Periphery fandom: Contrasting fans’ productive experiences across the globe

Abstract

The article introduces the concept of periphery fandom, a concept that is new in the debate on consumer culture, to interrogate global fan community productive experiences from various geographical locations. Periphery fandom is defined as a sub-ordinated fan community experience, where members are deprived of access to their objects of fandom. Periphery fandom also refers to a fan productive experience that is detrimental to the fan community ethos. This notion of periphery fandom is underpinned by insights from fandom studies, brand community scholarship, and core and periphery theories. Using adult fans of LEGO as an example, this article demonstrates the character of periphery fandom. By contrasting the data gathered from 2014 to 2019 during UK, Japan, USA, and Brazil LEGO fan events, this study reveals how fans’ divergent productive practices and community experiences are influenced by their geographical location. Moreover, the fan productive experiences from the periphery further hinder their creative expressions and visibility, creating a more fragmented global brand fandom landscape. This study overall advances a contribution to the fandom debates by contrasting fan production and fan brand experiences.

Keywords

Periphery fandom core fandom brand community fan productivity fandom LEGO

Introduction

A global brand considers the existence of a variety of local communities across national borders and the cultural differences that exist therein. Fans who admire a brand increasingly join, create, and contribute to brand communities. The introduction, spread, and growth of these fan communities in contemporary markets are most influential in the development of marketing and brand management in recent decades (Velotsou and Guzmán, 2017). Moreover, it has been firmly established in literature the impact that fans’ passion has on the growth and in sustaining a brand (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006; Vernuccio et al., 2015; Wallace and de Chernatony, 2014). In the era of ‘‘prosumer capitalism,’’ fans are recognized not only as recipients of brand meanings but also as significant producers (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010). Scholars in consumer culture showed how fans created value for brands (Schau et al., 2009). Recent research from fandom studies, as Cruz et al., 2019 noted, also addressed meaning-making functions of prosumption in the digital age (Sugihartati, 2017), highlighting complexities of fans as prosumers beyond dominant centers of globalization (Tse and Tsang, 2018).

Hierarchical structures within fandoms and in-group relations distinguished the high-status insiders from low-status imposters, as Thornton (1995) showed. Another ethnographic study of punk subcultures distinguished between “real punks” and “pretenders” (Fox, 1987). The present study rather takes as its point of departure primarily the notion of peripheral and core fan community positions, which take on fans’ productive experiences in re-negotiating the global, and not in-group fandom dynamics. The focus of the present study is not on stereotypes of the depth and breadth of Western cultural influences on fan communities (Chin and Morimoto, 2013) or on addressing the aspects of unevenness in global fan community practices based on the socio-cultural differences. In contrast, this study opens a new perspective on the fandom debates by setting the framework to position fans’ productive experiences, drawing on the core/periphery paradigm (Prebisch, 1944; Wallerstein, 1991, 2000). The core/periphery theories are often used to discuss international relations. As an approach here, it will help explain the polarized core and periphery fan community relations within the global brand fandom. Taking on LEGO adult fan community examples, the present study introduces periphery fandom in contrast to core fandom, as a derogatory stance in relation to fan productivity. LEGO fan community and adult fans’ relationships with the LEGO brand have been observed in various studies (Antorini et al., 2012; Hienerth et al., 2014; Jennings, 2019; Johnson, 2019; Muniz et al., 2013; Wolf, 2014;). This study is novel in that it introduces the concept of periphery fandom, by ethnographically observed authentic local fan community productive experiences.

Theoretical building blocks

The distinction between the core (or center) and the periphery is a spatial distinction, which has shaped the mapping of global political and economic power relations from the 17th century to the present. This concept of center and periphery was first introduced by Raul Prebisch (1944: 64). Social sciences literature on center-periphery hierarchies usually draws upon the structuralist theories, such as the dependency theory (Chirot and Hall, 1982), the Wallersteinian world-systems theory (1974), as well as the neo-Marxist critiques of the international division of labor (Schaeffer and Richard, 1997). They were all designed to explain the uneven development and inequality in the system of world capitalism by analyzing the impacts of historical patterns of uneven international exchange that sustain the dependence of the periphery on the core. A common feature of these theories was the opinion that capitalist development in Western Europe and North America put countries in these continents into the center of the world market, while other countries in South America, Asia, and Africa became part of the poorer periphery. This distinction is often associated with the world-systems theory of Immanuel Wallerstein (1991, 2000), who argued that the global capitalist economy has been expanding since the 17th century, and that this expansion has involved massive economic imbalances between the core “the West,” and the periphery “the non-West.” Yet, this distinction between “the West” and “the non-West” is also an invention of the Western cultural imagination in an attempt to assert the dominance of the core over the periphery.¹

This core/periphery binary is useful for the present study in order to contextualize fandoms and their integration into a global brand community system with a diversified geographical structure. Duffett (2013) defined fandom as a socio-cultural phenomenon associated with modern capitalist society, electronic media, mass culture, and public performance. Fandoms often display intense interest, affection, and attachment and are distinguished from non-fans through their respect, admiration, and commitment to the object of their fandom (Fiske, 1989). Fans, however, are not a homogeneous group and encompass various types who differ in levels of participation and engagement (Hills, 2002, 2015, 2017, 2017; Jenkins, 2006; Sandvoss, 2005, 2011, 2017). Being a fan is a complex process through which value is created, meanings are attached, and sense is made of the fandom experience (Lanier et al., 2013: 285). Fandoms consist of individuals who passionately experience certain brands and whose members consciously declare them as committed and loyal to a larger community (Jenkins et al., 2013).

The fan community can be dedicated to a specific brand, where fans gather, exchange information, and socialize. The brand community concept (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Wipperfurth, 2005) refers to non-geographically-bound groups, brought together by a structured set of social relations among people who self-select to join them. Those communities empower members to support each other and are guests to the community (Islam et al., 2018; Millán and Díaz, 2014). Successful communities, such as the Apple Forum (Apple Support Communities 2018), connects Apple users from around the world; while the Find a Nike + Run Club (2018) provides guidance, encouragement, and support for runners. The brand stories created and shared by the members’ influence not only existing brand community, but also attempt to recruit new ones.

Furthermore, such a dynamic fans’ interaction not only creates a sense of belonging within the community, but it deepens the relationship between the fans and the brand, resulting in positive outcomes such as consistent loyalty and enhanced brand usage, as well as product innovation (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). In those groups, people share the same feelings towards a brand, and accept and recognize bonds with each other as well as with the brand (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). In general, the initiative to begin brand community may start from companies or from customers, while brand communities may run with or without involvement of the companies behind the brand by moderating conversations, organizing events or in any other active role in the community’s life (Dholakia and Vianello, 2011).

The brand community concept introduced a possibility of managing a global brand community regardless of geography (Deeter-Schmelz and Sojka, 2004). Muniz and O’ Guinn (2001) also revealed that brand communities were “liberated from geography” (p. 413) in their US-based study. On the other hand, Cova et al. (2007) explored the brand community concept within a gaming context by examining meanings inherent to consumption processes for US and French participants of Warhammer, a wargame with a medieval fantasy theme. In their study, they showed that community attached to a global brand constituted a complex phenomenon, one that both integrates and ignores geographical considerations. Warhammer communities displayed extreme geography-related differences in the way a brand was interpreted (Cova et al., 2007).

Fan events have also been a key component of fan communities dating back to the 1930s (Bacon-Smith, 1992). Such events “spatially and temporally organize the interaction between the community and potential new members and serve as formal meeting places for the various smaller groups of fans who follow a convention circuit” (Bacon-Smith, 1992: 9). Many fan communities can be found online, overcoming geographical distance (Baym, 2007). Sport fans, for example, are able to consume sport contents regardless of geographical location. Global communication networks have compressed and disassembled the traditional geography-based boundaries and restructured the fan’s experience of spatiality (Silk and Chumley, 2004). However, the geographical location of the fan community may (over-)determine fan engagement and productivity in a global community setting. Local fandoms are influenced by the local market conditions, questioning fans’ creativity, their community rise and spread. In this context, Chin and Morimoto (2013) argue that, while national identity and socio-political contexts may inform fan pursuits, this is neither necessarily the case nor the only possible mode of fan engagement. Fan identity is prioritized over national identity (Hills, 2002); therefore, a fan orientation may supersede geographical boundaries, becoming essentially a transnational/transcultural experience (Hills, 2002). If it does not, fans may develop a strong feeling of being downgraded, invisible—fans from the periphery.

The context: Adult LEGO fandom

LEGO is a colored interlocking plastic toy brick manufactured by The LEGO Group. However, LEGO is not just a construction toy, it is also “a medium through which ideas can be expressed and with which art can be created” (Wolf, 2014: xxi). The LEGO brand’s aesthetics and technology have evolved over time, and its global growth, brand offerings, and connection to bigger trends are reflected in its dynamic social media ecosystem and digital experience. LEGO is a transgenerational and multimedia empire (c.f. Johnson, 2019; Wolf, 2014) that attracts children and adults of all ages and professions. Besides child fans, adult fans of LEGO are also recognized and celebrated by the LEGO Group. There are more than 360,000 adult members of the LEGO community worldwide (LEGO House, 2019).

LEGO has been producing plastic bricks for more than 60 years, and its adult fan community emerged only in the 1990s. The introduction of Star Wars to LEGO, a franchise that already appealed to an adult audience, along with the capacity of the Internet to facilitate connectivity and communication between fans, significantly contributed to the faster development of the LEGO adult fan base (Jennings, 2019: 226). LEGO fan communities grew from 11 in 1999 to over 150 groups by 2012 (Antorini et al., 2012). As of 2019, there were more than 360,000 adult fans worldwide (LEGO House, 2019) in 349 adult fan groups and 93 online communities (https://lan.lego.com/clubs/overview/). The LEGO Group (Antorini et al., 2012) as well as Alfa Romeo (Cova and Pace, 2015), Nikon (Dholakia and Vianello, 2011), Harley Davidson (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995; Schembri, 2009), and SAP (Quint, 2013), all have both company-managed and one or more consumer-run communities. Research on the distinct types of communities proves that fans are often active contributors in both company-managed and consumer-run brand communities (Black and Veloutsou, 2017; Cova and Pace, 2015; Skålén et al., 2015). Adult fans of LEGO represent an important resource for the present study since they are one of the most active global fan communities (Antorini et al., 2012).

These fans tended to gather originally into LEGO User Groups (LUGs) based on the geographical proximity—first, sharing the same access to social resources that raised the level of their identification with the local LEGO community. Consequently, most of the LUGs were organized geographically, for example, BayLUG (San Francisco Bay Area) or NELUG (New England). Today, adult fans continue to organize regular meetings in publicly accessible locations where members gather to trade elements, discuss building techniques, and work on their creations. My own creation is the official term for a figure, model, or any creation designed and made by a fan (Geraghty, 2014: 168). While adult fans may use large quantities of LEGO elements to build them, their creations can also be small-scale authentic expressions. Both types of creations represent the very definition of fan productivity (Geraghty, 2014: 168). Fans’ productivity is one of the central topics in fan studies (Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1998; Booth, 2015, 2017; Fiske, 1992; Hellekson et al., 2006; Hills, 2002, 2013; Jenkins 1992, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2013; Longhurst, 2007; Scott, 2008; Sandvoss, 2011). Adult fans of LEGO take the original object of affection from the producer and recreate it into a new creation that reflects their identity. Over decades, they have developed and nurtured “affective proximity” (Arvidsson and Peitersen, 2013: 99) with the LEGO brand and have influenced some corporate decisions by directing the LEGO Group’s attention accordingly. The relationship between adult fans and the object of their fandom could be described with the Gray’s (2010: 46) paratext. Fans globally interpret brands facilitated through fan-generated paratexts, and by doing so, they become productive (Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010; Sugihartati, 2017; Tse and Tsang, 2018). For LEGO, adult fans represent an important avenue for value generation as the brand attempts to channel fans into lucrative activities (Booth, 2015). As the result, the LEGO Group established the LEGO Community Engagement program to engage adult fans in a dialogue with the company. It provides a networking platform to share experiences and best practices in the community on a global level (LEGO, 2016). In addition, the LEGO Ambassador Network is a community network for dialogue and to initiate activities among Recognized LUGs. The purpose of these initiatives is to “stimulate authentic brand advocacy at Recognized LUG driven events in order to inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow” (LEGO, 2016). This program includes annual, as well as project and event support. According to Gyrd-Jones and Kornum (2013), this program enabled the company to move successfully into the newly created dynamic platform consisting of groups of customers and generate creative ideas outside its corporate walls.

Methodological building blocks: Exploring fan communities around the world

For the purpose of the present study, four research sites were considered. These sites represent important spaces in respective fan communities due to their established status (Seidman, 2006). Additionally, the selected events provided an opportunity to contrast fans’ productive experiences and the selected countries offered geographically distant and culturally different contexts.

BRICK 2014 and AFOLCON as first and only Adult Fan of LEGO Conference in the UK before the public event Brick 2014. AFOLCON offered talks from senior LEGO executives, exclusive set launches, and pre-release shows.

May (Spring) Festival 2016 at the Tokyo University was organized by Tokyo University LEGO Club (in Japanese: 東大レゴ部). Members of this Club exhibit their works at school festivals. The Club, however, is not a recognized LUG.

Brickworld in Chicago 2016 is the largest adult LEGO fans’ convention in North America, and one of the biggest in the world.

EXPO LUG Brasil 2019 is the main LEGO event in Brazil which is a reference of its kind in Latin America due to its size, variety, and number of exhibitors and visitors.

The ethnographic fieldwork with the non-participant observation (Agar, 1996; Cova et al., 2007; DeWalt and DeWalt, 2011; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007) took place over four fan events between 2014 and 2019, each lasting approximately two to four days. Over the course of these events, the researcher became acquainted with the site, and made contact with potential fan-respondents who could act as informants (Agar, 1996). Also, in order to achieve the interpretative validity from the field, the researcher adopted the values of the research group under study. It meant not just to go native in the field, but also to understand the social reality in which the fan community operates. By doing so, the researcher made his fan-respondents feel free and confident in expressing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions regarding the questions asked.

The data about the fan community productive experiences were gathered using the ethnographic approach, non-participant observation, and in-depth interviews (e.g., Thompson et al., 1989). The goal was to obtain first-person accounts of experience by helping the respondents tell their story and reflect on it. Consumer research has shown that such stories were a good way of gaining a rich understanding of lived experience (Ahuvia, 2005; Shankar et al. 2001). Given the flexibility of this method, the researcher was also able to ask further questions. Those follow-up questions relied on fan-respondent’s own words and encouraged descriptive answers, while supporting the atmosphere of equality between the researcher and the fan-respondent (Atkinson, 1998; Thompson et al., 1989). All the interviews were conducted in or around the exhibition space during the events and lasted about 30 min. Fan-respondents discussed their community and productive experiences next to their exhibition table area, while other visitors and enthusiasts were approaching, looking, and commenting on the exhibit. During the research process, fan-respondents were not separated from the fan-exhibition environment. Such perspective opened a research setting with fans in naturally occurring settings. This atmosphere provided fans with an opportunity to talk more, to feel free to add comments, and to express themselves in their own way, without any discomfort that may arise from the context of the standardized interview setting (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007: 110–111). Pseudonyms² were applied to the 32 participants: eight participants from the London event, 12 from Chicago, three from Tokyo, and nine from Sao Paulo. Interviews were all audio recorded and the participants orally consented prior to the onset of each interview. Transcriptions were done by the researcher; interviews and coding overlapped in a time frame; interviews continued until a theoretical saturation point had been reached (Strauss and Corbin, 1998); and no new dimensions emerged in a continued coding process. As a result, the researcher is confident that these interviews were significantly thorough in addressing the study’s questions.

Analytical framework: How to organize building blocks

The researcher followed Margot Ely et al. (1997: 161), JohnCreswell (2007: 148), and JohnnySaldaña (2013) in their approach to qualitative data analysis. The first stage in the coding process was a type of categorization, as referred by Lindlof and Taylor (2002) and Belk et al. (2013). From there, codes were used as a “researcher-generated construct that symbolized, and thus attributed to an interpreted meaning of each individual datum for purposes of pattern detection and categorization” (Saldaña, 2013: 4). The researcher mostly used descriptive and attribute codes that provided essential information about fans and contexts for further analysis and interpretation. In addition to this, emotion coding was related to the fans’ feelings, while the values coding assessed a fan’s integrated value, attitude, and belief system. This process continued with categories and codes being refined.

The core/periphery paradigm is useful in revealing the dyadic nature of fan production: the cores typically have a high potential for creation and growth, while the periphery is mainly characterized by the lack of resources, therefore, lower productivity. From this paradigm, the main themes emerged (Spiggle, 1994). The themes revealed the imbalance between the core and peripheral fandoms. The fans’ access to their object of fandom was linked to resources: accessibility, and the polarized field-specific relationship with the brand: visibility. Each of these two dominant themes seeks to increase our understanding for a core and periphery fandom position. The objective is to look at the application of the core/periphery paradigm to the ethnographical insights from identified fan community events, where the core and periphery polarization could be assessed.

Results from the LEGO core and periphery fandoms

Based on the analysis of adult fans of LEGO that engaged with their local fan communities, the productive practices revealed a field-specific distinction in the experience related to their productive practices (Bourdieu, 1986, 1990), referred to as Visibility. Reconfiguring the LEGO brand to the new realities of fan communities worldwide in a broad stakeholder ecosystem required complementarity that spans relation-specific assets and knowledge sharing (Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013). On one side, fans-respondents expressed their strong affective proximity to the brand (Arvidsson and Peitersen, 2013: 99), where the manufacturer and their programs for adult fans seemed irrelevant: “Whether they recognize what we do or not, is really irrelevant. As long as they keep producing awesome and quality products that I can use and expand my builds with, I am happy as a pig in dirt,” the US1 reported. Fans from Europe also confirmed this by showing their lack of interest for corporate programs: “I do not know what LEGO Group does,” UK1 said. UK2 added: I don’t really get involved in the whole business.” In addition, UK3 expressed a more extreme viewpoint: “I don’t know. LEGO doesn’t provide with anything.”

Some European fans expressed their happiness once they got recognized by the manufacturer, like UK4 who argued: “I think they are supportive with one of our projects and we are very grateful and that’s one of the best things I’ve ever built. Time was a bit of a challenge, but it was one of the best models I built, and they were very supportive. Otherwise, it would not be affordable.” Other fans from the UK event expressed a more negative stance regarding the lack of investment, like UK5 who reported: “I feel a lack of investment from LEGO to adult fans.”

Overall, the lack of official presence and support of the manufacturer at fan community events is strongly condemned: “Sometimes people ask me how much LEGO paid you to come here. Because I pay for it, I collect for it. And people cannot believe. What, LEGO doesn’t pay you?”, UK3 explained. In addition, BR1 said: “I love this event. Main event for LEGO. Last year I was here. Next year, I will be also here for sure. I came from Rio. I had to pay for my flight, hotel. I wish if they, LEGO, could see us, sometimes give us some small sets.” US2 consumer expressed the same concern: “We paid to present. It would be cool if we didn’t have to pay. That’s about it.”

Opposed to this, fans from the Chicago event expressed a different experience, for example US3: “They [LEGO Group] spend time to make sure that an employee is around. They have community managers on purpose, they are available, they have channels to talk to people directly. Lego community is closer to LEGO corporate head CEO, than a worker at a retail store is. There is a faster communication chain. That’s sometimes inspiring how quickly does the LEGO Group pay attention to the community in that sense.” Fans from Chicago also expressed their happiness regarding the involvement and presence of the LEGO Group at their event: “I didn’t expect any of those things to happen,” US4 said, while US5 also added: “It was very impressive to me that the company cares enough to help and support the people that use their toys and I like the fact that they actually support and come out to the shows, and provide a lot of sets for the shows.” However, even during the Chicago event, geography was again emphasized when, for example, US2 reported: “I am sure in bigger cities there are better programs. At the end of the day just a little bit of recognition.”

That little bit of recognition is heavily emphasized by the Brazilian and Japanese respondents: “LEGO should pay more attention to fans. They should have [a] department that only deals with fans. They do, but in Brazil they are not active.” BR2 commented. Likewise, “LEGO Japan should pay more attention to LEGO fans. Most of their customers are AFOLs.”, JP1 reported.

Fan communities in different locations are disproportionately affected by brand’s market presence and offerings. Therefore, fan production is heavily influenced, and the community position discriminated based on their access to the brand. Consequently, fan-respondents often referred to the fact that the specific theme or a product was not offered at their local market, so they were forced to make orders online from a different country, or different websites. Many times, different products or the same products but with a differentiated price, is offered: “There is no official online shop in Japan” JP2 said, and “almost all of our purchases have to go through BrickLink³,” JP3 added, exemplifying the challenges to purchasing or browsing with intent to purchase.

Easier access to bricks, lower local market price, and bulk ordering options offered by the manufacturer, all result in a massive fan-made creations and large displays that draw global attention. A fan-exhibitor from the Chicago event, for example, displayed a medieval theme made out of 400,000 LEGO bricks (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Medieval Castle, Brickworld Chicago 2016.

The cost of the creation he estimated to be around US$40.000. Usually, fans from the US and UK reported that they spend between 5.000 and US$8.000 on LEGO per year. On the contrary, BR1 argued: “LEGO is very costly, so we cannot build big things, when you start to make expositions.” In addition, BR3 said: “Smaller things don’t get attention; people don’t care about that.” Likewise, JP3 felt really disappointed when their creations got little attention: “I am kind of disappointed when one of my creations gets little attention because of the material, because people who are not LEGO fans do not appreciate building technique itself and parts that were used” (see Figure 2). Because of the lack of access to the necessary material, they were able to build only small-scale creations. Usually, regular visitors do not appreciate building techniques that can be demonstrated in a small-scale display: “Little creations are more difficult to build than larger,” JP1 explained.

Figure 2.

Manga and anime inspired fans’ creations, Spring Festival, Tokyo 2016.

Contrasted to the high amount of money spent, Brazilian fans reported much more moderate amounts spent annually on their LEGO hobby, where even the amount spent for the entire collection may not overpass US$2.000. “In the past, there was a factory. It was easier and cheaper to get it. Now, it’s not easy. Only richer kids can get LEGO,” BR4 reported. In 1986, the LEGO Group built a factory and established a sales office in Brazil with the aim of entering the South American market. As it was reported, the LEGO Group established the factory in Brazil because of the favorable country’s economy that made it possible to set up a local manufacturing site. That provided a base from which to enter a market already containing several copy products. However, in 1998, it was decided, for a number of reasons, to discontinue production in Brazil. Along with the sales concentrated predominantly around Christmas and many political changes in the country, it became difficult to conduct business under such atmosphere (LEGO, 2020). National regulations in Brazil, international distribution and import laws also need to be considered. Brazilian fans confirmed that: “Especially for us in Brazil, it’s more difficult for many reasons. Brazilian customs taxes additionally LEGO bulk order shipments, sometimes it even blocks it so it’s very difficult for us to get brick in bulk,” BR5 described.

Even though, the LEGO Group opened the first certified store in Rio de Janeiro in December 2019 (LUG Brasil, 2020), offering some services that already exist in stores abroad, yet lacking some aspects, such as the Pick-a-Brick wall. This Pick-a-Brick wall is where one can purchase a plastic container and fill it with a collection of assorted pieces—that exists today in most LEGO stores. BR6 argued: “In our country it’s different. Shops are different, big difference, sets aren’t sold here, never sold here.”

Discussion

In general, successful global brands ensure that they have a dialogue with their fan base (i.e., Ballantyne, et al., 2011; Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013; Muñiz and O’Guinn, 2001). In the LEGO ecosystem, creation of value exists as a dialogical model (Zwick et al., 2008: 166) between adult fans and the LEGO Group, and it is directed towards creating a context that encourages experimenting, playfulness, and contingency between adult fans worldwide. Adult fans are very important for the LEGO Group (LEGO, 2020) and the value of the brand depends on the immaterial labor of fans and their ability to create meanings, feelings, and experiences (Arvidsson, 2005, 2006; Lury, 2004). Adult fans have already been integrated into the LEGO corporate strategies, in which digital technology supports the exposure and visibility of fan communities by accelerating and facilitating creativity, engagement, and interaction.

Fans of genres like science fiction, horror, and fantasy appropriate, challenge, and reinterpret their favorite television show or novel through the creation of new materials in a form of fanfiction, fan-videos, and other forms of amateur fan work (Busse, 2017; Jenkins, 1992). Such fan work is influenced by the meanings appropriated from the media texts that are easily available and consumed. In contrast, LEGO adult fandom is heavily dependent on a tactile, rather than textual engagement. LEGO adult fans’ productivity and creativity is greatly influenced by the accessibility of the LEGO bricks. That makes this fandom different from other forms of popular culture and media fandoms.

Fan communities around the world are characterized, with no doubt, with a high creative expression, but when local communities are not supported by the brand or they are lacking the access to it, fandom becomes vulnerable. Allowing for idiosyncratic local fan brand experiences within the core/periphery binary, the author contends that such differentiated productivity has its roots in local market conditions and fans’ access to the brand. This study explored the LEGO global adult fandom and empirically examined local fan productive experiences. By doing so, the author contextualized the fan community productivity within both fandoms in the core—–USA and UK, and the periphery—–Brazil and Japan. The core/periphery paradigm (Prebisch, 1944; Wallerstein, 1974) was mobilized to provide a new insight on fandom dynamics structured by contrasting local fan productive experiences within geographical dimensions into core and periphery differences.

The present study applies the notion of spatial fans’ productive experience as the key difference between the core and the periphery fandoms when contrasting periphery with the center, characterized by different forms of visibility/invisibility and accessibility/inaccessibility. Without exception, all core/periphery theorists presented “cores” as advantaged and “peripheries” as disadvantaged (Wellhofer, 1989). The diversities on how fan creations are generated by core and periphery fans resulted in differences in the attention they receive from the LEGO Group. Fan production concentrated in core fandoms, enables fans to attain an elite status over fandoms in periphery. By this means, fan brand experiences of leading core fandoms are able to dictate trends disproportionate to production capabilities of the periphery that lacks access to the material, for example. Finally, this unequal relationship facilitates the disadvantage of the periphery fandom productivity and visibility, while the core fandom dominates in both the brand accessibility and global visibility.

The core fandom essentially is characterized by a good two-way communication to the brand. It has a higher number of fans gravitating to the community, which results in a high prosperity. The prosperity can be observed in massive creations, large community events with numerous fans-exhibitors. In contrast, fandoms from the periphery emphasized poor communication with the brand, along with the rare official presence. They are small in scale and less or not so visible in the global fan scene. Defined in geographical terms, the core fandom represents the locus of power and dominance, and is a constant source of prestige, whereas the periphery is more sub-ordinated. Core fandom is associated with higher expenditure and investments into objects of fandom, having easier access and more affordable prices, all of which results in a higher performance and globally recognized outcome by both fans and the LEGO Group.

This study revealed discrepancies that exist within the global fan community productive experiences. In other words, the distance between the core US and UK fan community productivity and the peripheral Japanese and Brazilian fans’ productivity is reflected mainly in the lack of access to the bricks that are necessary in order to express their individual and communal productivity. In this context, the study also confirmed that the global fan community concept frees fandom from the constraints of geographical belonging, reinforcing the argument that fans emphasize a subjective moment of affinity regardless of their physical location. By any means, this does not decrease the importance of the local market and import laws. It rather represents one of the possible points upon which core and periphery fandom productivity may be expressed.

The core and periphery characteristics clearly appeared in the fan communities under study. These characteristics might also affect further investments in their local fan community productive performance, creativity, and authenticity that exceeds any national and/or cultural orientation. The core fandoms in USA and UK rely on their market leverage, acknowledged global fan community prestige and organizational power, while the discrimination particularly affected the peripheral fan productivity in Brazil and Japan. The data confirmed how this practice was detrimental to the peripheral fandom productivity, echoing Bourdieu (1986). Brazilian fan-respondents found themselves permanently “on the wrong side,” according to their inherited place in the overall global brand fandom hierarchy (Bourdieu, 1986). They felt seriously deprived of access to objects of their fandom, that were available in the core USA or Europe. When considering what consequences this frequent frustration may have on consumer behavior and fan community performance, it is likely that fans from the periphery would prefer the brand presence like in the US and most European countries. Extant research offered little hope for those that suffer from a lack of status relative to their peers, alleviating the stress and anxiety associated with identity ambiguity (Seregina and Schouten, 2017).

Similarly to minorities that lacked privileges of the dominant society at the elite boarding school in Khan’s (2011) study, or Scaraboto and Fischer’s (2013) marginalized consumers that gained legitimacy through focusing on the development of a collective identity, the Japanese TODAI Fan Club as a periphery fan community used its respective advantages to sustain as a club. As an example of peripheral self-sufficiency, the members of this club deployed their own resources and independence by being only a Fan Club, not a recognized LUG, while their wider freedom, reflected in the creative expression, relied on its strong culture.

Overall, the present study offers novel definitions of the core and periphery fandoms based on the context of LEGO adult fandom (vide supra):

The core fandom represents a powerful and dominant fan productivity with easy access to objects of fandom, supported by a beneficial interaction (or relationship) with the brand. Fans from the core enjoy prestigious status and their fandom productive experience is a source inspiration worldwide.

Periphery fandom refers to a sub-ordinated fan community experience where members are deprived of access to their objects of fandom. Fans from the periphery have a strong feeling of being on the wrong side, they are distant and invisible by the brand. Periphery fandom means a fan experience that is detrimental to the fan community ethos.

Conclusion

The present study offered a new contextualization of a global fandom. Its contribution grasps the complexity of fan productive experiences in which local fan creative expressions are strongly attuned to the core/periphery characteristics. Elitist core contrasted to the downgraded peripheral fan productivity aimed to illustrate discrepancies in fans’ productive experiences. It also highlighted how the core/periphery paradigm successfully addressed fandom distinctions and the variety of expressions through which tensions between core and periphery are intensified.

This study did not aim at the oversimplification to reduce a complex and variously interpreted global fan community dynamics. Dominant narratives are dependent on who has power in a particular location and time to effectively produce and distribute content (Matthews, 2018). Fan voices and perspectives may be heard or privileged over others (i.e., Bennett and Booth, 2016), and what is dominant now may not be so in the future. Therefore, not all the core or periphery fandoms are structured or will follow the same developmental patterns. Yet, no historical inevitability determines that peripheries will always be peripheries, or cores always will be cores (Wellhofer, 1989).

Current global marketing architecture offers fans differentiated venues of consumption as well as uneven possibilities to appropriate original content in order to create and share new content. This study identified the existence of fan productivity and creativity as very dependent on the power of global capitalism in regulating the distribution channels, by introducing the concept of core and periphery fandom in the debate on consumer culture. And while the debate develops, some content may not be available in certain locations—geographic restrictions also make a whole new reality for traditional and digital peripheries whose content consumption is disproportionally affected by a variety of discriminatory factors. In this narrowed maneuver field, fans from the periphery mobilize their accumulated subcultural capital to create new venues for creative expression, and still continue to face challenges entering the global brand fandom scene.

Footnotes

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

Vlada Botoric

Notes

Author Biography

Vlada Botoric received his PhD from Aarhus University in Denmark. He is interested in the intersections between consumerism, marketing communications, and fan culture theory. His research covers aspects of brand/fan relationship, trying to indicate how fans and business practices are blended together in the value co-creation processes. Mixing consumer culture, marketing communications, and fan studies perspectives in his research, Vlada analyses fan community practices using ethnography. He focuses on LEGO fandom, as one of the most creative and active brand fan communities in the world.

References

Abercrombie

Longhurst

(1998) Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and Imagination. London: Sage.

Agar

(1996) The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography. 2nd edition. New York: Academic Press.

Ahuvia

(2005) Beyond the extended self: loved objects and consumers’ identity narratives’. Journal of Consumer Research 32(June): 171–184.

Antorini

Muniz

Askildsen

(2012) Collaborating with customer communities: lessons from the LEGO group. MIT Sloan Management Review 53: 73–79.

Apple Support Communities (2018) APPLE Support Forum. Retrieved from https://discussions.apple.com/welcome (accessed 20 June 2018).

Arvidsson

(2005) Brands: a critical perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture 5(2): 235–258.

Arvidsson

(2006) Brands – Meaning and Value in Media Culture. London: Routledge.

Arvidsson

Peitersen

(2013) The Ethical Economy: Rebuilding Value After the Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Atkinson

(1998) “The Life Story Interview.” Qualitative Research Methods. USA: Sage, Vol. 44.

10.

Bacon-Smith

(1992) Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

11.

Bagozzi

Dholakia

(2006) Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23(1): 45–61.

12.

Ballantyne

Frow

Varey

, et al. (2011) Value propositions as communication practice: taking a wider view. Industrial Marketing Management 40(2): 202–210.

13.

Baym

(2007) The new shape of online community: the example of Swedish independent music fandom. First Monday 12. Available at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/baym/.

14.

Bennett

Booth

(2016) Seeing Fans: Representations of Fandom in Media and Popular Culture. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

15.

Belk

Fischer

Kozinets

(2013) Qualitative Consumer & Marketing Research. London: SAGE.

16.

Black

Veloutsou

(2017) Working consumers: co-creation of brand identity, consumer identity and brand community identity. Journal of Business Research 70(January): 416–429.

17.

Booth

(2015) Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.

18.

Booth

(2017) Digital Fandom 2.0: New Media Studies. 2nd ed. New York: Peter Lang.

19.

Bourdieu

(1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

20.

Bourdieu

(1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

21.

Busse

(2017) Framing Fan Fiction: Literary and Social Practices in Fan Fiction Communities. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

22.

Carroll

Ahuvia

(2006) Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters 172: 79–89.

23.

Chin

Morimoto

(2013) “Towards a theory of transcultural fandom. Participations 10(1): 92–108.

24.

Chirot

Hall

(1982) World-system theory. Annual Review of Sociology 8: 81–106.

25.

Cova

Pace

Park

(2007) Global brand communities across borders: the warhammer case. International Marketing Review 24: 313–329.

26.

Cova

Pace

Skålén

(2015) Brand volunteering: value co-creation with unpaid consumers. Marketing Theory 15(4): 465–485.

27.

Creswell

(2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

28.

Cruz

AGB

Seo

Binay

(2019) Cultural globalization from the periphery: translation practices of English-speaking K-pop fans. Journal of Consumer Culture 0(0): 1–22.

29.

Deeter-Schmelz

Sojka

(2004) Wrestling with American values: an exploratory investigation of World Wrestling EntertainmentTM as a product-based subculture. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 42: 132–143.

30.

DeWalt

(2011) Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.

31.

Dholakia

Vianello

(2011) Effective brand community management: lessons from customer enthusiasts. The IUP Journal of Brand Management 8(1): 7–21.

32.

Duffett

(2013) Understanding Fandom: An Introduction to the Study of Media Fan Culture. London: Bloomsbury.

33.

Ely

Vinz

Downing

, et al. (1997) On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words. London: The Falmer Press.

34.

Find a Nike + Run Club (2018) Find a Run Club. Retrieved from https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/running/nike-run-club/find-run-club (accessed July 6 2018).

35.

Fiske

(1989) Understanding Popular Culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

36.

Fiske

(1992) The cultural economy of fandom. In: Lewis

(ed) The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media. New York: Routledge, pp. 30–49.

37.

Fox

(1987) Real punks and pretenders. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 16(3): 344–370.

38.

Geraghty

(2014) Cult Collectors: Nostalgia, Fandom and Collecting Popular Culture. London: Routledge.

39.

Gray

(2010) Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers, and Other Media Paratexts. New York: New York University Press.

40.

Gyrd-Jones

Kornum

(2013) Managing the co-created brand: value and cultural complementarity in online and offline multi‐stakeholder ecosystems. Journal of Business Research 66(9): 1484–1493.

41.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.

42.

Hellekson

Busse

(2006) Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

43.

Hienerth

Lettl

Keinz

(2014) Synergies among producer firms, lead users, and user communities: the case of the LEGO producer-user ecosystem. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31(4): 848–866.

44.

Hills

(2002) Fan Cultures. New York: Routledge.

45.

Hills

(2013) Fiske’s ‘textual productivity’ and digital fandom: web 2.0 democratization versus fan distinction? Participations 10(1): 130–153.

46.

Hills

(2015) The expertise of digital fandom as a ‘community of practice’. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 21(3): 360–374.

47.

Hills

(2017) From fan culture/community to the fan world: possible pathways and ways of having done fandom. Palabra Clave - Revista de Comunicación 20(4): 856–883.

48.

Islam

Rahman

Hollebeek

(2018) Consumer engagement in online brand communities: a solicitation of congruity theory. Internet Research 28(1): 23–45.

49.

Jenkins

(2006) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.

50.

Jenkins

(1992) Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. London: Routledge.

51.

Jenkins

Ford

Green

(2013) Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press.

52.

Jennings

(2019) “It’s all about the brick”: mobilizing adult fans of LEGO. In: Hains

Mazzarella

(eds) Cultural Studies of LEGO. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

53.

Johnson

(2019) Transgenerational Media Industries Adults, Children, and the Reproduction of Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

54.

Khan

(2011) Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

55.

Lanier

Jr Fowler

III (2013) Digital fandom: mediation, remediation, and demediation of fan practices. In: Belk

Llamas

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption. London: Routledge.

56.

LEGO (2016) LAN network. Available at: https://lan.lego.com (accessed 11 January 2016).

57.

LEGO (2019) News. Available at: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2019/november/lego-bricklink/ (accessed 27 November 2019).

58.

LEGO (2020) Annual report. Available at: https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/aboutus/assets/blt55a9aaa4253b2fa5/Annual_Report_2019_ENG.pdf.pdf (accessed 11 April 2020).

59.

LEGO (2020) LEGO history. Available at: https://www.lego.com/en-us/lego-history/production-in-the-brazilian-rain-forest-9d9d1045685f4d20b39b59b4acdaad13 (accessed March 10 2020).

60.

LEGO House (2019) We are all creative. Available at: https://www.legohouse.com/en-gb/explore/masterpiece-gallery (accessed 10 January 2019).

61.

Lindlof

Taylor

(2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

62.

Longhurst

(2007) Cultural Change and Ordinary Life. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

63.

LUG Brasil (2020) Facebook page. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/lugbrasil/photos/a.469139396451499/2845521032146645/?type=3&theater (accessed 12 January 2020).

64.

Lury

(2004) Brands: The Logos of the Global Economy. London: Routledge.

65.

Matthews

(2018) A past that never was: historical poaching in Game of Thrones fans’ Tumblr practices. Popular Communication 16(3): 225–242.

66.

Millán

Díaz

(2014) Analysis of consumers’ response to brand community integration and brand identification. Journal of Brand Management 21(3): 254–272.

67.

Muniz

Antorini

Schau

(2013) “The Brick Testament: Religiosity Among the Adult Fans of Lego,” in the Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption. London: Routledge.

68.

Muniz

O’Guinn

(2001) Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27(4): 412–432.

69.

Prebisch

(1944) “La moneda y los ciclos econo´micos en la Argentina. Apuntes de clases dictadas en la facultad de ciencias econo´micas de la Universidad de Buenos Aires”. In: United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America Project Rau´l Prebisch, Collection 4, Microfilm 1, Sobre 30. Santiago: ECLAC Library.

70.

Quint

(2013) “Run Marketing as a Business: The Transformation of SAP Marketing” (Part I). New York: Colombia Business School.

71.

Ritzer

Jurgenson

(2010) Production, consumption, prosumption. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 13–36.

72.

Saldaña

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd edition. London: Sage.

73.

Sandvoss

(2005)Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Cambridge: Polity Press.

74.

Sandvoss

(2011) ‘Fans online: affective media consumption and production in the age of convergence’. In: Christensen

Jansson

Christensen

(eds) Online Territories: Globalization, Mediated Practice and Social Space. New York: Peter Lang,, pp. 49–74.

75.

Sandvoss

(2017) The death of the reader: literary theory and the study of texts in popular culture. In: Gray

Sandvoss

Harrington

CLL

(eds). Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World. New York, NY: New York University Press.

76.

Scaraboto

Fischer

(2013) Frustrated fatshionistas: an institutional theory perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal of Consumer Research 39(6): 1234–1257.

77.

Schaeffer

Mack

(1997) The conceptual foundations of the new international division of labor. Journal of Planning Literature 12(1): 3–15.

78.

Schau

Muñiz

Arnould

(2009) How brand community practices create value. Journal of Marketing 73: 30–51.

79.

Schembri

(2009) Reframing brand experience: the experiential meaning of Harley-Davidson. Journal of Business Research 62(12): 1299–1310.

80.

Schouten

McAlexander

(1995) Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 22(1): 43–61.

81.

Scott

(2008) ‘Authorized resistance: is fan production frakked?’ In: Porter

Marshall

(eds) Cylons in America: Critical Studies in Battlestar Galactica. New York and London: Continuum, pp. 210–223.

82.

Seregina

Schouten

(2017) Resolving identity ambiguity through transcending fandom. Current Medicinal Chemistry 20(2): 107–130.

83.

Shankar

Elliott

Goulding

(2001) Understanding consumption: contributions from a narrative perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 17(3–4): 429–453.

84.

Silk

Chumley

(2004) “Memphis united?: diaspora, s(t)imulated spaces and global consumption economies”. In: Andrews

(ed) Manchester United: A Thematic Study. London: Routledge, pp. 249–264.

85.

Skålén

Pace

Cova

(2015) Firm-brand community value co-creation as alignment of practices. European Journal of Marketing 49(3/4): 596–620.

86.

Spiggle

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

87.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

88.

Sugihartati

(2017) Youth fans of global popular culture: between prosumer and free digital labourer. Journal of Consumer Culture 20(3): 146954051773652

89.

Thompson

Locander

Pollio

(1989) Putting consumer experience back into consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential-phenomenology. Journal of Consumer Research 16(2): 133–146.

90.

Thornton

(1996) Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital. Cambridge: Polity.

91.

Tse

Tsang

(2018) Reconceptualising prosumption beyond the ‘cultural turn’: Passive fashion prosumption in Korea and China. Journal of Consumer Culture 0: 1–21.

92.

Veloutsou

Guzman

(2017) The evolution of brand management thinking over the last 25 years as recorded. Journal of Product & Brand Management 26(1): 2–12.

93.

Vernuccio

Pagani

Barbarossa

, et al. (2015) Antecedents of brand love in online network-based communities. A social identity perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management 247: 706–719.

94.

Wallace

de Chernatony

(2014) “Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes”. Journal of Product and Brand 23(1): 33–42.

95.

Wallerstein

(1991) The world of economics. The New Palgrave. In: Eatwell

Milgate

Newman

(eds) Periphery. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

96.

Wallerstein

(1974) The modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

97.

Wallerstein

(2000) The Essential Wallerstein. New York: The New York Press.

98.

Wellhofer

(1989) Core and periphery: territorial dimensions in politics. Urban Studies 26: 340–355.

99.

Wipperfurth

(2005) Brand Hijack: Marketing without Marketing. New York: Portfolio.

100.

Wolf

(2014) LEGO Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon. New York: Routledge.

101.

Zwick

Bonsu

Darmody

(2008) Putting consumers to work: ‘‘co-creation’’ and new marketing governmentality. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2): 163–196.