strategii de pr - articol despre monarhia britanica

8/6/2019 Strategii de PR - Articol Despre Monarhia Britanica

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/strategii-de-pr-articol-despre-monarhia-britanica 1/28

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–28

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/

Commentary

Corporate heritage brands and

the precepts of corporate heritagebrand management: Insights fromthe British Monarchy on the eveof the royal wedding of PrinceWilliam (April 2011) and Queen

Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee(1952–2012)John M.T. Balmer

is Professor of Corporate Marketing and Director of the Centre of Research in Marketing at Brunel University, London.

He is also quondam Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford School of Management and is a

member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Brand Management .

ABSTRACT There are three key precepts that underpin salient corporate heritagebrands: Trust, Authenticity and Affinity. Trust relates to the bilateral confidence

between the institutional brand and stakeholders. Authenticity captures the notion

of preserving the enduring identity traits of corporate heritage brands. Affinity

captures the notion of public sovereignty (for any corporate heritage brand to endure

there has to be public consent). The management of corporate heritage brands

requires policymakers to show corporate brand stewardship to four spheres of

activity: (1) achieving trust between the brand and its brand community; (2)

preserving the brand’s authenticity; (3) showing sensitivity to public concerns and

ensuring the brand remains relevant and respected; (4) demonstrating empathy to

environmental concerns; and (5) ongoing stewardship of the corporate brand. For

its part, the British Monarchy, as a corporate heritage brand, is also dependent onbilateral trust between the Crown and public. This is predicated on public affinity

towards the Monarchy and the Crown maintaining its authenticity as a corporate

brand vis-à-vis its relationship with its brand community. A central finding relates to

the centrality of trust to the management and maintenance of monarchy. In addition,

there is a management requirement to calibrate authenticity (taking institutional

and identity perspectives) and affinity (being mindful of customers and stakeholder

concerns). This study builds on earlier JBM articles on corporate heritage brands

Correspondence: John M.T. BalmerBrunel University, London, UK



Balmer

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers L td. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–282

states1 (the latter was formerly known as

the British Commonwealth).

Queen Elizabeth is a corporate mar-

keting behemoth and an international

personality brand, with the exception of

the Pope, without parallel.

Importantly – in branding terms – Queen

Elizabeth is the manifestation of another,

critically important brand type: a corporate

brand and, moreover, a corporate heritage

brand .

It is the latter – the British Monarchy as

a corporate heritage brand – which I will

focus on in this article. Although the article

also has pertinence for other constitutional

monarchies, the study also sheds light on

the nature and management of corporate

heritage brands per se .

THE EVE OF THE QUEEN’SDIAMOND JUBILEE 1952–2012:

A TIME FOR DIRECTION ANDREFLECTIONOf course, in 2011, in this year when we

build up to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee

celebrations of her accession to the throne

in 1952 there is likely to be a phenomenal

amount of global interest in the British

Monarchy. Arguably, it is most arcane and

potent of institutional brands in British

contexts. As an aside – since 1721 – there

have been more than 50 Prime Ministers

of Great Britain, 11 of whom have servedQueen Elizabeth: Sir Winston Churchill

being the first of these.

In recent months, global inquisitiveness

in the British Crown has been given an

added lustre owing to the success of a low-

budget British film and the news of a Royal

Wedding in London’s Westminster Abbey.

INTRODUCTION: A CELEBRITY,CORPORATE AND CORPORATEHERITAGE BRAND

The characteristic danger of great nations,

like the Roman, or the English, which have

a long history of continuous creation, is

that they may fail from not comprehending

the great institutions they have created.

(Bagehot, 1867)

It is a global personality marque without

compare – an iconic brand par excellence . It

is the most reproduced brand image of

any individual since Jesus Christ – a brand

profile that adorns currencies and stamps

from Australia to Vanuatu, a profile that is

truly global and is undeniably ubiquitous.

Marshalled by parks, pubs and ships from

Aberdeen to Auckland, it is a celebrity

brand name without parallel. Kissed by

numerous Prime Ministers when appointed

to office, her hands have, in addition assometimes noted in the media, been shaken

by 3 million individuals from every part of

the globe and from every walk of life. It is

a brand that enjoys brand support in excess

of 80 per cent of the British population

(MORI, 2002). It is also a brand of dreams:

She appears in them and individuals day-

dream about taking tea with her .

The brand identity of this luminary is

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second:

Queen of the United Kingdom and of her other 15 Realms.

She is Queen of one hundred million people .

In addition, she is linked to one thousand

million people – almost a third of mankind

– by virtue of Queen Elizabeth’s position

as titular Head of the 54 countries that

comprise the Commonwealth of nation

(Balmer et al , 2006; Urde et al , 2007). This article is timely in that it comes during

the lead up to Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations 1952 –2012 along

with the wedding of Prince William to Catherine Middleton (April 2011).

Journal of Brand Management advance online publication, 15 April 2011;

doi:10.1057/bm.2011.21




Commentary

3

At the same, criticism of one member of

the Royal Family in March of this year did,

for a time, take away something of the monar-

chical sheen associated with the above.

The royal wedding of Prince Williamto Catherine MiddletonThe much anticipated wedding of HRH

Prince William (second in line to the British

throne) to Catherine Middleton in April

2011 has engendered renewed international

interest in the rites, rituals and roles of the

British Monarchy. The event has received

widespread media coverage, including TV

coverage in the People’s Republic of China,

and there is likely to be a very large global

TV audience on the wedding day. In

Britain, the wedding will be celebrated

with a public holiday and the minting of a

special five pound coin: many towns and

villages will hold street parties. Some Com-

monwealth countries will issue commemo-

rative stamps to mark the event.

‘The King’s Speech’ and ‘The Queen’The phenomenal success of the film The

King ’s Speech , a movie that focuses on the

travails of King George VI (Queen Eliza-

beth’s father) vis-à-vis his speech impedi-ment (a debilitating stutter). In addition,

the film concentrates on the critical role of

the King’s unorthodox Australian speech

therapist in helping the monarch to navi-

gate his way through the responses required

of the monarch as part of the Coronation

service; in giving radio broadcasts and

public speeches and, significantly, the

King’s speech to Britain and the Empire at

the start, in 1939, of the Second World

War (1939 – 1945). Clearly, this movie hasnot only reinforced but has also burnished

the collective memory of the pivotal role

of the Crown during the Second World

War. The film, which explores the parallel

teacher – student and monarch – subject rela-

tionships, has sparked ‘swooning adulation’

since its release in Britain in January 2011

(The Economist , 2011). The film received

the highest number of Oscar awards (four:

including the Best Film and Best Actor

categories). It also received seven British

Academy of Film and Television Arts

awards and one Golden Globe award.A few years earlier, it was another motion

picture, ‘The Queen ’, which generated a

not-dissimilar fascination and which re-

fired increased interest in the monarchy,

especially among the many Caribbean

nations where Queen Elizabeth remains

Head of State (The Economist , 2008).

Mention can also be made of the popular

2002 Shawcross’s BBC TV documentary

‘Queen and Country ’ (Shawcross, 2002) and

the phenomenal success of the 1969

BBC documentary on the British Crown,

‘Royal Family ’, which was the first docu-

mentary of its type on this most arcane of

British institutions. The BBC, as part

of the celebrations for Queen Elizabeth’s

Diamond Jubilee, will broadcast, in 2012,

a three-part TV documentary presented

by Andrew Marr, a prominent BBC TV

and Radio news, current affairs and arts

anchor.

Arguably, therefore, 2011 should be a

time for reflection and for contemplatingfuture directions for the Crown in the

build-up to the Diamond Jubilee. As such,

a further scrutiny of this institution via a

corporate branding lens on the eve of the

worldwide jubilee celebrations (in Britain and

the Commonwealth) is, perhaps, timely.

It is also probable that interest in mon-

archy will reflect the Zeitgeist that will, no

doubt, characterise the next 2 years: the

apogee of which, no doubt, will be formal

opening of the Olympics (another notableglobal corporate heritage brand) by the

Queen in London in 2012.

Initial thoughts on corporate heritagebrands and the British MonarchyAs we will see, scrutinising the British

Monarchy through the lens of a corporate



Balmer


Monarchy (which arguably is a corporate

heritage brand) is all too conspicuous.

HERITAGE BRANDS: FROM THEREAL THING TO THE REAL QUEEN

In the commercial realm, if the Coca Colabrand can claim (as a heritage product and

corporate brand) – in terms of strength of

brand heritage – profile and symbolic value

to be ‘The Real Thing ’, then, arguably,

Queen Elizabeth II can equally affirm to be

‘The Real Queen ’ in terms of its provenance,

profile, global presence and psychological

potency. Both are emblematic of their

respective nations: Coca Cola vis-à-vis the

United States and Queen Elizabeth in terms

of the United Kingdom/her other Realms

and in relation to the Commonwealth.

If it is indisputably the case that the

British Monarchy, among the world’s

monarchical brands, has a prominent posi-

tion, this is because the brand has entered

into common consciousness. Why is this so?

British Monarchs still wear crowns, have a

formal coronation ceremony, sit on a

throne and still, occasionally, ride in a

gilded carriage: many monarchies have dis-

pensed with all of the above and some have

kept only a few of these erstwhile monar-chical practices. It is a brand that inhabits

time and space in a way that few other

institutional brands can equal. Of course,

until the mid-twentieth century, a quarter

of the world’s population were subjects of

the British King and a good many were

subjects of Queen Elizabeth II. Remark-

ably, perhaps, 16 nations still continue as

constitutional monarchies with Queen

Elizabeth II remaining as their sovereign.

Among these Kingdoms are the UnitedKingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,

Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Jamaica,

New Zealand and so on.

The Monarchy: A potent heritage brandIn UK contexts, arguably, the British

Crown is the most potent, as well as the

heritage brand means that, in branding

terms, importance is, necessarily, accorded

not only to the past and present , but also to

the prospective future . Or, to put it slightly

differently, corporate heritage brands are

simultaneously concerned not only withthe present, but also with reflections, and,

importantly, directions. Moreover, corpo-

rate heritage brands are concerned with

history – sometimes real, sometimes ideal-

ised and sometimes imagined – and history

in the making: a concern with the future.

Corporate heritage brands are not stuck in

the past or unduly hidebound by history,

but are informed by the precept of ‘ pressing

forwards with the past ’.

In terms of the manifestation of heritage,

this can, at a more macro level, characterise

corporate purposes, activities, competen-

cies, cultures, philosophies and strategies.

At a more micro level, the heritage foot-

print can be found in design heritage,

advertising and communication heritage,

sensory heritage, architectural heritage and

so on.

Corporate heritage brands can have a

symbiotic relationship with other heritage

brands (place, communities, professions and

so on) and can have a meaningful/definingbilateral relationship with other corporate

heritage brands, for example Bentley (cars)

and Breitling (watches), or, in the United

States, the close association between the

College of William and Mary and the

British Monarchy as we will shortly see.

Questions of brand archaeology andbrand strategyIn terms of corporate heritage brand man-

agement, there is a requirement to marrybrand archaeology (a concern with a brand’s

provenance and historic attractiveness) with

brand strategy (marshalling the brand her-

itage in order to maintain its brand saliency

and competitive advantage for the future).

