Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name? Leslie de Chernatony Professor of Brand Marketing Birmingham University Business School The University of Birmingham Winterbourne 58 Edgbaston Park Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2RT Tel Int Code + 44 121 414 2299 Fax Int Code + 44 121 414 7791 Email: [email protected]

August 2001



Professor L. de Chernatony, 2001

Abstract There is growing interest in the topic of corporate brands, with confusion about what this means. This paper argues that the brand concept is context independent, thus the concept of the corporate brand is the same as the concept of the product or services brand. However, it is the enactment of brands that is different. The brand triangle si proposed as a device to facilitate understanding about a corporate brand’s characteristics. A model is advanced showing how a corporate brand can be enacted. Tension can arise in corporate brands from misaligned values and based on this model, methods are described to surface values at four parts of the corporate branding process. Insights about these four sources of values enables managers to assess any values misalignment and thus reduce corporate brand tension.

Introduction “Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem, in my opinion, to characterise our age” Albert Einstein Alas, in the twenty first century, this contention still holds true, particularly about brands.

As a consequence of brands being intangible assets, senior executives have

diverse interpretations of their brand (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1998), emphasising different objectives then using finely developed strategies to achieve their diverse goals. For example, the Marketing Director typically stresses the brand objective of owning and sustaining an attractive positioning, the Finance Director strives to satisfy the goal of increasing the share price from the brand’s inherent goodwill, while the HRM Director aims for a strong culture, using the brand as a form of cultural glue. Just when there has been greater clarity and convergence about the meaning of “brand”, brought about by a proliferation of branding textbooks (e.g.

1

Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; Pringle and Gordon, 2001; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Jones 1999; Keller, 1998; de Chernatony and McDonald, 1998; Kapferer, 1997), so some authors have started to draw sophisticated distinctions between product brands and corporate brands (e.g. Balmer, 2001; Willmott 2001). This paper starts from the contention that a brand is a brand regardless of its context, it is the enactment of the brand that is different between corporate brands and product brands.

There has been a move to corporate branding, since, amongst other reasons, organisations recognise that their staff are the embodiment of the brand, providing a point of welcomed difference not just through what the customer receives (functional values) but also how they receive it (emotional values).

This has led to growing

interest in how a sustainable competitive advantage for the corporate brand can be achieved through a unique organisational culture, reflecting the aligned values of employees (Pringle and Thompson 2001).

The new focus is no longer just on

defining an externally-centred promise, but also considers whether and how staff can be orchestrated to be genuinely committed to delivering the promise (Barrett 1998).

The increased interest in corporate brands brings with it the challenge of co-ordinating all the value-adding activities to deliver integrated brands.

Staff are being recruited

not just based on their intellect and functional knowledge but also because of the extent to which their values align with the brand (Kunde 2000). There is increasing realisation of the waste generated spending large sums promoting brand promise which staff are not committed to delivering and by recruiting staff whose values align with the brand, this problem should be minimised.

2

In view of the growing interest in corporate brands (Mitchell, 2001; Macrae, 1999) and the uncertainty amongst managers about how best to manage them (Ind 1998a) this paper seeks to clarify the concept of a brand within a corporate context and proposes a model for coherently enacting corporate brands.

The paper opens by

explaining why the concept of a corporate brand is the same as other brands and introduces the brand triangle as a device to understand a particular corporate brand’s characteristics. As a result of some of the unique enactment challenges of corporate brands, a model for coherently managing a corporate brand is proposed. Since there are four (potentially conflicting) sources of tension when enacting a corporate brand, it then explores how the values can be surfaced at these sources, since it is argued that by then testing the coherence of values, tension can be reduced through striving for brand alignment.

The concept of “brand” A brand is an intangible asset, and because of its etheral characteristics different people find different ways to make sense of it (de Chernatony, 1999). This problem is not unique to brands and has been documented through the use of diverse metaphors in corporate identity (Cornelissen and Harris, 2001). In product markets this results in managers emphasising the brand’s functional form, for example the nature of the car, rather than the gestalt Mercedes car (Hallawell, 1999).

In the corporate context

managers elevate the importance of the corporation’s name (Siegel 1994; Balmer 1998), rather than emphasising the coherently interacting components of vision, culture and competencies resulting in unique brand experiences. What appears to be happening is that managers are confusing the concept of brand with the enactment of the brand.

To appreciate this important distinction, the brand concept and then the

enactment of the brand will be considered.

3

Through an extensive analysis of the literature on brands, then interviews with leading edge brand consultants (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1999), a brand can be defined as a cluster of functional and emotional values which promises stakeholders a particular experience.

This definition is universally applicable across different

contexts within which offerings (e.g. corporations, cities, politicians, products, services, etc.) are branded since brands are characterised by perceptual associations leading to stakeholders’ views about the trustworthiness of the provider delivering their promise (Ambler and Barrow 1996).

One way of visually communicating the

characteristics of a brand, to make everyone aware of the promise they are to deliver, is through the brand triangle, as shown in figure 1.

Insert Figure 1 here

The basis for the brand triangle is grounded in means-end theory (Gutman 1982). In brief, this states that the attributes defining a brand (the “means”) have consequences for the person and these reinforce the individual’s values (the “ends”). By then using the laddering technique (Reynolds and Gutman 1988) managers can develop their brand, and using the technique amongst stakeholders, the extent to which there are similar perceptions between managers and stakeholders can be assessed.

The

usefulness of this theory can be appreciated from the example of the Co-operative Bank.

With little perceived differentiation between UK retail banks, the Co-operative Bank, with its corporate heritage of societal well being, strengthened its corporate armour with the attribute of only investing in companies and countries that adhered to ethical

4

principles.

This attribute is linked to the rational functional value of being

responsible, which in turn is linked to the emotional value of caring.

In the brand

development process, a low number of other differentiating attributes could be identified and through laddering, linkages to functional and emotional values were defined.

By considering the two or three ladders constituting the brand triangle,

managers formulate the brand promise.

In the case of the Co-operative Bank this

relates to enabling customers to take greater control of their money to use for the good of themselves and others (Co-operative Bank 2000).

The brand triangle seeks to synthesis the low number of key values since everyone has limited cognitive processing capabilities for information (Miller 1956; Buschke 1976). A further justification for a low number of ladders is that stakeholders assess and choose between competing brands based on a low number of characteristics (Jacoby, Szybillo and Busato-Schach 1977; Kiser and Rao 1977). It should also be recognised that one of the aims of articulating the brand through the brand triangle is to help all employees understand their brand’s promise so they appreciate the types of behaviour which reinforce the brand’s promise.

Through managers deliberately

specifying a few unique brand values with a short promise, the scope for misinterpretation and forgetting is reduced.

The brand triangle is suitable for brands in different contexts. For example, in the not for profit sector UNICEF link their corporate brand’s functional values (e.g. respecting children’s rights) with emotional values (e.g. integrity) to arrive at the brand’s promise of working worldwide so that every child can reach their full potential (Ind 2001). Pringle and Gordon (2001) show how in the services sector the corporate brand promise of Tesco (creating better value for customers) resulted from a

5

blending of functional values (e.g. innovating) with emotional values (e.g. caring for staff).

In the product line sector, Bates Dorland once characterised Heinz foods

corporate promise of being reassuringly simple through amalgamating a few meansend ladders (de Chernatony 2001).

The appropriateness of the brand triangle across diverse contexts adds weight to the notion of the invariance of the brand concept, particularly since the brand triangle is the articulation of the brand.

However, the enactment of the brand concept is

different between the classical product line and corporate context, as will next be addressed.

Brand enactment In the classical product line branding context, the enactment of the brand concentrates predominantly on externally focused activities which engender consumer satisfaction. Evidence of this can be seen in particularly thorough documentations of externally driven strategies from Hart and Murphy (1998), Keller (1998), Jones (1999) and Davis (2000).

By contrast the enactment of the corporate brand follows a different

process which is attentive to the needs of stakeholders rather than just consumers (Olins, 2000).

Consumers have relatively few points of contacts with the infrastructure supporting classical product line brands, yet stakeholders have numerous points of contact with corporate brands. To ensure consistency of the brand experience across stakeholders IT systems can help, but their applicability is restricted. Writers (e.g. Heskett 1994; Free 1999) argue against the wholesale replacement of staff by technology.

Instead

by enabling staff to understand their brand’s values, they better appreciate their roles,

6

have increased commitment to delivering the brand promise (Heskett 1987) and there is a greater likelihood of higher brand performance (Kotter and Heskett 1992). Thus while in the classical product brand arena, a mechanistic command and control approach is prevalent (Mitchell 2001), a more humanistic approach is necessary in corporate branding, placing greater emphasis on internal communications (Cleaver 1999) so staff fully appreciate their brand’s promise and how the brand’s values should guide their behaviour.

In the case of the classical product brands, their unique values result from sophisticated consumer research involving qualitative research and gap analysis (Gordon 1999; Franzen and Bouwman 2001). By contrast, corporate brands look to their heritage, their culture and senior leadership as guiding sources for their values. With the limited contact consumers have with staff working on classical product line brands, and the greater reliance product line brands place on mechanised production systems, unique brand values are imposed on staff.

However for organisations

following a corporate branding strategy, if senior management were to dictate their corporate brand values to their staff, this would not only constrict growth, but would create internal tension as a result of the varying degrees of values misalignment (Brown 1995).

Successful corporate brands are characterised by participative

approaches whereby senior management provide guidance about their corporate brand’s values, but find mechanisms to engage staff in debates about their values to encourage a mediated, consensus view (Ind 2001; Jones 2000).

Other differences between the enactment of classical product brand strategies and corporate brand strategies have been discussed by writers and interested readers should consult Balmer (2001), Duncan and Moriarty (1997), Willmott (2001) and

7

Keller (1998). Of more importance is how the enactment of a corporate brand can be successfully managed, as will next be considered.

A synthesis of the literature and managerial interviews (de Chernatony and SegalHorn 2001) suggests that corporate brands can be managed using the model in figure 2.

This model builds on Balmer’s (2001a) contention that a successful corporate

brand necessitates senior management distilling then communicating the corporation’s identity and the starting point of the model draws on several of the key

Insert Figure 2 here

elements of corporate identity (Balmer 1998; Ind 2001; Blackett and Boad 1999). The four interacting elements, vision, culture, objectives and brandsphere influence the character of the corporate brand concept (cf Balmer’s (2001) branding proposition) which is enacted, amongst other ways, through the behaviour of staff and the supporting systems.

The blending of these two elements should result in the

matching between the claimed and delivered brand promise, and through monitoring any gaps (cf Zeithaml and Bitner 1996), the starting elements of the model can be revisited and revisions considered.

The corporate brand’s vision consists of three components, i.e. the future environment the brand wishes to bring about, its purpose and its values, as shown in figure 3. Having an ambitious view about a desired future challenges staff to continually reinvent markets (Hamel and Prahalad 1994) and gives a clear message to all stakeholders about the corporate brand not drifting and stagnating.

The corporate

brand’s purpose goes beyond just increasing shareholder wealth and answers the

8

question “how is the world going to be a better place as a consequence of the corporate brand and will this inspire and guide staff?”

(Collins and Porras 1995).

Influencing the purpose of any corporate brand are the values of senior management and staff.

Unless their values genuinely align with the espoused corporate brand

values, staff will not be as passionate as other stakeholders expect.

Attempting to

stimulate commitment through rewards and systems will result in superficial compliance (Schultz, Hatch and Larsen 2000).

Insert Figure 3 here

Interacting with the vision is an organisational culture, which if reinforcing and relevant, should enhance consistency of brand supporting behaviour, build trust and encourage higher levels of brand performance (Kotter and Heskett 1992). One way of assessing whether there is tension between the corporate brand’s vision and its culture is to characterise the culture using the three level model of Schein (1984), i.e. visible artefacts, values and basic assumptions.

Contrasting these three elements against the

components of the vision provides insights about the extent to which the culture supports or constricts the culture.

An identity gives an indication of where the corporate brand wants to go (Olins 1995) and thus this is made explicit as a factor influencing the corporate brand concept. However, environmental factors constrain the potential progress of corporate brands. As shown in figure 4, the brandsphere is a model which enables managers to assess where their corporate brand could travel (de Chernatony 2001).

It encourages

managers to consider how favourable, or unfavourable are the five environmental

9

forces of the corporation, distributors, customers, competitors and the macroenvironment.

