Abstract
Corporate brand storytelling is gaining significance as social media and company websites become crucial avenues for consumer engagement. As part of an effort to create engagement with the brand story across all platforms, the current article suggests combining myths’ elements. Adopting the literary approach to myths, this paper defines myth as a narrative that holds significance among its followers. Based on previous research, this paper proposes a corporate brand storytelling model encompassing story, meaning, ritual, and transmedia dimensions. To assess how leading corporate brands use storytelling elements across their online platforms a quantitative content analysis was performed. Four key insights were derived from the study. First, storytelling should be systematically managed and studied according to our model. Second, rituals and transmedia are underutilized in integrating and disseminating brand storytelling. Third, storytelling should extend beyond paid advertising to achieve desired outcomes. Lastly, the incorporation of mythmaking and storytelling highlights the significance of cultural aspects, urging multinational brands to integrate local cultural elements.
Introduction
Corporate brand storytelling is a pivotal tool for strategically positioning brands, fostering stakeholder loyalty, commitment, and firm performance (Ganassali & Matysiewicz, 2021; Melewar et al., 2017; Pan & Chen, 2019; Pérez et al., 2024; Spear & Roper, 2016). With digital platforms’ evolution, corporate websites and social media pages have become crucial for engaging stakeholders seeking online information (Ageeva et al., 2018; Brito & Zanette, 2015; Foroudi et al., 2020). However, the literature on corporate brand storytelling remains fragmented, with inconsistencies in dimensionality (Júnior et al., 2023; Moin, 2020) and limited studies on storytelling across digital assets (Delgado-Ballester & Fernández-Sabiote, 2016). Despite the cultural branding approach (Holt, 2004) and storytelling marketing emphasizing brand stories’ indispensability (Chen & Eriksson, 2019; Dessart, 2018; Granitz & Forman, 2015), there is an absence of comprehensive insights on infusing brand stories with mythic qualities (Calvi & Hover, 2021; Doğan & Gjorgjioska, 2021; Kuehlwein & Schaefer, 2017). This research addresses this void, providing valuable insights into how brand storytelling converges with mythic narratives within brand management.
According to the literary approach to myth, myths are stories that deal with what is perceived as true in the spiritual, ethical, or aesthetic domains (O’Sullivan et al., 1995). As such, the question of whether the myth, or its source, is true or false, is not relevant, because belief is not subject to scientific or historical judgment (Zimand-Sheiner & Limor, 2017). This paper adopts this approach to myth with a modern definition for myth that was already applied in advertising research, stating that a myth is a story playing an important role among its believers and is based on a story, meaning, ritual, and the media in which it is presented (Zimand-Sheiner & Limor, 2017). Inspired by this definition, corporate brand storytelling is defined as the telling of a story that is meaningful to corporate brand stakeholders. Its power is contingent upon its meaning, consumer rituals, and its distribution across communication platforms. Based on this definition, a conceptual model (see Figure 1) is offered that includes the main dimensions of storytelling: story, meaning, ritual, and transmedia.
Four dimensions of the brand storytelling model.
The story component suggests that the mythological story has a narrative structure reflecting cultural elements to enhance its societal function (Delgado-Ballester, 2020; Ganassali & Matysiewicz, 2021; Gans & Zhan, 2023). The meaning component stresses that a myth holds profound significance by offering legitimacy to desired group values (Segal, 2004; van Bisbergen, 2009). The ritual component adds substantial layers through shared symbolic actions to maintain the myth’s viability within the believing community (Deutsch, 1953; Leach, 1968). Transmedia storytelling refers to distributing a brand story across media platforms and formats, integrating brand identity with diverse story elements to satisfy consumer needs (du Plessis, 2019; Granitz & Forman 2015).
To demonstrate the model dimensions, the article proposes a coding book for quantitative content analysis of the various components, drawing from previous research. The paper then presents findings from a study that analyzes how leading corporate brands utilize storytelling across their online platforms. Conclusions are drawn about how the proposed model can help these organizations enhance storytelling performance and implementation.
As such, the paper’s contribution is threefold. First, it contributes to the brand communication management literature by proposing an integrated framework for strategically planning corporate brand storytelling. Second, it offers operationalization of the dimensions in a detailed coding book to illustrate the frequency and characteristics of their use. Finally, it explores the dimensions that should be emphasized and improved upon to enhance and systematically use corporate brand storytelling.
The article structure is as follows: an overview of the four dimensions, related research, and the proposed model of corporate brand storytelling is provided in the article. After describing the research methodology and coding book, the results section assesses how leading corporate brands use storytelling elements across their online platforms. Following that, findings, conclusions, recommendations, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.
Framework Development
While myths are often viewed as false stories, they are also considered “an important story playing a role among its believers” (Zimand-Sheiner, 2017, p. 191). The importance of the story for its believers makes the issue of truth or falsity irrelevant (Doğan & Gjorgjioska, 2021), which is a unique and powerful trait of mythological stories. This definition of myth as an important story is extended by three dimensions: the story content, the conveyed meaning, and accompanying rituals (Zimand-Sheiner & Limor, 2017). As storytelling marketing is currently distributed across various channels, a fourth transmedia dimension is proposed. Accordingly, corporate brand storytelling is defined in this study as the telling of a meaningful story to corporate brand stakeholders. Its power is contingent upon associated consumer rituals, conveyed meaning, and distribution across communication platforms. Aligned with this definition, the theoretical background for the four dimensions is described.
The Story Dimension
Brand storytelling research emphasizes the story dimension. Researchers focus on themes, structure, heroes, and story sources. Prior studies have classified brand stories using basic or archetypal plots like rebirth, overcoming adversity, the underdog, and the quest (Delgado-Ballester, 2020; Gans & Zhan, 2023), master plots such as love, revenge, and rescue (Clifton, 2019; Kent, 2015), or kinship and heritage narratives (Canziani et al., 2020; Pfannes et al., 2021).
Regarding structure, researchers largely agree that it involves a chronological, causal chain of events motivated by the protagonist’s psychological state or goals (Escalas, 1998; Sanders & van Krieken, 2018; Spear & Roper, 2016). The hero is typically portrayed as an archetypal human (Clifton, 2019; Delgado-Ballester, 2020; Sanders & van Krieken, 2018). As for the story source, some assert it should derive from organizational history (Martin et al., 1983; Sørensen et al., 2021), while others posit it can be fictitious (Rowlinson & Procter, 1999).
As many studies refer to mythological or archetypal stories, this research accepts previous findings about story themes and structures. However, it adds significant nuances to the hero and source components. First, mythological stories take place at a particular time, past, present, or future, unlike legendary tales occurring “once upon a time” (Berger, 1997). Second, the hero need not be human, but also divine or animal (Berger, 1997). Third and most crucially, mythological stories reflect the cultural elements of the believing community (Berger, 1997). Drawing from shared cultural narratives enables brands to play a more significant societal role. Accordingly, this study suggests corporate brands adopt a cultural branding approach, utilizing these story elements to create impactful storytelling across digital channels.
The question arises regarding the extent to which organizations incorporate storytelling elements across their online platforms. Consequently, the first research question is posed:
RQ1: To what extent do corporate brand stories, defined by structure, time, hero, and culture, appear in at least one brand channel (corporate website, corporate brand page on Facebook, and/or corporate YouTube channel)?
To distinguish brand storytelling inspired by myths from other media narratives, meaning and ritual dimensions must be incorporated.
The Meaning Dimension
Researchers agree that the purpose of the corporate brand story is to deliver brand meaning (Essamri et al., 2019; Lundqvist et al., 2013; Scheerder et al., 2017; Spear & Roper, 2016), to describe what the brand stands for (Pan & Chen, 2019; Ryu et al., 2018) and to distinguish the brand from its competitors while enhancing the organization’s relationship with its stakeholders (Canziani et al., 2020; Spear & Roper, 2013). Corporate brand meaning expresses the human values attached to the brand (Voorn et al., 2018) and derives from brand vision and mission, that is, its overall organizational objectives and motivations. It is therefore imperative to emphasize the importance of defining corporate brand meaning through brand values, vision and mission before creating brand storytelling. Brand meaning should then be embedded in the corporate brand story.
In fact, brand storytelling inspired by myth is not solely about delivering brand meaning. As myths are based on meaning, they are powerful for their followers such that they become a belief that builds reality (Segal, 2004; van Bisbergen, 2009). To achieve that in a brand context, stories should also be related to consumer identity (Merrilees et al., 2016). As such, research on brand stories that are meaningful for consumer inspirations, values, and desires has shown a more positive attitude toward the brand than other stories (Carnevale et al., 2018; Mills & John, 2020; Mills & Robson, 2020; Shankar et al., 2001). Thus, the proposed model highlights these two points: (1) corporate brand meaning should be embedded in the brand story and (2) the story should offer its target audience validation and empowerment of their inspirations, values, and desires.
Therefore, to analyze how leading corporate brands employ the brand meaning across their online platforms, the second research question is:
RQ2: Do organizations use brand meaning in conjunction with their corporate brand stories?
Brand storytelling inspired by myths also functions to create constant and collective meaning. To do so, a third important dimension is added—ritual.
Ritual Dimension
Mythological stories remain relevant in groups’ everyday lives by incorporating rituals such as ceremonies, customs, or habits (Geertz, 2017). Rituals are repeated actions or habits driven by psychological or religious beliefs, distinct from actions taken for rational purposes (e.g., shaking hands is a ritual, but sowing wheat is not) (Leach, 1968). Psychologists and sociologists emphasize rituals’ social significance, highlighting their emotional and motivational qualities (Hobson et al., 2018). Rituals maintain social connections, inspire emotions, and motivate goal attainment. As such, mythological stories work hand-in-hand with rituals.
As a managerial tool, rituals can be categorized as organizational rituals (performed by and for employees) and branding rituals. Organizational rituals have long been recognized as crucial to an organization’s cultural web, such as award ceremonies recognizing individual efforts and parties promoting a sense of belonging and shared commitment, reinforcing an organization’s culture among employees (Elsner Twesme et al., 2021). Regarding branding rituals, research shows their effectiveness in forming brand communities (Eger, 2021), sharing canonical stories (Parrish, 2023), and creating community commitment, positively influencing brand awareness and loyalty (Hoang et al., 2020). Crucially, rituals are an effective tool for keeping brands present in consumers’ everyday lives (Sharma et al., 2017).
Accordingly, the model suggests that integrating story, meaning, and ritual will create effective synergy. To analyze the extent to which leading corporate brands incorporate brand rituals into their storytelling, the third research question is posed:
RQ3: How frequently do organizations use rituals with corporate brand storytelling?
After constructing the brand story conveying meaning and rituals, the last dimension is the media by which the story is distributed; specifically, transmedia storytelling.
Transmedia Dimension
Disseminating myths and brand stories through the media is an ever-evolving and challenging process (Pantano et al., 2020). The proliferation of social media has enhanced the concept of integrated marketing communication, ensuring a unified message across all marketing tools, through transmedia storytelling (Cronin, 2016). Transmedia storytelling is defined as “a process whereby elements of a brand story get dispersed systematically across multiple media to create a unified and coordinated consumer experience with the brand, with each medium making its unique contribution to the unfolding of the story” (Cronin, 2016, p. 89). A key component is the connection between delivering a brand story across multiple media and the spread of digital text, image, and video tools across various platforms, challenging and inspiring storytelling, and brand content management (Granitz & Forman, 2015).
Despite the need for transmedia storytelling, few studies have emphasized its challenges, stating that it requires integrating brand identity and meaning with sufficient variation in the brand story to satisfy consumer interests, variety, entertainment, information, and utility (du Plessis, 2019; Jenkins, 2008). Brand stories must be coherent with brand meaning while engaging consumers at different touchpoints (Hjelmgren, 2016). Research on delivering brand stories aligned with brand meaning is still lacking, especially in multichannel and transmedia storytelling. Therefore, the current model requires strategic planning for disseminating brand stories across channels. To understand the use of various digital platforms in corporate brand storytelling and transmedia, the following research questions are addressed:
RQ4a: Which is the most frequently used channel for delivering corporate brand stories?
RQ4b: Do organizations use transmedia with corporate brand stories?
The Model
The proposed model is presented in Figure 1. First, developing a brand story cannot be crafted without establishing the brand identity itself, since the purpose of brand storytelling is to foster an emotional connection with stakeholders through their identification with the brand’s identity, values, and purpose. Due to the extensive body of literature dedicated to brand identity development, the paper does not cover that aspect of the model, even though it is the first stage identified in the model.
Next, the organizational brand story should be composed of the three components mentioned above: story, meaning, and ritual. The relationships between these components are intertwined and interdependent. The story serves as the narrative backbone, providing a structured sequence of events that unfold over a particular timeframe. It features characters who embody the brand. However, the story alone is not sufficient; it must be imbued with a deeper meaning that resonates with the brand’s stakeholders and reflects the cultural values, and aspirations they hold. This meaning component allows the audience to identify with the brand’s purpose.
Furthermore, the ritual component plays a crucial role in bringing the story and its meaning to life. This is done by translating them into tangible practices, customs, and shared experiences. Rituals embed the brand narrative within stakeholders’ daily lives and routines, fostering a sense of community and belonging. Collectively, these three elements form a cohesive and impactful brand storytelling approach, each component reinforcing and amplifying the others.
Within the proposed model, the story, meaning, and ritual components seamlessly integrate with the transmedia dimension. The core storyline provides a unifying thread that can be adapted and tailored to different media formats. This offers audiences multiple entry points to engage with the narrative. The deep meaning conveyed in the story remains consistent across platforms, reinforcing the brand’s values and purpose. Meanwhile, rituals can manifest through interactive experiences, user-generated content, and community-driven initiatives, fostering participation and co-creation.
This holistic approach not only enhances engagement but also facilitates emotional connections and fosters long-term brand loyalty among stakeholders who feel deeply invested in the brand’s story, meaning, and rituals.
Methodology
This research aims to offer insights into how organizations can elevate their storytelling performance by more closely aligning with the dimensions defined in the proposed model. Consequently, the primary objective of this study is to examine the reality of corporate brand storytelling through the lens of the proposed model. This analysis is undertaken utilizing the proposed model and following the outlined research questions.
Research Design
To examine research questions, the study applied quantitative content analysis of leading corporate brand websites, Facebook pages, and YouTube channels. The quantitative content analysis method involves categorizing communication content using a coding book and applying statistical methods to describe phenomena and aspects of communication content (Zimand Sheiner & Lahav, 2020). The advantage of this method is its systematic nature in analyzing media messages, allowing for the content analysis of large-scale content and reaching quantitative conclusions regarding the investigated content (Riffe et al., 2019). This quantitative content analysis study employs a content analysis of 39 leading corporate brand websites and social media pages (population and sampling are explained below).
Population
Brands selected for the study are those ranked as leading brands in the Globes’ Brand Index, an Israeli newspaper renowned for its financial reporting. It is often necessary to understand the cultural context of corporate stories (Dalpiaz & Di Stefano, 2018) to analyze them. To ensure that the coders fully comprehended all the cultural cues embedded in corporate brand storytelling and to minimize the influence of culture on the coding process (Canziani et al., 2020), only locally based brands were selected, while other brands were excluded. Furthermore, brands that appeared on the leading brand list, but were not corporate brands, were also excluded from the study. A total of 39 corporate brands were selected for coding out of 63 brands included in the index.
The 39 corporate brands belong to various product categories: communication, media and cellular (3), food and pharmaceutical chains (4), banking and financial services (4), food and beverages (1), aviation and transportation (3), food manufacturers (4), health services (2), home décor (1), insurance and pension (4), fashion (1), cafes and fast food chains (3), electricity and electronic goods chains (1), real estate (3), hotels and resorts (3), and toiletries and cleaning products (2).
Sampling
Following Barthes (1977), sampling method selection is based on three criteria: relevance, homogeneity, and synchronicity. Relevance implies that all materials must be collected from a single perspective, specifically examining how corporate brands convey stories. Materials not following a story form (e.g., a list of company milestones without motivating factors derived from the protagonist’s psychological states or goals) were excluded. Homogeneity criteria refer to data essence. Accordingly, all materials were created by the organization to present the brand on its official platforms, including (1) the About, Our Mission, and/or Our Story sections on corporate brand websites; (2) the About and/or Our Story sections on corporate Facebook pages; and (3) the corporate brand’s YouTube channel, scanned for corporate brand storytelling ads promoting its brand image (advertisements for specific products were excluded). The third criterion, synchronicity, pertains to materials belonging to the same natural change cycle. The information about the corporate brand in the aforementioned sections is not frequently changed. Therefore, all materials were collected from brand websites, Facebook pages, and YouTube channels within the same one-week sampling period.
Coding
The quantitative analysis was operationalized using a coding book divided into the four storytelling dimensions. The dimensions and the operationalization of the coding book were adapted from previous studies to be used in this study. Table 1 presents the detailed coding book and its sources.
The Coding Book and its Sources.
To encode the texts, two undergraduates majoring in communication were trained and instructed by the researcher for 6 hours on story encoding. After the training, both encoders encoded all the texts independently. Encoders were provided with unlimited time to encode the texts without knowing the research objectives.
As a foundation, the researcher and two coders scanned brand platforms to analyze the brand meaning of all brands included in the study. We collected the vision, mission, and values of every organization. Both coders and the researcher worked separately and compared data and conclusions. Disparities between findings were discussed to minimize subjectivity (Kassarjian, 1977). The coding book was accompanied by a list of brand meanings to be used during coding.
Reliability
Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) was used to quantify the extent of agreement between the two coders. The intercoder reliability results were as follows: the existence of a story, α = 0.980; story theme, α = 0.960; story hero, α = 0.920; story time, α = 0.980; brand meaning in the story, α = 1; rituals in the story, α = 1; elements of the story spread across multiple media, α = 1; independence of each text, α = 0.960; and unique contribution of each text to the story, α = 0.960. These values indicate an acceptable level of reliability (Krippendorff, 2004). Cases of disagreement between coders were solved in joint discussions with the author, and thus the results presented were fully agreed upon. The number of stories and rituals was counted by both coders, and these were found to be equal.
Results
As previously noted, 39 Israeli corporate brands were analyzed. The answer for RQ1 is that 59% of all analyzed corporate brands presented their corporate brand story on at least one channel. Most of the brands introduced their stories on only one channel (Average = 1.4, Mean = 1, STDV = 0.6).
The data reveals the origin story as the most recurring theme, comprising 59% of the narratives. The company’s founder emerges as the most frequent protagonist, featuring in 41% of stories, followed by the brand itself (37%) and employees (22%). A combination of past and present timeframes is common (34%), with some stories set solely in the present time (31%) or the past (25%). The frequency of story themes varies across platforms, as evident from Table 2. On company websites and Facebook brand pages, the origin story dominates, while on YouTube brand channels, the effectiveness story theme takes precedence. Additionally, employees and brands become the main heroes on YouTube instead of founders, and the present tense prevails.
Story Characteristics: Theme, Heroes, and Time by Platform (n = 32).
Lastly, most stories (66%) incorporated local cultural elements influenced by the country’s establishment history, nation-building struggles, and the collectivist nature of local culture.
Table 3 demonstrates the findings regarding RQ2 and RQ3—introducing brand meaning and rituals alongside the brand story. While a majority of corporate brands incorporated brand meaning into their narratives, very few leveraged stories to introduce rituals to their target audiences. Only one brand story on a single channel utilized ritual elements.
The Frequency of Storytelling Dimension Combinations (n = 32 a ).
Among all brand stories introduced in various channels.
Only one ritual was found among all brand stories.
Regarding RQ4a as the most frequent storytelling channel, the 32 corporate brand stories were coded into three categories: website (12, 37.5%), Facebook (4, 12.5%), and YouTube (16, 50%). Only 18.75% of brands employ transmedia storytelling across multiple channels. YouTube videos emerged as the most common channel for distributing corporate brand stories, followed by written narratives on brand websites. Most brands did not utilize the About or Our Story sections on their Facebook brand pages for storytelling. Finally, for RQ4b concerning transmedia usage with brand stories, 26% of brands incorporated transmedia storytelling when posting stories across channels.
Discussion
This study employs cultural branding and myth theory as a foundation for building powerful corporate brands through storytelling. It proposes a corporate brand storytelling model comprising four dimensions: story, meaning, ritual, and transmedia. Furthermore, it investigates how leading corporate brands execute these dimensions in practice. Findings suggest that corporate brand digital platforms may benefit from a more comprehensive implementation of the model’s dimensions.
While storytelling is increasingly recognized as a vital tool for brand management, the results indicate a gap between its theoretical importance and practical utilization by major brands. Several brands analyzed did not incorporate storytelling elements into their digital channels. Moreover, among those employing storytelling, most disseminated their narratives through only one platform rather than leveraging a transmedia approach.
The first finding is quite intriguing: the data suggest that despite the increasing popularity of brand storytelling among marketers and researchers, not all leading brands incorporate it across their channels. Furthermore, most brands present their corporate brand story through only one channel. Given the pivotal role of corporate brand management in organizational strategy success (Foroudi, 2020), these findings may indicate a gap between the recognized importance of corporate brand storytelling and its practical implementation among brands. The deficiency of corporate brand stories in digital marketing communication channels can be explained in a few ways. First, it aligns with the rise of science-based marketing and brand bureaucracy management (Holt & Cameron, 2010), suggesting that a scientific approach to marketing and brand management bureaucracies may disrupt and limit myth-based and emotionally driven brand management processes. Previous studies found brand managers reporting difficulties utilizing core company myths, as marketing data and trend reports became the focus of organizational command-and-control hierarchies (Tillotson & Martin, 2015). Second, as building brands in the digital age requires strategies distinct from traditional approaches (Mingione & Abratt, 2020), these established brands may be less focused on digital platforms. The results might differ if less established brands were researched.
Second, an interesting finding was that not all model dimensions were used. While the frequency of using the story dimension in conjunction with the meaning dimension is high, the greater challenge is the ritual dimension and the use of transmedia storytelling. Although rituals are used in the business communication context, transmedia is rarely mentioned, and rituals are usually not discussed directly with brand storytelling but rather indirectly within the context of brand communities (Essamri et al., 2019), corporate brand cultural webs (Johnson, 1992), or brand positioning (Sharma et al., 2017). Hence, it is suggested that more emphasis should be put on promoting these components in both research and practice.
Third, the utilization of corporate brand YouTube channels to convey brand stories might reflect an approach that views firm-generated brand narratives as mere image advertising (Gensler et al., 2013). Conversely, other perspectives argue that advertising alone is insufficient for building strong consumer relationships (Kaufmann et al., 2016), and that brand stories should be strategically incorporated across all corporate brand channels (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Moreover, the About and Brand Story sections on companies’ websites and Facebook brand pages differ markedly from YouTube channels. The former are rarely updated and text-based, while the latter frequently feature updated video content. Although all are firm-controlled environments subject to organizational mediation and maintenance (Smith & Zook, 2016), the findings may point to a disconnect between managing image advertising on YouTube versus maintaining other firm-controlled channels consistently.
The fourth observation reflects on the importance of myths as inspiration for cultural branding. Most of the stories on corporate brand websites and Facebook brand pages were about the history of the firm. On the YouTube channel, the most frequent theme was the firm’s effectiveness. In most cases, local culture was represented following the cultural branding perspective (Holt, 2004). Local culture might also explain why the company CEO was never the hero of the stories. In contrast, the company founder shares the role of hero with the brand and its employees. Previous research on CEO branding and Israeli corporate founders found that it is not culturally accepted to promote the founding CEO’s brand in the media due to Israel’s socially oriented culture (Cottan-Nir & Lehman-Wilzig, 2018).
The final finding is that the present time was the most frequent in the YouTube channel stories. YouTube is also the channel with the most stories using employees as heroes. To understand these findings, the researcher examined these stories closely and discovered that the aim of these stories was to emphasize corporate brand commitment to Israeli society through emotional stories that demonstrate how their employees took care of their customers effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. This issue demonstrates the importance of employees as a powerful tool impacting corporate branding (Kaufmann et al., 2016), as they are the interface between the internal and external environment of the brand.
The main contribution of the current study lies in the inspiration taken from cultural myths for corporate branding and its practical and theoretical suggestions for corporate storytelling practice, as specified in the conclusion section.
Conclusion
Grounded in corporate brand storytelling and inspired by mythmaking’s potential to inform brand narratives, this study proposes a model for leveraging mythic dimensions in corporate brand storytelling: story, meaning, ritual, and transmedia. Furthermore, it analyzes whether and how leading corporate brands execute these dimensions.
By examining the model’s implementation, researchers can gain insights into how organizations utilize storytelling. They can also identify areas where managers could strategically strengthen its application. The model could be applied across various environments, platforms, organizations, and cultures, facilitating comparative and longitudinal studies. Additionally, it could support research investigating the impact and effectiveness of the various dimensions.
Based on the findings, managers and researchers interested in designing and distributing corporate brand storytelling should consider the following gaps and recommendations:
Systematic Storytelling—Although storytelling is a strategic tool for building corporate brands (Bietti et al., 2019; Dessart, 2018), leading corporate brands do not consistently communicate brand narratives across digital marketing channels. The proposed model and operationalization propose that corporate brand storytelling be systematically managed.
Planning versus Acting—A disparity was observed between utilizing only two dimensions (story and meaning) while neglecting brand rituals and transmedia distribution. This highlights a gap between the planning (meaning and story) and acting (rituals and transmedia) dimensions of storytelling. Managers should plan and act upon all dimensions to achieve desired outcomes.
Strategic Tool versus Advertising Tool—As corporate brands primarily use storytelling on YouTube, it should be emphasized that brand narratives serve a strategic function beyond advertising. Storytelling as a strategic tool necessitates leveraging all firm-controlled channels to disseminate the brand story.
Multinational versus Local Branding—While many corporate brands strive for multinational reach, cultural branding cannot be overlooked. For organizations operating locally and globally, integrating global values with locally resonant cultural elements is recommended.
Overall, this study contributes to the literature by proposing a comprehensive framework for strategic planning and analyzing corporate brand storytelling. It also offers actionable recommendations for practitioners to enhance storytelling implementation.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although the suggested storytelling dimensions are relevant to any corporate brand story, the current research is limited to established corporate brands. As such, it is possible that brands that are in a different position in their brand life cycle (Levitt, 1965), such as new brands entering the market, may be using storytelling and new media channels in a different way. Thus, further comparative research on the differences in using storytelling dimensions in various brand life cycle stages is recommended.
Furthermore, to understand the relationship between internal and external storytelling, future research should examine the four dimensions of storytelling in additional brand platforms and content, such as brand communities, internal branding, and consumer-generated brand stories.
Finally, the research shows that corporate brand storytelling is not widely used on digital platforms. Future research should conduct qualitative interviews or surveys with marketing, brand, and communications managers. This will enable it to gain direct practitioner insights on the challenges and opportunities in operationalizing mythic storytelling principles within organizations. In addition, a deeper qualitative analysis of exemplary case studies that successfully exhibit all dimensions of the mythic storytelling model is recommended. Such an investigation could further illuminate how impactful mythic narratives manifest for brands and complement the broad assessment of current practices presented in this study.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This manuscript is original and is not under consideration or published elsewhere.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
