Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Pokusaj da se definise odnos izmedju potrosaca i marki doveo je do uvodjenja termina vrednost

marke (brand equity). O konceptu vrednosti marke dugo se raspravlja kako u marketingu tako i u
knjigovodstvu sto naglasava znacaj postojanja fokusa na upravljanje markom.
Vrednost marke kao koncept koji se bavi markom i njenom dodatom vrednoscu dobio je mnogo
dimenzija. Racunovodje vrednost marke posmatraju i definisu drugacije od marketara. ok
racunovodje vrednost marke pokusavaju da iskazu kroz finansijsku vrednost! marketari se trude
da vrednost iskazu kroz snagu marke i kroz pozitivne asocijacije i pozitivne stavove kupaca
prema marki.
($%%&) simplifies t'e variety of approac'es! by
providing a classification of t'e different
meanings of brand equity as(
. t'e total value of a brand as a separable
asset ) #'en it is sold! or included on a
balance s'eet*
. a measure of t'e strengt' of consumers+
attac'ment to a brand*
. a description of t'e associations and
beliefs t'e consumer 'as about t'e brand.
,'e first of t'ese is often called brand
valuation or brand value! and is t'e meaning
generally adopted by financial accountants.
,'e concept of measuring t'e consumers+
level of attac'ment to a brand can be called
brand strengt' (synonymous #it' brand
loyalty). ,'e t'ird could be called brand
image! t'oug' "eld#ick ($%%&) used t'e term
brand description. -'en marketers use t'e
term ..brand equity++ t'ey tend to mean brand
description or brand strengt'. /rand
strengt' and brand description are
sometimes referred to as ..consumer brand
equity++ to distinguis' t'em from t'e asset
valuation meaning.
/rand description is distinct because it
#ould not be e0pected to be quantified!
#'ereas brand strengt' and brand value are
considered quantifiable (t'oug' t'e met'ods
of quantification are not covered by t'is
article). /rand value may be t'oug't to be
distinct as it refers to an actual! or notional
business transaction! #'ile t'e ot'er t#o
focus on t'e consumer.
,'ere is an assumed relations'ip bet#een
t'e interpretations of brand equity. ,'is
relations'ip implies t'e causal c'ain s'o#n
in "igure $.
Very simply! brand description (or identity
or image) is tailored to t'e needs and #ants
of a target market using t'e marketing mi0 of
product! price! place! and promotion. ,'e
success or ot'er#ise of t'is process
determines brand strengt' or t'e degree of
brand loyalty. 1 brand+s value is determined
by t'e degree of brand loyalty! as t'is implies
a guarantee of future cas' flo#s.
"eld#ick considered t'at using t'e term
brand equity creates t'e illusion t'at an
operational relations'ip e0ists bet#een brand
description! brand strengt' and brand value
t'at cannot be demonstrated to operate in
practice. ,'is is not surprising! given t'at
brand description and brand strengt' are!
broadly speaking! #it'in t'e remit of
marketers and brand value 'as been
considered largely an accounting issue.
2o#ever! for brands to be managed
strategically as long3term assets! t'e
relations'ip outlined in "igure $ needs to be
operational #it'in t'e management
accounting system. ,'e efforts of managers of
brands could be revie#ed and assessed by t'e
measurement of brand strengt' and brand
value! and brand strategy modified
accordingly. -'ilst not a simple process! t'e
measurement of outcomes is useful as part of a
range of diagnostic tools for management. ,'is
is furt'er e0plored in t'e summary discussion.
-'ilst t'ere remains a diversity of opinion
on t'e definition and basis of brand equity!
most approac'es consider brand equity to be
a strategic issue! albeit often implicitly. ,'e
follo#ing discussion e0plores t'e range of
interpretations of brand equity! s'o#ing 'o#
t'ey relate to "eld#ick+s ($%%&) classification.
1mbler and 4tyles ($%%&) suggest t'at
managers of brands c'oose bet#een taking
profits today or storing t'em for t'e future!
#it' brand equity being t'e ... . . store of
profits to be realised at a later date.++ ,'eir
definition follo#s 4rivastava and 4'ocker
($%%$) #it' brand equity suggested as*
. . . t'e aggregation of all accumulated attitudes
and be'avior patterns in t'e e0tended minds
of consumers! distribution c'annels and
influence agents! #'ic' #ill en'ance future
profits and long term cas' flo#.
,'is definition of brand equity distinguis'es
t'e brand asset from its valuation! and falls
into "eld#ick+s ($%%&) brand strengt' category
of brand equity. ,'is approac' is intrinsically
strategic in nature! #it' t'e emp'asis a#ay
from s'ort3term profits. avis ($%%5) also
emp'asises t'e strategic importance of brand
equity #'en 'e defines brand value (one form
of brand equity) as ... . . t'e potential strategic
contributions and benefits t'at a brand can
make to a company.++ 6n t'is definition! brand
value is t'e resultant form of brand equity in
"igure $! or t'e outcome of consumer3based
brand equity.
7eller ($%%8) also takes t'e consumer3based
brand strengt' approac' to brand equity!
suggesting t'at brand equity represents a
condition in #'ic' t'e consumer is familiar
#it' t'e brand and recalls some favourable!
strong and unique brand associations. 2ence!
t'ere is a differential effect of brand kno#ledge
on consumer response to t'e marketing of a
brand. ,'is approac' is aligned to t'e
relations'ip described in "igure $!#'ere brand
strengt' is a function of brand description.
-inters ($%%$) relates brand equity to
added value by suggesting t'at brand equity
involves t'e value added to a product by
consumers+ associations and perceptions of a
particular brand name. 6t is unclear in #'at
#ay added value is being used! but brand
equity fits t'e categories of brand description
and brand strengt' as outlined above.
9eut'esser ($%::) offers a broad definition
of brand equity as(
t'e set of associations and be'aviour on t'e
part of a brand+s customers! c'annel
members and parent corporation t'at permits
t'e brand to earn greater volume or greater
margins t'an it could #it'out t'e brand
,'is definition covers "eld#ick+s
classifications of brand description and brand
strengt' implying a similar relations'ip to
t'at outlined in "igure $. ,'e key difference to
"igure $ is t'at t'e outcome of brand strengt'
is not specified as brand value! but implies
market s'are! and profit as outcomes.
;arketers tend to describe! rat'er t'an
ascribe a figure to! t'e outcomes of brand
strengt'. Pitta and 7atsanis ($%%5) suggest
t'at brand equity increases t'e probability of
brand c'oice! leads to brand loyalty and
..insulates t'e brand from a measure of
competitive t'reats.++ 1aker ($%%$) suggests
t'at strong brands #ill usually provide
'ig'er profit margins and better access to
distribution c'annels! as #ell as providing a
broad platform for product line e0tensions.
/rand e0tension<$= is a commonly cited
advantage of 'ig' brand equity! #it' acin
and 4mit' ($%%>) and 7eller and 1aker ($%%?)
suggesting t'at successful brand e0tensions
can also build brand equity. 9oken and @o'n
($%%8) and 1aker ($%%8) advise caution in t'at
poor brand e0tensions can erode brand
"arqu'ar ($%:%) suggests a relations'ip
bet#een 'ig' brand equity and market po#er
asserting t'at(
,'e competitive advantage of firms t'at 'ave
brands #it' 'ig' equity includes t'e
opportunity for successful e0tensions!
resilience against competitors+ promotional
pressures! and creation of barriers to
competitive entry.
,'is relations'ip is summarised in "igure ?.
"igure ? indicates t'at t'ere can be more
t'an one outcome determined by brand
strengt' apart from brand value. 6t s'ould be
noted t'at it is argued by -ood ($%%%) t'at
brand value measurements could be used as
an indicator of market po#er.
1c'ieving a 'ig' degree of brand strengt'
may be considered an important objective for
managers of brands. 6f #e accept t'at t'e
relations'ips 'ig'lig'ted in "igures $ and ?
are somet'ing t'at #e s'ould be aiming for!
t'en it is logical to focus our attention on
optimising brand description. ,'is requires
a ric' understanding of t'e brand construct
itself. Aet! despite an abundance of literature!
t'e definitive brand construct 'as yet to be
produced. 4ubsequent discussion e0plores
t'e brand construct itself! and 'ig'lig'ts t'e
specific relations'ip bet#een brands and
added value. ,'is relations'ip is considered
to be key to t'e variety of approac'es to
brand definition #it'in marketing! and is
currently an area of incompatibility bet#een
marketing and accounting.
,'e brand construct
,'e different approac'es to defining t'e
brand construct partly stem from differing
p'ilosop'ies (suc' as product3plus and
'olistic branding outlined belo#) and
stake'older perspective! i.e. a brand may be
defined from t'e consumers+ perspective
andBor from t'e brand o#ner+s perspective.
6n addition! brands are sometimes defined in
terms of t'eir purpose! and sometimes
described by t'eir c'aracteristics. ,'e
follo#ing e0amines t'e diverse approac'es to
brand definition. "rom t'is diversity an
integrated definition is dra#n.
,'e 1merican ;arketing 1ssociation
($%&C) proposed t'e follo#ing companyoriented
definition of a brand as(
1 name! term! sign! symbol! or design! or a
combination of t'em! intended to identify t'e
goods or services of one seller or group of
sellers and to differentiate t'em from t'ose of
,'is definition 'as been criticised for being
too product3oriented! #it' emp'asis on visual
features as differentiating mec'anisms
(1rnold! $%%?* Drainer! $%%5). espite t'ese
criticisms! t'e definition 'as endured to
contemporary literature! albeit in modified
form. -atkins ($%:&)! 1aker ($%%$)! 4tanton et
al. ($%%$)! oyle ($%%>) and 7otler et al. ($%%&)
adopt t'is definition. ibb et al. ($%%E) use t'e
/ennett ($%::) variant of t'e definition #'ic'
1 brand is a name! term! design! symbol or
any ot'er feature t'at identifies one seller+s
good or service as distinct from t'ose of ot'er
,'e key c'ange to t'e original definition are
t'e #ords ..any ot'er feature++ as t'is allo#s
for intangibles! suc' as image! to be t'e point
of differentiation. ,'e particular value of t'is
definition is t'at it focuses on a fundamental
brand purpose! #'ic' is differentiation. 6t
s'ould not be forgotten t'at brands operate in
a market environment #'ere differentiation
is crucially important. Fven #'ere
monopolies e0ist! companies may c'oose to
position t'eir brand(s) #it' a vie# to future
competition. ,'e ot'er key feature of t'is
definition is t'at it takes t'e corporate
perspective rat'er t'an emp'asising
consumer benefits.
1mbler ($%%?) takes a consumer3oriented
approac' in defining a brand as(
t'e promise of t'e bundles of attributes t'at
someone buys and provide satisfaction . . . ,'e
attributes t'at make up a brand may be real
or illusory! rational or emotional! tangible or
,'ese attributes emanate from all elements
of t'e marketing mi0 and all t'e brand+s
product lines. ,'e attributes of a brand are
created using t'e marketing mi0! and are
subject to interpretation by t'e consumer.
,'ey are 'ig'ly subjective. /rand attributes
are essentially #'at is created t'roug' brand
description (one interpretation of brand
equity) mentioned previously.
;any ot'er brand definitions and
descriptions focus on t'e met'ods used to
ac'ieve differentiation andBor emp'asise t'e
benefits t'e consumer derives from
purc'asing brands. ,'ese include (inter alia)
definitions and descriptions t'at emp'asise
brands as an image in t'e consumers+ minds
(/oulding! $%5&* ;artineau! $%5%! 7eller! $%%8)
brand personality (1lt and Griggs! $%::*
Goodyear! $%%8* 1aker! $%%&)! brands as value
systems (4'et' et al.! $%%$)! and brands as
added value (9evitt! $%&?! de D'ernatony and