Master’s thesis
Graduate School of Communication
MSc Communication Science (Persuasive)
30/01/2020
Recounting branding:
a comparison of B2C and B2B brand storytelling
Supervisor: Margot van der Goot
Clémence Geay-Chevalme
Abstract
Stories are inherently compelling and businesses have been quick to implement them as part of their branding strategy to communicate what their organization is about, however the recent recognition that Business to Business (B2B) also makes use of storytelling as part of their branding strategy drew attention to the fact that brand storytelling as currently conceptualized heavily relies on research conducted and conclusions drawn based on Business to Consumer (B2C). As opposed to this, the resources making explicit mention of B2B are scarce with only a few research focusing narratives using case studies to be exemplified but which are never related to conceptualizations of brand storytelling frameworks. This thus raises doubts as to the validity of current brand storytelling theories when it comes to Business to Business organizations. This research therefore aims at assessing for potential differences and/or validating similarities between the business types (B2C/B2B) in their use of brand storytelling. For this purpose, a comparison between brand storytelling strategies in B2C (N=12; N=48) and B2B (N=12; N=48) brand content manifestations is presented through a sequential mixed method study with an initial exploratory content analysis followed by a quantitative content analysis technique informed by the qualitative results. The overall results not only revealed that some aspects of brand storytelling did differ depending on the business type of the brand, but also suggested that some elements theorised in the brand storytelling literature may not apply to either or may need to be further adapted for generalization.
“65% of conversations consists of stories. When we want to communicate
important information, we tell a story.”
Table of Content
Introduction 7
Research gap 8
Aim of the research 8
Theoretical relevance 10
Practical relevance 11
Literature review 11
Digital Brand storytelling 11
Storytelling frameworks 13
Structure 15
Storyline elements 15
The hook 16
Journey 16
Reversal / Climax / Turning point 16
Theme 17
Story type / basic plot 17
The cast / characters / distribution 18
Figures and archetypes 19
Strategy 19
Core message 19
Clear goal / Objective 20
Concise style 20
Authenticity 21
Sample 22
Brand selection 22
Campaign occurrence selection 23
Qualitative 25 Quantitative 25 Results 26 Structure of narration 27 Storyline elements 28 The hook 28 Journey 29
Reversal / Climax / Turning point 30
Theme 31
Data 32
Storyline type / basic plot 33
The characters / Cast / Distribution 36
Protagonist, Support & Benefactor 36
Beneficiary 37
Adversary 38
Figures & Archetypes 38
Core message 41
Clear goal / objective 41
Authenticity 42
Conciseness 42
Discussion 45
Similarities between B2C and B2B brand storytelling use 46 Differences between B2C and B2B brand storytelling use 47 Limitations & recommendations for future research 50
Conclusion 52
References 53
Appendices 61
Appendix A: Brand storytelling literature synthesis
Appendix B: Blog posts selection for brand and data collection Appendix C: Occurrences selection
Appendix D. Codebook & additional information for the coder
Tables & Figures
Table 1. Chi-square of business type and storylines Table 2. Chi Square Business types and archetypes.
Table 3. Summary of brand storytelling aspects which show no statistical difference between business types Table 4. Summary of differences between B2C and B2B brands in brand storytelling use
Introduction
From Tesla introducing itself with the story of its creation by bold engineers wanting to change the automobile industry with electric vehicles to Go Pro leveraging its position as a symbol of reckless adventures or Harley Davidson perpetuating the idea of the quest to freedom and rebellion, successful companies often make use of a story to communicate about their brands to their customers. Not only does delivering a story allow for a brand to convey more than just mere information it is also recognized as a highly compelling way to pass on memorable and clear knowledge, associations and feelings facilitating decision making and orienting attitudes (Choy, 2017; Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016; McKee & Fryer, 2003; Mills & Robson, 2019; Papadatos, 2006). In other words, in addition to being highly compelling and persuasive by nature as the human mind largely operates in terms of narratives (Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus & van Riel, 2012; Woodside, 2010), storytelling allows for companies to reach specific goals in regards to their brand equity and potentially their overall success (Iglesias & Bonet, 2012).
Nowadays storytelling as a branding strategy has attracted increasing attention in the practical as well as in the academic field leading to field rich in theories and information ("6 Storytelling Trends Marketing Leaders Should Know About", 2019; Chibana, 2019; Patel, 2019a; Patel, 2019b; Pulizzi, 2012; Snow, 2018). Research as well as a wide range of marketing-related blogs and reviews targeted at professionals have notably shown interest in highlighting the essential components of an efficient storytelling strategy (such as having a set structure, involving a hero and a quest and/or archetypes) (Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016; Pera, Viglia & Furlan, 2016; Woodside, 2010).
Research gap
Nevertheless, while undeniably popular, brand storytelling strategy research has seemed to focus mainly on B2C (Business to Consumer), making no explicit mention of B2B (Business to Business) and leaving an extremely limited body of research regarding brand storytelling for B2B (Bonnin & Alfonso, 2019; Huang, 2014). This consequently brings one to question the generalization of existing brand storytelling frameworks to both B2C and B2B (henceforth referred to as business types). Elaborated branding strategies such as storytelling have traditionally been disregarded for B2B since the target group (other professionals in other companies) were expected to follow a rational, logic-based decision-making process (Rivard & Rivard, 2017), overlooking that decision-makers are still people, likely subjected to the same cognitive and affective processes as consumers (Kotler & Pfoertsch, pp.1-2).
However, an increasing number of reviews and professional resources have been
proliferating in the last few years, starting to show growing interest in the use of brand narratives for B2B specifically, mainly in regards to the tech giants such as Salesforce or Hubspot (Bonnin & Alfonso, 2019; Hemsley, 2019; Huang, 2014; Irvine, 2019). With the understanding that such knowledge is not only upcoming, but also specified to the business type in which was originally disregarded, this consequently suggests that the B2B settings may encompass factors that could require a tailored understanding of how to efficiently use brand storytelling strategy for this business type (Bodnar & Cohen, 2012). In other words, brand storytelling in B2B settings may operate in different ways than in B2C.
Aim of the research
This research therefore aims at investigating how B2C and B2B organizations
resonate amongst their customers. This study intends to provide a comprehensive comparison of successful storytelling strategies in B2C vs. B2B industries by building on existing frameworks that have been developed in the brand storytelling literature and adapting them according to the business type. Therefore this research addresses the following question:
RQ: How is brand storytelling conducted when used by B2B and B2C brands and how does it potentially differ from one another?
For this purpose, the current study consists in a sequential exploratory design involving both qualitative and quantitative content analysis comparing successful storytelling campaigns in B2C and B2B based on a selection of B2C and B2B brands which have been recognized as successful in conducting brand storytelling (further explained in the method section).
