Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Brand Hypocrisy
Sanne Frandsen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Conceptual Framework
The current corporate branding literature argues that brands gain their increasing symbolic power through consistency
in the corporate brand management (Balmer, 2001, Balmer & Gray, 2003, de Chernatony, 2002; Hatch & Schultz,
2001; 2003; 2008; Ind, 2001; Schultz, 2005, Schultz & de Chernatony, 2002). This consistency is needed, as the brand
would otherwise loose credibility in the interaction with multiple stakeholders. It is not surprising that the literature
insists on consistency, as the corporate brand is said to represent the core, collective identity of the organisation, ―who
we are‖ (Balmer & Gray, 2003). Accordingly, consistency applies to various aspects of the corporate brand
management in terms of both integrated planning, aligning employees and coherent brand experiences.
The concept of brand hypocrisy challenges the assumption of consistency. Hypocrisy is defined by Brunsson as,
―signifying a difference between words and deeds, the eventuality that organizations may talk in one way, decide in
another and act in a third‖ (Brunsson, 2003a, xiii). In a corporate branding context, hypocrisy questions whether brand
ideas and brand talk are truly conveyed into organisational brand practices and brand actions. Brunsson (1993, 2003a,
2003b) argues that hypocrisy often occurs unintentionally, but suggests that it should be seen as part of the solution, not
the problem. This is because, brand hypocrisy enables the organisation to respond to and foster legitimacy towards
inconsistent interests in their environment, while still being efficient and produce goods or services, by decoupling
brand talk and brand actions. Often external stakeholders have too little insight to the organisation to evaluate if the talk
is in fact conveyed into action, therefore symbolic brand talk has value in it self as it reassures the external stakeholders
that their interests are being considered and that the organisation is responsive to their demands
The outcome of such a gap between ‗who we say we are‘ and ‗who we really are‘ created by brand hypocrisy may have
two different outcomes. From a positive perspective, Christensen, Morsing and colleagues argue that organisations
sustain themselves through the idealised (brand) talk, as it is a way to announce an ideal self-image to the organisational
environment, thus mobilising internally and externally ‗what can be made true‘. (Christensen, Morsing & Cheney,
2008; Christensen, Morsing & Thyssen, 2011). From a more negative angle Christensen, Morsing and Thyssen (2011),
however, also point out that hypocrisy may have other more non-desirable consequences in terms cynism, in particular
if it simply ―paper[s] over‖ the realities of the firm‘s activities (Griffin, 2002, p. 232).
So far limited empirical work has demonstrated how corporate branding processes unfold and in particular how the
practitioners adopt the theoretical ideal of consistency. Accordingly, this empirical study aims to contribute to the
existing body of corporate branding literature by following a corporate re-branding process up close, as the management
team together with a newly hired external marketing agency designs, launches and implements a new brand in response
to a negative image among external stakeholders primarily the consumers and the press.
Data Generation and Analysis
I followed the process of management designing and launching a new corporate brand of MGP (Pseudonym), a
European telecommunication company, from April to November, 2009 and subsequently its implementation among
employees in MGP‘s call centres from November, 2009 to February, 2010. I analysed the data using interpretivistic
principles of constructing empirical mysteries and breakdown as suggested by Alvesson and Kärreman (2007). They
propose a reflexive, analytical process, in which empirical material is mobilised as a critical dialogue partner that
challenges, rethinks and illustrates theory. It is a ―systematic search for deviation from what would be expected, given
established wisdom, in empirical contexts‖ (p. 1265), thus the empirical data is used to discover or create theory rather
than justifying it. In this case, the empirical findings question the assumption of consistency represented in the corporate
branding literature.
The empirical data was generated by using three types of sources to capture the planning process of the new corporate
brand. First, interviews (Kvale & Brinckmann, 2001) were conducted with key figures in the branding process. The
respondents were the director of the Marketing Communication (MarCom) department, the director of Corporate
Communication (CorpCom) department and the director of Internal Communication (IntCom). The director of MGP
Call Centres was also interviewed both before the launch of brand and after the ‗implementation‘. Second, active
participant observation (Spradley, 1980) in the HR department, in particular in three meetings where the HR
department, the MarCom department and the external agency (ExtAg) met in order to ‗translate‘ the new corporate
brand into brand actions towards the employees. Third, documents in form of strategic power point presentation were
collected from the MarkCom department, the CorpCom department, the HR department and from the ExtAg.
195