branding - lecture

Brand

A name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them, which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from competitors - Kotler, 1991, p. 442

Hyperconnectivity

Blurring of brand boundaries → shared ownership, co-creation, control, etc. 

Broadening of brand boundaries → when does something become a brand?

• When it starts being managed → position in a certain way, push to a certain audience, decrease negative associations

• Why? → for the exchange of goods, services, and values

Brand Value Chain

• The multipliers/filters are moderators between the value stages (affect the strength of the relationship) 

Brand Associative Network 

Start to see patterns btw what multiple ppl think of when they bring a brand to mind 

Types of associations (Keller 1993)

• Functional vs symbolic

• Attributes vs. benefits

Brand image

aggregation of all the ind. associative networks

Keller’s CBBE pyramid

1. Salience

2. Performance / Imagery

3. Judgements / Feelings

4. Resonance

Brand Awareness - Recall vs. Recognition (Keller 1993) 

• Recall → given category, then ask question (can they think of it) 

• Recognition → show icon, logo, jingle, packaging (can they recognize it)

• RECOGNITION TENDS TO BE HIGHER

Depth vs. Breadth (Keller 2016) (in terms of associative network)

• Depth: how much info about a brand comes to mind

• Breadth: broaden the range in which brand comes to mind

what are consumer insights?

• A fresh and non-obvious/not-yet obvious way of understanding customer needs & behaviors (but has to be obvious enough so that it makes sense)

• Or more importantly: customer frustrations

 = can become the basis for a business opportunity

4 Ws: Sawhney paraphrased (video)

• What do they (not) do/want?

  • Understand non-customers of brand/category → Explore barriers to consumption!

• Why do they (not) do/want it?

  • Explore underlying motivations

• “WOW, I did not know/realize that!”

  • The “not yet obvious” part, e.g. learn from different contexts

• Where is the commercial potential?

  • How can we make strategic use of this?

Schultz - rethinking brand development in an interactive marketplace (6 new areas of brand research)

1. Shift to behavioral data

2. Longitudinal analysis

3. Networked systems = shift away from individualistic

4. Multidimensional models

5. Financial focus

6. Connections to/inclusion of other orgs/technologies in brand development = build brands w/o HUGE budgets

Brand positioning

The act of designing the company’s offer and image so that it occupies a distinctive place in the minds of the target market.

Brand image (engine) vs. brand positioning (mechanics) 

• Image: Aggregated/overlapping associative network(s) → Measured (consumer behavior) 

• Positioning: Desired brand image → Created (marketing strategy) 

  • The fine-tuning; analyzing the associations 

what does association SFU stand for?

strong, favorable, unique/differentiating

What’s the WORST combination of SFU?

strong & favorable but not unique 

what are PoD’s?

POINTS OF DIFFERENCES

= Strong, favorable, AND unique associations

• Provides the “Reason to buy”

• USP (Unique Selling Point)

• For product & service brands!

• Left & right in pyramid!

3 q’s you need to ask about your brand?

1. Have we established a frame?

2. Are the PoD’s compelling?

3. Are we leveraging PoP’s?

diff parts of PoD’s?

• deliverability

  • feasibility

  • profitability

  • sustainability

  • communicability

• desirability

  • (perceived) relevance

  • believability (reasons to believe = RtB’s)

what are PoP’s?

= Strong, favorable, and NOT unique associations

• allow product to be considered as an option

• 3 types

what are the 3 types of PoP’s?

1. Category = establish category membership

2. Competitive = negate competitor’s PoD’s

3. Correlational = negatively correlated attributes —> reach “par” level w/ one PoP to make a PoD believable/desirable

when are PoPs communicated explicitly?

1. when they’re not a category standard (competitive pop)

2. when the association is “suspicious” (potential conflict with PoD —> correlational)

PoD vs. PoP - which is more important?

• PoP gets you in the door, gets you considered

• PoD makes you stand out

• = you need BOTH → first PoP, then PoD

• RtB = reason to believe → supplemental to support your PoD (vitamin E in the dishwashing soap)

what is a positioning statement?

• NOT slogan

• NOT a major report

• NOT value proposition

• IS an internal tool that guides brand positioning

  • Short, to the point, complete

  • Strategic guidance → Relevance, urgency, differentiation

  • What, why, when, how, for whom?

Brands with functional brand concept…

• Satisfy practical needs

• E.g. problem prevention/solution

Brands with symbolic brand concept…

• Satisfy symbolic needs

• E.g. prestige, status, self-expression

Brand concept

The abstract meaning and essence that defines how consumers understand and relate to a brand. It helps form the basis for how the brand is marketed, perceived, and experienced by its audience.

They exist in the mind of the consumer

brand knowledge tree

brand personality as part of brand image

Maehle - 5 personality dimensions

1. sincerity = family values, high morals, positive service experiences, and reliability

2. excitement = aesthetic appeal, youth culture, special occasions, and social experiences

3. competence =  judged based on their product quality, long-standing reputation, and market leadership

4. sophistication = high-class, exclusive, often linked to femininity and beauty

5. ruggedness = masculinity, toughness, and outdoor adventure

direct & indirect antecedents of brand personality

Direct:

• user imagery (who uses the product)

• endorsers

• shareholders/CEO/employees

Indirect:

• price

• logo

• product category

why is brand personality important?

1. Brands as instruments of self-identification → who are you/who do you want to be? 

   • Strike a neve with consumers

2. Harder for other brands to copy

   • Less vulnerable to competitive positioning 

how is brand activism diff from CSR?

• More about values/beliefs, less about actions/results

• More about controversial, contested, polarizing sociopolitical issue(s) = more risky 

Brand activism typology (4 types)

1. Absence of brand activism: low marketing messaging & low prosocial corporate practice

2. Silent brand activism: low marketing messaging & high prosocial corporate practice

3. Authentic brand activism: high marketing messaging & high prosocial corporate practice

4. Inauthentic brand activism: high marketing messaging & low prosocial corporate practice

Authentic Brand Activism:

• When a brand's activist messaging aligns with its core purpose, values, and prosocial corporate practices, creating both brand equity and potential for real social change.

Woke Washing

• When a brand detaches its activist messaging from actual purpose, values, and corporate actions, leading to consumer mistrust and accusations of virtue signaling.

Optimal incongruence

• = brands can engage in activism even if their cause does not perfectly align with their existing reputation.

• This strategy can generate strong consumer engagement and brand equity, but too much incongruence risks backlash.

• Example: Ben & Jerry’s expanding from environmental causes to racial justice issues.

risks & consequences of woke washing

• Brands that engage in woke washing risk consumer backlash, loss of trust, and damage to brand equity.

• Consumers are increasingly skeptical of brands using social causes for profit without meaningful action.

• Examples include Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner ad (trivializing social activism) and Gillette’s toxic masculinity campaign, which faced criticism due to inconsistencies in pricing strategies for men vs. women (the "pink tax").

what are the 4 consumer-brand relationships?

1. Functionally invested = brand as colleague; satisfied w/ quality (left side)

2. Fully invested = brand as family; full loyalty w/ feelings & behavior (right side)

3. Un-invested = brand as acquaintance; low involvement/frequent switching

4. Emotionally invested = brand as friend; emotionally attached however functional underperformance may lead to a painful switch

direction of affect/commitment/relationship?

1. brand satisfaction = + feeling, weak strength

2. brand love/passion = + feeling, strong strength

3. brand avoidance = - feeling, weak strength

4. brand hate/divorce = - feeling, strong strength

What is brand love/resonance?

“brandship”

2 components of brand resonance

brand resonance > brand loyalty because…

1. Attachment/intensity

2. Activity (consumer behavior)

resonance-related phenomena

• Attending brand events

• Positive WoM

• Willingness to pay more 

• Brand community 

activity x intensity plot

1. No loyalty = switching & low involvement

2. Spurious loyalty = repeat purchase & low involvement

3. Latent loyalty (variety seeking) = switching & high involvement

4. True loyalty = repeat purchase & high involvement

Seven Core Elements of Brand Love (Batra et al)

1. Self-Brand Integration – How deeply the brand connects with the consumer’s identity and personal values.

2. Passion-Driven Behaviors – Strong emotional desire and active investment in the brand (time, money, and engagement).

3. Positive Emotional Connection – Strong emotional attachment and affection for the brand.

4. Long-Term Relationship – The belief that the brand will be part of the consumer’s life in the long run.

5. Positive Overall Attitude Valence – A highly favorable attitude toward the brand.

6. Attitude Strength: Frequent Thoughts & Certainty + Confidence – Strong, unwavering beliefs about the brand.

7. Anticipated Separation Distress – Anxiety or distress at the thought of losing access to the brand.

what elements of brand love appear in the keller article?

• Attitudinal Attachment

• Active Engagement

• Behavioral Loyalty

• Sense of Community

how is brand love diff from human relationships?

consumer is in the driver’s seat → you are the one who determines whether or not the relationship will continue (brand has no reason to terminate the relationship bc they’re making money) → what about when a brand discontinues a product?? = gap in research 

how is the brand community model diff than the traditional brand to consumer model?

the brand community model connects consumers to other consumers AND to the brand

what are the markers of community?

1. Consciousness of kind → legitimacy, oppositional brand equity (liking one brand = hating a diff one; e.g. if you love Apple, you hate Microsoft) 

2. Rituals & Traditions → greeting rituals, celebrating brand history, sharing brand stories

3. Moral responsibility → integrating, retaining, & correcting members

what does BAV stand for?

Brand Asset Valuator

brand strength is made up of…

• differentiation

• relevance

brand stature is made up of…

• esteem

• knowledge

Brand lifecycle in BAV

New/Developing Brands

High Differentiation, low Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge

Leadership Brands

High in all four pillars – strong, respected, and well-known

Eroding Brands

High Knowledge but low Differentiation and Relevance (danger of commoditization)

Fatigued/Declining Brands

Low across all pillars – weak equity and fading market relevance

3 types of diff degrees of differentiation vs relevance

1. Unrealized potential: high diff; low rel —> have a reason to buy?

2. Commodity brand: low diff, high rel —> no PoD

3. Cultural icon: high diff; high rel —> strongly positioned

synopsis of byron sharp’s work

1. Brands Grow by Increasing Mental and Physical Availability

• Reaching as many light and occasional buyers as possible.

• Mental availability = Being easy to recall or recognize in buying situations.

• Physical availability = Being widely distributed and easy to buy (channels, shelf presence, accessibility).

2. Loyalty is Overrated

• Growth isn’t from making loyalists more loyal, but from gaining more buyers—even if they're not very loyal.

• All brands have a similar proportion of heavy and light users — a phenomenon known as the Double Jeopardy Law.

3. Distinctiveness > Differentiation

• What matters more is being distinctive and recognizable through consistent use of:

  • Logos

  • Colors

  • Taglines

  • Packaging

  • Brand assets (“Distinctive Brand Assets”)

4. Category Entry Points (CEPs)

• Brands should build associations with multiple buying situations (e.g., “thirsty,” “party,” “health-conscious”) to increase mental availability.

• This is more effective than focusing only on narrowly defined segments.

5. Advertising Reinforces Memory, Not Just Persuasion

• Advertising helps brands stay salient rather than “persuade” through deep emotional storytelling.

• Consistency and reach are more effective than constant reinvention.

rather than focus of differentiation. what should brands do?

focus on distinctiveness…

• AVAILABILITY

  • Physical → distribution 

  • Mental → salience (focus on foundation of CBBE) 

    • Logos

    • Colors

    • Taglines

    • Packaging

    • Brand assets (“Distinctive Brand Assets”)

How are Sharp & Schultz’s ideas diff than Keller’s?

• Both argue that L1 is very important BUT Sharp says L1 is the first and prob last step needed to take

• Whereas Keller says L1 is important but so are rest of the levels 

= they’re NOT contradictory/opposed to one another

what does WIIFM stand for?

what’s in it for me

how has social media disrupted traditional brand-building?

• decentralizing control over brand narratives

• brand messages are no longer dictated by companies but are co-created through user-generated content and communities

• the rise of influencers and niche communities has diminished the impact of traditional celebrity endorsements

crowdcultures

• online communities that rally around specific cultural interests, ideologies, and movements.

• challenge mainstream corporate messaging and have the power to make or break brands.

why do most brands fail on social media?

• Many brands mistakenly treat social media as just another broadcasting channel rather than a platform for engagement.

• Traditional advertising strategies (like polished, brand-centric content) often fail to resonate in social media spaces.

• Consumers reject corporate-sounding messages and instead gravitate toward authentic, organic content that aligns with their values.

cultural branding

brands align themselves with cultural narratives and movements that consumers care about.

• Successful brands tap into crowdcultures rather than pushing traditional advertising

what’s the issue with people becoming brands?

• they need brand management, just like brands do

• a bad move can:

  • damage influencer’s personal brand directly 

  • damage the personal AND commercial brand

• even authentic posts can be seen as “inauthentic” because the authenticity aspect gets viewers to buy in and follow you = there’s still a motive

• need to think of short & long term product brand associations to be authentic to audience

why does badvertising happen?

1. Problem w/ message/content → what? → related to brand positioning 

2. Problem with the execution → how? → focus of Rotfield (2002) article

   1. Entertainment focus (at the expense of effectiveness) 

   2. Need to stand out (for the wrong reasons) 

what is greenwashing?

an umbrella term for a variety of misleading communications and practices that intentionally or not, induce false positive perceptions of an organizations’ environmental performance

1. branding related

2. not directly related to intentions

3. communication versus performance (do they align?)

4. can apply to other “washing”; i.e. purpose-washing, woke-washing, rainbow-washing, X-washing etc.

5. leads to inaccurate perceptions

when can we call it greenwashing? (Nemes)

1. selective disclosure

2. empty claims

3. irrelevant accomplishments

4. lies

5. just not credible

6. corporate responsibility in action

7. dubious certifications & labels

8. political spin

9. co-opted endorsement

10. no proof

11. vagueness

12. misleading symbols

13. jargon

3 master narratives of greenwashing (Supran & Hickney, 2022)

1. Green Innovation

   • mostly fossil fuel, but they all use this

2. Misdirection

   • talking about social issues unrelated to core business, like sports, fashion, diversity, social causes

   • accounts for 1 in 5 posts

3. Business-as-usual

   • narratives describing core business operations

   • used by airlines the most

which industries are worst/less bad?

1. Heavy Greenwashing = fossil fuel

   • 75% posts green innovation; 3:1 green to dirty ratio

2. Moderate Greenwashing = car companies

   • 60% posts green innovation; 4:1 green to dirty ratio

3. Subtle Greenwashing = airlines

   • 60% posts green innovation; 1.2:1 green to dirty ratio; nature-rinsing

other greenwashing communication tactics (more subtle)

• Climate silence

• Misdirection - talk about social issues unrelated to core business

• Rinsing 

  • Nature-rinsing/executional greenwashing - nature pics without making a message about climate impact

  • “Demo-rinsing”/demographic greening and misdirection - who they post on social media is not representative of diversity present within the company 

Nickerson’s 3 CSR initiatives

1. Corrective CSR – Directly reduces a brand’s negative externalities (e.g., sustainable packaging).

2. Compensating CSR – Offsets negative impact without operational changes (e.g., donations).

3. Cultivating Goodwill CSR – Philanthropic efforts unrelated to the brand’s business impact (e.g., scholarships).

Nickerson conceptual model

IV: CSR type

Mediator: Perceived Brand Sincerity

Moderator #1: CSR Reputation (+ or -)

Moderator #2: CSR Focus (enviro vs social)

DV: Brand Purchase

Nickerson findings

• Corrective & Compensating CSR increase sales

• Cultivating Goodwill CSR can reduce sales, as consumers see it as less sincere or irrelevant to brand responsibility.

• CSR Reputation Moderates Impact:

  • Brands with high CSR reputation see smaller sales effects since consumers already expect responsible behavior.

  • Low CSR reputation brands benefit more from Corrective and Compensating CSR, as these efforts positively surprise consumers.

• Environmental CSR (e.g., sustainability) is more effective than Social CSR (e.g., diversity programs) in driving sales, as environmental issues are widely understood and verifiable.

• Sincerity mediates the effect of CSR on purchase intentions—consumers are more likely to buy from brands they perceive as authentic in their CSR efforts.

recommendations for brands based on Nickerson’s findings

• Prioritize Corrective CSR: Brands should focus on reducing negative externalities rather than just promoting goodwill.

• Align CSR with Brand Impact: Consumers reward brands that take accountability over those that engage in generic philanthropy.

• Leverage CSR for Reputation Building: Companies with weaker CSR reputations can gain credibility and sales by focusing on corrective and compensating actions.

• Emphasize Environmental Over Social CSR: Environmental CSR initiatives have a stronger positive sales impact.

where does the CSR stop? where does this lead us?

a red(der) ocean…

• Differentiate further? 

  • Palm oil, transport, employee food, etc

• Different CSR focus

  • With new forms of criticism/washing…→ curve-washing, diversity washing, etc. 

No more brand communication? (Ex: Veja) 

• As a “statement” 

  • Impact on advertising on consumer well-being 

  • Reflection of a brand value 

• But also with a role in positioning of sustainability

  • PoD: sustainable & fair

  • Correlational PoP: price and/or quality 

  • RtB: saving by removing brand communication (consumers pay competitive pricing bc brand doesn’t have to pay big bucks for advertising)

Brand identity

• uniquely associated with the brand in the mind of the consumer 

  • Primary knowledge stored in brand’s associative network 

  • Identify brand and differentiate it from competition 

    • “Sensory Identify”: visual, verbal, auditive, tangible 

    • = “free advertising” 

Typical brand elements:

• Brand names & URL’s

• Logos & symnols

• Characters 

• Slogans

• Jingles

• Design & packaging 

criteria for choice/evaluation:

Defensive = brand building

• memorability = recall, recognition

• meaningfulness = product category, attributes/benefits

• likability = visual/verbal imagery, aesthetics/sensory experience

Offensive = brand equity preservation

• transferability = regions, product categories

• adaptability = flexibility, over time

• protectability = legal, competition

what does it mean for brands to leverage secondary associations?

• Marketers can strengthen brand equity by associating their brand with external entities that already have established credibility and consumer trust.

what are key sources of these associations?

• People (celebrity endorsements, company founders)

• Places (country of origin, geographic locations)

• Things (events, sponsorships, awards)

• Other brands (co-branding, ingredient branding, distribution channels)

benefits/implications of leveraging secondary associations:

+: reaching a PoP or PoD through positive associations

-: lack of control over external parties that affect your brand’s image (especially with endorsers)

according to Keller, brand name fulfills which 2 criteria?

1. memorability

2. meaningfulness

according to Bossel, the brand element logo fulfills which 2 criteria?

1. meaningfulness

2. likeability

what’s the antecedent to a logo fulfilling these 2 criteria?

logo simplicity

Bossel findings about brand logo simplicity

• simple logos signal health-conscious & clean ingredients

• intricate logos signal luxury, craftmanship, and indulgence

Keller’s secondary sources of brand knowledge

Keller’s 8 dimensions of brand knowledge in consumer’s mind:

• Awareness (brand recognition and recall)

• Attributes (intrinsic and extrinsic product characteristics)

• Benefits (functional, symbolic, and experiential value)

• Images (visual and perceptual associations)

• Thoughts (cognitive responses)

• Feelings (emotional responses)

• Attitudes (evaluative judgments)

• Experiences (actual interactions with the brand)

these dimensions collectively shape what?

brand equity!

impact of country of origin (CoO) on consumer perception

• perceived COO influences brand evaluation more than actual COO

• both inaccurate and accurate CoO are correct in the mind of the consumer

Implications for International Marketing Strategy bc of CoO

• Secondary knowledge → loss of control over customer perceptions & subsequently brand image 

• Depending on reason for consumers’ misjudgement, strategically craft marketing campaigns to…

  • Educate: tell the real story? 

  • Miseducate: tell inaccurate story = “foreign branding” 

  • Smoke screen: downplay/decoy = tell different story 

3 diff avenues for branding new products

1. new brand

2. existing brand = pure brand extension

3. new AND existing brand = brand extension w/ subbrand

3 types of brand extensions

1. line extensions

2. brand extensions

3. category extensions

2 processes for association leverage and extensions?

1. leveraging brand associations to extension product

2. leveraging product/category associations from extension product (to broaden brand’s associative network)

what benefits do extension products have by leveraging brand associations?

• Consumer perceptions

• Financial efficiency

• Cover market segments

• Consumer variety seeking

IF THERE’S GOOD “FIT”

what are the dimensions of “fit”? (SCT)

• Substitutability

• Complimentarity 

• Transfer

Park et al findings regarding “fit”?

two factors that affect evaluation of brand extension:

1. product feature similarity

2. brand concept consistency

findings:

= SO prestigious brands can make big jumps (& be more successful than functional brands) but only if they keep high concept consistency (= stays within core concept of luxury; and if they don’t do this, they will be hit harder than a more functional brand) 

= functional brands (not luxury) vs. luxury brands

• Functional brands are in the consumer’s heads for what they do, the type of product they produce

• Luxury brands are categorized in consumer’s heads for being luxurious (so as long as they stay in that category then they can be successful) 

= BUT both prestigious & functional brands benefit more from high similarity extensions in both low concept & high concept consistence (but still high concept consistence is preferable) 

= best combination is high concept consistency AND high product feature similarity

what benefits/drawbacks do parent brands experience from leveraging associations from their extensions?

Benefits = extensions can broaden market & positive feedback effects

• Update consumer perceptions

• Brand image, revitalization 

• Market coverage

• Subsequent extensions 

Drawbacks

• Brand extension fail (Fa yogurt deodorant)

  • That negative association created with brand extension (from shower gel to deodorant) can now damage image of shower gel (which previously did well) 

But even when they succeed? 

• Affects parent brand image (think lower class Mercedes car = successful with certain market, yet negatively affected parent brand)

• Parent brand sales (cannibalization) 

brand alliance criteria

1. new unique product/market entity

2. all involved brand names are communicated

benefits of brand alliances

• Functional (product intel) vs. symbolic (reputation) benefits

• Leveraging secondary associations

• Extension potential into new markets

diagram for interaction in brand partner alliances

1. leveraging existing brand equity

2. updating brand’s associative network

SOOO the role of fit between brands is even more complex = have to now consider the fit between the brands themselves

findings for partner alliances w/ luxury brands on consumer purchase intention (Moon)

• brand fit is more important for luxury brands

• product fit is more important for functional brands

= so it is not in TAG Heuer’s best interest to partner with a functional brand like Google or Intel