Corporate identity corporate branding and corporate marketing.pdf

Theresearchregisterforthisjournalisavailableat

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

Thecurrentissueandfulltextarchiveofthisjournalisavailableat

http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Corporateidentity,corporate

brandingandcorporate

marketing

Seeingthroughthefog

JohnM.T.Balmer

BradfordSchoolofManagement,TheUniversityofBradford,UK

European

Journalof

Marketing

35,3/4

248

Keywords Corporateidentity,CorporateCommunications,Brands,Corporateimage

Abstract Outlines15explanationsforthefogwhichhasenvelopedthenascentdomainsof

corporateidentityandcorporatemarketing.However,thefogsurroundingtheareahasasilver

lining.Thisisbecausethefoghas,unwittingly,ledtotheemergenceofrichdisciplinary,

philosophicalaswellas``national’’,schoolsofthought.Intheircomposite,theseapproacheshave

thepotentialtoformthefoundationsofanewapproachtomanagementwhichmightbetermed

``corporatemarketing’’.Inadditiontoarticulatingtheauthor’sunderstandingoftheattributes

regardingabusinessidentity(theumbrellalabelusedtocovercorporateidentity,organisational

identificationandvisualidentity)theauthoroutlinesthecharacteristicsofcorporatemarketing

andintroducesanewcorporatemarketingmixbasedonthemnemonic``HEADS’’[2].This

relatestowhatanorganisationhas,expresses,theaffinitiesofitsemployees,aswellaswhatthe

organisationdoesandhowitisseenbystakeholdergroupsandnetworks.Inaddition,theauthor

describestherelationshipbetweenthecorporateidentityandcorporatebrandandnotesthe

differencesbetweenproductbrandsandcorporatebrands.Finally,theauthorarguesthat

scholarsneedtobesensitivetothefactorsthatarecontributingtothefogsurroundingcorporate

identity.Onlythenwillbusinessidentity/corporatemarketingstudiesgrowinmaturity.

Introduction

``FOGINCHANNEL±EUROPEISOLATED’’.Soranafamousheadline

appearingonthefrontpageof TheThunderer [1]intheearly1900s.This

headlinehasachievedsomenotorietyandissometimesusedasametaphorfor

Englishinsularityandisolationism.Usingfogasametaphorisappositefor

``businessidentitystudies’’.Theareamaybebrokendownintothreemain

strands±corporateidentity,organisationalidentityandvisualidentity.Asthis

articlewillreveal,therearenumerousfactorswhichhavecontributedtothefog

thatisenvelopingbusinessidentitystudies.Intheauthor’sopinion,the``fog’’

hasstuntedtherecognitionofthestrategicimportance,aswellasthe

multidisciplinarynature,ofbusinessidentity.However,isolationismhasa

silverlining,inthatitcanresultinscholarsandpractitionersachievingahigh

degreeofcreativityandinnovation.Thisappearstohaveoccurredinthebroad

areaofbusinessidentitystudies,wheredistinctschoolsofthoughthave

emergedfromnational,anddisciplinary,roots.However,whatisbecoming

increasinglyapparentisthattheprovenancetoguideidentitystudiesisnot

Theauthorisindebtedtoallthosewhohaveassistedinthepreparationofthisarticle,including

theinvaluableassistancegivenbythereviewers.Thispaperhasbeenreviewedseparatelyby

the EuropeanJournalofMarketing reviewboard.

EuropeanJournalofMarketing,

Vol.35No.3/4,2001,pp.248-291.

# MCBUniversityPress,0309-0566

Corporateidentity,

brandingand

marketing

solelylimitedtomarketingscholars.Thecurrentcross-fertilisationtaking

placeamongthevariousliteraturesonthebroadareaofidentitystudieshasled

theauthortotheconclusionthat,intime,thesedistinctstrandsarelikelyto

coalesceandgiverisetoanewcognitiveareaofmanagementcalledcorporate

marketing.

Agrowingnumberofscholarsarebeginningtoappreciatethe

multidisciplinaryfoundationsofbusinessidentity.Intheabovecontextthe

variousdisciplinary,nationalandculturalapproaches,whenreviewedin

isolation,mayappeartobelittlemorethanamodest tourd’horizon .Intheir

compositetheyrepresentaveritablefirmamentwiththepotentialtoformthe

keybuildingblocksofanewareaofmanagement.However,whiletheareais

likelytobeenthusiasticallyembracedbymarketingscholarssinceitsupportsa

numberofconceptsthathavealonglineageinthemarketingdiscipline±

branding,communications,image,reputation,andidentity±theseconcepts,

whenappliedtothecorporatelevel,areinvariablymorecomplicatedthanwhen

simplyappliedtoproducts.Furthermore,suchcorporateconcernsare

inextricablylinkedtoquestionspertainingtocorporatestrategyandto

organisationalbehaviourandhumanresources.Assuch,marketingatthe

corporatelevelrequiresaradicalreappraisalintermsofitsphilosophy,

content,managementandprocess.

Thearticleopenswithabriefoverviewofthegrowing consensusgentium

amongmanymanagement/scholarswithregardtotheimportanceofthe

identityconcept.Thisisfollowedbyanexaminationofthe15reasonsforthe

causeofthefog.Infocusingonthesereasonsitishopedthatmarketingand

managementscholarswillconcentrateontheopportunities,ratherthanthe

difficulties,associatedwiththeidentityconcept.Whatisclearisthatthe

identityconceptisparticularlysalientforahostofmanagementdisciplinesand

providesanew,supplementallensbywhichanorganisation’squintessential

attributesmayberevealed,nurtured,managed,influencedandaltered.

249

Thegrowingimportanceofbusinessidentitystudies

Thelastdecadehasseenaburgeoninginterestamongthebusinessand

academiccommunitiesinwhattheauthorcalls,forthesakeofexpediency,

``businessidentity’’.Businessidentityencompassesatriumvirateofrelated

conceptsandliteraturewhichare:

(1)corporateidentity;

(2)organisationalidentity;and

(3)visualidentity.

Itshouldbenotedthatbusinessidentityisviewedasencompassing

institutionsinthepublic,not-for-profitandprivatesectorsaswellassupraand

sub-organisationalidentitiessuchasindustries,alliances,tradeassociations,

businessunitsandsubsidiaries.Asignoftheheightenedimportanceattached

tobusinessidentitycanbeseeninthenumberofmanagementconferencesand

European

Journalof

Marketing

35,3/4

articlesdevotedtothearea.Ofadditionalnotearethespecialeditionsof

journalsdevotedtotheareaincludingthe EuropeanJournalofMarketing

(1997), InternationalJournalofBankMarketing (1997), Corporate

Communications (1999)and TheAcademyofManagementReview (2000).

Thesaliencyoftheidentityconcepttocontemporaryorganisations,andto

managementacademicsfromvariousdisciplinarybackgrounds,hasbeen

articulatedbyCheneyandChristensen(1999).Theyobservedthatidentitywas

apressingissueformanyinstitutionsandthatthequestionofidentity,orof

whattheorganisationisorstandsfor,cutsacrossandunifiesmanydifferent

organisationalgoalsandconcerns.

Thisinterestinidentityhasledtotheemergenceofcoursesonthearea.

Coursesinstrategicbusinessidentitymanagementhavebeenofferedat

StrathclydeBusinessSchoolsince1991whereanInternationalCentrefor

CorporateIdentityStudieswasalsoestablished.Anumberofotherleading

businessschoolshavealsobegunorareabouttoofferbusinessidentitystudies

aspartoftheirdegreecourses,includingBradford,SchoolofManagement

(UK),CranfieldUniversity(UK),ErasmusGraduateBusinessSchool(The

Netherlands),HarvardBusinessSchool(USA),HECParis(France),Queensland

UniversityofTechnology(Australia),LoyolaUniversity,LosAngeles(USA),

andWaikatoUniversity(NewZealand).Notsurprisingly,therealisationofthe

saliencyofbusinessidentityisreflectedintextsbyacademicswho,tovarying

degrees,focusonbusinessidentity(Bromley,1993;Dowling,1993;Fombrun,

1996;VanRiel,1995).Articlesarealsotobefoundontheareainmanybusiness

andacademicjournalsandinagrowingnumberofbusinessandmarketing

handbooksandencyclopaedias(Balmer,1999a;CheneyandChristensen,1999;

Tyrell,1995).Recently,WhettenandGodfrey(1998)haveeditedabookwhich

drawsonseveraldifferentacademictraditionsregardingidentity.However,it

adoptsanovertlyNorthAmericanandbehaviouralstanceontheareaand

marshallslittleofthemarketingliteraturethathasbeenextantsincethe1950s.

