Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Family Business Strategy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfbs

Branding the family firm: A review, integrative framework proposal, and T

research agenda
⁎
Claudia Binz Astrachana, , Isabel Boterob, Joseph H. Astrachanc, Reinhard Prügld
a
Lucerne School of Business and Witten/Herdecke University, Germany
b
Stetson University, USA
c
Witten/Herdecke University, Germany
d
FIF@Zeppelin University, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A family business brand allows family-owned companies to leverage a valuable idiosyncratic resource: the family
Family business brand nature of the firm. A steadily growing body of research evidences the growing interest among both researchers
Literature review and practitioners – understandably so, given that prior contributions have identified a range of positive orga-
Family business brand framework nizational outcomes associated with family business branding. However, the lack of a unifying definition, an
Future research
encompassing framework, and an adequate measure of a family business brand present important challenges for
the advancement of the field. Applying a systems approach, we propose a multi-dimensional conceptualization
of the family business brand that emerges from prior research and our own observations of actual family business
branding practices. With this guiding framework, we hope to systemize and inspire future research to help
facilitate growth in this area of work.

1. Introduction scholars and practitioners have become increasingly interested in the

A family business brand allows family-owned companies to leverage
a valuable idiosyncratic resource: the family nature of the firm (Craig,
Dibrell & Davis, 2008; Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010). A
family business brand could be considered inimitable because of the
owning family’s unique history, its identity, and the family members
that have exemplified family and firm values over time, perpetuated in
stories anchored in the minds of employees, customers, and other sta-
keholders (Blombäck, 2011; Krappe, Goutas, & von Schlippe, 2011).
The challenge for family business owners and leaders lies in the iden-
tification of values and characteristics that add value to the brand
message recipient (Blombäck & Botero, 2013), making the family
business brand a potential source of sustained competitive advantage.
In todays’ hypercompetitive business environment, where stake-
holders face endless choices and streams of information, brands are
important means of differentiation (Hulberg, 2006; Keller, 2008).
Brands create unique impressions about a company and its products in
the minds of stakeholders (Anisimova, 2007; Balmer & Gray, 2003), and
help stakeholders in capturing valuable information that guides them in
their decision-making about a product, service, or an organization (La
Foret, 2009; Lievens & Slaughter, 2016; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2015).
Due to the importance of brands in today’s world, family business
phenomenon of family business branding (e.g., Binz, Hair, Pieper &
Baldauf, 2013; Blombäck & Botero, 2013, Craig et al., 2008; Tasman-
Jones, 2015; Zellweger, Kellermanns, Eddleston & Memili, 2012). The
focus of family business brand scholarship until now has been on un-
derstanding whether family ownership can serve as a mark that helps
differentiate family business products and services in the market place,
how family business brands are used, what the perceptions are that
different stakeholders have about the family business brand, and what
the potential downsides of such using a family business brand might be.
Although there has been some advancement in our understanding of
family business brands, a challenge that researchers still face is the
confusion and amalgamation of representations that have developed
from studying family business branding from multiple points of view.
In the last decade, there has been growth in the number of pub-
lications about family business branding as evidenced by the recent
publication of two important reviews. The work of Sageder, Mitter, and
Feldbauer-Durstmüller (2016) presents a ‘systematic literature review of
the state of research’ (p. 1) about family firm image and reputation. In
this project, the authors review 73 publications and distinguish four
types of contributions: (1) those that focus on associations (perceptions)
with family firms, (2) those that investigate the family’s influence on
the firm’s image and reputation, (3) those that look at the actions taken

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Claudia.astrachan@hslu.ch (C.B. Astrachan), ibotero@stetson.edu (I. Botero), jastrach@gmail.com (J.H. Astrachan), reinhard.pruegl@zu.de (R. Prügl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.01.002
Received 9 January 2018; Accepted 10 January 2018
Available online 09 February 2018
1877-8585/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.B. Astrachan et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15

to create a distinct family firm image, and (4) those that examine the
consequences of being known as a family firm. A second review by Beck
(2016) analyzes 41 publications in terms of the ‘potential consequences of
being a family firm on internal organizational processes, and stakeholders’
external perception’ (p. 225). The article draws on organizational iden-
tity theory, and outlines an expansive set of interesting questions for
further research. These reviews synthesize the efforts of prior research,
and provide a basis to further our understanding of the family business
brand and the branding process in family firms. However, neither re-
view is clear about what constitutes a family business brand or what is
the combined understanding that researchers have accumulated about
family business branding.
To address this gap, this article reviewed 91 publications (i.e., 50
scholarly articles, six working papers, two dissertations, one master
thesis, five conference papers, one report, and 26 practitioner pub-
lications, see Appendix A for details). Our goal was to take stock of prior
research in order to determine what constitutes a family business brand,
what we know about the family business brand and the branding pro-
cess, to highlight areas of uncertainty and perhaps confusion, and to
provide a guiding framework that captures our combined knowledge
about family business brands. Lastly, this article outlines avenues for
future research that will help bring clarity and facilitate growth of this
area of work.
family business brand is needed in order to move beyond what can still
be considered a formative stage.
Our review of the literature points to three views or con-
ceptualizations of the family business brand. (1) The identity view of the
family business brand focuses on what family business owners and lea-
ders believe to be true about their organization, which includes char-
acteristics they view as differentiating factors of their business. (2) The
image view of the family business brand pertains to whether and how the
business owners and leaders choose to portray the family nature of their
business to stakeholders within and outside of the business (i.e., the
image is what family business leaders and owners project to the world
with the belief that their projection will create an image of the company
in the minds of stakeholders that closely matches the company’s es-
sence). And lastly, (3) the reputation view of the family business brand
captures the unique perceptions that external stakeholders view as the
differentiating factors for family firms in the marketplace and other
venues. Although we present these views as three distinct con-
ceptualizations, the literature often does not use them as distinct ap-
proaches; image, reputation, and brand are sometimes used synony-
mously. In the following sections, we present each of the approaches to
gain a better understanding of what we know about these con-
ceptualizations of the family business brand, to parse out each of the
components, and to clearly articulate what each view contributes to our
understanding of the family business brand.

2. Defining the family business brand

Scholars have inadvertently created confusion in the understanding
about family business brands by employing a variety of terms – often-
times somewhat synonymously – when investigating this phenomenon
(see Table 1 below). Even though there is an underlying commonality
that tries to describe how family ownership can work as a differentiator
in the marketplace, an overarching definition of the focal concept has
yet to emerge. The lack of a unifying definition presents an important
challenge to the advancement the field, as it leads to different under-
standings as well as operationalization and measurement of the family
business brand, that make it difficult to combine research results and
develop theory in this area. An encompassing definition – based on the
knowledge accumulated over the last decade – of what constitutes the
2.1. Identity view of the family business brand
Organizational identity describes the “mental associations about the
organization held by organizational members” (Brown, Dacin, Pratt, &
Whetten, 2006, p. 102). It answers the question “who are we as an or-
ganization?” and describes the organizational features that internal
stakeholders consider the most central, distinctive and enduring about
the firm (Albert & Whetten, 1985); it can be thought of as the essence of
the firm (Zavyalova, Pfarrer, & Reger, 2017). In family firms, organi-
zational identity is composed of a combination of the identity of the
owning family and the identity of the business (Tagiuri & Davis, 1996;
see also Zellweger et al., 2010). These two identities can be integrated
or segmented to various degrees. This continuum can range from very

Table 1
Terms used in Family Business Branding Literature.

Term Definition Authors

Family Business Brand Identity
Family Business Brand
Associations/Secondary Brand
Associations
Family Business Brand
Family Brand
Family Business/Family Firm Image
Family Business/Family Firm
Identity
Family Business/Family Firm
Perceptions
Family Business/Family Firm
Reputation
Family Business Brand Heritage
Unique family business resource that describes a set of promises
and expectations indicating characteristics such as
trustworthiness and consistency, for the customer.
References about the family’s involvement in a firm, used in
combination with other components of the brand.
Associations and expectations created in stakeholder’s minds
pertaining the involvement of a family in a firm.
Set of associations attributed to a particular family.
Set of associations that individuals have in their memory
regarding a family business.
Family business leaders’ own perceptions of the company (e.g.,
‘Are we a family firm?’)
Process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting the value of
information about family ownership.
General perception that external stakeholders have of family
firms as a distinct class of economic actors.
Introduction of the concept of history as an important dimension
that can be leveraged as part of the family business brand
identity.
Craig et al. (2008) and Gallucci et al. (2015)
Blombäck (2009, 2010,2011
Beck (2016), Binz Astrachan and Botero (forthcoming), Blombäck
(2010), Blombäck and Botero (2013), Botero and Blombäck (2010)
and Krappe et al. (2011).
Parmentier, 2011 and Presas et al. (2011)
Beck (2016), Ceja and Tàpies (2009), Hauswald et al. (2016), Memili
et al. (2010), Orth and Green (2009), Ramdharie and Brinxma (2012),
Sundaramurthy and Kreiner (2008) and Zellweger et al. (2012)
Beck (2016), Blombäck and Ramírez-Pasillas (2012), Botero et al.
(2013), Felden, Fischer, Graffius, and Marwede (2016), Micelotta and
Raynard (2011), Presas et al. (2014); Sageder et al. (2015),
Sundaramurthy and Kreiner (2008) and Zellweger et al. (2010)
Botero (2014), Dessi et al. (2014), Eskine and Locander (2014),
Hauswald and Hack (2013), Kahlert et al. (2017) and Okoroafo and
Koh (2009).
Beck (2016), Binz et al. (2013), Blombäck and Botero (2013), Botero
and Blombäck (2010), Deephouse and Jaskiewicz (2013), Huybrechts
et al. (2011) and Sageder et al. (2016).
Blombäck and Brunninge, (2013)

4
C.B. Astrachan et al.
little integration between the two identities, with little or no overlap
between the family and the business, to very high, with fluid bound-
aries between family and business identities (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner,
2008). Highly integrated family firms with a strong system overlap –
where the family is strongly involved in the business, and where both
family and business share many of the same goals, values, beliefs,
norms and interaction styles – are assumed to be more likely to ‘ac-
knowledge their family-owned status in their marketing and advertising’
(ibid., p. 419).
Contributions taking this approach explore the family business
brand from the organization’s point of view (taking a sender’s per-
spective), describing the processes and factors that drive – but also
those that may hinder – family business brand promotion (e.g., Binz,
Astrachan & Botero, 2017; Blombäck & Ramírez-Pasillas, 2012; Botero,
Thomas, Graves, & Fediuk, 2013; Cooper, Upton, & Seaman, 2005;
Craig et al., 2008; Dessì & Floris, 2010; Gallucci, Santulli, & Calabrò,
2015; Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2010, 2014).
2.2. Image view of the family business brand
Organizational image encompasses the mental associations that
organizational members want others to hold (and believe) about the
organization (Brown et al., 2006). It is a desired state of perception
about the company and its offerings that the organization aims to in-
fluence through its formally managed corporate communication, and
informally communicated signals (e.g., employee behavior, customer
service, philanthropic activities) (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Gioia,
Schultz & Corley, 2000). In this line of argument, a family business
brand represents, in part, the promise an organization makes to in-
dividuals based on the unique information that business leaders and
owners (the primary drivers of the family business brand) choose to
communicate about the firm in their efforts to achieve differentiation in
the marketplace, based on the family nature of the firm.
The image view of the family business brand includes the portrayal
of the businesses’ family nature to internal and external stakeholders –
for example, in terms of how prominently the family is featured in
corporate communication (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011), or the way in
which the family is characterized (Parmentier, 2011), and used to
promote certain values (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015). Similar to
the identity view, the image view is also sender-based, as it focuses on
the way in which family business owners and leaders choose to portray
the family nature of their organization to their stakeholders. However,
this view of brand focuses on what senders do to manage and construct
their brand’s message.
2.3. Reputation view of the family business brand
Reputation, or “mental associations about the organization held by
[individuals] outside the organization” (Brown et al., 2006, p. 102), has
been defined as the public’s long-term, stable overall evaluation of an
organization’s behavior over time (e.g., Berens & van Riel, 2004; Brown
& Dacin, 1997; Fombrun, 1996; Gray & Balmer, 1998). It is the sum of
actual beliefs (and associations) held by the company’s diverse con-
stituencies, influenced by a variety of sources (e.g., competitors, media)
that cannot be fully controlled by the company (Brown et al., 2006). A
distinct family firm reputation is the result of selecting, organizing, and
interpreting the value of information about family ownership by dif-
ferent stakeholders (Beck & Prügl, 2015; Botero, 2014; Dessi et al.,
2014; Eskine & Locander, 2014; Hauswald & Hack, 2013; Kahlert,
Botero, & Prügl 2017; Lude & Prügl, 2016). A third common thread for
understanding the family business brand is related to the meaning that
stakeholders can infer from family ownership signals.
Researchers who explore the family business brand from this ap-
proach try to capture the unique perceptions that external and internal
stakeholders view as differentiating factors for family firms in the
marketplace. From the reputation point of view, a family business
5
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
brand represents the associations and expectations that are created in
the minds of stakeholders as a result of signaling the family’s involve-
ment in a firm, and help differentiate family businesses from others in
the marketplace and among their many stakeholders. This view of a
family business brand is based on a receiver’s approach, as those who
receive information are drivers of the family business brand.
2.4. A systems approach to defining family business brand
Each of the three approaches, or dimensions, provides an important
view for understanding what constitutes a family business brand. Given
that the three dimensions are interlinked, a system’s approach seems
appropriate, taking these separate components (i.e., the brand is made
up of different dimensions) and their interlinked (i.e., changes in one
part of the system lead to changes in other parts of the system) move-
ments into account. The parsing of the family business brand concept
into its constituent parts may have many benefits for research and
conceptual development. The identity view sheds light on why the
owners and managers of a family firm choose to promote their family
background to their stakeholders as well as the elements available to be
promoted. We posit that identity also defines the limits of a sustainable
brand image, since a gap between what is (identity) and what is pro-
jected (image) is likely impossible to maintain over the long run. The
image view partly explains how the family’s identity becomes manifest
in the brand through family portrayal and through other message
forms, both through intentional (premeditated image) and uninten-
tional (unpremeditated image) messaging. And lastly, the reputation
view illustrates how these intentional as well as unintentional signals
are interpreted by message recipients − the company’s relevant con-
stituencies – resulting in distinct associations and expectations that
allow for differentiation in the marketplace and other venues.
One of the main challenges in developing a commonly shared and
operationalizable definition of a family business brand is the confusion
among terms, given that the concepts of organizational identity, image,
reputation, and the brand are often used synonymously (see Balmer,
2001, and Brown et al., 2006 for a detailed discussion). As can be seen
in Table 2, although there are similarities between the four terms, there
are also marked differences in what each concept is trying to address.
All four concepts offer valuable insights regarding a family business
brand. While the elements can be viewed as antecedents and outcomes
of the family business brand, we prefer to think of them in a holistic
sense as components of the brand and the branding process (Lievens &
Slaughter, 2016; Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2015). In our opinion, a systems
definition of the family business brand should therefore encompass
identity-related, image-related as well as reputational components to
provide a more complete perspective of a brand.
We build on the work of Blombäck (2009) who argues that being
recognized as family-owned adds a supplementary dimension to the
perceptions about a firm, and that the explicit choice to signal family
involvement as a feature of a firm, product, or service is an element of a
broader brand (i.e., product or corporate brand). Taking this perspec-
tive into account, we define a family business brand as the formal and
informal communication (image) of the family element of firm essence
(identity), which includes the family’s involvement in a firm, and which lead
to associations and expectations in the mind of stakeholders (reputation)
that help differentiate these firms from others in the marketplace and other
venues.
This definition captures an all-encompassing view of a brand as
suggested by Urde and Greyser (2016), who state that “to have a more
extensive understanding of the phenomenon of the corporate brand, it is
necessary to adopt multiple perspectives” (p. 95) (see also Urde, 1999,
2013; Urde, Geyser & Balmer, 2007; Balmer & Gray, 2003). The systems
approach to the family business brand that we propose requires a multi-
stakeholder perspective, has a high reliance on company values and
culture (and in the case of family business, family culture), acknowl-
edges that everything related to the organization is a communication to
C.B. Astrachan et al.
Table 2
Family Business Brand Components.
Term General Definition
Identity Shared perceptions of organizational members regarding
who they are as an organization (Balmer, 2001; Brown
et al., 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). It concerns those
features that are considered the most central, distinctive,
and enduring for an organization (Albert & Whetten,
1985).
Image Mental associations that organizational members want
others to hold about the organization (Brown et al.,
2006), and a desired state of perception about the firm
and its offering the organization aims to influence through
its formal and informal communication (Camara, 2011).
Reputation Sum of mental associations, opinions and judgements held
by the company’s diverse constituencies that are based on
an organization’s past and present actions (Urde &
Greyser, 2016), influenced by a variety of sources (e.g.,
competitors, media), and which cannot be fully controlled
by the company (Brown et al., 2006).
Brand Entity of core values supporting and leading to a promise
(Urde & Greyser, 2016)
stakeholders, takes a long-term view, and requires the brand to be
perceived as authentic and not contrived in order to add lasting value
(Balmer & Gray, 2003).
In the following section, we use these three dimensions to organize
and interpret the literature on family business branding.
3. An overview of the family business branding literature
Two extensive reviews of the family business branding literature
have recently been published (Beck, 2016; Sageder et al., 2016), which
is why we refrain from discussing the sum of relevant contributions in
great detail. What we do provide – based on the study of previous
contributions as well as our observations of family business branding
practices – is a high-level overview of the concepts and themes in the
literature, highlighting important and exemplary works that further our
understanding of the family business brand.
3.1. Identity and the family business brand
Organizational identity theory has been a popular approach used to
explain the role of the owning family in family business brand pro-
motion, providing a theory-based explanation as to why certain family
firms may be more likely to communicate the family nature of the firm
than others (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008; see Section 2.1). Re-
search focusing on the drivers as well as constraints of family business
branding looks at what types of families and firms may be most, or
least, likely to promote their family firm status to their diverse con-
stituencies, and why that might be the case. Our exploration of the
literature revealed two types of identity-based antecedents of family
business brands: family-related and organizational.
3.1.1. Family-related antecedents of family business branding
Memili, Eddleston, Kellermanns, Zellwege, and Barnett (2010), in-
vestigating a sample of 163 family-owned firms in Switzerland, find
that higher levels of family ownership and family expectations (as
measured by shared family and firm values and goals) are positively
related to the promotion of a family firm image. These findings are
partly replicated by Micelotta and Raynard (2011), who, examining a
sample of 92 websites taken from Family Business Magazine’s list of the
world’s oldest family firms, find that fully privately-owned companies
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
Family Business Context Question(s) addressed
Family Firm Identity consists of the identity of the Who are we as a family firm? What makes
owning family and the business, which are integrated to a us unique? What are our core values and
certain degree – the more aligned the family and business goals?
values and goals, the larger the overlap. High levels of
integration are associated with higher levels of (family
member) identification.
Family Firm Image refers to the set of associations that How do we want out stakeholders to see
family firm owners and leaders want their stakeholders to us? How do we portray the family?
have with the company and its offering, and the
information they choose to communicate about the firm
in their efforts to achieve differentiation in the
marketplace, based on the family nature of the firm.
Family Firm Reputation represents the general What characteristics (if any) do different
perception that a family firm’s diverse stakeholders have stakeholders associate with a particular
of the organization, as well as of family businesses as a family firm, or family firms in general?
distinct class of economic actors, in comparison to non-
family firms.
A Family Business Brand is comprised of the formal and What aspects of the family nature of the
informal communication of the family element of firm firm (of who we are) do we want our
essence, which includes the family’s involvement in a stakeholders to know?
firm, which lead to associations and expectations in the
mind of stakeholders that help differentiate these firms
from others in the marketplace and other venues.
are more likely to promote their family ties than partly publicly-traded
companies. Analyzing a similar sample, but using a different analysis
scheme, Smit, Binz and Schwass (2010) confirm these findings and
furthermore find that firms carrying the owning family’s name are more
likely to promote their family background. This corresponds with prior
findings by Rubenstein (1990), who finds that of the 1076 US family
firms in her sample, family named companies are significantly more
likely to refer to their family ties in their advertising. Lastly, through a
series of case studies with 11 Swiss and German family firms, Binz
Astrachan and Botero (in press) confirm the relevance of identity in the
context of family business branding by highlighting two additional fa-
mily-related factors that drive family business brand promotion,
namely the family members’ level of identification with and commit-
ment to the business, and the pride they take in the family’s heritage
and achievements. Similarly, Zellweger et al. (2012), also find that
“family firm pride, community social ties, and long-term orientation are
important antecedents to family firm image” (p. 248).
3.1.2. Organizational antecedents of family business branding
While far from a priority in family business branding research,
scholars have identified a range of organizational antecedents influen-
cing family firm brand promotion. Through their website content
analysis, Micelotta and Raynard (2011) show that larger and younger
family firms are more likely to downplay family ties compared to
smaller and older companies (see also Botero et al., 2013; Memili et al.,
2010; Smit et al., 2010). In their exploration of 1036 organizational
websites from family firms in Australia, United Kingdom, and the
United States, Botero et al. (2013) not only find that family firm brand
promotion differs between industries, but also that the country of origin
affected the likelihood of explicitly communicating the family business
brand, which indicates that communicating family ownership may be
perceived differently in different cultural contexts. While there is lim-
ited academic research investigating this angle, the annual Edelman
Trust Barometer also suggests this to be the case (Edelman Trust
Barometer, 2017).
In sum, prior research suggests that family firms are more likely to
engage in family business branding when they have higher levels of
family ownership, higher family expectations, carry the family name,
and show higher levels of family identification with and pride in the
firm and the heritage of the family. Furthermore, smaller, older family
6
C.B. Astrachan et al.
firms are also more likely to promote the family nature of their com-
panies, and there seem to be differences in terms of family business
branding proclivity between industries and countries of origin.
3.2. The portrayal of the family business brand
Family firms use a variety of ways to portray to their diverse con-
stituencies that they are family owned and/or family operated. While
some put their family firm status front and center in their marketing
communications, others prefer to subtly hint at their family back-
ground, or refrain from mentioning it altogether. In this section, we
examine what we know about how family firms disclose their family
