? (Emotional aspects) Culture?? (& Vision) Self image (internal)? Organization? Symbol? Positioning? (Functional aspects) Presentation? (1996) advances the Brand Identity Planning System comprising product, the organization, a person and a symbol perspectives whilst Aaker and Joachimsthaler «s (2000) Band Leadership Model augments Aaker» s (1996) work via the inclusion of «brand essence» and «elaboration of brand identity». Building on earlier work (de Chernatony, 1999), de Chernatony (2006) regards vision, culture, positioning, personality, relationships and presentation as components of brand identity whilst Kapferer «s (2004) Hexagonal Identity Prism model conceptualizes brand identity via facets of personality, culture, self-image, reflection, relationship and physique.these frameworks have been widely referenced in the academic literature they have not been subject to empirical investigation. From a scale development perspective, the current frameworks are problematic. It is unclear how some dimensions e.g. »Product« or »organisation« (Aaker, 1996) could be scaled given they are so broadly conceived. It is also debatable if some dimensions such as »elaboration of brand identity« (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000) or »presentation« (De Chernatony, 2006) are activities or constructs with the former being unsuitable for scaling. The logic underpinning some frameworks is also open to discussion. Kapferer (2004) considers self-image and reflection facets of brand identity. These consumer based constructs appear to be at odds with the consensus of opinion that brand identity is an »input« (Cf. de Chernatony, 2006). These scholars » frameworks appear to have been generically developed. Whilst de Chernatony and Aaker «s work may have some service brand applicability as they account for internal stakeholders and the organization / symbol respectively these frameworks, in their entirety, do not account for the distinctive challenges service branding brings. This specifically relates to the pivotal role employees play for service brands. It is also unclear how applicable these frameworks are in B2B markets which also present unique marketing challenges.brand identity research is starting to emerge within the B2B literature. Beverland, Napoli, and Lindgreen (2007) draw on Aaker and Joachimsthaler »s Global Brand Leadership Framework to postulate an Industrial Global Brand Leadership Framework which is intermittently referred to as« brand identity ». These scholars contest brand identity is built around five capabilities. These are relational support, coordinating network players, leveraging brand architecture, adding value and quantifying the intangible. Brand identity was regarded in this study as «the key words or phrases that sum up the core values ??of the brand». Equating brand identity with words or phrases simplifies the construct's complexity and detracts from its rich and multidimensional nature. In another study, Beverland, Napoli, and Yakimova (2007) identify key attributes business marketers can use to build a strong brand identity. These attributes include product, services, logistics, adaptation and advice which are referred to as the «basis», «forms» or «pillars» of brand identity. Arguably such an approach confuses brand identity building and brand positioning which the branding literature regards as distinct but related constructs where the former influences the latter. Instead, Beverl...
