Corporate Identity Modeling: A Review and Presentation of a New Multi-dimensional model

Journal of Marketing Management Volume 21, Number 7-8 pp. 809-834, August 2005

© Suvatjis and de Chernatony 2005

�1

Jean Yannis Suvatjis PhD

Centre for Research in Brand Marketing

Birmingham Business School

University House

The University of Birmingham

Edgbaston Park Road Edgbaston

Birmingham B15 2TT

England

Leslie de Chernatony

Professor of Brand Marketing

Centre for Research in Brand Marketing

Birmingham Business School

University HouseThe University of Birmingham

Edgbaston Park Road

Edgbaston

Birmingham B15 2TT

England

Abstract

We put forward the six station model of corporate identity. This is done by reviewing the

corporate identity literature to appreciate the limitations of existing models. Ten criteria are

suggested as important for robust models. Based on this, the six station model is presented. To

gauge its usefulness and managerial applicability 28 depth interviews were conducted with

corporate identity consultants and business managers. The model was regarded as useful and

has managerial applicability, albeit business managers would prefer more training and systems

to use the model.

Introduction

The quest for a corporate identity model has been of increasing concern for researchers and

managers, who regard identity formation as critical to corporate success. One of the key

objectives in corporate management is to sustain a competitive advantage (Balmer & Wilson

1998). Corporate identity is one basis for achieving this and can be defined as “what an

organization is” (Baker & Balmer 1997; van Rekom 1997). A more thorough definition is “the

set of meanings by which an object allows itself to be known and through which it allows people

to describe, remember and relate to it”(van Rekom 1997).

The concepts of identity and image have been used interchangeably. Factors contributing to

identity are the “organization’s history, ethics, beliefs, philosophy, personality of its leaders,

ownership, cultural values and strategies” (Ind in Stuart 1998). We concur with Stuart (1998)

and see identity as the self-presentation of an organization as corporate personality, and

functionally, as the selective cues and signals that an organization projects through its behavior,

communication and symbolism. With regard to operations and activities, it is the unique

capabilities, or more abstractly, the reality of the human organization.

�2

An increasing number of scholars are laying a multidisciplinary foundation of corporate identity,

since the composite of various disciplinary, national and cultural approaches contribute to a

new holistic concept of identity. In the present research, a further contribution is made. This is

done by focusing on variables that are regarded as fundamental to corporate identity and

employing these in a “six station corporate identity model.” This new model addresses some of

the limitations of previous models. We examine the interrelationships between the components

of the model and, through depth interviews with consultants and business managers, assess

whether the model has managerial applicability.

The paper opens by reviewing corporate identity models and some of their limitations. From

the literature we identify 10 criteria for a model to be useful and valid. Using these we put

forward the six station corporate identity model. To assess its validity and managerial

acceptability, the model was tested using depth interviews amongst 28 corporate identity

consultants, and business managers.

Existing corporate identity models

Previous models have been presented by several authors, e.g. Dowling (1986), Stuart (1998,

1999), Balmer (1996), Markwick and Fill (1997) and Alessandri (2001). Other models have

focused more explicitly on corporate image which is a component of, and overlaps with

corporate identity, for example Kennedy (1977) and Abratt (1989), and for this reason they are

not the focus of this paper. While these models have advanced knowledge of corporate identity,

the variety of approaches and perspectives has raised questions about each model’s limitations,

which have been identified in the literature.

Dowling’s (1986) model for example has been critiqued in relation to culture (Balmer and

Wilson 1998), its discussion of top management and also for not making a direct reference to

corporate identity (Balmer 2001b). It appears weak dealing with interrelationships between

identity, image and his conceptualization of organizational culture (Stuart 1999). Furthermore,

�3

the model is difficult to visually interpret due to the complexity of identifying the interrelation

of components.

By contrast, Stuart’s (1998 and 1999) constant revisions of her model shows the difficulty of

producing a definitive model. Stuart’s (1998) model did not deal with corporate reputation and

also no consideration was given to corporate branding (Balmer 2001b). Ind (1997) observed

that Stuart’s model did not include products and services, which contribute to the

communication of corporate identity, but this could be justified through the inclusion of

corporate strategy which deals with products and services. Stuart’s (1999) model does not

clearly designate possible synergies and is difficult to memorize and operationalise.

Markwick and Fill’s (1997) model has been critiqued by Balmer (2001b) as not paying enough

attention to company profile and corporate branding. Indeed, prior to this observation, the

model is not easily interpretable since its components are scattered, with no specific

diagrammatic guidance to introduce its logical sequence.

The model also fails to fully explain all synergies and it deals only partially with those

components that the model introduces.

Finally, Alessandri’s (2001) model has been critiqued as being limited discussing corporate

structure, as being too conceptual and placing excessive attention on corporate

communication. It is difficult to understand and operationalise. As a result of being rather

abstract, its difficult to memorize.

Development of criteria for a robust corporate identity model

To overcome some of the previous models’ limitations a new model was developed based on 10

criteria deemed important for a useful and valid model. The criteria were developed with the

aim of providing an easy, visual, clear and workable model. Secondly it introduces the

�4

mandatory presence of major components. Thirdly it clarifies the interrelation and

interconnectivity of the model’s parameters. Fourthly it dynamically foresees possible

synergies. Finally it introduces a manageable model for everyone who considers corporate

identity as the heart of the corporation. These criteria will next be explained, the model

introduced and tested through depth interviews with practitioners.

1. Visual clarity

A workable model should be pictorially clear and stimulating. It should visually communicate

the key points without lengthy explanations. The explanations, should appear to the audience as

easy to understand due to the pictorial representation. Foo & Lowe (1999) argue that the

“fundamental concept” of corporate identity “is best conveyed visually” (p. 89).

The visual presentation of the model is important. Dumas (1994) uses the term “totems” to

describe a method for building shared mental models to aid companies in brand promotion and

implementation. These totems or visual metaphors (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001), serve to

express the collective knowledge of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, Hill

and Levenhagen (1995) stated that an important step when forming mental models is the

development of metaphors, also highlighted by Lakoff and Johnson (1987).

Thus, models need to be visually appealing to facilitate their usefulness (Lilien, Kotler and

Moorthy, 1992; Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert, 2000). In Abratt’s (1989) conceptual and

prescriptive corporate image management model for example, its characteristics include a

clear visual representation and identification of categories and boundaries, particularly

between internal and external factors and stakeholders.

2. Ease of interpretation

�5

A useful model should be simple and easy to understand. Its design should immediately create

a positive impression and its utility will be enhanced by academics and managers who devise

grounded arguments to modify parameters which suit a variety of scenarios.

Naert and Leeflang (1978) assert that “a model must be simple, complete, adaptive and robust”

(p. 322), and this conception, based on Little’s criteria (1970), is stressed by Leeflang, Wittink,

Wedel and Naert (2000). The robustness of a model means it is “hard to get absurd answers

from” it (Little, 1970, p. 466).

Taylor’s (2001) critique of Leeflang et al. underscores the importance of clarity and ease of

interpretation. It was felt that lack of realism was the principal reason for the limited

implementation of some of the early identity models.

3. Logical sequence

A useful model should reveal the logical sequence of its parameters where advancement from

one element to the next produces justification of use and rationale. The use of logical sequence

is evident in a variety of models (Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert, 2000). Dyer and Forman

(1991), provide support for this criterion, as they state that a model must be capable of

supporting decisions involving alternatives and should allow synthesis and combination in areas

where complex problems are involved.

The criterion of logical sequence must be aligned with the criterion of robustness to promote

information transfer in a logical manner. Robustness can be achieved with a structure that

clarifies interpretation of a range of variables. If the values of a criterion variable are

constrained, the model should indicate this, which contributes to its logical consistency

(Leeflang and Wittink, 2000).

4. Adjustment and adaptability

�6

A workable model should be able to cope with the need for adjustments due to unexpected

factors in the business environment. Adaptability is an important criteria, as identified by Naert

and Leeflang (1978) and Little (1970). Little (1970) asserted that an adaptive model “can be

adjusted as new information is acquired” (p. 466). Laurent (2000) also argues that effective

marketing models need to be more flexible and adaptive as current models do not adequately

describe the variables and their relationships with the commercial world.

Wide applicability of a given model, which is difficult without adaptability, would not be possible

without the availability of detailed data access to estimation methods and sophistication on the

part of both the model builder and user (Lefflang and Wittink, 2000). These need to be

considered in producing a corporate identity model. Thus, the model should be capable of being

updated with new and additional data when it becomes available, (Little, 1970).

experienced by the person with respect to the company; and overall and specific evaluations of

the company and its perceived attributes (Dacin and Brown, 1997).

5. Production of synergies

According to the literature, one of the fundamental requirements of a model is the production

of synergies. In the case of corporate identity and image formation management, the model

should designate and produce synergies.

Some of these synergies are illustrated by Balmer (2001a), who believes that an effective

corporate identity framework should be innovative, and reflect cutting-edge corporate identity

research. It should also be able to improve best practice. It should also assist in evaluating

corporate identity programs and their management (Balmer, 2001a, p. 17).

In Dowling’s (2001) corporate image model, centred on the corporate vision statement, these

synergies include such intangibles as corporate culture. Cornelissen (2000) groups both Balmer

(2001a, 2001b) and Abratt (1989) in the traditional “inside-out” model camp, along with

Birkight and Stadler (1986), van Riel (1995), and Markwick and Fill (1997). The critique he

�7

presents of this approach focuses on its linear structure and resulting oversimplification as to

what the organization can control. In the production of synergies a corporate identity model

must take into account parameters internal and external to the firm.

6. Employee operationalization

A useful model should be able to be operationalised by all business employees. Balmer (2001a)

argues a need for a new corporate identity framework, which is capable of being

operationalised by consultants. Similarly, Balmer and Soenen (1997/8) stress that

operationalising corporate identity is a crucial, but osten overlooked part, of both the corporate

identity mix and corporate identity management. Operationalising is, for Balmer and Soenen

(1997/8), a prerequisite for the model’s utility. Lack of operationalization frequently translates

into inability to make proper use of the model.

Balmer (2001b) identifies “weaknesses in early traditional marketing models of corporate

identity/corporate image management and formation” (p. 280) as one of the reasons for the

“fog” surrounding discussions about identity and its triumvirate components: corporate identity,

organizational identity and visual identity. These weaknesses underscore the need for models to

be anchored in the real world. As Naert and Leeflang (1978) noted, many observers believe that

“many models are built, but few are used” (p. vii).

7. Ease of memorizing

Balmer (2001a) and Albers (2000) stress memorization and ease of use as paramount when

modelling corporate identity. A memorable model can stimulate productive dialogue. It may

facilitate strategic planning and promote better communication via graphics and pictorial

depiction, act as a mnemonic device that reminds the group of their thinking, while at the same

time motivating them towards common goals. The characteristics of models should be easily

�8

accessible for future reference and refresh understanding, provide an external memory and

keep track of the elements of the problem that challenge working memory.

Models that are easily assimilated can facilitate thinking through complex problems. By

extending our mental grasp, simple models can greatly enhance people’s ability to deal

effectively with complex problems. If well devised they can portray an integrated perspective

about the relationships and interconnections between numerous entities.

8. Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the extent to which the nature of the model facilitates strategy formation and

the setting of priorities. A highly effective model should also be able to cope with a dynamic

environment. These views are predicated on Cameron and Whetton (1983), McFarland (1979)

and Drucker (1964).

Lunn (1978) noted that a model should clearly and simply portray the relationship between its

component elements. This facilitates communication and enhances effectiveness. One of the

key goals of any effective model should be operational capability. This may appear a truism, but

critiques of many models show that more attention needs paying to their functioning if they are

to be useful explanatory tools. Roberts (2000) refers to this noting that market models osten

stress ease of application and insightfulness, at the expense of effectiveness.

In their historical treatment of marketing model building, Leeflang & Wittink (2000) predict

improved effectiveness in the discipline, partially as a result of the convergence of practice and

theory. They also stress that the best models are those designed for specific objectives. Schultz

& Zoltners (1981) argue that there is correspondence between what a model asserts and what

it refers to. To be applicable the marketing model must represent the marketing problem

accurately but remain simple enough to be solvable. Frequently the problem being addressed is

so complex that it is impossible to be accurately represented (Keon, 1991).

�9

9. Modularity

According to Langlois (1995), modularity is a general set of principles for managing complexity,

breaking up a system into discrete modules. Models should be modular in form, avoiding

bottlenecks of events. This allows flexibility in the assembly of the component units. To be

modular a model should satisfy the criteria of decomposability, composability,

understandability (Schmidt, 1996) and continuity (Meyer, 1997).

The increasing complexity of models makes the criterion of modularity a challenge. Ehrenberg,

Barnard and Sharp (2000), among others, observe that traditional marketing models

sometimes become mired by including too many factors, or using a complicated structure.

Unwieldy structures frequently result in event bottleneck. The models of Lilien, Kotler and

Moorthy (1992) and Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert (2000) address the paradox of

complexity and simplicity through the use of modularity, as does Kotler (1971).

10. Proactivity

Proactivity demonstrates high levels of commitment and focuses on setting and achieving

goals. Proactive models take into consideration any aspect of problem identification and focus

on problem solving considering issues that have broad ramifications. By contrast a reactive

approach (do nothing until you have to) may damage corporate identity.

A model that encourages proactivity can positively contribute to enhancing corporate image

and reducing damage (Stead, 1990). Proactivity can support the change of a company in light of

new events. It can also increase employee satisfaction, motivation and contribute to better

results (Wachtel, 1999).

Proactivity implies that a firm determines the basic market and social issues it faces by

analyzing the interaction between its executives’ value system, its stakeholders’ interests and

existing societal issues (Stead, 1990).

�10

The Six Station Corporate Identity Model and its Mechanisms

The six-station model portrayed in figure 1 introduces the key components that contribute to

the process of corporate identity formation and management. Its significance lies in providing a

framework for step-by-step analysis of the identity formation process. Its development is based

on the preceding 10 criteria for a useful model.

INSERT FIGURE 1 PROVIDED HERE

Metaphorically, the entire model represents a “corporate neural network” composed of six

different “neuron stations”, each connected circularly, but allowing interaction along and within

the area enclosed by all stations. Due to the openness of this system, interaction can occur

from any direction of the external and internal environments.

Each of the station triangles depicts major components that should be analyzed firstly as

separate entities, and secondly in relation to each other, to understand their significance and

contribution. Each station contributes to the transmission of information between station

triangles.

There are six stations constituting the model, each composed of three interrelated factors, is:

1. Head Station: Top Management, Mission / Vision / Values, Leadership

2. Strategy Station: Brands / Products & Services, Corporate Strategy, Marketing

3. Creativity Station: Visual Identity, Corporate Visual Identity Systems, Advertising

4. Communication Station: External, Internal Communication, Digital Communication

(Internet)

5. The Human Power Station: Stakeholders, Organization’s Staff, Company’s Group Dynamism

6. The Critical Triplet Station: Reputation, Corporate Image, Corporate Personality

�11

The model proposes that the more one moves from station 1 to 6 the higher the degree of

image interface. Image interface is defined by Abratt (1989) as the point of contact between

stakeholders and company. The highest level of interface occurs at station 6, the critical triplet

station. This occurs because the different publics form a perception of a company based on a

cumulative effect from the previous stations.

The nature of this model as a basis for developing and managing corporate identity is next

explored.

Motion Dynamic of the Model

The model is conceptualized as involving a clockwise motion moving through the stations.

Starting at the first station, Head Station, the presence of the company’s vision, mission and

values, under top management's leadership, enables the setting of suitable corporate identity

objectives. The role of top executives is critical since their contribution, attitudes, values,

policies and leadership have a major impact on future corporate success. Well co-ordinated

activities from the first station should encourage the formulation of corporate strategies in the

second station, i.e. Strategy Station. This station’s major component is the formulation of a

corporate strategy. This involves selecting a brand strategy, in conjunction with the marketing

department. A coherent strategy is achieved through consensus among top executives

interacting with each strategic unit of the firm.

The strategy station seeks to encourage cooperation among team members so the resulting

synergies are extended to the third station, the Creativity Station. This incorporates the

corporate creativity functions, its evolution and its interrelation to corporate advertising. The

creative process explores and creates “visual essence” which labels and symbolizes not only the

company and its products, but also enables stakeholders to visualize its objectives, vision,

mission and values. By focusing on the agreed corporate strategies, staff attitudes, behaviors

�12

and corporate artefacts, this station represents the work selecting a holistic and distinctive

visual representation for the organization.

All the critical strategic decisions and activities in the first three stations fall within the firm’s

control. Each parameter in these three stations is initiated, designed, directed, executed and

modified under top management’s supervision. These are affected by the technocratic nature

and idiosyncrasies of senior executives. The role of the Marketing Department is important

since it performs at least two functions, maintaining its technocratic nature and striving to

integrate pan company activities to build stakeholders relationships.

The fourth station, the Communication Station, operates as a two-way communication

channel, transmitting and receiving information, for the internal and external environments.

Since communication is multidirectional, its properties, functions, role, processes and policies

need to be fully utilized by the next station.

It is expected that communication should contribute significantly to the fisth station, the Human

Power Station. This is one of the most important components of the corporate ecology and it

focuses on the human factor. Internal and external stakeholder roles, attitudes, values, ethics,

actions and interests are central in transmitting messages about corporate identity to the outer

world.

Junior employees affect the firm’s corporate identity, because of their numbers and close

contact with consumers. They discuss the prevailing environment within their organization,

criticizing it and osten convey message for their own benefits (e.g. compensation, work

conditions, etc).

Conflict is not uncommon, due to personality clashes, differently received objectives and group

dynamics, and can dilute the desired corporate identity. This station encourages management

to minimize conflict. The fewer conflicts in this station, the fewer disturbances in the rest of the

model, contributing to a more stable process for the formulation of corporate identity.

�13

The sixth station, Critical Triplet Station, builds on the preceding stations and strives to

establish a corporate personality along with a reputation and image that are judged favourably

by external stakeholders. It seeks to fulfill the goal of relationship marketing and its impact on

the formation and management of corporate identity. Indeed corporate personality, corporate

reputation and corporate image make up the “corporate appeal” of any corporation, its

corporate idiosyncrasy, its unique cultural characteristics and its corporate intent.

Baker and Balmer (1997) stated that "corporate personality refers to mix of cultures present

within an organization". They argue the major concern for management is to align cultures and

human organizational behaviour to "reflect the organization's

mission and ethos" (1997: 367). Corporate ethos is expressed through outstanding corporate

behaviour, well focused social responsibility and unbiased corporate intent. On the other hand

since identity and personality are related, in managing identity it is necessary to understand the

organization's personality (Markwick and Fill 1997) and the corporate values upon which the

personality is built. Based on this, Balmer believes that a composite of values and beliefs forms

the corporate personality, which contributes to the foundation of an organization's corporate

identity (in van Riel and Balmer 1997). The present model is based on awareness of these.

Identity management’s primary objective is the acquisition of a favourable reputation among

key stakeholders resulting in a competitive advantage (Balmer 2001b). Reputation has thus

been perceived as a reflection of past observed identity cues and possible transactional

experiences. (Markwick and Fill 1997). This is another aspect which the model incorporates in

the last station.

The model acknowledges corporate image is a multiple variable impression formation process.

For Hatch & Schultz (1997) images incorporates the knowledge, feelings and beliefs about an

organization that exist as a public perception of the company, as opposed to corporate identity

that relates to the presentation of an organization and thus consists of cues offered via its

symbols, communication and other signals (van Riel, 1995). The importance of these

interactions are implied in the last station.

�14

The sixth station is the first to be negatively affected when consumers are dissatisfied. This

station relies heavily on the performance and behavior of all the synergies from the previous

stations. For example, if ‘corporate perishability’ occurs due to the firm’s heterogeneous sub-

cultures, a misalignment of human behavior and lack of clear communication will weaken the

relay of actions driving this station. By contrast when all stations are aligned then the corporate

image is likely to be boosted as a result of effective corporate identity management and

practice.

Research objectives and methodology

A model for the management of corporate identity has been proposed, grounded in the

literature and incorporating the salient factors of corporate identity. This provides some basis

for content validity, however an assessment is needed of the model’s usefulness and

managerial applicability.

Naert and Leaflang (1978) criticised researchers who postulate a model and do not assess its

usefulness. We therefore sought to assess the applicability of the model amongst practitioners

concerned with corporate identity programmes. Our objectives were (i) to determine whether

the six station model matched practitioners’ understanding of corporate identity and (ii) to

understand how applicable and useful this model is to practitioners. We postulated:

H1: The 18 elements incorporated into the model are recognised as reflecting corporate

identity.

H2: Each of the six stations and their interrelationships are clearly understood by practitioners.

H3: The model facilitates the construction and management of corporate identity.

To test these hypothesis we undertook qualitative research amongst practitioners. This allowed

their views to be explored in more detail than using structured methods (Arksey and Knight

1999). Purposeful sampling was employed (Patton 1990) amongst practitioners who have a key

�15

role in devising and managing corporate identity programmes. We interviewed high caliber

business managers and consultants involved with corporate identity. We undertook depth

interviews in Greece amongst 10 organisations, 7 of whom are Greek or foreign corporations

and 3 are consultancies specializing in corporate identity.

We sought large corporations who are well known and have notable corporate identity

programmes. The 7 corporations met these criteria and have annual turnovers of €0.8bn to

€1bn. They are highly reputable, consumer oriented corporations involved in manufacturing

and services. As corporate identity programmes involve pan-company activities we contacted

the senior executive in each corporation and requested that we interview them and senior staff

that they nominate who are involved in designing and managing corporate identity

programmes. We interviewed 2 to 3 executives per corporation, giving a total of 19 interviews

and achieved a spread of functional areas, as table 1 shows.

Table 1 : Business Managers interviewed

Three Greek consultancies specializing in corporate identity agreed to participate. We

interviewed the CEOs and some of the senior staff respected for their expertise in corporate

identity. Nine consultants were interviewed who are frequent presenters at conferences and

Title of respondent Number interviewed

CEO

General Manager

Marketing Manager

Sales Manager

HR Manager

Financial Manager

4

3

3

3

3

3

�16

have written articles on business matters. Again a spread of responsibilities was covered, as

shown in table 2.

Table 2 : Consultants interviewed

At each interview the model was presented and a topic guide was used to steer the discussions

about the model’s usefulness and applicability. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

All the codes were created during the analysis stages, rather than being pre-specified. Two

researchers coded the data independently in line with accepted practice (Krippendorff 1980;

Miles and Huberman 1994) and the inter-coder reliability was calculated as 89%. Any

differences between the researchers’ coding was resolved through discussion (Miles and

Huberman 1994).

Research findings

The topic guide consisted of 7 topics and the findings are presented within each topics. As there

were differences between the business managers and consultants these two groups are shown

separately within each topic.

1. Does the model provide a basis for further examination of the parameters of

corporate identity?

Title of respondent Number interviewed

CEO

General Manager

Marketing Manager

Communications Manager

PR Manager

Creative Director

3

2

1

1

1

1

�17

The themes that emerged from the corporate identity consultants included:

Multidimensional approach

The consultants recognized the multidimensional nature of corporate identity and agreed that

the model captured this concept. A General Manager stated “... multidimensional approach of

the model stimulates a desire for further explanations about the concept of corporate identity.

Actually this implies that corporate identity is a multidimensional area requiring a

multidimensional model.” A CEO acknowledged that “... the model shows the interface and

synergies between the different parameters that define corporate identity, revealing the contexts of

the model and the multidimensional requirements of this concept”. Both comments tend to

support H1 since the 18 elements of the model are part of the multidimensional aspect of

corporate identity as suggested by the respondents.

Relevant factors

The multidimensional nature of the model was thought to reflect relevant factors. A PR

Consultant observed “the model contains all the parameters concerning corporate identity. It

depends now how those elements are put together so they will reflect the theory behind it in order

to produce a workable model. It’s a parameter efficient model, stimulating model exploration,

consideration and use.”

The business managers also offered comments supportive of the way corporate identity was

encapsulated in the model. These are highlighted below.

Provides a basis for the corporate identity context

Comments concerning the sound foundation of this model along with the way it encouraged a

deeper understanding of key parameters was repeatedly noted. For example, a Marketing

�18

Manager stated “It is complete but still it urges you to explore the model further and in more detail

for better use”. An HR manager acknowledged that the model “ provides the basis and a lot more,

for the development of corporate identity...It introduces and provides the full platform of corporate

identity”. Both respondents recognized that the model reflects the foundation of corporate

identity.

A majority (26 of 28) favorably perceived the model as providing a basis for further examining

the parameters of corporate identity. If the model did not reflect the fundamentals of corporate

identity, further examination of the model parameters would not be regarded as worthwhile.

2. Does the model appear to be simulative in representing corporate identity?

The corporate identity consultants were affirmative about the simulative aspect of the model.

Simulative

Respondents evaluated the simulative nature of the model using a selection of the variables in

the model. A CEO stated “aster considering all these valid variables, it seems that the model is

very simulative, since one element seems to stimulate the other and together they produce unique

functions”. This reflects Leeflang and Wittink’s (2000) notion that successful application of a

model in one area must stimulate an anticipated outcome.

The business managers also favorably commented about the simulative nature of the model in

the theme below.

New simulative approach to corporate identity

Managers are seeking new approaches that enable holistic management. A General Manager

characterized the model as “a simulative process in presenting a new approach to corporate

�19

identity”, while a Sales Manager observed that “the detailed structure makes it a rigorous model

that simultaneously offers a holistic approach to corporate identity”.

Across the sample, 27 of the 28 respondents characterized the model as simulative in

representing corporate identity. Since the model components were perceived to contribute to

the construction and management of corporate identity this lends support for H3.

3. Does the model depict the interrelation of its station elements?

The majority commented that “interrelation” and “logical sequence” are synonymous. They

mentioned that if logical sequence prevails then interrelation is evident and vice versa. Since

the model’s logical sequence was rated favorably an analogous rating was awarded to the

interrelation aspect of the model’s elements.

The themes that emerged from the corporate identity consultants were as follows:

Interrelation is evident

A Communication Consultant declared “The model depicts interrelations in a very clear way as far

as all elements included in the model are concerned”, while a Creative Director stated “in a simple

and clear way the interrelation between the variables is primarily depicted in the diagram, whereas

a more evident interrelation can be found within the theory of the entire model”.

Explanations solidify interrelation

A number of respondents felt the model would facilitate internal discussions, making it easier

to understand the interrelation of factors. A PR Consultant commented “By looking at it I had to

think about justification for moving from one station to the next and to comply with the grounding

model theory”.

�20

The business managers comments echoed those of the consultants, with a new issue emerging.

Subject familiarity makes interrelation more evident

The extent to which respondents appreciated interrelationships between the stations of the

model depended on their familiarity with corporate identity. This was exemplified by a CEO,

commenting “the interrelations of its station elements are understandable for someone who knows

the subject of corporate identity. Most of its elements are representative of the concept of

corporate identity and known for their impact. Some others are less relevant. The degree of

relevance depends on how the manager or executive acknowledges the contribution of each

element to the concept of corporate identity”.

In total 16 respondents stated that the interrelation of the station elements is evident, 5 that

the interrelations are revealed only aster explanation 5 that the context and subject familiarity

make interrelation more evident and 2 that the model does not depict clearly the interrelation

of its station elements. There appears to be support for H2, albeit more marked amongst more

knowledgeable respondents.

4. Does the model depict clearly the concept of corporate identity?

The consensus view amongst both consultants and business managers was that the model

depicts clearly the concept of corporate identity.

The corporate identity consultants consistently spoke about the model as an integrated and

holistically efficient model. A communications consultant noted “the model is quite analytical

and includes all important factors that contribute to building corporate identity”. A marketing

consultant stated that “this model lists all variables, or parameters, of corporate identity and

presents the concept in a holistic and integrated manner”.

The business managers expressed similar opinions. For example a CEO stated “the model,

synergistically depicts the concept of corporate identity in its entirety”.

�21

Overall 17 participants stated the model depicts clearly the concept of corporate identity, 5

that the model is an integrated model which depicts accurately corporate identity, 3 that the

model depicts corporate identity in a holistic and synergistic manner. Only 3 felt that the model

does not depict clearly corporate identity. The fact that a majority spoke about for the model

reflecting the fundamentals of corporate identity lends support for H1.

5. Can the model facilitate future decision-making in the area of corporate identity?

The majority confidently replied that the model can facilitate future decision-making.

Amongst the corporate identity consultants the following issues were raised:

Future decision-making is initiated when model theory is understood

The consultants widely agreed about the model’s propensity to facilitate future decision-

making. Some justifications included the view that this model is integrated and

multidisciplinary, requiring systematic study of all the variables for example methodical

planning activity, strategy formulation and effective use of human resources. A CEO stated “Yes

the model facilitates future decision making which will not come naturally but as result of precise

consideration of all variables and parameters, micro, and macro”. This concurs with Dyer &

Forman (1991), who note that models must be capable of supporting decisions involving

alternatives, and allow synthesis and combination in areas where complex problems are

involved.

The business managers and executives offered the following observations:

Decision-making is subject to synergies

Apart from the fact that experienced mangers are needed to implement the model, the impact

of various synergies within the model is an important factor. Synergies within the model are

�22

defined and aligned with certain objectives which, if managed properly, can facilitate future

decision making. An HR Manager noted “the model directs you like a compass. It depends now on

the management of corresponding synergies”. A Marketing Manager explained the impact of

synergies in the following manner, “Future decision-making is facilitated, since you deal with

variables that are well accepted academically and managerially to represent corporate identity. If

these variables are synergistically used, the model facilitates future decision making”.

Of the 28 respondents, 23 expressed the view that the model facilitates future decision-making,

4 that it is difficult to tell whether or not the model facilitates future decision-making and 1 that

the model does not facilitate future decision-making. These findings supports H3, since future

decision-making can affect the construction and management of corporate identity.

6. How applicable is the model?

Overall the model was seen as applicable to organisations’ problems, albeit there was a need

for guidelines and more explanation as some saw the model as complex.

Discussion with the corporate identity consultants revealed the following themes:

Ease of Implementation

The business consultants were positive and osten brief. Given their familiarity with corporate

identity they were less concerned than the business managers about using the model. For

example a CEO stated “Taking for granted that it is a valid model and fits with reality, this appears

to be a model rather easily put into practice”. A Creative Director stated “the model, despite its

unavoidable complexity, can be easily put into practice”. The observations are in line with

Albers’ (2000) view that there is a need to develop models that fit business realities and are

responsive and adaptable

�23

Positive Applicability

The consultants provided different views about where the model could be applicable. For

example A CEO noted “the model is very applicable, its modularity enables partial or total testing

of the concept of corporate identity” while a Communication Manager declared “the model is

applicable in any market, national or international, concerning corporate identity”.

The business managers made various comments on the model’s applicability as shown below.

Guidelines and explanations facilitate the applicability issue

Compared with the consultants, the business managers were more likely to ask for guidelines

and explanations to use the model. This may reflect different levels of expertise between the

consultants and business managers. For example, a Financial Manager stated, “The model

requires more explanations and guidelines for exploring the model components. More specifically,

the model requires the help of all company departments – interaction in order to be applied in a

holistic manner. Only then will it be applicable. So explanations and the assistance and guidance of

experienced people will make it applicable”.

Designated model methodology increase applicability

Following from the previous comments, there was a view that if the model is to be effectively

employed, training and systems to methodically implement the model are needed. As a General

Manager observed, “regardless of how applicable the model appears, a methodology must be

introduced in order to facilitate the best application in the event that there is lack of or limited

expertise”.

Across the sample 8 managers regarded the model as fully applicable, 5 that the model is

applicable with assistance from experienced managers, 4 that guidelines and explanations

would ease applicability, 2 that training and systems would enhance model applicability, 2 that

the model is applicable only to large companies and 7 that the model is difficult, or not

�24

applicable. In view of the generally positive views particularly from business manages when

there are more guidelines and systems, these findings lend support H3.

7. Is the model visually clear in its representation of corporate identity?

The overall consensus was that the model appears visually clear.

Amongst the consultants, the theme centered on the visual clarity of the model:

Visual Clarity

Most of the corporate identity consultants commented positively about the visual clarity of the

model. They stated “ the model is visually clear as far as the concept of corporate identity is

concerned” (Public Relations Manger); “the model is clear at first glance. Its unique diagrammatic

appearance contributes to that (Communications Manger); “visually clear, firstly listing all

parameters, and secondly its segmented process for maintaining or revitalizing the corporate

identity is captured visually in the best way” (General Manger). The consultants spoke about the

way that visual clarity enabled the model to be more easily memorized and that the modular

flow made it easier to understand. These comments reflect Lilien, Kotler & Moorthy, (1992) and

Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel & Naert’s (2000) positions that models need to be visually appealing to

be useful.

The business managers made comments on:

Visual Clarity is partially evident

Only three business managers thought the model not visually clear. Of the two who gave

explanations, a Financial Manager observed that “It is partially clear”, while an HR Manager

stated, “Yes, it is clear to some extent, but it becomes complicated with the addition of certain

�25

variables. It would be better to exclude some, but I am not in the position to tell which one to leave

out”.

Overall 22 stated that the model is visually clear, 4 that it is visually partially clear, 3 that clarity

improves with explanations and 3 that the model is not visually clear. These favorable results

support H2. They also support H3 since visual clarity can facilitate smoother construction and

management of corporate identity.

In summary the depth interviews indicate that the six stations model has managerial usefulness

and applicability. A synthesis of the findings is shown in table 3.

Table 3 : A synthesis of the managerial depth interviews

Hypothesis Whether supported Evidence of support

H1: The 18 elements incorporated into the model are recognised as reflecting corporate

identity

Yes Topics 1 and 4

H2 : Each of the 6 stations and their interrelationships are clearly understood by practitioners.

Yes Topics 3 and 7

H3 : The model facilitates the construction and

management of corporate identity.

Yes Topics 2, 5 and 6

�26

Conclusion

This paper has put forward 10 criteria for a model to have the foundations for being valid and

useful. Based on these, and a review of the corporate identity literature, a logical approach was

employed to develop the six station model for corporate identity. This model provides a

conceptual framework for analysis of the corporate identity process. Developing and managing

a corporate identity is not a mechanical process, but rather a continuous, synergistic and non-

linear set of activities. This is captured in the model.

The model depicts corporate identity as a circular process, which designates sequential

synergies and effects produced within each station. It binds the sequential events produced at

each station. The stations are strategically located and connected so that each one depicts the

production of specific benefits which can be transmitted to the next station where further value

is added. This process produces synergies that contribute to a coherent and respected

corporate identity.

The model advances knowledge in corporate identity modeling in a number of ways. Firstly, it

overcomes some of the limitations of previous models in terms of visual clarity. It presents a

clear and easily comprehensible representation of the parameters of corporate identity. The

circular representation overcomes some of the confusion in previous models. Secondly, the

introduction of ten criteria attempts to counteract some of the limitations of previous models

by complementing certain omissions. Thirdly, the model clearly represents, through the circular

process, the causes and effects of the various parameters involved in the production of

corporate identity. Fourthly, the openness of the model enables an understanding of the

interrelationship between internal and external parameters of corporate identity.

The model was assessed amongst corporate identity consultants and business managers. It was

deemed a useful model which could be applied to corporate identity problems. This was firstly

due to the model being recognised as a good reflection of corporate identity. Secondly they

welcomed the way that the numerous components of corporate identity had been interlinked

�27

enabling them to take a holistic, systems prospective. Through this they are able to appreciate

the resulting impact on other components of a change in variables.

The challenge of modeling is finding a balance between minimizing the number of variables and

simplifying their interactions, while ensuring this represents sufficient information. The

corporate identity consultants thought a satisfactory balance had been achieved. The business

managers were more likely to accept this if provided with more guidelines, training and

systems to enact each of the stations. While this might be seen as a weakness, it should be

recognised that the model is generic and the business managers were thinking ahead to the

stage when they would tailor the model to their corporation.

There are limitations to this research. The model was only tested in the Greek market, albeit

with some corporation who are international. It would be wise for future researchers to test the

usefulness and applicability of the model in other geographical zones. As purposeful sampling

was used to explore in depth aspects of the model, this limits any ability to make

generalizations. Future research could assess the model amongst a broader group of

stakeholders using probabilistic sampling.

Our hope is that by not only postulating a corporate identity model which meets key criteria for

robustness, then providing some indication of its managerial applicability, researchers will be

stimulated to consider how grounded refinements can be made to corporate identity models

incorporating closer dialogue between researchers and practitioners.

References

Abratt, Russel. (1989) “A new Approach to the Corporate Image Management Process” Journal

of Marketing Management 5, No. 1: 63-76

�28

Albers, Sonke. (2000). “Impacts of types of functional relationships, decisions, and solutions on

the applicability of marketing models”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3):

169-175.

Alessandri, Sue Wescott. (2001) “Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and

theoretical explanation.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 6 No. 4:

173-182.

Arksey, H. and Knight, P. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists. London: Sage Publications.

Baker, Michael J, and Balmer, John M.T. (1997) “Visual Identity: Trappings or Substance.”

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 31 Issue 5/6: 366-379

Balmer, John M.T. (2001a). “From the Pentagon: A new identity framework”. Corporate

Reputation Review, 4(1):11-22.

Balmer, John M.T. (2001b) “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing:

Seeing through the fog.” European Journal of Marketing Vol. 35 No. 3/4: 248-291

Balmer, J.M.T. (1996). “The nature of corporate identity: an explanatory study undertaken

within BBC Scotland” PhD thesis, Department of Marketing University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1997/8). “Operationalizing the Concept of Corporate Identity:

Articulating the Corporate Identity Mix and the Corporate Identity Management Mix”.

International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies, Working Paper Series.

Balmer, John M.T. and Wilson, Alan (1998) “Corporate identity: There is more to it than meets

the eye.” International Studies of Management and Organizations Vol. 28 Issue 3: 12-31

Birkight, K. and Stadler, M.M. (Eds) (1986). Corporate Identity. Grundlagen, Funktionen,

Fallspielen, Landsberg am Lech, Verlag.

Cameron, K. S and Whetton, D. A. (1983). “Organization effectiveness: one model

or Several? In Cameron, K.S. and Whetton, D.A. (eds), Organizational effectiveness: A

Comparison of Multiple Models. New York, NY: Academic Press., 1-24

�29

Cornelissen, Joep. (2000). “Corporate image: an audience centred model”. Corporate

Communications: An International Journal Vo. 5 No. 2: 119-125.

Dowling, Grahame R (2001). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image, and performance,

Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dowling, Grahame R. (1986) “Managing your Corporate Images” Industrial Marketing

Management 15: 109 – 115

Drucker, Peter F. (1964) Managing for Results, New York: Harper and Row.

Dumas, A. (1994). “Building totems: metaphor-making in product development”. Design

Management Journal, 5(1): 71-82.

Dyer, F. Robert and Forman, E.(1991). An analytic approach to marketing decisions. New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall.

Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C., Barnard, Neil R. & Sharp, Byron. (2000). “Decision models or

descriptive models?”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3): 147-158.

Foo, Check-Teck and Lowe, Andy. (1999). “Modeling for corporate identity studies: case of

identity as communications strategy”. Corporate Communications, 4(2): 89-92.

Harris, Fiona and de Chernatony, Leslie. (2001). “Corporate branding and corporate brand

performance”. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4): 441-456.

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organizational culture, Identity and

image” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5-6: 356-65

Hill, R. C. and Levengagen, M (1995). “Metaphors and mental models: sense making and sense

giving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities”, Journal of Management, Vo. 21: 1057-74

Ind, N. (1997) Corporate Image, (Revised ed.) London: Kogan Page

Kennedy, Sherril, H.(1977), “Nurturing Corporate Images” European Journal of Marketing vol. 11

No. 3 : 120 -164

�30

Keon, J. W. (1991). “Point of view: Understanding the power of expert systems in Marketing –

When and how to build them”. Journal of Advertising Research. Vol. 31, Issue 6: 64-73

Kotler, P. (1971). Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach, New York: Holt,

Rhinehart & Winston.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury Park, CD:

Sage.

Lakoff George and Johnson Mark., (1987). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press

Langlois, N. R., (1999). “Modularity in Technology, Organization and Society”. First Drast. Paper

for the conference on “The Roots and Branches of Organizational Economics”. Stanford University

and for the Technology Management Section session on modularity, INFORMS Philadelphia

Meeting, November 8, 1999

Laurent, Gilles. (2000). “Improving the external validity of marketing models: A plea for more

qualitative input”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3): 177-182.

Leeflang, Peter S.H. and Wittink, Dick R. (2000). “Building models for marketing decisions: Past,

present and future”. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3):105-126.

Leeflang, Peter S.H., Wittink, Dick R., Wedel, Michel and Naert, Philippe A. (2000). Building

Models For Marketing Decisions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lilien, Gary L., Kotler, Philip and Moorthy, K. Sridhar. (1992). Marketing Models. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Little, John D.C. (1970). “Models and managers: the concept of a decision calculus”.

Management Science, 16(8): 466-485

Lunn, T., (1978). “Consumer modeling”, in Worcester, R. and Dowhham, J. (Eds) Consumer

Market Research Handbook, New York: Van Nostrand Company

�31

Markwick, Nigel and Fill, Chris. (1997) “Towards a framework for managing corporate identity.”

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 31 Issue 5/6: 396- 410

McFarland, Dalton E. (1979) 5th ed. Management Foundations and Practices. New York:

Macmillan

Meyer, Bertand. (1997) 2nd ed. Object-oriented sostware construction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,

Sage Publications, London.

Naert, P. & Leeflang, P. (1978). Building implementable marketing models. Leiden/Boston:

Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Quantitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edition, Newberry Park :

Sage Publication.

Roberts, H.J. (2000). “The intersection of modeling potential and practice”. International Journal

of Research in Marketing. Vol. 17, Issue 2-3: 127-134

Schmidt, Albrecht. (1996). “A Modular Neural Network Architecture with Additional

Generalization Abilities for High Dimensional Input Vectors”. A thesis submitted to the

Manchester Metropolitan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Computing. Manchester Metropolitan University, Department of

Computing.

Stead, W.E., Stead, G. J., Gray, R. E. (1990). “Towards an Operational Model of Corporate Social

Performance”. Advanced Management Journal. Vol. 55. Summer: 19:23

Stuart, Helen. (1998) “Exploring the Corporate Identity / Corporate Image Interface: An

empirical study of accountancy firm” Journal of Communication Management Vol. 2, No. 4:

357-373

�32

Stuart, Helen. (1999) “Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management

Process.” Corporate Communications Vol. 4 Issue 4: 200-207

Taylor, Kimberly A. (2001 May). “Building Models for Marketing Decisions”. Journal of Marketing

Research, 38(2): 278-278.

Van Rekom, Johan. (1997) “Deriving a operational measure of corporate identity.” European

Journal of Marketing Vol. 31 Issue 5/6: 410-421

Van Riel, Cees B.M and Balmer, John M.T. (1997) “Corporate identity: The concept its

measurement and management.” European Journal of Marketing Vol. 31 Issue 5/6: 40-356

Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995) Principles of Corporate Communication Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

Wachtel, Ted (1999). “Restorative Practice in Business: Building a community for learning and

change within organizations”. Adopted from a paper presented at the “Reshaping Australian

Institution Conference” The Australian National University, Canbera February 16-18, 1999.

Retrieved 25/2/2003< http:www. Restorative practices.org/pages/rpinbusiness htmi.

Zoltners, A.A. (1981). “Normative marketing models”. in Marketing Decision Models, R.L. Schultz

and A.A. Zoltners (eds). New York: North Holland :55- 76.

�33

�34

Figure 1: The Six Station Corporate Identity Model