Managing i-branding to create brand equity

Purpose: Given the emergent nature of i-branding as an academic field of study and a lack of applied research output, the aim of this paper is to explain how businesses manage i-branding to create brand equity.

Design/methodology/approach: Within a case-study approach, seven cases were developed from an initial sample of 20 food businesses. Additionally, utilising secondary data, the analysis of findings introduces relevant case examples from other industrial sectors.

Findings: Specific internet tools and their application are discussed within opportunities to create brand equity for products classified by experience, credence and search characteristics. An understanding of target customers will be critical in underpinning the selection and deployment of relevant i-branding tools. Tools facilitating interactivity – machine and personal – are particularly significant.

Research limitations/implications: Future research positioned within classification of goods constructs could provide further contributions that recognise potential moderating effects of product/service characteristics on the development of brand equity online. Future studies could also employ the i-branding conceptual framework to test its validity and develop it further as a means of explaining how i-branding can be managed to create brand equity.

Originality/value: While previous research has focused on specific aspects of i-branding, this paper utilises a conceptual framework to explain how diverse i-branding tools combine to create brand equity. The literature review integrates fragmented literature around a conceptual framework to produce a more coherent understanding of extant thinking. The location of this study within a classification of goods context proved critical to explaining how i-branding can be managed.

Corporate Governance in Canadian and US Credit Unions

This report, a collaborative effort between the Filene Research Institute and the Credit Union Central of Canada, with participation from the Desjardins Group, follows on two recent governance projects: Tracking the Relationship Between Credit Union Governance and Performance and a three-part series by Professor Robert Hoel about how boards can add more value. Beyond these, the academic literature of corporate governance is well developed, so this study includes an in-depth review of financial institution governance research and calls out the differences between credit unions and other firms. Also, because surveys can only go so far in teasing out insights, the authors followed up with a dozen interviews with credit unions of all sizes across all three major North American credit union systems.

Because the report is survey-based, large swaths of the findings compare major and minor details of different (and often not-so-different) approaches to governance in the three systems and among differently sized credit unions. From those comparisons, some interesting differences emerge. For example, as a federated system, Desjardins excels at some aspects of board development and system governance in ways that the more atomized US and Canadian credit union systems do not.

Climate Change, national politics and grassroots action: an introduction

Climate change continues to dominate academic work within green/environmental politics. Indeed, there appears to be almost an inverse relationship between the lack of political leadership on tackling climate change and the growth in ever more sophisticated academic analyses of this complex and multifaceted problem. There is an increasing disjunction between the growth in our knowledge and understanding of the ethical, political, economic, sociological, cultural, and psychological aspects of climate change and the lack of political achievement in putting in place clear and binding targets, an agreed decarbonisation roadmap, and associated regulatory and policy instruments with enforcement. This gap might be taken as evidence that we do not need more reports on climate change. To quote that most unlikely of green politicians, Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Governor of California: ‘The debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know that the time for action is now’ (California Energy Commission 2007, p. 1). This special issue focuses on a variety of ways in which climate change is conceptualised in normative political and ethical theory, and addressed in policy and regulations.

Big Ears – sonic art for public ears: Reflections on collaborative training

This text critically reflects on the higher education public engagement training program, entitled ‘Big Ears – sonic art for public ears’. The authors detail the objectives and aims as well as the benefits of this initiative for the enhancement of the student learning experience. We consider Schmidt’s (Schmidt, 2012) notion of mis-listening and Christopher Small’s concept of ‘musicking’ (Small, 1998), and develop a critical argument on how public engagement has changed researchers’ views and attitudes about their own research. The text explores how the creative interaction with a young audience has had great impact on the students’ learning experience as well as on their employability/transferable skills, because Big Ears stresses the importance of pulling practice as research away from the academic argument of why artists should be supported inside an institution, and into the realm of the real – what to do when making art, how to make it relevant and applicable to audiences.

Improving E-Assessment Systems With A focus On Adaptive Feedback And Marking

Institutions involved in the provision of tertiary education across Europe are feeling the pinch. European universities, and other higher education (HE) institutions, must operate in a climate where the pressure of government spending cuts (Garben, 2012) is in stark juxtaposition to the EU’s strategy to drive forward and maintain a growth of student numbers in the sector (eurostat, 2015).

In order to remain competitive, universities and HE institutions are making ever-greater use of electronic assessment (E-Assessment) systems (Chatzigavriil et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012). These systems are attractive primarily because they offer a cost-effect and scalable approach for assessment. In addition to scalability, they also offer reliability, consistency and impartiality; furthermore, from the perspective of a student they are most popular because they can offer instant feedback (Walet, 2012).

There are disadvantages, though.

First, feedback is often returned to a student immediately on competition of their assessment. While it is possible to disable the instant feedback option (this is often the case during an end of semester exam period when assessment scores must be can be ratified before release), however, this option tends to be a global ‘all on’ or ‘all off’ configuration option which is controlled centrally rather than configurable on a per-assessment basis.

If a formative in-term assessment is to be taken by multiple groups of
students, each at different times, this restriction means that answers to each question will be disclosed to the first group of students undertaking the assessment. As soon as the answers are released “into the wild” the academic integrity of the assessment is lost for subsequent student groups.

Second, the style of feedback provided to a student for each question is often limited to a simple ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ indicator. While this type of feedback has its place, it often does not provide a student with enough insight to improve their understanding of a topic that they did not answer correctly.

Most E-Assessment systems boast a wide range of question types including Multiple Choice, Multiple Response, Free Text Entry/Text Matching and Numerical questions. The design of these types of questions is often quite restrictive and formulaic, which has a knock-on effect on the quality of feedback that can be provided in each case.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) are most prevalent as they are the most prescriptive and therefore most the straightforward to mark consistently. They are also the most amenable question types, which allow easy provision of meaningful, relevant feedback to each possible outcome chosen.
Text matching questions tend to be more problematic due to their free text entry nature. Common misspellings or case-sensitivity errors can often be accounted for by the software but they are by no means fool proof, as it is very difficult to predict in advance the range of possible variations on an answer that would be considered worthy of marks by a manual marker of a paper based equivalent of the same question.

Numerical questions are similarly restricted. An answer can be checked for accuracy or whether it is within a certain range of the correct answer, but unless it is a special purpose-built mathematical E-Assessment system the system is unlikely to have computational capability and so cannot, for example, account for “method marks” which are commonly awarded in paper-based marking.

From a pedagogical perspective, the importance of providing useful formative feedback to students at a point in their learning when they can benefit from the feedback and put it to use must not be understated (Grieve et all, 2015; Ferrell, 2012).

In this work, we propose a number of software-based solutions, which will overcome the limitations and inflexibilities of existing E-Assessment systems.