Legitimizing Brand Identity Through Narrative Replication

(1)

Legitimizing Brand Identity Through

Narrative Replication

Rahim Saleh Tyler Stratford

School of Business, Society and Engineering (EST) Course: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration Course code: FOA214,15 hp

Authors: Rahim Saleh (930119)

Tyler Stratford (880506)

Tutor: Edward Gillmore

Examiner: Eva Maaninen-Olsson Date: 2015-06-05

E-post: rahim.ladha@live.se,

tylerstratford@hotmail.com

(2)

ABSTRACT

Date: June 5th 2015

Level: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration, 15 ECTS

Institution: Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering (EST)

Authors: Rahim Saleh

19th January 1993 Tyler Stratford 6th May 1988

Title: Legitimizing Brand Identity Through Narrative Replication

Tutor: Edward Gillmore

Keywords: Organizational legitimacy, Legitimacy Theory, Narratives, Discourse,

Brand Identity, Brand Personality, Brand Positioning.

Research

Question: How does Apple Inc. develop legitimacy and brand identity across its products?

Does Apple Inc. replicate narratives when launching products across different categories?

Method: The structure and research design of this thesis follows a qualitative and

deductive research design approach. Apple’s corporate presentations are transcribed word for word where the authors perform a content analysis of the narratives in use to distinguish if Apple has narrative replications.

Conclusion: Apple is able to develop and build their brand legitimacy and brand identity

through the use of public presentations. It is through the use of specific narrative replications that Apple is able to achieve, build and develop their legitimacy and brand identity.

(3)

Acknowledgement

The authors of this paper would like to take this opportunity express their sincere appreciation to those who helped us achieve our goals in this research. This appreciation is dedicated to Edward Gillmore, the opposition groups in the thesis seminars and to supporting friends and family. Edward was not only our thesis supervisor and coach; he also supported our ideas and helped us deliver this thesis to the standards that such a study requires. The opposing groups helped us realize our strengths and flaws and delivered consistent constructive feedback, which allowed us to furthermore develop this research. To our friends and family who supported us and motivated us to complete this study to the best of our abilities.

_________________ _________________

Rahim Saleh Tyler Stratford

(4)

Glossary

Brand A distinguishing name and/or symbol such as a logo, trademark, or package design intended to identify the goods or services and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors

Brand Association Anything in connection to the memory of the brand

Brand Equity The accrued worth or value of a brand that contributes to a company financially or in terms of selling leverage

Brand Extension The use of a brand name established in one product class to enter another product class

Brand Identity A product of the melding of a brand’s positioning and personality, as is played out in the product/service performance, the brand name, its logo and graphic system, the brand’s marketing communication, and in other ways in which the brand comes into contact with its constituencies

Brand Image The interpretation of brand identity from the receivers side

Brand Personality A set of human personality traits that is both applicable to and relevant for brands

Diversification The simultaneous departure from the present product line and the present market structure

Legitimacy A generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.

Positioning The means by which goods and services are differentiated, and furthermore what the brand stands for in the minds of existing and prospective customers in terms of benefits and promises relative to competitors

WWDC World Wide Developers Conference

PCDL Model A conceptual framework used for positioning, communicating, delivering and leveraging a brand

(5)

List of Figures

FIGURE 1:THE THESIS PROCESS ... 5

FIGURE 2:THE NEW BRAND PERSONALITY MEASURE (ADOPTED FROM GEUENS ET AL.,2009) ... 10

FIGURE 3:THE PCDLMODEL (GHODESWAR,2008) ... 11

FIGURE 4:ARELATIONAL MODEL ON BRAND IDENTITY AND LEGITIMACY (OWN) ... 14

List of Tables

TABLE 1:COMPILED PRESENTATION TABLE -CONTEXTUAL THEORY ... 43

TABLE 2:TIME FREQUENCY TABLE ... 48

(7)

1

1 Introduction

This chapter will introduce the problem background, the problem statement, the purpose and aim as well as the research question. It is in this section that the reader will understand the significance of the research.

1.1 Background

With globalization, consumers are becoming increasingly exposed to similar products in their respective environments. This creates immense pressure for companies to differentiate themselves and to effectively communicate these differences to the public (Nandan, as cited in Pinson & Brosdahl, 2014, p. 4).

Companies such as Apple Inc. are all too familiar with such external pressures and the ever-present consumer demands for new and exciting products. The company was originally involved in the computer industry, however over the years it has slowly been diversifying into the consumer electronics market and in 2007 changed its name from “Apple computers Inc.” to “Apple Inc.” to reflect their transition into the consumer electronics market (Apple drop the computer, 2007). Today, Apple Inc. has a diversified assortment of products that range from, smart phones, media players, tablets, personal computers to digital music players, which are all under the brand name, Apple (“Apple Incorporated,” n.d).

According to Aaker (1991, p. 7), “a brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors”. Kepferer (2008) argues that brands exists to differentiate the perceived risks associated with buying particular products, and once the perceived risk disappears, the brand no longer has benefits. Perceived risk can be financial in terms of affordability, it can be social in terms of how society perceives consumption choice, or it can be functional in terms of whether the commodity purchased functions (Baines, Fill, & Page, 2013). Authors such as Upshaw (1995, p. 11) argue that “brands have become the atomic core of our customer driven capitalistic society”, meaning that they play a major role in attracting purchases from customers and delivering on promises. However, it is worth noting that the parity of products and services in the market also makes it difficult to draw a distinction between brands and therefore brands need to build an identity (Upshaw, 1995).

Brand identity is a fairly recent concept having been introduced by Kapferer in 1986 and gaining increased acknowledgment after being used by Aaker in 1991 in his book “Managing brand equity” (Kepferer, 2008). Csaba and Bengtsson state that there are many views in branding literature around the term brand identity, this in part explains the varying definitions presented around this topic by scholars (as cited in Da Silveira, Lages, & Simões, 2013).

Ghodeswar (2008, p. 5) defines brand identity as “a unique set of brand associations implying a promise to customers and includes a core and extended identity”; the author goes on to explain that the core identity “focuses on product attributes, service, user profile, store ambience and product performance”. Whereas “extended identity is

(8)

2 woven around brand identity elements organized into cohesive and meaningful groups that provide brand texture and completeness, and focuses on brand personality, relationship, and strong symbol association”. On a different note, Upshaw (1995, p. 15) states that brand identity is a “product of the melding of a brand’s positioning and personality, as is played out in the product/service performance, the brand name, its logo and graphic system, the brand’s marketing communication, and in other ways in which the brand comes into contact with its constituencies”. These two definitions together show the complexity associated with the concept of brand identity and introduce multiple concepts such as brand personality, positioning and association, which will be explained in this thesis. Moreover, according to Upshaw (1995), brand identity has a direct correlation with brand equity, therefore a strong brand identity leads to higher brand equity and brand equity is the accrued worth or value of a brand that contributes to a company financially or in terms of selling leverage.

However since a brand aids in differentiating perceived risk, a sense of credibility and reassured competence needs to be attributed to the respective brands (Kepferer, 2008, p 171). Such credibility and competence concerning the brand can be characterized as legitimacy. The concept of legitimacy appears to be either a by-product of brand identity or, a necessary building block to produce it. However, which one is needed in order to generate the other remains in question. Thus, identifying how the two concepts interact with each other and understanding the phenomenon is one of the primary motivations for this thesis.

The term legitimacy has slowly gained momentum in several distinct social science literatures over the past century according to Deephouse & Suchman (2008). Zelditch (2001) states that legitimacy is one of the oldest problems in social history and understanding the effects on the stability of rewards and authority as well as status has been an ongoing issue for sociologists. Social norms, structure, control and emotions are important for emergent structure, and such structure can be complex as well as sensitive. Legitimacy helps to solve the stability of these issues (Zelditch, 2001). Suchman, in 1995 defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p. 574). Legitimacy variables depend to the extent of increasing acceptance or reducing the resistance to it (Zelditch, 2001). This simply means that for legitimacy to exist, there must be something to compare with, in the eyes of the person in interest.

Diez-Martin (2010) argues that the study of legitimacy is important because it plays a crucial role in the success of an organization (Diez-Martin, Prado-Roman, & Blanco-González, 2013). Legitimacy can be seen as a critical factor in how firms and organizations are viewed through the eyes of the stakeholders as legitimacy provides stability. Furthermore, Suchman (1995) states that legitimacy not only affects how people act towards the organization, but also affects their perception of worth, meaning and trust towards the organization. This is supported by scholars such as Díez-Martín et al. (2013) who agree that an organization depends on its different constituencies for survival.

Moreover, scholars in the field of legitimacy have tried to explain the concept by categorizing it in different ways. Aldrich & Fiol (1994) for example have categorized legitimacy into ‘sociopolitical and cognitive legitimacy’, whereas Suchman (1995)

(9)

3 has categorized legitimacy into ‘cognitive legitimacy, moral legitimacy and pragmatic legitimacy’. According to He & Baruch (2010) it is difficult for organizations to attract suppliers, distributors, employees and customers when they are not considered legitimate. In 1989, Cialdini gave an example that showcases how legitimacy can be of beneficial use to those who are fortunate enough to acquire it (Rao et al., 2008 p. 59).

At the height of his wealth and success, the financier Baron de Rothschild was petitioned for a loan by an acquaintance. Reputedly, the great man replied, “I won’t

give you a loan myself, but I will walk arm-in-arm with you across the floor of the Stock Exchange, and soon you shall have willing lenders to spare.”

1.2 Problem Statement

As competition increases between products and services in similar industries,

successful brands need to compete by creating points of parity in areas that the competitors are trying to find an advantage, while simultaneously creating points of

difference to achieve an advantage in other areas (Keller, 2000). This emphasizes the

need for differentiating oneself from the competition, according to Upshaw (1995) “building the right brand can be the single most efficient way to protect and nurture a brand’s equity” and therefore this is a challenge that companies need to take up for profitability (Upshaw, 1995 p. 28).

However, companies are able to leverage their brand equity in different ways, such as line extensions and brand extensions. While a strong brand aids a company in extending its brand, a failing brand extension on the other hand, can produce negative reciprocal affects, which results in damaging a firm’s brand equity (Ghodeswar, 2008). Furthermore, according to Ghodeswar (2008) the brand equity of strong brands is tied up to both the quality of service or product and other intangible factors. These intangible factors being, the type of relationship the brand seeks to build with consumers, the emotions the brand elicits in consumers, the type of personality the brand projects, the usage imagery (a situation where the brand can be used) and user imagery (the type of consumers that use the brand). For this reason, companies with strong brands are faced with the pressure of continuously offering exceptional products and services, as anything less than expected can lead to the destruction of their brand equity and identity.

The act of brand extension and diversifying a company’s product portfolio doesn’t come without limitations. As new products are launched, some will succeed while others will fail. This, for example, may be due to the credibility or legitimacy that has been created by the firm prior to the launch. The perception of externalities’ towards how the company acts within the industry plays an essential actor regarding the performance of a new product entering the market. Rao, Chandy and Prabhu (2008) suggested that to successfully manage product innovation, organizations depend heavily on the opinions of the stakeholders towards the organizational legitimacy. Thus, an issue regarding legitimacy is, how it is perceived through those stakeholders and what variables regarding legitimacy are relevant to consider. Therefore,

(10)

4 companies not only need to build a good brand and convey it through their products and services, but also need to build and maintain legitimacy to create trust for their brand amongst their customers.

1.3 Purpose & Research Question

The purpose of this study is to identify how legitimacy and brand identity can be developed within the consumer electronic industry. The research will be carried out through an investigation of the tech giant Apple Inc., by analyzing if there are replications of narratives across different product presentations over a period of ten years using content analysis.

Through an extensive investigation, the authors have found large amounts of literature regarding both legitimacy and brand identity theory, however very little literature that integrate the two theories together or that explicitly explain the relationship between the two theories. It appears that these two theories, brand identity and legitimacy are not ordinarily associated with each other. Judging by each theoretical perspective, the authors can only speculate on the rationale behind this. Perhaps, legitimacy theory has been viewed mostly from an organizational structure perspective and that brand identity is commonly associated towards products or services. This suggests that it is possible that each theory, brand identity and legitimacy, offers different characteristics that dictate singular perspectives during distinctive occasions that leaves little opportunity for integration among the two. However it may occur, remains an interesting topic and thus, the fundamental interest of this thesis is to apply these two theories in an explorative study and examine the results. This study will use certain elements of legitimacy and apply them towards brand identity through the narratives presented in the organizational presentations.

Furthermore, for organizations to acquire legitimacy and brand identity requires numerous steps, processes and most importantly time. However, the available literature prescribes little evidence in whether legitimacy theory or the theory of brand identity is required before the other, or for the other to exist. Therefore, the authors have identified a gap within the available literature in that one: there is very little literature that integrate the theory of legitimacy and brand identity together, and that secondly, this literature does not provide explicit evidence of what the relationship between the two theories are and wether they are achieved collectively or sequentially. This is an interesting conception to consider as these two theories might have a direct relationship with each other.

Moreover, the phenomenon stated above requires a mode of identifying how this gap can be explained. Therefore, the aim of the thesis is to examine this gap by analyzing narrative replication over time and further, legitimacy over time through a content analysis of corporate presentations. By analyzing these narratives replicated over time, the authors will be able to investigate how the two theories interact with each other by providing empirical evidence. The interest of the authors is to find evidence for the value of strategic corporate presentations.

(11)

5 “How does Apple develop legitimacy and brand identity across its products?” In order to answer this question, this thesis will rely on content analysis explained through Apple’s narratives and will require the investigation of the sub question,

“Does Apple replicate its narratives when launching products across different categories?”

These questions shall be answered through the use of two theories; brand identity and legitimacy and will use content analysis as a means of identifying and supporting the theoretical arguments.

1.3.1 Outline of the Study

To achieve the goal of explaining the phenomenon and satisfying the research questions, this thesis is required to have a coherent process. This process is presented and explained in the diagram below. The authors began with the generation of the research question. It was from this point that the authors developed the concepts and theories used throughout the research as well as identified which products and presentations would be examined to conduct the study. Once examined, the authors will code the narratives used from the two theoretical perspectives; brand identity and legitimacy by using content analysis. This process will help satisfy the first research question regarding the development of legitimacy and brand identity. As this segment is satisfied, the authors look at the second segment regarding the replication of the narratives used. The empirical data presentation section will offer evidence if these narratives are replicated.

Figure 1: The Thesis Process

1.4 Target Groups

The research and topic discussion is this thesis is based on four essentials areas: narratives, corporate presentations, legitimacy building and brand identity. Therefore, the target audience of this thesis is aimed towards those who are interested in one of the four topics, and primarily managers or decision makers within organizations who have an influence or authority behind the organizational public presentations. This research will elaborate on potential outcomes of using discourse as a means to communicate strategically and intentionally with the target audience the organization wishes to communicate with.

Foundation •  Literature review •  Exploring the gap •  Generation of research question Research •  Theoretical concepts •  Products and Presentations Selection Analysis •  Transcribing the selected presentations and building of data tables using content analysis Discussion •  Analysis of the presentations and the discussion of Brand Identity and Legitimacy

(12)

6

2 Theoretical Framework

This section presents the theories used throughout the research. The chapter begins by describing and explaining legitimacy theory, and subsequently moves onward to discuss branding with brand identity as the key concept.

2.1 Legitimacy

By reading the background to this section in chapter one of this thesis, the reader should have a rudimentary understanding of the concept legitimacy. It is in this section that the concept will be elaborated on so that the reader has a sufficient understanding of the term, as it is an important concept to this thesis. This section will define and explain several types of legitimacy by clarifying their definitions, their purposes as well as their relevance. Each subsection will provide a certain classification of legitimacy and the relevant information.

In 1977, Meyer and Rowan suggested using legitimacy theory “to examine the positive benefits of gaining acceptance and conveying firm quality through conforming to social norms” (Wang, Song, Zhao, 2014, p. 1058). This was built off of Stinchcombe and Suchman’s underlying assumption that firms “should be desired, appropriate, and normal” (Wang et al., 2014 p. 1059). These assumptions were developed over the years to provide further insight into what customers may consider to be qualitative factors of the firm, therefore creating legitimacy. Considering this school of thought, further studies suggested that “competence of the management team” by Cohen and Dean (2005), “formal and legal entity structure, Delmar and Shane (2004), “and networks with established organizations” Dacin, Oliver, and Roy (2007) are key indicators for customer perception about the quality of the firm (Wang et al., 2014, p. 1059). Taking these variables into consideration, the theory of legitimacy will be defined and developed in the section below.

Furthermore, the interpretation of legitimacy theory will rely on different classifications of legitimacy. At the time of writing this thesis, several authors have expressed the varieties of legitimacy differently. Although these classifications have dissimilar titles, they have strikingly similar characteristics. In 1994, Aldrich and Fiol described two types of legitimacy: cognitive and sociopolitical, while Scott in 1995 developed sociopolitical into three separate, yet connective dimensions as regulative, cognitive and normative legitimacy (Diez-Martin et al., 2013). In the first chapter of this thesis, three types of legitimacy were stated: cognitive, moral and pragmatic, which were suggested by Suchman in 1995 (Diez-Martin et al., 2013). After extensive research, the authors have found evidence that moral legitimacy is also frequently referred to as normative legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). For the remainder of this thesis, let it be affirmed that moral legitimacy and normative legitimacy are equivalent, and the term normative legitimacy will be used as the prevailing expression. Cognitive legitimacy shall remain constant, as the authors have found a large amount of literature regarding this classification as the prevailing expression. As for pragmatic legitimacy, the authors have found similarities’ with regards to regulative legitimacy and through the competence of the authors these two terms will be used

(13)

7 interchangeably throughout this chapter. Thus, this section of this chapter shall explain these three classifications of legitimacy.

2.1.1 Cognitive Legitimacy

Cognitive legitimacy is associated with recognizing the motives behind decision-making thus helping to understand and provide better solutions when problems arise. Cognitive legitimacy stems from cognitive science, which emphasizes purpose, representations and computation according to Stubbart (1989). It can be derived from an internal belief system where knowledge is detailed and organized (Diez-Martin et al., 2013) and is furthermore recognized as a knowledge-based legitimacy, rather than a judgment-based legitimacy (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). Judgments can be created based off of opinions where inadequate information regarding the subject in question is available. Thus, the knowledge-based perspective of cognitive legitimacy requires a person to have adequate information, experience or knowledge about the subject (organization) to evaluate their legitimacy. If an individual or organization has experience with a certain entity and regard them as reliable and trustworthy, than in their educated view, they are deemed legitimate.

The foundation of cognitive legitimacy relies on the implicit and explicit knowledge regarding a new organization as stated by Aldrich in 1999 and among others (Wang et al., 2014). This suggests further evidence of the importance of knowledge and information regarding an organization and their legitimacy. From an advantage perspective, this notion suggests that although firms cannot directly control the information and knowledge regarding their operations per se, they can indirectly influence the flow of information in their favor. In 1994, Scott explained that within the social society, roles and actors or rules of actions are established and deemed appropriate through the learning process and that this reflects the cognitive view (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). Moreover, Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002) suggest that cognitive legitimacy is achieved when an organization becomes desirable through methods and concepts, which are commonly accepted by professionals, society or the environment. Although this is closely related to normative legitimacy, the distinguishing factor is the classification of cognition, in which knowledge and experience is required.

2.1.2 Regulative Legitimacy & Pragmatic Legitimacy

Stated by Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002), sociopolitical regulative legitimacy refers to “the result of rules and expectations created by governments and other powerful organizations” (Wang et al., 2014, p. 1063). This notion suggests that the rules, regulations and expectations of the external stakeholders in which have significant positions within the environment, may influence the actions of the firm, if the firms are seeking to establish regulative credibility (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). The significance of regulative legitimacy is the indication to the public and to the numerous stakeholders that the business and their operations will abide to rules and regulations without concern (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).

Abiding to policies and procedures is not only good for business; it also helps to develop confidence within the community. If companies are consistently operating appropriately to rules and regulations, then the stakeholders will trust that they will remain doing so. This allows the firm to establish regulative legitimacy; therefore

(14)

8 granting the firm appreciation and credibility within the environment it operates (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). Companies can use this legitimacy to their advantage when pursuing new ventures or launching business operations in new locations. The trust and credibility built from consistently abiding by rules and regulations allows the firm to gain market entry with less resistance via established legitimacy.

Pragmatic legitimacy, according to Diez-Martin (2013) is concerning the surroundings of the organization. The stakeholder’s perception of the organization is realized through the relationships between the firm and the environment. As Suchman (1995) states, pragmatic legitimacy involves exchanges between the firm and its immediate audience through direct activities. Suchman (1995) further suggests that this type of legitimacy is also affected by the interdependencies of politics, economics and social society and that pragmatic legitimacy is ultimately based off of exchange. This conception suggests the importance of relationships and interdependencies as legitimacy can be built up off of these. As exchanges are made between two parties of honorable reputation, other actors within the immediate network will notice and recognize certain aspects of these firms as legitimate, thus building further credibility and authority. Companies may use this legitimacy to enhance their position within the market and even influence others within the network (Suchman, 1995).

2.1.3 Normative Legitimacy

According to Wang et al (2014), normative legitimacy is regarding the norms and values, which are accepted by society and the market. It is the people (society, individuals, organizations, governments), the places (geographical) and the things (products and services) that make up the society and the market. Normative legitimacy is derived from these norms and values within the societal environment and is also referred to as sociopolitical normative legitimacy (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002). Diez-Martin (2013) suggests that normative legitimacy does not gauge if the organization is benefiting the evaluator, but instead evaluates what is socially acceptable and deemed correct. As Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002) state, in it’s simplest form, normative legitimacy refers to consistency within societal norms and values, which promote fairness amongst employees and customers. To understand if the entity in question is acting legitimate, individuals, societies and organizations will evaluate whether this entity is performing activities in which reflect positive norms and values accordingly (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). It is these values that can be used as persuasive elements to encourage or influence customers purchasing decisions (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).

In contrast to cognitive legitimacy, which is based on knowledge, normative legitimacy weighs on the judgments whether or not the activities provided by organizational bodies are providing social wellbeing in consideration with what society deems as valuable (Suchman, 1995). For example, oil companies that are drilling and consequently spilling oil. The amount of oil spilled might be within the limits that regulative authorities allow for, however this amount might be much more than what society considers acceptable, and most likely will not be deemed legitimate in a normative perspective. However, an NGO whose interest is in saving rain forests will certainly be supported as normatively legitimate. Suchman (1995) states that at its core, normative legitimacy promotes social wellbeing, which differs drastically from restrained self-regard. Having conveyed the types of legitimacy in the section

(15)

9 above, the section below shall discuss the concept of brand identity and its relationship with other concepts.

2.2 Brand Identity Concepts

In order to understand why companies create brand identity, it is important to understand the concepts of brand equity, brand personality, brand associations and brand positioning, as they interrelate and can result to/or from the formation of brand identity (Aaker 1991; Upshaw 1995). According to Upshaw (1995) a brand’s equity will strengthen and grow if a brand's identity is sustained successfully.

As previously introduced, Upshaw (1995, p. 15) defines brand identity as a “product of the melding of a brand’s positioning and personality, as is played out in the product/service performance, the brand name, its logo and graphic system, the brand’s marketing communication, and in other ways in which the brand comes into contact with its constituencies”, This is the definition of brand identity that will be used throughout this paper, with brand positioning and personality as key building properties of brand identity.

Brand personality can be defined as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). It gives consumers something to relate to and a more holistic image of the product beyond its physical attributes and positioning, furthermore product personality can play a role in attracting new consumers and creating loyalty (Upshaw, 1995). For this reason, brands are not only a means of differentiation but also offer a means for individuals to reveal their personality through the products they chose to associate with (Baines, Fill, & Page, 2013).

Research practitioners whom investigate brand personality have followed different steps for classifying brand personality into dimensions. Aaker (1997) for example classifies brand personality into the following five dimensions namely; sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. These were derived from the field of psychology and human personality research. The research recognizes extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness as personality dimensions that offer a complete description for human personality (John & Srivastava as cited in Geuens, Weijters, De Wulf, 2009).

However Aaker’s (1997) research has repeatedly been criticized for having a broad definition of brand personality, for being non-replicable across cultures and being non generalizable (Geuens et al., 2009). Furthermore, it has also been criticized for having a positively framed approach to brand personality (Haji, Evanschitzky, Combe & Farrel, 2012), meaning that it focuses on traits that are positive and disregards those that are negative. Despite this factor, researchers in the field of brand personality have tried to add and improve upon Aaker’s (1997) framework. Haji et al (2012), for example, drawing from Aaker’s brand personality framework, has carried out a research on negative brand personality dimensions. This research concluded that consumer anxiety and frustration towards brands can lead to the development of the following negative brand personality dimensions; lacking logic, critical, socially irresponsible, boring and egotistical.

(16)

10 In addition to the brand personality dimensions above, researchers such as Geuens et al (2009) offer a new set of brand personality dimensions that improve on Aaker’s criticism on brand personality framework, which take negative personality traits into consideration and the five dimensions of human personality. Geuens et al (2009) conducted a research to provide a more generalizable and replicable framework for brand personality. This was done by firstly adopting Azoulay & Kapferer’s (2003) definition of brand personality as the set of human personality traits that are both applicable to and relevant for brands and by secondly, testing the dimensions developed through five studies in a total of eleven countries. This led to the development of a new scale consisting of twelve items and five dimensions as seen below.

Figure 2: The new Brand Personality Measure (adopted from Geuens et al., 2009)

According to Geuens et al (2009), The responsibility dimension consists of personality traits such as down to earth, stable, and responsible. These traits are explained in terms of a steady brand performance or progression, conscientious brand operations and being genuine. Activity on the other hand consists of active, dynamic, innovative and is explained as being up to date, lively, creative and imaginative. Furthermore the dimension of aggressiveness consists of aggressive and bold traits, meaning the degree of assertiveness and confidence that the brand projects. Moreover simplicity is another dimension consisting of ordinary and simple as personality traits describing the brands conceptualization, usability and physique. Lastly, the emotionality dimension of brand personality consists of romantic and sentimental personality traits, which can be explained as the perceived emotions that the brand projects to the public. These brand personality dimensions offer an understanding into the relationship between consumers and brands, and therefore will be used in the remainder of this thesis. Despite the framework presented above, it is worth noting that the perception of a brands personality varies and is dependent on both the consumers’ interpretation and the signals that are being sent from the brand (Upshaw, 1995). Brand Personality Responsibility -Down to earth - Stable -Responsible Activity -Active -Dynamic -Innovative Aggressiveness -Aggresive -Bold Simplicity -Ordinary -Simple Emotionality -Romantic -Sentimental

(17)

11 Brand positioning on the other hand is the means by which goods and services are differentiated, and furthermore what the brand stands for in the minds of existing and prospective customers in terms of benefits and promises relative to competitors (Upshaw, 1995). However, for positioning to take place there needs to be a point of reference, and this point of reference is often competition (Aaker, 1991). Therefore, if Apple were for example to say that they make better smartphones than Samsung, than Samsung would be the reference point in this scenario and Apple would have positioned itself as being better than Samsung.

There is a wide range of channels that companies can use to position their brands in the minds of their consumers, however the major ones are direct marketing, sales promotion, endorsements, advertising, public relations, sponsorships, the Internet, and integrated brand communications (Ghodeswar, 2008). In addition, Ghodeswar (2008) argues that successful brands are built upon creative repetition of themes in various media types. Theses repetitive themes according to Ghodeswar (2008) are related to the positioning of the brand in the minds of consumers and can therefore be done through conveying features of the service or product, the tangible attribute such as the physical characteristics, the intangible attributes such as brand personality, the products functions, product benefits and operations. Ghodeswar’s (2008) framework known as the PCDL model, is an acronym for Positioning, Communicating, Delivering and Leveraging a brand, this frame work offers a guideline for how companies can position their brand in their target markets and a visualization of the process and characteristics in each step are visible in figure 3 below.

Figure 3: The PCDL Model (Ghodeswar, 2008)

In addition to the positioning of a brand as explained in the text above, Ghodeswar (2008) argues that once positioning factors are decided, the next step is to ensure that the brand message is being communicated. This can be done during advertising campaigns, creative repetition of themes in media types, celebrity endorsements, events, shows and consumer word of mouth. Ghodewar (2008) goes on to suggest that communicating the brand message is followed by delivering brand performance. This can be accomplished through delivering the promises on product performance, service performance, customer care, customer satisfaction and delighting customers. Lastly Ghodeswar’s (2008) model suggests that after positioning, communicating and delivering the brand message and performance, the brand develops an equity which can than be used for line extension, brand extension, ingredient branding, co-branding, brand alliances and social integration.

(18)

12 For brand positioning strategy to be effective, associations should be related to product attributes or characteristics and “developing such an association is effective because when the attribute is meaningful, the association can directly translate into reasons to buy or not buy a brand" (Aaker, 1991, p. 114). An association as described previously, is anything connected in memory to the brand, “therefore a brand's image is a set of associations, usually organized in some meaningful way” (Aaker, 1991, p. 110) “or more specifically is the consumer’s perception of the brands tangible and intangible associations” (Engel, Blackwell and Miniard as cited in Faircloth, Capella, & Alford, 2001, p. 64). Therefore an association to the tangible attribute such as the physical characteristics of a product, or the intangible attributes such as the brand‘s personality can lead to the formation of a brands image when being interpreted. Kepferer (2008, p. 174) emphasizes that brand image is the interpretation of brand identity from the receivers side, whereas brand identity is generated from the senders side with the purpose of specifying meaning, aim and self image. Therefore brand identity precedes brand image (Kepferer 2008, p. 174). Following Kepferer (2008) argument, the authors of this thesis find it logical to focus on aspects of brand identity rather than brand image as the narratives and the sender’s message is most appropriate for answering the research questions.

This is not to say that there is no relationship between brand image and legitimacy. However, literatures attempting to integrate these two concepts do not explicitly explain the relationship that legitimacy has with branding and its concepts such as brand image and identity. Authors such as Tuten (2007, p. 58) emphasizes that, “without legitimacy, a brand’s marketing strategy will not resonate with the target audience” and that “brands must be perceived as legitimate”. While it’s true that it is important for a brand to be considered trustworthy, credible and thus legitimate, an explicit direct relationship between legitimacy and branding aspects is not offered. In an attempt to explain the relationship between legitimacy and aspects of branding, the authors of this thesis refer to Kepferer (2008, p. 175). Kepferer argues that there are two possible sources for brand image, the first one coming from interpreting brand identity and the second one coming from interpreting “noise” or messages of external origin that relate to the brand. As previously explained, the legitimacy placed on a brand or firm is dependent on a consumer’s perception and assessment. Therefore, messages of legitimacy i.e. trust and credibility as shared by consumer in regards to the brand, are messages of external origin “noise” about the brand as they do not originate from the company. Following these arguments, it can be argued that brand image is created from the interpretation of brand identity in conjunction with elements of legitimacy.

Upshaw (1995, p. 28) argues that “building the right brand identity can be the single most efficient way to protect and nurture a brand's equity”, therefore brand identity can influence brand equity. To begin with, Aaker (1991, p. 16) defines brand equity as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers”. The liabilities and assets of brand equity can differ based on context, however they can be categorized in the following dimensions; Brand loyalty, Name awareness, Perceived quality, Brand associations, & Other proprietary brand assets such as patents, trademarks and channels relationships (Aaker, 1991). This

(19)

13 means that a brand with high equity is likely to have loyal customers, be recognizable, have a strong brand association and perceived quality compared to that with low brand equity.

In addition, a firm’s equity offers benefits to both the firm and the consumer. It facilitates a quick and confident purchase decision making as customers attribute a value and the perceived quality of the brand. For firms on the other hand, brand equity enables them to create effective marketing of their products, charge a premium price, create brand loyalty, engage in brand extension, and gain a competitive advantage (Aaker, 1991).

Baines et al., (2013) defines brand extension as leveraging brand strength by extending into new, but associated markets. This definition is similar to that offered by Aaker (1991, p. 208) that defines brand extension as “the use of a brand name established in one product class to enter another product class”. In addition to the definition offered by Aaker, he also argues that brand extensions have “been the core or strategic growth for a variety of firms” and therefore is an important strategy (Aaker, 1995, p. 208).

2.3 Narratives

Narratives are important as individuals usually make sense of their surroundings and experiences in a narrative form. These narratives come across as a spoken or written account of connected events, which usually reflect their experiences in a form of telling stories. This allows for an understanding of particular events and relationships (Feldman, Skoldberg, Brown, Horner, 2004). Defined by Matthew, Hawkins and Saleem (2012) as the cognitive frameworks that influence a person’s action in a written or spoken fashion. Moreover, through a different opinion was viewed that a ”narrative form can be loosely defined as a sequence of events, experiences, actions with plot that ties together different parts into meaningful whole” (Feldman et al., 2004, p. 148).

These definitions give insight that a narrative, simply put, is story telling or communicating with intent. As events, experiences or actions have been revealed, they can be recorded and explained or presented again in a way that allows the audience to understand and interpret it in their own way. Through discourse, firms may strategically plan how and what they communicate to their audience, and develop their own narratives.

(20)

14

3 Conceptual Framework

This section is dedicated to explaining the relationship between the concept of brand identity and legitimacy as theories used to explain the researched phenomenon. In addition, a model has been developed to explain the relationships between the two theories from the author’s perspective. This model is presented and explained below.

Figure 4: A Relational Model on Brand Identity and Legitimacy (own)

The conceptual framework model is made up of four factors namely organizational presentations, narratives, legitimacy and brand identity. The purpose of this thesis is to identify how legitimacy and brand identity can be developed within the consumer electronics industry, and specifically how Apple Inc. achieves this. Doing so requires looking at how the organization presents itself to customers through organizational presentations such as public relations, and their use of discourse and narratives to project their brand identity and develop legitimacy.

As previously expressed in this thesis, the authors found literature focusing on brand identity and legitimacy respectively; however there seems to be little literature on the relationship between these concepts. The authors of this thesis identify an interlinked cyclical relationship between the two concepts and therefore pose the question as to which one comes first, whether legitimacy or brand identity. Legitimacy, as used in this context is used to create the perception of trust and credibility in consumers, whereas brand identity enables consumers to easily identify and be more aware of the brand. These two notions are interrelated in that the trust placed on a brand can lead to

Legitimacy • Cognitive • Normative • regulative Brand Identity • Positioning • Personality Organizational Presentations Narratives Narratives

(21)

15 the perception of a brand’s identity as being trustworthy or credible which creates a general image of the brand.

Therefore as shown by the outer cycle in the framework above, the sequence as to which comes first between legitimacy and identity would be as follows. Organizational presentations conveyed through narratives would lead to legitimacy, which in turn would lead to brand identity.

On the other hand, it can also be argued that organizational presentations can generate awareness for the brand. This makes it more identifiable, which leads to the perception of trust and credibility due to familiarity and general usage by other consumers. With this logic, the sequence of the framework changes and follows the inner cycle of the framework. It can therefore be said that, organizational presentations with the use of narratives leads to conveying of a brands identity, which in turn leads to the development of legitimacy and the formation of a trustworthy image. With the help of this framework and organizational presentations from Apple Inc., the theories explained will be operationalized and an analysis will be conducted.

4 Methodology

This methodology section outlines how the research study developed and evolved through the process in a sequential manner. This section offers a description for the employment of the methods used throughout this research. These methods offer justification for the decisions made and established the structure for the processes necessary to conclude this paper. The process is described below.

4.1 Research Structure

4.1.1 Topic Selection

Choosing the topic and developing a research question is an important part of the research as it sets the nature, the structure and the way in which the data is collected (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The authors had general interest in several different fields of business management and followed Bryman’s (2011) advice for the research to be based on those interests. The topic of this research was derived on a marketing and management perspective and more specifically the concept of how corporations communicate during their presentations. The authors were mainly interested understanding the effect of direct communication and messages coming form authoritative figures within the decision-making process in events such as corporate presentations. Following Watson’s model (Byrman and Bell, 2011, p. 84), the authors started to ask questions. What is the organization saying? Why does the organization say that? Does the organization repeat words over time? What do these words represent? Does the organization relay the same messages over several presentations? These were the types of questions that allowed the authors to focus on specific information and begin narrowing down the foundations of the study. This thought process directed the authors to the discovery of narratives, discourse, brand identity

(22)

16 and legitimacy as a means of theoretically explaining this phenomenon. The topic of this research was motivated from the desire to understand the value behind these corporate presentations and the specific use of their communications.

4.1.2 Research Design

Epistemology is a theory of knowledge according to Bryman and Bell (2011) and they take the stance on this concept of whether knowledge is acceptable or not. To be more specific, this stance is on whether knowledge in the social world and knowledge in the natural sciences is justifiable. In terms of justifiable, they discuss whether or not the knowledge is reliable and valid and that there is a clear distinction between conviction and judgment. In order for individuals and institutions to contribute with reliable and valid knowledge, the disciplines and methods used must be accepted by academia. Doing so, allows standards to be developed, which are then used across academia and become the accepted method in acquiring and developing such knowledge. This not only allows for researchers and academics to follow these standards in their own researches in a methodological tradition, it also provides consistency in the study of knowledge.

There are arguments both for and against whether or not these two sciences can be examined through similar practices, doctrines and philosophies. This is a difficult dispute as the natural phenomenon can be studied in different geographical locations where the elements of what is to be studied will react the same regardless of location, cultures and conditions. As for business management research, where the situations, context and the conditions, are variables that drastically influence the outcome of the phenomenon, will construct far more difficulties to draw concrete conclusion compared to those of the natural sciences. Due to the issue regarding what is recognized as conventional knowledge, Bryman and Bell (2011) discuss several positions regarding epistemology.

One of such positions in epistemology is suggested as positivism, which is concerned with applying the methods of studying the natural sciences and employing those methods towards social phenomenon’s. Bryman and Bell (2011) agree that positivism may be viewed differently according to different authors, creating difficulties when defining the concept. However, they have suggested five distinct principles, which are generally accepted for defining positivism. Of relevance to this thesis, was the principle of deductivism. The principle of deductivism is concerned with theory of generating and testing hypothesizes to explain events (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Therefore, the structure and design of the research is founded on the characteristics of a deductive case study. Deductive theory is the most frequently accepted observation tool used discerning the correlation concerning theory and the research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Although, there are no hypotheses in this thesis, the authors argue that due to the interpretivism and the research questions used this in this thesis, the research still follows a deductive process. Interpretivism is another position, which is contradictory to that of positivism in that individuals and institutions will react differently based on the subjective meaning of social action (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Using these two positions allowed the authors to present the research questions and collect data in a way that would represent the appropriate findings to assess these questions. The authors are aware that the interpretations of the keywords and context

(23)

17 might not be shared with the reader and advise the reader to also take this into consideration.

This study also follows the characteristics of a case study. A case study, as suggested by Bryman and Bell (2011) is a comprehensive analysis of a solitary situation, which has become quite universally accepted when used in business research according to Eisenhardt and Graebner. Bryman and Bell (2011) discuss the use of the term, and state that it usually refers to a geographical location, and as in the case of this thesis, an organization. Bryman and Bell (2011) also suggest that case studies have more qualitative characteristics than quantitative. Furthermore, deciding what type of case study the research will pursue is important for the planning and development of the study. Yin (2003) suggests five different types of case studies, of which, the longitudinal study was relevant for this thesis. The longitudinal study is concerned with how a situation will change and evolve over time. As for the case of this thesis in regards to corporate presentations, it is an appropriate case study type as the research follows these presentations over a period of ten years. The research also leans on a comparative design. Bryman and Bell (2011) state that a comparative study design is using identical research methods and applying the methods to two ore more cases. The presentations were not explicitly compared to each other per se, but more so used to develop the analysis and argue the comparative replication of such narratives, which were then used to draw conclusions.

4.1.3 Organization Selection

Once the topic had been selected, the authors had begun the process of choosing an organization in which the research would be conducted upon. Through the interest expressed in the topic selection section, the authors began by investigating different organizations based on three criteria. One of such criteria was that the organization must have had a diverse product line to fulfill the first segment of the research question regarding the replicated narratives across products. It was ideal to choose a company whom had several different products across various product categories as to fit the best combination for the study.

The second criterion was that the organization should be well established and have been in business for an extended amount of time. This allowed for a longitudinal approach to collecting data so as to understand if a replication of narratives has been used by the organization. Choosing such an organization helped in addressing the research question. The third criterion was that the organization should have numerous amounts of public presentations. Due to the manner of this study, a large amount of public presentations were required for the analysis to be considered fair and to reach an acceptable conclusion. With these criteria in place, the authors began searching for organizations that might fulfill these criterions, which lead the authors to Apple Inc. With a history of new and innovative products and a diverse product range, Apple fulfilled the first criterion of the study. The company has also been operating for over three decades therefore fulfilling the second and third criterion as they have numerous presentations.

(24)

18 The selection of the products was important for this research as these products represented the anchor point for the selected presentations. The authors had decided to observe the iPhone, the iPad, the MacBook and the latest product the Apple Watch. These products identified four different product categories; smartphones, tablets, laptops and watches. This choice solved the issue of a time constraint, and represented a periodical timeframe to conduct the study, the presentations of the selected product categories begun in 2006 and ended in 2015. This periodical timeframe satisfied the research question of the replication of narratives as well as provided an opportunity to view the narratives in a similar and dissimilar context. These were viewed over a period of ten years across four different portable goods industries, allowing for an in-depth study on the narratives.

The iPhone was also chosen based on criteria. One of those criteria is that there are numerous versions of the product within the product category. For this study, four iPhone’s were considered, the iPhone, the iPhone 4, the iPhone 5, and the iPhone 6. The iPad was chosen for similar reasons as the iPhone. The iPad also satisfied the criteria for numerous products within the same industry. Considered for this study were the iPad, the iPad Air and the iPad mini. The MacBook was chosen for quite similar reasons. There are also different versions of the MacBook with several generations notably, the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air. Lastly, the Apple Watch was selected primarily as it is (at the time of this writing) Apple’s latest product and Apples latest product entering a new industry. Using this method allowed the authors to observer the narratives across different generations of the products over various years. Once the products were selected, the authors searched for professional presentations offered by Apple as they were introducing the selected products. This resulted in presentations by official employees of Apple who also had guest appearances by officials whom had collaborated with Apple. This choice lead to the selection of presentations such as: WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference), Apple Special Events, and Macworld conferences offered over the years of 2006 to 2015.

4.2 Choice of Theories and Concepts

This process began after the topic/research question and organization had been selected. The authors had initially started searching for literature regarding credibility and branding, which developed into legitimacy and brand identity. Using the Mälardalen University database, as well as the University Library, the authors were able to begin the literature review process. The database allowed the authors to search other credible databases such as Emerald Insight, JSTOR, SAGE and Google Scholar for articles regarding the topic. It was within these databases that the authors had also searched for previous studies within the topic area, as this is an important factor to consider when writing a research paper according to Bryman and Bell (2011). Keywords were selected in direct relation to the theories chosen and were used to efficiently search for relevant articles and information regarding the study.

Discourse was chosen as a way to analyze the communication and the direct messages that were articulated through each presentation. Discourse, is often used broadly in organizational studies and the concept is frequently misunderstood depending on the context (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000). The term discourse, described by Watson in

(25)

19 1994 as “ a connected set of statements, concepts, terms and expressions which constitutes a way of talking and writing about a particular issue, thus from the way people understand and act with respect to that issue” (as cited in Alvesson, Karreman, p. 1131, 2000). The concept of discourse can be commonly put as the communication of thoughts by words, a speech or writing. Skerlep (2002) proposed that discourse would be explained through “aims of the communicator”, and “distinguished between referential, expressive, persuasive and literary discourse” (as cited in Skerlep, p. 181, 2002). This allowed the authors to examine each presentation in full detail by identifying the explicit words that were chosen by the organization in each presentation. Selecting narrative theory was in relation to discourse, and allowed the authors to examine the narratives in a longitudinal manner. Discourse and narratives were chosen as descriptive tools and acted as the basis for content analysis, therefore satisfying the ‘cause’ portion of the study (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

To satisfy the ‘outcome’ of the presentations, legitimacy theory and brand identity theory were selected. Choosing these theories allowed the use of content analysis in identifying keywords and phrases that were used throughout the presentations that support the act of building legitimacy and brand identity. Legitimacy theory was chosen as a way of describing the potential motivation behind using such words and phrases. Brand identity was chosen as the subsequent theory to develop the research question and identify if they communication used in the presentation can be used to create legitimacy.

4.4 Empirical Data Collection

There are two types of data that is generally accepted within the academic community, primary and secondary data analysis. Bryman and Bell (2011) state that secondary data is prior data that has been collected by other researchers or data that has been conducted by organizations that is available for use. Secondary data is usually readily available on databases or on organization websites, which allows researchers to save large amounts of time and reduce cost. Secondary data most commonly used for quantitative research, however it is also accepted and used in qualitative studies. This study follows a qualitative approach as the data collected is used regarding the importance of keywords in context.

Primary data on the other hand is often either quite costly, or time consuming and requires the researcher to be directly a part of the data collection process (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The benefit of conducting such research analyses is that the data collected originates straight from the source, which allows for highly credible and valid data collection. It appears that due to the nature of collecting the video presentations from iTunes, that the data could be considered secondary data. However, the authors argue that regardless if they had the ability to attend these conferences or not, the information and data collected would remain the same, and that the authors would have no influence on the information given by Apple. Thus, the secondary data essential becomes primary data due to the type of data collected and the nature of this thesis.

Legitimizing Brand Identity Through Narrative Replication