Brand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:58, 18 May 2008 edit67.170.33.167 (talk) →Co-Branding ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:36, 18 May 2008 edit undoBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,403 edits Yikes, what happened to the intro? Reverting marketing bullshit to something more approaching an encyclopedic definition. Taken from Jan 24, 2008.Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Refimprove\|date=November 2007}}
	{{otheruses}}		{{otheruses}}
	{{marketing}}		{{marketing}}
			{{wikibookspar\|\|Marketing}}
			A '''brand''' is a collection of images and ideas representing an economic producer; more specifically, it refers to the concrete symbols such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the accumulation of experiences with the specific product or service, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of ], ], and media commentary. A brand is a ] embodiment of all the information connected to a company, ] or ]. A brand serves to create associations and ]s among products made by a ]. A brand often includes an explicit ], fonts, ], ]s, ] which may be developed to represent implicit ], ], and even ].

			The brand, and "branding" and ] have become increasingly important components of ] and the ], now being described as "cultural accessories and personal philosophies". <ref name="nologo">] (2000) '']'', Canada: Random House, ISBN 0-676-97282-9</ref>
	'''Brands''' were originally developed as labels of ownership: ], ], ], ]. However, today it is what they do for people that matters much more, how they reflect and engage them, how they define their aspiration and enable them to do more. Powerful brands can drive success in competitive and financial markets, and indeed become the organization's most valuable assets.

	== ~~Etymology~~ ==		==Concepts==
			Some marketers distinguish the psychological aspect of a brand from the experiential aspect. The experiential aspect consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known as the '''brand experience'''. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the '''brand image''', is a symbolic construct created within the minds of people and consists of all the information and expectations associated with a product or service.

			Marketers engaged in branding seek to develop or align the expectations behind the brand experience, creating the impression that a brand associated with a product or service has certain qualities or characteristics that make it special or unique. A brand image may be developed by attributing a "personality" to or associating an "image" with a product or service, whereby the personality or image is "branded" into the consciousness of consumers. A brand is therefore one of the most valuable elements in an ] theme, as it demonstrates what the brand owner is able to offer in the ]. The art of creating and maintaining a brand is called ]. This approach works not only for consumer goods B2C (Business-to-Consumer), but also for B2B (Business-to-Business), see ] & ].
	''Brand'', along with many modern-language lexemes such as English ''burn'' and ''brandy'', German ''brennen'', and those in many European languages based on the root ''therm-'', are all ultimately related to the ideas of warmth, heat, burning, etc., and descend from an Indo-European root that has been reconstructed as /g<sup>w</sup>her/.<ref>{{cite book \| author = Houghton Mifflin \| authorlink = Houghton Mifflin \| title = The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language \| edition = 4th ed \| publisher = Houghton Mifflin \| date = 2000 \| location = Boston and New York \| pages = page 2031 \| url = http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/epub/ahd4.shtml \| isbn = 978-0-395-82517-4}}</ref>

			A brand which is widely known in the marketplace acquires '''brand recognition'''. Where brand recognition builds up to a point where a brand enjoys a critical mass of positive sentiment in the marketplace, it is said to have achieved '''brand franchise'''. One goal in brand recognition is the identification of a brand without the name of the company present. For example, ] has been successful at branding with their particular script font (originally created for Walt Disney's "signature" logo), which it used in the logo for ].
	In the ] language, the noun ''brond'' is first attested from the ] ] (circa 1000) meaning "destruction by fire."<ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref><ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref>

			''']''' measures the total value of the brand to the brand owner, and reflects the extent of brand franchise. The term '''brand name''' is often used interchangeably with "brand", although it is more correctly used to specifically denote written or spoken linguistic elements of a brand. In this context a "brand name" constitutes a type of ], if the brand name exclusively identifies the brand owner as the commercial source of products or services. A brand owner may seek to protect ] rights in relation to a brand name through trademark registration.
	In Old Viking language, that is still preserved in Icelandic, brand comes from 'brenndur' or brennimerktur, meaning branded with a warm iron. Actually the word brennimerktur means: 'brenni' : burned and 'merktur' : marked. i. e. marked with a symbol burned on.

			''']''' is a concept that links together the ideas that the brand is experiential, that it is not just about the experiences of customers/potential customers but all stakeholders and the idea that businesses are essentially more about creating value through creating meaningful experiences than generating profit. Economic value comes from businesses’ transactions between people whether they be with customers, employees, suppliers or other stakeholders. But for such value to be created people first have to have positive associations with the business and/or its products and services and be energised to behave positively towards them – hence brand energy.
	Throughout the ages, ''brand'' had been used in figurative and transferred senses to mean "a person delivered from imminent danger," "the torches of Cupid and the Furies," and "Jove's or God's or Phoebus' brand."<ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref>

			It has been defined as: ‘The energy that flows throughout the system that links businesses and all their stakeholders and which is manifested in the way these stakeholders think, feel and behave towards the business and its products or services’
	Brand had also been figuratively applied since the late 16th century to criminalize people (as in disgrace, a stigma, or mark of infamy) and in the sense of ''firebrand'' since the 17th century.<ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref>


	The idea of marking things, people, or animals by burning identifying marks onto them is clearly an ancient one.

	While described as a physical impression of ownership on livestock by way of hot-iron branding since the mid-17th century, modern senses of brand as used in business began to arise in the early 19th century when the term was figuratively extended to ]s and ]s. During this time, brands were imprinted on casks of wine, timber, and other goods except textile fabrics.<ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref>

	During the 19th century in primarily the United States, hot irons used for marking livestock and cauterizing wounds were called brands, and later cattle and other livestock were also referred to as brands. A '''brand blotter''' was a thief who stole, and removed marks of ownership from, cattle.<ref>Oxford English Dictionary</ref>

	== History ==

	]

	In the field of marketing, brands originated in the nineteenth century with the advent of packaged ]. The first registered brand was the red triangle registered by ] beer, as the British were the first to introduce a law for trade mark registration. ] moved the production of household items, such as soap, from local communities to centralized ]. When shipping their items, the factories would ] their logotype insignia on the shipping barrels. These factories, generating mass-produced goods, needed to sell their products to a wider range of customers, to a customer base familiar only with local goods, and it turned out that a generic package of soap had difficulty competing with familiar, local products.

	The fortunes of many of that era's brands, such as ] rice and ] breakfast cereal, illustrate the problem. The packaged goods manufacturers needed to convince buyers that they could trust in the non-local, factory product. ], ], ], ], and ], were the first American products to be branded to increase the customer's familiarity with the products.

	In 1879, the U.S. Congress passed a federal trademark statute that was aimed at protecting established trademarks and thus to prevent the defrauding of consumers<ref>Robert A Peterson, Karen H Smith, Philip C Zerrillo. ''Academy of Marketing Science''. Greenvale: Spring 1999. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; p. 255</ref>. The Congress' actions were struck down by the Supreme Court which cited that trademark protection would unnecessarily interfere with intrastate commerce <ref>Robert A Peterson, Karen H Smith, Philip C Zerrillo. ''Academy of Marketing Science''. Greenvale: Spring 1999. Vol. 27, Iss. 2; p. 255</ref>. In was not until 1917 with the case, Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney Co., that American courts solidified trademark protection<ref>Muller, Kimberly M. 1993. "Dilution Law: At a Crossroad? A Position of Advocacy in Support of Adoption of a Preemptive Federal Antidilution Statute." ''The Trademark Reporter'' 83 (March-April): 173-185</ref>. Around 1900, ] published a house advert explaining trademark advertising, in an early commercial description of what now is known as 'branding'. Soon, companies adopted ]s, ]s, and ] that were heard on ] and seen in early ]. By the 1940s, Mildred Pierce manufacturers recognized how customers were developing relationships with their brands in the social, psychological, and anthropological senses. From that, manufacturers quickly learned to associate other kinds of brand values, such as youthfulness, fun, and luxury, with their products. Thus began the practice of 'branding', wherein the customer buys ''the brand'' rather than the product. This trend arose in the 1980s 'brand equity mania'.<ref name="nologo">] (2000) '']'', Canada: Random House, ISBN 0-676-97282-9</ref> In 1988, ] bought ] for six times its paper worth. It is believed the purchase was made because the Phillip Morris company actually wanted the Kraft brand rather than the company and its products.

	], ], labeled ], is described by Klein (2000) as the death day of the brand.<ref name="nologo" /> On that day, Phillip Morris declared a 20 per cent price cut of ] in order to compete with cheaper price cigarettes. At the time, Marlboro cigarettes were notorious for their heavy advertising campaigns, and nuanced brand image. On that day, the prices of many branded companies ] stocks fell: <ref name="nologo" /> ], ], ], ]; seemingly the signal of the beginning 'brand blindness'(Klein 13).

	== Concepts ==

	Marketers engaged in branding seek to develop or align the expectations behind the brand experience, creating the impression that a brand associated with a product or service has certain qualities or characteristics that make it special or unique. A brand image, a concept introduced in 1955 by Burleigh B. Gardner and Sidney J. Levy<ref>Gardner, Burleigh B., and Sidney J. Levy. 1955. The Product and the Brand. ''Harvard Business Review'' (March): 33-39.</ref>, may be developed by attributing a "personality" to or associating an "image" with a product or service, whereby the personality or image is "branded" into the consciousness of consumers. A brand is therefore one of the most valuable elements in an ] theme. The art of creating and maintaining a brand is called ].

	A brand which is widely known in the marketplace acquires brand recognition. When brand recognition builds up to a point where a brand enjoys a critical mass of positive sentiment in the marketplace, it is said to have achieved brand franchise. One goal in brand recognition is the identification of a brand without the name of the company present. For example, ] has been successful at branding with their particular script font (originally created for Walt Disney's "signature" logo), which it used in the logo for ].

	"DNA" refers to the unique attributes, essence, purpose, or profile of a brand and, therefore, a company. The term is borrowed from the biological ], the molecular "blueprint" or genetic profile of an organism which determines its unique characteristics.

	The act of associating a product or service with a brand has become part of ]. Most products have some kind of brand identity, from common ] to ] clothes. In non-commercial contexts, the marketing of entities which supply ideas or promises rather than product and services (e.g. ] or religious organizations) may also be known as "branding".		The act of associating a product or service with a brand has become part of ]. Most products have some kind of brand identity, from common ] to ] clothes. In non-commercial contexts, the marketing of entities which supply ideas or promises rather than product and services (e.g. ] or religious organizations) may also be known as "branding".

			Consumers may look on branding as an important ] aspect of products or services, as it often serves to denote a certain attractive quality or characteristic. From the perspective of brand owners, branded products or services also command higher prices. Where two products resemble each other, but one of the products has no associated branding (such as a ], store-branded product), people may often select the more expensive branded product on the basis of the quality of the brand or the reputation of the brand owner.
	The ultimate accolade for a brand is to be at the top of its category. Once this has happened, however, it risks becoming generic and being unable to act as a brand - the ability to distinguish goods from different producers.

			Advertising spokespersons have also become part of some brands, for example: ] of ] toilet tissue and ] of ]’s.
	=== Brand equity ===
	] measures the total value of the brand to the brand owner, and reflects the extent of brand franchise. ''Brand name'' is often used interchangeably with ''brand'', although it is more correctly used to specifically denote written or spoken linguistic elements of a brand. In this context a brand name constitutes a type of ], if the brand name exclusively identifies the brand owner as the commercial source of products or services. A brand owner may seek to protect ] rights in relation to a brand name through trademark registration.

			==Brand monopoly==
	=== Attitude branding ===
			In economic terms the "brand" is, in effect, a device to create a "monopoly" — or at least some form of "imperfect competition" — so that the brand owner can obtain some of the benefits which accrue to a monopoly, particularly those related to decreased price competition. In this context, most "branding" is established by promotional means. However, there is also a legal dimension, for it is essential that the brand names and trademarks are protected by all means available. The monopoly may also be extended, or even created, by patent, copyright, trade secret (e.g. secret recipe), and other sui generis intellectual property regimes (e.g.: Plant Varieties Act, Design Act).

			In all these contexts, retailers' "own label" brands can be just as powerful. The "brand", whatever its derivation, is a very important investment for any organization. ] (Rank Hovis McDougall), for example, have valued their international brands at anything up to twenty times their annual earnings.
	Attitude branding is the choice to represent a feeling, which is not necessarily connected with the product or consumption of the product at all. Marketing labeled as attitude branding includes that of ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name="nologo" />

			==Branding policies==
	=== Brand monopoly ===
			There are a number of possible policies.

			===Company name===

			Often, especially in the industrial sector, it is just the company's name which is promoted (leading to one of the most powerful statements of "branding"; the saying, before the company's downgrading, "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM").
	In economic terms the "brand" is a device to create a ]—or at least some form of "imperfect competition"—so that the brand owner can obtain some of the benefits which accrue to a monopoly, particularly those related to decreased price competition. For example, the Coca Cola corporation will probably never have a monopoly on cola-flavored soda pop, but it can have a monopoly on ''its own brand of'' cola-flavored soda pop. In this context, most "branding" is established by promotional means. There is also a legal dimension, for it is essential that the brand names and trademarks are protected by all means available. The monopoly may also be extended, or even created, by patent, copyright, trade secret (e.g. secret recipe), and other sui generis intellectual property regimes (e.g.: Plant Varieties Act, Design Act).

			In this case a very strong brand name (or company name) is made the vehicle for a range of products (for example, Mercedes or Black & Decker) or even a range of subsidiary brands (such as Cadbury Dairy Milk, Cadbury Flake or Cadbury Fingers in the United States).
	In all these contexts, retailers' "own label" brands can be just as powerful. The "brand", whatever its derivation, is a very important investment for any organization. ] (Rank Hovis McDougall), for example, have valued their international brands at anything up to twenty times their annual earnings. Often, especially in the industrial sector, it is just the company's name which is promoted (leading to one of the most powerful statements of "branding"; the saying, before the company's downgrading, "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM").

	=== ~~Brand extension~~ ===		===Individual branding===
			{{Main\|Individual branding}}

			Each brand has a separate name (such as Seven-Up or Nivea Sun (Beiersdorf)), which may even compete against other brands from the same company (for example, Persil, Omo, Surf and Lynx are all owned by Unilever).
	{{main\|brand extension}}

			==Derived brands==
	An existing strong brand name can be used as a vehicle for new or modified products; for example, many fashion and designer companies extended brands into fragrances, shoes and accessories, home textile, home decor, luggage, (sun-) glasses, furniture, hotels, etc. ] extended its brand to ice cream, ] to shoes and watches, ] to a restaurant guide, ] and ] to personal hygiene. ] extended its brand from tires to many other rubber products such as shoes, golf balls, tennis racquets and adhesives.

			In this case the supplier of a key component, used by a number of suppliers of the end-product, may wish to guarantee its own position by promoting that component as a brand in its own right. The most frequently quoted example is Intel (in the PC market, with the slogan 'Intel Inside'), but the sweetener Aspartame used much the same approach (to lock in the soft drinks manufacturers who represented a major market for the product).
	There is a difference between brand extension and line extension. When ] launched "Diet Coke" and "Cherry Coke" they stayed within the originating product category: non-alcoholic carbonated beverages. ] (P&G) did likewise extending its strong lines (such as Fairy Soap) into neighboring products (] and Fairy Automatic) within the same category, dish washing detergents. These are examples of line, not brand extensions.

	=== Brand ~~orientation =~~==		==Brand development==

			In terms of existing products, brands may be developed in a number of ways:
	] is a deliberate approach to working with brands, both internally and externally. The most important driving force behind this increased interest in strong brands is the accelerating pace of globalization. This has resulted in an ever-tougher competitive situation on many markets. A product’s superiority is in itself no longer sufficient to guarantee its success. The fast pace of technological development and the increased speed with which imitations turn up on the market have dramatically shortened ]s. The consequence is that product-related ]s soon risk being transformed into competitive prerequisites. For this reason, increasing numbers of companies are looking for other, more enduring, competitive tools – such as brands. Brand Orientation refers to "the degree to which the organization values brands and its practices are oriented towards building brand capabilities” (Bridson & Evans, 2004)

	=== ~~Multiple brands~~ ===		===Brand extension===

			The existing strong brand name can be used as a vehicle for new or modified products;
	In a market fragmented with many brands, a supplier can choose to launch new brands apparently competing with its own, extant strong brand (and often with an identical product), simply to obtain a greater share of the market that would go to minor brands. The rationale is that having 3 out of 12 brands in such a market will garner a greater, overall share than having 1 out of 10 (even if much of the share of these new brands is taken from the existing one). In its most extreme manifestation, a supplier pioneering a new market which it believes will be particularly attractive may choose immediately to launch a second brand in competition with its first, in order to pre-empt others entering the market.
			for example, many fashion and designer companies extended brands into fragrances, shoes and accessories, home textile, home decor, luaggage, (sun-) glasses, furniture, hotels, etc.

			Mars extended its brand to ice cream, Caterpillar to shoes and watches, Michelin to a restaurant guide, Adidas and Puma to personal hygiene.
	Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting higher quality products.

			There is a difference between brand extension and line extension.
	Once again, Procter & Gamble is a leading exponent of this philosophy, running as many as ten detergent brands in the US market. This also increases the total number of "facings" it receives on supermarket shelves. ], on the other hand, uses it to keep the very different parts of the business separate—from Sara Lee cakes through Kiwi polishes to L'Eggs pantyhose. In the hotel business, ] uses the name Fairfield Inns for its budget chain (and ] uses Rodeway for its own cheaper hotels).
			When Coca-Cola launched "Diet Coke" and "Cherry Coke" they stayed within the originating product category: non-alcoholic carbonated beverages. Procter & Gamble (P&G) did likewise extending its strong lines (such as Fairy Soap) into neighboring products (Fairy Liquid and Fairy Automatic) within the same category, dish washing detergents.

			===Multi-brands===
	] is a particular problem of a "multi-brand" approach, in which the new brand takes business away from an established one which the organization also owns. This may be acceptable (indeed to be expected) if there is a net gain overall. Alternatively, it may be the price the organization is willing to pay for shifting its position in the market; the new product being one stage in this process.

			Alternatively, in a market that is fragmented amongst a number of brands a supplier can choose deliberately to launch totally new brands in apparent competition with its own
	] is a multi-brands company, with brands ], ], ], and ]. Brands also include Nation Wide Brands
			existing strong brand (and often with identical product characteristics); simply to soak up some of the share of the market which will in any case go to minor brands. The rationale is that having 3 out of 12 brands in such a market will give a greater overall share than having 1 out of 10 (even if much of the share of these new brands is taken from the existing one). In its most extreme manifestation, a supplier pioneering a new market which it believes will be particularly attractive may choose immediately to launch a second brand in competition with its first, in order to pre-empt others entering the market.

			Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what
	=== Generic and private-label brands ===
			business the company is in or diluting higher quality products.

			Once again, Procter & Gamble is a leading exponent of this philosophy, running as many as ten detergent brands in the US market. This also increases the total number of "facings" it receives on supermarket shelves. ], on the other hand, uses it to keep the very different parts of the business separate — from Sara Lee cakes through Kiwi polishes to L'Eggs pantyhose. In the hotel business, Marriott uses the name Fairfield Inns for its budget chain (and Ramada uses Rodeway for its own cheaper hotels).
	With the emergence of strong retailers, the "own brand", the retailer's own branded product (or service), emerged as a major factor in the marketplace. Where the retailer has a particularly strong identity, such as, in the UK, Marks & Spencer in clothing, this "own brand" may be able to compete against even the strongest brand leaders, and may dominate those markets which are not otherwise strongly branded. There was a fear that such "own brands" might displace all other brands (as they have done in Marks & Spencer outlets), but the evidence is that—at least in supermarkets and department stores—consumers generally expect to see on display something over 50 per cent (and preferably over 60 per cent) of brands other than those of the retailer. Indeed, even the strongest own brands in the United Kingdom rarely achieve better than third place in the overall market. In the US, Target has "own" brands of "Market Pantry" and "Archer Farms" each with unique packaging and placement.

			] is a particular problem of a "multibrand" approach, in which the new brand takes business away from an established one which the organization also owns. This may be acceptable (indeed to be expected) if there is a net gain overall. Alternatively, it may be the price the organization is willing to pay for shifting its position in the market; the new product being one stage in this process.
	Common branding practices of retailers for their private label brands include i) using the same brand name across multiple product categories, ii) using retail chain name to brand products, iii) using similar trade dress, i.e. packaging as leading national brands (copycat private labels).

			===Small business brands===
	The strength of the retailers has, perhaps, been seen more in the pressure they have been able to exert on the owners of even the strongest brands (and in particular on the owners of the weaker third and fourth brands). ] has been applied most often to meet the wishes of such large customers (and indeed has been demanded by them as recognition of their buying power). Some of the more active marketers have now also switched to 'category marketing'—in which they take into account all the needs of a retailer in a product category rather than more narrowly focusing on their own brand.
			Branding a small business is essentially the same thing as a larger corporation, the only differences being that small businesses usually have a smaller market and have less reach than larger brands. Some people argue that it is not possible to brand a small business, however there are many examples of small businesses that became very successful due to branding. Starbucks is one company that used almost no advertising and over a period of ten years developed such a strong brand that the company went from one shop to hundreds.

			==Own brands and generics==
	At the same time, ] (that is, effectively unbranded goods) have also emerged. These made a positive virtue of saving the cost of almost all marketing activities; emphasizing the lack of advertising and, especially, the plain packaging (which was, however, often simply a vehicle for a different kind of image). It would appear that the penetration of such generic products peaked in the early 1980s, and most consumers still seem to be looking for the qualities that the conventional brand provides.
			With the emergence of strong retailers the "own brand", the retailer's own branded product (or service), also emerged as a major factor in the marketplace. Where the retailer has a particularly strong identity (such as Marks & Spencer in clothing) this "own brand" may be able to compete against even the strongest brand leaders, and may dominate those markets which are not otherwise strongly branded.

			There was a fear that such "own brands" might displace all other brands (as they have done in Marks & Spencer outlets), but the evidence is that — at least in supermarkets and department stores — consumers generally expect to see on display something over 50 per cent (and preferably over 60 per cent) of brands other than those of the retailer. Indeed, even the strongest own brands in the United Kingdom rarely achieve better than third place in the overall market.
	== Co-Branding==

			Therefore the strongest independent brands (such as Kellogg's and Heinz), which have maintained their marketing investments, should continue to flourish. More than 50 per cent of United Kingdom FMCG brand leaders have held their position for more than two decades, although it is arguable that those which have switched their budgets to "buy space" in the retailers may be more exposed.
	Co-branding uses multiple brand names to market a single product or service. For example, Betty Crocker brownie mix incorporates Hershey's chocolate syrup.

			The strength of the retailers has, perhaps, been seen more in the pressure they have been able to exert on the owners of even the strongest brands (and in particular on the owners of the weaker third and fourth brands). ] has been applied most often to meet the wishes of such large customers (and indeed has been demanded by them as recognition of their buying power). Some of the more active marketers have now also switched to 'category marketing' - in which they take into account all the needs of a retailer in a product category rather than more narrowly focusing on their own brand.
	== Brand Protection ==

			At the same time, probably as an outgrowth of consumerism, "generic" (that is, effectively unbranded goods) have also emerged. These made a positive virtue of saving the cost of almost all marketing activities; emphasizing the lack of advertising and, especially, the plain packaging (which was, however, often simply a vehicle for a different kind of image). It would appear that the penetration of such generic products peaked in the early ], and most consumers still seem to be looking for the qualities that the conventional brand provides.
	There are many ways in which marketeers choose to promote their brands or fight competing brands. Many choose to register their brand as ] adding statutory protection to their brands.

