Individual assignment_Internet marketing_jennifer williams

Consumer Motivations
for the Engagement
in FMCG-Crowdsourcing Measures

Program: International Marketing & Brand Management

Course: Internet Marketing, Branding and Consumers BUSN32

Professor: Veronika Tarnovskaya

Author: Jennifer Joan Williams

Related question: Who is the New Consumer on the Internet?

Number of Words: 2997

BUSN32 Internet marketing, branding and consumers
Individual Assignment

Introduction and Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Index

1. Who is the New Consumer on the Internet?............................................................................................. 3
2. Crowdsourcing as Part of Co-creation ........................................................................................................ 4
3. The Crowdsourcing Phenomenon ................................................................................................................4
4. Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Maslow 2.0 and the Motivation-Ability-Opportunity Model ........................................................... 5
4.2 Co-Creation and Crowdsourcing................................................................................................................. 7
5. Engaging Consumers in FMCG Crowdsourcing Activities................................................................... 8
5.1 Crowdsourcing Category: New Product Features and Innovations – Threadless..................8
5.2 Crowdsourcing Category: Product Designs, Names & Logos- Pril ................................................9
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12

2


As modern internet technologies continue to develop and spread, they constantly influence the
Introduction and Purpose

way in which organizations interact with consumers. The increasing number of information and
communication technologies has facilitated consumers’ possibilities to access, comprehend and
share information, which resulted in a power shift towards consumers 1.
Thereby empowered consumers are interacting with companies, brands and other consumers
and creating and sharing their own content over “one-to-many” and “many-to-many” online
communication channels. As part of a steadily growing network consumers act as collaborators,
co-developers and even competitors when creating content and extracting business value. 2 The
role of the customer as co-producer of mainly intangible values when engaging in marketing
activities furthermore shows a shift towards a service-centered logic for marketing 3.
Virtual customer integration represents a promising tool 4 to engage consumers in co-creation
processes, especially in the FMCG industry. Here crowdsourcing measures are the tool of choice
for the integration of virtual customers, to engage in co-creational processes.
This short paper aims to characterize the new consumer on the internet, explain his role in the
Web2.0 environment and sets focus on his motivation to participate in co-creation activities,
especially through engaging in crowdsourcing-activities. So far existing marketing literature did
not attach great importance to details of consumer-motivation to engage in virtual co-creation
tasks of crowdsourcing within the FMCG industry, a gap which is examined by this paper.

The species of the new, empowered consumer seeks customization and personalization of high
1. Who is the New Consumer on the Internet?

involvement products and thereby making them his own creation and uses them as display of
his personality. Empowered and active he takes control of the product he wants to purchase and
sometimes even of the brand offering it. The thereby encouraged change in marketing
approaches brought about new possibilities for consumers to express their identity through a
variety of formats offered by companies. 5
The new consumer furthermore seeks affiliation to communities of likeminded consumers and
demands multiple interaction channels. 6 These characteristics are added to the rather classic
ones of competitive value and choice, which are also intensified due to increased consumer
access to accurate, recent and unbiased information. Once organizations owned all the
information, but now online agents allow easy prices comparisons and consumers are providing
reviews, ratings and general information for other consumers. 7
Due to almost unlimited ways of online communication consumers are aware of a company’s
shortcomings and malpractices and can share their dissatisfaction with the whole world. 8 It
would only take one customer, armed with PC and a Web site, to take on a large corporation and
cause considerable damage by for example creating so called “spoof sites”. 9

1 Pires et al, 2006
2 Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000
3 Vargo and Lusch, 2004
4 Füller et al, 2010
5 Chernev et al, 2011
6 Wind, 2008
7 Pitt et al, 2002
8 Pitt et al, 2002
9 Pitt et al, 2002

3


As one can see, brand value creation in the current market is dominated by consumer agents. Co-
creation concepts offer a possible solution to engage active consumers and extend trust through
an increased brand-authenticity. The aim is to engage the consumer as co-creator, as there is
probably nothing more authentic for a consumer than something he has created himself. 10

More and more companies invite consumers to actively participate in product development and
2. Crowdsourcing as Part of Co-creation

evaluation. Taking their role as co-creators, they discuss possible improvements and solutions,
individualize prototypes, test product features or generate product ideas. 11 Thereby active
consumers give input about products or services they really want to purchase, use or see and
enable companies to offer products which are truly demanded. This interactive value creation is
basically conducted when an organization opens a challenge to solve a problem or design a
product, to a broad mass of consumers, users or an online community. Consecutively individuals
contribute to solving the problem, evaluating a concept or designing a product, and the
conducting organization takes ownership of the ideas and incorporates them. 12 The term
“crowdsourcing” was coined by Jeff Howe, to describe this Web-based business model, which
harnesses the creative solutions of a network of individuals through an open call for proposals. 13
Crowdsourcing campaigns in marketing are particularly aiming at a mass of participants and are
utilized to reinvigorate a company’s business or brand. These campaigns can be divided into
three major categories: New product features and innovations, Commercials and Product designs,
names & logos. 14 In recent years crowdsourcing became a popular tool for the FMCG industry.
Although it is not a new phenomenon as companies have been generating consumer insights and
knowledge on product developments, design and advertising through focus groups and
traditional market research, online crowdsourcing remains a special case in which the particular
needs of the new consumer-generation are triggered.

3. The Crowdsourcing Phenomenon

Numerous examples in the FMCG industry prove the attraction caused by crowdsourcing
measures. When asked to upload their favorite design (Pril), customize beer bottles for
themselves (Heineken), create a new drink flavor (VitaminWater) or make their own
advertisements (Doritos) consumers happily engage. Capitalizing on the possibilities offered
through Web2.0, organizations entice their target group to work on behalf of the brand and
“play the brand’s game” 15. Being only constrained by the imagination and passion of the
participants- there is, so to speak, no limit of possible outcomes. 16 As many consumers share
their participation via social media when for example letting their friends vote for their
uploaded design in a contest or by word of mouth, the company generates spinoff-effects and
profits in more than one way. Nevertheless this measure attracts broad masses and not
professional niches, like in software development for example. Therefore companies need to be

10 Bertilsson and Casinger, 2010
12 Brabham, 2010
13 Howe, 2006
14 Rudenko, 2011
15 Fournier and Avery, 2011
16 Howe, 2008

4


aware and prepared to be parodied or played with. Several brands had to learn, that
crowdsourcing is not a cheap way to drive business, but can be quite costly and time consuming,
as some of the active consumers show their power and take advantage of it to “scrawl digital
graffiti on the sponsor and its brand”. 17

4. Theoretical Framework
4.1 Maslow 2.0 and the Motivation-Ability-Opportunity Model

When trying to understand what triggers the attraction to engage in crowdsourcing activities,
consumer characteristics and needs have to be taken into consideration again. The options to
express one’s identity, satisfy social needs through sharing of consumption related experiences
and to join online communities provided by the internet are numerous 18 and not reflected by
existing models. The theory of human motivation of A. Maslow 19 builds the foundation for the
description of consumer needs. But considering the empowered consumer, there is a necessity
for a revised model, adapted to the world of today; Maslow 2.0. Although motivations and
behaviors also depend on the environment, certain developments in our surrounding have
changed our needs and it is time to include these changes into existing theoretical frameworks.

Self-
Enhance
ment
Self
Actualization

Co-Creation Needs

Content Sharing Needs

Esteem Needs

Connectivity Needs

Belongingness and Love Needs

Safey Needs

Figure 1: “Human needs in the Web 2.0”, modified from Maslow (1943)
Biological and Physical Needs

Maslow’s pyramid starts out with the undisputable Biological and Physical needs (breathing,
food, water and sleep), Safety needs (property, health) and the need of Belongingness and Love
(friendships, family, intimacy). Subsequently to the need of belonging one can say that
respective for online engagement of consumers there is a Connectivity need, as it marks the
essential requirement for the communication between parties. Once a need-level is met, an
individual seeks to satisfy growth needs by going on to the next level, following the drivers of

17 Story, 2007
18 Christodoulides, 2009
19 Maslow, 1943

5


personal growth. The Connectivity-Need-level includes the possibility to express the personal
identity (creating social media-profiles) and also belonging to online communities (people with
similar tastes, opinions). The following level of Esteem needs refers to Maslow’s original again,
although the need for self-esteem, achievement and respect by others refers in this case to the
engagement in online communities, blogs, and social networks to fulfill the need for recognition
and achievement and thereby provide a way to develop a virtual status and reputation. Content-
sharing is the next step of engagement, meaning the need to share consumption related
experiences, pictures, video, or audio-material. After the sharing of content and distribution of
information the next step in personal growth would be the need to engage in Co-creation
processes (product development, open innovation, crowdsourcing) to get him further towards
Self-actualization by contributing to value creation and mutual problem solving. It includes the
need to ask for help and provide help to others. Self-actualization, according to Maslow, is the
need for morality, creativity and problem solving, therefore it not completely disconnected from
Co-creation, and- as already stated complements the prior step. Finally, as tip of the pyramid;
Self-enhancement refers to the need for further self-development through access to a world of
ideas, the need to constantly improve oneself, inspired by the shared content or co-created value
of other individuals.

After identifying specific needs in the web 2.0 environment, the MAO-model of Motivation-
Ability-Opportunity allows to combine consumer Motivation and Ability with the Opportunity
created by organizations when for example operating crowdsourcing measures. The MAO-model
is an integrative model for consumer action, which aims to improve predictions of behavior by
incorporating the concept of “ability” in addition to the “motivation” component for the
consumer-side and “opportunity” of external influences/ the company side.

MOTIVATION ABILITY
Knowledge
• Needs Habits
(Maslow 2.0) Resources
• Attitude towards BEHAVIOR
Company/Brand
Intention Participation
• Attitude towards
behavior
• Perceived OPPORTUNITY
empowerment External Conditions
(overall and
• Social Norms
situational)

Figure 2: “MAO-model of consumer behavior in the Web 2.0”, modified from Ölander and
Thøgersen (1995)

Motivation is determined by the need-state of the consumer, based on Figure 1 and can differ
among consumers. Furthermore the attitude towards the company/ brand conducting the
measure, the perceived level of empowerment and the alignment with social norms affects
consumers’ intention and therefore motivation to participate. The Ability component relates to
consumers’ knowledge/ capability, resources and habits. The influence of Ability on consumer
intention is characterized by the interrelating arrow. The Opportunity component relates to the
6


facilitation of external conditions, in this particular case the design of the crowdsourcing tool
and the process management of the company. Opportunity also interacts with the intension as
the tool design has direct influence on the perceived empowerment and the related enjoyment
of the virtual interaction 20. As the participation experience affects the fulfillment of needs,
perception of empowerment and attitude towards behavior and the company/ brand, a cyclic
influence is formed.

The concept of co-creation can be divided into four major parts depending on the level of
4.2 Co-Creation and Crowdsourcing

openness of measures (directed towards masses or selected participants) and the ownership of
the outcome (owned by initiator or by contributor). These two dimensions form a matrix,
describing the four types of co-creation: The Club of Experts, the Crowd of People, Coalition of
Parties and the Community of Kindred Spirits.

Figure 3: “Four Types of Co-creation”, Pater (2009)

For the purpose of this paper the focus is set on crowdsourcing and therefore only concepts
owned by the initiator, but with the openness to the mass-market will be examined closer. When
referring to the “crowd” a high number plays an important role and almost anyone is invited to
participate. Furthermore must be understood, that the crowd voluntarily engages in the value
creation process and needs to be rewarded accordingly through recognition, attention, and
eventually tangible goods. 21 When conducting crowdsourcing measures companies offer online
platforms through which people get in contact with the company and also rate and respond to
each other. Furthermore social networks mediate the propagation and validation of knowledge
at a much faster pace than traditional methods 22. As crowdsourcing is constructed to gain input
from the masses, it takes time and organizations cannot be sure that the best people will (be
motivated to) contribute. 23 Within the crowd, consumers can take different roles. There are for
example creators (generating the driving content), critics (reacting to content), and spectators
(consuming the created content). Depending on the focus of which target group is supposed to

21 Brabham, 2011
22 Huberman, 2008
23 Pater, 2009

7


be addressed primarily the social application needs to be designed respectively. 24 When for
example designing advertisement-crowdsourcing-measures for the FMCG industry, a certain
degree of “gamification” (the use of game design attributes to enhance non-games) can serve to
attract the crowd, which is motivated by game mechanics 25. In this particular industry
crowdsourcing is often used as promotional tool with a seeding objective 26.

5. Engaging Consumers in FMCG Crowdsourcing Activities
5.1 Crowdsourcing Category: New Product Features and Innovations – Threadless

Threadless is a fashion retail website and online artist community in one. The sold designs are
based on uploads and choices of an online community. A constant “open call” on the company
website attains designs which are submitted online to the page and put up to a public vote.
Based on their rankings, certain designs are selected, produced and sold worldwide. Designers
whose work is printed are rewarded monetary. 27 The company keeps rights to the design on
clothing, but the designers keep their design-rights for all other media. Threadless has not only
hosted “a” crowdsourcing contest, crowdsourcing is furthermore their business concept.

In the early days of the company the designers were more motivated to make their designs
known by having them printed and sold through Threadless- it was “where unknown designers
went to make their names” 28 which shows the company driving impact of Content-sharing needs
and Co-creation needs of consumers in the web 2.0. The artists promote their designs, which
developed through exchange with other community members, promote their submissions on
websites and blogs and have their friends vote for it. 29 The motivation behind this creation of
virtual reputation and status relates to Maslow’s Esteem needs, and furthermore again to Co-
creation needs when considering the joint development of a design based on community
feedback. Within this community members take different roles. Many non-artist community
members offer their opinion on numerous designs. 30 Their way of participation can be
characterized as critics and spectators. Research has shown that among surveyed Threadless
customers only five percent were buying a shirt without first voting on other designs. It seems
that "Almost no one was simply consuming," quite contrary "They were all participating". 31

Considering the active online community as biggest asset of the company, authenticity of the
company becomes an important issue. When Threadless engaged into a partnership with the big
fashion retailer GAP, community members actively shared their dissatisfaction 32, which can be
seen when examining blog posts with high response rates on the company website. Such
dissatisfaction after participating actively can easily result in a change of attitude towards
Company/Brand, the own participation behavior and level of perceived empowerment, leading
to a possible decrease in intention and refusal of participation.

24 Bernoff, 2008
25 Shaughnessy, 2011
26 Pater, 2009
27 Threadless, 2011
28 Chafkin, 2008
29 Chafkin, 2008
30 Chafkin, 2008
31 Chafkin, 2008
32 Craquehaus [=Pseudonym of forum post], 2012

8


5.2 Crowdsourcing Category: Product Designs, Names & Logos- Pril

The German consumer goods company Henkel started an open call for a design competition for
its dishwashing detergent brand “Pril”. As reward the winning design was supposed to be
launched as special edition. Users were able to create their own design, share their opinion on
other designs and vote for their favorites. With a response rate exceeding 33,000 designs the
company believed in a success of the crowdsourcing competition. 33 However, not all of the
submitted designs met the expectations of the brand managers. One participant submitted
rather provoking designs, as a joke to contrast the “flowery” other designs (Appendix 1, Figure a
and b). Unfortunately for Henkel these designs were voted most popular among users. As
managers perceived this as threat for the brand-image, they decided to change the rules during
the contest, so designs would first be reviewed by a jury. Consequently a protest wave of
participants intruded the company’s Facebook-page 34. Henkel intervened by deleting certain
consumer-posts and reassessing votes for designs- downgrading “Tastes yummy like chicken!”
and the “Rage-face”, which resulted in an even larger uproar among the community. In the end of
the contest two designs out of the ones with the lower votes were declared winners (Appendix 1,
Figure c and d) although Breuer’s designs ranked first and second popular. 35 Henkel tried to
downplay the manipulation, arguing that “It was not our aim to only have designs which match
our brand-image, but we need to consider the acceptance in retail distribution”. 36

This case indicates a possible cycle of negative effects relating to the integrated MAO-model.
When engaging consumers in crowdsourcing measures a company needs to do even more than
setting up a contest. Customer liaison and support are important to actively manage the
dimensions of Opportunity and Behavior as they directly affect consumer Motivation. The
negative experience, which is seen in the amount of complaints on the company’s Facebook-
profile clearly affects the attitude towards the company and brand, as well as the attitude
towards the own participation and the perceived empowerment- which was undeniably
suppressed by the company. Ideally Perceived empowerment would lead to increased trust in the
empowering organization, which enhances the Intention to repeat the empowering behavior. 37

6. Conclusion

While analyzing these cases and applying my modified models of “Human needs in the Web 2.0”
and “MAO-model of consumer behavior in the Web 2.0” I was not able to identify the one
particular motivation which could be applicable to all crowdsourcing activities, but rather a set
of common denominators. However, motivations will most likely be rather unique, based on
subjective needs and the specific context of the crowdsourcing measure. For this conclusion the
context of crowdsourcing measures in the FMCG industry needs to be considered, as
crowdsourcing is primarily utilized as branding campaign. Rather than to retrieve knowledge
from consumers, it aims to build goodwill and brand loyalty 38.

33 Breithut, 2011
34 www.facebook.com/pril
35 Reputation-manager, 2011
36 Susanna [=Pseudonym of blog post], 2011
37 Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Deci and Ryan, 2002
38 Howe, 2008

9


Nevertheless the analysis of the discussed cases indicates that consumers’ engagement is mainly
motivated by: Connectivity Needs, Esteem Needs, Content-sharing Needs, Co-creation Needs, and
Self-actualization Needs. Combined with the Attitude towards the company/ brand and behavior
as well as Perceived level of empowerment and Standards of social norms, these needs affect the
Intention to participate in crowdsourcing measures. Furthermore the Motivation correlates with
the consumer’s Ability and the Opportunity provided by the company.
As the Pril-case has proven, the establishment of an optimal technological basis and set of rules
for the crowdsourcing measure, relating to consumer Abilities and external and internal
Opportunity are only prerequisites. The management of the process should not be
underestimated, as its direct effects on the Motivation drivers are undeniable.
Companies make use of consumer needs and reward participation with their fulfillment, by
providing possibilities and platforms to get social attention, achieve virtual reputation and
status, and acknowledgment of skills. Although the Threadless-case relates to Self-actualization
needs of designers, and touches upon Self-Enhancement when considering the fact that
designers discuss ideas back and forth and learn from each other to improve their own skills, it
is probably not the case that FMCG-crowdsourcing measures can fulfill the pyramid top need of
Self-Enhancement. This would be more likely for other crowdsourcing contexts or co-creational
processes.
The recent attention in the FMCG industry shows certain indicators of a “hype” which’s
attractiveness could soon wear off, if every company “crowdsources” every design, commercial
or product innovation. Also the spinoff effects, generated when consumers share their
participation experiences via social media, are likely to turn into reluctance when their numbers
increase and “spam” the virtual communication channels. This would result in the loss of one of
the greatest benefits for consumer brand companies, as future spinoffs exceed the value of direct
spinoffs (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Four Areas of Value in Co-creation

10


Appendix

Appendix 1 Pril design Crowdsourcing-contest

Figure a: “Tastes yummy like chicken!”

Figure b: “Rage-Face”

Figure c: “Winning designs”

Figure d:”Top Design Gallery”
11


References

Literature

Bertilsson, J. and Cassinger, C. (2010), “Governing Consumers through Freedom: A
theoretical discussion of the Co-creation Branding Paradigm”, European Advances in
Consumer Research (Vol. 9), 1-5.

Brabham, D. C. (in press), “Motivaties voor crowdsourcing [Motivations for crowdsourcing]”, in T.
Meuleman & R. van Meer (Eds.), “De C2B revolutie [The crowd-to-business revolution]”,

Chernev, A., Hamilton, R. and Gal, D. (2011), “Competing for Consumer Identity: Limits to
Amsterdam: Lenthe Publishers

Self-Expression and the Perils of Lifestyle Branding”, Journal of Marketing (Vol. 75), 66 –82.

Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory (Vol.9),
141-144.

Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1988), “The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice”, Academy of Management Review, (Vol.13, No.3), 471–482.

Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (2002), “Handbook of Self-Determination Research”. Rochester, New
York: University of Rochester Press.

Furnier, S. and Avery, J. (2011), “The uninvited brand”, Business Horizons (Vol. 54), 193-207.

Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K. and Jawecki, G. (2010), “Consumer Empowerment
Through Internet-Based Co-creation”, Journal of Management Information Systems, (Vol. 26,
No. 3,), 71–102.

Howe, J. (2008), “Crowdsourcing-Why the Power of the Crowd is driving the future of
business”, New York: Three Rivers Press

Hubermann, B.A. (2008), “Crowdsourcing and Attention”, Computer, (Vol.41, No.11), 103-
105

Maslow, A. H. (1943), “A Theory of Human Motivation”, Psychological Review, (Vol. 50), 370-
396.

Ölander, F. and ThØgersen, J. (1995) “Understanding of consumer behaviour as a
prerequisite for environmental protection” Journal of Consumer Policy, (Vol. 18, No. 4), 345-
385.

Pires, G., Stanton, J. and Rita, P. (2006), “The internet, consumer empowerment and
marketing strategies”, European Journal of Marketing, (Vol. 40 No. 9/10), 936-949.

Pitt, L.F., Berthon, P.R., Watson R.T. and Zinkhan G.M. (2002) “The Internet and the birth of
real consumer power”. Business Horizons, (July-August), 7-14.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000) “Co-opting Customer Competence”, HARVARD
BUSINESS REVIEW, (January-February 2000), 79-87.

12


Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R. (2004) “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal
of Marketing (Vol. 68), 1–17.

Online

Bernoff, J. (2008), Groundswell Profile: Lego, [Online] Available at: Harvard Business
Publishing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMRLPlAhfM8 [Accessed 21 February 2012]

Bevarly, D. (2009), Maslow 2.0 – A New Hierarchy of Needs for Collaboration, [Online]
Available at: http://www.aheadofideas.com/?p=156 [Accessed 20 February 2012]

Brabham, D. C. (2010), Crowdsourcing, [Online] Available at:
http://dbrabham.wordpress.com/crowdsourcing/ [Accessed 23 February 2012]

Breithut, J. (2011), Pril schmeckt nach Hähnchen [Pril tastes like chicken], [Online], Available
at: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,756532,00.html [Accessed 27 February
2012]

Chafkin, M. (2008), The Customer is the Company, [Online] Available at:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20080601/the-customer-is-the-company_pagen_6.html
[Accessed 27 February 2012]

Craquehaus [=Pseudonym of forum post] (2012), Threadless + Gap: An Inner Conflict of Epic
Proportions [Online] Available
at:http://www.threadless.com/profile/1190661/craquehaus/blog/801805/Threadless_Ga
p_An_Inner_Conflict_of_Epic_Proportions [Accessed 27 February 2012]

Howe, J. (2006), The Rise of Crowdsourcing, [Online] Available at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html [Accessed 24 February 2012]

Pater, M. (2009), The 5 Guiding Principles in Co-creation, [Online] Available at: Fronteer
Strategy http://www.fronteerstrategy.com/writings-events-news/whitepapers [Accessed
03 February 2012]

Reputation-manager (2011), Crowdsourcing Kampagne von Pril: Fettnäpfchen statt

[Online] Available at: http://www.reputation-manager.de/blog/crowdsourcing-kampagne-
Fettlösung[Pril’s Crowdsourcing Campaign-putting a foot in it instead of dissolving fat],

von-pril-fettnaepfchen-statt-fettloesung/ [Accessed 27 February 2012]

Rudenko, A. (2011), Crowdsourcing: You Create, Brand Capitalizes—Both Happy, [Online]
Available at: http://popsop.com/44299 [Accessed 25 February 2012]

Shaughnessy, H. (2011), Prediction 1 for 2012: Crowdsourcing Outshines Innovation and Jobs
Issue Takes a New Turn, [Online] Available at: Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2011/07/30/prediction-1-for-2012-
crowdsourcing-outshines-innovation-and-jobs-issue-takes-a-new-turn/ [Accessed 25
February 2012]

13


Story, L. (2007), The high price of creating free ads, [Online] Available at: The New York
Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/business/26content.html [Accessed 28
February 2012]

Susanna [=Pseudonym of blog post] (2011), Facebook-Marketing – Henkel zeigt mit Pril, wie

not do it], [Online] Available at: http://www.go-crowdsourcing.de/articles/facebook-
man es besser nicht macht [Facebook-Marketign-Henkel shows withPril, how you should better

marketing-henkel-zeigt-mit-pril-wie-man-es-besser-nicht-macht-0 [Accessed 28 February
2012]

Threadless (2011), Submitt an idea for the chance at fame, friends & Twenty-Five-Hundret
Dollars!, [Online] Available at: http://www.threadless.com/submit [Accessed 28 February
2012]

14

Individual assignment_Internet marketing_jennifer williams

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Individual assignment_Internet marketing_jennifer williams

Similar to Individual assignment_Internet marketing_jennifer williams (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Individual assignment_Internet marketing_jennifer williams