Defining brands
Agreeing on a definition of a concept which is so dynamic and multifaceted can be extremely difficult. Over the years, scholars and practitioners have come up with a plethora of different definitions of brands. Etymologically, the origins of the word brand can be traced in Germanic language, meaning āto burnā (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019). In the past, criminals were stamped with hot irons so that they could be identified (Henning, 2000). Nowadays, as in the past, farmers brand by marking their livestock so that they can identify and distinguish their livestock from those of their competitors. Transferring this notion to branding or marking products and services, the American Marketing Association (AMA) defines brand as:
This is one of the most prominent definitions, and one that has been around for years, yet many critics regard it as one dimensional and outdated. De Chernatony and DallāOlmo Riley (1998) argue that it limits the scope of brands because it focuses on the organisationās input in terms of differentiating its product or service through a name or visual identity. Most importantly it ignores the role of the consumers who, as nowadays scholars and practitioners recognise, are not passive recipients of the organisationās marketing activity; ābranding is not something done to consumers, but rather something they do things withā (de Chernatony & DallāOlmo Riley, 1998, p. 419). Conejo and Wooliscroft (2015) echo this view. They find AMAās definition rather simplistic as it does not represent how brands have evolved over the last few decades. Furthermore, they argue that brands should be conceptualised as ābroad multi-dimensional constructs with varying degrees of meaning, independence, co-creation, and scopeā (Conejo & Wooliscroft, 2015, p. 291). In fact, these four elements point to four limitations with AMAās definition.
First, with regard to meaning, brands have evolved to āsophisticated networks of information, associations, and feelings, and complex bundles of multidimensional meaningā (Conejo & Wooliscroft, 2015, p. 289). Brands are not merely organisational legal trademarks but instead have become consumer symbolic devices that enable consumers to construct, communicate, and maintain their identity (Belk, 1988). There is a continuum of meaning on which we can place brands; on the one hand, there are brands that are very basic in their meaning (e.g. Vodafone telecom services or Soxo salt), and on the other hand, brands that are rich and complex (e.g. Gymshark or the BBC). Brands are dynamic entities and their meanings are fluid. Brand meanings have to be managed across all brand touchpoints, i.e. the points where different publics come into contact with the brand, in order to create identification, differentiation, and value for consumers and organisations (Hales, 2011).
Second, as far as independence is concerned, AMAās definition creates the notion that brands are part of finished products, and that products are more important than brands. Current thinking challenges this notion because brands have become independent of, and more valuable than, their products. Brand names and symbols do not only refer to products. In our contemporary post-industrial world, organisations outsource the manufacturing of their products and focus on the development of their brands. As Klein explains, many organisations are able to āhave their products made for them by contractors, many of them overseas. What these companies [produce] primarily [are] not thingsā¦but images of their brandsā (1999, p. 4). Brands gain a life of their own beyond products and organisations, and even if products are discontinued or firms go bust, brands can live on as important parts of popular culture (Conejo & Wooliscroft, 2015) if they have gained over the years a certain level of iconicity (Holt, 2004). Similar to meaning, there is a continuum of independence on which we can place brands where, on the one end, some brands are closely linked, or even subordinated, to their products (e.g. Kelloggās corn flakes), and on the other end, brands are independent of their products (and even of their organisations) (e.g. Nike).
Third, in relation to co-creation, AMAās definition does not take into account the fact that brand meaning is co-created by consumers with organisations. Consumers are not merely passive recipients of messages but active co-creators of value (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). Instead, the definition āassumes that since organisations create brands, they therefore largely control brands meaningsā (Conejo & Wooliscroft, 2015, p. 290). This assumption does not reflect post-modern reality; meaning is dialogic (Morris, 2003) and brand meaning is generated through a dialogue between consumers and organisations. The Internet and social media provide a variety of platforms on which such discussions can take place. On a continuum of co-creation, some brands might still be solely created by their organisations, while at the other end of the spectrum, other brands are collaboratively co-created by consumers (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008) acting as a community of āco-designersā (Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2008). As explored in Chapter 6, consumers-enthusiasts often form brand communities that construct brand meanings beyond the organisation (e.g. Harley-Davidson) (Fournier & Lee, 2009; MuƱiz Jr. & OāGuinn, 2001; Schau, MuƱiz Jr., & Arnould, 2009).
Finally, AMAās definition has an important limitation in regard with brandsā scope. The co-creation of brand meaning activity is not limited to the consumerāorganisation dyad; there is a range of external and internal stakeholders involved in the co-creation process: suppliers, distributors, employees, government, competitors, media, pressure groups (e.g. Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth), investors, the local community, and the wider public. All these different stakeholders bring their own backgrounds and worldviews to process and re-distribute brand meanings (Cova, Kozinets, & Shankar, 2007). On a continuum of scope, some brands may still be closely linked to the company (e.g. Samsung), while other brands bring together a variety of internal and external stakeholders (e.g. the International Olympic Committee) (Conejo & Wooliscroft, 2015).
The AMA sought to provide an added definition of brands, perhaps as a response to the criticism its initial definition had received. They specify that:
The above reinforces the argument that the initial AMA definition had been too restrictive and preoccupied with the product. Through a content analysis of extant literature at the time, de Chernatony and DallāOlmo Riley (1998) identified 12 main themes as accurate categorisations of brand definitions, namely the brand defined as a legal instrument, a logo, a company, shorthand, risk reducer, identity system, image in consumersā minds, value system, personality, relationship, added value, and an evolving entity. As we can see these themes demonstrate āa shift in emphasis from a notion of brands as logos to a more integrated view as the matching of a firmās functional and emotional values with the performance and psychosocial values sought by consumersā (de Chernatony and DallāOlmo Riley, 1998, p. 418). Each categorisation has its advantages and disadvantages and each explore the concept of the brand from a different perspective.
Shifting our thinking from conceptualising the brand as a legal instrument or logo to a value system, a personality, and an evolving entity means that we move from a āsmall bā brand notion to a ābig Bā brand notion. AMAās initial definition mirrors the US Federal Trademark Act definition of legal trademarks, hence it is more in line with the āsmall bā brand notion where the focus is mainly on the organisationās input activity (de Chernatony, 1993; de Chernatony and DallāOlmo Riley, 1998; DallāOlmo Riley, 2016; Keller, 2006). Instead, the ābig Bā brand notion views the brand as a more dynamic system of values with its own personality (Aaker, 1997). As de Chernatony explains, a brand āis a cluster of functional and emotional values that enables a promise to be made about a unique and welcomed experienceā (2010, p. 17). We must have a more holistic view of the brand which brings together the organisationās messages (input), i.e. the brand identity, elements, and personality, with the consumersā processing (output), i.e. the brand image in their minds which includes a set of mental associations (DallāOlmo Riley, 2016). Brands are great sources of value for the firm and the consumer; they are āmultidimensional concepts capable of capturing content, images, feelings, lifestyles, personalities, culture, and other characteristics that help a consumer deeply and uniquely associate, or disassociate, with a brandā (Baalbaki & GuzmĆ”n, 2016, p. 32). The wonderful amalgamation of tangible and intangible characteristics that is a brand is eloquently explained by Bastos and Levy (2012) with the following:
Bastos and Levy (2012) point to Apple as the epitome of a successful brand due to its integration of innovative technology, human-centred design, and widespread appeal. The aforementioned statement represents the ethos of this book in that we consider brands and branding not only as a commercial and managerial phenomenon, but one that has a multifaceted nature. Hence, brands and branding need to be explored from a combination of sociological, psychological, cultural, and managerial, perspectives. As Schroeder (2015) argues,