See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233712021

Branding knowledge: Brand building beyond product and service brands

Article in Journal of Brand Management · July 2001

DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540043

CITATIONS READS

11 3,242

2 authors, including:

Martin Eppler
University of St.Gallen
299 PUBLICATIONS 5,165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Collaboration and Productivity IT Research at Intel View project

The Science of Meetings: Understanding and improving knowledge-intensive meetings in large organizations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Eppler on 08 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Branding Knowledge
Brand Building Beyond Product and Service Brands
Martin J. Eppler and Markus Will
Address: mcm institute for media and communications management, University of St. Gallen,
Mueller-Friedberg-Str. 8, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland; Tel +41 71 224 2407
E-mail: Martin.Eppler@unisg.ch or Markus.Will@unisg.ch

Martin J. Eppler is a senior lecturer at the University of St. Gallen and head of the

Competence Center Enterprise Knowledge Medium, where he is conducting research on knowledge in

organizations and teaches in the graduate and post-graduate programs of the University of St. Gallen.

Markus Will is a senior lecturer and head of the Center for Corporate Communications at the

University of St. Gallen. The center conducts research with various partner companies on issues

relating to financial communication, corporate reputation, and the impact of new media on corporate

communication processes.

ABSTRACT

The article argues that product, service, and corporate brands are about to be extended by

one other type of brand: the knowledge brand. A knowledge brand is a clearly differentiated

visual and verbal identity that bundles and communicates a set of skills, competencies and

methodologies in one coherent manner. This becomes crucial as companies are not only

selling specific products or services, but also market their unique know-how in improving

services or products. For this purpose a knowledge brand has to communicate its topics (why

its knowledge is valuable and rare) through specific tools (such as surveys, Extranets, or

CEO-newsletters) and transmitters (such as conventions speeches, interviews, or specialized

conferences) to its targets (such as CEOs, CFOs, CIOS, or other regional and functional

directors).

INTRODUCTION

Branding issues often reside within the context of product branding where a – typically

consumer good – mass product has to be marketed (externally and internally) through a

1
clearly recognizable visual and verbal identity – the brand. Although there is a growing body

of literature on the theory of branding, on strategic brand management and on branding

processes, corporate and service branding are relatively new dimensions in branding literature

and practice alike. In particular, we refer to Gregory, 1997 (1) and Ind, 1997 (2), where

corporate branding is closely related to reputation management (3), and where a company’s

name is treated as a brand in its own right (typically targeted not only at consumers, but also

at current and potential shareholders and at the greater public) in addition to existing product

brands. Furthermore, we view the aim of service branding as to bundle a set of services under

one brand in order to be recognized by current and potential clients as an integrated and

unique offer.

In this article, we will argue that this branding triad of corporate, product, and service brand

is about to be extended by one other type of brand – the knowledge brand. We will argue (and

illustrate through short cases) that problem solving capabilities, methodologies, experiences,

and solution skills need to be branded differently than traditional products, services, or

corporations. We will show that – in a time when companies compete for and through

knowledge – the branding of that knowledge becomes a crucial – and strategic – marketing

activity. This is especially true in times where companies seek to not only sell their products

and services, but also capitalize on the marketing of their accumulated knowledge. Prime

examples of this trend are Hewlett Packard, Siemens, Lotus, and IBM. These companies have

initiated professional services or consulting branches in addition to their product sales

branches.

In order to achieve these aims, we will start by focusing on the main characteristics of a

knowledge brand, then stress four core functions of a knowledge brand, as well as describe the

process of branding knowledge. To conclude the article, we will discuss short cases to

illustrate our approach with real-life examples.

2
CHARACTERISTICS OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE BRANDING CONTEXT

There are specific characteristics of knowledge that affect the branding process and make a

differentiated approach necessary that significantly differs from traditional product or service

branding. Below, we describe the main characteristics of knowledge that need to be taken into

account in marketing know-how as a brand.

Knowledge is neither a product nor a service. Although there is a wide variety of definitions

of what a "product” is, knowledge does not qualify as a simple, standardised solution to a

given need. Keller, 1998, p. 3 (4), referring to Kotler says that "a product is everything that

can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption that might satisfy a

need or want. Thus, a product may be a physical good, service, retail store, person,

organisation, place or idea." In this broad sense, almost everything may qualify as a product,

except for knowledge, where the actual need is often implicit and not easily recognised by the

potential consumer. In a consulting engagement, for example, the consultant often has to help

a client articulate his or her need by comparing the client’s situation to the consultant’s

distinct set of competencies. Knowledge can be defined as "a strategic resource which

consists of the skills and capabilities which individuals, teams, and organizations use for

problem solving" (5). Knowledge (for example in the case of a due diligence study) remains

with the clients even after the relationship with their “supplier” expires. In so far, it is more a

product-orientated relationship, since as with products, there is a change of ownership. But

from a different perspective, knowledge intensive solutions usually develop from a service-

orientated relationship with the client, since the handling of the offered analytic tools must be

taught to clients in the first place. But differently from a service, those tools remain with the

client and with the producer after the market transaction. Thus, selling and consequently

branding knowledge has to go beyond simple product or service brands. It has to make this

3
two-fold nature of knowledge (originating as a service and then mutating into an independent

product) explicit.

Branding in this context is neither a classic marketing nor a standard communication process

alone. There is a wide variety of meanings for branding in the context of marketing. In our

understanding of marketing, we refer to Aaker/Keller, 1998, p. 357 (6): "Corporate Marketing

activities as publicly visible programs and actions that companies initiate and that are not

identified with a single product or brand sold by the company." In this context, we omit

implications corporate culture could have for the branding process, since – as will be shown

below– the article focuses on the process of communicating a knowledge brand externally

rather than on the elements or constituencies of a brand. Branding as a perspective on

marketing must not only focus on advertising, sponsoring or design (traditional marketing

domains), but also, for example, on press, on investors, on lobbyists and on employees as well

as on clients (integrated communication aspects). In particular, the multipliers in the general

public and in the financial and political spheres are key to success for an integrated branding

concept, which aims to catch the attention of the relevant target groups. For Kapferer, 1998, p.

46 (7), the only effective approach to branding is a holistic one: "Branding means much more

than just giving a brand name and signaling to the outside world that such a product or service

has been stamped with the mark and imprint of an organization. Brands are a direct

consequence of the strategy of market segmentation and product differentiation." A

knowledge brand strategy must therefore be derived from the competence strategy of a

company, e.g., how its various skills, experiences, and methodologies can be bundled, used

for client benefits, and coherently developed.

In consequence, branding knowledge stresses a different type of offer (as has been shown a

hybrid between product and service) with an integrated marketing & communication concept,

i.e. branding. Therefore, branding knowledge must take the specificities of knowledge (i.e.,

4
its intangible and complex nature) and the holistics of branding (i.e. its various target groups

and forms of expression) into consideration. The concept of branding knowledge benefits

from both product and service branding, but is more closely related to corporate branding and

reputation management. Gregory, 1997 (1) views corporate branding as "a planned inclusive

strategy that sets communications standards and policies for the benefit of the whole entity."

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE BRANDS AND CORPORATE

BRANDS

Why is branding knowledge, in our view, most closely related to corporate branding? In

contrast to service branding, which focuses almost solely on clients, corporate branding takes

both current and potential shareholders and employees into consideration. All of these most

important stakeholders are indispensable for branding knowledge, since it is most certainly

more an intangible than a tangible good. Hence, as Mottram, 1998 (8), writes, "in today’s

markets, companies increasingly compete on the basis of intangible factors and the reputation

of the corporation itself is often the most valuable and most misunderstood intangible of all."

Thus, knowledge is crucial for the goodwill of a corporation. Kapferer (7) points out that the

term goodwill - as difference between market value and book value – requires at least these

three stakeholders: "While the investors are willing to pay for goodwill, the employees and

their relationships to clients are actually the creators of goodwill." The goal of branding a

company’s knowledge is exactly that: to materialize and differentiate this type of goodwill in

order to generate a competent reputation.

Stressing knowledge as a brand in its own right can avoid the likelihood of becoming a

commodity as a corporation (which would subsequently mean to sink into a lower margin

business). In other words: If a corporate brand is connected to various bundled competencies

(such as unparalleled market research or in-depth CEO-surveys), it is usually branded with the

5
corporate name (such as Merrill Lynch Research or PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Straight from

the CEO magazine, or its Global CEO Surveys). It is these relationships to either companies

or CEOs, which put Merrill Lynch or PricewaterhouseCoopers in the position to develop such

knowledge. Thus, a knowledge brand requires the reputation of a corporate brand as a

prerequisite, in order to be able to draw expertise and insights from clients, other companies

or CEOs or in order to transfer knowledge to them. But also in the other direction, as in the

case of a famous methodology (e.g., Renaissance Inc.’s Balanced Scorecard concept) or a

knowledge product, like an analytic company journal (e.g., The McKinsey Quarterly), the

knowledge brand can contribute to the reputation of a corporate brand. A further

interdependence between the knowledge brand and the corporate brand lies in the adequate

use of sub-brands and umbrella brands, where a knowledge brand is divided into various sub-

brands (e.g., Arthur Andersen’s Knowledge Space that is divided into other sections such as

the Global Best Practices, see www.knowledgespace.com). In this case, the corporate brand is

used to devise an intellectual brand architecture that spells out the relationship between

various knowledge brands. All of these relationships can be laid out in a knowledge brand

architecture. As we see it, brand architectures derive from respective brand strategies or

strategic brand management (for example: Kapferer 1998 (7)) or even brand leadership (for

example: Aaker/Joachimstaler 2000, (10)). These strategic brand (leadership) decisions are

often based on the question of how to best capitalize on the value of a brand. It could lead to

extensions (Kapferer 2000, (11)) or to the leverage of a corporate brand (as Aaker, 1996, pp.

209, (9) describes, for example, for the GE case).

However, if one examines the brand strategies and – subsequently – architectures of Merrill

Lynch Research and PricewaterhouseCoopers, one will realize that the value offered their

clients is in fact in the first place a reduction of complexity through their unique knowledge. In

consequence, a corporation which wants to have access to high-margins and knowledge-

6
intensive markets, has to materialize knowledge (through people, systems and combinations

of both) in its corporate brand and through special knowledge brands such as branded

methodologies (such as Arthur Andersen’s KMAT methodology to assess knowledge

management problems), branded conceptual tools (such as the Boston Consulting Group’s

Learning Curve tool) , newsletters or magazines (such as the McKinsey Quarterly), specific

surveys (such as PWC’s E-Business Surveys), conferences (such as IBM’s Knowledge

Management Conferences), or Internet portals (such as brint.com a portal on e-business

know-how) or software (such as Gemini’s Knowledge Galaxy). In doing so, the company

reduces the complexity of its own offerings – since the communication of knowledge is a

rather complex process (see the subsequent section) – by materializing it in tangible proxies.

Figure one below describes the discussed branding issues by visualizing the relation of the

different brands to the complexity of the brand message and their impact on the corporate

brand. The figure shows that knowledge brands have a greater impact on the corporate brand

than most service or product brands since they directly contribute to the reputation of a

company. The chart also shows that the complexity of brand messages of knowledge brands is

considerably higher than that of service brands or pure product brands (where the utility of a

given product or service requires little or no explanation, knowledge always has to be put into

a context in order to reveal its potential value). The examples that are provided in each cluster

represent typical brands of each group. Product brands often make no reference to the

company that is behind the brand. Pringles, for example, is a well-known food brand that does

not stress the connection with its producer Procter & Gamble, neither in its advertisement nor

in its packaging. The impact on the corporate brand it thus very limited. There are, of course,

product brands that also leverage the company brand, such as the Audi TT or the Volkswagen

New Beetle, or vice versa (as in the case of Swatch). The second cluster, consisting of service

brands, shows that there are brands which market a service without mentioning the corporate

7
brand (such as the “Taxi” insurance for young people by Winterthur Insurance, the Mobility

car sharing service, or the Magellan fund by Fidelity) while others use the corporate name to

market their services (such as Club Med). The knowledge brands finally provide access to a

higher margin business, and hence originate in knowledge-intensive industries such as market

research, consulting, or investment banking. Unlike the previous two types of brands, the

knowledge brands in the diagram below represent a certain competence (such as IT-

competence in the case of the Gartner Executive Briefings, or strategy-competence in the case

of the McKinsey Quarterly Magazine) and not a specific service or product. Many knowledge

brands can be positioned within the business-to-business context (such as client events of

consulting companies), while there are also knowledge brands targeted at end consumers,

such as those of on-line opinion portals (i.e., slashdot.org, ehow.com, or epinions.com) that

broker expert knowledge and advice or conferences such as TED (Technology, Entertainment,

Design) by Richard Saul Wurman (see www.ted.com).

high
PWC Surveys
McKinsey Quarterly
KnowledgeDirect.Net
Gartner Briefings
Impact Club Med
Epinions TED
Nielsen NetRatings
on the Miles&More
Yahoo
Balanced Scorecard Knowledge
Taxi DB Research Brands
Corporate Magellan Mobility
747
Brand TT
KFC
7Eleven
Marlboro
Bild IMAX Service
Seven Up
Swatch Nutella Nivea Brands
Dove Kleenex
Product
low Pringles
Brands

low high
Complexity of the brand message
Figure 1: The brand typology and exemplary brands

8
FUNCTIONS OF AN KNOWLEDGE BRAND

As the name indicates, intangible assets such as knowledge are difficult to illustrate or render

visible. Hence, the foremost function of a knowledge brand is exactly that: to make the

invisible value proposition inherent in a competence visible and tangible (materialization).

This can be achieved through the use of powerful symbols, slogans, artifacts (such as

surveys), or personalities (who embody the marketed skill or talent, as Orit Gadiesh –

chairman of the board at Bain & Company - embodies the aggressive intellect of the

consulting firm Bain & Company). In addition, the brand needs to simplify the often complex

value proposition inherent in marketing a skill or competence. This can be achieved by stating

the purpose of the packaged knowledge explicitly (i.e., in the accompanying slogan, as in

“We know what your customers want”). A third function of a knowledge brand is to relate the

skill or knowledge to the institution that offers it and thus legitimizing it. This should be

achieved by linking the competence back to a core-competence rooted in the organization.

Sony for example, traces back its portable music technology products to its core-competence

of miniaturization. The fourth and final function of a knowledge brand is differentiation.

Following the argumentation of the resource based view of the firm (12), the branding process

should differentiate a company’s knowledge by showing that it is:

• valuable to customers (e.g., that it solves a specific client problem in a

competent way),

• rare (that it cannot be bought or acquired elsewhere at the same level of

expertise and experience)

• difficult to imitate (that others cannot easily imitate the problem solving
experience, tasks and skills of the company), and

• difficult to substitute (that the problems a client faces cannot be solved with
skills related to the area of expertise).

9
Section four of this article will show how these four functions of a knowledge brand can be

achieved.

Examples of brands that fulfill these four functions can be found in the fields of consulting,

market research, or financial services, as the case studies in the fourth section will show.

Knowledge branding is therefore a process that benefits the marketing of solutions such as a

reengineering methodology, an analytic tool such as a risk monitor or brand valuation tool, a

market research report, or a trend report on future developments in an industry.

From a problem perspective, a knowledge brand can be used to market solutions for the

following types of client problems:

• improving knowledge about their customers (direct marketing companies),

• improving knowledge about their own company (consulting companies),

• improving knowledge about the market (market research),

• improving knowledge about the competition (competitive intelligence firms),

• improving knowledge about the future (trend scouts).

Having shown the functions of a knowledge brand, it remains to show how these functions

can be achieved through the branding process.

THE BRANDING PROCESS

We cannot prove that knowledge brands originate from “old” service brands, though

examples such as Merrill Lynch or PricewaterhouseCoopers indicate such an evolution.

Logically, such a strategic evolution is a pre-condition for the brand development. The

previous section explained that a knowledge brand has four functions: materialization,

legitimization, simplification, and differentiation. In order to specify how these four functions

can be achieved in the knowledge brand, we follow a branding concept that we abbreviate in

the four T’s of Topics, Targets, Transmitters and Tools. These 4T`s can be used as a general

10
communication heuristic, which – in our case – is being used specifically for the process of

branding knowledge.

This 4-T-framework is based on the idea that – with the strategic evolution for business and

clients in mind – a communication process requires to (1) select topics (what the company

wants to communicate or portray), (2) match targets with topics (segment target audiences),

(3) create tools (communication means) and transmitters (communication intermediaries) for

the branding strategy and its implementation and (4) connect the identified topics with the

targeted groups through tools and transmitters. A short example can illustrate this pragmatic

approach to branding: The views of the future by well known business leaders (topic) could

be distilled to a specific group of CEOs (target) through a CEO-survey (tool) and be

presented on a CEO-conference on future developments (transmitter) to strengthen a

consulting company’s reputation as a competent problem solver on a strategic scope.

Select Match Topics

Topics with Targets

Branding
Knowledge

Connect
Topics with Create Tools
Targets through and
Tools with Transmitters
Transmitters

Figure 2: Four steps of the general communication process for knowledge branding

An inherent aspect of a knowledge brand in this process consists of relating the various

competencies of a company to one another. The objective of a knowledge brand is, in other

words, to create “members” of a family of brands that relate to one another through a common

11
visual and verbal identity. By creating a family of knowledge brands, the various

competencies of a firm can be traced back to the same institution and create a logic of

intellectual capital.

Below, we outline the four steps of the branding process in detail.

1. Step one: Select topics

In step one, the four functions of a knowledge have to be made explicit topics themselves. For

example: We may know the trends of the future and why they are relevant for your company

(materialization). We have done so before and have a track record of anticipating future

topics (legitimization). We can reduce the complexity of such future topics and explain their

relevancy to you (simplification). We do it differently than other advisors – since our

solutions provide sustainable value, are unique, and cannot be imitated or substituted

(differentiation).

These four functions have to be reflected in a balanced portfolio of topics. CEO’s have

different topics than CFO’s or “ordinary” line or regional managers. The reason for the mix is

simple: a knowledge brand cannot offer a CEO-conference once per quarter, because it would

simply loose its extraordinary character. The relevant portfolio of topics can usually be

narrowed to three different themes: issues, resources or regions.

2. Step two: Match topics with targets

In step two, the portfolio of topics must be matched with potential target groups. A CFO, as

an example, might be interested in a conference on “Investment opportunities in Eastern

Europe”, an HR-director tends to focus on a joint-conference with, for example, the Warsaw

12
business school in Eastern Europe or the CEO himself might be interested in a conference on

“the future of Eastern Europe”.

The portfolio of topics and targets has to be attached to the corporate brand, in order to start

branding the corporation’s ability to “develop and apply” knowledge. Both slogan and logo

must interpret the corporate brand’s ability to materialize, legitimize, simplify and

differentiate knowledge on every level and in every region. Slogan and logo are the interfaces

between topics and targets. They work both to the inside (identity) as much as they do to the

outside (image).

In the information society, where capturing the attention of potential targets is critical, the

portfolio of topics and targets must subsequently be mirrored in one brand-cascade, e.g. the

same main message must be made visible on all levels (company level, knowledge or

competence level, product and service level). Thus, the company can be positioned as one set

of related competencies.

3. Step three: Create tools and transmitters

Tools are everything which contain knowledge (i.e. a survey), while transmitters are

everything which explain knowledge (i.e. a conference or a person). In order to maximize

momentum for the process of branding knowledge, companies should co-operate with other

valuable knowledge brands which have a different role in the knowledge value chain (e.g.

which engage in fundamental research as opposed to applied research or which distribute

knowledge rather than create it). Oracle (slogan: Software powers the Internet) for example

cross-branded with the both Newsweek and the Davos World Economic Forum by providing

the daily www.dailydavos.com Web-page. This Web-site was in turn announced on the front-

page of Newsweek. Thus, the magazine (Newsweek) provided the content from a well-

established knowledge transmitter (Davos Forum) with a well-known Internet brand (Oracle).

13
This is the first step to exemplify the strategic evolution from a corporate to a knowledge

brand.

As mentioned before, the knowledge brand must create awareness for its knowledge through

the brand-cascade (via press conferences, advertising, personal contacts, cross branding,

round tables etc.). Creating awareness does not mean to disclose full results or offer all

insights for free. In contrast, this step is solely devoted to the fact that potential clients will be

interested in the ability to “develop” knowledge. The key to success for attracting attention is

differentiation, i.e. doing a survey, which others cannot (because they do not have the

contacts), making it rare (limited access to the full results), and showing the difficulties to

imitate and substitute the findings. A special type of knowledge brand – which is often

difficult to imitate or replicate - in this context is the business book. By creating a special

technical term and using this term as a book title, a company can create a knowledge brand

that is associated with its business. This strategy is often used by consulting firms in order to

market their know-how. The IT and media consulting firm Booz, Allen & Hamilton, for

example, used a book to increase the reputation of its media practice. The leading partner of

that practice, Michael J. Wolf, published a book called “The Entertainment Economy” (which

included the concept of the e-factor for entertainment value in regular services) thus claiming

that term for the company and turning it into a knowledge brand.

4. Step four: Connect topics with targets through tools with transmitters

The art of building a knowledge brand is to connect the four T’s. In doing so, the corporate

brand can show that the new knowledge brand is actually providing new thoughts, new

systems, new ideas, new solutions or new trends. Examples are given in the box below:

Tools:
• surveys from leadership-groups for distinct CEOs enforced by a knowledge brand (e.g., PWC’s “Straight
from the CEO”);
• white papers from well known think tanks sponsored by a knowledge brand (such as Ernst&Young’s Center
for Business Innovation or Accenture’s Institute of Strategic Change (ISC));
• exclusive access to clubs (such as Club of Rome) sponsored by a knowledge brand;

14
• exclusive access to both information and people (such as market gurus) endorsed by a knowledge brand
(e.g., Accenture’s sponsoring of professor Thomas Davenport or Gemini’s and Xerox’s sponsorship of
knowledge management chairs at reputed universities).

Transmitters:
• a well-positioned conference, organized by a specific knowledge brand;
• round-tables with distinguished leaders organized under the label of the knowledge brand;
• one-to-one meetings with well-known specialists, who work for a knowledge brand;
• exclusive access to virtual chat-rooms or Extranets provided by a knowledge brand.

Connecting Topics with Targets:

• re-consider your brand logo and slogan with your findings;
• advertise a synopsis of your findings;
• cross-brand with other reputed knowledge brands (such as journals, research institutes, think tanks, gurus);
• write articles for selected opinion leaders;
• sponsor events around your findings and organize conferences.

EXAMPLES OF KNOWLEDGE BRANDS

PricewaterhouseCoopers:

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) is a textbook case for a consulting firm which is currently

undergoing the evolution from a service to a knowledge brand. PWC’s communications

process clearly exemplifies the use of the four T’s.

The company’s verbal identity (slogan) is: Join us. Together we can change the world. PWC

has selected a variety of topics on strategic management (topics) devoted to the CEO-level

(targets), which they communicate through their Straight from the CEO-magazine (in various

languages) or through their client Extranet site at KnowledgeDirect.Net (tools). Additionally,

they have submitted the Global 2000 CEO Survey from CEO’s for CEO’s (tools) issued on

the Davos World Economic Forum (transmitters).

The have also been doing regional surveys (regional tool) (e.g., E-Business in Switzerland

together with the mcm institute) (regional topic) for business leaders in Switzerland

(regional target), marketed through regional press conferences (regional transmitter).

15
Furthermore, PWC is undertaking significant cross-branding in Europe marketed under

Introducing New Europe (regional topics), which they do through, for example, a European

CD-ROM (tool) and present on various European conferences (transmitter). All this is

obviously targeted to a European and/or Europe related audience (targets).

Merrill Lynch:

Investment banks are almost in the same problematic situation as consultants. They can only

survive if they achieve to market their unique ability to develop knowledge in addition to pure

services. Merrill Lynch’s slogan: The difference is Merrill Lynch is stressing this knowledge

difference.

After a slow start, Merrill Lynch offered on-line brokerage for its clients, using their almost

second-to-none research capabilities (topics) as the argument for differentiating themselves

from the Charles Schwab’s of the world. They target the on-line community (target) with an

new Merrill Lynch Direct (tool) through first class research sites (transmitter) that offer a lot

of insights into various markets.

Merrill Lynch announced the new tool through the following advertising: “ ... you can invest,

online or offline, with the world’s leading broker – period, dot, exclamation point – and with

the leading research team in America, Asia, Europe and Latin America – a.k.a. the earth.”

CONCLUSION

In branding its know-how and solution capabilities, a company has to stress more than its

products and services, and more than its reputation as an institution. It has to make a specific,

coherent, credible and comprehensible statement about its experience and skills in providing

16
solutions for certain problems. A knowledge brand can provide such a coherent message in a

variety of forms ranging from an on-line portal, a methodology or conceptual tool, a

conference, a survey, to a sponsored university chair or a glossy CEO-magazine that provides

the latest research findings. The knowledge branding process has to focus on the crucial

communication topics (the uniqueness of the company’s knowledge), use adequate tools and

transmitters (such as high-quality client magazines, topic-centered conferences and surveys,

etc.) to reach its prime target audience (typically senior corporate decision makers). If these

four T’s are well balanced, a company can not only market its products and services or

increase its reputation, but also leverage its intellectual assets to gain access to a higher

margin business.

REFERENCES

(1) Gregory, J. (1997): Leveraging the Corporate Brand, NTC Business Books, Chicago

(2) Ind, N. (1997): The Corporate Brand, New York University Press, New York

(3) Fombrun, C./Van Riel, C (1997): The reputational landscape, in: Corporate

Reputation Review, Vol. 1, N.1, pp. 1-14.

(4) Keller, K.L. (1998): Strategic Brand Management: building, measuring, and

managing brand equity. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

(5) Probst, G./Raub, S./Romhardt, K. (1999): Managing Knowledge, Wiley & Sons,

London

(6) Aaker, D./ Keller, K.L. (1998): The impact of Corporate Marketing on a Company`s

Brand Extensions, in: Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1, No4, pp. 356 – 378.

(7) Kapferer, J.N. (1998): Strategic Brand Management, 2nd edition, Kogan Page Ltd.,

London

(8) Mottram, S. (1998): Branding the Corporation, in: Hart, S./Murphy, J. (Eds.): Brands

– the new wealth creators. New York University Press, New York

17
 (9) Aaker, D. (1996): Building Strong Brands, New York, Free Press.

(10) Aaker, D./Joachimstaler, E. (2000): Brand Leadership, Free Press, New York

(11) Kapferer, J.-N. (2000): Brand Extension in Practice, in: Thexis, Vol. 2/2000, pp. 43 –

45.

(12) Barney, J. (1991): Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, in: Journal of

Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120.

18

View publication stats