Search results

Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default consumer position is to accept a brand’s narrative, and we find that consumers maintain belief in this narrative even when explicitly reminded that it is manufactured by firms with an underlying profit motive. Because belief seems to be the default position adopted by consumers, we investigate what factors act as disruptors to this default position, thereby reducing assessments of authenticity.

This research uses a series of studies to investigate when and why consumers view some brand stories as authentic and others less so. In addition, we examine the impact of changes to authenticity assessments on managerially important brand outcomes.

Only when one or more authenticity disruptors are present do consumers begin to question the authenticity of the brand narrative. Disruption occurs when the focal brand is perceived to be nakedly copying a competitor, or when there is a gross mismatch between the brand narrative and reality. In the presence of one or both of these disruptors, consumers judge brands to be less authentic, report lower identification, lower assessments of brand quality and social responsibility, and are less likely to join the brand’s community.

Creating compelling brand stories is an important aspect of any marketing manager’s job; after all, these narratives help drive sales. Care must be taken when crafting narratives however, since consumers use these as the basis of their authenticity assessments, and brands deemed inauthentic are penalized.

The blessing of the sharing economy is that the benefits of development would largely remain locally; this is also a curse because the costs of development too would do the same. While the sharing economy is touted as a creative disruptor, not much is known about their impacts. This chapter examines the role of shared economy actors in the hospitality industry, particularly guesthouses, in tourism recovery. It presents a micro-case study of guest sentiments on guesthouses in the Maldives. Based on an analysis of 17,576 comments, a total of eight factors emerged including: perceived value for money, local culture, hospitality, services, activities, rooms, food and beverage, and island environment. These reviews are useful to understand the factors appealing to visitors to the guesthouses and could become key inputs to the island's tourism recovery strategy.

Assessing air cargo strategy from an airport's perspective is relatively novel, and it seems little attention has been paid to this research area. This chapter will address this research gap by introducing an Airport Cargo Strategy Canvas, designed to help build cargo strategies for individual airports.

The Airport Cargo Strategy Canvas can be used as a tool to analyze and improve the air cargo strategy of an airport. The first part of this chapter will explain the different components of the Airport Cargo Strategy Canvas more in detail. The horizontal axis on the canvas differentiates between exogenous and endogenous drivers of airport competitiveness. The vertical axis distinguishes between the airport product and the airport market. The canvas also considers potential disruptors and principal shareholders' objectives. The different components of the canvas allow the analyst to dig into the main features and differentiators of respective airports. The canvas might also be helpful to structure and compare the strategic components and framework of their own or competitors' cargo strategies.

In the second part, the Airport Cargo Strategy Canvas was applied to Brussels Airport to analyze its cargo strategy. The canvas showed several strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats in its current cargo strategy. The completed canvas will let Brussels Airport's executives explore and analyze the strategy of their main competitors and peers' strategy and help them identify potential gaps in their strategies.

In this paper, we investigate how digital technology disruptors and the incumbents who stand to be disrupted by them frame their arguments to transform or sustain existing institutional frameworks to enable or deter the market entry of these technologies. Using a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of three digital technologies – namely, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), cloud antenna, and over-the-top (OTT) technologies – we explore how stakeholders use public interest frames for this purpose. We find that entrepreneurs use three specific frames to drive institutional change for the successful adoption of digital technologies in the presence of established incumbents and powerful regulators: frames that emphasize the broad public appeal of the new digital technology; frames that emphasize efficiency, democracy, and technological advancement; and frames that emphasize present as well as future benefits to the public. We find that constructing interpretations of what serves the public interest is the primary tactic used by disruptors to gain market entry, and an equally popular weapon for incumbents to block the entry of new digital technologies. These interpretations lead to a framing contest aimed at influencing regulators and obtaining a more favorable institutional environment. Our empirical findings illustrate that new digital technologies themselves are not the sole contributors to institutional change. Rather, institutional outcomes associated with the introduction of new digital technologies are shaped by how disruptors and incumbents use public interest frames and how regulators react to these frames.