Research Paper:: Branding of Services: Brand Building Process Across Different Sectors

Research Paper:
Branding of services: Brand Building process across

different sectors.
Submitted By: Submitted To:

Abhinav Kishore Prof.Bhagyalakshmi
Roll No: 28
PGDM-Marketing
1|Page
K.J.Somaiya Institute Of Management Studies & Research
Abstract:
Services sector is the major contributor to the GDP for all the major economies of the world.
India and China, the two fastest growing economies of the world majorly depend upon their
services sector to drive their growth engine. A major chunk of this comes from the IT and ITes,
which are majorly reeling under the pressure of high attrition rates. Here comes in the role of
branding for services. The paper serves to analyze the role of internal as well as external
branding.
The paper would serve to understand the brand building process for different kinds of
industries in the services sector. Branding of service is thus is as important as is the branding of
products across industries. Brands help people relate and connect with a product and with a
booming sector like the services sector; it makes it much more important to understand the
branding building process.
Though clubbed under the same head but different services in the services sector are all
different from each other and so is the brand building process for them. Thus understanding
the process for each one of them is important from a managerial and a marketer’s point of
view.
Keywords:
Employer brand management; employer branding; internal branding; internal marketing;
customer experience; organizational culture, retail financial services, services branding, brand
architecture, brand portfolio
Literature Review:
A brand is a cluster of functional and emotional values that promises a unique and welcome
experience for its stakeholders. The classical, FMCG branding model focuses upon finding
market gaps, devising an offering characterized by a unique cluster of values, then a
mechanistic production process gives rise to functional benefits which are enrobed with
Page
emotional values through advertising. As developed economies have moved from a

manufacturing to a services base, the classical brand building model needs revising for services
brands due to the greater importance of staff as providers of the services brands’ benefits
[Berry, 2000]. This paper is concerned with corporate brands. In many cases the terms ‘services
brand’ and ‘corporate brand’ are interchangeable given that corporate branding strategies are
frequently adopted in service industries such as telecommunications, air transport, financial
services and leisure and tourism. Organizations are becoming more values-driven, encouraging
their staff to capitalize on their role as key ambassadors in the brand building process. The
functional and emotional values of services brands are highly dependent on the staffs who
deliver the brand promise [Ind, 2001; Nguyen and Leblanc, 2002]. As such, in services brand
building attention should be paid to both the values likely to be welcomed by customers and
the values held and exhibited by individual employees in the execution of their roles. Whilst the
focus has traditionally been upon the former, the latter is also important as the values
collectively held by employees are at the core of organizational culture [Hofstede, 1994].
Organisational culture and employees’ values are likely to influence the cluster of values
consumers perceive as constituting a services brand.
Page
Brand and Culture:

To present a re-appraisal of the concept in terms of its potential contribution to brand-led
culture change and customer experience management. The ultimate aim of brand management
has always been to deliver a consistent and distinctive customer experience, but this task has
been particularly difficult for service brands due to the greater complexity involved in managing
service brand experience. Despite the evidence that personal interactions are generally more
important in driving customer service satisfaction, there has been a tendency for service
companies to focus more of their attention on the functional / operational factors involved in
service delivery. Successful service companies stress the role of organizational culture in
promoting on-brand customer service behaviours, but the mechanisms for shaping an on-brand
culture (such as internal marketing and internal branding) have typically relied too heavily on
communications-led approaches to sustain a lasting effect. The discipline of employer brand
management takes a more holistic approach to shaping the culture of the organization, by
seeking to ensure that every people management touch-point is aligned with the brand ethos
of the organization. In providing a robust mechanism for aligning employees’ brand experience
with the desired customer brand experience, and a common platform for marketing and HR,
employer brand management represents a significant evolution in the quest for corporate
brand integrity. Delivering a consistent and distinctive customer brand experience has always
been a central concern of brand management. In the mid-1880s, before the term was invented,
one of the first great brand pioneers, William Lever, built his fortune by creating a highly
distinctive image for Sunlight Soap through advertising and packaging, and delivering a
consistently distinctive product experience, ‘ sweeter smelling … with an air of freshness … and
it lathered beautifully. In the early 1900s retail pioneers like Gordon Selfridge were similarly
clear about delivering a consistently distinctive customer experience. The man who first coined
the phrase ‘the customer is always right’ 2 described his original vision for his new department
Store, Selfridges, as ‘delighting them with an unrivalled shopping experience’ (which included
such innovations as in-store coffee shops) and training his staff in the ‘Selfridges Way’ to ensure
a distinctively consistent level of customer service.
Page
Making a link between brand, culture and customer experience is not new, but the practice of
managing the link between these related domains has evolved significantly over recent years. In
many respects, the notion of employer brand management simply completes a journey that
began with a disciplined approach to managing the total product brand experience, progressed
through an application of the same principles to service brands (more complex, more people
oriented) and arrives at the most complex and involving brand relationship most people ever
Page
experience, their employer brand. While IM and internal branding have tended to focus on
interventions designed to shape employees ’ perceptions of the brand, employer brand
management seeks to go the extra mile by embedding the brand ethos in the total employee
experience. The rationale for this ‘extra mile’ is that distinctive brand customer experiences
tend to rely heavily on interpersonal interactions. The extent to which these interactions can be
scripted and trained is strictly limited and counterproductively prone to perceptions of in
authenticity. More natural (and authentic) service brand interactions depend on the strength of
the organization’s brand ethos and culture. IM and branding programmes can play a role in
raising awareness of the desired brand ethos, and may even promote temporarily high levels of
brand engagement, but sustainable brand-led culture change will only be effective when the
brand ethos is deeply embedded in the everyday leadership and people management processes
of the organization. Employer brand management provides just such a mechanism for
translating the brand ethos into the everyday working experience of employees, and by doing
so reinforces the organization’s ability to deliver consistent and distinctive customer brand
experiences.
Experiencing the Brand— Branding the Experience:

