Introduction
On first reading, Lampedusaās proposition may be seen as little more than a riddle wrapped up in a paradox. However, to me, a second reading of Lampedusaās thesis unwittingly divulges something of both the power and the paradox of corporate heritage identities. To me, corporate heritage identities:
- link identity change, identity continuance and the identities of time; and
- are an identity category that is both variable and invariable in that, although identities and symbolism may outwardly appear to be the same, the meanings we give to them can change.
This is what I call Relative Invariance. (In addition, I expand the theoretical notion of an individualās role identities to explain how this can be of saliency to corporate heritage identities: I call this phenomenon Institutional Role Identities.)
Although this article has as its focus the British Monarchy, my insights may be of pertinence for other corporate heritage identities. To me, corporate heritage identities represent an identity category that is, in organisational contexts, seemingly ubiquitous. To me, corporate heritage identities encompass famous, as well as infamous, heritage institutions such as Ambassador Cars (India), the BBC, the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, Coca-Cola, the Cooperative Movement, Harrods, Harvard Business School, Heinz, HSBC Bank, the Jesuits, Manchester United Football Club, the Peopleās Liberation Army of China, Rolls-Royce, Philips, the Red Cross, Rotary Club, Toyota and Yale University.
This article focuses on corporate heritage identities per se. To date, heritage has received little attention in institutional contexts. This being noted, heritage has been the focus of attention in marketing and management in the fields of heritage marketing (Misiura, 2006), heritage tourism (Park, 2010) and the nascent area of corporate heritage brands (Balmer et al., 2006; Urde et al., 2007). Otnes and Maclaren (2007), for instance, have concluded that the intersections between heritage and consumption have largely been ignored by marketing scholars. Marketing scholars, both explicitly and implicitly, note the importance of heritage to a brandās worth and strength (George, 2004) and brand personality (Keller and Richey, 2006).
At this juncture I wish to make a distinction between corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands. The latter encompasses those institutional promises and stakeholder expectations that are, to a lesser or greater degree, seemingly immutable, and which are associated with a corporate brand name and marque. In contrast, corporate heritage identities relate to those institutional attributes and qualities that also are, to a lesser or greater degree, ostensibly invariable, and which, in part, meaningfully define an organisationās corporate identity.
Traditional power, the British Monarchy, and why heritage identities in institutional contexts matter
Max Weber, in his scrutiny of power modes, proffered a cogent, tripartite classification of power types: the rational, the traditional, and the charismatic. For Weber, monarchies were the embodiment of traditional authority, and, to Weber, their legitimacy was derived from tradition and from a seemingly eternal past (Mommsen, 1992). However, while the British Monarchy superficially appears to be invariable in identity terms as evinced by the centuries-old acclamation āGod save the Kingā, both public and monarch alike are fully cognizant of the fact that today, to draw on marketing parlance, āThe customer is Kingā (as a direct consequence of the Crownās morphing into a constitutional monarchy). Heritage identities remain meaningful not only because of their provenance but because of their salience. Broadening the work of Smith (1991), I conclude that heritage identities can enter common consciousness and are of inestimable value vis-Ć -vis a groupās collective memory not only in terms of the institution, but also as an embodiment of cultures, places and time frames. Heritage identities not only have but also give identity.
The British Monarchy: Not an ephemeral or a trivial institution
To me, a scrutiny of monarchy from marketing perspectives is not ephemeral or trivial but is a highly important and desirable corporate marketing undertaking. For instance, the monarchy has an impressive breadth and depth in institutional and in branding terms: Queen Elizabeth is Queen of 100 million people in the 16 realms where she is separately and divisibly Sovereign (Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, etc.) In addition, She is titular head of the Commonwealth of Nations: the latter embraces one billion people: between a quarter and a third of mankind (Cannon and Griffiths, 1998). Moreover, the Crown has divulged important theoretical insights in terms of the historicity of organisations including the powerful notion of āinvented traditionā (Cannadine, 1983; Hobsbawm, 1983) along with the identification of corporate heritage brands (Balmer et al., 2006; Urde et al., 2007). There is global interest in the institution as evinced by the wedding of Prince William in April 2011 when two billion people watched the celebrations on television and an additional 400 million households followed the wedding online (Ahmed, 2011; Starkey, 2011). In general terms, the British Monarchy seemingly appears to follow something of the precepts of corporate marketing in terms of its philosophy and culture. To me, the Crown has an increasingly explicit customer, stakeholder, societal, ethical/CSR orientation and is mindful not only of the present but also of the future and of the past (Balmer, 2011b).
The principal corporate-level constructs which draw on the past
A review of the literature on the past uncovered the following taxonomy of constructs, which appear to be of salience in institutional contexts. The principal constructs are: tradition, custom, nostalgia, melancholia, iconic branding, retro branding, heritage marketing, heritage tourism, corporate heritage identities and corporate heritage brands. In terms of time frames, for me, the aforesaid constructs can be characterised as follows:
- Traditions are rooted in the past.
- Customs evolve from the past.
- Nostalgia is embedded in the past.
- Melancholia is embedded in the past.
- Iconic branding of the past, and present, and which has a heightened cultural significance for the present (the past may be imagined).
- Retro branding reinterprets the past for the present; it evokes the past but is substantially of the present (e.g. a watch having a retro design but a contemporary technology).
- Heritage marketing celebrates a particular past through the lens of the present.
- Heritage tourism commemorates the places of the past through the lens of the present.
- Corporate heritage identities have certain perennial institutional traits, which are of the past, present, and prospective future.
- Corporate heritage brands have a perennial brand promise which is of the past, present and prospective future.
By means of context, Table 1.1 provides succinct explanations of the principal corporate-level constructs which draw on the past and Table 1.2 provides short overviews of the principal corporate-level constructs which draw on the past. Appendix 1 details the central role of history in marketing and in management contexts.
Table 1.1 Succinct explanations of the principal corporate-level constructs which draw on the past or which are linked to the past
| Corporate-level | Succinct explanation | Emphasis constructs linked to the past |
|
| Tradition | āMaintaining the ceremonies of the pastā | Ritual |
| Custom | āMaintaining the activities of the pastā | Identity |
| Nostalgia | āSeeking the happiness of the pastā | Emotional |
| Melancholia | āSeeking the sadness of the pastā | Emotional |
| Iconic branding | āDeriving meaning from culturally dominant brands from the pastā | Cultural |
| Retro branding | āLinking with a particular period of the pastā | Historical |
| Heritage marketing | āMarketing the pastā | Epochal |
| Tourism marketing | āMarketing the places of the pastā | Locality |
| Corporate heritage identities | āGoing forwards with a corporate identityās meaningful pastā | Identity continuance |
| Corporate heritage brands | āGoing forwards with a brandās meaningful pastā | Brand guarantee/continuance |
Table 1.2 Scrutinising the principal corporate-level constructs which draw on the past
| Constructs |
|
| Tradition | Tradition especially refers to the maintenance of fixed behaviours, and conventions, which are characterised by their invariance. The purpose of tradition is to bind and to exclude and can be an activity of selection, revision and invention (Sarup, 1996). Tradition can be invented and the notion of invented tradition has been shown to be important to organisations such as monarchies and universities (Hobsbawm, 1983). Invented tradition can be a powerful blend of art and artifice. Invented tradition refers to a set of practices which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by reputation and which implies ā and the importance of the word āimpliesā needs to be stressed here ā continuity with the past (Hobsbawm, 1983). In corporate marketing terms, events and rituals can accord an institution a degree of distinctiveness, differentiation and attraction. Consider the distinctiveness accorded to the USAās second oldest university ā the College of William and Mary ā which, since the early twentieth century, has introduced and communicated its historical ties with the British Monarchy and has an annual ceremony where the universityās Royal Charter is read out in full: an event that is unique in the USA and almost certainly is unique in global terms (Balmer, 2011) |
| Custom | Custom refers to the behaviours, which ā unlike tradition ā are flexible and subject to change: tradition in contrast is invariant (or in the case of invented tradition is perceived to be invariant). As such custom refers to the substantive nature of behaviour rather than how a particular behaviour is enacted. Hobsbawm (1983), elucidating the difference between the two, observes that custom refers to the function of the judiciary, whereas tradition relates to symbols and ritualised practices of judges, their wigs and robes for instance |
| Nostalgia | Nostalgia is concerned with the positive associations ā the seeking of happiness ā relating to the past. Such feeling of nostalgia can give an individual a sense of certainty and security. Hewinson (1987) noted that individuals could turn to the past for comfort during times of great social change (and presumably other forms of change which bring anxiety). Holbrook and Schindler (2003) note that in later life an individual might seek out and still derive comfort from those brands with which they had a strong affinity from the ages of 16ā20, and they characterise this as nostalgic bonding. Olfactory experience is especially germane vis-Ć -vis nostalgic bonding. Thus, a British person working overseas might derive considerable benefit of nostalgia by consuming Marmite (yeast spread) whereas Australians might derive an analogous benefit through the consumpti... |
