Skip to main content

Exploring the Role of Family Firm Identity and Market Focus on the Heterogeneity of Family Business Branding Strategies

Abstract

Family firms vary in their decision of whether or not to communicate the involvement of the family in the firm as part of their branding attempts. Currently, we do not have a clear understanding of why these differences in branding practices occur. In an attempt to address this gap, the current chapter develops a model to explain why there is heterogeneity in the branding practices of family firms. Taking a sender approach, we develop a conceptual model to understand why and how two predictors (i.e., family firm identity and market orientation) drive the decision of family business representatives regarding the choice to explicitly and actively communicate the “Family Business Brand” (i.e., the involvement of the family in the business). This chapter develops the rationale for this model and presents ideas for future research.

Keywords

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Family Business Brand” represents the associations and expectations attributed to communicating that there is family involvement in a firm (Krappe et al. 2011).

References

  • Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anisimova, T. A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J. M. (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 879–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balmer, J. M., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of the corporation. California Management Review, 44(3), 72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S. (2016). Brand management research in family firms – A structured review and suggestions for further research. Journal of Family Business Management, 2016(6), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & Prügl, R. (2015). Being perceived as a family firm and new product acceptance: An empirical analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 14202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belz, C. (2006). Spannung Marke: Markenführung für komplexe Unternehmen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binz Astrachan, C., & Astrachan, J. (2015). Family business branding. Leveraging stakeholder trust. London: IFB Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binz Astrachan, C., & Botero, I. C. (2018). “We are a family firm”: An exploration of the motives for communicating the family business brand. Journal of Family Business Management, 8(1), 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binz, C., Hair, J. F., Pieper, T. M., & Baldauf, A. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blombäck, A., & Botero, I. C. (2013). Reputational capital in family firms: Understanding uniqueness from the stakeholder’s point of view. In K. X. Smyrnios, P. Z. Poutziouris, & S. Goel (Eds.). Handbook of research on family business (2nd ed, pp. 677–693). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botero, I. C. (2014). Effects of communicating family ownership and organizational size on applicant’s attraction to a firm: An empirical examination of the USA and China. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2), 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botero, I. C., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official websites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). What’s so special about family business? An exploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6), 656–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40(1–2), 222–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (2004). Organizational identity. Linkages between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ organizational communication. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity. A reader (pp. 510–557). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., Steier, L. P., & Rau, S. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Chernatony, L., & McWilliam, G. (1989). The varying nature of brands as assets. International Journal of Advertising, 8, 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Process theories of attitude formation and change: The elaboration likelihood and heuristic-systematic models. In A. H. Eagly & S. Chaiken (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes (pp. 303–350). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci, C., Santulli, R., & Calabrò, A. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, E. (2004). Return on relationships (ROR): The value of relationship marketing and CRM in business-to-business contexts. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M., & MacMillan, I. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahlert, C., Botero, I. C., & Prügl, R. (2017). Revealing the family: Effects of being perceived as a family firm in the German recruiting market. Journal of Family Business Management, 7(1), 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic behavior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinalenkamp, M. (2000). Einführung in das Business-to-Business Marketing. In M. Kleinaltenkamp & W. Plinke (Eds.), Technischer Vertrieb – Grundlagen des Business-to-Business-Marketing (pp. 171–247). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & von Schlippe, A. (2011). The family business brand: An enquiry into the construction of the image of family businesses. Journal of Family Business Management, 1(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V. (2015). Evolution of marketing as a discipline: What has happened and what to look out for. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaForet, S. (2009). Managing brands – A contemporary perspective. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: Challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennartz, E. M., Fischer, M., Krafft, M., & Peters, K. (2015). Drivers of B2B brand strength insights from an international study across industries. Schmalenbach Business Review: ZFBF, 67(1), 114–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2016, June 1–4). Effects of communicating the family firm status on brand perception: Insights from an experimental study. Paper presented at The Annual European Academy of Management Conference, Université Paris-Est Créteil Val de Marne, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J., & De Chernatony, L. (2004). The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business markets. The Journal of Brand Management, 11(5), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memili, E., Eddleston, K., Kellermanns, F., Zellweger, T., & Barnett, T. (2010). The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and image. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 200–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mencarelli, R., & Riviere, A. (2015). Perceived value in B2B and B2C: A comparative approach and cross-fertilization. Marketing Theory, 15(2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mervold, C. (1994). Business-to-Business-Kommunikation: Bedingungen und Wirkungen (10th ed.). Hamburg: Spiegel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micelotta, E., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24, 97–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., Lester, R., & Cannella, A. (2005). Family involvement, agency and financial performance in the fortune 1000.Working paper, HEC Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C. (2002, January). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U., & Green, M. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(4), 248–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2016). Image and reputation of family firms: a systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 335–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultheiss, B. (2011). Markenorientierung und -führung für B-to-B Familie-nunternehmen. Determinanten, Erfolgsauswirkungen und instrumentelle Ausgestaltung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steier, L. (2001). Next-generation entrepreneurs and succession: An exploratory study of modes and means of managing social capital. Family Business Review, 14(3), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries: The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 41(4), 393–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. Z., Watson, G. F., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2016). Dynamic relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(5), 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel C. Botero .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Botero, I.C., Spitzley, D., Lude, M., Prügl, R. (2019). Exploring the Role of Family Firm Identity and Market Focus on the Heterogeneity of Family Business Branding Strategies. In: Memili, E., Dibrell, C. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Heterogeneity among Family Firms. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77676-7_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics