In methodology, they usually distinguish three approaches. One is called Ethnography Proper, which often means years or at least months in the field, observing and studying. Ritson & Elliot’s paper about the social uses of advertising describes an approach like that. In our industry, I think what Ruby Pseudo does goes into this direction as well. You could of course argue that this is what real planning is supposed to do. Life as a huge field work project. Equipped with a notebook, spending time with people, chatting observing, interpreting and so on.

Then there’s what they call ‘accumulated ethnographic miniatures’, which are basically a serios of shorter stays in the field, interviews in the life world of the group of people you’re interested in, the collection of data by observing and the iterative thematisation of the collected data. Grant McCracken, without calling out the methods, talks a lot about this in his book Flock and Flow. Wieden+Kennedy Shanghai’s Boomtown Stories could also be mentioned. I think they have also cases in Doing Anthropology in Consumer Research. This is probably a more realistic approach towards using ethnography in planning. You unfortunately can’t really spend weeks and weeks with people, can you?

And then there’s of course virtual ethnography, observing and interpreting comments and conversations online (Andreea Nastase’s dissertation about GHD and transmedia planning touched upon this). Huge potential, but while it might sound easier, it definitely isn’t.

For my MA/MPhil thesis on the social uses of brand-related media content among youth in Austria, I used a combined and pretty unusual approach. I had my participants fill out media diaries and make facebook newsfeed screenshots, conducted interviews, did an exploratory group discussion and stayed in the field to observe for a few days – a high school. Loads of data, loads of small insights and loads of work.

—

Bachmann, G. & Wittel, A., 2006. Medienethnographie. In J. Bergmann & R. Ayaß, hrsg. Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.

Bergmann, J., 2008. Medienethnographie. In U. Sander, F. von Gross, & K.-U. Hugger, hrsg. Handbuch Medienpädagogik. Vs Verlag, , S. 328-334.

Bergmann, J., 2006. Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung – Einleitung und Rahmung.In Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung. Rowohlt, , S. 13-41.

Flick, U., 2007. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung 3. Aufl., rororo.

McCracken, G., 2006. Flock and Flow: Predicting and Managing Change in a DynamicMarketplace, Indiana Univ Pr.

Ritson, M. & Elliott, R., 1999. The social uses of advertising: an ethnographic study of adolescent advertising audiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), S. 260––277.

No related posts.

Sometime last summer, I got a message from one of my colleagues at the ASEA Uninet summer university in Hanoi in 2008. We shared a room there for a month and got along brilliantly. He had gone to Texas for his high school year, he had moved from somewhere in the East of Germany to Vienna to study business. He had ran IT projects with higher budgets than I had ever got close to for the biggest student dorm/campus in Vienna, he was more of a geek than I was, which was always nice for a change at the business university. I just really liked him. And as things go, back in Vienna, things went into different directions again. Among other things, because I went off off to Vancouver.

(I pay you a drink if you can find me.)

However, after some back and forth, we managed to meet for drinks and stories about the old times when told me about how he’s thinking about founding an IT testing company with his colleague. How could I help a company that tests websites, apps and immensely complex software systems in the e.g. insurance industry? Yes, I know basics of computer science, but software testing? I played soundboard over a beer, told them what I thought about their idea, but mostly asked why they wanted to found it, what the purpose and motivation of that whole endeavor would be and so on and so on.

A few weeks later, they invited me for a workshop with them and I again promised to spend a few hours with them on their business for food and drinks. Or so I thought. Because they asked me that they’d want me to continue to help and advice them around strategy and marketing and that I could effectively chose the degree of my involvement. There was even an agenda point that listed me as one of the possible founding partners. In the end, they asked me if I could imagine joining them as some sort of an internal planner – no pay of course, but I’d own a part of the company. Actually, as much as I wanted. Of course, I was flattered. Who doesn’t want to be given the feeling of being listened to? At the same time, I was working full time as planner at LHBS. It’s not like you have that many hours to spare working in that type of industry. I still agreed to be a co-founder, with limited liability. Planning for equity. And I was terrible and could spend even less time on it than I had planned. Everything took longer than I expected – lot of cancelled early morning jour fixes and some weekend work followed.

Still, I am proud. We found out what sort of business we wanted to be. What we want to offer. Who we want to offer it to (I am, among other companies, looking at you, digital agencies that spend too much money letting their priced developers test stuff themselves). We figured out a name (TestPlus). Heck, we even have business cards. And a website, thanks to a great friend of mine who wants to be anonymous because he can’t quite bear the still imperfect state of it.

And we figured out why anybody should give a fuck.

Turns out, most software testing companies are old, slow and overly expensive. Most software testing companies are based on the way other consultancies work: proprietary processes, big and complicated websites, ties, suits and faith. At the same time, demand for testing is rising with increased digitalization (‘internet of things’, etc.). SMEs, entrepreneurs and digital agencies don’t need the bloat as they have to be fast (‘agile’, etc.) and work babble-free. My gut feeling told me that with rising demand for digital services and products, there’d be always rising demand for nimble and creative testing and testers. We arrived at some sort of mission of simplicity and convenience as the core of the offer (e.g. curating other automated testing services). We want to create a lean, mean nice, testing machine.

So what will my role in this end up being? I don’t know. Marcus and Christoph are terrific and whoever is lucky enough to have them work on their software systems is going to be very lucky. And a lot of work – development and, well, sales – are lying ahead. We worked on the foundation. We are about to start talks with possibly interested clients, we are still thankful for every lead – as you are, as a young service company (I avoid the term startup). Still, Stephanie and I decided to leave Austria (continue to get to know culture and get better at that planning thing), which means that my involvement in operative work will decline to zero relatively soon. Until then, we’ll continue to shape our offering and want to talk to as many people as possible. If you have any ideas, questions, recommendations or hints or are simply interested in what exactly it is we’re doing, drop me a line.

Related posts:

1. Jon Steel über Planning Jon Steel: Planning at 40: Solving the wrong problems...
2. “The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management” aka my Bachelor Paper and Planning Barcamp topic This weekend, I am going to fly up to Hamburg...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In about two hours my graduation ceremony starts. That means myself in a suit, a lot of other people in suits, my family coming to Vienna from the countryside, some speeches and a fancy certificate of my academic prowess. Master of arts. Right …

I also quit at LHBS with the beginning of the month. I was the first employee there and I guess I grew with the company. I learned a lot at LHBS. It was a great and special time, from getting the opportunity to do stuff to asking a friend like Neil over to do an Uncomfortable Talk for the company I work for. Then of course, I still had to finish my master thesis in communications and bachelor thesis in business. It wasn’t always easy to get that together, especially not if you hate trade-offs. I’m very thankful Stefan and Joanna put up with my schedule and me taking longer than I expected with the theses.

Now if I think back, in the last 5 years, before I finished university, I have been lucky enough to work on pretty much everything from global brands to medium sized regional companies to start ups and people with crazy ideas. I wrote about how I moved from web design to online marketing to an internship in planning at DDB in Budapest to the last two years at the independent brand strategy and innovation agency LHBS before, but all that never felt like much of a decision to make. It always felt logical or natural. I was always a student, not halfway there, and whatever I did, I did with the goal of finishing my research and thesis in mind. That doesn’t mean I didn’t think about what I was doing, but technically I was always a student, living his live in Vienna and about to finish. I could’ve quit my program a few times when people asked to come to a certain city to work with them or do a PHD in Vancouver. I never did. I told myself I was a student. I was in Vienna. I wanted to finish this. What a nice excuse, (eh?).

Now all this ‘I’m still a student’ talk ends. I’m not a student anymore. If I am realistic, I really haven’t been a student for quite a while. I remember Paul, someone I’d consider my mentor and one of my professors at the UBC in Vancouver telling me once how I’d have to stop calling myself a student. “You’re a young planner. You might still be studying, but you’re not a student.” – That was in 2009.

It was a special time, it was a great excuse and I still have a hard time to explain to people that while I am technically a grad, I have worked on stuff for quite a while.

So now on to that growing up thing. Starting with a trip around China and Singapore.

No related posts.

Two weeks ago, I was sitting at the exact same spot: On the couch in our living room, feet at the table, laptop on, well, my lap and extremely frustrated.

I was about to write a blog post about how I am done with tennis, the sport I have been doing for 18 years. I was about to write how frustrating it is to try to play at a higher level than the one I am able to play now – to expect that level of myself. How annoying it is to not be as fast as I used to be – or fast at all. How frustrating it is not to be able to trust my own body enough to take him through two or even three intensive sets of training a week. How ridiculous it feels to be out of breath after only 15 minutes of sparring. How sad it is to even spend time on it – time I could use doing other things. I would have written about how I have been telling myself the last 8 years in fall that I want to do a proper preparation next season. How I will hold through the next season without injury and how I still imagine how fucking awesome it will be when I am able to play up to my limits.

That night, I was just coming home from two hours of playing with my brother and I had all that feelings at once. It is April, the season is coming up, I’ll be playing the 3 (down from 2 and 1 the years before), I’m underprepared and – for playing the tennis I want to play – overweight. I was standing there and had the feeling like I was wasting my brother’s time.

Today, I am sitting here again, coming home from two hours of tennis for the first time on clay this year. I am still not prepared and I obviously won’t be in two weeks when the season starts. But I am happy. I am exhausted, my feet hurt, so does my right shoulder, but it was fun. I tried as hard as I could to be quick on my feet. I almost broke down on the court once after some longer rallies. I tried hard to play for control, not for beauty. I managed not to be stupid, throw the racket all over the place and make my brother feel ashamed for myself. That feeling, when the ball hits the line on a longline winner after a long rally. When it lands exactly where you wanted it, not a bit shorter or longer. That feeling when you sprint to reach a dropshot and convert it into a winner. That little swagger you get when you slowly feel your legs coming back under you. It’s just beautiful. And I don’t want to miss it.

No related posts.

He is walking down the road walking his fixie bike with his right hand. He flows through the stream of shopping, smiling, chatting people. Easily he walks through, with a spring in his step. It was spring. With his brown leather shoes, his blue trousers, the colorful shirt and the black headphones – he was Spring. His bike fit. Violet, pink and brown leather seat, thin like him. The drums and guitars he hears.

A young couple is standing a few meters in front of him. The man notices him. Examines him. Bike, guy, bike, buy. Up and down. Dismissive. ‘Spring’ walks past them. Did he notice them? The man nudges his girlfriend. Says ‘look’. As if his girlfriend hadn’t noticed. She did.

He moves on. Still pushing his bike. A group of girls is passing by. They giggle, smile, the first one in the group sees him first. Eyes down, eyes up. All smiles. Eyes light up. Giggles. Not dismissive. He walks by.

Then he stops. A hug, a kiss, and another kiss.

No related posts.

Only recently, when I graduated, I pondered for a moment how many great people I have met over the course of my too many years at university. (Yes, I met some idiots as well, you kind of do when you study media and business, but let’s not go there.)

One of the people I met, who firmly resides on the light side of the force, is Marica, and while we haven’t been in touch as much as we should, I recently noted that she’s going to do something that takes a lot of heart and also involves blood, sweat and tears. Ok, so I am not sure about the blood and tears part, but heart and sweat surely. When I read what she’s doing I sent her a few questions and thought why not share it on here.

Who are you and when did we meet? [I didn't ask that because I forgot, but for you, dear reader]

Me? I’m Marica Rizzo from Vancouver, BC Canada. We met in COMM263 Consumer Behavior when we did a group project together!

What is it that you participate in for charity?

This year I’m riding my bike from Vancouver to Seattle – just over 150km! The Ride to Conquer Cancer benefits the BC Cancer Foundation – an incredible organization funding and participating in research to cure cancer and support patients and their families. My fundraising goal this year is to raise $2500. I’m so blown away by the support I’ve received so far from friends and family. It’s amazing and I’m so grateful. I hit my 50% mark this week – so I’m half way there with about 2 months left before the ride.

Why did you decide to take part?

Cancer affects everyone. My friend growing up battled lukemia when we were 12 years old – that was my first experience with cancer. She is a survivor and an incredible girl! This past year, has also been incredibly overwhelming. Three people close to me were diagnosed and my friend lost a parent to cancer. I felt like this was the year to commit to doing something about it and taking what action I could. I’m not a researcher, I don’t have a medical background, so this is my way of supporting the people who have dedicated their lives to saving others.

What’s the longest distance you ever biked before this?

Haha…oh man, maybe 40km? I biked from Vancouver to Horseshoe Bay once, but took the bus back…I have a lot of training to do. The weather is nice in Vancouver again so I’ll be back on the bike this weekend.

What is your biggest dream?

I have so many…this is a hard one! I’m a big fan of sports. Not just watching professional sports, but participating and specifically of the incredible (and applicable) lessons from sport you can apply to life. One of my dreams is to make participating in sports accessible to all kids and to use sport as a platform for connecting to other kids around the world – I love kids.

What are you doing to make it real?

Gotta start somewhere. Right now I am volunteering as a coach with a Special Olympics swim team in my hometown. I’m learning what sport means to different people and how it is a part of their lives. I have been on many teams in my life, but I can honestly say this is the most incredible team I have ever been on. The most supportive and exemplary of sportsmanship and blending competition with a supportive environment.

—

Well, now you know Marica. I think what she does is pretty amazing.

Click here to visit her personal page for the charity.

She’s @maricarizzo on twitter if you want to say hi.

No related posts.

Now it’s really time to say goodbye to university in a last push through my exam. The way things work here, you have two professors asking about two different subjects. I could chose the topics and literature myself, as long as I was able to hold my ground on it.

My fist topic is advertising research. Here’s the literature list for it. Mind you, some of this is German.

1 My Thesis (epistemological interest, state of research, research strategy)
My topic was the German version of
“Social Media and the Corporate Cool Machine. The use of brand-related media content and its meaning in the context of new communicative practices and spaces.” (Fancy, eh?)

2 Theories of Advertising Research
2.1 Perspectives of Communication Theory (German)

• Siegert, G. & Brecheis, D., 2005. Werbung in der Medien- und Informationsgesellschaft: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Einführung, 1st ed., VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Gries, R., 2006. Produkte & Politik: zur Kultur- und Politikgeschichte der Produktkommunikation, Facultas Verlag. (Products & Politics. A Cultural and Political History of Product Communication. This book is awesome.)
• Zurstiege, G., 2000. Kleiner Grenzverkehr zwischen Werbung, Journalismus und Kunst. Available at: http://www.sjschmidt.net/essays/texte/zurst1.htm [Zugegriffen November 6, 2011].
• Zurstiege, G., 2005. Zwischen Kritik und Faszination. Was wir beobachten, wenn wir die Werbung beobachten, wie sie die Gesellschaft beobachtet 1st ed., Halem.
• Zurstiege, G., 2007. Werbeforschung 1st ed., Utb.

2.2 Theoretical Discussion (Information vs. meaning, persuasion vs. emotion, individual vs. groups)

• Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T., 1986. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, Springer-Verlag New York.
• Heath, R. & Feldwick, P., 2008. Fifty years using the wrong model of advertising. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), p.29.
• McCracken, G., 1987. Advertising: Meaning or information. Advances in Consumer Research, 14 (1), pp.121–124.
• Mick, D.G. & Buhl, C., 1992. A meaning-based model of advertising experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), pp.317–338.
• Vakratsas, D. & Ambler, T., 1999. How advertising works: what do we really know? Journal of Marketing, 63(1), pp.26–43.
• Earls, M., 2003. Advertising to the herd: how understanding our true nature challenges the ways we think about advertising and market research. International Journal of Market Research, 45(3), pp. 311–336.

2.3 One additional theory: Advertising and agenda setting/salience (this is what’s behind “How Brands Grow” by Sharp)

• Sutherland, M. & Galloway, J., 1981. Role of advertising: Persuasion or agenda setting. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(5), S. 25–29.
• Ghorpade, S., 1986. Agenda setting: a test of advertising’s neglected function. Journal of Advertising Research, 26(4), S. 23–27.
• Ehrenberg, A., 1974. Repetitive Advertising and the Consumer. Journal of Advertising Research, 14(2), pp.24–34.
• Ehrenberg, A., Barnard, N. & Scriven, J., 1997. Differentiation or salience. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(6), pp.7–14.
• Ehrenberg, A. et al., 2002. Brand advertising as creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(4), pp.7–18.
• Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B., 2003. Measuring brand perceptions: Testing quantity and quality. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(3), S. 218–229.
• Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B., 2004. Conceptualizing and measuring brand salience. Marketing Theory, 4(4), S. 327–342.
• Sharp, B., 2010. Ehrenberg’s View of Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(4), pp. 352-353.

3 Methods and results of advertising research
3.1 Measuring success
3.1.1 About effects and success

• Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag. (Brand Management in the Communication Age.)
• Zurstiege, G., 2007. Werbeforschung 1st ed., Utb.
• Rossiter, J.R. & Bellman, S., 2005. Marketing communications: theory and applications, Prentice Hall. Kapitel ‘Campaign Tracking’: S. 312-343

Depending on the theory, success is interpreted differently:
3.1.2 Individual

• Schweiger, G. & Schrattenecker, G., 2009. Werbung 7. Aufl., UTB, Stuttgart. Kapitel: ‘Messung der Kommunikationswirkung’, S. 338-376 (this is standard ad testing / research)

3.1.3 Group (a bit of @herdmeister)

• Bentley, A. & Earls, M., 2008. Forget influentials, herd-like copying is how brands spread. Admap, 43(499), S. 19-22.
• Bentley, A., Earls, M., O’Brien, M.J. & Maeda, J., 2011. I’ll Have What She’s Having: Mapping Social Behavior, MIT Press.
• Kearon, J., Earls, M., 2009. Me-to-We Research-From asking unreliable witnesses about themselves to asking people what they notice, believe and predict about others. In ESOMAR Congress. http://www.brainjuicer.com/xtra/Me-to-We_Research_-_ESOMAR_Congress_2009.pdf

3.1.4 Results
Effectiveness:

• Binet, L. & Field, P., 2009. Empirical generalizations about advertising campaign success. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), pp.383–94.

Creativity and Effects:

• Smith, R.E. & Yang, X., 2004. Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), p.31.
• Smith, R.E., Chen, J. & Yang, X., 2008. The Impact of Advertising Creativity on the Hierarchy of Effects. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), pp.47–62.
• Smith, R.E. et al., 2007. Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26(6), pp.819–833.

3.1.5 Another method: Low-Attention Processing

• Heath, R. & Nairn, A., 2005. Measuring affective advertising: Implications of low attention processing on recall. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(2), 269.
• Heath, R., Brandt, D. & Nairn, A., 2006. Brand relationships: Strengthened by emotion, weakened by attention. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), p.410.
• Heath, R., 2009. Emotional engagement: How television builds big brands at low attention. Journal of advertising research, 49(1).

4 Social uses of advertising

• Lannon, J. & Cooper, P., 1983. Humanistic advertising: a holistic cultural perspective.
• Buttle, F., 1991. What do people do with advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 10(2), S. 95–110.
• O’Donohoe, S., 1994. Advertising uses and gratifications. European Journal of Marketing, 28(8/9), S. 52–75.
• O’Donohoe, S. & Tynan, C., 1998. Beyond sophistication: dimensions of advertising literacy. International Journal of Advertising, 17, S. 467–482.
• Ritson, M. & Elliott, R., 1999. The social uses of advertising: an ethnographic study of adolescent advertising audiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), pp.260–277.
• Mitchell, V., Macklin, J.E. & Paxman, J., 2007. Social uses of advertising: an example of young male adults. International Journal of Advertising, 26(2), S. 199.

And then there’s my second topic:

Media and communication theory and methotodology.

1. Identity theory

• Keupp, H. u. a., 1999. Identitätskonstruktionen: Das Patchwork der Identitäten in der Spätmoderne 4. Aufl., rororo.

2. Media ethnography

• Bachmann, G. & Wittel, A., 2006. Medienethnographie. In J. Bergmann & R. Ayaß, hrsg. Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
• Bergmann, J., 2008. Medienethnographie. In U. Sander, F. von Gross, & K.-U. Hugger, hrsg. Handbuch Medienpädagogik. Vs Verlag, , S. 328–334.
• Bergmann, J., 2006. Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung – Einleitung und Rahmung. In Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung. Rowohlt, , S. 13–41.
• Blumer, H., 1956. Sociological Analysis and the „Variable“. American sociological review, 21(6), S. 683–690.
• Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, SAGE.
• Flick, U., 2007. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung 3. Aufl., rororo.

3. Symbolic Interactionism

• Elliott, R. & Wattanasuwan, K., 1998. Brand as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), S. 131–144.
• Mead, G.H., 1967. Mind, self, and society: from the standpoint of a social behaviorist, University of Chicago Press.

4. Advertising as a system

• Zurstiege, G., 2005. Zwischen Kritik und Faszination. Was wir beobachten, wenn wir die Werbung beobachten, wie sie die Gesellschaft beobachtet 1st ed., Halem.

5. Consumer Culture Theory

• Arnould, E.J. & Thompson, C.J., 2005. Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 31(4), S. 868–882.
• Holt, D.B., 2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), S. 70–90.

No related posts.

Historic perspectives on brand management have identified some distinct phases that each go along with certain developments and traits (Gries 2006, p.15ff; Zurstiege 2007, p.19ff; Tropp 2004, p.22ff). The beginning of modern advertising in Germany is tied to the industrialisation and the associated introduction of freedom of trade (1869) and registered and protected trademarks (1874) (Zurstiege 2007, p.24). With the social acceptance of the concept of competition started the professionalisation of advertising and – along with it – advertising research, which in turn led to the public debate of its central techniques in Vance Packards’ “The Hidden Persuaders” (Zurstiege 2007, p.24).

Gries (2006, p.15) sees products as media of the modern age and describes the process of the medialisation of products. This process started in the late 19th century, accelerated due to a strong increase of demand in the 20s and 30s and is concluded with the widespread diffusion of televisions in the 60s. Since then, according to Gries (2006, p.15) a brand works similar to a newspaper, the radio or television in that it is surrounded by a dense net of communication relationships that formed over the course of this process of medialisation.

Looking more at the main functions that brands played in different eras, Tropp identified three phases, that he calls “Markierungsphase” (labelling or branding phase), “Wirkungsphase” (effect or impact phase) and “Kommunikationsphase” (communication phase). The first or branding phase started around the 5th century, when identification and distinction emerged as the first function of brands (Tropp 2004, p.23f). Social developments like the formation of the first cities or the establishment of guilds changed the specific functions of brands, it took until the before mentioned dawn of the industrial age, however, until the effect phase of brands emerged (Tropp 2004, p.25ff). Apart from the identification function, brands’ chief function now lied in persuading potential consumers. In addition to the identification of a brand now there is the social practice of identification with a brand (Tropp 2004, p.36). Holt (2002, p.79ff) calls this the modern branding paradigm:

„Marketers made no pretense about their intentions in these branding efforts. They directed consumers as to how they should live and why their brand should be a central part of this kind of life. Advertisements shared a paternal voice that is particular to this era. By contemporary standards, these ads appear naive and didactic in their approach. This paternalism reveals that, at the time, consumer culture allowed companies to act as cultural authorities. Their advice was not only accepted but sought out.“ (Holt 2002, p.80)

Holt (2002, p.83ff) argues, that this paradigm ended up being replaced by the creative revolution of the 60s in what he denoted as an emerging post-modern branding paradigm. Branding then had to cope with social changes at a massive scale and a new anti-corporatist, yet consumerist culture that it somehow had to adapt to. It adopted and in turn relied on five central and then new techniques (for a description of the techniques that had a widespread media impact see Klein 1999): Authentic Cultural Resources, Ironic, Reflexive Brand Persona, Coattailing on Cultural Epicenters, Life World Emplacement, Stealth Branding . While these techniques were certainly new and a response to changing cultural and social environments at the time, they have again run into some severe contradictions and are losing their effect quickly (ibid.).

Holt (2002, p.68ff) and Tropp (2004, p.68ff) both argue that we can now see a different phase, that puts the relationship between a company and its consumer, or in general its role in society into focus. Driven on the one hand by the pressing scarcity of attention (Schmidt 2004, p.53ff; Tropp 2004, p.71f), by changing attitudes and expectations that citizens have of the role of companies in their communities and by the emergence of new technologies and feedback channels that made marketing tactics like CRM, but also a society ever more aware of the power of their public opinion possible. While doubts about the role, effectiveness and efficiency of advertising are a main driver of this transformation, this perspective also implies a more consumer-centric view of communication. It argues that the construction of meaning is done by consumers within the boundaries of collectively shared social symbols and ultimately demands a rejection of the pure sender-receiver model of mass communication as conceptualized in the early 20th century (Tropp 2004, p.72) and since then renounced by communication research.

The main conclusion of this current phase of branding is that companies are now more than ever competing in the field of communication and that communicative competence that goes beyond advertising is becoming a core asset of companies.

—
Gries, R., 2006. Produkte & Politik: zur Kultur- und Politikgeschichte der Produktkommunikation, Facultas Verlag.
Holt, D.B., 2002. Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), pp.70–90.
Klein, N., 1999. No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs ; taking aim at the brand bullies, New York, NY: Picador.
Schmidt, S.J., 2004. Die Werbung ist vom Anfang an am Ende. In S. Kemmler, J. Ballentin, & C. Gerlitz, eds. Die Depression der Werbung. : Berichte von der Couch / Berliner KommunikationsFORUM e.V. Sebastian Kemmler. BusinessVillage.
Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.
Zurstiege, G., 2007. Werbeforschung 1st ed., Utb.

Related posts:

1. 2.4.2 Coupling This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.4.1 Complexity This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...
3. 2.3.1 Product Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Just as complexity, structural coupling is a key term of systems theory. Usually used to describe the structural relationship between cognition and communication via language and media (Tropp 2004, p.64), this concept may be used in brand management to denote the relationship between companies that produce brands and consumers and bridge the before mentioned dichotomy between producer- and consumer perspective – or image and identity (Tropp 2004, p.65). Structural coupling in that context means that while a company as a social system and a consumer as a cognitive system are to be strictly distinguished, no company is possible without consumers and vice versa (Tropp 2004, p.64).

To specify and manage this structural coupling between a company and its consumers via the brand as realm of knowledge is one of the most pressing issues of brand management and again, able to integrate mostly consumer-oriented trends and pressures. For example, there is an apparent contradiction between an increasing brand consciousness and an at the same time decreasing brand loyalty with consumers (Essinger 2001, p.66 qt. in Tropp 2004, p. 66) that also taps into the debate about consumers’ increasing unpredictability. Using data from a global, longitudinal survey that runs since 1993, Gerzema and Lebar (Young & Rubicam) have found out that since 2004 all consumer attitudes towards brands over the globe were in decline.

“Across the board, we saw significant drops in the key measures of brand value, such as consumer “top- of-mind” awareness, trust, regard, and admiration. This was true not just for a few brands, but for thousands, encompassing the entire range of consumer goods and services, from airlines and automobiles and beverages to insurance companies and hoteliers and retailers.” (Gerzema & Lebar 2009, p.2)

They argue that a brand bubble has developed for the fact that while the valuation of brands as done by financial analysts is steadily increasing, this overall value that these brands actually deliver for consumers, is provided by less and less (stronger) brand in the overall brand universe.

This contradiction does not put an end to the structural coupling of consumers and brands, but it suggests that the relationship between them has fundamentally changed. Since the 1980s, until then mostly unidirectional relationships have transformed into interactive and multi-directional relationships, as signified by developments such as relationship marketing, one-to-one-marketing, direct marketing, permission marketing, customer relationship management or the developments happening under the umbrella term of social media marketing. As research conducted under the relational paradigm (MacInnis et al. 2009; Fournier 1998) is striving to provide scientific insights into the company-brand-consumer relationship, branding has moved from what Tropp (2004, p.67) calls the effect phase to the communication phase.

—
Essinger, G., 2001. Produkt- und Markenpolitik im dynamischen Umfeld: eine Analyse aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive, Dt. Univ.-Verl.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, pp.343–373.
Gerzema, J. & Lebar, E., 2009. The Trouble with Brands. strategy + business, 55(Summer 2009). Available at: http://www.strategy-business.com/article/09205 [Accessed February 4, 2011].
MacInnis, D.J. et al., 2009. Handbook of brand relationships, M.E. Sharpe.
Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Related posts:

1. 2.4.3 Communication This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.3.4 Relational Paradigm [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="287" caption="Your Brand is Not My Friend...
3. 2.4.1 Complexity This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While in the past three global CEO studies, conducted by IBM, coping with change was the most pressing challenge, complexity took the lead in 2010, as seen in Figure 2.

“CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways.“ (IBM 2010, p.8)

Figure 2: Organisations and complexity (IBM 2010, p.15)

Complexity is the most important concept in systems theory, as it is the reason why systems form in the first place. While the term is present in different approaches to systems theory,  Luhmann’s theory of social systems popularized it, stating

“we will call an interconnected collection of elements complex when, because of imminent constraints in the elements’ connective capacity, it is no longer possible at any moment to connect every element with every other element […] Complexity in this sense means being forced to select; being forced to select means contingency; and contingency means risk.” (Luhmann 1995, p.25)

A system can never reach the same level of complexity as its environments and therefore has to counter-balance this inferiority with selection-strategies, reducing external complexities (Tropp 2004, p.57). This necessarily selective reduction of relations between elements (e.g. information) is called contingency and brings with it the necessary risk to select different possible combinations of elements. However, with every selections come different other – not selected – possibilities that would be possible as well.What sounds arbitrarily complicating in the first place, does make sense in light of the unrelated and relatively arbitrary list of trends, drivers and perspectives that are present in brand management and marketing textbooks. To illustrate the concept of complexity in this context, it can be said that branding theory does not have an appropriate selection strategy (theory) that is able to reduce the environmental complexity (challenges) to a level that would allow for sensible systematization.

Complexity is a theoretical concept that is not able to explain the myriad of trends and environmental challenges, but the fact that companies will – in the future – have to accept unprecedented complexity as a permanent trait of their environment (Rose & Zuckerman 2009, p.13) and to acknowledge that “it’s no longer possible to observe and predict enough to map out courses of action that guarantee desired outcomes” (Andjelic 2010).

This has some important implications for strategic planning and strategic thinking that will be introduced at a later point.

—

Andjelic, A., 2010. the problem of strategy. i [love] marketing. Available at: http://anaandjelic.typepad.com/i_love_marketing/2010/07/the-problem-of-strategy-1.html [Accessed January 4, 2011].

IBM, 2010. Capitalizing on Complexity. Insights from the 2010 IBM Global CEO Study. Available at: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/ceo/ceostudy2010/index.html.

Luhmann, N., 1995. Social systems, Stanford University Press.

Rose, J. & Zuckerman, N., 2009. Can You Reach the Masses Without Mass Media? Available at: https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/cmos_dilemma/ [Accessed February 4, 2011].

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Related posts:

1. 2.4.2 Coupling This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.4.3 Communication This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.4 Relational Paradigm [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="287" caption="Your Brand is Not My Friend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

“Although brand may be as important as ever to consumers, brand management may be more difficult than ever.” (Keller 1998, p.30)

The topic of challenges, changes in the environment or otherwise relevant external pressures on brand management is not exactly a new one, as previous research shows (Shocker et al. 1994). If a brand is seen as the structurally coupling link between an organisation and its environment, changes in this environment are and have always been of essential importance to  brand management. The following paragraphs do not aim at painting a complete picture of every trend that brand management has to deal with presently, but rather serve to give an introduction into the contemporary environment.

Keller (1998, p.31) lists 13 challenges without any inherent structure as important to brand builders:

“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 own labels, increasing trade power, fragmenting media coverage, erosion of effectiveness of traditional media, emerging communication options, increasing promotional expenditures, decreasing advertising expenditures, increasing cost of product introduction and support, short-term performance orientation [and] increasing job turnover.”

Strebinger (2010) divides reasons why brand management has become much more challenging into four demand-side and supply-side drivers. On the demand side, consumers more and more demand products tailored to their special needs and preferences. Technology is bringing fundamental changes to the way people consume media (Wilbur 2008) and information overload restricts the amount of brands people are able and willing to think of. Last but not least consumers have become more critical of the behaviour of brands (Klein 1999). On the supply side, shareholders strive to maximize profits by exploiting market opportunities while focusing on cost efficiency. In addition, mergers and acquisitions challenge established brand portfolios, internationalization leads to new competitors and opportunities and new media leads to new online competitors.

Another structure (Fuchs & Unger 2007, p.2ff) suggests economic, social, legal and communicational changes. Fuchs and Unger identify increased dynamism and complexity, competitive pressure, internationalization, quality parity, the shortening of product-life-cycles and market differentiation as economic developments which all lead to competition through communication, which in combination with a dynamic media landscape leads to increased information overflow. In addition, changes in consumer values and expectations of corporate citizenship represent the most pressing socio-cultural developments.

Siegert and Brecheis (2005, p.76ff) provide more detail on the advertising and media side with their six developments that together portray the current framework advertising has to operate in. According to them, advertising has to deal with internationalization and globalization, digitalization and new information and communication technologies, individualization and experience seeking, promulgation through the mass media and the attention economy, economization and changing markets as well as changing legal frameworks.

Certainly, more challenges and trends that increase the pressure on marketing and brand management could be found. Depending on who one chooses to read, we live in a risk society (Beck 1992), a experience seeking society (Schulze 2005), an information- and media society (Siegert & Brecheis 2005), in a converging culture (Jenkins 2006) and/or in the communication age (Tropp 2004).

In this context, Kotler & Caslione (xii 2009) postulate

“[...] that turbulence, and especially heightened turbulence, with its consequent chaos, risk and uncertainty, is now the normal condition of industries, markets, and companies.”

While Feldwick (2010) doubts the emergence of a genuinely “new” consumer there is a recurring theme around the topic that brands and brand management are under pressure. As Keller called it, managerial practice in the field is becoming “more difficult than ever” (Keller 1998, p.30).

In light of the all the trends, drivers and environmental challenges listed, Tropp argues that there is lack of a consistent theoretical grounding to be actually give a brand manager a handle on the world he/she is operating in. Consequently, Tropp aims for a ‘lower resolution’ of observation to integrate the different empirically observable phenomena into theoretically grounded categories (Tropp 2004, p.56). These three categories are complexity, coupling and communication, all of which are central terms of systems theory. – The challenges according to these theoretical concepts will be introduced in the next three blog posts.

—

Beck, U., 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity, Sage publications ltd.

Feldwick, P., 2010. The Feldwick Factor: Has digital growth changed consumer-brand relationships? Admap.

Jenkins, H., 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide illustrated edition., New York Univ Pr.

Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategic brand management: building, measuring and managing brand equity, Prentice Hall.

Klein, N., 1999. No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs ; taking aim at the brand bullies, New York, NY: Picador.

Kotler, P. & Caslione, J.A., 2009. Chaotics: The Business of Managing and Marketing in the Age of Turbulence, Mcgraw-Hill Professional.

Schulze, G., 2005. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart, Campus Verlag.

Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K. & Ruekert, R.W., 1994. Challenges and opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), pp.149–158.

Siegert, G. & Brecheis, D., 2005. Werbung in der Medien- und Informationsgesellschaft: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Einführung 1st ed., VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Strebinger, A., 2010. Markenmanagement – Lecture at WU Wien.

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Wilbur, K.C., 2008. How the digital video recorder (DVR) changes traditional television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), pp.143–149.

Related posts:

1. 2.1 The Relevance of Brand Management This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...
2. 2.3 Brand Management Paradigms This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 1. The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management This is the introduction to my bachelor thesis, which has...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Your Brand is Not My Friend from http://www.mpdailyfix.com/your-brand-is-not-my-friend/

This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management’. You can see the other posts and the table of contents here.

The relational paradigm addresses two arguments that are held against the projective and adaptive paradigm: the projective paradigm neglects to account for consumers’ role in creating brand meaning, the adaptive paradigm focuses on consumer evaluation but doesn’t demonstrate how organisations create brand value in this setting. From a relational perspective brand management is seen as “[...] an ongoing dynamic process, without a clear beginning and ending, in which brand value and meaning is co-created through interlocking behaviours, collaboration and competition between organizations and consumers” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.865). These relationships

“[...] involve reciprocal exchange between active and interdependent relationship partners; (2) relationships are purposive, involving at their core the provision of meanings to the person who engage them; (3) relationships are multiplex phenomena: they range across several dimensions and take many forms, providing a range of possible benefits for their participants; and (4) relationships are process phenomena: they evolve and change over a series of interactions and in response to fluctuations in the contextual environment” (Fournier 1998, p.344)

The relational approach to brand management then encompasses, in an interactive brand management process the core activities of all before mentioned paradigms: 1) building and communicating a brand identity that links to an organisation’s strategy and resources, 2) projecting it through a defined set of brand elements and a marketing program and 3) dynamically reconstruct and co-develop it “in the context of path-dependent consumer-brand relationships by encouraging active dialogue, mobilizing customer communities, managing customer diversity and co-creating personalized experiences (Fournier 1998; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2000)” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.866).

This has important implications for the firm’s desired organisational capabilities. For a company to be able to sustain these dynamic relationships with consumers, it has to combine the strengths of market sensing (outside-in) with inside-out capabilities, implementing “multidimensional, process-based measuring systems” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.866) that “facilitate real-time action and reaction” (Keller 2000; Keller 1998; De Chernatony 1999 qtd. in Louro & Cunha 2001, S.867)

While the paradigms certainly describe “ideal-types” of brand management practices, assumptions and structures, they are able to give an overview into the current state of normative and academic literature in the field and the embodied assumptions about brands, brand management and the roles of organisations and consumers in the process. They might, however, also be read as a process of refinement and a historical development. Not only brand management as a function has to (or doesn’t have to, depending on the paradigm) adapt to outside changes, but also brand management as a discipline changes its focus, depending on economic, social, cultural and technological developments, thus the relational paradigm integrating earlier dominant modes.

Analysing paradigms and brand management models, Tropp (2004) uses a systems theory approach for a conceptualization of brands and brand management that will be used as the central theme of this work. Like proponents of the relational paradigm, Tropp (2004, p.115f) aims to bridge the before mentioned theoretical gap between image and identity. By analysing the relationship between companies and their environment from a systems theory view he first defines brands via two fundamental functions: Brands, according to Tropp [1] are the unique, emotionally charged field of knowledge about a company, a product or a service, that is symbolized by a set of highly complexity-reducing communication offers. It fulfils two mutually conditional functions:

a) Realizing and strengthen the structural coupling between companies and consumers (economic function)

b) Being the trigger and stabilizer for individual and social constructions of reality (life-world function)

Brands then, are not either the identity of a company or the image in consumers’ minds, but they receive their meaning from the social interactions around the brand and their value from being socially shared, and multidimensional knowledge (Keller 2003) that people can refer to Kapferer (1997, p.25). While Yakob (2007) compares this phenomenon with the collectively shared perception of the value of money, Tropp (2004, p.123) argues that brands usually cannot claim to have reached the status of being truly collectively shared knowledge. This means that consumers may individually very well have a different image of a brand, but that the meaning, the overall value of the brand at large – for both consumers as well as the company – is derived from what is commonly shared and shaped by the numerous social interactions performed around it (Holt 2010, p.3). As a consequence, this perspective leads to the conclusion that while brands are legally owned by the corporation managing it, they don’t have the possibility to fully control their meanings (Gries 2006, p.27).

After introducing the different brand paradigms at work today, with a focus on the relational perspective, the following chapter will now analyse the challenges, trends and changes contemporary brand management has to deal with.

—
[1] Translated from: „Eine Marke ist ein einzigartiger emotional aufgeladener Wissensbereich über ein Unternehmen, ein Produkt oder eine Dienstleistung, der von einer Menge hochgradig komplexitätsreduzierender Kommunikationsangebote symbolisiert wird. Diese erfüllt zwei sich wechselseitig bedingende Funktionen:a) Die strukturelle Kopplung zwischen Unternehmen und Konsumenten zu realisieren und zu festigen (ökonomische Funktion).b) Auslöser und Stabilisator für individuelle und soziale Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen zu sein (lebensweltliche Funktion). (Tropp 2004, p.115f)

—

De Chernatony, L., 1999. Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1), pp.157–179.

Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, pp.343–373.

Holt, D.B., 2010. Brands and Branding. Available at: http://culturalstrategygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/brands-and-branding-csg.pdf.

Kapferer, J.-N., 1997. Strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term, Kogan Page Publishers.

Keller, K.L., 2003. Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, pp.595–600.

Keller, K.L., 1998. Strategic brand management: building, measuring and managing brand equity, Prentice Hall.

Keller, K.L., 2000. The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), pp.147–158.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V., 2000. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard business review, 78(1), pp.79–90.

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Related posts:

1. 2.3.2 Projective Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.3.3 Adaptive Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.1 Product Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management’. You can see the other posts and the table of contents here.

The adaptive paradigm changes its focus on the “output” perspective and comprises a range of consumer-centred brand definitions, the most notable of those definitions being the brand image concept (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.863), as defined earlier as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory” (Keller 1993, S.3). In this more consumer-centred conceptualization of brands,

“[b]rand management is enacted as a tactical process of cyclical adaptation to consumers’ representations of the focal brand whereby brand image gradually supplants brand identity (Aaker 1996). Within the adaptive view, brand image becomes the core theme underlying strategic formation and frames the specification of a brand’s elements and its supporting marketing program (Kapferer 1992).” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.863)

With performance measures usually focused on consumer-based metrics and brand management generating value by adapting to a particular competitive context, brand management needs to develop superior “outside-in capabilities” (Day 1994 qtd. in Louro & Cunha 2001, p. 864) developing “[...] the ability of the firm to learn about customers, competitors and channel members in order to continuously sense and act on events and trends in present and prospective markets.” (Day 1994, p.43 qtd. in Louro & Cunha 2001, p. 863)

The adaptive paradigm in turn is criticised mostly by the brand identity school which argues for the importance of a companies guiding mission, culture and brand essence and against the “recursive reconfiguration of a brand’s identity in response to incremental changes in consumer’s expectations” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.865).

Next up is the relational paradigm and a summary perspective.

—

Day, G.S., 1994. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), pp.37–52.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Related posts:

1. 2.3.2 Projective Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.3.1 Product Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.4 Relational Paradigm [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="287" caption="Your Brand is Not My Friend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management’. You can see the other posts and the table of contents here.

The projective paradigm builds on the product paradigm and further complements and amplifies it. It was brought into existence by a series of mergers and acquisitions that publicly demonstrated multiples between earnings and acquisitions values of up to twenty to thirty. These earnings lead to a acknowledgment of the value of brands, which in turn led to a proliferation of brand management research and a consolidation of a strategic approach to brand management (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.859). Brands are here seen as the focal platform of a companies’ strategy formulation and furthermore as an identity systems that all company offers have to be integrated with.

“Within this perspective brand management is focused on reinforcing and developing brand positioning and meaning by achieving a coherent focus across the brand portfolio and projecting a consistent message to all stakeholders.” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.860)

As the term projecting suggests, the organisation is seen as the primary source of meaning and value, which is derived from the “creation, development and communication of a coherent brand identity (Kapferer 1992; Aaker 1996)” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.860) that is projected onto the receiving consumers. In a historical context, the emergence of this paradigm can be related to Holt’s (2002) modern branding paradigm, which focuses on the communication of desirable life-worlds to the then emerging post-war mass consumer culture.

Next: The adaptive paradigm.

—

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Related posts:

1. 2.3.3 Adaptive Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.3.1 Product Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.4 Relational Paradigm [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="287" caption="Your Brand is Not My Friend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management’. You can see the other posts and the table of contents here.

The product paradigm reflects a tactical approach to branding and brand management with the product as the most important consideration. The brand definition best suiting this paradigm is the long-standing definition of the American Marketing Association that sees brands, as mentioned before, as “[a] name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing Association 2010). Within this approach to brand management, marketing management is chiefly focused on the marketing mix, with the product as the most important outcome and source of value creation (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.856). The function of brands within this approach is mostly in its legal and signifying functions, and therefore closely resemble Gries’ (2006, p.15) and Tropp’s (2004, p.23f) first phase in the history of brands.

Next: the projective paradigm.

–

Gries, R., 2006. Produkte & Politik: zur Kultur- und Politikgeschichte der Produktkommunikation, Facultas Verlag.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Related posts:

1. 2.3.2 Projective Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.3.3 Adaptive Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.4 Relational Paradigm [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="287" caption="Your Brand is Not My Friend...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management’. You can see the other posts and the table of contents here.

—

To speak of brand management as one clear and perfectly defined concept or management process would oversimplify the current state of research and practice on the topic. Shaped by different company practices, widely discussed ‘recipe’ books by practitioners (Roberts et al. 2005; Ries 2002), numerous proprietary models of advertising agencies and brand consultancies (Fuchs & Unger 2007, p.33ff; Tropp 2004, p.151ff), and different schools of academic research on the topic there are many different perspectives onto what brand management is and how it works. According to Louro and Cunha (2001, p.853) there are four brand management paradigms. These paradigms

“constitute an organization’s portfolio of implicit assumptions, collective beliefs, values and techniques concerning the why (the objectives and performance measures of brand management), the what (the concept of brands), the who (the organizational structure of brand management) and the how of branding (the variables of brand management)”.

Figure 1: Brand Management Paradigms, taken from Louro & Cunha (2001)

They are located in a coordinate system on two central dimensions of current academic and practitioner discussions about brand management: brand centrality and consumer centrality. Brand Centrality stretches from a tactical orientation, which sees brands for their mere signifying and legal value and branding as a residual decision mostly dealing with the advertising of product, to brand orientation which sees brands as “central platforms, in the form of guiding vision and values, and core expressions, in the form of particular marketing mix configurations, of an organisation’s strategic intent (Kapferer & Mayring 1992)“ (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.855) Consumer Centrality, on the other hand, refers to the degree to which managers belief in the consumers’ involvement in the process of value creation, which ranges from a unilateral approach seeing consumers as the mere recipients of value created by organisations and multilateral approaches in which consumers are seen as co-contributors of value (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.855). The distinctive paradigms will now be introduced, starting with the product paradigm, followed by the projective and adaptive paradigm.

—

Fuchs, W. & Unger, F., 2007. Management der Marketing-Kommunikation 4th ed., Springer, Berlin.

Kapferer, J.-N. & Mayring, P., 1992. Strategic brand management, Kogan Page London.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Ries, L., 2002. The 22 immutable laws of branding: how to build a product or service into a world-class brand, Harper Paperbacks.

Roberts, K., Lafley, A.G. & Nagymáté, O., 2005. Lovemarks, PowerHouse Books.

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Related posts:

1. 2.1 The Relevance of Brand Management This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...
2. 2.3.3 Adaptive Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.2 Projective Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

—

There are a lot of diverging descriptions and definitions of what a brand is (Wood 2000, p.664; De Chernatony & Riley 1998, p.417), with de Chernatony & Riley (1998, p.418) identifying twelve categories of definitions, with brands being a

“[...] i) legal instrument; ii) logo; iii) company; iv) shorthand; v) risk reducer; vi) identity system; vii) image in consumers’ minds; viii) value system; ix) personality; x) relationship; xi) adding value; and xii) evolving entity”.

Among those categories of definitions that cannot be sharply separated from each other, three stand out more prominently. First of all, there is the basic understanding of a brand as a signifier of distinction, “[a] name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers” that is now the standard definition of the American Marketing Association (2010) and e.g. also used by Kotler and Keller (2006, p.274). It was already used by the AMA as early as in 1960 (De Chernatony & Riley 1998, p.419) and is closely related to the legal definition of a brand, which deals with the protection of intellectual property. It derives its relevance from the time when companies started to “brand” their products in the strictest and simplest sense through visual identities (Gries 2006, p.15ff; Tropp 2004, p.23ff).

Another very frequently used perspective to define brands is the one of a brand as an image in consumers’ minds. Practitioners and researchers referred brands as being associations in people’s minds as early as 1955 (De Chernatony & Riley 1998, p.421). While there is no consensus among researchers about the conceptualization of brand image (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.863), Keller (1993, p.3) defined brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory”, with the thought being that the value derived from brands is based on associations built upon “the complete experience that customers have with products” (Keller & Lehmann 2006, p.740).

However, the image perspective has come under harsh critique by another perspective, which lays its focus on brand identity (de Chernatony & Riley 1998, p.420). One of the strongest criticisms of the brand image perspective comes from Kapferer & Gibbs (1992, p.11):

“[A] brand is not a product. It is the product’s essence, its meaning, and its direction, and it defines its identity in time and space. Too often brands are examined through their component parts: the brand name, its logo, design, or packaging, advertising or sponsorship, or image or name recognition, or very recently, in terms of financial brand valuation. Real brand management however, begins much earlier, with a strategy and a consistent integrated vision. Its central concept is brand identity, not brand image.”

Another advocate of the brand identity concept is Aaker who defines brand identity as “a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain” (Aaker 1995, p.68).

All these definition show a persistent duality in current brand definitions (Tropp 2004, p.55) that also exists in organisational theory (Gioia et al. 2000, p.63). On the one hand there is the brand as an identity and on the other hand there is what is perceived by people. This was already identified as early as 1955 in an often cited article by Gardner & Levy (1999, p.35):

“A brand name is more than the label employed to differentiate among the manufacturers of a product. It is a complex symbol that represents a variety of ideas and attributes. It tells the consumers many things, not only by the way it sounds (and its literal meaning if it has one) but, more important, via the body of associations it has built up and acquired as a public object over a period of time.”

These different definitions of brands and what their function is seen to be is a reflection of the development of diverging brand management paradigms that will be introduced in the following paragraphs.

—

Aaker, D.A., 1995. Building Strong Brands Nineth Printing., Free Press.

American Marketing Association, 2010. Dictionary. Available at: http://www.marketingpower.com/_layouts/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B [Accessed October 22, 2010].

De Chernatony, L. & Riley, F.D.O., 1998. Defining A“ Brand”: Beyond The Literature With Experts’ Interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(5), pp.417–443.

Gardner, B.B. & Levy, S.J., 1999. The product and the brand. Brands, consumers, symbols, & research: Sidney J. Levy on marketing, p.131.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. & Corley, K.G., 2000. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp.63–81.

Gries, R., 2006. Produkte & Politik: zur Kultur- und Politikgeschichte der Produktkommunikation, Facultas Verlag.

Kapferer, J.-N. & Mayring, P., 1992. Strategic brand management, Kogan Page London.

Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), pp.1–22.

Keller, K.L. & Lehmann, D.R., 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), p.740.

Kotler, P. & Bliemel, F., 2006. Marketing-Management. Analyse, Planung und Verwirklichung 10th ed., Pearson Studium.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Österreichisches Patentamt, 2009. Geschäftsbericht 2009. Österreichisches Patentamt. Available at: http://www.patentamt.at/geschaeftsbericht2009/de/start.html [Accessed July 12, 2011].

Tropp, J., 2004. Markenmanagement: Der Brand Management Navigator. Markenführung im Kommunikationszeitalter, VS Verlag.

Willman, J., 2000. Leaner, Cleaner and Healthier is the Stated Aim. Financial Times. Available at: http://scholar.google.at/scholar?q=Niall+Fitzgerald%2C+co-chairman+of+Unilever%2C+the+Anglo-Dutch+consumer+products+group%2C+epitomized+this+shift+in+perspective+when+he+stated+%22We%27re+not+a+manufacturing+company+any+more%2C+we%27re+a+brand+marketing+group+that+happens+to+make+some+of+its+products&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on [Accessed January 4, 2011].

Wood, L., 2000. Brands and brand equity: definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), pp.662–669.

Related posts:

1. 2.1 The Relevance of Brand Management This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...
2. 2.3 Brand Management Paradigms This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.3.3 Adaptive Paradigm This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

—

This chapter will first start with an argument for the relevance of brand management, followed by a discussion and working definition of the brand concept. Subsequently, the different brand paradigms at work in both practice and theory are identified and discussed and contemporary challenges for brand management are outlined. Last but not least, at the end of this chapter, a systems theory-based model of brand management is proposed and three key learnings about brand management in organisations are suggested.

2.1  The Relevance of Brand Management

“Branding has emerged as a top management priority in the last decade due to the growing realization that brands are one of the most valuable intangible assets that firms have.” (Keller & Lehmann 2006, p.740)

“Niall Fitzgerald, co-chairman of Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch consumer products group, epitomized this shift in perspective when he stated ‘We’re not a manufacturing company any more, we’re a brand marketing group that happens to make some of its products’ (Willman 2000).” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.850)

Brands are seen as important assets by shareholders and management. Each year brand consultancies and market research companies rank the “world’s biggest brands” (Interbrand 2010; Millward Brown 2010). In 2009 5,981 new brands were registered in Austria (Österreichisches Patentamt 2009). However, while the launch of new products is certainly an exciting prospect for brand managers, they spend most of their time managing the more than 114.000 officially registered national, 218.000 international and 70.000 Community Trademarks.

A lot of attention is therefore being devoted to brands and branding in marketing science (Keller 1993; Keller & Lehmann 2006; Wood 2000): “Brands manifest their impact at three primary levels – customer market, product market, and financial market. The value accrued by these various benefits is often called brand equity”. The actions taken by an organisation to increase the brand equity may then be understood as brand management.

“Brand management comprises the process and locus for capitalizing and realizing brand value, i.e. transforming it in superior market performance.” (Louro & Cunha 2001, p.850)

The following chapter will therefore analyse existing definitions of “brand” and then analyse contemporary conceptualizations of brand management and the challenges brand management is currently facing. At the end of this chapter a conclusion about the state of brand management and how it may be understood in a broader organisational context will be offered.

—

Keller, K.L. & Lehmann, D.R., 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), p.740.

Louro, M.J. & Cunha, P.V., 2001. Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7), pp.849–875.

Österreichisches Patentamt, 2009. Geschäftsbericht 2009. Österreichisches Patentamt. Available at: http://www.patentamt.at/geschaeftsbericht2009/de/start.html [Accessed July 12, 2011].

Related posts:

1. 2.3 Brand Management Paradigms This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
2. 2.4 Challenges For Brand Management This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 1. The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management This is the introduction to my bachelor thesis, which has...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

-

Creativity is an often used word in the context of marketing communications and brand management. There are magazines named after it, such as Creativity and Creative Review, there are numerous awards around the globe judging and celebrating it and there is the APG Creative Strategy award, which rewards creative strategy in the context of marketing communications and planning.

Creativity, of course, is also the selling point of almost every agency or agency-like company trying to make a living in the widening domain of marketing services.

“We put the creative function at the top of our priorities.” (Ogilvy & Mather 2010)

“Creativity Is The Most Powerful Force In Business. […] DDB’s pursues collaborative relationships with clients and partners to find the hidden potential of people, brands and business through creativity.” (DDB 2010)

“[Wieden + Kennedy is] an independent, creatively-led communications agency.” (Wieden + Kennedy 2010)

“We connect ideas and innovation to deliver award-winning results for the world’s leading brands.” (AKQA 2010)

„We are creative problem-solvers.” (Naked Communications 2010)

“We are a creative company with 186 offices and 7000 colleagues united around a single mission: To Resist the Unusual.” (Young & Rubicam 2010)

“Our industry is undergoing radical transformation. To keep pace with the changes being driven by emerging technology, it is vital to focus on collaboration, creativity and organizational flexibility.” (Brien 2010, McCann)

“Our philosophy emphasizes the utilization of strategy and creativity to drive growth and measurable impact.” (MDC Partners 2010)

Both independent agencies as well as large established agency networks claim to be at the forefront of creativity. More precisely, as Zurstiege (2005, p.179ff) puts it, what agencies aim to offer and what marketers ask for is effective creativity or creative effectiveness. Therefore, as the relationship between creativity and effectiveness is a regular topic of discussion between advertising agencies and clients, within agencies, the industry press and advertising conferences, there is a stream of research dealing with creativity in the context of advertising. Among the topics covered are the definition and perception of creativity (White & Smith 2001; West et al. 2008; El-Murad & West 2004; Koslow et al. 2003) the effect of creativity on advertising effectiveness (White & Smith 2001; Ehrenberg et al. 2002; Till & Baack 2005; Kover et al. 1995), and contextual issues that influence advertising and agency creativity (Koslow et al. 2006).

However, while creativity is the focus of awards, agency positioning and industry debates, and while there is work in advertising research towards “a general theory of creativity in advertising” (Smith & Yang 2004) the topic is generally not dealt with in detail in a broader marketing and brand management context. The seminal work of many leading scholars in this area (Kotler & Bliemel 2006; Fuchs & Unger 2007; Schweiger & Schrattenecker 2009) does not systematically cover creativity.

For this reason this paper sets out to critically evaluate the functions and premises of brand management and more specifically what “creativity” could mean in this context. This is done by first analysing the concept of brands and brand management as found in a literature review. In addition, the environment companies and brands operate in will be described and structured, followed by implications for brand management theory and practice. Then, meanings of creativity both in today’s advertising and marketing industry as well as in the broader management context will be examined. The last chapter will then merge the two streams and draw conclusions from the synthesis of the current state of brand management and a broader meaning of creativity in a commercial context.

—

AKQA, 2010. AKQA Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.akqa.com/10_company/assets/pdf/AKQA_Fact_Sheet.pdf [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Brien, N., 2010. Interpublic Announces Management Succession at McCann Worldgroup. Available at: http://www.mccannworldgroup.com/2010/01/interpublic-announces-management-succession-at-mccann-worldgroup/ [Accessed October 22, 2010].

DDB, 2010. DDB. Available at: http://www.ddb.com/timeline.html [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Ehrenberg, A. et al., 2002. Brand advertising as creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(4), pp.7–18.

El-Murad, J. & West, D.C., 2004. The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We Know? Journal of Advertising Research, 44(2), pp.188-201.

Fuchs, W. & Unger, F., 2007. Management der Marketing-Kommunikation 4th ed., Springer, Berlin.

Koslow, S., Sasser, S.L. & Riordan, E.A., 2006. Do Marketers Get the Advertising They Need or the Advertising They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients Influence Creativity. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), pp.81–101.

Koslow, S., Sasser, S.L. & Riordan, E.A., 2003. What Is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in Advertising Agencies. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(01), pp.96-110.

Kotler, P. & Bliemel, F., 2006. Marketing-Management. Analyse, Planung und Verwirklichung 10th ed., Pearson Studium.

Kover, A.J., Goldberg, S.M. & James, W.L., 1995. Creativity vs. effectiveness? An integrating classification for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6).

MDC Partners, 2010. MDC Partners [BETA]. Available at: http://www.mdc-partners.com/#agency/mdc_partners [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Naked Communications, 2010. Naked. Meet Us. Manifesto. Available at: http://www.nakedcomms.com/ [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Ogilvy & Mather, 2010. Corporate Culture | Ogilvy & Mather. Available at: http://www.ogilvy.com/About/Our-History/Corporate-Culture.aspx [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Schweiger, G. & Schrattenecker, G., 2009. Werbung 7th ed., UTB, Stuttgart.

Smith, R.E. & Yang, X., 2004. Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), p.31.

Till, B.D. & Baack, D.W., 2005. Recall and Persuasion: Does Creative Advertising Matter? Journal of Advertising, 34(3), pp.47–57.

West, D.C., Kover, A.J. & Caruana, A., 2008. Practitioner and Customer Views of Advertising Creativity: Same Concept, Different Meaning? Journal of Advertising, 37(4), pp.35-46.

White, A. & Smith, B.L., 2001. Assessing Advertising Creativity Using the Creative Product Semantic Scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6), pp.27-34.

Wieden + Kennedy, 2010. Wieden + Kennedy London. An independent, creatively led communications agency. Available at: http://www.wklondon.com/ [Accessed January 4, 2011].

Young & Rubicam, 2010. Young & Rubicam. Young & Rubicam. Available at: http://www.yr.com/ [Accessed October 22, 2010].

Zurstiege, G., 2005. Zwischen Kritik und Faszination. Was wir beobachten, wenn wir die Werbung beobachten, wie sie die Gesellschaft beobachtet 1st ed., Halem.

Related posts:

1. “The Evolving Role of Creativity in Brand Management” aka my Bachelor Paper and Planning Barcamp topic This weekend, I am going to fly up to Hamburg...
2. 2.3 Brand Management Paradigms This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The...
3. 2.1 The Relevance of Brand Management This post is part of my bachelor paper ‘The Evolving...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.