tte

s

Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221

de

s

de

th

ro

ha

ty

at

ty

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Family B

.e1. Introduction

A focus of family business research has been to understand theunique challenges and opportunities that result from a familysinvolvement in the management, control, and ownership of a rm.Even though empirical research exploring the family effect onrm performance has received mixed results (Dyer, 2006), there isstill a belief that family involvement often results in positiveconsequences for a rm. In particular, family ownership is seen asresulting in superior performance for publicly traded family rms(Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Ibrahim, Angelidis, & Parsa, 2008), bettergeneral performance (Craig, Dibrell, & Davis, 2008; Kashmiri &Mahajan, 2010; Memilli, Eddleston, Zellweger, Kellermanns, &Barnett, 2010), and positive perceptions about an organization(Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Krappe, Goutas, & von Schlippe, 2011;Orth & Green, 2009). Thus, family business researchers havesuggested that family rms possess a bundle of unique resourcesthat are a product of a familys involvement in the business (i.e.,familiness), and can become a source of competitive advantage fora rm (Habbershon & Williams, 1999; Habbershon, Williams, &McMillan, 2003).

Recently, family rm identity (FFI) has been introduced as a wayto explain the link between family involvement and competitive-ness in family rms (Zellweger, Eddleston,& Kellermanns, 2010).

Zellweger and colleagues (2010) argue that FFI is equivalent to theconcept of organizational identity (OID) in a family rm context, andsuggest that FFI captures the collective perceptions that the familyhas about the family rm. Thus, FFI reects the unique identity thatresults from the overlapping of the family and the businesssubsystems, and the varying degrees of involvement and inuencethat a family can exercise in these types of organizations (Chrisman,Chua, & Sharma, 2005; Sudaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008; Zellwegeret al., 2010). Zellweger and colleagues suggest that the strength ofFFI can inuence the behaviors of organizational stakeholderswhich, in turn, can affect the performance of the family rm andtranslate into sources of competitive advantage.

FFI offers an important contribution to our understanding offamily ownership as a source of competitive advantage in that ithelps researchers move from an emphasis on internal organiza-tional factors to an appreciation that external factors (e.g.,perceptions of external stakeholders) could also result in uniqueresources that can enhance a family rms competitiveness in itsmarket. Up to date, most of the work on FFI has been conceptual. Areason for this is the different approaches taken when conceptu-alizing FFI that could affect how to operationalize this variable inempirical studies. For example, FFI can reect whether businessleaders perceive their company as a family rm, whether theorganization communicates that they are a family rm, whetherstakeholders perceive a rm as a family rm, or whether familyleaders want the business to be known as a family rm. Thus,researchers might have explored the idea of family rm identityunder a different label, limiting what we currently know about FFI

Online communication organizations communicated they were family rms. Implications for family rms and ideas for future

research are discussed.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: boteroisa@gmail.com, isabotero@me.com (I.C. Botero).

1877-8585/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2012.11.004Understanding multiple family rm idencommunicated identity in ofcial websi

Isabel C. Botero a,*, Jill Thomas b, Christopher Gravea Independent Family Business Researcher, USAbBusiness School, The University of Adelaide, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 24 November 2011

Received in revised form 7 November 2012

Accepted 19 November 2012

Keywords:

Family ownership

Family rm identity

Multiple family rm identities

Communication strategies

A B S T R A C T

In recent years, family rm i

involvement can result in a

This paper introduces the i

organizations communicate

six family rm websites f

analyzed. Results indicate t

rm in their websites. Twen

percent used an implicit str

rm age, country of origin,

jou r nal h o mep ag e: w wwities: An exploration of thes

b, Tomasz A. Fediuk a

ntity has been introduced as one of the perspectives to explain how family

ource of distinctiveness and competitive advantage for a family business.

a of multiple family rm identities and explores whether, and if so how,

eir family rm identity in their ofcial websites. One thousand and thirty-

m three countries (Australia: N = 560; US: N = 310, UK: N = 166) were

t fty seven percent of the rms made some reference to being a family

six percent of the rms used an explicit message strategy and thirty eight

egy in their communication efforts. Additionally, rm characteristics (i.e.,

pe of industry, and market orientation) were related to how and where

usiness Strategy

l sev ier . co m / loc ate / j fb s

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221 13and whether it results in a source of competitive advantage for arm.

One way to deal with the different approaches to understandingorganizational identity (OID) is to think about organizations ashaving multiple identities (Balmer & Greyser, 2002; Pratt &Foreman, 2000). Balmer and Greyser (2002) introduced themultiple-identity model of actual, conceived, ideal, desired andcommunicated (AC2ID) identities to illustrate and incorporateinternal and external approaches toward dening OID. They arguethat organizations possess ve types of identity that reect whatthe organization is, what they communicate about what they are,how others perceive what they are, what leaders want theorganization to be, and, given the current environmental/marketconditions, what would be ideal for the organizations to become.Balmer and Greyser (2002) indicate that understanding thatorganizations posses multiple identities is important because themisalignment of these identities can result in conicting informa-tion for stakeholders, which can have harmful effects for anorganization. For example, when an organization communicatesan identity that reects this rm is customer focused, but in realitydoes not pay attention to customers or customers perceive theorganization does not care about them, this conicting informationcan result in negative perceptions about the rm.

Drawing on previous work on FFI (Craig et al., 2008; Memilliet al., 2010; Zellweger et al., 2010), OID (Albert & Whetten, 1985;Fiol, 2001; Whetten, 2006) and the multiple identities AC2IDmodel (Balmer & Greyser, 2002) this article has two objectives.First, applying the multiple identities model in the context offamily rms, we present the ve types of FFI that coexist in familyrms and explain why it is important to consider the multipleidentities approach. Second, we focus on the communicated FFI(i.e., does the organization communicate that they are a familyrm?), and present a study that explores whether family businessesuse their websites to communicate their FFI to externalstakeholders and, if so, how they communicate this identity inthree national contexts (i.e., Australia, US, and UK). Understandingwhether and how family rms communicate their FFI is a rst stepin exploring whether these communication efforts can translateinto a source of competitive advantage.

To achieve our objectives this article is organized as follows.First, relevant literature in the areas of FFI, OID and strategiccommunication is reviewed to present a conceptual framework ofmultiple FFI. We then focus on communicated FFI and present therationale for our exploratory study on whether and how FFI iscommunicated through organizational websites. Presentation ofthe methodology and results follow. We conclude with adiscussion of ndings, their implications for research and practice,together with suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review

2.1. Family rm identity

OID represents the collective sense of what are the central,enduring, and distinctive characteristics of an organization (Albert& Whetten, 1985). OID is important because stronger identities cancreate unity in the workforce that can drive increased performanceand enhance organizational competitiveness (Fiol, 2001). In recentyears, researchers have argued that principles from OID can beadapted into the family business context to understand how familyinvolvement can contribute to the competitiveness of family rms(Zellweger et al., 2010). Zellweger and colleagues (2010) suggestthat in family rms stronger OIDs can provide a strong vision andcan direct organizational members to consider who they are as anorganization when making decisions and/or acting on behalf ofthe rm. In this sense, OID affects the beliefs, values, and practicesthat organizations have and, in turn, helps differentiate oneorganization from another in the eyes of internal and externalstakeholders (Scott & Lane, 2000). As part of this work, the conceptof FFI was introduced to represent the idea of OID in the family rmcontext (Zellweger et al., 2010).

FFI is important because it can inuence internal and externalfactors in a rm (Zellweger et al., 2010). Internally, FFI can affectboth family and business outcomes. Inside the family, FFI caninuence the sense of belonging family members have. This isimportant to the family because it helps develop emotional tiesthat can assist in establishing family common goals and norms(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Sudaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008). In thebusiness, FFI can inuence the involvement and participation offamily and non-family employees. This is important because whenfamily and non-family members have a strong sense of belongingtoward the rm they are more likely to see the rm as an extensionof themselves (Dyer & Whetten, 2006), they may be more willing toparticipate and be involved in what the rm does, and this maytranslate into better family rm performance (Kellermanns &Eddleston, 2007). Additionally, stronger FFI can help non-familymembers embrace family values and goals that are unique to thefamily. Therefore, in situations in which non-family employees areclosely identied with the family rm this identication cantranslate into stewardship toward the rm, and participation indecision-making, which can potentially offer benets to theorganization (Zellweger et al., 2010). Externally, FFI can inuencethe perceptions that external stakeholders have about the rm, itsproducts and its importance in the community (Zellweger et al.,2010). The limited research exploring the perceptions thatcustomers have about family rms has found that mentioningthat a rm is family owned translates into positive perceptionsabout the rm and these perceptions play an important role inpurchasing behaviors (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Okoroafo & Koh,2009; Orth & Green, 2009). Thus, a strong FFI might translate intopositive outcomes for an organization (Zellweger et al., 2010).

Although researchers have acknowledged the importance of FFI(Blomback & Botero, 2013, chap. 28; Craig et al., 2008; Memilliet al., 2010; Zellweger et al., 2010), most of this work is conceptualin nature. One of the reasons for this may be that FFI has beenconceptualized in multiple ways and this can cause problemswhen operationalizing FFI in empirical research. As originallyconceptualized, FFI explains whether a family perceives that itsbusiness is a family rm (i.e., are we a family rm?). Zellweger andcolleagues (2010) also suggest that FFI represents whether anorganization is known as a family rm. Thus, it can be arguedthat FFI could also represent whether a family is perceived as afamily rm or whether the family rm communicates that theirbusiness is a family rm. A third conceptualization can come fromdifferentiating who in the family views the business as a familyrm. In this case, FFI can represent the vision that family leadershave (i.e., do family leaders perceive that the rm is a family rm?).Given this, multiple conceptualizations of FFI need to be explicatedand understood before family business research can move on toconducting empirical research to better understand FFI and howFFI inuences family rm performance. This article is a rst step inthat direction.

2.2. Multiple family rm identities

There have been several researchers who argue that organiza-tions have multiple identities that represent the different waysorganizational stakeholders perceive what an organization is(Balmer & Greyser, 2002; Cheney, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).Thus, one of the primary functions of management is to make surethat these different identities are not misaligned (i.e., contradictoryto each other). To the extent that the different OIDs are aligned,

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 122114organizations can avoid the dissonance that can occur fromcompeting points of view about what an organization is (Balmer &Greyser, 2002). For example, by aligning what the organization isand how others view what the organization is, companies are ableto avoid situations in which what the organization is/does fall shortof expectations held by key stakeholder groups. Given this,exploring a multiple identity approach can be helpful tounderstand how different stakeholders view the family rm andhow these views affect behaviors toward the rm.

In their work about multiple OIDs, Balmer and Greyser (2002)present the AC2ID model to distinguish ve identities that coexistin the organization: Actual, conceived, ideal, desired, andcommunicated. Actual identity represents the current attributesof the organization (i.e., who are we?). Conceived identityrepresents how others perceive the organization (i.e., how doothers view who we are?) and includes components of image,reputation, and branding. Ideal identity represents who in theorganization can be given their position in the market (i.e., givenour position in the market, who can we be?). Desired identityrepresents the vision that corporate leaders have about what theorganization wants to be (i.e., what do organization leaders wantthis organization to be?). Finally, communicated identity representswhat the organization communicates about who they are (i.e., whodo we say we are?).

Applying Balmer and Greysers work to FFI indicates that familybusinesses can have multiple OIDs. Actual FFI focuses on answeringthe question: are we a family rm? It reects the current attributesof the corporation, and it is shaped by factors like ownership,management, structure, market and overall performance (Balmer& Greyser, 2002). We believe that this form of identity can beinformed by academic research used to dene which organizationsare family rms (e.g., Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Chua, Chrisman,& Sharma, 1999; Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005). Given thatthere are different components that can help identify whether abusiness is a family rm or not, we need to consider theseapproaches when answering the question: are we a family rm?

Conceived FFI represents how others perceive the family rm.This type of identity incorporates work on image, reputation,branding and customer perceptions (Balmer & Greyser, 2002). Whileactual identity is organization-centric (i.e., the focus is on theorganization) the conceived identity is audience-centric because itreects the perceptions that different stakeholders have about thefamily rm. This type of identity answers the question: How doothers view a family rm? Thus, previous research on family businessbranding (Blomback, 2009; Blomback & Ramirez-Pasillas, 2012;Craig et al., 2008; Krappe et al., 2011; Micelotta & Raynard, 2011;Presas, Munoz, and Guia (2011)), family business image (Memilliet al., 2010), family rm reputation (Blomback & Botero, 2013) andcustomer perceptions about family rms (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;Okoroafo & Koh, 2009; Orth & Green, 2009) are relevant whenunderstanding the conceived identity.

Ideal and desired FFI represent identity understood from astrategic management point of view. Desired FFI describes thefeelings, beliefs and vision of the leaders in the family rm. Thistype of identity answers the question: do leaders want this rm to bea family rm? From our point of view, this type of FFI reects thelevel of integration between the family and the businesssubsystems. We believe that this form of identity encompassesthe conceptual work of Sudaramurthy and Kreiner (2008) andZellweger and colleagues (2010) in that it captures the idea thatfamily rms differ in the degree to which they choose to integratetheir family identity into their OID. While some families choose toignore or downplay their family status others may highlight andtake advantage of being a family rm.

