525400

research-article2014

JBCXXX10.1177/2329488414525400International Journal of Business CommunicationVernuccio

Article

Communicating Corporate
Brands Through Social
Media: An Exploratory Study

International Journal of
Business Communication
2014, Vol. 51(3) 211233
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2329488414525400
jbc.sagepub.com

Maria Vernuccio1

Abstract
The aim of this study is to identify and interpret the main emerging strategic approaches
in communicating a corporate brand through social media (SM). A quantitative
content analysis of the SM platforms of 60 major international corporate brands
yielded data that were processed by hierarchical cluster analysis. The study identified
four clusters, characterized by distinctive approaches in terms of interactivity and
openness toward corporate brand building via SM. The findings highlighted that
despite encouraging signs of effective use of SM for this purpose, the online corporate
communication initiatives of more than a third of all companies are characterized as
cautious. Corporate branding strategists are advised to adopt conversational forms
of corporate communication, to expand the range of SM used and to involve a broad
range of stakeholders in the dialogue. This study adds to the limited body of academic
research into the use of SM as part of corporate communication and corporate
brand-building strategy.
Keywords
corporate communication, corporate branding, social media, interactivity, openness,
cluster analysis

Introduction
In todays competitive business environment, under pressure from the digital revolution, the corporate brandwith its identity, image, and reputationbecomes the center of gravity for valuable and durable relationships between the firm and all interested
parties. Corporate branding has been proposed as a guiding concept in the corporate
1Sapienza

University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Corresponding Author:
Maria Vernuccio, Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano
9, Rome 00161, Italy.
Email: maria.vernuccio@uniroma1.it

212

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

communication discipline (Argenti, Howell, & Beck, 2005; Cornelissen, 2008; Van
Riel Cees & Fombrun, 2007), that is, the corporations voice and the images it projects of itself on a world stage populated by its various audiences (Argenti & Forman,
2002, p. 4; see also Shelby, 1993). Communication scholars and practitioners are
increasingly acknowledging the fundamental role of corporate brands in representing
corporate values and shaping business relationships (Aaker, 1996; Abratt, 1989;
Balmer, 2001a, 2001b; Balmer & Gray, 2003; Balmer & Greyser, 2003, 2006;
Bernstein, 2003; Gray & Balmer, 2001; Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2001, 2003; Ind,
1997; King, 1991; Knox & Bickerton, 2003; Schultz & De Chernatony, 2002).
According to management scholars, brands are systems of functional and emotional values. To develop these clusters of meanings, the traditional brand-building
model is based on a strongly controlled approach (Jones, 1999) that assumes customers are passive recipients of value (Normann & Ramirez, 1993). Similarly, as
Handelman (2006) points out, corporate communication and corporate branding literature has traditionally presented the development of a corporate brand as a top management task to capture and communicate the identity of an organization with a single,
integrated concept. Hatch and Schultz (1997, 2001, 2003) have proposed a management tool that constructs an effective corporate brand-building process. It assesses the
existence and extent of gaps between three interdependent strategic elements relevant
to the management, planning, and control of the corporate identity: strategic vision
(which articulates top-management aspiration for the company and guides future business strategy), organizational culture (an amalgam of the companys values, attitudes,
and behavior), and corporate image (the perceptions and associations of external
stakeholders). To build a corporate brand effectively, these elements must be aligned
with one another as closely as possible, with regard to management, employees, and
external stakeholders.
According to many researchers (Ind & Riondino, 2001; Vernuccio, Barbarossa,
Giraldi, & Ceccotti, 2012), there is no need to develop a new theory about the concept
of a brand in an online, as opposed to offline, environment:
A Brand is a brand regardless of its environment. What is different is the way the brands
essence is executed. . . . To thrive with brands on the internet a looser form of brand
control is needed, welcoming the active participation of consumers. (De Chernatony,
2001, p. 193)

A new vision of corporate brandingopen source branding (Fournier & Avery,

2011, p. 194)is emerging that attributes a crucial role to interaction with (and
among) stakeholders in the cobuilding of the brand and emphasizes the need to
research effective communication strategies for achieving this kind of engagement
(Gregory, 2007; Ind & Bjerke, 2007; Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009; Roper & Davies,
2007). At present, the communication environment that offers the most promising
potential for reaching and interacting with stakeholders is the social media ecosystem
(Hanna, Rohm, & Crittenden, 2011), in which web design facilitates interactive information sharing and interoperability via new communication platforms such as virtual

Vernuccio

213

communities, collaborative projects, social networks, blogging, and wikis (Boyd &
Ellison, 2008; Bughin, 2008; Bughin, Manyika, & Miller, 2008; Chui, Miller, &
Roberts, 2009; Costantinides & Fountain, 2008; Krishnamurthy & Dou, 2008;
OReilly, 2005; Safco, 2010). Using these tools of interaction, stakeholders are able to
contribute directly and continuously in the process of brand building and become
coproducers of the values that underpin the brand.
The term social media was coined to describe these and other new platforms of
digital communication that continually appear in this interactive electronic environment, underlining their participative and collaborative social characteristics. An industry report by Nielsen (2011) clarified the extent to which social media have affected
the attitudes and behavior of a large population of consumers, underling that, across a
sample of 10 global markets, social networks and blogs are the foremost online destination in each country, accounting for the majority of time spent online and reaching
at least 60% of active Internet users. According to comScore (2011), social networking ranked as the most popular content category in worldwide Internet engagement,
accounting for 19% of the time spent online globally. Consequently, the concept of
social media is becoming increasingly important to marketing scholars (Gupta,
Armstrong, & Clayton, 2010; Mangold & Faulds, 2009) and practitioners who try to
identify ways in which firms can make profitable use of applications such as Wikipedia,
YouTube, Facebook, Second Life, and Twitter (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 59).
Although recent research has described how social media platforms are increasingly
used to promote brands, research also indicates that brand owners are losing control of
their content and the reach, frequency, and timing of the distribution of their messages
(Fournier & Avery, 2011). Communicating corporate brands through social media
implies a new collaborative strategy based on two fundamental approaches: interactivity (Gupta et al., 2010; Simmons, Thomas, & Truong, 2010) and openness (Mairinger,
2008; Pitt, Watson, Berthon, Wynn, & Zinkhan, 2006). Stakeholders increasingly
interact with firms and with each other, challenging the companys dominant role in
the corporate brand-creation process.
Despite the rapid growth of social media and the rising interest in its challenges and
opportunities for branding, there is a paucity of academic research focused on this
phenomenon with regard to the online corporate communication and corporate branding strategy. Thus, the aim of this exploratory study is to identify and interpret the
primary emerging strategic approaches in communicating a corporate brand through
social media. The research questions were formulated as follows:
Research Question 1: To what degree are interactivity and openness used in communicating corporate brands through social media?
Research Question 2: What are the distinctive strategic orientations toward interactivity and openness in communicating corporate brands through social media?
Our exploratory objective is pursued through a quantitative content analysis of the
social media platforms of 60 major international corporate brands. The yielded data
were processed by a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify groups of firms that are

