THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CORPORATE BRANDING: BRAND EQUITY, REPUTATIONAL SPILLOVERS, AND SHARED-BRAND RISKS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68549/83db2t03Keywords:
corporate branding, brand equity, brand architecture, reputational spillovers, umbrella branding, variance decomposition, service groups.Abstract
This article examines the distribution of corporate brand equity, reputational spillovers, and their relationship with revenue using 4,816 quarterly observations from
40 corporate groups and 301 service units. Variance decomposition attributes 42.0% of brand-equity variation to corporate-level differences, 34.8% to unit-level differences, and 23.3% to changes over time. Fixed-effects estimates show that adverse incidents reduce brand equity by 5.83 points in affected units and 1.00 point in sister units, while awards increase equity by 2.39 and 0.43 points, respectively. Negative spillovers are strongest in branded houses (−1.77 points) and weakest in houses of brands
(−0.13 points). A one-point increase in a unit’s own brand equity is associated with a 0.565-point increase in its revenue index, whereas sister-unit equity has no statistically significant additional association. The findings emphasize balancing shared-brand advantages against reputational risks and monitoring brand equity at the unit level.
Zenodo DOI
Downloads
References
1. Balmer J. M. T. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog // European Journal of Marketing. — 2001. — Vol. 35, No. 3/4. — P. 248–291. — DOI: 10.1108/03090560110694763.
2. Hatch M. J., Schultz M. Bringing the corporation into corporate branding // European Journal of Marketing. — 2003. — Vol. 37, No. 7/8. — P. 1041–1064. — DOI: 10.1108/03090560310477654.
3. Balmer J. M. T., Gray E. R. Corporate brands: What are they? What of them? // European Journal of Marketing. — 2003. — Vol. 37, No. 7/8. — P. 972–997. — DOI: 10.1108/03090560310477627.
4. Aaker D. A. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. — New York: Free Press, 1991. — 299 p.
5. Keller K. L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity // Journal of Marketing. — 1993. — Vol. 57, No. 1. — P. 1–22.
6. Ailawadi K. L., Lehmann D. R., Neslin S. A. Revenue premium as an outcome measure of brand equity // Journal of Marketing. — 2003. — Vol. 67, No. 4. — P. 1–17. — DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.67.4.1.18688.
7. Wernerfelt B. Umbrella branding as a signal of new product quality: An example of signalling by posting a bond // RAND Journal of Economics. — 1988. — Vol. 19, No. 3. — P. 458–466.
8. Cabral L. M. B. Stretching firm and brand reputation // RAND Journal of Economics. — 2000. — Vol. 31, No. 4. — P. 658–673.
9. Sullivan M. W. Measuring image spillovers in umbrella-branded products // Journal of Business. — 1990. — Vol. 63, No. 3. — P. 309–329. — DOI: 10.1086/296509.
10. Erdem T. An empirical analysis of umbrella branding // Journal of Marketing Research. — 1998. — Vol. 35, No. 3. — P. 339–351. — DOI: 10.1177/002224379803500305.
11. Aaker D. A., Joachimsthaler E. The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the brand architecture challenge // California Management Review. — 2000. — Vol. 42, No. 4. — P. 8–23. — DOI: 10.1177/000812560004200401.
12. Rumelt R. P. How much does industry matter? // Strategic Management Journal. — 1991. — Vol. 12, No. 3. — P. 167–185. — DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250120302.
13. McGahan A. M., Porter M. E. How much does industry matter, really? // Strategic Management Journal. — 1997. — Vol. 18, Special Issue. — P. 15–30.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
