Corporate branding in perspective: a typology

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review a typology of branding that identifies four perspectives on branding: corporate perspectives, consumer perspectives, cultural perspectives and critical perspectives. This typology helps organise and synthesise the growing interdisciplinary literature on brands and branding, and sheds light on the various ways corporate brands work.

Design/methodology/approach

A brief synthetic review of branding is offered, along with contemporary examples of emerging aspects of the four branding perspectives.

Findings

The four perspectives demonstrate the growing interdisciplinary interest in brands. They also signal a move away from a focus on the brand-consumer dyad, towards broader social cultural and theoretical concerns. Studies that extend brand research into cultural and historical realms may provide an essential bridge between our understandings, on the one hand, of value residing within the product or producer intention, and on the other, value created by individual consumers or brand communities.

Research limitations/implications

The insights from this review may shed light on a number of branding research areas, including studies on corporate marketing, cultural heritage brands and strategic brand communication.

Practical implications

The paper illustrates how complex branding has become and offers conceptual tools to think about and guide branding from multiple points of view.

Originality/value

This paper provides a selective overview of important recent developments in corporate marketing and brand research over as well as a look at visual aspects of four perspectives of branding as a complement to corporate branding research. The typology of brand perspectives helps organise and illuminate a burgeoning brand literature, and provides an interdisciplinary framework for understanding brands.

Citation

Schroeder, J.E. (2017), "Corporate branding in perspective: a typology", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 9/10, pp. 1522-1529. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2017-0450