RELEVANCE OF INTERNAL BRANDING A SECOND THOUGHT
Undergraduate
ABSTRACT
The
purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of internal branding, define
it and discuss its relevance. The objective is (1) to put together the reasons
why internal branding is indispensable and explain them systematically, (2) to
introduce a critical perspective regarding the implementation process that
internal branding entails, and (3) to check if the theory is reflected on to
the empirics within this context. Following a deep literature survey about
internal branding, branding and other related organizational and marketing
issues; six supportive and critical points were put forward. Next, through a
single case study on a service business, these twelve points were tested
through detailed interviews with ten current and former employees of the case
company to see if they empirically exist. All the supportive points were
substantiated through this qualitative study, and the critical points were
found valid but proactively dealt with by the case company in order to avoid
them to hinder the internal branding process. The conclusion is that internal
branding has high significance for the entire branding process; however, it is
crucial to design and implement it correctly in order not to defeat its purpose
and to ensure the support of the entire employee base.
Branding and
brands are everywhere, and they are inevitable; each and every product or
organization is branded somehow whether they say something or just exist in the
marketplace because, good or bad, every little detail communicates something
about the brand (Please refer to Appendix I to recap branding). Today, with the
realization of the fact that the strongest and the most prosperous brands are
the ones that are supported by the entire organization, corporate brands have
become much more accentuated, important and attractive than product brands both
statistically and logically. Charles Handy, the leading expert of management
thought of 90’s and former professor at LBS, coined the term “the empty
raincoat” which embody the obvious “emptiness” of many organizations: Emptiness in the
sense that the firm appears as a cold, distant, unfeeling monolith, often
unrelated either to its customers and consumers or to its employees, associates
and other stakeholders. (Kitchen et al, 2004:349) Strong product
brands tend to have this exact effect on corporations making them “a detail, a
non-entity” (p.356); however, it is gradually sinking in that brands have to
move beyond that and become corporate brands to succeed in this incredibly
competitive marketplace where “interactivity, dialog and personalization” are
in power (p.349). Corporations must denote something reflecting the values and
identity of their employees, products and stakeholders as a whole. Thus, a
potent, coherent and stable corporate brand is required to retain and improve
cash flow and shareholder value which is why Kitchen et al (2004:347) claim
that corporate branding is “the most likely scenario for most multi-national
organizations in the 21st century.” And obviously, corporate
branding requires substantial focus within (internal to) the organization with
the roles of employees changing from just a “category under the firm” to “brand
ambassadors” (Harris et al, 2001:443). To a great extent,
the branding literature has taken an external standpoint concentrating on
“strategies and tactics that firms should take to build or manage equity with
customer” (Keller, 1999:43); however, internal positioning of the brand
-meaning positioning the brand in the employees’ minds, and explaining and
communicating external branding efforts to them- is equally important (Keller,
1999). Branding should not be perceived barely as a marketing competency;
brands that are built as an organizational competency, where each division of
the organization does its part in branding and positioning efforts, add much
more value to both the products entailed and the company itself (Willard,
2004). Brand experiences are the engine that steer consumer attention and,
eventually, customer loyalty, and in order to make those brand experiences
effective, consistent and right-to-the-point; the entire employee base should
be informed, highly-trained and motivated marketers because people are more
accountable than any other branding and/or marketing tool that will be used. As
Didriksen (2003) puts it “as with most things, it comes down to people.” A
company should not address its branding efforts solely to outsiders; corporate
brands should provide value to their employees along with their customers. Any
message delivered by someone who is working for a corporate brand, regardless
of division, is of utmost significance, and this is why internal branding,
which is an utterly understated issue in the branding literature, bears great
importance. In this thesis,
internal branding will be defined, and its relevance will be studied and
questioned. The academic and empirical research about internal branding is
quite limited so far, and the existent research is only pro internal branding.
The purpose of this study is (1) to put together the reasons why internal
branding is indispensable under six captions in a systematic fashion, (2) to
introduce a second thought and a critical perspective to the concept of
internal branding and its practice, again in a systematic fashion, and (3) to
check how congruent the theory and the practice are in this matter regarding a
certain case of a service business. Consequently, this purpose generates these
three research questions: Introduction:
Why Internal Branding?
Purpose
Research
Questions Shortly, the aim
of this study is mainly to find out if internal branding is as prominent, as it
is claimed to be by various researchers and authors, no matter how it is
practiced. There are several
levels to the intended contribution of this thesis. First of all, the
uniqueness of this thesis with regard to internal branding literature is its
introducing a critical perspective to the issue; hitherto, internal branding
has been cited only with an affirmative approach, and its debatable features,
its probable ‘black holes’ so to speak, potential problems regarding its
implementation and how it can fail had never been discussed. Thus, in this
paper, questions that have never been asked will be asked, and internal
branding will be studied with a critical point of view besides a praising one
which seems to be the common standpoint of authors who have written about
internal branding. Secondly, the
importance of this study stems from its combinative nature of organizational
(internal) and marketing (external) studies. According to Hatch and Schultz
(1997), the concept of organizational culture rarely comes up in the marketing
literature about corporate identity and image, and likewise, the organizational
literature on image has an exclusive focus on internal features. The authors
claim that one of the major challenges that companies have to confront today is
the “breakdown of the boundary between their internal and external aspects”
(p.356) due to the potent connection between insiders and outsiders: (Earlier) top
executives, marketing, purchasing, PR and strategic planning departments
handled external relations, while internal issues were attended to by middle
and lower level managers and HRM, engineering, production and accounting departments.
However, networking, business process reengineering, flexible manufacturing,
the new focus on customer service, and so on, redefine what were previously
considered matters of external relations as part of the daily activities of
nearly all organizational members. (Hatch et al, 1997:357) Thus, the fact
that internal and external operations have integrated in the contemporary
business world necessitates combination of knowledge, information and practice
of organizational and marketing studies. Hence, this study is built on the
conjoined and integrated basis of organizational studies focused on internal
context (internal resources) and corporate branding and corporate identity
issues focused on external relationships of organizations. Thirdly, internal
branding is an understated and understudied branch of branding about which
there is very limited research as to what it encompasses, how it helps and
hurts the brand and how it is practiced (Keller, 1999; Schultz, 2003a; Dinnie,
2003; Bergstrom et al 2002; Vallaster, 2004); specifically, there is not a
single source that analyzed internal branding methodically, systematically and
critically as this thesis intends to do (please refer to Table 4.1). Previous
research about internal branding is more about the opinions and observations of
authors; however, this study is aiming to introduce internal branding as an
eminent fraction of the entire branding process and literature in a more
scientific manner. Lastly, this paper is the first to issue internal branding
within the context of a hospitality business to which branding is utterly
essential. Intended
Contribution