The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.

htm

EJM 40,7/8

Strong brands and corporate brands

Mark J. Kay
Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to review the development of branding theory, particularly from the organizational context of building an effective corporate brand. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the literature on strong brands and the experience of several established brands. Findings The study nds that no coherent theory denes brand management tasks. Instead, paradigmatic cases of successful brands have come to dene branding processes the logic of the strong brand has shaped management branding practices. Difference and consistency are identied as the primary means of bringing about strong brands, yet these can be difcult to apply, particularly to corporate brands. Originality/value A new perspective of the social co-production of brands as meaningful representations, each with its own logic, is proposed as a managerially useful framework to research and frame brand development tasks. Given the development of anti-branding attacks, managers need to pay close attention to the new risks of managing corporate brands, and how they tie brands to their corporate social responsibility practices. Keywords Brands, Corporate branding, Brand management Paper type Conceptual paper

742
Received October 2004 Revised March 2005 Accepted December 2005

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 40 No. 7/8, 2006 pp. 742-760 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560610669973

Introduction Recent studies in the marketing literature make it appear that managers are singularly focused on the goal to build strong brands (Aaker, 1996; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Keller, 1998). The attention to branding is warranted since, to some extent, branding activities bridge most, if not all, of the important decisions that a marketing manager can face. Having a notably strong brand is a considerable managerial resource it can help establish distribution networks, enable brand extensions to aid customer acceptance of new products, and strengthen pricing exibility. Brand strength certainly impresses. In the Business Week list of the top brands, for instance, the Coke brand is worth a value of about $70 billion. In this context, brand-building tasks appear to be an important priority. Managers who manage lesser brands may be wondering about the effectiveness of their branding activities or reconsidering their management goals and priorities. While the consensus is that every organization needs to develop strong brands as an essential part of their business strategy, the precise means for bringing this about are fraught with both conceptual ambiguities (many of these are noted by Balmer (2001)) and practical difculties. The branding literature seems to suggest that developing strong brands is a worthy independent marketing goal, autonomous from others concerns of the organisation. But what is a strong brand and when is a brand strong? How does building strong brands relate to what has traditionally thought

to be the central marketing concerns, namely, to build long term value and protability by satisfying customers? Additional issues and concerns have also recently surfaced, namely dening what opportunities corporate brands offer. The role of the company name, and its relationship to product or service names can be critical component of brand communication strategies. Yet it is not clear how corporate brands can be effectively developed or how they can be used. The brand as a logical structure What is a strong brand? The prominent scholar of the brand, David Aaker, answers this question by telling the story of the brand. Kodak, Saturn, Nike each are described in terms of their particulars, their stories (Aaker, 1996). The case for each brand and its power is described, but not in terms of a specic theory that denes the brand as an entity. Neither are specic brand management tasks and processes described. Reasoning about brand management is largely shaped by paradigmatic examples. Branding is not rooted in theory, in the strict sense. Instead, paradigmatic examples or strong brand cases illustrate what happens to a brand and how it is formed. For example, Coke tried to change its formula that case and its aftermath singularly inuenced how managers think about brands. Since brand strength is a matter of consumer perception, the branding literature has been built in a manner that may be more akin to mythology than to science. The evidence for the strength or power of the brand is made by the success story of the brand. Yet the brand is not the same as a story or narrative; and the brand is not the same as the corporation that created it. Instead, the story is used to explain how brands hold power or strength by creating associated meanings in the minds of consumers. Strong brands have come to dene the eld of branding. Management principles to managing brands in the marketing literature are primarily based on analogies to strong brands. Brands are best understood in terms of a particular logical structure that channels consumer perceptions. Being names that are associated with experiences, brands can be considered logical structures that are akin to metaphors, allegories, or other representations. As associative representations, brands are used to explain why products and services have meaning for consumers. The function of a brand is to create meaning, and there are myriad ways of making meaning happen. The branding process, in effect, the brands strength, is built on a denite logic for each brand. In this sense, branding appears to have rules, but the branding literature provides elusive advice to managers. Anecdotal discussions of strong and powerful brands dominate the marketing literature, and this is where the problems arise different strong brands suggest different courses of action, different brand management principles. While Coke had problems changing it formula, there have been innumerable cases of new and improved revisions of product ingredients. Moreover, the brand, as a type of logical structure or representation, clearly differs from corporations as representations. Corporations may have stories, but these stories do not necessarily create strong corporate brands. Broadly stated, it can be said that corporations, in the forms that they are portrayed and represented to consumers,

