Towards a Co-Creational Perspective on Corporate Heritage Branding

PurposeThe study aims to explore customer satisfaction towards the celebrated Tong Ren Tang (TRT) Chinese corporate heritage brand (established in 1669). This paper examines the multiple role identities of the corporate brand and, in particular, the enduring imperial identity (role identity) of the corporate brand. The study examines whether the corporate heritage brand’s imperial associations are still meaningful.Design/methodology/approachA indicative, survey-based case study methodology undertaken with Chinese customers informs this research.FindingsTRT’s corporate heritage brand identity and, moreover, its imperial role identity were salient in terms of customer satisfaction. TRT’s augmented imperial role identity not only was highly salient but also, moreover, meaningfully enhanced the organisation’s corporate reputation in terms of customer satisfaction.Research limitations/implicationThis study lends further support for the utility of the notion of corporate heritage/corporate heritage brands and in particular the saliency of the theoretical notion of augmented role identity within the corporate heritage marketing field.Practical implicationCorporate heritage brand managers should be appraised of which corporate role identities are meaningful for customers. At a practical level, senior corporate marketing managers of corporate heritage organisations should accorded importance to the additional P of Provenance apropos the corporate marketing mix.Social implicationAt a time, when China is reappraising its relationship with its past – including its imperial past (of which much has been destroyed) – this paper’s focus on TRT’s unsurpassed augmented role identity is pertinent and propitious. Seemingly, this corporate heritage brand’s imperial association provides a living and tangible link with China’s long and momentous imperial provenance and erstwhile imperial polity. In short, the corporate heritage brand is part of China’s patrimony and enjoys a unique place in this regard.Originality/valueThis paper is one of the first empirical studies examining a Chinese corporate heritage brand entity. The study marks new ground in examining customer satisfaction from the theoretical perspectives of corporate heritage brand and augmented role identity. It is believed that this is the first study to consider corporate heritage in the pharmaceutical sector and marks new ground in considering the saliency of China’s imperial legacy on an extant, highly successful and high profile-Chinese corporate heritage brand.

The characteristics of enduring corporate heritage brands often include remarkable, but fluctuating histories. The current article presents a longitudinal, retrospective study of two corporate heritage brands, Tiffany & Co. and Burberry that experience structural corporate heritage brand decline, followed by recovery. A major contribution of the article is demonstrating how long-established corporate heritage brands can overcome a structural brand crisis, by restoring corporate heritage. Another contribution is the identification of the roles of heritage custodianship and core brand competencies in facilitating management of corporate heritage. The study offers a holistic, three-stage, corporate heritage brand recovery framework. The proposed conceptual framework to guide corporate heritage brand recovery utilises three key concepts: corporate brand vision; core brand values; and core brand capabilities.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the attractiveness of the Tong Ren Tang (TRT) as a Chinese corporate heritage tourism brand and consider the significance of TRT for Chinese national identity. The study considers the saliency of Balmer’s augmented role identity notion vis-à-vis corporate heritage institutions/corporate brands. Insights are made from and for corporate heritage, heritage tourism and national identity literature. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual model comprising five hypotheses was developed and this informed a survey-based questionnaire administered to domestic tourists/customers visiting Tong Ren Tang’s flagship shop in Beijing. Findings The attractiveness to domestic Chinese tourists/customers of the TRT corporate heritage tourism brand was found to be attributable to its multiple role identities: national, corporate, temporal, familial and imperial. As such, this study lends credence to Balmer’s augmented role identity notion. Chinese domestic tourists/customers – as members of an ethnic Chinese community – in visiting TRT not only consume an extant corporate heritage by tangible and intangible means but can also be seen to express, and reaffirm, their sense of Chinese national identity. Practical implications For TRT’s managers, there should be an appreciation that the attractiveness of TRT as a corporate heritage tourism brand rests not only on what it sells but also in what it symbolises in national and cultural terms. This finding is applicable to the managers of many other corporate heritage/corporate heritage tourism brands. Social implications Adopting a primordial perspective, the TRT pharmacy was found to be of singular significance to China’s national identity. Traditional Chinese Medicine, Confucian and Daoist religious/philosophical and China’s erstwhile Imperial polity are significant and enduring precepts of Chinese national identity. As such the TRT flagship shop/brand is of singular importance, as China has eviscerated much of its cultural heritage – particularly in relation to its corporate heritage brands. Originality/value This is the first empirical study to focus on corporate heritage tourism brands and one of the first studies to examine a Chinese corporate heritage/corporate heritage tourism brand. Also significant in focussing on the TRT corporate heritage brand. Established in 1669, TRT’s history spans five centuries: a corporate provenance which is exceptional within the People’s Republic of China. The study links the corporate brand notion with the nascent corporate heritage brand domain and the established area of heritage tourism.

