“For the Gram”: An Exploration of the Conflict between Influencers and Citizen-Consumers in the Public Lands Marketing System

Abstract

Capturing memories is integral to public lands visitors’ consumer experiences. Today, social media allows us to share photographs and videos in the public domain, whether it be for instant gratification, economic gain, or both. The phenomenon of sharing public lands digital imagery on social media has created tensions in the public lands marketing system (PLMS) between those wanting to preserve the outdoors and those seeking to monetize it. Using the Instagram account @publiclandshateyou as a case study site, this research utilizes an interpretive “thick data” visual analysis to examine how interlinked marketing systems (e.g., travel, tourism, outdoor recreation), which includes the social media marketing system (SMMS) contribute to this conflict in the PLMS. Findings indicate that citizen-consumer oriented practices, rooted in “sense of place,” attempt to bring change to the interlinked marketing systems.

Keywords

marketing systems citizen-consumers Instagram public lands influencer marketing sense of place

Introduction

Traveling to “get away from it all” is ingrained into the narrative of modern societies, typically comprising of urbanites, living in structured economic systems. Within this backdrop, visiting the great outdoors to recharge and renew oneself in nature is an established facet of the consumer lifestyle. As iconic visuals of natural landmarks in travel brochures, magazine spreads, television shows and films, inspire consumers to visit public spaces, most of us may capture such images for our personal/family albums. Images taken in nature are thus symbolic in the inherent meaning-making of these experiences (Kadirov and Varey 2011). As the US enjoys one of the first eco-reservation systems established by the government to preserve the nation’s environmental resources, American public lands, which are areas that are open to the public but managed by the government (Parris, 2018), are popular worldwide. While Americans own their public lands, the federal and state governments, which are responsible for designating, maintaining and conserving the nation’s natural resources, manage them (Siler, 2019). The PLMS is complex as it involves multiple stakeholders with varied socio-economic interests. For instance, for groups in close proximity to national lands (e.g., households, farmers, hunters, Native American nations), land and water ownership rights, and managing the incidence of wildlife wandering into human drawn boundaries are challenging and contentious issues. However, other marketing systems (e.g. hospitality and tourism, travel, outdoor recreation) have a stake in drawing visitors to the PLMS locations. For the purposes of this study, we refer to all geographic locations indicated in our dataset as falling under the PLMS (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PLMS locations identified in @publiclandshateyou posts.

Given that many international tourists travel to the US to visit national parks/monuments and “rural sight-seeing” is one of the top five reasons for leisure travel amongst domestic travelers, the PLMS is popular in both the domestic and international markets (U.S. Travel Answer Sheet 2019). In recent times, influencer marketing is one of the reasons why the number of visitors to PLMS has increased over time (Dickson 2019; Magno and Cassia 2018). Social media influencers (SMI), a digital age marketing phenomenon, develop loyal online followers by directly sharing engaging content with them. This “empowers SMIs to generate social conversations, drive engagement, and ultimately, set consumption trends amongst a receptive and socially savvy audience” (Mediakix 2020). The newer phenomenon of sharing imagery over social media (SM) platforms has added a previously unexplored dimension of examining the context of symbolic meaning-making in marketing systems (Kadirov and Varey 2011). For example, those utilizing the hashtag, #WeAreTravelGirls, share inspiring images of female travelers.

Given the new popular practice of sharing images of one’s lifestyle on SM, over 40% of Millennials consider ‘Instagrammability’ when selecting travel destinations (Hosie 2017; Wilson 2018). In terms of “Instagramming” one’s lifestyle, in 2011, a post by @natalyosmann (one million followers) and @muradosmann (four million followers), recognized by Forbes as being among the top three travel influencer couples (Digital Stars 2017), under the hashtag #followmeto (467,000 followers as of June 2020) went viral. This post, which depicted one partner leading the other by hand, was so popular that it led to their @followmeto project. Millions of SMMS users mimicking this “followmeto” post constitutes the SMIs creating a symbolic socio-cultural meaning (Kadirov and Varey 2011) with the intent of monetizing it in the form of commercial opportunities including tourism and brand sponsorships. For SMIs who monetize their content, this never-ending search for the next Instagram trend comes with its own risks. In 2016, three SMIs with over a million followers on the Instagram account “High on Life” died at Shannon Falls, Canada while filming in conditions that officials deemed ill-advised and unsafe. Prior to their unfortunate demise, they were fined and received negative media coverage for illegally accessing off-limit locations in Yellowstone National Park (Proctor and Lindsay 2018). Moreover, scrutiny of their SM profiles by the authorities revealed evidence of additional illegal activities on several PLMS locations (Proctor 2016). However, as the phenomenon of engaging in reckless behavior for the sake of capturing visually striking images has become commonplace, such incidents are no longer surprising (Bansal et.al 2018; Dokur, Petekkaya and Karadag 2018). Despite the international coverage of irresponsible behavior in public spaces, Instagram accounts like @explorerssaurus_ with over 700,000 followers continue to post questionable images for monetization purposes. Given the prevalence of such incidents, it is safe to surmise that such behaviors pose additional burdens on the PLMS and thereby creating tension between the PLMS and the SMMS.

Aside from extreme examples resulting in fatalities or injuries, taking pictures in public spaces often involve other infractions including imposing on the experiences of others sharing the space, damaging the ecosystem, and burdening the PLMS infrastructure. However, in this day and age, there are always witnesses. Some who observe questionable behaviors depicted in SM images endeavor to inform a given platform’s broader audience of this misuse of PLMS. In this paper, we explore how citizen-consumers with a rooted “sense of place” counter this disruptive phenomenon of SMIs monetizing personal visual content in a manner that negatively affects the PLMS. In doing so, this study contributes to marketing systems theory in multiple ways. First, it examines evolving SMMS action fields of symbolic meaning-making observed in images shared by SMIs, which create tensions in the established PLMS structure. Second, by offering a previously unexplored analysis of citizen-consumer oriented macromotive practices, this research strengthens the mostly conceptual state of marketing systems theory. Third, as an empirical example, it highlights the relationship between the PLMS and the SMMS, where the online consumer action fields of the latter drive offline (physical) consumer actions fields in the former. Fourth, it broadens marketing systems theory by utilizing the “sense of place” concept from environmental sciences as a lens through which to understand how some market actors prioritize nature, the most important stakeholder, that has no voice.

Theoretical Overview

Meaning in Marketing Systems

Marketing systems theory is founded on the notion that marketing processes have the capacity to change various economic, political, socio-cultural and technological facets of society (Kadirov and Varey 2011; Kadirov 2018; Layton 2019). By summarizing six decades of marketing systems theory, Layton (2019) offers a conceptual overview for future research, which includes a call to explore various market actors’ use of strategies and actions. While extant empirical literature primarily focuses on examining the production side value exchange dynamics in marketing systems (Godinho et al. 2017; Layton and Duffy 2018; Sredl, Shultz II and Brecic 2017), others, who examine marketing systems from the prism of the meaning perspective, acknowledge the need to explore consumers’ standpoint (Kadirov and Varey 2011). Here, meaning is the outcome of the marketing system through which a group of market actors differentiate between present and possible future actions (Luhmann 1995). Kadirov and Varey (2011) argue that “(1) marketing systems are symbolic in essence and they can be defined as spaces of marketplace meaning creation; (2) the environment is an inherent (interpreted) feature of the system and it represents the system actor’s unique perspective to understanding other symbolic (both marketing and nonmarketing) systems; (3) the symbolic unfolding process is at work in which a marketing system emerges from the environment as a different symbolic space, and, concurrently or later, becomes a nurturing environment for the symbolism of a newly emerging marketing system” (p. 161) .

Within marketing system theory, marketing systems as a public good is an emerging area of research. In this framework, Kadirov (2018) conceptualizes collective actions as entailing, “a) the identification, development and maintenance of key common resources; b) the interpretation, generation and modification of private-public good transitions; c) contributory participation of market actors in the development of private-public good mixes; and d) the construction of attenuating mechanisms that help calibrate the public good/badness of the system” (p. 281). Participation of market actors is essential for multiple reasons including market shaping by creating consensus about what constitutes a market and how it functions (e.g., Araujo 2007), creation of rules and norms (e.g., Kjellberg and Helgesson 2007), as well as market transformations including the challenging of established market structures and practices (e.g., Giesler 2008; Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Scaraboto and Fischer 2013). Thus, the collective actions of various stakeholders are important in developing marketing systems that prioritizes well-being, which entails fairness and equitability in improving and advancing quality of life for all involved (Kadirov 2018).

Symbolic meaning in the PLMS

This research focuses on how images taken on public lands, which create and deliver meaning of the consumer experience on SMMS, affect subsequent present and future actions on the PLMS. From a theoretical perspective, due to its oppressive history of appropriating indigenous lands into public good, and systemic exclusion of minoritized groups, the PLMS falls under the classification of a social marketing system (Layton 2015). However, given the interdependence of private and public sector actors within the PLMS, it is a social marketing system as well as a hybrid system (Layton 2015). From a symbolic meaning-making perspective, it is important to acknowledge what socio-culture aspects are not evident along with what occupies prominence in PLMS images. The present representation of PLMS images in the public understanding demonstrates the purposeful exclusion of indigenous and minoritized people in the PLMS imagery (Gilio-Whitaker 2019; Treuer 2019). By erasing the lived experiences of these stakeholder groups, these past actions distort the sense of place meaning of locations thereby further shaping visitors’ perceptions and subsequent understanding of such narratives in the PLMS (Kantor 2007). For instance, indigenous nations have long complained of desecration of public lands by ignorant visitors (Smith and Manning 1997). Similarly, systemic segregation in the PLMS has indirectly denied access to racialized groups (National Park Services n.d). Even within the PLMS media, historical imagery with those that are indigenous and minoritized are scarce (National Park Services n.d). In general, media images of the PLMS are symbolic in their lack of representation of such groups and their historical bond with the natural environment.

The PLMS is managed by two US federal agencies that continue to experience budget cuts in recent times. The first, the Department of the Interior, which comprises the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Fish and Wildlife Service, oversee 20% of the country’s land. The second, the Department of Agriculture manages the National Forest Service, which oversees 8.5% of the total land area (Center for Western Priorities 2018). In the US, 2.4 billion acres are divided into ‘physiographic provinces’ based on geomorphological features such as climate, geology, topography and history. We refer to all locations indicated in our image data set as falling under the PLMS (see Figure 1). Due to their unique land formations, the most popular PLMS destinations are in the western region of the country. Additionally, significant shifts in the American population posit new challenges. For instance, the South Western states (e.g., Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California) are projected to have the youngest demographic (children, teenagers and young adults under age 25) as well as the most ethnic diversity (Latinx majority) in the next decade. While minoritized groups have had a long history of underrepresentation in the PLMS, the increasing diversity will provide them with greater access to public lands (Cordell 2012). Thus, the PLMS is anticipated to evolve as these demographics explore a public good with a history of systemic oppression towards them (Floyd 1999), which has denied them the opportunity to develop a sense of place connection to it (Torrez 2014).

Citizen-Consumers and the ‘Sense of Place’ Meaning in the PLMS

In macromarketing literature, citizen-consumers who exercise civic choice as they shift from the pursuit of self-interest to consumption practices that are for the greater good, have received much attention (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015; Soper 2008). Differing from the demarcation between citizenship and consumption (Henry 2010, Prothero, McDonagh and Dobscha 2010), some argue that, in consumer economies, such boundaries are messy everyday practices (Cohen 2004, Soper 2008, Varey 2013). In this context, civic-mindedness, a reflexive act which entails seeking new macromotive knowledge, is important in that it is usually a precursor to citizen-consumer oriented practices (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015). For instance, as consumers learn more about the dominant food system, they demonstrate a new found understanding (civic-mindedness) of macro-level issues (e.g., problems with monocultures) and opt for citizen-consumer oriented consumer choice of buying from alternative food systems (e.g., local farmers markets) (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015). In recent times, SMMS has emerged as the site for online civic-mindedness and citizen-consumer oriented practices where individuals voice their opinions on consumer choices and find community with like-minded others. For example, YouTube users (SMMS market actors) played a vital role in Greenpeace effectively utilizing consumers’ online engagement to pressure Lego to sever its long-term ties with Shell Oil (Perera et al. 2017). However, there is limited literature about how online macro-actions efforts translate into real-world action in physical locations in a marketing system (Layton 2019).

As this research pertains to understanding how discourse on protecting the PLMS is carried out in the SMMS, the worldview of market actors like @publiclandshateyou and followers engaging in the conversation is an important consideration. The description of the account demonstrates concern for the wellbeing of the PLMS. Hence it may be assumed, such market actors demonstrate civic-mindedness rooted in the “sense of place” (by being aware of the potential harm to the natural environment in the PLMS) as well as justice macromotives (in terms of highlighting inappropriate behaviors that cause such harm) (Kadirov 2018). Further, such market actors are likely to engage in citizen-consumer practices with the aim of discouraging future misbehavior on public lands.

This connection between the physical space and the person, or “place attachment,” is a complex interplay of thoughts, emotions and feelings often demonstrated through practice (Low and Altman, 1992). Introduced by Jorgensen and Stedman (2001), the concept of developing a “sense of place” is more than just place attachment (individual practice) in that it alludes to the bond (social connections) between people and places. This means, due to lived experiences, people develop a deeper social connection to the natural environment over time. For example, recreationists who returned to a specific rural camp location over generations demonstrated “symbolic interactionism” in their photographs that shows the preservation of place over time by the community (Gerard and Chick 2007). Simply put, sense of place references “the connections people have with the land, their perceptions of the relationships between themselves and a place, and is a concept that encompasses symbolic and emotional aspects” (Eisenhauer, Krannich, and Blahna 2000, p. 422). Moreover, as these associations are “felt, imagined, interpreted, and understood,” they are subject to change over time (Chapin III and Knapp 2015, p. 38). From local communities and beyond, market actors with deep “rooted sense of place” emerge as citizen-consumers, who consider themselves stewards of the PLMS. For example, “Citizen Science,” an umbrella term for a collection of management methods in the Environmental Sciences, demonstrates a long-standing practice of recruiting motivated market actors in the PLMS for various projects (Cooper et al 2007). Through collaborative endeavors, local PLMS authorities facilitate individuals’ developing a ‘sense of place’ through informal scientific literacy (likened to civic-mindedness efforts), which includes using this new knowledge to protect biodiversity (likened to citizen-consumer practice) (U.S. Forest Service n.d). PLMS government representatives’ efforts to create citizen-volunteer programs have been successful in shared practices of protecting the natural environment in local as well as dispersed settings (Wilderman, Barron, and Imgrund 2004). We surmise that other venues for developing civic mindedness may arise from education (e.g., a degree in the environmental sciences) and employment or volunteer work in the PLMS.

Tensions between citizen consumers and SMI’s in the SMMS

For the purposes of this study, SMMS is broadly defined as including the following entities: corporations hosting the platforms (e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter), companies that place advertisements and set up their own accounts on SM platforms (e.g. brands, entrepreneurs), select users who monetize their content (e.g. influencers), and users on whom the SMMS depend for economic survival (general users and followers). Visual images captured by PLMS visitors constitute an integral part of the consumer experience. Before the advent of SMMS, images were commercialized by established peripheral market actors like the media industries (e.g., advertising, news, travel etc.), which are required to abide by attenuating mechanisms (e.g., permits, licenses) of the PLMS (U.S. Department of the Interior n.d). The arrival of the SMMS introduced a disruption in the symbolic role of PLMS images. As mentioned earlier, today, SMIs can create imagery such as “#Followmetoo” that can rapidly gain attention in the digital sphere and prompt reenactments in physical spaces.

In January 2019, 3.8 billion people, or nearly 49% of the global population, were active SM users (Clement 2020). Given the popularity of SM platforms like Instagram, SMIs, who are third party endorsers that attempt to shape consumers’ attitudes (Freberg et al. 2011; Nafees, Cook, and Stoddard 2019), have emerged as one of the significant market actors in the SMMS. The influencer marketing industry, valued at $8 billion in 2019, is projected to reach $15 billion by 2022 (Mediakix 2020). Influencers are everywhere: on Instagram alone, there are over 500,000 active influencers with more than 15,000 followers, which constitutes 39% of all Instagram accounts. Among this group of active influencers, 81% have followings between 15,000 and 100,000 users (Droesch 2019). SMMS platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) do not share attenuating mechanisms of their recruitment and content monetization. SMI’s are typically individuals adept at creating and sharing visual content. Over time, their accounts garner sufficient interest to draw the attention of the SMMS action fields, which monetizes their content. While no definitive classifications exist, some private sector market actors categorize SMIs on the number of followers: Mega-Influencers (over 1 million followers), Macro-Influencers (40,000 to 1 million followers), Micro-Influencers (1,000 to 40,000 followers) and Nano-Influencers (under 1,000 followers). Other attempts at classification include type of content (e.g., bloggers, YouTubers, podcasters), or level of influence (e.g., celebrities, opinion leaders, academics, industry experts, professional advisors) (Influencer Marketing Hub n.d).

Increasingly, consumers are turning to SMIs to find products and services that align with their lifestyles (Casalo, Flaviánand, and Ibáñez-Sánchez 2018; Connolly 2018; Hughes, Swaminathan, Brooks 2019). To understand how SMIs operate in the PLMS, it is important to reiterate two points. First, they use personal content to establish themselves. On a visual platform like Instagram, this content involves symbolic meaning in images depicting consumer lifestyle narratives that resonate with followers. For example, the content posted by SMIs like @dylanwerneryoga (over 670,000 followers) and @ashleygalvinyoga (over 525,000 followers) show them doing yoga poses in natural surroundings. Second, once this content is shared on SMMS, some followers mimic them and post similar images tagging the original content creator (Ki and Kim, 2019) thus reinforcing the symbolism inherent in the meaning in such shared collectives (Kadirov and Varey 2011). In the next section, we discuss the methodology.

Method

Using the Instagram account @publiclandhatesyou as a case study site, this research explores how citizen-consumer oriented practices are utilized to counter SMIs’ questionable actions on PLMS locations. “Big data” quantifiable content metrics (frequency, number of posts) and engagement (shares, likes, and comments) do not allow for context and meaning in the analysis of images (and video). Adopted from the tenets of cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973), we utilized the “thick data” approach to develop in-depth observations of cultural practices inclusive of emotions, stories, and meaning-making, often deliberately erased in the standardization of “big data” analytics (Wang 2016). In the analysis of a small group of data units, the “thick data” approach entails manual coding to elicit context driven social phenomena insights (Hand 2017). Since Instagram is a visual platform where users and followers first see the image, ‘intertextual’ dimensions of images (accompanied textual data such as the original post (OP), hashtags and comments by others) are examined with the layering process of thickening the data (Wang 2016). Intertextuality denotes how meaning of content (text or image) is drawn from the wide-ranging paradigms from which a society derives meaning (Hand 2017). Further, this approach allows for a nuanced understanding of SM imagery, which users present for viewing with deliberate ‘meaning-making’ intent (Rose 2012). SMIs, who post images with the intent of monetary gain, are likely even more vested in creating extraordinary content that generates rapid engagement.

The account bio of @publiclandshateyou states: “People “doing it for the gram” are prioritizing profit, fame, and “rad pics” over the health and future of your public lands. Who else is fed up?” Most SM platforms including Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, change their algorithms and policies frequently, often without user input or feedback. Currently, Instagram prohibits any form of data scraping or downloading (such as copy pasting, taking screenshots) without prior approval from either the individual account owner or the platform. The authors communicated with the account holder of @publiclandshateyou about their posting behavior and, in order to abide by ethical research practices and community guidelines, obtained written permission for data analysis purposes. Selecting a user account (instead of a set of images based on hashtags for instance) as the site for this study, minimizes some of the most challenging aspects of SM platforms for consumer research. First, the images posted and tagged on @publiclandshateyou are curated by the account owner for dissemination purposes and not for personal use. While the account owner is anonymous and does not share any images depicting personal life events, the account has legitimacy because the account owner has received coverage from mainstream media (Bondarenko 2019). Second, given the low volume of posts (62 in our dataset), and the higher number of images where the account has been tagged (over 300), there is evidence that @publiclandshateyou engages in purposeful posting. These characteristics of the case study site allows for a longitudinal approach to observe how the data has evolved over time (2018-2020).

The dataset comprised 62 posts with 321 images and 21 videos uploaded between July 3, 2018 and April 14, 2019. Each post was coded as one data unit with some posts having multiple images and videos. To “thicken” the data analysis, we adopted the three-stage layering process (Latzko-Toth, Bonneau, and Millette 2017). The first layer of analysis involved examining the image as a data unit to understand its visual elements. The second layer comprised descriptive analysis to further illuminate contextual dimensions. The third stage of layering involved analysis of textual data included in the OP, hashtags, emojis, comments and likes. In terms of iterative analysis, the layering process involved viewing the data through the theoretical lens of marketing systems, citizen-consumer, justice motive and sense of place concepts to understand how the various market actors derived meaning from the posts. Final coding fields consisted of the date of OP, hashtags, likes, comments, type of content such as original content created by the account owner, content of others, and the number of images and videos in each post (i.e., with humans in them, text or graphics, signage on public lands. Spiggle’s (1994) thematic representation of emergent theory tenets were utilized where the various categories were collapsed into three broad themes. Thus, while the data may demonstrate evidence of additional theoretical domains, the extant framing in this study is situated within the consumer behavior (citizen-consumer) and marketing systems literature (Spiggle 1994). Given the iterative nature of the analysis and authors’ lived experiences of visiting PLMS, the intercoder reliability was very high.

Findings

The @publiclandshateyou gained prominence after being featured on mainstream media for its critique of images posted on Instagram during the 2019 Californian wildflower bloom season. The account’s high engagement metrics (45,000 likes and just over 3,000 comments between March and May 2019) reflects users’ concern for PLMS misuse that is evident in the images. This strong interest is demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3, which indicate that, despite sharing less than five posts per month from May 2019 to January 2020, the account elicited hundreds of comments and thousands of likes.

Figure 2.

Frequency of posts on @Publiclandshateyou.

Figure 3.

Likes and comments trend on @Publiclandshateyou.

Moreover, @publiclandshateyou does not promote any content for commercial gain. In terms of content, while @publiclandshateyou shared six posts in July 2018, none was posted between August 2018 to February 2019. From a longitudinal perspective, @publiclandshateyou shared an all-time high of 21 posts in March 2019, and 10 in April 2019 with monthly posts averaging less than 3 a month between May 2019 to January 2020. Additionally, @publiclandshateyou has tagged 315 Instagram accounts and is tagged by others on over 300 posts. The accounts tagged by @publiclandshateyou include those of SMIs, government entities overseeing the PLMS locations seen in the images, and corporate and brand sponsors either seen or alluded to in the SMI images. Furthermore, @publiclandshateyou follows 479 accounts that fall into four broad categories: Instagram users that misbehave in public spaces, SMIs promoting sponsored content, PLMS representatives, and like-minded Instagram accounts. Despite only 65 posts as of August 2020, 86,000 users follow @publiclandshateyou. To provide some perspective, the Instagram account of the Leave No Trace Center (LNTC) (@leavenotracecenter), a non-profit endorsed by PLMS authorities but often criticized for its sponsored marketing content has 70,500 followers despite having close to 1,849 posts. This comparison indicates that, despite sharing limited content with no production side market affiliations, @publiclandshateyou appears to resonate with many users in the SMMS as well as mainstream media covering the PLMS.

Despite Instagram being a visual platform, 44% of @publiclandshateyou posts comprise added textual content, which appears to add more contextual meaning thereby furthering viewers’ understanding of what is depicted in the images. Hashtags are a search mechanism on Instagram. Hence, the text used to name the image is important to the shared meaning delivered through it. While the word cloud offers a holistic view of the hashtags, various versions of the word ‘publiclands’ are utilized to disseminate the symbolic meaning of the term (see Figure 4). While Instagram Stories (another attenuating mechanism) is meant to share content for the short term, @publiclandshateyou uses this feature for a long-term purpose as a repository of macromotive PLMS issues. Of the 15 stories in our dataset, 40% highlight SMIs’ misuse of PLMS depicted in their images. For example, while the Story titled ‘Dogs in Parks’ calls out SMI @kona_nova and others, it alludes to the overarching macro-action field of irresponsible pet-owners who disregard PLMS structure. Two out of the 15 stories critique LNTC, the PLMS endorsed non-profit organization. The thematic analysis yielded six broad categories demonstrating (1) disrespect of the natural environment (flora/fauna), (2) acts of vandalism (littering, graffiti, improper waste disposal, fire hazards), (3) not following protocol (ignoring signage, pet policies, not obtaining permits), (4) lack of accountability in transactional relationships with respect to sponsorship, brand endorsement, and funding (5) doing the right thing by highlighting users who are displaying respect for the public spaces and (6) shared responsibility in terms of creating educational content to shape the PLMS. For a sample of representative images, see Figure 5. These categories, collapsed into three broad themes, which are outlined in the next section.

Figure 4.

Hashtag analysis of @Publiclandshateyou.

Figure 5.

Overview of coding categories - Sample Images.

Insta-Shame for Those Seeking INSTA-Fame: Calling out Inappropriate Behaviors in PLMS

SMMS’ attenuating mechanisms for monetizing content include increasing the number of followers, as well as likes and comments on the images shared. At the individual level, these are micro-level market action fields (Layton 2007) through which SMIs earn advertising revenue and possibly sales revenue. The SMMS thus constructs reality for their users through deliberative presentation and sharing of images. Utilizing programmatic action fields (geotagging, hashtag search, promoting trends, recommendations), SMIs ensure that their images are staged to generate the maximum economic value, which is inherently tied to the maximizing of the aforementioned SMMS attenuating mechanisms (number of views, likes, comments, shares) (Layton 2015). The conflict between SMIs and citizen-consumers arise from the misuse of the PLMS in images, evident to the latter. Thus, due to the unchecked nature of SMMS activities, consumer acts on PLMS physical locations that are captured in the imagery demonstrate the potential for new action fields to be normalized. This is because, to discourage negativity such as call outs, Instagram has attenuating mechanisms to help users. For example, users can delete, block or shadow ban (render hashtags undiscoverable), as well as report other users via the platform’s feedback mechanism. These mechanisms are designed to keep Instagram a positive space for users. However, if an account “callsout” or criticizes a SMI for misusing PLMS, even if this is evident in the images, they and their followers may be enough in number to have the account shadow banned. Typically, negative in nature, “callouts” are a consumer created macro-action field in the SMMS. The term delivers symbolic meaning (Kadirov and Varey 2011) where users point out their concerns or issues about an image in comments to the original account that posted it. This exchange of callouts between SMIs and @publiclandshateyou led to the latter being shadow banned. To counter this SMMS mechanism, @publiclandshateyou created another account, @publiclandsdislikeyou, to continue the callout efforts. It also led towards reflective civic mindedness (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015) where @publiclandshateyou discouraged its followers from using offensive and threatening language on the account. This further progressed to the citizen-consumer oriented practice (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015) of creating new justice motive driven macro-action fields (Kadirov 2018) of reporting inappropriate behavior in a structured and constructive manner. For example, one of @publiclandshateyou’s present guidelines is to use polite language and private messaging first before publicly posting on a SMI’s account thereby creating positive macromotive outcomes (Kadirov 2018).

SMIs utilize hashtags and geo-location tags (i.e., geo-tags), which are popular SMMS attenuating mechanisms, to generate monetary gains. An image identifying a PLMS location may, however, lead to a macro-level conflict that affects the broader public beyond the follower base of one particular SMI. For instance, a series of images posted by @publiclandshateyou shows spray-painted graffiti in popular PLMS destinations like the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the Joshua Tree National Park. Left unchecked on SMMS, the symbolic construction of the meaning (Kadirov and Varey 2011) of these images reflect the interpretation of the SMI and the PLMS has little control of who will mimic these acts. Graffiti as an urban art form symbolizing rebellion against traditional arts means something quite different in the natural environment. In such situations, the construction of meaning is contested when consumers with a sense of place (Gerard and Chick 2007) bond with the PLMS, experience dismay at the vandalism seen in the images. Whereas for others with no such bond, the interpretation may be different. The complexity of the relationship between the two marketing systems is brought to the forefront when citizen-consumers contend that such images, which impart socio-cultural and psychological signals of the individuals on SMMS, have a long-term negative effect on the natural environment. Here, in aggregation, these individual acts, render the location unenjoyable for visitors to the PLMS.

