Architecture as Brand- Store Design and Brand Identity

Architecture as brand: store design andbrand identity

A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Faculty of Media, London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, London, UK

AbstractPurpose – The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between the architecture of retail stores and the communication of brand identity.Design/methodology/approach – The researchers adopted a qualitative approach using case studies of the design process and architecture of fournew food superstores in the UK between 1998 and 2005. The case studies draw on interviews, photographs, observations, and archival materials.Findings – The case studies demonstrate that high-profile architects have been involved in the design of supermarket buildings. The reuse of buildingshas also become a significant element of visual identity at a local level. “Stealth” design, by contrast, reduces visual identity. In each case therelationship between retailer, architect, local authority, media and public opinion influenced the design process and the visual identity of the building.Research implications – The research implications are that architecture is not well understood in the retail industry as a medium for communicating aconsistent brand identity. For designers and architects, building as brand for superstores presents opportunities to create a distinctive brand style. Urbanregeneration will continue to offer opportunities for new, iconic buildings. The building, its location and history can provide points of differentiation andcontribute to brand awareness and reputation.Originality/value – The originality of this research lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which uses both design and management literature andmethodology to examine architecture’s role in visual identity. It focuses on the previously unresearched architecture of food retailers.

Keywords Brands, Corporate identity, Design, Architecture

Paper type Case study

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between

the architecture of retail stores and the communication of

brand identity. The relationship between visual corporate and

brand identity is a complex one (Balmer and Gray, 2003).

Visual identity is defined by Balmer (2001, 2006, p. 5) as “the

creation of favourable public images via visual means”

through logos and symbolism. With this approach,

communication and image-projection are “traditionally

underpinned by a graphic design perspective”. Olins (1995)

is generally cited as the chief proponent of the “primacy of

design” as the principle vehicle for corporate identity.

In establishing the relationship between corporate identity

and corporate branding, Balmer (2006, 2008) proposes that

the corporate brand is based on the foundations of corporate

identity and consequently, corporate identity and corporate

branding display an overlap of constructs (Knox and

Bickerton, 2003; Stokes, 2008). Vaux Halliday and Kuenzel

(2008) explain external communications as positively

impacting on the prestige of the corporate brand through its

visibility and reputation. The corporate brand has a

competitive differentiation function (Leitch and Richardson,

2003) in which identity is a key aspect of communication

(Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Where corporate visual identity

is defined by corporate name, logotype or symbol, typography

and colour (Melewar, 2001; Melewar and Saunders, 1999),

so in corporate branding, visual identity is normally the

crucial name and/or logo that play an important part in

creating awareness and recognition (Balmer and Greyser,

2006). Furthermore, the brand integrates a company’s

stakeholders by creating a common ground and a sense of

community (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Balmer and Gray,

2003). Its identity forms part of how it is “known” as well as a

stable point of reference for customers (Alsem and Kostelijk,

2008).

Architecture and location tends to be under-represented in

these research perspectives (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002;

Melewar and Akel, 2005). Jorda-Albinana et al. (2009) cite

AEG and Olivetti in Italy as the pioneers in identity design for

the formal and coherent design for their buildings,

advertising, products and sales outlets. Architecture reflects

the brand in the consistency of its design and visual

appearance. For retailers these distinctions are particularly

important, since retail identity is communicated in and

experienced through their stores, both internally and

externally (Din, 2000).

From an architectural perspective buildings have been

understood to symbolise good taste, power, and status

through the attention paid to the identity of the architect

(Berg and Kreiner, 1990). The environment of architecture

and brand identity has been examined in terms of prestige

corporate buildings, particularly in the financial, corporate

headquarters and public institutional realms (Brauer, 2002).

Corporate identity has provided a clear focus for many

commercial architectural projects (Kelly, 2003) and with the

rise of consumption in the 1980s and 1990s, commercialism

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management

19/6 (2010) 432–439

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610421011085749]

432

and architecture combined and for the first time “buildings

began to be looked on purely as images or marketing objects”

(Glendinning, 2004, p. 10). Commodification of design

resulted in architecture as a selling and branding device

(Chung et al., 2001) and the appearance of a new type of

architecture, “the expressive landmark” (Jencks, 2005). Julier

(2005) describes the “hard-branding” that identifies large

cultural schemes that include new museums, arts complexes,

theatres or opera houses. Such buildings are frequently

assigned an iconic status and have typically been designed to

communicate urban regeneration and place marketing

strategies to both internal and to external stakeholders.

Their success has come to be defined by discourses drawing

on three elements of distinctive design, celebrity architect and

media engagement (Sklair, 2006).

Literature review

The communicative value of the flagship store and the re-use

of distinctive buildings has been clearly understood by the

retail industry (Hiss, 1987). Koolhaas (cited in Barrenche,

2005, p. 7) concluded that retail is the “single most influential

force on the shape of the modern city”. From the 1980s,

fashion designers, including Armani, Comme des Garcons,

and Gucci, hired architects to distinguish their brand,

buildings, megastores and epicentres to extend their prestige

(Manuelli, 2006). Such unusually and extravagantly designed

stores served as three-dimensional advertisements to promote

the fashion brand name (Webb, 2009). More generally, the

“store as brand” has come to relate appearance and identity to

core brand values (Magrath, 2005) and the three-

dimensional, sensory microcosm of the retail store

represents the brand as a “brandscape” (Riewoldt, 2002).

Real locations enable the brand to be staged and encountered

“in an unadulterated, unusual and unique style” (Riewoldt,

2002, p. 8) that sends out powerful signals, communicates

images and promises new experiences. Brandscaping

transforms the brand into a location and the image of the

brand is communicated through the architecture and design

of the building.

Distinctive buildings in other retail sectors and locations

have attracted less attention. Nevertheless, food retailers have

acknowledged the use of flagship stores to showcase their

latest developments and used architecture to communicate

their brand (Kirby, 2009). The “building as packaging”

approach (Berg and Kreiner, 1990) was challenged during the

1980s by Sainsbury’s, when the company made a positive

decision to focus attention on the architecture and design of

its stores to differentiate itself from rival food multiples and

enhance the uniqueness of its brand (Lamacraft, 1989). This

was in part due to the appointment of a high-profile Financial

Times architectural critic, who encouraged the directors to be

adventurous in their architectural projects. The buildings

became part of the company’s strategy, creating distinctive

visual identities to reinforce the market leadership and brand

strengths of the retailer.

Sainsbury’s decision resulted in a portfolio of landmark

stores designed by leading architects. The first was designed

by Ahrend, Burton and Koralek in 1984 on a site in

Canterbury, a significant historical city, where the architecture

was designed to echo the spire of the medieval cathedral

(Williams, 1994). Both Nicholas Grimshaw’s store in

Camden in 1988 and Chetwood Associates’ in Clapham

were in-fill developments on traditional high-street sites. At

Camden, the architectural press enthused while local

residents and community groups were concerned by its

uncompromising hi-tech appearance (The Architect’s Journal,

1986). The opportunity for more expansive new designs was

realised during the 1980s and early 1990s when planning

restrictions on out-of-town developments (those outside the

existing urban area) were eased. The standard “big box”

design became less acceptable to planners and the public, and

gave way to buildings which communicated a visual identity,

but also corporate responsibility towards the local

environment, through logos and signage on the one hand

and contextual architectural features on the other (Powell,

1994; Morrison, 2003). Designs by high-profile architects

followed, including the post-modernist Terry Farrell, which

were recognised by RIBA and Civic Trust awards. The

strategy continued to attract critical attention and by 1996 it

was observed that Sainsbury’s supermarkets were

differentiated from their competitors with a reputation for

stores that “look a little out of the ordinary” (Hardingham,

1996, p. 324).

A second strand of architectural development became

evident during the 1980s. The problem of relating spaces to

the general public realm and of investing buildings with

meaning emerged during the 1970s, initially in the USA

(Maitland, 1990). In central districts, old forms of retailing,

for example department stores, left gaps to be filled by new

hybrid projects. The re-use of buildings offered both lower

cost advantages and greater richness, complexity and depth of

meaning in the urban environment (Fitch, 1990; Sanders,

2005) and subsequently interest in vernacular architecture

gained a broader international interest (Chang and Teo,

2009).

In order to acquire prime sites for their supermarkets,

retailers restored or adapted significant or listed buildings,

thereby gaining experience of a new type of development.

Sites of architectural significance (“listed” buildings),

generally in central shopping areas, were developed either

behind existing facades or new facades that closely echoed the

design of adjacent buildings (The Architect’s Journal, 1978).

Larger but more complex sites provided spaces for

supermarkets in edge-of-centre locations. Sainsbury’s

restored the disused Green Park railway station in Bath,

albeit building a new store to one side of it, and used the same

technique at other listed sites, including a church in

Wolverhampton in 1988 and a silk mill in Streatham. Other

restorations and adaptations included Morrison’s conversion

of a military barracks in Hillsborough, and Tesco’s listed art

deco Hoover factory building in West London (The Architect’s

Journal, 1993). Concerns over the effect of out-of-town

retailing on the social and commercial vibrancy of urban

centres, resulted in new regulations determining the location

of retail development, primarily through the government’s

Planning Policy Guidance of 1993 and 1996, provided further

momentum for the development of urban sites, typically for

smaller supermarket concepts such as Tesco’s Metro.

These perspectives raise a number of issues. From the

corporate branding and corporate identity literature there is

limited discussion on how architecture contributes to

communication and visual identity. However, from the

architectural and urban design literature amorphous,

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity



Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

433

distinctive architecture emerges as well suited to new

developments in out-of-town and edge-of-centre locations.

The challenge with the re-use of urban developments is the

contested ground between the retailer’s brand and its visual

identity and the history, heritage and reputation of distinctive

buildings. Moreover, architecture communicates not only

visually but also through the discourses of other stakeholders;

the retail development literature points to the influence of the

media, local communities and planners on the building

development process. The subsequent sections will explore

the relationship between architecture and its communication

of the retail brand and the mediating role of these processes.

Methodology

The researchers adopted a qualitative approach in order to

develop an in-depth understanding of the design and

architecture of retail buildings and the ways in which they

contribute to brand identity. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) state

that “the combination of multiple methodological practices,

empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in a single

study is best understood then, as a strategy that adds rigour,

breadth, complexity, richness and depth to any inquiry”. The

architectural design of retail stores can be legitimately studied

and explored in this context, acknowledging Venturi et al.’s

(1998) proposal that the symbolism of architecture criticised

as ugly and ordinary should not be discounted, and that its

significance must be acknowledged.

The research was undertaken with UK food retailers and

the architectural design of the brand leaders’ (i.e. Sainsbury’s

and Tesco) supermarkets and superstores over the period

1998-2005. The period was defined by the changes towards

new store development and location following the

implementation of PPG6 following its re-statement in 1996.

In order to investigate the process of architectural design of

supermarkets, four buildings in England were purposively

sampled from these two companies whose design and

development appear to have particular significance. Each

store highlighted a specific design issue that demonstrated a

change in architectural direction; in effect each became a

flagship store for the company to assess its design policy.

These formed case studies, with each store differing in age,

design, and purpose and representing a specific generic type

in centre, edge-of-centre and out-of-town locational contexts.

The cases were developed through interviews, observation

and documentary sources. Using a snowballing technique,

contacts were established and relationships developed with

informants, including architects, designers, town planners,

historians, senior managers, executives and department heads

in architectural practices and retailers. The informants were

directly involved with the key processes involved in

supermarket management and design. Observations were

made during site visits beginning with brief scoping visits,

followed by close examination and photographic recording,

and in-depth guided visits with architects or planners. These

proved most useful in highlighting important design features

and less obvious, successes or failures in the development

construction.

Documentary evidence was drawn from photographic

records, plans, council records and personal collections. The

Sainsbury’s company archive was used (available online), and

this included photographs of stores, copies of company

promotional literature and a complete collection of in-house

journals. Tesco had no archive as such, but an unclassified

collection of photographs taken for public relations purposes

was discovered, supplemented by photographs of stores from

individual employees. Interviews were transcribed and

examined for key themes; these were cross-referenced with

the interpretation of the photographs, and observations from

field notes. In keeping with historical research methods, the

judgement of the researcher was applied to the facts recorded

in the documentary and archival sources and their

appropriateness as evidence (Evans, 2001).

Findings

The first case, Sainsbury’s store in Winchmore Hill, North

London, demonstrated a design that is described by architects

and retailers as the “Essex Barn” or “Cottage Style”.

Sainsbury’s rationale for the design was driven by the

location of the store; as an edge-of-centre site, it occupied

former playing fields in a residential area. Considerable

attention was paid to the specification of the building, and to

minimise intrusive – or distinctive – visual features. The

architect’s report stated that “the new building has been

carefully designed to harmonise with its surroundings”. This

was achieved through a single-storey design with a number of

roof pitches and colonnades along the sides of the building

that were designed to be lower than the eaves of the building

in order to reduce the apparent height of the store. Materials

too, were carefully chosen to render the store compatible with

its surroundings, including the immediate built environment.

Consequently, the company logo on its external signage

formed an important part of its visual identity. The site had

not been understood to be distinctive enough to merit a

“signature” architect or exceptional design; rather, it was

influenced by the preference of residents and local planning

authority for what was seen as English rural building design.

However, the second case, Tesco’s edge-of-centre

development in the market town of Ludlow, demonstrates

precisely the opposite solution: an historically significant site

requiring a prestigious architect and contextually sensitive

design solution to meet planning requirements. In this case,

the origins of the company and its inherited brand identity

conflicted with that of the town. Tesco’s post-war origins and

reputation for brash trading practices combined with an

absence of architecturally distinctive stores and brand

identity, apart from the company logo. The challenge at

Ludlow was for Tesco to demonstrate through their

architectural design that their brand could be re-branded to

fit the Ludlow “promise”. To secure the site, Tesco was

obliged to engage a high-profile architect, Richard

MacCormac, for a supermarket that ultimately won a Civic

Trust Award for “its worthy contribution to the community”.

It also exemplified the influence and intervention of the

local community and media, as well as local and national

government in the development and the complex and lengthy

process that can become necessary in the development of a

site for supermarket use. The Guardian asked whether Tesco

could ever develop a site in the town, with a retail format

characterised as “a thrusting, go-ahead up-to-the minute

retail system of conveying food from agro-farm to cul-de-sac

freezer” (Glancey, 1998, p. 12). The project necessitated two

public enquiries and lengthy political argument. Tesco’s




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

434

Ludlow store exemplified the company’s recognition of the

need to produce well-designed stores in order to secure

sensitive sites for development.

The third study focused on Sainsbury’s 1999 out-of-town

“Millennium” store on an extensive regeneration site in

Greenwich, London. This building was originally designed to

be a generic “green” design that would be a format for future

stores, and at the time of its conception the building design

appeared to be part of Sainsbury’s design re-launch..

Although it failed to establish a standard for “green”

supermarket buildings, it can nevertheless be classified as

part of Sainsbury’s strategy to establish itself as a high-profile

brand through its architecture.

The development brief issued by English Partnerships

strongly influenced the design: that it should be “in keeping

with the concept of the whole of the Greenwich Peninsular;

and should be innovative and sympathetic to environmental

issues” (Sainsbury’s, 1997). This followed the emphasis on an

eco-friendly design promoted by government bodies since the

1992 Rio Summit, and in consequence was addressed by

many engineers and architectural practices. These

considerations were possibly also encouraged by the

financial implications of government’s impending climate

change levy.

The store concept demonstrated the value of a distinctive

building in the fierce competition for sites among the major

food retailers. The trade journal Supermarketing reported that

Morrison’s, Asda (and their architect Nicholas Grimshaw)

and Tesco (Aukett Architects) had been “outgunned” by

Sainsbury’s to win the “prestige supermarket site next to the

Millennium Village and Dome”. Designed by Chetwood

Associates, it was innovative in its use of natural light and

recycled energy systems. Costing almost twice as much as

conventional stores, its much publicised “green features” were

seen as setting a precedent for future supermarket design, and

the energy-saving properties of the building were widely

promoted.

As one of Sainsbury’s high-profile supermarkets and, due to

its high cost, almost certainly the last, the Greenwich

Millennium store was the company’s most widely publicised

development and proved to be a very successful public

relations exercise. The building was used as a major part of a

Sainsburys design “make over” publicity campaign in 1999.

Media exposure took place at a number of levels, initially

through Conservative party enquiries into the influence of

Lord Sainsbury, at that time an adviser to the Labour

government, on the decision to award the site to Sainsbury’s.

The experimental building itself provided the media with

factual and metaphorical opportunities. Computer-generated

illustrations produced for the 1998 publicity material

emphasised the “spaceship” characteristics of the design.

Design Week described the “futuristic” building as having the

look of “buildings from Gerry Anderson’s 1960s sci-fi show

Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons” (Design Week, 1999,

p. 36). This fitted well with the concept of the much-

publicised Millennium Dome and the modernist ethos and

enthusiasm of the forthcoming millennium celebrations.

The fourth case, Tesco’s development in Orpington, Kent,

demonstrated how supermarket architecture and brand

identity were subsumed by planning regulations in a central

location. The lack of suitable sites available for supermarket

development in the UK has put pressure on companies to

both use and comply with local regional and national

guidance policies in order to secure sites for store

development, particularly on sensitive or crowded town-

centre and edge-of-town areas. Such mixed development, at

Tesco Orpington, which groups housing and retail stores

together, was predicted by the company to become a standard

process in both supermarket and other retail projects, where

there is a need both for housing and commercial

development.

By 2006 the Tesco brand had become had become well

established as the market leader in food retailing and the size

of its stores could be said to be part of its architectural brand.

Architecturally, the store showed the turn to modernism in

which the double-floored glass frontage provided views into

the interior and the large logo on the sides of the store was the

only visual statement of the brand.

Discussion

Four major themes emerge from the cases:

1 the development of supermarket architecture (the

buildings themselves);

2 the contextualisation of the building by its location;

3 the role of stakeholders in the design process; and

4 the building’s contribution to brand identity.

The supermarket architecture in these studies demonstrates

the evolution of store design. It has not been exclusively based

on modernist, low-cost “shed” designs, but has drawn on a

number of more complex themes. The rustic and eighteenth

century architectural features that relate to the Essex Barn

design were commonly defined by a high level of detail in their

pitched roofs, use of tiles and brick facings, colonnades, and

above all a clock tower. The design represents the only

supermarket architecture that communicates an identity, not

of the retailer itself, but the supermarket as a generic building

type. It typified out-of-town development during the 1980s

and 1990s but subsequently fell out of favour with retailers, if

not the public and local authorities, due to its relatively high

material costs.

It was followed by a new style that gained momentum

during the 1990s and is evident at Orpington, that began to

open up buildings to provide a space that allowed customers

to see into and through the store, while at the same time

reducing the visual impact of the structure. Apart from

prominent signage the most recent stores could be described

as “stealth” buildings, the external structure becoming

transparent and focusing attention on the products and

activities within.

However, the research has revealed that supermarket

architecture involved many high-profile architects, and has

drawn inspiration from the high-tec qualities of other

industrial buildings as well as original and contemporary

practices. The buildings themselves have not been ephemeral:

many of them in this review have exceeded the expected life of

a supermarket building of between ten and 15 years,

Contexts

The cases demonstrate the significance of the site, its history

and visual integrity on the architecture and contribution to

brand identity. In the edge-of-centre cases, Sainsbury’s

journal repeatedly refers to the “rural” characteristics of

their buildings, which influenced the design of the




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

435

Winchmore Hill store, lowered into the existing landscape,

and the Ludlow store, which blends into the contours of the

surrounding landscape and is reflected in its glass surfaces.

The out-of-town at site Greenwich created a blank canvas that

allowed considerably more scope for an original building.

In the end none of the supermarkets in the case studies

demonstrated the re-use of buildings. Nevertheless, the

development process involved references to current practices

on other sites. Re-use of buildings is dependent on spatial

dimensions: internally and externally, the structure and

configuration of the site, as well as regulatory requirements

and commercial assessments. The brand picks up, but may

also have to contest, the prestige, character or status of the

building’s heritage. The retailer may exploit its development

as “saving” the building, and demonstrate its commitment to

sustainability and responsible management, both locally and

nationally.

Stakeholders

The relationships between supermarket companies, their

architects and local planning authorities (both elected

members and officers) are important and influential in the

design process. Residents, local pressure groups and many

local planning authorities demonstrated considerable support

for the Essex Barn as a representation of English rural

building design and its appropriateness for supermarket

architecture. It also demonstrates the power of government

intervention and supermarket commerce and the effect of this

on supermarket retailing. The developments at both

Winchmore Hill and Orpington were subject to strong local

opposition; however, while the design of Winchmore Hill was

not a strong reason for objection, the modernist design of

Orpington was seen as a major cause of opposition to the

proposed development. It also establishes and explains the

reasons why so many modernist store developments since the

1980s have been altered by having vernacular or “local”

features added to their designs.

The Greenwich store demonstrates the power of the

development brief within a framework of government

initiatives to promote environmentally friendly design. Tesco

had overtaken Sainsburys as the UK’s leading grocer in 1995,

which suggests that in the design for the Greenwich store, the

company was attempting to demonstrate its affinity with

public concerns, specifically with environmental issues, rather

than publicise its status. The site itself had high-profile focus

but was unlikely to raise public protest in terms of a

supermarket presence, as for example had been the case in the

Camden High Street development ten years earlier.

Successful designs produced by high-profile architects

succeed by being largely protected from intervention and

alteration.

Brand identity

The most promising opportunity to contribute to brand

identity is through “signature” architect-designed buildings.

Any of the earlier Sainsbury’s flagship designs could have

been used to embody the retailer’s values, to develop a

corporate style and extend this through the organisation. As it

is, the Greenwich store provides physical evidence of

Sainsbury’s environmental and sustainable values through a

number of senses that corporate communication literature,

on- or offline, cannot achieve.

The store concept of the “signature” architect has, on

occasion, been mediated by the company itself. When

Richard MacCormac was asked to design exterior and

interior schemes for a new store, Sainsbury’s rejected his

design for the interior, stating that “his job was to style the

facade” (Glancey, 1998, p. 12). In this sense, the building was

understood to communicate the brand in a more overtly

commercial role, as a three-dimensional advertisement.

However, the generic Essex Barn design and modernist style

found at Orpington rarely communicate a visual identity such

that stakeholders can distinguish one retail brand from

another; in many cases the application of a logo or company

name is essential. As Venturi et al. (1998, p. 13) suggest, “the

sign is more important than the architecture. This is reflected

in the proprietor’s budget”.

A measure of success of the communicative power of

buildings is their ability to command media attention.

Sainsbury’s flagship buildings and Tesco’s store in Ludlow

follow Sklair’s (2006) analysis of iconic buildings relating

design, signature architect and media discourse. In particular,

Sainsbury’s Greenwich store offered an environmental design

that was used to generate positive discourses, but that could

have been extended both on site and through lessons learnt to

influence new store design. The distinctive design of the

building itself and its communicative power can engage the

viewer’s imagination and generate ongoing discourses and

multiple metaphors amongst its stakeholders and the media.

The potential for generating these types of communication

and the degree of building distinctiveness are summarised

below:. A single landmark or iconic building – The organisation uses

a single iconic building to create discourses in the media

and other stakeholders. Its enigmatic form can inspire

many metaphors to build relationships with the brand,

and it becomes highly visible as a “beacon” to both

internal and external stakeholders. These buildings

demonstrate power and prestige, and are characterised

by their free-flowing form, in which there is an enigmatic

relationship between the parts of the building and the

whole.. Multiple iconic buildings – The multiple retailer, or multi-

site organisation, employs signature architects whose

individual designs create a number of distinctive

buildings. Individually and cumulatively they create

discourses and stakeholder engagement with the brand

at a local level and build local relationships. Collectively

the discourses of iconic architecture will also define the

brand identity.. Store architecture draws on the heritage of the “locale” – New

buildings demonstrate the sensitivity of the architecture to

the environment using architectural features, such as the

sail design used in the store at Plymouth, and the waves of

the Ludlow store roof mirroring the surrounding hills.

Where buildings are re-used, they draw on and amplify the

heritage and history of the site and its neighbourhood.

They build on the local relationships of stakeholders with

the existing building.. Stores share one or more design elements of a successful building

– Some distinctive elements of a landmark store are

applied to other stores as a design feature – in other

words, a formula that attracts approval of multiple

stakeholders through its more or less modest




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

436

dimensions. Essentially this is the Essex Barn approach,

which created an accessible out-of-town store design for

food retailers. Although the style was neither exclusive to a

retail brand nor to the sector, it could have been adapted

by individual retailers to create a distinctive identity.

Conclusion

Architecture is not well understood as a medium for

communicating a consistent retail brand identity. However,

large buildings even in relatively mundane industrial sectors

present opportunities to create a distinctive visual style for

designers and architects and retail brand strategists. Meaning

and the value of the brand changes over time, and through the

use of distinctive buildings firms can invoke a sense of

continuity and connection to the past. Further research could

examine buildings’ relationship with, and contribution to, the

history and heritage of the location and extend, for example,

Urde et al.’s (2007) work on corporate brand heritage.

The sense of permanence in architecture contributes to its

visual communicative power, and engages with stakeholders

in the open-ended co-creation of the brand. Public interest

can enable some buildings to become a brand in their own

right, for example the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Such

buildings have an ability to inspire visitors through their

ambiguity; this could be used as a part of a communications

strategy by the brand owner. In this context, Jencks (2005)

discusses the iconic building’s ability to liberate the

imagination, and for retailers to create a more memorable

and enjoyable experience through its interpretation.

References

Alsem, K.J. and Kostelijk, E. (2008), “Identity-based

marketing: a new balanced marketing paradigm”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10,

pp. 907-14.

(The) Architect’s Journal (1978), “A window on shopping”,

The Architect’s Journal, 9 August, p. 245.

(The) Architect’s Journal (1986), “Superstore solutions”,

The Architect’s Journal, 6 August, pp. 29-36.

(The) Architect’s Journal (1993), “New lease of life for Hoover

factory”, The Architect’s Journal, 26 January, p. 37.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate

branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the

fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4,

pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2006), “Comprehending corporate identity,

corporate brand management and corporate marketing”,

Working Paper No. 06/19, University of Bradford School of

Management, Bradford.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), “An epiphany of three: corporate

identity, corporate brand management, and corporate

marketing”, in Melewar, T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate

Identity, Communication and Reputation, Routledge,

Abingdon, pp. 35-54.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands:

what are they? What of them?”, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Corporate

marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate

branding, corporate communications, corporate image

and corporate reputation”, European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.

Barrenche, R.A. (2005), New Retail, Phaidon, London.

Berg, P.O. and Kreiner, K. (1990), “Corporate architecture:

turning physical settings into symbolic resources”,

in Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the

Corporate Landscape, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY.

Brauer, G. (Ed.) (2002), Architecture as Brand Communication,

Birkhauser, Basel.

Chang, T.C. and Teo, P. (2009), “The shophouse hotel:

vernacular heritage in a creative city”, Urban Studies, Vol. 46

No. 2, pp. 341-67.

Chung, C.J., Inaba, J., Koolhaas, R. and Leong, S.T. (2001),

Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, Taschen, London.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2008), Strategies of

Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, London.

Design Week (1999), “Raising the roof”, Design Week, 2 July,

p. 36.

Din, R. (2000), New Retail, Conran Octopus, London.

Evans, R. (2001), In Defence of History, Granta, Cambridge.

Fitch, R. (1990), Curatorial Management of the Built

Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Glancey, J. (1998), “How would you fit Tesco into this little

corner of Olde England?”, The Guardian, Arts, 27 April,

pp. 12-13.

Glendinning, M. (2004), The Last Icons, The Lighthouse

Scottish Architectural and Design Series, No. 1, Graven

Images, Glasgow.

Hardingham, S. (1996), England – A Guide to Recent

Architecture, Ellipsis, London.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars

aligned for your corporate brand?”, Harvard Business

Review, February, pp. 129-34.

Hiss, T. (1990), The Experience of Place, A.A. Knopf,

New York, NY.

Jencks, C. (2005), The Iconic Building, Francis Lincoln,

London.

Jorda-Albinana, B., Ampuero-Canellas, O., Vila, N. and

Rojas-Sola, J.I. (2009), “Brand identity documentation:

a cross-national examination of identity standards

manuals”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,

pp. 172-97.

Julier, G. (2005), “Urban designscapes and the production of

aesthetic consent”, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6,

pp. 869-87.

Kelly, K.E. (2003), “Architecture for sale(s)”, Harvard Design

Magazine, No. 17, pp. 1-6.

Kirby, A.E. (2009), “What is a flagship supermarket?

An analysis of supermarket flagships in a design context”,

in Kent, A.M. and Brown, R. (Eds), Flagship Marketing:

Concepts and Places, Routledge, London.

Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of

corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37

Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016.

Lamacraft, J. (1989), Retail Design – New Store Experiences,

Financial Times Business, London.

Leitch, S. and Richardson, N. (2003), “Corporate branding

in the new economy”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37

Nos 7/8, pp. 1065-79.

Magrath, A.J. (2005), “Managing in the age of design”, Across

the Board, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 8-27.




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

437

Maitland, B. (1990), The New Architecture of the Retail Mall,

Architecture Design and Technology Press, London.

Manuelli, S. (2006), Design for Shopping, Lawrence King,

London.

Melewar, T.C. (2001), “Measuring visual identity: a multi-

construct study”, Corporate Communications:

An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-41.

Melewar, T.C. and Akel, S. (2005), “The role of corporate

identity in the higher education sector: a case study”,

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10

No. 1, pp. 41-57.

Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, E. (2002), “Defining the

corporate identity construct”, Corporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-89.

Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1999), “International

corporate visual identity: standardization or localization?”,

Journal of Intternational Business Stidues, Vol. 30 No. 3,

pp. 583-98.

Morrison, K.A. (2003), English Shops and Shopping, Yale

University Press, London.

Olins, W. (1995), The New Guide to Identity – Wolff Olins,

Gower, Aldershot.

Powell, K. (1994), “Sails pitch”, RIBA Journal, September,

pp. 55-9.

Riewoldt, O. (2002), Brandscaping, Birkhauser, Basel.

Sainsbury’s (1997), A Proposal for Greenwich Peninsular,

Sainsbury’s, London.

Sanders, W.S. (2005), “Dialogic design”, Harvard Design

Magazine, Fall/Winter, p. 3.

Sklair, L. (2006), “Iconic architecture and capitalist

globalization”, City, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-48.

Stokes, R. (2008), “Vision, image, reputation and

relationships: critical drivers in developing an airport

city”, in Melewar, T.C. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (Eds),

Contemporary Thoughts on Corporate Branding and Corporate

Identity Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007),

“Corporate brands with a heritage”, Brand Management,

Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-19.

Vaux Halliday, S. and Kuenzel, S. (2008), “Brand

identification: a theory-based construct for

conceptualising links between corporate branding, identity

and communications”, in Melewar, T.C. and

Karaosmanoglu, E. (Eds), Contemporary Thoughts on

Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity Management,

Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 91-114.

Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D. and Izenour, S. (1998), Learning

from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural

Form, The MIT Press, London.

Webb, W.S. (2009), “A proposed classification of flagship

retail outlets in the fashion sector”, in Kent, A.M. and

Brown, R. (Eds), Flagship Marketing: Concepts and Spaces,

Routledge, London.

Williams, B. (1994), The Best Butter in the World – A History of

Sainsbury’s, Ebury Press, London.

About the authors

A.E. Kirby is Senior Lecturer in the Media Faculty of the

London College of Communication. Her research interests lie

in design history and supermarket design, and in the

application of drawing techniques.

A.M. Kent is Reader in the London College of

Communication. His research is in design and management,

focusing on experiential aspects of retailing. A.M. Kent is the

corresponding author and can be contacted at: a.kent@

lcc.arts.ac.uk

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a

particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in

toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the

research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the

material present.

Corporate identity is considered to be an integral part of the

corporate brand. Effective communication of a brand’s

identity is therefore critical if the intended differentiation is

to be achieved. Researchers acknowledge the visual aspects of

identity and much attention has consequently been paid to

graphic elements that include corporate name, logo, symbol,

typography and colour. Among such elements, studies have

noted the contribution of name and logo in helping to build

awareness and recognition of the brand.

Architecture and brand identity

Significantly less coverage has been afforded to the role of

architecture in creating or augmenting brand identity. This is

despite the fact that a key part of this identity can be conveyed

through consistency in the design and visual appearance of

company buildings. Architectural impact is widely recognised,

with one example being the employment of leading architects

in order to convey such as sophistication, power and prestige

through their structures. The grandeur associated with certain

corporate headquarters or public institutions further

illustrates this point.

Scholars have also come to recognise how architecture has

contributed to urban regeneration through buildings like

museums, theatres and opera houses. Many such edifices are

viewed as iconic, and distinctive design is largely responsible

for this perception.

The retail industry appears particularly alert to the prospect

of achieving differentiation through architectural design and

since the 1980s several major fashion houses seeking to

increase the status of their brand have explored this avenue.

They have managed to successfully market their brands

through “unusual and extravagantly designed stores” that

function as “three-dimensional advertisements”.

Architecture’s ability to convey a brand’s image has

registered among food retailers too. Leading UK

supermarket chain Sainsbury’s began the trend during the

1980s when the organisation realised the potential to create a

unique brand identity through the design of its stores.

Architecture was thus propelled into the core of this

company’s strategy with the intention being to develop a

visual identity that could underline the strength of the brand

and its market leading position as well as distinguishing

Sainsbury’s from its competitors.

Taking this direction saw the company use prominent

architects to design various flagship stores, the first of which




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

438

was built in Canterbury. The design of this particular store

resonated with the spire on the cathedral in this historical city.

Later on, the easing of planning restrictions allowed the

company greater freedom for out-of-town developments, and

it responded with structures containing architectural

attributes by which the retailer indicated an awareness of its

responsibility towards the local environment. By creating such

unique stores, Sainsbury’s was able to develop and

communicate brand distinctiveness.

Another strand to the brand building potential offered by

architecture came with the opportunity to re-use existing

buildings. This practice first emerged in the USA when it was

realised that adapting vacant department stores offered

advantages in terms of cost and the scope to enrich the

urban environment. UK operators like Sainsbury’s followed

suit and began to restore listed buildings for their own

purposes using existing or new frontages designed to blend in

with adjacent structures. Concerns about the impact of out of

town retailing on urban centres helped accelerate such

developments and rivals Tesco and Morrison’s also began to

create new stores in this manner. However, these and other

retailers were faced with the challenge of reconciling their own

identity requirements while preserving the history, heritage

and reputation intrinsically linked with the buildings they

were redeveloping.

Study and findings

The aim of the present study is to explore how the design and

architecture of retail buildings contribute to brand identity.

Kirby and Kent adopt a qualitative approach in the research,

undertaken with brand leaders Sainsbury and Tesco. The

authors consider four stores built by these retailers in England

between 1998 and 2005, a period within which a key focus of

planning policy was to sustain and enrich town centres. Each

case study building differs by such as age, design, purpose and

location but all share the honour of being regarded as flagship

stores in respect of design policy.

Observations and documentary sources like photographs,

plans and personal records were used in the study alongside

interviews conducted with various representatives of functions

including architecture, planning, design and supermarket

management. The findings indicated how location played a

significant part in influencing the design of these four stores.

This is illustrated by:. A need to blend in with surroundings by minimising the

number of distinctive features and using a single storey

design containing roof features to lower the building’s

height and make it less conspicuous.. Lengthy public enquires and political debates before the

design was sanctioned as being appropriate for its

historically significant site.. A futuristic design on a prestigious London site in keeping

with the ethos typified by the neighbouring Millennium

Dome. This store had to be innovative and empathise with

the environment, which was achieved by using natural

light and recycled energy. Despite prohibitive costs, the

eco-friendly attributes were seen as a blueprint for the

design of future stores.. Compliance with local, regional and national planning

guidance with a modernist design whereby the visual

statement of the brand was minimised in an area

designated for both housing and commercial

development.

Conclusions

From these case studies, the authors identify four significant

issues:

1 The development of supermarket architecture – It is apparent

how store design has evolved and can be influenced by

various sources and themes. Characteristics used in high-

tech industrial buildings are evident alongside design

features that are more “original and contemporary”. The

use of large glass facades to focus attention on the

products within the store rather than the building itself is

an example of the latter.

2 Contexts – The issue here is how location can impact on

the architecture and brand identity. History, structure,

spatial dimensions and regulatory requirements are

among the key factors.

3 Stakeholders – It is apparent that various stakeholders can

influence the design process and that supermarkets must

establish positive relationships with them. In addition to

planners and other local authorities, residents, local

pressure groups and the media can be highly influential.

4 Brand identity – The use of trademark architecture offers

scope to shape brand identity. An example of this is the

design of the London store that showcased Sainsbury’s

environmental awareness far more effectively than

corporate communication could achieve. It also

highlights the importance of a distinctive name or logo

in cases where it is difficult to distinguish one design from

another.

Organisations can enhance brand identity through the use of a

single flagship store or multiple iconic buildings. In both

cases, the highly visible nature of the structure or structures

serves to increase stakeholder engagement with the brand.

Another option is to incorporate one or more prominent

features of a landmark store into the design of others. This

can help in the creation of a distinctive identity while

obtaining the approval of different stakeholders because of its

more modest approach. Kirby and Kent additionally point

out the scope to focus on the location’s history and heritage

by making sensitivity to the local environment a key design

driver.

(A precis of the article “Architecture as brand: store design and

brand identity”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 19 · Number 6 · 2010 · 432–439

439

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Architecture as Brand- Store Design and Brand Identity