Consumption Symbols and Identity Construction in Youth Online Subculture: A Case Study of Labubu Blind Box 

Zhang Limin

University of Nottingham，Ningbo China，315100；

Abstract: The phenomenon of blind box collectibles has established itself as a significant component of youthful consumerism in the digital age. In addition to their commercial value, blind boxes also potentially serve as valuable symbols representing the self-image of the consumer while allowing them to engage with others in their virtual community. This research will focus on the role of blind box consumption as a symbolic activity in youth-focused online subcultures via the example of the brand “Labubu”. Using the theoretical frameworks of symbolic consumption and social identity, this study will examine how consumers create cultural meanings from their consumption of products and how these meanings facilitate the construction of identity in a digital environment. Based on a case study approach, this research will analyze user-generated content and interaction patterns on social media relating to Labubu blind boxes. The results of the study suggest that not only are young users of blind boxes engaged in a purchase-related activity, but also that the consumption of blind boxes is a means of symbolic communication that contributes to establishing community membership and an individual’s self-identity. The findings of this study add to the existing body of knowledge around youth-oriented consumerism and highlight the contribution of the digital media to the development of subcultural identities in youth today.

Keywords: Youth subculture; Symbolic consumption; Identity construction; Online community; Blind box culture

References

[1]Elliott, R. (1999). Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. Rethinking marketing: Towards critical marketing accountings, 112-125

[2]Liu, L., & Zhao, H. (2024). Research on consumers’ purchase intention of cultural and creative products—Metaphor design based on traditional cultural symbols. Plos one, 19(5), e0301678

[3]Tsai, S. P. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: A comprehensive model of brand purchase value. International journal of Research in Marketing, 22(3), 277-291.

[4]Hogg, M. A., & Rinella, M. J. (2018). Social identities and shared realities. Current opinion in psychology, 23, 6-10.

[5]Firat, A., Kutucuoglu, K. Y., Saltik, I. A., & Tuncel, O. (2013). Consumption, consumer culture and consumer society. Journal of Community Positive Practices, (1), 182-203.

[6]Strizhakova, Y., & Coulter, R. (2019). Consumer cultural identity: local and global cultural identities and measurement implications. International Marketing Review, 36(5), 610-627.

[7]Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp. 3-17). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

[8]Witt, U. (2010). Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21(1), 17-25.

[9]Joy, A., & Li, E. P. H. (2012). Studying consumption behaviour through multiple lenses: An overview of consumer culture theory. Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 141-173.

[10]Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European journal of social psychology, 30(6), 745-778.

[11]Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 224-237.