Exploring brand-beneficiary relationships within a charity context

Conference: AMA 11th Global Brand Conference 2016

Dates: 27 April-29 November 2016

Abstract:

An increasing number of charities have been involved in branding initiatives during recent years (Stride, 2006) and many have realised the importance of branding as a means to “communicating value and meaning” (Hankinson, 2001a, p. 231). Several high-profile charities in the UK embarked on branding strategies in the 1990s, resulting in improving their brand image at a national level (Bennett and Gabriel, 2003) in addition to attracting more donor funding (Hankinson, 2001b). In academia, there has been a growing interest in analysing charities as brands over the past decade though there have been scant attention to the study of such organisations using a brand relationship paradigm. Therefore, the main purpose of this investigation was to provide new perspectives on how beneficiaries perceived their relationships with a healthcare charity brand through an interpersonal relationship metaphorical lens (Fournier 1998).

Methodology/approach This study focussed on one category of stakeholders referred to as beneficiaries for the purpose of this study. They were people living with arthritis that benefitted directly or indirectly from the existence of the charity. Given the fact that this study was being approached through a brand lens, there was a need to operationally define what was meant by the charity as a brand. The definition proposed by Abratt and Kleyn (2010) was adopted whereby the charity brand was conceptualised as “the expressions and images of the organisation’s identity” (p.1053). A social constructionist approach was adopted for this investigation since emphasis was laid upon understanding the participant’s perspective of reality while also recognising that the meanings associated to the participant’s life world were influenced by his/her social relationships: “the individual’s cultural milieu and group affiliations provide them with lenses through which they view relationships, themselves, and others and endow them meaning” (Koro-Ljunberg 2008, p.434). A qualitative and interpretive methodology was therefore used to explore the different social realities in existence from the perspectives of the participants as well as gaining a deeper understanding of the cultural and social context in which these meanings were constructed. Data collection methods involved qualitative in-depth interviews with twenty-two participants including three extensive biographical interviews. Interpersonal metaphors were proposed as a heuristic to facilitate understanding and explanation of relationship dimensions identified (Avis et al., 2012). A thematic approach was adopted in terms of data analysis following the procedures of data reduction proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006).

Findings Relationship forms presented in this section are defined through the roles charity brands have in their relationship with beneficiaries, following a similar approach used by Saledin (2012) in his study of teenage-brand relationships. Four relationship roles were identified from the perspectives of beneficiaries, which are discussed in the subsequent sections: Mentor, Befriender, Entertainer and Enabler. A desired relationship role of Medical Expert was also identified.

Mentor - The Mentor metaphor is used to describe a relationship role where the brand is perceived as being a more knowledgeable mature person, who is always there in times of trouble or anxiety. For many beneficiaries, the brand plays a mentor role in their lives, especially in the earlier days of diagnosis. The mentor role is seen as mostly needed when someone has just been diagnosed. There is a need for such people to have someone who can understand their current state of mind, with whom they can anonymously share their emotions and anxieties, but also who can provide helpful advice on how to deal with this new condition.

Befriender - The Befriender is used as a metaphor to describe someone whom one would seek to satisfy our social interaction needs. The primary motivation to have a befriender would be to just have a casual chat. Traditionally people have been joining branches in the regions for the opportunity to meet people in similar condition, so they could share similar experiences. However, there are also more and more people joining the online forum, viewing it as a very important service provided by the charity. In its befriender role, the charity brand is seen as providing platforms for people with a similar medical condition to share views related to it, but it also allows them to get out of their isolation.

Entertainer - The Entertainer metaphor is used to describe a relationship form where the beneficiary interacts with the charity only for entertainment purposes. It was noted that many branches at regional level only function as a social club, with activities only geared towards entertaining their guests. It seemed that many branches are operating as social clubs, and that the charity’s current name is just a brand name that provides them an excuse to meet and play bingo or other activities that are only fun-based without any reference to arthritis.

Enabler - The Enabler role of the charity brand refers to the function of allowing people to achieve things that they would not normally be able to do so in their current situation. The ‘Enabler’ metaphor is used to describe a relationship type where the beneficiary joins the charity because the charity allows him/her to feel useful and empowered. In many cases, people diagnosed with arthritis have to quit their job and through the charity, they have the possibility to be involved in new things and feel they that are making a contribution in society. The enabler role also involves building more confidence in its beneficiaries, so they can deal with all the different pressures that they could face as people living with arthritis.