The qualitative content analysis aimed at verifying the relevance of existing brand storytelling frameworks and build on them in view of obtaining a codebook that is inclusive of practices observed in both business types. In order to do so, six different frameworks extracted from the brand storytelling literature (see appendices) were merged into a main comprehensive and used as guidelines to analyse brand storytelling campaign expressions originating from both business type brands with the idea of highlighting similarities and differences of brand
storytelling practices across business types. The analysis of data from both business types thus allowed for the specification of the aspects of brand storytelling as highlighted in the frameworks so that coding categories were formed. It also drew attention to other aspects that seemed to participate in the creation of brand storytelling and which were not presented in the literature and potentially specific to one business type compared to the other. These additional aspects were therefore added, when possible as coding categories in the codebook.
Secondly, in order to bring support to the findings highlighted by the qualitative investigation, the second part of this research focused on a quantitative content analysis of a larger sample of successful story-driven brands from both B2C and B2B using the codebook elaborated thanks to the qualitative findings and the brand storytelling literature.
Theoretical relevance
Considering the current and apparent absence of research focusing on potential
differences/similarities of (digital) brand storytelling use for branding purposes in B2C vs. B2B (Bonnin & Alfonso, 2019; Huang, 2014), this research intends to bring new elements of answer which could then offer directions for further research focusing on the uses and effects of
storytelling according to the industry of relevance.
This research notably seeks to answer the doubts raised as to the validity of the generalization of current brand storytelling theories, frameworks and studies to the B2B
environment. As previously mentioned it is possible that, in the light of the development of B2B-specific brand storytelling reviews in the practical field, the B2B brands may employ storytelling in a different way than the B2C brands do to make their target group relate to their brand.
However with the available academic literature having focused on B2C or unspecified examples (Choy, 2017; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016; Fog et al. 2006; Woodside, Sood & Miller, 2008; Woodside, 2010), it is unclear whether this potential difference is accounted for or not in the frameworks found in the literature and integrated (see appendix A). In the absence of additional concrete evidence stating whether B2B brand storytelling strategy differs or not from the B2C one, any generalization of B2C-based study on the topic to other business types that have been/could be made remains subjected to discussion as potentially built on the speculation that brand storytelling was not business type-specific. This study will therefore bring elements of
answer as for the validity of considering current brand storytelling studies (that have been mainly dealing with B2C examples) for B2B contexts and research or if an adapted framework (that would be highlighted in this research) should be considered instead for further research looking into brand storytelling contents and effects across business types.
Practical relevance
Furthermore the analysis of (potentially differential) use of storytelling revealed could provide further insights for more practical and managerial implications that would allow one to influence the meaning of their brand (Iglesias & Bonet, 2012): that is to say, paving the way for further and more business type-fitted guidelines for efficient branding strategy. In other words, by focusing on specific aspects and strategies of brand storytelling which are similar or differ according to the business type, this study aims to provide clear guidelines, which can be
evaluated using the coding categories, that are fitted to the business type of relevance for brand managers and marketing professionals. This should thus be of particular relevance to
build/strengthen a brand or engage in a strategic rebranding process, particularly for B2B professionals, for whom resources on B2B-specific branding and marketing strategies remain scarce.
Literature review
Digital Brand storytelling
Omnipresent in the history of communication, storytelling has been described as “one of the oldest, most powerful modes of communication” (Kaufman, 2003, p.11), as well as the best way to persuade someone as it arouses emotion and energy (McKee, 2003 ; Martin, Arruda & Alba, 2010). Unlike purely data or argument-based communication, storytelling relies on
narratives to present information and cause-and-effect relationships under a certain light and reflects a certain view of the world that resonates within the audience (Dahlstrom, 2014 ; Woodside, 2010 ; Duarte, ). In this sense, employing storytelling narrative techniques to communicate to a target audience is not inconsequential as such techniques are understood as having significant impacts on information processing, memorization (Lundqvist et al., 2012), identification and emotional attachment (Woodside, 2010).
First of all, storytelling is a strong strategy for organizations to educate their audience about their brand, services and/or product (Robins, 2006). With individuals constantly seeking clarity, stories seem particularly fitted to communicate knowledge about the brand efficiently as “[they] can be understood as a simplified frame in which brands are embedded” (Lundqvist, et al., 2012, p.285). This consequently renders information accessible by limiting conscious information processing efforts. Storytelling can therefore be seen as an attractive way to reach people, as the company can easily and effectively transmit (complex) meanings about itself. Moreover, stories are inherently easier to retain and retrieve than usual conversations, discourse and data-based only arguments. Not only is the human memory story-based, meaning that information is often stored in the shape of a story, but in addition to this, a large amount of information is stored and retrieved from episodic memory. This involves, besides the information itself, subconsciously associated memories and meanings (Woodside, 2010).
Furthermore, beyond being a strategic option for brands to appeal to the audience from a cognitive standpoint, using storytelling is also, and most importantly, a way to activate affective effects. Firstly, the efficient communication of brand values using storytelling can involve target audiences on a conative level by creating a storyline or perspective, which presents the set of values in a way that the audience can relate and feel attached to (Dias & Dias, 2018 ; Papadatos,
2018 ; Lundqvist, et al., 2012). In other words, target audiences can start bonding and identifying with a brand through the expression of its values. Secondly, narratives tend to be a source of enjoyment to the public, as they allow for transportation, henceforth leading to a potentially powerful brand experience (Hakemulder, Kuijpers & Tan, 2017 ; Lundqvist,et al., 2012). With the acknowledgement of the effect of storytelling on processing, storing and retrieval, Woodside takes this aspect of enjoyment even further, stating that “retrieving, reliving or repeat watching of stories results in [...] a catharsis”, that appeals to archetypes, or the unconscious and ‘original pattern[s] or prototype[s] in the human mind[...]”(2010, p.533) (further developed in the Figures and archetypes section of the literature review.). In this sense, by using storytelling and thus making their values part of a narrative, companies can appeal to several cognitive and conative mechanisms rending possible together that their values are, not only transmitted but can also resonate amongst the audience.
Finally, it is crucial to note that nowadays, a large part of communication happens in the digital environment particularly for the communication revolving around brands (Barrett, 2019; Lipiäinen & Karjaluoto, 2015). This thus highlight the importance of focusing on the
possibilities offered by the digital landscape.
Storytelling frameworks
In this literature review, six frameworks (see appendices) were identified to capture and synthesize the different building blocks of storytelling, illustrated in appendix A. While these frameworks constitute theory and results of studies which have been presented and developed independently, the need for an integration arises for two reasons. Firstly, to select only the aspects of brand storytelling which are recurring across frameworks, showing agreement in the
importance of the aspects in question. Secondly, to pinpoint aspects which may have different terminology and bring together the scopes covered by each terminology.
The six frameworks consisted in two frameworks based on empirical studies, namely Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s (2016) and Dias & Dias (2018) while the four others, Choy (2017), Fog et al. (2006), Pera, Viglia & Furlan, (2016) and Smith & Wintrob, (2013) were theory-based.
These frameworks were then mapped onto one another and compared to gather similarities resulting in a list of recurring storytelling aspects. They were then organised
according to higher level categories as observable in Choy’s (2017) and Fog et al.’s (2006) (see Appendix A).
Choy (2017) and Fog et al. (2006) provide in their work extended conceptualizations of brand storytelling, categorizations such as the structure, the elements, the strategy and the authenticity for the first and the characters, message, plot and conflict for the latter. Moreover, the prominence of some of these categories can be supported by empirical work such as Dias & Dias’ (2018) who put forward the concepts of characters, action- which can be mapped onto the plot idea found in Choy (2017) and Fog et al (2006)- as well as theme and settings which are found in Choy’s components of the structure and elements respectively. Similarly Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s (2016) study on brands further support the concepts of story elements, plots and adds to this, the concept of archetypes.
Furthermore the idea of archetypes as well as story plots have seem to bring about specific interest in the study of storytelling: in their work Pera Viglia & Furlan (2016) give extensive attention to archetypes, consequently settling the importance of the concept in
Wintrob, 2013 ; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016 ; Woodside, 2007 ; 2010 ; Mark & Pearson, 2006). Similarly, Smith & Wintrob (2013) dedicated their framework to the articulation of types of stories and break them down to four main types, of which some can be specifically mapped onto one of Choy’s plot prototypes (2017) and echoes back to Fog et al.’s (2006) emphasis on plots.
This literature review will therefore address the recurring storytelling aspects as developed in the literature.
Structure
A seemingly widely accepted aspect of storytelling is the structure of the storyline which should follow a beginning, middle and end. As Choy mentions in her framework “[...] all
successful stories share the same basic structure: the Three Act Formula” (2017, p.72), which appears to be a recurring feature in other frameworks and theories (Woodside, 2010 ; Fog et al. 2006 ; McKee, 2003 ; Woodside, 2007; 2010), although some may specify the acts according to situations. All together the narrative flow therefore follows a three step structure which includes coincide with the steps of ‘scene setting’ (as also found in Dias & Dias, 2018), ‘complications’ and ‘outcome’ (Choy, 2017, p.72) and lays out the grounds for the story plot.
Storyline elements
Elements are identified as another core component of a story (Choy, 2017, p.45 ;
Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016): four fundamental elements are used to compose the anatomy of any story and these allow the audience to recognize it as such, consequently and projecting them into the narrative.
The hook
A major element to a story is the disruption that shakes the initial context and incite the character(s) to act upon. While the terminology seems to lack unity to refer to this element, sometimes being called conflict (Fog et al. 2006) or challenge or ‘inciting event’ (Woodside, 2007, 2010, p.535), a useful concept to define this element is Choy’s “story hook” (2017, p.79). The hook is meant to create a tension to grab the audience's attention and can be divided into three types: conflict (the ‘clash of forces going in opposite directions’), contradiction (goes against the audience expectations) and contrast (juxtaposition of opposite qualities) (Choy, 2017, pp.79-84). A challenge is presented to the protagonist(s) who will take action to overcome it.
Journey
The journey is understood by Choy as the representation of the action(s) taken by the protagonist(s) as well as all the possible complications and challenges that they come across as a result of the hook that was introduced (2017). In screenplay it is typically ‘the phase of action (McKee, 2003) during which the challenges induced from the hook are developed. In addition, Dias and Dias’ (2018) coding category of ‘action’ appears to bring support to this concept. It constitutes the main pattern of the storyline for the second act (middle of the story as developed in 2.2.1) and is meant to provide insights for the audience as for why and how ‘life changes’ in the story (Choy, 2017, p.77).
Reversal / Climax / Turning point
A story entails a culmination point which typically marks that the actions and emotions are at their highest and which constitutes a shift in the storyline (Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016 ; Choy, 2017). As Fog et al mention, “As storytellers, we get our message across
through conflict and its resolution.”(2006), an idea which as previously developed can be extended to any type of hook (conflict, contradiction and contrast). Henceforth the reversal seemed to be a crucial element to storytelling as it carries out the idea that a story should explain how and why of its existence (Choy, 2017) and therefore paves the way for the core or moral message (see 2.2.6.1).
Theme
Not only a story typically follows a basic chronological order but the story elements should also revolve around a common theme. Identified in both Choy’s (2017) and Dias & Dias’(2018) conceptualization of storytelling, the theme weaves the events together and provides for the audience an additional way to make sense out of the story. Although the definitions in the literature remain broad regarding the theme, it can be understood as a central idea bounding all the other elements in the story.
Story type / basic plot
The story type or basic plot is another crucial aspect of storytelling that allows for the categorization of the story. This concept seems to be popular in the storytelling literature and finds roots in Booker’s (2004) articulation of six story plots (notably Choy’s, 2017 and Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s, 2016). In all these basic plots provide insights regarding the development of the storyline in patterns that are instantly recognizable by the audience, relatable and predictable. In addition to the basic plots identified and seemingly widely accepted in the literature, Choy adds the idea of the origin story (2017) which can also be found in Smith & Wintrob’s storytelling framework under the name of heritage story, alongside their identification of contemporary, vision and folklore stories (2013).
The cast / characters / distribution
A story needs actors in order to come to life. While it may seem obvious, it is important to highlight this aspect of storytelling firstly because the storyline, plot and the actions also can be developed only once actors are introduced and defined, whether they are represented through characters or entities (Fog et al. 2006, pp.36-44, Choy, 2017, pp.55-103 ; Choy’s, 2017 ;
Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s, 2016) and secondly because actors likely play a large part in the transportation effect of the story and allow for the audience to identify and relate to it (Papadatos, 2018 ; Lundqvist, et al., 2012). In other words, the actors constitute a core element for the constitution of the story as a whole but also for the emotional impact that is intended.
For this reason Fog et al. (2006) outline a set of basic actors required for the formation of good storytelling: the ‘hero’, beneficiary, adversary, supporter, benefactor and the beneficiary (Fog et al. 2006, pp.36-44). It is however important to be mindful of the use of the terminology regarding the protagonist(s) (or main characters): in Fog et al.’s conception of brand storytelling, the term ‘hero’ is used to refer to the protagonist(s) of the story (2006, pp. 26-46), which should not be mistaken with the archetype ‘hero’ (see Appendix A). For this reason the term protagonist as found in other sources (Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016 ; Mark &Pearson, 2006) is preferred for the rest of this study.
As for the other actors, the adversary represents the force intending to prevent the protagonist(s) from reaching their goal (further developed in the Clear goal /Objective section), the beneficiary will gain from it and while the supporter and benefactor provide assistance to attain it, the first through close collaboration and the latter through a more external perspective.
