abhinav_research paper.doc

8/7/2019 abhinav_research paper.doc

1/35


2/35

K.J.Somaiya Institute OfManagement Studies & Research

R e s e a r c h P a p e r Page 2

Abstract:

Servicessector is the majorcontributor to the GDP for all the major economiesof the world.

India and China, the two fastest growing economies of the world majorly depend upon their

servicessector to drive their growth engine.Amajorchunk ofthiscomesfrom the IT and ITes,

which are majorly reeling under the pressure ofhigh attritionrates. Here comes in the role of

branding for services. The paper serves to analyze the role of internal as well as external

branding.

The paper would serve to understand the brand building process for different kinds of

industriesin the servicessector.Branding ofservice is thusis asimportant asis the branding of

products across industries. Brands help people relate and connect with a product and with a

booming sector like the services sector; it makes it much more important to understand the

branding building process.

Though clubbed under the same head but different services in the services sector are all

different from each other and so is the brand building process for them. Thus understanding

the process for each one of them is important from a managerial and a marketers point of

view.

Keywords:

Employer brand management; employer branding; internal branding; internal marketing;

customer experience;organizational culture,retail financial services, servicesbranding, brand

architecture, brand portfolio

Literature Review:

A brand is a cluster of functional and emotional values that promises a unique and welcome

experience for its stakeholders. The classical, FMCG branding model focuses upon finding

market gaps, devising an offering characterized by a unique cluster of values, then a

mechanistic production process gives rise to functional benefits which are enrobed with


3/35



emotional values through advertising. As developed economies have moved from a

manufacturing to a servicesbase, the classical brand building model needsrevising forservices

brands due to the greater importance of staff as providers of the services brands benefits

[Berry, 2000]. This paperisconcerned withcorporate brands. Inmany cases the terms services

brand and corporate brand are interchangeable given that corporate branding strategies are

frequently adopted in service industries such as telecommunications, air transport, financial

services and leisure and tourism. Organizations are becoming more values-driven, encouraging

their staff to capitalize on their role as key ambassadors in the brand building process. The

functional and emotional values of services brands are highly dependent on the staffs who

deliver the brand promise [Ind, 2001; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002]. As such, in services brand

building attentionshould be paid toboth the values likely tobe welcomed by customers and

the valuesheld and exhibited by individual employeesin the executionoftheirroles. Whilst the

focus has traditionally been upon the former, the latter is also important as the values

collectively held by employees are at the core of organizational culture [Hofstede, 1994].

Organisational culture and employees values are likely to influence the cluster of values

consumers perceive asconstituting a servicesbrand.


4/35



Brand and Culture:

To present a re-appraisal of the concept in terms of its potential contribution to brand-led

culture change and customer experience management. The ultimate aimofbrand management

has alwaysbeen to deliver a consistent and distinctive customer experience, but this task has

been particularly difficult forservice brands due to the greatercomplexity involved inmanaging

service brand experience. Despite the evidence that personal interactions are generally more

important in driving customer service satisfaction, there has been a tendency for service

companies tofocusmore of their attentionon the functional / operational factorsinvolved in

service delivery. Successful service companies stress the role of organizational culture in

promoting on-brand customerservice behaviours, but the mechanismsforshaping anon-brand

culture (such as internal marketing and internal branding) have typically relied too heavily on

communications-led approaches to sustain a lasting effect. The discipline of employer brand

management takes a more holistic approach to shaping the culture of the organization, by

seeking to ensure that every people management touch-point is aligned with the brand ethos

ofthe organization. In providing a robust mechanismfor aligning employeesbrand experience

with the desired customer brand experience, and a common platform for marketing and HR,

employer brand management represents a significant evolution in the quest for corporate

brand integrity. Delivering a consistent and distinctive customerbrand experience has always

been a central concernofbrand management. In the mid-1880s, before the term wasinvented,

one of the first great brand pioneers, William Lever, built his fortune by creating a highly

distinctive image for Sunlight Soap through advertising and packaging, and delivering a

consistently distinctive product experience, sweetersmelling with an airoffreshness and

it lathered beautifully. In the early 1900s retail pioneers like Gordon Selfridge were similarly

clear about delivering a consistently distinctive customer experience. The man whofirst coined

the phrase the customeris alwaysright 2 described hisoriginal visionforhisnew department

Store, Selfridges, as delighting them with an unrivalled shopping experience (which included

suchinnovations asin-store coffee shops) and training hisstaffin the Selfridges Way to ensure

a distinctively consistent level ofcustomerservice.


5/35



Making a link betweenbrand, culture and customer experience isnot new, but the practice of

managing the link between these related domainshas evolved significantly overrecent years. In

many respects, the notion of employer brand management simply completes a journey that

began with a disciplined approach tomanaging the total product brand experience, progressed

through an application of the same principles to service brands (more complex, more people


6/35



oriented) and arrives at the most complex and involving brand relationship most people ever

experience, their employer brand. While IM and internal branding have tended to focus on

interventions designed to shape employees perceptions of the brand, employer brand

management seeks to go the extra mile by embedding the brand ethos in the total employee

experience. The rationale for this extra mile is that distinctive brand customer experiences

tend torely heavily oninterpersonal interactions. The extent to which these interactionscanbe

scripted and trained is strictly limited and counterproductively prone to perceptions of in

authenticity. More natural (and authentic) service brand interactions depend on the strengthof

the organizations brand ethos and culture. IM and branding programmes can play a role in

raising awarenessofthe desired brand ethos, and may even promote temporarily high levelsof

brand engagement, but sustainable brand-led culture change will only be effective when the

brand ethosis deeply embedded in the everyday leadership and people management processes

of the organization. Employer brand management provides just such a mechanism for

translating the brand ethosinto the everyday working experience of employees, and by doing

so reinforces the organizations ability to deliver consistent and distinctive customer brand

experiences.

Experiencing the Brand Branding the Experience:This trend is crossing over to the service sector. From hotels to restaurants to airlines,

consumers are looking forsuppliers who gobeyond the basics tomeet their unique needs. They

are looking for what we call a Branded Customer Experience, a service experience that is

intentional, consistent, different, and valuable. Disney started the trend. Southwest Airlines

adapted it to the airline sector. In the U.K., First Direct started a new concept inbanking using

it. Howard Schultz ofStarbucks applied it toselling coffee. IanSchragescompany is perfecting

it in the hotel sector, and Amazon.com is applying it in the on-line environment. All of these

companies are creating loyal customersby delivering service experiences that create value for

customers beyond the products or services the companies happen to sell. Why is this? The

American psychologist Abraham Maslow conceived his theory ofmotivationmore than 50 years

ago. Maslow believed that humans evolve throughfive stagesofmotivation:firstly, the physical


7/35



need forfood and shelter;secondly, the need for longer-termsecurity and protection; then the

social need for a mate, friends, and family. Only as we answer these needs doour egoneedsfor

achievement and recognition become dominant. For many people of Maslows generation,

moving up this hierarchy of needs was a lifelong struggle. Today, most young people take

meeting the physical needs for granted, and their ego needs become their starting point.

Wearing a pairofTimberland bootsis asmuch about making a statement asit is about keeping

the feet dry. For increasing numbers of consumers, Maslows ego needs have become the

drivers. Maslow called it self-actualization, the desire to fulfill ones potential. For many

people in developed societies, income levels are such that people have the freedom and choice

to pursue their desired lifestyle.Self-actualization is theirmost deeply felt need.Allied to this

need to achieve ourfull potential is the need for the time to do it. Convenience hasbecome

increasingly valuable. Joseph Pine and James Gilmore in their book The Experience Economy,

use the analogy of the birthday party to illustrate this shift. I can relate their example to my

ownfamily experience. Whenmy father was young, hismother would visit the cornershop to

purchase the ingredients to bake a birthday cake and invite some of his friends around for a

birthday tea. When I was a boy, my mother would buy a ready-made cake with all the

trimmingsfrom the supermarket and hold a birthday party forme and my friends and enlist the

amateur effortsofmy father to provide the entertainment. Whenmy son wassmall we wouldtake him to McDonalds with a few of his friends for his birthday treat. Now parents are

delegating the complete birthday experience complete with decorations and entertainment to

a T.G.I. Fridays, Chuck E. Cheeses or Rainforest Caf. Consumers have moved through four

stages and are willing to pay anincreasingly large premiumfor the extra value represented by

each.Sohow does all ofthisrelate tobrands? If we goback to the beginning ofthe twentieth

century, we see that brands were simply meansof identifying goods. Ourneed forsafety and

security created brands that, over time, became proxies for quality and dependability. SoKelloggsbecame synonymous withhealthy breakfasts, Gillette withsafety razors, and soon.As

consumers became more affluent and motivated by ego needs, brands became more

aspirational and visible signsofsuccess. We wore them like badges. Karl-Heinz Kalbfell, BMWs

global head of Marketing, talks about wearing a lifestyle. Formany consumersin the 1990s,


8/35



driving a BMW was asmuch about making a statement about who they were as was wearing a

pair of Armani jeans or Nike cross-trainers. In todays economy, brands go beyond even this;

they say something about what isimportant to us, about our values and our lifestyle. The Body

Shop, First Direct, Four Seasons Hotels, Virgin, Saturn, Amazon.com, Quiksilver, Linda

McCartney meals, and Home Depot are all brands that have intentionally created products and

Services aimed at particular consumers and their lifestyles. Brands have moved from being

names of products to badges of success to means of enjoying the kind of life we wish for

ourselves.

Corporate Brand Identity and Image Congruence in the Leisure Services Sector: A Stakeholder

perspective

Joanna Minkiewicz, Felix Mavondo, Monash University Kerrie Bridson, Deakin University

Corporate branding is seen as a key determinant of an organizations ability to competitively

position itselfin the mindsof target consumers, relative tocompetitors. The role ofcorporate

branding has received only recent attention in the leisure services sector, research being

concentrated inservice industriessuch asretail, banking and airlines (Daffey and Abratt, 2002;

Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Mohr and Bitner, 1995; Chun and Davies, 2006). Researchers have

conceptually identified the need forbrand identity and brand image, bothintegral constructsof

corporate branding, to be congruent in order to create a shared meaning and understanding

between the organization and its target market. The aimof thisstudy is to empirically explore

the congruence betweenbrand identity and brand image in the context ofthe leisure services


9/35



sector. The leisure services industry isbeginning to play an increasingly significant role in the

Australian economy, with 10.3% of local household income in 2003-04 being spent in

recreational services, supported by an increase in the size of the cultural and recreational

services sector of 18.6% in 2004-05 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). ABS figures also

indicate that 40% of people visited zoological gardensin March-July 2002, an increase of 3.6%

from previousfiguresin 1999 (AustralianBureau ofStatistics, 2007). The trend towards a time-

poor population and an increasingly globally competitive marketplace means that leisure

servicessuch as zoological operationsmust find a point ofcompetitive advantage and a shared

understanding with their target market.

Operationalisation of Constructs:The seven aforementioned constructs: brand identity, brand image, external communication,

employees, service scape, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are each measured on

seven-point Likert scales. The existing scales used to develop the measurement instrument for

eachconstruct have been proven to provide high validity as a measurement tool (Parasuraman

and Zeithaml, 1988; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Suprenant and Solomon, 1987; Davies,

Chun, Da Silva and Roper, 2004; Oliver, 1980; Price, Arnould and Tierney, 1995; Jones and

Taylor, 2007; Davies and Chun 2002).


10/35



Brand Image has been measured by researchers in different ways. Most agree that its

measurement should be centered on cognitive, as well as affective and emotional attributes,

such as using personality metaphors to portray it (Bosch et al., 2006, Davies and Chun, 2002,

Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). To this end, Davies and Chun (2002) developed a Corporate

Personality scale, modeled on the premisesofAaker (1997), acknowledging that the scale is a

measurement tool specifically modified tomeasure corporate brand image.Amodificationof

this Corporate Personality Scale will be used tomeasure brand image in the current study. The

same scale will measure brand identity from the perspective of senior management. Items

pertaining tomission, values and positioning, in line with the Melbourne Zoobranding strategy,

will alsobe included. External communicationmeasuresincorporate typical sourcesofexternal

communication assuggested by Nandan (2005) and Oass and Grace (2004). Informationfrom

the Melbourne Zooin termsofcommunicationmedia used has alsobeenincorporated into the

measure. The role of employees ismeasured using an existing scale developed by Surprenant

and Solomon (1987), comprising of constructsmost relevant to Melbourne Zoo:competence,

helpfulness and sociability. The servicescape will be measured in terms of facility aesthetics,

layout accessibility and cleanliness, using scales established by Wakefield and Blodgett (1996)

and Parasuraman and Zeithaml (1988). Loyalty measures will encapsulate behavioral,

attitudinal and cognitive constructs, using scales established by Jones and Taylor (2007) and


11/35



Davies and Chun (2002).Satisfaction will alsobe measured using existing scales developed by

Oliver (1980) and Price, Arnould and Tierney (1995).

Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and Orientations:

Traditionally, branding research has its roots in the goods sector. Even though the services

sector dominates developed economies [Lovelock, 2000], attention from researchers has not

matched services sector growth. Many texts are devoted to services management and brand

management, but none focussolely onservicesbranding. One reasonforsofew valuable

Services brands [Clifton and Maughan 2000] is the continual reliance on branding techniques

devised in the goodssector. There are only a few models dedicated toservicesbrand building.

As services brands are about the delivery of promises through personal interactions, we

anticipated that management teams involved inbuilding servicesbrands would be senior and

likely tobe cross-departmental. Little hasbeen published about this. Finally, the importance of

gaining staff commitment and striving for consumer satisfaction suggested that successful

services-branding models would not stress an external orientation, as evident in goods

branding, but rather have a balanced internal and external orientation. Due to the dearth of

literature on these three issues, we sought to advance knowledge throughqualitative researchamongst senior consultants advising clients globally about services branding. We focused on

consultants since they are at the forefront of application, have considerable knowledge and

experience, and through their work and conference presentations are strongly influenelng

tomorrow's services-branding agenda. This article opens by reviewing the limited literature

about the stages involved in services brand building, the people involved and the

internal/external orientationsofsuccessful services-branding organizations.

Brand Architecture in Services:

The term "brand architecture" refers to an organizations approach to the design and

management of its brand portfolio. In particular, brand architecture decisions are concerned

with the numberofbrands to utilize the role of specificbrands and the relationship between


12/35



such brands. It has been posited that services organizations tend to adopt a corporate brand

approach to the management of their brand architecture, having a propensity to rely, in the

main, on one overarching brand. The study reported here investigates this contention in the

context of financial services, using a number of semi-structured interviews with senior

marketing managers. Findings indicate that althoughsome support for the corporate branded

approach was apparent, the dominant strategy is a "multi-corporate" approach, where the

brand architecture comprised a family of main brands. The main motivations for such an

approach are tomaintainstrong relationship franchises with different customer groups and/or

tosignal distinct competencies to the marketplace.As expected, the data shows little support

for the approachofbranding individual servicesor the wide-scale use ofsubbrands.

This paper presents a study of brand architecture strategies in a services context. Brand

architecture refers to the nature of the brand spectrum utilized by an organization in its

marketing efforts (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). In particular, brand architecture describes

the number and nature of brands employed and the relationship between each brand in the

marketing of a range of products or services. At one extreme, companies may employ one

overarching corporate brand, whilst at the other, individual product orservice brandsmay be

used. In between there are various hybrid options (de Chernatony 2001; Aaker and

Joachimsthaler 2000; Olins 1995). According to Douglas, et al. (2001), it is imperative thatmanagers design, implement and maintain a harmonious and efficient brand architecture that

spans all areasof a firm'soperation. Insuch a manner parsimony, as well asmaximumclarity

and consistency, canbe achieved cost effectively. However, according to Petromilli, et al. 2002)

many companiesstruggle to keep theirbrand portfoliosinorder. Thisis perhapsnot surprising

asmany organizations are faced withincreased market dynamism, customerfragmentation and

Industry consolidation.Added to that, Petromilli, et al. (2002) suggest that natural momentum,

egosofseniormanagement and the attractionofacquisitions tend to produce anover-complexbrand architecture inmany organizations. However, the dominant propositionin the literature

is that the brand architecture of services firms will normally be relatively uncomplicated and

rudimentary, as services organizations tend to rely on the corporate branded approach (de

Chernatony 2001;Berry 2000; Dobree and Page 1990;Berry, et al. 1988). Thisstudy makes a


13/35



contribution by investigating empirically whether the corporate branding approach is the

dominant strategy in the management ofbrand architecture adopted in a servicescontext by

eliciting the viewsofpractitioners, namely seniormarketing and brand strategistsin a services

environment. The study isimportant as empirical investigationofbrand architecture strategies

is largely absent from the literature, as are the viewsofindustry practitioners. Insights will also

be provided into the justification and rationale for the various brand architecture strategies

employed as well as the practical considerations associated with brand architecture

management. The paper proceedsin the traditional manner. In the following section the main

literature is reviewed before the methodology is explained. Results are presented and

discussed and implications explored. Finally, limitations are acknowledged and avenues for

further research highlighted, before conclusions are drawn. The study presented here is

concerned with the appropriate brand architecture forservicesmarkets. Thus, in the literature

review section, it isnecessary tointroduce and explain the notionofbrand architecture before

focusing more specifically upon brand architecture in a services context. Although the

importance ofbrandsin the marketing ofserviceshasbeenhighlighted by a numberofwriters

(Berry 2000; Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony 2000; de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley 1999;

Dibb and Simkin 1993; Zeithaml 1981), farfewerstudieshave focused upon the nature of the

"brand architecture" adopted by servicesorganizations. The term "brand architecture" refers toan organizations approach to the design and management of its brand portfolio (Aaker and

Joachimsthaler 2000) and is defined by those authors as:

"An organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies brand roles and the nature of

relationships between brands."

All "multi-offering" organizationsface a choice as to whether to use one single brand covering

all products or services, a separate distinct stand-alone brand for each offering, or some

combinationof these two extremes.Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) use the term "brandedhouse" to describe the strategy where the master, or corporate, brand becomes by far the

dominant brand driver across multiple offerings, often in unrelated markets. An organization

such as the Virgin Group tends towardssuch an approach.At the other extreme is a "house of

brands" strategy, whichinvolves anindependent set ofstand-alone brands each, producing an


14/35



optimum impact in the targeted market. For instance, the traditional approach of Proctor &

Gamble (P & G), with 80 majorbrandshaving little orno link with P&G or to each other, is a

house of brands strategy. Between, these two approaches, the authors see a continuum

encompassing "sub-brands", where the masterbrand is the primary frame ofreference but is

augmented by additional naming. Examplesinclude Microsoft Office orAudi TT and "Endorsed

Brands", such as Obsessionby Calvin Kleinor Courtyard by Marriott.Aaker and Joachimsthaler

(2000) suggest that, in general, a branded house or monolithic approach is more likely when

the masterbrand has associations that enhance the value proposition, ismoved into an area

where the organization appears credible and when there is the potential for communication

efficiencies. The branded approach ismore likely whenseparate brands are needed tocreate

and own an association (often avoiding the association of the master-brand) and to retain a

customerbrand bond. The difference between an endorsed brand and a sub-brand is a subtle

one. In the formercase, the master-brand plays a far less prominent role, perhaps evenonly

being mentioned by association, whereas in the latter case, the master-brand forms the

dominant part of the brand. Indeed, Olins (1995) did not distinguish between endorsed and

sub-brands. He identifies three brand structures and termed them monolithic, endorsed and

branded, whichisroughly similar to the schema ofAaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000), but with

some different terminology, de Chernatony, (2001) also proposes a "brand spectrum", similarto Aaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000) and Olins, (1995). The ends of the brand spectrum,

according to de Chernatony, (2001) are defined in termsofcorporate branding and individual

product brands. It is apparent that de Chematony'sconcept of the corporate brand isclosely

related to those of the monolithic brand and branded house discussed above. Equally, the

individual product branding approach is akin to the branded approach discussed by Olins,

(1995) and the house of brands of Aaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000). In between, there are

strong and weak company endorsement positions, ascanbe seenfrom Figure One.


15/35



Identifying and sustaining services brands Values:

Identifying and sustaining the valuesof a servicesbrand is vitally important forbrand success.

This paper explores the origins of services brands values and the issues that arise when

identifying and sustaining them. In addition, the failure factors associated with and the people

responsible for the identification of services brands values are discussed. The work is based

upon a literature review and in-depth interviews with leading-edge services branding

consultants. Techniques are discussed for identifying and sustaining services brands values.

These indicate that, while the identificationofservicesbrands valuesneeds tofocusinternally

within the organization, the issue of gapsbetweenimage and identity cannot be ignored. It is

suggested that core and peripheral brand valuesneed different treatment inorder tomaximize

services brands success and that human resources management is one of the most effective

methodsofsustaining servicesbrands values. The issue ofidentifying and sustaining a services

brands values is vital to the continued strength ofboth its image and its identity. This paper

explores the issues surrounding this, emphasizing that, unless values can be effectively

identified and then selectively sustained, the brand is likely to lose its way amongst both

customers and employees. There is a paucity ofresearchintoservicesbranding (Van Riel et al.,

2001), which has traditionally relied upon the assumption of importing ideas from classical

goodsbrand management (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). This unfounded assumptionmay

be part of the reason for a low proportion of valuable services brands, even though services

dominate Western economies (Clifton and Maughan, 2000). Recognizing that there are diverse

interpretationsofbrands (de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley, 1998), a widely accepted view is

that brands are clusters of functional and emotional values. A commonly used approach to


16/35



identifying valuesfor a new brand in the goodssectoris toresearchconsumersneeds (Gordon,

1999) and then develop a manufacturing process and a communicationsstrategy that provide

the basesfor the brands values. In the servicessectorstaffhas a greaterimpact onshaping a

brands values (Berry, 2000) and the determinationofbrand valuesneeds tobe more attentive

to their contribution (Heskett, 1987; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003). Yet there is a dearth of

research into the process by which practitioners identify services brands values. Societies

change over time in response to evolving political, social, technological and economic

environments. As such the relative importance of values changes. If a brand is to thrive over

time it could be speculated that the values that form part of its identity would need regular

subtle adjustmentsinorder tosynchronize continually withconsumersneeds. In theirstudy of

Coherency in corporate branding Morsing and Kristensen (2001) found that the corporate

brand is updated via a strategy of allowing subtle changes in stakeholders interpretations of

the brand. Kapferer (1997) isone ofthe few academics tohave considered brand evolution as

valueschange insociety, albeit briefly addressed and done withinhisidentity model.Some of

these subtle amendments are no doubt ongoing, as the employees in a services organization

reflect the evolving changes in society. However, another school of thought might draw on

Rokeachs (1973) definition, which posited the enduring nature of values. One way ofbridging

these seemingly conflicting perspectives is to introduce a distinction between core andperipheral values. A brand could be considered as having core values, which are enduring

(Collins and Porras, 1998), for example honesty. In addition, a brand may have peripheral

values that are lesscentral (but are neverthelessstill important values at that point in time) and

that reflect societal change. Rohan (2000) discussed the prioritizationofvalues, noting how ...

peoples value priorities will change inresponse tochanges in their environments (p. 264).A

brand of womens dresses may have decency and fashionability as its values. Over time the

importance ofthese two values will change, but the peripheral value offashionability will neverresult in dresses shorter than a critical length, since the core value of decency dictates

particularstandards. It could be postulated that successful servicesbrand management would

draw a distinction between core and peripheral values. Regular tracking of environmental

changes would result in managers re-evaluating the suitability of their brands values.


17/35



Techniques would be instigated for sustaining their brands core values and appropriate

amendments would be made to the peripheral values. While there is a stream of literature

about how managers can sustain their brand values (e.g. Lencioni, 2002) there is less about

which valuesshould be sustained and which approaches are most effective. This paperseeks to

advance knowledge by investigating how services brands values are identified and, once

identified, whether all of a brands values should be sustained and how companies go about

doing this. In addition, several emergent issues that surfaced during thisresearch are discussed.

These include the failure factors associated with the identification of services brands values

and the question of who is responsible for the identification process. As managers face the

challenge offacilitating consumerchoice by communicating the continuity oftheirbrands, they

also need to refresh their brands and keep them contemporary. This paper strives to assist

managerial decisions about striking the right balance. Traditionally research into brands has

focused upon the opinionsofbrand managers, but they often play a fire-fightingrole and are

more likely tohave their time occupied by day-to-day activities (Mitchell, 2001). Thisresearch

took the view that brand consultants were more likely tooffer leading edge ideas and therefore

interviewed brand consultants who had high profiles in the services branding literature. This

paperopensby reviewing the literature on valuesinbrand management. Propositions are then

outlined, based on the literature. The paper then explains how in-depth interviews wereundertaken withseniorbrand consultantsspecializing inservicesbranding. The findings about

the way organizations identify their services brand values and sustain/change their services

brand values are then explained. Finally, the overall implicationsofthe results are considered.

Developing a Brand Performance Measure for Financial Services

Brand:

Businesssuccessis due, innoinsignificant part, tobrand performance [Doyle, 2000]. Thusone

might anticipate a consensus about measuring business performance, and therefore brand

performance. However, researchershave conceptualised and measured business performance

using a variety of metrics [Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Day and Fahey, 1988;

Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998; Doyle, 2000]. In view of the implications this has for


18/35



seeking a standardized brand performance measure we sought to understand why there isno

consensusbusiness performance measure. This literature review focuseson understanding why

there is no standardized business performance measure. Business performance is a multi-

dimensional and complex phenomenon necessitating various measures [Lenz, 1981; Ogbonna

and Harris, 2000]. The environment and the strategy influence managerschoice ofmeasures

[Day and Nedungadi, 1994], as does the functions within whichmanagersoperate [Deshpande

and Webster, 1989]. Different performance measures are likely betweenmanagersin the same

corporationsince, as Cyert and March [1963] argued, managershave conflicting goals and do

not seek optimal, but rathersatisfactory solutions. Furthermore, asmanagers employ different

mental models to make sense of their environments [de Chernatony, Daniels and Johnson,

1993], preferences for measures vary between managers in the same organization [Day and

Nedungadi, 1994]. The type ofmarket influences the business performance measure [Ambler,

2000; Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon, 2000]. A relationship-centered bank would be more

concerned with client satisfaction and relationship suitability, since these influence retention

rates, which form the basis for their business model. By contrast, an insurance company

operating in a price sensitive market needs to keep control ofitscosts and would focusmore on

the number and levelsofclaimsbeing made. Differences exist betweenresearchers about the

central objective of marketing, which is a further reason for different business performancemeasures. For example, Ambler [2000], Doyle [2000] and Srivastava and colleagues [1998]

argue that the objective ofmarketing is to generate healthy returns toshareholdersby creating

and managing market-based assets. This leads tomeasuresofthe contributionofmarket-based

assets, net present value ofcashflow and shareholder value. Rust and colleagues [2000] concur

with this, but because they believe the route to achieving this is through maximizing the

lifetime value ofa firmsconsumerbase, they place more emphasisonconsumer equity metric.

Business performance measures have tended to evolve from goods-, rather than services-centered organization, overlooking services distinctive characteristics. Fitzgerald and

colleagues [1991] suggested six dimensions of services business performance, two measuring

the results of a competitive success (competitiveness measures and financial measures) and

four measuring the determinants of competitive success (equality, flexibility, resource


19/35



utilization and innovation). Our review found no research on a standardized business

performance measure specifically forfinancial servicesorganizations. Not surprisingly, as there

are a variety of measures for business performance, so researchers have employed various

brand performance measures [e.g. Blattberg and Deighton, 1996; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995;

Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1985]. Furthermore, reflecting their differing philosophies, consultants

have diverse brand performance measures [e.g. Young and Rubicam, 1994; Dyson, Farr and

Hollis, 1996]. As there is no standard way of measuring brand performance and, of specific

relevance toourstudy, financial servicesbrand performance, a processhad tobe followed to

develop a measure, as we next describe.

Challenges in branding financial services:

Financial services are servicesofferings and, as a result, many ofthe arguments associated with

the branding ofservices generally are alsorelevant here. In addition, financial services present

certainchallengesformarketersin termsof trust and fiduciary responsibility issues, 16 as well

as the lack ofconsumer interest, understanding and engagement inmany instances. Thus the

following literature review w ill briefly discussbranding inservices generally, before moving on

tofocus uponbranding issuesinfinancial services.According toBerry, 17 branding has a special

role to play in the marketing of services, because of the well-documented characteristics of

servicesofferings. He suggests that branding isnow a cornerstoneofservicesmarketing and

that branding is potentially crucial inservices, due to the difficulty of differentiating offerings

which are intangible rather than a physical product, a point alsomade by Zeithaml18 and Dib

and Simkin,19 among others. Customers derive a sense of safety from strong brands and

Berry20 argues that emo purchasing services from a perceived safe haven would appeal to

consumers, in particularforofferings which are intangible. On a related theme, DallOlmo Riley

and de Chernatony21 argue that the brand can act as a relationship fulcrum in services

marketing. They propose that the service brand should be seen as a holistic process, providing

the link between internal factors, such as those concerned with employees, and external

encounters with customers. As such, both customers and employees relationships with a

brand are potentially important in the marketing ofservices. In a more general context, such


20/35



arguments receive support from de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley22 although this earlier

study was not focused specifically on services. The same authors address the question of

service brand definition and the principles of services branding.23 They suggest that many

branding principles are consistent between products and services, but that there are particular

issues and challenges associated with the Operationalisation of services branding, including

ensuring consistency of service and brand delivery, and through using internal marketing to

engender a customer-focused culture. In his services branding model, Berry24 states that

service companies build strong brands through distinctiveness and message consistency. The

other main argument advanced by Berry is the importance of corporate branding to services

markets.AsBerry explains, in packaged goodsmarkets the product is the primary focusof the

brand, whereasinservices the company is the primary focusof the brand.Althoughcorporate

branding is seen as becoming more important generally, 25 it is seen as having a particularly

crucial role to play in the marketing of services. DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony26 cite

Dobree and Page27 as an example ofa study stressing the importance ofthe company as the

Brand and quote Berry et al.28 toillustrate that consumer are likely to view all servicesoffered

by a company ascomponentsofa single brand. DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony add that the

corporate brand forms the focusof the relationship-building effortsboth inside and outside a

services organization, in keeping with the relationship focus of the analysis they present.McDonald et al.30 also provide a detailed analysis of the prevalence of and challenges

associated withcorporate branding in a servicescontext. It is perhapsnot surprising that the

arguments discussed in relation to services generally apply equally to financial services as,

according to Devlin,31 financial services are excellent examplesofhighly intangible and often

complex service offerings. In general terms, Faust and Eilertson, 32 in a financial services

context, remind one that the brand ismuchmore than just a logo, while Camp33 suggests, not

unreasonably, that optimizing brand use in financial services involves using a brand that ispreferred by targeted consumers. McDonald etal.34 argue powerfully that there is presently a

dearth of salient brands in the financial services sector, and others have suggested similarly

that few brands are successfully differentiated in the financial services sector. In addition,

DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony state that brand expertsbelieve that there are relatively few


21/35


22/35



avoid confusion. To summarize, the literature suggests that brands are potentially very

important in a financial services context in order to provide differentiation and a focus for

relationships, possibly both externally and internally. The common perception, however, is that

although strong brands are required more than ever, given the environment that financial

servicesfirmsface, branding in financial services isrelatively weak, withmany brands lacking

saliency and true customer-based brand equity. A number of authors have suggested that

branding infinancial services is, and should be, concentrated primarily at the corporate level.

Overall, it is apparent that the successful branding ofretail financial servicesischallenging, and

that achieving true brand equity infinancial servicesmarketsmay present difficultiesforbrand

managers in financial services. While the literature regarding financial services branding is

replete with hypothesized trends and relationships and papers discussing general concepts,

there are, however, notably few empirical studiesin the area. Much work hasbeen done by de

Chernatony and associates, reported extensively above, but the material published thusfarhas

been based upon a series of interviews with brand experts (such as consultants, advertising

executives and soon).Aninput frommanagers would yield furtherimportant insights, a point

acknowledged by DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony.54 There is a paucity of work which

counsels the opinions of Senior brand managers in financial services. As it is managers who

determine brand strategies and face the long-term and day-to-day challenges of brandingfinancial services, they are important stakeholders in the branding process that can provide

important insights. Thus the main research question investigated in this study can be

characterized asfollows:

What are the viewsofseniorfinancial servicesbranding managers as to the particularrole and

importance of, and challenges associated with, branding retail financial servicessuccessfully?

The Service Brand as Relationships Builder:

Relationship marketing hasrecently received a lot ofattentionby researchers, bothinbusiness

to- business, and inconsumer goods and servicescontexts. McKenna (1991) suggested that this

increased interest in establishing relationships withconsumersrepresents a fundamental shift

in the role and purpose ofmarketing, fromcustomermanipulation, tocustomer involvement,


23/35



from telling and selling, tocommunicating and sharing knowledge, from last-in-line function to

corporate-credibility champion, and from a short-termtransactional, to a longer termrelational

approach tobrand marketing (e.g. Gringos, 1990a, 1990b, 1995; Iacobucci and Ostrom, 1996).

Incontrast, othershave objected to the notion ofrelationship marketing as a 'paradigmshift

(e.g. Petrof, 1997), noting that satisfying and keeping customers has always been the core of

the marketing concept. A slightly less reductionist view would, however, grant the notion of

relationship marketing at least with the role of keeping managers focused on a long-term

customerorientation. Moreover, Gringos (1990b) makes a distinctionbetweenhowto develop

and execute good marketing performance, which is the focus of the relational definition of

marketing, and whatdecisions tomake to domarketing, which is the focusof the traditional

marketing notion. In practice, advances in IT and the consequent emergence of direct

marketing and Internet shopping have prompted evenmassmarketing companies toseek the

development of distinctive 'relationships' with individual consumers (e.g. Copulsky and Wolf,

1990; Peppers and Rogers, 1995). However, the extent to which real mutual Relationship

betweenorganizations and theircustomers are created isquestionable (e.g. Fournier, Dobscha

and Mick, 1998). A further issue is the similarity in the terminology used in the literatures

discussing the theoretical basesofrelationship marketing and the brand. Consistent with Petrof

(1997), one interpretation of this similarity would be the redundancy between the twoconcepts. In essence, relationship marketing would be equivalent to doing all the things

expected of branding (e.g. reducing risk, simplifying decision making, etc.). However, we

consider it more appropriate to think in terms of convergence, rather than redundancy,

between the two literature streams. As we discuss below, the concept of the brand has

evolved, with an increased emphasis on relational aspects. The developing literature on

relationship marketing might have contributed to this renewed emphasis. As a result of the

recent 'rediscovery' of relationship marketing and the conceptual and practical issues justdiscussed, the first aim of this paper is to examine the appropriateness of the 'relationship

marketing' notion and the maincriteria forits applicability in variouscontexts. Next, we analyze

similaritiesbetween the conceptual antecedents (motivations) and consequences (advantages)

ofrelationship marketing and the essence ofthe brand as emerging from the general branding


24/35



literature. Theoretical similarities between the concept of the brand and the notion of

relationship marketing asrisk reducers, simplifiersofchoice and guaranteesofquality emerge

from this analysis. We then focus on services and elaborate on potential synergies between

branding and relationship marketing. However, we would like tostress that suchsynergies are

not exclusive toservices and may apply toboth goods and services.As we discuss, the crucial

point for the applicability of relationship marketing is not so much the distinction between

goods and services. Ourfocusisonconsumerservicesbranding mainly as an area whichmany

authors have identified as under researched (e.g. Faust and Eilertson, 1994; Shostack, 1977;

Turley and Moore, 1995).As we later discuss, a furthermotivationforfocusing onservices is

that the opportunity for, and the benefits from engaging in relationship marketing might be

more pertinent for some services, such as professional advisers. Finally, with the aim of

advancing the understanding of effective services branding, we expand the notions emerging

front the literature by examining the perspectives of twenty leading-edge brand consultants.

From these experts' opinions and the literature, we suggest that the service brand is a holistic

process, starting with the relationship between the organization and the employee providing

the service, and coming alive in the interactionbetween the customer and the service provider.

Future research will test these propositionsfrom the perspectivesofotherstakeholdersin the

branding process, such asmanagers and consumers.

Branding health services: Defining you in the marketplace:

The authorbeginsby saying that-

Financial managers think that branding is the proprietary domainofthe marketing managers.

They understand the powerof a brand but they are not necessarily familiar with the branding

strategies. The author tries tobring out the history ofbrands and tries

To apply the concepts tohealthcare industry.Author discusses a very important concept called

the brand pyramid wherein he discusses the various levels of customer interaction with the

brand to the level where they start having a bond with eachother. The author alsointroduces a

segmentationmap through whichhe tries to gauge whether why a particularcustomerismore


25/35



loyal to a particularbrand and not to the otherbrand. The fundamental discussion provided by

the author about what branding is, how it works, and how toimprove the branding strategies

to the financial managersfor the branding strategiesfor theirorganizations.

Branding Labour Intensive Services:

Abrand isnot a name, logo or advertising slogan; a brand is a persons dominant perception

when the stimulusofa name, logoorsloganis presented.Abrand, inshort, is a reputation that

developsmost durably fromcustomers actual consumption experiences. Marketercontrolled

communicationssuch as advertising can play important rolesinbrand development, including

creating awareness of the offering, stimulating trial, and providing language and imagery to

frame the desired brand. What marketing communications cannot do, however, is rescue a

poor product orservice. Ifcustomers experience with the offering differsfrom the advertising

message, they believe the experience and not the advertising. Advertising provides an

investment returnonly when it isreinforced by positive customer experiences. No USretailer

advertises more effectively on television than the discount chain Target but the advertising

works only because customers like shopping at Target. Consumption experience is important

for goodsbrands as well asservices. However, the source and nature ofcustomer experiences

differfor goods and services. Thisis especially apparent whencomparing equipment-intensive

goods to labour-intensive services. The differencesrange fromsubtle tosignificant depending

on which two categories are compared. We focus on equipment-intensive goods and labour-

intensive services (shaded in the chart) because, first, the differences are the greatest, second,

the branding literature emphasizes


26/35



packaged goods, which are equipment-intensive in their manufacture; and, third, relatively

little has been written specifically about services branding especially from the customers

perspective. In equipment-intensive goods, the product is branded. For virtually all services,

however, a company orspecificservice providerisbranded. The focal brand differsforservices

in part because they lack the tangible form that facilitates packaging, labelling and visual

display. A beauty salons name and logo can be put on the facility and even on the service

providers clothing but cannot be put on the haircut. Moreover, brand impact shifts from

product tocompany or person in proportion to the role service plays increating the benefits

customers buy. Customers brand the source of the benefit they seek in purchasing. Washing

powder provides the benefit and Persil is the focal brand. Few customers know or care that

Unilever is the manufacturer. Conversely, customersbrand the company forservices that are

not uniquely dependent on a specific person, such as a restaurant orhotel service. The more

the services value to the customer equates to anindividual provider, the more likely it is that

the individual will be the primary brand rather than the company. It is quite common, for


27/35



example, for customers to follow a hair stylist who changes salons. The labour-intensity of

goods and service productionfigures prominently in the consistency ofquality. Generally, the

greater the involvement ofhumanbeingsin the productionofa good orservice, the greater the

variability. Labor-intensive offerings are less predictable because human beings vary in their

skills, knowledge, personalities, attitudes, moods and personal commitment. Variability occurs

not only among a group of employeesbut also with the same employee as a result offatigue,

personal problems, and an encounter with an unpleasant customer or other reasons. From a

quality and branding standpoint, a banks manager of its ATM network has a different set of

concerns than the manager of human tellers. In the latter case ...the brand deliverer...walks

around on two legs... asservicesresearchers Leslie de Chernatony and Francesca Dall Olmo

Riley put it. Because goods are produced before they are consumed, they can be inspected

prior to purchase. Companies that sell labour-intensive goods, such ascertain typesofclothing,

can inspect and remove items not meeting specifications before shipping to vendors.

Conversely, many services are produced and consumed simultaneously, thereby limiting the

opportunity for pre-consumption quality inspection. Branding plays a special role for labour-

intensive services because strong brands increase customers trust of an intangible, variable

offering that is difficult to evaluate prior to purchase. A strong brand is the surrogate when

there is no dress to try on, no automobile to test-drive, no bananas to scrutinize. The moreconsequential, complex and variable the service, the more customersneed brand reassurance.

As Stan Richards, founder of Dallas-based advertising agency The Richards Group, stated in a

speech: A strong brand is a safe place for customers. In general, services present more

customer touch points, or discrete experiences, than goods. With goods, the customers

experience with the product comes largely from seeing, handling and using it. With labour-

intensive services, the breadthofdiscrete experiencesis typically more extensive and oftenof

much longer duration. Customersfor goods dont visit the factory;service customersoften do.Consider the breadth and duration of brand impression touch points for airline travel. The

customer directly experiences at least three service factories: the departure and arrival

airports and the aero plane. Within these environments, passengers experience facilities,


28/35



equipment, multiple service providers and othercustomers. It is a complex mix of experiences

over a period ofhours withnumerousopportunitiesfor pleasing or displeasing customers.

A cross cultural perspective on branding of in financial services: across cultural perspective:

The role ofmarketing as anintegrated management functioninfinancial servicesorganizations

had been well documented in the literature since the 1980s (Hooley and Mann 1988; Ennew et

al. 1993). Given the high degree of intangibility, consumers' dependence on

experience/credence qualities and high levelsof perceived risk, branding can play a key role in

the marketing processforservicesin general (Bharadwaj et al. 1993) and forfinancial services

in particular (Easingwood and Arnott, 1991). Existing research has addressed aspects of

branding from organizational perspectives (see for example Easingwood and Mahajan 1989;

Saunders and Watters 1993; Harris, 2002) and by mapping consumer perceptions (Devlin et al.

1995). However, despite strong conceptual argumentsfor the relative importance ofbrandsin

a financial services context, there is relatively little research to evaluate the significance of

brands in consumer decision making for services (Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Moreover, a

number of researchers argue that both the two concepts are under-developed in business

markets (Mudambi et al. 1997; Keller 1998; De Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Rily 1998; Kalafatis

2000), which suggests that there is a real need to explore the role of brands in consumer

decisionmaking inbusinessmarkets as well asinretail markets. The small businesssectormay

be of particular interest in thiscontext. Clearly, small businessesmake a significant economic

contribution across most economies (File and Prince 1992; Freeman and Turner 1990). They

represent an important market from the perspective of the banks, given that estimates would

suggest that asmany as 75% ofsmall businesses are profitable over a three year period (Berger

and Ulrich 1986;Athanassopoulos and Labroukos 1999). Finally, given that small businesses lack

the resources and financial expertise of largerbusinesses, there are groundsforbelieving that

the brand may have a significant role to play in the decisionmaking process. This paper aims to

examine the importance ofthe brand inbank selection decisionsforsmall businesscustomers.

The empirical setting iscross-cultural w ith data being collected inboth the UK and Egypt. It is


29/35



widely recognized that there is a relative shortage of cross-national studies and this is

particularly apparent in the financial service sector, despite itsinternational focus. The benefits

to both academics and practitioners of conducting such studies are well known (Ta and Har

2000; Knight 1999; Malhotra et al. 1996). Accordingly, the current work will contribute

specifically toour understanding ofthe importance ofthe brand inconsumerchoice and more

generally will provide an illustration of the approaches to and benefits from the conduct of

cross national research in financial services. The paper begins by providing an overview of

branding and selection criteria for small business customers. Thereafter, the methodology is

discussed with particular attention being paid to the cross-national dimension. The following

section presents the results of the analysis for UK and Egyptian small businesses. The paper

closes with a summary and conclusions.

Benchmarking Services Branding Practices:

The servicessector accountsfor up to three-quartersofthe GDP of developed economies, yet

there hasbeenrelatively little research into identifying best practicesinservicesbranding (de

Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 1999). This lack ofbenchmarking data issurprising, given that

branding appears tobe a cornerstone ofsuccessful servicesmarketing (Berry 2000). The results

of the few empirical investigations of services branding practices are somewhat equivocal.

While the majority of authorsconclude that branding the company (orcorporate branding) is

more appropriate thanbranding individual service products (e.g.Balmer 1995;Berry 2000; de

Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 1999; de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 2000), others take a

contrary view (e.g. Onkvisit and Shaw 1989).A leading Americanservicesmarketing researcher

has produced a model of brand equity formation based on interviews with 14 mature,

highperforming service providers in the USA (Berry 2000). The author then identifies four

generic strategies to cultivate brand equity: dare to be different; determine your own fame;

make emotional connections; and internalize the brand.Although the last point emphasizes the

important role that staff play in services branding, these rather jingoistic terms appear to be

based more on anecdotal than empirical evidence, and could be as applicable to the producers

oftangible goods as to the providersofintangible services. Prominent branding researchers in


30/35



the UK have argued that the fast moving consumer goods approach to branding needs to be

adjusted for the servicessector, and that more researchisrequired to produce a tailored model

of services branding (McDonald, de Chernatony and Harris 2001). The current study takes a

small step towards answering the call by McDonald et al. by benchmarking the branding

practices of successful professional and business services providers in New Zealand.

Implicationsforservicesbranding theory and practice are discussed.

Findings:

y This paperhassought to augment, through interviews with leading brand consultants,what is known about the communication of brand values to both employees and

consumers. The findings enable implications tobe considered and conclusions drawn. In

the case of services brands, consumers do not solely interpret brands on the basis of

marketing communications, but also through their interactions with employees.Brand

success is therefore dependent on ensuring that staffcorrectly interprets theirbrands

values and are committed to enacting these valuesin theirinteractions withconsumers.

Once staff is behind the brand, it then becomes appropriate to reinforce the brand

throughcommunicating its values toconsumers.

y The HR function plays a key role in transmitting brand values through activitiessuch asrecruitment, induction and training. There is a need forsome systemofquality control

to be in place regarding the services provided by the HR department. As guardians of

servicesbrand values, it is vital that HR employeeshave a comprehensive understanding

ofthe brand and thisis then explicitly used to guide their activities with all employees.

y A powerful tool whencommunicating brand values iscascading this down throughoutthe organization by getting groups to run sessions with other groups, i.e. through a

ripple effect.Assmall numbersofindividuals are interacting with eachotherit may be

appropriate for the trainers not just to explain the brand values, but to then ghost

individuals and after observing their behaviour discuss how their actions do or do not

support the brand values.


31/35



y Contributed to a better understanding ofhow servicesbrand values are communicatedto employees and consumers. Drawing on van Riel [1995], we anticipated that values

are communicated to employees mainly through a combination of management and

organizational communication, and consumer communication is mainly through

marketing and organizational communication. The interviews suggest that while this

framework provides a good appreciation of communication channels, it may be more

informative to adopt the framework in Figure 1. Not only does this provide more detail

about channels, but it also highlights the importance of feedback mechanisms which

through discourse enable brand values tobe better appreciated.

y Making a link between brand, culture and customer experience is not new, but thepractice ofmanaging the link between these related domainshas evolved significantlyoverrecent years. IM and branding programscan play a role inraising awarenessofthe

desired brand ethos, and may even promote temporarily high levels of brand

engagement, but sustainable brand-led culture change will only be effective when the

brand ethos is deeply embedded in the everyday leadership and people management

processes of the organization. Employer brand management provides just such a

mechanism for translating the brand ethos into the everyday working experience of

employees, and by doing so reinforces the organizations ability to deliver consistentand distinctive customerbrand experiences.

y Creating a Branded Customer Experience one that really drives customer loyalty requires thought, effort, and resources. It takes careful design, it takes new forms of

collaboration between Marketing, HR, and Operations, and it takes the means to

harness the powerofyour people to turn themintoBrand Ambassadors. It alsorequires

the seamless integration of high-tech and high-touch, the powerful combination of

technology and human interface. But most of all it requires managers to understand

what it means to lead the brand.

y Responsibility forbrand development is less likely toreside withone person and morelikely tobe a teamrepresenting the mainfunctional areas. This is likely tobe led by a


32/35



senior manager who has the vision and the power to build shared support. Critical to

successis enthusiasm, commitment and "on-brand' behaviour.

y Having a strong customer-orientation is important, but equally important is a brandsupporting culture, based onrelevant, shared values.

y The approach that has to be incorporated is the "multicorporate" approach where afamily of main brands is incorporated into an organizations brand architecture. The

main rationales provided by practitioners for adopting such an approach were to

maintain a strong relationship franchise with different customer groups and/or signal

distinct competencies to the marketplace.

y Increasingly, service organizations must consider the effect of brand values on everyaspect of working life. It isno longer enoughfor a company to include a statement ofvalues in their annual report. The validity of the values must be ensured through

effective identification techniques headed by senior management that surface unique

and genuine brand values.

Limitations

The study conducted is totally a secondary kind of an effort. The study can be modified to

include a primary research where in data can be gathered by conducting a market research

amongst the practitioners of brand in the corporate world. This would give a comprehensive

insight into the brand building process practiced by the corporate world. This would give us an

opportunity to conduct the research comprehensively and would allow us to include many

more respondents than what was possible following the current methodology.

Conclusion

Although branding has attracted considerable attention from marketing academics in recent

years, the overwhelming majority of this interest hasbeen directed at products with physical

forms (goods), rather thanservices. The intangibility factor associated withserviceshas led to

the suggestion that branding and image creationmay be evenmore critical forservices .Also,

while the rationale for branding is the same for goods and services, at least some of the


33/35



concepts from the marketing literature associated with goods branding may not apply in the

service sector. From the literature and the interviews, we propose a notion of 'the service

brand' as a holistic process which provides focus to the internal relationship between the

service company and the employees, and comes alive in the external relationship (encounter)

betweenconsumer and service provider (employee). When excellent service is experienced, or

the promised brand is delivered in a way consistent with expectations, the consumer is

encouraged to engage in a long term relationship with the service provider. This can be

conceptualized in terms of a virtuous circle, whereby a strong 'brand as a company' identity

permeates the organization and provides a relevant focus tobothconsumers and employees.

This can be achieved using internal marketing and incentives to motivate and retain good

employees.

References:

y Building Services Brands-Leslie De Chernatony.y Communicating Services Brands Values Internally and Externally-Leslie De Chernatonyy Services Branding, now its core values-Business Standard-D.Murali.y Customer experience, organizational culture and the employer brand-Richard W

Mosley.

y Experiencing the brand, branding the experience-ShaunSmithy Corporate brand identity and image congruence in leisure services sector- Joanna

Minkiewicz, Felix Mavondo, Monash University Kerrie Bridson, Deakin University

y Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and Orientations- LESLIE de CHERNATONY,SUSAN DRURY and SUSAN SEGAL-HORN

yBrand Architecture in Services: The Example of Retail Financial Services-JamesDevlin,Nottingham University Business School

y Identifying and sustaining services brands Values-LESLIE DE CHERNATONY AND SUSANDRURY,Birmingham Business School, University House, The University of Birmingham,

Edgbaston Park Road, Edgbaston, BirminghamB15 2TT, UK


34/35



SUSAN SEGAL-HORN, Open University Business School, The Open University, Walton

Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK

y Life would be a lot easier if we were a Kit Kat: Practitioners views on the challengesof branding financial services successfully-JAMES F. DEVLIN is a reader inmarketing at

Nottingham University Business School. He has also worked for City University (now

Cass Business School) and in private banking. His interests are retail financial services

marketing and policy issues infinancial services. His work hasbeen published inmany

journals and he won prizesfor the best paper at the Annual UK Academy of Marketing

Conference in 1996 and for the best paper in the European Journal of Marketing in

1998.

SARWAR AZHAR is a research student at Nottingham University Business School. He

previously worked in the commercial and educational sectors in Pakistan. Sarwar is

currently researching the competitive strategiesofdomesticcompaniesin Pakistan.

y Service brands and communication effects-RON OCASS,Newcastle Graduate School ofBusiness, University House, University ofNewcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308,

Australia

DEBRA GRACE, Department of Marketing, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

PMB 50,Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia

y The Service Brand as relationships Builder-Francesca DaU'Olmo Riley, KingstotiUniversity Business School, Kingstoti Hill, Kitigston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 7LB

And

Leslie de Chernatony, Open University Business School, The Open University, Walton Hall,

Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK

y Branding health services: Defining you in the marketplace-Jeanne Yasiri and Tom BlinnMedical Group Medical Association.

y Branding Labour Intensive Services-Leonard L Berry and Sandra S Lampo


35/35


y A cross cultural perspective on branding of in financial services: a cross culturalperspective-Sally A. McKechnie and Christine T. Ennew, Nottingham University Business

School

Ehab M. Abou Aish,

Cairo University

y Benchmarking Services Branding Practices-Brendan J. GrayUniversity of Otago

Documents

abhinav_research paper.doc