• Tiada Hasil Ditemukan

2.7 REPUTATION AND IDENTITY

2.7.1 Brand and Reputation

According to Olins (2002), France is probably the one country that has been most influential in the branding and rebranding of its image. Just like Spain and Ireland, many other nations whose reality has dramatically changed because, for example, of the collapse of communism, are looking for ways of demonstrating their tourist potential, attracting inward investment or developing brands for both home consumption and export. These newly reinvented nations are competing both with each other and with older established entities in a very harsh and turbulent commercial environment. The nation that makes itself the most attractive wins the prizes while others suffer. This can be illustrated by Scotland, a small county that has been around for a long time. It is symbolized by tartans, kilts, Scotch whisky, the Highlands, ‘Braveheart’, and the Edinburgh Festival. Other countries of a similar size, say Slovakia or Slovenia, are not as fortunate since many people know where they are or the significant differences between them. In order to compete effectively on a world stage, these countries need all the resources contemporary branding techniques can offer.

Yet, branding the nation is not identical to branding a company or a university.

Only the techniques used may be similar (Olins, 2002). However, Olins suggested that

51 what mattered was that the people working in a company or in the university or living in a nation can be motivated and inspired and manipulated in the same way, using the same techniques. Further, he pointed out that branding businesses and nations are similar processes as brands help to create a sense of identity, of belonging, just like the nation.

A brand is a consistent group of characteristics, images, or emotions that consumers recall or experience when they think of a specific symbol, product, service, organization or location (Simeon, 2006). He added that brand recognition occurs when brand qualities are generally known by consumers. If a brand has accumulated widespread positive sentiment among consumers, marketers refer to this as acquiring brand equity which is its ability to retain current customers and attract new ones.

Holistically, a brand represents the synergistic effect of all marketing efforts that instil and perpetuate an image in customers’ minds. The brand brings about stronger cash flows and higher values for shareholders, thus contributing to the success of an organization (Yovovich, 1988).

Besides, a brand can be used as a corporate strategic tool to enhance an organization’s performance (Mosmans, 1996; Mosmans & van der Vorst, 1998) and branding strategy is widely recognized as a source of competitive advantage in domestic markets (Biel, 1992; Calderon et al., 1997; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; de Chernatony, 2001; Farquhar, 1994; Moore et al., 2000; Mosmans, 1996; Mosmans &

van der Vorst, 1998; Rubinstein, 1996).

Traditionally, branding was associated with consumer goods and historically branding as a concept can be traced back to the late nineteenth century with the development of branded consumer products such as Quaker Oats and Gillette (Low &

Fullerton, 1994). The topic of branding first surfaced in marketing literature when

52 Banks wrote the first paper on the subject (Banks, 1950) which has since, become the core foci of modern marketing (Keller, 1998). In addition, authors such as Aaker, de Chernatony, Kapferer and Keller contributed significantly to the evolution of branding theory. In particular, de Chernatony and his colleagues (de Chernatony & Riley, 1999;

de Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2001, 2003a, b; de Chernatony & McDonald, 2003; de Chernatony et al. , 2004) placed special emphasis on developing the brand concept in services.

Various definitions have been put forth to capture the essence of branding. For example, Aaker (1991, p. 7) viewed a brand as ‘a distinguishing name and / or a symbol (such as logo, trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from competitors who would attempt to provide products that appear to be identical’. A more recent definition was suggested by de Chernatony (2009, p. 104) who defined a brand ‘as a cluster of values that enables a promise to be made about a unique and welcoming experience’. The vital role that strong brands play in marketing strategy can be clearly illustrated nowadays as it provides differentiation and competitive advantage for physical goods as well as for services. As de Chernatony (2009, p. 101) stated, ‘one of the initial roles of a brand is to attract attention and stand out from competitors’.

Aaker (1996) pointed out that a strong brand is thought to add saliency to products and services, to impart perceptions of quality and value, and thereby to cultivate market share and customer loyalty.

Although the literature regarding brands and branding has grown considerably in recent years, the issue of brands and branding services have been much neglected (Moorthi, 2002; Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007). There is a dearth in empirical research on branding higher-education institutions (Balmer & Liao, 2007;

53 Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007; Vrontis et al., 2007; Waeraas & Solbakk, 2009), especially considering that branding has become a strategic managerial issue for universities (Jevons, 2006). Prior research in this area include Gray et al. (2003) who studied the positioning of university brands in Asian markets; Benett and Ali Choudhury’s (2009) exploration of prospective students’ perceptions of university brands; Ali-Choudhury et al.’s (2009) investigation of the university brand components based on university marketing directors’ views; and Shahaida et al.’s (2009) proposed conceptual model of brand building for business schools in India. Considerable work on university branding had also been done by Chapleo (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008).

The importance of brand reputation in marketing strategy has also been highlighted in marketing literature with recent studies uncovering the impact of brand reputation on product sales (Ward & Lee, 2000; Ward & Ostrom, 2003; Rowley, 2004).

Aaker and Keller (1990) defined brand reputation as a perception of quality associated with the name, whereas Dawar and Parker (1994) asserted that consumers’ choices are usually influenced by brand name, pricing and company reputation as signs of product quality.

Reputation is one of the primary contributors to perceived quality of goods carrying a brand name. Organizations (universities and hospitals included), companies and brands with a good reputation are likely to attract more customers as buyers form positive views only if they perceive the brand to be credible. Thus it is imperative that brands have a positive reputation to be successful and profitable (Herbig & Milewicz, 1995). The brand’s existing reputation provides the basis for the customers’

anticipation that a brand will meet their expectations. Customers will not perceive a brand as reliable and credible when it does not deliver what it promises (Herbig &

Milewicz, 1995). Brand reputation occurs primarily through the signals that producers

54 send to the market, and the degree to which the organizational tactics support the marketing signals (Herbig & Milewicz, 1995). Reputation is considered to be a valued asset (Chiles & McMackin, 1996), and is generally associated with the name of the company (Aaker & Keller, 1990). For example, the Mayo Clinic is considered to be a successful example of powerful brand reputation beyond its local market mainly because of positive word-of-mouth and powerful customer loyalty (Berry &

Bendapudi, 2003), indicating that in the corporate world, reputation is one of the major factors that strongly affects consumer purchase decisions (Kowalczyk & Pawlish, 2002).

Brand reputation is of great importance in the services sector despite its intangibility and difficulty in evaluating its quality and performance (Herbig &

Milewicz, 1995; Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997; Saxton, 1998; Papasolomou &

Vrontis, 2006). However, Dibb and Simkin (1993), and Kapferer (1992) pointed out that branding culture is not strongly established in service organizations. According to According to Berry et al. (1988), the service sector is unique in the sense that the company name is the brand name, as services do not lend themselves to individual branding in the way physical goods do (Turley & Moore, 1995).

A university ’ s brand is defined by Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009, pp. 85 – 86) as ‘a manifestation of the institution’s features that distinguish it from others, reflecting its capacity to satisfy students’ needs, engendering trust in its ability to deliver a certain type and level of higher education, and helping potential recruits to make wise enrolment decisions’. Bennett and Ali-Choudhury (2009) suggested that the components of a university brand mainly consist of:

1. a collection of promises presented to the outside world concerning the

brand’s benefits (that is, high-caliber faculty, career prospects on graduation,

55 opportunities for in-campus socialization, sport facilities and so on).

2. a set of distinctive features that define the brand’s inherent nature and reality (that is, university’s matriculation requirements, student drop-out rates,

whether the university is elite and exclusive rather than comprehensive and mass market, whether it places research above teaching and whether it offers desirable degree programs, campus safety, security and so on), and,

3. an assortment of aesthetic designations and external communications that describe the brand (that is, name, logo and advertisement designs).

A strong university brand can produce the belief that an institution is excellent (Palacio et al., 2002), thus presenting themselves as a ‘top’, ‘leading’ or ‘world-class’

university (Belanger et al , 2002). However, Chapleo (2005) pointed out that only a few UK universities have fully developed ‘successful’ brands like commercial organizations, and that the most important attributes of successful brands are marketing communication, reputation, location and public relations.

Reputation is conceptualized as an on-going evaluation process by relevant stakeholders (Rindova et al., 2005; Barnett et al., 2006), constituted in discursive practices (Coupland & Brown, 2004; Middleton, 2009; La¨hdesma¨ki & Siltaoja, 2010).

The interest in corporate reputation has grown steadily (Fombrun, 1996; Barnett et al., 2006). Efforts have been made to distinguish reputation from related concepts such as identity and image (Barnett et al., 2006), brand (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004), and legitimacy (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). However, the theoretical debates continue to conceptualize reputation differently. From the institutional perspective, for example, reputation is understood as the result of information exchanges and social influence among various stakeholders interacting in an organizational field (Rindova et al., 2005).

Reputation may vary across stakeholder groups according to the perception of each group regarding the degree to which the organization in question meets its unique

56 expectations (Bromley, 2002). Deephouse (2000) argued that reputation construction occurs in the media when a corporation is praised for its actions or associated with positive actions, and reputation destruction occurs when the organization is criticized for its actions or associated with questionable actions. Rindova et al., (2007) moved beyond measuring reputation to study how the reputation of new firms in emerging businesses is (re)constructed in media texts.

Reputation can be understood to be constructed in and through language and semiosis. An emerging strand of literature has argued for viewing reputation as something that is constituted in discursive practices. Middleton (2009) studied reputation management from a narrative perspective, while Coupland and Brown (2004) viewed reputation as continuously (re)constituted through text and talk in dialogical processes. La¨hdesma¨ki and Siltaoja (2010), in turn, explored the meanings constructed vis-a`-vis reputation by focal actors in interactions with relevant stakeholders.

The term “reputation” and “brand” are, however, often used interchangeably in general discussion. The concept of brands and brand management in the wider nonprofit sector has been a focus of academic research for some years, with writers such as Hankinson and Cowking (1996), De Chernatony (1998), and Kapferer (1997) exploring these areas. Branding in the context of higher education is an area which has been on the agenda of practitioners for some time. It still, however, receives limited discussion in academic papers, especially in an Asian or specifically Malaysian context.

Recent articles by Bodoh and Mighall (2003), suggested that “branding is emerging as a hot topic for those who want to consolidate their positions or save their skins”. They also observed that “brands will present some real challenges in a sector that has been slow to embrace the basic principles of branding”. Johnston (2001)

57 summed up the consensus from practice journals when he stated,” the higher education system certainly has a long way to go in terms of understanding and incorporating the branding concept”. He added, “there has never been a more appropriate time for institutions to consider the role and purpose that branding may play within the sector”.

Bean (2000) further attested that “ironically, as an industry sector, education has the least sophisticated brands with which to relate to its target groups”.

The reputation concept is also understood and defined in various ways (e.g.

Theus, 1993; Fombrun & van Riel, 1997; Weiss et al., 1999), e.g. as “the overall estimation in which a company is held by its constituents” (Fombrun, 1996, p. 37).

Thus reputation may be interpreted as the overall perception of a company, what it stands for, what it is associated with, and what may be the benefits gained when buying the products or using the services of the company (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;

MacMillan et al., 2005).

The reputation of a company is formed in all instances when the company is in interaction with its stakeholders (Schuler, 2004). Thus a company’s reputation reflects the history of its past actions (Yoon et al., 1993). Perceptions of reputation can be formed about different entities such as products, brands, organizations or institutions (Fombrun, 1996; Lemmink et al., 2003), and even countries (Passow et al., 2005).

Consequently, students may have perceptions of both their university college and their specific study programs. A favorable perception of reputation is supposed to be positively related to loyalty (Selnes, 1993; Johnson et al., 2001; MacMillan et al., 2005). Reputation management is also looked upon as very important for attracting and retaining students (Bush et al., 1998; Standifird, 2005).

58 2.8 UNIVERSITY REPUTATION

Organizational reputation is typically studied within a business context with the exception of Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) and Theus (1993). However, the literature on corporate reputation can be useful in conceptualizing university reputation, despite the contextual differences.

Depending on the perspective, the concept of organizational reputation has been defined, in general, as:

(a) assessments that multiple stakeholders make about the company’s ability to fulfill its expectations (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2003);

(b) a collective system of subjective beliefs among members of a social group (Bromley, 1993, 2000, 2002);

(c) collective beliefs that exist in the organizational field about a firm’s identity and prominence (Rao, 1994; Rindova & Kotha, 2001);

(d) media visibility and favorability gained by a firm (Deephouse, 2000); and (e) collective representations shared in the minds of multiple publics about an organization over time (Grunig & Hung, 2002; Yang & Grunig, 2005).

The intersection between such definitions is that the reputation of an organization refers to perceptions of the organization shared by its multiple constituents over time (Alessandri, Yang, & Kinsey, 2006).

On the basis of such an intersection of definitions of organizational and corporate reputation, a university’s reputation can be defined as collective representations that the university’s multiple constituents, various internal and external constituents, including the media hold of the university over time. Applying general principles of reputation formation (Bromley, 1993, 2000; Caruana, 1997; Gotsi &

59 Wilson, 2001; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Grunig & Hung, 2002), the researchers propose that a university’s reputation can be formed on the basis of (a) direct or indirect/mediated experiences; and (b) information received through a variety of channels of communication and symbols. Since some information may be acquired from university symbols (e.g. logos, architecture and other visual attributes), in particular, a university’s reputation can be significantly related to the visual identity of the university.

Donaldson and McNicholas (2004) found that university reputation was important as a decision factor influencing students’ choice of institutions. Rudd (1975) found that postgraduate research students tended to stay at the institution of their first degree because of its reputation and students who opted to go elsewhere were attracted by the reputation of the institution, department or academic staff. While reputation and image are important, customization of the promotional material to the target audience is vital for universities (Donaldson & McNicholas, 2004).

America, the first nation to make democracy and free trade the cornerstones of its national identity and national purpose, has always understood that branding is an inherently peaceful and humanistic approach to international relations (Anholt, 2005).

Anholt stated that branding is based on competition, consumer choice and consumer power which are concepts very intimately linked to the freedom and power of the individual in a democracy. For this reason it is far more likely to result in lasting world peace than a statecraft based on territory, economic power, ideologies, politics, or religion.