Urde 2003

European Journal of Marketing
Core value‐based corporate brand building

Mats Urde
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mats Urde, (2003),"Core value#based corporate brand building", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
Iss 7/8 pp. 1017 - 1040
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477645
Downloaded on: 17 October 2014, At: 08:34 (PT)
Downloaded by LINNEUNIVERSITETET At 08:34 17 October 2014 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14336 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde, (2009),"Uncovering the corporate brand's core values",
Management Decision, Vol. 47 Iss 4 pp. 616-638
John M.T. Balmer, Fiona Harris, Leslie de Chernatony, (2001),"Corporate branding and corporate brand
performance", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Iss 3/4 pp. 441-456
Simon Knox, David Bickerton, (2003),"The six conventions of corporate branding", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss 7/8 pp. 998-1016
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 233789 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
Corporate brand
Core value-based corporate building
brand building
Mats Urde
Head of Lund Brand Management Research Programme, 1017
Institute of Economic Research, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden Received January 2001
Revised July 2001,
December 2001
Keywords Values, Corporate identity, Brands, Brand identity
Abstract The aim of this article is to introduce a conceptual framework for a corporate brand
building process based on core values. The nature, role, and function of core values are considered
a central part of the value foundation of a corporate brand. In line with this reasoning, a
distinction is also made between three groups of values: organisational values, core values, and
added values. This article is based on research into the brand building efforts of more than 50
major companies over a period of ten years. The Volvo case is used as an illustration and places
special emphasis on internal processes. The role of the core values in the ten steps of the framework
is explored and illustrated. The work is based on first-hand experiences, interviews, and unique
internal strategy documents from Volvo. The discussion defines core values as overarching
concepts that summarise the identity of the corporate brand and as guiding lights for the brand
building process. Another conclusion drawn from the article is that core values are vital for
continuity, consistency and credibility in a value-creating process. The theoretical and practical
implications of using core values as a unifying common thread are discussed in relation to the
paradigm of brand orientation.
Introduction
Imagine this scenario: in order to better understand their company’s corporate
brand and brand-building process, the board of directors asks four members of
their company’s senior management to make presentations about the
company’s values. The CEO, who is the first to speak, highlights the
company credo; he is followed by the human resources manager, who stresses
the significance the organisation’s internal basic values and principles. The
brand manager then gives an overview of the brand values, and finally the
marketing manager summarises the brand essence from a communication
perspective. For many companies this would probably be a nightmare – no
overall clarity, little apparent consistency and a hotchpotch of terminology.
The purpose of this somewhat contrived introduction is to underline
something that is all too often ignored or forgotten, that is that the
understanding, use and implementation of a value foundation for a corporate
brand is often inadequate and elusive.
One reason is the confusion of terms that are used to describe and identify European Journal of Marketing
the various values that help create the identity of a corporate brand. Far too Vol. 37 No. 7/8, 2003
pp. 1017-1040
q MCB UP Limited
0309-0566
This article has benefited greatly from suggestions made by the two anonymous reviewers. DOI 10.1108/03090560310477645
EJM often there is a lack of structure, there is no obvious thread that links the
37,7/8 processes of protecting, building and developing the corporate brand. And all
too frequently, the role and function of the various values are not clearly set out
and ill defined.
The search for the central core of the brand has engaged and fascinated
numerous researchers and experts. As so many organisations and companies
1018 flounder at this stage of the brand building process, the search is well justified.
It is therefore necessary to provide an overview of how values are treated in the
literature. One way is to look at values from three viewpoints:
(1) values that are related to the organisation;
(2) values that summarise the brand; and
(3) values as they are experienced by customers.
Values that are related to the organisation

Harmon (1996) and Aaker and Joachimstahler (2000) write in terms of
organisational values and corporate values. Gad (2001) describes corporate
values quite simply as “rules of life”. Kunde (2000) goes one step further with
the expression corporate religion: “. . . the set of values that unites the
organisation around a mission and vision” (p. 111). Credo is a further
expression for an organisation’s values (Ind, 2001; Osborne, 1991 in reference to
The Johnson & Johnson Company Credo). Collins and Porras (1998) call an
organisation’s values core values:
. . . the organisation’s essential and enduring tenets – a small set of timeless guiding
principles that require no external justification; they have intrinsic value and importance to
those inside the organisation (p. 222).
Although this is a good definition, core values are given another definition in
this article. Knox et al. (2000) use the term unique organisation value
proposition in relation to the core processes of the organisation. Organisational
values are expressed in other contexts as well, for example Jensen (1999) calls it
storytelling, and Edvinsson and Malone (1997) refer to it as a component of
intellectual capital.
Values that sum up the brand

Brand essence is a term that some organisations have worked with for many
years; the Ted Bates advertising agency is a good example. The objective is to
define and describe the innermost core of a brand. The term brand essence is
used and expanded on by many authors. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000, p. 45),
for example, talk about brand essence as part of identity: “The brand essence
can be viewed as the glue that holds the core identity elements together. . .”
Macrae (1996) investigates the relation between brand essence and
value-adding. Upshaw (1995, p. 25) also sees the brand essence as an inner
value: “. . . the core of the core – the brand essence”. Keller (1999) uses the term
brand mantras: “. . . are short three to five word phrases that capture the Corporate brand
irrefutable essence or spirit of the brand positioning.” Randazzo (1993) likens, building
in principle, brand essence and core value, and elects to speak of the brand soul:
“The brand’s soul is its spiritual center, the core value(s) that defines the brand
and permeates all other aspects of the brand” (Randazzo 1993, p. 17). Kapferer
(1992) uses kernel in his reasoning about the core of the brand. De Chernatony
(1999) develops and creates an interesting distinction between core values and
1019
peripheral values. Other more or less adjacent terms are, for example, brand
code (Gad, 2001), meta value (Linn, 1990), value words (Ind, 2001, 1997), core
desire (Mark and Pearson, 2001), and themes (Schmitt and Simonson, 1997).
Values as experienced by the customer

McCracken (1993) states that: “Brands have value, it turns out, because they
add value.” The discussion in de Chernatony et al. (2000) about added value
provides a good overview and specifically demonstrates the lack of
terminology consensus. JWT, the advertising agency, argues that added
values include “value proposition” and “functional” and “emotional
discriminators”. “Customer value” is the term that Knox and Maklan (1998)
use to express what the customer is prepared to exchange for a brand. Added
value is also used in other contexts: Itami and Roehl (1987) use “added value” to
explain durable competitive advantages from a strategic perspective. When
Jones and Morgan (1994) speak of “adding value”, they are talking about the
process of developing brands.
Each of these contributions is of interest and value in its own right. The
purpose of the overview is to underline the need for an overall structure and
suggest a model that can be used for a discussion that will lead to the
establishment of a corporate brand value foundation. There are both theoretical
and practical advantages to dividing values into the three areas described
(Figure 1); it becomes easier to see which are the organisational values, which
are the core values and which are the added values. When viewed together,
they form the value foundation of a corporate brand (Urde, 1997). In parallel
with this, the identity can also be divided into these three levels; that is the
identity of the organisation, the identity of the brand and the identity of the
customer. The value creating process is brought about by the interaction
between these three levels, as illustrated in Figure 1. The organisational values
answer, in principle, the questions of what we, as an organisation stand for and
what makes us who we are. These internal values are an important point of
departure for the core values, which in turn summarise the brand’s identity.
The most important task of the core value is to be the guiding light of the brand
building process. If they are to fulfil their role and function, core values must be
built into the product, expressed in behaviour and reflect the feel of
communication. The exchange and the advantages that a customer associates
with a brand are to be regarded as added values, i.e. the difference between a
EJM
37,7/8
1020
Figure 1.
There is a continuous
interaction between
value and identity at
three levels
brand and a commodity. An added value may be functional, emotional and/or

symbolic. Added values are closely related to core values and organisational
values. This means that added values constitute an important link between the
internal and external process. The act of interpreting and reinterpreting affect
the image and identity of the corporate brand (Christiansen and Askegaard,
2001).
The purpose of this article is to introduce a conceptual framework for core
value-based corporate brand building, to illustrate and, at the same time,
explore the nature, role and function of core values. To do this I have focused on
the internal processes and used Volvo as an illustration.
One of the basic arguments put forward in this article is that core values
affect an organisation at every level and at all times. The difference between
having a given number of values within a company that one says one stands
for, and consciously working with clearly defined core values that are the
guiding principle of the brand building process, should not be underestimated.
In short, the development of core values is synonymous with the development
of the brand.
By definition, core values affect leadership, strategy, organisation, product
development, communications etc. When an organisation grows from a
position in which the mission, vision and organisational values are brought
together in the form of core values, a vital step on the road towards high-level
brand orientation has been taken (Urde, 1994, 1997, 1999; Hankinson, 2000).
This means that the corporate brand and its core values are, in almost every Corporate brand
respect, the hub around which the company’s strategy and business revolve building
(Louro and Cunha (2001)) on brand management paradigms). At the extreme,
this is an attitude that presupposes brand management competence that aims
to develop the brand as a resource and strategic competitive advantage.
1021
Methodology
Throughout my research I have kept asking why some organisations and
companies are more successful than others when it comes to brand building.
Based on more than ten years research into the brand building processes of 50
major organisations and companies, I have come to the conclusion that the
mind set – an organisation’s approach to brands – is the decisive factor (Urde,

1997). My experience, which has been gleaned from exhaustive field studies in
such companies as Ericsson, DuPont, Nestlé, Tetra Pak, Pharmacia and Volvo,
has stimulated my interest in value systems and core values.
I have chosen to illustrate the discussions in this article with Volvo as
corporate brand and company prior to the acquisition of Volvo Car by the Ford
Motor Company on 29 January 1999[1]. This temporal delimitation has made it
possible to present unique material that was earlier regarded as either sensitive
or confidential. My experiences from Volvo have played a very special role in
my work with core values. It was while working with Volvo that I first
discovered a number of important links and relationships between a value
system and brand orientation.
My first contact with Volvo was made during a project that involved
analysing and evaluating brand management and brand building at AB Volvo
in 1995. My role was at that time, as researcher and consultant, to be part of an
internal working group. The group completed an international benchmarking
study and interviewed approximately 40 managers at the corporate level
within the truck, bus, construction equipment, aircraft engine, marine engine,
automobile, and after sales divisions (Björholt et al., 1995).
Since that first contact I have continued to work with Volvo as a formal and
informal advisor and sparring partner. My understanding of the workings of
the company has been enhanced by an additional 20 interviews, during my
research, with managers representing Volvo and its partners. The managerial
quotes in this article have been taken from interview transcripts I made with
Volvo and its collaborating partners between 1995 and 2001.
My earlier experiences from Volvo have allowed me to observe its
brand-building strategy at close quarter over a period of time. During this
period, my aim has been to always have an open mind. As time passed, the
question of defining the real core of a brand building system became more
apparent and more important. The emerging knowledge from the case drove
and guided my research process. My methodology was in the initial stage
inspired by “grounded theory” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Strauss
EJM and Corbin, 1989). Later research required that I carried out new case studies
37,7/8 and applied different qualitative techniques, such as triangulation, to verify
and further develop the conceptual framework for core value-based corporate
brand building (Silverman, 1993; Yin, 1989, 1993). I adhere largely to a
symbolic interactionist perspective (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Solomon,
1983; Guiraud, 1992; Silverman, 1993), which, among other things, means that I
1022 see brands as symbols and that an organisation’s way of approaching brands
or value creation is a decisive factor.
A brand building process based on core values

The development of a brand as a resource and a strategic instrument of
competition requires that it engages and represents a value for both the
organisation and customers in target group or groups (Melin, 1997; Urde, 1997).
Ideally, a brand – as a sustainable competitive advantage – should be unique
and difficult for competitors to imitate (e.g. Barney, 1991, 1997; Hall, 1992;
Grant, 1995). The value-creating processes take place in parallel. These are
internally, i.e. within the organisation, and externally, i.e. in the awareness of
customers (Figure 2); together they generate corporate brand equity. Keller
(2000, p. 115) defines corporate brand equity:
. . . as the differential response by consumers, customers, employees, other firms, or any
relevant constituency to the words, actions, communications, products or services provided
by an identified corporate entity.
In this article, we are primarily discussing the internal value-creating process;
special emphasis is placed on a company with a corporate brand. The reason
why the external process is also presented is to provide an overview to help the
reader to relate added values to core values, and vice versa.
The internal brand building process (left column, Figure 2) is primarily used
to describe the relationship between the organisation and the brand (see
Figure 1). The objective of this internal process is ultimately to get the
organisation to live its brands (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Balmer, 2001;
Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Urde, 1994, 1999; Ind, 2001). This is described
in the model as internal brand identity, i.e. the organisations own
understanding of the brand and its commitment to it. The value base
includes the main assignment, i.e. the vision, the organisational values and the
core values. The establishment of this value base within an organisation is a
decisive factor in the production of an internal brand identity. The
organisation’s relationship with the brand will also affect the total internal
relationship to the brand and vice versa.
The external brand building process (right column, Figure 2) is primarily
concerned with relations and interactions between the brand and the customer
(see Figure 1). The objective of this external process is ultimately to create
value and relationships, with the customer’s identity as the basis. To achieve a
strong brand relationship with the customer, it is necessary for there to be an
Corporate brand
building
1023
Figure 2.
Internal and external
core value-based brand
building process based
on experiences at Volvo
and a series of other
companies
interest in the product and for the choice of brand to be regarded as important,
i.e. there must be brand sensitivity (Kapferer and Laurent, 1992). This is
followed by a need to create brand awareness and positive brand associations
(Aaker, 1991; Melin and Urde, 1991). The added values that the customer
experiences can be functionally, emotionally, and/or symbolically based (de
Chernatony and MacDonald, 1998). If the brand’s image is attractive to the
customer’s own self-image (Higgins, 1987) – real, ideal, or normative – the
basis has been created for a relationship between the brand and the customer.
This is, in turn, the basis for a relationship that can develop into brand loyalty
(Grönroos, 1995).
The framework builds on the idea that a brand’s identity is developed as a
continual and ongoing interaction between the identity of the organisation and
the customer. In this way, the organisation’s values, overall mission, and vision
of what is to be achieved – beyond generating profits – obtain their true
meaning. Brands can therefore be seen as symbols of an organisation’s efforts
and ambitions.
EJM Core value-based brand building – the case of Volvo
37,7/8 In order to illustrate the role of the core values in an internal brand building
process, the case of Volvo is analysed and discussed based on the ten steps in
the framework (Figure 2). The point of departure is the overall task or mission.
1024 The mission – commitment to the overarching task

A brand mission can be described as the brand’s fundamental reason for
existence (e.g. Levitt, 1960; Drucker, 1973; Campbell and Yeung, 1991; Collins
and Porras, 1998). Furthermore, it is often an important means for gaining
internal and external commitment to the cause. The feeling that one is a
participant in an important endeavour creates the basis for true commitment
(Senge, 1992; Balmer, 1995).

For established companies, the quest for a mission statement often becomes
an odyssey in the organisation’s history and origins. This was also the case at
Volvo, where it was possible to go back to the thoughts of the founders – Assar
Gabrielsson and Gustaf Larson – about safety in the so-called sales manual
from the beginning of the 1930s, as quoted the Volvo brand management policy
(AB Volvo, 1997, p. 7):
An automobile is made by and for people. The basic principle for all manufacturing is and
must remain: safety . . . On this point, we are proud to be conservative. And even in the future
this will remain our guiding light.
This excerpt from the sales manual can be seen as both an early expression of
Volvo’s mission – i.e. to develop safer cars and other vehicles – and as the
embryo of a central core value. This historical foundation of an organisation’s
efforts in the area of safety has among other things contributed to the
legitimacy of the concept within the organisation. In the formulation of Volvo’s
mission, the concept of safety reappears, this time together with the core values
quality and concern for the environment: “Volvo creates value by providing
transportation related products and services with superior quality, safety and
environmental care to demanding customers in selected segments” (AB Volvo,
1998, p. 6).
If the mission is to function as a basis for the organisation’s brand building,
it must have a true foundation in the organisation’s value base. Nevertheless,
one problem is that the mission is often seen as standing alone, without ties to
the organisation’s daily operations, it therefore becomes harder to use. Within a
company that competes using its corporate brand, the mission is in contrast an
unmistakable driving force and expression of the organisation’s overall goals.
It thereby becomes a part of the brand’s identity. By integrating the core values
with the mission statement, the core values naturally assume a prominent role.
Core values shall follow the example of the mission and be future-oriented and,
in principle, never be fully satisfied. If they are static they will only be
descriptions and thereby lose an important quality.
The vision – inspiration for goals and a stimulus to development Corporate brand
In a company like Volvo, the brand vision functions as a projection of the brand building
into the future linked to the mission. It gives a vivid description of what an
organisation wishes to accomplish with the brand over the next few years
(Olins, 1989; Collins and Porras, 1998). Ideally, a brand vision is a source of
inspiration and challenge for the organisation.
Volvo’s brand strategy statement from 1997 provides a picture of an
1025
overarching vision. Volvo’s three core values of safety, quality, and concern for
the environment recur and are clearly linked to the vision:
Based on consumer-perceived quality and achievements, Volvo will distinctly, decisively and
consistently sustain and develop its brand position as a recognized leader in safety and be
ranked as a leader in terms of environmental care among the world’s top producers of
automotive and transport products, equipment and systems (AB Volvo, 1997, p. 12).
The core values can contribute to continuity and far-sightedness by also being
a part of the corporate vision.
Organisational values – the foundation of the core values

