critique of article brief

8/3/2019 Critique of Article Brief

1/7

Critique of "Brand, organizational identity and reputation inSMEs: an overview"

Introduction

This article by Abimola & Vallaster (2007) professes to equate brand organization identity

and reputation values and claims that synergy of these three values applies more so to SMEs

than to larger organizations. Leading through series of observations from different

researchers the authors claim the assertions are supported by works of other researchers

which the authors have cited. Going through the evidence presented and using some of the

quoted researchers work we would point out the gap in authors deductions.

Discussion

Abimola & Vallaster (2007) assert that strong brands reduce risk and communicate a feeling

of familiarity. This is true however we will have to consider the due to limited resources of

SMEs the investment in making a brand reach the strong brand grade is going to be difficult.

Gilmore et al (2001) mention diluted efforts of SME marketing as they contend that SME

marketing will be haphazard and less optimized as SME management is usually limited to

owner and the usual response is reactive not proactive according to the market situation. Thus

the SME marketing is not textbook case rather event determined. SME networking is built

around networks, which may include social, business, industry and marketing networks.

Networking drives SME marketing and hence marketing follows these channels; not only is

this method more informal and not likely to be followed in large organizations but also this

channel method does not follow established marketing lines as in case of more traditional

methods. Owner managers contacts are of prime importance in driving this mode of

marketing (Gilmore et al 2001). Abimola & Vallaster (2007)s contention that powerful

brands may require consistent positive customer contacts and brands communication is

perfectly valid, however as Gilmore et al (2001) have mentioned that marketing in SME is

channel dependent, therefore brands communication will be limited and positive contacts

may be limited to elements of the networks through which marketing is channelized. It would

therefore be difficult to build powerful brands in SMEs case if only these minimal and

informal marketing channels are utilized. The networks as mentioned are inherently

experiential as mistakes once rectified are through the feedback loop corrected and similar

Page 1 of 7


2/7

occurrences avoided. Social networks similarly allow for information gap and consequently

will require leap of faith for marketing decision making.

Abimola & Vallaster (2007) discussion of added value concept by Gilmore et al (1999)

saying that SMEs have distinctive characteristics that separate from larger firms and that

traditional marketing theories cant be used to describe SMEs and that SMEs are better

suited to smaller more focused markets. Better brand management will allow competitive

differentiation of their products and add more perceived value into their products. This

smaller scale dimensioning is required for SMEs as they dont have economies of scale

advantage over their larger counterparts. The added value will be dependent on nature of

industry and the competitors; however SMEs may be more cognizant of its customers

because of better and closer relationship (network concept) (Gilmore et al 1999). This aspect

of being closer to customers allows brand management to be managed by more diverse set of

elements than core marketing as in larger organizations. This innovation in marketing as it is

handled either by owner manager or its team from multidisciplinary environment is a mixed

blessing as flexibility might be disadvantageous because of lack of discipline which is

enforced because of multidisciplinary approach (Abimola & Vallaster 2007).

Opoku et al (2007) reiterate brandings importance in SME as brands communicate values,

both perceived and added, more than marketing communication alone can do. SME sector

accounts for 95% business in US and accounts for more than 55% of employment in UK

(Powell et al 2007). Opoku et al (2007) contend that brand management does not receive the

focus that is given to brand management in larger organizations. This is primarily due to

limited budgets of SMEs hence Abimola & Vallaster (2007) assertion that SMEs have clear

advantage because of flexible structures may be limited to some but not all SMEs. Opoku et

al (2007) mention the power of Internet. Internet has lowered barriers to entry, made

sophisticated marketing through customized websites within reach of all and sundry and the

at the same increased customer advantage. Customer can now easily compare offering from

one SME to the rest of the organizations offering similar products and respective availability.

This paradigm shift raises questions about product differentiation via branding and adding on

value to make product more appealing to the newer more discerning customer. Internet not

only dresses the product personality but also may be the only contact customer ever gets with

retailer organization. Website presence is a double edged sword it does increase the SMEs

personality yet lowers the barriers for other competitor to use similar strategies for

differentiation. Opoku et al (2007) assumes that brand personality reflects like humansspecific aspects that differentiates the products from other competitor products. Five separate

Page 2 of 7


3/7

SMEs in the fast food or coffee retailers were chosen: Blenz, Caf Rouge, Jollibee, Nandos

and Old Spaghetti Factory were chosen and content analysis performed to determine how

brand personality attributes were distributed. Caf Rouge factored on sophistication while

Jollibee was associated with competence and Nandos was strongly associated with sincerity.

Old Spaghetti factory failed to communicate any strong brand personality. Opoku et al (2007)

thus demonstrates brand personality dimensioning through how product website

communicates personality. This leaves greater onus on SMEs who with their meager

resources have to make sure that their online presence does represent the image that they

want to project adequately. Perceived value may be more important than the actual value that

the SME wants to project. What is lacking is comparison with actual presence and how does

the physical presence fortify or negate the online presence. In the case of fast food outlets

brand presence will be a combination of virtual and physical presence. This article fails to

identify that element hence Abimola & Vallaster (2007) stipulation that, website enhances

SMEs ability to demonstrate brand personality, is fine but how does the physical and virtual

blend and whether synergy is effectuated between the two mediums is the question. Finally

as we have seen the SMEs operate with limited budgets and manpower, so how is the win

win win situation created remain a big question mark?

Carson & Gilmore (2000) also stress that nature of marketing in SME is subsequent to nature

of the concerned owner or entrepreneur. The SME cant go outside the norm and shirk

established practices because of conformability requirements and to get acceptance from

established customer base of the concerned product. Product parameters relating to presence,

distribution and service aspects are all demarcated by the so called industry norms which

define how the SME will have to operate to gain maximum acceptability. Differentiation for

SME will only come after gaining acceptance in the market while in contrast large players

can break out of the norm because of their size and attract the market to themselves rather

than going to the customers.

The diagram below represents a model of SME marketing that use how to marketing

approach or situation specific marketing which SMEs require as they usually are working on

reactive basis during their nascent years.

Page 3 of 7


4/7

(Carson & Gilmore 2000)SME marketing will be a function of the standard 4Ps adapted to the specific situation of the

respective SME. It is important to note that SME will adapt the relevant concept in a way that

is of most use to them. Marketing Planning in a large organization is decidedly different from

SME. Marketing decisions are usually taken in stride by owners managers who have limited

marketing expertise, thus we have interesting irony SMEs have more flexible structures

which foster or hinder development of strong brands! As also mentioned by Abimola &

Vallaster (2007) organizational identity is often a reflection of that of the owner manager

this provides distinctive flavor to organization while limiting its organizational identity from

achieving a more complex flavor of a typical large organization. Abimola & Kocak (2007)

call upon organizational identity as an objective or a vision or what the customers believe

about the company. So in some ways this can be compared with perception of the firm and

this defines how the SME or large organization would compete. SME functioning is

dependent on adaptation and using network marketing and innovative marketing concepts

concepts that in a larger organization will not be generally used (Carson & Gilmore 2000).

Wong & Merrilees (2005) also inextricably link Marketing as an essential part of SME

functioning. Brands evolve in SME following stages of minimalist, progressively moving on

to embryonic and finally integrated stage as shown in the following diagram (Wong &

Merrilees 2005).

Page 4 of 7


5/7

Minimalist orientation depicts a short term focused, while embryonic state allows for more

marketing capability as the focus is longer term and competitive pressures are existent,

branding is not explicitly defined and works on sort of de facto basis while in the third or

integrated orientation the brand becomes more distinctive (Wong & Merrilees 2005).

The above orientation distinguishes from a large firm in which the brand orientation isdefined.

Abimola & Vallaster (2007) also contend that in large organizations the brand reputation and

awareness issues are researched more thoroughly, however the research seldom reaches the

decision making authority to take full advantage of the research while in case of SME the

budgetary constraints allow decisions to be based on network information which reduces turn

around time and enables quick implementation of feedback loop. The assertion that

complaints and research results do not reach the relevant decision making authority isgeneralizing to a large degree. Also contending that holistic approach where all three

elements of brand, organizational identity and reputation work in concert for success of SME.

As we have seen that branding strategy and organizational identity are at behest of owner

manager so these strategies will generally be on more ad hoc level then in case of Large

organizations. Powell & Ennis (2007) point out challenges within SMEs in creative

industries which can be assumed for general SMEs as well. Competitive element is present

in most SMEs and even if it is not present then competitive element is considered animportant aspect of differentiation and enhanced revenues. Within creative industries the

marketing aspect is informal while in cases of other SMEs marketing may be informal for

nascent SMEs though it is desired that when SMEs reach integrated level they have well

defined marketing strategy (Powell & Ennis 2007).

Conclusion

Abimola & Vallaster (2007) contend outright that the conclusions or results that they have

surmised are deduced from works of other researchers. SMEs are required to have a holisticblend of Brand, Organization identity and reputation to succeed. However it is shown in the

Page 5 of 7


6/7

above discourse that most SMEs are unstructured and rely on informal channels so

attributing branding and organizational identity will be a misfit. Authors also acknowledge

that organizational identity of SMEs may be an extension of owners personalities. This

automatically relegates branding and reputation to more of network marketing and

development of network channels as discussed above. Hence authors have tried to attribute

aspects of more organized SMEs or larger organizations to all SMEs which may not be

always possible. Using examples of Internet branding and added values the generalizations

may not be always valid. Internet presence may be sought almost all SMEs, yet positioning

and building reputation through website may not be perquisite of all SMEs. Added values

again may not be blankly applied to all SMEs even Gilmore et al does not explicitly tag on

added value to SMEs. Hence we can generally say that the authors need to circumscribe

the attributes of brand, organizational identity and reputation to specific types or classes of

SME instead of all SMEs and also detailed SME classification might be required to ascribe

these dimensions to SMEs in general.

Page 6 of 7


7/7

List of References

1. Heikki Majava (Jun2005) Psychosynthesis of the brain and mind: Comments on a

new intellectual framework in psychiatry and psychotherapy,International Forum of

Psychoanalysis, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p108-115, 8p;

2. Temi Abimbola, Akin Kocak (2007) Brand, organization identity and reputation:

SMEs as expressive organizations; A resources-based perspective, Qualitative

Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 416

3. Temi Abimbola, Christine Vallaster (2007) Brand, organisational identity and

reputation in SMEs: an overview Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p.

341

4. Robert Ankomah Opoku, Russell Abratt, Mike Bendixen, Leyland Pitt (2007)

Communicating brand personality: are the web sites doing the talking for food

SMEs? Qualitative Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 362

5. Shaun Powell, Sean Ennis (2007) Organisational marketing in the creative

industries Qualitative Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 375

6. Ho Yin Wong, Bill Merrilees (2005) A brand orientation typology for SMEs: a case

research approach The Journal of Product and Brand ManagementVol. 14, Iss. 2/3;

p. 155

7. Koak, Akin; Abimbola, Temi; zer, Alper (Feb2007) Consumer Brand Equity in a

Cross-cultural Replication: An Evaluation of a Scale Journal of Marketing

ManagementVol. 23 Issue 1/2, p157-173, 17p, 6

8. Audrey Gilmore, David Carson, Ken Grant(2001) SME marketing in practice

Marketing Intelligence & PlanningVol. 19, Iss. 1; p. 6

9. David Carson, Audrey Gilmore (Spring 2000) Marketing at the interface: Not 'what'

but 'how'Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Vol. 8, Iss. 2; p. 1

10. Audrey Gilmore, David Carson, Aodheen O'Donnell, Darryl Cummins (1999)

Added value: A qualitative assessment of SME marketing Irish Marketing Review

Vol. 12, Iss. 1; p. 27

Page 7 of 7

critique of article brief

Documents