Corporate Brands: What are They? What of Them? (CORPORATE BRAND. CORPORATE BRAND MANAGEMENT) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING

Abstract

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

Full text

European Journal of Marketing
Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?
John M.T. Balmer Edmund R. Gray
Article information:
To cite this document:
John M.T. Balmer Edmund R. Gray, (2003),"Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?", European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss 7/8 pp. 972 - 997
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477627
Downloaded on: 14 December 2015, At: 08:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 22636 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Cees B.M. van Riel, John M.T. Balmer, (1997),"Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and
management", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5/6 pp. 340-355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
eb060635
Mark J. Kay, (2006),"Strong brands and corporate brands", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss 7/8
pp. 742-760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669973
Mats Urde, (2003),"Core value-based corporate brand building", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss
7/8 pp. 1017-1040 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477645
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:328478 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

COMMENTARY
Corporate brands: what are
they? What of them?
John M.T. Balmer
Bradford School of Management, Bradford, UK, and
Edmund R. Gray
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, USA
Keywords Corporate branding, Corporate Identity
Abstract This article examines the nature, importance, typology, and management of corporate
brands. Argues that in making a distinction between corporate brands, corporate identities, and
product brands, the underlying characteristics of corporate brands can be uncovered. A key thesis
of the article is that a corporate brand is a valuable resource: one that provides an entity with a
sustainable, competitive advantage if specific criteria are met. These criteria are defined in terms of
an economic theory known as “the resource-based view of the firm”. An affirmation of this
economic doctrine requires corporate brands to be rare, durable, inappropriable, imperfectly
imitable, and imperfectly substitutable. Also contends that the traditional tripartite, branding
typology be expanded to reflect the new modes in which corporate brands are being utilised. These
new corporate branding categories are: familial, shared, surrogate, supra, multiplex, and federal.
Finally, reasons that the management of a corporate brand requires the orchestration of six
“identity types”. The critical identity type is the “covenanted identity” because it underpins the
corporate brand. The covenanted identity comprises a set of expectations relating to an
organisation’s products/services and activities. Internally, it acts as a standard against which an
employee/employer’s actions can be evaluated. Argues that employees are crucial to the success,
and maintenance, of corporate brands. Speculates that the current interest in corporate brands is
redolent of a new dynamic in marketing. As such, corporate brands are symptomatic of the
increased importance accorded to corporate-level concerns and concepts. This interest in
corporate-level concerns should form the basis of a new branch of marketing: one that weft and
weaves the concepts of corporate identity, image, reputation, communications along with
corporate branding. The article concurs with Balmer and Greyser who argue that this area should
be known as corporate-level-marketing.
Corporate brands: what are they?
Adored, venerated and coveted by customers and organisations alike,
corporate brands represent one of the most fascinating phenomena of the
business environment in the twenty-first century (Olins, 2000; Lewis, 2000;
Pauvit, 2000; Balmer, 2001a, b; Bickerton, 2000; Gray and Balmer, 2001; Hatch
and Schultz, 2001; McDonald et al., 2001; Ind, 2001; Newman, 2001; Simoes and
Dibb, 2001; Balmer and Greyser, 2003). Their importance is irrefutable. Brands,
in their various guises, are integral to our everyday existence (Sherry, 1995).
This is particularly the case at the organisational level where the concept of the
corporate brand now enjoys wide currency in business parlance. There is an
increasing realisation that corporate brands serve as a powerful navigational
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www .emeraldinsight .com/researchregister http:// www.emeraldinsigh t.com/0309-056 6.htm
EJM
37,7/8
972
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 37 No. 7/8, 2003
pp. 972-997
qMCB UP Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560310477627
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

tool to a variety of stakeholders for a miscellany of purposes including
employment, investment and, most importantly, consumer buying behaviour.
Corporate brands appear to be invested with the Midas touch.
There are a number of schools relating to corporate branding and to
branding generally, with brands being seen as:
.marks denoting ownership;
.image – building devices;
.symbols associated with key values;
.means by which to construct individual identities; and
.a conduit by which pleasurable experiences may be consumed.
Marks denoting ownership
Traditionally, corporate brands were viewed from the “sender-end” of the
communications equation. In its simplest sense a brand denotes a name,
logotype or trademark denoting ownership (Barwise et al., 2000). The
importance of corporate marks of ownership can be seen in relation to coats of
arms. From the earliest times these heraldic symbols (when properly
matriculated) have been accorded legal protection by the state. In both Scotland
and England heraldic courts of law are an integral part of both countries’ legal
systems: the conferment of full coats of arms is still sought and coveted by
many institutions: universities are a case in point (Baker and Balmer, 1997).
Image-building devices
Later on, branding was associated with corporate image building. However,
branding was still at the sender-end of the equation and was something that
was done to the consumer. Galbraith (1986, pp. 29-30) mirrored this “top-down”
view of branding with his comment that: “By art and reiteration people are
persuaded to believe in the peculiar conviviality associated with a particular
brand.”
Symbols associated with key values
The recent literature on corporate branding emphasises the importance of
brand values: a brand is seen to encapsulate the additional values that are
inherent in or associated with the corporation and its products and services.
This is the dominant perspective on the area (DeChernatony, 1999; Tilley, 1999;
Urde, 1999). As such, corporate brands are seen as a guarantee of quality, as an
insurance against risk of poor performance or financial risk.
Means by which to construct individual identities
Increasingly, branding is considered from the “consumer-end” of the equation.
As such, the consumption of brands by consumers defines who they are, wish
to be and/or wish to be seen as (Kay, 1995; Elliot and Wattanasuwan, 1998;
Newman, 2001). Simoes and Dibb (2001) conclude that our post-modern
Corporate brands
973
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

consumer culture consumers realise that brands are vital in the construction of
individual identities.
A conduit by which pleasurable experiences may be consumed
Schmitt (1999) adopts a somewhat novel approach. He argues that branding
(and marketing generally) should be concerned with creating pleasurable
consumer experiences.
Of course, the above approaches are not mutually exclusive. To us, it seems
possible that many, if not all, of the characteristics may apply. For the main, the
above schools of thought relate to product brands and, as such, accord primary
importance to consumers. We argue, however, that corporate brands are crucial
to myriad stakeholder groups. For example, corporate brands would appear to
play a pivotal role in the construction of identities by many groups including
employees (the esteem accrued to a new graduate who works for Ferrari),
suppliers (the cachet of sourcing products for an exclusive retail emporium
such as London’s Fortnum and Mason) and governments (the city of
Edinburgh’s self-image as a major European city being underscored with the
introduction of a direct air link to Frankfurt by Lufthansa.)
In summary, corporate brands have a utility in several regards: they
communicate the brand’s values (often seen as a promise), they afford a means
of differentiation from their competitors, and they enhance the esteem and
loyalty in which the organisation is held by its stakeholder groups (Balmer,
2001b).
Corporate brands: they are more than meets the eye
The importance and value of corporate brands has, to varying degrees, been
alluded to in the literature for some considerable time (Hotchkiss and Franken,
1923; Kennedy, 1977). However, it was around the early 1990s that several
leading branding and communications consultants explicitly mentioned
(Bernstein, 1989) and then went on to assess (King, 1991) what was then called
the “company brand”. They appreciated, from the outset, that the most
important brand was the company brand and that its day-to-day responsibility
resided with no less a person than the organisation’s chief executive.
(Bernstein, 1989, pp. 317-18).
Among the most telling contributions to this oeuvre was that of the branding
specialist Stephen King (1991). His article. entitled “Brand building in the
1990s” delineated some of the differences between product and company
brands. He reasoned that the company brand required a multidisciplinary
approach with the human resources department playing a vital role. As did
Bernstein (1989), he argued that it fell to the CEO to manage the company
brand. Alas, these early attempts to provide a fillip to company branding were
largely in vain. Despite the penetrating luminosity of King’s (1991) work, his
insights were all-too-soon forgotten and the notion of the company as a brand
EJM
37,7/8
974
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

largely remained a forlorn idea. Its time had not yet come and his notion of the
company brand was not to take flight.
The hiatus that followed King’s (1991) article appears to have been broken
around 1995. This time there were to be two crucial differences. First, there was
to be no abatement in interest, and second, that the favoured label was not that
of the company brand, but rather, a more encompassing, more
strategic-sounding label: “the corporate brand”. As such the concept of the
corporate brand began to appear in both the title as well as in the content of
articles (Balmer, 1995). The latter half of the 1990s witnessed a gradual
crescendo of writing on the corporate brand and since then it has seized the
imagination of scholars and managers alike and its rise has been inexorable.
After years of inhabiting the shadows, corporate brands are now spoken of
with considerable ebullience.
To us, there is an overarching explanation why use of the corporate brand in
the literature (Balmer, 1995; Ind, 1997) has eclipsed that of the company brand
(Bernstein, 1989; King, 1991). It is that brands, at the corporate level, are not
simply limited to the overall organisation. A wide variety of corporate entities
have brands including corporations, their subsidiaries, and also groups of
companies (corporate branding networks). Moreover, corporate-level brands
can also apply to countries, regions, and cities. As such, the concept “corporate
brand” may be seen to mirror the complexity of the field in a manner that the
company brand concept does not.
The ensuing interest in the corporate brand can be seen in the writing of
practitioners (Macrae, 1996; Mitchell, 1997; Ind, 1997, 1998, 2001; Olins, 2000) as
well as in the academic literature (Balmer, 1995, 2001a, b; Keller, 1998; Keller
and Aaker, 1998; DeChernatony, 1999; Maathuis, 1999; Knox et al., 2000;
Bickerton, 2000; Gjols-Andersen, 2001; Gray and Balmer, 2001; Harris and
DeChernatony, 2001; Newman, 2001).
Some of the early academic work in the area (whether writing about
company or corporate brands) reached a broadly similar set of
suppositions. The importance of staff in corporate brand building was
emphasised, as was culture. The role of the chief executive as brand
manager was stressed and the efficacy of the multidisciplinary approach
was advocated. In one apocryphal statement it was argued that the new
millennium would witness increased importance being assigned to the
corporate brand (Balmer, 1995).
One trait of the early writing on company and corporate brands still
characterises the contemporary literature. This manifests itself in the
interchangeable use of the terms corporate branding and corporate identity.
King (1991) disliked the corporate identity concept because he believed that
graphic designers had debased it and consequently he studiously avoided all
but passing reference to it. Conversely, in the early 1990s the term company
brand carried few associations with graphic design.
Corporate brands
975
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

A disconcerting trend from the world of consultancy over recent years
has been the adoption of the term corporate branding by graphic design
consultancies in describing their work and profession: this can only have a
pernicious effect on the area. In part, this is understandable since both
brands and identities have historically been regarded in visual terms. In
the lead article of the RSA Journal, Aldersey-Williams (2000) castigated the
graphic design approach to identity with his pithy remark that: “Designers
talk strategy but like pretty shapes and colours”. The same accusation can
be levelled against those who, chameleon-like, have metamorphosised
overnight into authorities on corporate branding. While there has been a
change of name, there has not been attendant transformation in raison
d’e
ˆtre: the industry still has a strong graphic design rather than a truly
multidisciplinary derivation.
Alas, marketing scholars and others have largely ignored the challenges
presented by corporate brand management. Various authors have argued that
it requires a radical if not revolutionary reappraisal of branding and, moreover,
of the marketing discipline generally (King, 1991; Balmer, 1998, 2001a; Balmer
and Greyser, 2003). The extent of this myopia can be seen in marketing and in
some branding texts which, although acknowledging the existence of corporate
brands, fail to take cognisance that:
.corporate brands are fundamentally different from product brands in
terms of disciplinary scope and management;
.corporate brands have a multi-stakeholder rather than customer
orientation; and
.the traditional marketing framework is inadequate and requires a
radical reappraisal.
Again, these differences have only emerged in the literature over the last
decade or so (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995, 2001a; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).
Fortunately, the negatives have been assuaged by other, more positive,
developments. This can be seen in the widespread use of the branding
argot which, when applied to corporate entities, is far removed from its
origins as a patois spoken by marketers. Evidence of this can be found in
the work of economists such as Kay (1995), organisational behaviourists
such as Hatch and Schultz (2001) and strategists such as Gray et al. (2001).
One characteristic of the corporate branding literature is the symbiosis of
thought. As such, there appears to be a growing consensus as to the basic
tenets the concept. Balmer (2001b) developed the mnemonic CCITE (C
2
ITE) in
an attempt to reflect the distinctive attributes of corporate brands. Table I,
using the C
2
ITE mnemonic, illustrates the similarity of thought within the
literature.
EJM
37,7/8
976
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Corporate brands, corporate identities and product brands: what are
the differences?
Although corporate brands are sometimes seen to be analogous to product
brands, there are fundamental differences: this is an issue that has concerned
writers for over a decade (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995; DeChernatony, 1999; Olins,
2000; Balmer, 2001a, b; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).
Characteristics of corporate brands
(C
2
ITE) Balmer (2001a) Referred to in the literature by:
Cultural (corporate brands tend to have strong
“cultural roots”. An organisation’s distinctiveness
invariably finds one of its sourcers in the mix of
subcultures found within organisations. These
consist of corporate, professional, “national”, and
other types of culture)
Balmer (1995, 2001b), De Chernatony (1999),
Hankinson and Hankinson (1999), Hatch and
Schultz (2001), Johansson and Hirano (1999),
Mitchell (1999)
Intricate (inherently intricate in nature: it is
multidisciplinary and dimensional in that it
impacts your many stakeholder groups and
methods and is made known via multiple
channels of communication
a
)
Balmer (2001a, b), De Chernatony (1999), King
(1991), Hatch and Schultz (2001), Keller (1999),
Mitchell (1999), Olins (2000), Schmitt (1999),
Urde (1994, 1999)
Tangible (includes: product/service quality,
business scope, geographical coverage,
performance-related issues, profit margins,
pay scales etc. Also includes architecture,
logos, etc.)
Balmer (2001a), DeChernatony (1999),
Johansson and Hirano (1999), King (1991),
Mitchell (1999), Schmitt (1999), Urde (1999)
Ethereal (includes elements such as “lifestyle”
and “style of delivery”. Also encompasses
brand associations. For instance, there are
often emotional responses to elements
associated with the brand such as
country-of-origin/industry)
Balmer (2001b), DeChernatony (1999), Hatch
and Schultz (2001), Johansson and Hirano
(1999), Keller (1999), Mitchell (1999), Schmitt
(1999), Urde (1999)
Also requires Commitment (from all personnel.
Senior management need to devote sufficient in
resources, such as on going financial and
communications support. An important aspect
of this characteristic is that a corporate brand
should elicit commitment from a variety of
stakeholder groups and networks)
Balmer (1995, 2001b), De Chernatony (1999),
Hatch and Schultz (2001), Johansson and
Hirano (1999), King (1991), Urde (1999)
Notes:
a
Kay (1995 p. 261) notes that Price Waterhouse developed a powerful corporate brand in
a period where advertising was prohibited on so-called “ethical” grounds in many of the markets
in which they operated. In addition, Marks & Spencer established a strong corporate brand at a
time when the policy of the company was not to engage in advertising at all. To us, it is apparent
that since “controllable” communication (secondary communication) was largely absent, “non
controllable” communication such as product and service quality (primary communication) and
word-of-mouth (tertiary communication) played an important role and should as such be
recognised. See Balmer and Gray (1999).
Table I.
Corporate brand
characteristics
Corporate brands
977
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

We also suggest that there are important differences between corporate brands
and corporate identities. It has been observed that the concepts of corporate
identity and corporate branding are often used interchangeably (Balmer, 1998).
Corporate and product brands
Table II illustrates the key differences between product and corporate brands.
The key difference in conceptualisation is that corporate brand values tend to
be grounded in the values and affinities of company founders, owners,
Product brands Corporate brands
Management responsibility Brand manager Chief executive
Functional responsibility Marketing Most/all departments
General responsibility Marketing personnel All personnel
Disciplinary roots Marketing Multidisciplinary
Brand gestation Short Medium to long
Stakeholder focus Consumers Multiple stakeholders
Values Contrived Real
Communications channels The marketing communications
mix
Total corporate communciations
Primary: performance of
products and services;
organisational policies;
behaviour of CEO and senior
management; experience of
personnel and discourse by
personnel
Secondary: marketing and other
forms of controlled
communication
Tertiary: word of mouth
Dimensions requiring
alignment
Brand values (covenant) Brand values (covenant)
Product performance Identity (corporate
attributes/sub cultures)
Corporate strategy
Vision (as held by the CEO and
senior management)
Communication Communication
Experience/image and
reputation
Experience/image and
reputation
Consumer commitment Stakeholders commitment
(internal and external
constituencies)
Environment (political,
economic, ethical, social,
technological)
Environment (political,
economic, ethical, social,
technological)
Source: Adapted from Balmer (2001b)
Table II.
A comparison
between product
and corporate
brands
EJM
37,7/8
978
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

management and personnel, whereas product brand values tend to be contrived
and are the product of the not inconsiderable skills of invention held by
marketing and advertising creatives.
Another difference relates to the role of employees vis-a
`-vis corporate brands.
Personnel have a crucially important role in transmitting the brand’s values and
as such bring them to the heart of the corporate branding process. They provide
the interface between the internal and external environments (Kennedy, 1977;
Schneider and Bowen, 1995; Hemsley, 1998; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991) and
help build and maintain the corporate brand (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995; Ambler
and Barrow, 1996; Harris and DeChernatony, 2001, Balmer, 2001a, b). This has
particular significance for recruitment of personnel and the development of
human resources in an organisation (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Ambler and
Barrow, 1996; Macrae, 1996; Knox and Maklan, 1998; Keller, 1999; Balmer,
2001b, Harris and DeChernatony, 2001; Ewing et al., 2002).
A third difference is that corporate brands are an important element of a
company strategy and this clearly is a senior management concern. The
widespread consumer interest in brands and their economic benefit is another
reason why they need to be considered when formulating strategic plans
(Shoker et al., 1994). In contrast, product brand management is principally a
concern for middle management and falls largely within the remit of marketing.
Mention can be made of the literature on services brands, which in the
context of the literature on product brands and the recent literature on
corporate branding, represents a crucially important interim stage of
development. The literature on services branding shares important
similarities with the literature on corporate branding because it
demonstrates that services branding is different from product branding
(Levy, 1996; Stuart, 1997) in that services branding involves multiple interfaces
(Bitner et al., 1994) and that employees are of crucial importance to the process
(Harris and DeChernatony, 2001; McDonald et al., 2001). However, services
branding, by its very nature, applies only to one category of corporate brands
and would exclude corporate brands such as Nestle
´, BP, and Philips.
Corporate brands and corporate identities
Although the two concepts are often used interchangeably this masks the fact
that there are critical differences between them. The corporate identity concept,
as we see it, refers to the distinct attributes of an organisation and as such
addresses the questions “what are we?” and “who are we?”. As such, it
encompasses issues such as business scope and culture among others (Balmer
and Greyser, 2003). Following this perspective, there are important differences
between the concepts of the corporate identity and the corporate brand.
The first and most fundamental difference is that the identity concept is
applicable to all entities. Yet, not every entity has, plans to have, wants or even
needs a corporate brand. As such, a corporate identity is a necessary concept
Corporate brands
979
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

whereas a corporate brand is contingent. For instance, the necessity or
desirability of having or maintaining a corporate brand will be reliant on a host
of other factors such as the organisation’s strategy (the firm may operate in
markets where corporate brands are redundant or where there is a monopoly,
or where the markets are commoditised; the need for corporate brands within
some parts of the public sector may not be as strong, although in others it most
certainly is: the university sector is a case in point regarding the latter).
Consider the comparison made 20 years ago by two US corporations: Bechtel
and Coca-Cola. The fixed assets of Bechtel were worth $6 billion while those of
Coca-Cola were worth only $5 billion. Both companies had a similar number of
employees (around 30,000). Coca-Cola was world-renowned, whereas Bechtel (a
construction company) was generally unknown to the general public. However,
in book value Bechtel was by far the more valuable of the two corporations in
market value (Diefenbach, 1982). The reason was clear – Coca-Cola had
maintained a highly valuable corporate brand. However, an examination of
both entities in terms of their corporate brand value would almost certainly
have resulted in a different scenario. Recent research identified Coca-Cola to be
the world’s most valuable corporate brand. The corporation, in its entirety, was
estimated to be worth $142 billion: $84 billion of this sum is attributable to the
goodwill associated with the corporate brand. This represents a remarkable 59
per cent of the total book value of the company according to
Interbrand/Citibank (Barwise et al., 2000, p. 93.)
The analysis of what is, and what is not a corporate brand is far from easy,
however. Olins (2001, pp. 490-1) observes that British Airways, Orange and
Manchester United (football/soccer club) are examples of organisations with clear
corporate brands. However, he argues that Daimler Chrysler is not a corporate
brand since the two brands (Daimler and Chrysler) have become separated from
the new corporation’s identity. In addition he notes that for organisations such as
Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Diageo that have invested heavily in their
product brands, the task of corporate brand building will be difficult.
The difference between the two concepts can be discussed in terms of their
different values. There has been a good deal of discussion about the values of
corporate brands (DeChernatony, 1999; Urde, 1997) but there appears to be little
discussion of the differences between corporate brands and corporate identities.
We make the distinction between the two concepts by arguing that an
organisation’s corporate brand values are a supra set of values that may
inhabit one, or indeed, several organisations. Typically, corporate brand values
are clearly articulated, concise, well defined and distinct. They are broadly
constant over time and are discernible via corporate behaviours and activities.
They require total organisational commitment, especially on the part of
personnel. All facets of organisational life should be congruent with these
values. However, there are other values and these are to be found in the identity
of the organisation
EJM
37,7/8
980
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

An organisation’s identity encompasses a bundle of values that are derived
from a federation of subcultures, which are found within and outside the
organisation (Balmer and Wilson, 1998): they continually evolve and are
amorphous. This mix of values, to a considerable degree, gives an organisation
its distinctiveness.
Table III makes a comparison between the concepts of corporate branding
and corporate identity.
Corporate identity Corporate brands
Necessary or contingent? Necessary Contingent
Applicable to all
organisations? Yes No
Stability of attributes Constantly evolving Relatively stable
Applicability Normally a single entity Normally a single entity but
can be multiple
Management responsibility CEO CEO
Functional responsibility All functions All functions
Disciplinary roots Multidisciplinary Multidisciplinary
Principal drivers Strategy, culture, vision Branding covenant, culture
Gestation Short Medium/long
Stakeholder focus Mainly internal. external
stakeholders vary in
importance depending on
strategy
Mainly external. Internal
stakeholders also important
Desired profile among internal
and external stakeholder
groups Variable: low to high Normally high
Importance of controlled
communication Variable Normally crucial
Importance of advertising and
visual identity Variable Normally crucial
Key elements Culture (sub cultures),
strategy, structure,
communication, performance,
perception
The branding covenant,
communication plus other
identity elements (actual,
communicated, conceived,
ideal and desired identities (see
Balmer and Greyer, 2002)
Key dimensions requiring
alignment
Organisational attributes –
(including sub cultures)/
Communication/perception
Corporate brand
covenant/communication plus
other identity elements
(including sub cultures)
Portability Normally difficult Variable
Financial goodwill Variable Can be very high indeed
Source: Balmer (n.d.)
Table III.
A comparision
betweeen corporate
identities and
corporate brands
Corporate brands
981
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

The corporate brand covenant
It has been argued that at the core of a corporate brand is an explicit covenant
between an organisation and its key stakeholder groups, including customers
(Balmer, 2001a, b). In the literature this covenant is often referred to in terms of
“a promise” (Johansson and Hirano, 1999; Mitchell, 1999; Tilley, 1999).
Frequently, this promise is encapsulated in the form of three words that
combine the brand functions with descriptive and emotional modifiers, which
Keller (1999, p. 43) describes as “brand mantras”. Examples of the former
include, “authentic athletic performance” (Nike) and “fun, family
entertainment” (Disney). Typically, the covenant is asserted by an
organisation’s senior management in terms of a clearly articulated corporate
branding proposition. It is promoted via multiple channels of communication,
and is experienced through the organisation’s products and services corporate,
and, most importantly, through staff behaviour. Some organisations have gone
so far as to prescribe a set of “laws” relating to the management and expression
of the corporate brand. The Codex promulgated by Mercedes Benz for their
global brand being a case in point (Schmidt and Ludlow, 2002). In Sweden,
Volvo takes care to emphasise not only what should be communicated but
what should not. The brand’s association with safety means that we should not
expect to see a Volvo appearing in a car chase (Tilley, 1999, p. 189).
A corporate brand may be viewed as a contract in that the company needs to
articulate its accord with its key stakeholders by demonstrating, unceasingly
and over time, that it has kept true to its corporate branding pledge. As such,
the brand name and/or logo play an important part in creating awareness and
recognition but also as “signs” of assurance. However, a number of authorities
have cautioned against seeing branding as a one-way process that affects the
image of those engaged in some form of branding partnership such as
customers and employees. This is because these groups also have a key role in
defining a brand’s image (Johansson and Hirano, 1999).
The importance of the corporate brand covenant is such that it may be
viewed as a distinct identity type (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). As such, its
management requires alignment between five other identity types:
(1) actual;
(2) communicated;
(3) conceived;
(4) ideal; and
(5) desired (Balmer 2001c).
Moreover, in organisations having corporate brands, the above identity
elements need to be brought into alignment with the covenanted identity (the
underlying raison d’etre of the corporate brand). The same is true whether the
corporate brand inhabits one or many organisations.
EJM
37,7/8
982
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

However, organisations do not always appreciate the nature of the covenant
underpinning their corporate brand. Research undertaken by Opinion Research
Corporation International (1999) of 100 global brands found that many
organisations had failed to articulate a positioning strategy for their corporate
brand: this mitigated against these brands realising their full potential.
The new corporate branding architecture
The recent importance attached to corporate brands and their management
should, in our estimation, result in a corollary concern: corporate brand
architecture (LaForet and Saunders, 1994; Kapferer, 1997; Aaker and
Joachimsthalaer, 2000). Brand architecture refers to the relationships among
and between corporate, company (subsidiary), and product brands. Such
relationships embrace products and services, or a mixture of the two across the
hierarchy of brands. However, such relationships are no longer restricted
within the confines of a single corporation.
Olins’ (1978) well-known categorization of brands according to a tripartite
structure: monolithic, endorsed or branded, although hugely influential, is
somewhat dated. Contemporary organisations face new and more complex
challenges. Brand management has not only become more important, but also
more intricate and complex. One of these challenges is that new branding
categories have emerged: increasingly, this reflects the increasing incidence of
shared corporate brands and the rise of networks centred on a corporate brand.
Our analysis of the current business environment has resulted in the
identification of six, new corporate/trans-corporate categorisations and a
greatly extended branding architecture (see Table IV).
Corporate brands and the resource-based view of the corporation[1]
The resource-based view of the firm helps us understand why corporate
branding imparts long-lasting value. This economic theory is based on the
proposition that firms are heterogeneous in terms of their resources and internal
capabilities, and that these resources and capabilities can provide the basis for
superior performance if they meet specific criteria. The first criterion is that they
must be strategically valuable in the sense that they give the corporation some
advantage over its competitors. For example, a resource such as a new process
technology might generate lower operating costs and higher margins. Such a
resource, however, renders only fleeting above average profits unless the
advantage is sustainable over a relatively long period. To accomplish this, the
theory posits that the resource must meet the criteria of being rare, durable,
inappropriable, imperfectly imitable, and imperfectly substitutable.
The sustainable valuable resource must be rare in the sense that a
competitor cannot easily purchase it in the marketplace. Durable means that
the resource’s value does not depreciate rapidly. Inappropriability implies that
the company that owns the resource can capture the major share of the profits
Corporate brands
983
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

that flow from it. Imperfect imitability denotes that it is extremely difficult for a
competitor to internally recreate the resource. And finally, imperfect
substitutability suggests that new technologies, paradigms, or business
models are unlikely to render the resource in question obsolete or significantly
weaker (Barney, 1986; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993). A strong, well-managed
corporate brand, in our opinion, meets the above criteria and thereby qualifies
as a sustainable valuable resource. To demonstrate this, let us look at corporate
branding in light of these criteria.
New corporate
brand category Explanation Example
Familial The sharing/adoption of the same
corporate brand by two entities
within the same industry or sector.
There is, sometimes, a geographical
distinction
Hilton (UK), Hilton (USA), Shell (UK),
Shell (The Netherlands)
Shared As above, but operating in distinct
and sometimes related, markets. Not
usually geographically distinct.
Rolls Royce (Engineering/Aero
Engines) (UK)
Rolls Royce (car subsidiary of BMW)
Volvo (commercial vehicles,
engineering – Sweden)
Volvo (car subsidiary of Ford USA)
Surrogate A franchise arrangement whereby
one organisation’s products/services
are branded as that of another.
British Regional Airways
Use of the British Airways brand
Supra A quasi, “arch”, brand used to supra
endorse company brands.
Particularly common within the
airline sector. Unlike ordinary
corporate brands, this branding
category is derived from several
rather than from a single corporate
entity. As such, its “ethereal” and
“virtual” qualities are greater.
“One world” Airline Alliance
“Star” Airline Alliance
Qualifier group” Airline Alliance
Multiplex Multiple uses and, possibly, multiple
ownership/rights of a corporate
brand among a variety of entities in a
variety of industry sectors. (Similar
to the Japanese Keiretsu philosophy)
Virgin
Virgin Atlantic Airways
Virgin Trains
Virgin (Financial Services)
Federal The creation of a new corporate
brand by separate companies who
pool their resources in a joint
venture, to, in effect, create a new
identity/company.
Airbus Consortium
Source: Balmer (n.d.); also see Balmer and Greyser (2003)
Table IV.
New corporate
branding categories
EJM
37,7/8
984
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Value
By establishing a corporate brand a company can distinguish and differentiate
itself in the minds of all its stakeholders. Similar to a product brand, a corporate
brand makes the company and its espoused values easily identifiable and
connotes a level of quality and consistency of performance in the minds of its
target audiences. For product brands the focus is on customers and for
corporate brands for stakeholders. Consequently, a corporate brand provides
an umbrella of trust for the company in extending its product or service line
and even in diversifying into dissimilar products and services. Corporate
brands are also transferable assets: they can be bought, and sold; they may also
be coveted, as the struggle by Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen over the Rolls
Royce car marque testifies. Or, consider the Ford Group, which has, over recent
years, acquired a number of prestigious corporate brands as part of its strategy
to acquire a suite of up-scale brands – to date it has acquired Aston Martin,
Jaguar, Porsche and Volvo. Ford’s acquisition of these brands may be seen to
be more effective in terms of cost, time and risk aversion than attempting to
build up new high-prestige brands that lack the rich brand heritage of Jaguar
and the others.
An effective corporate brand often has a latent value in terms of excess
capacity that can be applied to other markets (Peteraf, 1993). The use of
corporate brands in the launch of new products is a case in point. For instance,
it has been shown that the deployment of a brand name for a new
product/service increase the success rate by 20 per cent and saves 26 per cent
on the costs of a new product launch (Newman, 2001).
Disney provides a good example of the leveraging of an enviable corporate
brand reputation. The corporation extended its corporate brand from animated
cartoons to full-length motion pictures, and then to theme parks, cruises,
speciality products, and retail stores. The Easy Group, founded in the UK by
the Greek magnate, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, whose Easy brand is based on a low
price, frills-free service proposition, has migrated from its budget airline
(EasyJet) roots, and now encompasses car hire, Internet cafes, and financial
services. Another model is that provided by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin
brand, which has been stretched to extraordinary lengths so as to encompass,
among others, savings, sodas, spirits, gyms, as well as compact discs, trains
and planes. The ubiquity of the Virgin brand is such that it appears to have
suffused the entire panoply of branding types from product through to service,
as well as encompassing company brands.
Of course, as pointed out by Collis and Montgomery (1995), there are limits
to extending the corporate brand. To a large extent this will be dependent on
the elasticity of the values underpinning the corporate brand and the degree to
which the corporate brand values are industry-specific. Understanding the
limits of the corporate brand requires particular skill on the part of senior
management: a mistake in this regard can considerably reduce the equity that
Corporate brands
985
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

has been accrued to the corporate brand. This can be seen in relation to Virgin’s
disastrous use of its brand on its railway subsidiary which, until comparatively
recently, was characterised by its antiquated and shabby rolling stock, its poor
time-keeping, slimmed-down catering services and high ticket prices. The latter
provides a good example of what Greyser (1999) calls the
“promise-performance” gap. Such occurrences can have a deleterious effect
on a corporation’s share-price.
The value of a corporate brand manifests itself in other ways. For
instance, branded companies may also have an edge in finding venture
partners (Barney and Hansen, 1994). Investors also seek strong corporate
brands. The value attached to a corporate brand materially enhances the
capitalisation of companies and often results in higher price-earnings ratios.
Interbrand, in their 1999 analysis of the world’s most valuable brands,
concluded that 59 per cent of Coca-Cola’s, 61 per cent of Disney’s and 64
per cent of McDonald’s capitalisation was attributable to the worth of the
company brand (Barwise et al., 2000, p. 93). The financial value of
corporate brands comes to the fore during corporate takeovers. The $12.6
billion paid by Philip Morris for the purchase of Kraft (the $12.6 billion
representing six times the book value of the company) is attributed
principally to the goodwill associated with the Kraft brand name (Newman,
2001, pp. 410-15). In the UK, the value of corporate brands has started to
appear on the balance sheet of corporations.
However, placing a firm financial value on corporate brands remains
controversial and there is far from agreement as to the methodology that
should be employed. Consider the discrepancy in relation to the corporate
brand value of Coca-Cola, which has been valued at $15 billion by AC Nielsen
and $ 68.945 billion by Interbrand (Schmidt and Ludlow, 2002, p. 2). What is
incontrovertible is that corporate brands as well as other intangible assets can
have a balance sheet value.
One of the greatest benefits of an effective corporate brand is its effect on
non-product market areas, such as its role in the recruitment and retention of
valuable employees. Hence, the corporate brand can be of inestimable value to
an organisation’s human resources department. This is because an
organisation’s corporate brand values can serve as a template against which
prospective employees can be evaluated. Virgin Atlantic selects its personnel
not only according to their skill or experience, but also the degree to which their
beliefs and personality are in alignment with the values of Virgin’s corporate
brand (Mitchell, 1999, p. 32). Waterstones, a leading UK retail book outlet,
regards recruitment as an integral component of the management of its
corporate brand (Ind, 1997).
A cororally premise relating to the above is that human resources managers
should occupy a position of pivotal importance in supporting the corporate
brand (King, 1991; Balmer, 2001b). Finding suitable employees who have an
EJM
37,7/8
986
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

affinity with the corporate brand would suggest that corporations benefit not
only in terms of employee commitment to the corporate brand, but also enjoy a
demonstrable financial advantage in terms of the costs associated with
recruitment, training, the employment of agency staff and the payment of
overtime. The value of branding to recruiters and other human resource
functions has, until comparatively recently, been seen as a characteristic of
Japanese companies. Just as consumers construct identities through branding,
so do employees. Johansson and Hirano (1999, p. 94) point out that a Toyota
employee is proud to call himself a Toyota-jin (a Toyota-man).
The value of a corporate brand can also manifest itself in other ways. For
instance, branded corporations may have an edge in finding venture partners
(Barney and Hansen, 1994). In addition, a strong corporate brand can cushion a
company in time of crisis (Greyser, 1999). Ford, for example, because of its
long-standing corporate brand reputation, may have escaped consumer wrath
in the tyre controversy with Firestone several years ago. Of course, there are
limits to stakeholder understanding, and Firestone’s role in the calamity clearly
exceeded these limits, and the same is true to an even greater degree for Arthur
Andersen’s involvement in the Enron debacle.
What is clear is that the value of corporate brands takes on many forms.
Research undertaken by MORI, the British opinion research consultancy,
among senior managers supports this broad proposition. Its research found
that a corporate brand had a perceived value in terms of increased profile,
customer attractiveness, product support, visual recognition, investor
confidence, as well as in encapsulating organisational values and providing
staff motivation (Lewis, 2000).
We should not be surprised to find that the value of brands, in whatever
their guise, has long been recognised, as the following quote testifies:
The good will of certain well-established names and brands is valued in the millions of
dollars, and ranks high among the assets of the companies responsible for them. In the great
majority of fields ... practically every one discriminates between brands in making a
purchase. In many lines it has come be regarded as the simplest and surest way to obtain
standard quality and service (Hotchkiss and Franken, 1923)
Rarity
We argue that a corporate brand is rare because it is the result of a unique
historical pattern of development which suffuses a corporate brand, not only
with a rich palette of characteristics that are functional (quality, performance,
familiarity and predictability), but also with myriad ethereal elements that are
rich in image as well as in symbolic terms. These functional and ethereal values
over time are represented by what are known as corporate brand values. These
values (along with the tangible elements of the corporate brand) have their
roots in an organisation’s identity (Balmer, 2001b) as well as in its culture
(Hatch and Schultz, 2001). There is a growing realisation that a discussion of
Corporate brands
987
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

corporate brands cannot be undertaken in isolation from a discussion of an
organisation’s identity (DeChernatony, 1999; Simoes and Dibb, 2001; Balmer,
2001a, b; Balmer and Greyser, 2003).
The importance of culture (or more appropriately subcultures, see Balmer
and Wilson, 1998) to an organisation’s identity has been recognised by identity
scholars for the last decade or so (Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991;
Balmer and Wilson, 1998; Balmer, 1998; Dowling, 1993; Hatch and Schultz,
1997; Fiol et al., 1998, Rindova and Schultz, 1998). Unsurprisingly, because of a
corporate brand’s inextricable link with identity, the importance of culture in
understanding corporate brands has also been asserted (Balmer, 2001b;
DeChernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2001).
As a result of the above, no two brands are identical, although some have
similar characteristics such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola. Their rarity, resulting
from their complexity, and comparatively long gestation, helps explain why
some corporations are willing to pay a premium price for corporate brands
rather than invest time, finance and other resources in creating a subsidiary
corporate brand de novo, as was discussed with the Ford example cited earlier.
But the corporate brand does not transplant as readily as a product brand.
Conglomerates and holding corporations typically go to great lengths to
maintain the integrity of newly acquired corporate brands: Wal-Mart’s
acquisition of the Yorkshire-based (UK) ASDA supermarket chain is a case in
point, as is Ford’s acquisition of Jaguar and Volvo. Often, this requires that an
arms-lengths approach be adopted. A predatory acquisition can result in the
annihilation of the brand and in a merger, the two corporations normally fuse
their corporate brands often in the mistaken belief that they have, overnight,
created a new brand. Consider for example AOL TimeWarner, HBOS (formerly
Halifax plc and the Bank of Scotland) and DaimlerChrysler. Also, in a merger,
the original brands and names sometimes disappear without trace, as in the
case of Hoechst and Rhone-Poulenc, which became known as Aventis.
Durability
Corporate brands are generally believed to have greater longevity than most
other types of valuable resources. The realisation that the Coca-Cola brand is
older than the physical plant and equipment used in production is a sobering
one indeed. Grant (1991) observed that corporate brands tend to decay
relatively slowly; cases in point being BP, Sears Roebuck and Sony. However,
there are older, more venerable examples of the longevity of corporate brands.
Ancient seats of learning such as Oxford, Cambridge or the Sorbonne, and
London’s coterie of old-line private bankers such as Childs, Coutts, Drummonds
and Hoare are just a few examples of corporate brands that have spanned the
centuries.
While a superior product can dramatically yield competitive advantage in
our high-tech milieu, this advantage is all too often short lived; today’s
EJM
37,7/8
988
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

products have notoriously short life cycles. However, the values associated
with a corporate brand can be enduring. This helps to explain the shift of
emphasis from product line brands to corporate brands.
Maintaining the substance, credibility and values of a corporate brand is a
complicated and unremitting task. It requires continuous reinvestment (Reed
and De Fillippi, 1990; Grant, 1991), and ongoing support from senior
management (King, 1991; Balmer, 1995, 2001b). Moreover, a corporate brand
needs total organisational commitment assurance; congruent total corporate
communication (congruent over space and time), and fidelity to the notion that
behaviour mirrors rhetoric (Balmer, 2001b, p. 15).
Inappropriatability
As stated above, inappropriatability means that a firm cannot lose profits from
a valuable resource to another entity or person. Collis and Montgomery (1995)
note that certain kinds of tangible resources are always subject to bargaining
by a variety of stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, distributors, and
employees. Perhaps the most common example of such a resource is employees.
As an illustration, highly successful securities brokers can change employers
and take important clients with them or bargain to appropriate a larger share of
the profit from their employers. Franchise-quality sports stars have the same
capability. The corporate brand, conversely, is a very different kind of resource.
Because it is largely intangible, it cannot be bargained or “spirited” away. It is a
resource which is historical and perceptual, a resource that is dependent, to a
considerable degree, on perception, beliefs, and experiences. This has long been
recognised by managers and consultants, as the following well-known
aphorism given by one senior Coca-Cola executive illustrates:
If Coca-Cola were to lose all of its production-related assets in a disaster, the company would
survive. By contrast, if all consumers were to have a sudden lapse of memory and forget
everything related to Coca-Cola the company would go out of business (quoted in Barwise
et al., 2000, p. 73)
Imperfect imitability
A corporate brand is also difficult, if not impossible, to imitate for two major
reasons. The first is that brand signifiers (names, logos, colours, music, etc.) are
normally patented by the corporations. As such they are protected by law from
imitation by competitors. For instance, no other company can legally use the
Nike name or the “swoosh”. The second and perhaps more essential reason is
that the underlying substance of the corporate brand is intangible and
consequently difficult to replicate.
Resource-based theorists suggest that valuable, intangible resources, which
are typically rooted in a unique historical pattern of development, tend to
provide enduring advantage because they are protected by one or a
combination of two isolating mechanisms: social complexity and causal
Corporate brands
989
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

ambiguity (Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). Both of these mechanisms are at work in
relation to corporate branding.
Social complexity. This first mechanism recognises that the resource is
composed of many interrelated elements so that few or no individuals have the
depth of knowledge to comprehend the overall package. The corporate
branding process involves not just the firm’s formal communication system,
but also the many interactions a company has with its various stakeholders.
These interactions include areas such as products and services, market and
on-market behaviour, and human resources. Internally, personnel’s affinity to a
variety of subcultures gives an organisation’s identity a distinctiveness
(Balmer and Wilson, 1998) that also finds expression in the corporate brand.
Given the magnitude and diversity of these interactions and communications, it
would be very difficult for anyone to grasp the intricacies of the overall process.
Causal ambiguity. The second isolating mechanism is the result of the
cause-and-effect relationships in the process that go unrecognised. As we have
already argued, brand building involves a concerted interdisciplinary effort.
Causal ambiguity operates primarily through word-of-mouth communication
and media interpretation, which can play a large role in forming the image and
reputation of the corporate brand. Such tertiary communication cannot be
completely comprehended by either company managers or outside observers
(Balmer and Gray, 1999).
Just as there is a mosaic of elements forming a corporate brand there are also
numerous elements that can bring about its decline or demise. A failure to
understand the company’s business, cultures, identity, structure, and the
impact of environmental forces are just some of these elements (Balmer, 2001b,
p. 4).
In sum, because of the social complexity and causal ambiguity implicit in the
corporate brand-building process, it is virtually impossible for a competitor to
imitate a corporate brand. It is eminently possible, however, for a competitor to
develop a superior substitute corporate brand.
Imperfect substitutability
The substitutability threat suggests that a firm’s valuable corporate brand can
be vitiated or “upstaged” by a competitor’s brand. This threat is the most
difficult one to analyse and guard against. There is always a danger that your
corporate brand will lose ground to a competitor (Dierickx and Cool, 1989). In
the early part of the twentieth century, Montgomery Ward was the dominant
corporate brand in the US retail industry but was overtaken by Sears Roebuck
in the 1950s, which more recently has been surpassed by Wal-Mart. IBM is no
longer the paramount corporate brand in the computer industry and
McDonald’s is constantly looking over its shoulder at Burger King and
others. McEvily et al. (2000) argue that there are strategies that companies can
follow to diminish this threat.
EJM
37,7/8
990
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

The key strategy for protecting the corporate brand from a substitute brand
is continuous improvement. This should be distinguished from the earlier
articulated strategy of reinvesting, to protect the brand from depreciation.
Continuous improvement requires investing on an ongoing basis in enhancing
the factors that create value and, moreover, help to differentiate the brand. The
nature of such improvements will necessarily be industry and brand specific
but will almost certainly include product and service performance, innovation,
design, and style. This is no easy task, however, since it means committing the
corporation to periodic, if not continuous, strategic change and innovation. Jack
Welch, in his 20 years as CEO of General Electric, consistently emphasized
change and improvement at all levels of the organization to stay ahead of
competitors (Fortune, pp. 185-7). As a consequence, General Electric today has
one of the strongest and most admired corporate brands in the world.
Conclusion
In an era where the boundaries between corporate entities have become less
distinct, where there is a blurring of the margins between the internal and
external environment, and where traditional approaches to marketing have
come under scrutiny, the corporate brand has emerged as a particularly salient
and robust concept. In addressing the question of why a successful corporate
brand is a sustainable, valuable strategic resource, we have argued that an
answer can be found in the economic theory called “the resource-based view of
the firm”. According to this theory, a corporate brand can provide a sustainable
competitive advantage to a company if it is characterised by value, rarity,
durability, inappropriatability, imperfect imitability, and imperfect
substitutability.
To us, corporate branding provides a powerful aperture by which to
comprehend organisations and their interface with myriad stakeholder groups.
The Latin phrase Vultus est index animi captures the awesome nature of
corporate brands. Translated, the literal meaning of the phrase is: “The
expression on one’s face is a sign of the soul”. It takes only a small leap of
imagination to realise that for many organisations, the corporate brand is the
face of the organisation. As such, when we regard a thriving corporate brand
that has stood the test of time, we also see something of that organisation’s
identity. An identity that has been astutely nurtured and maintained over
successive generations, that has enjoyed wide staff commitment to its ethos
and values – a commitment that has in turn been reciprocated by those
stakeholder groups who are crucial to the organisation’s ongoing success and
continuance – furnishes a sound underpinning for a successful corporate
brand.
We have explained the differences between corporate brand and corporate
identities and have argued that the notion of the corporate brand is
fundamentally different in several crucial aspects from its sister concepts of
Corporate brands
991
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

corporate and organisational identity. One crucial difference is that while the
identity concept is applicable to entities of every hue, the corporate branding
concept is not. Identity is a given necessary whereas corporate brands are
contingent. An organisation’s identity is a prerequisite to the establishment of a
corporate brand. Every corporate brand has, so to speak, an ancestral home.
Quod erat demonstrandum[2].
However, once established, a corporate brand can have a life of its own: it
can be bought, borrowed, sold and, in certain circumstances, be shared among
a variety of organisations.
We have urged caution on the part of scholars and practitioners when
contemplating brands: this is because corporate brands are crucially different
from product brands in terms of their composition, constituencies,
maintenance, management as well as disciplinary roots. Indeed, the
emerging theory on corporate branding is largely antithetical to traditional
approaches to branding. Indeed, the genesis of corporate branding is, to a
significant degree, to be found within the literature on corporate and on
organisational identity. Both literatures emphasise the importance of personnel
and of staff affinities to subcultures. The importance of adopting a
multidisciplinary perspective on the part of corporate identity scholars has
clearly influenced current thinking on corporate brands.
In this article we have advanced the view that the corporate brand covenant
(the long-term commitment made between those who own as well as by the
myriad stakeholders who “consume” the brand) should be viewed as an
additional identity type: “the covenanted identity”. Building on Balmer’s (2001c)
earlier model relating to the management of identities (The AC
2
ID Test
TM
)we
argue that the effective management and maintenance of a corporate brand
entails bringing into alignment the various identity types with the covenanted
identity/the corporate brand (see Balmer in Balmer and Greyser, 2003. p. 251).
In addition, we have explored the boundary-spanning characteristics of
corporate brands and have found that the existing tripartite branding typology
(monolithic, endorsed and branding) to be inadequate in the context of the
contemporary business environment. Our analysis has resulted in an extension
of this typology with six additional branding categories:
(1) familial;
(2) multiplex;
(3) shared;
(4) surrogate;
(5) supra; and
(6) federal.
EJM
37,7/8
992
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

This reflects the different ways in which organisations utilise the corporate
brand covenant. (Often a single corporate brand covenant is shared by different
organisations.)
We have noted that since the early 1990s there has been a growing chorus of
execration from both practitioners and scholars at the failure on the part of
scholars to face up to the changes presented by what we now call corporate
brands. These protestations are, at last, being heard. Currently, corporate
branding is generating considerable excitement from marketing scholars (as
well as those from other disciplines) and account is being taken of the
protestations of King (1991) and others. It comes with a realisation that
corporate brands are not only redolent of our aeon, but represent a missing
dynamic in management thought and practice.
However, we are of the view that the concept of the corporate brand is only
one element of a much broader tableaux: a tableaux, of which the concepts of
corporate reputation and image, total corporate communications and, more
significantly, corporate and organisation identity studies are integral. In their
totality, these concepts afford a powerful means by which the corporation can
be revealed, understood and managed. Not only do they represent a new gestalt
of the corporation, but also the building blocks of a new philosophy of
management, that of “corporate level marketing” (Balmer and Greyser, 2003).
In our estimation, the epiphany of corporate branding will herald a new
episode of marketing’s odyssey, namely: the advent of corporate-level
marketing.
Notes
1. This section of this article is a development of our initial examination of corporate brands
and the resource-base view of the corporation. See Gray and Balmer (2001).
2. Literal translation: which was to be proved.
References
Aaker, D. and Joachimsthalaer, E.A. (2000), “The brand relationship spectrum: the key to the
brand architecture challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 8-23.
Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Aldersey-Williams, H. (2000), “Ten reasons why corporate identity is irrelevant”, RSA Journal,
Vol. CXLVIII No. 5495, pp. 4-6.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 24-46.
Baker, M.J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Visual identity: trappings or substance?”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 366-82.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-96.
Corporate brands
993
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing
through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 248-91.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b), “The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate branding”, Journal
of General Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001c), “From the Pentagon: a new identity framework”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11-21.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (1999), “Corporate identity and corporate communications:
creating a competitive advantage”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 171-6.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), “Managing the multiple identities of the corporation”,
California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-86.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds) (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity,
Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing, Routledge,
London.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), “Building societies: change, strategy, and corporate
identity”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilson, A. (1998), “Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye”,
International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-31.
Barney, J.A. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-64.
Barney, J.A. and Hansen, M.H. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 175-90.
Barwise, P., Dunham, A. and Ritson, M. (2000), “Ties that bind: brands, consumers and
businesses”, in Pavitt, J. (Ed.), Brand New, V&A Publications, London, pp. 71-108.
Bernstein, D. (1989), “Corporate void”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 8, pp. 315-20.
Bickerton, D. (2000), “Corporate reputation versus corporate branding; the realist debate”,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 42-8.
Bitner, M., Booms, B. and Mohr, L. (1994), “Critical service encounters: the employees’
viewpoint”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.
Collis, D.J. and Montgomery, C.A. (1995), “Competing on resources: strategy in the 1990s”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 118-28.
DeChernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 157-80.
Diefenbach, J.M. (1982), “Design as a management tool”, paper presented at the Design
Management Institute Conference, 9-10 December, Boston, MA.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-11.
Dowling, G. (1993), “Developing your company image into a corporate asset”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-9.
Elliot, R. and Wattanasuwan, K. (1998), “Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of
identity”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 131-44.
Ewing, M., Pitt, L., DeBussy, N. and Berthou, P. (2002), “Employment branding in the knowledge
economy”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
EJM
37,7/8
994
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Fiol, C., Hatch, M.J. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1998), “Organizational culture and identity: what’s the
difference anyway?”, in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations:
Developing Theory Through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 56-9.
Galbraith, J.K. (1986), The Anatomy of Power, Hamish Hamilton, London.
Gjols-Andersen, P. (2001), “A case study of the change of brand strategy in Lego from a focus on
the famous building brick to introducing a broad variety of Lego products in the children’s
universe”, PhD thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implication for
strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “The corporate brand: a strategic asset”, Management in
Practice, No. 4, pp. 1-4.
Greyser, S.A. (1999), “Enhancing and advancing corporate reputation”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 177-81.
Hankinson, P. and Hankinson, G. (1999), “Managing successful brands: an empirical study which
compares the corporate cultures of companies managing the world’s top 100 brands with
those managing outsider brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 135-55.
Harris, F. and DeChernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 441-56.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organizational culture, identity and
image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 356-65.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”,
Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-34.
Hemsley, S. (1998), “Internal affairs”, Marketing Week No. 2 April, pp. 49-53.
Hotchkiss, G.B. and Franken, R.B. (1923), The Leadership of Advertised Brands, Doubleday Page,
New York, NY.
Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.
Ind, N. (1998), “An integrated approach to corporate branding”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 323-9.
Ind, N. (2001), The Corporate Brand, New York University Press, New York, NY.
Johansson, J.K. and Hirano, M. (1999), “Brand reality: the Japanese perspective”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 93-105.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Kay, J. (1995), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. (1999), “Brand mantras: rationale, criteria and examples”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 43-51.
Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1998), “Corporate level marketing: the impact of credibility
marketing on a company’s brand extensions”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 356-78.
Kennedy, S.H. (1977), “Nurturing corporate images – total communications or ego trip?”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 120-64.
King, S. (1991), “Brand building in the 1990s”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 3-13.
Corporate brands
995
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Knox, S. and Maklan, S. (1998), Competing on Value, Financial Times/Pitman, London.
Knox, S.D., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K.E. (2000), “Building the unique organizational value
proposition”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive
Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 138-53.
LaForet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994), “Managing brand portfolios: how the leaders do it”, Journal of
Advertising Research, September-October, pp. 64-76.
Levy, M. (1996), “Current accounts and baked beans: translating FMCG principles to the financial
sector”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-9.
Lewis, S. (2000), “Let’s get this in perspective”, paper presented at the Confederation of British
Industry Branding and Brand Identity Seminar, Bradford School of Management,
Bradford, 24 February.
McDonald, M.H.B., DeChernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), “Corporate marketing and service
brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 335-52.
McEvily, S.K., Das, S. and McCabe, K. (2000), “Avoiding competitive substitution through
knowledge sharing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 294-311.
Maathuis, O. (1999), “Corporate branding: the value of the corporate brand to customers and
managers”, unpublished PhD thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Macrae, C. (1996), The Brand Chartering Handbook, Addison-Wesley, London.
Mitchell, A. (1997), Brand Strategies in the Information Age, Financial Times Report, London.
Mitchell, A. (1999), “Out of the shadows”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 25-42.
Newman, K. (2001), “The sorcerer’s apprentice? Alchemy, seduction and confusion in modern
marketing”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20, pp. 409-29.
Olins, W. (1978), The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Identity,
Design Council, London.
Olins, W. (2000), “How brands are taking over the corporation”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and
Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 51-65.
Olins, W. (2001), “Global companies: the inexorable rise of the corporate state? The Second Lord
Goold Memorial Lecture delivered at Templeton College, Oxford University”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3 and 4, pp. 485-96.
Opinion Research Corporation International (1999), Global 100: Attitudes to Corporate Branding,
Opinion Research Corporation International, Princeton, NJ, April.
Pauvit, J. (2000), Brand New, V&A Publications, London.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 179-91.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R.J. (1990), “Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable
competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 88-102.
Rindova, V. and Schultz, M. (1998), “Identity within and identity without: lessons from corporate
and organizational identity”, in Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in
Organizations: Developing Theory Through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 46-51.
Schmidt, H. and Ludlow, C. (2002), Inclusive Branding, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.
Schmitt, B. (1999), “Experimental marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 53-67.
EJM
37,7/8
996
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

Schneider, B. and Bowen, D. (1995), “Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks:
replication and extension”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 423-33.
Sherry, J. (1995), Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Sage, London.
Shoker, A., Srivastava, R. and Ruekert, R. (1994), “Challenges and opportunities facing brand
management: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31,
May, pp. 149-58.
Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), “Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 217-24.
Stuart, F.I. (1997), “The influence of organizational culture and internal politics on new service
design and introduction”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 469-85.
Tilley, C. (1999), “Built-in branding: how to engineer a leadership brand”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 181-91.
Urde, M. (1997), “Brand orientation – development of brands as strategic assets and protection
against trademark degeneration”, PhD thesis, University of Lund, Lund.
Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,
pp. 117-33.
Further reading
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.C. and Staw, B.M.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-9.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2002), “Of identities lost and found”, International Studies of Management and
Organization, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 10-27.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The ACID Test
TM
of corporate identity management”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 69-92.
Fombrun, C.J. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (1998), “The reputational landscape”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Fortune (1999), Fortune, Vol. 22 No. 10, 22 November, pp. 185-7.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), ““Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Kapferer, J.N. (1991), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Macrae, C. (1999), “Editorial”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 1-24.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds) (2000), The Expressive Organization, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Urde, M. (1994), “Brand orientation – a strategy for survival”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.
Corporate brands
997
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1. Vincent Dutot, Sylvaine Castellano. 2016. Designing a Measurement Scale for E-Reputation. Corporate
Reputation Review 18, 294-313. [CrossRef]
2. Jing Zhang, Yanxin Jiang, Rizwan Shabbir, Miao Zhu. 2016. How brand orientation impacts B2B service
brand equity? an empirical study among Chinese firms. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:1. .
[Abstract] [PDF]
3. Selva Staub, Ramazan Kaynak, Tarkan Gok. 2016. What affects sustainability and innovation — Hard or
soft corporate identity?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102, 72-79. [CrossRef]
4. Burçak Çağla Garipağaoğlu. 2015. Branding in Higher Education: A Case Study from Turkey. Higher
Education Policy . [CrossRef]
5. Suraksha Gupta, John M.T. Balmer, Brian Low. 2015. Brands in, from and to emerging markets: The
role of industrial relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 51, 4-10. [CrossRef]
6. Kayhan Tajeddini, Ulf Elg, Pervez N. GhauriEnhancing Organizational Performance of International
SMEs through Inter-Firm Marketing Collaborations 109-133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
7. Adri W A J van der Merwe, Gustav Puth. 2015. Towards a Conceptual Model of the Relationship between
Corporate Trust and Corporate Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 17, 138-156. [CrossRef]
8. Vicenta Sierra, Oriol Iglesias, Stefan Markovic, Jatinder Jit Singh. 2015. Does Ethical Image Build Equity
in Corporate Services Brands? The Influence of Customer Perceived Ethicality on Affect, Perceived
Quality, and Equity. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
9. Veronika Tarnovskaya. 2015. Corporate brand as a contract with stakeholders – theology or pragmatism?.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:6, 865-886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Alireza Sheikh, Ming Lim. 2015. The making of brand attachment and brand meanings: the case of a UK
engineering services firm. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:6, 887-907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Aihwa Chang, Hsu-Hsin Chiang, Tzu-Shian Han. 2015. Investigating the dual-route effects of corporate
branding on brand equity. Asia Pacific Management Review 20, 120-129. [CrossRef]
12. Paul Chad. 2015. Utilising a change management perspective to examine the implementation of corporate
rebranding in a non-profit SME. Journal of Brand Management 22, 569-587. [CrossRef]
13. Michela Mingione. 2015. Inquiry into corporate brand alignment: a dialectical analysis and directions for
future research. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:5, 518-536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Amber L. Stephenson, Alex Heckert, David B. Yerger. 2015. College choice and the university brand:
exploring the consumer decision framework. Higher Education . [CrossRef]
15. Holly Cooper, Dale Miller, Bill Merrilees. 2015. Restoring luxury corporate heritage brands: From crisis
to ascendency. Journal of Brand Management 22, 448-466. [CrossRef]
16. John M T Balmer, Mario Burghausen. 2015. Explicating corporate heritage, corporate heritage brands
and organisational heritage. Journal of Brand Management 22, 364-384. [CrossRef]
17. Morteza Khojastehpour, Raechel Johns. 2015. The role of MNC's subsidiaries in creating multinational
corporate brand. Journal of Strategic Marketing 1-14. [CrossRef]
18. Silvia Biraghi, Rossella Chiara Gambetti. 2015. Corporate branding: Where are we? A systematic
communication-based inquiry. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-24. [CrossRef]
19. Ulla Hakala, Paula Sjöblom, Satu-Paivi Kantola. 2015. Toponyms as carriers of heritage: implications for
place branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 24:3, 263-275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

