1718799

Brand building in software SMEs: an empirical study
Jukka Ojasalo
Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Espoo, Finland
tti Satu Na
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, and
Rami Olkkonen
Department of Marketing, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, Finland
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to increase the knowledge of brand building in software SMEs. Design/methodology/approach The empirical method used is a multi-case study. Data were collected from 20 companies in the software industry through in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using systematic coding and categorization of qualitative evidence. Findings The study identied ve special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs, relating to goals and perceived benets of brand building; resources in brand building; external and internal cooperation in brand building; means and communication in brand building; and the process of product brand building and its connection to software product development. Research limitations/implications The scientic contribution of this empirical study relates to two aspects of brand management: branding in software business and branding in SMEs. A vast amount of literature exists on brands, software business and SMEs, but there is very little on branding in software business or branding in SMEs. Unarguably, there are two signicant knowledge gaps in the literature, and they relate to branding in software and SME industries. Both theoretical and managerial knowledge is needed. This study corresponds to this need by increasing the knowledge of brand building in software SMEs with an empirical study. The present study is characterized by the general limitations of a case study. The results lack statistical reliability, they apply primarily in the case companies examined, and no direct generalizations should be made without further quantitative study. Practical implications Directors of SMEs often think that branding is just for big companies, but small companies with limited resources can brand their products and services as well. However, the means of branding are often different. The present study encourages SMEs to systematically think of the potential advantages of branding for their business, and develop creative, targeted, and affordable approaches for brand building. Originality/value The present empirical study makes an original contribution to the literature by increasing the knowledge of branding in the context of both SMEs and software business. Keywords Brands, Brand management, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Computer software, Communication technologies Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Building strong brands has become an important issue for many organizations since it yields a number of marketing advantages and increases companies competitive strength (Hoefer and Keller, 2002). Brand management faces several challenges and opportunities (Schocker et al., 1994): . globalization and greater openness of markets; . the impact of technological change; . the increased power of distributors; and . the evolution of channels.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management 17/2 (2008) 92 107 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] [DOI 10.1108/10610420810864702]
In addition, different interest groups like investors set also high expectations for the development of brand equity. The purpose of this empirical study is to increase the knowledge of brand management in software SMEs. The discourse of brand management has its roots in the large-scale consumer goods sector (de Chernatony et al., 2003), but very little knowledge can be found on brand building in the software business or SMEs. This is surprising considering the important role of both SMEs and the software industry. The literature refers to the meaning of creating brand equity along the new product development process (e.g. Ambler and Styles, 1997), but not in the context of SMEs or the software business. One reason behind this might be that the logic of software product development and operations in those organizations have traditionally been dominated by technology and engineering, and the marketing approach has been sidelined. Our aim is not to delimit the analysis to line/product branding or corporate branding only. Thus, we are not making a black and white distinction between software product branding and software corporate branding. This is because in software SMEs the two levels of branding are often inseparable. Thus, we can form a richer description by 92
Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.
Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107
keeping the both aspects within our analysis, and we can also shed more light on the meaning of branding in SMEs, which is very rarely studied area (Wong and Merrilees, 2005). In addition to traditional brand building activities like external brand communication, we focus in our analysis on the internal brand building process (see, for example, Urde, 2003), where the strategic, vision- and value-based aspects are prevalent, as well as internal communication. This is because we suggest that the internal reality of the organization forms a base for a successful external brand building process. The method used is a multi-case study among 20 software SMEs. This study nds ve special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs, relating to: 1 goals and perceived benets of brand building; 2 resources in brand building; 3 external and internal cooperation in brand building; 4 means and communication in brand building; and 5 the process of product brand building and its connection to software product development. Thus, this study implies that software SMEs are less advanced in exploiting the opportunities of branding. It also implies that more research is needed to foster both the theory and practice of brand management in software SMEs. The rest of the article is organized as follows. First, the nature of brand management is briey discussed. Then, the literature dealing with brand management in the software business as well as in SMEs is revived. Next, the empirical method of this study is brought forward. Then, the empirical ndings of the study are described. After that, the ndings and their theoretical implications are discussed. Next, managerial recommendations are suggested. And then, the nal conclusions are drawn and directions for further research are suggested.
with this, Feldwick (1996) suggests the main dimensions for brand equity. Firstly, brand equity refers to the total monetary value of a brand as separable and intangible asset, for example when it is sold or included on a balance sheet. Secondly, it is the measure of the strength of consumers attachment to a brand. Thirdly, it is the description of the associations and beliefs the consumer has about the brand. According to Keller (2001) a customer-based brand equity holds the assumption that the effectiveness of the brand is based on all the aspects customers have learned, felt, seen, heard, etc., about the brand and as a result of their experiences. Thus, brand equity is a measure of loyalty, perceived quality and leadership, association and differentiation, awareness, and market behavior (Aaker, 1996). Advantages of brands Strong brands provide advantages to both buyers and sellers. They can lead to fundamental differences in customer behavior as well as produce differential responses to specic marketing activities, i.e. related to product, extension, price, communications and channels (Hoefer and Keller, 2002). To customers, branding offers certain advantages. The brand is a summary of all the values associated with it and in the post-purchase stage it may increase customers condence in their choices. Based on a strong brand, the selling company is likely to get premium prices and in the best case competitive products will be rejected. Marketing communications related to a strong brand will be more rapidly accepted and the organizations power in the distribution network will be increased. In addition, successful branding may even open up licensing opportunities (Hague and Jackson, 1994; see also Low and Blois, 2002). Gregory and Sellers (2002) propose that brands should be developed over time through a four-step process: 1 intelligence gathering; 2 strategy; 3 communication; and 4 management (see also, for example, de Chernatony, 2001). The intelligence gathering phase involves gaining understanding about the brands situation and provides the information necessary to develop the brand strategy. In the strategy phase of brand building, the organization denes the brands promise, personality, attributes, and message. It must be based on truth and it reects the organizations real character, not the wished-for one, although it must also provide room for positive development. This development is guided by brand vision, the core purpose of the brand and the denition of the future stage of the brand. This vision is supported by the chosen core values of the brand (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; see also Davies, 2000), which are in the best case in line with the organizations corporate values in general (Urde, 2003). The strategy positions the organization in the market and guides the development of brand expressions, and thus marketing communication. The coherence between the vision, core values and positioning is worth considering. Position tells us what the brand is, who it is for and what it offers (Rositer and Percy, 1996), whereas physique provides us with cues about the brands performance (Kapferer, 2004, p. 150). Core values also form the base for the personality of the brand, meaning the brands emotional characteristics. 93
Brand management
The term brand A brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or any other feature or combination of features identifying one sellers good or service from those of competitors (American Marketing Association, 1960; Bennet, 1988; Kotler, 1991; Dibb et al., 1997). It is the sum of all mental connections people have around it (Brown, 1992). A brand recognition occurs when the brand and its qualities are generally known by the customers or consumers (Simeon, 2006). Brand is the promise for the customer and a bundle of attributes that someone buys that provides satisfaction. These attributes may be real or illusory, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible (Ambler, 1992). Brand equity Brand equity has been used both in the accounting and marketing literatures (Wood, 2000). Keller (1993) identied two general motives for studying brand equity. One is a nancially based motivation to estimate the value of a brand more precisely for accounting purposes, in terms of asset valuation of the balance sheet, or for merger, acquisition, or divesture purposes. A second reason for studying brand equity relates to a strategy-based motivation to improve marketing productivity. Keller (1993) argues that nancial valuation issues have little relevance if no underlying value for the brand has been created or if managers do not know how to exploit that value by developing protable brand strategies. In line
The idea of brand personality relates, for example, to the typical user imagery (Aaker, 1997). Communication brings the strategy to life. It means creating and communicating all expressions of the brand to both internal and external audiences, and it should convey both the purpose and personality of the company clearly and consistently. Marketers should dene the knowledge structures that they would like to create in the minds of customers with the brand and, on the tactical level, evaluate the increasingly large number of options available to create these knowledge structures, especially in terms of various marketing communication alternatives. In order to follow the customer perceptions and effectiveness of the communication, studies should be constantly conducted. Finally, marketers should evaluate potential extension candidates for their viability and possible feedback effects on core brand image. A good brand should provide a platform for innovation and differentiation, and thus a certain level of exibility in operations (Keller, 1993; Melewar and Walker, 2003.) However, too often the external communication in the process is emphasized, but a critical aspect is also the organizations internal communication. Day-to-day processes, the management system and the corporate culture must support the branding strategy. Lately management of the internal brand resources has also been recognized in order to bring up the importance of integration of internal activities ensuring organizational cohesion, and therefore consistency in activities. Internal resource coordination involves, for example, coordination of the functional capabilities, communication capabilities, coordinating consistency through staff and planning pricing and customer service (de Chernatony, 1999). After all, employees of the company form the interface between a brands internal and external expression, and are in the critical role when customers are forming their perceptions. Therefore, the components of brand building should be opened up to employees on the practical level. For example, not only should the brands identity be communicated, but also how different forms of communication are meant to reect that identity (see, for example, Papasolomou and Vrontis, 2006). At the practical level this may happen along the advertisement campaign conducted, for example. In the worst case the marketing communication and daily operations do not meet at any level. One important element in the brand building process is a relationship, a bond which is formed between the customer and the brand. Relationships are formed along the marketing communication process, but also through the interactions between the employees and the customer (see, for example, Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). The management phase is all about sustaining and developing the brand further. At that stage organizationlevel commitment, time, and intellect are required. In addition, a proper management system is needed an infrastructure to measure the effectiveness of branding, and to support its development along the changing needs of the markets. Brand managements task is also to ensure a return on the companys corporate image investment. Most of all, a good management system ensures that customers have the right kind of experiences with the products and services an organization provides accompanying the marketing programs. Thus, as mentioned, building fancy advertising campaigns is 94
not enough real-life activities should be in line (Hoefer and Keller, 2002) and the values employees hold should be consistent with those that the brand communicates. Thus, employees of the company should be committed and involved in constant discussion of the brand identity and values it holds (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). Now the cycle is closed and the process of brand management can start all over again by analyzing the current and changing situation. At what level in the organization we can position the brand building activities? First of all, marketers should adopt a broad and long-term view of marketing decisions (Keller, 1993). Without a doubt, management of brands should be a higher-level function in companies (Wood, 2000) and a teambased activity with more strategic perspective (de Chernatony, 1997) with an obvious link with the corporate strategy (Melewar and Walker, 2003). However, all the workers in the company are in their role responsible for developing the brand further in their own activities and customer contacts.
Brands in the software business

The research literature on branding of software products is very scarce. This is true even though the software business is one of the major industries in the modern economy. Indeed, only a handful of research reports touching upon this issue can be found (Table I). Ulkuniemi and Helander (2005) examined marketing challenges in the special context of the software component business. They developed a model illustrating software component suppliers business logic and related marketing management approaches. The model suggests that the business logic may either be in software products or software projects. According to their model, the role of branding is important in the software product business but not in the software project business. Srivastava and Mookerjees (2004) research report eld deals with brand equity for banking business application software. The study found two major components of brand equity: 1 perceived value; and 2 trust. Perceived value is driven by performance indicators and tangibles, including: . functionality; . technological superiority; . support and training; and . exibility to respond to future changes. Trust is driven by the credibility of the company that markets and/or develops the product, the reputation of the alliance partners, and the market acceptance of the product. Rajala and Westerlund (2004) examined the assets and capabilities of software companies from the perspectives of business models and value-creating networks. They classied the business models of software companies in terms of two dimensions: 1 degree of involvement in customer relationships; and 2 level of homogeneity of offering. This resulted in four business models of software companies: 1 tailored software project businesses; 2 system solution businesses;
Table I Findings related to software brands

Author Ulkuniemi and Helander (2005) Main ndings related to software brands Identied two business logics in the software component industry: product business; and project business The role of branding is important in the software product business but not in the software project business Identied two major components of software brands: Perceived value: functionality, technological superiority, support and training, exibility to respond to future changes Trust: companys credibility, reputation of the alliance partners, market acceptance of the product Identied four business models of software companies: tailored software project businesses; system solution businesses; transactional services and semi-nished solutions businesses; and standard offering businesses Brands are the key asset in the case of standard offering business, but not in other business models Without the right partners it is hard and time-consuming for a start-up SME software company to create any brand name when entering into the US market In a competitive software market, in the presence of differential piracy and brand switching among the various brands within a software product category (e.g. spreadsheets), there may be no relationship between market estimates based on unit sales and the user base of a software brand
Srivastava and Mookerjee (2004)
Rajala and Westerlund (2004)
Warsta et al. (2001) Givon et al. (1997)
3 4
transactional services and semi-nished solutions businesses; and standard offering businesses.
. . . practically nothing has been published about brand management in SMEs. However, much has been written about brand management and about SMEs (Krake, 2005, p. 229).
Their empirical study found that brand is a key asset in the case of standard offering business. However, in other three software business models, brands were not found to be a key asset. Warsta et al. (2001) also investigated Finnish software companies entering into the USA to analyze the processes and factors related to establishing partner relationships. Most of the companies examined were start-up SMEs. Warsta et al. (2001) concluded that, for a company establishing its venture in a new market, even in a new country, it is important to become well known and build a reputation from the beginning. This can be done by co-operating with branded customer companies. The partners reputation gives leverage to the small software company. According to Warsta et al. (2001), without the right partners it is difcult and timeconsuming for a SME software company to create any brand name. Givon et al. (1997) assessed the relationships between userbased market share and unit sales-based market share for pirated software brands in competitive markets. Their study found that in a competitive software market, in the presence of differential piracy and brand switching among the various brands within a software product category (e.g. spreadsheets), there may be no relationship between market estimates based on unit sales and the user base of a software brand.
In the same vein, Wong and Merrilees (2005) note that:

Given the vast amount of branding research over the past two decades, it is surprising that we have not been able to discern one research study dedicated to SME branding.
Branding in SMEs
The present empirical study was conducted among software SMEs, and thus there is reason to look at the literature dealing with brand management in SMEs. However, very little can be found on this subject in the literature. One of the very few studies in this area concludes the same: 95
Next, we briey review the literature concerning branding in SEMs (see Table II). Krake (2005) examined brand management and found that in many SME companies, brand management receives little or no attention in the daily run of affairs. The owners or directors are the ones to take the lead in branding; however, they either seldom have the time for it or are not even aware of brand management as a concept. The entrepreneur, as a person, can be extremely important in building and acquiring recognition for a brand. The entrepreneur often is the brand. However, the position of entrepreneur, and the possibilities available to him, are hardly used. According to Krake (2005), co-branding, in other words working with other companies to boost the value of a brand, receives very little if any attention in SMEs. The creation of higher brand awareness is not often a conscious goal when determining a companys marketing budget. Entrepreneurs are proud of their products and want the brand to reect not only quality but also attractive, chic and distinguished design. SME companies are productcentered and consider (growth in) turnover to be at least as an important a goal for their marketing plans as the long-term goal of brand recognition. In his study, Krake (2005) developed a funnel model for brand management in SMEs. The model shows three main factors affecting the role in brand management in SMEs: 1 inuence of the entrepreneur, including passion, logic and personication of the brand; 2 inuence of the company structure, including awareness of brand management, objectives and possible marketing personnel; and
Table II Findings related to branding in SMEs

Author Krake (2005) Main ndings related to branding in SMEs Brand management is not given the priority it needs for a strong brand image to be constructed The responsibility for brand management lies, in all cases, at the highest (management) level Co-branding receives very little attention Selling is important Factors affecting the role in brand management: inuence of the entrepreneur; inuence of the company structure; and inuence of the market Factors affecting marketing and message communication: creativity; and budget Desired results: brand recognition; and turnover Identied common characteristics of branding SME wineries and, in addition to them, product- and marketing-driven branding characteristics Common branding characteristics of SME wineries include: producing a premium product; conveying an image of quality wines; using a name and symbol to represent the winery; forming business relationships and networks; participating in regional events, festivals and shows; and providing friendly service at the cellar door Product-driven branding characteristics include: the focus at the cellar door being on the wine; personal approach where visitors can meet the winemaker; and a limited amount of marketing and promotion Marketing-driven branding characteristics include: a focus at the cellar door on an experience; a greater emphasis on marketing and promotion; and extending the product range to merchandise SMEs have a narrow interpretation of what branding is SMEs views on branding are limited to advertising plus the brand name and/or logo Personal selling or face-to-face communication is a critical part of marketing communications SMEs and big rms are advocates of the branding concept, but the ways in which it is carried out are different Owing to their limited promotional resources, they have to directly show their customers what they can do for them Large-scale sales promotions that help build a brand image and convey communication messages are more prevalent in big rms Case study on success story in SME branding. Includes the following ndings: In the successful branding case the product was associated with its innovator; the life story of the innovator was publicized by presenting him as a mythical hero Brand associations operate more effectively at a subconscious level than at a conscious level Brand building is likely to be more successful if the creation of associations is based on personal identication than on abstract concepts Guidelines for the building of a strong brand by SMEs: Concentrate on building one or two strong brands Focus a creatively developed marketing program on one or two important brand associations, to serve as the source of brand equity Use a well-integrated mix of brand elements that support both brand awareness and brand image Design a push campaign that aims to build the brand, and a creative pull campaign that will attract attention Broaden the brand with as many secondary associations as possible
Mowle and Merrilees (2005)
Wong and Merrilees (2005)
Boyle (2003)
Keller (1998)
inuence of the market including type of the product, state of the competition, and market orientation.
In his model, brand communication and marketing is affected by creativity in marketing and the budget available. For an SME, the desired goal of its marketing activities and 96
communications is two-fold. Krakes (2005) study revealed that SMEs want to create brand recognition, but at the same time they also want to generate turnover. This means that they have to concentrate on selling. In Krakes (2005) model, the brand management activity leads to brand recognition and
association, reecting sympathy, quality, attractiveness and chic, as well as to turnover. Mowle and Merrilees (2005) conducted a study on branding Australian SME wineries. They identied two types of branding approach: 1 product-driven; and 2 marketing-driven. Both of these approaches have common features approach specic features. The wineries examined found to have six common characteristics that acted foundation for their branding: 1 producing a premium product; 2 conveying an image of quality wines; 3 using a name and symbol to represent the winery; 4 forming business relationships and networks; 5 participating in regional events, festivals and shows; 6 providing friendly service at the cellar door. and were as a
These ladders are characterized by two dimensions: 1 level of brand orientation; and 2 brand-marketing performance. Boyle (2003) conducted a cases study on branding in an SME. The context of her study was the brand of Dyson vacuum cleaners, which were developed by an innovative entrepreneur, James Dyson. She found that the examined brand became rmly established on the basis of a welldesigned and suitably branded outstanding rst product which was imbued with a heroic brand personality. This personality had been created by associating the rst product with its innovator, whose life-story was highly publicized in a way that reected the trial and tribulations of the mythical hero. Moreover, her research highlights the benets that brand managers can derive from the creation of positive brand values. The rst step in doing so is to identify the values that can impact most positively on brand personality. Also, her study suggests that brand associations operate more effectively at a subconscious level than at a conscious level. Furthermore, the study suggests that brand building is likely to be more successful if the creation of associations is based on personal identication rather than on abstract concepts. Keller (1998) gives some suggestions for building a strong brand for SMEs: SMEs should concentrate on building one or two strong brands. They should focus a creatively developed marketing program on one or two important brand associations, to serve as the source of brand equity. They should use a well-integrated mix of brand elements that support both brand awareness and brand image. They should design a push campaign that aims to build the brand, and a creative pull campaign that will attract attention. SMEs should also broaden the brand with as many secondary associations as possible.
and
Wineries identied with product-driven branding had their main form of differentiation, and therefore their brand, based around the wine itself. Characteristics of the wineries with product-driven branding include: . focus at the cellar door being on the wine; . a personal approach where visitors can meet the winemaker; and . a limited amount of marketing and promotion. Wineries identied with marketing-driven branding developed their brand with a more holistic approach that encompassed the experience at the winery as well as the wine. Resulting from a marketing-driven desire to create a total wine experience, the experience component further differentiated the SME winerys brand. The experience contributed to a more holistic brand for the winery that encompassed an experience for visitors in addition to the wine. Characteristics of the wineries with marketing-driven branding include: . a focus at the cellar door on the experience; . a greater emphasis on marketing and promotion; and . extending the product range to merchandise. Wong and Merrilees (2005) examined brand orientation in SMEs. Their study shows that SMEs have a narrow interpretation of what branding is. SMEs views on branding are limited to advertising plus the brand name and/or logo. However, personal selling or face-to-face communication is a critical part of their marketing communications. Due to their limited promotional resources, they have to show directly to their customers what they can do for them. SMEs believe in branding power and demonstrate a certain level of interest in conducting branding activities if the business grows and if time allows them to do so. SMEs are preoccupied with the daily routine and business pitching. Wong and Merrilees (2005) suggest that SMEs and large rms are advocates of the branding concept, but the ways in which it is carried out are different. Promotional tools such as television and print advertising and large-scale sales promotions that help build a brand image and convey communication messages are more prevalent in big rms. Based on their study, Wong and Merrilees (2005) developed the branding-archetype ladder model. This model includes three ladders: 1 minimalist brand orientation; 2 embryonic brand orientation; and 3 integrated brand orientation. 97
Methodology
Multiple case study Given the lack of research in this area, this study is aimed at theory development rather than theory testing. The present empirical study draws on the multiple case study method, which is particularly powerful for theory development (Eisenhardt, 1991; Perry, 1998). This approach implies the detailed examination of a single example of a class of phenomena (Abercrombie et al., 1984). A case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events, such as organizational and managerial processes (Yin, 1984). According to Gummesson (2000, p. 86):
An important advantage with the case study research is the opportunity for holistic view [. . .] case research seeks to obtain a holistic view of a specic phenomenon or series of events.
Case studies can involve both single and multiple cases (Yin, 1984; Eisenhardt, 1989). Single case studies have been used frequently and advocates of this approach propose that a single case would provide better theoretical insights than multiple-case research based on creating good constructs (Dyer and Wilkins, 1991). However, multiple case studies have also become popular in theory development. According to Eisenhardt (1991), multiple cases are a powerful means to create theory because they permit replication and extension among individual cases. Replication means that individual cases can be used for the independent corroboration of
specic propositions, helping researchers to perceive patterns more easily. Extensions refers to the use of multiple cases to develop a more elaborate theory, since different cases often emphasize complementary aspects of a phenomenon. Case companies and data collection This paper is based on a multiple case analysis of 20 software companies. In the study, a number of case-organizations (20) were examined using the same unit of analysis, i.e. the brand building process. The analysis of this paper is part of a larger multi-case research project on innovation management in the software business, in which the data were collected in two different phases from 37 companies; the rst phase included 15 companies and the second 22 companies. The present analysis draws on the data collected in the second phase from 20 companies in the software industry. The companies examined were SMEs in the software industry. The number of staff in the companies examined varied from three to 35. Turnover varied from e200,000 to e1,800,000. However some companies did not give information about turnover under interview. Empirical material was obtained from the case companies in terms of in-depth interviews with key people involved in new product development. Brand management was one of the central themes discussed in the interviews. The interviews were taped and transcribed for analysis. The nature of product development in the case companies A technology and R&D orientation was strong in the case companies examined, and often it seemed to be the most central activity. Thus, in order give a better picture of the specic context of our study, we briey describe the nature of software development. In the case of the software business, product development projects are typically characterized by a sequential waterfall model, which is the traditional engineering approach to software development. It suggests that software development is completed through the following major stages: 1 Determining customer specications. 2 Planning and specications. 3 Detail design. 4 Coding. 5 Testing. 6 System elded and in use. 7 Maintenance (cf. Schach, 1990; Blackburn et al., 1996; Carr, 2000). Determining customer specications, i.e. requirement capture, refers to dening what the customer/user wants and prioritization of those requirements. Planning and specications includes designing the product architecture. Detailed design consists of planning the modules. Coding refers to writing the computer code. Testing takes place both in the software development team as well as in the user organization. Finally, the user takes over and puts the system into service. Recognition of the complexity of the software development process is essential in understanding the innovation process. Software development process is a difcult and often awed process in which timescales, resource inputs and product quality cannot be predicted with certainty (Quintas, 1994). Software development time and effort are inuenced by 98
product, computer, personnel, and project attributes. Product attributes include required software reliability, database size and product complexity, whereas computer attributes entail execution time constraint, memory size constraint, virtual machine volatility, and computer turnaround time. Personnel attributes cover analyst capability, applications experience, programmer capability, virtual machine experience, and programming language experience. Finally, project attributes include modern programming practices, use of software tools, and required development schedule (Rauscher and Smith, 1995). The data analysis included two phases, i.e. open and selective coding of the data (Glaser, 1978). First, in the open coding or initial coding phase, the emphasis was on identifying and grouping qualitative evidence related to various aspects of brand building in the software business. This coding phase resulted in an initial categorization of the qualitative evidence. Second, in selective coding or focused coding, the purpose was to make a deeper analysis of each initial category developed in the open coding phase. In this phase, all the qualitative evidence relating to the initial category were looked at and analyzed together.
Empirical ndings: special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs

In our empirical analysis we aimed to look at the special characteristics of brand building software SMEs. Five larger themes emerged from our empirical material: 1 goals and perceived benets of brand building; 2 resources in brand building; 3 internal and external cooperation in brand building; 4 means and content of communication in brand building; and 5 the process of product brand building and its links with software product development. The empirical ndings related to these themes are rst discussed in more detail and then presented in a summarizing framework (Table III). In the following, we explain in more detail the ndings related to these themes. Some selected quotations from the interviews are shown for the purpose of illustration. Goals and perceived benets of brand building The empirical material suggests that brand building has a less systematic and minor role in the overall product development activity in the case of software SMEs and their products. The companies examined are technology- and applicationoriented companies. They rely on the idea that competitive strength in the marketplace is mostly based on a superior knowledge of IT and problem-solving capability in the particular application area:
Interviewee: Often in the software business, we forget that it [brand building] is a professionals job, if you want to do it right. It shouldnt be done with the left hand. If we really want to build it [i.e. brand] then we should do it like we do the technical development of the product. And particularly in our country where the technology is the king, we develop technology for its own sake. We have so many small companies which have developed really good technology and no one knows about it.
The technology orientation is also manifested by the nding that companies tend to source information from competing products and companies rather than from the customers for input to their R&D process. Problems in nding a clear
Table III Framework of special characteristics of brand-building software SMEs

Goals and perceived benets of brand building Brand building has a less systematic and minor role in the overall product development Goals of brand building are vague Information used in brand building is sourced from competitors rather than from customers Perceived benets of brand building relate to gaining new customers and, to a lesser extent, to enhancing existing partner relationships Brand building is perceived to be less important than technology development Companies brand-building resources are limited Brand building is usually perceived as a large-scale effort with massive investments Some companies are innovative in brand building despite scarce resources
Resources in brand building
External and internal cooperation in brand building
External cooperation Cooperative relationships with re-sellers have an important role in brand building At the new product launch stage, cooperation or co-branding with bigger, trustworthy and known rms strengthens the brand and its trustworthiness Companies often take care of the visual image and material production themselves Internal cooperation The decision making related to branding is conducted by few managers; the personnel are not involved Lack of commitment of the personnel and change resistance among them are major challenges in brand building Getting technology-oriented R&D personnel and marketing- and management-oriented personnel to co-operate is a major challenge in brand building It is challenging to get personnel to maintain a consistent line in communication
The company name is often the product lines family name, and the individual products are named by combining it with a product-specic extension Subcontractors developing software components for other software companies often lack their own brand identity totally, and their software is automatically integrated to their customers brands The content of the communication includes two main streams: product feature-focused communication; and benet-based communication If the customers decision makers are highly technology-oriented, they value feature-based communication The following means of brand building are found to be effective and affordable in building the image of the technological forerunner: arranging seminars for topical issues; building press relationships; using references; taking care of web communications; and writing articles in professional journals and magazines The process of product brand building and its connection to the software product development Brand-building activity often takes place at the end of the product development process, or even after the launch. There is often a long time between the product and brand development activities Time pressures in the software development process challenge the synchronization of software development and brand-building processes, and the brand-building process easily becomes a secondary matter If software product development starts with close cooperation with one or two B2B customers on a tailoring basis, branding tends to be totally omitted In some rare cases, companies begin a conscious brand building from the beginning of the product development process, or even earlier. In such cases, synchronization of the product launch and brand communication is important
Means and communication in brand building
customer segment were prevalent in many of the organizations examined. Indeed, the segmentation process was often poorly conducted. Many SMEs recognized the need to develop their customer orientation by clarifying their customer segments. They also knew that they should better dene the needs and expectations that the various segments have of their software products. Segmentation is often based on technology, and thus product-oriented issues, not on customer needs or other 99
customer-related issues. The needs-based approach has clearly been lost in the software SMEs examined. This in turn hampers the brand communication process and makes the focusing of SMEs scarce resources difcult. In our empirical material, there were even situations where the marketing communication was totally misdirected and a complete turnaround was needed at some stage after the brand launch. In general, the goals of branding were often poorly
dened and fuzzy due to the lack of skills and resources in the software SMEs:
Interviewee: We have proceeded in terms of the technology, intuitively.
If there was a dened goal for the brand development, it stayed on a too general and vague level: for example, the brand should reect product-related characteristics like trustworthiness, easy to use, well-known, protable, or a brand should create a coherent image for the company or communicate the high quality of the product. Measurements to follow the brand development were not set, which is also understandable considering the universality of goals. Arguments were even copied from competing companies. Often the SMEs own identity was not recognized or dened, or in fact did not exist. However, a couple of SMEs which recognized the internal aspect of branding, namely the need to create a common culture in the organization. The recognized benets of brand building revolved around the usefulness of a strong corporate brand in gaining new customers. The interviewees saw that it is easier to gain access to a new customer rm if the brand is known. Consequently, in such a situation, the software seller can focus on selling the product and holistic solutions itself instead of selling the company and its personnel rst, as in the case of the rm being unknown. Thus, as often in SMEs, corporate brand building and product brand building are strongly intertwined processes, and are not often easily separable:
Interviewee: So we dont have to justify our existence, and explain what company we are, and who we are. The customer knows it already based on our reputation. They know what we do and we do it well.
Resources in brand building In our study, the companies examined did not belittle the importance of brands (product or company brands). Instead, they mostly recognize their importance when asked. Still, their effort in brand management was limited. However, many software SMEs tend to think brand building is always consumer-good kind of brand building, where massive and continuous investment is put into marketing communication for variety of medias in order to reach wide audiences. Many of the software SMEs examined were operating based on cash ow nancing. Thus, the investment type of long-term brand planning was according to their view not possible. Indeed, the companies examined are technology SMEs. Many of them think that they have limited resources for activity other than technical product development. Thus, brand building usually is not one of the highest priority tasks:
Interviewee: We have operated, all the time, just with our cash-ow nancing and that has limited our marketing communication resources. It has been very modish [i.e. investment in the brand building].
However, in our empirical study, there were also software SMEs which were innovative in conducting brand building in spite of the limited resources by using affordable means of communication and focusing their effort on right segments, from which more in the soon following analysis of the means of communication. Indeed, the nature of brand building can be totally different in the SME context considering the different types of brand substance needed in that market. External and internal cooperation in brand building Our data suggest that cooperative relationships within the delivery channel are recognized as an important factor inuencing brand building. When a good partner for the delivery cooperation is found, it is important to support its activities so that brand development is on the right path. Partners need marketing material, training, consulting, etc. Partners also offer their support for SMEs in branding issues by giving feedback on the planned brand building activities and launching processes. Especially at the new product launch stage, cooperation or co-branding with a bigger, trustworthy and known rm strengthens the SMEs brand, and particularly its trustworthiness in the eyes of the customer. Also, certain empirical cases showed that endcustomers can act in a similar kind of role while developing the substance for the brand. In some cases, brand building was at some stage of the process outsourced to advertising, communications or graphic agencies. However, such cooperation tends to be short-term considering the limited nancial resources of the software companies examined. Because continuous brand building activities were not conducted, also external services used were occasional and incoherent. They often related to the renewal of companys visual image at some launching stage, or in situations when nanciers offered a nance to the type of process. Our data show that, surprisingly, many SMEs take care of the visual image and material production themselves because they perceive that they have all the skills and equipment needed for the type of activities. However, many interviewees perceived that besides the visual image, brand building cannot be outsourced to any large extent. Also, our empirical material suggests that there should be a clear internal understanding in the organization of the strategic directions and goals to which the brand building 100
Our study suggests that a strong brand can also advance partner relationships such as those with value-added resellers and other members in the delivery channel. This is one way to achieve a stronger position in the channel and with respect to competing companies. Channel partners are more ready to promote the offering of a well-known partner than the offering of one whose image is weak. Thus, a strong brand also helps in creating bonds with the members of the delivery channel:
Interviewee: If you have a strong brand, then the channel partners want to show it. Because they can also sell their own systems [with the boost of our strong brand]. But if it [i.e. our brand] is weak then its the other way round, they [i.e. the channel partners] want to keep it [i.e. our product] in the background, and this diminishes their [i.e. the channel partners] dependence on us.
The brand-based dependency, or bond, in a cooperative relationship is an interesting aspect and very different from technological dependency which has been almost a selfevident component in inter-rm relationships in the software business. In fact, this can be called cobranding (see, for example, Rao and Ruekert, 1994; Kumar, 2005). For SMEs this is even more challenging if the partner is a big company with a strong own brand. In that case, the brand of the SME may vanish under the strong brand of a big partner. In the light of our data, there seems to be little networking among software SMEs at the same level of the value chain. Instead, efforts are focused on nding the right partners for delivering the products and on establishing a partner relationship with a big player. Software SMEs aim to strengthen their brands through cooperation and common marketing communication with a bigger and trustworthy actor in the market.
activities are linked. Still, many rms felt that these directions had been lost, at least at some stage in their history. The role of the upper management of the SME in the brand building process was emphasized in the interviews. Indeed, even though the companies examined were small, the decision-making was clearly conducted only by a few managers. And, in most cases, the empowerment and involvement of the personnel was lacking. This seemed to be a clear risk to successful brand building. It is not surprising that lack of commitment of the personnel and resistance to change among them were major challenges in the brand building. The process and outcome of branding seemed to be separated in the minds of the managers of the software SMEs examined. Clearly, the link between personnels involvement and commitment in branding was not seen by management. However, our empirical data certainly included companies which recognized the meaning of personnels involvement and commitment, and conducted some activities to develop them. Still, those software SMEs were in a minority. Our study also revealed major challenges in getting technology-oriented R&D personnel and marketing- and management-oriented personnel to understand each other and speak a common language. This was important in order to get a consistent view of what the brand should involve and promise to the customer. In one SME, building a crossfunctional team to handle the product- and brand-related issues was considered to be the answer for many of the problems referred to earlier. Our empirical material indicates that, with the help of more efcient internal coordination and cooperation, the brand promise and software product can be developed in the synchrony:
Interviewee: Suddenly we realized that our R&D people had created such a product feature which speeded up the use of the service [i.e. software-based service]. However, at the same time, this created a situation where the information security didnt match with our promises any more [. . .] We cannot say anymore that out product functions in certain way, simply because it doesnt [. . .] In out product team we can discuss such problems [i.e. brand promise versus product features].
Further activities were seen to be too expensive considering the limited nancial resources available. The biggest question related to the brand name was Should the company name and product name be kept separate?. Many of the SMEs felt that for a small company it is not possible to build both a company brand and a product brand separately. Instead, the best choice is to use the company name as the product lines family name and name the individual products by combining the family name (i.e. the company name) with a product-specic extension. Some of the companies examined found this approach useful in the business-tobusiness market in particular:
Interviewee: Its interesting in the business-to-business market, its the company that seems to be important, like Oracle or Accenture or IBM, not so much the product.
However, based on the same reason of limited resources, some software SMEs have chosen a totally opposite strategy. They focus on building a product brand and the company image is to a large extent left in the shadows. This was also seen as one way to emphasize the professional software product producer image of the company, and to bring up the design and commercialization of its operations:
Interviewee: As a small company, we have chosen to build up our business based on the product brand than the company name [. . .] Thats also easier to manage when we market our product internationally and when we have partners and resellers and others [. . .] It [i.e. the software product] can also be integrated as part of other systems.
Our study shows that everyday problems and guidelines in brand building may rst seem to be surprisingly simple. Still, it is difcult to get the whole organization to follow these guidelines. For example, it may be hard to get the personnel to understand the importance of following the visual directions given in order to maintain the consistent line in communication. It is common that a software SMEs personnel are capable and willing to sweeten the visual aspects to better suit their own taste. However, it should be clear for all personnel that these directions are given in order to maintain a company-level line in communications, and that individual taste is a secondary issue. Our empirical data included only a few software SMEs in which the brand building process was based on internal value analysis and the personnel were truly involved. In these cases, the process was inward-outward brand building, rather than just choosing the name and logo, which seemed to be the dominant idea of the brand planning in the examined companies. The means and content of communication in brand building Indeed, for many of the software companies examined, brand building was perceived to be the same as choosing the name and logo, and thus creating a visual image for the company. 101
The name issue is also related to the overall prole of the rm. If the company is known, our empirical data suggest that it is easier to maintain both corporate image and differentiated product category. On the other hand, if the company is unknown in the market, then separate names for the company and its products may confuse customers. In addition, an interesting minority among the companies examined are subcontractors developing software components for other software companies. Such companies seem to lack their own brand identity almost totally, and their software is automatically integrated to their customers brands. If this is the normal way to do business, product and also corporate branding was perceived to be quite an irrelevant topic for the company. In principle, two main streams of thinking can be found in our empirical study concerning the content of the communciation: 1 product feature-related communication; and 2 benet-based communication, where the customer need is in focus instead of product-related factors. Those who rely on highly product-related communication justify their approach by the fact that customers are highly technology-oriented engineers for whom a too commercial or benet-based approach is not satisfying from the information point of view. Indeed, our study includes surprising examples where customers negative reaction on more commercial and customer-benet bases approach is visible:
Interviewee: An engineer thinks about feature lists in our product pages [i.e. web-pages used in communication], but a business animal [i.e. business oriented person] thinks Who cares about features? A business oriented decision maker is rather interested in what benets the product is able to bring about, how can it speed up their [i.e. the customers] own product development, etc. [. . .] But engineers, they know each other. So we got harsh feedback when we changed web-pages into more commercial and sales oriented. Immediately [the customer] asked Instead of this mambo jambo

[i.e. more commercial and customer-benet oriented messages], where are the hard facts [i.e. information on product features]?. So we had to take a half step back [i.e. change the benet-oriented communication back into more feature-oriented one]. Interviewee: One of the besetting sins of our industry is that we evaluate and communicate in terms of technology [. . .] After all, our product is just a means to help the customer.
In addition, challenges were faced, especially in forming appropriate segmentation, and in creating and differentiating the message for different segments. The need to maintain a certain level of brand exibility was also recognized. This means that the content of brand should not be too detailed (e.g. too bound to certain software features or too detailed by other means) because the operational environment is a dynamic one, and a strategy should be exible, related to the changing technology and customer needs. Value-based brand building was seen to be a one helpful tool in this challenge. As mentioned earlier, in our study, there were also software SMEs which were innovative in conducting brand building in spite of their limitations. These rms used affordable means of communication and focused their efforts on the right segments. Those means were based on building the expertiseimage of the technological forerunner for the company in their specic area, rst by arranging seminars for topical issues (also with a bigger, known and trustworthy partner/ network of partners), second by building press relationships, third by using references, and fourth by taking care of web communications. Getting articles and writing published in professional journals and magazines, and particularly in their Special Issues, was found to be an important, focused and affordable way to conduct brand communication for a software SME. In the business-to-business context, there is no need to attract wide audiences like in the consumer market, just to trigger the interest of key decision makers in the target organizations. Writing in professional journals is also perceived as being more trustworthy than traditional advertising. The themes in such articles are built around product-related issues (e.g. at the launch stage), customer cooperation (even testimonialtype articles), or more general topics where the expertise of the organization is brought up in the wider context. For example, a company specializing in ERP systems (enterprise resource planning) can bring up their expertise in management consulting, not just the software product itself. However, it is not always easy to attract the editors to publish articles. For this reason, building the relationships with the people in press was considered one of the top priorities in many software SMEs. Our empirical material shows that the focused efforts to reach the right decision makers include also arranging topical seminars around ones expertise area. This may happen in cooperation with the partner. Such seminars are an effective means of targeted communication and they can also be understood as a form co-branding. These events are considered an important forum for building a substance for the brand and also for creating an expert image for the company. Moreover, customers in the software business also organize seminars for their suppliers. Our study shows that, brand substance is also developed by creating a credible customer network and using them as a reference. However, this approach was surprisingly little used in the examined software SMEs, event though it is relatively affordable. One reason for the scarce use of references is due 102
to customers unwillingness to tell to the world with whom they are cooperating. The software SME may also serve competing companies, and thus using references is more difcult. Using the customer as a reference is also inuenced by the nature of the customer relationship. The customer is more willing to act as a reference if the customer relationship and the SMEs brand are stronger. Also, there are software SMEs that simply are not aware of the possibility of using customer references in their communication and building. When a customer reference is used, it must communicate the strategic direction of the company, and thus it should be carefully weighted. An important part of the communication which is not controllable by the SME is word-of-mouth communication among customers. Communication on the web has a strategic role because customers almost always use the web as a medium to reach the information they need. Thus, the web pages of the company should be easily reached via search engines. In many companies, new product launches are conducted on the internet in the rst place. The process of product brand building and its connection to software product development The present empirical study indicates that brand building activity tends to take place at the end of the product development process, or even after the launch. In other words, the company rst develops the software product, and after that starts to think about the brand. This approach is based on several characteristics in the software industry and the resources possessed by the software SME. Indeed, the technology-oriented point of view in all operations which was perceived to be one of the dominant characteristics of the industry often leads to thinking about the product rst and then marketing. Some interviewees said that product development must come rst because they felt that without a product they were unable to plan a brand substance. However, in our study, there were few more customer benet-oriented SMEs. They noticed the importance of starting with the brand promise and then synchronizing the brand and product planning processes. Synchronization was considered important, since at the launch stage both the product and brand communication should be in place. Thus, the empirical material includes exceptions in which the company begins a conscious brand building from the beginning of the product development process, or even earlier. However, the time pressures that often prevail in the software development process challenge the synchronization, and the brand building process cab easily become a secondary matter, particularly if resources are limited. Our study suggests that the product teams mentioned earlier, which include both technology and marketing personnel, foster internal cooperation and enable better synchronization between the brand building and software development processes. In the B2B context, product development often starts in close cooperation with one or two customers, for which the software is developed and tailored. In such a case, if the software product has its origin as a tailored customer project, it typical that branding issues are totally omitted. Later, when the wider market potential for the software is recognized, brand development comes into the picture. Thus, there may be a long time between the product and brand development activities:

Interviewee: We have always done customer solutions [i.e. tailored software] [. . .] Then at some point, we found that several customers want the same kind of stuff. Then we started to develop the kind of [generic] product frames. And then, we started to build brand and name.
Figure 1 illustrates the role of brand management in the context of the software product development process. Often companies recognize the need for an earlier start to brand building in the context of product development. They see that they would be more competitive in the marketplace if they invested more and earlier in brand management in their product development projects.
strong brands as being valuable not only for winning new customers, but also enhancing customer relationships. Perhaps the reason for this is that software SMEs do not fully understand brand management, as Krakes (2005, p. 230) study suggests, or that they have a narrow interpretation of what branding is, as Wong and Merrileess (2005, p. 157) study shows. Resources in brand building Our study found that software SMEs brand building resources are very scarce, and that they tend to invest their resources in technology development rather than brand building. This nding is in line with earlier studies on brand management in SMEs (Krake, 2005; Wong and Merrilees, 2005). Our study found that software SMEs often perceive brand building as a large-scale effort with massive investments, as in the case of several consumer products. This is supported by Wong and Merrilees (2005, p. 157), who concluded that SMEs usually believe that branding is only for big rms with ample resources to employ this marketing tool. However, our study revealed that some software SMEs can be innovative in brand building despite their scarce resources by using affordable means of communication and focusing their efforts on the right segments. This is supported by Wong and Merrilees (2005, p. 157), who suggest that both SMEs and big rms can build brands, but the ways in which they do so are different. External cooperation in brand building Our study found that cooperative relationships with re-sellers have an important role in brand building. Our ndings among software SMEs seem to be different from those of Krakes (2005, pp. 230-1) study, in which the empirical work was conducted among SMEs producing items for the consumer market. For most companies in his study, the idea of cobranding or cooperation with other businesses received no attention at all. However, our ndings are supported by the ndings of Warsta et al.s (2001) study. They conducted their study on the screening of partner relationships in the software business. According to Warsta et al. (2001), without the right partners it is difcult and time-consuming to create any brand name. Also Mo ller and To rro nen (2000) have pointed out that the partners reputation gives leverage to the small software company. According to Mo ller and To rro nen (2000), when a supplier is highly esteemed a relationship with it may have a positive reference or a signalling effect that is realised through the wider network actors. Internal cooperation in brand building We found that in software SMEs the decision-making related to branding is conducted by a few managers, and other personnel are not involved. This nding is in line with Krakes
Discussion and theoretical implications

The scientic contribution of this empirical study relates to two aspects of brand management: 1 branding in the software business; and 2 branding in SMEs. Indeed, as we found in our literature review, much has been written about brands, the software business and SMEs, but very little about branding in the software business or branding in SMEs. Inevitably, there are signicant knowledge gaps. This is striking given that both the software business is a major industry and SMEs comprise a major sector in the modern economy. Both theoretical and managerial knowledge is needed. Our study corresponds to this need by increasing the knowledge of brand management in software SMEs with an empirical study. The study contributes by identifying ve special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs: 1 the goals and perceived benets of brand building; 2 resources in brand building; 3 external and internal cooperation in brand building; 4 means and communication in brand building; and 5 the process of product brand building and its connection to software product development. Some of our ndings receive support from the very few existing SME branding studies in other industries, while some seem to be new. Goals and perceived benets of brand building We found that brand building has a minor role in overall product development in software SMEs and its goals are vague. This is supported by Krake (2005, p. 230), who found in his study that brand management is far from a high priority issue in SMEs. Furthermore, our study found that the benets of brand building perceived by SMEs tend to relate to gaining new customers rather than enhancing existing partnerships. This is somewhat surprising, since strong brands are found to be a major antecedent to both behavioral and attitudinal forms of customer loyalty (Taylor et al., 2004). One could expect that software SMEs would see Figure 1 The typical role of brand building in software development process
103
(2005, p. 230) study, which found that the responsibility for brand management lies, in all cases, at the highest (management) level. Highest-level involvement in brand building is certainly important for the process. However, our study nds that if the brand building planning and activities are conducted by the highest management level only, this has a certain negative side-effect. Indeed, if personnel are not involved this causes a lack of commitment and resistance to change among them with regard to the brand building effort. Our study strongly indicates that in a successful brand building process in an SME, the personnel should also be involved. Moreover, our study nds that it is often a challenge to get technology- and marketing-oriented people to cooperate in brand building. Mowle and Merrilees (2005) identied two approaches among SME wineries: 1 product-driven branding; and 2 marketing-driven branding. However, they did not report any challenges related to making the choice between the two, or challenges related to cooperation between people having different orientations in branding, as this study did. Means and communication in brand building Our study found that the software SMEs name is often the product lines family name, and individual products are named by combining it with a product-specic extension. This nding clearly differs from Krakes (2005) ndings among SMEs; he found that the company name is often not the brand name, and this is a conscious choice. The reason for the different approaches may be due to different industry characteristics, i.e. software versus consumer items. Our study found that the content of the communication includes two main streams: 1 product feature focused communication; and 2 benet-based communication. Again, these two orientations that emerged in our study to a great extent resemble the orientations identied by Mowle and Merrilees (2005) in their study on branding SME wineries (product-driven branding and marketing-driven branding). These ndings support each other. Furthermore, our study contributed by nding several innovative and affordable means of brand building for software SMEs (arranging seminars for topical issues, etc.), and thus showed that software SMEs should not think that branding is only for big companies. The process of product brand building and its connection to software product development Even though some research reports refer to brand building in the software business (e.g. Srivastava and Mookerjee, 2004; Rajala and Westerlund, 2004; Warsta et al., 2001), knowledge of how the brand building process relates to the software development process is very scarce. Our empirical study has revealed that in most, but not all, software SME cases, brand building activity takes place at the end of the product development process, or even after the launch, and there is no synchronization between them. In some rare cases, software SMEs begin a conscious brand building from the beginning of the product development process, or even earlier. 104
Managerial recommendations
Several managerial recommendations emerge from our empirical study. These recommendations are aimed at facilitating brand building, particularly in software SMEs. Also, we believe they are, to a great extent, also relevant in other SME industries as well: . Make a conscious decision on the question To brand or not to brand?. Make the branding decision prior to technical product development. Remember that the chances for successful branding may be limited or nonexistent if the technical development has already taken place. . Remember that brand building is not just for big companies with branding professionals. Small companies with limited resources can brand their products and services as well. However, the means of branding are often different. Instead of expensive and large-scale PR programs, SMEs can often develop creative, targeted and affordable approaches for branding. In the software business, for example, such approaches may include arranging seminars for topical issues (perhaps with a bigger trustworthy partner), building press relationships, using references, and web communications. . Think about partner relationships and networks in the context of branding. In order to speed up and enhance brand building it may be wise to co-operate with other companies. The partners reputation gives leverage and credibility to a small company. Evaluate the pros and cons of co-branding. . The highest level of management (or the entrepreneur) should be involved with the branding decisions. However, the personnel should also be involved. This is important in order to increase commitment and remove the change resistance of employees in the brand building effort. It is important to involve both technical and marketingoriented personnel, since their cooperation is important for successful branding. Internal cooperation is also important to develop and maintain a consistent line in communication. . Pay attention to synchronization and dialogue between technical and brand issues in R&D projects. Think about both the functional and image value of the product or service. Remember that buyers often talk about rational aspects but are also affected by emotional ones. Develop a combination of valuable and attractive attributes into an appealing brand and integrate this with the technical development of the product.
Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to increase the knowledge of brand management in software SMEs with an empirical study. The method used was a multiple case study. Our study contributed to the literature by identifying special characteristics of brand management in software SMEs. The special characteristics identied relate to goals and perceived benets of brand building, resources in brand building, external and internal cooperation in brand building, means and communication in brand building, and the process of product brand building and its connection to software product development. The following suggestions for further research emerge from our study. This study found that the methods for brand
building in SMEs may be very different from those in large companies. Indeed, more research is needed to explore and develop such affordable and effective methods for use in brand building in SMEs. Moreover, this study found that the cooperation between technology- and marketing-oriented personnel is a challenge in brand management in the software business. Clearly, this area requires more examination. Furthermore, the role and methods of networking in brand building and co-branding requires more research. More research is also required on the managerial approaches used to synchronize the software and brand development processes. Owing to fast lead-times and product life-cycles in the software business, it may be a fruitful idea to exploit the theories of concurrent management (see, for example, Haque and Pawar, 2003) in this context. Furthermore, quantitative studies are needed to see how well the ndings of our study can be generalized.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-20. Aaker, D.A. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, August, pp. 347-56. Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B.S. (1984), The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Ambler, T. (1992), Need-to-Know-Marketing , Century Business, London. Ambler, T. and Styles, C. (1997), Brand development versus new product development: towards a process model of extension decisions, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 13-26. American Marketing Association (1960), Marketing Denition: A Glossary of Marketing Terms, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Bennet, P.D. (1988), Dictionary of Marketing Terms, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Blackburn, J.D., Scudder, G.D., Van Wassenhove, L.K. and Hill, C. (1996), Time-based software development, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 60-6. Boyle, E. (2003), A study of entrepreneurial brand building in the manufacturing sector in the UK, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 79-93. Brown, G. (1992), People, Brands and Advertising, Millward Brown International, New York, NY. Carr, J.J. (2000), Requirements engineering and management: the key to designing quality complex systems, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 400-7. Davies, S.M. (2000), Brand Asset Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. de Chernatony, L. (1997), Integrated brand building using brand taxonomies, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 56-63. de Chernatony, L. (1999), Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 157-79. de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. de Chernatony, L., Drury, S. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003), Building a services brand: stages, people and 105
orientations, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1-21. Dibb, S., Sinkin, L., Pride, W.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1997), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, 3rd European ed., Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA. Dyer, G. and Wilkins, A. (1991), Better stories, not better constructs to generate better theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 613-19. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1991), Better stories and better constructs: the case of rigor and comparative logic, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 620-7. Feldwick, P. (1996), Do we really need brand equity?, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 9-28. Givon, M., Mahajan, V. and Muller, E. (1997), Assessing the relationship between the user-based market share and unit sales-based market share for pirated software brands in competitive markets, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 55, pp. 131-44. Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA. Gregory, J. and Sellers, L.J. (2002), Building corporate brands, Pharmaceutical Executive, January, pp. 38-44. Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hague, P. and Jackson, P. (1994), The Power of Industrial Brands, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Haque, B. and Pawar, K.S. (2003), Organizational analysis. A process-based model for concurrent engineering environments, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 490-526. Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), Corporate branding and corporate brand performance, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56. Hoefer, S. and Keller, K.L. (2002), Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 78-89. Kapferer, J.-N. (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, Kogan Page, London. Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Keller, K.L. (2001), Building customer-based brand equity: a blueprint for creating strong brands, Marketing Management, Vol. 10, July/August, pp. 15-19. Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Krake, F.B.G.J.M. (2005), Successful brand management in SMEs: a new theory and practical hints, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 228-38. Kumar, P. (2005), The impact of cobranding and customer evaluation of brand counterextensions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, pp. 1-18. Low, J. and Blois, K. (2002), The evolution of generic brands in industrial markets: the challenges to owners of brand equity, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 385-92.
Melewar, T.C. and Walker, C.M. (2003), Global corporate brands building: guidelines and case studies, Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 152-70. Mo ller, K.K.E. and To rro nen, P. (2000), Business suppliers value creation potential: a conceptual analysis, paper presented at the IMP Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference 2000, Bath. Mowle, J. and Merrilees, B. (2005), A functional and symbolic perspective to branding Australian SME wineries, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 220-7. Papasolomou, I. and Vrontis, D. (2006), Building corporate branding through internal marketing: the case of the UK retail bank industry, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-47. Perry, C. (1998), Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 785-802. Quintas, P. (1994), Programmed innovation? Trajectories of change in software development, Information Technology & People, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 25-47. Rajala, R. and Westerlund, M. (2004), Business models and networks: assets and capabilities in software business, paper presented at the 20th Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference, Copenhagen. Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), Brand alliances as signals of product quality, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 36, Fall, pp. 87-97. Rauscher, T.G. and Smith, P.G. (1995), Time-driven development of software in manufactured goods, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12, pp. 186-99. Rositer, J. and Percy, L. (1996), Advertising Communications and Promotion Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Schach, S.R. (1990), Software Engineering, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Schocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994), Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXI, May, pp. 149-58. Simeon, R. (2006), A conceptual model linking brand building strategies and Japanese popular culture, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 463-76. Srivastava, N.V. and Mookerjee, A. (2004), Determinants of brand equity for banking business application software products, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-38. Taylor, S.A., Celuch, K. and Goodwin, S. (2004), The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 217-27. Ulkuniemi, P.K. and Helander, N.M. (2005), Marketing challenges in the software component business, paper presented at the 21st Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference, Rotterdam. Urde, M. (2003), Core value-based corporate brand building, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-40. Warsta, J., Lappi, M. and Seppa nen, V. (2001), Screening of partner relationships in software business: from commencement to continuous assessment, paper presented at the 17th Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Conference, Oslo. 106
Wong, H.Y. and Merrilees, B. (2005), A brand orientation typology for SMEs: a case research approach, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 155-62. Wood, L. (2000), Brands and brand equity: denition and management, Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 662-9. Yin, R.K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
About the authors

Jukka Ojasalo is at Laurea University of Applied Sciences in Espoo, Finland. He has been earlier Professor of Marketing at Lappeenranta University of Technology and Turku School of Economics. He worked for several years in the IT industry doing R&D and account management. His research interests lie in brand management, professional services, key account management, business networks, and software business. He has published articles in such journals as Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Customer Relationships Management, Managing Service Quality, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, The Marketing Review, and McGraw-Hills Quality Yearbook. Jukka Ojasalo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jukka.ojasalo@laurea. Satu Na tti is a Researcher at the University of Oulu in the Department of Marketing. Her research interests lie in brand management, professional services and capability development. She has published an article in International Journal of Service Industry Management. Rami Olkkonen is a Researcher at Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. His research interests lie in brand management, sponsorship, business relationships and networks, and category management. He has published articles in Journal of Business & Industrial Management, Management Decision, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , and Corporate Communications: An International Journal.
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.
Introduction Brand management can be a big subject for big businesses. Global brands catch the eye. The road downtown from the airport in Beijing or Toronto or Dubai is likely to be lined with familiar highly lit signs for Fuji, Toyota, Nike and the like. A trip to the shopping mall is far from alien the Body Shop, Cartier and others in a mix that reects the relative prosperity of the city or the market positioning of the mall. When it comes to brands, big is beautiful. For the small players, the SMEs (small to medium-sized enterprises) on which so much prosperity and employment is built, branding can easily seem like something for someone
else. For a start, cash ow is king and branding doesnt seem like something with a very rapid payback. For another thing, big bucks are needed to build customer awareness and no small rm has pockets that deep or do they? It is in this area that Jukka Ojasalo of Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Satu Na tti of Oulu University and Rami Olkkonen of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration have stepped forward to conduct some much needed research, providing a case study of the SME software sector in their native Finland. Their ndings will be helpful to many, breaking a potential brand management glass ceiling and opening up new possibilities to those feeling dispossessed or left behind. The appliance of science Many popular perceptions, or at least perceptions among non-specialists, are coloured by the mega consumer brands that form the backdrop to our lives. Many successful brands operate in industrial markets, the B2B brands such as Computer Associates or ABB that quietly generate vast global sales. Small companies thrive in the business-to-business sector and even tiny back ofces can support international operations. In their scientic approach to the subject, the Finnish academics have harvested opinions from case-based material from 20 companies, examining: . goals and perceived benets of brand building these were vague and related more to attempting to get new customers than relationships with existing customers; . resources in brand building these are scarce and, perhaps unsurprisingly, resources tend to be put more behind developing technology than building brands; . external and internal cooperation in brand building issues such as co-branding received virtually no attention at all; . means and communication in brand building both productfeatures based communication and benets focused communication are used; and . the process of product brand building and its connection to the software product development brand building often takes place at the end of the product development and there is often little synchronization between product development and brand building. Not the happiest set of ndings then, but not a total surprise either. In accentuating the positive, there is an excellent basis to do better. If the SMEs have managed to focus on technical
excellence, then the brand building opportunity is one based on solid foundations. Thinking about the implications Like brand building, academic studies can often seem not entirely relevant to results-oriented small business owners and managers. Time is tight, horizons are often short and the applicability of knowledge matters. The good news is that Ojasalo, Na tti and Olkkonen are able to use their research as the basis for some very specic recommendations: . Make a conscious decision to brand or not and do so early in the product development cycle. Leaving it to the end makes life difcult. . Develop creative, targeted and affordable processes to build brands, possibly working with trusted partners to reach your audience. . Evaluate the pros and cons of co-branding, but think about partners and evaluate carefully you should be able to leverage their brand and access. . Get internal involvement and commitment, starting at the top of your organization, but winning hearts and minds at all levels. It is the way to maintain consistent communication from your rm. . Synchronize technical and brand issues in R&D projects, remembering that buyers have an emotional side as well as a rational side to their brain. These ve points, if auctioned consistently and well, could form the basis of a big transformation in your business effectiveness. It may not be immediate, but it may not take that long to see some results also. It need not involve massive cost. It does mean massive commitment, but that is something many small businesses have in goodly amounts as they ght to survive and thrive. If there is a nal thought, it is this: SMEs need to think systematically about the potential advantages of branding for their business. Once theyve done so they should develop creative, targeted, and affordable approaches for brand building. It will help them create a distinctive identity and bring in a smaller way the benets enjoyed for so long by big business. cis of the article Brand building in software SMEs: an (A pre empirical study. 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
107

1718799

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1718799

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Brand building in software SMEs: an empirical study

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brands in the software business

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Table I Findings related to software brands

Srivastava and Mookerjee (2004)

Rajala and Westerlund (2004)

Warsta et al. (2001) Givon et al. (1997)

In the same vein, Wong and Merrilees (2005) note that:

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Table II Findings related to branding in SMEs

Mowle and Merrilees (2005)

Wong and Merrilees (2005)

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Empirical ndings: special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Table III Framework of special characteristics of brand-building software SMEs

Resources in brand building

External and internal cooperation in brand building

Means and communication in brand building

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Discussion and theoretical implications

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

About the authors

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

Brand building in software SMEs Jukka Ojasalo et al.

Journal of Product & Brand Management Volume 17 Number 2 2008 92 107

Anda mungkin juga menyukai