MIXIT is a Russian beauty company that began in 2014 as a website where customers could blend their own face cream from plant extracts. Since then it has grown into a brand available at roughly thirty-two thousand points of sale. The engine behind that expansion was never only the chemistry inside the jar. MIXIT was founded by Oleg Pai and Elena Nazarova; its name also works as an instruction, because the first product was a kit that invited buyers to mix their own formula. Today the brand sells skincare, body care, haircare, decorative makeup, and a widening family of sub-brands. But MIXIT’s identity depends less on any single product category and more on a promise about who the customer is allowed to become.

Core positioning grows from one claim the brand repeats wherever it speaks: there is no single correct standard of beauty. In the same way, there is no single correct way to live a life. The company frames its mission as inspiring and supporting women who choose their own path. These women decide for themselves despite the expectations and stereotypes others press on them. Products are presented not as instruments that dictate how a face should look. Instead, they are tools that widen the room for self-expression. This approach lets an affordable mass-market object carry emotional and identity-level meaning that its price tag alone could never justify. Pricing keeps that promise accessible: most items sell within a band of roughly two hundred to nine hundred rubles.

Two theories from the syllabus structure the analysis, and they were chosen because they answer two different questions that a single lens could not address at once.

The first question concerns action, namely how MIXIT moves people from a favourable attitude through to an actual purchase by means of its visual communication. The second concerns relationship, namely whether the brand builds genuine two-way ties with its publics or simply talks at them. The Theory of Planned Behaviour speaks to the first, and Dialogic Theory speaks to the second.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour

Icek Ajzen built the Theory of Planned Behaviour on the earlier Theory of Reasoned Action that he had developed with Martin Fishbein. Its governing assumption is that human action is broadly rational, so what people do flows from what they intend to do.

The pivotal concept is behavioural intention, the plan to act in a particular way, because intention is the immediate antecedent that the theory places just before behaviour itself. Where a simpler persuasion model stops once an attitude has shifted. This theory insists that a changed attitude is rarely enough on its own. The move from intention to action depends on more than evaluation alone.

Three factors shape intention. A brand that wants action, not opinion, must work on all three.

The first is attitude toward the behaviour. This is an evaluation based on beliefs about likely outcomes. The second is the subjective norm. It is the social pressure a person feels from important people and groups. The third is perceived behavioural control. It is the person’s sense of whether the action is actually within their power.

Behaviour here is the observable response in a specific situation toward a specific target. Intention does not automatically turn into behaviour. A person may have a positive attitude and feel social approval but still not act if cost, knowledge or access gets in the way. The course notes that changing attitude alone is not enough. A communicator who wants action must support attitude, norms and perceived control together.

Background factors shape all three. They include individual traits and values, social variables like age, gender and income, and informational factors like knowledge and media coverage. For a commerce brand that counts purchases rather than opinions, a theory about the leap from intention to action is a stricter and more honest lens.

Dialogic Theory

Dialogic Theory is most closely linked to Michael Kent and Maureen Taylor. It argues that public relations is most ethical and most effective when an organisation builds genuine relationships with its publics through honest two-way exchange, not one-way broadcasting. Dialogue here means a negotiated exchange of ideas based on honesty and positive regard for the other party. The course describes it through five features: mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk and commitment. Mutuality sees organisation and public as partners. Propinquity means speaking with publics before decisions, not after. Empathy creates a supportive climate where people are encouraged to speak.

Because much of this exchange now happens online, Kent and Taylor turned the principle into five practical criteria for websites and social platforms. The dialogic loop asks whether publics can ask questions and receive answers. This depends on visible contact points and on staff who respond. Usefulness of information asks whether the site offers transparent, valuable content for all publics, not just sales copy. Generation of return visits asks whether fresh content gives a reason to come back. Intuitiveness asks whether the interface is easy and fast to navigate. Conservation of visitors asks whether the design keeps people on the site instead of pushing them away through intrusive links and advertising. Together these criteria turn an abstract ethic into a concrete checklist that a brand’s interfaces can be tested against.

