Brand Management MKT 372

Prof. Susan Broniarczyk

Spring 2006

Course Times/Places
Class Meetings: Tuesday and Thursday 2:00 – 3:30
CBA 4.348

Course Unique #: 04590

Office Hours: Tuesday, Thursday 3:30 – 4:30 and by appointment

Office: CBA 7.226
Phone: 471-5423
E-mail: susan.broniarczyk@mccombs.utexas.edu
Website: UT Direct Blackboard link
T.A.: Fernanda Sacasa
T.A. E-mail: Fernanda.Sacasa@mba06.mccombs.utexas.edu
T.A. Office Hours: By appointment

Required Readings

Readings Packet: UT Co-Op

Blackboard Readings: Available under “Documents”

Optional Reading
Kevin Lane Keller, Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, 2003, 2ed.

Course Objectives
More and more firms of all types have come to the realization that one of the most
valuable assets they have is the brand names associated with their products or services.
Despite this recognition, very little attention has been paid to the subject in management
education. To address this oversight, Brand Management is an advanced elective that
addresses important branding decisions faced by an organization. Its basic objectives are:
1) to increase understanding of the important issues in planning and evaluating brand
strategies; 2) to provide the appropriate theories, models, and other tools to make better
branding decisions; and 3) to provide a forum for students to apply these principles.
Specifically, we will cover:
• building customers’ brand knowledge
• generating brand identities and value propositions
• using the marketing mix to effectively deliver the brand to the marketplace
• measuring brand equity
• creating a comprehensive and effective brand architecture
• managing brands over time
Course Philosophy
My basic teaching philosophy for this course is to blend the theory and practice of
product and brand management in a comfortable, supportive classroom environment that
promotes active learning. A good theory is invaluable because it structures problems and
suggests possible solutions. My view is that the most critically important
consideration in branding is understanding the customer; hence many theories
covered will be from a consumer behavior perspective.

Branding is both an art and a science. Thus, few branding situations have a definitive,
unqualified answer as to the “best” marketing programs. Yet, my belief is that by
providing you with relevant and comprehensive theories, and all the accompanying ideas,
concepts, mechanisms, and models that go along with that, you can make more informed
decisions that will have a greater probability of success.

The course readings and activities are designed to help blend theory and practice. The
readings will cover the basic concepts and theoretical frameworks as well as provide
current thinking on key topics. Cases will allow us to apply these theories to real
marketing problems.

Course Requirements and Evaluations

Possible
Component Points

Individual:
♦ Case Analyses 60 points (15%)
♦ Exam 1 100 points (25%)
♦ Exam 2 100 points (25%)
♦ Course Participation 40 points (10%)

Team:
♦ Brand Audit Project 100 points (25%)

Total Possible: 400 points

The grading scale is A = 90% and above, B = 80-89%, C = 70-79%, D = 60-69%, and
F = less than 60%.

Case Analyses (15% of total grade)

A two-page recommendation for each case analysis is due at the beginning of class. Case
analyses are due for Land Rover, H-E-B Own Brands, and Procter & Gamble (A).
Each case is worth 30 points. Your top 2 out of 3 cases will be applied towards your final
grade. The first page is a single-spaced (1” margins, 12-point type) written case
recommendation. The second page is an appendix page of supporting evidence and
analyses. Case analyses are an individual assignment and should be worked on
independently (i.e., no discussion with a classmate). See Appendix A for case analysis
decisions and class discussion questions.

A written case recommendation is a formal proposal submitted to management. When

writing a case analysis consider the following points:

1) Your recommendation needs to be very tightly argued. You may use “bullet”
point form for part of your argument. However, be careful not to be too cryptic.
2) Do not simply restate data from the case. The CEO is already familiar with the
business!
3) On the other hand, take every opportunity to support your arguments with case
data. Ask yourself, “Is there any objection the boss could raise that I have not
already overcome?” Then do your best to overcome it.
4) Provide supporting evidence from analysis of case data (include in appendix)
Don’t just “eyeball” the exhibits to see whether sales have increased, be
prepared to “crunch the numbers” and say by how much.

Exam 1 (25% of total grade)

The objective of Exam 1 is to summarize your learning in the course and allow you to
demonstrate your ability to independently apply the frameworks and constructs we’ve
discussed to specific problems. The in-class exam on March 2 will be a combination of
multiple choice and short answer questions applying frameworks and constructs to real-
world brand situations.

