Abstract

Purpose
This study proposes and tests the effectiveness of an integrated approach to community-based internal branding (CBIB) in a business-to-business setting. It integrates classical and contemporary views on internal branding, integrating community-building activities into the proposed internal branding framework ensuring a holistic model of co-creation of a corporate brand identity. It also examines the moderation effect of employee’s personal, job, and community-related characteristics on the relationships in the proposed model.

Design/methodology/approach
This paper presents a detailed narrative review to propose a conceptual model and uses a quantitative research design to test a set of hypotheses using structural equation modeling on 400 responses collected through a survey.

Findings
This study finds that integrated CBIB is a viable approach for implementing internal branding. The effectiveness of building employee brand commitment is demonstrated through the testing of the model. We also find that employee’s age, gender, organizational tenure, membership duration (in the brand community), education level, customer interaction, leadership status, and participation in brand fests moderate the proposed relationships in the CBIB model.

Research limitations/implications
One key limitation of this paper is that it lacks the multi-cultural and multi-industry perspective, which, given promising results in the current context, may be investigated in future studies.

Practical implications
The paper proposes a community mode of implementing internal branding in a B2B setting and suggests a way to create brand champions across the organization.

Originality/value
As per the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first quantitative investigation of integrated community-based internal branding.

Introduction

A brand must deliver its promise (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005) or the effort that goes into market research, positioning, and creation of brand identity is likely to be lost (Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010). No doubt, the internal branding philosophy of a firm directly influences its brand image (Mäläskä, Saraniemi, & Tähtinen, 2011). In business-to-business (B2B) and service firms, front-line sales employees, and support staff are key to delivering brand experience to the customer. Further, large B2B firms, due to their extensive employee base, complex structure, and multi-national spread, are at a greater risk of presenting mixed brand messages (Lee, 2021; Martin, 2021).

Research in the areas of internal branding, and organizational behavior reveals that a strong brand identity may be built by treating employees as internal customers (Baumgarth & Schmidt, 2010; Berry, Hensel, & Burke, 1976; Grönroos, 1985, Grönroos, 1997). Despite this assertion, when it comes to the implementation of internal branding in the B2B context, the classical view of internal branding recommends a top-down approach (Iglesias, Landgraf, Ind, Markovic, & Koporcic, 2020). The brand identity is fixed and strongly controlled by the firm, and is unidirectionally communicated to external stakeholders (Iglesias et al., 2020; Kapferer, 2012). On the other hand, the contemporary school of thought is shaped by the proliferation of digitalization and the internet, and it highlights the limited efficacy of a control-driven, top-down internal branding in the current B2B landscape (Iglesias et al., 2020; Iglesias, Ind, & Schultz, 2022; Saraniemi, 2022). At the core of this school of thought is the idea that brand identity is fluid, and is constantly co-created and developed through active conversation with all stakeholder groups across corporate brand interfaces (Iglesias et al., 2020; Iglesias et al., 2022).

Results

4.1. Measurement model
Assessment of the conceptual model (Fig. 2) includes testing the measurement model, structural model, mediation, and moderation analyses, all of which are undertaken using SPSS AMOS 26. All fit indices for the measurement model, viz., χ2/df = 2.160, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.942, and RMSEA = 0.054 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). We also performed the equivalence testing of the measurement model recommended by Marcoulides and Yuan (2016) by calculating the T-size RMSEA and CFI values. The T-size calculates the minimum population CFI and maximum size of misspecification (T-size RMSEA). We find that T-size RMSEA and CFI in equivalence testing are 0.059 and 0.935 respectively (against the conventionally reported value of 0.054 and 0.950). The cut-offs for T-size for the RMSEA and CFI based on the degrees of freedom (349), sample size (400) and number of observed variables (29) are:

Abstract

This paper investigates how multiple stakeholders understand and navigate the interrelationship between past, present and future time-frames through what is termed omni-temporality. Despite an interest in the phenomenon within the corporate brand heritage literature, a limited understanding persists concerning how omni-temporality shapes stakeholders’ interactions with brands and with each other. These omissions are particularly pertinent in place branding where stakeholders are well-recognised as integral to the branding process. Through case studies of two city brands, our findings reveal tensions that arise when brand stakeholders prioritise the past or strive for a more contemporaneous and future-orientated framing. We identify the ways brand stakeholders navigate these tensions by utilising six (re)framing strategies that range from the reconciliatory to the destabilising. We show how facilitating stakeholders’ expressions of diversity and dissent can produce meaningful brand exchanges, ease the challenges associated with balancing continuity alongside change, and support an iterative form of temporal agency.

Introduction

Time and temporality are relevant to all social phenomena that interest branding scholars and practitioners, and yet until recently much of its discussion was at best limited and simplistic, and at worst, absent (Balmer and Burghausen, 2019, Carlson et al., 2019). Corporate heritage branding represents an exception having explored the multiple ways in which an organisation’s past can be utilised to support its present and future marketing endeavours (Balmer et al., 2007, Balmer, 2011, Balmer and Burghausen, 2019, Spielmann et al., 2021, Urde et al., 2007). Important to these developments is the recognition that isolating past, present and future time-frames is complex since they are inherently interlinked and overlapping. Instead of viewing each in isolation, there are calls to understand these temporal overlaps through an investigation of omni-temporality (Balmer, 2011, Balmer, 2013).

