1 Lazuli Bunting Manuscript Review History Manuscript
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 LAZULI BUNTING MANUSCRIPT REVIEW HISTORY MANUSCRIPT (ROUND 1) Abstract One hundred years after its sinking, the Titanic holds many in its thrall. If not quite a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, it continues to captivate consumers worldwide. This paper explores RMS Titanic from a cultural branding perspective, arguing that “the unfathomable brand” can be fruitfully examined through the ambiguous lens of literary criticism. Although brand ambiguity is often regarded as something to be avoided, this article demonstrates that ambiguity is a multi-faceted construct, five aspects of which are discernible in the brand debris field surrounding the totemic vessel. Combining empirical research and archival investigation, the article contends that ambiguity is a strength, rather than a weakness, of iconic brands like Titanic. This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only. 2 In my own dreams of the Titanic, I am a disembodied robotic eye, gliding like a wayward star through the adits of its wrecked Atlantean cathedral, or through a porthole oculus, taking account of tilted apses and saloons, wandering their marble stairs and passageways. —Ciaran Carson, The Star Factory Paul Tillich (1952), the eminent theologian, defines maturity as an ability to tolerate ambiguity. If this is correct, then branding probably qualifies as a mature marketing practice. The early certainties of branding, encapsulated in Rosser Reeves’ (1961) USP, are gradually giving way to cultural and critical perspectives that are more oceanic, more polysemic, more amorphous than before (Bengtsson and Ostberg 2006; Beverland 2009; Kates and Goh 2003; Puntoni, Schroeder, and Ritson 2010). As Rose (2011) explains in his study of popular culture in a digital age, ambiguity is a defining feature of 21st century television (Lost), cinema (Inception), literature (1Q84), computer games (Gears of War) and, not least, iconic brand advertising (Coke’s “Happiness Factory”). Ambiguity, Johnson (2011) further avers, is the Holy Grail of verbal cleverness in today’s short-form society of texts, tweets and micro-messages, since it delivers two meanings for the price of one. Ambiguity, of course, is not simply an indicator of adulthood. For Tillich, ambiguity is evident in humankind’s highest achievements and greatest failures. That being the case, the purpose of the present paper is to explore the inherent ambiguities of an outstanding brand that is one of the highest achievements and greatest failures in western civilization, a brand that sank in 1912 yet remains afloat one hundred years later, a brand whose USP is crystal clear but whose meanings are boundless, a brand that, for one enthusiast at least, is “the most famous ship built since Noah’s Ark” (Cameron 2011, 11). That brand is the Titanic. Our attempt to fathom this seemingly unsinkable icon commences with a brief history of branding, noting its ever-increasing indeterminacy. We then examine the nature and meaning of ambiguity, which is predicated on the literary theories of William Empson and the New Critics. A succinct summary of the story of Titanic then follows and our cultural research methods are explained. The findings section describes the five major types of Empsonian ambiguity that contribute to Brand Titanic’s abiding mystique. After discussing the meaning of our findings for the theory and practice of cultural branding, some lines of future research inquiry are outlined. A BRIEF HISTORY OF BRANDING Although the pre-history of branding dates back several thousand years (Belk and Zhou 1987; Simòes and Dibb 2001), the great take-off occurred in the mid-nineteenth century (Blackett 2003; Moor 2007; Room 1998). Mass production, mass consumption and mass communications, coupled with the introduction of legally binding trademark legislation, created conditions conducive to the ascent of brand (Koehn 2001; Petty 2012; Strasser 1989; Tedlow 1990). The contemporaneous emergence of advertising agencies – as well as radical breakthroughs in package design – gave rise to legendary brands like Heinz beans, Kellogg’s cereals, Levi’s jeans and Gillette razor blades that remain icons to this day (Sivulka 2011). As Petty (2011) shows, the principles of marketing management and best branding practice – not least, P&G’s fabled brand management system – were in place by the Great Depression and widely adopted thereafter. This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only. 3 If the first half of the twentieth century resembled a brand blast-furnace, the second half was akin to a fast-breeder reactor. Despite occasional high-profile setbacks, such as the infamous bonfire of the brands on “Marlboro Friday” (Klein 2000), a rapid increase in branding’s scope and standing transpired (Pavitt 2000). Originally confined to FMCG and similar staples, the term was applied to an ever-widening array of activities, everything from hospitals, universities, art galleries and police forces to politicians, celebrities, utility suppliers and religious denominations (Lury 2004; Olins 2003). More pertinently perhaps, the post-war period was marked by many attempts to conceptualize and delineate the brandscape. As Heding, Knudtzen, and Bjerre (2009) explain, the understanding of branding has evolved through three main phases: the first, characterized by a focus on features, benefits and the communication of USPs, was company-centric; the second, where brand meaning was situated in the recipient rather than the sender, was consumer-centric; the third, which considered brands to be a cause and consequence of shifting socio-economic currents and contradictions, was culture-centric. Heding, Knudtzen, and Bjerre’s (2009) three-stage model of brand evolution is far from comprehensive. Casual observation suggests that all three perspectives operate simultaneously, possibly in accordance with Williams’ (1977) contention that cultural formations are characterized by dominant, emergent and residual elements. Just as the USP is still part of brand managers’ lexicon, consumer-centred concepts, such as positioning, never go completely out of fashion. The evolutionary typology by Heding et al. nevertheless illustrates the increasingly ambiguous nature of brands and branding. The narrow functional preoccupation of the late 1950s has given way to a much more macro sense of the meaning of branding (Hales 2011; Holt 2002; Stern 2006). Indeed, when this looser conceptualization is combined with the inexorable processes of context creep, where branding is applied to ever-more diverse domains, communications creep, where brands are showcased through ever-more media channels, competition creep, where the choice of brands in most categories is mounting ever-more rapidly, cogitation creep, where the study of brands and branding is attracting ever-more academic interest, from ever-more disciplines; consequence creep, where branding is rising from a minor subsidiary of marketing’s 4Ps to a veritable corporate philosophy that permeates ever-more organizations; and clamour creep, where the background noise of brand babble in magazines, newspapers, movies, websites, music videos, social networks, television programmes and so forth is becoming ever-more incessant, it would be surprising indeed if brands and branding were as unambiguous as they used to be (Grant 2003; Keller 2003). ADVANCING AMBIGUITY Ambiguity, for many authorities on branding best practice, is not a desirable trait. It is, rather, a one-way ticket to oblivion. As most mainstream textbooks make clear, clarity has long been the watchword of both branding and advertising. In his formal statement of the USP, for example, Rosser Reeves (1961, 39) expressly states that the reality principle of branding involves a single, clearly expressed claim or concept that is striking and easy to remember. In their concise classic, Positioning, the Battle for Your Mind, Ries and Trout (1986, 8) advise brand managers to “jettison the ambiguities, simplify the message, then simplify it some more.” Kevin Lane Keller (1999) likewise contends that lucidity is essential when building strong, favorable and unique consumer associations, which are best compressed into a short, vivid and crisp “brand mantra.” Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2009, 40, 54), furthermore, maintain that leading brands not only This document is part of a JCR Manuscript Review History. It should be used for educational purposes only. 4 possess “a rich, clear, brand identity” but that “less ambiguity” is always better when it comes to the branding crunch. Undesirable as it is, ambiguity is unavoidable. Whether it be Delphic slogans such as Just Do It (just do what, exactly?), I’m Lovin’ It (what “it” would that be?) and Because You’re Worth It (is that the same “it” as Nike’s or another “it” entirely?), or the recent rise in consumer co-creation, where the meaning of a brand ebbs and flows between interested parties, it is evident that the old certainties are, if not entirely negated, much less certain than before (Fournier and Avery 2011; Kozinets, Hemetsberger, and Schau 2008). Indeed, according to the tenets of post- structuralist philosophy, linguistic meaning is never stable or settled, let alone set in stone (Firat and Venkatesh 1995; Scott 1993; Stern 1996). Language is always in flux and until such times as the shackles of language are transcended – as Zaltman (2003) recommends – an element of ambiguity is inevitable in branding theory