1 Master’s Thesis
Corporate Storytelling: towards achieving positive reputation and public support
Nadia Adamopoulou – 11402814
Supervisor: Dr James Slevin
Master’s Programme: Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
2
Abstract
Stories have always been around shaping our knowledge and behavior. Companies adapt storytelling in order to communicate messages and build a positive reputation. Although much has been studied about the use of storytelling in branding, there is little empirical evidence regarding its effects on brand reputation. For non – profit sector, developing a positive reputation is a really challenging procedure, but crucial for organizations to create an active audience that supports their efforts. Therefore, in this study we investigate how a symbolic story about a non – profit organization influences stakeholders’ evaluations of the brand and their intentions to donate or volunteer. Towards this direction, we compare the reputation results of two groups of respondents· one group received the story and the other one did not.
The results indicate that the use of a story can make a difference on people’s perception and evaluation of the brand and that a motivating story inspires people to donate or volunteer for the company. Our findings contribute to brand management research and practice by presenting the power of corporate storytelling on stakeholders’ perceptions. For non – profit sector this study can become a great example of how storytelling motivates people to be active and support the company, either by donating or volunteering. After having a deep insight into existing literature and based our findings, we suggest that more research on corporate storytelling is needed in order to develop a more holistic approach regarding its dimension.
Keywords: Corporate Storytelling, Reputation, Donation, Volunteering, Non – profit, Corporate Communication
3 Does storytelling support the creation of a positive reputation for the organization?
Introduction
In the modern business world, corporations strive to gain a position in consumers’ preferences. One of the basic premises for both profit and non-profit corporations to achieve competitive advantage is to create and sustain a unique and strong reputation (King, Lenox & Barnett, 2002). Despite their efforts, though, this is not always achieved due to the different perceptions stakeholders have developed through their lives. As literature presents,
reputation refers to the way people perceive and evaluate a company (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). Through this definition we recognize the subjectiveness of the evaluation that each individual achieves. Especially nowadays with the increased mobility of people between countries and the international markets, stakeholders consist of international members, making it even more challenging for corporations to adjust their practices and fulfill their expectations. This results in failing to communicate commonly perceived messages and losing the benefits of a recognizable and desirable brand.
In order to solve this problem, scholars and practitioners in the field of communication put their efforts and resources on developing branding strategies, hoping to adjust on
people’s preferences. There are many practices that marketing and communication science suggests to build reputation such as conducting market research, recognizing consumers’ needs, adjusting promotion on the audience’s needs, etc. (e.g. Kiousis, Popescu & Mitrook, 2007; Jobber & Ellis-Chadwick, 2012). Even if the marketing department manages to
recognize what the public wants and the best way to reach them, individuals use their unique perception and sense-making to explain the information they receive. Therefore, although these practices can increase awareness about the brand and sales, corporations still rely on consumers’ perceptions about understanding each marketing message (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus & Van Riel, 2013) and struggle to create one commonly accepted corporate identity. Having a clear corporate identity is a basic premise in order to achieve good
4 reputation (Gray & Balmer, 1998) as a company needs to represent what it stands for · its values, its vision and its mission.
In practice, a very powerful tool towards achieving common sense – making is storytelling. Through the narration of stories people manage to receive messages and come to similar conclusions using their own cognition (Boyce, 1995). As literature suggests, by creating myths and characters that symbolize what the brand stands for, corporations all around the world manage to promote an honest and clear identity towards their audience (Herskovitz and Crystal, 2010; Garretson & Niedrich, 2004). By doing so, they also achieve to create an active audience that not only receives messages but has an emotional
connection to the brand as if it is someone familiar (Herskovitz and Crystal, 2010). In this way, corporate storytelling enables companies to communicate a commonly recognized identity that stakeholders can relate to and built a good reputation (Dailey & Browning, 2014; Martin, 2016; Wolbers & Boersma, 2013).
While in product sector and profit organizations the product itself represents a clear value on consumers’ minds, the procedure of branding for services and non-profit
organizations seems to be more complicated (Davis, 2007). This is mostly due to the immateriality of services and the skepticism behind non-profit companies’ motives (Kim, Sung & Lee, 2012). Giving a clear impression about the quality of services or about the legitimacy of a non-profit organization is a very challenging process but crucial for its survival (Kang & Norton, 2004) This kind of organization needs to have a good reputation in order to attract donations and volunteers and storytelling can support both reputation building and asking for support (either donate or volunteer) (Merchant, Ford, & Sargeant, 2010).
Therefore, through this study, we chose to concentrate on the use of corporate storytelling as a tool to strengthen external reputation of non-profit sector companies.
Much has been studied about the power of stories in branding, but unfortunately, little empirical evidence exists regarding their effects on consumer’s reactions towards the brand. Consequently, the present study aims to examine how the firm story of a popular non- profit
5 organization may influence consumers’ perception of the firm, making it more attractive to them. We started with the expectation that a story about the firm can influence the audience in a desirable way (Lundqvist, et al., 2013). In this case, we tried to influence the readers to perceive Greenpeace as an honest and legitimate organization and to achieve high
intentions of volunteering or/and donating.
Our results contribute to brand management, offering an insight into the consumer brand experience and cognitive behavior that can be used to develop successful marketing strategies. Through this online experiment we recognize the effect of storytelling on
corporate reputation and on taking-action intentions. Communication practitioners working in non- profit sector need to create an active audience in terms of donations or volunteering and this research is a good example of how storytelling is a useful mean to ask for public support. The findings of this study indicate that through storytelling companies can overcome
weaknesses that derive from stakeholders’ different perceptions of the brand. We conclude this research by giving suggestions about future research, as corporate storytelling has more interesting aspects to offer that are still uninvestigated.
Theoretical Background Concepts
The main concepts of the research are corporate reputation and corporate storytelling. Although there is a plethora of variables that may affect either reputation or storytelling (such as previous experience with the brand, the means used to promote the story, the storyteller’s skills or competitors’ reactions after storytelling), in this experiment we chose to concentrate on the effects of storytelling on reputation. Towards this direction, we simplify the cognitive procedure of sense-making and aim to recognize the results of
storytelling on our audience. In other words, we don’t care about how people make sense of things but about whether storytelling enables common sense – making or not.
