Compensating for Poor Performance with Promotional Symbols: Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Strategic communication by regulatory agencies as a form of reputation management: A strategic agenda

“…Further, some agencies are more competent than others in managing the response to reputational threats via strategic communication and, therefore, see the fruits of their efforts. There are grounds to believe that pursuing strategic communication indeed bears fruit: Alon‐Barkat and Gilad (2017) have demonstrated that familiar promotional symbols can shape citizens' attitudes, and compensate for the effects of poor performance, with regard to sufficiently ambiguous organizational aspects. This strategic behaviour may occur, however, alongside media preferences for certain items, framings and communication channels—in line with the claim advanced by Boon et al (2019a).…”

“…Again, this may be a consequence of strategic communication behaviour which may occur alongside media preferences for certain items, framings and communication channels, which are best understood and acted upon by media‐competent management departments—in line with Boon et al (2019a). The studies of Alon‐Barkat and Gilad (2017) and Kolltveit et al (2019) exist alongside surveys and experiment‐based research demonstrating that public organizations' communications and publications regarding performance information shape how citizens perceive government organizations (e.g., Barrows et al 2016). Media‐competent agencies can therefore continually ‘sharpen’ their communication instruments so that they are better prepared to cope with more severe reputational threats as well as with media interference with the formulation and execution of agencies' strategic communication.…”

The emotive effect of government branding on citizens' trust and its boundaries: Does the personal relevance of the policy issue matter?

“…Symbolic elements entangled in communications can affect citizens' attitudes through a psychological mechanism of evaluative conditioning, whereby the positive associations triggered by the symbols are unconsciously transferred to the public organization (De Houwer ; Alon‐Barkat and Gilad ). So for instance, when a public organization uses a celebrity endorser in a public campaign, the positive connotations for the celebrity (e.g., physically attractive, funny, talented) can be extended to the organization, which would lead citizens to also view the organization and its actions more favourably.…”

“…Normatively, we expect citizens in a democratic society to form their opinions about their government based on critical thinking, rather than on unconscious emotive responses. A yet more serious concern regards the potency of government branding to compensate for organizations' poor performance, poorly planned policies and logically unpersuasive explanations, as indicated by previous studies (Alon‐Barkat and Gilad ; Alon‐Barkat ). Congruently, it can yield a misalignment between citizens' positive view and the ‘real world’, which would undermine governments' democratic accountability and responsiveness.…”

“…Public administration scholarship has shown a growing interest in public sector branding and its potency to influence citizens' perceptions and direct their behaviour (Eshuis and Klijn 2012; Sataøen and Wæraas ; Marland et al ). Congruently, recent empirical studies established that symbolic brand elements entangled in government communications (e.g., agency names, logos, colours and figures) can have a positive emotional effect on citizens, which leads them to view public organizations and their policies and services more favourably (Marvel ; Karens et al ; Alon‐Barkat and Gilad ; Teodoro and An ; Alon‐Barkat ). This growing scholarly interest corresponds with the overall increase in the use of branding practices by public sector organizations over the past decade or so, in part due to the expansion of digital communication and social media (Mergel and Bretschneider ; Mickoleit ).…”