Insert Figure 4 here

Through addressing these four influencing factors, the senior management team are better equipped to define their corporate brand. This informed perspective helps focus managerial attention on the few functional and emotional values that could underpin a welcomed, unique and sustainable promise, as discussed earlier in the paper. Enacting the brand promise, through committed and motivated staff, backed by systems that help deliver the benefits of a few competencies is one of the major challenges for corporate brands.

As such these two elements are highlighted in the

model, rather than focusing on the tactical elements of the corporate brand which are covered by writers such as Keller (1998) and Balmer (2001).

Pan-company

activities

should

engender

stakeholder

satisfaction

and

through

regularly monitoring this, information is available to stimulate debate about the suitability of branding assumptions.

With this knowledge changes can be

implemented to better meet stakeholders’ needs.

Striving for a coherent corporate brand From the low number of constituent elements in the model in figure 2, it is apparent that there are numerous possibilities for tension to arise due to incogruences between those elements.

For example, if senior management did not involve staff in the

visioning process employees they may find it hard to behave in the desired manner as they may feel uncomfortable accepting some aspects of the brand vision.

10

The

corporate brand starts from a well conceived vision and yet the first source of tension stems from senior managements’ reticence to involve staff in the visioning process and their recalcitrant communication of the vision.

In fact, Ind (2001) reports that

across Europe only a third of organisations communicate their visions to staff. not sufficient for senior management to just communicate their vision to staff.

It is As

Bennis (1997) argues, the only way for the vision to be shared and internalised is for it to have meaning for all employees. In other words, senior managers are wrong when they think that just writing down the vision is sufficient – it’s the start of the job since the vision needs to be given meaning for staff.

As a result of the abstract nature of values (Rokeach 1973), compared with the more commonly used concepts of envisioned future and purpose in the vision, interpretations of a particular value may vary between people.

Thus while a senior

manager exhorts the value of professionalism, an employee may interpret this as responding to customer enquiries promptly, while another may regard professionalism as relating to being particularly well informed.

Part of the reason for these diverse

interpretations from the value of professionalism is that words are defined within a particular context and relationship to other words (Chomsky 1998; Saussure 1966). Another cause for the diversity of interpretation is each individual’s perceptual processes (Bettman 1979).

It is not the intention of this paper to review all possible sources of tension in corporate brands, but rather to alert readers to the significance of this. A particularly insightful analysis of tension through misalignment in corporate branding is provided by Hatch and Schultz (2001) and in the related area of identity by Balmer (2001b). Instead, as values are at the core of the corporate brand, as they are a key influencer of

11

behaviour (Durgee, O’Connor and Veryzer 1996) and as there are four sources which explicitly relate to values in figure 2 (i.e. espoused values in the vision, the values characterising the organisational culture, the brand’s values and the values of individual employees), the remainder of this paper will focus on surfacing the nature of values from these four sources. Through assessing the coherence of these values, this provides an appreciation of any tension within the corporate brand.

The inter-relationship between these four value sources can be appreciated from the model in figure 5. At the fulcrum of three of the value sources resides the corporate brand since, as interviews with senior brand consultants (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1998) and the literature (e.g. Duncan and Moriarty 1998) revealed, this is the glue holding the corporation together and it defines the course of actions the corporation needs to follow.

If the values are deeply rooted and coherently inter-

linked, then the relevance of the brand’s values and the connections staff make with the brand enable them to deliver the brand promise in a more natural manner, with passion and commitment.

This in effect, brings the brand to life and enhances the

likelihood of better performance (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Hartline, Maxham and McKee 2000; Appiah-Adu, Fyall and Singh 2001). By contrast, there are a significant number of superficially rooted corporate brands. Their values are not deeply held and the corporate emphasis has been directed towards describing the values in corporate documents, resulting in inconsistent delivery (Ind 2001). Insert Figure 5 here

By auditing the nature of values at each of the four junctures in figure 5, then comparing the findings, the extent to which there is tension in the corporate brand can be assessed. Mechanisms to surface the values will now be considered.

12

(i)

Values inherent in the vision

It is rare for organisations to not have a statement of their corporate values. However frequently these are not that dissimilar between competing firms and are more akin to “motherhood statements” rather than uniquely motivating values (Jackson 1997; de Chernatony and Harris 2000).

Part of the problem is managers’ inability to

differentiate between category values that any corporate brand needs to have in order to compete, rather than unique brand values which make people want a particular brand.

One way to surface unique visionary values is through the “Mars group

method” (Collins and Porras 1995).

The senior management team are asked to

imagine they are able to re-create the very best of their corporate brand on planet Mars, where civilisation can be supported. However, only five seats are available on the rocket, so the team must select those who are exemplars of the brand’s values. With a facilitator, this small group explores questions such as: -

if the person were to start a new corporation, in a different line of work, what values would they bring;

-

what are the values the person brings to work;

-

what would the person tell their child about the values they hold at work and hope they hold when they go to work;

-

if the environment were to change, making the value a competitive disadvantage would they still hold this value.

Another workshop could use the critical episodes technique to surface visionary values.

The senior management team would be asked to think about their brand’s

history and recall critical events when their brand faced outstanding threats and opportunities. Having surfaced these, the team are asked to consider the actions their

13

firm took to protect, or capitalise upon each of the events. Since actions are mediated by values, the team would then be asked to draw inferences about their corporate values from each of the historical actions. The advantage of this technique is that the Mars group method surfaces values which specify beliefs about desirable behaviour, while the second technique identifies internalised, actual values (Meglino and Ravlin 1998).

(ii)

Values inherent in the organisational culture

An appealing perspective on organisational culture is that of the integration paradigm which regards culture as set of shared assumptions and understandings about organisational functioning (Deshpande and Webster 1989). homogeneity from a unified collective consensus.

This emphasises

However organisations are

characterised by several cultures (Hofstede 1998), which individually share similar values, but the extent to which these conform to the espoused organisational culture desired by senior management varies (Brown 1995).

The differentiation paradigm

behoves researchers to surface the values of the different departments in a corporation.

One approach to elicit each department’s values is the procedure of “in the manner of the word”.

A representative group of around eight members of a department is

brought together with a facilitator. One of the participants is taken aside, so none of the group can hear, and asked to specify a value characterising their organisational culture. They then mime the value in front of the group, acting out a particular role or task and the audience shouts out the value they think is being mimed.

All the

comments are recorded on a sheet until the stated value is given. Another member of the group is then selected to mime a different organisational value and the procedure

14

repeated.

After around four iterations, all the values are collated and the group is

asked to consider the recorded comments and identify the key values that characterise their organisational culture.

By undertaking this procedure in each department, a

more comprehensive listing can be obtained.

Using a method similar to that of

McDonald and Gandz (1991), a postal questionnaire is then sent to each employee, who is asked to rate each value that the groups specified, with respect to how important that value is to their corporation.

Analysis of the returned questionnaire

enables an assessment to be made of the extent to which the values of each department are shared across the corporation.

Furthermore by comparing the

departmental values against the values elicited in the vision, tensions within the corporate brand can be identified.

(iii)

Values inherent in the corporate brand

Referring back to the model of a brand in figure 1, corporations should have a clear statement of their corporate brand’s values and its promise.

However, as time

progresses the relevance, importance and uniqueness of these values changes. There is therefore a benefit in assessing, on an annual basis, their suitability.

One way of

doing this is to have a facilitator interview individually members of the senior management team, and a representative from each department.

Each individual is

asked to identify the three unique attributes of their corporate brand.

Using a

laddering procedure (Reynolds and Gutman 1988) they are prompted to consider the consequences of the attribute and what functional and emotional values this leads to. The individual is then shown the documented characteristics of the corporate brand and any differences explored.

By then analysing the laddering results versus the

documented brand, an indication of the appropriateness of the corporate brand values emerges.

15

While this mechanism provides a time dependent relevance check on the values of the corporate brand, it assumes that the views of staff reflect those of their stakeholders, which is questionable (Eden and Spender 1998).

By following the same laddering

procedure, undertaking individual interviews with representatives of key stakeholder groups, their perceptions of the corporate brand’s values can be surfaced.

These

findings can then be contrasted against managers’ views to appreciate the congruence between managers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions of the brand’s values.

Thus, this work enables managers to assess tension in the values of their corporate brand: -

over time;

-

against the values inherent in the vision and organisational culture;

-

as perceived by managers versus stakeholders.

(iv)

Values of individual employees

An assumption inherent in a corporate brand is that the values of employees align with the brand’s value. Due to the rich clusters of values characterising and making the personality of each individual unique, it is unlikely that everyone’s values will align with the brand’s values.

A variety of techniques can help surface

incongruencies.

Thornbury (1999) provides details about her use of depth interviews amongst company employees to elicit their values. She asked them to imagine they are giving a good friend frank advice about how to get on in their organisation. context they are asked to discuss:

16

Within this

-

what they must do;

-

what they can get away with not doing;

-

what they must never do.

As behaviours are driven by values, the researcher infers from the comments the work place values of the respondent, albeit these are espoused values.

A more structured approach to elicit an individual’s work place values has been described by van Rekom (1997), drawing on means-end chains.

An employee is

interviewed alone and is asked to describe how they do their job. Taking one of their tasks, they are asked why they do their work that way.

They are then repeatedly

asked why this is important to them, recording their comments in a hierarchical ladder until one of their values is surfaced. By repeating the process with other tasks they specified, information is provided about their individual values.

Both these methods provide detailed insights into the work place values of employees. However eliciting individuals’ values this way takes a notable amount of time and does not provide an easy basis for comparison across staff. This can be achieved by collecting the values from both these technique. To this list of values could also be added the values the corporate brand is purported to possess. All these values are then included in a postal questionnaire, which is sent to all employees.

Following

McDonald and Gandz’s (1991) approach, respondents are asked to rate each value with respect to how important the value is as a guiding principle in their life.

The data from these interviews highlights tensions between the personal values of individuals and:

17

-

the desired brand values;

-

the desired organisational values;

-

the espoused values in the vision.

Conclusion This paper has sought to reduce the confusion about the meaning of the corporate brand.

It has argued that the concept of a corporate brand is the same as a product or

a service brand, since a brand is a cluster of functional and emotional values which promises stakeholders a particular experience.

The concept of a brand is independent

of context. However, the enactment of the corporate brand is different to the product brand.

There are a variety of reasons as to why the enactment is different. One of the key reasons is that the corporate brand is targeted at stakeholders, while the classical product brand focuses on consumers.

Stakeholders, unlike consumers, have many

points of contact with the employees of an organisation and thus there are more instances where the consistency of the brand promise is being tested by stakeholders. To thrive corporate branding needs to be a company wide activity, since all employees must understand the importance of particular values and thus expectations about their styles of behaviour to support the corporate brand.

One reason for brand confusion arises from brands being intangible assets and people using different metaphors to comprehend and enact the brand (Gordon 1999).

This

paper has shown how the brand triangle can be a powerful visualisation tool, enabling people to characterise their brand by using a laddering technique to portray the low

18

number of functional values linked with the few emotional values, underpinning a crisp brand promise.

Enacting the corporate brand becomes easier once everyone appreciates from the brand triangle the nature of their brand. Rather than employing the classical product brand model, which is based on a mechanistic command and control approach, organisations are awakening to the higher levels of corporate performance associated with an empowerment approach.

With good internal communications amongst

committed and trained employees, they can be encouraged to take responsibility for their brand building behaviour, using technology to support their roles.

Thus

successful corporate branding necessitates investment in internal communication, so staff are fully conversant with their brand’s promise and, only when they appreciate this, should claims be promoted to external stakeholders.

A more humanistic

approach is important in corporate branding which recognises that if staff have been recruited with values that align with the corporate brand, they need less supervision and should be encouraged to make decisions about stakeholders’ needs, within the guidelines of the corporate brand.

This paper advances knowledge about corporate branding by presenting a model showing how corporate brands can be developed and sustained. It indicates that the characteristics of the corporate brand triangle are mediated by four interacting elements which resonate with some of the components of corporate identity. Through fine tuning the characteristics of the corporate brand from insights about the brand vision, organisational culture, objectives and the forces represented by the brandsphere, the enactment of the corporate brand becomes clearer.

With this

knowledge staff should be better equipped to recognise how they should behave and

19

senior management should be better able to design systems to help deliver the brand promise.

One of the benefits of the proposed model is that it enables sources of tension to be identified through the misalignment of forces.

Throughout this paper, values have

continually been mentioned and it is apparent that they are a critical component for corporate brand success.

In view of there being four different domains in the model

where attention is focused on values, it is argued that research should be undertaken to surface the nature of the values at those points (i.e. in the vision, organisational culture, corporate brand and amongst employees).

Methods to elicit values at these junctures are described.

By then testing the

consistency of values, managers are able to not only assess the tension within their corporate brand, but also to consider, from any incongruencies, where they need to take action to ensure a more coherent brand.

This paper has proposed a model for defining and enacting a corporate brand and scholars are encouraged to undertake research to assess its appropriateness.

Case

study research amongst organisations following corporate branding strategies would provide insights about refinements.

References

Aaker, D. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), “Brand Leadership”, New York : Free Press. Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.4, No.3, 185-206.

20

Appiah-Adu, K., Fyall, A. and Singh, S. (2001), “Marketing effectiveness and business performance in the financial services industry”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.15, No.1, 18-34. Balmer, J. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, 963-996. Balmer, J. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing : seeing through the fog”. European Journal of Marketing, Vol.35, No.3/4, 248291. Balmer, J. (2001a), “The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brand management”,

Journal

of

General

Management,

Autumn,Vol.25,

No.7,

(forthcoming). Balmer, J. (2001b), “From the Pentagon : a new identity framework”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.4, No.1, 11-22. Barrett, R. (1998), “Liberating the Corporate Soul”, Oxford : ButterworthHeinemann. Bennis, W. (1997), “Becoming a Leader of Leaders”, In Gibson, R. (Eds), “Rethinking the Future”, London : Nicholas Brealy Publishing. Bettman, J. (1979), “An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice”, Reading : Addison Wesley. Blackett, T. and Boad, B. “Co-Branding”, Basingstoke : Macmillan. Brown, A. (1995), “Organisational Culture”, London : Pitman Publishing. Buschke, H. (1976), “Learning is organised by chunking”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, Vol.15, 313-324. Chomsky, N. (1998), “On Language”, New York : The New Press. Cleaver, C. (1999), “Brands as the catalysts”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.6, No.5, 309-312.

21

Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1995), “Built to Last”, London : Century. Co-operative Bank (2001), “The Partnership Report 2000”, Manchester. Cornelissen, J. and Harris, P. (2001), “The corporate identity metaphor : perspectives, problems and prospects”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.17, 49-71. Davis, S. (2000), “Brand Asset Management”, San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. de Chernatony, L. (1999), “The challenge of service branding : knowledge management to the rescue”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.6, No.4, 271-277. de Chernatony, L. (2001), “From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation”, Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann. de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Defining a “brand”: beyond the literature with experts’ interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.14, No.5, 417-443. de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’

views about defining

services brands and the principles of services branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.46, No.2, 181-192. de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000), “The challenge of financial services branding : majoring on category or brand values?”, Paper presented at 29th European Marketing Academy Conference, Erasmus University Rotterdam. de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), “Creating Powerful Brands”, Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann. de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building on services’ characteristics to develop successful services brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.17 (forthcoming). Eden, C. and Spender, J. (1998), “Managerial and Organizational Cognition : Theory, Methods and Research”, London : Sage.

22

Deshpande, R. and Webster, F. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing : defining the research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, January, 3-15. Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1997), “Driving Brand Value”, New York : McGraw Hill. Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998), “A communications – based marketing model for managing relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.62, April, 1-13. Durgee, J., O’Connor, G. and Veryzer, R. (1996), “Observations : translating values into product wants”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.36, No.6, 90-99. Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), “The Mental World of Brands”, Henley-onThames : World Advertising Research Centre. Free, C. (1999), “The internal brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol.6, No.4, 231-236. Gordon, W. (1999), “Goodthinking”, Henley-on-Thames : Admap Publications. Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on consumer categorisation processes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.46, Spring, 60-72. Hallawell, F. (1999), “Corporate brand building : a methodology”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol.3, No.4, 381-386. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1994), “Competing for the Future”, Boston : Harvard Business School Press. Hart, S. and Murphy, J. (1998), (editors) “Brands, the new Wealth Creators”, Basingstoke : Macmillan. Hartline, M., Maxham, J. and McKee, D. (2000), “Corridors of influence in the dissemination

of

customer-oriented

strategy

to

customer

contact

service

employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.64, April, 35-50. Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”, Harvard Business Review, Feb, 128-135.

23

Heskett, J. (1987), “Lessons in the service sector”, Harvard Business Review, MarchApril, 118-126. Heskett, J. (1994), “Putting the service profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, 164-174. Hofstede, G. (1998), “Identifying organizational subcultures : an empirical approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.35, No.1, 1-12. Ind, N. (1998a), “The company and the product : the relevance of corporate associations”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.2, No.1, 88-93. Ind, N. (2000), “Living the Brand”, London, Kogan Page. Jackson, D. (1997), “Dynamic Organisations”, Basingstoke : Macmillan. Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. and Busato-Schach, J. (1977), “Information acquisition behaviour in brand choice situations”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.3, March, 209-216. Jones, J. (1999) (editor), “How to Use Advertising to Build Strong Brands”, Thousand Oaks : Sage. Jones, R. (2000), “The Big Idea”, London : Harper Collins Business. Kapferer, J-N (1997), “Strategic Brand Management, London : Kogan Page. Keller, K. (1998), “Strategic Brand Management”, Upper Saddle River : Prentice Hall. Kiser, G. and Rao C (1977), “Important vendor factors in industrial and hospital organizations : a comparison, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.6, 289-296. Kotter, J. and Heskett, J. (1992), “Corporate Culture and Performance”, New York : The Free Press. Kunde, J. (2000), “Corporate Religion”, London, FT Prentice Hall. Macrae, C. (1999), “Brand reality editorial”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.15, No.1-3, 1-24.

24

McDonald, P. and Gandz, J. (1991), “Idnetification of values relevant to business research”, Human Resource Management, Vol.30, No.2, 217-236. Meglino, B. and Ravlin, E. (1998), “Individual values in organizations : concepts, controversies and research”, Journal of Management, Vol.24, No.3, 351-359. Miller, G. (1956), “The magic number seven, plus or minus two : some limits on our capacity for processing information”, The Psychological Review, Vol.63, No.2, 81-97. Mitchell, A. (2001), “Right Side Up”, London : Harper Collins Business. Olins, W. (1995), “The New Guide to Identity”, London : Gower. Olins, W. (2000), “How Brands are Taking over Corporations”, In Schultz, M., Hatch, M and Larsen, M. (Eds), “The Expressive Organization”, Oxford : Oxford University Press. Pringle, H. and Gordon, W. (2001), “Brand Manners”, Chichester : J. Wiley & Sons. Pringle, H. and Thompson, M. (2001), “Brand Spirit, Chichester : J. Wiley & Sons. Reynolds, T. and Gutman, J. (1988), “Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.28, Feb/March, 11-31. Rokeach, M. (1973), “The Nature of Human Values”, New York : The Free Press. Saussure, F. (1966), “Course in General Linguistics”, New York : McGraw Hill. Schein, E. (1984), “Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, 3-16. Siegel, A. (1994), “Clarifying the corporate voice : the imperative of the 90’s”, Design Management Journal, Vol.6, Winter, 40-46. Thornbury, J. (1999), “KPMG : revitalising culture through values”, Business Strategy Review, Vol.10, No.4, 1-15. van Rekom, J. (1997), “Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.31, No. 5/6, 410-422.

25

Willmott, M. (2001), “Citizen Brands”, Chichester : John Wiley. Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M. (1996), “Services Marketing”, New York : McGraw Hill.

26

Promised experience

Emotional values values Functional values

Figure 1 : Brand triangle

27

Staff behaviour

Vision

Culture

Objectives

Stakeholder satisfaction

Corporate brand concept

Systems Brandsphere

Monitor then revisit Figure 2 : Defining and enacting a corporate brand

28

Future environment

Brand’s vision

Values

Purpose

Figure 3 : The components of a brand’s vision

29

Corporation

Distributors

Brand

Macroenvironment

Customers

Competitors

Figure 4 : The five forces of the brandsphere

30

Vision

Corporate brand

Individual employee’s values

Organisational culture Figure 5 : Interacting sources of values

31