1 Brands and Brand Management

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

  1. Define “brand,” state how brand differs from a product, and explain what brand equity is.

  2. Summarize why brands are important.

  3. Explain how branding applies to virtually everything.

  4. Describe the main branding challenges and opportunities.

  5. Identify the steps in the strategic brand management process.

A brand can be a person, place, firm, or organization

Sources: Pictorial Press Ltd / Alamy; Damian P. Gadal/Alamy; somchaij/Shutterstock; Jason Lindsey/Alamy

Preview

Ever more firms and other organizations have come to the realization that one of their most valuable assets is the brand names associated with their products or services. In our increasingly complex world, all of us, as individuals and as business managers, face more choices with less time to make them. Thus a strong brand’s ability to simplify decision making, reduce risk, and set expectations is invaluable. Creating strong brands that deliver on that promise, and maintaining and enhancing the strength of those brands over time, is a management imperative.

This text will help you reach a deeper understanding of how to achieve those branding goals. Its basic objectives are

  1. To explore the important issues in planning, implementing, and evaluating brand strategies.

  2. To provide appropriate concepts, theories, models, and other tools to make better branding decisions.

We place particular emphasis on understanding psychological principles at the individual or organizational level in order to make better decisions about brands. Our objective is to be relevant for any type of organization regardless of its size, nature of business, or profit orientation.1

With these goals in mind, this first chapter defines what a brand is. We consider the functions of a brand from the perspective of both consumers and firms and discuss why brands are important to both. We look at what can and cannot be branded and identify some strong brands. The chapter concludes with an introduction to the concept of brand equity and the strategic brand management process. Brand Focus 1.0 at the end of the chapter traces some of the historical origins of branding.

What is a Brand?

Branding has been around for centuries as a means to distinguish the goods of one producer from those of another. In fact, the word brand is derived from the Old Norse word brandr, which means “to burn,” as brands were and still are the means by which owners of livestock mark their animals to identify them.2

According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), a brand is a “name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition.” Technically speaking, then, whenever a marketer creates a new name, logo, or symbol for a new product, he or she has created a brand.

In fact, however, many practicing managers refer to a brand as more than that—as something that has actually created a certain amount of awareness, reputation, prominence, and so on in the marketplace. Thus we can make a distinction between the AMA definition of a “brand” with a small b and the industry’s concept of a “Brand” with a big B. The difference is important for us because disagreements about branding principles or guidelines often revolve around what we mean by the term.

Brand Elements

Thus, the key to creating a brand, according to the AMA definition, is to be able to choose a name, logo, symbol, package design, or other characteristic that identifies a product and distinguishes it from others. These different components of a brand that identify and differentiate it are brand elements. We’ll see in Chapter 4 that brand elements come in many different forms.

For example, consider the variety of brand name strategies. Some companies, like General Electric and Samsung, use their names for essentially all their products. Other manufacturers assign new products individual brand names that are unrelated to the company name, like Procter & Gamble’s Tide, Pampers, and Pantene product brands. Retailers create their own brands based on their store name or some other means; for example, Macy’s has its own Alfani, INC, Charter Club, and Club Room brands.

Brand names themselves come in many different forms.3 There are brand names based on people’s names, like Estée Lauder cosmetics, Porsche automobiles, and Orville Redenbacher popcorn; names based on places, like Sante Fe cologne, Chevrolet Tahoe SUV, and British Airways; and names based on animals or birds, like Mustang automobiles, Dove soap, and Greyhound buses. In the category of “other,” we find Apple computers, Shell gasoline, and Carnation evaporated milk.

Some brand names use words with inherent product meaning, like Lean Cuisine, Ocean Spray 100% Juice Blends, and Ticketron, or suggesting important attributes or benefits, like DieHard auto batteries, Mop & Glo floor cleaner, and Beautyrest mattresses. Other names are made up and include prefixes and suffixes that sound scientific, natural, or prestigious, like Lexus automobiles, Pentium microprocessors, and Visteon auto supplies.

Not just names but other brand elements like logos and symbols also can be based on people, places, things, and abstract images. In creating a brand, marketers have many choices about the number and nature of the brand elements they use to identify their products.

Brands versus Products

How do we contrast a brand and a product? A product is anything we can offer to a market for attention, acquisition, use, or consumption that might satisfy a need or want. Thus, a product may be a physical good like a cereal, tennis racquet, or automobile; a service such as an airline, bank, or insurance company; a retail outlet like a department store, specialty store, or supermarket; a person such as a political figure, entertainer, or professional athlete; an organization like a nonprofit, trade organization, or arts group; a place including a city, state, or country; or even an idea like a political or social cause. This very broad definition of product is the one we adopt in the book . We’ll discuss the role of brands in some of these different categories in more detail later in this chapter and in Chapter 15.

We can define five levels of meaning for a product:4

  1. The core benefit level is the fundamental need or want that consumers satisfy by consuming the product or service.

  2. The generic product level is a basic version of the product containing only those attributes or characteristics absolutely necessary for its functioning but with no distinguishing features. This is basically a stripped-down, no-frills version of the product that adequately performs the product function.

  3. The expected product level is a set of attributes or characteristics that buyers normally expect and agree to when they purchase a product.

  4. The augmented product level includes additional product attributes, benefits, or related services that distinguish the product from competitors.

  5. The potential product level includes all the augmentations and transformations that a product might ultimately undergo in the future.

Figure 1-1 illustrates these different levels in the context of an air conditioner. In many markets most competition takes place at the product augmentation level, because most firms can successfully build satisfactory products at the expected product level. Harvard’s Ted Levitt argued that “the new competition is not between what companies produce in their factories but between what they add to their factory output in the form of packaging, services, advertising, customer advice, financing, delivery arrangements, warehousing, and other things that people value.”5

A brand is therefore more than a product, because it can have dimensions that differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need. These differences may be rational and tangible—related to product performance of the brand—or more symbolic, emotional, and intangible—related to what the brand represents.

Extending our previous example, a branded product may be a physical good like Kellogg’s Corn Flakes cereal, Prince tennis racquets, or Ford Mustang automobiles; a service such as Delta Airlines, Bank of America, or Allstate insurance; a store like Bloomingdale’s department store, Body Shop specialty store, or Safeway supermarket; a person such as Warren Buffett, Mariah Carey, or George Clooney; a place like the city of London, state of California, or country of Australia; an organization such as the Red Cross, American Automobile Association, or the Rolling Stones; or an idea like corporate responsibility, free trade, or freedom of speech.

Some brands create competitive advantages with product performance. For example, brands such as Gillette, Merck, and others have been leaders in their product categories for decades, due, in part, to continual innovation. Steady investments in research and development have produced leading-edge products, and sophisticated mass marketing practices have ensured rapid adoption of new technologies in the consumer market. A number of media organizations rank firms on their ability to innovate. Figure 1-2 lists 10 innovative companies that showed up on many of those lists in 2011.

Other brands create competitive advantages through non-product-related means. For example, Coca-Cola, Chanel No. 5, and others have been leaders in their product categories for decades by understanding consumer motivations and desires and creating relevant and appealing images surrounding their products. Often these intangible image associations may be the only way to distinguish different brands in a product category.

Brands, especially strong ones, carry a number of different types of associations, and marketers must account for all of them in making marketing decisions. The marketers behind some brands have learned this lesson the hard way. Branding Brief 1-1 describes the problems

Coca-Cola encountered in the introduction of “New Coke” when it failed to account for all the different aspects of the Coca-Cola brand image.

Not only are there many different types of associations to link to the brand, but there are many different means to create them—the entire marketing program can contribute to consumers’ understanding of the brand and how they value it as well as other factors outside the control of the marketer.

By creating perceived differences among products through branding and by developing a loyal consumer franchise, marketers create value that can translate to financial profits for the firm. The reality is that the most valuable assets many firms have may not be tangible ones, such as plants, equipment, and real estate, but intangible assets such as management skills, marketing, financial and operations expertise, and, most important, the brands themselves. This value was recognized

Level

Air Conditioner

1. Core Benefit

Cooling and comfort.

2. Generic Product

Sufficient cooling capacity (Btu per hour), an acceptable energy efficiency rating, adequate air intakes and exhausts, and so on.

3. Expected Product

Consumer Reports states that for a typical large air condition= er, consumers should expect at least two cooling speeds, expandable plastic side panels, adjustable louvers, removable air filter, vent for exhausting air, environmentally friendly R-410A refrigerant, power cord at least 60 inches long, one year parts-and-labor warranty on the entire unit, and a five-year parts-and-labor warranty on the refrigeration system.

4. Augmented Product

Optional features might include electric touch-pad controls, a display to show indoor and outdoor temperatures and the thermostat setting, an automatic mode to adjust fan speed based on the thermostat setting and room temperature, a toll-free 800 number for customer service, and so on.

5. Potential Product

Silently running, completely balanced throughout the room, and completely energy self-sufficient.

Figure 1-1 Examples of Different Product Levels

  1. Apple

  2. Amazon

  3. Facebook

  4. General Electric

  5. Google

  6. Groupon

  7. Intel

  8. Microsoft

  9. Twitter

  10. Zynga

Figure 1-2 Ten Firms Rated Highly on Innovation

Sources: Based on “The 50 Most Innovative Companies,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 25 April 2010; “The World’s Most Innovative Companies,” Forbes, 4 March 2011; “The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies,” Fast Company, March 2011; “The 50 Most Innovative Companies 2011,” Technology Review, March 2011.

by John Stuart, CEO of Quaker Oats from 1922 to 1956, who famously said, “If this company were to split up I would give you the property, plant and equipment and I would take the brands and the trademarks and I would fare better than you.”6 Let’s see why brands are so valuable.

Why Do Brands Matter?

An obvious question is, why are brands important? What functions do they perform that make them so valuable to marketers? We can take a couple of perspectives to uncover the value of brands to both customers and firms themselves. Figure 1-3 provides an overview of the different roles that brands play for these two parties. We’ll talk about consumers first.

Consumers

As with the term product, this book uses the term consumer broadly to encompass all types of customers, including individuals as well as organizations. To consumers, brands provide important functions. Brands identify the source or maker of a product and allow consumers to assign responsibility to a particular manufacturer or distributor. Most important, brands take on special meaning to consumers. Because of past experiences with the product and its marketing program over the years, consumers find out which brands satisfy their needs and which ones do not. As a result, brands provide a shorthand device or means of simplification for their product decisions.7

If consumers recognize a brand and have some knowledge about it, then they do not have to engage in a lot of additional thought or processing of information to make a product decision. Thus, from an economic perspective, brands allow consumers to lower the search costs for products both internally (in terms of how much they have to think) and externally (in terms of how much they have to look around). Based on what they already know about the brand—its quality, product characteristics, and so forth—consumers can make assumptions and form reasonable expectations about what they may not know about the brand.

The meaning imbued in brands can be quite profound, allowing us to think of the relationship between a brand and the consumer as a type of bond or pact. Consumers offer their trust and loyalty with the implicit understanding that the brand will behave in certain ways and provide them utility through consistent product performance and appropriate pricing, promotion, and distribution programs and actions. To the extent that consumers realize advantages and benefits from purchasing the brand, and as long as they derive satisfaction from product consumption, they are likely to continue to buy it.

These benefits may not be purely functional in nature. Brands can serve as symbolic devices, allowing consumers to project their self-image. Certain brands are associated with certain types of people and thus reflect different values or traits. Consuming such products is a means by which consumers can communicate to others—or even to themselves—the type of person they are or would like to be.8

Some branding experts believe that for some people, certain brands even play a religious role of sorts and substitute for religious practices and help reinforce self-worth.9 The cultural influence of brands is profound and much interest has been generated in recent years in understanding the interplay between consumer culture and brands.10

  • Consumers

  • Identification of source of product

  • Assignment of responsibility to product maker

  • Risk reducer

  • Search cost reducer

  • Promise, bond, or pact with maker of product

  • Symbolic device

  • Signal of quality

  • Manufacturers

  • Means of identification to simplify handling or tracing

  • Means of legally protecting unique features

  • Signal of quality level to satisfied customers

  • Means of endowing products with unique associations

  • Source of competitive advantage

  • Source of financial returns

Figure 1-3 Roles That Brands Play

Brands can also play a significant role in signaling certain product characteristics to consumers. Researchers have classified products and their associated attributes or benefits into three major categories: search goods, experience goods, and credence goods.11

  • For search goods like grocery produce, consumers can evaluate product attributes like sturdiness, size, color, style, design, weight, and ingredient composition by visual inspection.

  • For experience goods like automobile tires, consumers cannot assess product attributes like durability, service quality, safety, and ease of handling or use so easily by inspection, and actual product trial and experience is necessary.

  • For credence goods like insurance coverage, consumers may rarely learn product attributes.

Given the difficulty of assessing and interpreting product attributes and benefits for experience and credence goods, brands may be particularly important signals of quality and other characteristics to consumers for these types of products.12

Brands can reduce the risks in product decisions. Consumers may perceive many different types of risks in buying and consuming a product:13

  • Functional risk: The product does not perform up to expectations.

  • Physical risk: The product poses a threat to the physical well-being or health of the user or others.

  • Financial risk: The product is not worth the price paid.

  • Social risk: The product results in embarrassment from others.

  • Psychological risk: The product affects the mental well-being of the user.

  • Time risk: The failure of the product results in an opportunity cost of finding another satisfactory product.

Consumers can certainly handle these risks in a number of ways, but one way is obviously to buy well-known brands, especially those with which consumers have had favorable past experiences. Thus, brands can be a very important risk-handling device, especially in business-to-business settings where risks can sometimes have quite profound implications.

In summary, to consumers, the special meaning that brands take on can change their perceptions and experiences with a product. The identical product may be evaluated differently depending on the brand identification or attribution it carries. Brands take on unique, personal meanings to consumers that facilitate their day-to-day activities and enrich their lives. As consumers’ lives become more complicated, rushed, and time starved, the ability of a brand to simplify decision making and reduce risk is invaluable.

Firms

Brands also provide a number of valuable functions to their firms.14 Fundamentally, they serve an identification purpose, to simplify product handling or tracing. Operationally, brands help organize inventory and accounting records. A brand also offers the firm legal protection for unique features or aspects of the product. A brand can retain intellectual property rights, giving legal title to the brand owner.15 The brand name can be protected through registered trademarks; manufacturing processes can be protected through patents; and packaging can be protected through copyrights and designs. These intellectual property rights ensure that the firm can safely invest in the brand and reap the benefits of a valuable asset.

We’ve seen that these investments in the brand can endow a product with unique associations and meanings that differentiate it from other products. Brands can signal a certain level of quality so that satisfied buyers can easily choose the product again.16 This brand loyalty provides predictability and security of demand for the firm and creates barriers of entry that make it difficult for other firms to enter the market.

Although manufacturing processes and product designs may be easily duplicated, lasting impressions in the minds of individuals and organizations from years of marketing activity and product experience may not be so easily reproduced. One advantage that brands such as Colgate toothpaste, Cheerios cereal, and Levi’s jeans have is that consumers have literally grown up with them. In this sense, branding can be seen as a powerful means to secure a competitive advantage.

In short, to firms, brands represent enormously valuable pieces of legal property, capable of influencing consumer behavior, being bought and sold, and providing the security of sustained future revenues.17 For these reasons, huge sums, often representing large multiples of a brand’s earnings, have been paid for brands in mergers or acquisitions, starting with the boom years of

Brand

Brand Value ($MM)

Market Cap ($MM)

% of Market Cap

Coca-Cola

70,452

146,730

48%

IBM

64,727

200,290

32%

Microsoft

60,895

226,530

27%

Google

43,557

199,690

22%

General Electric

42,808

228,250

19%

McDonald's

33,578

80,450

42%

Intel

32,015

119,130

27%

Nokia

29,495

33,640

88%

Disney

28,731

81,590

35%

Hewlett-Packard

26,867

105,120

26%

Figure 1-4 Brand Value as a Percentage of Market Capitalization (2010)

Sources: Based on Interbrand. “Best Global Brands 2010.” Yahoo! Finance, February, 2011.

the mid-1980s. The merger and acquisition frenzy during this time led Wall Street financiers to seek out undervalued companies from which to make investment or takeover profits. One of the primary undervalued assets of such firms was their brands, given that they were off-balance-sheet items. Implicit in Wall Street’s interest was a belief that strong brands result in better earnings and profit performance for firms, which, in turn, creates greater value for shareholders.

The price premium paid for many companies is clearly justified by the opportunity to earn and sustain extra profits from their brands, as well as by the tremendous difficulty and expense of creating similar brands from scratch. For a typical fast-moving consumer goods company, net tangible assets may be as little as 10 percent of the total value (see Figure 1-4). Most of the value lies in intangible assets and goodwill, and as much as 70 percent of intangible assets can be supplied by brands.

Can Anything Be Branded?

Brands clearly provide important benefits to both consumers and firms. An obvious question, then, is, how are brands created? How do you “brand” a product? Although firms provide the impetus for brand creation through their marketing programs and other activities, ultimately a brand is something that resides in the minds of consumers. A brand is a perceptual entity rooted in reality, but it is more than that—it reflects the perceptions and perhaps even the idiosyncrasies of consumers.

To brand a product it is necessary to teach consumers “who” the product is—by giving it a name and using other brand elements to help identify it—as well as what the product does and why consumers should care. In other words, marketers must give consumers a label for the product (“here’s how you can identify the product”) and provide meaning for the brand (“here’s what this particular product can do for you, and why it’s special and different from other brand name products”).

Branding creates mental structures and helps consumers organize their knowledge about products and services in a way that clarifies their decision making and, in the process, provides value to the firm. The key to branding is that consumers perceive differences among brands in a product category. These differences can be related to attributes or benefits of the product or service itself, or they may be related to more intangible image considerations.

Whenever and wherever consumers are deciding between alternatives, brands can play an important decision-making role. Accordingly, marketers can benefit from branding whenever consumers are in a choice situation. Given the myriad choices consumers make each and every day—commercial and otherwise—it is no surprise how pervasive branding has become. Consider these two very diverse applications of branding:18

  1. Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival (Bonnaroo means “good times” in Creole), a 100-band jamboree with an eclectic mix of A-list musical stars, has been the top-grossing music

    Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival has become a strong brand by creating a unique musical experience with broad appeal.

    Source: ZUMA Press/Newscom

    festival in North America for years. Multiple revenue sources are generated through ticket sales (from $250 general admission to $18,500 luxury packages), 16 profit centers on-site (from concessions and merchandise to paid showers), licensing, media deals, and the Web. With all its success, festival organizers are exploring expanding the brand’s “curatorial voice” to nonfestival settings such as television programming and mobile phone apps.

  2. Halloween night in Madison, Wisconsin, home of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, had become frightening—literally—for local businesses due to out-of-control partying. As one participant put it, “The main objective on Halloween in Madison was not to get blackout drunk . . . it was to incite enough of a ruckus that riot police had to show up on horseback with tear gas and pepper spray.” The success of that strategy was evident in 2005 when more than 450 people were arrested and $350,000 was spent by the town government on enforcement. The next year, the mayor of Madison tried a marketing solution instead. He branded the event “Freakfest,” installing floodlights in a gated stretch of a main street and providing concert entertainment for 50,000 partygoers. The number of arrests and the amount of vandalism were dramatically lower. One town official observed, “Since we rebranded the event, it’s become something we are proud of.”

As another example, Branding Brief 1-2 considers how even one-time commodities have been branded.

We can recognize the universality of branding by looking at some different product applications in the categories we defined previously—physical goods, services, retail stores, online businesses, people, organizations, places, and ideas. For each of these different types of products, we will review some basic considerations and look at examples. (We consider some of these special cases in more detail in Chapter 15.)

Physical Goods

Physical goods are what are traditionally associated with brands and include many of the best-known and highly regarded consumer products, like Mercedes-Benz, Nescafé, and Sony. More and more companies selling industrial products or durable goods to other companies are recognizing the benefits of developing strong brands. Brands have begun to emerge among certain types of physical goods that never supported brands before. Let us consider the role of branding in industrial “business-to-business” products and technologically intensive “high-tech” products.

Business-to-business products

The business-to-business (B2B) market makes up a huge percentage of the global economy. Some of the world’s most accomplished and respected brands belong to business marketers, such as ABB, Caterpillar, DuPont, FedEx, GE, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and Siemens.

Business-to-business branding creates a positive image and reputation for the company as a whole. Creating such goodwill with business customers is thought to lead to greater selling

opportunities and more profitable relationships. A strong brand can provide valuable reassurance and clarity to business customers who may be putting their company’s fate—and perhaps their own careers!—on the line. A strong business-to-business brand can thus provide a strong competitive advantage.

Some B2B firms, however, carry the attitude that purchasers of their products are so well-informed and professional that brands don’t matter. Savvy business marketers reject that reasoning and are recognizing the importance of their brand and how they must execute well in a number of areas to gain marketplace success.

Boeing, which makes everything from commercial airplanes to satellites, implemented the “One Firm” brand strategy to unify all its different operations with a one-brand culture. The strategy was based in part on a “triple helix” representation: 1) Enterprising Spirit (why Boeing does what it does), 2) Precision Performance (how Boeing gets things done), and 3) Defining the Future (what Boeing achieves as a firm).19 The Science of Branding 1-1 describes some particularly important guidelines for business-to-business branding. Here is how Cisco approaches brand differentiation.

Cisco

Cisco, the network communications equipment manufacturer that leads the market in supplying the switches and routers that direct traffic on the Internet, sought growth by directing considerable research and marketing resources at an underserved market: small- and medium-sized business (SMB) customers, which the company defined as those with fewer than 250 employees. To better understand buyer behavior, Cisco conducted customer research that segmented the overall SMB market into four tiers by networking expenditure and purchase patterns. Tier 1 and tier 2 companies, which view networking as the core of their business, make up 30 percent of the SMB space but account for 75 percent of total networking expenditures. Tier 3 and tier 4 companies make up 70 percent of the market but are hesitant to invest heavily in networking technology.

Based on this understanding of the market, Cisco was able to target these segments with products and services designed specifically for them. It developed a program called the “Smart Business Roadmap” that matched common business issues faced by SMB customer types with long-term technology solutions. One of these solutions was Linksys One, a hosted communications service offering telephone, video, data, and Internet networking on one high-speed connection that debuted back in 2005. Overall, Cisco raised its R&D budget for the SMB market to $2 billion and directed 40 percent of its total marketing expenditure toward this market. The program generated 22 percent growth in Cisco’s business with SMBs.20

High-tech Products

Many technology companies have struggled with branding. Managed by technologists, these firms often lack any kind of brand strategy and sometimes see branding as simply naming their products. In many of their markets, however, financial success is no longer driven by product innovation alone, or by the latest and greatest product specifications and features. Marketing skills are playing an increasingly important role in the adoption and success of high-tech products.

Intuit

Intuit has introduced several highly successful software packages. In discussing the origins of his company, Intuit’s founder Scott Cook comments: “We started with the belief that it is a consumer market, not a technology market. We’d run it like Procter & Gamble.” Applying classic package-goods marketing techniques, Intuit first conducted extensive research with consumers and then designed a product to satisfy the unmet needs and wants of the market. Because research revealed that most consumers did not like doing financial management and found it a necessary evil, Intuit designed the Quicken personal-finance software to offer two key benefits—ease of use and speed—that were not then offered by other products in the market.

Through the years, Intuit has been expanding its services and products as well as its customer base, acquiring Mint.com, a free personal money management site, in 2009 for $170 million. In 2010, Intuit focused on its TurboTax tax software, creating a campaign—with a fully coordinated digital component—that kicked off tax season alongside the Super Bowl. Intuit has extended its consumer-centric strategy by expanding into social media. With TurboTax, the company has created the “Friends Like You” program, which allows users of the software to share reviews via social networking sites. With its QuickBooks business accounting software, the company has created a community where its diehard fans can pose questions to each other and exchange helpful tips.21

Intuit applies the latest consumer marketing strategies, such as the creation of an on-line community for its successful Quickbooks brand.

Source: Screen shots © Intuit Inc. All rights reserved.

The speed and brevity of technology product life cycles create unique branding challenges. Trust is critical, and customers often buy into companies as much as products. Marketing budgets may be small, although high-tech firms’ adoption of classic consumer marketing techniques has increased expenditures on marketing communications. The Science of Branding 1-2 provides a set of guidelines for marketing managers at high-tech companies.

Services

Although strong service brands like American Express, British Airways, Ritz-Carlton, Merrill Lynch, and Federal Express have existed for years, the pervasiveness of service branding and its sophistication have accelerated in the past decade.

Role of Branding with Services

One of the challenges in marketing services is that they are less tangible than products and more likely to vary in quality, depending on the particular person or people providing them. For that reason, branding can be particularly important to service firms as a way to address intangibility and variability problems. Brand symbols may also be especially important, because they help make the abstract nature of services more concrete. Brands can help identify and provide meaning to the different services provided by a firm. For example, branding has become especially important in financial services to help organize and label the myriad new offerings in a manner that consumers can understand.

Branding a service can also be an effective way to signal to consumers that the firm has designed a particular service offering that is special and deserving of its name. For example, British Airways not only brands its premium business class service as “Club World”; it also brands its regular coach service as “World Traveler,” a clever way to communicate to the airline’s regular passengers that they are also special in some way and that their patronage is not taken for granted. Branding has clearly become a competitive weapon for services.

Professional Services

Professional services firm such as Accenture (consulting), Goldman Sachs (investment banking), Ernst & Young (accounting), and Baker Botts (law) offer specialized expertise and support to other businesses and organizations. Professional services branding is an interesting combination of B2B branding and traditional consumer services branding.

Corporate credibility is key in terms of expertise, trustworthiness, and likability. Variability is more of an issue with professional services because it is harder to standardize the services of a consulting firm than those of a typical consumer services firm (like Mayflower movers or Orkin pest control). Long-term relationships are crucial too; losing one customer can be disastrous if it is a big enough account.

One big difference in professional services is that individual employees have a lot more of their own equity in the firm and are often brands in their own right! The challenge is therefore to ensure that their words and actions help build the corporate brand and not just their

For a service firm like Mayflower, dependable, high-quality service is critical.

Source: Mayflower Transit, LLC

own. Ensuring that the organization retain at least some of the equity that employees (especially senior ones) build is thus crucial in case any of them leave.

Referrals and testimonials can be powerful when the services offered are highly intangible and subjective. Emotions also play a big role in terms of sense of security and social approval. Switching costs can be significant and pose barriers to entry for competitors, but clients do have the opportunity to bargain and will often do so to acquire more customized solutions.

Retailers and Distributors

To retailers and other channel members distributing products, brands provide a number of important functions. Brands can generate consumer interest, patronage, and loyalty in a store, as consumers learn to expect certain brands and products. To the extent “you are what you sell,” brands help retailers create an image and establish positioning. Retailers can also create their own brand image by attaching unique associations to the quality of their service, their product assortment and merchandising, and their pricing and credit policy. Finally, the appeal and attraction of brands, whether manufacturers’ brands or the retailers’ own brands, can yield higher price margins, increased sales volumes, and greater profits.

Retailers can introduce their own brands by using their store name, creating new names, or some combination of the two. Many distributors, especially in Europe, have actually introduced their own brands, which they sell in addition to—or sometimes even instead of—manufacturers’ brands. Products bearing these store brands or private label brands offer another way for retailers to increase customer loyalty and generate higher margins and profits.

By mid-July 2009, private labels accounted for 17 percent of grocery purchases in food, drug, and mass merchandisers in North America.22 In Britain, five or six grocery chains selling their own brands account for roughly half the country’s food and packaged-goods sales, led by Sainsbury and Tesco. Another top British retailer, Marks & Spencer, sells only its own-brand goods, under the label of St. Michael. Several U.S. retailers also emphasize their own brands. (Chapter 5 considers store brands and private labels in greater detail.)

The Internet has transformed retailing in recent years as retailers have adopted a “bricks and clicks” approach to their business or, in many cases, become pure-play online retailers, operating only on the Web. Regardless of the exact form, to be competitive online, many retailers have had to improve their online service by making customer service agents available in real time, shipping products promptly, providing tracking updates, and adopting liberal return policies.

Online Products and Services

Some of the strongest brands in recent years have been born online. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are three notable examples. That wasn’t always the case. At the onset of the Internet, many online marketers made serious—and sometimes fatal—mistakes. Some oversimplified the branding process, equating flashy or unusual advertising with building a brand. Although such marketing efforts sometimes caught consumers’ attention, more often than not they failed to create awareness of what products or services the brand represented, why those products or services were unique or different, and most important, why consumers should visit their Web site.

Online marketers now realize the realities of brand building. First, as for any brand, it is critical to create unique aspects of the brand on some dimension that is important to consumers, such as convenience, price, or variety. At the same time, the brand needs to perform satisfactorily in other areas, such as customer service, credibility, and personality. For instance, customers increasingly began to demand higher levels of service both during and after their Web site visits.

Successful online brands have been well positioned and have found unique ways to satisfy consumers’ unmet needs. By offering unique features and services to consumers, the best online brands are able to avoid extensive advertising or lavish marketing campaigns, relying more on word-of-mouth and publicity.

  • Hulu enables consumers to watch videos of their past and present favorite TV programs at their own convenience.

  • Pandora allows customers to customize online radio stations with bands and genres they enjoy, while learning about other music they might also like.

  • Online encyclopedia Wikipedia provides consumers with extensive, constantly updated, user-generated information about practically everything.

Google is perhaps the classic example of how to build a successful online brand.

Google

Founded in 1998 by two Stanford University Ph.D. students, Google takes its name from a play on the word googol—the number 1 followed by 100 zeroes—a reference to the huge amount of data online. Google’s stated mission is “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” The company has become the market leader in the search engine industry through its business focus and constant innovation. Its home page focuses on searches but also allows users to employ many other Google services. By focusing on plain text, avoiding pop-up ads, and using sophisticated search algorithms, Google provides fast and reliable service. Google’s revenue traditionally was driven by search ads, text-based boxes that advertisers pay for only when users click on them. Increasingly, Google is seeking additional sources of revenue from new services and acquisitions.23

Google’s classic application of branding principles has helped to made it an industry powerhouse.

Source: TassPhotos/Newscom

Online brands also learned the importance of off-line activities to draw customers to Web sites. Home page Web addresses, or URLs, began to appear on all collateral and marketing material. Partnerships became critical as online brands developed networks of online partners and links. They also began to target specific customer groups—often geographically widely dispersed—for which the brand could offer unique value propositions. As we will describe more in Chapter 6, Web site designs have finally begun to maximize the benefits of interactivity, customization, and timeliness and the advantages of being able to inform, persuade, and sell all at the same time.

People and Organizations

When the product category is people or organizations, the naming aspect of branding, at least, is generally straightforward. These often have well-defined images that are easily understood and liked (or disliked) by others. That’s particularly true for public figures such as politicians, entertainers, and professional athletes. All these compete in some sense for public approval and acceptance, and all benefit from conveying a strong and desirable image.

Rachael Ray

Rachael Ray’s brand is an accessible one. Her “can-do” personality aligns well with her no-fuss cooking approach, and her likeability led her to be named one of Forbes magazine’s “Ten Most Trusted Celebrities” and one of Time magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in 2006.” Ray’s magazine—launched in 2005—has a circulation of 1.8 million. Her brand, which started with her Food Network show, has been expanded to include product endorsements (such as Dunkin’ Donuts and Kraft’s Nabisco) and cookbooks. In 2010, Ray launched her own iPod app that includes recipes, cooking tips, and a function that helps food shoppers calculate ingredients and amounts. Ray’s initial success was built around her ability to recognize consumer needs in the culinary market; specifically, she identified that consumers need recipes and cooking tools to teach them how to cook quickly and easily. Ray herself has identified her talent as being “good at trying to understand what [my] customer wants and needs, and giving it to them.”24

Rachel Ray’s multimedia brand is based on her down-to-earth attitude and understanding of consumer needs.

Source: MCMULLAN CO/SIPA/Newscom

That’s not to say that only the well-known or famous can be thought of as a brand. Certainly, one key for a successful career in almost any area is that co-workers, superiors, or even important people outside your company or organization know who you are and recognize your skills, talents, attitude, and so forth. By building up a name and reputation in a business context, you are essentially creating your own brand.25 The right awareness and image can be invaluable in shaping the way people treat you and interpret your words, actions, and deeds.26

Similarly, organizations often take on meanings through their programs, activities, and products. Nonprofit organizations such as the Sierra Club, the American Red Cross, and Amnesty International have increasingly emphasized marketing. The children’s advocate nonprofit UNICEF has initiated a number of marketing activities and programs through the years.

UNICEF

UNICEF launched its “Tap Project” campaign in 2007, which asked diners to pay $1 for a glass of New York City tap water in restaurants, with the funds going to support the organization’s clean water programs. That was the first time UNICEF had run a consumer campaign in over 50 years. The UNICEF logo was featured on the Barcelona soccer team’s jersey from 2006 to 2011 under an arrangement in which the team donated $2 million annually to the organization. UNICEF launched another consumer campaign in the UK in February 2010. This five-year “Put it Right” campaign features celebrity ambassadors for the organization and aims to protect the rights of children. One of UNICEF’s most successful corporate relationships has been with IKEA. The partnership, which also emphasizes children’s rights, was established in 2000 and encompasses direct donations from IKEA and an annual toy campaign, the sales from which directly benefit UNICEF programs.27

Nonprofit organizations like UNICEF need strong brands and modern marketing practices to help them fundraise and satisfy their organizational goals and mission.

Source: Picture Contact BV/Alamy

Sports, Arts, and Entertainment

A special case of marketing people and organizations as brands exists in the sports, arts, and entertainment industries. Sports marketing has become highly sophisticated in recent years, employing traditional packaged-goods techniques. No longer content to allow win–loss records to dictate attendance levels and financial fortunes, many sports teams are marketing themselves through a creative combination of advertising, promotions, sponsorship, direct mail, digital, and other forms of communication. By building awareness, image, and loyalty, these sports franchises are able to meet ticket sales targets regardless of what their team’s actual performance might turn out to be. Brand symbols and logos in particular have become an important financial contributor to professional sports through licensing agreements.

Branding plays an especially valuable function in the arts and entertainment industries that bring us movies, television, music, and books. These offerings are good examples of experience goods: prospective buyers cannot judge quality by inspection and must use cues such as the particular people involved, the concept or rationale behind the project, and word-of-mouth and critical reviews.

Think of a movie as a product whose “ingredients” are the plot, actors, and director.28 Certain movie franchises such as Spider Man, James Bond, and Twilight have established themselves as strong brands by combining all these ingredients into a formula that appeals to consumers and allows the studios to release sequels (essentially brand extensions) that rely on the title’s initial popularity. For years, some of the most valuable movie franchises have featured recurring characters or ongoing stories, and many successful recent films have been sequels. Their success is due to the fact that moviegoers know from the title and the actors, producers, directors, and other contributors that they can expect a certain experience— a classic application of branding.

Harry Potter

With its ability to transcend its original format—books—the Harry Potter film series has been likened to the Star Wars franchise. All seven of the popular novels have been turned into blockbuster movies, generating over $7.7 billion worldwide by the end of 2011. In the first year it launched Harry Potter toys, Mattel saw $160 million in sales. And in 2010, Universal Studios opened a Florida theme park based on the Harry Potter stories. The Harry Potter empire has been praised for its attention to core marketing techniques—a good product, emotional involvement of its consumers, word-of-mouth promotion, “tease” marketing, and brand consistency. Several estimates have pegged the Harry Potter brand to be worth $15 billion, which, beyond the movies and the books, included more than $1 billion in DVD sales, nearly $12 million in licensing, and $13 million in music sales related to the films.29

Few brands have generated as much worldwide consumer loyalty—and profits—as Harry Potter.

Source: WARNER BROS. PICTURES/Album/Newscom

A strong brand is valuable in the entertainment industry because of the fervent feelings that names generate as a result of pleasurable past experiences. A new album release from Neil Finn would probably not cause much of a ripple in the marketplace, even if it were marketed as coming from a founding member of the band Crowded House. If it were to actually be released and marketed under the Crowded House name, however, greater media attention and higher sales would be virtually guaranteed.

Geographic Locations

Increased mobility of both people and businesses and growth in the tourism industry have contributed to the rise of place marketing. Cities, states, regions, and countries are now actively promoted through advertising, direct mail, and other communication tools. These campaigns aim to create awareness and a favorable image of a location that will entice temporary visits or permanent moves from individuals and businesses alike. Although the brand name is usually preordained by the name of the location, there are a number of different considerations in building a place brand, some of which are considered in Branding Brief 1-3.

Ideas and Causes

Finally, numerous ideas and causes have been branded, especially by nonprofit organizations. They may be captured in a phrase or slogan and even be represented by a symbol, such as AIDS ribbons. By making ideas and causes more visible and concrete, branding can provide much value. As Chapter 11 describes, cause marketing increasingly relies on sophisticated marketing practices to inform or persuade consumers about the issues surrounding a cause.

What are the Strongest Brands?

It’s clear from these examples that virtually anything can be and has been branded. Which brands are the strongest, that is, the best known or most highly regarded? Figure 1-5 reveals Interbrand’s ranking of the world’s 25 most valuable brands in 2011 based on its brand valuation methodology (see Chapter 10), as published in its annual “Best Global Brands” report.30

We can easily find some of the best-known brands by simply walking down a supermarket aisle. It’s also easy to identify a number of other brands with amazing staying power that have been market leaders in their categories for decades. According to research by marketing consultant Jack Trout, in 25 popular product categories, 20 of the leading brands in 1923 were still leading brands over 80 years later—only five have lost their leadership position.31

2011 Rank

Brand

2011 Brand Value

2010 Brand Value

2011–2010 Percent Change

Country of Ownership

1

Coca-Cola

71,861

70,452

2%

United States

2

IBM

69,905

64,727

8%

United States

3

Microsoft

59,087

60,895

–3%

United States

4

Google

55,317

43,557

27%

United States

5

GE

42,808

42,808

0%

United States

6

McDonald's

35,593

33,578

6%

United States

7

Intel

35,217

32,015

10%

United States

8

Apple

33,492

21,143

58%

United States

9

Disney

29,018

28,731

1%

United States

10

Hewlett-Packard

28,479

26,867

6%

United States

11

Toyota

27,764

26,192

6%

Japan

12

Mercedes-Benz

27,445

25,179

9%

Germany

13

Cisco

25,309

23,219

9%

United States

14

Nokia

25,071

29,495

–15%

Finland

15

BMW

24,554

22,322

10%

Germany

16

Gillette

23,997

23,298

3%

United States

17

Samsung

23,430

19,491

20%

South Korea

18

Louis Vuitton

23,172

21,860

6%

France

19

Honda

19,431

18,506

5%

Japan

20

Oracle

17,262

14,881

16%

United States

21

H&M

16,459

16,136

2%

Sweden

22

Pepsi

14,590

14,061

4%

United States

23

American Express

14,572

13,944

5%

United States

24

SAP

14,542

12,756

14%

Germany

25

Nike

14,528

13,706

6%

United States

Figure 1-5 Twenty-Five Most Valuable Global Brands

Sources: Based on Interbrand. “The 100 Most Valuable Global Brands 2011,” pp. 17–43. Interbrand. “Best Global Brands 2010,” p. 14.

Similarly, many brands that were number one in the United Kingdom in 1933 remain strong today: Hovis bread, Stork margarine, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Cadbury’s chocolates, Gillette razors, Schweppes mixers, Brooke Bond tea, Colgate toothpaste, and Hoover vacuum cleaners. Many of these brands have evolved over the years, however, and made a number of changes. Most of them barely resemble their original forms.

At the same time, some seemingly invincible brands, including Levi-Strauss, General Motors, Montgomery Ward, Polaroid, and Xerox, have run into difficulties and seen their market preeminence challenged or even lost. Although some of these failures are related to factors beyond the control of the firm, such as technological advances or shifting consumer preferences, in other cases the blame could probably be placed on the action or inaction of the marketers behind the brands. Some failed to account for changing market conditions and continued to operate with a “business as usual” attitude or, perhaps even worse, recognized that changes were necessary but reacted inadequately or inappropriately. The Science of Branding 1-3 provides some academic insights into factors affecting market leadership.

The bottom line is that any brand—no matter how strong at one point in time—is vulnerable and susceptible to poor brand management. The next section discusses why it is so difficult to

manage brands in today’s environment. Figure 1-8 displays an analysis of fast-growing “breakaway brands” by leading marketing consultant firm Landor. Brand Focus 1.0 at the end of the chapter describes some of the historical origins of branding and brand management.

Branding Challenges and Opportunities

Although brands may be as important as ever to consumers, in reality brand management may be more difficult than ever. Let’s look at some recent developments that have significantly complicated marketing practices and pose challenges for brand managers (see Figure 1-9).32

Savvy Customers

Increasingly, consumers and businesses have become more experienced with marketing, more knowledgeable about how it works, and more demanding. A well-developed media market pays increased attention to companies’ marketing actions and motivations. Consumer information and support exists in the form of consumer guides (Consumer Reports), Web sites (Epinions.com), influential blogs, and so on.

Brand

Growth in Brand

Strength 2007–2010

Facebook

195%

Skype

79%

YouTube

78%

Netflix

72%

Samsung

66%

Apple

51%

iTunes

50%

Amazon.com

44%

Reese’s

42%

National Guard

35%

Figure 1-8 Landor Breakaway Brands (2011)

The Breakaway Brands survey, conducted by Landor Associates using Young & Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator database, identifies those brands that exhibited the greatest increases in Brand Strength from 2007–2010. Growth in brand strength indicates how much the brand’s raw strength score has risen over the past three years, expressed in percentage terms ( www.landor.com).

  • Savvy customers

  • More complex brand families and portfolios

  • Maturing markets

  • More sophisticated and increasing competition

  • Difficulty in differentiating

  • Decreasing brand loyalty in many categories

  • Growth of private labels

  • Increasing trade power

  • Fragmenting media coverage

  • Eroding traditional media effectiveness

  • Emerging new communication options

  • Increasing promotional expenditures

  • Decreasing advertising expenditures

  • Increasing cost of product introduction and support

  • Short-term performance orientation

  • Increasing job turnover

  • Pronounced economic cycles

Figure 1-9 Challenges to Brand Builders

Friends/peers

81%

Fashion magazines

68%

Ads

58%

Company Web sites

44%

Consumer Reviews

36%

Celebrities

33%

Parents/adults

25%

Bloggers

14%

Figure 1-10 Example of Multiple Consumer Information Sources

(Percentage of teen girls, ages 13–18, who identify a source of information they typically use when trying to learn about the latest trends)

Source: Varsity Brands/Ketchum Global Research Network, as cited in “Teen Girls as Avid Shoppers,” ADWEEK MEDIA, 15 November 2010.

One of the key challenges in today’s marketing environment is the vast number of sources of information consumers may consult. Figure 1-10 displays some of the ways teenage girls collect information. For these and other reasons, many believe that it is more difficult to persuade consumers with traditional communications than it used to be. An empowered consumer may play a more active role in a brand’s fortune, as has been the case with Converse.

Converse

CMO Geoff Cottrill maintains that an important priority at Converse is “to shut up and listen.” With a small budget, marketing for the brand has focused on digital and social media. The Web site is chock full of consumer-generated content. On Facebook, the brand went from 6 to 9 million fans as consumers chose to take pictures of their shoes, draw on them, and post about them. Cottrill notes that although there are places where the company tells stories about its shoes—in stores and on the Web site—“for the most part we let the conversation go … it’s those creative people that are really pushing the brand.” The brand has also functioned as a curator of sorts for new music, art, and entertainment. Converse has built a studio called Rubber Tracks in New York City to support new, emerging bands by allowing them to record there for free.33

Converse has reinvigorated its brand by getting consumers actively involved in its marketing.

Source: Kristoffer Tripplaar/Alamy

Economic Downturns

A severe recession that commenced in 2008 threatened the fortunes of many brands. One research study of consumers at the end of 2009 found the following sobering facts:34

  • 18 percent of consumers reported that they had bought lower-priced brands of consumer packaged goods in the past two years.

  • 46 percent of the switchers to less expensive products said “they found better performance than they expected,” with the vast majority saying performance was actually much better than expected.

  • 34 percent of the switchers said “they no longer preferred higher-priced products.”

As the economy appeared to move out of the recession, the question was whether attitudes and behaviors that did change would revert back to their pre-recession norms. Regardless, there will always be economic cycles and ups and downs, and The Science of Branding 1-4 offers some guidelines for marketing brands during economic downturns.

Brand Proliferation

Another important change in the branding environment is the proliferation of new brands and products, in part spurred by the rise in line and brand extensions. As a result, a brand name may now be identified with a number of different products with varying degrees of similarity. Marketers of brands such as Coke, Nivea, Dove, and Virgin have added a host of new products under their brand umbrellas in recent years. There are few single (or “mono”) product brands around, which complicates the decisions that marketers have to make.

With so many brands engaged in expansion, channels of distribution have become clogged, and many brand battles are waged just to get products on the shelf. The average supermarket now holds 30,000 different brands, three times the number 30 years ago.35

Media Transformation

Another important change in the marketing environment is the erosion or fragmentation of traditional advertising media and the emergence of interactive and nontraditional media, promotion, and other communication alternatives. For several reasons related to media cost, clutter, and fragmentation—as outlined in Chapter 6— marketers have become disenchanted with traditional advertising media, especially network television.

Thus the percentage of the communication budget devoted to advertising has shrunk over the years. In its place, marketers are spending more on nontraditional forms of communication and on new and emerging forms of communication such as interactive digital media; sports and event sponsorship; in-store advertising; mini-billboards in transit vehicles, parking meters, and other locations; and product placement in movies.

Consider how Procter & Gamble (P&G) has dramatically changed its marketing communications in recent years. The one-time queen of daytime TV soap operas—the company produced the shows and ran ads during the broadcasts—P&G has dramatically overhauled the way it markets its brands. It no longer airs any soap operas and puts more emphasis on social media instead. The company sells Pampers diapers on Facebook, offers an iPhone application for Always feminine products that allows women to track menstrual cycles and ask questions, and uses social media to sell its traditionally male-targeted Old Spice personal care products.36

Old Spice

Old Spice’s “Smell Like a Man, Man” campaign became a viral and pop culture sensation in 2010. The tongue-in-cheek ad featured rugged ex-NFL football player Isaiah Mustafa as “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.” In one seamless take, Mustafa confidently strikes a variety of romantic poses while taking a shower in a bathroom, then standing on a boat, then riding a white horse. Old Spice’s Facebook page included a Web application called “My Perpetual Love,” which featured Mustafa offering men the opportunity to be “more like him” by e-mailing and tweeting their sweethearts virtual love notes. The campaign’s effectiveness is evident in the staggering number of responses it received: 1.8 billion impressions (people who saw, read, or heard about the commercials); over 140 million YouTube views; and a 2700 percent increase in Twitter followers.37

Increased Competition

One reason marketers have been forced to use so many financial incentives or discounts is that the marketplace has become more competitive. Both demand-side and supply-side factors have contributed to the increase in competitive intensity. On the demand side, consumption for many products and services has flattened and hit the maturity stage, or even the decline stage, of the product life cycle. As a result, marketers can achieve sales growth for brands only by taking away competitors’ market share. On the supply side, new competitors have emerged due to a number of factors, such as the following:

  • Globalization: Although firms have embraced globalization as a means to open new markets and potential sources of revenue, it has also increased the number of competitors in existing markets, threatening current sources of revenue.

  • Low-priced competitors: Market penetration by generics, private labels, and low-priced “clones” imitating product leaders has increased on a worldwide-basis. Retailers have gained power and often dictate what happens within the store. Their chief marketing weapon is price, and they have introduced and pushed their own brands and demanded greater compensation from trade promotions to stock and display national brands.

  • Brand extensions: We’ve noted that many companies have taken their existing brands and launched products with the same name into new categories. Many of these brands provide formidable opposition to market leaders.

  • Deregulation: Certain industries like telecommunications, financial services, health care, and transportation have become deregulated, leading to increased competition from outside traditionally defined product-market boundaries.

Increased Costs

At the same time that competition is increasing, the cost of introducing a new product or supporting an existing product has increased rapidly, making it difficult to match the investment and level of support that brands were able to receive in previous years. In 2008, about 123,000 new consumer products were introduced in the United States, but with a failure rate estimated at over 90 percent. Given the millions of dollars spent on developing and marketing a new product, the total failure cost was conservatively estimated by one group to exceed billions of dollars.38

Greater Accountability

Finally, marketers often find themselves responsible for meeting ambitious short-term profit targets because of financial market pressures and senior management imperatives. Stock analysts value strong and consistent earnings reports as an indication of the long-term financial health of a firm. As a result, marketing managers may find themselves in the dilemma of having to make decisions with short-term benefits but long-term costs (such as cutting advertising expenditures). Moreover, many of these same managers have experienced rapid job turnover and promotions and may not anticipate being in their current positions for very long. One study found that the average tenure of a CMO is about three and a half years, suggesting they have little time to make an impact.39 These different organizational pressures may encourage quick-fix solutions with perhaps adverse long-run consequences.

The Brand Equity Concept

Marketers clearly face a number of competitive challenges, and some critics feel the response of many has been ineffective or, worse, has further aggravated the problem. In the rest of this book, we’ll present theories, models, and frameworks that accommodate and reflect marketing’s new challenges in order to provide useful managerial guidelines and suggest promising new directions for future thought and research. We’ll introduce a “common denominator” or unified conceptual framework, based on the concept of brand equity, as a tool to interpret the potential effects of various brand strategies.

One of the most popular and potentially important marketing concepts to arise in the 1980s was brand equity. Its emergence, however, has meant both good news and bad news to marketers. The good news is that brand equity has elevated the importance of the brand in marketing strategy and provided focus for managerial interest and research activity. The bad news is that, confusingly, the concept has been defined a number of different ways for a number of different purposes. No common viewpoint has emerged about how to conceptualize and measure brand equity.

Fundamentally, branding is all about endowing products and services with the power of brand equity. Despite the many different views, most observers agree that brand equity consists of the marketing effects uniquely attributable to a brand. That is, brand equity explains why different outcomes result from the marketing of a branded product or service than if it were not branded. That is the view we take in this book . As a stark example of the transformational power of branding, consider the auctions sales in Figure 1-11. Without such celebrity associations, it is doubtful that any of these items would cost more than a few hundred dollars at a flea market.40

Branding is all about creating differences. Most marketing observers also agree with the following basic principles of branding and brand equity:

  • Differences in outcomes arise from the “added value” endowed to a product as a result of past marketing activity for the brand.

  • This value can be created for a brand in many different ways.

  • Brand equity provides a common denominator for interpreting marketing strategies and assessing the value of a brand.

  • There are many different ways in which the value of a brand can be manifested or exploited to benefit the firm (in terms of greater proceeds or lower costs or both).

Fundamentally, the brand equity concept reinforces how important the brand is in marketing strategies. Chapters 2 and 3 in Part II of the book provide an overview of brand equity and a blueprint for the rest of the book. The remainder of the book addresses in much greater depth

  • A glove Michael Jackson wore on tour sold for $330,000 in 2010.

  • A ’29 Duesenberg Model J Dual Cowl Phaeton driven by Elvis Presley in the 1966 movie Spinout sold for $1.2 million in 2011.

  • A dog collar owned by Charles Dickens sold for nearly $12,000 in 2009.

  • The Supergirl costume made for the movie in 1984 sold for over $11,000 in a Christie’s 2010 auction.

  • A T-shirt worn by The Who’s Keith Moon sold for $3,550 at another Christie’s auction in 2010.

  • A dress worn by Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face sold for $56,250, a sweater worn by Marilyn Monroe sold for $11,875, and a pair of earrings worn by Kate Winslet in Titanic fetched $25,000 at an auction in 2010.

Figure 1-11 Notable Recent Auction Sales

A sweater is just a sweater, unless it was worn or owned by Marilyn Monroe, in which case it could be worth thousands of dollars.

Source: Album/Newscom

how to build brand equity (Chapters 47 in Part III), measure brand equity (Chapters 8 10 in Part IV), and manage brand equity (Chapters 11 14 in Part V). The concluding Chapter 15 in Part VI provides some additional applications and perspective.

The remainder of this chapter provides an overview of the strategic brand management process that helps pull all these various concepts together.

Strategic Brand Management Process

Strategic brand management involves the design and implementation of marketing programs and activities to build, measure, and manage brand equity. In this text, we define the strategic brand management process as having four main steps (see Figure 1-12):

  1. Identifying and developing brand plans

  2. Designing and implementing brand marketing programs

  3. Measuring and interpreting brand performance

  4. Growing and sustaining brand equity

Let’s briefly highlight each of these four steps.41

Identifying and Developing Brand Plans

The strategic brand management process starts with a clear understanding of what the brand is to represent and how it should be positioned with respect to competitors.42 Brand planning, as described in Chapters 2 and 3, uses the following three interlocking models.

  • The brand positioning model describes how to guide integrated marketing to maximize competitive advantages.

  • The brand resonance model describes how to create intense, activity loyalty relationships with customers.

  • The brand value chain is a means to trace the value creation process for brands, to better understand the financial impact of brand marketing expenditures and investments.

Designing and Implementing Brand Marketing Programs

As Chapter 2 outlines, building brand equity requires properly positioning the brand in the minds of customers and achieving as much brand resonance as possible. In general, this knowledge-building process will depend on three factors:

  1. The initial choices of the brand elements making up the brand and how they are mixed and matched;

    Figure 1-12 Strategic Brand Management Process

  2. The marketing activities and supporting marketing programs and the way the brand is integrated into them; and

  3. Other associations indirectly transferred to or leveraged by the brand as a result of linking it to some other entity (such as the company, country of origin, channel of distribution, or another brand).

Some important considerations of each of these three factors are as follows.

Choosing Brand Elements

The most common brand elements are brand names, URLs, logos, symbols, characters, packaging, and slogans. The best test of the brand-building contribution of a brand element is what consumers would think about the product or service if they knew only its brand name or its associated logo or other element. Because different elements have different advantages, marketing managers often use a subset of all the possible brand elements or even all of them. Chapter 4 examines in detail the means by which the choice and design of brand elements can help to build brand equity.

Integrating the Brand into Marketing Activities and the Supporting Marketing Program

Although the judicious choice of brand elements can make some contribution to building brand equity, the biggest contribution comes from marketing activities related to the brand. This text highlights only some particularly important marketing program considerations for building brand equity. Chapter 5 addresses new developments in designing marketing programs as well as issues in product strategy, pricing strategy, and channels strategy. Chapter 6 addresses issues in communications strategy.

Leveraging Secondary Associations

The third and final way to build brand equity is to leverage secondary associations. Brand associations may themselves be linked to other entities that have their own associations, creating these secondary associations. For example, the brand may be linked to certain source factors, such as the company (through branding strategies), countries or other geographical regions (through identification of product origin), and channels of distribution (through channel strategy), as well as to other brands (through ingredients or co-branding), characters (through licensing), spokespeople (through endorsements), sporting or cultural events (through sponsorship), or some other third-party sources (through awards or reviews).

Because the brand becomes identified with another entity, even though this entity may not directly relate to the product or service performance, consumers may infer that the brand shares associations with that entity, thus producing indirect or secondary associations for the brand. In essence, the marketer is borrowing or leveraging some other associations for the brand to create some associations of the brand’s own and thus help build its brand equity. Chapter 7 describes the means of leveraging brand equity.

Measuring and Interpreting Brand Performance

To manage their brands profitably, managers must successfully design and implement a brand equity measurement system. A brand equity measurement system is a set of research procedures designed to provide timely, accurate, and actionable information for marketers so that they can make the best possible tactical decisions in the short run and the best strategic decisions in the long run. As described in Chapter 8, implementing such a system involves three key steps—conducting brand audits, designing brand tracking studies, and establishing a brand equity management system.

The task of determining or evaluating a brand’s positioning often benefits from a brand audit. A brand audit is a comprehensive examination of a brand to assess its health, uncover its sources of equity, and suggest ways to improve and leverage that equity. A brand audit requires understanding sources of brand equity from the perspective of both the firm and the consumer.

Once marketers have determined the brand positioning strategy, they are ready to put into place the actual marketing program to create, strengthen, or maintain brand associations. Brand tracking studies collect information from consumers on a routine basis over time, typically through quantitative measures of brand performance on a number of key dimensions marketers can identify in the brand audit or other means.Chapters 9 and 10 describe a number of measures to operationalize it.

A brand equity management system is a set of organizational processes designed to improve the understanding and use of the brand equity concept within a firm. Three major steps help implement a brand equity management system: creating brand equity charters, assembling brand equity reports, and defining brand equity responsibilities.

Growing and Sustaining Brand Equity

Maintaining and expanding on brand equity can be quite challenging. Brand equity management activities take a broader and more diverse perspective of the brand’s equity—understanding how branding strategies should reflect corporate concerns and be adjusted, if at all, over time or over geographical boundaries or multiple market segments.

Defining Brand Architecture

The firm’s brand architecture provides general guidelines about its branding strategy and which brand elements to apply across all the different products sold by the firm. Two key concepts in defining brand architecture are brand portfolios and the brand hierarchy. The brand portfolio is the set of different brands that a particular firm offers for sale to buyers in a particular category. The brand hierarchy displays the number and nature of common and distinctive brand components across the firm’s set of brands. Chapter 11 reviews a three-step approach to brand architecture and how to devise brand portfolios and hierarchies. Chapter 12 concentrates on the topic of brand extensions in which an existing brand is used to launch a product into a different category or sub-category.

Managing Brand Equity over Time

Effective brand management also requires taking a long-term view of marketing decisions. A long-term perspective of brand management recognizes that any changes in the supporting marketing program for a brand may, by changing consumer knowledge, affect the success of future marketing programs. A long-term view also produces proactive strategies designed to maintain and enhance customer-based brand equity over time and reactive strategies to revitalize a brand that encounters some difficulties or problems. Chapter 13 outlines issues related to managing brand equity over time.

Managing Brand Equity over Geographic Boundaries, Cultures, and Market Segments

Another important consideration in managing brand equity is recognizing and accounting for different types of consumers in developing branding and marketing programs. International factors and global branding strategies are particularly important in these decisions. In expanding a brand overseas, managers need to build equity by relying on specific knowledge about the experience and behaviors of those market segments. Chapter 14 examines issues related to broadening of brand equity across market segments.

Review

This chapter began by defining a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or some combination of these elements, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. The different components of a brand (brand names, logos, symbols, package designs, and so forth) are brand elements. Brand elements come in many different forms. A brand is distinguished from a product, which is defined as anything that can be offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use, or consumption that might satisfy a need or want. A product may be a physical good, service, retail store, person, organization, place, or idea.

A brand is a product, but one that adds other dimensions that differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need. These differences may be rational and tangible—related to product performance of the brand—or more symbolic, emotional, or intangible—related to what the brand represents. Brands themselves are valuable intangible assets that need to be managed carefully. Brands offer a number of benefits to customers and the firms.

The key to branding is that consumers perceive differences among brands in a product category. Marketers can brand virtually any type of product by giving the product a name and attaching meaning to it in terms of what it has to offer and how it differs from competitors. A number of branding challenges and opportunities faced by present-day marketing managers were outlined related to changes in customer attitudes and behavior, competitive forces, marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and internal company dynamics.

The strategic brand management process has four steps:

  1. Identifying and developing brand plans

  2. Designing and implementing brand marketing programs

  3. Measuring and interpreting brand performance

  4. Growing and sustaining brand equity

The remainder of the book outlines these steps in detail.

Discussion Questions

  1. What do brands mean to you? What are your favorite brands and why? Check to see how your perceptions of brands might differ from those of others.

  2. Who do you think has the strongest brands? Why? What do you think of the Interbrand list of the 25 strongest brands in Figure 1-5? Do you agree with the rankings? Why or why not?

  3. Can you think of anything that cannot be branded? Pick an example that was not discussed in each of the categories provided (services; retailers and distributors; people and organizations; sports, arts, and entertainment) and describe how each is a brand.

  4. Can you think of yourself as a brand? What do you do to “brand” yourself?

  5. What do you think of the new branding challenges and opportunities that were listed in the chapter? Can you think of any other issues?

Notes

  1. 1 For general background and in-depth research on a number of branding issues, consult the Journal of Brand Management and Journal of Brand Strategy, Henry Stewart publications.

  2. 2 Interbrand Group, World’s Greatest Brands: An International Review (New York: John Wiley, 1992).

  3. 3 Adrian Room, Dictionary of Trade Greatest Brands: An International Review (New York: John Wiley, 1992); Adrian Room, Dictionary of Trade Name Origins (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982).

  4. 4 The second through fifth levels are based on a conceptualization in Theodore Levitt, “Marketing Success Through Differentiation—of Anything,” Harvard Business Review (January–February 1980): 83–91.

  5. 5 Theodore Levitt, “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review (July–August 1960): 45–56.

  6. 6 Thomas J. Madden, Frank Fehle, and Susan M. Fournier, “Brands Matter: An Empirical Demonstration of the Creation of Shareholder Value through Brands,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34, no. 2 (2006): 224–235; Frank Fehle, Susan M. Fournier, Thomas J. Madden, and David G. Shrider, “Brand Value and Asset Pricing,” Quarterly Journal of Finance & Accounting 47, no. 1 (2008): 59–82.

  7. 7 Jacob Jacoby, Jerry C. Olson, and Rafael Haddock, “Price, Brand Name, and Product Composition Characteristics as Determinants of Perceived Quality,” Journal of Consumer Research 3, no. 4 (1971): 209–216; Jacob Jacoby, George Syzbillo, and Jacqueline Busato-Sehach, “Information Acquisition Behavior in Brand Choice Situations,” Journal of Marketing Research 11 (1977): 63–69.

  8. 8 Susan Fournier, “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 3 (1997): 343–373.

  9. 9 Susan Fournier, “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 24, no. 3 (1997): 343–373; Aric Rindfleisch, Nancy Wong, and James E. Burroughs, “God and Mammon: The Influence of Religiosity on Brand Connections,” in The Connected Customer: The Changing Nature of Consumer and Business Markets, eds. Stefan H. K. Wuyts, Marnik G. Dekimpe, Els Gijsbrechts, and Rik Pieters (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2010), 163–201; Ron Shachar, Tülin Erdem, Keisha M. Cutright, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons, “Brands: The Opiate of the Nonreligious Masses?,” Marketing Science 30 (January–February 2011): 92–110.

  10. 10 For an excellent example of the work being done on culture and branding, consult the following: Grant McCracken, Culture and Consumption II: Markets, Meaning and Brand Management (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005) and Grant McCracken, Chief Culture Officer: How to Create a Living, Breathing Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 2009). For a broader discussion of culture and consumer behavior, see Eric J. Arnould and Craig J. Thompson, “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 31(March 2005): 868–882.

  11. 11 Philip Nelson, “Information and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Political Economy 78 (1970): 311–329; and Michael R. Darby and Edi Karni, “Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud,” Journal of Law and Economics 16 (April 1974): 67–88.

  12. 12 Allan D. Shocker and Richard Chay, “How Marketing Researchers Can Harness the Power of Brand Equity.” Presentation to New Zealand Marketing Research Society, August 1992.

  13. 13 Ted Roselius, “Consumer Ranking of Risk Reduction Methods,” Journal of Marketing 35 (January 1971): 56–61.

  14. 14 Leslie de Chernatony and Gil McWilliam, “The Varying Nature of Brands as Assets,” International Journal of Advertising 8 (1989): 339–349.

  15. 15 Constance E. Bagley and Diane W. Savage, Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century, 6th ed. (Mason, OH: Southwestern-Cengage Learning, 2010).

  16. 16 Tülin Erdem and Joffre Swait, “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 7, no. 2 (1998): 131–157.

  17. 17 Charles Bymer, “Valuing Your Brands: Lessons from Wall Street and the Impact on Marketers,” ARF Third Annual Advertising and Promotion Workshop, February 5–6, 1991.

  18. 18 Josh Eells, “Who Says the Music Industry is Kaput?” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, May 31–June 6, 2010, 77–79; Aimee Groth, “Mayhem! Sponsored by …,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 7 November, 2010, 84–85.

  19. 19 Elisabeth Sullivan, “Building a Better Brand,” Marketing News, 15 (September 2009): 14–17.

  20. 20 Kevin Lane Keller, “Building a Strong Business-to-Business Brand,” in Business-to-Business Brand Management: Theory, Research, and Executive Case Study Exercises, in Advances in Business Marketing & Purchasing series, Volume 15, ed. Arch Woodside (Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009): 11–31; Luc Halstead, “Cisco’s Race for the SMB Market,” www.crn.com, 21 July 2004; Paolo Del Nibletto, “Cisco to Drill Deeper Into the SMB Market,” www.itbusiness.ca, 4 April 2007; Anita Campbell, “Segmenting ‘Small Business’ for IT Needs,” www.smallbiztrends.com, 14 October 2004.

  21. 21 Todd Wasserman, “Intuit Program Combines Reviews and Social Networking,” Brandweek, 14 February 2010; “Intuit: The ‘Turbo’ Tron,” www.OMMA.com, 1 September 2010.

  22. 22 “As Consumers Seek Savings, Private Label Sales Up 7.4 Percent,” NielsenWire, 13 August 2009.

  23. 23 Brad Stone, “I’ll Take It from Here,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 6 February 2011, 50–56; Michael V. Copeland, “Google: The Search Party Is Over,” Fortune, 16 August 2010, 58–67; Helen Walters, “How Google Got Its New Look,” Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 5 May 2010; Andrei Hagiu and David B. Yoffie, “What’s Your Google Strategy?,” Harvard Business Review (April 2009).

  24. 24 Jenna Goodreau, “Dishing with Rachael Ray,” www. forbes.com, 3 February 2010; “6 Celebrity Chef- Preneurs,” www.money.cnn.com, 7 June 2011; www.rachaelray.com.

  25. 25 David Lidsky, “Me Inc.: the Rethink,” Fast Company, March 2005, 16.

  26. 26 University professors are certainly aware of the power of the name as a brand. In fact, one reason many professors choose to have students identify themselves on exams by numbers of some type instead of by name is so they will not be biased in grading by their knowledge of which student’s exam they are reading. Otherwise, it may be too easy to give higher grades to those students the professor likes or, for whatever reason, expects to have done well on the exam.

  27. 27 www.unicef.org; Ariel Schwartz, “The UNICEF TAP Project Charges Cash for Tap Water to Raise Funds, Awareness,” Fast Company, 22 March 2011; “UNICEF Aims to ‘Put It Right’ with a Five-Year Plan to Raise £55m,” Mail Media Centre, 6 February 2010; Rosie Baker, “UNICEF Brings Campaign to London Streets,” Marketing Week, 15 February 2010; www.ikea.com.

  28. 28 Joel Hochberg, “Package Goods Marketing vs. Hollywood,” Advertising Age, 20 January 1992.

  29. 29 “Harry Potter and the Endless Cash Saga,” www.news.sky.com, 7 July 2011; “The Harry Potter Economy,” The Economist, 17 December 2009; Susan Gunelius, “The Marketing Magic Behind Harry Potter,” Entrepreneur, 22 November 2010; Beth Snyder Bulik, “Harry Potter: The $15 Billion Man,” Advertising Age, 16 July 2007; “Harry Potter Casts the Superpowerful Moneymaking Spell,” Entertainment Weekly, December 23/30, 2011, 26.

  30. 30 For an illuminating analysis of top brands, see Francis J. Kelley III and Barry Silverstein, The Breakaway Brand: How Great Brands Stand Out (New York, McGraw-Hill, 2005).

  31. 31 Jack Trout, “Branding Can’t Exist Without Positioning,” Advertising Age, 14 March 2005, 28.

  32. 32 Allan D. Shocker, Rajendra Srivastava, and Robert Ruekert, “Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Management: An Introduction to the Special Issue,” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May 1994): 149–158.

  33. 33 Ben Sisario, “Looking to a Sneaker for a Band’s Big Break,” New York Times, 6 October 2010; Rebecca Cullers, “Stepping Up,” Brandweek, 13 September 2010; Eleftheria Parpis, “Converse Turns Up the Noise,” Adweek, 14 July 2008; Erin Ailworth, “Pros and Cons,” Boston Globe, 2 March 2008.

  34. 34 Betsy Bohlen, Steve Carlotti, and Liz Mihas, “How the Recession Has Changed U.S. Consumer Behavior,” McKinsey Quarterly, December 2009.

  35. 35 John Gerzema and Ed Lebar, The Brand Bubble (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2008).

  36. 36 Dan Sewell, “Procter & Gamble Moves from Soap Operas to Social Media,” USA TODAY, December 11, 2010.

  37. 37 Dan Sewall, “Old Spice Rolls Out New Ads,” Associated Press, July 1, 2010; Adam Tschorn, “Old Spice Ad Connects Women to Male Brand with a Wink,” Los Angeles Times, 6 March 2010; Mary Elizabeth Williams, “Take That, Super Bowl,” www.salon.com, 22 February 2010.

  38. 38 www.bases.com/news/news03052001.html; “New Products Generate $21 Billion in Sales in 2008,” NielsenWire, 30 January 2009.

  39. 39 Frederick E. Allen, “CMOs Are Staying on the Job Longer Than Ever,” Forbes, 24 March 2011.

  40. 40 Jem Aswad, “Single Michael Jackson Glove Sold for over $300K,” Rolling Stone, 6 December 2010; Jerry Garrett, “Putting a Price on Star Power,” New York Times, 28 January 2011; www.christies.com. For an academic treatment of the topic, see George E. Newman, Gil Diesendruck, and Paul Bloom, “Celebrity Contagion and the Value of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (August 2011): 215–228.

  41. 41 For discussion of some other approaches to branding, see David A. Aaker, Managing Brand Equity (New York: Free Press, 1991); David A. Aaker, Building Strong Brands (New York: Free Press, 1996); David A. Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler, Brand Leadership (New York: Free Press, 2000); Jean-Noel Kapferer, Strategic Brand Management, 2nd ed. (New York: Free Press, 2005); Scott M. Davis, Brand Asset Management (New York: Free Press, 2000); Giep Franzen and Sandra Moriarty, The Science and Art of Branding (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2009). For an overview of current research findings, see Brands and Brand Management: Contemporary Research Perspectives, eds. Barbara Loken, Rohini Ahluwalia, and Michael J. Houston (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2010) and Kellogg on Branding, eds. Alice M. Tybout and Tim Calkins (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

  42. 42 For a very practical brand building guide, see David Taylor and David Nichols, The Brand Gym, 2nd ed. (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2010).

  43. 43 Much of this section is adapted in part from an excellent article by George S. Low and Ronald A. Fullerton, “Brands, Brand Management, and the Brand Manager System: A Critical-Historical Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (May 1994): 173–190; and an excellent book by Hal Morgan, Symbols of America (Steam Press, 1986).

  44. 44 Carl Elliott, “How to Brand a Disease—and Sell a Cure,” www.cnn.com, 11 October 2010; Keith J. Winstein and Suzanne Vranica, “Drug Firms’ Spending on Consumer Ads Fell 8% in ‘08, a Rare Marketing Pullback,” Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2009; Matthew Arnold, “Flat Is the New Up,” Medical Marketing & Media (April 2010); Yumiko Ono, “Prescription-Drug Makers Heighten Hard-Sell Tactics,” Wall Street Journal, 29 August 1994, B-1

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset