Rhetorical history and strategic marketing: the example of Starbucks

Purpose This study aims to illustrate how firms engage in rhetorical history, i.e. “the process by which managers skillfully impose meaning on a firm’s past as a persuasive and agentic process” (Suddaby et al., 2010). The case study shows that the connection of past events to specific and schematic narratives allows external events to be appropriated and used by Starbucks as assets to achieve its organizational goals (e.g. legitimacy). Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a close reading and coding of 1,852 “stories” (2,470 pages) published by Starbucks between 2003 and 2020. Findings The authors first show that Starbucks’ language relies heavily on terms referring to temporality. The authors then highlight the organization’s efforts to assert its history, to emphasize its heritage and to inscribe itself in local and national histories. With this case study, the authors contribute to the ongoing debate on history as an organizational resource. The study shows how brands that are not necessarily “historical” can mobilize rhetorical history in their strategic marketing. Research limitations/implications This case study illustrates four heritage implementation strategies: narrating, visualizing, performing and embodying. Further research could contribute to the discussion of rhetorical history production practices, in particular how heritage elements are validated, articulated, related and adopted by organizations (Burghausen and Balmer, 2014). Originality/value The research shows that the main mechanism for constituting social memory assets does not lie in the accumulation of narratives, but in the coupling of narratives at different levels, and in the inclusion of several stakeholders within the narratives. The research also highlights that the affirmation of the historicity of the firm is a prerequisite for the constitution of social memory assets. The research shows that there are a wide variety of ways to convey historical narratives, in particular the essential role leadership plays in the rhetorical process of historicization. The research also shows that the issues of identity and legitimacy are more closely linked than previous research has suggested. In a way, rhetorical history serves strategic management as much as marketing. The porosity between the different audiences allows for a strong alignment between stakeholders, thus consolidating a competitive advantage that lies at the heart of Starbucks’ success, and which notably contributes to reinforcing its core value proposition (i.e. access to a “welcoming, safe and inclusive” third place) and its relational business model. Finally, the case shows that the mobilization of social memory assets does not necessarily lead to the use of nostalgic associations. In this case, for Starbucks, it is not a matter of cultivating memories of the “good old days” but of drawing inspiration from the past, of maintaining traditions to remain culturally relevant and of relying on these assets to project itself into the future.

Mining the Past: History Scripting Strategies and Competitive Advantage in a Family Business

History is increasingly recognized as a distinctive source of competitive advantage for family businesses. Taking a rhetorical history perspective, we study how a family business leveraged the family’s three generations long history of entrepreneurship to sustain profitable growth over 16 years. Through our analysis, we identify three history scripting strategies—embedding, elaborating, and building family history—that created important sources of competitive advantage for the family business, facilitating acceptance by broader communities, building a reputation of continuity, and inspiring innovation through tradition. These findings advance the history-informed understanding of family firms’ idiosyncratic sources of superior performance.

Rhetorical History, Historical Metanarratives, and Rhetorical Effectiveness

This chapter contributes to the literature on rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. This literature has shown that managers in a wide range of organizations create historical narratives that are used rhetorically to advance the organization’s goals. The existing literature gives us a limited understanding of the determinants of the rhetorical effectiveness of these historical narratives. This chapter draws on the literature on confirmation basis and the literature on historical metanarratives to understand the factors that influence whether a listener will be persuaded by a manager’s historical narrative. The use of a historical narrative is likely to be strategically efficacious whenever the historical narrative is congruent with the listener’s historical metanarratives and with the ontological and cosmological commitments that underpin the listener’s historical metanarrative. Whether or not the historical narrative is true is far less important in predicting its rhetorical effectiveness.

No Future in This Country

No Future in This Country: The Prophetic Pessimism of Bishop Henry McNeal Turner is a rhetorical history of the public career of Bishop Turner during a critical point in American history—from 1896-1915—the “nadir of race relations.” It was during this period in history that African Americans lost many of the gains during Reconstruction. During this period, America adopted the “separate but equal doctrine,” lynching of African Americans went unabated, the convict leasing systems were on the rise, and the Jim Crow era had begun. In response to this, many African American leaders produced racial uplift narratives that focused on respectability politics. No Future argues that Turner opposed racial uplift and respectability politics as a panacea for what ailed African Americans. His answer was simple—emigration to Africa. While Turner did not see any bright and glorious future for African Americans during this time, he never gave up hope that African Americans would someday use their own agency to carve out a better future for subsequent generations. No Future argues that Turner does this within the African American Prophetic tradition by focusing in on Turner’s use of prophetic pessimism. In short, while many African American leaders were celebrating how far they had come from slavery, Turner reminded them and the nation that they had not come that far—indeed, in many instances, with conditions continuing to worsen, many felt they were still trapped, if not by slavery itself, then surely the lingering effects of slavery.

“Mckinley, the God of Fool Negroes”

Chapter 4 offers a rhetorical history of Turner's political career leading up to the 1900 campaign. Second, the chapter offers a rhetorical analysis of speeches and writings from Turner as he campaigned for the Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan. Though Bryan lost to William McKinley in a landslide, Turner argued that his support for Bryan was in protest of the Republican Party abandoning the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Introduction

In this chapter, the author offers an introduction to No Future in This Country: The Prophetic Pessimism of Bishop Henry McNeal Turner. The book offers a rhetorical history of Turner’s prophetic rhetoric by examining exclusively his use of prophetic pessimism. The authors aim is to examine “historical events and processes from a rhetorical perspective.” This is accomplished by forgrounding Turner’s prophetic rhetoric in response to historical events. The book examines not only Turner’s response to the event in the moment of the crisis but also the rhetorical context that leads Turner to respond the way that he did. Since speech is not done in isolation, each chapter offers not only Turner’s public responses but other African Americans’ as well. Johnson argues that studying history from a rhetorical perspective helps us see that history is both dialectical and rhetorical. The introduction includes a brief summary of each chapter.