Approach and rationale
Although the corporate brand and brand orientation literatures both date back to the mid-1990s – as various reviews attest (see Balmer and Gray, 2003; Balmer 2010; Evans et al, 2012; Urde et al, 2013)
– to date, there has been an oversight in explicitly linking brand
orientation to corporate brands within the annals of both brand
orientation and corporate brand management. Within the brand orientation
literature, there are resemblances with the corporate brand orientation
notion, as espoused in this article. However, the links between brand
orientation and with corporate brands have, for the most part, been
implicit and embryonic.
The main tenor of this
article is to further shed light on the significance of the brand
orientation notion, specifically, as it applies to corporate brands. In
this article, the corporate brand orientation perspective is made explicit, is given intelligibility, and is afforded significance via the introduction and explication of the corporate brand orientation designation.
Another
of its ambitions is to recognise and celebrate extant scholarship in
the brand orientation field and, in particular, the seminal work of Urde (1994) on the eve of the twentieth anniversary, in 2014, of his groundbreaking work.
The perspectives and viewpoints advanced in this
commentary are primarily informed by the author’s own reflections of the
corporate brand orientation domain. For the sake of expediency, many of
the references given in this commentary are those of the author and his
co-authors.
Readers of this commentary will of
course wish to apprise themselves of the literatures relating to brand
orientation, corporate brands, corporate brand identification and
corporate marketing. A list of further reading has been included to this
end.
Corporate brand orientation: A logical development
As
such, the formal introduction of a corporate brand orientation doctrine
not only broadens but, arguably, also adds a degree of nuance and
significance to the brand orientation field.
For the
author, the espousal of the corporate brand orientation – which
explicitly links the brand orientation notion to corporate brands –
represents an entirely logical development of the original brand
orientation perspective articulated by Urde (1994) in his Journal of Consumer Marketing article entitled ‘Brand orientation – A strategy for survival’.
This being noted, this article airs the author’s
assessment that the brand orientation as it pertains to corporate brands
is qualitatively different from the brand orientation as it applies to
brands per se.
In addition, the formal
introduction of the corporate brand orientation notion may advance the
general discernment of the brand orientation territory by providing
sharper and firmer theoretical/instrumental bases for brand orientation at the corporate level.
Brand orientation perspectives
Significantly,
and building on the above, there is also a logic in categorising other
brand orientation perspectives. As a first step towards this aim, the
brand orientation nomenclature is seen to encompass the following:
- Corporate brand orientation
(an organisation’s centripetal force based on a corporate brand).
(NB: A corporate services brand orientation will need to take cognisance of the particularly important role of employees). - Product brand orientation
(an organisation’s centripetal force based on its product brands). - Service brand orientation
(not at the corporate level) (an organisation’s centripetal force based on its non-corporate service brands). - Omni-brand orientation
(an organisation’s centripetal force based on the firm’s brands in their totality).
Corporate-level orientation perspectives
It should be remembered that there are a number of possible orientations at the corporate level.
These include corporate brand, corporate identity, corporate marketing
and total corporate communication orientations. Such perspectives are
not necessarily mutually exclusive and multiple orientations are
possible.
- Corporate brand orientation
(the corporate brand as an organisation’s centripetal force based on a corporate brand’s value and covenant/‘promise’. This viewpoint informs this article). - Corporate identity orientation
(the corporate identity as an organisation’s centripetal force based on an organisation’s innate characteristics that define and differentiate an entity; Balmer, 2008). - Corporate marketing orientation
(the corporate marketing philosophy as an organisation’s centripetal force based on a corporate-level marketing philosophy that regards the organisation – including both its corporate brand and corporate identity – as the main interface with its customers and importantly its other stakeholder groups. See Balmer, 2011). - Total corporate communication orientation
(total corporate communications as an organisation’s centripetal force/s based on the view that total corporate communication provides a critical and strategic lens grounded in the precept that everything an organisation says makes or communicates. See Balmer, 1995, 1998). Total corporate communications comprise primary communications – the communication effects of products, services, management, staff and corporate behaviour; secondary communications – the communication effects of controlled forms of communications such as advertising, PR and so on; and tertiary communications – the communication effects of communications given by third parties (see Balmer and Gray, 1999; also see Illia and Balmer, 2012).
The corporate brand and corporate identity orientations, for some, may
appear to be comparable, but there are significant differences. It has
been previously argued that both identity-based views of the firm and
identity-based views of corporate brands (see Balmer, 2008, pp. 893–984) afford salient and legitimate, but different, corporate-level perspectives.
As such, an orientation grounded in a corporate identity focuses on the organisation’s raison d’etre: what it does, its ethos, operating style, size, markets covered and mode of stakeholder engagement.
In
contrast, a corporate brand orientation is grounded in the core
promises and stakeholder expectations with which the corporate brand is
associated.
Corporate brand orientation and a corporate marketing logic
Importantly, linking corporate brand orientation to a corporate/organisational marketing logic1 is, from the author’s perspective, a key tenet of the corporate brand orientation.
Whereas extant discussions of brand orientation (Urde et al, 2013) have been explored in the context of the traditional marketing logic (the latter, typically, has a customer focus and product/services foci), it has not been discussed from the perspective of a corporate marketing logic (this has a stakeholder and institutional foci).
Reprising the key points of this introduction, the author holds that Urde’s (1994)
brand orientation perspective is especially salient apropos corporate
brands. As such, this requires a new approach to brand orientation: corporate brand orientation.
Brand Orientation and Corporate Brand Orientation : Progress, Problems and Prospects
Progress
Recent, insightful
reviews of the brand orientation canon have advanced the general
comprehension of the domain. This includes the elucidation and
comparison of various brand orientation and marketing perspectives (Urde et al, 2013) and the identification of philosophical, behavioural and hybrid approaches to the field (Evans et al, 2012).
Problems
Significantly, Evans et al (2012)
note that within the brand orientation canon there has been a failure
to build on extant work on the territory. As a consequence, this has
impeded the development of the brand orientation construct.
These authors (Evans et al 2012)
also observed a lack of clarity in terms of the focus of brand
orientation. To reiterate, sometimes the notion appears to refer to the
corporate brand and at other times to brands in their totality. Clearly,
an organisational-wide philosophy and culture grounded in a corporate
brand is markedly different from a philosophy and culture that focus on
brands per se.
Consider the following
explanations of brand orientation that, respectively, reveal the lack of
clarity in terms of whether brand orientation should refer to the
corporate brand or, more generally, to a company’s brands in their
totality:
(brand orientation is) ‘the degree to which the organisation values brands and its practices are oriented towards building brand capabilities.’ (Bridson and Evans, 2004, p. 404)
(brand orientation is) the extent to which organisations regard themselves as brands and an indication of how much (or how) little the organisation accepts the theory and practice of branding. (Hankinson, 2001b, p. 231)
Prospects
For his part, the writer has noted four opportunities through which the brand orientation can be advanced:
- the efficacy in explicitly linking the brand orientation notion to corporate brands/the corporate brand literature per se;
- the efficacy in clearly linking brand orientation to the literature on corporate marketing;
- the efficacy in fully linking brand orientation to the literature on corporate brand identification, especially as it relates to employees/organisational members;
- the efficacy in fully discriminating between corporate brand orientation categories (this has already been detailed earlier).
Further more information about this articles, please you check on Journal of Brand Management.
By John M T Balmer
Repost by Acarre Community Media
Post a Comment