This trend is crossing over to the service sector. From hotels to restaurants to airlines,
consumers are looking for suppliers who go beyond the basics to meet their unique needs. They
are looking for what we call a “Branded Customer Experience®,” a service experience that is
intentional, consistent, different, and valuable. Disney started the trend. Southwest Airlines
adapted it to the airline sector. In the U.K., First Direct started a new concept in banking using
it. Howard Schultz of Starbucks applied it to selling coffee. Ian Schrage’s company is perfecting
it in the hotel sector, and Amazon.com is applying it in the on-line environment. All of these
companies are creating loyal customers by delivering service experiences that create value for
customers beyond the products or services the companies happen to sell. Why is this? The
American psychologist Abraham Maslow conceived his theory of motivation more than 50 years
ago. Maslow believed that humans evolve through five stages of motivation: firstly, the physical
need for food and shelter; secondly, the need for longer-term security and protection; then the
Page
social need for a mate, friends, and family. Only as we answer these needs do our ego needs for
achievement and recognition become dominant. For many people of Maslow’s generation,
moving up this hierarchy of needs was a lifelong struggle. Today, most young people take
meeting the physical needs for granted, and their ego needs become their starting point.
Wearing a pair of Timberland boots is as much about making a statement as it is about keeping
the feet dry. For increasing numbers of consumers, Maslow’s ego needs have become the
drivers. Maslow called it “self-actualization,” the desire to fulfill one’s potential. For many
people in developed societies, income levels are such that people have the freedom and choice
to pursue their desired lifestyle. Self-actualization is their most deeply felt need. Allied to this
need to achieve our full potential is the need for the time to do it. Convenience has become
increasingly valuable. Joseph Pine and James Gilmore in their book The Experience Economy,
use the analogy of the birthday party to illustrate this shift. I can relate their example to my
own family experience. When my father was young, his mother would visit the corner shop to
purchase the ingredients to bake a birthday cake and invite some of his friends around for a
birthday tea. When I was a boy, my mother would buy a ready-made cake with all the
trimmings from the supermarket and hold a birthday party for me and my friends and enlist the
amateur efforts of my father to provide the entertainment. When my son was small we would
take him to McDonald’s with a few of his friends for his birthday treat. Now parents are
delegating the complete birthday experience complete with decorations and entertainment to
a T.G.I. Friday’s, Chuck E. Cheese’s or Rainforest Café. Consumers have moved through four
stages and are willing to pay an increasingly large premium for the extra value represented by
each. So how does all of this relate to brands? If we go back to the beginning of the twentieth
century, we see that brands were simply means of identifying goods. Our need for safety and
security created brands that, over time, became proxies for quality and dependability. So
Kellogg’s became synonymous with healthy breakfasts, Gillette with safety razors, and so on. As
consumers became more affluent and motivated by ego needs, brands became more
aspirational and visible signs of success. We wore them like badges. Karl-Heinz Kalbfell, BMW’s
global head of Marketing, talks about “wearing a lifestyle.” For many consumers in the 1990s,
driving a BMW was as much about making a statement about who they were as was wearing a
Page
pair of Armani jeans or Nike cross-trainers. In today’s economy, brands go beyond even this;
they say something about what is important to us, about our values and our lifestyle. The Body
Shop, First Direct, Four Seasons Hotels, Virgin, Saturn, Amazon.com, Quiksilver, Linda
McCartney meals, and Home Depot are all brands that have intentionally created products and
Services aimed at particular consumers and their lifestyles. Brands have moved from being
names of products to badges of success to means of enjoying the kind of life we wish for
ourselves.
Corporate Brand Identity and Image Congruence in the Leisure Services Sector: A Stakeholder
perspective
Joanna Minkiewicz, Felix Mavondo, Monash University Kerrie Bridson, Deakin University
Corporate branding is seen as a key determinant of an organizations ability to competitively

position itself in the minds of target consumers, relative to competitors. The role of corporate
branding has received only recent attention in the leisure services sector, research being
concentrated in service industries such as retail, banking and airlines (Daffey and Abratt, 2002;
Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Mohr and Bitner, 1995; Chun and Davies, 2006). Researchers have
conceptually identified the need for brand identity and brand image, both integral constructs of
corporate branding, to be congruent in order to create a shared meaning and understanding
between the organization and its target market. The aim of this study is to empirically explore
the congruence between brand identity and brand image in the context of the leisure services
sector. The leisure services industry is beginning to play an increasingly significant role in the
Page
Australian economy, with 10.3% of local household income in 2003-04 being spent in
recreational services, supported by an increase in the size of the cultural and recreational
services sector of 18.6% in 2004-05 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). ABS figures also
indicate that 40% of people visited zoological gardens in March-July 2002, an increase of 3.6%
from previous figures in 1999 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). The trend towards a time-
poor population and an increasingly globally competitive marketplace means that leisure
services such as zoological operations must find a point of competitive advantage and a shared
understanding with their target market.
Operationalisation of Constructs:
The seven aforementioned constructs: brand identity, brand image, external communication,
employees, service scape, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are each measured on
seven-point Likert scales. The existing scales used to develop the measurement instrument for
each construct have been proven to provide high validity as a measurement tool (Parasuraman
and Zeithaml, 1988; Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996; Suprenant and Solomon, 1987; Davies,
Chun, Da Silva and Roper, 2004; Oliver, 1980; Price, Arnould and Tierney, 1995; Jones and
Taylor, 2007; Davies and Chun 2002).
Page
Brand Image has been measured by researchers in different ways. Most agree that its
measurement should be centered on cognitive, as well as affective and emotional attributes,
such as using personality metaphors to portray it (Bosch et al., 2006, Davies and Chun, 2002,
Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). To this end, Davies and Chun (2002) developed a Corporate
Personality scale, modeled on the premises of Aaker (1997), acknowledging that the scale is a
measurement tool specifically modified to measure corporate brand image. A modification of
this Corporate Personality Scale will be used to measure brand image in the current study. The
same scale will measure brand identity from the perspective of senior management. Items
pertaining to mission, values and positioning, in line with the Melbourne Zoo branding strategy,
will also be included. External communication measures incorporate typical sources of external
communication as suggested by Nandan (2005) and O’Çass and Grace (2004). Information from
the Melbourne Zoo in terms of communication media used has also been incorporated into the
measure. The role of employees is measured using an existing scale developed by Surprenant
and Solomon (1987), comprising of constructs most relevant to Melbourne Zoo: competence,
helpfulness and sociability. The servicescape will be measured in terms of facility aesthetics,
layout accessibility and cleanliness, using scales established by Wakefield and Blodgett (1996)
and Parasuraman and Zeithaml (1988). Loyalty measures will encapsulate behavioral,
attitudinal and cognitive constructs, using scales established by Jones and Taylor (2007) and
Davies and Chun (2002). Satisfaction will also be measured using existing scales developed by
Oliver (1980) and Price, Arnould and Tierney (1995).
Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and Orientations:

Traditionally, branding research has its roots in the goods sector. Even though the services
sector dominates developed economies [Lovelock, 2000], attention from researchers has not
matched services sector growth. Many texts are devoted to services management and brand
management, but none focus solely on services branding. One reason for so few valuable
Page
Services brands [Clifton and Maughan 2000] is the continual reliance on branding techniques
devised in the goods sector. There are only a few models dedicated to services brand building.
As services brands are about the delivery of promises through personal interactions, we
anticipated that management teams involved in building services brands would be senior and
likely to be cross-departmental. Little has been published about this. Finally, the importance of
gaining staff commitment and striving for consumer satisfaction suggested that successful
services-branding models would not stress an external orientation, as evident in goods
branding, but rather have a balanced internal and external orientation. Due to the dearth of
literature on these three issues, we sought to advance knowledge through qualitative research
amongst senior consultants advising clients globally about services branding. We focused on
consultants since they are at the forefront of application, have considerable knowledge and
experience, and through their work and conference presentations are strongly influenelng
tomorrow's services-branding agenda. This article opens by reviewing the limited literature
about the stages involved in services brand building, the people involved and the
internal/external orientations of successful services-branding organizations.
Brand Architecture in Services:
The term "brand architecture" refers to an organization’s approach to the design and
management of its brand portfolio. In particular, brand architecture decisions are concerned
with the number of brands to utilize the role of specific brands and the relationship between
such brands. It has been posited that services organizations tend to adopt a corporate brand
approach to the management of their brand architecture, having a propensity to rely, in the
main, on one overarching brand. The study reported here investigates this contention in the
context of financial services, using a number of semi-structured interviews with senior
marketing managers. Findings indicate that although some support for the corporate branded
approach was apparent, the dominant strategy is a "multi-corporate" approach, where the
brand architecture comprised a family of main brands. The main motivations for such an
approach are to maintain strong relationship franchises with different customer groups and/or
Page
to signal distinct competencies to the marketplace. As expected, the data shows little support
for the approach of branding individual services or the wide-scale use of sub brands.
This paper presents a study of brand architecture strategies in a services context. Brand
architecture refers to the nature of the brand spectrum utilized by an organization in its
marketing efforts (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). In particular, brand architecture describes
the number and nature of brands employed and the relationship between each brand in the
marketing of a range of products or services. At one extreme, companies may employ one
overarching corporate brand, whilst at the other, individual product or service brands may be
used. In between there are various hybrid options (de Chernatony 2001; Aaker and
Joachimsthaler 2000; Olins 1995). According to Douglas, et al. (2001), it is imperative that
managers design, implement and maintain a harmonious and efficient brand architecture that
spans all areas of a firm's operation. In such a manner parsimony, as well as maximum clarity
and consistency, can be achieved cost effectively. However, according to Petromilli, et al. 2002)
many companies struggle to keep their brand portfolios in order. This is perhaps not surprising
as many organizations are faced with increased market dynamism, customer fragmentation and
Industry consolidation. Added to that, Petromilli, et al. (2002) suggest that natural momentum,
egos of senior management and the attraction of acquisitions tend to produce an over-complex
brand architecture in many organizations. However, the dominant proposition in the literature
is that the brand architecture of services firms will normally be relatively uncomplicated and
rudimentary, as services organizations tend to rely on the corporate branded approach (de
Chernatony 2001; Berry 2000; Dobree and Page 1990; Berry, et al. 1988). This study makes a
contribution by investigating empirically whether the corporate branding approach is the
dominant strategy in the management of brand architecture adopted in a services context by
eliciting the views of practitioners, namely senior marketing and brand strategists in a services
environment. The study is important as empirical investigation of brand architecture strategies
is largely absent from the literature, as are the views of industry practitioners. Insights will also
be provided into the justification and rationale for the various brand architecture strategies
employed as well as the practical considerations associated with brand architecture
management. The paper proceeds in the traditional manner. In the following section the main
Page
literature is reviewed before the methodology is explained. Results are presented and
discussed and implications explored. Finally, limitations are acknowledged and avenues for
further research highlighted, before conclusions are drawn. The study presented here is
concerned with the appropriate brand architecture for services markets. Thus, in the literature
review section, it is necessary to introduce and explain the notion of brand architecture before
focusing more specifically upon brand architecture in a services context. Although the
importance of brands in the marketing of services has been highlighted by a number of writers
(Berry 2000; Dall'Olmo Riley and de Chernatony 2000; de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley 1999;
Dibb and Simkin 1993; Zeithaml 1981), far fewer studies have focused upon the nature of the
"brand architecture" adopted by services organizations. The term "brand architecture" refers to
an organization’s approach to the design and management of its brand portfolio (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler 2000) and is defined by those authors as:
"An organizing structure of the brand portfolio that specifies brand roles and the nature of
relationships between brands."
All "multi-offering" organizations face a choice as to whether to use one single brand covering
all products or services, a separate distinct stand-alone brand for each offering, or some
combination of these two extremes. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) use the term "branded
house" to describe the strategy where the master, or corporate, brand becomes by far the
dominant brand driver across multiple offerings, often in unrelated markets. An organization
such as the Virgin Group tends towards such an approach. At the other extreme is a "house of
brands" strategy, which involves an independent set of stand-alone brands each, producing an
optimum impact in the targeted market. For instance, the traditional approach of Proctor &
Gamble (P & G), with 80 major brands having little or no link with P&G or to each other, is a
house of brands strategy. Between, these two approaches, the authors see a continuum
encompassing "sub-brands", where the master brand is the primary frame of reference but is
augmented by additional naming. Examples include Microsoft Office or Audi TT and "Endorsed
Brands", such as Obsession by Calvin Klein or Courtyard by Marriott. Aaker and Joachimsthaler
(2000) suggest that, in general, a branded house or monolithic approach is more likely when
the master brand has associations that enhance the value proposition, is moved into an area
Page
where the organization appears credible and when there is the potential for communication
efficiencies. The branded approach is more likely when separate brands are needed to create
and own an association (often avoiding the association of the master-brand) and to retain a
customer brand bond. The difference between an endorsed brand and a sub-brand is a subtle
one. In the former case, the master-brand plays a far less prominent role, perhaps even only
being mentioned by association, whereas in the latter case, the master-brand forms the
dominant part of the brand. Indeed, Olins (1995) did not distinguish between endorsed and
sub-brands. He identifies three brand structures and termed them monolithic, endorsed and
branded, which is roughly similar to the schema of Aaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000), but with
some different terminology, de Chernatony, (2001) also proposes a "brand spectrum", similar
to Aaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000) and Olins, (1995). The ends of the brand spectrum,
according to de Chernatony, (2001) are defined in terms of corporate branding and individual
product brands. It is apparent that de Chematony's concept of the corporate brand is closely
related to those of the monolithic brand and branded house discussed above. Equally, the
individual product branding approach is akin to the branded approach discussed by Olins,
(1995) and the house of brands of Aaker and Joachimsthaler, (2000). In between, there are
strong and weak company endorsement positions, as can be seen from Figure One.
Identifying and sustaining services brands’ Values:

Identifying and sustaining the values of a services brand is vitally important for brand success.
This paper explores the origins of services brands’ values and the issues that arise when
Page
identifying and sustaining them. In addition, the failure factors associated with and the people
responsible for the identification of services brands’ values are discussed. The work is based
upon a literature review and in-depth interviews with leading-edge services branding
consultants. Techniques are discussed for identifying and sustaining services brands’ values.
These indicate that, while the identification of services brands’ values needs to focus internally
within the organization, the issue of gaps between image and identity cannot be ignored. It is
suggested that core and peripheral brand values need different treatment in order to maximize
services brands’ success and that human resources management is one of the most effective
methods of sustaining services brands’ values. The issue of identifying and sustaining a services
brand’s values is vital to the continued strength of both its image and its identity. This paper
explores the issues surrounding this, emphasizing that, unless values can be effectively
identified and then selectively sustained, the brand is likely to lose its way amongst both
customers and employees. There is a paucity of research into services branding (Van Riel et al.,
2001), which has traditionally relied upon the assumption of importing ideas from classical
goods brand management (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000). This unfounded assumption may
be part of the reason for a low proportion of valuable services brands, even though services
dominate Western economies (Clifton and Maughan, 2000). Recognizing that there are diverse
interpretations of brands (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998), a widely accepted view is
that brands are clusters of functional and emotional values. A commonly used approach to
identifying values for a new brand in the goods sector is to research consumers’ needs (Gordon,
1999) and then develop a manufacturing process and a communications strategy that provide
the bases for the brand’s values. In the services sector staff has a greater impact on shaping a
brand’s values (Berry, 2000) and the determination of brand values needs to be more attentive
to their contribution (Heskett, 1987; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003). Yet there is a dearth of
research into the process by which practitioners identify services brands’ values. Societies
change over time in response to evolving political, social, technological and economic
environments. As such the relative importance of values changes. If a brand is to thrive over
time it could be speculated that the values that form part of its identity would need regular
subtle adjustments in order to synchronize continually with consumers’ needs. In their study of
Page
Coherency in corporate branding Morsing and Kristensen (2001) found that the corporate
brand is updated via a strategy of allowing subtle changes in stakeholders’ interpretations of
the brand. Kapferer (1997) is one of the few academics to have considered brand evolution as
values change in society, albeit briefly addressed and done within his identity model. Some of
these subtle amendments are no doubt ongoing, as the employees in a services organization
reflect the evolving changes in society. However, another school of thought might draw on
Rokeach’s (1973) definition, which posited the enduring nature of values. One way of bridging
these seemingly conflicting perspectives is to introduce a distinction between core and
peripheral values. A brand could be considered as having core values, which are enduring
(Collins and Porras, 1998), for example honesty. In addition, a brand may have peripheral
values that are less central (but are nevertheless still important values at that point in time) and
that reflect societal change. Rohan (2000) discussed the prioritization of values, noting how ‘. . .
people’s value priorities will change in response to changes in their environments’ (p. 264). A
brand of women’s dresses may have decency and fashionability as its values. Over time the
importance of these two values will change, but the peripheral value of fashionability will never
result in dresses shorter than a critical length, since the core value of decency dictates
particular standards. It could be postulated that successful services brand management would
draw a distinction between core and peripheral values. Regular tracking of environmental
changes would result in managers re-evaluating the suitability of their brand’s values.
Techniques would be instigated for sustaining their brand’s core values and appropriate
amendments would be made to the peripheral values. While there is a stream of literature
about how managers can sustain their brand values (e.g. Lencioni, 2002) there is less about
which values should be sustained and which approaches are most effective. This paper seeks to
advance knowledge by investigating how services brands’ values are identified and, once
identified, whether all of a brand’s values should be sustained and how companies go about
doing this. In addition, several emergent issues that surfaced during this research are discussed.
These include the failure factors associated with the identification of services brands’ values
and the question of who is responsible for the identification process. As managers face the
challenge of facilitating consumer choice by communicating the continuity of their brands, they
Page
also need to refresh their brands and keep them contemporary. This paper strives to assist
managerial decisions about striking the right balance. Traditionally research into brands has
focused upon the opinions of brand managers, but they often play a ‘fire-fighting’ role and are
more likely to have their time occupied by day-to-day activities (Mitchell, 2001). This research
took the view that brand consultants were more likely to offer leading edge ideas and therefore
interviewed brand consultants who had high profiles in the services branding literature. This
paper opens by reviewing the literature on values in brand management. Propositions are then
outlined, based on the literature. The paper then explains how in-depth interviews were
undertaken with senior brand consultants specializing in services branding. The findings about
the way organizations identify their services brand values and sustain/change their services
brand values are then explained. Finally, the overall implications of the results are considered.
Developing a Brand Performance Measure for Financial Services

Brand:
Business success is due, in no insignificant part, to brand performance [Doyle, 2000]. Thus one
might anticipate a consensus about measuring business performance, and therefore brand
performance. However, researchers have conceptualised and measured business performance
using a variety of metrics [Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Day and Fahey, 1988;
Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey, 1998; Doyle, 2000]. In view of the implications this has for
seeking a standardized brand performance measure we sought to understand why there is no
consensus business performance measure. This literature review focuses on understanding why
there is no standardized business performance measure. Business performance is a multi-
dimensional and complex phenomenon necessitating various measures [Lenz, 1981; Ogbonna
and Harris, 2000]. The environment and the strategy influence managers’ choice of measures
[Day and Nedungadi, 1994], as does the functions within which managers operate [Deshpande
and Webster, 1989]. Different performance measures are likely between managers in the same
corporation since, as Cyert and March [1963] argued, managers have conflicting goals and do
not seek optimal, but rather satisfactory solutions. Furthermore, as managers employ different
mental models to make sense of their environments [de Chernatony, Daniels and Johnson,
Page
1993], preferences for measures vary between managers in the same organization [Day and
Nedungadi, 1994]. The type of market influences the business performance measure [Ambler,
2000; Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon, 2000]. A relationship-centered bank would be more
concerned with client satisfaction and relationship suitability, since these influence retention
rates, which form the basis for their business model. By contrast, an insurance company
operating in a price sensitive market needs to keep control of its costs and would focus more on
the number and levels of claims being made. Differences exist between researchers about the
central objective of marketing, which is a further reason for different business performance
measures. For example, Ambler [2000], Doyle [2000] and Srivastava and colleagues [1998]
argue that the objective of marketing is to generate healthy returns to shareholders by creating
and managing market-based assets. This leads to measures of the contribution of market-based
assets, net present value of cash flow and shareholder value. Rust and colleagues [2000] concur
with this, but because they believe the route to achieving this is through maximizing the
lifetime value of a firm’s consumer base, they place more emphasis on consumer equity metric.
Business performance measures have tended to evolve from goods-, rather than services-
centered organization, overlooking services’ distinctive characteristics. Fitzgerald and
colleagues [1991] suggested six dimensions of services business performance, two measuring
the results of a competitive success (competitiveness measures and financial measures) and
four measuring the determinants of competitive success (equality, flexibility, resource
utilization and innovation). Our review found no research on a standardized business
performance measure specifically for financial services organizations. Not surprisingly, as there
are a variety of measures for business performance, so researchers have employed various
brand performance measures [e.g. Blattberg and Deighton, 1996; Pitta and Katsanis, 1995;
Barwise and Ehrenberg, 1985]. Furthermore, reflecting their differing philosophies, consultants
have diverse brand performance measures [e.g. Young and Rubicam, 1994; Dyson, Farr and
Hollis, 1996]. As there is no standard way of measuring brand performance and, of specific
relevance to our study, financial services brand performance, a process had to be followed to
develop a measure, as we next describe.
Page
Challenges in branding financial services:
Financial services are services offerings and, as a result, many of the arguments associated with
the branding of services generally are also relevant here. In addition, financial services present
certain challenges for marketers in terms of trust and fiduciary responsibility issues, 16 as well
as the lack of consumer interest, understanding and engagement in many instances. Thus the
following literature review will briefly discuss branding in services generally, before moving on
to focus upon branding issues in financial services. According to Berry, 17 branding has a special
role to play in the marketing of services, because of the well-documented characteristics of
services offerings. He suggests that branding is now a ‘cornerstone’ of services marketing and
that branding is potentially crucial in services, due to the difficulty of differentiating offerings
which are intangible rather than a physical product, a point also made by Zeithaml18 and Dib
and Simkin,19 among others. Customers derive a sense of safety from strong brands and
Berry20 argues that emo purchasing services from a perceived safe haven would appeal to
consumers, in particular for offerings which are intangible. On a related theme, Dall’Olmo Riley
and de Chernatony21 argue that the brand can act as a ‘relationship fulcrum’ in services
marketing. They propose that the service brand should be seen as a ‘holistic process’, providing
the link between internal factors, such as those concerned with employees, and external
encounters with customers. As such, both customers’ and employees’ relationships with a
brand are potentially important in the marketing of services. In a more general context, such
arguments receive support from de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley22 although this earlier
study was not focused specifically on services. The same authors address the question of
service brand definition and the principles of services branding.23 They suggest that many
branding principles are consistent between products and services, but that there are particular
issues and challenges associated with the Operationalisation of services branding, including
ensuring consistency of service and brand delivery, and through using internal marketing to
engender a customer-focused culture. In his services branding model, Berry24 states that
service companies build strong brands through distinctiveness and message consistency. The
other main argument advanced by Berry is the importance of corporate branding to services
markets. As Berry explains, in packaged goods markets the product is the primary focus of the
Page
brand, whereas in services the company is the primary focus of the brand. Although corporate
branding is seen as becoming more important generally, 25 it is seen as having a particularly
crucial role to play in the marketing of services. Dall’Olmo Riley and de Chernatony26 cite
Dobree and Page27 as an example of a study stressing the importance of the company as the
Brand and quote Berry et al.28 to illustrate that consumer are likely to view all services offered
by a company as components of a single brand. Dall’Olmo Riley and de Chernatony add that the
corporate brand forms the focus of the relationship-building efforts both inside and outside a
services organization, in keeping with the relationship focus of the analysis they present.
McDonald et al.30 also provide a detailed analysis of the prevalence of and challenges
associated with corporate branding in a services context. It is perhaps not surprising that the
arguments discussed in relation to services generally apply equally to financial services as,
according to Devlin,31 financial services are excellent examples of highly intangible and often
complex service offerings. In general terms, Faust and Eilertson, 32 in a financial services
context, remind one that the brand is much more than just a logo, while Camp33 suggests, not
unreasonably, that optimizing brand use in financial services involves using a brand that is
preferred by targeted consumers. McDonald et al.34 argue powerfully that there is presently a
dearth of salient brands in the financial services sector, and others have suggested similarly that
few brands are successfully differentiated in the financial services sector. In addition, Dall’Olmo
Riley and de Chernatony state that brand experts believe that there are relatively few notable
financial services brands, and they suggest that managers are too preoccupied with building
functional rather than emotional brand values. For a brand to be particularly ‘notable’ or
‘salient in the marketplace’ is arguably akin to possessing what Keller describes as customer-
based brand equity. The latter concept occurs when the customer is not only familiar with a
particular brand, but also ‘holds some favorable, strong and unique brand associations in
memory’.39 While a detailed exposition of the concept of brand equity is beyond the scope of
this paper, it is apparent that, to be salient in the marketplace, a brand has to move beyond
mere awareness — a combination of recognition and recall to having particular associations
which help differentiate the offering. As discussed above, it is generally posited that most
brands in financial services have not moved beyond awareness and are not particularly strong.
Page
Despite this contention, McDonald et al. argue that due to structural change, including
deregulation, consolidation and new media provision of financial services, it is more important
than ever that financial services organizations develop strong brands to avoid commoditization.
Devlin43 notes the potential importance of branding in differentiation, particularly for more
complex financial services. Saunders and Watters also study the growing importance of
branding in financial services, and stress the crucial role that brands play in financial services
marketing. They further comment upon the need for a coherent strategy with regard to
corporate, divisional and individual brands, illustrating various approaches. In common with
arguments advanced in favour of the importance of corporate brands in a service context more
generally, Milligan45 argues that banking products are more or less indistinguishable, but that
corporate branding can help differentiate banking companies and their offerings. Others have
argued similarly that consumers show little interest in individual financial services offerings,
preferring instead to focus upon well-known companies.Denby-Jones also suggests that
corporate brands are of primary importance in the marketing of financial services. Dall’Olmo
Riley and de Chernatony49 argue that financial services do not lend themselves to individual
product brands, suggesting that the corporate brand may be particularly important in situations
where it is difficult to make a priori judgments. Finally, McDonald et al. suggest that corporate
brands are important in a financial services context, particularly when dealing with well-
established products and new market segments within an existing customer base, in order to
avoid confusion. To summarize, the literature suggests that brands are potentially very
important in a financial services context in order to provide differentiation and a focus for
relationships, possibly both externally and internally. The common perception, however, is that
although strong brands are required more than ever, given the environment that financial
services firms face, branding in financial services is relatively weak, with many brands lacking
saliency and true customer-based brand equity. A number of authors have suggested that
branding in financial services is, and should be, concentrated primarily at the corporate level.
Overall, it is apparent that the successful branding of retail financial services is challenging, and
that achieving true brand equity in financial services markets may present difficulties for brand
managers in financial services. While the literature regarding financial services branding is
Page
replete with hypothesized trends and relationships and papers discussing general concepts,
there are, however, notably few empirical studies in the area. Much work has been done by de
Chernatony and associates, reported extensively above, but the material published thus far has
been based upon a series of interviews with brand experts (such as consultants, advertising
executives and so on). An input from managers would yield further important insights, a point
acknowledged by Dall’Olmo Riley and de Chernatony.54 There is a paucity of work which
counsels the opinions of Senior brand managers in financial services. As it is managers who
determine brand strategies and face the long-term and day-to-day challenges of branding
financial services, they are important stakeholders in the branding process that can provide
important insights. Thus the main research question investigated in this study can be
characterized as follows: —
What are the views of senior financial services branding managers as to the particular role and
importance of, and challenges associated with, branding retail financial services successfully?
The Service Brand as Relationships Builder:
Relationship marketing has recently received a lot of attention by researchers, both in business
to- business, and in consumer goods and services contexts. McKenna (1991) suggested that this
increased interest in establishing relationships with consumers represents a fundamental shift
in the role and purpose of marketing, from customer manipulation, to customer involvement,
from telling and selling, to communicating and sharing knowledge, from last-in-line function to
corporate-credibility champion, and from a short-term transactional, to a longer term
relational approach to brand marketing (e.g. Gringos, 1990a, 1990b, 1995; Iacobucci and
Ostrom, 1996). In contrast, others have objected to the notion of relationship marketing as a
'paradigm shift (e.g. Petrof, 1997), noting that satisfying and keeping customers has always
been the core of the marketing concept. A slightly less reductionist view would, however, grant
the notion of relationship marketing at least with the role of keeping managers focused on a
long-term customer orientation. Moreover, Gringos (1990b) makes a distinction between how
to develop and execute good marketing performance, which is the focus of the relational
definition of marketing, and what decisions to make to do marketing, which is the focus of the
Page
traditional marketing notion. In practice, advances in IT and the consequent emergence of

direct marketing and Internet shopping have prompted even mass marketing companies to
seek the development of distinctive 'relationships' with individual consumers (e.g. Copulsky and
Wolf, 1990; Peppers and Rogers, 1995). However, the extent to which real mutual Relationship
between organizations and their customers are created is questionable (e.g. Fournier, Dobscha
and Mick, 1998). A further issue is the similarity in the terminology used in the literatures
discussing the theoretical bases of relationship marketing and the brand. Consistent with Petrof
(1997), one interpretation of this similarity would be the redundancy between the two
concepts. In essence, relationship marketing would be equivalent to doing all the things
expected of branding (e.g. reducing risk, simplifying decision making, etc.). However, we
consider it more appropriate to think in terms of convergence, rather than redundancy,
between the two literature streams. As we discuss below, the concept of the brand has
evolved, with an increased emphasis on relational aspects. The developing literature on
relationship marketing might have contributed to this renewed emphasis. As a result of the
recent 'rediscovery' of relationship marketing and the conceptual and practical issues just
discussed, the first aim of this paper is to examine the appropriateness of the 'relationship
marketing' notion and the main criteria for its applicability in various contexts. Next, we analyze
similarities between the conceptual antecedents (motivations) and consequences (advantages)
of relationship marketing and the essence of the brand as emerging from the general branding
literature. Theoretical similarities between the concept of the brand and the notion of
relationship marketing as risk reducers, simplifiers of choice and guarantees of quality emerge
from this analysis. We then focus on services and elaborate on potential synergies between
branding and relationship marketing. However, we would like to stress that such synergies are
not exclusive to services and may apply to both goods and services. As we discuss, the crucial
point for the applicability of relationship marketing is not so much the distinction between
goods and services. Our focus is on consumer services branding mainly as an area which many
authors have identified as under researched (e.g. Faust and Eilertson, 1994; Shostack, 1977;
Turley and Moore, 1995). As we later discuss, a further motivation for focusing on services is
that the opportunity for, and the benefits from engaging in relationship marketing might be
Page
more pertinent for some services, such as professional advisers. Finally, with the aim of
advancing the understanding of effective services branding, we expand the notions emerging
front the literature by examining the perspectives of twenty leading-edge brand consultants.
From these experts' opinions and the literature, we suggest that the service brand is a holistic
process, starting with the relationship between the organization and the employee providing
the service, and coming alive in the interaction between the customer and the service provider.
Future research will test these propositions from the perspectives of other stakeholders in the
branding process, such as managers and consumers.
Branding health services: Defining you in the marketplace:

The author begins by saying that-
“Financial managers think that branding is the proprietary domain of the marketing managers”.
They understand the power of a brand but they are not necessarily familiar with the branding
strategies. The author tries to bring out the history of brands and tries
To apply the concepts to healthcare industry. Author discusses a very important concept called
the brand pyramid wherein he discusses the various levels of customer interaction with the
brand to the level where they start having a bond with each other. The author also introduces a
segmentation map through which he tries to gauge whether why a particular customer is more
loyal to a particular brand and not to the other brand. The fundamental discussion provided by
the author about what branding is, how it works, and how to improve the branding strategies
to the financial managers for the branding strategies for their organizations.
Branding Labour Intensive Services:

A brand is not a name, logo or advertising slogan; a brand is a person’s dominant perception
when the stimulus of a name, logo or slogan is presented. A brand, in short, is a reputation that
develops most durably from customers’ actual consumption experiences. Marketer controlled
communications such as advertising can play important roles in brand development, including
Page
creating awareness of the offering, stimulating trial, and providing language and imagery to
frame the desired brand. What marketing communications cannot do, however, is rescue a
poor product or service. If customers’ experience with the offering differs from the advertising
message, they believe the experience and not the advertising. Advertising provides an
investment return only when it is reinforced by positive customer experiences. No US retailer
advertises more effectively on television than the discount chain Target but the advertising
works only because customers like shopping at Target. Consumption experience is important
for goods brands as well as services. However, the source and nature of customer experiences
differ for goods and services. This is especially apparent when comparing equipment-intensive
goods to labour-intensive services. The differences range from subtle to significant depending
on which two categories are compared. We focus on equipment-intensive goods and labour-
intensive services (shaded in the chart) because, first, the differences are the greatest, second,
the branding literature emphasizes
packaged goods, which are equipment-intensive in their manufacture; and, third, relatively little
has been written specifically about services branding – especially from the customer’s
Page
perspective. In equipment-intensive goods, the product is branded. For virtually all services,
however, a company or specific service provider is branded. The focal brand differs for services
in part because they lack the tangible form that facilitates packaging, labelling and visual
display. A beauty salon’s name and logo can be put on the facility and even on the service
provider’s clothing but cannot be put on the haircut. Moreover, brand impact shifts from
product to company or person in proportion to the role service plays in creating the benefits
customers buy. Customers brand the source of the benefit they seek in purchasing. Washing
powder provides the benefit and Persil is the focal brand. Few customers know or care that
Unilever is the manufacturer. Conversely, customers brand the company for services that are
not uniquely dependent on a specific person, such as a restaurant or hotel service. The more
the service’s value to the customer equates to an individual provider, the more likely it is that
the individual will be the primary brand rather than the company. It is quite common, for
example, for customers to follow a hair stylist who changes salons. The labour-intensity of
goods and service production figures prominently in the consistency of quality. Generally, the
greater the involvement of human beings in the production of a good or service, the greater the
variability. Labor-intensive offerings are less predictable because human beings vary in their
skills, knowledge, personalities, attitudes, moods and personal commitment. Variability occurs
not only among a group of employees but also with the same employee as a result of fatigue,
personal problems, and an encounter with an unpleasant customer or other reasons. From a
quality and branding standpoint, a bank’s manager of its ATM network has a different set of
concerns than the manager of human tellers. In the latter case “...the brand deliverer...walks
around on two legs...” as services researchers Leslie de Chernatony and Francesca Dall ‘Olmo
Riley put it. Because goods are produced before they are consumed, they can be inspected
prior to purchase. Companies that sell labour-intensive goods, such as certain types of clothing,
can inspect and remove items not meeting specifications before shipping to vendors.
Conversely, many services are produced and consumed simultaneously, thereby limiting the
opportunity for pre-consumption quality inspection. Branding plays a special role for labour-
intensive services because strong brands increase customers’ trust of an intangible, variable
offering that is difficult to evaluate prior to purchase. A strong brand is the surrogate when
Page
there is no dress to try on, no automobile to test-drive, no bananas to scrutinize. The more
consequential, complex and variable the service, the more customers need brand reassurance.
As Stan Richards, founder of Dallas-based advertising agency The Richards Group, stated in a
speech: “A strong brand is a safe place for customers”. In general, services present more
customer “touch points”, or discrete experiences, than goods. With goods, the customers’
experience with the product comes largely from seeing, handling and using it. With labour-
intensive services, the breadth of discrete experiences is typically more extensive and often of
much longer duration. Customers for goods don’t visit the factory; service customers often do.
Consider the breadth and duration of brand impression touch points for airline travel. The
customer directly experiences at least three service “factories”: the departure and arrival
airports and the aero plane. Within these environments, passengers experience facilities,
equipment, multiple service providers and other customers. It is a complex mix of experiences
over a period of hours with numerous opportunities for pleasing or displeasing customers.
A cross cultural perspective on branding of in financial services: a

cross cultural perspective:
The role of marketing as an integrated management function in financial services organizations
had been well documented in the literature since the 1980s (Hooley and Mann 1988; Ennew et
al. 1993). Given the high degree of intangibility, consumers' dependence on
experience/credence qualities and high levels of perceived risk, branding can play a key role in
the marketing process for services in general (Bharadwaj et al. 1993) and for financial services
in particular (Easingwood and Arnott, 1991). Existing research has addressed aspects of
branding from organizational perspectives (see for example Easingwood and Mahajan 1989;
Saunders and Watters 1993; Harris, 2002) and by mapping consumer perceptions (Devlin et al.
1995). However, despite strong conceptual arguments for the relative importance of brands in
a financial services context, there is relatively little research to evaluate the significance of
brands in consumer decision making for services (Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Moreover, a
number of researchers argue that both the two concepts are under-developed in business
markets (Mudambi et al. 1997; Keller 1998; De Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Rily 1998; Kalafatis
Page
2000), which suggests that there is a real need to explore the role of brands in consumer
decision making in business markets as well as in retail markets. The small business sector may
be of particular interest in this context. Clearly, small businesses make a significant economic
contribution across most economies (File and Prince 1992; Freeman and Turner 1990). They
represent an important market from the perspective of the banks, given that estimates would
suggest that as many as 75% of small businesses are profitable over a three year period (Berger
and Ulrich 1986; Athanassopoulos and Labroukos 1999). Finally, given that small businesses lack
the resources and financial expertise of larger businesses, there are grounds for believing that
the brand may have a significant role to play in the decision making process. This paper aims to
examine the importance of the brand in bank selection decisions for small business customers.
The empirical setting is cross-cultural with data being collected in both the UK and Egypt. It is
widely recognized that there is a relative shortage of cross-national studies and this is
particularly apparent in the financial service sector, despite its international focus. The benefits
to both academics and practitioners of conducting such studies are well known (Ta and Har
2000; Knight 1999; Malhotra et al. 1996). Accordingly, the current work will contribute
specifically to our understanding of the importance of the brand in consumer choice and more
generally will provide an illustration of the approaches to and benefits from the conduct of
cross national research in financial services. The paper begins by providing an overview of
branding and selection criteria for small business customers. Thereafter, the methodology is
discussed with particular attention being paid to the cross-national dimension. The following
section presents the results of the analysis for UK and Egyptian small businesses. The paper
closes with a summary and conclusions.
Benchmarking Services Branding Practices:

The services sector accounts for up to three-quarters of the GDP of developed economies, yet
there has been relatively little research into identifying best practices in services branding (de
Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1999). This lack of benchmarking data is surprising, given that
branding appears to be a cornerstone of successful services marketing (Berry 2000). The results
of the few empirical investigations of services branding practices are somewhat equivocal.
Page
While the majority of authors conclude that branding the company (or corporate branding) is
more appropriate than branding individual service products (e.g. Balmer 1995; Berry 2000; de
Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1999; de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 2000), others take a
contrary view (e.g. Onkvisit and Shaw 1989). A leading American services marketing researcher
has produced a model of brand equity formation based on interviews with 14 mature,
highperforming service providers in the USA (Berry 2000). The author then identifies four
generic strategies to cultivate brand equity: dare to be different; determine your own fame;
make emotional connections; and internalize the brand. Although the last point emphasizes the
important role that staff play in services branding, these rather jingoistic terms appear to be
based more on anecdotal than empirical evidence, and could be as applicable to the producers
of tangible goods as to the providers of intangible services. Prominent branding researchers in
the UK have argued that the fast moving consumer goods approach to branding needs to be
adjusted for the services sector, and that more research is required to produce a tailored model
of services branding (McDonald, de Chernatony and Harris 2001). The current study takes a
small step towards answering the call by McDonald et al. by benchmarking the branding
practices of successful professional and business services providers in New Zealand.
Implications for services branding theory and practice are discussed.
Findings:
 This paper has sought to augment, through interviews with leading brand consultants,
what is known about the communication of brand values to both employees and
consumers. The findings enable implications to be considered and conclusions drawn. In
the case of services brands, consumers do not solely interpret brands on the basis of
marketing communications, but also through their interactions with employees. Brand
success is therefore dependent on ensuring that staff correctly interprets their brand’s
values and are committed to enacting these values in their interactions with consumers.
Once staff is behind the brand, it then becomes appropriate to reinforce the brand
through communicating its values to consumers.
Page
 The HR function plays a key role in transmitting brand values through activities such as
recruitment, induction and training. There is a need for some system of ‘quality control’
to be in place regarding the services provided by the HR department. As guardians of
services brand values, it is vital that HR employees have a comprehensive understanding
of the brand and this is then explicitly used to guide their activities with all employees.
 A powerful tool when communicating brand values is cascading this down throughout
the organization by getting groups to run sessions with other groups, i.e. through a
ripple effect. As small numbers of individuals are interacting with each other it may be
appropriate for the trainers not just to explain the brand values, but to then ghost
individuals and after observing their behaviour discuss how their actions do or do not
support the brand values.
 Contributed to a better understanding of how services brand values are communicated
to employees and consumers. Drawing on van Riel [1995], we anticipated that values
are communicated to employees mainly through a combination of management and
organizational communication, and consumer communication is mainly through
marketing and organizational communication. The interviews suggest that while this
framework provides a good appreciation of communication channels, it may be more
informative to adopt the framework in Figure 1. Not only does this provide more detail
about channels, but it also highlights the importance of feedback mechanisms which
through discourse enable brand values to be better appreciated.
 Making a link between brand, culture and customer experience is not new, but the
practice of managing the link between these related domains has evolved significantly
over recent years. IM and branding programs can play a role in raising awareness of the
desired brand ethos, and may even promote temporarily high levels of brand
engagement, but sustainable brand-led culture change will only be effective when the
brand ethos is deeply embedded in the everyday leadership and people management
processes of the organization. Employer brand management provides just such a
mechanism for translating the brand ethos into the everyday working experience of
Page
employees, and by doing so reinforces the organization’s ability to deliver consistent

and distinctive customer brand experiences.
 Creating a Branded Customer Experience – one that really drives customer loyalty –
requires thought, effort, and resources. It takes careful design, it takes new forms of
collaboration between Marketing, HR, and Operations, and it takes the means to
harness the power of your people to turn them into Brand Ambassadors. It also requires
the seamless integration of high-tech and high-touch, the powerful combination of
technology and human interface. But most of all it requires managers to understand
what it means to lead the brand.
 Responsibility for brand development is less likely to reside with one person and more
likely to be a team representing the main functional areas. This is likely to be led by a
senior manager who has the vision and the power to build shared support. Critical to
success is enthusiasm, commitment and "on-brand' behaviour.
 Having a strong customer-orientation is important, but equally important is a brand
supporting culture, based on relevant, shared values.
 The approach that has to be incorporated is the "multicorporate" approach where a
family of main brands is incorporated into an organization’s brand architecture. The
main rationales provided by practitioners for adopting such an approach were to
maintain a strong relationship franchise with different customer groups and/or signal
distinct competencies to the marketplace.
 Increasingly, service organizations must consider the effect of brand values on every
aspect of working life. It is no longer enough for a company to include a statement of
values in their annual report. The validity of the values must be ensured through
effective identification techniques headed by senior management that surface unique
and genuine brand values.
Limitations
The study conducted is totally a secondary kind of an effort. The study can be modified to
include a primary research where in data can be gathered by conducting a market research
Page
amongst the practitioners of brand in the corporate world. This would give a comprehensive
insight into the brand building process practiced by the corporate world. This would give us an
opportunity to conduct the research comprehensively and would allow us to include many
more respondents than what was possible following the current methodology.
Conclusion
Although branding has attracted considerable attention from marketing academics in recent
years, the overwhelming majority of this interest has been directed at products with physical
forms (goods), rather than services. The intangibility factor associated with services has led to
the suggestion that branding and image creation may be even more critical for services .Also,
while the rationale for branding is the same for goods and services, at least some of the
concepts from the marketing literature associated with goods branding may not apply in the
service sector. From the literature and the interviews, we propose a notion of 'the service
brand' as a holistic process which provides focus to the internal relationship between the
service company and the employees, and comes alive in the external relationship (encounter)
between consumer and service provider (employee). When excellent service is experienced, or
the promised brand is delivered in a way consistent with expectations, the consumer is
encouraged to engage in a long term relationship with the service provider. This can be
conceptualized in terms of a virtuous circle, whereby a strong 'brand as a company' identity
permeates the organization and provides a relevant focus to both consumers and employees.
This can be achieved using internal marketing and incentives to motivate and retain good
employees.
References:
 Building Services Brands-Leslie De Chernatony.

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

Mosley.
 Experiencing the brand, branding the experience-Shaun Smith
 Corporate brand identity and image congruence in leisure services sector- Joanna
Minkiewicz, Felix Mavondo, Monash University Kerrie Bridson, Deakin University
 Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and Orientations- LESLIE de CHERNATONY,
SUSAN DRURY and SUSAN SEGAL-HORN
 Brand Architecture in Services: The Example of Retail Financial Services-James
Devlin,Nottingham University Business School
 Identifying and sustaining services brands’ Values-LESLIE DE CHERNATONY AND SUSAN
DRURY,Birmingham Business School, University House, The University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston Park Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
SUSAN SEGAL-HORN, Open University Business School, The Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
 Life would be a lot easier if we were a Kit Kat’: Practitioners’ views on the challenges
of branding financial services successfully-JAMES F. DEVLIN is a reader in marketing at
Nottingham University Business School. He has also worked for City University (now Cass
Business School) and in private banking. His interests are retail financial services
marketing and policy issues in financial services. His work has been published in many
journals and he won prizes for the best paper at the Annual UK Academy of Marketing
Conference in 1996 and for the best paper in the European Journal of Marketing in
1998.
SARWAR AZHAR is a research student at Nottingham University Business School. He

previously worked in the commercial and educational sectors in Pakistan. Sarwar is
currently researching the competitive strategies of domestic companies in Pakistan.
 Service brands and communication effects-RON O’CASS,Newcastle Graduate School of

Business, University House, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308,
Australia
Page
DEBRA GRACE, Department of Marketing, Griffith Business School, Griffith University

PMB 50,Gold Coast Mail Centre, Queensland 9726, Australia
 The Service Brand as relationships Builder-Francesca DaU'Olmo Riley, Kingstoti
University Business School, Kingstoti Hill, Kitigston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 7LB
And
Leslie de Chernatony, Open University Business School, The Open University, Walton
Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
 Branding health services: Defining you in the marketplace-Jeanne Yasiri and Tom Blinn
Medical Group Medical Association.
 Branding Labour Intensive Services-Leonard L Berry and Sandra S Lampo
 A cross cultural perspective on branding of in financial services: a cross cultural
perspective-Sally A. McKechnie and Christine T. Ennew, Nottingham University Business
School
Ehab M. Abou Aish,
Cairo University
 Benchmarking Services Branding Practices-Brendan J. Gray
University of Otago
Page

Research Paper:: Branding of Services: Brand Building Process Across Different Sectors

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Research Paper:: Branding of Services: Brand Building Process Across Different Sectors

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Research Paper:

Branding of services: Brand Building process across

Submitted By: Submitted To:

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

Brand and Culture:

Experiencing the Brand— Branding the Experience:

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

Building a Services Brand: Stages, People and Orientations:

Brand Architecture in Services:

Identifying and sustaining services brands’ Values:

Developing a Brand Performance Measure for Financial Services

Challenges in branding financial services:

The Service Brand as Relationships Builder:

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

Branding health services: Defining you in the marketplace:

Branding Labour Intensive Services:

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

Benchmarking Services Branding Practices:

employees, and by doing so reinforces the organization’s ability to deliver consistent

 Building Services Brands-Leslie De Chernatony.

 Customer experience, organizational culture and the employer brand-Richard W

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

 Service brands and communication effects-RON O’CASS,Newcastle Graduate School of

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

Você também pode gostar