Medical expert - There was also a desire for the charity brand to have a Medical Expert role as well. It seemed that after the initial stage where the beneficiary appreciates the Mentor role of the charity, they would also see the charity to have a more ‘medical expert’ role. The charity does not currently provide any sort of medical service, but staff usually signpost people to relevant information because they do not have the expertise to do so. For many beneficiaries, it seems that the charity could do no more than just provide emotional support and signposting, especially due to the fact that other smaller charities, which are relatively new in the field, are playing such a role.

Theoretical implications This study investigated the existence of brand relationship types from a researcher and consumer metaphor perspective (Avis et al., 2012). Such an approach had so far been used in a commercial context (consumer-brand relationships) and has not yet been used in a corporate brand and/or charity context though Suvatjis and de Chernatony (2009) have acknowledged the relevance of using interpersonal relationship metaphors in furthering the understanding of dyadic relationships between consumers and corporate brands: “metaphorical anthropomorphization of the organisation emphasizes the conveyance not only of human qualities but of all intangible and tangible attributes intended to be shared in the relationship” (p.354). Four relationship roles (Mentor, Befriender, Entertainer, Enabler) and one desired relationship role (Medical Expert) were identified from the perspectives of beneficiaries. This study contributes to the burgeoning literature on consumer-brand relationships where interpersonal metaphors have been used to uncover fresh insights to understanding consumer-brand relationships (e.g. Fournier, 1998; Ji, 2002; Saledin, 2012). Moreover, this is the first study of its kind that attempted to understand brand relationship roles and expectations from the perspective of beneficiaries through metaphoric transfer in a non-profit context.

Practical implications The use of relationship metaphors allowed for a better understanding of beneficiaries’ expectations of the relationship they want to have with the charity brand. Such an approach could also help managers in better understanding how a customer’s desired relationship is determined and whether customer segmentation could be carried out in terms of desired relationship roles. This study provides a new perspective to this particular charity’s management to understanding desired relationship roles, which could lead to better relationship role alignment and customer relationship segmentation in the future and segmentation beneficiaries based on their desired relationship (Keller and Lehmann, 2006).

Limitations This study was exploratory in nature with the main aim of understanding phenomena through a brand relationship metaphoric lens. This study therefore carries the usual limitations of inductive qualitative research as well as the issues involved with the use of metaphor in marketing research (Avis et al., 2012). Moreover, as in other previous research in brand relationships using such approach, data analysis and findings produced were based on a subjective interpretation of the researcher (Saledin, 2012).

Originality/value This study is an innovative contribution to both the charity branding literature which could inspire further research in that specific area and encourage more applications of corporate branding and brand relationship theory in a charity context. Future research could explore in a more comprehensive way the relationship types that exist between other groups of stakeholders and charity brands.

References Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2010) Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations: reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46: 1048-1063.

Avis, M., Aitken, R. and Ferguson, S. (2012) Brand relationship and personality theory metaphor or consumer perceptual reality?. Marketing Theory, 12(3): 311-331.

Bennett, R., and Gabriel, H. (2003) Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (3): 276-289.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3: 77-101.

Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4): 343-353.

Hankinson, P. (2001a) Brand orientation in the charity sector: A framework for discussion and research. International Journal of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6: 231-242.

Hankinson, P. (2001b) Brand orientation in the top 500 fundraising charities in the UK. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 10: 346-360.

Ji, M. F. (2002) Children's relationships with brands:“True love” or “one‐night” stand?. Psychology & Marketing, 19(4): 369-387.

Keller, K. L. and Lehmann, D. R. (2006) Brands and branding: research findings and future priorities, Marketing Science, 25 (6): 740–759. Koro-Ljunberg, M. (2008) A social constructionist framing of the research interview. In: J. Holstein and J. Gubrium (eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research. New York: The Guildford Press, pp.429-445.

Saledin, S. A. (2012) Teenagers’ purposive brand-relationships: from social filters to shoulders to lean on. In: S. Fournier et al. (eds.) Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge, pp.262-278. Stride, H. (2006). An investigation into the values dimensions of branding: implications for the charity sector. International journal of non-profit and voluntary sector marketing, 11, 115–124.

Suvatjis, J., and de Chernatony, L. (2012) Corporate identity and its reflective effect in developing brand relationships. In: S. Fournier et al. (eds.) Consumer-Brand Relationships: Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge, pp.351-381.

Source: Manual