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

۴٫۱٫ 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., χ۲/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: