The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An

Interpretive Study in the Gay i\/ien's Community

STEVEN M. KATES'
Certain brands attain iegitimacy (i.e., social fitness) through existing frames and
dynamic framing processes described in this article. Drawing on qualitative data
collected from gay consumers, this article explores ways brands are cocreated in
a non-brand-focused community. Collective action frames—shared ways of inter-
preting meanings within social interaction—provide the connection between a com-
munity and its legitimate brands. Informants routinely inscribe some brands with
the frames of the gay community and, when applying dynamic framing processes,
assess whether other brands share a social fit with the meanings of the gay com-
munity. Implications for authenticity and brand legitimacy are discussed.

C ertain brands demonstrate legitimacy—a social fit with

society's or a community's shared norms (see Such-
man 1995). In contrast to the consumers studied in past
McAlexander 1995; see also Berger and Luckmann 1966,
pp. 51-55). But currently, consumer research has not fully
examined legitimacy in connection with brands or fully de-
works, many consumers are not self-conscious members of veloped the concept's potential to shed light on consumption
hrand communities, subcultures of consumption, or cultures (Handelman and Arnold 1999). The consumer research on
of consumption (see Kozinets 2001, 2002; Muniz and consumption communities has not addressed the important
O'Guinn 2001; Schouten and McAlexander 1995). The sub- question of how brands actually develop legitimate cultural
culture of consumption, brand community, and culture of fit within these communities. Given the antibrand, anti-
consumption phenomena all represent cultural analyses that globalization backlash (Holt 2002; Klein 1999), it is im-
focus our attention solely on one type of collective brand portant that consumer research develop the legitimacy con-
consumption—the highly loyal, affective, and committed cept in relation to brands. Further, legitimacy as a central
type in which the brand is, by very definition, the central guiding concept has utility beyond the brand realm. Legit-
consumption object. In contrast, this article focuses on brand imacy—and institutional theory from where it was devel-
cocreation in a context where brands are not the central oped—has already been employed to understand consumers'
focus; thus, it is necessary to unpack the meanings and responses to retailer promotions (Handelman and Arnold
sociocultural processes that continually problematize and 1999). Its further development and application to consumer
ensure a brand's legitimacy to its various consumer group- research may prompt future investigations and critiques of
ings. Exploring the context of a North American gay com- marketer ethics, consumers' attitudes toward advertising,
munity illustrates how consumers cocreate brand meanings brand loyalties, and explanations of how and why groups
along with marketer efforts, and ways brand behaviors meet of consumers reject or resist consumer culture (e.g., Kozi-
community standards (see DiMaggio and Powell 1983). nets 2002).
The central premise of this article is that legitimate so- Thus, past research focusing strictly on consumption col-
ciocultural meanings are relevant during brands' shared his- lectivities leaves some important research questions to be
tories with various communities. In other words, sets of local explored. How do brands attain legitimacy within a com-
(or more broadly shared), stable, strong, and enduring agree- munity, resulting in the creation, perpetuation, and alteration
ments coalesce around certain brands (Schouten and of brands' social fit with these meanings? What cultural
positions do brands occupy within a community focused on
*Steven M. Kates is an associate professor in the Department of Mar- ideology or political action, where legitimacy is, arguably,
keting at Simon Fraser University. FBA. Burnaby. Canada, V5A 1S6 a critical concern? The answers may transfer beyond the
(skates@sfu.ca). He would like to thank Russell Belk. Michael Beverland, gay community to others, illuminating how brands achieve
Michael Ewing. Chris Dubelaar, Eileen Fischer. Robert Kozinets. and
Douglas Holt for providing useful comments on earlier versions of this
cultural infiuence. Arguably, legitimacy is a concept whose
article. Mary-Ann Twist is especially thanked for her patience and under- relevance has amved. In the next section I selectively review
standing over the past few years. Finally, the author thanks the four re- the literatures on institutional theory and brands. After that,
viewers the associate editor, and the past and current editors of JCR for I present the methods, the ethnographic findings, and then
their endeavors.
propose implications.
455

I 2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. • Vol. 31 • September 2004

