kristine christensen - au purepure.au.dk/portal/files/32687037/278218.docx · web viewkristine...

Kristine ChristensenExam number: 278218

Corporate Branding in Corporate Values with LEGO and Mattel as examples

Corporate Branding in Corporate Values

- with LEGO and Mattel as examples

Author: Kristine Christensen (278218)

Instructor: Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen

January 2011

Number of characters excl. blanks: 132,659

Master thesis: Cand.ling.merc – International Market Commnunication & PR, English

Department of Language and Business Communication

Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University

5

10

15

5



Executive Summary

Branding has come to be about much more than just the products. Nowadays, organisations also brand the

“soft values” of the organisation, the enterprise as a workplace and the organisation as a responsible

corporate citizen. Since the emergence of the term “the politically conscious consumer”, organisations have

been forced to create alignments between the internal and external communication, and the corporate

identity and the corporate values. Naturally, also the toy business is affected by the interest in “soft

values”, as this line of business is characterised by an eternal demand for development, innovation and

transparency. Besides, consumers want to make sure that the toys they buy are manufactured under safe

conditions, and that it does not contain any dangerous chemicals. What is more, the toy business is a line of

business, which has two consumer target groups; namely parents and their children.

The scope of this thesis is to discuss whether or not there are competing discourses when communicating

corporate values to two different target audiences, with LEGO and Mattel as examples. Empirically, this

thesis will be based on an analysis of the communicated values by LEGO and Mattel, based on written

material taken from both organisations websites. Thus, it will also be discussed how the division of terminal

and instrumental values might represent the competing discourses, how the discourses help establish the

actual target audiences and how the corporate identities of both LEGO and Mattel are represented by

comparing the communicated values and the corporate values.

The thesis is conducted by the means of a quantitative analysis from a hermeneutic perspective, and is

based on carefully selected communicated material taken from LEGO and Mattel’s corporate websites.

The theoretical part of this thesis is based on theories provided by leading researchers within the field of

corporate branding. The focus is on the elements of a corporate branding strategy; namely the corporate

mission and vision, image, reputation, culture, identity and values, and how all these elements interact and

are dependent on one another. Yet, the focus will be on the corporate identity and the corporate values.

The methodology for this thesis is based on the article “Communicated values as indicators of

organisational identity: A method for organisational assessment and its application in a case study” by

Philip Jerod Aust (2004), and Milton Rokeach’s classification of values from the book “The Nature of Human

Values” from 1973. A reviewed version of Rokeach’s value system forms the basis for the analysis of LEGO

and Mattel’s communicated values.

20

25

30

35

40

45

10



The analysis is divided into four levels:

1. Analyse the occurrences of the communicated values in the analysed material.

2. Discuss the division of instrumental and terminal values and how this division might represent the

competing discourses of the toy business.

3. Discuss how the discourses might represent the actual consumer target audience.

4. Discuss how the identities of LEGO and Mattel are represented by comparing the communicated

values and the corporate values.

In the first level of the analysis, it became obvious that LEGO and Mattel communicated distinct values, and

that the number of occurrences of the communicated values also differ to a great extend.

The findings in the second level underlined that LEGO and Mattel focus on two different discourses when

communicating values, seeing that Mattel focuses on the discourse “Playing” and the actual fun in playing,

while LEGO focuses on the discourse “Learning” and the development of the child.

In the third level presentations and definitions of the two discourses “Playing” and “Learning” are

presented, in order to be able to establish the actual target audience, and to answer the sub-research

question whether the choice of discourses is culturally related. The findings in level three established that

LEGO and Mattel target two different consumer target groups, as Mattel focuses on the children, whereas,

LEGO’s main target audience is the parents. In terms of answering the research sub-question, the findings

showed, that LEGO’s choice of discourse is culturally related, while Mattel’s choice of discourse is not

culturally related.

The findings in level four highlighted that LEGO does not succeed in creating alignment between the

corporate values and the communicated values. Mattel, on the other hand, does succeed in creating

alignment between the corporate values, the communicated values and the choice of discourse.

All in all, this thesis establishes that organisations within the same line of business can focus on two very

distinct discourses, which is reflected in the corporate values and in the communicated values.

Number of characters excl blanks: 4,045

50

55

60

65

70

75

15



Table of contents

1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Problem statement..............................................................................................................................2

1.2 Delimitations of the theory..................................................................................................................3

1.3 Delimitations of the empirical data....................................................................................................4

1.4 Theory and method.............................................................................................................................5

1.5 Structure of the thesis..........................................................................................................................6

2 Product branding and corporate branding..............................................................................8

2.1 Product branding................................................................................................................................8

2.2 Corporate branding............................................................................................................................9

2.3 The differences between product branding and corporate branding...............................................11

3 Corporate branding as a strategy............................................................................................12

3.1 The elements of a corporate branding strategy................................................................................13

3.1.1 Image.........................................................................................................................................13

3.1.2 Reputation.................................................................................................................................15

3.1.3 Vision and mission....................................................................................................................16

3.1.4 Culture.......................................................................................................................................16

3.1.5 Identity......................................................................................................................................17

3.1.6 Values.......................................................................................................................................21

3.1.7 Discussion of the elements........................................................................................................24

3.2 Summing up.......................................................................................................................................25

4 Analysis method........................................................................................................................27

4.1 Rokeach’s Value Theory...................................................................................................................27

4.2 Aust’s method for analysing communicated values..........................................................................31

4.3 Final analysis method.......................................................................................................................33

5 Introducing LEGO....................................................................................................................34

6 Introducing Mattel....................................................................................................................35

7 Analysis of the communicated values......................................................................................37

7.1 LEGO................................................................................................................................................37

7.2 Mattel................................................................................................................................................39

80

85

90

95

100

105

20



7.3 Summing up.......................................................................................................................................40

8 Discussion of the division of instrumental and terminal values............................................41

8.1 LEGO................................................................................................................................................41

8.2 Mattel................................................................................................................................................45

8.3 Summing up.......................................................................................................................................48

9 Discussion of the target audiences...........................................................................................49

9.1 Playing..............................................................................................................................................50

9.2 Learning............................................................................................................................................51

9.3 Summing up.......................................................................................................................................52

10 Discussion of the identities.......................................................................................................55

10.1 LEGO................................................................................................................................................56

10.2 Mattel................................................................................................................................................58

10.3 Summing up.......................................................................................................................................60

11 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................62

12 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................65

12.1 Books.................................................................................................................................................65

12.2 Articles..............................................................................................................................................66

12.3 Websites............................................................................................................................................67

12.4 Appendix...........................................................................................................................................67

110

115

120

125

25



1 Introduction

Corporate branding is receiving more attention from practitioners and academics than ever before. Also,

corporate management knows that building a strong and focused corporate brand must be top priority. In a

world with countless products and where choices are based on several other factors than rationality,

brands have become essential when consumers buy. Because competition in almost all markets has

increased, organisations need to have strong corporate brands to survive. Brands help consumers

differentiate the various products, from those of competitors. Furthermore, brands help consumers define

who they are. Who we work for, the clothes we wear and the cars we drive are all elements which illustrate

who we are, the values we possess and how we want to be perceived, and according to Morsing and

Kristensen (2001):

Consumers are concerned about their own identity, and they connect it closely to their consumption. They

want a good story to tell about their consumption pattern

(Morsing and Kristensen 2001; 26)

However, a brand is more than just a name and a logo, a brand needs to represent the core values of the

organisation, so the various stakeholders know what it does and what it stands for.

Corporate values have become one of the most cited buzzwords within the field of corporate branding. The

interest in immaterial values, such as social responsibility and environmental responsibility, have increased

during the last decade and the term “the politically conscious consumer” has become more widely used

than ever. To the politically conscious consumer, business ethics and corporate values, also referred to as

“soft values” (Thyssen 2007; 173), play an important role in a purchase situation, which put demands on

the organisation to uphold and make their core values visible. And this thesis deals with, how organisations

communicate and uphold these soft values.

Yet, the interest in soft values also means that it is not enough for organisations merely to communicate

their core values. Organisations also have to signal transparency when it comes to answering questions

about how their production contributes to nature and less pollution, on what grounds they chose suppliers

etc. (Morsing and Kristensen 2001; 26).

130

135

140

145

150

155

30



However, the demand for soft values is not only external. Also internally, the demand has increased. Core

values have intrinsic meaning and importance to organisation members, as management and employees

stick to these values and incorporate them into everyday business operations. Moreover, communicating

corporate values also becomes crucial when attracting new employees, as values have become an

important criterion when choosing employer (Sandstrøm 2006; 7).

The toy business is naturally also affected by the great interest in “soft values”. This line of business is

characterised by strong competition and an eternal demand for development and improvements. What is

more, the toy business is constantly met by a demand for transparency. Consumers want to make sure that

the toys they buy are manufactured under safe conditions, and that it does neither contain any dangerous

chemicals nor has any small or loose parts. Additionally, the toy business is one of the few lines of business,

which has two consumer target groups; namely parents and their children, and fulfilling the core values of

both groups can be somewhat complex. Assumedly, parents want the best, safest, and most educational

toys for their children, while, children demand constantly innovative, modern and fun toys.

1.1 Problem statement

For corporate values to be perceived as credible they should be communicated properly. For this reason,

this thesis seeks to address the challenges in communicating values by analysing and discussing, how

organisations with two consumer target groups communicate their corporate values, when the demands of

both groups are somewhat complex. This leads to my research question:

Are there competing discourses when communicating corporate values to two different target

audiences?

In continuation of this research question, a sub-question also arises:

- If there are competing discourses, are these discourses culturally related?

Empirically, the thesis will be based on LEGO and Mattel, and the analysis will be based on communicated

values conveyed in written material taken from both organisations’ corporate websites. The theoretical

part will be built on corporate branding theory with special focus on corporate identity and corporate

values.

160

165

170

175

180

35



1.2 Delimitations of the theory

In this thesis, the concept of corporate branding in corporate values will be discussed with focus on the

business-to-consumers area; hence, the business-to-business area will not be discussed into depth. The

basic concepts behind these two areas often overlap, and often researchers do not separate the two areas.

Thus, the theoretical part of these two areas is to some extend based on branding in general.

This thesis will focus on corporate values, corporate vision and mission, corporate image, corporate

reputation, corporate culture and corporate identity from a corporate branding perspective and not from a

corporate communication perspective. When analysing from a corporate branding perspective, it is the

consumers and their perceptions of the organisation, which are in focus.

In the literature researchers and academics often distinguish between the two terms corporate identity and

organisational identity. However, the differences between these two terms are somewhat indistinct; as it

appears that they overlap and supplement each other. Hence, in this thesis both terms will be defined

under the term corporate identity.

Due to the space limitations and the actual scope of this thesis, a cultural analysis will not be made. The

analysis and discussion of how LEGO and Mattel’s choice of discourse might represent the actual consumer

target audience will be based merely on articles describing and examining the values of Danes and

Americans.

In relation to the analysis method of this thesis, a limitation has also been made. The value system

developed by Rokeach in 1973 is very comprehensive, and several of the values listed in this value system

do not have any relevancy for LEGO and Mattel and the scope of this thesis. Thus, the focus will be on the

values that are relevant for answering the problem statement of this thesis.

In the thesis, there will be distinguished between communicated values and corporate values. The

communicated values describe the values conveyed in written material presented by organisations, while,

the corporate values are the values organisations state as core values on the corporate websites.

185

190

195

200

205

210

40



1.3 Delimitations of the empirical data

LEGO and Mattel are selected, because both are leading organisation on the national market as well as on

the international marked. Due to this position, it is assumed that both organisations use many resources on

creating and maintaining the corporate brand identity. The empirical data part of the thesis will be based

on written material obtainable from LEGO and Mattel’s corporate websites. The analysis will be conducted

on: a) the corporate values stated on LEGO and Mattel’s corporate website; b) the corporate mission and

vision of LEGO and Mattel; c) the code of conduct of both organisations; d) six press releases from 2008 -

2010 from LEGO and Mattel; e) the 2009 Annual Report from Mattel and the 2009 Progress Report from

LEGO. The press releases have been chosen with a view to have variety in the topics, portraying how both

organisations communicate their values in times of regression and progression. The code of conduct of

both organisations has been chosen, because it reports on how LEGO and Mattel do business, and in a

report like this the corporate values should be repeated frequently. Mattel’s 2009 Annual Report is selected

due to the letter from the CEO in the beginning of the report. An annual report, and in particular the letter

from the CEO, gives a glimpse of how the year has been and the goals for the upcoming years. The analysis

will only be conducted on the pages 1-31, as the rest of the report only consists of numbers and figures.

LEGO’s 2009 Progress Report has been selected instead of the 2009 Annual Report, as the number of values

communicated in the Annual Report was scarce. The reason behind the variations in the analysed material,

is because it is believed that it will give a more comprehensive and realistic picture of how LEGO and Mattel

communicate values.

In order to remain fully objective in the analysis of LEGO and Mattel’s communicated values, a deliberate

choice of not contacting the organisations has been made. LEGO and Mattel have thus not had any

influence on the content and on the analysis of this thesis.

It is realised that from the analysis, it will not be possible to draw any general conclusions on how core

values are communicated when having two consumer target groups, as this would require a more profound

analysis of several organisations corporate communication. It is believed, however, that this thesis can be

used as a starting point for researchers in multinational organisations with two target groups, who wish to

communicate their core values in a more strategic manner.

215

220

225

230

235

240

45



1.4 Theory and method

The methodology of this thesis is based on a quantitative analysis from a hermeneutic perspective. A

hermeneutic perspective deals with how a text or other meaningful units are understood 1, and in

accordance with the hermeneutic perspective, there will be a theoretical pre-understanding by dividing the

thesis into a theoretical part and an empirically part. In the following the theory and method for the thesis

will be elaborated.

The theoretical part has the purpose of introducing the concept of corporate branding and the elements,

which constitute this concept.

First, the concepts of product branding, corporate branding and the main differences of these two concepts

will be presented. These concepts are presented to give a broad perspective on the term branding. The

focus will be on the theories provided by Nicholas Ind, Lars Sandstøm and Mary Jo Hatch and Maiken

Schultz, as they are all researchers within the area of branding and corporate branding. Mary Jo Hatch and

Maiken Schultz are in particular pioneers within the field of corporate branding, as they believe that

branding, corporate identity, corporate image and corporate culture are essential elements in a successful

corporate branding strategy.

Subsequently, corporate branding as a corporate strategy is presented, and the relationship between the

different elements in a corporate branding strategy are introduced. These elements are presented to place

a corporate branding strategy in a practical context.

Most of the researchers in this thesis, are pioneers and leading within their field. In the section describing

corporate reputation, the theory provided by Grahame Dowling is used, both because of his expertise

within the area, but also due to his marketing theoretical approach. In terms of corporate identity, Cees

B.M. Van riel and Charles Frombrun and Wally Olins are selected due to their marketing theoretical

approach and their expertise within the field. Mary Jo Hatch and Maiken Schultz and T.C. Melewar are also

researchers within the area of corporate identity; however, they perceive corporate identity as an element

rooted internally in the organisation. These introductions, to the various elements of a corporate branding

strategy, are used to form a discussion of, how LEGO and Mattel manage to create consensus between

these elements by communicating the corporate values.

1 www.denstoredanske.dk

245

250

255

260

265

50



The paragraph concerning corporate identity is further supported in the paragraph on corporate values,

which constitutes an exposition on the widely cited value expert Milton Rokeach’s value theory and

classification of values. This theoretical exposition of the classification of values is used to analyse the

communicated values of both LEGO and Mattel, in order to determine the number of occurrences of the

values and the consequences of these occurrences. Johan Van Rekom et al. and Philip Jerold Aust provide a

clarification of how values are used in a corporate context, seeing that expressing core values and living the

values have become the essence of modern business management. This clarification forms the basis of a

discussion between the communicated values and the corporate values and their influence on the

corporate identity.

The method for the analysis is based on the article by Philip Jerold Aust “Communicated values as indicators

of organizational identity: A method for organizational assessment and its application in a case study ”

(2004). His approach for determining the communicated values of a church organization outlines the

method for establishing the communicated values of LEGO and Mattel.

The empirical part of this thesis is based on an analysis of the communicated values followed by discussions

of the findings in the analysis. The backbone of this thesis will be the analysis of the communicated values

found in press releases, the code of conducts, the Annual Report and the Progress Report taken from LEGO

and Mattel’s corporate websites.

1.5 Structure of the thesis

This thesis consists of 11 paragraphs of which this first paragraph is the introduction. Paragraphs two to

four encompass the theories on which the analysis and discussions are based upon. Paragraph five to six

introduce LEGO and Mattel. Paragraph seven to 10 comprise the analysis and the discussions of the findings

in the analysis. Paragraph 11 is a conclusion of findings throughout the thesis.

In paragraph one, an introduction to the subject is provided. This is followed by the problem statement,

delimitation of the theory, delimitation of the empirical data, theory and method and this current structure

of the thesis.

In paragraph two, the term branding is introduced and the development from product branding to

corporate branding and the main differences between these two concepts are explained.

55270

275

280

285

290

295



Paragraph three is devoted to defining corporate branding as a strategy and the various elements which

constitutes this strategy, elements such as corporate mission, vision, culture, reputation, image, identity

and values. Also a small discussion of the importance of these elements will be presented.

Paragraph four is the last paragraph of the theory section, and it consists of a presentation of Rokeach’s

Value Theory and Aust’s method for analysing communicated values. Also the final analysis method will be

revealed.

In paragraph five and six a short introduction of LEGO and Mattel is provided, as these two organisations

will be the base for the entire analysis and the discussions.

Paragraph seven comprises an analysis of the communicated values by LEGO and Mattel and the

occurrences of the values listed in the value system.

In paragraph eight, the division of the instrumental and terminal values of both LEGO and Mattel is

discussed. The discussion is based on the occurrences of the communicated values of the value system.

Paragraph nine is devoted to a discussion of both organisations’ choice of target audience, based on

definitions and presentations of the terms “play” and “learn”.

Paragraph ten revolves around a discussion and comparison of both organisations’ communicated values

and corporate values, and the consequences possible differences between these might have on the

corporate identity.

The last paragraph of this thesis, paragraph 11, constitutes the conclusion on the findings.

60

300

305

310

315



2 Product branding and corporate branding

Branding has become one of our time most popular buzzword, and it is impossible to talk about leadership,

communication and marketing without mentioning branding (Sandstrøm 2006; 7). Nonetheless, consumers

often assume that branding only has to do with products. However, the concept of branding ranges from

branding products, the organisation as a workplace, the organisation’s CSR initiatives etc. (Sandstrøm 2006;

7). Previously, some of the most successful organisations have built the corporate identity around the

quality of the product. The quality of the products was what differentiated organisations from their

competitors. Nowadays, organisations separate themselves by branding, amongst other things, the

emotional value of the product, the design and the name. However, as already mentioned the concept of

corporate branding has grown rapidly over the last decade, and is used as a tool for organisations to gain

marked shares and differentiate themselves from their competitors (Hatch, Schultz 2008; 17).

In this section the concepts of product branding and corporate branding will be explained, and finally the

two concepts will be summed up by explaining the essential differences between them.

2.1 Product branding

Throughout the years researchers have come up with several definitions of the branding-concept. And

though branding is not a new buzzword, it is difficult to make a precise definition. One of the most

commonly used definitions is made by Kotler (2005):

A brand is a term, sign, symbol or design or a combination of these intended to identify the goods or

services of one seller or group of sellers, and to differentiate them from those of competitors

(Kotler in Fill 2005; 393):

A product brand is often simple and recognizable for the consumer. It has to stand for something the

organisation can be held accountable for, which will help the consumer attribute positive associations to

the brand. Nowadays, consumers have a wide range of products to choose from. Hence it is important that

the product brand represents certain values, a certain culture and personality, which helps define the

product. A brand says something about the consumer who buys and uses the product and well-managed

brands can become like trusted friends to consumers.

65

320

325

330

335

340

345



Ind (1997) argues that, though a product brand can be perceived as a term, sign, symbol or design, it is still

just a product, which can easily be copied by competitors. Hence a unique brand is essential, as Ind (1997)

stresses that a product is something that is made, in a factory; a brand is something that is brought, by a

customer. A product can be copied by a competitor; a brand is unique (Ind 1997; 3).

Due to strong competition it is important that organisations differentiate the products from those of

competitors, seeing that the brand helps the consumers recognize the product from other products in the

same category. Thus organisations can capture strong sales and customer loyalty by giving the product a

unique brand.

Product branding is often confused with corporate branding due to the similarities in the execution. People

often see the product brand as the corporate brand. However, the symbolic meaning of these brands is not

to be confused with each other (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 7).

In product branding there are some distinctive elements, which defines product branding. Hatch and

Schultz (2008) have tried to define some of these. According to Hatch and Schultz, product brands address

consumers and not all the organisation’s stakeholders. Moreover it originates from the advertisers

imagination informed by market research and the planning horizon of the brand is no longer than the

lifecycle of the product (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 9).

2.2 Corporate branding

According to Muzellec and Lambkin (2009), marketing researchers have over the years reappraised the

traditional brand concept and widened the meaning to include corporate a well as product brands.

Corporate branding goes beyond product branding by not taking the features of the product into account

and instead focuses on the values of the corporation. Furthermore, well-managed brands can help the

organisation imply a set of coherent statements about its values to internal as well as external stakeholders

(Muzellec and Lambkin 2009; 41).

Though corporate branding has become a buzzword known by most researchers there is still very little

consensus about what it actually means. However, Jesper Christensen (2002) has tried to define the

concept:

70

350

355

360

365

370



The continued, integrated business-, organisation- and communication process where a stakeholder

differentiates the company by virtue of the fact that it shows the core value and the stories it lives and offers

the world through relations, products and communication

(Christensen 2002; 112)

Jesper Christensen (2002; 112) states that this is not a simple or precise definition, but it covers the four

aspects, which he believes are essential in corporate branding. These four aspects are strategic branding,

marketing branding, employee branding and stakeholder branding. Strategic branding deals with the main

strategy of the organisation, marketing branding is all about how the organisation can differentiate itself,

employee branding deals with management and employees telling each other who they are and how they

will “live” their business, and stakeholder branding is about the responsibility and the position of the

company. The organisation has to balance the four aspects to be successful in corporate branding

(Christensen 2002; 112).

Throughout the years, people have become critical towards organisations, as they often fail to deliver

quality products or their services are regarded as mediocre or bad. To regain the trust and loyalty of the

consumers, organisations have to meet the expectations of their stakeholders by being open and honest

(Ind 2002; 21), which is also the key to successful corporate branding. Successful corporate branding stems

from creating alignments between the strategic vision of the management group, what the employees

know and believe about the organisation and what the external stakeholders expect from the organisation

(Hatch, Schultz 2009; 11). According to Sandstøm (2006) this is also the basics for a strong corporate brand,

as a corporate brand is a value, an understanding, a culture and a process, which all help develop the

relations between internal and external stakeholders. A corporate brand is more than just a manifestation

of an organisation. An organisation that can communicate effectively ensures that the various stakeholders

know what it does and what it stands for (Sandstrøm 2006; 22).

Hatch and Schultz (2008) stress that also in corporate branding there are some distinctive elements.

Corporate branding address various stakeholders e.g. employees, managers, consumers, NGO’s, investors,

shareholders etc. Furthermore, it is something that originates from the organisations heritage, values and

beliefs and the planning horizon is the life of the organisation (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 9).

75375

380

385

390

395

400



2.3 The differences between product branding and corporate branding

Hatch and Schultz (2008) have drawn up a table of the main differences between product and corporate

branding. Lars Sandstøm (2006) later added: advantages, disadvantages and organisational types.

Product branding Corporate branding

Scope and scale One product or service or a group of closely related products

The entire enterprise which includes the corporation and all its stakeholders

Origins of brand Identity

Advertisers’ imagination informed by market research

The company’s heritage, the values and the belief that members of the enterprise hold in common

Target audience Consumers Multiple stakeholders

Responsibility Product brand manager and staff, Advertising and Sales department

CEO or executive team, typically from Marketing, Corporate communication, HR etc.

Planning horizon Life of product Life of company

Advantages Damage of the product does neither affect the organisation nor other brands

The core values and the corporate policies create credibility and value, which helps solve product related crises

Disadvantages - Cost-intensive to marked each product separately- Lack of synergy between brands within the same segment and marked.

- Crisis within the organisation affects the products- Complicated to maintain

Organisational types - Food- Clothes and shoes- Cosmetics- Leisure and sports- IT and telecommunication

- Medical industry- Financials- Service company- Airline company- Industrial and production

Table 1 – Originally developed by Hatch and Schultz (2008), revised by Sandstrøm (2006)

As shown in the table, product branding and corporate branding differ in many aspects.

80

405



When branding an entire enterprise everyone who is important to the organisation needs to be involved.

The corporate brand is the umbrella for the organisation’s activities and encapsulates its brand activities

(Kotler 2006; 171). Hence there has to be alignment between the identity, the values, and the brand or else

the corporate brand will underperform, seeing that consumers will lose trust in the brand, and the

organisation will appear unreliable. Yet, this alignment can be difficult to uphold, and many organisations

fail trying. If organisations succeed in creating this alignment, it will result in a very strong corporate brand.

Moreover, corporate branding goes beyond product branding by ignoring product features and focussing

on a well-defined set of corporate values, an understanding, a culture and a process, which all help develop

the relations between internal and external stakeholders (Muzellec and Lambkin 2009; 41). This means,

that successful corporate branding implies a shared set of coherent statements about the organisation’s

core values towards internal and external stakeholders.

When it comes to branding a product it is the consumers and the product which are in focus. A product

brand is given to a specific product, to market it separately and independently of the organisations identity.

Hence, it is important that the product brand represents certain values, a certain culture and personality,

which helps define the product. In other words, the product is given an identity and a set of values of its

own. One of the advantages in using product branding is if one of the products underperforms it will not

affect the entire enterprise. However, in some cases the consumers does not know the enterprise behind

the products, thus, the organisation looses recognition from the consumers (Olins 2000; 26). Nowadays, it

is crucial for organisations to differentiate their products from those of competitors, and a product brand

helps consumers recognize the products from other products in the same category.

In the following, a definition of the different elements of corporate branding will be presented, also how

they align with each other and why they are so important for successful corporate branding.

3 Corporate branding as a strategy

A corporate branding strategy is said to be one of the most common brand strategies. Nowadays the

market is changing so rapidly that corporate brands help organisations create something constant and

lasting (Kotler 2006; 79). However, to have a strong corporate branding strategy there has to be alignment

between the corporate identity, the core values, the corporate mission and vision, the corporate image and

85410

415

420

425

435



the brand. A strong corporate branding strategy can add significant value to the organisation, as it helps

underline the tangible and non-tangible assets of the organisation (Kotler 2006; 79).

According to Lars Sandstrøm (2006) a corporate branding strategy can be defined as:

Corporate branding strategier er et middel til at forbinde virksomhedens kerneværdier og historier med

relationer og kommunikation med stakeholders

(Sandstrøm 2006; 22)

Sandstøm (2006; 23) also takes the stakeholders into consideration in a corporate branding strategy. And

he argues that the stakeholders are crucial for a strong branding strategy, as branding is all about

differentiation and meeting the needs and values of the stakeholders. Furthermore, corporate branding

serves as an umbrella encapsulating the corporate vision, mission, values, personality and image (Kotler

2006; 171), which are the elements which will be commented on in the following paragraphs.

3.1 The elements of a corporate branding strategy

A corporate branding strategy consists of different elements, which all to some extend are dependent on

each other. For many years, Hatch and Schultz have carried out research into these elements, and have

proven that to create a strong corporate branding strategy there has to be coherence between these

elements (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 11).

3.1.1 Image

A good corporate image is essential for organisations, as researchers believe that an important factor in a

purchase situation is the consumer’s perceptions of the organisations role in society. Dowling (2007)

defines an image as:

An image is the set of meanings by which an object is known and through which people describe, remember

and relate to it. This is the net result of a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings and impressions about an object

(Dowling in Van Riel and Fombrun 2007; 40)

90440

445

450

455

460

465



Hence, a corporate image is used to describe the ideas, feelings and impression that root in the mind of the

consumers – their perceptions. In other words, an image is constituted by interpretations from the outside

world, which also means that an image is not unique. Cameran et al. (2010) stress that a single firm

possesses various images that differ according to a specific group, and they underline that each group

might have different types of experiences and contacts with the organisation (Cameran et al. 2010; 424).

This means that an organisation can have a favourable image within one group and an unfavourable image

within another.

Yet, the stakeholder’s perceptions are no longer solely dependent on the products, now the organisation’s

initiatives and how it communicates with the various stakeholders is also taken into consideration. To

ensure that stakeholders conceive the organisation in a favourable manner, organisations need to go to

great lengths to integrate all of its communication from websites to brochures and to brands (Cornelissen

2005; 24). This means that organisations have to be aware that actions and the external communication

might affect the corporate image. Despite, organisations being open, honest and frank there is no

guarantee that it will create a favourable image in the minds of the stakeholders, seeing that various other

factors also influence the corporate image, such as the conduct of the employees and the dissemination of

rumours (Van Riel and Fombrun 2005; 26).

Though Dichter (1997) defines image as the total impression an organisation makes on the minds of people

(Dichter in Hatch and Schultz 1997; 2), some researchers argue that a corporate image is a construction of

public impressions created to appeal to an audience. This means that, the corporate image is intentionally

manipulated by insiders as an attempt to alter or interfere with outsiders’ perceptions. Often this is done

by top management or corporate spokespersons orchestrating deliberate attempts to influence public

perceptions through corporate advertising (Hatch, Schultz 1997; 3). By using corporate advertising, it

becomes possible to manipulate with the consumer’s perceptions, seeing that a campaign focussing on

social responsibility creates an image of the organisation being supportive, responsible and caring (Keller

2008; 459). The corporate image is closely linked to the corporate values, and Thyssen (2007) argues that

organisations attempts to portray certain values to enhance a favourable image (Thyssen 2007; 170),

making the corporate values instruments for manipulating with the corporate image. This will be further

elaborated in paragraph 3.1.7.

95

470

475

480

485

490

495



3.1.2 Reputation

Corporate reputation is a value-based construct, which means that the corporate image is compared to the

stakeholder’s free-standing values about the appropriate behaviour of the organisation (Dowling 2001; 19).

Corporate reputation is defined as:

A reputation is the set of meanings by which an organisation is known and through which people describe,

remember and relate to it. It is the net result of the interaction of a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings and

impressions about the organisation. An organisation will not have a reputation – people hold reputations of

the organisation

(Dowling in Van Riel et. al. 2007; 44)

The corporate reputation is linked to the corporate image in the sense that corporate reputation is the

values the stakeholders transfer to the organisation as a result of the corporate image. If the beliefs and

feelings of an organisation fit a person’s values about the appropriate behaviour of an organisation, then

the person will form a good reputation of the organisation (Dowling 2001; 21). Hence, the reputation is not

controlled by the organisation. Moreover, it is important to recognise that corporate reputations are based

on perceptions, the stakeholder’s perceptions and values. This means that a corporate reputation is not

unique. Diverse stakeholders make different assessments about an organisation based on their experiences

and opinions about the organisation, and corporate reputations are mainly used to refer solely to the

reputation as a whole and not to sub-brands.

Many researchers consider that the concepts of corporate image and corporate reputation overlap;

however, it is crucial to keep then separated. According to Dowling (2001) the route to a good reputation is

through a desired image and then linking it to one or more values important to the stakeholders. However,

it is not possible to change a person’s values, but it is possible to change a person’s perceptions and at

times the emotional attachment they have towards an organisation (Dowling 2001; 22). Where many

corporate reputation programmes fail is in their lack of understanding of the key emotions that different

stakeholders want from the organisation. However, if there is a match between the stakeholder’s values

and the corporate image, the organisation may become a super-brand (Dowling 2001; 23). If the consumer

is buying a product for the first time a good reputation reduces the perceived risk of buying. Hence, create

a favourable reputation can be crucial to organisations (Dowling 2001; 23). However, as with image, some

practitioners argue that management can manipulate with the corporate reputation, by presenting public

well-reputed core values.

100

500

505

510

515

520

525



3.1.3 Vision and mission

In an ever-changing world it is important that an organisation is aware of its fundamental principles.

Accordingly, organisations need to respond to concepts as vision and mission. Vision and mission can be

very difficult to separate as they are closely related, and both the corporate vision and mission should

articulate what sets the organisation apart in a way that might help built a competitive edge.

The corporate mission has to represent what business the organisation operates in, and is often referred to

with the simple question “what business are we in?” (Cornelissen 2005; 24). It has to create a common

picture of the organisation and create a common direction. And by constantly having the corporate mission

in mind an organisation can determine whether its actions and activities are in line with the overall aim and

the core values of the organisation.

The corporate vision is developed by the management, and depicts the long termed goal of the

organisation. Moreover, the vision should represent the values and the beliefs of the organisation. A vision

is not about a false future, it is about defining a future which the entire enterprise can believe in (Bell 2007;

18). Moreover a vision has to be clear, compelling and captivating, so it gives people the drive and passion

to overcome all challenges. Thyssen (2007) emphasises that a vision has to indicate a common direction, so

employees, consumers and clients know what to expect. And a vision makes is possible for organisations to

coordinate expectations, improve motivation and develop a common language within the organisation

(Thyssen 2007; 114). A strong vision can lead to bold initiatives, and bold initiatives are represented in bold

goals, goals which capture the heart and soul of the organisation.

3.1.4 Culture

The corporate culture is probably the element, which is least mentioned in the literature. Often it does not

even appear in the marketing literature on identity and image. Nonetheless, several researchers have tried

to define the term and one of them is Geertz (2000):

The concept of corporate culture broadly concerns all aspects of everyday organizational life, in which

meaning, values, and assumptions are expressed and communicated via the behaviour and interpretations

of organizational members and their artefacts and symbols

(Geertz in Hatch and Schultz 2000; 25)

105

530

535

540

545

550

555



Geertz (2000) argues that corporate culture is found within the organisation and affects all the

organisational members and is realised in the material aspects of the organisation such as, logos, buildings,

the name etc. (Geertz in Hatch and Schultz 2000; 25). Schultz (1992) shares the same opinion, as according

to her corporate culture is built around the same logo, which is repeated perpetually on paper, folders and

publications, around the same basic values, which are repeated perpetually in speeches, annual reports and

press releases and around the same stories, which are told perpetually to new employees, laughed about

Friday afternoon and discussed in elevators (Schultz 1992; 23).

Moreover, one might argue that the interest in corporate culture is due to, the organisations continuously

being in the media spotlight. How an organisation portrays itself is now more important than ever,

especially when it comes to new employees and utilising employees’ abilities effectively. Thus, the

corporate culture represents a set of mutual understandings, meanings and values shared by the entire

enterprise. Likewise, the corporate culture defines the mission of the organisation, and it has become an

important source in image-building material (Hatch and Schultz 1997; 2).

According to Schultz (1992) corporate culture has two components, namely its substance, or a network of

meanings made out of ideologies, norms and values, and its forms whereby these meanings are expressed,

affirmed and communicated to members. This means that a corporate culture is never hollow. Even

though, the meanings and norms of the organisation could be wearing thin a new set of interpretations will

always emerge and replace old meanings and norms (Schultz 1992; 21).

3.1.5 Identity

As mentioned the scope of this thesis is to analyse the communicated value discourse of LEGO and Mattel,

and as corporate identity is defined by the corporate values, this paragraph will be elaborated extensively

compared to the previously paragraphs. In the literature, researchers often distinguish between

organisational identity and corporate identity, however, as already stated in paragraph 1.2, these two

terms will be defined under the term corporate identity.

The buzzword corporate identity refers to how an organisation presents itself to its consumer target

audience (Van Riel 2006; 28). It represents how an organisation expresses itself and differentiates itself in

relation to its stakeholders, and gives an impression of who the organisation is, what it does and how it

does it. Organisations have an identity in the sense that each organisation has particular traits or features

110

560

565

570

575

580

585



that constitutes its uniqueness. Originally, corporate identity was synonymous with logos, slogans and

other forms of symbolism used by the organisation. However, it has gradually also come to indicate how

the organisation presents itself by the use of symbols, internal and external communication and behaviour

(Van Riel 2006; 28). Throughout the years, this difference has been labelled the visual and the strategic

schools of corporate identity (Hatch and Schultz 2000; 13). The visual school focuses on the visible and

tangible manifestations of the corporate identity, where the visual is defined as names, logos, trademarks

etc., and the tangible aspects focus on buildings, product design, packaging etc. Some researchers even

argue that sound, touch and smell should be added to the visual school. Hence, the visual school is also

often referred to as the “look and feel” of the organisation (Hatch and Schultz 2000; 13). The strategic

school focuses on the central idea of the organisation, such as the mission, vision and the philosophy of the

organisation. The strategic identity is often defined in terms of integrated communication and public

relations activities. In this thesis, the main focus is on the strategic school of corporate identity.

Through-out the years, several researchers have tried to define corporate identity, and it seems that the

more researchers write about corporate identity, the more definitions burst into bloom. And despite the

voluminous literature, there still does not seem to be a universally accepted definition of corporate

identity. Topalian (2008) has given his suggestion on a definition:

Corporate identity is the set of meanings by which a company allows itself to be known and through which it

allows people to describe, remember, and relate to it

(Topalian in Melewar 2008; 9)

Topalian (2008) stresses that corporate identity is a set of meanings, which the stakeholders can relate to.

The notion of identity is related to diverse components such as image, vision, mission, corporate culture,

history, rituals, values etc (Topalian in Melewar 2008; 9). It is this connection between values and identity,

which will be the subject for further discussion in this paragraph and later in the analysis.

John M. T. Balmer (2008) argues that corporate identity gives life to corporate brands, and that corporate

brands are an illustration of the core corporate identity values, as he says that the footprint of corporate

identity is always to be found in a corporate brand (Balmer in Melewar 2008; 45). Stakeholders associate

the core values with the identity and this servers as what is known as a corporate brand promise. Some

researchers argue that corporate brands are a surrogate term for corporate identities; however, this seems

a bit overrated. Yet, corporate brands and corporate identity are closely related. According to John M. T.

Balmer (2008), corporate brands and corporate identity are analogous, which means that the corporate

identity, hence also the core values, should be clearly represented in the corporate brand (John M. T.

115

590

595

600

605

610

615



Balmer in Melewar 2008; 45). Both corporate brands and corporate identity is something unique for

organisations, and by effectively managing the corporate identity, organisations are able to create a clear

individuality that differentiates them from the competitors. Corporate identity can also be perceived as a

means of expressing corporate philosophy. Corporate philosophy concerns the values and beliefs of the top

management, and it is often expressed in the mission statement. As already mentioned, the corporate

mission and the corporate identity are dependent on each other, hence the communication and diffusion

of the organisation’s mission and values can be seen as a crucial part of corporate identity management.

Simões and Dibb (2008) also emphasise that the mission and the values emphasize the need for

consistency, and for the organisation to have a sense of continuity and purpose in its actions. Thus

managing, the corporate identity requires a clear definition of the corporate mission and the corporate

values and their sharing with the entire enterprise and the stakeholders (Simões and Dibb in Melewar 2008;

71). Hatch and Schultz (2000) also believe that corporate identity has to be shared with the entire

enterprise, as they dispute that originally corporate identity was targeted to external stakeholders, but in

recent years the target has been expanded to also including internal stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz 2008;

15).

Also Olins (2000) argues that corporate brands and corporate identity are closely linked. Olins presents the

concept of “identity structure”, where he divides corporate identity into three different categories in

accordance to the organisation’s product and structure. These three “identity structures” are called

monolithic identity, endorsed identity and branded identity (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 14). One category

does not precludes the others, however, the identity structure has to be clear, understandable and make

the organisation’s strategy visible both internally and externally (Olins 2000; 19).

The monolithic identity is defined by organisations using one name and a consistent visual identity to

promote a special idea about themselves (Hatch and Schultz 200; 14). All communication from the

organisation supports this monolithic identity. Hence the identity can be identified in everything from press

releases to advertisements (Olins 2000; 20). An example of a monolithic identity is Virgin. One of the

advantages of a monolithic identity is that the stakeholders can always recognise the organisation and its

identity, thus also the products. Furthermore, if the organisation has a favourable identity in the mind of

the consumers, the favourable attitude will also be transferred to other products. Another advantage is

from a financial point of view a monolithic identity is easy to control, as the organisation only has to focus

on one identity. Obviously, there are also disadvantages when using a monolithic identity. The easy

recognisable identity is also a weakness, seeing that, if one of the products underperforms it may affect the

other products (see table 1).

120620

625

630

635

640

645

650



The endorsed identity is defined as a multi-business identity, where organisations use a combination of an

overall corporate identity and a series of product lines names (Hatch and Schultz 2000; 14). The endorsed

identity is probably the most applied identity, due to the several mergers and acquisitions, which take place

all around the world today. Organisations that apply the endorsed identity are often characterised as an

organisation that have grown significantly by acquisitions, thus, it is important to maintain a good

relationship with the acquired organisations and their brands. Possibly, the acquired organisations already

have a positive identity, which can be favourable for the organisation to preserve (Olins 2000; 22).

Moreover, the mother organisations often operate in several different countries, where the acquired

organisations products and reputation can vary. Yet, not all products fit all markets, due to cultural

complications with the name, logo and the colours of these. An example of an endorsed identity is Nestlé.

The absolute strength of the endorsed identity is the flexibility. Despite the size of the organisation and

despite it operating in several different sectors and countries, it has the opportunity to adjust to ever-

changing demands. The downside of the endorsed identity is that it is very time-consuming and

complicated to manage all the different identities of the acquired organisations, and concurrent create a

clear identity of the mother organisation (Olins 2000; 24). In worst case, this can result in the organisation

becoming its own competitor.

The branded identity is defined by organisations manifesting their identity at a product level, and not

making it obvious that the different brands and products are related to the same organisation (Hatch and

Schultz 2000; 14). The consumers thus only know the product brands and not the organisation behind it.

Organisations using the branded identity are characterised by operating within distinct sectors, and it can

be an advantage developing an identity for each of the products, as the products often appeal to a specific

consumer target group (Olins 2000; 26). This gives the organisation more freedom in creating brands and

communicating the release of a new product. Each product brand can communicate individual values, and

target different consumer target groups with diverse core values, without it having consequences for the

organisation. Often, the different brands are competitors at the word market, and it could damage the

organisation’s integrity, if the consumers realised that they were all produced by the same organisation

(Olins 2000; 26). An example of a branded identity is Unilever. In spite of, the branded activity appearing to

be a win-win identity, the strengths easily becomes weaknesses. The organisations identity becomes

invisible, and the consumers do not attribute the organisation any values, which can make it appear cold

and inconsiderate. Moreover, the organisation misses out on a possible pleasure, when harvesting the

popularity of each product, as the products are not linked to the organisation (see table 1).

125

655

660

665

670

675

680



3.1.6 Values

Analysing values is the scope of this thesis; hence this paragraph will provide an overview of how corporate

values are used in everyday business life. In paragraph 4.3 the final analysis model will be presented, which

will support this paragraph about the corporate values, but also provide a deeper understanding of how

values are communicated.

Milton Rokeach was probably one of the first and most influential practitioners to write about values. His

books are still famously cited when it comes to defining and describing values, and in an article from 1968,

Rokeach defines values as:

A value is a standard criterion that serves a number of important purposes in our daily lives: it is a standard

that tells us how to act or what to want; it is a standard that tells us what attitudes we should hold; it is a

standard we employ to justify behaviour, to morally judge, and to compare ourselves with others. Finally, a

value is s standard we employ to tell us which values, attitudes, and actions of others are worth or not

worth trying to influence

(Rokeach 1968; 550)

The definition is somewhat comprehensive, and though it is made to define human values it can also be

used to define corporate values, as corporate values are used to personify and define the organisation and

make it relatable for all stakeholders. One might argue that a value is the foundation for ones identity, as a

value is a standard, which justify our behaviour, which tells us how to act, and what attitudes to hold.

During the years, many researchers have given their opinions and suggestions of what values are and how

they can be conceptualized, which have resulted in values being conceptualised in several different ways.

Ravlin and Meglino (1998) present two types of values. One type of values is the value that individuals put

on an object or outcome. This could for example be the value a person puts on pay. However, as these

objects and outcomes are dependent on other objects and outcomes, it appears that this type of valuing

require calculations that are beyond an individual’s capabilities making them more subconscious and

automatic than active (Ravlin and Meglino 1998; 353). The second type of values is linked to a person as

opposed to an object. This type of values has been further subdivided into two groups of values. Rokeach

(1973) classified these two groups of values as instrumental values and terminal values. Instrumental

values, also called means-values, include the beliefs which most people have, such as, we should behave

courageously, responsibly, honestly and open-mindedly (Rokeach 1973; 7). They are values that represent

the acceptable ways of behaving, and they are often what people talk about when they discuss values,

130

685

690

695

700

705

710



moral and ethics. Moreover, instrumental values have emphasis on the present (Aust 2004; 524). Terminal

values, also called end-state values, can be defined as what people actually value. They are beliefs in

salvation, world-peace, equality, prosperity and inner harmony (Rokeach 1973; 7). Terminal values are

described as the destination, with emphasis on the future, whereas instrumental values control the journey

there. Rokeach (1973) also divides the instrumental values and the terminal values into four subgroups

(Rokeach 1973; 7). He divides the instrumental values into moral and competence values. The moral values

refer to modes of behaviour and values that have an interpersonal focus, such as Lovingly and Honestly.

The competence values are also called self-actualization values, and is defined as intrapersonal and not

being particular concerned with morality (Rokeach 1973; 8). The terminal values are divided into personal

and social values. The personal values are values such as Salvation and Inner harmony, which can be

referred to as interpersonal and self-centered. The social values are values like World Peace and

Brotherhood; values which are intrapersonal and society-centered (Rockeach 1973; 8). Furthermore,

Rokeach (1973) raises the question whether there is a connection between the moral values and the

personal values, and the competence values and the social values, as it appears at first glance that there

might be a connection between these groups, due to their mutual interpersonal and intrapersonal focus.

However, he concludes that there is not a simple one-to-one connection between the two kinds of

instrumental and terminal values (Rokeach 1973; 10). The focus in this thesis will be on the values linked to

a person.

Collins and Porras (2006) define corporate core values as:

The central and enduring tenets of the organisation

(Collins and Porras in Rekom et.al. 2006; 175)

Corporate values are the glue that holds the organisation together as it grows, decentralises and expands,

as they will always remain fixed, even when the organisation changes business strategies and practices to

adapt to an ever changing world (Rekom et al. 2006; 175). Over the last decade there has been an

increased interest in immaterial values as social responsibility and environmental responsibility, and the

term “the politically conscious consumers” has become more popular than ever. To the politically conscious

consumer, business ethics and corporate values, also referred to as “soft values”, play an important role in

a purchase situation, which put demands on the organisation to uphold and make the core values visible.

However, the demand for soft values is not only external. Internally the demand has also increased.

Corporate values serve as a reference point for what is relevant both internally and externally (Aust 2004;

516). Core values have intrinsic meaning and importance to the organisation members (Rekom et.al. 2006;

135715

720

725

730

735

740

745



176), as management and employees stick to these values and live up to them in their everyday workday.

Furthermore, values are viewed as a major component of corporate culture, as core values are used to

make a common ground for the entire enterprise and give a picture of what the organisation stands for.

However, it can be difficult to make sure that the core values permeate the organisation, as employees may

subscribe to a value, but may not know how to live up to it. If the core values are either too unrealistic or

are not made sufficiently visible by the management, they are not sincere and they lose their purpose

(Rekom et al. 2005; 176).

Expressing core corporate values have become a hot topic in today’s business world. Having corporate

values, expressing corporate values and living the corporate values have become the essence of modern

business management. As mentioned, values are used to motivate employees and give them a common

ground in an age where technology and information prompts co-worker fragmentation (Aust 2004; 520).

However, they are also used by organisations to be somebody, to stand for something beyond the tangible

product, and at times values might change the consumer’s perceptions of the organisation. If the

organisation has a negative image, management can try to change this by stressing a distinct set of publicly

welcomed core corporate values, both in advertisements and by convoying a value promise in the media in

general. In other words, an organisation can enhance its own public identity by giving attention to certain

values (Aust 2004; 519). Schultz (2003) believes that there are two types of value-driven organisations,

namely the value rich organisation and the value poor organisation (Schultz in Morsing and Thyssen 2003;

92). The value rich organisation is defined by the values being deeply rooted in a rich heritage with many

shared beliefs throughout the organisation. The values are perceived as real and authentic both externally

and internally, and the organisation has high integrity with the stakeholders. An example of a value rich

organisation is LEGO. Ever since Ole Kirk Christiansen founded the organisation, LEGO has upheld their

values, and the values are an important strategic tool for aligning all the activities within the organisation. A

value poor organisation can be described as an organisation, which has not managed to translate its

heritage into something that makes sense to people inside as well as outside the organisation. The

organisation has low integrity and it often comes across as false and unreliable, as the values presented are

non-distinctive and non-believable instead of characterising the organisation as a whole (Schultz in Morsing

and Thyssen 2003; 91). An example of a value poor organisation could be Enron. Due to the scandal, people

lost trust in the organisation and perceived it as having behaved false and dishonest. Obviously, a value rich

organisation will be tomorrow’s winners, especially in a world where the focus is on the soft values of the

organisation (Schultz in Morsing og Thyssen 2003; 97).

140

750

755

760

765

770

775



3.1.7 Discussion of the elements

As already mentioned, to create a successful corporate branding strategy there has to be consensus

between the elements, and organisations need to pay attention to all of them to succeed in corporate

branding. However, are all these elements really necessary or are they just a necessary illusion? In this

paragraph the critique of some of these different elements will be highlighted, and as corporate values are

the scope of this thesis the focus will be on them, and whether or not they are actually needed in a modern

business strategy.

As previously stated, the tendency has moved towards focussing on the soft values of the organisation.

However, Thyssen (2003) argues that terms such as “the politically conscious consumer” and “the

responsible employee” are fictions, but effective fictions that put pressure on organisations to uphold the

promises made (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 164). Once the demand for values and soft values

has been articulated there is no turning back, and it becomes impossible for an organisation to go about

business as usual. An organisation always embraces a large number of values, and Thyssen (2003) states

that a value that does not affect the actual business strategy is not a value, but simply ornamentation for

the organisation (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 165). According to Thyssen (2003), vales such as

money, knowledge and power are core values in all organisations, and when the demand for “soft values”

arises, it might interfere with the actual values (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 165). The soft values

cannot overrule the actual values, and Thyssen (2003) emphasises that the distance between reality and

the actual corporate values can be so vast that values merely function as make-up covering up a dry and

knotty surface (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 163).

