Creating and Developing Local Political Brand Identity: A Constituency Focus

Pich, Christopher; Armannsdottir, G

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47331-4_61

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A consistent localised identity, grounded personalised values, yet developed-updated with local market research reflect the changing wants and needs of the electorate (Nandan, 2005;Silveira et al, 2013;Ross and Harradine, 2011;Saaksjarvi and Samiee, 2011;Srivastava, 2011;Wheeler and Millman, 2017). This provides political co-brands with the opportunity to profile key constituents and develop personalised communication tools designed to deliver an appropriate targeted message (Pich et al, 2017). This is crucial as it keeps political co-brands relevant, perceived as approachable and truly 'local'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, political co-brand identity is strategic in nature (Ahn and Sung 2012;Besharat and Langan 2014;Grebosz-Krawczyk and Pointet 2017;Volckner and Sattler 2006) in the sense that each identity is tailored to suit the unique settings, wants and needs of the constituency. Further, each political co-brand is supported [by the corporate brand] to determine the political emphasis and agenda for the local community (Pich et al 2017). This demonstrates the complex and multifaceted nature of political brands (Grimmer and Grube 2017;Milewicz and Milewicz 2014;Pich et al 2017;Smith 2008).…”

Section: Creation and Development Of Political Co-brand Identitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Further, each political co-brand is supported [by the corporate brand] to determine the political emphasis and agenda for the local community (Pich et al 2017). This demonstrates the complex and multifaceted nature of political brands (Grimmer and Grube 2017;Milewicz and Milewicz 2014;Pich et al 2017;Smith 2008). Therefore, political co-brand identities are a cluster of individual values, personal ideological beliefs and past personal experiences aligned with corporate 'broad church' historical ideologies and pragmatic values, which in turn co-create the desired brand identity as illustrated in figure 4 (Aqeel et al 2017;Gyrd-Jones and Kornum 2013;Helmig et al 2008;Kornum and Muhlbacher 2013;Nguyen et al 2018;Thomson 2006).…”

Section: Creation and Development Of Political Co-brand Identitymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Subsequently, each political co-brand represents an 'alliance' and possesses a unique, blended identity developed from a personalised core premise and positioned by a personal ideology manifested from the 'broad church' corporate values and heritage (Abratt and Motlana 2002;Baumgarth 2018;Besharat and Langan 2014;d'Astous et al 2007;Kumar 2005;Nguyen et al 2018;Ottovordemgentschenfelde 2017;Pich et al 2017;Wheeler and Millman 2017 Nevertheless, the findings demonstrate that creating, developing and managing successful political co-brands requires a long-term collaborative approach [18-months-2 years] to establish a local presence and maintain a consistent localised message inside and outside the election campaign period (Leuthesser et al 2002;Silveira et al 2013). Further, the findings suggest that the relationship between the corporate political brand and political co-brands can vary in terms of alignment and strength and will be influenced by the nature of the constituency, personal position and beliefs of the co-brand and perceived tensions between corporatepolitical co-brands (Ahn and Sung 2012;Besharat and Langan 2014;Grebosz-Krawczyk and Pointet 2017;Volckner and Sattler 2006).…”

Section: Political Co-brand Alignmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alignment needs to be as coherent as possible to avoid confusion in the mind of stakeholders (Dahlen et al, 2010;de Chernatony, 2006;Gyrd-Jones and Kornum, 2013;Wheeler and Millman, 2017). This suggests the construct of brand identity can be used to investigate how political co-brands are created, communicated and managed (Besharat and Langan, 2014;Ottovordemgentschenfelde, 2017;Pich et al, 2017;Silveira et al, 2013;Wason and Charlton, 2015;Wheeler and Millman, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the creation and development of political co-brand identity

Armannsdottir

Pich

2019

QMR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The creation and development of candidate-politician brands, otherwise known as political co-brands, remains an under-researched area of study. This is supported by calls for more understanding on political co-brands and how they are positioned and managed by their creators. Framed by the concepts of internal brand identity and co-branding, this paper aims to investigate how political co-brand identity is constructed and managed over time, exploring alignment between the political co-brand and political corporate party brand. Design/methodology/approach An interpretivist revelatory multi-case study approach, using in-depth interviews, was conducted with three political co-brands (candidates-politicians) from the UK Conservative Party. The three cases represented constituencies across the UK from the North, Midlands and South of the country. The in-depth elite interviews were conducted July 2015 to September 2015. Methodological triangulation was also adopted to assess the coherency of emerging themes with online and offline materials and documents. A two-stage thematic analytical approach was used to interpret the findings. Findings This multiple case study demonstrates how successful political co-brands create and develop identities tailored to their constituency, often distinct from the corporate political brand and developed several years before electoral success at the ballot box. In addition, this study reveals that political co-brands are dichotomous in terms of strategically managing a degree of alignment with the corporate political brand yet maintaining a degree of independence. Research limitations/implications This study builds on limited existing concepts such as co-branding and political brand identity as a means of critical application. Existing research on co-branding remains a “relatively limited” and complex area of study and generally focuses on fictitious brands. Political brand identity remains an under-researched area. This in turn supports the development and advancement of political branding as an area of study. This paper highlights the opportunities of using the strategic approach of co-branding to help conceptualise “candidates-politicians” as political brands’ which up until now, “candidate-politician brands” have been difficult to define unlike the extensive research on corporate political brands. Practical implications This study has implications for practice too. Organisations and different typologies of political brands will be able to use this political co-brand identity framework as a diagnostic mechanism to investigate their co-brands current identity, assess alignment and make strategic changes or reposition the envisaged identity if desired. Similarly, organisations can use this framework, key dimensions and factors as a blueprint to design and build new political brands at a corporate and/or local level. Originality/value This study has implications for brands beyond the world of politics. Brands can adopt the political co-brand identity framework developed in this study as a pragmatic tool to investigate internally created co-brand identity and explore alignment with the corporate party brand identity. In addition, this research adds to the limited research on non-fictitious co-brands and co-branding literature at large and addresses the calls for more research on brand identity in new settings.

show abstract