Discussion
This research delves into the critical aspects which enable internal branding as well as the barriers and obstacles faced. Some business structures are inherently complex. Extensive use of third-party agents’ makes the task of internal branding much more difficult. Although this study did not consider different organisational values and structures and the impact on internal branding, each participating organisation shares the value ‘integrity’.
Williams (1994) cautions against a slipshod human resources approach to internal marketing (branding) and reinforces the importance of leadership. Buy-in at the lower levels appears non-existent, possibly because the executives are so busy driving production, frequently referring to a lack of time to focus on internal branding. There is an obvious gulf between the rosy-hued world of the executive and the more barren landscape occupied by frontline supervisors who deal with slothful staff on a daily basis. This begs the question as to how deeply rooted the cultural disparity is in these organisations. It is unclear how senior managers view employees and their own role in ‘living the brand.’
In support of Burmann and Zeplin (2005) King and Grace (2008) and King et al. (2012), the theme of communication highlights the importance of consistency, understanding and common language. The most frequently used means of communication is via email and short messaging service (SMS) which, by managers’ own admission, is not working. Despite this, organisations continue to ignore the caution that merely providing written material, most commonly email, is insufficient (King and Grace 2008) and that the extent of brand familiarity and internalisation of the brand values influences the ability to deliver the promise (Baker et al. 2014).