Influence of flake size on stability

CS&B-management can only be successful if it does not adopt a biased and focused perspective (e.g., as perceived from the perspective of the sales market) but rather is able to reach all stakeholders of an organization equally. Of course, there may be industries where internal target groups (staff) or procurement markets (suppliers) are less important than in other industries. Nevertheless, it would appear necessary to take a broad view, to bypass any opposition and to keep interfering signals on a low level. Against this backdrop, three central fields of responsibility are displayed in the following and the impacts of the respective activities are examined further.

3.3.1 Definition of Corporate and Brand Identity as Gateway for CS&B-Management

There is no doubt that a corporation’s culture shapes how they interact with their stakeholders in a fundamental way. Casually speaking you might be able to define culture with the following statement: “It’s about how we do the things around here.”

In contrast to corporate philosophy which only—frequently in the form of written mission statements—describes the basic values determining the business-related thinking and acting (see Chap.1), the corporate culture includes the behavioral and object-related level of what is going on in a company and, therefore, also the ascertainment of values (Kreutzer et al.1989) (see Chap.7 for further details on culture). Stakeholders will therefore never experience the philosophy of an organi-zation but are faced with the culture that either goes along with the philosophy or else is different. If essential characteristics of the experienced culture are perceived as stable over time and at the same time there is no deviation between target and actual position, then this is what we call corporate identity. Wiedmann defines the term corporate identity as follows: “Corporate Identity (CI) is the specific ‘person-ality of an enterprise’ meaning the values, targets, ways of thinking and acting, behavioral routines, capabilities and skills, institutional regulations, and appearances that are typical or deemed typical of a corporation in their entirety”

[Wiedmann2004, p. 1415 (own translation); on the discussion of the term identity as part of corporate identity approaches see Birkigt et al. (1998); a comprehensive literature overview on different definitions of the term identity can be found in Pe´rez and Rodrı´guez del Bosque (2014)].

The general concept of a brand comes into play by all means whenever the enterprise—within the scope of its general competitive strategy—pursues a quality leadership and differentiation strategy (Homburg and Krohmer 2009). Then it becomes necessary to identify those elements in the corporate identity that are not only typical of the enterprise and deemed genuine by stakeholders, but likewise are or could be of high relevance to customers and have not yet been captured by the competition to distinguish their brand in the market. It seems logical that without distinctive characteristics that are relevant from a customer’s viewpoint to distin-guish the enterprise from others with a similar product range, it is likely to be difficult to create that special fascination that is typical for strong brands. On the other hand, it must be mentioned that distinctive characteristics must not only be sought on the functional level but also on the symbolic level. However, this does not mean that at this stage one should already think about diving into the emotional world of advertising. The symbolic characteristics that go along with a corporate brand are much more likely to be found in areas like innovation, process reliability, quality, or trust. In addition, those areas of the corporate identity that are tainted with negative connotations should be left aside. At the end of the day, the objective of brand management is to enhance the positive perception that is based on outstanding accomplishments (Gietl2013).

The formulation of brand identity is done internally and must hence be consid-ered a concept of statements (Burmann et al. 2012). This concept of statements

comes close to reality but does not map it entirely for at least two reasons. First, the perceptions of external target groups can only be accounted for indirectly as judged by the internal target groups (Hatch and Schultz2008). Second, a target component can link brand identity with corporate vision (Hatch and Schultz2001b). Hence, the brand identity reflects a brand’s characteristic elements for which it stands inter-nally and should stand facing any external parties. However, it must be noted that it does not constitute an ideal. Taking into consideration the specific company situa-tion an initial ideal concept of brand identity should be projected in this process.

Following the comparison with the actual situation, though, this ideal concept has to be streamlined to a feasible target concept (Wiedmann and Schmidt1997). For-mally, brand identity can be defined as follows: “Brand identity includes those spatio-temporal features of a brand that sustainably shape a brand’s character according to the internal target groups’ view” (Burmann et al.2012, p. 30 [own translation]). Conversely,brand image must be understood as an acceptance-based concept with which the implementation level of the brand identity by the enterprise can be mirrored.

An organization from the logistics industry can be named as an example of this process where a comprehensive brand project was carried out a few years ago. In order to initially capture the corporate identity, external consultants were called in who compiled and visualized the elements of corporate identity by using different survey methods (shifting through files of guidelines, analyzing internal and external communication material, conducting customer telephone surveys, staff group discussions, individual interviews with executives, workshops with suppliers, etc.). Based on this, a cross-functional steering committee that was operating across hierarchies categorized the most important but still numerous elements of corporate identity according to conciseness (is this really typically characteristic for us?), relevance (is this relevant for our internal and external target groups?), and distinc-tive power (does this distinguish ourselves from our competition?). As a result, the corporate identity could be boiled down further. The identity of the corporate brand derived from the corporate identity consisted of a central core (brand core) and five values that the brand was supposed to represent internally and in future also externally. What was special about this method was that the brand identity mainly reflected the outstanding achievements communicated in the past and, therefore, met with widespread approval in the course of the implementation.

3.3.2 Development of Strategic Positioning as Core Assignment of CS&B-Management

The term positioning is often understood as a specific highlighting of accomplishments in order to distinguish a business clearly and positively from other businesses, services or products (De Pelsmacker et al.2013; Bruhn2010). But in such a perspective of differentiation the viewpoint of customer benefit is some-what neglected: organizations developbrand positioning to strengthen the bundle of characteristics that customers associate or should associate with a company in

certain areas with the expectation that this added value is important for the customer (Mudambi and Chitturi2010). Keller (1993; with reference to Aaker1982; Ries and Trout 1979; Wind 1982) back then defined the term positioning as sustainable competitive edge or also “‘unique selling proposition’ that gives consumers a compelling reason for buying that particular brand.” Also Burmann et al. (2012, p. 73; also compare the framework provided in Chap.1) embrace a similar stance, putting brand positioning on the same level as brand value proposition. “It compacts the components of brand identity to very few, brief statements that translate into a pledge promising the satisfaction of needs offered by this brand that is easy to understand by the external target group” (own translation). Hence, as positioning is based on brand identity as well as derived from it, the need for authenticity, relevance, and distinction is also relevant for the positioning.

A well-known supplier in the solar industry that manufactured solar cells and related top-quality products, planned and built solar farms, and worked on new energy concepts, underwent a brand positioning process some time ago. For this purpose the brand identity was taken as a home base which had been compiled and documented in a previous project. As part of the brand identity process those characteristics were filtered out that not only suited the company as well as distinguished themselves from the competition and were relevant to customers but also—from the viewpoint of the decision makers—had the potential to inspire and fascinate current and future customers. This decision was based on in-depth interviews with industry experts and key accounts as well as large-scale studies on market development, industry trends and megatrends. The outcome of the discussions was to characterize the enterprise no longer as a manufacturer of solar modules but as a leading solar enterprise with system expertise which was to become a fundamental aspect of the value proposition to be communicated to the customer.

In terms of an integrated CS&B-management process the closely meshed coor-dination of positioning with the basic marketing strategies needs to be ensured. This includes, according to Becker (2000; also described by Scharf et al. 2012), the market field strategies (specification of the product/market combinations, “Ansoff matrix”), the market stimulation strategies (price-volume strategy or preferential strategy), the market area strategy (determination and expansion of sales territory) as well as market parceling strategies (mass marketing or market segmentation). So the question whether an enterprise is doing business on the regional, national or international markets or even considers itself a global enterprise (market area strategies) should have a major impact on the wording of the positioning. Secondly, it should be of particular importance at this point, amongst many other questions, to address the question whether the enterprise can position its corporate brand facing the various stakeholders and target groups at different locations or if a uniform positioning for all market segments should be preferred (market parceling strategy).

The above mentioned solar business, for example, thought about the following:

would it be beneficial to associate its positioning as a system supplier with a specific

designation of origin that should strengthen the perception of competence and innovation amongst customers? This led to the discussion whether this demarcation of origin was well understood in the markets of the individual countries or at least conveyed similar contents. At the end of the day, the business decided to go for a uniform positioning including a demarcation of origin in all serviced markets.

3.3.3 Implementation of Brand Identity Towards the Inside:

The Particular Challenge of CS&B-Management

In the course of integrated CS&B-management it becomes obvious that a brand can only unleash its full potential when it is actually lived within the enterprise (Esch 2012). In the past, the dominating position of communication policy to implement brand identity and positioning was often underlined (Bruhn2001). Practical expe-rience reveals, however, that brand management projects—especially in the context of corporate brands—have often failed since inadequate tools which only focus on external communication are used in the brand implementation phase. This is particularly astonishing as there is a variety of well-known tools that are aimed at bringing staff behavior, brand identity and positioning in line (Schmidt 2011;

Schmidt and Kilian 2012). Corporate brands like, for example, Apple, UPS, or Disney, which are striving for distinct positioning, have long realized that many known tools from the field of HR and organization development that are aimed at altering staff behavior (e.g., leadership trainings, personal appraisals, or bonus policies) can also function as brand management tools. This is not only attributed to the visibility of the identity-oriented brand management approach which is seen more often in practice but likewise due to the disappointment experienced by the limited effectiveness of pure communication policy based activities (Rutschmann 2011; Koch2010). More and more people seem to come to the conclusion that—in association with corporate brands—only a mix of different tools can help align staff conduct with the brand.

Against the backdrop of intensifying customer networks, it becomes more important for the success of corporate brands how the latter interact with their stakeholders. Disruptions in the relationship of customer and brand caused by negative experiences are no longer a private matter but will be rapidly spread in social networks, blogs, rating portals and any other appropriate forums and so made known to a broad public quickly and easily. Here the contact between a supplier’s workforce—being representatives of the brand—and customers is of particular importance (Tomczak et al. 2005; Wentzel 2008). At the so-called brand touchpoints, e.g., at customer service desks, in sales conversations or, at trade shows, it will be revealed whether the brand can keep its benefit promise (Perrey and Meyer 2011; Kilian2012) or not. Any negative experience customers may encounter will rapidly have a negative impact on brand perception. Positive experiences, on the other hand, can strengthen the brand perception in the long run. Since employees in more and more industries do their bit to raise their customers’ brand awareness and to a greater extent than previously, consideration

must also be given to the fact that staff conduct needs to be managed systematically in accordance with the corporate brand.

The call for the implementation of an instrument mix leads to the conclusion that brand management in association with corporate brands needs to be lined up much broader than in association with product brands. HR policy tools like compliant selection of staff, integration of newly recruited staff or training brand-oriented behavior are also part of the toolkit of a brand manager as are appropriate management or incentive systems (Sackmann 2010). The approach of “internal branding” provides the tools that will enable and motivate employees to promote the brand through their behavior in order to keep the brand’s promise. The concept of internal branding includes all measures (e.g., communication, training, workshops) that are aimed at involving staff in the process of branding, informing them about their own brand, filling them with enthusiasm about the brand and finally to govern their behavior for the benefit of the brand (Schmidt and Kilian 2012) (see, e.g., Chap.4for a specific example).

So brand management of corporate brands is not to be left entirely to the marketing and sales departments but must penetrate the enterprise in its entirety, which involves the development of the brand in alignment with the (communicated) brand promise and (actual) brand experience at the company’s touchpoints with its target groups. Of course, those customers that use a product or a service in the so-called “moments of truth” play a major role in the brand-building process, since a stable and long-term sustainable brand-customer-relationship can only be established through the consistent and continuous transfer of all components of a brand at all brand touchpoints (Burmann and Wenske 2006). But in principle, anybody that is exposed to a brand at the brand touchpoint can be a key multiplier in the overall branding process. And just like one bad musician playing out of tune can spoil the sound of a great orchestra, a badly managed brand touchpoint can portray the overall brand in a rather unflattering light. Since corporate brands usually have a lot of brand touchpoints, it is precisely for them of utmost impor-tance to bring the touchpoints between enterprise and target groups in line with the brand (Schmidt 2006). In addition, a systematic and brand-oriented touchpoint management helps make the workforce aware of the brand strategy in its entirety to generate quick results that have a long-term impact.

This means that it is initially essential to analyze the customer journey through the corporate environment (Schu¨ller 2012), which includes the detection and prioritization of all brand touchpoints. The criteria for such a prioritization should be the significance from the viewpoint of customers and target groups, contact frequency and intensity. In a second step prioritized brand touchpoints should be brought in line with the brand identity during an audit. Can the customer or potential customer actually feel the brand at the touchpoints? Does the brand touchpoint “behave” in a genuine, attractive, and distinctive way towards its target groups? Answering these questions is simple only when the definition of brand identity is based on few, concise characteristics and likewise, clear and plain rules have been developed with which the brand compliance of any measure can be easily assessed. An “on brand” touchpoint should therefore meet the majority of brand

rules. Ideas for improvement should be compiled for those brand touchpoints that are not “on brand” in a third step and thus included in an implementation plan.

Finally, implementation must be managed and monitored.

Let’s take the example of the insurance company that a few years ago strength-ened internal brand management by training brand ambassadors that were to explain the developed brand identity and positioning in their local entities. As part of these workshops, employees were encouraged to compare identity and positioning of the brand with the actual situation at the brand touchpoints locally and, should there be any shortfalls, to submit proposals how to bring about a change. These proposals were in return received by the brand ambassadors, boiled down into core projects and in terms of a holistic program management absorbed in the overall action plan of the enterprise (roadmapping) followed by budgeting, timing and specific scheduling processes. A large brand event was held, that involved all employees and where all agreed projects and initial findings were presented. Additionally, the event was the platform for entertainment acts, creativ-ity workshops and visualizations in order to emotionalize staff for the brand and fill them with enthusiasm.

3.4 Conclusion

The old way of thinking, the brand is considered an operational tool that needs to be defined downstream from strategy development is obsolete. Strategy and brand are mutually dependent—at least in the context of strong corporate brands—and consequently a holistic approach needs to be adopted in their respective develop-ment. In addition to the examples outlined in this chapter, more ideas on the basis of the outlined CS&B-management approach are welcome that shape the integrated strategy and brand development process. The proposed examples may, however, suffice to raise awareness of research and industry of the need for a stronger involvement of strategic and brand management, as can be supported by the use of an overall business architecture framework.

References

Aaker DA (1982) Positioning your product. Bus Horiz 25(3):56–62 Aaker DA (1996) Building strong brands. The Free Press, New York

Adjouri N (2004) Alles was sie u¨ber Marken wissen mu¨ssen. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden Ansoff H (1965) Corporate strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York

Baumgarth C (2008) Markenpolitik: Markenwirkungen – Markenfu¨hrung – Markencontrolling, 3rd edn. Gabler, Wiesbaden

Baumgarth C, Binckebanck L (2013) CSR-Markenmanagement – Markenmodell und Best-Practice-Fa¨lle am Beispiel der Bau- und Immobilienwirtschaft. In: Working papers of the institute of management Berlin at the Berlin School of Economics and Law (62)

Baumgarth C, Merrilees B, Urde M (2011) Kunden- oder Markenorientierung – Zwei Seiten einer Medaille oder alternative Routen? Mark Rev St Gallen 28(1):8–13

Becker J (2000) Marketing-Strategien. Systematische Kursbestimmung in schwierigen Ma¨rkten – Leitfaden mit Checklisten und Analysen. Vahlen, Munich

Biel AL (2001) Grundlagen zum Markenwertaufbau. In: Esch F-R (ed) Moderne Markenfu¨hrung, 3rd edn. Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 61–90

Binckebacck L, Baumgarth C (2011) CSR-Marke. Unvero¨ffentlichtes Paper (eingereicht und pra¨sentiert auf der Konferenz DERMARKENTAG2011), Berlin

Birkigt K, Stadler MM, Funck HJ (1998) Corporate identity. Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech Brandmeyer K, Schmidt M (1999) Der “Genetische Code der Marke” als Management-Werkzeug.

In: Brandmeyer K, Deichsel A (eds) Jahrbuch Markentechnik 2000/2001. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt, pp 271–289

Bruhn M (2001) Die zunehmende Bedeutung von Dienstleistungsmarken. In: Ko¨hler R, Majer W, Wiezorek H (eds) Erfolgsfaktor Marke: Neue Strategien des Markenmanagements. Vahlen,

Bruhn M (2001) Die zunehmende Bedeutung von Dienstleistungsmarken. In: Ko¨hler R, Majer W, Wiezorek H (eds) Erfolgsfaktor Marke: Neue Strategien des Markenmanagements. Vahlen,