The @publiclandshateyou account posted the most content between March-April 2019 during “Superbloom 2019,” that occurred in California (see Figure 1). In capturing and sharing images of magnificent rolling hills ablaze with orange poppies, Instagram users, including many SMIs and visitors, inadvertently drew attention to the macro-level problem of “over tourism” whereby the sheer numbers of visitors overwhelms a certain locale (Maida, 2019). It is evident that the processes of identifying and constructing reality, through symbolic meaning-making in the images of PLMS as a public-good, is not the same between SMIs and citizen-consumers. Whereas the former sees monetization of their Instagram accounts as a meaningful outcome in the value exchange between them and SMMS (Layton 2007), the latter view the images as detrimental to the PLMS’ long-term wellbeing (Kadirov 2018).

“Good Vibes Only: Are we Really Looking at the Same Picture?” Finding Common Ground for Informed Discourse

A common rationale that the SMIs put forth for their behaviors in the PLMS demonstrate opposing values (Kadirov and Varey 2011) between the two marketing systems. For instance, typical responses (in the comments) to being called out for their images during Superbloom 2019 included, “it’s just a bunch of flowers,” “I am not doing that much damage,” “it was just me there at the time,” “stop harassing me,” and “this is bullying/trolling,” aligns with the ‘good vibes only’ symbolic structure of Instagram. They also reflect a lack of a “sense of place” bond or an understanding of how micro-level actions can culminate to macro-level injustice (Crozet and Lopez-Ruiz 2013). The @publiclandshateyou account attempts to develop consumer side macro-action fields that are consistent with Instagram’s stipulated symbolic structure of civil communication. An example is to first direct message (DM) the SMI and, politely and respectfully, make them aware of how their actions, evident in their images, are not following the established PLMS guidelines (attenuating mechanism). Another macro-action field suggested by @publiclandshateyou is to request that the SMI either remove the questionable image or update it with the new information provided. However, those SMIs with large followings, who monetize their visual content, typically resist such requests. In response, @publiclandshateyou develops additional macro-action fields directed at other interlinked marketing system actors. These include tagging the brand sponsors evident in the images with the request that they address SMIs’ questionable practices. Other suggestions include asking them to evaluate SMIs and create formal protocols (attenuating mechanisms) when using the PLMS to promote their products and/or services. Thus, in contrast to the direct insta-shaming evident in the previous theme, these action fields demonstrate a shift towards aligning with the ‘good-vibes only’ tenet promoted by Instagram and the SMMS in general. With the intent of reducing negativity and conducting meaningful communication between opposing market actors, this symbolic unfolding leads to new meaning-making in the SMMS for the public good (Kadirov and Varey 2011, Kadirov 2018).

The @publiclandshateyou account offers a space for SMMS actors in which to collaborate and engage in civic-minded activities that draw attention to macro-level issues affecting PLMS. For instance, a prominent group of images highlighting pets is largely shared by SMIs sponsored by the pet industry. The @publiclandshateyou account uses Insta-stories (as a micro-action field) to highlight the good and bad behaviors of pet owners in PLMS along with an extensive written discourse on how to discourage the latter. One such story highlights the SMI @jordankahana who travels with his two dogs to various destinations. While some of his popular images indicate disregard for the PLMS structure, in textual comments, he resists criticism by indicating that PLMS attenuating mechanisms inhibit his personal freedom and right to enjoy the natural resources of his country. To dispute this, @publiclandshateyou showcases Rory Riley-Topping (@dobiesisters), a SMI featured in the mainstream media for proposing legislation to protect PLMS from misbehavior of corporate influenced SMIs. This SMI (@dobiesisters) is motivated by the concern that, if unchecked, the number of pet owners abusing PLMS will become large enough for authorities to restrict access to all including those who follow the established attenuating mechanisms. By highlighting the citizen-consumer oriented practices of such market actors, @publiclandshateyou strives for balance by showcasing the irresponsible SMIs as well as those setting a good example for others.

The Way Forward: Creating awareness and Educating on “Sharing Responsibly”

Given the diverse ways in which both individuals (visitors, SMIs) and groups (hiking, birding, travel collectives on SMMS) visit the PLMS, @publiclandshateyou continues to evolve into a SMMS space that discourages negative behaviors (preventing formation of new action fields) and encourages positive behaviors (maintaining established actions fields) in the PLMS. In doing so, within this short span of time, the tone of content shared by @publiclandshateyou has progressed from civic-mindedness (becoming aware of the complex issues) to citizen-consumer oriented practices (creating original content), with the macromotive intent of informing and educating the public. Although @publiclandshateyou has not abandoned calling out SMIs, other citizen-consumer oriented practices have emerged. The account has created educational Instagram Stories highlighting SMI misbehaviors as examples of inappropriate PLMS-based micro-actions (e.g. flying drones in restricted areas, not following pet guidelines), to draw attention to the macro-level issues (disturbing fragile ecosystems). Another macro-action field has been to develop an “8th” principle, “share responsibly,” to add to the seven principles for PLMS visitors championed by LNTC. With over 5,000 likes and 221 comments, this 8th principle pertains to SM posts: “Social media is creating new ways to share and celebrate our public lands, but reckless and irresponsible sharing can and IS having a tangible negative impact. Sharing responsibly means think about WHAT, WHY, and WHERE you’re sharing” signaling justice macromotive (Kadirov 2018). This notion of distributive justice (Kadirov 2018) is rooted in sense of place by showing images adhering to the PLMS attenuating mechanisms (the what aspect of sharing), shared because of genuine appreciation (the why aspect of sharing) with awareness about the location’s ability to handle a sudden influx of visitors due to it being highlighted on SMMS (the where aspect of sharing).

Opposing values of various consumer groups (disenfranchised market actors) emerged as another important topic (Kadirov and Varey 2011). In covering the Superbloom 2019, @publiclandshateyou addressed imagery predominantly featuring females and thus the gendered implications of calling out a specific demographic. In our layering process of thickening the data, many users’ comments speculated that the anonymous account owner of @publiclandshateyou is a white male, which has been corroborated in the mainstream media coverage of the account. The images featuring women of color invited vigorous discussions on the marginalization of various minoritized groups in the PLMS. While, the PLMS has been accessible to the privileged white majority that brought forth the symbolic history in the meaning-making of these opposing views (Kadirov and Varey 2011), systemic barriers faced by people of color have long hindered their access to the PLMS and denied them from developing a sense of place connection to it.

A series of images, this time about animal abuse (packhorses) at Havasupai Falls, a Native American managed location close to the PLMS, presented another learning moment for @publiclandshateyou. While Native Americans are yet denied ancestral rights to lands that were forcibly appropriated, given their thousands of years of history in these settings, this group has the strongest sense of place connection to the PLMS amongst all groups. These two examples illustrate how some market actors (minoritized groups) have been systematically prevented from developing a strong sense of place not only in terms of physical access (lack of access, inability to afford entrance fees and permits due to economic disparities) but also emotional connection through socio-cultural practices (camping, vacations) denied to them. In this discourse, @publiclandshateyou apologized for lack of knowledge on the topic, promised to learn more about it, and asked followers to do the same. This self-awareness (a key element of civicmindedness) progressed to @publiclandshateyou deferring to Instagram users of Native American heritage, and encouraging followers to engage with their content.

The analysis also highlighted a problem in the lack of interaction between local community officials and PLMS authorities. For instance, @publiclandshateyou called-out the city officials of Lancaster (California), a city near the Superbloom 2019 location, for publishing a magazine cover showing children trampling on poppies off trail in the PLMS. While the city’s intent was to encourage tourism, the image conveyed the wrong meaning. This was highlighted by @publiclandshateyou as an example of the lack of communication between two important stakeholders in protecting the PLMS. Another dimension of @publiclandshatesyou’s citizen-consumer oriented practices is the creation of collaborative content with others on SMMS. For example, @publiclandshatesyou invited a follower who asked the account owner to review the trend of wedding photography on PLMS to collaboratively research the phenomenon.

Discussion and Conclusion

Change in Marketing Systems: Micro versus Macro-Motive Between Market Actors

The widely adapted phrase, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” reflects the powerful symbolic meaning humans place on imagery as a form of communication. In today’s world, SM imagery is an integral part of our everyday lives. Through highly effective structured mechanisms, consumers engage with SM visuals for various activities that interlink a multitude of marketing systems including lifestyle, food, entertainment, leisure, travel, and outdoor recreations to name a few. These private sector marketing systems often rely on public sector goods to enact consumer experiences. Portrayal of these consumer acts have evolved from structured broadcast media-based dissemination of advertising to include the new form of peer-to-peer influencer marketing prevalent in the SMMS. Today, digital advertising has overtaken traditional media advertising. Should SMMS market actors take responsibility for disseminating imagery for private gains when it results in the misuse of shared public assets like the PLMS? This is the central question posed by market actors like @publiclandshateyou and others on Instagram. The findings reveal that corrective intervention attempts to develop new macro-action fields (Kadirov 2018) in the rapidly evolving SMMS through justice motive driven civic-mindedness and citizen-consumer oriented practices by some market actors (Ray Chaudhury and Albinsson 2015). Such practices are undertaken to maintain the established attenuating mechanisms (to protect) and prevent new action fields (that may be harmful to the natural environment) from forming in the PLMS (Fligstein and McAdam 2012; Layton 2015). See Figure 6 for an illustrative depiction of change in marketing systems.

Figure 6.

Change in marketing systems.

The attempt to shape a just marketing system that facilitates the wellbeing of all stakeholders (including the natural environment) assumes that market actors’ will participate in the value creation process in a civil manner that brings out their best as human beings (Ferrell and Ferrell 2008; Ostrom 2005). For instance, local level market actions (e.g., the #BackTheBLUEbonnets Instagram challenge where Texan police departments urged the public to post pictures of themselves with blooms of the state flower) demonstrates the pervasiveness of SMMS driven activities in the natural environment (Bell 2019). With such SMMS micro-action fields, the meaning-making of having one’s picture taken in public spaces is situated within the symbolism of replicating specific physical acts in order to participate in social collective action (Kadirov 2018). Indeed, it is now commonplace to engage in lifestyle related activities enacted in public spaces with such trends originating from the SMMS. Thus, with the blurring of public and private spaces, consumers’ individual actions, while often local in nature, have become a global issue (William 2019).

Another issue pertains to the sense of place (Gerard and Chick 2007) seen in the images, which usually depict the natural space as untouched and pristine to be enjoyed by the sole SMI (and their friends). In reality, due to over tourism, during peak travel season, PLMS’ popular destinations are very crowded. Similarly, to capture extraordinary imagery that impart specific meaning, the micro-actions of consumers’ inappropriate behaviors (damaging ecosystem, feeding wildlife) has the potential to create new action fields in the PLMS as they are perpetuated by images posted on SM. This is because the disregarding of PLMS’ attenuating mechanisms are not easily perceived by those who are unfamiliar with the setting, so the symbolic meaning is distorted. Citizen-consumer practices entail questioning Instagram’s lack of attenuating mechanisms. These actions demonstrate the macromotive of belonging (Kadirov 2018) manifest from a rooted sense of place.

Opposing Symbolic Values in Interlinked Marketing Systems

Corporate spending and influencer marketing go hand in hand. Recent estimates indicate that brands will spend $15 billion on the latter by 2022 (Mediakix 2020). SMMS often facilitates commercialized relationships between SMIs and brand actors. However, some criticize corporate brands for not monitoring SMIs nor holding them accountable for responsible use of PLMS assets through existing attenuating mechanisms like contracts. In the absence of such attenuating mechanisms, citizen-consumers collaborate to develop new SMMS macro-action fields. One such effort entails promoting the idea of requiring SMIs to place disclaimers discouraging followers from mimicking what is depicted on their images. These proposals demonstrate the need for new attenuating mechanisms of providing users with more information and context necessary for meaning-making in SMMS imagery.

At the broader macro-level, this discourse raises the question of what responsibilities indirect marketing systems like SMMS have in symbolic meaning-making and transference of meaning via imagery. This is because other interdependent marketing systems (e.g. Travel) also engage in these symbolic meaning-making practices. For instance, travel publications like Big 7 Travel publish lists of the “most instagrammable places in the world” including one of US National Parks (Clayton-Lea 2019). The interdependence between marketing systems is further evident in media and entertainment marketing systems utilizing visuals of PLMS in advertisement, magazines, and films, which continue to influence popular culture. For instance, @youtube, which has 23.9 million followers and 2,002 posts on Instagram, was forced to remove its image of people misusing the poppy reserve (see Figure 5) after criticism. Such examples show that SMMS does not have attenuating mechanisms in place to guide even their major production-side market actors. This brings forth the notion that a sense of shared responsibility is necessary to shape the discourse away from the PLMS being a source of individual entertainment to it being a collective public asset for current and future generations (Kadirov 2018). Private sector market actors have opposing value interests that do not intersect with those of market actors who want to protect public assets. Some may well have a stronger connection to the land due to a combination of knowledge, and life experiences of growing up or being employed by PLMS thus demonstrating a composite value with a justice motive.

On their website, PLMS authorities like the BLM (Bureau of Land management) have a web page dedicated to “outdoor ethics.” The agency recommends the LNTC at lntc.org and another non-profit organization Tread Lightly at treadlightly.org. While both entities have initiatives that engage with private sector marketing systems as sources of funding, neither asks of these market actors to educate consumers on preserving and protecting public goods. Citizen-consumer acts question why such organizations do not use their Instagram account as a platform to educate the public on PLMS stewardship. In its present state, most efforts by the PLMS and other private sector interlinked marketing systems appear to encourage civicmindedness, (e.g. follow signs rather than understand what the sign is actually trying to prevent). Similarly, in the SMMS, there are some recent efforts to create structure by posting guidelines (such as respecting wildlife). However, as there is no attenuating mechanism in place to capture wildlife abuse, the system relies on the users to report such behavior.

There is a dearth of research examining change in marketing systems (Kadirov 2018). This study contributes to extant research by exploring how symbolic meaning-making action fields in one marketing system (in the form of images created and shared for monetized gains in the SMMS) affect the wellbeing of another marketing system (the PLMS). From an evolving marketing systems perspective (Layton 2015), this study highlights empirical evidence of rapid temporal processes (Kadirov 2018) where the online-offline activities blur the lines between distinct marketing systems.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This analysis is not without limitations. For one, as it is a case study of one prominent Instagram account, the findings are not generalizable. Following interpretive research tenets, which encourage researchers to include their lived experiences as part of the data analysis, it is highly unlikely that the results can be replicated. However, it does contribute to the ongoing understanding of how consumer actions in interlinked marketing systems are converging to a level of complexity that may be difficult to understand with the use of big data alone. This research adds useful insights into how analysis using the thick data approach of layering teases out context in symbolic meaning-making on a visual platform like Instagram. Future research on Instagram users can benefit from such an approach at a time when the SMMS continues to limit access to data and is seeking to generate revenue from the research community for access to it.