firm status in order to further explore the different components and
expressions of a family firm brand.
Micelotta and Raynard’s (2011) contribution offers insights into
how ‘family’ can be instrumentalized in terms of a family business
brand. Based on a content analysis of the world’s 92 oldest family firms’
websites, the authors distinguish three family business branding stra-
tegies that differ in terms of both the way in which the family is por-
trayed as well as the prominence with which they feature the family.
They find that ‘family’ can represent very different things as part of a
distinct family firm brand identity (e.g., as a guardian of the craft or the
guarantor of care and continuity). They also posit that companies may
focus on either the family (i.e., Family Preservation Strategy), their
offering (i.e., Family Enrichment Strategy) or the organization as such
(i.e., Family Subordination Strategy) in corporate messaging or other
communications. Hence, some companies may opt for a very dominant
portrayal of the family on their corporate websites, be it visually, au-
dibly or textually (e.g., C. Hoare & Co. private bank, UK), “so much that
the family is personified in the company itself”' (Micelotta & Raynard,
2011, p. 204). Others might choose a subtler approach, where “the
primary role attributed to the family is to ensure that the skills, techniques,
and experience accumulated over the years will be passed down from gen-
eration to generation.” (ibid., p. 7; e.g., Patek Philippe watchmakers,
Switzerland or Bacardi distillery, Puerto Rico) or they will even hide
family components, seeking to create an identity that is different and
disassociated from the family; if family members are featured in pic-
tures, it is in their formal role, and in business attire (e.g., Boehringer-
Ingelheim pharmaceuticals, Germany).
This classification is helpful in understanding that family firms may
promote their family firm brand identity in various ways, and to varying
degrees – depending on the focal element of their branding strategy: the
family, their offering, or their organization (Micelotta & Raynard,
2011). Furthermore, the classification provides some preliminary in-
sights as to what characterizations of ‘family’ might be utilized in family
firm portrayals; even though in reality there may be more narratives
that family firms employ (e.g., the philanthropic or socially conscious
family as a positive force in the community, the family as a creator of
workplaces in rural areas, the family as a driver of innovation in the
business). Some families have chosen yet a different approach: humor –
hoping to make their brands more relatable and likeable for their cus-
tomers (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015). Examples include Mathew
Brothers, America’s oldest windows manufacturers (Mathews Brothers,
2017), Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., who recently added the slogan ‘fa-
mily owned, operated and argued over’ to their logo (Union Beer
Distributors, 2017), and the English baking company Warburtons Family
Bakers (Warburtons, 2017), whose humorous TV and radio spots have
been viewed, listened to and shared by millions on online platforms
such as Youtube.
The family narrative is also closely related to what one might call
the ‘family promise’ (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015), which refers
to the implicit or explicit value added the family brings to the business
through their actions and leadership. Warburtons Family Bakers, for
example, claim that ‘we care because our name’s on it’ (Warburtons,
2017). Here, the family promise is product quality – and hence, an
outstanding customer experience: Warburton cousins personally visit
7
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
every production facility once a month to make sure that their quality
standards are being met. The Warburton family wants their customers
to understand that their products are better exactly because the com-
pany is family owned and family managed – that, in fact, the family
makes the difference. Another example is the Swiss knife maker Vic-
torinox – inventor of the Swiss army knife – a deeply religious company
whose founding reason in 1891 had been to create job opportunities in
the rural areas of Switzerland. In the aftermath of 9/11, Victorinox’ sales
plummeted by 40% – yet, the family refrained from laying off em-
ployees. Instead, the owners – citing the bible (see Gen. 41:26–27, New
International Version) – felt that they had accumulated enough wealth
in prior years to make it through this period of financial drain. For
almost a year, they reduced their employees’ workload, while still
paying full salaries, and loaned workers to other businesses in the area
(Koydl, 2013).
Once a family firm has decided on how prominently it wants to
feature the owning family (see Blombäck & Ramírez-Pasillas, 2012 for a
detailed discussion of the decision process that precedes family business
brand promotion), and in what ways the family should be character-
ized, they can choose from a variety of textual (e.g., family history),
visual (e.g., family photo portraits or videos) or audible (e.g., podcasts
with family members) cues to corporealize the family. They can pro-
mote their family business brand using a wide array of communication
channels, ranging from traditional advertising and direct marketing to
new media (e.g., social media), public relations, events and sponsor-
ship, as well as personal communication (e.g., using family members as
brand ambassadors). While the internet – and in particular social media
– is an increasingly popular way to reach customers (Verhagen, Boter, &
Adelaar, 2010; Verhagen & van Dolen, 2008), our observations and
conversations with family business leaders show that many family firms
often still rely on classical communications channels to portray their
family firm status. A good example is the television commercial by the
German cereal producer HIPP – producer of organic baby foods – which
features Paulus Hipp, a member of the senior generation. At the end of
the spot, Hipp closes by saying ‘our products are organic, and of the
highest quality – this is important for your baby’s nerve cells and brain
growth. For this, I stand with my name.’ Other family businesses use radio
commercials, where family members – after stating that fact that they
are a member of the owning family – may talk about a special offer,
inviting customers to call or visit their retail store, implying that family
members will be on-site and available to customers. Unfortunately, at
this point, we know little about which communication channels may be
more or less suitable – as in, leading to a desired outcome – to promote
the family nature of a firm given that most of the work on channels has
centered on the exploration of websites (e.g., Blombäck & Brunninge,
2013; Botero et al., 2013; Gallucci et al., 2015; Micelotta & Raynard,
2011).
Furthermore, prior research on family business branding generally
considers a family business brand to be a corporate brand and does not
differentiate whether the brand is at the corporate level (e.g., SC
Johnson – A Family Company) or a product or service brand (an ex-
ception to this is the work of Blombäck, 2009, 2010,2011). However,
given that a family business brand always includes a reference to
ownership – whether implicit or explicit – it always reflects on the
organization on some level. Some companies have a corporate family
brand and minimize family at the product level for some lines. When
and why this is done and with what short and long-term effects are
interesting questions for future research. An example is the William
Grant and Sons distillery, which owns several strong brands that each
have a very unique brand personality – and while some brands tell a
family business story (e.g., Glenfiddich scotch), others do not (e.g.,
Hendrick’s gin) – taking a very instrumental approach by carefully re-
searching their target audiences’ preferences, the company found that
the notion of family was attractive to their whisky customers, but not to
their gin drinkers. So the company simultaneously promotes a family
and a non-family business brand to their diverse audiences – but the
C.B. Astrachan et al.
parent company is clearly recognizable as a family business.
William Grant and Sons is one of the companies we encountered that
systematically explored the opportunities and downsides of adding the
notion of family to their brand (see Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015
for details). While doing market research in Asia, the company found
that while customers were largely indifferent to the term ‘family
owned’, they highly appreciated the term ‘family run’ – which is why
Glenfiddich’s hook line now reads ‘Glenfiddich: family run since 1887′
(Milne, 2014). This highlights the importance of market research in the
family business branding process in order to determine for whom the
notion of family (and which nuances of family ownership and man-
agement) is, in fact, beneficial, and who may not appreciate the fact
that a seller or service provider is family owned or family managed.
This insight ties into the discussion of which stakeholders appreciate (or
may not appreciate) the family business brand. Binz et al. (2013) sug-
gest that people associate different qualities with different organiza-
tions; and given that different people are attracted to different attri-
butes that characterize an organization, we may assume that while for
some stakeholders, family firm status may be a positive signal, for
others, it may be neutral or even negative. More research is needed to
determine for whom – and under which circumstances – family is a
positive cue that leads to a favorable outcome. We recognize that such
attribution may change greatly over time and from one culture to an-
other.
Another important point that has not yet been discussed when ex-
ploring the portrayal of family business brands is that there are implicit
message-enforcing behaviors of organization and family members in
addition to formal communication. Organizational representatives are
likely to act on behalf of the organization, and these behaviors also
influence stakeholder’s perception of the family business (Mazzei &
Ravazzani, 2015). Several authors have identified family firm’s above-
average customer and quality orientation (Craig et al., 2008; Cooper
et al., 2005; Lyman, 1991; Okoroafo & Koh, 2009; Presas, Guia, &
Muñoz, 2014, Robins, 1991), which is assumed to be rooted in their
desire to protect the family and business reputation. This is further
driven by the fact that because they identify with the business, family
members view the company as an extension of themselves, and hence
strive to maintain a positive image (Binz, Astrachan, & Botero, 2017).
With the exception of Binz Astrachan and Astrachan (2015), the impact
of signals such as the behavior of all parties involved in shaping and
carrying the brand, both family members and company employees – has
not been explored in family business branding research.
Lastly, prior research on family business branding has neglected to
acknowledge the fact that family business branding messages can focus
on the family as the branded entity rather than the organization (apart
from Parmetier’s (2011) contribution on David and Victoria Beckham).
Throughout history there are several families that have, over the course
of several generations, developed a distinct family brand. The Rock-
efeller, Rothschild, and Kennedy families, for example, have created
their own brands that are linked to the economic and political legacies
that these families have. Many of these families have set up impressive
foundations and are invested in a range of philanthropic activities (e.g.,
the Rockefeller foundation was founded in 1913, and aims to promote
the well-being of humanity around the world; www.
rockefellerfoundation.org). A less-known example, perhaps, is the
Cathy family (Chick-fil-A; www.truettcathy.com), owners of the number
five fast-growing restaurant chain in the United States. Many families
have come to realize that owning a company comes with a certain level
of publicity – even if they wish to remain private – and that actively
shaping the public image by having, for example, an online presence for
the family might be beneficial to both the family and the business. Such
distinct family brands – and the way in which they shape the family’s
image and popularity – may have a tremendous effect on the family
business brand (and, certainly, also on the owning family), without
being acknowledged during (particularly quantitative) data collection.
Table 3 below provides an overview of the dimensions of family
8
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
portrayal, based on our observations of actual family business branding
practices.
3.3. Family brand reputation and the consequences of family business
branding
Prior research on family business branding has identified a range of
stakeholder-related (e.g., customer loyalty, employee commitment) as
well as organizational outcomes (e.g., performance benefits, sales
growth, corporate citizenship) of family business branding. Next, we
discuss these findings, before we present a summary visualization of our
interpretation of the literature.
3.3.1. Stakeholder-related outcomes of family business branding
Prior research on family business branding outcomes has largely
focused on two types of stakeholders: customers and employees.
Investigating customers’ perceptions of family versus non-family firms,
Orth and Green (2009) find that participants evaluated family-owned
grocery stores score higher in terms of image, customer service, and
customer satisfaction when compared with non-family owned grocery
stores. Respondents viewed family ownership, control, and involvement
as positive attributes in a firm. Carrigan and Buckley (2008) similarly
suggest that customers have higher expectations of product and service
quality when buying from a family owned rather than a non-family
owned grocery store. Based on interviews, they find that these positive
perceptions are fed by the family’s desire to protect the firm’s image
and reputation, and the customer’s perception of family firms as being
more socially responsible than non-family firms. An experimental
survey by Sageder, Duller and Mittler (2015) with 247 participants
from Austria confirms these results: the authors also find that family-
owned retail stores are perceived superior in terms of “overall reputa-
tion, customer orientation, social and environmental responsibility, and
employer qualities” (p. 17), as compared with non-family owned outlets.
Lastly, Binz et al. (2013), investigating a sample of 253 Swiss con-
sumers, find that consumers prefer the products and services offered by
family firms mainly because of the relational qualities (e.g., trust-
worthiness, reliability) these consumers associate with family-owned
companies.
In terms of employee-related outcomes, several studies provide
evidence that family owned employers are perceived differently from
non-family employers resulting in different levels of attractiveness
based on individual preferences. Hauswald et al. (2016), analyzing a
sample of 175 job seekers from the perspective of person-organization
fit, find that job-seekers who value conservation (e.g., long-term or-
ientation, stability) and self-transcendence (e.g., benevolence, loyalty)
are particularly attracted to family owned employers. Similarly, Binz
Astrachan et al. (2014), in a survey of 243 former senior-level job ap-
plicants, find evidence those job-seekers who value organizational
culture more than other areas (e.g., rewards or development opportu-
nities) are more drawn towards family-owned employers. These find-
ings, which are in-line with the idea that different people are attracted
to different organizations (Ritz & Waldner, 2011), indicate that job-
seekers associate different qualities with family and non-family owned
employers, and that many of them consider family ownership a strong
signal in the employer context. Covin (1994a, 1994b) similarly finds
that the majority of students in her sample of 225 had a high preference
for working either in their own family’s business, or in a non-family
business – only a minority of the respondents expressed a low pre-
ference. These strong preferences – or in other words, different eva-
luations of these two types of organizations – may be explained by the
fact that her respondents assessed family and non-family firms differ-
ently on a range of dimensions (e.g., employee commitment, job
characteristics, career advancement opportunities). Painting a more
negative picture, Ceja and Tàpies (2009), using a global sample of 213
EMBA students, find that their mostly Spanish (60% of sample) re-
spondents have a very specific – and mainly critical – image of family
C.B. Astrachan et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15

Table 3
Components of a Family Business Brand.

Dimension Specification Instances/Examples of Manifestation

Level of family promotion
Characterization of owning
family
Representation of owning
family
Communication channels used
Stakeholders addressed
Brand architecture
Unpremeditated Image
How important is the family as part of the brand identity
for the business and the family?
How prominently is the family featured in corporate
communication?
What is the owning family’s role?
What is the family promise?
How is the family conveyed in corporate communication?
How many family members are featured in the family
portrayal?
How far into the past and future is the family mentioned?
Advertising & Direct Marketing
Public Relations & Publicity
Personal Communication
Which stakeholders are presented with family cues?
Corporate Brand
Product/Service Brand
Family Brand
What are other message-enforcing behaviors that family or
organizational members display on behalf of the company?
Family is very important (family preservation strategy), somewhat important
(family enrichment strategy), or unimportant (family subordination strategy)
(Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).
In what percentage of all communication is family mentioned (e.g., SC Johnson is
100%, as it is part of their logo); how many times per communication is family
mentioned.
Family as the guarantor of continuity, guardian of the craft, member of the team
(Micelotta & Raynard, 2011); source of humor, provider of employment, ethical
employer, environmental or philanthropic activists, driver of innovation, guardian
of long-term stability, company steward (Binz Astrachan & Astrachan, 2015).
Family ensures superior product and service quality, extraordinary customer
orientation and customer experience (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Craig et al., 2008;
Orth & Green, 2009); experience and craftsmanship (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011),
reliability and trustworthiness, community orientation, or ethical treatment of
employees (Binz Astrachan et al., 2014).
Inclusion of visual, textual and audible family references, e.g., adding family
references to the logo, including pictures (e.g., family members, family buildings,
artifacts), videos or audio files (e.g., interviews) of past and present generations of
the owning family (Binz Astrachan & Botero, (forthcoming); Binz Astrachan &
Astrachan, 2015; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011).
One or several family members, one or several generations.
“We have been a family business for 250 years”; “Our goal is to remain a family
business for the next 250 years”.
Inclusion of family references in traditional (e.g., TV, print, radio, billboards,
publications) and new media (e.g., website banners, blogs, social media, email,
mobile, search engines), as well as direct marketing activities (e.g., letters,
postcards, telephone, email).
Inclusion of family references on the corporate website, promoting news stories,
feature articles and testimonials (old, new, and industry-specific media),
representing the business through sponsorship and events, using opinion leaders.
Engaging family members as brand ambassadors; making family members
available to (key) customers and suppliers to created strong relationships and
encourage positive word of mouth.
Broad promotion (across all channels, all constituencies) versus selective
promotion (e.g., current or potential employees only, B2B or B2C customers,
suppliers only, differences between countries).
Inclusion of family references in the messaging related to the organization.
Inclusion of family references in the messaging of some or all of the offerings (i.e.,
products, services).
Promotion of the family as an entity that is independent from the business and
offering.
Implicit family portrayal; e.g. by means of superior customer or quality
orientation; family members’ or organizational members’ behavior exemplifying
the family (firm) and brand values but also a demonstration of nepotism or lack of
professionalism.

owned employers, largely because of the perceived lack of profession-
alism and career opportunities, limited resources, and nepotism. In-
terestingly, Kahlert et al. (2017) did not find a significant effect of
communicating family ownership to their sample of 125 individuals in
Germany. They find that information about family ownership did not
influence applicants’ perceptions about the firm, or the attractiveness of
the company (however, organizational age did).
3.3.2. Organizational outcomes of family business branding
In terms of organizational outcomes, financial performance seems to
be the focus of most studies in this area. Building on the assumption
that the family firm cue is a positive signal to customers, leading to
reputational benefits, several articles explore potential effects of pro-
moting a firm’s family background on firm performance. For example,
Kashmiri and Mahajan (2010), in their analysis of 130 publicly listed
family firms in the United States, find that family firms carrying the
name of the owning family perform better financially because they are
more customer-oriented and socially responsible than their non-family
named counterparts. The authors argue that the intense customer and
quality orientation is rooted in the family firm’s strong desire to protect
their family name. Craig et al. (2008), investigating a sample of 218
family businesses in the United States, also find that through the
promotion of a family-based brand identity, a customer-centric or-
ientation is fostered, which in turn positively contributes to firm per-
formance. The authors suggest that a “family-based brand identity en-
hances the family firms’ ability to persuade consumers to make purchasing
decisions based on the perceived attributes of the seller” (p. 364). Using
similar Swiss family business samples, Zellweger et al. (2012), based on
a sample size of n = 179 and Memili et al. (2010), based on a sample
size of n = 163, find that family firm image (for operationalization, see
Memili et al., 2010, p. 248) has a positive effect on firm performance – a
finding that is corroborated by Gallucci et al. (2015) study of 114 fa-
mily firms in the wine industry, who find that a distinct family firm
image positively influences sales growth.
In summary, several contributions find a positive relationship be-
tween family business brand promotion and various stakeholder-related
and organizational outcomes. Many of these effects come from the su-
perior reputation family firms enjoy with their customers, which is
partly based in their above-average customer and quality orientation
(driven by their desire to maintain lasting relationships with their sta-
keholders, and protect the family and business reputation).
Fig. 1 (adapted from Urde & Greyser, 2016) below provides a high-
level visualization of our discernment from the literature review, and of
our understanding of the family business brand system.

9
C.B. Astrachan et al.
Fig. 1. Family business brand system.
4. Conceptualizing the family business brand
Despite growing interest in family business branding, the field lacks
an encompassing framework that captures a holistic understanding of
research and practice on family business branding. Having a holistic
framework is important because it helps systemize what is currently
known and identify those areas that need exploration to advance our
understanding of branding in the context of family firms. We build on
the definition of a family business brand presented in Chapter 2 as well
as the work of Urde and Greyser (2014, 2016) to propose the Family
Business Brand Identity, Portrayal, and Reputation Matrix. This matrix
helps capture the components of the family business brand system and
understand the different aspects of each component, as well as the re-
lationships among various components that are necessary for a holistic
conceptualization of family business branding.
Urde and Greyser’s (2014;2016 Corporate Brand Identity and Re-
putation Matrix (CBIRM) is an integrated (managerial) framework,
combining elements of corporate identity and corporate reputation, and
can serve as a tool for managing an organizational brand. It expands the
previously developed Corporate Brand Identity Matrix (Urde, 2013) by
incorporating selected reputation elements the authors identified
through a comprehensive review of the general reputation, identity and
branding literatures. The authors suggest that reputation and the
(corporate) brand are interconnected, as they represent “the two sides of
10
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
the same coin (…) corporate brand identity is about the organization and its
management’s perceptions, while reputation is about the stakeholder’s per-
ceptions” (Urde & Greyser, 2016, p. 95). Thus, to manage a corporate
brand, professionals need to understand internal and external links, and
the alignment between these two sides (Davies & Miles, 1998; De
Chernatony, 1999; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). The alignment between
the image and the identity components of the brand enable a firm to
achieve its goals (Van Riel, 2012). CBIRM is a useful framework be-
cause it combines the identity, the communication (image), and the
reputational components of an organization’s brand.
Building on the CBIRM, we suggest that a comprehensive view of
the family business brand requires us to look beyond the mere physical
manifestations of the brand and the representation of family through
communication (e.g., “In our advertisement, we mention that we are a
family business”; Memili et al., 2010, p. 207). In order to truly com-
prehend what it means to the family, the organization, and the stake-
holders to be known as a family business, we need to draw from all
three domains; the family firm’s identity, the family firm’s image, and
the resulting reputation. The family firm identity component represents
the core of the family business brand, as it determines what will be
communicated as part of the family business brand.
Family firm image represents the communication or portrayal level
of the brand. This level provides an understanding of how brand mes-
sages are communicated, to create the desired image. Finally, the
C.B. Astrachan et al.
Fig. 2. Family business brand identity, portrayal and reputation matrix.
family firm reputation level encompasses the broader level of the brand
that captures how stakeholders view the family firm. Building on this
idea, we present the Family Business Brand Identity, Portrayal, and
Reputation Matrix (see Fig. 2) as a framework that integrates the dif-
ferent aspects of a family business brand system.
The family brand identity level incorporates the different elements
that drive what is communicated as part of the family business brand.
In line with Urde (2013), who developed the original Corporate Brand
Identity Matrix, we suggest that family brand identity level is expressed
through nine elements. At its core, family business brand identity is
rooted in the family values and goals, the family history, family ex-
periences, family member pride, and level of family influence the fa-
mily exerts through management or ownership. This core component
shapes the remaining eight identity elements, i.e., internal (i.e., mission
& vision, culture, and competencies), external (i.e., family promise,
relationships, and positioning), and internal-external (i.e., personality
and expression) elements. Although these nine identity elements pre-
sent a broad core of the brand, it is important to notice that given that
brands serve multiple types of stakeholders, these elements need to be
carefully integrated and aligned given the expectations of target audi-
ences (Urde, 2013).
The second level, family firm brand portrayal (i.e., image), en-
compasses the different message, channel, and context factors that help
us understand how the family business brand is communicated to
achieve the image that the firm wants its stakeholders to have about
them. At this level, there are three components that are explored. The
message characteristics component describes the different types of
messages (i.e., written, verbal, non-verbal, explicit or implicit) that can
be/are used to present a family business brand to stakeholders. This
component also includes how messages are framed to stakeholders. A
second component of this level includes the channels employed to
communicate the family business brand. The final component of this
level explains the context that determines the family business brand
message used (i.e., when are different brand messages used). The family
firm portrayal level includes components that help us understand how
the identity elements are manifested or expressed through commu-
nication, both implicitly and explicitly, planned and unplanned (i.e.,
11
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
premeditated/unpremeditated image).
Family firm brand reputation is the third and outermost level.
Elements at this level help us understand why using a family business
brand may be relevant for the family and the organization, as it helps
family business leaders and owners understand the effects of using the
family business brand. These elements pertain to stakeholders’ per-
ception of the portrayal of the family nature of the business in terms of
their assessment of the family’s commitment and the firm’s trust-
worthiness and credibility, the brand’s recognizability and potential to
inspire and differentiate, the consistency of message delivery, and
whether the fact that a company is family owned makes a difference to
them (Urde & Greyser, 2016). It is expected that the way brands are
portrayed will influence perceptions at this level.
We believe that the adapted Corporate Brand Identity and
Reputation Matrix (Family Business Brand Identity, Portrayal, and
Reputation Matrix), in combination with the specific guiding questions
for each dimension provide a relevant framework to understand the
family business brand from a more encompassing point of view.
5. Discussion
Brands are an important source of differentiation for organizations
today because they help organizations develop and maintain competi-
tive advantage in the marketplace. For family firms, their “family
nature” can become a unique resource that can help to develop com-
petitive advantage and differentiation. Given that every owning family
has a unique history and identity, every family business brand, in
theory, is inimitable. The challenge for the family business owners and
leaders lies in the identification of those values and characteristics that
add value to the brand message recipient, and that allow for the por-
trayal of the family in a way that the resulting reputation is in line with
the family’s identity and the family firm image. This is what makes the
understanding of family business brands and branding an important
area of discussion.
There has been significant growth in the study of brands and
branding in the family business context over the last decade. Despite
the fact that we still lack a clear understanding of what the family
C.B. Astrachan et al. Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15

Table 4
Proposed Family Business Brand Scale Items.

Dimension Proposed Scale Items Authors

Family Firm Identity – Family-Related Components: Memili et al. (2010) and Zellweger et al. (2012)
– Family ownership level
– Family influence
– Family values & goals
– Perceived riskiness of family portrayal
– Organizational Components: Binz Astrachan and Botero (forthcoming), Botero et al., 2013, Micelotta and Raynard
– Firm size & age (2011) and Smit et al. (2010)
– Industry/business model (B2B/B2C)
– Country of origin/country of promotion
– Shared family and business name
– Community ties
– Presence & role of family in management
– Family and business value overlap
– Board understanding of family business brand value
– Employee pride in family ownership and history
Family Firm Image – Premeditated Image (explicit family portrayal): Binz Astrachan and Astrachan (2015) and Botero & Blombäck (2010)
– Level of family promotion
– Characterization of owning family
– Family portrayal & family promise
– Channels used
– Stakeholders addressed
– Brand architecture
– Unpremeditated Image (implicit family portrayal): Binz Astrachan and Astrachan (2015), Carrigan and Buckley (2008), Kashmiri and
– Customer orientation Mahajan (2010) and Orth and Green (2009)
– Quality orientation
– Family member behavior exemplifying values
– History of family sacrifice for the business
– Nepotism, lack of professionalism
Family Firm Reputation – Positive family firm associations (e.g., authenticity) Botero, Binz Astrachan, and Calabrò (2017)
– Negative family firm associations (e.g., nepotism)
Moderators – Stakeholders’ preferences and previous experiences with Blombäck and Ramírez-Pasillas (2012), Botero et al., 2013 and Parmentier (2011)
family firms
– Prevalence of family firms among competitors
– Familiarity with particular company/brand
– Message framing and brand distinctiveness
– Channel noise
– Perceived fit between identity and image
– Planned vs. unintended messaging
Outcome Variables – Financial performance Carrigan and Buckley (2008), Craig et al. (2008), Gallucci et al. (2015), Kashmiri and
– Sales growth Mahajan (2010) and Orth and Green (2009)
– Customer trust and loyalty
– Employee turnover rate and commitment

business brand is, two recent literature reviews by Beck (2016) and
Sageder et al. (2016) furthered our understanding of the accumulated
knowledge. However, we still know little about the antecedents and
outcomes, as well as the process of family business branding.
With this in mind, the objective of this paper was threefold. First, we
provide clarification and systematization of the family business brand
terminology to avoid confusion when moving forward. Second, we
present a multi-dimensional, encompassing, and operationalizable de-
finition of the family business brand. Third, we propose a framework
that allows for a more systematic exploration of the family business
brand phenomenon, and which can be helpful in guiding future re-
search on family business branding.
In this paper, we argue that research about family business brands
and branding has not been able to move forward partly because of the
confusion that exists in the current literature when articulating the
components of a family business brand. In Chapter 2, we point out how
the terms identity, image, reputation, and brand have been used in-
terchangeably when exploring family business branding, even though
scholars in other disciplines have suggested that identity, image, and
reputation represent different concepts (see Balmer, 2001 and Brown
et al., 2006 for detailed discussions). Drawing from the literature in the
marketing, branding and reputation field, we describe and delineate
these four dimensions, and explain why identity, image and reputation
represent different aspects of the family business brand system.
The identity component of the brand takes the point of view of or-
ganizational owners and leaders and describes ‘who they are as an or-
ganization’ (Albert & Whetten, 1989; Brown et al., 2006). The image
component of the brand reflects the characteristics of the message and
how the message is communicated. That is, the image represents what
organization’s owners and leaders choose to communicate and how
they communicate it to create desired associations in the minds of
stakeholders. The reputation component of the brand describes the gen-
eral perceptions that stakeholders have about the organization, taking
the receiver perspective of the brand. Building on this idea, we argue
that the family business brand represents a system that combines the
sender approach (i.e., identity), the message (i.e., image), and the re-
ceiver approach (i.e., reputation), in its totality enabling differentiation
in the marketplace and other venues.
The strong belief that a holistic approach is needed to study the
family business brand may explain why we found Urde and Greyser’s
(2016) Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM) to be
particularly adequate to further systemize the family business brand.
Their elements of identity and reputation highly resonated with our
understanding of the family business brand context, and provided us
with an additional understanding of current shortcomings in the lit-
erature (as well as ideas for further research) regarding the family
business brand. Drawing heavily from their original framework, we
developed the Family Business Brand Identity, Portrayal, and Reputation