Strong brands and corporate brands 743

EJM 40,7/8

744

seldom capture the imagination or create an immediate or meaningful connection. Instead, scandals such as Enron popularly suggest to the public that corporations are managed by greedy executives. Although corporate names can certainly be easily applied to the branding of a corporations products and services, corporate names seldom provide satisfactory solutions to the goal of communicating an effective or meaningful message about the brand. Furthermore, brands connected to corporate names may have increased liability should negative press occur. While there may be efciencies in using the corporate name to brand a variety of products, there could are also considerable risks in doing this. How to build a strong brand? If building a strong brand is a management priority, then how is this best accomplished? Developing the strength of a brand is not deemed to be easy according to Aaker (1996). The branding literature suggests that more advertising does not always or necessarily strengthen a brand, particularly brands that are badly positioned, associated with inferior products and services, or in cases where behaviors associated with products and services are thought to be in a state of change. Branding requires extensive analysis of market positioning, yet both the methods of analysis and the rules to follow in making branding decisions can be daunting tasks for managers. The problem is that brands appear to change and develop their power in several different ways. There is no single approach to developing a strong brand. Branding logic appears to vary for each individual brand. Cokes brand power is different from Starbucks, even though both are strong brands in the beverage category. While Coke is a long established brand, Starbucks emerged only recently, with a different logic as a retailer and beverage product. The contingencies or alternative paths to consider in building strong brands need to be better explored. As brands are studied and brand stories proliferate, the marketing literature on branding has raised some important new directions as to how companies can acquire brand strength. Rules for branding decisions have emerged from the study of the varying logics that create strong brands, and these t within different managerial and decision frameworks. However, the rules behind branding decisions that have emerged can appear inconsistent or even contradictory. This is particularly evident in the branding literature in discussions of differentiation. The logic of difference Conceptually, branding appears to be a necessary means of building sales by identifying products and services. Branding is the initial means to build consumer awareness by naming the offer, but also by distinguishing the offer from other similar products or services within an established category. Branding is about being different. Effective branding is frequently conceived or categorized in many marketing textbooks (e.g. Kotler, 2000; Perreault and McCarthy, 2003) under the rubric of a product decision within the marketing mix framework. When products or services are initiated and introduced, its brand need to be designed both literally as a design, but also as a symbol having memorable associations and strong meanings. The goal, or what can be called one of the primary logics of branding, is to

distinguish or differentiate a product or service within its category. Within this product decision framework, branding decisions have certainly been effectively applied to products and services for many decades. Strong brands, moreover, have quite a profound strategic impact they make customers loyal and less price-sensitive. Moreover, when brands are perceived as different, rms avoid direct or head to head competition. Being different seems critical, yet there are different views concerning how managers can effectively differentiate their brands, or even if being distinctive is enough. For example in a recent article, Keller et al. (2002) interestingly suggest that points of parity that are important to target groups need to be considered in managing a brand, as well as points of difference. Being different is inadequate if that difference is not a meaningful one. By this analysis, differentiation should not be the only goal. While the strongest brands are often considered unique in their product or service category, they suggest that being different, in itself, does not create a strong brand. If differentiation is not necessarily the primary goal, it is nevertheless an important consideration. Clancy (2001) notes that positioning may be disappearing among brand managers, and he considers this to be a problem. Brands are losing their distinctiveness as brands proliferate (Aufeiter et al., 2003). Brands are increasing in number particularly in packaged goods categories, and this makes promotional tasks more difcult. As the number of brands in a product category increases, it does not logically follow that brands are losing their meaning. The prevalence of weak brands in a product category may make it easier for new brands to enter and steal market share, however. In fact, the issue is illusive in the brand management literature since brand strength is not directly measured. Brand strength is inferred from the brands success. Brands now increasingly compete for attention, particularly as the number of brands increase and promotional expenditures competitively rise. Product-performance and service levels in many industries are converging, making it more difcult to sustain meaningful brands distinctions. The increasing number of brands in a category may minimally be an acceptable indirect indicator of decreases in the perceived strength of brands. By these measures, it appears that strong brands are in decline in some categories. Clancy and Trout (2002) reported that brands are becoming less distinct in 40 of the 46 categories that they studied. While it may not be enough to have a brand that is distinctive, many brand managers will certainly settle for this. For example, General Motors introduced Saturn under the slogan a different kind of company, a different kind of car. Simply a difference, in both the company and the product, was thought to be enough of a message to communicate. If difference is important, effectively communicating meaningful differences becomes harder in increasingly crowded markets. In the case of Saturn, the difference involved something other than its connection to its corporate name. Saturn carefully avoided communicating associations with the corporate GM brand. Being perceived as different is usually an important initial goal. Yet the discussion of strong brands in the marketing literature augurs something better. The goal of developing strong brands compels managers to hold greater ambitions for their

Strong brands and corporate brands 745

EJM 40,7/8

brands. The goal is no longer to simply one of creating differentiation, but to create or develop what is broadly conceptualized as brand meaning. By this reasoning, managing the brand by creating meaningful associations is the central task. The logic of brand meaning The branding literature increasingly suggests that the strength of a brand is not due to the strength of creating a difference in customer perceptions. Rather, brand strength is due to the meaning that the brand creates. Managing the meaning of the brand has been increasingly identied as a critical management task that is essential to a successful strong brand strategy. The marketing literature on branding has noted that brands can be powerful symbolic products, having considerable social impact, and provoking considerable loyalty. To explain this impact, brands have been conceptualized in terms of customer-centric communities (McAlexander et al., 2002; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). Brands that are characterized by widespread consumer awareness and positive associations affect their social contexts. By this logic, brands can attain power or strength by developing multiple social or community associations. The meaning of certain brands, for example the Harley Davidson motorcycle brand, arises from association to certain social groups that are highly loyal to the brand. Manifest demonstrations of loyalty to the Harley Davidson brand have been explored with ethnographic tools and documented with photographs (Yates, 1999). Strong brands do not appear to be the result of extreme behavior or marginal social groups, however. Strong brands are not simply a central consumption object of a community of loyalists. Brand meaning seems to cross social strata. Harley Davidson motorcycles have to shown to generate meaning and can have strength in other socioeconomic and community contexts. Kates (2004), for example, examines the adoption of the Harley Davidson brand and its change of meaning within a gay community context. Powerful brands are culturally signicant; they require analysis with a different type of logic, a logic that considers varying social and cultural contexts and the formation of deep or rich meanings. Analyses of brand meaning in this cultural sense can be drawn from sources such as semiotics, literary criticism, sociology, popular culture, and cultural studies. Holt (2004) goes so far to propose that these strong brands are akin to myths, powerfully interacting with identity formation. Management practices in relation to this view of powerful brands have also changed. Since brands are part of the popular imagination, they need to be cultivated in movies, music, and within other popular cultural products. Product placement within cultural products has certainly become an important strategy in managing certain brands product placement is much more than an alternative to traditional media advertising. The goal is to keep consumers actively engaged with the brand and to cultivate meaning. Strong brands become cultural symbols that are also related to a consumers self-identity. As a consequence, brand logos are sought out, bought, or collected on products quite apart from their original contexts. For example, Armani or Chanel logos are placed on t-shirts and sold at premium prices these products represent fashion

746

as brand names, rather than being actual fashion merchandise products. Similarly, Disney logos and characters appear on products and to enhance services, quite apart from Disneys target market in childrens toys or entertainment categories. Branding is increasingly tied to interactive and reciprocal processes. As brands have been recognized as vehicles that acquire a rich set of cultural meanings, marketing scholars speculate that brands management decisions must necessarily be constituted on a different basis. For example, Brown et al. (2003, p. 31) say that Brand meanings must be managed as community brands. These authors argue that social and cultural forces animate brand meanings and these are considerably more complex than prior conceptualizations suggest. Brands are more like discussions than they are like monologues. Brand managers have the difcult task of positioning brand images in a manner that is consistent with consumer perceptions and interpretations of their meaning. The problem of consistency The branding literature suggests that managers should apply a logic of consistency to branding decisions. Yet it is interesting to note that this consistency is increasingly difcult to sustain, particularly by managers of global brands. When brands are introduced to new cultural contexts, brand meanings are reinterpreted and change. With brands that cut across national boundaries, managers face the problem of managing meanings across cultures that interpret brand messages differently. Kates and Goh (2003) propose the intriguing concept of brand morphing to understand how managers encourage cultural meanings to develop in local community contexts. Brands can make emotional connections to consumers, and these can vary in different social and cultural contexts. Yet as brands morph, managers can lose touch with consumers. Organizations may lose control of brand identities. As new brand meanings develop, consistency of brand meaning across cultures becomes highly complicated. Consumers may derive different meaning from brands that those intended in the home market, putting organizations in a dilemma. Managers have to cope with the development of local meanings that may diverge from those in the originating market. In short, managers need to develop means to handle the problems of polysemy the mixed or multiple meanings for brands. Brands appeal differently among diverse social and cultural groups in a way that may not be consistent, making decisions about the brand rather complex. Increasingly, the marketing literature suggests that brands are social or cultural property (rather than company property) to the extent that consumers incorporate elements of brand meaning into their lives. Managers need to carefully consider the customer and other stakeholder meanings associated with their branding efforts to make appropriate marketing decisions. The attempt by managers at Coke to alter their formula in the 1980s, and the profound negative reactions that resulted from this effort, gives credibility to this view. Certainly power brands have to be managed with extraordinary care. Strong brand responses and new marketing issues The brand community approach to managing brands ts well with the new logic of marketing proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2004). To manage brands effectively,

Strong brands and corporate brands 747

EJM 40,7/8

748

managers have to monitor the response of consumers to their branding activities (McEnally and de Chernatony, 1999), and consider them co-creators or co-producers of the brand. Every brand exists by virtue of a continuous process whereby managers specify core values, and these values are interpreted and redened by customers. Within this perspective, managers need to take a different view of their promotional activities and their efforts to promote the brand. For example, managers need to nd a consistent t with all of the business decisions that could potentially affect consumer-initiated brand meaning. This represents a new logic in that branding decisions are constituted as much more complicated branding is culturally connected and socially signicant. Brands have value by connecting to meanings important to consumers. Strong brands have considerably more power to consumers than their ability to distinguish an offer from those of competitors they show additional effects as well. Recent neurological studies of brands, increasingly referred to in the business press as neuromarketing studies (Thompson, 2003), offer important new evidence of the power of brands. McClure et al. (2004) found that when consumers are aware of a brand during a consumption experience of a cola, brain scans revealed that neurological responses differed signicantly. Brain imaging found substantial difference in neurological response between products that were branded, namely Coke and Pepsi, in comparison to similar consumption experiences in which consumers were unaware of the brand. Clearly there is a different type or category of response to branding to consider here, namely branding as an experience enhancement. Consumers react differently to consumption of the product when they had knowledge of the brand. One can conclude from these studies that brand knowledge can affect more than product preferences or product choice alone. Strong brands have a curious quality. Brand knowledge affects the consumption experience itself. The neurological evidence suggests that strong brands can engender a complex cognitive response. These complex responses may, in fact, offer a means to dene strong brands. Strong brands are different in that they shape consumption experiences. The power and effects of brands to inuence consumption experiences requires further research focus. Brand meaning cannot be studied by neurological indicators alone. Strong brands need to be better dened they are clearly related to more than quick recognition. Existing measures of branding derived from traditional tests of advertising copy or other promotions, including recognition or advertising recall, may not capture some of the important dimensions that managers may seek in creating strong brands. Moreover, the meanings and associations that consumers connect to the cola beverages, Pepsi and Coke, may not be typical response to a branded product or service. The social and cultural prevalence of these products makes them atypical. These complex responses are not likely to be the result of the a few promotional activities. Understanding the responses to strong brands involves something more than understanding the promotional decisions affecting the brand or the development of an advertising campaign. The community context is now recognized as important, and brand managers need to recognize that they face new challenges.

Intangibles As noted, Vargo and Lusch (2004) argue that new perspectives within the marketing discipline have emerged that have a changed and revised the logic of managers. Especially relevant in the branding context is their view that marketing is focused on intangible resources, the co-creation of value, and relationships. The view of branding as providing a type of management service to the consumer that adds value is consistent with that view. In fact, brands are fundamentally intangible concepts, and hence represent a touchstone to this process view of the marketing discipline. This shift in logic to intangibles such as the brand has important implications for marketing, especially with respect to branding practices. Brands certainly constitute and create value to consumers, and this value can be construed as a type of social value that can be difcult to assess strictly in nancial terms. Brands offer managers opportunities, but managers may perceive and react to these opportunities differently. Moreover, intangibles such as the brand interact with other intangible elements including managerial practices and corporate organization to name a few. In addition, effective brand management depends upon innovation. Brand equity and the logic of leverage Aaker (1993) is best known as developing a perspective on branding that centered on understanding how to develop the equity of the brand as a useful managerial tool. Brand equity has considerable relevance to nancial managers, especially important in mergers and acquisitions. As brands have been recognized for their economic value, companies have sought out brands to buy for attractive managerial opportunities that they offer. Strong brands are considered attractive since they offer the ability to be leveraged or extended to other logical domains. While it is widely accepted that intangible assets are the major drivers of corporate value and growth in many or even most economic sectors, the measurement of these assets has eluded accountants and nancial analysts attempting to set specic values for brands. Determining the dollar value of a brand is not likely to become an exact science given that opportunities in managing brands are interpreted quite differently. Brand equity values vary according to opportunities and risks that are perceived and understood by managers, especially the value that brands hold in being able to increase demand. Some brands are thought to be attractive due to their potential uses other than simply providing a recognized name. For example, Proctor and Gamble (P&G) acquired the Old Spice fragrance brand in the 1990. Old Spice had been advertised in previous years with television commercials with the somewhat rustic imagery of returning sailors. Customers consisted mostly of elderly men, however, and the brand was thought to be in decline. The immediate practical value of the Old Spice brand acquisition was that it offered P&G a quick presence in a new product category, namely mens fragrances. The brand had a managerial value in that it offered an opportunity for brand extensions in the broader category of grooming products. Old Spice provided certain opportunities for brand leverage, but, in fact, this necessitated that P&G reposition the brand to appeal to a younger market. This compelled rather costly promotional programs. Numerous extensions of the Old Spice brand name (as well as additional sub-brand names) were accomplished in the process.

Strong brands and corporate brands 749

EJM 40,7/8

750

In 1993, for example, the Old Spice High Endurance deodorant was introduced. Other products, such as body wash, also took on the Old Spice name. The Old Spice brand did, in fact, help P&G increase sales, particularly in deodorants growing faster than the category and thus stealing share from competitors. Old Spice products reached sales of $86 million in the deodorant category, a number two rank by 2003 (Bittar, 2003). Was the Old Spice brand acquisition a successful strategy? Since the Old Spice brand required considerable advertising expenses, certainly managers expected an immediate payoff in terms of sales to justify these costs. Assessments of brands through the equity approach stress value that accrues as a result of consistent marketing investment in the brand, and the potential that brands offer to managers in developing sales and protability over time. When sales and prots only accrue over long time periods, however, brand strategies can be difcult to assess. The equity brand logic, utilizing analogies from nance, stresses the ability to leverage the brand to other products. From this perspective, a portfolio of brands is managed for the long run (Keller, 1999) to build their equity. While equity brand management approaches are directed toward understanding how brand value accrues over time and can increase company protability, outcomes depend critically upon management actions, not simply the brand name. Aaker proposes several factors that relate to valuations of brand equity, but these may be not sufciently specic and measurable to offer a concise nancial evaluation tool or guide management actions. They may not provide a good means to assess how a brand is able to increase demand, and thus form a solid basis for many marketing decisions. Moreover, some brands are associated with non-prot organizations it may be questionable to measure their value solely in nancial terms. The concept of brand equity, while important, relies upon and requires considerable managerial judgment as a basis for decisions. One needs to note that the Old Spice brand may have offered P&G some opportunities, yet all of these did not materialize every extension of the Old Spice name to a product was not successful. Old Spice Cool Contact wipes, for example, failed miserably. Promotions were not supported by rather meager sales results for the category (Bittar, 2003). The importance of brand management issues can be questioned, particularly given that prots have declined at P&G for several years. Vishwanath and Mark (1997) suggest that many brands may not, in fact, be very protable. Some companies may have developed a portfolio of brands acquired through mergers or acquisitions, yet many brands frequently do not deliver any measurable added nancial value. Decisions about using the Old Spice brand must be put in another context, however. The Old Spice brand offered a type of leverage different from that of simply extending the brand name to other products. Brand leverage should not simply be conceived as an efcient means of establishing a name on a product that customers can easily recognize or recall. P&G research into behavior in the mens grooming category suggested that mens grooming behavior could be aided by certain products. Managers leveraged the Old Spice name in sense that the brand was used as a means to affect mens grooming behavior. The goal was to advance the adoption of products such as body wash and

facial wipes, and the brand was a means to represent these behaviors as consistent with the imagery of the now sporty Old Spice brand. The brand provided a representational framework to affect behavior. Brands, as meaningful representations, provide a means to evoke or suggest particular behaviors. Brands have meanings that can be leveraged in the support of product and service offerings. Branding as differential impact Building upon the equity approach of Aaker, Keller (1998) denes a customer-based approach to branding. Keller (1998) developed a denition of branding as having a differential impact on marketing decisions. Meaningful differences between brands, including the issue of brand equity (Hoefer and Keller, 2003), are thought to relate to a broad multi-dimensional construct that they dene as consumer knowledge of the brand. In this framework, brand knowledge affects consumer response to multiple marketing variables. Hoefer and Keller (2003) summarize the advantages specically that strong brands offer to managers. They note that strong brands can be powerful in specic situations, particularly during times when consumers face uncertainty in choice. Brands are also powerful when consumers are making an initial choice, such as when consumers are young or if consumers are unfamiliar with the product category. Interestingly, while they note that the evidence suggests that numerous advantages accrue to strong brands, they suggest that less powerful brands may have certain small advantages in certain markets as well. They note that differential responses are not found for strong brands in certain instances. For example, new and less familiar brands may be able to achieve better incremental advantages by being able to be better dened. Strong brands offer advantages to managers, but the way that customer knowledge is summarized and dened by Hoefer and Keller (2003) within these studies is extremely broad. Customer knowledge of a brand is cited as being measurable by such variables as market share, loyalty, quality, and familiarity. However, this logic is indeterminate. Factors such as loyalty may be said to constitute all the favorable or desired attributes that result from having a powerful brand. The issue is how brands acquire these favorable attributes, how managers develop these factors by their decisions. In this context, a strong brand dened by customer knowledge is a tautology or a truism. Perhaps more valuable to analyzing the branding process is Hoefer and Kellers (2003) categorization of branding activities as having both direct and indirect effects, and their propositions as to the psychological basis of strong branding. They indicate that direct effects are thought to directly relate to choice, while indirect effects can affect condence or have other effects. They connect strong brands to learning and attention effects, and suggest that these effects may account for some of the power of strong brands. The logic of consistency These approaches to developing strong brands tend to follow logics of consistency that were noted above to be problematic. Within this logic, brand meanings need to be supported over time with similar or reinforcing messages. Keller (1999, p. 107) writes

Strong brands and corporate brands 751

EJM 40,7/8

752

that brand tactics should only be changed when there is evidence that they are no longer making the desired contributions to maintaining or strengthening brand equity. To develop brand equity and build positive associations, consistency may require reinforcement to revitalize a brand yet the options for doing this are not entirely clear. Keller (1999) notes that the choices are either to recapture lost sources of brand equity, or to nd new ones this solution to a declining brand, however, may be tautological, you either do the same thing or something different. The logic of consistency in branding appears to have certain limits, however. Keller suggests that managers may be forced to retire a brand. One key problem in branding is how consistency fails, how consistently dened brands can lose their luster. One way this can happen is that a new brand can emerge that gradually overpowers or overshadows older ones. Starbucks, for example, emerged in the coffee category as a new type of retail service business. The success of Starbucks allowed it to establish its own premium product brand, entering supermarkets with ground coffee, the Frappuccino ready to drink bottled coffee product, and ice cream products. Interestingly, the established product-centered brands in the ground coffee supermarket segment, such as Maxwell House and Folgers, remained comparatively idle. The brand equity approach is clearly relevant here, given the longevity of these ground coffee brands. One wonders, how did these coffee brands lose their equity or diminish in strength? Did consumers change perception of the ground coffee brands or change perceptions of the coffee category? Could P&G managers at Folgers revive the status of the brand as the company had accomplished with the Old Spice brand? Brown et al. (2003) suggest that reviving brands is a viable strategy. They write that marketers are in the midst of a retro revolution in which revivals of old brands and their images are a powerful management option (Brown et al., 2003, p.19). They offer a logic of retro branding in which revival of a brand depends depend upon consumers nostalgic leanings. The revival of retro brands does not mean that revival strategies can work in every instance. Certainly managers at Folgers did not anticipate competition from Starbucks. The questions of the appropriate management response by the ground coffee brands, brands that had consistently built their equity, to the Starbucks incursion into supermarkets these questions are not easily answered. It is interesting to note that product-focused brand managers (such as Folgers) were challenged by an incursion from a service category (Starbucks). Arguably, Starbucks altered expectations and perceptions of coffee consumption behavior; meaning was changed. Brands can represent and embody meaning, and this can alter behaviors that affect other associated products. Certainly Starbucks changed perceptions of the premium value of the category, and this was critical to protability (see Vishwanath and Mark, 1997). There may be new approaches that could be considered to handle these issues. It is clear that strong brands may certainly fail, however. General Motors retired the Oldsmobile brand name after attempts to revive the brand were unsuccessful. There is little consensus in the branding literature as to how to react to brand decline. Studies show that many brands that are not protable are still maintained (Kumar, 2003). The

logic of building brand equity through consistency and reinforcement of brand meaning appears to have its limits. The view that brands have stable equity is certainly challenged by these examples. The contingencies that delimit and dene the application of strong branding logic to management tasks need to be better dened. The so-called differential impact of brands on marketing decisions may change as perceptions of brands themselves change and brands morph, as noted above. Moreover, it may be difcult for managers to follow the logic of consistency as brands change meanings in new social and cultural contexts. Certainly the differential impact of brands can also change due to marketing innovations from competitors. Managers need to change marketing considerations as customer behaviors change. Corporate branding logic Strong brands create a logic; they form representations that channel perceptions. Yet these logics are subject to change as customers learn new behaviors by adopting new technologies or due to other innovations. New branding strategies have been proposed, namely the concern to brand products and services as they are associated to the originating corporations. This strategy responds to certain problems that face brand managers, namely adapting a mixed portfolio of brands (that may have been acquired through acquisitions or corporate restructuring) to an integrated advertising campaign. However, corporate brands are not necessarily the clear solution to many of these branding problems. What are strong corporate brands? All company names are, to some degree, corporate brands. Certainly, corporate brands can be managed, similar to product brands. Aaker (2004) suggests that corporate brands can be leveraged. However, this recommendation should really apply only to strong corporate brands. Building a strong corporate brand is fundamentally different from building product or service brands. Corporate branding and corporate identity targets are distinct from product and service branding targets. Companies like P&G offer many products that are not recognized by their consumers to be related to their organization. P&G is a strong company, with a powerful portfolio of brands, yet it is not a powerful corporate brand to its customers. P&Gs product brands may certainly affect the corporate brand; for example, valuation of the company may vary with brand equity valuations, at least to knowledgeable shareholders. However, it is easy to fall into a faulty and facile logic in which everything affects the brand name. The initial problem is that corporate brands are often quite distinct from product brands. Corporate brands frequently have little impact on consumers and may not affect demand for product or service offerings. Corporate branding communications can be directed at shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders, but these brand associations are directed at different logical domains. Corporate communications alone are not likely to create a strong brand in which brand meaning and brand community are cultivated. Although brands have a logic and a history that are rooted in their management, brands are not logically perceived to be the same as the companies that created them.

Strong brands and corporate brands 753

EJM 40,7/8

754

The logic of building a strong brand is tied to developing meaning and through distinctive brand associations that customers recognize. Companies cannot leverage their company name if corporate activities are not strongly associated with their products or services. Powerful corporate brands are dened by representative activities and associations that make their organizations visible and notable. In fact, few corporations embody such values. Building strong corporate brands Strong corporate brands are possible only when rms tie their products or services to activities that create meaningful associations or representations of the rm. Several strong corporate brands have emerged in consumer markets, and these provide examples of strong brand logic as the concept has been developed above. Strong corporate brands include socially responsible rms such as Patagonia, Stonyeld Farms, Ben & Jerrys, and The Body Shop. These are prime example of companies that are have made meaningful corporate value connections with customers. These rms started as niche businesses that appealed to a small segment of socially conscious customers with new types of products. Unlike other small businesses, the founders were clearly driven by values they held strong beliefs about business and they each carefully crafted mission or values statements to communicate their specic goals. These strong corporate brands are clearly distinctive. Their corporate values are credible, and were initially based in the values of their founders. Rather than run their businesses as competitive enterprises and simply give a share of their prots to charity or fund a charitable foundation, their founders put forward a social mission and political agenda, initiating programs to adopt socially responsible and sustainable practices. These rms inuenced consumers primarily by educating them, initiating an effort to shift patterns of consumption in specic ways. As strong brands, they affected the expectations, choices, behaviors, and the lifestyles of their core consumers. These rms created strong brands by connecting their products to a distinct social corporate mission and values that appealed to certain customer segments. Each of the founders was clearly driven by values; each held strong beliefs about business and they each carefully crafted mission or values statements to communicate their specic goals. The rapid growth of these brands and related evidence of customer loyalty suggest that this type of corporate branding strategy can be highly effective. Ben & Jerrys remains a strong brand, committed to its social mission, even after the company was sold to Unilever and the founders left the rm. Other corporate branding concerns In the above cases, strong corporate brands are dened by prominent organizational values and goals. Representations of the company, its portrayal in it actions, concerns, and symbols, are connected to people in the organization. What the corporation stands for or represents is clear. Moreover, the focus on corporate responsibility concerns and other efforts can also effectively motivate employees. A distinctive technology or a particular aesthetic can motivate corporate brands as well. Apple Computer promotes its particular type of technology that many people nd inspiring. Like other strong brands, however,

corporate brands can also be hard to keep consistent and focused. As their sponsorship or representation of the corporate cause changes, as technology changes, even as aesthetics change, brand meaning can become less distinct and less appealing. Corporate brands need not be solely targeted at stakeholders, while the product brand focuses on consumers (see Balmer, 2001; de Chernatony, 2002). Corporate brand values should be directed with a management focus related to a common corporate identity. Stakeholders may have different points of contact with the employees of an organization and this can raise branding problems. As van Rekom (1997) notes, employees may dissociate themselves from corporate advertising campaigns, and even oppose them. Corporate branding may operate in opposition to employee values and other stakeholder concerns, and this is likely to cause dissonance. Similarly, consumers can have problems with corporate brands. Many consumers have come to view companies as driven by solely by greed, or otherwise view their promotion activities as self-serving sales pitches. Many consumers see cause-related promotions as simple attempts to raise sales, not attempts to make enduring social contributions. Corporate representations tied to brands can become a liability, not an asset. Corporate brands are not the same as corporate identities. The latter are shaped from a mix of professional sub-cultures, and are conceived to be multidisciplinary in scope (Balmer, 2001). Developing an identity, like branding, involves similar issues of communicating a message, differentiating a product or service, and enhancing the image of the target, yet the target of identity building focuses inward, rather than outward on the customer focus of branding. In the quest to develop consistent corporate identities, managers face similar problems and challenges as brand managers, namely the problem of managing multiple meanings. Gioia et al. (2000) argue that identities should be conceived as changing and relatively uid, much as brands are conceived here by the new marketing model of Vargo and Lusch (2004). The mix of brands and corporate identities may be in ux, but an organizations multiple identities nevertheless can be managed (Pratt and Foreman, 2000). Corporate branding has been identied as the way in which an organization communicates its identity. The issues can get confusing, corporate image and corporate reputation while being distinct concepts, are easy to confound with branding issues. New corporate branding logics New concerns and management rationales have arisen that have altered the singular approach to developing a strong brand at the corporate level. Managers want to make appropriate corporate branding decisions, but also have concerns to establish and develop corporate identities and enhance their corporate reputations. For example, Greyser (1999) notes that executives in France and Germany put more emphasis than US executives on recognizing corporate social responsibilities and this can have an impact on managers preferences in doing business with another company. Thus, the management framework for building a corporate identity and strengthening the corporate brand may differ in terms of its particular management frame. The concerns may vary: to enhance morale, to build support for a company in times of controversy, or to affect other aspects of corporate behavior. While certain corporate branding activities may be relatively weak in affecting sales, there may be