However,therapidascendancyofbusinessidentityhashadtherather

unfortunateeffectofproducingwhattheScottishcallahaar±athick,seafog.

Anexaminationoftheliteratureoncorporateidentityandrelatedareashasled

theauthortoidentify15contributoryreasonsforthefog.Thisarticleseeks,

first,toexplainthefactorscausingthefog,andsecond,tobeginthetaskof

revealingthehorizonofbusinessidentitystudieswhichhas,thusfar,been

disguised.

250

Businessidentity:whythefog?

Whilethisarticlewilllargelyfocusonthebusinessidentityconcept,itwillalso

makereferencetootherrelatedareas,namelycorporatereputation,total

corporatecommunicationsandcorporatebranding.

The15contributoryfactorswhichhavecreatedfog vis-aÁ-vis business

identityareillustratedinTableI.

Corporateidentity,

brandingand

marketing

1.Theterminology

2.Theexistenceofdifferentparadigmaticviews vis-aÁ-vis businessidentity’s raisond’eÃtre

3.Multifariousdisciplinaryperspectivesrebusinessidentity

4.Afailuretomakeadistinctionbetweentheelementscomprisingabusinessidentityand

theelementstobeconsideredinmanagingabusinessidentity

5.Disagreementwithregardtotheobjectivesofbusinessidentitymanagement

6.AtraditionallackofdialoguebetweenAnglophoneandNon-Anglophonescholarsand

writers

7.Thetraditionallackofdialoguebetweenresearchersfromdifferentdisciplines

8.Theassociationwithgraphicdesign

9.Theeffectoffashion

10.Theinappropriatenessofthepositivisticresearchparadigmintheinitialstagesof

theorygeneration vis-aÁ-vis businessidentity

11.Thepaucityofempiricalacademicresearch

12.Unduefocusbeingaccordedtothebusinessidentitiesofholdingcompanies/parent

organisation

13.TheemphasisassignedtoAnglo-Saxonformsofbusinessstructures

14.Weaknessesintraditionalmarketingmodelsofcorporateidentity/corporateimage

managementandformation

15.Afailuretomakeadistinctionbetweentheactual,communicated,conceived,idealand

desiredidentities

251

TableI.

The15contributory

factorsforthefog

vis-aÁ-vis business

identity

Firstexplanationforthefog:theterminology

Providinganexegesisoftheliteraturesurroundingthefamilyofconcepts

relatedtobusinessidentityisadifficulttask.Existingliteraturereviewsgo

somewayingivingclarityinthisregard(Abratt,1989;Balmer,1998;Fombrun

andvanRiel,1997;Grunig,1993;Kennedy,1977).

Whatisclearisthattheidentityconcept,initsvariousfacets,isubiquitous,

butitcanbeusedwithrecklesspermissivenessamongpractitionercirclesand,

toalesserdegree,amongscholars.Thepractitionerliteratureisrepletewith

examplesofwhereidentityisinitiallydefinedintermsofthefundamental

attributesofanorganisationbutoftenundergoesadramatic volte-face with

identitysolutionsbeingexplainedonlyingraphic-designterms.Theexistence

ofatrioofidentityconceptsisindicativeoftheperspicacitywhichneedstobe

accordedbyidentityscholars.Theliteraturepertainingtothethreeidentity

conceptsisstillevolvingasistherelationshipbetweentheconcepts.Adegree

ofsymbiosisisoccurringandtheauthorsharesWhettenandGodfrey’s(1998)

viewoftheefficacyofgreaterdialoguebetweenmanagementscholarsfrom

differentdisciplinaryperspectives.