Figures and archetypes
Archetypes as initial defined by Jung find root in psychology and are to be understood as universal patterns that are present in the collective subconscious and induces instinctive
reasoning (1980). The interest in archetypes appears prominent in the brand storytelling literature (Fog et al. 2006; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, 2016; Mark & Pearson, 2006;
Woodside, 2010 ; Xara-Brasil, Miadaira Hamza & Marquina, 2018), with the understanding that using such universal symbols allows for the consumer to easily navigate the storyline by
appealing to existing and shared knowledge as well as the associated meanings involved in the specific storyline (Fog et al. 2006; Muniz, Woodside & Sood, 2015; Mark & Pearson, 2006). Therefore, using these specific known schemes is inherently appealing to the human mind, as it allows the audience to make sense out of the characters and/or storyline with limited need for cognitive efforts, also making its possible to relate and identify oneself to the characters.
In all, fourteen archetypes can be identified (see appendix A). These relatable figures therefore constitute a major point of storytelling creation and quality.
Strategy
The strategic aspect of storytelling is particularly relevant for brand storytelling and intends for the audience to relate to the story and leverage the cognitive and conative effects stemming from the story.
Core message
The core message can be understood as a summed-up version of the story in which there is an ideological / moral takeaway which stems from the brand’s values (Choy, 2017 ; Fog, et al.
2006). It is considered to be the essence of brand storytelling and the element that is at the origin of the strategy. It should moreover be clear and occurring throughout the story (Fog et al, 2006 ; Woodside 2010). The reflection of the core message throughout the story therefore allow for increased clarity as for what the story intends to communicate to the audience.
Clear goal / Objective
While goals are typically going hand in hand with the specific archetype of the
protagonist(s) (Fog et al, 2006) and could be identified as another element of the storyline, it is doubly important for the strategic use of storytelling for a brand. By making sure that it is clearly stated one ensures that the goal can be understood independently and that the rest of the narrative can be built around it as well as around the protagonist(s) archetype (Choy, 2017 ; Fog et al. 2006, p.64). This way, one can communicate what the brand is about and how its values can resonate among the target audience.
Concise style
A brand story should be concise in order to be appealing, that is to say, short and
informative. Regardless of the length of it, storytelling should not fall into the trap of going into details or technical aspects but should rather be a straight-forward development of the main points that the brand should highlight (Choy, 2017; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s, 2016). In all, the conscience is needed in order to attract and conserve the attention of the audience.
Authenticity
It is recognized that learning is most effective when it takes place in an environment that uses real-life references and this also applies to storytelling (McLellan, 2007). Although the idea of storytelling suggests that the discourse would be fictional, it is important to remember that stories - and particularly brand stories for this matter- need to be relatable to the audience and credible (Choy, 2017 ; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s, 2016). Authenticity is therefore highly important in brand storytelling, not only to settle the credibility of the brand, but also for the audience to learn more easily the story that the brand presents.
Method
In order to compare brand storytelling across business types and highlight similarities and differences between B2C and B2B, this research adopted a sequential mixed method design reviewing expression of branding efforts from both business types using brands that have been recognized as successful at conducting brand storytelling.
The criterion of success was addressed using peer recognition of successful brand
storytelling (further developed in the following seciton) to select B2C and B2B brands, then two expression of branding efforts-henceforth referred to as campaign occurrence, were selected for the sample (Appendix C), of which 24 (B2C N=12 and B2B N=12) were selected for the qualitative study and 96 for the quantitative sample (N=48 for B2C and N=48 for B2B).
With a semi-directed technique using the integrated literature framework, a qualitative content analysis investigated for patterns present in the brand occurrences, which were then used to formulate the codebook. The quantitative content analysis was then conducted using the
elaborated codebook to test for significant differences between business types in their score on the codebook for each item.
Sample
The sampling for this study is a purposive sampling that included both B2C and B2B campaigns occurrences in order to have a representation of the diversity of storytelling strategies used in both B2C and B2B. An occurrence is to be understood as a unit of a brand campaign manifestation (a webpage, a video, a social media post or a banner). Such sampling allowed to focus on the specificities of B2C and B2B in their marketing campaigns.
Brand selection
One main criterion for the selection of this sampling is the recognition of the brand, as successful in its brand storytelling attempt by other professional entities. For this purpose, an initial selection of professional sources (blog posts) listing or ranking brands which were recognized as successful at conducting brand storytelling was carried out. The selection of lists and rankings for B2C and B2B brands was done independently from one another. Tgis way, B2B brands specifically were gathered on the one hand, using a keyword map including the terms “B2B brand storytelling” ; “best B2B brand storytelling”; “Successful B2B storytelling” and B2C brands on the other hand, similarly using a keyword map including the terms “successful brand storytelling”, “good brand storytelling examples” and “best brand storytelling”. The choice of selecting these rankings independently was motivated by the fact that, as previously
mentioned B2C brands are considered as the norm in brand storytelling, meaning that B2B-specific terms had to be specified in order to gather B2B brands.
This resulted in a total of eight lists and rankings for B2B brands, of which five were corporate blog posts and three were marketing-specialised media blog posts and articles. For B2C brands, ten were corporate blog posts, four were marketing-specialised media blog posts and two were professional personalities’ blog posts, meaning a total of sixteen blog posts (see appendix B). These blog posts and articles respectively gathered 27 different B2B brand names and 93 different ones for B2C. Three brands listed in the B2B brands were excluded from this selection for having a also a consequent consumer-based market, subsequently cutting down the B2B selection to 24 brands. Moreover, with the resources still being scarce in terms of B2B storytelling, the industries that were represented by the brands listed in the blog posts were limited to software & services, technology and hardware equipment, media, telecommunications, aerospace and defense, commercial and professional services, utilities/energy, financials and transportation according to the Global Industry Classification Standard ("GICS - Global Industry Classification Standard - MSCI", 2018). Therefore, for the sake of representing similar industries in the selection of the B2C brands, only the brands fitting into these industries or comparable (ie. automobile manufacturers for aerospace manufacturers which hardly accessible to the consumers directly) were considered in the B2C brands. This brought down the total to 24 B2B and 24 B2C brands (see appendix C).
Campaign occurrence selection
The data analysed was then selected on the basis of two brand campaign occurrences per brand. A brand campaign is to be understood as showcasing the brand primarily (as opposed to a specific product, service or activity) and has for purpose to help develop the brand and
defined as a single unit manifesting of a brand campaign such as a webpage, a video, a digital banner or an online press release originating from the brands’ official channels. Consequently, for each brand, a first occurrence included the brand’s official company introduction webpage (namely the “about us”, “overview” or “our story” page) which states the brand’s mission and/or vision statement. This type of page is typically a condensed representation of the brand and therefore stands as a likely data-rich material for the study of storytelling (Ingenhoff & Fuhrer, 2010; Sufi & Lyons, 2003).
A second occurrence of brand campaign for each brand was accounted for each brand. Considering the plurality of modes and channels available when it comes to conveying brand narratives, including an additional occurrence appears to be important to grasp an understanding of brand storytelling across media (Bonnin & Alfonso, 2019). This included either a brand introduction video posted on the brand’s official main page, or when not available, the most recent occurence of brand advertisement, meaning that the brand as a whole is showcased as opposed to a particular product or service. In the latter case, this occurrence was retrieved through the brands’ official social media channels (youtube channel, LinkedIn/ Facebook/ Twitter).
