Degree Project in Industrial Engineering and Management

Second Cycle, 30 Credits

Brand Building for Startups

A brand building framework for startups to establish a coherent
and long lasting brand

ANNA PILZ SONNBY

PAULINE KNUTSSON

Stockholm, Sweden 2022

 Brand Building for Startups
A brand building framework for startups to establish a coherent and long-lasting
brand

by

Anna Pilz Sonnby

Pauline Knutsson

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:280

KTH Industrial Engineering and Management
Industrial Economics and Management
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
 Varumärkesbyggande för startups
Ett ramverk inom varumärkesbyggande för startups för att etablera och utveckla ett
enhetligt och långsiktigt varumärke

av

Anna Pilz Sonnby

Pauline Knutsson

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:280

KTH Industriell teknik och management
Industriell ekonomi och organisation
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
 Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2022:280

Brand Building for Startups: A brand building

framework for startups to establish a coherent and
long-lasting brand

Anna Pilz Sonnby

Pauline Knutsson
Approved Examiner Supervisor
2022-06-09 Kristina Nyström Michelle Rydback
Commissioner Contact person
Kurppa Hosk Maija Bigestans

Abstract
The brand is something every company must deal with whether they like it or not, and as a
company grows it develops and works as a way to build recognition, trust, customer loyalty and
employee branding (Jones, 2022). In the fast-paced startup environment, the resources are
limited, and focus has to be split between different tasks and the most urgent problems are the
ones to be dealt with - leaving the rest to be, where the unmeasurable and intangible focus areas
such as branding often get deprioritized. The purpose of this study is to investigate the brand
development process amongst startups, and to investigate how this aligns with the developed
brand building framework for startups. The methods used are of qualitative nature, including 3
exploratory interviews, a literature review, framework development, 8 semi-structured
interviews and thematic analysis of the collected data. The thesis resulted in insights on the
brand understanding in startups, as well as findings concerning thresholds for startups to invest
in their brand work. A varying level of understanding of brand between the startups could be
seen, both in regards of what brand includes, but also which building blocks are necessary and
how the brand can elevate the business. This paper is expected to contribute both toward a
deeper theoretical understanding of branding frameworks for startups as well as working as a
practical guide. In practice, this paper will guide startups in how to properly build their brand
and keep a balanced approach to brand and how to properly build the brand and brand
foundation.

Key-words: startup branding; brand strategy; brand building; branding

Table of Contents
List of Tables 2

List of Figures 3

List of Abbreviations 4

Foreword and Acknowledgements 5

Introduction 7

1.1 Background 7

1.2 Problem formulation 8

1.3 Purpose and RQ 8

1.4 Expected contributions 9

1.5 Sustainability aspects 9

1.6 Delimitations 10

1.7 Outline of thesis 10

Literature review 12

2.1.Concept of branding 12

2.1.1 Definition of brand 12

2.1.2 Brand building process 14

2.1.2.1 Brand platform 16

2.1.2.2 Brand identity 19

2.1.2.3 External and internal touchpoints 20

2.1.3 Brand management 22

2.1.4 Brand equity 23

2.1.5 Branding versus marketing 25

2.2. The startup development process 25

2.2.1 Startup definition 25

2.2.2 Building and scaling the startup 26

2.2.2.1 Minimum Viable Product 26

2.2.2.2 The Lean Startup 27

2.2.2.3 The Lean Startup Canvas 29

2.2.2.4 Financing and scaling 30

 2.2.3 Startups and innovation 31

2.3. Branding for startups 31

2.3.1 Brand building for startups 31

2.3.2 Startup brand management 32

2.4. Frameworks 33

2.4.1 Framework A: The Brand Concept Triangle 33

2.4.2 Framework B: Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower 33

2.4.3 Framework C: The Brand Building Pyramid 34

2.4.4 Framework D: Strategic Brand Management Process 34

2.4.5 Suggested framework E: Startup Brand Building Process 34

Methodology 38

3.1 Research design 38

3.2 Pre-Study 39

3.3 Literature review 39

3.4 Multiple-case study 40

3.3.1 Selection of cases 40

3.3.2 Interviews 41

3.4 Data analysis 41

3.5 Research Quality 42

3.6 Ethical Considerations 43

Empirical Findings 45

4.1 Interview descriptions 45

4.2 Thematic analysis 46

4.3 View on branding 46

4.4 Brand focus 47

4.5 Establishing a brand foundation 48

4.5.1 Target Groups and Positioning 49

4.6 Visual identity development 50

4.7 Approach on working with brand 50

4.7.1 When and how to work with branding? 50

4.7.2 In-house competence or outsourcing? 51

1
 4.8 Investing in brand 53

4.9 Branding activities 54

4.10 Brand maintenance 55

Discussion 56

5.1 Understand 56

5.2 Develop 57

5.3 Plan 58

5.4 Implement 59

Conclusion 61

6.1 Conclusion 61

6.2 Limitations and future research 61

References 63

Appendices 70

Appendix I: Interview guidelines 70

Appendix II: Description of the interviewed companies 71

2
List of Tables
Table 1: Components of Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication,

2 november)

Table 2: Pre-study interviews.

Table 3: Keywords used in literature review.

Table 4: Interviews with startup representatives.

Table 5: Thematic analysis coding.

Table 6: The studied companies.

Table A: Semi structured interview questions and guidelines.

3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sustainable development goal 8 (Goal 8 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

2022)

Figure 2: Sustainable development goal 9 (Goal 9 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs,

2022)

Figure 3: The Brand Concept Triangle (Kapferer, 2012 p. 12)

Figure 4: The Brand Building Pyramid (Kapferer, 2012, p.34)

Figure 5: Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2 november)

Figure 6: 8xCs – required input for brand platform (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2

november)

Figure 7: Brand foundation ideals (*Brand identity ideals originally, Wheeler, 2013, p.31)

Figure 8: Brand Touchpoints (Wheeler, 2013, p.3)

Figure 9: Strategic Brand Management Process (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020, p. 29)

Figure 10: Product development process using the MVP concept (Blank, 2013)

Figure 11: Business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010, p.44)

Figure 12: The customer development process (Blank, 2013)

Figure 13: The lean startup canvas (Maurya, 2012, p. 88)

Figure 14: Using the lean startup canvas (Maurya, 2016, p.14)

Figure 15: Building Blocks for suggested framework (Personal Collection)

Figure 16: Process of building suggested framework (Personal Collection)

Figure 17: Suggested framework: Startup Brand Building Process (Personal Collection).

4
List of Abbreviations
B2B Business to business

B2C Business to Consumer

KH Kurppa Hosk

RQ Research Question

PR Public Relations

VC Venture Capital

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

KPI Key Performance Indicator

MVP Minimum Viable Product

MVB Minimum Viable Brand

MaaS Marketing-as-a-Service

5
Foreword and Acknowledgements
This thesis was conducted during Spring Term 2022 at the department of Industrial Engineering and
Management at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. During the process, we have received support
and guidance from several parties.

First of all, we want to express our gratitude towards our supervisor at KTH, Michelle Rydback, who
has always made sure that we have been on the right path. She has also provided insights and
guidance on the process, as well as believing in us and been our biggest supporter. Secondly, we want
to thank the branding agency Kurppa Hosk for giving us the opportunity to write the thesis with such
an interesting company. Additionally, we want to extend our appreciation to our supervisors Maija
Bigestans and Indra Santiago Andersson at Kurppa Hosk, for providing insights, guidance and
interesting discussions on the topic of branding. Last, but not least, we are extremely grateful for all
the interview participants and the time and effort you have put in, resulting in invaluable insights for
this report. Thanks to Bemlo, Morjas, Skawen, Mycorena, TROOPR, Froda, and everyone else who
participated contributed to the study.

6
 1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The typical client of a brand agency is often a large company or scaleup that desires to do some
change to their brand or needs help with their existing brand. By taking help from branding
professionals, a thorough job can be done according to known frameworks. Hopefully leading to a
boost in the company's business in the right direction. However, the projects are often time-consuming
and costly due to overhead costs of the agency, something which follows with recognized and
developed firms with many employees and fixed costs. High project costs are something that often
scares away smaller companies with limited budgets, who instead choose to focus on their product or
at best try to develop the brand in-house. But at what cost? The common perception of branding
agencies as being too expensive is a risk for branding agencies to miss out on business. Can branding
agencies create an offer tailored to the needs of SMEs and startups, a group with even more limited
resources?

Branding is something every company has to deal with whether they like it or not. The brand of a
company is something that develops as the company grows and works as a way to build customer
loyalty, recognition, trust, and employee branding to mention a few (Jones, 2022). As society today is
becoming ever more influenced by digital channels, the increased possibility to communicate across
geographical borders is both an opportunity and a challenge companies have to deal with as they are
developing their brand. It allows companies to rethink the way of working with their brands.
However, with the ease of communication through social media also comes hard competition,
requiring more effort from the companies if they want to stand out from the crowd (Jones, 2022).

Large and developed companies often have a division working with branding and marketing in-house.
The in-house division is responsible for the day-to-day work and regular branding activities. However,
when larger projects or rebranding are on the table, hiring a brand agency is common to ensure the
best possible results are achieved. Going to a brand agency ensures the company will get advice from
professionals who deep dive into trends and the general market regarding the brand, positioning, etc.
Hence, using an agency entails boosting your business. The current offer branding agencies provide
their clients is well adapted to the large incumbents who can pay a lot of money, where the agencies
also make a lot of money on one single project. Rebrandings and other brand work for large
companies are often associated with a risk of losing the brand they already have, therefore every
change needs to be based on a thorough amount of research and thought (O'Brien, 2022). However,
for a large and ever-growing group of small companies, the startups, contacting a brand agency to
help develop their brand is difficult (Sundell, 2022). Generally, startups have very limited resources,
both regarding time, money, and labor. There is not enough money to be able to pay an expensive
agency to help them develop their brand, or do a big campaign. Neither do they have time to wait for
the results of a long process. They need the results right away, otherwise, it might be too late (Blank,
2020). Funding might run out or timing will be off due to changes in the industry.

Due to the limited resources, the focus has to be split between different tasks such as product
development, funding, marketing, and many other things. The most urgent problems are the ones to be
dealt with - leaving the rest to be. It is therefore important to have the ability to realize when
something is good enough, as Morril (2015) said, “there’s never enough time to get it right”. If the

7
focus is on one thing, it will come at the cost of leaving something else to be. However, this does not
imply the other parts are nonsignificant.

Startups are largely contributing to the development of new technology and innovations (Okrah, Nepp
and Agbozo, 2018). If branding agencies could develop an offer adapted to the needs of startups with
limited resources, it could both improve the survival of startups and help them overcome the infamous
valley of death, one of the reasons for causing 75 percent of all startups to fail (Blank, 2013). By
including startups in their target group, branding agencies could open a new source of revenue if they
are willing to change and create an offer adapted to the needs of startups.

1.2 Problem formulation

For the startups, who are balancing on a thread between defeat and success, a well-executed brand
foundation and brand identity could be the last crucial component ensuring the startup's survival. If
there is no option to create the brand in-house, either because of a lack of understanding or some other
component, a second option is to outsource the branding to professionals.

For brand agencies to be able to develop an offer towards startups, multiple things need to be clarified.
(1) An understanding of the general needs of startups requires to be developed, (2) it then needs to be
evaluated if a brand agency has the ability to satisfy proposed needs, and lastly, (3) can it be profitable
for a brand agency to propose such an offer towards startups? By only targeting large firms it is
indirectly proposed the target group consists of approximately 1% of the companies out on the market
(Persson, 2022). If a suitable offer for startups could be proposed, the target group could be
considerably increased. For branding agencies, there are more alternatives than straight cash
payments. There is a possibility to take advantage of synergies created by mutual association, where
both parties can benefit from cooperation due to positive associations with the brand of each
company's brand for example, as well as new revenue streams can be established and the survival of
the startups can be increased.

1.3 Purpose and RQ

This study aims to investigate the brand development process amongst startups, and to investigate
how this aligns with the developed brand-building framework for startups. For this, the following two
questions will be answered.

RQ1: To what extent do startups understand and work with branding in connection to the Startup
Brand Building Framework?

RQ2: What are the thresholds for startups from working with branding?

This study is a collaboration with the Brand Strategy Agency Kurppa Hosk, aiming to explore the
business opportunities within the startup sector and to investigate how the firms best could adapt an
offer directed toward startups. Their currently used framework, Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower, a brand
strategy framework developed by the firm together with a framework called the 8xC’s has been
provided by the firm and is examined together with existing literature to develop a brand-building
framework for startups (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2 November). The startup
brand building framework has been derived from existing frameworks within brand building, which
have been adapted to suit startups. The frameworks used are The Brand Concept Triangle and The
Brand Building Pyramid by Kapferer (2012) as seen in Figures 3 and 4, Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower
as seen in Figure 5, and lastly the strategic brand management process by Keller and Swaminathan

8
(2020) as seen in Figure 9. By evaluating how startups work with branding in relation to the startup
brand building framework, the hope is to identify gaps where improvements can be made and
investigate ways for branding agencies to develop offers suitable for both them and the startups. If
thresholds can be identified, a unique proposition for startups can be developed enabling branding
agencies to target a new customer group.

1.4 Expected contributions

This paper is expected to contribute both toward a deeper theoretical understanding of branding
frameworks for startups as well as working as a practical guide. In practice, this paper will guide
startups in how to properly build their brand and keep a balanced approach to their brand and how to
properly build the brand and brand foundation, as well as it will serve as a guide for branding agencies
on how they can adapt, or create suitable offers towards startups. Hence, branding agencies could be
able to reach a much larger customer group. Startups in many cases experience immense growth and
have the potential to become large actors in the future. By targeting startups early, the partnership can
grow on a long-term basis and bring profit over a long period of time.

The framework developed in this paper is an adaptation of KHs existing framework (Kurppa Hosk,
2020), The Brand Concept Triangle and The brand building pyramid by Kapferer (2012), and the
strategic brand management process by Keller and Swaminathan (2020). This newly developed
framework can be used both by startups to evaluate their brand and work with it themselves, as well
as it can work as a tool for branding agencies working with startups. The framework will contribute to
closing the gap between the importance of branding for the future success of startups, and how
branding is perceived from the startups' perspective. With the framework, the hope is to be able to
develop suggestions for startups on how they can develop their work with branding activities, for
example how to use concepts and building blocks.

1.5 Sustainability aspects

Startups are a major source of innovation in modern society, and innovations in large firms often
originate from startups (Charnley et al., 2015). Through innovations and technological developments,
startups in general are capable of contributing to all of the sustainable development goals. Because of
the great variety of what companies can do, from waste management to retail products to research -
the possibilities are endless. The brand is an important factor for the communication and success of a
company and the ability to stand out amongst other companies. Through the development of a startup
brand building process framework in this study, the survival of startups working towards these goals
can be facilitated. By increasing the success rate of startups in general, the aim is to increase the rate
of innovation and development working towards the sustainable development goals.

On a more direct level, the outcome of this thesis can contribute to sustainable development goal 8
(Figure 1) “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
employment and decent work for all” and sustainable development goal 9 (Figure 2) “Build resilient
infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation” (Goal 8 |
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022, Goal 9 | Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, 2022). If the success rate of startups can be improved, it will also be a success in fostering
innovation and promoting sustainable growth.

9
 ​

Figure 1 and 2: Sustainable development goal 8 & 9 (Goal 8 | Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, 2022, Goal 9 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022).

Additionally, an increasingly important part of brand building is focusing on sustainability (Wheeler,

2013). The entire society needs to focus on environmental sustainability to ensure the world can stay
as it is and for the earth to survive. Consumers are making purchases in line with their values,
meaning that all businesses, no matter if they are selling a ventilation system or a watch, they need to
consider this when formulating the value proposition (Wheeler, 2013). The environmental
sustainability factors taken into the brand building have been growing over the years and are
something that can enhance the brand and give it the power to attract brand loyalty, awareness, and
growth (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020).

1.6 Delimitations
This study focuses on how startups perceive the process of brand building and how it is done in
relation to existing and traditional brand building frameworks. To limit the scope of the study and get
sufficient quality and detail, the startups were selected as the primary actors of interest for this thesis
and the interviews. Other actors such as branding professionals and investors, who often are
responsible for implementing changes, respectively controlling the startup's resources, both belong to
groups that possibly could influence the situation. However, it could be interesting to look into the
other two groups as well in future studies and study how they impact branding processes in startups.

The geographical area focused on during the study was chosen to be the metropolitan areas of
Sweden, where all of the interviewed startups had their base either in Stockholm or Gothenburg. The
results of the study are therefore likely to reflect the behavior of startups in Stockholm and markets
with similar conditions as in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Scandinavia, and outcomes might differ for
startups in other geographical areas. The startups were chosen based on stage and amount of received
funding, however in different stages. No differentiation was made based on the business model, and
both B2B and B2C companies were included. Measuring and assessing the long-term performance of
the brand is not included in the scope of this study.

1.7 Outline of thesis

(1) Introduction: A brief introduction and background to the topics discussed in the study are
presented in this section, as well as the problem formulation, purpose and research questions,
aiming to provide the reader with an understanding of the background and aim of the study.

10
 Finally the expected contributions and sustainability aspects of the study are discussed and
delimitations are presented.

(2) Literature review: This section presents a systematic review of existing literature on the
themes definition of brand, activities to strengthen brand, brand equity and brand value,
startups and funding, branding for startups, and lastly it presents a framework to evaluate the
startups brand building process.

(3) Methodology: This section proposes a thorough description of the study in regards to
research design, execution of pre-study, literature review, multiple-case study and interviews,
and how interviews and results were analyzed. Finally, a discussion of research quality and
ethical considerations in regards to the study are presented.

(4) Empirical findings: This section presents the results of the empirical data collection which
was done through semi structured interviews with 8 Swedish startups. The section starts with
description of the semi structured interviews and a presentation of the identified themes,
leading up to presenting the results on each theme.

(5) Discussion: This section discusses the results from the interviews in relation to previous
literature. The meaning, importance and relevance of the findings are discussed and
arguments towards the final conclusion are provided.

(6) Conclusion: The most important findings and conclusions from the discussion are presented
and answers to the research questions are put forth. Followed by a discussion of the study's
limitations and proposal of areas of further studies.

11
 2. Literature review
This section presents a systematic review of existing literature on the themes definition of brand,
activities to strengthen brand, brand equity and brand value, startups and funding, branding for
startups, and lastly it presents frameworks to evaluate the startups brand building process.

2.1.Concept of branding

2.1.1 Definition of brand

The definition of a brand and what it holds is a topic where many experts disagree (Kapferer, 2012).
The hard fact is that a brand is the label of a company or corporation, to which the society
experiences, evaluates, perceives, and builds some kind of connection to (Kapferer, 2012). The more
nuanced definition, however, is not as easy to agree on. Brands can be viewed from several different
points. It's a powerful player in society and touches upon many different spheres, not only economic
but also social and cultural (Kapferer, 2012).

The definition of brand according to The American Marketing Association is “A name, term, design,
symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's goods or service as distinct from those of other
sellers (Story et al., 2022). This specific definition refers to the visual perception of the brand of a
company and is a common confusion with the business concept of a brand. The brand of a company
can be divided into several different components, of which the logo is one part, although undeniably
not the whole answer. The brand of a company is an intangible product reflected through the identity
of the company's values, products, and communications, amongst many other things. The brand is a
condensed way of how others view a company and what they do (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal
communication, 2 November).

The brand can be seen as a corporate asset, and by defining the brand as a corporate asset, there is a
managerial perspective to it; how to manage the brand as an intangible asset for profit and growth
(Kapferer, 2012).

The Brand Concept as a triangle (Figure 3) is one way to visually show the different aspects of the
brand and what it holds (Kapferer, 2012). The brand name, symbols, and semiotic invariants are what
make the customers, stakeholders and society recognize and connect to your brand, whereas the
concept is the remarkable value proposition. It holds both tangible and intangible values. The product
or service experience at contact points is also an important part of the brand and can leverage the
value a lot (Kapferer, 2012). All these three are cornerstones of the concept of the brand. It is of value
to understand how they are connected and that all of them are needed to have a holistic brand
perspective, and the brand as an asset only exists if all of the three poles exist (Kapferer, 2012).

12
 Figure 3: The Brand Concept Triangle (Kapferer, 2012 p. 12)

What the brand includes can be viewed as a pyramid (Figure 4) where the management process can be
considered to be top-down, and the perception of the brand, on the other hand, is bottom-up. To set a
brand vision and purpose is at the top of the pyramid. This will be further investigated, but will for
now only briefly be explained. The brand vision and purpose should be setting the vision for what the
company or organization wants to offer to its clients or customers. By setting a clear brand purpose
and vision, the next block in the pyramid is easier to develop (Kapferer, 2012). Having core brand
values and beliefs adds more value and personality to the product or service. The next step comes
down to brand personality codes and semiotic invariants. Maintaining a way of communicating that is
connecting the values, purpose, and vision to the offering is crucial to making a uniform impression.

Adding on, some strategic benefits and attributes should be next in the pyramid. These values are
what the brand wants to be perceived as, for example, Volvo, which is perceived as secure, reliable,
family-friendly, and robust (Kapferer, 2012). Finally, the physical signature is important for the
recognition and the image the customers and clients will have. Together with the way of
communicating, this is what will be the first thing that is connected to the brand and it needs to be
clear, unique, and easy to recognize (Kapferer, 2012). This is what builds the brand identity. The
branding process is not only building a strong brand and communicating it, it also includes
developing, nurturing, evaluating, and maintaining the brand (Abimbola, 2010).

13
 Figure 4: The Brand Building Pyramid (Kapferer, 2012, p.34)

2.1.2 Brand building process

Having a strong brand can make significant differences in the company’s growth, market shares, and
profits. One example is Apple, known for its simplicity, easy-to-use, and sleek design. The brand is a
powerful asset and it has played a relevant role in the company reaching its current position
(Abimbola, 2010). According to Figure 4, there are different levels to the brand. Having the blocks
closely connected and with a seamless and well-thought-out strategy is one way to secure a powerful
impression (Kapferer, 2012).

To further investigate what activities and focus areas to work on in order to build a strong brand, a
model developed by Kurppa Hosk called the Brand Flower has been considered. The Brand Flower is
a branding framework developed by the strategic team at the branding agency Kurppa Hosk and has
been used as a basis in the work of the strategists at the agency for several years (M. Bugge, 2021,
personal communication, 21 October). The brand flower is describing the brand, its foundation, and
touchpoints that lead up to the experience a brand can create. Starting from the middle, from the
foundation, laying out the petals until the flower is complete and the brand experience is explained.

As can be seen in Figure 5, the center of the flower is named Brand Platform and should include the
foundation of the brand. The next layer of the framework is called Brand Identity and concerns the
looks and feels of the brand, both visually and in the communication. The flower petals surrounding
the center can be seen as the internal and external touchpoints in which the brand will be expressed.

14
These touchpoints include Retail and physical design, products and services, PR and social media,
marketing and advertising, employees and e-com, and other digital products. In the following
sections, the different layers, from platform to touchpoints, will be discussed more thoroughly.

In the space surrounding the flower, there are three layers. The first layer is experience, the second is
perception and the third is people. Kurppa Hosk (2020, personal communication, 2 November)
presents the first layer as the wanted result, that affects the second and third layers. The wanted result
is a relevant, cohesive and attractive brand experience that is well-aligned with the brand platform,
addresses the right target groups, and is cohesive over all touchpoints. Regardless of whether the
result turns out as wanted and expected, or not, the brand experience will, either way, create a
perception of the brand, which is the second layer. Creating a wanted perception of the brand will
make connections to the right people, which is the third layer.

Figure 5: Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2 november)

15
Table 1. Components of Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication,
2 november).
Element Explanation

Brand platform Include the brand foundation, containing elements as the vision, misson,
values, position.

Brand identity Contains the graphical and visual image that will be associated with the
brand, such as logo, typography and colors. Should reflect the brand
platform.

Touchpoints All touchpoints should have a coherent visual expression in all

touchpoints that results in a professional impression and increases
recognition.

Experience The previous building blocks are leading up to the brand experience.

Perception Brand perception depends on the brand experience created in the previous
steps.

People Creating a wanted perception of the brand will make connections to the
right people.

2.1.2.1 Brand platform

Derived from the framework, Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower in Figure 3, the first brand work is laying
out the brand foundation, expressed in a brand platform. The brand platform is a document or
platform where the most important brand traits are clarified. Having a brand platform makes it
possible to define the essence of the brand and make it easy to share (Brand Center versus Brand
Platform, 2022). According to Kurppa Hosk (2020, personal communication, 2 November), it is
important to establish a stable solid brand foundation. The brand foundation should define the role of
the brand, who it is for, what it stands for and how it creates value. The brand foundation can be
expressed through for example a brand platform and a name. In the brand platform, commonly seen
elements are for example mission, vision, purpose, values, position, and value proposition. According
to Kurppa Hosk (2020, personal communication, 2 November), is the mission set to be the business
idea, the vision is the long-term goal, the purpose is the higher aim and the values are the behavioral
compass.

To set out the platform for the brand, there is a need to collect data from stakeholders both internally
and externally to make sure the statements and ideas in the platform are aligned with the stakeholder's
ideas (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2 November). The model presented in Figure 6
below explains where to do research when defining the brand platform. The model is called 8xC’s and
covers customers, context, competitors, comparables, commercial, CSR, capabilities, and culture.

16
Figure 6: 8xCs – required input for brand platform (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2
november)

Goncharova et. al (2019) states that the brand platform consists of a broad understanding of the
philosophy of the brand. Additionally, creating the brand platform is laying the foundation for
building an effective marketing strategy, and the platform will be an important resource when
planning how to promote the company in different markets (Goncharova et. al, 2019). Urde (2013)
presents a framework that states that the core of the brand should be the brand promise and the core
values. Additionally, the elements in the framework presented by Urde (2013) include value
proposition, relationships, position, personality, expression, mission and vision, culture, and
competencies, which resonates well with the framework Kurppa Hosk presents.

To clarify, there are some different definitions and notations of what the brand identity is, according to
the literature. According to Kapferer (2012), the brand identity includes the brand foundation
elements, such as mission, vision, positioning etcetera. This implies that the brand identity definition
differs between Kapferer (2012) and Kurppa Hosk (personal communication, 2020), as the brand
identity according to Kurppa Hosk is about expressing the brand, meaning the visual elements and
parts of the brand. The definition for brand identity used by Kurppa Hosk in the Brand Flower
framework is the one used later in this paper. This implies the theory regarding brand foundation from
Kapferer, is not called brand foundation in the original literature, but is instead referred to as the brand
identity.

Kapferer (2012) suggests that intangible added values should be added to the brand platform and
brand foundation. These are for example brand values, mission, personality, benefits, attributes, and
ingredients. Kapferer (2012) also states that to explore the brand foundation and decide the elements
that should be a part of the foundation, a set of questions can be asked, such as the following:

17
 - “ What makes it different?

- What need is the brand fulfilling?

- What is its permanent nature?

- What are its value or values?

- What is its field of competence? Of legitimacy?

- What are the signs which make the brand recognisable? ”

(Kapferer, 2012, p.172)

Wheeler (2013) also suggests keywords to have in mind when working with the brand foundation.
Wheeler (2013) presents different keywords important to consider when deciding on a brand
foundation and positioning, see Figure 7. According to Wheeler (2013), these nine keywords will
elevate and advance a brand if they are well-crafted and meet functional criteria. The criteria state that
the elements need to be bold, memorable, appropriate, and immediately recognizable (Wheeler, 2013).
They should also provide a consistent image of the company, as well as clearly communicate the
persona of the company, have enduring value, and be legally protectable (Wheeler, 2013).

The keywords are vision, meaning, authenticity, flexibility, differentiation, coherence, durability,
commitment, and value (Wheeler, 2013). The vision should be stated courageously, stating what the
vision and long-term goal for the future is. Moving on to the meaning, which is often growing and
evolving, and is also closely connected to the symbol or logo. Extraordinary brands all have a
meaning that stands for something, maybe an idea, a defined set of values, a strategic position, or a
voice that stands apart (Wheeler, 2013). According to Wheeler (2013), if you are having a strong
meaning, the logo will remind the observer of it. As for authenticity, Wheeler (2013) thinks that an
authentic brand is self-knowing and is making decisions that are congruent with that knowledge,
which results in a brand that feels connected to the organization’s mission, history, culture, values, and
personality. Coherence is very important when working with branding since all the different touch
points need to look and feel the same (Wheeler, 2013).

According to Wheeler (2013), coherence can be achieved by using a unified voice, a dynamic central
idea of the positioning and brand, and working with branding and having clarity and simplicity in
mind. Differentiation gets more and more important in today's society, where the competition is harder
than ever and information flows are extremely intense. To stand out and make the customers
understand the difference is key when deciding on the brand foundation (Wheeler, 2013). To also be
flexible, and be able to follow the development regarding innovation and changes in the landscape is
important to stay relevant, fresh, and recognizable (Wheeler, 2013). Durability can be achieved in a
brand context by being committed to the equity of the central idea, and the capacity to transcend
change (Wheeler, 2013). Wheeler (2013) also brings up the term commitment, since a brand is an
asset that needs constant work; it needs to be protected, nurtured, and preserved. Last but not least,
value is always something to consider, not only when working with brands but always in

18
organizational contexts (Wheeler, 2013). Wheeler (2013) states that a brand foundation and identity is
an important asset to take care of, and its value is preserved through legal protection.

Figure 7: Brand foundation ideals (*Brand identity ideals originally, Wheeler, 2013, p.31)

2.1.2.2 Brand identity

Moving forward in the Brand Flower (Figure 5), the next step is to express the brand identity, which is
done creatively and visually. This includes the graphical elements and visual objects which will be
associated with the brand, such as the logo, typography, and colors. These elements create recognition
and will be important in the expression of the brand (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2
November). Kurppa Hosk is working with the Brand Identity Toolbox, a tool they have developed that
consists of a set of building blocks that expresses the brand visually and verbally (Kurppa Hosk, 2020,
personal communication 2 November). The Brand Identity Toolbox includes logotype, typography,
colors, imagery, icons, UI, infographics, tonality, and the fifth element which is a visual device used in
branding to enhance and signal the brand (SEB Brand Manual, 2022). Some of the elements are called
hero elements and are the ones creating recognition, whereas some of the elements are periodic
meaning they are not always the same in the communication and brand expression (Kurppa Hosk,
2020, personal communication 2 November). These elements are mentioned frequently in the
literature. Wheeler (2013) states that the look and feel of the brand include the design, imagery,
sensory, color palettes, and typography. Keller and Swaminathan (2020) have a slightly different
approach but mention that the logo, design, symbols, and characters are important elements to build
the brand.

In the creation phase of brand building, there are many guidelines in the existing literature on how to
create, design, and choose the elements. For example, Keller and Swaminathan (2020) present their
criteria for choosing brand elements: Elements should be developed and chosen based on their
memorability, meaningfulness, likability, transferability, adaptability, and protectability. To ensure that

19
the brand will have the ability to create strong brand awareness, it is important to be memorable. If the
brand does not have the memorability factor, the risk is that people will not remember it, and it will be
more difficult associating the brand with the products or services, as well as create awareness around
it (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020). The brand elements should also be meaningful, and the meaning
can be either descriptive or persuasive, it can either include some general information about the
product or service, or it can describe the attributes and benefits of the brand (Keller and Swaminathan,
2020). Likeability is also important, according to Keller and Swaminathan (2020). Having an
appealing aesthetic and visual identity is key for the willingness of people to engage with the brand,
and for some, it can make a strong difference. The last three criteria are more defensive in their nature.
By meeting the criteria of transferability, Keller and Swaminathan (2020) mean that the brand should
have the ability to add equity to the brand over different markets, both different segments and
geographical boundaries. Being adaptable concerns being relevant over time, when customers' values
and opinions are changing, as well as the society and the environment the brand acts in (Keller and
Swaminathan, 2020). The last criteria, protectability, includes both the legal and competitive sense.

Wheeler (2013) provides more hands-on advice when creating the brand identity and visuals, stating
that the overall design of a brand should be at the intersection of imagination, intuition, design
excellence, and experience. The design process should be an iterative process where the meaning can
take form during the process (Wheeler, 2013). For the logo design, Wheeler (2013) suggests doing a
typographic exploration together with a symbol, and for choosing color it is important to consider the
psychological effects different colors have on people.

Other points from the literature on the brand identity design process, are to make the design stand out
and to create something that can be seen through the noise (Slade, 2016). Additionally, being able to
translate the brand positioning statement and the brand foundation into connected brand design gives a
coherent impression, and will be of importance to give an authentic brand experience (Kotler, 2013).

To sum it up, the brand identity should articulate the brand foundation in a way that feels cohesive,
relevant, and attractive (Kurppa Hosk, 2020).

2.1.2.3 External and internal touchpoints

The next level in the framework (Figure 5) is the touchpoints of the brand. Having a coherent visual
expression at all touchpoints results in a professional impression and increases recognition (Kurppa
Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2 November). The flower petals in the model describe the
different touchpoints and channels where the brand implementation takes place. Hence, it is not only
needed to be expressed in marketing and advertising but also in PR and social media, products and
services, retail and physical design, e-commerce and other digital products, and for employees.
Staying coherent through all channels and touchpoints can be difficult and requires preparation,
awareness, clear guidelines, and templates (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal communication, 2
November). These are often distributed through a brand portal, which is an online platform holding all
design guidelines, logos, colors, fonts, and brand identity-related material.

Wheeler (2013) presents an even more detailed framework on touchpoints, as can be seen in Figure 8
below, and is also describing the touchpoints as opportunities to increase brand awareness and build
customer loyalty.

20
 Figure 8: Brand Touchpoints (Wheeler, 2013, p.3)

Keller and Swaminathan (2020) point out that the main channel and primary touchpoint that
companies build brand equity from are the marketing activities and advertising. Brands that are
successful in their communication often create strong, favorable, and unique brand associations that
have both functional and symbolic benefits. There are endless approaches to marketing and
advertising, with no right or wrong. Nevertheless, to be a talented marketer is to be able to
communicate not only the product’s or service’s features and strengths, but also to be able to weave in
and connect the brand in that communication (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020).

Elliott, Percy, and Pervan (2018) focus on the employees as a touchpoint with strong importance.
Employees have a vital role in influencing customers' perceptions, and to have an internal brand
communication and to be living the brand as an employee can be as important as the external
communication. Focus on employer branding has also been stated to be crucial for startups to attract
talent and be an attractive workplace (Moser, Tumasjan, and Welpe, 2015).

To conclude, several touchpoints are needing to be considered when implementing a brand. It is

crucial to be coherent through different channels and touchpoints to create a professional brand
experience and increase the chances of higher brand awareness (Kurppa Hosk, 2020, personal
communication 2 November).

21
2.1.3 Brand management

The brand management process has already been initiated when designing and planning for the brand,
however, managing the implemented brand is an important part of the process. Bart Crosby phrases it
like this:

“Brand is a living thing. It must be nurtured, attended to, and disciplined in order to survive and
grow.” (Wheeler, 2013, p. 172).

Wheeler (2013) states that accountability is important in the brand management process and that
implementation is key both internally and externally. There are different approaches on how to
correctly manage and nurture the brand, but Keller and Swaminathan (2020) present a framework on
the subject, called the Strategic Brand Management Process which can be seen in Figure 9 below. In
the framework, they define the brand managing process and present its four main steps, each with key
concepts.

Keller and Swaminathan (2020) introduce the first step as “Identifying and developing brand plans”.
In this step, the goal is to understand the purpose of the brand, plan a brand strategy with positioning,
value chain, and build core brand associations. In this step, other models are also presented that will
be advising on integrated marketing, building strong customer relationships, and tracing the
value-creating process.

For the next step, “Designing and implementing brand marketing programs”, the focus is on building
brand equity (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020). Deciding on the mix and match of brand elements,
such as names, URLs, symbols, imagery, logos, characters, slogans, and packaging is one of the key
concepts for this step. Additionally, bringing the brand into marketing activities and supporting
marketing programs, as well as leveraging secondary associations is a part of this step. All of the steps
will create brand equity, which is the aim of the second step.

The third step “Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance” is about realizing the profitability of
the brand, and therefore designing and implementing a brand equity measurement system (Keller and
Swaminathan, 2020). A brand equity measurement system is a set of research procedures to assess the
brand equity and by that be able to make smart strategic decisions based on the result. This can be for
example doing brand audits, investigating the brand value chain, performing some kind of brand
tracking studies, and implementing a brand equity management system.

The fourth and final step in the Strategic Brand Management Process that Keller and Swaminathan
(2020) are presenting is called “Growing and sustaining brand equity” and is about maintaining as
well as expanding the brand equity, which can be difficult. To keep the brand equity management
effective over time it is important to have a long-term perspective. In this step, Keller and
Swaminathan (2020) suggest working with brand architecture, portfolios and hierarchies, expansion
strategies, and reinforcement and revitalization.

22
 Figure 9: Strategic Brand Management Process (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020, p. 29)

2.1.4 Brand equity

Creating, developing, and managing a brand, for what? To build brand equity (Kapferer, 2012). Brand
equity is a term commonly used, but what does it mean, and what is included in the equity of the
brand? According to Kapferer (2012), as with the general definition of brand, there are several
different ideas and opinions on the matter. Brand equity is sometimes referred to as the measured
impact on a customer’s association with the brand, and in other cases, the brand equity also includes
brand loyalty (Kapferer, 2012).

There is one official Marketing Science definition of brand equity, and it is as follows: “The set of
associations and behavior on the part of a brand’s customers, channel members and parent corporation
that permits the brand to earn greater volume or greater margins than it could without the brand
name.” (Kapferer, 2012, p.14). Kapferer (2012) also points out that the brand is an intangible asset,
and that it is also a conditional asset. This means that they need to work in conjunction with other

23
material assets, such as production facilities and if the company or organization only has a brand, no
product or service to deliver, the brand is not an asset anymore (Kapferer, 2012).

Elliott, Percy, and Pervan (2018) agree on the many definitions of brand equity, but point out that
brand equity both has a financial aspect as well as a consumer aspect, which is mentioned by Kapferer
(2012) as well. Even though there are many definitions of what brand equity actually is, they all
include ‘added value’. Elliott et. al (2018) recon that brand equity is about the value that a brand is
adding to a product, in either financial terms or in how customers perceive it. However, they are
adding that in the real sense, the brand equity must come from the consumers’ perception of the
brand, since that is what ultimately affects the financial added value as well.

From the consumer's point of view, brand equity is indicating value (Elliott, Percy, and Pervan, 2018).
From this perspective, brand equity is a result of the understanding and experience the consumers
receive from a brand – from getting familiar with the brand, having an intuitive feeling about it, to
getting familiarity and experience with it (Elliott, Percy, and Pervan, 2018). If this experience and
connection to the brand are positive, the consumer will also develop a positive attitude towards the
brand and the bond strengthens, which results in strong brand equity. This, in turn, leads to brand
loyalty (Elliott, Percy, and Pervan, 2018). Keller and Swaminathan (2020) agree on this as well and
divide the customer-based brand equity into two components, brand awareness, and brand image. The
brand image is the consumer perception of a brand, which is reflected by the association of the brand
held in the consumers’ memory, whereas brand awareness is how easily the consumer remembers the
brand (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020). If the consumer easily recalls or recognizes the brand under
different conditions, awareness is strong. Having strong brand awareness and a brand image that has
favorable, strong, and unique associations in the consumer's memory creates strong customer-based
brand equity (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020).

Switching perspective and investigating brand equity from the financial perspective, a brand with
strong and positive brand equity will probably have, or more easily reach a larger market share, and
by that also greater profit. This implies that the brand can be a strong asset to the company (Elliott,
Percy, and Pervan, 2018). However, it is important not to forget that it depends on the consumers, and
how they respond to the brand, meaning the brand attitude is at the center of brand equity (Elliott,
Percy, and Pervan, 2018).

Slade (2016) formulates the definition of brand equity slightly differently than Elliot et. al (2018),
Keller and Swaminathan (2020), and Kapferer (2012). Nonetheless, they all state it to be a marketing
term that is describing the commercial value derived from the perception of the consumer on a brand,
rather than on the product or service it provides. This can be witnessed when a consumer is willing to
pay a higher price for a branded product than another cheaper alternative. Slade (2016) also points out
that brand equity is not always positive, and that a bad reputation or a negative attitude results in
negative brand equity. The different elements that can determine brand equity according to Slade
(2016) are awareness, familiarity, image and personality, associations, availability, preference, and
loyalty.

Over the years, the general business landscape has changed and new definitions and frameworks are
emerging. New methods are rising as the digital society rises and new technology, communication
ways, products, and services are present and developing (Argenziano, 2016). For example, new
methods are taking into account emerging communication and marketing techniques made available
due to the digital revolution (Argenziano, 2016). According to Argenziano (2016), the communication
strategies and fast and constant visuals and updates in digital media have an impact on the brand,

24
compared to the marketing and exposure the creative assets of the brand got a few years ago, the
landscape is completely changed. Hence, the creation and maintenance of the brand are more crucial
than ever, in the intensely competitive and fast-changing environment (Argenziano, 2016).

2.1.5 Branding versus marketing

The activities connected to branding are also closely connected with marketing, and it can be difficult
to set a clear definition of what is defined as marketing activities and what are branding activities
(Serrano, 2021). Serrano (2021) uses the analogy that if branding is the author, marketing is the
publisher. The goals are the same and you should not work with one of them, but they should be
connected and both are needed to communicate your business idea. Branding should come one step
ahead before marketing occurs (Falin, 2021). If the branding is done, and the company has the assets
from the identity toolbox, the brand platform, and the elements of the brand in place, then the
marketing activities should come afterward (Falin, 2021). Falin (2021) also states that branding is
what should keep the market’s attention and make sure the business does not get lost in a crowded
marketplace. Marketing activities are more short-term and are often referred to as campaigns or
similar, whereas branding activities more often have a long-term scope (Serrano, 2021).

2.2. The startup development process

2.2.1 Startup definition

As it might sound, a startup is a company in its initial phase of starting up. A startup is a young
company at the start of a journey where the company produces a unique product or service, and finally
penetrates the market and scales the company (Baldridge and Curry, 2022). Many startups have their
roots in innovation and have the ability to disrupt existing industries with new technologies and
products and thereby potentially create entirely new ones (Baldridge and Curry, 2022). In recent
years, the number of startups valued at over $1 billion, so-called unicorns, has exploded and today
over 1 250 unicorns have been produced all over the world (The Crunchbase Unicorn Board, 2022).
Many of today's giants such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, SpaceX, and Klarna started as startups
and have over the years evolved to become some of the most powerful companies in the world (Ross,
2021; Baldridge and Curry, 2022).

Several factors make up what is a startup or is not. In one way, startups are like any other company, in
the sense that a team works together to put a product or service on the market. However, the
difference between a startup and any other company is how they execute these tasks (Baldridge and
Curry, 2022). Startups are defined by rapid development and uncertainty and may end in an instant or
change into a completely different business than initially thought (Denoo et al., 2018; Wood et al.,
2019). It is important to understand that as Blank said in his book, “startups are not simply smaller
versions of large companies” (Blank, 2020). One thing to be aware of is that startups are very different
in comparison to larger companies. Part of being a startup is accompanied by solving problems related
to the company and figuring out a way to move forward. The business the startup operates can be very
much temporary where for example the business model can change in an instant (Blank and Dorf,
2020). To survive the initial years, the founder needs to be able to turn ideas into products and
services and communicate the value of such to investors and customers (Silva et al., 2020). If not, the
startup will probably fail.

25
2.2.2 Building and scaling the startup

It is not easy to build a startup, and as mentioned before, 75% of all startups fail (Blank, 2013).
Typically the entrepreneur needs to start by describing the new venture and creating a business plan
including financial forecasts, as well as the problem which the product will solve and the size of the
opportunity and the market (Blank, 2013). To help the entrepreneur on the road to success, there are
many different guides and books providing frameworks to support the entrepreneur.

There are many different frameworks for startup development described in existing literature, and in
this section, we will look closer into some of the most popular and recent ideas including the Lean
Startup developed by Eric Ries (2011) & Blank (2013), Minimum Viable Product by Eric Ries (2011),
and the lean startup canvas, an adaptation by Ash Maurya (2012), based on the business model canvas
by Alexander Osterwalder (2010). Also, we will look into the steps coming after the initial steps of
building the startup, more precisely scaling and financing.

2.2.2.1 Minimum Viable Product

Minimum viable product is a key feature for startups to balance product development and deployment
(Blank, 2013; Ries 2011). The thought is for the startup to put together a minimum viable product as
soon as possible to be able to test their business hypotheses amongst a selected target group. By only
containing the most critical features, and then getting feedback from the users, the product can be
improved and a new minimum viable product can be produced. A process that then is repeated to
reach a product ready for the market (Blank, 2013). The minimum viable product is a way for the
team to gather as much data as possible at the least effort about customer's preferences (Ries, 2011).
The first product is not intended to be perfect, it is a way to learn from customers and give them what
they want. As Ries (2011) said, “If we do not know who the customer is, we do not know what quality
is.” (p.109). The minimum viable product is also one of the cornerstones of the lean startup
framework which we will look further into in the next section (Ries, 2011).

26
 Figure 10: Product development process using the MVP concept (Blank, 2013).

2.2.2.2 The Lean Startup

The Lean Startup was introduced by Eric Ries (2011) building on thoughts originating from Lean
Production, a model introduced by Toyota in the aftermath of world war II (Ries, 2011; Womack and
Jones, 2003). The most important difference between startups and established companies is that the
startup needs to find a business model, while the established company executes a set business model
(Blank, 2013). To shape the company and help the entrepreneur find a business model, the lean startup
framework provides five building blocks as guidance, (a) finding and prioritizing market opportunities
in startups, (b) designing business models, (c) validated learning (including customer development),
(d) building minimum viable products (MVPs), (e) learning whether to persevere with or pivot from
the current course of action (Blank, 2013; Shepherd and Gruber, 2020). According to Blank (2013),
the lean method has three basic principles. The first is the fact that the entrepreneur at best will start
up with a set of good guesses. To avoid writing a business plan which in the end will not be followed
anyway, the entrepreneur should put their thoughts into a framework called the business model canvas
as seen in Figure 11 (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010).

27
 Figure 11: Business model canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010, p.44).

Secondly, they should use an approach called customer development to test their proposed business
models. This is executed by actively going out and getting direct feedback from potential customers
and partners on every aspect of the business model, from pricing, distribution channels, product
features, and customer acquisition strategies (Blank, 2013). By quickly receiving feedback on key
aspects of the business, mistakes can be avoided and the entrepreneur can focus on putting a minimal
viable product on the market, where another feedback loop begins and improvements can be made
once again (Blank, 2013). This goes on to the third principle, that the startup should practice agile
development, something which goes hand-in-hand with customer development. This implies that the
product is optimized little by little through incremental improvements after each iterative feedback
loop (Blank, 2013).

From the need for this iterative and incremental product development method, a parallel demand
developed for a customer development process, for this a process was articulated by Steve Blanks in
his book The Startup owner's Manual: The Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. The
Customer Development process consists of four steps which are (1) customer discovery, intended to
find an initial target group and expose them to the developed minimal viable product. (2) customer
validation, to see if the potential customers in the target group are interested in the product or service
idea. (3) customer creation, in this step the product is refined enough to start selling and slowly
building up a brand and scaling the business. (4) company building, this last step consists of
transforming from startup to business, the company leaves the searching approach and starts to
execute a set business model. At this stage, the company has transformed from being a startup to a
business (Blank, 2013).

28
Figure 12: The customer development process (Blank, 2013).

Some argue that current literature on the subject lacks concrete guidelines, and Silva et al. (2020)
propose a staircase roadmap from existing literature, working as a guide on how to implement the lean
framework (Silva et al., 2020). By following the best practices introduced by Ries in 2011, and later
developed by Silva et al. in 2020, startups have a foundation to build on making the task of being an
entrepreneur much easier and more feasible, at the same time as being able to reduce risks and thereby
allowing more startups to succeed (Silva et al., 2020; Blank, 2020).

2.2.2.3 The Lean Startup Canvas

The lean startup canvas is a concept developed by Ash Maurya, derived from the lean startup
framework by Ries and the business model canvas by Osterwalder and Pigneur (Maurya, 2012;
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). The lean business model canvas allows the startups to frame and
deconstruct the business model in a single page diagram at the same time as it lets the startup
brainstorm, prioritize, and learn as the process is ongoing. The canvas should be a snapshot of the
company at the time and should not take more time than 15 minutes. If any part feels too difficult it is
possible to leave a section blank.

Figure 13: The lean startup canvas (Maurya, 2012, p. 88).

29
To be able to create the lean startup canvas, the entrepreneur should be precise and think in the present
using a customer-centered approach. In Figure 13 it is set out in the order the canvas should be used
(Maurya, 2012). Documenting the initial plan of the entrepreneur, allows the idea to leave the safety
of the entrepreneur's mind and to systematically build and test the business model. Also, the process
should be iterative and the entrepreneur should iterate between building, measuring, and learning as
each business plan is being tested, as seen in Figure 14 (Maurya, 2016).

Figure 14: Using the lean startup canvas (Maurya, 2016, p.14).

2.2.2.4 Financing and scaling

At some point, if the business goes well enough, it is likely to scale the business. To truly be able to
turn a product into a company, the product needs to be scalable (DiResta, Forrest, and Vinyard, 2015).
The life cycle of a venture can be divided into four stages, startup, transition, scaling, and then exit
(Picken, 2017). Scaling the business can therefore be considered a milestone to reach the ultimate goal
of creating a startup, going public with the company, and making a so-called “exit”, which allows for
investors to cash out (Baldridge and Curry, 2022). To be able to scale the business, a foundation needs
to be established by the team upon which the business can grow. The foundation must create
legitimacy, and credibility and collect the most crucial resources for growth to handle the set of
challenges they will encounter on the road. The startup will need to formalize the organizational
structure, introduce management systems and preserve the entrepreneurial culture and identity
(Picken, 2017; Eisenmann et al., 2012).

An important part of being able to scale the business is to secure funding. Funding can be achieved
from many different sources, however, in most cases, it is a necessity no matter where it originates
from. The relation between successful growth and funding has a shown positive correlation in a study
on digital ventures with VC funding (Cavallo, Ghezzi, Dell'Era, and Pellizzoni, 2019).

The issue of funding is something that follows the startup from the start. No matter how brilliant the
idea is, it will need cash to be executed. Either by bootstrapping from the founders' own, or friends
and families' cash, which is the way many startups start their journey. As the company grows and
develops getting ready to scale, however, becomes difficult since the amounts needed to fund the
scaling needs more cash than friends and family can put in and too early or too little to interest larger
actors like Venture Capital firms (Salamzadeh and Kawamorita Kesim, 2015). This so-called “valley
of death” is the cause of many startups failure (Zwilling, 2013). Going on with sparse financials
belongs to the everyday tasks startups need to deal with. This affects every part of how startups go
about doing things, and forces startups to be creative and find new ways of doing things. When capital
is achieved and available, it also makes more sense to scale the business and go big and at the same

30
time afford to make mistakes than in the very first stages when the team is still trying to find the
product/market fit (Shepherd and Gruber, 2020).

2.2.3 Startups and innovation

As a consequence of innovation being a strong driver for success, startups are drivers of innovation,
which is evident in most modern countries today. Startups have shown to be a measurement of
development and innovation and positive correlation with economic stability (Okrah, Nepp and
Agbozo, 2018). Startups are responsible for a wide range of radical innovations over the last century,
and industries such as biotechnology, the internet, semiconductors, and healthcare tech are just a few
to mention (Nanda and Rhodes-Kropf, 2013).

Apart from financing, innovation is the second key factor to achieve success. By innovating new
processes, business models, or superior products, the startup has a unique selling proposition and can
stand out in the market. Which also is very important in the process of receiving funding. If an area
lacks funding, the consequences are slow innovation rates. Innovation, and therefore startups are
essential to keep developing the economy and job market. (European Startup Monitor 2016, 2017;
Nanda and Rhodes-Kropf, 2013). In the attempts to grow and scale, many startup jobs are added to the
job market. According to the European Startup Monitor, startups can provide up to 50% of all jobs on
the market. Through employing people and continuously putting new products on the market, startups
have become strong drivers of economic growth in today's society (European Startup Monitor 2016,
2017).

2.3. Branding for startups

2.3.1 Brand building for startups

As mentioned, startups are an important factor in economic growth, not only by creating new job
opportunities but also by contributing to innovation and the growth of the country's prosperity (Okrah,
Nepp, and Agbozo, 2018). Diresta et. al (2015) and also Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier (2017) among
others, point out the strong importance for startups to work with brand-building since it is a critical
component for any product to succeed, both physical and immaterial (Diresta et. al, 2015).

Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier (2017) suggest that startups work with branding with a lean approach,
resulting in a brand that with each iteration responds even more to the modern customers. They add
that brand building can benefit from being approached from an internal perspective, thereby allowing
them to create a brand with a story able to draw attention to the unique details and position of the
brand (Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier, 2017). The models for branding and brand building today can
be seen as quite static, and Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier (2017) suggest that startups need to be
more flexible and dynamic in their approach, partly due to the fast-changing environment that startups
often work in, and partly due to the dynamic stage a startup often is in, where ideas and products often
change in the process. Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier (2017) are suggesting startups begin their brand
journey with the vision, moving on to the development of the brand, then the investigation phase, and
lastly implementation and validation. In the development phase, they suggest startups develop a
minimum viable brand, using the same concept as the minimum viable product (Konecnik Ruzzier
and Ruzzier, 2017). According to Gardner and Cooper (2014), the minimum viable brand should give
a starting point for the more intentional brand development and result in the most critical elements.
Gardner and Cooper (2014) also point out the importance of building trust over time by adding value
and also creating relationships with stakeholders when building a brand as a startup.

31
Additionally, startups should not forget to adapt brand communication strategies used by larger
established companies, since there is a need to tailor the entire brand and communication strategy to
the startup-sized business and for the specific needs of the company (Mingione and Russel, 2020). A
startup organization has not yet built a brand identity and has no clear corporate brand from the
beginning, therefore the approach should be slightly different. The digital era is also changing the
playing field for branding and communication, this however does not only apply to startups but also to
established companies and all actors in between (Mingione and Russel, 2020). Brand building in the
digital era is about social media, word-of-mouth, and building an image and a reputation while
creating a community and initiating relationships with customers and stakeholders (Mingione and
Russel, 2020). Adding on to that, one way for startups to stand out in the competitive business
environment is to work with design-driven innovation strategies to distinguish themselves (Moroni
et.al, 2015). It can help a startup to create design concepts and by that, and it can also help business
innovators to promote the growth of the company. By using a framework consisting of strategy
formulation, ideation strategy, and strategy implementation, the startup can be sure to have carefully
made use of a design-driven innovation approach (Moroni et.al, 2015).

To support the startup brand building, there are some imperatives to take into account (Mingione and
Russel, 2020). One of them is to embrace the traditional functions of the brand, such as being a
value-based guideline, while at the same time acting as an accelerator. The brand will be acting as an
accelerator if it allows the organization to hire the right people in terms of culture and if it motivates
them in their professional growth (Mingione and Russel, 2020). Another one with high importance is
to nurture the adaptive corporate identity and adopt a flexible brand strategy. Startups need to be
flexible and ready for rapid changes, as the digital era has shown before (Mingione and Russel, 2020).
According to Mingione and Russel (2020), it is more crucial for new brands with no clear brand
identity and strong brand recognition. One imperative is also to offer both an online and an offline
brand experience and engage your community. Today, the online and offline presence is vital to
building a strong brand. The brand experience should go over the limit of on- and offline and should
be seen as the same interwoven experience (Mingione and Russel, 2020).

2.3.2 Startup brand management

Brand management is the sustaining of an already formed relationship over time, according to
Gardner and Cooper (2014). They state that the easiest way for a startup to understand the meaning
and potential of a brand is to make it synonymous with a relationship and to handle it like this when
managing the brand (Gardner and Cooper, 2014). Suggesting changing the perspective on brand from
tactical to relational is an approach that would work well for startups and would innovate the brand
perspective (Gardner and Cooper, 2014).

M'zungu, Merrilees, and Miller (2017) mention four commons, although different approaches when
discussing brand management in smaller corporations. They can be either brand identity-driven,
meaning that the brand management focus is primarily internal, or brand image-driven, when the main
focus is external (M'zungu, Merrilees, and Miller, 2017). The third approach mentioned is the
operations-driven type, meaning that the focus is mainly internal but is viewed as tactical or
operational (M'zungu, Merrilees, and Miller, 2017). The fourth and final approach mentioned by
M'zungu, Merrilees, and Miller (2017) is called the opportunistic type and the focus in this approach
is primarily external, with a specific focus on exploiting the perceived market opportunities as fast as
possible. To conclude, M'zungu, Merrilees, and Miller (2017) point out the fact that there are myriad
possible paths for smaller corporations, not only strategic but also operational, and that there are
different advantages and disadvantages with all of them, and the one most beneficial depends on the

32
situation. Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier (2017) mean that the brand management process, as well as
the building process, needs to be flexible and dynamic, for the same reasons mentioned in the
previous section.

To summarize, there are different points of view on the brand management process for startups, and
approaching it in a similar way as for a larger company or corporation but with more flexibility is
suggested in the literature (Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier, 2017).

2.4. Frameworks
There are many existing frameworks within branding focusing on brand management processes, brand
content, brand development, brand perception, and other brand perspectives. Four frameworks with a
focus on different aspects of brand building, brand understanding and brand content, and management
have been selected and will be described and referred to in the following section. The different
frameworks were chosen to complement each other and also to be suitable for the study. These
frameworks have been considered and applied during the data collection, to assess and evaluate the
respondents' ideas of branding and perception of branding in general. While evaluating the
frameworks, a new suggested framework has also been derived from the four of them to better meet
the aim of the study. As mentioned, the study aims to investigate the brand development process for
startups and by that identify thresholds in the process.

2.4.1 Framework A: The Brand Concept Triangle

The first selected framework can be seen in Figure 3 and presents the three poles of brands, as has
been presented in the literature review. As mentioned, according to Kapferer (2012), all of the three
are depending on each other, and all of them are required for the brand as an asset to be true. The
understanding that all the three need to function and work together as a living system is a prerequisite
to being able to develop a brand that can gain market share and leadership (Kapferer, 2012). In
addition, the brand triangle is a tool to structure brand management. It can be supportive in choosing
the brand concept, how it should be embodied in the products and services as well as how they should
be identified (Kapferer, 2012).

This framework was selected because of its holistic perspective and to see how the perception of
brand concept relates to the products and services and the name, symbols, and graphic design. It fits
the aim of the study as, according to Kapferer (2012), it is important to understand the connection of
the three poles to get a holistic perspective of branding and by that, get advice on decisions that need
to be made in the brand management process. Additionally, one intention of the study is to investigate
how startups perceive branding in general in order to understand how they work with it and what can
be improved.

2.4.2 Framework B: Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower

The second framework, framework B, is a model used by Kurppa Hosk as can be seen in Figure 5. As
mentioned in section 2.1.2 of the literature review, the Brand Flower is a branding framework
developed by the strategic team at the branding agency Kurppa Hosk and has been used as a starting
point for the strategists at the agency for several years (M. Bugge, 2021, personal communication, 21
October). The brand flower is describing the brand, its foundation, and touchpoints that lead up to the
experience a brand can create. Starting from the middle, from the foundation, laying out the petals
until the flower is complete and the brand experience is explained. This framework was selected based
on the holistic point of view since it is taking into consideration all aspects of the brand. The

33
framework describes the important parts of the brand, as well as the touchpoints that will lead up to
the experience the brand will create and who will be affected by it. It takes in both the creation of a
brand and the maintenance and work it will need when the brand is created.

2.4.3 Framework C: The Brand Building Pyramid

Thirdly, a framework presenting the components of the brand and its different levels to it, in
connection to the brand management process and perception of the brand was selected. The
framework as can be seen in Figure 4, is presented by Kapferer (2012). As mentioned and explained
in the literature review, the pyramid presents what is included in branding, and how the different
layers are connected. This framework also advises on what should not be a part of the branding, and
what direction the perception and management processes are taking. The pyramid contains several
levels of perspective and advice in the same framework.

The main reason for selecting this framework is that it merges the perception, management, and
content idea of branding and provides guidelines for the entirety of it. Taking all mentioned aspects
into account, the framework is a complement to the other selected frameworks and adds perspective to
the study.

2.4.4 Framework D: Strategic Brand Management Process

The last framework selected for the study is the one presented by Keller and Swaminathan (2020),
called the Strategic Brand Management Process which can be seen in Figure 9. In the framework, they
define the brand managing process and present its four main steps, each with key concepts. This is a
step-by-step framework for companies on the brand development process, or brand management
process. This framework has been selected since it is relevant for the understanding of the processes
and allows exploration in the overall management and development process for brands.

2.4.5 Suggested framework E: Startup Brand Building Process

In the sections above, four different frameworks have been presented thoroughly. Derived from these,
a suggested framework for the study will be presented below. The suggested framework contains four
parts of the branding process and uses the key concepts from the frameworks presented above. They
provide guidance on branding in four phases, understanding – development – planning – execution.

With the suggested framework, the most crucial parts of each framework from the different phases
have been combined into one framework, specifically created and derived to suit the aim of this study.
As can be seen in Figures 15 and 16, the four frameworks presented in the sections above have been
considered and are contributing to different parts of the new suggested framework. In Figure 16, it is
shown how the connections have been made, whereas the Brand Concept Triangle (Kapferer, 2020) is
contributing to the first part of the suggested framework together with Kurppa Hosk’s Brand Flower
(2020) and the Brand Building Pyramid (Kapferer, 2020). For the second and third parts of the
suggested framework, the two last-mentioned frameworks were the main contributors together with
the fourth, the Strategic Brand Management Process (Keller and Swaminathan, 2020). In the fourth
part of the suggested framework, Keller and Swaminathan’s framework (2020) was considered. To
address the startup perspective, insights from the literature have been considered in combination with
insights from three extensive explorative interviews with brand professionals in separate fields. They
were conducted early in the study to get a better understanding of the environment and the input and
the collected qualitative data have been taken into account and incorporated into the suggested
framework.

34
 Figure 15: Building Blocks for suggested framework (Personal Collection).

Figure 16: Process of building suggested framework (Personal Collection).

As the purpose of the study is to evaluate the startups' awareness of their work with branding, in
combination with exploring the general brand building process for startups, the suggested framework
has been developed with this in mind. After studying literature and exploratory interviews were
conducted, the suggested four-step framework was derived.

In the first step, understand, the startup’s understanding and perspective on the brand are investigated.
According to literature, it is of high importance to understand the connection of brand concept, brand
name, symbols and semiotics, and its products and services. Additionally, understanding the
importance of branding, what value can come from a strong brand, and what is included in a brand is

35
also a prerequisite for building a strong brand. The understanding phase is usually not integrated into
frameworks concerning brand building for larger organizations or companies. However, following the
insights from exploratory interviews with brand professionals in combination with literature studies,
the understanding phase was decided to be incorporated into the Startup Brand Building Framework.

In the second step, develop, the framework addresses the development of the brand. Both building and
creating a strong brand foundation with vision, mission, purpose, position, and target group, but also a
coherent, aligned, and visually attractive brand identity. According to the exploratory interviews, this
phase is what many today refer to as the only phase of brand building, since it creates tangible assets
such as logos, and graphical elements and connects the visuals to the brand and by that creates an
identity. It is equally important in this phase to also focus on the brand foundation and setting the core
values and elements that should be a part of the brand foundation, as it is the coherent base for the
entirety of the brand.

Moving forward to the third step, plan, which is about building a brand structure and planning how to
manage the brand. Who is responsible and how will it be managed? In this step, the framework
suggests also considering brand activities and touchpoints to work with and develop a plan for
implementation and future work. The brand management planning part is an important step to be able
to stay coherent and be well prepared for the implementation and execution of the brand experience.
The preparation could include creating a brand book or brand portfolio to make it easy to follow
guidelines and ways to express the brand. It should also include the composition of a brand
management group or addressing the responsibility within the team. This is to facilitate a clear brand
management process and to have everything in place needed for a smooth implementation and
execution phase.

For the fourth and final step, the implementation of the brand takes place. Here it is crucial to
maintain a cohesive impression and to be well prepared. In this step, maintenance of the brand is the
focus, as well as growing and expanding brand equity. This step is a forever ongoing process, and will
always need attention to make sure that the brand is updated. This step can also include measuring and
assessing the performance of the brand, which however is not in the scope of this study. A company
following the Startup Brand Building Process framework will spend most of the time in this phase, as
it is the common state after creating a brand, if not any plans of updating or changing the business
idea, mission, or rebranding come up, as sometimes happen for fast-moving startups in a dynamic
environment. Depending on to what extent the startup is transforming, they will probably go back to
earlier phases in case of any transformations, developing a new foundation or visuals that match the
company’s intentions.

36
Figure 17: Suggested framework: Startup Brand Building Process (Personal Collection).

37
 3. Methodology
This section proposes a thorough description of the methods used in the study in regards to research
design, research philosophy, execution of pre-study, literature review, multiple-case study and
interviews, and how interviews and results were analyzed. Finally, a discussion of research quality
and ethical considerations in regards to the study are presented.

3.1 Research design

To increase the understanding of branding for startups and how branding for startups differs from
branding for incumbents, an exploratory, qualitative study has been conducted with some evaluative
angles. The research setting is based on qualitative assumptions and investigates the research objects
in their natural setting (Bhattacharya, 2008). The choice of this setting was based on the qualitative
nature of the study, to be able to understand the behaviors of startups and their brands as they are at
the moment they are studied. The qualitative design of the study enables a deep and rich
understanding through multiple perspectives of the studied phenomenon, which can be used to
develop new and refined theories on the subject.

The exploratory objective of the study aims to understand how something works. Because of the
study's exploratory nature, the interviews were decided to be semi-structured, to leave room for
individual contributions and guidance from the participants of the study (Saunders et al., 2015).
Through the semi-structured interview format, the researcher is allowed to understand the
phenomenon from different perspectives through the individual perspectives as a result of each
interview. This infers the subject can be narrowed down along the study and, in this case, to become
more focused on the process of brand building and understanding of it within startups. The evaluative
objective of the study was added to also increase the understanding of to what extent or how well
something works (Saunders et al. 2015). Thereby being able to examine to what extent startups work
and understand the brand building. Due to the qualitative nature of the study, an interpretive
philosophy characterizes the study. This allows the researcher to deconstruct and make sense of
socially constructed meanings that are expressed by the participants of the study (Saunders et al.,
2015). The interpretivist philosophy also enables the possibility of developing new theories and areas
of future studies.

To provide an understanding of previous research, and guide and refine the direction and purpose of
the research, a systematic literature review was conducted. The literature review was complemented
by a pre-study, consisting of 3 exploratory in-depth interviews with professionals within startup and
branding to further guide the data collection and exploration of relevant topics. This helped in the
development of the aim, direction, and choice of framework for the study. The pre-study is further
described in the subsequent section. The literature review and the pre-study were then followed by a
multiple-case study, where the empirical data collection was carried out through semi-structured
interviews. Interviews were held with representatives from 8 different startups from Sweden's
metropolitan areas, denoted with the letters A to H in this paper. All of the companies were founded
after 2014, and all of the companies had received or were on the way to receiving funding. The
empirical data collection is further described in section 3.3.

The study used an abductive approach which was motivated by the theory-building character of the
study (Saunders et al., 2015). Though brand building as a concept has been studied to a large extent
before, the concept in relation to startups is a relatively unexplored area of study. Thus, this study

38
explores current frameworks for brand building concerning the experiences of startups and their
brand-building process, to develop a framework for the startup’s brand-building process. A framework
for brand development for early-stage ventures was developed and later used to examine how startups
in Sweden's metropolitan areas view and work with branding.

3.2 Pre-Study
A pre-study was conducted to guide the data collection and direction of the study. The pre-study was
conducted through three in-depth interviews (Table 2) with professionals within startups and
branding. The professionals who were interviewed all have key roles within the area of study, one as
client director at a brand agency, with the responsibility of the agencies offer towards SMEs which
include startups as it looks today, and one as head of the creative labs at a venture developer and lastly
the founder and CEO of a venture developer, see Table 2. The first interview with the founder and
CEO of the Venture Developer was conducted to increase the understanding of the investor's
perspective of the importance of branding for startups and to gain insights into relevant topics
regarding branding and startups. The second interview was conducted with the head of creative labs at
the same firm, responsible for brand development for the ventures within the partnership. The
interview topics in both of the interviews included how they perceived branding, how branding
potentially could be different for startups than for established companies, and how to angle questions
towards startups in the semi-structured interviews to get as valuable results as possible. Interview
questions can be found in Appendix I and thematic coding can be found in table 5 in chapter 3.4.

Table 2: Pre-study interviews.

Role Type of organization Length Date

Founder, CEO Venture Developer 80 minutes 26-01-2022

Head of Creative Labs Venture Developer 60 minutes 31-01-2022

Client Director Branding Agency 60 minutes 18-02-2022

The last interview was conducted with the client director at a Brand Design Agency. This interview
focused on comparing the perception of branding from a brand professionals perspective to the
previous two interviews, as well as to get insights into how they work with startups today, and the
reasons for why or why not to work with startups from a brand design agency’s perspective.

3.3 Literature review

As mentioned in section 3.1, a literature review was conducted to get an understanding of previous
research and to guide and refine the direction and purpose of the research. The main purpose of a
literature review is to reach a deep understanding of the relevant research areas (Saunders et al. 2015).
This was achieved and additionally, the literature review provided a holistic perspective of the
subjects and areas, and the intersection where they meet, and guided in the aim of the study.

The finding of the search keywords and the literature relevant for this study was an iterative process
where the Harvard College Library (2013) checklist as presented by Saunders et al. (2015, pp. 75),
previewing, annotating, summarizing, and comparing, and contrasting the process was followed. This

39
includes considering the precise purpose of the text to assess if it matches your interest or not, and in
the next step, annotate and comment when reading. Summarizing to determine that the text will be of
value to the study and comparing and contrasting to assess how the perspective will add to the study.

Conducting the review, the main platform used to search was Google Scholar, which resulted in
finding reports, books, journals, and other literature from for example Wiley Online Library, Science
Direct, IEEE Xplore, SAGE Research Methods Online, Web of Science, SpringerLink etcetera. The
criteria were that the article or book was cited and published less than 10 years ago. The keywords
used can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3: Keywords used in literature review.

Area of interest Keywords

Branding for startups brand startup, branding strategy startups, brand

value startup, brand equity startup, brand
investment startup

Brand equity and value brand strategy, strategic brand identity, brand
equity, brand value, brand valuation, brand
association, brand investment, branding

Startup definition and valuation startup, entrepreneurship and startups, lean

startup, startup investment

3.4 Multiple-case study

The multiple-case study approach was chosen as it is likely to produce more evidence. By examining
several startups, it is more likely to identify the similarities and differences between the startups and
identify processes and patterns, such as beliefs, attitudes, practices, and skills which are unique to
startups. Eight different startups were selected for the interviews, which is a sufficient number to
uncover most of the relevant themes (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson, 2006; Namey, 2022). The goal of
studying these companies was to gain insights into different brand-building processes and compare
them to the processes in larger companies that are described in the literature.

3.3.1 Selection of cases

The startups selected to participate in the study were selected within the scope of the initial limitations
through a homogenous purposive sampling technique (Etikan, 2016). The criteria for the initial
selection were that the company should be within the definition of a startup, meaning the business
model is still in iteration and under improvement and the company is still relatively young, in this
case, the limit was set to no older than 10 years (Baldridge and Curry, 2022). Startups included in the
study were selected based on stage, with a minimum of 4 employees and past their first investment.
The criteria for the investment was that they should have received some sort of funding, either
through equity, convertible loan, or business loan for startups. The startups selected were in different
stages of their journey which reflected varying beliefs, attitudes, practices, and skills.

40
3.3.2 Interviews

To develop our understanding of how companies view brands and implement branding activities in the
startup context, 8 semi-structured interviews were conducted with startups within the Swedish startup
scene. Through this, the aim was to collect how startups view and work with brands and identify
thoughts and processes. The semi-structured interview allows a certain structure for the interviewer to
follow, as well as it leaves space to ask follow-up questions. Through this method, interesting
"hidden" subjects can be detected. With these different perceptions of the brand, of startups in varying
stages of development, the hope is to encapsulate the meaning of brands for companies in an early
stage. Both B2B and B2C startups were interviewed within the sectors of smart ventilation/industry,
e-learning, sports community platform, and care staffing. All interviews were conducted through
digital meetings and lasted 30-60 minutes. Notes were taken directly and transcribed immediately
following the interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to be able to easier
comprehend the data (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey, 2011).

Table 4: Interviews with startup representatives.

Company ID Role Founded Date Length

A CCO 2020 14/3/2022 30 minutes

B Market Coordinator 2015 8/4/2022 45 minutes

C Head of brand marketing 2017 7/4/2022 60 minutes

D CEO 2017 1/4/2022 60 minutes

E Growth Marketer 2016 2/3/2022 30 minutes

F CEO 2014 4/4/2022 45 minutes

G CEO 2019 14/3/2022 45 minutes

H CMO 2020 25/2/2022 45 minutes

3.4 Data analysis

From the literature review, a suggested framework was presented derived from existing frameworks in
the literature. This framework was then used as a guideline in the data analysis. where a thematic
analysis was conducted. The thematic analysis is sometimes called the foundational method for
qualitative analysis and can be used to comprehend large amounts of qualitative data, identify key
themes and patterns from a data set and draw and verify conclusions (Saunders et al. 2015).

41
After conducting each interview, the transcript was corrected, cross-checked, and completed. From the
transcript, interesting quotes, sentences, and paragraphs were selected, added to a database, and
coded, depending on the discussed theme. Coding the data helps the researchers to easily see patterns
and to draw conclusions based on the codes (Saunders et al. 2015). Adding the empirics to a database
made it easier to have a holistic perspective of all the themes and insights, as well as have them all in
the same place. The identified codes were based on the topics and the question asked in the interviews
but was developed along the way in the interview process as well, as the themes became clearer after
several case interviews. The codes and themes were then connected to the suggested framework,
which is presented in section 2.4.5. From there, the empirical findings were analyzed theme-wise and
were investigated from different perspectives with the literature as a baseline. The data analysis was
an iterative process, not only deciding the themes but also as the study evolved with empirical data
and changes over time. However, as Saunders et al. suggest (2015) the data analysis is generally an
iterative process and needs to be processed continuously. The identified codes in connection to the
suggested framework can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5: Thematic analysis coding.

Part of Understand Develop Plan Implement

framework

Codes View on branding Building brand Approach on Branding

foundation working with activities
brand

Brand focus Brand identity Investing in

development brand

3.5 Research Quality

In this section, the research quality will be discussed. As suggested by Saunders et al. (2012) research
should aim to be conducted with reliability and validity in mind, as they are central to judging the
quality of the research. A qualitative study needs to have a clear research design and carefully
consider the validity and reliability aspects throughout the process to make sure the research quality
maintains high (Saunders et al., 2012).

To begin with, reliability refers to the absence of random errors, meaning that an identical procedure
and replication of the study should result in the same insights (Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki, 2008).
Using a qualitative data collection method, such as a multiple case study, results in limited reliability,
meaning it might be impossible to do the procedure over again and expect the same result (Saunders
et al., 2012). Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki (2008) suggest that to reach a high level of reliability in a
qualitative study, the keywords to consider are transparency and replication. Being transparent it is of
importance to carefully document procedures and for example, create a case study protocol. In this
study, transcripts of the interviews and documentation of the procedures have been prioritized during
the process to increase reliability. The transcripts have been cross-checked to make sure
misconceptions and errors are avoided. A case study database is available on request, where the
documents and narratives can be found. However, for a qualitative explorative study with interviews,
the data collected is mirroring reality at a specific time and setting, meaning it can differ from time to
time and can not be considered to be an absolute truth (Saunders et al., 2012).

42
As Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki (2008) suggest, the validity is split up into three areas, construct
validity, internal validity, and external validity. They are describing internal validity as a logical
validity, and it is referring to the relationships between the variables and the result (Gibbert, Ruigrok,
and Wicki, 2008). It refers to the data analysis phase and concerns if the arguments and logical
reasoning are motivating and compelling enough to defend the conclusions (Gibbert, Ruigrok and
Wicki, 2008). To assess the internal validity, there are three things to consider: a clear research
framework to demonstrate the findings and conclusions, pattern matching, which infers comparing
empirically observed patterns with either previously seen patterns or predicted ones, and theory
triangulation to verify the findings by taking on different perspectives and angles (Gibbert, Ruigrok
and Wicki, 2008). For this study, the research framework is presented in chapter 2.4 and has been
carefully produced with theory triangulation in mind and has been explicitly derived from literature.
As for pattern matching, the results have been analyzed and reviewed in light of previous research.
The results have also been analyzed from the perspective of the framework, which is built on previous
research from different data sources.

As for the construct validity, it should be considered in the data collection phase and it refers to how
accurate the observations are for the aim of the study, and if the study is investigating what it says to
investigate (Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). To establish strong construct validity, it is of
importance to for example reach triangulation of evidence and to explain the data collection (Gibbert,
Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). The collection of data is presented in sections 3.2 to 3.4.

The external validity can also be called generalizability and is representing to which extent the
findings can be generalizable to the external world and not only the setting in which they have been
found (Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). This study does not allow for statistical generalization due
to the qualitative nature, but it can still have generalizability and be a starting point for further
research and have an analytical external validity (Gibbert, Ruigrok and Wicki, 2008). To strengthen
the external validity, this study has been conducting a multiple case study, where 8 different
organizations have been interviewed and studied which results in an analytical generalization by
cross-case analysis, and the details on the case studies are available in the study.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Considering the research ethics for this study, the framework of four requirements defined by The
Swedish Research Council, Principle of Research Ethics, provided by Blomkvist and Hallin (2014,
pp. 34-35) have been followed throughout the study. The four requirements are as follows:

- The information requirement

- The consent requirement

- The confidentiality requirement

- The good use requirement

The information requirement implies that the researchers should inform the interviewees of the
study’s purpose, and this requirement was fulfilled in this thesis by informing the participants in the
first point of contact, why and how the interviews are conducted, as well as informing on the
background of the project, complete interview guidelines can be found in Appendix I.

The consent requirement refers to the importance of being transparent and clear with the fact that the
interviewees are participating of their own free will and they could decide on their own participation.

43
In this study, all of the participants agreed on the participation in the study, and they were asked if
they were comfortable with the researchers taking notes during the interview session.

The confidentiality requirement infers that the gathered data should be treated as confidential
information and the empirics should be stored in a way so that no unauthorized person can access it,
as well as making participants and organizations anonymous in the study if preferred. For this study,
this requirement was considered and fulfilled, the empirics and data are stored so that only the authors
can access them, and the interviewees a default anonymous in the study.

The good use requirement addresses the use of the collected material, and that all the gathered data
throughout the process of conducting the study is only used for the intended purpose. For this study,
the researchers have been transparent throughout the process and only used the material for the
intended use, thus fulfilling the requirement.

44
 4. Empirical Findings
This section presents the results and main findings from the semi structured interviews with the 8
startups investigated in this study. First the interviewed startups are presented and then the results are
presented based on identified themes.

4.1 Interview descriptions

Interviews were conducted with representatives from 8 Swedish startups, all shown in Table 6 below.
Most of the startups had their base in Stockholm, and only one of the companies had their base on the
Swedish west coast close to Gothenburg. The startups were a mix of companies pursuing a B2B or
B2C, or a mixed B2B and B2C business model. The companies were divided into three categories,
micro small and medium, based on the number of employees. Micro when the team was less than 10,
small when the team was between 10 and 50 people, and lastly medium sized when the team was
between 50 and 100 people.

Table 6: The studied companies.

Company ID Year Founded Size Employees Business Model

A 2020 Micro < 10 B2B, B2C

B 2015 Medium < 100 B2B

C 2017 Small < 50 B2C

D 2017 Small < 50 B2B, B2C

E 2016 Medium < 100 B2B

F 2014 Small < 50 B2B

G 2019 Micro < 10 B2B, B2C

H 2020 Micro < 10 B2C

All of the companies had received funding of some kind. Several of the companies had received
funding from institutional players such as EQT, Kinnevik, FBG Invest and Katalysen Ventures or
were part of some kind of accelerator such as Y-Combinator or SSE Business Lab. The companies are
further described in Appendix II.

45
4.2 Thematic analysis
As mentioned in the previous section, semi structured interviews were conducted. To evaluate the
results, a thematic analysis was performed where recurring themes were divided into different
categories. The codes and themes are presented in Table 5 in section 3.4. The data was then analyzed
based on the suggested framework and literature. As mentioned, the suggested framework consists of
four parts, again presented below.

Understanding, the first step in the suggested framework tries to capture the importance of
understanding the startups understanding and perspective on brand. For a startup to be able to properly
communicate and deliver the brand message to their clients, they will need to develop a proper
understanding of what brand is, and how a brand represents the identity of the company.

Develop, the second step of the suggested framework emphasizes the phase where the startup needs to
set the frame for their brand and develop a brand identity. This applies to both the visual aspects such
as name, logo, patterns to the brand book as well as the more abstract aspects such as the mission and
vision of the company and figuring out target groups which identify who the customers actually are.

The planning step, according to the suggested framework, is about building and constructing the brand
structure. In this phase, it is time for the startup to decide on how to manage the brand, and who will
be responsible for it. It can include the composition of a brand management group, or delegating the
responsibility in some other way. This should be done to facilitate a clear brand management process
and to have everything needed for a smooth implementation phase.

The fourth step of the framework is the implementation step. The focus is the implementation and
execution of the plan created in the previous step. Growing and sustaining brand equity and
maintenance of the brand is done in this step as well. This is ongoing work and the brand will always
need attention to stay updated and relevant.

4.3 View on branding

The first part of the interviews focused on capturing the startups view on branding and what branding
means to them. A majority of the startups showed understanding of the cornerstones of what makes up
a brand, as well as some startups showed some understanding with potential to be developed to fully
understand the full concept of branding. Some of the companies showed a more full understanding of
the concept of brand, which were companies B, C, D, E and H. All of the previous, talked about brand
as a part of the core of the company going through all of the activities, or as the personality of the
company, emphasizing that brand is much more than the visual components.

Company B talked about brand as the connotations and connections you directly put to a company.
Company C, developed the same thought a bit more explicitly and talked about brand as everything
which does not have to do with the product. How it feels, how it smells, what the customer feels when
they see something which is connected to the brand. Also, as a retail company, the brand is the only
thing which protects anyone from just copying the product and starting a “ company C 2.0”.

Company D, were convinced that everything they do is part of the brand, and described their brand
thinking as a personality, “what if company D was a person - how would we do branding then?”. They
emphasized the importance of communicating what they were actually doing without exaggerating by
using a “changing-the-world-approach” as many other startups do when trying to convince the
customers. By having the approach of just telling the customers what they actually do, and thereby

46
creating trust for a longtime relationship with the customers. By building trust in the brand from the
start and not trying to change the world whilst still being a small company leaves an increased sense
of trust.

Company E, thought about the brand both as the more abstract parts and the more visible factors of
the brand. They mentioned practical things such as logotype, typography, colors, and in the more
conceptual way. For example how company E should feel, what people should think when they hear
company E. Band is connected to the feelings you experience when you hear company E, is it
playfulness, seriousness, innovation or something else? Also the importance of consistency. Being
aligned in all channels so that it should feel the same independently of where the touchpoint to the
company might be. It should be a direct connection like “ It should feel like company E, in every
channel, in all communication, in everything. Brand can be found in every part of the business”.

Another company, company H, on a similar line, talked about brand as a personality of the company,
why do they exist and which story do they want to tell. The personality and purpose is very important
when it comes to a brand, otherwise it will be too flat and unrelatable. We want our customers to want
our brand and be able to relate to it. Key factors for a brand to succeed is for it to look good, be
appealing, simple to understand, and be consistent. By having those key components you will have
come far without putting too much effort into it. also they empathize the value of talking about the
values of the brand from day one, much driven by the team being young and having a well
understanding of branding. For company G, brand is a part of the identity and the receiver (the
customer) takes in many different aspects. If the brand is not well thought through and the story does
not hold, it will be noticed by the customers.

The two other startups, focused more on brand as a single channel, for example company A, who said
that brand is the way the main target group of the company sees us. And the other one, Company F
focused more on the visual aspects of the brand which you see when you enter the website etc. They
talked about why the name was chosen and described how it had been chosen through a thorough
process to have a name suitable to the business sector. It was also described as factors of importance
such as having the .com domain to the name, though at a reasonable price, to gain credibility from
customers.

In general, some of the startups talked more about brand identity and showed a view of the brand as
something holistic, and some had a somewhat more narrow definition of what made up the important
parts of the brand.

4.4 Brand focus

When asked about how much focus and effort was put into the brand, the results were somewhat more
differing. Some had a very clear product focus, some had some brand focus and some outsourced
everything about the brand work and thereby kept the work on brand ongoing. As company E said, the
focus is dependent on prioritizations based on limited amounts of time and money. It is easy to not
prioritize since it is not always visible but is still very necessary and affects a lot.

Company A, a tech company started in 2020 with a small team, described a high focus on the product
with no other focus on brand other than graphical components such as logo colors and some basic
patterns, which were necessary to put the product on the market. The focus has been on building a
product the users want and need, but on other things such as communication, they expressed a lack of
focus. They express that they have an organically growing product, without the need of much

47
marketing. And therefore activities towards marketing and branding have been put aside until the
product is scalable.

One company which described both a high focus but somewhat struggling to do enough for their
brand was company B. Somewhat further on their journey, they described a struggle from the
marketing team to focus more on the brand, where the CMO is fighting for more resources. Company
B describes it as the board underestimates the importance, but the marketing team has full focus on
brand and marketing and have a large freedom to do what they want. By focusing on only the brand or
the product, it is possible to get a sellable product, but for long term success it is necessary to have
both because the probability of it shining through after some time is high.

Another startup, company C, a b2b retail company, described their brand focus as a core part of their
business, “on a scale of 0-10 it would be 12!”. They want loyal and happy customers and they want
the customers using their products to be proud. Therefore the brand has to be evident in everything
that is being done on some level. Similar to company C, company H, also a b2b company, said brand
was something they focused on though every component of their business. Company D, also very
aware of the brand, had another perspective on how much to focus on the brand, and instead of
focusing explicitly on the brand, companies should focus on building the business. By using the right
branding approach it can help building the business, it is necessary in a crowded market to stand out.

Company F talked about having a cooperation with a marketing agency, which as a whole increased
their brand focus from a 3 to an 8 in total. However in general, the lack of brand focus was something
they had a bad conscience because so little time was being put on it. The result of the cooperation was
linkedin posts and consultation.

Some things were mentioned as potential thresholds for startups to focus more on branding during the
interviews. Company B mentioned the need for sales as a potential obstacle for not focusing more on
the brand. Many startups do a great job today but without sales it is difficult to keep a startup going
and therefore it is hard to focus more on brand. Company C, also on the same track, expressed it as a
danger to only want to sell as fast as possible, hunting quick wins, instead of having patience and
building the brand. The brand focus is very much dependent on the person who starts the company. To
make startups realize the value and focus more on brand, company G thought it could be favorable to
showcase some bad examples, to really make founders of startups in general realize the value of
branding.

4.5 Establishing a brand foundation

Building the brand foundation and platform is the foundation to communicating a coherent view of
the brand through all channels. Company B, described how they aligned elements such as the visual
identity, e-mail, corporate culture, style of communication. Basically all touchpoints with the
company should reflect the same picture of the company to create a coherent brand. For company B, a
specific difficulty is to overcome a bad reputation of the business sector they are in, this makes it even
more necessary for them to have a strong brand and be clear about their values, differing from the rest
of the sector.

For company C, the company was initialized after confirming demand, and the founder together with
another entrepreneur and friend set the brand in regards to the graphical components, and most
importantly, they decided on the x-factor which would be what would make company C stand out,
based much on a feeling of those who wear the products and that the people get a sense of being cool
because of wearing the products.

48
The approach of setting the values of the brand foundation differs a bit between the startups. Company
G talked about the brand foundation values often being taken lightly and as something being put
together over the kitchen table with the early team by simply asking “ - what do you think?”. What is
decided is what the company will be associated with in the future and if you would change the values
at a later stage it takes valuable time. From their own experience they say that the values are important
to set at an early stage in the company and then stick to it. It is difficult, takes time and costs money to
change at a later stage. And when it is set it allows you to work with other things. For Company G, the
CEO said that this is what they tried to do but then eventually had to change and update, but they
tried. Company D is onto a similar approach, talking about the brand as something which needs to be
created inwards and not outwards. It is decided what personality the company will have, and then the
customer can take it or leave it.

The Head of Brand Marketing at company C had previous experience from a startup which was driven
by sales and most of the focus in the company was oriented on sales. With time however, the brand
values grew to feel like a luxury product as a result of the product being expensive and requiring a lot
of trust from the customer to dare to invest in a product from an unknown company.

4.5.1 Target Groups and Positioning

For company C the target group was very clear from the start and goes back to the values of the brand.
The goal is to sell their products to every lawyer and banker in Sweden, and to own that specifik
market. Everyone who wears a suit is the target. The next step of finding the target group was to
figure out how to reach them. to be on the same events as they were, advertise in podcasts related to
their field and finding the right forums where the target groups hang out. Also by identifying the
target groups general interests, the company has been able to create content related to these fields to
attract the target group.

Company B describes a general target group where the goal is to help SME entrepreneurs. From this
goal, they identified the people behind these companies where they have the highest hit rate. Also the
geographical target group was identified as urban cities such as the three largest cities in Sweden.
However they describe their marketing activities as chanelbased, all depending on the type of event or
potential customers at a certain location.

Several of the interviewed startups described a lack of understanding of the customers and what the
target group actually wanted. Company A, for example, experienced that many customers do not talk
enough to the user and customer but instead listen to themselves and to what they think is right.
Another company, company B, described that if they were to start a new company, the focus should
initially be on a very small group which you listen closely on and then go towards a broader audience.
They also emphasize the importance of talking to the client. Often they do not know what they really
want and you will have to read between the lines.

A somewhat different approach was brought up by company D, they decided to not target any specific
group whatsoever. One reason for this decision is the difficulty to set the line when someone is within
the target group or outside of the target group. An example they brought up was what happens if there
is a target group of people aged 20 to 30 and a person then is 31. They instead adopted the approach
of not caring about who is on the other side when building the brand. They rather focus on “this is
what we are, this is who we are'' and don't put much more effort on who is on the other side. By being
selective and not overselling what they are doing, communicating the mission and vision and
informing about the product, each and every person can process the information and then decide for

49
themselves how they want to process the information. Company F had a somewhat similar approach
to focus on trust building and to build a good relationship with the clients they actually have. They
rather want to deliver to the customers they have and grow slowly. However, they had a very strict
focus on two certain target groups.

4.6 Visual identity development

How the visual identity of the brand is developed differs between the companies. Some of them have
done everything in house, versus some of them taking help from experts or a combination of
outsourcing and inhouse feedback. Also how important the visual aspect is for the company differs.
For example company H put great weight into looking professional and to be able to make a good first
impression. Company B also says that the visuals are important since the competition is everything
that competes for the customer's attention.

Company A, got help from students at Hyper Island, a global digital creative business school, to put
together a graphical profile with some basic colors, worked on the logo and some other graphical
components. This initial graphical profile has been slightly adapted to stand out from other institutions
in the sector by changing the color of the logo and main color. At this stage, a minimum effort has
been put on the graphical profile, and as soon as they feel that there is more time and resources, more
time will be put into the graphical profile. The focus in the current graphical profile is to keep it user
friendly and to keep navigation on the platform as smooth as possible.

Company E talked about the importance of consistency, (similar to company G in part 4.2.1) if you
want to set a brand you want to keep it that way and if you do it too early it can be hard to stay
consistent since many things still are not set. It can be hard to communicate an idea and put it on
paper at an early stage.

One company which partially outsourced the development of the visual profile of the brand is
company G. They briefed how they wanted the profile to feel, they wanted it to portray industry
structure and at the same time feel simple and clean. This, combined with a brief and demonstration of
the product, resulted in some suggestions which then were discussed. The process of choosing a name
for the company was somewhat problematic since the initial thought of name was taken by another
European company and the finished visual profile contained the first letter of the taken name. The
CEO described a process of multiple weeks of thinking without result, ending with the team plus parts
of the board and some marketing experts, locking themselves in a room until the name was set. Much
focus in the beginning was set on developing the positioning with name, logo and general style, taking
up to 40-50% of the time.

4.7 Approach on working with brand

4.7.1 When and how to work with branding?

The interviewed startups have different opinions and methods on how they work with the brand and
how to plan the brand strategy in general. As for when to work with branding, company G points out
the importance of having a clear brand from the beginning, and to work with the brand identity very
early on to benefit from the brand directly from the start. They say that “if you change the brand along
the way it will take time and it is not always an easy path to take”, and therefore they tried to set the
identity early in the beginning. Company E however, describes that it, for example, can be hard to stay
consistent and follow the directives of an early presented brand book. Also, early on, it can be difficult
to identify what you want with the brand and formulate it clearly on paper and that is something that

50
often becomes clearer with time. Company E also adds that it can be hard to communicate the idea in
a way so that other people understand it. Company D says that the strategy and plan has been set out
as exploration in the area, they are learning by doing and have been making mistakes and learned by
them, since no one in the initial team had any experience in branding, marketing or similar. They also
discuss this point of view, having no background or experience in the area implies that they have been
creating a strategy out of trial and error and have not been following general guidelines in the area.
Company D says that today, all companies are following the same common thread in branding and
brand strategy, and they are all following the guidelines derived from previous experiences. However,
they think their style, as has been mentioned in the previous sections, can become a hot topic and
what is unconventional today might grow to be general guidelines in the future.

On the note of responsibility for the brand and who is managing and maintaining the brand, company
B says that “we have an internal group that are responsible for the branding and from there, they
formulate the strategy, the red thread and what they want to communicate”. From there they usually
hand it over to agencies, having a lot of activities and maintenance managed outsourced. This is
something that the startups have very different perspectives on – however, none of the interviewed
startups mentioned that they have been working with a pure branding agency, but some have
experience from working with agencies in marketing, communication, PR and graphic design. The
interviews have been providing insights on collaborating with agencies, and the startups consider
there to be both advantages and disadvantages to these kinds of relationships and collaborations.

4.7.2 In-house competence or outsourcing?

The attitude towards outsourcing branding and marketing varied in the data collection. Several
startups wanted to build all the functions inhouse and pointed out the advantages with that approach,
whereas other startups were of the opinion that no startup can grow to a certain size fast without using
agencies and outsourcing. However, none of the startups have been using an agency only focusing on
branding. Some of the startups used a hybrid agency with marketing, branding and brand
management, while others have been using pure marketing, communication and PR agencies.
Additionally, during the interviews, it became clear that some of the participating startups have a hard
time differentiating the marketing and the branding activities, which is also a question of definition.

Company G is one of the startups who had a positive attitude towards the use of agencies, and had
been using a creative professional, that is also running a small agency, for both building the brand and
maintaining it. They consider that even though you have great ideas in-house for the branding and
believe they look great, there are experts who know these things a lot better, seeing things you can not
see yourself. As mentioned, they had a strong focus on building the brand early on in the process, and
the founder pitched the business and the idea to the creative, who then worked on the design of the
logo and visuals in the brand. The guidelines that followed in the pitch was that the brand, name, and
logo should be clean and simple with a certain feeling. The creative developed the brand from there
and as for maintaining and continuously working with the brand, they still have a standing meeting
scheduled every week. The reason for going to a creative and not to a branding agency was the cost,
but company G stated that if they would have had a lot of money directly in the beginning, they would
have hired a branding agency instead.

Company F had a similar attitude towards agencies as company G, outsourcing the brand creation,
and also the marketing activities. They announced a contest for freelance creatives to participate in
when the brand, logo and visuals to the brand were to be created. The same procedure took place for
their first pitch deck. The startup is also collaborating with a marketing agency that is offering

51
marketing as a service, so called MaaS. The marketing and branding activities are entirely outsourced
in company F and they are very happy with the results. They expressed that “it has been easy for us to
communicate and they are coming up with many ideas for us to decide on if we want to work on or
not, and a lot of the ideas are great”. The advantages company F saw were high value for the invested
money, that the agencies are producing material that really helps with the brand awareness and the
presence on social media.

Both company A and one additional anonymous startup, who was asked to participate in the
interviews but instead shared their thoughts via email, are tech startups focusing resources and time on
product development and are part of Y-combinator. They have similar views on outsourcing branding
and marketing activities. Company A got help early on with the visuals, logo, colors and brand, from
students at the digital creative business school Hyper Island. The other anonymous startup decided to
hire a branding agency after receiving funding. The main reason for choosing to outsource the
branding work was the fact that they did not have the competency in-house and not the time to recruit
anyone for it, thus it would be more efficient to outsource it. They did some research on agencies and
went for one where they liked the results they had previously produced and their way of working. As
mentioned, the focus is currently not on branding for any of the companies, however company A
would consider to outsource the work later on. With plans on expanding to Europe, company A would
consider bringing in an agency. The expectations of the agency would be a strong knowledge of
important factors for the target group, extensive data on clients and competitors, and a data driven
decision model.

Another participating startup with a positive attitude towards agencies is company B. Working with
both web agencies, marketing agencies, and production agencies, company B has had experience
working with different types of agencies, procedures, and work processes. They believe that a startup
can not manage to grow as fast as they wish without taking help from external agencies. By using
agencies you get the needed competency right away when you need it. It can be expensive, but
building the competency in-house will most likely take time, time which you do not always have.
Even though it can be expensive to work with agencies, you get new perspectives and ideas which in
the long run, is worth the money. Company B states that it can be difficult to work closely with an
agency and make them understand the business and the impression they want to communicate, but
that it often depends on the in-house teams’ communication skills and ability to express their vision
and needs. It often needs to be an iterative process and sometimes it ends up exactly as you want it
right away, and sometimes it is a lot of rounds before it comes down to it. Company B also expressed
that: “you get new perspectives, ideas and even if it is expensive to work with agencies, seeing it from
a long term perspective it is kind of cheap”.

From the collected data the startups believe that the advantage of working with agencies is the fact
that you get expert knowledge from someone in the field, and you get that competence fast and
exactly when you need it, no need to spend time on recruiting and taking the risk of poor recruitments.
The fact that working with agencies often is expensive is weighed up by the long-term value that is
brought to the startup from the agencies. With agencies, you have the possibility to expand and grow
fast.

However, around half of the interviewees did not agree that outsourcing branding and marketing
activities are the best way to do it. For example company H prefers to do everything in-house. They
are a small team but since the focus has been on branding already from the beginning, the team is also
set up with competencies to manage that themselves. It is also a question of their financial ability, and
at the moment, they can not afford to bring in an agency, but they do not feel like they need it either.

52
Company H also thinks that if they work on branding and marketing in-house, they have more control
and it can be more fast-paced – if they want to create a new campaign they might start work on it the
same day. They believe that flexibility is not as easy when working with agencies.

Company E had the same perspective as company H, considering the process of working with
agencies and outsourcing. Company E thought that working with an agency can be a difficult process,
and they discussed the communication issues as company B also mentioned, however with another
take. In their experience, neither the vision nor the concept has become clear after the initial
interviews and workshop with the agency. Company E stated that “it is an iterative process that in our
experience is inefficient and the result we have seen from agency work has been 40% good and 60%
off”. Due to this, company E focuses on building its competencies in-house. They pointed out that it
can be a challenge to do the right recruitments and to staff the key roles with the right people, but even
if they would have the financial power to outsource and use agencies, they would not do it. Company
E considers having a marketing or branding function in-house with a strong design lead is important
to succeed. They also point out that the marketing function does not need to be linear, such as a sales
team for example needs to be, but can stay as a smaller function longer, but still deliver quality
material and results.

Another respondent with a high brand focus that highly values working with branding in-house, is
company C. They want to keep their competencies in-house and everyone is working from their office
in Stockholm. They are a small team of eleven people working full time very close together. When the
competency is kept in-house, company C considers it to be “easier to connect to the person and that
they will breathe and live the brand in the same way as the other employees do today”.

Company D has the explorative view on branding as mentioned earlier in the section. They do not
outsource any of their functions or activities, and for branding, they have the mindset that patience is
the most important thing, but also the most difficult thing working. They point out that you have to be
patient to build a brand with trust, and they are working on that in-house.

Looking at the collected data the startups think that the advantage of working with branding in-house
is that you get another level of control over your work and can be more fast-paced in your activities.
You can avoid the sometimes complicated and time-consuming process of working with agencies and
the in-house competencies you acquire is an asset that hopefully will be with you for a long time.
Having branding in-house can also make the employees passionate and live for the brand.

4.8 Investing in brand

As company D said in their interview, investing resources, both time and money, into your brand can
help any company. To have a good product is key, but you also need to have a clear brand, and to
market it in a good way, otherwise, you will not sell. According to them, the market is very crowded
and you should put the effort into branding to stand out. They also think that the right approach is to
be humble, honest and market your product exactly as it is, not overcompensate, brag, or make it look
better than it is.

When discussing the difficulties with brand investments with the startups, the most common
thresholds to invest in branding were high costs combined with a lack of resources. As companies E,
G, B, and H bring up during the interviews, working in a startup in most cases infer that the resources
are limited and a need to prioritize what to spend both time and money on. With this said, Company G
for example states “we can afford the branding expert we are working with today because of the
established relationship we had before”. Company G also said that “greed from any side is what puts

53
the brakes on, and as a startup, you have to think long-term” learned from previous experience.
Company H discussed that “branding is expensive, and that it costs a lot of money to be seen and
heard, and even if you put in that money and time, if you are not well-prepared and have some
knowledge of branding, it might not be coherent”.

Another threshold discovered in the interviews was the difficulty of measuring the result of brand
work. This is closely connected to the startup's necessary prioritizations, where it is easier to motivate
by focusing on measurable KPIs such as securing sales. This was mentioned by both companies B and
E in their interviews. Many startup founders are focused on numbers. Since it is hard to measure the
benefit of a rebranding or a brand-focused project, it can be difficult to motivate choosing to invest in
the brand instead of something easier to measure. In addition, the startup environment is also more
prone to fast-paced changes, both in the surrounding environment and the startup itself, such as
changes in the offering, the product, or the business. This also makes it uncertain to focus on investing
in the brand, since the future of the startup is not as clear as for a more mature larger company or
corporation.

4.9 Branding activities

Discussing branding activities with the startups, there is once again the need of defining branding
versus marketing activities, and what is directly and indirectly brand building activities. From a
discussion with Maija Bigestans, brand professional and strategist at Kurppa Hosk, she stated that the
branding activities are more long-term and focus on long-lasting results. Marketing activities are when
you are activating your brand and how you communicate it, often containing channel strategy, tactical
plans, and campaigns. The branding is one step earlier and should discuss what the marketing should
result in. In her opinion, marketing comes further down in the process but is crucial to communicate
the brand. It is more focused on activation than motivation. The processes in a startup are in general
shorter and things move at a higher pace, which is also the case for branding and marketing processes.
This can result in a situation where the two areas are interfering even more with each other, and thus
can cause a greater confusion on the subject. A well-established company can work on its branding
and set a long-term plan for the upcoming 10 years, however, a startup can not act on such a long-term
basis.

As mentioned in earlier paragraphs, some of the startups are working with specific target groups,
which is taken into consideration in their branding activities as well. Company B mentions that “we
are adapting our communication strategies and the way we communicate depending on what channel
they are using and what target group we want to reach”. They are always trying to talk in the same
way as the customer and be personal in the communication. Company B also mentions the fact that
you are not only competing with other businesses in the industry or the competitors in your niche, but
when it comes to marketing and branding, you are competing with everything that catches your eye,
which means “you can not do things half-hearted – you need to work with this continuously and dare
to do bold things to succeed”.

Company H is also working differently on different social platforms, for example on their Instagram
account they are presenting visually attractive content with a lot of photos. On TikTok, the brand
focus is stronger, and on their LinkedIn profile, they are trying to communicate from a more corporate
perspective. However, the red thread is always there and it is important to be coherent, the customer
should be able to see right away that it is company H communicating something, no matter if the
content is on LinkedIn, their app, TikTok or Instagram. They are also working with their purpose and
what they want to contribute with. To spread brand awareness they are also working a lot with

54
ambassadors, and profiles in their industry with the same beliefs and ideas. Company H spends a lot
of energy on creating depth in the brand and creating strategies. They need to be out and about to be
seen and heard as much as possible, without spending so much money on it. A lot of creativity and
innovative ideas are needed to reach through the noise.

Company E also mentions the careful considerations you need to do before acting on brand-building
activities, for example, if they are going to host an event and want someone to speak, it is very
important that they feel like the person is someone they want to have connected to the brand. The
image of the entire event needs to feel “on brand” and that feeling can sometimes be difficult to
create, especially if the brand definition is a bit unclear due to a lack of brand understanding, identity
or foundation.

In the small team of company C, their branding activities are a collaboration of the whole team. They
are brainstorming ideas in the office, and when starting to work on a project, the tasks are divided by
the team. They are working with targeting the right customers by looking into their interests and
hobbies and doing branding activities and marketing activities in the right channels. For example, they
want to grow their brand awareness among men who wear suits at work, for example, lawyers.
Investigating the target group and realizing they often have an interest in music, arts, watches, and
sports, company C creates content that will draw the target groups’ attention to these themes.
However, they think that the biggest challenge with working with branding and activities to strengthen
the brand is, as company B also mentioned, to have to stand out in the noise. For example, the things
you created for a campaign, are only fresh and updated for a short time, you should always do
something that fits the brand and stays coherent, and you must always perform better than you did in
your last delivery. As company B said, “creating the unique feeling and an extraordinary brand
experience is one of the biggest challenges”.

Company D brought up something they consider as the most important thing when working with
branding activities, and it is to always be honest and speak the truth. They are transparent and share
things that they do, and talk more about what they have achieved than where they want to end up.
Talking the talk is one thing, but walking the walk is another, and for company D one of the most
important things is to not oversell, to be humble and honest.

4.10 Brand maintenance

In the interviews with the startup, the subject of brand maintenance briefly came up. Company G
pointed out that it is more about nourishing the brand, making sure everything you do stays
streamlined and coherent, following the guidelines and perhaps creating a brand book to easier keep
on track. That will make it easier for both in-house competence, distributors, and agents to work with
the brand correctly. They have one meeting every week where they connect with their brand
professional, for example discussing what is ongoing on their social media, what is happening on the
website, and what presentations are planned for the upcoming week. Company H, working all
in-house with branding, also talked about the maintenance and realized that they are doers and usually
do not think about a strategy for a long time, but they just start doing things instead. They said, “By
working like this, we feel like we get past the bottlenecks and can actually get a lot of things done.
The flexibility of working on a startup is what makes this work process possible.”

55
 5. Discussion
This section discusses the results from the interviews in relation to previous literature. It discusses the
meaning, importance and relevance of the findings and provides the arguments to the final conclusion.
The discussion is divided into four parts, based on the four steps of the suggested startup brand
building framework.

5.1 Understand
From the interviews, it is clear that one common misconception when it comes to brand for startups is
that branding and marketing are the same things. As Serrano (2021) points out, the connection
between the two is very close. There is a fine line between what goes into each category and for
startups especially, there are a lot of parts that are overlapping. From the discussion with Maija
Bigestans, brand professional and strategist at Kurppa Hosk, her observation on the shorter processes
seems to apply to the interviewed startups. It is also pointed out by Blank (2013) that startups need to
work more agile than mature companies.

One interesting finding is the differing understanding between B2B and B2C companies. The
companies with a strong B2C focus, for example (Company C & Company B), have a very clear
brand as well as a marketing focus. This is both a result of needing to differentiate themselves from a
market where other similar companies are trying to achieve the same thing and to be able to catch the
customer's eye in a crowded digital space. In both cases, the target group was very large and it was
important to reach a broad mass of individuals. These companies have a good understanding of the
models that Kapferer (2012) presents, the Brand Concept Triangle and the Brand Building Triangle.
For the Brand Concept Triangle (Kapferer, 2012), it is clear that companies with a holistic view of
both the concept, name and symbols of the brand and also the product or service will have an easier
time building a strong and well-functioning brand. As for the Brand Building Pyramid (Kapferer,
2012), these companies had the building blocks closely together and worked on them continuously,
which according to Kapferer (2012) is one way to secure a powerful impression. However, a large part
of their brand focus can be easily confused with thoughtful marketing, which also strengthens the
perspective Maija Bigestans pointed out on a closer connection with branding and marketing for
startups.

The companies with both B2B and B2C focus (Company D, Company A, Company G), where their
clients were companies and in some cases individuals, the understanding was differing. One of the
companies, company D, had a strong belief that brand should come from within and thought there
should be a less direct focus on brand and more focus on showing the identity of the company. This
could in turn be argued that this identity is the true brand – which shows and comes naturally if there
is understanding for branding and if the brand is correctly developed. This is a holistic perspective of
a brand and in this case, it is clear that they have a good understanding of the fact that the brand can
add value with not only the visual identity but also the elements from the brand foundation such as
personality, attributes, and benefits (Kapferer, 2012). Similar to the companies with a mixed focus, the
B2B companies also had a differing focus, rather depending on the number of customers than the size
of the customer. For example, one of the companies with a very specific and narrow target group
focused on building personal relations with the clients and building trust through these client relations,
instead of building trust through the brand. When the target group is wide, the focus on branding has
been included to a larger extent than when the customer group is very narrow. The focus within
branding for these interviewed startups lies in the visuals and for example the logo, which, however,

56
according to Story et al. (2022) is in the definition of brand. However, as Abimobola (2010) states, the
brand can be a strong and powerful asset for the business, but when only focusing on this part of
branding, the perspective and idea of branding are very narrow and it can not result in the full
potential of what branding can do for the business.

Many companies without the in-house competence of branding tend to focus on the product and
expect the product to speak for itself. When this is the case, the understanding of the Brand Concept
Triangle (Kapferer, 2012) is not complete. When the brand concept is not fully understood, which is
the value proposition, the image is not complete. The startups might have the brand name and symbols
with the semiotic invariants, and their product or service experience is well-developed, but without the
brand concept understanding, the last cornerstone is missing (Kapferer, 2012). The approach may,
however, be feasible to some extent in certain sectors, but the product with a brand focus will be able
to differentiate itself from similar companies and the brand will in the end be the factor that makes the
company stand out from the crowd (Kapferer, 2012). Additionally, as Kapferer (2012) also points out,
the brand elevates the product and ensures coherence, making it easier for the customer to recognize
the product and also to build and maintain trust.

5.2 Develop
From the empirical findings, it is clear that different methods can take the startups through the
development phase with good results, but there is often room for more extensive brand building and
development of identity and visuals. The brand platform, also called the brand foundation, has many
important elements to strengthen the image and personality of the brand (Goncharova et al., 2019). In
addition, the Brand Identity Toolbox developed by Kurppa Hosk (2020) contains a wide set of tools to
use in the expression of the brand. In some of the interviews, it was clear that parts of the brand
foundation and identity were missing or not prioritized or even thought of. Since the intangible added
value comes from the brand foundation (Kapferer, 2012), this shows either a lack of understanding of
branding or a lack of prioritization of branding. Several of the startups in the study had developed for
example a mission and a purpose, but the brand foundation could be expanded and elaborated. This is
to have a more stable and extensive foundation to build from and make it easier to develop a visual
identity with a strong connection to the brand foundation (Wheeler, 2013). The suggested framework
presented in section 2.4.5 can thus be a guideline for startups to make sure they include important
brand foundation elements.

The idea of when the best time is to develop and set the brand foundation and visuals for a startup
differs. The fast-paced environment where a startup acts, in combination with the fact that the
business idea or offering can change over time in a way that established or larger corporations and
companies, do not generally do, creates a discussion on the topic. One of the startups pointed out that
the brand should be built as soon as possible, and that even if the business changes or the offering is
not the same as it was when the brand foundation or visuals was created, you can still hold on to most
of it and do smaller changes. The advantage of setting the brand early on is that you will start to work
on brand recognition and awareness right away, which can be of high importance in some industries.
However, another of the startups points out the difficulties with staying on brand and being consistent
and coherent when setting the brand too early, and also the fact that it can be hard to communicate an
idea and put it on paper very early on in the startup process. Few studies have been made on the
timing of building the brand in startups and could be an interesting topic for further studies. However,
because of the importance for startups to work with brand building to elevate their business (Diresta
et. al, 2015; Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier, 2017), it is beneficial to have the brand-building process
in mind from the very beginning, at least to some extent.

57
Focusing on the visual identity, it is obvious that a clear set identity gives a professional impression
and serious feeling (Kurppa Hosk, 2020; Keller and Swaminathan, 2018; Wheeler, 2013), which was
also supported by the findings from the explorative interviews as well as the startups interviewed.
The findings from the interviews also support the information shared by Kotler (2013), that a
company can have a playful look with a lot of colors and a fun and creative typography, but if it is a
well-thought-out concept it will still feel more serious than a company with a stiff and clean look
without cohesiveness or an inconsequential expression. A clear identity and cohesive visual material
will make it easier to build trust with stakeholders and customers (Kurppa Hosk, 2020). If the business
transforms along the way, the visuals can often be retained if they are thought through. Some of the
startups in the interviews have created their visual identity themselves, and to do that a genuine
interest in graphic design and creative skills is needed to develop a professional and coherent identity
in the way Wheeler (2013) suggests, within the intersection of imagination, intuition, design
excellence and experience. Depending on the background and skill of the team this can result in great
work. However, as mentioned before, the visuals should include more than a color, logo, and
typography to look and feel professional (Kurppa Hosk, 2020; Wheeler, 2013; Slade, 2016). Many of
the interviewed startups have an attractive identity but lack elements that could result in an even more
cohesive feeling.

Some of the most common elements in the brand foundation are the target group and positioning
(Kapferer, 2012). In the interviews with one of the startups, a different perspective was presented. The
idea of the startup was that they are working with their branding from within, not focusing on who is
going to be the receiver of the communication. This is an approach not supported by the literature,
where the brand foundation with its target group and positioning aspects are important to create an
identity that is coherent and that serves the target group well (Kapferer, 2012). The company
compared it with being a human, not changing your personality depending on whom you are going to
talk to. This is an interesting approach and could work well for some companies, even though it
neglects brand-building foundations (Kapferer, 2012). In this specific case, the startup has a strong
innovative and differentiated product and for them, it works well since the competition is not close.
Depending on the landscape, industry, and environment the startup is acting in, the approach might
not be suitable for everyone. However, with this approach, the communication will be trustworthy and
it will be easy to build trust with both customers and stakeholders. It is an interesting perspective that
could be explored more.

The approach of the company is interesting from the startup perspective. As the company has a unique
product with few or no direct competitors, it might be the case that they are still involved in a
customer discovery process. And therefore are not aware of the main target group since they are still
trying and iterating on their way forward, similar to the customer development process introduced by
(Blank, 2013). This is something that also could be investigated further in future research.

5.3 Plan
To succeed in the planning phase, it is key to have a structured approach (Keller and Swaminathan,
2018; Slade, 2016; Kurppa Hosk, 2020). For activities and brand structure to be executed and
followed, it needs to be decided who has the responsibility, otherwise, it is likely to be forgotten
(Keller and Swaminathan, 2018). If it is done in-house or if it is outsourced is of less importance,
from the interviews both approaches clearly can work well. A requirement for it to work however is to
have someone who is responsible in-house, who also understands the value of the brand and can vow
for the importance. This person can make the decisions and ensure that it gets done. In the case of
outsourcing this process, the responsible person should have the necessary understanding to be able to

58
communicate with the experts in the field. This is something which was described to be problematic,
that when working with experts in an agency, some of it was great and some of it became off – often a
consequence of the lack of understanding for the brand from the company side and a lack of a
sufficient brand foundation within the company.

By outsourcing, as mentioned in the previous section, the work will be done by experts and should
result in a more thorough and complete job. In many cases, however, startups think the results are
worse and that the process is time-consuming. For example, Company E thought that the majority of
things done by agencies did not live up to expectations and that the process was iterative and
time-consuming. Even though most of the startups did not prefer to work with agencies, some thought
it was the best way to go. For example, Company B thought it worked well and had many projects
with different agencies sometimes even simultaneously. The reason it worked well was a consequence
of the brand and marketing team having extensive previous experience working at agencies. Because
of this, the communication between the startup and the agencies is easier and many of the problems
other startups described could be reduced. In this specific case, what has been done is that expert
competence has been put in-house, who can efficiently communicate with agencies and cooperate
adequately. This is a very efficient solution and is a good option - if there are enough resources, which
in most cases is not the reality in the startup world where many are struggling to find enough funding
to survive (Zwilling, 2013). If branding is to be continuously outsourced, it is expensive, and it could
therefore be of advantage to have the resources in-house who are closer to the product and the rest of
the business. When things change quickly, it is easier to continuously adapt brand and communication
when things change. By having the resources in-house you will also have a greater understanding of
the effects of the continuous brand work.

As the focus is on startups in this study, one of the major challenges for the companies is to prioritize
time and investments. Because of the limited funding, it is necessary to be selective of what time and
money are put on. For startups who do not understand branding and its long-term value, it is easy to
prioritize brand away for other things such as developing the product or quick marketing. One could
argue however, that just as important it is to put an MVP on the market according to the concept by
Blank (2013) and Ries (2011), it could be argued that a Minimum Viable Brand, MVB, is equally
important. This is also proposed by Konecnik and Ruzzier as something to have in mind during the
development phase (Konecnik Ruzzier and Ruzzier, 2017). Thinking from a long-term perspective,
the effect of branding is at least as important as the product. With a sufficient brand foundation, the
brand will help the startup find stability (Picken, 2017; Eisenmann et al., 2012). Because of the power
of building trust and other feelings that a brand is connotated with, also pointed out by Gardner and
Cooper (2014), the brand can even have the power to outcompete competitors with inferior products.
However, it is hard to compete with a company with a superior brand.

As Blanks said in the lean BMC, the entrepreneur starts with a set of good guesses as to the best case
and then iterates from that (Blank, 2013). If the entrepreneur can understand the importance early on,
the probability that the guess is closer to the truth is more likely.

5.4 Implement
Managing the brand is the major part of branding, and the other steps are leading up to it (Wheeler,
2013), however, from the interviews, it is clear that the view differs from startup to startup on the
management process. As Serrano (2021) and Falin (2021) point out, the branding activities are very
close to the marketing activities, and can be difficult to differentiate what is what. The interviews
show that many startups confuse the marketing and branding activities, seeing them as the same thing.

59
Some of the startups considered all activities to in some way be branding activities, since they are
strengthening the brand equity, image, and awareness. The line between marketing and branding is,
once again, more unclear within the startup environment since the processes are shorter – things are
moving faster and the entire landscape is more flexible and sensitive to changes, as mentioned by
Baldridge and Curry (2022).

Keller and Swaminathan (2020) point out that there can be different approaches to how to grow the
brand, which can be seen from the collected empirical results as well. The majority of the startups also
talk about staying true to the brand within their activities, which also is something Wheeler (2013)
mentions, the accountability and coherency are important to make the brand stay relevant and grow
adequately. The importance of continually reflecting on, evaluating, and developing the brand (Keller
and Swaminathan, 2020) seems to not have taken root for the interviewed startups just yet. However,
some of them keep it regularly on the agenda in some way, which is important for maintenance and
brand management (Elliott, Percy, and Pervan, 2018). The interviews also show that there is flexibility
needed for startups in their brand management process, as mentioned by Konecnik Ruzzier and
Ruzzier (2017).

60
 6. Conclusion
This section presents the findings and conclusions from the discussion and presents the answer to the
RQ’s. Also, the primary contributions to literature will be discussed as well as areas of further studies
and limitations of this study will be discussed.

6.1 Conclusion
The interviews showed a varying level of understanding of the brand between the startups. Both in
regards to what the brand includes, but also which building blocks are necessary and how the brand
can elevate the business. From a general perspective, the companies who have a better understanding
of the brand early in the process, have incorporated the brand as a natural part of building the
company from the start and have therefore a more developed approach to all of the steps in the
brand-building process as suggested in the framework. For companies where the understanding of
brand is lacking, it is common to also lack brand focus leading to not being able to complete the last
steps of the brand-building framework.

What the process looks like, if it is developed in-house or outsourced, for example, has less of an
impact on the brand development as long as the understanding of branding and its influence on the
business exists. Considering the importance of having a broad understanding of what a brand is and
can do when entering the second step of the framework, the insight is that for a startup, with its many
priorities and things on its to-do list, it can be favorable to set the brand early with the help of experts.
If an investment like this is not financially possible for a startup and the best option is to create the
brand themselves, it is crucial to get an understanding of branding and dig into the area before moving
on to the development phase. Additionally, this is very important even if the brand development is
outsourced. Having the competency in-house is key to staying coherent and maintaining the brand.
This applies to both the second step, plan, as well as the third step, develop as it per se implies that it
is necessary to have at least one individual with understanding within the team.

In general, the steps in the suggested brand building framework for startups build on each other. The
process of brand building for startups needs to start with understanding, otherwise, the following steps
will fail. It is important to have the understanding to be able to fully develop the brand, and it is
necessary to structure the process to be able to reach the final step of implementation. If the first three
steps are fulfilled, the last step should be a natural continuation of the brand foundation set in step two
and the structure created in step three. Which are both preceded by having to understand the concepts
and the importance of brand in general.

Not being able to understand the value in combination with very limited resources are the main
thresholds for startups to work more with their brands. For startups, it is much easier to focus on more
measurable parts of the business such as sales and the product which are easier to understand and
think that the product will bear success on its own.

6.2 Limitations and future research

The multiple-case study approach together with the homogenous purposive sampling method used to
select the companies, worked as an approach to make the results as generalizable as possible. The
results reflect the perspective of the startups, however, other interesting perspectives could be found if
consumers, investors, and branding professionals would be included in the study as separate groups.
The startups selected were all in different business sectors in different stages, meaning that important

61
differences in the different stages might have been lost. Therefore the results could lack
generalizability on a micro level when differences between startups are examined such as the size of
the startup and differences in business model in regards to B2B or B2C or the cases of a mix of the
two. By conducting an even higher number of interviews, saturation can be ensured, however, in most
cases, 8 interviews should be a sufficient number.

There is a risk of participant bias or error since individuals were interviewed as representatives of the
companies. For example, how the communication flow between startup and branding agency worked
could be perceived differently also within the company. Different results could for example have been
obtained if another representative from the same company would have been interviewed, the issues
and processes described could have greater or less importance if described by someone else in the
company. There is also a risk of misinterpreting the participants' answers and that the participants
have a different meaning with their statements than what was interpreted by the interviewers. Also,
there is a risk that the interviewers were affected over time by the answers and insights from the initial
interviews of the data collection. Thereby changing the way that follow-up questions were asked and
how answers were interpreted during the duration of the study.

The branding process and activities were analyzed in relation to how the startups experienced the
process of branding. Results were valued equally, independently of the amounts of funding received
for each startup, and neither were long-term results evaluated within the scope of this study. For
long-term results to be evaluated, the study should be followed up by such results as the brand
building process is something current and ongoing at the interviewed startups in the study.

As this thesis focuses on the process of brand building for startups, specifically focusing on the
suggested Startup Brand Building Framework, additional areas of interest have been discovered along
the way. Further studies on how to assess and measure the effect of branding in startups would
contribute to the literature and fill a research gap. Finding a way to assess the value and measure
success would help in the understanding of branding for startups and possibly increase the incentives
for startups to put more effort into brand development and brand building. During the data collection
for this thesis, an interesting perspective was found that is not following the traditional view and
perspective on how to build a brand – instead of focusing on target groups, positioning, and focusing
on the difference of the external touchpoints, the startup created the brand from an internal point of
view. This is an unconventional approach and further studies would be suggested to explore the area
and find out the potential of this approach on branding. Additionally, further investigations into the
timing of the brand-building process could result in interesting findings and conclusions, which could
contribute to the literature and add to the research on branding for startups. This thesis has been
written in collaboration with the branding agency Kurppa Hosk to result in pre-findings on how a
branding agency can develop a valuable offer to startups. This can also be further investigated in
terms of the most efficient way for agencies to collaborate with, or work with startups, what are the
conditions to create an efficient process, and what the setting should look like to create value for both
parties. On the subject, the MVB could also be advantageous to investigate further.

62
References

Abimbola, T., 2010. Brand strategy as a paradigm for marketing competitiveness. Journal of Brand
Management, 18(3), pp.177-179.

Argenziano, G.M, (2016) Brand Valuation - The New AVM Valuation Method. LIUC Papers 302..

Arvidsson, A. (2006). Brand value. Journal of Brand management, 13(3), 188-192.

Baldridge, R. and Curry, B., 2022. What Is A Startup?. [online] Forbes.com. Available at:
<https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-a-startup/> [Accessed 31 March 2022].

Blank, S., 2013. Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. [online] Harvard Business Review.
Available at: <https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything> [Accessed 22
March 2022].

Blank, S. and Dorf, B., 2020. The startup owner's manual. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Bhattacharya, H., 2008. Research Setting. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods,
[online] Available at:
<https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/sage-encyc-qualitative-research-methods/n398.xml>
[Accessed 7 February 2022].

Blomkvist, P. and Hallin, A. (2014) Metod för teknologer: examensarbete enligt 4-fasmodellen.
Studentlitteratur.

Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Dell'Era, C. and Pellizzoni, E., 2019. Fostering digital entrepreneurship from
startup to scaleup: The role of venture capital funds and angel groups. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 145, pp.24-35.

Charnley, B., Sheppard, M., McCarron, M., Mabbott, J., Gelb, D. and Fogarty, J., 2015. Why are big
businesses looking to start-ups for innovation?. [online] kpmg.com.au. Available at:
<https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/02/big-business-start-ups-innovation.pdf>
[Accessed 22 March 2022].

63
Crunchbase News. 2022. The Crunchbase Unicorn Board. [online] Available at:
<https://news.crunchbase.com/unicorn-company-list/> [Accessed 31 March 2022].
Dadwal, S. and Dadwal, S., n.d. Handbook of research on innovations in Technology and Marketing
for the Connected Consumer.

Denoo, L., Yli-Renko, H., Clarysse, B. (2018). Tweaks and Pivots: The impact of customer ties on
young firms’ business model adaptation in an emerging industry. Academy of Management Global
Proceedings, 2018, 30.

DiResta, R., Forrest, B. and Vinyard, R., 2015. The hardware startup: Building your product, business,
and brand.. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Eisenmann, Thomas R. and Wagonfeld, Alison Berkley, Scaling a Startup: People and Organizational
Issues (February 23, 2012). Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Case No. 812-100,
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2037236

Elliott, R., Percy, L. and Pervan, S., 2018. Strategic brand management. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Etikan, I., 2016. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), p.1.

Falin, Vlad, Verizon Small Business Essentials Resources 2021. Branding vs Marketing - What Is the
Difference? - Verizon Small Business Essentials Resources
<https://www.verizon.com/business/small-business-essentials/resources/branding-vs-marketing-what-i
s-the-difference/> [Accessed 28 April 2022].

Forbes. “The world's most valuable brands 2021”.[online] Forbes. (2021).

https://www.forbes.com/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands/#3f505fc8119c

Gardner, J. and Cooper, B., 2014. Entrepreneur's guide to the lean brand. San Diego: Market by
Numbers.

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). “What passes as a rigorous case study?” Strategic
management journal, 29(13), 1465-1474.

64
Goncharova, N.A., Solosichenko, T.Zh., & Merzlyakova N.V., (2019) ”Brand Platform as an Element
of a Company Marketing Strategy” International Journal of Supply Chain Management ISSN:
2050-7399 (Online).

Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L., 2006. How Many Interviews Are Enough?. Field Methods,
18(1), pp.59-82.

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. and Namey, E., 2011. Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications.

Günther, T., Kriegbaum-Kling, C. Brand Valuation and Control: An Empirical Study. Schmalenbach
Bus Rev 53, 263–294 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396639

Harjoto, Maretno Agus, and Jim Salas. "Strategic and institutional sustainability: Corporate social
responsibility, brand value, and Interbrand listing." Journal of Product & Brand Management (2017).

Jones, K., 2022. The Importance Of Branding In Business. [online] Forbes. Available at:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2021/03/24/the-importance-of-branding-in-busine
ss/?sh=7ea1fa67f71b> [Accessed 21 March 2022].

Jones, Richard. "Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity."
Journal of brand management 13.1 (2005): 10-32.

Kapferer, J., 2012. The new strategic brand management. London: Kogan Page.

Keller, K. and Swaminathan, V., 2020. Strategic brand management. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.

Konecnik Ruzzier, M. and Ruzzier, M., Startup Branding Funnel: A New Approach for Developing
Startup Brands (2015). Singapore: Global Science and Technology Forum (GSTF), 2015, pp. 32-34.

Kotler, P., 2013. Kellogg on marketing. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Krishna, A. and Kim, S., 2021. Exploring the dynamics between brand investment, customer
investment, brand identification, and brand identity fusion. Journal of Business Research, 137,
pp.267-277.

65
Maurya, A., 2012. Running lean: Iterate from Plan A to a Plan That Works. 2nd ed. O'Reilly Media,
Inc.

Maurya, A., 2016. Scaling lean: Mastering the Key Metrics for Startup Growth. 1st ed. New York,
NY: Penguin, p.14.

Melo, Tiago, and Jose Ignacio Galan. "Effects of corporate social responsibility on brand value."
Journal of brand management 18.6 (2011): 423-437.

Merz, Michael A., Lia Zarantonello, and Silvia Grappi. "How valuable are your customers in the
brand value co-creation process? The development of a Customer Co-Creation Value (CCCV) scale."
Journal of Business Research 82 (2018): 79-89.

Mingione, Michela, and Russell Abratt. "Building a corporate brand in the digital age: imperatives for
transforming born-digital startups into successful corporate brands." Journal of Marketing
Management 36.11-12 (2020): 981-1008.

Moroni, Isabela, Amilton Arruda, and Kátia Araujo. "The design and technological innovation: how
to understand the growth of startups companies in competitive business environment." Procedia
Manufacturing 3 (2015): 2199-2204.

Morrill, K., 2015. Startups are like fighting forest fires - Mattermark. [online] Mattermark. Available
at: <https://mattermark.com/startups-are-like-fighting-forest-fires/> [Accessed 21 March 2022].

Moser, K., Tumasjan, A. and Welpe, I., 2015. "Small, but attractive: the effect of employer branding
and legitimacy on startup attractiveness." Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), p.10528.
O'Brien, M., 2022. The Secret To Building A Strong Brand. [online] Forbes. Available at:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/03/09/the-secret-to-building-a-strong-brand/
?sh=588fc2fc485e> [Accessed 21 March 2022].

M'zungu, S., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D., 2017. Strategic and Operational Perspectives of SME Brand
Management: A Typology. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), pp.943-965.

Namey, E., 2022. Riddle me this: How many interviews (or focus groups) are enough? – R&E Search
for Evidence. [online] R&E Search for Evidence. Available at:

66
<https://researchforevidence.fhi360.org/riddle-me-this-how-many-interviews-or-focus-groups-are-eno
ugh> [Accessed 17 March 2022].

Nanda, R. and Rhodes-Kropf, M., 2013. Investment cycles and startup innovation. Journal of
Financial Economics, 110(2), pp.403-418.

Okrah, J., Nepp, A. and Agbozo, E., 2018. Exploring the factors of startup success and growth. The
Business and Management Review, 9(3).

Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y., 2010. Business model generation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley
& Sons.

Persson, J., 2022. Basfakta om företag. [online] Tillväxtverket. Available at:

<https://tillvaxtverket.se/statistik/foretagande/basfakta-om-foretag.html> [Accessed 22 March 2022].

Picken, J., 2017. From startup to scalable enterprise: Laying the foundation. Business Horizons, 60(5),
pp.587-595.

Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Kerimcan Ozcan. "Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An
integrative framework and research implications." International Journal of Research in Marketing 33.1
(2016): 93-106.

Ries, E., 2011. The lean startup: how today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create
radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business.

Ross, J., 2021. The Biggest Companies in the World in 2021. [online] Visual Capitalist. Available at:
<https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-biggest-companies-in-the-world-in-2021/> [Accessed 31
March 2022].

Salamzadeh, A. and Kawamorita Kesim, H., 2015. Startup Companies: Life Cycle and Challenges.
SSRN Electronic Journal,.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Chapter 5. Formulating the research design. In
Research methods for business students (Seventh ed.). New York: Pearson.

67
Sdgs.un.org. 2022. Goal 8 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. [online] Available at:
<https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal8> [Accessed 22 March 2022].

Sdgs.un.org. 2022. Goal 9 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. [online] Available at:
<https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal9> [Accessed 22 March 2022].

Seb.brandmanual.se. 2022. SEB Brand Manual. [online] Available at:

<https://seb.brandmanual.se/en/design-elements/fifth-element> [Accessed 31 May 2022].

Seetharaman, Ananth, Zainal Azlan Bin Mohd Nadzir, and Seethu Gunalan. "A conceptual study on
brand valuation." Journal of product & brand Management (2001).

Serrano, Thea, Thrive Internet Marketing Agency. 2022. The Differences Between Branding and
Marketing and How They Work Together. [online] Available at:
<https://thriveagency.com/news/the-differences-between-branding-and-marketing-and-how-they-work
-together/> [Accessed 28 April 2022].

Shepherd, D. and Gruber, M., 2020. The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner
Divide. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, [online] 45(5), pp.967-998. Available at:
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1042258719899415> [Accessed 22 March 2022].

Silva, D., Ghezzi, A., Aguiar, R., Cortimiglia, M. and ten Caten, C., 2020. Lean Startup, Agile
Methodologies and Customer Development for business model innovation. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(4), pp.595-628.

Slade, C., 2016. Creating a brand identity. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Story, H., Guide, S., Name?, W., Greenwashing, H., Fundamentals, B., Webinars, T. and Marketing, I.,
2022. Branding | American Marketing Association. [online] American Marketing Association.
Available at: <https://www.ama.org/topics/branding> [Accessed 9 February 2022].

Sundell, L., 2022. Nystartade företag första kvartalet 2021 - Tillväxtanalys. [online] Tillvaxtanalys.se.
Available at:
<https://www.tillvaxtanalys.se/statistik/nystartade-foretag/nystartade-foretag/2021-07-14-nystartade-f
oretag-forsta-kvartalet-2021.html> [Accessed 22 March 2022].

68
Tajvidi, Mina, et al. "Brand value Co-creation in social commerce: The role of interactivity, social
support, and relationship quality." Computers in Human Behavior 115 (2021): 105238.

Urde, M., 2013. The corporate brand identity matrix. Journal of Brand Management, 20(9),
pp.742-761.

Wedia-group.com. 2022. Brand Center versus Brand Platform: What’s the difference?. [online]
Available at: <https://www.wedia-group.com/brand-content/brand-center-versus-brand-platform/>
[Accessed 28 March 2022].

Wheeler, A., 2013. Designing brand identity: an essential guide for the whole branding team. Choice
Reviews Online, 50(09), pp.50-5098-50-5098.

Womack, J. and Jones, D., 2003. Lean Thinking. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.

Wood, M., Palich, L. and Browder, R., 2018. Full Steam Ahead or Abandon Ship? An Empirical
Investigation of Complete Pivot Decisions. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(4),
pp.1637-1660.

Zauner, Alexander, Monika Koller, and Matthias Fink. "Sponsoring, brand value and social media."
Revista de Administração de Empresas 52.6 (2012): 681-691.

Zwilling, M., 2013. 10 Ways For Startups To Survive The Valley Of Death. [online] Forbes. Available
at:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinzwilling/2013/02/18/10-ways-for-startups-to-survive-the-valley-
of-death/?sh=1b25e05b69ef> [Accessed 3 April 2022].

69
Appendices

Appendix I: Interview guidelines

Table A: Semi structured interview questions and guidelines.
Phase Questions and guidelines

Intro ● Thank you for participating

● Introduce the research study and our initial RQ

● Master thesis within the subject branding strategy och startups

● Literature review and semi structured interviews and case studies

with startups in different phases

● Interviewing to understand your view on branding and to get

some perspective (45-60 min)

● Data will be anonymised in the report

● Can we take notes?

Preliminary RQ How can startups use investments in branding to increase their value? And
when?

Interview Questions ● Tell us shortly about your background (and your company)

● What’s your view on branding? / What does brand mean to you?

● What does it include? What activities?

● What touchpoints are you working with?

● On a scale 1-10, how much time/effort are put into branding?

● How do you work with your brand today?

○ Inhouse?

■ As a part of the marketing function? Separate?

■ Have you considered taking in external help?

Why?

■ What would you need to do that? Money? Other

services?

70
 ○ Outsourced?

■ What do you get help with?

■ Are you happy with the service?

● Have you gotten investment?

● What stage is the company at, pre-seed, seed, series A, scale-up

etc.

● Have you invested in your brand?

● Why? Why not?

● What’s difficult for you when it comes to the brand?

● Where is the bottleneck? Time? Knowledge?

● How do you think branding can accelerate growth for a startup?

Appendix II: Description of the interviewed companies

Company A

Company A, founded in 2020, has created a platform connecting nurses and doctors to open positions.
Thereby shortens the process of hiring healthcare staff from up to three months to 24 hours. The
company has a lean team with a high product focus, with the majority of the team consisting of
developers. They are in a high growth phase and recently got included in the startup accelerator
Y-Combinator for high potential tech startups. Their business model is a combination of B2B and
B2C.

Company B

Company B, founded in 2015, with the aim to revolutionize the banking experience for entrepreneurs.
By providing loans to small businesses they provide an option to traditional venture capital financing.
They are one of Sweden's fastest growing fintech companies and they have helped more than 15,000
companies to date. Company B is covered by the government deposit guarantee and is under the
supervision of Finansinspektionen (FI). Behind the company stand well-known investors and talents
from e.g. Avanza, Spotify, Google and Klarna.

Company C

Company C was founded in 2017 with the aim of creating high-quality shoes with a timeless design
with focus on sustainability, and in that way staying as essential today, as in 50 years, as they were
essential 50 years ago. Today, the focus for company C relies on a direct-to-consumer approach and
e-commerce retail. They pursue a traditional B2C business model. An undisclosed investor sold a
stake in the company to Camshaft, led by Christina Stenbäck, in the lead for SEK 13.6 million on
October 4, 2019.

71
Company D

Company D, founded in 2017, is an operator of sustainable food tech and waste management,
intended to offer an alternative to both meat and traditional plant-based proteins. The company's
technology offers products based on fungi biotechnology, to create vegan protein for food products in
the most resource-efficient and sustainable way. The company is at a prototype stage with the first full
scale production plant in construction. They have initiated multiple collaborations with industry
leaders worldwide, both in B2B and B2C markets.

Company E

Company E, founded in 2016, partners with organizations to transform learning outcomes with
personalized learning. Their platform applies recent breakthroughs in machine learning to evaluate a
teams' strengths, weaknesses, and progress, and receive actionable insights and recommendations. The
interdisciplinary teams consist of engineers and scientists with backgrounds from Google AI and
Spotify to Imperial College and BCG Gamma. In 2021 the company received funding from EQT
Ventures to accelerate growth and expansion.

Company F

Company F, founded in 2014, is a wealth management software provider designed to digitize,

accelerate and automate administrative processes. The company's software algorithms help automate
the wealth management process and reduce manual labor, enabling financial advisors, funds as well as
wealth and risk management companies to control risks, optimize performance, and reduce costs. The
company is currently in a venture partnership with Katalysen Ventures.

Company G

Company G, founded in 2019, provides green, cost-efficient, and healthy indoor air solutions through
their smart and innovative energy recovery ventilation systems. Focus is both on the new-build market
as well as the retrofit market. The company has an up-and-running production in Estonia and a sales
distributor network in 11 countries. The company entered a venture partnership with Katalysen
Ventures in 2022 and also received an undisclosed amount of funding with the partnership.

Company H

Company H, founded in 2020, is an app which connects the world by making fitness social. The
company's business model is primarily B2C and they are working with a freemium/premium business
model. Through the platform it is possible to discover local communities and create groups with
friends, and thereby making the arranging of sports and fitness activities easier. The founders all have
previous experience of startups. The company has received funding through Almi, and are currently
pursuing a seed round.

72
TRITA – ITM – EX 2022:280

www.kth.se