Article2010

Positioning and differentiation by using brand personality attributes

104 citations0/0 files storedCorporate Communications An International Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Organizational Strategy and Culture Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification Corporate Identity and Reputation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the current state of mission and vision statements on corporate web sites and to analyze differentiation strategies through the use of online brand personality attributes in order to find if and how the attributes are effectively used to build up a unique corporate identity. Design/methodology/approach Content analysis is used to investigate similarities and differences between sectors and industries in Switzerland, based on the brand personality scale of Aaker. Also, the paper focuses on the impact of the communication of brand personality elements, in terms of positioning and differentiation, using correspondence analysis. Findings The claim that companies do present brand personality by frequently communicating respective attributes through mission and vision statements published on their web site are supported. However, top management does not seem to be geared towards industry norms when phrasing the statements, as a considerable similarity in statement content is found across industries. The results show that companies position themselves using their competitors as a frame of reference. Research limitations/implications The results may lack generalizability to small and medium‐sized businesses and other industries. Practical implications As most companies in the study position themselves using the same attributes and specifically emphasize “competence,” the results include practical implications for the need to develop uniqueness and differentiation by other means. Originality/value This paper discovers a gap between the claim that organizations seek uniqueness in their personality attributes and the reality of their involvement in mutual coorientation when defining their identity, forcing them to adapt to each other.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 104 citations exist upstream.

References

1983The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields 2004The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields 1995Institutions and organizations 1997Dimensions of Brand Personality 1997Dimensions of Brand Personality 1999To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance 2001Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing ‐ Seeing through the fog 2006Corporate Reputation: The Definitional Landscape

Cited by

2018Mission statements of universities worldwide: Text mining and visualization 2017The Nature of the Relationship Between Corporate Identity and Corporate Sustainability: Evidence from The Retail Industry 2012Effectiveness of mission statements in organizations – A review 2019Shaping Corporate Character Through Symmetrical Communication: The Effects on Employee-Organization Relationships 2012Creating Shared Value through Strategic CSR in Tourism

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.