The Constitution of Boundary Objects: An approach to the performance of Corporate Political Advocacy
Authors
Jørgensen, Karina Nyborg ; Olesen, Simone
Term
4. term
Publication year
2020
Submitted on
2020-06-02
Pages
86
Abstract
This thesis examines how firms perform Corporate Political Advocacy (CPA)—brand communication that takes positions on socio-political issues—and why seemingly similar strategies can lead to sharply different outcomes. Focusing on Nike’s Dream Crazy campaign with Colin Kaepernick (2018) and Gillette’s We Believe: The Best Men Can Be (2019), the study seeks to explain why Nike’s CPA was associated with stronger consumer–brand identification and commercial gains, while Gillette faced pronounced backlash and accusations of inconsistency. The analysis integrates two lenses: boundary objects (messages that are concrete enough to be shared across communities yet open to divergent interpretation) and Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism (which treats conflict and confrontation as productive features of public communication). Methodologically, the thesis employs a qualitative, comparative case design: a reanalysis of Nike’s Just Do It (1988) and Dream Crazy (2018) and Gillette’s Best a Man Can Get (1989) and We Believe (2019), combining narrative analysis of the ads’ encoding with audience decoding through coded samples of YouTube comments and coverage in selected mass media (including The New York Times, Fox News, Glamour, and Esquire). The aim is to identify how boundary objects are constituted, how conflict-driven messaging shapes legitimacy and attachment, and what this implies for effective CPA. Final findings are presented later in the thesis; this opening outlines the problem, theoretical framing, and research design.
Dette speciale undersøger, hvordan virksomheder udfører Corporate Political Advocacy (CPA) – når brands tager stilling til samfundspolitiske spørgsmål – og hvorfor tilsyneladende lignende strategier kan få vidt forskellige konsekvenser. Med udgangspunkt i Nikes Dream Crazy-kampagne med Colin Kaepernick (2018) og Gillettes We Believe: The Best Men Can Be (2019) søger studiet at forklare, hvorfor Nikes CPA blev forbundet med stærkere forbruger-brand-identifikation og kommerciel fremgang, mens Gillette mødte udtalt modreaktion og beskyldninger om inkonsistens. Teoretisk kombineres grænseobjekter (som betegner budskaber, der er tilstrækkeligt konkrete til at kunne deles på tværs af fællesskaber, men åbne for forskellige fortolkninger) med Chantal Mouffes agonistiske pluralisme (der ser konflikt og konfrontation som produktive elementer i offentlig kommunikation). Metodisk anvendes en kvalitativ, komparativ case-tilgang: en reanalyse af Nikes Just Do It (1988) og Dream Crazy (2018) samt Gillettes Best a Man Can Get (1989) og We Believe (2019), herunder en narrativ analyse af reklamerne (encoding) og publikums modtagelse (decoding) via kodede stikprøver af YouTube-kommentarer og dækning i udvalgte massemedier (bl.a. The New York Times, Fox News, Glamour og Esquire). Formålet er at identificere, hvordan grænseobjekter konstitueres, hvordan konfliktdrevne budskaber påvirker legitimitet og tilslutning, og hvilke implikationer dette har for effektiv CPA. De endelige fund præsenteres senere i afhandlingen; denne indledning skitserer problemfelt, teori og design.
[This apstract has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project full text]
Keywords