For the qualitative sample, the occurrence from the top six brands (based on number of mentions in the lists and rankings industry representation) were selected for each B2C and B2B meaning a total of 24 occurrences for each B2C (N=12) and B2B (N=12).
The sample for the quantitative study will account for the whole 24 B2C and 24 B2B brands selected from the lists and rankings, also comprising two brand campaign occurrences for each on the same basis as explained in the previous. In all a total of 96 (N=96) cases were analysed in equal representation for B2C cases (N=48) and B2B (N=48) cases (see appendix C).
Qualitative
Firstly, a directed content analysis was employed since such technique allows for the acknowledgement of existing theories that have been feeding the field thus far and permits for an extension of them (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Such a technique accounts for the social processes embedded in texts by capturing inter-contextuality (Achard, 1987), which will allow for an understanding of an organization’s use of storytelling. Therefore, the semi-directed content analysis was conducted in an attempt to build on the existing theories and frameworks found in the literature (and summarized in appendix A) about the components of storytelling in marketing, in a way that these become inclusive of B2B practices.
The outcomes of the analysis therefore allowed for the formulation of codebook items based on the patterns observed in the data and on definitions of the aspects as defined in the literature. It also brought nuances as for the way in which the aspects of brand storytelling were used in B2C and B2B campaign occurrences.
Quantitative
The quantitative content analysis intended for the second part of this research aimed at generalizing the findings of the exploratory study previously described and should provide insights as for a comparison between B2C and B2B organizations as for the use of storytelling strategies.
Drawing on the frameworks presented in the literature and as summed up in appendix A, the coding categories for each item were elaborated based on the definition of the concepts described in the framework, as well as based on the observations made in the qualitative
analysis. In regards to the archetypes, story plots as well as for the conciseness and authenticity items, the items were taken directly from Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s (2016). Other items based on the literature relied on the definition given and were reformulated into a
statement to which yes or no were the possible answers. This included a total of 63 items (see appendix D), however, due to the restrictions imposed by the scope of this research, when it comes to the items based on the qualitative analysis, only the items based on the most striking observations (or prominent patterns observed) when further explored for the quantitative analysis.
An inter-rater reliability analysis was performed in order to control for potential subjectivities that may arise when coding variables. Therefore 16,67% of the total sample was selected to be recoded recoded (N=16), comprising equal representation of each group (B2B N=8 ; B2C=8). The second coder was given further instruction alongside the codebook, defining specific terms (see appendix C). A Kappa reliability score was calculated using a software (dfreelon.org, 2017) and reported an overall acceptable score (α≥.667).
Results
For the results section, each subsection will present in the first place the qualitative results are exposed and in the second place, the quantitative results. For all of the following, the quantitative analysis consisted in Chi-Square tests of independence measuring a potential relationship between the type of business (B2C or B2B) with the item discussed in each specific subsection.
Structure of narration
The qualitative analysis showed that in both B2C and B2B cases, a structure, meaning an identifiable beginning, middle and end, to lay out the story was typically deployed. This is noticeable with a story starting with the date and/or place of foundation of the brand to set the scene like in the case of Spotify: “Spotify transformed music listening forever when it launched in Sweden in 2008”. This however was more often observable through the use, a statement describing the brand like in the case of General Electric: “GE drives the world forward by tackling its biggest challenges, bringing real progress and possibility to every corner of the planet” or Go Pro (ie.“GoPro frees people to celebrate the moment, inspiring others to do the same”), which, as developed further in the analysis about the hook, may also serve as a hook. In some cases in which a customer was used as a main character to tell the brand’s story (further developed in the analyss), the scene setting stage consists in the introduction of the customer (ie. “Say you run a business [...] and you want a bigger audience”).
The middle seemed to typically describe the brand’s activities or past achievements using reference to time and/or past time (ie. “Over the past couple of years, we launched a slew of new channels and functionalities: Instagram, Facebook, and Google ads, a Marketing CRM, landing pages, postcards, websites, and more”). In the case in which a customer was used as a main character, the middle tend to stand as a description of the customer’s situation/ problem to be solved. The end however tend to be open-ended with the brand’s promise serving as an ending (ie. “Mailchimp’s senior leadership team draws on decades of experience across industries to chart a course for the future and guide the company toward its strategic goals.” )
The results of the quantitative analysis showed no significant difference between B2C and B2B (X2 (1, N = 96) = 0.27, p =.60) with 83,3% of the B2C cases and 79,2% of the B2B
cases using such narrative structure, consequently making explicit that B2B brands didn’t differ from B2C brands in the use of the structure. These results also showed that, in their majority, both types of brands tend to use such narrative structure to deploy their story (over 75% of cases in both business types).
Storyline elements
The hook
The qualitative review of the brand occurrences highlighted that the storyhook (see literature review) can be difficult to identify, particularly in the case of B2B for which the reader/viewer’s attention is sparked by the accumulation of achievements and brand promise rather than through building tension through conflict, contradiction or contrast, as suggested by the conception of storyhook. Such strategy to grasp to reader/viewer’s attention also seemed to be used by B2C brands. Nevertheless hooks as conceptualised in the literature were also found in some cases and made explicit through the use of adverbs expressing contradiction or negation following the scene setting suggesting conflict, contradiction or contrast (ie. “Tesla was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers who wanted to prove that people didn’t need to compromise to drive electric – that electric vehicles can be better, quicker and more fun to drive than gasoline cars.”).
The quantitative analysis did reveal that storyhooks were slightly more used in the case of B2C compared to B2B (X2 (1, N = 96) = 4.63 p =.03, φ=-.22, p=.03), with a hook being used in 85,4% of cases in B2C and 66,7% of cases for B2B.
Similarly, the type of hook used (conflict, contradiction or contrast) in B2C compared to B2B was tested, but revealed no significant relationship in regards to conflict (X2 (1, N = 96) = .27 p =.60) nor contradiction (X2 (1, N = 96) = .45 p =.50), consequently showing that B2C and
B2B occurrences did not differ in their use of conflict or contradiction. Nevertheless a significant relationship was exposed concerning the use of contrast (X2 (1, N = 96) = 10.77, p =.001),
making explicit a moderate relationship between B2C cases and the use of contrast as a hook (φ=-.34, p=.03), meaning that B2C brands (in 25% of cases) used contradiction more than B2B brands, which only used in 2,1% of cases.
Journey
In both B2B and B2C cases, the qualitative analysis showed that the journey appeared to be translated through past achievements or explanation of the customer’s problems and their resolution, which can be conceptualised as challenges that the brand is facing or has undergone. This is particularly clear with the use of the deployed trail metaphor which is core to Salesforce brand definition (“trailhead”, users including employees and customers as “trailblazers”) or road metaphor in State Street’s ‘The road to success’ video, following the course of a car driving along a path while the brand activities are being orally told, matching the car advancement. Often, the brand made use of use of past tense with a possible additional mention of time (ie. “Decades of innovation have taken us Above and Beyond. We’ve navigated uncharted territory with a firm grasp of where we started”) and/ or a visual or textual accumulation figure of speech to display the main challenges or building block that defined the brand activities. In addition, it seems important to point out that the journey, tends to be positively connoted in both cases, but more particularly in B2B cases, taking the stand that the journey is a series of enjoyable
challenges allowing for development and building relationships and equity, as opposed to positioning it, as suggested in the literature (Fog et al., 2006 ; Choy, 2017;Delgado-Balester &
Fernandez-Sabiote’s, 2016 ; McKee, 2003) as a series of tests that are potentially threatening to the protagonist and have to be overcome.
Additionally, when tested quantitatively, it was made explicit that there was no difference between B2C and B2B when it comes to including a journey in their storyline X2 (1, N = 96) = .06, p =.81, with B2C using it in 79,2% cases and B2B in 77,1% cases).
Reversal / Climax / Turning point
Similarly to the hook, the reversal as defined in the literature (culmination point or resolution of conflict - see literature review) did not seem to be used widely in either B2C or B2B. This also follows-up with the idea, previously developed (see analysis of the journey) that with the journey being overall positively connoted, introducing a reversal of the story is unlikely. In addition, the idea of climax with its focus on the idea of culmination rather than reversal or turning point of a situation may be more appropriate, particularly in the cases of open-ended stories (ie. “Today, Spotify is the most popular global audio streaming subscription service with 248m users, including 113m subscribers, across 79 markets. We are the largest driver of revenue to the music business today.”) leaving it up to the reader/ viewer’s to get further acquainted with the brand and its story as a result of the culmination.
However, when assessed quantitatively, there was no significant difference found between business type and the use of a reversal/climax/turning point (X2 (1, N = 96) = .1.04 p =.31). It also seems interesting to point out that only around half of the cases recorded included a reversal/ climax/ turning point (56,3 % for B2C and 45,8% for B2B).
Theme
In both B2C and B2B cases, the qualitative analysis showed that a theme, whether visual or expressed through lexicon that created overall a central concept for the narrative was observed in the qualitative analysis. The use of a main theme was therefore revealed no significantly difference between B2C (91,7%) compared to B2B 93,8%) in their use of a theme (X2 (1, N = 96) = .15 p =.6).
The use of metaphors specifically to create a theme was however observed in B2B cases particularly to recount the story of the brand and its promises. In the example of Cisco’s brand campaign occurrences, the metaphor of the bridge was not only used throughout the occurrence but participates in the construction of the core message by occurring through the lexicon on several occasions (“connecting” “bringing together”, “bridge to possible”) but also likely in a stylised version in the logo (digital dipstick reproducing the silhouette of a bridge structure). Such form of communication may suggest the will to convey the brand’s message on a symbolic level, which did not stand out in the B2C cases reviewed.
The use of central metaphor among business type was also quantitatively but showed no significant difference between business types (X2 (1, N = 96) = .17 p =.68) as well as a limited use overall in either business types (47% and 41% respectively), meaning that central metaphors were not more used by B2C or B2B but also not in over half of the cases.
In addition to this the visuals did seem to participate in the construction of a theme and it appears that B2B brands did use colour palettes and visuals (such as stock pictures and fonts) which can be described as minimalist or standard (ie. blue and white as dominating colour scales aside of MailChimp occurrences), potentially to stress trustworthiness and stability. As opposed to this, B2C occurrences distinctively displayed creative freedom by allowing room for
extravagances when it comes to presenting themselves visually and stress the will to stand out and their uniqueness (brighter and bolder dominating colours like Spotify occurrences or Go Pro). Following this idea, the quantitative analysis exposed a relationship between non-standard themes and B2C (X2 (1, N = 96) = .9.38 p =.002, φ=-.31, p=.002) meaning that B2C (64,6%) do tend to use more non-standard themes compared to B2B (33%).
Data
It was also noticeable through the qualitative analysis that data were included as part of the stories in the occurrences reviewed, with for instance the number of subscribers, users, tracks and playlists displayed by Spotify alongside their mission statement, or other performance data being displayed using infographics for State Street. Using data seems to participate in the narrative strategy and has been conceptualised as data storytelling (Denning, 2006 ; Knaflic, 2015).
For this reason the use of data as well as the use of infographics was assessed
quantitatively but eventually reported that the use of data was not significantly more prominent in either B2B or B2C. However, it is interesting to note that the results were close to the
significance level and reflected that close to half of the B2B occurrences reviewed quantitatively included data (49,9%) as opposed to 29,2% for B2C (X2 (1, N = 96) = .3.56 p =.06, φ=.19, p=.06). Nevertheless, the use of infographics revealed a significant difference with B2C using less infographics than B2B, although only 37,5% of the B2B occurrences displayed infographics compared to 8,3% of (B2C X2 (1, N = 96) = 14.70, p<.001, φ=.39, <.001).
Storyline type / basic plot
A first note concerning the storylines was that often more than one or more storylines may be coupled together to make up the plot such as vision and quest. In addition to this, it was observed that B2B displayed a focus on storylines which are expressing modernity and
dynamism such as visionary (ie. Cisco showing an hyperconnected society in their ‘Every” campaign), contemporary (ie. GE showing the end result of its activities for the end consumer in “what matters” campaign), quest). In B2C cases, a variety of different plots were observed, both modern and traditional types of plots such as heritage stories (manifested by a recall of
how/when the brand was launched and what it is nowadays like: ‘Spotify transformed music listening forever when it launched in Sweden in 2008[...] Today, Spotify is the most popular global audio streaming subscription service’), overcoming the monster (ie. the brand’s car climbing over obstacles in Landrover’s Always above and beyond campaign) or folklore (ie. AFLAC presenting their brand in “what AFLAC isn’t” through customer interviews).
The use of particular storylines among business type was tested quantitatively (see table1) and showed that B2B brands were reported to use significantly more vision (X2 (1, N = 96) = 12.91, p=<.001, φ=.367, p<.001) and contemporary (X2 (1, N = 96) = 24.38, p<.001, φ=.50, p<.001) storylines than B2C brands, showing a moderate relationship in the case of the former and a strong relationship for the latter. On the other hand, B2C brands scored statistically higher than B2B brands for the use of folklore (X2 (1, N = 96) = 3.85, p=.05, φ=-.20, p=.05) and rags to rich plots (X2 (1, N = 96) = 5.25, p<.05, φ=-.23, p<.05) for which moderate relationships between B2C and the use of these storylines were exposed. In the case of rebirth and tragedy storylines, no cases were recorded for either of the B2C nor B2B brand occurrences analysed. All other storylines did not show any statistical difference as for their use in B2B as opposed to
B2C occurrences, although one may point out that over 75% of B2B occurrences made use of a vision (45.8%) and/or contemporary (31.3%) storylines as opposed to B2C brand occurrences (12,5% and 18.8% respectively).
The characters / Cast / Distribution
Protagonist, Support & Benefactor
Another point of focus highlighted by the qualitative analysis targets the protagonist: as opposed to what is suggested, or in some cases directly affirmed, in the storytelling literature and storytelling frameworks ( Choy, 2017 ; Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote’s 2016 ; Fog et al. 2006), the brand may often be presented as a protagonist in the story but was not always the case. Instead the brand left the lead role to their customers, particularly in the case of B2B such as MailChimp’s introduction video or General Electrics’ What matters’(2019). It has been
observed that when placing the customer at the forefront of the story as the protagonist, the brand typically plays the role of support and benefactor instead, by positioning itself as a facilitator in their customers’ story using the lexicon of empowerment in regards to their customers. It is particularly well illustrated with the use of hand allegory representing the brand and facilitating the customers’ work for its own clients in MailChimp introduction video, or again in General Electrics “what matters” campaign occurrence, in which the brand is not physically represented, but instead shows citizens making use of infrastructures supposedly powered by the brand.
When tested quantitatively it was revealed that both brands used in their majority (in 83,3% cases for B2B and 79,2% for B2C) and in no statistically different way, the brand as a protagonist as opposed to a customer (X2 (1, N = 96) = .27, p=.60). Similarly, no significant relationship was found between business type and the use of the brand as support (X2 (1, N = 96) =.25, p=.62, with 18,8% using the brand as support and 22,9% of B2C) nor the use of a support in general, which was revealed to be low in both B2B (16,7%) and B2C cases (16,7%) ( X2 (1, N = 96) =.20, p=.65), meaning that no difference for these items was found between business type.
The positioning of the brand as benefactor (allowing the protagonist to reach their goals) was however revealed to be strongly related to B2B brands ( X2 (1, N = 96) =30.70, p>.001, φ=.57, p>.001) with B2B using the brand as a benefactor in 62,5% of cases compared to 8,3% for B2C.
Beneficiary
Nevertheless, it is important to mention that the composition of the cast and role distribution still appeared to differ in B2B and B2C brand stories according to the qualitative analysis. In the case of B2B brands, the brands’ indirect customers (in other words, their customers’ customers) were accounted for in the storyline as characters: direct customers and these customers’ customers were both mentioned (ie. ‘investors and the people they serve’ for State Street, “companies and people” or alternatively using the second pronoun to address the customers directly ‘you’ and your audience’ in the case of MailChimp introduction video and can be particularly well exemplified with Salesforce’s “We bring companies and customers together” brand campaign) This undeniably brings forward both direct customers and indirect customers’ customers as clear characters in the brand story. As opposed to this, B2C brands mention their direct customers, typically addressing them directly using the second pronoun or alternatively terms such as ‘our customers’, ‘people’. In the cases in which the lead role is taken on by the brand in B2B, multiple (primary and secondary) beneficiaries, namely the direct customers and indirect customers are presented on the same (more passive) level. In this case, the B2B brand storytelling strategy differs from the B2C’s merely by adding a beneficiary (one that benefits from the protagonist achieving their goals) to the story. with the brand remaining a protagonist, as typically seen in B2C cases.
The quantitative analysis eventually made it explicit that B2B does consistently include their indirect customers as beneficiaries alongside their direct customers as a strong relationship was found between B2B and the mention of their indirect customers as beneficiaries (included in 35 out of the 48 occurrences reviewed, meaning in 72.9% cases) (X2 (1, N = 96) =55.08, p>.001, φ=-.76, p>.001).
Adversary
When it comes to the adversary, or the opposing force to the protagonist, the qualitative analysis suggested that both types of businesses remained vague as for the distribution of this role in the storyline, suggesting that they may not be present, or only by opposition to the main goal. The presence of adversary was however tested and revealed that not only there was no difference between B2C (16,7%) and B2B (16,7%) for either the adversary but also that it was used in limited proportion (X2 (1, N = 96) = 0, p=1).
Figures & Archetypes
Similarly to the storyline, the qualitative analysis showed that it was not uncommon to identify more than one archetype being used to portray the brand, which is unsurprising
considering the fluid nature of the concept intended for the description of ‘universal figures’ (see literature review) (Jung, 1980) and the fact that a brand may purposefully choose to embody a mix or archetypes to bring nuances to its personality. Nevertheless, attention was drawn to the fact that B2B brands do seem to focus on a particular category of archetypes which involve relationships and can be understood as ‘high profile’ archetypes connoting control, adaptation and to some extent, stability, power, vision, trustworthiness and/or knowledge such as the
loyalist, the ruler, the magician and the caregiver. Salesforce for instance tend to embody both the ruler and caregiver by stating on multiple occasions its position as market leader (“#1 CRM platform”), but also uses a lexicon of empowerment directed at its customers and uses an cartoon-like icon bringing the customers and their own customers’ hand together to
metaphorically express guidance, good intentions and care towards their customers. While the use of ‘high profile’ archetypes seemingly translates the will for the brands to transmit the image of a powerful stable and yet dynamic organisation, it is nevertheless interesting to note that while this depiction could also link to the archetype of the ‘Sage’, the brands seem to carefully counter associations to this archetype which as mentioned by Delgado-Balester & Fernandez-Sabiote, could position the brand as pretentious (2016).
In line with the qualitative analysis, the quantitative study tested for relationships between archetypes and business types (see table 2). Significant results were found for several archetypes exposing a strong and a moderate relationship between B2B and the use of the
loyalist archetype (X2 (1, N = 96) = 33.67, p<.001, φ=.59, p<.001) and magician (X2 (1, N = 96) = 10.34, p=.001, φ=-.33, p=.001), consequently making explicit that B2B did use more of loyalist and magician archetypes than B2C. On the other hand, several relationships (however all weak) linking B2C with the hero archetype (X2 (1, N = 96) = 4.02, p=.04, φ=-.21, p=.04), the joker (X2 (1, N = 96) = 4.17, p=.04, φ=-.21, p=.04), the everyday hero (X2 (1, N = 96) = 5.27, p=-5.27, φ=-.23, p=.02) and the rebel (X2 (1, N = 96) = 4.18, p=.04, φ=-.21, p=.04) were highlighted, also showing that B2C made use of a larger variety of archetypes than B2B.
Core message
Having a clear identifiable core message was prominent in both B2C and B2B
occurrences. Typically the core message is identifiable through the theme used but also more explicitly through the opening line of the story, the tagline and/or the brand campaign name for the secondary occurrences (ie “HTC brings brilliance to life through leading innovation in smart mobile device and experience design.”for HTC or “We bring companies and customers together” for Salesforce).
The quantitative analysis however revealed a link -weak nevertheless- between
conveying a clear and identifiable core message and B2C (X2 (1, N = 96) = 3.85, p=.05, φ=-20, p=.05) although, core messages were identifiable in the great majority of both types of business cases with B2B having a slightly less identifiable message than B2C (87,5% compared to 97,9% in B2C).