214

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

homogeneous with respect to their use of social media in communicating with stakeholders for the purpose of corporate brand building.
In the next section, we present the social media landscape and discuss the dimensions of interactivity and openness in corporate brand-building strategies. Then, we
describe the research methodology and the chief results. Finally, we reflect on the
main gaps that are found between the potential communicative power of social media
and the actual use of these tools by firms strongly oriented toward corporate branding.
We trace possible developmental trajectories and propose an agenda for future
research.

New Approaches Toward Corporate Brand

Communication
Social Media: A New Virtual Landscape
The most innovative trend of corporate communication in the digital environment
(Argenti & Barnes, 2009) has clearly been driven by the rapid development on a global
scale of Web 2.0 (OReilly, 2005). According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), Web
2.0 is a platform whereby content and applications are no longer created and published by individuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative fashion (p. 61). New Internet-based applications that are built
on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content are called social media.
This new environment facilitates interactive brand communication and collaboration, the creation and sharing of content by users, and the formation of internal and
external virtual communities, all at a low cost (Furness, 2008). In a broader sense,
social media may be considered a new social and economic landscape, with constantly
shifting boundaries and within which users are able to enhance their own control of
every stage in the brand communication process, from the production of the content,
through its distribution, and to its eventual utilization. In fact, the content, timing, and
frequency of the social media-based conversations occurring between users are beyond
the managers direct control (Mangold & Faulds, 2009).
While recognizing that social media are dynamic and characterized by high levels
of heterogeneity, for the purpose of this study, six categories are distinguished (without any claim to exhaustiveness) based on their distinct user-experience profiles.
Social networks are communication platforms of varying degrees of openness, in
which the relationship element dominates to the extent that the networks permit subscribers to access the personal content of other network nodes and interact directly
with them (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Examples of these networks are Facebook and
MySpace.
Corporate blogs encompass any blogging on behalf of the company by senior or
middle managers that is relevant to corporate branding and contributes actively to
establishing and maintaining a dialogue with (and among) the stakeholders (Scoble &
Israel, 2006; Wright, 2006). A popular form of corporate blog is the microblogging

Vernuccio

215

platform Twitter (Eun Sook & Yongjun, 2011; Jansen, Zhang, Sobel, & Chowdhury,
2009; Jhih-Syuan & Pea, 2011), a real-time short messaging service that works over
multiple networks and devices.
The designation content-on-demand embraces the many forms of multimedia content that provide for access and use as required. Examples include podcasts, audiovideo files available and saveable via a PC or other media player (Bughin, 2008), and
video-streaming and content aggregator applications such as RSS syndication
technology.
A content community is a platform whereby users create, organize, share, and use
the content. Examples of these communities include the video-sharing website
YouTube, Flickr photo sharing, Pinterest, and Wikipedia, the familiar collaborative
publishing application.
Virtual worlds are simulated two- or three-dimensional online environments
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009) in which the user lives in a virtual reality with an avatar (a
graphic icon representing his or her identity), plays online games, acquires goods and
services, and participates in online events. Examples of virtual worlds include Second
Life and Habbo.
Internet forums, also known as online message boards, are long-established web
environments in which ideas and information of common interest are exchanged
between participants asynchronously.
The unifying characteristics of these different types of social media are the twoway relationships they facilitate and the strong active control exercised by the user
over the creation, diffusion, and consumption of the content. If this relationship element is the dominant characteristic of a social network, then content plays a primary
role with regard to the content communities and content-on-demand applications.
Whether via blogs, forums, or virtual worlds, equilibrium is observable between the
two components of the total user experience.
There are three principal ways (no alternative) to capitalize on the strengths of
social media for brand-building purposes (Costantinides & Fountain, 2008; Wright,
2006), having first fully understood their particular functional dynamics. These
approaches are the following:
1. Using existing social media in public relations programs to reach new online
opinion leaders, such as bloggers and podcasters, and inform them about products and services, societal initiatives, or innovations;
2. Using social media to listen to the voices of the stakeholders in discussions
focused on topics relevant to the firm;
3. Initiating direct interactive platforms, feeding them with input from employees
and managers, and using these one-to-one and many-to-many forms of communication to establish, maintain, and reinforce the brands connections, image,
and reputation.
It is with respect to this final course of action that our study identifies new opportunities offered by social media for the effective communication of a corporate brand.

216

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Interactivity and Openness in Corporate Branding

A corporate brand may be thought of as a type of communications interface between
an organization and its key stakeholders (Freeman, 1984; Post, Preston, & Sachs,
2002). In that respect, as Hatch and Schultz (2003) have emphasized, a strong corporate brand acts as a focal point for the attention, interest and activity stakeholders
bring to a corporation (p. 1,046).
The inherent potential of social media as a brand-building tool is derived from the
special characteristics discussed in the previous section and is related to the development of a participatory approach to the brand-building process (Ind & Bjerke, 2007).
In fact, two closely interrelated strategic approaches to the communication of the corporate brand via social media are beginning to emerge: interactivity and openness.
Harmonization of the firms strategic vision, its organizational culture, and its corporate image is most likely to be achieved when internal and external relationships are
characterized by openness, interactivity, and a listening orientation. In such an environment, there can be a steady growth in the stakeholders contribution to the evolution of a corporate identity based on well-grounded values, and thus to the organizational
culture and the strategic vision (Gregory, 2007; Roper & Davies, 2007). In conditions
of openness and interactivity with stakeholders, corporate brand-building becomes
effectively a process of co-creation of shared meanings.
Interactivity. Interactivity has been defined in many ways (e.g., Alba et al., 1997; Jensen, 1998; Liu & Shrum, 2002; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997). Recent definitions have
emphasized aspects such as active user control, two-way communication, and synchronicity (Liu & Shrum, 2002; McMillan & Hwang, 2002). From another perspective, Berthon, Pitt, and Watson (1996) define web interactivity by emphasizing its
facilitation of direct communication between users and organizations regardless of
distance or time. Within these personal contexts, users are empowered online and
are able to generate content.
Social media are characterized mainly by two modes of interaction, defined by
Bordewijk and Van Kaam (1986) and Jensen (1998) as consultation interactivity
and conversational interactivity, respectively. The consultation category describes a
situation in which users are the main controllers of the dissemination and consumption
of the content made available by a central source. Interactivity manifests itself in
choosing which of the available packages of brand messages to use and when to use
them. In this case, the degree of interactivity is tied not only to the variety of content
offered but also to the existence of two-way communication systems that permit access
to particular messages on demand. Of particular importance, therefore, are the quality,
the extent of customization, and the potential attractiveness of the content. Examples
of the consultation interactivity mode include podcasts, RSS systems, video-streaming
services, and content communities.
In the case of conversational interactivity, the user exerts the maximum degree of
control over the creation, dissemination, and consumption of material relating to the
brand because there is no powerful center to dictate the terms of the dialogue. In such
bilateral and multilateral modes of communication, interactivity refers to the capacity

Vernuccio

217

that an individual has to generate and disseminate his or her own content, synchronously or asynchronously. The key elements in this case are the social and relational
dimensions of the exchange, defined in terms of social connections and knowledge
sharing, and the scope for self-expression (Krishnamurthy & Dou, 2008). Examples
of conversational interactivity are provided by the communication flows made through
social networks and Internet forums.
Openness. Equally innovative is the increasing openness of firms to the communicative contributions of the various stakeholders in the brand-building process, peaking
in the creation of what Gregory (2007) calls a negotiated corporate brand. Particularly in the interactive virtual landscape, stakeholders are acknowledged as active
players in the co-creation process. As Leitch and Richardson (2003) note, Every
interaction is an enactment of the organisational identity, which may serve to establish that identity or transform it in some way (p. 1,074). A process that has traditionally been governed by top management (Balmer, 2001b) is evolving into a
participatory process involving the sharing of responsibility with and among the
stakeholders. Consequently, branding is seen as a dynamic and social process
(Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009, p. 332) that emerges continuously and dynamically
through social interaction among multiple stakeholders. As a result of the level of
interactivity offered by social media, the threatened loss of control noted by King
(1991) may be transformed into an opportunity for greater levels of flexibility and
meaningfulness and may offer a way to configure the brand in a truly open way,
with many intangible components (Mairinger, 2008; Pitt et al., 2006). According to
Ind and Bjerke (2007), The only real control will be in having an authentic, participative brand (p. 140). An open corporate brand that seems unstable is, in fact,
based on a set of core values (Urde, 2003) that remain consistent even while evolving as a result of continuing interaction. In the new interactive landscape, brand
openness takes on many new dimensions. Corporate brands open their boundaries to
allow interaction, participation, and co-creation in multiple social media platforms
(social networks, corporate blogs, content-on-demand, content communities, virtual
worlds, and Internet forums). Furthermore, different stakeholders (e.g., customers,
employees, the financial community, and influencers) interested in a corporate brand
are able to collaborate on its co-creation rather than simply accepting or, in the best
scenario, supporting it. The open brand is not the sole protagonist in the process
of meaning generation and interactivity. Each stakeholder is a participant in the
shared brand-building process, a new center of gravity around which interaction
takes place. The focus of the user-generated content is on not only the brand world
but also the world of those customers who interact within a corporate brands social
media platform, talking about themselves and their interests and not only about the
brand experience. The stakeholders become co-protagonists. This is the foundation
of the distinction between the predominantly company-focused and user-and-company focused themes of social media content. Prior studies of online communities
(e.g., Hagel & Armstrong, 1997) have classified users motivations for participating
into two broad categories: rational (e.g., information, transactions) and emotional
(e.g., relationships, fantasy). According to Krishnamurthy and Dou (2008):

218

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Rational motivations may include sharing knowledge with the world (knowledge
sharing) and advocating a particular stand toward an issue (advocacy); emotional
motivations may include building social connections with friends, relatives, or other
Internet users (social connections) or entertainment (self-expression) (p. 2).

Methodology
To answer the research questions, in the absence of any previous study of the key
strategic approaches followed in using social media for corporate branding, a quantitative empirical study was undertaken of the actual communication initiatives of leading
multinational enterprises in pursuit of effective corporate branding strategies. The
research was performed from June to August 2011.

Sample Selection
The two qualifying criteria for the sample of firms whose Social Media platforms were
to yield the data for content analysis were (a) a strong economic performance, testified
to by a high level of corporate brand equity; and (b) a strong brand presence in the
Web 2.0 environment, measured by the share of voice. Accordingly, the first-stage
sampling frame was the 100-strong list of Best Global Brands in 2010, published by
the leading international branding consultancy, Interbrand, which measures the brand
values on which the rankings are based by means of a five-step discounted economic
value added calculation (Interbrand, 2010). The second-stage sampling frame was a
list of the Top 100 Brands in Social Media, compiled by the UK-based online PR and
social media relations agency, Immediate Future, which establishes share-of-voice
rankings by counting the number of mentions of the brand across a selection of social
media sites (Immediate Future, 2010). Ultimately, the sample consisted of 60 firms,
selected from the Interbrand list in the order of their share-of-voice ranking. Figuring
in both lists, their brands thus satisfied both sample selection criteria.
Table 1 classifies the sample in terms of the three descriptive variables: country,
sector, and brand value.

Content Analysis
In the data collection phase, the text of the sampled firms online communications
initiatives were subjected to quantitative content analysis (Holsti, 1969; Kassarjian,
1977; Krippendorff, 2004; Weber, 1990), with the objective of answering the questions where (the social media deployed), what (the theme of the content), why (its
inherent value), how (the nature of the dialogue), and who (stakeholders engaged), and
thereby assessing the extent of the originators management orientations and strategic
approaches with respect to interactivity and openness. For this purpose, for each company, we considered six social media communication platforms types sponsored by
every brand owner, as explained below.

Vernuccio

219

Table 1. Sample Profile.

Headquarters country

USA
Germany
Japan
France
Switzerland
Italy
Korea
UK
Finland
Spain
Sweden

50
13
12
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
2

Sector

Automotive
Computer hardware
Consumer electronics
Luxury goods
Financial services
Restaurants
Computer services
Diversified
Food
Clothing
Beverages
Computer software
Media
Personal care
Sporting goods
Energy
Home furnishings

18
10
10
10
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2

Rank, by brand value

1st to 20th
21st to 40th
41st to 60th
61st to 80th
81st to 100th

28
20
18
23
10

Note. Columns do not total exactly 100% on account of rounding.

Kassarjian (1977) and Krippendorff (2004) suggest that researchers can make their
own choices of the units of analysis among words, themes, characters, or the entire
text (item). In this study, the methodological choice was to interpret the entire text in

220

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Table 2. Approaches, Coding Variables, Classification Criteria, and Strategic Questions.

Approach

Coding variable

1.Social network
2.Corporate blog
3.Content-on-demand
4.Content community
5.Virtual world
6.Internet forum
7.Company focused

Openness

8.User-and-company focused
9.Rational

10.Emotional
11.Customers

12.Employees
13. Financial community
14.Influencers
15.Consultation

Interactivity

16.Conversation
17.Consultation and
conversation (equilibrium)

Classification criterion

Strategic question

Social media deployed

Where?

What?

Predominant theme of
content
Predominant user
motivation
Stakeholders in the
conversation

Why?

Who?

Predominant type of
interaction

How?

all social media communication platforms activated by the brand. However, to limit
our research to a manageable body of text, we applied a random sampling method
obtaining a sample of documents that is representative of the defined context unit. For
each unit of analysis, we noted and recorded the presence or absence of the 17 coding
variables derived from the aforementioned dimensions of interactivity and openness.
These categories of analysis were defined based on five classification criteria that correspond to the fundamental questions in a communication strategy (Where? What?
Why? Who? How?): the social media deployed (Where?), the predominant theme of
content (What?), the predominant user motivation (Why?), the stakeholders in the
conversation (Who?), and the predominant type of interaction (How?). Table 2 summarizes both the coding variables and the classification criteria specified and recalls
the two fundamental dimensions of corporate social media communication activity in
the conceptual framework presented previously: the openness and interactivity
approaches. These were respectively assessed by content analysis as follows.
Openness.The openness-oriented approach of a firms online communication was
assessed with reference to four of the five classification criteria summarized in
Table 2: the social media deployed, the predominant theme of content, its inherent
value (predominant user motivation), and the stakeholders engaged.

Vernuccio

221

As mentioned before, six distinct social media have been identified for the purposes
of this study (where), and it is posited that a greater variety deployed leads to a greater
degree of openness. The use of social networks was evidenced by a designed presence
in Facebook, which many authoritative sources identify as the platform with the highest traffic worldwide during the period of the study (absence from Facebook was predicted to reflect an alternative presence in MySpace). In the case of corporate blogs,
evidence was sought both at the companies own websites and via Google Blog Search,
where links might be found to relevant blogs that were not necessarily posted at a
corporate site. In the present context, corporate blogs encompass any blogging on
behalf of the company by senior or middle managers that is relevant to corporate
branding and contributes actively to the establishment and maintenance of a dialogue.
Given the research objective, blogs that were part of a temporary promotional initiative were excluded from the content analysis. The presence of content-on-demand
(podcasts, RSS feeds, etc.) was identified through scrutiny of the corporate sites. The
content community category was measured by any interaction via the primary contentsharing platforms, mainly YouTube and Flickr. Identification of virtual worlds usage
was focused on the best-known example: Second Life. Finally, for online forums, the
examination of corporate sites was supplemented by the use of the specialized search
engine Board Reader.
In addition to noting the presence or absence of the various types of social media in
the initiatives undertaken by each firm to communicate its brand (where), the content
analysis used the totality of the sample text relating to each brand in every platform
employed to assess the predominant theme of the content communicated (what), the
predominant value to be obtained from involvement in the process (why), and the
variety of stakeholders participating (who).
The central themes of the online dialogue were distinguished as either companyfocused or user-and-company focused. The question asked of a given data item would
be What it is saying and showing? and the answer would be classified as focused
entirely on the firms offering and its corporate behavior or on a combination of those
themes plus personal experience. The second of these content categorizations is, of
course, particularly indicative of the openness orientation. Although user-focused
would be an intuitively reasonable third classification, in the analysis conducted on the
sample text of the new communication platforms under study found no evidence of
exchanges that concentrated exclusively on the users themselves (without any reference to the brand). Consequently, we did not consider this cluster variable.
The inherent value of the central themes underpinning the message content determines the nature of the stakeholders participation and their psychological motivation
for involvement in an open dialogue with the company in the brand-building process.
Two main modes have been classified by Hagel and Armstrong (1997) as rational and
emotional. It should also be emphasized that the value variable, which is distinct from
the other variables, does not indicate a particular degree of openness but simply defines
the actual openness orientation in terms of rationality and emotionality.
The variety of stakeholders involved in such a dialogue about the corporate brand
might be, for example, actual and potential customers, employees, investors, and the
financial community in general, and influencers, in the form of the media, industry

222

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

experts, opinion formers, and opinion leaders. Here, again, a wider variety of participants is assumed to be an indicator of a greater degree of openness.
Interactivity.The content analysis here collected evidence of the two predominant
modes of interaction (how) on the social media platform between the company and its
stakeholders and among those users, and it assessed the extent to which one or the
other predominated or whether the two were more or less in equilibrium.
To assess the reliability of the analytical methodology, two independent external
judges, experts in the field of social research and appropriately trained in research
methods, implemented the classification procedures in turn. The internal consistency
of the content analysis outcomes was tested using the interjudge reliability criterion
(Kolbe & Burnett, 1991), which sets an acceptable level for the degree of consistency
between coders applying the same analytical categories to the same content material,
expressed as a ratio of the number of agreements to the total number of coding decisions. The result in this case, 94%, compares very favorably with a reported normal
range of 66% to 95% and a suggested threshold value of 85% (Kassarjian, 1977).

Cluster Analysis
The 17 coding variables listed in Table 2 were in turn used as the clustering variables
in this next phase of the study. Cluster analysis is a convenient method for categorizing a sample of elements into groups that are homogeneous along a range of observed
characteristics (Wedel & Kamakura, 2000, p. 39). In particular, cluster analysis permits the inclusion of multiple variables as sources of group definition, allowing for
notably rich descriptions (Ketchen & Shook, 1996). Given that all the variables were
nominal measures (0/1), hierarchical cluster analysis was the method chosen (Janssens,
Wijnen, De Pelsmacker, & Van Kenhove, 2008). Specifically, the agglutinative
Wards method was applied to the Euclidian distance between the clusters, minimizing the error sum of squares in fusing the clusters at successive stages. This method is
particularly recommended in the absence of outliers (Punj & Stewart 1983). The data
were processed by SPSS 15.0.
Further statistical procedures used to determine the optimum number of clusters
were as follows: dendrogram analysis, a graphic representation of the data, clusters
and distances; an agglomeration schedule, which shows the amount of error created at
each clustering stage by agglomeration to create a new cluster and identifies that the
solution preceding a significantly increased agglomeration coefficient is the most
appropriate one (Ketchen & Shook, 1996); the analysis of the frequency distribution
of cases among the groups; and finally, the meaningful interpretation of each description (Janssens et al., 2008). On the basis of those analyses, a four-cluster solution was
chosen.
To satisfy the reliability requirement, the average linkage and complete linkage
functions were sequentially applied to the simple matching coefficient. Both outcomes
were compatible with the result of applying Wards method.
Finally, to test the validity of the chosen clustering solution, consultation with
experts was again undertaken (Ketchen & Shook, 1996). In this case, two practitioners

223

Vernuccio
Table 3. Communication Strategies Employed by Surveyed Firms (N = 60).
Category

Strategic question

Frequency (%)

1.Social network
2.Corporate blog
3.Content-on-demand
4.Content community
5.Virtual world
6.Internet forum

Where?Social media deployed

90
42
70
72
25
25

7.Company focused
8.User-and-company focused

What?Theme of content

55
45

9.Rational
10.Emotional

Why?Value in participation

60
40

11.Customers
12.Employees
13. Financial community
14.Influencers

Who?Stakeholders engaged

100
25
50
58

15.Consultation
16.Conversation
17. Consultation and conversation

How?Type of interaction

37
30
33

Note. Where and Who subtotals >100% explained by multiple media and stakeholders in individual cases.

with a decade of managerial and consultancy experience in the field of digital communications were consulted, and they gave their support for the specification of the
clusters and endorsed the quality of the adopted solution.

Results
As a first step in analyzing the degree of use of interactivity and openness in communicating the corporate brand through social media (Research Question 1) by the 60
leading multinational enterprises surveyed, frequency counts were compiled for the 17
coding variables. The outcome is summarized in Table 3. The recorded percentages
for the first and last of those total more than 100% because individual firms might
have deployed several social media and communicated with a number of stakeholders,
whereas the other variables relate to either/or strategic choices.
With respect to the strategic question where, the analysis found social networks to
be the most prevalent social media category in use, employed by 90% of the companies sampled. Content communities and content-on-demand were next in order, both
recorded in well over two thirds of all cases. Corporate blogs (42%) were found to be
characteristic only of more advanced social media strategies aimed at openness and
interactivity. Instead, Internet forums (25%) and virtual worlds (25%) were notably
underrepresented in the analysis.

224

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Answering the strategic question what, the content analyzed was found to be
more or less evenly divided between the company-focused and user-and-companyfocused alternatives. It would thus seem that the firm had achieved good degree of
incorporating their brand into stakeholders personal lives and fostering interaction
between the two.
Regarding the strategic question why, content analysis found evidence of both types
of motivation (rational and emotional) that led stakeholders to participate in the social
media (in a 60:40 ratio). The former was typified by the sharing of information about
products, company initiatives, and the co-creation of useful knowledge. The focus of
the latter motivation was found to be on the articulation of a social need or on personal
self-expression.
With respect to the question who, it was found that the communications initiated as
part of corporate branding campaigns invariably involved the companys customers
(100%). Well behind as participants in the dialogue, but still in evidence in the initiatives of more than half of all companies, were the influencers (58%). The financial
community was also fairly well represented in the data gathered by the content analysis (50%). The very much lower frequency of cases of the involvement of a companys
own employees (25%) in social media communication reflects the public nature of the
social media sampled in this study.
Last, with respect to the question how, results were very nearly equally distributed
among the consultation (37%) and conversation (30%) modes, and an indivisible combination of the two in a single initiative (33%). This finding signals progress toward
the genuinely interactive use of social media in corporate branding.
The second step (Research Question 2) was to group sampled firms according to
the degree of homogeneity in their strategic choices of social media and modes of
corporate brand communication with their publics. The outcome was four clusters,
reflecting their distinctive strategic orientations toward openness and interactivity.
Their common characteristics are summarized in the following shorthand
descriptions:
Cluster 1: Cautious Beginners
Cluster 2: Confident Communicators
Cluster 3: Selective Strategists
Cluster 4: Rising Stars
The cluster map in Figure 1 shows their positioning with respect to axes measuring
high, medium, and low levels of openness and interactivity.

