Brand-building and the elements of success: discoveries using historical analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to examine the concept of brand-building. The emphasis is on corporate brand-building and brand heritage in the firm, and the differing influences of entrepreneurial family leadership and professional transformational leadership. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative research design strategy draws on longitudinal case study research using primary archival data collection and analysis. The sample is one successful Canadian firm, and the study investigates how its brand was built in two distinct eras, the Entrepreneurial Era and the Professional Era. Findings – The findings identify similarities and differences across the eras. Discoveries include the identification of early brand-building activities based on brand values, which formed the basis for brand heritage, and the importance of brand orientation and brand strategy implementation in the Professional Era. Practical implications – The managerial implications for brand-building show that the findings can be extrapolated to twenty-first century businesses, if there is an astute understanding of the firm's context be it an entrepreneurial family firm or a large, professionally managed complex firm. Originality/value – The paper uses original historical qualitative research to contribute to understanding brand building. The study contributes to knowledge with a revised brand building framework and the related detailed brand elements that contribute to effective corporate branding. For researchers, the study adds to understanding of brand building and demonstrates a further example of the efficacy of using qualitative archival materials to explore branding questions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".