6 Even though in practice shaping people’s mind is more complicated, our results can prove that providing a story helps people understand our message in a common and positive way between each other. Therefore, this research can become the starting point of a more inclusive experiment that takes into consideration more variables (except reputation and story) such as the power of different stories about the same brand or different storytelling techniques.
Corporate Reputation
Although authors of corporate research struggle to create one commonly accepted definition of corporate reputation, Gotsi and Wilson (2001) suggested that it can be defined as the stakeholder's overall evaluation of a company over time. Most of the existing
definitions of reputation include the term ‘evaluation’ which underlines the subjectivity of criticizing a company. Although sense-making is a personal process, companies strive to communicate massive marketing messages that will reinforce positive attitudes towards the brand. Marketers all around the world use branding and positioning strategies to meet consumers’ needs or create new needs. They conduct multiple marketing researches to recognize consumers’ preferences, they adjust marketing messages, channels of
distributions and digital media, hoping to fulfil expectations and create a strong and unique brand (Jobber & Ellis-Chadwick, 2012).
There are many elements that lead to success, such as uniqueness of the product, quality of services or lack of alternatives, but having a good reputation and a positive image in consumers’ eyes is crucial in order to achieve competitive advantage (Kiousis, et. al, 2007). Modern societies with online markets provide people with countless alternatives regarding choosing a brand. Consumers become more critical about which brand to choose and prefer companies that represent values similar to theirs (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995). A strong and unique reputation enables consumers to relate to the brand, to stay loyal and promote it as ambassadors (Gambetti, Graffigna, & Biraghi, 2012).
7 Regarding non-profit business sector, the whole procedure of building good
reputation is even more challenging. Many people are skeptical regarding the motives and practices of non-profit organizations and doubt their honesty (Kim, et al., 2012). Moreover, those companies provide services instead of tangible products making it even harder for consumers to recognize their quality. From the other hand, in this sector, building a good reputation is crucial as businesses need to attract volunteers and donations (Merchant, et al., 2010). Due to these difficulties is not only challenging, but also really important to create a positive identity on stakeholders ‘minds in order to promote and secure their legitimacy. Although research on the field suggests special practices for services and non-profit sector, such as having a strong social media presence and building loyalty (Mort, Weerawardena, & Williamson, 2007), there is a gap in empirical evidence regarding building reputation. This is something that we want to touch upon through this study by examining storytelling as a good practice for building reputation. Greenpeace is a great example to use, as it is a
well-established non-profit organisation with an international presence.
Greenpeace, Volunteering and Donating
Greenpeace was founded in 1971, so its reputation is built by the stakeholders throughout many years of interacting with the brand. Its mission is to "ensure the ability of the Earth to nurture life in all its diversity" (as cited in "Greenpeace", n.d.p.1.) and focuses on worldwide issues such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, commercial whaling, genetic engineering, and anti-nuclear issues. As a non-governmental and non-profit organization it does "not accept funding either from governments, corporations or political parties, but relies on individual supporters and foundation grants" (Greenpeace annual report, 2011). Greenpeace needs to have an active audience in order either to participate in its campaigns or to support economically its efforts. Therefore, having a positive reputation is a basic premise towards that direction (Lee & Chang, 2007). Greenpeace fits the purpose of our experiment firstly due to the popularity of the brand (people can recognize it) but also due
8 to the location. The headquarters of the company are in Amsterdam increasing the chances that the locals have heard about it. Lastly, Greenpeace is an environmental organization, on a period that environmental sensitivity is increasing, offering an opportunity to trigger
emotional motives through a story in order to shape a good impression about the brand.
Storytelling
As literature suggests, storytelling is an effective form of communicating a message for thousands of years (e.g. Kearney, 2002, Herskovitz, & Crystal, 2010). Telling a story leads the audience to come to the same conclusions as of the narrator, while using their own decision – making processes (Woodside, 2010; Simmons, 2006). This is explained by the fact that when we listen to a story, we use our own personalized cognition and perception to interpret it and make sense of it. Therefore, a story can carry much symbolic information, leading the audience to make conclusions by using their own experiences (Sinclair, 2005). In corporate storytelling, those symbolisms usually refer to the vision, the mission and the culture of the company.
Meaningful stories are such a powerful communication tool as they are easily remembered and understood, they provide shared views on different topics and share
information and knowledge (Brown and Duguid, 2000; Barker and Gower, 2010). Stories stay long in our memory as they are stored factually, visually and emotionally (Lundqvist, et al., 2013). Traditionally, powerful stories have a beginning, middle and an end and events follow a chronological sequence that is called plot (Woodside, 2010). They have a structure that keeps it together and engages the listener by including a message, a conflict, characters and action that leads to solution (Lundqvist, et al., 2013).
Corporate Storytelling
While people enjoy myths and stories (Kelley and Littman, 2006), brands
9 stories that explain the behavior of a company in terms of its mission and vision (Dowling, 2006). Corporate stories have the power to create an emotional bond between the company and the stakeholders, which helps to develop trust and support (Dowling, 2006). Either real or fictional, corporate stories provide the audience with meaning about the brand (Salzer – Morling & Strannegard, 2004; Simmons, 2006).
Woodside, Sood and Miller (2008) argued that storytelling is pervasive and that consumers enjoy to live stories and enact philosophical ideas. As Holt (2003) and Jung (1959) explained, narrative repetition (watching, retrieving or telling stories) enables the learner to experience archetypal myths. By archetypal myths, Aristotle (see Hiltunen, 2002) referred to the collective unconscious forces affecting beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Based on this idea, there are many authors that support the existence of a brand persona, a hero that presents what the company stands for, a strong character that enables the consumers to connect with the brand (Voeth, & Herbst, 2008; Herskovitz and Crystal, 2010). The hero can be either the brand, the employees or the customers depending on the purpose of the story (Guber, 2007; Kelley & Littman, 2006). By doing so, the audience feels familiar with the hero and cares about his actions on a more personal level, having a clear insight into the values and practices he/she represents.
Based on Aristotle theory of eudaimonic and hedonic well – being, we recognize the need to create stories that have both educational and entertaining character (Huta & Ryan, 2010). It is boring to follow a story without suspense and it is useless for branding to create a story that does not teach anything about the brand. Therefore, people need stories that unfold in interesting ways, leading to a meaningful idea that might change their perception of life (Green & Brock, 2000). Companies from the other hand, aim to communicate messages through interesting stories that will motivate people to share as ambassadors (Guber, 2007; Voeth, & Herbst, 2008). Therefore, corporate stories need to be carefully designed in order to fulfill all of those needs and be successful.
10 Another very important aspect of good corporate stories is to be in line with the
interests of each stakeholder. Therefore, there can be different stories for the same
company, promoting different aspects of the organization. For example a story that is meant to enhance external relations will most likely present social characteristics such as trust, development and uniqueness. Respectively, a story that aims at enhancing internal relations will promote a trustful persona or an honest hero that takes care of his beloved ones and tries to succeed for those that tried their best. Corporate stories need to be relevant and appropriate for each purpose in order to achieve intended objectives (Dowling, 2006).
In practice, there are many cases that prove storytelling to be a powerful tool in branding (such as General Electric or Apple) but there are also cases that brand narrative is not well executed, ending up to be confusing or irrelevant to the brand (such as McCain presidential campaign in 2008 or Bode Miller working with Nike in 2006). A corporate story needs to be perceived as authentic in order to persuade without being perceived as
manipulation marketing (Firat & Venkatesh ,1995). It also needs to be honest regarding what it truly represents, proving a connection between what the company says and what it does. In any other case it might harm the existing reputation or confuse consumers, leading them to choose another brand.
Research Question and Hypotheses
As the creation of a good reputation in the eyes of stakeholders is a common business aim (King et al., 2002) and storytelling enables collective sense-making (Boyce, 1995), through this study we aim to investigate the relationship between reputation and storytelling. Moreover, having a good reputation is a premise in order to gain public support (Lee, & Chang, 2007) which is crucial for non-profit companies’ survival (Kang & Norton, 2004).
Based on the above, we are led to the question: does storytelling supports the
11 conduct an experiment that compares the results of two groups. One group is exposed to a short story about the organisation and the other one is not. Both groups are asked to fill in a questionnaire about the brand, offering an insight into their perception of the brand.
We firstly hypothesize that the first group of responders after reading the story for the organisation will evaluate the company in a more positive way than those without a story (H1). The story is designed to influence readers to trust and support the main character that symbolises the organisation. Therefore, through this hypothesis we want to recognize the effect of the story on readers’ evaluation of the brand.
Following, we expect that respondents who understand the story and connect to the main character will achieve higher reputation results in comparison with those who did not appreciate the story that much. Therefore, we want to examine the relation between Storytelling Scores and Reputation Scores, expecting that as Storytelling Scores increase, the Reputation Scores will increase as well (H2).
Lastly, non – profit organizations rely on people’s donations and volunteering in order to keep operating and develop. Therefore, we expect that respondents who read the story and present high intentions to help the main character will also present high intentions to take action, meaning either to donate or to volunteer in order to support the company (H3).
12
Framework Reputation
In order to measure the Reputation (how people evaluate the company) that is the depended variable of the study, we used a combination of reputation measurement scales, specially built for non-profit sector (like Greenpeace) from Sarstedt and Schloderer (2009). Responses vary on five-point Likert scale from “Strongly agree” (1) to “Strongly disagree” (5). In the original form the scale consists of 23 items, something that would lead to a really long survey. Therefore, we chose to include 14 out of the 23 items, based on similarities of the items and on what is more relative to the storytelling. Most items such as “I regard
Greenpeace as a likeable organization” serve to present the attitudes towards the company. There are also some items such as “Greenpeace is an honest organization” or “Greenpeace has secretly other motives than protecting the world” that give us an insight regarding the evaluation of its legitimacy. Lastly, there are the items “I would like to see myself working at Greenpeace”, “I would donate to Greenpeace” giving the options of 0 euros, 5 euros, 20euros, 50euros, 100 euros and “I would like to volunteer for Greenpeace if I had the chance” that present respondents’ opinion about Greenpeace in a more practical matter. After conducting reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha = .869, so the scale proved to be reliable.
For more details regarding the scales please refer to Appendix B.
Manipulation Material
In order to influence respondents’ perception of Greenpeace, we created a story that includes the values, the vision and the mission of the organisation (for “The characteristics of the story” table, please refer to Appendix C). Those are the characteristics that draw its reputation and legitimacy (Chun, 2005), as these are stated on the official site of the
13 the company’s communication efforts are the main aspects that built reputation (Dowling, 2006).
The story will also follow the main aspects of a good story as suggested by the literature (e.g. Gill, 2011; McCabe & Peterspn, 1984; Alvarez & Urla, 2002), to ensure that we will achieve to manipulate the participants (for “Fundamentals of good corporate
storytelling” table, please refer to Appendix E). Also, due to the nature of Greenpeace (non-profit organisation) we need a story that invites people to take action based on positive emotional motives instead of the feeling of guilt while reading the story (Merchant, et al., 2010). Lastly, although the story is short (less than 500 words) we decided to enhance it visually by adding a storyboard, in order to make it more pleasant and faster to read (for the story refer to Appendix C, for the storyboard refer to Appendix D). We understand that the difference in length between the two questionnaires (with and without the story) might influence the results of the comparison between the two groups (control and manipulation groups), but as both versions of the survey are short (less than 8 minutes to fill in), we believe that this will not be a problem.
Storytelling Scale
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the story we created a scale that includes 9 items with responses varying on a five-point Likert scale from “Strongly agree” (1) to
“Strongly disagree” (5). The first item “I enjoyed reading the story” regards the feelings deriving from reading the story. The items “the story helped me understand Greenpeace function”, “the story helped me understand Greenpeace vision” and “the story explained that the mission of Greenpeace is to ensure that earth can nurture life in all its diversity” serve to help us understand how useful the respondents consider the story. Through the next two items “the story aimed to provide information about Greenpeace” and “the story aimed to increase action (donations or volunteering)” we want to understand whether participants perceived the story as informative or motivating. Following, there are the items “the main
14 character (Green Peace) was honest” and “the main character cares about the environment” that indicate whether we managed to manipulate participants to have a positive attitude towards Greenpeace’s motives. Last, the item “I would like to help the main character to solve the problem” indicates whether we managed to create bonding between the reader and the character, something that was our purpose through the manipulation. After conducting reliability analysis, the scale proved to be reliable with Cronbach's alpha = .860.
For more details regarding the scales, please refer to Appendix B.
Demographics
In order to test for demographic variables that may influence our results, we include the items “What is your gender”, “What is your age”, “What is your nationality” and “Currently living in”. As Sahin, Zehir and Kitapçı (2011) proved, brand evaluation partly depends on previous experiences with the brand. Therefore, we include the items “Have you ever worked for Greenpeace in the past”, “Have you ever volunteered for Greenpeace in the past” and “Have you ever donated money to Greenpeace in the past”, in order to recognize the
respondents that have interacted with the brand in the past. Last, as respondents need to be familiar with the brand in order to serve the purpose of the study, the first item of the survey is “Have you ever heard Greenpeace in the past”, offering the choices Yes / No.
Respondents with negative answers are led straight to demographics, without receiving the rest of the questions.
Method Section Research design
We develop a survey embedded experiment as participants are randomly assigned to experimental groups and it is a between-subject design as we compare the scores from the groups. An experiment is the ideal type of research as we want to observe respondents’
15 behaviour under controlled conditions. The controlled condition in this study is the use of storytelling as manipulation material.
The time frame of the study is cross - sectional, as we aim to create an online survey embedded experiment which collects data at a specific point in time and then draw more generalizable conclusions regarding the relationship between corporate storytelling and reputation. Although findings from case studies cannot be generalized, they provide useful information that adds value to existing theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Conducting a cross – sectional survey has a relatively low cost, is fast and fits the purpose of this study.
Regarding the modality of the survey design, we choose to conduct an online questionnaire that we distribute through social media (Facebook and Twitter) by sharing an anonymous link that leads to the survey. In such a way, we are capable of reaching out the desirable sample in a fast, cheap and convenient way for the responders which can fill it in anytime appropriate for them.
In addition, the questionnaire acquires self – report and individual setting conditions, as the respondents fill it in for themselves and by themselves. Lastly, the survey starts with a text ensuring the participants regarding their anonymity and informing them that they can drop out at any point preferred. After giving their consent, they continue with the survey. For more details regarding the consent form, please refer to Appendix A.
Manipulation - Storytelling
In order to examine whether corporate storytelling enables the creation of a positive reputation towards the stakeholders we need to create some manipulation material (e.g. Lundqvist, et. al, “The impact of storytelling on the consumer brand experience”, 2013). Therefore, participants are randomly allocated to one of the two groups through the Randomiser option that Qualtrics Online Survey Software provides, which are the independent variables of the survey. By doing so, we are able to compare the results of those two groups and understand the effects of storytelling on reputation perception. The first
16 group, labelled as manipulation group, first reads a story about Greenpeace and then fills in a questionnaire with items about the corporate reputation of Greenpeace. The second group of individuals, labelled as control group, receives straight the same questionnaire without reading the story.
Sampling
The data are collected through non- probability convenience sampling, as it is a cheap and fast method that suits the needs of the study. The sampling units are individuals of all ages and both genders. We are interested in studying all possible stakeholders of Greenpeace as reputation is built from all of them. Therefore the only premises for someone to participate in the study are to be an English-speaker and to know Greenpeace as a brand.
The ideal sample size is 200 responders (n = 200) based on our resources and on other studies in the field of online experimentation. In order to manage having this amount of responses we reached 2.000 individuals. In this way, even with an estimation of 10 %
responding rate, we managed to gather a proper sample size.
We approach that sample through social media such as Facebook and Twitter, as Greenpeace is a well-established brand which is active on social media and many people can recognize. Participants receive a post with an anonymous link leading them to the survey, along with a text explaining the purpose of the survey and asking them to forward it to other people, hoping to increase the sampling size.
Although using a convenience sample does not allow generalizations, in this case we are interested in investigating the cognitive procedure that storytelling activates and its results on peoples’ perception about the brand. In that sense, a convenience sample is enough to explore whether the relationship between storytelling and reputation does exists and then further investigate it in the future.
17
Plan of Analysis
In order to test the effect of Manipulation (reading a story or not) on Reputation Scores (how people evaluate the company) we conduct a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Reputation Scores is the dependent and Manipulation the independent variable of the analysis. By comparing the means of the two groups (those who read and those who did not read the story) we are able to recognize the effect of the story.
Regarding the second hypothesis we choose to conduct a simple regression analysis with Reputation Scores as dependent and Story Scores (how much they connect with the story), age, gender, nationality and residence as independent variables. We took into consideration that respondents might have previous experience with the brand which could influence their evaluation of the brand. Therefore, we included in the analysis the items “have you ever worked for Greenpeace in the past”, “have you ever donated money to Greenpeace in the past”, “have you ever volunteered for Greenpeace in the past”, as independent
variables that could explain some of the outcome variance.
In order to test the relation between the Intention to help the main character and the Intentions to take action we conduct two simple linear regression analyses, having the item “I would like to donate”, and the “I would like to volunteer” as dependent variables respectively, and the item “I would like to help the main character solve the problem” as independent variable. We also include age, gender, nationality, residence, previously - worked, previously - donated and previously - volunteered as independent variables as they might explain some of the outcome variance.
18
Results
Demographics
Although we gathered 282 responses, after cleaning the data we reached a sample of 206 participants. The sample consists of 111 females (53.9%) and 95 males (46.1%) that ensure a certain balance. There are seven participants (3.4%) that had never heard of Greenpeace in the past, that were led straight to demographics and are excluded from the analysis. The majority of participants reported being between 25-34 years old (49.5%). There are 53 people (25.7%) that donated money to Greenpeace in the past, 16 people (7.8%) that volunteered in the past and 4 people (1.9%) that have worked for the company in the past.
Main Hypotheses
The first hypothesis predicted that providing a story about Greenpeace would affect the way respondents evaluate the company. Specifically, it was predicted that participants would evaluate the company in a more positive way after reading the story, than those who did not receive a story. In order to test this hypothesis, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. The predictor variable was the Manipulation (whether they read a story or not) and the dependent variable was participants’ evaluation of the company (Reputation Scores).
Contrary to the prediction, the analysis revealed that there was a non-significant effect of reading a story on participants’ evaluation of the company, F(1,197)=.49, p=.483. Although there is a small effect from the story (M=2.33, SD= .56) that made the readers evaluate the company slightly more positive than the rest (M = 2.39, SD = .60) this effect is not significantly represented. As participants’ evaluation of the company did not differ significantly due to having read a story, the hypothesis is rejected.
