M

arket

Research

Brand Orientation
of Museums: Model
and Empirical Results
Carsten Baumgarth

Introduction

any museums today are fighting for

their cultural and economic survival because of financial bottlenecks
in the public sector, increasing competition
with other cultural institutions, such as opera
houses or leisure facilities, and falling visitor
numbers. Consequently museum directors
need to be open to the idea of adopting management techniques imported from commerce,
despite the widespread misgivings of many arts
administrators (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002).
One such technique is brand management.
There are success stories of the application of
brand management to single museums or
exhibitions (e.g., the Guggenheim, the British
Museum, the Museum of Modern Arts touring exhibitions). However, most museums reach
only a low level of professionalism in their
brand management. For instance, in a 2006
survey of major German museums, barely half
of the managers interviewed (49%) reported
that they had implemented a branding policy
(Bekmeier-Feuerhahn and Sikkenga, 2008).
Another survey covering Switzerland, Austria
and Germany had already found that only about
one in 10 of surveyed museums (9%) had a
meaningful corporate design policy (Prokop,
2003). In the study reported here, less than a
third of managers (30.9%) agreed that we have
discussed the management of our brand intensively.
30

Past research studies, both conceptual (e.g.,

Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002) and empirical
(e.g., Izquierdo and Samaniego, 2007; Camarero
and Garrido, 2008), have analyzed market
orientation and the application of marketing
management in the museum sector, casting
light on the relevance of the discipline for
effective performance. More specifically, some
researchers have focused on brand management as a pillar of the classical marketing concept, presenting case studies of brand equity and
brand associations (Caldwell, 2000; Caldwell
and Coshall, 2002) and brand control (Scott,
2000) or practical guidelines for brand management in museums (Wallace, 2006). In addition, research into brand management in other
arts and cultural institutions (Colbert, 2003;
Rowley, 1997), and into museum marketing
in general (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002;
Kotler and Kotler, 1998), offers some basis for
developing new research into the marketing of
museums as brands.
However, existing studies have focused on
adoption of the classical, externally oriented
brand concept in the museum sector, while
very little research has been carried out on
implementation of the brand concept internally, within the organization, or on the brands
contribution to cultural and economic success.
Against this background, the present study
extends the prevailing view of museum brand
management by adopting the internal concept
of a brand-oriented culture, develops a frame-

Carsten Baumgarth is Associate Professor in the GermanSpeaking Department of

Business Administration at
Marmara University, Istanbul,
Turkey. His main research
areas are brand management,
business-to-business marketing, media and arts marketing,
and empirical methods. He has
authored or edited six books
on branding and market
research and has published
more than a hundred papers
on marketing-related issues
in publications including
the Journal of Marketing
Communications, the Journal
of Business Research and the
top-ranked German marketing
journal, Marketing ZFP. He is
also the head of a brand
consultancy company.

International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

work for brand management in museums, and

tests the link between branding and performance. In short, it examines the relationship
between the internal anchorage of a museums
brand and the success of its product.
This study uses the general brand and market orientation literature to develop a new
brand orientation model and adapt it to the
museum context, as the basis for designing a
large-scale empirical study in Germany. The
article concludes with a discussion of the
research and management implications of the
results, the limitations of the study, and proposals for further research.

Background and
Model Development

s noted, the literature offers two approaches

to the systematization of brand management. One adopts an external perspective,
typified by the application of Kellers (1993,
2003) well-known brand knowledge framework. The other favours an internal focus and
is supported by work on corporate culture (e.g.,
Trice and Beyer, 1993; Schein, 1992) and
market orientation (e.g., Homburg and Pflesser,
2000). The internal focus is considered especially relevant to services and other businesses
in which the employees play a key role in market success, and it has become much more
prominent in recent years. Because museums
deliver a particular kind of service, which depends
on effective interaction between employees and

Abstract

Keywords

visitors (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002) and

therefore demands an internal brand-oriented
ethos, this internally focused perspective has
been used as the framework for the new brand
orientation model proposed and tested here.

Brand Orientation
A general framework that focuses on the internal prerequisites of a strong brand is brand
orientation. A specific variant of marketing
orientation, it is characterized by the importance accorded to the brand in all management
decisions as well as by a high level of systematic brand management (Hankinson, 2001a,
2001b; Urde, 1994, 1999). The ideal outcome
is a relatively constant and consistent brand
offer, clearly differentiated from competing
products in a way that is relevant to current
and potential customers. Researchers have
concentrated on the development of a conceptual framework (Bridson and Evans, 2004;
Hankinson, 2001a; Wong and Merrilees,
2005) or on measures of the correlation between
brand orientation and performance outcomes
(Ewing and Napoli, 2005; Hankinson, 2001b;
Napoli, 2006).
Among these researchers, Ewing and Napoli
(2005) conceptualize brand orientation as a
three-dimensional construct comprising interaction, orchestration and affect, whereas
Hankinson (2001b) proposes seven elements.
The former study derives its model from
explorative factor analysis without first establishing a theoretical foundation for the structure, while the latter is based on a narrowly

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to
thank Keith Crosier,
the three anonymous
IJAM reviewers, and
the IJAM Editor,
Franois Colbert,
for their insightful
and constructive
comments on this
article.

Because museums operate in a challenging economic and social environment, greater professionalism in museum
management is becoming increasingly necessary. Brand management is one building block available, though it
will have to overcome ideological resistance to the importing, by cultural institutions, of practices from the
world of commerce. The body of knowledge regarding the application of brand management to museums is
confined to a few published case studies and conceptual frameworks. The author presents and tests a new model
for brand management in the sector, grounded in relevant general literature and made up of four layers: values, norms, artifacts and behaviours. Questionnaire responses from 245 museums in Germany provided the data
for an empirical test, which confirmed the fundamental structure of the new model. The application of the model
is measurement of the internal anchorage of brand orientation and brand management, and assessment of
their effect on museum performance. The descriptive results show that branding has achieved little penetration
in this sector. The author draws conclusions, discusses managerial implications and identifies research directions.
Branding, brand orientation, brand management, museums, model

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

31

focused empirical study of fundraising charities in the United Kingdom. Neither framework allows for distinction among different
layers of brand orientation.
The theoretical foundation of the alternative conceptual framework proposed here is
found in the market orientation literature
(Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1999; Homburg
and Pflesser, 2000; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar, 1993; Narver and
Slater, 1990), within which two perspectives
can be distinguished. The behavioural variant describes the phenomenon in terms of
concrete behaviours and is typified by Kohli
and Jaworskis approach to the topic; its cultural counterpart is related to a more fundamental view of the organization, as in Narver
and Slater. The proposed model combines the
two and transfers them to the specific context
of branding.
Construction of the proposed model begins
with Scheins (1992) corporate culture model,
which identifies three layers focused on values, norms and artifacts. To complete the
new model, I add a fourth layer, behaviours,
which corresponds to the behavioural perspective on market orientation. Homburg and
Pflesser (2000) propose a similar model for the
analysis of market orientation. Figure 1 uses
examples to illustrate these four layers of brand
orientation. The statement by the director of the
Guggenheim Museum (United States) emphasizes the high degree of relevance accorded to
branding by top management. The corporate
design style book by the MuseumQuartier
Wien (Austria) exemplifies explicit norms for
the execution of branding. The planning
objective for the rebuilding of the Museum of

rsum

MOTS CLS

32

Modern Art (United States) describes an artifact or symbol that expresses the brand idea.
The corporate advertisement for the Hamburger Kunsthalle (Germany) is an instance of
brand-oriented behaviour, in the form of a
practical marketing communications initiative. Thus the values layer measures the role of
branding in overall strategic planning and
managers understanding of basic branding
rules demonstrated by such systematic
brand management practices as constant and
consistent brand positioning. The norms layer
assesses the extent to which such rules and
regulations, whether explicit or implicit, determine the basic operations of brand management, such as the formal integration of brand
communication. The artifacts layer relates to
the perceptible symbols that reflect the brand,
such as corporate architecture, staff uniforms
or organizational stories. The new, fourth,
layer, behaviours, encompasses all concrete
actions undertaken in support of the brand
brand-related market research or marketing
initiatives, for example. Unlike the other three
layers, behaviours is characterized by an emphasis on the external operating environment.

Hypotheses
The new model proposes a causal chain from
abstract values and related norms to symbolic
artifacts and concrete behaviours, which is
consistent with the theory of organizational
behaviour (e.g., Katz and Kahn, 1978) and
with the market orientation model developed
by Homburg and Pflesser (2000). The supposition is that corporate commitment to the
brand and managerial understanding of the

En raison de leur contexte conomique et social hautement comptitif, les muses doivent hausser le niveau de professionnalisme de leur management. La gestion de la marque prsent un intrt malgr une certaine rsistance idologique limportation, par des institutions culturelles, de pratiques managriales propres au monde des affaires. Le corpus de connaissances
sur la gestion de la marque dans le secteur musal se rsume la publication de quelques tudes de cas et de cadres conceptuels. Lauteur prsente et teste un nouveau modle de gestion de la marque pour le secteur, inspir de la littrature pertinente et comportant quatre variables: valeurs, normes, artfacts et comportements. Les 245 muses allemands sonds ont
fourni les donnes ncessaires un test empirique, qui a confirm la structure fondamentale du modle. Les applications
vises taient la mesure de l ancrage interne de lorientation sur la marque et de la gestion de la marque, et lvaluation
de leffet sur rendement du muse. Les rsultats montrent que le branding est peu pratique dans ce secteur. Lauteur tire des
conclusions, discute des implications managriales et propose des voies de recherche future.
Branding, orientation sur la marque, gestion de la marque, muses, modle

International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

Figure 1

EXAMPLES OF BRAND ORIENTATION LAYERS

Brand-oriented values

Brand-oriented norms

Source: Krens, 2000

Brand-oriented artifacts

Source: www.mqw.at

Brand-oriented behaviours
Corporate image advertising. Hamburger
Kunsthalle, Hamburg

Source: Jensen, 2004

brand management process support brandoriented behaviour (Hankinson, 2002). The

values layer has a general character and thus
informs, rather than determines, concrete
brand management operations. However, values are the conceptual basis of explicit and
implicit brand-oriented norms (Katz and
Kahn, 1978). It is thus proposed that:
Hypothesis 1 Brand-oriented values have a
positive effect on brand-oriented norms.

rEsumEN

PALABRAS CLAVE

Source: www.kreativhife.de

However, such norms can function effectively as rules guiding the execution of branding strategy only if they are based on common
values (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000) and are
both understood and accepted by the employees. Symbolic artifacts can disseminate awareness of the museums brand and its branding
strategy internally, and thereby encourage
acceptance of the norm-led rules among the
staff. This positive relationship between norms

Al funcionar los museos en un ambiente social y econmico de gran complejidad, se requiere cada vez ms de un mayor profesionalismo en la gestin museal. El manejo de la marca es una de las herramientas disponibles, aunque este requiera superar una
resistencia ideolgica a la importacin, por parte de instituciones culturales, de prcticas del mundo de los negocios. Los conocimientos en materia de aplicacin del manejo de marca en la gestin de museos se limitan a unos cuantos estudios de caso
publicados y marcos conceptuales. El autor presenta y pone a prueba un nuevo modelo de manejo de marca en el sector, un modelo
basado en publicaciones generales pertinentes al caso y construido en cuatro capas: valores, normas, artefactos y comportamientos. Las respuestas a una encuesta por parte de 245 museos en Alemania proporcionaron los datos para un anlisis emprico,
el cual confirma la estructura fundamental del nuevo modelo. La aplicacin del mismo es en s una medida del anclaje interno
de la orientacin y el manejo de marca, y la evaluacin de sus efectos sobre el desempeo del museo. Los resultados descriptivos
muestran que el branding ha logrado muy poca penetracin en este sector. El autor alcanza conclusiones, discute las implicaciones administrativas e identifica orientaciones de investigacin.
Branding o marca, orientacin de marca, manejo de marca, museos, modelo

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

33

and artifacts is made explicit in the literature

on symbolic management (Ulrich, 1990).
Therefore, it is further hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2 Brand-oriented norms have a
positive effect on brand-oriented artifacts.
Unlike values, these norms influence brandoriented behaviour by specifying expectations
and related sanctions, namely the perceived
negative consequences for those who ignore or
flout the associated branding guidelines (Heide
and John, 1992; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000).
Thus, a third hypothesis is that:
Hypothesis 3 Brand-oriented norms have a
positive effect on brand-oriented behaviours.
The artifacts that reinforce the norms can
also directly influence brand-oriented behaviour, in their role as agents of communication.
They may act as shorthand definitions of correct behaviour and provide staff with a template for day-to-day brand-related behaviour,
perhaps even motivating and stimulating them
in the process (Dandridge, Mitroff and Joyce,
1980). In short:
Hypothesis 4 Brand-oriented artifacts have
a positive effect on brand-oriented behaviours.
The model is completed by linking the brand
orientation construct to a museums performance (Hankinson, 2001a; Napoli, 2006). Though
an internal brand-oriented culture is an important antecedent of a strong museum brand, it
can be argued that this culture must be translated into concrete brand-oriented behaviours
if any positive effect on eventual performance
of the brand is to be achieved (Homburg and
Pflesser, 2000).
Successful performance is defined in terms
of the achievement of cultural goals and market goals (Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002; Witt,
2000; Camarero and Garrido, 2008). Cultural
goals set horizons for the fulfilment of social
requirements and are codified in national and
international standards (American Association
of Museums, 2000; Lewis, 2006; Deutscher
Museumsbund and ICOM Deutschland, 2006).
Market goals are focused on the museum market and its constituent target groups; the most
significant of these are visitors and sponsors,
but a contributory goal for individual museums
will be the cultivation of a network of other
stakeholders such as the media and cultural
institutions. Since concrete brand-oriented
behaviours support both cultural and market
goals, it is hypothesized that:
34

Hypothesis 5 Brand-oriented behaviours have

a positive effect on cultural performance.
Hypothesis 6 Brand-oriented behaviours have
a positive effect on market performance.
Figure 2 summarizes the brand orientation
model and the six hypotheses.

Methodology
Sampling and Data Collection
To test the model, a questionnaire was designed
and mailed to a sample of museums in Germany
that were representative (with respect to their
size, the focus of their collections and their
funding sources) so that the findings could be
confidently generalized. Target respondents were
members of top management of the museums
surveyed, as the most reliable source of detailed
and accurate responses to the questions. Because
there is no official database covering the whole
German museum landscape, a list of addresses
had to be generated specifically for this purpose.
The list was derived by combining the International Council of Museums membership
list with an Internet search of relevant German
Web sites such as www.webmuseen.de.
The content of the self-completion questionnaire derived directly from the proposed
brand orientation model. Questions and scales
for measurement of the different constructs
were constructed on the basis of precedents in
the literature on brand orientation and museum
branding. The outcome was pretested among
museum managers and in October 2006 a refined
questionnaire was sent to 590 top museum
managers in Germany. Almost exactly half of
the managers (48.1%) responded. Of the identified museums, 17 had closed or merged with
another museum or cultural institution; 25
target respondents declined to participate on
principle or for lack of time; the remaining nonrespondents failed to return the questionnaire.
The data set for analysis was thus the combined responses of 284 senior managers. For
valid results, it was necessary to remove those
containing any missing values in the exogenous and endogenous variables. After cases with
more than 10% relating to the items of the
four brand orientation constructs, or more
than 15% missing values of the performance
International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

Figure 2

MODEL OF BRAND ORIENTATION IN THE MUSEUM CONTEXT

Brand orientation
Culture

Behaviour

Brand orientation
as a value
H1

Performance

Norms of
brand orientation

Market
performance

H3

H6
Behaviour of
brand orientation

H2
H4
Artefacts of
brand orientation

items, had been duly eliminated, 245 questionnaires remained valid for data analysis.
Missing values were replaced by estimated values in SPSS via the EM procedure.
More than half of the respondents met the
top-management criterion: 10% managing
directors, 39% directors and 10% acting directors. They represented a broad spectrum of
museum sizes (49% up to 5 employees; 24%
more than 20 employees), number of visitors
(36% up to 10,000 per annum; 20% more
than 100,000), and collection focus (25% art/
film/photo; 24% culture/religion/music; 22%
history; 17% people/local history; 14% natural sciences). Almost half of the museums
(46%) were state-funded, a third were private
institutions (33%) and the remainder were
hybrids of various kinds. Altogether, the sample fulfils the stated sampling objectives, and
the study thus accurately reflects the practice
of brand orientation and brand management
in German museums.
Because the data set analyzed derives from
only 245 questionnaires, the requirement for
multi-normal distribution of the variables is
not universally fulfilled. Taking account of the
early stage of the research and the mixture of
formative and reflective constructs, a decision

H5
Cultural
performance

was made to estimate the model by the Partial

Least Squares method (Jreskog and Wold,
1982), using version 2.0 M3 of SmartPLS
software (Ringle, Wende and Will, 2006). The
procedure for quality judgement with respect
to the formative and reflective constructs in
the model follows the recommendations of
Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) and
Krafft, Gtz and Liehr-Gobbers (2005).
The measurement scales were specifically
generated for this study. Item formulation was
guided by the literature review, and all items
were measured using five-point rating scales
anchored by agree and disagree.

Scale Development and Validation

The four brand-oriented constructs in the
proposed model values, norms, artifacts and
behaviours were operationalized as formative
constructs (Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff,
2003). The formulation of the corresponding
items was guided by the literature review. Of the
23 listed in Table 1, nine were derived directly
from the work of Baumgarth (2007), Ewing
and Napoli (2005), Hankinson (2001b), and
Schramm, Spiller and Staack (2004), while 14
were original. Respondents were asked to indi-

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

35

cate their agreement or disagreement with

each statement on a five-point rating scale
anchored by agree and disagree. Each item
characterizes a construct, and the elimination
of a single item changes the construct. For
example, elimination of the item We try to ensure
that our brand positioning remains essentially
the same over time would exclude one element
of the value construct: managers understanding of basic branding rules. Furthermore, it
is possible for one item to be independent of
the others (e.g., We check regularly to ensure that
our brands design guidelines are being adhered
to; Our museum has a detailed written specification of the brand positioning).
To test the content validity of the four
formative constructs, the questionnaire was
administered to a sample of six marketing scientists and 13 museum managers and their
responses analyzed following the procedure
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing
(1991). In the main survey, the quality of the
constructs was further evaluated by calculating
weights and t values, by bootstrapping and
by testing for multicollinearity. The outcomes
are shown in Table 1.
The multicollinearity test yielded non-critical
values for all items, but one item with a negative substantive-validity coefficient (cSV) was
duly eliminated. Analysis of the weights found
three items to have values below 0.1, suggesting that they would contribute little to
explaining the variance of the respective latent
variables. There is debate in the literature as to
whether such variables should be eliminated
from a model (Jreskog and Wold, 1982;
Rossiter, 2002). In this case, the decision was
made to accept the arguments of those who
are against such elimination, reinforced by the
results of two studies in other industry contexts (business-to-business and the media) in
which the weights of the various items clearly
differed. Finally, the discriminant validity of
the brand orientation constructs was tested by
inspecting the correlations, which were all below
the recommended threshold of 0.9 (Herrmann,
Huber and Kressmann, 2006).
To measure the two remaining constructs
in the model, cultural performance and market performance, 12 items were derived from
the work of Witt (2000). Because several items
are strongly linked, a more reflective approach
was used for the measurement of performance
36

constructs. Given the heterogeneity of the

museums in terms of size, the focus of their
main collection and so on, it was to be expected
that the relevance of the cultural and market
performance targets would differ from case to
case. Therefore, these items were measured
using an inter-individual index, calculated by
multiplying the respondents judgement of
the importance of a performance goal, such as
expansion of the collection, by their assessment of its achievement. The respective fivepoint scales were anchored by important and
unimportant and by to a high degree and not at
all.
Table 2 presents the items and the results
for the cultural performance and market performance constructs. It also shows that the
Cronbachs alpha coefficients and AVE values
for the two constructs were satisfactory. Overall, the measurement models summarized in
Tables 1 and 2 were only slightly modified,
the results having demonstrated acceptable
reliability and validity for the four brand orientation and two performance constructs.

Hypothesis Testing
The study next analyzed both the structural
model and the individual hypotheses.
The results for the complete model show
Q2 values of 0.13 and 0.05 for the market performance and cultural performance values,
respectively both above the threshold level of
the Stone-Geisser test (Chin, 1998). Additionally, the explained variances of approximately
24% of market performance and 14% of cultural performance support the relevance of
brand orientation to the success of museums.
In short, the global fit and explanatory power
of the model are acceptable.
Testing of the hypotheses by bootstrapping
(n = 1,000) and t values confirm all four hypotheses related to the museum brand orientation
model at a significant level. Thus, brand-oriented
values have a positive impact on brand-oriented
norms (H1), which in turn have a positive effect
on brand-oriented artifacts (H2) and behaviours (H3). Those artifacts also have a positive
influence on brand-oriented behaviours (H4).
Furthermore, the results confirm assumptions
about the link between brand orientation and
performance. Brand-oriented behaviours have
a positive impact on both cultural performInternational journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

cSV**

Weight

t value

New

0.73

0.53

3.26/
1.39

1.47

0.42

4.54

We invest in our museum brand

even in times of scarce financial
resources.

0.50

2.59/
1.32

1.54

0.44

5.13

Brand decisions are made and

discussed at the top management
level.

New

0.39

-0.11

0.88

0.82

1.48/
0.89

1.04

0.28

3.34

New

0.47

0.18

2.83/
1.31

1.09

0.31

4.66

We check regularly to ensure that our

brand design guidelines are being
adhered to.

0.58

0.37

3.29/
1.52

1.60

0.40

5.57

We check regularly to see if our brand

is different from the profiles of other
museums.

New

0.33

3.53/
1.38

1.14

0.23

3.72

Brand managers have the competence

and authority to implement the positioning of our brand internally.

0.50

0.19

2.39/
1.45

1.19

0.11

1.72

Our museum has a detailed written

mission and philosophy.

New

0.50

0.19

2.06/
1.33

2.09

0.13

1.52

Our museum has a detailed

written specification of the brand
positioning.

New

0.60

0.27

2.78/
1.48

2.10

0.08

0.98

Important rules of employee

behaviour, arising from our brand
positioning, are detailed in written
form (e.g., manuals).

New

0.86

0.79

4.00/
1.29

1.14

0.18

2.87

In all communications, we pay

close attention to compliance with
formal design principles (e.g., logo,
colours).

0.63

0.31

2.13/
1.23

1.53

0.39

4.74

Item
We have discussed the management
of our brands intensively.

Values

We try to ensure that our brand

positioning remains essentially
the same over time.
The exhibition theme is determined
by our brand positioning (e.g.,
positioning interactivity
interactive explanations of the
exhibits).

Norms

Mean/
SD

pSA*

Construct

MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR BRAND ORIENTATION CONSTRUCTS

Source

Table 1

(continued)
Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009
This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

37

pSA*

cSV**

Mean
/SD

Variance
inflation
factor

Weight

t value

Construct

MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR BRAND ORIENTATION CONSTRUCTS (continued)

Source

Table 1

Our employees display visible branding elements when in contact with

visitors (e.g., nameplate with logo,
uniforms).

0.50

0.22

3.12/
1.73

1.12

0.36

5.13

The museums architecture reflects

our brand positioning (e.g., positioning visitor orientation
large windows; inviting, open staircases).

New

0.71

0.53

3.05/
1.53

1.56

0.18

2.11

The design of our interiors reflects

our brand positioning (e.g., positioning tradition
dark wooden
furniture, subdued lighting).

New

0.74

0.63

2.55/
1.44

1.38

0.38

4.50

We have facilities at our disposal to

highlight our brand positioning
(e.g., positioning family kindness
child support; education
science bookshop).

New

0.37

0.11

2.80/
1.47

1.20

0.51

7.43

0.73

0.53

3.28/
1.51

1.95

0.23

1.99

We comprehensively measure not

only the demographic profile of our
visitors but also their needs.

New

0.67

0.47

3.54/
1.49

2.06

0.20

1.67

We collect detailed information about

non-visitors.

New

0.73

0.53

4.51/
0.87

1.33

0.08

1.43

We conduct image analyses regularly

H, E, B

0.64

0.31

3.94/
1.22

1.59

0.03

0.44

Our opening hours are adapted to our

brand positioning.

New

0.53

0.29

2.37/
1.37

1.23

0.12

1.23

Special events reflect our brand

positioning (e.g., education
seminar offers).

New

0.31

2.33/
1.37

1.25

0.53

6.97

0.58

0.32

2.65/
1.30

1.25

0.33

4.29

Item

Artifacts

We conduct regular visitor interviews.

Behaviours

In addition to advertising specific

exhibitions, we regularly conduct
image advertising campaigns for
the museum.

*pSA = proportion of substantive agreement; ** cSV = substantive-validity coefficient (see Anderson and Gerbing, 1991)
Sources: B = Baumgarth (2007); H = Hankinson (2001b); E = Ewing and Napoli (2005); S = Schramm, Spiller and Staack (2004)

38

International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

Table 2

MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR MUSEUM PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTS

Source

Mean/SD

Indicator
reliability

W**

5.96/5.89

0.51

Conservation of exhibits (preservation,

restoration, stock-taking)

3.80/4.24

0.47

Execution of scientific research

8.11/7.33

0.80

Publishing and dispensing of information

4.46/4.62

0.70

Conception and presentation of exhibitions

3.05/4.39

0.59

Arrangement of educational content

4.26/4.70

0.69

Visitor satisfaction

3.18/2.50

0.73

Increase in visitor numbers

3.72/3.01

0.66

Attraction of sponsors

6.11/5.70

0.56

Increase in recall

3.23/2.38

0.83

Improvement of museum attractiveness

for potential visitors

3.35/2.60

0.82

Cultivating a network (e.g., other cultural

institutions, other museums, the media)

3.52/3.22

0.76

Construct

Item*
Expansion of the collection

Cultural
performance

Market
performance

Cronbachs
alpha

Average
variance
extracted

0.71

0.41

0.82

0.54

*Two questions for each goal (importance and achievement); multiplication of the two values (range of the goal index: 125); 1 = positive; 25 = negative
**W = Witt, 2000

ance (H5) and market performance (H6). These

causal paths are shown graphically in Figure 3.
As a further test, the results were compared
with alternative models, on the basis of the
effect size f 2 (Chin, 1998):
f 2=

2
2
R additional
R basis
2
1 R additional

R 2additional and R 2basis are the R-squares of the cultural performance and market performance
variables, shown in Figure 3, when the single
brand orientation construct is used or omitted
in the structural model. As a rule of thumb,
f 2 values of .02, .15 and .35 can be taken as
indicators of small, medium and large effects
of a construct in the model. The brand orientation layers have only small effects (f 2 artifacts
= 0.04; f 2 norms = 0.03; f 2 values = 0.06)
within the market performance construct, as they
do within the cultural performance construct

(f 2 artifacts = 0.06; f 2 norms = 0.03; f 2 values =

0.01). However, the more complex models
explain only a small additional amount of
R-squared; the more parsimonious proposed
model was therefore accepted.
In summary, the results of hypothesis testing confirm both the basic structure of the
brand orientation model and the positive connection between brand orientation and performance. However, the positive and significant
coefficient linking brand-oriented behaviours
to cultural performance also shows that a
strong museum brand positively influences its
cultural success. This serves to strongly counter
the argument in the cultural sector that branding and other commercial techniques somehow threaten cultural integrity.

Findings
To render the results of the tests more useful
to managers and consultants, the scores related

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

39

Figure 3

BRAND ORIENTATION AS A SUCCESS FACTOR

Brand orientation
Culture

Behaviour

Brand orientation
as a value
0.709***

Performance

Norms of
brand orientation
R2 = 50.3%
Q2 = 0.182
0.393***
0.654***
Artefacts of
brand orientation
R2 = 42.8%
Q2 = 0.204

Behaviour of
brand orientation
R2 = 46.1%
Q2 = 0.164
0.354***

0.487***

0.375***

Market
performance
R2 = 23.7%
Q2 = 0.131

Cultural
performance
R2 = 14.1%
Q2 = 0.052

*** : p < 0.01

to the four brand orientation constructs were

each converted into a 0100 index. After the
five-point scales for the single items had been
transformed into percentage scales, re-application
of the SmartPLS software generated the required
summarizing indices.
Next, the museums surveyed were allocated
to one of two groups according to their reported
market performance, the median score acting
as the boundary. T tests were performed on
the outcome, to assess the differences in brand
orientation between successful and less successful museums. Figure 4 summarizes the
findings. The overall level of brand orientation
found in this study is relatively low when compared to that found in two other studies, carried out in the business-to-business sector and
the media sector. In most cases, the average
indices for the brand orientation constructs
were found to be markedly higher in those
sectors. In the business-to-business study they
were as follows: values = 77.3; norms = 56.5;
artifacts = 48.4; behaviours = 39.5. In the media
sector study they were values = 78.2; norms =
40

67.9; artifacts 52.5; behaviours = 60.3. In the

present study, in contrast, only the values
index for the group of successful museums
reaches into the 70s, matching the rank order
of the results from both of the other studies.
The other three indices are in the low 60s.
Among less successful museums, the values
index is again the highest, but it only reaches
the mid-50s, more than 20 points below its
counterparts in the other two studies. Those
for the other three constructs are lower in
every case but one.
Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that successful museums exhibit a significantly higher level
of brand orientation with respect to every construct layer. The gap is particularly wide in the
case of brand-oriented behaviours, where the
absolute difference is 18.2 points.
To interpret the details underpinning this
result, a further analysis was undertaken of
museum managers responses to the statements in the behaviours field of Table 1, which
relate to brand research methods and branding
instruments. The combined counts of answers
International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

in the top two boxes of the five-point scale

were taken as the indicator of frequency of
use.
The results are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The relatively low frequencies for the use of
brand research (no indicator above 50% usage)
and branding instruments (14 of 21 below
50% usage) confirm the low level of brand
management in the museum sector. More specifically, a mere third of the museums surveyed
carried out regular brand research in the form
of visitor interviews, and only one in 10 ever
conducted image analyses. The use of branding instruments, in the form of external communications, is a little stronger. For instance,
about two thirds had a visitor club and almost
half used direct marketing. Clear deficiencies
are evident, however, in the translation of
brand positioning into concrete services and
products. Fewer than half of the museum
managers claimed to align exhibition themes
with the museums positioning. The commitment to brand management is even weaker
when it comes to employee involvement in the
process. This finding is particularly problematic given that the museum brand is characterized by the service delivered to visitors by staff
(Gilmore and Rentschler, 2002).

Figure 5

Figure 4

COMPARISON OF BRAND ORIENTATION IN

SUCCESSFUL AND LESS SUCCESSFUL MUSEUMS
Values***
100
Successful museums
Less successful museums

Behaviours***
100

Norms***
100

100
Artefacts***
*** : p < 0.01
Values
(index)

Norms
(index)

Artefacts
(index)

Behaviours
(index)

Less successful museums

54.6

45.3

45.0

43.8

Successful museums

70.1

60.3

63.7

62.0

Average

62.3

52.7

45.3

52.8

FREQUENCY OF BRAND RESEARCH

Controlling integrated
communication*

47

Controlling corporate design*

36

Image survey*

14

Controlling differentiation*

27

Analysis of non-visitors*

Analysis of visitor needs*

28

Visitor survey*

33
0

25

50

75

100

* = top box: 1 and 2 of a five-point scale (interpreted as frequencies in %)

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

41

Figure 6

FREQUENCY OF USE OF BRANDING INSTRUMENTS

48

Specific facilities*
Sepecial events*
Product
Opening hours*
Exhibition concepts*

Integration
of employees

Brand manual*
Brand workshops*
Brand meeting*

Communication

Website
Visitor magazines
Events
Posters
Brochures
Promotion
Museum clubs
Direct marketing
Public relations
Cinema ads
Outdoor ads
Print ads
Radio ads
TV ads

64
62
43
16
25
17
85
14
84
45
92
30
61
44
86
4
77
71
29
14
0

25

50

75

100

* = top box: 1 and 2 on a five-point scale (interpreted as frequencies in %)

Discussion

he main objective of this study was to

develop and test a brand orientation model
for the museum sector. The findings have
implications for both future research and managerial practice.

Theoretical Implications
Previous studies of brand orientation have
measured the construct in a global or multidimensional manner. A new model is proposed, derived from theoretical work in the
areas of corporate culture and market orientation, which distinguishes explicitly among four
layers of brand orientation. Not only are these
layers components of the brand orientation
42

construct, but there is a logical and processoriented structure to the model. The first layer,
the values dimension, influences the next, the
norms dimension, which in turn affects the
next two layers of brand orientation: artifacts
and behaviours.
The model was developed and empirically
tested in the context of museum services, but
it is flexible. There is scope to transfer it to
other cultural services as well as to consumer
products and services in general. The studies
on which it is partly based were focused on the
business-to-business sector and the media sector. The new model contributes generally to
marketing theory and practice by offering a
comprehensive and manageable scale for measuring brand orientation.
International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

Specifically, the results of this study serve to

deepen our understanding of the brand management concept as applied in one particular
cultural sector, providing empirical proof for
the first time that brand orientation has a positive impact on museum performance.

Managerial Implications
The model and findings also have several implications for practical museum management.
First, they unequivocally demonstrate to museum
managers the importance of a discipline imported
from the business world. Applied effectively,
brand management offers considerable potential for the improvement of a museums cultural and market performance. Second, they
illustrate the importance of adopting brand
orientation throughout a museums organization. The values, norms, artifacts and behaviours
that are causally linked in the model are key
elements in implementation of that orientation. They can guide diagnosis of the brands
strengths and weaknesses (for instance, via
management workshops) and hence form the
basis of a branding strategy.
The model further suggests the proper process for effective implementation of brand management. As a first step, responsible managers
should define and adopt brand-oriented values.
Then they should formulate brand-oriented
norms, via branding manuals and positioning
statements. As the next step, they should manipulate such brand-oriented artifacts as elements
of building design. Lastly, they should adopt
brand-oriented behaviours, such as implementing
control mechanisms and engaging in corporate
identity campaigns.

Limitations and Further Research

The proposed model is partial and can explain
only a particular share of the variance in cultural and market performance. Furthermore,
it is possible that the influence of brand orientation on performance outcomes has been overestimated by the isolated analysis of a single
case in point. Further research should integrate brand orientation with other types of
corporate culture or, following the lead of
(Izquierdo and Samaniego, 2007), with other
strategic orientations in a single framework.

The data for the study were collected in a

single sector in one country, Germany. The
extent to which the results of the measurement
and structural models will be directly transferable beyond that context is uncertain. Further
research should replicate the research in other
sectors and countries. Additionally, most of
the museums in the survey were very small. It
is impossible to know what effect their proportionately limited resources of money, time,
personnel and know-how had on respondents
assessments of the scope for implementation
of branding and brand management. In future
studies, the sampling frame should permit
comparison of large and small museums.
The scales used were developed ad hoc and
tested empirically during the study for the first
time. Their formative character introduces
uncertainty about the extent to which the chosen
items actually cover the respective constructs.
This potential methodological problem will
become cumulative if the same ad-hoc scales
are used in other studies.
Besides the well-known general problems
with self-completion questionnaires distributed
by mail, a particular limitation here is key
informant bias, as discussed by Mezias and
Starbuck (2003). The literature suggests measures to address this limitation, but the required
commitment of time and money prevented
their implementation in this study.
As well as departure points for further
research arising directly from the limitations
of this study, two general suggestions can be
made. First, the proposed model examines brand
orientation as an internal prerequisite for a
strong brand in the arts area. Further research
might extend the analysis of the correlation
between internal brand orientation and external brand equity. It might also examine a range
of tools, instruments and initiatives available
for deployment in the quest for improved
brand orientation, whether in museums or more
generally.

References
American Association of Museums. 2000. Code of
Ethics for Museums. Available online: http://www.
aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm.
Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing. 1991. Predicting
the Performance of Measures in a Confirmatory
Factor Analysis With a Pretest Assessment of Their
Substantive Validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, no 5, p. 732740.

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

43

Avlonitis, G.J., and S.P. Gounaris. 1999. Marketing

Orientation and Its Determinants: An Empirical
Analysis. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33,
no 11/12, p. 10031037.
Baumgarth, C. 2007. Markenorientierung von Medien:
Konzept, Ausprgungen und Erfolgsbeitrag am
Beispiel von Fachzeitschriften. Medienwirtschaft,
Vol. 4, no 3, p. 617.
Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., and J. Sikkenga. 2008. Transformationsprozesse im Museumsbereich. In
Steuerung versus Emergenz, R. Bouncen, T. Joachims
and E.A. Ksters, eds. (p. 323366). Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Bridson, K., and J. Evans. 2004. The Secret of a
Fashion Advantage Is Brand Orientation. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 32, no 8, p. 403411.
Caldwell, N.G. 2000. The Emergence of Museum
Brands. International Journal of Arts Management,
Vol. 2, no 5, p. 2834.
Caldwell, N., and J. Coshall. 2002. Measuring Brand
Associations for Museums and Galleries Using
Repertory Grid Analysis. Management Decision,
Vol. 40, no 4, p. 383392.
Camarero, C., and M.J. Garrido. 2008. The Influence of Market and Product Orientation on Museum
Performance. International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 10, no 2, p. 1426.
Chin, W.W. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach
to Structural Equation Modelling. In Modern
Business Research Methods, G.A. Marcoulides, ed.
(p. 295336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colbert, F. 2003. The Sydney Opera House: An
Australian Icon. International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 5, no 2, p. 6977.
Dandridge, T.C., I. Mitroff and W.F. Joyce. 1980.
Organizational Symbolism: A Topic to Expand
Organizational Analysis. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 7782.
Deutscher Museumsbund and ICOM Deutschland.
2006. Standards fr Museen. Berlin: Kassel.
Diamantopoulos, A., and H.M. Winklhofer. 2001.
Index Construction With Formative Indicators:
An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38, no 2, p. 269277.
Ewing, M.T., and J. Napoli. 2005. Developing and
Validating a Multidimensional Nonprofit Brand
Orientation Scale. Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 58, no 6, p. 841853.
Gilmore, A., and R. Rentschler. 2002. Changes in
Museum Management: A Custodial or Management
Emphasis? Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 21, no 10, p. 745760.
Hankinson, P. 2001a. Brand Orientation in the
Charity Sector: A Framework for Discussion and
Research. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 6, no 3, p. 231
242.
Hankinson, P. 2001b. Brand Orientation in the Top
500 Fundraising Charities in the UK. Journal of
44

Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10, no 6,

p. 346360.
Hankinson, P. 2002. The Impact of Brand Orientation on Managerial Practice: A Quantitative Study
of the UKs Top 500 Fundraising Managers.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, Vol. 7, no 1, p. 3044.
Heide, J.B., and G. John. 1992. Do Norms Matter
in Marketing Relationships? Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, no 2, p. 3244.
Herrmann, A., F. Huber and F. Kressmann. 2006.
Varianz- und kovarianzbasierte Strukturgleichungsmodelle: ein Leitfaden zu deren Spezifikation,
Schtzung und Beurteilung. Zeitschrift fr betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 58, no 1, p. 3466.
Homburg, C., and C. Pflesser. 2000. A MultipleLayer Model of Market-Oriented Organizational
Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance
Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37,
no 4, p. 449462.
Izquierdo, C.C., and M.J.G. Samaniego. 2007. How
Alternative Marketing Strategies Impact the Performance of Spanish Museums. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26, no 9, p. 809831.
Jarvis, C.B., S. B. MacKenzie and P.M. Podsakoff.
2003. A Critical Review of Construct Indicators
and Measurement Model Misspecification in
Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30, no 2, p. 199218.
Jensen, L. 2004. Auferstehen ohne Ableben. Reich,
beliebt, berhmt: Das Museum of Modern Art
hatte alles. Dann beschloss sein Direktor, es neu zu
erfinden. Fr die Kunst. Brand Eins, Vol. 6, no 8,
p. 118123.
Jreskog, K.G., and H. Wold 1982. The ML and
PLS Technique for Modeling With Latent Variables: Historical and Comparative Aspects. In
Systems Under Indirect Observation, K.G. Jreskog
and H. Wood, eds. (p. 263270). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Katz, D., and R.L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology
of Organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, no 1, p. 122.
Keller, K.L. 2003. Strategic Brand Management (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohli, A.K., and B.J. Jaworski 1990. Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and
Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54, no 1, p. 118.
Kohli, A.K., B.J. Jaworski, and A. Kumar. 1993.
MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, no 4,
p. 467477.
Kotler, N., and P. Kotler 1998. Museum Strategy and
Marketing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krafft, M., O. Gtz and K. Liehr-Gobbers. 2005. Die
Validierung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen mit
Hilfe des Partial-Least-Squares (PLS-)-Ansatzes.
International journal of arts management

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

In Handbuch PLS-Pfadmodellierung, B. Friedhelm,

A. Eggert, G. Fassott and J. Henseler, eds. (p. 71
86). Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel.
Krens, T. 2000. Developing the Museum for the
21st Century. In Visionary Clients for New Architecture, P. Noever, ed. (p. 4574). Munich, London,
New York: Prestel.
Lewis, G. 2006. ICOM Codes of Ethics for Museums.
Available online: http://icom-museums/ethics.html.
Mezias, J.M., and W.H. Starbuck. 2003. Studying
the Accuracy of Managers Perceptions: A Research
Odyssey. British Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, no 1,
317.
Napoli, J. 2006. The Impact of Nonprofit Brand
Orientation on Organisational Performance. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, p. 673
694.
Narver, J.C., and S.F. Slater. 1990. The Effect of a
Market Orientation on Business Profitability.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, no 4, p. 2035.
Prokop, J. 2003. Museen: Kulturschpfer und ihre Markenidentitt. PhD thesis, University of Wuppertal,
Germany. Available online: http://elpub.bib.uniwuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fb05/diss2003/
prokop.
Ringle, C.M., S. Wende and A. Will. 2006. SmartPLS 2.0(M3). Hamburg: University of Hamburg.
Rossiter, J.R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE Procedure for
Scale Development in Marketing. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19, no 4,
p. 305335.
Rowley, J. 1997. Managing Branding and Corporate
Image for Library and Information Services.
Library Review, Vol. 46, no 4, p. 244250.
Schein, E.H. 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schramm, M., A. Spiller and T. Staack. 2004. Brand
Orientation in der Ernhrungsindustrie: Erfolgsdeterminanten der Markenfhrung am Beispiel genossenschaftlicher Hersteller. Wiesbaden: DUV.
Scott, C. 2000. Branding: Positioning Museums in
the 21st Century. International Journal of Arts
Management, Vol. 2, no 3, p. 3539.
Trice, H.M., and J.M. Beyer 1993. The Cultures of
Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Ulrich, P. 1990. Symbolisches Management. In Die
Unternehmenskultur, C. Lattmann, ed. (p. 277
302). Heidelberg: Physica.
Urde, M. 1994. Brand Orientation: A Strategy for
Survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11,
no 3, p. 1832.
Urde, M. 1999. Brand Orientation: A Mindset for
Building Brand into Strategic Resources. Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, p. 117133.
Wallace, M.A. 2006. Museum Branding. Lanham,
MD, New York, Toronto, Oxford: AltaMira.
Witt, C. 2000. Ziele und Betriebsformen von Museen.
Ehestorf-Rosengarten: Freilichtmuseum am Kiekeberg.

Wong, H.Y., and B. Merrilees 2005. A Brand Orientation Typology for SMEs: A Case Research
Approach. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 14, no 3, p. 155162.

Volume 11, NUMBER 3 spring 2009

This article is reproduced with the permission of the International Journal of Arts Management

45