12
C.B. Astrachan et al.
Matrix. We believe that this framework is particularly useful in further
exploring the family business brand.
One important goal of this paper was to develop a definition – and
more importantly, an understanding – of the family business brand that
would allow scholars to operationalize the construct. This is particu-
larly important given the variety of family business brand definitions
currently employed in literature, and the resulting confusion in its
measurement. Based on our review of the literature, in combination
with our observations of family business practices from our research
and experiences on family business boards and other settings, and with
the Family Business Brand Identity, Portrayal, and Reputation Matrix in
mind, we provide a list of dimensions and items that could be in-
vestigated both qualitatively and quantitatively as part of a family
business brand, and which may serve as a basis for further scale de-
velopment and family business brand measurement.
The items presented in the table represent a broad range of brand
components; i.e., how does family portrayal (image; premeditated)
differ in various countries or between industries (identity; organiza-
tional components); which family promises (image; premeditated) lead
to which consumer associations (reputation; consumer context); or how
do negative family firm associations in the labor market (reputation;
employer context) affect family member’s pride in the business? It is
with an idea toward conceptual development and conducting research
with clearly measurable variables that we emphasize the components
approach to understanding the family business brand. We recognize
that these components (i.e., sender, message, and receiver components)
are interrelated and thus a change in one leads to a change in the other
(s) which can complicate some investigations.
6. Suggestions for further research
Our aim in this paper was to help advance the field of family
business branding by providing a review and integration of some of the
most important articles in the field in order to help advance the re-
search by clarifying and further specifying the family business branding
construct. During our investigation, we introduced the idea that a
systems approach, which allows for a deconstruction of the brand
construct into its component parts, might facilitate future family busi-
ness branding scholarship.
A first step in continuing to develop the family business branding
construct would be to take the ideas for a family business brand scale
contained in Table 4 and develop, test, and refine the instrument. The
goals of this step are to develop subscales that have reliability and
convergent and discriminant validity, and then to reduce the number of
items in each scale to the minimum amount while maintaining relia-
bility. Measures that take too much time to use in data collection limit
the measure’s utility (for a recent example on the process of scale va-
lidation and parsimony see Hauck, Suess-Reyes, Beck, Prügl, and Frank
(2016)).
With a scale developed, the next step is to explore the systems view
presented here and examine how the components of the family business
brand interact. This is perhaps best done sequentially with a first step
exploring their interactions in an undefined context, and then re-
stricting context to explore context effects on the family business brand
system. We suggest this be explored using a range of study designs:
experimental (tightly controlled), quasi experimental (naturally occur-
ring variance over a select time period, e.g., a selection of companies
that change their branding message at the same time, some with a fa-
mily message and others without), as well as a cross sectional approach
that captures the existing variance in the sample without taking any
state or other changes into account in a direct fashion. The obvious
benefit of the experimental design is that the elements of the family
brand message and its causal effect on different outcome variables can
perhaps be best understood in such a tightly controlled experimental
method. Isolating the family effects in this way would provide the
clearest test of the family business brand effects.
13
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
With a greater understanding of how the components of the family
business brand interact, we can then explore the effects of the compo-
nents on outcome measures such as financial performance (e.g., ROE
and ROA – all while testing for curvilinear relationships; longevity; and
a wide variety of stakeholder effects; e.g., employees, customers, others
in the supply chain). One of the difficulties with the approach is that it
assumes that all family businesses have similar goals, which ample
research in the family business heterogeneity stream has shown not to
be the case (e.g., Binz, Ferguson, Pieper, & Astrachan, 2017; Kotlar & De
Massis, 2013). This approach suggests measuring performance against
desired state for a constellation of goals, as defined by the family
business owners and leaders (Williams, Pieper, Kellermanns, &
Astrachan, 2018). It may be that the attainment of some goals is fa-
cilitated by a family business brand as a whole, as well as individual
components of the brand message in the image portrayal (premeditated
and unpremeditated messaging). On the other hand, the attainment of
other goals could perhaps be hindered by a family business brand.
Once the scale is developed and the construct thoroughly tested
internally and against a variety of potentially idiosyncratic goals, ex-
panding the complexity of the model can be considered. One potential
avenue for expansion lies in sources of information that we have thus
far largely ignored (with the exception of local culture effects which
were discussed above). These sources of information include the effects
of competitors, press coverage of industry (including family scandals),
impact of government investigations and new and developing policies
and laws, and noise in or communications from those in the forward
and backwards supply chains.
One additional area of future research worth noting are investiga-
tions into the effects of a family business brand on the owning family.
This paper has taken a largely business centric view of the family
business brand construct, which is a serious limitation. The effects of a
family business brand on an owning family may be profound, including
family cohesion, family longevity, family harmony, quality of family
communication, family risk tolerance, and family entrepreneurial or-
ientation. Hopefully, these short and long-term effects on the family can
be investigated in the future.
The phenomenon of the family business brand is a new and growing
area of research, and a promising one at that for family firms, given that
scholars have already identified a range of positive outcomes related to
promoting the family nature of the firm. In order to determine under
which circumstances it makes sense to promote a family business brand,
and when best to refrain from doing so, we need to develop a more
substantial understanding of the brand, and the branding process. With
this paper, we aim to bring clarity to this area of research by proposing
a systems’ view of the family business brand, along with a compre-
hensive framework. This conceptualization allowed us to develop a first
idea for a future scale to measure the family business brand, which will
hopefully be helpful in the development of this important stream of
family business scholarship.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.01.002.
References
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings, & M. M.
Staw (Vol. Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 7, (pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Anisimova, T. A. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and
behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395–405.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.
Balmer, J. M. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-
seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248–291.
Beck, S., & Prügl, R. (2015). Being perceived as a family firm and new product accep-
tance: An empirical analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings (online).
C.B. Astrachan et al.
Beck, S. (2016). Brand management research in family firms: A structured review and
suggestions for further research. Journal of Family Business Management, 6(3),
225–250.
Berens, G., & van Riel, C. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: Three
main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate
Reputation Review, 7(2), 161–178.
Binz Astrachan, C., & Astrachan, J. (2015). Family business branding: Leveraging stakeholder
trust. London: IFB Research Foundation.
Binz Astrachan C., & Botero I.C. We are a family firm An exploration of the motives for
communicating the family business brand. Journal of Family Business Management (in
press).
Binz Astrachan, C., Hair, J., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). Assessing the attractiveness of
family firm employers: An empirical exploration of managers’ attitudes towards
working in family-owned companies. 14th annual IFERA world family business research
conference.
Binz, C., Hair, J. F., Pieper, T. M., & Baldauf, A. (2013). Exploring the effect of distinct
family firm reputation on consumers’ preferences. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
4(1), 3–11.
Binz, C. A., Ferguson, K. E., Pieper, T. M., & Astrachan, J. H. (2017). Family business
goals, corporate citizenship behaviour and firm performance: Disentangling the
connections. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 16(1–2),
34–56.
Blombäck, A., & Botero, I. C. (2013). Reputational capital in family firms: Understanding
uniqueness from the stakeholder’s point of view. In K. X. Smyrnios, P. Z. Poutziouris,
& S. Goel (Eds.). Handbook of research on family business (pp. 677–693). (2nd ed.). UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Blombäck, A., & Brunninge, O. (2013). The dual opening to brand heritage in family
businesses. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(3), 327–346.
Blombäck, A., & Ramírez-Pasillas, M. (2012). Exploring the logics of corporate brand
identity formation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 7–28.
Blombäck, A. (2009). Family business: A secondary brand in corporate brand management.
Working Paper.
Blombäck, A. (2010). The seconding values of family business in corporate branding – A
tentative model. 10th annual IFERA world family business research conference.
Blombäck, A. (2011). Realizing the value of family business identity as corporate brand ele-
ment – A research model. Working Paper.
Botero, I. C., & Blombäck, A. (2010). Leveraging the family brand: Using brand man-
agement to highlight the advantages of family firms. 10th annual IFERA world family
business research conference.
Botero, I. C., Thomas, J., Graves, C., & Fediuk, T. A. (2013). Understanding multiple
family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official web-
sites. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(1), 12–21.
Botero, I. C., Binz Astrachan, C., & Calabrò, A. (2017). Identifying individuals’ associations
with the term family firm. Working Paper.
Botero, I. C. (2014). Effects of communicating family ownership and organisational size
on an applicant's attraction to a firm: An empirical examination in the USA and
China. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(2), 184–196.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68–84.
Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image,
construed image, and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested
terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106.
Camara, N. Z. (2011). Identity, image and reputation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). ‘What’s so special about family business?’ An ex-
ploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(6), 656–666.
Ceja, L., & Tàpies, J. (2009). Attracting talent to family-owned businesses: The perceptions of
MBA students. Working paper. Spain: University of Navarra.
Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: A
comparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. Journal of Small
Business Management, 43(3), 242–256.
Covin, T. J. (1994a). Perceptions of family-owned firms: The impact of gender and
educational level. Journal of Small Business Management, 32(3), 29–39.
Covin, T. J. (1994b). Profiling preferences for employment in family-owned firms. Family
Business Review, 7, 287–296.
Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity to
enhance firm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal of Small
Business Management, 46(3), 351–371.
Davies, G., & Miles, L. (1998). Reputation management: Theory versus practice. Corporate
Reputation Review, 2(1), 16–27.
De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 157–179.
Deephouse, D. L., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2013). Do family firms have better reputations than
non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity the-
ories. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 337–360.
Dessì, C., & Floris, M. (2010). When management and customers see eye-to-eye: The
agreement factor and performance. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 17(1), 102–122.
Dessi, C., Ng, W., Floris, M., & Cabras, S. (2014). How small family-owned businesses may
compete with retail superstores: Tacit knowledge and perceptive concordance among
owner-managers and customers. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
21(4), 668–689.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity
in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.
Edelman Trust Barometer. (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.edelman.com/
trust2017/family-business-trust/.
14
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
Eskine, K. J., & Locander, W. H. (2014). A name you can trust? Personification effects are
influenced by beliefs about company values. Psychology & Marketing, 31(1), 48–53.
Felden, B., Fischer, P., Graffius, M., & Marwede, L. (2016). Illustrating complexity in the
brand management of family firms. In E. Berger, & A. Kuckertz (Eds.). Complexity in
entrepreneurship, innovation and technology research. FGF studies in small business and
entrepreneurship. Springer.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA:
Harvard: Business School Press.
Gallucci, C., Santulli, R., & Calabrò, A. (2015). Does family involvement foster or hinder
firm performance? The missing role of family-based branding strategies. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 155–165.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and
adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81.
Gray, E., & Balmer, J. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long
Range Planning, 31(5), 695–702.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Human
Relations, 55(8), 989–1018.
Hauck, J., Suess-Reyes, J., Beck, S., Prügl, R., & Frank, H. (2016). Measuring socio-
emotional wealth in family-owned and -managed firms: A validation and short form
of the FIBER scale. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(3), 133–148.
Hauswald, H., & Hack, A. (2013). Impact of family control/influence on stakeholders’
perceptions of benevolence. Family Business Review, 26(4), 356–373.
Hauswald, H., Hack, A., Kellermanns, F. W., & Patzelt, H. (2016). Attracting new talent to
family firms: Who is attracted and under what conditions? Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 40(5), 963–989.
Hulberg, J. (2006). Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A lit-
erature study. Brand Management, 14(1/2), 60–73.
Huybrechts, J., Voordeckers, W., Lybaert, N., & Vandemaele, S. (2011). The distinctive-
ness of family-firm intangibles: A review and suggestions for future research. Journal
of Management & Organization, 17(2), 268–287.
Lude, M., & Prügl, R. (2016). Effects of communicating the family firm status on brand
perception: Insights from an experimental study. European Academy of Management
Proceedings (online).
Kahlert, C., Botero, I. C., & Prügl, R. (2017). Revealing the family: Effects of being per-
ceived as a family firm in the recruiting market in Germany. Journal of Family Business
Management, 7(1), 21–43.
Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). What’s in a name? An analysis of the strategic be-
havior of family firms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 271–280.
Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2014). A rose by any other name: Are family firms named
after their founding families rewarded more for their new product introductions?
Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 81–99.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand
equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Kotlar, J., & De Massis, A. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social
interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1263–1288.
Koydl, W. (2013). Schweizer Begleiter. Süddeutsche Zeitung. [(July 5) Retrieved from:]
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/taschenmesser-von-victorinox-schweizer-
begleiter-1.1713120.
Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & von Schlippe, A. (2011). The family business brand: An enquiry
into the construction of the image of family businesses. Journal of Family Business
Management, 1(1), 37–46.
La Foret, S. (2009). Managing brands: A contemporary perspective. Maidenhead, UK:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Lievens, F., & Slaughter, J. E. (2016). Employer image and employer branding: What we
know and what we need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 3, 407–440.
Lyman, A. R. (1991). Customer service: Does family ownership make a difference? Family
Business Review, 4(3), 303–324.
Mathews Brothers (2017). Corporate website. Retrieved from: http://www.
mathewsbrothers.com/News/History.aspx.
Mazzei, A., & Ravazzani, S. (2015). A holistic model of behavioural branding: The role of
employee behaviours and internal branding. Micro & Macro Marketing, 24(2),
239–262.
Memili, E., Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., Zellweger, T. M., & Barnett, T. (2010).
The critical path to family firm success through entrepreneurial risk taking and
image. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(4), 200–209.
Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporate
brand identity strategies in family firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 197–216.
Milne, J. (2014). Keeping it in the Family. Glenfiddich. (May 6) Retrieved from: https://
www.glenfiddich.com/uk/explore/expert-blog/2014/keeping-it-in-the-family/.
Okoroafo, S. C., & Koh, A. (2009). The impact of the marketing activities of family owned
businesses. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(10), 3–13.
Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family busi-
ness: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 16(4), 248–259.
Parmentier, M. A. (2011). When David met Victoria: Forging a strong family brand.
Family Business Review, 24(3), 217–232.
Presas, P., Muñoz, D., & Guia, J. (2011). Branding familiness in tourism family firms.
Journal of Brand Management, 18(4–5), 274–284.
Presas, P., Guia, J., & Muñoz, D. (2014). Customer’s perception of familiness in travel
experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(2), 147–161.
Ramdharie, P., & Brinxma, D. (2012). A family business brand image: Associations affecting
consumers’ buying behavior: A study on family business Dafgård, frozen foods. Master’s
Thesis. Jönköping International Business School.
Ritz, A., & Waldner, C. (2011). Competing for future leaders: A study of attractiveness of
C.B. Astrachan et al.
public sector organizations to potential job applicants. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 31(3), 291–316.
Robins, F. (1991). Marketing planning in the larger family business. Journal of Marketing
Management, 7(4), 325–341.
Rubenstein, C. (1990). Power and priorities. Family Business Magazine, 2(2), 37.
Sageder, M., Duller, C., & Mitter, C. (2015). Reputation of family firms from a customer
perspective. International Journal of Business Research, 15(1), 13–24.
Sageder, M., Mitter, C., & Feldbauer-Durstmüller, B. (2016). Image and reputation of
family firms: A systematic literature review of the state of research. Review of
Managerial Science, 10, 1–43.
Smit, W., Binz, C., & Schwass, J. (2010). Family firm status as a branding signal:Oon the
strength and consistency of signaling family involvement in corporate branding strategies.
IMD working paper.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries:
The case of family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415–436.
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business
Review, 9(2), 199–208.
Tasman-Jones, J. (2015). Brand camp: How to market a family business. Campden FB.
[Retrieved from:] http://www.campdenfb.com/article/brand-camp-how-market-
family-business.
Union Beer Distributors (2017). Pints with Sierra Nevada’s ken grossman. Retrieved from:
https://www.unionbeerdist.com/news/pints-sierra-nevadas-ken-grossman#.
WlPuc0tG10.
Urde, M., & Greyser, S. A. (2014). The nobel prize: A ‘heritage based’ brand-oriented network.
Harvard business school working papers series, 15 15-010.
Urde, M., & Greyser, S. A. (2016). The corporate brand identity and reputation matrix –
The case of the Nobel Prize. Journal of Brand Management, 23(1), 89–117.
15
Journal of Family Business Strategy 9 (2018) 3–15
Urde, M., Greyser, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. (2007). Corporate brands with a heritage.
Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 4–19.
Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic re-
sources. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 117–133.
Urde, M. (2013). The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management,
20(9), 742–761.
Van Riel, C. B. (2012). The alignment factor: Leveraging the power of total stakeholder sup-
port. Routledge.
Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2008). Online purchase intentions: A multi-channel store
image perspective. Information & Management, 46, 77–82.
Verhagen, T., Boter, J., & Adelaar, T. (2010). The effect of product type on consumer
preferences for website content elements: An empirical study. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 16, 139–170.
Warburtons (2017). Corporate website. Retrieved from: https://www.warburtons.co.uk/.
Williams, R. I., Pieper, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., & Astrachan, J. H. (2018). Family firm
goals and their effects on strategy, family and organization behavior: A review and
research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(S1), S63–S82.
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., & Reger, R. K. (2017). Celebrity and infamy? The con-
sequences of media narratives about organizational identity. Academy of Management
Review, 42(3), 461–480.
Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept of
familiness: Introducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1),
54–63.
Zellweger, T., Kellermanns, F., Eddleston, K., & Memili, E. (2012). Building a family
image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business
Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.