The second hypothesis predicted that the way respondents evaluate the story would influence the way they evaluate the company. Specifically, it was predicted that there would
19 be a positive relation between Story Scores and Reputation Scores, meaning that the more positive they would evaluate the story the more positive they would evaluate the company.
The regression model with the Reputation Scores (how people evaluated the company) as dependent variable and Story Scores (how people evaluated the story), previously - volunteered, previously - donated, previously - worked, age, gender, nationality and residence as independent variables is significant, F(8, 91) = 9.035, p < .001, meaning that the model can be used to predict Reputation Scores. The model explained that 44% of the variation in Reputation Scores can be predicted on basis of Story Scores (R2 = .44), b*= 0.60, t = 7.23, p < .05, 95% CI [0.41, 0.72], while no significance was found regarding the rest of the independent variables. Based on the results, for every one unit of increase in Story Scores the Reputation Scores will increase by 0.57 units. Therefore, we accept the second hypothesis.
The third hypothesis predicted that the Intentions to help the Character (independent variable) would predict the Intentions to donate and the Intentions to volunteer (dependent variables) for the company in a positive way. In order to test this hypothesis, we conducted two simple linear regressions.
The first model, with Intentions to Donate as dependent variable and Intentions to help the Character, age, gender, nationality and residence as independent variables is significant, F (8,91) = 3.974, p < .001 meaning that the model can be used to predict Intentions to Donate. The model revealed that 26% of the variation in Intentions to Donate can be predicted on basis of Intentions to help the Character (R2 = .26), b*= 0.36, t=3.66, p < .05, 95% CI [0.21, 0.71], while no significance was found regarding the rest of the
independent variables. Based on the results, for every one unit of increase in Intentions to help the character, the Intentions to Donate will increase by 0.46 units.
20 The second model, with Intentions to Volunteer as dependent variable and Intentions to help the Character, age, gender, nationality and residence as independent variables is significant, F (8,91) = 4.019, p < .001 meaning that the model can be used to predict Intentions to Volunteer. The model revealed that 26% of the variation in Intentions to
Volunteer can be predicted on basis of Intentions to help the Character (R2 = .26), b*= 0.46, t = 4.61, p < .05, 95% CI [0.36, 0.90], while no significance was found regarding the rest of the independent variables. Based on the results, for every one unit of increase in Intentions to help the character, the Intentions to volunteer will increase by 0.63 units.
Based on the above, participants that expressed Intentions to help the Character presented higher Intentions to support the company either by Donating or by Volunteering, so we accept our third hypothesis.
For spss results, please refer to Appendix F.
Conclusion
The current study demonstrates that a well – designed story can influence positively people’s evaluation of the brand and ultimately increase their Intentions to donate or
volunteer for it. Although corporate storytelling is a commonly used marketing practice, little empirical evidence exist about its effects on people’s perceptions regarding the brand. Existing literature explains that through stories we manage to come to the same conclusions by using our own perception (Woodside, 2010; Simmons, 2006). Corporate reputation from the other hand, is built from all the stakeholders’ impressions about the company (Chung, 2005). But having a wide range of different perceptions due to differences in culture and personal traits, makes it challenging for companies to communicate one positive and commonly perceived reputation (Kiousis, et al., 2007). Therefore, we concentrated our
21 interest in testing whether corporate storytelling can enhance the procedure of building a strong reputation.
Our first hypothesis was that the respondents who read a positive story about Greenpeace would evaluate the company in a more positive way than those who did not read the story. Although our results presented no significance, we found a small effect that influenced the first group of responders to evaluate the company slightly more positively. Therefore, this finding deserves further investigation in the future by conducting an experiment on a bigger sample of respondents.
The next hypothesis predicted differences within the group of respondents that read the story. After carefully designing a scale (Story Scores) that investigates people’s thoughts about the story and the character, we hypothesized that the respondents who managed to understand the story and connect with the character would achieve better reputation results (high Reputation Scores) than the rest. As literature suggests (Woodside, et al., 2008) a story needs to be carefully designed on the purpose of its use. Therefore, by investigating the relationship between story scores and reputation we recognize the effect of this particular story. This assumption was accepted as people that appreciated the story achieved higher reputation scores than the rest and the effect is statistically significant. Hence, we managed to design a successful story that influenced people to create positive associations with the brand. Having our study as a reference point, communication professionals can recognize the importance of adjusting the story on each purpose. Our findings support those of Woodside (2010) that a story can become a great mean of transferring knowledge through symbolisms. The content of the story, though, must be carefully designed based on the desired outcomes.
Our last hypothesis was that participants who stated high Intentions to help the main character (Green Peace) would present higher Intentions to donate or volunteer for the company (Greenpeace) than the rest. In non-profit sector it is crucial for companies to
22 motivate people to take action and support their efforts, either by donating or volunteering. Our hypothesis was confirmed, as those with high Intentions to help the character to solve the problem stated high Intentions to donate and volunteer for Greenpeace. In practice, this finding can become a good example of how the use of a character (which symbolizes the brand) can overcome the difficulties of asking for support.
Discussion
In the current study we investigated how a symbolic story about a non – profit organization influences stakeholder’s evaluations of the brand and their intentions to donate or volunteer. Our results prove storytelling to be a powerful tool towards both directions, as it influenced respondents to evaluate the company in a positive way and to state high
Intentions to take action.
The new era of digital media offers to companies new ways to reach their audiences and communicate messages in interesting and entertaining ways (Weber, 2011). A plethora of new tools such as social media, augmented reality or real-time streaming are in the hands of marketers, always available to enhance their messages. Sharing content through a
message is the start of the communication procedure between corporation and audience, but it relies on the receiver’s perception to decode the message (Boyce, 1995). Therefore, although the new channels of distribution are very useful for corporations to create personalized messages, the way people decode a message stays unclear.
A campaign for example, that manages to capture someone’s attention due to his previous experiences (even those that he gained as a child), may leave someone else uninterested. Advertisements, newsletters and sales promotions can inform people about a product or a service, but most of the times are perceived to be manipulative (Cotte, Coulter and Moore, 2005). Regarding non-profit sector, all of those promotion tools appear to have
23 negative effects on people’s perceptions about the organization (Michel & Rieunier, 2012; Merchant, et. al, 2010) and usually cost a lot.
Stories from the other hand have always been around, influencing us from our childhood to our senescence. The Christians learn their beliefs through parables (symbolic stories) since ancient years. Aesop’s parables are still used to teach young children how to behave. Most companies develop formal or informal stories for their employees to learn the company’s standards. Through stories the narrator manages to teach listeners in a pleasant way and share knowledge that people can relate to their experiences (Woodside, et al., 2008). Even corporate stories with commercial purposes (such as to increase sales or awareness) can be pleasant, informative or motivational (Woodside, 2010; Weber, 2011). They can capture our attention and due to suspense and interesting plot they can hold it until the end (Dailey & Browning, 2014). Therefore, through this study we suggest that sharing a story about a firm is a powerful tool both for increasing awareness about the brand but also for motivating people to change their lifestyle or to take action.
As Lundqvist et al. (2013) and Merchant et al. (2010) explain, sharing a story that points out the negative outcomes of apathy creates negative feelings such as guilt, which make the audience disdain from taking action. Hence, we created a story that symbolizes what Greenpeace represents in a positive way and promotes the need to support the company to protect the planet. Our main assumption was that the story would influence people to evaluate the company in a positive way and motivate them to take action. Firstly, we hypothesized that people who would read the story would evaluate the company more positively than the rest. Although we did not manage to retrieve significant results from the comparison of the two groups, we believe that the relation between storytelling and
reputation does exist. Probably, having a bigger sample than 206 respondents would
represent the effect in a clear way, but based on our resources it was hard to reach a bigger audience.
24 Following, we approached the relationship from a different perspective by comparing the story results with the reputation results. Indeed, the people that appreciated the story and engaged to the character evaluated the company in a more positive way than the rest,
something that also proves our first assumption to be right. Although there were no significant differences found between the two groups, there were significant differences found within the group of respondents that read the story. Therefore, there is positive effect deriving from having read and understood the story that deserves to be further investigated in the future. Bearing this in mind, we suggest to managers that although sharing a story can enable common sense-making, it depends on the content of the story to direct listeners’ opinions. It is almost as if storytelling is a boat and we need to send food across the river· the boat will transfer whatever we will load inside. Therefore, the characters, the plot, the
structure and the symbolisms, all need to serve the purpose of the storytelling.
Lastly, as Greenpeace among other non-profit environmental companies promotes the need to take action (either by donating or volunteering), we tested the relationship
between reading a story that asks for support and presenting high intentions to offer support. This relationship was also found significant and positive, offering a great example of how storytelling can motivate people to be active without having negative feelings such as the feeling of being obliged to do so.
Our results offer an insight into how companies can use storytelling to communicate messages and shape people’s perception of the brand. This research aligns with existing literature (e.g. Merchant, et al., 2010; Woodside, 2010; Lundqvist, et al., 2013) by indicating that storytelling needs to be carefully crafted on its purpose and that the storyteller must be aware of the audience’s characteristics. While creating a story offers myriads of alternatives regarding either the narration style or its content, those that synthesize the story should stay focused on the desired outcomes. In our experiment for example, we aimed in influencing people to consider that Greenpeace honestly cares about the environment. Therefore,
25 following Herskovitz and Crystal (2010) guidelines to symbolize the company through a persona in order to enable connection to the brand, we designed the main character to protect the mother Earth with good intentions and passion. In this way we managed to influence their perceptions regarding the brand by creating positive symbolisms through the main character. After reading the story, people were asked whether they perceived the story to be manipulative or informative. In alignment with Lundqvist et al. (2013) findings,
respondents felt that the story aimed mainly in providing information about the brand rather than influencing their perceptions, something that turns storytelling into really powerful marketing technique. Based on the results we achieved through the manipulation, we suggest that a story can filter people’s perception of the brand in a way that is not perceived to be manipulative.
Another important implication regards non-profit sector and charitable companies. As explained in the previous sections, when an organization does not accept funding from either governments or corporations, it relies on people’s action to support its operation (Mort, et. al, 2007; Merchant, et. al, 2010). Therefore, through this study we aimed in investigating the effect of a motivational story on respondents’ intentions to donate or volunteer for the brand. Happily, the results regarding this relationship found to be positive and statistically
significant, proving this assumption to be right. Following these results, marketers of non-profit sector can invest on releasing such stories in order to create an active audience that practically supports their efforts. In agreement with what Merchant, et al. (2010) proposed, we suggest that creating a story which triggers positive emotions and gives an open call for support, can increase both donations and volunteering.
For both profit and non – profit sector, stories are useful as they shape people’s perception and add value to the brand. Managers can use stories to enhance either internal or external communication. By having a clear picture of the organizational values both employees and consumers can relate to the brand and promote it as ambassadors
26 (Gambetti, et. al, 2012). Public impression about the brand is mainly shaped by the
stakeholders’ experiences (L’Etang, 2009; Dowling, 2006) as they are perceived to be a trustful source of judgment. Hence, it is crucial for organizations to be judged as honest and authentic by their stakeholders, in order to gain public trust and support.
Storytelling is a powerful tool that can also bring negative results if not used properly. A story that does not honestly represent the company or is not designed to serve a specific purpose may confuse the audience or raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled (Merchant, et. al, 2010). Therefore, we would like to advise managers to test each story before
releasing it, as there are no guidelines in literature suggesting which storytelling technique is best for each purpose. For example, a humorous story could be ideal to increase awareness about a product but inappropriate for activating emotional bonding to the brand. On the other hand, an emotional story could be perceived as manipulative, when used to increase sales. Therefore, after carefully designing a story the next step should be testing it on a small population in order to recognize its effect on people’s perception.
Limitations of the Study
Through this experiment we managed to influence people that read a story about a persona (Green Peace) to evaluate Greenpeace in a positive way. Although we designed a useful story towards this direction, there are some limitations that may have reduced our results, some of which lead to suggestions for further research.
Firstly, conducting an online experiment resulted in losing some benefits, such as the physical presence that would enable us to observe respondents reactions before, during and after the storytelling. Tracking respondents’ reactions while reading the story and having a clear picture of their evaluation before and after reading the story, would offer a great insight regarding the cognitive procedure that storytelling activates. Although this can be a useful
27 adjustment for future research, we still managed to recognize the effect of storytelling on reputation results and support intentions.
