journalism & mass communication quarterly 2009 ragas 45 64

http://jmq.sagepub.com/Communication Quarterly

Journalism & Mass

http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/86/1/45The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/107769900908600104

2009 86: 45Journalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyMatthew W. Ragas and Marilyn S. Roberts

Media: A New Theoretical Lens for Virtual Brand CommunitiesAgenda Setting and Agenda Melding in an Age of Horizontal and Vertical

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication

at: can be foundJournalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://jmq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 2009Version of Record >>

at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmq.sagepub.com/

http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/86/1/45

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aejmc.com/

http://jmq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jmq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/86/1/45.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


AGENDA SETTING AND AGENDA MELDING

AND VERTICAL MEDIA: A NEW THEORETICAL LENS FOR VIRTUAL BRAND COMMUNITIES

IN AN AGE OF HORIZONTAL

By Matthew W. Ragas and Marilyn S . Roberts

This study tests agenda-setting the0 y and the agenda-rnelding hypothesis in the context of brand actors and virtual brand communities. The aggregate attribute agendas of brand-controlled communications, news media content, and a virtual brand community are analyzed. The results indicate a positive relationship between the brand agenda and brand community agenda, and an unexpected negative relationship between the media agenda and brand community agenda. In terms of agenda melding, the data indicate that the brand community, when divided by various demographic measures into subgroups, reflects attribute agendas that remain similar to the aggregate brand community agenda.

The widespread adoption of personalized ”time-shifting” devices, like the iPod and TiVo, and the explosion of new media choices threaten to turn the mass communication industry on its head. These technological tectonic shifts result in the further splintering and decline of audiences in the once dominant ”vertical media,” namely daily newspapers, broadcast television, and terrestrial radio.’ The erosion of audiences attentive to vertical media, basically free or nominally priced media that attempt to address the entire public in a top-down fashion, has resulted in scholars and practitioners investing more time in evaluating the fast-growing, but more complex, ”horizontal media.”2 These premium-priced media, such as cable networks and satellite radio, are generally geared toward serving the needs of more specialized interest groups.

At the intersection of vertical and horizontal media, a new class of media, called virtual brand communities, has emerged. Thanks to their location on the Web, these communities are generally globally accessible and often free like vertical media, but, like horizontal media, these communities serve specialized interest groups. These communities are sprouting up at a time when there are signs that the public finds tradi-

Matthew W. Ragas is a Ph.D. student in the College of Iournalism and Communications at the University of Florida, and Marilyn S . Roberts is dean and professor in the College of Communication and Media Sciences at Zayed University, United Arab Emirates.

J&MC ~ ~ ~ , . t ~ i ~ vol. 86, No. I Spring 2009 45-64 02009 AEJMC

AGENDA SETTING AND AGENDA MELDING 45 at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


tional brand-controlled communications to be di~ruptive.~ Therefore, in a world in which brands create value by engaging in dialogues with their customers, rather than monologues, these communities are growing in importance.

Viewed under this context, a new theoretical lens for evaluating the interplay or intermedia influence among brands, brand communities, and the horizontal and vertical media seems warranted. Instead of engaging in theory building from scratch, the researchers believe an effective lens for evaluating the future may come from revisiting past knowledge and seeing how it may be applied in new ways. This logic points to the time- tested mass communications theory of agenda setting and its conceptual offspring, the agenda-melding hypothesis.

Agenda Melding. Over the past four decades, since the publication of the seminal Chapel Hill study4 the agenda-setting tradition has broad- ened consistently its scope and ~ O C U S . ~ However, agenda setting’s theoretical core has remained consistent: the transfer of salience from one agenda to another.‘j Agenda melding represents a relatively recent addition to the literature. Agenda melding focuses “on the personal agendas of individuals vis-B-vis their community and group affiliation^."^ The agenda- melding hypothesis posits when individuals join groups, they ”meld” their individual agendas with the agendas of the group.8 Groups and communities represent a ”collected agenda of issues” and ”one joins a group by adopting an agenda.“9 While agenda melding marks a depar- ture from traditional agenda setting, the transfer of salience remains at its theoretical core and provides parsimony.’O

Agenda-setting research has traditionally focused on what the public learnsfrom the media. Shaw et al.” view “first-level” (objects or issues) and ”second-level” (attributes) agenda setting as part of a larger and ongoing social learning process called agenda melding. In a desire to avoid social dissonance and isolation, individuals feel a need to join groups. They sat- isfy this ”need for orientation” through “media of connections” and, ulti- mately, in a drive to belong, they learn and adopt the agenda of the group.I2 Shaw and his colleague^'^ define groups as ”collections of people based on some shared values, attitudes, or opinions” that individuals join.

Purpose of Study. While agenda melding is provocative, there has been to date only limited empirical testing of this hypothesis. The goal of this exploratory study is to evaluate some of the assumptions put forth by the initial agenda-melding 1iterat~re.l~ Specifically, this study explores the transfer of brand attribute saliency among an aggregate media agenda, aggregate brand agenda, aggregate brand community agenda, and its subgroups. Chipotle Mexican Grill, a fast growing U.S.-based restaurant chain with a ”cult-like following,” is the brand that will be used to explore these relationship^.'^ The Wall Street Journal has called Chipotle “arguably.. .the country’s most successful fast-food chain in recent years.“16

Literature Theoretical Underpinnings of Agenda Melding. In addition to drawing from the agenda-setting literature, specifically Weaver’s workI7 Review on the contingent condition of “need for orientation,” agenda melding

46 JOURNALISM 6 MASS C O M M U N l C A T r O N QUARTERLY



draws upon several other established social science perspectives. These sources include Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance,18 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,19 Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence,2o and Chaffee and McDevitt’s “disequilibration hypothesis.”21

Shaw et aLZ2 describe agenda melding as a “theory of social dissonance” in reference to Festinger’~~~ theory of cognitive dissonance in which individuals seek out information that supports their views and avoid information that conflicts with their views. In a related vein, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs positions family and group affiliation as one of an individual’s basic needs after food and safety needs had been fulfilled. Similarly, Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence” argues that people so strongly want to be part of a group, and seek to avoid isolation, that they will either adopt the views of the dominant group or they will fall silent. Finally, Chaffee and M~Devitt’s~~ disequilibration hypothesis states that individuals will attempt to avoid information that could greatly alter their views and place them in a state of dissonance.

Weaver and other agenda-setting scholars’ work on need for orientation explains why individuals are more interested in certain issues than others, depending on the level of uncertainty and perceived interest in the issue to them. Need for orientation is “based on the psycholog- ical assumption that individuals who are in an unfamiliar situation will be uncomfortable until they orient themselves.”26 Generally, the greater an individual’s need for orientation on an issue, the more likely the individual is to learn the media agenda on the issue.27

Demassification, Fragmentation, and Agenda Melding. Shaw and his colleagues argue that evolution of media and technology creates a more fertile environment for the “melding” of a wider range of group and individual While traditionally groups were formed around general topics and geographically bound, new media encourage the formation of specialized communities that are non-geographically bo~nd.2~

As evidence of the decline in the importance of broad, geographically-based groups, Putnam30 has documented the declining participa- tion in local community groups, such as bowling leagues. Declining membership rolls also can be found in geographically-oriented civic groups.31 At the same time, recent decades have witnessed the rise of specialized, non-geographically based groups formed around brands. Examples of these brand communities include Harley Owner Groups (HOG), Mac User Groups (MUGS), and European car

Political Candidates as Brands in Agenda Setting. Stern33 notes that scholars have applied a variety of definitions to the concept of “brand.“ These varied definitions can result in semantic confusion. For the purposes of this study, brand is defined as what resides in the minds of individuals about a product or a service.34 This definition demonstrates congruency with the idea of “the pictures in our heads” asserted by Walter Lippmann, the intellectual father of agenda setting.35 Similarly, the seminal marketing concept of ”positioning” focuses on how marketers use communication to “position the product in the mind of the prospect.” This process involves increasing the saliency of particular brand attribute^.^^

AGENDA SETTING AND AGENDA MELDING



While previous studies have focused on the role of political advertisements in agenda setting,37 the study of the agenda-setting effect of brand-controlled communications has largely been absent from the literature. M c C o m b ~ ~ ~ noted that the object or issue agendas in agenda setting need not be only public agendas or media agendas. ”The objects could be a set of political candidates, competing brands of consumer goods, or whatever.”

Building on this logic, brands may not be new to agenda setting after all. Competing candidates in a political campaign may be thought of not only as objects, but as competing brands in the marketplace. Candidates are judged on votes and brands generally on sales, but both candidates and brands attempt to set agendas and make particular issues and attributes more salient to their customers or voters. Starting with the original agenda-setting study of undecided voters during the 1968 U.S. presidential election,39 there is a history in this research tradition of exploring the transfer of salience among agendas during campaigns. If candidates are viewed as brands, then brands have indeed been part of agenda setting since day one.

Looking beyond agenda-setting research, the idea of treating political candidates and groups as brands has recently received scholarly atten- tion. Garrett and Smith40 have studied how ideological groups, such as the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, attempt to “create a dis- tinctive brand name” in the minds of potential members. Scamme1141 focused on the role of ”branding” in politics, specifically the ”rebranding” of Tony Blair in the 2005 U.K. General Election. Finally, P a s ~ t t i ~ ~ provided the following perspective on brands as candidates: ”The classical ideological voter is like a consumer with a long-term commitment to an established brand, which therefore must only reinforce its unique identity with the voter.”

Brand Community and Agenda Setting. Muniz and O ’ G ~ i n n ~ ~ define the concept of brand community as a ”specialized, non-geographically bound community based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand.” The initial brand community research centered on three brand communities (Ford Bronco, Apple Macintosh, and Saab) in which Muniz and O ’ G ~ i n n ~ ~ found that brand consumption could bring individuals together to form “a consciousness of kind.” McAlexander, Schouten and Koenig‘5 similarly define brand community as “a social aggregation of brand users and their relationships to the brand itself as a repository of meaning.”

While the concept of brand community is new to the agenda-setting literature, the concept of community and the study of community public opinion has long been a subject of the tradition. Tracing back to 1981,46 the public agenda in agenda-setting research has been described as the perceived community agenda. Agenda-setting literature is filled with dis- cussions of community issues and agendas47 and the consensus-building role of the media. However, community has traditionally been defined as a geographically-based construct, while a virtual brand community is non-geographically based and forms around a brand, not a particular place.

48 JOURNALISM 6. MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


About Chipotle Mexican Grill. Founded in 1993 by entrepreneur Steve Ells in a cramped 850-square-foot space near the University of Denver campus,“8 Chipotle Mexican Grill has grown rapidly into the third-highest-grossing fast-casual chain in the United States.49 As of year-end 2007, Chipotle operated over 700 restaurants in thirty-three states and the District of Columbia.5O It has increased its annual same- store sales, a measure of the health of a retail business, at a double digit rate for almost a decade.51 Chipotle’s winning formula is an affordable and focused menu of tacos, burritos, and salads using fresh ingredients and classic cooking methods served in an enjoyable a tm~sphere .~~

Since 2002, Chipotle has operated under a strategy it calls ”Food With Integrity” which focuses on using ingredients that are grown or raised ”with respect for the environment, animals and people who grow or raise the food.”53 Chipotle today serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant company in the This “Food with Integrity” mantra remains at the core of Chipotle’s communications

In 2006, Chipotle ranked as a top-forty brand on Interbrand’s 2006 Reader’s Choice poll in the category of US. and Canadian brands. This poll measures “brand impact” as determined by its voters.56

Several hundred studies have affirmed the agenda-setting hypothesis that the media can enhance the saliency of objects in the public mind.57 Therefore, the following hypothesis is submitted:

Hypotheses and Research Questions.

