Integrity and Honesty of Brands - Term Paper Example

Brand Integrity and Honesty An Analysis of Demographic Trends on Brand Sustainability Marketing is an arena where the basic norm is to promote visibility. Visibility, in turn, depends on positioning which again depends on branding and the equity commanded by the same. This has promoted organisations the world over to study and implement strategies that will accentuate brand equity as this is the greatest indicator of, and the base for, the calculation of returns on investment. While the consumer’s awareness of a brand, and the reasons for choosing an associated product may depend on various factors including peer reference, peer approval, or other social factors beyond the direct control of the brand’s investor, the brand’s marketing mix is definitely within the investor’s control, and something that demands big budget investment. Therefore, investor’s and researchers are always concerned about the actual effects and results of marketing components including advertisement, sales promotions, and company emblems - upon the consumer’s perception and their consequence upon brand equity. In the last decade, a lot of research has been dedicated to conceptualizing and measuring customer-based brand equity. However, apart from putting forth various influencing factors, no integrative framework has so far been developed to account for the complex psychological processes underlying the formation of customer-based brand equity. In this context, this paper attempts to propose such a framework by drawing on the theory of the Elaboration Likelihood Model in order to study the effect of demographic trends on the sustainability of a brand in terms of its honesty and integrity. The modern day consumers’ decision making as far a choice of a brand remains widely unquestioned as far as practical observations and research go. As discussed through our five areas of research earlier, there are a variety of models to conceptualize and measure "brand equity" in order to explain how brand equity is generated in the consumer’s mind. These models consist of a thorough analysis of each factor that influences the decision making process as well as several synoptic approaches examining the influence of different variables on brand equity are available (Kotler, 1997 , p. 443). This promotes a deeper understanding of the elements of brand identity. Brand Identity is that element of customer perception and awareness which has its focus in the results of a certain kind of projection through the brand equity building measures. This calls for an integrative model which will combine the basic elements of the brand identity and brand equity concepts so as to create a platform for the effective discussion of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. An integrative model will serve the following purpose: • provide as detailed summation of the various factors that influence the end user to add to the brand equity; and • study these factors in context of the psychological process taking place in the mind of the consumer as he is exposed to advertisements and other brand identity elements. Brand as a notion in the mind of the consumer: Effect of Demographic Trends While on one hand a brand may have visible, tangible, and even audible owing to a presence through its brand identity elements, a brand may also be defined as a conception of the brand in terms of the affect its identity has on the customer. (Aaker 1991, p. 7). In the first instance, there is a strong emphasis on the material side of the brand, regarding the consumers’ notion of the brand as a secondary criterion, while names and symbols are seen as implicating factors of what the brand represents, in the second definition. As per my five areas of research, the second view stands to logic when it comes to providing an explanatory model for the generation of brand equity through a psychological process. Therefore, in the modern context, "a brand is a name, symbol, design, or mark that enhances the value of a product beyond its functional purpose" (Farquhar, 1989). When studied as a perception born in the consumer’s mind we define the concept of ‘brand’ as the sum of associations that are evoked by names or symbols. This is the first step towards the creation of the proposed integrative model as using this definition implies that I am subscribing to the brand identity angle as a base for brand equity. At the same time, the scope of this definition should not merely serve to associate with the product. It must promote an association with the organization behind Mickey Mouse, by helping the customer relate the Mickey Mouse emblem with information on Disney. This forms an important part of the brand identity process and may result in the creation of enhanced brand equity. Three questions on the conceptualization of brand equity For the effective conception of "brand equity", the following three questions need to be answered: 1. Inclusion of the correct sources of brand equity To have an integrative base of source to define brand equity, one needs to start by separating customer-based and company-based brand equity. While Customer-based brand equity remains to play an important role, it is not the sole source of the company’s brand value. A brand may also hold its own in other markets. These markets include: • the capital markets, • the labour markets, • other factor markets • in dealings with political decision makers. The focus of this paper is on the following aspects which have been derived through our five areas of research to reach an integration of brand equity and brand identity. • Customer-based brand equity. In this paper, there is a strong emphasis on the definition of brand equity as the value the brand adds to a good or service for the end user. In this case, the trade does most of the work as far brand equity creation is concerned. If the final consumers lack specific brand preferences the trade may even become the only source of brand equity. • Current Brand Equity. This includes the brand value that is generated by the products presently on the market which helps calculate the potential value of a brand when new products are launched. 2. What units should be used to measure brand equity? The measurement of customer-based brand equity should have the following elements: • Evaluation must take place in non-monetary terms using such criteria as brand recall and recognition, sympathy for a brand or quality assessment. On this basis, an index value from which they derive a financial value for the company, must be set. (Swait 1998, p 131) • If there is monetary quantification, it must strictly be from a customer’s perspective (Tirole, 1990). According to our research areas, this approach is based on the consumer’s willingness to pay a price premium or on the higher price actually achieved by a given brand. Thus, with the above mentioned criteria for measure of brand equity, there is an inclination towards monetary quantification of customer-based brand equity through an emphasis on the profit reaped by the perception of the brand in the customer’s eyes. This kind of measurement leaves little room for any significant quality assessment to take place. The control parameters where include the reaction of a customer to the brand identity elements like logos, etc. Therefore, the contribution of quality assessment measures becomes minimal in case a brand is strong enough to command a higher price. In response to this, alternative approaches, such as deriving company-based equity from weighted indexes, share prices, "production costs" or from the market price of a brand, are either questionable from a methodical point of view or cannot be universally applied (Langer 1997). 3. Should brand equity be tangible or intangible? This third question pertains to that area of the research background which deals with the possible effects of preconscious or subconscious processing of advertising messages so as to facilitate brand recall. In this context, there has been a long standing debate the basic elements of the kind of brand equity to be employed. On one hand there is the question of objectively measurable advantages of a product which contributes to the theory of tangible brand equity. On the other hand, there is a separatist model that has focus in the added value generated by the brand as such. When regarding brand equity from a tangible perspective, for example, one might also rate the value of better seat covers offered by a specific automobile brand as compared to another, as brand equity. While the intangible view does not regard such a product advantage as part of brand equity, there is no consensus on the accurate position. (Wansink, 2000) This is where the approach towards brand recall comes in through a study of the perceptions. This might fuel the case of intangible equity to the extent of embedding it as a full fledged element in the integrative model for studying brand knowledge and equity. Therefore, the model aims to explain intangible brand equity where it may also be extended to a tangible brand equity concept. Brand Knowledge through Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): Honesty and Integrity A decade or so ago, branding meant little to people. Branding until then simply involved designing a logo or creating a corporate profile that will help identify it and differentiate it from other brands. In the past decade, things on the branding front have undergone a sea change. There is now a strong emphasis on brand building through the explicit communication of a vision in the whole organisation where strong brands are more than mere trademarks that people recognise. In the generation of a branding idea and implementation of the same to build a brand profile, organisations behind the strong brands have managed to build a brand identity. “Brand identity should help establish a relationship between the brand and the customer by generating a value proposition involving functional, emotional or self-expressive benefits” (Aaker 1991). In this context, a brand has risen beyond the contemporary demarcations where it was merely a name. The brand has come to signify the value addition in terms of the facts that it carves an identity for the organisation. Through this holistic approach, the designer’s role in the arena of brand building may be explained from three different perspectives. Here the designer’s primary designation is that of a problem solver or a decorator. He or she shows how the brand identity can be represented in products, commercials or graphics. The second task of the designer is as a strategist where he or she shows how a simple understanding of the brand as a product or a symbol in the organization can be achieved. This perspective has great significance as far as controlling the brand identity is concerned. Finally, the third job of the designer is to promote social values by demonstrating how brand building can do the society any good. References Aaker, David A. Managing Brand Equity. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1991. Farquhar, Peter H. (1989) Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research 1, 3: 24-33 Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Langer, Judith (1997). What Consumers Wish Brand Managers Knew. Journal of Advertising Research 37, no. 6. Swait, Joffre (1998). Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7, no. 2: 132 Tirole, J. (1990). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wansink, Brian and Ray, Michael L. (2000) Estimating an Advertisements Impact on Ones Consumption of a Brand. Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 6:106, Read More