International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 14: 57–69 (2009)

Published online 9 December 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.353

How international nonprofits build

brand equity
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander 1* and Bernard Simonin 2
1
Marketing Department, Boston University School of Management, USA
2
The Fletcher School, Tufts University, USA

This paper describes an empirical model of brand equity for international nonprofit
organizations and offers nonprofit managers suggestions for the management of their
brands. The main areas of interest include:

A review of the importance of branding for nonprofits, the lack of a brand equity models
specifically for nonprofits, and the key differences between for-profits and nonprofits.

A proposed nonprofit brand equity model, based on a grounded theory and system
dynamics approach.

A series of specific managerial recommendations, for building nonprofit brand equity.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction Furthermore, this relative trust is growing over

Branding, and by extension understanding
what drives brand equity, is critical for non-
profit organizations (Smillie, 1995; Naddaff,
2004; Chiagouris, 2005). Yet nonprofit managers
and leaders have seemed reluctant to actively
embrace existing brand equity building activities
(Nissim, 2004; Bishop, 2005; Ewing and Napoli,
2005). This may be in part, because no explicit
brand equity models exist for nonprofit
organizations (Haigh and Gilbert, 2005).
Recent studies by Edelman PR show that in
both the US and Europe, trust in NGOs is
substantially higher than trust in other groups
such as business, government, and the media.
*Correspondence to: Nathalie Laidler-Kylander, Market-
ing Department, Boston University School of
Management, 595 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
E-mail: kylander@bu.edu
time (Annual Edelman Trust Barometer, 2006).
This greater brand trust, potentially translates
to high levels of brand equity (essentially a
measure of brand strength), and NGOs are
increasingly being perceived as the ‘‘new super
brands’’ (Wootliff and Deri, 2001).
However, the methodologies for defining
and measuring brand equity vary tremendously.
Indeed, many authors have called for a greater
degree of homogenization and a ‘‘universally
acceptable and simple to understand mean-
ing’’ of brand equity (Woods, 1998; Blackston,
2000; Knowles, 2004). Reynolds and Phillips
assert that the ‘‘lack of agreement about
something this fundamental (measurement of
brand equity) says much about the state of
brand strategy and brand research’’ (Reynolds
and Phillips, 2005). It has recently been
suggested that ‘‘one of the primary reasons
no generally accepted measure of brand equity
has surfaced in the past 15 years is that brand

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
58
equity and brand value are frequently treated as
the same construct’’ (Raggio and Leone, 2007).
Differences between for-profits
and nonprofits
Substantial differences exist between nonprofits
and for-profits, suggesting that international
nonprofits may build brand equity differently
than for-profit organizations. Understanding
the drivers of brand equity for international
nonprofit organizations, and how these differ
from existing for-profit brand equity models is
at the heart of our research.
Oster suggests that nonprofit organizations
differ from their for-profit counterparts in at
least five major areas: their organizational culture,
their human resources, their collaborative rather
than competitive approaches, the complexity
of their customers, and the importance of mission
(Oster, 1995). The following section briefly
explores each of these five differences in turn.
Compared to many international for-profit
companies, international nonprofit organiz-
ations have highly decentralized organizational
structures with low control by headquarters.
This is coupled with little formal hierarchy, and
a consensus building culture valued by many
individuals choosing to work for nonprofit
organizations (Foreman, 1999; Quelch and
Laidler-Kylander, 2005). This suggests organ-
izational environments that allow for individ-
ual autonomy, flexibility, and empowerment,
but in which the implementation of any single
organization-wide decision may be difficult.
Benz asserts that employees in nonprofit
firms have long been viewed as ‘‘intrinsically
motivated’’ deriving non-financial rewards from
their work (that may make up for wage
differentials with the for-profit sector) (Benz,
2005). This same author’s recent study, con-
firms that job satisfaction ratings for employees
in nonprofit organizations, are higher than in
for-profit organizations, and he concludes that
nonprofits offer substantial non-pecuniary benefits.
Liao, Foreman, and Sargeant argue that,
‘‘competition has less relevance in the non-
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
profit arena,’’ since demand for goods and
services is ‘‘insatiable.’’ These same authors
add that the concept of collaboration between
nonprofit organizations, even between those
in competition for securing funds, is at least as
important as competition (Liao et al., 2000).
Austin describes the growing importance of
alliances and collaboration efforts between
nonprofits and for-profits (Austin, 2000).
Some observers believe that nonprofit
organizations are more complex to manage
than for-profits, due in large part to the broader
spectrum of stakeholders and brand audiences
(Letts et al., 1999). Ritchie, Swami, and Weinberg
identify four key brand publics: clients, donors,
volunteers, and government (Ritchie et al.,
1999). In addition, in many nonprofits, a
disconnect exists between the purchaser and
the user of the organization’s product or services
(Liao et al., 2000). In for-profit organizations, the
purchaser and user of the product are often
the same. For many nonprofits, purchasers are
individual and institutional donors and users
are the recipients of the goods or services
provided by the nonprofit. Although users may
choose not to accept the goods or services, or
may be required to pay a token fee for services,
the relationship between the recipient and
nonprofit organization is not a market-based
transaction. Purchasers must rely on their trust
in the nonprofit’s ability to carry out its mission
successfully (Laidler-Kylander et al., 2007).
Finally, nonprofits are mission driven organ-
izations. They lack the common profit objec-
tive shared by for-profit companies. Instead,
nonprofit organizations strive to implement a
social mission. Oster argues that although for
profits and nonprofits both manage their
organizations on the basis of a mission, the
role of the mission for a nonprofit is substan-
tially more important. The mission is used to
create trust among clients and donors, acts as
an organizational boundary, motivates staff,
and helps in performance evaluations (Oster,
1995). The sum or combination of these
differences, as well as differences in marketing
environments (Andreasen and Kotler, 2002),
suggest that nonprofit brands may build their
brands differently than for profits.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity
Brand equity for nonprofits
Many, often conflicting for-profit brand equity
models exist (Woods, 1998, Knowles, 2004),
but very little has been written to date,
specifically about the factors or variables that
drive the brand equity in nonprofit organiz-
ations (Haigh and Gilbert, 2005).
Judd argues that, ‘‘nonprofit organizations
need strong brands just as much as corpor-
ations’’ and that ‘‘building brand equity should
be a priority for nonprofit groups large and
small’’ (Judd, 2004). Keller adds that, ‘‘strong
brands are supported by formal (read explicit)
brand-equity-management systems (Keller,
2000)’’ and it also seems clear that the manage-
ment of the assets and liabilities that make up
brand equity, require some type of model
(Aaker, 1991). Ritchie, Swami, and Weinberg
conclude that, ‘‘some distinct features of
nonprofits make the brand concept especially
relevant to them.’’ (Richie, Swami and Wein-
berg, 1999). Finally, Hankinson, in her study of
the role of internal brand in UK charities,
surmises that the role of the internal brand may
be even more complex for nonprofit organiz-
ations than for businesses. She suggests that for
UK charities, the brand: ‘‘unifies the workforce
around a common purpose; acts as a catalyst
for change; and contributes to the profession-
alism of the sector’’ (Hankinson, 2005)
Nonprofit management literature articles
extol the virtues of managing the nonprofit
brand and the importance of brand equity for
nonprofit organizations (Bosc, 2002, Brunham,
2002, Webster, 2002). Other authors add that
brands are vital internal instruments for
galvanizing nonprofit organizations and that
the most important advantage a nonprofit has
is its brand (Birkin, 2003, Bosc, 2002, Laidler-
Kylander, Simonin and Quelch, 2007). How-
ever, despite the overwhelming consensus as
to the importance of nonprofit brands, some
researchers have surprisingly found that many
nonprofits ‘‘devote little time, energy, and care
to branding’’ (Nissim, 2004). Other authors
suggest that, many ‘‘nonprofits do not effec-
tively utilize and manage their brands’’
(Bishop, 2005). Ewing and Napoli agree. They
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
59
are surprised that, ‘‘the concept of brand
management has been largely overlooked’’ by
many nonprofits (Ewing and Napoli, 2005).
Given the many differences between non-
profits and for profits, simply applying an
existing brand equity model (if you could even
decide which one the dozens existing for-profit
models is most relevant) would be less than
optimal. This research attempts to address this
issue and provides nonprofit managers with
explicit guidelines for brand equity manage-
ment based on the mental models currently
being used in their sector.
Research approach and
objectives
The aim of this research was to build a formal
model of brand equity for international non-
profit organizations engaged in development,
advocacy, and relief work using a combination
of a system dynamics approach and grounded
theory development. We develop an empiri-
cally based theory of what drives brand equity
in international nonprofit organizations and
elucidate the key managerial and contextual
variables that impact brand equity and how
these interact. Our research is based on: extensive
field research, grounded theory development
through case studies, a system dynamics
approach, and constant comparison analysis.
Brand equity as defined by Aaker is, ‘‘a set of
brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its
name and symbol that add to or subtract from
the value provided by a product or service to
that firm’s customers (Aaker, 1991).’’ These
assets and liabilities can be grouped into five
main categories: brand loyalty, name aware-
ness, perceived quality, brand associations,
and other assets (such as patents and trade-
marks), and can be thought of as the drivers
and levers of the brand.
System dynamics ‘‘is a methodology for
studying and managing complex feedback
systems, such as one finds in business and
other social systems’’ (as defined by the System
Dynamics Society at systemdynamics.org,
November 2005). It combines the theory,
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
60
methods, and philosophy needed to analyze
the behavior of complex, nonlinear systems
and has been used in many fields including;
corporate planning, policy design, biological
and medical modeling, and theory develop-
ment in the natural and social sciences. It is a
powerful tool that helps assess complex issues
involving delays, feedback, and nonlinearities
and links causal mapping diagrams to compu-
ter simulation models (Harris and Williams,
2005).
Complex dynamic systems such as brand
equity, require powerful new methods such as
system dynamics that enable the translation of
the ‘‘mental’’ or implicit models held by non-
profit brand managers, into explicit models. In
the process of this modeling, new insights can
be gained that might otherwise have remained
hidden. Specifically, system dynamics enables
us to define not only the variables that drive
brand equity but also the variables that in turn
drive these initial variables as well as the extent
of feedback and interaction between all of the
variables. As Repenning argues, ‘‘scholars who
rely on conventional approaches to theory
development and analysis face a difficult trade-
off.’’ In order to make logically consistent argu-
ments concerning the links between variables
they must rely on mono-causal models that
they know do not capture reality. On the other
hand, those researchers that embrace a more
dynamic view can only conclude (unless they
use a system dynamics approach) that a
particular system is determined by a complex
interaction among variables that cross levels of
analysis (Repenning, 2002).
Methodology
The approach of this research is one of theory
building and therefore a formal hypothesis is
not tested. Indeed, Eisenhardt suggests that
‘‘theory-building research is begun as close as
possible to the ideal of no theory under con-
sideration and no hypotheses to test.’’ (Eisen-
hardt, 1989). Specifically, the aim of the research
is to elucidate the key managerial and contextual
variables that impact brand equity and
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
how they interact. The research is based on:
(1) extensive field research using focus groups,
(2) grounded theory development through
case studies, (3) a system dynamics approach,
and (4) constant comparison analysis.
Field research and focus groups
This empirical study is based on field research
which draws on three case studies: Care,
Oxfam, and World Vision, and was conducted
in two distinct phases. The first phase develops
an initial model of brand equity and the second
phase validates this initial model. In both
phases, data collection was achieved using
focus groups of the 4–6 nonprofit managers
within each case study organization most
closely involved in branding activities.
Phase one of the research (the development
of the initial model) comprised two parts. In
part one, a series of 22 semi-structured ques-
tions guided the focus group discussion. In part
two, a set of three system dynamics exercises
were run. In the second phase of data collection
(validation of the initial model), the same
participants were asked to validate the causal
loops and operationalize the key variables
emanating from the initial model. The focus
groups or group model building sessions were
conducted following the recommendations
outlined by several researchers (Anderson
and Richardson, 1997, Luna-Reyes and Ander-
son, 2003, and Ford and Sterman, 1998).
Specifically, the use of a gatekeeper, flip-charts,
and audiotape recorder were adopted.
Grounded theory development and
case studies
Most social science research today is designed
to verify existing theories or add knowledge to
an existing theory. Few researchers attempt to
actually develop theory. Deshpande for example,
laments the dominance of ‘‘hypothesis testing’’ in
research in marketing and urges researchers to,
‘‘develop new, rich, and explanatory theories’’
(Deshpande, 1983). This research takes the
path less travelled and attempts to develop a
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity
theory or model of what drives brand equity in
international nonprofit organizations using a
combination of grounded theory and system
dynamics methodologies. The methodology
pursued follows Eisenhardt’s eight step pro-
cess of grounded theory development from
case study research, which is based on Glaser
and Strauss’ work and is considered a reference
research methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989). It
also incorporates a system dynamics approach
described below.
The three case studies were selected from an
estimated sample of 80 international organiz-
ations involved in relief, development, and
advocacy, on the basis theoretical sampling, in
order to replicate or extend the emergent
theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). All three organiz-
ations have strong well-known brands and
span the development to advocacy spectrum,
with Care emphasizing development, Oxfam
emphasizing advocacy and World Vision falling
somewhere between the two.
A system dynamics approach
Qualitative data is the main source of infor-
mation in the modeling process of many system
dynamics models (Sterman, 2000). The
classical system dynamic process follows a
six step approach that closely mirrors Eisen-
hardt’s research methodology discussed above.
Both the Eisenhardt and system dynamics
approaches are highly iterative wherein initial
models are tested and adapted several times on
the basis of feedback from interviewees.
Researchers using a system dynamics approach,
specifically recommend the use of grounded
theory development ‘‘to strengthen the mod-
eling process by systematically eliciting the
information contained in the mental databases
of the experts’’ (Luna-Reyes and Andersen,
2003). Williams agrees, and argues that, ‘‘the
case for combining system dynamics modeling
and case study research approaches is strong,’’
but that ‘‘research designs that extensively com-
bine both are rare.’’ He adds that, ‘‘simulation
modeling and case study are powerful research
methods whose added advantages can comp-
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
61
lement each other in term of theory building
(Williams, 2005).’’ In essence, the parallel use
of these two methodologies: grounded theory
development using case study research and a
system dynamics approach, is expected to
strengthen the development of a theory of
brand equity in international nonprofits. A recent
pertinent example is the recent article by
Repenning and Sterman, on Capability Traps,
that follows Eisenhardt’s research design and
uses system dynamics for theory development
based on case studies (Repenning and Ster-
man, 2002). The research methodology used in
this study follows in the footsteps of these
researchers.
Constant comparison
Constant comparative analysis was originally
developed for use in the grounded theory
methodology of Glaser and Strauss. It involves
taking one piece of data: an interview, a state-
ment, or a theme, and comparing it with all
others that may be similar or different (Thorne,
2000). The constant comparison method com-
prises four stages: comparing incidents applicable
to each category, integrating categories and their
properties, delimiting the theory, and writing
the theory. Categories are created when the
researcher groups the data. These categories
should emerge out of the data (inductive
analysis) rather than being imposed on prior to
the data collection (Patton, 1990). The four
stage approach described above was followed
for data analysis.
Brand equity model for
international nonprofits
The brand equity model arising from the two
series of focus groups described above rests on
four key variables: Consistency, Focus, Trust,
and Partnerships. Each of these will be discus-
sed in turn below. In addition, for illustrative
purposes and to foster a deeper understanding
for those unfamiliar with system dynamics, the
causal loop diagram for the Consistency
variable will be described in detail.
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
62
Consistency
The causal loop diagram for Consistency shown
above (see Figure 1) consists of three loops:
Internal consistency, External consistency, and
Consistency between external and internal.
In the ‘‘Internal consistency loop,’’ a reinfor-
cing loop, increased consistency in operations
enhances program quality, which in turn drives
a desire within the organization to spread best
practices. This stimulates an increase in the
activity of internal coordination which results
in more consistency in operations.
In the ‘‘External consistency loop,’’ a
balancing ‘‘messaging’’ loop, enhances visi-
bility which drives both funds raised and the
capacity of the organization to effectively
engage and advocate. An increase in this last
variable also boosts program quality, particu-
larly in terms of advocacy. An increase in funds
raised not only feeds back to amplify visibility
but also results in organizational growth. It is
Figure 1. Causal loop diagram—consistency.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
this organizational growth, rather than simply
funds raised, that can cause an organization to
become less focused in terms of both its
activities and it’s messaging. Finally, a decrease
in focus, leads to a decrease in consistency.
In the ‘‘consistency between external and
internal loop,’’ which is a reinforcing loop,
consistency produces greater organizational
integrity which positively impacts brand trust.
An increase in brand trust leads to more
numerous and better partnerships, which in
turn, enhances the organization’s relevance.
This increase in relevance circles back to
positively impact consistency. In addition to
the three main loops, consistency enhances
brand equity which positively impacts a
number of variables: partnerships, brand trust,
funds raised, and the capacity for engagement
and advocacy. The feedback from brand equity
therefore magnifies the dynamics of the
existing structure by strengthening both the
reinforcing loops and the balancing loop.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity
Consistency over time and across borders,
has been found to be the ‘‘hallmark’’ of great
brands (Fletcher, 2002). Campbell adds that
the 3Cs of branding are: consistency, clarity,
and convergence (Campbell, 2002), and in a
recent study of financial services, De Chernat-
ony and Cottam found that consistent brands
which are ‘‘integrated and coherent, can
provide a sustainable competitive advantage’’
(De Chernatony and Cottam, 2006). While
consistency is important for both for-profit and
nonprofit brands, the greater relative import-
ance of consistency for international nonprofit
brand equity, may stem in part from the greater
complexity of brand audiences as previously
discussed.
Focus
There are surprisingly few references as to the
impact or role of organizational and operational
focus on brand equity. Most of the relevant
literature, involves the analysis of brand
extensions and their impact on brand equity.
This suggests that focus is not as important a
variable for brand equity in the for-profit arena.
However, for international nonprofit organiz-
ations, operational focus, as it relates to both a
strong external brand positioning and increased
operational effectiveness and efficiency, is a
key independent variable of brand equity. It is
interesting to note that at the AMA’s nonprofit
marketing conference in July 2006, the
importance of brand focus was a key theme
throughout the conference. From our model, it
appears that efforts to increase operational
focus have a direct impact not only on brand
equity but also affect organizational legitimacy
and brand positioning, which helps differen-
tiate an organization from its competitors.
Trust
Story and Hess emphasize the importance of
trust in ensuring loyal customer relationships
and suggest that, ‘‘Although satisfaction is the
indicator of perceived brand performance,
trust is an acknowledgment of brand motiva-
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
63
tion’’ (Story and Hess, 2006). Brand equity
is often viewed as a relational market-based
asset that arises from the relationships that
consumers have with brands. Trust is con-
sidered to be a cornerstone of any relationship
and therefore, brand trust is considered critical
in the development of brand equity (Delgado-
Ballester and Munuera-Alemán, 2005). As
previously discussed, the disconnect that
exists between the purchasers and users of
nonprofit products and services may account
in part, for the importance of brand trust
(Richie, Swami and Weinberg, 1999; Laidler-
Kylander et al., 2007).
From our model, it appears that concentrat-
ing efforts on differentiating and increasing the
visibility of the organization’s brand, enhance
trust and therefore brand equity. Roehm and
Tybout’s recent article on brand scandal
spillovers between competitors in a specific
category, suggests that the scandal spill over
effects are less likely to occur when individual
brands within a specific category are well diffe-
rentiated (Roehm and Tybout, 2006). Sargeant
and Ford argue that, ‘‘strongly differentiated
nonprofit brands are surprisingly rare’’ (Sar-
geant and Ford, 2007), which supports the
conclusion that differentiation is critical both
for building brand trust directly, and for
mitigating the potential erosion of brand trust
from NGO scandal spillovers.
Partnerships
In their recent article, Dickinson and Barker
note that there exists a growing trend toward
co-branding alliances between nonprofit and
commercial entities (Dickinson and Barker,
2006). These same authors suggest that both
parties can benefit from such alliances but that
for the nonprofits, the risks may be higher, and
that successful alliances depend on brand fit.
Lebar et al. find that joint branding campaigns
can help increase a brand’s perceived differ-
entiation but that sometimes, the variables of
knowledge and esteem can be negatively
impacted.(Lebar et al., 2005). One of the
differences previously identified between non-
profits and for-profits, is the relevance of colla-
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
64
boration versus competition. Austin suggests
that for nonprofits, ‘‘collaboration is becoming
the rule,’’ and it seems natural therefore, that
partnerships would be very important for
nonprofit organizations as well as their brands.
Our model shows that partnerships and
relevance are closely linked. The more relevant
a brand appears, the more partners it attracts.
The higher the caliber of the partnerships, the
more relevant an organization appears to be.
Partnerships influence funds raised, brand
image, and the organization’s ability to differ-
entiate itself. But some caution must be
exercised in selecting the right partners because
a poor partnership fit can have a negative impact
on image. This may be particularly true for for-
profit and nonprofit partnerships (Laidler-
Kylander et al., 2007). These same authors
also note that too many partnerships can result
in brand dilution by reducing a brand’s
differentiation.
Discussion and implications for
nonprofit managers
The role of internal branding
An unexpected finding of our research is the
critical role that internal branding plays. Internal
branding is emerging as ‘‘one of the hottest
topics in marketing today’’ (Bobula, 2005) and
interestingly, all four key variables in our model
encompass an internal dimension, acting as a
common denominator, which appears critical in
building brand equity in nonprofits. Case study
participants defined the internal brand as a
‘‘mirror’’ or ‘‘the essence of the organization,
shaping our ideas and beliefs.’’ These definitions
of a brand’s role fit the three criteria of internal
branding defined by Bergstrom, Blumenthal and
Crother. (Bergstrom et al., 2002).
An important theme from the internal
branding literature is that of consistency
between the internal and external brand
(Bergstrom et al., 2002; Davies and Chun,
2002; Aurand et al., 2005; Burmann and
Zeplin, 2005). Burmann and Zeplin state that
the strength of a brand is ‘‘determined by the
consistency of the different brand identity
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
components which ensures that the gaps
between desired and actual brand identity and
the outside perception remain small (Burmann
and Zeplin, 2005). Vallaster notes the import-
ance in internal branding, of creating a
‘‘coherent brand understanding among
employees from different cultural back-
grounds.’’ She argues that the ‘‘internal brand
building process becomes more complex as
global organizations increasingly employ a
multicultural workforce’’ (Vallaster, 2004).
This fits closely with the second concept of
consistency described by case study partici-
pants, that of internal consistency.
With respect to internal branding, inter-
national nonprofit organizations may be ahead
of the curve since they seem to have accepted
the importance of internal branding whereas it
is still emerging in the for-profit arena. The
greater importance of internal branding for
nonprofits stems from their decentralized
organizational structures, consensus building
culture, and the motivational needs of non-
profit employees. Indeed, it is possible that for
nonprofits, the role of the brand internally is as
important, if not more important, than the
external role (Foreman, 1999).
Managerial recommendations
On the basis of this model and the discussion
above, we propose 11 specific recommendations
for international nonprofit brand managers.
These are summarized in the Table 1 below.
In order to enhance consistency it is
important to increase internal coordination
by: (1) employing individuals whose respon-
sibility is to drive coordination throughout the
organization; (2) increasing the number of
internal coordination meetings, activities, and
objectives; and (3) expanding the scope of
internal coordination by establishing cross
functional teams to address specific chal-
lenges. Oxfam for example, has recently
created a marketing coordination position at
the international secretariat office to coordi-
nate the marketing activities of the different
geographical offices, and Care has successfully
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity 65

Table 1. Recommendations for international nonprofit brand managers for building brand equity

For consistency
(1) Increase internal coordination in order to enhance consistency throughout the organization and between
operations and messaging
(2) Concentrate external messaging efforts to increase communication consistency
For focus
(3) Strive for operational focus despite the pressures of growth and fundraising
(4) Stick closely to the mission
For trust
(5) Endeavor to differentiate the organization through strong brand positioning
(6) Raise visibility and recognition through messaging and presence in the field
(7) Promote organizational integrity through workshops as well as the implementation of standards and best
practices
For partnerships
(8) Select partners that provide the best fit with organizational values and activities
(9) Proactively manage relationships and the portfolio of relationships
Internal branding
(10) Recognize and embrace the powerful internal role of the brand and promote the brand to internal audiences
(11) Encourage internal brand ambassadors

used cross functional teams composed of
marketing, finance, and program managers,
to develop a new organizational structure. In
addition to increasing internal coordination, it
is important to concentrate external messaging
(recommendation 2), in order to have a greater
positive impact on visibility. Five years ago,
even international nonprofit brands with high
brand equity such as World Vision and Care
displayed a plethora of different messages,
logos, and tag-lines. Today, these brands’
external messaging is more consolidated and
concentrated: logos and tag-lines are more
homogenous throughout the organization, and
messaging more universal. The impact of this
greater consistency in external messaging is an
increase in brand visibility and differentiation.
As international nonprofit organizations
grow and expand, the pressures to address a
greater number of social issues and needs also
increases. Organizations that started off as
highly focused operationally, have become
more diffuse in their activities. Amnesty for
example, has gone from a human rights
organization focused on prisoners of con-
science, to an organization advocating on the
behalf of a wide range of. This is not to say that
there is anything wrong about this decision per
se, but to point out that this broadening of the
scope of the organization can negatively
impact both the clarity of brand positioning
and resource allocation. As a counter example,
Médecins Sans Frontières was often described
by case study participants as an example of a
strong competitor brand that drew its sub-
stantial brand equity from its operational focus
on medical emergency and relief operations.
The importance of operational focus is at the
heart of recommendation number 3.
In many cases, the nature of the funds
themselves can cause an organization to stray
from its original mission, or adapt its program-
ming to meet the requirements of donors. A
nonprofit’s mission can help an organization
establish boundaries, and sticking closely to
the mission, the fourth recommendation we
suggest, results in an increase in operational
focus. World Vision adopts a holistic approach
to development and promotes flexibility in the
field, in order to implement the best solution to
each specific case. World Vision’s very broad
mission statement supports this lack of
operational focus but the result, according to
study participants, is an unclear brand posi-
tioning and internal concerns about both
efficiency and effectiveness.
As previously discussed, a strong brand
position promotes brand trust (recommen-
dation number 5). An effective brand position-
ing in the minds and hearts of a brand’s
audiences must: provide a clear fit with perceived
needs, and differentiate the organization relative

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
66
to the competition. The ability to differentiate the
organization both promotes trust directly, and
can reduce the impact of brand scandal
spillovers which might reduce trust.
Recommendation number 6 suggests that
raising visibility through both messaging and
presence in the field also positively impacts
brand trust. Those organizations with substan-
tial field presence may be more visible and
tangible to brand audiences than those
organizations that rely simply on messaging.
This may be particularly true for organizations
such as Habitat for Humanity that have both a
domestic (US) presence, and international
operations. For some organizations a domestic
presence in donor countries may not be
possible, but an extensive field presence can
be leveraged through the media in the way
Medecins Sans Frontières for example, leverages
its activity of ‘‘temoignage’’ (the witnessing and
shaming of. humanitarian law abuses).
Promoting organizational integrity through
workshops as well as the implementation of
standards and best practices is the third
recommendation for increasing brand trust
and the 7th recommendation overall. The IFRC
provides a pertinent example of this through
the implementation of its Self Assessment and
Peer review program. This peer review
process stimulates the sharing of best practices
and enhances organizational integrity by
providing goals for governance and operations.
In terms of enhancing brand equity through
partnerships, two recommendations (numbers
8 and 9) are suggested: first, select partners
that provide the best fit with organizational
values and activities. Second, proactively man-
age these partners and the portfolio of relation-
ships. The second of these recommendations is
exemplified by the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) which has a sophisticated approach
to its portfolio of for-profit partners, which it
manages through senior account managers.
Finally, although internal branding is not a
core brand variable per se, it is an interesting
finding of our study and a theme that runs
throughout the brand equity model. Recom-
mendation 10 urges nonprofit managers to
embrace the powerful internal role of the
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
brand and promote the brand to internal
audiences. Most of the organizations in this
study intuitively do this already, although the
actual word ‘‘brand’’ is used sparely and with
care. Promoting an understanding of the
brand, internally communicating the import-
ance of the brand, and ensuring that the
internal and external perceptions of the brand
are in alignment, can be achieved by encoura-
ging internal brand ambassadors, the final
recommendation in the above table. External
celebrity brand ambassadors have widely and
effectively been used by international non-
profit organizations. Well known examples
include Danny Kaye for Unicef, and Princess
Anne for Save the Children. Internal brand
ambassadors play a similar role internally, they
are employees or volunteers that are passio-
nate and excited about internally promoting
the brand.
Limitations and future research
This, proposed model of brand equity for
international nonprofits taps into the mental
models of international nonprofit managers
who participated in the focus groups and as
such, does not directly assess brand equity
from the perspective of brand audiences. The
limitations of this study fall into two categories:
(1) replicability of the empirical research and
analysis and (2) applicability of the proposed
model.
In terms of replicability, two main issues
arise. The first concerns focus group structure
and participation, as well as the role of
researcher as both focus group moderator
and data gatherer. Group dynamics, individual
participation, and cumulative experience are
the key sources of bias. The second issue
concerns the interpretation or analysis of field
data, in both the use of constant comparison
(development of categories and data blocks)
and the assumptions behind specific loops in
the causal loop diagrams. Both of these
activities are influenced by a researcher’s
expectations and prior experience, which
can introduce a second level of bias.
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity
In terms of applicability, two issues also
arise. First the case study selection itself may
introduce a bias. Second, the sample size may
be limiting with respect to generalizability of
results when it comes to other international
nonprofit organizations and domestic nonpro-
fits. It is only through additional research that
further refines and tests the proposed brand
equity model, that the issue of applicability can
be evaluated.
The first step in terms of future research,
would be to validate and assess the general-
izablity of the model by applying it to a wider
range of nonprofit organizations.
Conclusion
This study presents an initial model of brand
equity for international nonprofit organiz-
ations developed empirically using grounded
theory development and a system dynamics
approach. It offers some exciting new approaches
and guidelines for the future of nonprofit branding
that differ from existing for profit brand equity
models. The proposed model centers on the
role of four key variables that drive brand
equity in nonprofit organizations: consistency,
focus, trust, and partnerships and highlights
the importance of internal branding. This
model is the first brand equity model specifi-
cally articulated and designed by nonprofits for
nonprofits, and it is our hope that it will be
useful to managers in the building and
nurturing of their nonprofit brands.
Biographical notes
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander is a marketing lec-
turer at Boston University School of Manage-
ment. She holds a PhD from the Fletcher
School, Tufts University an MBA from Harvard
Business School, and a BS from Imperial
College, London University.
Her research interests include nonprofit
branding and brand equity, system dynamics
modeling and exploring the sector boundaries
between governmental, nonprofit and for
profit sectors. She has written numerous
Harvard Business School case studies and has
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
67
co-authored several articles on the subject of
nonprofit branding in addition to a case-book.
She has taught at Boston University School of
Management, The Fletcher School (Tufts Uni-
versity) and has been a guest speaker at both
Harvard and Tufts University.
Bernard L. Simonin is an Associate Professor
of Marketing and International Business at the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts
University). He holds a PhD in International
Business from the University of Michigan (Ann
Arbor), an MBA from Kent State University, and
a graduate degree in computer sciences from a
French engineering school.
His research interest spans the fields of
marketing, international business, and strategy
and management. More specifically, his research
interest focuses on symbiotic marketing and
sponsorship, market orientation, customer satis-
faction and services, nonprofit branding and
marketing, nation branding, brand alliances,
brand communities, strategic alliances, colla-
borative know-how, global strategy, headquar-
ter-subsidiary relations, organization learning
and knowledge management, and structural
equation modeling.
His work has been published in the Journal
of Marketing Research, Journal of Advertising,
Journal of International Marketing, Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, Journal of Business
Research, International Executive, Global
Focus, Academy of Management Journal, and
Strategic Management Journal. He has taught
at the University of Michigan, University of
Washington, University of Illinois, Harvard Uni-
versity, and Kasetsart University in Thailand.
References
Aaker DA. 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capita-
lizing on the Value of a Brand Name. The Free
Press: New York.
Andreasen A, Kotler P. 2002. Strategic Marketing
for Nonprofit Organizations (6th edn). Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Anderson DF, George PR. 1997. Scripts for group
model building. System Dynamics Review 13(2):
107–129.
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
68
Aurand TW, Gorchels L, Bishop TR. 2005. Human
resource management’s role in internal branding:
an opportunity for cross-functional brand
message synergy. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 14(3): 163–169.
Austin J. 2000. Strategic collaboration between
nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Volun-
tary Sector Quarterly 29: 69–97.
Benz M. 2005. Not for the profit, but for the
satisfaction?—evidence on worker well-being
in non-profit firms. International Review for
Social Sciences 88(2): 155–176.
Bergstrom A, Blumenthal D, Crothers S. 2002. Why
internal branding matters: the case of saab.
Corporate Reputation Review 2/3: 133–142.
Birkin M. 2003. Nonprofit Brands: let the word go
forth. Onphilanthropy.com, available at http://
www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=
NewsArticle&id=6288, accessed on November
2005.
Bishop D. 2005. Not-for-profit brands: why are
many under-utilized by their owners? Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd Australian Nonprofit and
Social Marketing Conference, September 22/
23, Melbourne, Australia.
Blackston, M. 2000. Observations: building brand
equity by managing the brand’s relationships.
Journal of Advertising Research 40(6): 101–105.
Bobula J. 2005. Internal branding becomes a hot
topic for b-to-b. B to B 90(11): 6.
Bosc J. 2002. Brands: they need to work just as hard
as you do! Nonprofit World 20(1): 29–31.
Brunham, K. 2002. What skills will nonprofit lea-
ders need in the future. Nonprofit World 20(3):
33–36.
Burmann C, Zeplin S. 2005. Building brand commit-
ment: a behavioural approach to internal brand
management. The Journal of Brand Manage-
ment 12(4): 279–300.
Campbell MC. 2002. Building brand equity. Inter-
national Journal of Medical Marketing 2(3):
208–219.
Chiagouris L. 2005. Nonprofit brands: come of age.
Marketing Management 14(5): 30–34.
Davies G, Chun R. 2002. Gaps between the internal
and external perceptions of the corporate brand.
Corporate Reputation Review 5(2/3): 144–158.
De Chernatony L, Cottam S. 2006. Internal brand
factors driving successful financial services brands.
European Journal of Marketing 40(5/6): 611–633.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and Bernard Simonin
Delgado-Ballester EJ, Munuera-Alemán L. 2005. Does
brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of
Product and Brand Management 14(3): 187–
196.
Deshpande R. 1983. Paradigms Lost: on theory and
method in research in marketing. Journal of
Marketing 14: 101–110.
Dickinson S, Barker A. 2006. Evaluations of brand-
ing alliances between non-profit and commercial
brand partners. International Journal of Non-
profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12(1):
75–90.
Edelman PR, Brand Trust Report. 2003 and Annual
Edelman Trust Barometer, available at http://
www.edelman.co.uk/insights/trust/Edelman%
20Trust%20Barometer%202006.pdf, accessed on
October 2005.
Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Building theories from case
study research. Academy of Management
Review 14(4): 532–550.
Ewing M, Napoli J. 2005. Developing and validating
a multidimensional nonprofit brand orientation
scale. Journal of Business Research 58(6): 841–
853.
Fletcher W. 2002. Cross-border consistency is a
positive sign for trusted brands. Marketing
March 14: 18–19.
Ford D, Sterman J. 1998. Expert knowledge elicita-
tion for improving mental and formal models.
System Dynamics Review 14(4): 309–340.
Foreman K. 1999. Evolving global structures and
the challenges facing international relief and
development organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28: 178–197.
Glaser B, Strauss A. 1967. The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative
Research. Wiedenfeld and Nicholson: London.
Haigh D, Gilbert S. 2005. Valuing not-for-profit
and charity brands—real insight or just smoke
and mirrors. International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing 10(2): 107–
130.
Hankinson P. 2005. The internal brand in leading
UK charities. The Journal of Product and Brand
Management 13(2/3): 84.
Harris B, Williams B. 2005. System Dynamics,
Enhancing Evaluation Using Systems Concepts,
WK Kellogg Foundation, presented June
2005. http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/AESSD.
pdf (accessed June 2006).
Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm
How international nonprofits build brand equity
Judd N. 2004. On branding: building and maintain-
ing your organization’s brand in an AMC. Associ-
ation Management 56(7): 17–19.
Keller KL. 2000. The brand report card. Harvard
Business Review Jan-Feb: 18–26.
Knowles J. 2004. In Search of a Reliable Measure of
Brand Equity. Zyman Institute of Brand Science,
Emory University. http://www.zibs.com/know-
les.shtml (accessed February 2006).
Laidler-Kylander N, Simonin B, Quelch J. 2007.
Building and valuing global brands in the non-
profit sector. Nonprofit Management and Lea-
dership 17(3): 253–276.
Lebar E, Buehler P, Keller KL, Sawicka M, Aksehirli
Z, Richey K. 2005. Brand equity implications of
joint branding programs. Journal of Advertising
Research 45: 413–425.
Letts CW, Ryan WP, Grossman A. 1999. High Per-
formance Nonprofit Organizations: Managing
Upstream For Greater Impact. John Wiley and
sons: New York, NY.
Liao M, Foreman S, Sargeant A. 2000. Market versus
social orientation in the nonprofit context. Inter-
national Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing 6(3): 254–268.
Luna-Reyes LF, Andersen DL. 2003. Collecting and
analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics:
methods and models. System Dynamics Review
19(4): 237–296.
Naddaff A. 2004. Branding by design. Communi-
cation World 21(5): 18–22.
Nissim B. 2004. Nonprofit Branding: Unveiling the
Essentials, Guidestar.org, October, 2004. http://
www.guidestar.org/DisplayArticle.do?articleId¼
833 (accessed January 2006).
Oster SM. 1995. Strategic Management for Non-
profit Organizations. Oxford University Press:
New York.
Patton MQ. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and
research methods, 2nd edn. Sage: Newbury Park,
CA.
Quelch J, Laidler-Kylander N. 2005. The New Glo-
bal Brands: Managing Non-Government
Organizations in the 21st Century. Southwes-
tern publishing company: Toronto.
Raggio D, Leone RP. 2007. The theoretical
separation of brand equity and brand value:
managerial implications for strategic planning.
Journal of Brand Management 14.5(16):
380.
Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2009
69
Repenning NP. 2002. A simulation-based approach
to understanding the dynamics of innovation
implementation. Organization Science 13(2):
109–128.
Repenning N, Sterman JD. 2002. Capability traps
and self-confirming attribution errors in the
dynamics of process improvement. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 47: 265–295.
Reynolds TJ, Philips CB. 2005. In search of true
brand equity metrics: all market ain’t created
equal. Journal of Advertising Research 45(2):
171.
Ritchie RJB, Swami S, Weinberg CB. 1999. A brand
new world for nonprofits. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
4(1): 26–42.
Roehm ML, Tybout AM. 2006. When will a brand scandal
spill over and how should competitors respond?
Journal of Marketing Research XLIII: 366–373.
Sargeant A, Ford JB. 2007. The power of brands.
Stanford Social Innovation Review 5(1): 40–48.
Smillie I. 1995. The alms bazaar: altruism under
fire: non-profit organizations and international
development. International Development Research
Centre: Ottawa.
Sterman JD. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems
Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World.
Irwin/McGraw Hill: Boston.
Story J, Hess J. 2006. Segmenting customer-brand
relations: beyond the personal relationship meta-
phor. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23(7):
406–413.
Thorne S. 2000. Data analysis in qualitative
research. Evidence-Based Nursing 3: 68–70.
Vallaster C. 2004. Internal brand building in multi-
cultural organisations: a roadmap towards action.
Qualitative Market Research 7(2): 100–113.
Webster K. 2002. Branding the nonprofit. Social
Service Journal 5: 5–7.
Williams D. 2005. Integrating system dynamics
modelling and case study research method: a
theoretical framework for process improvement.
Working paper, System Dynamics Society, avail-
able at http://www.systemdynamics.org/other_
resources.htm. accessed on December 2006.
Woods RJ. 1998. Can there be a common definition
for brand equity? Journal of Modern Business
1998: 1–11.
Wootliff J, Deri C. 2001. NGOs: the new super brands.
Corporate Reputation Review 4(2): 157–164.
DOI: 10.1002/nvsm