Identity and image In spite of the growing attention given to identity and image there is no definitive definition for

these pseudo-psychological terms. Identities and images are volatile social constructions that, although seemingly 'objective', base their existence and significance largely on the interpretative capabilities and preferences of their audiences (Christensen and Askegaard, 2001). Although literature abounds with different definitions of corporate image and corporate identity, there are some commonalities. We find a sense of convergence around the idea that corporate identity is a set of symbolic representations, sometimes organizational behaviour (Abratt, 1989; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). Corporate identity can then be seen as an assembly of clues, or as Abratt (1989) puts it: 'by which an audience can recognise the company and distinguish it from others and which can be used to represent or symbolise the company'. On the other hand, we find corporate image typically viewed as the total impression of an organization that it makes on its various audiences (Bernstein, 1992). Corporate image, in other words, describes the reception of an organization in its surroundings (Christensen and Askegaard, 2001). Identity, however, is the visual manifestation of image as conveyed through the organization's logo, products, services, buildings and all other tangible bits of evidence created by the organization to communicate to its various stakeholders (Argenti, 1998). Some researchers see these definitions as opposite ends of the same communication process (Margulies, 1997). Others suggests that identity is what is created and sent from an organization to its external world, with image as something which emerges outside of the organization's boundaries and is eventually 'sent' back to the organization via external analysis (Stacks, 2002). This perspective is seen in models that depict the interplay between corporate identity and corporate image to the extent that they allow some overlap between different audiences (Balmer, 1995). Today, however, the dividing lines are becoming more blurred between senders and receivers of messages and, consequently, a clear distinction between inside and outside organizational boundaries is increasingly problematic to uphold. Employees, for instance, interact with 'outsiders' and are also members of external groups that encounter organizational symbols in their lives outside their workplace. It is this partial inclusion within organizations that arguably has led to organizations recognizing that workforces also belong to multiple memberships of groups within the workplace that form impressions of the organization, a fact that has been explicitly recognized in the consolidation of corporate communications functions in a number of industries (Cheney and Christensen, 1999). -257Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication Information: Book Title: Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public Relations: Pure and Applied. Contributors: Sandra M. Oliver - editor. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 257. Conversely, and of equal importance, many organizations have come to realize that organizational practices which traditionally have been thought of as strictly internal, e.g.

organizational structure, use of resources, ethical issues and the practice of leadership are now becoming themes in public discourse, and thus become part of the communication that the organization, sometimes unwillingly, carries on within its surroundings. When customers start boycotting organizations that function according to unethical principles and when employees begin choosing their workplace on the basis of its reputation in society traditional distinctions between internal and external with respect to identity and image break down in terms of stakeholder theory (PC) and mass communication theory (audiences) (Cheney and Christensen, 1999). Indeed, the actions and statements of top managers simultaneously affect organizational identity and image (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Reputation The rationale for acquiring a favourable corporate reputation is that it is likely to mean that an individual is more predisposed to buy a company's products or services (Van Riel, 1995) or as Fombrum (in Argenti, 1998) states, 'Reputation is a source of competitive advantage.' Equally, a well-managed and carefully nurtured corporate reputation can be stored over time to the extent that banked goodwill cushions the adverse consequences of bad publicity (O'Rourke, 1997), a view supported by research in reputation which often emphasizes the historical nature of reputation formation. Herbig and Mulewicz (1995), for example, define reputation as the 'estimation of the consistency over time of an attribute of an entity based on its willingness to perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion'. However, like image and identity and despite numerous attempts at semantic and meaningful clarification, there remains no unambiguous definition of corporate reputation acceptable to the communication industry. The term is defined in the Oxford dictionary as 'what is generally said or believed about a person or thing', but over the years, practitioners and writers have adopted different, sometimes even contradictory, definitions for corporate reputation (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). Academics such as Fombrun and Van Riel emphasize the effects of this ambiguity, by suggesting in their writings that the lack of a single common definition explains partly why although corporate reputations are ubiquitous, they remain relatively understudied. Many early writers concentrated on the concept of corporate image in a way that appears synonymous with corporate reputation. Martineau (1958) regarded the term image as the sum of functional qualities and psychological attributes that exist in the mind of the consumer, while Boulding (1973) defined image as subjective knowledge. Later, writers like Dowling (1993) and Dichter (1985) saw the terms corporate image and corporate reputation as identical, defining image as 'the total impression of the company'. Finally, Ind's (1997) definition of corporate image as 'the picture that an audience has of an organization through the accumulation of all received messages' illustrates that the author sees no distinction between the term corporate image and corporate reputation. Recently, several authors (Balmer and Greyser, 2003; Grunig et al., 2002) have considered the terms corporate reputation and corporate image as separate concepts -258-

whereby organizations should be focusing on the management of corporate reputation and not of corporate image: when, for example, Scott Cutlip says 'We in PR must be concerned with that good, old fashioned word reputation - not image', he fails to consider key monitoring and control factors such as critical path analysis and integrated programme evaluation. Generally, it is accepted that the concepts of reputation and image are interrelated and that there is a dynamic relationship between the two, even if measurement is difficult as, for example, in Gotsi and Wilson's (2001) statement 'A corporate reputation is a stakeholder's overall evaluation of a company over time. The evaluation is based on the stakeholder's direct experience with the company, any other forms of communication and symbolism that provides information about the company's actions.' Towards excellence Grunig et al. call their theory of best practice the Excellence Model. But like perceptions of identity, image and reputation, how is excellence defined, particularly in relation to an organization? Before Grunig et al.'s study there were various attempts at defining excellence depending on the context. Hobbs (1987) identified excellent companies by measuring return on sales and return on owner's investment. However, Carroll (1983) criticized the use of financial measures for identifying excellence in management by pointing out that factors such as proprietary technology, market dominance, control of critical raw material, and national culture and policy also affect financial performance regardless of the excellence of management. Kanter (1989) on the other hand defines excellence as innovation, whilst Hickman and Silva (1984) suggest that each organization creates its own unique criteria for excellence and then suggest how leadership can help the organization meet those criteria. However, no one set of criteria can be used to identify every effective organization (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). As a result, excellence in management may produce different results, for each organization defines its own criteria for success. In Grunig's excellence model (1984) he went much further, suggesting twelve factors that contribute to the excellence of an organization to include: human resources (HR); organic structure; intrapreneurship; symmetrical communication systems; leadership; strong, participative cultures; strategic planning; social responsibility; support for women and minorities; quality as a priority; effective operational systems; a collaborative societal culture. These factors were standard practice in UK-based multinational organizations in the 1960s and 1970s. No strategic PR plan would have got through the board had any factor been missing. The importance of the excellence model lies in its aid as an industry focus, if not a universal standard. In this study of the BBC, Grunig's factors of excellence are interrelated with definitions of image, identity and reputation through the context of three specific issues namely, the licence fee; the use of commercial trails by the BBC and the impact of the memoirs of the former director general of the BBC to see how, or if at all, the BBC could be said to be functioning as an 'excellent' organization. The importance of building relationships through their various stakeholders has increasingly exercised the hearts and minds of the BBC as the arrival of digital technology offers yet more opportunity and threat for fragmentation of audiences. Furthermore, changes to the United Kingdom's regulatory framework

-259-

Discussion and conclusion As seen from the findings of the Hill and Knowlton study, and in the preceding review of literature, corporate reputation and its management has become increasingly important to firms of all types and sizes. Reputation management is thus a topic of great importance to corporations, and many other organizations and their leaders in this new century. New buzzwords may well include: correlation, CEOs, communication and connectivity insofar as reputation is concerned. While the old executive issues of managing resources, capital, labour, and technology will always be there, alongside these traditional managerial issues will be that of managing the corporate brand. Whatever else CEOs do, or do not do, this is the most important task of CEOs in today's environs. Why? Because the perceptions, beliefs, and feelings of stakeholders (including the all-important customers) impacts on the current and on-going success of the company. Surely, these perceptions, beliefs, and feelings need to be targeted by effective integrated corporate and marketing communication?Reputation - at least in presentational and rhetorical terms - has become part of the warp and woof of everyday corporate activity. Based on the theoretical evidence presented, and that of a limited empirical nature, corporate reputation is here to stay. It will be a dominant theme of corporations in the twenty-first century, together with its sub-themes of corporate identity and the measurement of corporate image among stakeholders who could impact organizational performance. It is not enough to have a corporate reputation, such reputation must also be planned, managed, and capable of evaluation. In the mind of any reader must be misgivings. Maybe the earnest statements of behavioural intent found on the websites and literature of corporations are no more than Machiavellianism translated to the twenty-first century, with all the believability of political rhetoric. Reputation is, in the end, no more and no less than a reflection of what is believed to be ethical in a particular society at a specific point in time. The fact that so many fall below even stated expectations is a problem for students and business practitioners to ponder over.This chapter commenced with a metaphor. I asked readers to imagine that corporate reputation was like a flag, and then asked three questions: 1 Where on the flagpole would the flag be positioned? The best estimate may be -274Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication Information: Book Title: Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public Relations: Pure and Applied. Contributors: Sandra M. Oliver - editor. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2004. Page Numb that corporate reputation is somewhere close to half mast or below. It is reality for some corporations and rhetoric for others. And in between, perhaps - the rest drift to and fro. 2 What colour would the flag be? Rather than bright colours on a pristine white background, corporate reputation may be a somewhat unwashed or rather grubby grey. 3 What condition would the flag be in at this point in time? Not in pristine condition, perhaps a little bedraggled and torn.

The responsibility for improvement, and the need for further research, is clear. NOTE This chapter is dependent on material derived from various sources and we acknowledge the kind permission of Harris Interactive, Hill and Knowlton, Marsh Limited, Palgrave Publishers, Yankelovich Partners, and Corporate Reputation Review and Forum, to utilize and cite some of the materials in this chapter. REFERENCES Bennis, W. (1997) 'Becoming a leader of leaders', in R. Gibson (ed.), Rethinking the Future, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Brand Finance (2000) 'Brand Valuation' June, p. 3. Czinkota, M. R. and Ronkainen, I. A. (1995) International Marketing, 4th edn, Fort Worth: The Dryden Press. Dunning, J. H. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Ettore, B. (1996) 'The care and feeding of a corporate reputation', Management Review, 85(6), 39-43. Fisher, K. L. (2000) 'All a broker needs to succeed', Research, July, 41-5, (www.researchmagazine.com) Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) 'What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy', Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-58. Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Guardian (2002) 1 March, p. 5. Harris Interactive (2001) 'The Hill and Knowlton/ Harris Interactive International Corporate Reputation Report: C-Suite Executives on the Value of Corporate Reputation, the Internet and Reputation Influencers', May. Harrison, S. (1997) 'Corporate social responsibility: linking behaviour with reputation', in P. J. Kitchen (ed.), Public Relations: Principles and Practice, London: International Thomson, pp. 128-47. Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995) 'The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success', Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 1-6. Kitchen, P. J. (1997) Public relations: Principles and Practice, London: Thompson. Kitchen, P. J. and Laurence, A. (2003) 'Corporate reputation: an eight-country analysis', Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3).

Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (1999) 'A multicountry comparison of the drive for integrated marketing communications', Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), 21-38. Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (2001a) Raising the Corporate Umbrella: Corporate Communications in the 21st Century, London: Palgrave. Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (2001b) 'A comparative analysis of integrated corporate and product brand communications', Journal of Global Competitiveness, 9(1), 438-41. Koch, J. (1994) 'In search of excellent management', Journal of Management Studies, 31(5), 681-99. Machiavelli, N. (1995) The Prince, tr. G. Bull, London: Penguin, p. 55. Marsh Topic Letter (2001) 'Social and Ethical Risk', London: Marsh Limited, www.marsh.com -275Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com Publication Information: Book Title: Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public Relations: Pure and Applied. Contributors: Sandra M. Oliver - editor. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: London. Publication Year: 2004. Page Number: 275.