See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235294085

Corporate Brands: What are They? What of Them? (CORPORATE

BRAND. CORPORATE BRAND MANAGEMENT) EUROPEAN JOURNAL

OF MARKETING

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · July 2003

DOI: 10.1108/03090560310477627

CITATIONS

356READS

5,240

2 authors:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

aligning corporate communications View project

TIME MATTERS: TEMPORALITY, HERITAGE & CORPORATE MARKETING View project

John M.T. Balmer

Brunel University London

274 PUBLICATIONS   10,375 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Edmund R. Gray

Loyola Marymount University

36 PUBLICATIONS   1,465 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John M.T. Balmer on 14 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of MarketingCorporate brands: what are they? What of them?John M.T. Balmer Edmund R. Gray

Article information:To cite this document:John M.T. Balmer Edmund R. Gray, (2003),"Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?", EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss 7/8 pp. 972 - 997Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477627

Downloaded on: 14 December 2015, At: 08:55 (PT)References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 22636 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Cees B.M. van Riel, John M.T. Balmer, (1997),"Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement andmanagement", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5/6 pp. 340-355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb060635Mark J. Kay, (2006),"Strong brands and corporate brands", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss 7/8pp. 742-760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669973Mats Urde, (2003),"Core value-based corporate brand building", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss7/8 pp. 1017-1040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477645

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:328478 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

COMMENTARY

Corporate brands: what arethey? What of them?

John M.T. BalmerBradford School of Management, Bradford, UK, and

Edmund R. GrayLoyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, USA

Keywords Corporate branding, Corporate Identity

Abstract This article examines the nature, importance, typology, and management of corporatebrands. Argues that in making a distinction between corporate brands, corporate identities, andproduct brands, the underlying characteristics of corporate brands can be uncovered. A key thesisof the article is that a corporate brand is a valuable resource: one that provides an entity with asustainable, competitive advantage if specific criteria are met. These criteria are defined in terms ofan economic theory known as “the resource-based view of the firm”. An affirmation of thiseconomic doctrine requires corporate brands to be rare, durable, inappropriable, imperfectlyimitable, and imperfectly substitutable. Also contends that the traditional tripartite, brandingtypology be expanded to reflect the new modes in which corporate brands are being utilised. Thesenew corporate branding categories are: familial, shared, surrogate, supra, multiplex, and federal.Finally, reasons that the management of a corporate brand requires the orchestration of six“identity types”. The critical identity type is the “covenanted identity” because it underpins thecorporate brand. The covenanted identity comprises a set of expectations relating to anorganisation’s products/services and activities. Internally, it acts as a standard against which anemployee/employer’s actions can be evaluated. Argues that employees are crucial to the success,and maintenance, of corporate brands. Speculates that the current interest in corporate brands isredolent of a new dynamic in marketing. As such, corporate brands are symptomatic of theincreased importance accorded to corporate-level concerns and concepts. This interest incorporate-level concerns should form the basis of a new branch of marketing: one that weft andweaves the concepts of corporate identity, image, reputation, communications along withcorporate branding. The article concurs with Balmer and Greyser who argue that this area shouldbe known as corporate-level-marketing.

Corporate brands: what are they?Adored, venerated and coveted by customers and organisations alike,corporate brands represent one of the most fascinating phenomena of thebusiness environment in the twenty-first century (Olins, 2000; Lewis, 2000;Pauvit, 2000; Balmer, 2001a, b; Bickerton, 2000; Gray and Balmer, 2001; Hatchand Schultz, 2001; McDonald et al., 2001; Ind, 2001; Newman, 2001; Simoes andDibb, 2001; Balmer and Greyser, 2003). Their importance is irrefutable. Brands,in their various guises, are integral to our everyday existence (Sherry, 1995).This is particularly the case at the organisational level where the concept of thecorporate brand now enjoys wide currency in business parlance. There is anincreasing realisation that corporate brands serve as a powerful navigational

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www .emeraldinsight .com/researchregister http:// www.emeraldinsigh t.com/0309-056 6.htm

EJM37,7/8

972

European Journal of MarketingVol. 37 No. 7/8, 2003pp. 972-997q MCB UP Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560310477627

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

tool to a variety of stakeholders for a miscellany of purposes includingemployment, investment and, most importantly, consumer buying behaviour.Corporate brands appear to be invested with the Midas touch.

There are a number of schools relating to corporate branding and tobranding generally, with brands being seen as:

. marks denoting ownership;

. image – building devices;

. symbols associated with key values;

. means by which to construct individual identities; and

. a conduit by which pleasurable experiences may be consumed.

Marks denoting ownershipTraditionally, corporate brands were viewed from the “sender-end” of thecommunications equation. In its simplest sense a brand denotes a name,logotype or trademark denoting ownership (Barwise et al., 2000). Theimportance of corporate marks of ownership can be seen in relation to coats ofarms. From the earliest times these heraldic symbols (when properlymatriculated) have been accorded legal protection by the state. In both Scotlandand England heraldic courts of law are an integral part of both countries’ legalsystems: the conferment of full coats of arms is still sought and coveted bymany institutions: universities are a case in point (Baker and Balmer, 1997).

Image-building devicesLater on, branding was associated with corporate image building. However,branding was still at the sender-end of the equation and was something thatwas 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 arepersuaded to believe in the peculiar conviviality associated with a particularbrand.”

Symbols associated with key valuesThe recent literature on corporate branding emphasises the importance ofbrand values: a brand is seen to encapsulate the additional values that areinherent 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 aninsurance against risk of poor performance or financial risk.

Means by which to construct individual identitiesIncreasingly, branding is considered from the “consumer-end” of the equation.As such, the consumption of brands by consumers defines who they are, wishto 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

Corporate brands

973

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

consumer culture consumers realise that brands are vital in the construction ofindividual identities.

A conduit by which pleasurable experiences may be consumedSchmitt (1999) adopts a somewhat novel approach. He argues that branding(and marketing generally) should be concerned with creating pleasurableconsumer experiences.

Of course, the above approaches are not mutually exclusive. To us, it seemspossible that many, if not all, of the characteristics may apply. For the main, theabove schools of thought relate to product brands and, as such, accord primaryimportance to consumers. We argue, however, that corporate brands are crucialto myriad stakeholder groups. For example, corporate brands would appear toplay a pivotal role in the construction of identities by many groups includingemployees (the esteem accrued to a new graduate who works for Ferrari),suppliers (the cachet of sourcing products for an exclusive retail emporiumsuch as London’s Fortnum and Mason) and governments (the city ofEdinburgh’s self-image as a major European city being underscored with theintroduction of a direct air link to Frankfurt by Lufthansa.)

In summary, corporate brands have a utility in several regards: theycommunicate the brand’s values (often seen as a promise), they afford a meansof differentiation from their competitors, and they enhance the esteem andloyalty in which the organisation is held by its stakeholder groups (Balmer,2001b).

Corporate brands: they are more than meets the eyeThe importance and value of corporate brands has, to varying degrees, beenalluded to in the literature for some considerable time (Hotchkiss and Franken,1923; Kennedy, 1977). However, it was around the early 1990s that severalleading branding and communications consultants explicitly mentioned(Bernstein, 1989) and then went on to assess (King, 1991) what was then calledthe “company brand”. They appreciated, from the outset, that the mostimportant brand was the company brand and that its day-to-day responsibilityresided with no less a person than the organisation’s chief executive.(Bernstein, 1989, pp. 317-18).

Among the most telling contributions to this oeuvrewas that of the brandingspecialist Stephen King (1991). His article. entitled “Brand building in the1990s” delineated some of the differences between product and companybrands. He reasoned that the company brand required a multidisciplinaryapproach with the human resources department playing a vital role. As didBernstein (1989), he argued that it fell to the CEO to manage the companybrand. Alas, these early attempts to provide a fillip to company branding werelargely in vain. Despite the penetrating luminosity of King’s (1991) work, hisinsights were all-too-soon forgotten and the notion of the company as a brand

EJM37,7/8

974

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

largely remained a forlorn idea. Its time had not yet come and his notion of thecompany brand was not to take flight.

The hiatus that followed King’s (1991) article appears to have been brokenaround 1995. This time there were to be two crucial differences. First, there wasto be no abatement in interest, and second, that the favoured label was not thatof the company brand, but rather, a more encompassing, morestrategic-sounding label: “the corporate brand”. As such the concept of thecorporate brand began to appear in both the title as well as in the content ofarticles (Balmer, 1995). The latter half of the 1990s witnessed a gradualcrescendo of writing on the corporate brand and since then it has seized theimagination of scholars and managers alike and its rise has been inexorable.After years of inhabiting the shadows, corporate brands are now spoken ofwith considerable ebullience.

To us, there is an overarching explanation why use of the corporate brand inthe literature (Balmer, 1995; Ind, 1997) has eclipsed that of the company brand(Bernstein, 1989; King, 1991). It is that brands, at the corporate level, are notsimply limited to the overall organisation. A wide variety of corporate entitieshave brands including corporations, their subsidiaries, and also groups ofcompanies (corporate branding networks). Moreover, corporate-level brandscan also apply to countries, regions, and cities. As such, the concept “corporatebrand” may be seen to mirror the complexity of the field in a manner that thecompany brand concept does not.

The ensuing interest in the corporate brand can be seen in the writing ofpractitioners (Macrae, 1996; Mitchell, 1997; Ind, 1997, 1998, 2001; Olins, 2000) aswell as in the academic literature (Balmer, 1995, 2001a, b; Keller, 1998; Kellerand Aaker, 1998; DeChernatony, 1999; Maathuis, 1999; Knox et al., 2000;Bickerton, 2000; Gjols-Andersen, 2001; Gray and Balmer, 2001; Harris andDeChernatony, 2001; Newman, 2001).

Some of the early academic work in the area (whether writing aboutcompany or corporate brands) reached a broadly similar set ofsuppositions. The importance of staff in corporate brand building wasemphasised, as was culture. The role of the chief executive as brandmanager was stressed and the efficacy of the multidisciplinary approachwas advocated. In one apocryphal statement it was argued that the newmillennium would witness increased importance being assigned to thecorporate brand (Balmer, 1995).

One trait of the early writing on company and corporate brands stillcharacterises the contemporary literature. This manifests itself in theinterchangeable use of the terms corporate branding and corporate identity.King (1991) disliked the corporate identity concept because he believed thatgraphic designers had debased it and consequently he studiously avoided allbut passing reference to it. Conversely, in the early 1990s the term companybrand carried few associations with graphic design.

Corporate brands

975

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

A disconcerting trend from the world of consultancy over recent yearshas been the adoption of the term corporate branding by graphic designconsultancies in describing their work and profession: this can only have apernicious effect on the area. In part, this is understandable since bothbrands and identities have historically been regarded in visual terms. Inthe lead article of the RSA Journal, Aldersey-Williams (2000) castigated thegraphic design approach to identity with his pithy remark that: “Designerstalk strategy but like pretty shapes and colours”. The same accusation canbe levelled against those who, chameleon-like, have metamorphosisedovernight into authorities on corporate branding. While there has been achange of name, there has not been attendant transformation in raisond’etre: the industry still has a strong graphic design rather than a trulymultidisciplinary derivation.

Alas, marketing scholars and others have largely ignored the challengespresented by corporate brand management. Various authors have argued thatit requires a radical if not revolutionary reappraisal of branding and, moreover,of the marketing discipline generally (King, 1991; Balmer, 1998, 2001a; Balmerand Greyser, 2003). The extent of this myopia can be seen in marketing and insome branding texts which, although acknowledging the existence of corporatebrands, fail to take cognisance that:

. corporate brands are fundamentally different from product brands interms of disciplinary scope and management;

. corporate brands have a multi-stakeholder rather than customerorientation; and

. the traditional marketing framework is inadequate and requires aradical reappraisal.

Again, these differences have only emerged in the literature over the lastdecade or so (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995, 2001a; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).

Fortunately, the negatives have been assuaged by other, more positive,developments. This can be seen in the widespread use of the brandingargot which, when applied to corporate entities, is far removed from itsorigins as a patois spoken by marketers. Evidence of this can be found inthe work of economists such as Kay (1995), organisational behaviouristssuch as Hatch and Schultz (2001) and strategists such as Gray et al. (2001).

One characteristic of the corporate branding literature is the symbiosis ofthought. As such, there appears to be a growing consensus as to the basictenets the concept. Balmer (2001b) developed the mnemonic CCITE (C2ITE) inan attempt to reflect the distinctive attributes of corporate brands. Table I,using the C2ITE mnemonic, illustrates the similarity of thought within theliterature.

EJM37,7/8

976

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Corporate brands, corporate identities and product brands: what arethe differences?Although corporate brands are sometimes seen to be analogous to productbrands, there are fundamental differences: this is an issue that has concernedwriters for over a decade (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995; DeChernatony, 1999; Olins,2000; Balmer, 2001a, b; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).

Characteristics of corporate brands(C2ITE) Balmer (2001a) Referred to in the literature by:

Cultural (corporate brands tend to have strong“cultural roots”. An organisation’s distinctivenessinvariably finds one of its sourcers in the mix ofsubcultures found within organisations. Theseconsist of corporate, professional, “national”, andother types of culture)

Balmer (1995, 2001b), De Chernatony (1999),Hankinson and Hankinson (1999), Hatch andSchultz (2001), Johansson and Hirano (1999),Mitchell (1999)

Intricate (inherently intricate in nature: it ismultidisciplinary and dimensional in that itimpacts your many stakeholder groups andmethods and is made known via multiplechannels of communicationa)

Balmer (2001a, b), De Chernatony (1999), King(1991), Hatch and Schultz (2001), Keller (1999),Mitchell (1999), Olins (2000), Schmitt (1999),Urde (1994, 1999)

Tangible (includes: product/service quality,business scope, geographical coverage,performance-related issues, profit margins,pay scales etc. Also includes architecture,logos, etc.)

Balmer (2001a), DeChernatony (1999),Johansson and Hirano (1999), King (1991),Mitchell (1999), Schmitt (1999), Urde (1999)

Ethereal (includes elements such as “lifestyle”and “style of delivery”. Also encompassesbrand associations. For instance, there areoften emotional responses to elementsassociated with the brand such ascountry-of-origin/industry)

Balmer (2001b), DeChernatony (1999), Hatchand Schultz (2001), Johansson and Hirano(1999), Keller (1999), Mitchell (1999), Schmitt(1999), Urde (1999)

Also requires Commitment (from all personnel.Senior management need to devote sufficient inresources, such as on going financial andcommunications support. An important aspectof this characteristic is that a corporate brandshould elicit commitment from a variety ofstakeholder groups and networks)

Balmer (1995, 2001b), De Chernatony (1999),Hatch and Schultz (2001), Johansson andHirano (1999), King (1991), Urde (1999)

Notes: aKay (1995 p. 261) notes that Price Waterhouse developed a powerful corporate brand ina period where advertising was prohibited on so-called “ethical” grounds in many of the marketsin which they operated. In addition, Marks & Spencer established a strong corporate brand at atime when the policy of the company was not to engage in advertising at all. To us, it is apparentthat since “controllable” communication (secondary communication) was largely absent, “noncontrollable” communication such as product and service quality (primary communication) andword-of-mouth (tertiary communication) played an important role and should as such berecognised. See Balmer and Gray (1999).

Table I.Corporate brandcharacteristics

Corporate brands

977

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

We also suggest that there are important differences between corporate brandsand corporate identities. It has been observed that the concepts of corporateidentity and corporate branding are often used interchangeably (Balmer, 1998).

Corporate and product brandsTable II illustrates the key differences between product and corporate brands.The key difference in conceptualisation is that corporate brand values tend tobe grounded in the values and affinities of company founders, owners,

Product brands Corporate brands

Management responsibility Brand manager Chief executive

Functional responsibility Marketing Most/all departments

General responsibility Marketing personnel All personnel

Disciplinary roots Marketing Multidisciplinary

Brand gestation Short Medium to long

Stakeholder focus Consumers Multiple stakeholders

Values Contrived Real

Communications channels The marketing communicationsmix

Total corporate communciationsPrimary: performance ofproducts and services;organisational policies;behaviour of CEO and seniormanagement; experience ofpersonnel and discourse bypersonnelSecondary: marketing and otherforms of controlledcommunicationTertiary: word of mouth

Dimensions requiringalignment

Brand values (covenant) Brand values (covenant)Product performance Identity (corporate

attributes/sub cultures)Corporate strategyVision (as held by the CEO andsenior management)

Communication CommunicationExperience/image andreputation

Experience/image andreputation

Consumer commitment Stakeholders commitment(internal and externalconstituencies)

Environment (political,economic, ethical, social,technological)

Environment (political,economic, ethical, social,technological)

Source: Adapted from Balmer (2001b)

Table II.A comparisonbetween productand corporatebrands

EJM37,7/8

978

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

management and personnel, whereas product brand values tend to be contrivedand are the product of the not inconsiderable skills of invention held bymarketing and advertising creatives.

Another difference relates to the role of employees vis-a-vis corporate brands.Personnel have a crucially important role in transmitting the brand’s values andas such bring them to the heart of the corporate branding process. They providethe interface between the internal and external environments (Kennedy, 1977;Schneider and Bowen, 1995; Hemsley, 1998; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991) andhelp build and maintain the corporate brand (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995; Amblerand Barrow, 1996; Harris and DeChernatony, 2001, Balmer, 2001a, b). This hasparticular significance for recruitment of personnel and the development ofhuman resources in an organisation (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Ambler andBarrow, 1996; Macrae, 1996; Knox and Maklan, 1998; Keller, 1999; Balmer,2001b, Harris and DeChernatony, 2001; Ewing et al., 2002).

A third difference is that corporate brands are an important element of acompany strategy and this clearly is a senior management concern. Thewidespread consumer interest in brands and their economic benefit is anotherreason why they need to be considered when formulating strategic plans(Shoker et al., 1994). In contrast, product brand management is principally aconcern for middle management and falls largely within the remit of marketing.

Mention can be made of the literature on services brands, which in thecontext of the literature on product brands and the recent literature oncorporate branding, represents a crucially important interim stage ofdevelopment. The literature on services branding shares importantsimilarities with the literature on corporate branding because itdemonstrates 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, servicesbranding, by its very nature, applies only to one category of corporate brandsand would exclude corporate brands such as Nestle, BP, and Philips.

Corporate brands and corporate identitiesAlthough the two concepts are often used interchangeably this masks the factthat there are critical differences between them. The corporate identity concept,as we see it, refers to the distinct attributes of an organisation and as suchaddresses the questions “what are we?” and “who are we?”. As such, itencompasses issues such as business scope and culture among others (Balmerand Greyser, 2003). Following this perspective, there are important differencesbetween the concepts of the corporate identity and the corporate brand.

The first and most fundamental difference is that the identity concept isapplicable to all entities. Yet, not every entity has, plans to have, wants or evenneeds a corporate brand. As such, a corporate identity is a necessary concept

Corporate brands

979

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

whereas a corporate brand is contingent. For instance, the necessity ordesirability of having or maintaining a corporate brand will be reliant on a hostof other factors such as the organisation’s strategy (the firm may operate inmarkets where corporate brands are redundant or where there is a monopoly,or where the markets are commoditised; the need for corporate brands withinsome parts of the public sector may not be as strong, although in others it mostcertainly is: the university sector is a case in point regarding the latter).

Consider the comparison made 20 years ago by two US corporations: Bechteland Coca-Cola. The fixed assets of Bechtel were worth $6 billion while those ofCoca-Cola were worth only $5 billion. Both companies had a similar number ofemployees (around 30,000). Coca-Cola was world-renowned, whereas Bechtel (aconstruction company) was generally unknown to the general public. However,in book value Bechtel was by far the more valuable of the two corporations inmarket value (Diefenbach, 1982). The reason was clear – Coca-Cola hadmaintained a highly valuable corporate brand. However, an examination ofboth entities in terms of their corporate brand value would almost certainlyhave resulted in a different scenario. Recent research identified Coca-Cola to bethe world’s most valuable corporate brand. The corporation, in its entirety, wasestimated to be worth $142 billion: $84 billion of this sum is attributable to thegoodwill associated with the corporate brand. This represents a remarkable 59per cent of the total book value of the company according toInterbrand/Citibank (Barwise et al., 2000, p. 93.)

The analysis of what is, and what is not a corporate brand is far from easy,however. Olins (2001, pp. 490-1) observes that British Airways, Orange andManchester United (football/soccer club) are examples of organisations with clearcorporate brands. However, he argues that Daimler Chrysler is not a corporatebrand since the two brands (Daimler and Chrysler) have become separated fromthe new corporation’s identity. In addition he notes that for organisations such asUnilever, Procter & Gamble and Diageo that have invested heavily in theirproduct brands, the task of corporate brand building will be difficult.

The difference between the two concepts can be discussed in terms of theirdifferent values. There has been a good deal of discussion about the values ofcorporate brands (DeChernatony, 1999; Urde, 1997) but there appears to be littlediscussion of the differences between corporate brands and corporate identities.We make the distinction between the two concepts by arguing that anorganisation’s corporate brand values are a supra set of values that mayinhabit one, or indeed, several organisations. Typically, corporate brand valuesare clearly articulated, concise, well defined and distinct. They are broadlyconstant over time and are discernible via corporate behaviours and activities.They require total organisational commitment, especially on the part ofpersonnel. All facets of organisational life should be congruent with thesevalues. However, there are other values and these are to be found in the identityof the organisation

EJM37,7/8

980

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

An organisation’s identity encompasses a bundle of values that are derivedfrom a federation of subcultures, which are found within and outside theorganisation (Balmer and Wilson, 1998): they continually evolve and areamorphous. This mix of values, to a considerable degree, gives an organisationits distinctiveness.

Table III makes a comparison between the concepts of corporate brandingand corporate identity.

Corporate identity Corporate brands

Necessary or contingent? Necessary Contingent

Applicable to allorganisations? Yes No

Stability of attributes Constantly evolving Relatively stable

Applicability Normally a single entity Normally a single entity butcan be multiple

Management responsibility CEO CEO

Functional responsibility All functions All functions

Disciplinary roots Multidisciplinary Multidisciplinary

Principal drivers Strategy, culture, vision Branding covenant, culture

Gestation Short Medium/long

Stakeholder focus Mainly internal. externalstakeholders vary inimportance depending onstrategy

Mainly external. Internalstakeholders also important

Desired profile among internaland external stakeholdergroups Variable: low to high Normally high

Importance of controlledcommunication Variable Normally crucial

Importance of advertising andvisual identity Variable Normally crucial

Key elements Culture (sub cultures),strategy, structure,communication, performance,perception

The branding covenant,communication plus otheridentity elements (actual,communicated, conceived,ideal and desired identities (seeBalmer and Greyer, 2002)

Key dimensions requiringalignment

Organisational attributes –(including sub cultures)/Communication/perception

Corporate brandcovenant/communication plusother identity elements(including sub cultures)

Portability Normally difficult Variable

Financial goodwill Variable Can be very high indeed

Source: Balmer (n.d.)

Table III.A comparision

betweeen corporateidentities and

corporate brands

Corporate brands

981

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

The corporate brand covenantIt has been argued that at the core of a corporate brand is an explicit covenantbetween an organisation and its key stakeholder groups, including customers(Balmer, 2001a, b). In the literature this covenant is often referred to in terms of“a promise” (Johansson and Hirano, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Tilley, 1999).Frequently, this promise is encapsulated in the form of three words thatcombine the brand functions with descriptive and emotional modifiers, whichKeller (1999, p. 43) describes as “brand mantras”. Examples of the formerinclude, “authentic athletic performance” (Nike) and “fun, familyentertainment” (Disney). Typically, the covenant is asserted by anorganisation’s senior management in terms of a clearly articulated corporatebranding proposition. It is promoted via multiple channels of communication,and is experienced through the organisation’s products and services corporate,and, most importantly, through staff behaviour. Some organisations have goneso far as to prescribe a set of “laws” relating to the management and expressionof the corporate brand. The Codex promulgated by Mercedes Benz for theirglobal brand being a case in point (Schmidt and Ludlow, 2002). In Sweden,Volvo takes care to emphasise not only what should be communicated butwhat should not. The brand’s association with safety means that we should notexpect to see a Volvo appearing in a car chase (Tilley, 1999, p. 189).

A corporate brand may be viewed as a contract in that the company needs toarticulate its accord with its key stakeholders by demonstrating, unceasinglyand over time, that it has kept true to its corporate branding pledge. As such,the brand name and/or logo play an important part in creating awareness andrecognition but also as “signs” of assurance. However, a number of authoritieshave cautioned against seeing branding as a one-way process that affects theimage of those engaged in some form of branding partnership such ascustomers and employees. This is because these groups also have a key role indefining a brand’s image (Johansson and Hirano, 1999).

The importance of the corporate brand covenant is such that it may beviewed as a distinct identity type (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). As such, itsmanagement requires alignment between five other identity types:

(1) actual;

(2) communicated;

(3) conceived;

(4) ideal; and

(5) desired (Balmer 2001c).

Moreover, in organisations having corporate brands, the above identityelements need to be brought into alignment with the covenanted identity (theunderlying raison d’etre of the corporate brand). The same is true whether thecorporate brand inhabits one or many organisations.

EJM37,7/8

982

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

However, organisations do not always appreciate the nature of the covenantunderpinning their corporate brand. Research undertaken by Opinion ResearchCorporation International (1999) of 100 global brands found that manyorganisations had failed to articulate a positioning strategy for their corporatebrand: this mitigated against these brands realising their full potential.

The new corporate branding architectureThe recent importance attached to corporate brands and their managementshould, in our estimation, result in a corollary concern: corporate brandarchitecture (LaForet and Saunders, 1994; Kapferer, 1997; Aaker andJoachimsthalaer, 2000). Brand architecture refers to the relationships amongand between corporate, company (subsidiary), and product brands. Suchrelationships embrace products and services, or a mixture of the two across thehierarchy of brands. However, such relationships are no longer restrictedwithin the confines of a single corporation.

Olins’ (1978) well-known categorization of brands according to a tripartitestructure: monolithic, endorsed or branded, although hugely influential, issomewhat dated. Contemporary organisations face new and more complexchallenges. Brand management has not only become more important, but alsomore intricate and complex. One of these challenges is that new brandingcategories have emerged: increasingly, this reflects the increasing incidence ofshared corporate brands and the rise of networks centred on a corporate brand.Our analysis of the current business environment has resulted in theidentification of six, new corporate/trans-corporate categorisations and agreatly extended branding architecture (see Table IV).

Corporate brands and the resource-based view of the corporation[1]The resource-based view of the firm helps us understand why corporatebranding imparts long-lasting value. This economic theory is based on theproposition that firms are heterogeneous in terms of their resources and internalcapabilities, and that these resources and capabilities can provide the basis forsuperior performance if they meet specific criteria. The first criterion is that theymust be strategically valuable in the sense that they give the corporation someadvantage over its competitors. For example, a resource such as a new processtechnology might generate lower operating costs and higher margins. Such aresource, however, renders only fleeting above average profits unless theadvantage is sustainable over a relatively long period. To accomplish this, thetheory posits that the resource must meet the criteria of being rare, durable,inappropriable, imperfectly imitable, and imperfectly substitutable.

The sustainable valuable resource must be rare in the sense that acompetitor cannot easily purchase it in the marketplace. Durable means thatthe resource’s value does not depreciate rapidly. Inappropriability implies thatthe company that owns the resource can capture the major share of the profits

Corporate brands

983

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

that flow from it. Imperfect imitability denotes that it is extremely difficult for acompetitor to internally recreate the resource. And finally, imperfectsubstitutability suggests that new technologies, paradigms, or businessmodels are unlikely to render the resource in question obsolete or significantlyweaker (Barney, 1986; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). A strong, well-managedcorporate brand, in our opinion, meets the above criteria and thereby qualifiesas a sustainable valuable resource. To demonstrate this, let us look at corporatebranding in light of these criteria.

New corporatebrand category Explanation Example

Familial The sharing/adoption of the samecorporate brand by two entitieswithin the same industry or sector.There is, sometimes, a geographicaldistinction

Hilton (UK), Hilton (USA), Shell (UK),Shell (The Netherlands)

Shared As above, but operating in distinctand sometimes related, markets. Notusually geographically distinct.

Rolls Royce (Engineering/AeroEngines) (UK)Rolls Royce (car subsidiary of BMW)Volvo (commercial vehicles,engineering – Sweden)Volvo (car subsidiary of Ford USA)

Surrogate A franchise arrangement wherebyone organisation’s products/servicesare branded as that of another.

British Regional AirwaysUse of the British Airways brand

Supra A quasi, “arch”, brand used to supraendorse company brands.Particularly common within theairline sector. Unlike ordinarycorporate brands, this brandingcategory is derived from severalrather than from a single corporateentity. As such, its “ethereal” and“virtual” qualities are greater.

“One world” Airline Alliance“Star” Airline AllianceQualifier group” Airline Alliance

Multiplex Multiple uses and, possibly, multipleownership/rights of a corporatebrand among a variety of entities in avariety of industry sectors. (Similarto the Japanese Keiretsu philosophy)

VirginVirgin Atlantic AirwaysVirgin TrainsVirgin (Financial Services)

Federal The creation of a new corporatebrand by separate companies whopool their resources in a jointventure, to, in effect, create a newidentity/company.

Airbus Consortium

Source: Balmer (n.d.); also see Balmer and Greyser (2003)

Table IV.New corporatebranding categories

EJM37,7/8

984

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

ValueBy establishing a corporate brand a company can distinguish and differentiateitself in the minds of all its stakeholders. Similar to a product brand, a corporatebrand makes the company and its espoused values easily identifiable andconnotes a level of quality and consistency of performance in the minds of itstarget audiences. For product brands the focus is on customers and forcorporate brands for stakeholders. Consequently, a corporate brand providesan umbrella of trust for the company in extending its product or service lineand even in diversifying into dissimilar products and services. Corporatebrands are also transferable assets: they can be bought, and sold; they may alsobe coveted, as the struggle by Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen over the RollsRoyce car marque testifies. Or, consider the Ford Group, which has, over recentyears, acquired a number of prestigious corporate brands as part of its strategyto acquire a suite of up-scale brands – to date it has acquired Aston Martin,Jaguar, Porsche and Volvo. Ford’s acquisition of these brands may be seen tobe more effective in terms of cost, time and risk aversion than attempting tobuild up new high-prestige brands that lack the rich brand heritage of Jaguarand the others.

An effective corporate brand often has a latent value in terms of excesscapacity that can be applied to other markets (Peteraf, 1993). The use ofcorporate brands in the launch of new products is a case in point. For instance,it has been shown that the deployment of a brand name for a newproduct/service increase the success rate by 20 per cent and saves 26 per centon the costs of a new product launch (Newman, 2001).

Disney provides a good example of the leveraging of an enviable corporatebrand reputation. The corporation extended its corporate brand from animatedcartoons to full-length motion pictures, and then to theme parks, cruises,speciality products, and retail stores. The Easy Group, founded in the UK bythe Greek magnate, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, whose Easy brand is based on a lowprice, frills-free service proposition, has migrated from its budget airline(EasyJet) roots, and now encompasses car hire, Internet cafes, and financialservices. Another model is that provided by Sir Richard Branson’s Virginbrand, which has been stretched to extraordinary lengths so as to encompass,among others, savings, sodas, spirits, gyms, as well as compact discs, trainsand planes. The ubiquity of the Virgin brand is such that it appears to havesuffused the entire panoply of branding types from product through to service,as well as encompassing company brands.

Of course, as pointed out by Collis and Montgomery (1995), there are limitsto extending the corporate brand. To a large extent this will be dependent onthe elasticity of the values underpinning the corporate brand and the degree towhich the corporate brand values are industry-specific. Understanding thelimits of the corporate brand requires particular skill on the part of seniormanagement: a mistake in this regard can considerably reduce the equity that

Corporate brands

985

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

has been accrued to the corporate brand. This can be seen in relation to Virgin’sdisastrous use of its brand on its railway subsidiary which, until comparativelyrecently, was characterised by its antiquated and shabby rolling stock, its poortime-keeping, slimmed-down catering services and high ticket prices. The latterprovides a good example of what Greyser (1999) calls the“promise-performance” gap. Such occurrences can have a deleterious effecton a corporation’s share-price.

The value of a corporate brand manifests itself in other ways. Forinstance, branded companies may also have an edge in finding venturepartners (Barney and Hansen, 1994). Investors also seek strong corporatebrands. The value attached to a corporate brand materially enhances thecapitalisation of companies and often results in higher price-earnings ratios.Interbrand, in their 1999 analysis of the world’s most valuable brands,concluded that 59 per cent of Coca-Cola’s, 61 per cent of Disney’s and 64per cent of McDonald’s capitalisation was attributable to the worth of thecompany brand (Barwise et al., 2000, p. 93). The financial value ofcorporate brands comes to the fore during corporate takeovers. The $12.6billion paid by Philip Morris for the purchase of Kraft (the $12.6 billionrepresenting six times the book value of the company) is attributedprincipally to the goodwill associated with the Kraft brand name (Newman,2001, pp. 410-15). In the UK, the value of corporate brands has started toappear on the balance sheet of corporations.

However, placing a firm financial value on corporate brands remainscontroversial and there is far from agreement as to the methodology thatshould be employed. Consider the discrepancy in relation to the corporatebrand value of Coca-Cola, which has been valued at $15 billion by AC Nielsenand $ 68.945 billion by Interbrand (Schmidt and Ludlow, 2002, p. 2). What isincontrovertible is that corporate brands as well as other intangible assets canhave a balance sheet value.

One of the greatest benefits of an effective corporate brand is its effect onnon-product market areas, such as its role in the recruitment and retention ofvaluable employees. Hence, the corporate brand can be of inestimable value toan organisation’s human resources department. This is because anorganisation’s corporate brand values can serve as a template against whichprospective employees can be evaluated. Virgin Atlantic selects its personnelnot only according to their skill or experience, but also the degree to which theirbeliefs and personality are in alignment with the values of Virgin’s corporatebrand (Mitchell, 1999, p. 32). Waterstones, a leading UK retail book outlet,regards recruitment as an integral component of the management of itscorporate brand (Ind, 1997).

A cororally premise relating to the above is that human resources managersshould occupy a position of pivotal importance in supporting the corporatebrand (King, 1991; Balmer, 2001b). Finding suitable employees who have an

EJM37,7/8

986

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

affinity with the corporate brand would suggest that corporations benefit notonly in terms of employee commitment to the corporate brand, but also enjoy ademonstrable financial advantage in terms of the costs associated withrecruitment, training, the employment of agency staff and the payment ofovertime. The value of branding to recruiters and other human resourcefunctions has, until comparatively recently, been seen as a characteristic ofJapanese companies. Just as consumers construct identities through branding,so do employees. Johansson and Hirano (1999, p. 94) point out that a Toyotaemployee is proud to call himself a Toyota-jin (a Toyota-man).

The value of a corporate brand can also manifest itself in other ways. Forinstance, branded corporations may have an edge in finding venture partners(Barney and Hansen, 1994). In addition, a strong corporate brand can cushion acompany in time of crisis (Greyser, 1999). Ford, for example, because of itslong-standing corporate brand reputation, may have escaped consumer wrathin the tyre controversy with Firestone several years ago. Of course, there arelimits to stakeholder understanding, and Firestone’s role in the calamity clearlyexceeded these limits, and the same is true to an even greater degree for ArthurAndersen’s involvement in the Enron debacle.

What is clear is that the value of corporate brands takes on many forms.Research undertaken by MORI, the British opinion research consultancy,among senior managers supports this broad proposition. Its research foundthat a corporate brand had a perceived value in terms of increased profile,customer attractiveness, product support, visual recognition, investorconfidence, as well as in encapsulating organisational values and providingstaff motivation (Lewis, 2000).

We should not be surprised to find that the value of brands, in whatevertheir guise, has long been recognised, as the following quote testifies:

The good will of certain well-established names and brands is valued in the millions ofdollars, and ranks high among the assets of the companies responsible for them. In the greatmajority of fields . . . practically every one discriminates between brands in making apurchase. In many lines it has come be regarded as the simplest and surest way to obtainstandard quality and service (Hotchkiss and Franken, 1923)

RarityWe argue that a corporate brand is rare because it is the result of a uniquehistorical pattern of development which suffuses a corporate brand, not onlywith a rich palette of characteristics that are functional (quality, performance,familiarity and predictability), but also with myriad ethereal elements that arerich in image as well as in symbolic terms. These functional and ethereal valuesover time are represented by what are known as corporate brand values. Thesevalues (along with the tangible elements of the corporate brand) have theirroots in an organisation’s identity (Balmer, 2001b) as well as in its culture(Hatch and Schultz, 2001). There is a growing realisation that a discussion of

Corporate brands

987

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

corporate brands cannot be undertaken in isolation from a discussion of anorganisation’s identity (DeChernatony, 1999; Simoes and Dibb, 2001; Balmer,2001a, b; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).

The importance of culture (or more appropriately subcultures, see Balmerand Wilson, 1998) to an organisation’s identity has been recognised by identityscholars for the last decade or so (Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991;Balmer and Wilson, 1998; Balmer, 1998; Dowling, 1993; Hatch and Schultz,1997; Fiol et al., 1998, Rindova and Schultz, 1998). Unsurprisingly, because of acorporate brand’s inextricable link with identity, the importance of culture inunderstanding corporate brands has also been asserted (Balmer, 2001b;DeChernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2001).

As a result of the above, no two brands are identical, although some havesimilar characteristics such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola. Their rarity, resultingfrom their complexity, and comparatively long gestation, helps explain whysome corporations are willing to pay a premium price for corporate brandsrather than invest time, finance and other resources in creating a subsidiarycorporate brand de novo, as was discussed with the Ford example cited earlier.

But the corporate brand does not transplant as readily as a product brand.Conglomerates and holding corporations typically go to great lengths tomaintain the integrity of newly acquired corporate brands: Wal-Mart’sacquisition of the Yorkshire-based (UK) ASDA supermarket chain is a case inpoint, as is Ford’s acquisition of Jaguar and Volvo. Often, this requires that anarms-lengths approach be adopted. A predatory acquisition can result in theannihilation of the brand and in a merger, the two corporations normally fusetheir corporate brands often in the mistaken belief that they have, overnight,created a new brand. Consider for example AOL TimeWarner, HBOS (formerlyHalifax plc and the Bank of Scotland) and DaimlerChrysler. Also, in a merger,the original brands and names sometimes disappear without trace, as in thecase of Hoechst and Rhone-Poulenc, which became known as Aventis.

DurabilityCorporate brands are generally believed to have greater longevity than mostother types of valuable resources. The realisation that the Coca-Cola brand isolder than the physical plant and equipment used in production is a soberingone indeed. Grant (1991) observed that corporate brands tend to decayrelatively 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, andLondon’s coterie of old-line private bankers such as Childs, Coutts, Drummondsand Hoare are just a few examples of corporate brands that have spanned thecenturies.

While a superior product can dramatically yield competitive advantage inour high-tech milieu, this advantage is all too often short lived; today’s

EJM37,7/8

988

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

products have notoriously short life cycles. However, the values associatedwith a corporate brand can be enduring. This helps to explain the shift ofemphasis from product line brands to corporate brands.

Maintaining the substance, credibility and values of a corporate brand is acomplicated and unremitting task. It requires continuous reinvestment (Reedand De Fillippi, 1990; Grant, 1991), and ongoing support from seniormanagement (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995, 2001b). Moreover, a corporate brandneeds total organisational commitment assurance; congruent total corporatecommunication (congruent over space and time), and fidelity to the notion thatbehaviour mirrors rhetoric (Balmer, 2001b, p. 15).

InappropriatabilityAs stated above, inappropriatability means that a firm cannot lose profits froma valuable resource to another entity or person. Collis and Montgomery (1995)note that certain kinds of tangible resources are always subject to bargainingby a variety of stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, distributors, andemployees. Perhaps the most common example of such a resource is employees.As an illustration, highly successful securities brokers can change employersand take important clients with them or bargain to appropriate a larger share ofthe profit from their employers. Franchise-quality sports stars have the samecapability. The corporate brand, conversely, is a very different kind of resource.Because it is largely intangible, it cannot be bargained or “spirited” away. It is aresource which is historical and perceptual, a resource that is dependent, to aconsiderable degree, on perception, beliefs, and experiences. This has long beenrecognised by managers and consultants, as the following well-knownaphorism given by one senior Coca-Cola executive illustrates:

If Coca-Cola were to lose all of its production-related assets in a disaster, the company wouldsurvive. By contrast, if all consumers were to have a sudden lapse of memory and forgeteverything related to Coca-Cola the company would go out of business (quoted in Barwiseet al., 2000, p. 73)

Imperfect imitabilityA corporate brand is also difficult, if not impossible, to imitate for two majorreasons. The first is that brand signifiers (names, logos, colours, music, etc.) arenormally patented by the corporations. As such they are protected by law fromimitation by competitors. For instance, no other company can legally use theNike name or the “swoosh”. The second and perhaps more essential reason isthat the underlying substance of the corporate brand is intangible andconsequently difficult to replicate.

Resource-based theorists suggest that valuable, intangible resources, whichare typically rooted in a unique historical pattern of development, tend toprovide enduring advantage because they are protected by one or acombination of two isolating mechanisms: social complexity and causal

Corporate brands

989

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

ambiguity (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). Both of these mechanisms are at work inrelation to corporate branding.

Social complexity. This first mechanism recognises that the resource iscomposed of many interrelated elements so that few or no individuals have thedepth of knowledge to comprehend the overall package. The corporatebranding process involves not just the firm’s formal communication system,but also the many interactions a company has with its various stakeholders.These interactions include areas such as products and services, market andon-market behaviour, and human resources. Internally, personnel’s affinity to avariety of subcultures gives an organisation’s identity a distinctiveness(Balmer and Wilson, 1998) that also finds expression in the corporate brand.Given the magnitude and diversity of these interactions and communications, itwould be very difficult for anyone to grasp the intricacies of the overall process.

Causal ambiguity. The second isolating mechanism is the result of thecause-and-effect relationships in the process that go unrecognised. As we havealready argued, brand building involves a concerted interdisciplinary effort.Causal ambiguity operates primarily through word-of-mouth communicationand media interpretation, which can play a large role in forming the image andreputation of the corporate brand. Such tertiary communication cannot becompletely comprehended by either company managers or outside observers(Balmer and Gray, 1999).

Just as there is a mosaic of elements forming a corporate brand there are alsonumerous elements that can bring about its decline or demise. A failure tounderstand the company’s business, cultures, identity, structure, and theimpact of environmental forces are just some of these elements (Balmer, 2001b,p. 4).

In sum, because of the social complexity and causal ambiguity implicit in thecorporate brand-building process, it is virtually impossible for a competitor toimitate a corporate brand. It is eminently possible, however, for a competitor todevelop a superior substitute corporate brand.

Imperfect substitutabilityThe substitutability threat suggests that a firm’s valuable corporate brand canbe vitiated or “upstaged” by a competitor’s brand. This threat is the mostdifficult one to analyse and guard against. There is always a danger that yourcorporate brand will lose ground to a competitor (Dierickx and Cool, 1989). Inthe early part of the twentieth century, Montgomery Ward was the dominantcorporate brand in the US retail industry but was overtaken by Sears Roebuckin the 1950s, which more recently has been surpassed by Wal-Mart. IBM is nolonger the paramount corporate brand in the computer industry andMcDonald’s is constantly looking over its shoulder at Burger King andothers. McEvily et al. (2000) argue that there are strategies that companies canfollow to diminish this threat.

EJM37,7/8

990

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

The key strategy for protecting the corporate brand from a substitute brandis continuous improvement. This should be distinguished from the earlierarticulated strategy of reinvesting, to protect the brand from depreciation.Continuous improvement requires investing on an ongoing basis in enhancingthe factors that create value and, moreover, help to differentiate the brand. Thenature of such improvements will necessarily be industry and brand specificbut will almost certainly include product and service performance, innovation,design, and style. This is no easy task, however, since it means committing thecorporation to periodic, if not continuous, strategic change and innovation. JackWelch, in his 20 years as CEO of General Electric, consistently emphasizedchange and improvement at all levels of the organization to stay ahead ofcompetitors (Fortune, pp. 185-7). As a consequence, General Electric today hasone of the strongest and most admired corporate brands in the world.

ConclusionIn an era where the boundaries between corporate entities have become lessdistinct, where there is a blurring of the margins between the internal andexternal environment, and where traditional approaches to marketing havecome under scrutiny, the corporate brand has emerged as a particularly salientand robust concept. In addressing the question of why a successful corporatebrand is a sustainable, valuable strategic resource, we have argued that ananswer can be found in the economic theory called “the resource-based view ofthe firm”. According to this theory, a corporate brand can provide a sustainablecompetitive advantage to a company if it is characterised by value, rarity,durability, inappropriatability, imperfect imitability, and imperfectsubstitutability.

To us, corporate branding provides a powerful aperture by which tocomprehend organisations and their interface with myriad stakeholder groups.The Latin phrase Vultus est index animi captures the awesome nature ofcorporate brands. Translated, the literal meaning of the phrase is: “Theexpression on one’s face is a sign of the soul”. It takes only a small leap ofimagination to realise that for many organisations, the corporate brand is theface of the organisation. As such, when we regard a thriving corporate brandthat has stood the test of time, we also see something of that organisation’sidentity. An identity that has been astutely nurtured and maintained oversuccessive generations, that has enjoyed wide staff commitment to its ethosand values – a commitment that has in turn been reciprocated by thosestakeholder groups who are crucial to the organisation’s ongoing success andcontinuance – furnishes a sound underpinning for a successful corporatebrand.

We have explained the differences between corporate brand and corporateidentities and have argued that the notion of the corporate brand isfundamentally different in several crucial aspects from its sister concepts of

Corporate brands

991

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

corporate and organisational identity. One crucial difference is that while theidentity concept is applicable to entities of every hue, the corporate brandingconcept is not. Identity is a given necessary whereas corporate brands arecontingent. An organisation’s identity is a prerequisite to the establishment of acorporate brand. Every corporate brand has, so to speak, an ancestral home.Quod erat demonstrandum[2].

However, once established, a corporate brand can have a life of its own: itcan be bought, borrowed, sold and, in certain circumstances, be shared amonga variety of organisations.

We have urged caution on the part of scholars and practitioners whencontemplating brands: this is because corporate brands are crucially differentfrom product brands in terms of their composition, constituencies,maintenance, management as well as disciplinary roots. Indeed, theemerging theory on corporate branding is largely antithetical to traditionalapproaches to branding. Indeed, the genesis of corporate branding is, to asignificant degree, to be found within the literature on corporate and onorganisational identity. Both literatures emphasise the importance of personneland of staff affinities to subcultures. The importance of adopting amultidisciplinary perspective on the part of corporate identity scholars hasclearly influenced current thinking on corporate brands.

In this article we have advanced the view that the corporate brand covenant(the long-term commitment made between those who own as well as by themyriad stakeholders who “consume” the brand) should be viewed as anadditional identity type: “the covenanted identity”. Building on Balmer’s (2001c)earlier model relating to the management of identities (The AC2ID Test TM) weargue that the effective management and maintenance of a corporate brandentails bringing into alignment the various identity types with the covenantedidentity/the corporate brand (see Balmer in Balmer and Greyser, 2003. p. 251).

In addition, we have explored the boundary-spanning characteristics ofcorporate brands and have found that the existing tripartite branding typology(monolithic, endorsed and branding) to be inadequate in the context of thecontemporary business environment. Our analysis has resulted in an extensionof this typology with six additional branding categories:

(1) familial;

(2) multiplex;

(3) shared;

(4) surrogate;

(5) supra; and

(6) federal.

EJM37,7/8

992

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

This reflects the different ways in which organisations utilise the corporatebrand covenant. (Often a single corporate brand covenant is shared by differentorganisations.)

We have noted that since the early 1990s there has been a growing chorus ofexecration from both practitioners and scholars at the failure on the part ofscholars to face up to the changes presented by what we now call corporatebrands. These protestations are, at last, being heard. Currently, corporatebranding is generating considerable excitement from marketing scholars (aswell as those from other disciplines) and account is being taken of theprotestations of King (1991) and others. It comes with a realisation thatcorporate brands are not only redolent of our aeon, but represent a missingdynamic in management thought and practice.

However, we are of the view that the concept of the corporate brand is onlyone element of a much broader tableaux: a tableaux, of which the concepts ofcorporate reputation and image, total corporate communications and, moresignificantly, corporate and organisation identity studies are integral. In theirtotality, these concepts afford a powerful means by which the corporation canbe revealed, understood and managed. Not only do they represent a new gestaltof the corporation, but also the building blocks of a new philosophy ofmanagement, that of “corporate level marketing” (Balmer and Greyser, 2003).

In our estimation, the epiphany of corporate branding will herald a newepisode of marketing’s odyssey, namely: the advent of corporate-levelmarketing.

Notes

1. This section of this article is a development of our initial examination of corporate brandsand the resource-base view of the corporation. See Gray and Balmer (2001).

2. Literal translation: which was to be proved.

References

Aaker, D. and Joachimsthalaer, E.A. (2000), “The brand relationship spectrum: the key to thebrand architecture challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 8-23.

Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Aldersey-Williams, H. (2000), “Ten reasons why corporate identity is irrelevant”, RSA Journal,Vol. CXLVIII No. 5495, pp. 4-6.

Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4No. 3, pp. 24-46.

Baker, M.J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Visual identity: trappings or substance?”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 366-82.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of GeneralManagement, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-96.

Corporate brands

993

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b), “The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate branding”, Journalof General Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001c), “From the Pentagon: a new identity framework”, Corporate ReputationReview, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-21.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (1999), “Corporate identity and corporate communications:creating a competitive advantage”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 171-6.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), “Managing the multiple identities of the corporation”,California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-86.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds) (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity,Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing, Routledge,London.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), “Building societies: change, strategy, and corporateidentity”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilson, A. (1998), “Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye”,International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-31.

Barney, J.A. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitiveadvantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-64.

Barney, J.A. and Hansen, M.H. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 175-90.

Barwise, P., Dunham, A. and Ritson, M. (2000), “Ties that bind: brands, consumers andbusinesses”, in Pavitt, J. (Ed.), Brand New, V&A Publications, London, pp. 71-108.

Bernstein, D. (1989), “Corporate void”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 8, pp. 315-20.

Bickerton, D. (2000), “Corporate reputation versus corporate branding; the realist debate”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 42-8.

Bitner, M., Booms, B. and Mohr, L. (1994), “Critical service encounters: the employees’viewpoint”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.

Collis, D.J. and Montgomery, C.A. (1995), “Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 118-28.

DeChernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through narrowing the gap between brandidentity and brand reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 157-80.

Diefenbach, J.M. (1982), “Design as a management tool”, paper presented at the DesignManagement Institute Conference, 9-10 December, Boston, MA.

Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitiveadvantage”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-11.

Dowling, G. (1993), “Developing your company image into a corporate asset”, Long RangePlanning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-9.

Elliot, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction ofidentity”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-44.

Ewing, M., Pitt, L., DeBussy, N. and Berthou, P. (2002), “Employment branding in the knowledgeeconomy”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-22.

EJM37,7/8

994

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Fiol, C., Hatch, M.J. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1998), “Organizational culture and identity: what’s thedifference anyway?”, in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations:Developing Theory Through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 56-9.

Galbraith, J.K. (1986), The Anatomy of Power, Hamish Hamilton, London.

Gjols-Andersen, P. (2001), “A case study of the change of brand strategy in Lego from a focus onthe famous building brick to introducing a broad variety of Lego products in the children’suniverse”, PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implication forstrategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.

Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “The corporate brand: a strategic asset”, Management inPractice, No. 4, pp. 1-4.

Greyser, S.A. (1999), “Enhancing and advancing corporate reputation”, CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 177-81.

Hankinson, P. and Hankinson, G. (1999), “Managing successful brands: an empirical study whichcompares the corporate cultures of companies managing the world’s top 100 brands withthose managing outsider brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 135-55.

Harris, F. and DeChernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 441-56.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organizational culture, identity andimage”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 356-65.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”,Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-34.

Hemsley, S. (1998), “Internal affairs”, Marketing Week No. 2 April, pp. 49-53.

Hotchkiss, G.B. and Franken, R.B. (1923), The Leadership of Advertised Brands, Doubleday Page,New York, NY.

Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.

Ind, N. (1998), “An integrated approach to corporate branding”, Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 323-9.

Ind, N. (2001), The Corporate Brand, New York University Press, New York, NY.

Johansson, J.K. and Hirano, M. (1999), “Brand reality: the Japanese perspective”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 93-105.

Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.

Kay, J. (1995), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing BrandEquity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Keller, K.L. (1999), “Brand mantras: rationale, criteria and examples”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 43-51.

Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1998), “Corporate level marketing: the impact of credibilitymarketing on a company’s brand extensions”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4,pp. 356-78.

Kennedy, S.H. (1977), “Nurturing corporate images – total communications or ego trip?”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 120-64.

King, S. (1991), “Brand building in the 1990s”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 3-13.

Corporate brands

995

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Knox, S. and Maklan, S. (1998), Competing on Value, Financial Times/Pitman, London.

Knox, S.D., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K.E. (2000), “Building the unique organizational valueproposition”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The ExpressiveOrganization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 138-53.

LaForet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994), “Managing brand portfolios: how the leaders do it”, Journal ofAdvertising Research, September-October, pp. 64-76.

Levy, M. (1996), “Current accounts and baked beans: translating FMCG principles to the financialsector”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-9.

Lewis, S. (2000), “Let’s get this in perspective”, paper presented at the Confederation of BritishIndustry Branding and Brand Identity Seminar, Bradford School of Management,Bradford, 24 February.

McDonald, M.H.B., DeChernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), “Corporate marketing and servicebrands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 335-52.

McEvily, S.K., Das, S. and McCabe, K. (2000), “Avoiding competitive substitution throughknowledge sharing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 294-311.

Maathuis, O. (1999), “Corporate branding: the value of the corporate brand to customers andmanagers”, unpublished PhD thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.

Macrae, C. (1996), The Brand Chartering Handbook, Addison-Wesley, London.

Mitchell, A. (1997), Brand Strategies in the Information Age, Financial Times Report, London.

Mitchell, A. (1999), “Out of the shadows”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 25-42.

Newman, K. (2001), “The sorcerer’s apprentice? Alchemy, seduction and confusion in modernmarketing”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, pp. 409-29.

Olins, W. (1978), The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Identity,Design Council, London.

Olins, W. (2000), “How brands are taking over the corporation”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. andLarsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 51-65.

Olins, W. (2001), “Global companies: the inexorable rise of the corporate state? The Second LordGoold Memorial Lecture delivered at Templeton College, Oxford University”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 485-96.

Opinion Research Corporation International (1999), Global 100: Attitudes to Corporate Branding,Opinion Research Corporation International, Princeton, NJ, April.

Pauvit, J. (2000), Brand New, V&A Publications, London.

Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 179-91.

Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R.J. (1990), “Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainablecompetitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 88-102.

Rindova, V. and Schultz, M. (1998), “Identity within and identity without: lessons from corporateand organizational identity”, in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity inOrganizations: Developing Theory Through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 46-51.

Schmidt, H. and Ludlow, C. (2002), Inclusive Branding, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.

Schmitt, B. (1999), “Experimental marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 53-67.

EJM37,7/8

996

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

Schneider, B. and Bowen, D. (1995), “Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks:replication and extension”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 423-33.

Sherry, J. (1995), Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Sage, London.

Shoker, A., Srivastava, R. and Ruekert, R. (1994), “Challenges and opportunities facing brandmanagement: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31,May, pp. 149-58.

Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), “Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation”, CorporateCommunications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 217-24.

Stuart, F.I. (1997), “The influence of organizational culture and internal politics on new servicedesign and introduction”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9No. 5, pp. 469-85.

Tilley, C. (1999), “Built-in branding: how to engineer a leadership brand”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 181-91.

Urde, M. (1997), “Brand orientation – development of brands as strategic assets and protectionagainst trademark degeneration”, PhD thesis, University of Lund, Lund.

Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 117-33.

Further reading

Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.C. and Staw, B.M.(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-9.

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2002), “Of identities lost and found”, International Studies of Management andOrganization, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 10-27.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The ACID TestTM of corporate identity management”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 69-92.

Fombrun, C.J. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (1998), “The reputational landscape”, Corporate ReputationReview, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-13.

Fortune (1999), Fortune, Vol. 22 No. 10, 22 November, pp. 185-7.

Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), ““Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.

Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.

Macrae, C. (1999), “Editorial”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 1-24.

Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds) (2000), The Expressive Organization, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Urde, M. (1994), “Brand orientation – a strategy for survival”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-32.

Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.

Corporate brands

997

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. Vincent Dutot, Sylvaine Castellano. 2016. Designing a Measurement Scale for E-Reputation. CorporateReputation Review 18, 294-313. [CrossRef]

2. Jing Zhang, Yanxin Jiang, Rizwan Shabbir, Miao Zhu. 2016. How brand orientation impacts B2B servicebrand equity? an empirical study among Chinese firms. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:1. .[Abstract] [PDF]

3. Selva Staub, Ramazan Kaynak, Tarkan Gok. 2016. What affects sustainability and innovation — Hard orsoft corporate identity?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102, 72-79. [CrossRef]

4. Burçak Çağla Garipağaoğlu. 2015. Branding in Higher Education: A Case Study from Turkey. HigherEducation Policy . [CrossRef]

5. Suraksha Gupta, John M.T. Balmer, Brian Low. 2015. Brands in, from and to emerging markets: Therole of industrial relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 51, 4-10. [CrossRef]

6. Kayhan Tajeddini, Ulf Elg, Pervez N. GhauriEnhancing Organizational Performance of InternationalSMEs through Inter-Firm Marketing Collaborations 109-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

7. Adri W A J van der Merwe, Gustav Puth. 2015. Towards a Conceptual Model of the Relationship betweenCorporate Trust and Corporate Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 17, 138-156. [CrossRef]

8. Vicenta Sierra, Oriol Iglesias, Stefan Markovic, Jatinder Jit Singh. 2015. Does Ethical Image Build Equityin Corporate Services Brands? The Influence of Customer Perceived Ethicality on Affect, PerceivedQuality, and Equity. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]

9. Veronika Tarnovskaya. 2015. Corporate brand as a contract with stakeholders – theology or pragmatism?.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:6, 865-886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Alireza Sheikh, Ming Lim. 2015. The making of brand attachment and brand meanings: the case of a UKengineering services firm. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:6, 887-907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Aihwa Chang, Hsu-Hsin Chiang, Tzu-Shian Han. 2015. Investigating the dual-route effects of corporatebranding on brand equity. Asia Pacific Management Review 20, 120-129. [CrossRef]

12. Paul Chad. 2015. Utilising a change management perspective to examine the implementation of corporaterebranding in a non-profit SME. Journal of Brand Management 22, 569-587. [CrossRef]

13. Michela Mingione. 2015. Inquiry into corporate brand alignment: a dialectical analysis and directions forfuture research. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:5, 518-536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Amber L. Stephenson, Alex Heckert, David B. Yerger. 2015. College choice and the university brand:exploring the consumer decision framework. Higher Education . [CrossRef]

15. Holly Cooper, Dale Miller, Bill Merrilees. 2015. Restoring luxury corporate heritage brands: From crisisto ascendency. Journal of Brand Management 22, 448-466. [CrossRef]

16. John M T Balmer, Mario Burghausen. 2015. Explicating corporate heritage, corporate heritage brandsand organisational heritage. Journal of Brand Management 22, 364-384. [CrossRef]

17. Morteza Khojastehpour, Raechel Johns. 2015. The role of MNC's subsidiaries in creating multinationalcorporate brand. Journal of Strategic Marketing 1-14. [CrossRef]

18. Silvia Biraghi, Rossella Chiara Gambetti. 2015. Corporate branding: Where are we? A systematiccommunication-based inquiry. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-24. [CrossRef]

19. Ulla Hakala, Paula Sjöblom, Satu-Paivi Kantola. 2015. Toponyms as carriers of heritage: implications forplace branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:3, 263-275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

20. Jasmina Ilicic, Cynthia M. Webster. 2015. Consumer values of corporate and celebrity brand associations.Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 18:2, 164-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Mari Juntunen. 2015. Time-based modifications to process theory illustrations through a corporaterebranding case study. Baltic Journal of Management 10:2, 222-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

22. Coyte Cooper, Erianne A Weight, Nick Fulton. 2015. Investigating organizational core values in NCAAathletic departments. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 5:1, 50-64. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

23. Morteza Khojastehpour, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, Michael Polonsky. 2015. Addressing the complexitiesof managing domestic and multinational corporate brands. Corporate Communications: An InternationalJournal 20:1, 48-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

24. Chris Chapleo. 2015. An exploration of branding approaches in UK universities. International Journal ofNonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 20:10.1002/nvsm.v20.1, 1-11. [CrossRef]

25. Deli Yang, Mahmut (Maho) Sonmez, Qinghai Li, Yibing Duan. 2015. The power of triple contexts oncustomer-based brand performance—A comparative study of Baidu and Google from Chinese netizens’perspective. International Business Review 24, 11-22. [CrossRef]

26. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur Ghuman. 2015. What and how to communicate about a corporatebrand with the consumers: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-20. [CrossRef]

27. Mai An Tran, Bang Nguyen, T.C. Melewar, Jim Bodoh. 2015. Exploring the corporate image formationprocess. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 18:1, 86-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

28. Stephen Lloyd, Arch G. Woodside. 2015. Advancing paradox resolution theory for interpreting non-profit, commercial, entrepreneurial strategies. Journal of Strategic Marketing 23, 3-18. [CrossRef]

29. Rogelio Puente-Díaz, Judith Cavazos-Arroyo. 2015. The categorisation of brands: The case of P&G™branding strategy. International Journal of Psychology n/a. [CrossRef]

30. Zhibin Lin, Xinming He. 2014. The images of foreign versus domestic retailer brands in China: A modelof corporate brand image and store image. Journal of Brand Management . [CrossRef]

31. Philip J Kitchen, Marwa E Tourky, Dianne Dean, Ahmed S Shaalan. 2014. Corporate IdentityAntecedents and Components: Toward a Theoretical Framework. Corporate Reputation Review 16,263-284. [CrossRef]

32. Erik Braun, Jasper Eshuis, Erik-Hans Klijn. 2014. The effectiveness of place brand communication. Cities41, 64-70. [CrossRef]

33. Ahmad Zaki, Mahfud Sholihin, Zuni Barokah. 2014. The association of Islamic bank ethical identity andfinancial performance: evidence from Asia. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 3, 97-110. [CrossRef]

34. Mats Urde, Christian Koch. 2014. Market and brand-oriented schools of positioning. Journal of Product& Brand Management 23:7, 478-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

35. Jaakko Aspara, Hanna-Mari Aula, Janne Tienari, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2014. Struggles in organizationalattempts to adopt new branding logics: the case of a marketizing university. Consumption Markets &Culture 17, 522-552. [CrossRef]

36. Zalfa Laili Hamzah, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Md Nor Othman. 2014. Designing corporate brandexperience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research 67, 2299-2310.[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

37. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Philip J. Kitchen. 2014. Projecting corporate brand image and behavioralresponse in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?. Journal of Business Research 67,2324-2336. [CrossRef]

38. Mario Burghausen, John M.T. Balmer. 2014. Corporate heritage identity management and the multi-modal implementation of a corporate heritage identity. Journal of Business Research 67, 2311-2323.[CrossRef]

39. Roland H. Bartholmé, T.C. Melewar. 2014. The end of silence? Qualitative findings on corporate auditoryidentity from the UK. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-18. [CrossRef]

40. Sylvie Laforet. 2014. Managing brand portfolios: audit of leading grocery supplier brands 2004 to 2012.Journal of Strategic Marketing 1-18. [CrossRef]

41. Geraint Holliman, Jennifer Rowley. 2014. Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’perceptions of best practice. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 8:4, 269-293. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

42. Stephen Wilkins, Jeroen Huisman. 2014. Corporate images' impact on consumers' product choices: Thecase of multinational foreign subsidiaries. Journal of Business Research 67, 2224-2230. [CrossRef]

43. Christine Hallier Willi, Bang Nguyen, T.C. Melewar, Charles Dennis. 2014. Corporate impressionformation in online communities: a qualitative study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal17:4, 410-440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

44. Tatiana Anisimova. 2014. Benchmarking desired corporate brand image in relation to stakeholders: amanagerial perspective. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:4, 441-463. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

45. Amber L. Stephenson, David B. Yerger. 2014. Optimizing engagement: brand identification and alumnidonation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management 28:6, 765-778. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

46. Amber L. Stephenson, Nikki Bell. 2014. Motivation for alumni donations: a social identity perspective onthe role of branding in higher education. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing19:10.1002/nvsm.v19.3, 176-186. [CrossRef]

47. Nagwa El Gazzar, Maha Mourad. 2014. The Effect of Online Communication on Corporate Brand Image.International Journal of Online Marketing 2:10.4018/IJOM.20120101, 1-15. [CrossRef]

48. Carlo Rohner,, Battal Kalan,, Kim Oliver Tokarski. 2014. Corporate Brand Management von KMU:Eine qualitativ-explorative Bestandsaufnahme der identitätsbasierten Markenführung bei Schweizer undLiechtensteiner Unternehmen. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 62, 99-123. [CrossRef]

49. Mahsa Ghandehary, Hojjat Harati, Javad Khazaei Pool. 2014. Identifying and ranking the effective factorson customer values. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 7:1, 57-74.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

50. Mari Juntunen. 2014. Interpretative narrative process research approach to corporate renaming. QualitativeMarket Research: An International Journal 17:2, 112-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

51. Riza Casidy. 2014. Linking Brand Orientation with Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Positive Word-of-Mouth: Evidence from the Higher Education Sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 26,142-161. [CrossRef]

52. Carl Jon Way Ng. 2014. SEMIOTICIZING CAPITALISM IN CORPORATE BRANDENACTMENT. Critical Discourse Studies 11, 139-157. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

53. Richard Brophy. 2014. Rebrand in crisis: how Liberty came to Ireland. Journal of Strategic Marketing22, 93-103. [CrossRef]

54. Emmanuel Selase Asamoah. 2014. Customer based brand equity (CBBE) and the competitive performanceof SMEs in Ghana. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 21:1, 117-131. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

55. Chi-Tai Wang, Chui-Sheng Chiu. 2014. Competitive strategies for Taiwan's semiconductor industry ina new world economy. Technology in Society 36, 60-73. [CrossRef]

56. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2014. Developing and testing a value chain for fashion retailers:activities for competitive success. The Journal of The Textile Institute 105, 136-149. [CrossRef]

57. Vilma L. Luoma-aho, Mirja E. Makikangas. 2014. Do public sector mergers (re)shape reputation?.International Journal of Public Sector Management 27:1, 39-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

58. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix Mavondo. 2014. Aligning Company and Dealer Perspectives in CorporateBranding: Implications for Dealer Satisfaction and Commitment. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing21, 35-56. [CrossRef]

59. Carmen Gallucci, Rosalia Santulli. 2013. Il family brand nella comunicazione online. Un focus sul settorevino. MERCATI E COMPETITIVITÀ 127-148. [CrossRef]

60. John M T Balmer. 2013. Corporate brand orientation: What is it? What of it?. Journal of BrandManagement 20, 723-741. [CrossRef]

61. Marino Bonaiuto, Stefano De Dominicis, Laura Illia, Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas, Gabriele Lizzani. 2013.Managing employer brand attributes to attract potential future leaders. Journal of Brand Management 20,779-792. [CrossRef]

62. Mats Urde. 2013. The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management 20, 742-761.[CrossRef]

63. Thomas Leppelt, Kai Foerstl, Carsten Reuter, Evi Hartmann. 2013. Sustainability management beyondorganizational boundaries–sustainable supplier relationship management in the chemical industry. Journalof Cleaner Production 56, 94-102. [CrossRef]

64. Vernon H. Sweetin, Lynette L. Knowles, John H. Summey, Kand S. McQueen. 2013. Willingness-to-punish the corporate brand for corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research 66, 1822-1830.[CrossRef]

65. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Vesa Autere. 2013. Recruits’ Corporate Brand Co-creation Experiencesof the Finnish Military Forces. Corporate Reputation Review 15, 88-104. [CrossRef]

66. Tatiana Anisimova. 2013. Evaluating the impact of corporate brand on consumer satisfaction. Asia PacificJournal of Marketing and Logistics 25:4, 561-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

67. Christine Vallaster, Sylvia von Wallpach. 2013. An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics ofmulti-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation. Journal of Business Research 66, 1505-1515. [CrossRef]

68. Oriol Iglesias, Nicholas Ind, Manuel Alfaro. 2013. The organic view of the brand: A brand value co-creation model. Journal of Brand Management 20, 670-688. [CrossRef]

69. Tanya Bondarouk, Huub Ruël, Elena Axinia, Roxana AramaWhat Is the Future of Employer BrandingThrough Social Media? Results of the Delphi Study into the Perceptions of HR Professionals andAcademics 23-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

70. Anna Blombäck, Christina Scandelius. 2013. Corporate heritage in CSR communication: a means toresponsible brand image?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 362-382. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

71. Anna Blombäck, Olof Brunninge. 2013. The dual opening to brand heritage in family businesses.Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 327-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

72. John M.T. Balmer. 2013. Corporate heritage, corporate heritage marketing, and total corporate heritagecommunications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 290-326. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

73. Riza Casidy. 2013. How great thy brand: the impact of church branding on perceived benefits.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 18, 231-239. [CrossRef]

74. Sharifah Alwi, Shahril Azwan Ismail. 2013. A framework to attain brand promise in an online setting.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31:5, 557-578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

75. Zoe Lee. 2013. Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: Exploring tensions in the nonprofit sector.Journal of Marketing Management 29, 1124-1142. [CrossRef]

76. Alfonso Siano, Agostino Vollero, Maria Giovanna Confetto, Mario Siglioccolo. 2013. Corporatecommunication management: A framework based on decision-making with reference to communicationresources. Journal of Marketing Communications 19, 151-167. [CrossRef]

77. Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgreen. 2013. The role of social interactions in building internal corporatebrands: Implications for sustainability. Journal of World Business 48, 297-310. [CrossRef]

78. Richard Gyrd-Jones, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2013. Revisiting the complexities of corporate branding:Issues, paradoxes, solutions. Journal of Brand Management 20, 571-589. [CrossRef]

79. Richard J. VareyCorporate Reputation and the Discipline of Marketing Communication 104-120.[CrossRef]

80. Esben KarmarkCorporate Branding and Corporate Reputation 446-458. [CrossRef]81. Christofer Pihl. 2013. In the borderland between personal and corporate brands – the case of professional

bloggers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 4, 112-127. [CrossRef]82. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur. 2013. Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services and

durables brands: evidence from India. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22:1, 6-17. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

83. Nha Nguyen, André Leclerc, Gaston LeBlanc. 2013. The Mediating Role of Customer Trust on CustomerLoyalty. Journal of Service Science and Management 06, 96-109. [CrossRef]

84. Benjamin D Golant. 2012. Bringing the corporate brand to life: The brand manager as practical author.Journal of Brand Management 20, 115-127. [CrossRef]

85. Carsten Reuter, Philipp Goebel, Kai Foerstl. 2012. The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainabilityand cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18,270-281. [CrossRef]

86. Jatinder J. Singh, Oriol Iglesias, Joan Manel Batista-Foguet. 2012. Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter?The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics111, 541-549. [CrossRef]

87. Janet Haddock-Fraser. 2012. The Role of the News Media in Influencing Corporate EnvironmentalSustainable Development: An Alternative Methodology to Assess Stakeholder Engagement. CorporateSocial Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:10.1002/csr.v19.6, 327-342. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

88. Michael Hutchinson, Gregg Bennett. 2012. Core values brand building in sport: Stakeholder attitudestowards intercollegiate athletics and university brand congruency. Sport Management Review 15, 434-447.[CrossRef]

89. Marina Mattera, Verónica Baena, Julio Cerviño. 2012. Analyzing Social Responsibility as a Driver ofFirm's Brand Awareness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 1121-1130. [CrossRef]

90. Manuela Gussoni, Andrea Mangani. 2012. Corporate branding strategies in mergers and acquisitions.Journal of Brand Management 19, 772-787. [CrossRef]

91. John M.T. Balmer. 2012. Strategic corporate brand alignment. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8,1064-1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

92. Adam Lindgreen, Yue Xu, François Maon, Jeremy Wilcock. 2012. Corporate social responsibility brandleadership: a multiple case study. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 965-993. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

93. Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn. 2012. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations.European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1048-1063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

94. Jay Sang Ryu, Jane Swinney. 2012. Aligning business owners for a successful downtown brand. Journal ofPlace Management and Development 5:2, 102-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

95. Rob VanWynsberghe, Inge Derom, Elizabeth Maurer. 2012. Social leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games:‘sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver initiative. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events4, 185-205. [CrossRef]

96. Qin Sun, Audhesh Paswan. 2012. Country branding through Olympic Games. Journal of BrandManagement 19, 641-654. [CrossRef]

97. François Robichaud, André Richelieu, Robert Kozak. 2012. Branding as a communications strategy: Aframework for desired brand identity. Journal of Brand Management 19, 712-734. [CrossRef]

98. Gary Davies, Rosa Chun. 2012. Employee as symbol: stereotypical age effects on corporate brandassociations. European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 663-683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

99. T.C. Melewar, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2012. Shaping the research agenda for corporatebranding: avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 600-608. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

100. Marc Fetscherin, Jean‐Claude Usunier. 2012. Corporate branding: an interdisciplinary literature review.European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 733-753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

101. James E. Richard, Annie Zhang. 2012. Corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travelindustry. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 568-593. [CrossRef]

102. Oriol Iglesias, Eduard Bonet. 2012. Persuasive brand management. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 25:2, 251-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

103. Mari Juntunen. 2012. Co‐creating corporate brands in start‐ups. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 30:2,230-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

104. Wei‐Lun Chang, Kuan‐Chi Chang. 2012. Estimating the value of corporate co‐branding synergies.Kybernetes 41:1/2, 239-253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

105. Anna Blombäck, Marcela Ramírez‐Pasillas. 2012. Exploring the logics of corporate brand identityformation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17:1, 7-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

106. Anandan Pillai. 2012. Corporate branding literature: A research paradigm review. Journal of BrandManagement 19, 331-343. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

107. Vanessa Ratten. 2011. International sports management: Current trends and future developments.Thunderbird International Business Review 53, 679-686. [CrossRef]

108. Minna Mäläskä, Saila Saraniemi, Jaana Tähtinen. 2011. Network actors' participation in B2B SMEbranding. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 1144-1152. [CrossRef]

109. Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgreen. 2011. Corporate brand strategy formation: Brand actors and thesituational context for a business-to-business brand. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 1133-1143.[CrossRef]

110. Beth Harben, Sandra Forsythe. 2011. Cause–brand alliances: Less familiar brands with familiar causes.Journal of Brand Management 19, 132-142. [CrossRef]

111. Christina Öberg, Christina Grundström, Petter Jönsson. 2011. Acquisitions and network identity change.European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1470-1500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

112. Ahmed Alamro, Jennifer Rowley. 2011. Antecedents of brand preference for mobile telecommunicationsservices. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 475-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

113. Shaun M. Powell. 2011. The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity andcorporate social responsibility. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1365-1379. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

114. Jaakko Aspara, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2011. Corporate marketing in the stock market. European Journal ofMarketing 45:9/10, 1446-1469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

115. Bradford T. Hudson. 2011. Brand heritage and the renaissance of Cunard. European Journal of Marketing45:9/10, 1538-1556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

116. Elif Karaosmanoğlu, Ayşe Banu Elmadağ Baş, Jingyun (Kay) Zhang. 2011. The role of other customereffect in corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1416-1445. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

117. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson. 2011. Internal branding process: key mechanisms, outcomes andmoderating factors. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1521-1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

118. Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó. 2011. Key changes and challenges for brands in anuncertain environment. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 436-439. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

119. Ulla Hakala, Sonja Lätti, Birgitta Sandberg. 2011. Operationalising brand heritage and cultural heritage.Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 447-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

120. Noel Scott, Ann Suwaree Ashton, Peiyi Ding, Honggang Xu. 2011. Tourism branding and nation buildingin China. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5:3, 227-234. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

121. Riza Casidy Mulyanegara. 2011. The relationship between market orientation, brand orientation andperceived benefits in the non-profit sector: a customer-perceived paradigm. Journal of Strategic Marketing19, 429-441. [CrossRef]

122. Riza Casidy Mulyanegara. 2011. The Role of Brand Orientation in Church Participation: An EmpiricalExamination. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 23, 226-247. [CrossRef]

123. Robert L. Cardy, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall. 2011. Will They Stay or Will They Go? Exploring a Customer-Oriented Approach To Employee Retention. Journal of Business and Psychology 26, 213-217. [CrossRef]

124. Hongwei He, Yan Li. 2011. CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification andModerating Effect of Service Quality. Journal of Business Ethics 100, 673-688. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

125. John M T Balmer. 2011. Corporate heritage brands and the precepts of corporate heritage brandmanagement: Insights from the British Monarchy on the eve of the royal wedding of Prince William(April 2011) and Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee (1952–2012). Journal of Brand Management 18,517-544. [CrossRef]

126. Chris Chapleo, María Victoria Carrillo Durán, Ana Castillo Díaz. 2011. Do UK universities communicatetheir brands effectively through their websites?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 21, 25-46.[CrossRef]

127. Rita Järventie-Thesleff, Johanna Moisander, Pikka-Maaria Laine. 2011. Organizational dynamics andcomplexities of corporate brand building—A practice perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management27, 196-204. [CrossRef]

128. Joanna Minkiewicz, Jody Evans, Kerrie Bridson, Felix Mavondo. 2011. Corporate image in the leisureservices sector. Journal of Services Marketing 25:3, 190-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

129. Jay Sang Ryu, Jane Swinney. 2011. Downtown branding as an engine of downtown business success insmall communities. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7, 81-90. [CrossRef]

130. Aron O'Cass, Ranjit Voola. 2011. Explications of political market orientation and political brandorientation using the resource-based view of the political party. Journal of Marketing Management 27,627-645. [CrossRef]

131. Johan Gromark, Frans Melin. 2011. The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact onfinancial performance. Journal of Brand Management 18, 394-410. [CrossRef]

132. Roland H. Bartholmé, T.C. Melewar. 2011. Exploring the auditory dimension of corporate identitymanagement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29:2, 92-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

133. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2011. An exploration of fashion retailer own brand strategies. Journal ofFashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:1, 91-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

134. Subodh Bhat, Camilla Jane Burg. 2011. Does communicating corporate parent brand heritage help spin‐off stock performance?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 16:1, 27-37. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

135. Luca Petruzzellis, Salvatore Romanazzi, Leslie de Chernatony. 2011. Branding relationships in financialservices: Paradigm shift in Mediterranean countries. Journal of Brand Management 18, 312-328.[CrossRef]

136. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Jari Juga. 2011. Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: Astudy among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management 18, 300-311. [CrossRef]

137. Philip J. Kitchen, Inga BurgmannIntegrated Marketing Communication . [CrossRef]138. John M T Balmer. 2010. Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflections and directions

from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18, 180-196. [CrossRef]139. Abhijit Sengupta, Danica Vukadinović Greetham. 2010. Dynamics of brand competition: Effects of

unobserved social networks. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, 2391-2406. [CrossRef]140. Steve Burt, Keri Davies. 2010. From the retail brand to the retail‐er as a brand: themes and issues in

retail branding research. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 38:11/12, 865-878.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

141. Steve Wood, Michelle Lowe, Neil Wrigley. 2010. Conceptualising innovative customer-facing responsesto planning regulation: the UK food retailers. The Service Industries Journal 30, 1967-1990. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

142. Mari Juntunen, Saila Saraniemi, Milla Halttu, Jaana Tähtinen. 2010. Corporate brand building in differentstages of small business growth. Journal of Brand Management 18, 115-133. [CrossRef]

143. Olutayo Otubanjo, Temi Abimbola, Olusanmi Amujo. 2010. Conceptualising the notion of corporatebrand covenant. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6, 410-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

144. A.E. Kirby, A.M. Kent. 2010. Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity. Journal of Product& Brand Management 19:6, 432-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

145. Carley Foster, Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Ranis Cheng. 2010. Exploring the relationship between corporate,internal and employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6, 401-409. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

146. Bharati Bina Hawabhay, Russell Abratt, Mark Peters. 2010. The Role of Corporate Communicationsin Developing a Corporate Brand Image and Reputation in Mauritius. Corporate Reputation Review 12,3-20. [CrossRef]

147. Sabrina Bresciani, Martin J. Eppler. 2010. Brand new ventures? Insights on start‐ups' branding practices.Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:5, 356-366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

148. Jaakko Aspara, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2010. The Role of Company Affect in Stock Investments: TowardsBlind, Undemanding, Noncomparative and Committed Love. Journal of Behavioral Finance 11, 103-113.[CrossRef]

149. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix T. Mavondo. 2010. The performance implications of company‐salespersoncorporate brand misalignment. European Journal of Marketing 44:6, 771-795. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

150. Harlan E. Spotts, Marc G. Weinberger. 2010. Marketplace footprints: connecting marketingcommunication and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing 44:5, 591-609. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

151. Stuart Roper, Gary Davies. 2010. Business to business branding: external and internal satisfiers and therole of training quality. European Journal of Marketing 44:5, 567-590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

152. Arja Lemmetyinen, Frank M Go. 2010. Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Baltic'sdestinations: A multi-authoring approach. Journal of Brand Management 17, 519-531. [CrossRef]

153. Tatiana Anisimova. 2010. Corporate brand: The company-customer misalignment and its performanceimplications. Journal of Brand Management 17, 488-503. [CrossRef]

154. Paulo de Lencastre, Ana Côrte-Real. 2010. One, two, three: A practical brand anatomy. Journal of BrandManagement 17, 399-412. [CrossRef]

155. Rianne Appel‐Meulenbroek, Dave Havermans, Ingrid Janssen, Anneke van Kempen. 2010. Corporatebranding: an exploration of the influence of CRE. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 12:1, 47-59. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

156. Alfonso Siano, Philip J. Kitchen, Maria Giovanna Confetto. 2010. Financial resources and corporatereputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 15:1, 68-82. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

157. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D Jaffe. 2009. Corporate Image Reinforcement in an Era ofTerrorism through Integrated Marketing Communication. Corporate Reputation Review 11, 360-370.[CrossRef]

158. Anna Blombäck, Olof Brunninge. 2009. Corporate identity manifested through historical references.Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14:4, 404-419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

159. Joachim Kernstock, Tim Oliver Brexendorf. 2009. Implications of Habermas's “theory of communicativeaction” for corporate brand management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14:4,389-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

160. Tamilla Curtis, Russell Abratt, William Minor. 2009. Corporate brand management in higher education:the case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand Management 18:6, 404-413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

161. Helle Kryger Aggerholm, Mona Agerholm Andersen, Birte Asmuß, Christa Thomsen. 2009.Management conversations in Danish companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal14:3, 264-279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

162. Gregory Ashworth, Mihalis Kavaratzis. 2009. Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal ofBrand Management 16, 520-531. [CrossRef]

163. Jennifer Rowley. 2009. Online branding strategies of UK fashion retailers. Internet Research 19:3, 348-369.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

164. Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury, Roger Bennett, Sharmila Savani. 2009. University marketing directors’ viewson the components of a university brand. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 6, 11-33.[CrossRef]

165. Roger Bennett, Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury. 2009. Prospective Students' Perceptions of University Brands:An Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19, 85-107. [CrossRef]

166. John M.T. Balmer. 2009. Scrutinising the British Monarchy. Management Decision 47:4, 639-675.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

167. John M.T. Balmer. 2009. Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany. Management Decision47:4, 544-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

168. Mats Urde. 2009. Uncovering the corporate brand's core values. Management Decision 47:4, 616-638.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

169. John M. T. Balmer, Helen Stuart, Stephen A. Greyser. 2009. Aligning Identity and Strategy: CorporateBranding at British Airways in the Late 20th Century. California Management Review 51, 6-23.[CrossRef]

170. Nicholas Alexander. 2009. Defining brand values through sponsorship. International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management 37:4, 346-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

171. Adrian Payne, Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow, Simon Knox. 2009. Co-creating brands: Diagnosing anddesigning the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research 62, 379-389. [CrossRef]

172. Roderick J. Brodie, James R.M. Whittome, Gregory J. Brush. 2009. Investigating the service brand: Acustomer value perspective. Journal of Business Research 62, 345-355. [CrossRef]

173. Leslie de Chernatony, Susan Cottam (née Drury). 2009. Interacting contributions of different departmentsto brand success. Journal of Business Research 62, 297-304. [CrossRef]

174. Hugh Wilford. 2009. Cities and their brands: Lessons from corporate branding. Place Branding and PublicDiplomacy 5, 26-37. [CrossRef]

175. Martin Christopher, Barbara Gaudenzi. 2009. Exploiting knowledge across networks through reputationmanagement. Industrial Marketing Management 38, 191-197. [CrossRef]

176. References 233-262. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]177. OunJoung Park, Liping A. Cai, Xinran Y. LehtoChapter 6 COLLABORATIVE DESTINATION

BRANDING 75-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

178. Anna BlombäckChapter 6 Brand meaning and impact in subcontractor contexts 223-261. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF] [PDF]

179. Jakob Lauring, Christa Thomsen. 2009. Collective ideals and practices in sustainable development:managing corporate identity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16:10.1002/csr.v16:1, 38-47. [CrossRef]

180. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online corporate brand image, satisfaction andloyalty. Journal of Brand Management 16, 119-144. [CrossRef]

181. Leo P. Dana, Kate E. Winstone. 2008. Wine cluster formation in New Zealand: operation, evolution andimpact. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 43:10.1111/ifs.2008.43.issue-12, 2177-2190.[CrossRef]

182. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Rui Vinhas Da Silva. 2008. Online and Offline Corporate Brand Images: DoThey Differ?. Corporate Reputation Review 10, 217-244. [CrossRef]

183. Jakob Lauring, Christa Thomsen. 2008. Ideals and practices in CSR identity making: the case of equalopportunities. Employee Relations 31:1, 25-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

184. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D. Jaffe. 2008. Communicating a new corporate image duringprivatization: the case of El Al airlines. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:4, 380-393.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

185. Veronika Tarnovskaya, Ulf Elg, Steve Burt. 2008. The role of corporate branding in a market drivingstrategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36:11, 941-965. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

186. Apisit Chattananon, Meredith Lawley, Numchai Supparerkchaisakul, Lackana Leelayouthayothin. 2008.Impacts of a Thai cause‐related marketing program on corporate image. International Journal of EmergingMarkets 3:4, 348-363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

187. John M.T. Balmer. 2008. Identity based views of the corporation. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10,879-906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

188. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online brand attributes and online corporatebrand images. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10, 1039-1058. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

189. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki. 2008. From branded to endorsement corporate identity strategy: the case ofthe Fattals Hotel Management Group. Tourism Review 63:3, 48-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

190. Rita Kottasz, Roger Bennett, Sharmila Savani, Rehnuma Ali‐Choudhury. 2008. The role of corporateart in the management of corporate identity. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:3,235-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

191. Åsa Wallström, Ted Karlsson, Esmail Salehi-Sangari. 2008. Building a corporate brand: The internalbrand building process in Swedish service firms. Journal of Brand Management 16, 40-50. [CrossRef]

192. Ranis Cheng, Tony Hines, Ian Grime. 2008. Desired and perceived identities of fashion retailers. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 42:5/6, 682-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

193. Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2008. Principles of corporate rebranding. European Journal of Marketing42:5/6, 537-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

194. Anita Zednik, Andreas Strebinger. 2008. Brand management models of major consulting firms,advertising agencies and market research companies: A categorisation and positioning analysis of modelsoffered in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Journal of Brand Management 15, 301-311. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

195. Hong‐Wei He. 2008. Corporate identity/strategy interface: implications for corporate level marketing.European Journal of Marketing 42:1/2, 10-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

196. Myfanwy Trueman, Diana Cook, Nelarine Cornelius. 2008. Creative dimensions for branding andregeneration: Overcoming negative perceptions of a city. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 29-44.[CrossRef]

197. Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova. 2007. The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal andbehavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing 24:7, 395-405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

198. Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2007. Understanding the pitfalls in the corporate rebrandingprocess. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 341-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

199. John M.T. Balmer, Mei‐Na Liao. 2007. Student corporate brand identification: an exploratory case study.Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 356-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

200. Pascual Berrone, Jordi Surroca, Josep A. Tribó. 2007. Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant ofFirm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics76, 35-53. [CrossRef]

201. Michael Bendixen, Russell Abratt. 2007. Corporate Identity, Ethics and Reputation in Supplier–BuyerRelationships. Journal of Business Ethics 76, 69-82. [CrossRef]

202. Heather Skinner, Krzysztof Kubacki. 2007. Unravelling the complex relationship between nationhood,national and cultural identity, and place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 3, 305-316.[CrossRef]

203. Shirley Leitch, Judy Motion. 2007. Retooling the corporate brand: A Foucauldian perspective onnormalisation and differentiation. Journal of Brand Management 15, 71-80. [CrossRef]

204. Tim O Brexendorf, Joachim Kernstock. 2007. Corporate behaviour vs brand behaviour: Towards anintegrated view?. Journal of Brand Management 15, 32-40. [CrossRef]

205. Anna Blombäck, Björn Axelsson. 2007. The role of corporate brand image in the selection of newsubcontractors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 22:6, 418-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

206. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D. Jaffe. 2007. From blueprint to implementation. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:6, 485-494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

207. Hong‐Wei He, John M.T. Balmer. 2007. Identity studies: multiple perspectives and implications forcorporate‐level marketing. European Journal of Marketing 41:7/8, 765-785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

208. Francisca van Dijken. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: market regulation and the evidence.Managerial Law 49:4, 141-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

209. Abhijit Sengupta, Danica Vukadinovic Greetham, Michael SpenceAn Evolutionary Model of BrandCompetition 100-107. [CrossRef]

210. Joan C. HendersonCommercial Crises 145-162. [CrossRef]211. Magdalena Florek, Andrea Insch, Juergen Gnoth. 2006. City Council websites as a means of place brand

identity communication. Place Branding 2, 276-296. [CrossRef]212. Jon Hulberg. 2006. Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature study. Journal

of Brand Management 14, 60-73. [CrossRef]213. John M T Balmer, Stephen A Greyser, Mats Urde. 2006. The Crown as a corporate brand: Insights from

monarchies. Journal of Brand Management 14, 137-161. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

214. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2006. Cognitive, affective attributes and conative,behavioural responses in retail corporate branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 15:5, 293-305.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

215. Laurent Muzellec, Mary Lambkin. 2006. Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brandequity?. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 803-824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

216. Christine Vallaster, Leslie de Chernatony. 2006. Internal brand building and structuration: the role ofleadership. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 761-784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

217. John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser. 2006. Corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing40:7/8, 730-741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

218. Henry Yu Xie, David J. Boggs. 2006. Corporate branding versus product branding in emerging markets.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:4, 347-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

219. An Shi, Gao Liang, Wang JianCorporate Brand Cube: Building Strong Corporate Brands 743-748.[CrossRef]

220. Markus Eberl, Manfred Schwaiger. 2005. Corporate reputation: disentangling the effects on financialperformance. European Journal of Marketing 39:7/8, 838-854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

221. Annette L.M. van den Bosch, Menno D.T. de Jong, Wim J.L. Elving. 2005. How corporate visual identitysupports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10:2, 108-116. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

222. Prashant Mishra, Soumya SarkarCustomer-Based Corporate Brand Equity (CBCBE) in Business-to-Business Firms: 1729-1746. [CrossRef]

223. Elisa GiacosaInnovation in Luxury Fashion Businesses as a Means for the Regional Development 206-222.[CrossRef]

224. Alfonso Siano, Mario Siglioccolo, Carmela Tuccillo, Francesca ConteMuseum Communication: 151-179.[CrossRef]

225. Jennifer Rowley, David BirdOnline Branding 122-142. [CrossRef]226. Alfonso Siano, Mario Siglioccolo, Carmela Tuccillo, Francesca ConteMuseum Communication:

1172-1200. [CrossRef]227. Prashant Mishra, Soumya SarkarCustomer-Based Corporate Brand Equity (CBCBE) In Business-to-

Business Firms: 73-90. [CrossRef]228. Anup RajBranding and CSR in Indian Agribusiness 165-176. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by B

rune

l Uni

vers

ity L

ondo

n A

t 08:

55 1

4 D

ecem

ber

2015

(PT

)

View publication statsView publication stats