To make staff part of brand building. As de Chernatony and Harris explain in their later papers on the model, a corporate brand must pay attention to its stakeholders inside the company as well as outside (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 268). Stakeholders are the groups with an interest in the brand, from staff to customers. A corporate brand is the brand of a whole company, not of a single product line (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 441). With the rise of corporate branding, "all employees represent the corporate brand" and shape what outsiders think of it. For the brand to show one clear identity, the people inside the company must therefore work together more closely. In services, staff and customers produce the service together. Customer satisfaction then depends on whether staff behave as the advertising promised (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 268). Staff stand where the inside of the brand meets the outside world. They can strongly affect how customers see both the brand and the company (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 441).

To build on emotional values. According to de Chernatony and Harris, functional values, innovation and price give a brand only a short-lived edge over competitors. Its emotional values, "notably expressed through staff", give it the most lasting edge (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 268). Technology is everywhere and offers less and less of a lasting edge. So managers increasingly set their brands apart through emotional rather than functional features. These values reach people through advertising, but also through the contacts staff have with stakeholders (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 441).

To follow the shift from image to identity. Harris and de Chernatony add a further reason. In the branding literature, the focus had moved from brand image to brand identity. Image is about how customers see what makes a brand different. Identity is about "how managers and employees make a brand unique". So managers first need to define the brand's values and then make sure that the values and behaviour of staff fit them. Outside the company, they need to check the brand's reputation, meaning the lasting picture stakeholders have of it. That way they can make sure that the identity comes across and that the brand keeps delivering what stakeholders value (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 442).

The model rests on one idea. Brand management is "a dual process" of narrowing two gaps, places where things that should match do not. Inside the company, the gaps between the identity components have to close, so that the components fit together. Outside, the gap between the brand's identity and its reputation among stakeholders has to close (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 269). Four principles follow from this idea:

• Vision and culture at the centre: the brand's vision and its culture form the heart of the identity (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 443). They drive the brand's positioning, which sets out what the brand offers and to whom. They also drive its personality and the relationships that follow. Finally, all of these are presented so that they reflect stakeholders' "actual and aspirational self-images". The presentation thus mirrors how stakeholders see themselves and how they would like to be (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, pp. 442, 444).
• Components that reinforce each other: the six components "interact and are mutually reinforcing" (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 442). In the figure, most arrows point both ways. From the model, the authors derive five propositions, claims that research can test. The first says that the better the components fit together, the narrower the gap between identity and reputation and the better the brand performs (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 270).
• Reputation, not image, as the yardstick: in the authors' view, reputation "should be used to assess a corporate brand's identity" (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 270). Image is what people think of a brand right now, and it keeps changing. Reputation is more stable. It is "the distillation of multiple images over time", the lasting picture that many passing images leave behind. It also covers the views of all stakeholders, not only customers (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 445). In the figure, reputation stands outside the box of brand identity (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 443, Figure 1).
• A feedback loop: an arrow runs from presentation out to reputation and from there back into the identity. So what stakeholders think flows back into the company, and the gap between the reputation outside and the identity inside can be kept small (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272). Managers need to work with staff to narrow the gaps and remove their causes. Then they can fine-tune their strategies (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 445).

De Chernatony built the model on Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism and first presented it in 1999 (de Chernatony, 1999, cited in Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 442).

The authors describe a clear order of work. Managers first need a shared view of the identity they want. Only then should they communicate it to stakeholders inside and outside the company (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272). The work starts in the brand team. It consists of the people who design and develop the brand strategy, and it can include people in outside agencies. The team members first bring their own views of the brand into the open and make the intended identity clear. Then they work with staff to make sure that staff see the brand as intended. As a further check, staff report how they think customers see the brand (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, pp. 445–446). The papers name several tools for these steps:

• Independent facilitator: a neutral person who runs the process collects each team member's anonymous view of the brand. This facilitator then leads a workshop in which the group discusses these views and agrees on each identity component. Because the facilitator takes no side, conflict stays low and no single member can dominate (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 452). The workshop should also help to create a common language and a shared brand vision (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272).
• Card sort: this technique shows managers where their own view of the brand's positioning differs from the desired positioning (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272).
• Structured debate: in dialectical inquiry, a team debates two opposing views. In devil's advocacy, it picks apart a single view. Both methods bring conflicting views of the brand into the open so that they can be resolved. Teams whose members are very alike can use them against groupthink, the habit of agreeing too quickly without asking questions (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 452).
• Totems: a totem is a metaphor made of photographs or images and a few words. It gives a large team one shared picture to work from. The idea comes from product design, where "tall boy" served as a metaphor for the Honda City and "rugby player in a business suit" for the Honda Accord. A brand team can build such a totem to reflect the six identity components and use it to explain the brand to staff (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 452).
• Staff programmes and human resources: in workshops, staff can work out how to turn the desired values into behaviour (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272). BUPA, Railtrack and Great North Eastern Railway ran internal programmes to tell staff about their brand values and involve them as "ambassadors" for their brands (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 453). The human resources department can help too. It can run training, hire people whose values fit the brand, shape reward systems and base performance reviews on behaviour (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 273).

The work never ends. It "requires continuous monitoring" of how well the six components fit together and how well they match the brand's reputation among stakeholders (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 273).

Suomi and colleagues applied the model to the Master's programme in Pori that supplies the examples above. The two-year programme trains managers for the creative industries. A school of economics and an art and media department of two Finnish universities ran it together. The authors used the six components as interview themes. They found all six in the case and added a seventh, place. Here, place means the programme's location in an old cotton factory by a river (Suomi et al., 2013, pp. 206–207, 211–212).

The two papers point to four pitfalls (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272; Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, pp. 442, 448, 451–452):

• Advertising ahead of staff: advertising claims should reflect the brand's core values, and staff should discuss them before they go out. Otherwise, a mismatch between advertising and staff can damage the brand's reputation (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272). If the brand team leaves advertising and other brand communications open to interpretation, the views staff hold of the brand are likely to drift apart (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, pp. 451–452).
• Relying on socialisation: "On its own, socialization provides limited knowledge creation". Picking up the identity informally at work is not enough. Active internal communication programmes should therefore support it (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 272).
• Waiting for agreement: brand teams tend to agree more over time. The authors do not want to leave this to time, all the more because marketers change jobs often. They call for ways to bring different views into the open and settle them (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 448). Priem et al. argue that conflict that is voiced and then resolved leads to stronger agreement than a "premature consensus". Such an agreement comes too early and smooths over hidden disagreement (Priem et al., 1995, cited in Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 448).
• Values defined at the top only: traditionally, management defined the brand's values alone. In corporate branding, however, staff play a key role. They need to be included in the internal debate about these values. Management still starts the process (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 442).

• Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism: the model builds on Kapferer's brand-based view of identity. Kapferer pictures it as a prism with six sides, or facets. They are physique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection and self-image (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 269). Personality, culture and relationships return as components. Reflection and self-image are taken up in presentation, which should reflect stakeholders' aspirations and self-images (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 270). Physique remains only as artefacts that shape the positioning (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 444). Vision and positioning are new, and reputation is added outside the identity.
• Corporate identity and reputation models: the authors' review of the literature found only a few models of corporate identity and corporate reputation, such as those of Dowling and Fombrun. Each comes from a different perspective, and "none directly addresses the problem of brand management" (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 269). Following the International Corporate Identity Group, the authors define corporate identity as a company's ethos, or guiding spirit, its aims and its values. Together these create a sense of individuality and set the brand apart (de Chernatony & Harris, 2000, p. 268).