Further, there is much to discover as the narratives of disenfranchised market actors like racialized and minoritized groups in prominent marketing systems like the PLMS and the SMMS remain under-researched in macromarketing literature. For instance, the hashtags #blackinnature, #blackbirdersweek, and #blackhikersweek demonstrate consumer micro-action fields driven by justice motive intent to draw attention to the discrimination faced by minoritized groups in public spaces. Another example includes exploring inequalities in marketing systems where travelers from wealthy nations photograph vulnerable consumer groups like the poor and monetize the content on SMMS (Mendez 2019) without the subjects of imagery receiving any benefits. Thus, as illustrated by these examples, more intersectional research that further elucidates the complexities and inequalities in the interlinked marketing systems is warranted.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor Dr. Joseph Sirgy and Special Issue editor Dr. Linda Ferrell for their exceptional support and encouragement throughout the review process. We concur that it was the most positive and empowering review experience in our careers to date. It has inspired us to continue exploring research topics worthy of publishing in this journal. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped us improve our work.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lubna Nafees

References

Amazon Influencers (n.d), “Introducing Amazon Influencer Program,” (accessed February 29, 2020), [available at https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/influencers].

Araujo

Luis

(2007), “Markets, market-making and marketing,” Marketing theory, 7 (3), 211–26.

Bansal

Agam

Garg

Chandan

Pakhare

Abhijith

Gupta

Samiksha

(2018), “Selfies: A boon or bane?,” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 7 (4), 828–31.

Bell

Jeff

(2019), “Texas Police Pose for Viral #BackTheBLUEbonnets Challenge,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas-police-pose-for-viral-backthebluebonnets-challenge/269-22d2d294-ae93-46e1-b922-5d699b083af6]

Bondarenko

Veronika

(2019), “The Public Lands Instagram Blacklist,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.outsideonline.com/2405316/public-lands-hates-you-instagram-blacklist].

Casaló

Luis V.

Flaviánand

Carlos

Ibáñez-Sánchez

Sergio

(2018), “Influencers on Instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership”, Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005.

Center for Western Priorities (2018), “290 Million Reasons to Invest in America’s Public Lands,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1D9Ona4izXB5JPlXVXA-O8KsRQ3SHjlHQ]

Chapin III

F. S.

Knapp

C. N.

(2015), “Sense of Place: A Process for Identifying and Negotiating Potentially Contested Visions of Sustainability,” Environmental Science & Policy, 53, 38–46.

Clayton-Lea

Sarah

(2019), “The 7 Most Instagrammable National Parks in America,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://bigseventravel.com/2019/10/the-7-most-instagrammable-national-parks-in-america/]

10.

Clement

(2020), “Social Media Statistics & Facts,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/]

11.

Cohen

Lizabeth

(2004), “A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1), 236–39.

12.

Connolly

Bill

(2018), “Why Consumers Follow, Listen to, and Trust Influencers,” (accessed November 16, 2019), [available at Online at: http://www.olapic.com/resources/consumers-follow-listen-trust-influencers_article/]

13.

Cooper

Caren B.

Dickinson

Janis

Phillips

Tina

Bonney

Rick

(2007), “Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems,” Ecology and Society, 12 (2), 11.

14.

Cordell

H. Ken

(2012), “Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 167 p., 150, 1–167.

15.

Crozet

Yves

Lopez-Ruiz

Hector G.

(2013), “Macromotives and Microbehaviors: Climate Change Constraints and Passenger Mobility Scenarios for France,” Transport Policy, 29, 294–302.

16.

Dickson

Ariana

(2019), ”Influencer Marketing Tourism Trends on the Rise for 2019,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.travelmindset.com/influencer-marketing-tourism-trends-on-the-rise-for-2019/].

17.

Digital Stars (2017), “Murad and Nataly Osmann,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.forbes.com/profile/murad-and-nataly-osmann/#3942409a1720]

18.

Dokur

Mehmet

Petekkaya

Emine

Karadağ

Mehmet

(2018), “Media-Based Clinical Research on Selfie-Related Injuries and Deaths,” Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 24 (2), 129–35.

19.

Droesch

Blake

(2019), “Is Everyone on Instagram an Influencer?,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.emarketer.com/content/is-everyone-on-instagram-an-influencer].

20.

Eisenhauer

Brian W.

Krannich

Richard S.

Blahna

Dale J.

(2000), “Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections,” Society & Natural Resources, 13 (5), 421–41.

21.

Ferrell

O. C.

Ferrell

Linda

(2008). “A Macromarketing Ethics Framework: Stakeholder Orientation and Distributive Justice.” Journal of Macromarketing, 28 (1), 24–32.

22.

Fligstein

Neil

McAdam

Doug

(2012), A Theory of Fields, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Floyd

Myron

(1999), “Race, Ethnicity and Use of the National Park System,” Social Science Research Review, 1 (2): 1–24.

24.

Freberg

Karen

Graham

Kristin

McGaughey

Karen

Freberg

Laura

(2011), “Who Are Social Media Influencers? A Study of Public Perceptions,” Public Relations Review, 37, 90–92.

25.

Gerard

Kyle

Chick

Garry

(2007), “The Social Construction of a Sense of Place,” Leisure Sciences, 29 (3), 209–25.

26.

Giesler

Markus

(2008), “Conflict and compromise: drama in marketplace evolution,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 739–53.

27.

Gilio-Whitaker

Dina

(2019), As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock, Beacon Press, Boston, MA

28.

Godinho

Vinita

Venugopal

Srinivas

Singh

Supriya

Russell

Roslyn

(2017), “When Exchange Logics Collide: Insights from Remote Indigenous Australia.” Journal of Macromarketing, 37 (2), 153–66.

29.

Hand

Martin

(2017), “Visuality in Social Media: Researching Images, Circulations and Practices,” in The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, Sloan

Luke

Quan-Haase

Anabel

, eds. London: Sage Publications, 217–31.

30.

Henry

Paul C.

(2010), “How Mainstream Consumers Think about Consumer Rights and Responsibilities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 670–87.

31.

Hosie

Rachel

(2017), “Instagrammability’: Most Important Factor for Millenials on Choosing Holiday Destination,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/instagrammability-holiday-factor-millenials-holiday-destination-choosing-travel-social-media-photos-a7648706.html]

32.

Hughes

Christian

Swaminathan

Vanitha

Brooks

Gillian

(2019), “Driving Brand Engagement Through Online Social Influencers: An Empirical Investigation of Sponsored Blogging Campaigns,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 78–96.

33.

Influencer Marketing Hub (n.d), “What is Influencer Marketing: An in Depth Look at Marketing’s Next Big Thing,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at (accessed February 29, 2020), [available at https://influencermarketinghub.com/what-is-influencer-marketing/]

34.

Jorgensen

Bradley S.

Stedman

Richard C.

(2001), “Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties,” Journal of environmental psychology, 21 (3), 233–48.

35.

Kadirov

Djavlonbek

(2018), “Towards a theory of marketing systems as the public good,” Journal of Macromarketing, 38 (3), 278–97.

36.

Kadirov

Djavlonbek

Varey

Richard J.

(2011), “Symbolism in Marketing Systems.” Journal of Macromarketing, 31 (2), 160–71.

37.

Kantor

Isaac

(2007), “Ethnic Cleansing and America’s Creation of National Parks,” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 28, 41–64.

38.

Chung-Wha ‘Chloe’

Youn-Kyung

Kim

(2019), “The Mechanism by Which Social Media Influencers Persuade Consumers: The Role of Consumers’ Desire to Mimic,” Psychology & Marketing, 36 (10), 905–22.

39.

Kjellberg

Hans

Claes-Fredrik

Helgesson

(2007), “On the nature of markets and their practices,” Marketing Theory, 7 (2), 137–62.

40.

Kozinets

Robert V.

Handelman

Jay M.

(2004), “Adversaries of Consumption: Consumer Movements, Activism, and Ideology,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 691–704.

41.

Geertz

Clifford

(1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, Vol 5019. Basic books.

42.

Latzko-Toth

Guillaume

Bonneau

Claudine

Millette

Melanie

(2017), “Small Data, Thick Data: Thickening Strategies for Trace-Based Social Media Research,” in The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, Sloan

Luke

Quan-Haase

Anabel

, eds. London: Sage Publications, 199–214.

43.

Layton

Roger A.

(2007), “Marketing systems—A core macromarketing concept,” Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227–42.

44.

Layton

Roger A.

(2015), “Formation, growth, and adaptive change in marketing systems,” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (3), 302–19.

45.

Layton

Roger A.

(2019), “Marketing Systems – Looking Backward, Sizing up and Thinking Ahead.” Journal of Macromarketing 39 (2): 208–24.

46.

Layton

Roger A.

Duffy

Sarah Maree

(2018), “Path Dependency in Marketing Systems – Where History Matters and the Future Casts a Shadow,” Journal of Macromarketing, 38 (4), 400–14.

47.

Low

Setha. M.

Altman

Irwin

(1992), “Place attachment,” In Place attachment. Boston, MA: Springer, 1–12.

48.

Luhmann

Niklas

(1995), Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

49.

Maida

Stephanie

(2019), “Instagram Influencers Have Caused the California Poppy Fields to Shut Down,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://guestofaguest.com/los-angeles/instagram/instagram-influencers-have-caused-the-california-poppy-fields-to-shut-down].

50.

Magno

Francesca

Cassia

Fabio

(2018), “The impact of social media influencers in tourism,” Anatolia, 29 (2), 288–90.

51.

Mediakix (2020), “What Constitutes an Influencer?,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://mediakix.com/blog/influencer-definition-marketing/].

52.

Mendez

Lola

(2019), “Travel Influencers Behaving Badly,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.curiositymag.com/2019/05/28/problematic-travel-influencers-white-savior-poverty-porn-destroying-destinations/]

53.

Nafees

Lubna

Cook

Christy M.

Stoddard

James E.

(2019), “The Impact of Social Media Power on Consumer Attitudes toward the Brand: The Mediating/Moderating Role of Social Media Source Credibility” in Atlantic Marketing Association Proceedings (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/ama_proceedings/2019/SOCMEDMRKT_T17/2/].

54.

National Park Service (n.d), “Segregation & Desegregation,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/segregation/index.htm]

55.

National Park Service (n.d), “Yosemite Indians,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/historyculture/yosemite-indians.htm]

56.

Ostrom

Elinor

(2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

57.

Paris

Are

(2018), “Your Guide to Understanding Public Lands,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.rei.com/blog/hike/your-guide-to-understanding-public-lands].

58.

Perera

B. Yasanthi

Cruz

Ryan E.

Albinsson

Pia A.

Chaudhury

Sarita Ray

(2017). “When Corporate Partnerships are NOT Awesome: Leveraging Corporate Missteps and Activist Sentiment in Social Media,” in The Dark Side of Social Media: A Consumer Psychology Perspective, Scheinbaum

Angeline Close

, ed. London: Routledge, 125–46.

59.

Proctor

Jason

(2016), “High on Life’ Canadians face nature violations in U.S.court,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/youtube-shamed-candians-yellowstone-1.3837287]

60.

Proctor

Jason

Lindsay

Bethany

(2018), “Adventurers Killed in Shannon Falls Tragedy Shared Joys of Travel Online,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/adventurer-from-vancouver-killed-at-shannon-falls-1.4734497]

61.

Prothero

Andrea

McDonagh

Pierre

Dobscha

Susan

(2010), “Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity Discourse,” Journal of Marcomarketing, 30 (2), 147–59.

62.

Ray Chaudhury

Sarita

Albinsson

Pia A.

(2015), “Citizen-Consumer Oriented Practices in Naturalistic Foodways: The Case of the Slow Food Movement.” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (1), 36–52.

63.

Rose

Gillian

(2012), Visual Methodologies, London: Sage

64.

Scaraboto

Daiane

Fischer

Eileen

(2013), “Frustrated fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1234–57.

65.

Siler

Wes

(2019), “Your Guide to America’s Public Lands,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.outsideonline.com/2396716/public-lands-america-explained].

66.

Smith

Chris

Manning

Elizabeth

(1997), “The sacred and profane collide in the West,” (accessed June, 2020), [available at https://www.hcn.org/issues/109/3424]

67.

Soper

Kate

(2008), “Alternative Hedonism’ and the Citizen-consumer,” in Citizenship and Consumption, Soper

Kate

Trentmann

Frank

, eds. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 191–205.

68.

Spiggle

Susan

(1994), “Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491–503.

69.

Sredl

Katherine C.

Shultz

Clifford. J.

II Brečić

Ruzica

(2017), “The Arizona Market: a Marketing Systems Perspective on Pre- and Post-War Developments in Bosnia, with Implications for Sustainable Peace and Prosperity,” Journal of Macromarketing, 37 (3), 300–16.

70.

Torrez

Rod

(2014), “HECHO Ad Campaign: Protect Our Heritage. Protect Public Lands,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.hechoonline.org/blog/hecho-ad-campaign-protect-our-heritage-protect-public-lands]

71.

Treuer

David

(2019), The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present. New York: Riverhead Books.

72.

U.S. Travel Association (2019), “U.S. Travel Answer Sheet,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Research_Fact-Sheet_US-Travel-Answer-Sheet.pdf].

73.

U.S. Forest Service (n.d), “Citizen Science,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/citizen-science]

74.

U.S. Department of the Interior (n.d), “When do i need a film permit?,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/leases-and-permits/filming-on-public-lands/film-permits]

75.

Varey

Richard J.

(2013), “Marketing in the Flourishing Society Megatrend,” Journal of Macromarketing, 33 (4), 354–68.

76.

Wang

Tricia

(2016, December 5), “Why Big Data Needs Thick Data,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://medium.com/ethnography-matters/why-big-data-needs-thick-data-b4b3e75e3d7].

77.

Wilderman

Candie C.

Barron

Alissa

Imgrund

Lauren

(2004), “Top down or bottom up? ALLARMs experience with two operational models for community science,” Proceedings of the 4th National Monitoring Conference, Chatanooga, Tennesee, USA. National Water Quality Monitoring Council.

78.

William

Sophie

(2019), “Icelanders tire of disrespectful Instagram Influencers,” (accessed June 26, 2020), [available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48703462]

79.

Wilson

Mitzi

(2018), “How Influencers are Turning the Business of Travel on its Head,” (accessed February 26, 2020), [available at https://www.adweek.com/digital/how-influencers-are-turning-the-business-of-travel-on-its-head/].