Thyssen (2003) also states that the corporate image is an illusion and a beautiful necessary lie, which

management is responsible for (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 167). As previously stated, the

corporate image can be intentionally manipulated by management as an attempt to alter the stakeholder’s

perceptions by stressing a distinct set of publicly welcomed core corporate values. However, Hatch and

Schultz (2008) disagree with this statement, as they believe that the corporate image represents everything

the organisation says and does, and is essential to the corporate identity (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 56).

Cameran et al. (2010) agree with Hatch and Schultz as they argue that the corporate image is used to

describe the perceptions that root in the mind of the stakeholders (Cameran et al. 2010; 424). Due to these

statements, it indicates that the corporate image cannot be fully manipulated, as the stakeholders will

always have their own perceptions. As mentioned, the corporate reputation is linked to the corporate

image, hence if the corporate image is manipulated the corporate reputation would to some extend also be

145

780

785

790

795

800

805



manipulated, seeing that the corporate reputation is the values the stakeholders transfer to an organisation

as a result of the corporate image.

Dowling (2001) states that it is not possible to change a person’s values, but it is possible to change and

manipulate with the perceptions they have towards an organisation (Dowling 2001; 22). Yet, Fombrum et

al. (2000) argue that there has been very little progress in examining how firms proactively and

systematically manage the perceptions and evaluations of the stakeholders (Fombrum et. el. in Hatch and

Schultz 2000; 79). Nonetheless, throughout the years several researchers have written numerous articles

and books about corporate branding and the importance of aligning the corporate mission, vision, image,

reputation, culture, value and the identity, in order to be successful in corporate branding. Moreover,

Thyssen (2003) argues that corporate values can at times be unrealistic and not reflected in the corporate

identity, mission, vision and the image or in the corporate brand (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003;

163), and if this is the case, the corporate values are an illusion. However, in most cases organisations

succeed in creating alignment between the identity, the brand, the mission and vision, the image and the

values, making all these elements essential in successful corporate branding.

3.2 Summing up

In the paragraph 3.0 to 3.2, the question why a corporate branding strategy is essential for organisations

was examined and the elements of a branding strategy and how they interact with each other were

discussed, by the means of different theories and researchers. The elements are corporate image,

corporate reputation, corporate mission and vision, corporate culture, corporate identity and corporate

values. And in successful corporate branding all these elements need to be taken into consideration.

Corporate image is based on stakeholder’s perceptions; yet, these perceptions are no longer solely

dependent on the products. The initiatives and values of the organisation and the communication of these

are also important for the corporate image. Organisations have to be aware that everything it does and

communicates can affect the image; hence an organisation needs to go to great lengths to integrate all of

the corporate communication, to maintain a favourable image. The corporate reputation is linked to the

corporate image in the sense that the corporate reputation is the values the stakeholders transfer to the

organisation as a result of the corporate image. Moreover, it is important for organisations to recognise

that the corporate reputation is based on the stakeholder’s perceptions, thus it cannot be manipulated.

150810

815

820

825

830

835



The corporate mission has to represent what business the organisation operates in, and is defined by

answering the question “what business are we in?”. The corporate vision should portray the long termed

goal of the organisation, and a strong vision can lead to bold initiatives. The corporate culture is probably

the element, which has been given the least attention in the literature; however, it is essential for

organisations to recognise that also the corporate culture affects the corporate brand and the core values.

In the light of the examination of Olins three “identity structures” it appears that LEGO and Mattel can be

characterised by two different “identity structures”. LEGO can be characterised as an organisation with a

monolithic identity, which means that LEGO has one corporate identity and one visual identity. Though, the

products have their own name e.g. Duplo, Bionicle, Power Miners etc., and some of them have their own

product brand, the LEGO corporate brand is recognisable on all the products. As mentioned in paragraph

3.1.5, one of the advantages of a monolithic identity is the high visibility and recognisability. And if the

organisation has a favourable identity in the mind of the consumers, this positive attitude will also be

transferred to the products. However, the high visibility and recognisability can also become a weakness,

seeing that, if one of the products underperforms it might affect all of the other products. Mattel, on the

other hand, can be characterised as an organisation with an endorsed identity, since Mattel uses an overall

identity and a series of product names. Mattel has grown significantly by acquisitions, and especially the

acquisitions of International Games in 1992 and Fisher Price in 1993 made Mattel the world’s largest toy

manufacturer2. As mentioned in paragraph 3.1.5, one of the advantages of an endorsed identity is the

flexibility, as the organisation has the opportunity to adjust to ever-changing demands. However, managing

an endorsed identity is very time-consuming, and it can be somewhat impossible to create a clear identity

of the mother organisation.

With regards to Schultz’s two types of value-driven organisations, both LEGO and Mattel can be regarded as

value-rich organisations, since both organisations communicate their core values extensively and the core

values permeate both organisations’ business strategy, which will be further elaborate in the analysis.

Rokeach (1968) refers to two kinds of values; namely instrumental and terminal values. Instrumental values

include the beliefs most people have, such as we should behave courageously, responsibly, honestly and

open-mindedly. Instrumental values are also referred to as modes of conduct and means-values. Terminal

values can be defined as what people actually value. They are values such as beliefs in salvation, world-

peace, equality, prosperity and inner harmony. Terminal values are often referred to as end-states of

existence. These two kinds of values will form the foundation of the analysis and the discussions.

2 www.mattel.com

155840

845

850

855

860

865



In the following the method for the analysis and the final analysis model will be presented

4 Analysis method

In the following the method for analysing communicated values by Philip Jerold Aust will be presented, and

this method will function as the basis for the analysis model used to analyse LEGO and Mattel’s

communicated values. Primarily, the theory behind Milton Rokeach’s Value Theory will be presented, as

Aust’s method is based on this theory. Secondarily, the method provided by Aust in the article

“Communicated values as indicators of organizational identity: A method for organisational assessment and

its application in a case study” (2004) will be examined, and finally, the final analysis method and analysis

procedure will be presented.

4.1 Rokeach’s Value Theory

Milton Rokeach was a professor in social psychology at Washington State University, and he has been

described as a pioneer within the field of understanding values, as he has probably made the most

significant contributions to value research to date. His work is often used in organisational analyses, due to

the clarity it brings to understanding values and their impact on organisational processes, and his book “The

Nature of Human Values” is one of the most cited when it comes to analysing human values as well as

corporate values (Aust 2004; 521).

Rokeach developed a value theory based on the relationship between beliefs (what one believes), values

(central beliefs that make up one’s behaviour) and attitudes (value clusters that guide one’s behaviour)

(Aust 2004; 521). His value theory is based on five assumptions about the nature of human values: 1)

people possess relatively few values; 2) people possess the same values but to different degrees; 3) values

form value-systems; 4) values are based on culture, society and personality; 5) values will be manifested in

messages and can therefore be examined (Rokeach 1973; 3). Rokeach believed that when a value is learned

it becomes integrated into an organised system of values in which each value is prioritised with respect to

other values. This organised system is defined as a values system. Rokeach describes a value as an enduring

belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an

160

870

875

880

885

890

895



opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach 1973; 5). And he describes a

values system as an enduring organisation of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states

of existence along a continuum of relative importance (Rokeach 1973; 5).

Rokeach (1973) advances that humans only possess 36 centralised values, represented by 18 instrumental

values and 18 terminal values. The terms terminal and instrumental values are defined in paragraph 3.1.6.

These are the values Rokeach ended up with after several years of research:

Terminal Values Instrumental Values

A comfortable life Ambitious

An exciting life Broadminded

A sense of accomplishment Capable

A world at peace Cheerful

A world of beauty Clean

Equality Courageous

Family security Forgiving

Freedom Helpful

Happiness Honest

Inner harmony Imaginative

Mature love Independent

National security Intellectual

Pleasure Logical

Salvation Loving

Self-respect Obedient

Social recognition Polite

True friendship Responsible

Wisdom Self-controlled

Tabel 2 – Rokeach’s test-retested reliabilities of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values (Rockeach 1973; 28)

Rokeach primarily only had 12 terminal and 12 instrumental values, however, as he realised that too many

important values had been omitted he increased the system to containing sets of 18. The method for

finding the 36 values will not be described here as it is rather comprehensive. Yet, Rokeach admits that the

procedure for selecting the list was intuitive, and there is no reason to believe that if this research was

165

900

905



independently carried out by others they would have come up with precisely the same list of the 18

terminal and 18 instrumental values.

Below examples of the values from Rokeach’s value system will be given and defined.

Value Definition Examples

Comfortable Life Concerned with comfort Comforts, prosperous, affluent, well-off

Exciting Life Concerned with an

exciting life

Stimulating, active, exhilarating, thrilling

Sense of

Accomplishment

Concerned with

accomplishment

Accomplishment, contribution, achievement,

attainment, culmination

World at Peace Concerned with freedom Peace, peaceful, armistice, concord

World of Beauty Concerned with beauty in

nature and the arts

Beauty, charming, splendid, elegant

Equality Concerned with equality Equality, equity, impartiality, fairness

Family Security Concerned with family

security

Family, home, household, stability

Freedom Concerned with freedom Free, freedom, choice, liberty, opportunity

Happiness Concerned with

happiness

Happy, content, jubilant, euphoric

Inner Harmony Concerned with inner

harmony

Balanced, harmony, orderly, aplomb,

composure

Mature Love Concerned with social

and spiritual harmony

Balanced, harmony, orderly, aplomb,

composure

National Security Concerned with safety Armed, defended, protected, shielded

Pleasure Concerned with a

enjoyable life

Enjoyment, leisure, satisfying, enjoyable

Salvation Concerned with salvation Salvation, immortality, heaven, delivered,

170

910



redeemed

Self-Respect Concerned with self-

esteem

Self-esteem, self-assurance, worthy

Social Recognition Concerned with respect

from others

Recognised, admired, accepted, appreciated

True Friendship Concerned with close

companionship

Companionship, fellowship, comradeship,

united

Wisdom Concerned with mature

understanding

Wisdom, sense, insight, perspective, learning

Table 3 – Definitions and examples of the terminal values (Aust 2004; 521)

Value Definition Examples

Ambition Concerned with hard-

work

Hard working, aspiring, enterprising, eager

Broadmindedness Concerned with open-

mindedness

Open-minded, flexible, tolerant, unbiased,

unprejudiced

Capability Concerned with

competence

Competence, effective, able, capability,

proficient

Cheerfulness Concerned with being

light-hearted

Animated, bright, cheery, fun, glad, jovial

Cleanliness Concerned with

cleanliness

Cleanliness, neat, tidy, undefiled

Courage Concerned with standing

for one’s belief

Courage, bold, dauntless, undaunted, firm,

Forgiveness Concerned with

willingness to pardon

Pardon, forgiveness, acquit, excuse, absolve,

overlook

Helpfulness Concerned with working

for the welfare of others

Welfare, assist, support, serve, improve,

better

Honesty Concerned with truth Honesty, true, moral, ethical, sincere

Imagination Concerned with being Imagination, daring, creative, original, clever,

175



daring inspired

Independence Concerned with self-

reliance

Independence, self-reliant, self-sufficient,

alone

Intellect Concerned with intellect Intelligence, reflective, informed

Logic Concerned with

rationality

Logic, rational, consistent, reasoned

Love Concerned with affection Love, tender, fond, beloved, charity, caring

Obedience Concerned with

obedience

Obedience, dutiful, observant

Politeness Concerned with courtesy

mannerly

Politeness, courteousness, well-mannered,

mannerly, civil

Responsibility Concerned with being

accountable

Responsibility, dependable, reliable

Self-Control Concerned with self-

control

Self-control, self-disciplined, retrained,

controlled

Table 4 - Definitions and examples of the instrumental values (Aust 2004; 522)

4.2 Aust’s method for analysing communicated values

Philip Jerod Aust is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Illinois State University,

and the article “Communicated Values as indicators of organizational identity: A method for organizational

assessment and its application in a case study” was made in 2004 as part of his dissertation.

In the article Aust presents a method for analysing communicated corporate values, by analysing the

communicated values by a specific organisation, the United Church of God. An international association

with 16,000+ members situated in Cincinnati, Ohio. The study was based on the first five years of the

organisation from 1995 to 2000, and it was conducted with a view to determine the communicated values

compromising the identity of the organisation. The study’s research question was:

What communicated values characterise an organization’s identity?

180

915

920

925



As the organisation primarily presented itself to its external publics by written communication, the study

was conducted on the “fundamental beliefs” statement, regular letters from the chairman, and the “God

News” magazine, all from within the five year time frame. In order to assess United’s values, hereby also

the identity, a value dictionary was developed based on Rokeach’s Value Survey. The reason why Aust

choose Rokeach’s survey was because of its use in organisational research, and its ability to capture a wide

range of human values addressed by a church.

Primarily, Rokeach’s definitions of the values were reviewed to understand each one. Secondarily, a list of

synonyms was gathered from seven different standardized English dictionaries. Thirdly, a sample of

documents was coded using the value categories to expand the list of terms representative of each value.

Fourthly, the value categories were expanded to include the various forms and tenses of the terms, and

finally, the value categories were reviewed to make sure that a term did not appear in more than one

category. The appropriate program for this study was Hart’s DICTION (2000), as it had been used on similar

applications. The files were then loaded into DICTION, made ready for analysis, and one hundred ninety five

documents were analysed in accordance with Rokeach’s distinction between terminal and instrumental

values. The research was based on tree time frames within the first five years of the organisation, year one,

year three and year five.

The findings of the study were that United had communicated a distinct value structure through its print

messages, that United had shown consistency in its organisational identity’s development based on the

corporate values, and that United had emphasised the same five values in the messages transmitted during

the most recent years analysed. Aust also presented three recommendations, which could benefit United

immediately. The most essential of these recommendations was that United had to recognise that its

identity already existed, as it had already put emphasis on so few values. The organisation should be

mindful to give as much attention to “how something is said” as it did to “what is said”.

The study undertaken by Aust is a relatively simple and precise way to find and analyse the core values of

an organisation. However, the study has a pitfall. Aust used the program DICTION to find the corporate

values of United, but if a value was preceded by a negation the programme analysed it as a communicated

value, and placed it within one of the value categories. Yet, Aust based his results on the most repeated

terms, so if this had happened it would not have affected his final results. Nonetheless, it is worth keeping

in mind, when conducting a study like this.

185

930

935

940

945

950

955



4.3 Final analysis method

The methodology of the analysis will be based on a combination of Rokeach’s values system and Aust’s

method for analysing communicated values. The analysis will be based on written communication from

LEGO and Mattel; namely the corporate values stated on LEGO and Mattel’s corporate website, their

corporate mission and vision, their code of conducts, six press releases from 2008 to 2010, the 2009 Annual

Report from Mattel and the 2009 Progress Report from LEGO. The reason why, this analysis will only be

conducted on written communication is because it can be observed and measured.

As mentioned, Aust used Rokeach’s value system, due to it often being used in organisational research and

its ability to capture a high range of human values addressed by a church. However, as this thesis does not

deal with the values captured by a church organisation, some of the values listed in Rokeach’s value system

fall short. They are simply not relevant when analysing the values of LEGO and Mattel (e.g. Salvation, Clean

etc.). Therefore, a value system is created, based on relevant values from Rokeach’s value system, and

values chosen after having thoroughly examined the communicated material by LEGO and Mattel.

This value system is not developed as a critique of Rokeach’s original system; it is merely made to make the

analysis more concise and relevant for the scope of this thesis. Rokeach’s reason for choosing the 36 values

is based on a long and comprehensive research. The reason for choosing the five new values is based on an

examination of the most frequently repeated values identified in the communicated material found on

LEGO and Mattel’s websites, thus, the value system cannot be universally used.

Instrumental values Terminal Values

Imagination

(Rokeach’s system)

Happiness (Contendness)


Playfulness Pleasure (Enjoyable)

from Rokeack’s system

Responsible (Dependable, reliable)


Family security (Taking care of loved ones)


Honesty (Concerned with the truth)


An Exciting Life (an active life)


Caring (for others) Social recognition (respect, admiration)

190

960

965

970

975




Innovative (Development within the

organisation)

Quality (of the products)

Creativity (development of the children) Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)


Tabel 5 – The value system combined with relevant values taken from Rokeach’s value system

Some of the values are defined in general terms in the schedule, however to make the analysis as

thoroughly as possible, also synonyms to these values will be analysed (e.g. wisdom = learning).

Furthermore, the various tenses and forms of the values will also be in included (e.g. playfulness = play).

As mentioned in paragraph 3.1.6 both terminal and instrumental values can be subdivided into four

subgroups. The terminal values can be divided into personal and social values. The personal values from the

system are Happiness, Pleasure, Family Security and An Exciting Life, and the social values are Social

Recognition, Quality and Wisdom. The instrumental values can be divided into moral and competence

values. The moral values are Caring, Responsible and Honest, while, the competence values are

Imaginative, Playfulness, Innovative and Creativity.

The analysis will be divided into four levels:

5. Analyse the occurrences of the communicated values in the analysed material.

6. Discuss the division of instrumental and terminal values and how this division might represent the

competing discourses of the toy business.

7. Discuss how the discourses might represent the actual consumer target audience.

8. Discuss how the identities of LEGO and Mattel are represented by comparing the communicated

values and the corporate values.

5 Introducing LEGO

The LEGO Group was founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen, and over the past 80 years it has come a

long way from a small carpenter’s workshop to a modern global enterprise that is one of the world’s sixth-

largest manufacturers of toys. The first LEGO plastic brick appeared in 1948, and was changed several times

over the decades that followed, but has now remained unchanged since 1958. The name LEGO is an

195

980

985

990

995

1000



abbreviation of the Danish words “leg godt” (play well), and as LEGO says “ it is our name and our idea”. The

central brand-idea of LEGO is “continuously play”, which is based upon the fact that there are 915 million

ways to put together the bricks with eight knobs (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 181).

LEGO has a definite approach to quality, as they want to be the best and most credible player in the toy

business. They strive constantly to develop innovative products, which promote creativity and fun-packed

play. LEGO also recognises the responsibility behind their brand and as they say:

The LEGO brand is more than simply our familiar logo. It is the expectations that people have of the

company towards its products and services, and the accountability that the LEGO Group feels towards the

world around it. The brand acts as a guarantee of quality and originality

(Appendix 1)

In the 1990, the toy industry experienced a situation where products began to have a much shorter life-

cycle, due to children developing new play patterns faster. This tendency went under the term ”KGOT” -

“Kids getting older younger”. Obviously, this also affected LEGO as they discovered that their competitors

began to develop products, which were much more innovative and modern than the standard brick. Thus,

LEGO had to rethink the products and make them more innovative and “cool” to compete with the other

toy manufacturers (Hatch and Schultz 2008; 181). Unfortunately, LEGO failed trying and experienced a

period of regress and the gap between the corporate vision, the corporate mission, the corporate values

and the corporate brand grew. This made LEGO rethink the identity and started an intense battle towards

aligning the mission, vision and values with the corporate brand. However, they realised that it was a more

extensive battle than first assumed, as the employees had to live the brand as well; also the corporate

culture had to be aligned with the brand. By the end of 2000, LEGO had rethought their entire identity, and

created alignment between the corporate vision, the corporate mission, the corporate values, the

corporate culture and the corporate brand. And once more, they experienced success.

6 Introducing Mattel

Mattel was founded in 1945 by Ruth and Elliot Handler and Harold “Matt” Matson in a garage workshop in

Southern Carolina, and over the past 70 years it has come a long way and is now the world’s largest

manufacturer of toys. Mattel is well-known for being the manufacturer behind the Barbie doll, which was

200

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025



introduced in 1959. However, the organisation has grown remarkably since the first Barbie doll was

introduced. During the next 70 years, Mattel starts producing everything from Hot Wheels to Computer

games to Polly Pocket, and several toy manufacturers join Mattel. One of the organisations, which join

Mattel is Fisher-Price, the world’s number one brand in infant and pre-school toys. Also Disney and

Nickelodeon starts a partnership with Mattel, giving Mattel the right to produce all the characters from all

the famous cartoons e.g. Hannah Montana, Spongebob Square-Pants, Hercules, Harry Potter and The Lion

King.

Mattel has a definite approach to their brand strategy and they always strive to renew the products as well

as the organisation, so they can keep up with the consumers’ ever changing demands. Furthermore, Mattel

was the first toy manufacturer to issue a corporate social responsibility report in 2004. Mattel’s vision is

“Creating the future of play”, and management as well as employees strive to realize this vision3.

Though Mattel is devoted to CSR, they have been the victim of several toys scandals. In 2007, Mattel had to

withdraw the car “Sarge” from the cartoon “Cars”, as the lead level in this toy was too high in proportion to

the allowed level in USA and Denmark (Appendix 22). In 2007, another scandal hit Mattel. Over 20 Polly

Pocket products had to be withdrawn, due to a small magnet that was not attached properly (Appendix 22),

which could result in small children being suffocated. Also in 2009, Mattel had to withdraw several leaded

products (Appendix 23). These products were amongst others a Spongebob figure and products in the

Barbie Dream Puppy House series. Mattel had to pay roughly $3 million in indemnification for having sold

the leaded toys. Mattel responded to these scandals by promising increased audits and testing of all

products.

Though Mattel has been the victim of several scandals, they emerged only slightly damaged on the other

side. As a consequence, Mattel now has to strive to realise their core values, their CSR initiatives and their

brand strategy to regain and maintain complete trust from their consumers.

7 Analysis of the communicated values

3 www.mattel.com

205

1030

1035

1040

1045

1050

1055



In this paragraph, an analysis of the occurrences of the communicated values found in the analysed

material from LEGO and Mattel will be executed, and an overview of the occurrences will be made. The

possible consequences of the number of occurrences will not be commented on, as this will be discussed in

the following paragraphs. However, examples of the how the values are communicated in the analysed

material will be provided.

7.1 LEGO

Instrumental values Total

number

Terminal Values Total

number

Imagination 8 Happiness 13

Playfulness 29 Pleasure 8

Responsible 14 Family security 9

Honesty 11 An Exciting Life 3

Caring 18 Social recognition 25

Innovative 12 Quality (of the products) 10

Creativity 30 Wisdom 30

Table 6 – The occurrences of communicated values conveyed by LEGO

After having analysed the occurrences of the various values communicated by LEGO, it became obvious

that the variation between the values is somewhat extensive. Some of the values are repeated several

times, whereas others are repeated less frequently. The values, which are repeated the most, are

“Playfulness”, “Creativity”, “Social Recognition” and “Wisdom”. Below, examples of the different values will

be presented.

210

1060

1065

1070



The instrumental values:

Imagination – Free play is how children develop their imagination.

Playfulness – The LEGO Group considers play a decisive element of children’s development.

Responsible – The Lego Group does business in a responsible way.

Honest – [...] the LEGO Group always acting, and being perceived as acting, in a legal, consistent and ethical

manner.

Caring – Caring is about humility – not thinking less of ourselves, but thinking or ourselves less.

Innovative – [...] it will thereby link into our core business and be part of the innovation needed.

Creativity – [...] with a focus on creativity and building.

The terminal values:

Happiness – Fun is the happiness we experience.

Pleasure – LEGO universe will open up exciting new opportunities for fun.

Family security – We’re doing something good for children and adults – for families.

An exciting life – The thrill of an adventure.

Social recognition – It is fundamental to the LEGO Group to have a respectful dialogue.

Quality – We believe in quality that speaks for itself.

Wisdom – The ability to learn is essential to children and LEGO play is playful learning.

7.2 Mattel

Instrumental values Total Terminal Values Total

215

1075

1080

1085

1090



number number

Imagination 2 Happiness 0

Playfulness 66 Pleasure 23

Responsible 38 Family security 10

Honesty 28 An Exciting Life 9

Caring 0 Social recognition 36

Innovative 17 Quality 9

Creativity 6 Wisdom 20

Table 7 – The occurrences of communicated values conveyed by Mattel

As can be seen from the schedule, the occurrences of the values conveyed by Mattel are very wide. Some

of them are repeated numerous times, whereas others are not even mentioned. The values, which are

most frequently repeated, are “Playfulness”, “Responsible” and “Social Recognition”. Below, examples of

the communicated values will be given.

The Instrumental Values

Imagination – [...] encouraging children to stretch their imaginations.

Playfulness – So they can become lost in play.

Responsible – [...] as a responsible corporate citizen.

Honest – Treating others with dignity and respect, being honest and fair.

Caring –

Innovative – Innovation can define what it is to play.

220

1095

1100

1105



Creativity – [...] that evoke creativity.

The Terminal Values

Happiness –

Pleasure – Fisher-Price is dedicated to creating the safest and most enjoyable products.

Family Security – [...] from better understanding kids and moms.

An Exciting Life – Boys will continue their water play excitement.

Social Recognition – We are the imaginations behind some of the most recognized products.

Quality – In order to maintain our high standards for quality.

Wisdom – A child’s portable window to a whole new world of learning and entertainment.

7.3 Summing up

The value system is made to cover the communicated values of both organisations. If two separate value

systems had been made, it would not have been possible to draw any conclusions. This means that some of

the values are frequently communicated by one of the organisations and less frequently by the other.

After having analysed the occurrences of the communicated values of both LEGO and Mattel, it became

obvious that the two organisations communicate somewhat distinct values. LEGO focuses on “Playfulness”,

“Creativity”, “Social Recognition” and “Wisdom”, where, Mattel focuses on “Playfulness”, “Responsibility”

and “Social Recognition”. Though both organisations focus on “Playfulness” and “Social Recognition”, also

the number of occurrences has to be taken into consideration. Mattel communicated the instrumental

value “Playfulness” 66 times, while LEGO communicated the value 29 times. Moreover, the occurrences of

the communicated values have to be compared to the core values stated on LEGO and Mattel’s websites,

with the intention to discuss whether there is consensus between the communicated values and the

corporate values. This will be further discussed in paragraph 10. Additionally, the analysis of the

occurrences of values supported the assumption the LEGO and Mattel are both value-rich organisations

(paragraph 3.2), as some of the values are communicated extensively.

225

1110

1115

1120

1125

1130



8 Discussion of the division of instrumental and terminal values

In this paragraph the division of the terminal and instrumental values communicated by LEGO and Mattel

will be discussed. Moreover, the most frequently repeated values of both LEGO and Mattel will be

compared. As previously stated, after having analysed the communicated values of both LEGO and Mattel,

it is obvious that the two organisations communicated somewhat distinct values, despite being in the same

line of business and presumably having the same target audience.

As mentioned in paragraph 3.1.6 terminal values can be defined as what people actually value. They are

often referred to as end-state values and they have emphasis on the future (Aust 2004; 524). Instrumental

values include the beliefs most people have, and are often referred to as means-values controlling the

journey towards the terminal values (Aust 2004; 524).

As previously stated, the corporate mission and vision has to be in line with the corporate values. Hence it

is crucial that the corporate values are clearly communicated in the corporate mission and vision.

Below, the division of terminal and instrumental values for both LEGO and Mattel will be discussed, based

on the schedules above. Moreover, a brief discussion of whether or not LEGO and Mattel manage to

communicated the communicated values in the corporate mission and vision will be provided.

8.1 LEGO

On LEGO’s corporate website we find the corporate vision and corporate mission (Appendix 2). They are

both very easy to find and LEGO even states a small clarification to both the mission and the vision. As

mentioned, the corporate values should be clearly stated in the corporate vision, and one might assume,

that it is primarily the terminal values, which is represented in the vision, seeing that both the vision and

the terminal values focus on the future. LEGO’s corporate vision sounds:

Inventing the future of play

(Appendix 2)

230

1135

1140

1145

1150

1155

1160



The words, which are interesting in this vision, are “future” and “play”. “Playfulness” is an instrumental

value, which means that it is a means-value (Rockeach 1973; 7). Moreover, “Playfulness” is a competence

value, and in this case it is referring to the play competence of children and LEGO. The word “future” is not

a value; it is merely a noun. However, as the word “future” is linked to terminal values, seeing that terminal

values focus on the future, the instrumental value “Playfulness” is provided with a futuristic focus. To fully

analyse LEGO’s vision, also the small clarification needs to taken into consideration.

We want to pioneer new ways of playing, play materials and the business models of play – leveraging

globalisation and digitalisation... It is not just about the products, it is about realising the human

possibilities

As can be seen from the small clarification, only the instrumental value “Playfulness” is mentioned. LEGO

focuses on “Playfulness” in the corporate vision, and on how to better the world through “play”.

Nonetheless, none of the terminal values are present in LEGO’s corporate vision. Yet, as a corporate vision

it lives up to the demands, seeing that it has to define a future the entire enterprise can believe in (Bell

2007; 18).

The corporate mission should represent the business, which the organisation operates in and is often

defined by answering the simple question “what business are we in?” (Cornelissen 2005; 24). Moreover,

the mission also has to create a common picture of the organisation and create a common direction.

LEGO’s corporate mission is:

Inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow

(Appendix 2)

As mentioned, also in the corporate mission the corporate values should be stated, but in LEGO’s mission

none of the corporate values are present. In the small clarification the instrumental value “Creativity” is

mentioned:

Our ultimate purpose is to inspire and develop children to think creatively, reason systematically and release

their potential to shape their own future – experience the endless human possibilities

(Appendix 2)

“Creativity” is not an essential word in the clarification, it is simply mentioned. And it is actually thought-

provoking that it is not attributed greater value in the sentence, seeing that it is in fact one of LEGO’s core

values.

235

1165

1170

1175

1180

1185

1190



Neither the terminal values nor the instrumental are highly represented in LEGO’s corporate vision and

mission. Only the two instrumental values “Playfulness” and “Creativity” are represented. These two values

are also two of the most communicated values in the analysed material, so in that sense there is consensus

between LEGO’s communicated values and the corporate vision and mission.

In relation to the division between the terminal and instrumental values, it appears that LEGO manages to

communicate both types. Some of the values are more frequently mentioned than others, and

“Playfulness”, “Creativity”, “Social Recognition” and “Wisdom” are the four values, which are repeated the

most. “Playfulness” and “Creativity” are instrumental values, while, “Social Recognition” and “Wisdom” are

terminal values. Both “Playfulness” and “Creativity” are competence values, which mean that that they

have a personal focus and give a feeling of having behaved competently (Rokeach 1973; 8). “Social

Recognition” and “Wisdom” are social values, which mean that they are more society-centered instead of

being self-centered (Rokeach 1973; 8). At a first glance, it might seem as if LEGO is somewhat impersonal in

the communication of their values, as the focus is on competent and social values. However, the values

need to be analysed as a whole to give a complete picture of LEGO’s communication.

The theory does not tell anything about the consequences of the division between terminal and

instrumental values; hence, it is not possible to conclude that due to LEGO primarily communicating

competence and social values the organisation can be considered distant and impersonal.

As mentioned, “Playfulness” and “Creativity” are competence values, but to fully understand these values it

is necessary to look at how LEGO in fact communicates these values. LEGO uses play as a competence given

to children and not as a self-actualization value (Rokeach 1973; 8), as LEGO argues that they care for the

safety, play and development of children (Appendix 3).

By using “Playfulness” as a competence value given to others, LEGO shows morality, whereas Rokeach

argues that competence values equal not being especially concerned with morality (Rokeach 1973; 8).

Moreover, LEGO uses “Play” as a promise to consumers, called the Play promise. In which they promise

consumers zero call-backs.

LEGO also uses “Creativity” as a competence given to children, as they states, they believe that their

donations can help children to develop their play and creativity (Appendix 3). Also here LEGO shows

morality, and judging from the number of occurrences it appears that LEGO takes the value “Creativity”

very seriously, as it is one of the values, which are mentioned most frequently, with 30 occurrences. Yet,

LEGO also uses “Creativity” as a competence given to the employees, enabling the employees to find the

240

1195

1200

1205

1210

1215

1220



best solutions for the LEGO group (Appendix 10, page 5). Moreover, communicating “Creativity” and

“Playfulness” help strengthen LEGO’s image, as both values are two publicly welcomed corporate values, in

the sense, that both are competence values with positive connotations.

“Social Recognition” and “Wisdom” are social values, and also here it is essential to look at how LEGO

communicates these values to fully understand them. When LEGO communicates “Social Recognition” it is

obvious that it is related to personal gain, as LEGO wants to be recognised and admired by the

stakeholders, hence strengthening the corporate image. Moreover, LEGO argues that they want to be a

trusted and respected business partner by the customers (Appendix 3).

However, a favourable corporate image is crucial to organisations and, judging from how “Social

Recognition” is communicated, it appears that LEGO finds it crucial to live up to the promise of becoming a

trusted and respected partner, thus, communicating “Social Recognition” becomes an asset. Moreover

LEGO communicates “Social Recognition” with such passion and sincerity, that the personal gain aspect is

almost forgotten.

LEGO communicates “Wisdom” in the same sense as “Playfulness” and “Creativity”, as it is something LEGO

wants to give to children around the world, and in the letter from the CEO he says that playing with the

products stimulates learning (Appendix 10, page 5). When analysing the communicated values, it becomes

evident that LEGO talks a lot about “playful learning” (Appendix 10, page 5 + 10), and LEGO presents

“playful learning” in such manner that it seems to be the main goal of the business strategy. LEGO wants to

be able give children around the world the opportunity to “learn through play” (Appendix 10, page 13),

hence it appears that it is “Learning”, which is in focus. Obviously, also the fun and joy of playing is a goal,

seeing that it is toys, however, LEGO underlines that they consider play a decisive element of children’s

development, since children learn through play. (Appendix 10, page 10)

Additionally, when looking at the occurrences of the communicated values, one cannot help to wonder

why “Wisdom” is being repeated more frequently than “Playfulness” and “Pleasure”, since LEGO uses

“Playfulness” as a competence given to the children. This supports the assumption that LEGO’s main focus

is on “Learning” and not “Playing”.

LEGO communicates a wide range of both terminal and instrumental values; however, the main focus is on

the competence and social values. Especially, the terminal value “Wisdom” appears to be in focus.

245

1225

1230

1235

1240

1245



8.2 Mattel

It is somewhat difficult to find Mattel’s corporate mission and vision on the website. The corporate vision is

stated on the top of each page, however, it is not stated anywhere on the website that it is the corporate

vision. In the annual report Mattel explains that in 2010 they launched a new guiding vision, which is:

Creating the Future of Play

(Appendix 21, Letter from CEO)

However, in the following pages of the annual report, Mattel suddenly states that their vision is to provide:

The world’s premier toy brands – today and tomorrow

(Appendix 21, page 3)

In this discussion, the focus will be on the vision “Creating the future of play”, as it appears that it is the

actual corporate vision, since it is stated on every page of the corporate website. Mattel’s corporate vision

is very similar to LEGO’s corporate vision. The only difference is the verb, as LEGO wants to “invent”,

whereas, Mattel talks about “creating”. According to Macmillan English Dictionary (2002) the two verbs are

synonymous. Macmillan describes “to create” as to make something new or original that did not exist

before. And “to invent” is described as to design or create something such as a machine or process that did

not exist before. Judging from the definitions provided by Macmillan, it is safe to conclude that LEGO and

Mattel’s corporate visions are exactly the same. However, it then becomes interesting to find out if the two

organisations also share the same purpose with the corporate vision.

As mentioned the words, which are interesting in this vision are “future” and “play”, and as “Playfulness” is

an instrumental and competence value (Rokeach 1973; 8), it becomes essential to look at whom Mattel

attributes this competence. Mattel talks about “Playing together”; how the organisation wants to enrich

the communities, enrich the lives of children and engage employees in these enrichments. Thus it appears

that Mattel attributes “Playfulness” to everyone the organisation comes into contact with and not only

children. Nonetheless, only the instrumental value “Playfulness” is mentioned in Mattel’s corporate vision,

while, one might assume that the terminal values would be highly represented in a corporate vision. But, as

a corporate vision, it lives up to the demands, seeing that a vision has to define a future the entire

enterprise can believe in (Bell 2007; 18).

Mattel’s corporate mission is very different from what to expect from an organisation, which so highly

values “play” and “fun”. Mattel’s corporate mission sounds:

250

1250

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275



Mattel’s (the “Company”) Board of Directors (the “Board”) strives to ensure good corporate management

and governance. It selects, monitors, evaluates and supports the Chief Executive Officer and oversees the

development and pursuit of corporate policies and strategies. It serves the Company’s stockholders through

a strong commitment to the effective and ethical management of the Company in a manner which

optimizes sustainable long-term profitability and is responsive to the legitimate interests of other corporate

constituencies, such as employees, customers, suppliers and the communities in which the Company

operates

(Appendix 12)

As mentioned, the corporate mission should clearly state the values of an organisation; however, only one

of the instrumental values is present in Mattel’s corporate mission, namely Honesty, which can be seen it

the sentence; a strong commitment to the effective and ethical management (see table 4).

It appears that Mattel’s corporate mission functions primarily as a guideline for the “Board of Directors”

and as corporate information for the various stakeholders, as none of the corporate values are mentioned.

A mission must match the strategic plan of an organisation, however, also the corporate values needs to be

reflected, and in Mattel’s corporate mission the values are not mentioned, but one might argue that they

are to some extend reflected, as some of the words reflects “Social Responsibility”, e.g. “commitment” and

“ethical management”.

Regarding the division between terminal and instrumental values, Mattel manages to communicate both

types. Obviously, some values are more frequently repeated than others, and the values most frequently

repeated are “Playfulness”, “Responsibility” and “Social Recognition”. “Playfulness” and “Responsibility”

are instrumental values, while, “Social Recognition” is a terminal value. As mentioned, “Playfulness” is a

competence value, which means that it has a personal focus and gives a feeling of having behaved

competently (Rokeach 1973; 8). “Responsibility” is a moral value, which is defined by having an

interpersonal focus and refers mainly to modes of behaviour (Rokeach 1973; 8). “Social Recognition” is a

social value, which means that it is more society-centered instead of being self-centered (Rokeach 1973; 8).

When analysing the occurrences of the values in the value system, it is evident that “Playfulness” is

repeated almost twice as much as the other two values. However, also here the values need to be analysed

as a whole to give a complete picture of Mattel’s communicated values.

As previously stated, “Playfulness” is a competence value, a competence Mattel attributes to the entire

enterprise and all the stakeholders, as Mattel states that they believe in the value of play – the possibilities

255

1280

1285

1290

1295

1300

1305



it creates and the joy it brings (Appendix 21, Letter from CEO). By using a competence value in this manner

it becomes interpersonal instead of self-actualizing (Rokeach 1973; 8).

By using “Playfulness” as a competence value for an entire enterprise, Mattel manages to show morality,

even though Rokeach argues that competence values equal not being concerned with morality (Rokeach

1973; 8). When reading Mattel’s press releases, annual report etc., it becomes obvious that the main goal is

the fun in playing and the joy playing brings. The value “Playfulness” is communicated 66 times in the

analysed material. Moreover, the value is not only communicated as a value, Mattel communicates

“Playfulness” as a business style, as they argue that allowing children to become lost in play. That’s the real

value of their toys. That’s the value of play (Appendix 21, Letter from CEO).

Mattel communicates “Responsibility” in such manner that it appears to constitute the foundation for the

way of doing business, as they argue that they believe it is their responsibility, as the largest toy

manufacturer in the world to provide safe and innovative toys (Appendix 20).

Rokeach argues that when moral values are violated feelings of guilt and wrongdoing will arouse (Rokeach

1973; 8). Which also seems to be the case for Mattel, as the moral value “Responsibility” is taken very

seriously which is made obvious by the 38 occurrences in the analysed material.

“Social Recognition” is a social value, and also here it is essential to look at how Mattel communicates this

value to fully understand it. Also Mattel has an interest in strengthening their corporate image, hence when

communicating “Social Recognition” it is related to personal gain, as Mattel wants to be recognised, and

admired, and seeing that Mattel states they strive every day to earn the consumers trust (Appendix 20). As

mentioned, a favourable image is crucial to organisations, and stakeholder’s perceptions of the

organisation go beyond the products, as the organisation’s initiatives have become to play an important

role (Cornelissen 2005; 24). Hence, though Mattel primarily communicates “Social Recognition” for

personal gain, the initiatives are still executed, and Mattel can enjoy being the manufacturer of the most

widely recognised toy products in the world (Appendix 21, page 3).

Mattel communicates a wide range of both terminal and instrumental values; however, the main focus is

on the value “Playfulness”, which appears to be the cornerstone of how Mattel does business.

8.3 Summing up

After having discussed the division of terminal and instrumental values communicated by LEGO and Mattel,

it is clear that the two organisations have chosen to communicate two distinct discourses. It appears that

260

1310

1315

1320

1325

1330

1335



LEGO’s main focus is on “Learning”, while, Mattel focuses on the actual “Playing” and the fun and joy it

brings. This conclusion is based on the occurrences of the values found in the analysed material and on the

way both organisations communicate these values. As can be seen, in the values system illustrating the

values communicated by LEGO, “Playfulness” is repeated 29 times, whereas “Wisdom” is repeated 30

times. Obviously, it is not possible to conclude anything on a difference of one occurrence, as this might as

well be a mistake when counting the values. What is interesting is comparing LEGO’s communicated values

with Mattel’s. In the values system demonstrating Mattel’s communicated values, “Playfulness” is repeated

66 times, whereas, “Wisdom” is only repeated 20 times. Clearly, Mattel focuses on “Playfulness”. However,

also the number of 66 occurrences is interesting when compared to LEGO’s 29 occurrences, seeing that

Mattel communicates this value more than twice as often as LEGO. The terminal value “Wisdom” is one of

LEGO’s most frequently repeated values with 30 occurrences, which is interesting when compared to

Mattel’s 20 occurrences. “Wisdom” is not even in Mattel’s top four of the most frequently repeated values,

hence underlining that LEGO and Mattel focus on two distinct discourses. The terminal value “Pleasure” is

closely related to the instrumental value “Playfulness”, seeing that “fun” and “joy” is often connected with

“play”, still, “Pleasure” is not frequently communicated by neither Mattel nor LEGO. Mattel communicated

“Pleasure” 23 times, while, it is only communicated 8 times by LEGO. This supports the previous

assumptions that Mattel is more focus on the actual fun and joy in playing, compared to LEGO.

“Wisdom” and “Playfulness” are two very diverse values, and they both represent two very distinct value

discourses. LEGO and Mattel are in the same line of business, but regardless of this, the two organisations

have chosen two competing value discourses when communicating values. Moreover, “Wisdom” is a

terminal value, where “Playfulness” is an instrumental value. As previously stated, the theory does not

provide us with information about the possible consequences of the division between the terminal and

instrumental values, thus, it is not possible to conclude which type of value is most favourable to focus on.

However, Rokeach argues (1973) that all terminal values have to be defined as referring only to idealised

end-states of existence, while, instrumental values have to be defined as referring only to idealised modes

of behaviour (Rokeach 1973; 12).

Both organisations fail to communicate their core values in their corporate mission and vision. Only a few

values were communicated, which is thought-provoking seeing that the corporate mission and vision

should be in line with the corporate values. Although, the terminal values and the corporate vision both

focus on the future, the terminal values were not communicated in neither LEGO’s nor Mattel’s vision.

Additionally, after having analysed the corporate vision of both Mattel and LEGO and judging from the

265

1340

1345

1350

1355

1360

1365

1370



definitions provided by Macmillan, it became clear that LEGO and Mattel’s corporate visions are exactly the

same.

9 Discussion of the target audiences

In the previously paragraph an assumption was presented, namely that LEGO and Mattel focus on two

competing discourses. LEGO’s main focus appears to be on “Learning”, whereas, Mattel’s main focus is on

“Play”. To reach a deeper understanding, of the essence of these two discourses and to define why exactly

these two discourses are interesting, a presentation and discussion of “Learning” and “Play” are necessary.

As the background for the discussion and presentation of these discourses, it was necessary to look into

how anthropologist have discussed these terms over the last century. Moreover, in the anthropology some

of the answers needed for establishing the target audiences of LEGO and Mattel, and answers for

establishing whether the choice of discourse is culturally related were found. One of the most cited

researchers within the field of cultural studies is Geert Hofstede and his five cultural dimensions, and in his

book “Cultural Consequences”, he compares values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across

nations. However, as the scope of this thesis is to discuss the possible competing discourses of LEGO and

Mattel and to find out if these discourses are culturally related, none of his five dimensions seemed to meet

this scope. Thus, as mentioned, some of the answers had been found within the field of anthropology.

In the following, the two concepts “Playing” and “Learning” will be presented. Subsequently, the two

concepts will be related to LEGO and Mattel’s choice of discourse, which will lead to a clarification of the

target audience and whether the choice of discourse is culturally related.

9.1 Playing

Stig Brostrøm has in his article “Børns Lærerige Leg” (2002) presented two different views on play, an

anthropological-cultural and a pedagogical-psychological. However, he argues that the two views might not

270

1375

1380

1385

1390

1395



be so conflicting, but in fact they might complement each other, as the pedagogical-psychological view will

also have to include the anthropological-cultural knowledge. In the pedagogical-psychological approach,

play is predominantly regarded as a means in the child’s development, whereas, in the anthropological-

cultural approach, researchers wish to understand play from the child’s emotional experiences (Brostrøm

2002; 3). The French anthropologist Roger Ciallos (2002) defines “playing” as being voluntarily, separate or

segregated from reality, unpredictable, imaginative but also in accordance with rules (Ciallos in Brostrøm

2002; 4). A definition Lev Vygotsky (1967) agrees with, as he believes that whenever there is an imaginary

situation in play, there are rules. If the child is paying the role as a mother, then the rules of maternity

behaviour dictate the play, hence, an imaginary situation will always contain rules (Vygotsky 1967; 7).

However, does play always contain an imaginary situation? According to Vygotsky (1967) all games with

imaginary situations are simultaneously games with rules and vice verse, as e.g. when playing chess there

are rules, which do not directly substitute for real-life relationships, hence some kind of imaginary situation

is created (Vygotsky 1967; 7). The anthropological approach criticises the pedagogical-psychological

approach for predominantly regarding play as something dealing with children and their development.

However, according to Brostrøm (2002), the expression “Free Flow Play” does not exists, as it will always be

dictated and permeated by the culture, in which it takes place (Brostrøm 2002; 9). Play can be understood

as the individual child’s play and as a cornerstone of the child’s development, but the culture will dictate

the collective experiences of the children. Moreover, when in play, the child is able to tackle and

accomplish more complicated ideas and actions, than what it normally would be able to, hence giving the

child the opportunity to develop through play (Vygotsky in Brostrøm 2002; 9). In imagination the child is

able to demand more from itself, than it would normally be able to outside the imagination. This somewhat

positive point of view of the child’s development in play gives the impression that children do not need

help from parents or adult to be able to accomplish more that would they normally would be able to. It

appears that the child automatically develops through playing (Brostrøm 2002; 10). However, this is not the

case. For the child to be able to overcome possible obstacles when playing, there has to be some sort

interaction with other individuals e.g. parents or a pedagogue, who then will have a supportive function

(Brostrøm 2002; 10).

Evidently, Researchers focus primarily on the child’s possibilities of development through play, conversely,

also the pleasure aspect needs to be taken into consideration; namely the fun and joy in playing. What is

interesting is that Vygotsky (1967) argues that the definition of play based on the pleasure it gives the child

is not correct, as pleasure is often connected to finding the result e.g. in sporting games. Hence play can be

followed by a keen sense of displeasure when the outcome is unfavourable to the child (Vygotsky 1967; 1).

275

1400

1405

1410

1415

1420

1425

1430



The question about the pleasure in playing, seems to differ accordingly to who is asked. Based on the above

discussion, it is obvious that researchers and parents focus on the development in playing; however, in the

book “Play” by Catherine Garvey (1977) she argues that if students of play were asked, they would accept

the claims that play is pleasurable and enjoyable, play has no extrinsic goals and play is spontaneous and

voluntary (Garvey 1977; 4).

9.2 Learning

Though learning has already been touched upon in the previous paragraph, it is essential to look at how

learning is defined and presented by researchers. Merete Wiberg (2007) portrays two researchers’ views of

learning as something human fundamentally. The two researchers are John Dewey and Peter Jarvis. The

process of learning is generally understood as being the process through which people acquire knowledge,

skills, attitudes, values and senses. Nonetheless, this process can be defined in various ways. John Dewey

defines learning as a habit humans has developed (Wiberg 2007; 161), he believes that learning is the

formation of experiences. Humans learn by experiences, thus creating new habits and insights. This is a

very naturalistic and pragmatic way of perceiving the concept “learning”, and according to Dewey the two

terms learning and experiences are complementary (Wiberg 2007; 164). Peter Jarvis, on the other hand,

regards learning as an existential condition, and his main focus is on how humans learn, compromising the

term learning styles. Jarvis describes learning as an “emergence of mind and self” by the means of

experiences, as he believes that all experiences offer possibilities of learning and growing, and it is through

these experiences the mind and self emerge (Wiberg 2007; 176). In short, Jarvis believes that learning is a

process of giving meaning to, or seeking to understand life experiences and to discover from them new

knowledge, skills and attitudes (Wiberg 2007; 179). Obviously, Dewey and Jarvis perceive learning in two

very distinct ways, as Dewey presents learning in a very naturalistic and pragmatic way, while Jarvis regards

learning as something existential. Also Stig Brostrøm (2010) tries to define the term learning, and he

distinguishes between learning and learning abilities. In his perspective, children learn when they are

active, exploring and playing with others (Brostrøm in Henriksen 2010; 4), and this is where his distinction

between learning and learning abilities becomes obvious. According to Brostrøm, learning abilities is a very

pedagogical way of controlling how children learn, in which children cannot play and express themselves on

their own terms (Brostrøm in Henriksen 2010; 4), whereas, learning is when children are active and

exploring. Evidently, Brostrøm’s view on learn and play are complementary, as he regards playing as an

essential part of the child’s development and vice versa.

280

1435

1440

1445

1450

1455

1460



9.3 Summing up

After having presented and discussed the two concepts “Playing” and “Learning”, the concepts will be

related to LEGO and Mattel’s choice of discourse. Moreover, this will hopefully lead to a clarification of the

target audience, but also a clarification of whether or not the choice of discourse is culturally related.

As already established, it is obvious that LEGO and Mattel focus on two competing discourses, namely

“Playing” and “Learning”. LEGO’s main focus appears to be on “Learning”, whereas, Mattel’s main focus is

on “Playing”. However, judging from the presentation of “Playing”, it appears that the two competing

discourses also can be classified as two different approaches to play, that is the anthropological-cultural

approach and the pedagogical-psychological approach. As previously stated, in the pedagogical-

psychological approach, play is predominantly regarded as an instrument for the child’s development,

which is synonymous to the discourse “Learning”, whereas, in the anthropological-cultural approach, the

focus is on the “Free Flow Play”, which equals the discourse “Playing”. As LEGO’s main focus is on the

discourse “playful learning”, LEGO must share the pedagogical-psychological approach to play. Mattel’s

focuses on the discourse “Playing” and the fun and joy in playing, thus, Mattel must lean towards the

anthropological-cultural approach to play.

As can be seen in the value system, the terminal value “Wisdom” and the instrumental value “Creativity”

are each communicated 30 times in LEGO’s analysed material. LEGO argues that they would like to help

children to develop their creativity and learning through play (Appendix 3) and that, children learn through

play and play stimulates their creativity (Appendix 10, page 10). Comparing these statements to the

pedagogical-psychological approach, the correlation becomes obvious, seeing that the pedagogical-

psychological approach predominantly regards play as a means for children to enhance their development.

In the pedagogical-psychological approach the impact of playing is in focus, and playing is perceived as an

institution, through which the child contributes to its own well-being, learning and development (Brostrøm

2002; 4). However, LEGO does not absolutely adhere to the pedagogical-psychological approach, since they

regard their products as being the “institution”, which contributes to children’s well-being and

development. In terms of learning, it seems as if LEGO agrees with John Dewy, since LEGO argues that

supporting children right to grow is the essence of what LEGO is about, whether offering learning

possibilities by means of the product or experiences (Appendix 10, page 12). LEGO talks about the “play

285

1465

1470

1475

1480

1485

1490



experience” and “playful learning”, hence, is appears as if LEGO regards the two terms learning and

experiences as complementary.

The instrumental value “Playfulness” is communicated 66 times in Mattel’s analysed material, and Mattel

argues that they want to create the future of play and they believe in the value of play – the possibilities it

creates and the joy it brings (Appendix 21, Letter from CEO). Obviously, Mattel adhere to the

anthropological-cultural approach, seeing that Mattel regards play as something natural and not merely as

an instrument for children to enhance their development. In the anthropological-cultural approach the

focus is on the child as a playing individual. And when analysing Mattel’s corporate communication it is

obvious that the child and the magical play experience are in focus (Appendix 16).

In terms of clarifying the consumer target audience, yet again the two discourses play an important role. As

previously established, researchers focus primarily on the child’s possibilities of development through play,

a statement parents seem to agree with. Nonetheless, if students of play were asked the focus is on the

pleasure in playing (Garvey 1977; 4). LEGO’s most frequently communicated values are “Wisdom” and

“Creativity”, and LEGO argues that they are obliged to communicate relevant and up-to-date information to

parents about LEGO products and child development (Appendix 10, page 8), hence it is safe to conclude

that LEGO’s main target audience is the parents. As LEGO and parents, both focus on the child’s possibilities

of development through play. This is also supported by the occurrences of the terminal value “Pleasure”, as

it is only communicated 8 times making it obvious that LEGO’s main focus is not on the pleasure in playing.

Mattel’s most frequently value is the instrumental value “Playfulness”, and Mattel states that they create

emotional connections that last a lifetime by encouraging children to stretch their imagination, creating joy

and allowing children to become lost in play (Appendix 21, Letter from CEO). According to Mattel play is

pleasurable and enjoyable, making their main target audience the children. Moreover, the value “Pleasure”

is communicated 23 times, making it the one of Mattel’s five most communicated values. This underlines

the fact that Mattel focuses on the students of play, in this case the children, as according to Garver (1977),

if students of play were asked the focus would be on the pleasure in playing.

In the previously paragraph it was established, that LEGO and Mattel’s main focus is on two competing

discourses, namely “Playfulness” vs. “Wisdom”, and as LEGO’s domestic market is Denmark and Mattel’s

domestic market is USA, it is interesting to examine whether or not these discourses are culturally related,

290

1495

1500

1505

1510

1515

1520



seeing they are so distinct. Hofstede (2001) argues that the comparison of culture presupposes that there is

something to be compared – that each culture is not so unique that any parallel with another culture is

meaningless (Hofstede 2001; 24). Obviously, there are cultural differences and different cultural

perspectives on the two concepts and values “play” and “learn” in Denmark and USA. Even Rokeach (1973)

emphasises that values are based on cultures, society and personalities (Rokeach 1973; 3). However, it

appears that this topic has not previously been discussed by cultural researchers. Nonetheless, Stig

Brostrøm (2010) argues that the focus in Denmark has always been on the pedagogical values, such as the

child’s development and learning. In Denmark learning happens when the child engages in play, and playing

is regarded as a vehicle for child development and learning (Brostrøm in Henriksen 2010; 1). Fergus P.

Hughes argues that in USA play is regarded as a natural part of childhood, but play is regarded as having

little developmental value. Moreover, he argues that children are allowed to play, but he also expresses

that it appears that children are forced to grow up too fast, and that childhood activities such as play is

replaced earlier with “meaningful” life pursuits of educational success (Hughes 2009; 21). Judging from

these statements it is obvious that Denmark and USA perceive play in two very distinct ways, as in Denmark

play is regarded as a vehicle for development, while in USA play is an activity with very little development

value. Nonetheless, when it comes to learn, it appears that it is regarded as essential in both Denmark and

USA.

As previously stated, LEGO’s main focus is on the discourse “Learning” and the child’s development through

play, which is equivalent to the Danish cultural perspective on play and learn. Evidently, LEGO’s choice of

discourse is culturally related. What then becomes interesting is whether LEGO have chosen to focus on the

discourse “Learning” due to it being equivalent to the Danish cultural perspective, or whether LEGO

actually believes in “playful learning”. Judging from how LEGO communicates the terminal value “Wisdom”

and how they underline the interest in “playful learning”, it is safe to conclude that LEGO actually believes

in “playful learning”.

As mentioned, Mattel’s main focus is on “Playfulness” – the fun in playing. However, judging from the

statements made by Hughes, Mattel’s choice of discourse is not culturally related. Hughes argues that

children are forced to grow up too fast, and that childhood activities such as play is replaced with

“meaningful” life pursuits of educational success (Hughes 2009; 21). Based on this, it appears that Mattel

wants to protect the childhood activity play, and thereby allowing children to stay children longer so they

“can become lost in play”. This also supports the assumption, that Mattel’s main consumer target audience

is the children, since Mattel’s choice of discourse is favourable for the children.

295

1525

1530

1535

1540

1545

1550



10 Discussion of the identities

As mentioned, the corporate identity is a set of meanings, which the stakeholders can relate to ( Topalian in

Melewar 2008; 9). The notion of identity is related to diverse components such as image, vision, mission,

corporate culture, history, rituals, values etc. Simões and Dibb (2008) state that the corporate values

emphasise the need for consistency in the corporate communication, hence, managing the corporate

identity requires a clear definition of the corporate values (Simões and Dibb in Melewar 2008; 71). Due to

the focus on “soft values”, it is essential for organisations to uphold and make their core values visible,

moreover, there has to be consensus between the corporate values and the communicated values for an

organisation to be perceived as credible, thus also strengthening the corporate brand. Core values are used

to make a common ground for the entire enterprise and provide an accurate picture of what the

organisation represents. And if the core values are either too unrealistic to be put into practice or are not

made visible or sufficiently communicated by management, the values are not sincere or they lose their

purpose (Thyssen in Morsing and Thyssen 2003; 169). The stakeholders associate the core values with the

identity, which serves as what is known as a corporate brand promise (Balmer in Melewar 2008; 45), thus it

is crucial for organisations to communicate the corporate values in order to keep this promise.

Balmer and Greyser (2003) emphasise that an organisation has five identities. Management needs to have

an understanding across all five identities, as a meaningful incongruence between two or more of the

identities can cause problems for an organisation with its stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser 2003; 16). In

this discussion the focus will be on the actual identity4 and the communicated identity5.

In the following, a discussion of whether LEGO and Mattel succeed in creating consensus between the

corporate values stated on the corporate website and the communicated values of the values system will

be executed. The discussion will be based on the occurrences of values from the value systems.

10.1 LEGO

4 ”The actual identity constitutes the current attributes of an organisation. Also encompassed is the set of values held by management and employees” (Balmer and Greyser 2003)5 ”The communicated identity is most clearly revealed through ”controlled” corporate communication” (Balmer and Greyser 2003)

300

1555

1560

1565

1570

1575

1580

305



LEGO has six corporate values, or brand values. The values are easily found on the corporate website, and

LEGO presents the corporate values by relating them to the corporate brand. According to LEGO, the LEGO

brand is the expectations that people have towards the products and services and the brand acts as a

guarantee of quality and originality (Appendix 1). What is interesting is that LEGO also states that the brand

is the accountability that LEGO feels towards the world around it, hence the brand and the brand values

should represent how LEGO acts and wants to be perceived by the world. This small presentation of the

corporate brand and the brand values tells something about LEGO’s actual identity (Bamler and Greyser

2003; 16), however, it then becomes interesting to look at the communicated identity in terms of the

communicated values.

LEGO’s brand values are “Imagination”, “Creativity”, “Fun”, “Learning”, “Caring” and “Quality” (Appendix

1). LEGO also presents a small description to each of the corporate values, in which they explain what each

value represents and how it should be incorporated. LEGO’s values can all be placed in the categories of the

value system. “Imagination” fits the instrumental value “Imagination”, “Creativity” matches the

instrumental value “Creativity”, “Fun” is synonymous with the terminal value “Pleasure”, “Learning” fits the

terminal value “Wisdom”, “Caring” is the instrumental value “Caring” and “Quality” matches the terminal

value “Quality”.

As mentioned LEGO’s corporate value “Imagination” can be placed within the category “Imagination” in the

value system. The instrumental value “Imagination” only has 8 occurrences, after having being analysed in

the analysed material. What is noticeable is that LEGO uses “Imagination” as a competence they want to

give to children and the employees, which gives the impression that LEGO regards “Imagination” as a core

value. However, when analysing the small description, it seems as if LEGO merely considers “Imagination”,

as the foundation for “Creativity”, as LEGO argues that free play is how children develop their imagination –

the foundation for creativity (Appendix 1). This statement explains why “Imagination” only has 8

occurrences. Yet, it then becomes thought-provoking why LEGO uses “Imagination” as a competence given

to the employees, if it is not regarded as a corporate core value.

LEGO’s brand value “Creativity” fits the category “Creativity”, and as mentioned “Creativity” is one of the

most frequently communicated values. “Creativity” has 30 occurrences, which is somewhat many

compared to the occurrences of the other values. As previously stated, LEGO uses “Creativity” as a

competence given to children, as LEGO believes that creativity is essential for children’s development

(Appendix 10, page 10). Moreover, LEGO communicates “Creativity” as if it is their responsibility to give

children the possibility of developing this competence, as LEGO states that they aim to help children in

310

1585

1590

1595

1600

1605

1610



need by providing support for creative play and development. This statement also underlines that LEGO

focuses on the discourse “Learning” and the child’s development through play.

In the small description of the brand value “Fun”, LEGO states that fun is in the happiness we experience

when we are fully engaged in something that requires mastery (Appendix 1). This is a somewhat serious

and complex description of a word which is normally connected with amusement and laughter. “Fun” can

be placed in the category “Pleasure”, a value which is closely connected to the value “Playfulness”.

“Pleasure” is only repeated 8 times throughout the analysed material, which supports the previous

assumption that LEGO’s consumer target audience is the parents, since the focus is on “playful learning”

and not the actual fun in playing. Though, LEGO also says that fun is the joyful enthusiasm of children

(Appendix 1), it is not substantiated in their communication, as “fun” is only repeated 8 times.

The brand value “Learning” revolves around experimenting, improvising, discovering and expanding your

thinking (Appendix 1). “Learning” fits the value category “Wisdom”, and “Wisdom” is one of the most

repeated values with 30 occurrences. This supports the previously statement that LEGO focuses on the

discourse “Learning”, since “Learning” is one of LEGO’s core values and one of the most communicated

values in the analysed material.

“Caring” is LEGO’s fifth brand value and is defined as the desire to make a positive difference in the lives of

children and in the world. However “Caring” is only communicated 18 times in the analysed material. The

value “Responsible” can be perceived as closely linked to “Caring”, as being responsible towards the

environment and being socially responsible (Appendix 3), also means caring for the environment and the

world we live in. The values “Caring” and “Responsible” are values which are closely linked to the corporate

image, as these are values which help creating a favourable image due to the interpersonal aspect and the

positive connotations.

Finally, “Quality” is the sixth brand value. LEGO regards “Quality” as the foundation for trust and as a

challenge of continuous improvement. Even so, the terminal value “Quality” only has 10 occurrences in the

analysed material, and in the light of “Quality” being one of the core values, it is not repeated satisfactorily.

It is thought-provoking that LEGO assess that the corporate brand acts as a guarantee of quality, when

“Quality” is only communicated 10 times.

As previously stated, the corporate values should be communicated in all communication and made visible,

or else they are not considered credible and they lose their purpose (Rekom et al. 2005; 176). Obviously,

LEGO does not succeed in communicating all six of the corporate values, as in fact only two of the core

315

1615

1620

1625

1630

1635

1640



values are repeated sufficiently. This assumption is merely based on the number of occurrences for each

value. The two brand values, which LEGO succeed in communicating, are “Learning” and “Creativity”, since

both values have 30 occurrences, which underlines that LEGO focuses on the discourse “Learning”. On the

basis of the value system, LEGO should have communicated “Social Recognition”, “Playfulness”, “Creativity”

and “Wisdom”, as these are the four values, which are most frequently communicated. The values

“Playfulness” is not one of LEGO’s brand values, which is thought-provoking, seeing that playing is the

essence of toys. However, when looking at LEGO’s Danish website the brand value “Fun” is actually “Sjov

Leg” (“Fun play”), hence it appears that LEGO assumes that “Playfulness” is indirectly communicated in the

value “Fun”. Nonetheless, this is not made evident in the small description, since, as previously mentioned,

this is somewhat serious and complex. However, as previously stated, it appears as if LEGO does not focus

on the actual fun in playing, which the lack of recognising “Playfulness” as a corporate value underlines.

Additionally, one of the corporate values can be connected to another category of the value system.

“Caring” and “Responsible” are both moral values, which means that they have an interpersonal focus,

making them somewhat equivalent to each other when communicated, also both values help strengthen

the corporate image, as they can be perceived as publicly welcomed values. Judging from the above

discussion concerning LEGO’s brand values and the number of communicated values; it is obvious that

LEGO does not succeed in creating alignment between the actual identity and the communicated identity,

as LEGO should have communicated the four values “Playfulness”, “Wisdom”, “Creativity” and “Social

Recognition”. Nonetheless, as previously stated communicating “Social Recognition” is often

communicated to strengthen the corporate image, and one might argue that by communicating the value

“Caring”, the terminal value “Social Recognition” is indirectly communicated.

10.2 Mattel

Mattel has four core values, or philanthropic values. The values are not stated as corporate values on the

website, but they are present on every page of the website. Mattel uses the corporate values, as a means

to make a meaningful difference in the lives of children (Appendix 20). What is interesting is that Mattel’s

core values represent how the organisation “play” in the world, not only how it plays in the environment,

but also how it plays with the partners. This gives the stakeholders a picture of Mattel’s actual identity

(Balmer and Greyser 2003; 15). Moreover, it underlines the statement that Mattel focuses on the

discourses “playing”. However, to establish whether or not there is alignment between Mattel’s actual

identity and communicated identity it is necessary to look at how the core values are communicated.

320

1645

1650

1655

1660

1665

1670



Mattel’s philanthropic values are “Play to Grow”, “Play Together, “Play with Passion” and “Play Fair”

(Appendix 13). Mattel also gives a small clarification to each of the values, in which they present what each

value embodies and how it is incorporated in everyday business life. The values can all be placed within the

same category of the value system; namely “Playfulness”. Yet, when taking the small clarification of each

value into account, some of the values can be linked to other categories.

As mentioned, all of Mattel’s values can be placed within the category “Playfulness”. Mattel describes the

value “Play to Grow”, as a wish to make a long term difference in the lives of children and continuously

seeking improvements (Appendix 13), which underlines that the child is in focus (see paragraph 9.3).

“Playfulness” is the most frequently repeated value with 66 occurrences, which is many compared to the

occurrences of the other values communicated by Mattel, but also compared to the number of values

communicated by LEGO.

In the small clarification of the value “Play Together”, Mattel underlines that playing together forms deep

partnerships, which lead to enriching the communities in which they work and “play”, moreover, Mattel

argues that the employees should be engaged in these efforts (Appendix 20). Obviously, this value focuses

on Mattel’s social responsibility towards the communities, and the employees. What is noticeable is that

Mattel uses the word “Play” as way of doing business, which underlines that Mattel’s main focus is on the

discourse “Playing”. The value “Play Together” can be linked to the instrumental value “Responsible”, since

the small clarification explains Mattel’s responsibility towards the communities. The value “Responsible” is

communicated 38 times in the analysed material, making it Mattel’s second most communicated value.

The third value “Play with Passion” also underlines that it is the children, who are in focus. In the small

clarification Mattel states that playing with passion means making a meaningful difference and lasting

impact on children globally (Appendix 13). Again, the value can be linked to the instrumental value

“Responsible”, as by making a lasting impact Mattel also makes the organisation reliable towards the

children and the stakeholders, and breaking this corporate brand promise would make the organisation

unreliable, which would damage the corporate image.

The final of Mattel’s philanthropic values is “Play Fair”. “Play Fair” is clarified by acting with unwavering

integrity in all aspects of Mattel’s work (Appendix 13). Though, this value can be placed in the value

category “Playfulness”, it also fits the value category “Honesty”, since the word “integrity” is connected to

the value “Honesty” (see table 4).

