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

Introduction
This article by Abimola & Vallaster (2007) professes to equate brand organization identity and reputation values and claims that synergy of these three values applies more so to SMEs than to larger organizations. Leading through series of observations from different researchers the authors claim the assertions are supported by works of other researchers which the authors have cited. Going through the evidence presented and using some of the quoted researchers work we would point out the gap in authors deductions.

Discussion
Abimola & Vallaster (2007) assert that strong brands reduce risk and communicate a feeling of familiarity. This is true however we will have to consider the due to limited resources of SMEs the investment in making a brand reach the strong brand grade is going to be difficult. Gilmore et al (2001) mention diluted efforts of SME marketing as they contend that SME marketing will be haphazard and less optimized as SME management is usually limited to owner and the usual response is reactive not proactive according to the market situation. Thus the SME marketing is not textbook case rather event determined. SME networking is built around networks, which may include social, business, industry and marketing networks. Networking drives SME marketing and hence marketing follows these channels; not only is this method more informal and not likely to be followed in large organizations but also this channel method does not follow established marketing lines as in case of more traditional methods. Owner managers contacts are of prime importance in driving this mode of marketing (Gilmore et al 2001). Abimola & Vallaster (2007)s contention that powerful brands may require consistent positive customer contacts and brands communication is perfectly valid, however as Gilmore et al (2001) have mentioned that marketing in SME is channel dependent, therefore brands communication will be limited and positive contacts may be limited to elements of the networks through which marketing is channelized. It would therefore be difficult to build powerful brands in SMEs case if only these minimal and informal marketing channels are utilized. The networks as mentioned are inherently experiential as mistakes once rectified are through the feedback loop corrected and similar

Page 1 of 7

occurrences avoided. Social networks similarly allow for information gap and consequently will require leap of faith for marketing decision making. Abimola & Vallaster (2007) discussion of added value concept by Gilmore et al (1999) saying that SMEs have distinctive characteristics that separate from larger firms and that traditional marketing theories cant be used to describe SMEs and that SMEs are better suited to smaller more focused markets. Better brand management will allow competitive differentiation of their products and add more perceived value into their products. This smaller scale dimensioning is required for SMEs as they dont have economies of scale advantage over their larger counterparts. The added value will be dependent on nature of industry and the competitors; however SMEs may be more cognizant of its customers because of better and closer relationship (network concept) (Gilmore et al 1999). This aspect of being closer to customers allows brand management to be managed by more diverse set of elements than core marketing as in larger organizations. This innovation in marketing as it is handled either by owner manager or its team from multidisciplinary environment is a mixed blessing as flexibility might be disadvantageous because of lack of discipline which is enforced because of multidisciplinary approach (Abimola & Vallaster 2007). Opoku et al (2007) reiterate brandings importance in SME as brands communicate values, both perceived and added, more than marketing communication alone can do. SME sector accounts for 95% business in US and accounts for more than 55% of employment in UK (Powell et al 2007). Opoku et al (2007) contend that brand management does not receive the focus that is given to brand management in larger organizations. This is primarily due to limited budgets of SMEs hence Abimola & Vallaster (2007) assertion that SMEs have clear advantage because of flexible structures may be limited to some but not all SMEs. Opoku et al (2007) mention the power of Internet. Internet has lowered barriers to entry, made sophisticated marketing through customized websites within reach of all and sundry and the at the same increased customer advantage. Customer can now easily compare offering from one SME to the rest of the organizations offering similar products and respective availability. This paradigm shift raises questions about product differentiation via branding and adding on value to make product more appealing to the newer more discerning customer. Internet not only dresses the product personality but also may be the only contact customer ever gets with retailer organization. Website presence is a double edged sword it does increase the SMEs personality yet lowers the barriers for other competitor to use similar strategies for differentiation. Opoku et al (2007) assumes that brand personality reflects like humans specific aspects that differentiates the products from other competitor products. Five separate Page 2 of 7

SMEs in the fast food or coffee retailers were chosen: Blenz, Caf Rouge, Jollibee, Nandos and Old Spaghetti Factory were chosen and content analysis performed to determine how brand personality attributes were distributed. Caf Rouge factored on sophistication while Jollibee was associated with competence and Nandos was strongly associated with sincerity. Old Spaghetti factory failed to communicate any strong brand personality. Opoku et al (2007) thus demonstrates brand personality dimensioning through how product website communicates personality. This leaves greater onus on SMEs who with their meager resources have to make sure that their online presence does represent the image that they want to project adequately. Perceived value may be more important than the actual value that the SME wants to project. What is lacking is comparison with actual presence and how does the physical presence fortify or negate the online presence. In the case of fast food outlets brand presence will be a combination of virtual and physical presence. This article fails to identify that element hence Abimola & Vallaster (2007) stipulation that, website enhances SMEs ability to demonstrate brand personality, is fine but how does the physical and virtual blend and whether synergy is effectuated between the two mediums is the question. Finally as we have seen the SMEs operate with limited budgets and manpower, so how is the win win win situation created remain a big question mark? Carson & Gilmore (2000) also stress that nature of marketing in SME is subsequent to nature of the concerned owner or entrepreneur. The SME cant go outside the norm and shirk established practices because of conformability requirements and to get acceptance from established customer base of the concerned product. Product parameters relating to presence, distribution and service aspects are all demarcated by the so called industry norms which define how the SME will have to operate to gain maximum acceptability. Differentiation for SME will only come after gaining acceptance in the market while in contrast large players can break out of the norm because of their size and attract the market to themselves rather than going to the customers. The diagram below represents a model of SME marketing that use how to marketing approach or situation specific marketing which SMEs require as they usually are working on reactive basis during their nascent years.

Page 3 of 7

(Carson & Gilmore 2000) SME marketing will be a function of the standard 4Ps adapted to the specific situation of the respective SME. It is important to note that SME will adapt the relevant concept in a way that is of most use to them. Marketing Planning in a large organization is decidedly different from SME. Marketing decisions are usually taken in stride by owners managers who have limited marketing expertise, thus we have interesting irony SMEs have more flexible structures which foster or hinder development of strong brands! As also mentioned by Abimola & Vallaster (2007) organizational identity is often a reflection of that of the owner manager this provides distinctive flavor to organization while limiting its organizational identity from achieving a more complex flavor of a typical large organization. Abimola & Kocak (2007) call upon organizational identity as an objective or a vision or what the customers believe about the company. So in some ways this can be compared with perception of the firm and this defines how the SME or large organization would compete. SME functioning is dependent on adaptation and using network marketing and innovative marketing concepts concepts that in a larger organization will not be generally used (Carson & Gilmore 2000). Wong & Merrilees (2005) also inextricably link Marketing as an essential part of SME functioning. Brands evolve in SME following stages of minimalist, progressively moving on to embryonic and finally integrated stage as shown in the following diagram (Wong & Merrilees 2005).

Page 4 of 7

Minimalist orientation depicts a short term focused, while embryonic state allows for more marketing capability as the focus is longer term and competitive pressures are existent, branding is not explicitly defined and works on sort of de facto basis while in the third or integrated orientation the brand becomes more distinctive (Wong & Merrilees 2005). The above orientation distinguishes from a large firm in which the brand orientation is defined. Abimola & Vallaster (2007) also contend that in large organizations the brand reputation and awareness issues are researched more thoroughly, however the research seldom reaches the decision making authority to take full advantage of the research while in case of SME the budgetary constraints allow decisions to be based on network information which reduces turn around time and enables quick implementation of feedback loop. The assertion that complaints and research results do not reach the relevant decision making authority is generalizing to a large degree. Also contending that holistic approach where all three elements of brand, organizational identity and reputation work in concert for success of SME. As we have seen that branding strategy and organizational identity are at behest of owner manager so these strategies will generally be on more ad hoc level then in case of Large organizations. Powell & Ennis (2007) point out challenges within SMEs in creative industries which can be assumed for general SMEs as well. Competitive element is present in most SMEs and even if it is not present then competitive element is considered an important aspect of differentiation and enhanced revenues. Within creative industries the marketing aspect is informal while in cases of other SMEs marketing may be informal for nascent SMEs though it is desired that when SMEs reach integrated level they have well defined marketing strategy (Powell & Ennis 2007).

Conclusion
Abimola & Vallaster (2007) contend outright that the conclusions or results that they have surmised are deduced from works of other researchers. SMEs are required to have a holistic blend of Brand, Organization identity and reputation to succeed. However it is shown in the Page 5 of 7

above discourse that most SMEs are unstructured and rely on informal channels so attributing branding and organizational identity will be a misfit. Authors also acknowledge that organizational identity of SMEs may be an extension of owners personalities. This automatically relegates branding and reputation to more of network marketing and development of network channels as discussed above. Hence authors have tried to attribute aspects of more organized SMEs or larger organizations to all SMEs which may not be always possible. Using examples of Internet branding and added values the generalizations may not be always valid. Internet presence may be sought almost all SMEs, yet positioning and building reputation through website may not be perquisite of all SMEs. Added values again may not be blankly applied to all SMEs even Gilmore et al does not explicitly tag on added value to SMEs. Hence we can generally say that the authors need to circumscribe the attributes of brand, organizational identity and reputation to specific types or classes of SME instead of all SMEs and also detailed SME classification might be required to ascribe these dimensions to SMEs in general.

Page 6 of 7

List of References
1. Heikki Majava (Jun2005) Psychosynthesis of the brain and mind: Comments on a new intellectual framework in psychiatry and psychotherapy, International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p108-115, 8p; 2. Temi Abimbola, Akin Kocak (2007) Brand, organization identity and reputation: SMEs as expressive organizations; A resources-based perspective, Qualitative Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 416 3. Temi Abimbola, Christine Vallaster (2007) Brand, organisational identity and reputation in SMEs: an overview Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 341 4. Robert Ankomah Opoku, Russell Abratt, Mike Bendixen, Leyland Pitt (2007) Communicating brand personality: are the web sites doing the talking for food SMEs? Qualitative Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 362 5. Shaun Powell, Sean Ennis (2007) Organisational marketing in the creative industries Qualitative Market Research Vol. 10, Iss. 4; p. 375 6. Ho Yin Wong, Bill Merrilees (2005) A brand orientation typology for SMEs: a case research approach The Journal of Product and Brand Management Vol. 14, Iss. 2/3; p. 155 7. Koak, Akin; Abimbola, Temi; zer, Alper (Feb2007) Consumer Brand Equity in a Cross-cultural Replication: An Evaluation of a Scale Journal of Marketing Management Vol. 23 Issue 1/2, p157-173, 17p, 6 8. Audrey Gilmore, David Carson, Ken Grant(2001) SME marketing in practice Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 19, Iss. 1; p. 6 9. David Carson, Audrey Gilmore (Spring 2000) Marketing at the interface: Not 'what' but 'how' Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Vol. 8, Iss. 2; p. 1 10. Audrey Gilmore, David Carson, Aodheen O'Donnell, Darryl Cummins (1999) Added value: A qualitative assessment of SME marketing Irish Marketing Review Vol. 12, Iss. 1; p. 27

Page 7 of 7