Another limitation that also derives from the type of experiment we choose, regards the story itself. Although the content of the story was appropriate for the purpose of the study, reading a story through a mobile screen takes a lot of time. This is why we decided to enhance the story visually by adding a storyboard, hoping to reduce the time needed and make it more interesting to read. Moreover, our main assumption was that the two groups of respondents would have a significant difference in the way they evaluated the story. This assumption was rejected but we believe that this is due to the difference in length between the two questionnaires. Although both versions of the survey required little time (less than 8 minutes to fill in), the length difference might have influenced people’s responses. A solution on this limitation would be to add a third group of respondents that would receive a pointless story of the same length, revealing the clean results of the story.
Another limitation regards the population. Based on our resources we gathered 206 responses, but having a bigger population would offer more generalizable results. Also, as the survey was sent through social media and our contacts are mainly from Greece, the majority of the respondents is Greek (71%). Although our results did not reveal significant differences regarding respondents’ nationality, there are chances that this disanalogy might have influenced the outcomes, due to Greenpeace’s existing reputation in this particular country. Finally, there is the limitation of language as the whole questionnaire was conducted in English and our sample consisted of international participants. Therefore, it is possible that some respondents did not fully understand either the story or the questions of the survey.
Future Research
Having this study as a starting point, it would be very interesting to develop a
28 and gain a deeper insight into storytelling power (e.g. Lundqvist, et al., 2013). Coming across the study of Boyce (1995) we got inspired to create an experiment that presents different stories for the same organization. By doing so, we will be able to examine whether
storytelling achieves common sense – making in regard to the function and the values of the company. Through this study we managed to influence people to evaluate the company in a positive way, but we believe that ‘positive’ is not enough to claim that we achieved ‘common sense – making’. Also, by sharing more stories we will be able to recognize the effects of different storytelling elements such as the narration style, the format of the plot or the choice of the main character. Having these results, we can start crafting some guidelines regarding the best techniques for each use and provide communication professionals with a bigger range of storytelling examples.
29 References
Alvarez, R., & Urla, J. (2002). Tell me a good story: using narrative analysis to examine information requirements interviews during an ERP implementation. ACM SIGMIS
Database, 33(1), 38- 52.
Barrett, H. (2006, March). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool. In Society for information technology & teacher education international
conference (pp. 647-654). Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE).
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. In Knowledge and
communities (pp. 99-121).
Boyce, M. E. (1995). Collective Centring and Collective Sense-making in the Stories and Storytelling of One Organization. Organization Studies, 16(1), 107–137.
Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of advertising, 24(3), 25-40.
Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361- 368.
Dailey, S. L., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43.
Davis, J. C. (2007). A conceptual view of branding for services. Innovative Marketing, 3(1), 7-14.
30 Dowling, G. R. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California
Management Review, 49(1), 82-100.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of consumer research, 22(3), 239-267.
Gambetti, R. C., Graffigna, G., & Biraghi, S. (2012). The grounded theory approach to consumer- brand engagement. International Journal of Market Research, 54(5), 659-687.
Garretson, J. A., & Niedrich, R. W. (2004). Spokes-characters: Creating character trust and positive brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 25–36.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(5), 701. Greenpeace (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace
Gray, E. R., & Balmer, J. M. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long range planning, 31(5), 695-702.
Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 24-30.
Guber, P. (2007). The four truths of the storyteller. Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 52. Hahn, R. W., & Stavins, R. N. (1991). Incentive-based environmental regulation: a new era
from an old idea?. Ecology Law Quarterly, 18(1), 1-42.
Herskovitz, S., & Crystal, M. (2010). The essential brand persona: storytelling and branding. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 21–28.
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness
31 Jobber, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2012). Principles and practice of marketing (No. 7th).
McGraw- Hill Higher Education.
Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the World Wide Web: are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals?. Public Relations Review, 30(3), 279-284.
Kearney, R. (2002). On stories. Routledge.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2006). The ten faces of innovation. Strategies for heightening creativity.
Kim, N., Sung, Y., & Lee, M. (2012). Consumer evaluations of social alliances: The effects of perceived fit between companies and non-profit organizations. Journal of business ethics, 109(2), 163-174.
King, A., Lenox, M. J., & Barnett, M. L. (2002). Strategic responses to the reputation commons problem. Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional
and strategic perspectives, 393-406.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate
reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting
perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165.
L'Etang, J. (2009). Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 607-626.
Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(9), 1173- 1180.
Lundqvist, A., Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Van Riel, A. (2013). The impact of storytelling on the consumer brand experience: The case of a firm-originated story. Journal of
32 Martin, S. (2016). Stories about values and valuable stories: A field experiment of the power
of narratives to shape newcomers’ actions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1707– 1724.
McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1984). What makes a good story. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 13(6), 457- 480.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762.
Michel, G., & Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701-707.
Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Williamson, B. (2007). Branding in the non-profit context: the case of Surf Life Saving Australia. Australasian Marketing Journal
(AMJ), 15(2), 108-119.
Sahin, A., Zehir, C., & Kitapçı, H. (2011). The effects of brand experiences, trust and satisfaction on building brand loyalty; an empirical research on global
brands. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1288-1301.
Salzer-Mörling, M., & Strannegård, L. (2004). Silence of the brands. European Journal of
Marketing, 38(1/2), 224-238.
Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of non‐profit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 15(3), 276-299.
Simmons, J. (2006). Guinness and the role of strategic storytelling. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 14(1), 11-18.
Sinclair, J. (2005). The impact of stories. Leading Issues in Knowledge Management
33 Voeth, M., & Herbst, U. (2008). The concept of brand personality as an instrument for
advanced non- profit branding – an empirical analysis. Journal of Nonprofit &
Public Sector Marketing, 19(1), 71-97.
Weber, L. (2011). Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build
Your Business: Second Edition
Wolbers, J., & Boersma, K. (2013). The common operational picture as collective
sensemaking. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21(4), 186-199. Woodside, A. G. (2010). Brand‐consumer storytelling theory and research: Introduction to a
Psychology & Marketing special issue. Psychology & Marketing, 27(6), 531-540.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology &
34
Index of the Appendix
Material Page
Appendix A: the conceptual model, the consent form 35
Appendix B: the outline of the questionnaire 37
Appendix C: the story – manipulation material, table C1: characteristics of the story
39
Appendix D: the storyboard 41
Appendix E: fundamentals of good corporate stories by Gill, R. (2011) 42
35 Appendix A
Figure A1: The Conceptual Model
Consent Form
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are invited to participate in a research project that is being carried out under the auspices of the ASCoR research institute, which forms part of the University of Amsterdam. ASCoR conducts scientific research into media and communications in society.
The title of the research project is Storytelling, Sense-making and Corporate
Reputation. All English – speakers are welcomed to participate in this project. The objective of the research is to recognize the effect of corporate storytelling on peoples’ opinion about the brand. In this survey, you will be asked to fill in a short questionnaire about Greenpeace, which lasts approximately 4 - 8 minutes.
''Greenpeace is a non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an international coordinating body in Amsterdam. Greenpeace was founded in 1971 ... and campaigns on worldwide environmental issues mostly through direct action, lobbying, and ecotage. The global organization does not accept funding from
governments, corporations, or political parties, relying on 2.9 million individual supporters and foundation grants'' (Greenpeace, In Wikipedia, retrieved December 5, 2017).
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
36 1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your answers or data will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this. 2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3. Participating in the research will not entail you being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4. No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader at any time: Nadia Adamopoulou, ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525,
nadia.adamopoulou@student.uva.nl.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate.
37 Appendix B
The Outline of the Questionnaire
A. Previous Experience with the Brand (Yes / No)
1. Have you heard of Greenpeace in the past?
Yes / No (after this choice we lead them straight to demographics) 2. Have you ever donated money to Greenpeace?
3. Have you ever volunteered for Greenpeace? 4. Have you ever worked for Greenpeace?
B. Manipulation Material
Sort. symbolic story about Greenpeace. (50% of respondents) For more details see Appendix C.
C. Reputation of NPOs
To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (five – point Likert scale, from ‘Strongly agree – 1’ to ‘Strongly disagree – 5)
1. I think the existence of Greenpeace is beneficial for the environment 2. I regard Greenpeace as a likeable organization
3. Greenpeace is a top non-profit organization in its market 4. Greenpeace is an honest organization
5. Greenpeace has secretly other motives than protecting the world
6. Greenpeace takes care of its donors (with good service or information about the conducted projects)
7. Greenpeace has an influence on governments and organizations 8. Greenpeace has a clear vision about the future of the organization 9. Greenpeace behaves in a social conscious way
10. Greenpeace has a fair attitude towards other organizations, donors, and beneficiaries 11. Greenpeace follows ethical standards
12. I would like to see myself working at Greenpeace 13. I would donate to Greenpeace:
0 euros, 5 euros, 20euros, 50euros, 100 euros
38 15. Greenpeace works on: (multiple choice)
Climate change issues Saving endangered species Protecting forests
Genetic engineering All above
D. Storytelling Scale (respondents see these items only if they read the story)
1. I enjoyed reading the story
2. The story helped me understand Greenpeace function (what it does)
3. The story helped me understand Greenpeace vision (why it does what it does)
4. The story explained that the mission of Greenpeace is to ensure that earth can nurture life in all its diversity
5. The story aimed to provide information about Greenpeace 6. The story aimed to increase action (donations or volunteering) 7. The main character (Green Peace) was honest.
8. The main character cares about the environment.
9. I would like to help the main character to solve the problem.
E. Demographics {Green et al. (2004)}
1. What is your gender? [0= male, 1= female]
2. What is your age? [>18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, 85+] 3. What is your nationality?
39 Appendix C
The Story – Manipulation Material
Green peace and the Sacred Scales
I am Green Peace, the warrior of Mother Earth, daughter of Good Hope and Red Heart, both warriors in Her name. Before my mother died, she made me promise that I would do my best to protect our planet. Growing up with my father, I learned to appreciate and respect nature and all the goods that it provides. He helped me realize how people are abusing it instead of using its gifts, and he trained me how to protect it. You see, my father was the leader of our tribe and a great warrior of the Earth. Before he passed away, he gave me the Sacred Scales, telling me that I need to ensure their balance; the scales have the Earth on the left side and the Bad on the other side. The Bad is created by the results of human greed and it feeds on people’s apathy.
My name is Green Peace and I will protect our sacred water, air and land. My mission is to bring balance between what people want to achieve and what they are willing to sacrifice. It is my time now to protect Mother Earth, like my ancestors did, and ensure Her ability to nurture life in all its diversity.
During the festival of the Sun, the scales tipped. It was that little movement that made me take action.
What shall I do to bring back the balance? The Earth cannot take more of this greedy
development, which brings pollution, destroys animals and their natural habitats and mutates food in order to make more money. The scales have tipped so much that the Earth might fall. And if it falls from the scales… oh dear mother and father, help me save the Earth before it is too late. I need to consult our spiritual guide, the Great Manitou. “When the Bad grows bigger, you need to grow more good to bring balance. And always remember that your parents gave you that name for a reason”. I ran back to the Sacred Scales, thinking that
40 creating more green would protect the Earth from the Bad. I started to plant as many trees and flowers as possible on Earth, in order to make it heavier. And the scales moved. This time they tipped towards the Earth’s side. Yes, that’s a very good start.
But with the increasing development that takes place, the scales will keep moving. I will never make it alone. I need to find a lot of soil and a lot of water to grow these plants. And I need people that are willing to take action and support my goal. It is now time to release the Blue birds of Tweet to let people know that I need their help. I am the Green Peace Warrior, and I need you by my side to save Mother Earth.
Table C1
Characteristics of the Story
Characteristics Symbolism Main
character:
Green Peace the Greenpeace company
Problem: the scales are moving – the Earth is in danger
people are harming the earth
Enemy: Bad pollution, extinction of animals and forests,
money, apathy, greed (what Greenpeace stands against)
Assistant: Great Manitou helps the main character
Solution: plant trees on earth the function of Greenpeace
Mission to ensure Earth’s ability to nurture life in all its diversity
mission of Greenpeace as stated from the company
Aim: spread the message to support
to save the world
41 Appendix D
The Storyboard