These two theories work together instead of competing. The Theory of Planned Behaviour is an objective theory that sees people as broadly rational actors whose behaviour can be predicted from attitudes, norms and perceived control. Dialogic Theory belongs more to the interpretive and relational tradition and treats the audience as a partner whose voice must be heard, not as a behaviour to be engineered. Holding both views at once keeps the analysis honest. A brand may be very strong at driving action and still weak at sustaining relationship. MIXIT is a clear case of this asymmetry.

The subjective norm is built with care. Every product page shows a star rating and a count of buyers. A shopper meets this apparent consensus before reading the description. The brand also publishes the size of its community and loyalty club. Popularity becomes a signal that belonging is open to anyone. A potential buyer then feels not only a private preference but also the pull of a crowd they want to resemble.

Influencers and celebrities sharpen that norm. When a product appears in the account of a figure like Olga Buzova, followers see that a trusted person has chosen MIXIT (Borodina & Mitkevich, 2019). Many blogger placements repeat the same cue. For young audiences who follow beauty creators closely, this perceived norm can matter more than anything the product says about itself. Instagram* hosted much of that endorsement in the brand’s early years.

Perceived behavioural control is where MIXIT is strongest. The brand removes barriers that could block a purchase. Low prices and wide retail and marketplace presence reduce cost and access problems.

Two-Way Communication through Dialogic Theory

MIXIT works well as a broadcasting system, but it is still far from a full dialogue. It offers visible contact points. These channels let people ask questions and receive answers, but most exchanges stay in private service spaces. As a result, outsiders rarely see the brand responding, and the sense of a public community in conversation is weak.

On usefulness of information, the brand scores high. The website states its mission and history, names its founders, lists awards and contacts, and includes a substantial blog and diagnostic tools. A visitor can learn about skin or ingredients without buying, which matches the criterion. The cream constructor and skin‑diagnostics service add to this, because they ask people for information about themselves and return a tailored response.

New products, a rolling promotions calendar, a beauty blog and a loyalty programme all give reasons to come back, but mainly as a buyer. The VKontakte community and its podcast come closest to inviting return for the sake of dialogue.

MIXIT meets most technical and design criteria for online dialogue, but it falls short on relationship. It has strong contact points, content and return triggers, yet uses them mainly to inform and sell rather than to listen or co‑create. Its default mode remains broadcast, even though it can sometimes hold a conversation.

Viewed through both theories, MIXIT looks slightly lopsided in a revealing way. The brand is very good at turning interest into a purchase, weaving attitude, social norms and a sense of control into a smooth path from «like» to «buy». The Theory of Planned Behaviour captures this side of its work neatly.

Its approach to dialogue, by contrast, feels more careful than bold. The brand has built most of the structures that Dialogic Theory would recommend, but often uses them as channels for broadcasting and sales rather than for real conversation. This is not accidental: a system tuned to drive quick, individual transactions will almost always be better at triggering behaviour than at nurturing a long-term relationship.

The brand should turn the post‑purchase experience into fresh proof that the choice was right. It can bring outcome‑focused content into the main social flow. This means visible results, honest ingredient explanations, and the personalised guidance the diagnostic tool already generates.

When buyers see their own good results reflected back, their attitude strengthens. A stronger attitude then supports the intention to buy again.

Some responses should move into public comment threads. The brand can publish real customer questions and invite publics into product decisions before they are final. This would activate propinquity and mutuality.

A brand that celebrates the customer’s own path is well placed to let that customer speak — and to be seen listening.

The loyalty programme, the community and the podcast already show that people come back for more than a discount. The brand can extend this by recognising contributions and featuring user content. It can also treat the most engaged members as collaborators rather than as a list to be messaged.

The overall judgement is hopeful. MIXIT has the tools for relationship, but still has to choose to use them for listening as actively as it uses them for selling.