True Blue Branding

8/8/2019 True Blue Branding

1/35

True BlueInternal branding as a strategic corporate communications tool

A case study of JetBlue Airways

By Tim Leberecht


2/35

True Blue 2

Abstract

This paper focuses on internal branding as a burgeoning corporate communications

practice for so-called service brands. As a theoretical framework, the rationale and

evolution of synchronizing external and internal branding efforts is outlined before the

implementation process is described in detail. Exemplified by JetBlue Airways, a U.S.

airline that has implemented internal branding from its very start as an essential

component of its business model, corporate practice is examined and measured against

the theoretical framework. Through the analysis of secondary sources such as magazine

articles and primary sources such as email correspondence, newsletters, and Intranet

content, this paper will illustrate how the airline gains its high customer loyalty by

making its employees understand and experience the brand character. In addition, in-

depth interviews, with both a JetBlue employee, who is a member of the internal target

audience, and JetBlues vice president of corporate communications, who oversees the

companys internal branding strategy, provide insight into the presentation and reception

of internal branding messages. Based on observed gaps between theory and practice, a

perspective is offered for maximizing the positive effect of internal branding on

employee satisfaction and corporate brand value.

Keywords: internal branding, integrated branding, holistic branding, corporate

branding, service brand, employee satisfaction, employee motivation, value

communication, quality management, internal communications, JetBlue


3/35

True Blue 3

About The Author

Tim Leberecht has more than 8 years experience in corporate communications and

marketing for companies in the high-tech and entertainment industries. He worked with

Deutsche Telekom and managed media relations for the International Athens 2004

Olympic Torch Relay. Mr. Leberecht holds an M.A. degree in Applied Cultural Sciences

from the University of Luneburg in Germany and an M.A. in Communication

Management from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He is a member

of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC), the International

Communication Association (ICA) and the German-American Business Association

(GABA). He currently works with the software company Mindjet in San Francisco. Mr.

Leberecht can be reached at [email protected].
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/35

A rose is a rose is a rose (Gertrude Stein)

Introduction

For years there has been intense debate about what a brand is and how it can be

established in the minds and hearts of consumers (Aaker, 1996; Aaker, 1997; Arnold,

1992; Farquhar, 2000; Kapferer, 1997; Kotler, 1997). Knapps, in her seminal book The

Branding Mindset (2001), defines a brand as the internalized sum of all impressions

received by consumers resulting in a distinctive position in their minds eye based on

perceived emotional and functional benefits (p. 22). Davis understands a brand as all of

the promises and perceptions that an organization wants its customers to feel about its

product and service offerings (Davis, 2003). Kotler (1997) sees it as a sellers promise

to deliver a specific set of features, benefits, and services to the buyers (p. 443). This is

congruent with Blumenthals approach (2003), which states brands [now] provide a

sense of meaningful identity that is distinct from the particular product or service being

offered (p. 2).

In an overview of all these definitions, Grassl, in his ontological approach to

marketing (1999), classifies those cited above as idealistic views of branding, which he

thoroughly distinguishes from a materialistic view. In his framing (Grassl, 1999),

idealists see brand value as being anchored in customer awareness -- as intangible assets,

constructed in customers minds by the functions of brand management (Aaker, 1996;

Arnold, 1992; Keller, 1993). Accordingly, brands can be reduced to names, terms, signs,

symbols or designs (Kotler, 1997). Brand materialists, however, oppose the idealistic

concept of branding as the creation of human meaning (Blumenthal, 2003, p. 3) and

reject the idea of branding as an added psychological value to a product (LePla & Parker,

1999; Macrae, 1996). They argue that many companies make the mistake of developing a

grandiose brand promise that they cannot keep (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; De

Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1998; Tosti & Stotz, 2001). For them, the brand is interrelated

with the products (or companys) essence and cannot be separated from it (De

Chernatony, 2001). Brand idealists will usually rely more heavily on advertising and

promotions whereas brand materialists will seek to build the brand value upon behavior


5/35

True Blue 5

and actual product or service features. However, despite all these differences, both camps

prioritize the external audiences and largely ignore the internal. Even for brand

materialists, who would naturally be more concerned about the internal reality of a brand,

branding is ultimately conceived of as an outbound process that reaches out to customers

(product branding) and/or stakeholders (corporate branding). Only recently, both

idealistic and materialistic theorists have begun challenging this external focus

(Blumenthal, 2003). They now address the synchronization of internal and external brand

perception, or as Mitchell (2002) aptly puts it: You tell customers what makes you great.

Do your employees know? (p. 99). If the chasm between managers and consumers

views of brands had been the center of attention in the traditional marketing literature for

years (De Chernatony & DallOlmo Riley, 1997; Knox & Maklan, 2001), concern has

now shifted to a potential gap between the customers and the employees view (Davis,

2002; Donath, 2001). In other words: If customers own the brand, employees -- who in

large part are supposed to be an intrinsic part of the brand and ultimately responsible for

delivering on its promise -- also own part of the brand (Tosti & Stotz, 2001). In many

ways employees are the brand and should be treated as apriority audience. Hence the

paradigm of brand thinking has taken a more balanced perspective by striving to ensure

satisfaction amongst both customers and employees(Thomson et al, 1999, p. 820).

Employees are now seen as a critically important constituent of the brand, and as such

they need to develop a shared understanding of brand values, anchored in their hearts and

minds to manifest brand-supporting behaviour (De Chernatony, 2001; Faust & Bethge,

2003). This is where internal branding as a strategic concept comes into play, with a

plethora of relevant literature expanding on this concept (Charland, 2001; De

Chernatony, 2000, 2001; Donath, 2001; Faust & Bethge, 2003; Keller, 1999; Knox &

Maklan, 2001; LePla & Parker, 1999; Macrae, 1996; Mitchell, 2002; Tosti & Stotz,

2001). All these authors recognize the importance of internal brand management as a

process to align staff behavior with brand values, and agree that, as Mitchell (2002)

suggests, by applying many of the principles of consumer advertising to internal

communications, leaders can guide employees to a better understanding of, and even a

passion for, the brand vision (p. 99).


6/35

True Blue 6

The look inside different approaches

This introspective view is not a revolutionary model. Although Vallaster and De

Chernatony (2003) claim that authors have just recently started to recognize the

importance of internal branding, the general idea of integrating externally-oriented

marketing research and internally-oriented management has continously emerged among

corporate communications theorists since the 1980s. In their classic excellence studies,

Peters and Waterman (1982) pionered the cultural dimension of succesful organizations

and the importance of aligning managements vision with that understood by employees.

Similarly, large parts of the strategic management literature, suggesting a resource-based

view of the firm, argue that organizations gain competitive advantage through their

unique combination of resources with people as the most important asset (Pfeffer &Salancik, 1978) Focusing on core competencies and the balanced scorecard approach,

work in this field highlights the need to balance the satisfaction of external demands and

the management of internal processes and people. Another school of thought, the

employer of choice concept, became popular in the late 1990s when the war for talent

hit the headlines (Herman & Gioia, 2000). This notion is based on research that addresses

the unwritten promises and expectations that form the basis of the employment

relationship. An understanding of this idea has led to many organizations reviewing their

commitment to staff and the values on which the employment relationship is based

(Herman & Gioia, 2000). For the human resources function, it became more and more

critical to develop a compelling organizational story for existing and potential employees

(Weick, 1995, 2001). Also, the shift away from product branding to corporate branding

increased the need for people management issues to be taken into account in the branding

process. This led to the concept of employer branding, which replaced that of employer

of choice and established people management specialists as a critical part in managing

the brand (Bose, 2001; Frook, 2001; Hatfield, 1999; McDonald, 2001; Ruch, 2000;

Walsh, 1998; Woods, 2001). Employer branding applies to the employment experience

the same care and coherence used by marketing and sales people in the management of

valued customers (Board, 2001; Donath 2001). It encompasses the firms values,

systems, policies and behaviors toward the objectives of attracting, motivating, aligning


7/35

True Blue 7

and retaining the firms current and potential employees. As Tosti and Stotz put it,

Values describe a preferred way of behaving (2001, p. 29). In return, for values to

become reality within an organization, they must become manifest in observable

practices in organizational communities (Aldrich, 1999). These communities of

practice are based upon shared narratives that establish and cultivate small worlds

within an organization with a high adaptive and learning capability (Aldrich, 1999). Co-

evolutionary theory (Aldrich, 1999) asserts that organizations that can establish and

succesfully maintain communities of practice have a long-term competitive advantage

and will build up a distinct corporate brand. A corporate brand has been described as the

immediate mental picture that audiences have of an organization (Balmer & Gray, 2003;

Harris & De Chernatony, 2001). Corporate identity, as a similar concept, may be used to

differentiate a company from its competitors, based on strengths, corporate culture,

corporate style, future direction, and CEO reputation (Balmer & Gray, 1997; Board,

2001; Fombrun, 1996). While corporate identity focuses on the values and behavioral

practices that are either determined by the bottom or the top of an organization, the

corporate brand consists only of those values and behavioral practices that are relevant to

customers (Harris & De Chernatony, 2001; Schultz & Hatch, 1997). This concludes in a

laterally inverted phenomenon: the corporate brand may internally be an element of the

umbrella concept of corporate identity, whereas externally, in relation to customers,

corporate identity may in fact be an element of the corporate brand.

This distinction became obsolete as the brand thinking was progressing in the

direction of the substance behind the brand, taking a more materialistic view, in Grassls

(1999) terms. The previously independent courses of corporate identity and brand were

headed towards the same territory that Ludlow & Schmidt (2002) used as the groundwork

to develop their concept of holistic branding. This form of branding draws upon the

interactional theory of communication (Clevenger, 1996; Watzlawick et al, 1967). You

cannot not communicate, Watzlawick et al (1967) postulate; every sign, clothing, or

building communicates the brand to customers. Holistic solutions for brand development

and management thus propose synergetic use of all of the dimensions -- culture, behavior,

products and services, markets and customers, design, and communications -- in order to

create differentiation (Ludlow & Schmidt, 2002). In the holistic brand-customer-


8/35

True Blue 8

employee relationship not only must a compelling message be delivered, but a consistent

brand experience must also be distributed throughout the entire organization (Davis,

2003). This concept has become most visible within the Disney Group (Charland, 2001).

Lastly, the most radical (and most Orwellian) approach to branding individual

employees stems from Peters who in his 1999 landmark manifesto The Brand you 50

ultimately annihilates the borders between organization and individual by creating the

notion of a branded human personality (Peters, 1999).

Internal branding as a strategic concept

Notwithstanding the previous work outlined above, the underlying notion has only

recently turned into a particular discipline of branding that is being branded itself:

Whether labeled as employer branding (Ruch, 2002), integrated branding (LePla &

Integrated branding (Parker, 1999), inclusive/holistic branding (Ludlow &

Schmidt, 2002), or internal branding (Tosti & Stotz, 2001) -- the concepts may differ by

their names and their emphasis, but the essential idea remains the same. Either of these

concepts is concerned with both the need for employees to live the brand and the

companys image as seen through the eyes of its associates and potential hires (Ruch,

2002, p. 14). Management literature meanwhile widely acknowledges that branding --

both corporate and product branding -- may be largely aimed at external audiences, but in

fact has important internal implications (Getting it right on the inside: the challenge of

internal branding, 2003). Internal branding (this term is used in the following since it

appears to be most appropriate for the case study subject) translates this insight into a

strategic concept that strives to put the external marketing strategy of a company in sync

with its internal values and behavioral practices. It includes promoting the main corporate

brand (and product brands) to the employee base in a fashion that makes them understand

the connection between brand promise and brand delivery. Tosti & Stotz (2001)

indirectly refer to Aldrichs communites of practice (1999) when they emphasize the

integration of marketing and performance technology, which they define as a body of

knowledge about systematic, results-oriented principles and methods for improving the

performance of individuals, groups, and organizations (p. 30.). Extremely put, while


9/35

True Blue 9

performance management intends to make employees want to work for what the

organization needs them to work for, internal branding makes employees want to work

for what customers value about their organization. Internal branding then leads to a

marketing strategy that occurs in fact -- on its internal level --- as an ongoing change

management, in which change means the changes in the customers attitudes and

expectations.

The business world has been eager to adopt this new paradigm (Stamler, 2001).

Thomson et al (1999) contend that organizations are increasingly realizing that

employees need to fully understand the values of their brands and internalize these to the

extent that they are aligned and committed to enacting the values (p. 820). Especially in

service industries, internal branding has seen a significant rise. The nature of services

brings about a close, almost intimate relationship between service provider and service

recipient: Peoples impressions of brands are more strongly influenced by the staff they

interact with (De Chernatony 2001, p. 5). Berry (2000) refers to service brands

intangibility. Consumers would find it difficult to assess competing service brands and

rather rely on favorable experiences and confidence resulting from customer delighting

behaviour (De Chernatony & DallOlmo Riley, 2000). Employees of service brand

companies are supposed to deliver on the brand promise through their behavior in order

to ensure the integrity of the explicit and implicit brand messages (Berry, 2000). To do

so, they will need to be adequately informed and supported to fulfill their tasks. Therefore

internal branding intends to clearly lay out the behavior implicit in the brand promise --

whether it is customer service directives or production quality guidelines -- for employees

(Tosti & Stotz, 2001). The brand needs to be operationalized into objectives and roles

each corporate function can adapt. In addition, the company needs to announce and

implement any additional training or incentives that will be necessary to encourage,

support, and reward the required behavior. Often there will be an element of policing

the brand, and the human resources function will link its messages to branding and

marketing.

Further, some authors even advocate leveraging employees as brand

ambassadors (De Chernatony & Segal-Horn, 2001). For them, making sure that

employees understand and help deliver the brand is not sufficient; they want employees


10/35


11/35

True Blue 11

level, reflecting the faith leaders have in their brand vision and its purpose (Snyder et al,

1994). Leaders of the organization must thoroughly understand, support, and actively

demonstrate commitment to the internal branding process (Snyder et al, 1994). But the

process for ensuring that employee behavior expresses service brand values consistently

also requires what Weick (1995, 2001) calls sensemaking. Sense-making can be defined

as being about such things as the placement of items into frameworks, comprehending,

redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in the pursuit of mutual

understanding, and patterning (Weick, 1995, p. 6). Based on research in transactive

memory (Cannon-Bowers et al, 1993), Vallaster and De Chernator (2003) argue that only

when employees have a shared mental model of their brand, does consistent brand

supporting behavior becomes possible. Through dialogue, existing knowledge structures

regarding the brands promise become more refined over time.

Communication leads to the internalization of brand values to facilitating

employees alignment and commitment to behave in a brand supporting manner.

Thomson et als (1999) research results suggest that employees understanding and

commitment towards the brand lead to greater advocacy, and therefore provide

organizations with the much-needed champions (p. 828). In the most extreme scenario,

the employees brand commitment may exhibit characteristics that researchers coin as

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, or OCB (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1990). OCB is

defined as contributions from employees that go beyond the action formally required by

their job descriptions (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1990). The concept translates the

corporate citizenship model, which makes corporations socially responsible actors

committed to public goods, to the organizational micro-level.

Implementation process

Despite this abundance of literature, there have been only few academic suggestions on

how internal branding can be successfully implemented. De Chernatony et al (2003)

provide a model, identifying main actors and vehicles. Thomson et al (1999) also propose

a variety of communication channels and events to promote internal branding. Tosti and

Stotz (2001), however, question the effectiveness of a series of communication events,


12/35

True Blue 12

promoting the brand through one-way campaign vehicles such as employee meetings,

memos, or newsletters. Instead, they contend, turning a brand promise into an

organizational reality requires coordinated planning and action at all organizational levels

(Tosti & Stotz, 2001). Not only must all the messages during the implementation and

afterwards be directed at employee touchpoints (Macrae, 1999), internal branding is

also a leadership operation. In other words: Internal branding itself has an internal

(analysis) and external (manifestation) aspect, too. The more comprehensive

implementation models from Tosti and Stotz (2001) and De Chernatony et al (2003)

acknowledge that dimension and constitute four critical procedural factors for successful

internal branding:

1. Brand character: - Measurement of key customer value indicators -

Clarification of internal brand reception

2. Alignment: - Alignment of leadership, culture and work process with

the specific business values and practices that deliver value to

customers - Structural empowerment of employees to live the brand

3. Education and enrollment: - Education and enrollment of employees in

the internal branding effort through human resources management and a

variety of internal communications media/vehicles

4. Evaluation: - Measurement of internal branding effectiveness

Based upon this approach, a detailed six-phase plan for implementing an internal brand

strategy can be crafted:

Phase 1: The brand vision is reviewed: What core values does the brand stand

for? What is the purpose of the brand? What desired future development will drive the

brand activities? (De Chernatony 2001). Then the brand is analyzed from an internal

perspective. The major goals of this analysis are to clarify the brand proposition or

promise of value to customers; to establish the brand character that will best deliver that

value; to translate the brand character into values and behavioral practices (communities

of practice, in Aldrichs terms, 1999) -- both for company leaders and other employees.

Lastly, the phase is about examining current practices (including human resources

management) to determine their compatibility with the brand promise. This evaluation


13/35

True Blue 13

identifies the strategic performance gap, that is, a disconnection between brand values

and lived practices.

Phase 2: Senior management executives ought to be instructed so that they

thoroughly understand, support, and actively demonstrate commitment to the internal

branding process. Baum et al (1996) indicate that leadership vision is ranked as the most

important effect on follower performance and attitudes. The early engagement of

executives is crucial for the success of the internal branding strategy. Tosti and Stotz

(2001) suggest an orientation session in order to communicate the results of the prior

analysis; to develop commitment to and ownership of the brand character, values, and

practices; and to establish responsibilities for action.

Phase 3: Mid-management joins the process and will be educated about the

results of the previous phases. Mid-managers are a pivotal group because they provide

the day-to-day leadership in the branding process. The phase includes three primary

activities: Pre-workshop preparation, workshop participation, follow-up planning

activities and review feedback. These activities conclude with each participant drafting a

brand plan for his/her area of responsibility.

Phase 4: The next step is to enroll the rest of the employees in the internal

branding process. Employees are given the chance to experience the brand.

Phase 5: Tactical planning sessions start. These sessions link mid-managers with

their supervisors and all participants learn about the connection of the internal branding

and the external marketing strategy. They are also educated on the extent to which

cultural practices between groups support or inhibit the delivery of the brand promise.

Phase 6: Local brand plans are developed: Supervisors in collaboration with

their teams develop specific ways to support the brand proposition at the respective level

and link these efforts to meeting business needs. Thus, this phase translates the analysis

and learning stages of the implementation process into direct employee action. There are

few publicized examples of companies who have exactly followed this ideal model in

their internal branding efforts, but many examples of companies who run an internal

branding program. As mentioned above, a prominent example is Disney, an organization

that has built its entire employee infrastructure -- from hiring, through training and

human resources policies -- specifically to support and promote the attributes and


14/35

True Blue 14

messages inherent in its ubiquitous brand (Charland, 2001). The company also carefully

monitors its brand through a brand equity team to ensure it is not used inappropriately

or over-exposed. This vigilance includes employee service, behavior and dress. As a

result, employees seem to have a clear understanding of what the corporate brand stands

for, and how they should behave to support it. In addition to Disney, many other

corporate executives have begun to pay more attention to their internal constituents, to

incorporate their internal reality in branding decisions and use their brands power to

motivate employees. Aramark, GlaxoSmithKline, Holiday Inn, Home Depot, Host

Marriott Services, Nestle, Saab, Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, and Wal-Mart are some

of these companies, although they may not specifically use the term internal branding

(Blumenthal, 2003).

A survey of 138 companies in 2001 indicates that about 40% of survey

respondents use the techniques and resources of corporate branding such as print and

Internet and Intranet communications to lure and retain good employees (Donath, 2001).

Frequent meetings and management role modeling are also mentioned as key employer

branding tools (Donath, 2001). Furthermore, the report indicates that human resources

and senior managers are the key internal-branding stewards; internal and corporate

branding processes are closely related; internal branding efforts tend to emphasize

tactical corporate-family-friendly issues such as benefits; and Intranets are the most

used vehicle for the internal branding efforts. Interestingly, only about a fifth of

respondents have metrics for measuring internal branding effectiveness (Donath, 2001).

In the following section, this paper will look closely at JetBlue Airways Corp., a

company selected for examination for three reasons: First, it is a service brand; second, it

is a relatively young organization (founded in 2000); third, it has implemented internal

branding from the very beginning as a founding pillar of its business model.

Methodology

The study uses qualitative research methods and draws on both primary and secondary

sources. Through the analysis of secondary sources including articles and magazine

features the brand character as perceived by customers is identified. Primary sources,


15/35

True Blue 15

including email correspondence, newsletters, or Intranet content, indicate how the airline

accomplishes its strong customer loyalty by making its employees understand and

experience the brand character. Access to these internal documents was provided by

employees of JetBlue Airways. In addition, in-depth interviews with both an in-flight

crewmember (the companys official term for its flight crew) and the Vice-President of

Corporate Communications were conducted. The in-flight crewmember was chosen

because his/her function represents the typical JetBlue employee and the vice president of

corporate communications because he oversees the internal branding strategy.

In-depth interviewing entails asking questions, listening to and recording the

answers, and then posing additional questions to clarify or expand on a particular issue

(Black & Champion, 1976). Questions are typically open-ended, and respondents are

encouraged to express their own perceptions in their own words. However, closed

questions may also be used for initial background information or for aspects that rely on

the comparability of the gathered data. There are three basic approaches to in-depth

interviewing that differ mainly in the extent to which the interview questions are

standardized beforehand: the informal conversational interview; the semi-structured

interview; and the standardized open-ended interview (Black & Champion, 1976). For

this study, the format of a semi-structured interview was chosen since this format allows

for detailed and elaborate data collection while also facilitating comparability among the

respondents.

The in-depth interview with the in-flight crewmember was conducted on March

13, 2004 in Los Angeles. The interview took place in a caf, lasted one hour, and was

recorded by the author. The employee wanted her name not to be mentioned and will thus

appear in the following as JetBlue employee. The employee has been with JetBlue for

three years. The in-depth interview with Gareth Edmondson-Jones, vice president of

corporate communications at JetBlue Airways since its inception, was conducted on

March 16, 2004 on the phone, lasted one hour, and was recorded by the author. Mr.

Edmondson-Jones spoke on behalf of the company and agreed to the use of his name.

Both interviews were based upon the same guideline, which can be found in the appendix

of this paper. The use of this interview guideline is a good way to examine at which

points and in which aspects the response from employees and mangers differed,


16/35

True Blue 16

indicating a gap at least in the understanding of the branding strategy. Although the

sample size of this study does not allow generalization of any findings, this comparison

may serve as random check as to whether the brand as conceived of by the

communication manager is in fact internalized by the staff.

The case of JetBlue Airways

JetBlue Airways Corp. has spent $31.8 million on measured media -- a seemingly small

ad budget for the first three years in the life of a new airline (Gahilan, 2003). Yet its seat-

sales percentages are the best in the U.S. airline business; and it has developed a high

level of customer loyalty (Gahilan, 2003). JetBlues productivity is excellent, based upon

a unit labor cost of 1.9 cents per ASM (available seat mile); in comparison, Delta

Airlines is around 4.4 cents (Gahilan, 2003). JetBlue flies bigger aircraft more hours,

managing to operate for 13.2 hours per day, 23.2% over the mainline average in the first

quarter of 2003 (Gahilan, 2003). The airline offers a very clear pricing system: The

highest one-way fare is $299. All fares are one-way, carry no travel restrictions and are

non-refundable. They must be purchased at the time the reservation is made but can be

changed for a $25 fee. The emphasis is on online marketing and sales: Tickets can be

bought online or from call center, and all tickets are electronic, so that the company saves

on paper, postage, employee time and back-office processing. The lowest fares are

always available on the website.

In the following section, the four critical dimensions of internal branding

identified above, are applied to assess JetBlues corporate practice.

Brand character

Like the Starbucks Corp. in its early years, JetBlue has achieved its success by

creating a customer experience that prompts consumers to recommend it to friends, and

by employing advertising and public relations to do most of the initial brand-building

work without breaking the bank. Asked about the one sentence s/he would use to describe

the JetBlue brand, the interviewed in-flight crewmember stuck to the official company

slogan: Bringing humanity back into the airline industry (JetBlue employee, 2004).

This would include the full range of the JetBlue experience, as the brand markets itself -


17/35

True Blue 17

- leather seats, live TV for every customer, and snacks. It also includes the

extraordinarily friendly and efficient service (JetBlue employee, 2004) that customers

receive from reservation agents, ground staff and flight crew. On the same note, the vice

president of corporate communication states that in comparison with another strongly

branded airline such as Virgin, for whom he had worked previously, JetBlue was more

about service first, brand second. The brand is fresh, maybe not so stylish and taking a

more familiar, low-key approach towards customers (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). Despite

the paramount importance of branding, JetBlue would be ultimately more cost-focused,

having a steady eye on the bottom line (Edmondson-Jones, 2004): Ironically, our brand

externally is perceived as hip and trendy, which is a nice thing to have. But this is

actually not the way we would portray ourselves. First of all, in most cases, if you call

yourself hip and trendy, you are definitely not! Beyond that, we dont want our staff

to be cool and aloof. At heart, you have to be familiar, not trendy. We are striving for a

low-key stability and want to be approachable and hands-on. The predominant feeling is:

We are all in this together (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). Edmondson-Jones understands that

customers love the brand and employees feel proud to be associated with it

(Edmondson-Jones, 2004). This has triggered a dynamic that has even surprised the

executives. Merchandising products such as badges or buttons have turned into highly

hot items for collectors and are traded on eBay. Some are now produced to honor

special occasions or even features (such as the Extra-legroom-button): By accident we

have tapped into another channel of spreading the word both to customers and

employees, comments Edmondson-Jones (2004).

A strong brand can build a goodwill buffer for crisis events. Like Apple, JetBlue

has an anti-establishment quality as an alternative to the legacy carriers -- which is not

hampered even by the fact that the airline cooperates with Microsoft for content

management and Intranet publishing solutions (Flint, 2003). The anti-establishment

character of the brand helped the company overcome the major PR debacle when it was

revealed that it had provided data on more than a million passengers to a military

contractor for use in identifying terrorists (Is JetBlues reputation grounded after its PR

debacle?, 2003; Singel, 2003). The company took this setback in stride and responded in

an upfront, forthright fashion (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). There was no other option


18/35

True Blue 18

than complete honesty (Edmondson-Jones, 2004) in communicating the misbehavior to

both customers and employees. Surprisingly, in retrospect, this scandal did not really

hurt the brand, which, as Edmondson-Jones explains, was because of the enormous credit

the company had earned before: We consumed some of the goodwill, but there was still

enough left (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). Edmondson-Jones concedes that other airlines

might have been destroyed by the same event whereas JetBlues fresh and young brand

helped keep up sympathy from most of its customers (Edmondson-Jones, 2004).

Alignment

The concept of internal branding applies to JetBlue technically, but not literally.

No one at JetBlue would use the term internal branding (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). What

the company dislikes about the term is that it connotes the loss of individuality, whereas

exactly the opposite (bringing humanity back to the airline industry) is JetBlues

central mission, both on the customer and employee levels (Edmondson-Jones, 2004).

This view is supported by the in-flight crewmember who appreciates that JetBlue appears

to be a network that you can log-on to or not beyond your actual time on the job, but if

you do not, it would not be of disadvantage (JetBlue employee, 2004). Accordingly, the

employee rejects the notion of the company as a cult (JetBlue employee, 2004). On the

contrary, s/he appreciates that privacy is respected by the company and feels a

considerable amount of freedom (JetBlue employee, 2004): The company leaves you

alone and trusts its brand to make all JetBlue members feel connected rather than banging

the drum to artificially foster a family feeling (JetBlue employee, 2004). However,

JetBlue recognizes the necessity of aligning employees with the brand and

communicating the brand values to employees. Each employee shall serve as a brand

ambassador, says Edmondson-Jones (2004) in accordance with the theoretical

suggestions by De Chernatony and Segal-Horn (2001), but this shall not be determined

by the brand in a sense of indoctrination or uniform behavior. For a service brand such

as JetBlue, front-line crewmembers are the most important interface to the customers

(Edmondson-Jones, 2004): Crewmembers carry the brand, Edmondson-Jones (2004)

describes. This carrying of the brand becomes literal in the case of the clothing

manufacturer Gap Inc., which follows a similar approach through its employee discount

features. By receiving significant discounts on all Gap products, the employees


19/35

True Blue 19

commitment to the brand is ensured and constantly enhanced (Zimberoff, 2004).

Moreover, in an interesting correspondence to Rogers diffusion theory (1995),

employees function as early adopters, being the first ones who see the new clothes and

the first ones who wear them (Zimberoff, 2004).

In the case of JetBlue, employee commitment is also spurred by several

participatory elements. The company involves employees in decisions that concern them

and has made it as much of a priority to communicate internally as externally (Labetti,

2002). This helps explain why staffers, though not as well paid as many of their peers at

other airlines (JetBlue employee, 2004), are motivated to go out of their way for

customers and take every consumer contact as a branding opportunity (Labetti, 2002).

Vinny Stabile, vice president of people at JetBlue, names a few employee motivators

(Labetti, 2002): 1. Level the playing field 2. Never stop communicating 3. Back up your

promises 4. Give managers operational freedom.

Viewing intrinsic motivation as the main driver of peoples behavior, JetBlue

translates the concept of organizational citizenship (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1990) into

daily behavior. For instance, as part of the companys Holiday Helper Program during

peak travel periods, management staff trek out to the airport to help facilitate the

operations, including everything from pushing wheelchairs, giving out snacks to the

customers or guiding people through the terminal, whatever it takes (JetBlue employee,

2004). It has come as no surprise that over the Easter/Passover holiday in mid-April

2003, the airline completed a nine-day span during which it achieved a 100% completion

factor and 93% on-time arrival rate with an average 90% load factor (Flint, 2003).

JetBlue cultivates a low-hierarchy culture that communicates a strong idea of

what the brand is all about but claims not to exert a very rigid formalization of the

corporate brand (JetBlue employee, 2004). Overall, the feeling of a small company that

takes care of its employees is salient, tells Edmondson-Jones, adding that the company is

very aware of changes because of the ongoing expansion and the concern of employees

about this development (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). JetBlue would communicate that

very pro-actively, openly, and forthrightly to keep employees in the loop at all times

(Edmondson-Jones, 2004).


20/35

True Blue 20

The same informal freedom that the airline gives to it customers is applied to the

employees, Edmondson-Jones (2004) says. The company believes in the employees to

do the right thing (Edmondson-Jones, 2004): We want to signal that it is ok to take a

risk and act on your own as long as it is in keeping with the brand values (Edmondson-

Jones, 2004). This statement however is in fact paralleled with a rigid control of

corporate identity consistency and permanent efforts of brand protection. Emails from

Eric Brinker, manager for brand and product development at JetBlue, regularly educate

employees about uses of email signatures and email fonts (Marketing crew needs your

help: e-mail signature format, 2004), apparently struggling with an, at times, overly

enthusiastic and individualistic crewmember base: Dear HQF friends, Please help! The

brand team needs your assistance to protect JetBlue. One easy way you can help is to

ensure that your e-mail signature meets JetBlue brand standards. As e-mail is used for

both external and internal communications, we all have to be very careful about not only

what is written in them but how that information is presented. Using a logo in a design

that has not been created and approved by the marketing department is not appropriate.

While we certainly appreciate the enthusiasm and obvious pride Crewmembers put into

creating a signature, it could be misconstrued by people inside and outside the company

as being an official logo of the company. It really runs the danger of diluting our brand

image, and thats something none of us want to do (Marketing crew needs your help: e-

mail signature format, 2004).

Education and enrollment

Human resources management: The internal branding begins in the hiring

process, which, along with online marketing and sales and the entire online culture the

company embraces, happens in large part online (JetBlue employee, 2004). After the

initial online application, a one-on-one interview is conducted. The next stage is a group

interview that is labeled BlueReview and is designed to check the social interaction skills

of the applicant. The JetBlue employee emphasizes that this group interview was much

less formal than a comparable one at American Eagle, the company she was employed at

before (JetBlue employee, 2004). Each newly hired employee is then invited to a training

camp in Orlando, Florida or New York, where s/he learns more about the five basic

values of JetBlue (Safety, Caring, Integrity, Fun, and Passion) as well as all technical


21/35

True Blue 21

knowledge and basic information about the company such as history, fleet size, type of

planes etc. (JetBlue employee, 2004). As a result, even in the event that the candidate is

not hired, the applicant as a potential customer has at least experienced the JetBlue brand

and culture. And in the event of a hiring, the new employee is immersed in the corporate

culture from the very beginning s/he is brandnew. Like Southwest Airlines, JetBlue

does not automatically consider experience at another airline a plus: I would call it a

neutral, not a pro or a con, says Stabile (Flint, 2003): For anybody who is going to have

direct contact with customers, we look for a minimum of two years in some kind of

customer-service-related environment. Ideally, we look for people who have worked in

the kind of environment where the nature of the service they provide is at the kind of

level that would be of interest to us, somebody, for example, who has worked at a Ritz

Carlton or at a Nordstroms [department store] (Flint, 2003).

JetBlues focus on people extends to its employees, with the idea that employee

satisfaction leads to customer satisfaction. The company has a flexible, visionary

workforce, and it has undertaken some truly innovative policies to ensure this. JetBlues

goal is to accommodate employee preferences, such as time off and flex time, while at

the same time maintaining workforce productivity and keeping costs down. Using a

newly developed reservation system, 500 of the airlines nearly 600 reservations agents

work from their homes on a part-time basis and are enjoying this freedom: We have

probably the happiest reservations agents in the industry, declares vice-president

customer service Nigel Adams (Donnelly, 2004). JetBlue also uses automated airport

check-in kiosks-sparingly. Adams says, We know a lot of customers enjoy interfacing

with our crewmembers and so were going to use kiosks in an innovative way to

supplement service, not to just reduce headcount (Donnelly, 2004). Some 27% of

JetBlue reservations are handled by the reservation staff, with 70% come via JetBlue.com

(Donnelly, 2004). Although the airline does not pay a commission, agencies provide 3%

of sales, according to the vice president of sales and business development Tim Claydon

(Donnelly, 2004). Pilots are hired on individual five-year contracts, as are all FAA-

licensed employees such as dispatchers and technicians. Contracts automatically renew

unless either side elects not to, in which case three months notice is provided. Contract

employees receive stock options and layoff protection and only may be terminated for


22/35

True Blue 22

cause. Pilots are paid on a productivity model: 70 hours guaranteed per month (Donnelly,

2004).

The workforce is nonunion and the company clearly wants to stay that way,

although Stabile says, We really dont position ourselves as an antiunion organization.

Our belief is [that] if in fact our crewmembers were to feel that they needed a union to

represent their interest, we as management absolutely have failed (Flint, 2003). All of

JetBlues 4,000 crewmembers, as all employees are called, participate in profit-sharing

and 15% of pre-tax profit is set aside for this purpose (BlueBenefits, 2004), which

according to Stabile translated for example in 2002 into 15.55% of pay (Flint, 2003). The

company offers a stock participation program enabling employees to acquire stock at a

15% discount (BlueBenefits, 2004). Pay scales are not at the bottom of the airlines peer

group and JetBlue reviews compensation scales annually, adjusting salaries upward for

its in-flight and reservation staff (Flint, 2003). In addition, the company provides

recognition awards to all functions for excellent performances (JetBlue employee, 2004).

Internal communications media/vehicles: JetBlue employs a variety of media and

vehicles to convey the brand idea to its employees. In accordance with the marketing and

sales communication that largely takes place on the Internet, most of the intra-

organizational communication uses online channels. With exception of in-flight

crewmembers and technical ramp staff, each JetBlue employee is equipped with a laptop:

even the pilots use one in the cockpit. All employees are expected to check their email

every morning to read news or instructions (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). Other vehicles that

convey the brand to employees include:

- BluePrint(the mission statement of the company that functions as a

preamble in all publications (JetBlue employee, 2004)

- BlueBook, a comprehensive manual for in-flight crewmembers, including

information on guidelines, practices, work ethics, philosophy, benefits

and more. With the companys expansion, the BlueBook is being

extended, too, and increasingly formalized. The company addresses that

blatantly: JetBlues philosophy has always been to hire and develop the

best people. When our airline was first launched, we believed that

selecting people who are committed to the Values was all that was


23/35

True Blue 23

needed and we steered away from a formalized Crewmember rule book

or policy manual. Near the time when we began final preparation for our

first aircraft delivery, we realized we needed to define our expectations

with just a little more detail and that gave rise to the 13 page BlueBook

that was distributed at orientations since 1999. Well, time marches on

and weve since grown from the several hundred Crewmembers [] to

over 6,000, with many more to come! (Crewmember Blue Book, 2004)

- BlueNotes, a regular newsletter from the executives to all employees,

including news, extra information materials, awards, event

announcements, and business literacy topics. The messages are signed by

David & Dave, which stands for David Neeleman, the CEO, and Dave

Barger, the President & COO of JetBlue.

Given the vast media coverage of JetBlue, it is essential for the company that

employees are always informed ahead of the public. JetBlue wants flight members who,

when for instance confronted with JetBlues decision to serve Sacramento, are prepared

to answer the passengers question (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). JetBlue wants to avoid an

ivory tower, which requires that employees are always the first to know

(Edmondson-Jones, 2004). The interviewed JetBlue employee confirms that s/he feels

very well-informed and that generally each employee knows about company events at

least one day before the public (JetBlue employee, 2004). This policy is proved by a

look at the internal correspondence: Good day Crewmembers, This morning, as is

always our intention, we wanted you to be the first to know that JetBlue submitted

applications to the US department of Transportation seeking authority to serve

international destinations [] (BlueNotes, 2004)

By both anticipating and echoing public issues to the employee base, JetBlue

practices the classic saying: PR begins at home. It proves to be a positive side effect of

this approach that the company can not only use its internal branding efforts to utilize

employees for public contacts, it can also market the internal branding strategy itself as

an issue that is of public interest and an essential component of the airlines public

positioning: A happy home is good PR. A content analysis of all press articles used for

this paper shows that the exceptional employee commitment to the brand is indeed


24/35

True Blue 24

positively mentioned in almost all texts (Donnelly, 2004: Flint, 2003: Gahilan, 2003;

Labetti, 2002). The fact that JetBlue is an employer of choice makes JetBlue the airline

of choice (BlueNotes, 2003).

JetBlues other major tool to enhance internal brand commitment (Vallaster & De

Chernatony, 2003) is interpersonal communication. On a monthly basis, the company

hosts open forums at New Yorks JFK airport (the company is headquartered in Forrest

Hills, NY) with Q&A sessions for which no questions are submitted or edited ahead of

time. In fact, every topic of concern can be addressed, nothing is censored, and the

meeting is off-limits, as the vice president of corporate communications describes it

(Edmondson-Jones, 2004). Also, each of JetBlues three vice presidents (sales/ business

development, people, and corporate communications) has adopted one of the carriers

major hubs (for instance Long Beach) and hosts an open forum at the airports with local

staff on a quarterly basis. Further, there is a company picnic every summer and a big

party for all JetBlue employees once a year (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). In addition to this,

David Neeleman, the CEO, is very active in the internal branding efforts. The employee

describes him as being very visible, a fact which s/he understands as typical for

JetBlue (JetBlue employee, 2004). It is common and happens at least once a month (in

fact, the JetBlue website says once a week) that the CEO boards a plane to experience the

crews performance in person and get in contact with employees (and customers). He

shakes hands, joins the crew, makes announcements, serves customers, hands out snacks,

and afterwards takes the whole crew out to dinner (JetBlue employee, 2004).

Evaluation

As for the measurement of the internal branding strategys success, JetBlue is one

of the few airlines in the aviation industry that actually conducts annual employee

surveys. Others would not dare, assumes Edmondson-Jones (2004), because of the harsh

results they would have to expect. In consequent congruence with the marketing wording,

the employee surveys are named the same as those for customers on the airlines Internet

site -- Speak-up surveys. The surveys are used for benchmarking and want to identify

issues of employees concern, but also test to what extent employees feel empowered to

live the five corporate values (Edmondson-Jones, 2004). As an example, Edmondson-

Jones recalls the important role these surveys played in detecting misbehavior at the


25/35

True Blue 25

groundfloor, that is, the lower management levels. Because the company had quickly

promoted many newly hired people who in most cases lacked extensive team

management experience, it often happened that supervisors misinterpreted their role.

JetBlue heard about the complaints through the Speak-up surveys and introduced

Principles of Leadership, a two-day training program for managers, to hone employees

managerial skills and solve the problem (Edmondson-Jones, 2004).

The Speak-up survey is conducted annually in cooperation with the market

research firm Market Metrix (BlueNotes, 2003). After the results are released to all

employees, department heads conduct meetings to share the results pertaining to the

employees specific area. They also review their preliminary action plans to address the

areas of opportunity identified through the survey response. Furthermore, the meetings

are designed to provoke additional feedback. The survey design is kept somewhat simple

and easy to understand: The scores indicate the percentage of crewmembers who

responded Agree to each question. The overall company score in 2003 was 78, the

score in 2002 was 77 (BlueNotes, 2003). According to JetBlues partner Market Metrix, a

comparable score in the hospitality industry is 70 and the world class index 81

(BlueNotes, 2003). The comparison with the hospitality industry is chosen because, as

mentioned before and JetBlue stresses, no other airline runs comparable surveys

(BlueNotes, 2003). More than 81% of all crewmembers responded to the survey in 2003,

from only 46% in 2002 (BlueNotes, 2003). The BlueNotes state on behalf of David &

Dave in the casual and frank style that is typical for both internal and external messages:

[Still] it clearly means that so many of you care enough to take the time to provide us

with feedback although we remain perplexed why over 800 Crewmembers failed to

Speak Up (BlueNotes, 2003). As in all messages, the executives consistently craft the

JetBlue vision: We believe our action plans, in response to your feedback, will

continue to help us create a world class work environment as our goal is to clearly be

considered the airline of choice for those in the airline industry (BlueNotes, 2003).

JetBlues internal branding strategy and how it relates to the theoretical

framework shall be summarized in the following chart:


26/35

True Blue 26

Table: Internal Branding Framework

Conclusion

This paper sought to provide an overview of internal branding as a burgeoning strategic

corporate communications tool by measuring JetBlues coprorate practice against a

historically constructed theoretical background. Drawing on both primary and secondarydata, and further elaborating on all aspects of JetBlues internal branding practice through

in-depth interviews, the paper analyzed both to what extent public, managerial, and

employee perception and commitment to the corporate brand differ and if there is a gap

between the airlines practice and theoretical suggestions.


27/35

True Blue 27

It is remarkable that all sources showed a strong consensus in describing the

JetBlue brand. The managerial and employee responses, even in their wording, were

almost exactly the same, which can be taken as either proof for succesful indoctrination

or simply a sign of an effective internal branding. Even if the company does more to

protect its brand than it would admit, the extent of individual freedom and elusive space

for organizational citizenship behavior (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1990) is enormous. Far

away from any rigid formalization or a phony family culture, JetBlue may be considered

as one out of the growing number of organizations that have come to utilize the trend of

new tribalism for their own needs and increasingly design their organization as a social

network (Guericke, 2004) their employees can connect with by sharing the values of its

brand promise. The JetBlue experience offers much space for individually interpreted

roles, yet is always grounded upon a virtual idea of the brand that is common sense

among all crewmembers and therefore does not need brand plans to be filled with life.

The airline is a value network rather than a formalized organization. This organizational

model seems to be well-chosen given both the companys mission to start an airline

from scratch (as the website slogan states), the companys desired image of being the

lightest airline in the country (Edmondson-Jones, 2004), and the volatility of the airline

business in general. Further research may deepen the understanding of this phenomenon

and examine to what extent the membership in value networks such as JetBlue

determine the value system of individuals. It will also be interesting to see how this

small worldnetwork, which allows each of its nodes to be and feel central, will handle

the change that emerges because of expansion: The airline will have to deal with an

organizational periphery, and internal branding will have to reach people for whom the

motivation to link to the organizations values is less intrinsic. The formalization of

communications and behavior might be inevitable, which also may endanger the informal

culture that has always been at the very heart of the JetBlue experience.

With respect to JetBlue, both the brand idealism versus materialism and the

internal versus external focus debates that were outlined in the introduction lose their

antagonism. The airline is an example for the integration of both. In a sophisticated

system of mutual feedbacks, the brand experience is hinged on the branding of

employees experience with customers. The brand ideal shifts to the employee level as an


28/35

True Blue 28

idealized brand conception that makes employees materialize the brand promise in their

very behavior. This enables JetBlue to run a brand whose ideal is maintained by its

materialization and whose materialization is driven by strong ideals. JetBlue is true

blue: What you get is what you see. The brand perception equals the brand value,

employee satisfaction equals customer satisfaction, and image and essence, promise and

delivery is one and the same, integrated vertically (across all organizational levels) and

laterally (across all service levels -- from reservation, check-in to flying -- towards the

customer). JetBlue seems to be both the same idea and experience for customers,

managers, and employees. Thus, the initial quote from Getrude Stein at the beginning of

this text can truly be applied as a blue print for sensemaking within this organization,

integrating all three audiences to make the brand the main performance driver: JetBlue is

JetBlue is JetBlue.


29/35

True Blue 29

References

Aaker, D. A. (1996).Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000).Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.

Albrecht, K. (1994). The northbound train: finding the purpose, setting the

direction, shaping the future of your organization. New York: Amacom.

Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. New York: Sage Publications.

Arnold, D. (1992). The handbook of brand management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (1997). Managing corporate image and corporate

reputation.Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695-702.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?

European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8), 972-997.

Baum, J. R., Locke, E., & Kirkpatrick, S. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of

vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985).Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York:

Harper Row. Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 128-137.

Black, J. A., & Champion, D. J. (1976).Methods and issues in social research. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.

BlueBenefits (2004). E-mail from JetBlue Airways/BlueBenefits to BlueCrew and LiveTV

Crew, February 13, 2004. Available through JetBlue employee.

BlueNotes (2003).E-mail from JetBlue Airways/BlueNotes to all employees, May 23,

2003. Available through JetBlue employee.

BlueNotes (2004).JetBlue plans international flights to Dominican Republic and new

service to Puerto Rico. E-mail from JetBlueAirways/BlueNotes to all employees,

March 8, 2004. Available through JetBlue employee.

Blumenthal, D. (2003).Internal Branding: does it improve employees quality of life?

Institute for Brand Leadership. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from the World Wide

Web, http://www.instituteforbrandleadership.org/InternalBranding.pdf.
http://www.instituteforbrandleadership.org/InternalBranding.pdfhttp://www.instituteforbrandleadership.org/InternalBranding.pdf


30/35

True Blue 30

Board, T. C. (2001).Engaging employees through your brand. Washington, D.C.: The

Conference Board.

Bose, S. (2001). Develop internal branding to woo talent.Business Standard, 4, 22-25.

Cannon-Bowers, J. E., Salas, E., and Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models

in expert team decision-making. In J. Castellan, (Ed.),Individual and Group

Decision-Making: Current Issues, Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Charland, B. (2001).A new prescription for internal branding; the role of employees in

brand definition and promotion. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, March 7,

2004, http://www.golinharris.com/resources/article_vol1_charland.asp.

Cialdini, R. (1995).Influence: science and practice. 4th edition. New York: Harper

Collins.

Clevenger, T. (1996). Can one not communicate? A conflict of models. New York: Sage

Publications.

Crewmember Blue Book (2004).E-mail from JetBlue Airways/Technical Publications to

BlueInflight, March, 2, 2004. Available through JetBlue employee.

Davis, C. (2002). Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate

brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (2/3), 144-158.

Davis, S. M. (2003).Brand asset management. Driving profitable growth through your

brands. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Day, J., Dean, A. A., et al. (1998). Relationship marketing: its key role in

entrepreneurship.Long Range Planning, 31(6), 828-837.

De Chernatony, L. (2000). Developing corporate brands through considering internal and

external stakeholders. Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (3), 268-274.

De Chernatony, L. (2001). A model for strategically building brands.Journal of Brand

Management 9 (1), 32-44.

De Chernatony, L., & DallOlmo Riley, F. (1997). The chasm between managers and

consumers views of brands: the experts' perspectives.Journal of Strategic

Marketing, 5 (2), 89-104.

De Chernatony, L., & DallOlmo Riley, F. (2000). The service brand as relationships

builder.British Journal of Management, 11 (June), 137-150.
http://www.golinharris.com/resources/article_vol1_charland.asphttp://www.golinharris.com/resources/article_vol1_charland.asp


31/35

True Blue 31

De Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services. Characteristics to

develop successful services brands.Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 645-

669.

De Chernatony L., Drury, S., & and Segal-Horn, S. (2003) Building a services brand:

stages, people and orientations. The Service Industries Journal, 23 (3), 1-21.

Donath, B. (2001). Branding works for internal audience too.Marketing News, 35 (7), 7-

8.

Donnelly, S. B. (2004). Friendlier skies. Time, 263 (4), 39.

Edmondson-Jones, G. (2004).Interview with Gareth Edmondson-Jones, Vice President

of Corporate Communications at JetBlue Airways. Conducted on the phone,

March 19, 2004. Recorded by the author.

Eisenberg, E. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication.

Communication Monographs, 51, 227-239.

Farquhar, P.H. (2000). Brand waves: building momentum throughout the ownership

cycle.Marketing Management, 9 (2), 14-21.

Faust, B., & Bethge, B. (2003). Looking inward: how internal branding and

communications affect cultural change.Design Management Journal, 14 (3), 56-

63. Flint, P. (2003). Its a blue world after all.Air Transport World, 40 (6), 36.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996).Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Frook, J. E. (2001). Burnish your brand from the inside.B 2 B, 1, 22.

Gahilan, A. T. (2003). The amazing Jetblue. Fortune Small Business, 13(4), 51-53.

Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. (2003). The impact of human resources management

and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56 (2),

383-395. Getting it right on the inside: the challenge of internal branding (2003).

Strategic Direction, 19 (10), 10-13.

Grassl, W. (1999). The reality of brands: towards an ontology of marketing. The

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58 (2), 313-359.

Guericke, K. (2004). Online social and online business networks. Speech at the German

American Business Association, San Francisco, March 16, 2004. Recorded by the


32/35

True Blue 32

author. Harris, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate

brand performance.European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4), 441-456.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate

brand.Harvard Business Review, February 2001, 128-134.

Hatfield, J. (1999). Brand new world.Accountancy, 123 (1268), 50-51.

Herman, R. E.,& Gioia, J. L. (2000).How to become an employer of choice. New York:

Oak Hill Pub.

Is JetBlues reputation grounded after its PR debacle? (2003). PR News, 59 (38), 1.

JetBlue Employee (2004).Interview with an in-flight crewmember of JetBlue

Airways. Conducted in a personal meeting, Los Angeles, March 13, 2004.

Recorded by the author.

Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment

mechanisms in utopian communities.American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management: new approaches to creating

and evaluating brand equity. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity.Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22. Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand

management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Knapp, D. E. (2001). The brand mindset: five essential strategies for building brand

advantage throughout your company. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Knox, S., & Maklan, S. (2001). Competing on value. Bridging the gap between brand

and customer value. London: F. T. Pitman.

Kotler, P. (1997).Marketing management. 9th edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Labetti, K. S. (2002). Motivating a blue streak. Potentials, 35 (9), 75-76.

LePla, F. J., & Parker, L. M. (1999).Brand driven: The route to integrated branding

through leadership. New York: Kogan Page.

Ludlow, C., & Schmidt, K. (2002).Inclusive branding. The why and how of a holistic

approach to brands. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Macrae, C. (1996). The brand chartering handbook: how organizations learn living

scripts. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.


33/35

True Blue 33

Marketing crew needs your help: e-mail signature format (2004).E-mail from Eric

Brinker, Manager Product and Brand Development JetBlue Airways, to all

employees, February, 6, 2004. Available through JetBlue employee.

Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside.Harvard Business Review, 80 (19), 99.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior:

the importance of the employees perspective.Academy of Management Journal,

37 (6), 1543-1567.

McDonald, D. (2001). HR: earning its place at the table. World at work Journal, 10 (1),

56-62.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, In

B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.

12, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Peters, T. (1999). The brand you 50 or fifty ways to transform yourself from an

'employee' into a brand that shouts distinction, commitment, and passion! New

York: Knopf.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1992).In search of excellence: lessons from Americas

best-run companies. New York: Harper Row.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York:

Harper & Row.

Rogers, E. M. (1995).Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press.

Ruch, W. (2000). How to keep Gen X employees from becoming X-employees. Training

and Development, 40, 13-23.

Singel, R. (2003). JetBlue shared passenger data. Wired, September 18, 2003. Retrieved

from the World Wide Web, March 9, 2004,

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60489,00.html.

Stamler, B. (2001). Companies are developing brand messages as a way to inspire

loyalty.New York Times, C.5.

Snyder, N. H., Dowd, J. B., Jr., & Houghton, D. M. (1994). Vision, values, and courage:

leadership for quality management. New York: Free Press.

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. (1997). A European view on corporate identity: an interview

with Wally Olins.Journal of Management Inquiry, 6 (4), 330-339.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60489,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60489,00.html


34/35

True Blue 34

Thomson, K., De Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L., & Khan, S. (1999). The buy-in

benchmark: How staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business

performance.Journal of Marketing Management, 8 (15), 819-835.

Tosti, D. T., & Stotz, R. D. (2001). Brand: building your brand from the inside out.

Marketing Management, 10, 28-33.

Vallaster, C., & De Chernatony, L. (2003). Services branding: the role of leadership

during the internal brand building process in multicultural organizations.

Birmingham, UK: Birmingham Business School.

Walsh, J. (1998). HR managers set to drive through big McMakeover. People

Management, 4 (19), 16.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D., (1967). Pragmatics of human communication.

New York: W. W. Norton.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weick, K. E. (2001).Making sense of the organization. Oxford, MA: Blackwell

Business.

Woods, B. (2001). Harvesting human capital. Chief Executive, July, 2001, 12-18.

Zimberoff, L. (2004).Interview with Larissa Zimberoff, Marketing Manager at Gap.com.

Conducted March, 16, 2004 at the Gap headquarters in San Francisco. Recorded

by the author.


35/35

True Blue 35

Appendix (interview questionnaire)

1. Which sentence would best describe the brand for you?

2. What is the particular brand promise your company delivers?

3. What does it undertake to deliver it?

4. Is there a difference between the way the brand is perceived internally and the

way it is perceived externally?

5. How important is it for the company that the employees understand the brand?

6. 6. Does the notion of Internal branding appear in any corporate communications

document?

7. In your eyes, what is the difference between internal branding and corporate

identity?

8. Who is in charge of internal branding (or similar) efforts?

9. When was an internal branding (or similar) strategy implemented?

10. Who is managing this strategy?

11. How was it implemented?

12. Which media/vehicles are employed to communicate it?

13. Which is the most important medium?

14. How does the company measure the success of its internal branding efforts?

15. Which role do public relations and external media appearances play?

16. What would you consider the biggest threat to your brand, both internally and

externally?

17. As the company continues to grow -- do you think employees will still commit to

the brand and identify with its values?

True Blue Branding

Documents

Transcript of True Blue Branding