456 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: BRANDS and O'Guinn 2001). The brand's right to occupy cultural
space is not really challenged. The present context is very
AND LEGITIMACY different. For certain non-brand-focused communities, the
participation of brands in cultural life is more problematic.
Currently, brands' cultural influence and social respon- Particularly, the politically organized gay community I stud-
sibilities have been put into serious moral question (see Holt ied has exhibited a historical distrust of corporations and
2002; Klein 1999). Nonetheless, recent research has dem- their brands, similar to many other North American gay
onstrated that consumers have important cocreative roles in enclaves (Baker, Strub, and Henning 1995), raising ques-
brand construction. Consumers construct meanings around tions of how brand cocreation is accomplished through dy-
brands other than what sponsors may have intended (Ko- namic framing processes. Indeed, the political roots of gay
zinets 2001; Muniz and O'Guinn 2001; Schouten and activism are unapologetically left-wing and hostile to cap-
McAlexander 1995). Social groupings of consumers may italist interests. Thus, understanding the ways that gay con-
take some degree of control over (i.e., cocreate) a brand's sumers, in light of this history, cocreate legitimate brands
sociocultural meanings (see, e.g., Muniz and O'Guinn requires some explanation; institutional theory (DiMaggio
2001). Thus, a brand's legitimacy—the "generalized per- and Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977) provides the
ception or assumption that the actions of an entity [a brand, theoretical rationale to understand brand-related legitimacy.
in the present context] are desirable, proper, or appropriate Also germane to the analysis of brand legitimacy is the
within some socially constructed system of norms, values, premise that social subgroups generate and inscribe local
beliefs, and definitions" (Suchman 1995, p. 574)—may be collective action frames (henceforth, "frames") that organize
negotiated among consumers, affecting its cultural mean- members' experiences and guide consumption behaviors
ings. Yet, the question of how, whether, and when consumers (see Benford and Snow 2000). Frames are the flexible back-
cocreate the brand and exercise some agency (or control) ground cultural meanings consumers use to make sense of
in non-brand-focused contexts is still open for further re- brands' market behaviors. Frames also reflect and construct
search. The notion of legitimacy helps illuminate the social a shared social identity among consumers (Benford and
processes that explain the conditions of brand cocreation. Snow 2000; Gamson 1992) and shared means of interpreting
Institutional theory views companies and their brands as events (Gamson 1992).
embedded in both the economic and institutional environ- Overall, as the interpretive analysis will demonstrate,
ments. The institutional environment refers to the cultural frames legitimize some brands in the eyes of informants.
meanings, ideals, and accepted social norms associated with The theoretical framework below illustrates that during
a given society or community. These norms usually serve brand consumption, consumers routinely inscribe frames on
as implicit and flexible guidelines (as opposed to explicit a brand (i.e., reinforcing cognitive legitimacy). Yet, in other
regulations) to which companies must adhere in order to instances of brand consumption, there are potentially trans-
maintain a moral fit with key publics such as consumers, formational or developmental processes that may oc-
professions, public opinion, and regulators. When a com- cur—(re)assessments of moral legitimacy. Thus, frames
pany achieves this sociocultural alignment, it is considered shape brand consumption that, reciprocally, influences the
to be legitimate or institutionalized (DiMaggio and Powell continued evolution of the brand and eventual change of the
1983; Suchman 1995). When firms achieve long-term fits frames themselves. These processes lead to collective
with their institutional environments and taken-for-granted change in consumption practices. This notion corresponds
meanings and habitual patterns of behavior are repeated by with current definitions of legitimacy that emphasize its fluid
consumers, performed with minimal reflective thought (see nature (Suchman 1995). Next, I present the methods of the
Berger and Luckmann 1966; Suchman 1995), cognitive le- study.
gitimacy is said to result. Further, moral legitimacy—that
is, the way consumers actively question whether brands truly
benefit the community—helps us understand the ways
brands initially achieve their cultural meanings in non- THE PRESENT STUDY: METHODS
brand-focused communities. Moral legitimacy refers to EMPLOYED
whether companies pursue behaviorally consistent and pro-
social actions and is sometimes critically assessed by con- I conducted an 18-mo. ethnographic study of an urban
sumers (Handelman and Arnold 1999; Suchman 1995, p. gay community located in a large North American city,
579). Both concepts are important in the study of the ways focusing on a social group for older, professional gay men
brands achieve fit with communities. and a gay and lesbian youth group. I made further contacts
Previous work on consumption communities has focused and over the course of 6 mo. I interviewed 44 gay men
largely on cognitive legitimacy; in these studies, the central between the ages of 16 and 53 (McCracken 1988). Six men
brand requires little explicit or reflective legitimization. Con- were interviewed twice over the space of 6 mo. in order to
sumers in brand communities, subcultures of consumption, deepen understandings and facilitate temporal comparisons.
and cultures of consumption are, by their very choices, fo- Brands were discussed during interviews. There were only
cused on brands or consumption. Consumers join these com- two criteria for inclusion in the study: first, potential male
munities only if they are interested in the focal brand (Muniz participants were willing to self-identify as gay. Second, I
BRAND LEGITIMACY 457

TABLE 1

FRAMES AND DYNAMIC FRAMING PROCESSES

Legitimacy type Mechanism type Mechanism Brand example

Cognitive Inscribing existing frames Insider interpretation Absolut

Reward legitimate brands Levi's
Punishing illegitimate brands Coors
Moral Dynamic framing processes Litmus tests Cloverleaf
Bridging Molson's
Insertion into collective memory The Body Shop

ascertained that they spent some of their leisure time par- brand cocreation is shaped by relevant aspects of brands'
ticipating in activities connected to the gay community. accumulated past histories and current social events, some-
In the gay men's social group, I participated in meetings times leading to critical (re)assessments of moral legitimacy.
that featured keynote speakers, parties at members' houses, Thus, there is a continuing exchange of shared meanings
and social nights or brunches at various restaurants. At the over time between these brands and the gay men's com-
youth group, I observed games and speakers and sat in on munity. Below, I describe the processes involved with (1)
meetings and discussions. I obtained express permission reinforcing cognitive legitimacy and (2) assessing moral le-
from the youth group leaders to interview gay youth under gitimacy (see table 1).
the age of eighteen and interviewed these members at the
community center in public. All the members of the group
Reinforcing Cognitive Legitimacy: Inscribing
knew who I was and my purpose there. For 18 mo., I im-
mersed myself almost completely in the activities occurring Frames during Brand Usage
in the gay community's locale, a requirement to produce Recall that cognitive legitimacy refers to taken-for-
trustworthy and insightful ethnographic interpretation granted brand meanings and informants' habitual patterns
(Stewart 1998). My participation in the gay and lesbian of behavior. Informants inscribe frames on brands during
community became much more frequent and intense during consumption. Interestingly, even in a community where
the duration of the study. I attended bars, the local gay members are not brought together by brands, some—Levi's,
theater, parties, and other events. I read gay newspapers and The Body Shop, and Absolut Vodka—assume widely shared,
magazines, and I participated in the large Lesbian and Gay taken-for-granted meanings (i.e., cognitive legitimacy). Dur-
Pride Day held every year at the end of June. I revisited ing my ethnographic study of the gay men's community, I
the area for four summers following, observing participants, identified three frames that routinely enjoin brands and con-
conducting more casual follow-up interviews with inform- sumers; (1) insider interpretations, (2) rewarding legitimate
ants, and recording casual in situ conversations. brands, and (3) punishing illegitimate brands, constituting the
Once the data had been collected, I transcribed them and gay community's expanded interpretive repertoire.
read through interviews several times. I coded interviews
using open coding and then attempted to synthesize and Insider Interpretations. Informants consciously ac-
relate data to conceptual topics of interest, such as inter- knowledge themselves as a group of stigmatized consumers
pretation of brands, various forms of marketing communi- targeted by marketers. Brendan (white male, age 28) claims
cations, and other major categories that emerged from data that a Levi's loose jeans billboard ad close to the downtown
interpretation and literature review (Spiggle 1994; Strauss gay area targets gay men—however covertly—because the
and Corbin 1998). I shared my interpretations with 35 in- man depicted in the ads is shirtless, toned, and attractive;
formants whom I was able to contact, in order to obtain a
sense of being faithful to their accounts. This article reports I firmly believe that they're [Levi's] going after a gay au-
those findings that relate to the interpretation of local, re- dience even though they would justify it saying that they're
gional, national, and global brands. going after women . . . you'll see these images of built,
buffed men . . . everywhere.. . . 'Cause they [the sponsors]
kill two birds with one stone.
FINDINGS: LEGITIMATE BRANDS IN THE
GAY MEN'S COMMUNITY Brendan acknowledges that there are at least two plausible
Cultivating socially acceptable meanings is the essence meanings of the brand's behavior, attempting to construct
of brand legitimacy. Legitimate meanings are the products privileged gay meanings or insider interpretation of the
of social negotiation among members of the gay community. brand. In doing so, he explicitly challenges the dominant
Cocreation of a brand's cultural meanings depends on in- gender ideology in advertising by claiming that Levi's gen-
scribing taken-for-granted, legitimate frames on it, reinforc- uine intention was to target gay men and perhaps ironically
ing patterns of cognitive legitimacy. Further, legitimate to deceive heterosexual consumers into believing that they
458 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

were the only target market. In this oppositional interpre- tice, particularly with regard to homophobia. First, some
tation, Brendan positions himself as a privileged consumer historical background on Levi's—one richly rewarded
who discerns the brand's hidden agenda. brand—helps shed light on its legitimacy, for informants
Generally, informants attended to the double coding of responded to this brand in the context of its continuing,
brands and ads, elaborating on the inclusive and gay-friendly long-term partnership with North American gay commu-
meanings that acknowledge them as gay consumers. Insider nities. Levi's has advertised in gay media venues since the
interpretation is a key frame that legitimizes a brand and mid-1970s. Its denim products were a de rigueur element
assists in the cocreation of its legitimate meanings, staking of the overall clone look, that is, the virile, gay sartorial
a moral claim on the brand, by inscribing it with historically aesthetic of that decade (Levine 1998). Levi's, in an alle-
shared grassroots meanings. It is as if informants said, "But gorical sense, serves as a strong symbol of the carefree, pre-
Levi's is really our brand," connecting the brand to the AIDS days of 1970s gay liberation, a constant presence and
community. Legitimizing the brand this way asserts shared an honorary gay. Informants' stories about Levi's personify
identity and privilege of membership in the community for it as a caring, powerful, and supportive brand friend and
both the consumer and the brand. ally.
One prominent kind of widespread insider interpretation The reward frame—a very potent and common one
is called camp pleasures. Camp legitimizes brands by rum- among informants—was expressed in many evaluations of
maging through the meanings, products, and icons of main- brands. It was taken for granted that certain brands, such as
stream culture (such as Absolut) and rearticulating them into Levi's, were legitimate because of their continued expres-
gay contexts for criticism and mockery of the social status sions of support for gay men. Unlike the brand stories de-
quo or for gentle fun, celebrating exaggeration, excess, ar- scribed by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001), brand stories here
tifice, and irony (Kates 2002). Camp consumption pleasures represent a form of legitimacy of the brand (not the con-
involve a playful but gentle mocking of brands; sumer), particularly when it accomplishes socially approved
deeds for the gay community;
Matt, John, and I attended Res-Erection, a benefit night for
people living with AIDS. The preferred drink was Absolut Cameron (Asian male, 20s): If a company chooses to ac-
Vodka (the only brand of vodka served), and since it's sum- knowledge us, we will tend to shop there, or purchase that
mer, the recommended drink was vodka and lemonade. Ms. product with an almost blind devotion. . . . Levi-Strauss has
Viva Vulva and Miss Connie Lingis, two very tall drag been in the community for years. . . . I think it's number
queens dressed in gold lame and yellow chiffon, sidled up. one actually, of the top three companies, of the top ten to
. . . Connie asked, "Are you hot boys enjoying your Absolut- work for if you're gay. They just woke up to the fact that a
ly HARD lemonades?" lot of things weren't inclusive, and it was systemically dis-
criminatory. So, they entrenched things like spousal benefits
The camp frame inscribes brands with humorous and often for all their people. I believe, part of the union negotiation
bawdy double entendres. It is a means of bringing a brand has involved that as well . . . they recognize, same-sex
into the cultural web of legitimate, grassroots, sexually spouses, not just in terms of benefits, but the whole sort of
charged, and gender-inverted meanings commonly thought corporate ideology.
to constitute gay subculture (Kates 2002). Absolut Vodka
was the ostensible butt of Ms. Lingis's earthy sense of hu-
mor. However, the joke was not at the brand's expense, Levi's is the gay community's brand hero. In their brand
because Absolut was the sort of old-brand friend that could stories, informants routinely highlighted the market activi-
stand a good-natured ribbing (see Foumier 1998). The rea- ties of this "gay positive" brand, cocreating brand meanings
son for this is that Absolut shares a 20-yr. history with the that enhance their own coming-out identity projects and gay
gay community. It was one of the first major brands to rights ideology—two important shared concerns among gay
advertise in gay publications in the early 1980s (Baker et men (Weeks 1985). This establishes the brand's cognitive
al. 1995). As a relatively older part of gay history, Absolut legitimacy.
is routinely legitimized in practices such as are outlined The reward frame—as exemplified by Levi's—vividly
above or simply when patrons ask for Absolut at a bar. elaborates and highlights some events and circumstances
Legitimacy is a reciprocal concept. While gay men confer rather than others, strengthening the link between the com-
legitimacy on Absolut, Absolut confers social legitimacy on munity's legitimate discourse and the brand. (For example,
gay men by sticking with the community through thick and informants did not mention Levi's questionable labor prac-
thin. Powerful global brands, such as Absolut or Levi's tices in developing countries; see Baker et al. 1995.) Further,
(below), were thought to bestow legitimacy and respecta- this frame constantly reinforces the strength of the brand's
bility on the gay community, moving it from its marginalized continuing fit with the gay community. In this respect, brand
social position to a more central one. legitimacy has assumed a particularly powerful form in the
Levi's contexL Informants' comments reflect Levi's history
Rewarding Legitimate Brands: Brand Consumption as a part of gay culture. Brand legitimacy is also maintained
as Expressions of Social Justice. The second frame in- by brands' consistently supportive and public behaviors, as
scribed on brands reflects informants' desires for social jus- evinced by informants' passages and by stories in the gay
BRAND LEGITIMACY 459

