Corporate brands; Corporate brands were viewed from the sender-end of the communications equation. In its simplest sense a brand denotes a name, logotype or trademark denoting ownership (Barwise et al., 2000).
Corporate identity concept
The corporate identity concept, as we see it, refers to the distinct attributes of an organization and as such addresses the questions, “what are we?” and “who are we?” As such, it encompasses issues such as business scope and culture among others (Balmer and Greyser, 2003).
Benefits of Corporate Branding
It is a mark denoting ownership
Traditionally, corporate brands were viewed from the “sender-end” of the communications equation. In its simplest sense a brand denotes a name, logotype or trademark denoting ownership (Barwise et al., 2000). The importance of corporate marks of ownership can be seen in relation to coats of arms. From the earliest times these heraldic symbols (when properly matriculated) have been accorded legal protection by the state. In both Scotland and England heraldic courts of law are an integral part of both countries’ legal systems: the conferment of full coats of arms is still sought and coveted by many institutions: universities are a case in point (Baker and Balmer, 1997).
It enhances Image-building for the organizational services
Later on, branding was associated with corporate image building. However, branding was still at the sender-end of the equation and was something that was done to the consumer. Galbraith (1986, pp. 29-30) mirrored this “top-down” view of branding with his comment that: “By art and reiteration people are persuaded to believe in the peculiar conviviality associated with a particular brand.”
It is a symbols associated with key values
The recent literature on corporate branding emphasizes the importance of brand values: a brand is seen to encapsulate the additional values that are inherent in or associated with the corporation and its products and services. This is the dominant perspective on the area (DeChernatony, 1999; Tilley, 1999; Urde, 1999). As such, corporate brands are seen as a guarantee of quality, as an insurance against risk of poor performance or financial risk.
Means by which to construct individual identities
Increasingly, branding is considered from the “consumer-end” of the equation. As such, the consumption of brands by consumers defines who they are, wish to be and/or wish to be seen as (Kay, 1995; Elliot and Wattanasuwan, 1998; Newman, 2001). Simoes and Dibb (2001) conclude that our post-modern consumer culture consumers realise that brands are vital in the construction of individual identities.
Characteristics of corporate brands include;
Cultural (corporate brands tend to have strong “cultural roots”. An organization’s distinctiveness invariably finds one of its sources in the mix of subcultures found within organizations. These consist of corporate, professional, “national”, and other types of culture).
Intricate (inherently intricate in nature: it is multidisciplinary and dimensional in that it impacts your many stakeholder groups and methods and is made known via multiple channels of communication).
Tangible (includes: product/service quality, business scope, geographical coverage, performance-related issues, profit margins, pay scales etc. Also includes architecture, logos, etc.).
Ethereal (includes elements such as “lifestyle” and “style of delivery”. Also encompasses brand associations. For instance, there are often emotional responses to elements associated with the brand such as country-of-origin/industry).
The key differences between product and corporate brands.
The responsibility of corporate branding lies with the chief executive while that of product brands relies with Brand manager.
The functional responsibility of enforcing product brand relies with marketing while corporate brands relies with all departments.
The General responsibility of enforcing corporate brands relies with all personnel while product brands relies with marketing personnel.
The discipline of enforcing product branding relies with marketing while corporate brands relies with all departments.
The brand gestation for product brand is short while the brand gestation for corporate brands is long.
On another note the stake holders focus on product branding is consumers while stake holders’ focus on corporate branding is multiple stake holders.
The Communications channels used in product branding include the marketing communications while the communication channels used in corporate branding include the Mix, Total corporate communications.
Shoker et al., (1994) reports that a third difference is that corporate brands are an important element of a company strategy and this clearly is a senior management concern. The widespread consumer interest in brands and their economic benefit is another reason why they need to be considered when formulating strategic plans. In contrast, product brand management is principally a concern for middle management and falls largely within the remit of marketing.
Mention can be made of the literature on services brands, which in the context of the literature on product brands and the recent literature on corporate branding, represents a crucially important interim stage of development. The literature on services branding shares important similarities with the literature on corporate branding because it demonstrates that services branding is different from product branding (Levy, 1996; Stuart, 1997) in that services branding involves multiple interfaces (Bitner et al., 1994) and that employees are of crucial importance to the process (Harris and DeChernatony, 2001; McDonald et al., 2001). However, services branding, by its very nature, applies only to one category of corporate brands and would exclude corporate brands such as Nestle´, BP, and Philips.
Corporate brands and corporate identities
Although the two concepts are often used interchangeably this masks the fact that there are critical differences between them.
Definition of corporate identity
The corporate identity concept, as we see it, refers to the distinct attributes of an organization and as such addresses the questions “what are we?” and “who are we?”. As such, it encompasses issues such as business scope and culture among others (Balmer and Greyser, 2003). Following this perspective, there are important differences between the concepts of the corporate identity and the corporate brand.
Difference between corporate identity and corporate brand
The difference between the two concepts can be discussed in terms of their different values. There has been a good deal of discussion about the values of corporate brands (DeChernatony, 1999; Urde, 1997) but there appears to be little discussion of the differences between corporate brands and corporate identities.
Corporate brand is often viewed as similar to corporate identity however they are not and the following are some of the differences between the two.
One of the main differences between corporate Brands and Corporate identity it that it is necessary to have corporate identity and it is contingent to have corporate identity.
From scholars also indicate that corporate identity applies to all organizations while corporate brands does not apply to all organizations.
While regarding Stability of attributes of attributes corporate identity is constantly changing while corporate brands is relatively stable.
Regarding the applicability of corporate identity corporate identity is for normally a single entity while corporate brands normally a single entity but can be multiple.
The functional responsibility of both corporate brands and corporate identity is for all functions.
Regarding the disciplinary roots of corporate identity it is Multidisciplinary and on the same note that of corporate brands it is also multidisciplinary.
It has also been revealed that the gestation period for corporate identity is short term while that of corporate Branding it is long term.
Brand Architecture
Brand architecture refers to the relationships among and between corporate, company (subsidiary), and product brands. Such relationships embrace products and services, or a mixture of the two across the hierarchy of brands. However, such relationships are no longer restricted within the confines of a single corporation.
Corporate brands key characteristics
Value
By establishing a corporate brand a company can distinguish and differentiate itself in the minds of all its stakeholders. Similar to a product brand, a corporate brand makes the company and its espoused values easily identifiable and connotes a level of quality and consistency of performance in the minds of its target audiences. For product brands the focus is on customers and for corporate brands for stakeholders.
Rarity; We argue that a corporate brand is rare because it is the result of a unique historical pattern of development which suffuses a corporate brand, not only with a rich palette of characteristics that are functional (quality, performance, familiarity and predictability), but also with myriad ethereal elements that are rich in image as well as in symbolic terms. These functional and ethereal values over time are represented by what are known as corporate brand values.
Durability
Corporate brands are generally believed to have greater longevity than most other types of valuable resources. The realisation that the Coca-Cola brand is older than the physical plant and equipment used in production is a sobering one indeed. Grant (1991) observed that corporate brands tend to decay relatively slowly; cases in point being BP, Sears Roebuck and Sony. However, there are older, more venerable examples of the longevity of corporate brands. Ancient seats of learning such as Oxford, Cambridge or the Sorbonne, and London’s coterie of old-line private bankers such as Childs, Coutts, Drummonds and Hoare are just a few examples of corporate brands that have spanned the centuries.
Inappropriatability; As stated above, inappropriatability means that a firm cannot lose profits from a valuable resource to another entity or person. Collis and Montgomery (1995) note that certain kinds of tangible resources are always subject to bargaining by a variety of stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, distributors, and employees. Perhaps the most common example of such a resource is employees. As an illustration, highly successful securities brokers can change employers and take important clients with them or bargain to appropriate a larger share of the profit from their employers. Franchise-quality sports stars have the same capability.
Imperfect imitability
A corporate brand is also difficult, if not impossible, to imitate for two major reasons. The first is that brand signifiers (names, logos, colours, music, etc.) are normally patented by the corporations. As such they are protected by law from imitation by competitors. For instance, no other company can legally use the Nike name or the “swoosh”. The second and perhaps more essential reason is that the underlying substance of the corporate brand is intangible and consequently difficult to replicate.
Social complexity. This first mechanism recognises that the resource is composed of many interrelated elements so that few or no individuals have the depth of knowledge to comprehend the overall package. The corporate branding process involves not just the firm’s formal communication system, but also the many interactions a company has with its various stakeholders.
Causal ambiguity. The second isolating mechanism is the result of the cause-and-effect relationships in the process that go unrecognized. As we have already argued, brand building involves a concerted interdisciplinary effort. Causal ambiguity operates primarily through word-of-mouth communication and media interpretation, which can play a large role in forming the image and reputation of the corporate brand. Such tertiary communication cannot be completely comprehended by either company managers or outside observers (Balmer and Gray, 1999). These interactions include areas such as products and services, market and on-market behaviour, and human resources.
Branding categories
- Familial;
The sharing/adoption of the same corporate brand by two entities within the same industry or sector. There is, sometimes, a geographical distinction.
- Multiplex;
Multiple uses and, possibly, multiple ownership/rights of a corporate brand among a variety of entities in a variety of industry sectors. (Similar to the Japanese Keiretsu philosophy)
- Shared;
As above, but operating in distinct and sometimes related, markets. Not usually geographically distinct.
- Surrogate;
A franchise arrangement whereby one organization’s products/services are branded as that of another.
- Supra; and
A quasi, “arch”, brand used to supra endorse company brands. Particularly common within the airline sector. Unlike ordinary corporate brands, this branding category is derived from several rather than from a single corporate entity. As such, its “ethereal” and “virtual” qualities are greater.
(6) Federal
The creation of a new corporate brand by separate companies who pool their resources in a joint venture, to, in effect, create a new identity/company.
Imperfect imitability denotes that it is extremely difficult for a competitor to internally recreate the resource. And finally, imperfect substitutability suggests that new technologies, paradigms, or business models are unlikely to render the resource in question obsolete or significantly weaker (Barney, 1986; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). A strong, well-managed corporate brand, in our opinion, meets the above criteria and thereby qualifies as a sustainable valuable resource. To demonstrate this, let us look at corporate branding in light of these criteria.
