Design and Formulation of Branding Strategy Select

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/317546546
Design and formulation of branding strategy selection model in organizations:

multi business ﬁrms
Article · November 2014

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-6/B.64
CITATIONS READS
2 2,728
4 authors, including:
Hamid Khodadad Hosseini

Tarbiat Modares University
29 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Technology Strategic Planning Based on Hybrid Intelligence Approach View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Khodadad Hosseini on 05 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 6. November, 2014
A. Alizadeh, A. Moshabaki, Seyyed H.Kh. Hoseini, A. Kordnaeij. Design and formulation of branding strategy selection model in
organizations: multi business firms. International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2014; 6(6), 416-430.
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-6/B.64
Library of Congress Classification: HF5001-6182
DESIGN AND FORMULATION OF BRANDING STRATEGY

SELECTION MODEL IN ORGANIZATIONS:
MULTI BUSINESS FIRMS
1 2 3 4
Alireza Alizadeh , Asghar Moshabaki *, Seyyed Hamid Khodadad Hoseini , Asadollah Kordnaeij
1 2,3
Ph.D student of International Marketing, Professor of International Marketing,
4
Associate Professor of International Marketing, Tarbiat Modares University (IRAN)
*Corresponding author: moshabak@modares.ac.ir
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-6/B.64
Received: 08 Oct, 2014

Accepted: 16 Nov, 2014
ABSTRACT
In today’s highly competitive, dynamic and turbulent business environment, brand is considered one of the
strategic organizational assets. Management of this valuable asset need to strategic thinking and position it in the
whole of organization. Therefore, organizations must decide about product or corporate branding. Main and major
question in this research is that why some organizations utilize corporate branding strategy and others use
product branding strategy. Under what conditions, each of mentioned strategies is appropriate. Can be designed
and formulated a model that guides organizations in selection of branding strategies.
This research has multi objectives. These objectives include spacious and inclusive branding literature
review, identification of branding strategies and tactics types, exploitation of factors and conditions that affecting
branding and then design and formulating of a pattern and model of proper branding strategies selection to help
organizations in this strategic issue. The effort and endeavor of researchers in this study is related literature
review, collection of factors that affecting appropriate branding strategy selection and design and formulation of
inclusive pattern and model to guide and mapping organizations. Data were gathered via deep interview with
academicians and practitioners about branding in Iran.
Key words: branding strategy, corporate branding, product branding, multi business
1. INTRODUCTION
The pressures on companies during the past decade have become formidable and they seem likely to
intensify in the 1990s. The six types of these pressures are More Confident Consumers, New Concepts of
Quality, Shortage of Skills (three factors related to people), Competition, Side Effects of New Technology,
Restructuring (three factors related to organization). In such times of pressure and rapid change, how are
companies to ensure that they stay on the right way? Most people in marketing would agree that success will
depend critically on developing skills in brand-building, that is, on using all the company's particular assets to
create unique entities that certain consumers really want entities that have a lasting personality, based on a
special combination of physical, functional, and psychological values (1).
Having a notably “strong” brand is a considerable managerial resource – it can help establish distribution
networks, enable brand extensions to aid customer acceptance of new products, and strengthen pricing flexibility
(2). In summary, corporate brands have a utility in several regards: they communicate the brand’s values (often
seen as a promise), they afford a means of differentiation from their competitors, and they enhance the esteem
and loyalty in which the organization is held by its stakeholder groups (3).
Brand orientation is an inside-out, identity-driven approach that sees brands as a hub for an organization
and its strategy. Similarly, market orientation is an outside-in, image-driven approach. A new type of orientation is
a hybrid between brand and marketing orientation. Brand orientation is, like market orientation, a mindset. The
core of this orientation is customer satisfaction within the limits of the core brand identity (4).
Generally speaking, a firm performs in two types of external environments: task environment and
institutional environment, which, respectively, stimulate a firm’s growth in market-driven (matching task
environment) and institution-driven branding capabilities. Market-driven branding capabilities refer to a firm’s
assets, skills or knowledge of dealing with the major stakeholders (e.g. competitors, suppliers, employees and
customers) in the market. In contrast, institution-driven branding capabilities are associated with a firm’s abilities
to address the constraints posed by the institutional environment, such as regulatory policy, political rules,
economic constraints (e.g. import quotas) or social norms embedded in culture and ideology (5). Institutions can
be broadly classified as formal (such as laws and regulations) and informal (such as norms and cognitions) ones.
416 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

Institutions govern societal transactions in the areas of politics (e.g., corruption, transparency), law (e.g.,
economic liberalization, regulatory regime), and society (e.g., ethical norms, attitudes toward entrepreneurship) (6).
This research includes sixteen hypotheses, eight independent variables namely stakeholders interests,
organization image and reputation, market complexity, marketing costs, social and cultural factors, product
characteristics, industry characteristics and political and legal factors and one dependent variable (branding
strategy). This research has a set of moderator variables namely firm characteristics that include age, size,
related organizational experience, top management philosophy, strategy, internal organization, driving forces and
external prestige.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, we present a brief literature review on branding,
corporate and product branding. Second, the comparison of corporate and product branding is addressed. Third,
we propose a conceptual framework encompassing factors that affect the branding decisions of developed-
country firms operating in emerging markets, and develop propositions based on this framework. Lastly, we
discuss conclusions and implications of this paper, and provide some suggested directions for further research on
this topic. The specific focus of this themed issue on Iran, but we believe the general principles to be readily
transferable.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Branding
In the continuously changing world economy, branding has occupied an important position by being a part
of existence and embracing the activities of large corporations, small size enterprises, and not-for profit
organizations (7). The rise of relationship marketing as a topic of scholarly research has established forever that
the link between suppliers and customers is not just a physical product or service, but a bilateral and continuous
relationship that lead to recognize customer needs and satisfy them by organizations. This relationship is
personified by the organizations’ name, or by the brand name on the product itself. ICI, IBM, BMW, KODAK and
Cadburys are excellent examples of company brand names. Persil, Nescafe, Dulux and Fosters are excellent
examples of product brand names (8).
To the buyer, brands serve to identify the sources of the product, assign responsibility to the product
maker, reduce risk and search-cost, signal a promise with the seller or producer and symbolize the product’s
quality. To the manufacturer, brands are a Means to provide valuable reassurance to business customers who
may be putting their company’s fate on the line (9). Brand personality cannot just be designed by a marketing
department, but depends on the whole company, from the Chief Executive to anyone who has contact with the
customers. Brand building needs to be undertaken from the bottom up and involves a profound analysis of every
aspect of the interaction between the customer and the company (8).
Branding has emerged as a top management priority in the last decade due to the growing realization that
brands are one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms have. Brands serve several valuable functions. At
their most basic level, brands serve as marketers for the offerings of a firm. For customers, brands can simplify
choice, promise a particular quality level, reduce risk, and/or engender trust. Brands reflect the complete
experience that customers have with products. Finally, brands are an asset in the financial sense. Thus, brands
manifest their impact at three primary levels-customer market, product market and financial market (10).
The goal of branding as it has evolved over years has been to explore ways to add value to the basic
product or service and thus create brand preference and loyalty (11). Now is the time to consider how to apply
marketing principles and practice in an increasingly competitive and rapidly changing environment. In essence,
the thesis is that as it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain an objective comparative advantage over
competitors, so it will become increasingly important to position organizations as "brands" in the m inds of actual
and potential customers (1).
The role of the brand within the business strategy needs to be established. Should the role of the brand be
simply symbolic, the face of a business strategy or is brand integral to and inseparable from the business
strategy? Providing an answer to this question is not easy, due to the fragmentation of knowledge domains that
contribute towards this. These domains include strategic management, strategic marketing, strategic brand
management, relationship marketing and services marketing. Both the inside-out and outside-in approaches has
accepted the increasing importance of intangible resources. The brand, through brand equity is widely accepted
as the main intangible asset of the firm and hence calls for its careful management (12).
A brand orientation offers the opportunity to integrate the inside-out and outside-in mindsets, because it
implicitly incorporates both. From an inside-out perspective, brand orientation views brand as a strategic resource
for the firm, which is not reactive to the changing whims of the market/customer (13).
Firms utilize a combination of brand attributes and branding strategies to meet the expectations of specific
customers in various social, political, legal, industry, market, economic, organizational and other conditions.
2.2. Product branding

Corporate branding refers to the strategy in which brand and corporate name are the same whereas
product branding builds separate brand identities for different products (14). A successful brand has a name,
symbol or design (or source combination) which identifies the “product” of an organization as having sustainable
competitive advantage, such as Coca Cola, Microsoft, Marks and Spencer (8).
The concept of the brand can be traced back to product marketing where the role of branding and brand
management has been primarily to create differentiation and preference for a product or service in the mind of the
customer. Within this field, there are a number of generally accepted definitions. These variously refer to the
Baku, Azerbaijan | 417

brand as “a product or service, which a customer perceives to have distinctive benefits beyond price and
functional performance” or “a symbol serving to distinguish the products and services of one company from
another” (11).
A successful brand can be defined an identifiable product, service, person or place augmented in such a
way that the buyer or user perceives relevant, unique added values which match their needs most closely. Its
success results from being able to sustain these added values against competitors. Thus names on many
products and services do not prevent them from being commodities which are characterized by the lack of
perceived differentiation by customers between competing offerings. Products like milk, tin, iron ore and potatoes
come to mind, where purchase decisions tend to be taken on the basis of price or availability and not on the basis
of the brand or the manufacturers’ name (8).
According to the traditional view of product branding, a brand consists of a set of perceptions which serve
to differentiate the product from the competition. The brand strength depends on the extent to which these
perceptions are consistent, positive and shared by consumers. To improve the brand strength, managers need to
shape this set of perceptions so that the target audience will think of the brand in positive terms (8).
2.3. Corporate branding

Balmer and Gray (15) assert that corporate brand has characteristics such as Cultural (corporate brand
roots in values and subcultures of organization), Intricate (communicate with many stakeholder groups via
different communication channels), Tangible (includes: product/service quality, business scope, geographical
coverage, pay scales etc.), Ethereal (there are often emotional responses to elements associated wit h the brand
items) and Commitment (corporate brand needs to support people, senior management and stakeholders).
The consumers’ choice of what they buy will depend less on an evaluation of the functional benefits to
them of the product or a service, but rather more on the assessment of the people in the company behind it, their
skills, attitudes, behavior, design, altruism, modes of communication, speed of response, and so on, the whole
company culture in fact (1). Knox and Bickerton (11) propose a more holistic definition of the corporate brand, “the
visual, verbal and behavioral expression of an organization’s unique business model”.
The corporate branding philosophy, at its core, represents an explicit covenant between an Organization
and its key stakeholder groups including customers. The covenant is set forth by senior management in terms of
a clearly articulated corporate branding proposition. It is professed via the multiple channels of communication. It
is experienced through corporate and staff behavior, and, importantly, through the organization's products and/or
services (16). Branding at the corporate level needs to take the whole variety of products and services into
account (17).
Corporate branding is defined as "a systematically planned and implemented process of creating and
maintaining a favorable image and consequently a favorable reputation for the company as a whole by sending
signals to all stakeholders and by managing behavior, communication, and symbolism” (18). It has developed
from two different perspectives: on the one hand, from customer centric product branding in marketing discipline
and on the other hand from a multidisciplinary perspective (corporate image, corporate personality, corporate
identity and corporate reputation) where a starting point has been an organization itself.
There are a variety of benefits from a well-conceived corporate branding strategy. It provides management
with a holistic framework for conceptualizing and aligning the many different activities by which companies
express who they are and what they stand for. Thus, corporate branding provides a solid foundation for
developing a coherent and engaging promise to all stakeholders. It acts as a mechanism to align organizational
subcultures across functional and geographic boundaries, enabling companies to better balance issues of global
recognition and local adaptation (19).
Corporate brand building is an ongoing interaction and negotiation of meaning and values in a cultural
context between different identities: the identity of the organization, the identity defining the corporate brand, and
the identity as perceived by the customers and other stakeholders (20).
3. THE COMPARISON OF PRODUCT AND CORPORATE BRANDING STRATEGIES
A major difference between product and corporate branding is that the latter requires greater focus within
the organization. One of the implications of this is that corporate marketing necessitates not only a planning
perspective which addresses the matching of external opportunities with core competencies, but also considers
the integration of internal activities to ensure cohesion and therefore consistency in delivery (21).
In corporate branding, organizations avoid confusing their customers, who would otherwise see the same
staff and the same physical evidence for differently named offerings. This line of thought, however, can inhibit a
company from successfully expanding into new market segments or products. Holiday Inn, for example,
successfully offers several tailored brands to different target markets. The targeting of radically new market
segments often requires the use of product specific brands, so that the existing brands are not negatively affected
by a different image, or vice versa (8).
Increasingly, product life cycles are notoriously short and products, and by inference, product brands are
easily copied. Corporate brands, in contrast, do not suffer from the same handicaps. Corporate brands can be
important strategic assets; for instance, they can be bought, sold and borrowed. Another crucial difference with
corporate brands (as opposed to product and with many service brands) is that the brand community goes
beyond customers to encompass other stakeholder groups (22).
The main difference between product and corporate branding is the target of branding. The product
branding target is one consumer or consumer segment with a single message while the target of corporate

branding is multiple audiences with a key single message that is meaningful to all, although each constituency
may regard the message differently (23). There are some similarities and differences between product and
corporate branding strategies. They have same objectives such as creating differentiation and preference.
Alizadeh et al (24) have made a comparison between product and corporate branding strategy that have been
depicted in table 1.
Table 1. The differences between product and corporate brands (Source: Alizadeh et al., 2014)
The differences between product and corporate brands
Items Product Brand Corporate Brand
Focus Product Organization
Management Middle Management Top management
Targeting Segments Customers Variety Stakeholders
Functional Marketing Department All Departments
Responsibility Managerial Brand Manager Chief of Executive
General Marketing Personnel All of organizational people
Communication Mix Marketing communications Organizational communications
Importance for Organization Functional Strategic
Time Horizon Short Time Middle to Long Time
Disciplinary Roots Marketing Multi-Disciplinary
Flexibility High Low
Change Agent Low High
Imitability High Almost No
Risk Low High
Values Contrived Real
Link to Corporate Strategy Poor Strong
Need to organizational cooperation and integration Low High
Ethical and Social Issues Low High
4. CONCEPTUAL MODEL
4.1. Branding strategy

Brand strategy is a strategic decision-making tool that should not be confused with a marketing strategy. A
marketing strategy defines how the products and services will be sold to the target market. The brand strategy will
involve the marketing strategy but will also go beyond that. As marketing is about communicating with customers
and the market, the brand strategy focuses on what type of brand image and personality will be communicated, to
which audiences and how will they be communicated with. The brand strategy will be used to define how the
company will improve their internal communication as well (25).
Business strategy concerns business visions, business models, strategic assets, customer bases,
competitive strategy and more. Brand strategies involve brand equities and identities, brand architecture and
other strategies to create and sustain meaning in value for the brands of the corporation. Any business strategy
will ultimately be based on delivering a solution corresponding to the needs and wants of a specific market
segment. Importantly, business strategies may exist without brand strategies (26). Managers at the corporate
level in multi-business firms that comprise different businesses have to coordinate the activities of multiple
business units and consequently face a variety of strategic decisions that concern the overall corporation (23).
One of these strategic decisions involves using product or corporate branding strategy.
Some firms created strong brands by connecting their products to a distinct social corporate mission and
values that appealed to certain customer segments. Each of the founders was clearly driven by values, each held
strong beliefs about business and they each carefully crafted mission or values statements to communicate their
specific goals. The rapid growth of these brands and related evidence of customer loyalty suggest that this type of
corporate branding strategy can be highly effective (2). The “strategic synergy” required between corporate
strategy, corporate brands and the marketing function in formulating the overall course of the firm’s corporate
strategy (27).
Increasingly, the actions and statements of top managers simultaneously affect organizational identity and
image. This is, in part, due to increasing levels of interaction between organizational members and suppliers,
customers, regulators and other environmental actors and the multiple roles of organizational members who often
act both as insiders (i.e. as employees) and as outsiders (e.g. as consumers, community members and/or
members of special interest groups) and collapsing of internal-external boundaries (28). Despite increasing
recognition that corporate identity is an evolving construct and that the wider environment that firms operate in is
in constant flux, corporate brands to date have been largely conceptualized as relatively stable entities. Through
this lens, organizations may have to reconfigure their corporate brands to meet changes in their internal and
external environments. Managing corporate brands may thus be a task of dynamic rather than static alignment (29).
Corporate names can certainly be easily applied to the branding of a corporation’s products and services,
corporate names seldom provide satisfactory solutions to the goal of communicating an effective or meaningful
message about the brand. Furthermore, brands connected to corporate names may have increased liability
should negative press occur. While there may be efficiencies in using the corporate name to brand a variety of
products, there could are also considerable risks in doing this (2). The necessity or desirability of having or
maintaining a corporate brand will be reliant on a host of other factors such as the organization’s strategy (the firm
may operate in markets where corporate brands are redundant or where there is a monopoly, or where the
markets are commoditized; the need for corporate brands within some parts of the public sector may not be as
strong, although in others it most certainly is: the university sector is a case in point regarding the latter) (15).
Corporate branding is a powerful tool for aligning the firm’s resources in the development of strategic
competitive advantage. Corporate branding has two main advantages for organization. Firstly, that the

organization focuses on coordination of the organization's structures, processes and activities, and secondly, that
it develops a brand platform or promises that reaches across all the organization’s stakeholders (30). A brand is
not built through creative logos or other symbolic features, it is built through the experience people have with a
certain product and the way the individual institution deals with external perceptions. This means that building a
brand is a process of translation between external constituencies and internal ambitions, and not a process
managed only by marketing or advertising experts. It also means that branding is very much a strategic process
with a potentially deep impact on culture and identity, and a process in which fundamental questions, such as
“Who are we?” or “Who do we want to be?”, are addressed. Thus, building a brand involves far broader
processes than developing a good marketing plan (31).
The brands as strategic assets and resources of competitive advantage for organizations in changing and
high competition world need to strategic attention and consideration from them. Strategic management is a
bilateral issue, considering organizational strengthens and weakness (internal factors) and environmental
opportunities and threats (external factors). Also strategic brand management can be viewed from these two
internal (identity) and external (image) perspectives. Establish of balance and alignment between identity and
image is one of the most issues in strategic brand management. Therefore, organizations must regarding two
main factors namely internal (organization) and external (environment or context of operation and target country
or market) factors in the selection and choice of branding strategy.
4.2. Emerging (developing) economies

Emerging markets are a key factor in the future growth of the world economy, offering tremendous growth
opportunities for firms from developed countries. The increasingly mature economies of emerging markets will
demand more consumer goods from firms in the developed countries. Dawar and Chattopadhyay (32) contend
that multinational firms from developed countries should adapt to the market conditions in emerging markets in
order to successfully tap into these markets. Thus, some questions arise: which branding strategy, corporate
branding or product branding, do firms prefer to use in their initial entry in the emerging markets? What factors
influence the choice of branding strategy in emerging markets (33)?.
What determines foreign market entry strategies? To answer this question, most existing literature has
focused on the characteristics of the entering firm, in particular its resources and capabilities and its need to
minimize transaction costs. While resources and capabilities are certainly important, recent work has suggested
that strategies are moderated by the characteristics of the particular context or target country in which firms
operate (34).
In emerging economies where social, institutional and market changes take place rapidly; this dimension is
particularly important in defining a firm’s branding capabilities (5). Crittenden and Crittenden (35) asserts that
emerging (or developing) countries have some characteristics: very high growth rates in economics about 10
percent, middle-income, liberalization of economic and markets, latecomers to development, lack of proper
business structure, laws and rules, political and decisional instability, the constraints of capital and human
markets and challenging the economic situation of developed countries for their growth. Their economies have
also been growing much faster than those of developed countries. Western consumer markets were seen as
approaching saturation. By contrast, the growth rates and general business climate were seen as more favorable
in developing countries. All these factors have encouraged established Western brands to bid aggressively for
market share in the developing world (36).
Political instability and limited or non-existent trademark and intellectual property protection also increase
operating costs and consequently reduce economic advantages for incoming firms. Moreover, cultural, political
and economic constraints in emerging markets can obstruct the implementation of a standardized strategy (37).
Given the sluggish growth in the world’s developed markets, firms are increasingly turning to emerging markets
for business growth and expansion. Emerging markets are attractive for at least three reasons. First, many are
ready for an immediate extra sales effort by firms in developed countries, which can establish a presence and
gain new customers relatively quickly if they have a strong existing reputation. Second, saturation of developed
markets leads to the exploitation of new markets in emerging economies, to shield firms from economic
recessions and changing demographics. Third, market size and market growth offer enormous potential for
marketing success (38).
Development of brand strategy in an emerging market should be based on an understanding of its
economic, technological, socio-cultural, and competitive conditions, all of which may exert a considerable impact
on an incoming firm's operations and performance (33).
4.3. Conceptual Model

With regarding and consideration of various models such as Griffin (39), McDonald et al (8), Urde (40),
Van Riel and van Bruggen (41), Xie and Boggs (33) and others models can be reached to a model and guideline
to selection and choice of branding strategy for multi business companies operating and entering in emerging or
developing markets (economies). The basis of this conceptual model is Xie and Boggs, (33) paper and indeed,
development and extended of their model to multi business companies. This model was confirmed via deep
interview with academicians and practitioners about branding in Iran. Figure 1 demonstrates this conceptual
model. The suggested model helps multi business companies from developed countries in choice of branding
strategy entering to emerging or developing markets. It is evident that this model can be a proper guidance to
individual (single) business companies (from developed economies entering to emerging or developing
economies or companies operating in emerging markets) with deletion of a section from it. Figure 1 proposed
visualizes that the strength of the relationship between influencing factors and choice of branding strategy is

moderated by other situation-dependent influences. We highlight here two major category (organizational
characteristics 1, 2) moderating factors.
4.3.1. Stakeholder interest

Stakeholders are all the people (and organizations or groups) that have an interest in a company, and that
may influence the company or be influenced by its activities. Stakeholders are any group or individuals who are
affected by or could affect the achievement of an organization's objectives. Stakeholders are important to the
organization by virtue of their ability to influence it. As a result, their views must be a component of decision-
making. However, some stakeholders are more powerful than others. So, the task of management is a balancing
act. Basically, one of the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a plan, or strategic plan is satisfaction,
resulting in reliance on the part of the stakeholders. And corporate brand strategy must be developed to deliver
the highest gains to all stakeholders and corporate publics. A successful organization is responsive to its critical
stakeholder needs and meets their expectations. Also, it must assess and understand their needs and
expectations continually and anticipate their changeable expectations (23).
While product brands may need to appeal to a limited group of stakeholders, those who buy and use the
product, corporate brands may need to appeal to a number of, quite separate, groups, including potential
employees and suppliers, as well as customers (42). Corporate branding draw on the traditions of product
branding in that it shares the same objective of creating differentiation and preference. However, this activity is
rendered more complex by managers conducting these practices at the level of the organization, rather than the
individual product or service, and the requirement to manage interactions with multiple stakeholder audiences (11).
As navigational tools, corporate brand identities are of importance to numerous stakeholder groups including
customers, employees, business partners, and shareholders. In their totality such groups comprise a corporate brand
community. However, the brand is “consumed” by different groups in different ways including purchase, employment,
and association (21).
For doing business successfully in emerging economies, building a relationship is extremely important. A
relationship has to be built with media, government, and community and with other stakeholders. Many
companies still do not understand the importance of relationship building. There is a lack of supports from the media,
community and government authorities which further aggravates the situation. Another reason is due to the fact that
many emerging economies companies lack the knowledge and experiences in public relation. For strengthening the link
between company and stakeholders, they should focus more on public relation thus leading to the creation of a
strong corporate brand image.
P1: The broader the stakeholders’ interests in emerging economies, the more likely firms operating in
emerging markets are to choose corporate branding.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of factors affecting branding strategy selection for multi business
companies from developed country entering in emerging or developing markets
4.3.2. Social and cultural factors

Increasingly, the marketing literature suggests that brands are social or cultural “property” (rather than
company property) to the extent that consumers incorporate elements of “brand meaning” into their lives.

Managers need to carefully consider the customer and other stakeholder meanings associated with their branding
efforts to make appropriate marketing decisions. Branding is culturally connected and socially significant. Brands
have value by connecting to meanings important to consumers. Strong brands have considerably more “power” to
consumers than their ability to distinguish an offer from those of competitors (2).
Ind (43) supports the concepts of intangibility and complexity, highlighting the variety of points of contact,
or interfaces, between an organization and its stakeholder audiences. Ind (43) also introduces the idea of
responsibility, stating that a corporate brand has a broader social responsibility or “ethical imperative”. Balmer
(44) states that corporate brands are cultural, as they reflect the organization's sub-cultures. Cultural, political and
economic constraints in emerging markets can obstruct the implementation of a standardized strategy (37).
The marketing literature on branding has noted that brands can be powerful symbolic products, having
considerable social impact, and provoking considerable loyalty. Brands that are characterized by widespread
consumer awareness and positive associations affect their social contexts. By this logic, brands can attain
“power” or “strength” by developing multiple social or community associations. Powerful brands are culturally
significant; they require analysis with a different type of logic, a logic that considers varying social and cultural
contexts and the formation of “deep” or “rich” meanings. Analyses of brand meaning in this cultural sense can be
drawn from sources such as semiotics, literary criticism, sociology, popular culture, and cultural studies (2).
A critical component of any demography is culture. Cultures around the globe are expected to become
more and more similar with respect to macro issues such as accountability, transparency, performance
expectations, freedom accorded within society, and product preferences (45). When brands are introduced to new
cultural contexts, brand meanings are reinterpreted and change. With brands that cut across national boundaries,
managers face the problem of managing meanings across cultures that interpret brand messages differently (2).
Yet, there will be cultural clashes at the micro level. As companies infiltrate various cultural economies, regardless
of directional push, culture clashes can occur in a variety of areas (35).
Strong corporates created strong brands by connecting their products to a distinct social corporate mission
and values that appealed to certain customer segments. Each of the founders was clearly driven by values; each
held strong beliefs about business and they each carefully crafted mission or values statements to communicate
their specific goals. One strategy to react to these anti-branding attacks is for firms to promote corporate brands
through citizenship and responsibility programs. Strong corporate brands, associated with specific values and
corporate responsibility goals, may be better able to cope with anti-branding attacks (2).
P2: because of social and cultural differences in emerging economies and more important role of social
responsibility in them firms prefer corporate branding strategy.
4.3.3. Corporate image and reputation

Organizational image is a holistic and vivid impression held by an individual or a particular group towards
an organization and is a result of sense-making by the group and communication by the organization of a
fabricated and projected picture of itself (28). It was determined that outside forces affect and form reputation,
corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by which the public evaluates a firm and still corporate
image is the overall impression made on the public about the firm (27).
To successfully compete in the market and to continuously enhance the strength of its brand, a company
needs to move beyond the internal brand building, and become successful in the external brand building, which
focuses on the formation of brand perceptions in the minds of customers (7). External stakeholders perceive the
firm through its organizational image. To influence this image, the company must be consistent and create
tangibility for intangible elements (21).
Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain,
it comes from the organization, whereas brand image is how a brand is perceived by consumers, it has its origin
in the minds of consumers. Images are the interpretation of their beliefs (descriptive are drawn from direct
experiences consumer have with the product, informational are the ones that are predisposed by outside stimuli
and sources such as society, ads and communities and inferential are the ones that are the result of
interpretations on the basis of past experiences with the product) and values (46). Image can influence the
customer choice, building brand and to add value in the minds of audience. It is in fact the perception of the
customer that how he or she thinks and feels about the brand (47).
A company’s reputation may be negative or positive, all depending on whether or not branding has
achieved the established objectives. Reputation resembles a brand but should not be confused with it. The
reputation is not a synonym for a brand but it is an outcome of fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the brand promise
and resulting in a certain brand experience. This brand experience is then communicated with other customers,
which can increase the brands value or work against it (25).
Reputation is an outcome of interactions between stakeholders and the organization over time. An
organization does not have a single reputation at any point in time. It has a number of reputations depending on
the stakeholders concerned. We define corporate reputation as: a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of an
organization over time. This evaluation is based on the stakeholder’s experiences with the organization and its
brand(s), relationships with these and the organization’s employees and representatives, memberships of brand
communities and, any other perceived communication and symbolism that provides information about the
organization’s actions and /or a comparison with the organizations’ rivals (48).
Internal brand building through brand consistent employee behavior is essential as it supports brand image
development. That means, in order to obtain a successful image as perceived by consumers, an identity needs to
be designed that is supported by employees and internal processes. Only when there is a high congruence
between identity and image, a consistent and sustainable brand can be established in the mind of target

customers (49). A brand can convey either a positive or a negative message about the product to the consumer.
The underlying value of a brand is often based upon specific association of a “use context” such as heart attack
prevention can provide a reason-to-buy which can attract customers. Such an association represents the
product’s meaning to customers. Brand associations represent bases for purchase decision and for brand loyalty.
There are a host of possible associations that a firm can build in a brand. Brands should develop distinct images
and that these images will attract specific consumer segment (50).
Creating corporate image refers to the projection of corporate identity targeted at the company's external
stakeholders and the external stakeholders' reflection of the corporate identity. A company can shape its
corporate image in both direct and indirect ways. A direct way is to frequently communicate with stakeholders, as
every signal sent out to stakeholders affects the corporate brand. An indirect way of shaping image is to create a
corporate identity within the company that then indirectly influences the corporate image (51).
Corporate reputation is more important than ever. The highly turbulent business environment, increased
public expectations, and pressure from different stakeholder groups have all contributed to the increased
importance of examining and managing a company’s reputation. Reputation is an important means by which
companies can maintain a sustainable competitive advantage and endure a long term relationship with multiple
stakeholder groups. Further, a favorable corporate reputation is thought to safeguard an organization at times of
crises. However, it can only take one negative incident to damage a reputation (52).
P3: The more corporate image and reputation is emphasized by stakeholders in emerging markets, the
more likely entrants from developed countries are to choose corporate branding.
4.3.4. Political and legal factors

Changes in the political, economic, ethical, social, and technological environment can result in changes in
strategy and these changes will shape the identity and, in certain aspects, mould the corporate brand in addition
(16). Political instability and limited or non-existent trademark and intellectual property protection also increase
operating costs and consequently reduce economic advantages for incoming firms (37).
The globalization of markets has taken place against a backdrop of worldwide political instability. Political
stability and structural reforms are critical for longevity as an open market economy. Unfortunately, many
emerging economies are fraught with structural issues that do not mesh well with that of advanced economy
thinking. Terrorism, Corruption, bribery and natural resource exploitation are critical dimensions of international
business in the emerging economies that foster political instability (35).
Legal protection of the brand alone is insufficient to protect brand equity and that brand management
ought to play an important role in a three phase process (adopting a brand orientation mindset, developing
internal branding capabilities and consistent delivery of the brand) in safeguarding brand equity (53). Corporate
reputation is affected by environmental factors such as: political, economic, social, technological and competitive
factors (52).
P4: Developing economies experience political and legal instabilities daily; as a result, it can be suppose
that corporate branding can manage these instabilities and decrease their effects.
4.3.5. Market complexity

The rising complexity of the business environment caused by changing markets, fragmentation of
distribution and media channels, and the increasing importance of networks and emphasis on co-creation of value
between the organization and its customers, places greater emphasis on the value and management of intangible
resources. Intangible resources play an increasing role in differentiating organizations and creating competitive
advantage and include organizational capabilities, competences, skills and knowledge as well as brands (53). As
the business world is dominated by competition, so only those firms would be able to survive in the longer term
that can gain competitive edge by the help of strong brand as the strong brand is the most valuable source a
company has (47).
Economic turbulence, cultural and language differences, together with poorly developed communication,
and distribution infrastructure are some of the concerns that companies face when entering Ems. Emerging
economies as markets are usually linked with high risk, but also high investment opportunities and high growth
potential, since increased disposable income, especially from middle class consumers, and the growth of
businesses in industrial and service sectors could provide long term growth opportunities in newly developed
countries in Asia and Latin America (54). In increasingly turbulent and competitive markets, corporate brands are
ways of creating trust, stability, and differentiation (2) for various stakeholder groups, both internally and
externally.
External factors such as environment uncertainty and institutional environment can create expectation.
Many firms find the uncertain environments in emerging markets are difficult to predict or control, so they typically
create strategies, including corporate branding strategies, to ease that uncertainty. A complex international
environment complicates branding strategy. It is important for firms to have a clear view of the characteristics of
the business and its competition, in order to know how to react to various barriers and circumstances (39).
The development of market institutions such as legal systems has been slow and difficult. The uncertainty
and risk for both domestic and foreign firms are still relatively high. The public suspicion of foreign firms has deterred
inward foreign direct investment to some extent. The lack of property protection also appears to be a problem for
foreign firms marketing and investing in emerging markets, even in the presence of limited legislation (55).
Corporate brands are created, in part, to mitigate uncertainty and create stability to effect operate in a
turbulent external environment. Similarly, corporate brands can also create loyalty and engender trust that
confers legitimacy to the organization (39).

Because markets are becoming more complex and products and services are quickly imitated and
homogenized, maintaining credible product differentiation is increasingly difficult, requiring the positioning of the
whole corporation rather than simply its products.
P5: The more complex a target market in an emerging economy is, the more likely entrants from
developed countries are to choose corporate branding.
4.3.6. Industry characteristics

The increased competition in industries has made many companies realize that a strong service brand is
an essential part of their competitive advantage. Because the environment in which the brand exists is dynamic it
is important that the brand stays relevant to the trends occurring in its environment, so as to sustain brand equity
(12). For example the IT industry is a rapidly growing industry with extremely short time to market and high
competition. As IT companies mature, they have to deal with typical problems surrounding all companies in every
sector, such as corporate communication related problems (41).
What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization
has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations
emerges as afield, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to
change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive (isomorphism that stems from political influence
and the problem of legitimacy), mimetic (isomorphism resulting from standard responses to uncertainty) and
normative (isomorphism, associated with professionalization)-leading to this outcome. Once disparate
organizations in the same line of business are structured into an actual field (as we shall argue, by competition,
the state, or the professions), powerful forces emerge that lead them to become more similar to one another.
Organizations may change their goals or develop new practices, and new organizations enter the field. But, in the
long run, organizational actors making rational decisions construct around themselves an environment that
constrains their ability to change further in later years. Early adopters of organizational innovations are commonly
driven by a desire to improve performance (56).
Much of organizational thinkers posit question the why are there so many kinds of organizations or diverse
and differentiated world of organizations and seek to explain variation among organizations in structure and
behavior, whereas Di Maggio and Powell answer to this question: why there is such startling homogeneity of
organizational forms and practices and they seek to explain homogeneity, not variation. In the initial stages of
their life cycle, organizational fields display considerable diversity in approach and form. Once a field becomes
well established, however, there is an inexorable push towards homogenization. It seems that there is similarity
and isomorphism about branding issue among organizations. For example, companies active in detergent and
hygienic production industry imitate from P&G and utilize product branding strategy in Iran market.
P6: organizations in rapidly growing, changing and dynamic industry are more willingness to use corporate
branding strategy than product branding.
4.3.7. Marketing costs

There are also very good reasons why in certain circumstances it is advisable to follow the individual brand
name route. As in the case of Procter & Gamble this allows the marketer to develop formulations and positioning
to appeal to different segments in different markets. However, the economics of this need to be carefully
considered, since firms may, on closer analysis, find that by trying to appeal to different small segments through
different brand offerings, they are encountering higher marketing costs resulting in reduced brand profitability (8).
In particular, institutions-the ‘rules of the game’-in the host economy also significantly shape firm strategies
such as foreign market entry. In a broad sense, macro-level institutions affect transaction costs. Institutions have
an essential role in a market economy to support the effective functioning of the market mechanism, such that
firms and individuals can engage in market transactions without incurring undue costs or risks. These institutions
include, for example, the legal framework and its enforcement, property rights, information systems, and
regulatory regimes. We consider institutional arrangements to be ‘strong’ if they support the voluntary exchange
underpinning an effective market mechanism (34).
In emerging markets, persistent macroeconomic and political instabilities nevertheless increase
exogenous uncertainty. In addition, the institutional infrastructure supporting the market-based system is still weak
or underdeveloped, giving rise to higher costs of obtaining information (55). Nakata and Sivakumar (38) also point
out that less-developed infrastructure and indirect, fragmented distribution channels are likely to increase
operating and distribution costs in emerging markets. Factors such as a relatively poorly developed retail sector,
lack of available media or distrust of messages conveyed through the system have contributed to the difficulties in
effectively marketing.
A general advantage to corporate brands is the economies of scale that it generates in all aspects of
communication, compared to the promotion of individual line brands (57, 8).
P7: The higher the costs of marketing in emerging markets, the more likely entrants from developed
countries are to choose corporate branding.
4.3.8. Product characteristics

Increasingly, product life cycles are notoriously short and products, and by inference, product brands are
easily copied. Corporate brands, in contrast, do not suffer from the same handicaps (22).
So far technology has perhaps been talked about more than it has actually affected brand building, but that
will surely change in the 1990s. There will be shorter product and service life cycles and faster technological
leapfrogging, with more discontinuities than we have seen before, via new materials, electronics and

biotechnology. Constant innovation will be a necessary part of normal commercial life, but few companies will be
able to rely on having any demonstrable product or service advantage for more than a few months (1).
It is known that organizational buyers, the buyers of industrial products, do evaluate product characteristics
beyond rice. Business to business buyers have demonstrated a willingness to pay price premiums for factors
encompassing strong brands including shorter delivery time, ability to work with prominent suppliers, large
selection of product offerings, decreases in operation costs, lower installation costs and overall improved material
quality. Brands do play an important role in communication of product differentiations to the industrial buyer (58).
Business and consumer markets have a great deal of similarities. In the end both types of markets try to
create a profitable relationship with its customers by creating exceptional customer value. The B2B market is just
the one that operates in the shadows and is not visible to a normal consumer (59). Buying unit or in other words
buying center is a part of an organization that takes care of the organizational buying. It includes all the
participants in an organization that are involved in the buying process. These people have different roles in the
process and the process usually includes employees and managers. As every one of these participants are
individuals they all have different aspects and goals for the purchase and these affect the buying process, and
therefore the decision. Buying center and the actual decision process are affected by individuals and their feelings
which are crucial for branding (60).
In a world where products and services are rapidly imitated, emotional attachment to the corporate brand
would emerge as a key institutional asset and would give corporations a competitive advantage (61). One of the
differences between product and corporate branding is copying and imitation. It is easy in production branding,
whereas it is difficult and may be near impossible in corporate branding (62).
P8: Market entrants selling industrial products in emerging markets are more likely to use corporate
branding than those marketing consumer products.
4.3.9. Age
Companies with the long history and experiences usually have very clear vision, mission, philosophy and
corporate culture. Singapore Airline, Sony, IBM and others all have very unique identity (21). Acquisition and
utilization of marketplace information enhance survival of firms, while new firms are usually faced with constraints
in their efforts to obtain relevant marketplace information the availability of which has a significant impact on the
firm’s decision-making process and marketing strategies (63).
Strong brands are commonly old companies, which have established the position through time. This
premise holds true for many of the companies on the top brands list but what about companies such as Google,
Yahoo and Amazon? This illustrates a new phenomenon that has been brought by the increasing number of high
technology and constant information flow (25).
New organizations, which are presumably also small ones, cannot enter the market and successfully
compete because of the large economies of scale attached to the existing large organizations. It takes time to
learn how to compete effectively. Naturally, older organizations have long relationships and more experiences in
industry. In different circumstances, old age and large size produce rigidities in companies making it difficult for
them to adapt to new competitive rules. Then small and relatively new firms are likely to do well (64).
P9: The length of a firm’s relevant experience is positively associated with the probability of choosing
product or corporate branding.
4.3.10. Size
Due to the complexity of branding it requires a significant amount of resources to conduct it. For SMEs this
amount of resources might not exist and this is an issue faced by many of these companies. There are some
challenges (Pressures to compete on price, Proliferation of competitors, Fragmenting markets and media,
Complex branding strategies and brand relations, Bias toward changing strategies, Organizational bias against
innovation, Pressure to invest elsewhere and Pressures for short-term results) with performing branding in a
SME. Both the theories and our empirical findings have suggested that the flexibility of a SME makes the
company dynamic and able to quickly take advantage of events that cannot be foreseen (65). Branding has a
different role in a SME compared to in a major organization. There is a big difference in having ten times as much
to spend on branding (66).
Traditionally, branding has been thought as a resource for only large scale businesses but branding can
prove equally good for small and medium sized firms. The structure of these companies is more flexible and
creative nature and has their existence closer to the target market as due to the flat structure of the smaller firms
which enable the decision making process easier. Literature found that there is a difference between small to
medium sized companies and large companies with regards to their branding activities as in small to medium
sized companies owner plays vital role in making decision in all processes of the business regardless operational
or managerial. SMEs have some limitations. Such limitations can be summarized as: limited resources (such as
finance, time, and marketing knowledge); lack of specialist expertise (owner-managers tend to be generalists
rather than specialists); and limited impact in the marketplace (47).
It has long been recognized that the management style, operations, and functions of SMEs are different
from Large Organizations. The SME owner–manager is often the key decision-maker and is responsible for
managing and attending too many of the functions performed within the organization, such as banking,
advertising, recruitment, or even stationery purchases (67). In most small businesses there is a person (sometime
a department) that is focusing exclusively on sales and rarely a person (or even more rarely a department)
focusing on marketing. In the light of the aspect mentioned, branding is neglected in small businesses, because it
does not produce immediate effects (and therefore can be considered as an investment). We appreciate that the

role of branding is not necessarily to stimulate the purchasing of products, behavioral loyalty, but to determine the
creation of a favorable images alongside clients (68).
In different circumstances, old age and large size produce rigidities in companies making it difficult for
them to adapt to new competitive rules. Then small and relatively new firms are likely to do well. The larger size in
the beginning also implies the presence of some differentiation of staff such as managers or administrators as
well as workers, i.e. other than the typical family firm. The advantages of a division of labor and especially of full-
time managers are well known and need not be repeated here (64).
It is thought that companies which are large in size (billings and employees), have visible corporate social
responsibility activities, and have high media expenditures, result in a more favorable corporate reputation than
their counterparts (52).
P10: The size of a firm entering the emerging market is positively associated with the probability of
choosing product or corporate branding.
4.3.11. International experience

Companies that increase their knowledge about foreign markets usually become more willing and capable
to enter other foreign markets. With an SME’s limited resources in terms of financial, production and strategic
position, a possible market strategy can be free-riding or strategic alliances. This is also suggested for companies
that lack presence and experience in a foreign market, network connections are potentially an essential source of
relevant knowledge for entering the market (54).
The specifically international experience of a firm appears to have a significant impact on its choice of
market-entry mode, expansion decisions and marketing strategy, in international markets (69). Good knowledge
of a foreign country reduces both the costs and uncertainty of entering that market (70).
This seems to suggest that international experience produces some degree of comfort when operating in a
foreign market, due to possession of useful skills. These would undoubtedly include an ability to operate in the
appropriate mode locally, which would develop steadily increasing proficiency over time, and might be expected
to lead to more ambitious, numerous, and detailed marketing plans. Product branding requires a fine
understanding of customer preferences, behaviors and attitudes, and is whereas corporate branding tends to be
more general, identifying broad themes that are easily agreed upon, whereas product branding is typically based
on specific product qualities and benefits. This being so, and given that product branding does require a more
detailed understanding of consumers, and given that running multiple product-marketing campaigns is more
complex that running a single corporate-marketing campaign, one could expect that a lack of international
experience would increase firms’ preference for corporate marketing (33).
P11: The extent of a firm’s international experience is positively associated with the probability of choosing
product branding over corporate branding.
4.3.12. Top management philosophy

The management philosophy of top executives also influences the corporate branding decision making.
Top managers' attitudes, messages and conversations in public as well as private can reinforce (or undermine) the
importance of a corporate brand and its role in strategic decision making. While firm culture may create an internal
environment that condones or induces various behaviors, the actual strategic decisions affecting corporate brands
arc often made by top management and are likely influenced by the top management philosophy (39).
Increasingly, the actions and statements of top managers simultaneously affect organizational identity and
image. This is, in part, due to increasing levels of interaction between organizational members and suppliers,
customers, regulators and other environmental actors and the multiple roles of organizational members who often
act both as insiders (i.e. as employees) and as outsiders (e.g. as consumers, community members and/or
members of special interest groups) and collapsing of internal-external boundaries (28). Senior managers need to
live the brand values and show staff how and why those values are meaningful for their own jobs (58).
For example, Greyser (71) notes that executives in France and Germany put more emphasis than US
executives on recognizing corporate social responsibilities and this can have an impact on managers’ preferences
in doing business with another company. Thus, the management framework for building a corporate identity and
strengthening the corporate brand may differ in terms of its particular management frame.
Dual-acting pressures from the external and internal environments impact corporate brands. External
pressures create expectations while internal coordination pressures create managerial discretion. Firms vary their
responses to corporate branding challenges, in part, due to how the firm coordinates information and makes
decisions. Simply put, we argue that corporate branding decisions are affected by both external and internal
factors. External factors affecting corporate branding decisions include environmental uncertainty and
institutional environments while internal factors affecting internal decision making capability include business
exposure and top management philosophy (39).
P12: the willingness for utilizing corporate branding in organizations with institution-oriented philosophy
(significant role for organization in society) is more than in organizations with enterprise-oriented philosophy (little
or no responsibilities about society).
4.3.13. Strategy
Given the potential needs and wants in the marketplace the limits to a given brand strategy will ultimately
be based on the definition of the business. A broad business mission will allow for an expansive branded house
strategy while a narrow mission will reduce the scope of the brand to a few product classes (26). The six station
model of corporate identity (27) emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy and marketing

strategy as part of a corporate strategy. This model also shows that brands should be linked to vision, values and
company’s corporate culture.
Brands are now being used as a focal point in the formulation of corporate strategy, an important
precondition for a new direction brand orientation is created. Well-known and strong brands have a huge potential
for increasing the ability of companies to compete as well as generating their growth and profitability.
Understanding of this immense potential will make brands paramount in the formulation of corporate strategies
and as a source of sustained competitive advantage (21).
If business units have been acquired recently or perform activities that are unrelated to the rest of
the corporation, their activities may be based on these core competencies. This will make it more difficult for
them to accept a more uniform top-down corporate branding policy. If business unit activities are based on
shared organizational core competencies however, (especially if these shared beliefs are rooted in an
appealing corporate story), these core competencies can be considered to be the rationale behind the portfolio of
activities of a corporation. This will be beneficial for business units. It also legitimizes a more uniform use of the
corporate brand at both the corporate and the business unit level. Business unit management will therefore more
easily accept the uniformity model (41).
P13: The higher the degree of strategic fit between the activities of a business unit and of the corporation
the business unit belongs to, the higher the willingness of the business unit to use the corporate brand.
4.3.14. Internal organization

Balmer (44) points to the ethereal characteristic of corporate brands as they evince emotional responses
from stakeholder groups and the need for total commitment across the organization to manage a corporate brand
successfully. Multi-business organizations can have centralized or decentralized organizational structures.
Centralized organizations as 'believing in leadership from the center, coordination and cooperation between
different business units and long term strategic targets', whereas the opposite can be described as 'believing in
business unit autonomy, clear accountability and entrepreneurial decision making (41).
The decision making structures of firms affect its ability to formulate and implement corporate branding
strategies. The locus of internal decision-making (an internal constraint) and uncertainty in the external
environment (an external constraint) differentiate corporate branding strategies. As an internal constraint,
internal decision-making is dependent upon how the firm act ionizes and organizes. No one form of
organizing, however, is 'best' for all contexts (39).
A high degree of endorsement of the corporate brand implies strong (centralized) coordination of
communication policy. In the opposite situation (a decentralized organizational structure) business unit
management will favor to work with the own brand. When business unit management is used to leadership of
corporate level management they will be more likely to accept centrally coordinated brand management and the
use of the corporate brand (41.
P14: The higher the degree of centralization in decision making within a multi business corporation, the
higher the willingness of business unit management to use the corporate brand.
4.3.15. Driving forces

For multi-business organizations, two extreme corporate branding strategies can be distinguished: the
uniformity model (the corporate level and the business units of an organization are all positioned and
profiled identically), and the variety model (business units are positioned and profiled differently and are also
different from the corporate level). In practice, strategies between these two extremes also exist. Employees who
identify strongly with their organization are more likely to show a supportive attitude towards it and to make decisions
that are consistent with the organizational objectives, resulting in superior and sustained performance of organizations.
So, it is important for organizations that their employees strongly identify with the organization (41). This paper
addresses the issue of what drives business unit manager's attitudes towards the use of a corporate brand.
Management can actively intervene in both the degree of organizational identification and the object of
identification. Communication is a crucial and feasible management instrument to affect the underlying motives for
identification. Interventions are only possible if managers are aware of the actual gap between the degree of
identification with the organization as a whole and with the own business unit. Business unit management may resist
using the corporate brand, if they perceive that the use of the corporate brand decreases the perceived
distinctiveness and the unique position of the business unit. If business unit management identifies highly with the
own business unit, we expect them to perceive lower added value of the corporate brand. On the other hand, if
business unit management identifies highly with the organization as a whole, we expect them to perceive the
corporate brand as valuable (41).
P15: A higher degree of organizational identification with the organization as a whole relative to the degree
of identification with the own business unit will result in a higher willingness of business unit management to use
the corporate brand.
4.3.16. External prestige

A positive attitude of customers and shareholders of the business unit is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for a successful use of the corporate brand by business units, however. Within the multi-business
company decision makers operating at the business unit level also have to judge the use of the corporate
brand as useful (56). Identification with the sustainable corporate identity by organizational members is important.
Organizational members will vary in their ability to grasp the corporate story and identify with the sustainable
corporate brand (72).

Perceived external prestige represents how employees think outsiders view the organization (and thus
themselves as a member thereof). Perceived external prestige (or the 'construed external image' of the
organization may result from various sources of information. such as word-of-mouth, publicity, external company-
controlled information and even internal communication about how the company is perceived by outsiders (41).
Abratt and Kleyn (48) define corporate reputation as: a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of an organization
over time. This evaluation is based on the stakeholder’s experiences with the organization and its brand(s),
relationships with these and the organization's employees and representatives, memberships of brand
communities and, any other perceived communication and symbolism that provides information about the
organization's actions and /or a comparison with the organization's rivals.
If the prestige of the holding company or its constituent parts is high, business units' managers will be able
to transfer more value from this corporate brand to their business unit. This will increase the attractiveness of the
corporate brand and consequently the willingness of business unit management to apply it to its own
communication activities (41).
P16: A high level of perceived external prestige of the corporate brand will result in a willingness of
business unit management to use the corporate brand.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In addressing the question of why some organizations utilize corporate branding strategy and others use
product branding strategy, we have argued that it cannot be stated that corporate branding is better or product
branding, but studies indicate that there is a tendency and trend towards corporate branding strategy in
organizations. It can be reached the best choice of branding strategy with precise study of market circumstances
and organizational factors. There is no the best branding strategy, but the best branding strategy depends on
conditions.
This paper presents and then explains a model to design and formulation of branding strategy (product,
corporate or mixed of them) selection in multi business firms in emerging economies or firms entry from
developed countries to emerging markets. This model can be used by top management, brand managers and
marketing managers as a guideline in choice and selection of branding strategy in different organizations. There
are too many factors that affecting branding strategy, but in this research have been identified 16 factors internally
and externally affecting branding strategy choice in organizations.
6. DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
It is increasingly becoming obvious that, the availability of comparable technology in more and more
markets in combination with the use of similar marketing tools by most competitors must make Brand managers
realize that differentiation comes from the value that the Brand offers. To solicit of this value, the right selection of
branding strategy is very important. As a further research, investigation of firm strategy and branding strategy
relations, it can be suggested. In the next step, study of synergies between product branding strategy and
corporate branding strategy can be done.
This framework as a conceptual and theoretical concept can be tested in different economies, markets and
industries empirically by researchers. There are some big and overall concepts in this conceptual model, it is
recommended that future researchers can investigate each of factors affecting branding strategy separately and
related with others.
REFERENCES
1. S. King. Brand building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3-13. (1991).
2. J. M. Kay. Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 40, No 7/8, pp.
742-760. (2006).
3. J. M. T. Balmer. The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brand management. Journal of
General Management. Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-17. (2001b).
4. M. Urde., C. Baumgarth. and B. Merrilees. Brand orientation and market orientation-from alternatives
to synergy. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 66, pp. 13–20. (2013).
5. N. Ni. and F. Wan. A configurational perspective of branding capabilities development in emerging
economies: the case of the Chinese cellular phone industry. The Journal of Brand Management. Vol.
15, No. 6, pp. 433-451. (2008).
6. W. M. Peng., D. Y. L. Wang. and Y. Jiang. An institution-based view of international business
strategy: a focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies. Vol. 39, pp.
920–936. (2008).
7. G. Biedenbach. Brand Building in the Business-to Business Context: The Brand Equity Perspective.
PhD Thesis, Umea University, Sweden. www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/.../Full text 01. (2012).
8. M. McDonald., L. de Chernatony. and F. Harris. Corporate marketing and service brands–moving
beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 35, No 3-4, pp.
335-46. (2001).
9. E. S. Kolarova. Brand Association Transfers Between Corporate and Product Building Material Brands:
Perceptions of Home Builders. Forest Products Journal. Vol. 59, No. 11/12, pp. 75-82. (2009).

10. K. L. Keller. and D. R. Lehmann. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities.
Marketing Science. Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 740-759. (2006).
11. S. Knox. and D. Bickerton. The six conventions of corporate branding. European Journal of
Marketing. Vol. 37, No 7-8, pp. 998-1016. (2003).
12. S. M’zungu., B. Merrilees. and D. Miller. Integrating Firm Strategy and Brand Management through
Brand Orientation. www.duplication.net.au/anzmac09/papers/anzmac2009 -157.pdf. (2009).
13. M. Urde. Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal of
Marketing Management. Vol. 15, Issue. 1-3, pp. 117-133. (1999).
14. L. De Chernatony. Integrated brand building using brand taxonomies. Journal of Product & Brand
Management. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 56-63. (1997).
15. J. M. T. Balmer and E. R. Gray. Corporate brands: what are they? What of them? European Journal
of Marketing. Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 972-97. (2003).
16. J. M. T. Balmer. Strategic corporate brand alignment: perspectives from identity based views of
corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 46, No. 7/8, pp. 1064-1092. (2012).
17. T. O. Brexendorf. and J. Kernstock. Corporate behavior vs. brand behavior: Towards an integrated
view. Brand Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 32-40. (2007).
18. S. Einwiller. and M. Will. Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding – an empirical study.
Corporate Communications. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 100-9. (2002).
19. M. Schultz. and L. De Chernatony. Introduction: The Challenges of Corporate Branding. Corporate
Reputation Review. Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 105–112. (2002).
20. M. Urde. Uncovering the corporate brand's core values. Management Decision. Vol. 47, No. 4,
pp.616–638. (2009).
21. B. K. Mustafa. Corporate brand management: past, present and future. the Journal of Management
Awareness. Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 21-39. (2010).
22. J. M. T. Balmer and I. Thomson, I. The shared management and ownership of corporate brands: the
case of Hilton. Journal of General Management. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 15-37. (2009).
23. M. H. Shahri. The effectiveness of corporate branding strategy in multi-business companies.
Australian journal of business and management research. Vol. 1, No. 6, pp.51-59. (2011).
24. A. Alizadeh, A. Moshabaki, H. S. H. Khodadad and A. KordNaiej. The Comparison of Product and
Corporate Branding Strategy: a conceptual framework. IOSR Journal of Business and Management
(IOSR-JBM). Vol. 16, Issue. 1, Ver. IV, pp. 14-24. (2014).
25. J. P. Ropo. Brand Management and Branding: Creating a Brand Strategy for AD code. Final Thesis
Report. University of Applied Sciences. Helsinki. Finland. (2009).
26. H. Uggla. and D. Filipsson. Business and Brand Strategy: A Framework for Integration. The IUP
Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. VI, No. 2, pp. 28-42. (2009).
27. J. Suvatjis., L. de Chernatony. and J. Halikias. Assessing the six-station corporate identity model: a
polymorphic model. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 153 – 166. (2012).
28. M. J. Hatch. and M. Schultz. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European
Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31, No. 5-6, pp. 356-65. (1997).
29. T. C. Melewar., M. Gotsi. and C. Andriopoulos. Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding:
avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 600–608. (2012).
30. R. Jones. Corporate Branding: The Role of Vision in Implementing the Corporate Brand. Innovative
Marketing. Volume 6, Issue 1, pp. 44-57. (2010).
31. B. Stensaker. The Relationship between Branding and Organizational Change. Higher Education
Management and Policy. Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 1-17. (2007).
32. N. Dawar. and A. Chattopadhyay. Rethinking marketing programs for emerging markets. Long Range
Planning. Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 457-69. (2002).
33. U. H. Xie. and J. D. Boggs. Corporate branding vs. product branding in emerging markets, a
conceptual framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 347-364. (2006).
34. K. E. Meyer., S. Estrin., S. K. Bhaumik. and M. W. Peng. Institutions, Resources and Entry Strategies
in Emerging Economies. Strategic Management journal. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 61-80. (2009).
35. V. L. Crittenden. and W. F. Crittenden. Strategic management in emerging economies: a research
agenda. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 9-23. (2010).
36. K. L. Keller. and Y. L. R. Moorthi. Branding in developing markets. Business Horizons. vol. 46, issue.
3, pp. 49-59. (2003).
37. S. P. Douglas. and Y. Wind. The myth of globalization. Columbia Journal of World Business. Vol. 22,
No. 4, pp. 19-29. (1987).
38. C. Nakata. and K. Sivakumar. Emerging market conditions and their impact on first mover advantages:
an integrative review. International Marketing Review. Vol. 14, No. 96, pp. 461-72. (1997).
39. J. J. Griffin. To brand or not to brand? Trade-offs in corporate branding decisions. Corporate
Reputation Review. Vol. 5, No. 2-3, pp. 228-40. (2002).
40. M. Urde, M. Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 37 Nos
7/8, pp. 1017-39. (2003).
41. C.S. Van Riel. and G. H. van Bruggen. Incorporating business unit managers 'perspectives in corporate
branding strategy decision making. Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 241-51. (2002).
42. G. Davies. and R. Chun. Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate brand.
Corporate Reputation Review. Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 144-58. (2002).

43. N. Ind, N. The Corporate Brand. Macmillan, Oxford. (1997).
44. J.M.T. Balmer. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing, seeing through the
fog. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 35, No. 3-4, pp. 248-291. (2001).
45. M. Czinkota and I. Ronkainen. Trends and indications in international business: Topics for future
research. Management International Review, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 249–265. (2009).
46. M. E. Malik., B. Naeem. and M. Munawar. Brand Image: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Basic
and Applied Scientific Research. Vol. 2, No. 12. (2012).
47. W. Khalid. and W. Ahmad. Branding in small companies. School of Management Blekinge Institute of
Technology, Sweden, www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/ca41c161204f5d9ec12575e0003b33f1/$file/
MasterThesisFile. pdf. (2009).
48. R. Abratt and N. Kleyn. Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate Reputations: Reconciliation
and Integration. European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 46. Issue. 7/8, pp. 1048-1063. (2012).
49. C. Üffing. The Brand Scorecard – An Essential Tool to Manage Brands. HAN Business Publications.
Number. 1. pp. 105-110. (2009).
50. J. Roodurmun. and H. Kassean. The Power of Corporate Branding in Enhancing Brand Loyalty – the
Case of Mauritius Telecom Service Provider. International Research Symposium in Service
Management. www.uom.ac.mu/sites/irssm/papers. (2010).
51. A. Handaria. and B. P. Iskandar. The Practice of Brand Management on Small Culinary Enterprises,
An Explorative Study Using in Depth Interview. Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 1, No. 4,
pp.300-305. (2012).
52. H. M. Shamma. Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Corporate Reputation: Concept,
Measurement and Implications. International Journal of Business and Management. Vol. 7, No. 16,
pp. 151-169. (2012).
53. S. M’zungu., B. Merrilees. and D. Miller. Brand management to protect brand equity: A conceptual
model. Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 605-617. (2010).
54. A.Ö. Rönnbäck. Collaborative Innovation for Entering Emerging Markets. http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:550399/fulltext01.pdf. Linköping University. Department of Management
and Engineering. (2010).
55. R. E. Hoskisson., L. Eden., C. M. Lau. and M. Wright. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of
Management Journal. Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 249-67. (2000).
56. P. J. Di Maggio. and W. W. Powell. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. Vol. 48, Issue 2, 147-160. (1983).
57. L. De Chernatony. Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?. Corporate Reputation
Review. Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 114-132. (2002).
58. L. De Chernatony. M. and McDonald. Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial
Markets. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston. (2003).
59. J. Siponen. Brand Management in Business-to-Business Context. Helsinki Metropolia University of
Applied Sciences. www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/40442/Siponen_Jere_ Thesis.pdf. (2012).
60. P. Kotler., K. Keller., M. Brady., M. Goodman. and T. Hansen. Marketing Management. Pearson
Education Limited. Essex. (2009).
61. J. M. T. Balmer. Explicating Corporate Brands and Their Management: Reflections and Directions
From 1995. The Journal of Brand Management. Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.180-196. (2010).
62. K. Rahman. and C. S. Areni. Product line sub-branding versus company as the brand in services.
The Marketing Review. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 57-67. (2010).
63. S. I. Mohan-Neill. The influence of firm’s age and size on its environmental scanning activities.
Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 10-22. (1995).
64. J. Hage. The many meanings of organizational size and age: population characteristics and from
clocks provide contextual meaning. Annual meetings of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-
Economics in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (2001).
65. K. Bergström, J. Landgren and F. Müntzing. Brand Management: A qualitative study on branding in a
SME. Jonkoping International Business School, Sweden. (2010).
66. F. B. Krake. Successful brand management in SMEs: a new theory and practical hints. Journal of
Product & Brand Management. Vol. 14, Issue. 4, pp. 228-238. (2005).
67. P. R. Berthon, M. T. Ewing and J. Napoli. Brand Management in Small to Medium-Sized Enterprises.
Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 27-45. (2008).
68. M. Barbu, R. F. Ogarca and M. R. C. Barbu. Branding in small business. Management and Marketing
journal. Vol. VIII, Issue 1, pp. 31-38. (2010).
69. G E. Osland., C. R. Taylor. and S. Zou. Selecting international modes of entry and expansion.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 153-61. (2001).
70. P. J. Buckley. and M. Casson. The optimal timing of a foreign direct investment. The Economic
Journal. Vol. 91, No. 361, pp. 75-87. (1981).
71. S. Greyser. Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. Corporate Communications. Vol. 4, No.
4, pp. 177-82. (1999).
72. H. J. Stuart. An identity-based approach to the sustainable corporate brand. Corporate Communica-
tions: An International Journal. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 139 – 149. (2011).
View publication stats

Design and Formulation of Branding Strategy Select

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Formulation of Branding Strategy Select

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Design and formulation of branding strategy selection model in organizations:

Article · November 2014

Hamid Khodadad Hosseini

Technology Strategic Planning Based on Hybrid Intelligence Approach View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Library of Congress Classification: HF5001-6182

DESIGN AND FORMULATION OF BRANDING STRATEGY

Received: 08 Oct, 2014

416 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

2.2. Product branding

Baku, Azerbaijan | 417

2.3. Corporate branding

3. THE COMPARISON OF PRODUCT AND CORPORATE BRANDING STRATEGIES

418 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

4.1. Branding strategy

Baku, Azerbaijan | 419

4.2. Emerging (developing) economies

4.3. Conceptual Model

420 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

4.3.1. Stakeholder interest

4.3.2. Social and cultural factors

Baku, Azerbaijan | 421

4.3.3. Corporate image and reputation

422 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

4.3.4. Political and legal factors

4.3.5. Market complexity

Baku, Azerbaijan | 423

4.3.6. Industry characteristics

4.3.7. Marketing costs

4.3.8. Product characteristics

424 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

Baku, Azerbaijan | 425

4.3.11. International experience

4.3.12. Top management philosophy

426 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

4.3.14. Internal organization

4.3.15. Driving forces

4.3.16. External prestige

Baku, Azerbaijan | 427

5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

6. DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

428 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

Baku, Azerbaijan | 429

430 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

View publication stats

You might also like