Political Party Brand Identity and Brand Image: An Empirical Assessment
In this article we explore the concepts of political party brand identity and image. Political leaders should be able to effectively define the distinctive characteristics of the political brand and subsequently activate the most appropriate mechanisms of
- PDF / 1,162,298 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 95 Downloads / 223 Views
nd the set of corporate values that guide the selection of choices over the life cycle of the brand (Bertoli & Busacca, 2002). Brand identity or organizational identity is the combinative construal of firm culture, history, structure, characteristics, status and reputation with competitors, customers, and society at large, and it is formulated and cemented over time (Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006; Scott & Lane, 2000). Identity involves all that is central, distinctive and enduring about a firm (Albert & Whetten, 1985), conveyed through mission, vision, actions and association of the firm’s values and goals (Brickson, 2005). Indeed, organizational identity theory demonstrates how identity both shapes and drives organizational goals and strategic objectives (e.g., Brickson, 2007). Put simply, identity involves how both internal and external constituents and stakeholders see the firm (Gioia, Price, Hamilton, & Thomas, 2010; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006; Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000). In contrast, brand image is the external projection of the identity. Scholars have seen organizational image as a broader concept, which includes notions involving the ways organization’s members believe others see the organization (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991); fabricated, projected pictures aimed at various constituencies (Bernstein, 1984); and the public’s perception of a given organization (Berg, 1985). Brand image has been the subject of many different conceptualizations and definitional debates. Dutton and Dukerich (1991) argued that organizational image is the way members believe others view their organization. Whetten et al. (1992) took some issue with this definition and argued instead for defining image as the way “organizational elites” would like outsiders to see the organization. Such a “projected image” could be an attempt to represent essential features of organizational identity to others. It could also take the form of the projection of a desired future image that communicates to insiders and outsiders a vision to be achieved (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Projected image, however, might also encompass attempts to convey a socially desirable, managed impression that emphasizes selected aspects of identity; it could even conceal or misrepresent identity. In fact, Bernstein (1984) held that image should be defined as a construction of public impressions created to appeal to an audience (and not necessarily the attempt to represent some ostensible reality). All these views, however, take image to be essentially an internal conception—that is, perceptions held or communicated by insiders. Berg (1985) took a decidedly more external approach by focusing on perceptions held by outsiders. He defined image as the public’s perception or impression of an organization, usually associated with a given action or event (which we term an external transient impression). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRAND IDENTITY AND BRAND IMAGE The central problem lies in the relationship between brand identity and brand image, a problem that has been extensiv
Data Loading...