pres.s. First, Levi's advertising serves to represent and re- and approved of the gay boycott on Coors, noting that the
inforce its other supportive accomplishments, such as hu- company suffered as a result of its misbehavior. Coors's
mane AIDS policies, same-sex domestic spousal benefits, illegitimate status is reinforced by the fact that local gay
and a recognized gay and lesbian employees group. bars refused to serve the brand (see Plaster 1998). During
Advertising, a very public form of brand behavior, also in situ conversations with bartenders at local bars in four
plays a key social role in this relationship. Levi's ads were cities in Canada and the United States, all made a specific
physically near the geographic community and regarded as point of telling me that they did not serve Coors Light
a taken-for-granted facet of everyday life. Furthermore, because of the brand's homophobic reputation. Interestingly,
brand legitimacy was consolidated in a very public and con- brand heroes and villains provided opportunities for inform-
troversial gesture during the field work: Levi's cancelled its ants to negotiate both the commercial environment and their
long-standing contract with Boy Scouts of America when gay social identities. A shared brand enemy gives consumers
the latter banned gay men from acting as scout leaders a sense of common purpose and danger. With brand enemies
(Baker et al. 1995). In this one dramatic act, Levi's rein- such as Coors, consumers may insert themselves into the
forced its legitimacy by choosing sides in the cultural battle narrative and attain heroic status themselves—by purchasing
between the gay community and the enemy forces opposed a competing brand of beer! Unlike the oppositional brand
to it, personified by the Boy Scouts and the religious right. loyalty described by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001), the un-
derlying motivation for punishing antigay brands connects
Punishing Illegitimate Brands. Some historical con- strongly to politically legitimate versus illegitimate mean-
text sheds some light on the delegitimizing processes that ings.
continually reinforce Coors's status as the quintessential Overall, informants recognized that brands are commer-
brand villain. The Coors boycott is grounded in a long and cial and for-profit market representations; this fact some-
infamous corporate history. In 1977, because of its owners' times contrasted uneasily with their convictions that certain
conservative religious beliefs, Coors was accused of firing brands were legitimate entities with pro-gay and socially
gay and lesbian employees. In 1973, the Coors family enlightened policies and beliefs. Notwithstanding obvious
founded the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organi- commercial motivations, informants attempted to extend
zation that supports various antigay policies such as man- meanings of brands by penetrating their surface layers, in
datory HIV testing and quarantining (Baker et al. 1995). order to judge brands' inner feelings and intentions toward
The family also donates large sums to conservative Repub- the community. However, the basis of legitimacy may
lican candidates and American religious organizations with change once gay men realize that a brand ally may be en-
antigay biases (Plaster 1998). The effects of previous brand tirely self-serving or disinterested in gay men's civil rights.
misbehaviors appear to shape legitimacy judgments in the For example, the findings indicate that advertising to the
future. These meanings framed Coors's underlying char- community gradually became insufficient in itself as a basis
acter, in informants' views, suggesting the brand was truly for legitimacy. How do changes in the social context impact
homophobic in motivation and courting the gay market only brand legitimacy? Do brands and frames change in their
for profit or, in other words, decoupling (i.e., symbolically legitimate meanings? Below, I describe the processes of
stating one action but covertly doing the opposite; see Han- moral legitimacy, addressing these issues.
delman and Arnold 1999).
The final frame reflects informants' will to penalize
brands viewed as antigay, inscribing this frame on Coors Assessing Moral Legitimacy: Evolving Frames
beer, the quintessential punished brand, largely due to its and Evolving Brands
discriminatory labor practices in the 1970s (Baker et al.
1995). Coors is an illegitimate brand because it violates the Recall that moral legitimacy refers to the ways consumers
socially approved meanings of the gay men's community. actively assess whether brands truly benefit the community
Informants voiced uniformly negative feelings toward in question. In consumption communities, brands usually
Coors, claiming that they would never buy it, if offered the have settled cognitive legitimacy or institutionalized statuses
opportunity: (e.g., Kozinets 2001). Yet. present informants' brands are
not usually so taken for granted. Cognitive legitimacy is
Blair (white male, 30s): The company is . . . homophobic. based on existing frames, while moral legitimacy occurs
Coors, for example. I think it's the classic example of a through evolving frames and sometimes, evolving brands.
product that the gay community has boycotted, and I don't In contrast to the existing frames that consumers apply when
know any people that don't follow that boycott, and I per- bestowing cognitive legitimacy on a brand, moral legitimacy
sonally believe in using economic clout to support and/or occurs when frames evolve, or when new brands earn their
punish people that don't, you know, support us and our places as legitimate participants in the community. Consum-
agenda, and just are bigots, and you know, you shouldn't be ers usually felt comfortable with community brand partners
putting money in their pockets. such as Absolut and Levi's, due to their long histories, but
newcomers were viewed with some skepticism. Thus, to
Informants overwhelmingly expressed anger toward Coors's assess moral legitimacy, informants applied the frames de-
"bigotry" or "homophobia," professed not to buy the brand. scribed above as critical templates to many other brands
460 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

with culturally unknown statuses, assimilating some of their veneer of brands, make judgments about the companies that
personal consumer-brand relationships to the legitimate pat- own them, and establish a basis for moral legitimacy. Thus,
terns associated known brands. This following section de- brand litmus tests probe for the backstage motivations of
tails the following assessments of moral legitimacy: (1) ap- major brands. They are also efforts at political alignment
plying brand litmus tests, (2) bridging, and (3) legitimizing with a brand that potentially sends a broader cultural mes-
through inserting brands into collective memory. sage about gay rights' iegitimacy, co-opting a global brand
and asserting the human rights of the community.
Applying Brand Litmtis Tests. A litmus test is one in The problem with a simple litmus test, however, is that
which a single feature (or set of related features) decides a brand behaviors and litmus test criteria may change over
brand's legitimacy (see Wolf 1993): time. New brand information may be forthcoming, via word
Lennie (white male, 30s): I know I saw a Cloverleaf adver- of mouth or the gay press, depending on historical events
tised in [a local gay newspaper] and Cloverleaf tuna [and] that attract certain meanings. The next sections explore this
salmon. "Wow! This is great!" And I actually had tuna for pertinent issue, for it relates to the ever changing cultural
lunch today, and I looked at the can and it was Cloverleaf. bases for legitimacy judgments, and the ways brands change
"Well, I'm gonna make sure that from now on, I'm gonna in their shared meanings and cultural positions.
buy Cloverleaf because they advertised in [a local gay
newspaper]." Bridging: The Changing Bases for Assessing Brands'
Legitimacy. Social theorists emphasize that frames evolve
over time (Benford and Snow 2000; Gamson 1992), sug-
In the above passage, Lennie discovered that a brand he gesting that legitimate brands and their meanings may
knew little about was, indeed, gay friendly. Informants re- change, too. Instances of brand consumption provide op-
lated incidents in which they intentionally extended or with- portunities for consumers to apply an existing frame or re-
held their patronage to brands branded as friendly or antigay, flect and change their beliefs and expectations that constitute
respectively, not judging them on perceived functional mer- the frame. Bridging refers to ways consumers connect
its but on whether the sponsor was perceived as gay friendly brands to meanings associated with the gay community, but
or hostile. Implicit in Lennie's passage is the adoption of previously unrelated to brands. In this manner, consumers
the insider interpretation frame paired with the reward frame. rearticulate brands in a manner resonant to the changing
Because Lennie views himself as a member of an oppressed contexts of their lives (see Benford and Snow 2000, p. 624).
minority, and because of his activist leanings, he evaluates (In contrast, brand community meanings appear to focus on
the gay-friendliness of a brand with a previously unknown stories about the company's history; see Muniz and O'Guinn
cultural status. [2001].)
Lennie and other informants use the reward frame as a During the first year of the study, many informants re-
critical litmus test for evaluating potential new brand part- ferred to "gay positive" or "homophobic" brands and cor-
ners, recasting personal brand relationships in teiins based porations, but when probed as to the more tangible meanings
on legitimacy. In other words, his brand passes the litmus of these terms, interviewees usually replied that these com-
test: the brand was gay friendly. From a psychological per- panies were vaguely (un)supportive of the gay community
spective, the intimate bonds of Lennie's existing relationship or, more concretely, marketed toward gay consumers. But
with Cloverleaf deepened and became more durable (Four- in June 1994, a pivotal historical event occurred to change
nier 1998, p. 365). He also participates in the cultural re- the reward and punish frames and the substantive bases of
shaping and reinforcement that brand cocreation entails, par- legitimacy. The local government introduced a bill that
ticipating in a shared process of legitimizing brands, through would have granted gay and lesbian couples virtually all of
applying politically charged litmus tests. Thus, applying the family rights of heterosexuals, including adoption and
brand litmus tests goes beyond the more simple and unre- health benefits. However, contrary to most votes, this one
flective inscription of a frame. In the section on cognitive was declared a vote of individual conscience, indicating that
legitimacy, frames were simply inscribed in taken-for- the government did not require its members of the legislative
granted manners. Certain brands were assumed to be legit- assembly to vote along party lines. As a result, due to lack
imate (e.g., Absolut); consumers hardly questioned their of support from the government party and the other parties,
statuses. In contrast, assessing the moral legitimacy of the bill failed.
brands of unknown (or of less privileged) status required These external, historical events had interesting discursive
critical application of the litmus test: does the brand support effects on litmus tests and brand meanings—informants
or oppose our political ideals? linked relatively new meanings to the extant reward and
Lennie's interview reveals an important theoretical wrin- punish frames, and subsequently, to brands. Consumers in-
kle connected to his passionate concern with supporting gay- terviewed formally or in situ after early June labeled brands
positive brands. He desires the legitimacy bestowed by large not only as gay positive or homophobic but also as being
corporations and their brands, especially those perceived to so in a particular way; supporting gay and lesbian couples'
be courting the gay market: "I want our love to be recognized right to same-sex domestic spousal benefits was bridged onto
as being just as valid and worthy and respected . . . as the reward and punishment frames. For example, Dick (Eu-
straight love." Informants attempt to penetrate the surface rasian male, 30s) reported that he "boycotted" Hope Links
BRAND LEGITIMACY 461

