Corporate Brand Management

ASSIGNMENT # 2

SUBMITTED TO: DR. HEBA H. SADEK

SUBMITTED BY: Ahmed Magdy Hatata

1
About the topic
With the growth in strategic marketing this topic is a shift from Product Brand
Management towards Corporate Brand Management. One of the reasons for its
growing popularity is its strategic role and importance in gaining competitive advantage
and in strategic management decisions.

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.

Introduction
The future of many companies lies in brands (Urde, 1994). Companies today are
beginning to realize that capitalizing on one of the most important assets they own, the
brand, may help them to achieve their long-term growth objectives not only more
quickly, but also in a more profitable way. Such organizations are now regarding their
products and services as more than just a “thing” a customer buys. All this clearly
makes sense because brands stand for what the company is, what it does and not only
what a company sells.

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.

Brands have become a part of our lives and are omnipresent. They help consumers
maneuver a market cluttered with innumerous brands, act as risk reducers, reduce
purchase dissonance, and have self-expressive benefits (Aaker, 1996). Brands are
often referred to as the most valuable asset for a firm (Keller & Lehmann, 2003). Much
evidence exists to support this, especially when one examines the price paid for
companies with strong brands.

2
Concept of Brands and arguments
Generally, a brand is understood as a “name, term, design, symbol, or any other
feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other
sellers” (American Marketing Association, www.ama.org, 2015). Besides this rather
functional and legal definition of a brand, it is advisable to also adopt an effects-based
perspective that can explain the impact of brands on the consumer. Esch (2012, p. 22)
expresses this succinctly as: “Brands are mental images in the heads of the
stakeholder groups that take on an identification and differentiation function and shape
choice behavior.”

So, from the provider’s perspective, the individual brand and the entire brand portfolio
serve to differentiate a product offer from those of other providers in the market and
are of major relevance for all aspects of strategic corporate planning. With a view to
the market-oriented planning process, the development of growth strategies (core
question: in which markets or sub-markets can a brand open up new opportunities or
exploit existing potential?) and of competitive advantages (core question: which
strategies can help a brand assert itself in competition?) are important aspects of
brand management.

The concept ‘company brand’ came into prominence since the early 1990s when
several branding and communication consultants started to assess it. Researchers
argue that the company brand is most important and that the CEO is responsible for
this brand. Company brands received little attention until 1995 when a new, more
encompassing and strategic sounding synonym appeared: the corporate brand
(Balmer & Gray, 2003).

Ever since a distinct literature has emerged in relation to corporate brands and this
reflects the growing importance accorded to the corporate brand as a discrete branding
category: a category that is distinct from product and service brands (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000; Aaker 2004; Argenti et al 2004; Balmer 1995, 2001; Hatch and
Shultz 2001, 2003; Kapferer 2002; King 1991; Knox and Bickerton 2001; Holt et al
2004; Balmer and Gray 2003; Schultz and Hatch 2003; and Urde 1994). The corporate
brand concept over time has exhibited tremendous interest but is a relatively new topic
in the academic literature. The word corporate has been derived from the Latin word
corpus, meaning “body” (Kapferer, 2001).

A brand on the top level is not confined to a single company; there are a number of
corporate entities such as corporations, subsidiaries, and networks. This increased
interest in corporate brands came from a desire to increase the meaning and depth of
business (Kapferer, 2001; Knox & Bickerton, 2003).

3
For many companies their core competency appears to rest not so much on what they
make but on what they brand as an organization (Olins 2000). Executives of major
corporations such as Nestle and Proctor and Gamble regard their corporate brands as
key strategic assets (Hall 1997) and have realized that raising the corporate umbrella
in certain markets can create value (Smith 1998). Balmer and Gray (2003) have
argued that corporate brands are strategic resources of critical importance and have
marshaled the theory of the resourced based view of the firm to support their
hypothesis (Grant, 1991 and Peteraf, 1993).

Recently, it has been argued by Balmer (2005) that the value of corporate brands can
be seen in terms their crucial role as currencies, languages and navigational tools. As
currencies they have a worth in one or more markets (local, national, regional and
global). Brands like KFC, McDonalds, and Sony are global brands and are seen to
have an international currency.” They can also operate at a more local level such and
include small to medium sized entities. As languages, corporate brands (as a form of
communication) can transcend linguistic and cultural boundaries. Prominent (global)
corporate brands in this regard include Heinz, Microsoft and the BBC.

Building a Corporate Brand

Corporate branding goes far beyond the well-established tradition of product branding:
It does not explicitly deal with product features, but rather transports a well defined set
of corporate values (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Hatch and Schultz, 2003;
Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002). The general aim of corporate branding is to build a
sustainable bond between the branded company and its customers through a clear
value proposition (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002).

A number of models of the branding process exists in the literature, however they have
generally been criticized for the lack of empirical testing (Daffey & Abratt, 2002; Grace
& O’Cass, 2002). Aaker’s (1996) brand identity planning model focuses on building the
brand identity, i.e., the core nature of the brand. Since all brands have an identity, the
framework is applicable to any type of brand. Although Aaker (1996) does not explicitly
discuss which type of brand is most relevant for his model, he uses corporate brands
as examples when describing this process. Aaker’s model has three general steps:
strategic brand analysis, brand identity system, and the implementation of the brand
identity.

4
Aaker’s Brand Identity Planning Model.
5
Aaker proposes the use of a strategic brand analysis as a starting point in planning
brand identity. This analysis consists of the analysis of customers, competitors, and the
firm itself. Customer analysis includes factors such as motivation, trends, needs, and
segmentation. The firm must determine the functional, emotional, and self-expressive
benefits that customers seek. It is also necessary to conduct an analysis of current and
future competition. Brand positions as well as the strengths and weaknesses of
competitors are important inputs. The key to differentiating the brand lies in knowing
how competitors are perceived among customers. Another important issue is how
competitors want to be perceived which for instance is seen in their advertising.

The strategies employed by competitors can be analyzed through a positional map that
groups competitors with similar strategies (Jobber, 2005). Groups of well-positioned
companies should be avoided if possible. A well-known strategy is to attack
competitors on their weakest points. The self-analysis of the firm should include an
assessment of the existing brand image, the brand’s heritage, and its strengths and
weaknesses (Aaker, 1996). Strengths and weaknesses are analyzed for the brand and
for the organization behind the brand. The desired identity must be supported by the
capabilities of the organization.

The second step is called the brand identity system. Brand identity, either core or
extended, consists of a unique set of brand associations that represent what the brand
stands for and imply a promise to customers (Aaker, 1996). The core identity is
described as the central, timeless essence of the brand and is usually constant when
the brand travels to new markets and products. Extended identity adds flexibility,
texture, and completeness to the brand. The identity of the brand is based on the
brand as product, organization, personality, and symbol. Product associations are used
on a tactical level as part of the marketing mix. Organizational associations, on the
other hand, are usually strategic. The personality expresses the soul of the brand and
may be both strategic and tactic. The symbol works as an anchor for other
associations, for example, the swoosh of Nike is mostly strategic.

Brand associations can be described as the link between a brand and a certain
characteristic (Keller, 2003). In this way, the customer holds information about a brand,
the brand is differentiated, and positive feelings might be created. Brand identity
establishes a relationship to customers through functional, emotional, or self-
expressive benefits (Aaker, 1996). This is called a value proposition. Functional
attributes in the value proposition are rational and look for the function or value for
money for the customer. Emotional attributes relate to how the customer feels, while
self-expressive attributes relate to how the customer would like to be perceived by
others. After the identity has been decided, it needs to be implemented.

6
The brand identity is implemented through the brand position which is explained as
“the part of the brand identity and value proposition that is to be actively communicated
to the target audience and that demonstrates an advantage over competing brands”
(Aaker, 1996). A brand position can be expressed in one or several statements which
will guide the company’s communication. Not all elements of the brand identity have to
be communicated (i.e., positioned). When searching for a short positioning statement,
it is easy to focus on the product attributes, neglecting the brand personality,
organizational associations, or brand symbols. To differentiate the brand, product
attributes are often not enough, since competitors are likely to emphasize this and they
are also relatively easy to copy. In using product attributes, it is assumed that the
customer is rational, but this is often not the case. This also limits potential brand
extensions. Brand position is usually narrower than brand identity, which means that
the position might be changed without changing the identity or value proposition.

When choosing identity attributes for positioning, the company must look at the core
identity. The unique and valuable aspects of the brand identity should be included in
the positioning in order to create consistency. The extended identity enables the
positioning to be implemented in different ways. The point of leverage on which
positioning builds, can be based on an element from the extended or the core identity.
Benefits from the value proposition can also be used for the brand position. Moreover,
the target audience that is selected as a result of the brand’s position might be a
narrower group then the brand’s target market. Another strategy is to differentiate
between primary and secondary audiences; the position should include both without
being in conflict. Finally, the plans are executed, including media selection and the
creation of advertisements. Communication also needs to be monitored by a tracking
stage (Aaker, 1996).

In contrast to Urde (2003), who bases his model on brand management theory, Knox
and Bickerton (2003) use a corporate brand theory that is influenced by corporate
identity studies. A limitation with the early macro models within corporate
identity/corporate brand studies is the lack of explanation and connections of the
constructs, including corporate personality, identity, image and culture. Therefore micro
models have been created to better guide corporate brand management. While these
models reflect the challenges facing management, they are still conceptual, which
should encourage researchers to conduct empirical studies. Knox and Bickerton (2003)
suggest such an empirical-based model, highlighting important practices in the process
of corporate brand management.

7
The key step in building a corporate brand is to define the brand context. Corporate
branding practices have been advised to follow a multidisciplinary approach that
combines strategy, culture, and corporate communications (Knox & Bickerton, 2003).
The three elements that set the context for the corporate brand are vision, culture, and
image (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). From these elements, the company can analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of the brand.

8
Strategic marketing implementation between
corporate brand management and competitive
advantage.
Before start talking about corporate branding I think that we should take it back to the
competitive advantage concerns and how companies should think in the strategic
marketing manner to make it clear about the main 3 concepts that really shape it’s
existing in the market place which has become widely recognized as the “strategic
triangle”

Who are my customers, what do they really need and care about . what my
competitors are offering and what value they offer to the customers and the last
important diagonal in the triangle is what I am offering (value, need , customer
experience and in how much price ) . these are an important questions that
organizations should answer to be able to identify and determine how to manage their
brands and which strategies they should implement for sustainable brand success .
There is no doubt that there is a strong direct relationship between competitive
advantages and strong brands .
9
 Companies are extremely good at defining their product brands. Customers,
employees, and other stakeholders know exactly what an iPhone is and means. But
organizations are often less sure-footed when it comes to the corporate brand. What
does the parent company’s name really stand for, and how is it perceived and
leveraged in the marketplace and within the company itself?

A clear, unified corporate identity can be critical to competitive strategy, as firms like
Apple, Philips, and Unilever understand. It serves as a north star, providing direction
and purpose. It can also enhance the image of individual products, help firms recruit
and retain employees, and provide protection against reputational damage in times of
trouble. Many firms, however, struggle to articulate and communicate their brand.

Consider the €35 billion Volvo Group, which sells a broad portfolio of trucks, buses,
construction equipment, and marine and industrial engines. After its new CEO
decentralized the organization, turning its truck brands (Volvo Trucks, Mack Trucks,
Renault Trucks, and UD Trucks) into separate units in 2016, questions about the
parent company’s identity became pressing. Because that identity wasn’t well defined,
people in the group were uncertain about how they should strategically support the
“daughter” brands, and people in the new brand units had trouble understanding how
the group’s mission, values, and capabilities extended to them—and even how to
describe their brands’ relationships with the Volvo Group in marketing and investor
communications.

Corporate brand management strategies

Brand Portfolio Management
most marketers recognize that they should run their brands as a portfolio. Managing
brands in a coordinated way helps a company to avoid confusing its consumers,
investing in overlapping product-development and marketing efforts, and multiplying its
brands at its own rather than its competitors' expense. Moreover, killing off weaker or
ill-fitting parts of the product range—an important tenet of brand-portfolio management,
though not one that should be applied at all times—frees marketers to focus resources
on the stronger remaining brands and to position them distinctively. It thus reduces the
complexity of the marketing effort and counteracts the decreasing efficiency and
effectiveness of traditional media and distribution channels.

Marketers today face heavy pressure to produce growth in an era of fragmenting

customer needs. Understandably, they often react by expanding rather than pruning
their brand offerings. After all, killing tired brands and curbing the launch of new ones
isn't easy when the remaining portfolio must capture nearly half of a discontinued
brand's volume merely to break even. Marketers also worry about the repercussions of
10
using a portfolio approach and making the wrong call. Companies today are more likely
to punish brand managers for missing an emerging opportunity than for failing when
they try to exploit it.

The portfolio problem

managing portfolio brands has become more difficult, since companies in maturing
sectors have not only used new brands and products to pursue continued growth but
also resisted pruning existing ones, in hopes of maintaining market share, cash flows,
and long-lived consumer franchises.

Marketers should manage portfolios with a deep look at actual and a target portfolio
details and put each brand in the current quadrant and measure where they are now
and according to the market growth where they targeted their brands to be . and to
implement this I suggest to take a few steps.

To deal with the brand portfolio, companies need a flexible approach sensitive to
consumers and current brands alike. While bold, top-down declarations of intent do
have a place, marketers will be better served by first clarifying the needs that brands
could satisfy and then assessing both the economic attractiveness of meeting them and
11
their fit with the positioning of existing brands. Only then should marketers move to
increase the portfolio's value by making strategic decisions on the restructuring,
acquisition, divestiture, or launch of brands.

marketers must understand each brand's unique contribution to the portfolio and
mapping each brand future profit to measure when and how much to invest on an
existing brand to reach the targeted point.

Lastly marketers should make the tough choices for their brands, Marketers generally
have two options for achieving their portfolio goals. First, they can restructure their
brands by repositioning those that have lost relevance to the target segments, by
consolidating two or more mature brands competing for the same consumers or by
divesting a brand that absorbs more resources than it contributes and holds little
promise of a turnaround.

Restructuring is scary because it involves modifying brands and consumer attitudes.

But though careful management is certainly needed to restructure brands without
losing customers, the risk of adding new brands or categories is often greater—and so
are the investments. Value-creating brand acquisitions are few and far between.
Roughly three-quarters of all new brands fail. And stretching brands into any new
category is risky because it's easy to go too far and lose their identity. Brand managers
are accustomed to making headlines through launches or acquisitions, but those tactics
are usually the last to consider for a portfolio strategy.

If the company manage many valuable brands and want to successfully maintain profit
and maximizing it , it is very important to make synergies between its brands as Once
the core values or the image of a brand have been established through a clear profile
within the group of buyers, new products that are directed to other sub-markets or
business areas and offered under the same brand name can profit very quickly and
efficiently from the value of the parent brand. This way, a company’s new business
units can strengthen the value and the importance of the parent brand, exploit the
potential of the existing brand value, and open up new growth potential.

Also it is very important for the companies to keep its brands updated and have a kind
of flexibility and agility toward the dynamic changes that happens every day
concerning design, technology and features in other words the brands should be future
oriented toward changes .

12
 Brand Architecture
Managing relationships among brands
portfolio cannot be possible without what
called Brand Architecture which means
the logical, strategic and relational
structure for all brands in the portfolio. A
key concept of brand architecture strategy
is that customers relate to brands at
different levels — for example, a corporate
(or master brand), endorsed brands,
product brands and product descriptors.
This allows an organization to create a
brand portfolio that appeals to distinct
segments or needs states.

If a company serves several business fields

or offers several products with different
brands, then each of these brands should be assigned a unique position within the
portfolio. This means each brand is allocated a mission which clearly reflects its task
within the framework of the corporate strategy.

According to (Esch 2012, p. 502) “Brand architecture is understood as the arrangement

of all the brands of a company in such a way as to define the positioning and the
relationships of the brands among each other and the product–market relationships
from a strategic perspective” which is logic and important as I said before that strong
image brand will affect the other .

Brand Architecture Strategy Objectives

key objectives of brand architecture include clarity, synergy and leverage

 Clarity. The brand architecture must promote clarity of offering both to the
marketplace as well as to the internal organization. Key questions: Will
customers understand their purchase and how it relates to other offerings?

 Synergy. Brand architecture should allow the organization to deliver against a

larger brand promise than any single brand could achieve. Key question: Have
we created strategic linkage to provide incremental value

13
  Leverage. A well-managed, strategic brand architecture should provide leverage
for a company to extend its brands both horizontally and vertically to capture new
customer segments and markets. Key question: Have we enabled brand
extension or new brand creation opportunities given the vision for the brand?

Corporate Brand Strategy

 Corporate branding is
often wrongly referred to
as an exercise where the
company logo, the
design style and color
scheme are changed.
Naturally, these are
important elements to
evaluate and potentially
change at a later stage once the strategy has been decided upon. It is often
accompanied with a new corporate slogan, and then everyone expects results to
occur during the project.

 A strong corporate branding strategy can add significant value in terms of helping
the entire corporation and the management team to implement the long-term
vision, create unique positions in the market place of the company and its
brands, and not the least to unlock the leadership potential within the
organization. Hence a corporate branding strategy can enable the corporation to
further leverage on its tangible and non-tangible assets leading to Branding
Excellence throughout the corporation.

14
Corporate brands also known as (umbrella brand) dominates, all the products of a
business unit or even of the overall company are offered under a unified umbrella
brand (branded house). It is important to make the synergy between them and clarify
the independency to be able to manage all the sub-brands.

Apple Example (CORPORATE BRANDING)

corporate brand identity matrix.

15
Apple implementation in the market

PHYSICAL: apple uses a unique logo and slogan that is both easy to say and easy to
remember also the slogan is very simple but it give the promise that the company
always introduce differentiation from the competitors.

16
 Relationship with the
brand : apple positioned
itself in the mind of
consumers as its products
are lifestyle and not just a
smart phone , laptop or
ipad , the company
created a deep
relationship between the
brand and the consumers
from day one , emotional
relation with the logo and
product itself which made
loyal apple customers all over the world , also the company did not sell its product but
sell the customers what they can do with it .
Exert Control Across All of Your Brand Touchpoints Brand personality matters only in
as much as you can express it. If you are unable to communicate your brand
personality across every single touchpoint on and offline then its impact is negligible
and sometimes eliminated altogether.

This is why successful businesses give careful attention to bringing their brand
personality to life across as many of the touchpoints in the customer lifecycle as
possible, from initial awareness through to purchase, nurturing and maintenance.

Reflection: apple branding strategy always tends to connect its customers with the self-
image and connects their lives with luxury lifestyle when buying apple products and
this is more clean in its advertising (communication) with their targeted audience.

17
Apple product strategy:

Connect the customers daily lives with apple products.

Personality: Yet technology is

a difficult field in which to offer
simplicity. From the product
configuration to the language
used and interface offered, the
sector has frequently been
guilty of bamboozling its
customers with geeky smoke
and mirrors communications.

Think about the frequency of updates your Windows system asks you to install, and
the effort often required to understand what they are and whether you will actually
benefit from them. This complexity is often apparent in much technology
branding which utilizes an array of confusing names, numbers and functional
descriptors which many users find confusing and alienating.

Getting the most talented or who have the potential to best the best in the
technological industry is what apple implemented to reach simplicity in its products with
powerful output.

18
Culture: For most people, words such as simple, elegant, and innovative are
among the first. Of course, that is no accident. Those values were critically
important to Steve Jobs, and he instilled them into the Apple company culture.

These core values are the reason that Apple products have been so consistently
excellent, and they are the reason that you can walk into any Apple store across
the country and have essentially the same experience. From sales associates to
top executives, Apple is united by a common culture. And it is that culture that
ensures that Apple customers enjoy the experience that they have come to expect
whenever they interact with Apple–whether that means using their iPhone, visiting
an Apple store, or calling Apple’s technical support line.

Brand image: Self-brand connections, the measure of those who follow certain
brands, either through buying or researching, reflect back on the individual. Those
who have high self-brand connections -- and those who follow a particular brand
until the ends of the earth -- find that their self-esteem suffers when brands fail or
struggle.

According to the research, those with high self-brand connections tend to ignore
or discount negative views about their brands -- all in favors of maintaining their
own self-esteem.

Conclusion
Examining and refining your corporate brand is a true leadership task that
requires far-reaching input and commitment, passion, and grit. The outcome—a
sharpened brand, stronger relationships, and a unified organization—can provide
a clear competitive edge.

19
References:
Aaker, D. A. (2004). Brand portfolio strategy: Creating relevance, differentiation,
energy, leverage, and clarity. New York.

Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York.

Abell, D. (1978). Strategic windows. Journal of Marketing, 42, 21–26.

Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of

Management Executive, 9, 49–61.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-work-at-apple-2015-9

Torsten Tomczak, Sven Reinecke, Alfred Kuss - Strategic Marketing_ Market-

Oriented Corporate and Business Unit Planning (2018, Gabler Verlag) book
(chapter 3 )

https://www.personadesign.ie/how-apple-does-it-five-tips-for-getting-your-1tn-
brand-personality-right/

20