Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Brendan J. Gray1
University of Otago
Introduction
The services sector accounts for up to three-quarters of the GDP of developed
economies, yet there has been relatively little research into identifying best
practices in services branding (de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 1999).
This lack of benchmarking data is surprising, given that branding appears to
be a cornerstone of successful services marketing (Berry 2000). The results of
the few empirical investigations of services branding practices are somewhat
equivocal. While the majority of authors conclude that branding the
company (or corporate branding) is more appropriate than branding
individual service products (e.g. Balmer 1995; Berry 2000; de Chernatony and
DallOlmo Riley 1999; de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 2000), others take
a contrary view (e.g. Onkvisit and Shaw 1989).
A leading American services marketing researcher has produced a model
1
ISSN1472-1376/2006/7-8/00717 +41
718
Brendan J. Gray
of brand equity formation based on interviews with 14 mature, highperforming service providers in the USA (Berry 2000). The author then
identifies four generic strategies to cultivate brand equity: dare to be
different; determine your own fame; make emotional connections; and
internalize the brand. Although the last point emphasises the important role
that staff play in services branding, these rather jingoistic terms appear to be
based more on anecdotal than empirical evidence, and could be as applicable
to the producers of tangible goods as to the providers of intangible services.
Prominent branding researchers in the UK have argued that the fast
moving consumer goods approach to branding needs to be adjusted for the
services sector, and that more research is required to produce a tailored
model of services branding (McDonald, de Chernatony and Harris 2001). The
current study takes a small step towards answering the call by McDonald et
al. by benchmarking the branding practices of successful professional and
business services providers in New Zealand. Implications for services
branding theory and practice are discussed.
Literature Review
The main theories and concepts that underpin this study are the resourcebased view of the firm (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991; Fahy & Smithee 1999),
the sources-position-performance model of sustainable competitive
advantage (Day and Wensley 1988), and customer-based brand equity
(Aaker 1992a, 1992b and 1996; Keller 1993).
From a resource-based view, the capabilities that set service firms apart
from their competitors are based on intangible business processes, rather
than capital equipment. Intangible assets such as customer relationships,
industry relationships and unique competencies (Eriksson, Majkgard and
Sharma 1999), and brands with favourable, unique and strong associations
(Keller 1993), are likely predictors of service quality. A market-orientated
culture (Narver and Slater 1990) and related market information and
customer management practices (Jaworski and Kohli 1993) should enable
firms to utilise resources more effectively in the face of changing market
conditions, competitor actions and customer needs. Competitive positioning
of brands to account for customer needs and competitor actions should result
from this.
Although intangible business processes and assets may be difficult to
imitate, and may be highly contextual, benchmarking the marketing practices
of successful firms can still offer insights to researchers and managers into
ways of improving firm performance. Branding is a case in point.
Effective marketing requires the development of effective images, and it
could be argued that the intangible nature of services makes branding more
719
critical for the success of service firms than for product firms (Onkvisit and
Shaw 1989). Brands are names, symbols or designs used by customers to
identify the providers of goods or services (Aaker 1992a and 1992b). Brands
create value for both consumers and brand owners. According to Aaker
(1996), the value of brands, or their equity, is based on brand name
awareness, brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand associations. These
associations are largely aesthetic and experiential, and express a set of values
that position the brand as unique and valuable (Salzer-Morling and
Strannergard (2004). However, there are disagreements in the literature over
how to measure brand performance. It has been posited, though, that success
is a multidimensional construct where business-based and consumer-based
criteria are interrelated and cannot be considered in isolation (McDonald, de
Chernatony and Harris 1998).
This leads to the following propositions:
P1 :
P2: Service firms that invest more resources in branding (i.e. brand-oriented
firms) are likely to outperform those that invest fewer resources in
branding over a wide range of performance measures.
The generic features of services, particularly their intangibility,
inseparability, heterogeneity and perishability (Lovelock 1983), raise
branding challenges. Corporate (as opposed to service product) branding
appears to be better suited for intangible and complex offerings, such as
professional and financial services, because this emphasises the capabilities
of the provider, enhances consumer trust and acts as a basis of differentiation
(DallOlmo Riley and de Chernatony 2000; McDonald and de Chernatony
2001). Services staff play important roles in facilitating the brand experiences,
perceptions and relationships that customers may have with the firm. As a
result, training and communication are needed so that both employees and
customers know what the brand stands for, while a consumer delighting
culture helps to motivate employees to live the brand (de Chernatony and
DallOlmo Riley 1999, p181).
This leads to the following propositions:
P3 :
P4: Brand-oriented service firms are likely to have higher customer skills
levels.
720
Brendan J. Gray
721
Sources of
Advantage
- market
orientation
- branding
- innovation
- info tech
- resources
- service skills
Performance
Positional
Advantages
-differentiation
-cost
effectiveness
Environment
- satisfaction
- loyalty
- revenue
- profitability
- brand equity
- reputation
- innovation
success
722
Brendan J. Gray
723
724
Brendan J. Gray
725
N
22
6
30
21
8
2
10
47
22
43
50
3
15
5
3
9
46
13
355
%
6.20
1.69
8.45
5.92
2.25
0.56
2.82
13.24
6.20
12.11
14.08
0.85
4.23
1.41
0.85
2.54
12.96
3.66
100.00
Customer type
Consumer
Business to business
Government
Other
No main customer type
No response
TOTAL
138
163
10
11
16
17
355
38.87
45.92
2.82
3.10
4.51
4.79
100.00
726
Brendan J. Gray
Mean
7.76
9.95
10.73
%
9.01
23.66
36.06
24.23
2.82
4.23
100.00
%
80.28
16.62
3.10
100.00
N
331
188
302
N
32
84
128
86
10
15
355
N
285
59
11
355
727
BRAND NSD
Market
orientation
0.385* 1.000
Branding
investment
0.069
0.107
0.192*
Differentiation
WEB
1.000
0.127
1.000
0.284* 0.033
1.000
1.000
0.251* 0.066
0.339* 1.000
0.453*
728
Brendan J. Gray
729
yes
2.58
4.08
yes
2.93
4.21
yes
yes
1.85
1.80
3.29
2.97
yes
1.92
3.48
no
3.74
3.93
yes
2.98
3.55
no
174
347
3.21
3.74
2.86
3.21
3.32
2.84
3.73
4.23
3.60
3.69
3.63
3.43
Innovation Management
(alpha=0.90)
Organisation
Synergy
Process
Team Level
yes
2.98
3.31
yes
no
yes
no
3.40
3.16
2.28
3.07
3.76
3.41
2.70
3.36
Information Technology
(alpha=0.78)
E-mail is important to business
Intranet is important to business
Extranet is important to business
no
3.64
3.94
no
no
no
4.01
3.12
2.94
4.28
3.43
3.37
Contd
730
Brendan J. Gray
Significant
difference?
(99% level)
E-commerce increasingly
important to business
no
Overall Performance
(alpha=0.79)
Financial Performance (0.68)
Total revenue
Profitability
Profitability change last 3 years
Customer Performance (0.74)
Customer satisfaction
Customer loyalty
Brand Performance (0.81)
Brand equity
Brand awareness
Corporate reputation
yes
3.29
3.66
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
3.32
3.07
3.43
3.39
3.67
3.65
3.68
3.12
3.04
3.06
3.47
3.56
3.33
3.66
3.67
3.79
3.82
3.78
3.74
3.63
3.68
3.91
Positional Advantages
Differentiation
Cost-effectiveness
no
no
3.58
3.47
3.73
3.61
Market Characteristics
Competitive intensity (0.71)
Market turbulence (0.66)
Technological turbulence (0.78)
Market growth
Market-entry barriers
Supplier bargaining power
Buyer bargaining power
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
3.11
3.08
3.66
2.86
2.77
2.58
3.57
3.64
3.28
3.86
3.00
2.72
2.77
3.73
The findings, therefore, offer partial support for previous studies which
indicate that training and communication are needed so that both employees
and customers know what the brand stands for (e.g. de Chernatony and
DallOlmo Riley 1999). However, there is less evidence that staff in top
branding firms have actually internalized the brand (Berry 2000) or that these
organisations have developed a consumer delighting culture that can help
facilitate the brand experiences, perceptions and relationships that customers
may have with the firm (de Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 1999).
In fact, all firms in the sample (i.e. both above and below average groups)
invest significantly less in researching internal brand perceptions (i.e. the
731
732
Brendan J. Gray
733
10 (27%)
5
3
4
5
5
3
6
1
1
3
1
Firm size:
18 (49%)
9 (24%)
10 (27%)
Job titles:
(13.5%)
(8%)
(11%)
(13.5%)
(13.5%)
(8%)
(16%)
(2.5%)
(2.5%)
(8%)
(2.5%)
12 (27%)
7 (16%)
19 (43%)
3 (7%)
3 (7%)
Results of Interviews
Unprompted Perceptions of Sources of Advantage
At the start of each interview, managers were asked, unprompted, to
describe their firms major sources of competitive advantage (see Table 6).
These top-of-mind responses suggest that managers perceive branding
(mentioned by managers in 44% of the top performing firms where
interviews were conducted) and staff motivation, skills and competencies
(mentioned by 44% of top-performers and 10% of lower performers) to be the
two major sources of advantage. The next most important source of
advantage was having a strong organisational culture with a clear vision,
mission, values, energy and passion to guide staff behaviour (33%; 10%).
Other important sources of advantage were utilising information technology
to improve marketing and business performance (30%; 10%), and two factors
734
Brendan J. Gray
% of lower
firms
(N=10)
0%
11%
10%
Product/service quality
30%
10%
44%
10%
33%
10%
15%
0%
30%
70%
11%
0%
Innovation culture
22%
0%
Continuous innovation
15%
0%
15%
0%
30%
10%
26%
0%
15%
10%
Community ownership
11%
0%
30%
0%
26%
0%
Internationalisation
11%
0%
0%
15%
Size, critical mass, market share, growth
NB - Percentages relate to the number of firms whose managers hold these views,
rather than the percentage of managers interviewed
735
736
Brendan J. Gray
Best practices
737
738
Brendan J. Gray
Brand performance is one of the key KPIs that the bank measures itself on.
We measure the ability of customers to recognise our brand and various
attributes which measure ad performance versus competitors focused round
three areas community, service and technology. And we measure the
stickiness of our brand and other brands attraction and retention).
Best practices
Brand investment,
positioning and
integration
People focus
Community relations
Customer relations
Quality
Feedback
Lower performers and top performers both make some use of loyalty
programs and customer newsletters to encourage repeat purchases and to
739
publicise people, products and community support. They also rely to some
extent on service quality as an implicit form of promotion, realising that they
need to deliver on promises if they are to retain credibility and customer
support.
Lower performing firms are also more likely to rely on personal selling,
key account management and relationship management as ways of
promoting their brands, again reflecting a lower investment in more formal
above the line communication methods. As the poorer performers
interviewed tended to be smaller, with limited financial and personnel
resources, this could also explain their lower investment in advertising and
market research, and may help explain their greater concern with short-term
profits.
Both lower and higher performers attempt to manage their corporate
images or reputations, and appreciate that a good reputation improves
perceptions of honesty, trustworthiness and service quality (see Table 9 for a
summary of best practices and Appendix 3 for detailed comments). This is
important, given the intangible nature of services and the difficulties that
prospective, new or existing customers may have in assessing service quality.
Reputation comes from providing excellent service, being a good and safe
employer, and being seen to support the organisations wider community.
All these activities are likely to improve positive word-of-mouth.
There are obvious overlaps between corporate branding and corporate
image or reputation practices. For many firms, branding practices appear to
be primarily concerned with improving perceived customer value, while
corporate image/reputation practices appear to be more concerned with
improving the perceived value that service organisations provide to other
stakeholders, including the wider community. However, things get murky
when firms link sponsorships with their corporate or service brands (e.g.
Both of them [corporate reputation and branding] are essential. Reputation is very
much about how we interact with our customers. And sponsorship is not so much
about trying to demonstrate youre a good corporate citizen and hope to improve
awareness its about augmenting the concept of trusted expert to our target
groups. We track how people perceive our sponsorships in light of: Does it make me
feel that [company] is the trusted expert for me in financial services? That manifests
differently for different customer segments).
Sponsorship and other forms of community relations were mentioned in
the contexts of both branding and image/reputation management, which
adds to the confusion. Further, better performers were more likely to link
corporate reputation and branding activities (e.g. Corporate identity and brand
image go hand in hand; you need to be a fair employer, reliable, and address health,
hygiene and safety areas. At the consumer level, the brand of the store is more
important [than the parent company]. The latter [parent company] is better known
to suppliers).
740
Brendan J. Gray
741
judgments about the quality, honesty and trustworthiness of the firms they
choose to deal with.
Table 9. Corporate Image/Reputation Practices [prompted responses]
Sources of advantage
Proactive strategies
Best practices
Managing corporate identity & image (mentioned by 26% of
top performers; 20% of lower performers)
Supporting branding activities (22%; 0%)
Involvement in professional organisations (7%; 0%)
Participating in industry awards (7%; 0%)
Promoting public image of CEO, principal (7%; 10%)
Promoting public image of managers, staff (4%; 10%)
Community relations
Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn from this research. The survey results
suggest that the research model (see Figure 1) appears to capture many of the
important drivers of sustainable competitive advantage in service firms,
particularly the importance of greater investment in service branding and
corporate image/reputation management.
Four propositions related to the model were tested in the quantitative
phase of the study:
P1: More highly market-oriented service firms are likely to invest more resources
in branding than less market-oriented firms.
P2: Service firms that invest more resources in branding (i.e. brand-oriented
firms) are likely to outperform those that invest fewer resources in branding
over a wide range of performance measures.
P3: Brand-oriented service firms are likely to invest more resources in personnel
skills training.
P4: Brand-oriented service firms are likely to have higher customer skills levels.
742
Brendan J. Gray
743
744
Brendan J. Gray
745
Implications
The results of this study have important implications for both service
managers and marketing researchers. The findings suggest that successful
New Zealand professional and business firms have developed reputation
and branding strategies and practices that help improve customers levels of
awareness and perceptions of the trustworthiness of the organisation and its
personnel, and heighten perceptions of the quality of its offerings. The results
support the findings of previous research by authors such as Gregory and
Wiechmann (1998) that corporate advertising can be used to build public
awareness and a favourable market position, and also support Bickertons
(2000) proposition that corporate reputation and corporate branding are
closely linked.
The survey results suggest that added value can accrue from corporate
reputation and corporate and service product branding activities (e.g. greater
brand equity relative to competitors), while the interview results emphasise
the need to improve communications and relationships with customers, staff
and the wider community to improve organizational performance.
The study answers calls for the development of an integrated theory of
services branding (McDonald, de Chernatony and Harris 2001) and
concludes that the essential components are the integration of
communication, service innovation and delivery, and personnel management
strategies and practices, the importance of investment in people and the need
for service branding strategies and practices to be guided by over-arching
corporate reputation objectives.
Further research is needed in other country-markets to investigate
whether the best practices of top-performing New Zealand service providers
can be generalized to other firm and market contexts. Despite the insights
gained from this study, the relationship between corporate branding and
reputation requires further clarification, and is an area worthy of future
research.
Future research should also investigate whether there are major
differences in branding approaches between service firms and those involved
in primary and secondary (i.e. manufacturing) industries. The starting point
here would not be how traditional product branding strategies can be
adapted for services, but instead what lessons goods manufacturers can learn
from successful service branders.
Finally, there is also a need for more research on customers perceptions of
value (Ponsonby 2001) to determine what value service reputation and
branding activities provide and whether positive perceptions improve the
service experience. This would be in line with Bickertons (2000) contention
that the starting point for corporate branding (and by extension, corporate
746
Brendan J. Gray
747
748
Brendan J. Gray
Appendices
Appendix 1. Branding and Service Quality Advantages [unprompted responses]
Branding,
reputation
Strong brands
(mentioned
by 44% of the
27 topperforming
firms; but no
lower
performing
firms)
Illustrative Statements
Weve put on a set of clothing in the form of the brand. And we
manage to extract a price premium of at least 30% and sometimes
50% or more in the markets around the world. So its the way we
position that and the way we support it with in-market structures.
We have very competent support from our promotional programme,
globally, unlike our competitors.
Our advertising agent and marketing people coined the phrase and
developed the icon, and thats the genesis for the whole marketing
philosophy for the company, the whole service attitude of the
company.
The first mover brand stands for reliability, keeping promises; people
are the brand.
We have high brand recognition stable, strong, heavy R & D
investment, a broad range of very strong products.
The credibility of our brand affects performance.
Positioning
based on
service
quality,
value, trust
(15%; 10%)
Positioning
based on
environment
(4%; 0%)
749
Internal
communication
(7%; 0%)
Word of
mouth
(7%; 20%)
History,
longevity
(7%; 0%)
Weve been around for a long time and been consistent in our
approach.
A large number of people have worked here for 30 or 40 years. We
never get the high innovation score of later entrants; customers want
evolution, not revolution, from this type of business; we are a trusted
third party.
Networking,
selling
(7%; 10%)
Lobbying
(4%; 0%)
750
Loyalty
programs
(15%; 10%)
Brendan J. Gray
If youre talking about the low end of the market, there is no such
thing as loyalty, its price driven, and thats the bulk of the
passengers. However, with First and Business Class travellers, yes
there is a huge factor of loyalty. They develop, through Frequent
Flyer programmes, points which generate loyalty.
The [premium store brand] card is based on discount at points of
sales. So every week there are 2 000 products that people can get
additional savings on by presenting their card. So its not a true
loyalty programme, but obviously the idea is that it gets the customer
coming back into the store. It has a high level of penetration - 90% of
our customers have a card accounting for over 80% of our sales.
People have got into the habit of using it. There is certainly so much
more it could offer [store] given the chance to develop it further.
There are no Flyby points or other loyalty card for [discount store
brand] because customers are used to every day low prices.
[As with one of our banking and finance competitors] weve got this
[joint venture] points/credit card, where you can spend your points
at retail outlets, hotels, etc. We have done some research on it and the
first thing I can tell you about loyalty programmes is that the client
doesnt give a toss about loyalty actually. Thats the first thing weve
decided. The loyalty is an important thing to us. What the client
wants is rewards.
Quality
Product/
service
quality
(30%; 10%)
Illustrative Statements
Service standards are paramount to success; we will lose our existing
clients otherwise.
We can provide better support, better staff training, and good
safeguards for customers in that they have surety of service support
in the future.
Our philosophy is to provide better services than anyone else. From a
variety of perspectives - service quality, management systems - were
perceived as one of the industry leaders. And that is a result of
setting exceedingly high standards right from day one and
developing on them.
All those quality aspects we encapsulate in terms of the brand.
Benchmarking
(7%; 0%)
751
Illustrative Statements
Investing in
brand equity
(mentioned by
48% of top
performers and
30% of lower
performers;
however, 30% of
lower performers
also made little or
no investment)
Our brands are very important, and are on the balance sheet [of
parent holding company] at $600 million; brand value has
increased, which is an indication that were doing something right.
The board has backed us and we have invested heavily [in
branding]; the last two years have been our best ever as a business.
We spend a lot on brand awareness with advertising, sponsoring
sports programs on TV, billboards, a web site, celebrity golf
matches with clients, charity donations and sponsorships, writing a
book on financial planning.
If you looked at the industry, we probably rank fourth or fifth in
terms of advertising spending. We rely on more innovative ways,
of getting our image across, like TV programme sponsorship and
associated advertising.
We changed the organisations philosophy to one of having
professionally trained sales people, and putting a lot of emphasis
on brand advertising, and then developing a professional approach
to the different functions throughout the organisation.
Competitive
brand
positioning
(19%; 0%)
752
Corporate/
umbrella
branding
(11%; 0%)
Brendan J. Gray
Our corporate umbrella brand gives a lot of credibility to new
products and services.
Some of the product brands would be getting as strong as the
corporate one. But in terms of [umbrella/corporate brand] weve
been trying to develop brand associations of organisations which
are well managed and carefully run that are in touch with the needs
and requirements of customers, and that are not there to make a
profit for the sake of making a profit. And that we had a solid value
proposition, a fair price for what we charge, and do so in a
transparent and competitive way. That is in direct response to
market research.
Integrated
marketing
communications [IMC]
(15%; 0%)
IMC is important. We use all the skills in the marketing team to get
the best out of them. For example, the communications team
reports to me as marketing manager (in other organisations they
tend to report to corporate affairs) so we produce consistent,
holistic brand messages; we integrate corporate affairs with the
branding team.
People focus
Illustrative Statements
Branding
people in the
organisation,
rather than
services offered
(22%; 10%)
Internal
marketing
(15%; 0%)
753
One of the things that we can pride ourselves on is that in all the
years Ive worked in the company I can name on one hand the
number of people who have left us and gone and worked for
another member of the industry. Having worked for the best, the
attitude is how can you possibly go and work for someone else?
Community
relations
Illustrative Statements
Community
events
(7%; 0%)
Sponsorship,
PR
(7%; 0%)
Customer
relations
Illustrative Statements
Personal
selling,
account &
relationship
management
(11%; 50%)
Loyalty
programs
(11%; 10%)
754
Brendan J. Gray
card [credit, air and phone points card] to 40 thousand clients [to
reward them for using particular financial products].
Customer
newsletters
(11%; 20%)
Encouraging
positive word
of mouth
(7%; 50%)
Quality
Illustrative Statements
Product/
service quality
as implicit
promotion
(19%; 20%)
At the end of the day you can market till youre blue in the face, but
consumers wont accept it if the message is perceived to be wrong
or you are not offering a good product.
Feedback
Brand auditing, We did the branding audit last year we interviewed 35 clients, 60
staff and 20 directors; we had workshops and then produced a
research
brand narrative; were looking at our visual identity and how we
(19%; 0%)
brand. Its a strong brand because the stakeholders agree on what it
is. We identified the core values as held by all the stakeholders, for
example the ability to deliver, no matter what, is a value that our
clients associate with our branding. They rely on us implicitly to
deliver service, and if things become difficult, things go wrong,
they know that well deliver for them. Now there were some other
things that werent positive about the brand as well which we need
to work on, like, we are perceived as being somewhat large,
relentless, like a big crushing steamroller; maybe were not
responsive enough.
We research our brand continuously, and quite heavily, on a
month-by-month basis, in terms of advertising brand points. Brand
755
performance is one of the key KPIs that the bank measures itself
on. We measure the ability of customers to recognise our brand and
various attributes which measure ad performance versus
competitors focused round three areas community, service and
technology. And we measure the stickiness of our brand and
other brands attraction and retention.
We are doing specific customer brand monitoring across several
criteria - substantiating trust in our expertise and substantiating
that we are not a bank, that we are a financial services provider. So
the ads cover a whole range of things from life insurance to
mortgages to rural lending. And [as well as improvements in
customer perceptions] theres a much greater recognition across the
whole organisation that brand is a relevant component to driving
customer perception and also the way our own people feel about
the organisation.
We have an extensive brand monitoring process, collated into
market mind software. We have 5,500 half-hour telephone
interviews [in our database] about what people think of our brand.
We measure the effectiveness of brand campaigns, linking the
brand with the core message, and measure competitors brands and
media on the same basis. We use focus groups to test creative
elements pre-, during and post-campaign at each stage the
creative gets better as we take on board feedback; creative directors
get frustrated by us always wanting to test and retest; research
influences our strategic decisions about our brand.
Illustrative Statements
Managing
corporate
identity &
image
(mentioned
by 26% of
top
performers;
20% of lower
performers)
756
Brendan J. Gray
At the foot of our letterhead, we have four organisations that we
support, and we actually use their logos. But you can argue that we
are covering sport, the arts, sick children and sick animals a very
broad field. And its interesting that a lot of people will comment on
oh, I see that you support these charities. Whether anybody
actually buys a product [is uncertain]. Its very difficult to get definite
feedback, [so] one of the areas that we are looking at is causal
marketing.
Sponsorship [of major events, organisations, appeals] is always one
of these things where, unless youre prepared to commit the same
amount of money again in supporting the sponsorship [with
advertising & PR] then you might as well not do it. And weve never
had the financial resources to do that, so weve tended to steer away,
unless there were some very clear advantages to us.
Supporting
branding
activities
(22%; 0%)
Professional
involvement
(7%; 0%)
Awards
(7%; 0%)
757
Image of
managers,
staff
(4%; 10%)
Community
relations
Illustrative Statements
Community
involvement
(26%; 0%)
We want to get our name in front of the public in areas where we can
be seen to be helping.
We want to see our staff more involved in the community. We need
to find a vehicle to do that [since pulling out of major sport
sponsorship because of conflict with brand positioning] its a new
challenge.
Sponsorship
(41%; 20%)
758
Brendan J. Gray
advertising campaigns that we have been historically unable to
demonstrate the value of. We are using PR and other below the line
activities where you can still communicate with consumers, but you
dont do it in the traditional media.