H1: The salience of brand attributes on the aggregate media agenda would be positively associated with salience of brand attributes on the aggregate brand community agenda.

Agenda-setting studies have previously demonstrated an agenda- setting effect among political ads, public opinion, and the However, prior research has not explored agenda setting involving brand actors and brand communities in a non-political setting. Therefore, the following hypothesis is submitted:

H2: The salience of brand attributes on the aggregate brand agenda would be positively associated with the salience of brand attributes on the aggregate brand community agenda.

Shaw et al. argue that ”one joins the community by finding a medium of connection and learning the issue saliencies of the commu- nit^."^^ These media of connections could range from mass media to interpersonal sources. Unlike in traditional agenda setting, Shaw et a1.6O postulate that this connection is often other people rather than the mass media.

According to McCombs,61 at the focal point of agenda setting is the achievement of consensus on the most salient issues by the public. Shaw and Martin62 found that increased exposure to the media among

AGENDA SETTING A N D AGENDA MELDING 49 at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


FIGURE 1 A p i d a Sctfiri<q arid AScwda Mcddiiig i r i a Brarid Corvrriunify

Brand Agenda &3 MOS1 PHOkIINENT

BRAND .qri HIBIITES

- - Transfer of

anribrttc ralicnce

Aggrqate Brand Commiinlty

MOST IMPORTAVT B R U " ATTRIBI'TES

Adapted from Maxwell E. McCombs, Seffirig fhc Api t la : Tlrc Muss Mcdin orid Public Opiriiori (Malden, MA: Policy Press, 2006), 5.

demographic subgroups of the population resulted in increased agree- ment on the most salient issues across these subgroups as a whole. Shaw et aLh' sum up agenda melding's consensus-building aspect as "the agenda of important issues of very different people merges when those people are exposed to a set of common issues." Does this aspect of agenda melding hold true when applied to the subgroups of a brand community?

To further explore the above assumptions as they may apply to agenda melding in a brand community setting, the following research questions are submitted:

RQ1: Which media of connection had the greatest perceived influence on individuals joining the brand community?

RQ2: Do the subgroups (based on demographics) of the brand community reflect agendas that are similar to the aggregate brand community agenda?

RQ3: Do factors such as time spent as a member of the brand community, frequency of exposure to the brand, and frequency of telling others about the brand impact the level of association among the subgroup agendas and the aggregate brand agenda?

Figure 1 illustrates a hypothesized model of the possible interplay among the aggregate brand agenda, comprised of brand-controlled communications, and the aggregate brand community agenda, comprised of subgroup agendas "melding."



The researchers first content analyzed Chipotle’s mission and value statement to determine the eight most salient brand attributes. Next, the brand agenda was compiled by content analyzing all ads (radio and billboard) available on the Chipotle corporate Web site for these brand attributes, as well as all news releases issued by Chipotle over a one-year period for these same attributes. For the media agenda, news articles appearing in newspapers in Chipotle’s major geographic markets over the same one-year period were content analyzed for these identical attributes. Finally, the brand community agenda was determined by survey responses from the members of the ChipotleFan.com virtual brand community. Consistent with prior research, salience was determined by the frequency of attribute mentions in the content analyzed.

The Aggregate Brand Agenda. Chun and D a v i e ~ ~ ~ found that com- panies use the mission and value statements on their Web sites to position their brand in the minds of customers. According to Baetz and Bart,65 the customer is ”the most frequently mentioned stakeholder in the mission statement, and one of the more important uses of a mission statement is seen as ensuring that the interests of key external stake- holders ( eg , customers) are not ignored.” Mission and value statements are not without their criticism. Mullane“ noted that, like any tool, these statements, when used incorrectly, become ”basically useless.” M a i ~ ~ ~ provided Enron Corporation’s ”values-laden mission statement” as an example of a brand that did not practice what it preached.

An attraction to selecting Chipotle as the brand for this study is that its most salient brand attributes have remained largely consistent since its founding in 1993. Chipotle founder Steven Ells remains the chief executive. Chipotle’s mission and value statement are contained in two documents called ”Steve’s Vision” and “Manifesto.“ Both documents are available on Chipotle’s Web site. In the vocabulary of agenda setting, these documents encapsulate the values or attributes that the brand holds most salient.

Chipotle’s mission and value statement is arguably not that different from a newspaper publishing its agenda on the editorial pages. For example, Brewer and McCombs68 analyzed how a daily newspaper proposed eight community-related issues in an editorial at the start of a year. Over the course of the year, the newspaper concentrated its coverage on these issues. A rank-order of these issues was determined through a content analysis of the newspaper’s coverage of these issues. The researchers identified a transfer of salience between the community agenda of coverage and the ensuing local government agenda.69

Leveraging the two-step community agenda measurement frame- work outlined in the Brewer and McCombs study,70 the aggregate brand agenda for Chipotle was initially determined by conducting a content analysis of the ”Steve’s Vision” and “Manifesto” documents (see Figure 2). This analysis resulted in an unranked list of core brand attributes or values. These attributes are as follows: convenience / service, personal-

Method



FIGURE 2 Aggregate Brand Agenda Model

Mlssion & Vahe Statement (Unranked Brand Attributes)

Aggregnte Brand Agenda (Ranked Brand Attributes)

Advrldscments News ~ k m e r

Brand-Controlled Communicatlons

ized order, value for money, food taste, quality /natural ingredients, enjoyable atmosphere, social responsibility, and promotions.

Rank-order of these attributes was ascertained through a content analysis of Chipotle’s ads and news releases for a year-long period end- ing one day before the survey started. The analyzed news releases and ads were downloaded from the ”Press Releases” and ”Ads” sections, respectively, of the Chipotle Web site. The unit of analysis is each ad and news release. A total of 40 ads (27 radio ads and 13 billboard ads) and 21 news releases were analyzed (see Table 1). Using the same list of brand attributes, releases and ads could be coded for the presence of multiple attributes.

The Aggregate Brand Community Agenda. The aggregate brand community agenda was determined by an online survey. Since the brand community agenda represents the agenda of existing Chipotle brand loyalists, the survey was conducted with members of ChipotleFan.com, the largest, non-corporate-sponsored Chipotle fan Web site. Survey questions were pre-tested with a small group of Chipotle loyalists. The survey was administered over a ten-day period in February and March 2008, yielding a total of 837 respondents. Multiple responses from the same respondent were not allowed by the survey tool.

Agenda-setting scholars have utilized a variety of survey methods for measuring public agenda saliency.71 These methods have included open-ended questions, such as the Gallup Poll’s classic Most Important Problem (MIP) que~tion,~’ as well as varying types of salience scales.73

This study used a variation of the open-ended MIP question. Specifically, ChipotleFan.com members were surveyed for the Most Important Reason (MIR) why they choose to dine at Chipotle. Respondents were allowed to provide up to three MIRs. These 1,877 open-ended responses were coded into the same attributes that comprise the brand and media agendas.

The Aggregate Media Agenda. A preliminary search of the Dow Jones Factiva database utilizing only elite newspapers as the sources for comprising the media agenda resulted in only a handful of relevant arti-

52 JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY



TABLE 1 Aggregate Brand Agenda for the Chipotle Mexican Grill Brand:

Attribute Frequencies (and Ranks)

Radio Ads (Rank) Billboard Ads (Rank) News Releases (Rank) Total (Rank)

Taste Value Ingredients Atmosphere Convenience Social Responsibility Personalized Promotions

Total N 73 31 44 148

cles. A more detailed search was deemed necessary. As of year-end 2007, Chipotle operated more than 700 restaurants in thirty-three states. As evidenced on the Chipotle site, it clusters its locations around eighty- five geographic markets. With this in mind, each market was matched against Editor G. Publisher's listings for the paid, daily newspapers in these markets. After accounting for multiple newspapers in select markets, a total of 106 newspapers was identified.

Dow Jones Factiva database searches for each of these newspapers for articles about Chipotle were conducted for a year-long period end- ing the day before the survey started. Ten of these newspapers were not found in the Factiva database. Five of these ten newspapers were inden- tified in the Lexis /Nexis database, but searches yielded no additional relevant articles.

These parameters produced a total of 97 articles in 36 newspapers (see Table 3). The unit of analysis was each article. The article could be coded for the presence of multiple attributes.

A randomly selected subsample (10% of the total) of news articles, adslnews releases, and survey responses was analyzed by a second coder to assess reliability. Inter-coder reliability for the articles was .96 using H ~ l s t i ' s ~ ~ formula and .91 using Scott's pi. Reliability for the ads /news releases was .97 and .94 and for the survey responses was .97 and .92, respectively.

Data Analysis Strutegy. The statistical test utilized for comparing the various agendas of attributes was Spearman's rho correlations. Since this study is exploratory, this approach is appropriate for identifying relationships among agendas and helping to set the stage for future agenda-melding research. However, these correlations cannot demon- strate causality and represent only an opening gambit of evidence of agenda-setting and agenda-melding effects involving brand actors.

The public opinion survey, representing the Chipotle brand community agenda, contained 837 respondents. Eighty-two percent were

Results

AGENDA S E ~ I N G AND AGENDA MELDING 53 at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


TABLE 2 Aggregate and Subgroup Brand Community Agendas for the Chipotle Mexican Grill Brand:

Attribute Frequencies (and Ranks) Once Every Once Every Several Oncea Several SixMonths Three Oncea limesa Week T i e s a

orLess Months Month Month (Rank) Week Total (Rank) (Rank) (Rank) (Rank) (Rank) (Rank)

Taste 19(1) 80(1) 136(1) 226(1) 188(1) 102(1) 751 (1) Value 9 (2) 31 (3) 60 (2) 92(2) 83 (3) 55 (3) 330 (2) Ingredients 8 (3) 29 (4) 58 (3) 72 (4) 89 (2) 59 (2) 315 (3) Atmosphere 2 (6) 10 (6) 15 (6) 34 (5) 25 (5) 17(5) 103 (5) Convenience 7(4) 32 (2) 55 (4) 76 (3) 55 (4) 34 (4) 259 (4) Social Responsibility 0 1(7) 4 (7) 9 (7) 6 (7) 4 (6) 24 (7) Personalized 3 (5) 13 (5) 17(5) 22 (6) 24 (6) 3 (7) 82 (6) Promotions 0 3 (8) 2 (8) 1(8) 4 (8) 3 (7) 13 (8)

Total N 48 199 347 532 474 277 1,877

Caucasian (n = 691), 64% (n = 537) were female, and nearly 53% (n = 442) were under the age of 25. Sixty-six percent (n = 556) were single and never married. Fifty-six percent (n = 471) had been Chipotle customers for at least three years. Nearly 69% (n = 574) dine at a Chipotle restaurant at least several times a month. Seventy-nine percent (n = 661) had told five or more people about Chipotle.

H1 predicted that a positive relationship exists between the salience of attributes on the aggregate media agenda and the aggregate brand community agenda. This hypothesis was not supported. When examining the news releases and ads individually, the data show a moderate positive relationship between the media agenda and news releases (rs = 0.52, p = 0.10), but an unexpected negative relationship was observed among the ads and the media agenda.

H2 predicted that a positive relationship exists between the salience of attributes on the aggregate brand agenda and the aggregate brand community agenda. The data provided moderate support for this hypothesis (rs = 0.67, p i 0.05). Interestingly, the ads demonstrated a stronger relationship (rs = 0.59, p = 0.06) with the brand community agenda than the news releases.

Table 4 shows the relationships among the aggregate media agenda, aggregate brand community agenda, aggregate brand agenda, and ads and news releases individually.

RQ1 asked which "media of connection" had the greatest influence on individuals joining the brand community. Respondents were asked to evaluate each of the following media utilizing a 5-point, Likert-like scale scored from 1 (no influence) to 5 (strong influence): friends/family, neighbors / colleagues, advertisements, newspaper / magazine articles and blogs/Web site reviews. To aid in analysis, three factors (ads, articles, and blogs/ Web site reviews) were collapsed into a new variable named "mass

54 ~ O U R N A L I S M G. MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY



New spa per

TABLE 3 Aggregate Media Agenda for the Chipotle Mexican Grill Brand:

Attribute Frequencies (and Ranks) Articles Taste Value Ingredients Atmos- Conve- Social Person- Promo-

(Rank) (Rank) (Rank) phere nience Respon- alized tions (Rank) (Rank sibility (Rank) (Rank)

(Rank)

Seattle Times The Oregonian The Sacramento Bee The Fresno Bee The San Diego Union-Tribune The Arizona Daily Star The Salt Lake Tribune The Deseret Morning News Daily Camera Denver Post Rocky Mountain News Omaha World-Herald Columbia Daily Tribune St. Louis Post Dispatch The Star Tribune Austin American-Statesman The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Chicago Sun-Times The Pantagraph The News-Gazette The Atlanta Journal Constitution The Tampa Tribune The St. Petersburg Times The Greensboro News and Record The Winston-Salem Journal The Washington Post Pittsburgh Post-Gazette The Wall Street Journal The Boston Globe The Plain Dealer The Blade Dayton Daily News Columbus Dispatch The South Bend Tribune

Total

2 3 1 1 1 2 2 6 5 4

10 1 2 3 1 2

1 3 3 3 2 4

2 3 3

1 2 4 8 1 3 1 3 1 3

97

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

1 1 1

0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0

15 (5)

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 1 0 1 1 0

0 1 2 2 0 0

1 1 0

1 0 2 5 0 1 1 1 1 1

12 (7) 44(1)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 0 1

0 0 0

0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1

9 (8 )

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 2 0 I 0 0

1 1 1

1 1 2 5 0 1 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 5 0 0 1 0 2

1 1 2 2 0 3

1 1 0

0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1

23 (4) 29 (3)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 1 1

0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 0

14 (6)

2 2 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 2 2

0 0 3

0 0 2 2 1 3 0 2 0 1

33 ( 2 )

media” (Cronbachs alpha = 0.75). A paired-sample t-test found that respondents perceived friends/family connections (M = 3.60, sd = 1.50) as being significantly more influential (t(836) = 39.28, p < 0.001) in their decision to join the brand community than mass media (M = 1.48, sd = 0.72). Another paired-sample t-test showed that respondents also perceived neighbors/colleagues (M = 2.32, sd = 1.45) as being more influential (t(836) = 17.24, p < 0.001) than mass-mediated sources.

RQ2 asked whether the aggregate brand community agenda, when divided by various demographic measures into subgroups, com-



TABLE 4 Correlations among Media, Brand, Brand Community Agendas,

PR, and Ads of Attribute Salience

Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate News Billboard Brand Media Brand Releases and

Agenda Agenda Community Agenda

Radio Ads

Aggregate Brand Agenda 1.00 Aggregate Media Agenda -0.41 1.00 Aggregate Brand 0.67 * -0.26

Community Agenda News Releases 0.24 0.52 Billboard and Radio Ads 0.93 ** -0.49

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05

1.00

0.40 0.59

1.00 -0.01 1.00

prised attribute agendas that were still similar to the brand community agenda as a whole. Starting with income level, the data provided a very robust positive relationship (rs = 0.98, p < 0.01) among the agendas of brand community members who earned less than $20,000 a year (n = 271 respondents) and members who earned greater than $50,000 a year (n =

280 respondents). Turning to education level, the data provided the same strong relationship (us = 0.98, p < 0.01) among members with less than a four-year degree (n = 400) and those with a four-year degree or higher (n = 437).

Regarding age, the data showed the same results when dividing the brand community members into age by subgroup and then correlating the subgroup agendas of attributes. The agendas of members under the age of 25 (n = 442) and members over 25 (n = 395) yielded a very robust positive relationship (rs = 0.98, p < 0.01). As for gender, correlating the brand community agenda by subgroups of males (n = 537) and females (n = 300) also yielded the same strong relationship (rs = 0.98, p < 0.01). Finally, when correlating the subgroup agendas by race, in this case Caucasians (n = 691) and non-Caucasians (n = 146), there was also a strong relationship (rs =

0.93, p < 0.01). RQ3 asked whether the time spent as a member of the virtual brand

community, the frequency of exposure to the brand, or the frequency of telling others about the brand impacted the level of positive association between the brand community subgroup agendas and the aggregate brand agenda. A significantly stronger relationship with the brand agenda was observed among the subgroup who had told seven people or more about Chipotle ( r , = 0.69, p < 0.05), than the subgroup who had told two people or less (rs = 0.56, p < 0.10). The data also revealed positive relationships with the brand agenda among the subgroup who had been customers for more than five years (rs = 0.98, p < 0.01) versus the subgroup who had been customers for one year or less (rs = 0.92, p < 0.01).

56 J O U R N A L I S M 6 MASS COMMUNICATION OUARTERLY at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


TABLE 5 Correlations among Brand Community Subgroups and Aggregate Brand Agenda

of Attribute Salience

Frequency of Subgroup Dining at Chipotle Subgroup Agenda/ Aggregate Brand Agenda

Once Every Six Months or Less Once Every Three Months Once a Month Several Times a Month Once a Week Several Times a Week

* p < 0.05

0.55 0.42 0.56 0.59 0.72* 0.66*

Turning to the frequency of exposure to the brand, the brand community subgroups with higher exposure to the brand exhibited a somewhat stronger positive relationship with the brand agenda than the subgroups with lower exposure (see Table 5). For example, the only significant correlations between the brand agenda and the subgroups were for the subgroups that dined at Chipotle once a week (rs = 0.72, p < 0.05) and several times a week (rs = 0.66, p < 0.05).

This study analyzed the relationships among brand-controlled communications, opinions of virtual brand community members, and news media content for brand attribute saliency, using the theoretical lenses of agenda setting and agenda melding. This research probed for signs of “melding” among subgroups and the aggregate brand community and brand agendas.

The researchers hypothesized traditional agenda-setting effects among the media agenda and the brand community agenda, and agenda-melding effects among the brand agenda and the brand community agenda. The findings were mixed. Support was found for a positive relationship between the attributes on the brand agenda and the brand community agenda (rs = 0.67, p < 0.05). An unexpected negative relationship was found between the media agenda and the brand community agenda. While this negative correlation was surprising, the contingent condition of ”need for ~r ientat ion”~~ helps shed some light on this finding. The subjects in the original Chapel Hill agenda-setting study76 identified themselves as likely voters who were undecided on their candidate, and thus were seeking orientation from the media on the issues. On the other hand, the subjects in this study, Chipotle brand community members, logically have little or no need for orientation from the media on Chipotle’s most salient brand attributes. These individuals have likely decided on the brand and its salient attributes. Another potential expla- nation for the negative correlation may be due to the relatively limited amount of traditional news coverage (97 newspaper articles) during the

Discussion



sample period, resulting in less opportunity for exposure to the media agenda. Further, recent research by Coleman and McCombs indicates that the younger generation (those aged 18 to 34) uses traditional media, such as newspapers, significantly less than older generation^.^^ The majority of respondents to the Chipotle survey were under the age of 25. Nevertheless, Coleman and McCombs also found that this differential media use among generations did not eliminate the agenda-setting

Turning to agenda-melding effects, the data revealed that the brand community, when divided by various demographic measures into subgroups, reflects agendas that were still very similar to the brand community agenda in aggregate. When the brand community was divided into subgroups by income, education, age, gender, and race, all subgroups yielded very significant correlations with the aggregate brand community agenda. These results tentatively support the agenda-melding concept that when individuals join groups, even though these individuals may have different backgrounds, they tend to "meld their agendas with the overall agenda of the group, in this case, the most salient brand attributes as perceived by the community.

Extrapolating findings from agenda-setting research that social consensus on issues grows with increased media exposure,79 this study ques- tioned if consensus between subgroup attribute agendas and the aggregate brand agenda may grow with increased exposure to the brand. The results indicate that subgroups with high exposure to the brand had a somewhat higher correlation with the aggregate brand agenda than subgroups with lower exposure. Using this measure, the only significant correlations were with the ardent subgroups who dined at Chipotle once a week (r, = 0.72, p < 0.05) and several times a week (rs = 0.66, p < 0.05).

Unlike traditional agenda setting, which has been mass media-driv- en, the agenda-melding hypothesis asserts that people, rather than mass media, may be the dominant media of connection for joining groups.8o The results of this study support this logic. Chipotle brand loyalists indi- cated that interpersonal connections, rather than mass mediated connections, had the greatest perceived influence on their decisions to join the community. A promising path for future research may be to explore the agenda-melding process specifically in the context of viral marketing and word-of-mouth marketing. In essence, once brands have "set the agenda" among brand loyalists, how can they then get these loyalists to "share the agenda" beyond the community?

This study contributes to agenda-setting theory and the agenda- melding hypothesis in several ways. First, it demonstrates yet another area within mass communication scholarship in which the agenda-setting process may be usefully applied. For agenda melding, this study marks one of the initial empirical investigations into this hypothesis. In addition, this study extends theory by introducing non-political, brand actors into the agenda-setting landscape and builds on recent efforts to integrate multi-prong communication efforts into a combined agenda measure.81 For practitioners, this research demonstrates the relationship between the attributes emphasized in brand-controlled communication efforts and brand loyalist perceptions.

58 ~ O U R N A L I S M G. MASS COMMUNICATION OUARTERLY at National School of Political on December 13, 2012jmq.sagepub.comDownloaded from


A limitation of this study’s cross-sectional design is that causal relationships cannot be determined. In addition, while a purposive sam- pling technique was appropriate for determining the community agenda, it is important these findings are not generalized to Chipotle customers as a whole. Future research should compare the perceptions among current and prospective customers of a brands most salient attributes with brand-controlled communications and news media coverage. By composing agendas for both current and prospective customers, future research can detect if the media play a bigger role in influencing attribute salience for prospective customers than current customers. Such studies might also detect if certain brand attributes ranked high with prospective customers, but not current customers and vice versa.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that brand-controlled communications can serve as a conduit between the brand and the virtual brand community members in influencing attribute saliency. As the public increasingly seems to ”tune out” traditional marketingE2 practitioners may benefit from focusing more of their efforts on shaping the agendas of their existing brand loyalists and then encouraging these loyalists to share this brand agenda with the public.

NOTES

1.Donald L. Shaw, Bradley J. Hamm, and Thomas C. Terry, “Vertical Versus Horizontal Media,” Military Review 86 (November 2006): 13-25; Donald L. Shaw, Thomas C. Terry, David M. Gercken, Chad G. Carroll, and Bradley J. Hamm, “Strategies in the Emerging Papyrus Society: Agenda Setting, Agenda Cutting and Audience Agendamelding in the New Century,” Media Tenor Research Report 157 (2007): 108-14.

2. Shaw, Hamm, and Terry, ”Vertical Versus Horizontal Media”; Shaw et al., “Strategies in the Emerging Papyrus Society: Agenda Setting, Agenda Cutting and Audience Agendamelding in the New Century.”

3. See, for example, Brian Steinberg, ”Ads Keep Spreading, but are Consumers Immune,” Advertising Age, November 2007, 1-23.

4. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw, “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media,” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (summer 1972):

5. Maxwell McCombs, “A Look at Agenda-Setting: Past, Present, and Future,” Journalism Studies 6 (November 2005): 543-57; Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, ”The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five Years in the Marketplace of Ideas,” Journal of Communication 43 (June 1993): 58-67; David Weaver, ”Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing and Priming,” Journal of Communication 57 (March 2007): 142-47.

