Search results

This paper aims to explore three central tensions in the debate on corporate branding. Is a normative or a social constructionist approach more appropriate in conceptualising and managing corporate brands? Should the focus be on the organizational or the individual level? Must organizations take a static (focusing on continuity) or a more dynamic (focusing on change) perspective on corporate branding?

This is a conceptual paper based on a critical review of relevant literature and the papers included in this special issue.

Avenues for future research in corporate branding are highlighted.

Several issues fundamental to the corporate branding debate remain controversial. This paper sheds light on three key tensions in managing corporate brands and shapes the research agenda for future studies.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss corporate co‐branding value and create the model of evaluating co‐branding value. The connotation of the model is to consider the compatibility of strategic partners such as strategic alliance compatibility and brand alliance compatibility; in addition, this research can estimate the corporate co‐branding value through this model to evaluate and discuss the effect of co‐branding effect for the future.

In the past, few researchers investigated the measurement of corporate co‐branding value in the marketing sector. The measurement of intangible assets, on the other hand, is well established in accounting finance. However, the concepts and methods of accounting finance cannot easily be applied to other areas. This paper provides a straightforward concept that uses a heuristic model to combine the notion of co‐branding synergy. According to the literature, the combination of strategic and brand alliances can affect the concept of co‐branding value. This research revises the concept of compatibility from Park and Lawson by replacing the concept of product attribute similarity with the ratio of sales growth, and the brand concept consistency with the ratio of market share after brand alliance.

This study verifies the proposed model synthetically with a real case (Sony‐Ericsson). Conversely, this research anticipates analyzing the model in different perspectives and observing the variation of different combinations to obtain potential managerial implications for corporate managers. This research concludes: brand alliance compatibility has limited effect on corporate co‐branding value; strategic alliance compatibility is the major power to drive the direction of corporate co‐branding value; and the trend of co‐branding value is the important indicator for business managers.

Insufficient information may generate incorrect or unclear trends if the year of co‐branding is too short. This is also a major limitation of the authors' research. Thus, more real‐world cases can be conducted (such as Miller and Coors) in the future to elaborate upon the model.

The proposed model helps enterprises estimate their current co‐branding value using existing financial statements and market share data and identify the degree of alliance influence to their revise brand strategies. The estimated co‐branding values in this study can help managers identify their market position and execute existing co‐brand strategies. Managers can utilize this information to revise their management direction or strategies. Based on these arguments, this research enhances existing co‐branding knowledge and offers significant contributions by presenting more real cases (e.g. Miller and Coors) in the future. In other words, this work is both an avenue and a blueprint for future co‐branding research.

The paper devises a novel concept for estimating corporate co‐branding value based on the synergies between strategic and brand alliances. To illustrate the proposed model, this study analyzes the Sony Ericsson example since it has survived for several years. Analytical results reveal that strategic alliance and brand alliance variations have significant influences on co‐branding value changes. Results also reveal that strategic alliances have a greater effect on co‐branding value than brand alliances, which indicates that a good alliance strategy may generate a superior co‐branding effect.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

This paper aims to present the concept of Interactive Network Branding (INB) in business markets. The INB conceptualization offers an understanding of corporate branding processes as an inherent part of business networking. More specifically, the paper focuses on the importance of INB for firms that are developing their roles and positions in business networks.

The conceptual paper reviews the extant literature on corporate branding in conjunction with business network research. This perspective adds to the current knowledge of business marketing by proposing a theoretical framework of INB.

The conceptualization of INB offers a specific network lens on corporate branding by presenting three INB dimensions. The first dimension deals with corporate identity; the second dimension deals with corporate reputation; the third, mutual INB dimension, presents an “interactive space” where branding and networking collide. These three dimensions are enacted by individuals acting on behalf of their companies, as key implementers of INB processes. Through the INB, strategic roles and positions of firms embedded in their business networks are formed.

The paper contributes to current literature on business network research that has left a corporate brand perspective almost unnoticed. The INB concept also offers an extension to current literature on corporate branding, which has to date neglected business relationships and networking issues. Being strongly conceptual, the paper notes that empirical research is needed for observing the role of INB in real-life business encounters.

This study provides novel ideas and implications for firm representatives responsible for branding and relationship development in business networks. It denotes the critical role of individuals and their interactions with other individuals, which influences the development of specific network roles and positions for connected business entities.

The used multidisciplinary approach provides a conceptual platform to study branding processes in business networks. By offering a network perspective to corporate branding, new and relevant implications for both theory and practice are fore fronted.

The paper aims to analyze and compare the branding strategies used in the three sectors namely FMCG, services and durables.

Based on the literature review, a more comprehensive list of branding strategies is proposed. A content analysis of 600 randomly selected brands, 200 from each sector, is performed. The branding strategies used in the three sectors are explained and MANOVA is conducted to test the hypotheses about differences in the branding strategies across the three sectors.

The results reveal that the branding strategies vary across the three sectors. Single corporate brand strategy is predominantly used for durables and credence services. On the other hand, in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type endorsed by the corporate brand type is the most frequently used branding strategy. Thus, there is a trend towards corporate branding as corporate brand type is popular in all the sectors. Also, other than the single corporate brand strategy, as in case of durables and credence services, single brand type strategy is rarely used. For FMCG brands and experience services brands, companies are trying to leverage brand equity of two or more brand types.

The paper offers insights for designing branding strategies when branding a product/service. Brand managers may rely on corporate brand type when risk associated with a purchase is high, as in case of durables and credence services. However, when the risk associated is low, as in case of FMCG and experience services, individual brand type may be preferred, but at the same time, it should be endorsed by corporate brand type.

This study adds value to the growing body of literature on branding strategies by identifying a more comprehensive and simplistic list of branding strategies which is a major contribution of the paper. Further, this is one of a very few empirical studies on branding strategies and is a pioneering attempt to evaluate the branding strategies in the FMCG vis‐à‐vis services vis‐à‐vis durables sectors. It empirically substantiates that the three sectors are heterogeneous among themselves and homogeneous within themselves with respect to their branding strategies.

This paper aims to examine how scholarly research on corporate branding has evolved using bibliometric author co‐citation analysis of articles published between 1969 and 2008 on corporate branding.

The bibliography was compiled using the ISI Web of Science database. The authors searched articles published between 1969 and 2008 that used terms in their title related to their research scope. Then they used citation mapping to visualize the relationships between and among key works in the field.

The search resulted in 264 papers by 412 authors in 150 journals. The field is notably interdisciplinary, with articles published mainly in business, management, architecture, arts and communications disciplines. The authors found three main approaches to corporate branding research (internal, transactional, external) with seven core research streams: product, service and sponsorship evaluation; corporate and visual identity; employment image and application; corporate crime; financial performance; brand extension; and corporate image. They also identified emerging fields such as corporate branding combined with corporate social responsibility.

This research is limited by the database and the terms used for the search. Self‐citations were also included. The authors used citation mapping and content analysis to identify core research streams.

The article is singular in using bibliometrics by means of author co‐citation analyses to identify, analyze and visualize key articles about corporate branding in the last 40 years. The results demonstrate the impact of selected institutions, journals, and key articles and authors on the research field.

This paper describes corporate branding as an organisational tool whose successful application depends on attending to the strategic, organisational and communicational context in which it is used. A model to help managers analyse context in terms of the alignment between strategic vision, organisational culture and corporate image is presented. The model is based on a gap analysis, which enables managers to assess the coherence of their corporate brand. Use of the model is illustrated by examining the stages of development that British Airways passed through in the creation of its corporate brand. The paper concludes that corporate brand management is a dynamic process that involves keeping up with continuous adjustments of vision, culture and image. The model suggests an approach to corporate branding that is organisationally integrated and cross‐functional, hence the thesis that it is important to bring the (whole) corporation into corporate branding.

The purpose of this paper is to reconceptualise employer branding in sustainable organizations at the intersection of branding, strategic human resource management (HRM) and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Based on an outline of current conceptualisations of employer branding, the paper discusses the strategic potentials of merging corporate branding processes, strategic HRM and CSR into a theoretical framework for reconceptualising employer branding as co‐created processes and sustainable employer‐employee relationships.

When organizations adapt strategies for sustainable development (including CSR), it affects how to approach stakeholder relations and organizational processes, including the employee‐employer relationship and employer branding processes. However, current employer branding conceptualisations do not comply with such changed corporate conditions. The suggested framework reconceptualises employer branding as an integrated part of a CSR strategy, thus offering a new way of approaching employer branding as supporting sustainable organizational development and long‐term employer‐employee relationships.

The proposed conceptualisation of employer branding implies a shift in focus from end result to process. As part of the process, organizations need to approach employees as corporate partners in order to co‐create employer‐employee values.

This paper suggests and discusses a new conceptualisation of employer branding, which appreciates co‐creation and employer‐employee dialogue as strategic processes for supporting sustainable organizational development.

The paper investigates the successful establishment of a strong corporate brand with a particular emphasis on analysing the corporate branding literature’s assumptions about coherency. Successful corporate branding is claimed to imply a shared set of coherent statements about the company’s values towards its external and internal stakeholders over time. An empirical test is applied to the coherency assumption. First, the coherency of a corporate brand over time is investigated as it develops in the media. Secondly, the coherency between two stakeholders’ perceptions of the corporate brand, organisational members and the media is investigated. This research suggests there are three distinct types of coherencies in corporate branding strategies over time: statement coherency, interpretation coherency and uniqueness coherency. On the one hand, a strong corporate brand is characterised by tight coherency, as top management’s statements about values remain the same over time and towards different stakeholders, ie statement coherency. On the other hand, a strong corporate brand is simultaneously characterised by a loose, or even absent, coherency between stakeholders’ interpretations of top management’s statements as well as a lack of coherency in stakeholders’ interpretations of the corporate brand over time, ie interpretation coherency. Finally, a third coherency phenomenon is observed, ie stakeholders’ emphasis on changing topics over time, which they relate to the corporate brand. Stakeholders agree that these themes are unique features and hence the company is considered unique, ie the uniqueness coherency. The implications of multiple interpretations are discussed as well as changing interpretations in corporate branding. It is argued that statement coherency is a necessary element in successful corporate branding, and the viability of the ambition to develop interpretation coherency over time and across stakeholders in corporate branding is discussed from the point of view of allowing room for interpretation incoherency. Finally, the question of maintaining uniqueness coherency is discussed: for how long can a company represent “newness” in the eyes of its stakeholders – including itself? Implications for management are discussed.