Description
The purpose of the paper is to examine the service branding process of the historic tourist
attraction, the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten).
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
A study of a service brand process in a cruise context: the perspective of the service employees
Hugo Skaalsvik Bjørn Olsen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hugo Skaalsvik Bjørn Olsen , (2014),"A study of a service brand process in a cruise context: the perspective of the service
employees", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 446 - 461
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-10-2013-0078
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 73 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 241 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative
tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Luisa Andreu, Martina G. Gallarza, (2014),"Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 420-431http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-03-2014-0024
Timothy H. J ung, Elizabeth M. Ineson, Amanda Miller, (2014),"The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism
development: a case study of Mold, Wales", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4
pp. 432-445http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0001
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A study of a service brand process in a
cruise context: the perspective of the
service employees
Hugo Skaalsvik and Bjørn Olsen
Hugo Skaalsvik is an
Assistant Professor
based at Department of
Business and
Administration, Harstad
University College,
Harstad, Norway.
Bjørn Olsen is based at
Business School,
University of Nordland,
Bodø, Norway.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to examine the service branding process of the historic tourist
attraction, the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten).
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative design guided the research and the research
instrument employed was semi-structured in-depth interviews with service employees employed in the
shipping line Hurtigruten ASA.
Findings – The research shows that the long history of the Hurtigruten, the role of leadership and
culture, organising principles and analytical orientation were in?uential factors to the branding process
on the Hurtigruten and that determined the key characteristics of the process, that of a structured
process.
Research limitations/implications – Although, the study is innovative in its orientation, the research
?ndings are restricted to the research context: on the Hurtigruten. However, the inductive approach
makes it possible to conduct follow-up studies including more cruise line carriers.
Practical implications – A set of advices is provided which is bene?cial in making the Hurtigruten an
even stronger brand. One advice is to develop brand messages to be used in market communication
which is built on attractive values to tourists such as Norwegian sea man skills, safety, reliability, comfort
and exoticness.
Social implications – One important social implication is the suggestion to integrate the service
employees in branding processes which may have consequences for employees’ brand commitment
and loyalty.
Originality/value – In the research literature, more research on services branding is called for. Thus,
the study contributes to the extant knowledge on an interesting research ?eld and the value of the study
lies in its in-depth exploration of an important management process, that of services branding.
Keywords Service brand, Qualitative research, Case study research, Hurtigruten,
Norwegian coastal voyage, Service brand process
Paper type Case study
Introduction
This paper contributes to extant knowledge on service branding (Davis, 2007). It explores
the service branding process of the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten), a
high-contact service (Lovelock and Wright, 1999) which is perhaps the best-known tourism
product in Norway. There are four reasons for the choice of a cruise line context. First,
according to Biederman (2008, p.197), the cruise line industry is “in an early stage of
development.” Second, “the cruise line industry is one of the most pro?table of the travel
and tourism sectors” (Biederman, 2008). Third, the cruise industry has been one of the
fastest growing sectors of the international tourism industry (Johnston et al., 2002). Finally,
according to the taxonomy developed by Sundbo (1997), the Hurtigruten ASA is a strategic
organisation, which demonstrates economic importance, size and organisational
complexity. Thus, a study of the service branding process for a cruise line is an appropriate
research context within the tourism system (Weaver, 2007).
Received 24 October 2013
Revised 24 October 2013
26 March 2014
Accepted 8 April 2014
PAGE 446 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 446-461, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-10-2013-0078
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
To examine the service branding process for the Hurtigruten, research must take into
account its history. The Hurtigruten started in July 1893, but rapid growth in tourism
followed the entrance of new and modern cruise ships in the early 1990s. For this reason,
the context of this paper encompasses the two shipping lines that operated at that time: the
Troms Fylkes Dampskipsselskap and the Vesteraalen and Ofoten Dampskipsselskap.
Nevertheless, as the two shipping lines successfully merged in 2006, the research must
also encompass the new shipping line, namely, the Hurtigruten ASA (Appendices 1 and 2).
In Norway, the Hurtigruten is a well-known strongly positioned historic brand in the minds
of many Norwegians. In fact, many Norwegians are proud of the Hurtigruten and its brand
slogan of “the most beautiful sea-voyage on earth” (www.hurtigruten.no). The Hurtigruten
has kept this brand promise by being awarded international tourism prizes several times.
Possessing a famous historic brand name such as the Hurtigruten is bene?cial (Rooney,
1995; Boyle, 2007; Hudson, 2011), especially when the Hurtigruten is challenged by
growing competition from international cruise line carriers. As an example, Crystal Cruises
has offered the product “14 Night Wonders under the Midnight Sun” on the Crystal Serenity,
while Cunard has offered a similar product on the famous Queen Elizabeth 2. Nevertheless,
to become a market leader in explorer cruises, the management of the Hurtigruten has to
plan for, develop and strengthen the brand to become a “power brand,” associated with
satisfaction, quality and value (Gale, 1994). Obviously, to attract more national and
international tourists to travel on the Hurtigruten, the brand is a key asset and strategic
resource (Arslan and Altuna, 2012); and as argued by Urde (1994, p. 20), “the future of
many companies lies in the brands.” This claim is supported by Grönroos (2007), who
argues that a strong, well-positioned and competitive service brand can be viewed as a
guarantee of quality and superior service delivery. Further, according to Kay (2006), a point
of difference and consistency are the primary driving forces for developing strong brands.
The rationale for branding physical goods and services is the same, as the essence is to
leverage brand equity to build a strong relationship between the brand and stakeholders,
in particular, the customers, the co-creators of the brand (Kay, 2006; Kwortnik, 2006).
Nevertheless, while a lot of research has been conducted on physical products in
manufacturing organisations, extensive research on service branding is largely lacking
(Blankson and Kalafatis, 1999; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001; Davis, 2007;
Grönroos, 2007; Moorthi, 2002; Turley and Moore, 1995). Grönroos (2000, p. 285), for
example, claims that “research into service branding is in its infancy,” which is a claim
supported by Moorthi (2002, p. 259), who argues that there is “not much literature on how
to brand a service.” Consequently, more research on service branding as a distinct ?eld of
academic enquiry is called for to examine what management at the company level actually
undertakes and, not least, can do to achieve a strong, competitive and successful
corporate brand (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). However, the management of service
brands can be a complex task (Weaver, 2007). One important issue is to enhance
academic knowledge on how the service branding process actually works in a service
context, which is the topic of this paper.
This study addresses two questions:
1. Which factors in?uence the service branding process for the Hurtigruten?
2. What is the format of the service branding process – a structured or an unstructured
management process?
The questions raised are answered utilising information from a service employee
perspective.
To answer the questions posed, this paper is organised into six sections. Following this
introduction, the following section consists of a review of the service branding literature. In
the next section, the methodological details are described, while the section following this
one presents the research ?ndings. These research ?ndings are discussed in subsequent
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 447
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
section, while the last section concludes the paper by addressing the theoretical and
practical implications of the research ?ndings and draws a set of conclusions. The
limitations of the study are also discussed in the ?nal section and further research on
service branding is suggested.
The literature
Research on product brands and product brand development is extensive. However,
relatively few articles have explored the branding of services (Blankson and Kalafatis,
1999; Grönroos, 2007; Turley and Moore, 1995), even though the brand is considered to be
“even more important for services than for goods” (McDonald et al., 2001, p. 335).
This literature review is organised in two sections. First, a section on service brand
knowledge follows this introduction, wherein the concept of this service brand is clari?ed
and what constitutes strong brands is reviewed. Second, we review extant literature on
service branding processes.
Service brand knowledge
The service brand concept. Lovelock and Wright (1999, p. 166) de?ne a brand as “a name,
phase, design, symbol, or some combinations of these that identi?es a company’s services
and differentiates it from competitors.” This de?nition is in accordance with the American
Marketing Association’s (AMA) perception of a brand as “a name, term, symbol or any other
feature that identi?es one seller’s product or service as distinct from those of other sellers.”
However, according to Grönroos (2007), the AMA’s de?nition works well for physical
products but not for service products for two reasons. First, the de?nition does not take into
account the key characteristics of services. Second, the de?nition excludes the role of
customers (Grönroos, 2007). According to service theory (Andreassen, 2008; Lovelock and
Wright, 1999; Kandampully, 2007), services are processes in which customers normally
participate and, as emphasised by Grönroos (2007, p. 331), “if anybody builds a brand, it
is the customers.” The essence is that customers play an active and a participative role in
service brand development. Grönroos (2007) offers an alternative de?nition that appears
suitable for both physical and service products:
A brand is created in continuously developing brand relationships, where the customer forms
a differentiating image of a physical product, a service or a solution including goods, services,
information and other elements based on all kinds of brand contacts that the customer is
exposed to.
Grönroos’ (2007) de?nition seems to suit the Hurtigruten well. The brand name Hurtigruten
is well-known in national and international travel markets, particularly in the Norwegian and
German markets. The brand de?nition also works in relation to its competitors, as none of
them offers a similar cruise product that comprises a sea voyage on offer for 365 days and
nights along the long Norwegian coast while visiting 34 towns and small settlements
(Appendix 2).
Strong brands: a process view. The bene?ts of strong brands are well-documented in
branding research (Boyle, 2007). Vrontis and Papasolomou (2007), for example, argue that
strong brands lead to strong companies, consumer loyalty and even strong industries.
Similarly, Simoes and Dibb (2001) claim that brands play an important role in service
companies, as they reduce customers’ perceived ?nancial, social and safety risks (Sok and
O’Cass, 2011). Thus, a strong brand acts as a promise of quality and consistency in service
delivery for customers (Aaker, 1996). Further, at the company level, the ownership of a
strong brand may add value to the company, through brand equity (Aaker, 1996). The
essence of brand equity concerns the value that a brand name adds to a product
(Farquhar, 1989). Nevertheless, a strong brand is not a static entity (Kwortnik, 2006); it
needs to be strengthened and built through a co-creation process that involves a number
of players, including leadership, customers and employees (Boyle, 2007).
PAGE 448 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
According to service brand theory, a strong service brand is created in the triangle
between the enterprise, its employees and its customers (Schlager et al., 2011). As
evidenced in services research, a strong service brand is considered to be a valuable
?nancial, organisational and strategic resource for business survival (de Chernatony, 2001;
McDonald et al., 2001). Doyle, cited in Dibb and Simkin (1993), claims that a strong service
brand comprises four dimensions: quality, superior service, being ?rst and being different.
According to Dobree and Page (1990), this can be achieved through the following ?ve
steps for branding services effectively:
1. establish a brand proposition;
2. overcome internal barriers to branding;
3. measure brand delivery against the brand proposition;
4. secure the continual improvement of the brand; and
5. expand the brand’s reputation.
By following this process, the idea is that a service product will be positioned in the minds
of the targeted customers and in this way, it is given an attractive image, which is a
prerequisite for obtaining customers’ commitment, trust and loyalty to the brand (Li and
Petrick, 2008).
Services branding processes
An examination of the service brand literature shows two opposing views on service brand
development processes. Brooks (1996), cited in McDonald et al. (2001), claims that
product and service brands can be developed through a similar process of three distinct
phases:
1. setting clear brand objectives;
2. de?ning clear positioning; and
3. selecting appropriate values.
However, this view contradicts that of Urde (2003), who claims that service branding
constitutes two distinct processes: an internal service brand building process and an
external service brand building process. The external service process is primarily
concerned with the relationships between the service brand and the target customers of an
enterprise (Urde, 2003). The core of the external brand process is to establish a sustainable
long-lasting brand image of a company in the minds of customers. On the other hand, the
primary goal of the internal service brand building process is to create an internal brand
identity in the organisation, namely, the organisation’s own understanding of the brand and
its members’ commitment, trust and loyalty to the brand (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009,
2010).
As the principles of services differ from those of consumer goods (Kandampully, 2007),
particularly in relation to customers as active participants in the co-creation of services,
Urde’s (2003) view offers more promise. Another important reason is the integrative
perspective on which service branding is built (Brodie, 2009). This implies that different
stakeholders such as service employees and customers are important in service brand
development. To illustrate this point, in many services containing both tangible and
intangible elements, such as a cruise operation as an experience good (Moorthi, 2002), the
many interactions, or “moments of truth,” are considered to be crucial in the delivery of
the service promises (Carlzon, 1987; Normann, 1991). For many customers, service
employees are intrinsic to the service (Lovelock and Wright, 1999). This implies that the
service brand needs to be deeply rooted in a service culture of which service employees
constitute the critical part (King, 1991). Consequently, a division of service brand
development into two separate developmental processes is promising, particularly when
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 449
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
examining service branding in high-contact service contexts such as a cruise experience
where the aim is to examine the key factors that affect the format of the service branding
process (i.e. a structured or an unstructured management process).
The service brand: an external orientation. The aim of the external branding process is to
create long-term relationships with customers to obtain their trust and keep them loyal to
the organisation (Grönroos, 2007). However, loyalty does not “just happen”; it is the result
of customers’ experiences, commitment and trust in a brand. According to service theory
(Grönroos, 2007), it takes time for any service provider to build loyalty, but a trustful
relationship can diminish overnight, for example, in instances of service failure (Skaalsvik,
2011). According to Simmons (2007), a service provider needs a true understanding of
what customers’ value in a service provider’s service offerings, communicate the brand
values by means of an effective (service) communication mix (Lovelock and Wright, 1999)
and take actions to maintain trustful interactions with customers. A successful service
brand may then help customers in their (buying) decision-making processes. Illustratively,
a cruise is not a habitual purchase but rather a relatively high involvement purchase. Even
though much of the status symbolism attracted to taking a cruise has diminished with the
availability of relatively cheap cruises, a luxury cruise on the Hurtigruten entails elements of
status because of its premium price, high quality and prestige (Hwang and Han, 2014).
Nevertheless, the Hurtigruten is dependent on the delivery of consistent bene?ts over time
as perceived by its customers. A problem is, however, variability in the delivery of services
because of the human factor in service production (Hwang and Han, 2014). The challenge
for management in this situation is to develop customers’ sustainable trust in the brand
through the development of unique and attractive brand associations in the minds of
potential customers. A challenge, however, in this respect, is that service brands constitute
both tangible (“hard”) as well as intangible (“soft”) issues. While the tangible elements in a
cruise service are similar to the traits of physical products, the intangible elements concern
“soft” elements such as customers’ emotional attachment, commitment and loyalty to a
brand, which are dependent upon the information, knowledge and skills of the workforce
(Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009, 2010).
As a conclusion, the external service brand process concerns the creation and
sustainability of a service provider’s brand image as perceived by external stakeholders,
particularly customers. Nonetheless, even though an external orientation in service brand
development is important, the other side of the coin is that of an internal service brand
process, which serves internal organisation purposes (Punjaisri et al., 2009).
The service brand: an internal orientation. According to de Chernatony and Harris (2000)
and de Chernatony and Segal-Horn (2003), a service provider needs to balance external
and internal brand orientations in brand development. Service branding, according to
Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) terminology, represents a paradigm shift in services, which
draws on the “logic” of services, which are different from physical products because they
are intangible, heterogeneous and co-produced with customers (Andreassen, 2008;
Hoffman and Bateson, 1997; Lovelock and Wright, 1999). Thus, according to Trott (2005,
p. 362), “the process of branding can take many forms and is not restricted to physical
products.” Further, according to service branding theory (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009),
the branding of services is more dependent on employees (Free, 1999).
The core of the internal service brand building process is to obtain a committed, motivated
and loyal workforce, as the knowledge, attitudes and actions of service employees are
assumed to have a positive impact on their branding behaviours (de Chernatony and
Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999; Punjaisri et al., 2009). For this to work, the brand must hold unique
associations in the minds of service employees. As a superior service brand is based on
excellent personalised customer service, which contains both rational and emotional
elements (de Chernatony and Cottam, 2006), service management must concentrate on
how to tie the employees to the brand by means of social, psychological and emotional
PAGE 450 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
elements to enhance their pride, trust and commitment in the brand (Kimpakorn and
Toquer, 2010).
The Hurtigruten, according to the participants in this study, is a “status product” as some
symbolic bene?ts are associated with the brand. Illustratively, the Hurtigruten is associated
with exoticness and attractiveness among travel groups and working as a service
employee on the Hurtigruten contains elements of status. For example, the work schedule
(two weeks at work and three weeks off) and reasonable pay even in Norwegian terms are
attractive in a sector associated with rather low salaries.
Davis (2007) argues that brands are information and that a key issue for service
management is to develop a set of attractive brand values that are communicated by brand
messages to the workforce, which enhances their brand commitment, trust and loyalty to
the brand. Nevertheless, the build-up of service employees’ loyalty to the brand is,
according to theory, perceived to be a long-term process (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2010).
A review of the extant literature on services branding shows that service branding is a
holistic experience (de Chernatony and Cottam, 2006), which implies a relational and
integrative approach to service brand development (Brodie, 2009), particularly the
important roles of brand management, customers, service employees and competitors
(Schlager et al., 2011). To identify a set of factors that determines the format of the service
branding process, that of a structured or an unstructured management process, a single
case study was carried out on the Hurtigruten. The following section details the research
methods used.
Methodology
In this research, the service branding process for the Hurtigruten is the case examined. A
qualitative case design was chosen to examine the process as a qualitative methodology
is useful when examining changes and change processes in service enterprises (Veal,
2006; Yin, 2003, Gummesson, 2000).
There are different types of case study (Yin, 2003) and the research reported in this paper
is a single case study (Yin, 2003). According to Gummesson (2000, p. 87), “case study
research has received growing recognition among groups of management researchers,”
and the methodology is particularly useful when exploring phenomena about which
relatively little is known (Mehmetoglu, 2004; Merriam, 1998).
Previous research on service branding shows the use of multiple methodologies, which
encompass both primary and secondary data. This study is grounded on both sources of
information. An internal report entitled “Strategic choices after 2001” (Hurtigruten, 2001), in
particular, provided information on management’s strategic intent and ambition to move
into the highly competitive explorer cruise line market. Nevertheless, as emphasised by
Kinnear and Taylor (1991, p. 182), “secondary data often has a ‘target ?t’ problem.” This
contrasts with primary research information, which usually offers more speci?c, extensive
and reliable information from respondents who possess information and knowledge on the
research topic.
Nine service managers and service personnel, six men and three women, participated in
the research and they provided extensive and valuable data. They were identi?ed by the
use of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). The participants were selected to be among the
most competent informants on services branding in Hurtigruten. The respondents were
used in the marketing and sales department which had the responsibility to market and to
brand the Hurtigruten.
The personal interview is the most commonly used method of data collection in qualitative
research (Fielding, 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999) and this procedure adds “depth” and
“richness” to the data. Nevertheless, carrying out long in-depth interviews is a challenging
activity (McCracken, 1988) and several considerations need to be made. To illustrate, one
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 451
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
important issue is to allow “the respondent to tell his or her own story in his or her own
terms” (McCracken, 1988, p. 22). This implies, for example, that the interviewer must act
“defensively” by avoiding interruptions. Long interviews with service managers and
personnel were carried out during spring and autumn 2006 and winter and spring 2007.
These in-depth interviews which each lasted up to two hours were audio-recorded and fully
transcribed.
According to methodology theory, qualitative data can be analysed in a variety of ways
(Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002; Mehmetoglu, 2004; Merriam, 1998; Johannessen et al.,
2004). An extensive examination of the transcripts followed to provide comprehensive
insight into and understanding of the service branding processes for the Hurtigruten as
perceived by the interviewees. However, as emphasised by Mehmetoglu (2004, p. 139),
“there are no distinct and recommendable procedural steps for analysing case study data”
(author’s translation). Consequently, the challenge is to use an analytical procedure that
provides a comprehensive account of the results obtained in the study (Gummesson,
2000). In this study, Merriam’s (1998) analytical procedure, which consists of three
separate phases, was used: intensive analysis, the development of categories and theory
development.
The intensive analysis phase was carried out by a thorough content analysis of the interview
transcripts, which gave an extensive insight into and understanding of the key factors that
impacted on service brand development and determined the key format of the process,
that of a structured or unstructured management process. The intensive analysis phase
constituted the basis for developing a set of categories (Merriam, 1998), which in this case
was categorised as the set of factors that in?uence the service branding process and
determine the format of the process. The theory development phase was covered by a
discussion of how the identi?ed factors interacted. Thus, the analytical procedure is
inductive (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2002, p. 14),
induction is “the process of observing facts to generate a theory.” Nevertheless, this study
does not aim to launch a theory on the service branding process that is applicable to
enterprises across the service sector or even in the explorer cruise line industry, but rather
searches to contribute to understanding and developing knowledge on the branding
process in a speci?c service context (i.e. the Hurtigruten).
How to obtain quality in research is an important issue that needs to be discussed in any
empirical study (Gummesson, 2000; Johannessen et al., 2004). Veal (2006), as an
example, discusses two axioms of research quality, namely, validity and reliability. Validity
is de?ned by Veal (2006, p. 41) as “the extent to which information collected by the
researcher truly re?ects the phenomenon being studied.” This is in accordance with
Easterby-Smith et al. (1999, p. 41), who argue that validity is granting “full access to the
knowledge and meaning of informants.” Nevertheless, as emphasised in the methodology
literature, there are a set of challenges to be met, such as the tendency of subjects to
exaggerate and that they may be affected by a desire to be helpful and friendly towards the
interviewer. Similarly, respondents may have problems in recalling the information
correctly. As outlined, the research phenomenon in this study is the service branding
process; thus, the validity of the research ?ndings is closely linked to interviewees’ recalls
of the details of the service branding process. By giving interviewees the time they needed
in the interviews to think back on service branding issues, the information collected
gradually provided a “pattern” that enabled the researchers to identify a set of factors that
affected the service branding process and determined its format. Similarly, reliability is,
according to Veal (2006, p. 41), “the extent to which research ?ndings would be the same
if the research was to be repeated at a later date with a different sample of subjects.”
However, as emphasised by Clark et al. (1998, p. 103), the intention of a single case study
“is not to make a generalization but to investigate a ‘one-off’ situation.” This claim is, for
example, supported by Merriam (1998, p. 206), who argues that the question is not whether
the ?ndings are replicable but “whether the results are consistent with the data collected.”
PAGE 452 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Similarly, in relation to this claim, Yin (2003, p. 37) argues that the goal of reliability is to
“minimize the errors and biases in a study,” which, for example, may be obtained by using
a case study protocol that documents the methodological details of the study.
The respondents in the study joined the research with eagerness and enthusiasm and in
the in-depth interviews, told their “stories” and “anecdotes” on the service branding
process on the Hurtigruten without any interruption from the researchers.
The ?ndings
The research identi?ed four factors that in?uence the service branding process on the
Hurtigruten and that determined the format of the process. Thus, the format of the service
branding process (structured/unstructured) is a re?ection of the factors identi?ed.
According to Merriam’s (1998) analytical procedure, these factors constitute the categories
of the study. The factors are depicted in Table I and are described, in turn.
The service branding process: a re?ection of the Hurtigruten history
The Hurtigruten ASA became a company after the merger of two shipping lines in 2006 and
management started a process of working out a new brand strategy. In doing this,
advantages had to be taken of the historical and cultural heritage of the Hurtigruten, as the
brand name was quite well-known in international markets. As one interviewee said:
To strengthen the brand, we had to take into account the long history of the Hurtigruten because
the Hurtigruten, as an historic brand, is one of the best-known brands in Norway.
This view was supported by another interviewee, who argued that, “The Hurtigruten had
been a famous brand for more than 100 years,” and the interviewee argued that “our history
is indeed unique.” In fact, the value of the long history of the Hurtigruten was supported by
the same interviewees, and a third interviewee argued that, “The long history of the
Hurtigruten shows that it has developed into a well-known brand.” As a summing up
statement, one interviewee said that, “The future of the brand Hurtigruten lies in the past, its
historical roots.” Several interviewees emphasised the “historic” values of the Hurtigruten,
those of safety, seafarer skills, regularity and reliability. Obviously, the successful history of
the Hurtigruten, as emphasised by several interviewees, has been important in the
positioning and further build-up of it as a tourist attraction. A conclusion is that the
Hurtigruten bene?ts from a long history and that the status of the Hurtigruten brand is a
re?ection of more than 100 years of travel history. Nevertheless, the history and heritage of
the brand alone do not lead to any substantive conclusion as to the format of the branding
process (structured or unstructured). Instead, the brand, from an historic perspective, has
been perceived as an entity not amenable to change, but instead representing stability,
implying the trait of an unstructured or “ad hoc” branding process.
Table I The service branding process: in?uencing factors
History
Leadership orientation
and culture Organising principles Analytical orientation
The brand was established in 1893
A famous brand name
Hurtigruten: an historic brand
Hurtigruten: a “power” brand
A set of historic brand values
The role of leadership:
governance and control
Branding: a strategic task
Branding: top-down
oriented
Branding: the role of
employees
The “sea-culture”: a top-
down, command culture
A top strategic organisation
Functional organising
Roles, rules and regulations
Branding: subject to
planning
Branding: organised and
structured
Branding: a process view
From a “product centric”
to a “service centric” view
Analytic intent: a
consequence of strategic
choice
Customer information
Competitors’ analysis
Branding: gradually
becoming more
analytical
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 453
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The service branding process: a re?ection of leadership orientation and culture
According to the interviewees, a dominant trait of the Hurtigruten has been frequent
shifts in top leadership positions. According to management theory (Hunt, 1997, Kotter,
1990), new leadership implies changes and new ways of conducting business. The
Hurtigruten has, particularly after the merger in 2006, gradually become more market-
and customer-oriented, but, according to the interviewees, it remains rooted in an
operational and technical “sea culture” in which organisational authority and power is
exercised from the top of the organisation. As one interviewee said, “Shipping cultures
are developed from the top [. . .] you don’t do anything that is not directed and
approved from the top.” This view was supported by another interviewee saying; “Well,
the shipping lines involved in the Hurtigruten trade have always been run according to
hierarchical principles [. . .] the decision power is located at the top.” According to the
interviewees, the branding of the Hurtigruten has, thus, been perceived as a strategic
task. As one interviewee said: “Branding deals with strategy, which, of course, is a task
for top management.” This perception was supported by another interviewee saying
that, “Branding concerns relationship building primarily outside an organisation. How to
do it is a matter of strategic orientation, which is the responsibility of top management.”
An interviewee commented on the role of top leadership by saying that, “Service
employees and branding, well, service employees in this company, execute operational
tasks, but branding seems to be a strategic task and is a matter of top management.”
Thus, the service brand development process on the Hurtigruten is top-down according
to the information provided by several interviewees. The core argument is that the brand
is considered to be a valuable and strategic resource, which is a matter of top
management concern. In this way, the brand process is primarily given an external
orientation even though, according to the interviewees, the brand should also serve
internal purposes, such as motivating employees and developing their commitment,
trust and loyalty to the brand. Nevertheless, the role of top leadership in the branding
process is gradually changing, particularly since the merger in 2006, and the present
state seems to include more people, in particular the marketing department. However,
by 2012, the Hurtigruten had not used a brand director or brand management staff.
Nevertheless, a conclusion to be drawn is that the service branding process appears
structured by management planning, organising and development.
The service branding process: a re?ection of organising principles
The information provided from the interviewees shows that the service branding process is
in?uenced by organising principles. As expressed by one interviewee, “Branding the
Hurtigruten is a task for top leadership and what do they do? They make plans, and when
they do they follow strict planning procedures.” This point of view was supported by
another interviewee saying:
Well, in my opinion, as the Hurtigruten is a hierarchic and functional organisation, the work on
service branding is not done on an “ad hoc” basis; on the contrary, branding is subject to
planning and organising. In my opinion, the branding process is highly structured and
organised.
A third interviewee claimed that, “As the work on branding is centralised at the top of the
organisation, the process seems to be formal, yes, absolutely formal.” Thus, an examination
of the information provided by the interviewees in relation to organising principles shows
that the service brand is subject to planning, organising and development. The organising
principles such as the hierarchy, organisational functions, command structure and strict
roles in use for the Hurtigruten lead to the conclusion that the format of the service branding
process is that of a structured process.
PAGE 454 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The service branding process: a re?ection of analytical orientation
As the service branding process, according to the interviewees, seems to be top-down and
leadership-directed, one should expect that the process is analytical. However, this does
not seem to be fully the case. One interviewee said that:
There is not a dominant tradition in the shipping lines to be analytically oriented, except for
economic analysis. Decisions on branding have over time been based on management’s
intuition, knowledge and competencies.
This statement was supported by another subject saying that, “The accounts and budgets
are thoroughly analysed [. . .] what else, I do not know.” A third interviewee said that:
Today, I think we are moving in a more analytical direction by, for example, the hiring of a market
analyst. However, so far no analytical systems are established to collect and analyse information
from, for example, customers to support important brand decisions on the Hurtigruten.
Thus, information from the interviewees shows that focus on brand development on the
Hurtigruten ?rst became an agenda by management after the introduction of new explorer
cruise ships in the early 1990s. At this time, two shipping lines were operative. However,
after the merger in 2006 the work on branding the Hurtigruten intensi?ed, especially after
hiring a market analyst who reported to top management. The enhanced analytical
orientation leads to the conclusion that the branding process features traits of a structured
process, which is explained by the more targeted use of information, particularly in relation
to the service brand development of top leadership.
Discussion
The research identi?ed four distinct factors that determine the format of the service
branding process on the Hurtigruten. First, the branding process as “ad hoc” and
historically grounded is explained by the historical roots and heritage of the Hurtigruten.
Second, the branding process as a top-down leadership-oriented process is explained by
frequent shifts in leadership positions and leadership’s role-taking practices in a
bureaucratic and hierarchical organisation along with an organisational, cultural
explanation as management’s activities are embedded in a technical “sea culture.” Third,
the branding process grounded on organising principles is primarily explained by
functional organising and the strict role distinctions between leadership and staff. Fourth,
the branding process as analytical is explained by the enhanced competition that the
Hurtigruten has faced over the past ten years as more international cruise line carriers have
discovered the attractiveness of the long Norwegian coastline along with management’s
desire to expand into new travel markets.
According to the research literature, brands serve an external as well as an internal
purpose (Grönroos, 2007), which values an integrative or a relationship approach to
branding (Brodie, 2009). The external orientation is con?rmed by this research based on
the Hurtigruten’s development of a set of brand elements such as an appealing slogan,
which has proven to be attractive to new travel groups and which has helped to differentiate
the product from those of competitors. Nevertheless, the research cannot yet con?rm that
the branding process serves internal purposes (Punjaisri et al., 2009; Kimpakorn and
Toquer, 2010) such as the build-up of service employees’ motivation, pride, commitment
and loyalty to the shipping line.
Schlager et al. (2011) suggest a brand triangle, which implies a systemic perspective of
service brand development. The essence of the systemic perspective is that the entities or
components of the system interact and that they are coupled together. The components of
a systemic model are shown in Figure 1.
This systemic model depicts three components that, according to brand theory (Schlager
et al., 2011), are decisive for the build-up of service branding processes and activities in
service organisations. First, as service branding is a competitive strategy that differentiates
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 455
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
products, services and companies, top leadership plays a decisive role in the strategic
orientation of any company (Trott, 2005). According to services theory, a strategic
orientation needs to be built on a service “logic” that leads to a workforce of highly
motivated, committed and empowered service employees (Grönroos, 2007) Similarly, as
services are processes (Kandampully, 2007; Andreassen, 2008), customers normally
participate as co-producers of services (Kay, 2006). The participative and active role of
customers then is in accordance with the “involvement model of management” (Lovelock
and Wright, 1999). Similarly, according to brand theory, service employees are important
in branding processes to root the brand internally in an enterprise (Kimpakorn and Toquer,
2009, 2010) and as emphasised by Weaver (2007)(p. 274), the “employees are carriers of
a brand’s promises.” In this research, it is the perceptions of the service employees on how
a branding process actually works in a particular case setting that is addressed. The
systemic model, as explained above, has practical implications for management as to what
to do to intensify service brand activities in individual service enterprises.
Theoretical implications
This study provided a holistic understanding of the (external) service branding process in
a cruise line context through an examination of the Hurtigruten. A series of insights has
been obtained. First, and most importantly, the study identi?ed a set of factors that
determined the format of the service branding process in a tourism service setting. In this
way, the study contributes to knowledge development and offers understanding on how an
externally oriented service branding process works as a distinct management process in a
cruise setting. In this way, according to information from the interviewees, the research
supports the role of top leadership and action-oriented management to initiate, organise
and implement organisational changes such as the reorientation of the service brand
strategy (Trott, 2005). Thus, the research strongly supports the contingency view of
organisational change (Daft, 1999; Handy, 1993; Hunt, 1997). Second, in the services
branding literature, the important role of service employees has been emphasised
(Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009, 2010), which implies a dual orientation of service brand
development.
Figure 1 A systemic model of service branding processes
The role of leadership:
“Involvement model of management”
The role of service employees:
Motivated, committed and
empowered service employees
The role of customers:
The customers as co-producers of
services
Leads to
Leads to
Impacts on
Impacts on Impacts
on
SERVICE BRAND
PROCESSES
Leads to
Source: Adapted from Schlager et al. (2011)
PAGE 456 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Implications for management
The Hurtigruten, as an experience product, consists of tangible as well as intangible
elements. According to service theory (Lovelock and Wright, 1999; Kandampully, 2007;
Andreassen, 2008), tangible elements, although important in the delivery of quality services
(Moorthi, 2002), are easy for competitors to copy. To illustrate, a cabin on the Hurtigruten
is comparable to cabins on other explorer cruise ships and hardly provides a competitive
advantage. Similarly, a restaurant on a Hurtigruten ship is comparable to other restaurants
on cruise ships. Consequently, to gain competitive advantage and to become a market
leader in cruise operations in polar waters, intangible elements are decisive. In this
process, the brand may play an important role, particularly for differentiating the
Hurtigruten brand from competitors. Thus, management is advised to develop brand
messages to be used in communication, which should build on attractive values as
perceived by tourists, such as Norwegian seamanship, safety, reliability, comfort and
exoticness. Similarly, the brand slogan of Hurtigruten “being the most beautiful sea voyage
on earth,” which concerns the symbolic aspects of the brand (Moorthi, 2002), needs to be
exploited further in market campaigns. Service managers are advised to use an
involvement management model in their organisations, which, according to Lovelock and
Wright (1999, p. 331), emphasises “that employees are capable of self-direction and if
properly trained, motivated and informed can make good decisions about service
operation and delivery.” This line of thinking is comparable to Carlzon’s (1987) views of the
“inverted pyramid.” As the service branding process, according to theory, aims to serve
external as well internal purposes (Grönroos, 2007), management is also advised to turn
branding into a dual process to bene?t from highly motivated, committed and loyal service
employees. Furthermore, management is advised to move internal branding processes into
an even more analytical direction by taking brand decisions based on reliable market,
competitor and customer information and analysis. A systemic perspective on service
brand development is recommended.
Conclusions
The research reported in this paper provides insights into and understanding and
knowledge on how a service branding process works in a cruise line context. The ?ndings
were drawn from extensive interviews with service managers and service personnel, who
possess knowledge, skills and competencies on the topic under scrutiny. They provided
valuable information, which made it possible to identify a set of factors that determined the
format of the service branding process for the Hurtigruten, namely, that of a structured
process rather than an unstructured or “ad hoc” process. Nevertheless, the external
orientation of branding implies that more work has to be done to root the branding process
internally in the enterprise, i.e. among the service employees.
Nevertheless, the case study on the Hurtigruten may suffer from limitations and challenges,
particularly in relation to three issues:
1. the choice of interviewees;
2. the recall and memory of respondents; and
3. the time of data collection.
A relevant question is whether important subjects were omitted from the sample. However,
by following a snowball sampling procedure, the research seems to have included some of
the most skilled, knowledgeable and competent persons on service branding for the
Hurtigruten. A second question is to what degree interviewees correctly recalled the factors
that affect the service brand process in the shipping line? In this respect, however, the
research undertaken faced similar challenges to all qualitative retrospective studies
(Johannessen et al., 2004). By allowing the subjects to review their cases, one hindrance
to obtaining quality in research may be eliminated. Similarly, the time of data collection may
be questioned. However, at the time of the data collection phase in 2006 and 2007, the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 457
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
status and positioning of the service brand Hurtigruten were well-established in
international cruise markets. Consequently, the relevance of the data seems to be high
even today. Nevertheless, more research on service branding on the Hurtigruten is called
for. A change of thematic focus could be interesting, for example, an examination of how
the Hurtiguruten, as a brand, contributes to value creation in the shipping line. Another
interesting approach would be to expand the research by the inclusion of a set of cruise line
carriers in a follow-up study. Such a study would provide knowledge on service branding
in the cruise line industry as a whole.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Stronger Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Andreassen, T.W. (2008), Serviceledelse, Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.
Arslan, F.M. and Altuna, O.K. (2012), “Which category to extend to – product or service?,” Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 359-376.
Biederman, P.S. (2008), Travel and Tourism. An Industry Primer, Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River NJ.
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (1999), “Issues and challenges the positioning of service brands: a
review,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 106-118.
Boyle, E. (2007), “A process model of brand cocreation: brand management and research
implications,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 121-131.
Brodie, R.J. (2009), “From goods to service branding: an integrative perspective,” Marketing Theory,
Vol. 9 No. 107.
Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, Ballinger, New York, NY.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R.C. (1998), Researching and Writing Dissertation in
Hospitality and Tourism, International Thompson Business Press, London.
Daft, R.L. (1999), Leadership: Theory and Practice, The Dreyden Press, New York, NY.
Davis, J.D. (2007), “A conceptual view of branding for services,” Innovative Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1.
de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.
de Chernatony, L. and Cottam, S. (2006), “Internal brand factors driving successful ?nancial services
brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-633.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ views about de?ning services brands and
the principles of service branding,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, p. 1074.
de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000), “Developing corporate brands through considering internal
and external stakeholders,” Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 268-274.
de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building on services characteristics to develop
successful services brands,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 Nos 7/9, pp. 645-669.
de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003), “The criteria for successful service brands,” European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1095-1118.
Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1993), “The strength of branding and positioning in services,” International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Dobree, J. and Page, A.S. (1990), “Unleashing the power of service brands in the 1990s,”
Management Decision, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 14-28.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1999), Management Research – An Introduction, Sage
Publications, London.
Farquhar, P. (1989), “Managing brand equity,” Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 24-33.
Fielding, N. (1997), “Qualitative interviewing,” in Gilbert, N. (Ed), Researching Social Life, Sage
Publications, London.
Free, C. (1999), “The internal brand,” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 231-236.
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value, The Free Press, New York, NY.
PAGE 458 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2002), Research Methods in Business Studies, Prentice-Hall, London.
Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing. A Customer Relationships Management
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Grönroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing. A Customer Relationships Management
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage Publications, London.
Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organizations, Penguin, New York, NY.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance,”
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-456.
Hoffman, K.D. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1997), Essentials of Services Marketing, The Dreyden Press, New
York, NY.
Hudson, B.T. (2011), “Brand heritage and the renaissance of Cunard,” European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 1538-1556.
Hunt, J.W. (1997), Managing People at Work, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hurtigruten (2001), Strategic Choices After 1999, Company report, Hurtigruten, Tromsø.
Hwang, J. and Han, H. (2014), “Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand prestige in the
luxury cruise industry,” Tourism Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 244-259.
Johannessen, A., Kristoffersen, L. and Tufte, P.A. (2004), Forskningsmetode for økonomisk-
administrative Fag, Abstrakt forlag, Oslo.
Johnston, J.P., Lind, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002), “Country-of-origin and brand effects on
consumers’ evaluation of cruise lines,” International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 3.
Kandampully, J.S. (2007), Services Management. The New Paradigm in Hospitality, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, NJ.
Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40
Nos 7/8, pp. 742-760.
Kimpakorn, N. and Toquer, G. (2009), “Employees’ commitment to brands in the service sector: luxury
hotel chains in Thailand,” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 532-544.
Kimpakorn, N. and Toquer, G. (2010), “Service brand equity and employee brand commitment,”
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 378-388.
King, S. (1991), “Brand building in the 1990s,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 3-13.
Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1991), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), A Force for Change, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kwortnik, R.J. (2006), “Carnival cruise lines burnishing the brand,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 286-300.
Li, X.R. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), “Reexamining the dimensionality of brand loyalty: a case of the cruise
industry,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Lovelock, C. and Wright, L. (1999), Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, A Sage University Paper, London.
McDonald, M.H.B., De Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), “Corporate marketing and service
brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-352.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2004), Kvalitativ metode for merkantile fag, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
Merriam, S. (1998), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Moorthi, Y.L.R. (2002), “An approach to branding services,” Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 259-274.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 459
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Normann, R. (1991), Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in Services Businesses, Wiley,
Chichester.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A. (2009), “Internal branding: an enabler of employees’
brand-supporting behaviours,” Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Rooney, J.P. (1995), “Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow,” Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 48-55.
Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Mass, P. and Cachelin, J.L. (2011), “The in?uence of the employer brand
on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation,” Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 497-508.
Simmons, G.J. (2007), “I-branding: developing the internet as a branding tool,” Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 541-562.
Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), “Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation,” Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 217-224.
Skaalsvik, H. (2011), “Service failures in a cruise line context: suggesting categorical schemes of
service failures,” European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Sok, P. and O’Cass, A. (2011), “Understanding service ?rms brand value creation: a multilevel
perspective including the overarching role of service brand marketing capability,” Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 528-539.
Sundbo, J. (1997), “Management of innovations in services,” The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 432-455.
Trott, P. (2005), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, London.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand name strategies in the service sector,” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 40, pp. 42-50.
Urde, M. (1994), “Brand orientation–a strategy for survival,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand building,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-1040.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Veal, A.J. (2006), Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism, Pitman Publishing, London.
Vrontis, D. and Papasolomou, J. (2007), “Product and brand building: the case of the Cyprus wine
industry,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 532-544.
Weaver, A. (2007), “Complexity at sea: managing brands within the cruise industry,” Tourism
Management: Analysis, Behaviour, and Strategy, Chapter 16, available at: www.hurtigruten.no
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Further reading
Nerdrum, P. (1998), Mellom sannhet og velferd. Etiske dilemmaer i forskning belyst ved et eksempel,
Høgskolen i Oslo, avdeling for Økonomi- Kommunal og Sosialfag, Oslo.
Silverman, D. (2005), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
PAGE 460 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Appendix 1
A brief history of the Hurtigruten
On 2 July, 1893, a warm summer’s morning in Trondheim, the Norwegian steamship D/S
Vesteraalen left the town bound for Hammerfest, far up north in Norway. An enthusiastic
crowd of people welcomed the ship in Hammerfest about 70 hours later. Three weeks
earlier, the Norwegian Parliament had taken an innovative decision to establish a route
along the Norwegian coastline from Trondheim to Hammerfest. Sailing both night and day
along one of the most weather-beaten coasts in the world in all climatic conditions was a
new and astonishing idea. Despite scepticism and even severe resistance from experts in
sea transport in Norway, the Hurtigruten became a logistic success as an effective sea
transportation means of both people and goods. Five years later, the coastal route was to
Bergen in the south, and from 1908 to Kirkenes in the north. Today (2013), the Hurtigruten
has become a famous tourist attraction of signi?cant importance and value in Norway,
comprising 2,500 nautical miles, 34 ports of call, 11 modern ships and an 11-day return
voyage from Bergen to Kirkenes.
Appendix 2
Figure A1 shows the travel route of the Hurtigruten.
Corresponding author
Hugo Skaalsvik can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Figure A1 The travel route of the Hurtigruten, including the names of the Hurtigruten
ships today
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 461
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_174153800.pdf
The purpose of the paper is to examine the service branding process of the historic tourist
attraction, the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten).
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
A study of a service brand process in a cruise context: the perspective of the service employees
Hugo Skaalsvik Bjørn Olsen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Hugo Skaalsvik Bjørn Olsen , (2014),"A study of a service brand process in a cruise context: the perspective of the service
employees", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 446 - 461
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-10-2013-0078
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 73 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 241 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lan-Lan Chang, Kenneth F. Backman, Yu Chih Huang, (2014),"Creative tourism: a preliminary examination of creative
tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 401-419http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2014-0032
Giacomo Del Chiappa, Luisa Andreu, Martina G. Gallarza, (2014),"Emotions and visitors’ satisfaction at a museum",
International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 420-431http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJ CTHR-03-2014-0024
Timothy H. J ung, Elizabeth M. Ineson, Amanda Miller, (2014),"The Slow Food Movement and sustainable tourism
development: a case study of Mold, Wales", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 8 Iss 4
pp. 432-445http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-01-2014-0001
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
A study of a service brand process in a
cruise context: the perspective of the
service employees
Hugo Skaalsvik and Bjørn Olsen
Hugo Skaalsvik is an
Assistant Professor
based at Department of
Business and
Administration, Harstad
University College,
Harstad, Norway.
Bjørn Olsen is based at
Business School,
University of Nordland,
Bodø, Norway.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to examine the service branding process of the historic tourist
attraction, the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten).
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative design guided the research and the research
instrument employed was semi-structured in-depth interviews with service employees employed in the
shipping line Hurtigruten ASA.
Findings – The research shows that the long history of the Hurtigruten, the role of leadership and
culture, organising principles and analytical orientation were in?uential factors to the branding process
on the Hurtigruten and that determined the key characteristics of the process, that of a structured
process.
Research limitations/implications – Although, the study is innovative in its orientation, the research
?ndings are restricted to the research context: on the Hurtigruten. However, the inductive approach
makes it possible to conduct follow-up studies including more cruise line carriers.
Practical implications – A set of advices is provided which is bene?cial in making the Hurtigruten an
even stronger brand. One advice is to develop brand messages to be used in market communication
which is built on attractive values to tourists such as Norwegian sea man skills, safety, reliability, comfort
and exoticness.
Social implications – One important social implication is the suggestion to integrate the service
employees in branding processes which may have consequences for employees’ brand commitment
and loyalty.
Originality/value – In the research literature, more research on services branding is called for. Thus,
the study contributes to the extant knowledge on an interesting research ?eld and the value of the study
lies in its in-depth exploration of an important management process, that of services branding.
Keywords Service brand, Qualitative research, Case study research, Hurtigruten,
Norwegian coastal voyage, Service brand process
Paper type Case study
Introduction
This paper contributes to extant knowledge on service branding (Davis, 2007). It explores
the service branding process of the Norwegian Coastal Voyage (Hurtigruten), a
high-contact service (Lovelock and Wright, 1999) which is perhaps the best-known tourism
product in Norway. There are four reasons for the choice of a cruise line context. First,
according to Biederman (2008, p.197), the cruise line industry is “in an early stage of
development.” Second, “the cruise line industry is one of the most pro?table of the travel
and tourism sectors” (Biederman, 2008). Third, the cruise industry has been one of the
fastest growing sectors of the international tourism industry (Johnston et al., 2002). Finally,
according to the taxonomy developed by Sundbo (1997), the Hurtigruten ASA is a strategic
organisation, which demonstrates economic importance, size and organisational
complexity. Thus, a study of the service branding process for a cruise line is an appropriate
research context within the tourism system (Weaver, 2007).
Received 24 October 2013
Revised 24 October 2013
26 March 2014
Accepted 8 April 2014
PAGE 446 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4, 2014, pp. 446-461, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-10-2013-0078
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
To examine the service branding process for the Hurtigruten, research must take into
account its history. The Hurtigruten started in July 1893, but rapid growth in tourism
followed the entrance of new and modern cruise ships in the early 1990s. For this reason,
the context of this paper encompasses the two shipping lines that operated at that time: the
Troms Fylkes Dampskipsselskap and the Vesteraalen and Ofoten Dampskipsselskap.
Nevertheless, as the two shipping lines successfully merged in 2006, the research must
also encompass the new shipping line, namely, the Hurtigruten ASA (Appendices 1 and 2).
In Norway, the Hurtigruten is a well-known strongly positioned historic brand in the minds
of many Norwegians. In fact, many Norwegians are proud of the Hurtigruten and its brand
slogan of “the most beautiful sea-voyage on earth” (www.hurtigruten.no). The Hurtigruten
has kept this brand promise by being awarded international tourism prizes several times.
Possessing a famous historic brand name such as the Hurtigruten is bene?cial (Rooney,
1995; Boyle, 2007; Hudson, 2011), especially when the Hurtigruten is challenged by
growing competition from international cruise line carriers. As an example, Crystal Cruises
has offered the product “14 Night Wonders under the Midnight Sun” on the Crystal Serenity,
while Cunard has offered a similar product on the famous Queen Elizabeth 2. Nevertheless,
to become a market leader in explorer cruises, the management of the Hurtigruten has to
plan for, develop and strengthen the brand to become a “power brand,” associated with
satisfaction, quality and value (Gale, 1994). Obviously, to attract more national and
international tourists to travel on the Hurtigruten, the brand is a key asset and strategic
resource (Arslan and Altuna, 2012); and as argued by Urde (1994, p. 20), “the future of
many companies lies in the brands.” This claim is supported by Grönroos (2007), who
argues that a strong, well-positioned and competitive service brand can be viewed as a
guarantee of quality and superior service delivery. Further, according to Kay (2006), a point
of difference and consistency are the primary driving forces for developing strong brands.
The rationale for branding physical goods and services is the same, as the essence is to
leverage brand equity to build a strong relationship between the brand and stakeholders,
in particular, the customers, the co-creators of the brand (Kay, 2006; Kwortnik, 2006).
Nevertheless, while a lot of research has been conducted on physical products in
manufacturing organisations, extensive research on service branding is largely lacking
(Blankson and Kalafatis, 1999; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001; Davis, 2007;
Grönroos, 2007; Moorthi, 2002; Turley and Moore, 1995). Grönroos (2000, p. 285), for
example, claims that “research into service branding is in its infancy,” which is a claim
supported by Moorthi (2002, p. 259), who argues that there is “not much literature on how
to brand a service.” Consequently, more research on service branding as a distinct ?eld of
academic enquiry is called for to examine what management at the company level actually
undertakes and, not least, can do to achieve a strong, competitive and successful
corporate brand (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). However, the management of service
brands can be a complex task (Weaver, 2007). One important issue is to enhance
academic knowledge on how the service branding process actually works in a service
context, which is the topic of this paper.
This study addresses two questions:
1. Which factors in?uence the service branding process for the Hurtigruten?
2. What is the format of the service branding process – a structured or an unstructured
management process?
The questions raised are answered utilising information from a service employee
perspective.
To answer the questions posed, this paper is organised into six sections. Following this
introduction, the following section consists of a review of the service branding literature. In
the next section, the methodological details are described, while the section following this
one presents the research ?ndings. These research ?ndings are discussed in subsequent
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 447
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
section, while the last section concludes the paper by addressing the theoretical and
practical implications of the research ?ndings and draws a set of conclusions. The
limitations of the study are also discussed in the ?nal section and further research on
service branding is suggested.
The literature
Research on product brands and product brand development is extensive. However,
relatively few articles have explored the branding of services (Blankson and Kalafatis,
1999; Grönroos, 2007; Turley and Moore, 1995), even though the brand is considered to be
“even more important for services than for goods” (McDonald et al., 2001, p. 335).
This literature review is organised in two sections. First, a section on service brand
knowledge follows this introduction, wherein the concept of this service brand is clari?ed
and what constitutes strong brands is reviewed. Second, we review extant literature on
service branding processes.
Service brand knowledge
The service brand concept. Lovelock and Wright (1999, p. 166) de?ne a brand as “a name,
phase, design, symbol, or some combinations of these that identi?es a company’s services
and differentiates it from competitors.” This de?nition is in accordance with the American
Marketing Association’s (AMA) perception of a brand as “a name, term, symbol or any other
feature that identi?es one seller’s product or service as distinct from those of other sellers.”
However, according to Grönroos (2007), the AMA’s de?nition works well for physical
products but not for service products for two reasons. First, the de?nition does not take into
account the key characteristics of services. Second, the de?nition excludes the role of
customers (Grönroos, 2007). According to service theory (Andreassen, 2008; Lovelock and
Wright, 1999; Kandampully, 2007), services are processes in which customers normally
participate and, as emphasised by Grönroos (2007, p. 331), “if anybody builds a brand, it
is the customers.” The essence is that customers play an active and a participative role in
service brand development. Grönroos (2007) offers an alternative de?nition that appears
suitable for both physical and service products:
A brand is created in continuously developing brand relationships, where the customer forms
a differentiating image of a physical product, a service or a solution including goods, services,
information and other elements based on all kinds of brand contacts that the customer is
exposed to.
Grönroos’ (2007) de?nition seems to suit the Hurtigruten well. The brand name Hurtigruten
is well-known in national and international travel markets, particularly in the Norwegian and
German markets. The brand de?nition also works in relation to its competitors, as none of
them offers a similar cruise product that comprises a sea voyage on offer for 365 days and
nights along the long Norwegian coast while visiting 34 towns and small settlements
(Appendix 2).
Strong brands: a process view. The bene?ts of strong brands are well-documented in
branding research (Boyle, 2007). Vrontis and Papasolomou (2007), for example, argue that
strong brands lead to strong companies, consumer loyalty and even strong industries.
Similarly, Simoes and Dibb (2001) claim that brands play an important role in service
companies, as they reduce customers’ perceived ?nancial, social and safety risks (Sok and
O’Cass, 2011). Thus, a strong brand acts as a promise of quality and consistency in service
delivery for customers (Aaker, 1996). Further, at the company level, the ownership of a
strong brand may add value to the company, through brand equity (Aaker, 1996). The
essence of brand equity concerns the value that a brand name adds to a product
(Farquhar, 1989). Nevertheless, a strong brand is not a static entity (Kwortnik, 2006); it
needs to be strengthened and built through a co-creation process that involves a number
of players, including leadership, customers and employees (Boyle, 2007).
PAGE 448 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
According to service brand theory, a strong service brand is created in the triangle
between the enterprise, its employees and its customers (Schlager et al., 2011). As
evidenced in services research, a strong service brand is considered to be a valuable
?nancial, organisational and strategic resource for business survival (de Chernatony, 2001;
McDonald et al., 2001). Doyle, cited in Dibb and Simkin (1993), claims that a strong service
brand comprises four dimensions: quality, superior service, being ?rst and being different.
According to Dobree and Page (1990), this can be achieved through the following ?ve
steps for branding services effectively:
1. establish a brand proposition;
2. overcome internal barriers to branding;
3. measure brand delivery against the brand proposition;
4. secure the continual improvement of the brand; and
5. expand the brand’s reputation.
By following this process, the idea is that a service product will be positioned in the minds
of the targeted customers and in this way, it is given an attractive image, which is a
prerequisite for obtaining customers’ commitment, trust and loyalty to the brand (Li and
Petrick, 2008).
Services branding processes
An examination of the service brand literature shows two opposing views on service brand
development processes. Brooks (1996), cited in McDonald et al. (2001), claims that
product and service brands can be developed through a similar process of three distinct
phases:
1. setting clear brand objectives;
2. de?ning clear positioning; and
3. selecting appropriate values.
However, this view contradicts that of Urde (2003), who claims that service branding
constitutes two distinct processes: an internal service brand building process and an
external service brand building process. The external service process is primarily
concerned with the relationships between the service brand and the target customers of an
enterprise (Urde, 2003). The core of the external brand process is to establish a sustainable
long-lasting brand image of a company in the minds of customers. On the other hand, the
primary goal of the internal service brand building process is to create an internal brand
identity in the organisation, namely, the organisation’s own understanding of the brand and
its members’ commitment, trust and loyalty to the brand (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009,
2010).
As the principles of services differ from those of consumer goods (Kandampully, 2007),
particularly in relation to customers as active participants in the co-creation of services,
Urde’s (2003) view offers more promise. Another important reason is the integrative
perspective on which service branding is built (Brodie, 2009). This implies that different
stakeholders such as service employees and customers are important in service brand
development. To illustrate this point, in many services containing both tangible and
intangible elements, such as a cruise operation as an experience good (Moorthi, 2002), the
many interactions, or “moments of truth,” are considered to be crucial in the delivery of
the service promises (Carlzon, 1987; Normann, 1991). For many customers, service
employees are intrinsic to the service (Lovelock and Wright, 1999). This implies that the
service brand needs to be deeply rooted in a service culture of which service employees
constitute the critical part (King, 1991). Consequently, a division of service brand
development into two separate developmental processes is promising, particularly when
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 449
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
examining service branding in high-contact service contexts such as a cruise experience
where the aim is to examine the key factors that affect the format of the service branding
process (i.e. a structured or an unstructured management process).
The service brand: an external orientation. The aim of the external branding process is to
create long-term relationships with customers to obtain their trust and keep them loyal to
the organisation (Grönroos, 2007). However, loyalty does not “just happen”; it is the result
of customers’ experiences, commitment and trust in a brand. According to service theory
(Grönroos, 2007), it takes time for any service provider to build loyalty, but a trustful
relationship can diminish overnight, for example, in instances of service failure (Skaalsvik,
2011). According to Simmons (2007), a service provider needs a true understanding of
what customers’ value in a service provider’s service offerings, communicate the brand
values by means of an effective (service) communication mix (Lovelock and Wright, 1999)
and take actions to maintain trustful interactions with customers. A successful service
brand may then help customers in their (buying) decision-making processes. Illustratively,
a cruise is not a habitual purchase but rather a relatively high involvement purchase. Even
though much of the status symbolism attracted to taking a cruise has diminished with the
availability of relatively cheap cruises, a luxury cruise on the Hurtigruten entails elements of
status because of its premium price, high quality and prestige (Hwang and Han, 2014).
Nevertheless, the Hurtigruten is dependent on the delivery of consistent bene?ts over time
as perceived by its customers. A problem is, however, variability in the delivery of services
because of the human factor in service production (Hwang and Han, 2014). The challenge
for management in this situation is to develop customers’ sustainable trust in the brand
through the development of unique and attractive brand associations in the minds of
potential customers. A challenge, however, in this respect, is that service brands constitute
both tangible (“hard”) as well as intangible (“soft”) issues. While the tangible elements in a
cruise service are similar to the traits of physical products, the intangible elements concern
“soft” elements such as customers’ emotional attachment, commitment and loyalty to a
brand, which are dependent upon the information, knowledge and skills of the workforce
(Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009, 2010).
As a conclusion, the external service brand process concerns the creation and
sustainability of a service provider’s brand image as perceived by external stakeholders,
particularly customers. Nonetheless, even though an external orientation in service brand
development is important, the other side of the coin is that of an internal service brand
process, which serves internal organisation purposes (Punjaisri et al., 2009).
The service brand: an internal orientation. According to de Chernatony and Harris (2000)
and de Chernatony and Segal-Horn (2003), a service provider needs to balance external
and internal brand orientations in brand development. Service branding, according to
Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) terminology, represents a paradigm shift in services, which
draws on the “logic” of services, which are different from physical products because they
are intangible, heterogeneous and co-produced with customers (Andreassen, 2008;
Hoffman and Bateson, 1997; Lovelock and Wright, 1999). Thus, according to Trott (2005,
p. 362), “the process of branding can take many forms and is not restricted to physical
products.” Further, according to service branding theory (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009),
the branding of services is more dependent on employees (Free, 1999).
The core of the internal service brand building process is to obtain a committed, motivated
and loyal workforce, as the knowledge, attitudes and actions of service employees are
assumed to have a positive impact on their branding behaviours (de Chernatony and
Dall’Olmo Riley, 1999; Punjaisri et al., 2009). For this to work, the brand must hold unique
associations in the minds of service employees. As a superior service brand is based on
excellent personalised customer service, which contains both rational and emotional
elements (de Chernatony and Cottam, 2006), service management must concentrate on
how to tie the employees to the brand by means of social, psychological and emotional
PAGE 450 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
elements to enhance their pride, trust and commitment in the brand (Kimpakorn and
Toquer, 2010).
The Hurtigruten, according to the participants in this study, is a “status product” as some
symbolic bene?ts are associated with the brand. Illustratively, the Hurtigruten is associated
with exoticness and attractiveness among travel groups and working as a service
employee on the Hurtigruten contains elements of status. For example, the work schedule
(two weeks at work and three weeks off) and reasonable pay even in Norwegian terms are
attractive in a sector associated with rather low salaries.
Davis (2007) argues that brands are information and that a key issue for service
management is to develop a set of attractive brand values that are communicated by brand
messages to the workforce, which enhances their brand commitment, trust and loyalty to
the brand. Nevertheless, the build-up of service employees’ loyalty to the brand is,
according to theory, perceived to be a long-term process (Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2010).
A review of the extant literature on services branding shows that service branding is a
holistic experience (de Chernatony and Cottam, 2006), which implies a relational and
integrative approach to service brand development (Brodie, 2009), particularly the
important roles of brand management, customers, service employees and competitors
(Schlager et al., 2011). To identify a set of factors that determines the format of the service
branding process, that of a structured or an unstructured management process, a single
case study was carried out on the Hurtigruten. The following section details the research
methods used.
Methodology
In this research, the service branding process for the Hurtigruten is the case examined. A
qualitative case design was chosen to examine the process as a qualitative methodology
is useful when examining changes and change processes in service enterprises (Veal,
2006; Yin, 2003, Gummesson, 2000).
There are different types of case study (Yin, 2003) and the research reported in this paper
is a single case study (Yin, 2003). According to Gummesson (2000, p. 87), “case study
research has received growing recognition among groups of management researchers,”
and the methodology is particularly useful when exploring phenomena about which
relatively little is known (Mehmetoglu, 2004; Merriam, 1998).
Previous research on service branding shows the use of multiple methodologies, which
encompass both primary and secondary data. This study is grounded on both sources of
information. An internal report entitled “Strategic choices after 2001” (Hurtigruten, 2001), in
particular, provided information on management’s strategic intent and ambition to move
into the highly competitive explorer cruise line market. Nevertheless, as emphasised by
Kinnear and Taylor (1991, p. 182), “secondary data often has a ‘target ?t’ problem.” This
contrasts with primary research information, which usually offers more speci?c, extensive
and reliable information from respondents who possess information and knowledge on the
research topic.
Nine service managers and service personnel, six men and three women, participated in
the research and they provided extensive and valuable data. They were identi?ed by the
use of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). The participants were selected to be among the
most competent informants on services branding in Hurtigruten. The respondents were
used in the marketing and sales department which had the responsibility to market and to
brand the Hurtigruten.
The personal interview is the most commonly used method of data collection in qualitative
research (Fielding, 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999) and this procedure adds “depth” and
“richness” to the data. Nevertheless, carrying out long in-depth interviews is a challenging
activity (McCracken, 1988) and several considerations need to be made. To illustrate, one
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 451
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
important issue is to allow “the respondent to tell his or her own story in his or her own
terms” (McCracken, 1988, p. 22). This implies, for example, that the interviewer must act
“defensively” by avoiding interruptions. Long interviews with service managers and
personnel were carried out during spring and autumn 2006 and winter and spring 2007.
These in-depth interviews which each lasted up to two hours were audio-recorded and fully
transcribed.
According to methodology theory, qualitative data can be analysed in a variety of ways
(Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002; Mehmetoglu, 2004; Merriam, 1998; Johannessen et al.,
2004). An extensive examination of the transcripts followed to provide comprehensive
insight into and understanding of the service branding processes for the Hurtigruten as
perceived by the interviewees. However, as emphasised by Mehmetoglu (2004, p. 139),
“there are no distinct and recommendable procedural steps for analysing case study data”
(author’s translation). Consequently, the challenge is to use an analytical procedure that
provides a comprehensive account of the results obtained in the study (Gummesson,
2000). In this study, Merriam’s (1998) analytical procedure, which consists of three
separate phases, was used: intensive analysis, the development of categories and theory
development.
The intensive analysis phase was carried out by a thorough content analysis of the interview
transcripts, which gave an extensive insight into and understanding of the key factors that
impacted on service brand development and determined the key format of the process,
that of a structured or unstructured management process. The intensive analysis phase
constituted the basis for developing a set of categories (Merriam, 1998), which in this case
was categorised as the set of factors that in?uence the service branding process and
determine the format of the process. The theory development phase was covered by a
discussion of how the identi?ed factors interacted. Thus, the analytical procedure is
inductive (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2002, p. 14),
induction is “the process of observing facts to generate a theory.” Nevertheless, this study
does not aim to launch a theory on the service branding process that is applicable to
enterprises across the service sector or even in the explorer cruise line industry, but rather
searches to contribute to understanding and developing knowledge on the branding
process in a speci?c service context (i.e. the Hurtigruten).
How to obtain quality in research is an important issue that needs to be discussed in any
empirical study (Gummesson, 2000; Johannessen et al., 2004). Veal (2006), as an
example, discusses two axioms of research quality, namely, validity and reliability. Validity
is de?ned by Veal (2006, p. 41) as “the extent to which information collected by the
researcher truly re?ects the phenomenon being studied.” This is in accordance with
Easterby-Smith et al. (1999, p. 41), who argue that validity is granting “full access to the
knowledge and meaning of informants.” Nevertheless, as emphasised in the methodology
literature, there are a set of challenges to be met, such as the tendency of subjects to
exaggerate and that they may be affected by a desire to be helpful and friendly towards the
interviewer. Similarly, respondents may have problems in recalling the information
correctly. As outlined, the research phenomenon in this study is the service branding
process; thus, the validity of the research ?ndings is closely linked to interviewees’ recalls
of the details of the service branding process. By giving interviewees the time they needed
in the interviews to think back on service branding issues, the information collected
gradually provided a “pattern” that enabled the researchers to identify a set of factors that
affected the service branding process and determined its format. Similarly, reliability is,
according to Veal (2006, p. 41), “the extent to which research ?ndings would be the same
if the research was to be repeated at a later date with a different sample of subjects.”
However, as emphasised by Clark et al. (1998, p. 103), the intention of a single case study
“is not to make a generalization but to investigate a ‘one-off’ situation.” This claim is, for
example, supported by Merriam (1998, p. 206), who argues that the question is not whether
the ?ndings are replicable but “whether the results are consistent with the data collected.”
PAGE 452 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Similarly, in relation to this claim, Yin (2003, p. 37) argues that the goal of reliability is to
“minimize the errors and biases in a study,” which, for example, may be obtained by using
a case study protocol that documents the methodological details of the study.
The respondents in the study joined the research with eagerness and enthusiasm and in
the in-depth interviews, told their “stories” and “anecdotes” on the service branding
process on the Hurtigruten without any interruption from the researchers.
The ?ndings
The research identi?ed four factors that in?uence the service branding process on the
Hurtigruten and that determined the format of the process. Thus, the format of the service
branding process (structured/unstructured) is a re?ection of the factors identi?ed.
According to Merriam’s (1998) analytical procedure, these factors constitute the categories
of the study. The factors are depicted in Table I and are described, in turn.
The service branding process: a re?ection of the Hurtigruten history
The Hurtigruten ASA became a company after the merger of two shipping lines in 2006 and
management started a process of working out a new brand strategy. In doing this,
advantages had to be taken of the historical and cultural heritage of the Hurtigruten, as the
brand name was quite well-known in international markets. As one interviewee said:
To strengthen the brand, we had to take into account the long history of the Hurtigruten because
the Hurtigruten, as an historic brand, is one of the best-known brands in Norway.
This view was supported by another interviewee, who argued that, “The Hurtigruten had
been a famous brand for more than 100 years,” and the interviewee argued that “our history
is indeed unique.” In fact, the value of the long history of the Hurtigruten was supported by
the same interviewees, and a third interviewee argued that, “The long history of the
Hurtigruten shows that it has developed into a well-known brand.” As a summing up
statement, one interviewee said that, “The future of the brand Hurtigruten lies in the past, its
historical roots.” Several interviewees emphasised the “historic” values of the Hurtigruten,
those of safety, seafarer skills, regularity and reliability. Obviously, the successful history of
the Hurtigruten, as emphasised by several interviewees, has been important in the
positioning and further build-up of it as a tourist attraction. A conclusion is that the
Hurtigruten bene?ts from a long history and that the status of the Hurtigruten brand is a
re?ection of more than 100 years of travel history. Nevertheless, the history and heritage of
the brand alone do not lead to any substantive conclusion as to the format of the branding
process (structured or unstructured). Instead, the brand, from an historic perspective, has
been perceived as an entity not amenable to change, but instead representing stability,
implying the trait of an unstructured or “ad hoc” branding process.
Table I The service branding process: in?uencing factors
History
Leadership orientation
and culture Organising principles Analytical orientation
The brand was established in 1893
A famous brand name
Hurtigruten: an historic brand
Hurtigruten: a “power” brand
A set of historic brand values
The role of leadership:
governance and control
Branding: a strategic task
Branding: top-down
oriented
Branding: the role of
employees
The “sea-culture”: a top-
down, command culture
A top strategic organisation
Functional organising
Roles, rules and regulations
Branding: subject to
planning
Branding: organised and
structured
Branding: a process view
From a “product centric”
to a “service centric” view
Analytic intent: a
consequence of strategic
choice
Customer information
Competitors’ analysis
Branding: gradually
becoming more
analytical
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 453
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The service branding process: a re?ection of leadership orientation and culture
According to the interviewees, a dominant trait of the Hurtigruten has been frequent
shifts in top leadership positions. According to management theory (Hunt, 1997, Kotter,
1990), new leadership implies changes and new ways of conducting business. The
Hurtigruten has, particularly after the merger in 2006, gradually become more market-
and customer-oriented, but, according to the interviewees, it remains rooted in an
operational and technical “sea culture” in which organisational authority and power is
exercised from the top of the organisation. As one interviewee said, “Shipping cultures
are developed from the top [. . .] you don’t do anything that is not directed and
approved from the top.” This view was supported by another interviewee saying; “Well,
the shipping lines involved in the Hurtigruten trade have always been run according to
hierarchical principles [. . .] the decision power is located at the top.” According to the
interviewees, the branding of the Hurtigruten has, thus, been perceived as a strategic
task. As one interviewee said: “Branding deals with strategy, which, of course, is a task
for top management.” This perception was supported by another interviewee saying
that, “Branding concerns relationship building primarily outside an organisation. How to
do it is a matter of strategic orientation, which is the responsibility of top management.”
An interviewee commented on the role of top leadership by saying that, “Service
employees and branding, well, service employees in this company, execute operational
tasks, but branding seems to be a strategic task and is a matter of top management.”
Thus, the service brand development process on the Hurtigruten is top-down according
to the information provided by several interviewees. The core argument is that the brand
is considered to be a valuable and strategic resource, which is a matter of top
management concern. In this way, the brand process is primarily given an external
orientation even though, according to the interviewees, the brand should also serve
internal purposes, such as motivating employees and developing their commitment,
trust and loyalty to the brand. Nevertheless, the role of top leadership in the branding
process is gradually changing, particularly since the merger in 2006, and the present
state seems to include more people, in particular the marketing department. However,
by 2012, the Hurtigruten had not used a brand director or brand management staff.
Nevertheless, a conclusion to be drawn is that the service branding process appears
structured by management planning, organising and development.
The service branding process: a re?ection of organising principles
The information provided from the interviewees shows that the service branding process is
in?uenced by organising principles. As expressed by one interviewee, “Branding the
Hurtigruten is a task for top leadership and what do they do? They make plans, and when
they do they follow strict planning procedures.” This point of view was supported by
another interviewee saying:
Well, in my opinion, as the Hurtigruten is a hierarchic and functional organisation, the work on
service branding is not done on an “ad hoc” basis; on the contrary, branding is subject to
planning and organising. In my opinion, the branding process is highly structured and
organised.
A third interviewee claimed that, “As the work on branding is centralised at the top of the
organisation, the process seems to be formal, yes, absolutely formal.” Thus, an examination
of the information provided by the interviewees in relation to organising principles shows
that the service brand is subject to planning, organising and development. The organising
principles such as the hierarchy, organisational functions, command structure and strict
roles in use for the Hurtigruten lead to the conclusion that the format of the service branding
process is that of a structured process.
PAGE 454 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The service branding process: a re?ection of analytical orientation
As the service branding process, according to the interviewees, seems to be top-down and
leadership-directed, one should expect that the process is analytical. However, this does
not seem to be fully the case. One interviewee said that:
There is not a dominant tradition in the shipping lines to be analytically oriented, except for
economic analysis. Decisions on branding have over time been based on management’s
intuition, knowledge and competencies.
This statement was supported by another subject saying that, “The accounts and budgets
are thoroughly analysed [. . .] what else, I do not know.” A third interviewee said that:
Today, I think we are moving in a more analytical direction by, for example, the hiring of a market
analyst. However, so far no analytical systems are established to collect and analyse information
from, for example, customers to support important brand decisions on the Hurtigruten.
Thus, information from the interviewees shows that focus on brand development on the
Hurtigruten ?rst became an agenda by management after the introduction of new explorer
cruise ships in the early 1990s. At this time, two shipping lines were operative. However,
after the merger in 2006 the work on branding the Hurtigruten intensi?ed, especially after
hiring a market analyst who reported to top management. The enhanced analytical
orientation leads to the conclusion that the branding process features traits of a structured
process, which is explained by the more targeted use of information, particularly in relation
to the service brand development of top leadership.
Discussion
The research identi?ed four distinct factors that determine the format of the service
branding process on the Hurtigruten. First, the branding process as “ad hoc” and
historically grounded is explained by the historical roots and heritage of the Hurtigruten.
Second, the branding process as a top-down leadership-oriented process is explained by
frequent shifts in leadership positions and leadership’s role-taking practices in a
bureaucratic and hierarchical organisation along with an organisational, cultural
explanation as management’s activities are embedded in a technical “sea culture.” Third,
the branding process grounded on organising principles is primarily explained by
functional organising and the strict role distinctions between leadership and staff. Fourth,
the branding process as analytical is explained by the enhanced competition that the
Hurtigruten has faced over the past ten years as more international cruise line carriers have
discovered the attractiveness of the long Norwegian coastline along with management’s
desire to expand into new travel markets.
According to the research literature, brands serve an external as well as an internal
purpose (Grönroos, 2007), which values an integrative or a relationship approach to
branding (Brodie, 2009). The external orientation is con?rmed by this research based on
the Hurtigruten’s development of a set of brand elements such as an appealing slogan,
which has proven to be attractive to new travel groups and which has helped to differentiate
the product from those of competitors. Nevertheless, the research cannot yet con?rm that
the branding process serves internal purposes (Punjaisri et al., 2009; Kimpakorn and
Toquer, 2010) such as the build-up of service employees’ motivation, pride, commitment
and loyalty to the shipping line.
Schlager et al. (2011) suggest a brand triangle, which implies a systemic perspective of
service brand development. The essence of the systemic perspective is that the entities or
components of the system interact and that they are coupled together. The components of
a systemic model are shown in Figure 1.
This systemic model depicts three components that, according to brand theory (Schlager
et al., 2011), are decisive for the build-up of service branding processes and activities in
service organisations. First, as service branding is a competitive strategy that differentiates
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 455
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
products, services and companies, top leadership plays a decisive role in the strategic
orientation of any company (Trott, 2005). According to services theory, a strategic
orientation needs to be built on a service “logic” that leads to a workforce of highly
motivated, committed and empowered service employees (Grönroos, 2007) Similarly, as
services are processes (Kandampully, 2007; Andreassen, 2008), customers normally
participate as co-producers of services (Kay, 2006). The participative and active role of
customers then is in accordance with the “involvement model of management” (Lovelock
and Wright, 1999). Similarly, according to brand theory, service employees are important
in branding processes to root the brand internally in an enterprise (Kimpakorn and Toquer,
2009, 2010) and as emphasised by Weaver (2007)(p. 274), the “employees are carriers of
a brand’s promises.” In this research, it is the perceptions of the service employees on how
a branding process actually works in a particular case setting that is addressed. The
systemic model, as explained above, has practical implications for management as to what
to do to intensify service brand activities in individual service enterprises.
Theoretical implications
This study provided a holistic understanding of the (external) service branding process in
a cruise line context through an examination of the Hurtigruten. A series of insights has
been obtained. First, and most importantly, the study identi?ed a set of factors that
determined the format of the service branding process in a tourism service setting. In this
way, the study contributes to knowledge development and offers understanding on how an
externally oriented service branding process works as a distinct management process in a
cruise setting. In this way, according to information from the interviewees, the research
supports the role of top leadership and action-oriented management to initiate, organise
and implement organisational changes such as the reorientation of the service brand
strategy (Trott, 2005). Thus, the research strongly supports the contingency view of
organisational change (Daft, 1999; Handy, 1993; Hunt, 1997). Second, in the services
branding literature, the important role of service employees has been emphasised
(Kimpakorn and Toquer, 2009, 2010), which implies a dual orientation of service brand
development.
Figure 1 A systemic model of service branding processes
The role of leadership:
“Involvement model of management”
The role of service employees:
Motivated, committed and
empowered service employees
The role of customers:
The customers as co-producers of
services
Leads to
Leads to
Impacts on
Impacts on Impacts
on
SERVICE BRAND
PROCESSES
Leads to
Source: Adapted from Schlager et al. (2011)
PAGE 456 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Implications for management
The Hurtigruten, as an experience product, consists of tangible as well as intangible
elements. According to service theory (Lovelock and Wright, 1999; Kandampully, 2007;
Andreassen, 2008), tangible elements, although important in the delivery of quality services
(Moorthi, 2002), are easy for competitors to copy. To illustrate, a cabin on the Hurtigruten
is comparable to cabins on other explorer cruise ships and hardly provides a competitive
advantage. Similarly, a restaurant on a Hurtigruten ship is comparable to other restaurants
on cruise ships. Consequently, to gain competitive advantage and to become a market
leader in cruise operations in polar waters, intangible elements are decisive. In this
process, the brand may play an important role, particularly for differentiating the
Hurtigruten brand from competitors. Thus, management is advised to develop brand
messages to be used in communication, which should build on attractive values as
perceived by tourists, such as Norwegian seamanship, safety, reliability, comfort and
exoticness. Similarly, the brand slogan of Hurtigruten “being the most beautiful sea voyage
on earth,” which concerns the symbolic aspects of the brand (Moorthi, 2002), needs to be
exploited further in market campaigns. Service managers are advised to use an
involvement management model in their organisations, which, according to Lovelock and
Wright (1999, p. 331), emphasises “that employees are capable of self-direction and if
properly trained, motivated and informed can make good decisions about service
operation and delivery.” This line of thinking is comparable to Carlzon’s (1987) views of the
“inverted pyramid.” As the service branding process, according to theory, aims to serve
external as well internal purposes (Grönroos, 2007), management is also advised to turn
branding into a dual process to bene?t from highly motivated, committed and loyal service
employees. Furthermore, management is advised to move internal branding processes into
an even more analytical direction by taking brand decisions based on reliable market,
competitor and customer information and analysis. A systemic perspective on service
brand development is recommended.
Conclusions
The research reported in this paper provides insights into and understanding and
knowledge on how a service branding process works in a cruise line context. The ?ndings
were drawn from extensive interviews with service managers and service personnel, who
possess knowledge, skills and competencies on the topic under scrutiny. They provided
valuable information, which made it possible to identify a set of factors that determined the
format of the service branding process for the Hurtigruten, namely, that of a structured
process rather than an unstructured or “ad hoc” process. Nevertheless, the external
orientation of branding implies that more work has to be done to root the branding process
internally in the enterprise, i.e. among the service employees.
Nevertheless, the case study on the Hurtigruten may suffer from limitations and challenges,
particularly in relation to three issues:
1. the choice of interviewees;
2. the recall and memory of respondents; and
3. the time of data collection.
A relevant question is whether important subjects were omitted from the sample. However,
by following a snowball sampling procedure, the research seems to have included some of
the most skilled, knowledgeable and competent persons on service branding for the
Hurtigruten. A second question is to what degree interviewees correctly recalled the factors
that affect the service brand process in the shipping line? In this respect, however, the
research undertaken faced similar challenges to all qualitative retrospective studies
(Johannessen et al., 2004). By allowing the subjects to review their cases, one hindrance
to obtaining quality in research may be eliminated. Similarly, the time of data collection may
be questioned. However, at the time of the data collection phase in 2006 and 2007, the
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 457
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
status and positioning of the service brand Hurtigruten were well-established in
international cruise markets. Consequently, the relevance of the data seems to be high
even today. Nevertheless, more research on service branding on the Hurtigruten is called
for. A change of thematic focus could be interesting, for example, an examination of how
the Hurtiguruten, as a brand, contributes to value creation in the shipping line. Another
interesting approach would be to expand the research by the inclusion of a set of cruise line
carriers in a follow-up study. Such a study would provide knowledge on service branding
in the cruise line industry as a whole.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Stronger Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Andreassen, T.W. (2008), Serviceledelse, Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.
Arslan, F.M. and Altuna, O.K. (2012), “Which category to extend to – product or service?,” Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 359-376.
Biederman, P.S. (2008), Travel and Tourism. An Industry Primer, Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River NJ.
Blankson, C. and Kalafatis, S.P. (1999), “Issues and challenges the positioning of service brands: a
review,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 106-118.
Boyle, E. (2007), “A process model of brand cocreation: brand management and research
implications,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 121-131.
Brodie, R.J. (2009), “From goods to service branding: an integrative perspective,” Marketing Theory,
Vol. 9 No. 107.
Carlzon, J. (1987), Moments of Truth, Ballinger, New York, NY.
Clark, M., Riley, M., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R.C. (1998), Researching and Writing Dissertation in
Hospitality and Tourism, International Thompson Business Press, London.
Daft, R.L. (1999), Leadership: Theory and Practice, The Dreyden Press, New York, NY.
Davis, J.D. (2007), “A conceptual view of branding for services,” Innovative Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1.
de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford.
de Chernatony, L. and Cottam, S. (2006), “Internal brand factors driving successful ?nancial services
brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-633.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999), “Experts’ views about de?ning services brands and
the principles of service branding,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12, p. 1074.
de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000), “Developing corporate brands through considering internal
and external stakeholders,” Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 268-274.
de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building on services characteristics to develop
successful services brands,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 Nos 7/9, pp. 645-669.
de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003), “The criteria for successful service brands,” European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1095-1118.
Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (1993), “The strength of branding and positioning in services,” International
Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Dobree, J. and Page, A.S. (1990), “Unleashing the power of service brands in the 1990s,”
Management Decision, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 14-28.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1999), Management Research – An Introduction, Sage
Publications, London.
Farquhar, P. (1989), “Managing brand equity,” Marketing Research, Vol. 1 No. 9, pp. 24-33.
Fielding, N. (1997), “Qualitative interviewing,” in Gilbert, N. (Ed), Researching Social Life, Sage
Publications, London.
Free, C. (1999), “The internal brand,” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 231-236.
Gale, B.T. (1994), Managing Customer Value, The Free Press, New York, NY.
PAGE 458 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2002), Research Methods in Business Studies, Prentice-Hall, London.
Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing. A Customer Relationships Management
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Grönroos, C. (2007), Service Management and Marketing. A Customer Relationships Management
Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage Publications, London.
Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organizations, Penguin, New York, NY.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance,”
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-456.
Hoffman, K.D. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1997), Essentials of Services Marketing, The Dreyden Press, New
York, NY.
Hudson, B.T. (2011), “Brand heritage and the renaissance of Cunard,” European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 1538-1556.
Hunt, J.W. (1997), Managing People at Work, McGraw-Hill, London.
Hurtigruten (2001), Strategic Choices After 1999, Company report, Hurtigruten, Tromsø.
Hwang, J. and Han, H. (2014), “Examining strategies for maximizing and utilizing brand prestige in the
luxury cruise industry,” Tourism Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 244-259.
Johannessen, A., Kristoffersen, L. and Tufte, P.A. (2004), Forskningsmetode for økonomisk-
administrative Fag, Abstrakt forlag, Oslo.
Johnston, J.P., Lind, C.P., Fang, T.W. and Hui, A.K. (2002), “Country-of-origin and brand effects on
consumers’ evaluation of cruise lines,” International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 3.
Kandampully, J.S. (2007), Services Management. The New Paradigm in Hospitality, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, NJ.
Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40
Nos 7/8, pp. 742-760.
Kimpakorn, N. and Toquer, G. (2009), “Employees’ commitment to brands in the service sector: luxury
hotel chains in Thailand,” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 532-544.
Kimpakorn, N. and Toquer, G. (2010), “Service brand equity and employee brand commitment,”
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 378-388.
King, S. (1991), “Brand building in the 1990s,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 3-13.
Kinnear, T.C. and Taylor, J.R. (1991), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), A Force for Change, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kwortnik, R.J. (2006), “Carnival cruise lines burnishing the brand,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 286-300.
Li, X.R. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), “Reexamining the dimensionality of brand loyalty: a case of the cruise
industry,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Lovelock, C. and Wright, L. (1999), Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, A Sage University Paper, London.
McDonald, M.H.B., De Chernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2001), “Corporate marketing and service
brands,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-352.
Mehmetoglu, M. (2004), Kvalitativ metode for merkantile fag, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
Merriam, S. (1998), Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Moorthi, Y.L.R. (2002), “An approach to branding services,” Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 259-274.
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 459
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Normann, R. (1991), Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in Services Businesses, Wiley,
Chichester.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A. (2009), “Internal branding: an enabler of employees’
brand-supporting behaviours,” Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Rooney, J.P. (1995), “Branding: a trend for today and tomorrow,” Journal of Product and Brand
Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 48-55.
Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Mass, P. and Cachelin, J.L. (2011), “The in?uence of the employer brand
on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: an empirical investigation,” Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 497-508.
Simmons, G.J. (2007), “I-branding: developing the internet as a branding tool,” Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 541-562.
Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), “Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation,” Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 217-224.
Skaalsvik, H. (2011), “Service failures in a cruise line context: suggesting categorical schemes of
service failures,” European Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Sok, P. and O’Cass, A. (2011), “Understanding service ?rms brand value creation: a multilevel
perspective including the overarching role of service brand marketing capability,” Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 528-539.
Sundbo, J. (1997), “Management of innovations in services,” The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 432-455.
Trott, P. (2005), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Prentice-Hall, London.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand name strategies in the service sector,” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 40, pp. 42-50.
Urde, M. (1994), “Brand orientation–a strategy for survival,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 18-32.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand building,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-1040.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Veal, A.J. (2006), Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism, Pitman Publishing, London.
Vrontis, D. and Papasolomou, J. (2007), “Product and brand building: the case of the Cyprus wine
industry,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 532-544.
Weaver, A. (2007), “Complexity at sea: managing brands within the cruise industry,” Tourism
Management: Analysis, Behaviour, and Strategy, Chapter 16, available at: www.hurtigruten.no
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Further reading
Nerdrum, P. (1998), Mellom sannhet og velferd. Etiske dilemmaer i forskning belyst ved et eksempel,
Høgskolen i Oslo, avdeling for Økonomi- Kommunal og Sosialfag, Oslo.
Silverman, D. (2005), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
PAGE 460 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Appendix 1
A brief history of the Hurtigruten
On 2 July, 1893, a warm summer’s morning in Trondheim, the Norwegian steamship D/S
Vesteraalen left the town bound for Hammerfest, far up north in Norway. An enthusiastic
crowd of people welcomed the ship in Hammerfest about 70 hours later. Three weeks
earlier, the Norwegian Parliament had taken an innovative decision to establish a route
along the Norwegian coastline from Trondheim to Hammerfest. Sailing both night and day
along one of the most weather-beaten coasts in the world in all climatic conditions was a
new and astonishing idea. Despite scepticism and even severe resistance from experts in
sea transport in Norway, the Hurtigruten became a logistic success as an effective sea
transportation means of both people and goods. Five years later, the coastal route was to
Bergen in the south, and from 1908 to Kirkenes in the north. Today (2013), the Hurtigruten
has become a famous tourist attraction of signi?cant importance and value in Norway,
comprising 2,500 nautical miles, 34 ports of call, 11 modern ships and an 11-day return
voyage from Bergen to Kirkenes.
Appendix 2
Figure A1 shows the travel route of the Hurtigruten.
Corresponding author
Hugo Skaalsvik can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Figure A1 The travel route of the Hurtigruten, including the names of the Hurtigruten
ships today
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 461
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_174153800.pdf