The arrangement of an organisation’s more or less expressed common values,
supporting ideas, positions, habits, and norms converge to give a corporate
culture its character. The organisational values answer in principle the
questions of what we as an organisation stand for and what it is that makes us
who we are. It is, consequently, the values that are internally regarded as
important within an organisation, but this is not necessarily the case for the
outside world (Berg and Gagliardi, 1985; Knox et al., 2000). For example, this
form of value can often be attributed to the organisation’s origin, founder(s),
dramatic events, leader(s), or other prominent persons.
At Volvo, organisational values are intimately related to the mission and
vision, and they also provide a basis for the core values. Within the company,
people speak of “Volvo-ness” and “The Volvo way”, which are expressions that
stand for the internal values, basic traits of the corporate culture, and guiding
principles. The corporate culture at Volvo is characterised by the
organisational values of, for example, care for people, responsibility,
integrity, and honesty. According to Leif Ahlberg, VP for brand
management at AB Volvo, the organisational values are, to a large extent,
ethical questions that are not independent of the core values. The
organisational values can rather be said to constitute a foundation that
provides the core values with an amplifying platform.
An insight illustrated by Volvo is that the organisational values can, in
principle, be divided into and related to three areas:
(1) product development;
(2) the way of doing business; and
(3) the feel of the organisation.
EJM The “way of developing products” often reflects what is internally considered to
37,7/8 be a product or service one can be proud of, that is, values that can often be
attributed to the form and function of the product or service. At Volvo, for
example, lively discussions are often conducted about what is “Volvo-ness” vs
what is not. The introduction of a convertible and Volvo’s involvement in racing
are examples of subjects that attracted much internal debate, partly because they
1026 were not seen as agreeing with the core values. “The way of doing business”,
which can be described, as the behaviour that the members of the organisation
feel should distinguish the organisation, in turn reflects the corporate culture and
its relationships with, for instance, customers. These organisational values often
create a basis for the emotional dimension of the brand. Finally, the “feel of the
organisation” reflects the overarching purpose and what people want to achieve.
These organisational values are often symbolic in character.

The division of the organisational values into three areas also makes it
possible to identify three core values. This structure and logic means that the
core values can summarise the functional, emotional, and symbolic dimensions
of the brand and its identity. By working with three core values of different
character and function, the basis is created for a credible and well-anchored
brand identity that has depth and breadth.
Core values – the common thread of the brand building process

Core values cannot be invented, but have to be earned and proved over and over again – and
they must never be jeopardised. In order to endure and achieve business success, every
corporation must have a sound set of beliefs or core values, which must always come before
policies, practices, and goals (AB Volvo, 1997, p. 14).
Core values can be said to fulfil a double function (see Figure 1), as illustrated
by the Volvo case. First, the organisational values are translated into the core
values that guide the organisation’s efforts. Second, the core values are
translated into customer utility value or added value for various target groups.
One of the challenges of implementing core values is that they can be
interpreted in different ways. In the Volvo brand statement, with the aim of
providing a more unified picture of the core values, the brand statement
authors have supplemented the text with short clarifying comments (Figure 3).
This statement may be seen as a summary of the company’s corporate brand
strategy, and establishes a number of principles.
The three core values that the Volvo’s brand statement is based on are
common across the corporation. How they are communicated can vary
depending on the products, target groups, and markets. The goal, however, is for
the three core values to create a common platform for the Volvo corporate brand.
The core value of quality is described as a part of Volvo’s corporate culture
in the brand statement. According to Leif Ahlberg, VP of brand management
for the Volvo Group, “quality is an attitude.” Despite the fact that quality is in
principle a prerequisite for competition, and thus as such not differentiating,
Corporate brand
building
1027
Figure 3.
The Volvo brand
statement is today in
principle unchanged,
aside from the new
corporate roles and
division of brands
between AB Volvo and
Volvo as one of the
brands under the Ford
Motor Company
EJM Ahlberg emphasises that it is Volvo’s interpretation of quality that makes the
37,7/8 concept unique and distinguishing. Björn Jutendahl, head of market
communication for Volvo Car, argues that quality not only relates to the
product, but also to relations and communication. Volvo’s goal is to have “at
least as good quality, in a broad sense, as the main competitors”.
Safety is Volvo’s primary and most differentiating core value. The goal is for
1028 Volvo to be the world leader in terms of safety in both “construction and
communication”, says Bengt Junemo, a project manager at Volvo Car. At Volvo,
efforts are focused on making safety thinking a natural part of all of the
company’s processes and philosophy. The concept of safety has, however, over
time been given a deeper and broader significance. It has been broadened from
safe products to include personal safety, safety for all passengers, safety for
others in the traffic environment and safety in relation to the environment. In this
way, the core value of safety has become more intimately related to, for example,
the organisational value of care for people, which in turn is a precondition for
being able to speak about concern for the environment with credibility.
The core value of “concern for the environment” has been disputed within
Volvo, since the products that the company manufactures and markets
undeniably have a negative environmental impact. Within the organisation, it
has, however, been reasoned that Volvo’s commitment and actual track record
in the area of environment qualifies “concern for the environment” as a core
value, according to Sven-Åke Ståhl, global marketing, Volvo Car. This core
value is not yet clearly associated with Volvo by customers, but in its own
circles it is truly established. This situation illustrates how core values can be
an expression for an intention and a part of a desired future identity.
Brand architecture – orchestration of roles and relationships based on core

values
The choice of brand architecture is decisive for how a company organises and
uses its brands. It affects among other things the number of brands, types of
brands, the brands’ roles, and their internal relationships (e.g. Doyle, 1990;
Melin and Urde, 1991; Kapferer, 1992; Aaker and Joachimstahler, 2000). There
is, however, an important underlying relationship between core values and
identity that affects the options and the potential that a given brand
architecture provides. To illustrate the link between core values and corporate
identity, examples from various companies are included in Figure 4. In
principle, it is possible to speak of four basic brand architectures:
(1) corporate brand;
(2) product brands;
(3) corporate and product brands; and
(4) product brands and corporate brand.
Corporate brand
building
1029
Figure 4.
Four fundamental brand
architectures with
different roles for the
corporate brand. The
core values and identity

affect the selection of
architecture, and
vice-versa
In Volvo’s corporate brand architecture the core values are shared by the
different products, and there is an overall brand identity. In practice, Volvo’s
corporate brand architecture meant that five different product companies could
aim at different target groups under widely varying market conditions. The
core values therefore played a decisive role in co-ordinating the brand building
process. One way of describing the logic of the brand building process at Volvo
is to create a distinction between two levels: corporate brand and product brand
(see Figure 5). These two levels are linked to the three core values, and thus
constitute the basis for corporate brand building and product brand building.
The role of the corporate brand in Volvo’s overall brand architecture is to
give credibility, in, for example, communications with government, the
financial sector, the labour market, and society in general. The individual
product companies contribute to the whole by associating the common brand
with the core values and by living up to and preferably exceeding expectations.
According to the framework, this should take place within the scope of the
corporate core values.
Figure 5.
Core-value framework
linking a corporate brand
to product brands
EJM The framework gives, at the same time, the individual product companies
37,7/8 opportunities to market their products to their customers in different markets.
To increase flexibility for the product companies, extended core values are used
that supplement the corporate core values. Volvo Car has, for example,
“attractive design” as an extended core value. The logic is consequently that
although all brand building must be based on one or several of the corporate
1030 core values, they can also be complemented with one or several extended core
values. During one of our discussions, Leif Ahlberg, VP for brand management
at the Volvo Group, drew a parallel between a core value and a melody that
should always be recognisable, regardless of musical genre or instrument.
Product attributes – building the core values into the product

With the core values as guiding themes, the task of R&D and design is that of
building the core values into the product. This way of thinking differs radically
from product styling, which is limited to cosmetic changes (Light, 1994). The
goal should instead be to make the product exude the brand’s identity.
The Volvo brand is based on and summarised largely by the core value of
safety. This core value can, as stated earlier, be attributed to the founders and
their view of the principles of automobile manufacturing and the role of the car
in society. The core value can also be traced to the company’s physical
products, i.e. the product programme, product development, and product
design. Examples of Volvo’s track record (Volvo safety features, 1927-1996) are:
reinforced passenger compartment (1944), padded dashboard (1956), seat belts
for the front seats (1957), forward and rear collision zones (1966), collapsible
steering column (1966), seat belts for the back seats (1967), side collision
protection (1973), energy-absorbing bumpers (1974), side air bags (1994), and
air bags for side windows (1998). Safety is a way of thinking at Volvo: “How
does this design affect safety? This is one of the first questions that is asked of
our engineers at the start of every new project”, says Fred Bodin, CEO of Volvo
Aero. Safety thinking has developed into a distinctive competency at Volvo.
This is reflected in technological know-how, but also in the way of seeing the
manufactured products. Instead of product development steering brand
development, brand development generally steers product development.
The main competitors of Volvo Car manufacture products that are,
objectively speaking, just as safe as those of Volvo. However, it is Volvo that is
primarily associated with safety among car drivers. Thanks to its track record,
Volvo can talk about safety with greater credibility than its competitors. For
the competitors, safety is more of a prerequisite for competition. Despite the
fact that other car manufacturers sooner or later adopt most of the product
innovations that Volvo introduces, the fact that Volvo has often been first
strengthens the link between Volvo and safety even further. This association is
of more durable character, and constitutes a source of the brand’s competitive
strength. The physical expressions of the core value of safety are consequently
possible to imitate. The core value of safety as a part of the organisation’s Corporate brand
approach and its association in the minds of customers are, in contrast, more building
difficult to imitate. The combination of core competencies and core values gives
Volvo a leverage that is critical for the company’s competitiveness.
At Volvo, people strive to “own” their interpretation of the concept of safety.
The fact that the term’s meaning is not given requires that it be discussed,
defined, and interpreted within the organisation. Although it is possible that
1031
other competing brands have the same core value, its interpretation and
expression are decisive. For example, Mercedes also has safety as one of its
core values. Its definition of safety is, however, described at Volvo as “safety
according to specification”, which is regarded as forming a more limited view
that focuses on the physical product’s technical safety. At Volvo, in contrast,
safety is described as “care for man”. This wider interpretation of the notion of
safety means among other things that the perspective has been widened to
encompass more than the car and concern about its passengers. For example,
Volvo has taken part in arranging international conferences on traffic safety
together with the UN-affiliated World Health Organisation (WHO), and the
company is also a sponsor of various research projects dealing with traffic
injuries.
Brand personality – human traits that reflect the core values

The choice of core values and how they are expressed reflects the personality of
the brand. The interpretation of the core values such as they are expressed in,
for example, action and communication forms to a large extent the image of the
brand. To personify the corporate brand, the impressions that the
communication creates must be in agreement with the values that the
company claims to stand for.
At Volvo, people strive to create a feeling of “this is my kind of company”
with the target groups. The ambition is for customers to adopt the values that
Volvo stands for, and identify with the corporate brand. An important role for
Volvo as a corporate brand therefore becomes – in addition to identifying and
differentiating – the creation of trust.
On a corporate brand level the aim is to create “Volvo as a trust mark”
(AB Volvo, 1997, p. 1). An example that is often recounted in internal
discussions is how PG Gyllenhammar, the former CEO of Volvo, handled an
inflamed environmental debate (Hedlund and Johannesson, 1996). The CEO
sent a personal letter to the media in order to explain and defend the company’s
actions. It was not only the action of the company, but also one of its core
values – that is, concern for the environment – that Gyllenhammar defended.
With arguments that appealed to readers’ feelings, PG Gyllenhammar
expressed his personal and his company’s engagement in environmental
issues. This illustrates among other things how the defence of a core value
EJM becomes an expression of the personality of the corporate brand. In this case, it
37,7/8 was ultimately a question of creating sympathy and trust.
On the product brand level, Olle Victorin – a project manager with
responsibility for the Volvo Cars account at the Forsman and Bodenfors
advertising agency – describes the personality of Volvo Cars with words like
“informal” and “critical distance”. The profile for Volvo that Forsman and
1032 Bodenfors is striving for, according to Victorin, is “an individual who is
generous and who is impassioned”. The basis is the core values, but especially
the underlying meaning in the notion of safety, such as security. Volvo Car is
“more casual and not quite as strict as its main competitors”, reasons Victorin.
Humanism and modern family values are nuances that Forsman and Bodenfors
use to express the human traits of Volvo. One way of describing the logic is by
saying that the core value of safety is linked via “the modern family” to the core
value of concern for the environment, while quality as a core value is regarded
as a precondition.
Positioning – defining the category based on core values

Positioning is primarily an efficient way of communicating the brand’s image
(Ries and Trout, 1986), while core values are guiding themes for long-term
creation of value and meaning with their roots in the brand identity. The role of
the core values in the brand building process differs from that of positioning by
being more enduring and more deeply rooted in the organisation’s value
foundation.
At Volvo, the core value of safety is closely associated with the overarching
positioning. In this particular case, this makes it difficult to draw clear
boundaries between the two concepts. This has a historical explanation. In
conjunction with an exhibition in 1972 in Washington, DC, Volvo displayed a
safety concept car that attracted considerable media attention. This occasion
was, according to Sven Åke Ståhl, manager of global marketing for Volvo, a
breakthrough for Volvo’s positioning. However, according to Ståhl, the attitude
in the auto industry was that safety could not be used as an argument for
selling cars. As far as Volvo was concerned, this meant that the company –
essentially without direct competition – could focus on safety, which in
hindsight can be seen as a first-mover advantage. Volvo introduced a new way
of evaluating cars, and thus created a new category and a position around the
concept of safety.
Bengt Junemo, a project manager with Volvo Cars, argues that although the
positioning of Volvo Car is carried out to a large degree through the various car
models, safety is the point of departure that is continually given new nuance.
According to Sven Åke Ståhl, the initiative and conviction of a number of key
persons has had great significance for Volvo’s success in maintaining its
consistent positioning. There are always factions who argue that safety has
been exploited to its maximum, and who therefore want to say something new
or different. Leif Ahlberg, VP for brand management, the Volvo Group, Corporate brand
emphasises that it is ultimately, the customers – not the organisation – who building
determine whether the promise that the brand represents is fulfilled or not.
Communication strategy – core values as a themes

In a core value-based corporate brand building process, the core values become 1033
the theme of communication. They can be used as common denominators that
are interpreted, coded, and communicated by the sender, interpreted and
decoded by the receiver (Berg and Gagliardi, 1985; Mick, 1986; Fiske, 1990;
Mollerup, 1995; van Riel; 1995). Over time, a successful process of this kind
results in the brand acquiring a meaning and content that agrees with the
brand identity. One of the tasks of communication therefore becomes that of

expressing and translating the core values into messages that interest and
appeal to customers.
When safety became a theme for Volvo Car in the mid-1970s, the results of
crash tests, crash test dummies, and descriptions of the safety details of
designs became recurring elements of communication[2]. The sign-off was:
“Drive Safely. Volvo”. The arguments in favour of safety differed markedly in
both form and content from traditional car advertisements. “When did you last
hear a car salesman speak about safety?” was an example of a headline in a car
ad by Volvo Car that targeted the low interest in safety among the car industry.
Volvo wanted to elevate safety as an important aspect in the choice of a car in
order to achieve a change in attitudes. According to Sven Åke Ståhl, manager
of global marketing at Volvo, the introduction of the seat belt as a standard
feature in the US car market was not a customer-driven decision, but rather
something that Volvo carried out based on its own convictions. In conjunction
with another introduction in the area of safety much later, Volvo referred back
to the opposition to seat belts: “Volvo introduces daytime running lights.
(People once laughed at seat belts too).” Rational arguments are directed at the
target group’s common sense while at the same time there was an emotional
undertone. An advertisement with a car model from Volvo surrounded by
crash test dummies included the introductory text: “It takes a lot of dummies to
make a car for people who think.”
An example of a subtle expression of a more recent date of the core value of
safety by Volvo was an ad campaign that depicted egg cartons. The ad was,
aside from the Volvo logo, entirely without text. The metaphor was intended to
express the link between safety and Volvo. For those who do not know about
Volvo and its commitment in the area of safety, these ads were probably
meaningless, quite simply because they did not know the codes. Olle Victorin,
project manager at the Forsman and Bodenfors advertising agency, strives for
communication that simultaneously “provokes and confirms” the picture of
Volvo. This is a line that has been used in recent years to achieve a
displacement of Volvo from the mainstream to the premium segment.
EJM A core value should not be regarded as a slogan or a payoff. Core values are
37,7/8 consequently not intended to be used directly in external communication, but
rather first interpreted and then only indirectly expressed. This is a significant
difference, since a core value that is repeated like a mantra runs the risk of
losing both its meaning and its value. According to this line of reasoning, it is
the meaning of the core values that should be communicated so that they are
1034 not reduced to meaningless words. Ideally, the core values will be experienced
by customers who understand their meaning as a result of prior experiences
with the company’s products, behaviour, communication, and so on. The
creative element in communication of the core values should consequently lie in
their continuing expression.
Internal brand identity – the core values as a mind-set

In order for the core values to be able to function as a link between the identities
of the organisation and customers, it is important that everyone understands
and is in agreement about what the core values are and what each core value
represents. The goal is for the organisation to live its core values, and thus its
brand (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Balmer, 1995; Harris and de Chernatony,
2001; Urde, 1999; Ind, 2001). This effort creates the possibility for the core
values to, with time, become transformed into an approach that permeates
thinking, ways of working, and behaviour.
To further the organisational commitment to the corporate brand, Volvo
formed the Core Value Group[3] in 1995. The idea was that responsible
representatives for the various product areas were appointed to the group and
given an opportunity to offer their views on the corporate brand. The members
of the group could voice and discuss their thoughts about the theory and
practice of matters related to brand building. An important principle is that
everybody in the group must understand that at the end of the day, the interest
of Volvo as the corporate brand overrides the interests of individual product
companies. The most important task of the brand forum is to work for the
development of the Volvo corporate brand and, at the same time, ensure that its
core values and identity are protected. Leif Ahlberg describes his view of the
brand building process with an example from the core value group:
The Brand building process must be an evolution not a revolution. At one stage, an
international advertising agency attempted to push through a change to our brand identity
that can, at best, be described as a revolution. Their suggestion laid far too much weight on
the current market situation so the core value group said stop, that is enough, and decided to
promote a style that would reflect the history and soul of Volvo.
The core value group is also responsible for evaluating the brand building
process. This includes the use of international tracking studies to see how the
three core values develop in each market and in each product area. The group is
also accountable for managing the development of the various policies and
control documents, such as the Volvo brand management policy. These, in their
turn, refer to a number of specific documents that affect such matters as Corporate brand
sponsoring. building
Conclusions and implications

The discussion in this article about core value-based corporate brand building
is, in the first instance, linked to lines of thought encompassed by corporate 1035
strategy thinking (e.g. Collins and Porras, 1998) and resource-based strategy
perspectives (e.g. Prahalad and Hamel, 1990), symbolic management (e.g. Berg
and Gagliardi, 1985) and the expressive organisation (e.g. Schultz et al., 2000;
Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Knox et al., 2000), brand and corporate brand
management (e.g. King, 1991; Kapferer, 1992, 2001; Keller, 1998; Balmer, 1995;
Melin, 1997; Urde, 1997), corporate identity (Olins, 1989, 2000; van Riel and
Balmer, 1997), corporate communications and reputation management (e.g.
Bernstein, 1984; van Riel, 1995; Fombrun, 1996), and organisational theory (e.g.
Senge, 1992). An eclectic approach to research into corporate brand
management (Balmer, 1995) is needed to join the aforementioned areas into a
meaningful whole from which cross-fertilisation and new ideas can flourish.
In an era where it is becoming increasingly important to sustain a
competitive advantage (Balmer, 1995), corporate brands can no longer “just
stand there, they must stand for something” (Wrench, 2001). This article, which
offers a framework on which to build a corporate brand’s value, contributes to
the research into the nature, role and function of the core value.
To conclude the discussion, core values can be defined as all-embracing
terms that sum up the identity of the brand as well as being the guiding
principles for all internal and external brand building processes. A
characteristic of a core value is that it is a dynamic rather than an inactive
description. This implies that the core values shall be guiding factors and
represent a direction for product development, behaviour and communication
processes. Although the core values must be seen as lasting factors, they must
also be dynamic by nature and continually be adapted and developed so as to
encourage a sense of challenge and adventure that is relevant both internally
and externally. It should also be pointed out that because the requirements of
the core values are continually revised, it is not possible to satisfy these
requirements and therefore the company achieves its core values through
action. Neither is it possible to choose or create a core value that is not already
firmly established in the organisation; if this is not the case they are just empty
words. It is not a requirement of the core value to be unique, but it is a
requirement that interpretation and expression are. The creative aspects should
target the interpretation and usage of the core value and not the creation of new
core values.
The purpose of a core value-based brand building process is to establish a
unifying common thread. And the reason for talking about three core values is
to ensure that the functional, emotional and symbolic dimensions of the
EJM corporate brand are all included. Another way of putting this is to say that the
37,7/8 three core values must stand for and persuade through the use of logos (logical
argument), ethos (character and personality) and pathos (feelings).
In the internal brand building process the core values link mission, vision
and organisational values, they also affect the brand architecture, product
attributes, brand positioning and communications strategy. This means that
1036 the core values influence continuity, consistency and credibility in the building
of a corporate brand. The core value can also work as a link between a
corporate brand and product brands.
In the external brand building process, the core values are realised through
added values. It should be understood that they will also affect the image of the
corporate brand.
Implications
From both a theoretical and practical perspective, there is a need to link core
competencies to core values. The challenge is to organise a company’s resource
base and internal processes in a manner that both strengthens and
differentiates the core value. The goal should be to ensure that the core
values that the corporate brand stands for are expressed as added values that
the customer experiences as useful and unique; they must also be difficult for
competitors to imitate. The factors that link core values and the corporate
brand are decisive for brand equity and competitive strength; and all work
associated with the core value promise is a step towards an increased level of
brand orientation. Such a process must have the full support of the executive
management and the organisation as a whole. The implementation of core
values and organisational commitment are examples of areas that need more
research.
Notes
1. Today, AB Volvo is an independent company that manufactures and markets trucks, buses,
aircraft engines, marine engines, and construction equipment. At the same time, Volvo is an
independent brand for cars within The Ford Motor Company. The Volvo trademark is
jointly and equally owned by The Volvo Group and The Ford Motor Company. Despite the
fact that Volvo as a single company no longer exists, it is the intention of the two
corporations to continue to develop and protect the Volvo brand. A comment by Ford Motor
Company CEO Jack Nasser on CNN when the price of the acquisition reached SEK50 billion
was that “Volvo stands for values that belong to the future”.
2. The background material in this section comes from “The Volvo copy platform and
communication directives” (AB Volvo, 1989) and Perrier (1993).
3. Within the Volvo group this forum is now known as the Group Issue Board: Brand
Mangement. The author was invited to participate in the forum’s first two meetings in 1995.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimstahler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, The Free Press, New York, NY.
AB Volvo (1997), “Volvo brand management policy”, internal document, AB Volvo, Gothenburg. Corporate brand
AB Volvo (1998), “The Volvo core value policies”, internal document, AB Volvo, Gothenburg. building
AB Volve (1989), “Volvo copy platform and communication directives”, internal document, AB
Volvo, Gothenburg.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brand management”,
1037
Journal of General Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), “Building societies: change, strategy and corporate
identity”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resouces and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1997), Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
Berg, P.-O. and Gagliardi, P. (1985), “Corporate images: a symbolic perspective on the
organisation – environment interface”, paper presented at SCOS, Antibes.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, Penguin, London.
Bernstein, D. (1984), Company Image and Reality, Cassell, London.
Björholt, I., Gren, M., Melin, F. and Urde, M. (1995), “Brand management in the Volvo group”,
internal document, AB Volvo, Gothenburg.
Campbell, A. and Yeung, S. (1991), “Creating a sense of mission”, in De Witt, B. and Meyer, R.
(Eds), Strategy Process, Content, Context – an International Perspective, West Publishing
Company, New York, NY, pp. 147-56.
Christiansen, L.T. and Askegaard, S. (2001), “Corporate identity and corporate image revisited –
a semiotic perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 292-315.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J. (1998), Built to Last, Random House, London.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 157-79.
de Chernatony, L. and MacDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands, Butterworth
Heinemann, Oxford.
de Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Riley, D. (2000), “Added value: its nature, roles and
sustainability”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1/2, pp. 39-56.
Doyle, P. (1990), “Building successful brands: the strategic options”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Drucker, P.F. (1973), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row, New York,
NY.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997), Intellectual Capital, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Fiske, J. (1990), Introduction to Communication Studies, Routledge, London.
Fombrun, J.C. (1996), Reputation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gad, T. (2001), 4-D Branding, Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, The Sociology Press, San Francisco, CA.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine de Gruyter,
Hawthorne.
Grant, R.M. (1995), Contemporary Strategy Analysis, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
EJM Grönroos, C. (1995), “Relationship marketing: the strategy continuum”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 252-4.
37,7/8
Guiraud, P. (1992), Semiology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Hall, R. (1992), “The strategic analysis of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 13, pp. 135-44.
Hankinson, P. (2000), “Brand orientation in charity organisations: qualitative research into key
1038 charity sectors”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 207-19.
Harmon, F.G. (1996), Playing for Keeps, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 441-56.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”,
Harvard Business Review No. February, pp. 129-34.

Hedlund, S. and Johannesson, K. (1996), Marknadsretorik, SIFU, Borås.
Higgins, E.T. (1987), “Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan Business, London.
Ind, N. (2001), Living the Brand, Kogan Page, London.
Itami, H. and Roehl, T.W. (1987), Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Jensen, P. (1999), The Dream Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Jones, G. and Morgan, N.J. (Eds) (1994), Adding Value, Routledge, London.
Kapferer, J-N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Kapferer, J-N. (2001), Reinventing the brand, Kogan Page, London.
Kapferer, J-N. and Laurent, G. (1992), La Sensibilité aux Marques, Les Éditions d’Organisation,
Paris.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. (1999), “Brand mantras: rationale, criteria and examples”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 43-51.
Keller, K.L. (2000), “Building and managing corporate brand equity”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.-J.
and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 115-37.
King, S. (1991), “Brand building in the 1990s”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7, pp. 3-13.
Knox, S. and Maklan, S. (1998), Competing on Value, Financial Times Pitman Publishing,
London.
Knox, S., Maklan, S. and Thompson, K.E. (2000), “Building the unique organizational value
proposition”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M-J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive
Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 138-53.
Kunde, J. (2000), Corporate Religion, Financial Times Prentice Hall, London.
Levitt, T. (1960), “Marketing myopia”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 45-56.
Light, L. (1994), The Forth Wave – Brand Loyalty Marketing, Coalition for Brand Equity, New
York, NY.
Linn, C.E. (1990), Metaprodukten och det skapande företaget, LiberFörlag, Malmö.
Louro, M.J. and Cunha, V.P. (2001), “Brand management paradigms”, Journal of Marketing Corporate brand
building
McCracken, G. (1993), “The value of the brand: an anthropological perspective”, in Aaker, D.A.
and Biel, A.L. (Eds), Brand Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 125-39.
Macrae, C. (1996), The Brand Chartering Handbook, Addison-Wesley Longman, Harlow.
Mark, M. and Pearson, C.S. (2001), The Hero and the Outlaw, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 1039
Melin, F. (1997), “Varumärket som strategiskt konkurrensmedel”, doctoral thesis, Lund
University Press, Lund.
Melin, F. and Urde, M. (1991), Varumärket – en hotad tillgång, Liber, Malmö.
Mick, D.G. (1986), “Consumer research and semiotics”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,
September, pp. 196-213.
Mollerup, P. (1995), Marks of Excellence, Lund Institute of Technology School of Architecture,

Lund.
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson, London.
Olins, W. (2000), “How brands are taking over the corporation”, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M-J. and
Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 51-65.
Osborne, R.L. (1991), “Core value statements: the corporate compass”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34
No. 5, p. 28.
Perrier, R. (Ed.) (1993), Forty Years of Selling Volvo, Booklands Books, Cobham.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Havard Business
Review, Vol. 68, May/June, pp. 79-91.
Randazzo, S. (1993), Mythmaking on Madison Avenue, Probus, Chicago, IL.
Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: the Battle for your Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Schmitt, B. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M. and Larsen, H.M. (Eds) (2000), The Expressive Organization, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Senge, P.M. (1992), The Fifth Discipline, Sage, London.
Silverman, B. (1993), Interpeting Qualitative Data – Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction, Sage, London.
Solomon, M.R. (1983), “The role of social stimuli: symbolic interactionism perspective”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 319-30.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1989), Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Upshaw, L.B. (1995), Building Brand Identity, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Urde, M. (1994), “Brand orientation – a strategy for survival”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Urde, M. (1997), Märkesorientering (Brandorientation), doctoral thesis, Lund University Press,
Lund.
Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation: a mindset for building brands into strategic resources”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3, pp. 117-33.
van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communications, Prentice-Hall, London.
van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and
management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, pp. 1-14.
EJM Wrench, C. (2001), “Dont’t just stand there: stand for something”, paper presented at the Fourth
Lord Goold Memorial Lecture, The International Corporate Identity Symposium, London.
37,7/8 Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research – Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods
Series, Vol. 5, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yin, R.K. (1993), Applications of Case Study Research Applied Social Research Methods Series,
Vol. 34, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
1040
Further reading
AB Volvo (1999), “The Volvo Way”, internal document, AB Volvo, Gothenburg.
AB Volvo (1999), “Volvo och sponsoring”, internal document, AB Volvo, Gothenburg.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 4, pp. 963-96.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
September, pp. 139-68.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing Research, September, pp. 24-33.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”, Havard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 3,
pp. 63-76.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Macrae, C. (1999), “Brand reality editorial: an opening of marketing minds”, Journal of Marketing
Park, C.W., Jaworoski, B.J. and MacInnes, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept-image
management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. October, pp. 135-45.
Perrier, R. (Ed.) (1997), Brand Valuation, Premier Books, London.
Tauber, E.M. (1988), “Brand leverage: strategy for growth in a cost-control world”, Journal of
Advertising Research, August-September, pp. 26-30.
This article has been cited by:
1. Philip J Kitchen, Marwa E Tourky, Dianne Dean, Ahmed S Shaalan. 2014. Corporate Identity
Antecedents and Components: Toward a Theoretical Framework. Corporate Reputation Review 16,
263-284. [CrossRef]
2. Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, Nadine Hennigs, Steffen Schmidt, Thomas Wuestefeld. 2014. Brand Heritage
and its Impact on Corporate Reputation: Corporate Roots as a Vision for the Future. Corporate Reputation
Review 16, 187-205. [CrossRef]
3. Zalfa Laili Hamzah, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Md Nor Othman. 2014. Designing corporate brand
experience in an online context: A qualitative insight. Journal of Business Research 67, 2299-2310.
[CrossRef]
4. Hugo Skaalsvik, Bjørn Olsen. 2014. A study of a service brand process in a cruise context: the perspective
of the service employees. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:4, 446-461.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. Silvia Biraghi, Rossella Chiara Gambetti. 2014. Corporate branding: Where are we? A systematic
communication-based inquiry. Journal of Marketing Communications 1-24. [CrossRef]
6. Tatiana Anisimova. 2014. Benchmarking desired corporate brand image in relation to stakeholders: a
managerial perspective. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:4, 441-463. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. Johan van Rekom, Frank M. Go, Dayenne M. Calter. 2014. Communicating a company's positive impact
on society—Can plausible explanations secure authenticity?. Journal of Business Research 67, 1831-1838.
[CrossRef]
8. Dr Mourad Oussalah and Professor Ali Hessami, Hugo Skaalsvik, Bjørn Olsen. 2014. Service branding:
suggesting an interactive model of service brand development. Kybernetes 43:8, 1209-1223. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
9. Carlo Rohner,, Battal Kalan,, Kim Oliver Tokarski. 2014. Corporate Brand Management von KMU:
Eine qualitativ-explorative Bestandsaufnahme der identitätsbasierten Markenführung bei Schweizer und
Liechtensteiner Unternehmen. ZfKE – Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship 62, 99-123. [CrossRef]
10. Professor Ian Phau and Min Teah, RayeCarol Cavender, Doris H. Kincade. 2014. Management of a luxury
brand: dimensions and sub-variables from a case study of LVMH. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 18:2, 231-248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Jasmina Ilicic, Cynthia M Webster. 2014. Investigating consumer–brand relational authenticity. Journal
of Brand Management 21, 342-363. [CrossRef]
12. Prof. T.C. Melewar and Prof. Bill Merrilees, Mari Juntunen. 2014. Interpretative narrative process research
approach to corporate renaming. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 17:2, 112-127.
13. Anne Maarit Jalkala, Joona Keränen. 2014. Brand positioning strategies for industrial firms providing
customer solutions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:3, 253-264. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
14. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2014. Developing and testing a value chain for fashion retailers:
activities for competitive success. Journal of the Textile Institute 105, 136-149. [CrossRef]
15. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix Mavondo. 2014. Aligning Company and Dealer Perspectives in Corporate
Branding: Implications for Dealer Satisfaction and Commitment. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing
21, 35-56. [CrossRef]
16. Saku Hirvonen, Tommi Laukkanen. 2014. Brand orientation in small firms: an empirical test of the
impact on brand performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing 22, 41-58. [CrossRef]
17. Lina Xiong, Ceridwyn King, Rico Piehler. 2013. “That's not my job”: Exploring the employee perspective
in the development of brand ambassadors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 35, 348-359.
[CrossRef]
18. Yen-Tsung Huang, Ya-Ting Tsai. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of brand-oriented companies.
European Journal of Marketing 47:11/12, 2020-2041. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Johan van Rekom, Guido Berens, Mignon van Halderen. 2013. Corporate social responsibility: Playing
to win, or playing not to lose? Doing good by increasing the social benefits of a company’s core activities.
Journal of Brand Management 20, 800-814. [CrossRef]
20. Mats Urde. 2013. The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management 20, 742-761.
[CrossRef]
21. Leonie Lockstone, Martin Robertson, Olga Junek, Tommy D. Andersson, Henrik Jutbring, Erik
Lundberg. 2013. When a music festival goes veggie. International Journal of Event and Festival Management
4:3, 224-235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Mari Juntunen, Jouni Juntunen, Vesa Autere. 2013. Recruits’ Corporate Brand Co-creation Experiences
of the Finnish Military Forces. Corporate Reputation Review 15, 88-104. [CrossRef]
23. Ian Phau, Min Teah, Jing Theng So, Andrew Grant Parsons, Sheau‐Fen Yap. 2013. Corporate branding,
emotional attachment and brand loyalty: the case of luxury fashion branding. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal 17:4, 403-423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Tatiana Anisimova. 2013. Evaluating the impact of corporate brand on consumer satisfaction. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25:4, 561-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Johan Gromark, Frans Melin. 2013. From market orientation to brand orientation in the public sector.
Journal of Marketing Management 29, 1099-1123. [CrossRef]
26. Christine Vallaster, Adam Lindgreen. 2013. The role of social interactions in building internal corporate
brands: Implications for sustainability. Journal of World Business 48, 297-310. [CrossRef]
27. Carsten Baumgarth, Bill Merrilees, Mats Urde. 2013. Brand orientation: Past, present, and future. Journal
of Marketing Management 29, 973-980. [CrossRef]
28. Richard Gyrd-Jones, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2013. Revisiting the complexities of corporate branding:
Issues, paradoxes, solutions. Journal of Brand Management 20, 571-589. [CrossRef]
29. Peter Reeves. 2013. Local Political Marketing in the Context of the Conservative Party. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 25, 127-163. [CrossRef]
30. Dale Miller, Bill Merrilees. 2013. Rebuilding community corporate brands: A total stakeholder
involvement approach. Journal of Business Research 66, 172-179. [CrossRef]
31. Maja Konecnik Ruzzier, Leslie de Chernatony. 2013. Developing and applying a place brand identity
model: The case of Slovenia. Journal of Business Research 66, 45-52. [CrossRef]
32. Mats Urde, Carsten Baumgarth, Bill Merrilees. 2013. Brand orientation and market orientation — From
alternatives to synergy. Journal of Business Research 66, 13-20. [CrossRef]
33. Michael Hutchinson, Gregg Bennett. 2012. Core values brand building in sport: Stakeholder attitudes
towards intercollegiate athletics and university brand congruency. Sport Management Review 15, 434-447.
[CrossRef]
34. Manuela Gussoni, Andrea Mangani. 2012. Corporate branding strategies in mergers and acquisitions.
Journal of Brand Management 19, 772-787. [CrossRef]
35. Temi Abimbola, Myfanwy Trueman, Oriol Iglesias, Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn. 2012. Corporate
identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1048-1063.
36. Temi Abimbola, Myfanwy Trueman, Oriol Iglesias, John M.T. Balmer. 2012. Strategic corporate brand
alignment. European Journal of Marketing 46:7/8, 1064-1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Chris Mason, John Simmons. 2012. Are they being served? Linking consumer expectation, evaluation
and commitment. Journal of Services Marketing 26:4, 227-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. François Robichaud, André Richelieu, Robert Kozak. 2012. Branding as a communications strategy: A
framework for desired brand identity. Journal of Brand Management 19, 712-734. [CrossRef]
39. T.C. Melewar, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos, T.C. Melewar, Manto Gotsi, Constantine
Andriopoulos. 2012. Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding: avenues for future research.
European Journal of Marketing 46:5, 600-608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, Demetris Vrontis, Michael Czinkota, Alvin Hadiono. 2012. Corporate
branding and transformational leadership in turbulent times. Journal of Product & Brand Management
41. Milena M. Parent, Line Eskerud, Dag Vidar Hanstad. 2012. Brand creation in international recurring
sports events. Sport Management Review 15, 145-159. [CrossRef]
42. Professor Jesus Camra‐Fierro, Dr Edgar Centeno, Mari Juntunen. 2012. Co‐creating corporate brands in
start‐ups. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 30:2, 230-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Anna Blombäck, Marcela Ramírez‐Pasillas. 2012. Exploring the logics of corporate brand identity
formation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 17:1, 7-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Chris Chapleo. 2012. What is the Secret of Successful University Brands?. International Journal of
Technology and Educational Marketing 2:10.4018/IJTEM.20120101, 1-13. [CrossRef]
45. John M.T. Balmer, Shaun M. Powell, Bradford T. Hudson. 2011. Brand heritage and the renaissance of
Cunard. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10, 1538-1556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. John M.T. Balmer, Shaun M. Powell, Elif Karaosmanoğlu, Ayşe Banu Elmadağ Baş, Jingyun (Kay) Zhang.
2011. The role of other customer effect in corporate marketing. European Journal of Marketing 45:9/10,
1416-1445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Oriol Iglesias, Jatinder J. Singh, Mònica Casabayó, Ulla Hakala, Sonja Lätti, Birgitta Sandberg. 2011.
Operationalising brand heritage and cultural heritage. Journal of Product & Brand Management 20:6,
48. Leonardo Dioko, Rich Harrill, Saila Saraniemi. 2011. From destination image building to identity‐based
branding. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 5:3, 247-254. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
49. Elaine Wallace, Leslie Chernatony, Isabel Buil. 2011. How Leadership and Commitment Influence Bank
Employees’ Adoption of their Bank’s Values. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 397-414. [CrossRef]
50. Hongwei He, Yan Li. 2011. CSR and Service Brand: The Mediating Effect of Brand Identification and
Moderating Effect of Service Quality. Journal of Business Ethics 100, 673-688. [CrossRef]
51. Johan Gromark, Frans Melin. 2011. The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on
financial performance. Journal of Brand Management 18, 394-410. [CrossRef]
52. Klaus-Peter Wiedmann, Nadine Hennigs, Steffen Schmidt, Thomas Wuestefeld. 2011. Drivers and
Outcomes of Brand Heritage: Consumers' Perception of Heritage Brands in the Automotive Industry.
The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19, 205-220. [CrossRef]
53. Julie McColl, Christopher Moore. 2011. An exploration of fashion retailer own brand strategies. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 15:1, 91-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. John M T Balmer. 2010. Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflections and directions
from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18, 180-196. [CrossRef]
55. Mari Juntunen, Saila Saraniemi, Milla Halttu, Jaana Tähtinen. 2010. Corporate brand building in different
stages of small business growth. Journal of Brand Management 18, 115-133. [CrossRef]
56. Krista Jaakson. 2010. Management by values: are some values better than others?. Journal of Management
Development 29:9, 795-806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Melike Demirbag Kaplan, Oznur Yurt, Burcu Guneri, Kemal Kurtulus. 2010. Branding places: applying
brand personality concept to cities. European Journal of Marketing 44:9/10, 1286-1304. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
58. Temi Abimbola, Ming Lim, Olutayo Otubanjo, Temi Abimbola, Olusanmi Amujo. 2010.
Conceptualising the notion of corporate brand covenant. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:6,
59. Bharati Bina Hawabhay, Russell Abratt, Mark Peters. 2010. The Role of Corporate Communications
in Developing a Corporate Brand Image and Reputation in Mauritius. Corporate Reputation Review 12,
3-20. [CrossRef]
60. Martine Spence, Leila Hamzaoui Essoussi. 2010. SME brand building and management: an exploratory
study. European Journal of Marketing 44:7/8, 1037-1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Saila Saraniemi. 2010. Destination brand identity development and value system. Tourism Review 65:2,
62. Krista Jaakson. 2010. Engagement of Organizational Stakeholders in the Process of Formulating Values
Statements. Atlantic Journal of Communication 18, 158-176. [CrossRef]
63. Tatiana Anisimova, Felix T. Mavondo. 2010. The performance implications of company‐salesperson
corporate brand misalignment. European Journal of Marketing 44:6, 771-795. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
64. Tatiana Anisimova. 2010. Corporate brand: The company-customer misalignment and its performance
implications. Journal of Brand Management 17, 488-503. [CrossRef]
65. Marcelo Vinhal Nepomuceno, Juliana Barreiros Porto. 2010. Human values and attitudes toward bank
services in Brazil. International Journal of Bank Marketing 28:3, 168-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Jane Hemsley‐Brown, Anthony Lowrie, Chris Chapleo. 2010. What defines “successful” university
brands?. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23:2, 169-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Angela Tregear, Matthew Gorton. 2009. The challenges of sharing: brands as club goods. European
Journal of Marketing 43:5/6, 826-842. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Elaine Wallace, Leslie De Chernatony. 2009. Service Employee Performance: Its Components and
Antecedents. Journal of Relationship Marketing 8, 82-102. [CrossRef]
69. John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser, Mats Urde. 2009. Uncovering the corporate brand's core values.
Management Decision 47:4, 616-638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser, John M.T. Balmer. 2009. Corporate marketing: apocalypse,
advent and epiphany. Management Decision 47:4, 544-572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Sylvia von Wallpach, Arch G. WoodsideChapter 8 Enacted internal branding: theory, practice, and an
experiential learning case study of an Austrian B2B company 389-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
[PDF]
72. Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi, Rui Vinhas Da Silva. 2008. Online and Offline Corporate Brand Images: Do
They Differ?. Corporate Reputation Review 10, 217-244. [CrossRef]
73. Ram Herstein, Eugene D. Jaffe. 2008. Sport hospitality as a business strategy. Journal of Business Strategy
74. Veronika Tarnovskaya, Ulf Elg, Steve Burt. 2008. The role of corporate branding in a market driving
strategy. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 36:11, 941-965. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
75. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2008. Online brand attributes and online corporate
brand images. European Journal of Marketing 42:9/10, 1039-1058. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Laurent Muzellec, Mary Lambkin. 2008. Corporate Rebranding and the Implications for Brand
Architecture Management: The Case of Guinness (Diageo) Ireland. Journal of Strategic Marketing 16,
283-299. [CrossRef]
77. Åsa Wallström, Ted Karlsson, Esmail Salehi-Sangari. 2008. Building a corporate brand: The internal
brand building process in Swedish service firms. Journal of Brand Management 16, 40-50. [CrossRef]
78. Leslie de Chernatony, George Christodoulides, Stuart Roper, Temi Abimbola, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller.
2008. Principles of corporate rebranding. European Journal of Marketing 42:5/6, 537-552. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
79. Jukka Ojasalo, Satu Nätti, Rami Olkkonen. 2008. Brand building in software SMEs: an empirical study.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 17:2, 92-107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Tatiana Anatolevena Anisimova. 2007. The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and
behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing 24:7, 395-405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Dr Shaun Powell, Professor John M.T. Balmer, Professor T.C. Melewar, John M.T. Balmer, Mei‐Na
Liao. 2007. Student corporate brand identification: an exploratory case study. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal 12:4, 356-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Dr Shaun Powell, Professor John M.T. Balmer, Professor T.C. Melewar, B. Olutayo Otubanjo, T.C.
Melewar. 2007. Understanding the meaning of corporate identity: a conceptual and semiological approach.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12:4, 414-432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Heather Skinner, Krzysztof Kubacki. 2007. Unravelling the complex relationship between nationhood,
national and cultural identity, and place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 3, 305-316.
[CrossRef]
84. Mats Urde, Stephen A Greyser, John M T Balmer. 2007. Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of
Brand Management 15, 4-19. [CrossRef]
85. Charles Dennis, Tamira King, Tony Kent, Dominic Stone. 2007. The Body Shop and the role of design
in retail branding. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35:7, 531-543. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
86. Guido Palazzo, Kunal Basu. 2007. The Ethical Backlash of Corporate Branding. Journal of Business Ethics
73, 333-346. [CrossRef]
87. Roger Bennett, Rehnuma Ali‐Choudhury, Wendy Mousley. 2007. Television viewers' motivations to
follow the 2005 Ashes Test series: implications for the rebranding of English cricket. Journal of Product
& Brand Management 16:1, 23-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Graham Hankinson. 2007. The management of destination brands: Five guiding principles based on
recent developments in corporate branding theory. Journal of Brand Management 14, 240-254. [CrossRef]
89. Morgan P. Miles, Linda S. Munilla, Jenny Darroch. 2006. The Role of Strategic Conversations with
Stakeholders in the Formation of Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 69,
195-205. [CrossRef]
90. John M T Balmer, Stephen A Greyser, Mats Urde. 2006. The Crown as a corporate brand: Insights from
monarchies. Journal of Brand Management 14, 137-161. [CrossRef]
91. Jon Hulberg. 2006. Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: A literature study. Journal
of Brand Management 14, 60-73. [CrossRef]
92. Rui Vinhas Da Silva, Sharifah Faridah Syed Alwi. 2006. Cognitive, affective attributes and conative,
behavioural responses in retail corporate branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 15:5, 293-305.
93. John M.T. Balmer, Avinandan Mukherjee, Stephen A. Greyser, Per Jenster, Laurent Muzellec, Mary
Lambkin. 2006. Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?. European
Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 803-824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Henry Yu Xie, David J. Boggs. 2006. Corporate branding versus product branding in emerging markets.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:4, 347-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. 2006. Impact of Advertising Variability on Building Customer-Based Brand Personality in a Competitive
Environment: Empirical Analysis with Reference to Mexico. Latin American Business Review 6, 63-84.
[CrossRef]
96. Pavel Štrach, André M. Everett. 2006. Brand corrosion: mass‐marketing's threat to luxury automobile
brands after merger and acquisition. Journal of Product & Brand Management 15:2, 106-120. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
97. Eitan Yaniv, Ferenc Farkas. 2005. The impact of person-organization fit on the corporate brand perception
of employees and of customers. Journal of Change Management 5, 447-461. [CrossRef]
98. Jonathan E. Schroeder. 2005. The artist and the brand. European Journal of Marketing 39:11/12,
99. Chris ChapleoExploring the Secret of Successful University Brands 94-108. [CrossRef]

Urde 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Urde 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urde 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Journal of Marketing

Core value‐based corporate brand building

References: this document contains references to 98 other documents.

(3) values as they are experienced by customers.

Values that are related to the organisation

Values that sum up the brand

Values as experienced by the customer

brand and a commodity. An added value may be functional, emotional and/or

mind set – an organisation’s approach to brands – is the decisive factor (Urde,

A brand building process based on core values

1024 The mission – commitment to the overarching task

(Senge, 1992; Balmer, 1995).

Organisational values – the foundation of the core values

These organisational values are often symbolic in character.

Core values – the common thread of the brand building process

Brand architecture – orchestration of roles and relationships based on core

core values and identity

Product attributes – building the core values into the product

Brand personality – human traits that reflect the core values

Positioning – defining the category based on core values

Communication strategy – core values as a themes

brand identity. One of the tasks of communication therefore becomes that of

Internal brand identity – the core values as a mind-set

Conclusions and implications

Harvard Business Review No. February, pp. 129-34.

Mollerup, P. (1995), Marks of Excellence, Lund Institute of Technology School of Architecture,

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

You might also like