Developments in the conceptualisation of brand identity largely occurred in the 1990s. Concurrent with the change in focus from product branding to corporate branding, exploration of the concept of identity in the marketing literature since 2000 has occurred more at the corporate rather than brand level. Understanding of corporate identity has evolved from the early focus on visual design and logos to encompass multiple disciplines including corporate communications, management, marketing, organisational behaviour, social and organisational psychology, human resource management and strategy (Cornelissen et al. 2007). Advantages of a strong corporate identity have been recognised as including alignment with the marketplace, attracting investment, motivating employees and providing a basis for differentiation and competitive advantage (Melewar and Karaosmanoglu 2006). For these reasons, a distinctive and recognisable identity is advantageous. Discussions on corporate identity are closely linked with image.
2.7.1 Corporate image
The literature (e.g. Markwick and Fill 1997; van Rekom 1997; Balmer and Soenen 1999; Melewar 2003; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu 2006) is in general agreement that corporate image is the collective perception that stakeholders have of corporate identity. Cornellissen (2000) additionally emphasises that images are formed from
various sources, only some of which are controlled by the organisation. Other sources include corporate communication activities of related businesses in the same industry sector, interpersonal encounters or word-of-mouth, and previous experiences and images stored in memory. As with brand image, the image is stored in the memory of the stakeholder and is unique to that individual.
Stuart’s (1999) analysis of developments in conceptual thinking on corporate identity management observed that corporate image formation was the focus of early models (e.g. Kennedy 1977; Dowling 1986; Abratt 1989) and that the concept of corporate identity only came to be used when it was realised that since corporate images resided in the heads of stakeholders, they could not be managed. The interface between corporate image and corporate identity became apparent in later models (e.g. Stuart 1998) and since then, the focus in the literature has been firmly on corporate identity.
2.7.2 Corporate identity
The involvement of diverse discipline domains has contributed to the absence of a widely accepted definition of corporate identity (Cornellissen 2000; Balmer and Greyser 2003). From various definitions which have been proposed (e.g. Ind 1992;
Balmer 1998; Gioia et al. 2000; Melewar and Wooldridge 2001;) corporate identity can be described as the strategic manifestation of corporate-level vision and mission, the essence of what the firm is, and how it is presented to its various stakeholders (Balmer 2009a). The increasing body of literature on corporate identity since the mid 1980s has yet to result in an agreement on its dimensions (Cornelissen and Elving 2003).
Various frameworks of corporate identity have been proposed (e.g. Hatch and Schultz 1997; Markwick and Fill 1997; van Reil and Balmer 1997; Stuart 1999;
Melewar and Jenkins 2002; Cornelissen and Elving 2003; Melewar 2003). The model of Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006) as illustrated in Figure 2.3. provides an holistic view of the concept with corporate culture at its heart, expressed through the mission, vision and values of the organisation. Strong links are identified between corporate culture and corporate history (which preserves company norms and practices over years); the importance of the founder (who initially sets the business philosophy); and to the country of origin (which links national culture characteristics to the company’s working principles and practices). In addition, industry identity including characteristics such as competitiveness and size is recognised as playing a
Figure 2.3: Categorisation of corporate identity dimensions and their sub-systems
Source : Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006 p.865)
Corporate Structure Brand structure Operational structure
Corporate Strategy Positioning strategy Differentiation strategy
Corporate Culture Mission
Vision Values
Corporate Behaviour Company behaviour Management behaviour
Employee behaviour
Corporate Design*
Slogan, Architecture Office layout, Location,
Website
Corporate Communication Marketing communication Management communication Organisational communication
CORPORATE IDENTITY
Industry identity History
Founder of the organisation Country of origin Sub-cultures
Note: * Corporate Design (Visual Identity)
In Melewar and Karaosmanoglu’s (2006) model (Figure 2.3), the role of the founder in influencing the corporate vision resonates with other corporate image/ corporate identity frameworks (e.g. Dowling 1986; Van Riel and Balmer 1997; Balmer 2001b) with Olins (1978) stating that an organisation’s identity is indistinguishable from that of the company founder. This interpretation aligns with Hatch and Schultz’s much cited model (1997; 2000; 2002) where corporate culture is conceptualised as the context by which history, founder and national origin are manifested in the mission, vision and values of the company. Equally most studies of corporate identity make links with corporate history concluding that identity is a product of the history of the organisation which is manifested through historical references in organisations (Melewar 2003; Blombäck and Brunninge 2009). This is particularly the case with
‘heritage brands’ (Urde et al. 2007; Balmer 2009b) a term used for companies which fulfil the following criteria: a solid track record; longevity; articulated long-held core values and symbols; and where history is central to corporate identity.
Balmer (2006) used the identity concept to underpin his exposition of the corporate brand and its relationship with brand culture. He posited that brands are inseparable from their identities and that these identities form the foundation of corporate brands. Part of this identity is the COO which roots the corporate brand in a particular culture based on historical values. Balmer (2006) makes the point that even although corporate brands such as Clydesdale Bank and Jaguar are in foreign ownership, they are still associated with a set of traditional values and are perceived as sharing the cultural associations of their nation (i.e. Scottish, English). When a national focus is seen to convey benefits, or where a nation’s people have positive characteristics which are seen to be relevant for a company, companies are likely to promote national identity as part of their corporate identities (Avison 1997; Varey and Hogg 1999).
There are however alternative views on the relevance of national identity as part of corporate identity as explored by Jack and Lorbiecki (2007). They studied British corporations who had dropped references to national origin in their company name e.g. BT (formerly British Telecom). These firms have replaced national forms with homogenous corporate cultures and organizational identities (Howes 1996). One finding from their study was that downplaying Britishness “generated fears of rootlessness, disloyalty and of not belonging amongst some…customers and employees” (p.S85), but this was counteracted by instances where “Britishness served as a divisive and marginalizing marker of identity” (p.S86). These comments
support the work of Ailon-Souday and Kunda (2003) who challenge that national identity as part of corporate identity can be regarded as homogeneous. In Jack and Lorbiecki’s (2007) study, Britishness meant different things to different people and was mobilized for different purposes, a view supported by Balmer (2006). He contends that rather than there being a single corporate culture, there are more likely to be several subcultures which he identifies as corporate, professional and
‘national’ (p.42). These subcultures can support a similar number of identities which can include an identity exemplifying: the values of the founder; the original corporate philosophy; national norms and precepts; or reflecting key corporate competency.
Balmer (2006) argues that a brand like Coca Cola exemplifies national culture through its ‘Americanness’ as much as corporate culture through its fun and refreshing drinks. The challenge for an organization is how to reconcile these different sub cultures and identities without losing value to different stakeholders.
2.7.3 Summary of image and identity concepts
Having examined the two concepts, it is clear that image and identity represent two different approaches to brand management based on the direction of communication between the brand producer and the brand consumer. Both approaches have been highly influential in branding theory development (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Kapferer 1997a; Aaker 1998; de Chernatony 1999; Hatch and Schultz 2000; 2001; Balmer 2001a; Louro and Cunha 2001; Aaker 2002; Burmann et al. 2009). The brand identity approach is strongly linked to the concept of corporate identity where the brand is integrated at all levels in an organisation.
Brand value is determined by the brand producer and communicated to the consumer and specifies a brand’s uniqueness. Brand image, based on theories from human psychology, transfers creation of brand value to the mind of the consumer resulting from their individual interpretations of all of the information they receive about a brand (Randall 2000). Using this approach, a thorough understanding of the consumer is at the heart of brand value creation.
Brand identity is a pro-active construct which originates from and is communicated by the company. Brand image is constructed in consumers’ minds. Identity represents the firm’s reality, while image represents the perception of the consumer (Nandan 2005).
In terms of brand management, identity precedes image (Kapferer 2004). From this perspective, brand image should be examined in terms of what the communication
al. 2006). Kapferer (1992, cited in Burmann et al. 2009) defines brand image as a
“construct of acceptance” stemming from decoding and interpreting brand signals. In contrast, brand identity represents a “concept of sender” and can be managed directly.
Identity is the critical component in the concept of the corporate brand and it has been shown that by adopting a corporate branding approach, the relatively narrow perspective of product branding can be considerably expanded. Corporate branding addresses the question of “who we are as an organisation” i.e. the identity of the organisation, and aligns the organisational culture (its origins and everyday practices), the strategic vision (where it aspires to go) with the images of its stakeholders. Corporate brands, rooted in the corporate identity can exploit a wider range of differentiators including their unique cultural heritage and what they stand for compared with others (Hatch and Schultz 2001; 2003).
Of particular relevance for this study which focuses on premium/luxury brands, is the assertion that COO, heritage and the business founder comprise key corporate identity traits (Melewar 2003; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu 2006). This links with the next section where the characteristics and business structures which differentiate luxury brands and influence their identities are considered.