Table of Contents
List of figures & tables ______________________________________________________________________ 3
Abstract __________________________________________________________ 4
PART I - Introduction ________________________________________________ 6
1.1. Aim _________________________________________________________________________ 7
1.2. Structure _____________________________________________________________________ 8
1.3. Reflection on data _____________________________________________________________ 9
1.3.1. Empirical material ____________________________________________________________________ 9
1.3.2. Delimitation ________________________________________________________________________ 10
Part II – Method __________________________________________________ 12
2.1. Semiotics ____________________________________________________________________ 12
2.1.1. Peirce and Saussure _________________________________________________________________ 13
2.1.2. A brand’s semiotic relation ____________________________________________________________ 14
2.2. Discourse analysis _____________________________________________________________ 15
PART III: Central concepts ___________________________________________ 18
3.1. Globalisation _________________________________________________________________ 18
3.1.1. Global flows ________________________________________________________________________ 18
3.2. Political communication ________________________________________________________ 20
3.2.1. Political marketing ___________________________________________________________________ 20
3.3. Branding ____________________________________________________________________ 21
3.4. Branding a president __________________________________________________________ 23
3.4.1. A personal presidential brand? _________________________________________________________ 23
3.4.2. Presidential performance _____________________________________________________________ 24
3.4.3. Presidential expectations and limitations ________________________________________________ 24
3.4.4. Brand lifecycle ______________________________________________________________________ 24
Part IV - Theory and model for analysis ________________________________ 26
4.1. Brand analysis ________________________________________________________________ 26
4.1.1. Brand Identity ______________________________________________________________________ 27
4.2. Gee’s 7 building tasks __________________________________________________________ 29
4.2.1. Discussion of Gee’s building tasks ______________________________________________________ 31
4.3. Message appeals______________________________________________________________ 32
4.4. Semiotic pictorial analysis ______________________________________________________ 33
4.4.1. Interpretative perspectives ____________________________________________________________ 34
4.5. Culture______________________________________________________________________ 35
4.5.1. National culture _____________________________________________________________________ 35
1
4.5.2. Discussion of Hofstede’s theory ________________________________________________________ 38
4.6. Model for analysis ____________________________________________________________ 40
PART V – Analysis _________________________________________________ 41
5.1. Material for the analysis _______________________________________________________ 41
5.2. Pictorial analysis ______________________________________________________________ 41
5.2.1. Website banners ____________________________________________________________________ 41
5.2.2. Pictures ___________________________________________________________________________ 45
5.3. Ahmadinejad’s biographies _____________________________________________________ 48
5.3.1. Website biography __________________________________________________________________ 48
5.3.2. Blog biography ______________________________________________________________________ 50
5.4. Ahmadinejad’s UN address _____________________________________________________ 53
5.4.1. Building significance and activities ______________________________________________________ 53
5.4.2. Sub-activity: Justifying Iranian nuclear program ___________________________________________ 55
5.4.3. Building relationships and identities ____________________________________________________ 55
5.5. Bush’s biography _____________________________________________________________ 59
5.5.1. Building significance and activities ______________________________________________________ 59
5.5.2. Relationship between Bush and the Americans ____________________________________________ 60
5.5.3. Connections create credibility _________________________________________________________ 60
5.5.4. Identity ____________________________________________________________________________ 61
5.6. Bush’s UN address ____________________________________________________________ 62
5.6.1. Building significance _________________________________________________________________ 62
5.6.2. Building activities____________________________________________________________________ 63
5.6.3. Building identities ___________________________________________________________________ 64
5.6.4. Social goods and identities ____________________________________________________________ 66
5.6.5. Relationships _______________________________________________________________________ 67
5.7. Presidential brands ____________________________________________________________ 69
5.7.1. Ahmadinejad’s brand ________________________________________________________________ 69
5.7.2. Bush’s brand _______________________________________________________________________ 71
5.8. Differences and similarities _____________________________________________________ 73
5.8.1. Identical brand identities, but different use of perspectives__________________________________ 73
5.8.2. Both are successful leaders ____________________________________________________________ 75
5.8.3. Global, yet national __________________________________________________________________ 75
5.8.4. Similarities in rhetorical strategies ______________________________________________________ 77
5.8.5. A rhetorical difference _______________________________________________________________ 78
5.8.6. Similar use of pictures ________________________________________________________________ 79
5.9. Chapter sum-up ______________________________________________________________ 80
PART VI - Conclusion _______________________________________________ 82
Literature ________________________________________________________ 84
List of appendices _________________________________________________ 92
2
List of figures & tables
Figures
1. Page 10 - Semiotic representation of a presidential brand
[Own production, based on Christensen & Morsing, 2004:65]
2. Page 11 - Three dimensional conception of discourse
[Based on Fairclough, 2001:2 and Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999:81]
3. Page 23 – Brand identity [Aaker, 2002:79]
4. Page 28 - Illustration of Barthes’ three signifying messages [Johansen, 1999:149]
5. Page 30 – 5 dimensional model illustrating Hofstede’s cultural values for USA and
the Arab world [Hofstede, 2008, appendix 13]
6. Page 34 - Model for brand analysis [Own production]
Tables
1. Page 30 – Cultural values identified by Geert Hofstede for the Arab world, Iran, USA
and the world average [Hofstede, 2008, appendix 13].
3
Abstract
This master thesis examines whether globalisation has had an effect on the display of
national culture in branding. As subjects for the study, the brands of former American
President George W. Bush and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are chosen.
Presidential brands are chosen because a president represents a nation as a
‘mother/father figure’, for which reason it is assumed that national culture will be visible
in the brands. However, an increased focus on global governance has widened a
president’s role and forces him/her to appear on a global scene. This might affect the
presidential brand to be less marked by national culture and more by a global approach.
Thus, the aim of this master thesis is to analyse and discuss, if and how the branding of
Bush and Ahmadinejad differ, and which role global flows and national culture play in this.
Throughout the thesis, the method of semiotics is employed, because the analysis and
interpretation of a semiotic sign is equal to that of a brand. Furthermore, the analysis of
the presidential brands is based on identifying signs in the presidents’ communication.
For the brand analysis, David A. Aaker’s Brand Identity Planning Model is used to identify
Bush and Ahmadinejad’s brand identities. In the analysis of brand identity, both text and
pictures will be analysed. The text is analysed by means of a discourse analysis based on
James Paul Gee’s seven Building Tasks, which is complemented by Norman Fairclough’s
three dimensions of discourse. The pictures will be analysed via visual semiotics as
presented by Roland Barthes. The findings from the textual and pictorial analyses
essentially make up the brand identities.
In the analysis, it became evident that Ahmadinejad and Bush’s brand identities are almost
identical. Both are branded as intelligent, educated and successful men. Furthermore, they
employ a similar use of rhetorical and visual representation. These similar brand identities
led to the general assumption that branding of presidents has been standardised due to
globalisation. Another aspect the analysis made clear is whether the presidents are a
national or an international personality. Both Ahmadinejad and Bush present themselves
as national brands, this is concluded as Bush and Ahmadinejad employ a greater focus on
nationalism than globalism in their communication. Even when they use a global identity
and/or discourse, there is an underlying focus of justifying or outlining national actions. In
addition, both presidents transfer national values to the global identity, which indicates
that they perceive their own nation as the best and most important. So even though the
role of presidents has been widened, they are still more national than global personalities
Nevertheless, the brands are not similar on all aspects. Among other things, the presidents
differed in terms of display of religion and success, the perspectives used in the brand
formation, and the connections made in the texts. These differences in the branding were
linked to American and Iranian culture, which implies that national culture is present in
the branding of Bush and Ahmadinejad. The brand identities are similar, yet how they are
constructed is affected by national culture.
4
In conclusion, the analysis found that globalisation has had an effect on the presidents,
although they have not been transformed into completely global personalities or brands.
Both the discursive and social practice of the presidential brands have been globalised.
The globalisation of the social practice entails an increased focus on global governance, a
widening of the presidents’ role and global expectations to a presidential brand. This
affects the discursive practice of producing the brands, which implies that Presidents in
general employ similar brand identities in order to meet the global expectation.
Furthermore, communication studies have been globalised, which leads to the use of
similar strategies around the world in the brand formation. This fuels the assumption that
presidential brands have been standardised. To sum up, it can be concluded that
globalisation has had an effect on presidential brands, yet it has not made presidents
completely global brands nor has it erased culture specific traits and national culture in
their branding.
February 27, 2009
_________________________________________________
Sofia Rasmussen
This master thesis consists of 174,333 characters, which corresponds to 79.2 pages.
5
PART I - Introduction
In the media we often hear that the world becomes more homogeneous due to
globalisation. This might have an effect on the perception of nationality, and whether
people present themselves as national or global brands. Will globalisation eventually erase
cultural differences and create a ‘global village’ as Marshall McLuhan once predicted
[McLuhan, 2002]? McLuhan predicted a world in which a ‘network of instant global
communication would be a key element in transforming local life into global life’
[Dasgupta, 2004:16-17]. Globalisation has affected the world for hundreds of years, but
throughout the twentieth century it has accelerated [Hannerz, 1996:92]. The acceleration
is mainly caused by developments within technology and media such as television and the
internet, as these media facilitates faster transaction of symbols and ideas between
different cultures [Young, 2002:1]. This leads to a widening and deepening of people’s
identities due to globally shared values and symbols, which might affect people and
cultures to become more globally oriented [Marston et al., 2008:46]. Thus, branding might
be marked more by global than national tendencies.
This master thesis seeks to examine the effects that globalisation has had on the display of
national culture in branding. Will the homogenisation of the world entail that culture
specific traits are erased in branding?
I have chosen presidential brands as the subject for study, as I believe a presidential brand
is placed in the tension field between national and global culture. A president is a
spokesperson or ‘father/mother figure’ of a nation and therefore represents national
culture, for which reason I assume that a presidential brand must be marked by national
culture. Nevertheless, globalisation has not only affected national culture but also politics,
which has become increasingly global, as movements towards global governance and an
increased focus on global incidents by the public, force presidents to take a global stance
on different issues. This has affected the role of the president, who according to Darren
Lilleker [2006:86] needs to be successful on both the national and the international scene
of politics, in order to gain support. Therefore, brands of political personalities must be
constructed for both a national and a global audience, and the role of a president is
possibly becoming more international than national. So even though a president
represents a nation, s/he is also an international personality, which might affects that s/he
uses a more global approach rather than a national approach in the brand formation.
By analysing presidential brands and comparing them, I wish to examine whether they are
marked by national culture or not. If not, effects of globalisation and the international role
of presidents might be instruments to explain the absence or downplay of national culture.
6
As subjects for this analysis, I have chosen former American President George W. Bush1
and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad2. I have chosen to work with these two
presidents because over the past few years they have been extremely visible in the media –
Bush via his War on Terror and Ahmadinejad via the Iranian nuclear program and his
denial of the Holocaust [Record, 2003:1; Rakel, 2009:188]. In addition, the two presidents
represent east and west, and the difference between American and Islamic culture, which
has been highlighted by means of e.g. the War on Terror. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad and
Bush's brands are placed in the same phase of the brand lifecycle, which makes them
possible to compare [Kapferer, 2008:238-240].
1.1. Aim
This master thesis seeks, in a comparative study, to analyse how American President
George W. Bush3 and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad4 brand themselves via
their official websites.
As mentioned above, presidents are maybe more international than national personalities,
which can affect how they are branded. This might lead to the use of a global discourse or
focus rather than a national discourse or focus on the presidential websites.
The aim of this master thesis is to analyse and discuss, if and how the branding of the two
presidents differ, and which role global and national culture play in this. While doing so, I
will address the following issues:





How are the American and Iranian President branded?
If there are any differences and/or similarities in the brands, can these be explained
by national culture?
Is it possible to detect the use of a global discourse on the websites?
Is it possible to detect if globalisation has evened out culture specific traits in the
presidential brands?
Do the presidents appear as national or international personalities?
1
From January 20, 2009 George W. Bush transferred the presidency to Barack Obama. So when this thesis is
handed in he will correctly be a former American President. However, I will refer to him as ‘President’ rather than
‘former President’ throughout this thesis.
2
As both my subjects are men, I will throughout this thesis refer to presidents/politicians as male
3
Hereinafter referred to as Bush or the American President
4
Hereinafter referred to as Ahmadinejad or the Iranian President
7
1.2. Structure
This thesis comprises six main parts. This first part introduces the aim and purpose, and
will furthermore provide a reflection on data including considerations concerning the
empirical material and a delimitation of this thesis.
Part II outlines the method this thesis is based upon. Firstly, semiotics is introduced as it
serves as an overall frame for the thesis, as well as the basis for analysing the pictures in
the empirical material. Secondly, a discourse analysis, which is used to analyse the texts in
the empirical material, will be accounted for.
Part III introduces three central concepts, which create the foundation of this thesis. These
are globalisation, political communication and branding. Globalisation and its effect on the
presidents are presented as it forms the basis for why national culture might be
downplayed in the presidential brands. Furthermore, branding and political
communication frames the communicative field, which this thesis is based within.
Part IV introduces the theories which will be used to analyse the presidential brands. The
theories will be used to analyse texts and pictures in the empirical material as well as
provide a cultural frame for Iran and USA, in order to assess whether the brands are
marked by national culture or not.
Part V includes the analysis of the empirical material based on the theories presented in
Part IV. When the empirical material has been analysed and the presidential brands have
been identified, they will be compared in terms of differences and similarities in order to
conclude if the brands are marked by global or national culture.
Part VI completes the thesis by means of a conclusion of the results and findings obtained
throughout the thesis.
8
1.3. Reflection on data
This chapter presents the empirical material for the analysis, as well as delimits the extent
of the thesis.
1.3.1. Empirical material
In the analysis, the official websites of Bush and Ahmadinejad are used as empirical
material. The websites can be found at the following addresses:
Ahmadinejad: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/ and http://www.president.ir/en/
Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/5
I have chosen to work with websites in order to have equal access to information
published about the two presidents, and because information transmitted via the websites
is controlled by the presidents. Previously, the media controlled which information
reached the citizens. But by using the internet, the presidents are avoiding noise and
media gatekeepers, as well as gaining direct access to their target audiences [Lilleker,
2006:205]. Thereby, the president has the opportunity to control the conversation, context
and direction of the communication [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:239]. By analysing online
communication from Bush and Ahmadinejad, it is possible for me to detect how the
presidents wish to be perceived, because they have complete control over the information
transmitted.
As the internet is a dynamic medium with constantly changing contents, the texts and
pictures analysed might not be available online when this thesis is handed in. Therefore,
all texts and pictures used in the analysis are enclosed as appendix 1 to 6.
In the analysis, cf. Part V, references to the empirical material will be marked by a
parenthesis stating the number of paragraph and line as such (paragraph, line). If a single
number appears in the parenthesis, it refers to an entire paragraph. Furthermore, in the
analysis all direct quotations are marked by italics to ease identification.
The texts will be analysed in separate chapters. However, if a text is referred to outside its
specific chapter of analysis it will be identified in the parenthesis, as indicated below:





Ahmadinejad’s blog biography = ABB
Ahmadinejad’s website biography = AWB
Ahmadinejad’s UN address = AUN
Bush’s biography = BB
Bush’s UN address = BUN
5
It should be noted that the website www.whitehouse.gov from January 20, 2009 is taken over by American
President Barack Obama.
9
Target audience
An important issue to consider in relation to the empirical material is the target audiences,
as both Bush and Ahmadinejad’s websites are analysed in their English versions. This
means that Bush’s website is both national and international in reach, due to English’s
prevalence around the world [Clark, 2007:5]. Contrary, Ahmadinejad’s website is merely
international – assumed that the Iranians will consult the Persian version. I assume that a
website which is merely international in reach will be less marked by culture than a
national website. Thus, I assume Ahmadinejad will employ a more global focus than Bush.
Some might claim that presidents construct identical brands nationally and
internationally. However, this is not always the case. An example is Ahmadinejad, who
published different material on his English and Persian website after a speech at Columbia
University in New York. The English version of the website provided a complete transcript
of his speech, in which he claimed that homosexuality does not exist in Iran. However, the
Persian transcript has precluded these statements [Rabatzky, Appendix 7]. This shows that
presidents are aware of their national and international brands, and the information
presented on the different versions of their websites. By analysing the English version of
Ahmadinejad’s website, I have focussed upon analysing his international brand.
1.3.2. Delimitation
This thesis is an inductive study, as conclusions will be drawn from probability rather than
logic. As only two presidential brands are analysed, the conclusions reached in this thesis
cannot sum up a generalising or valid result. For this to be possible, a much larger corpus
of presidential brands should be analysed, which the framework of this thesis does not
allow. However, I believe the results obtained throughout this study provide an indication
of globalisation’s effect on presentation of national culture in presidential brands.
A brand consists of both an identity and an image. The identity of a brand is the perception
that the sender has of himself, while the image is the brand created in the minds of the
receivers [Arvidsson, 2006:84]. This thesis focuses upon the identity, and thereby how the
presidents wish to be perceived. Therefore, I do not analyse how people will interpret the
brands, but rather how the presidents have constructed the brands and why they have
chosen to do so. This will be further commented on in section 2.1.2 – A brand’s semiotic
relation.
Working with online communication, it is also possible to analyse communication via
social networks such as MySpace or Facebook. Nevertheless, on Facebook there are
several profiles and groups claiming to represent Ahmadinejad and Bush, which indicates
that many are hoaxes. It is difficult to determine which are real and fake, and consequently
I have chosen to only analyse information transmitted by the presidents’ official websites,
in order to ensure the communication analysed is in fact transmitted by the presidential
offices.
10
In addition, it should be noted that I do realise that the information on the websites might
not be completed or posted by the presidents’ themselves but rather by their
administrations. However, I refer to Bush and Ahmadinejad as senders of the
communication because it represents them, and I assume they vouch for the information
presented on the websites.
When the presidential brands have been identified, I wish to compare differences and
similarities in order to establish whether they are marked by national culture or global
culture. In order to do so, a cultural frame for both countries must be established. As I do
not study culture or have the opportunity to make a cultural analysis within this thesis’
framework, I must rely on already collected data. I have chosen to use Geert Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions to compare the two nations. I am aware that his theory and results are
subject to great debate and critique. However, as I merely use them as an instrument to
measure similarities and differences in the presidential brands I find Hofstede’s theory to
be sufficient. Nonetheless, I will unfold this debate in greater details in 4.5.2. - Discussion of
Hofstede’s theory.
Objective analysis
In an analysis, it is important to obtain an objective outlook on the empirical material.
When assessing culture, it is important for the analyst to consider his/her own connection
with the cultures in question, in order to obtain an objective and stereotype-free analysis.
This relates to the terms ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.
Pure ethnocentrism appears when someone perceives his/her own culture as superior,
and all other cultures are assessed according to one’s own cultural frame [de Mooij,
1998:64-65]. This can cause a misinterpretation of foreign cultures [Gertsen, 1994:87].
Ethnocentrism is often expressed via stereotypes or prejudices [Op.cit. 90]. However, an
ethnocentric focus is not always deliberate, but rather a question of how people have been
socialised [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:138; Gullestrup, 2003:57]. Contrary, the cultural
relativist perceives all cultures to be equal, and seeks to understand others’ behaviour in
their cultural context [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:138]. Thereby, a cultural relativistic
attitude provides the best opportunity to avoid misunderstandings and prejudices in a
cultural analysis [Hansen & Panild, 1990: 207]. Nonetheless, it might not be possible to
detect complete cultural relativism, because all people to some degree are ethnocentric
even if it is undesired and possibly unknown [Op.Cit:209; Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:137].
As a Dane, I will analyse the presidents’ brands from a Danish cultural frame. However, I
must free myself as much as possible from my own culture, and thereby use a culture
relativistic perspective. Nevertheless, I realise that mediated message might have created
bias opinions about the two countries, and that my approach to culture might not be
completely marked by cultural relativism, but rather by an ethnocentric cultural
relativism.
11
Part II – Method
This part outlines the overall frame of theory of science which guides the entire thesis, as
well as its relation to brands. In addition, the method for the textual analysis will be
presented.
2.1. Semiotics
The overall method of this thesis is semiotics, as the analysis and interpretation of a brand
is similar to that of a semiotic sign. Basically, a semiotic sign is a mental construct, which is
based on its physical shape [Thwaites et al., 2002:32]. In comparison, a brand consists of
different communicative signs, which are interpreted by a receiver, who in turn ascribe
meaning to it. Thereby, branding is a semiotic process where products/people are
transformed by consumers into mental phenomena [Danesi, 2006:8]. Thus, a brand is both
a physical and a mental construct and can be compared to a semiotic sign [Op.Cit:21].
Thereby, it makes sense to apply a semiotic approach when analysing brands. In addition,
associate professor and PhD Winni Johansen [1999:140-141]determines that semiotics is
useful in the analysis of any kind of market communication or culture. As the websites of
Bush and Ahmadinejad are part of their market communication, and the analysis of
cultural signs is central to this thesis, I find that semiotics is a significant method to
employ.
Semiotics or Semiology6 derives from the Greek word semeîon, which means sign, and
represent the study of signs. The philosophy of semiotics can be summed up by the
following quote: ’Mennesket fødes, opvokser og agerer i en verden af tegn, der ikke blot
erkendes og fortolkes tegnmæssigt, men også skabes og genskabes ved hjælp af tegn, hver
gang vi taler, skriver eller kommunikerer på anden måde’ [Gustafsson 2003:138].
From this it becomes evident that a sign is created and re-created through processes of
thought. Thus, the production and re-production of signs are in principle infinite [Kjørup,
1996:250]. A sign is not just a word, traffic sign or a symbol, rather all kinds of
phenomena can be defined as semiotic signs [Gustafsson 2003: 138]. I.e. a package of
cornflakes, which to most people is an insignificant object, can for a semiotic be perceived
as a sign via the following line of thought: ’…pakken bliver et tegn på dets indhold, der igen
bliver et tegn på den efterfølgende handling, selve det at spise, der igen kan blive tegn på
tilfredsstillelse af et behov, der er fremprovokeret af hjernens refleksive fortolkning af de
tegn, vi kalder sult osv.’ [Ibid.]. From this it becomes obvious that a sign is not an isolated
phenomenon, which in itself can be studied, rather it is included in a process of
communication, which could be a text or a process of thought where meaning is ascribed
6
The notions Semiotics and Semiology identify two semiotic traditions – the European represented by Saussure
and the American represented by Peirce. In 1969, the ‘International Association of Semiotic Studies’ was founded,
thereby indicating that semiotics rather than semiology should be used to name this area of science [Kjørup,
1996:256]. Thus, semiotic will be used to identify the two notions within this thesis.
12
[Gustafsson 2003:140]. Furthermore, it underlines the perception that the re-production
of signs is infinite.
In addition, a sign does not convey meaning, rather it produces meaning in relation to
other signs, and it does not produce one meaning but many different ones, depending on
how and by whom it is interpreted [Thwaites et al., 2002:9]. This opens for multiple
meanings and understandings of a sign. Thus, the presidential brands analysed is only one
interpretation of the signs on the websites, and could but not necessarily would differ, if
the analysis was completed by someone else. This relates to the thoughts of social
constructivism, which will be shortly described at the end of this chapter.
2.1.1. Peirce and Saussure
Modern semiotics is often divided into two different but not entirely incompatible
traditions. These are represented by Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913)
and American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). In spite of differences in
their perception of signs, the two have one significant thing in common - they both believe
that the physical aspect of a sign is a part of the sign itself [Gustafsson 2003:142-143].
Saussure believes that a sign consists of two elements, which are le significant
(expression) and le signifié (content). These two elements constitute a mental and a
physical side of the sign, as the signifiant ‘is something which has to do with the mental
activity of anybody receiving a signifié’ [Eco, 1979:15]. Contrary, Peirce divides a sign into
three semiotic entities – the actual object, a representation of the object and a new sign
created by the receivers. As this thesis analyses how the presidents brand themselves
rather than how receivers interpret the brands, I find that Peirce’s triadic model, rather
than Saussure’s bipartition of a sign, is more relevant to outline a brand’s semiotic relation.
This is concluded as the sign that I am to analyse, is created by the presidents based on
them as an object. This sign will eventually be interpreted by the website users, who create
a new sign. Thereby, there exist two different signs based on the object –one created by
the presidents, and one by the website users based on the sign created by the presidents.
This line of thought is concurrent with Peirce’s assumptions.
According to Peirce, a sign is made up of a representamen, an object and an interpretant
[Ibid.]. It is the relation between these three entities that ascribe meaning to the sign
[Gustafsson, 2003:147]. The representamen is a representation of the object [Danesi,
2006:27]. It resembles Saussure’s significant, yet Peirce to a higher degree regards the
representamen as an expression of the sign’s physical shape. The object is literally what
the sign represents e.g. physical, abstract or general [Ibid.], which in this case is either
Ahmadinejad or Bush. The interpretant is the entity ‘which the sign produces in the quasimind which is the interpreter’ [Eco, 1979:68]. Thus, the interpretant is a new sign, which is
constructed by the receiver via interpretation of the original sign - the representamen –
and related to the object [Gustafsson, 2003:148].
13
The tripartition of the sign is solely theoretical, as the sign must be perceived as an entity.
The elements cannot exist without each other, as they are part of a process of meaning
making based on the cohesion of all of them.
2.1.2. A brand’s semiotic relation
As brands can be regarded as semiotic signs, the Peircean triad [Eco, 1979:16] can be
transferred to a brand [Christensen & Morsing, 2004:64-65]. The triangle is then made up
of the three elements: identity, image and object. The notions of identity and image are
derived from communication studies, where identity represents a person’s perception of
self-image, whereas image is the idea created by others based on the identity presented
[Kapferer, 2008:174; Arvidsson, 2006:84].
Figure 1 – Semiotic representation of a presidential brand
[Own production, based on Christensen & Morsing, 2004:65]
The identity (representamen) represents the object by enhancing certain aspects of it. The
identity is the representation of the presidents on the websites, as this represents how the
presidents perceive themselves as brands or signs. The object represents the presidents.
The image is equal to Peirce’s interpretant and is the brand constructed in the minds of the
website users.
This thesis is only focussed upon analysing the identity of the presidential brands, and
thereby how the presidents wish to be perceived. In a communication context this is what
Stuart Hall identifies as encoding [Flew, 2007:39], which is the process of creating meaning
in a certain way. If the aim was to analyse the image, focus would be on analysing the
decoding process, which is the process where receivers interpret the messages and
evaluate the brand [Op.Cit:40]. This interpretation is affected by the receivers’ culture and
context such as party affiliation, age and so forth [McNair, 1999:30] and is analysed by
means of reception analysis and interviews. As I analyse the identity of the presidential
brands, focus is on the sender of the communication rather than the receivers.
14
In order to analyse the brands of Bush and Ahmadinejad, text and pictures from the
websites will be analysed. The pictures will be analysed by the use of visual semiotics as
presented by Roland Barthes, cf. section 4.4. - Semiotic pictorial analysis, whereas the text
will be analysed through a discourse analysis. A discourse analysis matches the overall
frame of semiotics, as a discourse, like a semiotic sign, is a socially constructed knowledge
about reality [Machin, 2007:12]. In addition, discourses are communicated through
semiotic resources, which carry meanings and associations [Op.Cit:15]. As a discipline,
discourse analysis originates from the perspective of social constructivism [Burr, 2003],
which believes that there exists no ultimate or objective truth, because people interpret
the world differently according to cultural and social perspectives [Op.Cit:4,6]. Thus, like a
semiotic sign, the perceptions of the world are re-produced in accordance to the sociocultural frame, in which the interpreter is placed [Op.Cit:51]. As the brand identities
analysed in this thesis only represent one interpretation, and thereby does not make up an
ultimate truth, my work and approach to the empirical material are based on the thoughts
of social constructivism. Nonetheless, as the analysis is completed by identification and
interpretation of the signs presented by the presidents, I find that semiotics as a method
generally guides my work, yet the underlying perception of the world and results obtained
through an analysis stem from a social constructivist framework.
2.2. Discourse analysis
The concept of discourse can be understood as ‘the general idea that language is
structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take
part in different domains of social life’ [Jørgensen and Phillips, 2006:1]. This means that a
discourse is a certain way to perceive and construct life via language, and that a discourse
operates to organise and co-ordinate actions, perceptions and identities [Thwaites et al.,
2002:140]. A discourse analysis examines how language constructs social phenomena, and
the purpose is to determine how meaning or reality is constructed by means of language.
Thus, language has an important role in regards to shaping social conditions [Risager,
2006:138]. Consequently, a discourse analysis is the analysis of social patterns and how
language is used to create them. When a president uses a certain discourse, he seeks to
control the situation and interpretation into a specific direction. Discourses are thereby
used as an agenda setting entity, which the president uses to emphasise specific subjects.
There are many different approaches to discourse analysis, none of which can be said to be
uniquely right [Gee, 2006:5]. Xinzhang Yang [2001:646] has identified five approaches to
discourse analysis: structural, cognitive, socio-cultural, critical and synthetic. The one most
frequently encountered is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which this thesis is based
upon. Within this approach, language and social change are perceived to be interconnected
and mutually influential, due to the reflexivity of language and context [Gee, 2000:82;
2006:97].
15
CDA is i.e. represented by Norman Fairclough, who is concerned with the relationship
between a text and its discursive and social practices, as illustrated in figure 2 below
[Fairclough, 2001:21]. Within the discursive practice, the text is analysed as the product of
a process of production and as a resource in the process of interpretation [Ibid.]. The social
practice constitutes the context, and relates a text to the social conditions and structures
surrounding it [Ibid.].
Figure 2 – Three dimensional conception of discourse
[Based on Fairclough, 2001:2 and Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999:81]
The social practice is placed as the outermost circle because changes in the social practice
affect both the text and its discursive practice. Thus, the social practice of a text has an
effect on how it is produced, and thereby the language used. Therefore, language is
perceived as a socially constructed entity, as it reflects the current social situation or
context of a text. Fairclough has been criticised for the uncertainty of the relation between
the discursive and social analyses [Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999:101]. He does not explain to
which extent a social analysis is necessary, or which tools for analysis are most
appropriate [Ibid.]. However, this critique is not considered important for this thesis as the
social practice will not be analysed, but used as a tool to explain tendencies in the
presidential brands.
A central area of interest within Fairclough’s approach, and CDA in general, is the
investigation of social change [Jørgensen & Philips, 2006:7]. Language is regarded as a
facet of social life, which is closely interconnected with other facets of social life and is
therefore a significant tool to examine social changes in e.g. relations, power, identity and
so on [Fairclough, 2008:9]. Thereby, a discourse analysis is appropriate to apply to the
empirical material of this thesis in order to conclude, if there has been a change in the
social relations and/or identities of the presidents – are they presented as more
international than national?
To analyse the texts, the theory of James Paul Gee has been chosen. Gee’s theory of building
tasks [Gee, 2006:97-102] is chosen as it complements a brand analysis. The aspects which
the building tasks emphasise, are included in a brand analysis as well, e.g. relationships
and identities. Gee’s approach is by Yang [2001:646] identified as synthetic.
16
The synthetic approach is characterised by taking a wider view on discourse, drawing
upon theories and concepts from many different areas of the social sciences [Yang,
2001:646]. Gee acknowledges the synthesis of his theory by referring to it as a soup, which
has been made from several different ideas and perspectives, resulting in an open-ended
approach [Gee, 2006:5-6].
Nonetheless, I perceive Gee’s theory to mainly represent the critical discourse perspective,
because his thoughts primarily originates from a CDA framework, and his work is inspired
by Fairclough, Kress and van Dijk7 [Holmes, 2000:475 & Gee, 2000:98]. Like Fairclough,
Gee believes that language has reflexivity, and thereby both constitutes the social world
and is constituted by it [Gee, 2006:94]. Thereby discourse is dialectic, because it does not
just contribute to the shaping and reshaping of social structures, but also reflects it
[Jørgensen & Philips, 2006:61]. The aim of the critical discourse analyst is to uncover the
underlying ideological principles, which guide a certain discourse [Scollon & Scollon,
2003:21]. As these aspects are central within CDA and for Gee [Op.cit:287], I believe it is
appropriate to classify him as a theorist within CDA. Gee’s theory will be introduced in
greater details in PART IV – Theory and model for analysis.
7
For an elaboration of Kress and van Dijk’s thoughts, I refer to their works: Kress, G. (1995) The social production
of language: History and structures of domination. In: Fries, P. & Gregory, M. (Eds.) Discourse in society: Systemic
functional perspectives. Norwood, AJ: Ablex. AND van Dijk, T. A. (1997) Discourse as structure and process: Volume
1 & Discourse as social interaction: Volume 2. London: Sage.
17
PART III: Central concepts
This part elaborates on the central concepts of this thesis – globalisation, branding and
political communication. The aim of this thesis is to establish whether globalisation has
had an effect on how presidents brand themselves in terms of national culture. Therefore,
globalisation and its effects will be elaborated on. In order to analyse Bush and
Ahmadinejad’s brands, one also needs to attain knowledge about the discipline of branding
and the area of political communication, as it is within this sphere the communication is
transmitted.
3.1. Globalisation
The term globalisation ‘captures a series of interrelated trends that have emerged in the
world since the late 1940s, and which have accelerated in scale, impact and significance
since the 1980s’ [Flew, 2007:67]. Globalisation is often used to describe a process by
which the world transforms into a single arena. [Dasgupta, 2004:15]. However, in recent
years, there have been many debates about globalisation, and some scholars seem to have
almost diametrically different perceptions of the term [Giddens, 2000:14 & Fairclough,
2003:44-45]. This is expressed in the literature on globalisation, where there are
disagreements about the extent, effects and future of globalisation [Giddens, 2000 &
Martell, 2007]. Some scholars claim that the term glocalization is more appropriate to use,
because the effects of globalisation locally are adapted differently, creating more
heterogeneous than homogenous spaces [Ritzer, 2004:193]. I do not wish to unfold this
discussion, but merely state that this thesis relates to globalisation as the
Transformationalists presented by Luke Martell [2007] in his article ‘The Third Wave in
Globalization Theory’ [See also Munck, 2007:6]. Within this perception, globalisation is
perceived not as an end-state, but as a tendency to which there are counter-tendencies
[Martell, 2007:182]. Thus, the causes of globalisation need to be identified rather than
identifying globalisation as a cause in itself.
3.1.1. Global flows
Globalisation has had, and will continue to have, a great effect on the world. However,
globalisation should not be perceived as a movement or process on its own, but rather one,
which is made up by several causes. The causes of globalisation can be defined as cultural
flows, as described by Arjun Appadurai [1996] and Ulf Hannerz [1996]. Where Hannerz
focuses upon the asymmetry of flows from centre to periphery [Hannerz, 1996:60],
Appadurai identifies five dimensions of cultural flows, which have affected globalisation
[Appadurai, 1996:31]. These dimensions are: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes,
financescape, and ideoscapes [Ibid.]. Appadurai uses the suffix ‘–scapes’ to illustrate the
irregular shapes and mobility of these terms [Ibid.]. The different scapes work together
and influence each other.
18
The global flows are exerting pressure on the established nation-states, and the power of
the nation-state is questioned as single nation status is unable to regulate conditions of the
global flows [Eriksen, 2007:70]. In response, politics become increasingly international in
the form of necessary alliances, trade agreements and international treaties [Samovar et
al., 2006:50, Flew, 2007:191]. Thus, the role of presidents has changed into a more
international focus. In particular, the ideoscapes, defined as ‘the global circulation of ideas,
concepts, values and ‘keywords’’ with specific focus on politics and ideologies, have been a
strong force behind these changes [Appadurai, 1996:34; Flew, 2007:42]. In order to
secure world peace and stability, political leaders around the world need to collaborate.
Politics is entering an arena of increased global governance, where focus has shifted from
national to global. Ideas and ideologies are developed and adopted on the global political
scene in order to handle issues such as pollution, global warming, warfare and human
rights. The politicians are forced to take a global stance in order for such implementations
to have any effect. Due to the ideoscapes, presidents are maybe more international than
national personalities.
The changing role of presidents is also brought on by the mediascapes, which represent the
distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information as well
as the images of the world created by the media [Appadurai, 1996:33]. The development of
the global information infrastructure [Flew, 2007:71] has provided the presidents with a
speaking tube, whereby they can communicate their messages globally, yet they are also
evaluated globally. Easier access to information has provided people with a greater
knowledge of the world and its disasters, and has placed democratic norms of freedom,
equality and community at the top of the agenda in almost all societies [Tehranian,
1999:71; Rakel, 2009:144]. As people become more aware of different conditions around
the world, there is a greater pressure on politicians to act upon global incidents, and
thereby employ a global role [McNair, 1999:14].
These global flows have changed the world in many ways, and have affected the role of
presidents. They are world leaders, who are responsible for the up keeping of peace,
democracy and stability globally. Thus, presidents might employ a more global than
national focus in their brands, due to the widening of their role.
19
3.2. Political communication
Political communication is concerned with the interaction between three main players –
political actors, the media and the citizens [Vreese, 2006:8]. One of the most important
aims of political communication is to create credibility around the party or person in
question. Credibility is a measure for how well voters/supporters believe that a president
can deliver on given promises. Thereby, credibility is linked to the reputation obtained
throughout a brand’s lifetime [Keller, 2008:459]. Credibility is made by these three factors
[Ibid.]:
1. Expertise: The extent to which the voters believe a president is able to competently
create and conduct policies, which are in the nation’s interest
2. Trustworthiness: The extent to which voters believe the president to be motivated
to be honest, dependable and sensible to voter needs
3. Likeability: The extent to which voters see the president as likeable, attractive,
prestigious, dynamic and so forth
How these factors are communicated will affect how a politician is evaluated [Newman &
Perloff, 2004:27]. If the brand loses its credibility, it can be difficult to restore, therefore it
is important that promises given can be fulfilled. It is better for a brand to overachieve
rather than to disappoint.
3.2.1. Political marketing
Political communication as a discipline has evolved over time [McNair, 1999:xi]. Today,
political parties use millions on campaigns, and there is a tendency for voters to prefer
political personalities rather than political parties [Bimber, 2003:15]. Thus, branding of
political personalities is an increasingly important issue. These changes mainly stem from
a decline in political interest, which leads to the fact that politicians need to act more like
businesses in order to understand the needs of their supporters and obtain votes [BowersBrown, 2003: 98-99]. Politics has become more market oriented, and can be perceived as a
commodity, which must to be sold to the voters [Ibid; Merkelsen, 2007:255].
Consequently, the political communicator is turning towards techniques of marketing
[Ward et al., 2003:14]. Politicians work strategically with their supporters, and political
communication can more appropriately be termed political marketing, because politicians
dispatch promises, favours and personalities to the public in exchange for support [Kotler
& Kotler, 1999:6]. Thus, politicians are influenced by the same strategies, which
organisations use to market their products, in order to market themselves [Newman &
Perloff, 2004:18]. The strategic actions of politicians are thereby derived from commercial
marketing and product promotion.
Nevertheless, not all scholars agree upon the appropriateness of the term political
marketing [Schweiger & Adami, 1999:349, O’Shaugnessy, 1999:725]. Some claim that
applying the concept of marketing to politics is inappropriate, because it can produce
negative connotations, which can damage the political process [Reeves et al, 2006:419].
20
As marketing is based on consumer preferences, some believe that ‘political marketing’
will dilute politics, as it then will be based on voter preferences rather than visions and
ideologies, which damages the political process [Newman, 1994:21, McNair, 1999:38].
The countermovement [Strout, 2000] argues that politicians use ‘the same kinds of
analysis that a company uses for a product launch. It's deep digging to find out what the
people want and match the image with the research’. Furthermore, Jennifer LeesMarshment [2001] has identified a development in approaches, which politicians use to
address their audiences. Within politics, as commercial marketing, the approaches to
addressing audiences have evolved from a product oriented approach into a sales oriented
approach, and finally into a marked oriented approach, where politicians design their
behaviour to provide voter satisfaction [Op.Cit:696]. This approach uses market
intelligence to identify voter demands, and then designs its product to suit them. It does
not attempt to change what people think, but to deliver what they need and want [Ibid.].
I agree that there is a movement towards marketing within politics, which is made up of
the use of standard marketing tools and strategies when presenting a political party or
personality [Newman, 1994:10-11; McNair, 1999:7]. However, I believe that political
marketing to some degree always has existed, as instruments similar to those of marketing
are used when presenting a political party or personality [Henneberg, 2002:96; Lilleker,
2006:42-43]. Political actors choose to focus on specific aspects when presenting
themselves. One could argue that branding has existed among politicians long before the
term was introduced within marketing studies. Thereby, it does make sense, within
political communication, to apply and analyse marketing strategies such as branding,
which is the focal point of this thesis and the following chapter, which will introduce
branding as a discipline, and provide specific details concerning branding a president.
3.3. Branding
Branding started as the literal branding of cattle and has evolved into the marketing
discipline it is today. In marketing, branding started as product branding, as it was
believed that people would better remember and recognise products if they had a name,
and thus be more inclined to choose these products over nameless competitors [Danesi,
2006:1]. For a long time commercial branding was merely associated with products.
However, the concept has been extended to include less tangible goods such as nations,
personalities and causes [Op.Cit:19; Keller, 2008:26]. People ranging from entertainers,
presidents and sports figures use branding to build reputations, create relationships and
increase their business through public approval and acceptance [Kotler & Armstrong,
2006:238; Keller, 2008:21].
21
A brand is a word with certain connotations, which simultaneously has rational and
emotional dimensions. People assign connotations to a brand, and through these
connotations the brand gets its value [Buhl, 2005:14-15]. As the value of a brand is
assigned through receivers’ interpretation of it, control of a brand’s value is out of the
sender’s hands, but not outside his/her influence [Kapferer, 1997:71]. When creating a
brand, ‘[t]he challenge is to be noticed, to be remembered, to change perceptions, to
reinforce attitudes, and to create deep customer relationships’ [Aaker & Joachimsthaler,
2000:27]. The brand is a promise to the costumers, and the brand identity should
consistently be communicated [Fairclough, 2008:102]. From this, it can be concluded that
branding is a process of finding and communicating the core values, which makes a
product or person unique, and urges the consumers to initiate a close and loyal brand
relationship.
A brand should have a rich and clear identity, which the consumers can recognise [Aaker &
Joachimnsthaler, 2000:40]. It is for politicians as for companies important to have a
successful brand as this will guarantee future income/votes and support [de Chernatory &
McDonald, 2003:23]. For the brand to be successful it is important to be able to fulfil
promises and live up to the commitments given, otherwise the trust can be broken
[Fazarinc, 2001:14]. This is especially important for political personalities as loss of trust
or credibility can mean the end of their careers. Furthermore, it is important that the
brand is built upon authentic information, as the brand will lose credibility or be rejected if
it is discovered that it is not [Montoya & Vandehey, 2003:12]. A current example is Sarah
Palin, candidate for vice president for the American Republican party in the 2008 election.
When news of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy hit the media, a part of her personal life
suddenly affected her brand. Some felt that this did not match the brand that Palin had
presented to the American voters. Furthermore, this scandal did not only affect Palin’s
brand but also John McCain’s, as questions were raised concerning his judgement [Moore,
appendix 9]. Today, politics have turned towards candidates, and as the public has a
growing interest in knowing everything about high-ranking politicians, these negative
attacks via the media are seen more often [Ward et al., 2003:15, Newman, 1994:30]. Thus,
due to the great exposure of politicians in the media, the authenticity of a political brand is
becoming increasingly important.
22
3.4. Branding a president
As noted earlier, political communication has moved towards marketing, and if market
research and spin marked the 1980s and 1990s political communication, branding is the
hallmark now [Scammell, 2007:176]. Political branding is an art of becoming knowable,
likable and trustable in order to gain support. Branding is about appealing to people’s
dreams, and politics is about selling hope. Thus, politicians manufacture their images
through branding strategies in order to sell the dream and obtain trust [Sai, appendix 8].
Since the 1980s, politics has become highly candidate centred, and voters often place less
emphasis on party affiliation and more emphasis on the personal characteristics of a
candidate [Bimber, 2003:15; Ward et al., 2003:15]. When voting, the choice is often a
matter of the brands and personalities of the candidates [Fairclough, 2008:107; Schweiger
& Adami, 1999:353]. Norman Fairclough [2008:106] claims that ‘the political leader is
judged not on his analysis of the situation or on his actions but on whether he is “found
convincing”. It is in effect the person himself who is being judged, his character, his facility,
and not his politics’. I do not completely agree with Fairclough on this point, as I believe
political choices inevitable will affect a presidential brand. However, I do agree that the
personality of a president or candidate is becoming more central in politics. Due to this,
the construction and maintenance of personal brands are increasingly important.
3.4.1. A personal presidential brand?
A personal presidential brand is different from a ‘normal’ personal brand, due to the
context in which it is created. Nonetheless, when concerned with branding of a president,
it must be considered whether one can refer to it as personal branding, as the brand is not
created by the president personally, but rather by his administration. It can be argued that
the president ‘as a brand is rarely created only on merit of his personal qualities and
talent, but rather grows out of the status, prestige and attention bestowed on the leader
role’ [Schultz, 2004:1]. This means that a presidential brand grows out of the leader role
rather than the personality of the specific president. Is the presidential brand then a
personal brand or is it a generic brand with a few personality traits assigned to it?
A president is not able to shape and alter his personal brand like any ‘normal’ person. He
does not have self-determination over his brand, which is rather a professionally created
brand based on surveys, polls and focus groups [Stout, 2000]. Thereby, all aspects of the
branding are deliberate and planned for a specific political purpose – to obtain trust and
credibility. I assume that a president to a certain degree must give up his private
personality in order to transform into a presidential personality and brand. Thus, the
president takes on a personality, which is constructed to suit him as well as his country.
This perception of a presidential brand forms the basis for why I chose to illustrate
Ahmadinejad and Bush as caricatures on the front page. I believe that the presidential
brands merely are caricatures of the presidents as private persons.
23
3.4.2. Presidential performance
As the presidential brand is professionally constructed, the personality of a president is
partly a role, which he steps into, because ‘parliamentary politician is not something to
which individuals are born, but something they have to perform’ [Bladwin et al.,
2004:236]. Thus, a president is a performer and will consequently be judged on the quality
of his performance [McNair, 1999:37]. In the presidential performance there are different
stereotypical roles a president can play, e.g. the hero, the ordinary man, the charming
leader or the father figure [Van Zoonen, 2000:12]. Often presidents take on one or two of
these roles when branding themselves.