Ideal FFI reects the best positioning of a family rm in a givenmarket and given certain conditions. This type of identity answersthe question: Is it good to be a family rm given the position of theorganization in the market? This type of FFI reects the strategicdecision of the level of integration between the family and thebusiness subsystems given the market conditions. In this sense,understanding of this FFI helps inform when (i.e. under whichmarket conditions, or in which industries) should family rms beexplicit about being family owned? To our knowledge there is noresearch directly exploring this type of identity in family rms.

Finally, communicated FFI represents what family businessescommunicate about themselves to different stakeholders usingdifferent channels. This communication can be done throughcontrollable corporate communication efforts (e.g., advertising,sponsorship, public relations, brochures, or websites) or non-controllable communication efforts (e.g., word of mouth, mediacommentaries, or consumer comments). This type of identityanswers the question: Does this organization communicate that theyare a family rm? Although some researchers have asked familybusiness owners whether they communicate that their company isa family rm (e.g., Blomback & Ramirez-Pasillas, 2012; Craig et al.,2008), there is not much understanding of the extent to whichorganizations communicate that they are family rms, or how theycommunicate being a family rm to different stakeholders.

Understanding FFI as encompassing multiple identities can beuseful for at least three reasons. First, it helps family businessresearchers better explicate the idea of FFI. Clearly dening FFI, inturn, makes it easier to operationalize FFI in empirical research.Thus, understanding that family rms have multiple FFI can helpresearchers conduct empirical studies to better understand theimportance of FFI and whether, and if so how, it can translate intosources of competitive advantage for a rm.

Second, recognizing that family rms have multiple identitiesallows scholars to classify past research that explored actions andperceptions of family rms from slightly different angles into anencompassing framework that can help researchers betterunderstand how family involvement affects what the organizationis, what the organization communicates, and how the organizationis interpreted by others. This is important because it enablesintegration of research that can contribute to a broader and morecomplete picture of FFI and how it how family involvement isrelated to competitive advantages or disadvantages in family rm.

Third, the multiple identity perspective enables researchers tosee the bigger picture about FFI. Understanding this broader pointof view can also help in the developing future research about FFI,its predictors and consequences, and how consequences can serveas feedback mechanisms when evaluating and assessing predictorsof FFI. For example, a broader view highlights the strategicimplications of FFI because it points to the need for alignment andmanagement of these multiple identities to obtain competitiveadvantage in the marketplace. Additionally, it can also suggest amore complex relationship between predictors, types of identity,and consequences. As it can be seen in Fig. 1, there have beenmultiple predictors and consequences which have been suggestedto inuence FFI. Therefore, exploring a multiple identities point ofview suggests that family business researchers need to be moreprecise when understanding what predictors lead to what types ofidentity, what consequences are related to different types ofidentity, and how previous consequences of multiple FFI caninuence the way stakeholders evaluate a family rm.

A key consideration when using a multiple identity approach toFFI is that the alignment between identities can bring benets tofamily rms. As mentioned earlier, minimizing a misalignment ofidentities is important to avoid a sense of confusion that caninuence the perceptions that stakeholders have about a rm andthe actions that they are willing to engage in on behalf of or againstthe rm. Thus, for FFI to inuence the behaviors of stakeholders ina positive way two things need to occur. First, rms need to

am

unic

ived

d

titie

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221 15communicate that they are family rms. This means thatorganizations need to dene themselves as a family rm andcommunicate this to stakeholders. And, second, stakeholders needto have a positive association with being a family rm. With this inmind, the second purpose of this study was to examine thecommunicated FFI. We were particularly interested in exploring

Types of F

Identity:

Actual

Comm

Conce

Ideal

Desire

Predictors

Family FactorsDegree of involvement/ influence

of the family in the firm

Sense of belonging that family

members have towards the firm

Level of kinship in the family

Beliefs of Family Leaders

Business FactorsOverlap between the family and

the business subsystems

Having a family name

Organizational Culture

HR Practices

Governance

Top Leadership

Contextual FactorsFamiliarity with the firm

Market conditions

Industry

Focus (e.g., B2B or B2C)

Fig. 1. Multiple family rm idenwhether organizations that were family rms (i.e., actual FFI)communicated their identity through their ofcial organizationalwebsites and, if so, how they communicated this identity. From ourpoint of view, the communicated FFI is a point of departurethrough which to understand the inuence that family involve-ment can have on perceptions about a rm. The reason for this isthat stakeholders need to know that a rm is family owned beforetheir perceptions about being family owned can affect theirbehaviors toward a rm. Given this, in following sections of thispaper we present the rationale, methodology, and results of ourexploratory study about communicated FFI.

2.3. Exploring the communicated FFI

Although there is some empirical evidence that supports theimportance of the communicated FFI (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008;Craig et al., 2008; Memilli et al., 2010), there is limited evidence asto whether, and if so how, family businesses communicate thatthey are family-owned to others. This lack of understanding isproblematic for two reasons. First, there is a belief that being afamily rm can translate into a source of competitive advantagewhen stakeholders have positive associations with being a familyrm (Blomback, 2009; Krappe et al., 2011). Second, for individualsto activate these perceptions they need to know that anorganization is a family rm. Thus, family rms need to explicitlycommunicate that they are family owned to their differentstakeholders to be able to activate the perceptions that stake-holders have about a family rm. That is, for a stakeholder to createan evaluation of a family rm and act on this evaluation they needto know that an organization is family owned. One of the ways forstakeholders to know whether a rm is family owned is based onwhat those in the organization communicate about what theorganization is.

As explained earlier, communicated FFI describes whetherfamily rms present information about family ownership in theircommunication efforts directed to stakeholders. When under-

Consequences

Internal to the FamilySense of oneness of family

members

Internal to the BusinessParticipation of family and non-

family members in the business

Stewardship of family and non-

family members

External to the OrganizationPerceptions that external

stakeholders have about the

firm (e.g., brand and

reputation).

Perceptions about products and

strategies of the firm

Perceptions a community has

about the firm.

ily Firm

ated

s: predictors and consequences.standing the communicated FFI there are two factors that need tobe considered: the communication channels available to theorganization, and the message strategy used to communicate thatan organization is a family rm.

2.3.1. Channels for communicating family rm identity

There are at least two types of channels that organizations canuse to provide information to stakeholders (Keller, 2008). Directchannels are used when communication is exchanged or presentedvia mail, phone, face-to-face interactions, or electronic means.Indirect channels are used when information is exchanged orpresented using third parties or brokers (i.e., external representa-tives, distributors, or retailers). While both channels are used incommunication efforts, direct channels are more controllableoutlets for corporate communication efforts because they allowthe organization to plan what and how the organization wishes tocommunicate with others (Balmer & Greyser, 2002). Thus, for thepurpose of this project we explored communicated FFI using onesuch direct channel, the ofcial organizational website.

In the last two decades, the Internet has become one of thefastest growing channels for communicating with externalstakeholders and particularly with consumers (Goode & Harris,2007; Verhagen, Boter, & Adelaar, 2010). Today individuals areattracted to the ease with which they can nd information aboutproducts and services on the Internet. Because of this, organiza-tions are very likely to have a presence online that offers theopportunity to communicate with their customers and provideinformation that is likely to inuence their purchasing behavior(Verhagen & van Dolen, 2008; Ward & Lee, 2000). In particular, theconsumers online experience is an important factor for developing

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 122116trust in the organizational brand (Ha & Perks, 2005). Because ofthis, the content of the organizational website has taken centerstage for understanding consumer reactions to organizations(Blanco, Sarasa, & Sanclemente, 2010). In the online environmentconsumers are less passive and are more likely to select theinformation they want to be exposed to (Blanco et al., 2010). Thus,the information that a company presents about themselves canplay a critical role for the perception of consumers (Laroche, Yang,McDougall, & Bergeron, 2005).

Even though there have been several studies that have exploredorganizational websites in family rms (see Blomback & Ramirez-Pasillas, 2012; Smit & Binz, 2011), to our knowledge there has onlybeen one article that studied whether family rms used theirofcial websites to communicate that they are family rms.Micelotta and Raynard (2011) conducted a content analysis ofofcial websites from 92 of the oldest family rms in existence.They found that family rms differed in the extent to which theycommunicated that they were family owned in their websites andonly 40% of these rms were likely to communicate a strongconnection between the family and the business. While this studyis a good baseline to begin to understand the communicated FFI, ithas two important boundaries. First, the characteristics of thesample are unique in that the authors use only established andolder family rms. Given that not all family rms are old andestablished, it is difcult to generalize these results to other typesof family rms. And, second, Micelotta and Raynard do not clearlydescribe in what part of the website family rms are likely tocommunicate that they are family rms. This boundary conditionis relevant because research in marketing has found that when anindividual visits a website they will remain within two clicks whenexploring information about an organization (Keller, 2008).

Therefore to build on the work on Micelotta and Raynard(2011), we designed an exploratory study to understand whetherorganizations communicated that they were family rms usingtheir ofcial websites. This study reviewed the websites ofbusinesses that identied themselves as family owned by joininga family business membership organization (e.g., Family BusinessAustralia, Institute of Family Business, or a Family BusinessCenter). The focus was on the home page and the about uspage. These two pages fullled two important requirements: (1)they were within the range of clicks that a website visitor is likelyto stay in, and (2) they represent the most likely places to presentinformation in a website about who the organization is. Thus, giventhat the place in the website where organizations provideinformation about who they are can affect whether stakeholdersreview this information or not when perusing a website (Keller,2008), and the limited knowledge we have about where in thewebsites family rms communicate that they are family owned, inthis study we explored the following research question:

RQ1: Do family businesses communicate that they are family rmsin the home page and about us page of their ofcial websites?

2.3.2. Message strategies for communicating FFI

Family rms can use different message strategies to expresstheir communicated FFI. While some businesses are likely to useexplicit messages such as we are a family rm or we are family-owned, others may use implicit and less direct references such asthree generations in the business, or my father started thisbusiness (Blomback, 2009). Understanding the use of explicit andimplicit messages is important because a message strategy is likelyto inuence the psychological states and perceptions audiencescreate about an organization or a situation (OKeefe, 2003). Thus, inthe case of family rms, perceptions about the organization areactivated in part by the messages family rms communicate, andpositive or negative perceptions can only be activated if a receiverknows that an organization is a family rm. Research suggests thatexplicit messages are more effective when communicating withstakeholders because the receiver is less likely to misunderstandthe message (OKeefe, 2002). Therefore, when communicating FFIthrough ofcial websites, explicit messages (e.g., we are familyowned) are more likely to produce the perception that anorganization is a family rm in comparison to implicit messages(e.g., a second generation rm), and in turn activate theassociations that the website visitor has about a family rm.

As mentioned earlier, to our knowledge the only publishedstudy that has explored message strategies in communicationefforts of family rms has been the work of Micelotta and Raynard(2011). They suggest that family businesses use three strategieswhen communicating through their websites. The family preser-vation strategy contains messages that communicate a strongconnection between the family and the company. The familyenrichment strategy includes messages that underscore the value ofthe family and the importance of tradition. Finally, the familysubordination strategy includes messages that downplay the role ofthe family and highlight other organizational characteristics. Theirndings indicate that family rms are more likely to use the familypreservation strategy. Although this classication is interesting, itonly provides an answer as to what family rms communicate intheir websites and not how these rms communicate that they arefamily rms, which is the focus of this study. With this in mind, webelieve that the message strategy (i.e., how a rm communicatesthat they are family owned) chosen by an organization tocommunicate that they are a family rm is important because itaffects stakeholder perceptions and psychological states (OKeefe,2003). At the same time, we know that explicit messages are moreeffective than implicit messages because they are more direct andless likely to be misunderstood (OKeefe, 2002). Therefore, the useof explicit messages in family business websites can be moreeffective when trying to inuence the perceptions and psychologi-cal states stakeholders have toward family rms. With this inmind, and given that we do not have a clear understanding of howorganizations communicate that they are a family rm, in thisstudy we explored the following research question:

RQ2: How do family businesses communicate that they are familyrms in the home page and about us page of their ofcial

websites?

When exploring the communication practices of family rms itis also important to acknowledge that different characteristics of arm may also affect whether an organization communicates thatthey are a family rm, and how they communicate this in theirwebsites. For example, previous research has found that a rmsage can affect how family rms communicate their reputation toothers (Binz & Schmid, 2012; Smit & Binz, 2011). Thus, factors suchas rm age, industry, market focus of a rm (i.e., B2B, B2C), andcountry may be also be related to the communication practices andstrategies that family rms use in their organizational websites.We could not nd any published research that directly exploredthe effects that rm characteristics can have on FFI; we do notcurrently know if rm differences do inuence whether and howfamily rms present themselves to others. Therefore, given thenature of this study we also wanted to explore the relationshipbetween rm characteristics and communication practices used infamily rm websites. With this in mind, and given the limitedresearch exploring family rm websites, we also advance thefollowing research question:

RQ3: Are rm characteristics (i.e., rm age, industry, market focusof the rm, and country of origin) related to (a) whether and (b)

how family rms communicate that they are family owned in their

ofcial websites?

3. Method

3.1. Sample

Given the multiple approaches to dening family rms(Astrachan & Shanker, 2003; Chua et al., 1999) and the natureof our study, we were interested in exploring websites fromorganizations that were family rms rather than comparing familyand nonfamily enterprises. Thus, included in this study arewebsites from organizations that identied themselves as familyrms by joining a family business membership organization. Forthe purpose of this study we obtained the list of member rmsfrom family business organizations in Australia, US, and UK. Thesethree countries were chosen for three reasons. First, they hadEnglish as a common language and this enable the coders tounderstand and follow the same procedure when coding thecontent of the websites. Second, the authors had contacts in

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221 17membership organizations in each of these countries that enableobtaining a reliable sample of family businesses. And, third, itallowed for comparisons between countries to see the generaliz-ability of our results.

Our initial sample included 1200 family businesses (Australia:N = 687; US: N = 327, UK: N = 186). After reviewing each organiza-tional website, 164 organizations (Australia: N = 127; US: N = 17,UK: N = 20) were deleted from the sample because they did nothave a website or their website was under construction. Results forthis study are reported based on a sample of 1036 organizations(Australia: N = 560; US: N = 310, UK: N = 166). Descriptiveinformation about this sample is provided in Table 1.

3.2. Coding procedure

The coding for this study was divided into two parts. In the rstpart, two of the researchers looked for the website addresses,visited the websites, and recorded whether and how eachorganization communicated if they were family rms. For thepurpose of this study we explored the home and the about uspages. For our purposes, the home page was dened as the entrypage to the website; while the about us page included parts ofthe website that were labeled about us, what we do or sectionsthat explained the organization and what it did. Once the codersentered each website, they visited these two pages and transcribedinto a spreadsheet any information that the organization used asreference they were a family rm status. This included the use ofterms like family, family ownership, generation, father, mother,brothers, or cousins to mention a few. Coders also identied thedescriptive information that included the year in which theorganization started, the location of the organization, the industry

Table 1Descriptive information for sample.

Total Australia UK US

Firm characteristicsN 1036 560 166 310

Percentage of sample 54% 16% 30%

AgeMean in years 60.71 48.27 106.14 61.09

SD 48.70 36.65 77.79 31.26

N 866 448 138 281

Industry sectorsService 36% 44% 50% 42%

Manufacturing and production 45% 38% 28% 32%

Retail and wholesale 19% 18% 22% 26%

Market focusB2C 22% 26% 17% 18%

B2B 52% 47% 55% 59%

B2C & B2B 26% 27% 28% 23%in which the organization operated, the location, and the marketfocus (i.e., business-to-business (B2B), and/or business-to-con-sumer (B2C)) of the rm.

To ensure inter-coder reliability in the rst part of the codingtwo steps were followed. First, two of the investigators coded therst 50 websites, compared their coding, and discussed andresolved any differences. Once differences were resolved, eachcoder was assigned a portion of the websites (i.e., approximately600 websites each). The second step to ensure reliability included athird investigator who coded the type of industry for each of the1036 websites. This was done using the Australian and NewZealand Standard Industrial Classication (ANZSIC). Initially weused 19 categories that were later collapsed into 3 broad categoriesfor the purpose of this study: Manufacturing and production, retailand wholesale, and service. Inter-coder reliability was assessedusing Cohens Kappa. For the 19 industry categories Cohens wasK = .89, while for the three broad categories Cohens was K = .94.Both of these values represent satisfactory inter-coder reliability.

In the second part of the coding one of the investigatorsevaluated each of the statements and grouped them into two broadcategories: explicit and implicit references to family ownership.For a statement to be coded under the explicit strategy category ithad to be direct and it needed to explicitly make reference to familyownership. Examples of this are: we are a family-ownedbusiness, we are a family rm, or we are family owned. Onthe other hand, statements such as fourth generation, foundedby my grandfather, or founded and managed by two brotherswere coded into the implicit reference category. From our point ofview, these terms required that the visitor to a website make alogical connection to an organization being a family rm, thus theyreected an implicit connection to being a family rm.

During this second stage of the coding, one of the investigatorsevaluated statements that were collected from each page (i.e.,home and about us) and then coded whether they wereexplicit or implicit. Four categories were coded: home page (HP)explicit mentions, HP implicit mentions, about us page (AU)explicit mentions and AU implicit mentions. A score of one wasgiven in each of the categories when there was a statement that fellunder that category, and a score of 0 (zero) was given when nostatement was found that would t the category. For example, if acompany had the following statements in their home page: Weare family-owned, we are a family-owned business and fourthgeneration business; the coder would assign a 1 in both the HPexplicit mentions and HP implicit mentions. Additionally, if thecompany had the following statements in the about us page:Fourth generation in the business and my father created thebusiness; the coder would assign a 0 (zero) for the AU explicitmentions and a 1 for AU implicit mentions. Thus, we did not assessthe number of explicit and implicit statements in each page butfocused on whether or not a company explicitly and implicitlycommunicated that they were family rms.

4. Results

To answer whether the organizations included in this studycommunicated they were family rms (RQ1) we calculated thepercentage of organizations that made any reference (i.e., explicitor implicit) to being a family rm. To have a better understandingof our answer we calculated four different percentages: (1) thepercentage of organizations that made any reference to being afamily rm in the home page, (2) the percentage of organizationsthat made any reference to being a family rm in the about uspage, (3) the percentage of organizations that made any referenceto being a family rm in only one of the two pages, and (4) thepercentage of organizations that made any reference to being afamily rm in both pages. As it can be seen in Table 2, 57% of the

14% of the rms used implicit messages in the home page, 47% inthe about us page, 38% in one of the two pages, and 7% in bothpages. Additionally, we found that family businesses in this studywere more likely to use implicit references to family ownership inthe about us page than in the home page, t(841) = 18.86, p < .01,r = .55. In the nal step of our analysis for RQ2 we explored whetherrms were more likely to communicate they were family rmsexplicitly or implicitly. Results suggest that the organizations in thisstudy were more likely to communicate being a family rmimplicitly (M = .52, SD = .62) than explicitly (M = .40, SD = .61),t(1035) = 5.59, p < .001, r = .17.

Finally, RQ3 explored the relationship between rmcharacteristics (i.e., rm age, industry, type of market focus,and country) and the communication practices of family rms

Table 2Percentage of organizations that made some reference to being a family rm.

Either page Home page About us Both pages

Total sample 57% 23% 48% 7%

Australian sample 58% 26% 49% 8%

UK sample 60% 24% 50% 9%

US sample 52% 16% 45% 5%

Note: Percentages for each country are base on the number of websites per country.

Table 3Percentages for how family rms communicated their identity.

Explicit references

Either page Home page About us Both pages

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 122118sample made some reference that they were family rms in eitherthe home or about us page. When examining whereorganizations were more likely to promote that they were familyrms, 23% communicated it in the home page, 48% in the aboutus page, and only 7% provided this information in both pages.

The second question explored how family rms communicatedthat they were family rms (RQ2). To answer this question wecalculated the percentage of companies that used explicit andimplicit references to being a family rm. For the explicit referenceswe calculated four percentages. These included: (1) the percentageof family rms that explicitly communicated being a family rm inthe home page, (2) the percentage family rms that explicitlycommunicated being a family rm in the about us page, (3) thepercentage that explicitly communicated being a family rm in only

Total sample 26% 15% 31% 7%

Australian sample 28% 17% 33% 8%

UK sample 30% 17% 33% 7%

US sample 20% 10% 26% 5%

Implicit references

Total sample 38% 14% 47% 7%

Australian sample 36% 16% 46% 9%

UK sample 42% 15% 51% 8%

US sample 39% 10% 49% 4%

Note: Percentages for each country are base on the number of websites per country.one of the two pages, and (4) the percentage of family rms thatexplicitly communicated being a family rm in both pages. Wefollowed a similar procedure for the implicit communication aboutbeing a family rm. As it can be seen in Table 3, 15% of the rmsexplicitly referenced being a family rm in the home page, 31% inthe about us page, 26% used explicit messages in one of the twopages, and only 7% used explicit messages in both pages. We alsofound that in our study rms were more likely to explicitlycommunicate they were family rms in the about us page whencompared to the home page, t(841) = 9.75, p < .001, r = .32. Whenexploring implicit references to being a family rm we found that

Table 4Bivariate correlations between rm characteristics and communication practices in fam

Firm characteristic Mention of family ownership Explicit ment

Manufacturing & production .11** .03

Retail & wholesale .02 .09**

Service .13** .10**B2B .01 .01 B2C .07* .03

Firm age .22** .19**

Australia .03 .07*

UK .03 .04

USA .06 .11*** p < .05.** p < .01.used in their websites (i.e., whether they communicate andhow they communicate that they are family rms). To answerthis question we calculated the bivariate correlation betweeneach of the rm characteristic and the mention of being afamily rm in the website (i.e., mentions which combinedexplicit and implicit messages, explicit messages, and implicitmessages), the use of home page, and the use of the about uspage. As it can be seen in Table 4, when exploring therelationship between rm characteristics and the mentions offamily ownership in the websites, either through explicit orimplicit messages, we found that belonging to the manufactur-ing & production industry, being B2C, and rm age werepositively related to communicating that a rm was familyowned; while being from the service industry was negativelyrelated to mentions of being a family rm. When looking atexplicit mentions, characteristics such as being in the retailindustry, rm age, and being from Australia were positivelyrelated to explicitly mentioning that a rm was a familyrm in the websites; while being from the service industryand being from the USA were negatively related to explicitmentions. When looking at implicit mentions, belonging to themanufacturing and production industry, being a B2C organization,and rm age were positively related to implicit mentions of familyownership in the websites. At the same time, being in the serviceindustry was negatively related to implicit mentions of being afamily rm. Regarding the use of the home page, being an oldercompany and being from Australia were positively related to usingthe home page to communicate a rm was family owned.Additionally, being from the USA was negatively related to usingthe home page to communicate family ownership in organizationalwebsites. On the other hand, being from manufacturing andproduction industry, being a B2C company and rm age werepositively related to the use of the about us page whencommunicating that a rm was a family rm in organizationalwebsites. At the same time being part of the service industry wasnegatively related to the use of the about us page whencommunicating about family ownership.

ily rm websites.

ion Implicit mention Use of home page Use of about us page

.14** .05 .11**

.03 .03 .03.11** .02 .14**.01 .03 .01.07* .04 .07*

.25** .14** .17**

.01 .08** .02.04 .02 .02

.02 .10** .04

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221 195. Discussion

In this paper we have argued that to fully understand the FFI, weneed to understand that organizations have multiple identities.Building on the work of Balmer and Greyser (2002) we presentedve types of FFI that coexist in family rms: actual (are we a familyrm?), conceived (how do others view a family rm?), communi-cated (do we communicate that we are a family rm?), ideal (whenis it good to be a family rm?) and desired (do we want to be afamily rm?). We argued that a multiple identities approach to FFIis important because it extends previous research on FFI. That is,similar to other researchers (Freeman, 1984; Katz & Kahn, 1978), webelieve that examining what an organization is is not limited tointernal characteristics and should include a perceptual componentregarding what external stakeholders believe about an organization.In this sense an important contribution of this paper is that itprovides a deeper understanding of FFI. A broader view of FFI isimportant because it can help understand the nuances of FFI and itsinuence on the values, beliefs, and practices of a family rm.Additionally, the ideas presented in this paper suggest a processview to understand how FFI can affect the behaviors of stakeholders.That is, for FFI to inuence stakeholders the following process needsto occur: a business is a family rm, the business communicates thischaracteristic to stakeholders, and stakeholders create perceptionsbased, in part, on the information presented by the organization.This process view can help when exploring the predictors andconsequences of FFI, and how previous experiences with familyrms can inuence future perceptions about these organizations.Finally, a broader view of FFI can help researchers begin toempirically explore when a stronger FFI can result in a source ofcompetitive advantage for a rm and when a stronger FFI can havenegative consequences for a rm. Clearly articulating the differentidentities that a family rm can have enables researchers tooperationalize FFI in different ways and empirically explore theeffects of FFI on perceptions of a family rm.

In this article we highlight that an important consideration of themultiple identities approach is the need for alignment between thedifferent FFIs. Similar to other researchers, we believe thatmisaligned FFIs can result competing messages about what anorganization is and can create dissonance and confusion in theminds of stakeholders (Balmer & Greyser, 2002). That is, there needsto be some consistency between being a family rm, wanting to be afamily rm, communicating that the rm is a family rm, and beingperceived as a family rm, otherwise stakeholders of a rm are goingto be confused about what an organization is and this confusion canaffect their actions toward a rm.

With this idea in mind, the second purpose of the article was toempirically explore whether, and if so how, family rmscommunicated their FFI through their organizational websites.Although previous research has explored the effects of beingperceived as a family rm (Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Litcheld,2008; Orth & Green, 2009) and how these perceptions can affectthe performance of a family rm (Craig et al., 2008; Kashmiri &Mahajan, 2010; Memilli et al., 2010), no study has directly exploredwhether family rms communicate that they are family owned. Inthis sense, another contribution of this study is that it extendsprevious research about FFI to incorporate the communicationpractices of family rms. Understanding these practices isimportant because what organizations say about who they arecan inuence stakeholder perceptions about organizational values,beliefs, and practices, and their reactions to a rm (Cheney, 1991).

5.1. Implications and future research

Results from this study show that 57% of the family rmsincluded in this study communicated that they were family rmsin their websites, and this was done primarily in the about uspage. These results have two implications. First, our results showthat family rms differ in their likelihood to communicate thatthey are family owned. Thus, as suggested by Sudaramurthy andKreiner (2008), it seems that family rms differ in their intent tointegrate the family and the business subsystems into theiridentity as a rm. Given the belief that the integration of family andbusiness subsystems can enhance the bundle of resources that arm possesses and can translate into the basis for competitiveadvantage (Habbershon et al., 2003), future research needs toexplore the different factors that affect the level of segmentation orintegration of FFI to understand why this segmentation orintegration occurs. Additionally, family business researchers alsoneed to examine further when the integration of family andbusiness subsystems results in sources of competitive advantagefor a rm. Second, our results are similar to the work of Smit andBinz (2011) who found that family rms are more likely to promotethe family business brand in deeper levels of their corporatewebsites. This could be problematic because it may indicate thatfamily rm websites require that the consumer dig deep into thewebsite to be able to nd descriptive information about whetheran organization is a family rm. Past research marketing hasindicated that when individuals visit a website they remain withintwo clicks when exploring information (Keller, 2008). Thus, if beinga family rm is a positive characteristic in the eyes of a stakeholderthey will not know this characteristic about an organization unlessthey go very deep into the website.

When examining how FFI was communicated, we found thatfamily rms were more likely to use implicit messages (38%) thanexplicit messages (26%). Understanding whether family rms useexplicit or implicit strategies is important because the wayinformation is provided to an audience (i.e., communicationstrategy) can affect their perceptions about an organization. Inparticular, explicit messages are less likely to be misunderstood byan audience and are more likely to activate salient thoughts aboutwhat is being communicated in the mind of the receiver (OKeefe,2003). Given this, our results complement the work of Micelottaand Raynard (2011) who had previously suggested that familyrms used one of three strategies (i.e., family preservation, familyenrichment, or family subordination strategy). In particular, wecomplement their work by explaining how information aboutfamily ownership is presented in websites and where in thewebsites this information is presented. This has importantimplications for our understanding of the communication choicesof family rms because the explicitness of a message can affect thedegree to which audiences pay attention to a message, compre-hend a message, are willing to consider a message, and are able toretain the information provided in a message (McGuire, 1989).Given this, future research needs to explore whether the use ofimplicit messages represent a strategic choice by family rms intheir communication practices (i.e., does it reect a desiredidentity). Additionally, future research should explore whyorganizations are more likely to use implicit messages whencommunicating that they are family rms. Although, research hasfound that customers have positive perceptions about family rms(Carrigan & Buckley, 2008; Krappe et al., 2011; Okoroafo & Koh,2009), it may be that managers and decision makers in family rmsmay not see these benets and, therefore, see no reason toexplicitly communicating their FFI to others outside or inside therm.

Finally, when exploring the relationship between rm char-acteristics and communication practices in family rms we foundthat the type of industry, type of market focus, rm age, andcountry were related to communicating FFI in websites, how it wascommunicated, and where in the website it was communicated. Inthe case of industry, being in the manufacturing and production

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 122120industry was positively related to mentions of being a family rm,the use of implicit messages, and the use of the about us page inorganizational websites. Belonging to the service industry wasnegatively related to mentions of being a family rm, explicit andimplicit use of messages, and the use of the about us page tocommunicate being a family rm. Finally, being in the retailindustry was positively related to the use of explicit messages.When exploring the type of market focus our results indicate thatbeing a B2C rm was positively related to mentions of being afamily rm, the use of implicit messages and the use of the aboutus page. Results also indicate that rm age was positively relatedto mentions about being a family rm, the use of explicit andimplicit messages, and the use of the home and about us pages.Finally, when exploring the relationship between country andcommunicated FFI we found that being from Australia waspositively related to the use of explicit messages and the homepage; while being from the USA was negatively related to the use ofexplicit messages and the use of the home page to communicatethat an organization was a family rm. Based on these ndings itseems that rm factors do play a role in how and whereorganizations communicate their FFI. Thus, an important implica-tion of our study for future research is the need to further explorethe different rm characteristics that inuence the communicatedFFI, and why these inuences occur. For example, it may be that theindustry or the type of market in which a family rm operates mayaffect how internal decision makers believe that others view familyrms or how external stakeholders view family rms. Thus, similarcompanies may have similar norms regarding their beliefs andpractices when communicating family ownership. In a similar way,the effects of country of origin should be further explores to betterunderstand whether culture inuences the perceptions aboutfamily ownership and communication practices that family rmsuse.

We see two important implications for family business practice.Given our results, it seems that family businesses are notleveraging the positive perceptions that consumers have abouttheir products and services when communicating via websites.Thus, we believe that a rst implication is related to the practice ofcommunication efforts in family businesses. Given the tendency tounderplay the idea of being a family rm in the websites, itwould be important to help family businesses create communica-tion plans that will focus on the benets of communicating familyownership and when these benets occur. This can help in thereputation and image building efforts of the family businesses. Asecond implication for practice would be to understand where inthe website organizations should communicate that they arefamily rms. Based on our results it seems that most of the familybusinesses communicate this characteristic in the about us pageof the website. Some research in website usage suggests thatwebsite visitors are not likely to go deep into the website (i.e., visitmultiple pages) unless they see something which they regard aspositive (Keller, 2008). Thus, it would be important for familybusinesses to also emphasize their family ownership in theirhome page to activate the positive perceptions early on in themind of visitors to the website.

5.2. Strengths and limitations

There are three important strengths in our study. First, this isthe rst study that examines the communication practices offamily businesses based on what these organizations communi-cate and not on the self-report of what organizational representa-tives say they do. The examination of communication practices isimportant because it represents what organizations actually doand not what they say they do. Second, our study includes a sampleof organizations that already identify themselves as familybusinesses. We believe this is an important strength that buildson the work of Cooper, Upton, and Seaman (2005) and Westheadand Howorth (2006) who suggest that to avoid problems of themultiple approaches dening family businesses it is better to usethe self-perceptions or judgments of those who manage the rm.Third, we believe that the inclusion of rms from three countries isanother important strength. This study enables us to compare thepractices from organizations in three countries, which gives us abroader understanding of how family businesses communicatewith stakeholders using their organizational websites.

There are also important limitations to our study. First, wefocused on one channel of communication: the organizationalwebsite. Organizations can use other channels (e.g., face-to-facecommunication or printed materials) to communicate that theyare family rms. Thus, we recommend that future research shouldexplore other channels to better understand where and how rmscommunicate that they are family rms. A second limitation is thatthis study focuses on the examination of what organizationscommunicate and not why they make the communication choicesthat they do. Given the nature of the methodology we are not ableto answer the why question. Therefore, we recommend thatfuture research should explore why family businesses choosedifferent communication strategies using both qualitative (i.e.,interviews) and quantitative (i.e., surveys) methodologies. Finally,another limitation of this study is that it does not explore thenumber of messages that family rms use when communicatingtheir FFI, it only explores whether or not family rms communicatetheir FFI, how they communicated and where in the website thiscommunication occurs. Thus, future research can expand on ourresults by exploring the number of messages that family rms useto communicate their FFI when using their ofcial websites.

6. Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to expand our understanding ofFFI and explore whether organizations communicated their FFIwhen using their websites. Although communication practiceshave been linked to the performance of family businesses, andperceptions and intentions of external stakeholders toward familybusinesses, our results suggest that family rms differ in theirlikelihood to communicate FFI, how they communicate it, andwhere they communicate it. That is, 57% of the rms communi-cated that they were family rms, 38% communicated that theywere family rms implicitly, and 48% of the rms used the aboutus page to communicate this information. Given these results, itseems like family businesses are not leveraging the positiveassociations that can result when involvement of the family iscommunicated to stakeholders. Future research should continue toexplore why family businesses choose these communicationstrategies in their websites.

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263295). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Anderson, R., & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding family ownership and rm performance:Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58, 13011328.

Astrachan, J. H., & Shanker, M. C. (2003). Family businesses contribution to the U.S.economy: A closer look. Family Business Review, 16, 211219.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of thecorporation. California Management Review, 44(3), 7286.

Binz, C., & Schmid, J. (2012). From family rm identity to family rm brand. Paperpresented in the 12th annual IFERA world family business research conference.

Blanco, C. F., Sarasa, R. G., & Sanclemente, C. O. (2010). Effects of visual and textualinformation in online product presentations: Looking for the best combination inwebsite design. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 668686.

Blomback, A. (2009). Family business A secondary brand in corporate brand man-agement. CeFEO working paper series, 2009:1. Jonkoping International BusinessSchool.

Blomback, A., & Botero, I. C. (2013). Reputational capital in family rms: Understandinguniqueness from the stakeholder point of view. In P. Z. Poutzouris, K. X. Smyrnios, &S. Goel (Eds.), Handbook of research on family business (2nd ed.). UK: Edward ElgarPublishing, Inc.

Blomback, A., & Ramirez-Pasillas, M. (2012). Exploring the logics of family brand identityformation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(1), 728.

Carrigan, M., & Buckley, J. (2008). What is so special about family business? Anexploratory study of UK and Irish consumer experiences of family businesses.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 656666.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rethoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities.Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trends and directions in the develop-ment of strategic management theory of the family rm. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 29(5), 555576.

Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Dening the family business by behavior.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2, 1939.

Cooper, M. J., Upton, N., & Seaman, S. (2005). Customer relationship management: Acomparative analysis of family and nonfamily business practices. Journal of SmallBusiness Management, 43(3), 242256.

Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveraging family-based brand identity toenhance rm competitiveness and performance in family businesses. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 46(3), 351371.

Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the family effect on rm performance. Family BusinessReview, 19(4), 253273.

Dyer, w. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Family rms and social responsibility: Preliminaryevidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785802.

Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advan-tage. Journal of Organizational Management, 27, 691699.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Laroche, M., Yang, Z., McDougall, G. H. G., & Bergeron, J. (2005). Internet versus bricks-and-mortar retailers: An investigation into intangibility and its consequences.Journal of Retailing, 81, 251267.

Litcheld, S. R. (2008). Exploring customer perceptions regarding products, servicesand job opportunities of family-owned businesses. Paper presented at the 8thannual ifera conference.

Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in workrelationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiersof theory and research (pp. 114139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

McGuire, W. J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin(Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (2nd ed., pp. 4365). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Memilli, E., Eddleston, K. A., Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., & Barnett, T. (2010).Building on the past: Entrepreneurial risk taking and image in family rms. InStewart, A., Lumpkin, G. T., & Katz, G. A. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and family business(Vol. 12, pp. 329). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Micelotta, E. R., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or revealing the family? Corporatebrand identity strategies in family rms. Family Business Review, 24(3),197216.

OKeefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.OKeefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks:

Claims, evidence and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effectsresearch. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251274.

Okoroafo, S. C., & Koh, A. (2009). The impact of marketing activities of family ownedbusinesses on consumer purchase intentions. International Journal of Business andManagement, 4(10), 313.

Orth, U. R., & Green, M. T. (2009). Consumer loyalty to family versus non-familybusiness: The roles of store image, trust and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services, 16, 248259.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multipleorganizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 1842.

I.C. Botero et al. / Journal of Family Business Strategy 4 (2013) 1221 21Goode, M. M. H., & Harris, L. C. (2007). Online behavioral intentions: An empiricalinvestigation of antecedents and moderators. European Journal of Marketing, 41,512536.

Ha, H.-Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on theweb: Brand familiarity, satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 4, 438452.

Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessingthe strategic advantages of family rms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 125.

Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., & McMillan, I. C. (2003). A unied systemsperspective of family rm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 451465.

Ibrahim, N. A., Angelidis, J. P., & Parsa, F. (2008). Strategic management of family rms:Current ndings and directions for future research. International Journal of Man-agement, 25(1), 95110.

Kashmiri, S., & Mahajan, V. (2010). Whats in the name? An analysis of strategicbehavior of family rms. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 271280.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). USA: JohnWiley & Sons Inc.

Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managingbrand equity (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2007). Family perspective on when conictbenets family rm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 10481057.

Krappe, A., Goutas, L., & von Schlippe, A. (2011). The family business brand: Anenquiry into the construction of image of family businesses. Journal of FamilyBusiness Management, 1(1), 3746.

Klein, S. S., Astrachan, J. H., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2005). The F-Pec scale of family inuence:Construct validation, and further implications for theory. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 29(3), 321339.Presas, P., Munoz, D., & Guia, J. (2011). Branding familiness in tourism family rms.Journal of Brand Management, 18(4/5), 274284.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity.Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 4362.

Smit, W., & Binz, C. (2011). Family rm status as a branding signal: On the strength andconsistency of signaling family involvement in corporate branding strategies. IMDworking paper.

Sudaramurthy, C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2008). Governing by managing identity boundaries:The case of family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3), 415436.

Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2008). Online purchase intentions: A multi-channelstore image perspective. Information & Management, 46, 7782.

Verhagen, T., Boter, J., & Adelaar, T. (2010). The effect of product type on consumerpreferences for website content elements: An empirical study. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 16, 139170.

Ward, M. R., & Lee, M. J. (2000). Internet shopping, consumer search, and productbranding. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9, 620.

Westhead, P., & Howorth, C. (2006). Ownership and management issues associatedwith family rm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review,19(4), 301316.

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept oforganizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219234.

Zellweger, T. M., Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2010). Exploring the concept offamiliness: Introducing family rm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy,1(1), 5463.

Understanding multiple family firm identities: An exploration of the communicated identity in official websites1 Introduction2 Literature review2.1 Family firm identity2.2 Multiple family firm identities2.3 Exploring the communicated FFI2.3.1 Channels for communicating family firm identity2.3.2 Message strategies for communicating FFI

3 Method3.1 Sample3.2 Coding procedure

4 Results5 Discussion5.1 Implications and future research5.2 Strengths and limitations

6 ConclusionReferences