Brand Orientation of Museums- Model and Empirical Results Carsten Baumgarth

8/18/2019 Brand Orientation of Museums- Model and Empirical Results Carsten Baumgarth

1/16

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT30

Introduction

Many museums today are fighting fortheir cultural and economic sur-vival because of financial bottlenecks

in the public sector, increasing competition with other cultural institutions, such as operahouses or leisure facilities, and falling visitornumbers. Consequently museum directorsneed to be open to the idea of adopting man-agement techniques imported from commerce,

despite the widespread misgivings of many artsadministrators (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002).One such technique is brand management.

There are success stories of the application ofbrand management to single museums orexhibitions (e.g., the Guggenheim, the BritishMuseum, the Museum of Modern Art’s tour-ing exhibitions). However, most museums reachonly a low level of professionalism in theirbrand management. For instance, in a 2006survey of major German museums, barely halfof the managers interviewed (49%) reported

that they had implemented a branding policy(Bekmeier-Feuerhahn and Sikkenga, 2008). Another survey covering Switzerland, Austriaand Germany had already found that only aboutone in 10 of surveyed museums (9%) had ameaningful corporate design policy (Prokop,2003). In the study reported here, less than athird of managers (30.9%) agreed that we havediscussed the management of our brand intensively.

Past research studies, both conceptual (e.g.,Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002) and empirical(e.g., Izquierdo and Samaniego, 2007; Camareroand Garrido, 2008), have analyzed marketorientation and the application of marketingmanagement in the museum sector, castinglight on the relevance of the discipline foreffective performance. More specifically, someresearchers have focused on brand manage-ment as a pillar of the classical marketing con-cept, presenting case studies of brand equity and

brand associations (Caldwell, 2000; Caldwelland Coshall, 2002) and brand control (Scott,2000) or practical guidelines for brand man-agement in museums (Wallace, 2006). In addi-tion, research into brand management in otherarts and cultural institutions (Colbert, 2003;Rowley, 1997), and into museum marketingin general (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002;Kotler and Kotler, 1998), offers some basis fordeveloping new research into the marketing ofmuseums as brands.

However, existing studies have focused on

adoption of the classical, externally orientedbrand concept in the museum sector, whilevery little research has been carried out onimplementation of the brand concept inter-nally, within the organization, or on the brand’scontribution to cultural and economic success.

Against this background, the present studyextends the prevailing view of museum brandmanagement by adopting the internal conceptof a brand-oriented culture, develops a frame-

Carsten Baumgarth is Asso-ciate Professor in the German-

Speaking Department of

Business Administration at

Marmara University, Istanbul,

Turkey. His main research

areas are brand management,

business-to-business market-

ing, media and arts marketing,

and empirical methods. He has

authored or edited six books

on branding and marketresearch and has published

more than a hundred papers

on marketing-related issues

in publications including

the Journal of Marketing

Communications, the Journal

of Business Research and the

top-ranked German marketing

journal, Marketing ZFP . He is

also the head of a brand

consultancy company.

Brand Orientationof Museums: Modeland Empirical Results Carsten Baumgarth

ARKET RESEARCHM

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management


2/16

VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3•

SPRING 2009 31

work for brand management in museums, andtests the link between branding and perform-ance. In short, it examines the relationshipbetween the “internal anchorage” of a museum’sbrand and the success of its “product.”

This study uses the general brand and mar-ket orientation literature to develop a newbrand orientation model and adapt it to the

museum context, as the basis for designing alarge-scale empirical study in Germany. Thearticle concludes with a discussion of theresearch and management implications of theresults, the limitations of the study, and pro-posals for further research.

Background andModel Development

A s noted, the literature offers two approachesto the systematization of brand manage-

ment. One adopts an external perspective,typified by the application of Keller’s (1993,2003) well-known brand knowledge framework. The other favours an internal focus andis supported by work on corporate culture (e.g.,Trice and Beyer, 1993; Schein, 1992) andmarket orientation (e.g., Homburg and Pflesser,2000). The internal focus is considered espe-cially relevant to services and other businesses

in which the employees play a key role in mar-ket success, and it has become much moreprominent in recent years. Because museumsdeliver a particular kind of service, which dependson effective interaction between employees and

visitors (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002) andtherefore demands an internal brand-orientedethos, this internally focused perspective hasbeen used as the framework for the new brandorientation model proposed and tested here.

Brand Orientation

A general framework that focuses on the inter-nal prerequisites of a strong brand is brandorientation . A specific variant of marketingorientation, it is characterized by the import-ance accorded to the brand in all managementdecisions as well as by a high level of system-atic brand management (Hankinson, 2001a,2001b; Urde, 1994, 1999). The ideal outcomeis a relatively constant and consistent brandoffer, clearly differentiated from competingproducts in a way that is relevant to currentand potential customers. Researchers haveconcentrated on the development of a concep-tual framework (Bridson and Evans, 2004;Hankinson, 2001a; Wong and Merrilees,2005) or on measures of the correlation betweenbrand orientation and performance outcomes(Ewing and Napoli, 2005; Hankinson, 2001b;Napoli, 2006).

Among these researchers, Ewing and Napoli(2005) conceptualize brand orientation as athree-dimensional construct comprising “inter-action,” “orchestration” and “affect,” whereas

Hankinson (2001b) proposes seven elements.The former study derives its model fromexplorative factor analysis without first estab-lishing a theoretical foundation for the struc-ture, while the latter is based on a narrowly

Because museums operate in a challenging economic and social environment, greater professionalism in museum

management is becoming increasingly necessary. Brand management is one building block available, though it

will have to overcome ideological resistance to the importing, by cultural institutions, of practices from the

world of commerce. The body of knowledge regarding the application of brand management to museums is

confined to a few published case studies and conceptual frameworks. The author presents and tests a new model

for brand management in the sector, grounded in relevant general literature and made up of four “layers”: val-

ues, norms, artifacts and behaviours. Questionnaire responses from 245 museums in Germany provided the data

for an empirical test, which confirmed the fundamental structure of the new model. The application of the model

is measurement of the internal “anchorage” of brand orientation and brand management, and assessment of

their effect on museum performance. The descriptive results show that branding has achieved little penetration

in this sector. The author draws conclusions, discusses managerial implications and identifies research directions.

Branding, brand orientation, brand management, museums, model

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to

thank Keith Crosier,the three anonymous

IJAM reviewers, andthe IJAM Editor,François Colbert,

for their insightful

and constructivecomments on thisarticle.



3/16


focused empirical study of fundraising char-ities in the United Kingdom. Neither framework allows for distinction among differentlayers of brand orientation.

The theoretical foundation of the alterna-tive conceptual framework proposed here isfound in the market orientation literature(Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1999; Homburg

and Pflesser, 2000; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar, 1993; Narver andSlater, 1990), within which two perspectivescan be distinguished. The “behavioural” vari-ant describes the phenomenon in terms ofconcrete behaviours and is typified by Kohliand Jaworski’s approach to the topic; its “cul-tural” counterpart is related to a more funda-mental view of the organization, as in Narverand Slater. The proposed model combines thetwo and transfers them to the specific contextof branding.

Construction of the proposed model begins with Schein’s (1992) corporate culture model, which identifies three layers focused on “val-ues,” “norms” and “artifacts.” To complete thenew model, I add a fourth layer, “behaviours,” which corresponds to the behavioural perspec-tive on market orientation. Homburg andPflesser (2000) propose a similar model for theanalysis of market orientation. Figure 1 usesexamples to illustrate these four layers of brandorientation. The statement by the director of the

Guggenheim Museum (United States) empha-sizes the high degree of relevance accorded tobranding by top management. The corporatedesign “style book” by the MuseumQuartier Wien (Austria) exemplifies explicit norms forthe execution of branding. The planningobjective for the rebuilding of the Museum of

Modern Art (United States) describes an arti-fact or symbol that expresses the brand idea.The corporate advertisement for the Ham-burger Kunsthalle (Germany) is an instance ofbrand-oriented behaviour, in the form of apractical marketing communications initia-tive. Thus the values layer measures the role ofbranding in overall strategic planning and

managers’ understanding of basic branding“rules” – demonstrated by such systematicbrand management practices as constant andconsistent brand positioning. The norms layerassesses the extent to which such rules andregulations, whether explicit or implicit, deter-mine the basic operations of brand manage-ment, such as the formal integration of brandcommunication. The artifacts layer relates tothe perceptible symbols that reflect the brand,such as corporate architecture, staff uniformsor organizational “stories.” The new, fourth,layer, behaviours , encompasses all concreteactions undertaken in support of the brand –brand-related market research or marketinginitiatives, for example. Unlike the other threelayers, behaviours is characterized by an empha-sis on the external operating environment.

Hypotheses

The new model proposes a causal chain fromabstract values and related norms to symbolic

artifacts and concrete behaviours, which isconsistent with the theory of organizationalbehaviour (e.g., Katz and Kahn, 1978) and with the market orientation model developedby Homburg and Pflesser (2000). The suppos-ition is that corporate commitment to thebrand and managerial understanding of the

En raison de leur contexte économique et social hautement compétitif, les musées doivent hausser le niveau de professionna-

lisme de leur management. La gestion de la marque présent un intérêt malgré une certaine résistance idéologique à l’impor-

tation, par des institutions culturelles, de pratiques managériales propres au monde des affaires. Le corpus de connaissancessur la gestion de la marque dans le secteur muséal se résume à la publication de quelques études de cas et de cadres concep-

tuels. L’auteur présente et teste un nouveau modèle de gestion de la marque pour le secteur, inspiré de la littérature perti-

nente et comportant quatre variables : valeurs, normes, artéfacts et comportements. Les 245 musées allemands sondés ont

fourni les données nécessaires à un test empirique, qui a confirmé la structure fondamentale du modèle. Les applications

visées étaient la mesure de l’« ancrage interne » de l’orientation sur la marque et de la gestion de la marque, et l’évaluation

de l’effet sur rendement du musée. Les résultats montrent que le branding est peu pratiquée dans ce secteur. L’auteur tire des

conclusions, discute des implications managériales et propose des voies de recherche future.

Branding , orientation sur la marque, gestion de la marque, musées, modèle

RÉSUMÉ

MOTS CLÉS



4/16


SPRING 2009 33

brand management process support brand-oriented behaviour (Hankinson, 2002). Thevalues layer has a general character and thusinforms, rather than determines, concrete

brand management operations. However, val-ues are the conceptual basis of explicit andimplicit brand-oriented norms (Katz andKahn, 1978). It is thus proposed that:

Hypothesis 1 Brand-oriented values have apositive effect on brand-oriented norms .

However, such norms can function effect-ively as rules guiding the execution of brand-ing strategy only if they are based on commonvalues (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000) and are

both understood and accepted by the employ-ees. Symbolic artifacts can disseminate aware-ness of the museum’s brand and its brandingstrategy internally, and thereby encourageacceptance of the norm-led rules among thestaff. This positive relationship between norms

Al funcionar los museos en un ambiente social y económico de gran complejidad, se requiere cada vez más de un mayor profesio-

nalismo en la gestión museal. El manejo de la marca es una de las herramientas disponibles, aunque este requiera superar una

resistencia ideológica a la importación, por parte de instituciones culturales, de prácticas del mundo de los negocios. Los conoci-

mientos en materia de aplicación del manejo de marca en la gestión de museos se limitan a unos cuantos estudios de caso publicados y marcos conceptuales. El autor presenta y pone a prueba un nuevo modelo de manejo de marca en el sector, un modelo

basado en publicaciones generales pertinentes al caso y construido en cuatro “capas”: valores, normas, artefactos y comporta-

mientos. Las respuestas a una encuesta por parte de 245 museos en Alemania proporcionaron los datos para un análisis empírico,

el cual confirma la estructura fundamental del nuevo modelo. La aplicación del mismo es en sí una medida del “anclaje” interno

de la orientación y el manejo de marca, y la evaluación de sus efectos sobre el desempeño del museo. Los resultados descriptivos

muestran que el “branding” ha logrado muy poca penetración en este sector. El autor alcanza conclusiones, discute las implica-

ciones administrativas e identifica orientaciones de investigación.

“Branding” o marca, orientación de marca, manejo de marca, museos, modelo

RESUMEN

PALABRAS CLAVE

Brand-oriented values

Source: Krens, 2000 Source: www.mqw.at

Source: Jensen, 2004 Source: www.kreativhife.de

Brand-oriented norms

Brand-oriented artifacts Brand-oriented behaviours

Corporate image advertising. Hamburger

Kunsthalle, Hamburg

“

”

EXAMPLES OF BRAND ORIENTATION LAYERSFIGURE 1



5/16


and artifacts is made explicit in the literatureon symbolic management (Ulrich, 1990).Therefore, it is further hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2 Brand-oriented norms have apositive effect on brand-oriented artifacts .

Unlike values, these norms influence brand-oriented behaviour by specifying expectationsand related sanctions, namely the perceived

negative consequences for those who ignore orflout the associated branding guidelines (Heideand John, 1992; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000).Thus, a third hypothesis is that:

Hypothesis 3 Brand-oriented norms have apositive effect on brand-oriented behaviours .

The artifacts that reinforce the norms canalso directly influence brand-oriented behav-iour, in their role as agents of communication.They may act as shorthand definitions of “cor-rect” behaviour and provide staff with a tem-plate for day-to-day brand-related behaviour,perhaps even motivating and stimulating themin the process (Dandridge, Mitroff and Joyce,1980). In short:

Hypothesis 4 Brand-oriented artifacts havea positive effect on brand-oriented behaviours .

The model is completed by linking the brandorientation construct to a museum’s perform-ance (Hankinson, 2001a; Napoli, 2006). Thoughan internal brand-oriented culture is an import-ant antecedent of a strong museum brand, itcan be argued that this culture must be “trans-

lated” into concrete brand-oriented behavioursif any positive effect on eventual performanceof the brand is to be achieved (Homburg andPflesser, 2000).

Successful performance is defined in termsof the achievement of cultural goals and market goals (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002; Witt,2000; Camarero and Garrido, 2008). Culturalgoals set horizons for the fulfilment of socialrequirements and are codified in national andinternational standards (American Associationof Museums, 2000; Lewis, 2006; Deutscher

Museumsbund and ICOM Deutschland, 2006).Market goals are focused on the museum mar-ket and its constituent target groups; the mostsignificant of these are visitors and sponsors,but a contributory goal for individual museums will be the cultivation of a network of otherstakeholders such as the media and culturalinstitutions. Since concrete brand-orientedbehaviours support both cultural and marketgoals, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 5 Brand-oriented behaviours havea positive effect on cultural performance .

Hypothesis 6 Brand-oriented behaviours havea positive effect on market performance .

Figure 2 summarizes the brand orientationmodel and the six hypotheses.

Methodology

Sampling and Data Collection

To test the model, a questionnaire was designedand mailed to a sample of museums in Germanythat were representative (with respect to theirsize, the focus of their collections and theirfunding sources) so that the findings could beconfidently generalized. Target respondents weremembers of top management of the museumssurveyed, as the most reliable source of detailedand accurate responses to the questions. Becausethere is no official database covering the wholeGerman museum landscape, a list of addresseshad to be generated specifically for this purpose.The list was derived by combining the Inter-national Council of Museums membershiplist with an Internet search of relevant German Web sites such as www.webmuseen.de.

The content of the self-completion ques-tionnaire derived directly from the proposed

brand orientation model. Questions and scalesfor measurement of the different constructs were constructed on the basis of precedents inthe literature on brand orientation and museumbranding. The outcome was pretested amongmuseum managers and in October 2006 a refinedquestionnaire was sent to 590 top museummanagers in Germany. Almost exactly half ofthe managers (48.1%) responded. Of the iden-tified museums, 17 had closed or merged withanother museum or cultural institution; 25target respondents declined to participate on

principle or for lack of time; the remaining non-respondents failed to return the questionnaire.

The data set for analysis was thus the com-bined responses of 284 senior managers. Forvalid results, it was necessary to remove thosecontaining any missing values in the exogen-ous and endogenous variables. After cases withmore than 10% relating to the items of thefour brand orientation constructs, or morethan 15% missing values of the performance



6/16


SPRING 2009 35

items, had been duly eliminated, 245 ques-tionnaires remained valid for data analysis.Missing values were replaced by estimated val-ues in SPSS via the EM procedure.

More than half of the respondents met thetop-management criterion: 10% managing

directors, 39% directors and 10% acting dir-ectors. They represented a broad spectrum ofmuseum sizes (49% up to 5 employees; 24%more than 20 employees), number of visitors(36% up to 10,000 per annum; 20% morethan 100,000), and collection focus (25% art/film/photo; 24% culture/religion/music; 22%history; 17% people/local history; 14% nat-ural sciences). Almost half of the museums(46%) were state-funded, a third were privateinstitutions (33%) and the remainder werehybrids of various kinds. Altogether, the sam-

ple fulfils the stated sampling objectives, andthe study thus accurately reflects the practiceof brand orientation and brand managementin German museums.

Because the data set analyzed derives fromonly 245 questionnaires, the requirement formulti-normal distribution of the variables isnot universally fulfilled. Taking account of theearly stage of the research and the mixture offormative and reflective constructs, a decision

was made to estimate the model by the PartialLeast Squares method (Jöreskog and Wold,1982), using version 2.0 M3 of SmartPLSsoftware (Ringle, Wende and Will, 2006). Theprocedure for quality judgement with respectto the formative and reflective constructs in

the model follows the recommendations ofDiamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) andKrafft, Götz and Liehr-Gobbers (2005).

The measurement scales were specificallygenerated for this study. Item formulation wasguided by the literature review, and all items were measured using five-point rating scalesanchored by agree and disagree .

Scale Development and Validation

The four brand-oriented constructs in the

proposed model – values, norms, artifacts andbehaviours – were operationalized as formativeconstructs (Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff,2003). The formulation of the correspondingitems was guided by the literature review. Of the23 listed in Table 1, nine were derived directlyfrom the work of Baumgarth (2007), Ewingand Napoli (2005), Hankinson (2001b), andSchramm, Spiller and Staack (2004), while 14 were original. Respondents were asked to indi-

Brand orientation

as a value

Norms of

brand orientation

Artefacts of brand orientation

Behaviour of

brand orientation

Culture Behaviour

Market

performance

Cultural performance

Brand orientation

Performance

H3

H4

H2

H1

H6

H5

MODEL OF BRAND ORIENTATION IN THE MUSEUM CONTEXTFIGURE 2



7/16


cate their agreement or disagreement witheach statement on a five-point rating scaleanchored by agree and disagree . Each itemcharacterizes a construct, and the eliminationof a single item changes the construct. Forexample, elimination of the item We try to ensurethat our brand positioning remains essentiallythe same over time would exclude one element

of the value construct: managers’ understand-ing of basic branding “rules.” Furthermore, itis possible for one item to be independent ofthe others (e.g., We check regularly to ensure thatour brand’s design guidelines are being adheredto; Our museum has a detailed written specification of the brand positioning ).

To test the content validity of the fourformative constructs, the questionnaire wasadministered to a sample of six marketing sci-entists and 13 museum managers and theirresponses analyzed following the procedurerecommended by Anderson and Gerbing(1991). In the main survey, the quality of theconstructs was further evaluated by calculating weights and t values, by “bootstrapping” andby testing for multicollinearity. The outcomesare shown in Table 1.

The multicollinearity test yielded non-criticalvalues for all items, but one item with a nega-tive substantive-validity coefficient (c

SV ) was

duly eliminated. Analysis of the weights foundthree items to have values below 0.1, sug-

gesting that they would contribute little toexplaining the variance of the respective latentvariables. There is debate in the literature as to whether such variables should be eliminatedfrom a model (Jöreskog and Wold, 1982;Rossiter, 2002). In this case, the decision wasmade to accept the arguments of those whoare against such elimination, reinforced by theresults of two studies in other industry con-texts (business-to-business and the media) in which the weights of the various items clearlydiffered. Finally, the discriminant validity of

the brand orientation constructs was tested byinspecting the correlations, which were all belowthe recommended threshold of 0.9 (Herrmann,Huber and Kressmann, 2006).

To measure the two remaining constructsin the model, cultural performance and mar-ket performance, 12 items were derived fromthe work of Witt (2000). Because several itemsare strongly linked, a more reflective approach was used for the measurement of performance

constructs. Given the heterogeneity of themuseums in terms of size, the focus of theirmain collection and so on, it was to be expectedthat the relevance of the cultural and marketperformance targets would differ from case tocase. Therefore, these items were measuredusing an inter-individual index, calculated bymultiplying the respondents’ judgement of

the importance of a performance goal, such as“expansion of the collection,” by their assess-ment of its achievement. The respective five-point scales were anchored by important andunimportant and by to a high degree and not atall .

Table 2 presents the items and the resultsfor the cultural performance and market per-formance constructs. It also shows that theCronbach’s alpha coefficients and AVE valuesfor the two constructs were satisfactory. Over-all, the measurement models summarized inTables 1 and 2 were only slightly modified,the results having demonstrated acceptablereliability and validity for the four brand orien-tation and two performance constructs.

Hypothesis Testing

The study next analyzed both the structuralmodel and the individual hypotheses.

The results for the complete model showQ 2 values of 0.13 and 0.05 for the market per-

formance and cultural performance values,respectively – both above the threshold level ofthe Stone-Geisser test (Chin, 1998). Addition-ally, the explained variances of approximately24% of market performance and 14% of cul-tural performance support the relevance ofbrand orientation to the success of museums.In short, the global fit and explanatory powerof the model are acceptable.

Testing of the hypotheses by bootstrapping(n = 1,000) and t values confirm all four hypoth-eses related to the museum brand orientation

model at a significant level. Thus, brand-orientedvalues have a positive impact on brand-orientednorms (H1), which in turn have a positive effecton brand-oriented artifacts (H2) and behav-iours (H3). Those artifacts also have a positiveinfluence on brand-oriented behaviours (H4).Furthermore, the results confirm assumptionsabout the link between brand orientation andperformance. Brand-oriented behaviours havea positive impact on both cultural perform-



8/16


SPRING 2009 37

MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR BRAND ORIENTATION CONSTRUCTS

Construct Item S o u r c e

p S A *

c S V * *

M e a n /

S D

W e i g h t

t v a l u e

Values

We have discussed the management

of our brands intensively.

New 0.73 0.53 3.26/

1.39

1.47 0.42 4.54

We invest in our museum brandeven in times of scarce financialresources.

S 0.50 0 2.59/ 1.32

1.54 0.44 5.13

Brand decisions are made and

discussed at the top managementlevel.

New 0.39 -0.11 / / / /

We try to ensure that our brandpositioning remains essentially

the same over time.

E 0.88 0.82 1.48/ 0.89

1.04 0.28 3.34

The exhibition theme is determinedby our brand positioning (e.g.,positioning “interactivity”

interactive explanations of theexhibits).

New 0.47 0.18 2.83/ 1.31

1.09 0.31 4.66

Norms

We check regularly to ensure that our

brand design guidelines are beingadhered to.

B 0.58 0.37 3.29/

1.52

1.60 0.40 5.57

We check regularly to see if our brandis different from the profiles of other

museums.

New 0.33 0 3.53/ 1.38

1.14 0.23 3.72

Brand managers have the competence

and authority to implement the pos-itioning of our brand internally.

S 0.50 0.19 2.39/

1.45

1.19 0.11 1.72

Our museum has a detailed written

mission and philosophy.

New 0.50 0.19 2.06/

1.33

2.09 0.13 1.52

Our museum has a detailed

written specification of the brandpositioning.

New 0.60 0.27 2.78/

1.48

2.10 0.08 0.98

Important rules of employeebehaviour, arising from our brand

positioning, are detailed in writtenform (e.g., manuals).

New 0.86 0.79 4.00/ 1.29

1.14 0.18 2.87

In all communications, we pay

close attention to compliance withformal design principles (e.g., logo,colours).

B 0.63 0.31 2.13/

1.23

1.53 0.39 4.74

T ABLE 1

(continued)



9/16


MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR BRAND ORIENTATION CONSTRUCTS (continued)

Construct Item S o u r c e

p S A *

c S V * *

M e a n

/ S D

V a r i a n c e

i n fl a t i o n

f a c t o r

W e i g h t

t v a l u e

Artifacts

Our employees display visible brand-

ing elements when in contact withvisitors (e.g., nameplate with logo,uniforms).

B 0.50 0.22 3.12/

1.73

1.12 0.36 5.13

The museum’s architecture reflectsour brand positioning (e.g., pos-

itioning “visitor orientation”large windows; inviting, open stair-

cases).

New 0.71 0.53 3.05/ 1.53

1.56 0.18 2.11

The design of our interiors reflects

our brand positioning (e.g., pos-

itioning “tradition” dark woodenfurniture, subdued lighting).

New 0.74 0.63 2.55/

1.44

1.38 0.38 4.50

We have facilities at our disposal tohighlight our brand positioning

(e.g., positioning “family kindness”child support; “education”

science bookshop).

New 0.37 0.11 2.80/ 1.47

1.20 0.51 7.43

Behaviours

We conduct regular visitor interviews. E 0.73 0.53 3.28/

1.51

1.95 0.23 1.99

We comprehensively measure not

only the demographic profile of ourvisitors but also their needs.

New 0.67 0.47 3.54/

1.49

2.06 0.20 1.67

We collect detailed information aboutnon-visitors.

New 0.73 0.53 4.51/ 0.87

1.33 0.08 1.43

We conduct image analyses regularly H, E, B 0.64 0.31 3.94/ 1.22

1.59 0.03 0.44

Our opening hours are adapted to ourbrand positioning.

New 0.53 0.29 2.37/ 1.37

1.23 0.12 1.23

Special events reflect our brandpositioning (e.g., “education”seminar offers).

New 0.31 0 2.33/ 1.37

1.25 0.53 6.97

In addition to advertising specificexhibitions, we regularly conduct

image advertising campaigns forthe museum.

B 0.58 0.32 2.65/ 1.30

1.25 0.33 4.29

*pSA = proportion of substantive agreement; ** cSV = substantive-validity coefficient (see Anderson and Gerbing, 1991)

Sources: B = Baumgarth (2007); H = Hankinson (2001b); E = Ewing and Napoli (2005); S = Schramm, Spiller and Staack (2004)

T ABLE 1



10/16


SPRING 2009 39

ance (H5) and market performance (H6). Thesecausal paths are shown graphically in Figure 3. As a further test, the results were compared with alternative models, on the basis of theeffect size f 2 (Chin, 1998):

R R

R

2

2 2

21

= −

−

a dd it io na l b as is

additional

R 2additional

and R 2basis

are the R -squares of the cul-tural performance and market performance

variables, shown in Figure 3, when the singlebrand orientation construct is used or omittedin the structural model. As a rule of thumb,f 2 values of .02, .15 and .35 can be taken asindicators of small, medium and large effectsof a construct in the model. The brand orien-tation layers have only small effects (f 2 artifacts= 0.04; f 2 norms = 0.03; f 2 values = 0.06) within the market performance construct, as theydo within the cultural performance construct

(f 2

artifacts = 0.06; f 2

norms = 0.03; f 2

values =0.01). However, the more complex modelsexplain only a small additional amount ofR -squared; the more parsimonious proposedmodel was therefore accepted.

In summary, the results of hypothesis test-ing confirm both the basic structure of thebrand orientation model and the positive con-nection between brand orientation and perform-ance. However, the positive and significantcoefficient linking brand-oriented behavioursto cultural performance also shows that a

strong museum brand positively influences itscultural success. This serves to strongly counterthe argument in the cultural sector that brand-ing and other “commercial” techniques some-how threaten cultural integrity.

Findings

To render the results of the tests more usefulto managers and consultants, the scores related

MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR MUSEUM PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTS

Construct Item* Source Mean/SDIndicatorreliability

Cronbach’salpha

Averagevarianceextracted

Cultural

performance

Expansion of the collection W** 5.96/5.89 0.51

0.71 0.41

Conservation of exhibits (preservation,restoration, stock-taking)

W 3.80/4.24 0.47

Execution of scientific research W 8.11/7.33 0.80

Publishing and dispensing of information W 4.46/4.62 0.70

Conception and presentation of exhibitions W 3.05/4.39 0.59

Arrangement of educational content W 4.26/4.70 0.69

Market

performance

Visitor satisfaction W 3.18/2.50 0.73

0.82 0.54

Increase in visitor numbers W 3.72/3.01 0.66

Attraction of sponsors W 6.11/5.70 0.56

Increase in recall W 3.23/2.38 0.83

Improvement of museum attractivenessfor potential visitors

W 3.35/2.60 0.82

Cultivating a network (e.g., other culturalinstitutions, other museums, the media)

W 3.52/3.22 0.76

*Two questions for each goal (importance and achievement); multiplication of the two values (range of the goal index: 1–25); 1 = positive; 25 = negative

**W = Witt, 2000

T ABLE 2



11/16


to the four brand orientation constructs wereeach converted into a 0–100 index. After the

five-point scales for the single items had beentransformed into percentage scales, re-applicationof the SmartPLS software generated the requiredsummarizing indices.

Next, the museums surveyed were allocatedto one of two groups according to their reportedmarket performance, the median score actingas the boundary. T tests were performed onthe outcome, to assess the differences in brandorientation between “successful” and “less suc-cessful” museums. Figure 4 summarizes thefindings. The overall level of brand orientation

found in this study is relatively low when com-pared to that found in two other studies, car-ried out in the business-to-business sector andthe media sector. In most cases, the averageindices for the brand orientation constructs were found to be markedly higher in thosesectors. In the business-to-business study they were as follows: values = 77.3; norms = 56.5;artifacts = 48.4; behaviours = 39.5. In the mediasector study they were values = 78.2; norms =

67.9; artifacts 52.5; behaviours = 60.3. In thepresent study, in contrast, only the values

index for the group of “successful” museumsreaches into the 70s, matching the rank orderof the results from both of the other studies.The other three indices are in the low 60s. Among “less successful” museums, the valuesindex is again the highest, but it only reachesthe mid-50s, more than 20 points below itscounterparts in the other two studies. Thosefor the other three constructs are lower inevery case but one.

Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that success-ful museums exhibit a significantly higher level

of brand orientation with respect to every con-struct layer. The gap is particularly wide in thecase of brand-oriented behaviours, where theabsolute difference is 18.2 points.

To interpret the details underpinning thisresult, a further analysis was undertaken ofmuseum managers’ responses to the state-ments in the behaviours field of Table 1, whichrelate to brand research methods and brandinginstruments. The combined counts of answers

Brand orientation

as a value

Norms of brand orientation

R 2 = 50.3%

Q2 = 0.182

Artefacts of brand orientation

R 2 = 42.8%

Q2 = 0.204

Behaviour of brand orientation

R 2 = 46.1%

Q2 = 0.164

Culture Behaviour

MarketperformanceR 2 = 23.7%

Q2 = 0.131

Cultural performanceR 2 = 14.1%

Q2 = 0.052

Brand orientation

Performance

0.393***

0.354***

0.654***

0.709***

*** : p < 0.01

0.487***

0.375***

BRAND ORIENTATION AS A SUCCESS FACTORFIGURE 3



12/16


SPRING 2009 41

in the top two boxes of the five-point scale were taken as the indicator of frequency ofuse.

The results are shown in Figures 5 and 6.The relatively low frequencies for the use ofbrand research (no indicator above 50% usage)and branding instruments (14 of 21 below50% usage) confirm the low level of brand

management in the museum sector. More spe-cifically, a mere third of the museums surveyedcarried out regular brand research in the formof visitor interviews, and only one in 10 everconducted image analyses. The use of brand-ing instruments, in the form of external com-munications, is a little stronger. For instance,about two thirds had a visitor club and almosthalf used direct marketing. Clear deficienciesare evident, however, in the translation ofbrand positioning into concrete services andproducts. Fewer than half of the museummanagers claimed to align exhibition themes with the museum’s positioning. The commit-ment to brand management is even weaker when it comes to employee involvement in theprocess. This finding is particularly problem-atic given that the museum brand is character-ized by the service delivered to visitors by staff(Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002).

Controlling integrated

communication*

Controlling corporate design* 36

Image survey* 14

0 25 50 75 100

Controlling differentiation* 27

Analysis of non-visitors* 6

Analysis of visitor needs* 28

Visitor survey*

* = top box: 1 and 2 of a five-point scale (interpreted as frequencies in %)

33

47

FREQUENCY OF BRAND RESEARCHFIGURE 5

Values***

100

0

100

100

Successful museums

*** : p < 0.01

Less successful museums

Less successful museums

Successful museums

Average

54.6

Values

(index)

70.1

62.3

45.3

Norms

(index)

60.3

52.7

45.0

Artefacts

(index)

63.7

45.3

43.8

Behaviours

(index)

62.0

52.8

100

Artefacts***

Norms***Behaviours***

COMPARISON OF BRAND ORIENTATION INSUCCESSFUL AND LESS SUCCESSFUL MUSEUMS

FIGURE 4



13/16


Discussion

The main objective of this study was todevelop and test a brand orientation model

for the museum sector. The findings haveimplications for both future research and man-agerial practice.

Theoretical Implications

Previous studies of brand orientation havemeasured the construct in a global or multi-dimensional manner. A new model is pro-posed, derived from theoretical work in theareas of corporate culture and market orienta-tion, which distinguishes explicitly among fourlayers of brand orientation. Not only are theselayers components of the brand orientation

construct, but there is a logical and process-oriented structure to the model. The first layer,the values dimension, influences the next, thenorms dimension, which in turn affects thenext two layers of brand orientation: artifacts and behaviours .

The model was developed and empirically

tested in the context of museum services, butit is flexible. There is scope to transfer it toother cultural services as well as to consumerproducts and services in general. The studieson which it is partly based were focused on thebusiness-to-business sector and the media sec-tor. The new model contributes generally tomarketing theory and practice by offering acomprehensive and manageable scale for meas-uring brand orientation.

0 25 50 75 100

Specific facilities*

Product

Integration

of employees

Communication

Sepecial events* 64

Opening hours* 62

Exhibition concepts* 43

Brand manual* 16

Brand workshops* 25

Brand meeting* 17

Website 85

Visitor magazines 14

Events 84

Posters 45

Brochures 92

Promotion 30

Museum clubs 61

Direct marketing 44

Public relations 86

Cinema ads 4

Outdoor ads 77

Print ads 71

Radio ads 29

TV ads 14

48

* = top box: 1 and 2 on a five-point scale (interpreted as frequencies in %)

FREQUENCY OF USE OF BRANDING INSTRUMENTSFIGURE 6



14/16


SPRING 2009 43

Specifically, the results of this study serve todeepen our understanding of the brand man-agement concept as applied in one particularcultural sector, providing empirical proof forthe first time that brand orientation has a posi-tive impact on museum performance.

Managerial Implications The model and findings also have several impli-cations for practical museum management.First, they unequivocally demonstrate to museummanagers the importance of a discipline importedfrom the business world. Applied effectively,brand management offers considerable poten-tial for the improvement of a museum’s cul-tural and market performance. Second, theyillustrate the importance of adopting brandorientation throughout a museum’s organiza-

tion. The values, norms, artifacts and behaviours that are causally linked in the model are keyelements in implementation of that orienta-tion. They can guide diagnosis of the brand’sstrengths and weaknesses (for instance, viamanagement workshops) and hence form thebasis of a branding strategy.

The model further suggests the proper pro-cess for effective implementation of brand man-agement. As a first step, responsible managersshould define and adopt brand-oriented values .Then they should formulate brand-oriented

norms , via branding manuals and positioningstatements. As the next step, they should manipu-late such brand-oriented artifacts as elementsof building design. Lastly, they should adoptbrand-oriented behaviours , such as implementingcontrol mechanisms and engaging in corporateidentity campaigns.

Limitations and Further Research

The proposed model is partial and can explain

only a particular share of the variance in cul-tural and market performance. Furthermore,it is possible that the influence of brand orien-tation on performance outcomes has been over-estimated by the isolated analysis of a singlecase in point. Further research should inte-grate brand orientation with other types ofcorporate culture or, following the lead of(Izquierdo and Samaniego, 2007), with otherstrategic orientations in a single framework.

The data for the study were collected in asingle sector in one country, Germany. Theextent to which the results of the measurementand structural models will be directly transfer-able beyond that context is uncertain. Furtherresearch should replicate the research in othersectors and countries. Additionally, most ofthe museums in the survey were very small. It

is impossible to know what effect their pro-portionately limited resources of money, time,personnel and know-how had on respondents’assessments of the scope for implementationof branding and brand management. In futurestudies, the sampling frame should permitcomparison of large and small museums.

The scales used were developed ad hoc andtested empirically during the study for the firsttime. Their formative character introducesuncertainty about the extent to which the chosenitems actually cover the respective constructs.This potential methodological problem willbecome cumulative if the same ad-hoc scalesare used in other studies.

Besides the well-known general problems with self-completion questionnaires distributedby mail, a particular limitation here is keyinformant bias, as discussed by Mezias andStarbuck (2003). The literature suggests meas-ures to address this limitation, but the requiredcommitment of time and money preventedtheir implementation in this study.

As well as departure points for furtherresearch arising directly from the limitationsof this study, two general suggestions can bemade. First, the proposed model examines brandorientation as an internal prerequisite for astrong brand in the arts area. Further researchmight extend the analysis of the correlationbetween internal brand orientation and exter-nal brand equity. It might also examine a rangeof tools, instruments and initiatives availablefor deployment in the quest for improvedbrand orientation, whether in museums or more

generally.

References American Association of Museums. 2000. Code of

Ethics for Museums . Available online: http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm.

Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing. 1991. “Predictingthe Performance of Measures in a ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis With a Pretest Assessment of TheirSubstantive Validities.” Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, Vol. 76, no 5, p. 732−740.



15/16


Avlonitis, G.J., and S.P. Gounaris. 1999. “MarketingOrientation and Its Determinants: An Empirical

Analysis.” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33,no 11/12, p. 1003−1037.

Baumgarth, C. 2007. “Markenorientierung von Medien:Konzept, Ausprägungen und Erfolgsbeitrag amBeispiel von Fachzeitschriften.” Medienwirtschaft, Vol. 4, no 3, p. 6−17.

Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., and J. Sikkenga. 2008. “Trans-

formationsprozesse im Museumsbereich.” InSteuerung versus Emergenz , R. Bouncen, T. Joachimsand E.A. Küsters, eds. (p. 323–366). Wiesbaden:Gabler.

Bridson, K., and J. Evans. 2004. “The Secret of aFashion Advantage Is Brand Orientation.” Inter- national Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage- ment, Vol. 32, no 8, p. 403−411.

Caldwell, N.G. 2000. “The Emergence of MuseumBrands.” International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 2, no 5, p. 28−34.

Caldwell, N., and J. Coshall. 2002. “Measuring Brand Associations for Museums and Galleries Using

Repertory Grid Analysis.” Management Decision,Vol. 40, no 4, p. 383−392.

Camarero, C., and M.J. Garrido. 2008. “The Influ-ence of Market and Product Orientation on MuseumPerformance.” International Journal of Arts Man- agement, Vol. 10, no 2, p. 14−26.

Chin, W.W. 1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approachto Structural Equation Modelling.” In ModernBusiness Research Methods, G.A. Marcoulides, ed.(p. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colbert, F. 2003. “The Sydney Opera House: An Australian Icon.” International Journal of Arts Man- agement, Vol. 5, no 2, p. 69−77.

Dandridge, T.C., I. Mitroff and W.F. Joyce. 1980.“Organizational Symbolism: A Topic to ExpandOrganizational Analysis.” Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 77−82.

Deutscher Museumsbund and ICOM Deutschland.2006. Standards für Museen . Berlin: Kassel.

Diamantopoulos, A., and H.M. Winklhofer. 2001.“Index Construction With Formative Indicators:

An Alternative to Scale Development.” Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 38, no 2, p. 269−277.

Ewing, M.T., and J. Napoli. 2005. “Developing andValidating a Multidimensional Nonprofit BrandOrientation Scale.” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, no 6, p. 841−853.

Gilmore, A., and R. Rentschler. 2002. “Changes inMuseum Management: A Custodial or ManagementEmphasis?” Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21, no 10, p. 745−760.

Hankinson, P. 2001a. “Brand Orientation in theCharity Sector: A Framework for Discussion andResearch.” International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 6, no 3, p. 231−242.

Hankinson, P. 2001b. “Brand Orientation in the Top500 Fundraising Charities in the UK.” Journal of

Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10, no 6,p. 346−360.

Hankinson, P. 2002. “The Impact of Brand Orienta-tion on Managerial Practice: A Quantitative Studyof the UK’s Top 500 Fundraising Managers.”International Journal of Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Marketing, Vol. 7, no 1, p. 30−44.

Heide, J.B., and G. John. 1992. “Do Norms Matterin Marketing Relationships?” Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 56, no 2, p. 32−44.Herrmann, A., F. Huber and F. Kressmann. 2006.

“Varianz- und kovarianzbasierte Strukturgleichungs-modelle: ein Leitfaden zu deren Spezifikation,Schätzung und Beurteilung.” Zeitschrift für betriebs- wirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 58, no 1, p. 34−66.

Homburg, C., and C. Pflesser. 2000. “A Multiple-Layer Model of Market-Oriented OrganizationalCulture: Measurement Issues and PerformanceOutcomes.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37,no 4, p. 449−462.

Izquierdo, C.C., and M.J.G. Samaniego. 2007. “How Alternative Marketing Strategies Impact the Per-

formance of Spanish Museums.” Journal of Man- agement Development, Vol. 26, no 9, p. 809−831.

Jarvis, C.B., S. B. MacKenzie and P.M. Podsakoff.2003. “A Critical Review of Construct Indicatorsand Measurement Model Misspecification inMarketing and Consumer Research.” Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 30, no 2, p. 199−218.

Jensen, L. 2004. “Auferstehen ohne Ableben. Reich,beliebt, berühmt: Das Museum of Modern Arthatte alles. Dann beschloss sein Direktor, es neu zuerfinden. Für die Kunst.” Brand Eins, Vol. 6, no 8,p. 118−123.

Jöreskog, K.G., and H. Wold 1982. “The ML and

PLS Technique for Modeling With Latent Vari-ables: Historical and Comparative Aspects.” InSystems Under Indirect Observation, K.G. Jöreskogand H. Wood, eds. (p. 263–270). Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Katz, D., and R.L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychologyof Organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Keller, K.L. 1993. “Conceptualizing, Measuring, andManaging Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Jour- nal of Marketing, Vol. 57, no 1, p. 1−22.

Keller, K.L. 2003. Strategic Brand Management (2nded.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohli, A.K., and B.J. Jaworski 1990. “Market Orien-tation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and

Managerial Implications.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, no 1, p. 1−18.

Kohli, A.K., B.J. Jaworski, and A. Kumar. 1993.“MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, no 4,p. 467−477.

Kotler, N., and P. Kotler 1998. Museum Strategy andMarketing . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Krafft, M., O. Götz and K. Liehr-Gobbers. 2005. “DieValidierung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen mitHilfe des Partial-Least-Squares (PLS-)-Ansatzes.”



16/16

In Handbuch PLS-Pfadmodellierung, B. Friedhelm, A. Eggert, G. Fassott and J. Henseler, eds. (p. 71–86). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

Krens, T. 2000. “Developing the Museum for the21st Century.” In Visionary Clients for New Archi- tecture, P. Noever, ed. (p. 45–74). Munich, London,New York: Prestel.

Lewis, G. 2006. ICOM Codes of Ethics for Museums. Available online: http://icom-museums/ethics.html.

Mezias, J.M., and W.H. Starbuck. 2003. “Studyingthe Accuracy of Managers’ Perceptions: A ResearchOdyssey.” British Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, no 1,3−17.

Napoli, J. 2006. “The Impact of Nonprofit BrandOrientation on Organisational Performance.” Jour- nal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, p. 673−694.

Narver, J.C., and S.F. Slater. 1990. “The Effect of aMarket Orientation on Business Profitability.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, no 4, p. 20−35.

Prokop, J. 2003. Museen: Kulturschöpfer und ihre Marke- nidentität. PhD thesis, University of Wuppertal,

Germany. Available online: http://elpub.bib.uni- wuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fb05/diss2003/prokop.

Ringle, C.M., S. Wende and A. Will. 2006. Smart- PLS 2.0(M3) . Hamburg: University of Hamburg.

Rossiter, J.R. 2002. “The C-OAR-SE Procedure forScale Development in Marketing.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, no 4,p. 305−335.

Rowley, J. 1997. “Managing Branding and CorporateImage for Library and Information Services.”Library Review, Vol. 46, no 4, p. 244−250.

Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leader-

ship (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schramm, M., A. Spiller and T. Staack. 2004. BrandOrientation in der Ernährungsindustrie: Erfolgsde- terminanten der Markenführung am Beispiel genos- senschaftlicher Hersteller . Wiesbaden: DUV.

Scott, C. 2000. “Branding: Positioning Museums inthe 21st Century.” International Journal of ArtsManagement, Vol. 2, no 3, p. 35−39.

Trice, H.M., and J.M. Beyer 1993. The Cultures ofWork Organizations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Ulrich, P. 1990. “Symbolisches Management.” In DieUnternehmenskultur, C. Lattmann, ed. (p. 277–302). Heidelberg: Physica.

Urde, M. 1994. “Brand Orientation: A Strategy forSurvival.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11,no 3, p. 18−32.

Urde, M. 1999. “Brand Orientation: A Mindset forBuilding Brand into Strategic Resources.” Journalof Marketing Management, Vol. 15, p. 117−133.

Wallace, M.A. 2006. Museum Branding . Lanham,MD, New York, Toronto, Oxford: AltaMira.

Witt, C. 2000. Ziele und Betriebsformen von Museen .Ehestorf-Rosengarten: Freilichtmuseum am Kieke-berg.

Wong, H.Y., and B. Merrilees 2005. “A Brand Orien-tation Typology for SMEs: A Case Research

Approach.” Journal of Product and Brand Manage- ment, Vol. 14, no 3, p. 155−162.

Documents

Brand Orientation of Museums- Model and Empirical Results Carsten Baumgarth