The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.m cbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Corporate branding and
corporate brand performance
Corporate
branding
Fiona Harris
Open University Business School, The Open University,
Milton Keynes, UK, and
441
Leslie de Chernatony
The Birmingham Business School, The University of Birmingham, UK
Keywords Corporate image, Brands, Brand identity, Internal marketing
Abstract Corporate branding necessitates a different management approach. It requires
greater emphasis on factors internal to the organisation, paying greater attention to the role of
employees in the brand building process. This paper explores the implications of corporate
branding for the management of internal brand resources. We describe a model for managing
brands through narrowing the gap between a brand’s identity and its reputation and, building on
this, identify three key factors that affect brand perceptions and brand performance. Finally, we
review some of the mechanisms that may be used to facilitate greater congruence of brand
perceptions within the brand team and communication of a brand’s identity to employees.
Introduction
In an era when the emphasis is moving from line branding to corporate
branding (Balmer, 1995; Mitchell, 1997), there is a need to better appreciate the
management approach for corporate branding as this needs managing
differently from line branding. One of the key differences between line and
corporate branding is that the latter requires greater focus within the
organisation. The size and composition of brand management teams are
changing, requiring greater co-ordination of activities. One of the implications
of this is that corporate marketing necessitates not only a planning perspective
which addresses the matching of external opportunities with core
competencies, but also considers the integration of internal activities to ensure
cohesion and therefore consistency in delivery.
The role of employees is also changing. No longer can they be subsumed
under the category the ``firm’’ (Freeman and Liedtka, 1997); they need to be
recognised as a brand’s ``ambassadors’’ (Hemsley, 1998). Employees constitute
the interface between a brand’s internal and external environments and can
have a powerful impact on consumers’ perceptions of both the brand and the
organisation (Schneider and Bowen, 1985; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991).
Furthermore, with the ubiquity of technology decreasing the potential for
sustained competitive advantage, managers are focusing more on
differentiating their brands on the basis of unique emotional, rather than
functional, characteristics (de Chernatony et al., 2001). A brand’s emotional
values are communicated not just by advertising, but also through employees’
interactions with different stakeholders. Employees represent a source of
customer information and action needs to be taken to ensure this is compatible
European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 3/4, 2001, pp. 441-456.
# MCB University Press, 0309-0566
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
442
with the way senior management wishes the organisation to be perceived
(Kennedy, 1977). Employees are thus becoming central to the process of brand
building and their behaviour can either reinforce a brand’s advertised values
or, if inconsistent with these values, undermine the credibility of advertised
messages. It is therefore crucial to look inside the organisation to consider how
employees’ values and behaviour can be aligned with a brand’s desired values.
A further reason for looking inside the organisation is the shift in the
branding literature from brand image (Boulding, 1956) to brand identity
(Kapferer, 1997). While image focuses on consumers’ perceptions of brand
differentiation, identity is more concerned with how managers and employees
make a brand unique. Managers first need to define a brand’s values and then
ensure employees’ values and behaviour are consistent with them. Historically,
management has provided leadership through defining a brand’s values.
However, with the recognition of corporate branding, and therefore the critical
role staff play, they need to be included in the internal debate about defining a
brand’s values. While management will still be required to initiate the process,
staff should be encouraged to contribute to discussions. Externally, managers
need to examine their brand’s reputation among stakeholders to ensure the
brand’s identity is communicated successfully and valued outcomes are
consistently delivered.
This paper explores the implications of corporate branding for the
management of internal brand resources. A model for managing these
resources is described, which conceptualises the process of brand building as
the management of brand identity, such that the gap between a brand’s identity
and its reputation is narrowed. Building on this, we examine the dynamics of
brand management teams under corporate branding. We identify some of the
factors that may affect the coherent leverage of internal resources and discuss
their managerial implications. Finally, we describe some of the mechanisms
that may be used to surface and harmonise brand perceptions.
The identity-reputation gap model of brand management
Corporate branding requires a holistic approach to brand management, in
which all members of an organisation behave in accordance with the desired
brand identity. Following the International Corporate Identity Group’s
statement on corporate identity (van Riel and Balmer, 1997), corporate identity
is interpreted as an organisation’s ethos, aims and values that create a sense of
individuality which differentiates a brand. Building on Kapferer’s (1997) brandbased view of identity, de Chernatony (1999) proposed a model of brand
management, conceptualised as the process of narrowing the gap between a
brand’s identity and its reputation, as illustrated in Figure 1. Brand identity
consists of six components: vision and culture, which drive the brand’s desired
positioning, personality and subsequent relationships, all of which are then
presented to reflect stakeholders’ actual and aspirational self-images. The
components of the model interact and are mutually reinforcing. The individual
components are described in the following subsections.
Corporate
branding
443
Figure 1.
The identity-reputation
gap model of brand
management
Brand vision and culture
At the centre of brand identity are brand vision and culture. Vision
encompasses the brand’s core purpose ± its reason for being ± and its core
values, which provide a system of guiding principles (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Managers need to communicate their brand’s purpose to employees clearly in
order to inspire them and help them understand how their roles relate to it. It is
also important to convey internally the brand’s core values, because these
guide employees’ behaviour. Each brand will have a unique set of values that
are relevant to its target market, but we argue that it is the consistency of the
perception of those values, as well as the nature of those values, that is an
important characteristic of successful brands.
The organisation’s culture encompasses employees’ values and
assumptions, which also guide their behaviour, particularly in novel situations
(Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). Managers need to be attentive to their organisation’s
culture and its alignment with the brand’s values, since this could result in
inconsistent behaviour and detrimentally affect stakeholders’ perceptions of
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
444
the brand. Corporate culture can represent a source of competitive advantage
(Bettencourt and Brown, 1997), but the culture needs to be appropriate,
adaptive and attentive to the needs of all stakeholders (Kotter and Heskett,
1992). Managers thus need to agree on the few core corporate values that will
remain unchanged, and the less central values that need to adapt to changing
circumstances.
Positioning
The coherence between the brand’s vision and core values and the brand’s
positioning next needs to be examined. A brand’s positioning sets out what the
brand is, who it is for and what it offers (Rositer and Percy, 1996). Following
means-end theory (Gutman, 1982), a set of functionally distinct capabilities that
differentiate a brand should be derived from the brand’s core values. The
brand’s positioning will be affected by artefacts, akin to Kapferer’s (1997)
``physique’’, which provide cues about the brand’s performance characteristics.
Personality
The brand’s emotional characteristics are represented by the metaphor of
personality, which, amongst other sources, evolves from the brand’s core
values. Personality traits are further developed through associations with the
``typical user’’ imagery, endorsers and consumers’ contacts with the company’s
employees (Aaker, 1997). Managers therefore need to ensure that a brand’s
personality is conveyed consistently by both its employees and external
communications. Another influential source for a brand’s personality is its
positioning and an integrated approach to branding can help reinforce the
synergy between these.
Relationships
Having nurtured a brand’s personality, a relationship between the brand and
its consumers evolves, which is characterised by the values inherent in the
brand’s personality. Consistent with Fournier (1998), consumer-brand
relationships are portrayed as being reciprocal in Figure 1. Through their
interactions, employees significantly affect a brand’s relationship with its
consumers. The consistency of these interactions is therefore crucial, since
relationships continually evolve and can be destabilised by changes from either
partner (Fournier and Yao, 1997). Managers need to help employees understand
the types of relationships that are appropriate with other employees,
consumers and other stakeholders, based on the brand’s core values.
Presentation
The final component of brand identity involves the identification of
presentation styles to present the brand’s identity so as to reflect consumers’
aspirations (cf. Kapferer’s (1997) ``reflections’’) and self-images (Belk, 1988;
Hogg and Mitchell, 1996). People respond more favourably to brands and
companies they perceive as being consistent with their self-concepts (Dowling,
1994). Brands’ symbolic meanings also help consumers understand and
express aspects of their selves to others (McCracken, 1993). Both advertising
and employees’ interactions with consumers contribute to the symbolic
meaning of a brand. Thus managers need to be attentive to potential
incongruity between a brand’s desired symbolic meanings and those conveyed
through advertising and employees’ behaviour.
Reputation
Successful management of internal brand resources should result in a
favourable brand reputation. Adapting Fombrun and Rindova’s (1996)
definition of reputation, a brand’s reputation is defined as ``a collective
representation of a brand’s past actions and results that describes the brand’s
ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders’’. In contrast to a
brand’s image, which reflects current, changing perceptions, a brand’s
reputation is more stable and represents the distillation of multiple images over
time (Fombrun and van Riel, 1997). By encompassing the evaluations of all
stakeholders, reputation provides a much more representative indication of
brand performance. van Riel and Balmer (1997) also noted that the objective of
corporate identity management was the establishment of a favourable
reputation among an organisation’s stakeholders. Familiarity with key
stakeholders’ perceptions is central to corporate brand management (Balmer,
1995). de Chernatony’s (1999) model conceptualises the brand building process
as revolving around the identification and narrowing of gaps between a
brand’s identity and its reputation. Managers therefore need to work with staff
to reduce these gaps and eliminate sources of incongruity. Strategies may then
be fine-tuned to achieve a better match between identity and reputation. By
including both internal and external components in the process, the model
provides a balanced approach to brand building.
Perceptual congruity and brand performance
de Chernatony’s (1999) model emphasises the multidimensional nature of the
corporate branding concept, which involves the co-ordination of internal
resources (for example, functional capabilities, communication capabilities, coordinating consistency through staff, planning, pricing, customer service) to
create a coherent brand identity and a favourable brand reputation. Although
brand reputation encompasses the perceptions of all stakeholder groups, to
begin to appreciate the importance of internal brand resources, we focus on two
stakeholder groups: an organisation’s employees and its consumers.
Brands are multidimensional entities, whose success requires matching a
firm’s functional and emotional values with consumers’ performance and
psychosocial needs (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998). Corporate
branding thus relies heavily on an organisation’s members holding congruent
perceptions about the nature of their brand. However, with corporate branding,
the teams responsible for managing brands are becoming larger and the
composition of their members more diverse. We define a brand management
Corporate
branding
445
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
446
team as comprising those people responsible for designing and developing the
brand strategy. This could include both internal staff (marketing, customer
service, corporate affairs, etc.) and those in external agencies working on the
brand. The potential for misperceptions of a brand internally, as well as
externally, is therefore substantial.
Perception depends on a person’s expectations and previous knowledge as
well as the information presented by the stimulus, in this case the brand
(Eysenck and Keane, 1990). People at different seniority levels and from
different departments tend to have differing information and decision criteria
(Tjosvold, 1987). Thus managers and employees are likely to differ in their
perceptions of their brand’s identity. Indeed, research has shown that
managers’ perceptions may differ from each other (de Chernatony et al., 1993;
Reger, 1990). Furthermore, differences in managers’ functional backgrounds
can result in selective perception and imperception (Beyer et al., 1997).
Managers’ perceptions have also been found to differ from those of sales staff
(DelVecchio, 1998). Congruent perceptions will therefore be crucial in the
successful management of corporate brands. Specifically, we propose:
P1: There is a positive correlation between brand performance and the
congruence of the brand team members’ perceptions about the nature of
their brand.
P2: There is a positive correlation between brand performance and the
congruence between the brand team’s and consumers’ perceptions
about the nature of their brand.
P3: There is a positive correlation between brand performance and the
congruence between the brand team’s and employees’ perceptions about
the nature of their brand.
Corporate branding involves multiple stakeholders interacting with numerous
staff across many departments in an organisation (Mitchell, 1997). Effective
corporate branding requires consistent messages about a brand’s identity and
uniform delivery across all stakeholder groups to create a favourable brand
reputation. Internal consistency and congruency are vital to the successful
external communication of corporate identity (Abratt, 1989). It is therefore
important that managers identify mechanisms for surfacing diverse
perceptions to resolve inconsistencies. Members of the brand team first need to
surface their own perceptions and clarify their brand’s intended identity. They
should then work with employees to ensure their perceptions align with the
intended brand identity. As a further coherency check, employees should be
encouraged to provide feedback about how they believe consumers perceive the
brand.
To build a coherent brand identity, managers need to understand the factors
that can affect the congruency of perceptions. This will help them identify
potential problems and put in place appropriate mechanisms to minimise
incongruity. We consider next the factors we believe affect the congruency of
perceptions within an organisation and how these influence brand
performance.
Building the corporate brand through internal mechanisms
A review of the literature (e.g. Tajfel and Fraser, 1978; Wagner et al., 1984; Murray,
1989; Smith et al., 1994) suggested three key factors affect perceptual congruity: the
similarity of brand team members, shared values and communication. Figure 2
shows how we believe these factors affect the congruency of perceptions and brand
performance. The strength of this model is that it examines the effects of various
intervening variables on performance. For example, Carroll and Harrison (1998)
could find only three studies that had examined intervening variables between
organisational demography and performance.
In the following subsections we explore the impact of these internal factors
and examine the managerial implications of each.
Corporate
branding
447
Similarity of brand team members
As previously noted, brand teams are larger with corporate branding and more
diverse in their membership. The resulting heterogeneity poses a challenge to
the formation of congruent perceptions, which are crucial for effective leverage
of brand resources and, consequently, brand performance. The literature on
team composition typically defines similarity in terms of age, experience,
education, team and organisations tenure, and functional background (e.g.
Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Smith et al., 1994).
Teams composed of members with dissimilar characteristics are likely to differ
with respect to values (Bantel and Jackson, 1989) and exhibit greater conflict
(Murray, 1989). Heterogeneous teams also tend to be associated with poorer
communication, team integration and consensus building (Lichtenstein et al.,
1997).
By contrast, team members with similar characteristics are more likely to
have similar experiences and perspectives (Robbins, 1991), shared values
(Bantel and Jackson, 1989) and communicate easily (Wagner et al., 1984). For
Figure 2.
The relationships
between internal brand
resources and brand
performance
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
448
example, people who join an organisation at the same time are more likely to
share common experiences and have similar job values and orientations
(Lichtenstein et al., 1997). The sharing of common values results in better
consensus (Erez, 1992). Thus we postulate:
P4: The greater the similarity of brand team members, the more congruent
will be their perceptions about the nature of their brand.
However, the growing team heterogeneity with corporate branding does have
some benefits. Heterogeneous teams offer a wider range of skills and
knowledge and are less susceptible to the limitations of ``groupthink’’ (Janis,
1972). Bantel and Jackson (1989) concluded that heterogeneity was beneficial
for tasks that involved complex problem solving and that heterogeneous teams
were more innovative. In addition, Murray (1989) suggested that heterogeneous
groups would be responsive to change. Although heterogeneous teams are
prone to conflict, Priem et al. (1995) argued that cognitive conflict that was
expressed and resolved would produce stronger consensus than the premature
consensus of teams that attempted to smooth over latent disagreement. The
key issue is thus whether heterogeneous brand teams can arrive at congruent
brand perceptions.
Over time, teams tend towards increasingly similar perceptions. As team
members work together the effects of surface-level (demographic) diversity
decrease (Harrison et al., 1998). In addition, conflict is reduced and group
cohesiveness grows as people interact and come to know each other better
(Robbins, 1991). Difficulties in communication should also recede over time, as
communication becomes easier between people used to working with each
other (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). Turnover is also higher among more
dissimilar team members (Wagner et al., 1984). Hence we postulate:
P5: The longer the team tenure of heterogeneous brand teams, the more
congruent will be their perceptions about the nature of their brand.
However, rather than leaving these tendencies to take effect over time,
constructive action should be taken to harness the strengths of heterogeneous
teams while minimising the potential barriers to coherent management of a
brand’s identity. This is particularly important given that marketers tend to
change jobs frequently (Beyaztas, 1998). We recommend that mechanisms be
put in place to facilitate the surfacing and resolving of incongruent brand
perceptions among brand team members. Such mechanisms are discussed in
the section ± Mechanisms for surfacing and harmonising perceptions.
Shared values
People who share similar values tend to perceive things in similar ways
(Meglino and Ravlin, 1998). Deal and Kennedy (1982) argued that successful
organisations placed great emphasis on making their values explicit and
ensuring they were known and shared by employees. Top management’s
values shape the perceptions and interpretations of an organisation (Hambrick
and Mason, 1984; GuilleÂn, 1994). Shared organisational values also provide
employees with guidance about desired behaviour (McDonald and Gantz,
1991). It is thus important with corporate branding that the brand’s and the
organisation’s values are consistent. Shared values will play an important part
in facilitating congruent brand perceptions and coherent actions both within
the brand team and across the organisation. They are also instrumental in
communicating the organisation to the outside world (Deal and Kennedy, 1982).
We therefore posit:
P6: There is better brand performance as the congruence increases between
the values of the organisation and the values of the brand.
Organisational performance is a function of its members’ degree of
involvement and participation (Brown, 1995). With corporate branding,
organisational and brand performance are closely entwined. Erez (1992)
reported that the sharing of common values resulted in greater consensus and
commitment to those values. Thus we posit:
P7: There is better brand performance as the congruence increases between
the personal values of members of the brand team and the values of the
organisation.
P8: There is better brand performance as the congruence increases between
the personal values of employees and the values of the organisation.
In addition to organisational values, personal values also guide individuals’
behaviour (Rokeach, 1973; Melgino and Ravlin, 1998). Thus we expect the
greater the congruence between team members’ and employee’s personal
values and those of the brand, the more likely that managers and employees
will act in accordance with the corporate brand’s values, and the more coherent
will be the brand’s identity. We therefore propose:
P9: There is better brand performance as the congruence increases between
the values of the brand and the personal values of the brand team.
P10: There is better brand performance as the congruence increases between
the values of the brand and the personal values of employees.
However, it is possible that an organisation’s shared values may be
inappropriate for its continuing success (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Visionary
companies nurture their core values and adapt to changing circumstances
without compromising them (Collins and Porras, 1996). Kotter and Heskett
(1992) proposed that values which helped organisations adapt were associated
with sustained excellent performance. Managers thus need to agree which are
their core values that need to be sustained and which values should adapt as
circumstances change (de Chernatony, 1999). Thus we postulate:
P11: Strong shared organisational values that are appropriate and adaptive
will be positively associated with superior brand performance.
Corporate
branding
449
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
Communication
Dubrin (1994, p. 336) defined communication as:
450
Communication plays an important role in the formation of congruent
perceptions (Gilly and Woolfinbarger, 1998; Bowman and Ambrosini, 1996).
Furthermore, Balmer (1995) suggested that an unfavourable image could result
from the mismanagement of communication. We argue that communication
will fulfil a vital role in surfacing perceptions, and that effective communication
will enable incongruent perceptions to be identified and resolved. To
understand how communication will affect the congruence of perceptions
among members of the brand team and between the brand team and
employees, we examine communication at both the team and organisational
levels. In the following subsections communication encompasses all
communication among managers and staff in the course of their work
activities. This includes both general communication and communication
specifically relating to the corporate brand. Our justification for focusing on
communication as a whole is that the literature suggests that this affects
perceptual congruency (e.g. Wagner et al., 1984; DelVecchio, 1998). However, as
part of our current empirical research, we are, in addition, exploring the nature
and effectiveness of specific communications about the corporate brand.
Communication at the team level. Communication is easier in teams whose
members are similar to each other (Wagner et al., 1984; Harrison et al., 1998) or
are used to working together (Zenger and Lawrence, 1989). More importantly,
the interpretation of communication is better between more similar individuals
(Robbins, 1991). Thus homogeneous brand teams are also expected to have
more congruent perceptions because they are less likely to misunderstand each
other.
Although communication within heterogeneous teams is typically more
difficult (Lichtenstein et al., 1997; Zenger and Lawrence, 1989), improving their
communication will enable these teams to take advantage of the rich resources
represented by their diversity. For example, greater frequency of
communication is likely to increase the similarity of their perceptions (Wagner
et al., 1984). The more frequently team members communicate with each other,
the more opportunities they will have to surface their perceptions regarding
their brand’s identity and appreciate other members’ perceptions. Furthermore,
when conflicts are resolved co-operatively, through individuals working out the
differences between themselves, more information is considered and
integrative solutions are likely to result rather than compromises (Maier, 1967).
Team members are also more likely to have favourable attitudes toward the
outcome (Ruekert and Walker (1987). We therefore propose:
P12: The greater the similarities between members of the brand team, the
more informal and frequent the communication between them.
The sending, receiving and understanding of messages. It is also the basic process by which
managers and professionals accomplish their work. The purpose of communication is to
gather, process and disseminate information.
P13: The more frequent the communication between members of the brand
team, the greater the congruence between their perceptions about the
nature of their brand.
P14: The more stable the membership of the brand management team, the
more informal and frequent the communication between team
members.
Communication at the organisational level. When all members of an
organisation understand their brand’s identity they are better able to act in a
more coherent manner, enhancing the likelihood of their activities supporting
the desired identity. Maier (1967) maintained that many organisational
problems could be attributed to inadequate communication between superiors
and their subordinates, whose task it was to implement their decisions.
Communication between the brand team and employees will be crucial to their
perceptual congruity. DelVecchio (1998) reported that greater interaction
between managers and sales staff reduced their perceptual differences. We
therefore propose:
P15: The more frequent the communication between the brand team and
employees, the more congruent will be their perceptions about the
nature of their brand.
The nature, as well as the frequency, of communication is also expected to
affect the congruence between the brand team’s and employees’ perceptions.
Fisher et al. (1997) reported that the bidirectionality of communication was as
important as communication frequency in producing positive interfunctional
outcomes. Gilly and Woolfinbarger (1998) suggested that the congruence of
perceptions about an organisation’s advertisements was enhanced by two-way
communication between management and employees. Two-way
communication provides the opportunity to assess how accurately the
communication has been understood (Robbins, 1991). Therefore we propose:
P16: The greater the two-way communication between the brand team and
employees, the more congruent will be their perceptions of their brand.
The brand team needs to ensure that all forms of brand communications
present a coherent brand identity. Employees’ perceptions of their brand will be
based not only on what the brand team tells them, but also on their own
experience with the brand and brand advertisements. Gilly and Woolfinbarger
(1998) noted that consumer advertising was an important means of
communicating with employees and that consumer advertisements affected the
way they perceived their service roles. Employees were more accepting of
advertisements when decision makers communicated with them about the
advertisements. Hence, the brand team should explain to employees not only
the brand’s identity, but also how other forms of brand communication are
intended to reflect that identity. Leaving such brand communications open to
Corporate
branding
451
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
452
interpretation is likely to increase incongruous brand perceptions among
employees. Hence we propose:
P17: Explaining to employees how consumer advertisements are designed
to communicate the corporate brand identity will increase the
congruence between the brand team’s and employees’ perceptions
about the nature of the brand.
Mechanisms for surfacing and harmonising perceptions
We now discuss mechanisms that can be used to help brand teams and
employees surface and harmonise their perceptions and develop congruent
brand perceptions.
One approach is to use an independent facilitator (de Chernatony and
Daniels, 1994). The facilitator collates team members’ anonymous, individual
brand perceptions and then leads a workshop in which the range of perceptions
are discussed and a consensus reached regarding each of the brand identity
components. This approach allows diverse views to be debated openly, with
the facilitator ensuring they are each given due consideration. The facilitator,
as an impartial co-ordinator, reduces the potential for conflict and prevents
domination of any team members. Heterogeneous teams should find this
approach particularly beneficial.
Two techniques used in strategic decision making to assist the expression
and resolution of perceptions are dialectical inquiry (DI) and devil’s advocacy
(DA) (Schweiger et al., 1986). DI involves inducing maximal conflict by
requiring a team to debate two opposing views. DA induces conflict through
the consideration and critique of one view. These techniques may be used by
heterogeneous brand teams to legitimise and manage conflicting views about
the nature of the brand. They should thus maximise the benefits of team
diversity and result in greater consensus by allowing conflicting perceptions to
be expressed and resolved (cf. Priem et al., 1995). By forcing wider debate, these
techniques may also be used by homogeneous brand teams to counteract the
possibility of groupthink (Janis, 1972).
A powerful device for creating a coherent focus among large numbers of
individuals engaged in the development of a common concept was described by
Dumas (1994) in relation to design. Dumas (1994) advocated the use of objectbased metaphors called ``totems’’ to build shared mental models. Totems may
consist of visual photographs or images and a set of words, and provide a
gestalt that makes explicit the collective tacit knowledge of a team of
individuals from a range of functional backgrounds. Examples include ``tall
boy’’ as a metaphor for the Honda ``City’’ (Clark and Fujimoto, 1990) and ``rugby
player in a business suit’’ for the Honda ``Accord’’ (Nonaka, 1991). Although
Dumas (1994) described the use of totems by design teams developing new
products, the process may be used by brand teams as a simplifying and
unifying device to reflect de Chernatony’s (1999) six brand identity
components. The brand team could then use a totem to help communicate a
brand’s identity to employees and guide their behaviour accordingly.
To gain employees’ commitment to a brand’s identity it is important to
establish staff communication programmes. Internal organisational
communication is crucial for providing and obtaining information, achieving
understanding and gaining employees’ commitment (Gilly and Woolfinbarger,
1998). Employees need to know what is expected of them and how they can
contribute to the brand’s identity through their behaviour. For example, BUPA,
Railtrack and Great North Eastern Railway have all introduced internal
programmes to inform employees about their brand values and involve them in
acting as ``ambassadors’’ for their brands (Mistry, 1998; Hemsley, 1998; Wilson,
1998). Involvement facilitates understanding and consensus (Maier, 1967;
Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990). It is therefore important that employees are
actively involved in the process of building a brand’s identity.
Concluding remarks
Corporate branding requires increased emphasis on internal brand resources to
present a coherent brand identity to stakeholders. de Chernatony’s (1999)
identity-reputation gap model of brand management conceptualises brand
building as the process of narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand
reputation. Building on this, we have identified key internal factors that we
propose affect the leverage of brand resources to enhance brand performance.
Employees play a crucial role in the brand building process and managers can
further lever their brand potential by striving to achieve greater congruence
among members of the brand team and between the team and other employees.
It is therefore crucial that corporate marketers adopt a planning perspective
which incorporates both internal, pan-company marketing as well as the
traditional, external perspective to ensure that there is synergy between
employees’ actions, resulting in optimising consumers’ satisfaction.
Organisations also need to pay attention to the composition of their brand
teams and be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. The increasing
heterogeneity of brand teams under corporate branding should enhance the
resources of the brand team, but will require greater emphasis on integration to
arrive at congruent brand perceptions. Organisations will need to consider
carefully the appointment of new members to the brand team, taking into
account the team’s composition and whether new and existing members will be
able to work together. We have reviewed some of the mechanisms that may be
used to assist the brand team in surfacing their perceptions and resolving any
inconsistencies. Such mechanisms can help in the creation of a coherent brand
identity. Organisations should then consider initiating internal programmes to
communicate the brand’s identity to employees.
We have recently embarked on empirical research to test our model of brand
identity and the internal factors we believe influence brand perceptions and
performance. Our findings will be reported in future publications.
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997), ``Dimensions of brand personality’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,
August, pp. 347-56.
Corporate
branding
453
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
454
Abratt, R. (1989), ``A new approach to the corporate image management process’’, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), ``Corporate branding and connoisseurship’’, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), ``Building societies: change, strategy and corporate
identity’’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.
Bantel, K.A. and Jackson, S.E. (1989), ``Top management and innovations in banking: does the
composition of the top team make a difference?’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10,
pp. 107-24.
Belk, R.W. (1988), ``Possessions and the extended self’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
September, pp. 139-68.
Bettencourt, L.A. and Brown, S.W. (1997), ``Contact employees: relationships among workplace
fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial behaviours’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 39-61.
Beyaztas, B. (1998), ``Why marketers keep on moving’’, Marketing, 24 September, p. 95.
Beyer, J.M., Chadttopadhyay, P., George, E., Glick, W.H. and Pugliese, D. (1997), ``The selective
perception of managers revisited’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 716-37.
Boulding, K.E. (1956), The Image, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (1996), ``Tracking patterns of realised strategy’’, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 59-73.
Brown, A. (1995), Organisational Culture, Pitman Publishing, London.
Carroll, G.R. and Harrison, J.R. (1998), ``Organizational demography and culture: insights from a
formal model and simulation’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 637-67.
Clark, K.B. and Fujimoto, T. (1990), ``The power of product integrity’’, Harvard Business Review,
November-December,pp. 107-18.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1996), Built to Last. Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,
HarperCollins, London.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures. The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), ``Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation’’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 157-79.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), ``Defining a `brand’: beyond the literature with
experts’ interpretations’’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 417-43.
de Chernatony, L. and Daniels, K. (1994), ``Developing a more effective brand positioning’’, The
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 373-9.
de Chernatony, L., Daniels, K. and Johnson, G. (1993), ``Competitive positioning strategies
mirroring sellers’ and buyers’ perceptions’’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 229-48.
de Chernatony, L. Harris, F. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2001), ``Added value: its nature, roles and
sustainability’’, European Journal of Marketing (in press).
DelVecchio, S.K. (1998), ``The salesperson’s operating freedom. A matter of perception’’,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 31-40.
Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputations, Kogan Page, London.
Dubrin, A.J. (1994), Applying Psychology: Individual and Organizational Effectiveness, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dumas, A. (1994), ``Building totems: metaphor-making in product development’’, Design
Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Erez, M. (1992), ``Interpersonal communication systems in organisations, and their relationships
to cultural values, productivity and innovation: the case of Japanese corporations’’, Applied
Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Eysenck, M.W. and Keane, M.T. (1990), Cognitive Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hove, East Sussex.
Fisher, R.J., Maltz, E. and Jaworski, B.J. (1997), ``Enhancing communication between marketing
and engineering: the moderating role of relative functional identification’’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61, July, pp. 54-70.
Fombrun, C. and Rindova, V. (1996), ``Who’s tops and who decides? The social construction of
corporate reputations’’, working paper, Stern Business School, New York University, NY.
Fombrun, C. and van Riel, C. (1997), ``The reputational landscape’’, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 1 No. 1/2, pp. 5-13.
Fournier, S. (1998), ``Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, March, pp. 343-73.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J.L. (1997), ``Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the
framework of consumer-brand relationships’’, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 451-72.
Freeman, E. and Liedtka, J. (1997), ``Stakeholder capitalism and the value chain’’, European
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 286-96.
Gilly, M.C. and Wolfinbarger, M. (1998), ``Advertising’s internal audience’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62, January, pp. 69-88.
GuilleÂn, M.F. (1994), ``The age of eclecticism: current organizational trends and the evolution of
managerial models’’, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 75-86.
Gutman, J. (1982), ``A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Spring, pp. 60-72.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), ``Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its
top managers’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, pp. 193-206.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), ``Beyond relational demography: time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion’’, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Hemsley, S. (1998), ``Internal affairs’’, Marketing Week, April 2, pp. 49-50, 53.
Hogg, M.K. and Mitchell, P.C.N. (1996), ``Identity, self and consumption: a conceptual
framework’’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 629-44.
Janis, I. (1972), Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and
Fiascos, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management. Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long
Term, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Kennedy, S.H. (1977), ``Nurturing corporate images: total communication or ego trip?’’, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 120-64.
Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New
York, NY.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J.A., Jinnet, K. and Ullman, E. (1997), ``Embedded intergroup
relations in interdisciplinary teams. Effects on perceptions of team integration’’, The
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 413-34.
McCracken, G. (1993), ``The value of the brand: an anthropological perspective’’, in Aaker, D.A.
and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
McDonald, P. and Gandz, J. (1991), ``Identification of values relevant to business research’’,
Human Resource Management, Summer, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 217-36.
Maier, N.R.F. (1967), ``Assets and liabilities in group problem solving’’, Psychological Review,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 239-49.
Corporate
branding
455
European
Journal of
Marketing
35,3/4
456
Meglino, B.M. and Ravlin, E.C. (1998), ``Individual values in organizations: concepts,
controversies, and research’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 351-89.
Mistry, B. (1998), ``Life and soul of the brand’’, Marketing, March 26, pp. 47-9.
Mitchell, A. (1997), Brand Strategies in the Information Age, Financial Times Report, London.
Murray, A.I. (1989), ``Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 125-41.
Nonaka, I. (1991), ``The knowledge-creating company’’, Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember, pp. 96-104.
Priem, R.L., Harrison, D.A. and Muir, N.K. (1995), ``Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in
group decision making’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 691-710.
Reger, R.K. (1990), ``Managerial through structures and competitive positioning’’, in Huff, A.S.
(Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Robbins, S.P. (1991), Organizational Behaviour. Concepts, Controversies, and Applications,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rositer, J. and Percy, L. (1996), Advertising Communications and Promotion Management,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ruekert, R.W. and Walker, O.C. Jr (1987), ``Marketing’s interaction with other functional units: a
conceptual framework and empirical evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, January, pp. 1-19.
Schneider, B. and Bowen, D. (1985), ``Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks:
replication and extension’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 423-33.
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Ragan, J.W. (1986), ``Group approaches for improving
strategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy,
and consensus’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P. Jr, O’Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994), ``Top
management team demography: the role of social integration and communication’’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 412-38.
Tajfel, H. and Fraser, C. (1978), Introducing Social Psychology. An Analysis of Individual Reaction
and Response, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Tjosvold, D. (1987), ``Participation: a close look at its dynamics’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 739-50.
van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), ``Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and
management’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5/6, pp. 340-55.
Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1984), ``Organisational demography and turnover in
top-management groups’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 74-92.
Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983), ``Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between
culture and organizational performance’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28,
pp. 468-81.
Wilson, R. (1998), ``Action stations’’, Marketing Week, February 16, pp. 78-9.
Wooldridge, B. and Floyd, S.W. (1990), ``The strategy process, middle management involvement
and organizational performance’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 231-41.
Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), ``Organizational demography: the differential effects of
age and tenure distributions on technical communication’’, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 353-76.