This performance indicates a difference between the president’s personal and official
brand. In public, the president takes on a certain role, preferably close to his private
personality, but there is a certain degree of performance in the public brand. Felix Tataru,
director of GMP Advertising, comments on this performance by stating: ‘you should not
create a false image, a mask, for politicians, invent things which are not their own. You
should give a politician a coat which suits him, in which he feels good, which he likes
wearing’ [Fairclough, 2008:103]. Thus, the brand created for a politician should match his
personality as much as possible. If a politician chooses a public brand, which is too
different from the private, the two might clash at some point, which can lead to loss of
credibility as the authenticity of the brand will be challenged, which was the case with
Sarah Palin.
3.4.3. Presidential expectations and limitations
Being president create both expectations and limitations to a brand. This is created by e.g.
party affiliation, religion and national culture. As a president is head of state and a ‘farther’
of a given country, he is expected to act within a certain cultural frame and represent the
country’s interests in the best possible way. A president represents his home country, and
if he does not do it properly, it can lead to rejection, given that the way a president is
perceived internationally affects how his nation is perceived. The president is a
representative of a nation, and the nation’s brand will be affected by his actions - if he is
admired globally, his brand will be associated with status and prestige, which will
transferred to the president’s home country [Keller, 2008:594]. Even though the
international audience is important for a president, he must always consider how his
actions will be assessed nationally, as this audience has the power to elect or reject him.
Therefore, the presidential brand must meet national expectations concerning values and
ideologies. From this, it must be concluded that not only does the presidential brand affect
a nation’s brand, the nation also affects the president’s brand due to the limitations the
national expectations create.
3.4.4. Brand lifecycle
Branding is a continuous process, and a brand must be maintained throughout its entire
life cycle, as brands are judged over the long-term [Kapferer, 1997:57]. The exact shape
and length of a brand’s lifecycle can never be known in advance [Kotler & Armstrong,
24
2006:290]. Most brands have a limited lifetime, yet when concerned with people, the
lifecycle can be much longer than that of products.
A brand’s lifecycle is made up by four different stages: introduction, growth, maturity and
decline [Percy & Elliot, 2005:302-304 & Kapferer, 2008:238-240]. Not all brands follow
this exact route, as some will decline immediately after introduction, while others might
enter the growth stage after a period of decline, due to promotion and repositioning
[Kotler & Armstrong, 2006:290]. How a brand should be maintained depends on where it
is placed in its lifecycle.
The introduction and growth stages for a presidential brand are likely to be communicated
before and during an election. When introduced, a presidential candidate will develop his
ideas and focus upon which tasks he wishes to fulfil [Newman & Perloff, 2004:23]. The
focus will mainly be on a national audience, as they have to elect him. During the maturity
stage, focus will turn towards both the global and national audience. Both Bush and
Ahmadinejad’s brands are assumed to be in the stage of maturity, as they have been in
office since 2000 and 2005 respectively. Some might claim that Bush’s brand is in decline
due to his resignation as president in January 2009. Nevertheless, Bill Clinton is still a
strong brand, even though he has not been president for several years. Bush as a president
might be in decline, but his personal and political brand will live on, and draw on the
experiences and ethos of being a president. Thus, I believe the brand Bush is still placed in
the stage of maturity rather than decline. However, I do perceive his brand to be closer to
decline than growth.
When a brand is in the maturity stage, it is under pressure from other brands [De
Chernatony & McDonald, 2003:420]. The brand will be assessed in terms of its ability to
live up to the promises given during the stages of introduction and growth [Ibid.].
The most successful brands will during the maturity stage evolve and modify to meet
changing needs. For a president, these changes could be unemployment, war or a financial
crisis. In order for people to support the president, he needs to take a stand on the changes
affecting the national and global audience. For Bush and Ahmadinejad, their positions in
the brand lifecycle indicate that they do not need to communicate ideologies and promises
to the same degree as during introduction. For them, communication needs to focus on
maintaining the constructed brands, by gaining and upholding trust and credibility in
order to meet the promises given, as well as national and global developments and
challenges.
As the presidential brand is a professionally created entity, with a specific aim, it is
important to keep in mind that the brand analysed is not the personal brand of the
president, but rather the personal performed brand created for the president. As a
president represents a nation, it is assumed that analysing the brands and their display of
national culture will provide an insight into the effects that globalisation has had on
national culture.
25
Part IV - Theory and model for analysis
This part outlines the theories, which will be used in the analysis of Bush and
Ahmadinejad’s brands. When analysing a brand, the most important entity is the brand
identity. Therefore, the first chapter seeks to elaborate on the elements, which constitutes
a brand identity. In order to identify the brands, theories to analyse pictures and text will
be used. The text will be accessed by means of a discourse analysis, while the pictures will
be analysed using semiotics. Cultural dimensions of Iran and USA are also included and
discussed in section 4.5.1. - National culture. The culture will not be used in the analysis of
the texts and pictures, but will be employed as a tool to establish whether the brands are
marked by national culture or not. The final chapter summarises the findings of this part
by visualising the theories in a model for analysis. This is completed in order to provide an
overview of how the theories will be applied in the brand analysis.
4.1. Brand analysis
Within branding studies, David A. Aaker and Jean Nöel Kapferer are the most productive
and significant scholars [Schnoor, 2004:86]. Kapferer uses a prism to illustrate the
dimensions of brand identity [Kapferer, 1997:100], while Aaker has developed a Brand
Identity Planning Model [Aaker, 2002:79]. The dimensions of brand identity presented by
Aaker and Kapferer indicate that the two scholars have a rather similar understanding of
brand identity [Schnoor, 2004:99]. However, the two models differ as the receiverperspective is much more salient with Kapferer than Aaker, whom is more focussed on the
planning process itself [Op.cit:90]. As this thesis does not focus on the receiver aspect of
branding, the analysis of Bush and Ahmadinejad’s brands is based on Aaker’s Brand
Identity Planning Model. I find Aaker’s model appropriate to use, because firstly, it is very
detailed in the components, which make up brand identity, and secondly, because I have
not been able to find criticism of Aaker’s model or work through the literature revised.
Actually, other marketing scholars refer to him as a ‘leading brand guru’ [Keller,
2008:422], and use his models and findings in their own writings [Keller, 2008; de
Chernatory & McDonald, 2003; Kotler et al., 2008]. Furthermore, Aaker is the author of
more than 100 articles and 13 books on marketing and branding, and has received several
awards and honours for his work [Berkeley, appendix 10].
Aaker’s model [Aaker, 2002:79] was originally completed for communications planning
and consists of three main parts: Strategic Brand analysis, Brand Identity System and
Brands Identity Implementation system. The strategic analysis examines the competitors,
costumers and the ‘self’, which provide necessary inputs for brand creation [Op.Cit:77],
while the brand identity implementation system is concerned with positioning and the
target audience, which relates to the notion of decoding.
26
Nonetheless, here the model will not be used for planning, it will rather be used to revise
how the presidential brands have been constructed. Therefore, focus in the analysis will
only be on the second phase – Brand Identity systems. I believe that Aaker’s model has
one misleading aspect, which is the fact that the three main parts of the model are
separated and treated sequentially. In practice there will be overlaps, as it is difficult to
separate strategy from execution. This will, nonetheless, have no effect on the present
analysis, as it is merely concerned with analysis of brand identity and not the planning or
execution of it.
4.1.1. Brand Identity
A brand identity is made up of a brand’s core values [Kapferer, 2008:171]. In Aaker’s
model, brand identity manifests itself via four different aspects with 12 underlying
perspectives. It is important to note that not all brands will employ all 12 perspectives
[Aaker, 2002:78]. The perspectives, which according to Aaker make up brand identity, are
visualised in figure 3.
Figure 3 – Brand identity
[Aaker, 2002:79]
Aaker’s model was originally developed in relation to product brands. However, I find that
it can be used to analyse the presidential brands, because political marketing strategies are
derived from commercial marketing. Nonetheless, when analysing a personal rather than
product brand, not all the aspects seem important. I.e. a ‘product quality’ of a person will
most likely be part of the personality. Therefore the analysis of the presidential brands will
not seek to analyse all the 12 aspects outlined in Aaker’s model. Rather those aspects,
which seem relevant for a personal brand, will be employed. The brand perspectives,
which are perceived relevant for the analysis, will be elaborated on in the following
sections.
27
Country of origin and national vs. global
In branding one can chose to focus on origin of the brand. Aaker has identified two
perspectives concerning this, which are called ‘country from origin’ and ‘local vs. global’8
[Aaker, 2002:82]. I have chosen to combine the two perspectives as I find them rather
similar, but also complementing each other, as display of country of origin points to a focus
on nationality and present the president as a national brand. When a brand is linked to a
specific nationality, the subjective and cultural conceptions of that place are linked to the
brand [Kapferer, 1997:60]. If the presidents are very national in their communication,
associations of either USA or Iran will affect their brands, and it will imply that they use
nationality in their branding. Some brands naturally convey their country of origin
[Kapferer, 2008:195], which I assume is true when concerned with presidents, as they are
representatives of their nation, and the national brand affects the presidential brand. If the
presidents present themselves as global rather than national brands, I assume the global
flows can have affected this.
Organisational attributes
Organisational attributes can be culture, people, assets and skills [Aaker, 2002:82]. If
organisational attributes are employed, focus is on attributes of the organisation (country)
rather than those of the product (president) [Ibid.]. Organisational attributes are resistant
and enduring, as they are difficult to duplicate and can be important in ascribing
credibility to a product [Op.Cit:83,132]. For a president, the organisational attributes can
be perceived in a wide and a narrow perspective. If perceived narrowly, the organisational
attributes could be the party he represents and its accomplishments, ideologies and other
party members. However, in a wider perspective, the organisational attributes relate to
the country as a whole, as he is a product of that country.
Personality and relationships
The personality of a brand makes it possible for customers to identify with it. The
personality relates to the identities the presidents communicate. The personality can
create a lasting relationship between the customer and the brand [Aaker, 2002:84,165166]. As a president cannot differentiate on product attributes, brand personality becomes
a key concept in differentiating from other brands [Aaker, J., 1997:347]. When a costumer
identifies with a brand, it can create a strong brand-costumer relationship, which leads to
brand loyalty. Through the communication the president emphasises, which type of
relationship is wanted with the ‘customer’. However, as this analysis is not concerned with
product branding, relationships with others than the ‘customer’ can be established. These
relationships can indicate the power relation between the parties in question.
8
Aaker distinguishes between local and global brands. However, as a president represents an entire nation
and not a specific locality, I find it more appropriate to rename the brand perspective national/global, which
it hereinafter is called
28
Relationships can thereby indicate something about the president’s perceptions of the
world, which might point to whether the president perceives himself as a national or a
global brand.
Brand heritage
Brand heritage is often related to storytelling. The brand is connected to a story, which
seeks to create more depth to the brand by presenting its history and achievements
[Aaker, 2002:85]. Brand heritage is connected to factors of trustworthiness and expertise.
The heritage of the presidents can be expressed by their personal stories, which are
included on their websites. These stories provide the reader with background information
about the presidents. It can be discussed if achievements of the country and the president
ascribe meaning to either the brand heritage or organisational attributes. I believe that any
achievements by Bush or Ahmadinejad assign meaning to the brand heritage, while
previous achievements of the nation ascribe meaning to the organisational attributes, as
they have been accomplished by the organisations (nations), which Bush and Ahmadinejad
represent.
When analysing the texts and pictures from the presidential websites, the aspects
elaborated on above will be used to determine how the presidents create brand identity.
The following chapters will elaborate on the theories, which will be used in the textual
analysis.
4.2. Gee’s 7 building tasks
The textual analysis will be completed by a discourse analysis, and is based upon James
Paul Gee’s seven building tasks, which are concerned with analysis of language in use [Gee,
2006]. In the analysis, Gee’s theory will be complemented by the three message appeals
and Fairclough’s notions of social practice, in order to underline the importance external
factors have on language.
Gee believes, that people define and recognise situations through language, but that
situations also define how language should be used. The way people speak and act defines
the situation. Consequently, different situations call for different language and behaviour.
In relation to language being a tool to construct situations, Gee has identified seven
building tasks, which people use to construct communication situations or reality [Gee,
2006:97]. The building tasks make up a semiotic network of the specific communication
situation [Gee, 2000:86]. For the purpose of making a discourse analysis, Gee has
identified discourse questions, which are connected to the building tasks [Gee, 2006:11].
Gee’s building tasks and associated discourse questions will be presented in the following
sections. Nonetheless, the seventh building task ‘Sign systems and knowledge’
[Op.Cit:13,112] will not be included in the analysis, as it does not ascribe any meaning to
the presidential brands.
29
Significance
People use language for building significance around certain things. Language is used to
make certain things significant as opposed to others by adding value and meaning to the
particular things by means of language [Op.Cit:11,98]. The question to be asked in a
discourse analysis is: How is this piece of language being used to make certain things
significant or not and in what ways? [Op.cit:11]
Activities
In relation to the reflexivity of language, the second building task refers to how people use
language to ‘get recognized as engaging in a certain sort of activity’ [Gee, 2006:98], which
means that the use of language reveals or defines what activity is going on. The presidents
might use language to point out actions they are part of, or they believe is going on in the
world. A text can include both a main activity and a sub-activity [Op.Cit:111]. The question
to be asked in a discourse analysis is: What activity or activities is this piece of language
being used to enact (i.e. get others to recognise as going on)? [Op.Cit:11].
Identities
The use of language creates different identities [Ibid.]. This differences in identities created
by means of language is often seen in the media, where the language use can define the
same people as either a ‘freedom fighter’ or a ‘terrorist’ [Oates, 2008:134]. The identities,
which the presidents construct via language, are important both for their personality and
the relationships they are part of. The identities can be established by using expressions
regarding feelings, status, values or beliefs. In addition, the identities constructed for other
parties can also reveal how the presidents perceive themselves and others in terms of e.g.
status. What identity or identities is this piece of language being used to enact? [Gee,
2006:12,98-99].
Relationships
This building task is concerned with building social relationships by means of language. It
refers to how the presidents use language to signal the type of relationship they have, want
to have, or are trying to have with others [Op.Cit:12,99]. By analysing the language used, I
can identify the relationship(s) enacted in the text, whether formal or informal, friendly or
hostile, close or distant, etc. The relationships created can reveal further details about the
presidents’ identity, and indicate if they are focused on a national or a global audience,
depending on who a relationship of closeness is created with. What sort of relationship or
relationships is this piece of language seeking to enact with others (present or not)?
[Op.Cit:12]
30
Politics (the distribution of social goods)
Politics and the distribution of social goods refer to what language reveals to be perceived
as ‘good’, ‘bad’ or ‘high status or low status’ [Gee, 2006:12]. When Gee refers to politics, it
should not be confused with national politics, it is rather a reference to ‘how social goods
are thought about, argued over, and distributed in society9. The social goods are anything a
group of people believes to be a source of power, status, value, or worth’ [Op.Cit:2]. How
the presidents present social goods can reveal something about their own identity or
parties in the relationships established. The question for analysis sounds: What perspective
on social goods is this piece of language communicating? [Op.Cit:12].
Connections
‘In any situation things are connected or disconnected, relevant to or irrelevant to each
other’ [Op.Cit:100]. People also use language to build connections or relevance to certain
things [Op.Cit:12] by directly or indirectly making references to things inside or outside a
text – people, ideas, institutions or the context [Gee, 2000:94]. Connections can be used to
build credibility or draw on the ethos of others. The question concerning the construction
of connections reads: How does this piece of language connect to or disconnect things; how
does it make one thing relevant or irrelevant to another? [Gee, 2006:13]
4.2.1. Discussion of Gee’s building tasks
Gee believes that whenever people speak or write, they always construct seven areas of
reality [Op.Cit:11]. However, I believe that it will not always be possible to detect the
explicit use of all seven building tasks. It is important to keep in mind that meaningmaking depends not only upon what is explicit, but also what is implicit or assumed
[Fairclough, 1992:120]. Thus, what is ‘said’ in a text rests upon the unsaid, and therefore
part of a textual analysis is trying to identify what is assumed [Fairclough, 2003:11]. If the
analyst does not possess the assumed contextual knowledge, implicit meanings can be
overlooked. Thereby, it might not always be possible to identify and understand the
connections made in a text, if the contextual knowledge of the analyst is limited.
Consequently, it might not always be possible to detect the explicit use of all seven
building tasks.
Some of the building tasks have been criticised for being too similar. Lee Jarvis [2006:467]
believes that the difference and relation between the building tasks significance and social
goods are unclear and that they are too similar. I believe that the difference between the
two lie in the object of study. Significance study all aspects, physical and mental mentioned
in the text, while the social goods relates to the values, which pertain to a given text.
9
In order to avoid misunderstandings between Gee’s notion of politics and the presidents’ politics, this
building task will be referred to as social goods in the analysis.
31
4.3. Message appeals
Political communication is completed in order to persuade voters and supporters [McNair,
1999:10]. The political communicator can choose three different forms of appeal to
persuade the receiver.
The three message appeals are: logos (logical), ethos
(credibility/ethics) and pathos (emotional) [Percy & Elliott, 2005:9]. Thereby, a sender can
use different strategies to achieve acceptance of, or agreement with the receiver about a
given opinion. A text will often be dominated by one form of appeal, but the use of appeals
can vary locally in a text [Dahl & Olesen, 2003:79].
Logos addresses the intellect of the receiver. When a sender is using logos appeal, he
focuses on the specific case, and on giving an objective and unbiased presentation of the
evidence. The sender relates to facts and thereby tries to appear as unbiased as possible.
Logos often appears in reports and statistics [Op.Cit:80]. In a political context, logos will be
reflected in objective arguments, often concerning specific key issues and actions, which
sender and receiver perceives to be indisputable.
Ethos and Pathos have more emotional characters. Ethos relates to the credibility of the
sender, and the aim is to attain the receivers’ trust [Op.Cit:79]. People tend to believe in
those they trust and respect. It is therefore, especially for politicians, important to
establish an ethos, which the receiver finds credible, in order to gain trust. Ethos is
different from pathos and logos, as it focuses on the status of the source, while the other
two relate to message contents [Percy & Elliott, 2005:10].Pathos appeals to the feelings of
the receiver. This could be feelings of e.g. happiness, sadness or security. Pathos is often
expressed through connotative pictures and concrete descriptions. Using pathos appeal,
the sender tries to affect the emotions of the receiver and the mood in the immediate
situation. In a political context pathos can e.g. be used to arouse feelings of happiness by
referring to a success, which the politician is responsible for. While ethos appeals to more
solid feelings, pathos appeals to the spontaneous feelings of the specific communication
situation [Jørgensen & Onsberg, 1999:64].
The text is an important part of how the presidents present themselves. Nonetheless, the
pictures on the website are also part of creating the presidential brands. The following
chapter therefore presents the theory, which will be used to analyse the pictures.
32
4.4. Semiotic pictorial analysis
The pictures on the website will be assessed by a semiotic analysis as presented by Roland
Barthes, who is most famous for his analysis of advertisements. Barthes’ focus has mainly
been on pictures in advertisements, because he believed these were candid and aimed at a
specific purpose, and therefore interesting to study [Christensen, 1993:175]. However,
Barthes has also made several considerations concerning the interplay between text and
pictures. He notes that when both text and pictures are present, the picture is the first
element that people decode [Johansen, 1999:148]. This is a matter of humans primarily
being visually oriented [Schweiger & Adami, 1999:356]. Consequently, a picture is fixed
and stored prior to words. Elements, which are stored first, will be better remembered
[Ibid.]. This is interesting as a website contains both pictures and text. If the pictures are
decoded first, it is important that they complement the brand.
Barthes’ findings are based on advertising, but his theory can be applied to other genres. I
believe it is appropriate to apply Barthes’ theory to the pictures of the presidents, because
these pictures, like those of advertisements, are aimed at a specific purpose. The pictures
are chosen to depict a certain representation of the presidents, in order to support the
brand.
Through his research, Barthes identified three signifying messages at two levels - the
linguistic and pictorial [Barthes, 1980:47]
Figure 4 – Illustration of Barthes’ three signifying messages
[Johansen, 1999:149]
The linguistic message is concerned with textual analysis, which in this thesis will be
completed by James Paul Gee’s building tasks. The two other messages are concerned with
analysis of pictures. The first layer of meaning, the non-coded message, is equal to what
the picture express or document, when all connotations have been removed. This is the
picture’s objective or denotative meaning and identifies the given object [Barthes,
1980:51]. The second layer of meaning is the coded message, which represents the totality
of connotations. Meaning, which associations the interpreter ascribes to the picture. The
connotations ascribed to the picture are based on the culture of the interpreter [Op.cit:53].
33
Even though the coded and non-coded messages are different, they cannot be completely
separated, as the denotative message is the basis for the connotative message [Barthes,
1980:47]. The interpreter must understand the denotative meaning before any
connotations can be ascribed [Brügger & Vigsø, 2002:65].
4.4.1. Interpretative perspectives
When analysing pictures of people, it can be beneficial to include three interpretative
aspects: gaze, angle of interaction and distance, as the use of them contribute to the
formation of meaning or connotations [Machin, 2007:110]. The three aspects influence
interpretation, thus [Ibid.]:
1. Gaze: indicates to which extend viewers are encouraged to engage with the subject,
and is thereby related to relationship building.
2. Angle of interaction: indicates the power relationship between the viewer and the
subject and can be related to status.
3. Distance: indicates the social distance between viewer and subject, e.g. intimacy or
remoteness.
Barthes’ theory is still acknowledged as a useful tool to analyse signs. However, his theory
has been criticised on certain points. For instance, Barthes has been criticised for
perceiving the denotative message as non-coded. The denotative message cannot be
perceived as completely natural, but rather as affected by culture, because how a picture
or painting is arranged is affected by the culture, in which it is produced [Larsen &
Fausing, 1980:44]. Furthermore, Ove Christensen criticises Barthes for assuming that all
signs are interpreted after the intention of the sender, and for not including the context of
the interpreter [Christensen, 1993: 175-177]. I do not agree with Christensen in this
critique, as I believe Barthes does include the context of the interpreter via the connotative
level. This level opens for different interpretations, as connotations are a product of the
interpreter’s surrounding world.
As stated, the text and pictures on the websites will be analysed in accordance with Gee
and Barthes. When the presidential brands are identified, differences and similarities will
be compared in order to establish whether the brands are marked by national culture or
by a global approach. To do this a cultural framework for the two countries must be
established which the following chapter seeks to do.
34
4.5. Culture
In order to establish whether the presidential brands are marked by culture, this chapter
seeks to introduce Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture. The theory will be used to
assess the presidential brands, and thereby establish if differences and/or similarities are
caused by culture.
Over time, it has been possible to distinguish between three main approaches to culture:
behavioural, value and symbolic [Frandsen et al., 2002:106-107]. This thesis will apply the
value approach, which is represented by theorists such as Geert Hofstede, Hans Gullestrup
and Fons Trompenaars10 [Ibid.]. Within this approach, culture is perceived as an aspect of
the human psyche and cultural values determine people’s behaviour [Ibid,]. Culture is
thereby perceived as a pattern of deeply-rooted values, beliefs and behaviours, shared by
an identifiable group of people with a common history [Neuliep, 2003:18]. As culture is
deeply-rooted, it will unconsciously affect how people act and communicate [Beamer &
Varner, 2008:5]. Thereby, culture is likely to be reflected in the presidential
communication.
4.5.1. National culture
Between 1967 and 1973, Geert Hofstede conducted a survey on national values. The data
was collected by means of a questionnaire, answered by employees from IBM around the
world [de Mooij, 1998: 72-73]. From the answers Hofstede created four cultural
dimensions, which denote the dominating value systems in the cultures examined
[Schramm-Nielsen & Hjort, 1996: 56-57]. Later, a fifth dimension concerned with Longterm vs. Short-term Orientation were added to the study [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:210238]. However, as Iran has not been assessed in terms of this dimension, it will not be
considered.
It is important to note that Hofstede completed his research before the overthrow of the
Shah, which has changed many aspects of life in Iran. Hofstede argues [Hofstede, appendix
11] that the dimensions for today’s Iran are more concurrent with the values identified for
other Muslim countries, which corresponds with the group Hofstede identifies as the ‘Arab
World’ [Hofstede, appendix 12]. Therefore these dimensions will be considered more
applicable for the analysis than those originally identified for Iran.
10
For further information on Gullestrup and Trompenaars I refer to their works: Gullestrup, H. (2003)
Kulturanalyse – en vej til tværkulturel forståelse. Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag and Trompenaars, F. & HampdenTurner, C. (2001): Riding the waves of culture,understanding cultural diversity in Business. London: Nicholas
Brealey Publishing.
35
The model and table below illustrate the values that Iran and USA scored on Hofstede’s
dimensions.
Arab
World
Iran
USA
World
Avarage
Power
Distance
(PDI),
0=small
80
Individualism
(IDV)
Masculinity
(MAS)
0= collectivist
38
0= feminist
52
Uncertainty
Avoidance
(UAI),
0=weak
68
58
40
41
91
43
62
59
46
55
43
50
64
Figure 5 & Table 1 [Hofstede, appendix 13]
Revising the values of Iran and the Arab World, it becomes evident that the scores are
different, yet the relationship compared to the American values is similar in relation to
which nation has the highest/lowest score.
The four dimensions will be elaborated on in the following sections. The chapter will close
with a discussion of Hofstede’s theory and its usefulness.
Individualism vs. collectivism
Individualism and collectivism is related to the formation of personal relationships
[Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:74-75]. The collectivist tends to have a line of thought
constructed around ‘we’, whereas the individualist’s is constructed around ‘I’ [Ibid.]. In
individualistic cultures, emphasis is placed on the individual, and social behaviour is
guided by personal goals. Individualists are encouraged to pursue and develop their own
abilities and potential [Neuliep, 2003:38]. Contrary, in collectivistic cultures group goals
have precedence, and values which serve the in-group are stressed. In many collectivistic
cultures, the primary value is harmony with others, for which reason group harmony is
highly valued, and obedience to and compliance with the in-group is routine [Op.Cit:39].
Collectivism and individualism can be expressed visually on the websites. In collectivistic
cultures pictures with many people are often used, whereas in individualistic cultures
pictures are more likely to feature a single person in order to underline uniqueness
[Machin, 2007:118-119].
USA is a highly individualistic culture whereas Iran is collectivistic. Thus, American culture
tends to focus on the individual and its achievements, contrary to the Iranian culture,
which operates on the basis of personal relationships. For Iranians the primary building
block is the family [Daniel, 2000:18]. This difference could be expressed through the
presidents’ depiction of themselves in relation to others. Where Ahmadinejad might create
a group identity, Bush might emphasise himself as an individual [de Moij, 1998:75].
36
Masculine vs. feminine cultures
The dominant values within a masculine society are performance, achievement and results
[Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:118,125]. Furthermore, status is important to underline
success [de Moij, 1998:80]. In feminine societies focus is on quality of life and caring for
others. Besides that, there is a tendency to strive for consensus. Masculine societies are
marked by heroes and religion, whereas feminine societies are based on a wish for selfknowledge rather than religion.
Both Iran and USA are identified as masculine cultures. Thereby results, winnings and
success are focus points within both cultures [Ibid.], which might be communicated in the
branding. Furthermore, both Ahmadinejad and Bush are very religious. Nonetheless, they
profess themselves to different religions – Ahmadinejad to Islam and Bush to Christianity.
A difference between the two is that Christianity separates church and state, which Islam
does not. It is rather all-encompassing and controls all aspects of life [Larsen, 2002:8]. This
difference might cause that Ahmadinejad has a greater display of religion than Bush in the
communication.
Uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance relates to the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened
by unfamiliar situations [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:167]. People relate to the
unpredictability of life in different manners – some does not mind, while others seek ways
to control uncertainties [de Moij, 1998:83]. Such behaviour is typical for cultures with
strong uncertainty avoidance, which perceive uncertainties as a constant threat and rules
as a necessity to gain control of life [Ibid.]. Contrary, cultures with weak uncertainty
avoidance accept that a certain amount of uncertainty is inevitable [Gertsen, 1994:59].
Thus, the need for control is less prevalent and flexibility towards rules is greater.
USA has weak uncertainty avoidance, whereas Iran has strong uncertainty avoidance. This
means that rules and traditions should be valued much higher in Iran than USA. The weak
uncertainty avoidance opens for tolerance, openness to change and a belief in one’s own
ability to influence one’s life and world. These values correlate with the American Dream
and the belief that everybody is masters of their own fate [Duncan & Goddard, 2003:4].
Power distance
Power distance is related to how cultures deal with inequalities, and it is useful for
understanding people’s behaviour in relationships with different degrees of power or
authority [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:41; Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:77]. In cultures with a
large power distance, inequalities are perceived as inevitable and even desirable, as people
have different backgrounds and abilities, and therefore needs a defined role in society
[Gertsen, 1994:54]. Cultures with a small power distance are more inclined to perceive
inequalities as a problem, as all people are perceived to be equal [Ibid.]. These cultures
stress equality in rights and opportunities [de Moij, 1998:74].
37
Where USA has a small power distance Iran has a large one. This might be expressed in the
relationships the presidents seek to establish with the reader. In cultures with a small
power distance, superiors (e.g. presidents) are perceived to be equal to others. Contrary, in
cultures with a large power distance, superiors are perceived to be unreachable
[Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:77]. This might mean that Bush seeks to create a ‘friend-like’
relationship, whereas Ahmadinejad might underline his own superiority.
4.5.2. Discussion of Hofstede’s theory
Hofstede’s theory and results are often criticised, for which reason I find it appropriate to
discuss both the criticism and the applicability of the theory to this thesis
The primary critique of Hofstede’s theory is that the data was collected in the 1970s, and
that the results no longer are accurate due to cultural and technological developments
[Hansen & Panild, 1990:51]. In defence of Hofstede, it can be argued that the basis of his
theory is that culture is a long-term mental programming, which originates from the
fundamental values within a society [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:2-5]. Hofstede expresses
that: ‘cultures, especially national cultures, are extremely stable over time’ [Hofstede,
2001:34]. Other researchers have tested the accuracy of Hofstede’s dimensions. Gudykunst
and Kim [2003:81.] claim that the researchers Merritt and Oudenhoven have completed
recent studies, which support Hofstede’s original scores. In addition, Dutch professor and
writer Marieke de Mooij published a book in 1998 – Global marketing and advertising –
based on Hofstede’s dimensions, which indicates that not everybody opposes to Hofstede’s
findings.
Hofstede is also criticised for applying values of an organisation to nations [Baca et al.,
1999:12; Jensen & Løngreen, 1995:41]. Hofstede asked employees at IBM, and assumed
that these employees represented a national culture [Baca et al., 1999:11-12]. He believed
that by interviewing people with similar jobs, educational level, age and so forth, any
differences in values must be caused by national culture [Hofstede, 1984:52-54; SchrammNielsen & Hjort, 1996:57].However, Hofstede explains that his findings describe common
and general features within a nation, and cannot be completely transferred to individuals
[Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:19; Hansen & Panild, 1990:45].
A third area of critique is the dimensions, which are critiqued for being static and abstract,
not leaving any room for the dynamic of cultures [Baca et al., 1999:15; Hansen & Panild,
1990:51]. Nonetheless, Hofstede’s dimensions are produced as a continuum, as no culture
is purely individualistic or collectivistic. Rather, a culture may be more individualistic or
collectivistic than others, which the continuum should indicate [Neuliep, 2003:37]. When
working with Hofstede it is important to remember that tendencies of the dimensions exist
in all cultures, but one pole tends to predominate [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:77].
38
I agree with the critics that Hofstede merely has defined national tendencies rather than
characteristics. Nonetheless, Hofstede’s study is advocated by the fact that national culture
in general is abstract, because people and global changes constantly contribute to the
creation and re-creation of a nation’s cultural symbols, meanings, and norms. This
suggests that any assumptions made on national culture only can be generalisations
[Collier, 2006:54; Cartwright & Sturken, 2001:69]. If the focal point of this thesis had been
to make a cultural analysis of Iran and USA, I believe it would be necessary for the validity
of the results to complement Hofstede’s theory with theorists, who have a more dynamic
take on culture such as Gullestrup or Trompenaars. As this thesis is focussed upon
branding and merely uses culture as an instrument to explain similarities and/or
differences in the brands, I find that Hofstede’s dimensions are sufficient.
In spite of the critique, Hofstede’s study of national cultures is probably the most
comprehensive public study made. The dimensions provide a conceptual framework and
the possibility of making a comparative study, as they provide data on the same cultural
dimensions [Hansen & Panild, 1990:49]. As it is not possible within this thesis to examine
the cultures of Iran and the USA, Hofstede’s dimensions are perceived the best alternative.
39
4.6. Model for analysis
The previous chapters have introduced the theories, which will be used to analyse the
websites of Bush and Ahmadinejad in order to categorise their brand identity. This chapter
compiles the different theories into a model, cf. below, in order to visualise how they will
be used.
Figure 6 – Model for brand analysis
[Own production]
The cultural context is included in the model as an overall frame, because the brands will
be evaluated in terms of culture specific traits. Furthermore, the websites and brands are
created within a certain contextual frame, which I assume will affect the brand identity.
Thereby, the overall frame is somewhat similar to Fairclough’s social practice, as the social
practice affects how the brand is created and communicated.
The three boxes; text, text/picture and pictures represent the areas of analysis. The
discourse analysis and the message appeals will be used to assess the text. The pictorial
analysis will be completed via Barthes’ visual semiotics, which will be complemented by
the three interpretational aspects gaze, angle of interaction and distance. The text/picture
relation will not be analysed, but I will commented on how the two areas complement each
other. The three aspects of credibility are included, as I assume that both the text and
pictures will assign credibility to the presidential brands.
When text and pictures have been analysed it will be possible to determine the brand
identity of the presidents. When the brand identities have been identified, differences and
similarities of the brands will be compared and linked to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions,
Appadurai’s global flows and Fairclough’s dimensions of discourse. Thereby it will be
possible to conclude whether the brands presented on Bush and Ahmadinejad’s websites
are marked by national or global culture.
40
PART V – Analysis
This part will use the theories presented to complete an analysis of Ahmadinejad and
Bush’s brands. The presidential brands will be analysed and compared, based on analysis
of both text and pictures. Similarities and differences will be assessed in order to
determine if they are marked by nationalism or globalism. Firstly, this chapter will
introduce the material for the analysis, and then the textual and pictorial analysis is
completed.
5.1. Material for the analysis
As websites comprise large amounts of information, it will only be possible to analyse
selected material from the two websites. In order to make a comparative study, similar
texts from the websites are chosen for the analysis. The texts, which have been chosen for
the analysis, are the biographies of the presidents, along with a speech given at the 63rd UN
general assembly on September 23, 2008. It would be preferred to analyse texts about the
presidents’ attitudes towards certain aspects, but as Ahmadinejad has omitted this from
his website, it is not possible. I believe that the presidents will be more alike in their
speeches, as they are addressing the same audience, whereas the biographies are created
for the websites with different audiences and thereby different social practices.
For the pictorial analysis, the websites have been reviewed over a period of three months
in order to identify the type of pictures the presidents mainly use. In appendix 1 a
selection of pictures are included to provide an overview of the pictures featured on the
websites.
5.2. Pictorial analysis
Upon reviewing the websites, it became evident that one of the most important pictorial
elements is the banner of the websites, as this is featured on all subsites. Furthermore, the
pictures on the front page of the websites were reviewed, as it is this picture most people
encounter. Therefore I assume it has been given most consideration when chosen. These
two elements will be analysed in the following sections.
5.2.1. Website banners
The presidents each have two banners. Ahmadinejad has one on his website and one on
his blog, while Bush has an overall website banner and one for the ‘president’ subsite. All
four banners will be considered in the analysis.
41
Ahmadinejad
When looking at the banner, the denotative level reveals a blue sky with clouds, a flag, a
man and writings. Ascribing the connotations to the banner, it can be concluded that the
flag is the Iranian flag and that the man is President Ahmadinejad. The writings are in
English, and presumably Persian, presenting Ahmadinejad as the Iranian president.
The clouds and the sky in the background lead thoughts towards religion and God. Placing
a picture of Ahmadinejad in the sky might symbolise that he has been elected or approved
by Allah. Nonetheless, it could also be a reference to the coherence between politics and
religion. In Iran, state and church are not separated, and Iranian law is based on the Sharia
– the law of Islam. In addition, the president is subject to the supreme (religious) leader
who in principle has all the power in Iran, which the sky might be included to symbolise
[Jerichow & Jarlner, 2004:6; Rakel, 2009:33,36].
I believe that the flag connotes the Iranian people and their closeness to the president,
which creates a relationship between Ahmadinejad and the Iranians. However, including
the flag also states nationality and thereby uses the aspect of country of origin, which
ascribes connotations of Iran and nationality to Ahmadinejad.
The banner shows Ahmadinejad dressed in a somewhat causal jacket without a tie,
thereby connoting informality. This is closely connected to his perception of himself and
his role as president. Ahmadinejad considers himself to be a servant and street sweeper of
Iran, and refers to himself as a ‘man of the people’ [Naji, 2008:115, Rakel, 2009:139]. From
this it seems that Ahmadinejad perceives himself to be similar to the average man in Iran.
The angle of interaction is equal to the viewer, which indicates that the subject and viewer
are equal in status [Machin, 2007:115]. Furthermore, the raised hand indicates a
welcoming gesture, which connotes willingness to have a friendly relationship.
The banner on the blog is almost similar to the website banner:
42
It features the Iranian flag, Ahmadinejad and the writing: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
Personal memos. Ahmadinejad is sitting down and writing, what must be presumed to be a
memo for the blog. The way Ahmadinejad is shown might be a matter of indicating the
authenticity of the blog entries, while the flag draws attention to Ahmadinejad’s
nationality. It is interesting that it is nowhere explicated that Ahmadinejad is the president
of Iran. Thereby, attention is drawn towards the private person Ahmadinejad rather than
the president Ahmadinejad. This will be elaborated on in the textual analysis.
Bush
Bush’s banner is quite simple, as it only features text and an illustration of the White
House.
The ethos of the White House is projected to Bush as his name is written below the White
House. Including the White House, a well known American institution, also assigns
nationality to the brand by indirectly displaying country of origin. I assume that the
administration perceives the White House to be known worldwide as an American
institution, wherefore explicit display of nationality is unnecessary. Even though this
banner is present on all subsites, it seems to mainly function as a tool for identification and
navigation, cf. the links to the different subsites: President, Vice President, First Lady etc.
Therefore, it makes sense to also consider the banner for the subsite ‘president’, cf. below,
which feature personal information about Bush.
Like Ahmadinejad, Bush is portrayed with his national flag, to symbolise the American
people and its closeness to the president. However, it also states nationality. Both
presidents include their national flags, thereby drawing attention to nationality and the
connotations associated with their country of origin, and thereby present themselves as
national brands.
43
The background picture of a bald eagle – national symbol [Reed, 2005, appendix 14] - and
the White House symbolise that the president is backed by the White House and the
nation. Where Ahmadinejad was backed by religion, Bush is backed by a political
institution. Bush uses the organisational attributes of the White House to assign credibility
to his brand. The White House is an old and trusted institution, and its trust and expertise
is assigned to Bush, which ascribes credibility to his brand.
The distance to Bush in the picture is close, which compared with the angle of
interpretation indicates a close and equal relationship between the president and the
viewer. On the picture Bush smiles, which connotes a kind personality, and that a friendlike relationship can be established. Both Bush and Ahmadinejad have chosen pictures
where they have eye contact with the viewer, thereby inviting him/her to share their
experience and have a relationship [Machin, 2007:112]. Both presidents use pathos appeal
in the pictures by relating to feelings of friendliness and closeness.
Compared to Ahmadinejad, Bush appears more official and formal due to the dark suit and
tie, where as Ahmadinejad is dressed more informal. This difference could be explained by
the perception of the presidents. Ahmadinejad perceives himself as the common man’s
president, which he might try to illustrate by not wearing too formal clothes. Contrary, the
American president is often, in the media, referred to as the world’s most powerful man. In
order to live up to this, Bush wears clothes which radiate professionalism.
The use of clothes in branding was also an important aspect in the 2000 American
president election between Bush and Al Gore. Before the election, Al Gore was known for
his pinstriped suits, but during the campaign he changed his look to softer earth tones, in
order to shed the image of an aloof candidate, who could not relate to the average person
[Stout, 2000]. Contrary, Bush wore business attires in order to make himself appear more
sincere and qualified for the job as president [Ibid.]. This seems to be a strategy that Bush
has maintained during his time as president. Based on the clothes, Ahmadinejad presents
himself as informal and similar to the average man, while Bush portrays professionalism
and formality. Thus, Ahmadinejad seems to be more down-to-earth and closer to the
viewer than Bush. In order to establish the same feeling, Bush has in his banner chosen a
close-up picture where he smiles. In addition, the distance and his gaze in the banner
invite the viewer to have a close relationship with him [Machin, 2007:110].
44
5.2.2. Pictures
When reviewing the websites for pictures, it becomes evident that the presidents are
similar in self-representation. They use two main themes:
1. The president giving a speech
2. The president meeting foreign delegates
However, Bush also includes more personal pictures [Appendix 1]. Contrary, Ahmadinejad
has chosen to only use pictures, which depict him as president. This might be to indicate
seriousness about being president, and that the job comes before anything else – even
family. In a collectivist society this is unusual, as focus normally is on family rather than
achievements, success and work [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:74]. However, it could be
argued that Ahmadinejad perceives the Iranian nation as his extended family, and that he
via the pictures portrays his dedication to serving the interest of his ‘family’.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyse all the pictures on the website or even those
enclosed in the appendix. I have chosen to analyse the pictures from the first theme - the
presidents giving a speech, as they indicate something about the presidents’ personalities.
The pictures from the second theme are similar and connote acceptance of, and openness
towards other nations. The presidents and the delegates are pictured at the same level
which indicates equality between the different parties [Machin, 2007:115]. Through these
pictures the presidents’ display openness towards other nations/cultures and that they
perceive others to be equal to them.
When revising the pictures from the presidential speeches, a pattern seems to emerge.
Ahmadinejad is depicted upon a platform in front of a crowd of supporters, whereas, Bush
is depicted alone, or with a few people in the background – see pictures below or in
appendix 1.
Ahmadinejad
45
Bush
Neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad look directly at the viewer and therefore no relationship is
established. Ahmadinejad rather looks towards the crowd and relates to them. The crowd
connotes that Ahmadinejad is a popular and supported president. Due to the angle, the
viewer seems to stand behind Ahmadinejad and is thereby included in the experience as a
spectator, which connotes equality between Ahmadinejad and the viewer.
Nonetheless, there is a greater distance between Ahmadinejad and the supporters, which
might indicate an imbalance in status between these two parties. This distance might be
caused by the arrangement of the speech rather than an imbalance in status. Yet it should
be noted that Ahmadinejad has not included any pictures on the website where he is less
than two meters away from the ‘average man’. In Bush’s pictures, he is shown looking
slightly upwards at an unidentifiable object, which is assumed to be an audience. The angle
of interaction is low and Bush is thereby looked up upon by the viewer, which connotes
that he is a role model. That Bush’s gaze is upwards connotes success, while the angle
connotes power and status [Machin, 2007:112,114]. This presents Bush as a successful
and respected leader.
Like in the banners, the presidents are dressed differently. Bush wears a dark suit and a
ceremonial cape which indicate professionalism. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, wears a
lighter suit, which not to the same degree connotes professionalism, but is more informal.
Alone or in company?
The greatest difference in the pictures is how the two presidents choose to depict
themselves - Ahmadinejad in front of a crowd and Bush alone.
The fact that Ahmadinejad chooses to use pictures of him and supporters, outlines his
popularity and support, while also framing him as part of a large group. Showing
popularity indicates acceptance and likability which ascribes credibility to Ahmadinejad.
Contrary, Bush is featured alone and is thereby the most salient element. This connotes
importance and uniqueness of his personality.
46
The pictures shows no physical relation to other people, which is typical of the
individualist, who does not, to the same degree as the collectivist, relate to in-groups but
rather focuses on the self and it’s achievements or uniqueness [Machin, 2007:118].
However, due to the raised hand in the picture from West Point, it must be assumed that
Bush is being applauded by an audience, which like Ahmadinejad connotes acceptance and
likability.
When analysing pictures, it is interesting to compare Ahmadinejad’s pictures from his
website and his blog. On the website it has only been possible to identify the banner and
one other picture, which depict Ahmadinejad alone [Appendix 1]. Contrary, on his blog
there are only pictures of him alone. This might be a matter of the two websites having
different purposes – the blog represents the person Ahmadinejad, whereas the website
represents the president Ahmadinejad. As mentioned above, the blog does not explicitly
state that it is a presidential blog, and neither should the pictures. Therefore, they only
picture the man Ahmadinejad, and not the president Ahmadinejad. This difference is also
detected in the text of the two biographies. The text on the website is objective, while on
the blog it is marked by emotions and personal opinions. This will be elaborated on in the
textual analysis.
From the banners, almost identical personalities of the presidents are portrayed – downto-earth, friendly and close to the viewer. Opposite, the pictures indicate a difference in the
relationship to the viewer. Ahmadinejad is portrayed as similar to the viewer, while Bush
appears as a role model or superior due to the angle of interaction. Nonetheless, the
presidents not only portray their personality in the pictorial elements, they also draw
attention to their work as presidents. Both presidents portray success - Ahmadinejad
through the supporters, and Bush via the angle of interaction and his gaze. Portraying
success makes the presidents appear capable for their office, as they have gained support
due to the actions they have taken.
47
5.3. Ahmadinejad’s biographies
Ahmadinejad has two biographies, one on the website11 and one on the blog12. The main
difference between the two is that the biography on the website is written by a third party
author, while the blog is written by Ahmadinejad (as it appears), and is more personal in
terms of authorship. Where the website uses the formal ‘Dr. Ahmadinejad’ to identify him,
the blog uses the informal ‘I’ or ‘My’. Another difference is the use of message appeals. The
website mainly use logos appeal by presenting facts about Ahmadinejad’s background,
while the blog uses pathos appeal to underlines its message of injustice and disgrace.
Furthermore, the relationship to God and family is emphasised on the blog, while
downplayed on the website. This will be elaborated on in the following sections.
5.3.1. Website biography
The website biography is short and consists of three elements – a head line, copy and
bullets listing Ahmadinejad’s career background. Linguistically the text is not particularly
national, as no national identity is created. However, no global identity or relationship is
created either, and the text is almost neutral in representation. Nonetheless, the text states
that a war was imposed on Iran (2,14), which makes it biased due to the negative
connotations of the word ‘imposed’. Through that, the flag in the website banner and the
identification of Iran in the head line, the biography presents Ahmadinejad more as a
national than global brand.
The main activity of the text is to outline Ahmadinejad’s educational and career
background in order to build significance around his expertise, which affects his capability
of being president. By including a list detailing his career background, Ahmadinejad uses
logos appeal to ascribe expertise to his brand. The references to jobs and education further
indicate that he is an intelligent and educated man.