Clear goal / objective
The qualitative analysis also revealed that generally B2B brands seemed to focus on driving their customers’ success and performance and bringing value to society and or the industry it operates in, in terms of development such as ‘driving growth’ ‘transform[ing] business through innovation’ ‘Creating a world of possibilities’. This can again be linked to the idea of being reactive or proactive to the dynamics of the market. On the other hand B2C brands seemingly focused on different, possibly more individual or personal customers needs fulfillment such as stimulating creativity in the case of Spotify or GoPro’s brand occurrences.
The quantitative tests revealed no difference between B2C and B2B when it came to society goal (X2 (1, N = 96) = .73, p=.40) or customer goal (X2 (1, N = 96) = .80, p=.37), with
the large majority of cases mentioning them, but a strong relationship was exposed regarding B2B and having a goal targeted at the industry, consequently showing that B2B brands did tend to express a goal that had an impact on their industry (in 70,8% of cases compared to only 6,3% for B2C)
Authenticity
The stories in both B2B and B2C seemed largely realistic when reviewed, drawing on anecdotes about the founders (ie. about Cisco’s founders :“Len Bosack and wife Sandy Lerner, both working for Stanford University, wanted to email each other from their respective offices, but technological shortcomings did not allow such communication” ), or classic customer case scenarios like in the case of the MailChimp promotional video.
The quantitative analysis supported this idea with a Chi-Square test exposing no significant difference in authenticity between B2B and B2C (X2 (1, N = 96) = .06, p=.81), and showing that the large majority of cases reviewed were identified as authentic stories.
Conciseness
Similarly, the occurrences reviewed for B2C and B2B seemed overall succincte, with minimal information aside of Boeing in the B2B cases and Tesla which displayed substantial amounts of information and text. Aside from these cases, the other occurrences reviewed contained about 500 words or in the case of video, were not longer than a minute, with limited change of scenes and speech associated. The results of the Chi-square analysis was not
significant (X2 (1, N = 96) = 4.64, p=.50), consequently affirming that there was no difference in conciseness between B2C and B2B cases.
Discussion
Summary of findings and theoretical implications
Overall the research drew attention to specific aspects of brand storytelling which did not expose a particular difference between the business types while others did differ depending on whether the brand storytelling expression was issued by a B2C or B2B brand. This consequently confirms that brand storytelling, while having some generalizable aspects is conducted in a different way in other regards, according to the business type (see tables 3 and 4).
In this perspective it is also crucial to point out that at its core, this paper does not only highlight differences between B2B and B2C brand storytelling in the sole intention to bring forward that adapted frameworks/conceptions are required for each business type (see table 3&4), but it also constitutes a criticism of current and more general conceptions of brand storytelling as a whole and the need to make it more generalizable rather than fitted to one business type only (figure 1). As previously developed, theories on brand storytelling have been, in their majority, developed based on B2C brands and/or influenced by the idea that only B2C brands were fitted for storytelling. This consequently resulted in a biased standard of brand storytelling. Therefore, by conducting a comparison of brand storytelling between two types of businesses and highlighting their differences, this research also allows for the concept of brand storytelling to be stripped down for the specificities of each business type, subsequently drawing attention on the core elements of brand storytelling which are generalizable to either business type.
Similarities between B2C and B2B brand storytelling use
One the one hand, neither the structure of narration, the conciseness or authenticity of the story differed for brand storytelling when conducted by B2C or B2B brands meaning that these elements are typically used as a brand storytelling feature regardless of the business type issuing the campaign, although it should be noted that the qualitative analysis highlighted that some nuances should be accounted for regarding the end which appeared to be open-ended in some cases as opposed to clearly represented. Alongside this, some of the storyline elements including the use of a journey, reversal/climax/turning point, contradiction or conflict as story hook and central metaphor data did not differ depending on the type of business as well as some elements of the cast of characters including having the brand as a protagonist or customer as a protagonist, having the brand as support and including an adversary.Furthermore and in line with the idea of a generalizable brand storytelling concept, it is important to mention that although in some occasions no significant differences were found between B2C and B2B, some concepts may still be disputable for the conception of brand storytelling in general, or may require further nuances. Regarding the structure of the narrative, the qualitative analysis pointed out that the end part seemed often closer to an “open-end” linking back to the brand’s promise, which consequently rejects the claim that the end is only identifiable and should be represented by a clear call to action as suggested by Stolper, Lee, Henry Riche & Stasko (2016) and Choy (2017). Nevertheless, such a conclusion does echo to the idea that “ending, in the context of branding that should mean return on investment for whatever fancy, expensive marketing activity is being pushed.” ("Branding narratives from IBM and Cisco", 2019 , p.22 ; (Bonnin & Alfonso, 2019). In other words, the ‘end’ of the story marks the point where the customer engages with the brand, however in a more general and subtle way than by being necessarily expressed through a clear cut call to action. Similarly, when it comes to the reversal/ climax/ turning point, central metaphor, adversary and support, only around half of the occurrences or less in both B2B and B2C cases included these elements, suggesting that these aspects may not be determinant for storytelling in either B2B or B2C cases. Similarly, some storylines and archetypes that revealed results that were not significant when tested in relation to B2B and B2C also showed limited or no use in either of the business types (ie. Tragedy and rebirth as well as the siren and the enigma).
Differences between B2C and B2B brand storytelling use
On the other hand, it was made explicit that B2C and B2B differed on several points with B2C using a hook and contrast as a hook more consistently than B2B as well as moreextravagant visual themes while B2B brands made use of more infographics and included more often a goal dedicated to the industry in their story than B2C brands did.
The hook as conceptualised by Choy (2017), Woodside (2010) appears as a point more specific to B2C than B2B brands. The underlying idea of the hook suggesting that tension must be created in order to grab the audience’s attention (Woodside, 2010) may therefore need to be nuanced for B2B brands which, as the qualitative analysis highlighted appears to display stories that are compelling because of the mention of ‘exceptional’ or at least honorable character of their achievements. In view of a potential general brand storytelling framework, the notion of grabbing the audience’s attention therefore shows the need for a broader term or definition which could be applicable to both business types.
In regards to the theme, it is interesting to note that while both types of business seemed to display an overall theme, different ways are used in order to express it, with B2B focusing on using the data in the form of infographics in order to incorporate it to the overall narrative on a written but also more visual level, while B2C prefered focusing on visuals, notably using non-standard themes. This relates to the idea of data (-driven) storytelling, which build the narrative around the data (Knaflic, 2015, Stolper, Lee, Henry Riche & Stasko, 2016 ; Choy, 2017) and could consequently infer that the data play a more central role in B2B storytelling than B2C brands. Thus, while the idea of a theme seems suited to both business types, it is important to make sure that at an adapted level the theme would be translated in different ways according to the business type.
As for the storylines, contemporary and vision were favoured by B2B brands as opposed to B2C ones, while B2C used more folklore and rags to rich compared to B2B. Similarly with the archetypes, the loyalist and the magicians were figured preferred by the B2B compared to