			==History==
	== Branding and the Internet ==
			Brands in the field of marketing originated in the ] with the advent of packaged ]. ] moved the production of many household items, such as soap, from local communities to centralized ]. When shipping their items, the factories would literally ] their logo or insignia on the barrels used, which is where the term comes from.

			These factories, generating mass-produced goods, needed to sell their products to a wider market, to a customer base familiar only with local goods. It quickly became apparent that a generic package of soap had difficulty competing with familiar, local products. The packaged goods manufacturers needed to convince the market that the public could place just as much trust in the non-local product. ], ], ], ], and ] were among the first products to be 'branded', in an effort to increase the consumer's familiarity with their products. Many brands of that era, such as ] rice and ] breakfast cereal furnish illustrations of the problem.
	With the internet as the primary source of new business for many companies, a new curve has been thrown at marketers and executives in charge of development and protection of corporate branding.

			Around ], ] published a house ad explaining trademark advertising. This was an early commercial explanation of what we now know as branding. Companies soon adopted ]s, ]s, and ] which began to appear on ] and early ]. By the ],{Mildred Pierce} manufacturers began to recognize the way in which consumers were developing relationships with their brands in a social/psychological/anthropological sense.
	Many computer savvy students have registered all names they assumed would hold future value. This includes virtually all dictionary terms and before the courts had rules, many corporate names were registered. Some companies have purchased a domain name that matched their brand in the domain aftermarket at a premium price in excess of the cost of registration.

			From there, manufacturers quickly learned to associate other kinds of brand values, such as youthfulness, fun or luxury, with their products. This began the practice we now know as branding, where it is felt that consumers buy ''the brand'' instead of the product. This trend continued to the ], which have been described as "brand equity mania".<ref name="nologo" /> In ], ] purchased ] for six times what the company was worth on paper; it was felt that what they really purchased was its brand name.
	Fortunately domain squatting has not hurt companies that have clearly distinguishable brands that have been victims of this. Courts will rule in favor of clear cases. However many cases are not as clear and in cases of a generic term or terms, the person that originally registered the name, although it may be someones brand, may keep it. For instance had Amazon not owned the ], a person would have the right to own it and post a picture of a rain forest if they so wished. This is because a company cannot restrict use of common words when trademarking. It must be within a limited scope. For a reverse of the domain ownership, it would have to be proven the user was infringing on a trademark, and that is not always the case.

			===Marlboro Friday===
	The internet has honored the right to register a domain name of a generic term to an individual or company and to use it for what it is best suited. While a person cannot hope to keep the name "BurgerKing.com" from being given to a national brand if it were to be a court case, Burger King cannot expect to be entitled to Burgers.com
			], ] was marked by some as the death of the brand.<ref name="nologo" /> On that day, Phillip Morris declared that they were to cut the price of ] by 20%, in order to compete with bargain cigarettes. Marlboro cigarettes were notorious at the time for their heavy advertising campaigns, and well-nuanced brand image. On that day, ] stocks nose-dived<ref name="nologo" /> for a large number of 'branded' companies: ], ], ], ]. Many thought the event signalled the beginning of a trend towards "brand blindness" (Klein 13).

			===Attitude branding===
	Similarly while Dominos Pizza can expect to obtain rights to a nationally know Dominos Pizza domain name, it cannot prevent a man name Domino who owns a Pizza place from registering it and using it. If the purpose is to dilute a brand and confuse a customer on a trademark, the chance is the domain name will go to the holder of the trademark. However if a Mr. Domino of Kansas wants to register DominosPizza.com, before Dominos the national chain does or did, then it would fairly belong to Dominos Pizza of Kansas. A national company is no more entitled to the domain name than is a small business. There are also other extensions such as .net, .org, .us, .info, .biz and more. No one is entitled to a commonly used phrase with a dot com extension. Therefore a brand is now subject to making a deal with a domain owner if they wish to have the domain name that they are not entitled to.
			'''Attitude branding''' is the choice to represent a large feeling, which is not necessarily connected with the product or consumption of the product at all. Marketing labeled as attitude branding include that of ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name="nologo" /> In the 2000 book, ], attitude branding is described as a "fetish strategy".
			<blockquote>"A great brand raises the bar -- it adds a greater sense of purpose to the experience, whether it's the challenge to do your best in sports and fitness, or the affirmation that the cup of coffee you're drinking really matters." - ] (head of marketing for Starbucks and formerly Nike)
			</blockquote>

			==See also==
	For new companies, creating a brand now must include first checking to see if the ] will be available or can be purchased before investing heavily and building upon the name. A company would not spend millions of dollars in advertising on "Fast Computers" if it could not register the domain name. It would be better to pick a brand that could be matched with an available domain name.
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

			==The big identity consultancies==
	By synchronizing a brand with a domain name, it is easy to market, gain and keep customers. Therefore the use of a domain name should be carefully considered prior to development of any new brand.
			*] (])
			*] (])
			*] (])
			*] (])
			*]
			*] (])(])
			*] (])
			*] (])
			*] (])
			*]

			==Bibliography==
	== Branding and the new open era ==
			*Kotler, Philip and Pfoertsch, Waldemar (2006) '''', ISBN 3-540-25360-2, Identifies and explains the fundamental branding principles and applies them to industrial companies.
			*Miller & Muir (2004) ''The Business of Brands'', ISBN 0-470-86259-9, Examines how brands can create value for businesses
			*Olins, W (2003) ''On Brand'', London: Thames and Hudson, ISBN 0-500-51145-4
			*Schmidt, Klaus; Ludlow,Chris (2002) "Inclusive Branding: The why and how of a holistic approach to brands", Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-98079-4
			*Wernick, Andrew (1991) "Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression (Theory, Culture & Society S.)", London: Sage Publications Ltd, ISBN 0-8039-8390-5
			<references />
			*"Best of Branding" (2003) James Gregory presents eye-opening case studies that unveil results from the Corporate Branding Index. www.corebrand.com, ISBN 0-07-140329-9

			==External links==
	Many companies have realized different dynamics with their consumers in the internet era. The consumers do not simply consume products and brands, but are actively engaged in creating and building brands of their interest online. For example, YouTube is used to upload individual online user-created commercials of products. Companies and management need to learn, embrace, and engage these new consumers (or newly defined as iCitizens by Kelly Mooney, the author of ''The Open Brand'' and ''The Ten Demandments'') in order to sustain and strengthen their brand.
			* recognizes and promotes best practices within the communications and branding industry. Resources include a free monthly newsletter; templates and how-to guides available to members; evaluation services; and competitions highlighting the best communications and branding materials and campaigns within the industry.

			*
	== See also ==
			*

			* - The art group ]'s attempt to evaluate the actual power of commercial brands by making people draw famous logos from memory.
	* ]
			* - ]'s defence of brands
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			* - Branding from a different perspective
	* ]
			* - Online exchange about branding produced by ]
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			*
	* ]
			* - Find the owner for a given brand
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	== Bibliography ==

	* Birkin, Michael (1994). "Assessing Brand Value," in ''Brand Power''. ISBN 0-8147-7965-4
	* Gregory, James (2003). ''Best of Branding''. ISBN 0-07-140329-9
	* ] (2000) '']'', Canada: Random House, ISBN 0-676-97282-9
	* Fan, Y. (2002) “The National Image of Global Brands”, Journal of Brand Management, 9:3, 180-192, available at http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/1289
	* ] and Pfoertsch, Waldemar (2006). ''B2B Brand Management'', ISBN 3-540-25360-2.
	* Miller & Muir (2004). ''The Business of Brands'', ISBN 0-470-86259-9.
	* Olins, Wally (2003). ''On Brand'', London: Thames and Hudson, ISBN 0-500-51145-4.
	* Schmidt, Klaus and Chris Ludlow (2002). ''Inclusive Branding: The Why and How of a Holistic approach to Brands''. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-98079-4
	* Wernick, Andrew (1991). ''Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression'' (Theory, Culture & Society S.), London: Sage Publications, ISBN 0-8039-8390-5

	== External links ==

	* <br />
	*
	<!-- This isn't the place to advertise your corporate websites or blogs. Links of that nature will be removed, so don't waste your time. -->

	== References ==

	{{reflist}}

	]		]
	]		]
	]
	]		]
	]		]


	]
	]		]
	]		]
	]		]
	]
	]
	]
	]		]
	]		]

Revision as of 23:36, 18 May 2008

For other uses, see Brand (disambiguation).

Marketing
Management
Key concepts Distribution Pricing Retail Service Activation Brand licensing Brand management Co-creation Communications Consumer behaviour Consumer culture Dominance Effectiveness Ethics MiX Promotion Segmentation Strategy Account-based marketing Digital marketing Product marketing Social marketing Influencer marketing Attribution Annoyance factor Horizontal integration Vertical integration
Promotional content Advertising Ambush marketing Branding Corporate anniversary Direct marketing Franchising Label Loyalty marketing Mobile marketing On-hold messaging Personal selling Premiums Prizes Product placement Propaganda Publicity Sales promotion Sex in advertising Underwriting spot
Promotional media Behavioral targeting Brand ambassador Display advertising Drip marketing In-game advertising Mobile advertising Native advertising New media Online advertising Out-of-home advertising Point of sale Product demonstration Promotional merchandise Promotional representative Visual merchandising Web banner Word-of-mouth
Research Market research Marketing research Mystery shopping Consumer research
v t e

A brand is a collection of images and ideas representing an economic producer; more specifically, it refers to the concrete symbols such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the accumulation of experiences with the specific product or service, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of advertising, design, and media commentary. A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to a company, product or service. A brand serves to create associations and expectations among products made by a producer. A brand often includes an explicit logo, fonts, color schemes, symbols, sound which may be developed to represent implicit values, ideas, and even personality.

The brand, and "branding" and brand equity have become increasingly important components of culture and the economy, now being described as "cultural accessories and personal philosophies".

Concepts

Some marketers distinguish the psychological aspect of a brand from the experiential aspect. The experiential aspect consists of the sum of all points of contact with the brand and is known as the brand experience. The psychological aspect, sometimes referred to as the brand image, is a symbolic construct created within the minds of people and consists of all the information and expectations associated with a product or service.

Marketers engaged in branding seek to develop or align the expectations behind the brand experience, creating the impression that a brand associated with a product or service has certain qualities or characteristics that make it special or unique. A brand image may be developed by attributing a "personality" to or associating an "image" with a product or service, whereby the personality or image is "branded" into the consciousness of consumers. A brand is therefore one of the most valuable elements in an advertising theme, as it demonstrates what the brand owner is able to offer in the marketplace. The art of creating and maintaining a brand is called brand management. This approach works not only for consumer goods B2C (Business-to-Consumer), but also for B2B (Business-to-Business), see Philip Kotler & Waldemar Pfoertsch.

A brand which is widely known in the marketplace acquires brand recognition. Where brand recognition builds up to a point where a brand enjoys a critical mass of positive sentiment in the marketplace, it is said to have achieved brand franchise. One goal in brand recognition is the identification of a brand without the name of the company present. For example, Disney has been successful at branding with their particular script font (originally created for Walt Disney's "signature" logo), which it used in the logo for go.com.

Brand equity measures the total value of the brand to the brand owner, and reflects the extent of brand franchise. The term brand name is often used interchangeably with "brand", although it is more correctly used to specifically denote written or spoken linguistic elements of a brand. In this context a "brand name" constitutes a type of trademark, if the brand name exclusively identifies the brand owner as the commercial source of products or services. A brand owner may seek to protect proprietary rights in relation to a brand name through trademark registration.

Brand energy is a concept that links together the ideas that the brand is experiential, that it is not just about the experiences of customers/potential customers but all stakeholders and the idea that businesses are essentially more about creating value through creating meaningful experiences than generating profit. Economic value comes from businesses’ transactions between people whether they be with customers, employees, suppliers or other stakeholders. But for such value to be created people first have to have positive associations with the business and/or its products and services and be energised to behave positively towards them – hence brand energy.

It has been defined as: ‘The energy that flows throughout the system that links businesses and all their stakeholders and which is manifested in the way these stakeholders think, feel and behave towards the business and its products or services’

The act of associating a product or service with a brand has become part of pop culture. Most products have some kind of brand identity, from common table salt to designer clothes. In non-commercial contexts, the marketing of entities which supply ideas or promises rather than product and services (e.g. political parties or religious organizations) may also be known as "branding".

Consumers may look on branding as an important value added aspect of products or services, as it often serves to denote a certain attractive quality or characteristic. From the perspective of brand owners, branded products or services also command higher prices. Where two products resemble each other, but one of the products has no associated branding (such as a generic, store-branded product), people may often select the more expensive branded product on the basis of the quality of the brand or the reputation of the brand owner.

Advertising spokespersons have also become part of some brands, for example: Mr. Whipple of Charmin toilet tissue and Tony the Tiger of Kellogg’s.

Brand monopoly

In economic terms the "brand" is, in effect, a device to create a "monopoly" — or at least some form of "imperfect competition" — so that the brand owner can obtain some of the benefits which accrue to a monopoly, particularly those related to decreased price competition. In this context, most "branding" is established by promotional means. However, there is also a legal dimension, for it is essential that the brand names and trademarks are protected by all means available. The monopoly may also be extended, or even created, by patent, copyright, trade secret (e.g. secret recipe), and other sui generis intellectual property regimes (e.g.: Plant Varieties Act, Design Act).

In all these contexts, retailers' "own label" brands can be just as powerful. The "brand", whatever its derivation, is a very important investment for any organization. RHM (Rank Hovis McDougall), for example, have valued their international brands at anything up to twenty times their annual earnings.

Branding policies

There are a number of possible policies.

Company name

Often, especially in the industrial sector, it is just the company's name which is promoted (leading to one of the most powerful statements of "branding"; the saying, before the company's downgrading, "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM").

In this case a very strong brand name (or company name) is made the vehicle for a range of products (for example, Mercedes or Black & Decker) or even a range of subsidiary brands (such as Cadbury Dairy Milk, Cadbury Flake or Cadbury Fingers in the United States).

Individual branding

Main article: Individual branding

Each brand has a separate name (such as Seven-Up or Nivea Sun (Beiersdorf)), which may even compete against other brands from the same company (for example, Persil, Omo, Surf and Lynx are all owned by Unilever).

Derived brands

In this case the supplier of a key component, used by a number of suppliers of the end-product, may wish to guarantee its own position by promoting that component as a brand in its own right. The most frequently quoted example is Intel (in the PC market, with the slogan 'Intel Inside'), but the sweetener Aspartame used much the same approach (to lock in the soft drinks manufacturers who represented a major market for the product).

Brand development

In terms of existing products, brands may be developed in a number of ways:

Brand extension

The existing strong brand name can be used as a vehicle for new or modified products; for example, many fashion and designer companies extended brands into fragrances, shoes and accessories, home textile, home decor, luaggage, (sun-) glasses, furniture, hotels, etc.

Mars extended its brand to ice cream, Caterpillar to shoes and watches, Michelin to a restaurant guide, Adidas and Puma to personal hygiene.

There is a difference between brand extension and line extension. When Coca-Cola launched "Diet Coke" and "Cherry Coke" they stayed within the originating product category: non-alcoholic carbonated beverages. Procter & Gamble (P&G) did likewise extending its strong lines (such as Fairy Soap) into neighboring products (Fairy Liquid and Fairy Automatic) within the same category, dish washing detergents.

Multi-brands

Alternatively, in a market that is fragmented amongst a number of brands a supplier can choose deliberately to launch totally new brands in apparent competition with its own existing strong brand (and often with identical product characteristics); simply to soak up some of the share of the market which will in any case go to minor brands. The rationale is that having 3 out of 12 brands in such a market will give a greater overall share than having 1 out of 10 (even if much of the share of these new brands is taken from the existing one). In its most extreme manifestation, a supplier pioneering a new market which it believes will be particularly attractive may choose immediately to launch a second brand in competition with its first, in order to pre-empt others entering the market.

Individual brand names naturally allow greater flexibility by permitting a variety of different products, of differing quality, to be sold without confusing the consumer's perception of what business the company is in or diluting higher quality products.

Once again, Procter & Gamble is a leading exponent of this philosophy, running as many as ten detergent brands in the US market. This also increases the total number of "facings" it receives on supermarket shelves. Sara Lee, on the other hand, uses it to keep the very different parts of the business separate — from Sara Lee cakes through Kiwi polishes to L'Eggs pantyhose. In the hotel business, Marriott uses the name Fairfield Inns for its budget chain (and Ramada uses Rodeway for its own cheaper hotels).

Cannibalization is a particular problem of a "multibrand" approach, in which the new brand takes business away from an established one which the organization also owns. This may be acceptable (indeed to be expected) if there is a net gain overall. Alternatively, it may be the price the organization is willing to pay for shifting its position in the market; the new product being one stage in this process.

Small business brands

Branding a small business is essentially the same thing as a larger corporation, the only differences being that small businesses usually have a smaller market and have less reach than larger brands. Some people argue that it is not possible to brand a small business, however there are many examples of small businesses that became very successful due to branding. Starbucks is one company that used almost no advertising and over a period of ten years developed such a strong brand that the company went from one shop to hundreds.

Own brands and generics

With the emergence of strong retailers the "own brand", the retailer's own branded product (or service), also emerged as a major factor in the marketplace. Where the retailer has a particularly strong identity (such as Marks & Spencer in clothing) this "own brand" may be able to compete against even the strongest brand leaders, and may dominate those markets which are not otherwise strongly branded.

There was a fear that such "own brands" might displace all other brands (as they have done in Marks & Spencer outlets), but the evidence is that — at least in supermarkets and department stores — consumers generally expect to see on display something over 50 per cent (and preferably over 60 per cent) of brands other than those of the retailer. Indeed, even the strongest own brands in the United Kingdom rarely achieve better than third place in the overall market.

Therefore the strongest independent brands (such as Kellogg's and Heinz), which have maintained their marketing investments, should continue to flourish. More than 50 per cent of United Kingdom FMCG brand leaders have held their position for more than two decades, although it is arguable that those which have switched their budgets to "buy space" in the retailers may be more exposed.

The strength of the retailers has, perhaps, been seen more in the pressure they have been able to exert on the owners of even the strongest brands (and in particular on the owners of the weaker third and fourth brands). Relationship marketing has been applied most often to meet the wishes of such large customers (and indeed has been demanded by them as recognition of their buying power). Some of the more active marketers have now also switched to 'category marketing' - in which they take into account all the needs of a retailer in a product category rather than more narrowly focusing on their own brand.

At the same time, probably as an outgrowth of consumerism, "generic" (that is, effectively unbranded goods) have also emerged. These made a positive virtue of saving the cost of almost all marketing activities; emphasizing the lack of advertising and, especially, the plain packaging (which was, however, often simply a vehicle for a different kind of image). It would appear that the penetration of such generic products peaked in the early 1980s, and most consumers still seem to be looking for the qualities that the conventional brand provides.

History

Brands in the field of marketing originated in the 19th century with the advent of packaged goods. Industrialization moved the production of many household items, such as soap, from local communities to centralized factories. When shipping their items, the factories would literally brand their logo or insignia on the barrels used, which is where the term comes from.

These factories, generating mass-produced goods, needed to sell their products to a wider market, to a customer base familiar only with local goods. It quickly became apparent that a generic package of soap had difficulty competing with familiar, local products. The packaged goods manufacturers needed to convince the market that the public could place just as much trust in the non-local product. Campbell soup, Coca-Cola, Juicy Fruit gum, Aunt Jemima, and Quaker Oats were among the first products to be 'branded', in an effort to increase the consumer's familiarity with their products. Many brands of that era, such as Uncle Ben's rice and Kellogg's breakfast cereal furnish illustrations of the problem.

Around 1900, James Walter Thompson published a house ad explaining trademark advertising. This was an early commercial explanation of what we now know as branding. Companies soon adopted slogans, mascots, and jingles which began to appear on radio and early television. By the 1940s,{Mildred Pierce} manufacturers began to recognize the way in which consumers were developing relationships with their brands in a social/psychological/anthropological sense.

From there, manufacturers quickly learned to associate other kinds of brand values, such as youthfulness, fun or luxury, with their products. This began the practice we now know as branding, where it is felt that consumers buy the brand instead of the product. This trend continued to the 1980s, which have been described as "brand equity mania". In 1988, Phillip Morris purchased Kraft for six times what the company was worth on paper; it was felt that what they really purchased was its brand name.

Marlboro Friday

April 2, 1993 was marked by some as the death of the brand. On that day, Phillip Morris declared that they were to cut the price of Marlboro cigarettes by 20%, in order to compete with bargain cigarettes. Marlboro cigarettes were notorious at the time for their heavy advertising campaigns, and well-nuanced brand image. On that day, Wall street stocks nose-dived for a large number of 'branded' companies: Heinz, Coca Cola, Quaker Oats, PepsiCo. Many thought the event signalled the beginning of a trend towards "brand blindness" (Klein 13).

Attitude branding

Attitude branding is the choice to represent a large feeling, which is not necessarily connected with the product or consumption of the product at all. Marketing labeled as attitude branding include that of Nike, Starbucks, The Body Shop, Safeway, and Apple Computer. In the 2000 book, No Logo, attitude branding is described as a "fetish strategy".

"A great brand raises the bar -- it adds a greater sense of purpose to the experience, whether it's the challenge to do your best in sports and fitness, or the affirmation that the cup of coffee you're drinking really matters." - Howard Shultz (head of marketing for Starbucks and formerly Nike)

The big identity consultancies

Bibliography

Kotler, Philip and Pfoertsch, Waldemar (2006) B2B Brand Management, ISBN 3-540-25360-2, Identifies and explains the fundamental branding principles and applies them to industrial companies.
Miller & Muir (2004) The Business of Brands, ISBN 0-470-86259-9, Examines how brands can create value for businesses
Olins, W (2003) On Brand, London: Thames and Hudson, ISBN 0-500-51145-4
Schmidt, Klaus; Ludlow,Chris (2002) "Inclusive Branding: The why and how of a holistic approach to brands", Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-98079-4
Wernick, Andrew (1991) "Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression (Theory, Culture & Society S.)", London: Sage Publications Ltd, ISBN 0-8039-8390-5

^ Klein, Naomi (2000) No logo, Canada: Random House, ISBN 0-676-97282-9

"Best of Branding" (2003) James Gregory presents eye-opening case studies that unveil results from the Corporate Branding Index. www.corebrand.com, ISBN 0-07-140329-9

External links

League of American Communications Professionals recognizes and promotes best practices within the communications and branding industry. Resources include a free monthly newsletter; templates and how-to guides available to members; evaluation services; and competitions highlighting the best communications and branding materials and campaigns within the industry.
New brand approach via style community
BusinessWeek 2006 Global Brands Scorecard
Brandmarker - The art group monochrom's attempt to evaluate the actual power of commercial brands by making people draw famous logos from memory.
Who's wearing the trousers? - The Economist's defence of brands
Leading Consumer Brands from the Muslim World
Brand
Financial Times 2006 Global Brand Ranking by Millward Brown Optimor (reg. req'd to see full tables)
Stealing Share - Branding from a different perspective
brandchannel - Online exchange about branding produced by Interbrand
The Big Page of Branding & Corporate Identity
International brands searcher
Brand Indexes Updated Daily
Thingnamer - Links to a listing of blogs on name branding
Brandnama - a blog on the craft of naming brands
Findownersearch - Find the owner for a given brand

Categories: