Brand Management

Co-creating Meaningful Brands

Michael Beverland

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781529755268
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Marketing
• Index: Business

Presenting the basics of brand management, the book provides both a theoretical and practical guide to brands, placing emphasis on the theory that the consumer is a co-creator in a brand?s identity. In a world in which social media and inclusive digital platforms have increased customer engagement, the role of brands and branding has changed. The line between the producer and the consumer has become blurred; consumers are no longer the recipients of brand identity, but the co-creators, playing a significant role in shaping new products and systems. Case studies include the Canterbury Crusaders, KVD Beauty, Kodak, Yamaha, Ottobock and Holland?s rebrand as The Netherlands.

Part I Foundations of Co-creating Brand Meaning

• 1. Brands and Branding 3
• 2. Understanding Brand Users 31
• 3. Brand Equity 65
• 4. Data, Insights, and Measurement 93

1 Brands and Branding

Learning Objectives

When you finish reading this chapter, you will be able to answer these questions:

1. What are brands? What value do brands provide to users?
2. How has our understanding of building brand value changed over time? What role does the customer play in creating brand meaning?
3. What is co-creating brand meaning? Who shapes brand meaning and what role do marketers play in managing this meaning?
4. What are the guiding principles of co-creating meaningful brands?
5. Where is branding used? What contexts are amenable to a branded strategy?

Welcome to a Branded World

Look around you—how many brands do you see? You’ve probably become so used to brands that identifying them takes some effort. Nonetheless, there are very few places left that are brand free (even outer space is being branded thanks to SpaceX). Take a look again. How many brands evoke a knowing smile, calling up memories from previous use, important life events, friendships, successes and disasters, and moments of joy? How many evoke the opposite, disgust, hatred, or an eyeroll. What sets these two apart? Why do we like some brands and not others? Why do a few become truly loved? Why do some transcend their category and become identified with a certain “type” of user, or even resonate culturally? Have some brands lost relevance, and if so, why? When you looked at those brands, how much information did you really need to identify them? Was a quick glance enough? Is the brand’s design language so obvious that it can be logo free, or understated? How many did you have to look at a few times? Did you struggle to recall the name, or attribute anything meaningful to the logo? How many more brands do you see that mean almost nothing to you? Why is this so?

Think about how many brands you’ve used since waking? Like many of us, you no doubt instinctively grabbed for your phone (which brand?), checked various social media feeds (brands such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, WhatsApp), scrolled past advertisements, and possibly stopped to look at which brands your favorite influencers were loving in their latest post. Think also of all the brands you may take for granted. Your bed for example. Is the place (street/town/city/region/nation) you wake in a branded place? It would be rare if it was not. By the time you start your day, you’ve undoubtedly encountered numerous brands. Some are what we call invisible brands—brands that we are never without (toothpaste, soap) but that fade into the background. How did we come to choose these? Possibly they were handed down by our parents, who likewise received them from theirs. What brands are you never without? A favorite bag? Lipstick and makeup palette? Laptop? Mode of transport? Phone? Item of clothing? And, how many are in fact liquid, existing solely or partially (as in the case of sharing services such as Uber) in app form? Are you, in fact, a brand?

What do these various brands mean to you, and how was that meaning shaped? You may believe you acted alone, choosing only the best brand on offer (or that you could afford), but this is to ignore all the commercial decisions that have gone into shaping the brand’s meaning, and all the various actors, from marketers and designers, to users, influencers, friends and family that have shaped the brand’s identity. Some may just seem to have always carried certain associations and, truth be told, you’re not quite sure why. You just know what they mean. These brands may be cultural icons, carriers of national identity, markers of community membership, or taken for granted within specific sectors. How did they reach this status? These, and other questions are the subject for this text.

In this book, the meaning of brands is co-created. What does this mean? Put simply, brands are co-authored. While marketers may project a specific identity for the brand, that identity, and what comes afterwards are shaped by ongoing marketing decisions, your own identity goals and life themes, and the broader sociocultural context in which you live. Yet, the majority of textbooks fail to account for this interplay between user, identity, and social goals, the networks they’re embedded in, the social forces that influence them, and the actions of marketers in co-authoring brand meaning. This book addresses this gap, focusing on why brands mean what they do to users, how brands come to carry such meanings, and the ways in which aspiring brand managers can influence all of this. As such, this book pushes off from all that we now know about brands and attempts to synthesize the vast amount of academic research and management practice that has emerged over the past three decades in particular, into a set of strategic principles.

Brands are ubiquitous. Be it work or play, we are immersed in a branded world from the day we are born to the day we die. So much of our lives involves brands that accusations of staying “on brand” have come to define a lack of sincerity on the part of political or business leaders facing a crisis. Critics write books against the ubiquity of brands featuring covers of babies covered with logos, while consumers often tattoo themselves with the very same logos for a range of surprisingly complex reasons. In many ways, known and unrecognized, they define who we are or who we long to be. This book (brought to you by the good people at Sage) identifies how brands gain meaning and how they can be co-managed for the long-term, providing value to customers, marketers, and other relevant stakeholders.

What Is a Brand?

The word “brand” is derived from the proto-German brandr (pronounced “brundt”), which literally means to “burn your mark into or stigmatize” and usually referred to the practice of marking ownership of captured peoples (slaves) or animals (where “branding” is still in use today) (Jones 2017). Although brands say something about the user, the stigmatizing half of brandr is mostly forgotten. Putting aside moral concerns, it’s worth thinking about the benefits resulting from such a practice:

1. Brands identify the wearer: In the case of slaves, brands mark out their status, their house identity, and therefore confer status on the branded and brander.
2. Brands signal membership: The practice of pillaging and warfare meant tribes would quickly absorb conquered peoples. Brands enabled tribal members to absorb others in spite of the range of different dialects, physiques, and markings that could cause confusion.
3. Signal information against a background of noise: In the case of animals, at round-up time, often-illiterate farmhands could quickly and immediately identify which animal belonged to which rancher—critically useful in a context defined by noise, dust, and frightened and dangerous animals.
4. Protection: This form of branding is difficult to get rid of, and at the time, most certainly attempts to do so would have resulted in infection and possibly death. Thus, branded slaves are unlikely to attempt escape, while branded animals are difficult to steal and sell.

All of these ancient aspects of branding are still relevant today, although thankfully in the majority of cases concerning human animals, burning the flesh with marks usually now takes the form of deliberate tattooing. The reasons why consumers might choose to do this are the subject of Chapter 2.

Many people fail to understand that the meaning of brandr still has much relevance for branding today. Typically, brandr is dismissed as a narrow logo-centric view of branding. However, this ignores the fact that burning into and stigmatizing explain much about the emotional intensity of many consumer–brand relationships, the ways in which consumers construct their identity through brands, the ways in which particular brands mark people out from others, the notion that the “wrong user” can harm a brand’s image, the ways in which employees are required to “live the brand,” and finally the critical role founders play in establishing brand values. Although much has changed, the origins of the term “brand” still have relevance today.

So far, we know a little of the process of branding and what some benefits were, but just what is a brand? Table 1.1 provides a range of examples from past and present, and sources, including academics and practitioners engaged in various aspects of brand management. Defining the meaning of the term “brand” remains tricky and subject to much debate. The classic definition by the American Marketing Association listed first in Table 1.1 remains the one preferred by many (but not all) academics and practitioners.

This definition emphasizes the material markers of a brand and is reflective of a historic view that brands are equivalent to legal trademarks (Conejo and Wooliscroft 2015). This definition has some useful aspects: it places a stress on competing symbolically (rather than through functional innovation or pricing) and taking a distinct position in the marketplace as a means to compete. This suggests that a brand’s identity and intent can be the basis of competitive advantage.

However, although widely used, it is not without many limitations. First, although focusing on the material markers of a brand (Holt 2003), it is the meaning of these markers that truly defines the brand. Second, there is no mention of an external user in this definition. Although unintended, this definition reflects the average “person in the street” view of branding (and understandably but regrettably, many managers) as largely consisting of a cleverly designed logo aimed at extracting higher prices from gullible consumers. Third, it implies that there is but one author of the brand—the firm—a view that is not only empirically false, but in this day and age, also practically questionable.

There have been many other attempts at defining brands over the years. A few examples, drawn from a range of different perspectives, are presented in Table 1.1. In interpreting these different views it is important to keep in mind that each author has worked with the material they had available at the time and each person brings a particular professional frame to their view of brands and branding. For example, pioneering brand writer David Aaker was primarily advising senior management on competitive strategy. Not surprisingly, his definition emphasizes competitive differentiation. John Philip Jones is an advertising specialist with a focus on fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). Unsurprisingly his definition reflects the fact that consumers buying these items often make quick decisions (less than two seconds) and look for clear, eye-catching promises on the shelf. Marty Neumeier’s definition reflects his background as an interaction designer, and thus he places an emphasis on the subjective experience of the user and intuitive reactions. Former Nike and Starbucks marketer Scott Bedbury unsurprisingly provides a more detailed, messy view of the brand, focusing on all the moments of truth in product and services experienced by users that create meaning for the brand, good and bad.

Table 1.1

Source: Definitions either sourced directly or from Brown (2016) and Cohen (2011)

Despite these differences, we can build up a clear picture of what characterizes a strong brand:

1. Identification: The purpose of a brand is to clearly identify a particular set of marketplace offers. The brand’s various markers indicate authenticity and provide the user with confidence. Trappist monasteries such as Chimay, for example, use a number of cues including religious symbols, stylized gothic font, terms such as “dubbel” and “tripel” to indicate alcoholic strength, and overt claims of “Authentic Trappist Product” to differentiate themselves from those beers brewed by large conglomerates that attempt to trade on an imagined religious heritage (e.g., Leffe) (Beverland et al. 2008).
2. Distinction: Those managing brands have always been concerned with uniqueness. Harley Davidson went as far as to petition American courts to legally protect their motorcycle’s distinctive sound. Likewise, users’ brand relationships are often built around the unique benefits that the brand provides. Measures of brand equity (or brand value) place much emphasis on uniqueness when attempting to understand the strength of a brand relationship and its financial value.
3. Differentiation: Clearly, there is little point in simply copying a brand (unless you’re in the counterfeit business). Show an image of Volvo to anyone and they will immediately say “safety.” Every car arguably meets strict safety criteria but only Volvo stresses this as a USP or unique selling point. (In contrast, BMW equals “driver experience,” while Mazda is “play and innovation.”) Users may use brands to differentiate themselves from others. For example, consumers might use brand tattoos to signify their membership of different groups; a Fender tattoo for example would signify to the general public that the wearer is a musician, although to more knowledgeable insiders Fender identifies them as a guitar player of early rock ’n’ roll.
4. Meaning: Strong brands are rich with meaning. This meaning can include a wide array of associations, personalities, personas or archetypes, and cultural codes and myths. Some brands become so rich with meaning they become cultural icons. For example, Levi’s had a rich heritage initially with working-class men, before gaining associations with the 1960s “Summer of Love,” rock ’n’ roll, LBGT communities, and so on. Today, blue jeans have become a global uniform for almost everyone.
5. Value: Brands must provide value, to firms and to users. This value can include functional performance, emotional resonance, identity reinforcement, linking value, and financial return. Collectively these are forms of brand equity (defined differently by various stakeholders) and can represent in excess of 70 percent of a firm’s share value.
6. Experienced: Brands represent promises to users. The true test of that promise, however, lies in use (broadly defined). For this reason, practitioners often claim that “brands are built from the inside out” (the implications of which we’ll return to later). In fact, for some brands, there may be nothing more than an experience and a bundle of sensations. For example, the value of the annual Glastonbury Festival lies entirely with the experience of the music, being part of a temporary community of festival-goers, fleeting romance, camping, getting soaked and muddy, and partying all weekend.
7. Authored: Despite Marty Neumeier’s (Table 1.1) claim that only consumers define the brand, this is no truer than the managerial view that the firm is the sole author of brand meanin...