Table of Contents
WEEK 1: BRANDING BOUNDARIES & BRAND EQUITY........................................................................................2
SWAMINATHAN (2020) – BRANDING IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD: REFOCUSING THEORIES AND RETHINKING BOUNDARIES 2
KELLER (2016) – REFLECTIONS ON CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY: PERSPECTIVES, PROGRESS, AND PRIORITIES ...............6
SCHULTZ (2016) – RETHINKING BRAND DEVELOPMENT IN AN INTERACTIVE MARKETPLACE (CHAPTER 8) ............................ 10
WEEK 2: BRAND IMAGE & BRAND POSITIONING ............................................................................................14
KELLER (2002) – THREE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK ABOUT YOUR BRAND ............................................................. 14
MAEHLE (2011) – CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION OF THE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY ............................................ 15
VREDENBURG (2020) – BRAND TAKING A STAND: AUTHENTIC BRAND ACTIVISM OR WOKE WASHING? ............................ 16
WEEK 3: BRAND RESONANCE & BRAND DIFFERENTIATION.............................................................................26
FETSCHERIN (2014) – CONSUMER BRAND RELATIONSHIPS: A RESEARCH LANDSCAPE ..................................................... 26
BATRA (2012) – BRAND LOVE .......................................................................................................................... 28
ROMANIUK (2007) – EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEIVED BRAND DIFFERENTIATION .......................... 31
WEEK 4 – BRAND BUILDING ............................................................................................................................40
KELLER (2003) – BRAND SYNTHESIS: THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE............................................. 40
KELLER (2005) – BRANDING SHORTCUTS: CHOOSING THE RIGHT BRAND ELEMENTS AND LEVERAGING SECONDARY
ASSOCIATIONS WILL HELP MARKETERS BUILD BRAND EQUITY .................................................................................. 42
BOSSEL (2019) – FACING A TREND OF BRAND LOGO SIMPLICITY: THE IMPACT OF BRAND LOGO DESIGN ON CONSUMPTION .. 44
MAGNUSSEN (2011) – “WHAT? I THOUGHT SAMSUNG WAS JAPANESE”: ACCURATE OR NOT, PERCEIVED COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
MATTER ........................................................................................................................................................ 44
WEEK 5 – BRAND COMMUNICATION ..............................................................................................................50
ROTFELD (2002) - MISPLACED MARKETING: THE REAL REASONS FOR THE REAL BAD ADVERTISING .................................. 50
HOLT (2016) – BRANDING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ....................................................................................... 51
KELLER (2016) – UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS: HOW INTEGRATED IS YOUR IMC
PROGRAM? ................................................................................................................................................... 52
WEEK 6 – BRANDING STRATEGIES...................................................................................................................61
MOON (2016) – INGREDIENT BRANDING FOR A LUXURY BRAND: THE ROLE OF BRAND AND PRODUCT FIT ........................... 61
KELLER (2014) – DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING BRAND ARCHITECTURE STRATEGIES .................................................. 62
SHAH (2017) – WHY DO FIRMS DELETE BRANDS? ................................................................................................ 65
, Week 1: Branding Boundaries & Brand Equity
Role and Boundaries of Branding
Swaminathan (2020) – Branding in a Hyperconnected World: Refocusing
Theories and Rethinking Boundaries
Hyper connectivity = refers to the proliferation of networks of people, devices, and other
entities, as well as the continuous access to other people, machines, and organizations,
regardless of time or location. Technological advances have resulted in a hyperconnected
world. As a result, brands are shifting away from single ownership to shared ownership
because access to information allows more stakeholders to co-create brand meanings and
experiences (i.e. “blurring of branding boundaries”), information is always accessible, search
costs are low and geographic reach is expanded and firms are no longer the primary source of
information about brands due to new types of branded entities (ideas e.g. #metoo, platforms
e.g. Airbnb, people e.g. Kardashian, places and organizational brands), which are further
stretching the branding space (i.e. “broadening of branding boundaries”). The way consumers
interact with brand has also changed due to the rise of digital brands, access to information
and digital products and smart, connected devices.
