Experts’ Views About Defining Services Brands
and the Principles of Services Branding
Leslie de Chernatony
THE OPEN UNIVERSITY
Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley
KINGSTON UNIVERSITY
There is a dearth of research into the nature of services brands and the
principles of services branding, which we address by interviewing 20
leading-edge brand consultants. The consensus view was that branding
principles are common between products and services at the conceptual
level. In either sector, brands must be developed as the link mirroring
the set of functional and emotional values created by the company and
the way these are perceived by consumers. However, at the operation
level, there may be differences in the emphasis given to the manifestation
of specific elements of services brands. Moreover, the current inconsistency
of delivery of services brands was raised as a critical challenge. Suggested
ways of resolving this include a consumer-delighting culture that permeates
every department, with greater emphasis on internal communication and
training. J BUSN RES 1999. 46.181–192.  1999 Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights reserved.
M ost countries can be defined as “service economies,”
because the contribution of the service sector to the
GNP is considerably greater than that of manufactur-
ing and agriculture combined (Bateson, 1995). Around two-
thirds of the British workforce (Dibb and Simkin, 1993) and
over three-quarters of the U.S. workforce (Greene, Walls, and
Schrest, 1994) are employed in services industries. Alongside
this “official service sector” there is a substantial “hidden ser-
vice sector” (Grönroos, 1990a), constituting around 70% of
people employed in manufacturing who perform service tasks
(Quinn, Doorley, and Paquette, 1990).
Despite the growing importance of services, branding re-
search has been overwhelmingly associated with physical
goods (e.g., Shostack, 1977; Faust and Eilertson, 1994; Turley
and Moore, 1995). Several researchers have pointed out that
the intrinsic characteristics of services pose particular chal-
Address reprint requests to Dr. L. de Chernatony, Open University Business
School, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK.
E-mail: I.dechernatony@open.ac.uk
Journal of Business Research 46, 181–192 (1999)
 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
lenges to marketers and might require an adaptation of the
branding and marketing techniques usually employed for
physical goods (e.g., Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, 1985;
Bateson, 1995; Turley and Moore, 1995).
Because of the branding challenges posed by their specific
characteristics, it is appropriate to study the extent to which
the conceptualization of “the brand,” developed in relation to
physical goods, is relevant to services. The paper addresses
this issue first by reviewing the literature concerned with the
special challenges faced by services branding, and synthesizing
suggestions for services branding strategies. We then discuss
the findings emerging from 20 in-depth interviews with lead-
ing-edge brand consultants about the nature and principles
of services branding. The paper draws propositions about
services branding principles that highlight possible differences
in emphasis when executing services branding strategies. We
conclude by noting that, for services organizations, and finan-
cial services in particular, the “company as brand” and internal
training are especially important means of communicating to
both consumers and employees what the brand stands for,
thus ensuring that the service delivery consistently exceeds
consumers’ expectations. In particular, a cohesive and coher-
ent corporate culture that permeates the organization can act
as a fulcrum and motivator for employees to represent the
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors associated with the brand in
such a way that consumers perceive a consistent message
across the whole range of services provided.
Branding Implications of
Services’ Characteristics
From previous literature, Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry
(1985) identify four unique features of services: (1) intangi-
bility; (2) inseparability of production and consumption; (3)
heterogeneity; and (4) perishability. These features are dis-
cussed in detail in the literature (e.g., Bateson, 1977, 1979,
ISSN 0148-2963/99/$–see front matter
PII S0148-2963(98)00021-6
182 J Busn Res
1999:46:181–192
1995; Berry, 1980; Grönroos, 1990a), hence this paper focuses
primarily on their implications for services branding. In a goods–
services continuum perspective (discussed in the next section),
we believe that whilst goods and services draw upon a com-
mon set of branding principles, there are differences in the
emphasis given to specific tools. For example, although the
“company as brand” concept is used in both sectors, it seems
particularly effective in the services arena, for reasons later
discussed.
Intangibility
The authors attribute to the services’ characteristic of intangibil-
ity the apparent difficulty faced by consumers in evaluating
a services’ quality and in differentiating between competing
brands (Fitzgerald, 1988; Firth, 1993). At the same time, firms
are believed to find it harder to set prices (e.g., Thomas, 1978;
Berry and Yadav, 1996).
A number of branding strategies might overcome these
problems. For example, empirical evidence suggests that the
size and reputation of firms, perceived as a result of associations
with the firm’s brand name, can be used by consumers as
proxies for quality when selecting between such very intangi-
ble offers as professional or financial services (e.g., Boyd,
Leonard, and White, 1994; Ford, 1990; Onkvisit and Shaw,
1989; Kotler and Bloom, 1984). Consumers also seem willing
to pay higher fees for the services of firms with a strong
reputation (Firth, 1993). Some, therefore, recommend build-
ing reputation through stimulating word-of-mouth communi-
cation (e.g., George and Berry, 1981; Zeithaml, Parasuraman,
and Berry, 1985). In addition, recognizing the company itself
as the brand, characterized by a distinct corporate identity,
personality, and image, is considered a critical services-brand-
ing strategy (e.g., Knisely, 1979; Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989;
Thomas, 1978), providing endorsement, recognition, and ac-
ceptance, as well as making them more tangible (Diefenbach,
1992). This is summarized by Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark
(1988): “in services the company name is the brand name.”
Another branding strategy advocated (e.g., Berry, 1980; Shos-
tack, 1977; George and Berry, 1981; Zeithaml, Parasuraman,
and Berry, 1985) is the use of distinctive logos or physical
facilities that consumers can immediately associate with spe-
cific service providers. The rationale is to provide relevant tangi-
ble clues; for example, Legal and General’s umbrella or Lloyd’s
Bank’s black horse, to make the intangibility of the service
brand more easily understood (Onkvisit and Shaw, 1989).
Inseparability of Production and Consumption
As consumers are involved in services production, their expec-
tations may differ between service encounters, because of the
extent to which they interact with different service providers.
As such, satisfaction with a service brand is influenced by
the congruence between expected and perceived behavior by
players, making it more difficult to control service quality
(Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel, and Gutman, 1985; Summers,
L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
1996). Furthermore, the proximity of other consumers may
also affect service experiences (e.g., Bateson, 1995; Grönroos,
1990a; Grove and Fisk, 1997).
Besides an increased emphasis on selecting and training
frontline staff to deliver a more homogeneous service (e.g.,
Berry, 1980; Grönroos, 1990b; Gelb and Gelb, 1991), the
authors again emphasize the role of corporate branding in
establishing a favorable consumer disposition toward particu-
lar firms, as a result of staff adhering to the standards set in
the corporate-branding strategy (e.g., Knisely, 1979; Dobree
and Page, 1990; Balmer, 1995; Peklo, 1995). According to this
perspective, the company brand gives coherence to employees’
behavior, while defining consumers’ expectations. Others
stress the concept of building brand relationships making the
point that, by involving consumers more in the production
process, organizations are better able to tailor the service to
individual needs. In such situations, the roles of supplier and
consumers are redefined (Norman and Ramirez, 1994), as
production and consumption become integrated (“prosum-
ing”). Specific “prosuming” strategies involving greater con-
sumer participation have been identified by Michel (1996)
but necessitate greater attention educating consumers about
their redefined roles (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996).
Heterogeneity
The human element in service provision cannot be subjected
to quality control measures as a factory product, hence each
service experience is potentially unique, and consistency may
be difficult to achieve (Berry, 1980; Lewis, 1989). However,
the brand-positioning claims made through advertizing must
be met by frontline staff as if “impersonating” the brand (Bate-
son, 1995). As Knisely (1979) summarized: “Your people are
as much as of your product in the consumer’s mind as any
other attribute of that service.”
Opposing views to ensure consistent performance of a ser-
vices brand have been proposed. The use of careful planning,
control, automation (where possible), and regular reviews of
performance improvement and consumer reaction, leaving
little to individual discretion, is advocated by Levitt (1972)
to “industrialize” services brands and overcome heterogeneity
and quality-control difficulties. In contrast, Berry (1980) sees
the simultaneous production and consumption of services as
an opportunity for “customizing” the service brand to serve
the needs of particular consumers better; thereby, making the
practice of marketing the responsibility of every employee
(Fitzgerald, 1988). The former branding strategy implies a
rigid structure and an almost inflexible approach unlikely to
accommodate differing consumer needs. On the other hand,
making branding an “internal” as well as an external activity,
may help ensure consistency across time and differing situa-
tions, without imposing inflexible codes of practice.
The notion of “internal branding” or “internal marketing”
has received a great deal of attention in recent years as a way
of creating a cohesive and consistent organizational culture
Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding
revolving around the brand concept or “vision” (e.g., Gelb
and Gelb, 1991; George, 1990; Greene, Walls, and Schrest,
1994; Grönroos, 1990a,b; Lewis, 1989; Morgan, 1990; Rich-
ardson and Robinson, 1986; Wasmer and Bruner, 1991). By
making the brand concept well understood within the service
company, the brand becomes an internal cohesive device and
the fulcrum of activities both inside and outside the organiza-
tion. This should allow employees to retain the flexibility
to deal with different people and situations (in both their
relationships with customers and with colleagues in all areas
of the organization), while conforming to the brand concept.
As a consequence of the above, an increasing number of
researchers (e.g., Mudie 1987; Tansuhaj, Randall, and McCul-
lough, 1988) consider employee relations and internal communi-
cations indispensable means to motivate and retain consumer-
conscious employees and ensure greater consistency in the
service quality. Positive employee attitude and behavior can
increase consumer satisfaction with the service brand, re-
sulting in increased market share and sales (Tansuhaj, Randall,
and McCullough, 1988; Mohr and Bitner, 1995). Specifically,
George (1990) believes that internal marketing is the best
approach for establishing and maintaining a service orienta-
tion within the organization, and for motivating employees,
because unless all staff are committed, the effectiveness of
its brand-marketing programs will be compromised at the
consumer-contact level (Murray, 1979). Finally, Grönroos
(1990b) notes that developing a service culture, through inter-
nal marketing, is a means of creating and enhancing the good
interactive marketing performance needed for implementing
a relationship marketing strategy.
Perishability
Services cannot be stored (Bateson, 1995) and the service
encounter often does not involve any transfer of ownership
(Bateson, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1988; Wyckham et al., 1975;
Kotler and Bloom, 1984). In sectors such as pensions or life
assurance, the service is bought long before the benefit is
received and evaluated. Hence services brands face the chal-
lenge not only of developing an image and reputation to attract
consumers, but also, preventing competitors’ promises from
alluring them, even before the service brand has been experi-
enced. Building upon the company’s image and reputation is
one branding option to overcome these difficulties.
Another problem resulting from the characteristic of perish-
ability is the difficulty in synchronizing supply and demand
(Zeithaml et al., 1985). Unless services firms can devise strate-
gies either to cope with fluctuating demand (Zeithaml and
Bitner, 1996) or to make adjustments to match capacity and
demand more closely (Sasser, 1976), they face not only finan-
cial costs, but also branding problems. The brand, as perceived
by consumers, encapsulates both the quality of the service,
and the efficiency with which the service is provided. For
example, the brand image of a supermarket chain depends
not only on the range and price of the products they stock,
J Busn Res 183
1999:46:181–192
but also on the speed with which consumers can pay for the
goods and exit the store. Long waits at check outs at certain
times might adversely affect its image, unless ways are found
either to speed up the queues or to entice consumers to shop
at off-peak times. In this context, efficient organization systems
become part of the branding process, enabling the delivery of
promises with regards to service quality, speed and efficiency.
A Goods–Services Continuum
There is wide debate amongst researchers about the extent to
which goods and services strategies differ. For example, all
goods and services, deliver a bundle of benefits, but the way
they are received is very different for services, since for the
latter the benefit is created through its experience (Bateson,
1995).
By contrast, Levitt (1972) believes that any distinction be-
tween goods and services is largely spurious, asserting: “There
are only industries whose service components are greater or
less than those of other industries.” Similarly, Wyckham et al.
(1975) and Shostack (1977) maintain that a simple taxonomy
(goods versus services) is difficult to sustain and can be dys-
functional, since heterogeneity, perishability, and even intan-
gibility are not exclusive characteristic of services. For exam-
ple, Shostack (1977), whilst arguing that services intangibility
should not be considered a modifier of their “productness”
but as a state, puts forward a molecular model, reflecting the
fact that a market entity can be partly tangible and partly
intangible, without diminishing the importance of either char-
acteristic. Only the weight of the intangible elements in the
market entity will determine the extent to which the marketing
strategy will have to diverge in priorities, and approach, from
the marketing of physical goods.
The existence of a continuum between goods and services,
whereby the characteristics described above vary as a matter
of degree, suggests that the emphasis given to different ele-
ments of the branding strategy may differ, rather than the
conceptual basis of “the brand.” In the next section, we sum-
marize the conceptual basis of “the brand” emerging from the
literature, then focus on the limited literature, specifically
comparing branding in goods and service sectors.
Branding for Goods and Services
In prior work (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997), we
identified nine main themes in the literature about “the brand”
as a: (1) legal instrument; (2) logo; (3) company; (4) identity
system; (5) image in consumers’ minds; (6) personality; (7)
relationship; (8) adding value; and (9) evolving entity. A tenth
perspective, as complex entities linking manufacturers’ activi-
ties with consumers’ perceptions, emerged from interviews
with twenty leading-edge brand consultants. Table 1 summa-
rizes how each definition can be viewed enough on an input
184 J Busn Res L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
1999:46:181–192

Table 1. Themes of Brand Definitions

Theme Input vs. Output Perspective Selected References Citing Definition

Legal instrument Input Crainer (1995); Broadbent and Cooper (1987)

Logo Input AMA (1960); Aaker (1991); Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders, and Wong (1996)
Company Input Diefenbach (1992); Aaker (1996)
Identity system Input Kapferer (1992); Aaker (1996)
Image Input/output Boulding (1956); Joyce (1963); Keeble (1991)
Personality Input/output Plummer (1985); Blackston (1992)
Relationship Input/output Arnold (1992); Blackston (1992); Woodward (1991)
Adding value Input/output Jones (1986); de Chernatony and McDonald (1994)
Evolving entity From input to output Goodyear (1996)
Complex entity Input/output de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1997)

(brands as suppliers’ creations) versus output (brands as existing
in consumers’ minds) continuum (de Chernatony, 1993).
The concept of the “brand” as a logo (e.g., AMA, 1960) is
obsolete in today’s complex environment. Brand consultants,
whose daily activities shapes tomorrow’s branding agenda,
define them as complex entities linking suppliers’ activities
(input) with perceptions in consumers’ minds (output) (de
Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997).
An input–output continuum also emerges from the limited
literature referring to brands in service sectors. For example,
in bank marketing Faust and Eilertson (1994) stress an input
perspective, stating: “Brand identity is much more than a
logo; it is the name, personality, and defining attributes that
represent the company and its products” (p. 86). Others (e.g.,
Morrall, 1995; Timberman, 1985) encourage companies to
adopt an input–output perspective, blending brand identity
with sets of consumers’ perceptions, or images. For example,
according to Morrall (1995): “All banks have an identity, and
image is just one component. . . . It is a carefully orchestrated
mix of media and nonmedia elements that create an impres-
sion in the minds of consumers” (p. 23).
For services, as well as for goods, differentiation should
not just result from a name or logo, but from a well-defined
set of consumers’ perceptions. To achieve this, Camp (1996)
advocates controlling every aspect of the interaction between
the brand and its target market (see also Berry, Lefkowith,
and Clark, 1988; Morrall, 1995). Similarly, Saunders and
Watters (1993) argue that branding is more than giving a
product, such as a current account, a name (e.g., Vector Ac-
count). Within an input–output perspective, Saunders and
Watters (1993) and Camp (1996) believe branding is about
identifying a target market and then developing a product
and a brand personality with which the target market will
identify and will prefer.
Several researchers note that, although the rationale for
branding and marketing are basically the same for goods and
services, their implementation may differ (Fitzgerald, 1988;
Milligan, 1995; Turley and Moore, 1995). Directly applying
marketing principles developed for physical goods to services
would not only be wrong (Shostack, 1977), but also imposes a
“strait jacket” on the development of new theory (Gummesson,
1978). Accordingly, some criticize the appointment of agen-
cies or managers with traditional fast moving consumer goods
backgrounds to devise services strategies (e.g., Watters and
Wright, 1994). Nonetheless, there is little published, and even
then there is some disagreement about which principles relat-
ing to the branding of goods can be applied to services.
As this review earlier mentioned, many have stressed the
importance of the company as a brand for services, especially
in financial services where consumers find it hard to differenti-
ate the technicalities of specific offers (e.g., Knisely, 1979;
Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark, 1988; Dobree and Page, 1990;
Balmer, 1995; Peklo, 1995). There is evidence that in financial
services, consumers know little about specific products, nor
do they want to know more, and they are content to continue
assuming that the best known companies have the best finan-
cial products (Ford, 1990; Boyd, Leonard, and White, 1994;
Watters and Wright, 1994).
Part of what is sold with a service is the overall stature and
imagery of the organization (Knisely, 1979), and consumers
tend to perceive all services offered by a company as compo-
nents of a single brand (Berry, Lefkowith, and Clark, 1988).
For this reason, Knisely and Berry argue that services do not
lend themselves to individual branding, as tangible goods do.
Milligan (1995) further clarifies this in the context of bank
branding: “Basic banking products like checking accounts,
credit and debit cards, mortgages and certificates of deposit
have become so ubiquitous that it is hard to tell them apart.
Your brand identity is . . . what differentiates you and makes
you special” (p. 39).
In contrast, Onkvisit and Shaw (1989) support a multi-
brand approach, moving away from corporate branding. They
believe that relying on a single brand strategy constrains flexi-
bility, because the existing corporate image may inhibit expan-
sion into new market segments, as seen in the hotel (e.g.,
Daneshkhu, 1995) and banking industries (e.g. Smith, 1995).
Denby-Jones (1995) provides a solution to the corporate
versus multibrand dilemma. In the context of banking, she
maintains that, particularly in established markets, product-
specific brands should not be introduced, because this con-
Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding
fuses consumers who see the same staff and the same physical
evidence for differently named offerings. However, multibrand-
ing in banking may work well when setting up a genuinely new
product or service, because consumers expect a fresh approach
rather than an adaptation of traditional values and operating
methods (e.g., First Direct vs. Midland Bank, or Lloyds main-
taining the TSB brand after its take over) (Smith, 1995).
In practice, both corporate and multibrand strategies are
commonly adopted by producers of physical goods, with in-
creased stress in recent years on corporate brand identity
building (e.g., Balmer, 1995). This once again points toward
differences only in the emphasis attributed to different brand-
ing strategies for goods and for services, rather than an outright
chasm in suitable procedures for the two sectors.
Research Aims and Method
In view of the importance of services and the debate on the
implementation of services-branding strategies, we sought to
increase understanding of brands in the services context. Spe-
cifically, we investigated the views of leading-edge brand con-
sultants, regarding: (1) the extent to which their understand-
ing of brands applies equally to goods and services; (2) their
perceptions as to whether the principles of branding services
are the same for goods; (3) their assessment of the conse-
quences this has when executing service brand strategies; and
(4) the emerging branding paradigm. To our knowledge, no
previous research has undertaken an analysis of this kind
from the perspective experts whose daily activity as brand
consultants is shaping the future agenda for brands.
Our research was exploratory in nature, aiming at eliciting
experts’ views about the concept of “the brand,” within their
frames of reference, without imposing our preconceptions.
To achieve this, the most appropriate approach was in-depth
interviews (Goodyear, 1990). Following Gordon and Lang-
maid’s (1988) recommendation, we selected 20 respondents
from a broad base of senior consultants who, although based in
the London area, specialize in advising clients about branding
issues on a national and international scale. The sample was
selected on the basis of being frequent presenters at manage-
ment conferences on branding, having written books or papers
on the subject, or being recommended by other experts; albeit,
only two of the 20 were chosen through recommendation of
other members of the panel. The 20 consultants were either
chairmen, partners, or directors in brand consultancies (9),
advertizing agencies (7), market research agencies (2), and
corporate communications agencies (2).
The in-depth interviews were recorded, then subsequently
transcribed. A topic guide was used to steer the overall inter-
viewing process. At the beginning of the interviews all respon-
dents were asked: “How would you define a ‘brand’?” (the
answers to this question were the main thrust of the paper
referred to earlier, de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997).
Respondents were also asked more detailed questions, such
J Busn Res 185
1999:46:181–192
as: “Is your definition of a brand equally appropriate for ser-
vices?” and “In your opinion, are the principles of branding
products exactly the same as those when branding services?,”
which are the focus of this paper. Respondents were encour-
aged to talk as much or as little as they wished, with no
interruptions on our part, except when we thought we needed
clarification. Their answers varied from about 20 words (1
respondent) to over 2,000 words (1 respondent). The average
length of responses (excluding the shortest and the longest
responses) was about 850 words. The typical overall length
of the interviews was around 1 hour.
Content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) was conducted in-
dependently by the two authors. Within the context of the
four aims stated above, and following Miles and Huberman’s
(1994) framework, the two authors noted patterns and themes
in the data, drew links with previous literature, and identified
areas of notable contributions to existing knowledge. The two
then compared their analyses relative to the four aims, with
coefficients of agreement (i.e., the total number of agreements
divided by the total number of coding decisions) never below
84%. Inter-researcher differences were resolved through dis-
cussion and reference back to the transcriptions, as suggested
by Miles and Huberman (1994).
Applicability of Brand Definition
for Goods and Services
In previous work (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1997),
we discussed in detail the experts’ individual definitions of
“the brand.” As already mentioned in our literature review,
the emerging view of “the brand” was as a complex entity
linking manufacturers’ activities with perceptions in consum-
ers’ minds. Discussions then took place with the experts to
assess whether they felt their individual definitions of a brand
would be equally appropriate for goods and services. Of the
20 experts, 18 believed this to be so; albeit, a brand consultant
added a caveat. He saw a spectrum of services brands, ranging
from those with a high degree of tangibility, such as hire cars,
to those with a very low degree of tangibility, for example
pension schemes. His definition of a brand as “Trade-mark
applied to a physical product or service that has acquired
personality traits in the eyes of consumers, which influence
their purchase behaviour” could, he felt, be easily applied
to the more tangible services. However, he was critical of
organizations branding highly intangible and complex ser-
vices. They were not building corporate personality traits to
reassure consumers. Rather, they were almost oblivious to
consumers’ uncertainty and lack of understanding of complex
financial services and were, in his view, incorrectly building
personality traits for individual product lines. He cynically
remarked, “it’s lunacy . . . they are trying to slice up fog.” This
remark is consistent with the stream of research reviewed
earlier arguing that services do not lend themselves to individ-
186 J Busn Res
1999:46:181–192
ual branding, as tangible goods do (Berry, Lefkowith, and
Clark, 1988; Knisely, 1979).
Consistent with the literature, the most frequently given
reason as to why experts’ interpretations about the meaning
of brands are the same between products and services, was
attributable to their views that brands are perceptions in con-
sumers’ minds. The branding process starts with an organiza-
tion devising a product or service, but the end result is a
brand that resides in consumers’ minds. At the start of this
process, there are differences between product and service
characteristics, but at the end of the process, brands are de-
fined by perceptual associations.
The next most commonly given reason as to why the con-
cept of brands does not have to be reconceived in the services
sector was that the same processes are involved in building
brands in both service and product sectors. For example, one
brand consultant spoke about the same “iterative process”
being followed to define and achieve a positioning objective,
and an advertizing consultant gave a detailed explanation as
to how service brands and product brands are both managed
using the same principles of database marketing, targeting,
cross-selling, and driving costs down. A corporate communi-
cations consultant also observed that the same segmentation
and buyer behavior analysis takes place. This perspective of
the “iterative process” of branding being the same for goods
and services is novel and adds to the literature reviewed in
the Branding for Goods and Services section.
Other experts made the point that, regardless of whether
they are goods- or service-based, brands are a blending of
rational and emotional components, that they can thrive by
building a relationship with consumers, based on trust, and
that both goods and services brands symbolize an ability to
satisfy consumers’ needs. A further reason is that both goods
and services have physical manifestations that, although in
different ways, can reinforce the brands’ positioning, if effec-
tively managed. Consistent with the literature, the experts
identified building the trust and the confidence of consumers
in the services organization and its employees, as a particularly
effective way of making the service offering more tangible and
easier for consumers to understand. The implication is that,
for services, it is the emotional side that must be developed
first to enable the functional components to become more
easily understood.
Finally, two consultants believed that their “brand” defini-
tions would have to differ for goods and for services. The
first, an advertizing consultant, started by identifying a chasm,
whereby there is “very sophisticated fmcg branding and you’ve
got this naive, at the other end, business to business and
financial services type branding.” In his opinion, a brand
“creates an identity in the market place which has values and
characteristics which create loyalty and repeat purchase, and
add value to both the shareholder and the consumer.” Within
this context, he noted how prevalent such values and personal
characteristics are in product brands, yet are rare in service
L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
brands. For example, when the Halifax Building Society took
over the Leeds Building Society, “the Leeds brand was dumped
literally overnight,” because of the absence of surrounding
values and personal characteristics. Furthermore, product-
based brands have consistency over time, but because of the
personal delivery nature of a service, there is a lack of consis-
tency. Although it was acknowledged that such organizations
as British Airways had greater levels of consistency, almost
“seamless experiences,” the majority of service brands still
provide inconsistent services. In his opinion, he was less con-
cerned about an adequate definition that could span both
goods and service brands, but rather was more concerned
that service companies are not adopting appropriate branding
principles. This notion of services companies failing to adopt
adequate branding principles, rather than the principles them-
selves being different, is new, and is discussed in more detail
in the Executing the Services Brand Strategy subsection.
The other expert, a market research consultant, felt that
her definition of a brand (“it defines people’s expectations”)
had to change to suit services brands. From her perspective,
consumers have a much better understanding of tangible prod-
uct-based brands because of their physical nature. Regularly
being able to see them resulted in close bonds between con-
sumers and brands. In contrast, many services are less regu-
larly consumed, they are not constantly visible, and there is
a more abstract relationship, making it more difficult for the
brand to be the definer of expectations.
Consistent with our earlier discussion of the literature, the
experts perceived great similarity between the notions of the
brand in the goods and the services sectors. However, the
experts brought a new perspective to the argument when
talking about similarity in the “iterative process” being fol-
lowed to define and achieve a brand positioning objective.
From this evidence we derived our first proposition.
P1: The concept of “the brand” is similar between goods
and services, because it is defined as a blend of rational
and emotional perceptions in consumers’ minds, re-
sulting from the same iterative positioning process.
Are the Principles of Branding Goods
the Same for Services?
Experts were then asked whether they thought the principles
and techniques of branding services are exactly the same as
those of goods branding. Seventeen were of the opinion that
the principles and techniques are similar, one was ambivalent
(“I don’t think it’s different in many ways, I just think it’s
more complex,” advertising consultant), and two adopted a
contrary view. The latter three experts expressed these opin-
ions, because they felt there are more points at which consum-
ers interact with services than goods brands, and the experi-
ence is more strongly influenced by the employees delivering
the service, resulting in greater variability. These contrary
views are nicely summarized by a brand consultant saying
Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding
that the fmcg model is not “a paradigm that is applicable to
financial services.”
Analysis of the justifications of the other 17 experts indicate
that branding principles are most similar at the conceptual
level. As a corporate communications consultant remarked,
“they are certainly [the same] in terms of the conceptual
development of the nature of the brand.” A brand consultant,
who earlier had explained that two of the core elements of
a brand are emotional and psychological, stated that when
marketers develop services brands, just as with product
brands, they “ought to get the emotional and psychological
side right.” Another brand consultant stated that “a brand is
there to serve a role indicating the origin . . . irrespective of
BA or Avis or Kodak or Heinz.” An advertizing consultant felt
both product and service brands are “still about building
relationships”; whereas, a brand consultant enlarged on his
earlier definition of a brand saying, “the same concepts apply
as there is a set of perceptions that exist in the consumer’s
mind which relate to a particular service brand.” Another
advertising consultant spoke about their both relying on simi-
lar market research and symbolic development to ensure they
could communicate something about consumers. More di-
rectly, two brand consultants and a corporate communications
consultant explained that many managers have moved from
the fmcg sector to the services sector and had brought their
models with them.
Although these 17 experts said that the same branding prin-
ciples would apply to goods and services, nine added that the
actual branding of services is slightly different or more difficult
than the branding of goods. As one brand consultant ex-
plained, “at the broadest level I think the principles are the
same, but from an operational level, I think it means you have
to handle the thing differently.” An advertising consultant also
spoke about differences being “executional,” and another used
the example of Midland Bank’s ineffective sub-branding of
Vector, Orchard, and Meridian accounts to make the point that,
although the brand conceptualization process was the same,
execution techniques differ between products and services.
These findings are consistent with our interpretation of the
literature of a goods–services continuum, whereby, although
the conceptual basis of “the brand” and principles and tech-
niques of branding in the two sectors are similar, the emphasis
given to different elements of the branding strategy may differ.
Therefore, we postulate that:
P2: The principles of services and goods branding are most
similar at the brand’s conceptual level; whereas, their
execution may require different emphasis in the ap-
proach.
We analyze these differences in more detail in the next section.
Executing the Services Brand Strategy
Having devised a core set of functional and emotional values
for a service brand, these then need to be supported by an
J Busn Res 187
1999:46:181–192
appropriate executional strategy. Consistent with Zeithaml,
Parasuraman, and Berry (1985) schema, the experts saw ser-
vice brands’ executional strategies as differing from those of
goods because of their intangibility, heterogeneity, and simul-
taneous production and consumption. No mention was made
of their perishability, and they spoke about the heterogeneity
and the simultaneous production and consumption of the
service within the same context, without drawing any distinc-
tions, because of their close interrelationship.
INTANGIBILITY. Six consultants who felt product- and service-
branding principles are similar, added the caveat that service
brands are intangible, and thus, their “physical manifestation
requires more thought” (corporate communications consul-
tant). Because of the way people use visual cues as surrogate
evaluation variables (Hansen, 1972), an advertising consultant
explained that is why “service companies have these enormous
manuals for corporate identity.” Although intangibility made
it “more difficult to get the sharpness of differentiation” (brand
consultant), many financial services firms were criticized for
not capitalizing on clear identify systems to make their offering
more tangible.
Brands can act as shorthand devices, simplifying the choice
between competing brands (de Chernatony and McDonald,
1994). However, financial services firms were criticized for
giving insufficient thought to consumers’ lack of understand-
ing about technical aspects of their products, particularly
where there were few tangible cues. This results in consumers
being “immensely confused” (brand consultant), spending lit-
tle time evaluating alternatives, being skeptical of the informa-
tion, and not perceiving “any difference at all between, say,
all major insurance brands and they don’t care which of 25
or 30 different brands they buy” (brand consultant). An ad-
vertizing consultant criticized insurance companies for putting
insufficient effort into understanding consumers, and another
brand consultant spoke about “brands to a certain extent tend
to be used in an irresponsible way in financial services without
a proper understanding of how complex the whole choice
process is on the part of the consumer.” There is still a lot of
scope for firms to develop better brands that “signify that it
is the right choice” (brand consultant).
The experts identified a chasm between goods and services
in the implementation of branding strategy. Consistent with
our interpretation of the literature, they pointed out that these
differences are not attributable to any substantive conceptual
idiosyncrasy in either the “brand” construct or the branding
principles in the two sectors. However, unlike the literature,
several consultants remarked that the current chasm between
goods and services in branding strategy implementation is
caused by too little thought given by services organizations,
particularly financial services, when developing identity sys-
tems able to make their brands more tangible and more capa-
ble of simplifying consumers’ choice. Experts also criticized
financial services firms for relying on the technical aspects
of their individually branded financial products to sell their
188 J Busn Res
1999:46:181–192
services, despite consumers’ ignorance and disinterest. There-
fore, we postulate that:
P3: Services organizations, in particular financial services,
have given insufficient attention to developing their
brands as effective shorthand devices to simplify the
complexity consumers perceive when choosing be-
tween competing services brands.
HETGEROGENEITY THROUGH SIMULTANEOUS PRODUCTION AND
CONSUMPTION. As a corporate communications consultant
observed, one way around the problem of the intangibility of
a services brand is to have a particular type of behavior and
interaction between the corporation’s staff and its consumers.
In essence, he argued, services branding could be regarded
as being much more about the people in the organization.
This is one of the critical challenges facing service marketers,
because although technology enables the quality of product
brands to be standardized, in the case of services brands “your
brand deliverer, or indeed the brand, walks around on two
legs and is, as we all know, of inherently variable quality and
mood” (brand consultant). Many experts raised the point that
it is difficult to impose the same degree of control on human
processes, with the consequence that there is not the same
consistency over time. Because production of the services
brand and its consumption are so closely interlinked, one
brand consultant remarked: “on two different days you get
two different experiences.”
Although goods brands originally developed partly to en-
suring consistent quality, the majority of consultants believed
that in services branding, it is still more difficult to control
the consistency of experiences, because there are “more points
of contact with the consumer” (advertising consultant). For
example, as one brand consultant explained, the main points
of contact the consumer has when buying a bottle of Coca
Cola revolve around the store trip, purchase, transport home,
refrigerator storage, then consumption. In contrast, a detailed
chain of contacts emerges as a consumer approaches different
departments in a bank when applying for an endowment
mortgage. As a market researcher enlarged, “I don’t think
they’ve actually taken on the idea that the brand has to talk
to the consumer in a consistent voice.” Managers tend to be
focused on their departments’ functional objectives, and the
service brand suffers through managers’ “lack of understand-
ing that a brand has to work holistically, each bit has got
to support each other” (market research consultant). These
remarks are consistent with Collins and Porras (1996), who
believe that the level of internal alignment within organizations
should be such that the corporate vision can be easily inferred
from the activities of the company.
Once more, the consultants added to the literature con-
cerned with heterogeneity in services delivery, suggesting that
a “consumer-delighting” culture that permeates every depart-
ment is a means to achieving greater consistency. To engender
this type of culture, a more open communications approach
L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
is needed. As a brand consultant stressed, staff “briefing is
terribly important in a service context,” because they can
appreciate the crucial role they play in delivering the service.
This was reinforced by another brand consultant, expressing
his view that the “single most important budget is internal
communications and training.” By devoting more effort to
“things like training staff and motivating the staff” (advertising
consultant) they become more committed to their firm’s ethos
of delighting consumers, and this “eventually rubs off on
employees’ commitment to consumers” (brand consultant).
Through a more integrated communications approach, sup-
ported by staff training, employees are better able to deliver
the claims they make in commercials. This should negate the
problems identified by one brand consultant of the positive
impact of expensive television campaigns being destroyed by
the irresponsible behavior of one employee.
Service brands, as one brand consultant explained, face
the problem that consumers have gotten used to “solid and
extollable consistency” when buying product-based brands
and inconsistency when buying services. Service brands are
likely to succeed by exceeding consumers’ expectations, he
argued, because in so doing, they make a much more signifi-
cant impact. A brand consultant cited First Direct as an exam-
ple of a services brand exceeding expectations, when using
their database to facilitate personal banking successfully and
to show interest in their customers. Therefore, we postulate
that:
P4: Services brands have many points of contact with con-
sumers and currently face the problem of delivering
inconsistent quality. This could be improved through
a “consumer-delighting” culture, evolving through bet-
ter training and more open internal communication.
THE SERVICES-BRANDING PARADIGM. Our earlier findings do
not lead us to the believe that a completely new set of princi-
ples are needed when branding services rather than products.
Instead, having developed the conceptual heart of the brand,
with well-defined functional and emotional values, changes
in emphasis are needed to enact the brand strategy. One
reason for this is that there is no such thing as a pure product
or a pure service, rather there are offerings, composed of
product and service elements, which have a greater or lesser
product proportion (cf. Shostack, 1977; Levitt, 1981). This
point was made by a brand consultant who said, “I find it
easier to think about a spectrum of brands, rather than going
from various products to various services because . . . every-
thing is a combination of products and services and they are
going to have to use much more of the service element to get
their differentiation.” The shifting emphasis to stressing the
service element was reinforced by an advertizing consultant
who used the example, “getting in a plane is the same as
any other plane” to bring out the importance of service as a
differentiator.
It would seem that when developing brands, managers are
Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding
obsessed with the classical fast moving consumer goods
model, and are concerned with building their brands’ func-
tional values, anticipating emotional values to subsequently
evolve. However, as several experts critically explained, partic-
ularly in financial services, there are only a few notable brands
with emotional values, for example First Direct and Co-opera-
tive Bank. As a brand consultant said, “there are a lot of names,
trade-marks in use, but very little in the way of brands.” He
used the examples of Norwich Union, Legal & General, and
Sun Alliance, describing these as “broadly based life insurance
companies with high quality products,” but no emotional
values to differentiate between them. Another brand consul-
tant referred to insurance brands as being “personality free”
resulting in consumers feeling no “affection for this brand
over every other brand.”
Consistent with the literature earlier reviewed, the experts
regard services brands (particularly corporate brands) as the
focus and inspiration for relationship building both outside
and inside the organization. The brand, as a cluster of func-
tional and emotional values, can grow through closer relation-
ships with consumers, through staff delivering a style of
behavior consistent with consumers’ expectations. As one ad-
vertising consultant summarized: “a brand is about creating
a relationship and a dialogue with a customer or a consumer.
. . . The art of managing a brand is how to create that relation-
ship to be beneficial and to add value to the service you are
trying to sell. . . . What you have to try and do is forge a
bond and a relationship.” Branding, then, becomes “an itera-
tive process that, having defined a position, you have to get
the product to substantiate that position” (brand consultant)
and the challenge to the service company is “actually getting a
deliverable proposition, something that the staff can genuinely
buy into and sign up for and actually deliver” (same brand
consultant). As mentioned in the previous section, the latter
can be achieved by ensuring that the brand’s corporate values
and a consumer-delighting culture permeates every level of
the organization. Sadly, as a brand consultant noted, financial
services firms have not developed emotional values for their
brands, and, as such, “consumers have no relationship with
the brand,” but rather with agents. An advertizing consultant
echoed this sentiment, criticizing insurance companies’ adver-
tising objectives of increasing brand awareness, so the con-
sumer would have trust in the broker when he or she men-
tioned a particular insurer, rather than having trust and a
growing relationship with the brand of insurance. From these
findings we posit that:
P5: Successful services brands result from well-nurtured
relationships, evolving through respect from staff and
consumers for particular functional and emotional
values.
Discussion
This study contributes to the debate on the differences and
similarities between goods and services by bringing to light
J Busn Res 189
1999:46:181–192
conceptual similarities between branding in the two fields,
despite differences in emphasis in the execution of specific
branding principles. Both the academic literature and the
brand experts suggest that conceptualizing “the brand” as the
link between the set of functional and emotional values created
by the company and the way these are perceived by consumers
applies to both physical goods and services, and that the same
branding principles are involved. Consultants also spoke of
a continuum from tangible goods to services, in terms similar
to those we earlier reviewed (e.g., Shostack, 1977; Levitt, 1981).
A novel perspective has been added by the experts’ com-
ments, in terms of the similarity in the “iterative process”
necessary to position a brand in either sector. However, most
experts maintained that the execution of branding strategies
may need adjustments in emphasis to comply with services’
specific features. Because of their intangibility, consumers may
not understand the detailed technicalities of complex services
brands, and may be unable to differentiate between alterna-
tives. Particularly in these instances, the experts stressed a
strong identity and reputation of the “company as brand” as
a crucial way of enhancing consumers’ perceptions and trust in
the firm’s range of services and as the basis for differentiation.
Furthermore, because services brands are often enacted by
the company’s staff, a strong “company as brand,” coupled
with internal communication and training, can serve as the
focus and motivation for employees’ activities, making them
more committed to, not only satisfying, but also delighting
the consumers. By so doing, a relationship, based on trust, can
be created between the firm, its employees, and consumers.
Another contribution of this paper is to identify the persis-
tent difficulty experienced by some services organizations,
financial services in particular, in achieving clear brand differ-
entiation. The experts mentioned the greater degree of intangi-
bility and complexity of many financial services as the main
culprits for the difficulties encountered in executing effective
branding strategies. Another explanation for the chasm be-
tween the emerging services-branding theory and that prac-
ticed by many financial services firms is that, traditionally,
they have not been managed as marketing organizations, rarely
putting consumers first. As a consequence, many financial
services firms have persistently overlooked the extent to which
consumers lack understanding of, and interest in, financial
products. Specifically, the 20 experts criticize financial services
firms for relying on their brand names alone (and the techni-
calities of individual services products) to differentiate them-
selves, rather than making their brands readily comprehensive
shorthands of functional as well as emotional values that could
simplify consumer choice. In particular, the adoption of fast
moving consumer goods multibranding techniques as means
for differentiating their products (cf. de Chernatony and Mc-
Donald, 1994) has been rebuked for achieving little more
than name proliferation, without clarifying in consumers’
minds how they differ.
Within Goodyear’s (1996) evolutionary perspective of
190 J Busn Res
1999:46:181–192
branding, financial services brands seem still to be in the early
stages of “naming devices,” as opposed to many physical goods
brands (e.g., Levi’s), which have developed to higher levels,
becoming “icons.” Only few financial services brands, such as
First Direct and Direct Line, were praised for exploiting the
image and reputation of their corporations.
Conclusions and
Managerial Implications
Despite not receiving much attention in the services literature,
branding has emerged as a crucial issue for service organiza-
tions. The challenges to managers are to make very intangible
products (such as financial services) more relevant and better
differentiated, bringing out the functional and emotional bene-
fits more clearly. At the same time, attention is needed to
provide a more homogeneous service consistent with the pro-
jected brand identity.
Both goods and services brands satisfy functional and emo-
tional needs. However, the extent of intangible elements in
the functional benefit may affect the way the service brand is
operationalized. For example, the service offered by an airline
is relatively tangible, and the quality of the functional benefits
(getting from A to B quickly and comfortably) is readily assess-
able. On the other hand, such financial services as pension
funds, whose functional benefits are promises at a later time,
are more intangible. In this context, consumers have a high
emotional need to be reassured that the functional promises
will be fulfilled resulting in an increased emphasis on corpo-
rate branding to build consumers’ trust and confidence.
The implications from our findings are that better manage-
ment of services brands should not rely blindly on fast moving
consumer goods branding techniques, even if the nature and
rationale for brands in the two sectors are similar. Rather,
adjustments in emphasis are needed to comply with services’
characteristics. At the functional performance level, firms must
invest in careful staff recruitment and company-wide training,
which is frequently updated. Staff must be made aware of
their brand’s vision and their specific roles to achieve this.
Reinforcing the brand vision, there should be a clear view
about the type of relationship between staff and consumers
and the degree of latitude staff have in enacting this. Commu-
nications should first be directed at employees, then at con-
sumers. Making a corporate brand identity relevant to employ-
ees can help motivate them to exceed consumers’ expectations.
However, all this branding activity can only succeed with
senior management’s commitment to engendering a particular
type of corporate culture. Finally, at the emotional level, the
brand’s vision should encompass the values the firm stands
for and should inspire consistency and trust to consumers,
thus supporting the functional performance values.
One might think in terms of a virtuous circle, wherein a
strong “company as brand” identity permeates all services
provided by the organization and differentiates them from the
L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
competition, by providing a relevant focus both to consumers
and employees. This can be achieved using internal marketing
to motivate the employees, stimulate them to offer a better
service, and to delight consumers. In turn, this delight makes
the service company more differentiated from competitors
and more relevant to consumers. Favorable word-of-mouth
then spreads, reinforcing an image in consumers’ minds con-
sistent with the caring identity the company wants to project,
completing the virtuous circle of service branding.
Finally, this paper identifies a gap between services-brand-
ing theory and practice—and possible reasons for it—from
the point of view of brand experts. In future research, we
shall investigate the perceptions of financial services managers
about the role of branding. Specifically, we shall investigate
the extent to which the identified chasm derives from lack of
knowledge of appropriate branding principles or from diffi-
culties in the mere execution of the branding strategy.
References
Aaker, D.: Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand
Name, The Free Press, New York. 1991.
Aaker, D.: Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York. 1996.
American Marketing Association: Marketing Definitions: A Glossary
of Marketing Terms, American Marketing Association, Chicago.
1960.
Arnold, D.: The Handbook of Brand Management, Century Business,
The Economist Books, London. 1992.
Balmer, J. M. T.: Corporate Branding and Connoiseurship. Journal
of General Management 21 (Autumn 1995): 24–46.
Bateson, J. E. G.: Do We Need Service Marketing? in Marketing
Consumer Services: New Insights, Marketing Science Institute, Re-
port No. 77-115, December 1977.
Bateson, J. E. G.: Why We Need Service Marketing, in Conceptual
and Theoretical Developments in Marketing, O. C. Ferrell, S. W.
Brown, and C. W. Lamb Jr., eds., American Marketing Associa-
tion, Chicago. 1979, pp. 131–146.
Bateson, J. E. G.: Managing Services Marketing, The Dryden Press,
London 1995.
Berry, L. L.: Service Marketing Is Different. Business 30 (May–June
1980): 24–29.
Berry, L. L., Lefkowith, E. F., and Clark, T.: In Services, What’s in
a Name? Harvard Business Review 66 (September–October 1988):
28–30.
Berry, L. L., and Yadav, M. S.: Capture and Communicate Value in
the Pricing of Services. Sloan Management Review 37 (Summer
1996): 41–51.
Blackston, M.: Observations: Building Brand Equity by Managing
the Brand’s Relationships. Journal of Advertising Research (1992):
79–83.
Boulding, K.: The Image, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
1956.
Boyd, W. L., Leonard, M., and White, C.: Consumer Preferences
for Financial Services: An Analysis. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 12 (1994): 9–15.
Broadbent, K., and Cooper, P.: Research is Good for You. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning 5 (1987): 3–9.
Defining Services Brands and Principles of Services Branding
Camp, L.: Latest Thinking on the optimization of Brand Use in
Financial Services Marketing. The Journal of Brand Management 3
(1996): 241–247.
Collins, J. C., and Porras, J. I.: Building Your Company’s Vision.
Harvard Business Review 74 (September–October 1996): 65–77.
Crainer, S.: The Real Power of Brands: Making Brands Work for Competi-
tive Advantage, Pitman Publishing, London. 1995.
Daneshkhu, S.: Brand Name of the Hotel Game. Financial Times, 8th
June 1995, page 21.
de Chernatony, L., Categorizing Brands: Evolutionary Processes Un-
derpinned by Two Jey Dimensions. Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment 9 (1993): 173–188.
de Chernatony, L., and McDonald, M.: Creating Powerful Brands,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1994.
de Chernatony, L., and Dall’Olmo Riley, F.: Brand Consultants Per-
spectives on the Concept of the Brand. Marketing and Research
Today 25 (1997): 45–52.
Denby-Jones S.: Mind the Gap. The Banker, 145, (February 1995):
66–67.
Dibb, S., and L. Simkin: The Strength of Branding and Positioning
in Services. International Journal of Services Industries Management
4 (1993): 25–35.
Diefenbach, J.: The Corporate Identity as the Brand, in J. M. Murphy,
ed., Branding: A Key Marketing Tool, MacMillan, Basingstoke.
1992, pp. 155–164.
Dobree, J., and Page, A. S.: Unleashing the Power of Service Brands
in the 1990s. Management Decision 28 (1990): 14–28.
Faust, W. H., and Eilertson, A.: You Have Got a Logo, You Need a
Brand. ABA Banking Journal 86 (1994): 86–90.
Firth, M.: Price Setting and the Value of a Strong Brand Name.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 10 (December 1993):
381–386.
Fitzgerald, T. J.: Understanding the Differences and Similarities Be-
tween Services and Products To Exploit Your Competitive Advan-
tage. Journal of Services Marketing 2 (Winter 1988): 25–30.
Ford, R.: Insurance Advertising in the 1990s. Admap (June 1990):
22–25.
Gelb, B. D., and Gelb, G. M.: What Research Inside the Organisation
Can Accomplish. Marketing Research 3 (1991): 44–51.
George, W. R.: Internal Marketing and Organizational Behavior: A
Partnership in Developing Consumer-Conscious Employees at
Every Level. Journal of Business Research 20 (1990): 63–70.
George, W. R., and Berry, L. L.: Guidelines for Advertising Services.
Business Horizons 24 (July–August 1981): 52–56.
Goodyear, M.: Qualitative Research, in A Handbook of Market Research
Techniques, R. Birn, P. Hague, and P. Vangelder, eds., Kogan Page,
London. 1990, pp. 229–248.
Goodyear, M.: Divided by a Common Language. Journal of the Market
Research Society 38 (1996): 105–122. Gordon, W., and Langmaid,
R.: Qualitative Market Research, Gower, Aldershot. 1988.
Gordon, W., and Langmaid, R.: Qualitative Market Research, Gower,
Aldershot, UK. 1988.
Greene, W. E., Walls, G. D., and Schrest, L. J.: Internal Marketing:
The Key to External Marketing Success. Journal of Services Market-
ing 8 (1994): 5–13.
Grönroos, C.: Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books,
New York. 1990a.
Grönroos, C.: Relationship Approach to Marketing in Service Con-
J Busn Res 191
1999:46:181–192
texts: The Marketing and Organizational Behavior Interface. Jour-
nal of Business Research 20 (1990b): 3–11.
Grove, S. J., and Fisk, R. P.: The Impact of Other Customers on
Service Experiences: A Critical Incident Examination of “Getting
Along.” Journal of Retailing 73(1) (Spring 1977): 63–85.
Gummesson, E.: Toward a Theory of Professional Service Marketing.
Industrial Marketing Management 7 (1978): 89–95.
Hansen, F.: Consumer Choice Behavior. A Cognitive Theory, The Free
Press, New York. 1972.
Hansen, F.: Consumer Choice Behavior. A Cognitive Theory, The Free
Press, New York. 1972.
Jones, J. P.: What’s in a Name, Gower, Aldershot. 1986.
Joyce, T.: Techniques of Brand Image Measurement, in New Develop-
ments in Research, Market Research Society, London. 1963, pp.
45–63.
Kapferer, J. N.: Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
1992.
Keeble, G.: Creativity and the Brand, in Understanding Brands by 10
People Who Do, D. Cowley ed., Kogan Page, London. 1991, pp,
167–182.
Knisely G.: Greater Marketing Emphasis by Holiday Inns Breaks
Mold. Advertising Age (January 15, 1979): 47–51.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., and Wong, V.: Principles of
Marketing, Prentice-Hall Europe, Hemel, Hempstead. 1996.
Kotler P., and Bloom, P. N.: Marketing Professional Services, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.
Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 1980.
Levitt, T.: Production-Line Approach to Service. Harvard Business
Review 50 (September–October 1972): 41–52.
Levitt, T.: Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles.
Harvard Business Review 59 (May–June 1981): 94–102.
Lewis, B. R.: Consumer Care in Service Organizations. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning 7 (1989): 18–22.
Michel, S.: Prosuming Behavior and Its Strategic Implication for
Marketing, Paper presented at 9th UK Services Marketing Work-
shop, Stirling University, November 1996.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M.: Qualitiative Data Analysis, Sage:
Newbury Park, CA. 1994.
Milligan, J. W.: Are Banks Ready for Product Branding? United States
Banker 105 (April 1995): 39–41.
Mohr, L. A., and Bitner, M. J.: The Role of Employee Effort in
Satisfaction with Service Transaction. Journal of Business Research
32 (1995): 239–252.
Morgan, N. A.: Implementing Marketing: Key Issues for Professional
Service Firms. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 6 (1990):
7–16.
Morrall, K.: Creating a Cohesive Image Through Branding. Bank
Marketing 27 (1995): 23–28.
Mudie, P. M.: Internal Marketing: Cause for Concern. Quarterly
Review of Marketing 12 (Spring/Summer 1987): 21–24.
Murray, J. G.: The Importance of Internal Marketing. Bankers Maga-
zine 162 (1979): 38–40.
Norman, R., and Ramirez, R.: Designing Interactive Strategy, John
Wiley, Chicester. 1994.
Onkvisit, S., and Shaw, J. J.: Service Marketing: Image, Branding, and
Competition. Business Horizons (January–February 1989): 13–18.
192 J Busn Res
1999:46:181–192
Peklo, D. A.: Why Home Banking Needs Product Branding. US
Banker 105 (1995): 77–78.
Plummer, J. T.: How Personality Makes a Difference. Journal of Adver-
tising Research 24 (1985): 27–30.
Quinn, J. B., Doorley, T. L., and Paquette, P. C.: Beyond Products:
Services-Based Strategy. Harvard Business Review 68 (March–April
1990): 58–68.
Richardson, B. A., and Robinson, C. G.: The Impact of Internal
Marketing on Consumer Service in a Retail Bank. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 4 (1986): 3–30.
Sasser, W. E. Jr.: Match Supply and Demand in Service Industries.
Harvard Business Review 54 (November–December 1976): 133–140.
Saunders, J., and Watters, R.: Branding Financial Services. Journal
of Marketing 11 (April 1977): 73–80.
Shostack, G. L.: Breaking Free from Product Marketing. Journal of
Marketing 41 (April 1977): 73–80.
Smith, A.: Marrying Brands—Today’s Merger of Lloyds Bank and
TSB Group Raises Questions of Identity. Financial Times (Decem-
ber 28th 1995).
Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., and Gutman, E. G.:
A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service
Encounter. Journal of Marketing 49 (1985): 99–111.
Summers, D.: Service, But Not With a Smile. Financial Times (11th
July 1996): 20.
Tansuhaj, P. S. D., Randall, D., and McCullough, J.: A Services
L. de Chernatony and F. Dall’Olmo Riley
Marketing Management Model: Integrating Internal and External
Marketing Functions. Journal of Services Marketing 2 (Winter
1988): 31–38.
Thomas, D. R. E.: Strategy Is Different in Service Business. Harvard
Business Review 56 (July–August 1978): 158–165.
Timberman, E. L., Jr.: If You Don’t Position Your Bank, the Competi-
tion Will. Bank Marketing 17 (February 1985): 10–12.
Turley, L. W., and Moore, P. A.: Brand Name Strategies in the Service
Sector. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (1995): 42–50.
Wasmer, D. J., and Bruner, G. C. II: Using Organizational Culture
to Design Internal Marketing Strategy. Journal of Services Marketing
5 (Winter 1991): 35–46.
Watters, R., and Wright, D.: Why Has Branding Failed in the UK
Insurance Industry? in Banking and Insurance: From Recession to
Recovery, ESOMAR Conference Proceedings, 1994.
Woodward, S.: Competitive Marketing, in Understanding Brands by
10 People Who Do, D. Cowley, ed., Kogan Page, London. 1991,
pp. 117–130.
Wyckham, R. G., Fitzroy, P. T., and Mandry, G. D.: Marketing
of Services, An Evaluation of the Theory. European Journal of
Marketing 9 (1975): 59–67.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., and Berry, L. L.: Problems and
Strategies in Services Marketing. Journal of Marketing 49 (1985):
33–46.
Zeithaml, V. A., and Bitner, M. J.: Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill,
New York. 1996.