from r/Denmark, TOCD, and

Bilgalleri. We have explained the reasoning for choosing the specific themes and given

examples of arguments within those themes. Furthermore, we have identified whether or not the

various arguments were for or against Tesla Motors. This was done in order to portray what the

attitude in the three online communities were in regards to Tesla. Finally we have identified

different stakeholder positions from the users’ arguments. This was done in order to portray

which stakeholder groups emerge when discussing Tesla and CSR.

In the following sub­chapter we will analyze the meaning behind the different arguments and

illustrate what themes are the most salient for the different stakeholders across the different

online communities and how brand meaning is co­created within those themes.

5.3.4 Qualitative Analysis

In this section we will conduct a qualitative analysis from the coded quantified data derived from

the three online fora. As it was the case with the qualitative analysis of the interview with

Rasmus Pedersen, the approach of this analysis will be in accordance with what we described

in the Methodology chapter. We will focus on the themes which were the most frequent in the

discourse on the different online communities, and interpret the arguments used within these

themes. This will be done in relation to the brand and CSR literature earlier identified.

Product

With a total of 18 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Product’ becomes the

most salient theme within the brand related discourse. It can seem natural that the product is

the most discussed theme as this is Tesla’s physical representation on the market and what

people see and experience outside of Tesla stores. As Tesla does not engage in commercials

or other brand projective marketing activities it is important that the product can speak for the

brand, thus positive utterances regarding the product are important.

It was mentioned two times on TOCD that the first generation of Tesla’s products had some

flaws, but nothing that could not be fixed easily by Tesla mechanics. We have only identified

one argument where the respondent did not appreciate the design of the car. This argument

97

was found in the data from Bilgalleri.dk. Besides that, all other utterances were positive about

the product. Some argued that EVs in general are great products, and even better than gasoline

cars. Another user acknowledged that that the Tesla car is of great quality and the coolest car

ever. One person said the Model S was just like Ford T referring to the revolutional car of the

last century. From a brand management perspective, it can be said that if Tesla relies on

product branding being their way of communicating their brand, the words and associations

being linked to the product will in this case also be linked to the brand.

Great quality, innovative technology, sublime driving experience are the things people mostly

mention amongst Tesla owners on TOCD but also among a somewhat neutral audience on

r/Denmark. These are the recorded experiences the various stakeholders build in their mind

when engaging with the products being EVs and Tesla cars, as Von Wallpach and Kreuzer

(2013) state becomes brand knowledge. Keller (1993) states that brand knowledge has the two

dimensions; brand awareness and brand image. Brand awareness in this sense relates to the

recorded experiences regarding the product, and the brand image is the perception of the brand

seen from the consumers’ perspective; the favorability, strength and uniqueness of the brand.

Regarding the product discourse, the majority of utterances reflects a general enthusiasm and

satisfaction with the product. In that sense the qualities and perceptions of the product becomes

an element in the totality of the perceived brand equity amongst consumers and other

stakeholders.

Green Tech

With a total of 15 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Green Tech’ becomes the

second most salient theme within the brand related discourse. Green technology is obviously a

part of the EV product, but the emphasis on the technology being green is what makes this a

category of its own. On r/Denmark ‘Green Tech’ was the most discussed topic and surprisingly it

was of low priority amongst Tesla owners on Facebook, who were more focused on the

innovative technology, performance and the product specifications about EVs.

There seems to be a consensus across the three fora that green technology is a good thing and

that it is needed for a sustainable world. Some people did question how green EVs actually

were and some people did object to EVs being greener than gasoline cars. The majority,

however, agreed that EVs were helping the world become a more sustainable place. EVs are

98

not completely green yet, due to the source of electricity which powers them comes from coal

burning or other non­sustainable sources, but it is possible to create electricity from sustainable

sources in the future and EVs help build that demand it was argued. The sentiment of the

various arguments seemed to be that by supporting green technology and companies like

Tesla, the consumer contributes to creating a more sustainable future. This also plays into the

brand knowledge about Tesla and thus becomes an element that contributes to the overall

brand equity in a positive way, as Tesla is perceived as a company that cares about a

sustainable future.

People on the neutral forum r/Denmark are very aware of green technology and the goals of

Tesla. This indicates that Tesla is very good at communicating their mission and are using an

explicit CSR strategy as Matten and Moon (2008) defines it.

Looking at the different comments made about green technology across the fora it becomes

evident that there is not one clear consensus regarding whether or not Tesla’s technology is

green. However, there is an absolute clear consensus regarding that Tesla think they are green,

say that they are green, and some say that they want to be greener than they are. This relates

to Christensen et al. (2013) and their theory of aspirational CSR. They claimed that aspirational

communication regarding CSR can help stimulate positive societal changes even though the

Tesla organisation might not be 100 % sustainable yet in their production methods.

From the positive statements regarding Tesla and their green ambitions, Tesla can be seen as

an entity with an aspiring identity (Christensen et al., 2013). This way the brand can be seen as

a ‘person’ in a dyadic relationship with the consumer as Fournier (1998) describes it. People

can use Tesla in order to mirror their personal goals of being environmentally conscious

consumers. However, the fact that people did question how green EVs actually were is an

indication of a misalignment between the way Tesla acts and the way people think of them.

There is no clear consensus on, whether Tesla is ‘green’ or not. But there is a consensus that

green technology is needed for a sustainable future. This aspect will be discussed further in the

discussion chapter.

99

Political

With a total of 14 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Political’ becomes the

third most salient theme within the brand related discourse. Besides one user on r/Denmark

stating that EVs should not be allowed to be sold before battery technology had gone through

more research, all comments were regarding the Danish taxes on cars and specifically EVs. Out

of those comments only one person (on r/Denmark) stated that EVs had been wrongly

prioritized due to the registration tax exemption. All other comments were statements about how

the government are committing a huge mistake by taxing EVs like regular cars with a 150 %

registration tax. One user stated that this decision by lawmakers will end Tesla’s operations in

Denmark as the car will be too expensive to buy, and another user said that the ‘Jantelaw’ in

Denmark was more important for the government than climate ambitions. People were in

general very pro EVs and very anti government decisions.

This type of brand related discourse relates to institutional CSR. Campbell (2007) said that

“corporations will be more likely to act in socially responsible ways if there are strong and well enforced state regulations in place to ensure such behavior”. The government in Denmark had for a long time encouraged ‘green technology’ by giving incentives to consumers to buy EVs by

not taxing them. Our findings indicate that the stakeholders are the ones calling for incentives to

be brought back and Tesla is trying to lead and drive a socially responsible behaviour for the

rest of the market to follow. It is almost as if institutional CSR has been turned upside down in

this sense, as it is Tesla (the corporation) and consumers that are calling for ‘green incentives’

and the government that adjust state regulations so that less EVs will be purchased compared

to gasoline cars. However, this argument is only true if one subscribes to the paradigm that EVs

are ‘greener’ than gasoline cars. Tesla can then be perceived as a ‘CSR entrepreneur’ as in

accordance with Vallaster et al. (2012). Tesla engages in CSR on proactively, and they do so on

the basis of identity values rather than on the basis of external regulations.

Branding

With a total of 12 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Branding’ becomes the

fourth most salient theme within the brand related discourse. It can be difficult to categorize

utterances regarding Tesla under the theme branding. A majority of discourse relates to

branding in one way or the other. Some of the arguments in this theme regard Tesla’s way of

100

branding themselves and their way of communicating. Regarding Tesla’s brand there were only

positive comments.

Everyone agrees that Tesla is great at branding. One person stated that Tesla are pioneers and

another person stated that Tesla make EVs cool. Again, Tesla is perceived as having taken a

unique position in consumers’ minds. They are perceived as being first movers and made it

possible for the consumers to embrace EVs. This relates very well to Holt’s (2002) idea of

branding by being a cultural resource. Tesla might have successfully embraced the existing

counterculture which became popularized after the millennium. Knowledgeable consumers

share the idea of sustainable consumption with Tesla.

One comment made by a user even stated that Tesla and their followers have hyped the

organization and their product like it was the second coming of Jesus. This corresponds well

with the idea by Holt that a successful brand is often tied to a great identity myth. He said:

“Customers who find this kind of identity value in a brand forge intensive emotional connections. Emotional attachment is the consequence of a great myth” (Holt, 2004, p. 28). This argument of ‘intensive emotional connections’ is supported by a Tesla owner on TOCD, who commented

that his Tesla was not just a car, it was a family member. When a product like this is being

perceived as being a family member, the brand can also be seen as a relationship partner,

which adds to the value of the family. This person’s strong connection to the Tesla brand might

make other members in the family have an involuntary relationship with the brand. Not

necessarily in a negative way, but due to the fact that this one person made Tesla a part of the

family.

Going back to the comment made by a user on r/Denmark about how Tesla and their followers

were able to hype the organisation and their products like it was the second coming of Christ,

this strongly indicates that there is a sense of brand co­creation going on. On one side, Tesla

have defined their brand meaning the way they believe it is supposed to be. They have a clearly

defined mission regarding CSR goals, and are not hesitant to articulate the importance of their

presence on the market. This is one part of the brand meaning. What support this brand

meaning are the people adapting the views of Tesla and enacting them by purchasing products

of Tesla and creating discourse about their excitement of being a part of Tesla’s mission. In this

way the brand meaning is reinforced and co­created by Tesla’s consumers. Tesla are the one’s

101

making the product, however, they are not engaging in aggressive advertising campaigns to get

the word out. Instead neutral stakeholders are noticing Tesla owners being really excited about

the product and the Tesla myth. In this sense brand meaning is co­constructed by Tesla’s

consumers, who are ‘spreading the word’.

Service

With a total of 10 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Service’ becomes the fifth

most salient theme within the brand related discourse. It was only mentioned once on

r/Denmark and that comment was an enthusiastic user commenting on the ‘cool’ fact that the

battery packs can be upgraded. Amongst the Tesla owners on TOCD, ‘Service’ was the second

most salient theme after ‘Product. However, the majority of these comments were pointing out

the lack of service for Tesla owners in Denmark. One user stated that the service in Denmark is

bad compared to the service in other countries. Another user proclaimed that the service was

non­existing. A third user tried to make sense of the fact the service was bad in Denmark by

guessing that the political decisions regarding taxing EVs had made Tesla avoid expanding the

service network in Denmark. One user pointed out on Bilgalleri that Tesla only has two service

centers in Denmark, which he thought was nowhere near being enough. This notion was

supported by another user who commented that access to service for Tesla cars was better in

Germany.

So, there is a consensus about Tesla not delivering on the service aspect in Denmark. For

Danish Tesla owners and other stakeholders in Denmark observing the discourse regarding

Tesla’s service, this becomes an influencing factor in brand awareness and brand image, and

will most likely affect the totality of their perceived brand equity in a negative way. The internet

can be viewed as a platform where stakeholders share their brand experiences with each other

and contribute to a sum of brand meaning. This corresponds well with Merz, He and Vargo

(2009) who stated that brand value is co­created within stakeholder­based ecosystems and that

this brand value is dynamically constructed through social interactions among different

stakeholders. This, of course, is true for all of the themes we have covered in the netnographic

analysis, but in this theme it becomes more relevant, as the scope is negative rather than the

enthusiastic. We generally see an ‘echochamber’ of positive attitudes taking form in the

discourse about other aspects of Tesla, aside from service.

102

It is an issue that Tesla cannot deliver satisfactory service. Going back to the idea of a brand

being a person and in a dyadic relationship with its consumer it creates a disappointment in the

relationship from the consumer's perspective. It should be noted that it is not the quality of the

service that is lacking. It is the waiting time for the service to happen that annoys the customers.

If there is minor damage conflicted to the vehicle, people experience that they have to wait

several months for Tesla to repair it. When people are so enthusiastic and infatuated with the

product, it becomes an issue when they cannot have their car serviced straight away. Using the

analogy of the car being a family member, it is very problematic that this family member cannot

be looked at by a doctor when having a nasty cough. A foggy headlight which a Tesla owner

has to look at everyday becomes a brand manifestation of the lack of service in Denmark.

Innovation

With a total of 7 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Innovation’ becomes the

sixth most salient theme within the brand related discourse. Within this theme Tesla is more or

less being praised across all three fora for being extremely innovative. One user on Bilgalleri

stated that Tesla had managed to revolutionize the car industry within 10 years. Another user on

r/Denmark compared them to Apple and their iPhone which successfully challenged the cell

phone market and more or less put Nokia and Sony Ericsson out of business, by introducing the

smartphone. He continued to conclude that the ‘old’ car manufacturers are not ready to adapt

either. Another user on r/Denmark stated that he loved the new feature, ‘autopilot’, where the

car can drive itself and change lanes.

There is no doubt that all stakeholders within our discussion threads share a consensus that

Tesla is a very innovative company. Kapferer (2012) noted that consumers were often asked

what their ideal brand would be and which attributes it would need, but that this approach often

failed due to the fact that the brand ended up not being able to produce any definition other than

an average brand ideal. However, if a brand is able to exceed consumers expectations this

feeds into its brand identity and identity myth. Thus, consumers are able to jump on that

bandwagon as the brand becomes something they want to be associated with, with attributes

they find appealing. In this sense the attribute is innovation and people seem to respond well to

it.

103

Battery

With a total of 6 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Battery’ becomes the

seventh most salient theme within the brand related discourse. This theme was only talked

about on r/Denmark. The Tesla owners on Facebook did not mention it which is relevant, as the

majority of the comments on r/Denmark were regarding the negative consequences on the

environment. One user did comment that he thought the batteries would have to pollute a great

deal in order to be worse than using fossil fuels, and another pointed to the fact that the

batteries lose power when it is not being used, but the rest of the comments were saying how

batteries were bad for the environment, and thusly not sustainable. One user commented that

not everyone knows how damaging on the environment lithium batteries are, and another

commented that the production of the raw materials for the batteries was not sustainable at all.

The users who commented that the batteries were not sustainable at all, could not really prove

it. There was a long discussion going in very specific detail about the consequences of lithium

battery production and the wasting of them, but these arguments were also questioned.

However, it does not really matter whether they are right or not, as this thesis seeks to

investigate brand meaning. The dominant consensus seems to be that the batteries are not

good for the environment. This is how the identified stakeholders perceive the situation. If this is

true, then there is a misalignment between Tesla’s mission of accelerating the world’s transition

to sustainable transport and what is thought be unsustainable production of batteries for their

products. Holt (2002) points out that the brand promises must be aligned with the corporate

culture, so that the brand is perceived as being credible and trustworthy. If Tesla cars are not

being perceived as being sustainable, their brand promise becomes a brand lie, and the

organization is no longer perceived as being trustworthy. However, when it comes to

sustainability, Christensen et al. (2013) states that a difference in words and actions can be vital

in order to move changes within the organization towards more ambitious CSR goals. So this

form of hypocrisy becomes inevitable, but it also becomes a positive thing to uphold ideals and

intentions which may not entirely reflect the actions of the organizations, but pushes for societal

change.

104

Elon Musk

With a total of 6 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Elon Musk’ becomes the

eighth most salient theme within the brand related discourse. He was not mentioned on

Bilgalleri, but was mentioned four times on r/Denmark and two times on TOCD. On r/Denmark

one person noted that he had created the energy supply chain from harvesting energy from the

sun to using it in the Tesla cars. Two users explained how Elon’s personal mission was to help

save the world, and that his drive as a businessman is the wish to help humanity. One user

noted that everything Elon Musk said is branding. On TOCD one user stated that he was totally

fascinated by Elon and his visions, and another user stated that Elon Musk was the Nikola Tesla

of our time. Furthermore, one user on TOCD encouraged us to read the book by Elon Musk in

order to understand the thoughts and visions behind Tesla. From these comments it is evident

that the CEO of Tesla is not just a CEO but also a person that contributes to the brand of Tesla.

Aaker (1997) points out that brands can have a personality and that consumers can use that

brand personality in order to emphasize or extend their own personality by associating with the

brand. She goes on to explain that the brand’s personality can partly be defined with the people

associated with that brand. This does not mean that a brand need to be associated with certain

humans to have a brand personality, but if it does, the traits of those humans will be transferred

to the brand. In the case of Tesla and Elon Musk we argue that he is an important factor in their

stakeholders’ brand perception. As people know him and his values, compare him to Nikola

Tesla, and say they are infatuated with his visions, those personal traits can be transferred to

the Tesla brand and it gives the organization more credibility and authenticity when it proclaims

that it wants to make the world’s transportation sustainable.

Also, when people are so aware of Elon Musk and his visions it is an indicator that he is good at

communicating those visions. Matten and Moon (2008) referred to this kind of open

communication, regarding an organization’s actions and wishes to take responsibility of societal

interests, as explicit CSR, which also could give the organization a strategic advantage.

However, this is not the organization communicating these personal goals of Elon Musk.

However, he is the CEO of Tesla and his personal attributes therefore gets associated with

Tesla’s brand. Thus, it can be argued that his personal communication about his personal goals

becomes a strategic advantage for Tesla Motors. Building on that, it can also be argued that

105

Elon Musk’s presence in Tesla adds to the existing identity myth surrounding their brand, and

judging from the comments about Elon, there are indications that he is considered a cultural

icon.

Range

With a total of 5 different identified arguments across the three fora, ‘Range’ becomes the ninth

most salient theme within the brand related discourse. It was mentioned twice on r/Denmark

and three times on TOCD. On r/Denmark one user commented that the range on a fully charged

battery of a Tesla car was not as good as the range of a gasoline car with a full tank, and

another one commented that the range was quite good in a Tesla car. On TOCD one user

commented that the range was not as good as promised unless he kept the speed under 60

km/h. Another user commented that the range was not good in the winter at 130 km/h, but that it

was great in the summer and definitely fulfilled the promised range.

Even though not too many people took part in this discussion, there were mixed feelings

regarding the promised range and the actual range. Some people did not feel like the Tesla car

performs what the Tesla organization promised. This is an indication of a misalignment between

the brand promise and the performance of the product. However, our data does not indicate that

this is an important problem for Tesla. What is more interesting to look at is that the range is not

better than the one of a gasoline car. This is something that becomes part of the brand

knowledge and thus a part of total stakeholder perception of the Tesla brand equity.

5.4 Summary and Comparison

The purpose of this section is to create an overview and a comparison between the findings

from our interview with Rasmus Brandt Pedersen and the findings from our online communities.

The findings from the interview represent Tesla’s perception of their own brand whereas the

findings from the online communities represent external stakeholders’ perception of Tesla’s

brand. We have derived the findings from three different fora that represent three different

interest groups: ‘Tesla owners’, ‘Danish consumers’ and ‘Car enthusiasts’.

106

5.4.1 Overview of Tesla’s own Brand Perception

Tesla is a global brand that wants to be perceived in the same way throughout markets, but

market differences due to regulations may affect each market’s perception of the brand. Tesla in

Denmark has reaped the benefits of a tax exemption up until the beginning of 2016, but now

they face a gradual tax introduction on EVs which might affect the perception of the brand from

a cost/benefit perspective. Tesla regard their own brand image as being ‘exclusive’, ‘extremely

innovative’ and ‘educative’. Being educative referred to informing potential customers as well as

politicians about the benefits of EVs. They think of their customers as ‘brand ambassadors’ who

are part of the ‘Tesla movement’ ­ a common journey. Tesla’s customers are able to mirror their

own identity traits in the brand’s identity. Each customer associates differently to the brand, but

possible traits include ‘fastness’, ‘economically sustainable’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘sporty’. Tesla

also focuses on the visual sensual experience that customers have with the brand and its

products.

It makes sense that Tesla’s perception of its brand image and brand identity would be much

alike, because Tesla hopes to be perceived in the same the way they believe they are. So,

Tesla’s perception of its brand personality includes many of the above mentioned traits such as

‘educative’, ‘innovative’ and ‘accessible’. A big difference though is that Tesla think of

themselves as being ‘inclusive’ and ‘welcoming’ which in some way stand in contrast to the

brand image trait of being ‘exclusive’. This can be perceived as a gap between how Tesla think

they are and how they think stakeholders perceive them. Elon Musk represents Tesla’s brand

personality as well. He is also thought as a representation of ‘The American Dream’; a cultural

myth behind Tesla’s brand. Another cultural myth behind the brand is ‘Disruptive Innovation’.

There is also a cultural association with Nikola Tesla, as the company is named after him. Tesla

regards Apple as a role model or brand idol, specifically with regards to how their stores work,

where the staff are ‘product specialists’ and ‘information providers’ rather than salesmen.

Tesla’s relation to its customers is valuable as they are perceived as product co­creators and

advertisers for Tesla via word of mouth. The relation between Tesla owners is also regarded as

powerful as Tesla is thought of as a rallying point for customers who create ties with each other.

Customers are not perceived as brand co­creators though. Tesla’s brand management is very

107

product focused as the products reflect exactly what the brand wants to be. Everything Tesla

communicates involves their products in some way. The brand management of Tesla seems to

fit into to the Product Brand Paradigm (Louro & Cunha, 2001). Model S is described as

‘different’, ‘innovative’ and ‘environmental’ and thus there is a good coherence between the

corporate and the product brand as they seek to hold and express the same values.

Tesla’s explicitly communicated mission is aspirational as they seek to affect the world in a

positive way by making products for sustainable transportation. They wish to move their

stakeholders’ opinions and persuade them that their products are better than their competitors’,

in different ways. They exist and operate on the basis of an ideological cause, which is the

mission: to accelerate the world’s transition into sustainable transport. The business plan is to

create an affordable electric car (Model 3), which also correlates with the mission. This is their

main priority and CSR is integrated in this ‘master plan’. Tesla believes that profit is the key to

achieve this goal, and they believe that the more products they sell, the better the impact will be

on the environment. When Tesla succeeds on their mission, and they mature as an

organization, they will put more effort into improving and optimizing procedures throughout the

supply and value chain regarding sustainability and social aspects of CSR. This does not mean

that Tesla disregards these aspects now, but they do not have first priority.

5.4.2 Overview of Stakeholders’ Perception of Tesla’s Brand

Analyzing the stakeholder perceptions of Tesla’s brand meaning was not nearly as simple as

with the interview. Each respondent holds his/her personal opinion about the brand, so we have

sought to find consensus regarding different aspects of the brand within the stakeholder groups.

Tesla is more or less praised in all threads for being ‘extremely innovative’. They are compared

to Apple referring to their successful introduction of the iPhone that changed the mobile phone

market completely. It is questioned by a user if the ‘old’ car manufacturers are ready to adapt.

It is evident from the comments in the data threads that Elon Musk is a salient part of Tesla’s

brand identity. He is not just the CEO of the company, he actually contributes to the creation of

brand meaning through his actions and communication. He provides credibility and authenticity

to the brand. He is called a visionary man with a personal mission to save the world through

business, the Nikola Tesla of our time, and a cultural icon for Tesla Motors.

108

There is generally a positive attitude towards Tesla’s products, besides from a few sceptical

arguments. All stakeholder groups generally regard Tesla’s products, with specific focus on

Model S, as being of ‘good quality’ and ‘cool’. A respondent called it the Ford T of this century,

referring to ‘innovative technology’. There is a general enthusiasm about the products, and the

owners are satisfied with the product itself. ‘Sublime driving experience’ is something that was

mentioned regarding usage. It is regarded as a positive thing that the battery packs in the cars

can be exchanged for an upgrade. Another mentioned feature is the autopilot function, which is

the first step towards autonomous driving. There were a few comments related to the driving

range of Tesla’s cars too, as it is thought to be not quite as good as with gasoline cars. A Tesla

owner mentioned that the range is not as good as promised by Tesla, but another owner stated

that the battery fulfilled the promised range.

The majority of the battery­related discourse regard negative consequences on the

environment. Only the users of Reddit discussed the subject and the discussions were

substantial. We observed a general consensus that batteries are bad for the environment, and

thus not sustainable. Though a few mentioned that batteries would have to be very polluting to

be worse than fossil fuels. There is scepticism towards batteries, and people question if they are

sustainable. This is a possible brand discrepancy relating CSR because it challenges the whole

idea that EVs are more sustainable than gasoline cars.

There is consensus that ‘green technology’ is needed for a sustainable world, and that EVs can

help the world become ‘greener’. We have identified discussions regarding the relation between

‘sustainable products’ and ‘unsustainable energy production’. There seems to be consensus

that companies like Tesla and consumers can contribute to enabling a more sustainable future

with their actions even though other stakeholders’ actions are still needed, specifically political

actions for renewable energy production. Some respondents were sceptical regarding how

‘green’ Tesla’s products actually are, but there is consensus that Tesla themselves think they

are green. Some respondents think that Tesla tries to make themselves more green than they

actually are. This is not the opinion of a majority of the respondents, but we still note that the

possible gap or discrepancy is significant. There are also positive statements about Tesla and

their green ambitions. It seems that people are able to mirror their personal objectives of being

109

environmentally conscious in the brand. They associate their personal identities with the brand’s

identity, and possibly affect others to do the same.

Almost every respondent agrees that the Danish government made a big mistake when they

introduced registration tax on EVs from the start of 2016. The ‘Jantelaw’ has beat climate

ambitions as EVs are now too expensive to buy. People who subscribe to the idea that EVs are

‘greener’ than gasoline cars are now the ones who call for market regulations to create

incentives on EVs, along with Tesla.

People generally think that Tesla is great at branding. They are called ‘pioneers’ and ‘first

movers’ who ‘make EVs look cool’. One respondent referred to the hype around Tesla and its

products as was it ‘the second coming of Jesus’. Tesla themselves are not engaging in

aggressive advertisement of their products, so it seems that the ‘brand hype’ is co­created by

enthusiasts that spread the word. Accordingly, neutral stakeholders notice in the findings that

Tesla owners are ‘really excited about the product and the Tesla myth’. A respondent even

called his Tesla car a ‘family member’.

On TOCD, the Tesla owners generally complained about the lack of service in Denmark. A user

mentioned that he would drive all the way to Germany to get his Tesla car serviced. It is noted

that it is not the quality of the service which is the problem, it is the waiting time. Respondents

pointed out that there aren’t enough service centers in Denmark. A user stated that he thought

Tesla would not expand the service center­network in Denmark due to an expected decrease in

sales because of the tax introduction. To sum up, there seems to be some issues with Tesla’s

service in Denmark that misfits with Tesla’s intention of being ‘accessible’.

5.4.3 Comparison of the Findings

Our findings show that there is generally a coherence between Tesla’s own perception of their

brand and their stakeholders’ perception of the brand. Tesla and their stakeholders agree in that

the brand image is ‘extremely innovative’. This is possibly best illustrated in the fact that one

respondent calls it the Ford T of this century. The products are seen as being of good quality by

the stakeholders, with minor negative aspects regarding the range performance. Tesla is

compared to Apple in both data sets. Tesla itself regards Apple as a ‘brand idol’. The

110

stakeholders refer to Apple’s successful introduction of the iPhone that changed mobile phone

market completely. There seems to be a coherence in the comparison to Apple.

We identify a coherence with Tesla’s own perception of Elon Musk and the stakeholders’

perception of him. Both ‘sides’ think that Elon Musk is a vital part of the brand and the cultural

myth. He seems to provide credibility and authenticity to the brand. He also contributes to the

creation of brand meaning through his actions and communication.

We identify a potential contrast between the traits ‘exclusive’ and ‘inclusive’, which were

mentioned at different occasions by Rasmus Pedersen. It seems that Tesla thinks that current

products are being perceived as ‘exclusive’. Since Tesla’s brand is heavily affected by the

products, as previously argued, the overall brand is affected by this perception. But Tesla also

wants to be ‘inclusive’, which seems to be in conflict with being ‘exclusive’. This contrast can be

explained by the future plans of Tesla, because they are planning to launch the more affordable

Model 3 in a few years. They plan to sell 500,000 of them, thus they are already being ‘inclusive’

by ‘welcoming’ and ‘educating’ the potential Model 3 owners of the future.

Tesla believe that the more products they sell, the better impact it will have on the environment.

Their plan is to sell as many products as possible in the future. Our findings from the online

communities show some scepticism towards batteries as people question if they are

sustainable. This is argued to be a co­created doubt in Tesla’s sustainable cause. This is a

possible brand discrepancy because it challenges the whole idea that EVs are more sustainable

than gasoline cars. If batteries are perceived as being ‘unsustainable’, it is contrasting Tesla’s

mission and the business plan. If this scepticism spreads and becomes a common opinion

among Tesla’s stakeholders it can be harmful for the brand. Tesla could be be accused of

hypocrisy by competitors, petrol lobbyists and other stakeholders. The possible discrepancy can

be interpreted as an issue that needs attention from Tesla. They would not want their

stakeholders to think that the batteries they produce are bad for the environment. Though, there

is a consensus that ‘green technology’ is needed for a sustainable world, and that EVs can help

the world become ‘greener’ amongst the stakeholders, this issue is not regarded as being

critical as this point. As already mentioned, Tesla plans to improve and optimize the whole

supply and value chain with regards to CSR in the future, when the company matures. Future

111

improvements in batteries could very well make a positive difference if Tesla can affect the

opinion of sceptic stakeholders.

A few of the respondents from the online communities think that Tesla try to make themselves

more green than they actually are. This is not the opinion of a majority of the respondents, but it

indicates a possible gap between Tesla’s brand identity and their brand image. It is different

from the above mentioned possible discrepancy, as this one is not product specific. The

statement here relates more to communication, and as we have argued earlier, Tesla explicitly

communicates about its strategy, mission and sustainability achievements. Tesla’s mission can

be categorized as aspirational CSR talk as it suggests something should happen that is difficult

to imagine, especially for sceptics. We have previously discussed Tesla’s own perception of the

mission, and it seems that Tesla are confident that their mission is achievable. We also argue

that the aspirational mission is a potential source of motivation for employees.

The relationship between Tesla and its customers seems to be good and mutually beneficial.

Tesla regards their customers as being ‘part of a common journey’. This seems also to be

confirmed in the findings from the online communities, as respondents note how Tesla

customers seem to hype the brand and their products. Rasmus Pedersen also mentioned this

aspect, though in another way, as he stated that Tesla does not use advertising, but instead rely

on customers to advertise for them. It seems that the ‘brand hype’ is co­created by brand

enthusiasts.

We found that Tesla customers think there is a lack of service due to waiting time. This

statement was pointed out by several owners. Tesla itself wants the brand to express

‘accessibility’ and it is therefore interpreted as a discrepancy which is specific for the Danish

market. The lack of service is a matter of time and not the quality of the service provided.

Tesla’s brand management is identified to adhere to the Product Brand Paradigm. Tesla does

not regard their customers or other stakeholders to be brand co­creators. This means that Tesla

would probably not react to brand­related discourse created by interest groups. However,

customers are seen as product co­creators. Though, our findings from the online community

data does indicate some gaps and discrepancies related to Tesla’s brand meaning, we argue

that the data itself is proof that brand­related co­creation takes place online. We have now

112

identified possible ‘brand issues’ or at least perception­gaps by upholding the findings from the

online communities against the findings from the interview with Rasmus Pedersen. We are able

to argue that brand­meaning co­created by external stakeholders through online discourse can

be relevant and valuable to brands.

6. Discussion and Further Research

In this chapter we will discuss the usefulness and applicability of our approach to the identified

problem, and how it can be used for companies outside the academic sphere. We will then

evaluate the implications the findings of this thesis have for Tesla in Denmark, how they can

benefit from our findings, and provide our recommendations for them. Finally, we will make

suggestions on how to extend the research of this thesis.

6.1 Usefulness and Applicability of Our Approach

We argue that this thesis’ theoretical framework around branding would be relevant for all types

of brand cases, as researchers can apply the given brand theory in order to identify a

company’s brand management's view (paradigm). The theoretical approach to this thesis has

been set up in a way that makes sense for the chosen case brand; Tesla Motors. As it is Tesla’s

declared statement to be a sustainable company, combining literature on CSR with literature on

branding makes sense. Finding out how user­generated online discourse regarding CSR affects

brand meaning is relevant when the case company has a great emphasis on CSR. The

theoretical emphasis on CSR in this thesis might not have made sense in another context. If we

had chosen a different brand case with no significant emphasis on CSR or a brand case that did

not consider CSR a part of their brand, then it might have been irrelevant to include CSR as

literature for the research.

The methodological approach of collecting data and comparing empirical findings would also be

relevant in other contexts. It is hereby possible to identify if co­created brand meanings and

perceptions between external stakeholders differ from the brand’s internal brand perception. We

argue that brand managers are the most relevant and trustworthy sources of information to

retrieve an internal view of a brand’s perception. Regarding netnography, researches would not

necessarily be able to retrieve a data set as comprehensive as the one we were able to retrieve

113

with this specific case, because Tesla is a ‘hot topic’ of discussion in the online world at the

moment. An alternative methodological approach might then be more suitable regarding less

‘hot topic’­cases. An alternative method could be conducting one or several focus groups with

different stakeholders.

Outside of the academic world, companies are able to make practical use of this approach to

identify ‘gaps’ and ‘discrepancies’ in their brand meaning, by comparing their own perception of

the brand and with salient stakeholders’ perception of the brand. Companies are able identify

which brand management paradigm they adhere to, according to this thesis’ literature. They

would though probably have a more practical and empirical approach to explaining their findings

than the theoretical approach this thesis suggests. It might also make sense for companies to

start their own threads asking consumers on various fora about their views on the company.

There is also the opportunity of analyzing existing threads in order to pinpoint potential

brand­related issues. We argue that companies can use this approach of analyzing online

discourse in a way to be able to target and address issues regarding their brand and

stakeholders’ perception of it. It can be an inexpensive point of departure to do further research

or to establish concrete branding efforts upon. An analysis of online brand­related discourse will

give companies an idea of which themes to focus on in their further research and work with

solving potential brand­related issues.

6.2 Implications for Tesla Denmark

We argue that this study can give Tesla Motors Denmark a unique insight into how their brand is

performing and how it is perceived by stakeholders. It can give them an idea of what issues

might be important to evaluate and address at this time, and they could possibly conduct similar

studies in the future to extract their own findings too, as argued in the above.

Rasmus Pedersen stated that one of Tesla’s core principles regarding their brand is that they

are perceived as being a brand which their consumers and the public have easy access to. This

statement holds true when you enter a Tesla store. We personally experienced that we could go

‘play’ with the Tesla Model S which they exhibit in their retail store in Bredgade. We could use

all its features except driving it. However, if we wanted to drive it we could sign up and schedule

a free test drive. Also, the staff were more than happy to answer our questions and teach us

114

about the technology in the car and other aspects. So in that sense we perceived Tesla to be as

accessible as they claim to be.

From our analysis it is clear that there is a stakeholder group who do not perceive Tesla’s brand

to be accessible. This stakeholder group is the Tesla car owners. They have co­created the

brand meaning that Tesla’s service is below their expectations. Specifically, the owners stated

that they waited too long for Tesla’s service, if damages were not considered to be needing

urgent care by Tesla. It would seem then that non­customers who are interested in Tesla’s

products and want to learn more, find the brand to be very accessible through the good service

in the retail stores.

But the customers do not share that experience. This indicates that once you are a part of the

‘Tesla family’ in Denmark, their brand promise of easy access no longer applies. This is a

discrepancy that our study has shed light upon. The consensus between Tesla owners that the

service is lacking becomes a co­created brand meaning that Tesla can choose to react to if they

find it necessary. We have argued that Tesla’s current branding strategy, relates to a paradigm

which indicates that they do not regard the opinion of the consumers in the creation of the

brand. But from our point of view, Tesla could benefit from our findings. We argue that Tesla

would not want any discrepancy between the found brand identity trait of being ‘accessible’ and

the perceived brand image of customers. This finding can help Tesla in Denmark realize that

they should make an effort to change the negative perception. We assume that Tesla Denmark

has the power and the will to meet their customers’ expectations for service.

In relations to CSR, our study has shed light upon the discourse regarding Tesla’s efforts in

CSR and the different brand interest groups perception of these efforts. This study can give

Tesla’s brand management a good indication of whether or not people perceive Tesla’s efforts

as being relevant and conducted in the right way in the opinion of the stakeholders. The

co­created stakeholder perception of CSR efforts are valuable to Tesla. We found that a

majority of the respondents praise Tesla’s ambitions of setting new standards within sustainable

transport and revolutionizing the car industry. They described Tesla’s consumers as being so

enthusiastic that they hype Tesla and their products as being ‘the second coming of Christ’.

However, our study also shows that some respondents questioned the sustainability aspect

specifically regarding batteries. Some respondents claimed that the production of the batteries

115

is not sustainable at all and that it is not appropriate to consider Tesla a ‘green car’. This is a

co­created brand meaning that regards CSR. It is not shared by a majority of the respondents,

but it is still defined as discrepancy from Tesla’s intended brand meaning regarding

sustainability.

Tesla seem to believe that their cars are sustainable or at least have a significantly smaller

impact on the environment than internal combustion engine vehicles. It is regarded as an issue

for Tesla that respondents co­created a contrasting meaning on this aspect. A way to tackle this

issue could be through explicit communication efforts. Tesla could dedicate part of their website

to explain in detail how and why their production and products are sustainable, or will become

sustainable in the future. This could be used as reference point for people who engage in

discussions about the matter, as it was the case in the discussion threads we initiated, and

could thus affect the overall construction of the brand­meaning to favor a positive view. This

might not be something that can be decided on a regional level. If not, this issue could be

brought up to corporate level.

Another similar co­created brand meaning that regards CSR is that some respondents thought

that Tesla make themselves seem ‘greener’ than they actually are. This issue regards a more

general level of doubt from stakeholders which perhaps relates more to Tesla’s communication

and behaviour than to actual product specific items, such as the above mentioned discrepancy

regarding the battery. We have found that Tesla uses an explicit CSR strategy and that their

mission is aspirational in its being. Once again, we refer to Tesla’s confidence in its own

mission. They believe their products are better for the environment than conventional cars. It is

therefore argued that the externally co­created doubt of Tesla’s actual ‘greenness’ is a gap

between Tesla’s brand image and its communicated mission. This gap can be interpreted to be

a motivational driver for Tesla’s employees. Tesla can use the motivation to stay on track,

towards its mission. In the run long run, Tesla might achieve its mission, and thereby prove its

sceptical stakeholders wrong.

Tesla is still at an early stage of its business plan. The Tesla Model 3 which is supposed to be

their popular product has not yet been produced, and will probably not hit the Danish market

before 2018 (Tesla Motors, n.d.(d)). Other car companies are copying Tesla’s technology and

business platform, and produce similar products. Thus it will be relevant to conduct a similar

116

study to the one in this thesis in a few years, when other car manufacturers are established

within the EV market. Brand perception might have changed amongst stakeholders as Tesla will

no longer be the one company that can deliver a good EV.

6.3 Further Research

As we have written this thesis, some issues with the general approach has come to our

attention. We have identified limitations to our methods and areas within the research which

could have been conducted differently. This thesis has a narrow scope of only focusing on the

Danish market. The results from our study provides indications of what the brand perception is

amongst Danish people. The results might be indicative of the Danish people’s perception of the

Tesla brand. As for now, we cannot tell if the perceptions which we have uncovered are similar

across borders and on other markets. From a global/international brand management

perspective, it would be relevant for Tesla to find out if stakeholder brand perceptions are

isolated within market boundaries or if the brand perceptions span across markets.

The Nordic Region of Tesla Motors, except Norway, is operated from one location in Denmark

as Rasmus Pedersen pointed out. By conducting similar studies on all of the Nordic Regional

markets the brand management would be able to see if stakeholders co­create different brand

meanings across the markets. If they were to identity discrepancies or gaps, the brand

management would be able to adjust their branding efforts for that market to affect the brand

perception.

7. Conclusion

We have conducted a study in order to find out how user­generated online discourse regarding

CSR can affect and form brand meaning. We chose the case of Tesla Motors as it is a company

with clear CSR ambitions. We conducted an interview with Tesla’s Nordic Regional Marketing

Manager Rasmus Pedersen. The findings from the interview were used to determine how Tesla

defines its own brand meaning. After, we conducted a netnographic data collection from three

Danish online fora. Our findings show how users of online communities co­create meaning by

participating in discussions and expressing their opinions regarding various topics that they find

interesting. We have identified a range of findings regarding the external co­creation of Tesla’s

117

brand that do not specifically relate to CSR. Findings that only relate to brand co­creation, and

not to CSR are not mentioned here, as they do not answer the research question. They are

regarded as valuable findings though, and they have been discussed in chapter 6.2.

Our findings show that the relationship between Tesla and its customers seems to be good and

mutually beneficial. Tesla regards its customers as being ‘part of a common journey’. This

seems also to be confirmed in the findings from the online communities, as respondents note

how Tesla customers seem to hype the brand and their products. It seems that the ‘brand hype’

is created by Tesla customers, who associate with Tesla’s sustainable brand identity. We found

in the data that neutral respondents agreed that Tesla’s customers are really excited about the

product and the Tesla myth. This indicates that customers are co­creating positive brand

meanings and ‘spread the word’ for Tesla. They associate the views of Tesla and enact them by

purchasing products of Tesla and creating discourse about their excitement of being a part of

Tesla’s mission. In this way Tesla’s brand meaning is reinforced and co­created by Tesla’s

consumers.

We found that a majority of the respondents praise Tesla’s ambitions of setting new standards

within sustainable transport and revolutionizing the car industry. There is a co­created

consensus that ‘green technology’ is needed for a sustainable world, and that EVs can help the

world become ‘greener’ amongst the online community stakeholders. The respondents agreed

that companies like Tesla contribute to creating a more sustainable future.

We identified a consensus that the Danish government made a big mistake when they

introduced registration tax on EVs from the start of 2016. The ‘Jantelaw’ has beat climate

ambitions as EVs are now too expensive to buy. People who subscribe to the idea that EVs are

‘greener’ than gasoline cars are now the ones who call for market regulations to create

incentives on EVs, along with Tesla. Our findings indicate that the stakeholders are the ones

calling for incentives to be brought back and Tesla is trying to lead and drive a socially

responsible behaviour for the rest of the market to follow.

Our findings from the online communities show some scepticism towards batteries as people

question if they are really sustainable. This is a co­created doubt in what Tesla believes is a

sustainable practice. It is a discrepancy that challenges Tesla’s aspirational mission and belief

118

that their products are sustainable. A small group of respondents from the online communities

agreed that Tesla try to make themselves more green than they actually are. This is not the

opinion of a majority of the respondents, but it also indicates a co­created doubt. We argue that

there is a possible gap between Tesla’s brand identity and their brand image. It is regarded as

an issue for Tesla.

119

8. Bibliography

Aaker, J.L. (1997): Dimensions of Brand Personality, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), pp. 347–356.

Apple (n.d.): The best place to get support for Apple products. Located on 7 May 2016 on

http://www.apple.com/retail/geniusbar/

Bilimp.dk (n.d.): Nyregistreringstal. Located 6 May 2016 on

http://www.bilimp.dk/statistics/index.asp

Biography.com (n.d.): Nikola Tesla Biography. Located 8 May 2016 on

http://www.biography.com/people/nikola­tesla­9504443

Campbell, J. L. (2007): Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An

institutional theory of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),

946­967.

Chia, R. (1999): A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective

from a Metaphysics of Change, British Journal of Management, 10 (3), pp. 209–227.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013): CSR as aspirational talk. Organization,

20(3), 372­393.

Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L.J. & Matten, D. (2014): “Contesting the Value of the Shared

Value Concept”. Forthcoming in California Management Review, 56(2): 1­34.

Danskelbilalliance.dk (n.d.(a)): Bestand af Elbiler i Danmark. Located 6 May 2016 on

http://www.danskelbilalliance.dk/Statistik/Bestand_modeller.aspx

120

Danskelbilalliance.dk (n.d.(b)): Nyregistrerede Elbiler i Danmark. Located 6 May 2016 on

http://www.danskelbilalliance.dk/Statistik/Salgstal_maaned.aspx

Davies, A. & Nudelman, M. (2013): Here's How Tesla's Model S Compares To Other Top

Electric Cars. Located on 7 May 2016 on

http://uk.businessinsider.com/electric­car­comparison­chart­2013­8?r=US&IR=T

DeCuir­Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011): Developing and using a

codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development

research project. Field methods, 23(2), 136­155.

De Danske Bilimportører (n.d.): Statistik. Located 14 February 2016 on

http://www.bilimp.dk/statistics/index.asp

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983): The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and

collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.

Faraday Future (n.d.): About. Located 12 February 2016 on http://www.ff.com/about/

Fingas, J. (2015): Tesla Model S drivers rack up over 1 billion miles. Located 10 May 2016 on

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/23/tesla­model­s­owners­drive­1­billion­miles/

Fournier, S. (1998): Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in

Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), pp. 343­373.

Friedman, M. (1970): The social responsibility of the corporation is to increase its profits. New

York Times Magazine, 13.

Holt, D.B. (2002): Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectic Theory of Consumer Culture and

Branding, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), pp. 70­90.

Holt, D.B. (2004): How Brands Become Icons – The Principles of Cultural Branding, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 29­35.

121

Kapferer, J.­N. (2012): The New Strategic Brand Management – Advanced Insights & Strategic Thinking, 5th ed., London Ltd. Chapter 7, Brand Identity and Positioning, pp. 158­170.

Karnani, A. (2011): “’Doing Well by Doing Good’: The Grand Illusion”. California Management

Review, vol. 53(2): 69­86.

Keller, K.L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer­based Brand Equity,

Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), pp. 1­22.

Kozinets, R. V. (1999): E­tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual communities

of consumption. European Management Journal , 17(3), 252­264.

Kozinets, R. V. (2002): The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research

in online communities. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 61­72.

Kvale, S. (1996): Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Kvale, S. (2007): Doing Interviews. London, England: SAGE Publications

Loebler, H. (2011): Position and Potential of Service­dominant Logic – Evaluated in an ‘ism’

Frame for Further Development. Marketing Theory, 11 (1), 51­73.

Louro M.J. and P.V. Cunha (2001): Brand Management Paradigms, Journal of Marketing

Management, 17, pp. 849­875.

Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008): “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a

comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review,

33(2), 404­424.

Merz, M., He, Y., and S.L. Vargo (2009): The Evolving Brand Logic: A Service­dominant Logic

Perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), pp. 328­344.

122

Musk, E. (2014): All Our Patent Are Belong To You. Located 15 February on

https://www.teslamotors.com/en_DK/blog/all­our­patent­are­belong­you

Mühlbacher, H. and A. Hemetsberger (2008): Cosa diamine è un brand? Un tentativo di

integrazione e le sue consequenze per la ricerca e il management, Micro & Macro Marketing, 2

(August), pp. 271­292. (English translation)

Pedersen, T. & Rosenvang M. (2015): Elon Musk – Visions for Tesla, the auto industry and

self­driving Teslas (Interview in Denmark 2015). Located 6 May 2016 on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl5vLC3Xlgc

Polonsky, M., & Jevons, C. (2009): Global branding and strategic CSR: an overview of three

types of complexity. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 327­347.

Porter, M.E. & M.R. Kramer (2011): “Creating Shared Value”. Harvard Business Review,

January­February Issue: 62­78.

Reddit (n.d.): Rules for r/Denmark. Located 10 April 2016 on

https://www.reddit.com/r/denmark/about/rules

Shahan, Z. (2016): Electric Cars 2016 — Prices, Efficiency, Range, Pics, More. Located 12

February 2016 on http://evobsession.com/electric­cars­2014­list/

Skat.dk (n.d.): Registreringafgift. Located 6 May 2015 on

http://skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=1817284&vId=0

Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch (2004): Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing: January 2004, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 1­17.

Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005): "Isms" in information science: constructivism,

collectivism and constructionism. Journal of documentation, 61(1), 79­101.

123

Tesla Motors (n.d.): About Tesla. Located 14 February 2016 on

https://www.teslamotors.com/about

Tesla Motors (n.d.(b)): Powerwall. Located on 8 May 2016 on

https://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall?redirect=no

Tesla Motors (n.d.(c)): Tesla Gigafactory. Located 10 May 2016 on

https://www.teslamotors.com/gigafactory

Tesla Motors (n.d.(d)): FAQ om Reservationer af Model 3. Located 15 May 2016 on

https://www.teslamotors.com/da_DK/support/model­3­reservations­faq

Tesla Motors (2007): Why the name “Tesla”?. Located 9 May 2016 on

http://web.archive.org/web/20071016044752/http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/why_tesla

.php

Tesla Motors (2010): Tesla Hires Apple, Gap Veteran to Revolutionize Car Buying Experience.

Located 7 May 2016 on

https://www.teslamotors.com/da_DK/blog/tesla­hires­apple­gap­veteran­revolutionize­car­buying

­experience

Tingchi Liu, M., Anthony Wong, I., Shi, G., Chu, R., & L. Brock, J. (2014): The impact of

corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on

customer­based brand preference. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3), 181­194.

Urde, M. (2013): The Corporate Brand Identity Matrix, Journal of Brand Management, 20 (9), pp. 742­ 761.

Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A., & Maon, F. (2012): Strategically leveraging corporate social

responsibility. California Management Review, 54(3), 34­60.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008): Service­dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 1­10.

124

Vogel, D. J. (2005): Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social

responsibility. California Management Review, 47, 19­45.

von Wallpach, S. and M. Kreuzer (2013): Multi­sensory Sculpting (MSS): Eliciting Embodied

Brand Knowledge via Multi­sensory Metaphors, Journal of Business Research, Special Issue on Advancing Research Methods in Marketing, 66 (9), pp. 1325­1331.

Yip, B. (2016): CEO Musk: Almost 400,000 orders received for new Model 3. Located 18

February on http://www.reuters.com/article/us­tesla­model­idUSKCN0XI0NR

125

9. Appendix A

[Original] Questions for reddit.com/r/denmark part 1:

Hvad synes r/Denmark om Tesla Motors?

Hej r/Denmark!

Vi er to kommunikationsstuderende, der læser fra cand.merc.(kom.) på CBS. Vi er i gang med

at skrive speciale om Tesla, bæredygtig virksomhedsdrift, branding og online diskurs. Vi prøver

at finde ud af om det som Tesla gerne vil stå for stemmer overens med folks opfattelse af dem

og deres omverden.

Vi vil derfor gerne høre jeres mening og starte en diskussion om Tesla som virksomhed og

brand.

Hvad betyder Teslas projekt for jer?

Hvad er de gode ting og hvad er de dårlige ting?

Hvad synes i om Teslas vision?

Hvad er jeres holdning til konventionelle benzinbiler kontra elbiler?

Hvad synes i om de danske politiske forhold vedrørende elbiler?

Hvad er jeres forventninger og forhåbninger til bæredygtighed i fremtiden?

Svar gerne på et eller flere af ovenstående spørgsmål afhængig af din interesse. Vi vil gerne

starte en diskussion og høre flere forskellige synspunkter, så i må gerne være kritiske i jeres

kommentarer. Det skal meget gerne ikke kun være et rosenrødt billede af Tesla og elbiler, som

bliver produktet af den her diskussion.

126

Questions for reddit.com/r/denmark part 2:

Hej r/Denmark!

Vi er to kommunikationsstuderende, der læser cand.merc.(kom.) på CBS. Vi er i gang

med at skrive speciale om Tesla Motors.

Tak for jeres hjælp sidst! Det var nogle lange og detaljerede besvarelser I gav os. (link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/4e5asa/hvad_synes_rdenmark_om_tesl

a_motors/ ) Vi blev gjort opmærksomme på, at der var nogle problemer med vores tilgang i sidste tråd, som vi vil forsøge at rette os efter i denne tråd.

Denne gang vil vi gerne stille jer nogle flere spørgsmål som vedrører Teslas brand. Vi

har fået et interview i hus med en Tesla repræsentant, som vi skal tale med på tirsdag.

Vi prøver at finde ud af om det som Tesla gerne vil stå for, stemmer overens med folks

opfattelse af dem. Vi vil derfor gerne høre jeres mening og starte en diskussion om

Tesla som virksomhed og brand. Nedenstående spørgsmål er udarbejdet som en

refleksion af de spørgsmål vi vil stille Tesla­repræsentanten på tirsdag.

Hvordan opfatter og oplever I Tesla Motors?

Hvad synes I om Teslas vision, værdier og strategier? (hvis I kender dem)

Hvad synes I om de politiske rammer for virksomheder som Tesla i Danmark?

Hvordan ser I Tesla’s produkter og services? Opfylder de det som virksomheden

siger, at de står for?

Hvad synes I om elbiler kontra benzin­/ dieselbiler?

Svar på et eller gerne flere af ovenstående spørgsmål afhængig af interesse.

127

Questions for Tesla Owners Club on Facebook:

Hej!

Vi er to kommunikationsstuderende, der læser cand.merc.(kom.) på CBS. Vi er i gang med at skrive

speciale om Tesla Motors. Vi vil gerne stille jer nogle flere spørgsmål som vedrører Teslas brand. Vi

har fået et interview i hus med en Tesla repræsentant, som vi skal tale med på tirsdag. Vi prøver at

finde ud af om det som Tesla gerne vil stå for, stemmer overens med folks opfattelse af dem. Vi vil

derfor gerne høre jeres mening og starte en diskussion om Tesla som virksomhed og brand.

Nedenstående spørgsmål er udarbejdet som en refleksion af de spørgsmål vi vil stille

Tesla­repræsentanten på tirsdag.

­ Hvordan opfatter og oplever I Tesla Motors?

­ Hvad synes I om Teslas vision, værdier og strategier? (hvis I kender dem)

­ Hvad synes I om de politiske rammer for virksomheder som Tesla i Danmark?

­ Hvordan ser I Tesla’s produkter og services? Opfylder de det som virksomheden siger, at de står

for?

­ Hvad synes I om elbiler kontra benzin­/ dieselbiler?

Svar på et eller gerne flere af ovenstående spørgsmål afhængig af interesse.

128

Questions for Bilgalleri.dk

Hej!

Vi er to kommunikationsstuderende, der læser cand.merc.(kom.) på CBS. Vi er i gang med at

skrive speciale om Tesla Motors. Vi vil gerne stille jer nogle flere spørgsmål som vedrører

Teslas brand. Vi har fået et interview i hus med en Tesla repræsentant, som vi skal tale med på

tirsdag. Vi prøver at finde ud af om det som Tesla gerne vil stå for, stemmer overens med folks

opfattelse af dem. Vi vil derfor gerne høre jeres mening og starte en diskussion om Tesla som

virksomhed og brand. Nedenstående spørgsmål er udarbejdet som en refleksion af de

spørgsmål vi vil stille Tesla­repræsentanten på tirsdag.

­ Hvordan opfatter og oplever I Tesla Motors?

­ Hvad synes I om Teslas vision, værdier og strategier? (hvis I kender dem)

­ Hvad synes I om de politiske rammer for virksomheder som Tesla i Danmark?

­ Hvordan ser I Tesla’s produkter og services? Opfylder de det som virksomheden siger, at de

står for?

­ Hvad synes I om elbiler kontra benzin­/ dieselbiler?

Svar på et eller gerne flere af ovenstående spørgsmål afhængig af interesse. Tusind tak.

129

10. Appendix B

Spørgeramme til Rasmus Brandt Pedersen, Regional Marketing Manager for Tesla

Vil du kort forklare om din stilling hos Tesla Motors? (arbejdsopgaver, ansvarsområder)

Hvad udtrykker Teslas brand? Hvad vil Tesla gerne have at brandet skal repræsentere? Og

mere specifikt i Danmark?

Er der forskel på måden Tesla brander sig i Danmark kontra internationale markeder?

Brands som viden:

Hvad vil I gerne have at folk skal tænke når man nævner Tesla Motors?

Hvordan vil I gerne have at folk skal opleve jeres brand?

Er der forskel på hvad jeres kunder skal tænke, hvad bilentusiaster skal tænke og hvad

den generelle danske befolkning skal tænke når man nævner Tesla?

Er der nogen sanselige indtryk I gerne vil forbindes med?

Det kunne være når man ser jeres logo, ser/bruger jeres bil, eller andre

oplevelser med brandet.

Brands som identiteter:

Hvis Tesla brandet ses som en identitet, hvad står den identitet så for?

I henhold til vision, værdier, kultur og strategi.

Hvordan tror du så at jeres kunder ser sig selv?

Er der sammenhæng?

Hvordan opfatter I jeres kunder? Hvordan er de?

130

Brands som personer:

Hvis Tesla var en person, hvordan ville du så beskrive ham/hende?

Opførsel

Fysiske karakteristika

Attitude

Overbevisninger

Demografi/Geografi

Stadig en person: hvad kan jeres kunder få ud af forholdet med jer?

(følelse af, behov dækket…?) Hvordan komplementerer Tesla en Tesla ejer?

Brands som kulturelle ikoner:

Hvad er myten omkring Tesla brandet?

Den bagvedliggende kulturelle myte

Brand paradigms (Louro & Cunha):

Vis ham brand paradigm­modellen.

Kender du denne model?

I forhold til de her fire paradigmer: Product, projective, adaptive og relational.

Hvordan er jeres fokus på hvert paradigme?

Hvordan vægtes de hver især?

Er der noget i fokuserer mere på end andet?

Kan du komme med eksempler på hvordan i bruger nogle af dem?

Brands som co­creation:

Hvilken rolle spiller brand co­creation for jer?

Altså forbrugeres og stakeholderes rolle i skabelsen af jeres brand?

131

CSR som branding:

Hvad er Teslas forhold til CSR?

Hvad er forholdet mellem profit og bæredygtighed og hvor meget vægter de hver især?

Udelukker det ene det andet?

Hvordan er Teslas forhold til det politiske miljø i Danmark?

(regulering, afgifter, incitament, osv)

Hvordan kommunikerer Tesla omkring CSR?

Er i implicitte eller eksplicitte i jeres kommunikation?

Hvordan er Teslas CSR strategi? Og hvad er jeres CSR mål?

Er der nogle elementer i mangler for at opfylde jeres CSR mål?

Kender du til konceptet CSV ­ creating shared value? (at dyrke og investere i forholdet

mellem økonomisk og social progression)

Er det noget Tesla forholder sig til og hvordan dyrker i det?

Er der nogle steder i værdi­/forsyningskæden hvor man ikke er lige så bæredygtig som

man gerne ville være?

Hvordan er sammenhængen mellem Teslas corporate brand og Teslas produkt brands?

Står de for de samme ting?

132

11. Appendix C

Transskribering af interview med Rasmus Brandt Pedersen, Regional Marketing Manager for Tesla

R = Rasmus

M = Michel

C = Christian

R: Hvad skal i skrive om, og hvad er det i skriver for?

M: Vi læser Cand.Merc.(kom.) på CBS. Jeg har læst PR og Marketing som profil, og Christian

har læst CSR. Vi er så gået sammen og har kombineret de to områder, så Tesla var oplagt som

case. Det vi skriver om er branding hovedsageligt og CSR som branding. Det vi gerne vil finde

ud af er at finde gaps og hvor det stemmer overens med det Tesla vil ,og så hvad forbrugerne

tænker om brandet. Vi begrænser os til det danske marked.

R: Der er ikke nogen særskilt dansk strategi. Der er en Tesla strategi.

M: Okay. Vi vil gerne høre hvad du, Rasmus Pedersen, laver hos Tesla Motors. Hvad er dine

ansvarsområder?

R: Jeg er regional marketing manager for Danmark, Sverige og Finland, hvilket vil sige at jeg

styrer vores marketing indsats i den region. Min primære opgave er at styre de ansatte i

hverdagen lokalt. Det er at implementere de kampagner som kommer fra hovedkontoret i USA

og Amsterdam. Og så er at finde på tiltage i de lokale markeder, som kan understøtte

forretningen i forhold til at få øget opmærksomhed og få flere folk ind i butikken.

M: Okay. Men Norge er ikke med i 'Norden¨?

R: Nej. Tidligere var det sådan at Danmark og Norge blev kørt herfra. Så fik vi Sverige med. Så

var Norge blevet så stort at det blev kørt for sig selv. Det vil sige at de har x antal butikker som

133

retfærdiggøre at de har en organisation særskilt. Så fik vi Finland og så bygger vi op, og når der

er nok butikker i en region, så kommer der en landechef og kommunikationsansvarlig for det

enkelte land. Men indtil man har en kritisk masse af butikker, så gør man ikke det.

M: Vi vil hoppe direkte ind i brandingen. Hvad mener du at Teslas brand udtrykker? Hvad mener

du at Teslas brand skal repræsentere? Og er der forskel på hvad det skal repræsentere

internationalt kontra på det danske marked.

R: Det vigtigste når vi snakker omkring brandet, det er at vi vil gerne være let tilgængelige. I

bilbranchen er der sådan et term der hedder premium brand. Det er der nogle bilmærker der går

rigtigt meget op i at arbejde med. Så har man lige lidt strammere jakkesæt på og strammere

slips, og smule af det med kun at snakke med premium kunder. Det er vi direkte modstandere

af. Alle skal være velkomne i vores butikker. Det er en stor del af vores brand. Der er to vigtige

faktorer ved vores butik. Vi skal sælge nogle biler, men vi skal også uddanne. Det vil sige, at vi

ved godt, vi har et produkt nu, der appellerer til en bestemt kundegruppe med en bestemt

indkomst eller en bestemt bilentusiasme, men vi skal også uddanne og motivere vores

kommende ejere; både i form af unge mennesker, som endnu ikke har et kørekort, eller folk

med en indkomst der ikke gør det muligt at købe vores biler. Så vi bruger rigtig meget tid på at

være let tilgængelige. Det er det korte svar. Det lange svar er, at hvis man skal finde et brand

som vi måske kan spejle os i, så er det Apple. Det skyldes at vores første direktør inden for

retail det var ham der indrettede Apples butikker. De er åbne, det er let at komme ind og der

nogle der fortæller dig omkring produktet. De prøver reelt ikke at sælge dig et produkt. De har

de dér product specialists. De har poloer med navneskilte på, og så kan de fortælle dig alt

omkring den her Ipad. Men der er ikke nogen af dem, der sådan for alvor prøver at skubbe det

til dig. Det er også vores tankegang. Du kan komme ind og du kan få alt at vide omkring bilen.

Vi har nogle product specialists, som er super dygtige til at give information. De er også dygtige

sælgere, men deres primære funktion er at kunne give information. Så let tilgængelig. En anden

del i forhold til vores brand, det er selvfølgelig, at vi vil gerne være et brand som har en meget

klar mission, og vil være gode til at kommunikere vores mission. Den er relativt lille, den er

accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. Og fortælle den historie igen og igen og

igen, og argumentere hvorfor det er vigtigt. Det er også en stor del af vores brand. Hvis vi ser

helt specifikt på hvordan vores logo er designet, så er det et element fra en el­motor; Tesla­T­et.

Navnet Nikola Tesla, det var det han opfandt, og det er noget vi repræsenterer også. Så der er

134

helt sikkert også en mere teknisk side af vores brand. Altså produktet, teknologien, udvikling af

innovation. Det er også en stor del af vores brand.

M: Men er der nogle forskelle på det internationale og marked og så det danske?

R: I den måde vi brander os selv på, Nej. I den måde vi bliver opfattet som brand, ja, en smule.

Og det er jo mange gange, at vores bil koster det samme globalt, men lokale afgifter,

transportomkostninger, importskatter, alt sådan noget der kan jo ændre prisen. Det vil sige at

hvor vi i nogle lande kan være en ekstrem eksklusiv bil, hvor de færreste har den, og man har

taget en stor chance for at købe den, så kan vi også have et land som Norge, hvor det er hver

mands bil. Du ser den over det hele der. Så på den måde kan man godt sige at produktet og

dermed også brandet kan opfattes en smule forskelligt. Men vi gør ikke for at blive opfattet

anderledes.

M: Hvordan vil du så sige, at brandopfattelsen er på det danske marked?

R: Jamen, det startede jo som ekstremt eksklusiv og forbeholdt de få, indtil at folk ligesom

forstod idéen i, at her kunne du få rigtigt meget bil for pengene i forhold til hvad du er vant til. Så

blev vi et produkt som flere havde tilgang til. Men jeg tror stadig at vores brandopfattelse i at

være et eksklusivt mærke og være ekstremt innovativt den er rigtig høj. Så kan man diskutere,

hvordan kommunikationen omkring vores mission, hvordan det ligger i forhold til innovation og

hurtig bil. Men det er måske mere produkt specifikt end det er brand specifikt. Men vi er meget

tæt forankret i vores brand og vores produkt. Vi reelt kun et produkt, som er vores brand. Den

afspejler det vi gerne vil være. Den er hurtig, den er anderledes, den er innovativ, den er

miljøbevidst. Det er også nogle af de ting vi gerne vil være som et brand. Jeg tror også Apple og

deres produkter er meget sammenlignelige.

C: Jeg tænker på...

R: Jeg håber ikke i skal transskribere. For så snakker jeg for meget, jeg kan godt give korte

svar.

135

C: Nej du skal bare snakke. Han er en haj foran et tastatur, så det kommer til at køre. Vi skruer

bare ned på halv tempo.

M: Ja, det er fint. Det tager en dag.

C: Vi var meget inde på det her om der var forskel på Danmark og resten af verden. Men er der

forskel på hvordan i gerne vil have at jeres kunder opfatter jer i forhold til den generelle

befolkning? Har i et særligt fokus på kundernes opfattelse?

R: Nej. Og det tror jeg skyldes, at vores er dem som er bedst til at lave vores brand, og udleve

vores brand. Vi er ekstremt baseret på vores kunder. De er vores ambassadører, vores brand

ambassadors. Så det de fortæller befolkningen, er det rigtige, hvis man kan sige det sådan. De

er bedre til at fortælle omkring vores brand end vi er. De er vores brand, de er bevægelsen som

vi gerne vil skabe.

M: Vi arbejder med nogle brandteorier. Der vi opdelt dem i måder at se branding på, så der

kommer måske nogle spørgsmål nu, der virker lidt mærkelige, men det er simpelthen for at få

afdækket forskellige områder. Så du svarer bare som du synes, at du har lyst til at svare. Vi

starter med en kategori der hedder brands som viden. Der har jeg et spørgsmål der hedder,

hvad vil i gerne have at folk skal tænke når man nævner Tesla Motors?

R: Vores mission. Det er den bevægelse vi skal have i gang, ja.

M: Hvad skal folk opleve ved Tesla brandet?

R: De skal først og fremmest opleve information. En form for uddannelse, som fjerner nogle

fordomme og gør det muligt for dem at forstå hvordan livet med et nyt produkt kunne være.

C: Hvad er det for en uddannelse?

R: Det er jo meget forskelligt efter hvor kunden er, men reelt har det i starten været at fortælle

omkring elbiler. Det kan du definere ned til at være rækkevidde. Det kan være miljøpåvirkning.

Det kan være oplader. Det er en uddannelse i hvorfor er det nødvendigt, hvordan adskille det

136

sig, og hvordan er det at leve med det på produkt siden. Vi er det sidste led i kæden, vi er

salgsledet. Så det vi gør er at uddanne mod et salg enten nu eller på et af de senere produkter.

M: Man snakker også om at en del af brand viden det bliver oplevet igennem sanselige

metaforer, altså dufte eller et eller andet. Så er der nogle sanselige indtryk i gerne vil forbindes

med?

R: Nej. Og det er et godt spørgsmål. Nu sidder jeg i marketing og vi har spurgt omkring både

sådan noget som lyd, sådan noget som duft. Sådan noget om vi arbejder med en bestemt

temperatur. Det gør vi faktisk ikke. Vi arbejder med visuelt. Vores butikker ser ens ud. Vores

staff er klædt ens. Så vi har helt sikkert et visuelt udtryk. Men vi er ikke kommet så langt at vi

har nogle af de andre sanseparameter.

M: Okay. Næste punkt er brand som en identitet. Hvis Tesla brandet ses som en identitet, hvad

står den identitet så for? Her tænker vi i henhold til vision, værdier, kultur og strategi.

R: Jeg tror bestemt, at vores kunder tager Teslas identitet til sig og gør den til en med sig selv.

Men det er meget forskelligt om man prøver at styrke sin identitet som et bæredygtigt individ

eller om man er en innovativ type. Der er også nogle der tager det i forhold til at være

bæredygtige inden for økonomi; køb noget dyrt og spar pengene løbende. Og så er der også

nogle der tager det 'hurtige sportsvogn' i sig. Så jeg tror man kan tage mange forskellige ting i

vores brand og så forstærke sin egen identitet.

M: Det tror jeg også, for det er der mange af vores opfølgende spørgsmål der handler om. Det

næste spørgsmål lyder, hvordan tror du at jeres kunder ser sig selv, og er der en

sammenhæng?

R: Jeg tror rigtigt mange af vores kunder ser sig selv som first movers. Men om first movers så

er inden for det grønne, økonomi, innovation eller hurtige biler, det tror jeg er meget forskelligt.

M: Så det varierer lidt?

137

R: Det varierer rigtigt meget. Jeg har sjældent arbejdet med et produkt, hvor vores kundegruppe

er så forskellig. Vi har både den superrige direktør, men vi har også børnefamilier som for første

gang har købt en bil. Vi har teknik­ingeniørnørden, som køber den fordi han kan beregne nogle

energikvoter på den, men vi har også den langhåret miljøhippie. Forestil jer sådan en meget

stereotyp. Så vi spreder enormt bredt.

C: Du nævner fællesnævneren som værende first mover på en eller anden måde?

R: De ser sig selv som en first mover, men om det er inde for den ene eller anden ting. Altså,

det er den hurtigste bil der findes. Det er der nogle der overhovedet ikke går op i, men de har

været first movers på elbiler.

M: Næste spørgsmål. Hvordan opfatter i jeres kunder. Hvordan er de?

R: Der er kun en ting og det er at det kan man ikke sige. Man kan godt lave noget statistik og så

sige jamen han er typisk plus 46, og har en indkomst sådan og sådan, men noget af det første

jeg har lært i salg, det er at man skal aldrig dømme en kunde når han kommer gående ind, fordi

vi kan ikke lave sådan en stereotyp af en kunde. Og jeg tror at hvis du kigger på vores kunder

på sådan noget som Tesla forum, så den eneste fællesnævner der er for dem, det er deres

passion. Men de er passioneret for forskellige ting. Så Tesla er en fællesnævner for dem, men

jeg tror hvis du spurgte dem, hvad er det vigtigste i din Tesla, så er det forskellige elementer for

dem allesammen.

M: Så har vi en fane der hedder brands som personer. Hvis Tesla var en person, hvordan vil du

så beskrive ham/hende, og her snakker vi i forhold til opførsel, fysiske karakteristika, attitude,

overbevisninger, og demografi.

R: Jamen det er bare Elon Musk. Det er en mand. Tesla er en mand. Jeg kan godt give dig

karakteristikken på hvordan han ser ud. Han er små to meter høj, han er ikke tyk, men det

svinger. Så er han jo en amerikansk drøm. Det vil sige han har udlevet den. Fra ingenting til

alting. Han er en rock star indenfor ingeniørverden, men samtidig kan han gøre det på en måde,

hvor han ikke er kluntet. Der nogle der har sagt han er innovativ. Det er all in. 100 % eller

138

ingenting. Det tror jeg er den måde han er på. Jeg tror vi er ude i noget med at Elon Musk er

noget som du kan sige, så behøver du ikke at beskriver ham, for folk ved godt hvem han er.

M: Det tror jeg du har helt ret i. Det er også vores indtryk. Hvad kan jeres kunder få ud af

forholdet med jer? Følelser? Behov dækket? Hvordan komplementerer Tesla en Tesla ejer?

R: Ja. Det er et rigtigt godt spørgsmål. Jeg tror noget af det stærkeste, vi kan give, det er faktisk

connection til andre ejere. Vi holder nogle gange arrangementer for vores ejere, men det som

ender med om det er en succes eller ej, det er ikke, hvor meget wienerbrød eller hvor godt

kaffen den smager, det er at de møder andre Tesla ejere. For de har så meget til fælles. De har

en ting de går op i sammen. Jeg tror det er lidt ligesom folk der spiller golf. Der snakker de

omkring golf, her snakker de omkring Tesla.

M: Eller mig som fodbold fan.

R: Ja, præcis. Man er lidt ligeglad med alle mulige andre ting omkring personen, det finder man

ud af med tiden, men det der med at man har en ting så stærkt til fælles, som de er så

passioneret omkring. Jeg tror faktisk at det er det stækeste vi kan give dem, det er kontakten til

hinanden. Det er vi også rigtigt gode til at finde på andre måder. Så tror jeg. En anden ting som

vi gerne vil give vores ejere, det er en form for følelse af at de er med. Altså at vi er sammen om

det. Deres mening tæller ekstremt meget. De er dem som gør produktet bedre med tiden som er

en af vores helt store selling points. Det kan være svært, men vi vil rigtigt gerne give dem

følelsen af, at det de siger bliver taget seriøst og det bliver implementeret, når der er nok der har

gjort det. Det kan jo altid være svært i en amerikansk virksomhed, hvor der kan være langt til

toppen. Men mange af de her ting forbedringer som de foreslår. Det bliver implementeret. Det

tror jeg er super, super stærkt.

M: Næste det er så 'et brand som kulturelt ikon', og der har vi et spørgsmål der hedder, hvad er

myten omkring tesla brandet?

R: Den kulturelle myte. Jeg vil sige det er måske lidt det dér, den amerikanske drøm. Det vil jeg

sige er myten. Så er det 100 % disruptive innovativt. Det tror jeg er myten omkring Tesla.

139

M: Det er nogle gode buzz ord.

R: Ja, vi er en virksomhed der bliver skrevet rigtigt mange buzz words omkring, sådan er det jo

altid ikke?

M: Så har vi en model her (viser Rasmus brand paradigms), jeg ved ikke om du kender den. Det

er ikke en model som vi skal bruge sådan som analyse model, der har vi mange andre, men det

her kan bruges som indhold til vores analysemodeller. Der er de her paradigmer. Jeg ved ikke

om du har set noget lignende før?

R: Det har jeg sikkert, men jeg har højst sandsynligt også glemt det.

M: Ja, det er nok ikke noget du bruger i din dagligdag. Men der er de her fire paradigmer, og det

er i forhold til hvordan man brander sig selv. Her er der fokus på co­creation, her brander du dig

igennem produktet, og her brander du dig igennem brand og produktet men på en måde, hvor

du reklamerer det ud. Her tager du meget stakeholdere og kunders mening med ind over din

måde at brande dig på.

R: Okay. Ja og det er jo lidt svært fordi forskellen er jo hvordan vi bliver opfattet og hvordan vi er

som virksomhed.

M: Ja, men hvordan er i selv?

R: Vi er 100 % drevet af vores produkt. Alt har fokus på vores produkt. Hvis vi hopper tilbage, så

var hele tanken. Du skal aldrig nogen sinde reklamere. Hvis man laver et produtk der er så godt

at folk de vil have det, så kommer de selv ind og køber det. Så skaber vi et godt produkt, så skal

vi sådan set bare åbne dørene, så kommer kunderne. Det var strategien. Og det er også

lykkedes meget hen af vejen. Vi har aldrig brugt en krone på markedsføring, så det her med at

reklamere det ud, har vi aldrig gjort. Vi har vores kunder til at fortælle det til andre, men vi har

aldrig lavet en kampagne.

M: Ja det ligger sig meget godt op ad product brand paradigm kan man sige.

140

R: Og igen, vi er jo drevet af en ingeniør ikke? Altså hans lidenskab ligger i at gøre et produkt

godt.

M: Okay. Vi snakker også om brands som co­creation. Du nævnte selv at hvis jeres kunder

siger noget, så lytter i til dem. Så vi vil høre, hvilken rolle spiller brand co­creation for jer, og vi

snakker om forbrugernes og stakeholderens rolle i skabelsen af jeres brand.

R: Ja. De udlever vores brand. De har en stor indvirkning på vores produkt, men de har ikke

nogen stor indvirkning på hvordan vores brand skabes. Man kan sige de udlever mange brandet

Tesla, ideologien, men det er ikke sådan at vi laver en undersøgelse på om de synes vores

brand skal være det ene eller det andet, eller kommunikere det ene eller andet. Det vi gerne vil

have fra dem, det er feedback på produktet.

M: Okay, så i brander jer igennem produktet?

Ja, og hvis vi skal være helt ærlige, så tror jeg vi er en af de virksomheder som er absolut

dårligst til at høre vores kunders feedback på noget som helst andet end produktet og

oplevelsen ved produktet. Nu har vi jo kørt events. Normalt så følger man jo op og spørger,

hvordan synes du eventet det var? Hvordan synes du vi blev opfattet? Kunne du lide kaffen?

Var det en god frugtkurv? Hvad synes du om produktet, det er det som altid vinder.

M: Det er en meget skarp linje synes jeg. Det er meget interessant. Vores sidste emne det er

CSR som branding. Så vi vil starte med at høre, hvad er Teslas forhold til CSR?

R: Jeg tror vi har det højeste niveau, der er vores mission. Det er sgu lidt en 'red verden'. Hvis vi

bliver ved med at bruge fossile brandstoffer, så går det af helveds til. Vi er nødt til at gøre noget

andet, og vi er nødt til at gøre noget drastisk. Måden vi gør det på, det er tage fat på biler. Biler

det er noget som alle har en holdning til, hvad enten vi går op i det eller ej, så stifter vi

bekendskab med det. Hvis vi kan flytte folk bilmæssigt, så kan vi også flytte dem på alle mulige

andre parameter senere hen. Vi fokuserer på det store element, fossil brændstof. Hvis vi kigger

ned igennem vores organisation, så drikker vi vand på plastikflaske, det er fint nok. Vi har noget

affaldssortering. Det er mange gange det man ellers snakker om når det er CSR, det helt nede

på det dér miniature niveau. Der fejler vi 100 %. Men vi fokuserer på de store ting, og så kan

141

man jo sige, de små ting, de kommer på et eller andet tidspunkt, når vi er en voksen

virksomhed, men det er ikke noget man går op i. Jeg tror gerne man ville, men der andre ting

der betyder mere. Og så har vi jo ellers social responsiblity. I USA har vi meget det dér med

veterans på fabrikken, vi har fokus på kvinder på arbejdspladser. Vi har fokus på at rejse penge

til forskellige velgørende formål. Men rigtigt meget af det, det ligger centralt i USA, hvor vi har

den største koncentration af vores medarbejdere. Så vi har ikke en direkte CSR politik ude i de

lokale afdelinger. Men det er sådan lidt, jeg tror alle her har en holdning til at det er vigtigt vi gør

noget, men jeg tror det er vores hovedarbejde at gøre det bedre.

M: Okay. Vi har et spørgsmål her, der hedder hvad er forholdet mellem profit og

bæredygtighed? Hvor meget vægter det hver især? Og udelukker det ene det andet?

R: Ja. Hvis man ikke laver profit, så kan vi ikke fortsætte vores virksomhed, så kan vi ikke skabe

det store resultat. Vores mål er ikke at få 50.000 biler ud at køre, vores mål er at få en halv

million biler ud at køre om året. Og hvis vi ikke er profitable nu eller i det mindste tjener penge,

så når vi aldrig det mål. Så det er det vigtigste.

M: Så der skal være balance?

R: Nej. Vi skal tjene penge, for ellers kan vi ikke nå vores mål. Hvis vi fokuserede rigtigt meget

på at være bæredygtige lige nu, så er det ikke sikkert vi kunne tjene pengene og så lukkede

virksomheden.

C: Så der er en balancegang?

R: Ja, men hele tiden, noget af det som er allermest klart hos os, det er vores mål. Vi vil skabe

en super fed elbil, som de fleste har råd til, og vi vil producere den i et stort stort antal. Det er

det absolut vigtigste nu. De ting og krumspring vi må lave for at komme til det mål, jamen de er

nødvendige, og en af de ting der er nødvendige det er at tjene penge.

M: Okay. Så i forhold til Danmark. Spørgsmålet hedder, hvordan er Teslas forhold til det

politiske miljø i Danmark? Og her tænker vi afgifter f.eks., men også regulering og incitamenter

osv. også i forhold til afgiftsfritagelse før.

142

R: Altså vores relation til politik er jo, at vi forsøger at få dialog og indflydelse. Og bruge de

værktøjer som man nu engang har mulighed for. Men vi har jo ikke sådan nogen politisk

dagsorden ellers som virksomhed. Det er klart, vi ønsker da at få politikerne i tale; forklare dem,

give dem samme uddannelse, som vores kunder ikke?

M: Hvordan kommunikerer Tesla omkring CSR? Er i impicitte eller eksplicitte i jeres

kommunikation?

R: Vi er vel eksplicitte. Altså vi fortæller jo kunderne omkring fordelen ved en elbil, ved vores

hovedprodukt, men vi går ikke ind i detaljen på de mindre ting. Vi reklamerer ikke for de her

ellers CSR tiltag som vi laver.

C: Men det er så også en del af spørgsmålet ikke? Præcis hvor i kommunikerer eller hvordan i

gør det.

R: Primært er vores kommunikationskanaler jo vores hjemmeside, det er vores e­mails, det er

vores sælger staff, og så en lille smule de sociale medier.

C: Taler i om bæredygtighed på de forskellige medier du lige nævnte?

R: Ja. I forhold til produktet. Altså hvor mange tons CO2 har vi sparet f.eks. Det kommunikerer

vi på de kanaler. Men vi kommunikerer ikke vores deltagelse i kvindeligestilling på

arbejdspladsen.

C: Det lyder meget inkluderende også alligevel, det her med hvor meget vi allesammen har

været med til indtil videre og skal bygge videre på.

R: Ja. Vi kørte en kampagne der hed 'one billion' eller 'next billion', det var vi havde kørt en

milliard elektriske miles, vores kunder og os ansatte tilsammen. Og det fejrede vi. Det er jo en

måde at sige at vi er på vej på den her rejse, og vi er kommet til en milepæl.

143

M: Næste spørgsmål er, hvad er jeres CSR mål og hvad er jeres CSR delmål? Og er der nogle

elementer i mangler for at opfylde disse mål?

R: Det er lidt svært at sige det er et CSR mål, fordi det er vores produkt vi kører. Og nej, hvis i

læser 'the secret master plan', som blev skrevet for lang tid siden af Elon, som beskrev 3­trins

raketten; vi starter med en Roadster ­ super eksklusivt produkt. Så laver vi en model S og en X,

som er luksuriøse produkter, vi kan tjene mange penge på, så vi kan funde trin tre; 'Model 3',

som vi lige har lanceret. Det er sådan set milepælene hele vores mission og forretning er

baseret på de her. Men vi har ikke sådan særskilte CSR steps, der er særskilt fra den store

plan.

M: Okay, så den store plan er CSR planen?

R: Ja, det kan man godt sige.

M: Kender du til konceptet CSV ­ Creating Shared Value? ­ At dyrke og investere i forholdet

mellem økonomisk og social progression. Er det noget Tesla forholder sig til?

R: Jeg tror ikke vi forholder os til det særskilt, men jeg tror igen det reflekterer tilbage til vores

forretningsstrategi og CSR strategi. Om det så hedder CSV, det er jo shared value, at når vi får

produkterne ud, så har det også en positiv indvirkning.

C: Hvad så med, hvis jeg nævner produktion? Vi har jo læst til at der bliver bygget en stor fabrik.

Vil du forklare lidt om den også i forhold til måske også, det her med CSR og CSV?

R: Giga factory er en fabrik der skal producere batterier, og den skal producere batterier til

vores Model 3, og det er simpelthen fordi, der er ikke en produktionskapacitet der er stor nok af

Li­tion batterier, så vi producerer dem selv. Der udover, så kommer den til at producere batterier

til hjem og virksomheder, så man kan lagre solenergi og vindenergi. Derudover skal det jo være

en selvforsynende produktion i forhold til energi. Vi plastrer den til med solceller og vindmøller.

Selvfølgelig vil vi gerne udleve det vi siger i forhold til at bruge vedvarende energi i vores

produktion. Det er endnu ikke 100 % muligt, på Freemont fabrikken, men man har fokus på at

optimere på de her energiparameter.

144

M: Det leder os også til næste spørgsmål som lyder, er der nogle steder i

værdi/forsyningskæden, hvor Tesla ikke er lige så bæredygtige som man gerne vil være?

R: Det tror jeg vi er hele vejen igennem forsyningskæden. Jeg tror altid målet er endnu mere.

Men jeg har ikke nogle specifikke mål, som at vi ærgrer os over at vi bruger for meget vand i

vores sprøjtehal. Men jeg ved at vi har nogle af de mest energieffektive produktionsprocesser.

Jeg ved at vores sprøjtehal bruger ekstremt lidt vand i forhold til, hvad der er gængs, men hvad

vores milepæl inden for det specifikt er, det kender jeg ikke noget til. Det tror jeg kun folk i

produktionen gør. Jeg kender heller ikke noget lokalt for om vi skal sænke vores varme­ eller

vand forbrug.

M: Fint. Du har nævnt det et par gange, men nu får du spørgsmålet alligevel. Hvordan er

sammenhængen mellem Teslas corporate brand og Teslas product brand? Står de for den

samme ting?

R: Det er 100 %, ja.

M: Har du noget at skyde ind med?

C: Vi er igennem spørgsmålene allerede, så det kørte sindssygt godt, og jeg synes at det er

nogle gode svar vi har fået.

M: Det er jo et brand der ikke er til at skyde igennem.

R: Jeg tror igen, det er fordi vi er produkt baseret. Jeg tror faktisk, at det at tale med jer gør det

endnu mere klart. Vores brand er produktet. Det er det vi holder frem altid. Jeg tror mange

gange andre, så bygger man et brand op; Adidas eller Nike, det er et brand, og så er der en hel

masse produkter neden under, som måske ikke adskiller sig sådan super super meget fra

hinanden, men enten er man til det ene brand eller det andet brand. Vores produkt er det vi

viser frem altid. Vi fortæller ikke en historie, som ikke direkte relaterer sig til vores produkt. Og

derfor, og det jo igen, når man har en ingeniør som CEO, jamen det han går op i, det er

145

produktet. Byg et godt produkt. Og hans tro på, hvis man bygger et godt produkt, jamen så skal

det nok også sælge.

M: Det er også lidt Apple modellen kan man sige. Som vi også selv har spottet for lang tid siden,

at der er klar sammenhæng mellem de to, men på hver sin måde.

C: Men så er der også det her med at i jo faktisk lytter til hvad folk siger om produktet, og tager

det til jer. Så på den måde er der vel en co­creation produkt specifikt i hvert fald.

R: Men du kan også vende den om og så tænke, hvis vi har ansat 1000 ingeniører, som skal

finde fejl og forbedringsforslag, og vi har 110.000 kunder, hvorfor så ikke bruge de 110.000

kunder til at komme med forbedringsforslag? Hvis alle 110.000 kunder sagde nu skal der benzin

i den, så gjorde vi det ikke. Det er sådan lidt, vi vil gerne høre jeres feed back, vi vil gerne

forbedre produktet. I rører ved det hver evigt eneste dag, du kan også være 100 % sikker på, at

der sidder nogle i toppen af den her virksomhed, som har en meget klar holdning til, hvordan

tingene de skal være.

M: Der er noget 90 % fastlagt og 10 % der kan diskuteres?

R: Ja.

M: Vi havde jo håbet lidt på at der ville være nogle lidt mindre grønne ting, som skulle blive

grønnere, men det lyder som om der også er styr på det.

R: Jeg tror ikke at der er styr på alt. Det eneste der er konstant i Tesla, det er at vi vil altid

forbedre os, og det gælder alle ting. Det vi altid vender tilbage til, det er Model 3 ­ en halv million

biler.

C: Er det i Danmark?

R: Nej, det er det vi gerne vil producere på Freemont fabrikken. Og når vi er godt på vej mod det

mål og det kører, så er der tid og overskud til at fokusere på andre ting. Så får jeg måske en

mail om at nu får vi sådan en, så vi kan samle vores plastikflasker. Men du kan være helt sikker

146

på, at hvis vi bare er en lille bitte smule væk fra at kunne nå det her mål... Så fuck

plastikflaskerne. Fordi den store indvirkning kommer til at være i, at vi kan lave en elbil som folk

gerne vil have, og som de har råd til. Så er det fint nok at vi samler 10.000 plastik flasker

sammen, men det her kommer til at have en større effekt, så det er målet. Som vi vokser som

virksomhed så får vi også resurser til nogle af alle de her ting. Og selvfølgelig kommer det også

med tiden, men det er stadig kun små forbedringer i forhold til den store forbedring.

M: Tror du folk og kunder er klar over at det er sådan i tænker?

R: Både ja og nej. Dem som er passioneret, de ved godt hvad vores 3­trins raket den er. Hvad

målet det er. Og det er lidt sjovt at stå snakke med en kunde om, det her produkt som vi tilbyder

lige nu, der er verdens bedste produkt, det er ikke det der er vores drøm. Det er ligesom at

sælge den helt store, det ved jeg ikke, computer, men vi ved godt at det er den lille computer

herover som er den vi rent faktisk gerne vil lave, men vi er lige nødt til at sælge den her først for

at komme dertil.

M: Var det det?

C: Vi har i hvert fald været alle spørgsmål igennem, så ja.

M: Nu er det fem minutters hyggesnak.

R: Fuckede det jeres problem op?

C: Slet ikke. Det har været rigtigt godt

R: Det er jo det værste når man sidder og laver interview og så siger de noget som er helt .......

M: Nej det var helt som det skulle være.

12. Appendix D

Links to threads for netnography.

147

1. Mixed Danish online users on r/Denmark on Reddit.com part 1

https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/4e5asa/hvad_synes_rdenmark_om_tesla_

motors/

2. Mixed Danish online users on r/Denmark on Reddit.com part 2

https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/4g7iya/hvad_synes_rdenmark_om_tesla_

motors_part_2/

3. Tesla Owners Club Denmark on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/groups/677646438992546/search/?query=christian%20toft

4. Car Enthusiasts on Bilgalleri.dk

http://www.bilgalleri.dk/forum/generel­diskussion/1214658­hvad_synes_bilgalleri_dk_om

_tesla_motors

The threads on Reddit.com and Bilgalleri.dk is publicly available. Tesla Owners Club Denmark

on Facebook requires a Facebook user and membership in the group. Due to this fact, we have

included screenshots of the discussion thread on TOCD underneath here.

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

13. Appendix E

Underneath here the codebooks for the interview with Rasmus Pedersen, r/Denmark, TOCD,

and Bilgalleri can be seen.

1. Interview with Rasmus Pedersen

2. Reddit

160

3. Facebook

161

4. Bilgalleri

162