Theliteraturecoveringthebusinessidentitydomainnotonlymakes

referencetothetriumvirateofconceptsunderpinningbusinessidentity

(corporateidentity,organisationalidentityandvisualidentity),butalso

embracesawealthofotherconceptscomprisingthecorporatebrand,corporate

communication/totalcorporatecommunications,corporateimage,corporate

personalityandcorporatereputation.However,asseveralwritershave

remarked,thereisalackofconsensusastotheprecisemeaningofmanyofthe

European

Journalof

Marketing

35,3/4

conceptsarticulatedabove,andtherelationshipsbetweenthem.Abratt’s(1989,

p.66)insightfulcommentarticulatedbelowreflectstheviewsofmanyscholars,

includingBalmerandWilkinson(1991),Ind(1992),Olins(1978)andVanRiel

andBalmer(1997):

Despitethevoluminousliteraturetheconceptsremainunclearandambiguousasno

universallyaccepteddefinitionshaveemerged(Abratt,1989).

252

Thefollowingauthorsprovideanoverviewofthefollowingconcepts:corporate

identity(Balmer,1998);organisationalidentity(WhettenandGodfrey,1998);

visualidentity(ChajetandSchachtman,1998);corporateimage(Grunig,1993);

corporatepersonality(Olins,1978);corporatereputation(FombrunandVan

Riel,1997);corporatecommunications(VanRiel,1995);totalcorporate

communications(BalmerandGray,1999);andthecorporatebrand(Macra,

1999).Themuddleduseoftheterminologyhas,perhaps,contributedmoreto

thefogsurroundingthebusinessidentitydomainthananyotherfactor.Forthe

would-benoviceofbusinessidentitystudies,orindeedofcorporatemarketing,

theconceptsmay,atfirstsight,appeartobeimpenetrableandtheir

relationshipsByzantineincomplexity.Theauthor,whilerecognisingtheabove

difficulties,isoftheviewthattheemergenceofafamilyofrelatedconceptsis

indicativeofbusinessidentity/corporatemarketing’sgrowingmaturity.

AccordingtoWatershoot(1995,p.438),themakingoflistingsandtaxonomies

isoneoftheprimarytasksinthedevelopmentofanewbodyofthought.Table

IIarticulatestheauthor’sunderstandingoftheprincipalconcepts,the

relationshipsbetweenthemandtheirplaceinthecurrentunderstandingof

businessidentity,includingitsnature,management,objectivesandoutcomes.

BuildinguponTableII,TableIIIattemptstoshowthesaliencyoftheidentity

andrelatedconceptsinaddressingkeyorganisationalissuesandquestions.

Oneproblemassociatedwithsomeoftheconceptsistheanalogythatis

sometimesmadebetweenthehumanidentityandpersonalityandthecorporate

identityandpersonality.Thereareclearbenefits,butalsodangers,in

assumingthatcorporateentitiescanbeunderstood,explainedandalteredby

applyingtheprinciplesofsocialpsychology(cf.Bromley,1993).Acoupleof

observationsneedtobemadehere.First,theuseofmetaphorspertainingtothe

humanidentityhasbeenusedbyleadingidentityscholars,suchasAlbertand

Whetten(1985),andisparticularlyprevalentintheirtext Identityin

Organisations (WhettenandGodfrey,1998).Manyoftheseanthropological

metaphorswereintroducedbypractitionersforpracticalreasons.AlanSiegal’s

useofthe``voice’’(corporatecommunication)metaphorandOlins’suseofthe

personalitymetaphorareperhapsthemostobviousexamples.Forexample,in

Olins’stext(1978)thecorporatepersonalityanditslinkwiththehuman

personalityismoreapparentthanmightbededucedfromareadingofthe

recentliterature.Olinshypothesisedthatorganisationsintheirformativeyears

oftenmirrorthepersonalityoftheorganisation’sfounder;anditisthe

organisation’sfounderorfounderswho,Olinsargues,imbuetheorganisation

withitsdistinctiveness.Oncethefounderhasleftthereisavoid(whatthe

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: