What makes a good brand audit

2 audits in the marketing and branding area


1 2 Audits in the marketing and branding area of ​​brands in the sense of a comprehensive approach also forms an interesting and in some cases innovative approach for cultural institutions, which can help to position and communicate the orientation of the cultural institution more clearly with the various stakeholders and especially with the visitors to assert itself in the competition of cultural institutions and offers as well as attractive leisure activities. This assumes that cultural institutions analyze and manage their brand holistically. The brand audit tool for cultural institutions (MAK), which is to be developed further, represents a sensible approach. This chapter first deals with the terminological and conceptual basics in general for marketing and brand audits. It also provides an overview of existing approaches. 2.1 Term, concept and functions of a brand audit Brand audits can historically be understood as a further development of marketing audits. A classic and pioneering de nition of marketing audit comes from Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977), who de ne it as follows: A marketing audit is a comprehensive, systematic, independent, and periodic examination of a company s or business unit s marketing environment , objectives, strategies, and activities with a view to determining problem areas and opportunities and recommending a plan of action to improve the company s performance Important features of marketing audits are the comprehensive, systematic, independent and periodic evaluation of the quality of the marketing as well as the evaluation based on it Deriving suggestions for improvement. These characteristic features also formed the starting point for developing a de nition of brand audits. With the change of perspective from marketing to brand management and from market or visitor to brand orientation (e.g. Baumgarth / Merrilees / Urde 2011; Urde / Baumgarth / Merrilees 2013; Baumgarth / Merrilees / Urde 2013), C. Baumgarth et al ., Brand audit for cultural institutions, art and culture management, DOI / _2, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

2 40 audits in the marketing and branding area, the basic principles of marketing audits are transferred to the branding area. A brand audit can then be de ned as follows (similar to Jenner 2005, p. 200): A brand audit is a comprehensive, systematic, independent assessment of the quality of the brand that is repeated at time intervals and, based on this, the derivation of improvement approaches. Their functions result from this interpretation of brand audits: 1. Identifying and reducing brand weaknesses The first function of brand audits is to identify individual weaknesses in brand management and, based on this, to derive measures to reduce these deficits. As an example, a brand audit can show that the branding of the cultural institution is difficult to remember or differentiate, the employees do not know the brand positioning or brand controlling is missing. This can then lead to recommendations and concrete implementations such as revising the branding, establishing instruments for internal brand management (e.g. intranet, brand book) or developing and using brand controlling instruments (e.g. image survey). 2. Identifying opportunities to strengthen or grow the brand Due to the holistic nature of the analysis and the link with recommendations and, if applicable, best practice examples, a brand audit can also reveal opportunities for generic growth with your own brand. In addition to starting points for strengthening the brand and associated with positive brand effects such as greater willingness to recommend or increased brand loyalty, brand transfers (e.g. DDR Museum Berlin opened the Domklause restaurant in 2010; franchise concept of the Guggenheim Museum), merchandising (e.g. . Real and online museum shop of the Tate Galleries, fan clubs (e.g. Dingp eger of the Werkbundarchiv Museum der Dinge) and brand cooperations (e.g. notebooks from MoMA and Moleskine) Cultural institution (organizational learning) Marketing audits have been used successfully in higher education as a didactic tool for many years (Madden 2007). It is to be expected that the brand audit methodology can also help the student to acquire abstract knowledge about brand management and brand impact with real brands link. One mark enaudit continues to work with

3 Classification of brand audits in the brand controlling 41 of a cultural institution, although the openness of many cultural institutions to cooperation with universities makes such cooperation relatively easy to implement. Similarly, a brand audit can also lead to imparting basic and institution-specific brand knowledge to the employees of a cultural institution. 4. Thinking in contexts as well as understanding and acting across departments One of the main challenges of brand management in the cultural sector is organization-wide and cross-departmental cooperation The HR department, the artists, the staff with direct visitor contact, etc. are at least as important for a strong brand in the cultural environment. However, this assumes that all departments and people understand and accept the meaning and functionality of their own brand. A brand audit and the discussion of the implications can be an effective tool for cross-departmental communication and for a deeper understanding of the meaning of a brand in a cultural institution as well as the need for cross-departmental collaboration. 5. Transparency for donors and supporters More and more cultural institutions have to be accountable to public and private donors about the use and effect of the financial resources used. In the future, the objectivity of this evidence will decide even more about the financial resources of cultural institutions. Standardized brand audits carried out by external bodies can provide such objective evidence (similar to Youker 2010). 2.2 Classification of brand audits in brand controlling Brand audits have some special features compared to traditional brand controlling (e.g. brand loyalty or brand value measurement), which Table 1 summarizes (similar to Jenner 2005, p. 201).

4 42 Audits in the marketing and branding area Table 1: Comparison of brand audits and brand controlling Analysis area Type of information processed Analysis frequency Participation and typical form of knowledge gain Results of brand audit Comprehensive analysis of brand management and brand effects; exploratory analysis; poorly structured consideration of quantitative and qualitative information; Consideration of weak signals At longer intervals (2 5 years) Many participants with a heterogeneous background; Implementation by external auditors; discursive approach comparison with (external) standards, assessments and suggestions for improvement (classic) brand controlling area of ​​analysis limited a priori; Frequently concerned with indicators of brand impact (e.g. brand strength); well structured Predominantly quantitative information Continuous or at short intervals Individual internal (controlling) experts; Analytical approach Deviations of the key figures from previously defined levels 2.3 Overview of existing marketing and brand audits So far, there are no comprehensive publications on the subject of brand audits for cultural institutions. General work on marketing and brand audits as well as work on the comprehensive assessment of brands in the cultural environment provide fruitful input for the development of such a brand audit. In addition, method-oriented publications on the subject of evaluation and auditing (e.g. Davidson 2005; especially in the cultural establishment Birnkraut 2011) provide valuable information. Furthermore, there is a focus on the central work on marketing and brand audits. To describe the approaches, particular emphasis is placed on the features (1) organization of the brand audit, (2) model, (3) assessment methodology and (4) audit results.

5 Overview of Existing Marketing and Brand Audits 43 (1) Marketing Audits (M1) The term marketing audit was explicitly introduced in 1959 by Shuchman (1959). As a result, there were various conceptual contributions, case studies and best practice examples and practical guides (for an overview Berry / Conant / Parasuraman 1991; Rothe / Harvey / Jackson 1997). One of the most in uential conceptual contributions comes from Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977, 1989), who deals with both procedural and content-related aspects comprehensively and independently of the industry. The authors recommend a comprehensive approach with the six dimensions of environment, marketing strategy, marketing organization, marketing system, marketing productivity and marketing sub-functions. The authors have created corresponding questionnaires for these six dimensions. Furthermore, Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977, 1989) recommend the independent implementation of a marketing audit either by external auditors or by internal auditors from other business areas. Finally, despite all the openness of a marketing audit, the article recommends a systematic approach. On an abstract level, this is ensured by a three-stage process (coordination of the objectives and scope of the marketing audit, data collection, and report creation and presentation) and the six-dimensional model. In another contribution, Kotler (1977) proposed a standardized approach to assessing marketing quality. In this approach, Kotler (1977) uses a three-point scale (0-2) for each of the 15 questions (dimensions: customer orientation, marketing orientation, marketing information, strategic marketing, operational marketing). The results of the individual questions are added unweighted according to this approach and the overall index is classified on a six-point scale of marketing effectiveness (no marketing effectiveness to outstanding marketing effectiveness). Berry / Conant / Parasuraman (1991) introduced a sector-specific approach for the service sector into the discussion. Compared to the two approaches outlined above, Berry / Conant / Parasuraman (1991) advocate a completely standardized approach that ultimately leads to the calculation of an index (Index of Services Marketing Excellence). This is based on survey results (managers, employees, customers) on six dimensions (market orientation, marketing organization, new customer acquisition, existing customer care, internal marketing, service quality). Another difference is that Berry / Conant / Parasuraman (1991) do not consider the analysis of the wider environment, but focus the audit more on marketing and the direct target groups (employees, customers). In addition to the

6 44 Audits in the marketing and branding area Independence of the auditors Berry / Conant / Parasuraman (1991) also recommend that after the presentation of the audit results and the processing by management, further meetings take place between the management and the audit team in order to implement the To ensure measures and thus the improvement of marketing quality. Wilson (2002) proposed a more implementation-oriented approach to a marketing audit, who developed a total of 28 checklists for external (e.g. competition, buying process, market) and internal dimensions (e.g. quality of marketing, price). Similar to Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977), Wilson (2002) also recommends that the marketing audit be carried out independently. Compared to Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977), the checklists proposed by Wilson (2002) are more extensive. In addition, he also discusses a variety of potential sources of information for answering the checklist questions. Wilson (2002) does not suggest any further information on the procedural implementation of a marketing audit. In summary, it can be said that an important characteristic of a marketing audit is the independence of the auditors. Furthermore, a systematic procedure that is linked to specific implementation recommendations and that is repeated over time (also Taghian / Shaw 2008) is recommended. With the exception of the characteristic holistic view, there is no consensus in the literature with regard to the dimensions to be assessed, with most approaches suggesting a combination of internal (quality of marketing) and external factors (effects). Furthermore, two basic assessment approaches can be identified with an open (key questions / checklists with open answers) and a standardized method (closed questions and scales with subsequent index calculation). (2) Marketing audits in the cultural sector (MK1) Extensive approaches for marketing audits in the cultural sector are not yet available. Only Kotler / Kotler / Kotler (2008) have proposed a checklist approach with six dimensions (internal, external) based on the approach of Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977). There are no recommendations for the audit process or for the organization. In addition, Youker (2010) discussed abstract ideas and decisions in the context of an audit approach for the evaluation of offers from cultural institutions. He emphasizes the importance of the criteria selection, standard definition, measurement and compression steps.

7 Overview of existing marketing and brand audits 45 Finally, Birnkraut (2011) generally dealt with comprehensive approaches for evaluating cultural institutions. Their de nition (Birnkraut 2011, p. 18) of evaluations largely coincides with the understanding of an audit pursued here. However, Birnkraut (2011) does not refer to any specific object of evaluation and does not develop an independent approach to the evaluation process or to the evaluation methodology. Rather, the publication collects and systematizes various alternatives, key figures and instruments for data collection. (3) Brand audits (M2) The literature on the subject of brand audits has also been manageable so far. In fact, books on marketing controlling (e.g. Reinecke / Janz 2007, p. 154) and brand management (e.g. Baumgarth 2008a, p. 242; Haedrich / Tomczak / Kaetzke 2003, p. 176) refer to brand audits , however, there are hardly any concrete procedures or experience reports. The most important work is outlined below. Keller (2000) presented a first approach with the suggestion of a so-called brand score card for carrying out a brand audit. This includes ten criteria from the fields of brand understanding in top management, brand positioning, branding and marketing, brand portfolio and brand hierarchies, brand controlling with several key questions and a final 10-point scale per criterion. According to Keller (2000), world-class brands meet these ten criteria. Additional statements on the informational foundation, on the precise assessment or on the process of the brand audit are missing. Similar to Keller (2000), Homburg / Richter (2003) have presented a comprehensive and specific approach for determining branding excellence. This model is based on a scoring model (5-point scale) with four main dimensions (brand strategy, brand identity, brand success measurement, brand anchoring in the company) and a total of 95 individual criteria. Furthermore, the authors demand that the respective assessments are substantiated by appropriate sources. Finally, Homburg / Richter (2003) recommend the use of a graphical profile representation to illustrate the results. This approach lacks statements on how to conduct a brand audit. Jenner (2005) presented a conceptual consideration of the brand audit. In addition to a terminological foundation, Jenner (2005) suggests two dimensions, each with two sub-categories, as the content of the brand audit:

8 46 Audits in the marketing and branding area a) current market perspective (perception of the brand from the customer's point of view, competitive differentiation) future-oriented (changes in the customer and competitive environment) b) internal analysis of structural framework conditions (brand strategy, business processes, organization) process of brand management (planning , Implementation and control processes) Jenner (2005) also discusses the sponsorship of a brand audit and recommends a team solution of internal and external people in this context. Wheeler (2006) proposed various audits (marketing, competition, stakeholders, language) for the analysis phase of brand projects. Marketing and language audits in particular have points of contact for the development of a brand audit in the cultural sector. As part of the marketing audit, Wheeler (2006, p. 86 f.) Suggests a multi-stage process that goes from a rough understanding of the organization through the development of a frame of reference and the collection of information to an evaluation and presentation. As part of the information collection, she suggests seven different types of sources (branding, stationery, electronic communication, sales and marketing materials, internal communication materials, three-dimensional communication, trade). As part of the language audit, Wheeler (2006, p. 92 f.) Recommends a comprehensive analysis of the language style and content with the help of a checklist across all brand contact points. The result of the various audits is then summarized in a top management presentation. In addition, Wheeler (2006, p. 87) recommends setting up an audit room that visually displays all materials in a structured manner. Keller (2008) proposed a much more complex approach compared to his Brand Score Card.This approach aims to capture all sources of brand strength from the corporate and consumer perspective. To this end, Keller (2008) differentiates between a Brand Inventory and a Brand Exploratory. He recommends that it be carried out by external auditors. With regard to the criteria and evaluation, Keller (2008) advocates an open approach that describes the brand or brands of a company as comprehensively as possible.

9 Overview of existing marketing and brand audits 47 Olins (2008, p. 108 f.) Suggests a visual brand audit in the appendix of his brand handbook, which particularly takes into account the direct brand contact points. Overall, Olins (2008) distinguishes 13 different groups of brand contact points. He does not present ideas for implementation, evaluation or evaluation. Baumgarth / Binckebanck (2012) have proposed a conceptual brand audit specifically for the evaluation of CSR-oriented brands. This approach is based on a brand model, which is composed of five dimensions (positioning, corporate culture, behavior, communication, consistency). A standardized five-point scale in conjunction with a scoring model is proposed to assess the individual criteria. (4) Brand audits in the cultural sector (MK2) For the cultural sector, there have so far hardly been any explicit considerations on how to conduct or set up a brand audit. Only the work by Scott (2000) outlines the implementation of a brand audit for an Australian museum (powerhouse) as an example. This is based on survey results from four target groups (loyal visitors, external stakeholders, general audience, employees) as well as the evaluation of communication materials. Baumgarth (2011) conceptually proposed a five-stage process for carrying out a brand audit for cultural institutions. Furthermore, he has developed a frame of reference that differentiates between inventory and performance measurement, as well as sketching out initial ideas for the concrete implementation of the assessment and presentation of results. These conceptual ideas also formed the starting point for the development of the MAK approach presented in this book. Evans / Bridson (2013), as part of an extensive research project on the branding of public museums in Australia, among others. carried out an institutional evaluation of museums. The participating museums answered questions in standardized form on the three dimensions of effects (number of visitors, image among visitors), basic orientation (including brand, entrepreneurial, market and product orientation) and resources (employees, finances). In addition, there are extensive models, some of which have been empirically tested, which take a holistic view of the brand in the cultural sector and can thus serve as the basis for a brand audit in the cultural sector.

10 48 Audits in Marketing and Branding A first approach was presented by Bekmeier-Feuerhahn / Sikkenga (2008) with their model based on the EFQM approach. This approach, which has been empirically tested in the museum sector, distinguishes three factors that enable a cultural institution to succeed: internal branding, systematic brand management and brand-strengthening partnerships. Baumgarth (2009) and Baumgarth / Freund (2009) developed a model for internal anchoring (branding) of the brand within a cultural institution and tested it empirically for the museum sector. This model divides the brand orientation of a cultural institution into the dimensions values, norms, artifacts and behavior. The empirical study was able to prove that the brand orientation of a cultural institution has a positive in uence on the cultural, market-related and ultimately economic success of a cultural institution. (5) Conclusion Table 2 summarizes the outlined audit approaches.

11 Overview of existing marketing and brand audits 49 Table 2: Overview of marketing and brand audit approaches Category Source Organization Model Assessment methodology Results M1 Kotler / Gregor / Rodgers (1977, 1989) Independence of the auditors (external auditors or mixed teams with internal but not directly involved experts ) 6 internal and external dimensions of the marketing audit workshop after the presentation of the results derivation of organization-specific recommendations Open audit process Kotler (1977) ka 5 internal dimensions of marketing mean values ​​based on index based on surveys key questions n.a. Berry / Conant / Parasuraman (1991) Standardized audit process 6 internal dimensions of service marketing Wilson (2002) Independence of the auditors 28 internal and external open audit process dimensions of marketing MK1 Kotler / Kotler / Kotler (2008) n / a 6 internal and external dimensions of marketing key questions n / a Scoring model without weight key questions n / a Index with overall rating Youker (2010) External auditors Program of the cultural institution Scoring model Comparison with open process beforehand - Consideration of qualitative standards and quantitative information Birnkraut (2011) Presentation of alternatives to the n / a n / a n / a Carrier; Four stage cycle

12 50 audits in the marketing and branding area Category Source Organization Model Assessment methodology Results M2 Keller (2000) n.a. 10 internal dimensions Homburg / Richter (2003) Evidence of the assessments by sources Jenner (2005) Auditor team made up of internal and external experts Wheeler (2006) Multi-level, but basically open process; Numerous sources considered Scoring model without weighting 4 internal and external dimensions of the brand Marketing, competition, stakeholders, language Keller (2008) External auditors 2 dimensions: Brand Inventory and Brand Exploratory n.a. 4 internal dimensions scoring model without weighting n / a n / a Per l of dimensions; Typical pro le n / a Presentation, audit room Qualitative description Olins (2008) Checklist 13 brand contact points n / a n / a Baumgarth / Binckebanck checklist, scale 5 dimensions scoring model n / a (2012) MK2 Scott (2000) n.a. External perspective n / a n / a Baumgarth (2011) External auditors 6 internal and 6 external scoring model spider web diagram; In-depth audit process Dimensions comparison with an Evans / Bridson (2013) Bekmeier- euerhahn / sikkenga (2008) database k. A. 3 dimensions k. A. k. A. n.a. 3 internal dimensions Empirical weighting n / a n / a

13 Overview of existing marketing and brand audits 51 Category Source Organization Model Assessment methodology Results Baumgarth (2009); Baumgarth / n / a 4 internal dimensions Empirical weighting pro le of the dimensions reund (2009) M1: Marketing audit; MK1: Marketing audit in the cultural sector; M2: brand audit; MK2: Brand audit in the cultural sector; n / a: no statements

14 52 Audits in the Marketing and Branding Area Overall, it can be said that most of the suggestions for the process of a culture-specific brand audit can be derived from the experience and recommendations of the marketing audit. The work on the marketing audit also provides important impulses for the fundamental assessment process of a brand audit in the cultural sector. For the derivation of the underlying brand model of the new brand audit for cultural institutions (MAK), however, the work on the brand audit (in general, cultural sector) is more fruitful. In the following, an approach is therefore developed that represents a synthesis of the previous approaches to marketing and brand audits and builds on practical experience in the sense of action research (general McKniff / Whitehead 2011).