Abstract
Marketing remains an underexplored dimension in the theory and practice of university technology transfer (TT). This conceptual article addresses that gap by introducing the Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding (ML-IEB) framework to strengthen engagement, visibility, and trust across the innovation ecosystem. Drawing on branding concepts and innovation ecosystem perspectives, the model identifies five interrelated levels: innovator, knowledge, innovation, organisation, and place. Through an integrative literature review, the paper outlines actionable strategies for Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) to enhance their impact by aligning branding efforts across these levels. By reframing TT as a demand-driven and identity-centric process, this work provides practical guidance for practitioners and lays the foundation for future empirical research on the role of branding in advancing technology transfer.
Introduction
Technology transfer (TT) has become a central mechanism through which universities contribute to innovation and economic development. As institutions increasingly engage in the “third mission”—the translation of academic research into societal impact—TT serves as the bridge connecting university-generated knowledge with external stakeholders, including industry, investors, and government (Backs et al., 2019; Giuri et al., 2019). Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), in particular, play a pivotal role by managing intellectual property (IP), facilitating commercialisation, and nurturing university–industry linkages. However, despite advances in legal and administrative models, many TTOs continue to face barriers that limit their effectiveness and broader ecosystem impact.
A prominent gap in TT literature and practice is the underutilisation of marketing. Although marketing is frequently acknowledged as a critical success factor—particularly in aligning innovations with market needs, building relationships, and crafting compelling value propositions—its integration into TT strategies remains limited (Mendoza and Sanchez, 2018; Majidpour et al., 2025). Most applications of marketing in TT are confined to tactical efforts such as direct marketing, social media campaigns, or participation in trade exhibitions (Bradley et al., 2013; Daniel and Alves, 2020; Majidpour et al., 2025). These activities, while useful, often fall short of providing strategic, long-term positioning or ecosystem-wide engagement. Moreover, systematic studies of TT that explicitly apply marketing theory remain scarce (De Sousa et al., 2019).
This conceptual paper addresses the gap in TT literature by proposing a marketing-oriented framework grounded in the concept of branding. Using a theoretical review process operationalised through an integrative literature review (ILR) (Paré et al., 2015; Torraco, 2016), the study conceptualises branding as a strategic tool within the TT context. Branding, as a demand-driven and identity-centric strategy, is well established in the marketing literature as a means of shaping stakeholder perceptions, fostering trust, and creating differentiation (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Unlike general marketing tactics that focus on promotion or transaction, branding facilitates long-term relational engagement and strategic positioning, making it particularly suited to the complex, multi-actor context of university technology transfer. In TT, branding represents a powerful yet underexplored means of enhancing visibility and engagement across the innovation ecosystem. The proposed Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding (ML-IEB) framework serves as a conceptual tool to guide the integration of branding into TT practice.
The ML-IEB framework reconceptualises branding as an ongoing, multi-level process embedded within innovation ecosystems (see Arthur et al., 2023). It consists of five interrelated levels: (1) Innovator branding, which builds the personal brand of researchers to enhance credibility and collaboration; (2) Knowledge branding, which organises IP and knowledge into thematic domains to improve clarity and market appeal; (3) Innovation branding, which positions emerging technologies for acceptance and adoption; (4) Innovative organisation branding, which strengthens the identity of universities and TTOs through strategic co-branding; and (5) Innovative place branding, which aligns technological ambitions with place identity to attract talent and investment.
By addressing all key entities within the innovation ecosystem, the ML-IEB framework provides TTOs with strategic guidance beyond organisational boundaries. Furthermore, this framework opens multiple avenues for empirical research into how branding at each level influences TT performance. In doing so, it contributes to both the theoretical advancement and practical implementation of marketing within the field of technology transfer.
Technology transfer in universities
The Third Mission: Academic entrepreneurship and technology transfer
Universities are increasingly expected to fulfil a “third mission” beyond teaching and research, involving active contributions to societal and economic development (Backs et al., 2019). This shift is driven by globalisation, declining public funding, and the growing complexity of innovation, which now demands collaboration among universities, industry, and government (Rasmussen et al., 2006). As a result, universities have evolved from being solely knowledge generators to becoming key actors in innovation ecosystems by facilitating the translation of research into practical applications (Giuri et al., 2019).
TT is central to this mission and is often discussed alongside academic entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer, and science commercialisation (De Wit-de Vries et al., 2019; Hayter et al., 2020). TT refers to the movement of research findings, tacit knowledge, scientific methods, processes, and technological innovations from universities to external entities, primarily in the commercial sector (Carlsson and Fridh, 2002; Dubickis and Gaile-Sarkane, 2015; Rogers et al., 2001). It includes mechanisms such as licensing, patenting, consulting, spinouts, collaborative research, and service delivery that connect universities to industry and society (Friedman and Silberman, 2003; González-Pernía et al., 2013; Dahlborg et al., 2017; de Falani Bezerra and Torkomian, 2024). Supporting structures—such as TTOs and entrepreneurship education programmes—facilitate these processes (Bolzani et al., 2021; Sjöö and Hellström, 2019), ensuring that university-generated knowledge is applied for public benefit.
The impacts of TT are both economic and societal. Through commercialisation pathways such as licensing and spin-offs, universities generate income and attract industrial collaboration (Miranda et al., 2018). These activities generate revenue streams and attract further industrial research funding, providing essential support for continued research and innovation (Carlsson and Fridh, 2002). Moreover, technology transfer strengthens local economic development by fostering entrepreneurial ventures and enhancing regional competitiveness, aligning with universities’ service-to-faculty and local development strategies (Giuri et al., 2019). At the same time, broader Third Mission activities show that TT encompasses not only economic returns but also social and cultural contributions, often termed “knowledge enhancement” (Compagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020). This perspective stresses the importance of combining Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) (see Cerquetti et al., 2021) disciplines to ensure that academic knowledge contributes to societal well-being, environmental sustainability, and cultural development.
TT is frequently conceptualised as a linear sequence—disclosure, evaluation, patenting, marketing, licensing, and commercialisation (Bradley et al., 2013; Siegel and Phan, 2005). These stages aim to transform academic inventions into societal or commercial outcomes such as start-ups and royalty income (Rogers et al., 2001). However, this linear model often oversimplifies the complex and iterative nature of TT. It may understate factors such as industry absorptive capacity, feedback loops, and informal knowledge exchanges. Bercovitz and Feldman (2006) highlight that TT involves both formal and informal mechanisms—such as faculty consulting, student hiring, and serendipitous contacts—alongside visible channels like licensing or spinouts.
Contemporary models recognise TT as a dynamic and feedback-driven process. For example, Sutopo et al. (2019) emphasise continuous interaction among universities, TTOs, firms, investors, and the market. This perspective shifts away from a unidirectional flow of knowledge, highlighting instead the importance of feedback and reciprocal learning (Figure 1). Market needs and partner input can shape research direction and innovation outcomes. Nevertheless, demand-side dynamics and the role of marketing remain underexamined in TT literature. This article addresses this gap by focusing on the market-facing aspects of TT. Visual representation of technology commercialisation by university TTOs (source: author’s own).
Technology transfer offices: Roles and challenges
TTOs play a central role in the universities’ efforts to bridge academic research with industry and society through the process of TT. Acting as the university’s primary intermediary, the TTO is tasked with managing IP, facilitating commercialisation, and supporting university–industry collaborations (de Falani Bezerra and Torkomian, 2024). TTOs serve multiple functions, including assisting faculty with invention disclosures, evaluating commercial potential, protecting inventions through patents, and marketing technologies to potential licensees or investors (Markman et al., 2005). Within universities, TTOs collaborate with research managers, who are primarily responsible for shaping research funding, ensuring compliance, and guiding research strategy (Shelley, 2010). Scholars describe TTOs as process catalysts, knowledge converters, and impact amplifiers, indicating their expansive role in transforming scientific discoveries into real-world applications and amplifying the societal and economic impact of university research (Secundo et al., 2016).
Despite their significance, TTOs often struggle with inefficiencies and mixed success in achieving expected technology transfer outcomes. Studies suggest that only about half of U.S. TTOs operate profitably, with even more challenges faced by those in developing countries due to limited resources, inexperience, and structural weaknesses (Secundo et al., 2016). TTO performance is highly influenced by factors such as staff expertise, institutional support, regional economic conditions, and accumulated experience in technology transfer (González-Pernía et al., 2013). Bozeman et al. (2015) suggest that focusing solely on revenue generation, like licensing income, overlooks broader impacts and advocate instead for the inclusion of ‘public value’ considerations such as social equity, sustainability, and overall societal well-being. Moreover, TTOs’ ability to align transfer mechanisms with the specific technology, market conditions, and recipient capabilities significantly affects outcomes, reinforcing their role as critical agents in TT (Anderson et al., 2007; Bozeman et al., 2015). These difficulties faced by TTOs mirror the broader systemic challenges inherent in technology transfer.
Systemic challenges in technology transfer
Systemic challenges in TT occur across multiple domains—policy, university, industry, coordination, and individual (see Appendix for expanded challenges). Key challenges identified in the literature include: • Limited financial resources for commercialising research and a lack of intermediaries, such as venture capitalists (Chen et al., 2016). • Insufficient business acumen and industry networks among researchers, which hinder the identification of commercial opportunities (Phan and Siegel, 2006). • Institutional priorities that favour scholarly outputs, with promotion systems rewarding citations and publications over industry collaboration and commercialisation (Chen et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2018). • Inadequate incentives and high perceived risks that reduce willingness to engage (Phan and Siegel, 2006). • Low absorptive capacity in firms—particularly in developing economies—due to limited R&D capabilities and a preference for short-term gains over long-term innovation (Chen et al., 2016). • A lack of strategic coordination among governments and key stakeholders, leading to fragmented efforts (Bozeman et al., 2015). • Weak linkages between business schools and academic researchers, which limit opportunities (Bolzani et al., 2021). • Variation in the quality and intensity of university–industry interactions, shaped by differences in knowledge, organisational structures, and institutional cultures (Carlsson and Fridh, 2002).
To overcome these challenges, TTOs must improve their capabilities by acquiring additional resources, developing specialised commercialisation expertise, and adopting a more proactive, market-oriented approach. This involves actively promoting research commercialisation, formulating value-driven propositions for industry partners, and strengthening relationships with external stakeholders, including firms, investors, government agencies, and end users. TTO success depends on the ability to communicate value, build trust, and respond effectively to market demands. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive approach, with marketing playing a central role. As a discipline focused on creating customer value, marketing provides mechanisms that foster positive perceptions and collaboration. The following section explores the contribution of marketing to improving TT outcomes.
Marketing in technology transfer
The limited application of marketing in technology transfer
Marketing is increasingly recognised as a critical component of the TT process. While earlier TT models focused primarily on legal and administrative procedures, recent frameworks have begun to integrate marketing functions. For instance, administrative and marketing models define “technology marketing” as activities undertaken by technology licensing offices to improve TT performance (Choe and Ji, 2019). These models extend marketing’s role beyond the final stages of commercialisation, promoting its integration throughout the TT lifecycle—from invention disclosure through valuation to licensing (Mendoza and Sanchez, 2018). Marketing is thus viewed not merely as a post-development function, but as a key driver in aligning innovations with customer needs (Arenas and González, 2018; Battistella et al., 2023).
Evidence suggests that marketing contributes meaningfully to TT outcomes. Staff with marketing expertise tend to perform better in licensing negotiations, while research-focused personnel are more effective at encouraging invention disclosures (Soares and Torkomian, 2021). Marketing also plays a key role in bridging the gap between scientific potential and market demand, supporting industry engagement and more effective communication with partners (Siegel et al., 2003). When applied early, marketing clarifies value propositions, informs product development, and enhances the commercial potential of innovations (Alkhazaleh et al., 2022; Bojesen-Trepka, 2009). It can therefore serve as a strategic enabler that improves both operational efficiency and commercial outcomes (Battistella et al., 2023; De Sousa et al., 2019).
Despite growing recognition, marketing remains underdeveloped in TT theory and practice. TTO personnel often have legal or technical backgrounds but lack commercial expertise (Siegel et al., 2003; Mendoza and Sanchez, 2018). This limits their ability to position technologies effectively or establish strong industry relationships. Firms frequently cite weak marketing and negotiation skills within TTOs as barriers to successful commercialisation (Mazurkiewicz and Poteralska, 2017). Additionally, traditional TT models tend to prioritise patent acquisition over broader marketing efforts, reducing their overall reach and effectiveness (Mendoza and Sanchez, 2018). Although resources such as AUTM’s marketing toolkit have been introduced 1 , a cohesive body of marketing knowledge within TT literature is still lacking (Majidpour et al., 2025). A systematic review by De Sousa et al. (2019) found that no surveyed TT studies were published in marketing journals or explicitly drew on marketing theory.
In practice, some universities and TTOs employ marketing strategies to promote technologies. These include traditional mass marketing techniques—such as advertising, public relations, and participation in trade shows—as well as targeted methods like email campaigns and direct industry outreach (Bradley et al., 2013; Daniel and Alves, 2020). Digital platforms and social media are increasingly used to highlight research outputs and attract industrial partners (Majidpour et al., 2025; Novikova et al., 2020; Taecharungroj, 2017). In addition, marketing research tools—such as audience segmentation, sector profiling, and market trend analysis—are employed to improve alignment with industry needs (Choe and Ji, 2019). Together, these insights show both the promise and the persistent limitations of marketing in TT, creating the conditions for exploring broader strategic tools, such as branding.
Branding as the next marketing Frontier in technology transfer
Recent scholarship has called for more relational and personalised marketing approaches to improve TT effectiveness. The marketing exchange framework, for instance, reframes TT as a long-term, value co-creation process with industry partners rather than a one-time transaction (Piper and Marshall, 2001). Alderman et al. (2007) introduced a personalised TT model informed by customer relationship management and social marketing, emphasising tailored communication and stakeholder engagement. These approaches reposition TTOs as customer-oriented facilitators of innovation rather than solely legal intermediaries.
Building on these relational approaches, branding represents the next step—a broader strategy that extends TT from transactional interactions to reputation, trust, and legitimacy across the ecosystem. Where personalised marketing focuses on individual relationships and communication, branding provides a broader, identity-driven mechanism for shaping perceptions, building trust, and signalling value to diverse stakeholders. As one of the most underused yet promising strategies in TT, branding shapes perceptions of technologies and can enhance their value by aligning them with industry expectations (Bojesen-Trepka, 2009).
A brand is a multifaceted construct that extends beyond names and logos. It represents a symbolic, emotional, and relational construct that serves as a marker of identity and a promise of value. Brands help simplify decision-making and build trust through accumulated experiences and stakeholder engagement (Keller and Lehmann, 2006; Maurya and Mishra, 2012). Brand value emerges from the interaction of organisational actions, stakeholder perceptions and behaviours, and market outcomes (Keller and Lehmann, 2006). Thus, branding is not static; it is a dynamic and multidimensional process shaped by both organisational activities and stakeholder participation.
Branding influences behaviour, attracts resources, and aligns stakeholder expectations across platforms and touchpoints. It involves continuous interaction and mutual influence between various actors—including firms, citizens, and employees—across multiple platforms (Sarasvuo et al., 2022). These processes include interactive elements (e.g., participatory workshops and dialogue) and influence-based elements (e.g., marketing communications and social media), highlighting branding as a negotiated and emergent phenomenon rather than a one-way communication.
Situating branding within the innovation ecosystem context
Despite its potential, formal branding strategies are rarely implemented by TTOs, and the academic literature on this topic is limited. To address this gap, this paper introduces a framework for branding within innovation ecosystems. Branding must be situated in the wider context in which universities and TTOs operate.
The concept of an “innovation ecosystem” refers to a complex, adaptive system composed of interconnected and evolving sets of actors, activities, artefacts, institutions, and relationships that collectively influence the innovative performance of participants (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020). Such ecosystems encompass networks of interdependent actors—such as universities, firms, governments, and other organisations—whose interactions and connectivity provide information, legitimacy, and support. These dynamics can generate either virtuous or vicious cycles of regional innovation and economic growth (Arthur et al., 2023; Hayter et al., 2018).
Within this framework, TT plays a dual role: At the fine-grained level, TT—primarily through TTOs and related programs—stimulates academic entrepreneurship by providing legitimacy, resources, networks, and IP management (Hayter et al., 2018). At the broader level, TT and knowledge transfer function as systemic connectors, facilitating knowledge flows, spillovers, and cross-sector linkages that enhance competitiveness and cluster development (Arthur et al., 2023).
The innovation ecosystem thus provides the overarching structure that anchors TT activities and positions branding as a mechanism for shaping perceptions, building trust, and aligning diverse stakeholders. Accordingly, this paper adopts the concept of the innovation ecosystem to connect TT with branding, extending the focus beyond TT processes to encompass the wider set of interrelated elements in which they are embedded.
Methodology
This study adopts a theoretical review as defined by Paré et al. (2015). Theoretical reviews aim to integrate and synthesise prior conceptual and empirical studies in order to generate higher-order theoretical structures. Their primary goal is to develop conceptual frameworks or models that advance understanding by identifying, organising, and connecting diverse streams of knowledge, while highlighting gaps between what is known and what remains underexplored.
The theoretical review is operationalised through the structured process of the Integrative Literature Review (ILR) (Torraco, 2016). ILR is particularly suited for emerging or underdeveloped topics, as its purpose is not to exhaustively catalogue all prior studies but to generate new perspectives, frameworks, or models by creatively combining insights from different fields and research traditions (Snyder, 2019). ILR therefore goes beyond description: it synthesises representative literature to support integration, interpretation, and conceptual development, aligning with the explanatory and generative aims of theoretical reviews (Paré et al., 2015; Torraco, 2016). This study applied ILR in four steps (Snyder, 2019): • Step 1 – Design: We assessed whether the research area was mature or emerging and identified conceptual and empirical gaps in the treatment of marketing and branding within technology transfer, an area still in its formative stage. • Step 2 – Conduct: We conducted an exploratory review of branding and marketing in innovation literature to structure the framework. This stage delineated thematic levels of branding within the innovation ecosystem and guided the integration of insights from adjacent domains. Literature was searched using iterative keyword combinations (e.g., “theme + branding,” “theme + marketing”). The search extended across multiple domains—including marketing, technology transfer, innovation ecosystems, and university–industry collaboration—to capture perspectives from different research traditions. Consistent with Snyder (2019), the process was not exhaustive but rather creative and inclusive of diverse fields that could contribute to conceptual development. • Step 3 – Analysis: Following Paré et al. (2015), we identified patterns, interrelationships, and knowledge gaps, ultimately contributing to the development of novel conceptualisations. This step involved integrating insights across themes to generate a higher-order conceptual framework. Using a hybrid inductive–deductive approach (Lynham, 2002; Meredith, 1993), recurring themes were clustered and mapped onto a micro–meso–macro logic consistent with innovation ecosystem perspectives. • Step 4 – Structuring and Writing: We organised findings into the Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding (ML-IEB) framework, which conceptualises how brand meaning is co-created across five levels of innovation ecosystems: innovators, knowledge, innovations, organisations, and places. The review presents the framework as both a theoretical contribution and a practical guide for TTOs.
Through this process, the review adheres to the defining characteristics of a theoretical review: it is broad in scope, integrates both conceptual and empirical studies, employs structured synthesis methods, and seeks to advance theory by developing new conceptual frameworks for TT and branding.
Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding Framework
The ML-IEB framework (Figure 2) presents branding as layered and interconnected activities within the innovation ecosystem. The five levels were identified through an integrative theoretical review and structured into a layered model for TT. The framework reflects a micro–to–macro logic: it begins with individual innovators, progresses to the knowledge they generate and the innovations derived from it, then extends to organisational strategies and, ultimately, to place-level dynamics. This progression is consistent with branding theory—where identity scales from personal to collective—and with innovation-ecosystem perspectives, which emphasise the interplay of actors across multiple levels. The Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding (ML-IEB) framework (source: author’s own).
At the micro level are innovators—researchers, academics, students, and citizen-makers—who generate ideas and initiate the development of intellectual property. These efforts contribute to the knowledge level, where assets such as patents, know-how, and copyrights are embedded in specific domains. These knowledge assets underpin innovation, defined as the emergence of technologies, platforms, and solutions with commercial or societal value. Organisations such as universities, startups, accelerators, research centres, and funding agencies provide the necessary infrastructure, support, and legitimacy. These organisations are further embedded in places, ranging from innovation districts and smart cities to innovative nations.
Importantly, in TT, TTOs operate across all levels of the framework. Rather than acting solely as intermediaries, TTOs increasingly serve as strategic ecosystem brokers who integrate micro (individual), meso (organisation), and macro (place) dynamics to generate systemic impact (Chen et al., 2024; O’Kane et al., 2021). By coordinating branding efforts across these levels, TTOs contribute to the development of a coherent and impactful innovation ecosystem.
Innovator branding—Crafting visible and credible academic identities
The most foundational level of the ML-IEB framework is innovator branding. The visibility and identity of individual researchers and innovators are increasingly important in fostering collaboration, attracting funding, and enhancing organisational reputation. Although the concept of personal branding is well-established in corporate and digital domains (Gorbatov et al., 2018; Labrecque et al., 2011; Scheidt et al., 2020), specific frameworks for branding academic researchers remain underdeveloped. Innovator branding refers to a specialised form of personal branding adapted to academic and research environments.
Personal branding is defined as a strategic process involving identity construction, audience targeting, and reputation management (Labrecque et al., 2011; Scheidt et al., 2020). It is typically characterised by five attributes: it is strategic, positive in orientation, promise-based, person-centric, and shaped through artefacts such as visual identity and communication style (Gorbatov et al., 2018). Platforms such as LinkedIn, academic blogs, and X/Twitter allow innovators to continually communicate their work, helping to build perceived authority and foster professional visibility (Ledbetter and Meisner, 2021).
Although academics are not typically trained in branding or public communication, personal-branding principles can be adapted effectively to research and innovation contexts. Key processes—such as developing self-awareness, identifying audiences, crafting coherent messages, and refining communication based on feedback (Gorbatov et al., 2018; Rangarajan et al., 2017)—are relevant and applicable. Personal branding attributes—such as authenticity, differentiation, and visibility (Marin and Nilă, 2021; Scheidt et al., 2020)—are particularly important for academics seeking to extend the impact of their work beyond scholarly publications.
This paper argues that innovator branding shifts the focus from commercial visibility or media appeal to scientific credibility, academic identity, and societal relevance. It entails communicating a clear narrative about a researcher’s contributions, intellectual aims, and the broader impact of their work. The goals of innovator branding align closely with key academic priorities, such as enhancing scholarly reputation, securing research funding, attracting high-calibre students and collaborators, and fostering industry engagement (Bradley et al., 2013; Göktepe-Hulten and Mahagaonkar, 2010; Siegel and Phan, 2005; Wright et al., 2004). Notably, academic reputation has been shown to influence researchers’ involvement in commercial activities (Lam, 2011). Therefore, innovator branding serves not only the interests of individual academics but also contributes to the objectives of TTOs.
TTOs can facilitate innovator branding by offering training in science communication, enhancing online researcher profiles, and incorporating personal narratives into organisation/corporate promotion strategies. The aim is not to commercialise researchers as influencers, but to help them effectively present their expertise and value in ways that resonate beyond academia.
Knowledge branding—Giving intellectual capital a coherent market voice
High-performing researchers often generate advanced scientific and technological concepts that gain visibility beyond the academic sphere. This paper proposes that such concepts—such as messenger RNA (mRNA), CRISPR, and large language models (LLMs)—can be conceptualised as knowledge brands because they convey scientific legitimacy and problem-solving potential to the customers and stakeholders in a manner similar to other types of brands.
Knowledge brands represent intellectual assets that carry symbolic capital and can influence investment decisions, attract talent, and draw the attention of both public and organisational stakeholders (Kreiling et al., 2020; Newman and Beets, 2023). Knowledge branding can be defined as the strategic organisation and communication of scientific knowledge, methodologies, and expertise by a knowledge base—such as a university or TTO—under a coherent thematic identity (Eppler and Will, 2001; Mehrpouya and Willmott, 2018).
Unlike conventional branding, which is centred on physical products or services, knowledge branding focuses on abstract, collaboratively developed knowledge. It aims to articulate the relevance, uniqueness, and credibility of specific knowledge domains to targeted audiences (Eppler and Will, 2001). In academic contexts, knowledge brands often emerge through shared language, citation patterns, research methodologies, and editorial communities (Mehrpouya and Willmott, 2018).
Knowledge brands comprise two layers. The first is a domain layer that provides broad meaning and visibility within public and professional discourse. The second is a proprietary layer—referred to here as an IP network—that includes patents, datasets, trademarks, know-how, and other intellectual properties. The case of mRNA illustrates this dual structure. Gaviria and Kilic (2021) and Rohner et al. (2022) show how mRNA emerged as a knowledge domain linked to rapid vaccine development and biotechnological innovation, underpinned by a modular platform of proprietary technologies—including RNA modification and lipid nanoparticle delivery—controlled by universities, biotech firms, and pharmaceutical companies. The domain layer builds legitimacy and attention, whereas the proprietary layer enables protection and commercialisation.
Universities and TTOs can engage in knowledge branding through two main strategies. First, they can align research outputs with established knowledge domains to increase their visibility and perceived relevance. Second, they can shape emerging knowledge domain brands by bundling related proprietary assets, applying consistent terminology, and communicating their scientific and societal value. This approach shifts the focus from managing individual IP assets to building thematic, portfolio-level propositions. Such portfolios enable TTOs to offer more coherent and strategic propositions to potential licensees and partners (Mehrpouya and Willmott, 2018).
Innovation branding—Positioning breakthrough technologies for market acceptance
A strong foundation of proprietary knowledge assets enables TTOs to support innovation development across broader ecosystems. Innovation branding plays a vital role in improving technology transfer outcomes by shaping how new technologies are perceived and accepted in the market. Although downstream branding is often led by licensees or startups, TTOs can influence early-stage brand narratives, including naming, positioning, and messaging. These efforts help increase visibility, attract licensees, boost potential royalty revenues, and enhance the university’s reputation as an innovation leader.
Innovation branding refers to the strategic process of building recognition, meaning, and trust around scientific or technological advances. Unlike traditional branding, which emphasises consistency and familiarity, innovation branding must address novelty, uncertainty, and complexity. As Aaker (2007) argues, branding innovation requires more than a visual identity; it involves crafting strategic narratives that establish legitimacy and communicate an organisation’s innovative capacity.
Branding is particularly important in high-technology sectors, where innovations often suffer from the “liability of newness”—a lack of familiarity and trust (Truong et al., 2017). Effective branding can reduce this risk by shaping positive perceptions and signalling quality. Paswan et al. (2021) describe this as a challenge of ambidexterity: balancing the need to convey novelty (exploration) with the need to build credibility (exploitation).
Four factors contribute to effective innovation branding: perceived relevance, risk reduction, brand cues, and adaptiveness. First, perceived relevance is essential for the acceptance of technological innovations. To gain user adoption, innovations must align with the goals and values of intended users. Consumers often interpret new features in terms of broader benefits, such as safety, convenience, or autonomy (Crisafulli et al., 2025). Accordingly, branding efforts should translate technical specifications into user-oriented messages (Parrella et al., 2024). However, overstating benefits can undermine credibility (Abraham et al., 2017); therefore, branding should balance aspiration with factual accuracy.
Second, branding helps reduce uncertainty surrounding unfamiliar technologies. Consumers tend to rely on established brands when evaluating radical innovations (Truong et al., 2017), particularly in high-risk sectors such as health and food. In this context, branding acts as a trust signal by associating new technologies with reputable and accountable organisations (Amit et al., 2022; Parrella et al., 2024; Vasquez et al., 2022).
Third, brand cues—such as names, visual identities, and sounds—play a significant role in shaping user perceptions, especially when users lack technical understanding. Semantically meaningful names can enhance perceived reliability and safety (Kato, 2019), while naming choices can shape assumptions about a product’s function (Abraham et al., 2017). These findings highlight the strategic importance of brand elements in communicating value for complex or unfamiliar technologies.
Fourth, innovation branding must account for temporal uncertainty. Scientific and technological innovations often undergo long development cycles, including stages of testing, validation, and regulatory review. During these cycles, public perception and stakeholder expectations may change. As such, innovation branding should be approached as an ongoing process. Messaging and positioning must be continually updated to reflect new developments, regulatory shifts, and societal concerns.
TTOs and university innovation offices can contribute strategically by guiding early-stage branding. This includes support for naming, positioning, and messaging frameworks. Such efforts can improve the appeal of innovations to licensees, support spinout visibility, and enhance the value proposition in partnership negotiations. Innovation branding integrates principles from marketing, technology management, and behavioural science to develop narratives that are credible, relevant, and adaptive over time.
Innovative organisation branding—Leveraging co-branding across the innovation ecosystem
Innovations are embedded within organisational structures that shape and sustain the innovation ecosystem. These organisations span the private, academic, and public sectors and include startups; venture capital (VC) and corporate venture capital (CVC) firms; multinational corporations (MNCs); universities, faculties, departments, TTOs, innovation agencies, and public research institutes. Each contributes to the generation, support, financing, or commercialisation of innovation. To function effectively within this ecosystem, organisations must develop clear and coherent branding that communicates their identity, purpose, and value.
Startups operating in high-uncertainty environments rely on branding to build trust. Mechanisms such as customer reviews, transparent operations, and compelling value propositions help reduce perceived risk (Konya-Baumbach et al., 2019). Startups also engage in internal branding, identity development, external communication, and co-creation, similar to established firms (Chaudhri et al., 2024). For VCs, brand reputation signals competence and trustworthiness, affecting their ability to attract high-quality startups. In contrast, reputational damage can deter potential investees (Anokhin et al., 2022). CVCs face dual branding challenges—balancing their corporate identity with the expectations of venture investment (Jeon and Maula, 2022).
Public-sector institutions often contend with perceptions of bureaucracy and risk aversion. However, their role in innovation ecosystems is evolving, with growing expectations for them to act as facilitators or “impact commissioners” that foster openness and collaboration (Fred and Mukhtar-Landgren, 2024).
Universities, traditionally focused on knowledge production, increasingly adopt branding strategies to attract students, faculty, funding, and partners (Taecharungroj, 2017). Academic accelerators face branding tensions—positioned either as financial venture generators or as public service entities fostering innovation. Their effectiveness is often enhanced through co-branding with corporate or government partners, which increases legitimacy and strengthens startup support (Beyhan et al., 2024; Drori and Wright, 2018).
Among these actors, TTOs play a critical role in linking research with application. Branding is central to TTOs’ ability to span organisational boundaries, build relationships, and facilitate trust (Chen et al., 2024). Internal and external brand awareness is a key enabler of TTO performance (Huyghe et al., 2016), and many TTOs now use digital channels to enhance visibility and stakeholder engagement (Milczarek, 2020).
TTOs also face unique branding tensions and identity challenges. One tension concerns their operational positioning—ranging from IP “sheltering,” where the TTO acts as a bureaucratic administrative body, to IP “pushing,” where it proactively enables entrepreneurship and ecosystem building (Brantnell and Baraldi, 2022). Another challenge involves balancing scientific credibility and business orientation. TTOs must navigate both academic and commercial domains, aligning with research values while addressing market needs. A third challenge lies in balancing standardisation with strategic distinctiveness—whether to follow uniform procedures or adopt more flexible and innovative practices (O’Kane et al., 2015).
Several typologies capture the diverse roles TTO branding can assume. Baglieri et al. (2018) propose four archetypes: the catalyst (entrepreneurial enabler), the smart bazaar (matchmaker), the traditional shop (service provider), and the orchestrator of local buzz (network builder). Based on Kreiling and Bounfour (2020), six possible identities of TTO are identified as opportunistic actor, boundary spanner, stakeholder matchmaker, platformic co-creator, mindset transformer, and knowledge manager. Tahvanainen and Hermans (2011) classify TTOs as process catalysts, knowledge converters, and impact amplifiers. Each identity type reflects a different branding orientation with implications for the TTO’s contribution to the broader innovation ecosystem.
Co-branding is a strategic tool for fostering collaborative relationships. It involves the joint use of two or more brands in a single offering to combine assets and create synergistic effects (Paydas Turan, 2021). Universities and their affiliated entities—such as TTOs and accelerators—frequently engage in co-branding with external organisations to enhance credibility, signal quality, and leverage shared brand equity.
Co-branding enables lesser-known organisations to benefit from the reputational capital of more prominent partners (Kalafatis et al., 2016). The effectiveness of co-branding depends on both brand equity factors—such as trust, familiarity, and perceived quality—and relational factors, including brand image, category, and sensory fit. Misaligned partnerships can dilute brand meaning and undermine credibility (Paydas Turan, 2021).
For TTOs, co-branding has direct implications for performance. A strong brand, embedded within recognised academic, industry, and government networks, increases trust and reduces risk for potential licensees and partners. Co-branding, when strategically aligned, reinforces perceptions of scientific excellence and commercial potential. Collaborations with respected corporations, accelerators, or government-backed programmes enhance the visibility and attractiveness of the TTO’s offerings.
Innovative place branding—Amplifying place identities that attract talent and investment
Organisations play a key role in anchoring the places where they are located, while places themselves serve as critical enablers of innovation. Through infrastructure, networks, and identity, places host and amplify innovation activities within the broader ecosystem. Place branding—a well-established field—strategically communicates place identity to attract investment and talent (Kavaratzis, 2007; Pattaratanakun and Taecharungroj, 2024). Innovative places typically operate at three spatial scales: innovation districts, smart cities, and innovative nations. Each scale presents distinct dynamics for integrating place branding into the innovation ecosystem.
At the national level, countries pursue innovation branding to strengthen their position in the global economy. One common benchmark is the Global Innovation Index 2 , developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which evaluates countries based on innovation inputs (e.g., infrastructure, education, institutions) and outputs (e.g., technological and creative products). A nation’s perceived innovativeness contributes to soft power by shaping its attractiveness to global talent, investment, and partnerships (Taecharungroj and Pattaratanakun, 2025).
Smart cities represent a more focused urban scale, where digital technologies, data systems, and citizen-driven innovations are deployed across the city. Branding efforts at this level emphasise technological progress, sustainability, inclusivity, and quality of life (Kolotouchkina and Seisdedos, 2018). However, a sole focus on ICT features often results in homogeneity and may fail to capture a city’s unique identity (Huertas et al., 2021). Effective smart city branding must incorporate cultural heritage, emotional engagement, and the lived experiences—such as safety, employment opportunities, and well-being—of residents (Chan et al., 2019; Grebosz-Krawczyk, 2021). Inclusive branding thus requires co-creation with public, private, and community stakeholders, in line with the Quadruple Helix model, which extends the traditional Triple Helix by adding civil society as an active co-creator in innovation (Arthur et al., 2023; Pohjola et al., 2023).
Innovation districts are compact urban zones anchored by universities, research centres, startups, and entrepreneurial infrastructure such as incubators and accelerators (Katz and Wagner, 2014; Lawrence et al., 2019). These districts thrive on density, diversity, and spatial proximity, enabling frequent interactions that support knowledge exchange and commercialisation. Scholars describe innovation districts as a “nucleus” (Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018) or “nexus” (Pancholi et al., 2017) of innovation, characterised by interconnected actors and a collaborative culture. Research indicates that innovation districts can generate productivity levels up to four times higher than non-innovation zones (Drucker et al., 2019; Hegyi et al., 2021).
Branding innovation districts involves articulating place identity—including physical assets, activities, and economic and cultural appeal. Districts can be positioned based on dominant amenities—such as healthcare, retail, food culture, or balanced offerings—providing both functional and emotional value to attract investors and talent (Taecharungroj and Millington, 2023). Successful branding in this context must integrate economic strategy, placemaking, and social engagement to create a compelling and authentic identity (Rapetti et al., 2023).
When implemented effectively, innovative place branding produces both tangible and intangible benefits. These include the attraction of skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors, and funding sources (Pattaratanakun and Taecharungroj, 2024). Branding also fosters alignment among stakeholders by promoting a shared vision, reinforcing organisational collaboration and clustering, and strengthening innovation identity.
Universities and TTOs play a critical role in innovative place branding. Their functions go beyond research and intellectual property management to include startup creation, talent development, and civic engagement (Pohjola et al., 2023). TTOs serve as brokers, linking university-generated innovations with societal needs. Their branding efforts can enhance the broader place brand by positioning it as a hub of innovation. Through strategic co-branding with place managers, TTOs can help frame the locality as forward-looking and innovative, while leveraging place-based strengths—such as quality of life, infrastructure, and cultural identity—to increase the visibility and relevance of TT activities.
Strategic implications for TTOs
The TT literature consistently acknowledges the importance of marketing but offers few practice-oriented frameworks to guide systematic branding actions. To address this gap, this paper introduces the ML-IEB framework, which enables TTOs to design branding strategies that extend beyond organisational boundaries and encompass the broader innovation ecosystems they increasingly broker.
Summary of the Multi-Level Innovation Ecosystem Branding (ML-IEB) framework.
This article presents a conceptual framework to support TTOs in implementing a multi-level branding framework. The strategies from this framework aim not only to strengthen the identity of specific entities—such as researchers, inventions, or the TTO itself—but also to enhance the broader technology transfer process by increasing visibility, credibility, and engagement with external stakeholders. The following section outlines practical short-term actions and long-term strategies across five key branding levels.
Innovator branding
TTOs can begin by increasing the visibility of researchers through weekly “researcher highlight” posts on professional platforms 3 and by providing concise, pitch-ready biographies that include relevant metrics, publications, and application domains. In the long term, TTOs should institutionalise a personal branding programme. This may include annual workshops on science communication and IP pitching 4 , along with a mentor–ambassador scheme where experienced academics support early-career researchers in building professional reputations.
Knowledge branding
Initial efforts may focus on assembling sector-specific technology briefs that cluster related patents and on creating simplified visual materials that explain the problem, scientific mechanism, and market relevance. Strategically, TTOs can conduct periodic gap analyses of their intellectual property portfolios to identify areas for development and build a digital knowledge hub that curates related publications, datasets, and case studies.5,6 This helps position the university’s research as a coherent and valuable body of knowledge.
Innovation branding
Short-term actions include revising product catalogues to focus on end-user benefits and return on investment, 7 and using online surveys to test names and taglines prior to disclosure. 8 Over time, TTOs can establish or purchase a dashboard to monitor market signals—such as media coverage, patent trends, and competitor movements—to inform branding decisions. This can be complemented by a regulatory foresight mechanism that integrates emerging standards and compliance considerations into technology positioning and communication. 9
Innovative organisation branding
TTOs can strengthen their public presence by issuing joint press releases promptly following licensing agreements 10 or startup-funding announcements and by publishing staff profiles to humanise their operations. Sustained branding requires a system to monitor and report on organisational indicators such as media reach, inventor satisfaction, partner feedback, and financial outcomes. 11 A formal co-branding policy should also be established to protect the university’s brand equity while allowing for strategic joint promotions.
Innovative place branding
TTOs can support place branding in the short term through local media engagement that links technological achievements to community benefits and by setting up demonstration kiosks at public events or transit locations. Long-term initiatives should involve the formation of a permanent council comprising representatives from the city, industry, civil society, and the university. 12 This group can coordinate place-based messaging and co-invest in visible placemaking elements such as branded signage or digital installations that reinforce the identity of the innovation district.
TTOs should adopt a coherent branding strategy with clear goals and positioning to enhance the effectiveness of the TT process. The outlined tactics and strategies offer practical guidance for aligning branding efforts with this objective.
Conclusion
The ML-IEB model offers a conceptual contribution to TT by outlining how strategic branding across five interconnected levels—innovator, knowledge, innovation, organisation, and place—can enhance TT outcomes. Developed through a theoretical review (Paré et al., 2015) and operationalised via the integrative literature review process (Torraco, 2016)
Drawing on branding literature and its application to the TT context, the paper proposes that innovator branding can enhance industry engagement and improve licensing negotiations; knowledge branding can clarify the university’s value proposition; innovation branding can increase royalty potential and reduce time to licence; innovative-organisation branding can strengthen the deal pipeline and bargaining power; and innovative place branding can expand markets and attract new partnerships. Together, these levels illustrate how branding can serve as a demand-driven mechanism that complements the legal and administrative functions traditionally emphasised in TT.
These propositions open several avenues for future research. Empirical studies could examine the impact of branding at each level on TT performance indicators, such as the number of licences, the speed of deal closure, the value of negotiated agreements, or the broad academic and societal impact. Further inquiry may explore how different TT roles prioritise branding strategies and how organisational context shapes branding preferences and effectiveness. These research directions can help validate and refine the framework and contribute to the growing body of knowledge that integrates marketing perspectives into TT practices. As a conceptual contribution, ML-IEB invites empirical validation across contexts to assess its predictive value for TT performance.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.