The criteria for successfulservices brands

Leslie de ChernatonyBirmingham University Business School, The University of Birmingham,

Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, andSusan Segal-Horn

Open University Business School, The Open University,Milton Keynes, UK

Keywords Services, Brands, Success, Organizational culture

Abstract There are few valuable services brands, which may be due to the lack of servicesbranding knowledge and the inappropriate use of product-based branding advice. To contribute toservices branding knowledge the authors undertook a review of the services management andservices branding literature and postulated a model of services branding. In-depth interviews with28 leading-edge consultants showed the appropriateness of this model. The study found a need forruthless clarity about positioning and the corporation’s genuinely felt values. Success is more likelywhen everyone internally believes in their brand’s values. When management behaviour is based ongenuine conviction, shared values are more likely. Through shared values, there is a greaterlikelihood of commitment, internal loyalty, clearer brand understanding, and importantly,consistent brand delivery across all stakeholders. By viewing these factors within a systemsperspective, greater services brand consistency can result.

1. IntroductionIn the services sector it is common to see firms following a monolithic brandingstrategy (Free, 1996). Yet, as services corporations extend their portfolios, theygain from the inherent brand equity of awareness and possibly goodwill, butdilute corporate associations and raise expectations about their new offering,which may not be appropriate. This may be one of the reasons why there are sofew successful services brands (Kochan, 1996). One can only speculate, since inthis sector, which accounts for over two-thirds of developed economies’ GDP(Lovelock et al., 1999), there is a paucity of published advice. By contrast,considerable guidance is available about strengthening product-based brands(e.g. Aaker, 1996). While there is much published about the differences betweenproducts and services (e.g. Shostack, 1977; Cunningham et al., 1997), this is oflittle value when seeking to successfully develop services brands.

Building on earlier work (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001), we seek toshow factors critical to the success of a services brand. The paper opens with areview of the relevant services management and services branding literature tounderstand the problem of developing successful services brands. It thenconsiders inferences about the development of successful services brands bypostulating a services branding model. We describe the research context of

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www�.emeraldinsight�.com/researchregister� http://�www.emeraldinsigh�t.com/0309-056�6.htm

Successfulservices brands

1095

Received November 2000Accepted October 2001

European Journal of MarketingVol. 37 No. 7/8, 2003

pp. 1095-1118q MCB UP Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560310477681

in-depth interviews with 28 services branding consultants. We report our findingsderived from their perceptions of specific criteria that contribute to a successfulservices brand, noting the appropriateness of the postulated services brandingmodel. Recommendations for developing successful services brands are discussedand the implications for the management of services brands are considered.

2. Literature reviewThis brief literature review will discuss relevant insights from the servicesmanagement and services branding literatures.

2.1 Services managementMany writers regard the “service encounter”, the moment of interactionbetween the customer and the firm (Lovelock, 1988), also known as “themoment of truth” (see Normann, 1984) representing the defining issue in themanagement of service firms. Bitner et al. (1990, p. 71) argue that “the serviceencounter frequently is the service firm from the customer’s point of view”. Yetoften front-line employees are not trained to understand customers and do nothave discretion to ensure effective responses. Furthermore, customer-facingstaff may be relatively poorly paid, resulting in low levels of motivation andresponsibility (Bowen and Lawler, 1995). This can be disastrous for theservices company and its brands.

Products are easily copied by competitors; service is not. Since servicedepends on the culture of the organisation and the training and attitudes of itsemployees, it is more difficult to build and sustain successfully, but is moredifficult to copy (Albrecht and Zemke, 1985; Doyle, 1989). Indeed, Doyle (1989,p. 87) stated that “service is perhaps the most sustainable differentialadvantage” in building successful brands.

Heskett (1987) argued that service management practice could be of interestto a much broader audience. Some of the specific practices which he identifiedincluded:

. close co-ordination of the marketing/operations relationship;

. an ability to direct the service vision not just toward consumers, but tofocus on staff responsible for delivering that vision; and

. control of quality by means of shared organisational values.

He saw this as part of an iterative and self-reinforcing process, necessary to thesuccessful management of services and service organisations. The stages inthis process are shown in Figure 1.

Quinn and Paquette (1990) reported that such a self-reinforcing servicesmanagement process which was demonstrably dependent on employeecommitment required that service organisations be stood on their head, andthe whole organisation needed to “work for” customer contact staff, in order tohelp them make the most of their service encounters with customers. For this

EJM37,7/8

1096

reason, Gronroos (2000) argues that in service organisations the organisationalpyramid must be turned upside down. Gilmore and Carson (1996) support thissince they argued that a service organisation relies more heavily on its customerservice management than does a product organisation. These argumentsrepresent a development from Levitt’s (1972, 1976) argument for a“production-line” approach to service, stressing the need to increaseproductivity and technical intensity in service organisations. More recentwriters on service management (Bowen and Lawler, 1995; Heskett, 1994; Bitneret al., 1990), while recognising the importance of services’ operational efficiency,have shifted the emphasis toward matching efficiencies with systems andprocedures which enhance employee effectiveness. For example, Bowen andLawler (1995) suggested that empowerment of front-line staff is a more profitableapproach than a production-line focus, because it emphasises the equalimportance of both operational procedures and employees’ state of mind. Theseempowerment practices must include sufficient power, information and rewards.Lack of any of these hinders empowerment since employees do no not have thenecessary means for exercising their discretion on the customer’s behalf.

In summary, a set of related issues relevant to this research can be highlighted:. the centrality of the service encounter;. that the service vision is delivered to consumers by service employees;

Figure 1.The process of successful

services management

Successfulservices brands

1097

. the need for responsiveness in front-line staff;

. the mechanisms, such as empowerment, by which such responsivenessmay be attained; and

. that effective service organisations may fruitfully be regarded as reversehierarchies.

All these points have relevance to services branding, as will be explained in theanalysis of our findings.

2.2 Services brandingA holistic brand image integrates entities such as values, colours, name,symbols, words and slogans. Berry et al. (1988) argued that once anorganisation establishes a favourable brand image its main task is to ensureconsistency. They further argued that since service companies often follow amonolithic branding strategy, consumers mentally group all the corporation’sportfolio together, expecting uniformity, thus management of brandconsistency is even more important.

Although there are differing interpretations of “brand”, it is not thedefinition which distinguishes product branding from services branding, butthe executional strategy (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999). Theinterpretation of brands as a promise has been adopted by several writers (e.g.Ward et al., 1999; Ambler and Styles, 1996) and is particularly appropriate forservices because of their characteristics of intangibility and heterogeneity.Ambler and Styles (1996, p. 10) define a brand as:

. . . the promise of the bundle of attributes that someone buys . . . the attributes that make up abrand may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible.

Although we can continue to regard services brands as clusters of functionaland emotional values, nevertheless, because of their intangible nature, it isespecially important to capitalise on clues associated with their physicalevidence as a vehicle for communicating their values (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989;Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996).

When interpreting services brands as promises, marketers often drawheavily on the classical product branding model, emphasising raising customerexpectations through advertising. For services, due to the centrality of theservice encounter and its dependence on staff attitudes, it is difficult to ensureconsistent standards to meet such raised expectations. Quality shortfalls orgaps may thus frequently occur. Zeithaml and Bitner (1996) identified fivequality gaps and stressed that, for these to be closed, a company-wideperspective and response was necessary.

Classical product branding assumes an internal, quality controlled, valuedelivery system unseen by consumers. By contrast, the value delivery systemfor services brands is visible to consumers, who are active participants.

EJM37,7/8

1098

Gronroos (1990) explained how this problem can be turned into anopportunity. He argued that customers’ services quality perceptions consists ofwhat they get (the technical outcome) and how they get it (the service process).In some cases branding activity has concentrated on the technical outcome(common in financial services), as opposed to those who have focused on theservice process (e.g. The Body Shop, a UK-based global retailer of personal careproducts), by recruiting staff whose values concur with the desiredorganisational culture and who are committed to behaving in a wayassociated with the brand promise. Emphasis on the service process (commonin hotels, airlines) should encourage a consumer-focused culture within whichstaff interaction with consumers may be the basis of a strong services brand.

Although Levitt (1976) proposed greater industrialisation of servicesprocesses, replacing human activities with technology, more recent research(Heskett, 1994; Free, 1999) argues against the wholesale replacement of staff bytechnology, believing that competitive advantage can be gained by staff beingfreed from routine tasks to concentrate on dealing with non-routine problems. Afocus on technical outcomes can demotivate good staff and attract employeesunable to respond to atypical customer requests. As Kotter and Heskett (1992)reported, there is a likelihood of better performance where the focus is on serviceprocesses which will include staff awareness of their organisations’ values.Understanding these values, and recognising their roles, reduces employeestress and increases commitment to delivering the service brand (Heskett, 1987).

Indeed, one of the differences between services and product brands is thatthere are far more points of contact between services brands and stakeholders,necessitating more attention to a coherent communication strategy internallyand externally. Part of the reason for services brands failing is that staff do notcommunicate a consistent message about their firm’s brand as they interact witha variety of stakeholders. Well-designed induction and training programmes dohelp create greater staff commitment, which is an important component in strongservices brands (Farnfield, 1999). Successful services brands therefore depend ongood internal communication programmes (Cleaver, 1999) to support greaterconsistency in delivering the service experience, at whatever point the customer’scontact with the organisation occurs (Camp, 1996).

Similarly, awareness of organisational culture and heritage helps managersidentify principles that give the brand a genuine basis for a customer-valuedpositioning (Camp 1999). Managers, therefore, need to identify organisationalprinciples from which a credible cluster of services brand values may emerge.Although consumers are beginning to understand some services brands,especially those which encourage the formation of relationships (Cleaver, 1999),the absence of strong services brands indicates these relationships areunderdeveloped compared to product brands (Fournier, 1998).

It may be helpful to summarise the main points from the literature review ofrelevance to this research. Brand consistency is particularly important due to

Successfulservices brands

1099

the popularity of a monolithic branding strategy. Many services brandingissues require a company-wide approach to their solution and implementation.Such issues include:

. closing service quality gaps;

. a focus on internal and external stakeholders, including staff; and

. a need to monitor the whole service delivery process and the role of strongorganisational values in motivating staff to deliver the services brand.

Services brands remain under-developed.

2.3 Modelling services brandingWith the growth of the importance of the services sector, there has been atendency to rely on branding models that were developed for product-basedbrands and this is one of the contributing factors to the relatively low number ofvaluable services brands (de Chernatony andMcDonald, 1998). The execution ofa services brand strategy needs more consideration because of factors such asthe intangible nature of services, the variable perceived quality of a servicesbrand which is reliant on all staff acting in the same way and the numerousinterfaces through which customers interact with the services brand. Unlikeproduct-based branding, the marketing department with its communicationsagency is not the critical determinant of the services brand’s personality andpositioning. Instead, the customer-facing staff and their supporting colleagueshave a greater impact on brand perceptions (Bitner et al., 1994). As such, brandbuilding needs to be based on a bottom-up perspective such as an upside-downorganisation pyramid, integrating all staff in the branding process.

Developing a successful services brand draws on some of the principles ofproduct-based branding, since the concept of a brand holds true between servicesand product markets (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999). A brand is acluster of functional and emotional values which promise a particular experience.In the case of product-based brands the cluster of values can be tightly controlledby production, communication and distribution systems. While these areimportant in services branding, albeit more difficult to control, corporate cultureplays a critical role through its potential to influence staff behaviour.

Just as the distinction has been drawn between product and services brands,it is worth reflecting on the distinction between line brands and corporatebrands. Line brands are individual services or product offerings, making apromise to consumers about a particular benefit that does not primarily drawon the reputation of the corporation. By contrast, a corporate brand majors onthe corporation’s identity to make a relevant and distinctive organisationalpromise to stakeholders (de Chernatony, 2001). This perspective on corporatebrands echoes that of other writers (e.g. Balmer, 2001).

Drawing on the literature, we postulate in Figure 2 the way that criticalfactors influence the development of successful services brands. The process

EJM37,7/8

1100

Figure 2.The criteria influencingthe success of services

brands

Successfulservices brands

1101

originates from the corporate culture, which defines the core values, andthereby encourages and endorses preferred forms of staff behaviour. Thisenables management to define the services brand’s promise in terms of howfunctional and emotional values should be blended to position the brand and togrow its personality. By communicating information about the service vision,the brand promise and consumer expectations, staff can better understand theirrole as brand builder. This can be enhanced through training. Complementingthis with highly co-ordinated service delivery systems, plus organisationalprocesses (such as staff development) that encourage shared values, enhancesthe likelihood of a consistently executed services brand encounter. These keyelements lie behind delivering to the consumer a match between the promisedand perceived services brand, which, in turn, reinforces a holistic brand imageon which greater consumer satisfaction depends. A long-term relationship oftrust between the services brand and the consumer informs and reinforces thecorporate culture in which the brand and the service delivery are embedded.

3. Research aim and methodologyStarting from the premise that there are critical issues that should drive brandsuccess, we sought to investigate the views of services branding consultants inorder to increase knowledge about what makes a services brand successful. Wefocused on senior consultants advising clients globally about servicesbranding, since they are at the forefront of application, have gainedconsiderable knowledge and experience and are influencing tomorrow’sservices branding agenda. Our aim was to appreciate what senior brandingconsultants saw as being critical for a services brand to be successful in orderto inform the development of a services branding model.

We deliberately sought leading-edge consultants’ views because of thebreadth of experience and the knowledge they have accumulated throughregularly working on services branding projects. When starting this projectthere were no models published about services branding and thus we did notset out to test specific points, rather to surface the views of knowledge-richexperts. One of the aims of this research is to develop and then subsequentlytest a model of services branding, using a combination of the available servicesbranding literature and this initial set of qualitative data. This paper presentsthe first stage of our services branding model building.

With such a paucity of literature on services branding, we wanted to unearthviews about factors driving brand success, rather than how to implementcritical factors. Interviewing services brand managers would have providedmore detail about implementation, but because of their focus on a narrow rangeof brands, we would need to interview a larger number of managers to drawinferences about the generality of factors across markets. It should berecognised that the competitive advantage of consultants derives from

EJM37,7/8

1102

retaining their intellectual capital. Therefore a weakness inherent in thissample is the possibility that some might hold back information.

Our research was exploratory in nature, seeking to elicit consultants’ viewswithin their frames of reference, without imposing our preconceptions. Themost appropriate method to achieve this was in-depth interviews (Jones, 1985;Gilmore and Carson, 1996). We identified consultancies in brand, advertising,design, marketing/management and market research, then either wrote to thechairman/managing director where we did not know the name of the mostsenior services branding consultant, or approached consultants directly.Although based around London, the respondents specialised in advisingnational and international clients on branding issues. Consultancies wereselected for their high profile in the services branding press, frequent presenceat branding conferences, books or papers written on the subject, or expertrecommendation. We also interviewed a management journalist recognised forhis visionary ideas about brand management. Details of the 28 interviewswhich were typically with chairmen, managing directors or directors are shownin Table I.

A topic guide was developed and each interview was around an hour.The interviews were recorded, then transcribed. This paper discussesresponses to the topic: “What are the characteristics you associate withsuccessful services brands?” Respondents were encouraged to speak asmuch, or as little, as they wished about characteristics and issues. We onlyprobed to seek clarification and to explore their comments further wheremore detail was required.

Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was conducted independently by bothauthors. Within the context of the research aim and following Miles andHuberman’s (1994) framework, the two authors noted patterns and themes inthe data, drew links with previous literature and identified categories relevantas criteria of success for services brands. The authors then compared theirindependent analyses and the concurrence score was calculated at 91 per cent.Inter-research differences were resolved through discussion and reference backto the transcriptions as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Type of consultancy Number of interviews

Advertising 9Design 5Marketing/management 5Brand 4Market research 4Management journalist 1Total 28

Table I.Details of the

sample

Successfulservices brands

1103

4. FindingsRecognising the limitations of tabulating qualitative findings (Gordon andLangmaid, 1988), Table II provides an overview of the broad multi-mentionedthemes. The two most frequently mentioned criteria for succeeding withservices brands were having a focused position and consistency, followed byvalues and systems. These themes will each be discussed in turn.

4.4 Focused positionAs Trout and Rivkin (1996) argued, societies have become over-communicated,with consumers being overwhelmed with data. Differentiating, then choosingbetween competing brands is becoming more challenging for consumers (Dibband Simkin, 1993; Shimp, 1997). To facilitate consumers’ choice processes, ithas been argued that brands need to be positioned in the minds of prospects sothey can instantly associate specific attributes (Ries and Trout, 1986). Thisrecommendation was echoed by several consultants. For example:

Clarity is probably one of the key words in service brands – about what the brand stands forin terms of the minds of the people that are buying it (design consultant).

Such clarity begins inside the organisation:

Clarity would be the first thing – a very clear view on the part of the owner, and therefore onthe part of the customer, or potential customer, what the thing is for (brand consultant).

A seminal paper by Miller (1956) on limitations of people’s cognitivecapabilities led to recommendations that communications about brands be keptsimple. Although this was certainly echoed by the consultants using termssuch as “clarity”, “absolute focus”, “few words”, “clear interpretation” and“ruthlessly articulate”, the further point that emerged very strongly for servicesbrands was that this clear positioning must be understood by both consumersand staff. For successful services brands, consumers do not just interpret thebrand from advertisements, but from all their contact points with the

Theme Frequency of mention by respondents

Focused position 18Consistency 15Values 11Systems 5Models 5Communication 4Innovation 4Relationships 3Emotion 3Added value 2Commitment 2Competitive advantage 2

Table II.Themes associatedwith successfulservices brands

EJM37,7/8

1104

organisation taken as a whole. This idea of focus and clarity then implies that“every interface with that organisation has delivered things in a veryconsistent way” (design consultant). This necessitates service staff fullyunderstanding “what the brand is supposed to mean – because it is so easy forthings to vary you can’t allow any tolerance” (advertising consultant).

A further implication of the limitation of people’s cognitive capabilities(Antonides and van Raaij, 1998) is the need to major on a low number ofassociations. One brand consultant used a low number of associations as acriteria for brand success, i.e. “the consumer no longer asks if Direct Line (UKtelephone insurer) is cheap or whether First Direct (UK 24 hour telephonebanker) is available”. Despite awareness that “the positioning decision oftenmeans selecting those associations which are to be built on and emphasisedand those associations which are to be removed or de-emphasised” (Aaker andShansby, 1982, p. 56), another brand consultant was critical of services brands“trying to be everything to everyone – they have tried not to exclude anyimages and not to exclude any features”.

Rossiter and Percy (1997) argued that crisp positioning statements shouldconcentrate on associating a brand with a benefit. This was illustrated by abrand consultant talking about helping grow a hotel brand though re-definingits positioning among staff as “providing away from home experiences”. Staffhad earlier conceived their brand as being about room occupancy rates andcapacity management so that the new positioning contributed to a new style ofstaff behaviour.

Three consultants spoke about positioning services brands inside the mindsof staff. Ensuring that staff understand the unique attributes of their brandmakes them better able to support it. As a brand consultant said “it’s muchmore important that the brand achieves reality within the minds of the peopledelivering it because they are the brand in the service domain”. An advertisingconsultant spoke about the importance of clarifying “what are we here todeliver and what makes us special”, and placing this within a more strategicvision of the brand. After one such strategic analysis another advertisingconsultant spoke about effective implementation being dependent on the clarityof internally communicating the brand positioning. He observed: “when youare talking to thousands of people they have to be able to understand what it isyou want them to do”. His consultancy uses a simple communications modelconsisting of a roof as the positioning and a maximum of four pillars whichprovide the “broad themes the company is going to follow to implement theroof”.

Doyle (1998) clarified a process which moves from segmentation to targetingto positioning to develop a focused strategy that might outperform competitors.Four consultants spoke about successful services brands “having a clear ideaabout who your customers are and what their needs are” (advertisingconsultant) so “you can focus on these needs” (management consultant). A

Successfulservices brands

1105

design consultant was cautious about taking segmentation data at face value“as an individual has a variety of roles – father one minute, DIY person anotherminute and a leisure person another minute”. For him, services brands thrivewhen they are able to encompass a target market which exhibits a variety oflifestyles. Ultimately, a powerful brand positioning, argued a brand consultant,must “overcome inertia” to switch people from competing brands.

As markets mature and competition grows, it becomes more difficult toidentify attractive brand positionings (Hooley et al., 1998). Interestingly, twoconsultancies had moved beyond the concept of positioning. An advertisingconsultant spoke about philosophy as “a bigger concept than the positioning ofa brand”. Thus some service brands “represent a point of view, or philosophy”that allows them to develop into other areas which are consistent with thatphilosophy. He argued that Orange (international mobile telephony) stands formore than just a positioning in mobile telephones, it has challenger qualities. Abrightness and newness is associated with it that “would allow it to make acredible extension into banking or other utility services” where it would offer adifferent, and welcomed view in a market of complacent players. A marketingconsultant drew the distinction between positioning and revelation. Whilepositioning depends on consumer research to identify attractive positions, hewas critical about the superficiality of corporate assessments of their capabilityto deliver the positioning and the naivety of their assumptions that marketingdepartments could change the internal structures of the firm and the behaviourof all staff. By contrast, in revelation, research is undertaken focusing on the“original genetics of the business” to “ascertain what there is in your people, inthe way they behave, what it is about your product/service that you can usebranding to make more apparent to your market place”. The example wasgiven of an established Dutch bank seeking to develop a brand identity. Itshistory was that of a co-operative bank which helped farmers invest theircapital after each harvest. This origin revealed a culture of staff having time toserve and advise customers. Having rediscovered this point of culturaldifference, work was undertaken to develop a visual identity around the themeof having more time for customers.

While some authors stress the importance of brand building which majorson unique cultures (e.g. Mitchell, 1997; Ind, 1998; de Chernatony, 1999) theconcept of revelation is but one technique which places the emphasis oninternal issues.

4.1.1. Issues arising from the theme of focused position.The findings insection 4.1 suggest a number of issues in support of the importance of a focusedposition. A focused position will be demonstrated by a short, concise statementbased on the brand being associated with a restricted number of benefits as, forexample, in the model of a roof (positioning) supported by four pillars (themes).The selected benefits must be clearly communicated to both staff andconsumers.

EJM37,7/8

1106

In terms of positioning, services brands must use clarity of focus to attractcustomers from competitor brands. Indeed, successful services brands oftenmove beyond positioning to encompass a philosophy which the service brandembodies. Such an underlying philosophy must contain or reveal the genuinecultural attributes of the organisation (“revelation”) and then be reproduced toboth consumers and staff. Successful services brands thus evolve from aunique culture which is revealed both in the brand and in the attitude andbehaviour of staff as they represent the brand to consumers.

4.2 ConsistencyConsistency was seen as being almost as important as focused positioning insuccessful services brands. As many others have observed (e.g. Lovelock et al.,1999) services marketing presents the challenge of variable quality arisingfrom dependency on staff behaviour and consumer/staff interactions. This wasmentioned by eight consultants, and is summarised by an advertisingconsultant:

The single most important and most difficult factor is achieving some kind of consistency inthe experience that consumers have of the brand.

Later we explore themes for ensuring consistent staff behaviour, but it is worthconsidering the views of two consultants. Both argued that consistency couldbe encouraged through systems. For example, the way the UK telephoneinsurance company First Direct uses IT to get representatives to ask, in almosta mechanical manner, a few questions to help locate the caller’s details on theirdatabase. Once confirmed, the support of the database facilitates a morepersonal interaction. When developing support systems for staff, theorganisation needs to consider how these can be implemented across allpoints of customer contact. The example was given of a holiday company’srepresentatives who are well recruited, trained and motivated, but within twoweeks of arriving in a resort, their behaviour lapsed because there was nosupport system.

Brands succeed through consistency of approach across all stakeholders, notjust consumers (Kapferer, 1997). To illustrate this, an advertising consultantcontrasted the consistent values of a successful mobile telephone brand withthe inconsistent brand values of a bank. The mobile telephone brand was ableto sustain coherence whether dealing with ecological, staff or consumer issues,while the bank had totally different styles of staff behaviour between itsoverdraft services and mortgage services, despite consumer perception thatthese were the same brand.

That is an example of one of the most common service quality gaps(Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996) which occurs when expectations created bycorporate communications are not met by staff behaviour. Unsurprisingly, sixof the consultants spoke about the need for greater consistency between

Successfulservices brands

1107

communications about the services brand and staff behaviour. As a marketresearch consultant stated:

Their ability to deliver what they say they are going to deliver . . . that consistency is one ofthe attributes of a successful services brand.

Walt Disney (American global media and leisure company) was cited as beingsuccessful because of the way they “walk the talk” (advertising consultant). Adesign consultant praised the consistency between communication and staffbehaviour at First Direct, noting:

. . . if an envelope falls through the door, the feel, style and logo are all consistent and then youget consistency reinforced in the phone call.

Consistency also needs to extend to integrated marketing communications (e.g.Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Kendall, 1999) and two consultants spoke aboutthis need for consistency within the promotions mix. For example, a designconsultant spoke about airline travellers picking up messages about an airlinethrough many points of contact and the need to ensure a consistent brandnarrative.

While the majority of comments about consistency related to internallymanaged aspects of staff behaviour and communication, two consultantsargued that successful services brands are those that achieve consistentperceptions among consumers. A market research consultant spoke about“Critical mass – sufficient people believing the same kind of things aboutthe brand” and another market research consultant spoke about “everyonehas the same impression, a consistency of impressions about what thebrand stands for”. Models exist to assess consumers’ brand perceptions(e.g. Cowley, 1991; Aaker, 1996; Hart and Murphy, 1998; Keller, 1998) fromwhich managers can devise strategies to enhance consistency.

4.2.1. Issues arising from the theme of consistency. The discussion in section4.2 suggests successful services brands depend heavily on achievingconsistency in all stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of the brand. Westress stakeholders, not just consumers, since the consumer’s experience isdependent on consistency of understanding throughout the whole chain ofactivities in the organisation. As a result of this, successful services brandshave systems designed to encourage consistency between the brand’s valuesand staff behaviour, as well as consistency between external and internalcommunication and staff behaviour.

4.3 ValuesThe third most important theme about successful services brands is that theygrow from organisations which have a clear view about their values, inparticular a “culture which is focused on doing the right things for thecustomer” (management journalist). The relationship between values andbehaviour is well documented (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988; Buchanan and

EJM37,7/8

1108

Huczynski, 1997). In the services branding context the consultants referred tovalues driving behaviour in two separate ways: first as a point of difference,stimulating a unique style of staff behaviour; second as a source of motivationfor staff. However, while some spoke about developing values that excite staffto deliver “above and beyond the call of duty stuff because they are passionateand believe in the organisation” (design consultant), others were more cynicalas in: “a lot of stuff about living the brand and values and culture is actuallymanipulative” (management journalist). Some (e.g. de Chernatony, 1999;Thomson, 1998) have argued for more emphasis on internal branding to enablestaff to understand and be committed to delivering their brands’ values. Tosucceed, though, it is important to have commitment throughout theorganisation. As a management journalist observed, often “the board itselfhasn’t adopted these ways. It’s not living the brand, it’s expecting staff to livethe brand. So it’s all phoney and of course people can see through itimmediately.” This links back to our discussion of the need for consistency insection 4.2.

Several routes were suggested for capitalising on brand values to motivateand encourage consistent staff behaviour. An advertising consultant noted that“there are problems with this living the brand thing as it’s got a slighttotalitarian edge – you know, you will think this, your values will be this”.Instead he suggested “not to ask your staff to live the brand, but to act it”. TheDisney organisation was given as an example of this where “one knows itshonest acting”. Such an approach has proved successful for severalorganisations, but building on the comments about revelation in section 4.1,we believe that when another competitor appears with values that are notsuperficially enacted, but are genuinely espoused by staff, this will undermineestablished players.

Two consultants provided further criticism of the acting strategy. Anadvertising consultant argued there are service brands “that have a genuine setof brand values and those that have a set of brand guidelines”. Managerstherefore need to spend time evaluating whether their brand values aresuperficial, since only deeper conviction can enable behaviour, innovation andbrand communication to evolve. Another advertising consultant argued thatstrong brands are based “not simply on good business principles, but a set ofpersonal convictions” (see the comments in section 4.1 from a differentconsultant concerning “philosophy brands”). Echoing Collins and Porras(1996), he argued that businesses based on convictions are more successfulthan those solely driven by profit.

An advertising consultant felt successful services brands are more likelywhen staff are recruited who are passionate about service and join a culturewhere this passion is embedded. In his opinion this is sufficiently importantthat “you need a passion first and then the process – if you’ve got the processand no passion, you’re done for”. He and a management journalist both felt that

Successfulservices brands

1109

a driving passion from the founder or senior managers encourages staff toreflect this in their behaviour.

What has emerged from the consultants is that staff are critical in servicesbranding and by recruiting staff whose values are broadly aligned with thebrand, there is a greater likelihood of succeeding. As a design consultantexplained, sustaining a competitive advantage through staff will necessitatestrategies to encourage them to want to stay with the firm as “internal loyaltywill be a big issue for services brands in the future”. Many serviceorganisations are addressing this need through continuous training and staffdevelopment programmes.

4.3.1. Issues arising from the theme of values. Successful services brandsare characterised by organisations with core values which are deeplyembedded. When these values are enacted with conviction by theorganisation’s management, they are more likely to result in genuine staffconviction. Once again, staff attitudes and behaviour are shown to be criticalfor successful services brands. A deep, rather than superficial, serviceculture is more likely to avoid the potential pitfalls of cynicism in living thebrand’s values.

4.4 SystemsThe issue of systems was mentioned earlier when we considered theimportance of consistency. Not surprisingly, therefore, the consultants’comments about the broad theme of systems are mainly concerned withinsights into how they contribute to ensuring consistency. Partly as a result ofthe significant growth in the services sector, many firms have systems thatonce were suitable, but are now less effective (Hammer and Champy, 1993;Mitchell, 1997). One brand consultant argued that some firms are reluctant tochange or even review their systems. With their systems “being stuck in themud”, their brands will be undermined and overtaken by those more receptiveto new business systems. As a management consultant argued, “informationtechnology has a huge role to play in services brands . . . unfortunately a lot ofpeople don’t understand how they can use IT”. Part of the problem, suggestedan advertising consultant, is that too few have “articulated a system thatrecognised what matters and deliver on it”.

Good supporting systems which increase efficiency will soon be “hygienefactors” (market research consultants) which are necessary, simply to remaincompetitive. What will be a differentiating factor is the extent to which staffunderstand the nature of their brand and appreciate their role and the systemsrole in supporting it. This was made clear by a brand consultant who indicatedcases where emphasis had been placed, not on the supporting systems, but onsupporting staff to enact the brand’s values in their interactions withconsumers. This reinforces, once again, the need for service brands to besupported by upside-down organisational pyramids.

EJM37,7/8

1110

4.4.1. Issues arising from the theme of systems. In the short term, successfulservices brands will be associated with firms that install appropriatesupporting systems for staff. However, that is a necessary but not a sufficientcondition for successful services brands. In the longer term, success will comethrough staff fully understanding the nature of their brand and being able tosupport it through consistent styles of behaviour. Therefore, while servicesbrands need supporting systems, allowing staff to rapidly communicate witheach other, and which provide customer-facing staff with up-to-dateinformation, consistent delivery of the services brand also depends onunderstanding the nature of their brand. Systems therefore support thetechnical outcome but do not replace the services branding process.

4.5 Other themesSeveral other themes emerged although at lower levels of frequency.

Some consultancies have models to help develop their clients’ servicesbrands. Unfortunately, their details were withheld, due to their commercialvalue.

Having good internal and external communication was mentioned by someas important, although as a market research consultant stated: “but it’sconsistency which is the most important thing”. That suggests it is consistencybetween internal and external communication that was the overridingconsideration. The call to action was also made by a management consultantarguing:“The business goes into some kind of misconception that because it istalking about the brand and because it has sort of understood the philosophy,that it is finished and there’s no change required”. His point was that “there’sthis apparent illusion of activity, whereas beneath the surface nothing haschanged”. Thus there is a need to monitor the impact of communication onactual changes in behaviour and help staff recognise areas where change issought.

Adding value through innovative ideas was seen as a way of strengtheningservices brands. As the consultants noted, this did not have to be a quantumleap, but rather incremental enhancements such as “people holding an umbrellaas you go to your car when it’s raining” (management consultant), However, asa design consultant noted, to be effective the innovation should also beaccompanied by new forms of staff behaviour so that “by doing something in adifferent way, that is stimulating and enjoyable, they’ll start to think and throwout different thoughts”. In this way staff contribute to the continuous cycle ofservices innovation.

Three consultants spoke about the quality of the relationship between thebrand and consumers as being important. One specific theme emphasised by amanagement consultant was the need for a continued relationship throughoutthe extended consumption chain of the services brand (e.g. holiday, restaurant,flight) “managing the customer relationship through both negative and

Successfulservices brands

1111

positive experiences”. This multi-faceted perspective on relationships was alsodiscussed by the other two consultants. A brand consultant explained,“successful services brands are a bit like your ship and they moor you to theirquay with lots of rope – but if there are a number of bonds it’s more difficult forthe competitor to cut one”. To his mind, having a portfolio of brands offersmore ways of developing relationships. An advertising consultant argued“quality of relationship first and foremost because it is intangible there is not akind of product performance reinforcement going on”. Using a currentconsulting project, he spoke about how the services brand relationship is basedon a series of factors such as staff behaviour, the firm’s stance on certain issuesand consumers’ perceptions of each.

Such perceptions can be the basis of emotional characteristics for a brand,what “makes people feel good”, according to one advertising consultant.Services brands were seen as no different to product brands when it comes tothe importance of having emotional characteristics. One contributor to brandsuccess, argued a design consultant, is managing the emotion evoked by thebrand at each point of contact with consumers. For services brands, managingemotional characteristics is a blend of “what you do and how you do it”(advertising consultant) so that “successful brands have both worked out ‘howto do it’ and then trains, motivates and tells its staff how to do it”.

It is widely accepted that all successful brands are based on a competitiveadvantage (de Chernatony and McDonald, 1998). Two consultants spoke about“some basis of distinctiveness which is sustained over time and the brand canlever”. For successful services brands the insight that is emerging is ofcompany-wide commitment as such a source of distinctiveness and potentialadvantage. As a brand consultant explained, it’s not just designing a logo, butrather gaining the commitment among all staff, first to understand the brandand then to support it. Reinforcing this, a design consultant commented “thebiggest challenge is within the internal audience to believe in the purpose ofthis organisation to deliver the attitude”.

4.5.1. Issues arising from other themes. In these further themes it isnoteworthy that staff contribution is mentioned in relation to each element. Inmanaging the link between internal and external communication; incontributing to the continuous cycle of services innovation; in managing therelationship throughout the extended consumption chain of the services brand;in managing the emotion evoked by the brand at each point of contact withconsumers; staff behaviour is paramount within each element. Successfulservices brands are therefore characterised by a company-wide commitment toensuring that the emotional relationship across all points of consumer contactis consistent. Company-wide commitment is needed to achieve consistencybetween the communications for a successful services brand and the nature ofthe brand, with internal communication explaining, encouraging andreinforcing appropriate staff behaviour.

EJM37,7/8

1112

4.6 Modelling the criteria influencing the success of services brandsThe interviews with the brand consultants provide support for the servicesbranding model postulated in Figure 2. Many of their comments reflected thecriteria that are shown in this model. However, some additional points may benoted.

The literature suggested to us that corporate culture is a critical issuebecause of the way that it defines values and thereby affects staff behaviour.What had been overlooked was the importance of a culture which encouragesinnovation and thus a style of behaviour that can adapt to brand innovations.Furthermore, as organisations plan for growth through services brandinnovation, the systems supporting and delivering the brand need up-grading.Assuming that existing support systems are sufficient for a firm’s evolvingbrand appears to be naı̈ve and too focused on short term cost savings.

The model in Figure 2 did not explicitly refer to the services brand’scompetitive advantage resulting from its added value. This important factorwould best fit into the domain “Define the brand promise”. It was clear from theinterviews that the consultants have models which enable them to define theirclients’ brand promises, but due to their proprietary nature, they were notprepared to discuss these. Such models would doubtless capitalise on theservices brand’s competitive advantage and would specify how the brand addsvalue to the consumer’s experience. Researchers and managers employing ourmodel should make explicit, within their brand promise, how this builds on thebrand’s competitive advantage.

5. Discussion and managerial implicationsFor services firms seeking to improve consumer perceptions of their brand andenhance their successful management, this study has generated implicationsbased on insights from leading-edge consultants. The key themes stronglyreflect the major points reviewed from the literature, in particular those pointsemphasised in the service management literature concerning the serviceencounter, the motivation of staff and the marketing/operations interface. Thisstudy has integrated this dispersed literature and shown its application inservices branding. Furthermore, the study has proposed a model for servicesbranding, which reflects the numerous themes mentioned in the literature andhas been augmented by the consultants.

The most frequently mentioned theme associated with successful servicesbrands is a focused position with a well-specified, but limited number ofselected benefits. Focused position was strongly linked with communication, toensure comprehension among both staff and consumers. Clarity of focus canprovide a key competitive tool to attract customers from competitors’ brands.At its best, clarity of focus will move beyond simple positioning of the servicesbrand and be derived from “revelation”. Revelation of the genuine culturalattributes of the organisation should be what the services brand is built on. In

Successfulservices brands

1113

this way the brand captures the link between market position andorganisational values. It is the channel by which the genuine values andculture of the organisation are demonstrated externally to consumers andinternally to staff. The services brand should be the vehicle for consistencybetween the external and the internal, as well as understandings shared byboth consumers and staff.

Consistency was the second most frequently mentioned critical theme. Itmust extend to encompass the experience of the brand by all stakeholders,not just consumers. There must be common perceptions of the brandamong all stakeholders. Staff are especially critical stakeholders sincebrand consistency is dependent on understanding of the brand throughoutthe organisation. Successful services brands are more likely fromorganisations whose systems are designed to encourage consistencybetween the brand’s values and staff behaviour, as well as consistencybetween external and internal stakeholders.

Values was the third most frequently mentioned critical theme. Managersare encouraged to avoid a cynical manipulation of organisational values butinstead to represent core values in their own behaviour. Other themes whichemerged, such as emotion and commitment, reinforce the message thatorganisations with superficial core values, cynically manipulated bymanagement, are unlikely to encourage genuine staff conviction. Once again,staff attitudes and behaviour are shown to be critical for successful servicesbrands. However, the point that is being stressed here is the responsibility ofmanagers in creating an organisational culture where managementcommitment precedes staff commitment.

The view that emerged was that systems were a necessary, but notsufficient, condition for success. While systems that allow staff to rapidlycommunicate with each other, and provide customer-facing staff withup-to-date information are fundamental, systems alone will not deliversuccessful services brands. That depends on consistent behaviour in meetingthe expectations of the service brand through the responses of service staff.

In considering the remaining themes arising such as communication,relationships, emotion and added value, staff contribution recurs as animportant part of each theme as, for example, in managing the link betweeninternal and external communication.

The model of services branding enables a pan-company perspective to beadopted. Each of the factors surfaced from the literature, and from theconsultants, should not be viewed in isolation. Rather they should beconsidered as part of an interacting system which, when co-ordinated, is likelyto engender more coherently integrated services brands and greaterconsistency in the services brand encounter. Focusing on some of the criteriain isolation may be regarded as entry-level good marketing practice, but when

EJM37,7/8

1114

conceived and planned through the interacting system model of servicesbranding, a stronger services brand should result.

To summarise, a number of critical factors stand out. There is a need forruthless clarity, not just about the positioning of the brand, but equally aboutthe genuine values within the organisation that the brand represents. Suchorganisational values must be reflected in people believing the same kinds ofthings about the brand. Shared values are more likely to arise whenmanagement behaviour is based on genuine conviction, which should result incommitment, internal loyalty, a clearly understood internal brand and theability to deliver a consistent approach across stakeholders. It is clear that staffare crucial in services branding and that staff commitment has to precedeconsumer commitment.

Other studies (Bitner et al., 1990) have emphasised the importance of staffknowledge for the constructive interaction of staff and customers. Managershave the ability to influence the level of knowledge available to customer-facingstaff; therefore systems must be designed primarily as staff enablers. Front-lineservice staff have a disproportionate impact on consumers’ experiences ofservices brands. Managers, in turn, have a disproportionately large role inensuring that knowledge, training, systems and commitment are in place toenable staff to deliver the services brand values to all the organisation’sstakeholders.

6. ConclusionsOur study deepens knowledge and understanding of the factors affectingsuccessful services brands. Unlike previous research that has concentrated ondifferences between product brands and services brands, we have identifiedthemes specific to services brands. Our results surfaced three criteria ofimportance in the success of services brands:

(1) focused position;

(2) consistency; and

(3) values.

Furthermore, our study has enabled a services branding model to be proposedwhich integrates the various criteria for success within a systems prospective.As this model illustrates, what has emerged both from the theory and theinterviews, is an underlying theme that growing and managing successfulservices brands is value-dependent and service encounter-dependent, becauseservices brands are relation-based both internally and externally.

The results are theoretically fruitful in suggesting hypotheses that could betested in future research. For example, the relative importance of these threekey success criteria could be tested in a variety of service industries differing intheir balance of service characteristics, such as the mix of tangible to intangiblecomponents. Different groupings of criteria are likely to result for service

Successfulservices brands

1115

industries such as professional services in which service interactions along thechain of consumption are especially complex and long-term.

We focused on leading-edge consultants to access their rich knowledge ofsuccessful services branding principles. A future study could interviewservices brand managers to surface insights about best practices implementingthese principles.

Another direction for future research would concentrate on the key theme of“consistency” and identify more precisely the relationships between the humanand non-human elements involved in achieving consistency in support ofservices brands in different services contexts.

References

Aaker, D. and Shansby, J.G. (1982), “Positioning your product”, Business Horizons, Vol. 25 No. 3,pp. 56-62.

Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Albrecht, K. and Zemke, R. (1985), Service America, Dow Jones, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1996), “Brand development versus new product development: towardsa process model of extension decisions”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 7,pp. 10-19.

Antonides, G. and van Raaij, W.F. (1998), Consumer Behaviour, John Wiley, Chichester.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Berry, L., Lefkowith, E. and Clark, T. (1988), “In services, what’s in a name”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 66, pp. 28-30.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B. and Mohr, L. (1994), “Critical services encounters: the employees’viewpoints”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosingfavourable and unfavourable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January, pp. 71-84.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1995), “Empowering service employees”, Sloan ManagementReview, Summer, pp. 73-84.

Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (1997), Organisational Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, HemelHempstead.

Camp, L. (1996), “Latest thinking on optimisation of brand use in financial services marketing”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 241-7.

Camp, L. (1999), “Positioning and communication issues in building financial services brands”,Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 243-9.

Cleaver, C. (1999), “Brands as the catalyst”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 5,pp. 309-12.

Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1996), Built to Last, Century, London.

Cowley, D. (Ed.) (1991), Understanding Brands, Kogan Page, London.

Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Lee, M. (1997), “A customer-based taxonomy of services:implications for service marketers”, Advances in Services Marketing and Management,Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 106-18.

EJM37,7/8

1116

de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through narrowing the gap between brandidentity and brand reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1-3,pp. 157-79.

de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ views about defining services brandsand the principles of services branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46 No. 2,pp. 181-92.

de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Services andIndustrial Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building on services’ characteristics to developsuccessful services brands”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 7-8, pp. 645-69.

Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1993), “The strength of branding and positioning in services”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-35.

Doyle, P. (1989), “Building successful brands: the strategic options”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-95.

Doyle, P. (1998), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1997), Driving Brand Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Farnfield, I. (1999), “Driving for effective positioning and competitive differentiation”, Journal ofBrand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 250-7.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumerresearch”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, March, pp. 343-73.

Free, C. (1996), “Building a financial brand you can bank on”, Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-34.

Free, C. (1999), “The internal brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 231-6.

Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (1996), “Management competences for services marketing”, Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 39-57.

Gordon, W. and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market Research, Gower, Aldershot.

Gronroos, C. (1990), Services Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Gronroos, C. (2000), Services Management and Marketing, 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation, Nicholas Brealey Publishing,London.

Hart, S. and Murphy, J. (1998), Brands: The New Wealth Creators, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Heskett, J.L. (1987), “Lessons in the service sector”, Harvard Business Review, March-April,pp. 118-26.

Heskett, J.L. (1994), “Putting the service profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review,March-April, pp. 164-74.

Hooley, G., Saunders, J. and Piercy, N. (1998), Marketing Strategy & Competitive Positioning,Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Ind, N. (1998), “An integrated approach to corporate branding”, Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 323-32.

Jones, S. (1985), “Depth interviewing”, in Walker, R. (Ed.), Applied Qualitative Research, Gower,Aldershot.

Kapferer, J.-N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.

Successfulservices brands

1117

Keller, K. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Kendall, N. (Ed.) (1999), Advertising Works 10, NTC Publications, Henley-on-Thames.

Kochan, N. (Ed.) (1996), The World’s Greatest Brands, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Kotter, J. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New York,NY.

Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, BeverlyHills, CA.

Levitt, T. (1972), “Production-line approach to service”, Harvard Business Review,September-October, pp. 41-2.

Levitt, T. (1976), “Industrialisation of service”, Harvard Business Review No. September-October,pp. 63-74.

Lovelock, C.H. (1988), Managing Services: Marketing Operations and Human Resources,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lovelock, C., Vandermerwe, S. and Lewis, B. (1999), Services Marketing: A European Perspective,Prentice-Hall, London.

Miles, M. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Miller, G. (1956), “The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity forprocessing information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 81-97.

Mitchell, A. (1997), Brand Strategies in the Information Age, Financial Times Business Ltd,London.

Normann, R. (1984), Service Management, Wiley, Chichester.

Onkvisit, S. and Shaw, J. (1989), “Services marketing: image, branding and competition”,Business Horizons, January-February, pp. 13-18.

Quinn, J.B. and Paquette, P. (1990), “Technology in services: creating organisational revolutions”,Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 58-68.

Reynolds, T. and Gutman, J. (1988), “Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation”,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28, February/March, pp. 11-31.

Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1986), Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Rossiter, J. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising Communication & Promotion Management,McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Shimp, T. (1997), Advertising, Promotion and Supplemental Aspects of Integrated MarketingCommunications, Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.

Shostack, G.L. (1977), “Breaking free from product marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41,April, pp. 73-80.

Thomson, K. (1998), Emotional Capital, Capstone, Oxford.

Trout, J. and Rivkin, S. (1996), The New Positioning, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ward, S., Light, L. and Goldstine, J. (1999), “What high-tech managers need to know aboutbrands”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 85-95.

Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

EJM37,7/8

1118