20. Jasmina Ilicic, Cynthia M. Webster. 2015. Consumer values of corporate and celebrity brand associations.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 18:2, 164-187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Mari Juntunen. 2015. Time-based modifications to process theory illustrations through a corporate
rebranding case study. Baltic Journal of Management 10:2, 222-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Coyte Cooper, Erianne A Weight, Nick Fulton. 2015. Investigating organizational core values in NCAA
athletic departments. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 5:1, 50-64. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
23. Morteza Khojastehpour, Ahmed Shahriar Ferdous, Michael Polonsky. 2015. Addressing the complexities
of managing domestic and multinational corporate brands. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal 20:1, 48-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Chris Chapleo. 2015. An exploration of branding approaches in UK universities. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 20:10.1002/nvsm.v20.1, 1-11. [CrossRef]
25. Deli Yang, Mahmut (Maho) Sonmez, Qinghai Li, Yibing Duan. 2015. The power of triple contexts on
customer-based brand performance—A comparative study of Baidu and Google from Chinese netizens’
perspective. International Business Review 24, 11-22. [CrossRef]
26. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur Ghuman. 2015. What and how to communicate about a corporate
brand with the consumers: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-20. [CrossRef]
27. Mai An Tran, Bang Nguyen, T.C. Melewar, Jim Bodoh. 2015. Exploring the corporate image formation
process. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 18:1, 86-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Stephen Lloyd, Arch G. Woodside. 2015. Advancing paradox resolution theory for interpreting non-
profit, commercial, entrepreneurial strategies. Journal of Strategic Marketing 23, 3-18. [CrossRef]
29. Rogelio Puente-Díaz, Judith Cavazos-Arroyo. 2015. The categorisation of brands: The case of P&G™
branding strategy. International Journal of Psychology n/a. [CrossRef]
30. Zhibin Lin, Xinming He. 2014. The images of foreign versus domestic retailer brands in China: A model
of corporate brand image and store image. Journal of Brand Management . [CrossRef]
31. Philip J Kitchen, Marwa E Tourky, Dianne Dean, Ahmed S Shaalan. 2014. Corporate Identity
Antecedents and Components: Toward a Theoretical Framework. Corporate Reputation Review 16,
263-284. [CrossRef]
32. Erik Braun, Jasper Eshuis, Erik-Hans Klijn. 2014. The effectiveness of place brand communication. Cities
41, 64-70. [CrossRef]
33. Ahmad Zaki, Mahfud Sholihin, Zuni Barokah. 2014. The association of Islamic bank ethical identity and
financial performance: evidence from Asia. Asian Journal of Business Ethics 3, 97-110. [CrossRef]
34. Mats Urde, Christian Koch. 2014. Market and brand-oriented schools of positioning. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 23:7, 478-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Jaakko Aspara, Hanna-Mari Aula, Janne Tienari, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2014. Struggles in organizational
attempts to adopt new branding logics: the case of a marketizing university. Consumption Markets &
Culture 17, 522-552. [CrossRef]
36. Zalfa Laili Hamzah, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Md Nor Othman. 2014. Designing corporate brand
experience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research 67, 2299-2310.
[CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

37. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Philip J. Kitchen. 2014. Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral
response in business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes?. Journal of Business Research 67,
2324-2336. [CrossRef]
38. Mario Burghausen, John M.T. Balmer. 2014. Corporate heritage identity management and the multi-
modal implementation of a corporate heritage identity. Journal of Business Research 67, 2311-2323.
[CrossRef]
39. Roland H. Bartholmé, T.C. Melewar. 2014. The end of silence? Qualitative findings on corporate auditory
identity from the UK. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-18. [CrossRef]
40. Sylvie Laforet. 2014. Managing brand portfolios: audit of leading grocery supplier brands 2004 to 2012.
Journal of Strategic Marketing 1-18. [CrossRef]
41. Geraint Holliman, Jennifer Rowley. 2014. Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’
perceptions of best practice. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 8:4, 269-293. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
42. Stephen Wilkins, Jeroen Huisman. 2014. Corporate images' impact on consumers' product choices: The
case of multinational foreign subsidiaries. Journal of Business Research 67, 2224-2230. [CrossRef]
43. Christine Hallier Willi, Bang Nguyen, T.C. Melewar, Charles Dennis. 2014. Corporate impression
formation in online communities: a qualitative study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal
17:4, 410-440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Tatiana Anisimova. 2014. Benchmarking desired corporate brand image in relation to stakeholders: a
managerial perspective. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:4, 441-463. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
45. Amber L. Stephenson, David B. Yerger. 2014. Optimizing engagement: brand identification and alumni
donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Management 28:6, 765-778. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
46. Amber L. Stephenson, Nikki Bell. 2014. Motivation for alumni donations: a social identity perspective on
the role of branding in higher education. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
19:10.1002/nvsm.v19.3, 176-186. [CrossRef]
47. Nagwa El Gazzar, Maha Mourad. 2014. The Effect of Online Communication on Corporate Brand Image.
International Journal of Online Marketing 2:10.4018/IJOM.20120101, 1-15. [CrossRef]
48. Carlo Rohner,, Battal Kalan,, Kim Oliver Tokarski. 2014. Corporate Brand Management von KMU:
Eine qualitativ-explorative Bestandsaufnahme der identitätsbasierten Markenführung bei Schweizer und
Liechtensteiner Unternehmen. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 62, 99-123. [CrossRef]
49. Mahsa Ghandehary, Hojjat Harati, Javad Khazaei Pool. 2014. Identifying and ranking the effective factors
on customer values. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues 7:1, 57-74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Mari Juntunen. 2014. Interpretative narrative process research approach to corporate renaming. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal 17:2, 112-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Riza Casidy. 2014. Linking Brand Orientation with Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Positive Word-of-
Mouth: Evidence from the Higher Education Sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 26,
142-161. [CrossRef]
52. Carl Jon Way Ng. 2014. SEMIOTICIZING CAPITALISM IN CORPORATE BRAND
ENACTMENT. Critical Discourse Studies 11, 139-157. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

53. Richard Brophy. 2014. Rebrand in crisis: how Liberty came to Ireland. Journal of Strategic Marketing
22, 93-103. [CrossRef]
54. Emmanuel Selase Asamoah. 2014. Customer based brand equity (CBBE) and the competitive performance
of SMEs in Ghana. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 21:1, 117-131. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
55. Chi-Tai Wang, Chui-Sheng Chiu. 2014. Competitive strategies for Taiwan's semiconductor industry in
a new world economy. Technology in Society 36, 60-73. [CrossRef]
56. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2014. Developing and testing a value chain for fashion retailers:
activities for competitive success. The Journal of The Textile Institute 105, 136-149. [CrossRef]
57. Vilma L. Luoma-aho, Mirja E. Makikangas. 2014. Do public sector mergers (re)shape reputation?.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 27:1, 39-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix Mavondo. 2014. Aligning Company and Dealer Perspectives in Corporate
Branding: Implications for Dealer Satisfaction and Commitment. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
21, 35-56. [CrossRef]
59. Carmen Gallucci, Rosalia Santulli. 2013. Il family brand nella comunicazione online. Un focus sul settore
vino. MERCATI E COMPETITIVITÀ 127-148. [CrossRef]
60. John M T Balmer. 2013. Corporate brand orientation: What is it? What of it?. Journal of Brand
Management 20, 723-741. [CrossRef]
61. Marino Bonaiuto, Stefano De Dominicis, Laura Illia, Belén Rodríguez-Cánovas, Gabriele Lizzani. 2013.
Managing employer brand attributes to attract potential future leaders. Journal of Brand Management 20,
779-792. [CrossRef]
62. Mats Urde. 2013. The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management 20, 742-761.
[CrossRef]
63. Thomas Leppelt, Kai Foerstl, Carsten Reuter, Evi Hartmann. 2013. Sustainability management beyond
organizational boundaries–sustainable supplier relationship management in the chemical industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production 56, 94-102. [CrossRef]
64. Vernon H. Sweetin, Lynette L. Knowles, John H. Summey, Kand S. McQueen. 2013. Willingness-to-
punish the corporate brand for corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research 66, 1822-1830.
[CrossRef]
65. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Vesa Autere. 2013. Recruits’ Corporate Brand Co-creation Experiences
of the Finnish Military Forces. Corporate Reputation Review 15, 88-104. [CrossRef]
66. Tatiana Anisimova. 2013. Evaluating the impact of corporate brand on consumer satisfaction. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25:4, 561-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Christine Vallaster, Sylvia von Wallpach. 2013. An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of
multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation. Journal of Business Research 66, 1505-1515. [CrossRef]
68. Oriol Iglesias, Nicholas Ind, Manuel Alfaro. 2013. The organic view of the brand: A brand value co-
creation model. Journal of Brand Management 20, 670-688. [CrossRef]
69. Tanya Bondarouk, Huub Ruël, Elena Axinia, Roxana AramaWhat Is the Future of Employer Branding
Through Social Media? Results of the Delphi Study into the Perceptions of HR Professionals and
Academics 23-57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

70. Anna Blombäck, Christina Scandelius. 2013. Corporate heritage in CSR communication: a means to
responsible brand image?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 362-382. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
71. Anna Blombäck, Olof Brunninge. 2013. The dual opening to brand heritage in family businesses.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 327-346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. John M.T. Balmer. 2013. Corporate heritage, corporate heritage marketing, and total corporate heritage
communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:3, 290-326. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
73. Riza Casidy. 2013. How great thy brand: the impact of church branding on perceived benefits.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 18, 231-239. [CrossRef]
74. Sharifah Alwi, Shahril Azwan Ismail. 2013. A framework to attain brand promise in an online setting.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 31:5, 557-578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Zoe Lee. 2013. Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: Exploring tensions in the nonprofit sector.
Journal of Marketing Management 29, 1124-1142. [CrossRef]
76. Alfonso Siano, Agostino Vollero, Maria Giovanna Confetto, Mario Siglioccolo. 2013. Corporate
communication management: A framework based on decision-making with reference to communication
resources. Journal of Marketing Communications 19, 151-167. [CrossRef]
77. Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgreen. 2013. The role of social interactions in building internal corporate
brands: Implications for sustainability. Journal of World Business 48, 297-310. [CrossRef]
78. Richard Gyrd-Jones, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2013. Revisiting the complexities of corporate branding:
Issues, paradoxes, solutions. Journal of Brand Management 20, 571-589. [CrossRef]
79. Richard J. VareyCorporate Reputation and the Discipline of Marketing Communication 104-120.
[CrossRef]
80. Esben KarmarkCorporate Branding and Corporate Reputation 446-458. [CrossRef]
81. Christofer Pihl. 2013. In the borderland between personal and corporate brands – the case of professional
bloggers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 4, 112-127. [CrossRef]
82. Bikram Jit Singh Mann, Mandeep Kaur. 2013. Exploring branding strategies of FMCG, services and
durables brands: evidence from India. Journal of Product & Brand Management 22:1, 6-17. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
83. Nha Nguyen, André Leclerc, Gaston LeBlanc. 2013. The Mediating Role of Customer Trust on Customer
Loyalty. Journal of Service Science and Management 06, 96-109. [CrossRef]
84. Benjamin D Golant. 2012. Bringing the corporate brand to life: The brand manager as practical author.
Journal of Brand Management 20, 115-127. [CrossRef]
85. Carsten Reuter, Philipp Goebel, Kai Foerstl. 2012. The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainability
and cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18,
270-281. [CrossRef]
86. Jatinder J. Singh, Oriol Iglesias, Joan Manel Batista-Foguet. 2012. Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter?
The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics
111, 541-549. [CrossRef]
87. Janet Haddock-Fraser. 2012. The Role of the News Media in Influencing Corporate Environmental
Sustainable Development: An Alternative Methodology to Assess Stakeholder Engagement. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 19:10.1002/csr.v19.6, 327-342. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

88. Michael Hutchinson, Gregg Bennett. 2012. Core values brand building in sport: Stakeholder attitudes
towards intercollegiate athletics and university brand congruency. Sport Management Review 15, 434-447.
[CrossRef]
89. Marina Mattera, Verónica Baena, Julio Cerviño. 2012. Analyzing Social Responsibility as a Driver of
Firm's Brand Awareness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 58, 1121-1130. [CrossRef]
90. Manuela Gussoni, Andrea Mangani. 2012. Corporate branding strategies in mergers and acquisitions.
Journal of Brand Management 19, 772-787. [CrossRef]
91. John M.T. Balmer. 2012. Strategic corporate brand alignment. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8,
1064-1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Adam Lindgreen, Yue Xu, François Maon, Jeremy Wilcock. 2012. Corporate social responsibility brand
leadership: a multiple case study. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 965-993. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
93. Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn. 2012. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations.
European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1048-1063. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Jay Sang Ryu, Jane Swinney. 2012. Aligning business owners for a successful downtown brand. Journal of
Place Management and Development 5:2, 102-118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Rob VanWynsberghe, Inge Derom, Elizabeth Maurer. 2012. Social leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games:
‘sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver initiative. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events
4, 185-205. [CrossRef]
96. Qin Sun, Audhesh Paswan. 2012. Country branding through Olympic Games. Journal of Brand
Management 19, 641-654. [CrossRef]
97. François Robichaud, André Richelieu, Robert Kozak. 2012. Branding as a communications strategy: A
framework for desired brand identity. Journal of Brand Management 19, 712-734. [CrossRef]
98. Gary Davies, Rosa Chun. 2012. Employee as symbol: stereotypical age effects on corporate brand
associations. European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 663-683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. T.C. Melewar, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2012. Shaping the research agenda for corporate
branding: avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 600-608. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
100. Marc Fetscherin, Jean‐Claude Usunier. 2012. Corporate branding: an interdisciplinary literature review.
European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 733-753. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. James E. Richard, Annie Zhang. 2012. Corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel
industry. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 568-593. [CrossRef]
102. Oriol Iglesias, Eduard Bonet. 2012. Persuasive brand management. Journal of Organizational Change
Management 25:2, 251-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. Mari Juntunen. 2012. Co‐creating corporate brands in start‐ups. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 30:2,
230-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
104. Wei‐Lun Chang, Kuan‐Chi Chang. 2012. Estimating the value of corporate co‐branding synergies.
Kybernetes 41:1/2, 239-253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. Anna Blombäck, Marcela Ramírez‐Pasillas. 2012. Exploring the logics of corporate brand identity
formation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17:1, 7-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Anandan Pillai. 2012. Corporate branding literature: A research paradigm review. Journal of Brand
Management 19, 331-343. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

107. Vanessa Ratten. 2011. International sports management: Current trends and future developments.
Thunderbird International Business Review 53, 679-686. [CrossRef]
108. Minna Mäläskä, Saila Saraniemi, Jaana Tähtinen. 2011. Network actors' participation in B2B SME
branding. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 1144-1152. [CrossRef]
109. Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgreen. 2011. Corporate brand strategy formation: Brand actors and the
situational context for a business-to-business brand. Industrial Marketing Management 40, 1133-1143.
[CrossRef]
110. Beth Harben, Sandra Forsythe. 2011. Cause–brand alliances: Less familiar brands with familiar causes.
Journal of Brand Management 19, 132-142. [CrossRef]
111. Christina Öberg, Christina Grundström, Petter Jönsson. 2011. Acquisitions and network identity change.
European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1470-1500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Ahmed Alamro, Jennifer Rowley. 2011. Antecedents of brand preference for mobile telecommunications
services. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 475-486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Shaun M. Powell. 2011. The nexus between ethical corporate marketing, ethical corporate identity and
corporate social responsibility. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1365-1379. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
114. Jaakko Aspara, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2011. Corporate marketing in the stock market. European Journal of
Marketing 45:9/10, 1446-1469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
115. Bradford T. Hudson. 2011. Brand heritage and the renaissance of Cunard. European Journal of Marketing
45:9/10, 1538-1556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Elif Karaosmanoğlu, Ayşe Banu Elmadağ Baş, Jingyun (Kay) Zhang. 2011. The role of other customer
effect in corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1416-1445. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
117. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Alan Wilson. 2011. Internal branding process: key mechanisms, outcomes and
moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1521-1537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó. 2011. Key changes and challenges for brands in an
uncertain environment. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 436-439. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
119. Ulla Hakala, Sonja Lätti, Birgitta Sandberg. 2011. Operationalising brand heritage and cultural heritage.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6, 447-456. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Noel Scott, Ann Suwaree Ashton, Peiyi Ding, Honggang Xu. 2011. Tourism branding and nation building
in China. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5:3, 227-234. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
121. Riza Casidy Mulyanegara. 2011. The relationship between market orientation, brand orientation and
perceived benefits in the non-profit sector: a customer-perceived paradigm. Journal of Strategic Marketing
19, 429-441. [CrossRef]
122. Riza Casidy Mulyanegara. 2011. The Role of Brand Orientation in Church Participation: An Empirical
Examination. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 23, 226-247. [CrossRef]
123. Robert L. Cardy, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall. 2011. Will They Stay or Will They Go? Exploring a Customer-
Oriented Approach To Employee Retention. Journal of Business and Psychology 26, 213-217. [CrossRef]
124. Hongwei He, Yan Li. 2011. CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification and
Moderating Effect of Service Quality. Journal of Business Ethics 100, 673-688. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

125. John M T Balmer. 2011. Corporate heritage brands and the precepts of corporate heritage brand
management: Insights from the British Monarchy on the eve of the royal wedding of Prince William
(April 2011) and Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee (1952–2012). Journal of Brand Management 18,
517-544. [CrossRef]
126. Chris Chapleo, María Victoria Carrillo Durán, Ana Castillo Díaz. 2011. Do UK universities communicate
their brands effectively through their websites?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 21, 25-46.
[CrossRef]
127. Rita Järventie-Thesleff, Johanna Moisander, Pikka-Maaria Laine. 2011. Organizational dynamics and
complexities of corporate brand building—A practice perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management
27, 196-204. [CrossRef]
128. Joanna Minkiewicz, Jody Evans, Kerrie Bridson, Felix Mavondo. 2011. Corporate image in the leisure
services sector. Journal of Services Marketing 25:3, 190-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
129. Jay Sang Ryu, Jane Swinney. 2011. Downtown branding as an engine of downtown business success in
small communities. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7, 81-90. [CrossRef]
130. Aron O'Cass, Ranjit Voola. 2011. Explications of political market orientation and political brand
orientation using the resource-based view of the political party. Journal of Marketing Management 27,
627-645. [CrossRef]
131. Johan Gromark, Frans Melin. 2011. The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on
financial performance. Journal of Brand Management 18, 394-410. [CrossRef]
132. Roland H. Bartholmé, T.C. Melewar. 2011. Exploring the auditory dimension of corporate identity
management. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29:2, 92-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2011. An exploration of fashion retailer own brand strategies. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:1, 91-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
134. Subodh Bhat, Camilla Jane Burg. 2011. Does communicating corporate parent brand heritage help spin‐
off stock performance?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 16:1, 27-37. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
135. Luca Petruzzellis, Salvatore Romanazzi, Leslie de Chernatony. 2011. Branding relationships in financial
services: Paradigm shift in Mediterranean countries. Journal of Brand Management 18, 312-328.
[CrossRef]
136. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Jari Juga. 2011. Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: A
study among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management 18, 300-311. [CrossRef]
137. Philip J. Kitchen, Inga BurgmannIntegrated Marketing Communication . [CrossRef]
138. John M T Balmer. 2010. Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflections and directions
from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18, 180-196. [CrossRef]
139. Abhijit Sengupta, Danica Vukadinović Greetham. 2010. Dynamics of brand competition: Effects of
unobserved social networks. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, 2391-2406. [CrossRef]
140. Steve Burt, Keri Davies. 2010. From the retail brand to the retail‐er as a brand: themes and issues in
retail branding research. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 38:11/12, 865-878.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Steve Wood, Michelle Lowe, Neil Wrigley. 2010. Conceptualising innovative customer-facing responses
to planning regulation: the UK food retailers. The Service Industries Journal 30, 1967-1990. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

142. Mari Juntunen, Saila Saraniemi, Milla Halttu, Jaana Tähtinen. 2010. Corporate brand building in different
stages of small business growth. Journal of Brand Management 18, 115-133. [CrossRef]
143. Olutayo Otubanjo, Temi Abimbola, Olusanmi Amujo. 2010. Conceptualising the notion of corporate
brand covenant. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6, 410-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
144. A.E. Kirby, A.M. Kent. 2010. Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 19:6, 432-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Carley Foster, Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Ranis Cheng. 2010. Exploring the relationship between corporate,
internal and employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6, 401-409. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
146. Bharati Bina Hawabhay, Russell Abratt, Mark Peters. 2010. The Role of Corporate Communications
in Developing a Corporate Brand Image and Reputation in Mauritius. Corporate Reputation Review 12,
3-20. [CrossRef]
147. Sabrina Bresciani, Martin J. Eppler. 2010. Brand new ventures? Insights on start‐ups' branding practices.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:5, 356-366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. Jaakko Aspara, Henrikki Tikkanen. 2010. The Role of Company Affect in Stock Investments: Towards
Blind, Undemanding, Noncomparative and Committed Love. Journal of Behavioral Finance 11, 103-113.
[CrossRef]
149. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix T. Mavondo. 2010. The performance implications of company‐salesperson
corporate brand misalignment. European Journal of Marketing 44:6, 771-795. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
150. Harlan E. Spotts, Marc G. Weinberger. 2010. Marketplace footprints: connecting marketing
communication and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing 44:5, 591-609. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
151. Stuart Roper, Gary Davies. 2010. Business to business branding: external and internal satisfiers and the
role of training quality. European Journal of Marketing 44:5, 567-590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
152. Arja Lemmetyinen, Frank M Go. 2010. Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Baltic's
destinations: A multi-authoring approach. Journal of Brand Management 17, 519-531. [CrossRef]
153. Tatiana Anisimova. 2010. Corporate brand: The company-customer misalignment and its performance
implications. Journal of Brand Management 17, 488-503. [CrossRef]
154. Paulo de Lencastre, Ana Côrte-Real. 2010. One, two, three: A practical brand anatomy. Journal of Brand
Management 17, 399-412. [CrossRef]
155. Rianne Appel‐Meulenbroek, Dave Havermans, Ingrid Janssen, Anneke van Kempen. 2010. Corporate
branding: an exploration of the influence of CRE. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 12:1, 47-59. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
156. Alfonso Siano, Philip J. Kitchen, Maria Giovanna Confetto. 2010. Financial resources and corporate
reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 15:1, 68-82. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
157. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D Jaffe. 2009. Corporate Image Reinforcement in an Era of
Terrorism through Integrated Marketing Communication. Corporate Reputation Review 11, 360-370.
[CrossRef]
158. Anna Blombäck, Olof Brunninge. 2009. Corporate identity manifested through historical references.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14:4, 404-419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

159. Joachim Kernstock, Tim Oliver Brexendorf. 2009. Implications of Habermas's “theory of communicative
action” for corporate brand management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14:4,
389-403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Tamilla Curtis, Russell Abratt, William Minor. 2009. Corporate brand management in higher education:
the case of ERAU. Journal of Product & Brand Management 18:6, 404-413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
161. Helle Kryger Aggerholm, Mona Agerholm Andersen, Birte Asmuß, Christa Thomsen. 2009.
Management conversations in Danish companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal
14:3, 264-279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
162. Gregory Ashworth, Mihalis Kavaratzis. 2009. Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal of
Brand Management 16, 520-531. [CrossRef]
163. Jennifer Rowley. 2009. Online branding strategies of UK fashion retailers. Internet Research 19:3, 348-369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
164. Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury, Roger Bennett, Sharmila Savani. 2009. University marketing directors’ views
on the components of a university brand. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 6, 11-33.
[CrossRef]
165. Roger Bennett, Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury. 2009. Prospective Students' Perceptions of University Brands:
An Empirical Study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 19, 85-107. [CrossRef]
166. John M.T. Balmer. 2009. Scrutinising the British Monarchy. Management Decision 47:4, 639-675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
167. John M.T. Balmer. 2009. Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany. Management Decision
47:4, 544-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Mats Urde. 2009. Uncovering the corporate brand's core values. Management Decision 47:4, 616-638.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
169. John M. T. Balmer, Helen Stuart, Stephen A. Greyser. 2009. Aligning Identity and Strategy: Corporate
Branding at British Airways in the Late 20th Century. California Management Review 51, 6-23.
[CrossRef]
170. Nicholas Alexander. 2009. Defining brand values through sponsorship. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 37:4, 346-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
171. Adrian Payne, Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow, Simon Knox. 2009. Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and
designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research 62, 379-389. [CrossRef]
172. Roderick J. Brodie, James R.M. Whittome, Gregory J. Brush. 2009. Investigating the service brand: A
customer value perspective. Journal of Business Research 62, 345-355. [CrossRef]
173. Leslie de Chernatony, Susan Cottam (née Drury). 2009. Interacting contributions of different departments
to brand success. Journal of Business Research 62, 297-304. [CrossRef]
174. Hugh Wilford. 2009. Cities and their brands: Lessons from corporate branding. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy 5, 26-37. [CrossRef]
175. Martin Christopher, Barbara Gaudenzi. 2009. Exploiting knowledge across networks through reputation
management. Industrial Marketing Management 38, 191-197. [CrossRef]
176. References 233-262. [Citation] [Enhanced Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
177. OunJoung Park, Liping A. Cai, Xinran Y. LehtoChapter 6 COLLABORATIVE DESTINATION
BRANDING 75-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

178. Anna BlombäckChapter 6 Brand meaning and impact in subcontractor contexts 223-261. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
179. Jakob Lauring, Christa Thomsen. 2009. Collective ideals and practices in sustainable development:
managing corporate identity. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 16:10.1002/
csr.v16:1, 38-47. [CrossRef]
180. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online corporate brand image, satisfaction and
loyalty. Journal of Brand Management 16, 119-144. [CrossRef]
181. Leo P. Dana, Kate E. Winstone. 2008. Wine cluster formation in New Zealand: operation, evolution and
impact. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 43:10.1111/ifs.2008.43.issue-12, 2177-2190.
[CrossRef]
182. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Rui Vinhas Da Silva. 2008. Online and Offline Corporate Brand Images: Do
They Differ?. Corporate Reputation Review 10, 217-244. [CrossRef]
183. Jakob Lauring, Christa Thomsen. 2008. Ideals and practices in CSR identity making: the case of equal
opportunities. Employee Relations 31:1, 25-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
184. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D. Jaffe. 2008. Communicating a new corporate image during
privatization: the case of El Al airlines. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:4, 380-393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
185. Veronika Tarnovskaya, Ulf Elg, Steve Burt. 2008. The role of corporate branding in a market driving
strategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36:11, 941-965. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
186. Apisit Chattananon, Meredith Lawley, Numchai Supparerkchaisakul, Lackana Leelayouthayothin. 2008.
Impacts of a Thai cause‐related marketing program on corporate image. International Journal of Emerging
Markets 3:4, 348-363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
187. John M.T. Balmer. 2008. Identity based views of the corporation. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10,
879-906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
188. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online brand attributes and online corporate
brand images. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10, 1039-1058. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
189. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki. 2008. From branded to endorsement corporate identity strategy: the case of
the Fattals Hotel Management Group. Tourism Review 63:3, 48-56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
190. Rita Kottasz, Roger Bennett, Sharmila Savani, Rehnuma Ali‐Choudhury. 2008. The role of corporate
art in the management of corporate identity. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:3,
235-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
191. Åsa Wallström, Ted Karlsson, Esmail Salehi-Sangari. 2008. Building a corporate brand: The internal
brand building process in Swedish service firms. Journal of Brand Management 16, 40-50. [CrossRef]
192. Ranis Cheng, Tony Hines, Ian Grime. 2008. Desired and perceived identities of fashion retailers. European
Journal of Marketing 42:5/6, 682-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
193. Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2008. Principles of corporate rebranding. European Journal of Marketing
42:5/6, 537-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
194. Anita Zednik, Andreas Strebinger. 2008. Brand management models of major consulting firms,
advertising agencies and market research companies: A categorisation and positioning analysis of models
offered in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Journal of Brand Management 15, 301-311. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

195. Hong‐Wei He. 2008. Corporate identity/strategy interface: implications for corporate level marketing.
European Journal of Marketing 42:1/2, 10-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
196. Myfanwy Trueman, Diana Cook, Nelarine Cornelius. 2008. Creative dimensions for branding and
regeneration: Overcoming negative perceptions of a city. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 29-44.
[CrossRef]
197. Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova. 2007. The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and
behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing 24:7, 395-405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
198. Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2007. Understanding the pitfalls in the corporate rebranding
process. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 341-355. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
199. John M.T. Balmer, Mei‐Na Liao. 2007. Student corporate brand identification: an exploratory case study.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 356-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
200. Pascual Berrone, Jordi Surroca, Josep A. Tribó. 2007. Corporate Ethical Identity as a Determinant of
Firm Performance: A Test of the Mediating Role of Stakeholder Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics
76, 35-53. [CrossRef]
201. Michael Bendixen, Russell Abratt. 2007. Corporate Identity, Ethics and Reputation in Supplier–Buyer
Relationships. Journal of Business Ethics 76, 69-82. [CrossRef]
202. Heather Skinner, Krzysztof Kubacki. 2007. Unravelling the complex relationship between nationhood,
national and cultural identity, and place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 3, 305-316.
[CrossRef]
203. Shirley Leitch, Judy Motion. 2007. Retooling the corporate brand: A Foucauldian perspective on
normalisation and differentiation. Journal of Brand Management 15, 71-80. [CrossRef]
204. Tim O Brexendorf, Joachim Kernstock. 2007. Corporate behaviour vs brand behaviour: Towards an
integrated view?. Journal of Brand Management 15, 32-40. [CrossRef]
205. Anna Blombäck, Björn Axelsson. 2007. The role of corporate brand image in the selection of new
subcontractors. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 22:6, 418-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
206. Ram Herstein, Yoram Mitki, Eugene D. Jaffe. 2007. From blueprint to implementation. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19:6, 485-494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
207. Hong‐Wei He, John M.T. Balmer. 2007. Identity studies: multiple perspectives and implications for
corporate‐level marketing. European Journal of Marketing 41:7/8, 765-785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
208. Francisca van Dijken. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: market regulation and the evidence.
Managerial Law 49:4, 141-184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
209. Abhijit Sengupta, Danica Vukadinovic Greetham, Michael SpenceAn Evolutionary Model of Brand
Competition 100-107. [CrossRef]
210. Joan C. HendersonCommercial Crises 145-162. [CrossRef]
211. Magdalena Florek, Andrea Insch, Juergen Gnoth. 2006. City Council websites as a means of place brand
identity communication. Place Branding 2, 276-296. [CrossRef]
212. Jon Hulberg. 2006. Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature study. Journal
of Brand Management 14, 60-73. [CrossRef]
213. John M T Balmer, Stephen A Greyser, Mats Urde. 2006. The Crown as a corporate brand: Insights from
monarchies. Journal of Brand Management 14, 137-161. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)

214. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2006. Cognitive, affective attributes and conative,
behavioural responses in retail corporate branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 15:5, 293-305.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
215. Laurent Muzellec, Mary Lambkin. 2006. Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand
equity?. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 803-824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
216. Christine Vallaster, Leslie de Chernatony. 2006. Internal brand building and structuration: the role of
leadership. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 761-784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
217. John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser. 2006. Corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing
40:7/8, 730-741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
218. Henry Yu Xie, David J. Boggs. 2006. Corporate branding versus product branding in emerging markets.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:4, 347-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
219. An Shi, Gao Liang, Wang JianCorporate Brand Cube: Building Strong Corporate Brands 743-748.
[CrossRef]
220. Markus Eberl, Manfred Schwaiger. 2005. Corporate reputation: disentangling the effects on financial
performance. European Journal of Marketing 39:7/8, 838-854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
221. Annette L.M. van den Bosch, Menno D.T. de Jong, Wim J.L. Elving. 2005. How corporate visual identity
supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10:2, 108-116. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
222. Prashant Mishra, Soumya SarkarCustomer-Based Corporate Brand Equity (CBCBE) in Business-to-
Business Firms: 1729-1746. [CrossRef]
223. Elisa GiacosaInnovation in Luxury Fashion Businesses as a Means for the Regional Development 206-222.
[CrossRef]
224. Alfonso Siano, Mario Siglioccolo, Carmela Tuccillo, Francesca ConteMuseum Communication: 151-179.
[CrossRef]
225. Jennifer Rowley, David BirdOnline Branding 122-142. [CrossRef]
226. Alfonso Siano, Mario Siglioccolo, Carmela Tuccillo, Francesca ConteMuseum Communication:
1172-1200. [CrossRef]
227. Prashant Mishra, Soumya SarkarCustomer-Based Corporate Brand Equity (CBCBE) In Business-to-
Business Firms: 73-90. [CrossRef]
228. Anup RajBranding and CSR in Indian Agribusiness 165-176. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Brunel University London At 08:55 14 December 2015 (PT)