As such, the similarity between corpo-

rate heritage brands and the British




Commentary

5

most familiar, of all British corporate her-

itage brands. With the passage of time, the

British Monarchy has become less ‘product-

like’, owing to the atrophy of its political

power, and more ‘brand-like’ as its symbolic

and emotional power has burgeoned.As marketing scholars have observed

(viz : Otnes and Maclaran, 2007), the ‘con-

sumption’ of the British Crown can create

a sense of self – a sense of identity – for

individuals and groups; this is similar to

many other corporate brands and institu-

tions (football clubs are a case in point) that

have a similar, ubiquitous, status as corpo-

rate heritage brands. As with these sports

brands, the British Monarchy can some-

times engender a religious-like loyalty

owing to its quasi-sacred aura.

The British Monarchy and theCollege of William and Mary,Virginia (USA)The appropriation of the British Monarchy

to create a sense of institutional and group

identity can be seen in the remarks made

by the President of the College of William

and Mary in Virginia (the second oldest

University in the United States) given in

2009. His speech also provided a lucid and

cogent explanation why heritage and historyare highly salient. The speech is significant

in that it represents a somewhat effusive

endorsement of that University’s continuing

– although informal – links with the British

Crown. This appears to be quite atypical in

the United States: (See Box 1). It should be

noted that the Charter Day ceremony at the

College of William and Mary is, de facto , an

invented tradition and a highly meaningful

one at that. Invented tradition refers to those

organisational events that appear to have a

considerable provenance, but whose origins

are in fact more recent. This is discussed

further later on.

Certainly on reflection, and in the con-

text of this article, the observations of the

President of William and Mary are not that

surprising and are in fact highly prescient.

Box 1: The College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA: 2009 Charter Day speech delivered by the College’s President: Taylor

Reveley

Why do we gather in PBK Hall each year for Charter Day? Precious few other colleges or universities set asidea day each year to celebrate the details of their births. Certainly, no other college or university celebrates

by reading a royal charter from the late seventeenth century. Indeed, among the thousands of colleges and

universities in America, virtually none but William and Mary have a royal charter to read. So, why do we gather

each year for Charter Day?

Perhaps we gather because William and Mary is very old, and people in Virginia like old things. Doubtless, we all

remember why it takes five Virginians to replace a light bulb – one to unscrew the old bulb and insert the new,

and four others to talk about how truly marvellous the old bulb was. So, Charter Day is very Virginian, a time to

remember fondly our ancient self.

Or perhaps we keep Charter Day so faithfully because of our ardent regard for the British royal family. Recall

our delight in having The Queen – Elizabeth II – in our midst twice, with 50 years separating her two visits, and

Prince Charles in 1981 and again 1993, when he returned to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the College. Of

course, it was not always so. William and Mary spat out the British royals during the Revolution. It jettisoned

our college seal crafted in England, replacing it with one apparently designed by George Wythe from 1783

to 1929, when the original seal was resurrected. Wythe, Washington, Jefferson, Marshall, Monroe and their

Revolutionary colleagues would not have gotten a kick out of gathering once a year to read a royal charter, but

a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in Williamsburg since the Revolution.

Beyond Virginians loving old things, and William and Mary loving royal Britons, perhaps there is a bit more

substance to why Charter Day appeals to us. Let me try to capture what that substance might be. To quote an

article I wrote a few years ago – it is always refreshing to quote yourself:



Balmer


‘ Judging by behaviour, people do put stock in what came first and, more generally, in things with some age on

them. Jamestown stresses it got underway before Plymouth Rock as the oldest permanent English settlement in

America …. Among the various states, Virginia and Massachusetts guard their temporal primacy. Washington

and Lee University and Hampden-Sydney College will disagree forever over which is the tenth oldest institution

of higher education in the United States and which the eleventh. Most people prefer to cite the sayings of longdead presidents than those still living or only recently gone the way of all flesh. We line up to see famous old

things, like the original Declaration of Independence. We suffer angst when antiquities are lost. We celebrate

institutional birthdays every 25 years, with special passion on occasions denominated in the 100s’.

‘Why do people behave this way? Perhaps because there is a presumption of quality inherent in age. People who

belong to old institutions, accordingly, often feel distinguished themselves because of the association. They are

nourished vicariously by the institution’s deep roots and flourish under the glory of its ancient foliage. They feel

linked to past generations, on common ground with those who also have been nourished by the institution in

earlier years. This is especially true when those who have gone before went on to glittering achievement ’.

‘Why should there be a presumption of quality in age? Perhaps because it suggests staying power, the capacity

over time to survive adversity and seize opportunity, the poise and dignity that come from surmounting

countless flaps and crises, and the wisdom born of experience, especially the knowledge what not to change

even as everything else does…’.

‘Whether universities, regiments or law firms, some institutions move powerfully from one generation to the

next. Others find themselves becalmed, or they founder. Reasons for success and failure are legion. But those

institutions that prevail usually take strength from their past. They remember their heroes, their times of peril

and triumph, and their basic beliefs. The importance of the past as a source of confidence and poise grows with

the turmoil of the present’.

So, on Charter Day we celebrate the presumption of quality inherent in William and Mary’s being the second

oldest institution of higher education in the United States.

We celebrate the wisdom born of experience over 316 years, including our sense of what not to change even as

everything else changes.

We celebrate the staying power born of perseverance in the face of wars, financial disasters and controversies,

both internal and external.

We celebrate the poise and dignity born of experience and perseverance – poise and dignity not just during the

good times and but especially during the bad times. There is very little William and Mary has not seen and very

little it has not survived.

Inexperienced and untested institutions do not always respond with the grace under pressure shown by those

who have been around for more than three centuries. So, we celebrate each year on Charter Day the College’s

grace under pressure.

The mythical bird, the phoenix, was on the seal George Wythe designed for the College, the one I mentioned

a moment ago that served William and Mary well from 1783 to 1929. A graven image of a ferocious-looking

phoenix sits where our Old Campus meets the New Campus. The phoenix was placed there in honour of the

College’s 275th birthday with a quote that reads: ‘From the old to the new, may this entrance, like the phoenix,

symbolize a look to the future made promising by a challenging heritage’.

A very happy Charter Day 2009 to us all!

Taylor Reveley. President of the College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA

7 February 2009

Reproduced in full from http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/archive/2009/president-taylor-reveley-remarks,-charter-

day-2009-001.php with the kind permission of the President of the College of William and Mary .

Box 1 continued




Commentary

7

This is because our fascination with her-

itage and brands, and corporate brands in

particular, is redolent of our age. An age

that is rediscovering the value of the iconic,

symbolic and nostalgic: key features of con-

temporary branding (Naughton and Vlasic,1998; Brown et al , 2003; Holt et al , 2004).

It is no surprise, then, that this has seen

a surge of interest in corporate heritage

brands. It is equally of little surprise that

an examination of monarchy led to the

identification of corporate heritage brands

as a distinct category of brand in a study

of the Swedish Monarchy undertaken by

Professor Mats Urde, Professor Stephen A.

Greyser, our study was reported in the

Journal of Brand Management (Balmer et al ,

2006).By means of context, Box 1 details the

speech made by the President of the Col-

lege of William and Mary detailed earlier;

Box 2 provides supplementary information

in terms of the British Monarchy’s creden-

tials as a corporate brand; Box 3 provides

Box 2: Overview of the British Monarchy’s credentials as a corporate brand

In global contexts, there are two corporate heritage brands that are in a class of their own: the Papacy (an

elected theocratic monarchy) and the British Monarchy (a hereditary constitutional monarchy) and the latter – although encountering numerous travails – has, for the main, proved to be protean, durable, resilient and

relevant since time immemorial. Having endured for more than a millennia – taking account of its English and

Scottish derivations – it is a corporate brand that survived the ‘institutional regicide’ that swept away many

monarchies and dynasties in the aftermath of World War I. Currently, in Great Britain, the very mention of

the phrase ‘the firm’ is seen, in common parlance, to denote the British Monarchy: the phrase was popularised

by King George VI ( Junor, 2005; Micklethwait and Wooldridge, 2005). The implication of the above is that not

only is the monarchy akin to the modern corporation but, currently, should also be viewed and – in general

management terms – managed as an institutional brand: this is key hypothesis of this article.

It is increasingly a sine quo non that monarchies – as with other institutional forms – are dependent on effective

general management of their corporate brands if they are to endure and remain meaningful.

At first sight, the management of monarchy might seem to be a somewhat arcane and atypical general

management concern. However, on reflection, it is indubitably the case that the contrary is true especially when

account is given of the extraordinary breadth and depth of brand loyalty shown towards monarchies; not only

in both British but also in global contexts. A key premise of this article is to reveal, in theoretical terms, the key

precepts of monarchical management in terms of monarchies as corporate brands and, in addition, to explicate

how this might have a utility for general managers.

In several regards, monarchies are akin to the modern corporation as with many contemporary corporate

brands. The British Monarchy, for instance, has powerful visual iconography such as its coat of arms and its use

of Royal Cipher ‘EIIR’ and the symbol of the Crown: it also has prominent verbal iconography such as the use

of the prefix Royal and Regius (viz: Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the appointment of Regius – ‘ Royal’

– Professors at Oxford and Cambridge).

Moreover, as a corporate brand, the British Crown has undergone several rebrandings, brand deletions and brand

extensions.Viz:

Monarchical corporate rebranding

Consider the change of dynasty/dynastic name of the British Monarchy during the Great War (1914 – 1918) when

Great Britain was at war with Germany and the public were outraged that their monarchy had strong Teutonic

links, no more so than its dynastic name, which was Saxe, Coburg and Gotha. To assuage public concerns, and

to downplay the Crown’s foreign antecedents, the dynastic name replaced by the decidedly English-sounding

dynastic name of Windsor (Hough, 1981; Junor, 2005). A failure to change the name might possibly have

brought about a rapid Requiem for Britain’s monarchy.



Balmer


more, in-depth, examination of the

phenomenon was, actually, provided by

another celebrated scholar Professor David

Cannadine (1983).

The identification of corporateheritage brands as a distinctbranding categoryEqually, as readers of the JBM may, it was

a branding study of monarchy that led my

esteemed academic colleagues and myself

to introduce, define and elaborate the con-

struct of corporate heritage brands (Balmer

et al , 2006; Urde et al , 2007). My two aca-

demic partners being the eminent Scandi-

navian branding scholar Professors MatsUrde (Lund University, Sweden) and the

renowned marketing academic Professor

Stephen A. Greyser (Harvard Business

School, USA).

In the second of our two articles (Urde

et al , 2007) also published in JBM a review

of the literature enabled us to compare and

information on constitutional monarchies

generally and Box 4 details information on

the British Monarchy specifically.

THE DISCOVERY OF CORPORATEHERITAGE BRANDS: THEINVENTION OF TRADITION ANDTHE INEXTRICABLE LINK WITHTHE BRITISH MONARCHYAs readers of the Journal of Brand Manage-

ment ( JBM ) may recall, it was the legendary

Professor Eric Hobsbawm (Emeritus Pro-

fessor of Economic and Social History at

the University of London) who, as a con-

sequence of his scrutiny of the British

Monarchy among other institutions, intro-duced the term ‘invented tradition ’.

Invented tradition refers to a set of prac-

tices that seek to inculcate certain values

and norms of behaviour by reputation and

implies – and the importance of the word

implies needs to be stressed here – conti-

nuity with the past (Hobsbawm, 1983). A

Arguably, this was the most strategically effective and celebrated rebranding within recent times.