Exam 2 (25% of total grade)

The objective of Exam 2 is to summarize your learning in the course and allow you to
demonstrate your ability to independently apply the frameworks and constructs we’ve
discussed to specific problems. Exam 2 will occur on April 20.

Course Participation (10% of total grade)

Course participation does not just mean "the amount of time you talk in class" - it means
participation in the class as a whole and the quality of that participation. Thus, there are
actually many ways to improve your participation grade:

In-Class Participation. You should be thoroughly prepared to discuss the readings and
cases for each class session. Each day when class begins, several students may be
selected at random to lead discussion of readings.
Class participation is evaluated on the quality of your participation and its contribution to
improving the learning experience of the class. Note that quality is not necessarily a
function of quantity. Quality is assessed by preparation, argument strength (well-
supported points), and the extent to which the entire class benefited from your comments.

Many people are intimidated by the "obligation" of speaking up in class. Don't be. Your
anxiety will be reduced only through practice! Getting comfortable with public speaking
will give you a HUGE career advantage. Here's the secret to cutting your stress level - BE
PREPARED. Your class participation grade is weighted heavily in favor of quality over
quantity.

Bug me with things you don't understand. Contact me for clarification on confusing
topics. Not only will this let me know of your sincere interest in the course, but it will
actually increase your chances of a good grade on the written work.

Current Events. Bring in a current event (usually an article from a newspaper or

magazine, or sometimes an ad, promotional material, or actual new product). It should be
relevant to the topic we are discussing in class. State why you found it interesting and
how it is relevant. Reading the marketing and advertising columns of the newspapers and
business press can provide great opportunities for class participation.

Attendance. Attendance is essential and expected. Obviously, you cannot participate if

you do not attend class. You are granted two unexcused absences without
penalty.

Brand Audit (25% of total grade)

Students will self-select a team consisting of 5 members for the brand audit project. The
goal of the brand audit is to have students conduct an in-depth examination of a major
brand of their choosing and suggest ways to improve and leverage that brand equity.
Select a brand undergoing a challenge regarding its brand architecture, brand portfolio,
brand extension, or brand revitalization. Every team must study a different brand. A
good source of possible brands is Interbrand list (“Best Global Brands,” March 21
readings).

Brand audits are made up of brand inventories (comprehensive summaries of a firm’s

marketing and branding program) and brand exploratories (in-depth consumer profiles).
To assess sources of brand equity, it is necessary to profile consumer's brand knowledge
structures. A variety of sources of information can be used to assemble this profile.
Students are encouraged to consult trade magazines and business publications, and
consult with company sources. From this research, you should formulate your brand’s
customer-based brand equity pyramid. You are then expected to conduct your own
survey as part of the exploratory research. The purpose of this research is to obtain
supporting evidence for key aspects of your brand’s customer-based brand equity
pyramid and to obtain test market research regarding your recommendations. Students
will critically analyze current marketing programs and make suggestions for new
marketing programs.

See Appendix B for details on Brand Audit Project & Brand Audit Worksheets.

All brand audit grades will be adjusted based on peer evaluation.

Conduct
Electronics Policy. Laptops, PDAs, and cellphones are not allowed to be in use
during class. This policy facilitates class engagement and participation. Also, all cell
phones must be turned off. If your cell phone rings during class, you will be asked to
leave the classroom.

Policy on Scholastic Dishonesty: The McCombs School of Business has no tolerance for
acts of scholastic dishonesty. Everyone should purchase their own copy of course
packet at UT Co-Op to avoid any improprieties and copyright infringement. The
responsibilities of both students and faculty with regard to scholastic dishonesty are
described in detail in the Policy Statement on Scholastic Dishonesty for the McCombs
School of Business.

By teaching this course, I have agreed to observe all of the faculty responsibilities described in that
document. By enrolling in this class, you have agreed to observe all of the student responsibilities
described in that document. If the application of that Policy Statement to this class and its assignments is
unclear in any way, it is your responsibility to ask me for clarification. Policy on Scholastic Dishonesty:
Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties,
including the possibility of failure in the course an/or dismissal from the University. Since dishonesty
harms the individual, all students, and the integrity of the University, policies on scholastic dishonesty will
be strictly enforced. You should refer to the Student Judicial Services website at
http:/deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs or the General Information Catalog to access the official University
policies and procedures on scholastic dishonesty as well as further elaboration on what constitutes
scholastic dishonesty.

Re-grading. Requests to have a grade reconsidered should be submitted in writing. If

you would like to submit a request, or if you would just like to discuss your grade in
general, wait at least 48 hours after an assignment is returned to you. This is to prevent
an emotional type of interaction, and replace it with a rational, objective discussion of the
merits of the case. No re-grading will be considered more than 10 days after the
assignment is returned to you, unless it is a matter of a math error, which will always be
cheerfully corrected.

Class Web Sites and Student Privacy. A useful feature in Blackboard is a class e-mail
roster that is available to both the instructor and the students in a class. While this
electronic class roster can facilitate collaboration it also raises some privacy concerns.
Below is the University’s policy on this matter:

Password-protected class sites will be available for all accredited courses taught at The
University. Syllabi, handouts, assignments and other resources are types of information that may be
available within these sites. Site activities could include exchanging e-mail, engaging in class discussions
and chats, and exchanging files. In addition, class e-mail rosters will be a component of the sites. Students
who do not want their names included in these electronic class rosters must restrict their directory
information in the Office of the Registrar, Main Building, Room 1. For information on restricting directory
information see: http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/gi04-05/app/appc09.html.

Special Needs. The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate
academic accommodations for qualified students with disabilities. For more information,
contact the Office of the Dean of Students at 471-6259, 471-4641 TTY.
 MKT 372 Brand Management
Spring 2006 Course Readings Packet
Prof. Broniarczyk

Jan. 17 T Intro

Jan. 19 Th Customer-Based Brand Equity

“Customer Based Brand Equity”

By Kevin Lane Keller, Chapter 2 in Strategic Brand Management, 2ed.,
Prentice Hall, pp. 58-117.

“What High-Tech Managers Need to Know About Brands”

By Scott Ward, Larry Light, and Jonathan Goldstine, Harvard Business
Review, July 1999, July-August 1999, pp. 85-95.
(Available on Blackboard)

Jan.24 T Brand Knowledge & Brand Relationships

“There’s a Sucker Born in Every Medial Prefrontal Cortex”

By Clive Thomspon, New York Times, October 26, 2003.

“Brand Zealots: Realizing the Full Value of Emotional Loyalty”

By Rozanski, Horacio D., Baum, Allen C and Wolfsen, Bradley T., Fourth
Quarter 1999, Strategy + Business (reprint No. 99407)

Case: Introducing New Coke

(Harvard Business School 9-500-067)

***Submit Resume ***

Optional: “Neural Correlates of Behavioral Preference for Culturally

Familiar Drinks,” Neuron, Vol. 44, 379-387, October 14, 2004
(Available on Blackboard)

Jan. 26 Th Positioning

“Three Questions You Need to Ask About Your Brand ”

By Kevin Lane Keller, Brian Sternthal, and Alice Tybout, Harvard
Business Review, Sept. 2002, pp. 80-86.
(Available on Blackboard)

Jan. 31 1 T Positioning
 Case: Land Rover North America
(Harvard Business School 5-597-043)

***CASE ANALYSIS DUE***

Feb.2 Th Brand Names

“Companies Get Inventive When Making Names for Themselves”

By Deborah Lohse, Austin American Statesman, Dec. 7, 2000

“New ABCs of Branding”

By Sharon Begley, Wall Street Journal, B1, August 26, 2002.

“Trademark Dilution and the Practice of Marketing”

By Robert Peterson, Karen H. Smith, and Philip C. Zerrillo, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 27, No. 2, pp. 255-268.

Feb.7 T Brand Name & Brand Audit Overview

Guest Speaker: Leon Chen, Co-Founder of Tiff’s Treats

Feb.9 Th Brand Logos

“Is Your Brand at Risk”

By Regina Fazio Maruca, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec. 1999,
pp.22-25. (Available on Blackboard)

“Marketers Ask: Hues on First?”

By Arundhati Parmar, Marketing News, Feb. 15, 2004, 8-10

Guest Speaker: Karen Landolt, J.D., Pre-Law & BHP Career Advisor

Feb. 14 T Private Label Brands

“Brands Versus Private Labels: Fighting to Win”

By John A. Quelch and David Harding, Harvard Business Review, Jan-
Feb. 1996, pp.99-109. (Available on Blackboard)

“Brand Killers”
By Matthew Boyle, Fortune, August 11, 2003, v148, p.88
 Best Buy Initiates A Battle of the Brands”
By John Spooner, CNet News, October 4, 2004
(Available on Blackboard)

***Brand Audit Worksheet #1 Due***

Feb. 16 Th Pricing

“Pay the same, get less as package volume falls”

By Theresa Howard, USA Today, March 2003, 3B

“Latte Letdown: Starbucks Set to Raise Prices”

By Steven Gray and Amy Merrick, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 4, 2004, B1

“Coach’s Split Personality”

By Diane Brady, Business Week, November 7, 2005, pp60-62

Feb. 21 T Private Label & Pricing

“Texas Grocer HEB Thrives By Catering to Locals”

By Susan Warren, Wall Street Journal, December 1, 2004, B1

Case: HEB Own Brands

(Harvard Business School 9-502-053)

***CASE ANALYSIS DUE***

Feb. 23 Th Advertising & Promotion

“Brand Confusion”
By Kevin J. Clancy and Jack Trout, Harvard Business Review
(Available on Blackboard)

“How TV Advertising Works: An Industry Response”

By Dwight R. Riskey, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, May 1997,
pp.292-293. (Available on Blackboard)

“Consumer Goods Firms Duel for Shelf Space,”

By Deborah Ball, Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2004, B2

“In Shift, Marketers Beef Up Ad Spending Inside Stores”

By Emily Nelson & Sarah Ellison, Wall Street Journal, September 21,
2005, A1
Feb. 28 T Review

March 2 Th Exam 1

March 7 T Buzz Marketing

“The Buzz on Buzz”

Harvard Business Review, Nov. 2000
(Available on Blackboard)

“The Vanishing Mass Market”

By Anthony Bianco, Business Week, July 12, 2004, 61-68.

“Leader of the Packs”

Business Week, October 31, 2005, 56-58.

“Getting Buzz Marketers to Fess Up”

By Suzanne Vranica, Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2005, B9

March 9 Th Questionnaire Design & Group Time

***Brand Audit Worksheet #2 Due***

SPRING BREAK

March 21 T Measurement of Brand Equity

“Global Brands”
Business Week, August 1, 2005, pp. 86-89.

“Global Brand Scorecard: The 100 Top Brands”

Business Week, August 1, 2005, pp. 90-94.

“Putting a Firm Figure on Brands”

By Jonathan Knowles, Professional Investor, June 2002, pp.13-17.

“Breakaway Brands”
By Al Ehrbar, Fortune, October 31, 2005, 153-170.

March 23 Th Measurement of Brand Equity

Case: Habitat for Humanity International: Brand Valuation

(Harvard Business School 9-503-101)
March 28 T Branding Architecture

“Brand Relationship Spectrum”

By David Aaker and Erich Joachimsthaler, California Management
Review, Vol. 42, No. 4, Summer 2000, 8-23.
(Available on Blackboard)

“Ranking Corporate Reputations”

By Ronald Alsop, Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2005, B1

“Corporate Reputation Survey Methodology”

Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2005

“SBC’s Embrace of AT&T Brand Brings History – and Baggage”

By Dionne Searcey & Brian Steinberg, Wall Street Journal, October 28,
2005, B1

***Brand Audit Worksheet #3 Due***

March 30 Th Brand Extensions & Brand Portfolio

“Customer-Centered Brand Management”

By Roland Rust, Valerie Zeithaml, and Katherine Lemon, Harvard
Business Review, September 2004. (Available on Blackboard)

“Retailers’ Appetite for Top Sellers Has Food Firms Slimming Down”
By Sarah Ellison, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004, A1

“Seizing the Moment of Truth: Procter & Gamble”

By Todd Weasserman, Brandweek, Oct. 10, 2005, M8-M18
(Available on Blackboard)

“In the Zone”

By Tom Lowry, Business Week, October 17, 2005, 66-78.

April 4 T Line Extensions & Assortment

“Extend Profits, Not Product Lines”

By John A. Quelch and David Kenny, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-
Oct. 1994, pp.153-160. (Available on Blackboard)

“While Managers Embrace Variety, Too Many Choices Frustrate

Consumers” By Emily Nelson, Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2001
 “Should You Take Your Brand To Where The Action Is?”
By David Aaker, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 135-143.
(Available on Blackboard)

“BMW: Will Panke’s High-Speed Approach Hurt the Brand”

By Gail Edmondson, Business Week, June 9, 2003.

***Brand Audit Worksheet 4 Due***

April 6 Th Line Extensions & Assortment

Case: Procter &Gamble Company (A)

(Harvard Business School #9-584-047)

***CASE ANALYSIS DUE***

April 11 T Managing Brands Over Time I

“Managing Brands for the Long Run: Brand Reinforcement and

Revitalization Strategies”
By Kevin Lane Keller, California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 3,
Spring 1999, pp.102-124.
(Available on Blackboard)

“Just What You Need!”

By Deborah Ball et al., Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004

“Back to the Drawing Board: Campbell Soup”

By Sonia Reyes, Brandweek, April 30, 2001, pp.20-26

“The Man Who Fixed Kellogg”

By Matthew Boyle, Fortune, September 6, 2004, 218-226.

“Hasbro Has Kids Hopping”

By William Symonds, Business Week, August 15, 2005, 80-81

April 13 Th Managing Brands Over Time II & Review

“ Honda’s Midlife Makeover”

By Keith Naughton, Newsweek, Aug. 5, 2002, pp.42-43.

“Will Harley-Davidson Hit the Wall?”

By John Helyar, Fortune, August 12, 2002

“Extreme Makeover”
 Robert Berner, Business Week, November 1, 2004

April 18 T TBA

April 20 Th Exam II

April 25 T Group Workday

April 27 Th Presentations

May 2 T Presentations

May 4 Th Presentations

***FINAL BRAND AUDIT REPORT DUE MAY 4***

 APPENDIX A
CASE ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Introducing New Coke Jan. 24

Case Analysis: Evaluate Coke’s brand equity (prior to launch of New Coke) in terms of
Keller’s CBBE pyramid. Defend either:

OPTION A: Yes, New Coke should have been launched.

OPTION B: No, New Coke should NOT have been launched.

Reflection:
1) What is Coke’s brand meaning?
2) How was Coke’s brand meaning created?
3) Did Coke properly respond to Pepsi Challenge?
4) What roles do brands play in consumers’ lives?
5) Who owns the brand?

Land Rover North America, Inc ***Individual Case Analysis Due Jan. 31***

Case Analysis: Write 3 positioning statements for U.S. Land Rover Discovery:
1) Definitive Family 4 X 4
2) Evolved Land Rover
3) Dual Positioning: Family 4X4 + Evolved Land Rover

The positioning statements should be in the following format:

Product/Brand
Is Unique and Most Important Claim
Among All Competitive Frame
For Target Market
Because Support, Reasons Why

Recommend the best positioning for Land Rover. Defend your positioning.

Reflection:
1) Why do people buy SUVs? How do subjective perceptions differ from objective
perceptions?
2) Who is the typical SUV target consumer? Is this changing?
3) What are the differences among competitive SUV offerings?
4) What are the perceptions of Land Rover among US consumers?
5) Is a dual positioning effective in short-term? sustainable in long-term?
HEB Own Brands ***Individual Case Analysis Due Feb.21***

Case Analysis: Assume you were the H-E-B executive in charge of the initial
launch of H-E-B Own Brands in the bottled water category.
Recommend a positioning and pricing strategy for H-E-B own
brands in the bottled water category. Justify your answer.

OPTION A: Two (2) Own Brands (Glacia and Hill Country Fare)
OPTION B: One (1) Own Brand (Glacia or Hill Country Fare)

Reflection:
1) How has the introduction of Glacia affected H-E-B profits in the bottled water
category?

2) Should H-E-B introduce a Hill Country Fare brand of bottled water? If so,
recommend a positioning and pricing strategy for HCF relative to Glacia.

3) What is the role of H-E-B and Hill Country Fare as Own Brands labels? How
should these be positioned and priced respective to other national brands in
category? How should they respond to competitive price promotions?

4) What is the role of Own Brands in H-E-B’s overall corporate strategy? What is its
role as a strategic lever versus retailers? Versus Wal-Mart?

Habitat for Humanity International March 23 (Skim p1-8, Analyze p9-14)

Case Analysis: Evaluate Interbrand’s valuation of Habitat for Humanity.

Reflection:
1) What are the brand drivers for Habitat for Humanity?

2) Critique Habitat for Humanity on Interbrand’s 7 Dimensions of Brand Strength.

3) Do you agree with Interbrand’s $1.8 Billion valuation of Habitat for Humanity
International?
Procter & Gamble Company (A) ***Individual Case Analysis Due April 6***

Case Analysis: Defend the following recommendation regarding H-80 to Chris White:

OPTION A: Introduce a new fourth LDL brand.

Provide details regarding its positioning & likely cannibalization of
existing P&G brands.

OPTION B: Add H-80 to an existing brand.

Provide details regarding which existing brand is best-suited for
line extension with H-80, its positioning, and likely cannibalization
of existing P&G brands.
 APPENDIX B
BRAND AUDIT

Brand Audit Worksheets

Four brand audit worksheets are required but will not be graded. The purpose of the
worksheets is to keep the team on track for the audit project and provide an opportunity
for constructive feedback. Worksheets should be 1-2 pages typed. (Note that bullet
format is acceptable as long as point is clearly conveyed and include supporting
evidence/analysis).

Worksheet #1: Brand Selection (DUE: Feb. 14)

Provide a list of team members. Identify the top 3 brands chosen by your team for
the brand audit project. For each brand, identify 2 important challenges facing the
brand (provide 2 footnote references for each challenge).

Worksheet #2: Competitive Situation (DUE: March 9)

Profile competitive brands and market situation. Assess your brand’s positioning
relative to competition.

Worksheet #3: Marketing Programs and CBBE Pyramid (DUE: March 28)
Worksheet #3 consists of two parts.

1) Analyze the firm’s branding and marketing programs. How do they contribute
to brand knowledge?
i) Analyze the brand graphics (logos, names, packages).
ii) Analyze the brand’s past and current advertising campaigns.
iii) Analyze the brand’s product, promotions, distribution, and pricing.

3) One page summary of the brand’s customer-based brand equity

(Keller’s CBBE) pyramid. Identify the brand associations for each
building block in the pyramid.

Worksheet #4: Preliminary Survey (DUE: April 4)

Develop a preliminary draft of the questionnaire for the brand exploratory to

assess key dimensions of CBBE pyramid and test market recommendations.
Final Brand Audit Report

The final report consists of a brand inventory, brand exploratory and provides
recommendations concerning how to build and manage equity for the brand
chosen. Your written summary should not exceed 20 double-spaced typed pages,
plus a one-page executive summary, appendices as necessary, and complete
references (1” margins, 12-point type). The final report is due the last class day,
May 4.

Suggested Components of Final Brand Audit Report (sequence may vary)

1. History and Overview (1 page)

The first page is an overview of the brand and its history.

2. Key Challenges Facing Brand (1page)

The second page should set-up the key challenges facing brand. The challenges
should relate to brand architecture, brand portfolio, brand extension, and/or brand
revitalization.

3. Brand Inventory (5 pages plus exhibits)

Brand inventories are comprehensive summaries of a firm’s marketing and
branding program.
a.) Detail the brand architecture.
i. Graphically display the brand hierarchy.
ii. Discuss the roles of brands in the portfolio. Focus on your selected
brand and other brands deemed relevant to your brand.
iii. Discuss the hierarchy relationship of your brand.
b.) Analyze the firm’s branding and marketing programs. How do they
contribute to brand knowledge? How consistent have they been over time?
Is there consistency between the brand and marketing elements?
i. Analyze the brand graphics (logos, names, packages).
ii. Analyze the brand’s past and current advertising campaigns.
iii. Analyze the brand’s product, promotions, distribution, and pricing.
c.) Profile competitive brands and market situation.

4. Brand Exploratory (5 pages plus exhibits)

Brand exploratories are in-depth profiles of consumers’ brand knowledge
structures.
a.) Develop a detailed and accurate profile of current brand knowledge
structures. In appendix, provide specifics about survey and data collection
to assess brand knowledge structures.
b.) Assess the brand’s associations at each level of CBBE pyramid.
c.) Discuss if consumers’ knowledge structures have undergone any
significant or recent changes.

5. Recommendations (4 pages)
Make 3-4 recommendations to the brand concerning how the brand should be
managed over the next 5 years by critically analyzing the brand inventory and brand
 exploratory. Your recommendations need to be supported by data from your brand
inventory and brand exploratory.

Brand Audit Presentations

Each team will present their brand audit to the class in 20 minute presentations + 5
minutes of Q&A on April 27, May 2, and May 4. Such a short time prohibits a
comprehensive coverage of the brand audit contained in the final report. Identify and
present the key points of the brand inventory and brand exploratory that are relevant to
your recommendations. Dress is business casual. E-mail me a copy of the presentation
slides the day BEFORE your scheduled presentation.