325

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700



As mentioned corporate values is used by organisations to be somebody and to stand for something

beyond the tangible products (Aust 2004; 519), and the values should be clearly communicated to be

considered credible and reliable. Evidently, Mattel succeed in communicating the four philanthropic values,

since all four values can be placed within the value category “Playfulness”, and “Playfulness” is the most

frequently communicated value with 66 occurrences, based on the analysis of the analysed material.

Additionally, some of the values can be connected to other categories of the value system, categories such

as “Responsible” and “Honest”. “Responsible” and “Honest” are respectively communicated 38 and 28

times, making them two of the most frequently communicated values. These two instrumental values are

both moral values, which means that they have an interpersonal focus (Rokeach 1973; 8), making them

somewhat equivalent to each other when communicated, which can be seen in the small clarifications of

each value. Mattel argues that they want to make a meaningful and lasting impact on children, which is

supported by the statement about acting with unwavering integrity in all aspects of their work. Judging

from the above discussion concerning Mattel’s corporate values and the number of communicated values;

it is obvious that Mattel succeed in creating alignment between the actual identity and the communicated

identity. Mattel’s three most communicated values are “Playfulness”, “Social Recognition” and

“Responsible”, and as already established, Mattel succeed in communicating the values “Playfulness” and

“Responsible”. However, as previously stated communicating “Social Recognition” is connected to

strengthening the corporate image, and one might argue that by communicating the values “Honest” and

“Responsible” the terminal value “Social Recognition” is indirectly communicated, as both values

strengthens the corporate image, by making Mattel appear credible and reliable, thus also strengthening

the corporate brand.

10.3 Summing up

Due to the focus on “soft values”, it is essential for organisations to uphold and make their core values

visible, and there has to be consensus between the corporate values and the communicated values for an

organisation to be perceived as credible. After having discussed the connection between the corporate

values and the communicated values of both LEGO and Mattel, it became obvious that the two

organisations have very distinct corporate values, and only Mattel succeeds in communicating all the

corporate values. The distinction of the corporate values underlines the already established assumption

that LEGO and Mattel focus on two competing discourses, since all of Mattel’s values fit the category

“Playfulness”, while, LEGO’s corporate value “Learning” fits the category “Wisdom”, which is the most

330

1705

1710

1715

1720

1725

1730



communicated value. Nonetheless, both organisations succeed in communicating “soft” values such as

“Responsible”, “Caring” and “Honest”, but again to different extend. Almost all of Mattel’s values can be

connected to the value “Responsible”, whereas, only one of LEGO’s values can be connected to this value.

Moreover, it is also intriguing that Mattel’s values are called Philanthropic values, while LEGO’s values are

called Brand values. LEGO focuses on the values, which the stakeholders connect with the brand, while

Mattel focuses more on the “soft values”. As mentioned stakeholders associate the core values with the

identity, which is known as a corporate brand promise. And based on the above discussion, it appears as if

LEGO does not entirely keep this brand promise, due to the lack of consensus between the actual and

communicated identity. This is thought-provoking seeing that LEGO rethought the entire identity in the

1990’s to ensure this alignment.

Both organisations indirectly communicate the terminal value “Social Recognition”, and as mentioned,

“Social Recognition” is a social value, which means it has an interpersonal focus (Rokeach 1973; 8), and can

be perceived as a means for creating a favourable corporate image. In terms of creating alignment between

the actual identity and the communicated identity (Balmer and Greyser 2003; 16), it is evident that Mattel

succeed in creating this alignment, since the four values fits the category “Playfulness”, a value which is

communicated 66 times. LEGO only succeed in communicating two of the corporate values, resulting in

incongruence between the actual identity and the communicated identity. Nonetheless, both organisations

can still be perceived as credible and reliable, as it appears that they live, uphold and make visible the

corporate values (Rekom et. al. 2006; 175), but in two distinct ways and to a different extend. Mattel

communicates the corporate values in all external communication, whereas, LEGO trusts that the corporate

brand illustrates and communicates the corporate values. Thus LEGO’s corporate values are not extensively

communicated in all external communication.

LEGO and Mattel should both recognise that their identity already exists. By recognising that the

communicated values characterise the organisation in a distinct way for the stakeholders, both LEGO and

Mattel have the ability of recognising how they are already perceived (Aust 2004; 530). Moreover, the

choice of discourse substantiates the already established identity. As mentioned, it appears as if LEGO

focuses on the values, which the stakeholders connect with the brand, and these values do not absolute

align with the corporate values. Thus, LEGO should review the corporate values and align these with the

communicated values, seeing that the communicated values and the choice of discourse define LEGO’s

identity (Simões and Dibb in Melewar 2008; 71). Mattel focuses on the discourse “Playing”, which aligns

with the corporate values and the communicated values; hence Mattel’s corporate identity is well

established.

335

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765



11 Conclusion

In this thesis, the concept of communicating corporate values has been discussed with the notion of

establishing whether there are competing discourses when communicating corporate values to two target

audiences. In order to do this, a qualitative analysis based on the values communicated in selected written

material by LEGO and Mattel was made.

In the theoretical part of the thesis, it was established that a strong corporate branding strategy is essential

for organisations, and creating alignment between all the elements of a branding strategy is crucial for an

organisation to be perceived as credible and reliable.

In the theoretical assessment, it is, moreover, established that the interest in corporate values has grown

significantly, as corporate values have come to represent the organisation and its actions. And due to the

increased interest in “soft values”, organisations are obliged to communicate the corporate values, not only

internally but also externally, in order to be perceived as trustworthy and credible by the stakeholders. The

corporate identity is represented through the corporate values; hence organisations need to communicate

the corporate values in all corporate communication in order to create consensus between the corporate

values and the corporate identity.

The methodology for the analysis of this thesis is based on Rokeach’s classification of values, and by the

means of his value system, a value system suitable for analysing the communicated values by LEGO and

Mattel was developed. In order to answer the research question and sub-research question, the analysis

was divided into four levels, all with the purpose of leading towards a conclusion.

In the first level, the occurrences of communicated values in the analysed material were analysed. In this

level, it was concluded that LEGO and Mattel communicate somewhat distinct values, and that the

occurrences of the communicated values are very fluctuating, as LEGO’s most frequently communicated

value has 30 occurrences, while, Mattel’s most frequently repeated value has 66 occurrences.

In the second level, the division of the instrumental and terminal values were discussed, and how this

division might represent the competing discourses. In this discussion, it became obvious that LEGO and

Mattel focus on two distinct discourses. LEGO’s main focus is on “Learning”, while Mattel’s main focus is on

“Playing” and the fun and joy it brings. This assumption was based on the occurrences of the values and on

340

1770

1775

1780

1785

1790

1795



how both organisations communicate the values “Wisdom” and “Playfulness”. Subsequently, also the

communicated values in both organisations corporate vision and mission were discussed, which made it

evident that LEGO and Mattel’s corporate vision is exactly the same. Additionally, it was concluded that

both organisations fail to communicate the corporate values in the corporate missions and visions.

In the third level, a discussion of the actual target audience was executed. However, to be able to reach a

deeper understanding of the two discourses “Learning” and “Playing”, and thereby establishing the actual

target audience, a presentation and discussion of the two concepts were necessary, and as the background

for this discussion and presentation of these two concepts, anthropology theories were used. It was

concluded that the two discourses can be classified as two different approaches of play, namely the

anthropological-cultural approach and the pedagogical-psychological approach, seeing that the

anthropological-cultural approach focuses on the “Free flow play”, which is synonymous to the discourse

“Playing”, while the pedagogical-psychological approach regards play as an instrument for the child’s

development, which equals the discourse “Learning”. Subsequently, when clarifying the target audience, it

became clear that the two discourses “Learning” and “Playing” once again played an important role. It

appears that researchers and parents focus primarily on the child’s development through play, whereas,

students of play focus on the pleasure in playing. Thus, it was concluded that LEGO’s main target audience

is parents, based on the mutual focus on the discourse “Learning” and the child’s possibilities of

development through play, and Mattel’s main target audience as the children, seeing that Mattel focuses

on the actual fun and joy in “Playing”. In order to answer the research sub-question, an examination of

whether LEGO and Mattel’s choice of discourse was culturally related had to be executed. It was concluded

that LEGO’s choice of discourse is culturally related, as the Danish perspective is on the child’s development

through play, which corresponds to LEGO’s discourse “Learning”. However, Mattel’s choice of discourse is

not culturally related. It appears that Mattel wants to protect the childhood activity play, allowing children

to stay children longer, which underlines the conclusion, that Mattel’s target audience is the children.

In the final level, a discussion of how the identities of LEGO and Mattel are represented by comparing the

communicated values and the corporate values were presented. It was concluded that LEGO does not

succeed in creating absolute alignment between the corporate and the communicated values, as only two

of the corporate values were communicated sufficiently. However, LEGO does succeed in creating

alignment between the corporate values and the choice of discourse, seeing that one of the corporate

values are “learning”, and LEGO focuses on the discourse “Learning”. Mattel on the other hand succeeds in

communicating the corporate values, seeing that all the corporate values fit the same value category

“Playfulness”, which is also the most frequently communicated value, moreover, Mattel succeeds in

345

1800

1805

1810

1815

1820

1825



creating alignment between the corporate values and choice of discourse, seeing that Mattel focuses on

the discourse “Playing”.

In terms of answering the research question:

Are there competing discourses when communicating corporate values to two different target

audiences?

The answer will be: Yes there are two competing discourses when communicating corporate values to two

different target audiences. And in this thesis, the two competing discourses are “Playing” vs. “Learning”,

and the two consumer target groups are parents and their children.

All in all, by making this thesis, it has been established that organisation within the same line of business

can focus on two very distinct discourses. By first presenting the theory of corporate branding and

corporate values as a strategy and hereafter applying it on specific examples, it is believed that the findings

can be used as a starting point for researchers in a multinational organisation, who wish to communicate

the corporate values in a more structured and strategic manner.

350

1830

1835

1840



12 Bibliography

12.1 Books

- Cornelissen, Joep (2005); Corporate Communications: theory and practice; London: SAGE

- Dowling, Grahame (2001); Creating Corporate Reputations – Identity, Image and Performance;

New York: Oxford University Press

- Fill, Chris (2005); Marketing Communication – engagement, strategies and practice; England:

Pearson Education Limited

- Garvey, Cathrine (1977); Play; United States of America

- Hatch, Jo Mary; Schultz, Majken (2000); The Expressive Organization; New York: Oxford University

Press

- Helder, Jørn (2002); Modtageren som medproducent; Gyling: Narayana Press

- Hatch, Jo Mary; Schultz, Majken (2008); Taking Brand Initiative; San Francisco: Jossey Bass

- Hofstede, Geert (2001); Second edition – Cultural Consequences; Comparing Values, Behaviours,

Institutions and Organisations Across Nations; California: Saga Publications

- Hughes, P. Fergus (2009); Children, Play and Development; California: Saga Publications

- Ind, Nicholas (1997); The Corporate Brand; London: Macmillan Press

- Kotler, Philip; Pfoertsch, Waldemar (2006); B2B Brand Management; Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin

and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. K

- Keller, Lane Kevin (2008); Strategic Brand Management – Building, measuring and managing brand

equity; New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

- Melewar, T.C. (2008); Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation; New York:

Madison

- Morsing, Mette; Thyssen, Christina (2003); Corporate values and Responsibility – The case of

Denmark; Gylling: Narayana Press

- Olins, Wally (2000); Guide til design af identitet – at skabe og vedligeholde forandring via identitet ;

København: Dansk design Center

- Percy, Larry; Elliott, Richard (2009); Strategic advertising management; New York: Oxford

University Press

- Riel, Van Cees; Fombrun, Charles J. (2005); Essential of Corporate Communication; London:

Routledge

355

1845

1850

1855

1860

1865

1870



- Rokeack, Milton (1973); The Nature of Human Values; New York: The free Press

- Sandstrøm, Lars (2006); Corporate Branding – et værktøj til strategisk kommunikation; Gylling:

Narayana Press

- Schmidt, Klaus; Ludlow, Chris (2002); Inclusive Branding – The why and How of a holistic approach

to Brands; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

- Thyssen, Ole (2007); Værdiledelse – om organisationer og etik; Gyldendal

12.2 Articles

- Aust, Philip Jerold (2004); Communicated values as indicators of organizational identity: A method

for organizational assessment and its application in a case study; Communication studies

- Balmer, John M. T.; Greyser, Stephen A (2003); Managing the multiple identities of the

corporation; in Balmer, John M. T.; Greyser, Stephen, A; Revealing the corporation, perspectives on

identity, image, reputation and corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing

- Bell, Anthony (2007); Using Vision to Shape the Future; Leader to leader

- Brostrøm, Stig (2002); Børns Lærerige Leg; Psyke og Logos: Legen og det legende

- Cameram, Mara; Moizer, Peter; Pettinicchio, Angela (2010); Consumer satisfaction, corporate

image, and service quality in professional services; Service Industries Journal

- Christensen, Højbjerg Jesper (2002) in Helder, Jørn; Kragh, Simon Ulrik; Senders and receivers, new

perspective on market communication; Arhus School of Business

- Hatch, Mary jo; Schultz, Majken 1997; Relations between organizational culture, identity and

image; European Journal of Marketing

- Henriksen, Carsten (2010); Børn har altid skullet lære noget i børnehaven; www.bupl.dk

- Vygotsky, Lev (1967); Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child; Psychology and

Marxism Internet Archive

- Meglino, Bruce M.; Ravlin, Elizabeth C. (1998); Individual Values in Organizations: Concepts,

Controversies, and Research; Journal of Management

- Morsing, Mette; Kristensen, Jan (2001); The question of coherency in corporate branding – over

time and across stakeholders; Journal of Communication Management

- Muzellec, Laurent; Lambkin, Mary C (2009); Corporate branding and brand architecture: a

conceptual framework; Marketing Theory

360

1875

1880

1885

1890

1895

1900



- Rekom, Johan van; Balmer, Cees M.; Van Riel; Wierenga Berend (2006); A Methodology for

Assessing Organizational Core Values; Journal of Management Studies

- Rokeach, Milton (1968); The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research; The Public Opinion

Quarterly

- Schultz, Majken (1992); Postmodern Pictures of Culture – a Postmodern Reflection on the “Modern

Notion” of Corporate Culture; International Studies of Management & Organization

12.3 Websites

- http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp

- http://corporate.mattel.com/about-us/default.aspx

- http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Filosofi/

Filosofiske_begreber_og_fagudtryk/hermeneutik

12.4 Appendix

- Appendix 1 – LEGO’s brand values

- Appendix 2 – LEGO’s corporate mission and vision

- Appendix 3 – LEGO’s code of conduct

- Appendix 4 – “LEGO brick centre of graphic art exhibit at Wood Wood” Press release, August 7

2009

- Appendix 5 – “LEGO Group lays off 66 Billund employees” Press release, November 26 2009

- Appendix 6 – “LEGO Universe to launch October 2010” Press release, June 6 2010

- Appendix 7 – “The LEGO Group and Warner Brothers interactive entertainment build upon their

relationship with an Exclusive Global Partnership for LEGO Universe distribution” Press release, June

7 2010

- Appendix 8 – “LEGO legend Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen introduced to Toy Industry Hall of Fame” Press

release, February 7 2008

- Appendix 9 – “LEGO Education WeDoTM unveiled at 2008 national education computing

conference” Press release, July 1 2008

365

1905

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Filosofi/Filosofiske_begreber_og_fagudtryk/hermeneutik

http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Filosofi/Filosofiske_begreber_og_fagudtryk/hermeneutik

http://corporate.mattel.com/about-us/default.aspx

http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp



- Appendix 10 – The LEGO 2009 Progress Report

- Appendix 11 – Mattel’s values

- Appendix 12 – Mattel’s corporate mission

- Appendix 13 – Mattel’s Philanthropic values

- Appendix 14 – “Mattel springs ahead with fun toys for the new season” Press release, March 30

2010

- Appendix 15 – “Millions of children in need positively impacted around the world, Mattel

philanthropic efforts continue to make a Meaningful Difference” Press Release, November 1 2010

- Appendix 16 – “Mattel to expand online focus in 2009 with development of Mattel Digital Network”

Press release, January 8 2009

- Appendix 17 – Fisher-Price Toys with lead paint hazard recall information, 2009

- Appendix 18 – “Mattel announces disaster relief support for China and Myanmar” Press release,

May 20 2008

- Appendix 19 – “Correcting and replacing Fisher-Price launches follow up to successful Smart Cycle

with innovative New Infant Product” Press release, September 10 2008

- Appendix 20 – Mattel’s code of conduct

- Appendix 21 – Mattel’s Annual Report 2009

- Appendix 22 – “Mattel tilbagekalder ‘Biler’ med bly” Published in Politiken, August 14 2007

- Appendix 23 – ”Blyspækket Svampebob og Barbie udløser millionbøde til Mattel” Published in

Ingeniøren; June 9 2009

370

1935

1940

1945

1950

kristine christensen - au purepure.au.dk/portal/files/32687037/278218.docx · web viewkristine...

Documents