Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity

A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Faculty of Media, London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, London, UK
Abstract Purpose The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between the architecture of retail stores and the communication of brand identity. Design/methodology/approach The researchers adopted a qualitative approach using case studies of the design process and architecture of four new food superstores in the UK between 1998 and 2005. The case studies draw on interviews, photographs, observations, and archival materials. Findings The case studies demonstrate that high-prole architects have been involved in the design of supermarket buildings. The reuse of buildings has also become a signicant element of visual identity at a local level. Stealth design, by contrast, reduces visual identity. In each case the relationship between retailer, architect, local authority, media and public opinion inuenced the design process and the visual identity of the building. Research implications The research implications are that architecture is not well understood in the retail industry as a medium for communicating a consistent brand identity. For designers and architects, building as brand for superstores presents opportunities to create a distinctive brand style. Urban regeneration will continue to offer opportunities for new, iconic buildings. The building, its location and history can provide points of differentiation and contribute to brand awareness and reputation. Originality/value The originality of this research lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which uses both design and management literature and methodology to examine architectures role in visual identity. It focuses on the previously unresearched architecture of food retailers. Keywords Brands, Corporate identity, Design, Architecture Paper type Case study

An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between the architecture of retail stores and the communication of brand identity. The relationship between visual corporate and brand identity is a complex one (Balmer and Gray, 2003). Visual identity is dened by Balmer (2001, 2006, p. 5) as the creation of favourable public images via visual means through logos and symbolism. With this approach, communication and image-projection are traditionally underpinned by a graphic design perspective. Olins (1995) is generally cited as the chief proponent of the primacy of design as the principle vehicle for corporate identity. In establishing the relationship between corporate identity and corporate branding, Balmer (2006, 2008) proposes that the corporate brand is based on the foundations of corporate identity and consequently, corporate identity and corporate branding display an overlap of constructs (Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Stokes, 2008). Vaux Halliday and Kuenzel (2008) explain external communications as positively impacting on the prestige of the corporate brand through its visibility and reputation. The corporate brand has a competitive differentiation function (Leitch and Richardson,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

Journal of Product & Brand Management 19/6 (2010) 432 439 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/10610421011085749]

2003) in which identity is a key aspect of communication (Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Where corporate visual identity is dened by corporate name, logotype or symbol, typography and colour (Melewar, 2001; Melewar and Saunders, 1999), so in corporate branding, visual identity is normally the crucial name and/or logo that play an important part in creating awareness and recognition (Balmer and Greyser, 2006). Furthermore, the brand integrates a companys stakeholders by creating a common ground and a sense of community (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Balmer and Gray, 2003). Its identity forms part of how it is known as well as a stable point of reference for customers (Alsem and Kostelijk, 2008). Architecture and location tends to be under-represented in these research perspectives (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002; Melewar and Akel, 2005). Jorda-Albinana et al. (2009) cite AEG and Olivetti in Italy as the pioneers in identity design for the formal and coherent design for their buildings, advertising, products and sales outlets. Architecture reects the brand in the consistency of its design and visual appearance. For retailers these distinctions are particularly important, since retail identity is communicated in and experienced through their stores, both internally and externally (Din, 2000). From an architectural perspective buildings have been understood to symbolise good taste, power, and status through the attention paid to the identity of the architect (Berg and Kreiner, 1990). The environment of architecture and brand identity has been examined in terms of prestige corporate buildings, particularly in the nancial, corporate headquarters and public institutional realms (Brauer, 2002). Corporate identity has provided a clear focus for many commercial architectural projects (Kelly, 2003) and with the rise of consumption in the 1980s and 1990s, commercialism 432

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

and architecture combined and for the rst time buildings began to be looked on purely as images or marketing objects (Glendinning, 2004, p. 10). Commodication of design resulted in architecture as a selling and branding device (Chung et al., 2001) and the appearance of a new type of architecture, the expressive landmark (Jencks, 2005). Julier (2005) describes the hard-branding that identies large cultural schemes that include new museums, arts complexes, theatres or opera houses. Such buildings are frequently assigned an iconic status and have typically been designed to communicate urban regeneration and place marketing strategies to both internal and to external stakeholders. Their success has come to be dened by discourses drawing on three elements of distinctive design, celebrity architect and media engagement (Sklair, 2006).

Literature review
The communicative value of the agship store and the re-use of distinctive buildings has been clearly understood by the retail industry (Hiss, 1987). Koolhaas (cited in Barrenche, 2005, p. 7) concluded that retail is the single most inuential force on the shape of the modern city. From the 1980s, fashion designers, including Armani, Comme des Garcons, and Gucci, hired architects to distinguish their brand, buildings, megastores and epicentres to extend their prestige (Manuelli, 2006). Such unusually and extravagantly designed stores served as three-dimensional advertisements to promote the fashion brand name (Webb, 2009). More generally, the store as brand has come to relate appearance and identity to core brand values (Magrath, 2005) and the threedimensional, sensory microcosm of the retail store represents the brand as a brandscape (Riewoldt, 2002). Real locations enable the brand to be staged and encountered in an unadulterated, unusual and unique style (Riewoldt, 2002, p. 8) that sends out powerful signals, communicates images and promises new experiences. Brandscaping transforms the brand into a location and the image of the brand is communicated through the architecture and design of the building. Distinctive buildings in other retail sectors and locations have attracted less attention. Nevertheless, food retailers have acknowledged the use of agship stores to showcase their latest developments and used architecture to communicate their brand (Kirby, 2009). The building as packaging approach (Berg and Kreiner, 1990) was challenged during the 1980s by Sainsburys, when the company made a positive decision to focus attention on the architecture and design of its stores to differentiate itself from rival food multiples and enhance the uniqueness of its brand (Lamacraft, 1989). This was in part due to the appointment of a high-prole Financial Times architectural critic, who encouraged the directors to be adventurous in their architectural projects. The buildings became part of the companys strategy, creating distinctive visual identities to reinforce the market leadership and brand strengths of the retailer. Sainsburys decision resulted in a portfolio of landmark stores designed by leading architects. The rst was designed by Ahrend, Burton and Koralek in 1984 on a site in Canterbury, a signicant historical city, where the architecture was designed to echo the spire of the medieval cathedral (Williams, 1994). Both Nicholas Grimshaws store in 433

Camden in 1988 and Chetwood Associates in Clapham were in-ll developments on traditional high-street sites. At Camden, the architectural press enthused while local residents and community groups were concerned by its uncompromising hi-tech appearance (The Architects Journal, 1986). The opportunity for more expansive new designs was realised during the 1980s and early 1990s when planning restrictions on out-of-town developments (those outside the existing urban area) were eased. The standard big box design became less acceptable to planners and the public, and gave way to buildings which communicated a visual identity, but also corporate responsibility towards the local environment, through logos and signage on the one hand and contextual architectural features on the other (Powell, 1994; Morrison, 2003). Designs by high-prole architects followed, including the post-modernist Terry Farrell, which were recognised by RIBA and Civic Trust awards. The strategy continued to attract critical attention and by 1996 it was observed that Sainsburys supermarkets were differentiated from their competitors with a reputation for stores that look a little out of the ordinary (Hardingham, 1996, p. 324). A second strand of architectural development became evident during the 1980s. The problem of relating spaces to the general public realm and of investing buildings with meaning emerged during the 1970s, initially in the USA (Maitland, 1990). In central districts, old forms of retailing, for example department stores, left gaps to be lled by new hybrid projects. The re-use of buildings offered both lower cost advantages and greater richness, complexity and depth of meaning in the urban environment (Fitch, 1990; Sanders, 2005) and subsequently interest in vernacular architecture gained a broader international interest (Chang and Teo, 2009). In order to acquire prime sites for their supermarkets, retailers restored or adapted signicant or listed buildings, thereby gaining experience of a new type of development. Sites of architectural signicance (listed buildings), generally in central shopping areas, were developed either behind existing facades or new facades that closely echoed the design of adjacent buildings (The Architects Journal, 1978). Larger but more complex sites provided spaces for supermarkets in edge-of-centre locations. Sainsburys restored the disused Green Park railway station in Bath, albeit building a new store to one side of it, and used the same technique at other listed sites, including a church in Wolverhampton in 1988 and a silk mill in Streatham. Other restorations and adaptations included Morrisons conversion of a military barracks in Hillsborough, and Tescos listed art deco Hoover factory building in West London (The Architects Journal, 1993). Concerns over the effect of out-of-town retailing on the social and commercial vibrancy of urban centres, resulted in new regulations determining the location of retail development, primarily through the governments Planning Policy Guidance of 1993 and 1996, provided further momentum for the development of urban sites, typically for smaller supermarket concepts such as Tescos Metro. These perspectives raise a number of issues. From the corporate branding and corporate identity literature there is limited discussion on how architecture contributes to communication and visual identity. However, from the architectural and urban design literature amorphous,

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

distinctive architecture emerges as well suited to new developments in out-of-town and edge-of-centre locations. The challenge with the re-use of urban developments is the contested ground between the retailers brand and its visual identity and the history, heritage and reputation of distinctive buildings. Moreover, architecture communicates not only visually but also through the discourses of other stakeholders; the retail development literature points to the inuence of the media, local communities and planners on the building development process. The subsequent sections will explore the relationship between architecture and its communication of the retail brand and the mediating role of these processes.

promotional literature and a complete collection of in-house journals. Tesco had no archive as such, but an unclassied collection of photographs taken for public relations purposes was discovered, supplemented by photographs of stores from individual employees. Interviews were transcribed and examined for key themes; these were cross-referenced with the interpretation of the photographs, and observations from eld notes. In keeping with historical research methods, the judgement of the researcher was applied to the facts recorded in the documentary and archival sources and their appropriateness as evidence (Evans, 2001).

Findings Methodology
The researchers adopted a qualitative approach in order to develop an in-depth understanding of the design and architecture of retail buildings and the ways in which they contribute to brand identity. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) state that the combination of multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in a single study is best understood then, as a strategy that adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness and depth to any inquiry. The architectural design of retail stores can be legitimately studied and explored in this context, acknowledging Venturi et al.s (1998) proposal that the symbolism of architecture criticised as ugly and ordinary should not be discounted, and that its signicance must be acknowledged. The research was undertaken with UK food retailers and the architectural design of the brand leaders (i.e. Sainsburys and Tesco) supermarkets and superstores over the period 1998-2005. The period was dened by the changes towards new store development and location following the implementation of PPG6 following its re-statement in 1996. In order to investigate the process of architectural design of supermarkets, four buildings in England were purposively sampled from these two companies whose design and development appear to have particular signicance. Each store highlighted a specic design issue that demonstrated a change in architectural direction; in effect each became a agship store for the company to assess its design policy. These formed case studies, with each store differing in age, design, and purpose and representing a specic generic type in centre, edge-of-centre and out-of-town locational contexts. The cases were developed through interviews, observation and documentary sources. Using a snowballing technique, contacts were established and relationships developed with informants, including architects, designers, town planners, historians, senior managers, executives and department heads in architectural practices and retailers. The informants were directly involved with the key processes involved in supermarket management and design. Observations were made during site visits beginning with brief scoping visits, followed by close examination and photographic recording, and in-depth guided visits with architects or planners. These proved most useful in highlighting important design features and less obvious, successes or failures in the development construction. Documentary evidence was drawn from photographic records, plans, council records and personal collections. The Sainsburys company archive was used (available online), and this included photographs of stores, copies of company 434 The rst case, Sainsburys store in Winchmore Hill, North London, demonstrated a design that is described by architects and retailers as the Essex Barn or Cottage Style. Sainsburys rationale for the design was driven by the location of the store; as an edge-of-centre site, it occupied former playing elds in a residential area. Considerable attention was paid to the specication of the building, and to minimise intrusive or distinctive visual features. The architects report stated that the new building has been carefully designed to harmonise with its surroundings. This was achieved through a single-storey design with a number of roof pitches and colonnades along the sides of the building that were designed to be lower than the eaves of the building in order to reduce the apparent height of the store. Materials too, were carefully chosen to render the store compatible with its surroundings, including the immediate built environment. Consequently, the company logo on its external signage formed an important part of its visual identity. The site had not been understood to be distinctive enough to merit a signature architect or exceptional design; rather, it was inuenced by the preference of residents and local planning authority for what was seen as English rural building design. However, the second case, Tescos edge-of-centre development in the market town of Ludlow, demonstrates precisely the opposite solution: an historically signicant site requiring a prestigious architect and contextually sensitive design solution to meet planning requirements. In this case, the origins of the company and its inherited brand identity conicted with that of the town. Tescos post-war origins and reputation for brash trading practices combined with an absence of architecturally distinctive stores and brand identity, apart from the company logo. The challenge at Ludlow was for Tesco to demonstrate through their architectural design that their brand could be re-branded to t the Ludlow promise. To secure the site, Tesco was obliged to engage a high-prole architect, Richard MacCormac, for a supermarket that ultimately won a Civic Trust Award for its worthy contribution to the community. It also exemplied the inuence and intervention of the local community and media, as well as local and national government in the development and the complex and lengthy process that can become necessary in the development of a site for supermarket use. The Guardian asked whether Tesco could ever develop a site in the town, with a retail format characterised as a thrusting, go-ahead up-to-the minute retail system of conveying food from agro-farm to cul-de-sac freezer (Glancey, 1998, p. 12). The project necessitated two public enquiries and lengthy political argument. Tescos

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

Ludlow store exemplied the companys recognition of the need to produce well-designed stores in order to secure sensitive sites for development. The third study focused on Sainsburys 1999 out-of-town Millennium store on an extensive regeneration site in Greenwich, London. This building was originally designed to be a generic green design that would be a format for future stores, and at the time of its conception the building design appeared to be part of Sainsburys design re-launch.. Although it failed to establish a standard for green supermarket buildings, it can nevertheless be classied as part of Sainsburys strategy to establish itself as a high-prole brand through its architecture. The development brief issued by English Partnerships strongly inuenced the design: that it should be in keeping with the concept of the whole of the Greenwich Peninsular; and should be innovative and sympathetic to environmental issues (Sainsburys, 1997). This followed the emphasis on an eco-friendly design promoted by government bodies since the 1992 Rio Summit, and in consequence was addressed by many engineers and architectural practices. These considerations were possibly also encouraged by the nancial implications of governments impending climate change levy. The store concept demonstrated the value of a distinctive building in the erce competition for sites among the major food retailers. The trade journal Supermarketing reported that Morrisons, Asda (and their architect Nicholas Grimshaw) and Tesco (Aukett Architects) had been outgunned by Sainsburys to win the prestige supermarket site next to the Millennium Village and Dome. Designed by Chetwood Associates, it was innovative in its use of natural light and recycled energy systems. Costing almost twice as much as conventional stores, its much publicised green features were seen as setting a precedent for future supermarket design, and the energy-saving properties of the building were widely promoted. As one of Sainsburys high-prole supermarkets and, due to its high cost, almost certainly the last, the Greenwich Millennium store was the companys most widely publicised development and proved to be a very successful public relations exercise. The building was used as a major part of a Sainsburys design make over publicity campaign in 1999. Media exposure took place at a number of levels, initially through Conservative party enquiries into the inuence of Lord Sainsbury, at that time an adviser to the Labour government, on the decision to award the site to Sainsburys. The experimental building itself provided the media with factual and metaphorical opportunities. Computer-generated illustrations produced for the 1998 publicity material emphasised the spaceship characteristics of the design. Design Week described the futuristic building as having the look of buildings from Gerry Andersons 1960s sci- show Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons (Design Week, 1999, p. 36). This tted well with the concept of the muchpublicised Millennium Dome and the modernist ethos and enthusiasm of the forthcoming millennium celebrations. The fourth case, Tescos development in Orpington, Kent, demonstrated how supermarket architecture and brand identity were subsumed by planning regulations in a central location. The lack of suitable sites available for supermarket development in the UK has put pressure on companies to 435

both use and comply with local regional and national guidance policies in order to secure sites for store development, particularly on sensitive or crowded towncentre and edge-of-town areas. Such mixed development, at Tesco Orpington, which groups housing and retail stores together, was predicted by the company to become a standard process in both supermarket and other retail projects, where there is a need both for housing and commercial development. By 2006 the Tesco brand had become had become well established as the market leader in food retailing and the size of its stores could be said to be part of its architectural brand. Architecturally, the store showed the turn to modernism in which the double-oored glass frontage provided views into the interior and the large logo on the sides of the store was the only visual statement of the brand.

Discussion
Four major themes emerge from the cases: 1 the development of supermarket architecture (the buildings themselves); 2 the contextualisation of the building by its location; 3 the role of stakeholders in the design process; and 4 the buildings contribution to brand identity. The supermarket architecture in these studies demonstrates the evolution of store design. It has not been exclusively based on modernist, low-cost shed designs, but has drawn on a number of more complex themes. The rustic and eighteenth century architectural features that relate to the Essex Barn design were commonly dened by a high level of detail in their pitched roofs, use of tiles and brick facings, colonnades, and above all a clock tower. The design represents the only supermarket architecture that communicates an identity, not of the retailer itself, but the supermarket as a generic building type. It typied out-of-town development during the 1980s and 1990s but subsequently fell out of favour with retailers, if not the public and local authorities, due to its relatively high material costs. It was followed by a new style that gained momentum during the 1990s and is evident at Orpington, that began to open up buildings to provide a space that allowed customers to see into and through the store, while at the same time reducing the visual impact of the structure. Apart from prominent signage the most recent stores could be described as stealth buildings, the external structure becoming transparent and focusing attention on the products and activities within. However, the research has revealed that supermarket architecture involved many high-prole architects, and has drawn inspiration from the high-tec qualities of other industrial buildings as well as original and contemporary practices. The buildings themselves have not been ephemeral: many of them in this review have exceeded the expected life of a supermarket building of between ten and 15 years, Contexts The cases demonstrate the signicance of the site, its history and visual integrity on the architecture and contribution to brand identity. In the edge-of-centre cases, Sainsburys journal repeatedly refers to the rural characteristics of their buildings, which inuenced the design of the

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

Winchmore Hill store, lowered into the existing landscape, and the Ludlow store, which blends into the contours of the surrounding landscape and is reected in its glass surfaces. The out-of-town at site Greenwich created a blank canvas that allowed considerably more scope for an original building. In the end none of the supermarkets in the case studies demonstrated the re-use of buildings. Nevertheless, the development process involved references to current practices on other sites. Re-use of buildings is dependent on spatial dimensions: internally and externally, the structure and conguration of the site, as well as regulatory requirements and commercial assessments. The brand picks up, but may also have to contest, the prestige, character or status of the buildings heritage. The retailer may exploit its development as saving the building, and demonstrate its commitment to sustainability and responsible management, both locally and nationally. Stakeholders The relationships between supermarket companies, their architects and local planning authorities (both elected members and ofcers) are important and inuential in the design process. Residents, local pressure groups and many local planning authorities demonstrated considerable support for the Essex Barn as a representation of English rural building design and its appropriateness for supermarket architecture. It also demonstrates the power of government intervention and supermarket commerce and the effect of this on supermarket retailing. The developments at both Winchmore Hill and Orpington were subject to strong local opposition; however, while the design of Winchmore Hill was not a strong reason for objection, the modernist design of Orpington was seen as a major cause of opposition to the proposed development. It also establishes and explains the reasons why so many modernist store developments since the 1980s have been altered by having vernacular or local features added to their designs. The Greenwich store demonstrates the power of the development brief within a framework of government initiatives to promote environmentally friendly design. Tesco had overtaken Sainsburys as the UKs leading grocer in 1995, which suggests that in the design for the Greenwich store, the company was attempting to demonstrate its afnity with public concerns, specically with environmental issues, rather than publicise its status. The site itself had high-prole focus but was unlikely to raise public protest in terms of a supermarket presence, as for example had been the case in the Camden High Street development ten years earlier. Successful designs produced by high-prole architects succeed by being largely protected from intervention and alteration. Brand identity The most promising opportunity to contribute to brand identity is through signature architect-designed buildings. Any of the earlier Sainsburys agship designs could have been used to embody the retailers values, to develop a corporate style and extend this through the organisation. As it is, the Greenwich store provides physical evidence of Sainsburys environmental and sustainable values through a number of senses that corporate communication literature, on- or ofine, cannot achieve. 436

The store concept of the signature architect has, on occasion, been mediated by the company itself. When Richard MacCormac was asked to design exterior and interior schemes for a new store, Sainsburys rejected his design for the interior, stating that his job was to style the facade (Glancey, 1998, p. 12). In this sense, the building was understood to communicate the brand in a more overtly commercial role, as a three-dimensional advertisement. However, the generic Essex Barn design and modernist style found at Orpington rarely communicate a visual identity such that stakeholders can distinguish one retail brand from another; in many cases the application of a logo or company name is essential. As Venturi et al. (1998, p. 13) suggest, the sign is more important than the architecture. This is reected in the proprietors budget. A measure of success of the communicative power of buildings is their ability to command media attention. Sainsburys agship buildings and Tescos store in Ludlow follow Sklairs (2006) analysis of iconic buildings relating design, signature architect and media discourse. In particular, Sainsburys Greenwich store offered an environmental design that was used to generate positive discourses, but that could have been extended both on site and through lessons learnt to inuence new store design. The distinctive design of the building itself and its communicative power can engage the viewers imagination and generate ongoing discourses and multiple metaphors amongst its stakeholders and the media. The potential for generating these types of communication and the degree of building distinctiveness are summarised below: . A single landmark or iconic building The organisation uses a single iconic building to create discourses in the media and other stakeholders. Its enigmatic form can inspire many metaphors to build relationships with the brand, and it becomes highly visible as a beacon to both internal and external stakeholders. These buildings demonstrate power and prestige, and are characterised by their free-owing form, in which there is an enigmatic relationship between the parts of the building and the whole. . Multiple iconic buildings The multiple retailer, or multisite organisation, employs signature architects whose individual designs create a number of distinctive buildings. Individually and cumulatively they create discourses and stakeholder engagement with the brand at a local level and build local relationships. Collectively the discourses of iconic architecture will also dene the brand identity. . Store architecture draws on the heritage of the locale New buildings demonstrate the sensitivity of the architecture to the environment using architectural features, such as the sail design used in the store at Plymouth, and the waves of the Ludlow store roof mirroring the surrounding hills. Where buildings are re-used, they draw on and amplify the heritage and history of the site and its neighbourhood. They build on the local relationships of stakeholders with the existing building. . Stores share one or more design elements of a successful building Some distinctive elements of a landmark store are applied to other stores as a design feature in other words, a formula that attracts approval of multiple stakeholders through its more or less modest

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

dimensions. Essentially this is the Essex Barn approach, which created an accessible out-of-town store design for food retailers. Although the style was neither exclusive to a retail brand nor to the sector, it could have been adapted by individual retailers to create a distinctive identity.

Conclusion
Architecture is not well understood as a medium for communicating a consistent retail brand identity. However, large buildings even in relatively mundane industrial sectors present opportunities to create a distinctive visual style for designers and architects and retail brand strategists. Meaning and the value of the brand changes over time, and through the use of distinctive buildings rms can invoke a sense of continuity and connection to the past. Further research could examine buildings relationship with, and contribution to, the history and heritage of the location and extend, for example, Urde et al.s (2007) work on corporate brand heritage. The sense of permanence in architecture contributes to its visual communicative power, and engages with stakeholders in the open-ended co-creation of the brand. Public interest can enable some buildings to become a brand in their own right, for example the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Such buildings have an ability to inspire visitors through their ambiguity; this could be used as a part of a communications strategy by the brand owner. In this context, Jencks (2005) discusses the iconic buildings ability to liberate the imagination, and for retailers to create a more memorable and enjoyable experience through its interpretation.

References
Alsem, K.J. and Kostelijk, E. (2008), Identity-based marketing: a new balanced marketing paradigm, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 9/10, pp. 907-14. (The) Architects Journal (1978), A window on shopping, The Architects Journal, 9 August, p. 245. (The) Architects Journal (1986), Superstore solutions, The Architects Journal, 6 August, pp. 29-36. (The) Architects Journal (1993), New lease of life for Hoover factory, The Architects Journal, 26 January, p. 37. Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91. Balmer, J.M.T. (2006), Comprehending corporate identity, corporate brand management and corporate marketing, Working Paper No. 06/19, University of Bradford School of Management, Bradford. Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), An epiphany of three: corporate identity, corporate brand management, and corporate marketing, in Melewar, T.C. (Ed.), Facets of Corporate Identity, Communication and Reputation, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 35-54. Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97. Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), Corporate marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image 437

and corporate reputation, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41. Barrenche, R.A. (2005), New Retail, Phaidon, London. Berg, P.O. and Kreiner, K. (1990), Corporate architecture: turning physical settings into symbolic resources, in Gagliardi, P. (Ed.), Symbols and Artifacts: Views of the Corporate Landscape, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY. Brauer, G. (Ed.) (2002), Architecture as Brand Communication, Birkhauser, Basel. Chang, T.C. and Teo, P. (2009), The shophouse hotel: vernacular heritage in a creative city, Urban Studies, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 341-67. Chung, C.J., Inaba, J., Koolhaas, R. and Leong, S.T. (2001), Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping, Taschen, London. Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2008), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Sage Publications, London. Design Week (1999), Raising the roof, Design Week, 2 July, p. 36. Din, R. (2000), New Retail, Conran Octopus, London. Evans, R. (2001), In Defence of History, Granta, Cambridge. Fitch, R. (1990), Curatorial Management of the Built Environment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Glancey, J. (1998), How would you t Tesco into this little corner of Olde England?, The Guardian, Arts, 27 April, pp. 12-13. Glendinning, M. (2004), The Last Icons, The Lighthouse Scottish Architectural and Design Series, No. 1, Graven Images, Glasgow. Hardingham, S. (1996), England A Guide to Recent Architecture, Ellipsis, London. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 129-34. Hiss, T. (1990), The Experience of Place, A.A. Knopf, New York, NY. Jencks, C. (2005), The Iconic Building, Francis Lincoln, London. Jorda-Albinana, B., Ampuero-Canellas, O., Vila, N. and Rojas-Sola, J.I. (2009), Brand identity documentation: a cross-national examination of identity standards manuals, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 172-97. Julier, G. (2005), Urban designscapes and the production of aesthetic consent, Urban Studies, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 869-87. Kelly, K.E. (2003), Architecture for sale(s), Harvard Design Magazine, No. 17, pp. 1-6. Kirby, A.E. (2009), What is a agship supermarket? An analysis of supermarket agships in a design context, in Kent, A.M. and Brown, R. (Eds), Flagship Marketing: Concepts and Places, Routledge, London. Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), The six conventions of corporate branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016. Lamacraft, J. (1989), Retail Design New Store Experiences, Financial Times Business, London. Leitch, S. and Richardson, N. (2003), Corporate branding in the new economy, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1065-79. Magrath, A.J. (2005), Managing in the age of design, Across the Board, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 8-27.

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

Maitland, B. (1990), The New Architecture of the Retail Mall, Architecture Design and Technology Press, London. Manuelli, S. (2006), Design for Shopping, Lawrence King, London. Melewar, T.C. (2001), Measuring visual identity: a multiconstruct study, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-41. Melewar, T.C. and Akel, S. (2005), The role of corporate identity in the higher education sector: a case study, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-57. Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, E. (2002), Dening the corporate identity construct, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-89. Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1999), International corporate visual identity: standardization or localization?, Journal of Intternational Business Stidues, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 583-98. Morrison, K.A. (2003), English Shops and Shopping, Yale University Press, London. Olins, W. (1995), The New Guide to Identity Wolff Olins, Gower, Aldershot. Powell, K. (1994), Sails pitch, RIBA Journal, September, pp. 55-9. Riewoldt, O. (2002), Brandscaping, Birkhauser, Basel. Sainsburys (1997), A Proposal for Greenwich Peninsular, Sainsburys, London. Sanders, W.S. (2005), Dialogic design, Harvard Design Magazine, Fall/Winter, p. 3. Sklair, L. (2006), Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization, City, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 21-48. Stokes, R. (2008), Vision, image, reputation and relationships: critical drivers in developing an airport city, in Melewar, T.C. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (Eds), Contemporary Thoughts on Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), Corporate brands with a heritage, Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-19. Vaux Halliday, S. and Kuenzel, S. (2008), Brand identication: a theory-based construct for conceptualising links between corporate branding, identity and communications, in Melewar, T.C. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (Eds), Contemporary Thoughts on Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity Management, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 91-114. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D. and Izenour, S. (1998), Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Architectural Form, The MIT Press, London. Webb, W.S. (2009), A proposed classication of agship retail outlets in the fashion sector, in Kent, A.M. and Brown, R. (Eds), Flagship Marketing: Concepts and Spaces, Routledge, London. Williams, B. (1994), The Best Butter in the World A History of Sainsburys, Ebury Press, London.

A.M. Kent is Reader in the London College of Communication. His research is in design and management, focusing on experiential aspects of retailing. A.M. Kent is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: a.kent@ lcc.arts.ac.uk

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benet of the material present. Corporate identity is considered to be an integral part of the corporate brand. Effective communication of a brands identity is therefore critical if the intended differentiation is to be achieved. Researchers acknowledge the visual aspects of identity and much attention has consequently been paid to graphic elements that include corporate name, logo, symbol, typography and colour. Among such elements, studies have noted the contribution of name and logo in helping to build awareness and recognition of the brand.

About the authors

A.E. Kirby is Senior Lecturer in the Media Faculty of the London College of Communication. Her research interests lie in design history and supermarket design, and in the application of drawing techniques. 438

Architecture and brand identity Signicantly less coverage has been afforded to the role of architecture in creating or augmenting brand identity. This is despite the fact that a key part of this identity can be conveyed through consistency in the design and visual appearance of company buildings. Architectural impact is widely recognised, with one example being the employment of leading architects in order to convey such as sophistication, power and prestige through their structures. The grandeur associated with certain corporate headquarters or public institutions further illustrates this point. Scholars have also come to recognise how architecture has contributed to urban regeneration through buildings like museums, theatres and opera houses. Many such edices are viewed as iconic, and distinctive design is largely responsible for this perception. The retail industry appears particularly alert to the prospect of achieving differentiation through architectural design and since the 1980s several major fashion houses seeking to increase the status of their brand have explored this avenue. They have managed to successfully market their brands through unusual and extravagantly designed stores that function as three-dimensional advertisements. Architectures ability to convey a brands image has registered among food retailers too. Leading UK supermarket chain Sainsburys began the trend during the 1980s when the organisation realised the potential to create a unique brand identity through the design of its stores. Architecture was thus propelled into the core of this companys strategy with the intention being to develop a visual identity that could underline the strength of the brand and its market leading position as well as distinguishing Sainsburys from its competitors. Taking this direction saw the company use prominent architects to design various agship stores, the rst of which

Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity A.E. Kirby and A.M. Kent

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 19 Number 6 2010 432 439

was built in Canterbury. The design of this particular store resonated with the spire on the cathedral in this historical city. Later on, the easing of planning restrictions allowed the company greater freedom for out-of-town developments, and it responded with structures containing architectural attributes by which the retailer indicated an awareness of its responsibility towards the local environment. By creating such unique stores, Sainsburys was able to develop and communicate brand distinctiveness. Another strand to the brand building potential offered by architecture came with the opportunity to re-use existing buildings. This practice rst emerged in the USA when it was realised that adapting vacant department stores offered advantages in terms of cost and the scope to enrich the urban environment. UK operators like Sainsburys followed suit and began to restore listed buildings for their own purposes using existing or new frontages designed to blend in with adjacent structures. Concerns about the impact of out of town retailing on urban centres helped accelerate such developments and rivals Tesco and Morrisons also began to create new stores in this manner. However, these and other retailers were faced with the challenge of reconciling their own identity requirements while preserving the history, heritage and reputation intrinsically linked with the buildings they were redeveloping. Study and ndings The aim of the present study is to explore how the design and architecture of retail buildings contribute to brand identity. Kirby and Kent adopt a qualitative approach in the research, undertaken with brand leaders Sainsbury and Tesco. The authors consider four stores built by these retailers in England between 1998 and 2005, a period within which a key focus of planning policy was to sustain and enrich town centres. Each case study building differs by such as age, design, purpose and location but all share the honour of being regarded as agship stores in respect of design policy. Observations and documentary sources like photographs, plans and personal records were used in the study alongside interviews conducted with various representatives of functions including architecture, planning, design and supermarket management. The ndings indicated how location played a signicant part in inuencing the design of these four stores. This is illustrated by: . A need to blend in with surroundings by minimising the number of distinctive features and using a single storey design containing roof features to lower the buildings height and make it less conspicuous. . Lengthy public enquires and political debates before the design was sanctioned as being appropriate for its historically signicant site. . A futuristic design on a prestigious London site in keeping with the ethos typied by the neighbouring Millennium Dome. This store had to be innovative and empathise with

the environment, which was achieved by using natural light and recycled energy. Despite prohibitive costs, the eco-friendly attributes were seen as a blueprint for the design of future stores. Compliance with local, regional and national planning guidance with a modernist design whereby the visual statement of the brand was minimised in an area designated for both housing and commercial development.

Conclusions From these case studies, the authors identify four signicant issues: 1 The development of supermarket architecture It is apparent how store design has evolved and can be inuenced by various sources and themes. Characteristics used in hightech industrial buildings are evident alongside design features that are more original and contemporary. The use of large glass facades to focus attention on the products within the store rather than the building itself is an example of the latter. 2 Contexts The issue here is how location can impact on the architecture and brand identity. History, structure, spatial dimensions and regulatory requirements are among the key factors. 3 Stakeholders It is apparent that various stakeholders can inuence the design process and that supermarkets must establish positive relationships with them. In addition to planners and other local authorities, residents, local pressure groups and the media can be highly inuential. 4 Brand identity The use of trademark architecture offers scope to shape brand identity. An example of this is the design of the London store that showcased Sainsburys environmental awareness far more effectively than corporate communication could achieve. It also highlights the importance of a distinctive name or logo in cases where it is difcult to distinguish one design from another. Organisations can enhance brand identity through the use of a single agship store or multiple iconic buildings. In both cases, the highly visible nature of the structure or structures serves to increase stakeholder engagement with the brand. Another option is to incorporate one or more prominent features of a landmark store into the design of others. This can help in the creation of a distinctive identity while obtaining the approval of different stakeholders because of its more modest approach. Kirby and Kent additionally point out the scope to focus on the locations history and heritage by making sensitivity to the local environment a key design driver. (A precis of the article Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

439