Strong brands and corporate brands 755

EJM 40,7/8

other important benets in developing corporate identities and corporate brands. If corporate brands are inconsistent with employee and other stakeholder values, problems may develop. Corporate identity should consistently relate to what is central to the organization, and these should support corporate branding. Strong brands and their consequences Strong brands powerfully affect consumer experiences. As a consequence, brands can also be targets of attack. Management of brands has run into difculty, in that strong brands have been subject to criticism, consumer attack, or anti-branding campaigns. Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters magazine, proposes that branding has some overwhelming negative aspects, that reality is clearly different from promoted brand images. He argues that pervasive mass advertising that promotes brands can drug the mind, destroy the imagination, and compromise consumers means of envisioning the future (Lasn, 1999) Anti-branding logic The logic of anti-branding is that branding can confuse consumer values and identity concepts. In this context, Lasn (1999) argues that the USA can be understood as a multi-trillion dollar brand, no different from McDonalds, Marlboro, or General Motors. This brand image is sold to consumers worldwide, becoming associated with democracy and freedom. He concludes that like cigarettes that are sold as symbols of vitality and youthful rebellion, the American reality is very different from its brand image. This anti-branding message is itself a sophisticated branding tactic. In a similar fashion, MTV harnesses negative messages to the benet of promoting new and alternative brands to lead and promote new youth cultures (see PBS, n.d.). MTV is quite procient at this they seek out bleeding edge youth groups, based on ethnographic studies and other research efforts to understand teens, to craft powerful messages to appeal to their target viewers. Anti-branding messages have a denite logic and powerfully appeal to consumers. Anti-branding tactics have clearly been a problem for managers, for example McDonalds had a McCruelty campaign waged against them by PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Coping with this issue led McDonalds to re-examine policies as to its treatment of animals. McDonalds changed its practices, both in reaction to legitimate consumer concerns, and to avoid continued negative publicity that could have powerfully affected its brand. Strong brands, as opposed to ordinary brands or weak brands, may be targets of anti-branding and other attacks, and this clearly raises new issues for which managers may be ill-prepared. Problems with branding that have recently appeared may, to some degree, be the result of widespread adoption of successful tactics that brand managers have employed. Brands have become ubiquitous. Some complain that brand presence is unwanted, for example, promoting brands in educational materials in schools. The incursion of commercial brands meanings to what many consider sacred spaces such as schools may provoke a backlash. Holt (2002) observes that it is strong brands that primarily come under attack. If managers utilize strong brands to

756

manipulate meanings, rather than adopt co-production strategies, brands values may be at odds with consumers. Clearly, branding motives have come under attack on multiple fronts and for some quite legitimate reasons (Klein, 2002). Consumer researchers are just beginning to examine legitimacy concerns in connection with brands (Kates, 2004). Holt (2002) develops a theory of consumer culture and branding that explains why current branding practices have provoked a vigorous anti-business response. He documents that marketers have been seen as manipulative since brand managers have gradually adopted a logic of using brands coercively as symbols, which Holt describes along the lines of a cultural engineering metaphor. Holt (2002) argues that the anti-branding movement has important implications for managers, it is forcing companies to build lines of obligation that link brand and company. He envisions a postmodern consumer culture in which brands are useful entities, not coercive blueprints to be followed, and the goal is to inspire authenticity. Corporate branding opportunities and alternatives One strategy to react to these anti-branding attacks is for rms to promote corporate brands through citizenship and responsibility programs. Strong corporate brands, associated with specic values and corporate responsibility goals, may be better able to cope with anti-branding attacks. Hoefer and Keller (2003) suggest three strategies to connect brands to social responsibility programs, namely through self-branded, co-branded, and jointly branded programs. Linking corporate responsibility to a brand may be the rst step to building a strong corporate brand that is connected to consumer values. Yet programs of this kind may have to follow the branding logic of consistency to build brand equity and develop strength. Certain ethical issues are raised in these tactics, however. The issues of leveraging a social cause to the service of a brand may call for some further reection by executives. Brand managers certainly try to form emotional connection to their brand, but using deeply felt emotional connections to causes such as promoting social justice, better health, or a sustainable environment, may still be perceived by customers as exploitive if the only motive is to increase corporate power and prot. Building better corporate brands through corporate responsibility programs, without strict requirements for the bottom line, may be more credible. Even weak corporate responsibility branding efforts may be in line with good citizenship and aid corporate identity and reputation. As concerns for environmental sustainability are getting better known, corporations need to recognize that there are new goals that should be pursued simply for their own sake. Conclusions and challenges for strong brands This paper has examined strong brand logic. As a caveat, however, it should be noted that managers that follow branding practices, based solely on the logic of strong brands, can get into serious trouble. While the branding literature has built its logic through an examination of strong brand examples and has much to teach, strong brands provide rather elusive advice to marketers. Strong brand cases are drawn from multiple sources and industries and these may not have direct or explicit relevance to managers attempting to establish a brand. Examples of dominant and powerful

Strong brands and corporate brands 757

EJM 40,7/8

758

brands, fraught with multiple social meanings, may be deceptive in the difcult task of establishing or managing a brand. Strong brands, particularly those in unrelated categories, may provide poor examples for a manager to build a framework to make protable or productive decisions about their brands. Clearly, brand meaning develops in a way that is specic to the category. The managerial rules of branding practices need to be carefully considered. Brands are a type of logical structure or representation, and they acquire power in different ways. Brand managers need to identify the appropriate branding logic. Initially, the product logic of branding suggests that brands are created to identify the product, to make it more or less distinctive from other products in the category. Managers perceive the need to establish difference as an important initial priority, but this goal may change as brands acquire meaning and strength. The logic of consistency is identied as the primary means of bringing about strong brands, yet this can be difcult to apply, particularly to corporate brands. The branding literature suggests that managers tend to build equity over time. New tactics for communicating brands now range from placement of messages in mobile phone displays, to conversing in internet chat rooms, and making product placements within video games. While strong brands are characterized as consistent and managed for the long term, new brands such as Starbucks and Google can sometimes achieve rapid ascendancy and have an important cultural signicance. Brands that are recognized as inuencing experience may reach a point when managers may need to consider strong branding logic. This logic suggests that powerful brands need to be managed on a new basis, as culturally and socially distinct entities connected to communities. Brands may become cultural symbols or icons, leaving managers with new obligations to their communities. Finally, brands may come under attack. Corporate branding, connecting the organization to strong corporate responsibility values may provide a means for corporations to deal with some of the anti-branding attacks that affect strong brands. If one views strong brands as community property, and if consumers are co-producers of brands within a new paradigm, then brand management needs to take on different characteristics in response to these issues. Brand managers clearly have difcult and important challenges to face in coping with the transformation of brands.
References Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY. Aaker, D. (2004), Leveraging the corporate brand, California Management Review, Vol. 41 Nos 3, Spring, pp. 102-24. Aaker, D. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY. Aufeiter, N., Elzingam, D. and Gordon, J. (2003), Better branding, McKinsey Quarterly, No. 4. Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91. Bittar, C. (2003), Brand builders: Old Spice does new tricks, Brandweek, June 2, p. 17. Brown, S., Kozinets, R. and Sherry, J. (2003), Teaching old brands new tricks: retro branding and the revival of brand meaning, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, July, pp. 19-33.

Clancy, K. (2001), Whatever happened to positioning?, available at: www.copernicusmarketing. com/about/docs/positioningpaper.PDF (accessed 10 October 2004). Clancy, K. and Trout, J. (2002), Brand confusion, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 22-3. Gioia, D., Schultz, M. and Corley, K. (2000), Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-81. Greyser, S. (1999), Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation, Corporate Communications, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 177-82. Hoefer, S. and Keller, K. (2003), The marketing advantages of strong brands, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 6, August, pp. 421-45. Holt, D. (2002), Why do brands cause trouble? a dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, June, pp. 70-90. Holt, D. (2004), How Brands Become Icons, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA. Kates, S. (2004), The dynamics of brand legitimacy: an interpretive study in the gay mens community, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 455-65. Kates, S. and Goh, C. (2003), Brands morphing, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 Nos 1, Spring, pp. 59-68. Keller, K. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Keller, K. (1999), Managing brands for the long run, California Management Review, Vol. 41 Nos 3, Spring, pp. 102-24. Klein, N. (2002), No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, Picador, New York, NY. Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kumar, N. (2003), Kill a brand, keep a customer, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 12, December, pp. 84-96. Lasn, K. (1999), Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America, Eagle Books, New York, NY. McClure, S., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K., Montague, L. and Montague, P. (2004), Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks, Neuron, Vol. 44, pp. 379-87. McEnally, M. and de Chernatony, L. (1999), The evolving nature of branding: consumer and managerial considerations, Academy of Marketing Science Review, available at: http:// oxygen.vancouver.wsu.edu/amsrev/theory/mcenally02-99.html Muniz, A.M. and OGuinn, T. (2001), Brand community, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, March, pp. 412-32. PBS (n.d.), The merchants of cool, Frontline, PBS program and report, available at: www.pbs. org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/ (accessed 9 September 2004). Perreault, W. and McCarthy, E. (2003), Essentials of Marketing, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA. Pratt, M. and Foreman, P. (2000), Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-49. Thompson, C. (2003), Theres a sucker born in every medial prefrontal cortex, New York Times, October 23, pp. 54-65. van Rekom, J. (1997), Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 410-20. Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 1, January, pp. 1-17.

Strong brands and corporate brands 759

EJM 40,7/8

Vishwanath, V. and Mark, J. (1997), Your brands best strategy, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 123-31. Yates, B. (1999), Outlaw Machine: Harley-Davidson and the Search for the American Soul, Little, Brown, New York, NY. Further reading Capron, L. and Hulland, J. (1999), Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and general marketing management expertise following horizontal acquisitions: a resource-based view, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 2, April, pp. 41-53. de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003), Creating Powerful Brands, 3rd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Suchman, M. (1995), Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 3, July, pp. 571-609. About the author Mark J. Kay is an Associate Professor in the Marketing Department at Montclair State University in New Jersey, USA. He studied at the University of Chicago and received his PhD in Marketing from Baruch College, CUNY. His current research focuses on branding, CSR, and retail marketing strategies. During the 1990s, he taught seminar programs on marketing and supply chain management in Central Europe, and developed programs in the marketing of AIDS prevention. Mark J. Kay can be contacted at: kaym@mail.montclair.edu

760

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints