service branding

Experts’ Views About Defining Services Brandsand the Principles of Services BrandingLeslie de ChernatonyTHE OPEN UNIVERSITY

Francesca Dall’Olmo RileyKINGSTON UNIVERSITY

There is a dearth of research into the nature of services brands and the lenges to marketers and might require an adaptation of theprinciples of services branding, which we address by interviewing 20 branding and marketing techniques usually employed forleading-edge brand consultants. The consensus view was that branding physical goods (e.g., Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, 1985;principles are common between products and services at the conceptual Bateson, 1995; Turley and Moore, 1995).level. In either sector, brands must be developed as the link mirroring Because of the branding challenges posed by their specificthe set of functional and emotional values created by the company and characteristics, it is appropriate to study the extent to whichthe way these are perceived by consumers. However, at the operation the conceptualization of “the brand,” developed in relation tolevel, there may be differences in the emphasis given to the manifestation physical goods, is relevant to services. The paper addressesof specific elements of services brands. Moreover, the current inconsistency this issue first by reviewing the literature concerned with theof delivery of services brands was raised as a critical challenge. Suggested special challenges faced by services branding, and synthesizingways of resolving this include a consumer-delighting culture that permeates suggestions for services branding strategies. We then discussevery department, with greater emphasis on internal communication and the findings emerging from 20 in-depth interviews with lead-training. J BUSN RES 1999. 46.181–192. 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. ing-edge brand consultants about the nature and principlesAll rights reserved. of services branding. The paper draws propositions about

services branding principles that highlight possible differencesin emphasis when executing services branding strategies. Weconclude by noting that, for services organizations, and finan-

Most countries can be defined as “service economies,” cial services in particular, the “company as brand” and internalbecause the contribution of the service sector to the training are especially important means of communicating toGNP is considerably greater than that of manufactur- both consumers and employees what the brand stands for,

ing and agriculture combined (Bateson, 1995). Around two- thus ensuring that the service delivery consistently exceedsthirds of the British workforce (Dibb and Simkin, 1993) and consumers’ expectations. In particular, a cohesive and coher-over three-quarters of the U.S. workforce (Greene, Walls, and ent corporate culture that permeates the organization can actSchrest, 1994) are employed in services industries. Alongside as a fulcrum and motivator for employees to represent thethis “official service sector” there is a substantial “hidden ser- beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors associated with the brand invice sector” (Gronroos, 1990a), constituting around 70% of such a way that consumers perceive a consistent messagepeople employed in manufacturing who perform service tasks across the whole range of services provided.(Quinn, Doorley, and Paquette, 1990).

Despite the growing importance of services, branding re-Branding Implications ofsearch has been overwhelmingly associated with physical

goods (e.g., Shostack, 1977; Faust and Eilertson, 1994; Turley Services’ Characteristicsand Moore, 1995). Several researchers have pointed out that

From previous literature, Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berrythe intrinsic characteristics of services pose particular chal-(1985) identify four unique features of services: (1) intangi-bility; (2) inseparability of production and consumption; (3)

Address reprint requests to Dr. L. de Chernatony, Open University Business heterogeneity; and (4) perishability. These features are dis-School, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK.E-mail: [email protected] cussed in detail in the literature (e.g., Bateson, 1977, 1979,

Journal of Business Research 46, 181–192 (1999) 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/99/$–see front matter655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148-2963(98)00021-6

182 J Busn Res L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley1999:46:181–192

1995; Berry, 1980; Gronroos, 1990a), hence this paper focuses 1996). Furthermore, the proximity of other consumers mayalso affect service experiences (e.g., Bateson, 1995; Gronroos,primarily on their implications for services branding. In a goods–

services continuum perspective (discussed in the next section), 1990a; Grove and Fisk, 1997).Besides an increased emphasis on selecting and trainingwe believe that whilst goods and services draw upon a com-

mon set of branding principles, there are differences in the frontline staff to deliver a more homogeneous service (e.g.,Berry, 1980; Gronroos, 1990b; Gelb and Gelb, 1991), theemphasis given to specific tools. For example, although the

“company as brand” concept is used in both sectors, it seems authors again emphasize the role of corporate branding inestablishing a favorable consumer disposition toward particu-particularly effective in the services arena, for reasons later

discussed. lar firms, as a result of staff adhering to the standards set inthe corporate-branding strategy (e.g., Knisely, 1979; Dobreeand Page, 1990; Balmer, 1995; Peklo, 1995). According to thisIntangibilityperspective, the company brand gives coherence to employees’The authors attribute to the services’ characteristic of intangibil-behavior, while defining consumers’ expectations. Othersity the apparent difficulty faced by consumers in evaluatingstress the concept of building brand relationships making thea services’ quality and in differentiating between competingpoint that, by involving consumers more in the productionbrands (Fitzgerald, 1988; Firth, 1993). At the same time, firmsprocess, organizations are better able to tailor the service toare believed to find it harder to set prices (e.g., Thomas, 1978;individual needs. In such situations, the roles of supplier andBerry and Yadav, 1996).consumers are redefined (Norman and Ramirez, 1994), asA number of branding strategies might overcome theseproduction and consumption become integrated (“prosum-problems. For example, empirical evidence suggests that theing”). Specific “prosuming” strategies involving greater con-size and reputation of firms, perceived as a result of associationssumer participation have been identified by Michel (1996)with the firm’s brand name, can be used by consumers asbut necessitate greater attention educating consumers aboutproxies for quality when selecting between such very intangi-their redefined roles (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996).ble offers as professional or financial services (e.g., Boyd,

Leonard, and White, 1994; Ford, 1990; Onkvisit and Shaw,Heterogeneity1989; Kotler and Bloom, 1984). Consumers also seem willing

to pay higher fees for the services of firms with a strong The human element in service provision cannot be subjectedreputation (Firth, 1993). Some, therefore, recommend build- to quality control measures as a factory product, hence eaching reputation through stimulating word-of-mouth communi- service experience is potentially unique, and consistency maycation (e.g., George and Berry, 1981; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, be difficult to achieve (Berry, 1980; Lewis, 1989). However,and Berry, 1985). In addition, recognizing the company itself the brand-positioning claims made through advertizing mustas the brand, characterized by a distinct corporate identity, be met by frontline staff as if “impersonating” the brand (Bate-personality, and image, is considered a critical services-brand- son, 1995). As Knisely (1979) summarized: “Your people areing strategy (e.g., Knisely, 1979; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989; as much as of your product in the consumer’s mind as anyThomas, 1978), providing endorsement, recognition, and ac- other attribute of that service.”ceptance, as well as making them more tangible (Diefenbach, Opposing views to ensure consistent performance of a ser-1992). This is summarized by Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark vices brand have been proposed. The use of careful planning,(1988): “in services the company name is the brand name.” control, automation (where possible), and regular reviews ofAnother branding strategy advocated (e.g., Berry, 1980; Shos- performance improvement and consumer reaction, leavingtack, 1977; George and Berry, 1981; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, little to individual discretion, is advocated by Levitt (1972)and Berry, 1985) is the use of distinctive logos or physical to “industrialize” services brands and overcome heterogeneityfacilities that consumers can immediately associate with spe- and quality-control difficulties. In contrast, Berry (1980) seescific service providers. The rationale is to provide relevant tangi- the simultaneous production and consumption of services asble clues; for example, Legal and General’s umbrella or Lloyd’s an opportunity for “customizing” the service brand to serveBank’s black horse, to make the intangibility of the service the needs of particular consumers better; thereby, making thebrand more easily understood (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989). practice of marketing the responsibility of every employee

(Fitzgerald, 1988). The former branding strategy implies aInseparability of Production and Consumption rigid structure and an almost inflexible approach unlikely to

accommodate differing consumer needs. On the other hand,As consumers are involved in services production, their expec-making branding an “internal” as well as an external activity,tations may differ between service encounters, because of themay help ensure consistency across time and differing situa-extent to which they interact with different service providers.tions, without imposing inflexible codes of practice.As such, satisfaction with a service brand is influenced by

The notion of “internal branding” or “internal marketing”the congruence between expected and perceived behavior byhas received a great deal of attention in recent years as a wayplayers, making it more difficult to control service quality

(Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, and Gutman, 1985; Summers, of creating a cohesive and consistent organizational culture

183Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding J Busn Res1999:46:181–192

revolving around the brand concept or “vision” (e.g., Gelb but also on the speed with which consumers can pay for theand Gelb, 1991; George, 1990; Greene, Walls, and Schrest, goods and exit the store. Long waits at check outs at certain1994; Gronroos, 1990a,b; Lewis, 1989; Morgan, 1990; Rich- times might adversely affect its image, unless ways are foundardson and Robinson, 1986; Wasmer and Bruner, 1991). By either to speed up the queues or to entice consumers to shopmaking the brand concept well understood within the service at off-peak times. In this context, efficient organization systemscompany, the brand becomes an internal cohesive device and become part of the branding process, enabling the delivery ofthe fulcrum of activities both inside and outside the organiza- promises with regards to service quality, speed and efficiency.tion. This should allow employees to retain the flexibilityto deal with different people and situations (in both their

A Goods–Services Continuumrelationships with customers and with colleagues in all areasof the organization), while conforming to the brand concept.

There is wide debate amongst researchers about the extent toAs a consequence of the above, an increasing number of

which goods and services strategies differ. For example, allresearchers (e.g., Mudie 1987; Tansuhaj, Randall, and McCul-

goods and services, deliver a bundle of benefits, but the waylough, 1988) consider employee relations and internal communi-

they are received is very different for services, since for thecations indispensable means to motivate and retain consumer-

latter the benefit is created through its experience (Bateson,conscious employees and ensure greater consistency in the1995).service quality. Positive employee attitude and behavior can

By contrast, Levitt (1972) believes that any distinction be-increase consumer satisfaction with the service brand, re-tween goods and services is largely spurious, asserting: “Theresulting in increased market share and sales (Tansuhaj, Randall,are only industries whose service components are greater orand McCullough, 1988; Mohr and Bitner, 1995). Specifically,less than those of other industries.” Similarly, Wyckham et al.George (1990) believes that internal marketing is the best(1975) and Shostack (1977) maintain that a simple taxonomyapproach for establishing and maintaining a service orienta-(goods versus services) is difficult to sustain and can be dys-tion within the organization, and for motivating employees,functional, since heterogeneity, perishability, and even intan-because unless all staff are committed, the effectiveness ofgibility are not exclusive characteristic of services. For exam-its brand-marketing programs will be compromised at theple, Shostack (1977), whilst arguing that services intangibilityconsumer-contact level (Murray, 1979). Finally, Gronroosshould not be considered a modifier of their “productness”(1990b) notes that developing a service culture, through inter-but as a state, puts forward a molecular model, reflecting thenal marketing, is a means of creating and enhancing the goodfact that a market entity can be partly tangible and partlyinteractive marketing performance needed for implementingintangible, without diminishing the importance of either char-a relationship marketing strategy.acteristic. Only the weight of the intangible elements in themarket entity will determine the extent to which the marketingPerishabilitystrategy will have to diverge in priorities, and approach, from

Services cannot be stored (Bateson, 1995) and the servicethe marketing of physical goods.

encounter often does not involve any transfer of ownershipThe existence of a continuum between goods and services,

(Bateson, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1988; Wyckham et al., 1975;whereby the characteristics described above vary as a matter

Kotler and Bloom, 1984). In sectors such as pensions or lifeof degree, suggests that the emphasis given to different ele-

assurance, the service is bought long before the benefit isments of the branding strategy may differ, rather than thereceived and evaluated. Hence services brands face the chal-conceptual basis of “the brand.” In the next section, we sum-lenge not only of developing an image and reputation to attractmarize the conceptual basis of “the brand” emerging from theconsumers, but also, preventing competitors’ promises fromliterature, then focus on the limited literature, specificallyalluring them, even before the service brand has been experi-comparing branding in goods and service sectors.enced. Building upon the company’s image and reputation is

one branding option to overcome these difficulties.Another problem resulting from the characteristic of perish- Branding for Goods and Services

ability is the difficulty in synchronizing supply and demandIn prior work (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997), we(Zeithaml et al., 1985). Unless services firms can devise strate-identified nine main themes in the literature about “the brand”gies either to cope with fluctuating demand (Zeithaml andas a: (1) legal instrument; (2) logo; (3) company; (4) identityBitner, 1996) or to make adjustments to match capacity andsystem; (5) image in consumers’ minds; (6) personality; (7)demand more closely (Sasser, 1976), they face not only finan-relationship; (8) adding value; and (9) evolving entity. A tenthcial costs, but also branding problems. The brand, as perceivedperspective, as complex entities linking manufacturers’ activi-by consumers, encapsulates both the quality of the service,ties with consumers’ perceptions, emerged from interviewsand the efficiency with which the service is provided. Forwith twenty leading-edge brand consultants. Table 1 summa-example, the brand image of a supermarket chain depends

not only on the range and price of the products they stock, rizes how each definition can be viewed enough on an input


Table 1. Themes of Brand Definitions

Theme Input vs. Output Perspective Selected References Citing Definition

Legal instrument Input Crainer (1995); Broadbent and Cooper (1987)Logo Input AMA (1960); Aaker (1991); Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders, and Wong (1996)Company Input Diefenbach (1992); Aaker (1996)Identity system Input Kapferer (1992); Aaker (1996)Image Input/output Boulding (1956); Joyce (1963); Keeble (1991)Personality Input/output Plummer (1985); Blackston (1992)Relationship Input/output Arnold (1992); Blackston (1992); Woodward (1991)Adding value Input/output Jones (1986); de Chernatony and McDonald (1994)Evolving entity From input to output Goodyear (1996)Complex entity Input/output de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1997)

(brands as suppliers’ creations) versus output (brands as existing “strait jacket” on the development of new theory (Gummesson,1978). Accordingly, some criticize the appointment of agen-in consumers’ minds) continuum (de Chernatony, 1993).

The concept of the “brand” as a logo (e.g., AMA, 1960) is cies or managers with traditional fast moving consumer goodsbackgrounds to devise services strategies (e.g., Watters andobsolete in today’s complex environment. Brand consultants,

whose daily activities shapes tomorrow’s branding agenda, Wright, 1994). Nonetheless, there is little published, and eventhen there is some disagreement about which principles relat-define them as complex entities linking suppliers’ activities

(input) with perceptions in consumers’ minds (output) (de ing to the branding of goods can be applied to services.As this review earlier mentioned, many have stressed theChernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997).

An input–output continuum also emerges from the limited importance of the company as a brand for services, especiallyin financial services where consumers find it hard to differenti-literature referring to brands in service sectors. For example,

in bank marketing Faust and Eilertson (1994) stress an input ate the technicalities of specific offers (e.g., Knisely, 1979;Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark, 1988; Dobree and Page, 1990;perspective, stating: “Brand identity is much more than a

logo; it is the name, personality, and defining attributes that Balmer, 1995; Peklo, 1995). There is evidence that in financialservices, consumers know little about specific products, norrepresent the company and its products” (p. 86). Others (e.g.,

Morrall, 1995; Timberman, 1985) encourage companies to do they want to know more, and they are content to continueassuming that the best known companies have the best finan-adopt an input–output perspective, blending brand identity

with sets of consumers’ perceptions, or images. For example, cial products (Ford, 1990; Boyd, Leonard, and White, 1994;Watters and Wright, 1994).according to Morrall (1995): “All banks have an identity, and

image is just one component. . . . It is a carefully orchestrated Part of what is sold with a service is the overall stature andimagery of the organization (Knisely, 1979), and consumersmix of media and nonmedia elements that create an impres-

sion in the minds of consumers” (p. 23). tend to perceive all services offered by a company as compo-nents of a single brand (Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark, 1988).For services, as well as for goods, differentiation should

not just result from a name or logo, but from a well-defined For this reason, Knisely and Berry argue that services do notlend themselves to individual branding, as tangible goods do.set of consumers’ perceptions. To achieve this, Camp (1996)

advocates controlling every aspect of the interaction between Milligan (1995) further clarifies this in the context of bankbranding: “Basic banking products like checking accounts,the brand and its target market (see also Berry, Lefkowith,

and Clark, 1988; Morrall, 1995). Similarly, Saunders and credit and debit cards, mortgages and certificates of deposithave become so ubiquitous that it is hard to tell them apart.Watters (1993) argue that branding is more than giving a

product, such as a current account, a name (e.g., Vector Ac- Your brand identity is . . . what differentiates you and makesyou special” (p. 39).count). Within an input–output perspective, Saunders and

Watters (1993) and Camp (1996) believe branding is about In contrast, Onkvisit and Shaw (1989) support a multi-brand approach, moving away from corporate branding. Theyidentifying a target market and then developing a product

and a brand personality with which the target market will believe that relying on a single brand strategy constrains flexi-bility, because the existing corporate image may inhibit expan-identify and will prefer.

Several researchers note that, although the rationale for sion into new market segments, as seen in the hotel (e.g.,Daneshkhu, 1995) and banking industries (e.g. Smith, 1995).branding and marketing are basically the same for goods and

services, their implementation may differ (Fitzgerald, 1988; Denby-Jones (1995) provides a solution to the corporateversus multibrand dilemma. In the context of banking, sheMilligan, 1995; Turley and Moore, 1995). Directly applying

marketing principles developed for physical goods to services maintains that, particularly in established markets, product-specific brands should not be introduced, because this con-would not only be wrong (Shostack, 1977), but also imposes a


fuses consumers who see the same staff and the same physical as: “Is your definition of a brand equally appropriate for ser-evidence for differently named offerings. However, multibrand- vices?” and “In your opinion, are the principles of brandinging in banking may work well when setting up a genuinely new products exactly the same as those when branding services?,”product or service, because consumers expect a fresh approach which are the focus of this paper. Respondents were encour-rather than an adaptation of traditional values and operating aged to talk as much or as little as they wished, with nomethods (e.g., First Direct vs. Midland Bank, or Lloyds main- interruptions on our part, except when we thought we neededtaining the TSB brand after its take over) (Smith, 1995). clarification. Their answers varied from about 20 words (1

In practice, both corporate and multibrand strategies are respondent) to over 2,000 words (1 respondent). The averagecommonly adopted by producers of physical goods, with in- length of responses (excluding the shortest and the longestcreased stress in recent years on corporate brand identity responses) was about 850 words. The typical overall lengthbuilding (e.g., Balmer, 1995). This once again points toward of the interviews was around 1 hour.differences only in the emphasis attributed to different brand- Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was conducted in-ing strategies for goods and for services, rather than an outright dependently by the two authors. Within the context of thechasm in suitable procedures for the two sectors. four aims stated above, and following Miles and Huberman’s

(1994) framework, the two authors noted patterns and themesin the data, drew links with previous literature, and identifiedResearch Aims and Methodareas of notable contributions to existing knowledge. The two

In view of the importance of services and the debate on the then compared their analyses relative to the four aims, withimplementation of services-branding strategies, we sought to coefficients of agreement (i.e., the total number of agreementsincrease understanding of brands in the services context. Spe- divided by the total number of coding decisions) never belowcifically, we investigated the views of leading-edge brand con- 84%. Inter-researcher differences were resolved through dis-sultants, regarding: (1) the extent to which their understand- cussion and reference back to the transcriptions, as suggesteding of brands applies equally to goods and services; (2) their by Miles and Huberman (1994).perceptions as to whether the principles of branding servicesare the same for goods; (3) their assessment of the conse-

Applicability of Brand Definitionquences this has when executing service brand strategies; and(4) the emerging branding paradigm. To our knowledge, no for Goods and Servicesprevious research has undertaken an analysis of this kind

In previous work (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997),from the perspective experts whose daily activity as brandwe discussed in detail the experts’ individual definitions ofconsultants is shaping the future agenda for brands.“the brand.” As already mentioned in our literature review,Our research was exploratory in nature, aiming at elicitingthe emerging view of “the brand” was as a complex entityexperts’ views about the concept of “the brand,” within theirlinking manufacturers’ activities with perceptions in consum-frames of reference, without imposing our preconceptions.ers’ minds. Discussions then took place with the experts toTo achieve this, the most appropriate approach was in-depthassess whether they felt their individual definitions of a brandinterviews (Goodyear, 1990). Following Gordon and Lang-would be equally appropriate for goods and services. Of themaid’s (1988) recommendation, we selected 20 respondents20 experts, 18 believed this to be so; albeit, a brand consultantfrom a broad base of senior consultants who, although based inadded a caveat. He saw a spectrum of services brands, rangingthe London area, specialize in advising clients about brandingfrom those with a high degree of tangibility, such as hire cars,issues on a national and international scale. The sample wasto those with a very low degree of tangibility, for exampleselected on the basis of being frequent presenters at manage-pension schemes. His definition of a brand as “Trade-markment conferences on branding, having written books or papersapplied to a physical product or service that has acquiredon the subject, or being recommended by other experts; albeit,personality traits in the eyes of consumers, which influenceonly two of the 20 were chosen through recommendation oftheir purchase behaviour” could, he felt, be easily appliedother members of the panel. The 20 consultants were eitherto the more tangible services. However, he was critical ofchairmen, partners, or directors in brand consultancies (9),organizations branding highly intangible and complex ser-advertizing agencies (7), market research agencies (2), andvices. They were not building corporate personality traits tocorporate communications agencies (2).reassure consumers. Rather, they were almost oblivious toThe in-depth interviews were recorded, then subsequentlyconsumers’ uncertainty and lack of understanding of complextranscribed. A topic guide was used to steer the overall inter-financial services and were, in his view, incorrectly buildingviewing process. At the beginning of the interviews all respon-personality traits for individual product lines. He cynicallydents were asked: “How would you define a ‘brand’?” (theremarked, “it’s lunacy . . . they are trying to slice up fog.” Thisanswers to this question were the main thrust of the paperremark is consistent with the stream of research reviewedreferred to earlier, de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997).

Respondents were also asked more detailed questions, such earlier arguing that services do not lend themselves to individ-


ual branding, as tangible goods do (Berry, Lefkowith, and brands. For example, when the Halifax Building Society tookover the Leeds Building Society, “the Leeds brand was dumpedClark, 1988; Knisely, 1979).

Consistent with the literature, the most frequently given literally overnight,” because of the absence of surroundingvalues and personal characteristics. Furthermore, product-reason as to why experts’ interpretations about the meaning

of brands are the same between products and services, was based brands have consistency over time, but because of thepersonal delivery nature of a service, there is a lack of consis-attributable to their views that brands are perceptions in con-

sumers’ minds. The branding process starts with an organiza- tency. Although it was acknowledged that such organizationsas British Airways had greater levels of consistency, almosttion devising a product or service, but the end result is a

brand that resides in consumers’ minds. At the start of this “seamless experiences,” the majority of service brands stillprovide inconsistent services. In his opinion, he was less con-process, there are differences between product and service

characteristics, but at the end of the process, brands are de- cerned about an adequate definition that could span bothgoods and service brands, but rather was more concernedfined by perceptual associations.

The next most commonly given reason as to why the con- that service companies are not adopting appropriate brandingprinciples. This notion of services companies failing to adoptcept of brands does not have to be reconceived in the services

sector was that the same processes are involved in building adequate branding principles, rather than the principles them-selves being different, is new, and is discussed in more detailbrands in both service and product sectors. For example, one

brand consultant spoke about the same “iterative process” in the Executing the Services Brand Strategy subsection.The other expert, a market research consultant, felt thatbeing followed to define and achieve a positioning objective,

and an advertizing consultant gave a detailed explanation as her definition of a brand (“it defines people’s expectations”)had to change to suit services brands. From her perspective,to how service brands and product brands are both managed

using the same principles of database marketing, targeting, consumers have a much better understanding of tangible prod-uct-based brands because of their physical nature. Regularlycross-selling, and driving costs down. A corporate communi-

cations consultant also observed that the same segmentation being able to see them resulted in close bonds between con-sumers and brands. In contrast, many services are less regu-and buyer behavior analysis takes place. This perspective of

the “iterative process” of branding being the same for goods larly consumed, they are not constantly visible, and there isa more abstract relationship, making it more difficult for theand services is novel and adds to the literature reviewed in

the Branding for Goods and Services section. brand to be the definer of expectations.Consistent with our earlier discussion of the literature, theOther experts made the point that, regardless of whether

they are goods- or service-based, brands are a blending of experts perceived great similarity between the notions of thebrand in the goods and the services sectors. However, therational and emotional components, that they can thrive by

building a relationship with consumers, based on trust, and experts brought a new perspective to the argument whentalking about similarity in the “iterative process” being fol-that both goods and services brands symbolize an ability to

satisfy consumers’ needs. A further reason is that both goods lowed to define and achieve a brand positioning objective.From this evidence we derived our first proposition.and services have physical manifestations that, although in

different ways, can reinforce the brands’ positioning, if effec-P1: The concept of “the brand” is similar between goods

tively managed. Consistent with the literature, the expertsand services, because it is defined as a blend of rational

identified building the trust and the confidence of consumersand emotional perceptions in consumers’ minds, re-

in the services organization and its employees, as a particularlysulting from the same iterative positioning process.

effective way of making the service offering more tangible andeasier for consumers to understand. The implication is that,

Are the Principles of Branding Goodsfor services, it is the emotional side that must be developedthe Same for Services?first to enable the functional components to become more

easily understood. Experts were then asked whether they thought the principlesFinally, two consultants believed that their “brand” defini- and techniques of branding services are exactly the same as

tions would have to differ for goods and for services. The those of goods branding. Seventeen were of the opinion thatfirst, an advertizing consultant, started by identifying a chasm, the principles and techniques are similar, one was ambivalentwhereby there is “very sophisticated fmcg branding and you’ve (“I don’t think it’s different in many ways, I just think it’sgot this naive, at the other end, business to business and more complex,” advertising consultant), and two adopted afinancial services type branding.” In his opinion, a brand contrary view. The latter three experts expressed these opin-

ions, because they felt there are more points at which consum-“creates an identity in the market place which has values andcharacteristics which create loyalty and repeat purchase, and ers interact with services than goods brands, and the experi-

ence is more strongly influenced by the employees deliveringadd value to both the shareholder and the consumer.” Withinthis context, he noted how prevalent such values and personal the service, resulting in greater variability. These contrary

views are nicely summarized by a brand consultant sayingcharacteristics are in product brands, yet are rare in service


that the fmcg model is not “a paradigm that is applicable to appropriate executional strategy. Consistent with Zeithaml,Parasuraman, and Berry (1985) schema, the experts saw ser-financial services.”

Analysis of the justifications of the other 17 experts indicate vice brands’ executional strategies as differing from those ofgoods because of their intangibility, heterogeneity, and simul-that branding principles are most similar at the conceptual

level. As a corporate communications consultant remarked, taneous production and consumption. No mention was madeof their perishability, and they spoke about the heterogeneity“they are certainly [the same] in terms of the conceptual

development of the nature of the brand.” A brand consultant, and the simultaneous production and consumption of theservice within the same context, without drawing any distinc-who earlier had explained that two of the core elements of

a brand are emotional and psychological, stated that when tions, because of their close interrelationship.marketers develop services brands, just as with product

INTANGIBILITY. Six consultants who felt product- and service-brands, they “ought to get the emotional and psychological

branding principles are similar, added the caveat that serviceside right.” Another brand consultant stated that “a brand is

brands are intangible, and thus, their “physical manifestationthere to serve a role indicating the origin . . . irrespective of

requires more thought” (corporate communications consul-BA or Avis or Kodak or Heinz.” An advertizing consultant felt

tant). Because of the way people use visual cues as surrogateboth product and service brands are “still about building

evaluation variables (Hansen, 1972), an advertising consultantrelationships”; whereas, a brand consultant enlarged on his

explained that is why “service companies have these enormousearlier definition of a brand saying, “the same concepts apply

manuals for corporate identity.” Although intangibility madeas there is a set of perceptions that exist in the consumer’s

it “more difficult to get the sharpness of differentiation” (brandmind which relate to a particular service brand.” Another

consultant), many financial services firms were criticized foradvertising consultant spoke about their both relying on simi-

not capitalizing on clear identify systems to make their offeringlar market research and symbolic development to ensure they

more tangible.could communicate something about consumers. More di-

Brands can act as shorthand devices, simplifying the choicerectly, two brand consultants and a corporate communications

between competing brands (de Chernatony and McDonald,consultant explained that many managers have moved from

1994). However, financial services firms were criticized forthe fmcg sector to the services sector and had brought their

giving insufficient thought to consumers’ lack of understand-models with them.

ing about technical aspects of their products, particularlyAlthough these 17 experts said that the same branding prin-

where there were few tangible cues. This results in consumersciples would apply to goods and services, nine added that the

being “immensely confused” (brand consultant), spending lit-actual branding of services is slightly different or more difficult

tle time evaluating alternatives, being skeptical of the informa-than the branding of goods. As one brand consultant ex-

tion, and not perceiving “any difference at all between, say,plained, “at the broadest level I think the principles are the

all major insurance brands and they don’t care which of 25same, but from an operational level, I think it means you have

or 30 different brands they buy” (brand consultant). An ad-to handle the thing differently.” An advertising consultant also vertizing consultant criticized insurance companies for puttingspoke about differences being “executional,” and another used insufficient effort into understanding consumers, and anotherthe example of Midland Bank’s ineffective sub-branding of brand consultant spoke about “brands to a certain extent tendVector, Orchard, and Meridian accounts to make the point that, to be used in an irresponsible way in financial services withoutalthough the brand conceptualization process was the same, a proper understanding of how complex the whole choiceexecution techniques differ between products and services. process is on the part of the consumer.” There is still a lot of

These findings are consistent with our interpretation of the scope for firms to develop better brands that “signify that itliterature of a goods–services continuum, whereby, although is the right choice” (brand consultant).the conceptual basis of “the brand” and principles and tech- The experts identified a chasm between goods and servicesniques of branding in the two sectors are similar, the emphasis in the implementation of branding strategy. Consistent withgiven to different elements of the branding strategy may differ. our interpretation of the literature, they pointed out that theseTherefore, we postulate that: differences are not attributable to any substantive conceptual

idiosyncrasy in either the “brand” construct or the brandingP2: The principles of services and goods branding are mostprinciples in the two sectors. However, unlike the literature,similar at the brand’s conceptual level; whereas, theirseveral consultants remarked that the current chasm betweenexecution may require different emphasis in the ap-goods and services in branding strategy implementation isproach.caused by too little thought given by services organizations,

We analyze these differences in more detail in the next section. particularly financial services, when developing identity sys-tems able to make their brands more tangible and more capa-

Executing the Services Brand Strategy ble of simplifying consumers’ choice. Experts also criticizedHaving devised a core set of functional and emotional values financial services firms for relying on the technical aspects

of their individually branded financial products to sell theirfor a service brand, these then need to be supported by an


services, despite consumers’ ignorance and disinterest. There- is needed. As a brand consultant stressed, staff “briefing isterribly important in a service context,” because they canfore, we postulate that:appreciate the crucial role they play in delivering the service.

P3: Services organizations, in particular financial services,This was reinforced by another brand consultant, expressing

have given insufficient attention to developing theirhis view that the “single most important budget is internal

brands as effective shorthand devices to simplify thecommunications and training.” By devoting more effort to

complexity consumers perceive when choosing be-“things like training staff and motivating the staff ” (advertising

tween competing services brands.consultant) they become more committed to their firm’s ethosof delighting consumers, and this “eventually rubs off onHETGEROGENEITY THROUGH SIMULTANEOUS PRODUCTION ANDemployees’ commitment to consumers” (brand consultant).CONSUMPTION. As a corporate communications consultantThrough a more integrated communications approach, sup-observed, one way around the problem of the intangibility ofported by staff training, employees are better able to delivera services brand is to have a particular type of behavior andthe claims they make in commercials. This should negate theinteraction between the corporation’s staff and its consumers.problems identified by one brand consultant of the positiveIn essence, he argued, services branding could be regardedimpact of expensive television campaigns being destroyed byas being much more about the people in the organization.the irresponsible behavior of one employee.This is one of the critical challenges facing service marketers,

Service brands, as one brand consultant explained, facebecause although technology enables the quality of productthe problem that consumers have gotten used to “solid andbrands to be standardized, in the case of services brands “yourextollable consistency” when buying product-based brandsbrand deliverer, or indeed the brand, walks around on twoand inconsistency when buying services. Service brands arelegs and is, as we all know, of inherently variable quality andlikely to succeed by exceeding consumers’ expectations, hemood” (brand consultant). Many experts raised the point thatargued, because in so doing, they make a much more signifi-it is difficult to impose the same degree of control on humancant impact. A brand consultant cited First Direct as an exam-processes, with the consequence that there is not the sameple of a services brand exceeding expectations, when usingconsistency over time. Because production of the servicestheir database to facilitate personal banking successfully andbrand and its consumption are so closely interlinked, oneto show interest in their customers. Therefore, we postulatebrand consultant remarked: “on two different days you getthat:two different experiences.”

Although goods brands originally developed partly to en- P4: Services brands have many points of contact with con-suring consistent quality, the majority of consultants believed sumers and currently face the problem of deliveringthat in services branding, it is still more difficult to control inconsistent quality. This could be improved throughthe consistency of experiences, because there are “more points a “consumer-delighting” culture, evolving through bet-of contact with the consumer” (advertising consultant). For ter training and more open internal communication.example, as one brand consultant explained, the main pointsof contact the consumer has when buying a bottle of Coca THE SERVICES-BRANDING PARADIGM. Our earlier findings do

not lead us to the believe that a completely new set of princi-Cola revolve around the store trip, purchase, transport home,refrigerator storage, then consumption. In contrast, a detailed ples are needed when branding services rather than products.

Instead, having developed the conceptual heart of the brand,chain of contacts emerges as a consumer approaches differentdepartments in a bank when applying for an endowment with well-defined functional and emotional values, changes

in emphasis are needed to enact the brand strategy. Onemortgage. As a market researcher enlarged, “I don’t thinkthey’ve actually taken on the idea that the brand has to talk reason for this is that there is no such thing as a pure product

or a pure service, rather there are offerings, composed ofto the consumer in a consistent voice.” Managers tend to befocused on their departments’ functional objectives, and the product and service elements, which have a greater or lesser

product proportion (cf. Shostack, 1977; Levitt, 1981). Thisservice brand suffers through managers’ “lack of understand-ing that a brand has to work holistically, each bit has got point was made by a brand consultant who said, “I find it

easier to think about a spectrum of brands, rather than goingto support each other” (market research consultant). Theseremarks are consistent with Collins and Porras (1996), who from various products to various services because . . . every-

thing is a combination of products and services and they arebelieve that the level of internal alignment within organizationsshould be such that the corporate vision can be easily inferred going to have to use much more of the service element to get

their differentiation.” The shifting emphasis to stressing thefrom the activities of the company.Once more, the consultants added to the literature con- service element was reinforced by an advertizing consultant

who used the example, “getting in a plane is the same ascerned with heterogeneity in services delivery, suggesting thata “consumer-delighting” culture that permeates every depart- any other plane” to bring out the importance of service as a

differentiator.ment is a means to achieving greater consistency. To engenderthis type of culture, a more open communications approach It would seem that when developing brands, managers are


obsessed with the classical fast moving consumer goods conceptual similarities between branding in the two fields,model, and are concerned with building their brands’ func- despite differences in emphasis in the execution of specifictional values, anticipating emotional values to subsequently branding principles. Both the academic literature and theevolve. However, as several experts critically explained, partic- brand experts suggest that conceptualizing “the brand” as theularly in financial services, there are only a few notable brands link between the set of functional and emotional values createdwith emotional values, for example First Direct and Co-opera- by the company and the way these are perceived by consumerstive Bank. As a brand consultant said, “there are a lot of names, applies to both physical goods and services, and that the sametrade-marks in use, but very little in the way of brands.” He branding principles are involved. Consultants also spoke ofused the examples of Norwich Union, Legal & General, and a continuum from tangible goods to services, in terms similarSun Alliance, describing these as “broadly based life insurance to those we earlier reviewed (e.g., Shostack, 1977; Levitt, 1981).companies with high quality products,” but no emotional A novel perspective has been added by the experts’ com-values to differentiate between them. Another brand consul- ments, in terms of the similarity in the “iterative process”tant referred to insurance brands as being “personality free” necessary to position a brand in either sector. However, mostresulting in consumers feeling no “affection for this brand experts maintained that the execution of branding strategiesover every other brand.” may need adjustments in emphasis to comply with services’

Consistent with the literature earlier reviewed, the experts specific features. Because of their intangibility, consumers mayregard services brands (particularly corporate brands) as the not understand the detailed technicalities of complex servicesfocus and inspiration for relationship building both outside brands, and may be unable to differentiate between alterna-and inside the organization. The brand, as a cluster of func- tives. Particularly in these instances, the experts stressed ational and emotional values, can grow through closer relation- strong identity and reputation of the “company as brand” asships with consumers, through staff delivering a style of

a crucial way of enhancing consumers’ perceptions and trust inbehavior consistent with consumers’ expectations. As one ad-

the firm’s range of services and as the basis for differentiation.vertising consultant summarized: “a brand is about creating

Furthermore, because services brands are often enacted bya relationship and a dialogue with a customer or a consumer.

the company’s staff, a strong “company as brand,” coupled. . . The art of managing a brand is how to create that relation-with internal communication and training, can serve as theship to be beneficial and to add value to the service you arefocus and motivation for employees’ activities, making themtrying to sell. . . . What you have to try and do is forge amore committed to, not only satisfying, but also delightingbond and a relationship.” Branding, then, becomes “an itera-the consumers. By so doing, a relationship, based on trust, cantive process that, having defined a position, you have to getbe created between the firm, its employees, and consumers.the product to substantiate that position” (brand consultant)

Another contribution of this paper is to identify the persis-and the challenge to the service company is “actually getting atent difficulty experienced by some services organizations,deliverable proposition, something that the staff can genuinelyfinancial services in particular, in achieving clear brand differ-buy into and sign up for and actually deliver” (same brandentiation. The experts mentioned the greater degree of intangi-consultant). As mentioned in the previous section, the latterbility and complexity of many financial services as the maincan be achieved by ensuring that the brand’s corporate valuesculprits for the difficulties encountered in executing effectiveand a consumer-delighting culture permeates every level ofbranding strategies. Another explanation for the chasm be-the organization. Sadly, as a brand consultant noted, financialtween the emerging services-branding theory and that prac-services firms have not developed emotional values for theirticed by many financial services firms is that, traditionally,brands, and, as such, “consumers have no relationship withthey have not been managed as marketing organizations, rarelythe brand,” but rather with agents. An advertizing consultantputting consumers first. As a consequence, many financialechoed this sentiment, criticizing insurance companies’ adver-services firms have persistently overlooked the extent to whichtising objectives of increasing brand awareness, so the con-

sumer would have trust in the broker when he or she men- consumers lack understanding of, and interest in, financialtioned a particular insurer, rather than having trust and a products. Specifically, the 20 experts criticize financial servicesgrowing relationship with the brand of insurance. From these firms for relying on their brand names alone (and the techni-findings we posit that: calities of individual services products) to differentiate them-

selves, rather than making their brands readily comprehensiveP5: Successful services brands result from well-nurturedshorthands of functional as well as emotional values that couldrelationships, evolving through respect from staff andsimplify consumer choice. In particular, the adoption of fastconsumers for particular functional and emotionalmoving consumer goods multibranding techniques as meansvalues.for differentiating their products (cf. de Chernatony and Mc-Donald, 1994) has been rebuked for achieving little moreDiscussion than name proliferation, without clarifying in consumers’minds how they differ.This study contributes to the debate on the differences and

similarities between goods and services by bringing to light Within Goodyear’s (1996) evolutionary perspective of


branding, financial services brands seem still to be in the early competition, by providing a relevant focus both to consumersand employees. This can be achieved using internal marketingstages of “naming devices,” as opposed to many physical goods

brands (e.g., Levi’s), which have developed to higher levels, to motivate the employees, stimulate them to offer a betterservice, and to delight consumers. In turn, this delight makesbecoming “icons.” Only few financial services brands, such as

First Direct and Direct Line, were praised for exploiting the the service company more differentiated from competitorsand more relevant to consumers. Favorable word-of-mouthimage and reputation of their corporations.then spreads, reinforcing an image in consumers’ minds con-sistent with the caring identity the company wants to project,Conclusions and completing the virtuous circle of service branding.

Finally, this paper identifies a gap between services-brand-Managerial Implicationsing theory and practice—and possible reasons for it—from

Despite not receiving much attention in the services literature,the point of view of brand experts. In future research, we

branding has emerged as a crucial issue for service organiza-shall investigate the perceptions of financial services managers

tions. The challenges to managers are to make very intangibleabout the role of branding. Specifically, we shall investigate

products (such as financial services) more relevant and betterthe extent to which the identified chasm derives from lack of

differentiated, bringing out the functional and emotional bene-knowledge of appropriate branding principles or from diffi-

fits more clearly. At the same time, attention is needed toculties in the mere execution of the branding strategy.

provide a more homogeneous service consistent with the pro-jected brand identity.

ReferencesBoth goods and services brands satisfy functional and emo-Aaker, D.: Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brandtional needs. However, the extent of intangible elements in

Name, The Free Press, New York. 1991.the functional benefit may affect the way the service brand isAaker, D.: Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York. 1996.operationalized. For example, the service offered by an airlineAmerican Marketing Association: Marketing Definitions: A Glossaryis relatively tangible, and the quality of the functional benefits

of Marketing Terms, American Marketing Association, Chicago.(getting from A to B quickly and comfortably) is readily assess-1960.

able. On the other hand, such financial services as pensionArnold, D.: The Handbook of Brand Management, Century Business,funds, whose functional benefits are promises at a later time,

The Economist Books, London. 1992.are more intangible. In this context, consumers have a high

Balmer, J. M. T.: Corporate Branding and Connoiseurship. Journalemotional need to be reassured that the functional promises of General Management 21 (Autumn 1995): 24–46.will be fulfilled resulting in an increased emphasis on corpo-

Bateson, J. E. G.: Do We Need Service Marketing? in Marketingrate branding to build consumers’ trust and confidence. Consumer Services: New Insights, Marketing Science Institute, Re-

The implications from our findings are that better manage- port No. 77-115, December 1977.ment of services brands should not rely blindly on fast moving Bateson, J. E. G.: Why We Need Service Marketing, in Conceptualconsumer goods branding techniques, even if the nature and and Theoretical Developments in Marketing, O. C. Ferrell, S. W.

Brown, and C. W. Lamb Jr., eds., American Marketing Associa-rationale for brands in the two sectors are similar. Rather,tion, Chicago. 1979, pp. 131–146.adjustments in emphasis are needed to comply with services’

Bateson, J. E. G.: Managing Services Marketing, The Dryden Press,characteristics. At the functional performance level, firms mustLondon 1995.invest in careful staff recruitment and company-wide training,

Berry, L. L.: Service Marketing Is Different. Business 30 (May–Junewhich is frequently updated. Staff must be made aware of1980): 24–29.their brand’s vision and their specific roles to achieve this.

Berry, L. L., Lefkowith, E. F., and Clark, T.: In Services, What’s inReinforcing the brand vision, there should be a clear viewa Name? Harvard Business Review 66 (September–October 1988):about the type of relationship between staff and consumers28–30.and the degree of latitude staff have in enacting this. Commu-

Berry, L. L., and Yadav, M. S.: Capture and Communicate Value innications should first be directed at employees, then at con-the Pricing of Services. Sloan Management Review 37 (Summersumers. Making a corporate brand identity relevant to employ-1996): 41–51.

ees can help motivate them to exceed consumers’ expectations.Blackston, M.: Observations: Building Brand Equity by ManagingHowever, all this branding activity can only succeed with the Brand’s Relationships. Journal of Advertising Research (1992):

senior management’s commitment to engendering a particular 79–83.type of corporate culture. Finally, at the emotional level, the Boulding, K.: The Image, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.brand’s vision should encompass the values the firm stands 1956.for and should inspire consistency and trust to consumers, Boyd, W. L., Leonard, M., and White, C.: Consumer Preferencesthus supporting the functional performance values. for Financial Services: An Analysis. International Journal of Bank

One might think in terms of a virtuous circle, wherein a Marketing 12 (1994): 9–15.strong “company as brand” identity permeates all services Broadbent, K., and Cooper, P.: Research is Good for You. Marketing

Intelligence and Planning 5 (1987): 3–9.provided by the organization and differentiates them from the


Camp, L.: Latest Thinking on the optimization of Brand Use in texts: The Marketing and Organizational Behavior Interface. Jour-nal of Business Research 20 (1990b): 3–11.Financial Services Marketing. The Journal of Brand Management 3

(1996): 241–247. Grove, S. J., and Fisk, R. P.: The Impact of Other Customers onCollins, J. C., and Porras, J. I.: Building Your Company’s Vision. Service Experiences: A Critical Incident Examination of “Getting

Harvard Business Review 74 (September–October 1996): 65–77. Along.” Journal of Retailing 73(1) (Spring 1977): 63–85.

Crainer, S.: The Real Power of Brands: Making Brands Work for Competi- Gummesson, E.: Toward a Theory of Professional Service Marketing.tive Advantage, Pitman Publishing, London. 1995. Industrial Marketing Management 7 (1978): 89–95.

Daneshkhu, S.: Brand Name of the Hotel Game. Financial Times, 8th Hansen, F.: Consumer Choice Behavior. A Cognitive Theory, The FreeJune 1995, page 21. Press, New York. 1972.

de Chernatony, L., Categorizing Brands: Evolutionary Processes Un- Hansen, F.: Consumer Choice Behavior. A Cognitive Theory, The Freederpinned by Two Jey Dimensions. Journal of Marketing Manage- Press, New York. 1972.ment 9 (1993): 173–188. Jones, J. P.: What’s in a Name, Gower, Aldershot. 1986.

de Chernatony, L., and McDonald, M.: Creating Powerful Brands, Joyce, T.: Techniques of Brand Image Measurement, in New Develop-Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994. ments in Research, Market Research Society, London. 1963, pp.

de Chernatony, L., and Dall’Olmo Riley, F.: Brand Consultants Per- 45–63.spectives on the Concept of the Brand. Marketing and Research Kapferer, J. N.: Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.Today 25 (1997): 45–52. 1992.

Denby-Jones S.: Mind the Gap. The Banker, 145, (February 1995): Keeble, G.: Creativity and the Brand, in Understanding Brands by 1066–67. People Who Do, D. Cowley ed., Kogan Page, London. 1991, pp,

Dibb, S., and L. Simkin: The Strength of Branding and Positioning 167–182.in Services. International Journal of Services Industries Management Knisely G.: Greater Marketing Emphasis by Holiday Inns Breaks4 (1993): 25–35. Mold. Advertising Age (January 15, 1979): 47–51.

Diefenbach, J.: The Corporate Identity as the Brand, in J. M. Murphy, Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., and Wong, V.: Principles ofed., Branding: A Key Marketing Tool, MacMillan, Basingstoke. Marketing, Prentice-Hall Europe, Hemel, Hempstead. 1996.1992, pp. 155–164.

Kotler P., and Bloom, P. N.: Marketing Professional Services, Prentice-Dobree, J., and Page, A. S.: Unleashing the Power of Service Brands Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.

in the 1990s. Management Decision 28 (1990): 14–28.Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology,

Faust, W. H., and Eilertson, A.: You Have Got a Logo, You Need a Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 1980.Brand. ABA Banking Journal 86 (1994): 86–90.

Levitt, T.: Production-Line Approach to Service. Harvard BusinessFirth, M.: Price Setting and the Value of a Strong Brand Name. Review 50 (September–October 1972): 41–52.

International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (December 1993):Levitt, T.: Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles.381–386.

Harvard Business Review 59 (May–June 1981): 94–102.Fitzgerald, T. J.: Understanding the Differences and Similarities Be-

Lewis, B. R.: Consumer Care in Service Organizations. Marketingtween Services and Products To Exploit Your Competitive Advan-Intelligence and Planning 7 (1989): 18–22.tage. Journal of Services Marketing 2 (Winter 1988): 25–30.

Michel, S.: Prosuming Behavior and Its Strategic Implication forFord, R.: Insurance Advertising in the 1990s. Admap (June 1990):Marketing, Paper presented at 9th UK Services Marketing Work-22–25.shop, Stirling University, November 1996.Gelb, B. D., and Gelb, G. M.: What Research Inside the Organisation

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M.: Qualitiative Data Analysis, Sage:Can Accomplish. Marketing Research 3 (1991): 44–51.Newbury Park, CA. 1994.George, W. R.: Internal Marketing and Organizational Behavior: A

Milligan, J. W.: Are Banks Ready for Product Branding? United StatesPartnership in Developing Consumer-Conscious Employees atBanker 105 (April 1995): 39–41.Every Level. Journal of Business Research 20 (1990): 63–70.

Mohr, L. A., and Bitner, M. J.: The Role of Employee Effort inGeorge, W. R., and Berry, L. L.: Guidelines for Advertising Services.Satisfaction with Service Transaction. Journal of Business ResearchBusiness Horizons 24 (July–August 1981): 52–56.32 (1995): 239–252.Goodyear, M.: Qualitative Research, in A Handbook of Market Research

Morgan, N. A.: Implementing Marketing: Key Issues for ProfessionalTechniques, R. Birn, P. Hague, and P. Vangelder, eds., Kogan Page,Service Firms. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 6 (1990):London. 1990, pp. 229–248.7–16.Goodyear, M.: Divided by a Common Language. Journal of the Market

Morrall, K.: Creating a Cohesive Image Through Branding. BankResearch Society 38 (1996): 105–122. Gordon, W., and Langmaid,Marketing 27 (1995): 23–28.R.: Qualitative Market Research, Gower, Aldershot. 1988.

Mudie, P. M.: Internal Marketing: Cause for Concern. QuarterlyGordon, W., and Langmaid, R.: Qualitative Market Research, Gower,Review of Marketing 12 (Spring/Summer 1987): 21–24.Aldershot, UK. 1988.

Murray, J. G.: The Importance of Internal Marketing. Bankers Maga-Greene, W. E., Walls, G. D., and Schrest, L. J.: Internal Marketing:zine 162 (1979): 38–40.The Key to External Marketing Success. Journal of Services Market-

ing 8 (1994): 5–13. Norman, R., and Ramirez, R.: Designing Interactive Strategy, JohnWiley, Chicester. 1994.Gronroos, C.: Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books,

New York. 1990a. Onkvisit, S., and Shaw, J. J.: Service Marketing: Image, Branding, andCompetition. Business Horizons (January–February 1989): 13–18.Gronroos, C.: Relationship Approach to Marketing in Service Con-


Peklo, D. A.: Why Home Banking Needs Product Branding. US Marketing Management Model: Integrating Internal and ExternalMarketing Functions. Journal of Services Marketing 2 (WinterBanker 105 (1995): 77–78.1988): 31–38.Plummer, J. T.: How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Adver-

Thomas, D. R. E.: Strategy Is Different in Service Business. Harvardtising Research 24 (1985): 27–30.Business Review 56 (July–August 1978): 158–165.Quinn, J. B., Doorley, T. L., and Paquette, P. C.: Beyond Products:

Timberman, E. L., Jr.: If You Don’t Position Your Bank, the Competi-Services-Based Strategy. Harvard Business Review 68 (March–Apriltion Will. Bank Marketing 17 (February 1985): 10–12.1990): 58–68.

Turley, L. W., and Moore, P. A.: Brand Name Strategies in the ServiceRichardson, B. A., and Robinson, C. G.: The Impact of InternalSector. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (1995): 42–50.Marketing on Consumer Service in a Retail Bank. International

Journal of Bank Marketing 4 (1986): 3–30. Wasmer, D. J., and Bruner, G. C. II: Using Organizational Cultureto Design Internal Marketing Strategy. Journal of Services MarketingSasser, W. E. Jr.: Match Supply and Demand in Service Industries.5 (Winter 1991): 35–46.Harvard Business Review 54 (November–December 1976): 133–140.

Watters, R., and Wright, D.: Why Has Branding Failed in the UKSaunders, J., and Watters, R.: Branding Financial Services. JournalInsurance Industry? in Banking and Insurance: From Recession toof Marketing 11 (April 1977): 73–80.Recovery, ESOMAR Conference Proceedings, 1994.

Shostack, G. L.: Breaking Free from Product Marketing. Journal ofWoodward, S.: Competitive Marketing, in Understanding Brands byMarketing 41 (April 1977): 73–80.

10 People Who Do, D. Cowley, ed., Kogan Page, London. 1991,Smith, A.: Marrying Brands—Today’s Merger of Lloyds Bank and pp. 117–130.

TSB Group Raises Questions of Identity. Financial Times (Decem-Wyckham, R. G., Fitzroy, P. T., and Mandry, G. D.: Marketingber 28th 1995).

of Services, An Evaluation of the Theory. European Journal ofSolomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., and Gutman, E. G.: Marketing 9 (1975): 59–67.

A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L. L.: Problems andEncounter. Journal of Marketing 49 (1985): 99–111. Strategies in Services Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49 (1985):

Summers, D.: Service, But Not With a Smile. Financial Times (11th 33–46.July 1996): 20. Zeithaml, V. A., and Bitner, M. J.: Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill,

New York. 1996.Tansuhaj, P. S. D., Randall, D., and McCullough, J.: A Services

Documents

service branding