See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277606170

Chasing the myth: A Harley-Davidson story(telling)

Article  in  Semiotica · April 2015

DOI: 10.1515/sem-2014-0085

CITATIONS READS

0 405

1 author:

Dimitar Trendafilov
New Bulgarian University
9 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Principles in brand communication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitar Trendafilov on 06 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHASING THE MYTH
A HARLEY-DAVIDSON STORY(TELLING)

Assist. prof. Dimitar Trendafilov (b. 1979) is a member of South-East European Center for

Semiotic Studies at New Bulgarian University, where currently is a PhD candidate in

applied semiotics and teaches brand and marketing management. His practical experience

was obtained in marketing departments of different companies, and now Dimitar is also

managing partner in “Brand in Trend” consulting agency, which is dedicated to strategic

decisions in branding, semiotic expert analysis in commercial communication and trend-

watching.

ABSTRACT

The dialogue between semiotics and branding is already old news, yet recently it has made

a sporadic but steady appearance. This article is an attempt to show a socio-semiotic

problem – whether and, if so, to what extent, brand identity could replace, substitute or

supplement personal and group identity. It describes the postmodern situation in which the

traditional meta-narratives need to be reinforced or replaced by other, more adequate and

resonating stories and it points out the place of “legendary” brands in it. The main

argument is that this sort of brands (which do not count on the fashion and fads), is based

on cultural preconditions and that their power should be reinforced predominantly by

advertising. Cultural preconditions also contribute to filling slots not only in the material

world, but also in the spiritual and social world of the human individual in a given cultural

environment. The historical and cultural background of the Harley-Davidson brand and its

communication gives us a chance to take a deeper look at its storytelling process which

attracts so many consumers and makes this brand so special. A couple of analyses and

illustrations will help us to clarify the “DNA structure” of the Harley brand.

Keywords: identity, myth, brand, sub/culture, advertising, text.

1
Trendafilov
 1 INTRODUCTION – Added value and social needs.

These lines are dedicated to the phenomenon of a brand and its potential to define and rule

our perceptions about the world we live in and to give us a chance to find out who we are

and which is the most appropriate identity (a hub of symbols) that places us in the face of

the world. Here we are going to consider not just any brand, but brands with such power

nowadays that it allows us to call them “strong” and “globally recognizable”. They are

capable of producing meaning regardless of the country, the culture or the social stratum

they operate in, for these brands carry a “clear, well-articulated brand-identity” (Aaker and

Joachimsthaler 2000: 307). They have a well-known personality and position on the market

map and incite a certain kind of emotions in their consumers. Ultimately they emit a

message that lasts over time.

Contemporary practice confirms that the main idea of a brand is not the product itself but to

create a meaning and to add a value related to this product in the eyes and minds of the

audience which, at best, are unique and create long-term relations. Thereby the strongest

brands have names which become part of everyday life (Hart and Murphy 1998: 34). K.

Keller (1998: 4) more precisely defines a brand as “a product (…) but one that adds other

dimensions to differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same

need. These differences may be rational and tangible – related to product performance of

brand – or more symbolic, emotional, and intangible – related to what the brand

represents”. The second part of the definition is very important for understanding the brand

nature. Actually, such an explanation acquires a semiotic nuance because the product as an

object of consumption is a sign, which encompasses the externals, on one hand, and the set

of meanings which clients ascribe to it, on the other (Abadjimarinova 2006: 164-165).

Contemporary economy is getting de-material/non-material, which is why consumer acts

increasingly become a target of semiotics (Bankov 2009: 19). The advertising industry, the

2
Trendafilov
media and the system of fashion are in favor of this process because part of their job is to

put significance into goods and services and, of course, to erase it when necessary. Thus

it’s clear that an individual decreasingly uses the limited material-ness of what s/he buys,

but not its unlimited sign-ness (ibid.). Since we are all part of this highly communicative

environment, we form and support such a culture, called “consumer”. This latter is the

source of meaning for the use of signs of consumption, “but the manner how to

communicate what we have at our disposal is a central point of the semiotics“ (Bankov

2009: 108).1

For decades, a brand has not been a reserved area only for FMCG that feed us or help us in

everyday activities. In the developed and developing markets, the functional benefits and

acquisitions are “point of parity” or at least something that is implicitly given in the

particular product category (Keller 1998: 53). So, nowadays for given brand to be different

and distinctive among the crowd is no longer enough. In order to be successful and strong it

should make statement and proclaim those values that coincide with the strivings and

values from the fundamental level of the audience and which are individually perceived as

very important for the consumer, such as lifestyle, self-confidence, hobbies and

recreational activities, relation with others, self-realization (Hart and Murphy 1998: 212).2

Jacques Seguela’s experience in brand building and communication practice indicates that

there are moments in human history when the brand appeal is aligned with society’s

profound objectives. In his view (2004: 143) advertising "is the most sincere when it plays

at sociology.” This means that such a co-operation is not just theory but that the union or

consolidation of certain brands with some discontented, confused or revolutionary disposed

individual or group(s) happens again and again. In the course of ordinary life we just

cannot see it because “the union” normally passes peacefully, not in the social-historical

context but in the everyday-economical context.

3
Trendafilov
So, the social role of brands is undeniable, especially of those connected with status and

demonstrative consumption and their crescent responsibility before the employees and the

(local) communities. But they are involved much more in our society and even create

communities and movements that compete with the old, commonly adopted idea of human

organizations. Some specialists openly declare that brands navigate us through life like the

religions and political organizations do (Hart and Murphy 1998: 213) in connection with

their function to control our behavior and to satisfy certain social (and transcendental)

needs. Especially in the so-called “Western World” or in postmodern society, meta-

narratives such as nationalism, extremism, class ideology and the religious universal truth

no longer rule the soul of the masses. This place is free, or more precisely, “empty” and it

has to be filled up by something new but not unfamiliar. Someone or something, which

deserves trust, has to tell the audience an appropriate story. That’s why thousands of

“followers” flock together in front of contemporary cathedrals and Stonehenge(s) like

Apple Cube Stores, Disney World, Nike Town stores or The Dream Theater – FC

Manchester United stadium. Most of them just want to touch and feel the brand and not

necessarily buy its production - which is mere artifact, simple evidence that verifies the

story.

This claim is affirmed by Pulitzer-Prized winning author Daniel Boorstain who notes that

“for many people, brands serve the function that fraternal, religious, and service

organization used to serve – to help people define who they are and then help them

communicate that definition to others.” (in Keller 1998: 8). In a similar vein, advertising

expert Mark Batey (2008: 30) who is inspired by the observations of Anthony Giddens,

makes an even more detailed inference: “Amid the disintegration of nation states and

political blocs, the waning of religious authority, the unreliability of other social

institutions and the breakup of the nuclear family, individuals are often left facing

4
Trendafilov
uncertainty, fragmentation and even more indeterminate meaning”. Thus, the strength of

brands comes directly from their usage as symbols, as life “valorizers” and as new myth

narrators. Their meaning - co-created, added and exploited by customers – becomes a

meaning of self-ness, allowing to people to project their own images, ascribing to them

different values and traits and affiliating them to certain group of adherents (Keller 1998;

Batey 2008: 30-34).

A semiotic approach towards the commercial communication arrives at the conclusion that,

as a special message propagator, a brand uses four types of valorization, ordered in the

angles of the semiotic square (which is the logical expression of any semantic category)

developed by Algirdas Greimas (Bronwen and Ringham 2000: 116-117; Floch 2001: 117-

124). On the left hand they are practical, which includes instrumental values (comfort,

technical parameters, etc.), and critical valorization or “non-existential values”, which

stakes on the proportions of cost/benefits and quality/price; on the right hand are utopian

valorization – based on “existential values”, which are conceived as the opposition of

instrumental, and ludic valorization, which in turn is the negation of “utilitarian values”

(including luxury, “small folly”, refinement, non-practical but flashy consumption, etc.)

(Floch 2001: 120). In other words, although this division is theoretical and relative, the

logic of consumption, including the consumption of goods’ advertisements which form

their image and give us more reasons to buy, is constructed by two main categories we

could label “economic” and (vs.) “lifestyle”. The first category is focused on money

exchange – “if you buy this product you will gain this or that benefit(s)”; second one,

however, is different since contemporary customer not only literally consumes something

one or couple of times before going to buy it again (like food) but s/he retranslates meaning

through the products s/he is able to have and to demonstrate. The former creates message

of good bargain and comfortable decision for our needs whereas the latter addresses to

5
Trendafilov
higher quality of life, consumer’s position into the world, and higher levels of the Abraham

Maslow’s pyramid (self-actualization, reference-group’s respect, etc.).

Hence, considering those brands which want to insert themselves into social discourse, we

could assume that they exploit a Utopian type of valorization. Since the values of those

brands coincide with social and psychological demand of the consumers, therefore, their

ads exploit predominantly existential themes like brotherhood, meaning of life, religion,

eternal life, etc. As we will see below, in the case of HARLEY-DAVIDSON motorcycles,

the brand obtains its identity and meaning precisely from a particular ethno-cultural

utopianism (see Huntington 2005: 47). It’s in relation with the notion of “possible worlds”

(U. Eco), since it proclaims the experience of certain life-projects, accepting certain

identities and some new traditions, passing through some adventures or entering into

certain virtual worlds.

When we investigate a brand this question arises in its turn. 3 As a “social animal”

(Aristotle, Politics) a human individual obtains his/her identification from the nearest

environment – family, a tribe or a local community, from “the street” and from globally

shared values due to the new communication means. Often it happens from everywhere

almost simultaneously. Actually we form and articulate our existence by indicating who we

are and who we are not, as compared to the opinion of our cultural habitat. The latter

embraces the local value system, hierarchies of authority, traditions and feasts, shared

conviction and attitude, designated enemies and so on. The result of this identification-

process is what P. Bourdrieu calls habitus, which represents the total sum of all elements of

estimation and behavior that the social environment “installs” in our minds to such a degree

that we not only perceive this “software”4 as the most normal possibility, but even let it

determine our physical movement (1984: 170).

6
Trendafilov
Thus, to define our identity we use our affiliation to a particular group or image which

other people can distinguish and recognize, and we distinguish between some features and

others, as Irving Goffman assumed, in order to achieve our identity as a role that we create

and issue in society (in Bankov 2009: 81). We aim to control as much as possible the

impression by which other people identify us. Samuel Huntington (2005: 39) describes

identity like “the sensation of his/her own “me” of the individual or of the group”, and adds

that it is “a product of the realization that “I” or “we” possess specific characteristics which

distinguish “me” from “you” and “us” from “them”. But we also have to use these

characteristics to articulate our presence in the world mainly in front of others and, why not

in front of ourselves as well. By declarations such as “I am… [this one or that one]” I

automatically exclude myself from one group (category): fireman, bicyclist or

conservative, and so on, and include myself in another: manager, driver or liberal.

Nowadays it is much easier for us to change our identity because of the weak relations in

communities, the weak presence of the meta-narratives and the great volume of

opportunities for us to be somebody else in the virtual space of the Web or by participating

in various subcultures. According to the interpreters of Postmodernism, today a single

individual could have four or more identities, each one adapted to a different purpose,

whereas the new social order is influenced and even run by pop-culture and the mass-media

(Vincent 2002: 9).

In terms of consumption, which we consider here, the search for identity transfers itself in

the market (Klein 2000: 27, 82 5 ); supply is where demand exists. As a result “the

contemporary consumer constructs his identity, i.e. his/her image for others as well as for

him/herself by the goods and services which s/he chooses and consumes demonstratively in

the social space.” (Bankov 2009: 19; author’s italic). In short, in its initial sense, market

provides choice, but by containing meaningful brands, this choice is multiplied hundreds of

7
Trendafilov
times and offers us different faces, behaviors and affiliations. We buy and consume to be

somebody different from some people but simultaneously to be like some other people.

That’s why we should consider a product as a symbol of choice of certain values. A brand

is the image that symbolizes both a product and personal values for which this product and

its consumption are only means of expression (Abadjimarinova 2006: 215).

2 “WE BELIEVE THAT MACHINE YOU SIT ON CAN TELL THE WORLD

EXACTLY WHERE YOU STAND”

The classical example of a brand which creates an identity that fits a certain human

archetype and position in life is HARLEY-DAVIDSON. This case study is very convenient

for semiotic analysis, and by no means incidental. As David Aaker noted long ago (1996:

138), this brand “has the highest loyalty of any brand in the world. In fact, the most popular

tattoo in the United States is the HARLEY symbol. Many Harley owners, even those who

do not have tattoos, see HARLEY-DAVIDSON as an important part of their lives and

identities.” and generalize that it’s “much more than a motorcycle; it is an experience, an

attitude, a lifestyle, and a vehicle to express who one is.” Namely, consumer awareness and

the bikers’ fabulous devotion allow Kevin Roberts (2004: 78) to put the brand among the

leading positions in the lovemarks list.

In his research work entitled Legendary Brands marketer Laurence Vincent employs an

anthropological approach to point out the crucial factor that distinguishes between

legendary and ordinary brands. His argues that the legendary brand puts in motion a

narrative expected thirstily by the audience and takes its heroes and consumers involved in

it on a journey (2002: 12-14). This sort of narratives contains new elements and fascinating

plots but at the same time offers something familiar, something that lies far back into the

history and resonates into the consumer’s mind and soul. During the narrative experience

8
Trendafilov
we participate in it and trick our conscious to believe that we experience the same things as

the heroes do and we do the act of custom voluntarily because we identify ourselves with

the parts of the narrative (Vincent 2002: 32, 35). Hence a brand narrative is not just a

simple story, but a story narrated by a tangible author with a certain intention. In this way

the story receives a “point of view” which helps the brand marketing, i.e. the intercourse

between the brand and the audience (Vincent 2002: 59). Vincent adds that telling a story is

a strategy which fits closely with the brand’s existence because both are logical and

reasonable. In addition, both consist of little parts of imagination and creativity (Vincent

2002: 121). But there is another condition - since it has to reflect the personal story of the

consumer, the language of brand narrative should not be the language of the corporations or

finance experts. The consumer would not understand it because it is a “technical” language

that facilitates business but does not sustain communication and dialogue.

According to Vincent (2002: 188), legendary brands exist in cultures where ability for

satisfying the fundamental narrative is missing. At the beginning of his book he indicates

that legendary brands are codes just like the “legends”, which we use to describe or to

interpret something.6 The claim that legendary brands are codes analogous to legends holds

for the strong brands because their role is to help people to order and interpret meanings

from their own (everyday) lives. In fact, very often these brands represent consumer life

and just like religious symbols and relics enable an individual to find his/her place in a

cultural, social and private space, and even to define a part of his/her identity by the use of

a particular brand (Vincent 2002: 7-8). In order to achieve this goal, legendary brands build

bonds with their consumers by so-called “sacred beliefs”, which are “a special set of mental

constructions that allow us to existentially orient ourselves, whereas ordinary product

brands form a bond with consumers from purely functional attributes.” (Vincent 2002: 20)

Sacred beliefs are not necessarily religious but serve to define who we are, what is valuable

9
Trendafilov
for us, which lifestyle fits us, what we respect and what we are afraid of. They need a

place, person or object as their physical evidence that the manifested ideology is genuine.

According to Vincent (2002: 27), we can call them “brand mediators” and in the case of

HARLEY-DAVIDSON such a mediator is the product – rough, rumbling and “muscular”

motorcycle, demonstrating the free will and the refusal of conformity (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: The appeal for “never-ending ride”, “freedom seeking”, and “libertarian
philosophy” cultural text (Vincent 2002: 27), drawing on the “conquest of the West”
cultural and historical capital (by signifiers of lonely rider, very personal means of
conveyance, wide sky, open road, wild nature around, plus unknown – from the position
of the onlooker – destination of riding ).7

10
Trendafilov
In order to start working the narrative refers to the myths – stories from our collective

memory, archetypes hidden deeply in our cognitive abilities, which represent stable

schemes helping us to understand the world and to put it in order (Vincent 2002: 62). Their

significance is underlined by the fact that regardless of the culture-specific features or

geographical location these stories contain common and relatively stable elements. As the

author illustrates, if in ancient times we had synchronized our behavior towards demigods,

prophets and legendary warriors, nowadays we are searching for the role-models among

celebrities, athletes and other successful people from the business, the art and the policy

(Vincent 2002: 65). What provokes this? The Hero and the Outlaw (2001) by consultant

Margaret Mark and psychologist Carol Pearson answers to the question. It’s an attempt to

explain the personal and the social power, as well as and influence of the

“powerful/legendary” brands by tying them to the famous psychological archetypes defined

by Swiss psychotherapist Carl Gustav Jung. They are deep structures in our collective

consciousness acting as a pattern for particular behavior and/or lifestyle on behalf of the

individual. Thus, just like Vincent’s mythology displayed in social narrative and in media,

the two authors use different perspectives to emphasize the preliminary models on which

brands’ (communication) programs are based.

In brief, the archetypes which are applicable to marketing and their positive functions in the

life of the individuals who carry them are as follows: the Creator (s/he always has impulse

to create something new), the Caregiver (s/he works in favor of the other people), the Ruler

(s/he likes to control), the Jester (s/he entertains the others, has fun), the Regular person

(s/he is fine with him/herself and with the others), the Loving (Mother) (s/he finds and

gives love), the Hero (s/he acts courageously), the Outlaw (s/he breaks the existing rules),

the Wizard (s/he affects the transformations), the Simple-hearted (s/he keeps or renews the

faith), the Seeker (s/he fights for his/her independence), the Sage (s/he understands this

11
Trendafilov
world) (Mark and Pearson 2001: 33). The two authors point out (2001: 13, 14, 18) that

these “universal constructions of the human mentality”, as Jung himself called them, are

genetically inheritable structures (matrices) which define our motivations and reactions. As

we can see, the archetypes in this composition are namely generalizing figures of certain

motivations arranged into groups: 1. maintenance of the order and stability, control

securing, 2. maintenance of possessing (the belonging) and providing enjoyment (pleasure),

3. risk running, mastery-gaining, and 4. independence-gaining and (self-) fulfillment.

Learning the psychological models permits marketers to avoid hard-working research for

understanding individual experiences with brand or product and to create personal

structure-based communication campaigns over a wider group of actual and potential

consumers. The marketers could also foresee the response of this communication and

manage effective and durable relationships with the target-group (Mark and Pearson 2001:

18). In other words, archetypes successfully replace conventional segmentation of the

market, relying on a steady, scientifically proved basis. And finally, according to these

authors, archetypes are perfect tools in the arsenal of the so-called “meaning management”

aiming to create and develop brand loyalty and brand equity (Mark and Pearson 2001: 15).

We should note that these mental matrices are something very personal and serve as inner

“natural resources” in the storytelling process in culture, orally as well as in writing

transferring role models in legends and myths (generalized by Vincent). Owing to

commercial communication, these matrices circulate in pop-culture (by new narratives) and

are also, in a sense, “materialized” by the products. The marketing-based industries realize

the attractive potential of these models, as well as their inexhaustibility.

Further, by using the competent sources and apt results in D. Mark Austin’s article (2009:

70-93), composed as an ethnographic research on the BMW motorcycle rallies, we could

try to construct two diagrams: one that points out the frames of the narrative called “to be a

12
Trendafilov
biker” as an overall concept (in the outside inwards angle of evaluation), and a second one,

allowing us to put HARLEY-DAVIDSON motorcycle riders in their right place in a

broader scheme (respectively Graph. 1 and 2). By this means we obtain a notion of the

distinctive features of brand narrative and communication (discussed in detail below). In

addition, we would get an idea about what supports the construction of that sort of narrative

which is put into practice (not only among the members of its own subculture8 but in front

of the audience as a whole).

First of all, totally in the spirit of Yuri Lotman’s idea (1990: 131-142) about the boundaries

of the semiosphere, research shows that the bikers’ social world requires an explicit

differentiation between insiders and outsiders. Here the boundaries pass through the fields

of “the real” motorcycle riders and “the posers” (Austin 2009: 85). The latter group

embraces the so called “rich urban bikers” and people focused on the appearance of the

motorcycle itself and on the corresponding clothing, rather than on rallies, serious long-

distance riding (“high mileage”) and the tribe’s standard of behavior. 9

Austin’s

interviewees cast these individuals as “wannabes”10 or sum of “yuppies”, “rednecks”, and

“scalawags” (Lotman 1990: 85). Besides, as Lotman (1992: 167, 170-171) defines the two

bases of culture – magical (contract) and religious (subjection), the designated symbols

distinguishing “the real” riders from the outsiders are very important and keep the group

together, as a semiotic system, which is a consequence of its magical pattern. In this sense,

with their behavior and demonstration - with their arbitrary use of the symbols – “the

wannabes” break the semiotic kernel of the tribe. Thus they could be put in “the purgatory”

between the bikers’ semiosphere and that of society as a whole, but they actually threaten

the bikers’ subculture more than showing the will to join it.

In our HARLEY-DAVIDSON case it means that those qualified as “outsiders” are divided

into two groups: 1. “the other motorcycle owners” (the BMW or Japanese machines’

13
Trendafilov
owners) and 2. “civilians” (where for now we enlist the car owners and the pedestrians)

(see Fig. 2, to the right and below). As we’ll see in the last part, the HARLEY subculture

has a very sharp and clear sensation about “WE” (uniqueness and difference), which has its

roots in national history as well as the company’s 11 and it’s explicitly strengthened by

brand communication. Everyone who rides other brands’ machines, especially non-

American ones, gets into the group “YOU” as a contrary of “WE” and with conjunction

with the contradiction “NON-WE”. “The Civilians” are completely outside the biker’s

identity sources (represented by “WE” and “YOU” put together) and constitute the cluster

which is closed between the two sub-contrary points – “NON-WE” and “NON-YOU”

(neither from our tribe, nor from the other bikers’ tribes).

The society of
motorcycle riders in
general

WE YOU

The H-D bikers The other

(the tribe of the free motorcycle
men) brands’ riders

NON-YOU NON-WE

The “Civilians”

Fig. 2: The deep structure of the motorcycling narrative (set up in A. Greimas’ square).

In the scheme representing the social stratification (Fig. 3) – in quantitative as well as

qualitative aspects – there are more levels depicting the HARLEY-DAVIDSON bikers’

point of view (from the inside outward aspect; from a first person perspective). The

sensation of uniqueness (a clear definition of “WE”) could not be provided, first, without

the sensation of differentiation from the main mass of the society (“the civilians”), then

from the other groups – “car drivers”, “urban bikers” (mainly sports machines owners), or

14
Trendafilov
groups like the one of BMW owners. That’s why the HARLEY identity puts its adherents

into the center of the narrative with the emphasizing the privilege of joining this tribe and

sharing its sub/culture rituals, beliefs, behavior, etc. In this case, it’s very important the

small closed group to be opposed to the larger formation - “the society”. The more distant a

circle is from the core the more alien it is to the HARLEY culture and the harder is the re-

coding process between the various groups in that society. This means that, while the

communication between the bikers’ tribes is possible because of the common language

available, the ordinary world (the most external circle) is not translatable towards the core

and it even contradicts the tribe’s almost chivalrous order. As a matter of fact, M. Austin

asserts (2009: 71-72, 81) that quiet and controlled meetings of the BMW riders, are some

kind of negative of the HARLEY-DAVIDSON adherents’ behavior, since the latter are

definitely a “vespertine” tribe. This corresponds to the criminal aureole around the typical

HARLEY biker based on the activities of Hell’s Angels motor-gang (drug-dealing,

robberies, procuring, etc.). This motif is convertible in to American cultural and sub-

cultural discourse (McDonogh et al. 2001: 759) and it emanates in the movie Harley-

Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991)12, in which the main characters (the Outlaw and

the Hero images) appear less bad harnessing their usual (expected) badness for a noble

cause - to solve their friend’s problem with even badder guys.

15
Trendafilov
 The tribe of
the free men
The other
motor
brands’ riders
The urban
(rich) bikers
The four
wheels
Thedrivers
so called
“Civilians”

Fig. 3: The visual representation of the world with the HARLEY riders in the core.

Considering “crossing the boundaries” between the circles and translation between parts of

society, we should note that there is evidence that very often high level managers and

successful businessmen are HARLEY motorcycle fans and riders (Mark and Pearson 2001:

132). It doesn’t refute our claim regarding the difficulty or even impossibility of the

translation process between the main culture and the subculture because it refers to the idea

that “the society” and “the tribe of the free-riders” are from “the inner sphere is part of the

outer sphere” kind – one of the three models Yuri Lotman uses to describe the division of

cultural space (1992: 146). In this sense the spheres do not exclude each other and do not

exist in the opposition UP-DOWN because the very basis of American society as a whole

(democracy and equality) doesn’t allow it (i.e. there is no hierarchy or aristocratic

excluding). Thus it is possible for the leaders of the main society (outer circle) to enter into

the tribe inner circle), since in this way they modify their identities. Moreover, by this

move they change the sphere we indicated as a religious system - subjected to the law with

16
Trendafilov
the sphere – a magical one - which is founded on the order of knighthood principle, with a

high level of self-organizing and convention, based on inside relationships (Lotman 1992:

165-166). Furthermore, the latter is semiotically more active since it presupposes an

intensive sign game – rituals, gatherings, particular behavior, wearing symbols, etc.

3 CONTEMPORARY KNIGHTS

In Structural anthropology II (1995: 354-355) Claude Levi-Strauss refers to a curious

phenomenon he observed in the conveyance of myths through space – important changes

occur when a particular myth meets and overcomes some geographical obstacle. On the

other side of the mountain or river the myth narrated by the tribes is turned upside down,

just as if it were refracted via an optic lens. Considering this point, we can see that there is

something familiar in the above-mentioned value system and archetype of the HARLEY-

DAVIDSON brand. A familiar resonance but no exact reproduction, as if heroic and non-

heroic levels coexisted, as if there were simultaneous attempts to both reinforce and reject

the laws of society.

It should not be difficult for us to uncover the reason behind this impression. First, we

simply have to take this particular myth about a “never-ending ride” and the outlaw

behavior of motorcycle adherents, and to apprehend it as a typical American story,

repeating the cowboy adventures and the conquest of the West. 13 Then we have to transfer

it through the “lens” of the Atlantic Ocean - the geographical path by which the carriers of

the myth came into the New World. Europe is the field where we should search for the

“original” myth preceding the mythological scheme in question, but turned upside down.

Thus we encounter the knight’s narrative which was built-up so assiduously through the

Middle Ages in the Mother-continent. It is obvious that the system of legends about the

brave and aristocratic knights, originating mainly from the crusades against the Muslim

17
Trendafilov
East, is the pattern of heroism and nobility all over the Western Europe. Medieval warriors

had causes to fight for, as well as castles they belonged to and returned to; in a sense they

represented civilization and fellowship.

Conversely, what we just have mentioned is everything the contemporary motorcycle rider

(let us say “the new version of conqueror of the West”) neither wants to be nor wants to

follow. Actually, the knightly tradition is consciously continued in various cowboy events

in the context of the relationship between man and nature (Stoeltje 1985: 165) but with a

different value system: the riders are no longer conquerors of ladies’ hearts or the

imagination of the population, nor do they bring glory to their kings or suzerains, rather

they are conquerors of unknown territory, living according to their own laws, which were

forged during the ride and which are the barrier between “me/we” and “the others”. The

latter are not only “sport-bike riders”, “four wheelers” and “civilians” but observe the

statute laws and don’t respect the HARLEY-DAVIDSON production – which has no

meaning for them other than the material and merchant side of the “motorcycle”. The

motorcycle riders don’t have particular causes or directions, or places where they belong or

are directed to. Their goal is to ride anywhere (probably without turning back), in a straight

line, which is quite the opposite of the limited life in towns and cities which usually follows

a routine path, in a circle. The assertion that there is a parallel between knights and

motorcycle riders is rooted in a feature of American culture described by various observers.

By contrast with the large part of other tribes and nations on the planet, Americans don’t

obtain their identity from their territory as a place where they were born and/or as a symbol

of their history and their community with other people. Furthermore, even at the present

time the level of spatial mobility in the American society is very high and the word

“motherland” is still inappropriate for the land between the U.S. borders (Huntington 2005:

72-75).

18
Trendafilov
The riders demonstrate values of the poor underdog and the unwanted, which are so typical

for that part of the European people who left the Mother-continent forever in order to be

the masters of what they managed to conquer and who, for the first time, had a chance to

rule their own life without kings or aristocracy. Yet there is nothing new in this “pro-

American” change of the meaning of the signs, because there are historical records of the

very same curious fact. In 1775, after the end of the War of Independence precisely the

well-known symbol of shackles and the deprivation of liberty – the stripes – were reversed

by the settlers and became a symbol of their freedom (Floch 2001: 193).

However, we have to consider another important factor in a “group” discourse.

Indisputably the group is something very important but for the HARLEY-DAVIDSON

rider but there would not be a “we” without a “me”. Hence the individual is the key

element in this mythological scheme, the main carrier of the “anti-city” and the “never-

ending ride” value system. In another formulation we could say: “I break the rules and

that’s why I join this people [group], they are the same type [free men and non-

conformists]”, but not “I’m not a rule-breaker myself but when I join the group I will

become that sort of guy”. The main reason that makes a non-conformist and strict

individualist like this join the group (in this case even formalized like “HGO”™, or

informal like “Iron Elite”, or “Harlistas”) is, let us say, the intrusive social feeling and

behavior. Very often we want to perceive ourselves as individuals, as unique and different

elements of society, but in the end we usually refer to this very society for its approval and

confirmation of our personalities and our acts regarding the world. Therefore, the

membership in the HARLEY-DAVIDSON group brings the biker not only a source of

inspiration, but a feeling of belonging and a confirmation of an existential choice that was

made. Nobody can exist without relying on others because s/he constantly counts on them

in decision-making processes. This phenomenon in social psychology is perfectly described

19
Trendafilov
by Robert Cialdini (2005: 194-273) who illustrates how often such a weak point was used

harmlessly every day in the form of artificial laughter in TV sitcoms or in commercials

with “ordinary” people endorsing the product, but in its utmost forms it could even be self-

destructive.

This completely fits with Geert Hofstede’s research. He places (2001: 73) the USA in the

first place in the table of individualism, according to the index of the relative position of the

50 countries and 3 regions in his study. This means that the US is one of the few

contemporary societies in which personal interests stay above those of the group. In this

way, the individual first perceives him/herself like “me” and the others like “other me-s”

and people are classified according to their personal features rather than their belonging to

a group (2001: 69). Hofstede (2001: 72, 75, 104) makes an interesting remark:

individualism has a direct correlation with the wealth of the respective country, on one

hand, and with the low value of the so-called “power distance” practiced in this very

society, on the other. Thus we have a rich nation, which means that its members have

access to abundant of resources (including identities) and that they could be who they

wanted to be and express it freely, without conforming themselves to some authority and/or

family (see also Huntington 2005: 92-102, 328). However, we could conclude that these

observations only strengthen the power of the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mythology and

confirm the principle that some brands offer or replace identity and behavior.

Similarly, if there are some group leaders in this “society”, they are not authorities but

rather public opinion leaders, connected with the principle primus inter pares – just a result

of a natural process of appointing a chieftain in a human collective. The real “leader”, or

more precisely the “reference point”, however, is the brand – HARLEY-DAVIDSON –

represented by its management and through its messages towards the world. It controls the

specific semiosphere and identity expression of the people involved in the HGO™. The

20
Trendafilov
reference is ascribed by its managers because executives ride alongside HARLEY owners

and compare the community to “family” (Batey 2008: 202). In fact, the brand needs to

encourage the “tribe” sensation because its members confirm their beliefs and transform

themselves into the best mediators of the brand (Vincent 2002: 36). Even more –

HARLEY-DAVIDSON is an outlaw not because it is against the written and mainstream

culture but first of all because it is against the rules of branding. Most of the brands seek to

attract as many consumers as possible, whereas this motorcycle brand endeavors to exclude

people. As Matt Haig (2004: 191) underlines: “Personally I don’t like Harley-Davidson. It

is not a brand that appeals to me. (…) Most brands with a strong identity are likely to

alienate more people then they attract. In a way that’s the point.” The competition feels that

difference and explicitly uses it; thus we can mark off the Honda campaign from the

beginning of the 1960’s – the first moment when the HARLEY brand myth emerged -

which said “You meet nice people on a Honda” (Batey 2008: 109). So, the clash of the

value systems is obvious and HARLEY brand management, pressed by the legacy, is

counting on it.

21
Trendafilov
 Fig. 4: The HARLEY-DAVIDSON value system communicated in the ads (usually
the spots are decorated in black and white colors).14

4 CONFIRMING THE COMMUNITY

To sustain our point, the notable American economist Jeremy Rifkin (2001: 190) asserts

that advertising “adopts the role of interpreter of cultural meanings. It serves as bridge and

continuously mediates between personal life story of particular human and the big

narratives which constitute the culture. (…) An advertising informs the consumers about

the culture and instructs them what purchases will provoke the relevant cultural

connotations and experiences”. Using Rifkin’s claim, we can analyze the HARLEY-

DAVIDSON brand communication and its system of texts and codes, since they are

important for what the brand has to say. With regard to this, Turin University professor

Ugo Volli, underlines that semiotics obtains its power by analyzing ads from its experience

to explain how the texts work in principle (Volli 2003: 57). Moreover, an ad as a text

“creates artificial, i.e. narrative time and space, where could present itself as a reliable

image of reality, giving “information about the product”, but similarly an ad could tell

stories and phantasmagorias as well, or it could just make sensory and psychological

“impressions” about its [product’s] value.” (Volli 2003: 58). In order to do so, however,

advertising should have two devices. The first is a well-developed system for mass-

22
Trendafilov
communication and the second is the exploitation of a physical as well as a “cultural

bearer which is different from the world of the goods...“ (Volli 2003: 58; emphasis mine).

Mass-communication and a brand itself conjoin together in order to create virtual consumer

communities, drawing on cultural capital. This conjunction is a conditio sine qua non,

especially in a globalized world, or in any large unilingual market.

All commercials of HARLEY-DAVIDSON interpret perfectly the brand core myth we

have observed. As Monty Alexander specifies, the base of every powerful brand is some (at

least one) myth, which is created by the tension between cultural oppositions (values), but

its power is, precisely, to provide meaning and to reconcile (often in different ways) this

opposition (see Fig. 2) (Alexander 1996: 1, 3). Powerful myth contains a conflict which is

generated and resolved in its inner meaning system, and the HARLEY riding story of

seeking freedom seeking solves the opposition between “chaos” and “harmony” (Fog et al.

2010: 35, 87). The way out of the situation is when the brand spreading the message of

“non-conformity” with strict social norms combines with the excitement to belong to the

community of “non-conformists”. There was a time when the “Hell’s Angels” gang broke

this delicate balance on behalf of “chaos” and currently the brand ads try to underline the

“harmony” within its bikers group.

Given the fact that HARLEY-DAVIDSON advertisements are very similar, one in

particular, named Live by it15, could be taken as a “common denominator”, in representing

how rhetoric could serves in expressing the brand’s essential values. The voiceover imitates

prayer, containing “to believe…” and “Amen”, as if it came from one man, but in the

middle of the spot the speech is choral and ultimately ends again with one voice. This

constructs the necessary sensation of ”we”, which is identified as “religious community”.

Many typical subculture symbols are mentioned in the copy as well but, due to the

appearance of the U.S. national flag in the spot, we expect an obligatory element, since, as

23
Trendafilov
Huntington wrote, it’s “equivalent of the cross among the Christians” (2005: 79), which

recalls once again the American roots of the brand. As to the “characters” involved, we can

see males and females, young and old, black and white, riding side by side in tune with the

idea that there is no place for segregation and hierarchy in the “we”-community, otherwise

it could be perceived as a “system” containing some external social rules in its core, but not

the HARLEY motorcycle itself.

The visual elements are always extremely important in commercials because video tells us

a story in progress, in multilevels and a striking manner, but language still remains the key

factor. Martin Kornberger (2010: 108) points out that brand as identity builder works

mainly through language and counts on the advertising since it “creates a textuality that

aims at stimulating the consumer to experience the brand as opposed to the product. Brands

do so by forming the core of network culture that links people, images, text, product and

ideas.” The following scheme shows the linguistic accents in the copy which represents the

HARLEY-DAVIDSON product-consumer relationship (describing the core attributes of

the machine), value system (underlined), lifestyle (in bold), and the group identity markers.

A)

We believe in going our own way, no matter which way the rest of the world is going.

We believe in bugging the system that’s built to smash individuals like bugs on the

windshield.

Some of us believe in the man upstairs, all of us believe in sticking it to the man down

here.

We believe in the sky and we don’t believe in the sunroof.

We believe in freedom.

B)

24
Trendafilov
 We believe in dust, tumbleweeds, buffalos, mountain ranges, and riding off into

the sunset.

We believe in saddlebags and we believe in cowboys headed right.

We believe in refusing to knuckle under to anyone.

We believe in wearing black because it doesn’t show any dirt or weakness.

We believe the world is going soft and we’re not going along with it.

We believe in motorcycle rallies that last a week.

We believe in roadside attractions, gas station hot-dogs and finding out what’s

over the next hill.

We believe in rumbling engines, distance the size of garbage cans, fuel tanks

designed in 1936, freight train headlights chromed and custom made.

A)

We believe in the flames and the skulls.

We believe that life is what you make it and we make in one hell of a ride.

We believe that machine you sit on can tell the world exactly where you stand.

We don’t care what everyone else believes.

Amen!

From another viewpoint, the copy is divided into two groups of oppositions which the

brand seeks to suggest (Table 1) and it is full of metaphors which usually dominate

poetic/romantic way of constructing a narrative. As we have already outlined above (see

Section 2) the particular confrontation is “we” vs. “them”, but in general it’s “us” against

“some other kind of Organization” because the philosophy of “freedom” requires

something “to be free of” (“the straightjacket of “normal” life” (Fog et al. 2010: 88)) to

exist at all. “Normal” people “organizes” Nature by constructing roads whereas the ad

assures us that roads “organize” bikers in their “own way”, which is in the “nature” of the

25
Trendafilov
HARLEY-DAVIDSON brand. Even religion, as we are used to know it, is bent through the

lenses of the brand’s philosophy because there is no sacred place or any priest mentioned in

the copy, but it is represented like individual’s life-project put on wheels (having in mind

that “journey” is the most popular metaphor for “life” in different languages). The credo-

like copy renounces itself, it aims to demonstrate that it is anti-religious since the brand

actually rejects religion but in the same time religion discourse is the fastest way

community to be represented. Also, religion presupposes structure and rules dropped from

above whereas “freedom” is the only rule for the HARLEY’ fans and they “don’t care”

about the system “outside”.

We The rest (of the world)

Individual/s
system / everyone else/ anyone
(refusing to knuckle under to)

(…believe in) freedom, dust,

don’t care
rallies, what’s over the next hill...

we’re not going along the world (is going soft)

wearing black dirt / weakness

(the man) down here (the man) upstairs

sky (open, unlimited space) sunroof (limit, automobile)

Table 1: Almost every line confirms the confrontation with the world “outside”
the HARLEY brand semiosphere.

A second reading gives us another proof for the utopian valorization (Section 1), woven

into the HARLEY-DAVIDSON ad strategy, which is the narrative construction of the Live

by it spot. The brand does not need to speak about qualities of its product, it does not

compete directly with some rival in the category, moreover, even the usual “new” product

features, typical of the advertising in general, would not sound on the right spot in

26
Trendafilov
HARLEY communication. Thus, the copy relies on creating story producing a “picture in

picture” effect via exact words. Following Hispanic-Roman speech master from the first

century A.D. Marcus Quintilian (2001), we should recall that vividness makes one story

not only lucid and acceptable in front of the audience but also completes the impression in

the best manner. He points out (2001: 375) that “vividness, or, as some say,

“representation”, is more than mere perspicuity since instead of being merely transparent it

somehow shows itself off. It is a great virtue to express our subject clearly and in such a

way that it seems to be actually seen.” To understand HARLEY-DAVIDSON one should

“see” the brand not the product itself. This particular ad does it quite well. Sometimes the

famous aphorism saying that “one picture is worth a thousand words” (Arthur Brisbane) is

not correct enough because namely words and their rhetoric configuration contain

“vividness” and makes more impression if not persuasion than images. The video (the

visual) allows us to follow the motion of the motorcycle and to put ourselves in the place of

the biker. This is the first picture (level). However, the second one is constructed by the

words and as if it exists independently developing further the message of the video because

it makes the spectator to feel what is it to be this biker in question. If we consider part “B”

(in the middle) of the copy we could “see” some kind of country scene describing the

benefits of riding, and not before the end of this part the product is introduced. The latter is

put in romantic light, literary fit together via skilful synecdoche. Finally, the copy (as it is

shown above) could be divided readily it three steps – A-B-A. The first one (first “A”)

initiates us in the brand’s general view of life – free ride away from the establishment; “B”

is dedicated to the community, the lifestyle, and the motorcycle, and then there is another

“A” which completes the copy both repeating the credo from the beginning and

strengthening the message by appealing directly to the individual (the pronoun “you” steps

forward).

27
Trendafilov
 5 CONCLUSION

Identity is a very complex and delicate phenomenon and it is mainly a product of our social

life which includes sign exchange in terms of goods and service exchange in different

ways. The purpose of this article is not to confirm this generalization (commonsense),

neither to exhaust such a multidisciplinary subject, but to demonstrate identity’s many-

sided activities and its realized role in the branding sphere. By collecting and analyzing the

information on one classical example of a “legendary” brand in a short text, such as the

HARLEY-DAVIDSON case, we can see the position of semiotics in meaning-analysis and

brand equity management. Therefore an improvement of brand communication and its

relationship with loyal consumers requires a broader and deeper knowledge of history and

cultural dimensions in the given market, as well as of psychology and the specifics of

social construction. Semiotics has the power to give assistance to professionals in cultural

frames interpretation and to make fine tuning of the brand’s message. This message often is

a whole story which has to be compatible with other existing, contemporary stories

attractive for the consumers.

Notes:
1 If the source of the translations is not specifically noted, the translations from the books and articles in Bulgarian used in this article are
the author’s – D.T.
2 According to Jean Baudrillard (1996: 68) each individual or group has necessity to produce him/herself or itself by meaning in system
of interchanges even before to assure his/her or group survival. The producing of goods goes along with the producing of meaning
because humans firstly need to be one-for-another and then to exist one-and-another separately. See also Rifkin 2001: 255.
3 Sociology of consumption “focuses its interest on consumer’s figure, on his active attitude towards consumer’s practices, towards
strategies of identification and social stratification which the demonstrative consumption communicates, towards the lifestyles as
gradually pushing into the background the classical demographic parameters for social segmentation and arranging in groups, towards the
fashion and the brands as communication tools.” (Bankov 2009: 14; author’s italic).
4 The social anthropologist G. Hofstede (2001: 5-6) calls this “software” or “culture two”, and particularizes that it is always a
phenomenon of collective, something that we acquire, but not inherit. He makes difference between this kind of culture as a broader term
that comes from social anthropology and the narrow term, “culture one”, which is “refining of the mind”, a result of particular education
and art and literature learning.
5 Further in her research on the corporations’ activities and the branding the author dedicates a full chapter (2000: 124-141) to explain
the origin of the process in question. Its roots send us back in the 80’s and in the beginning of the 90’s when the social protests on behalf

28
Trendafilov
of the students and NGOs in the US were devoted mainly to the purposes of the broader admission and acceptance of the women, gays
and afro-Americans in the public and cultural discourse. At the same time, the business was suffering from the lack of fresh resources to
develop its trade marks and on that account it transformed the identity strivings in the society in its communication basis taking the social
diversity for its leitmotif. Hence, Klein concludes that the need “for greater diversity — the rallying cry of my university years — is now
not only accepted by the culture industries, it is the mantra of global capital.” (2000: 132).
6 We should clarify here what is the difference between “myth” and “legend”. Legends are stories based on the real life in a certain level,
since they are formed from real situations and/or historical facts, but in the course of time their narrators change and, therefore, stories
attain new significance or often just disappear because they are text moving on the surface of the culture with changeable intensity
(Vincent 2002: 59-60). Myth, on its part, “never wane from the collective unconscious, provide a meaningful way for people to orient and
understand their world” (Vincent 2002: 63).
7 Snapshot from Harley-Davidson Motor Company advertisement “Harley-Davidson Experience. Live by it”, available from
YouTube.com, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyocDeGh7Qs (accessed 23 July 2010), and an image of Marlboro print, available on
http://www.nathalie-constantin.com/Marloro/marlboro.htm (accessed 14 Oct. 2009).
8 We should specify that the term “tribe” in the recent years has been transformed into synonym of “subculture” in terms of marketing
segmentation and discrimination of the smaller groups within the “official” culture system, mostly because of the specific values and
rituals which these clusters of the society create and maintain, but in the end it’s only a metaphor. As to the subcultures, R. Elliot and A.
Davis point out (2006: 139) that their activities are important “for the construction and expression of identity, rather than cells of
resistance against dominant orders. It is also important to recognize that sub-cultural choices are also consumer choices involving brands
of fashion, leisure and a wealth of accessories, which speaks symbolically to members of the group. A key issue amongst these symbolic
brand communities is the authentic performance of style.”.
9 The latter is perfectly described by M. Austin (2009) in his article but here the details are not necessary.
10 The management of the HARLEY-DAVIDSON brand itself has to do with this kind of behavior (this problem of subculture
lodgement) because, based on the laws of marketing, it has developed a very wide and profitable range of merchandize – from the usual
T-shirts and leather jackets to the branded ear-rings and neckties.
11 The motorcycles of HARLEY had been used in the U.S. army, and in some police and post units, and its owners’ gatherings are
pointed out as a manifestation of patriotism and confrontation against the Japanese competition in the motor branch (Aaker 1996: 139-
140; Mark and Pearson 2001: 132-133). In spite of the popularity of the brand, in Bulgaria for instance, it is impossible for it to be bearer
of the same values because they are strictly American (while it is no problem with the Japanese or other countries brands). That is why
the HARLEY owner demonstrates economical status and eccentricity but not the American-ness itself or the patriotism. The situation in
the other markets is similar - the brand offers rather particular lifestyle (appearance, music preference, “macho” behavior) than identity or
pride of the history which the brand’s DNA consists; i.e, the brand loyalty outside the U.S. borders is represented on a level of the fashion
and personal image codes, but it does not include the historical element in the meaning of the brand. Since the explanation of this
foundation of the brand popularity is obligatory further down in the text we offer some possibilities.
12 The reel is directed by Simon Wincer, starring Mickey Rourke (on of the most famous “bad boys” in the film industry) and Don
Johnson (typical “macho” character). Other authors add moves like The Wild One, starring the legendary Marlon Brando and Easy Rider,
starring another cult actor – Jack Nicholson (Haig 2004: 192).
13 Jacques Seguela describes the break of Marlboro brand by this passage: “The first cowboy from Dallas was just an impostor while ten
years of all kinds of tattoos – an imitation of masculinity. (…) When man lights a cigarette he expects from it to set him on fire. The
masculinity has noting to do with this. (…) What could be a guarantee for success was only pure-blooded stallion of the West. Since it
was found that its horseman – with temples plated by the snows of Nevada, and forehead tanned by the sun of Missouri was no just a
brave guy but a dreamer. In his eyes, with color like faded denim, the whole life experience of the New World was reflected, the serenity
“made in Marlboro country.” (2004: 79-80; author’s italic). This modification, however, has its roots in the American culture and is also
commented by John Popplestone (1966: 25-27). His argument about the Marlboro pre-positioning campaign – from a feminine image to
masculine one - during the years is based on the findings that tattoos, cowboy hats and peculiar boots are (symbols) very strong related
with the American’s concept about manhood, toughness and defense against the aggressiveness of the outside world. Thus, according to
the psychologist prof. Popplestone (who was a contemporary of the Marlboro successful march in the cigarette market as well), whether
the brand uses tattoos or tough cowboy is not of such significance because the archetype has already been formed in the social awareness
in the US and it has been expressed by certain symbols. But for the ad-specialist Seguela there is a difference and the character of this
particular brand is exactly the image of the cowboy, not of the tattooed adventurer. So, then where the psychological and the identity

29
Trendafilov
related moment is? From the marketing point of view Seguela makes more precise analysis; John Popplestone is right as a whole – in the
culture point of view, but the needs of the consumer of his cigarette brand doesn’t correspond with the ”adventure” just like that
(“painted” with tattoos), but with the “dreamer” as Seguela says above, and with the “explorer” and “traveler” as we could add -
expressed by the figure of the “conqueror” of the West. The case of Marlboro shows that this particular sophistication in the brand
communication, which took so many years, was necessary and crucial for the brand success. Even the former Coca-Cola marketing boss
– Sergio Zyman (2002: 116) doesn’t miss his chance to give honor to the symbolism of the famous cowboy: “The perfect embodiment of
the independent, macho guy who values his freedom. Years after the last Marlboro Man billboard came down, the Marlboro Man image
was so strong that the antitobacco lobby used kickoffs to get some of their antismoking messages across.”
14 Snapshots from Harley-Davidson Motor Company advertisement, available on YouTube.com,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u81Wl6lyMCg&feature=related (accessed 22 March 2010).
15 Harley-Davidson Motor Company advertisement “Harley-Davidson Experience. Live by it”, available from YouTube.com,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyocDeGh7Qs (accessed 23 July 2010).

30
Trendafilov
 REFERENCES
Aaker, David. 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press a Division of
Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Aaker, David. & Joachimsthaler, Erich. 2000. Brand Leadership. New York: The Free
Press a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Abadjimarinova, Rumiyana. 2006. Turgovska marka – Brand [Trademark – brand]. Sofia:
Siela.
Alexander, Monty. 1996. The Myth at the Heart of the Brand. Successful Brands Embody
Myths – Now These Can be Analysed, A ESOMAR Congress Paper.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism. London/New York: Verso.
Austin, D. Mark. 2009. Ritual and Boundary Distinction in a Recreational Community: A
Case Study of Motorcycle Rallies and Riders. Qualitative Sociology Review Vol. V (2).
70-93. Lodz University.
http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume13/QSR_5_2_Austin.pdf
(accessed 15 June 2010).
Bankov, Kristian. 2009. Konsumativnoto obshtestvo [Consumer society]. Sofia: LiK.
Batey, Mark. 2008. Brand Meaning. London: Routledge.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1996. Kum kritica na politicheskata ikonomia na znaka [For a critique of
the political economy of the sign]. Sofia: Kritika i Humanism.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique on the Judgment of Taste.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cialdini, Robert. 2005. Vlianieto: Psihologia na ubejdavaneto. [Influence: the psychology
of persuasion]. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad.
Elliott, Richard & Davies, Andrea. 2006. Symbolic Brands and Authenticity of Identity
Performance, Brand Culture, Schroeder, J. E. & Salzer-Mörling, M. (eds.). 138-152.
London: Routledge.
Floch, Jean-Marie. 2001. Semiotics, Marketing and Communication. Wiltshire: Antony
Rowe Ltd.
Fog, Klaus, Budtz, Christian, Munch, Philip & Blanchette, Stephen. 2010. Storytelling.
Branding in Practice (2nd edn), Berlin/Heidelberg/London: Springer.
Haig, Matt. 2004. Brand Royalty. How the World’s Top 100 Brands Thrive & Survive.
London: Kogan Page Ltd.

31
Trendafilov
Hart, Susannah & Murphy, John. 1998. Brands – The New Wealth Creators, London:
MacMillan Press Ltd.
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Kulturi i organizatzii. Softuer na uma [Cultures and organizations,
software of the mind]. Sofia: Klasika i Stil.
Huntington, Samuel. 2005. Koi sme nie? Predizvikatelstvata pred nacionalnata
identichnost na Amerika [Who we are? The challenges to America’s national identity].
Sofia: Obsidian.
Keller, Kevin L. 1998. Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Kornberger, Martin. 2010. Brand Society. How Brands Transform Management and
Lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klein, Naomi. 2000. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. GB: Flamingo.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1995. Structuralna antropologia II. Mitologia i
Kulturnaantropologia [Structural anthropology II. Mythology and culture
anthropology]. Sofia: Hristo Botev.
Lotman, Yuri. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Lotman, Yuri. 1992. Култура и информация [Culture and information]. Sofia: Nauka I
Izkustvo.
Mark, Margaret & Pearson, Carol. 2001. The Hero and the Outlaw: Building
Extraordinary Brands through the Power of Archetypes. New York/London: McGraw-
Hill.
Martin, Bronwen & Ringham, Felizitas. 2000. Dictionary of Semiotics. New York/London:
Cassell.
McDonogh, Gary W., Gregg, Robert & Wong, Cindy H. 2001. Encyclopedia of
Contemporary American Culture. London/New York: Routledge.
Popplestone, John A. 1966. The Horseless Cowboys, Trans-action. Social Science and
Modern Society Vol.3, №4. 25-27. London: Springer.
Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. 2001. The Orator’s Education. Books 6-8. Russel, Donald (ed.
and transl.). Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Rifkin, Jeremy. 2001. Epohata na dostapa: Novata kultura na hiperkapitalizma, v koiato
tzeliat jivot e plateno prejiviavane [The age of access. the new culture of
hypercapitalism where all of life Is a paid-for experience]. Sofia: Atica.

32
Trendafilov
 Roberts, Kevin. 2004. Markite na lubovta [Lovemarks]. Sofia: Focus.
Seguela, Jacques. 2004. Holivud pere nai-dobre [Hollywood washes whiter]. Sofia: Ividim.
Stoeltje, Beverly J. 1985. The Rodeo Clown and the Semiotics of Metaphor, Journal of
Folklore Research Vol.22, №2/3. Folklore and Semiotics. 155 – 177. Indiana
University Press.
Vincent, Laurence. 2002. Legendary Brands. Unleash the Power of Storytelling to Create
a Winning Marketing Strategy. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Volli, Ugo. 2003. Reklama i komunicatzia [Advertising and Communication],
Семиотиката в действие [Semiotics in action. an annual symposium of Southeast-
European Center for Semiotic Studies, NBU]. Bankov, K. (ed.). 55-69. Sofia: New
Bulgarian University.
Zyman, Sergio & Brott, Armin. 2002. The End of Advertising as We Know It. Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

33
Trendafilov

View publication stats