Monarchical corporate brand deletions

This can happen when a national community has eschewed its links with the Crown; the establishment of

republican constitutions in the United States and India are cases in point. In Eire, and what was to eventuallyemerge as the Republic of Ireland, the iconography of monarchy was progressively removed or altered; postage

stamps being a highly visible case in point ( Jeffery, 2006).

Monarchical corporate brand extensions and endorsements

These include the conferment of a Royal Title (The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra); the granting of a Royal

Charter (The BBC) and the award of a Royal Warrant – ‘By Appointment to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’

– (Twinning’s Tea and Coffee Merchants is a case in point). In marketing contexts, Royal Warrants are seen to

be a valuable aspect of an organisation’s corporate marketing/marketing mix (Swengley, 2006).

In general terms, we should note that a very great deal of the writing on monarchy is superficial; there is, or

has been, a degree of prejudice – and among parts of the academic community, including those from marketing

and management, insouciance – in taking an objective view of this important and highly meaningful, prominent

and global institutional form. Taking a general management and strategic perspective, this article seeks to,

in part, readdress the above imbalance and to make a theoretical and normative contribution to the generalmanagement of constitutional monarchy per se by identifying the key precepts of monarchical management.

As a prominent lead writer of The Times (of London) reflected:

The trouble is that today it (the British Monarchy) is discussed only in terms of weary triviality or sickening gush (including

hostile sickening gush) and anyone trying to be half serious on this subject will most likely be drowned in the triviality and

gush as soon as he opens his mouth. (Levin, 1991, p. 69)

Box 2 continued




Commentary

9

Box 3: Constitutional monarchies in context

Such is the cognitive profile and power of monarchy that it has, for at least the last two millennia, passed into

the intuitive consciousness of mankind (Low, 1927, p. 276). The monarchies of Britain, Denmark and Sweden,

for instance, date back to the first millennium (Cannon and Griffiths, 1998; Duhs, 2000). Often perceived as an

outmoded institutional form, constitutional monarchy is, paradoxically, the preferred constitutional system in

countries that are known to be industrially and economically advanced, egalitarian, decidedly democratic and

socially progressive such the Netherlands and Norway.

Constitutional monarchies – such as those in Australia, Belgium, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Spain,

Sweden, Thailand and the United Kingdom; constitutional monarchies – being the mode of monarchy discussed

in this article – define a state whose titular head of state is Monarch who: ‘reigns but does not rule’ (Bogdanor,

1997, p. 1): the position is analogous to the post of Chancellor in British and in certain Commonwealth

Universities where their roles and responsibilities are largely symbolic and ceremonial: an example of highly

meaningful, although, ‘soft’ power.

Where constitutional monarchies do have constitutional power these are, largely, ‘reserve powers’; such

powers are, typically, only used in extremis.

Currently, constitutional monarchies have a critically important symbolic branding role as an icon of both state

and people. This role, and its attendant responsibilities and obligations, is sometimes articulated in the very

opening of national constitutions (in an analogous manner, the opening lines Royal Charters of Universities

invariably assign importance to visual symbolism, in terms of the grant of a coat of arms).

An indicative example of a Crown’s symbolic role is found in Article 1 of the Constitution of Japan, in which the

symbolic role of the sovereign and, de facto , provides a reminder that brand ownership resides with the people.

As such, the position of The Emperor of Japan is described as:

The symbol of the state and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides

sovereign power.’ (Bowring and Kornicki, 1993, p. 283)

Monarchies, as ancient and polymorphous institutional forms, engender considerable public support and interest

on the global stage (The Economist , 2006a, b): the global television audience of two and half billion watched the

funeral of Princess Diana in London is a case in point. Monarchies – taking a general management perspective –

represent a highly significant, if under researched, institutional category. Monarchs not only have a constitutional

function role, but a symbolic function: the prominent British historian David Starkey (2002) has asserted that

monarchies are brand-like. The management of a monarchy such as that in Britain means that senior courtiers

have day-to-day stewardship of a brand community that extends to almost a third of mankind by virtue of the

Crown’s Commonwealth associations: this is a very real, significant, if daunting, general management concern.

Clearly, the notion that people consume monarchies in a way that is not dissimilar from other corporate

brands – although on both a national and a global scale – would indicate that management scholars are well

placed to advance our comprehension of these important institutional forms: such insights would complement

those provided by scholars of political science; constitutional law and history in terms of our comprehension of

monarchy.

Of course, there are intellectual arguments against monarchy, as well as a visceral dislike of the institution.

Some countries, such as the Republic of Ireland and the United States, as a result of their pattern of historical

development, have troubled and negative associations with the British Monarchy and even today remain outside

the Commonwealth – an association of nations that, typically, had constitutional ties with the United Kingdom

– and of which Queen Elizabeth is its notional and symbolic figurehead. However, it should be noted that aninterest in and attraction towards Royalty can be accompanied by an animus vis-à-vis monarchy (as well as vice

versa) by both individuals and nations alike. In the above contexts, consider the following comment made by

President Roosevelt in 1943 in relation to the continuance of the Italian monarchy with a more recent comment

and that of Laura Bush on the eve of a state visit to the United Kingdom by her husband, President Bush:

‘ The British are definitely monarchists and want to keep Kings on their thrones. They are monarchist-minded,’ whereas,

‘ We would like to get the King out.’ President Roosevelt in 1943 (Roberts, 2009, p. 430)



Balmer


somewhat greater detail (Urde et al ,

2007).

As with the work of Hobsbawm (1983),

who introduced the notion of ‘invention

of tradition’, our individual and collabora-

tive work on monarchy also led to the

identification of the corporate heritage

brand construct (Balmer et al , 2006).

Corporate heritage brands: InitialinsightsIn 2006, we detailed a number of points

relating to corporate heritage brands and tomonarchies as corporate heritage brands

(Balmer et al , 2006). For example, we

asserted that:

(a) monarchies as institutions are very

much like corporate brands including

‘amenability to being managed in a

manner analogous to that for a corpo-

rate brand, especially one with a heritage ’

(Balmer et al , 2006, p. 139);

(b) well-known multigenerational family-owned firms whose CEO still bears the

family name, for example Fisk Johnson

of S.C Johnson and William Clay Ford

of Ford Motor Company or August

Busch IV of Anheuser – Busch, are cor-

porate heritage brands (Balmer et al ,

2006, p. 142);

contrast our understanding of corporate

heritage brands by making reference to

related historically rooted constructs such

as iconic brands, retro branding, heritage

marketing and so on. All, I might add,

are of especial significance and, in

corporate marketing terms, provide a

valuable repertoire of historically rooted

constructs.

In our article (Urde et al , 2007), we also

made the distinction – to us a critical dis-

tinction – between brands with a heritage

and heritage brands. Brands with a heritage

are defined as having a somewhat retro-spective character and logic, whereas the

latter, although corporate heritage, while

drawing on a distinctive brand provenance,

has a pronounced contemporary/forward-

looking personality.

Our first article on corporate heritage

brands (Balmer et al , 2006), which appeared

in a special double edition devoted to cor-

porate branding (edited by Professor

Melewar and Dr Karaosmanoglu), is, to

me, noticeable in a number of regards inthat we

(a) introduced the term corporate heritage

brands and articulated some of their

salient features (Balmer et al , 2006);

(b) went on to explore corporate heritage

brands and their management in

‘ I think it’ s (the British Monarchy) is a fairytale to the United States. Americans have always been fascinated by the

Monarchy and certainly the British Monarchy.’ Laura Bush (Coman et al , 2003)

Monarchies can have a clear economic value. For instance, in Japan the birth of a son to the Crown Prince and

Princess created such excitement that it gave a noticeable economic boom to Japan’s economy, which was

worth more than six hundred and eighty three million pounds (Parry, 2006).

However, as with many corporate brands, the source of their value resides in a brand community ’s attachment

to a marque and the sense of identity they derive from it; this is especially true of the British Monarchy among

others:

The Crown seems to be deeply embedded in the identity of the English people, if not all the British people. The Monarchy

reinforces the sense of English uniqueness. My sense is that removing the British Crown would be akin to psychological

amputation.

Seitz (1998, p. 95): Former US ambassador to the United Kingdom

Box 3 continued




Commentary

11

Box 4: The British Monarchy in context

The British Crown represents the most celebrated of all constitutional monarchies and has, in effect, provided a

template for many other – non-autocratic – monarchies on the global stage. For the above reasons and because

insight from this institution informed this research and examination of the British Crown provide a useful

context for this study.

The historiography of the British Monarchy, and the genealogy of its incumbents, is impressive by any measure

(Cannon and Griffiths, 1998). British monarchs have a remarkable provenance in that they are descended

from, among others, Charlemagne, the Emperor Barbarossa and Rodrigo the Cid. The British Crown, with

the exception of the Papacy and perhaps the Danish monarchy, arguably has the richest, and most celebrated,

pattern of historical development of any monarchy in global contexts.

An examination of the historiography of the British Crown reveals that the institution has metamorphosed

from an elected institution (very early incumbents of the English throne were selected among the aristocracy); a

theocratic institution (the catholic church accorded Kings an especial sacerdotal status); an autocratic institution

(monarchs became absolute, dynastic, rulers); a symbolic institution (the Crown, in recent times, derives its

status from its symbolic rather than political role); an international institution (the British Sovereign is also

Queen of Canada and New Zealand, among many other Realms) and, finally as a high-profile supra-national

institution (the British Monarch’s position as titular head of the Commonwealth.)

In constitutional terms, the British Crown has been characterised as the prototypical constitutional monarchy

(Bogdanor, 1997). Macaulay (1885) in his ‘History of England’ defined this monarchical form, which is different

from absolute monarchs and theocratic monarchies, in the following manner:

According to the pure idea of constitutional royalty, the prince reigns, and does not govern; and constitutional royalty, as it

now exists in England (sic), comes nearer that in any country to the pure idea.

Within the United Kingdom, public support for the British Monarchy is impressive by any measure and has been

so for much of the last century (Viz : Jennings and Madge, 1937). In Britain, 80 per cent of the population is in

favour of the country remaining a monarchy; 82 per cent are satisfied with the way the Queen is exercising her

monarchical role; 80 per cent believe it is important to the nation and 61 per cent feel the institution is highly

respected (MORI, 2002). A recent survey among 15 000 young adults found the Crown to be of particular

significance to their British sense of identity (Smithers, 2006) and public interest in the Crown has shown little

sign of abating as the award-winning film, ‘The Queen’ (Frears, 2006) and the books ‘On Royalty’ (Paxman,

2007) and ‘Queen Elizabeth: The Queen Mother’ (Shawcross, 2009) attest.

Many fail to grasp the extent of Queen Elizabeth II’s global brand community and are unaware that She is, de

facto , 16 Queens rolled into one (Bogdanor, 1997). This is because the Monarch is separately, and divisibly,

Queen of the United Kingdom, as well as Sovereign to 15 Realms ranging in size from Australia and Canada to

the more minuscule nations of Antigua and Barbuda and to tiny Tuvalu. In addition, Queen Elizabeth by virtue of

her status as titular head of the (British) Commonwealth has an association with in excess of an extraordinary

1 000 000 000 people plus worldwide in 54 nations: almost a third of mankind (Hodson, 1995; Cannon and

Griffiths, 1998). In organisational terms, Edwards (2006) concluded that the British Crown was in essence

nothing short of an organisational behemoth.

In addition, account needs to be taken of those individuals and groups who – although do not have any formal

association with the British Monarchy, as in nations such as France, Italy and the United States – still ‘ consume’

the monarchy as a brand and derive pleasure from the institution: such individuals and groups that, to me, have a

vicarious membership of the Crown’s brand community.

In transatlantic contexts, the monarchy is viewed as the single, and most visible, difference between the United

Kingdom and United States (Marr, 2000, p. 43) and, in North American contexts, between Canada (a monarchy)

and the United States (a republic): Canada is sometimes known as ‘The Maple Monarchy’. The importance of

the institution to Canada’s sense of identity and distinctiveness – and thereby further illustrating the Crown’s

credentials as a global brand – is illustrated by the following quotes:



Balmer


cably linked to place (Great Britain) and

to a people, such as the British (Balmer

et al , 2006, pp. 145, 146, 160).

A key aspect of the year 2006 was the ear-

lier work on monarchy and the articulation

of the Royal Branding Mix (Balmer, 2004,2008), which consisted of five elements

(Royal, Regal, Relevant, Respected and

Responsive). It is shown in the diagram-

matic form in Figure 1 and was in several

significant aspects a precursor to our fuller

treatment of corporate heritage brands in

Urde et al (2007): as with the article on

(c) monarchies (by implication corporate

heritage brands too) have the capacity

to harness positive public emotions

that surround the institution and its

brand heritage (Balmer et al , 2006,

p. 142);

(d) managing the crown is similar to man-

aging corporate heritage brands with

the need to focus on identity (the royal dimension), and on being relevant ,

respected, responsive and maintaining

royal rituals, symbolism and regalia (the

regal dimension (Balmer, 2004; Balmer

et al , 2006, p. 159);

(e) the temporal dimension was of critical

importance: ‘All heritage institutions

should recognise that their brands call

for them to be not only of the past and

present , but also of the future ’ (Balmer

et al , 2006, p. 160);(f) one reason why corporate heritage

brands are attractive is because they

may serve as stable reference points in a

changing world (Balmer et al , 2006,

p.160);

(g) by inference, corporate heritage brands,

such as monarchy, are often inextri-

‘ The relationship with the Crown has brought much benefit to the people of Canada and will continue to do so: why

change it? ’ Prime Minister Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, speaking in 1973 ( Shawcross, 2002)

‘ Canadians take some pride in the fact that we have a Queen of Canada. The Americans don ’ t, and this is one of the

defining differences. Americans love royalty but don’ t have any Kings. We do, and this puts us up in the North American

league’ . Former Principal Secretary to the Canadian Prime Minister (see Shawcross, 2002).

Finally, it should be noted that the literature on monarchy, particularly the British Monarchy, is voluminous.

For instance, it has been scrutinised by scholars from the perspective of the history of art (Molesworth, 1969),

commonwealth studies (Butler and Low, 1991; Bell, 2006; Jeffery, 2006; Murphy, 2006), constitutional history

(Chrimes, 1967), constitutional law ( Jennings, 1950; Brazier, 2003), heraldic science (Innes, 1978), history

(Pimlott, 2002), philosophy (Montesquieu, 1748) political science (Hennessy, 1996, 1997; Bogdanor, 1997) and

sociology (Birnbaum, 1955). Of particular note is empirical studies relating to the Crown, including the social

psychological research undertaken by Billig (1991), the anthropological study of Hayden (1987), the social

policy research of Prochaska (1995) and the celebrated sociological inquiry of Shils and Young (1953) into the

Coronation. Other significant sources included Sir Roy Strong’s (2005) disquisition of British Coronations

and Bradley’s (2002) consideration of the Crown’s spiritual dimension; the longitudinal studies of the Crown

undertaken by the UK opinion research consultancy MORI (2002) and the discussion paper on the future of the

monarchy produced by the think-tank, ‘Demos’ (Hames and Leonard, 1998).

Box 4 continued

ROYAL

REGAL RELEVANT

RESPONSIVE RESPECTED

Figure 1: Balmer’s royal branding mix (Balmer, 2004, 2008).

(NB: Royal equates with identity and Regal equates with symbolism,

rituals, regalia and brand behaviour) .




Commentary

13

monarchy, our work on corporate heritage

brands was also published in the JBM .

The five dimensions of corporateheritage brands

In 2007, we (Urde et al , 2007) developedthe above work further by identifying what

we viewed to be the five elements of brand

heritage viz :

(a) track record: delivering value to cus-

tomers and non-customer stakeholders

over (a long) time;

(b) longevity : although on its own it does

not necessarily result in a heritage

brand, it is one component, among

others, that is important;

(c) core values: held for a period of time

and which have guided corporate pol-

icies, behaviours and actions;

(d) use of symbols: reflect a corporate brand’s

past via communications;

(e) history important to its identity : the past

helps define the present.

Figure 2 shows the five dimensions of

brand heritage detailed above in the dia-

grammatic form.

MOVING FORWARD: CORPORATEHERITAGE BRANDS ANDMONARCHYIn this article, I detail my latest work on

the phenomenon of corporate heritage

brands in the context of monarchy and

begin by discussing the literature on

corporate heritage brands and that of trust;

detail the methodology approach; explain

the initial theoretical and normative insights;

introduce a new corporate heritage brand

management/monarchical management

framework; discuss the significance andlimitations of the work and provide general

management advice regarding the custodi-

anship of corporate heritage brands.

This article draws on and builds on pre-

vious collaborative and individual work

cited above, and it is hoped that it makes

a meaningful advance on our understanding

of corporate heritage brands.

THE LITERATURE: LINKINGCORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDSAND TRUSTIn general management contexts, and in the

context of this latest phase of this study,

three studies were found to be especially

salient in examining the British Monarchy:

the diverse literature on monarchy (this will

be examined later) and, moreover, the nas-

cent literature on corporate brands and the

literature on trust.

Scrutinising the literatures on trust and

corporate branding, it became apparent that

there were significant links between them,and this shed light in examining the institu-

tion of monarchy and in furthering our

understanding of corporate heritage brands.

These perspectives provided the context for

this research.

For instance, Trust – and the importance

of mutual trust – between Crowns and

people was a prominent theme in the

literature on monarchy (Bagehot, 1867;

Kantorowicz, 1953; Billig, 1991; Colley,

1996; Bogdanor, 1997; Pimlott, 2002; Bell,2006). In addition, the notions of ‘the cor-

porate brand promise’ and ‘corporate brand

covenant’ (Balmer, 2001a, b) suggested that

an informal type of bilateral contract char-

acterised the relationship between the brand

(the Crown) and the brand community

(the population).

Brand

Stewardship

Track Record

Core values History important

to identity

Use of symbols

Longevity

Figure 2: Elements of brand heritage (Urde et al , 2007).



Balmer


earlier study) in terms of research, the single

case design has the potential to reveal

important insights into unique and signifi-

cant phenomena, and it has been this

approach that has been drawn on here

(Znaniecki, 1934 ; Gouldner, 1955; Norman,1970; Van Maanen, 1979; Bonoma, 1983;

Eisenhardt, 1989; Gill and Johnson, 1991;

Gummesson, 1991; Numagami, 1998;

Churchill and Iacobucci, 2002; Easton,

2003; Gephart, 2004; Yin, 2009). It has

been argued that a single case study meth-

odology has the utility in investigating a

contemporary and previously unexplored

phenomenon and in which multiple

methods of data can be marshalled ( Yin,

2009).

Of course, and to reiterate, it should be

noted that this study, in effect, represents a

continuation of the earlier study of mon-

archy and corporate heritage brands.

As an embedded single case study , the

examination of constitutional monarchies

involved several sub-units of analysis , namely

the monarchies of Britain and Sweden (see

Balmer et al , 2006 for earlier data drawn

from the latter).

The monarchies of Britain and Sweden

are exemplar monarchical forms. As exem-plar monarchical entities, this means that

they represent institutions that have an

especial general management utility in

terms of benchmarking. For this reason, they

are of especial significance to this institutional/

corporate branding category of corporate

heritage brands.

The research presented a number of not

inconsiderable problems both collectively

and individually, and there were severe,

although entirely understandable, con-straints in terms of how the data could be

collected and disseminated vis-à-vis the

Swedish Monarchy, and the difficulty in

gaining access to the British Crown meant

that reliance had to be placed on secondary

data. Any weakness in this regard is, it is

argued, balanced out by the fact that this

In corporate branding contexts, it can be

seen that trust is of especial importance

in providing assurance to customers (see

Levy in Pavitt, 2000, p. 33). Moreover,

corporate trademarks are analogous to trust

marks (Kapferer, 1997). At its essence, brandbuilding is concerned with company, cus-

tomer and stakeholder relationships and the

building of trust between them (Aperia,

2001; Aperia and Back, 2004).

It has been shown that the trustworthiness

of brands reduces risk (see DeChernatony

and McDonalad, 1998). Moreover, brand

loyalty and brand equity is dependent

on trusting behaviour on the part of

consumers (see Kay, 1995; Kapferer, 1997;

Keller, 1998). Individuals marshal brands

to define their sense of self, and this is

dependent on brand trust (Elliott and

Wattanasuwan, 1998; Newmann, 2001;

Kapferer, 2002).

In broader contexts, brand extensions

are, to a considerable measure, based on

trustworthiness, especially in relation to an

organisation’s environmental and commu-

nity programmes (see Keller and Aaker,

1998); corporate brands, do of course, pro-

vide an umbrella of trust. Institutional

brands, as corporate assets, are divisiblefrom the organisation and, therefore, may

have a life of their own as a distinctive

identity type (Balmer, 2005a, b); as such,

they can be bought, sold and borrowed:

franchise arrangements being a case in point

(see Balmer and Gray, 2003).

Finally, and importantly, it has been

asserted that legal ownership of a corporate

brand – and moreover a corporate heritage

brand – is vested with the institution (legal

trust) and emotional ownership (emotionaltrust) resides with the brand community of

customers and other stakeholder groups

(see Balmer, 2005a).

METHODOLOGYFaced with a virtual tabula rasa (this research

can be viewed as a continuation of the




Commentary

15

represents a revelatory case study and,

arguably, in its own terms is significant.

Again, to reiterate, the contribution of this

study is in terms of analytical generalisation.

Data relating to the Swedish Monarchy

draw on our previously published work in JBM (Balmer et al , 2006).

The analysis of data followed, in broad

terms, a pattern matching logic (Trochim,

1989) whereby literature-based insights (in

effect propositions) were confirmed by the

empirical study of the Swedish Crown and

secondary research of the UK Crown

(cross-case synthesis). Two forms of trian-

gulation – data triangulation and investi-

gator triangulation – informed this enquiry

( Yin, 2009).

Data triangulation was manifest in terms

of marshalling multiple sources of data (the

literature on monarchy; the empirical study

of the Swedish Monarchy and second

research on the British Monarchy).

Investigator triangulation informed the

investigation of the Swedish Crown where

there was consensus among the researchers

on the findings.

This study comprised four, distinct,

stages of inquiry viz:

1. ‘Conceptualisation ’: This led to the iden-

tification, via the synthesis of key themes

in the literature on monarchy (Balmer,

2004, 2008). A mode of content analysis

was used for this. This resulted, initially,

in the identification of five precepts of

monarchies as corporate brands (these

are akin to propositions). An implicit,

and prominent, dimension through all

stages of the study – the importance of

regulation (the ongoing stewardship of monarchy as a corporate heritage brand)

– formed the sixth precept as detailed

in the findings section of this article.

2. ‘ Affirmation ’: The second strand of the

study marshalled insights from an empir-

ical, collaborative case study (Urde

et al , 2007) of the Swedish Monarchy

undertaken over a 4-year period (see

Balmer et al , 2006) The primary vehicle

of data collection was interviews under-

taken with Senior Court Officials and

with discussions with The Royal Family

– including the King, Queen andCrown Princess of Sweden. The inter-

views were of a highly confidential

nature, and the quotes marshalled in this

article are drawn from the case study

and which, in one form or another, are

already in the public domain. Formal

analytical coding was not possible for

the above as, for reasons of confidenti-

ality, the inter views were not recorded.

The researchers took notes and followed

audiences, interviews and meetings with

lengthy debriefing discussions between

the three researchers’ key themes: the six

facets as per 1 were found to be salient.

This stage of the study identified monar-

chies as corporate heritage brands, and we

introduced the notion of corporate her-

itage brands (Balmer et al , 2006), which

we further elaborated (Urde et al , 2007).

3. ‘Consolidation ’: The third thread of the

study focussed on my own work on the

British Monarchy per se and which has

taken place since 2001. This aspect of the research examined the diverse lit-

erature on the Crown, and, in broad

terms, a form of content analysis took

place with regard to the six facets. As

with the Swedish Monarchy, the 5R

facet framework was found to be ger-

mane (Balmer et al , 2006), but that it

required the further and sixth dimension

of Regulation (management).

4. Theoretical contribution : The above insights

were placed in the context of the literatureon corporate branding and trust in order

to conceptualise a theoretical contribution.

Within the case study tradition, the theo-

retical contribution is in terms of analytic

generalisation rather than statistical gener-

alisation ( Yin, 2009, p. 15). The theo-

retical contribution was the identification



Balmer


of three precepts of corporate heritage

brands, namely: the critical importance of

trust, affinity and authenticity .

FINDINGS

General findingThe monarchies of Britain and Sweden, as

corporate heritage brands, are dependent

on bilateral trust between the Crown and

public. This is predicated on public affinity

towards the monarchy and the Crown,

maintaining its authenticity as a corporate

brands vis-à-vis its relationship with its brand

community. Moreover, the synthesis of

these additional insights resulted in a central

finding relating to the centrality trust

towards the management and maintenance

of monarchy and the requirement to cali-

brate authenticity (taking an institutional

and identity perspectives) and affinity (being

mindful of customers and stakeholder con-

cerns).

Theoretical insight: The precepts ofcorporate heritage (monarchical)brands – Trust, Authenticity and

AffinityIn theoretical terms, the study revealed that

the saliency of monarchies as corporate her-

itage brands is dependent on the maintenance

and the meaningful equilibrium of the three

precepts: Trust, Authenticity and Affinity .

In terms of analytical generalisation, it is

advanced that achieving equilibrium bet-

ween the aforementioned may be regarded

as a key tenet of institutional corporate

heritage brand saliency per se .

The Trust precept

Trust represents the bilateral covenant

between the Crown and people, which

requires institutional Authenticity to be in

dynamic equilibrium with public Affinity

in terms of being a corporate heritage brand

(this represents, arguably, the key theoret-

ical contribution of this study).

The Authenticity precept

Authenticity relates to the maintenance of

monarchical/institutional identity in terms

of being a corporate heritage brand.

The Affinity precept

Affinity embraces the notion of public

expectation that the Crown should remain

a meaningful symbol in both national and

cultural contexts in terms of a corporate

heritage brands.

NORMATIVE INSIGHT:CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDSAND THE 6Rs OF MANAGINGMONARCHIES AS CORPORATEHERITAGE BRANDSTaking a general management and a nor-

mative perspective vis-à-vis corporate her-

itage brands, it was found that, Trust,

Authenticity and Affinity are underpinned

by the 6Rs (Royal, Regal, Relevance,

Respect, Responsiveness and Regulation).

The initial analysis of both monarchies

broadly confirmed the earlier insight asreported in Balmer et al (2006) but, in addi-

tion, revealed the importance of regulation

(management). This being said, it was also

found that the six dimensions (6Rs) can be

clustered in to four clusters viz:

First Cluster: Internal / Institutional Concerns

The Royal and Regal dimensions

Second Cluster: External / Public Concerns

The Relevance and Respect dimensions

Third Cluster: Environmental Concerns

The Responsiveness dimension

Fourth Cluster: Brand Custodianship and

General Management Concerns

The Regulation dimension




Commentary

17

THE 6Rs OF MONARCHIES ASCORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDSIn this section, the facets of monarchies as

corporate heritage brands are further elabo-

rated: reference is made to selected quotes

from the study.

RoyalThe Royal status is a critical dimension of

corporate heritage brands. This is because

the monarchical identity – as it invests a

Head of State with a unique role, status and

obligations (Hayden, 1987; Cannon and

Griffiths, 1998; Ormrod, 2001; Strong,

2005); it also, as a corporate heritage brand,

accords a Royal identity to nation states as

Kingdoms. The Royal identity means thatmonarchs, and their families, are set apart,

told that they are apart, treated as if they are

apart, and, in the end – in cognitive terms

– everyone, including the Royals them-

selves, recognise that they are apart (Holes-

worth, 1969, p. 27). The Royal status can

be withdrawn (Colley, 1996; Cannon and

Griffiths, 1998; Black, 2001): the abdication

of King Edward VI and the removal of the

Stuart dynasty in 1688. In fact, monarchy

has a quasi-religious identity. Indeed, for

centuries in the past, the Anglican Churchhad a service of ‘touching the sick’, based

on the belief that a consecrated monarch

had the power to cure subjects who suffered

from scrofula (The Economist , 2007).

It is never forgotten that it is because of the

State that the King is powerful, without the

State he is nothing. (Gilbert, 1992. p. 30)

The Government and the Head of State

(the Monarch) must understand thecontent of each other ’s tasks and roles. The

roles are defined in the Constitution, but

they must play the roles in a way that wins

the people’s approval. In a democracy the

play is written and put on stage by the

Parliament.’ (Ingemar Eliasson: Marshal of

the Swedish Realm; in Balmer et al , 2006)

You see, Edward (King Edward VII, in

1936) ran away before he was crowned.

He was never anointed, so he never really

became King. So he never abdicated.

(British Courtier (Paxman, 2007, p. 125))

RegalAs defined here, regal refers to the actions

and behaviours and, importantly, symbols

that are appropriate – and what are not

appropriate – to those having a royal status.

The regal dimension of corporate heritage

brands is derived from history (‘what we

have done’), traditions (‘what we do, and

how’) and culture (‘what the people expect

and accept’). Monarchical behaviour (Regal) should be in alignment with expec-

tations (the Royal identity): this is a key

tenet of corporate brand management.

Royal behaviour has been the subject of

treatises penned by no less than Machia-

velli, Pontano and Sacchi: of particular note

among these is Patrizi’s ‘The Education of a

King ’ (Skinner, 2000).

The mass of the people expects a King

or Queen to look and play the part. (Lord

Halifax in Thompson, 1967, p. 104)

We are sometimes criticised that we are

too common in a sense. Young people, for

example, often want us to be like them-

but at the same time there are expectations

that we should be role models and ‘behave

like a royal.’ I feel that dealing with this

paradox is sometimes very hard. (Audience

with Her Royal Highness Crown Princess

Victoria of Sweden in Balmer et al , 2006)

(Royalty is) ‘an arduous profession’ which

has few opt-outs. ‘Their daily tasks, for

months ahead, are prescribed and set out

in a diary of engagements from which

only illness can excuse them. None but

those trained from youth to such an

ordeal can sustain it with amiability and



Balmer


composure. The royal motto “Ich Dien”

is no empty phrase. It means what it says

– “I Serve”.’ (Princess Alice, Countess

of Athlone – last surviving grandchild

of Queen Victoria – 1966 (Shawcross,

2009, p. 761))

RelevantAs with any successful corporate heritage

brand, the monarchy must remain relevant

and attuned to its brand community; for

the Crown, this is the country at large. If

in former times monarchy focussed on the

noblesse , at present the importance of noblesse

oblige is stressed. For example, the Crown

has marshalled its privilege position to shed

light on the plight of the poor, disadvantaged,or forgotten (Balmer, 2009); Ormrod (2001)

has noted this significant trait of modern

monarchy in his in-depth treatise of the

Crown. Prochaska (1995) has averred that

in addition to being a constitutional mon-

archy, the British Monarchy may fairly be

known as a ‘Welfare Monarchy ’.

In broader contexts, monarchies are

highly meaningful institutions in expressing

national identity and, as corporate heritage

brands, in providing a focus for nationalidentification from the populace; in an

increasingly globalised and homogenised

world, monarchy has a heightened rele-

vance in this regard. Testimony to the con-

cern that the Crown needs to remain

relevant to people from all walks of life and

from all parts of the country is the map of

the United Kingdom on the connecting

door between the offices of the Queen’s

Principal and Deputy Private Secretaries,

which is covered with pins showing the

places where Queen Elizabeth has visitedduring her reign (Bailey, 1977). This is not

a new phenomenon: a similar concern

characterised the reign of King George III

(Colley, 1996).

The most important thing is to remain

relevant. It isn’t easy as you can imagine.

(His Royal Highness Prince Charles

(Prince Charles: Television Interview

on US Television, 2005))

Diana’s (The Princess of Wales) appeal

rested in part on an ancient archetype:the monarch who walks among the

people, working miracles, in her case

among lepers, AIDS patients and maimed

children she unsquemishly embraced.

(The Economist , 2007).

It is a complete nonsense to imagine the

Monarchy exists in the interests of the

Monarch. It doesn’t. It exists in the interests

of the people. If at any time any nation

decides that the system is unacceptable, then

it is up to them to change it. (His Royal

Highness Prince Philip – speaking in Canada

in 1969 – (Lacey, 2002, p. 394))

We are going into a world that is global

and globalised. People need roots. I

remember when an older gentleman

walked up to me and said: ‘Wasa rye crisps

are now Italian, Volvo Cars is American.

Then only thing we have left is the

King’. (Interview with Gunnar Brodin:

Former Marshal of the Swedish Realm,2003 in Balmer et al , 2006)

Over the last twenty to thirty years we

have lost our colonies, our industries and

our British Passports have been replaced

by European ones, we have lost almost

everything. If we lose the Royal Family

what is there?’ (Marjorie in Rowbottom,

2002, p. 38)

RespectRespect is a cornerstone of constitutional

monarchy and is of critical importance in

maintaining the saliency of corporate her-

itage brands. Former British Prime Minister

Stanley Baldwin, tendering advice to King

Edward VIII in 1936, pointed out that the




Commentary

19

more freedom ordinary people claim for

them, the more they demanded high stand-

ards from those who ruled them (Cannon

and Griffiths, 1998, p. 631). It is only

through public consent – and, moreover,

respect – that Britain’s Monarchy endures(Bogdanor, 1997); monarchs need to deal

honourably with men at all times and keep

faith with them (Skinner, 2000). Earlier

notions of kingship focussed on the precept

of: ‘ad vitam aut culpam ’ – for life unless

removed for fault – (Manchester, 1993,

p. 18). The affection and respect between

the Crown and people cannot be taken for

granted: the travails experienced by the

Crown in the immediate aftermath of the

death of Diana, Princess of Wales, revealed

the institution to be vulnerable and bare.

Respect should not be confused with pop-

ularity or with fame: the latter tend to be

transitory. It requires hard work, persever-

ance and ongoing public courtship, some-

thing that the late Queen Elizabeth (the

Queen Mother) was credited with (Shaw-

cross, 2009, p. 942); at her death, her lying-

in-state, attracted an 8-mile queue of people

wishing to pay their final respects (Roberts,

2003). The loss of respect has, in the past,

resulted in execution (King Charles I in1649); abdication (King Edward VIII in

1936); dynastic alteration (from Stewart to

Hanoverian) and brand deletion (changing

the dynastic name of Saxe Coburg and

Gotha to Windsor during the Great War

of 1914 – 1918).

In the age of democracy the Crown has to be

like any other brand: it has to win the respect

of the people. (Dr David Starkey, 2002)

Despite the huge constitutional difference

between a hereditary monarchy and an

elected government, in reality the gulf

is not so wide. They are complementary

institutions, each with its own role to

play. Each, in its difference way, exists

only with the support and consent of

the people. That consent, or the lack of

it, is expressed for you, Prime Minister,

through the ballot box. It is a tough, even

brutal, system, but at least the message

is clear for all to read. For us, a Royal

Family, however, the message is oftenharder to read, obscured as it can be by

deference, rhetoric or the conflicting

attitudes of public opinion. Bur read it

we must. (Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth

II (Hames and Leonard, 1998, pp. 7 – 8))

Royal Families around the world can no

longer take for granted their legitimacy.

In the 125th generation [of the present

Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko],

legitimacy is earned through hard work

and humility. But we worry about

the 126th generation. (Member of the

Imperial Household Agency of Japan

(Lloyd Parry, 2008))

ResponsiveResponsiveness accommodates the notion

that constitutional monarchies as corporate

heritage brands cannot afford to be scle-

rotic: account needs to be taken of changes

in the political, economic, social, ethical

and technological environment. One of theimperatives of monarchy as a corporate

heritage brand is the need to interpret the

nation to itself (Bogdanor, 1997), and it has

been the ruthless pragmatics of the Crown

that has ensured its continuance. For

instance, whereas in the past the crown as

corporate brand had to be relevant to the

church and nobility, at present the brand

community is much wider, and more

varied, with the monarch having an obliga-

tion to all walks of society. As such, therelationship between the Crown and people

is not one of ruler and subjects, but more

akin to servant and citizen: currently, mon-

archies are in the service of the people and

not vice versa. The servant – citizen relation-

ship – after the recent travails within finan-

cial services institutions – may also to be of



Balmer


saliency to general managers; and the final

quote, cited below, from Queen Elizabeth

is salient in this regard.

I am not concerned at the possible

sacrifice of old traditional ideas and

customs regarding Royalty. Some of these

have already been sacrificed. Sovereigns

must keep pace with the times. (Lord

Stamfordian, Private Secretary to King

George V (Prochaska, 2000, p. 157))

(My motto) ‘For Sweden – With the

times’. To me it means being a Monarch

in a modern society – that is, to adapt

the role by meeting the demands of a

changing world. Not being ahead of the

times, not being behind the times. Butrather being in our time. It’s about sensing

feelings and what is right at the time –

what the Swedish people wish and expect

from a modern Monarch. (Audience

with His Majesty Carl XVI Gustaf of

Sweden, 2004 in Balmer et al , 2006))

The Queen has accepted that the Royal

Family must change its image after the

death of Diana, Princess of Wales. A

source close to the Queen spoke yesterdayof the need to demonstrate, ‘softer,

gentler touches’ in the wake of what

he described as the first royal tragedy to

occur in mass media culture. (Middleton,

1999, p. 601).

RegulationMonarchies – as with all manner of con-

temporary corporate brands/corporate her-

itage brands – require regulation (corporate

brand management): they are dependent onthe application of good corporate/heritage

brand management principles, which are

affected by able policymakers. The ultimate

guardian for the institution as a corporate

heritage brand is the monarch and in extremis

the Queen’s Private Secretary, Prime Min-

ister and the Government of the day: they

also share stewardship for the monarchy as

a corporate brand.

When our Kings are in conflict with

our constitution we change our Kings.

(Churchill to King Edward VIII (in

Cannadine, 2003, p. 50))

Sir Alan Lescelles to Prime Minister

Baldwin: ‘In my considered opinion, the

Heir Apparent (the future King Edward

VIII) in his unbridled pursuit of Wine

and Women, and of whatever selfish

whim occupied him at the moment, was

going rapidly to the devil, and unless he

mended his ways, would soon become

no wearer of the British Crown. You

know, sometimes when I sit in YorkHouse waiting to get the results of some

point-to-point in which he is riding, I

can’t help thinking that the best thing that

could happen to him, and to the country,

would be for him to break his neck.’

Prime Minister Baldwin: ‘God forgive

me. I have often thought the same.

’Hart-Davis, 2006, p. 104)

CORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDS:

A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKFigure 3 marshals the theoretical and

normative insights from this study into a

management framework vis-à-vis corporate

heritage brands. From this, it can be seen

that trust is the nexus that links brand

authenticity (the brand promise) and brand

affinity (the positive associations towards

the brand on the part of the brand com-

munity). It is a dynamic and reciprocal

process.

As with the earlier framework (seeFigure 1), the Royal and Regal dimensions

can be adapted for general use vis-à-vis cor-

porate heritage brands (Royal equates with

identity and Regal equates with symbolism,

behaviour, ritual and so on).

As such, it is important to appreciate that

trust is an active/evolving trait, in that the




Commentary

21

nature of trust can shift over time as the brand

community evolves (this has something

monarchy has adjusted to over the centuries).

It also illustrates the centrality of trust and the

need to achieve symmetry between authen-

ticity (from the organisation) and affinity

(from the brand community).

The stewardship of the Crown as a

corporate heritage brand is conceptualised

as achieving equilibrium between the

following dimensions; these are conceptu-

alised as five propositions based on trust,

authenticity, affinity, responsiveness and

regulation. As Vaclav Havel mused, we can

be both mature and modern and still haveicons (Shawcross, 2002, p. 235).

REFLECTION: THE PRECEPTS OFCORPORATE HERITAGE BRANDSAND THE LITERATURE ON TRUSTPlacing the findings of the research in the

context of the extant literature relating to

trust, there was prima facie confirmation for

a number of theoretical insights vis-à-vis the

saliency of the construct viz :

(a) Trust underpins transactional expecta-

tions and is a requisite for goodwill and

stability between parties (Barker, 1979;

Zucker, 1986; Ring and Van de Van,

1992).

The bilateral relationships between the

monarchy, state and public in the United

Kingdom and Sweden are favourable, stable

and have been so for some considerable time .

(b) An individual’s relationship with an

organisation is predicated on trust

(Zaheer et al , 1998).

Many individuals have a close association

with monarchy in both Sweden and the

United Kingdom and the institution as a

corporate brand is used to define – in part

– an individual ’s identity .

(c) Benevolence, integrity and positive

identification between parties is built

on trust (Butler and Cantrell, 1984).

The monarchies of Sweden and the United

Kingdom are characterised by the above because there is mutual identification, a

regard for institutional authenticity and a

high degree of public affinity .

(d) Having regard for the temporal dimen-

sion of trust is important as trust takes

time to develop (Ring and Van de Van,

1992).

Both Crowns have a rich pattern of his-

torical development, and over many years

they have won a high degree of public trust:

trust that has few parallels among contemporary organisations .

(e) Trust is dependent on context (Mayer

et al , 1995).

The British and Swedish monarchies have

endured as they have given due regard to

changes in the environment and to the mores

and precepts of their respective countries and

REGULATION

RESPONSIVE

TRUSTAUTHENTICITY AFFINITYROYAL

REGAL

RELEVANCE

RESPECT

Figure 3: A corporate heritage brand management framework (derived from monarchies as corporate heritage brands).

Note : Royal equates with identity (for non-monarchical heritage brands); Regal equates with symbolism, behaviour, rituals and so on

(for non-monarchical heritage brands).



Balmer


people. Thus, the Swedish Court – in com-

parison with the British Royal Household

– is minimalist and less formal.

THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION,RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE ANDLIMITATIONS, AND FURTHERRESEARCHIn theoretical terms, this research resulted

in the identified three, key, precepts of the

management of monarchy as corporate her-

itage brands and detailed the significance of

attaining a meaningful equilibrium between

them: the precepts being identified as Trust,

Authenticity and Affinity .

In terms of institutional theory, the ana-

lytical generalisation from this study,

detailed above, can provide meaningful

insights vis-à-vis the nascent area of corpo-

rate heritage brands.

This study is significant in that it pro-

vides revelatory insights in relation to the

general management of constitutional mon-

archies as corporate heritage brands: an

important, institutional, widespread and

global phenomenon that hitherto has, sur-

prisingly, received little attention from man-

agement and corporate marketing scholars.In addition, it throws light on corporate

heritage brands per se .

Although it is argued that the strengths

and revelatory nature of this study out-

weigh the limitations, it should be noted

that research undertaken within monar-

chies represents quite considerable difficul-

ties in terms of gaining access and in terms

of the collection and reporting of data. For

instance, it was not possible to gain access

to the British Royal Household, and there-fore a reliance had to be placed on sec-

ondary sources; within the Swedish Royal

Household – although wide access was

granted – a good deal of sensitivity had to

be shown vis-à-vis the manner in which the

data were reported: the quotes detailed

here, for instance, have been approved and

already exist in the public domain. Under-

standably, these factors presented certain

constraints in terms of data analysis. How-

ever, this was countered by the breadth and

depth of the study and by the research

being underpinned by two forms of trian-gulation: data triangulation and researcher tri-

angulation . It is worth reiterating that the

findings aim to meet the criteria of ana-

lytical generalisation and do not claim to

meet the requirements of statistical gener-

alisation.

Further research might usefully apply

the framework to individual constitutional

monarchies in order to explicate the dynamic

between the 6Rs and the importance that

monarchies accord to each dimension in

terms of the management of their corporate

heritage brands. For instance, the British

Monarchy has a more pronounced sacer-

dotal status and is surrounded by greater

ceremonial than in Sweden. Research might

also usefully be undertaken among auto-

cratic monarchies – Saudi Arabia, Morocco

among others – in order to identify the

monarchical precepts of these institutions;

the same is true of the Papacy – a theocratic

and elected monarchy. The utility of the

findings to corporate brands in business con-texts represents another avenue of inquiry.

Deductive and quantitative methodologies

leading to statistical generalisation would,

naturally, represent another meaningful

research dimension.

MANAGEMENT ADVICE FORCORPORATE BRAND MANAGERSIn terms of general management guidance

vis-à-vis the custodianship of corporate her-

itage brands, five insights emerge from thisstudy. As such, corporate brand managers

have a responsibility in

1. achieving trust between the organisation

as a heritage brand and its corporate

brand community of customers and

stakeholders;




Commentary

23

2. maintaining the authenticity of the cor-

porate heritage brand: this involves

knowing an organisation’s key identity

traits and the corporate heritage brand

promise and the relationship between

them;3. ensuring stakeholder affinity with the

corporate heritage brand: general man-

agers need to ensure that these are

relevant, as well as respected;

4. responding to changes in the environ-

ment and ascertaining that both the cor-

porate heritage brand (expectations) and

corporate identity (actions and reality)

are aligned with the same; and

5. administrating the corporate heritage

brand in such a way that it is part of

senior management’s strategic delibera-

tions; they are the sentinels of an insti-

tution’s heritage brand.

CHRONICLING CORPORATEHERITAGE BRANDS ANDEFFECTIVE BRAND STEWARDSHIPIn addition to the extant insights on cor-

porate heritage brands detailed here, a key

dimension of the custodianship of heritage

brands is to delve into a brand’s historiog-raphy. As such, I advocated elsewhere that

in order to ensure that long-held brand

values remain relevant and distinctive, I

advocate that policymakers and corporate

brand managers periodically chronicle their

corporate heritage brands (Balmer, 2009,

p. 659). ‘Chronicling the corporate brand ’ is a

five-stage process that encompasses the fol-

lowing activities:

1. chronicling the brand’s history to uncover key dimensions of brand values;

2. assembling key managers and selected

outside specialists to examine the chron-

icle and derive lessons from major events

in the brand’s history;

3. documenting and communicating insights

from the lessons for external strategic

branding and internal reinforcement of

brand values;

4. marshalling historical insights prospec-

tively useful in defending the company

(and its brand) in times of brand crisis;

and5. revisiting the brand’s history regularly to

gather new or revised insights, especially

if the organisation will be entering pre-

viously uncharted territory (for example,

new geographic markets, new industry

sectors).

CONCLUSION

The characteristic danger of great

nations, like the Roman, or the English,which have a long history of continuous

creation, is that they may fail from not

comprehending the great institutions they

have created. (Bagehot, 1867)

Bagehot’s admonition to policymakers –

detailed at the start of this article and repro-

duced, again, above, that the characteristic

danger of great nations is that they may fail

from not comprehending the great institu-

tions they have created – has a contempo-

rary resonance in the context of our scrutinyof corporate heritage brands.

One such failure is to see their organisa-

tions as corporate brands and, in some

instances such as the British Monarchy, as

corporate heritage brands.

As such, mindful of Bagehot’s admoni-

tion, a key management task vis-à-vis cor-

porate branding, which has been long

standing, is to determine whether or not it

is a corporate heritage brand (the approach

detailed earlier vis-à-vis chronicling corpo-rate heritage brands should be of utility

here).

If so, CEOs and their advisors need to

understand the nature of their heritage

brands. In addition, they need to ensure

that they maintain the saliency of their cor-

porate heritage brands.



Balmer


A failure to recognise, manage and main-

tain corporate heritage brands will cause

them to be weakened and, in extremis , could

lead to their demise.

A failure to recognise their institutional

brand to be a corporate heritage could wellmean that they are losing out on a valuable

and unique corporate asset and resource.

To me, there is prima facie evidence

to suggest that a significant number of

institutional brands are also corporate her-

itage brands and include automotive com-

panies, banks, breweries, hospitals, hotels,

restaurants, shipping and cruise companies,

engineering companies, food companies,

watchmakers, sports teams, retail outlets, as

well as analogous institutions to monarchies

such as the ancient monastic universities of

Oxford and Cambridge; the Ivy League

institutions of the United States, such as

Harvard, Yale and of course the College of

William and Mary.

Corporate heritage brands are not

only a western phenomenon: they exist

throughout the globe, such as in China,

India and Japan. Of course, identities and

corporate brand identity are also mean-

ingful to small- and medium-sized entities

(SMEs), as noted by Ambibola and Kocak(2007) and Balmer (2010), and corporate

heritage brands will most certainly charac-

terise many SMEs.

Truly, corporate heritage brands appear

to be ubiquitous.

To reiterate: it is the task of senior man-

agement as stewards of corporate heritage

brands – and ultimately the Chief Execu-

tive Officer – to not only understand their

organisation as a corporate brand and – to

draw on the insights from this study – tomaintain a meaningful equilibrium between

three, key, pivotal branding precepts: Trust,

Authenticity and Affinity .

APERCUFinally, both senior managers and scholars

alike should be mindful that the success and

survival of many organisations increasingly

depend on the strength and saliency of their

corporate brand and, for some, the strength

and saliency of his corporate heritage brands

in particular.

The above, perhaps, explains why theBritish Monarchy as a corporate heritage

brand has endured and has remained mean-

ingful for many in Britain and the Com-

monwealth and, even, for those outside the

Commonwealth. (The not inconsiderable

interest shown towards the British

Monarchy in France, Germany, Italy and

the United States are cases in point.)

In the build-up to the Diamond Jubilee

celebration of Queen Elizabeth in 2012 –

and on the eve of the Royal Wedding of

Prince William in April 2011 – there is just

cause for celebration. First, for a monarch

who, by general consensus, has been stead-

fast in her duty; and second, in terms of

the Royal Wedding, in terms of the con-

tinuity of the brand (which, perhaps, in

management parlance can be viewed as suc-

cession planning) as the second in line to

the throne (Prince William) is wedded to

Catherine Middleton.

In addition, there perhaps ought to

be a small celebration by those who haveadvised the Monarchy over recent decades

in good times and in bad and who have

ensured that it has endured and remains

salient.

There have been many successes to com-

memorate, and a number of significant fail-

ures on which to cogitate: some of which

have shaken the institution to the core and,

at times to some, appeared to threaten the

existence of the institution.

In bringing this commentary to a close,I am mindful of what we said in our first

JBM article on corporate heritage brands

when it was noted that all heritage institu-

tions should recognise that their brands call

for them to be not only of the past and

present, but also of the future (Balmer et al ,

2006, p. 160).




Commentary

25

The management of corporate heritage

brands is always ‘work in progress’ and

characterised as it is with a broad temporal

palette (corporate brands being of yesterday,

today and of the morrow) means that it is

best characterised as a process.In one sense corporate heritage brands

are always in the making, but are never

quite truly made.

Corporate heritage brands are not merely

about history, but of history in the making:

a history informed by continuity and by

change.

As Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee

celebrations approaches, the Sovereign’s

confidants and advisors can do no better

than to ensure that the Crown keeps its

allure, sparkle and significance as befits a

global corporate heritage brand. There is a

lesson here for all those having custodian-

ship of a corporate heritage brand.

Arguably, managing the monarchy as

a corporate heritage brand is one of the

most exacting tasks within the corporate

marketing and corporate branding realms:

it calls for connoisseurship (Balmer,

1995).

If Queen Elizabeth’s advisers can build

on past successes and are adroit in meetingfuture challenges, then the toast ‘Long Live

the Queen (King) and God Save the Queen

(King) ’ will, perhaps, be raised throughout

Britain and the Commonwealth for many

more years to come.

NOTES1 Footnote on the Commonwealth of Nations : Membership

of the Commonwealth traditionally has been limited

to those nations that were formerly part of the Brit-

ish Empire. With only a few exceptions, most former

British territories have joined the Commonwealth,most Commonwealth no longer have constitutional

or legal ties with Great Britain. The overwhelming

majority of Commonwealth nations are Republics. A

few are monarchies that do not have Queen Elizabeth

as their Head of State viz : Malaysia, Lesotho. Sixteen

Commonwealth nations retain Queen Elizabeth as

their Head of State; as such, she is separately and divis-

ibly Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of

Jamaica, Queen of New Zealand and so on. Among

those nation states that remain outside the Common-

wealth, even though they have historic constitutional

ties with the British Crown/Great Britain are Burma,

Hong Kong, Ireland and significantly the United

States. Most curious in this regard is the United States,

which, even today, remains decoupled from nations

with whom it shares historic familial ties, including

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and of course Great

Britain: the wounds of 1776 (the American Revolu-

tion) have never, it would appear, been fully healed

in this regard. In recent years, quite a few nations,

although not enjoying historic links with the British

Crown, have applied for Commonwealth membership:

most applications have been rejected with the excep-

tion of Cameroon, Mozambique and Rwanda who

were, curiously, respectively French, Portuguese and

Belgium overseas territor ies and were admitted owing

to exceptional circumstances. Commonwealth Prin-

ciples (as defined in 1971) include the requirement

for Commonwealth States to share common values

relating to: democracy, human rights, good governance, the

rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade,

multilateralism and world peace . Heads of overseas dip-

lomatic missions from Commonwealth countries are

known as High Commissioners and they do not have

embassies but High Commissions. The logic for this

is because Commonwealth nations are not foreign to

each other: Commonwealth countries are, in collo-

quial terms, seen as part of a family of nation states . In

Commonwealth countries, High Commissioners take

precedence over ambassadors. For example, in the

United Kingdom, High Commissioners, when pre-

senting their credentials to the Queen, are driven in

a carriage drawn by four horses, whereas the ambas-

sador ’s coaches have only two horses. Among the

principal symbols of the Commonwealth are the Brit-

ish Monarch (as its titular head) and the English

language.

REFERENCESAmbibola, T. and Kocak, A. (2007) SME as expressive

organizations: A resource based perspective.

Qualitative Market Research 10: 416 – 430.

Aperia, T. (2001) Brand relationship management:

Den varumarkesbyggande processen. Doctoral

thesis, University of Stockholm School of Business,

Stockholm.

Aperia, T. and Back, R. (2004) Brand Relationship

Management . Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen

Business School Press.Bagehot, W. (1867) The English Constitution . London:

Chapman and Hall.

Bailey, A. (1977) Profiles: Queen Elizabeth II – Part 1.

The New Yorker , 11 April.

Balmer , J.M.T. (1995) Corporate branding and

connoisseurship. Journal of General Managemen

21(1): 22 – 46.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2001a) Corporate identity, corporate

branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through



Balmer


the fog. European Journal of Marketing 35(3 – 4):

248 – 291.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2001b) The three virtues and seven

deadly sins of corporate brand management. Journal

of General Management 27(1): 1 – 17.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2004) The British Monarchy; Does

the British Crown as a Corporate Brand Fit?. Brad-

ford University School of Management WorkingPaper Series, Paper No 04/16 (April).

Balmer , J.M.T. (2005a) Brand cultures and communi-

ties. In: J.E. Schroeder and M. Salzer-Morling (eds.)

Brand Culture . London: Routledge, pp. 34 – 49.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2005b) Values, promise and behaviour.

The corporate branding triumvirate? THEXIS 1:

13 – 17.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2008) Corporate brands, the British

Monarchy and the resource-based view of the firm.

International Studies of Management and Organizations

37(4): 20 – 45.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2009) Scrutinising the British

Monarchy: The corporate brand that was shaken,

stirred and survived. Management Decision 47(4):

639 – 675.

Balmer , J.M.T. (2010) Explicating corporate brands

and their management: Reflections and directions

from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18(3):

180 – 196.

Balmer , J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate

brands: What are they? What of them? European

Journal of Marketing 37(7 – 8): 972 – 997.

Balmer , J.M.T., Greyser , S.A. and Urde, M.

(2006) The crown as a corporate brand: Insights on

monarchies. Journal of Brand Management 14(1 – 2):

137 – 161.

Barker , B. (1979) The Symbols of Sovereignty . Newton

Abbot, UK: Westbridge Books.

Bell, D. (2006) The idea of a patriot queen? The mon-

archy, the constitution, and the iconographic order

of Great Britain, 1860 – 1900. The Journal of Imperial

and Commonwealth History 34(1): 3 – 22.

Billig, M. (1991) Talking of the Royal Family . London:

Routledge.

Birnbaum, N. (1955) Monarchies and sociologists: A

reply to Professor Shils and Mr Young. Sociological

Review , new series. iii .

Black, J. (2001) The House of Hanover (1714 – 1837).