The copy presents Ahmadinejad’s family, his educational background and his participation
in political activities before elected president. References to Ahmadinejad’s family are
downplayed and have a strictly informative function, as they are scarce on emotional value
[Albrect, 1995:20]. The text e.g. states: Dr. Ahmadinejad is married and has three children –
two sons and one daughter (2,17). Including family relations emphasises the importance of
family, and Ahmadinejad takes on the role of father figure. I believe this is an important
identity for a president, as he is also the father of the nation. His role as a private father
figure is transferred to the nation. Nonetheless, the blog has greater emphasis on
Ahmadinejad’s family, e.g. I was born in a poor family (ABB 2,2) My family was under more
pressure (ABB 3,2), My mother and wife...(ABB 16,1) and several other references.
However, these references are used differently than on the website. On the website,
Ahmadinejad presents himself as a father figure, while on the blog the references relate to
his family’s story, e.g. My family was also suffered in the villages (ABB 3,1). By referring to
11
12
Ahmadinejad’s website biography is enclosed as appendix 2
Ahmadinejad’s blog biography is enclosed as appendix 3
48
his social background, Ahmadinejad points to the fact that he has lived under the same
conditions as ‘the average Iranians’. Thereby, he emphasises similarities between himself
and the Iranians, which means that he can lead the country in a manner, which best serves
the common man, as he is one himself. In addition, these references support his identity as
a ‘man of the people’ as he takes on the role as the ordinary man by means of signs in the
texts and pictures [Rakel, 2009:139; Van Zoonen, 2000:12].
His education, like his career, ascribes expertise to Ahmadinejad, and the text underlines
that he was successful (2,3). In connection with references to the educational background,
the text states that Ahmadinejad is familiar with English language (2,8).
This is an interesting statement compared with the blog, which has several linguistic
mistakes, e.g. he was a beloved leader for every individuals – young and elderly (ABB 5,8),
extinct Shah (ABB 6,1) and Whole Iran poured out in the streets... (ABB 11,4). These
sentences should rather have read: He was a beloved leader for everybody – young and old,
the late/diseased Shah and All the Iranians poured into the streets... . As previously
mentioned, presidential brands are professionally constructed and the communication is
deliberate, which the spelling mistakes probably are as well. Allowing spelling mistakes
makes it seem more trustworthy that Ahmadinejad himself has composed the messages on
the blog. As English is not his mother tongue, it is expected that he will make mistakes, and
therefore makes it seem possible that the text is in fact composed by Ahmadinejad himself.
Ahmadinejad also uses the perspectives of personality and brand heritage by emphasising
his involvement in politics before elected president– while a student, Dr. Ahmadinejad
engaged in political activities; he became a founder and member of the Islamic Association of
Students, and he was actively present as member of the volunteer forces… until the end of the
war (2,11-14). This indicates that Ahmadinejad has expertise and knowledge about the
political realm due to many years of involvement. That Ahmadinejad fought for Iran
identifies a dedication to serving and protecting the nation, and portrays him as a patriot.
Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that due to his age, it is natural that he took part in
the war. If this had not been mentioned, it could lead to loss of trustworthiness or honour
from the Iranians. However, the text portrays Ahmadinejad as actively and voluntarily
taking part of the war, which indicates that he made a deliberate choice to protect Iran.
This underlines his identity of protector.
To sum up, Ahmadinejad is portrayed as an educated man with experiences within the
political world, and as a dedicated protector of Iran. By stating that the war is imposed on
Iran, he creates an identity of Iran as a victim. This victimisation of Iran is more prevalent
in the blog biography, which will be analysed in the following section.
49
5.3.2. Blog biography
The main activity of the biography is to outline the uneven relationship between the West
and Iran. The sub-activity of the text is to provide information about Ahmadinejad and the
late Ayatollah Khomeini. Had the text not been named an autobiography, it might not have
been identified as one. Ahmadinejad tells the story of Iran’s political scene and has
interwoven complementary anecdotes about himself and his family. The biography is more
focussed on Ahmadinejad’s impression of Khomeini and his disgrace for the Shah, than
himself, and in terms of volume, more attention is given to Khomeini than Ahmadinejad. I
assume that Khomeini is a role model to Ahmadinejad, and the way Khomeini is described
reflects Ahmadinejad’s aspired identity.
Ahmadinejad = Khomeini?
That Khomeini is a role model to Ahmadinejad is concluded from the way he is identified
as a courageous, beloved (5,8) and divine leader (7,4) with a wise foresight (6,8 ), whom
Ahmadinejad has a devoted relation to (7,4). Furthermore, Ahmadinejad ascribes ethos to
Khomeini via blessings, e.g. Imam Khomeini – Almighty God bless his soul (4,6) and Imam
Khomeini, may peace of God be upon him (19,2). Via the blessings, Ahmadinejad portrays
his respect for Khomeini. In addition, the values Khomeini represented are consistent with
those Ahmadinejad treasures, and it is assumed that Ahmadinejad seeks to enforce these
values himself. The values thereby constitute the distribution of social goods, and are
outlined to be: the belief in monotheism – Unity and Oneness of God – and also justice,
elimination of oppression, injustice and sedition (5,4-5). From the description of Khomeini
and his actions, Ahmadinejad points to his perception of what is ‘good’, while establishing
a relationship of respect and inferiority to Khomeini.
Ahmadinejad’s personality is portrayed by his determination to get an education (9) e.g.: I
was playful... but was aware of my school and education (9,5), Although I had a nose bleeding
during the test I became 132nd student among over 400 thousand (9,9-10) and I was aware
of my education and did not give up on it (9,14-15). From this, Ahmadinejad presents
himself as successful and dedicated, as he finishes what he has started, no matter the
circumstances and obstacles he meets.
Building identities
The text constructs a national identity of Iran and an identity of global arrogance (14,1). It
is important to note that Ahmadinejad is not included in the global identity, and he is
therefore presented as a national brand.
Iran is identified as a noble and tenacious country (2,11), which obeys the laws of Islam
(15,4). The Iranians were exposed to severe hardship (12,2), but overcame it by use of the
divine weapon of faith (12,6). Furthermore, Iran is a peaceful nation, which is the victim of
an imposed war (14,6), killings of innocents (13,14) and the terrors of the Shah’s regime.
50
Even though the Iranians were attacked, they never fought back, but relied on faith to save
them (15,5), which identify them as calm and nonviolent. Thus, the Iranians are a religious
people, victimised by violent external forces.
In contrast to the Iranians, is the global identity, which constitutes Shah Mohammad Reza
and his allies. The shah is described as a traitorous (8,8), bloodthirsty (10,7) mercenary and
puppet (9,14) of foreign masters (2,10). As the shah is a puppet, the real enemy is the
masters of the puppet, which are identified as USA and Britain (9,14). USA is further
described as the great Satan (13,13). Referring to USA as ‘the great Satan’ is drawing on a
discourse used by Khomeini during and after the revolution in 1979 [Rosendal, 2001:22,
Naij, 2008:232]. This underlines the assumption of Khomeini being a role model to
Ahmadinejad. To construct these two identities, Ahmadinejad uses pathos appeal.
When describing Iran, he uses words with positive connotations, while words with
negative connotations are used to identify the shah. Thereby, he seeks to relate to the
readers’ feelings and create sympathy for Iran while disgrace for the Shah.
Building relationships
The text creates a relationship between Ahmadinejad and the reader of the blog by the use
of personal pronouns. Ahmadinejad uses ‘our’ and ‘us’ when he addresses the reader,
which indicate closeness and coherence between the two parties. When personal
pronouns are used, it is possible to determine whether a text is national or global in scope
by identifying who the addressee is. Reading the text, it becomes evident that ‘our’ and ‘us’
refer to the Iranians. This is e.g. concluded from; Our Islamic culture (2,9), our revolution
(12,5) and Saddam fought with us (15,1). These are references to the Iranian culture, the
revolution in 1979 and the invasion of Iran led by Saddam Hussein. By using ‘our’,
Ahmadinejad creates a feeling of national coherence and establishes a national
relationship. This indicates that the text has a national focus and uses a national discourse.
Nonetheless, the text has an inconsistency in references to the Iranians. Ahmadinejad not
only uses ‘our/us’ to refer to them, he also uses; nation of Iran (13,16), Iranian nation
(16,2), and while Saddam was bombing our cities, Islamic republic of Iran, obeying the laws
of.... (15,4-5). In the last example, Ahmadinejad refers to ‘our cities’, yet it is the ‘republic’
rather than ‘we’ who defended it. Another example is when Ahmadinejad states that youths
and their wives ... defended their nation (16,2-3).
Thus, Ahmadinejad also creates a relationship of distance between himself and the
Iranians by not including himself in the references. Nonetheless, as Ahmadinejad mainly
creates a relationship of closeness with the Iranians and is not included in a global
relationship/identity, the text is concluded to have a national focus in spite of the
inconsistencies.
51
The identities created for Iran and the Shah/allies, reflect the main relationship in the text.
This is a relationship between them (Shah + Allies) and us (Iran), which also constitutes
the fight between good and evil. This relationship is further emphasised linguistically.
When not mentioned by name, Ahmadinejad use ‘they’ to refer to the Shah and his allies.
‘They’ indicate outsiders, who are different from ‘us’, which creates anxiety. As mentioned
above, the words ‘our’ and ‘us’ relates to the Iranians, which indicate that the ‘us-group’ is
constituted by Iran. By outlining conflict and stereotyping an enemy, Ahmadinejad
strengthens and confirms group membership for the Iranians [Eriksen, 2002:28]. Thus, by
presenting a difference between the national in-group and the global out-group,
Ahmadinejad creates a relationship of difference between Iran and the Shah/Allies, and a
relationship of coherence among the Iranians. By creating a relationship with the Iranians
and outlining differences between the Iranians and the Shah/Allies, Ahmadinejad relates
to the national audience and presents himself as a national brand.
The blog also presents a relationship between Ahmadinejad and God. The text presents
Ahmadinejad as inferior to God by stating: God, the Most merciful, the Most Compassionate
(1,1) and God, please, we beg you to send us our Guardian (1,2). Furthermore, Ahmadinejad
points to the fact that it was the divine weapon of faith which saved Iran (12,6). From this
the importance of God for Ahmadinejad and Iran is outlined. It is interesting to compare
Ahmadinejad’s two biographies, as the relationship towards God is emphasised on the blog
while almost omitted on the website. This difference in display of religion might be a
matter of the purpose of the two biographies. As previously mentioned, the blog is
assumed to present the person Ahmadinejad while the website portrays the president
Ahmadinejad. It might have been concluded that the brand and ethos of Ahmadinejad will
find greater support in the West, if the importance of religion is downplayed on the official
website. This might be true, as many western countries are straying away from religion
and rather relate to policies. Thereby, Ahmadinejad might be taken more seriously by an
external audience, if not associated strongly with religion, which could be the reason why
religion almost is omitted on the website. Nonetheless, Ahmadinejad’s UN address has
great focus on religion, which might prove this assumption wrong or at least implies great
inconsistencies in the branding of Ahmadinejad.
To sum up, Ahmadinejad presents himself as a national brand, emphasises his education
and creates an identity of Iran as a victim. The website portrays Ahmadinejad’s personality
and brand heritage, while the blog uses organisational attributes in establishing his brand.
52
5.4. Ahmadinejad’s UN address
In the speech13 Ahmadinejad mainly uses pathos appeal via adjectives with emotional
connotations to describe what is good and bad, e.g. unjust systems governing the world
(2,4), criminal and occupying Zionists (10,1), bullying powers (10,4), Iran’s peaceful nuclear
program (11,4) illuminated and promised divine age (21,1). Furthermore, Ahmadinejad
uses the words impose and impinge (2,5;6,11;9,5;11,13) to create compassion for the
nations, who had something forced on them and disgrace for the imposers. Using pathos
appeal can create a relationship with those who agree with him, and persuade others to
comply with his message, by relating to people’s compassion for the underdog and the
importance of freedom. However, it might also create a hostile relationship with those who
disagree with him – e.g. the Americans might not agree with Ahmadinejad’s portray of
them, which can lead to mistrust of his entire message.
5.4.1. Building significance and activities
The speech builds significance around solutions to the world’s problems and the
importance of God. These two themes also make up the main activity of the text.
Nonetheless, the text also has a sub-activity of justifying the Iranian nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad builds significance around the world’s problems and solutions to them. He
states that the world is ruled by unjust systems, and uses the speech to address the roots
to the world’s problems. According to Ahmadinejad, how the world, humankind, freedom
and obeisance to God, and justice (3,4-5) are perceived determines the problems of the
world. Therefore, he outlines how these five phenomena should be complied with, in order
to create a global community filled with justice, friendship, brotherhood and welfare (20,5).
Significance is constructed by explicitly going over factors, which create and solve the
problems (4-8). Ahmadinejad uses a global discourse by relating to the world’s problems
and urging the UN to create a better global community. Thereby, Ahmadinejad presents
himself as a global brand.
Ahmadinejad also builds significance around the importance of God and following the
divine path, as this mainly is the solution to the world’s problems. Significance is built by
starting and ending the speech with references to God, as well as referring to
God/Allah/Almighty 32 times, and by stating that True freedom and obedience to God are in
balance (6,3). Thereby, Ahmadinejad portrays obedience to God as the way to solve the
world’s problems. Furthermore, Ahmadinejad outlines that following the divine path is an
advantage for the expansionist governments ruling global relations (19,1). Because if they
do not return to it, God’s hand of power will emerge through the sleeve of the oppressed
nations and will make your life difficult (19,5-6). From such a statement Ahmadinejad could
be perceived as threatening or even bullying. However, Ahmadinejad appears as a prophet
delivering the message of God, because he does not include himself in the statement.
13
Ahmadinejad’s UN address is enclosed as appendix 4
53
By building significance around God, Ahmadinejad presents a religious personality which
is submissive to God. This is in line with the relationship created in the blog biography.
These two areas of significance make up the text’s main activity, which is to outline the
injustice ruling the world and provide information on solving the world’s problems.
Ahmadinejad seeks to get the UN, and especially the bullying states, to comply with his
solutions in order to create a safer world. Via the issues of significance and main activity,
Ahmadinejad takes on a global role, as he seeks to protect a global community (20,5).
Furthermore, by outlining solutions to the world’s problems, he emphasises that he is
caring, helpful and intelligent. Ahmadinejad is caring and helpful because he wants to
make the world a better place, and intelligent because he has the answers to the world’s
problems.
A religious paradox
A paradox concerning the importance of religion to solve the world’s problems is the fact
that one of Ahmadinejad’s ‘enemies’ is George W. Bush who also is very religious [Duncan
& Goddard, 2003:159]. A difference between the two presidents manifests itself in their
religious persuasions – Christianity and Islam.
In the speech, Ahmadinejad does not claim that freedom and salvation only can be
achieved by following the words of a specific God. He rather underlines that the global
community should be created in accordance with the divine Prophets Noah, Abraham,
Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammad (20,9). Therefore, I assume that following the path of
any of these will lead to freedom. However, even though Bush lives as a Christian,
Ahmadinejad still perceives him to be an enemy and part of the world’s problems. This is
not as extensively emphasised in the speech as on the blog, but the speech does have
references to Bush and USA - e.g. nations are enslaved to win votes (8,14) is a reference to
Bush invading Afghanistan and Iraq to secure American votes after 9/11. In addition,
Ahmadinejad claims that; American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and
its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders (18,1-2). From this, it
becomes evident that Ahmadinejad perceives USA and Bush to be one of the dominating
powers. This makes Ahmadinejad’s statements somewhat self-contradictory because he
claims that if people follow the path of God, then the problems of the world will be solved.
Yet, one of those he perceives to be a part of the problem does follow the path of his God –
Christ.
This leads to the thought that Ahmadinejad not just urges people to comply with any God,
but rather to his perception of God. This relates to the topic of ethnocentrism where one’s
own culture – or in this case religion – is perceived as the ultimate, and is portrayed as the
right and only solution. Thereby the aspect of being a global brand is challenged, as his
national religious conviction motivates the main activity.
54
5.4.2. Sub-activity: Justifying Iranian nuclear program
The speech does not have much explicit emphasis on Iran. Nonetheless, paragraph 11 is
merely focussed upon the Iranian nuclear program and the injustice Iran has been met by.
Ahmadinejad explains and justifies the Iranian nuclear program, which he explicitly
describe as peaceful by stating; Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, nuclear fuel for peaceful
purposes, Iran’s activities are peaceful and the peaceful nuclear activities of the Iranian
nation (11,4-5;7-8). By using ‘peaceful’ extensively, it seems that Ahmadinejad is engaged
in convincing the assembly that all allegations concerning Iran’s nuclear program should
be disregarded. This is further underlined as Ahmadinejad states that Iran has displayed
full cooperation and transparency of the nuclear program, and has been open for dialogue
(11,16), which underlines the truthfulness of claiming that the program is peaceful, and
thereby his trustworthiness. Being trustworthy assigns credibility to Ahmadinejad’s brand.
Ahmadinejad only refers to Iran by name 9 times in the speech, and as 6 of these
references are used in this specific paragraph, it seems to be important for Ahmadinejad to
underline Iran’s innocence in the nuclear discussion. Ahmadinejad could rather have
talked about a global right to undertake nuclear programs, yet emphasis is placed on Iran’s
nuclear program being peaceful, and the actions Iran has taken to prove it. Nonetheless,
the sub-activity might not only be a matter of justifying the nuclear program, but also to
rectify Iranian honour, which is an aspect many Muslim countries find more important
than the basic principles of Islam [Tønnsen, appendix 15]. Emphasising peacefulness
indicates that Ahmadinejad has not lied about the nuclear program, which ensures that he
does not lose face or credibility to the general assembly [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:306].
This is important, as loss of face could affect the trust in his messages. Furthermore,
justifying the nuclear program is also an important aspect in relation to Ahmadinejad’s
home audience. During his presidency, Ahmadinejad has stressed the right to have a
nuclear program as part of the Iranian nation’s honour [Naij, 2008:148,171]. So by
emphasising the Iranian nuclear program, Ahmadinejad not only relates to the UN but also
to the Iranians, as he uses the powerful position as speaker at the UN General Assembly to
uphold the Iranian right and honour in relation to the nuclear program.
5.4.3. Building relationships and identities
By stating that Iran is a transparent, dialogue-based and peaceful country, Ahmadinejad
uses organisational attributes in his brand formation. As the speech not explicitly
emphasises the identity of Ahmadinejad himself, I assume that the identity he constructs
for Iran is equal to his own.
Ahmadinejad again victimises Iran, because even though Iran has collaborated and been
transparent, some bullying powers have sought to put hurdles in the way of the peaceful
nuclear activities (11,7). These powers seek to monopolise technologies and impose their
will on other nations (11,13). Ahmadinejad portrays an unjust treatment of Iran, and thus
Iran is one of the victims of the unjust systems governing the world (2,6).
55
Thereby, he has first-hand-knowledge about the injustice ruling the world, which provides
his message credibility, as it is constructed on experiences rather than assumptions.
In addition, Iran is identified as a helping friend, which Ahmadinejad outlines by stating;
the Iranian people are prepared... to help you be rescued from your current situation and to
establish peace and prosperity (19,8-9). The Iranian people extend their hands to the
dominating powers to help them find the path to freedom.
Ahmadinejad indirectly portrays himself as a compassionate leader who cares for his
people, by outlining actions of other politicians and distancing himself from them by
stating: The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being
played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists... It is deeply disastrous
to witness that some presidential or premiere nominees... have to visit these people... in order
to attain financial or media support. This means the great people of America and various
nations of Europe need to obey the demands... against their will (13). Thereby, Ahmadinejad
points to the fact that some politicians strive more for financial success and media
attention than the wellbeing of their own population. With this statement Ahmadinejad
portrays a disgrace for placing money and media coverage above the wellbeing of the
people, which indicates that he would not do that. Thus, Ahmadinejad is branded as a
leader who cares for the wellbeing of his people.
As mentioned above, Ahmadinejad does not place much explicit emphasis on Iran. This is
also reflected in the relationships he creates. Ahmadinejad only links himself to Iran once,
e.g. I explicitly state that the Iranian people... (15,1). His affiliation to Iran is not strongly
emphasised, but the quote indicates a knowledge about the actions of the Iranian people,
which an outsider would not possess. However, it is not a relationship of closeness but
rather one of distance. This is reflected in all other references to Iran, e.g. Iran (11,7), their
(11,14) and Islamic republic of Iran (17,2). With these references, Ahmadinejad does not
include himself as part of the Iranian nation. Contrary, Ahmadinejad connects himself with
the UN and thereby creates a global identity and relationship. When referring to the
assembly, he uses word such as e.g.; we (2,8), friends (14,8), us (20,10) and my friends
(20,1). Using the personal pronoun ‘we’ indicates that the people addressed and the
addressor are united by shared activities and thereby constitute a homogeneous group
[Eriksen, 2002:67]. Furthermore, referring to the assembly as friends indicates closeness
and care, as people do not want to harm their friends. Initiating a closer relationship with
the assembly rather than with Iran might be a matter of the social context the speech is
given in. The audience is a global assembly, and in order for the message to be accepted,
Ahmadinejad might find it necessary to portray a global identity and use a global
discourse. Thereby, the global presentation of Ahmadinejad might be a matter of the
audience and social practice that he is part of, rather than the perception of being a truly
global brand.
56
Ahmadinejad and God
Furthermore, Ahmadinejad creates a relationship with God, to whom he is inferior.
Nonetheless, Ahmadinejad not only presents himself, but all people, as submissive to God
by stating; All are His creations and He is the sole creator and ruler of the world (4,7) and All
creatures are humble before Him and resign to His will (6,15). Ahmadinejad believes that
the people of the world must understand this power relation and return to the path of God
(19,3) in order to achieve true freedom and be able to grow (6,1;9). Thereby a relationship
between Ahmadinejad/man and God is outlined. God is superior, while man is inferior or
at least should be in order to obtain freedom and a global community filled with justice,
friendship, brotherhood, and welfare (20,5). This creates a religious identity for
Ahmadinejad, and underlines the importance of religion and a perception of humanity as
submissive and inferior to God.
Global relations
Nonetheless, the most important relationship, which the speech outlines, describes the
global relations, which are basis for the world’s problems. Ahmadinejad believes that the
world is ruled by an injustice, which has victimised the people of e.g. Afghanistan, Georgia
and Abkhazia (10). According to Ahmadinejad, this injustice relates to both the systems
governing the world and the rights some counties have, which others are precluded from.
The injustice is e.g. expressed by stating that the aggressors, because of their financial,
political and propaganda powers, not only escape punishment but even claim righteousness
(8,12-13). Due to certain circumstances and status, some nations are not held accountable
for their actions. Furthermore, injustice is underlined by the fact that the Security Council
cannot do anything about it because these NATO members also happen to be the major
decision makers in the Security Council (10,11-12). Since, the nations who exercise the
injustice are members of the Security Council, they can veto against restrictions on
themselves. From this, Ahmadinejad point to the fact that some nations due to their status
can act as they please, because it has no consequences for them. These nations get a status
of superiority compared with others, which create a relationship of inequality between the
nations of the world. By outlining the injustice and urging the immoral and powerful (14,2)
to return to the path of God... and to the truth and justice (19,3-4), Ahmadinejad takes on a
moral personality as a protector of the weak as he stands up for them, demands changes
and notifies the UN about the injustice they are exposed to.
When Ahmadinejad portrays the injustice, he also creates a relationship between ‘us and
them’. By outlining a conflict between insiders and outsiders, the internal group
membership is strengthened among those who agree with Ahmadinejad [Eriksen,
2002:19,28]. Nonetheless, unlike on the blog, the ‘us-group’ not only represents Iran, but
all the states that are against injustice, bullying and evil.
57
This is underlined by stating compliance with his ideas, through statements such as ...the
great Iranian people... with the support of its friends (11,15), the Iranian people and the
overwhelming majority of peoples and governments are against... (15,1), Today, the bullying
powers... are rejected by nations and governments (16,5) The Iranian nation are prepared,
along with others, to help (19,8). By including others in his statements, Ahmadinejad draws
attention to the support he has, which indicates acceptance of his message and affects his
ethos and credibility. Thereby, Ahmadinejad uses connections to make his own messages
more relevant. Furthermore, by including Iran in a larger ‘us-group’ presents Ahmadinejad
and Iran as a global brand.
To sum up, Ahmadinejad mainly uses organisational attributes to brand himself, while he
has very little focus on country of origin, and creates a distant relationship with the
Iranians, while a closer relationship with the assembly. This and the use of a global
discourse portray Ahmadinejad as a global brand. However, the sub-activity and the
religious paradox do outline nationality.
The following chapters analyse the biography and UN address of Bush, before presenting
the two presidential brands.
58
5.5. Bush’s biography
The biography14 is national in scope, as it relates to Bush’s accomplishments for/within
USA, and does not create a relationship with anybody outside of USA, nor does it establish
a global identity. The world (4,2/7) is mentioned twice, but as a reference to the world USA
is part of. The national focus is further underlined by the languages the biography is
available in – English and Spanish, which are the two main languages spoken in USA. Even
though the website is reaching both a national and international audience, Bush has
chosen to only relate to the national audience in terms of relationship building and
references, which indicates that he perceives himself as a national brand.
5.5.1. Building significance and activities
The text builds significance around Bush as a person, because it outlines his background
and family relations. In relation to family, the text states: President Bush is married to
Laura Welch Bush... they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. The Bush family also
includes two dogs... and a cat (5). The fact that the text includes information about the Bush
family shows a personal side of the president. This information is complemented by the
personal pictures that Bush has included on his website [Appendix 1]. As stated in the
analysis of Ahmadinejad’s biography, it is important to emphasise family relations in order
to appear as a father figure, as this identity will translate to the nation. Furthermore, being
a family-man connotes stability, which also is an important aspect when concerned with a
president’s ability to lead a nation.
Another issue the text places significance on, in terms of volume, is terrorism and Bush’s
determination to end it (4). The fact that this issue takes up a whole paragraph might be to
symbolise its impact on Bush’s presidency. Bush took office in January 2001, and the
World Trade Centre was attacked in September 2001. Bush then declared ‘war on terror’
[Record, 2003:1] - a discourse, which has given resonance throughout his entire
presidency. The text outlines the objective of the war on terror, which is to make America
more secure and the world more peaceful (4,7-8). Fronting American security before world
peace is an indication of the text being aimed at a national audience, as emphasis is placed
upon USA rather than the world [Clark, 2007:84]. By emphasising the war on terror Bush
takes on the role of a hero who seeks to protect his nation.
The main activity of the text is to outline Bush’s accomplishments as president, and
thereby underline his success and importance for USA. The great focus upon
accomplishments within/for USA might be a response to a public survey stating that Bush
is only supported by 22 % of the American population, and that 61% of 109 leading
historians have named Bush the worst president in American history [Høi, appendix 16].
14
Bush’s biography is enclosed as appendix 5
59
This is not the result of an isolated opinion poll, as CNN also reports on the same lack of
support for Bush [Steinhauser, appendix 17]. By outlining accomplishments, Bush
emphasises his work and dedication to create a better USA, which can affect his legacy and
possibly the general opinion about him.
5.5.2. Relationship between Bush and the Americans
The text establishes a relationship between Bush and the Americans, while no global
relationships are established. In terms of authorship, no relationship is indicated between
Bush and the reader, as the text is not composed by Bush himself. However, the text places
great emphasis on Bush’s achievements for the Americans, and uses a national discourse
via the statements; our nation’s fundamental belief (3,9), our environment (3,13), our
Nation (4,1) and our homeland (4,3). From this, nationality is emphasised, and when using
‘our’, a close relationship between Bush and the Americans is indicated, due to the
coherence that ‘our’ connotes. Furthermore, Bush underlines the relationship by stating
that: the strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens (3,15). Thereby, the
importance of the American people is stressed – without them Bush could not complete his
presidential tasks, which indicates a close relationship, but also one of interdependence.
Bush needs support from the people to succeed. By creating a close relationship with the
Americans, Bush foster trust in the nation state as a viable and coherent entity [Botan &
Hazleton, 2006:352], which can affect the public opinion about him as a leader.
5.5.3. Connections create credibility
Bush uses connection to ascribe credibility to his brand. The text states that he is educated
from Yale and Harvard (2,3;5), which are respected and trusted institutions. The ethos of
the educational institutions is transferred to Bush.
Education ascribes Bush credibility in terms of expertise obtained from studying. Bush’s
brand is, furthermore, ascribed expertise via the involvement in his father’s successful 1988
Presidential campaign (2,8), and as he is the first ever Governor in Texas history to be
elected to consecutive 4 year terms... (2,12). This indicates that Bush has been a successful
and popular politician before elected president, which underlines his expertise within
politics, but also his capability for the presidential office. In addition, Bush has served in
the National Guard (2,5), which indicates that he has taken steps to protect the nation
before elected president. This portrays Bush as a protector of America, and underlines the
role as hero. Both Ahmadinejad and Bush emphasise their participation in protecting the
nation. This brands them as patriots protecting their country, which is important for the
national audience and the trust in the president’s ability to lead and protect the nation in
the best possible way.
60
5.5.4. Identity
The text states that Bush is a compassionate politician (1,6). His dedication and
compassion to serve the American people is underlined by stating that he has worked to
build a future of security, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans (3,3-4), and that he
has taken unprecedented steps to protect our homeland (4,2). Thereby, Bush presents
himself as working for every American, and not compromising on actions concerning the
protection of USA. This identifies Bush as a man who can be trusted to go to great lengths
for what he believes in.
Furthermore, the references to education and previous jobs identify Bush as an educated
man, which provide him the knowledge and expertise to be president.
Bush is also identified as a pioneer, as he has signed the most comprehensive education
reforms in a generation (3,6), created a new era (3,7), and provided the first-ever... (3,11),
which ascribe him an innovative personality. Thereby, an indirect comparison to previous
presidents is made, stating that Bush has provided the Americans opportunities, which
they did not have before he came into office. Thereby, Bush uses his accomplishments and
connections to former presidents to underline his capability of being president.
To sum up, Bush mainly uses brand heritage by outlining his education, career and
accomplishments. Furthermore, the personality of Bush is emphasised as being an
intelligent, innovative father figure dedicated to protecting USA. In addition, Bush
portrays himself as a national brand, as focus is placed on the relationship between him
and the Americans, and the actions he has taken to protect the homeland.
61
5.6. Bush’s UN address
Like Ahmadinejad, Bush mainly uses pathos appeal in his speech15 by creating a negative
identity of the extremists and the threat they pose. Thereby, he uses connections to the
assembly’s fear of terrorism to make his solutions relevant. In order to convince the
assembly, he supports the pathos appeal with logos by referring to results from previous
actions.
5.6.1. Building significance
Bush builds significance around two main areas – the world’s problems, and the need for
collaboration to solve them. Both themes are discussed extensively throughout the entire
speech.
Terrorism is described as a problem by e.g. stating that it is... a challenge as serious as any
since the UN’s founding- a global movement of violent extremists (3,3), and furthermore is
the great struggle of our time (20,1). Thereby, the terrorist/extremists are compared to the
communists in the post-war era, which was the great struggle when the Charter of the
United Nations was founded in 1945. Bush emphasises the sincerity of the problem by the
use of the adjectives serious and great. This underlines that extremism is a problem, which
needs to be acted upon. The danger is further underlined via the objective of the
extremists, which according to Bush is ...to impose their will on as many people as possible
(6,5-6), in order to create a world in which religious freedom is denied, women are
oppressed, and all dissent is crushed (12,3). Due to this objective, Bush considers the
extremists to be a threat to civilization (11,11), because they ...imperil the values of justice
and human right which gave birth to the United Nations... (3,9-10). Thereby, Bush indicates
that if this threat is not acted upon, it will mean an end to the world and values the UN has
and treasures today.
This leads to the second issue of significance - collaboration between the member states in
order fight the extremists. The importance of collaboration is stressed by statements such
as; by acting together ... we can lead toward a world that is more secure... (5,7), the nations
of this body must stand united... (11,5), Together, we confront and defeat the evil of terrorism
(32,5) and together, we can build a world (32,6). From this, Bush underlines the need for
global action and a global community, and outlines that a global and coherent relationship
should be established, if the threat should be addressed.
By emphasising these two issues, Bush acknowledges the need for a global movement to
fight terrorism, which makes his brand appear global. Furthermore, he takes on an
intelligent personality, because he has the answers to the world’s problems.
15
Bush’s UN address is enclosed as appendix 6
62
5.6.2. Building activities
In the speech there are an explicit and an implicit activity. The explicit activity is to provide
information, which can solve the world’s problems. From this, Bush takes on an intelligent
and caring personality, as he seeks to guide the other nations into obtaining a safer global
community. Furthermore, by stressing the world’s problem and a global community, Bush
uses a global discourse. Nonetheless, the text also has an implicit activity, which is more
interesting in the branding of Bush.
Implicit activity: Justifying the war on terror
Bush uses several references to previous actions against terrorism and the achievements
from these actions. The aim of these references can either be to outline the successes of the
UN or to justify his own actions. I assume that the references to previous successes are
included to justify Bush’s actions in terms of war and invasion. This is concluded as the
majority of references are related to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which Bush
initiated. Nonetheless, there is also a reference to the Russian invasion of Georgia.
However, the American affiliation is emphasised by stating: The United States has worked
with allies in multilateral institutions like the European Union and NATO t uphold Georgia’s
territorial integrity (18,6-8). Hereby, Bush stresses the role of the Americans, by fronting
the country in the sentence, as what goes first is the launching off-point for the rest of the
sentence [Clark, 2007:84, Gee, 2006:188].
Nonetheless, the majority of references to previous achievements relate to Afghanistan
and Iraq, which spark the suspicion that Bush uses the speech to indirectly justify his own
actions. Bush e.g. claims that; Afghanistan and Iraq have been transformed from regimes
that actively sponsor terror to democracies that fight terror (10,2-3), which underlines the
importance and positive outcome of invading the two nations. Bush further comments on
the achievements, by claiming that in Iraq ...it has been difficult, yet daily life has improved
dramatically over the past 20 month – thanks to ... and a surge of American troops (17,1-2).
Bush emphasises that the actions in Iraq has had a great effect on the daily lives of the
Iraqis. Even though ‘American troops’ are not fronted in the sentence they are still given
significance by mentioning nationality. Bush proceeds by stating: Whatever disagreements
our nations have had on Iraq, we should all welcome this progress toward stability and
peace... (17,5-6). The invasion of Iraq was not supported by the general assembly, and it
led to a debate about Bush’s actions and allegations of weapons of mass destruction. With
this quote Bush emphasises the positive outcome of the invasion – stability and peace.
Thereby, Bush justifies his actions by the means he has achieved. By calling on the other
member states to welcome the progress in Iraq, Bush emphasises that he was right to
invade, while they (those not supporting the Iraqi invasion) were wrong. Thereby, he
ascribes trustworthiness and expertise to his brand, because his decision to invade was
right, and the UN should have trusted his judgement.
63
Emphasising the actions that Bush and USA have taken to fight terror is assumed to be a
matter of affecting his legacy. As mentioned in the analysis of Bush’s biography, a recent
study has shown that Bush is not very popular in USA. Thus, he chooses to place great
emphasis on his past actions in order to remind people of his achievements and possibly
affect his brand legacy. This assumption is supported by the former American presidents
that Bush compares himself to. Early in his career, Bush compared himself to Abraham
Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Regan, who were ruled America at great times
[Høi, appendix 16]. Nonetheless, now Bush compares himself to Henry Truman, who
represents the greatest come-back history for an American president [Ibid.].
At the end of his presidency, Truman had very low opinion polls, like Bush, and first after a
generation his accomplishments and achievements were recognised [Ibid.]. Bush might be
hoping for the same resurrection, and is therefore outlining the actions that he perceives
will resurrect his brand and legacy.
Due to the severe number of references to American actions and accomplishments, I
believe that the implicit activity actually is the main activity of the text.
5.6.3. Building identities
Bush constructs three important identities. The identities are of USA, the UN and the
extremists. The most important ones for Bush’s brand are those of USA and the UN, as they
represent a global and a national identity for Bush. The identity of the extremists is
created in opposition to USA/UN who represents good, while the extremists represent evil.
The identity of the extremists will shortly be outlined as it creates a basis for the social
goods and relationships in Bush’s speech.
Extremists
The extremists are, a global violent movement (3,4). They are unscrupulous as they
deliberately murder innocents to advance their aims (3,5). Furthermore, they pose a threat
to civilization (11,11) as they via their brutal nature (10,1) seek to impose their will on as
many as possible (6,5). Bush draws a sinister picture of the extremists in order for the UN
to recognise the danger they pose, and will act upon the request of collaboration.
USA / Bush
It can be discussed whether Bush uses organisational attributes or brand heritage to
establish his own and USA’s identity. He refers to actions by the USA, but all these actions
have been initiated by him as president. Therefore, I believe that even though Bush speaks
of USA, it will ascribe meaning to his brand heritage, because he has initiated the actions.
In the speech, USA and Bush are identified by two character traits – the helping friend and
the model state.
64
USA as the helping friend
USA appears as a helping friend via references to the different actions it has been part of in
order to secure a safer world. For example American troops helped increase the daily life
in Iraq (17,2), and USA has helped uphold the territorial integrity of Georgia (18,6-7).
Furthermore, USA led by Bush has launched a new initiative- the Millennium Challenge
Account - to help developing countries (22,4) [USAID, appendix 18]. From this Bush
indicates that USA cares about the wellbeing of other nations, and takes action to ensure it.
Furthermore, Bush explains how American efforts to fight malaria have protected more
than 25 million Africans (23,8). Here Bush uses logos appeal in order for the listeners to
consider the great impact that American actions have had on the world.
Another example of Bush being a helping friend is expressed by the following quote: Some
question whether people in certain parts of the world actually desire freedom... the truth is
that whenever or wherever people are given the choice they choose freedom (14,2). Bush
outlines that he has provided oppressed nations’ with opportunities to be liberated which according to the speech is a key element is fighting terrorism. Thereby, Bush is a
protector and liberator of oppressed nations, as well as a friend who helps create better
conditions.
That USA is a helping friend is also emphasised by stating we (USA, red.) have taken bold
steps to prevent a severe disruption of the American economy, which would have a
devastating effect on other economies around the world (27,1-2). Thereby, Bush portrays
that he and USA have acted in a brave manner to ensure that the problems of USA will not
affect other nations. This demonstrates compassion for other states.
USA as model state
USA is also identified as a model state, which leads by example, by means of references to
achievements and actions taken. The indirect references, which Bush used to justify his
actions, also apply to the creation of the identity as model state, as USA by means of its
actions has created progress in e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nevertheless, Bush is also explicit about USA being a model state. USA launched the
Millennium Challenge Account, and Bush explains that other nations and institutions,
which provide foreign assistance, would be more effective if they followed the American
example of insisting on performance in return for aid (22,7-8). Thereby, Bush indicates that
if others follow the example of USA, it will lead to success.
Furthermore, Bush explains that USA has obtained inspiring results in the fight against
HIV/AIDS and malaria (23,6), which underlines the skills USA has to fight diseases. The G8
have pledged to match the American results, which show an impression and acceptance of
the American achievements, as well as the ability to inspire others. That the G8 will follow
the American example ascribes credibility to the American actions.
65
Thereby, Bush uses connections to ascribe credibility to his brand. Including acceptance
from the G8 indicates success and respect, and Bush is simultaneously branded as a
successful leader, as his nation has been able to perform in such a superior way.
The identity of being a role model is also portrayed in the pictures on Bush’s website. Here
he used a low angle of interaction, as well as an upwards gaze to portray success and
superiority.
The UN
The identity of the UN is almost similar to the American. Bush also presents the UN to be a
role model, which is indicated through: Young democracies around the world are watching
to see how we respond to this test (18,5). How the UN acts will affect how other nations
chose to act, which assigns credibility to the actions of the UN.
Bush uses words with positive connotations when he describes the member states, e.g.
extraordinary potential (30,1) and powerful force for good (31,1). Thereby, he uses pathos
appeal and creates a positive feeling about the UN and its aims. The UN is identified as an
organisation, which serves the good and leads by example to help free the world of
terrorism. Thereby, the UN is like USA identified as a helping friend and role model.
Nonetheless, the identity of USA is far more emphasised then that of the UN, which could
indicate that the national identity is more important than the global to Bush. Compared
with the implicit activity it is concluded that even though Bush appears global in the
speech, the national emphasis is greater.
Thereby, the social practice of the speech – the UN general assembly – might be an
instrument affecting the global identity which Bush portrays. Because he has such a strong
focus on outlining national achievements in this global forum, I assume that the global
brand presentation is created in order to obtain support for his message, rather than due
to Bush actually perceiving himself as a global brand. Thereby, the global brand is feigned
in order to obtain support, and based on the social practice rather than a genuine
perception of being a global brand. This also relates to Ahmadinejad’s global brand, which
due to the underlying national focus might also be a product of the audience and social
practice rather than the belief in a truly global brand.
5.6.4. Social goods and identities
The social goods that Bush expresses are closely related to the identities of USA/UN and
the extremists. The extremists represent all that is perceived as bad while all the good is
represented by USA and the UN.
Bush presents tyranny (5,7), terrorism and extremism as bad. Furthermore chaos,
hopelessness, despair (20,5), inefficiency, corruption and bloated bureaucracies (29,3)
provide fertile soil for terrorism to thrive. When this happens, it can lead to suicide
bombings, hostage-taking and hijacking (7,3-4), and the spread of the ideas of a world
without religious freedom, and where women are oppressed (6,2-3).
66
Thus, the developments in the ideoscapes and mediascapes [Appadurai, 1996:31] have
provided a global foundation for the extremists by spreading their values and ideas. This
foundation is what Bush urges the UN to destroy. All of the above are mentioned by Bush
in relation to the extremists.
Contrary, what Bush perceives to be good is used to identify USA and the UN as well as
describing the future. What is strived for is a world in which people can speak freely,
worship as they choose, and pursue their dreams and liberty (6,4-5). The future should be
marked by international order, human rights and justice (3,6-7), which are the aspects the
extremists pose a threat to. It is interesting that the values used to describe the aspired
future, are similar to those appreciated in USA– religious freedom, liberty, democracy and
equal opportunities [Duncan & Goddard, 2003:3,55,126].
Even though Bush describes a common global culture, the values strived for are similar to
his national values, and Bush seems to transfer American values onto other nations. This is
also done with the identities constructed for USA and the UN, which indicates that the
national culture affects his beliefs and opinions, as Hofstede claimed it would, due to
culture’s status as mental programming [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:2-5].
5.6.5. Relationships
Via the identities and social goods, Bush creates an ‘us vs. them’ relationship. Constructing
this type of relationship can affect the cohesion of the ‘us’ group, as importance is placed
on values treasured by it, and what will happen to these values, if the member states do
not collaborate. The internal relationship between the member states, which constitute the
‘us’-group, is emphasised via the references to the assembly. Bush uses the personal
pronoun ‘our’ and the ‘inclusive we’ when he refers to the assembly. Thereby, he indicates
that he and the member states are parts of a common global unity due to shared activities
[Eriksen, 2002:67]. By emphasising cohesion among the member states, Bush seeks to
obtain support for the messages he transmits. Nonetheless, Bush not only uses ‘we’ to
create a relationship with the assembly, but also to create one with the American people
(22,3; 23,7; 27,1). Thereby, he also emphasises closeness to his own people. He
furthermore includes the aspect of country of origin by saying My nation (22,2), and
several times explicitly mentioning USA. Thereby, he draws attention to nationality, which
indicates a national rather than global focus.
67
Unlike Ahmadinejad, Bush does not place much emphasis on God or religion. In the speech
there is only one reference to God: Together, we can secure the Almighty’s gift of liberty and
justice... (32,6). Bush indicates that God is almighty, however, it is the UN who needs to
ensure a world in which all can live according to the gift of God. Thus, humans are not
perceived to be inferior subjects of God, but rather as instruments to ensure all can receive
the gift of God. Like Ahmadinejad, Bush is very religious, but this is not emphasised in his
communication, which might be a consequence of Americans practicing a ‘quiet faith’, and
the separation of church and state [Duncan & Goddard, 2003:153].
To sum up, Bush establishes a close relationship between himself and the UN, but also one
with the American people. Thereby, both a local and a global identity are established.
Furthermore, Bush mainly uses brand heritage, complemented by organisation attributes,
to construct his brand. This will be further discussed in the following chapter, which sums
up the presidential brands based on the pictorial and textual analysis.
68
5.7. Presidential brands
This chapter sums up the presidential brands, in order to identify Ahmadinejad and Bush’s
brand identity.
5.7.1. Ahmadinejad’s brand
Ahmadinejad uses all the six brand perspectives with most emphasis on brand heritage
and organisational attributes, while not much emphasis is given to country of origin. The
country of origin is displayed in the banners, and in the headline on the website, which
identifies Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president. Nonetheless, in the speech Ahmadinejad does
not display country of origin. This is assumed to be done in order to appear objective, and
to be taken seriously by the general assembly.
The website portrays brand heritage by outlining education, career and involvement in the
Iran-Iraq war, which ascribe expertise to Ahmadinejad’s brand, and provides him the
needed skills to be president. Contrary, the blog and speech does not use brand heritage
but rather organisational attributes to brand Ahmadinejad. Thereby, he mainly constructs
his brand identity based on group affiliation rather than personal achievements. Through
the organisational attributes, Ahmadinejad is identified as a helping friend and a protector
of those exposed to injustice. By outlining injustice, Ahmadinejad becomes a spokesperson
for the weak, and takes on a caring and helpful personality.
All three texts identify Iran as a victim, due to the Iran-Iraq war and an unjust treatment.
From this, Ahmadinejad indicates that he has first-hand knowledge about the injustice of
the world, which provides credibility to his message due to personal experiences. Besides
that, Iran is identified as peaceful and nonviolent because it never fought back, but relied
on the weapon of faith to defeat hardship. It is interesting that Ahmadinejad on the
website uses his participation in the war against Iraq as part of his brand heritage, while
on the blog and in the speech he claims that Iran never fights back. The brand heritage
might be intended for a national audience to underline his dedication to the country, while
the organisational attributes of peace and non-violence are intended for an international
audience, in order to rectify the sinister international image of Iran, which for instance
Bush has been a part of shaping via the nuclear debate.
In terms of personality, Ahmadinejad is branded as intelligent due to his education, and
because he has the solution to the world’s problems. His education and previous jobs are
also used to provide credibility for Ahmadinejad’s brand. Furthermore, he is branded as
religious due to the relationship created with God in both the speech and on the blog. He is
portrayed to live by the values proposed by God, and represents the path to freedom.
In addition, Ahmadinejad is identified as successful and determined. He is determined as
he never gives up on what he starts, which was implied by his participation in the IranIraq war, and his willpower to get an education. That he is successful is outlined through
the pictures showing his supporters, the results on his university test, but also via the
support Ahmadinejad has from other nations, as mentioned in the speech.
69
This indicates an acceptance of his messages, which creates credibility. Because
Ahmadinejad fought to protect Iran, he is identified as a dedicated to serving his nation,
and takes on the personality of protector and patriot.
Ahmadinejad portrays humans to be inferior to God, and outlines similarities between
himself and the average man, by drawing attention to his background and wearing
informal clothes. This indicates equality in status between Ahmadinejad and the
viewer/reader. Thereby, he brands himself as similar to the average man, which gives him
an insight and understanding into their lives and needs, and ensures that he has the
knowledge and competencies to serve them in the best possible way.
Is he global or national?
The biographies present Ahmadinejad as a national brand due to the display of country of
origin, and the creation of a national identity/relationship. This is further emphasised on
the blog by means of the ‘us vs. them’ relationship, where hatred towards the Shah creates
cohesion within the ‘us-group’, which constitutes Iran. From this, Ahmadinejad creates a
feeling of coherence between the Iranians, and indicates his national affiliation.
Contrary, the speech is mainly global in presentation. Nonetheless, the solutions to the
world’s problems, the religious paradox, as well as the justification of the Iranian nuclear
program, reveal a national focus. However, as Ahmadinejad uses a global discourse,
creates a global identity, and does not initiate a relationship with the Iranians, the speech
is perceived to present him as a global brand. This is further underlined by the fact that
Ahmadinejad, like on the blog, creates an ‘us vs. them’ relationship. Nonetheless, in the
speech the ‘us-group’ not only constitutes Iran, but all the nations who oppose the unjust
systems.
There does not seem to be consistency in Ahmadinejad’s global/national presentation. The
biographies are national, while the speech presents Ahmadinejad as a global brand.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that the speech also represents a national focus. Even
though the speech presents Ahmadinejad as global, it is perceived that Ahmadinejad
overall presents himself as more national than global. Because when he uses a global
discourse, a national agenda seems to lie under the surface, and the focus on globalism in
the speech might be a matter of the target audience and social practice the speech is given
in, rather than a genuine global brand being presented. Therefore, it is concluded that
Ahmadinejad overall presents himself as a national brand.
To sum up, Ahmadinejad mainly presents himself as a national brand. Furthermore, he is a
determined, intelligent, caring and educated man, who seeks to help the world solve its
problems via the word of God. Furthermore, he is a protector of Iran and weaker nations.
Even though he portrays himself as successful, he is also similar to the average man. He is a
president, who is determined to serve his nation, protect the weak from injustice, and to
create a better world by spreading the word of God.
70
5.7.2. Bush’s brand
Bush also employs all six brand perspectives. He emphasises brand heritage, which he uses
to outline his education, previous jobs and achievements for America and the world.
Furthermore, he outlines that his actions have helped others, and that he was right to
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. This implies that people should trust his decisions, which
provides him credibility. By displaying brand heritage Bush uses his experiences to gain
credibility, and portrays that he is a successful and competent president, due to the
positive outcome of his actions.
Bush is identified as a helping friend and a role model, due to actions taken and initiatives
implemented. Being a role model is furthermore emphasised in the pictures Bush uses on
his website. Furthermore, the pictures also portray success and uniqueness to underline
that Bush is a successful leader. These pictures and the identity of role model present Bush
as slightly superior to the viewer. However, this image is softened due to the short
distance in the pictures and banners, by portraying family relations in the pictures and the
biography, as well as the close and interdependent relationship that he initiates with the
American people.
Besides being successful, Bush is also identified as intelligent and educated. Bush is
intelligent due to his education, because he has the answers to solve the problem of
terrorism, and because he proves that his decision to invade Iraq was right. Furthermore,
Bush is dedicated to serving America, which is outlined through his war on terror, being
part of the National Guard, and taking unprecedented steps to protect America (BB 4).
However, the speech also points to a dedication to the global community by addressing
terror as a global problem, and outlining accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush uses country of origin in both the speech and biography. In the biography, he is
mentioned as America’s president twice, while in the speech he refers to My nation (BUN
3,7) and America (BUN 3,8;4,1;4,4). The banners also display country of origin by including
the American flag and the White House. By displaying country of origin Bush ascribes
American values to his brand.
Is he global or national?
The biography presents Bush as a national brand, as it does not create a global identity or
relationship. Instead, focus is placed upon creating a relationship with the Americans by
using personal pronouns to emphasise coherence, and by emphasising the
accomplishments he has achieved for America. In the speech, Bush presents himself as
both a national and a global brand. Bush appears global by calling upon collaboration to
solve a common global problem. From this he creates a relationship between USA and the
UN, and a global identity for the member states. This global identity is emphasised by
means of the ‘us vs. them’ relationship, and the identity of the extremists, which is created
in opposition to the UN. By creating a global identity and a common threat, Bush uses a
global discourse to underline his statements.
71
However, Bush also portrays himself as a national brand, as he creates a relationship with
the Americans, and justifies American actions and achievements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This indicates a national agenda behind the global approach.
The overall message of the speech seems global, but compared with the biography it seems
that Bush’s war on terror mainly is to secure the homeland, while the world is placed
second. This indicates a greater national than global focus, which is further underlined by
the fact that Bush transfers national values to both the identity of the UN, and to the world
that the member states should create. Therefore, it is perceived that Bush mainly presents
himself as a national brand through the texts. Even though the message of the speech is
global, there seems to be an intention of outlining national superiority and transferring
American values onto the global identity. Due to the great focus on constructing a
relationship with the Americans and outlining American actions and achievements, it is
concluded that Bush portrays himself as more national than global. The global identity and
relationship is assumed to be an effect of the target audience and the social practice rather
than a genuine belief in being a global brand.
To sum up, Bush portrays himself a national brand, with a strong brand heritage. He is
intelligent due to his education, and caring as he protects America and wants to create a
safer global community. Furthermore, he is helpful as he provides solutions and has
helped nations free of terror. He is a role model due to his actions and policies
implemented, and because of the acceptance and support, which the G8 has given him. In
conclusion, Bush is a man who has the necessary expertise to be president, and a president
who successfully have taken actions to protect America.
72
5.8. Differences and similarities
This chapter seeks to compare similarities and differences in the presidential brands and
their presentation, in order to conclude whether they differ or are alike due to national
culture or effects of globalisation.
Going over the two presidential brands and how the presidents present themselves, it
becomes evident that they are quite similar in terms of both visual representation and
brand identity. Even though they represent different worldviews, they use many of the
same means to transmit their messages, yet cultural differences can be detected.
5.8.1. Identical brand identities, but different use of perspectives
Ahmadinejad and Bush construct almost identical brands; intelligent, educated, successful,
have fought to protect their nation and others – Ahmadinejad protects the weak from
injustice, and Bush protects the USA/world from terrorism. Furthermore, both use their
education and previous political affiliation to create credibility and to underline their
capability for being president. In addition, they are branded as father figures by means of
references to their families, and patriots due to taking part in protecting the home country.
A difference in the brand identities is the emphasis of religion. Even though both
presidents are very religious, only Ahmadinejad has focus on it. This difference might be a
matter of religion’s impact on the two countries. Islam is to a higher degree than
Christianity all-encompassing and is part of everyday life in Iran due to its connection to
politics [Larsen, 2002:8]. Furthermore, Islam plays an important part in the daily lives of
almost all strata of Iranian society – urban to rural and wealthy to poor [Rakel, 2009:27].
Contrary, Americans practice a quiet faith, and religion is separated from the state [Duncan
& Goddard, 2003:153]. This is not to indicate that Americans are not religious, as they
possible represent the most religious industrialised nation [Op.Cit:160]. However, the
difference of religions penetration in the two societies might entail the different display of
religion in the presidential brands. Thereby, national culture is possible to detect in the
brand identities even though they are almost identical.
In addition, there is a difference in the roles the presidents perform. Both employ the role
as father figure by referring to their families. Yet the secondary role differs, as
Ahmadinejad takes on the role as ‘the ordinary man’ while Bush takes on the role as ‘hero’
[Van Zoonen, 2000:12]. I believe this difference is cause by the perception of the
presidents. Ahmadinejad describes himself as a man of the people and therefore he points
to similarities between him and the ‘ordinary man’. Contrary, Bush is often described as
the world’s most powerful man, for which reason he takes on the hero-role of saving both
American and the world from terror. Nevertheless, I believe the hero-role is also motivated
by Bush’s unpopularity and a wish to rectify his image and legacy.
73
In spite of a few differences, the presidents brand themselves almost similarly. I find it
interesting that two very different men chose to use almost the same character traits to
present their brand identities. This might be explained by the ideoscapes and mediascapes,
which have created a worldwide network of ideas and values [Appadurai, 1996:33,34].
The role and performed personality of a president is in part shaped by this, which entails
that the presidents adopt similar identities in order to match the global perception of what
constitutes a president. From this study, it seems the general role and brand of presidents
might be somewhat standardised, which can be an effect of the global values spreading via
the mediascapes. This standardisation is detected in the analysis, as Ahmadinejad and Bush
portray identical brand identities, even though they represent different cultures and
conflicting opinions and worldviews. Nevertheless, the brand identities might be similar,
yet the perspectives used to construct the brand identities differ.
Brand heritage vs. organisational attributes
When reviewing which brand perspectives the presidents use to form their brands, it
becomes evident that Bush to a much higher degree than Ahmadinejad uses brand
heritage. Contrary, Ahmadinejad mainly uses organisational attributes to form his brand.
This correlates with the individualistic/collectivistic nature of the presidents.
Bush relates to his own successes and outlines what he has achieved for America.
Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, places greater significance on what Iran as a nation and
people has achieved, which is typical for the collectivist who constructs an identity from
the group that he belongs to [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:57]. This relates to the concept of
self-construal [Op.cit.66-67]. The individualist, predominantly, constructs an independent
self, whereas the collectivist constructs an interdependent self [Ibid.]. Bush presents
himself as an individual who took action, while Ahmadinejad underlines his relation to the
in-group and constructs an interdependent self, which is part of a larger group (Iran). This
cultural difference also manifests itself in some of the pictures on the website. E.g. when
giving a speech, Ahmadinejad is depicted as part of a large crowd, while Bush is depicted
alone. Again, Ahmadinejad portrays himself as being part of a group, while Bush presents
his own uniqueness. Nonetheless, that Bush has great emphasis on brand heritage might
also be a matter of the phase his brand is placed within, and thus the social practice. Bush’s
brand is placed closer to decline in the brand life cycle than Ahmadinejad’s. This and the
fact that Bush is not perceived to be a successful president [Høi, appendix 16], might lead
to the great focus on what he specifically has achieved, in order to affect his legacy.
The difference in individualism and collectivism is also emphasised by how the two
presidents make connections and create credibility. Bush claims that the G8 are impressed
with his actions and will match them, and further identifies America as a model state,
which leads by example. Contrary, Ahmadinejad seeks to provide credibility to his
message by pointing to the fact that other nations support his message. Thus, Bush has
greater focus on himself and USA in terms of creating credibility, whereas Ahmadinejad
creates a large in-group in order to outline support for his message.
74
Again, this relates to the construction of self [Gudykunst & Kim, 2003:66-67]. Bush uses
himself and his nation to ascribe credibility, while Ahmadinejad includes himself and Iran
into a larger group of nations sharing the same ideals and values.
To sum up, the brand identities of Ahmadinejad and Bush are almost identical, but the use
of brand perspectives differs. Globalisation might have standardised a presidential brand
identity, yet the national culture still affects the means to create it.
5.8.2. Both are successful leaders
Ahmadinejad and Bush have both chosen to present themselves as successful. Both
presidents use the pictures on the websites to outline success, and Bush further draws
attention to success by outlining achievements. Placing emphasis on success is typical for
masculine societies, which both America and Iran are identified as [Hofstede & Hofstede,
2005:120-121]. Nevertheless, Bush places greater emphasis on success than Ahmadinejad,
which correlates with the fact that America is identified as a stronger masculine society
than Iran [Ibid.]. However, it must be considered whether outlining success is a matter of
being a masculine society or a standard political rhetorical tool. To investigate this, I have
examined the website of the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen16. I chose
Rasmussen as Denmark is identified as a feminine culture by Hofstede, and thereby
presents an opposite to USA and Iran [Op.Cit:121]. When examining the website of
Rasmussen, it became evident that he also portrays success, by e.g. stating I dagene inden
havde jeg sammen med Bendt Bendtsen lavet det mest omfattende regeringsprogram, der til
dato var lanceret, and Det er på mange måder tankevækkende, hvad regeringen har nået på
de første tre år [Fogh, appendix 19].
Thereby, it seems that outlining success is not only a matter of originating from a
masculine culture. Rather, it is an important aspect for a head of state to outline success in
order to gain credibility and support, which is important in terms of re-election and trust.
Thereby, the basis of politics rather than the national culture affects the portrayal of
success. Nonetheless, it does seem that a society’s degree of masculinity could affect how
extensively success is emphasised, as Bush to a much higher degree than Ahmadinejad and
Rasmussen outlines success.
5.8.3. Global, yet national
One of Aaker’s perspectives, which the presidents’ use similarly, is that of nationalism and
globalism. Both presidents appear national in the biographies and global in their speeches,
yet they are overall identified as national brands. I concluded this based on an underlying
national focus, a national spill over effect, and due to the national relationships and
identities created.
16
Hereinafter referred to as Rasmussen
75
In the speeches, it seems that both Bush and Ahmadinejad transfer their own culture to the
global identity. For example, Bush creates an identity for the UN, which is like that of USA,
and calls on the UN to create a world in which democracy, liberty and justice are equal to
all – values which often are connected with USA [Duncan & Goddard, 2003:3,55,126].
Therefore, it seems that he transfers his own convictions and values to the global arena.
In addition, the justification of his actions also points towards a national focus.
Ahmadinejad also transfers his own culture to the global arena. He wishes for the world to
live in accordance with God and religious values. This way of life is prevalent in Iran yet
imperceptible in many Western countries. Thereby, Ahmadinejad also transfers his way of
life to the global scene, and portrays it as the right solution. Furthermore, as outlined in
the discussion of Ahmadinejad’s religious paradox, it seems that the values people should
live by are in accordance with Ahmadinejad’s own interpretation of religion. From this it
seems that both presidents suffer from a mild case of ethnocentrism, wherefore they are
locked into their own cultural perception, and perceive their own culture as the ultimate
and superior, and thereby seek to implement it on the global scene [Gullestrup, 2003:190].
This relate to Hofstede’s assumption that culture is a long-term mental programming,
which affects people’s actions, and therefore is reflected in the way the presidents
communicate [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:2-5]. Furthermore, as national culture is
outlined as superior it links the presidents to a national rather than global focus, because
national culture is emphasised even in a global context.
The fact that the presidents in the speeches create a global identity might be an effect of
the social practice. The target audience is the UN general assembly, which might entail that
the presidents take on a global identity, and use a global discourse in order for the
audience to accept their message. Thereby, it might be the social practice rather than a
genuine belief in a global identity, which makes the presidents appear as global brands.
This can explain the rub off of nationality to the global identity, as the global identity is
feigned in order to attain support. This is further underlined by the fact that the presidents
only undertake global identities the speeches. Even though the biographies reach
international audiences as well, the presidents portray themselves as national there, which
indicates a perception of first and foremost being a national brand. Thus, it might be the
physical presences of a global audience, which make the presidents undertake global
identities in the speeches. From this I conclude that the presidents are national rather than
global brands, and that their global identities are a matter of the social practice and the
presence of a global audience rather than the belief in being a truly global brand.
This indicates that the presidents’ consider themselves as national rather than
international personalities. Thus, the assumption about a president being more
international than national due to globalisation is dismissed. However, the scene, which
the presidents act upon, has been globalised.
76
This leads to the use of global roles now and then, but the core identity of a president is
still national. In this connection it might make sense to resume to the notion of
glocalisation, as the presidents are not global personalities, but are rather national
personalities with global affiliations. Thus, the role of a president could be called glocal
due to an interpenetration of the global and the local (national) [Ritzer, 2004:163]. The
national culture functions as a counter force to globalisation affecting that the role of a
president to some degree becomes glocal, yet the national/local part is still the most
important one [Op.Cit:164].
5.8.4. Similarities in rhetorical strategies
Another aspect, which the presidents are similar on, is the use of rhetoric. Both presidents
use pathos appeal and create a relationship of difference to support their messages. Even
though the image of the enemy differs greatly, the presidents use the same conceptual
framework to outline their messages, to seek support and to identify themselves.
Ahmadinejad and Bush mainly use pathos appeal, and thereby relate to the feelings of the
audience and its fears in order to obtain support. By using pathos appeal they seek to
ensure support from those who perceive the world as they do, while also trying to affect
the public opinion by outlining differences and dangers [McNair, 1999:177]. In order to
outline their ideas and appear as good, they create a scare story in opposition to their own
identities. Thus, their brands are portrayed to protect the important values of the world,
while the enemy pose a threat to them. Through the scare stories, both Ahmadinejad and
Bush create an ‘us vs. them’ relationship, which is most visible in the speeches and on
Ahmadinejad’s blog. However, the two other biographies also outline such a relationship,
just not as explicit. Bush protects the homeland from terror, and thereby a relationship of
difference is created towards the terrorists. Likewise on Ahmadinejad’s website
biography, it is stated that a war was imposed on Iran, which also outlines a relationship of
difference. The main difference in the ‘us vs. them’ relationships is who represent good
and evil, and thereby the worldview of the presidents. Bush believes that terrorists
constitute evil, while Ahmadinejad believes that the powerful west (USA included) and the
Zionists do.
According to Hofstede’s scale of uncertainty avoidance, countries with low uncertainty
avoidance should be most affected by such messages. This means that many Western
countries would not be affected by the scare stories presented. This might be true in
general, but I believe that everybody has specific areas in which anxiety is less tolerated
than others. In general, Iranians might be more scared of unknown aspects than
Americans, but when referring to terrorism, which has affected USA and American politics
so severely over the past 8 years, I believe it is a discourse, which will create anxiety and
support for those who stand up against it [Oates, 2008:124-125]. Nonetheless, I believe
that the scare stories are most effective in nations with a line of thought close to the
president in question.
77
E.g. Ahmadinejad claims that America and the Zionists impose their world view on others,
while Bush claims that he does not impose anything, but rather provides the opportunity
of choice. Thus, the fear created is based on national anxieties and convictions, which are
transmitted to a world audience. Therefore, I believe that nations with a world view equal
to the president in question will be most affected by the scare stories.
Outlining fears might not be a matter of either globalisation or culture, but simply a
political rhetorical strategy. Yet, global flows have created global ideas via the ideoscapes,
which ensures that the image of the enemy, which the presidents construct, is not only
known in their home country, even though it is based on national convictions. For instance,
the mediascapes has enabled people around the world to witness the terror attacks on the
World Trade Centre in 2001, and the current battles in Gaza. Thereby, a common enemy is
created, which ensures that the presidents’ messages of fear find resonance beyond their
own country. Thus, global flows have had an effect on the social practice of the presidents
by homogenising ideas, which allow them to relate to a global audience.
5.8.5. A rhetorical difference
Nonetheless, the presidents are not completely similar in the use of rhetoric. This can be
detected in the formation of relationships with the national audience. Bush to a much
higher degree than Ahmadinejad presents a relationship with his national audience. Bush
creates closeness by the use of ‘us’, ‘we’ and ‘our’, whereas Ahmadinejad creates distance
through ‘they’, ‘their’ and ‘the Iranian nation’. Nevertheless, it should be noted that
Ahmadinejad employs different strategies on this exact point. On the website and in the
speech he employs a relationship of distance, while the blog emphasises closeness.
Nevertheless, even on the blog there is an inconsistency in references to the Iranians. As
mentioned earlier, it is assumed that Ahmadinejad’s website and blog present two
different pictures of the president – personal and official. When employing an official
image, Ahmadinejad distances himself from the Iranians, while on the blog he creates a
close relationship. However, in terms of volume, Ahmadinejad creates a distant
relationship to the Iranians.
According to Hofstede, this difference in relationship building would be related to the
countries’ different power distances. That Ahmadinejad distances himself from the people
could be a matter of Iran’s large power distance, which implies that leaders are perceived
to be superiors [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:43]. Contrary, America has a smaller power
distance which can be the basis for the close national relationship as these societies
perceive all to be equal. However, this is in contrast to the perception Ahmadinejad has of
himself as Iran’s street sweeper, the role as ‘the ordinary man’, and the informality he
expresses via his clothes. Therefore I believe it would be incorrect to assume that the
power distance merely causes the differences in relationship building.
78
Rather, I consider the reach of the websites as the main aspect in the relationship building.
Bush’s website is both national and international in reach, contrary, to Ahmadinejad’s
which is merely international. This might explain the differences in relationship building.
Because Ahmadinejad only relates to an international audience it seems natural not to
construct a close relationship with the Iranians. Bush, on the other hand, communicates
with his national audience through the website, for which reason construction of a
national identity and relationship must be more important for him.
Had the Persian version of Ahmadinejad’s website been analysed, I believe a national
relationship would be present. Thus, the communicative frame and the reach of the
websites rather than the power distance are perceived to constitute this difference.
Thereby, the difference in power distance might be a parameter to the distinctiveness of
difference in the relationship building, but it is not believed to be the main reason why the
presidents construct relationships as they do.
5.8.6. Similar use of pictures
It is not only in terms of linguistics that the presidents use similar strategies. Upon
reviewing the websites, it was interesting to discover how similar the visual depiction of
Bush and Ahmadinejad were.
Both use the same type of pictures to transform their brands. Even their banners are
similar as they show the president and state country of origin. The main difference in the
banners is the background, which is a blue sky for Ahmadinejad and the White House for
Bush. This difference is perceived to be grounded in the countries’ political constitutions,
and thereby their social practice. In Iran, politics is based on the Sharia which relates to
religion [Jerichow & Jarlner, 2004:6]. Therefore, Ahmadinejad is featured in front of the
sky, which leads thoughts towards God and connotes that he is backed by God and religion.
Contrary, American politics is based on the American Constitution [Duncan & Goddard,
2003:75-77]. The spearhead of American politics is the White House, and the fact that
Bush is backed by the White House indicates that he presents all the power and justice
invested in it.
Furthermore, the presidents both use pictures displaying them as given a speech or
meeting foreign delegates. The pictures of the delegates provided a global focus to the
website and indicated international connections. By using pictures of international
relations the presidents show that they are aware of the problems in the world, and are
making ties to other nations. This is an important aspect for both presidents, as their
brands are placed in the maturity stage in which importance is placed upon reaction to
changes and challenges.
That the presidents choose to use similar pictures on the websites is another indication of
presidential brands generally being standardised, because not only do the presidents use
rhetoric’s similarly, they are also visually almost identical.
79
5.9. Chapter sum-up
From the analysis, it seems presidential brands are somewhat standardised. This is
assumed as Ahmadinejad and Bush’s brand identities are almost identical, even though
they have completely opposite opinions and worldviews. The similar use of rhetoric and
visual elements further underlines this assumption. Whether it always has been like this or
it is a matter of global flows is not possible to conclude within the framework of this thesis.
Nonetheless, it can be concluded that even though Bush and Ahmadinejad represent two
different cultures, they still make use of the same communication tools. Thereby,
globalisation of communication standards seems to be present. Due to global flows
communication studies have been standardised around the world, which affect
presidential brands, because they are professionally constructed units. The people
creating the brands, have possibly attended identical classes and read identical literature
during their education, and therefore employ similar strategies. Thus, the global flows,
which create global ideas concerning branding and communication entails that the
framework for branding a president becomes standardised. Thereby, the discursive
practice of the branding process has been globalised. Globally, practitioners employ the
same theories and tools to produce different brands, which affect the standardisation of
presidential brands. That the discursive practice has been globalised is a direct effect of
the social practice being globalised. Through the spread of images, ideas and values,
expectations to presidential brands become globalised. Furthermore, there is an increased
focus on global governance, which compels the presidents to employ global identities.
Nonetheless, even though presidential brands seem standardised, cultural differences
have not been erased, and presidents are considered more national than international,
because even when communicating in a global context, Bush and Ahmadinejad still have
focus on nationality. Thereby, globalisation might have increased the likeness between
presidential brand identities, yet it has not created completely global presidential
brands/roles. It seems that Bush and Ahmadinejad undertake an international identity
when trying to obtain support for global initiatives, while they remain true to their
national culture the rest of the time. In addition, national culture still effects the branding,
as the means to construct the brand identities are marked by culture. This was detected in
the degree of success displayed, in the self-construct, the connections made and in the
pictures. Thus, culture is still an important factor when creating the brands. Globalisation
might have evened out differences in the brand identities, but it has not evened out the
culture specific traits used in the formation of the brands. This relates to Hofstede’s
assumption of culture being the software of the mind [Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005:3]. Due to
hundreds of years of cultural socialisation, nation culture and values are stable over time,
and will be reflected in communication [Hofstede, 2001:34].
80
From all of this it must be concluded that globalisation does have an effect on the branding
of presidents and the display of national culture. However, it does not seem that it has
made the presidents more international than national, or evened out culture specific traits.
Nonetheless, globalisation has had an impact on the framework for constructing a
presidential brand and the brand identity itself, and thus the discursive practice.
Furthermore, globalisation has affected the social practice presidents communicate in,
which leads to the fact that they can use one scare story and affect large regions.
Furthermore, presidents must sometimes undertake a global role due to the effects of
increased global governance. Nevertheless, as culture specific traits could be detected in
the branding of Bush and Ahmadinejad, it seems that globalisation has not led to a
complete cultural homogenisation. Rather, the discursive and social practices surrounding
Ahmadinejad and Bush are affected by the global flows, which in turn affect their brand
identities, yet their role as president is still more national than international.
81
PART VI - Conclusion
This thesis examined the possibility of detecting effects of globalisation in the display of
national culture in presidential brands. Presidential brands were chosen as the subject for
examination, as a president represents a nation and national culture, which I assumed,
would be reflected in the brand. If not, global flows might explain the absence or downplay
of national culture. As empirical material for the study I chose the websites of President
George W. Bush and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I used the method of semiotics in
order to analyse the communicative signs in the empirical material. In the analysis, James
P. Gee’s approach to discourse analysis and Roland Barthes’ visual semiotics were used to
identify David Aaker’s brand perspectives, which ultimately made up the presidents’ brand
identities.
From the analysis, it became evident that Ahmadinejad and Bush’s brand identities were
almost similar. Both were branded as intelligent, educated and successful men, who have
fought to protect their own nation as well as others. Furthermore, both presidents
employed a similar use of rhetorical and visual representation. Thus, reviewing the brands
the presidents present themselves almost identically. This led to the assumption that
branding of presidents in general might have been standardised due to globalisation. The
global flows have globalised ideas, values, and communication standards, and thereby the
framework for creating a brand. Thus, global flows have globalised the discursive and
social practices of the brands, wherefore the presidential brands become similar in
representation.
An example of similarities in the presidential brand is that both Ahmadinejad and Bush
overall presented themselves as national brands. Nonetheless, in the speeches they
created a global identity, a relationship with the UN and used a global discourse. The
global discourse was made up by references to a global community and by creation of
global identities and relationships. Even though the presidents used a global discourse and
constructed global identities, I concluded that they overall presented themselves as
national brands. This was concluded as the biographies only portrayed the presidents in
terms of nationality even though they also reach international audiences. Furthermore, the
presidents appeared global in the speeches, yet they still justified national actions and
transferred national values to the global community, which outlined an underlying
national focus. This indicated that the national identity is the most important one for the
presidents, as it was emphasised even when acting upon an international scene with an
international audience. I assume that the global discourse and identity used in the
speeches are tools to achieve support for their messages and to some degree are feigned as
the national identity is most important. One could argue that the national identity has the
leading role in the president’s life, while the global identity is a supporting role, which is
needed due to the increased global governance and number of global institutions, which
the global flows have created. Thus, a president is still first and foremost a national
personality, as the national audience and focus have precedence over the international.
82
Nevertheless, the brands were not similar on all aspects. An example is religion, which
Ahmadinejad emphasised, while Bush almost omitted it. This difference was explained by
religion’s penetration in USA and Iran. In USA, church and state are separated, which they
are not in Iran, for which reason Ahmadinejad, unlike Bush, represents religion. The
separation of church and state might affect that Bush did not emphasise religion, unlike
Ahmadinejad who outlined it to form the basis of his worldview. Thereby, the national
culture of the presidents shined through in the communication. Another aspect, on which
the presidents differed, was the brand perspectives used to form the brand identity. Bush
mainly used brand heritage and emphasised his own actions, while Ahmadinejad used
organisational attributes and emphasised Iran’s action. This relates to the cultural
difference of individualism and collectivism, which affected that Bush has greater focus on
the individual, whereas Ahmadinejad focussed on the group he is part of. This difference
was also present in the pictures of the presidents, as well as in their use of connections.
Consequently, national culture has an effect on how the brands are constructed, even
though it might not be visible in the brand identities.
All things considered, globalisation might not have had a direct effect on the president’s
affiliation to national culture. However, it has affected both the discursive and social
practice of the president, which in turn affects how he brands himself. Due to globalisation
of communication studies, the framework for creation of brands has become more
homogeneous, which leads to construction of similar brand identities globally.
Furthermore, the social practice of the presidents has been globalised, which affects both
his brand and role. The mediascapes and ideoscapes have globalised ideas and values,
which affects the global expectation to a presidential brand. Furthermore, globalisation
has created global institutions, which a president needs to be part of, and thus his role is
widened from national to national/international.
In conclusion, the brand identities of the presidents are similar, but the national culture
affects how the brand formation is completed. Therefore, it must be concluded that
globalisation has not evened out culture specific traits in branding, even though it might
have standardised the brand identity and the expectations to a presidential brand. Thus,
globalisation’s soothing effect on national culture is limited, and the presidents’ are still
first and foremost national personalities. Globalisation affects many aspects of life, but the
global village McLurhan predicted has not yet been realised, and I doubt that it ever will be
completely realised. National culture is deeply rooted in people, and I believe that it will
always to some degree separate nations and presidents from each other, as detected in the
brands of Bush and Ahmadinejad. Even though their brand identities were similar, they
were still marked by national culture. In conclusion, globalisation has had an effect on the
framework surrounding the presidents, which leads to creation of similar brand identities.
However, a president’s affiliation to his home country and national culture does not seem
to be weakened or erased in his branding.
83
Literature
An asterisk (*) indicates that the title is enclosed in the appendix.
Aaker, D.A. (2002) Building Strong Brands. London: Simon & Schuster UK, Ltd
Aaker, D.A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000) Brand Leadership. New York: The Free Press
Aaker, J. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. In: Journal of Marketing Research,
34:347-357
Albrect, L. (1995) Textual Analysis and the Production of Text. Frederiksberg:
Samfundslitteratur
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at Large – Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Arvidsson, A. (2006) Brands – Meanings and value in media culture. Oxon: Routledge
Baca, S; Christensen, S. F.; Kvistgaard, P. & Strunck, J. (1999) Den skindbarlige Hofstede –
Refleksioner over kritisk brug af Hofstede. Aalborg: Institut for Sprog og Internationale
Kulturstudier
Barthes, R. (1980) Billedets retorik. In: Larsen, P. & Fausing, Bent (ed.) (1980) Visuel
kommunikation I. Copenhagen: Forlaget Medusa
Beamer, L. & Varner, I. (2008) Intercultural Communication in the Global Workplace. USA:
McGraw-Hill
*Berkeley, University of California (undated) Faculty and Executive Leadership Directory –
David Aaker [Internet] University of California, Berkeley – Haas School of Business.
http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/aaker.html [Accessed November 18, 2008]
Bimber, B. A. (2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet in U. S. Elections. Oxford University
Press
Bladwin, E., Longhurst, B., McCracken, S., Ogborn, M. & Smith, G. (2004) Introducing
Cultural Studies. Prentice Hall Europe
Botan, C. H. & Hazleton, V. (2006) Public Relations Theory II. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bowers-Brown, J. (2003) A marriage made in cyberspace? Political marketing and UK
party websites. In: Ward, S., Gibson, R. & Nixon, P. (Ed.) (2003) Political parties and the
internet – net gain? London: Routledge
Brügger, N. & Vigsø, O. (2002) Strukturalisme. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitetsforlag
84
Buhl, C. (2005) Det lærende brand- Idérig branding til idésultne forbrugere. DK: Børsens
Forlag
Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism. London: Routledge
Cartwright, L. & Sturken, M. (2001) Practices of looking – an introduction to visual culture.
New York: Oxford University press
Christensen, L. T. & Morsing, M. (2004) Bag om Corporate Communication. DK: Forlaget
Samfundslitteratur
Christensen, Ove (1993) Tegn til salg: Reklame-semiotik og den kulturelle kontekst. In:
Jensen, J. F., Rasmussen, T. A. & Stigel, J. (1993): Reklame – kultur. Aalborg: Aalborg
Universitetsforlag
Clark, U. (2007) Studying language – English in action. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
Collier, M. J. (2006) Cultural Identity and Intercultural Communication. In: Samovar, L. A.,
Porter, R. E. & McDaniel, E. R. (eds.) (2006) Intercultural communication – a reader. USA:
Thomsen Wadsworth
Dahl, K. & Olesen, J. A. (2003) Retorik - når teksten vil noget. In: Jensen, E. H. & Olesen, J. A.
(Ed.) (2003): Tekstens univers: en introduktion til tekstvidenskab. Aarhus: Forlaget Klim
Danesi, M. (2006) Brands. New York: Routledge
Daniel, E. L. (2000) History of Iran. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Dasgupta, S. (2004) The Changing Face of Globalization. New Delhi: Sage Publications
de Chernatory, L & McDonald, M. (2003) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service
and Industrial Markets. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann
de Moij, M. (1998) Global Marketing and Advertising – Understanding Cultural Paradoxes.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Duncan, R. & Goddard, J. (2003) Contemporary America. New York: Palgrave MacMillan
Eco, U. (1979) A Theory of Semiotics. USA: Midland Book
Eriksen, T. H. (2002) Ethnicity and Nationalism – Anthropological Perspectives. London:
Pluto Press
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited
85
Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse – Textual analysis for social research. London:
Routledge
Fairclough, N. (2008) Language and Globalization. New York: Routledge
Fazarinc, B. (2001) The internet explosion. In: Meyers, H & Gerstman, R. (Ed.) (2001)
Branding @ the digital age. New York: Palgrave
Flew, T. (2007) Understanding Global Media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
*Fogh, A. (2007) 2001: Regeringen [Internet] Venstres Landsforening. Available from:
http://www.andersfogh.dk/index.php?side=page_02_13 [Accessed February 10, 2009]
Frandsen, F.; Halkier, H. & Johansen, W. (2002) Netværk – Introduktion til international
erhvervskommunikation. Aarhus: Systime
Gee, J. P. (2000) An introduction to Discourse Analysis – Theory and Method. London:
Routledge
Gee, J. P. (2006) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis – Theory and Method. New York:
Routledge
Gertsen, M. C. (1994) En verden uden grænser – Tværkulturel forståelse og kommunikation.
Copenhagen: G*E*C* Gad
Giddens, A. (2000) En løbsk verden – hvordan globaliseringen forandrer vores tilværelse
(Translated by Erik Barfoed) DK: Hans Reitzels Forlag
Gudykunst, W. B. & Kim, Y. Y. (2003) Communicating with strangers - an approach to
intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill
Gustafsson, J. (2003) Semiotik - tegnenes leg i tekstens mønstre. In: Jensen, E. H. & Olesen,
J. A. (Ed.) (2003) Tekstens univers – en introduktion til tekstvidenskab. Aarhus: Forlaget
Klim
Gullestrup, H. (2003) Kulturanalyse – en vej til tværkulturel forståelse. Copenhagen:
Akademisk Forlag
Hannerz, U. (1996) Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places. New York:
Routledge
Hansen, P. A. & Panild, U. N. (1990) Kultur/Retur – om anvendelse af interkulturel teori.
Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur
Henneberg, S. C. M. (2002) Understanding Political Marketing in: O'Shaughnessy, N. J.(Ed.).
(2002) Idea of Political Marketing. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group
86
Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture’s Consequences - International Differences in Work-Related
Values. London, UK: Sage Publication
Hofstede, Geert (2001) Culture’s Consequences – Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005) Cultures and Organizations – Software of the mind.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
*Hofstede, G. (2008a) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Iran [Internet] www.geerthofstede.com. Available from: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_iran.shtml
[Accessed November 27, 2008]
*Hofstede, G. (2008b) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Arab World [Internet]
www.geert-hofstede.com. Available from: http://www.geerthofstede.com/hofstede_arab_world.shtml [Accessed November 27, 2008]
*Hofstede, G. (2008c) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Arab World vs. USA [Internet]
www.geert-hofstede.com. Available from: http://www.geerthofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php?culture1=4&culture2=95 [Accessed November
27, 2008]
Hofstede, G. (2008d) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – United States [Internet]
www.geert-hofstede.com. Available from: http://www.geerthofstede.com/hofstede_united_states.shtml [Accessed November 27, 2008]
Holmes, J. (2000) Book reviews. In Journal of Sociolinguistics 4/3
*Høi, P. (2008) Manden fra Enron [Internet] Berlingske tidne. Available from:
http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20081003/verden/710030021/ [Accessed December
19, 2008]
Jarvis, L. (2006) Book Review: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.
In: Discourse Studies 8:466
Jensen, I. & Løngreen, H. (1995) En oversigt over interkulturel kommunikationsforskning.
In: Jensen, I & Løngreen, H. (Ed.) (1995) Kultur og kommunikation – interkulturel
kommunikation i teori og praksis. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur
Jerichow, A. & Jarlner, M. (2004) Iran – Reform eller revolution. Copenhagen: Det
udenrigspolitiske Selskab
Johansen, W. (1999) Kultursignaler i tekst og billede: kultur og kommunikation i danske og
franske præsentationsbrochurer. Aarhus: Handelshøjskolen i Århus, Fransk Institut
Jørgensen, C. & Onsberg, M. (1999): Praktisk argumentation. Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag
87
Jørgensen, M. W. & Phillips, L. (1999) Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Copenhagen:
Samfundslitteratur
Jørgensen, M. W. & Phillips, L. (2006) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London:
Sage Publication
Kapferer, J. (1997) Strategic Brand management – Creating and sustaining Brand Equity
Long Term. London: Kogan Page
Kapferer, J. (2008) The New Strategic Brand Management – Creating and sustaining Brand
Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page
Keller, K. L. (2008) Strategic Brand Management – Building, Measuring, and Managing Band
Equity. New Jersey, NY: Pearson Education International
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2006) Principles of Marketing. New Jersey, NY: Pearson Prentice
Hall
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Wong, V. & Saunders, J. (2008) Principles of Marketing - 5th
European Edition. London: Pearson Education Limited
Kotler, P. & Kotler, N. (1999). Political Marketing: Generating Effective Candidates,
Campaigns, and Causes. In: Newman, B. I. (Ed.) (1999) Handbook of Political Marketing.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Kjørup, S. (1996) Menneskevidenskaberne – Problemer og traditioner i humanioras
videnskabsteori. DK: Roskilde Universitetsforlag
Larsen, L. S. (2002) Islam. Copenhagen: Frydenlund
Larsen, P. & Fausing, Bent (1980) Visuel kommunikation I. Copenhagen: Forlaget Medusa
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001) The Marriage of Politics and Marketing. In: Political Studies,
49:692–713. University of Aberdeen: Blackwell Publishers
Lilleker, D. G. (2006) Key Concepts in Political Communication. London: Sage Publications
Machin, D. (2007) Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold
Marston, S. A.; Woodwars, K. & Jones, J. P. (2008) Flattering Ontologies of Globalization, in:
Archer, K.; Amen, M. M.; Bosman, M. M. & Schmidt, E. (Ed.) Cultures of Globalization –
Coherence, Hybridity, Contestation. London: Routledge
Martell, L. (2007) The Third Wave in Globalization Theory. In: International Studies Review,
9:173–196
McLuhan, M. (2002) Reprint. Understanding media: the extensions of man. London:
Routledge
88
McNair, B. (1999) An Introduction to Political Communication. London: Routledge
Merkelsen, H. (2007) Magt og Medier – en introduktion. Copenhagen: Forlaget
Samfundslitteratur
Montoya, P. & Vandehey, T.(2003) the brand called you – The Ultimate Brand-Building and
Business Development Handbook to Transform Anyone into an Indispensable Personal Brand.
USA: Personal Branding Press.
*Moore, M. T. (2008) Bristol Palin's pregnancy raises issues of privacy, judgment [Internet]
USA Today. Available from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01palin-daughter_N.htm [Accessed October 20, 2008]
Munck, R. (2007) Globalization and Contestation – The new great counter-movement. New York:
Routledge
Naij, K. (2008) Irans skarpe sværd. Ahmadinejad – Vestens udfordrer. Translated by Marianne Madelung.
Copenhagen: Gads Forlag
Neuliep, J. W. (2003) Intercultural Communication – A Contextual Approach. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
Newman, B. I. (1994) The Marketing of the President – Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications
Newman, B. I. & Perloff, R. M. (2004) Political Marketing: Theory, Research, and Applications. In: Kaid, L.
L. (ed.) (2004) Political Communication Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Oates, S. (2008) Introduction to Media and Politics. London: Sage Publications
O’Shaugnessy, N. (1999) Political Marketing and Political Propaganda. In: Newman, B. I.
(Ed.) (1999) Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Percy, L. & Elliot, R. (2005) Strategic Advertising Management. USA: Oxford University Press
*Rabatzky, S. (2007) Ahmadinejad's Official Website Omits Parts of His Speech [Internet]
Gay Republic Daily - international Gay news. Available from:
http://gayrepublic.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1884 [Accessed October
25, 2008]
Rakel, E. P. (2009) Power, Islam, and Political Elite in Iran – A study of the Iranian Political
Elite from Khomeini to Ahmadinejad. Leiden, NL: Brill
Record, J. (2003) Bounding the global war on terrorism. USA: Strategic Study Institute.
89
*Reed, R. (2005) The American eagle [Internet] The Antique Shoppe Newspaper. Available
from: http://www.antiqueshoppefl.com/archives/rreed/eagle.htm [Accessed February
10, 2008]
Reeves, P., de Chernatony, L. & Carrigan, M. (2006) Building a Political Brand: Ideology or
Voter-driven Strategy. In: Brand Management, 13(6):418–428
Risager, K. (2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Limited
Ritzer, G. (2004) The McDonaldization of Society – Revised New Century Edition. USA: Pine
Forge Press
Rosendal, U. L. (2001) Hvem er Iranerne? Copenhagen: Alinea
*Sai, Dr. T. K. (2008) Re-branding and marketing of BN [Internet] Dr. Tan Kim Sai’s blog. Available
from: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:hfTccnOK0N0J:irepu.blogspot.com/2008/05/rebranding-marketing-of-bn.html+%22what+is+political+branding%22&hl=da&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=dk
[Accessed October 20, 2008]
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E. & McDaniel, E. R. (2006) Intercultural communication – A reader. USA:
Thomson Wadsworth
Scammell, M. (2007) Political Brands and Consumer Citizens: The Rebranding of Tony
Blair. In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611:176-192
Schnoor, P. (2004) Brand Ethos – Om troværdige brand- og virksomhedsidentiteter i et
retorisk og diskurteoretisk perspektiv. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolen i København
Schramm-Nielsen, J. & Hjort, K. E. (1996) Velock Denmark A/S – interkulturel
erhvervskommunikation. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag
Schultz, M. (2004) Personlig branding – myter og muligheder. In: CBS Executive, Nov. 2004
Schweiger, G. & Adami, M. (1999) The Nonverbal Image of Politicians and Political Parties.
In: Newman, B. I. (Ed.) (1999) Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (2003) Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing
*Steinhauser, P (2008) Poll: Bush's popularity hits new low [Internet] CNN. Available from:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/ [Accessed February 13, 2009]
Strout, E. (2000) The Branding of a President. In: Sales & Marketing Management 152
(10):54-61
90
Tehranian, M. (1999) Global Communication and World Politics: Domination, Development,
and Discourse. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Thwaites, T., Davis, L. & Mules, W. (2002) Introducing cultural and media studies – a
semiotic approach. New York: Palgrave
*Tønnsen, A. (2005) Islams æresbegreb [Internet] www.religion.dk. Available from:
http://www.religion.dk/artikel/82877:Spoerg-om-islam--Islams-aeresbegreb [Accessed
February 10, 2009]
*USAID (2002) Millennium Challenge Account Update [Internet] www.usaid.gov. Available
from: http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2002/fs_mca.html [Accessed February 12,
2009]
Van Zoonen, L. (2000) Popular culture as political communication – an introduction. In:
The Public 7(2): 5 - 18
Vreese, Claes H. de. (2006) Ten Observations about the Past, Present and Future of Political
Communication. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
Ward, S., Gibson, R. & Nixon, P. (2003) Political parties and the internet – net gain? London:
Routledge
Yang, X. (2001) Book review of James Paul Gee, An introduction to discourse analysis:
Theory and method. In: Language in Society 30(4):646–649. USA
Young, L. (2002) Globalisation, Culture and Museums. In: ICOM News, no. 1:3. Paris:
International Council of Museums
91
List of appendices
I refer to the literature list for identification of the specific appendices
1. Collection of pictures from Ahmadinejad and Bush’s websites. Collected from
October 2008 to January 2009
2. Ahmadinejad’s website biography
3. Ahmadinejad’s blog biography
4. Ahmadinejad’s UN address from September 23, 2008
5. Bush’s biography
6. Bush’s UN address from September 23, 2008
7. Rabatzky, S. (2007) Ahmadinejad's Official Website Omits Parts of His Speech
8. Sai, Dr. T. K. (2008) Re-branding and marketing of BN
9. Moore, M. T. (2008) Bristol Palin's pregnancy raises issues of privacy, judgment
10. Berkeley, University of California (undated) Faculty and Executive Leadership
Directory – David Aaker
11. Hofstede, G. (2008a) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Iran
12. Hofstede, G. (2008b) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Arab World
13. Hofstede, G. (2008c) Geert Hofstede™ Cultural Dimensions – Arab World vs. USA
14. Reed, R. (2005) The American eagle
15. Tønnsen, A. (2005) Islams æresbegreb
16. Høi, P. (2008) Manden fra Enron
17. Steinhauser, P. (2008) Poll: Bush's popularity hits new low
18. USAID (2002) Millennium Challenge Account Update
19. Fogh, A. (2007) 2001: Regeringen
92