Golf Club because the club refused to serve Molson's beer. You can protect yourself from HIV. By the year 2000. up to
He elaborated that Molson's both sponsored Lesbian and 40 million people will be H1V+.
Gay Pride Day and had instituted same-sex domestic spousal
benefits for their employees. He indicated that he is now
favorably disposed toward Molson's and their "gay positive" First, The Body Shop facilitated gendered free expression
human resource policies. As this suggests, the reward and through informants' use of cosmetics. Yet, the emerging
punish frames incorporate the dimension of rights for gay AIDS frame evolved in the community and demonstrated
couples and families, over and above his evaluation that its legitimacy for commercial use, despite the sensitive na-
Molson's also advertises in gay and lesbian media and spon- ture of AIDS. (The frame was further reinforced 2 yr. later
sors Lesbian and Gay Pride Day. Overall, my readings of when billboard ads of brands of protease inhibitor medi-
primary and secondary texts subsequent to the parliamentary cations featured idealized images of healthy HIV-positive
vote indicate that the legitimacy of gay positive and ho- men.) Through its public sacrifices and support for the gay
mophobic brands was linked to relatively new meanings: community. The Body Shop grew up and developed another
legal protections for gay and lesbian couples. Over time, legitimate identity: AIDS activist brand. In turn, its legiti-
frames are transformed, according to critical social and po- mate status confers legitimacy on the more recent AIDS
litical events, as certain frame meanings are newly incor- discourse. The Body Shop's status as a legitimate gay cul-
porated. Consumers took fresh looks at their brands, in light tural resource is strongly reinforced and enhanced.
of evolving frames.
Bridging also refers to creation of new frames that oc-
casionally emerge and link to brands. Gay communities are
Legitimizing through Inserting Brands into Collective
Memory. Another means of legitimizing a brand is in-
usually contentious cultural formations with diverse interests
serting it into the community's collective memory—the
and memberships, with lived tensions among people living
ways that the community understands its own shared past,
with AIDS, lesbians, people of color, and gay white males.
informed by present ideals and circumstances (Kansteiner
Thus, frames are generated out of these dynamic cultural
2002)—through the rituals of consuming brands during the
and social tensions, and they potentially change brand gay community's public occasions. Ritual is used to publ-
meanings. Although no informants applied the discourses ically "affirm, evoke, assign, or revise the conventional sym-
of AIDS activism to brands during the interviews, I ob- bols and meanings on the cultural order" (McCracken 1988,
served in my fieldwork that AIDS-related meanings began p. 84). Brands are part of the rituals of the gay community's
to emerge as a new frame potentially inscribed on brands. annual festivals and occasions where consumption is, seem-
For example, during June of 1993, I first noticed the new ingly, incidental to the focal purposes of the events: Lesbian
Benetton billboard ads located strategically near the geo- and Gay Pride Day (LGPD; see Kates and Belk 2001) and
graphic confines of the gay and lesbian neighborhood. One the AIDS Walk for Life. Furthermore, unlike in consumption
billboard, featuring a man's shoulder with the words "HIV communities (Kozinets 2001; Muniz and O'Guinn 2001),
POSITIVE" tattooed on it, was particularly prominent. ritualizing the brand in the gay men's community is prob-
During late 1994, it was apparent that The Body Shop's lematic because brand consumption is decidedly not one of
legitimate status as the Best Girlfriend! brand was being the community's focal purposes of major gay festivals. Tell-
enhanced by the new AIDS frame. I viewed signs in the ingly, brand sponsorship is a problematic union, given gay
shop's windows, informing consumers about the latest consumers' traditional suspicion of companies (see Baker
global AIDS casualties, echoing community concerns. The et al. 1995). Thus, brand sponsorship is prey to charges of
Body Shop, through its understanding of community con- sacred events becoming commercialized, rendering brand
cerns, appeared to be morphing into a brand supportive of sponsors unwelcome (Kates and Belk 2001). Further, the
AIDS education and activism, in its efforts to provide rel- brands' presences and meanings are potentially in confiict
evant information and AIDS statistics. This emerging frame with gay consumers' collective memory of shared gay strug-
was, at the time, socially taboo, given the sacred status of gle and oppression, since Coors and other brands contributed
AIDS in the community, and the injunction against exploit- to that oppression. But these potentially negative ritual out-
ing sacred meanings for commercial purposes. In spite of comes on collective memory are not borne out by field notes:
this cultural prohibition, the brand achieved this renewed
cultural status by providing AIDS information, sacrificing
for the community by distributing red ribbons at the Walk
for Life AIDS fund-raiser, and by showing open support for During the From All Walks of Life March for AIDS, there
the gay community at the same event: are representatives from some of the major banks, the local
AIDS hostel. The Body Shop, and local government. .
The goal is to raise $1 million for AIDS care and research
[At the AIDS Walk for Life], there was a contingent of em- . . . for the first time in Walk's four-year history, Donut
ployees from The Body Shop, wearing black t-shirts saying Delish and Pizza Pizzazz are major sponsors. Donut Delish
"protect and respect" and carrying a green banner. On the is providing free coffee and donuts to walk participants. Pizza
back of their t-shirts, it said "THE FACTS: 60-70%. of Ca- Pizzazz donated $3000 worth of pizza. It costs just $1 for a
nadian women contract HIV/AIDS through heterosexual sex. slice, which goes to the Walk's proceeds.
462 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

In striking contrast to the carnivalesque excess of LGPD, thentic" human communities (e.g., Muniz and O'Guinn
the Walk for Life is sacred and serious in its purposes (see 2001, p. 426-27). The present article forwards a more rad-
Belk, Wallendorf, and Sheny 1989), in light of the losses ical view: legitimate brand meanings may serve to enhance
resulting from AIDS/HIV Given the profane nature of com- and dramatize issues of interest and importance to human
mercial brand sponsors, it is remarkable that there was only communities. Many of the informants displayed critically
a muted outcry of protest from members of the gay and reflective orientations that critics accuse big brands of cor-
lesbian community about the dozen brand sponsors partic- roding (e.g., Klein 1999). Informants were quick to com-
ipating in the event. In this regard, the money donated by mend the gay positive actions of brands and quicker to
brands has certain sacred uses, purposes, and ritualistic ef- condemn seemingly antigay actions of other brands. In a
fects. During my field observation, I noted participants ex- sense, brands in the gay community I studied were meto-
hibiting all the expected institutionalized behaviors of public nymic for the issues of social justice informants espoused.
commercial events: talking, walking, quietly lining up, and Brand consumption served as a symbolic arena in which the
consuming free coffee and one dollar pizza. In situ con- struggle between oppression and human rights were fought
versations revealed no disapproval of corporate sponsorship. and legitimate meanings ritually confirmed. Brands were
Indeed, most interviewees noted how generous and gay pos- often held accountable to legitimate standards. Consumers
itive brand sponsors were presumed to be for donating all may enthusiastically embrace brands in active loyalty (e.g.,
the food and money. Further, when speakers glowingly an- Kozinets 2001) or temporarily reject them (e.g., Kozinets
nounced the donations by major brand sponsors (and the 2002), but usually, they must negotiate with brands as om-
fact that the Walk had accomplished its million-dollar ob- nipresent facets of everyday life. Currently, brands are cit-
jective), the crowd cheered enthusiastically. Thus, the in- izen-artists, helping consumers negotiate identity concerns
corporation of new brands into the reward frame is related (Holt 2002, p. 81). If this is so, then the present ethnography
to the perceived sacrifice of sponsors' money and goods, in illustrates a central element of good brand citizenship: being
an agapic as opposed to economic manner (Belk and Coon held morally accountable for actions that affect diverse
1993), potentially rendering their brands legitimate and in- communities.
stitutionalized presences at the Walk for Life and other com- Relatedly, Holt (2002) addresses the question of brand
munity contexts. Further, participation of employee groups citizenship, asserting that authentic brands will be displaced
from The Body Shop, several banks, and other companies by citizen-artist brands that help consumers cultivate iden-
humanized the brands. In these ways, certain brands avoided tity. Strikingly, in accord with Holt's view, the consumers
the appearance of commercial contamination of the Walk's studied here view these brands as heavily interwoven with
ritualistic and sacred purposes. Additionally, some of the the social interests, concerns, and life of the gay community.
brands featured at the Walk for Life were slowly becoming Further, the present consumer context presents a meaningful
legitimate gay cultural resources, despite their obvious com- extension of Holt's theory by elaborating on cultural pro-
mercial origins. By doing more than mere advertising in gay cesses that shape a brand's citizenship status (i.e., litmus
print venues, and by coming out of the closet themselves tests, bridging, and collective memory insertion). Gay con-
and showing public support for both the gay community sumers have already peeled away the veneer to understand
and one of its most serious concerns, the brands were subtly brands' underlying motivations, a collective moral project
building on the dominant meanings of the market as a cold, that assesses brands' worthiness as citizens. However, Holt
impersonal realm (see Kozinets 2002). These brands re- (2002, p. 87) argues that consumers' acceptance of brands
spectfully contaminated themselves with subcultural mean- is based on the way they contribute to (presumably indi-
ings by acting as supplicants to the community, unlike in vidual) identity projects. In contrast, the present findings
brand communities in which brands are the natural focus suggest that the basis of brand citizenship—embodiments
(e.g., Muniz and O'Guinn 2001). of community's legitimate meanings—will be based on
shared normative meanings associated with moral com-
DISCUSSION munities. Thus, the emerging dialectical identity project Holt
forecasts may be self-interested and demanding of socially
This article offers a theoretical perspective on brand le- responsible brand behaviors. Without the legitimate dimen-
gitimizing processes in a non-brand-focused context. I offer sion, brands are simply the means of individualistic pleasure
broader implications of this study for the discipline below. for economically privileged consumers. In the future, brands
may become citizens by incorporating communities' legit-
Implications for Understanding Brands, imate meanings, accomplishing an alignment with consum-
Legitimacy, and Community ers' interests, passing their litmus tests, and perhaps becom-
ing culturally authentic.
One of the significant findings of interpretive consumer
research is that brands form the center for community and Implications for Understanding Legitimate Brands
social interaction (e.g., Muniz and O'Guinn 2001). The sup-
porting and linking roles of brands in the present context
and Cultural Authenticity
deserve further comment, especially in light of the common Unpacking legitimacy helps consumer researchers un-
critical discourse that charges brands with destroying "au- derstand brand authenticity and utopianism in more depth.
BRAND LEGITIMACY 463

Holt (1998, p. 14) describes authenticity as a high cultural pian brand, such as Star Trek, may be considered an ex-
capital consumer process that involves either cultivating or traordinary case of the legitimate. (That is, legitimacy may
avoiding mass produced objects. Further, Kozinets (2002) be a necessary but insufficient condition for utopianism.)
describes a group of consumers who ban popular brands in Significantly, not too many brands cultivate institutionalized
order to realize and emphasize their own authentic artistic Utopian meanings with, say, Star Trek's extensive oppor-
creations. Thus, authenticity is found in objects in opposition tunities for brand cocreation and social activity (e.g., the
to, or distanced from, the capitalist ethos as exemplified by shows, films, clubs, and Web sites). However, many brands
mass marketed brands. However, present informants' nar- may become less grandiose but legitimate commercial sym-
ratives suggest that the authentic may be potentially located bols by conforming to human communities' expectations
in select mass-marketed brands. Levi's, The Body Shop, for moral behaviors.
and Absolut, in particular, with their long histories may be
considered authentic cultural resources because they are un-
derstood as legitimate entities cocreated between the mar-
keter and the community. These brands embody a vibrant
set of socially relevant meanings, helping the community Using Legitimacy: Understanding Brand
negotiate the meanings of homophobia and gay friendliness. Consumption
Thus, cultural authenticity may be achieved by another im-
portant sociocultural route: through legitimizing processes Legitimacy helps consumer researchers understand other
that inscribe brands with meanings associated with com- brand phenomena. Increasingly, brands come with consid-
munities, overshadowing the market taint (cf. Kozinets erable negative and positive sociocultural baggage (Holt
2002). 2002; Klein 1999), inspiring consumer judgments of legit-
Legitimacy has implications for Utopian brands "that cre- imacy. In accord with postmodern theory, brands separate
ate worlds that strike consumers' imaginations . . . that from their traditional product referents and signify all man-
inspire and provoke and stimulate" (Holt 2002, p. 87). Uto- ner of provocative sociocultural meanings. Accordingly, le-
pian brands maintain a compelling set of institutionalized, gitimacy helps us understand conditions under which con-
grassroots meanings that comprise a consumption culture sumers exercise some influence over brands in social
such as Star Trek (Kozinets 2001). In contrast, the present contexts. For example, Schouten and McAlexander (1995)
study suggests that many brands' cultural success may be describe a consumption scenario in which certain men par-
attributed to a more prosaic phenomenon: legitimacy. In- take in institutionalized meanings represented by the Harley
terpretations here show the ways that certain brands embody Davidson brand. Evidently, Harley represents legitimate
local cultural meanings and related moral demands. For ex- meanings of machismo and freedom from professional
ample, camp meanings allow brands to fit in well with local men's career iron cages. One explanation for this brand's
cultural mores and history—a set of particularistic meanings popularity among many diverse social collectivities of men
that originate from urban gay subcultures (Kates 2002; is that the meanings are institutionalized to a significant
Weeks 1985). Levi's, for example, illustrates these legiti- extent, but are still sufficiently malleable to assume socially
macy principles extremely well. With its own roots steeped acceptable variations in different socioeconomic contexts.
in cultural meanings of the 1960s counterculture (Baker et A seeming anomaly, challenging this explanation, is that
al. 1995), it exemplifies one strand of cultural mean- posed by Dykes on Bikes. How could Harley's sexist mean-
ing—opposition to homophobia. Counter to the stated dem- ings attain any degree of legitimacy among a group of em-
ocratic ideals embraced by American culture, gay men ex- powered lesbian feminists? The answer may lie in the way
perience their lives as limited by bigotry. Levi's has that legitimacy has been conceptualized in past literature.
marketed to the gay community and even became part of Rather than understanding it as comprised of enduring and
the masculine gay style of the 1970s, publicly supporting reified meanings as residing in the local community and
gays in its opposition to the Boy Scouts' decision. The brand inside the brand (cf. Handelman and Arnold 1999), it may
both targeted gay men and aligned itself with a powerful be understood as continuing social processes in which con-
set of alternative, legitimate meanings about sex, culture, sumers negotiate shared meanings, constrained by institu-
fair play, and justice. The Levi's brand has special relevance tionalized—but still malleable—meanings associated with
and resonance for gay men, capturing a powerful contra- previous contexts and the brand itself. Harley achieves some
diction experienced by gay men: being victimized in a pu- semiotic vagueness, linked to its meanings of freedom that
tatively just society. opens it up to lesbians' subversive legitimizing processes.
Yet, some brand meanings become so institutionalized that
Nonetheless, Levi's is not Utopian in the way that Ko-
reconciliation may be futile; Coors represents the exemplar
zinets and Holt describe. Gay men of this study did not
of this case. It is telling that more than 20 yr. after Coors'
socialize or congregate around the brand, placing it at the
transgression, gay men observe the boycott despite strong
center of their lives, imaginations, or consumption activities.
marketing overtures. Evidently, the brand's insult was so
However, they did socialize wearing Levi's jeans and ad-
specific, directed, and semiotically closed that it rendered
mired the brand for its steadfast and loyal support; it inspired
future legitimacy unlikely.
a strong measure of respect and acceptance. Thus, the Uto-
464 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

tionality in Organizational Field," American Sociological Re-

Directions for Future Research view, 48 (April), 147-60.
Fournier. Susan (1998), "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing
Increasingly, demanding publics are holding up brands,
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Con-
consumption, and business activities to moral scrutiny and
sumer Research, 24 (March), 343-73.
finding many illegitimate examples (Klein 1999) in the Gamson. William A. (1992), Talking Politics, New York: Cam-
global landscape. Thus, there are many productive research bridge tJniversity Press.
avenues consumer researchers may pursue when studying Handelman. Jay M. and Stephen Arnold (1999). "The Role of
the moral dimensions of consumption. Future research may Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the
probe into individual and private consumption contexts: un- Institutional Environment," Journal of Marketing, 63 (July),
der what circumstances do individual consumers and fam- 33^8.
ilies consciously adhere to competing legitimate norms Holt, Douglas B. (1998). "Does Cultural Capital Structure Amer-
when consuming? There are important transitional events ican Consumption?" Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1),
that prompt brand switching due to the delegitimizing of a 1-25.
brand by a community (e.g., Apple's partnership with Mi- (2002), "Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical
crosoft). Thus, further research may investigate how brands Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding," Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 29 (June). 70-90.
lose their carefully constructed social fits with communities
Kansteiner. Wolf (2002). "Finding Meaning in Memory: A Meth-
and through what carefully managed brand behaviors they
odological Critique of Collective Memory Studies." History
regain them. Legitimacy suggests that a brand is a very and Theory 4 (June), 179-98.
complex entity, requiring consumer researchers to recon- Kates, Steven M. (2002), "The Protean Quality of Subcultural
sider the conceptualization of the brand. A brand name such Consumption: An Ethnographic Account of Gay Consumers,"
as Levi's maps onto several different strands of cultural Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December). 383-99.
meanings; depending on grassroots meanings and mana- Kates, Steven M. and Russell W. Belk (2001). "The Meanings of
gerial decisions, Levi's might be a dramatically different Lesbian and Gay Pride Day: Consumption through Resistance
brand for gay men, Christian fundamentalists, teenagers, and Resistance to Consumption." Journal of Contemporary
environmentalists, and other major groupings. There may Ethnography, 30 (August). 392-429.
Klein. Naomi (1999). No Logo, New York:' Picador.
be many forms of legitimacy to attain! In that sense, the
Kozinets. Robert (2001). "Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the
brands in this article are one mirror that gay men hold up Meanings of Star Trek's Culture of Consumption."" Journal
to their own lives. They see a legitimate reflection when of Consumer Research. 28 (June). 67-88.
brands connect with their particularly sociocultural baggage. (2002), "Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipa-
Thus, legitimacy occurs when consumers become convinced tory Illuminations from Burning Man,"' Journal of Consumer
that their brands and they have matching baggage. Research, 29 (June), 20-38.
Levine, Martin (1998). Gay Macho: The Life and Death of the
Homosexual Clone, New York: New York University Press.
[Dawn Iacobucci and David Glen Mick served as editor McCracken. Grant (1988). The Long Inteniew. Newbury Park,
and Eric Amould served as associate editor for this CA: Sage.
article.] Meyer. John W. and Brian Rowan (1977). "Institutionalized Or-
ganizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony," Amer-
ican Journal of Sociology, 83 (June), 340—63.
REFERENCES Muniz. Albert and Thomas C. O"Guinn (2001), "Brand Commu-
nity." Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March). 412—32.
Baker, Daniel B., Sean O'Brien Strub, and Bill Henning (1995). Plaster. Gip (1998), "I'll Drink to That: Ranking the Beer Makers."
Cracking the Corporate Closet, New York: HarperBusiness. Gay Financial Net^vork, December 2, http://www.gfn.com.
Belk. Russell W. and Gregory S. Coon (1993). "Gift Giving as Schouten. John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995). "Subcul-
Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based tures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers,"
on Dating Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 43-61.
(December). 393-413. Spiggle. Susan (1994), "Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative
Belk, Russell, Melanie Wallendorf. and John F. Sherry, Jr. (1989). Data in Consumer Research,'" Journal of Consumer Research,
"The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy 2 (December). 491-503.
on the Odyssey." Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June). Stewart. Alex (1998). The Ethnographer's Method, London: Sage.
1-38. Strauss. Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative
Berger. Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (1966). The Social Con- Research, 2d ed.. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
struction of Realit\\ New York: Anchor. Suchman, Mark C. (1995). "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and
Benford. Robert D. and David A. Snow (2000). "Framing Pro- Institutional Approaches."" Academy of Management Review,
cesses and Social Movements: An Overview and Assess- 20 (June), 571-610.
ment," Annual Review of Sociology, 26. 611-39. Weeks, Jeffrey (1985). Sexualit}- and Its Discontents: Meanings,
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W Powell (1983), "The Iron Cage Myths, and Modern Sexualities, London: Routledge.
Revisited: Institutionalized Isomorphism and Collective Ra- Wolf. Naomi (1993), Fire with Fire, London: Vintage.