The shared management and ownership of corporate brands: the case of Hilton

The dual institutional ownership and management of corporate brands is an under- researched organisational phenomenon. The authors' examination of the Hilton hotel brand, during a period of joint ownership, revealed a discrepancy between brand promise and delivery. This failure is attributed to a narrow conceptualisation of corporate brand management: an undue emphasis on corporate identity; a failure to align corporate identity with the corporate brand covenant; undue prominence being accorded to the trappings of corporate branding (corporate communications and visual identity) and insufficient attention being given to the substance of corporate brand management (calibrating brand promise with brand quality, consistency and delivery). In theoretical terms it is concluded that there is bilateral dependence between corporate identity and corporate brand identity; they are mutually reliant. Whereas corporate brands have their roots in corporate identities, the management of corporate brands require the alignment of corporate identity/corporate identities with the corporate brand in a meaningful way. In practical terms, the authors aver that it is imperative that general managers make a distinction between corporate identity (the traits of both organisations) and the corporate brand identity (the promise/covenant that underpin a corporate brand): corporate brand management requires the orchestration of both. The phenomenon of the dual institutional ownership/management of corporate brands requires the meaningful and dynamic calibration of three identity types: the corporate brand identity and the two corporate identities that own, and jointly manage, the corporate brand. Many of the difficulties experienced by the Hilton brand are attributable to a lack of appreciation of the aforementioned.