KOREASCHOLAR

In times of rapid technological change and increasing global competition, the brand constitutes one of the few resources to ensure sustainable competitive advantage (Lindemann, 2003). An important brand attribute companies need to build and communicate to consumers is brand authenticity. The technological and economic dynamics of our modern times can have destabilizing social consequences, particularly during the uncertainty caused by economic or political crises – which robs individuals of their need for stability and continuity. In these times, the human desire for authenticity may be especially strong (Turner & Manning, 1988). But what drives the authenticity of a brand? Recent research has identified brand heritage, that is, a company’s active use of its past and legacy, as beneficial for achieving competitive advantage (Urde, Greyser, & Balmer, 2007; Balmer, 2009). Previous conceptualizations of brand heritage highlight longevity, core values, use of symbols and an emphasis on history (Urde et al., 2007). Balmer (2013) builds on these conceptualizations, identifying six traits an institution should possess to be regarded as having a corporate heritage, including institution trait constancy (e.g. in terms of organizational culture; product, process and quality focus; location; group and class associations; design, style and sensory utilization; and corporate communications). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research so far has examined brand heritage as part of a corporate brand’s identity and authenticity for the specific case of post-Soviet brands whose embeddedness in a turbulent political and social environment over the last 200 years makes brand heritage management challenging. Using Balmer’s (2013) institutional trait constancy framework (Figure 1), the purpose of this study is to understand the identity of post-socialist corporate brands as corporate heritage brands and the challenges faced by managers in ensuring trait constancy of their corporate brands in the context of building and leveraging an authentic corporate heritage. A specific focus will be on analyzing how the heritage of corporate brands in post-socialist countries is connected to, and affected by, long-term societal developments including fundamental political and social regime shifts (i.e. presocialism, socialism and post-socialism). Our empirical application is the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector, and here in particular the confectionary industry because confectionary brands form an integral part of the traditions and culture of a society (Tellström, Gustafsson, &Mossberg, 2006). The paper draws on case studies of three Russian iconic corporate brands in the confectionary category (Babaevsky, Krasny Octyabr and Rot Front), and one Latvian iconic confectionary brand Laima. Through these case studies, the following research questions are answered: RQ1: How does institutional trait constancy manifest itself in corporate heritage brands in post-socialist countries? RQ2: How do long-term societal developments in these countries challenge institutional trait constancy in a brand heritage management context? Our findings suggest that successful brand heritage management in a post-Soviet context requires consistency regarding organizational culture, and here in particular adaptability and resilience, along with a focus on history and traditions. It also needs consistency in terms of product, process and quality foci, as well as regarding design, style and sensory utilization. Consistency as to location, group associations and corporate communications also matters. We argue that it is critical for academics and practitioners to better understand how brands become embedded in long-term social developments and consumer life-style and how the society feeds back into maintaining their brand heritage. On that basis, our findings can be used for development of effective branding heritage strategies to assist companies in their brand heritage management, and in sustaining their long-term competitive advantage in uncertain times.

• Tatiana Anisimova(Linnaeus University, Sweden)
• Olof Brunninge(Jonkoping University, Sweden)