PurposeThis paper aims to study the corporate heritage brand traits and corporate heritage brand identity by concentrating on developing key dimensions for the corporate heritage brand dimensions in the retailing industry in the UK. This study advances the corporate brand heritage theory and introduces the theory of corporate heritage brand identity, which is developed from the case study of John Lewis – one of the most respected and oldest retails in the UK established in 1864.Design/methodology/approachThis empirical study has adopted a theory-building case study using qualitative data. It uses semi-structured interviews that were organised and managed by John Lewis Heritage Centre in Cookham. A total of 14 participants were involved in this study. We have used Nvivo.11 software to set the main themes and codes for this study framework.FindingsThis study identifies Balmer’s (2013) corporate heritage brand traits that are essential to be considered for the corporate heritage brands in the retailing industry to sustain their innovativeness and competitiveness. The findings of the case study informed the four dimensions of corporate heritage brand identity, which include price, quality, symbol and design. The findings are incorporated into a theoretical framework of corporate heritage brand identity traits.Practical implicationsThe discussed traits of this study can help brand senior management to enhance their corporate heritage reputation and sustainability through maintaining these (four) traits over their brand, and inform their brand stakeholders about their brand heritage success.Originality/valueThis is one of the few attempts to develop a research framework of corporate heritage brand identity. This framework suggests four dimensions of corporate heritage brand identity traits including brand price, quality, design and symbol. This is one of the first attempts to study corporate heritage branding management traits in the retailing industry sector.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to advance the general understanding of the corporate heritage domain. The paper seeks to specify the requisites of corporate heritage and to introduce and explicate the corporate heritage marketing and total corporate heritage communications notions.Design/methodology/approachAs befits an opening article of the first special edition specifically devoted to corporate heritage, this article is largely conceptual in character and draws on the extant literature on corporate heritage brands and identities. In illuminating key points, it also makes reference to extant corporate heritage entities/brands.FindingsA provisional theory of corporate heritage sustainability is articulated, as is the enumeration of key corporate heritage traits. The notions of corporate heritage marketing and total corporate heritage communications are introduced and articulated. Key corporate heritage traits requisites encompass omni‐temporality; institution trait constancy; external/internal tri‐generational hereditary; augmented role identities; ceaseless multigenerational stakeholder utility and unremitting management tenacity. Corporate heritage marketing consists of eight dimensions: corporate heritage character/communications/covenant/conceptualisations/culture/constituencies/custodianship/context. Total corporate heritage communicates consists of primary/secondary/tertiary and legacy communications.Practical implicationsThe paper notes the need for assiduous management attention to be accorded to organisations with a bona‐fide corporate heritage. Managers are custodians – as are organisational members guardians – of a corporate heritage. Corporate heritage institutions because they aresui generisrequire distinct approachesvis‐à‐vistheir preservation and management.Social implicationsCorporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands confer not only corporate but also temporal, territorial, social, cultural and ancestral identities to multi‐generational groups of customers and other stakeholders. As such, they are of importance not only as corporate entities but also as perennial social identities as well. This is of importance to policy makers, managers and owners of corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands.Originality/valueThe unveiling of corporate heritage marketing and of total corporate heritage communications perspective and the articulation of key corporate heritage entity traits is original and is of value to corporate communications/corporate marketing scholars and practitioners alike.

Corporate heritage brands as a symbol of the past, present and future, represent an interesting and potentially valuable source of information on how brands can endure. Corporate heritage brands require a specific brand management approach. The current study contrasts corporate heritage brand management across two corporate brand types. The methods of data collection are based on historical research and contemporary semi-structured interviews. A major contribution of the article is the identification of several core differences in how each type manages corporate heritage. The study offers an approach to corporate heritage brand management. The proposed four-proposition conceptual framework to guide corporate heritage brand management addresses brand essence creation, brand continuity, brand protection and brand renewal.

This study breaks new ground because it (i): considers a non-western (Chinese) corporate heritage brand and (ii) for the first time within the corporate heritage brand/corporate heritage canon, adopts an explicit consumer perspective. Significantly – taking an overt corporate heritage/corporate heritage brand stance – this empirical study reveals why a corporate heritage brand such as Tong Ren Tang (TRT) – founded in 1669 – is highly meaningful to consumers from one generation to another. The researchers marshal the first four of Balmer’s criteria of corporate heritage entities in order to verify their corporate heritage credentials and explain their attractiveness to customers. As such, it was found that TRT is meaningfully linked to the past, present and prospective future (Balmer’s criterion of omni temporality); has durable and constant organisational traits (Balmer’s criterion of institutional trait consistency); has customer and stakeholder faithfulness for a minimum of three generations (Balmer’s criterion of tri-generational loyalty); and has acquired meaningful non-corporate role identities vis-à-vis Chinese national identity and China’s imperial identity (Balmer’s criterion of augmented role identities). TRT was found to be attractive to consumers owing to its core and augmented role identities following Balmer’s 2013 augmented role identity theoretical perspective. These findings explain why TRT has endured and flourished from one generation to another and accounts for its celebrated status within China and the wider Chinese diaspora.

Recently, considerable academic and management interest has focussed on corporate heritage and, in particular, on the corporate heritage brand notion. This article provides a thorough overview of the field and includes latest developments in the territory including the formal introduction of the organisational heritage concept. Drawing on the extant literature, the article explores five themes relating the broad corporate heritage field: contexts, foundations, fundamentals, advances and empirical insights. This overview also examines key constructs within the domain including corporate heritage brands, corporate heritage identity and organisational heritage. Both theoretical and managerial aspects of the field are addressed. Reference is made to recent empirical contributions and to prominent case study research from Great Britain and China, namely Shepherd Neame (Britain’s oldest brewery with an official founding date of 1698) and Tong Ren Tang (the renowned traditional Chinese medicine corporate brand dating back to 1669).

In this article we formally introduce and explicate the organisational heritage notion. The authors conclude organisational heritage can be designated in three broad ways as: (i) organisational heritage identity as the perceived and reminisced omni-temporal traits – both formal/utilitarian and normative/societal – of organisational members’ work organisation; (ii) organisational heritage identification as organisational members’ identification/self-categorisation vis-a-vis these perceived and reminisced omni-temporal traits of their work organisation; and (iii) organisational heritage cultural identification as organisational members’ multi-generational identification/self-categorisation vis-a-vis the perceived and reminisced omni-temporal traits of their work organisation’s corporate culture. To date, advances in heritage studies at the institutional level have primarily taken place within the broad corporate marketing paradigm. However, we are mindful of developments in the organisational memory field and the need to address and engage with organisational behaviour/management scholarship in the broad organisational identity domain. The realisation that there is a distinct genus of corporate heritage institution (corporate heritage identity) and brand (corporate heritage brand) represents a seismic shift in how scholars theorise about heritage institutions and corporate heritage brands and how the aforementioned are managed. In the development of a field concept introduction and explanation is a key means through which an area can progress and the explicit aim of this article is to achieve the aforementioned by our elucidation of the organisational heritage notion. We argue the literatures on corporate heritage identity, organisational identity and organisational memory are of assistance in appreciating the saliency of organisational heritage. As such, by building on embryonic scholarship in the corporate heritage this article aims to explicate the nature and significance of organisational heritage. The implications of organisational heritage for corporate heritage brands are also delineated.

There are three key precepts that underpin salient corporate heritage brands: Trust, Authenticity and Affinity. Trust relates to the bilateral confidence between the institutional brand and stakeholders. Authenticity captures the notion of preserving the enduring identity traits of corporate heritage brands. Affinity captures the notion of public sovereignty (for any corporate heritage brand to endure there has to be public consent). The management of corporate heritage brands requires policymakers to show corporate brand stewardship to four spheres of activity: (1) achieving trust between the brand and its brand community; (2) preserving the brand's authenticity; (3) showing sensitivity to public concerns and ensuring the brand remains relevant and respected; (4) demonstrating empathy to environmental concerns; and (5) ongoing stewardship of the corporate brand. For its part, the British Monarchy, as a corporate heritage brand, is also dependent on bilateral trust between the Crown and public. This is predicated on public affinity towards the Monarchy and the Crown maintaining its authenticity as a corporate brand vis-a-vis its relationship with its brand community. A central finding relates to the centrality of trust to the management and maintenance of monarchy. In addition, there is a management requirement to calibrate authenticity (taking institutional and identity perspectives) and affinity (being mindful of customers and stakeholder concerns). This study builds on earlier JBM articles on corporate heritage brands (Balmer et al, 2006; Urde et al, 2007). This article is timely in that it comes during the lead up to Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee celebrations 1952–2012 along with the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton (April 2011).

In this article, the purpose is to develop a consumer-focused understanding of authenticity within corporate heritage research. Our research question is as follows: “What makes a corporate heritage brand authentic for consumers?” We employ Peirce’s semiotic concepts of icon, index and symbol to analyse consumers’ perceptions of the Finnish corporate heritage brand Fazer, founded in 1891. Our study shows that childhood memories, consumer experiences and expectations as well as shared social conventions make the corporate heritage brand authentic for consumers. Thus, our research empirically advances the understanding of authenticity as socially constructed. Importantly, our study highlights the temporal dimension of this construction and advances the current knowledge on corporate heritage brands by showing that uniqueness, credibility and consistency over time are key dimensions of corporate heritage brand authenticity assessments. This understanding is fundamental for corporate heritage management practice, especially for developing the strategic positioning of corporate heritage brands in the markets by harnessing the assessments of authenticity.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the mechanisms of consumer behaviour relating to corporate heritage brands. The aim is to clarify the internal logic of the brand heritage concept, and to build on the extant literature to provide a solid foundation for further scholarship regarding corporate heritage brands. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper adapts a theory about the role of the past in human behaviour, which was first developed by the pioneering sociologist George Herbert Mead, to the realm of consumer behaviour and heritage brands. The authors illustrate several principles in practice and develop a framework based on a taxonomy of heritage effects. The analysis offers clarification about the relationship of this framework to a variety of historically‐related topics in prior literature, including authenticity and nostalgia. Findings – This paper explains why and how corporate heritage brands appeal to consumers. The authors suggest that brand heritage encourages the engagement of consumers with the history of the brand, or the engagement of consumers with history through the brand. The former is operative in defining the identity of the brand alone, while the latter is also operative in defining the identity of the consumer. Practical implications – Executives and consultants may use the framework to recognise and classify different types of heritage phenomena, and thereby develop more effective corporate communications for older companies. Originality/value – This is the first time that the Mead theory has been applied to corporate heritage brands.

This article connects consumers’ corporate image heritage to a company’s corporate brand heritage and sheds further light on the role of consumer understanding in corporate brand heritage. As a theoretical contribution, we propose consumers’ corporate image heritage as an additional dimension in Urde et al’s corporate heritage model. The qualitative data is two-folded: corporate brand heritage pertain to the company Piaggio and its Vespa brand’s communications, and consumers’ corporate image heritage to in-depth interviews and observation data from Vespa brand community members. The research reveals that community members’ corporate image heritage differs from the company’s view of its corporate heritage brand and important dimensions therein. Considering the key role of consumers’ corporate image heritage in their corporate image construction processes, corporate brand heritage management should hence involve systematic efforts to identify key dimensions of consumers’ corporate image heritage. As instrumental insights, we introduce a tool for analysing the intersection of an organisation’s corporate heritage and consumers’ image heritage to optimise the balance between these elements. The proposed analytical tool may be used as part of a company’s corporate heritage marketing and corporate heritage communication approach.

PurposeThis article scrutinises the nature and salience of corporate heritage identities via the lens of the British Monarchy. A corporate heritage identity framework is introduced. The heritage identity construct is positioned vis‐à‐vis other related constructs such as nostalgia, tradition, and custom.Design/methodology/approachAn embedded case study informed by desktop research and a literature review of the British Monarchy and by an empirical‐collaborative study on the Swedish Monarchy. The paper is also informed by the literature on heritage and other historically‐related constructs.FindingsThe notion of relative invariance is introduced. The latter is important since it explains why heritage identities can remain the same and yet have changed, namely: The Relative Invariance Notion. Corporate heritage identities and brands are invested with special qualities in that they are a melding of identity continuity, identity change and are also invested with the identities of time (times past, present and future). Heritage identities are an accretion of various identities, which are variously linked to institutions, places, cultures, and to time frames. The notion of Institutional Role Identities is introduced. The study suggested that heritage identities have multiple institutional role identities. These identities can be utilised in various contexts and for a variety of purposes: this might account for their strength. One explanation of why heritage identities are powerful is because they meet customer and stakeholder needs by encapsulating and, importantly, by giving identity. Heritage identities, potentially, are an important dimension of a group's collective memory.Practical implicationsA revised corporate heritage identity framework relating to the British Monarchy is introduced. The model can be adapted so as to appraise our comprehension of corporate heritage identities in more general institutional contexts. The importance of bi‐lateral institutional and stakeholder trust to the framework and the need for (institution) heritage authenticity – or perceived authenticity – and stakeholder affinity are noted.Originality/valueThe paper focuses on heritage identities in institutional contexts and a distinction is made between corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands identities.

WITHDRAWN: The corporate heritage brand paradox: Managing the tension between continuity and change in luxury brands