INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1107

www.rsisinternational.org

Branding in Digital Entrepreneurship: Evaluating Branding Criteria

in IT Entrepreneurship

Lecturer Emre Demirok

Lecturer in Piri Reis University Faculty of Engineering / Department of Computer Engineering /

Computer Engineering Program

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000093

Received: 19 September 2025; Accepted: 24 September 2025; Published: 05 November 2025

ABSTRACT

In today’s digital economy, creating a strong brand is critically important for IT sector entrepreneurs in terms of

sustainable growth and competitive advantage. However, many technology ventures founded primarily on

technical expertise encounter various challenges in implementing branding processes. This study aims to analyze

the extent to which digital enterprises operating in the IT sector are able to implement branding strategies, and

to identify the factors that facilitate or hinder this process. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method,

the factors affecting the applicability of branding were evaluated through a multi-criteria approach. Based on

expert opinions, the criteria—management vision, financial capacity, human resource competence, strategic

alignment, marketing ability, and technical expertise—were weighted and prioritized. The findings indicate that,

in addition to entrepreneurs’ level of awareness regarding branding, tangible obstacles in the implementation

process (such as budget constraints and lack of expertise) are also decisive. The study contributes both to

academic literature and provides strategic guidance for technology ventures.

Keywords: Information Technology Sector, Digitalization, Branding, Sustainability, AHP, Technological

Innovation, Evaluating Branding Criteria in IT Entrepreneurship

INTRODUCTION

Digital entrepreneurship is the procedure of developing business models, offering products/services, and creating

value by utilizing the internet and digital technologies. Examples include e-commerce websites, mobile

applications, SaaS (software as a service) ventures, and social media–based commerce models. The concept of

digital entrepreneurship is defined as the restructuring of existing business models and processes through

digitalization. The increasing impact of digital transformation has made digital entrepreneurship a critical

element not only in enhancing economic prosperity but also in addressing unemployment and promoting

innovative approaches (Turuk, 2018). In particular, the intense competitive environment experienced during the

Covid-19 pandemic made value of digital entrepreneurship more visible and increased interest in this field.

Artificial intelligence, big data analytics, blockchain are regarded as the beginning of a new era. The growing

adoption of these technologies across different sectors has led to significant changes in social and economic life.

These developments, driven by digital transformation, are reshaping the nature and functioning of

entrepreneurship while creating new and diverse opportunities for entrepreneurs (Gigauri et al., 2023).

Effectively leveraging these opportunities makes adopting a digital entrepreneurship approach a necessity.

Unlike traditional entrepreneurship, digital entrepreneurship is based on the innovative possibilities offered by

technology. Although there are numerous examples worldwide, it is still in a developmental stage in academic

literature. Nevertheless, the shift of business processes to digital environments, accelerated by the Covid-19

pandemic, has made digital entrepreneurship practices more widespread and more visible (Özay & Kök, 2022).

Digital entrepreneurship largely refers to entrepreneurial activities carried out through digital platforms and

technologies (Paul et al., 2023). In this context, digital entrepreneurship require creating new businesses or

transforming currents by leveraging digital resources such as the internet, social media, mobile apps, and e-

commerce platforms. Its scope is extensive, covering a variety of sectors including online retail, digital

marketing, financial services, and the gig economy (Paul et al., 2023).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1108

www.rsisinternational.org

Digital entrepreneurship is particularly grounded in various theoretical approaches, such as technology adoption

theories. These theories emphasize the significance of user attitudes in the acceptance of technology, which is

an integral part of the entrepreneurial process (Sitaridis & Kitsios, 2024). The concept of innovation also stands

out in digital entrepreneurship, as digital entrepreneurs are often regarded as innovators who transform

traditional industries through new digital products, services, or business models (Sitaridis & Kitsios, 2024).

Therefore, digital entrepreneurship represents a important advancement in the field of entrepreneurship, shaped

by technological innovations and evolving consumer behaviors. While technology offers unlimited opportunities

for development, it also presents various difficulties that require entrepreneurs to engage in continuous research

and adaptation (Alzamel, 2024).

Unlike traditional entrepreneurship, digital entrepreneurship builds business models on digital tools such as the

internet, mobile applications, social media, artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing. It is the

entrepreneur’s process of creating digital value through the use of various digital techniques to effectively

acquire, process, distribute, and consume digital information (Sahut et al., 2021). Whether entrepreneurship is

digital or traditional, it is always explained as a process. The entrepreneurial process generally involves multiple

analytical elements, including the emergence of the business idea, identification of business opportunities,

preliminary evaluation, feasibility study, securing and using financial resources, and building an organizational

structure. Overall, these stages often overlap and complement each other (Carrier et al., 2004).

Various European funds and programs help digital entrepreneurs bring their innovative ideas to life and support

their growth. These initiatives promote economic growth and reduce unemployment in line with the EU’s

sustainability policies. Moreover, the digitalization process, integrated with the EU’s sustainability policies,

should be addressed with consideration of environmental impacts. Digitalization and digital entrepreneurship

play a significant role in achieving sustainability goals, such as reducing carbon footprints and developing green

technologies (Parliament, 2023).

Conducting business in a digital environment and leveraging digital innovations provide organizations with

access to new resources, and, most importantly, to high-quality, up-to-date information, services, and online

communities, which facilitate their expansion in the markets (Jovanović et al., 2024).The advancement of digital

technologies has transformed nearly every industry and sector. By 2023, with approximately 5.4 billion internet

users worldwide, online transactions have become a significant aspect of consumer demand (A., 2024).

Driven by the concepts of digital entrepreneurship and innovation, the past two decades have seen the emergence

of numerous companies within the digital economy. These digital enterprises utilize technology to generate new

value in business models, customer experiences, and internal capabilities that support their core operations. The

term includes both native digital brands and traditional organizations that are transforming their businesses

through digital technologies. The rise of the digital economy represents one of the most significant phases of

economic development since the Industrial Revolution, with digital entrepreneurship acknowledged as its key

driver (Zaheer, 2019) (Kraus, 2019). The digital economy is largely driven by entrepreneurial initiatives

generating innovations based on digital technologies. Digital innovations have advanced the growth of digital

brands and adopted business models companies. As brands increasingly rely on continuous evolution and

innovation, digital entrepreneurship emerges as an essential driver of brand management, facilitating

transformative business practices that resonate at both global and local levels (Jovanović et al., 2024).

The growth of the digital economy has considerably advanced business development, as the adoption of

innovative technologies has opened new opportunities for companies to create added value and expand their

market presence. According to the OECD, the digital economy includes all economic activities that rely on

digital inputs or are enhanced through their use, encompassing digital technologies, infrastructure, services, and

data (OECD, 2024).

The essence of digital branding can be understood in two distinct contexts. The first relates to physical products,

where the advancement of digital technologies enables the integration of traditional branding with the digital

environment. In this sense, building a digital brand involves adding new benefits and values to products. The

second context refers to virtual brands, such as Amazon, eBay, or Facebook. Unlike traditional brands, online

brands are characterized by dynamism, information richness, and technological innovation (Grzesiak, 2018).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1109

www.rsisinternational.org

The rise of digital brands was shaped by the concept of Web 2.0, which introduced interactivity and paved the

way for social media. Social networking became the foundation of the Web 2.0 philosophy and the digital space

where global digital brands emerged (Tuten, 2023). As the global digital population grew, so did the popularity

and influence of social media. Online platforms offering access to unlimited information became essential to

modern life and transformed global communication. Major social networks are typically available in multiple

languages, allowing users to connect across borders. Between 2010 and 2019, social media companies

experienced rapid growth, with many going public through IPOs or being acquired by larger corporations—

generating substantial wealth for their founders. Facebook is one of the most frequently cited examples in

academic literature (Statista, 2024).

Digital brand positioning strategies significantly influence consumer decision-making. For virtual organizations,

it's crucial to create a positive image in the minds of their audience and remain memorable. By sharing targeted

messages through social media, these organizations can differentiate their products or services and enhance

brand recall. This approach offers valuable opportunities for internet entrepreneurs and virtual organizations in

the digital Marketplace (Bahcecik et al., 2019).

The dynamics of the Information Technology (IT) sector encompass the forces and trends that drive its

continuous evolution, reflecting the interplay between technology, markets, people, and regulations.

Technological innovation is a key driver, with rapid advancements in AI, machine learning, cloud computing,

IoT, blockchain, cybersecurity, and quantum computing, coupled with very short product life cycles, making

innovation both essential and a source of competitive advantage. The sector is increasingly data-centric, with

data regarded as the “new oil” of the digital economy, where big data analytics, data security, and privacy

protection shape business strategies and public policies. Operating in a borderless global market, the IT industry

faces intense competition among global tech giants, regional firms, and innovative startups, with practices such

as outsourcing, offshoring, and nearshoring widely adopted. Beyond technical capabilities, the effectiveness of

a brand increasingly depends on the quality of the customer and user experience. Companies that embed

customer-centric design principles into their offerings foster greater trust, satisfaction, and long-term loyalty.

The regulatory and policy environment, including GDPR, data protection laws, cybersecurity regulations,

intellectual property rights, and government incentives, significantly influences operations and innovation.

Human capital is critical, requiring highly skilled professionals such as software engineers, data scientists,

cybersecurity experts, and project managers, while remote work, the gig economy, and global talent mobility are

reshaping the workforce. Economic and business models have evolved toward subscription services (SaaS, PaaS,

IaaS), platform-based ecosystems, and open-source collaboration, supported by venture capital and startup

ecosystems that drive disruption. Finally, sustainability and Green IT are increasingly important, with growing

demand for energy-efficient data centers, eco-friendly hardware, and sustainable digital infrastructures, as

environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations become integral to IT strategies.

IT sector is fast-moving, globally competitive and influenced heavily by technology, people, regulation.

According to organizational strategy theory, agility is essential for safeguarding investments and sustaining

business operations in volatile and uncertain conditions (Bondzi-Simpson, 2021). Ongoing changes in

international competition, technological advancement, and customer preferences create the need for firms to get

dynamic capabilities that allow them to anticipate and react to change effectively (Harsch & Festing, 2020).

Lead IT firms have engaged in these changings by establishing comprehensive collaborative frameworks

combining the expertise and resources of partner organizations, thereby stronger IT networks and capabilities

develop to handle environmental changes (Kushwaha et al., 2021).

The application and impact of IT can be assessed by its infrastructural framework and its contributions to

organizational value (Han et al., 2017). Key infrastructure challenges are most frequently associated with

connectivity, hardware performance, and the compatibility of systems (Zhang et al., 2009). COVID-19 showed

the important role of IT in supporting infrastructure and value creation in remote conditions. This situation has

reinforced the necessity of organizational agility, encouraging the evolution of information systems and

frameworks allowing operational flexibility. At the same time, growing interest in firmware-upgradeable

products has consolidated the need for software tailored to customer needs (Kushwaha & Kar, 2020).

Research highlights challenges in maintaining sustainable brand management across sectoral processes. In this

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1110

www.rsisinternational.org

context, it becomes evident that businesses require structured frameworks to guide their prioritization efforts.

The core issue lies in identifying which criteria should be avoided when aiming for economic sustainability and

determining the strategic actions necessary to address this.

This research analyzes the application of branding strategies and identifies the factors which facilitate or constrict

success by focusing on the IT sector, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to evaluate and rank

essential criteria, including management vision, financial resources, human capital, strategic alignment,

marketing ability, and technical expertise.

Branding has become a critical strategic tool for IT entrepreneurs seeking to differentiate in highly dynamic and

competitive markets. Unlike traditional industries, IT entrepreneurship requires integrating technological

innovation, customer-centric strategies, and strong organizational vision to establish sustainable brand equity.

This study proposes and evaluates a time-bound action plan for branding in IT entrepreneurship, grounded in

expert-assigned priority weights. The plan emphasizes leadership vision, organizational culture, innovation, and

customer satisfaction as the foundation of branding success

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Until the 16th century, it was sufficient to know who produced a product or, from the producers' perspective, to

use symbols proving that the product belonged to them. However, in the 17th and 18th centuries, due to the

increase in the number of producers and the proliferation of substitute products, businesses moved to a stage of

differentiation, emphasizing distinctive features that set their products apart from others (Atılgan, 2011). After

this stage, the concept of a brand, derived from the Old Norse word “brandr”, meaning “to burn,” began to gain

greater importance. Initially, brands were used by farmers to mark their livestock, and later, with the

development of commercial buyers, they served as a means to distinguish the animals of one farm from those of

others (Clifton & Sımmons, 2003). The word "brand" entered our language from the Italian term “marca” and,

similar to the definition by the American Marketing Association, the Turkish Language Association defines it

as “a specific name or symbol used to promote a commercial good or any object and to distinguish it from similar

items.” (Özbaysal & Onay, 2018). The adoption of product branding and the use of brand names is believed to

have emerged toward the end of the 19th century. While the effects of the Industrial Revolution played a role,

the rise of competition and the resulting importance of marketing techniques likely contributed, as branding

fulfills its greatest advantages: creating differentiation and enabling promotion (Alkara & Arıcı, 2019).

Additionally, while institutionalization aims for a business to continue existing independently of individuals,

branding seeks to make a product and/or service the preferred choice for consumers in every aspect.

Nevertheless, both share a common point: they support the strong and sustained existence of the business

(Atılgan, 2011).

As information and communication technologies advanced and computer usage became a crucial necessity,

commerce inevitably shifted into the electronic realm. The movement of buying and selling goods and services

online gave rise to the concept of e-commerce. With the rapid growth of internet-based social networks, e-

commerce has gained prominence, driving increased use of digital marketing. This allows companies to focus

on creating long-term brand value through digital marketing tools rather than relying solely on traditional

methods. Additionally, analyzing the frequency and habits of social media use, along with consumer interests,

has become a strategic priority, highlighting the significance of understanding how businesses employ e-

commerce and digital marketing (Adalı & Sığrı, 2022).

Companies that have successfully embraced digitalization and digital transformation, and are able to deliver

products to customers or consumers through digital technologies, gain a competitive advantage. This is because

digitalization and digital transformation, which represent an internal change within the firm, enable a digital

value exchange with the customer or consumer. Brand and brand value, which represent the consumer’s

perception and the added value to the product, also play a role in this value exchange. For these reasons, in the

digital age, the concept of brand value needs to be reconsidered. Consumer behaviors are constantly changing.

Generation Z, born into the digital era and demanding personalized content and customer experiences, along

with the preceding Generation Y, are the largest consumer groups interacting with the digital world. The growth

of brand value depends on the adoption of brands by Generations Y and Z (Kotler & Setiawan, 2020). Today,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1111

www.rsisinternational.org

the reasons e-commerce is increasingly preferred include companies being able to reach consumers more easily

and quickly, minimizing costs, providing simple ways to enhance brand loyalty, and, consequently, offering

businesses simpler arguments when building brand value. Other factors include ease and low cost of distribution,

more comfortable interaction with consumers, instant feedback, attractiveness, exposure to the global market,

24-hour service, and immediate sales (İyiler, 2009). With digitalization, especially online companies measure

brand value through digital marketing, which helps their consumers recognize the brand, become aware of it,

prefer a specific brand over competitors, and thereby establish brand loyalty (Rios & Riquelme, 2008). In

addition, companies’ brand strategies have also shifted toward digital. A company’s brand strategy is a plan that

identifies at least one or several digital marketing tools and outlines how to support them through content and

usage methods (Erkollar & Oberer, 2017). Digital marketing can be defined as the activities carried out by

businesses—primarily using social media platforms and other digital channels—to achieve their sales goals,

conduct advertising and promotional activities, manage brand image and brand management, and at the same

time, engage in effective communication with their customers (Yuvaraj & Indumathi, 2018).

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s, provides a methodical

framework for decision-making by decomposing problems into hierarchical levels. Decision-makers can assign

relative importance to criteria and alternatives, producing reliable and quantifiable priority scales by using

pairwise comparisons, this technique has gained widespread application among organizations and governments

for structured, expert-driven decision support (Saaty, 2008). AHP has strong scalability and adaptability for

operating several levels of criteria. Since its development by Saaty in 1980, it has been widely used in a variety

of industries, ranging from healthcare and education to finance, engineering, sales, project management, and

telecommunications. (Abu-Sarhan, 2011). The central component of AHP is the pairwise evaluation of

alternatives. Expert judgment is vital, yet the potential for bias in these evaluations presents an native limitation.

(Velasquez & Hester, 2013). Another challenge with AHP is the potential for inconsistency in experts’

evaluations when conducting pairwise comparison (Triantaphyllou & Mann, 1995). The potential for

inconsistency is radically reduced by keeping the Consistency Ratio (CR) below 10%. AHP’s popularity as a

multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tool derive from its ease of use because it allows pairwise comparisons

instead of requiring the simultaneous evaluation of several options. (C. et al., 2025).

In the 1960s, Thomas L. Saaty worked at the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), where he

advised negotiators involved in nuclear disarmament discussions with the Soviet Union. He observed that

participants often overlooked important factors, largely because human decision-making tends to rely more on

intuition and emotions than on logic. Group dynamics can lead individuals to be influenced by the opinions of

others, increasing the likelihood of social persuasion affecting their judgments.

The first step of AHP requires a clear formulation of the decision problem which includes the objective, relevant

criteria and alternatives. For example, when deciding between two refrigerator models based on price, customer

rating, and color, the hierarchy places the goal at the top, criteria in the middle, and the options at the lowest

level.

After building the hierarchy, priorities have to be defined by judgments and pairwise comparisons. Pairwise

comparison means evaluating two criteria against each other to decide which is more important and by how

much. The AHP uses a scale from 1 to 9, where 1 indicates equal importance and 9 indicates extreme importance

of one element over another. These comparisons are entered into a matrix, where the same criteria compared

with themselves are given the value 1. For instance, if the woman decides that rating is moderately more

important than price, she assigns a 3; if she believes color is far more important than price, she assigns a 7.

Reciprocal values are then automatically derived—for example, if color is 7 times more important than price,

then price is 1/7 as important as color.

The following step is to normalize the comparison matrix. This is done by summing the values in each column,

then dividing each entry in the column by the column sum. For instance, if the sum of the first column is 1.476,

then the value 1.000 in Row 1 is divided by 1.476 to get 0.677. This process is repeated for every column.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1112

www.rsisinternational.org

Once normalization is complete, row averages are calculated to determine the priority values of each criterion.

For example, if the average of the normalized values in the price row is 0.643, then price holds a priority weight

of 0.643 in the decision process. The same calculation is performed for rating and color.

The analysis reveals that price is the most influential factor in choosing a refrigerator, followed by customer

ratings and then color. However, a deeper evaluation is required to compare the two models—Model X and

Model Y—against each criterion. Once the priority values for both the criteria and the alternatives are calculated,

they are combined to determine the overall ranking. This integrated assessment enables a rational decision about

which refrigerator is the preferable choice. To ensure the robustness of the outcome, additional checks such as

consistency and sensitivity analysis can be conducted (Rohland, 2025).

METHODOLOGY

Research model: AHP approach

In this study, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed as the research model. AHP is a multi-criteria

decision-making technique that facilitates the structured resolution of complex problems. It organizes the

research problem hierarchically, placing the goal at the top level, criteria in the middle, and alternatives at the

bottom. Pairwise comparisons are conducted between criteria and alternatives to assess their relative importance,

typically using a scale from 1 to 9. Following this, normalization and weight calculations are performed to

determine the numerical priority values of each criterion and alternative. The AHP method also ensures result

reliability by evaluating the logical consistency of decisions through a consistency ratio check. Consequently,

AHP is particularly well-suited for multi-criteria decision-making in the IT sector, enabling the prioritization of

branding criteria and a systematic analysis of decision-making processes.

Identification of criteria and sub-criteria

In the process of identifying criteria for the applicability of branding in the information technology sector, the

existing academic literature on the topic was first thoroughly reviewed. During this review, key factors

influencing branding in the IT sector—such as management vision, human resources and corporate culture,

technological competence and innovation capacity, customer experience and satisfaction, adequacy of financial

resources, marketing-oriented brand strategy management, use of digital platforms, strong and consistent brand

identity, sectoral collaborations and ecosystem participation, and reputation—were highlighted in various

studies. Based on these findings, the criteria most frequently emphasized in the literature and particularly

relevant to the sector were selected and systematically classified for use in the study.

Having a brand-oriented vision within management plays a critical role in the branding process of IT companies.

Alignment of leadership with the company’s vision and values facilitates employees’ adoption of brand

objectives and the implementation of innovative brand strategies. A brand-focused vision serves as a

fundamental criterion for making long-term decisions and ensuring brand differentiation (Kotler & Keller,

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Stickiness of Freight Forwarders Based on Customer Experience, 2016).

Branding processes in the information technology sector require investments in marketing, advertising, and

digital platforms. Financial capacity is a decisive factor for the sustainability and scalability of branding efforts

(Aaker D. , 2014). Without sufficient financial resources, brand awareness cannot be increased, and brand value

cannot be sustained. The branding process is not limited to the product or service; employees’ brand awareness

and competence are also central to the process. Employees serve as the most critical touchpoints connecting the

brand with customers. Academic studies emphasize the contribution of human capital to brand value (Barney J.

, 1991).

Corporate culture is seen as a structure that supports the internalization and consistency of the brand. Cultural

dimensions are directly related to innovation and customer orientation, and in IT companies, it is important that

a technology-focused culture aligns with the brand values (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). A brand strategy should

be aligned with the company’s overall objectives and strategic plans. The success of branding is achievable

through planning that is integrated with strategic goals. Strategic alignment facilitates the brand’s market

positioning and helps secure a competitive advantage (Kapferer J.-N. , 2017). In the IT sector, branding is

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1113

www.rsisinternational.org

directly related to visibility on digital platforms and customer experience. Technological competence,

product/service innovation, and effective use of digital marketing channels provide the sustainability of the brand

(Chaffey & Ellis-Chadwick, 2019). Branding is evaluated based on customers’ experiences with the brand.

Positive customer experiences enhance brand loyalty and repeat purchase behavior, directly demonstrating the

impact of customer experience on brand value (Berry, 2000). The rapid evolution of products and services in the

IT sector makes innovation critical in branding. R&D and innovation capacity enable the brand to maintain a

competitive advantage and differentiate itself within the industry (Teece, 2010). Brand reputation is measured

by a company’s credibility and perception in the market. A strong brand reputation builds customer trust and

loyalty. Effectively managing reputation, with attention to social responsibility and ethical standards, is vital for

achieving sustainable brand value (Fombrun & Riel, 2008).

A set of ten criteria relevant to branding in the information technology (IT) sector was established through an

in-depth analysis of scholarly literature and industry reports. Initially, a thorough examination of studies focusing

on branding, digital entrepreneurship, and the IT sector was conducted to uncover the key factors that influence

successful brand development. The review highlighted several key factors that consistently contribute to

branding success in IT companies. These include: management vision, human resources and organizational

culture, technological competence and innovation capacity, customer experience and satisfaction, adequacy of

financial resources, marketing-driven brand strategy, effective use of digital platforms, a strong and coherent

brand identity, time management, sectoral collaboration and ecosystem engagement, and brand reputation. These

elements were frequently emphasized across academic literature and industry reports as essential components

for the effective implementation of branding strategies in the information technology sector.

According to the findings, the most emphasized and sector-specific branding criteria were carefully selected and

systematically categorized to ensure they reflect the diverse dimensions of branding within the IT sector. This

structured classification process establishes a solid foundation for further analysis using multi-criteria decision-

making techniques, particularly the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP enables the quantitative evaluation

of each criterion’s relative importance and applicability, supporting a more objective and data-driven approach

to strategic branding decisions in the IT industry.

10 Criteria for the Applicability of Branding in the Information Technology Sector

Nu.

Criteria

Explanation

Management Vision

Whether the founding team and managers possess a brand-oriented

mindset.

Human Resources and

Corporate Culture

A competent and creative workforce ensures the fulfillment of the

brand promise.

Technological Competence and

Innovation Capacity

Companies’ R&D investments, new product development

capabilities, and innovative structures are among the fundamental

pillars of branding.

Customer Experience and

Satisfaction

User-friendly interfaces, effective support systems, and loyalty

management stand out.

Adequacy of Financial Resources

The budget required for branding, as well as the adequacy of

investor support or funding sources.

Marketing-Oriented Brand

Strategy Management

Clear definition of strategic foundations such as mission, vision,

value proposition, and target customer, along with access to

branding-experienced consultants and marketing experts.

Use of Digital Platforms

Effective use of digital channels such as websites, social media,

SEO, and content marketing.

Strong and Consistent Brand

Identity

A brand’s logo, tagline, design language, and all elements visible

to the public should be considered as a whole.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1114

www.rsisinternational.org

Time Management

Whether the company can allocate sufficient time to branding

amidst its operational workload.

Sectoral Collaborations and

Ecosystem Participation

Technology centers, incubation programs, and industry

collaborations bring prestige to the brand.

Table-1

Participant profile (experts, entrepreneurs, academics)

Participants in this study include 12 IT experts, 7 IT director, 8 marketing experts, 7 IT entrepreneurs, and 9

academicians in the department of marketing, business administration, computer security, and management

information systems. Experts bring sector-specific, practical insights; entrepreneurs offer real-world

perspectives and academicians contribute theoretical knowledge and literature. Integrating these groups provides

a comprehensive blend of practical and theoretical insights, strengthening the accuracy and robustness of the

AHP decision-making process.

Data collection and comparative analysis

In this study, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to evaluate branding criteria in IT entrepreneurship.

Opinions were gathered from experts and entrepreneurs working in the fields of software development, hardware

supply, and information security. Opinions were also gathered from academic staff working in the departments

of marketing, business administration, computer security, and management information systems at universities.

Experts, entrepreneurs, and academic staff carried out pairwise comparisons of predefined criteria through

structured online/face to face surveys and interviews. To optimize potential differences of opinion, the average

of the responses given by each participant to the pairwise comparison questions was taken, and the Criteria

Weights and Ranking were calculated. The resulting matrices were analyzed by using normalization and weight

calculations with consistency ratios applied to ensure reliability. This process produced a prioritized decision-

making framework, enabling systematic comparison across participant groups.

To calculate priorities from pairwise comparisons using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with eigen vector

method, AHP online calculator which is the part of BPMSG’s free web-based AHP online system AHP-OS was

used (Goepel K. D., 2018). The calculation system can be accessed from https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ahp-calc.php

(Goepel K. D., 2022).

In AHP online calculator, first input the number of criteria between 2 and 20 1) and a name for each criterion.

Second, make pairwise comparisons: which of the criterion in each pair is more important, and how many times

more, on 1 to 9 scale. When do check consistency, you will get the resulting priorities, their ranking, and a

consistency ratio CR2) (ideally < 10%). Calculation is done using the fundamental 1 to 9 AHP ratio scale. An

example for data entry of pairwise comparisons is presented below.

Table-2 AHP Scale: 1- Equal Importance, 3- Moderate importance, 5- Strong importance, 7- Very strong

importance, 9- Extreme importance (2,4,6,8 values in-between).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1115

www.rsisinternational.org

FINDINGS, RESULTS AND ACTION PLAN

Criteria weights based on AHP results

Pairwise comparisons were conducted to determine the relative importance of the identified criteria by using the

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). These importance levels, expressed as criteria weights, quantitatively reflect

the priority and influence of each criterion within the branding process. The calculations were based on the

assessments of participants—including experts, entrepreneurs, and academicians—and the final priority values

were obtained through normalization and averaging techniques. Additionally, the consistency ratio was checked

to ensure the logical coherence and reliability of the obtained weights. Thus, the criteria could be ranked

according to their priority, clearly indicating which criteria are more influential in the branding process.

Ranking of the most critical and least influential implementation factors

These are the weights obtained for the criteria based on pairwise comparisons.

AHP Results: Criteria Weights and Ranking

Criterion

Priority

Rank

(+)

(-)

Management Vision

20.7%

8.4%

Human Resources and Corporate Culture

20.1%

11.4%

Technological Competence and Innovation Capacity

14.8%

6.6%

Customer Experience and Satisfaction

13.8%

5.9%

Adequacy of Financial Resources

9.7%

4.4%

Marketing-Oriented Brand Strategy Management

5.8%

2.0%

Use of Digital Platforms

5.6%

2.4%

Strong and Consistent Brand Identity

3.7%

1.3%

Time Management

3.2%

1.2%

Sectoral Collaborations and Ecosystem Participation

2.7%

1.2%

Table-3 Table shows the relative importance (priority) of each criterion for branding applicability in the

IT sector based on AHP analysis, along with their ranking and positive/negative deviation values.

Decision Matrix, the resulting weights are based on the principal eigenvector of the decision matrix.

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.50

3.00

4.00

0.50

0.33

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.50

0.33

0.50

3.00

5.00

0.33

3.00

4.00

0.33

2.00

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1116

www.rsisinternational.org

0.25

0.33

0.50

2.00

3.00

4.00

0.25

0.20

0.25

0.50

2.00

0.25

0.20

0.25

0.50

0.33

0.50

2.00

0.25

0.20

0.25

0.50

0.25

0.50

Table-4 Number of Comparisons: 45, Consistency Ratio (CR): 6.4%, Principal Eigenvalue: 10.854,

Eigenvector Solution: 6 iterations, delta = 9.0E-8

This corresponds to the total number of pairwise comparisons required for 10 criteria. Formula:

n(n−1)/2=10×9/2=45n(n-1)/2 = 10 \times 9 / 2 = 45n(n−1)/2=10×9/2=45.This confirms that all necessary

comparisons were completed.

A CR less than 10% (0.10) is generally considered acceptable in AHP. Comparisons are logically consistent.

Expert judgments are reliable, and the derived priority weights can be trusted.

The principal eigenvalue (λmax\lambda_{\text{max}}λmax) is close to the number of criteria (n = 10). Small

deviations from 10 indicate minor inconsistencies, which is normal. The eigenvalue aligns well with the

acceptable consistency ratio.

The eigenvector represents the priority weights of each criterion. 6 iterations and a delta of 9.0E-8 indicate that

the calculation converged efficiently and the solution is highly accurate.

Pairwise comparisons are comprehensive. Judgments are consistent (CR = 6.4% < 10%). Eigenvector priorities

are reliable for decision-making. The AHP model is robust and can be confidently used for ranking and

prioritizing branding criteria in the IT sector.

Interpretation of results

Table-5

1. Top Priorities

Management Vision (20.7%) and Human Resources & Corporate Culture (20.1%) are the most critical criteria,

jointly accounting for over 40% of the total weight. Leadership and organizational culture are fundamental to

successful branding. Without a clear brand-focused vision and a capable, brand-aware workforce, other branding

efforts may fail to achieve impact. The relatively high (+) and (−) deviations (8.4% and 11.4%) suggest some

variability in expert opinions but still confirm their top-priority status.

2. Strong Supporting Criteria

Technological Competence & Innovation Capacity (14.8%) and Customer Experience & Satisfaction (13.8%)

follow closely. In the IT sector, technological innovation and delivering high-quality customer experiences are

essential for differentiating the brand and ensuring customer loyalty. These criteria reinforce the strategic

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1117

www.rsisinternational.org

importance of aligning brand strategy with product/service quality and technological capabilities.

3. Moderate Priorities

Adequacy of Financial Resources (9.7%). Funding is important for sustaining marketing campaigns, digital

initiatives, and brand visibility, though less influential than vision, culture, or innovation. Marketing-Oriented

Brand Strategy Management (5.8%) and Use of Digital Platforms (5.6%). Effective marketing and digital

presence are enablers rather than primary drivers. Their relatively lower weight indicates that without strong

vision, culture, and innovation, marketing alone cannot compensate.

4. Lower Priorities

Strong and Consistent Brand Identity (3.7%), Time Management (3.2%), and Sectoral Collaborations &

Ecosystem Participation (2.7%). While still important, these factors play a more supportive role. Consistency

and collaborations enhance brand strength but cannot replace the core drivers (vision, human capital, technology,

customer focus).

5. Overall Insights

Human and Strategic Factors are dominant factors, The results emphasize that people (leadership, employees)

and strategic vision are the most decisive factors for branding success in IT.

Innovation and Customer Focus are critical factors. Technology-driven differentiation and satisfying user

experience remain key for competitive positioning. Financial and Operational Support Matters: Adequate

resources, digital channels, and time management support the primary drivers but are not standalone

determinants. Collaborations are optional enhancers. Ecosystem participation can add prestige or reach but is

the least critical among evaluated factors.

As a result, or IT sector companies aiming to strengthen their brand, prioritizing management vision,

organizational culture, technological innovation, and customer experience is essential. Digital marketing,

financial investment, and operational efficiencies serve as support mechanisms, while collaborations and brand

identity refinement complement the overall strategy.

Action Plan and Relationship Matrix

The analysis builds on expert evaluations of branding criteria within IT entrepreneurship. Ten criteria were

weighted according to their relative importance: Management Vision (20.7%), Human Resources & Corporate

Culture (20.1%), Technological Competence & Innovation Capacity (14.8%), Customer Experience &

Satisfaction (13.8%), Financial Resources (9.7%), Marketing-Oriented Brand Strategy (5.8%), Use of Digital

Platforms (5.6%), Strong Brand Identity (3.7%), Time Management (3.2%), and Sectoral Collaborations &

Ecosystem Participation (2.7%). Based on these weights, a phased action plan was developed, incorporating both

sequencing and time sensitivity (0–12 months).

The proposed action plan provides a structured roadmap for branding in IT entrepreneurship, prioritizing criteria

according to their strategic significance and aligning them with a time-bound execution framework. This

approach is consistent with the literature emphasizing that branding in technology-driven industries must be

grounded in leadership vision, organizational culture, and innovation capacity to ensure long-term differentiation

and competitiveness (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003).

The plan correctly identifies Management Vision and Human Resources & Corporate Culture as the most critical

factors, scheduled for early implementation within the first six months. Research highlights that a strong

leadership vision and a brand-oriented organizational culture are the cornerstones of successful branding,

particularly in dynamic sectors like IT where rapid change demands strategic clarity (Kapferer J. N., 2012; Urde,

1999). Without these, downstream activities such as marketing or digital presence risk being fragmented and

ineffective.

Positioning Technological Competence & Innovation Capacity and Customer Experience & Satisfaction as

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1118

www.rsisinternational.org

second-tier priorities reflects best practices in IT branding. Innovation-driven differentiation and superior

customer experiences are recognized as primary drivers of brand equity in high-tech markets (Trott, 2017;

Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Starting these actions after vision and culture are firmly established helps align

organizational identity with technological outcomes.

Adequate financial resources are considered a moderate factor, serving as a supportive element instead of a

primary determinant. Research highlights that funding enhances brand visibility but cannot substitute for vision

and culture (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Similarly, Marketing-Oriented Brand Strategy Management and Use of

Digital Platforms are positioned as enablers to amplify brand reach. Their activation between months 3–12 aligns

with the logic of first establishing internal brand coherence before external promotion.

Criteria such as Strong and Consistent Brand Identity, Time Management, and Sectoral Collaborations &

Ecosystem Participation are rightly treated as long-term, supportive elements. According to branding studies,

maintaining a consistent identity and engaging with the ecosystem contribute to credibility and stakeholder

confidence, yet they do not independently determine brand success (Hatch & Schultz, 2001; Balmer, 2012).

Their gradual implementation over 12 months supports sustainability rather than immediate impact.

Overall, the action plan demonstrates a logical sequencing and prioritization consistent with strategic branding

theory. By allocating early phases to vision, culture, and resource foundation, followed by innovation, customer

engagement, and finally promotional activities, the plan reflects a holistic branding approach. The action plan

offers a time-sensitive and strategically grounded framework for branding in IT entrepreneurship. Its design

ensures that core drivers (vision, culture, innovation, customer focus) precede and enable supporting drivers

(finance, marketing, collaborations). Such an approach is not only aligned with contemporary branding literature

but also provides practical guidance for sustainable brand development in the highly competitive IT sector.

Table-6

Priority Level Criteria Action Steps Responsible Timeline KPIs / Success Indicators

1. Develop a clear, brand-aligned

vision statement.

2. Integrate branding goals into

corporate strategy.

3. Communicate vision across all

departments.

1. Conduct workshops to strengthen

brand awareness.

2. Align recruitment and training

programs with brand values.

3. Encourage a culture of innovation

and customer focus.

1. Assess current tech capabilities

and gaps.

2. Launch innovation projects

aligned with brand promise.

3. Encourage R&D for

differentiation.

1. Map customer journeys.

2. Implement feedback and

satisfaction measurement systems.

3. Integrate customer insights into

brand strategy.

1. Secure funding for brand

campaigns.

2. Allocate budget for digital

marketing, R&D, and events.

1. Develop marketing campaigns

aligned with vision.

2. Measure campaign effectiveness.

1. Optimize website and social media

presence.

2. Launch digital content strategy.

3. Monitor digital engagement.

1. Standardize brand visuals and

messaging.

2. Conduct brand audits.

1. Implement project management

tools.

2. Optimize resource allocation for

branding projects.

1. Identify potential partnerships.

2. Engage in sectoral events and

collaborations.

3. Integrate ecosystem feedback into

strategy.

Time-Bound Action Plan for IT Entrepreneurship Branding

Top Priorities

Strong

Supporting

Moderate

Priorities

Lower

Priorities

Time

Management

Project

Manager

0–12 months

% of projects on schedule;

resource utilization rate

Sectoral

Collaborations &

Ecosystem

Participation

Business

Development

Manager

4–12 months

Use of Digital

Platforms

Digital

Marketing

Team

3–9 months

Web traffic; social media

engagement; lead generation

Strong and

Consistent Brand

Identity

Brand

Manager

2–12 months

Brand consistency score;

recognition surveys

Adequacy of

Financial

Resources

CFO /

Finance

Team

0–6 months

Budget approved; % of planned

spend executed

Marketing-

Oriented Brand

Strategy

Marketing

Director

3–12 months

Engagement metrics; ROI of

campaigns

Technological

Competence &

Innovation

Capacity

CTO / R&D

Team

2–9 months

Number of innovation initiatives;

patents filed; product

differentiation metrics

Customer

Experience &

Satisfaction

Customer

Experience

Manager

1–6 months

NPS, CSAT scores; customer

retention rates

Management

Vision

CEO /

Strategy

Team

0–3 months

Vision statement approved; % of

employees aware of vision

Human

Resources &

Corporate

Culture

HR Director /

Culture

Champions

1–6 months

Employee engagement scores; %

trained on brand values

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1119

www.rsisinternational.org

In the heatmap, the closer the color is to red, the stronger the relationship high. Orange tones represent a medium

level of influence, while yellow tones indicate a low level of influence. In other words, the darker the color, the

more directly and strongly one criterion influences another.

Human Resources & Corporate Culture have key strong relationships with Management Vision and Customer

Experience . Human resources and company culture play a critical role in both implementing the vision and

ensuring customer satisfaction. Technological Competence have key strong relationships with Customer

Experience, innovation and technological capacity directly enhance customer experience. Marketing Strategy

have key strong relationships with Digital Platforms and Brand Identity, marketing strategy is closely tied to

digital presence and brand perception.

Technology has moderate relationships with Financial Resources and Collaborations, new technologies require

investment and partnerships.

Financial Resources have moderate relationships with Time Management and Collaborations. Financial

resources affect how efficiently operations are managed and how external collaborations are conducted.

Customer Experience has moderate relationships with Marketing and Digital Platforms. Customer experience is

shaped through marketing and digital touchpoints.

Management Vision have weak relationships with Digital Platforms, Time Management, Brand Identity, vision

plays an indirect role in these areas.

Brand Identity has weak relationships with Financial Resources, Time Management Brand perception is

relatively independent of financial status and is more influenced by marketing.

As a result, The Human Resources , Customer Experience and Technological Competence triangle shows very

strong interactions. This highlights the importance of people and customer-focused innovation for sustainable

growth.

Marketing Strategy holds a central role, strongly linked to both digital platforms and brand identity. Time

Management and Brand Identity serve more as supporting or indirect factors.

Table-7

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1120

www.rsisinternational.org

The Interrelationship Matrix shows that Management Vision and Human Resources & Culture are the core

drivers of branding in IT entrepreneurship. These drivers enable innovation, customer satisfaction, and financial

sustainability, which act as strong supporting factors. Marketing, time management, and collaborations function

as secondary enablers, amplifying overall effectiveness. Together, these interactions lead to the ultimate

outcome: a strong and consistent brand identity.

Table-8

DISCUSSION

Comparison of findings with existing literature

Management Vision (20.7% - Highest Priority), Leadership vision is the most critical criterion for successful

branding. Multiple studies emphasize that a clear, brand-oriented vision ensures alignment of organizational

goals, guides innovative brand strategies, and enhances employee adoption of brand values (Kotler & Keller,

Marketing Management, 2021) (Aaker D. , 1996). Result aligns strongly with the theories proposed by Kotler

& Keller (2021) and Aaker D. (1996), confirming that leadership is a primary driver of IT brand success.

Human Resources and Corporate Culture (20.1%), Human capital and corporate culture are almost equally

important as management vision. Research highlights that skilled, creative employees and a culture that

internalizes brand values are essential for brand differentiation and innovation (Barney J. B., 1991) (Hatch &

Schultz, 2001). Result aligns strongly with the theories proposed by Barney J. B., (1991) and Hatch & Schultz

(2001). IT firms need to cultivate both talent and culture to sustain brand value, consistent with your findings.

Technological Competence and Innovation Capacity (14.8%), Innovation and technical expertise are critical for

differentiation in the IT sector. Literature consistently points out that technology-driven innovation enhances

product/service quality, customer satisfaction, and competitive advantage (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014)

(Chatterjee & Kumar Kar, 2020). Result aligns strongly with the theory proposed by (Porter & Heppelmann,

(2014). The priority aligns with the sector’s reliance on technological superiority.

Customer Experience and Satisfaction (13.8%), Customer-centric approaches are key to brand loyalty. Studies

show that positive user experience and customer satisfaction are closely linked to brand value, especially in

digital services where interaction quality matters (Verhoef et al., 2009) (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Proposed

theory supports the AHP result, emphasizing that IT branding cannot ignore the end-user experience.

Adequacy of Financial Resources (9.7%), Financial capability is necessary but secondary to vision, culture, and

technology. Funding ensures marketing reach, brand promotion, and R&D investments, but it is most effective

when combined with strategic vision and innovative capacity (Aaker D. , 1996). It matches the literature that

money alone does not guarantee branding success.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1121

www.rsisinternational.org

Marketing-Oriented Brand Strategy Management (5.8%), Use of Digital Platforms (5.6%), Strong and

Consistent Brand Identity (3.7%), Time Management (3.2%), Sectoral Collaborations and Ecosystem

Participation (2.7%), These factors are important but rank lower relative to leadership, human capital, and

technology. While essential for operationalizing branding, studies suggest they serve as enablers rather than

primary determinants (Kapferer J. N., 2012) (Kotler & Keller, Marketing Management, 2021). The results

reinforce the idea that foundational criteria like vision, culture, and innovation create the platform upon which

other branding activities are effective.

The AHP results closely align with existing literature: leadership, talent, culture, and technological innovation

are central to IT sector branding. Operational and tactical elements (marketing strategies, digital platforms,

collaboration) support branding but are secondary. This validates the AHP findings as both empirically grounded

and theoretically consistent.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Contributions of the study

Management vision and leadership with a clear, brand-oriented vision is the most influential factor. Strategic

decision-making, brand alignment across the organization, and innovative branding initiatives rely heavily on

visionary management. Human Resources and Corporate Culture and skilled, creative personnel and a culture

that internalizes brand values are nearly as important as leadership. Employees are critical touchpoints for

delivering the brand promise and sustaining brand value in IT firms. Technological Competence and Innovation

Capacity and technical expertise and capacity for innovation directly affect differentiation and competitive

advantage. Continuous R&D and adoption of new technologies are essential for effective branding. Customer

Experience and Satisfaction and customer-centric approaches drive loyalty and enhance perceived brand value.

Positive user experiences and satisfaction metrics are essential for sustaining brand reputation. Adequacy of

Financial Resources and sufficient funding supports marketing, R&D, and brand visibility but is less critical than

vision, people, and innovation. Financial resources enable brand activities but cannot substitute strategic and

operational competencies. Marketing-Oriented Brand Strategy Management and operational factors are

supportive rather than primary drivers. Effective marketing and digital presence amplify branding efforts, but

their impact depends on strong foundational elements. Strong and Consistent Brand Identity, visual and verbal

brand elements matter, but they rank lower relative to strategic and human factors. Identity reinforces the brand

but does not create it without leadership, culture, or innovation. Time Management, efficient resource and task

management is necessary but less impactful on brand success compared to core factors. Operational discipline

supports execution but is secondary to strategic priorities. Sectoral Collaborations and Ecosystem Participation,

industry partnerships and network involvement are the least critical in isolation. Collaborations enhance

credibility and visibility but rely on stronger primary factors to influence branding. Strategic and human-centric

factors dominate applicability of branding in the information technology sector. Management vision and

corporate culture collectively account for ~41% of total priority, highlighting the importance of leadership and

workforce alignment. Technology competence and R&D rank third, reflecting the IT sector’s reliance on

continuous innovation. Operational and tactical elements are supportive, marketing, digital platforms, and

collaborations are necessary but secondary to strategic and human factors.

Strategic recommendations for practitioners

Branding within the information technology sector should be understood not merely as a marketing endeavor

but as a comprehensive integration of technological infrastructure, production systems, human resources, and

corporate communication strategies. This study advances the literature by systematizing the applicability of

branding through a set of clearly defined criteria and proposing a sector-specific conceptual model. Future

research should undertake empirical investigations to validate these criteria and rigorously evaluate their

measurability.

Suggestions for future research

Future studies should empirically test the proposed criteria through surveys, case studies, or large-scale

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1122

www.rsisinternational.org

quantitative analyses to evaluate their relevance and reliability across different IT sub-sectors. Research could

compare branding applicability in IT companies across different cultural and regional contexts to examine

whether the identified criteria are universal or context-specific. Future work could explore the relationship

between branding applicability and organizational performance indicators such as market share, innovation

output, or customer retention. Investigating how new technologies (AI, blockchain, cloud computing) reshape

branding strategies in IT firms would add depth to the model’s applicability.

REFERENCES

1. A., P. (2024). Internet usage worldwide - statistics & facts. Retrieved from Statista:

https://www.statista.com/topics/1145/internet-usage-worldwide/#topicOverview

2. Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California Management

Review, 102-120.

3. Aaker, D. (2014). The Five Biggest Ideas of the Branding Era. The American Marketing Association,

https://www.amaneo.org/2014/12/15/connectblogfive-biggest-ideas-branding-era/.

4. Abu-Sarhan, Z. (2011). Application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in the evaluation and selection

of an information system reengineering projects. International Journal of Computer Science and Network

Security, 172–177.

5. Adalı, E. Ç., & Sığrı, Ü. (2022). E-Ticaret Sektöründe Kullanılan Dijital Pazarlama. Pazarlama ve

Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, 93-140.

6. Alkara, İ., & Arıcı, A. (2019). Aile İşletmelerinde Yaşanan Pazarlama ve Markalaşma Sorunları:

Bozüyük TSO Üyeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Journal of Business Research-Turk, 1313-1331.

7. Al-Omoush, K. S., Simo´n-Moya, V., & Sendra-Garcı´a, J. (2020). The impact of social capital and

collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and organizational agility in responding to

the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 279-288.

8. Alzamel, S. (2024). Leveraging Smart Glasses For Digital Entrepreneurship: A Conceptual Model. Polish

Journal Of Management Studies, Vol.30 No.2.

9. Athey, S., & Schmutzler, A. (1995). Product and process flexibility in an innovative environment. The

Rand Journal of Economics, 557-574.

10. Atılgan, A. (2011). Aile Şirketlerinde Kurumsallaşma ve Markalaşma Türkiye’de İleri Gelen Aile

Şirketlerinin Kurumsallaşma Ve Markalaşma Örnekleri İle Türk Hazır Giyim Sektöründe Bir Uygulama.

Doğuş Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dalı İşletme Yüksek Lisans Tezi.

11. Bahcecik, Y. S., Akay, S. S., & Akdemir, A. (2019). A Review of Digital Brand Positioning Strategies

of Internet Entrepreneurship in the Context of Virtual Organizations: Facebook, Instagram and Youtube

Samples. Procedia Computer Science, 513-522.

12. Balmer, J. M. (2012). Corporate brand management imperatives: Custodianship, credibility, and

calibration. California Management Review, 6–33.

13. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 99-

120,Volume 17 Issue 1.

14. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,

99-120.

15. Batra, D. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 on organizational and information systems agility.

Information Systems Management, 361-365.

16. Berry, L. (2000). Cultivating Service Brand Equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 128-

137.

17. Bondzi-Simpson, P. E. (2021). Financing public universities in Ghana through strategic agility: Lessons

from Ghana institute of management and public administration. Global Journal of Flexible Systems

Management, 1-15.

18. C., S. K., Pillai, S. V., & Subramoniam, S. (2025). Application of AHP in Aerospace Configuration

Management. Fortune Institute of International Business, 213-216.

19. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the

Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20. Carrier, C., Raymond, L., & Eltaief, A. (2004). Cyberentrepreneurship&colon;A multiple case

study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, 349-363.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1123

www.rsisinternational.org

21. Chaffey, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2019). Digital Marketing: Strategy and Implementation. Pearson

Education.

22. Chatterjee, S., & Kumar Kar, A. (2020). Why Do Small and Medium Enterprises Use Social Media

Marketing and What Is the Impact: Empirical Insights from India. International Journal of Information

Management.

23. Clifton, R., & Sımmons, J. (2003). Brands and Branding. Londra: The Economist, 1-20.

24. Erkollar, A., & Oberer, B. (2017). Digital marketing planning with the brand dashboard approach.

Marketing and Branding Research, 192-205.

25. Fombrun, C. J., & Riel, C. v. (2008). Fame and Fortun How successful companies build winning

reputations. Pearson Education.

26. Gigauri, I., Apostu, S., & Popescu, C. (2023). Digital Transformation: Threats and Opportunities for

Social Entrepreneurship. In Two Faces of Digital Transformation (pp. 1-17). Emerald Publishing.

27. Goepel, K. D. (2018, 12 6). Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP-OS). p. Vol. 10 No. 3 . Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.590

28. Goepel, K. D. (2022, 02 26). BPMSG-Business Performance Management Singapore. Retrieved from

AHP Priority Calculator: https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ahp-calc.php

29. Grzesiak, M. (2018). Personal brand creation in the digital age, Theory, Research and Practice. Palgrave

Pivot Cham., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69697-3.

30. Han, J. H., Wang, Y., & Naim, M. (2017). Reconceptualization of information technology flexibility for

supply chain management:An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 196-215.

31. Harsch, K., & Festing, M. (2020). Dynamic talent management capabilities and organizational agility—

A qualitative exploration. Human Resource Management, 43-61.

32. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate. Harvard Business

Review, 128-34.

33. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard

Business Review, 128-134.

34. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., & Mitchell, W. (2007). Dynamic capabilities. Understanding strategic

change in organizations. Blackwell Publishing.

35. İyiler, Z. (2009). Elektronik Ticaret ve Pazarlama: İhracatta İnternet Zamanı. Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı,

İhracatı Geliştirme Etüd Merkezi.

36. Jovanović, S., Đoković, G., & Pušara, A. (2024). The Concept Of Digital Entrepreneurship And Branding

In Contemporary Business. XIV International Scientific Conference EDASOL 2024 (pp. 151-164).

https://doi.org/ 10.7251/EMC2401151J.

37. Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The New Strategic Brand Management. Advanced Insights and Strategic

Thinking.

38. Kapferer, J. N. (2012). The New Strategic Brand Management. Kogan Page.

39. Kapferer, J.-N. (2017). The New Strategic Brand Management. Journal of Brand Management: Advanced

Collections, 25-41.

40. Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. .

Marketing Science, 740–759.

41. Kotler, P. K., & Setiawan, I. (2020). Pazarlama 4.0. İstanbul: Optimist.

42. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2021). Marketing Management. Pearson Education Limited.

43. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Analysis of Factors Affecting the Stickiness of Freight Forwarders

Based on Customer Experience. Marketing Management (14th edition) Shanghai People’s Publishing

House.

44. Kraus, S. R.-T. (2019). Digital innovation and venturing: an introduction into the digitalization. Review

of Managerial Scienc, 519-528.

45. Kushwaha, A. K., & Kar, A. K. (2020). Language model-driven chatbot for business to address marketing

and selection of products. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol617.

46. Kushwaha, A., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Applications of big data in emerging management

disciplines A literature review using text mining. International Journal of Information Management Data

Insights.

47. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer

Journey. Journal of Marketing.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 1124

www.rsisinternational.org

48. OECD. (2024, 04 20). OECD. Retrieved from OECD.

49. Özay, E., & Kök, S. B. (2022). Yeni Nesil Girişimcilik Örneği Olarak Dijital Girişimcilik ve

Girişimcilerin Dijital Özellikleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Ararştırmaları Dergisi, 211-246.

50. Özbaysal, T., & Onay, M. (2018). Markalaşmanın Uluslararasılaşmaya Etkisi: Turqualıty Örneği.

International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 181-198.

51. Parliament, E. (2023, 10 19). Shaping The Digital Transformation”. Retrieved from European

Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20210414STO02010/shaping-the-digital-

transformation-eu-strategy-explained

52. Paul, J., Alhassan, I., Binsaif, N., & Singh, P. (2023). Digital entrepreneurship research: Asystematic

review. Journal of Business Research, 156.

53. Porter, M., & Heppelmann, J. (2014). How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition.

Harvard Business Review, 64-88.

54. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with

Customers. Harvard Business School Press.

55. Rios, R. E., & Riquelme, H. E. (2008). Brand equity for online companies,. Marketing Intelligence &

Planning, 719-742.

56. Rohland, L. (2025). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Salem Press Encyclopedia, 3p.

57. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services

Sciences, 83–98.

58. Sahut, J.-M., Iandoli, L., & Teulon, F. (2021). The age of digital entrepreneurship. Small Business

Economics, 1159-1169.

59. Sitaridis, I., & Kitsios, F. (2024). Digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education: a review of

the literature. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research,, 277-304.

60. Statista. (2024, 04 10). Statista. Retrieved from Leading social media billionaires as of April 2024, by

net worth.: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276312/net-worth-of-the-richest-social-media-

entrepreneurs/

61. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 172-194.

62. Triantaphyllou, E., & Mann, S. H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in

Engineering applications: Some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Application

and Practices, 35-44.

63. Trott, P. (2017). Innovation Management and New Product Development. Pearson.

64. Turuk, M. (2018). The importance of digital entrepreneurship in economic development. 7th Int.

Scientific Symp.: Economy of Eastern Croatia - Vision and Growth, Osijek, Croatia.

65. Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources. ournal of

Marketing Management, 117-133.

66. Velasquez, M., & Hester, P. T. (2013). An analysis of multi criteria decision making methods.

International Journal of Operations Research, 56–66.

67. Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A. P., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2009). Customer Experience

Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies. Journal of Retailing, 31-41.

68. Yuvaraj, S., & Indumathi, R. (2018). Influence of digital marketing on brand building. International

Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 235-243.

69. Zaheer, H. B. (2019). Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and

research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148.

70. Zhan, Y. T., K. H., J. G., & Tseng, M. L. (2018). Sustainable Chinese manufacturing competitiveness in

the 21st century:Green and lean practices, pressure and performance. International Journal of Computer

Integration and Manufacturing, 523-536.

71. Zhang, J., Li, H., & Ziegelmayer, J. L. (2009). Resource or capability? A dissection of SMEs’ IT

infrastructure flexibility and its relationship with IT responsiveness. Journal of Computer Information

Systems, 46-53.