Cautious Beginners
This large cluster contains 37% of the brand owners in the sample, most of which are
in the middle range of brand value: between 40th and 60th rank in the Interbrand table.
They are mainly headquartered in the United States, but some are German, Japanese,
Swiss, and British. The content generators comprising Cluster 1 are predominantly in
the automotive sector, followed by financial services, food and restaurants.

225

Vernuccio

Interactivity orientation

High

M-to-H

Confident
Communicators

Selective
Strategists

23,3%

18,3%

Rising Stars

Medium

21,7%

L-to-M

Cautious
Beginners
36,7%

Low
Low

L-to-M Medium M-to-H

High

Openness orientation
Figure 1. Cluster diagram: Openness versus interactivity in corporate brand-building via
social media.

Openness Orientation. In their choice of social media, these firms opt mainly for social
networking (77% of the cluster subtotal), content-on-demand (72%), and content communities (59%). The use of corporate blogging is modest (18%), and they are absent
altogether from virtual worlds and Internet forums. Content was found to be wholly
company focused. Its predominant target was customers, with other stakeholder categories being represented at in fewer than half of all cases. The motivation to participate in these communication transactions was found to be both rational and emotional
but with an emphasis on the first. In all, the openness orientation in the brand-building
strategies of this cluster can be rated medium to low.
Interactivity Orientation. The propensity toward interaction in this cluster is very low
and is exclusively of the consultation type. The rather traditional nature of content
generated for social networking and content communities, despite being frequently
deployed, fails to exploit the potential of these innovative communication platforms.

Confident Communicators
Comprising 23% of the sample, the brand owners in this second-ranked cluster are
almost exclusively American (85% of the cluster subtotal). They share a strong brand
value, with almost two thirds of them (60%) being ranked between 1st and 20th in the
Interbrand ranking. They are spread among various industries, with a slight bias to
such high-technology sectors.

226

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Openness Orientation. This cluster exhibits a strong propensity for openness in many
ways. First, all types of social media are heavily used: 100% of the cluster subtotal
engaged in social networking and corporate blogging, more than 90% belonged to
content communities and offered content-on-demand, and 57% inhabited virtual
worlds. Even the category to which there was the highest general resistance, Internet
forums, was present in 80% of cases. The extent to which the diverse range of stakeholders had become in social media communications is indicated by the classification
of content as user-and-company focused in 86% of all cases. Their motivation for
participation was predominantly its rational value.
Interactivity Orientation. In this cluster, the brands relationship with the stakeholders
was highly interactive to the extent that the dominant mode of interaction was conversation in every case.

Selective Strategists
Representing 18% of the sample, this smallest cluster of brand owners was composed
of European as well as American brands, most of which are in the luxury and clothing
sectors. Almost half (45%) were ranked between 61st and 80th in the Interbrand table.
Openness Orientation. The use of social media was found to be selective, choosing
social media to communicate a positioning strategy for prestige brands, which was
focused on emotional message appeals. Apart from social networks, it concentrated on
content communities and on experimental forays into virtual worlds. The approach to
stakeholders was equally selective: all content focused on corporate branding was
developed only for customers, ignoring all other potential publics. Strategy thus gave
priority to the established logic of corporate marketing. The sole signal of openness
was in the type of content generated, which was found to be user-and-company focused
in the almost three quarters of all cases (72%). A particular characteristic of this cluster was that the motivation for participation was judged to be emotional in 63% of the
cases analyzed. This finding probably reflects the fact that many of the brands concerned were positioned and promoted as emotionally involving: designer clothing
labels, for one example. To sum up, the same medium-to-low openness orientation is
evident here, as in the case of the Cautious Beginners.
Interactivity Orientation. The mode of interaction was found to be consultation + conversation in almost three quarters of all cases (73%) and the conversation mode in the
remaining quarter or so (27%). Therefore, the overall orientation toward interactivity
is medium to high in this cluster.

Rising Stars
The headquarters of the brand owners in this second-smallest cluster (22%) were more
or less equally distributed in the United States, Germany, and Japan. More than a third

Vernuccio

227

of them lie between 61st and 80th place in the Interbrand rankings. The main sectors
of activity were automotive and consumer electronics, followed by computer hardware, personal care, restaurants, and sporting goods.
Openness Orientation. The use of social media was found to be widespread, with 92%
of the cluster joining content communities and providing content on demand, 46%
issuing corporate blogs, and 23% setting up Internet forums, which indicates openness. Online communication involved not only customers but also various other publics. The content generated exhibited a slight tendency to the user-and-company-focused
type (53% of all cases), and the predominant motivation to participate was driven by
rational value (69%). The openness orientation of this cluster was thus assessed as
being medium to high.
Interactivity Orientation. There was an even balance between consultation and conversation in the form of interaction (93%); only 7% involved conversation exclusively.
The collective interactivity orientation of this cluster was thus judged to be at the
medium level.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Lines of Research

This study provides insights into corporate communication, corporate branding, and
social media research streams in at least two ways. First, the findings offer some additional reflections with respect to the existing literature on the gap between the communicative potential of social media (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Mangold & Faulds,
2009) and using social media to communicate the corporate brand in an open and
interactive way (Research Question 1). Second, the results of the cluster analysis provide first evidence of the diverse strategic approaches to the communication of the
corporate brand in terms of interactivity and openness (Research Question 2), as
depicted schematically in Figure 1.
With respect to Research Question 1 (To what degree are interactivity and openness used in communicating corporate brands through social media?), a subtle degree
of evolution is observed in the use of interactivity in the pursuit of brand building. In
fact, almost two thirds of the firms in the sample exhibited interactivity orientations in
the medium to high levels, steadily moving from one-way communication to a dialogue. Less positive results were observed, however, in the development of corporate
brand-building strategies that were openness oriented and encouraged the active participation of different stakeholders. Whereas 45% of the brand owners whose communications were analyzed exhibited a medium-to-high degree of openness, this
openness was truly high in only slightly less than a quarter of all cases: the 23% of the
sample assigned to the Confident Communicators cluster. With reference to Research
Question 2 (What are the distinctive strategic orientations toward interactivity and
openness in communicating corporate brands through social media?), the latter cluster revealed a strategic orientation that anticipated the exploitation of the full range of
social media, the engagement of all significant stakeholders, and the generation of

228

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

content that is centered on the identity of the participant and on that of the brand. Only
when there is a systematic combination of these conditions is there a realistic prospect
of exploiting the benefits of the co-creation of content and, to some extent, the brand
itself: the so-called open corporate brand. In this case, the organization begins to adopt
a stakeholder perspective to branding, which suggests that stakeholders form network
relationships (rather than only dyadic relationships) with brands, and brand value is
co-created within stakeholder-based ecosystems (Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009, p. 337).
However, more than a third of all the companies in the sample (37%) may be characterized as cautious, prudent, or at least diffident. The corresponding cluster of
Cautious Beginners has not, for instance, valorized the potential of social media to
enhance interactivity and openness, but rather maintains an approach to brand building that is essentially unchanging. For these companies, social media are tactical
rather than strategic outlets, although the brand is virtually the only one talking
using its vocabularyand not everybody is interested in the brand itself. The main
underlying causes of this phenomenon are likely cultural resistance to radical innovations and managerial perceptions of the risk of loss of control over brand values. In
fact, even if managers acknowledged the importance of incorporating social media
into their communication strategies and promotional efforts, they remain accustomed
to exerting high levels of control over company-to-stakeholders messages. Instead,
according to Mangold and Faulds (2009), companies must learn to talk with their
customers, as opposed to talking at them, therefore influencing the discussions taking
place in the social media space (p. 361). In this ecosystem, stakeholders do not want
to talk only about their brands, but rather through their brands, and function as coauthors of the brand meanings. Corporate communication managers must understand
how to manage the openness, for instance, in terms of the design of the participations
modes, with an aim to widen the involvement of all the companys stakeholders in
contributing to brand meaning and serving as ambassadors for the brand (Hatch &
Rubin, 2005, p. 57).
In light of the reported results, the potential for future development in corporate
communication and corporate branding strategies may be focused in the following
areas:
1. The adoption of different types of conversational interactivity, in which all participants in the brand message are fully responsible for the creation, distribution,
and use of the content;
2. The expansion of the range of social media used;
3. The greater involvement of all stakeholders, including the perennially underrepresented employees, who may increasingly become co-creators of the corporate brand (not forgetting the overarching responsibility of management for the
harmonization of such partner inputs with the strategic vision, the organizational
culture, and the corporate image).
Despite the aforementioned potential, it is important to highlight that the open corporate brand should not be considered a goal in absolute for all firms/brands. Different

Vernuccio

229

strategic conditions may act as moderators, such as the behavioral characteristics of

specific target audiences. In this sense, future research should include at least two
streams: first, the analysis of the motivations, perceptions, and behaviors of particular
stakeholders in the social media context; and second, the investigation of the voice of
management that is ultimately responsible for brand building, to establish the antecedents of the choice to develop new paradigms in corporate communication and brand
management and begin a dialogue, and to manage the most critical aspects in the
implementation and postevaluation phases.
Another area in which evolution may be foreseen is the value of participation in the
communication of the brand. In fact, in 60% of all cases examined, the motivation that
led stakeholders to participate is rational. A stronger emphasis on the emotional
rewards of participation in brand building may bolster the degree of involvement in
the process and vice versa. This point could serve as a research hypothesis for further
empirical studies focusing on the antecedents of the corporate open brand-building
process.
The study reported and discussed here set out to offer an initial contribution to the
refinement of the conceptual framework linking social media to corporate brand building and an exploratory empirical analysis of the implicit strategic approaches in practice. Notwithstanding, we do not explicitly analyze the negotiated meaning of corporate
brand among the stakeholders. We are convinced that further research focusing on
qualitative content analysis of each social media platform for particular brands will
provide valuable insights into the active negotiation of brands meanings.
Another limitation of this study is that the sources of the data for the content analysis that were from strongly performing multinational companies with high-value
brands and strong web presence. Therefore, the findings concerning their usage of
social media may be generalized only with due caution, and future studies should
focus on small and medium enterprises opportunities and strategies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received financial support for the research from Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.
Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of
Marketing Management, 5, 63-76.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawer, A., & Wood, S. (1997).
Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate
in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61, 48-53.
Argenti, P. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2009). Digital strategies for powerful corporate communications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

230

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Argenti, P. A., & Forman, J. (2002). The power of corporate communication: Crafting the voice
and image of your business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Argenti, P. A., Howell, R. A., & Beck, K. A. (2005). The strategic communication imperative.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 83-89.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001a). The three virtues and seven deadly sins of Corporate Brand
Management. Journal of General Management, 27, 1-17.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001b). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing:
Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 248-291.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
European Journal of Marketing, 37, 972-997.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (Eds.). (2003). Revealing the corporation: Perspectives on
identity, image, reputation, corporate branding and corporate-level marketing. London,
England: Routledge.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity,
corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation.
European Journal of Marketing, 40, 730-741.
Bernstein, D. (2003). Corporate brandingBack to the basics. European Journal of Marketing,
37, 1133-1141.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L., & Watson, R. T. (1996). Re-surfing W3: Research perspectives on marketing communications and buyer behavior on the World Wide Web. International Journal of
Advertising, 15, 287-301.
Bordewijk, J. L., & Van Kaam, B. (1986). Towards a new classification of tele-information
services. Inter Media, 14(1), 16-21.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
Bughin, J. (2008). The rise of Enterprise 2.0. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing
Practice, 9, 251-259.
Bughin, J., Manyika, J., & Miller, A. (2008, July). Building the Web 2.0 Enterprise. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1-10.
Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. P. (2009, February). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work.
McKinsey Quarterly, 1-9.
comScore. (2011). Its a social world: Top 10 need-to-knows about social networking and
where its headed. Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_
Whitepapers/2011/it_is_a_social_world_top_10_need-to-knows_about_social_networking
Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate communication. A guide to theory and practice. London,
England: Sage.
Costantinides, E., & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing
issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9, 231-244.
De Chernatony, L. (2001). Succeeding with brands on the Internet. Journal of Brand
Management, 8, 186-195.
Eun Sook, K., & Yongjun, S. (2011). Follow me! Global marketers twitter use. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 4-16.
Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54, 193-207.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pittman.
Furness, V. (2008). Web 2.0 and the enterprise: Its impact on business and strategies to maximize new opportunities. Banbury, England: Business Insight.
Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). The corporate brand: A strategic asset. Management in
Practice, 4, 1-4.

Vernuccio

231

Gregory, A. (2007). Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: The communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 23, 59-73.
Gupta, S., Armstrong, K., & Clayton, Z. (2010). Social media. Harvard Business School, 4,
1-14.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net gain. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Handelman, J. M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 107-114.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). Were are all connected: The power of the
social media ecosystem. Business Horizon, 54, 265-273.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). The relationship between organizational culture, identity
and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 356-365.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001, February). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate
brand? Harvard Business Review, 128-134.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European
Journal of Marketing, 37, 1041-1064.
Hatch, M. L., & Rubin, J. (2005). The hermeneutics of branding. Journal of Brand Management,
14(1/2), 40-59.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Immediate Future. (2010). Brands in social media. London, England: Immediate Future.
Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. London, England: Macmillan Press.
Ind, N., & Bjerke, R. (2007). The concept of participatory market orientation: An organisationwide approach to enhancing brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 15, 135-145.
Ind, N., & Riondino, M. C. (2001). Branding on the Web: A real revolution? Brand Management,
9, 8-19.
Interbrand. (2010). Best global brands 2010. Retrieved from http://www.interbrand.com/
Libraries/Branding_Studies/Best_Global_Brands_2009.sflb.ashx
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as
electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 60, 2169-2188.
Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., De Pelsmacker, P., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Marketing research
with SPSS. London, England: Prentice-Hall.
Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication studies.
Nordicom Review, 19, 185-204.
Jhih-Syuan, L., & Pea, J. (2011). Are you following me? A content analysis of TV networks
brand communication on Twitter. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 17-29.
Jones, J. P. (1999). How to use advertising to build strong brands. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009). Consumers, companies, and virtual social worlds: A
qualitative analysis of Second Life. Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 873-874.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Kassarjian, H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
4, 8-17.
Ketchen, D. J., & Shook, C. L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441-458.
King, S. (1991). Brand-building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management, 7, 3-13.
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding. European Journal
of Marketing, 37, 998-1016.

232

International Journal of Business Communication 51(3)

Kolbe, R. H., & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-analysis research: An examination of applications with directives for improving research reliability and objectivity. Journal of Consumer
Research, 18, 243-250.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Krishnamurthy, S., & Dou, W. (2008). Advertising with user-generated content: A framework
and research agenda. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 1-7.
Leitch, S., & Richardson, N. (2003). Corporate branding in the new economy. European Journal
of Marketing, 37, 1065-1079.
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing?
Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31, 53-64.
Mairinger, M. (2008). Branding 2.0Using Web 2.0 principles to build an open source brand.
Electronic Markets, 18, 117-119.
Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357-365.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration
of the role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of
interactivity. Journal of Advertising, 31, 29-42.
Merz, M., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logic
perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 328-344.
Nielsen. (2011). State of the media: The social media reportQ3. Retrieved from http://www.
nielsen.com/us/en/reports/2011/social-media-report-q3.html
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 65-77.
OReilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/
news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., Berthon, P., Wynn, D., & Zinkhan, G. (2006). The penguins window:
Corporate brands from an open-source perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 115-127.
Post, J. E, Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. California Management Review, 45, 6-27.
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983, May). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and
suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 134-148.
Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, 2(4). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x
Roper, S., & Davies, G. (2007). The corporate brand: Dealing with multiple stakeholders.
Journal of Marketing Management, 23, 75-90.
Safco, L. (2010). The social media bible. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Shelby, A. (1993). Organizational, business, management, and corporate communication: An
analysis of boundaries and relationships. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 241-267.
Schultz, M., & De Chernatony, L. (2002). The challenges of corporate branding. Corporate
Reputation Review, 5, 105-112.
Scoble, R., & Israel, S. (2006). Naked conversations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Simmons, G., Thomas, B., & Truong, Y. (2010). Managing i-branding to create brand equity.
European Journal of Marketing, 44, 1260-1285.

Vernuccio

233

Urde, M. (2003). Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing,
37, 1017-1040.
Van Riel Cees, B. S., & Fombrun, C.J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communications. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Vernuccio, M., Barbarossa, C., Giraldi, A., & Ceccotti, F. (2012). Determinants of e-brand attitude: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Brand Management, 19, 500-512.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2000). Clustering methods. Marketing Segmentation. Conceptual
and Methodological Foundations. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Wright, J. (2006). Blog marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Author Biography
Maria Vernuccio is associate professor of management at the Department of Management,
Sapienza University of Rome, where she earned her PhD in management and finance. Her current research interests involve issues in digital marketing, brand management, and marketing
and corporate communication.

Copyright of Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business

Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.