Internal branding process: Key mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors

Student`s Name:
Institution of Learning:
Course Code:
Instructors Name:
Date of Submission:
Article review
Experts have not yet agreed on the definition of the term "Internal Branding" but it is agreed that the concept focuses mainly on the consumer of an organization`s goods and services. Punjaisri and Wilson in 2011 evaluated the factors that are associated with the development of the internal branding processes as well as factors that affect that process in their paper "Internal branding process: key mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors". This paper was published in the "European Journal of Marketing".
The authors like any other experts and academia focusing on internal branding have failed to provide a definition for the concept. In fact, unlike other researchers, Punjaisri and Wilsonhave taken internal branding to be brand identification and brand loyalty among employees within an organization. Brand identification refers to the tangible and intangible characteristics of an organization that may be represented as atrade mark. When properly managed, these are associated with an increase in value and influence of the organization. Thus the definition of internal branding with reference to brand identification in relation to the employees seems to be a contradiction. Brand loyalty is the constant patronization of the goods and services from a specific organization by a consumer and hence cannot be associated with the employees within an organization.
The researchers have focused on personal and job specific factors as far as their influence on internal branding are concerned. However, their proposed framework seems to evaluate the interaction between internal branding, job factors as well as personal factors in providing brand performance. Ideally, it the effects of job factors as well as personal factors that should have been investigated in the creation of internal branding. Therefore, the consideration of brand performance as a result of the interaction between internal branding, job and personal variables is irrelevant in this case. The effects of internal branding on the delivery of brand promise by the workers as well as the influence of personal and work factors on the delivery of brand promise are a diversion from the authors` initial intention to evaluate the factors that impact internal branding.
The language that has been used by the researchers particularly in the methodology section is appropriate for experts in the field but may be confusing to lay men in the discipline. This is particularly because the authors have not bothered to explain the technical terms as well as the methodologies that they have used such as LISREL and AMOS 7.0 separately in their paper. Additionally, the way in which the authors have used these methods in the analysis of their results has not been explained which makes it probable that another researcher, using the same data, may not get the same result that Punjaisri and ...