Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Data were collected through 13 preliminary meetings and 29 in-depth interviews with bank executives and managers as well as banking industry association representatives and industry insiders. Archival data were collected from bank annual reports for ten fiscal years, social responsibility and public accountability statements for period of five years, and 1652 newspaper articles. Thematic analysis and coding of interviews and archival documents using methods suggested by Miles and Huberman (1984) and Eisenhardt (1989) was conducted. As is suggested for research using multi-cases, data were analyzed by first building individual cases and then comparing across cases to generate the conceptual framework (Eisenhardt, 1989). Findings and Discussion Findings in this study confirmed that the Canadian banking industry is dominated by a powerful strategic reference group, the Big 5, and that banks that were part of this strategic reference group strongly identified with that group, tended to be similar, generally compared themselves to other members of that group and described themselves indistinguishable from the other members. Bankers said that the big banks offered the same products and services and operated in the same markets, and that their strategies were similar to other Big 5 banks, because any action one bank took that would distinguish them or give them an advantage over the other big banks would likely increase the cost of business for all the other banks. Similarly, any mistakes one bank made would negatively impact the other banks. The bank outside the strategic reference group, however, emphasized its uniqueness and difference in comparison to the big banks. While not benefiting from the advantages of being part of the powerful dominant group, the smaller bank in this sample is successful in its core markets and has a positive reputation. Findings also show that that this bank, has a reputation of being smaller, unique and distinguishable from the Big 5 banks and not part of that group. This research found that the firms that are part of the core, dominant, well recognized, and powerful strategic reference group tended to be isomorphic, implemented similar strategies, and strived to maintain their group‘s status in the industry. We suggest that the need to remain isomorphic is intended to protect the big banks‘ domination and power in the organisational field (McNamara, Deephouse, & Luce, 2003). The Big 5 banks are prominent in size and status, and rank high in reputation rankings (Financial Post, 2007; National Post, 2005). High status firms have prestige in an institutional environment, which yields benefits for the firms in this group (Sherer & Lee, 2002). Firms in this group tend to maintain their similarity in order to protect their privileged status (Caves & Porter, 1977; McNamara, et al., 2003), which is confirmed by the findings in this study. Findings also suggest that firms outside the strategic reference group will tend to emphasize the characteristics that distinguish them from those in the strategic reference group. The bank outside of this reference group distinguished itself from the group and emphasized its distinctiveness and uniqueness. For example, while big banks in this sample identified themselves as large and market leaders, the smaller bank identified itself as a small bank that is different and unique. This bank tended to view its smaller size and differences compared to the Big 5 as a strategic strength and positioned itself as a niche player that serviced its niches specifically and successfully. It called itself small, unique and regional while emphasizing its ability to deliver the full range of products and services like big banks. It is likely that firms outside the strategic group understand the insurmountable barriers to gaining entry to the dominant strategic and respond by emphasizing their differences in comparison to the dominant reference group, while recognizing the need to maintain some similarity in order to be considered a member of the organisational field, that is, a player in that organisational field (Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). Contributions This research contributes to the knowledge on how firms within a strategic reference group benefit from being similar to and emphasize this similarity, and suggests that firms outside the strategic reference group benefit from their uniqueness and emphasize this uniqueness. This research confirms the understanding that strategic reference groups tend to work cohesively with each other with similar strategies (Deephouse, 1999) to create favourable conditions for the strategic reference group and barriers to entry for firms not considered part of the reference group (McNamara, et al., 2003). This research suggests that firms who are members of a dominant strategic reference group within an institutional field tend to highlight their similarity to maintain their status and power which yield organisational benefits for members of that reference group. Firms who are not members of that dominant reference group, however, emphasize and benefit from their uniqueness and distinctiveness from the dominant strategic reference group. This research contributes to the understanding of how firms mobilize their similarity or uniqueness to gain advantages. While much of the current literature focuses on the advantages of uniqueness of the corporate brand and reputation, this research explores conditions under which being ‗similar to others‘ may also benefit organisations. Furthermore, this research confirms the importance of uniqueness for those firms who are in industries with a dominant and powerful strategic reference group. References Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Barney, J. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 643-650. 180
Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, Intended Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An Interdisciplinary Framework and Suggested Terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99-106. Caves, R. E., & Porter, M. E. (1977). From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 241-262. Darroch, J. L., & McMillan, C. (2007). Globalization restricted: The Canadian financial system and public policy. Ivey Business Journal Online(Jan/Feb 2007), 7. Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147-166. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105-1121. Ferguson, T., Deephouse, D. L., & Ferguson, W. L. (2000). Do strategic groups differ in reputation? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1195-1214. Financial Post. (June 2007). FP 500 Canada's Largest Corporation, Financial Post Business, p. 49. Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Forman, J., & Argenti, P. A. (2005). How Corporate Communication Influences Strategy Implementation, Reputation and the Corporate Brand: An Exploratory Qualitative Study. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(3), 245-261. Glynn, M. A. (2008). Beyond constraint: How institutions enable identities. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 413-430). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135-144. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041 -1064. Kowalczyk, S. J., & Pawlish, M. J. (2002). Corporate branding through external perception of the organizational culture. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 159-174. Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A., & Umphress, E. E. (2001). Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12(3), 312-330. McNamara, G., Deephouse, D. L., & Luce, R. A. (2003). Competitive positioning within and across a strategic group structure: The performance of core, secondary, and solitary firms. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 161-181. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Mitra, D., & Golder, P. N. (2006). How Does Objective Quality Affect Perceived Quality? Short-Term Effects, Long- Term Effects, and Asymmetries. Marketing Science, 25(3), 19. National Post. (June 2005). Canada's 500 Largest Corporations [FP 500 rankings], National Post Business, p. 86. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713. Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 379-429. Porter, M. E. (1979). The structure within industries and companies performance. Review of Economics & Statistics, 61(2), 214-227. Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895 - 1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29-44. Rayner, J. (2003). Managing Reputational Risk: Curbing Threats, Leveraging Opportunities. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. (1998). The Identity of Organizations. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE publications. Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation - an empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71. van Riel, C. B. M., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2002). Incorporating business unit managers' perspective in corporatebranding strategy decision making. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 241-252. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171- 174. Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 41(4), 393-414. 181
Page 1 and 2:
Book of Proceedings Brand, Identity
Page 3 and 4:
Session 1.1 Emotional Branding in T
Page 5 and 6:
p.31) consumers tend to those sourc
Page 7 and 8:
Tables and figures Brand perception
Page 9 and 10:
Malaysia‘s Global Halal Hub - ―
Page 11 and 12:
Birds of a Feather Consume Sports T
Page 13 and 14:
Session 1.2 How is Social Media, li
Page 15 and 16:
2. Interviews made with the adminis
Page 17 and 18:
Table-5 Facebook Members of Homeles
Page 19 and 20:
content (UGC) or even direct intera
Page 21 and 22:
Fierman, (1991) found that 47% of c
Page 23 and 24:
Multiple Dimensions of Brand Identi
Page 25 and 26:
Session 1.3 Corporate Identity, Cor
Page 27 and 28:
CSR are the ideals and ethics of co
Page 29 and 30:
Corporate Brand Identity Management
Page 31 and 32:
To study the influence of B2B relat
Page 33 and 34:
Antecedents And Consequences Of Bra
Page 35 and 36:
22. Gurviez, P., and Korchia, M. (2
Page 37 and 38:
Non-monetary factors, such as effor
Page 39 and 40:
23. Holbrook, M.B. (2006). Consumpt
Page 41 and 42:
Brand Extensions and Culture: The I
Page 43 and 44:
avoidance tend to prefer more infor
Page 45 and 46:
Virtual Internal Brand Communities:
Page 47 and 48:
References 1. Algesheimer, R., Dhol
Page 49 and 50:
associations based on their percept
Page 51 and 52:
shift in the psychological contract
Page 53 and 54:
10. Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah,
Page 55 and 56:
Session 2.1 Global Brand Relationsh
Page 57 and 58:
G. Brand Personality Excitement Hon
Page 59 and 60:
The Impact of Relationship Marketin
Page 61 and 62:
‗United 2010-one for all, all for
Page 63 and 64:
Brand Equity Trends in Top Global B
Page 65 and 66:
Uncovering ‗Meanings‘ through A
Page 67 and 68:
45. Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J.
Page 69 and 70:
Thus, from a design perspective, we
Page 71 and 72:
Keywords Brands, marketing, meaning
Page 73 and 74:
How Important is the Brand Name Ele
Page 75 and 76:
References 1. Aaker, D. (1991). Man
Page 77 and 78:
Simon Cowell and Branding the X Fac
Page 79 and 80:
Dead or Living: Which Celebrity To
Page 81 and 82:
Reference 1. Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y.
Page 83 and 84:
has been adopted and within this an
Page 85 and 86:
Organizational Factors Contributing
Page 87 and 88:
examine and reconcile existing lite
Page 89 and 90:
Effects of Corporate Social Respons
Page 91 and 92:
15. Morsing M, & Schultz M. (2006).
Page 93 and 94:
1989). But if the information avail
Page 95 and 96:
An Inquiry into Corporate Heritage
Page 97 and 98:
3. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S.
Page 99 and 100:
Research questions and methodology
Page 101 and 102:
Building Corporate Reputation: A Di
Page 103 and 104:
Session 3.1 Financial vs. Consumer-
Page 105 and 106:
For indicating brand equity, one of
Page 107 and 108:
Financial Brand Valuation: an exper
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 1 Religiously Motivated Cons
Page 111 and 112:
I Don‘t Like It! - Understanding
Page 113 and 114:
Session 3.2 Advertising Agency Empl
Page 115 and 116:
applications of the Repertory Test
Page 117 and 118:
The Life Cycle of Mavens Lynne Free
Page 119 and 120:
Exploring the relationship between
Page 121 and 122:
internal branding process. Internal
Page 123 and 124:
proper branding strategy. With the
Page 125 and 126:
Profiling the Image of Urban Busine
Page 127 and 128:
Finally, the paper confirms the cau
Page 129 and 130: Table 3 Image differences according
Page 131 and 132: associated with the brand‖ (Aaker
Page 133 and 134: Figure 1 - Number of adjectives sel
Page 135 and 136: Figure 5 - Main attributes of a gol
Page 137 and 138: Empirical Studies For both studies,
Page 139 and 140: Figure 2: Perception of the City of
Page 141 and 142: Co-branding places? Andrea Lucarell
Page 143 and 144: 12. Lucarelli, A., & Berg, P. O. (2
Page 145 and 146: the place brands, as has been showe
Page 147 and 148: Session 3.4 Innovation and Entrepre
Page 149 and 150: The interviews were conducted in th
Page 151 and 152: Country-of-Origin Effects on Brand
Page 153 and 154: 7. Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O. &
Page 155 and 156: Results The demographic profile ind
Page 157 and 158: use games consoles (Childwise, 2001
Page 159 and 160: Plenary Session 2 Brand Performance
Page 161 and 162: Uncles, M.D. & Kwok, S. (2008). Gen
Page 163 and 164: Brand Management Framework Empirica
Page 165 and 166: Coneptualising Branding in Indian P
Page 167 and 168: characteristics could be zeroed upo
Page 169 and 170: Concentrating on the actual practic
Page 171 and 172: ooking attractive in greater detail
Page 173 and 174: Session 7.2 Brand Personification a
Page 175 and 176: Importance of Country Image to Mega
Page 177 and 178: Table 1: Evaluative Responses for t
Page 179: To be Similar or Unique? Implicatio
Page 183 and 184: A brand-driven strategy oriented to
Page 185 and 186: Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual C
Page 187 and 188: A Framework for Public Sector Brand
Page 189 and 190: Conclusion Public sector organisati
Page 191 and 192: A strategic investigation into the
Page 193 and 194: There are also some changes in term
Page 195 and 196: Brand Hypocrisy Sanne Frandsen, Cop
Page 197 and 198: Table 1: Empirical Findings Theory
Page 199 and 200: Brand Governance in Social Networki
Page 201 and 202: Determinants Brand Orientation Va
Page 203 and 204: When Individual Experience becomes
Page 205 and 206: Impact of Storytelling on Consumer
Page 207 and 208: The Role of Communication in Establ
Page 209 and 210: Culture‘s Influence on Consumer P
Page 211 and 212: + Top-Down Dynamic between Luxury F
Page 213 and 214: Analysis and results We assessed th
Page 215 and 216: An Exploration of Own Brand Retaile
Page 217 and 218: 11. ETI 2010. Ethical Trading Initi
Page 219 and 220: When investigating unique significa
Page 221 and 222: Session 8.2 Closing the Gaps - the
Page 223 and 224: accomplishing reality rather than d
Page 225 and 226: Reddy, 1998, p.40). As a result, br
Page 227 and 228: Figure 2: Doves Real Beauty Billboa
Page 229 and 230: Literature review, as a complete re
Page 231 and 232:
Segmenting McDonalds: Measuring Bra
Page 233 and 234:
A simple eyeballing of the segment
Page 235 and 236:
Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 235
Page 237 and 238:
Session 8.3 Brand Attitudes and the
Page 239 and 240:
when preceded with the related conc
Page 241 and 242:
What keeps smokers from quitting? U
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1: Description of the cigaret
Page 245 and 246:
Exploring differences in product at
Page 247 and 248:
Based on the results some general c
Page 249 and 250:
Data was collected by independent j
Page 251 and 252:
Sonic branding: A review of literat
Page 253 and 254:
How is green seen? Exploring the im
Page 255 and 256:
were in evidence. The inability to
Page 257 and 258:
Generally speaking, people use exte
Page 259 and 260:
How Retail Banks Use Atmosphere to
Page 261 and 262:
Actually, we don‘t feel constrain
Page 263 and 264:
Introduction Reputation and Financi
Page 265 and 266:
Chun, R. & Davies G. (2009). Employ
Page 267 and 268:
Identity, Reputation and Organizati
Page 269 and 270:
Introduction Factors Affecting Bran
Page 271 and 272:
A quiet important approach then bec
Page 273 and 274:
27. Gentry, C.R., ―Building on Br
Page 275 and 276:
Together these issues have resulted
Page 277 and 278:
elations. If the contact persons tr
Page 279 and 280:
How do you Really Know? Exploring B
Page 281 and 282:
Originality/value The psychology li
Page 283 and 284:
asked ―did you see any of these c
Page 285 and 286:
expressivity (Ω experts = 0,96 p
Page 287 and 288:
Next are brand associations, also r
Page 289 and 290:
Table 1: Selection of variables, it
Page 291 and 292:
Special Session Issues in Brand Gov
Page 293 and 294:
A Competance based Brand: Meaning a
Page 295 and 296:
Session 12.4 Special Session Topic:
Page 297 and 298:
Brand Meaning Co-Creation of Newcom
Page 299 and 300:
Leonor Vacas de Carvalho, Évora Un
Page 301:
Ronaldo Schutz, University of the A
show all

Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?