6.Maxwell E. McCombs, Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion (Malden, MA: Policy Press, 2006).

7. McCombs, Setting the Agenda, 142. &Donald L. Shaw, Maxwell McCombs, David H. Weaver, and

176-87.



Bradley J. Hamm, ”Individuals, Groups, and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 11 (spring 1999): 2-24.

9. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance,” 12.

10. McCombs, Setting the Agenda. 11. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory

of Social Dissonance.” 12. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory

of Social Dissonance.” 13. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory

of Social Dissonance,” 8. 14. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory

of Social Dissonance”; Donald Shaw, Bradley Hamm, and Diana Knott, ”Technological Change, Agenda Challenge and Social Melding: Mass Media Studies and the Four Ages of Place, Class, Mass and Space,” Journalism Studies 1 (February 2000): 57-79; Diana L. Knott, “Framing to Enhance Certainty (Orientation) and Commonality (Community): Applying Agenda Melding to Strategic Communications” (Ph.D. diss, University of North Carolina, 2001); Donald L. Shaw, Robert L. Stevenson, and Bradley J. Hamm, ”Agenda Setting Theory and Public Opinion Studies in a Post-Mass Media Age” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Rome Italy, 2001); Shaw, Hamm, and Terry, “Vertical Versus Horizontal Media”

15. Brianna Lange, ”Crazy About Chipotle,” the Salt Lake Tribune, March 6, 2008.

16. Janet Adamy, ”Burrito Chain Assembles a Winning Combo - Ignoring Fast-Food Formula, Chipotle Promotes Service, Costly Natural Ingredients,” the Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2007, sec. B, p. 1.

17. David H. Weaver, ”Political Issues and Voter Need for Orientation,“ in The Emergence of American Political Issues: The Agenda- Setting Function of the Press, ed. Donald L. Shaw and Maxwell E. McCombs (St. Paul, MN: West, 1977): 107-99; David H. Weaver, ”Audience Need for Orientation and Media Efforts,” Communication Research 7 (July 1980): 361-76.

18. Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968).

19. Abraham Maslow, “Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychology Review 50 (1943): 370-96.

20. Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Opinion, Our Social Skin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

21. Steven H. Chaffee and Michael McDevitt, ”Disequilibration: Hu- man Development and the Shock of News,” Mass Communication Review

22. Shaw et al., “Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory

23. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. 24. Noelle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence. 25. Chaffee and McDevitt, ”Disequilibration: Human Development

24 (1997): 5-29.

of Social Dissonance,” 3.

60 JOURNALISM 6 M A S S COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY



and the Shock of News.” 26. Maxwell McCombs and Amy Reynolds, ”News Influences on our

Pictures of the World,“ in Media Eflects: Advances in Theory and Research, ed. J. Bryant and D. Zillman (NJ: Erlbaum, 2002): 1-18.

27. Weaver, “Political Issues and Voter Need for Orientation”; Weaver, “Audience Need for Orientation and Media Efforts.”

28. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance.”

29. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance.”

30. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival of American Community (NY Simon and Schuster, 2001).

31. Robert Wuthnow, Loose Connections: Joining Together in America‘s Fragmented Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

32. Rene Algesheimer, Utpal M. Dholakia, and Andreas Herrmann, ”The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs,” Journal of Marketing 69 (July 2005): 19-34.

33. Barbara Stern, ”What Does Brand Mean? Historical-Analysis Method and Construct Definition,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (2006): 216-23.

34. Steve Hoeffler and Kevin Lane Keller, ”Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal Marketing,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21 (2002): 78-89; Kevin Lane Keller, ”Building Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Marketing Management 10 (July /August 2001): 14-19.

35. Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1922).

36. A1 Ries and Jack Trout, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001). Interestingly, the concept of positioning was introduced by Ries and Trout in a series of articles in Advertising Age in 1972, the same year that the Chapel Hill agenda-setting study by McCombs and Shaw was published in Public Opinion Quarterly.

37. Shailendra Ghorpade, ”Agenda Setting: A Test of Advertising’s Neglected Function,“ Journal of Advertising Research 26 (August/ September 1986): 23-27; Marilyn Roberts and Maxwell McCombs, “Agenda Setting and Political Advertising: Origins of the News Agenda,” Political Communication 11 (July /September 1994): 249-62; Max Suther- land and John Galloway, ”Role of Advertising: Persuasion or Agenda Setting,” Journal of Advertising Research 21 (October 1981): 25-29.

38. Maxwell McCombs, ”Building Consensus: The News Media’s Agenda-Setting Roles,” Political Communication 14 (October-December

39. McCombs and Shaw, “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.”

40. Elizabeth Garrett and Daniel A. Smith, “Veiled Political Actors and Campaign Disclosure Laws in Direct Democracy,” Election Law Journal 4 (December 2005): 295-328.

41. Margaret Scammell, ”Political Brands and Consumer Citizens: The Rebranding of Tony Blair,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of

2002).

1997): 433-43.



Political and Social Science 611 (May 2007): 176-92. 42. Eleonora Pasotti, ”Agenda, Trust and the Mobilization of

Consensus: The Rise and Fall of Leadership in Naples” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Italian Political Science Association, Naples, Italy, 2001).

43. Albert M. Muniz and Thomas C. O’Guinn, ”Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research 27 (March 2001): 412-32.

44. Muniz and OGuinn, “Brand Community,” 413. 45. H. McAlexander, John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig, “Build-

ing Brand Community,” Journal of Marketing 66 (January 2002): 38-54. 46. William F. DeGeorge, ”Conceptualization and Measurement of

Audience Agenda in Agenda-Setting Research,“ in Mass Communication Review Yearbook, Volume 2, ed. G. Cleveland Wilhoit and Harold de Bock (Sage, 1981), 219-24.

47. See, for example, McCombs, “Building Consensus: The News Media’s Agenda-Setting Roles”; Esteban Lopez-Escobar, Juan Pablo Llamas, Maxwell McCombs, and Federico Rey Lemon, “Two Levels of Agenda Setting among Advertising and News in the 1995 Spanish Elections,” Political Communication 15 (April / June 1998): 225.

48. Steve Ells, ”Fine Fast Food,” Time, October 1, 2007, 170. 49. John Eligon, ”Where to Eat? A New Restaurant Genre Offers

Manhattan More Choices,” the New York Times, January 13,2008,29. 50. Chipotle Mexican Grill, “2007 Form 10-K,” available at http: / / sec-

filings.nasdaq.com / filingFrameset.asp?FileName=OOOll93125~2DO8~2 D0387640/o2Etxt&FilePath=~5C2008%5CO2~5C26~5C&CoName=CHIP OTLE+MEXICAN+GRILL+INC&FormType=lO~2DK&RcvdDate~2~2F 26%2F2008&pdf= (accessed March 15,2008).

51. Adamy, ”Burrito Chain Assembles a Winning Combo.” 52. Catherine Tsai, “Burrito Chain Grows Under McDonald’s

53. Chipotle Mexican Grill, ”2007 Form 10-K.” 54. Ells, ”Fine Fast Food.” 55. Marlene Parrish, ”Fresh and Fast Chipotle Mexican Grill Chain

Sets an Example by Buying Meat and Produce from Family Farms,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 20, 2007, sec. E, p. 1.

56. Anthony Zumpano, ”Similar Search Results: Google Wins,” Brandchannel.com, November 4, 2007, http: / /www.brandchannel.com / features-effect.asp?pf-id=352.

57. McCombs, ”A Look at Agenda-Setting: Past, Present, and Future.” 58. Ghorpade, ”Agenda Setting: A Test of Advertising’s Neglected

Function”; Guy Golan, Spiro Kiousis, and Misti McDaniel, ”Second-Level Agenda-Setting and Political Advertising: Investigating the Transfer of Issue and Attribute Saliency during the 2004 Presidential Election,” Journalism Studies 8 (2007): 432-43; Roberts and McCombs, ”Agenda Setting and Political Advertising: Origins of the News Agenda.”

59. Shaw et al., ”Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance,” 7.

60. Shaw et al., “Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance.”

Umbrella,” Associated Press, December 29, 2002.

62 JOURNALISM 6 MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY



61. McCombs, "Building Consensus: The News Media's Agenda- Setting Roles."

62. Donald L. Shaw and Shannon E. Martin, "The Function of Mass Media Agenda Setting," Journalism Quarterly 69 (winter 1992): 902-20.

63. Shaw et al., "Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance," 4.

64. Rosa Chun and Gary Davies, "E-reputation: The Role of Mission and Vision Statements in Positioning Strategy," Brand Management 8 (2001): 315-33.

65. Mark Baetz and Christopher Bart, "Developing Mission Statements Which Work," Long Range Planning 29 (August 1996): 526-33.

66. John V. Mullane, "The Mission Statement is a Strategic Tool: When Used Properly," Management Decision 40 (2002): 448-55.

67. Elsie Maio, "Managing Brand in the New Stakeholder Environ- ment," Journal of Business Ethics 44 (May 2003): 235-46.

68. Marcus Brewer and Maxwell McCombs, "Setting the Community Agenda," Journalism b Mass Communication Quarterly 73 (spring 1996): 7- 16.

69. Brewer and McCombs, "Setting the Community Agenda." 70. Brewer and McCombs, "Setting the Community Agenda." 71. McCombs, Setting the Agenda. 72. Maxwell McCombs and Jian-Hua Zhu, "Capacity, Diversity, and

Volatility of the Public Agenda," Public Opinion Quarterly 4 (winter 1995):

73. Tai-Li Wang, "Agenda-Setting Online," Southwestern Mass Com- munication Journal 15 (2000): 59-70; Edna Einsiedel, Kandice Salomone, and Frederick Schneider, "Crime: Effects of Media Exposure and Per- sonal Experience on Issue Salience," Journalism Quarterly 61 (spring 1984): 131-36; Takeshita Toshio and Mikami Shunji, "How Did Mass Media Influence the Voters' Choice in the 1993 General Election in Japan?: A Study of Agenda-Setting,'' Keio Communication Review 17 (1995): 27- 41.

74. Ole Holsti, Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities (MA: Addison Wesley: 1969).

75. Weaver, "Political Issues and Voter Need for Orientation"; Weaver, "Audience Need for Orientation and Media Efforts."

76. McCombs and Shaw, "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media."

77. Renita Coleman and Maxwell McCombs, "The Young and Agen- da-less? Exploring Age-Related Differences in Agenda Setting on the Youngest Generation, Baby Boomers, and the Civic Generation," Journalism G. Mass Communication Quarterly 84 (autumn 2007): 495-508.

495-525.

78. Coleman and McCombs, "The Young and Agenda-less?'' 79. McCombs, "Building Consensus: The News Media's Agenda-

Setting Roles"; Shaw and Martin, "The Function of Mass Media Agenda Setting."

80. Shaw et al., "Individuals, Groups and Agenda Melding: A Theory of Social Dissonance," 2.

81. See, for example, Spiro Kiousis, Michael Mitrook, Christina



Popescu, Arlana Shields, and Trenton Seltzer, ”First- and Second-Level Agenda Building and Agenda Setting: Terrorism, the President, and the Media.” (paper presented at the annual meeting of International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany, 2007).

82. Steinberg, “Ads Keep Spreading, but are Consumers Immune?”

64 JOURNALISM 6 MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY



journalism & mass communication quarterly 2009 ragas 45 64

Documents

media agenda

brand agenda

horizontal media

virtual brand community

agenda setting

dominant vertical media

agenda melding

new class of media