This requires a reassessment of branding research from perspectives of firms, consumers and
society. Goal of this research = Help to establish a new branding paradigm (by refocusing
existing perspectives) to account for these changes.
Firm Perspective
Views brands as assets and examines the various functions and roles that brands service for
firms, both strategically and financially:
Strategic approach à e.g. development and implementation of brand identity, positioning,
targeting, launch and growth, brand portfolio architecture, co-branding alliances, and
management of brands across geographic boundaries.
Financial approach à e.g. the effect of brand equity and branding actions on the stock market
value of firms.
Consumer Perspective
Views brands as market signals (economic approach) and mental knowledge cues
(psychological approach):
Economic approach à Firms tend to know more than consumers about the quality of their
brand. Thus, this information asymmetry has led to studies that treat brands as market signals
(e.g. how firms can brand a new product and perceived quality of the new product).
Psychological approach à Proposes that brand equity resides in the minds of customers (e.g.
Brand knowledge which is the mental representation of brand awareness – recall and
recognition, brand image – types, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand associations,
affect and emotions lead to brand trust and brand experiences include sensory, affective,
intellectual impressions and behavioral actions toward brands).
2
, Society Perspective
Presents brands in societal and cultural contexts affecting individual consumers both directly
and indirectly through social forces, structures and institutions:
Sociological approach à focus on brands as dynamic meanings and how meanings are
generated, changed, and reinvented (e.g. Brand community; how brand is connected with one
another by consciousness, rituals and traditions, and moral obligation).
Cultural approach à Branded goods, as cultural meaning producers, enhance consumers’
lives. Consumer culture theory addresses the relationships among consumer actions, the
marketplace, and cultural meanings (e.g. research focusing on iconic brands and brands
infused with cultural referents).
Boundaries of Branding in the Era of Hyper connectivity
The hyperconnected world is characterized by networks of people, devices, and other entities
that are continuously interacting and exchanging information. Several aspects of
hyperconnectivity are relevant to branding research:
• The scale of information availability and speed of information dissemination have
grown exponentially due to technology developments that connect people. Search
costs are low and information asymmetry is reduced. However, potential information
overload reduces brands’ ability to capture the attention of their target segment.
• The rise of networks of people and devices and platform technology have led to an
environment which brand and their meanings are co-created, which result in a loss of
control on brand meaning.
• Device-to-Device Connectivity lead to complex branded experiences and brands
themselves being components of networks, which also calls into question which
entities contribute to brand meaning.
Blurring and Broadening of Branding in a Hyperconnected world
Brand meaning is increasingly co-created by stakeholders (customers, employees,
communities and society at large) rather than traditionally firm-controlled. This blurring of
brand boundaries is a key consequence of the rise of the sharing economy, which has
expanded the role of customers to both the demand and supply sides.
The role of brands has also broadened and more brand-related stakeholders are involved in
sharing brand associations. See fig. 1 (p.28) for illustration of the potential dilution of brand
ownership and broadening of branding entities, -roles, and -stakeholders.
Rethinking the Roles and the Functions of Brands (see table 1)
As technology has improved access to information, products and people, existing conceptions
of brands no longer apply:
- Brands used to serve as quality signals sent by firms but since the information
technology (reviews, opinions) brands now serve as weak quality signals because
communications about brands are market-generated rather than firm-generated.
- Brands as mental cues in information-rich environments: Brand information
processing (acquiring, using, and remembering brand knowledge) depends on
consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity to process information. As consumers
increasingly process information in a hyperconnected world and attention-scarce
world, understanding of brand information processing need to be augmented and
extended.
3
WEEK 1: BRANDING BOUNDARIES & BRAND EQUITY........................................................................................2
SWAMINATHAN (2020) – BRANDING IN A HYPERCONNECTED WORLD: REFOCUSING THEORIES AND RETHINKING BOUNDARIES 2
KELLER (2016) – REFLECTIONS ON CUSTOMER-BASED BRAND EQUITY: PERSPECTIVES, PROGRESS, AND PRIORITIES ...............6
SCHULTZ (2016) – RETHINKING BRAND DEVELOPMENT IN AN INTERACTIVE MARKETPLACE (CHAPTER 8) ............................ 10
WEEK 2: BRAND IMAGE & BRAND POSITIONING ............................................................................................14
KELLER (2002) – THREE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK ABOUT YOUR BRAND ............................................................. 14
MAEHLE (2011) – CONSUMERS’ PERCEPTION OF THE DIMENSIONS OF BRAND PERSONALITY ............................................ 15
VREDENBURG (2020) – BRAND TAKING A STAND: AUTHENTIC BRAND ACTIVISM OR WOKE WASHING? ............................ 16
WEEK 3: BRAND RESONANCE & BRAND DIFFERENTIATION.............................................................................26
FETSCHERIN (2014) – CONSUMER BRAND RELATIONSHIPS: A RESEARCH LANDSCAPE ..................................................... 26
BATRA (2012) – BRAND LOVE .......................................................................................................................... 28
ROMANIUK (2007) – EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEIVED BRAND DIFFERENTIATION .......................... 31
WEEK 4 – BRAND BUILDING ............................................................................................................................40
KELLER (2003) – BRAND SYNTHESIS: THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF BRAND KNOWLEDGE............................................. 40
KELLER (2005) – BRANDING SHORTCUTS: CHOOSING THE RIGHT BRAND ELEMENTS AND LEVERAGING SECONDARY
ASSOCIATIONS WILL HELP MARKETERS BUILD BRAND EQUITY .................................................................................. 42
BOSSEL (2019) – FACING A TREND OF BRAND LOGO SIMPLICITY: THE IMPACT OF BRAND LOGO DESIGN ON CONSUMPTION .. 44
MAGNUSSEN (2011) – “WHAT? I THOUGHT SAMSUNG WAS JAPANESE”: ACCURATE OR NOT, PERCEIVED COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
MATTER ........................................................................................................................................................ 44
WEEK 5 – BRAND COMMUNICATION ..............................................................................................................50
ROTFELD (2002) - MISPLACED MARKETING: THE REAL REASONS FOR THE REAL BAD ADVERTISING .................................. 50
HOLT (2016) – BRANDING IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ....................................................................................... 51
KELLER (2016) – UNLOCKING THE POWER OF INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS: HOW INTEGRATED IS YOUR IMC
PROGRAM? ................................................................................................................................................... 52
WEEK 6 – BRANDING STRATEGIES...................................................................................................................61
MOON (2016) – INGREDIENT BRANDING FOR A LUXURY BRAND: THE ROLE OF BRAND AND PRODUCT FIT ........................... 61
KELLER (2014) – DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING BRAND ARCHITECTURE STRATEGIES .................................................. 62
SHAH (2017) – WHY DO FIRMS DELETE BRANDS? ................................................................................................ 65
, Week 1: Branding Boundaries & Brand Equity
Role and Boundaries of Branding
Swaminathan (2020) – Branding in a Hyperconnected World: Refocusing
Theories and Rethinking Boundaries
Hyper connectivity = refers to the proliferation of networks of people, devices, and other
entities, as well as the continuous access to other people, machines, and organizations,
regardless of time or location. Technological advances have resulted in a hyperconnected
world. As a result, brands are shifting away from single ownership to shared ownership
because access to information allows more stakeholders to co-create brand meanings and
experiences (i.e. “blurring of branding boundaries”), information is always accessible, search
costs are low and geographic reach is expanded and firms are no longer the primary source of
information about brands due to new types of branded entities (ideas e.g. #metoo, platforms
e.g. Airbnb, people e.g. Kardashian, places and organizational brands), which are further
stretching the branding space (i.e. “broadening of branding boundaries”). The way consumers
interact with brand has also changed due to the rise of digital brands, access to information
and digital products and smart, connected devices.
This requires a reassessment of branding research from perspectives of firms, consumers and
society. Goal of this research = Help to establish a new branding paradigm (by refocusing
existing perspectives) to account for these changes.
Firm Perspective
Views brands as assets and examines the various functions and roles that brands service for
firms, both strategically and financially:
Strategic approach à e.g. development and implementation of brand identity, positioning,
targeting, launch and growth, brand portfolio architecture, co-branding alliances, and
management of brands across geographic boundaries.
Financial approach à e.g. the effect of brand equity and branding actions on the stock market
value of firms.
Consumer Perspective
Views brands as market signals (economic approach) and mental knowledge cues
(psychological approach):
Economic approach à Firms tend to know more than consumers about the quality of their
brand. Thus, this information asymmetry has led to studies that treat brands as market signals
(e.g. how firms can brand a new product and perceived quality of the new product).
Psychological approach à Proposes that brand equity resides in the minds of customers (e.g.
Brand knowledge which is the mental representation of brand awareness – recall and
recognition, brand image – types, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand associations,
affect and emotions lead to brand trust and brand experiences include sensory, affective,
intellectual impressions and behavioral actions toward brands).
2
, Society Perspective
Presents brands in societal and cultural contexts affecting individual consumers both directly
and indirectly through social forces, structures and institutions:
Sociological approach à focus on brands as dynamic meanings and how meanings are
generated, changed, and reinvented (e.g. Brand community; how brand is connected with one
another by consciousness, rituals and traditions, and moral obligation).
Cultural approach à Branded goods, as cultural meaning producers, enhance consumers’
lives. Consumer culture theory addresses the relationships among consumer actions, the
marketplace, and cultural meanings (e.g. research focusing on iconic brands and brands
infused with cultural referents).
Boundaries of Branding in the Era of Hyper connectivity
The hyperconnected world is characterized by networks of people, devices, and other entities
that are continuously interacting and exchanging information. Several aspects of
hyperconnectivity are relevant to branding research:
• The scale of information availability and speed of information dissemination have
grown exponentially due to technology developments that connect people. Search
costs are low and information asymmetry is reduced. However, potential information
overload reduces brands’ ability to capture the attention of their target segment.
• The rise of networks of people and devices and platform technology have led to an
environment which brand and their meanings are co-created, which result in a loss of
control on brand meaning.
• Device-to-Device Connectivity lead to complex branded experiences and brands
themselves being components of networks, which also calls into question which
entities contribute to brand meaning.
Blurring and Broadening of Branding in a Hyperconnected world
Brand meaning is increasingly co-created by stakeholders (customers, employees,
communities and society at large) rather than traditionally firm-controlled. This blurring of
brand boundaries is a key consequence of the rise of the sharing economy, which has
expanded the role of customers to both the demand and supply sides.
The role of brands has also broadened and more brand-related stakeholders are involved in
sharing brand associations. See fig. 1 (p.28) for illustration of the potential dilution of brand
ownership and broadening of branding entities, -roles, and -stakeholders.
Rethinking the Roles and the Functions of Brands (see table 1)
As technology has improved access to information, products and people, existing conceptions
of brands no longer apply:
- Brands used to serve as quality signals sent by firms but since the information
technology (reviews, opinions) brands now serve as weak quality signals because
communications about brands are market-generated rather than firm-generated.
- Brands as mental cues in information-rich environments: Brand information
processing (acquiring, using, and remembering brand knowledge) depends on
consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity to process information. As consumers
increasingly process information in a hyperconnected world and attention-scarce
world, understanding of brand information processing need to be augmented and
extended.
3