In: W.M. Ormrod (ed.) The Kings and Queens of

England . Stroud, UK: Tempus.

Bogdanor , V. (1997) The Monarchy and the Constitution .

Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Bonoma, T.V. (1983) Case research in marketing:

Opportunities, problems and a process. Journal of Marketing Research 22: 199 – 208.

Bowring, R. and Kornicki, P. (eds.) (1993) The Cam-

bridge Encyclopaedia of Japan . Cambridge, UK: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Bradley, I. (2002) God Save the Queen, the Spiritual

Dimension of Monarchy . London: Darton, Longman,

and Todd.

Brazier , R., The Monarchy in and Bogdanor , V. (ed.)

(2003) The British Constitution in the Twentieth

Century . Oxford, UK: The British Academy/

Oxford University Press, pp. 69 – 96.

Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry Jr , J.F. (2003)

Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding

and revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing

67(July): 19 – 33.

Butler , J.K. and Cantrell, R.S. (1984) A behavioural

decision theory approach to modelling dyadic trustin superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports

55: 19 – 28.

Butler , S.L. and Low, D.A. (eds.) (1991) Sovereigns

and Surrogates, Constitutional Heads of State in the

Commonwealth . London: Macmillan.

Cannadine, D. (1983) The context, performance and

meaning of ritual: The British Monarchy and the

‘Invention of Tradition’. In: E. Hobsbawm and

T.E. Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition .

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cannadine, D. (2003) In Churchill’s Shadow . London:

Penguin.

Cannon, J. and Griffiths, R. (1998) Oxford Illustrated

History of the British Monarchy . Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Chrimes, S.B. (1967) English Constitutional History .

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Churchill, G.A. and Iacobucci, D. (2002) Marketing

Research: Methodological Foundations , 8th edn. Mason,

OH: South Western/Thomson Learning.

Colley, L. (1996) Britons. Forging the Nation 1707 – 1837 .

London: Vintage.

Coman, J., Brown, C. and Walker , T. (2003) It was a

good idea at the time. Sunday Telegraph , 16

November: 22.

DeChernatony, L. and McDonalad, M. (1998)

Creating Powerful Brands . London: Butterworth

Heinemann.

Duhs, S. (2000) The Monarchs of Sweden . Bromma,

Sweden: Purley Lodge.

Easton, G . (2003) One case study is enough.

Proceedings of Academy of Marketing Annual Conference .

Birmingham, UK: Aston Business School.

Economist . (2006a) 22 April: 33.

Economist . (2006b) 17 June: 69.

Economist . (2007) 25 August: 36.

Economist . (2008) 15 March: 71 .

Economist . (2011) 15 January: 30.

Edwards, A. (2006) The most famous face in the world.

The Daily Telegraph , 20 April: XV.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case

study research. Academy of Management Review 18(4):

532 – 550.

Elliott, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998) Brands assymbolic resources for the construction of identity.

International Journal of Advertising 17(2): 131 – 144.

Frears, S. (dir.) (2006) The Queen . London: Pathe

Pictures.

Gephart, R.P. (2004) Qualitative research and the

Academy of Management Journal. Academy of

Management Journal 47(4): 454 – 462.

Gilbert, M. (1992) The person of the king: Ritual

power in a Ghanaian state. In: D. Cannadine




Commentary

27

and S. Price (eds.) Rituals of Royalty . Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1991) Research Methods

for Managers . London: Paul Chapman Pub-

lishing.

Gouldner , A.W. (1955) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy .

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gummesson, E. (1991) Qualitative Methods in Manage-ment Research . London: Sage, pp. 73 – 134.

Hames, T. and Leonard, M. (1998) Modernising the

Monarchy . London: Demos.

Hart-Davis, D. (ed.) (2006) King’s Counsellor. Abdication

and War: The Diaries of Sir Alan Lascelles . London:

Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Hayden, I. (1987) Symbol and Privilege. The Ritual

Context of British Monarchy . Tuscon, AZ: University

of Arizona Press.

Hennessy, P. (1996) The Hidden Wiring. Unearthing the

British Constitution . London: Indigo.

Hennessy, P. (1997 ) Muddling Through. Power, Politics

and the Quality of Government in Postwar Britain .

London: Indigo.

Hobsbawm, E. (1983) The invention of tradition. In:

E. Hobsbawm and T.E. Ranger (eds.) The Invention

of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Hodson, H.V. (1995) Crown and commonwealth.

Round Table 333( January): 89 – 95.

Holesworth, H.D. (1969) The Princes . London:


Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor , E.L. (2004) How

global brands compete. Harvard Business Review ,

September, 69 – 75.

Hough, R. (1981) Mountbatten: A Biography . New

York: Random House.

Innes of Learney, Thomas, Sir . (1978) Scots Heraldry .

London: Cassell Ltd.

Jeffrey, K. (2006) Crown, communication and the

colonial post: Stamps, the monarchy and the British

Empire. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth

History 34(1): 45 – 70.

Jennings, H. and Madge, C. (eds.) (1937) May the

Twelfth, Mass-Observation Day Surveys 1937 .

London: Faber and Faber .

Jennings, I. Sir. (1950) The British Constitution .

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Junor , P. (2005) The Firm. The Troubled Life of the House

of Windsor . London: Harper-Collins.

Kantorowicz, E. (1953) The Kings Two Bodies: A Study

in Medieval Political Thought . Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Kapferer , J.-N. (1997) Strategic Brand Management .London: Kogan Page, p. 29.

Kapferer , J.-N. (2002) Corporate brands organizational

identity. In: B. Moingeon and G. Soenen (eds.)

Corporate and Organizational Identities . London:

Routledge.

Kay, J. (1995) Foundations of Corporate Success . Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Keller , K.L. (1998) Strategic Brand Management . Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Keller , K.L. and Aaker , D.A. (1998) Corporate level

marketing: The impact of credibility marketing on

a company’s brand extensions. Corporate Reputation

Review 1(4): 356 – 378.

Lacey, R. (2002) Royal. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II .

London: Little Brown.

Levin, B. (1991) Now Read On . London: Sceptre

Books.Levy in Pavitt, J. (ed.) (2000) Brand New . London: V&A

Publications .

Low, S.L. (1927) The Governance of England . London:

Fisher Unwin Limited.

Macaulay, T.B. (1885) History of England . London:

Dutton and Dent.

Manchester , W. (1993) A World Lit Only by Fire. The

Medieval Mind and Renaissance . Boston, MA: Little

Brown.

Marr , A. (2000) The Day Britain Died . London: Profile

Books.

Mayer , R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995)

An integrative model of organisational trust.

Academy of Management Review 20: 709 – 734.

Micklethwait, J. and Wooldridge, A. (2005) The Com-

pany. A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea . New

York: The Modern Library.

Middleton, M. (1999) Is the British Monarchy out of

touch? In: The Encyclopaedia of Britain . London:

Hutchinson.

Molesworth, H.D. (1969) The Princes . London:


Montesquieu, C.-L.de Secondat, Baron de (1748) De

l ’esprit des Lois ou du rapport que les lois doivent avoir

avec la constitution de chaque Government . Geneva:

Barrillon.

MORI. (2002) Britain’s latest vies on the monarchy,

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/302/

No-Royal-Rollercoaster.aspx, accessed 7 March

2011.

Murphy, P. (2006) Breaking the bad news: Plans for

the announcement to the empire of the death of

Elizabeth II and the proclamation of Her successor,

1957 – 67. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth

History 34(1): 139 – 154.

Naughton, K. and Vlasic, B. (1998) The nostalgia

boom. Business Week , 23 March: 58 – 64.

Newmann, K. (2001) The sorcerer’s apprentice? Alchemy,

seduction and confusion in modern marketing. Inter-

national Journal of Advertising 20: 409 – 429.

Norman, R. (1970) A Personal Quest for Methodology .

Stockholm, Sweden: Scandinavian Institute for

Administrative Research, p. 53.

Numagami, T. (1998) The infeasibility of invariant lawsin management studies: A reflective dialogue in defence

of case studies . Organization Science 9(1): 2 – 15.

Ormrod, W.M. (ed.) (2001) The Kings and Queens of

England . Stroud, UK: Tempus.

Otnes, C .C. and Maclaran, P. (2007) The consumption

of cultural heritage among a British Royal Family

Brand Tribe. In: R. Kozinets, R. Cova and A. Shankar

(eds.) Consumer Tribes: Theory, Practice and Prospects .

London: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann.



Balmer

Parry, R.L. (2006) Prince welcomed with shouts of

Banzai as birth suspends fight on imperial throne.

The Times , 7 September: 42 .

Parry, R.L. (2008) Sympathy turn to scepticism as

courtiers whisper that princess does not do her duty.

The Times , 25 October: 47.

Paxman, J. (2007) On Royalty . London: Viking Books.

Pimlott, B. (2002) The Queen. Elizabeth II and the Monarchy . London: Harper Collins.

Prince Charles HRH. (2005) Interview given on US

television during visit to the US.

Prochaska, F. (1995) Royal Bounty: The Making

of a Welfare Monarchy . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Prochaska, F. (2000) The Republic of Britain . London:

Penguin.

Ring, P.S. and Van de Van ( 1992) Structuring coop-

erative relationships between organizations. Strategic

Management Journal 3: 483 – 498.

Roberts, A. (2003) Memo to palace PR: We are not

amusing. The Times , 25 October: 4.

Roberts, A. (2009) Masters and Commanders . London:

Penguin.

Rowbottom, A. (2002) Subject positions and ‘real royal-

ists’: Monarchy and vernacular civil religion in Great

Britain. In: N. Rapport (ed.) British Subjects. An Anthro-

pology of Britain . Oxford, UK: Berg, pp. 31 – 48.

Seitz, R. (1998) Over Here . London: Phoenix.

Shawcross, W. (2002) Queen and Country . London:

BBC Worldwide.

Shawcross, W. (2009) The Queen Mother: The Official

Biography . New York: Vintage Books.

Shils, E. and Young, M. (1953) The meaning of the

coronation. Sociological Review, New Series 1: 67.

Skinner , Q. (2000) Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction .

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Smithers, R. (2006) Young Britons value nation’s

history and values. The Guardian , 6 November: 9.

Starkey, D. (2002) Reinventing the Royals . London:

Channel 4 television documentary.

Strong, R. Sir. (2005) Coronation. A History of Kingship

and the British Monarchy . London: HarperCollins.Swengley, N. (2006) By appointment to the Queen.

Financial Times , 15/16 October: 3.

Thompson, D. (1967) England in the Nineteenth Century .

London: Penguin.

Trochim, W. (1989) Outcome pattern matching and

program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning

12: 355 – 366.

Urde, M., Greyser , S.A. and Balmer , J.M.T. (2007)

Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of Brand

Management 15(1): 4 – 19.

Van Maanen, J. (1979) Reclaiming qualitative methods

for organising research. Administrative Scienc

Quarterly 24: 520 – 526.

Yin, R. (2009) Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Zaheer , A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998) The

strategic value of buyer-seller relationships. Interna-

tional Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management

34: 20 – 26.

Znaniecki, F. (1934) The Method of Sociology . New

York: Farrar and Rinehart.

Zucker , L.G. (1986) Production of trust: Institutional

sources of economic structure, 1984 – 1990. In:

B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.) Research in

Organisational Behaviour , Vol. 8. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 53 – 122.

strategii de pr - articol despre monarhia britanica

Documents