In this commentary, Andrew Ault and Jib Turner argue that, by addressing latent needs, design thinking is a useful paradigm for marketers to direct their brand identities and form a leading brand in a social media world.
INTRODUCTION
Increasingly, technology has challenged marketers’ control over a brands identity and as such, have placed brand management within a context of empowered consumers who hold strong normative social and economic expectations of the brand (Handelman and Cunningham, 2010). Brand identities are socially constructed through complex sets of interactions in which consumers build a connection with and assign meaning towards a corporation’s products or services (Arnould, 2006). Organizations with strong brand identities would foster brand loyalty, or a high degree of which consumers are loyal to the identity of their brand (He, Li & Harris, 2010). As such, organizations are now pressured to behave ethically, fairly and transparently in order to build an optimal brand identity and foster strong loyalty. Social media, for instance, provides a solid vehicle for consumers to voice opposition to organizational standards, through boycotting, activism and anti-consumption practices (Kozinets & Handelman, 2004; Holt, 2002). This new terrain for brand identity implies organizations must simultaneously stand out to gain economic superiority from the competition, yet blend in with normative expectations of consumers.
Hence, to meet these expectations, organizations must truly embed the consumer in their purpose of serving consumer need and wants (Beverland, 2005). Design thinking is a human-centred, consumer-focussed and user-driven paradigm which has risen increasingly in management literature in the recent decade (Lefebvre & Kotler, 2011). Design thinking is a process where creative and critical thinking is leveraged to better understand consumers challenges, latent needs and feelings and emotions that lead organizations to prototype new solutions and market them to their consumers (Brown, 2008). This allows marketers to lead expectations of consumers, by solving new meaningful problems, creatively.
The purpose of this paper is to offer a theoretical framework for the formation and management of leading brands through organizations best serving its social purpose. Consumer culture theory, a dominant theory of brand identity management, stresses that brand identities closely resemble the identities of consumers as possible by providing multiple avenues for consumer input (Arnould, 2006). Stakeholder theory suggests brands must adapt to consumer activists in meaningful ways in order to stay relevant and avoid potential to be targeted by activists by acting transparently and with a social purpose (Handelman & Arnould, 1999). Design thinking is offered as a vehicle to best exemplify this social purpose by strategic foresight of consumer needs and innovation in meeting such unarticulated consumer needs (Wagner, Bicen & Hall, 2008). From this, it appears each of the theories separately explains how brands create value best when they provide specific solutions for particular people and are reflexive and proactive in so doing. Taken together, however, they provide a more holistic account of the process.
This commentary argues that, by addressing latent needs, design thinking is a useful paradigm for marketers to direct their brand identities and form a leading brand in a social media world. Consumers are seeking more meaningful experiences within organizations to which they interact. If the brand reinforces their self-image which results in brand loyalty. Hence, brand identities must now supersede basic needs and deliver, instead, signature customer experiences and address new challenges their consumers face to exceed economic and social expectations.
This commentary proceeds in four parts. First, extant literature on consumer culture theory and stakeholder theory, with respect to branding, is presented. Second, a synthesis of these theories with design thinking as a new paradigm is offered. Third, practical implications are outlined with case examples. Lastly, limitations and future research directions are outlined in conclusion.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Consumer culture theory is an emergent theory in marketing research and practice, sensitive to the historical circumstances and recognizing the complex dynamics between marketplace structures, popular culture, sociological patterning and mass-mediated ideologies and consumer interpretive strategies. It departs from psychology and economics which dominate much of other marketing literature methodologies, and instead focusses on semiotics, sociology, and culture (Askegaard & Linnet, 2011). The central construct is consumer culture, which is the system of interrelated commercially-produced brands, images, symbols, experiences and material groups which foster collective sensemaking amoung social groups. Hence, consumer culture theory aims to ask how market-mediated global consumer culture interacts with its localized institutions to shape consumer identities (Arnould & Thompson, 2005).
There are four main constructs in consumer culture theory: consumer identity, marketplace culture, socio-historic structures of consumption, and mass-mediated ideologies and consumer interpretive strategies (Arnould & Thompson, 2005). Consumer identity works suggest consumers develop, maintain, perform and defend a personal identity with a brand, though also allows for consumers holding multiple identities. Identities are created where firms provide consumers with resources, like products, services and imagery for identity work of this kind. Hence, it is suggested by scholars of this subtheme that identities must help consumers be recognized, self-express and presume identity in production processes.
With marketer derived resources, consumers produce feelings of social solidarity, shared commitment and creative distinctive, self-selected and sometimes transient cultural worlds through the pursuit of shared consumption interests (Arnould, 2006). This has opportunities and challenges for brand identity management. Successful brand identities, in this construct, are to provide platforms and resources, around which, groups can aggregate to co-create communities of value for themselves. The organization, hence, must relinquish some control, going against some of prominent business practice.
Scholarship within the field of socio-historic structures of consumption study the institutional structures that systematically influence consumption and reciprocally, the relationships between consumers’ experiences, belief systems and practices and these underlying institutional structures (Arnould & Thompson, 2005). Consumer culture challenges the utility on age, gender, class, and ethnicity of segments, suggesting these stereotypes may, but not always be correlated with the identity consumer groups have with the brand. Hence, the implication of these works is to create and recognize segments around identities consumers have with the brand as marketers can build identities around each segment of brand identity.
In the fourth subtheme of consumer culture works is understanding the common frameworks of shared beliefs and their integration into institutions (Arnould & Thompson, 2005). Institutions that promote these beliefs strengthen the identity and can allow it to form as a leading brand. Apple News, for example, can be seen as an institution of Apple which speaks to the ethos of Technology, creation, innovation. Strong brand identities would thus make use of the theories, doctrines and concepts which an interested organization proposes to a target group or groups, for the purpose of directing, organizing and emerging the target group to behave as directed or implied in the theory or doctrine.
Altogether, consumer culture theory views consumers as groups of interpretative agents, whose activities include embracing the enduring ideals portrayed in the mass media and other social institutions, and consciously and critically deviate from these ideological instructions. This then implies that brand identities can be directed by the organization, without the organization controlling them per-se, through allowing avenues for a brand to build on meeting the economic and social expectations of the multiple and fragmented identities to which its consumers may hold. However, these groups are not just passive consumers with congruent brand identities, but rather could also hold incongruent identities and can hence pose significant threats to brand identities.
Stakeholder theory is a useful framework to understand the many groups which may hold an agreed or conflicting identity with particular brands. Research in stakeholder theory suggests that organizations should be concerned with best fulfilling the expectations of their stakeholders (Ansoff, 1965). Stakeholders are defined as those with a stake, or the ability to effect, or be effected by, an organization’s activities (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). This includes a very wide range of individuals and organizations, including supportive, marginal, non-suppurative and mixed-blessing stakeholders whom may be voluntary or involuntary (Clarkson, 1994). According to stakeholder theory, all stakeholder groups have the same right to be treated fairly and ethically by an organization (Deegan, 2009), and hence the organization must meet all objectives of all stakeholders.
Stakeholders, which range from shareholders to consumer activists, thus should be fulfilled from a brand in order for that brand to hold positive, wide-spread sentiment (Handelman, 2006). As marketers generally desire to control the brand identity that is associated with their primary shareholders, such as loyal consumers, secondary stakeholders like activist groups are not necessarily secondary, passive individuals and groups that accept brand identities by marketers, rather some profoundly challenge the identity others associate with the brand. Anti-consumerism is a sociopolitical ideology that is opposed the goals of profit maximization by firms at the expense to social, environmental and ethical norms in society. This overlaps with sociology research, as scholars study anti-consumption salong similar lines to anti-globalization activists, environmental activism, and animal rights activism among others (Minocher, 2019; Stolle, Hogghe & Micheletti, 2005). As anti-consumption does not preclude consumption, consumption and anti-consumption must co-exist. Thus, meeting and responding to expectations of key stakeholder groups ought to be factored into brand identity management.
Social movements originated in the Enlightenment, linked to an age of ideology where society became a social creation and malleable. Touraine (1981) conceives ideology as a social movement with 3 elements: (a) identity, which is defined as self-definition and collective identity of activists, (b) opposition, being social movement members’ identification of their adversary and (c) totality, namely where objectives are achieved through the struggle. Melucci (1996) theorized that ideology stabilizes relationships between actor and adversary and objectives which legitimates the actor and ignite positive social identity of the opponent. Across these conceptions, consumers are cast as a popular class and are often portrayed as against elite. However, contemporary consumer movements also resist and transform consumer culture itself, especially with respect to luxury goods and conspicuous consumption. Consumer activists can take a variety of forms including forming activist movements to anti-brand discourses, simply brand and category avoidance and ‘culture jamming’, which is disruptive guerrilla communication such “I’m gaining’ it” ads which target McDonald’s on their fat-full diet (Handelman, 1999).
Those with incongruent identities on a firm’s economic objectives or social practices would have even more profound consequences for firms with the age of social media (Lefebvre, 2012). Media, especially social media, allows consumers to communicate with each other and influence the identity of brands that therefore challenge companies, such as in the Anti-Nike Boycott with rise of internet (Neilson, 2010). Activist activities are not random acts, rather are purposive, mindful and ideologically-driven protest (Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009). In consumer culture, they can be held to occur with different motives and foci for each subculture, culture of consumption or individual. In accounting for the activist dimension of firms, extant literature suggests to embrace them is the best strategy (Kozinets, Handelman & Lee, 2010). While this will spin llittle profit gain in short-term, it will have significant impact on brand equity in long-term. In particular, marketers are suggested to return to addressing the “avoidance barriers” that persist, (Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009) such as a firm’s lack of alternatives to accommodate those with minority brand identities, low product involvement of consumers and a firms marketing having limited influence of others. Firms should instead foster a culture of genuine adaptation, network formation and sampling to create positive word of mouth and repeated visits by customers in the area of brand loyalty (Lee, Motion & Conroy, 2009).
From the extant literature, organizations are suggested by consumer culture theorists to manage brand identities along meeting expectations of multiple consumer groups. Marketers are to relinquish some control over their brand identities and allow them to be shaped by their constituent consumer groups, as doing so will add legitimacy to their brand. While organizations may not solely form brand identities, they may direct them through a number of avenues whilst also accommodating multiple identities suych as not to receive negative attention. Organizations that meet economic and social expectations of consumer groups whilst avoiding negative attention through proper business practices, are then implied to lead within their particular segment.
However, while social media is seen as both an opportunity and challenge in the sense of reaching groups and embedding them in the identity formation, what is missing is research where organizations can not only meet consumer objectives, but also form the economic and social expectations of these groups. As with innovation research, exceeding expectations by meeting latent desires can disrupt marketplaces and carve niche brands. This calls for some attention to design thinking research.
DESIGN THINKING: A NEW PARIDGM OF BRAND IDENTITY
People are seeking more meaningful experiences with brands, and are willing to pay more if the brand reinforces their self-image (Gneezy, Gneezy, Riener & Nelson, 2012). Leading brands, thus, must supersede basic needs and deliver, instead, signature customer experiences. Design thinking is a human centred, user-driven way of need, finding to address unarticulated problems and expectations of consumer groups that will drive social and economic value (Brown, 2006). Design thinking is a cyclical process of organizations ‘stepping into the shoes of the customer’ and, as a result, which enables organisations to find new problems, prototype solutions for these problems, test them with their customers and tweak them for launch (Brown, 2006).
According to Tim Brown (2006) from IDEO, it involves ‘three Is’, namely inspiration in the sense of need-finding and noticing the world around consumers, ideation in the sense of imagining design solutions, asking questions and pattern finding, and, implementation which low-fidelity prototypes are made to test new ideas, rather it be for a product or an integrated customer experience. In the age of the connected consumer, empowered buyers have endless choice but limited time and attention. This implies a demand for a desirable user experiences that exceed customer expectations, deliver excellence at every stage and create memorable moments (Lockwood, 2010). Through this, design thinking allows firms to make an emotional connection between organization and consumer.
Principal techniques in design thinking address customer pain points in their user journey. Using empathetic design, organizations can solve real problems for users, with a deep understanding of their needs and values. Empathic design principles are genuinely valuable, easy to understand, pleasant to use (Dalton & Kahute, 2016). People are not always able to articulate motivations or desires and attitudes, so ethnographic design research can unravel normalized habits that become automatic, and speak the unspoken logic (Chen & Venkatesh, 2013).
Ethnographic design marketing research helps marketers better understand their users, their goals, their stated needs and their unmet needs and design solutions around these findings (Goffin, Varnes & van der Hoven, 2012). For exceeding economic value, organizations can identity needs through a process known as need-finding. This observational research examines how users are using their product or service in context, and by so doing, identify where there may be opportunities for improvement or efficiency vis-à-vis a new product. Organizations then prototype solutions to these problems and test them with the audience.
This also has implications for service design in adding social value. By mapping user journeys, such as their purchase journey or use of applications, design thinking can identity points along this journey where consumers are not in a desired mental state along their user journey (Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2010). This helps organizations understand how service environments work, feel and interact with consumers, or in other words, allows marketers to test assumptions about service interaction in the state of nature.
From the literature, it is clear that each theory speaks to how brands must incorporate consumers as a critical constituent in brand management. Consumer culture theory, a dominant theory of brand identity management, stresses that brand identities closely resemble the identities of consumers as possible by providing multiple avenues for consumer input. Stakeholder theory suggests brands must adapt to consumer activists in meaningful ways in order to stay relevant and avoid potential to be targeted by activists by acting transparently and with social purpose. Design thinking is offered as a vehicle to best exemplify this social purpose by strategic foresight of consumer needs and innovation in meeting such unarticulated consumer needs. From this, it appears each of the theories separately explains how brands create value best when they provide specific solutions for particular people and are reflexive and proactive in so doing. Taken together, they provide a more holistic account of the process.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Alongside the rise of technology, the control corporations have over their brand identities have evolved enormously. Once almost exclusively controlled by the corporation, firms are now under increasing technological pressure to embed their consumers in the process (Handelman and Cunningham, 2010). This new balance between consumer power and marketer power, at the heart of modern brand management discourse. The effort to put together compelling content about a focal company that engages consumers to focus and engage in the story. The company is not the only source, and cannot exclusively control. However, the company may not control it, it can direct this.
McDonald’s, for example, has well embodied this control. In the 1980s, the firm faced activists protesting over the lack of nutrition in its meals (Nicholson, 2000). Marketers thought they were the ones who controlled the brand, so thinking these activists were destroying their brand equity, sued them for libel. Although that case was won as some claims by the activists were false, this case which became McLibel, was a huge branding disaster (Botterill, 2007). The activists appealed, and each allegation went to court, month after month and year after year, further building their negative press.
Contrasting this with SupersizeMe, the role of technology becomes very clear. In many ways, the 2004 internet and multimedia film was similar to McLibel, however activism was done in an entertaining way further growing its negative image (Handelman, 2006). But while technology brings some challenges to the restaurant change, it also brought about opportunity. By involving the customer with online question forums, transparent ingredients and healthier alternatives, McDonald’s has much further embodied its new mission as being a fun place to enjoy food.
Traditional marketing sees traditional marketing focus on the economic value added for a firms’ offerings relative to their competitors, such as with a better price, product, place or promotion. In a similar vein, it also views how their corporate social responsibility delivers more social value for customers which is to build more loyalty, such as one firm planting more trees than another. What may be a common among these two constructs is they are both ‘stand out’ exercises that speak to economic and social dimensions of being better than competitors. While this ignites some economic and social value, it can fail to forge brand loyalty by being exposed to unethical practices, having little authenticity in their social value or not being as innovative in their foresight.
With the rise of the media, especially social media, firms now have to ‘blend in’ to avoid negative media sentiment by activist groups (Handelman, 2010). Mattlel, for example, used to be very well known across the world with strong economic value and corporate social responsibility (Harold, 2004). However, a paint recall for lead in children’s toys brought about significant consumer activism that questioned more broad assumptions of how Mattel’s products were made. Through multiple layers of outsourcing, Mattel did not realize the source of some elements in their product. This challenged Mattel to become more integral in their corporate governance practices by better procurement practices to ensure ethical manufacture. Clearly, strong brand integrity is now an inherit dimension for strong brand identity.
Similarly, authenticity is also a requirement for successful social value in brand identities (Bourassa, Cunningham & Handelman, 2004). Research on the profitability of corporate social programs is mixed, with some pointing to a very limited, and in some cases, negative impact on organizational profitability (May, Cheney & Roper, 2007). Instead, brand authenticity is proposed as a new form to build a social purpose, being a social reason why the company exists and how selling the product or service is supportive to that purpose. Value propositions, hence, ought to supersede simply a list of tangible benefits and features that marketers imagine target consumers receive from the offerings and also supersede why their brand is superior to competitors. Instead, it must be about solving problems for customers. “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch whole” is a powerful quote by Theodore Levitt (2006) on why customers don’t buy what organizations have, they buy why they need what the organization has. Having a clear value position that resonates with the ‘job’ for which consumers are looking to hire, hence, becomes of critical importance (Christensen, Hall, Dillon & Duncan, 2016). With a level of authenticity also comes consistency across all dimensions, including how firms create traditional economic and social value. For example, firms with CSR activities in congruent to their economic purpose would have a more positive impact on brand loyalty and profitability.
Through the design thinking perspective, it is also clear that leading brands would not just meet customer expectations for their organization but also lead those expectations as so doing can build lasting emotional value, brand attachment and brand leadership. Hence, fulfilling unmet needs is a requirement to be an innovative disruptor in the context of brand identity. Firms can step in the shoes of their customer by using techniques such as observation, interviews, customer mapping, persona development, empathy mapping, experience tracking, observing and listening, journey mapping, job mapping and need finding. In so doing, they can shape the industry and build both, real economic value and real social value.
CONCLUSION
In the modern, social media-driven world, managing a segment-leading brand entails more than just delivering economic and social value, but also an emotional value that is built from firms in addressing significant latent needs in products and delivering desirable customer experiences. Extant literature in consumer culture theory and stakeholder theory recognizes brands must now entail a high degree integrity in practices, and authenticity in its core economic and social purpose. It is on this note that growing value by solving new articulated and unarticulated problems is suggested as an avenue to carve leading brands, and for which design thinking serves as a useful tool in solving such problems.
By using this framework, firms who wish to create a leading brand can now turn to a useful framework on how their identities will contribute to economic, social and emotional value. In particular, firms must develop a compelling value proposition that speaks to their social purpose and ensure consistency between this and all other dimensions, including supply chain management, economic value and corporate social responsibility. Moreover, firms should also strive to solve new problems for their customers, as so doing so can surpass expectations, which could make the brand a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
This paper aimed to create a theoretical framework that merged works in consumer culture theory and design thinking while showing its usefulness for practice. Further theorizing on how firms can address articulated and unarticulated needs is strongly recommended. Equally as important, it is also recommended that further research work towards a conceptual framework for brand identity management in drawing upon consumer culture theory, stakeholder theory and the design thinking paradigm. Empirical work can also be followed usefully to gather evidence that can support or reject hypotheses suggested in future propositions of a conceptual paper, in order to determine the effectiveness of suggestions from the extant literature and design thinking. Altogether, this theoretical paper is useful for the basis of conceptual works on the emergence of design thinking in branding literature, and for practice in its distinction to build not only authentic and relevant brands, but market leading ones.
REFERENCES
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy: business policy for growth and expansion. McGraw-Hill Book.
Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of consumer research, 31(4), 868-882.
Arnould, E. J. (2006). Service-dominant logic and consumer culture theory: natural allies in an emerging paradigm. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 293.
Askegaard, S., & Linnet, J. T. (2011). Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory: Phenomenology and the context of context. Marketing Theory, 11(4), 381-404.
Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: The case of luxury wines. Journal of management studies, 42(5), 1003-1029.
Botterill, J., & Kline, S. (2007). From McLibel to McLettuce: Childhood, spin and re-branding. Society and Business review, 2(1), 74-97.
Bourassa, M. A., Cunningham, P. H., & Handelman, J. M. (2013). Marketing as a response to paradox and norms in the 1960s and 1970s. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 5(1), 47-70.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, 86(6), 84.
Bourassa, M. A., Cunningham, P. H., & Handelman, J. M. (2007). How Philip Kotler has helped to shape the field of marketing. European Business Review, 19(2), 174-192.
Chen, S., & Venkatesh, A. (2013). An investigation of how design-oriented organisations implement design thinking. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(15-16), 1680-1700.
Christensen, C. M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016). Know your customers’ jobs to be done. Harvard Business Review, 94(9), 54-62.
Clarkson, M. (1994, April). A risk based model of stakeholder theory. In Proceedings of the second Toronto conference on stakeholder theory (pp. 18-19).
Dalton, J., & Kahute, T. (2016). Why empathy and customer closeness is crucial for design thinking. Design Management Review, 27(2), 20-27.
Deegan, C. (2014). An overview of legitimacy theory as applied within the social and environmental accounting literature. Sustainability accounting and accountability, 2, 248-272.
Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do. Indus. & Lab. Rel. Rev., 38, 244.
Harold, C. (2004). Pranking rhetoric:“Culture jamming” as media activism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 21(3), 189-211.
Joy, A., & Li, E. P. H. (2012). Studying consumption behaviour through multiple lenses: an overview of consumer culture theory. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 141-173.
Goffin, K., Varnes, C. J., van der Hoven, C., & Koners, U. (2012). Beyond the voice of the customer: Ethnographic market research. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 45-53.
He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal of business research, 65(5), 648-657.
Lee, M. S., Motion, J., & Conroy, D. (2009). Anti-consumption and brand avoidance.
Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 169-180.
Lefebvre, R. C. (2012). Transformative social marketing: co-creating the social marketing discipline and brand. Journal of Social Marketing, 2(2), 118-129.
Lefebvre, R. C., & Kotler, P. (2011). Design thinking, demarketing and behavioral economics: Fostering interdisciplinary growth in social marketing. The Sage handbook of social marketing, 80-94.
Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: the missing link in service design research?. Journal of Operations management, 20(2), 121-134.
Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of consumer research, 31(3), 691-704.
Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. (1998). Ensouling consumption: a netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting behavior. ACR North American Advances.
Kozinets, R. V., Handelman, J. M., & Lee, M. S. (2010). Don’t read this; or, who cares what the hell anti-consumption is, anyways?. Consumption Markets & Culture
Gneezy, A., Gneezy, U., Riener, G., & Nelson, L. D. (2012). Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7236-7240.
Handelman, J. M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 107-114.
Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of marketing, 63(3), 33-48.
Handelman, J. M. (1999). Culture jamming: Expanding the application of the critical research project. ACR North American Advances.
Handelman, J. M., Cunningham, P. H., & Bourassa, M. A. (2010). Stakeholder marketing and the organizational field: The role of institutional capital and ideological framing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 27-37.
Levitt, T. (2006). What business are you in? Classic advice from Theodore Levitt. Harvard business review, 84(10), 126-37.
Lockwood, T. (2010). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. Simon and Schuster.
May, S. K., Cheney, G., & Roper, J. (Eds.). (2007). The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age.
Cambridge University Press.
Minocher, Xerxes. "Online consumer activism: Challenging companies with Change. org." Media & Society 21.3 (2019): 620-638.
Mootee, I. (2013). Design thinking for strategic innovation: What they can't teach you at business or design school. John Wiley & Sons.
Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), 214-227.
Nicholson, M. A. (2000). McLibel: a case study in English defamation law. Wis. Int'l LJ, 18, 1.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2014). Design thinking research: Building innovators. Springer.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International political science review, 26(3), 245-269.
Touraine, A. (1981). The voice and the eye: An analysis of social movements.
Wagner, T., Bicen, P., & Hall, Z. R. (2008). The dark side of retailing: towards a scale of corporate social irresponsibility. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(2), 124-142.