2.2 Literature research reflection

I have chosen to include my research questions as integral part of my literature research reflection. In this section, I will answer the research question and automatically reflect and summarize the main topics of my literature study. The research questions are as formulated in chapter 1.2.4.

2.2.1 Which are the criteria for appraisal of corporate branding?

Corporate branding can be defined as the process to maintain, continue and create a positive corporate reputation and associations using the power of a brand, which in return is a promise to the stakeholder and consumer in particular at which the brand has formed a set of perceptions about a product, service or business. The findings and answer to the first central question is segregated over the following five sub questions: Which general characteristics of corporate branding can be defined?

General characteristics involve features or qualities related to corporate branding serving to identify this phenomenon among other brand propositions.

  1. Corporate branding involves autonomous brands with an umbrella or source brand architecture and defines the organization behind the product and/or service.
  2. Corporate branding is most often related to mature brands which characterise it by: a rich heritage and valuable roots, its assets and capabilities, the employees being brand ambassadors, its values and value discipline, a dedicated local or global orientation, and a visible citizenship practice.
  3. Corporate branding characterises itself by brand transparency which encapsulates the brand vision, brand values, brand personality, brand positioning and brand image.
  4. Corporate branding incorporates brand consistency across the organization, the products and services lead by dedicated brand groups or brand manager. Which criteria can be drawn from the theory of corporate branding?

A criterion for this purpose is seen as a standard or test by which corporate branding may be compared and judged among other brand propositions. I have drawn the following 21 criteria from the theory as studied;

  • 1. Brand functions
  • 2. Brand principles
  • 3. Brand leadership
  • 4. Brand elements
  • 5. Brand architecture
  • 6. Brand identity
  • 7. Brand personality
  • 8. Brand positioning
  • 9. Brand awareness/salience
  • 10. Brand loyalty/resonance
  • 11. Brand judgement
  • 12. Brand feeling
  • 13. Brand performance
  • 14. Brand associations
  • 15. Business management team
  • 16. Brand champion
  • 17. Global brand manager
  • 18. Global brand team
  • 19. Corporate communication
  • 20. Marketing communication
  • 21. Dialogue communication Which criteria can be formulated on the basis of 1.2 and how to classify these?

I have classified the 21 brand criteria in five brand categories. To visualize this, I have drawn a brand model where all five categories together lead to the extent of brand integration. See figure 25.

Figure 25 - Brand integration model by Ronald van Haaften
Figure 25. Brand integration model by Ronald van Haaften. Which appreciation can be defined for the effectiveness and strength of corporate branding?

I have selected two separate assessments to analyse and measure the extent of effectiveness and strength of corporate branding. Both assessments, brand strength and brand integration, are reflecting the 21 brand criteria within the 5 classifications as mentioned above.

The appreciation of the assessment questions follows the quality rating as set in table 3. The extent (%) of appreciation is based on the equation of the sum of all ratings over the total rating. If the sum of ratings is 75 points out of 15 questions, then the quality of overall effectiveness or strength would result in; 75/(15*7) *100% = 71,42%

Table 3. Quality rating 1-10 & 1-7 scale with the labels

Modified brand strength model
Fully agree
Partially agree
Partially disagree
Fully disagree
Brand report card
Very high
Medium high
Medium low
Very low
Business Unit Extent of brand integration
Fully agree
Partially agree
Partially disagree
Fully disagree