Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and ...

JBR-08816; No of Pages 4 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: A special section Jane Hemsley-Brown a,⁎, T.C. Melewar b, Bang Nguyen c, Elizabeth J. Wilson d Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK The Business School, Middlesex University, London, UK School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, 130 Meilong Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200237, PR China Suffolk University, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 November 2015 Received in revised form 1 December 2015 Accepted 1 January 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Brand identity Brand meaning Brand image Brand reputation Higher education

a b s t r a c t Due to the increasingly competitive landscape in the international higher education marketplace, colleges and universities have much to gain from the benefits of successful branding. In the commercial realm, the knowledge base on branding topics is extensive; in the realm of non-profit higher education institutions, however, more research is needed. As higher education institutions strive to develop distinctive identities, deeper understanding about topics such as brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation will enable brand owners to communicate more effectively with stakeholders including faculty, students, alumni, employers, and others. The articles in this special section describe research using a variety of qualitative (e.g., case study, fuzzy set analysis, metaphor analysis) and quantitative methods (e.g., cross-sectional surveys with data subjected to regression or structural equation modeling) utilizing primary and secondary data Scholarly contributions include new frameworks and perspectives to strengthen brand architecture of higher education institutions in the international marketplace. Practitioner readers may gain new insights for effective brand building in their own higher education institution. © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Universities today are increasingly competing for international students and top academics in response to trends in global student mobility, diminishing university funding, and government-backed recruitment campaigns. This competition drives the need for universities to focus on clearly articulating and developing their brand (HemsleyBrown & Goonawardana, 2007). However, despite the growing importance of branding in the higher education sector, research remains sparse and great potential therefore exists to further contribute with new branding concepts, theories, and frameworks (Melewar & Nguyen, 2015). The higher education sector has much to gain from the benefits of successful branding, which is already well established in the private sector, but more research is needed that specifically relates to the branding efforts of public sector organizations, such as non-profit colleges, and universities (Watkins & Gonzenbach, 2013). While university reputation has traditionally been the main indicator for the uniqueness of a higher education institution, with the emergence of branding, the adoption of concepts such as brand identity, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Hemsley-Brown), [email protected] (T.C. Melewar), [email protected] (B. Nguyen), [email protected] (E.J. Wilson).

meaning, image, and reputation are becoming increasingly important, as organizations and managers alike are eager to develop distinctive university identities, understand multiple meanings held by stakeholders, improve images, and enhance reputation in this highly competitive global environment. Researchers are exploring the associations between branding and performance in order to improve employee commitment, reduce staff turnover, and increase productivity (Robertson & Khatibi, 2013). While prior studies examine diverse factors pertinent to the efficacy of branding, the majority of these studies adopt business sectors and industries as research samples, leading to more commercial profits and performance-oriented implications (Harris & De Chernatony, 2001; Hankinson, 2012; Hsiao & Chen, 2013). On the whole, the findings from these studies seldom have much relevance and application in the higher education sector, such as the management of faculties, universities, and colleges. However, there is considerable debate and uncertainty about how to respond to competition and how to capitalize on the opportunities globalization offers. Therefore, it is timely to seek articles which critically engage with theoretical and empirical issues of brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation drawn from as wide a range of perspectives as possible in the context of higher education in an international context. The diversity of the higher education sector provides a perplexing environment to the development and management of brand identity,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.016 0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hemsley-Brown, J., et al., Exploring brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation (BIMIR) in higher education: A special section, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.016

2

meaning, image, and reputation. Every university has a unique profile with differing organizational cultures, development stages, resources, politics, and student profiles, which in turn requires multiple strategic directions, emphasizing different issues in different faculties and institutions (Asaad, Melewar, Cohen, & Balmer, 2013). Due to these complexities, we view the study of the relationship between brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation in the higher education sector to be critical topics for further investigation. Much needs to be learned about how brand meaning and brand identity are perceived in the higher education sector; how a higher education brand manages multiple meanings, which may differ among stakeholder groups, and how institutions build and re-build strong brand identities. By understanding how higher education institutions create desirable brands, universities can attract world-class faculty, sponsorship, and high-quality students, leading to improved public image and goodwill (Melewar & Akel, 2005). For brand managers in higher education, a greater understanding of brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation influence key strategic decisions and contribute towards efficient use of marketing resources, cost-saving, and increased income from multiple sources. Authors of research on higher education marketing frequently base their rationale for conducting research on awareness of increasing competition in the sector, both nationally and internationally. In the US, for example, changes in demographics, globalization, economic restructuring, and information technology are putting pressure on institutions and enhancing the competition between them (Padlee, Kamaruddin, & Baharun, 2010). The most intense competition is in destinations where English has been the traditional language of study—the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, but competition to study in the west is also increasing competition elsewhere, particularly to gain access to prestige institutions ((Abu Bakar & Abdu Talib, 2013) cited by Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015). The argument that universities operate in a competitive environment is also frequently used by authors in this special issue to make the straightforward argument that research is needed to find out more about aspects of university branding—brand identity, meaning, image, and reputation. Globalization, internationalization, changes in supply and demand, and reduction in financial support from governments intensifies competition and led institutions to make substantial changes and to focus more consistently and professionally on building a credible brand. As the competition among institutions intensifies, they increasingly adopt a more business-like stance and utilize professional marketing practices (Veloutsou et al., 2005). Institutions also increase international partnerships, develop branch campuses, and forms of transnational education, which mean they are competing not only with other home universities for students, they are competing with universities worldwide (Padlee et al., 2010). Building alliances and partnerships with universities in different parts of the world can also focus institutions more sharply on their brand image, what they stand for, and how they are perceived by all stakeholders not only students (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2015). The articles in the issue can be categorized under the following broad headings: brand identity, brand meaning, brand image, brand reputation, and brand alliances and dual degrees. 2. Brand identity Authors Balaji, Roy, and Saadeque, in their paper titled “Antecedents and Consequences of University Brand Identification,” argue that to overcome the challenges of competitive pressures, shrinking financial support from governments, decline in university-going population, and widespread changes in an educational environment, higher education institutions (hereafter HEI) are increasingly adopting marketing and branding strategies. Their study examines the role of university brand personality, university brand knowledge, and university brand prestige in developing student–university identification. The study's findings indicate that university brand knowledge and university

brand prestige play a key role in determining the student–university identification. The more attractive students perceive the university's identity, the stronger will be their identification with the university, which results in shared goals, identities, and values between the university and the students. Balaji et al. recommend that universities should engage in branding activities that develop a strong student–university identification in order to enhance the students' university supportive behaviors. Palmer, Koenig-Lewis, and Asaad's article, “Brand Identification in Higher Education: A Conditional Process Analysis,” posits that the dimensions and dynamics of higher education brands remain excessively informed by general principles of branding, with inadequate empirical testing in the specific context. Their research advances understanding of brand identification in higher education by empirically assessing its antecedents and relating brand identification to brand loyalty and brand support as outcome variables, moderated by time since direct experience of the university. While the direct effects of recalled academic and social experience on brand loyalty decrease over time, the indirect effect of academic experience on loyalty via brand identification increases, indicating that the mediation effect of brand identification becomes stronger with the passage of time. The study makes important theoretical contributions to the branding literature by emphasizing the mediating role of brand identification and by examining the moderating effects of time on these variables. The results also inform marketing of higher education, suggesting that universities which focus on offering great academic experiences to their students will be more effective in developing strong brand identification over time which in turn leads to greater brand loyalty and brand support.

3. Brand meaning Dean, Arroyo-Gamez, Punjaisri, and Pich's research, “Internal Brand Co-creation: The Experiential Brand Meaning Cycle in HE,” investigates how employees co-create brand meaning through their brand experiences and social interactions with management, colleagues, and customers. Considering employees as part of the brand development process because they are brand representatives who are at the interface between the HE institution and their customers, the authors highlight that brand meaning commences from historical, superficial brand interactions and conceptualize the evolving, co-created nature of employees' brand meaning in the experiential brand meaning cycle. Bridging the internal branding and the co-creation literature, the study contributes to the existing knowledge by elucidating four stages of the reinterpretation loops, highlighting that employees develop a brand meaning at both macro and micro cycles through a series of brand interactions and social interactions. The study findings illustrate the function of employees as readers and authors of brand meaning, emphasizing the crucial role of brand co-creation in guiding employees' brand promise delivery. Dennis, Papgiannidis, Alamanos, and Bourlakis, in “The Role of Brand Attachment Strength in Higher Education,” highlight the increasingly competitive higher education sector where universities face significant challenges when it comes to recruiting new students, as the rationale for their research. They point out that students form their perceptions of brand image, identity, and meaning before enrolling at a university and they continue evolving during their study and even after graduation. Their paper focuses on the effect of brand attachment and its antecedents on commitment, satisfaction, trust, and brand equity in the context of higher education institutions. Their findings indicate that satisfaction with practical brand characteristics, such as the courses, play a strong role for students, whereas the influence of brand meaning and commitment is stronger for graduates. Brand meaning, they argue, is the main antecedent of brand attachment strength that affects satisfaction, trust, and commitment as well as brand equity, but attachment strength has a negative effect on satisfaction. Perceived quality and reputation, however, also cause feelings of attachment, which lead to satisfying relationships and help to build brand equity.


3

Wilson and Elliot's research, “Brand Meaning in Higher Education: Leaving the Shallows via Deep Metaphors,” further emphasizes that HEIs in competitive environments must achieve deep understanding of stakeholder perceptions and the extent to which HEI brand knowledge is shared across stakeholder groups. A conceptual framework of mutual knowledge and shared brand meaning, empirically explored in the context of commercial brands, is adapted for the HEI context. Research propositions are explored using novel approach for the first time in the higher education branding literature. A modified ZaltmanMetaphor-Elicitation-Technique (ZMET) yielded in-depth qualitative information about brand meaning expressed as surface level thematic metaphors that led to deep metaphors. Findings for a focal HEI are consistent with findings for private sector firms; brand meanings differ somewhat across three stakeholder groups, however, differences were harmonious and did not negatively affect the HEI brand overall. Specifically, the most pervasive deep metaphor for students and administrators is “transformation” while “journey” is most pervasive for faculty. The findings offer confirmation to brand owners that intended meanings are consistent with the mission of the focal HEI and current brand positioning strategies are in alignment around discovered deep metaphors. The authors' description of a reflexive process of deep metaphor discovery and extraction is a key takeaway for HEI brand owners to use in brand building efforts. 4. Brand image Research by Yuan, Liu, Yen, and Luo, “From Higher Education Brand Extensions,” explores the concepts of brand identity and brand image from a brand extension perspective. By focusing on the relationship between a parent university's brand identity and the extended brand image of an international satellite branch, the authors develop an “identity–image” linkage that reveals how consumers identify and transfer university brand identity perceptions including the underlying causes of a backward reciprocal transfer of perception from the extension to the parent brand. The study's results reveal that perceived congruence (functional, symbolic, and self-image) and legitimacy of the brand extension (regulative legitimacy, brand extension authenticity, desirable values to audiences, and cultural adaptation) are the main factors that influence the identity–image link. Further, to strengthen the brand extension relationships, the authors suggest the importance of marketing exposure with an international focus, exploitation avoidance to create a positive brand image, and resource transfer between the parent and satellite branch. Work by Rauschnabel, Krey, Babin, and Ivens, “Brand Management in Higher Education: The University Brand Personality Scale,” suggests that increasing competition between universities heightens the need for institutions to understand, manage, and leverage a strong brand position. Their article addresses the special issue topic by developing a theoretically based measurement model to assess brand personality in a higher education context. Their study develops and validates a sixdimensional scale tapping the University Brand Personality Scale (UBPS), which strongly relates to brand love, positive word of mouth, and students' intention to support their university as alumni. Prestige emerges as one of six UBPS factors. Brand personality scales in other contexts generally do not include prestige—universities could gain a prestigious personality by carefully selecting people with whom they engage. Findings provide university managers with an assessment tool for measuring their institution's as well as competitors' brand personality. Findings also offer university managers an assessment tool for measuring their institution's as well as competitors' brand personality. 5. Brand reputation Research by Plewa, Ho, Conduit, and Karpen, “Reputation in Higher Education: A Fuzzy Set Analysis of Resource Configurations,” highlights the critical role of reputation for HEIs. The article offers insight into

different configurations of resources to build reputation within domestic and international student cohorts. Using the innovative fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), the authors distinguish nine diverse resource configurations leading to HEI reputation for domestic students. Reputation in the international cohort differs and is associated with six configurations, centered on learning support and campus life. The study emphasizes the need to understand not only the impact of independent resources but also of distinct resource configurations, each of which leads to high levels of reputation as perceived by current students. The use of fsQCA denotes an important progression in this context, as it captures multiple configurations of causal conditions and offers detailed insights into the configurations leading to greater reputation. The authors point to an important finding in that universities do not have to achieve excellence across all resources but can focus their investment and communication efforts on those resources that can best be leveraged due to inherent strengths. In “Social Media Interaction, the University Brand and Recruitment Performance,” Rutter, Roper, and Lettice explore how HEIs utilize branding activity to deal with competitive threats. Can institutions with lower reputational capital compete for students by increasing their brand presence? This study provides evidence from research into social media related branding activity from 56 UK universities and considers the impact of social media interaction and validation on performance in terms of student recruitment. The results demonstrate a positive effect for the use of social media on brand performance, especially when an institution attracts a large number of Likes on Facebook and a high number of Followers on Twitter. A particularly strong and positive effect results when universities use social media interactively. Internet traffic on social media sites (Facebook and Twitter) serves as secondary data for model building and testing using SEM. The dependent variable is student recruitment performance; independent variables include social media use and validation. Detailed implications are offered for HEIs to manage and enhance social media strategy on Facebook and Twitter; future research to explore other platforms is recommended. Nguyen, Yu, Melewar, and Hemsley-Brown's article, “Brand Ambidexterity and Commitment in Higher Education: An Exploratory Study,” investigates a university's brand ambidexterity strategy and its effects on brand image, reputation, and commitment in higher education. A key contribution is the identification and exploration of the ambidexterity concept in the realm of branding. A research model integrates the determinants of university-specific brand performance and proposes that commitment towards a particular university is influenced by (a) brand ambidexterity, that is, exploratory and exploitative orientations, and (b) student level responses, these being the students' perceptions with brand image and reputation leading to increased commitment with the university. Findings suggest that when students choose to commit for the study of a postgraduate degree, a variety of factors influence their decision, of which the brand performance and brand image constructs play major roles; interestingly, brand reputation is less important. The framework helps university managers in designing appropriate strategies to influence students' commitment towards the university to, for example, continue their postgraduate studies. 6. Brand alliances Naidoo and Hollebeek's research, “Higher Education Brand Alliances: Investigating Consumers' Dual-Degree Purchase Intentions,” examines brand alliances in higher education. Characterizing brand alliances as ranging from research consortia to joint curriculum development and program delivery, the authors bridge its nature, dynamics, and outcomes by examining prospective students' purchase intention for dual degrees—a particular brand alliance type deployed in higher education. Findings indicate that prospective students' attitude toward the alliance, their level of familiarity with the individual constituent brands,


4

their brand trust, interaction between brand familiarity, and the perceived fit between the constituent brands jointly influence consumer purchase intention for particular dual-degree offerings. The study findings contribute to the literature by suggesting the transferability of specific brand alliance dynamics reported with respect to the focal commercial, tangible product-based sectors, to the not-for-profit service context of higher education. In “The Added Value of Brand Alliances in Higher Education,” Kalafatis, Ledden, Riley, and Singh study perceptions of brand alliances and how signaling theory and attitude accessibility are used to explore the value of dual degrees. Growing competition and globalization, reduced government funding, and increased efforts to recruit international students have fuelled the “marketisation” of the UK higher education. The results support the main hypothesis that perceptions of added value of a dual degree initiated by a high (low)-ranked context university decline (increase) in line with the ranking of a lower (higher) rank partner university. The findings reveal interaction effects between the rank position of the initiating university and the evaluation criteria. Nameorder effects explain the higher perceived value of a dual degree between high-and-low-ranked universities compared to a dual degree between low-and-high-ranked universities. In addition to being the first study to examine brand alliances in the UK HE domain, the study makes a number of contributions to the general brand alliance literature and provides managerial guidelines. The articles in this special section explore higher education branding in terms of identity, meaning, image, and reputation using a variety of conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches. In closing, we are extremely grateful to the reviewers of submissions for this special section (see the Appendix for names and their affiliations) for their time and effort to generate constructive feedback for the authors. We thank Arch Woodside, former editor-in-chief of Journal of Business Research, for providing us this platform; we hope this body of work encourages further discourse, discussion, and debate in an ever-expanding research field. We hope you enjoy these papers. Appendix: Editorial review board members for this special section. Russell Abratt, Nova Southeastern University, USA Claudio Alverez, Baylor University, USA Sharifah Alwi, Brunel University, UK Ibrahim Alnawas, University of Petra, Jordan Chris Baumann, Macquarie University, Australia Xuemei Bian, Kent University, UK Junsong Chen, China Europe International Business School, CN Steve Chen, University of Southampton, UK Cristian Chelariu, Suffolk University, USA

Xiang Fang, Oklahoma State University, USA Arne Floh, University of Surrey, UK Suraksha Gupta, Kent University, UK Hanif Haghshenas, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Sameer Hosany, Royal Holloway London University, UK Kevin Lane Keller, Dartmouth College, USA Anthony Lowrie, Emerson College, USA Ereni Markos, Suffolk University, USA Dilip S. Mutum, Nottingham University, Malaysia Lukas Parker, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Vietnam Sarah Quinton, Oxford Brookes University, UK Sanjit Roy, University of New South Wales, Australia Maja Seric, University of Valencia, Spain Tracy Suter, Oklahoma State University, USA Paul Temple, Institute of Education, London, UK Natalia Yannopoulou, Newcastle University, UK Mujde Yuksel, Suffolk University, USA References Abu Bakar, A.R., & Abdu Talib, A.N. (2013). A case study of an internationalization process of a private higher education institution in Malaysia. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 15(3), 211–230. Asaad, Y., Melewar, T.C., Cohen, G., & Balmer, J. (2013). Universities and export market orientation: An exploratory study of UK post-92 universities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(7), 838–856. Hankinson, G. (2012). The measurement of brand orientation, its performance impact, and the role of leadership in the context of destination branding: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(7/8), 974–999. Harris, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441–456. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonization in the international higher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 942–948. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2015). Higher education consumer choice. London Palgrave: Macmillan. Hsiao, Y.C., & Chen, C.J. (2013). Branding vs contract manufacturing: Capability, strategy, and performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(4), 317–334. Melewar, T.C., & Akel, S. (2005). Corporate identity in the higher education sector: A case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1) (41–27). Melewar, T.C., & Nguyen, B. (2015). Five areas to advance branding theory and practice. Journal of Brand Management, 21(9), 758–769. Padlee, S.F., Kamaruddin, A.R., & Baharun, R. (2010). International students' choice behavior for higher education at malaysian private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2), 202–211. Robertson, A., & Khatibi, A. (2013). The influence of employer branding on productivityrelated outcomes of an organization. IUP Journal of Brand Management, 10(3), 17–32. Veloutsou, C., Paton, A., & Lewis, J. (2005). Consultation and reliability of information sources pertaining to university selection: Some questions answered? International Journal of Educational Management, 19(4), 279–291. Watkins, B.A., & Gonzenbach, W.J. (2013). Assessing university brand personality through logos: An analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1), 15–33.