Much of the initial discussion around omni-temporality centres on brand managers’ stewardship of an organisation’s past across concurrent time-frames (Balmer et al., 2007, Balmer, 2011, Balmer, 2013, Urde et al., 2007), whereby “effective management […] calls for them to be not only of the past and the present, but also of the future” (Balmer et al., 2007, p.160). Temporal brand elements, such as history, heritage, memory, tradition, provenance, nostalgia, myth and legacy, are all aspects of the past that brands seek to package into an identity (Balmer & Burghausen, 2019). Brand stewards may face a balancing act in protecting brand heritage traits, while allowing their meaning to evolve, in a process that Balmer, 2011, Balmer, 2013 terms relative invariance. More recently, there are calls to investigate how multiple brand stakeholders act as temporal agents “individually and collectively shaping temporal relations and structures” (Burghausen, 2022, p. 354). These developments reflect a broadening understanding of brand ownership, moving away from a focus on a designated brand owner and recognising stakeholder involvement as a collective process of constructing, sharing and untangling the assortment of meanings associated with the brand (Balmer and Podnar, 2021, Preece and Kerrigan, 2015, Swaminathan et al., 2020).

Conclusion and future research

Even within the field of branding, where a longstanding focus on (re)selling the past exists, research and practice predominately treats time as a backdrop rather than interrogating its nature, meaning and implications. A weakness in the extant literature is the limited application of omni-temporality outside of corporate heritage branding and a nascent understanding of how omni-temporality is influenced by the presence of multiple stakeholders within a diffused notion of branding (Lee and Davies, 2021, Schultz, 2022, Swaminathan et al., 2020, Wilson, 2018). Our research extends the body of knowledge in corporate heritage branding and the field of place branding by advancing understanding of how multiple stakeholders use omni-temporality to shape their interactions with the brand and each other. We unpack the nuance of involving stakeholders in omni-temporality, positing that harmonious and confronting temporal expressions are drawn upon simultaneously to reconcile and confront omni-temporal tensions, which can in turn afford brands a degree of both continuity and change when navigating past, present and prospective future time-frames. These temporal expressions also allow stakeholders to forge, share and embody their experience(s) with the brand and each other, which is indicative of an iterative and organic form of temporal agency that moves beyond a static understanding of monumental time and embraces the fluidity of social time.

As with the bulk of place-specific research, this study has the limitation that findings were derived from one type of place, in this case medium-sized UK cities with over 1000-years of history. Accordingly, the results may be less directly applicable to other city types, for instance, cities with a few hundred years of history, or mega-cities. Nonetheless, some parallels concerning the role of omni-temporality in the creation of place brands and the strategies adopted by stakeholders seeking to temporally reposition their place brand, can be observed in accounts from different types of cities. For example, research into Toronto’s Distillery District mirrors similar searches for consistency through the inclusion of microbreweries; confrontational narratives around the risks of the nostalgic ‘Disneyfication’ of industrial heritage; and a redemptive narrative in which the emphasis on including artisanal and sustainable brands revived the idea of a city in which useful things are produced and consumed (Kohn, 2010). Nevertheless, further research into how omni-temporality impacts branding processes in different types of places is a critical next step to further develop the field.

Abstract

Employer branding has gained considerable interest in theory and practice, however, current hotel management literature has neglected to investigate the dimensional influence of employer branding on organisational performance through the mediating and moderating mechanism. To fill these gaps, based on the branding theory, this study aims to examine the sequential mediating role of organisational commitment, employer brand loyalty, and employee retention between employer branding dimensions and organisational performance. The results of this study led to the acceptance of all the direct and mediating hypotheses except one which is the mediating path of ethics and corporate social responsibility. The findings also revealed the insignificance of the moderating role of interdepartmental communication on employee retention and performance. The findings of this research highlight that by developing better employer branding standards, hotels can position themselves as top employers of choice to improve organisational performance.

Introduction

Due to the constantly evolving business landscape, intensified competition, and the impact of globalization; employee and talent management have raised quite challenging concerns for organisations to establish an employer brand (Elegbe, 2018b). This issue is not limited to the Western world alone as organisations in the East are also facing similar challenges in their quest to boost their performance through a robust employer brand (Bussin and Mouton, 2019, Butt et al., 2020). Thus, organisational managers must monitor and evaluate their organisation’s reputation as it fosters employee commitment, loyalty, and the intention to stay with their organisation (Donkor et al., 2021a, Gilani and Cunningham, 2017).

Employer branding has emerged as a crucial tool for organisations to attract and retain talented employees in today’s competitive business environment. It refers to the process of creating and communicating a unique image of the organisation as an employer, which can differentiate it from its competitors and retain the most talented and motivated employees (Bharadwaj et al., 2021, Mouton and Bussin, 2019). Employer branding, which is viewed as a strategic means to enhance an organisation’s growth, originates from the branding theory ideology that emphasizes the strategic use of branding as the basis for a company’s growth rather than just an individual strategy. (Melewar and Nguyen, 2014, Yu et al., 2021). The branding theory provides a framework for understanding the importance of employer branding and its impact on organisational performance. By developing a strong employer brand strategy and investing in employee development and retention programs, organisations can create a positive work culture, increase employee loyalty, and their commitment to organisation, retain top talent, and enhance organisational performance (Bharadwaj et al., 2021). Thus, employer branding is a crucial aspect of human resource (HR), and it can significantly impact an organisation’s performance.

Conclusion

Despite the significant interest in employer branding within both theory and practice, the current literature on hotel management has neglected to examine the dimensional impact of employer branding on organisational performance. Employer branding is essential both in theory and practice as it helps organisations attract and retain talented employees, and enhances their reputation in the job market. It can also positively impact the organisation’s performance and overall success. However, the incorporation of employer branding seemed to absent in the hotel sector, especially in the Asian setting. To address this gap. the study aimed to investigate the impact of employer branding dimensions (HWA, WLB, TD, ECSR, and CB) on organisational performance in the hotel industry using a mediation-moderation model.

The study’s results have helped to address a common issue in the industry, namely, managerial neglect in establishing an employer brand. The study’s direct hypotheses, which demonstrate the significant role of HWA, WLB, TD, ECSR, and CB in determining manager performance, were all confirmed. These findings suggest that developing effective employer branding strategies is crucial not only for retaining a firm’s workforce but also for improving its performance (Mouton and Bussin, 2019). Thus, managers can come up with better employer branding strategies considering the needs of employees to make them the employer of choice.

Abstract

Branding is critical to disruptive innovation and social purpose programs, both strategic arenas of contemporary and future concern. Despite the progress that has been made in the last three decades, establishing branding as an imperative for business strategy, the strategic relevance and practical impact of branding for these strategic arenas is often still underappreciated, underevaluated and underused in practice. In this commentary, I explain why branding is critical for the success of disruptive innovations and societal programs while arguing that branding academics and practitioners must remain or again become more outspoken advocates of branding. We need to communicate the conceptual and practical power of branding to the thought leaders outside of marketing, many of whom are academics in other fields, and we ought to do more to convince executives and practitioners of the mission-critical role of branding beyond marketing.

Introduction

Disruptive innovation has been one of the most influential strategic concepts of the last three decades. The basic idea—the only way to grow is to create new subcategories that reflect new and relevant customer “must haves.” Instead of making other brands less preferred, winning is making competition less relevant or totally irrelevant because they lack visibility and credibility within the newly defined subcategory. The key to strategy, then, is to become the leader of the new subcategory and manage it to success.

One objective in this article is to detail why branding is critical to disruptive innovation; it enables disruptive initiatives to live, to gain traction, to thrive, and to impact. The argument draws on my book Owning Game-Changing Subcategories (Aaker 2020). A second objective is to explore a hypothesis that in this important strategic arena, branding is too often underused, misused, or even missing. It may seem obvious that branding concepts and tools are needed in order to succeed. However, that is not always the case for many of the leading thought leaders, at least in the form of the books and articles that came to my attention. Further, when getting into the practice of organizations whether they be disruptive innovation start-ups or a program within a large firm, there was too often a lack of appreciation for and understanding of branding. A third objective is to suggest that the same phenomenon might be occurring in another strategic arena for nearly every business, how to use its resources to effectively address societal social challenges. The discussion is based on my book The Future of Purpose-Driven Branding.

Social purpose and programs

A similar argument could be made in another area of strategic importance, the efforts of firms to step up and address the serious, sometimes scary, challenges facing society such as global warming, resource conservation, inequality, and personal health. Their efforts too often are composed of grants, volunteering programs and energy goals that are unbranded, perceived to be similar to the efforts of other firms, and hard to communicate to employees or customers.

The solution as explicated in The Future of Purpose-Driven Branding (Aaker 2022) is to introduce two brands into the process. The first are signature social programs, programs that address societal needs or problems that touch people emotionally, are credible, have real impact, represent a long-term commitment; and are branded. These signature programs, which can be internal or external nonprofits, are likely to impact society challenges because they are focused, have a long-term horizon, and are guided and motivated by a brand. A brand also makes communication more effective by representing what the program is and by providing a memory structure that allows the brand to live and evolve.

Abstract

Labor process theory (LPT) is a critical approach to studies on work and employment; it is rooted in the Marxist tradition, which addresses conflictual relations between capital and labor and connects work transformations with broader structural contexts. LPT has been one of the theoretical lenses through which critical human resource management (HRM) scholars have attempted to challenge taken-for-granted concepts and approaches introduced by mainstream, positivist, and functionalist HRM research. Yet, an effort to consolidate its significance in critical HRM is missing in the extant literature. Drawing on a systematic review of 103 research articles published from 2000 to 2021, the present paper identified four key themes in previous LPT-informed HRM research, including institutional forces, control regimes, solidarity and resistance, and the deskilling-upskilling paradox. Based on this review, the article discusses what critical HRM scholars can learn from this collective understanding of LPT and how they could also employ this theory to advance critical HRM research. The main argument brought forward is the idea that LPT is worthwhile to challenge the excessive optimism propagated by the pluralist approaches in HRM.

Introduction

Since the early 1980s, critical HRM scholars have been attempting to challenge the dominant mainstream HRM research characterized by positivistic, functionalist, and uncritical approaches (Keegan & Boselie, 2006; Watson, 2004). At the time, HRM research was significantly led by marketization and ideological individualism (Dundon & Rafferty, 2018), and psychological theories were primarily employed (Vincent et al., 2020), issues that seemingly remain prevalent in the current HRM research (Budd, 2020). Mainstream research in HRM has also been criticized for its “simplified, depoliticized, and one-sided” research orientations (Rhodes & Harvey, 2012, p. 49), supporting a specific social order in which capital interests prevail against workers’ interests (Watson, 2004).

However, academic trajectories in the mainstream HRM research have not historically been straightforward, as addressed in previous studies (Gospel, 2019; Kaufman, 2004). Each specific HRM model – defined as “a particular set of investments, policies, and practices that have emerged for a group of workers” (Boxall, 2021, p. 837) – appearing in the scholarly debates must be understood given the underlying employment relationship models. This way, scholars can more holistically understand and interpret the labor problems concerning each model.

Conclusion

The present paper has reviewed and consolidated past empirical, critical HRM research informed by LPT from 2000 to 2021, thus aiming at helping scholars to gain a collective understanding of its previous results and gaps. By setting an agenda for critical HRM scholars, it argues why and how it is useful and important to employ LPT as an “antidote” to challenge and counteract the optimism predominantly propagated by pluralist scholars in HRM, who still believe that capitalism can become humanistic and balance the fundamentally divergent interests of employees and employers. The present article further highlights the need for (a) adding context to the application of LPT by addressing developing and underrepresented countries as well as the peculiarities embedded in a broader range of professions, and (b) applying quantitative methods as well as comparative analyses to more deeply understand different institutional and organizational contexts.

Abstract

     Co-branding is a popular brand leveraging strategy, widely regarded as beneficial to allied brands. Despite its popularity in practice, there is a paucity of research on co-branding strategies in masstige marketing and luxury branding. Employing a quantitative research design via two survey-based experiments we examine the viability of co-branding versus downward extension on luxury consumers’ attitudes and purchase intent. Underpinned by Categorization and Information Integration theories, we find co-branding to be the more desirable masstige strategy in eliciting favorable consumer responses. Further, we show that co-branding is not detrimental to the prestige and desirability of the luxury brand partner, thus countering the narrative that democratization of luxury dilutes luxury brands’ appeal. Our research advances knowledge on luxury consumers’ evaluations of competing masstige strategies, the mechanisms underlying such evaluations, and the spillover effect of co-branding on luxury brands. We offer actionable implications for luxury brand managers desiring to expand into mass prestige markets.

Introduction

     Mass Prestige or Masstige is one of the fastest growing product categories in today’s ultra-competitive marketplace (Business of Fashion, 2019, Forbes, 2020). The popular brand-positioning strategy which involves premium mass marketed goods sold at a mid-market price point (Kumar et al., 2020, Silverstein and Fiske, 2003) is fast finding favor with consumers who have aspirational tastes but are value-conscious. Masstige strategy is increasingly prevalent among luxury brands who, prompted by global downturns have sought alternative strategies to increase their brand presence among millennials who represent 32% of the luxury market now but will grow to command over 60% of the market by 2025 (Boston Consulting Group, 2021). Traditionally, the category grew from luxury brands extending their brands down market (e.g., Ralph Lauren’s diffusion brand Polo by Ralph Lauren), however, more recently luxury brands have opted to dabble in the mid-market space by introducing masstige products via collaborations with high street retailers. For example, Versace’s successful collaboration with H&M created buzz for both brands and saw long queues and website crashes from fans determined to purchase the products (Guardian, 2011). In fact, the collaboration was so fruitful that it was greenlighted for a second season in 2012 (Vogue, 2016). H&M has successfully partnered with other luxury brands such as Balmain in 2015, Kenzo in 2016, Moschino in 2018 and Simone Rocha more recently in 2021 (Wear Next, 2022). According to the luxury resale platform The RealReal (cited by Reuters, 2019), pieces from the collaborations with H&M sell 22% faster than the luxury brands’ main labels. Other notable co-branding masstige examples by luxury brands with high street retailers include Prada and LG, Balmain and Barbie, Hermès and Apple, Manolo Blahnik and Birkenstock among others. By partnering with high street retailers, luxury brands can expand their operations whilst reducing expenditure, minimizing risk, and driving brand awareness among a new segment of consumers (e.g., Oeppen and Jamal, 2014, Shan et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2012).

General discussion

     Is co-branding as a masstige strategy for luxury brands desirable or not? Results from Study 1 provides support for the viability of cobranding as an attractive strategy for luxury brands wishing to expand in the mass prestige market. The results further show that collaboration with a high street retail brand elicits more favorable consumer responses than introducing a less expensive product extension. Whilst co-branding is not without risks, our findings support Mroz-Gorgo ´ n (2016) ´ claim that masstige via co-branding is arguably one of the best strategies for luxury brands to attract new customers, strengthen brand identity and boost sales.

     Moreover, Study 2 provides further evidence to support the desirability of masstige via co-branding. Specifically, our findings counter widely accepted views that partnerships with mass market retail brands will damage the luxury brands’ reputation and status. One of the biggest challenges facing luxury brands and their willingness to explore masstige strategies is the luxury paradox, i.e., how to balance the once exclusive realm with mass consumption. As Kumar et al. (2020) note, the popularity of masstige marketing acts against the basic tenet of luxury branding. Consequently, brands fear it will damage their luxury brand image. Importantly, our results demonstrate that masstige via cobranding assumes relatively low risk in terms of harming the luxury brands desirability and prestige. Notably, we found no impact of masstige co-branding strategy on brand exclusivity. This non-significant relationship can be potentially explained by the fact that exclusivity is viewed from the prism of accessibility (Bachmann et al., 2019). Luxury brands are perceived as exclusive as their availability is restricted, which may not be the case for masstige co-branded offers which are developed for the wider market resulting in greater accessibility of luxury brands via mid-range price points. Thus, while luxury brands will retain their prestige and desirability post extension they may not be perceived as exclusive due to widening accessibility.

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Methodology

4. Theoretical model

5. Analysis and results

6. Discussion and conclusion

7. Implications

8. Limitations and future research directions

References

Abstract

Purpose – A place brand is a culmination of its exclusive history, people and traditions that affect customer and community experiences. Place branding has become increasingly important for collective heritage brand strategy, as stakeholders undertake efforts to create an aura of a distinctive geographic location. Though place branding has received considerable scholarly attention, there is a lacuna: the role of residents as cocreators of a place and its heritage. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop a “bi-directional participatory place branding” model by applying the stimulus–organism–response approach grounded theory.

Design/methodology/approach – A grounded theory approach with multi-sited ethnography, personal interviews (with residents and city leaders) and observational techniques were adopted in a UNESCO world heritage city of India, Ahmedabad. Findings – The findings indicate that the people (residents) aspect of place branding is associated with their life stories, past experiences, feelings and aspirations. However, the place acts as a nostalgia enabler, disseminating symbolic and heritage metaphors to residents and visitors as place brand ambassadors. When the place and people components are perceived positively, residents participate involve themselves with the place and thus, in turn, become the place ambassadors.

Originality/value – No prior studies have analyzed the association between residents, the place where they reside and the resultant behavior toward the place. The unique contribution is the bi-directional participatory place branding model, especially involving a UNESCO world heritage city rather than solely a site.

1. Introduction

The democratization of economic development and urbanization aspects among people has led to competition across places, countries, cities and associated government investment in the last few decades (Ma et al., 2019; Han et al., 2019; Ma et al., 2020). These efforts have led to increased visibility of place and development of branding practices that facilitate making a place unique and accessible to people. A consequence has been acute research attention in the domain of place branding (Ma et al., 2019; Rebelo et al., 2019). Place branding has been defined as “the current episode of place marketing development” (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2008) and is focused on effectively creating and launching strategies that help hone the place’s image (Rebelo et al., 2019).

Places often strive for awareness and attention to stay competitive and achieve broader economic, political, and social objectives and become corporate and community brands (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2005). Over the past 40 years, implementation of place branding has become markedly focused, integrated and strategically oriented, thus creating cultural meaning (Pedeliento and Kavaratzis, 2019; Ma et al., 2020).

Abstract

     This paper aims to explore how cultural heritage knowledge leverage country branding and contribute to developing a competitive identity. More specifically, we try to understand the role of visitor experiences and the community’s engagement in this dynamic process. The study focused on Portugal’s country brand and the Portuguese cultural heritage market. Based on the content analysis of the interview scripts of public decision-makers, museum/site managers, academics, and a tourism entrepreneur, the study offers exploratory findings regarding the roles performed by public entities and other institutions and the means used to attract visitors to heritage sites and encourage the engagement of the different ‘actors’ in cultural heritage experiences. Results indicate that cultural heritage represents a dimension of country identity and a driving factor of the tourism sector for Portugal.

Introduction

     The notion of nation branding gained attention in the last years when academics and policymakers started to approach country reputation in the same way as companies and products’ brand images. Simon Anholt coined the concept of nation branding in 1996 (Dinnie, 2008). Later, Anholt (2008) refers to an abusive commercial appropriation of the term that excludes other important aspects of a national identity, which also contribute to the formation of a country brand image. Therefore, Anholt proposes the notion of competitive identity. The competitive identity concept represents a wide approach to the country image. It encompasses the interactions and dynamics between the political and economic competitiveness contexts. These interactions can be accessed into six dimensions – exports, government, tourism, culture, people, and immigration & investment – which constitute the ‘Nation Brand Index’ developed by Anholt in 2005. The Anholt’s Nation Brands Index approaches country image by examining these six dimensions of ‘national competence’ (Nation Brands Index Report for Scotland, 2018). Each dimension contributes equally to the formation of the country brand reputation. In particular, the cultural dimension includes several aspects, namely global perceptions of a nation’s heritage and the country contemporary culture. The dimension of tourism captures the motivations essentially to visit the country. More specifically, its natural beauty, historic buildings, environment, and cities atmospheres.

Conclusion

     This exploratory study seeks to shed light on the link between a nation’s heritage and country branding, more specifically, Portugal nation brand. Portugal is one of the oldest countries in Europe, with an interesting and unique history. However, Portugal’s country image and its touristic image are much associated with the beaches, fado, and football, and less with its ancestry and patrimony (Custódio & Gouveia, 2007). As the studies specifically focused on the Portuguese context are still scarce, it was important to learn from the empirical experience of these cultural heritage decision-makers and their perceptions forged on the direct contact with tourists and visitors. This can also be a contribution of interest for managers of other countries in the process of building a strong nation brand image. Therefore, our purpose was to explore this link and decipher some avenues for future research.

Abstract

Open Access and Permissions

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Order Article Reprints

Abstract

This review expands our insight into the ways the required adaptation to digital channels caused by COVID-19 has affected the creation of brand equity through social media marketing. Based on a systematic literature review, we propose a conceptual framework that answers the following research question: How can businesses, amidst and after the COVID-19 pandemic, adapt their social media marketing strategy to create positive brand equity? The conceptual framework describes four components as the basis for a potential social media marketing strategy. First, (1) businesses need to develop a clear perspective on their current social media marketing activities, and (2) evaluate current branding elements. Based on this, (3) the timeline of marketing activities must be postponed or adapted to the needs of consumers. Lastly, (4) businesses must adapt their messaging to show empathy and deliver relevant information. Within this process, governmental parties, financial institutions, influencers, and consumers are identified as stakeholders who influence and assist businesses in optimizing their social media marketing strategy. These findings are relevant for academics and businesses to further understand the long-term effects of COVID-19 on social media marketing. Additionally, they highlight that the roles of online channels and the consumer are expanding in the future.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has created substantial growth for internet-based businesses as an increasing number of consumers are shopping online [1]. In 2020, the global ecommerce market has seen an increase of 27.6%, surpassing over 4.28 trillion US dollars [2]. In the past few years, organizations have been subject to the introduction of digital technologies that transform organizations, interactions with consumers, and the creation of value [3–5]. Online shopping has created the opportunity to compare products more conveniently and consumers can easily choose the products that fit their needs the most [6]. Mostly young consumers have shifted to online spending, affecting the manner in which businesses have to operate as young consumers are more likely to shop through social media [7]. Additionally, 62% base their purchase decisions on the impact that these have on society, e.g., sustainable and green products, in comparison to 53% of middle-aged consumers and 44% of older consumers [7].

Subsequently, as more consumers and businesses are adapting to buying and selling through online channels, the digital marketing sphere is becoming more competitive [8]. When looking at the state of digital marketing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, a special emphasis should be put on Social Media Marketing (SMM) as it offers a wide range of tools to target customers more effectively. Social media has also become a large influence on online shopping, as research shows that 54% of purchases made by younger consumers are from independent retailers they discovered via social media [7]; this is 43% for middle-aged consumers and 25% for older consumers. This is especially promising as social media has become a primary communication channel for many and the time consumers spent online has drastically increased since the start of the pandemic [1,9]. As SMM is aimed at the creation of interactions with consumers in the digital settings where they already spend time, businesses can enhance their customer experience by analyzing customers and their conversations [10].

Personal branding is a rapidly growing phenomenon taking place in multistakeholder ecosystems. This article builds on ethnographic fieldwork from the rock-climbing industry in the US and Europe to show how stakeholders enable and shape the personal branding practices of professional climbers. Findings demonstrate that personal branding is a highly social practice wherein stakeholders provide three types of resources to elaborate personal brands: material resources, informational resources, and symbolic resources. In addition, six main conventions guiding stakeholders’ relationships and enabling resource transfer are then identified and theorized. Finally, these findings are built upon to suggest a framework to analyze stakeholder cooperation in personal branding.

Introduction

Personal branding refers to the creation and management of personal brands by people who apply marketing principles to themselves for promotional purposes (Pagis & Ailon, 2017; Shepherd, 2005). This type of branding is a central concern for many professionals, such as athletes (e.g., Arai, Ko, & Kaplanidou, 2013), models (e.g., Parmentier, Fischer, & Reuber, 2013), knowledge workers (e.g., Bandinelli & Arvidsson, 2013; Gandini, 2016), bloggers and influencers (e.g., Duffy & Hund, 2015; Erz & Christensen, 2018). People increasingly use social media to elaborate and disseminate a particular image of themselves (Duffy & Hund, 2015; Marwick, 2013). Scholars have described their motivations as self-serving and calculated (e.g., Hearn, 2008, 2010), embedded in the growing marketization of social relationships across professional contexts supported by digital technologies (Gandini, 2016). This literature suggests that personal branding is a highly individual practice sharing similarities with product branding. However, brands are not created in isolation, but through the complex set of social relationships established among interrelated stakeholders (Michel, 2017; Von Wallpach, Hemetsberger, & Espersen, 2017). These stakeholders play active roles in branding processes by providing resources (Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016). They may have different expectations when collaborating with a brand (Jones, 2005), varying resources and power (Mäläskä, Saraniemi, & Tähtinen, 2011), and diverse backgrounds and norms (Hillebrand, Driessen, & Koll, 2015). Despite this acknowledgment of the role of stakeholders in branding, their potential participation in personal branding has received little attention. A consequence is that knowledge on the influence and role of stakeholders in the creation of personal brands remains limited to descriptive accounts of the multistakeholder ecosystems where personal brands are built.

1- Introduction

2- Literature and hypotheses

3- Methods

4- Results

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

Private branding, a retail trend whereby products made by unaffiliated manufacturers are sold under the private brands owned by retailers, has coincided with another trend known as foreign sourcing, whereby retailers outsource products from foreign manufacturers. Prior studies have tended to treat private branding and foreign sourcing as two separate trends without paying much attention to their coincidence. In this paper, we take a transaction cost approach to explore why the two retail trends coincide and whether there is a causality direction between them. Focusing on the manufacturer-retailer relationship, we point out that a special case of asset specificity (i.e., brand specificity) can drive up the costs of intra-channel transactions in foreign sourcing, in that private branding serves to neutralize the transaction cost disadvantage of foreign manufacturers and preserve their production cost advantage. Empirical data drawn from a multi-product/single-retailer sample confirm this transaction cost view and reveal a clear causality direction between the two retail trends. Both scholars and managers can derive useful insights from the conceptual framework and empirical evidence presented in this paper.

Introduction

Private brand products are made by unaffiliated manufacturers but sold under the private brands owned by retailers (Fitzell, 1982, 1992; Kumar & Steenkamp, 2007). Since its rise in the 1970s, private branding has become widespread in the retail industry. In the United States, for instance, over 60% of shoppers fill about half of their grocery carts with private brand items (Store brands decisions, 2012). National retail chains such as Target and Whole Foods have introduced private brands in many product categories (Intelligence Node, 2017). The rise of private branding has attracted the attention of marketing researchers, who tend to treat it as a store-level tactic for retailers to reach certain market segments (Ailawadi, Pauwels, & Steenkamp, 2008; Kamakura & Russell, 1989; Steenkamp & Dekimpe, 1997). Simultaneously, the last four decades have seen the hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing sectors, in that retail chains have increasingly moved from domestic to foreign suppliers to fill their store shelves (Doh, 2005; Li, Murray, & Scott, 2000; Raa & Wolff, 2001). The practice of foreign sourcing can be handily explained through trade theories at the country level—that is, retailers are expected to source more from foreign suppliers because the United States is losing comparative advantages to foreign countries (Melvin, 1985; Ruffin, 1990). The problem is that the decision to use foreign sourcing is not made at the country level. Instead, it is a cost-cutting decision made at the product level. This product-level decision varies substantially across retail chains, in that some choose to source a product internationally; others elect to do so domestically. Yet, the choice between domestic and foreign sourcing has not been analyzed at the firm level in the trade literature.

Successful hotel branding requires the management of both external and internal branding. External branding has been widely studied to understand how hotel brands connect with customers; however, internal branding targets internal employees, and the practice is not well understood by hoteliers. For that reason, this study proposes a framework for implementing internal branding in hotel organizations. We analyzed an internal branding project for three consecutive years using a participatory action study. The findings of this study support a six dimensions framework for implementing internal branding strategies: (1) corporate support; (2) leadership of managers; (3) reciprocal learning; (4) being proactive at the personal level; (5) characteristics of departments; and (6) performance evaluation. In the proposed framework, we applied a combined social identity and social exchange approach to identify how these approaches function in different paths which contributes new theoretical insights to the understanding of internal branding.

Introduction

To build strong brands, both internal and external branding initiatives are needed (Davies & Chun, 2002). Brands need to maintain relationships with both internal and external stakeholders by improving both internal organizational identity and external customer identity (Urde, 2003). When considering internal branding, employees are vital assets to building and maintaining a favorable corporate reputation and brand image (Gofton, 2000). Organizations and customers are better served if employees have a strong attachment to and a positive image of their own companies. Employees’ identification with and internalization of a company’s brand values and norms can reflect strongly on their service to external customers (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001) which is particularly relevant to front-line team members in the service industry. The central role of service employees in the hotel industry cannot be overemphasized. Service organizations are labor-intensive, and they depend on employees to maintain and deliver brand promises to guests. Because of their many interactions with customers, the perception of employee service and the actual delivery of service (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985) determine the scope of service quality and, ultimately, customer satisfaction with the brand. During service delivery, employee attitude and brand-related competencies are highly valued (O’Neill & Mattila, 2010); therefore, the benefit of well-trained employees who “live the brand” (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001) is growing, yet few service studies have comprehensively examined employee brand education (Terglav, Ruzzier, & Kaše, 2016).

As national, state, and local governments implement strategic place branding and marketing plans, questions remain about how to best measure the success of such endeavors. Using a natural quasi-experimental design, we evaluate how well marketing efforts from Brand USA achieve intended tourism goals. Brand USA was created in 2009 to market the country abroad. Based on air travel data collected from the National Travel and Tourism Office, Brand USA reports, and economic indicators from the World Bank, we find Brand USA’s marketing efforts have little effect on inbound international travel to the US, thus showing a potential weakness in place marketing efforts abroad. Findings suggest the organization may decrease the effectiveness of the complex branding campaign.

Introduction

Popular news outlets have covered President Trump and his effect on travel to the United States. Recently, news of the US Supreme Court upholding Trump’s travel ban caused a spokesperson for Brand USA, the government’s destination marketing agency, to reaffirm the role of destination marketing and implore people to transcend political rhetoric and visit the US (Leposa, 2018). What some are calling the “Trump slump” has cost the US travel and tourism industry an estimated $4.6 billion and 40,000 jobs (US Travel Association, 2018). Perhaps signaling Brand USA as extraneous government spending, the Trump administration threatened to revoke funding for the agency in its fiscal year 2018 budget request (Gingerish, 2018). Together these events beg the question: How well do Brand USA’s destination branding and marketing efforts work? Brand America is one of the strongest nation brands in the world (Anholt & Hildreth, 2010), so it might seem unusual for the country to have its own marketing and branding agency. In this case, Brand USA serves that role as a federally funded public-private partnership (PPP) established in the 2009 Travel Promotion Act. Brand USA’s goal is to develop and communicate the US brand to targeted countries globally to increase leisure travel to the United States. Given that federal dollars fund these efforts, understanding the performance of Brand USA’s international communications efforts via country-specific targeted marketing strategies becomes prudent. While Brand USA leaders and spokespeople continue to praise the efforts of the organization, we evaluate if Brand USA’s international branding marketing efforts indeed help increase US tourism. The question addresses a gap in the place branding and marketing literature about measuring success of such programs (Zenker & Marin, 2011). Given Brand USA targets certain countries and not others, we have a natural quasi-experiment that allows for evaluation of programmatic success. By comparing countries that received the marketing treatment with those that did not, we find that Brand USA may not be successful in its efforts. The organization presents a picture of success to sustain funding given that, when adding social, economic, and other controls for the nations targeted, their marketing efforts abroad do not work well. This finding confirms existing literature that suggests is it difficult to measure place marketing success, as the one-to-one relationship of treatment-effect is elusive at best (Aaker & Joachimstahler, 2009). It is challenging to measure whether someone saw an ad for Brand USA and selected the country for travel or had plans to travel to the US anyway. Therefore, Brand USA’s claims that direct marketing works in this manner is spurious at best. Brand USA, as a PPP, has the incentive to return less revenue to its tourism mission, instead allocating resources to marketing the agency itself to its members and policymakers through glossy annual reports.

چکیده
زمانیکه حکومت های ملی، ایالتی و محلی طرح های «برندینگ مکان استراتژیکی » و «طرح های بازاریابی» را اجرا می کنند، سوالاتی در مورد بهترین راه سنجش موفقیت این تلاش ها باقی می ماند. ما با استفاده از یک طرح شبه-آزمایشی طبیعی این مسئله را بررسی می کنیم که تلاش های بازاریابی برند یو اس اِی تا چه حد می توانند اهداف تعیین شده توریسم را بخوبی انجام دهند. برند یو اس اِی در سال 2009 برای بازاریابی کالاهای آمریکایی و صادرات آنها به خارج ایجاد شد. ما بر اساس داده های «مسافرت هوایی» جمع آوری شده از اداره مسافرت و توریسم ملی ، گزارشات برند یو اس اِی، و شاخص های اقتصادی بانک جهانی، پی بردیم که تلاش های بازاریابی برند یو اس اِی تأثیر کمی بر روی مسافرت های بین المللی درون مرزی به ایالات متحده دارد و بنابراین یک نقطه ضعف احتمالی در «تلاش های بازاریابی مکان در خارج کشور» را نشان می دهد. یافته های این مطالعه پیشنهاد می کند که اثربخشی کمپین برندینگ مختلط این سازمان ممکن است کاهش یابد.
کلمات کلیدی: برندینگ ملی، شراکت خصوصی عمومی، ارزیابی برنامه، بازاریابی

1. مقدمه
این روزها تیترهای اخبار معروف در مورد پرزیدنت ترامپ و تأثیر او بر روی مسافرت به ایالات متحده توضیح می دهند. اخیراً اخبار دیوان عالی ایالات متحده در حمایت از ممنوعیت مسافرت های ترامپ، باعث شده است که یک سخنگوی برند یو اس اِی (نماینده بازاریابی مقصد حکومت) مجدداً بر نقش بازاریابی مقصد تأکید و از آن حمایت کند، و از مردم بخواهد که از مرزهای سیاسی فراتر روند و از ایالات متحده بازدید کنند (لِپوسا 2018). «رکود ترامپ » باعث خسارت 4.6 میلیارد دلاری و از بین رفتن 40,000 شغل در صنعت مسافرت و توریسم ایالات متحده شده است (انجمن مسافرت ایالات متحده، 2018). شاید دفتر ترامپ با معرفی برند یو اس اِی بعنوان یک هزینه دولتی غیرضروری، باعث شده است که احتمال عدم تخصیص بودجه به این شرکت در درخواست بودجه سال مالی 2018 افزایش یابد (جینجِریش 2018). رویهمرفته این رویدادها یک سوال را مطرح می کنند: تلاش های بازاریابی و برندینگ مقصد برند یو اس اِی تا چه حد موفقیت آمیز بوده است؟