.

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

The Meaning And Definition Of Brand

The Meaning And Definition Of Brandimputable to the intensive warringness between the diametric producers and sellers in todays contemporary world, the phenomenon of joystick bladeing is increasing at a rapid rate. With the traditional stigmatise addendum and the various scratch alliance strategies alike dual distinguishing and advertising alliance, stick mark is a way of distinguishing the harvest-homes from their competitive alternatives. By utilizing, the creation of harvest-feast integration whereby a single entity is chumped with that of one or more entities, companies toilet derive the neighborly terminuss for twain the entities.2.1 Meaning and Definition of BrandThe concept of tick is existing for past many centuries now. It is the primary means of distinguishing the crossway of a single manufacturer from that of another. The term cross out is a derivative of the Old Norse word stainr, which implies to burn, (Kotler, 1982).As defined by (Keller, 2009, p 17), a fault is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a faction of them, intended to identify the goods and services of seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competition. Technically, whenever a marketplaceer creates a wise name, logo, or symbol for a new growthion, he or she has created a tell on.Brand resembles the total experience that consumers relate to the ingatherings (Keller Lehman, 2004, p.1) in secernate to create and retain the financial performance (Haigh Knowles, 2004) which results in the visibility of the patsys at three different levels node, ware and financial areas (Keller Lehman, 2004). Haigh and Knowled (2004) have suggested in their theories that blurs are the primary source through which the competitive products could differ. The construction of competitive superiority (Keller Lehman, 2004, p.2) could be obtained by handling the various stag channels.The signifi notifyce of brands have changed in the modern world due to the globular trends, for instance, the deregulation of industrial sector, the privatisation of public organisations, the establishment of free lance firms, extensive utilisation of franchises and the eradication of trade barriers ( McDonald, de Chartony and Harris, 2001).Brand EquityBrand Equity is a combining of the brand assets and liabilities associated to a specific brand, its name, image, logo or symbol that appreciates or depreciates the value provided by the product to its consumers (Aaker, 1991, p.15). In simple terms, it is the added value provided to products which reflects the consumer attitude towards the brand (Kotler Keller, 2006). Appendix A lists the world top 10 brands in the year 2010.It has been observed that for products in order to gain brand integrity must be associated with the name or symbol of the brand (Aaker, 1991, p.15) however, on either amending or altering the name following a pin mark activity the product value might get effected.F urthermore, Aaker (1991) suggested the assets and liabilities which effects the brand impartiality as brand loyalty, brand awareness, quality perception, the brand association with quality and other factors like patents, trademarks etc.2.1.1 Brand Vs productionA product is anything that is offered to a market for attention, acquisition, use or consumption that might satisfy a need or want (Kotler, 1984, p.137). Therefore, a product could be a tangible good like bread, cricket bat, or vehicle however, a Brand is wider in desktop than a product, because it can have dimensions that differentiate in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need (Gregory, 1999, p.54). These variations whitethorn be wise and tangible- released to product performance of brand- or more symbolic, emotional, and intangible-related to what the brand represents (Rosson Brooks, 2004, p.57).Developing ap conjure stigmatisation differences among products through branding and by developing a loyal customer franchise, marketers create value that can translate to financial pro see to its for the firm (Bruner, 2005, p17). However the fact is the significantly low numbers of tangible assets are considered to be worth(predicate) and so is the case with the intangible assets.2.1.2 Creating New Brand AssociationsBy associating a brand with another entity, consumers make a pre-conceived image linking the attri merelyes of these brands to the other entity and to any other entity and association which is in liaison with this brand (Homburg Bucerius, 2005). In a wider sense, this sary brand knowledge is most likely to affect military ratings of a new product when consumers lack either the motivation or the ability to judge product-related concerns (Morall, 1996, p.131). In other words, when consumers either dont care much about or dont tincture that they possess the knowledge to choose the appropriate brand, they may be more likely to make brand decisions on the basis of seco ndary considerations like what they think, feel, or know about the country from which the product came, the store in which it is sold, or some other characteristics (Shelton, 2002, p.147). Therefore, the association of brands with other brands improves customer retention, enhances service quality, influences customers perception of the brand and proves to gain an edge over the competitors (Perry Herd, 2004).harmonize to Kumar (2004), when a specific brand is linked to any entity, it not only creates a new relationship but likewise it affects all the existing relationships of the brand. The basic mechanism states that the consumer is aware of the attributes of entity. When a brand is identified or linked to that entity, consumer may infer that some of the busy associations, judgments, or feelings that characterise the entity may besides characterise the brand (Kumar Blomqvist, 2004, p.26). A number of different theoretical mechanisms from psychology predict this type of inferenc e. One is cognitive consistence1, in other words, the consumers perception is, what is true for the entity, must be true for the brand.2.2 join BrandingAccording to signaling product, the combination or coaction of two brands provides greater assurance of quality than what a single brand product provides, which should lead to lavishlyer paygrades of products and premium prices (Rao, 1999, p37).Through a brand extension strategy, a new product can become linked to an existing corporate or family brand that has its own set of associations (Swystum, 2001, p117). Further, Sinclair (2007) is of the opinion that a presentg brand could influence its relationship with other entities by getting into an association with a brand from the same diligence (Sinclair, 2007). conjugation branding also called Joint branding, brand bundling (Keller, 2004, p 19) or brand alliances is formed with the association of two or more brands who decides to produce a new brand and as puff up sells it to gether.Joint branding is in existence for past many decades for instance, Betty Crocker partenered with Sunkist Growers in 1961 to pro clotheably sell a lemon chiffon cake mix. Interest in Joint branding as a means of building brand equity has cast upd in recent years (Grobel Forbes, 2006, p203). For instance, the toffee candy bar produced by Hersheys Health has not only been extended into several new products-Health Sensations (bite sized candies) and Health Bits and Bits of Brickle (chocolate-covered and plain toffee baking products)-but also has been licensed to a variety of vendors, such as Dairy Queen (with its Blizzard drink), Ben and Herrys, and Blue Bunny (with its ice cream bar).Some other no control board supermarket examples of Joint branding are Kellogs Pop- Tarts with Smuckers fruit filling. Yoplait Trix yogurt, and Smuckers Dove ice cream sauce. In the credit card market, Joint branding often links three brands, as in the Shell MasterCard from Citi Cards. With airlin es, brand alliances can unite a host of brands, such as Star Alliance, which comprises of 16 different airlines such as United Airlines, Lufthansa, and capital of Singapore Airlines.Although the joint branded products are into use for quite some time but surprisingly, it has a very minute quantitative observational research on the subject. Norris (1992) was the person to describe the potential returns of the Joint Branded products. This playing area was then preceded by the various theoretical articles by Rao Rueckert (1994) on Joint Branded Products on signaling Perspective and the other one by Hillyer Tikoo (1995) to understand the influence of Joint branded products on brand evaluation.2.2.1 Merits De-merits of Joint BrandingThe primary receipts provided by joint branding is the ability to position a product distinctively and credibly amidst the large number of multiple brands in the market industry (Norris, 1992). Joint branding can create more compelling points of differe nce or points of parity for the brand -or both-than otherwise might have been feasible (Hillyer Tikoo, 1995, p57). The import would see it producing higher(prenominal)schooler number of sales in the current market and additionally opening good opportunities with new customer groups. Joint branding can reduce the cost of product introduction because it combines two well- cognize images, accelerating potential adoption (Levin, 1996, p87). Joint branding also may be a valuable means to learn about consumers and how other companies approach them. In poorly differentiated categories especially, joint branding may be an important means of creating a distinctive product (Desai Keller, 2002, p 136).The possible limitations of joint branding could be the risks and lack of control that arise from becoming aligned with another brand in the minds of consumers. Consumers expectations about the level of involvement and commitment with joint brands are likely to be high (Levin, 1996, p 147). Unsatisfactory performance thus could have detrimental repercussions for both (or all) brands (Rao, 1997). Levin, in his study further emphasizes on the fact that If the other brand has entered into a number of joint branding arrangements, there also may be a risk of overexposure that would dilute the transfer of any association. It may also result in distraction and a lack of focus on existing brands.A summarized tabulate version of the merits and de-merits of joint branding is listed in Appendix B.2.3 Comparison of joint branding against the different branding strategiesJoint branding is a long term brand alliance in which a product is identified and branded with the other brand (Levin, 1996, p7). A joint branding strategy should constitute following characteristics the participant of the joint branding should be independent before, during and after the alliance of the joint branded product (Ohlwein Schiele, 1994). Secondly, the joint branding strategy should be implemented on a purpose by the owners of the brand (Blackett Russell, 1999). Third, the potential buyer should notice the cooperation between the two brands (Rao, 1997). Fourth, there should be incorporation of more than one brand at a single instance (Hiller Tikoo, 1995 Levin, 1996)The joint branding practically shows that there are two variations in it. The first one can be said as Vertical joint Branding often called as ingredient branding (Desai Keller, 2002, p 113), it refers to a vertical combination of products where manufacturers of different value chain steps in one product (E.g. Pepsi and Nutra Sweet Dell and Intel). On the contrary the horizontal joint branding is characterised by producers stepping in the same value chain for the manufacturing and selling of a multi-branded product. In addition, a joint branded product may also appear in a category where both the producers are already established (Sony Ericsson Mobile phones).Joint branding strategy can become the brand extension s trategy by introducing new product with the same brand name on the existing or new product category or the new product in the new product category (Desai Hoyer, 1993, p 176). The figure below represents the overlaps and differences among the joint branding and brand extension strategies.Figure 1 Joint Branding and Brand Extension (Source Helming, Huber Leeflang, 2008)Only one single brand is involved in classical brand extensions where as joint branding includes multiple brands. Because of this difference there is no information on how customers utilise the brand attitude and association to deliver their response to the combination of two brands can be derived from the study and use of classic brand extension (Simonin Ruth, 1998). On the other side brand extension appears much frequent in practice and corresponding literature is much sophisticated and comprehensive (Aker, 1990 John, 1998 Balachander Ghose, 2003 Volckner Sattler, 2006). Both brand extension and Joint branding s trategies work on the same subject line, to gird the parent brand and extend the customer value perception to a new product (Aaker, 1990. P76). However, joint branding strategy can be seen as more advantageous because a second brand can contribute an additional value perception to the parent brand and itself that a parent brand cannot gather itself. In addition their might be some negative effects to the potential advantages caused by the combination of two brands reasoning either they dont fit or unfavorable perception among the better halfing brands. Further to this the joint branding involves great complications in the operational activities because this strategy needs the alignment of interest of a nominal two associated partners. The choice on aligning requires a careful and comprehensive study of related cost and advantages levied on certain operational objective and the situational surroundings. redundant to joint branding strategy there lays few more brand aligning strat egies, they areJoint sales promotionAdvertising alliance twofold brandingBundlingThe Joint Branding strategy can be closely related to advertising alliance approach. The primary reason to utilise the different branding strategies similar to that of joint branding strategy is the improvement of interdependent image accompanying the collaboration with complementary partner (Wernerfelt, 1988, Erdem Swait, 1999). The signaling theory explains that, the collaboration of two brands assures the customer with greater product quality that in turn provides higher evaluations and premium prices (Rao, 1999). However, joint branding strategy is the only approach where a single product collaborates with two or more brands (Wernerfelt, 1988, p 36). Even though the new brand alliance strategy may not nurse the severe unfavorable plashover effects and less fractiousy but they may not involve such strong benefits as the joint branding strategy.The table below shows the differences between the joi nt branding strategy and other strategies. This table demonstrates that the joint branding and brand extension strategies are very similar where as the other strategies are completely different.Table 1 Branding Strategy and their distinction from Joint BrandingStrategyExampleCharacteristicDifference from Joint brandingRelevant LiteratureProduct BundlingVobis Hardware, software and services for PCsCombined offer from two or more goods in a piece of land with one total priceNo simultaneous branding of a single physical product by two brandsGaeth, 1990 Yadav, 1994 Stremersch Tellis, 2002.Advertising allianceWasa (bread) Due Darfst (diet butter)Simultaneous mention of different supplier of different products in one advertisementBerndt, 1985 Schroter Waschek, 1996 Bergen John, 1997 Samu, 1999Joint sales promotionReebok (sports outfit) and Pepsi (soft drink)Timely, limited appearance of two independent brands in promotional activitiesVaradarajan, 1985 Varadarajan, 1986 Palupski Bohm ann, 1994.Dual BrandingBurger king (fast food) Shell (Gas station)Common usage of store location (shop in shop concept)Levin, 1996 Levin Levin, 2000.Brand Extension stomp Brand transfer from cloths to perfumeExtension of brand to a new product in either a new or an existing product categoryEquals joint branding , if new product is branded by two brands simultaneouslyAaker Keller, 1990 Balachander Ghose, 2003 Volckner Sattler, 2006.2.3.1 Joint Branding and its EffectivenessDifferent theories were propagated to gain an arrest on the efficiency of joint-branding when compared with various other brand extension strategies. Below listed is a brief description on these theoriesConcept Combination Theory This was propounded by Park, Jun andShocker in the year 1996. In this theory, the researchers have observed the evolution and usefulness of combined brand partnerships. A combined brand is described to be the outcome of aligning two significant brands. The findings were ground on th e influence on perception of the consumer towards the new composite brand resulting from the earlier perceptions of the combining brands. The concept combination procedure enlisted evaluating two self sufficient concepts which are to form a new concept (Wisniewski, 1996). According to Park, Jun and Schocker (1996) a composite joint brand comprises of at least one parent brand and one modifier brand, each of which are determined according to their position in the composite brand. As per the concept combination theory, a set of core attributes in a concept is the most essential and salient set of attributes for understanding a concept (Eysenck and Keanne 1990), and it is difficult to change when the concept is combined with others.b) Signaling Theory This theory was utilized by various realists (Rao, Qu Ruekert, 1999 Rao and Rueker1994 Washburn, Till, and Priluck 2000) in order to evaluate and assess the creation of joint branding and its usefulness. As stated by Spence (1974), signa ling could be observed when the observer takes actions to communicate data and information to the ones who are ignorant of it, in order to facilitate their decision making. By utilizing this theory, Washburn, Trill Priluck (2000) had studied the effects of joint branding on the brand equity of the partnering brands. The four components2of the brand equity were evaluated based on the changing perception of the consumers.c) Assimilation and Contrast Theory Levin (2002) has engaged social judgment theory in investigating the impact of joint branding. According to the social judgment theory (Shrif Hovland, 1961), judgments towards a stimulus are affected by the context within which it is evaluated. Furthermore, Sherman (1978, p107) states a stimulus is judged not only by its own features but also by the other stimulus that are present concurrently. Based on the occurrence of a stimuli the contexts are classified into logical argument and assimilation effects (Meyers-Levy and Sterntha l 1993).2.3.2 Direct EffectsConsidering the empirical theories of Rao Rueckert (1994) and Rao (1997), Rao (1999), an in depth study of Joint Branded products from signaling perspective, whereby they show that the customers evaluates the brand qualitativeness better in relation to unidentifiable characteristics where a particular brand is collaborated with another brand which is presumed to be at risk of consumers acceptance. The combined outcome of the dual branding nature, joint branded products offers a better quality signal when compared with mono branded products.Levin (1996) findings displayed that matching a reputed brand name with an non reputable or slightly known host brands improves consumers product evaluations than adding a non reputable brand. Thus, it could be concluded that consumers brand awareness on the partner brands has a corroborative precede effect (Rao, 1997, p 118). Fang and Mishra (2002) also supported this claim, stating that consumer perception of a non reputed brand enhances when combined with a reputed, good quality associate and Voss Tansuhaj (1999), proves that consumer evaluation of a joint branded products improves if a well known domestic brand is incorporated with unknown foreign brand partner.Vaidyanathan Aggarwal (2000) has also analyzed joint branded products formed by a well known national brand and an unknown private brand, and found that a joint branded products received irresponsible valuation if it is incorporated with a well known ingredient brand. By differentiating a joint brand product as having either an unknown branded element or a reputed brand, Desai Keller (2002) clarifies the extended effect of the host brand. With the extension which transforms the intensity of a prevailing product feature, a stabilized component facilitates early growth recognition, however a self brand ingredients results in favourable victoryive group expansion assessment. The brand extension which adds a whole new feature to the product would instruct an existing component, as doing this will lead to high assessment of the original product and its preceding expansion.Park (1996) states that the imperious attitude of consumer towards a brand leads to positive direct effects, and the joint branded products involving two complementary brand gains a better attribute profile in the mind of consumers than that of a direct brand extension of dominant brand or a joint branded product involving two highly favourable but uncomplimentary brand. Walchli (1996), When measuring the evaluation of joint-branded products according to the agreement of the partner brands, displays that in high associated situations, the high dissimilar or similar partner brand possess less positive evaluation that it may have in rather disimilar partner brand. This astounding result is a task of the amplification that consumers undertake to seek resolutions that are partial towards positive clarification for the inaptness (Mandler (1982))T he prior positive attitude generates the positive direct effect towards each partner brand, and also from the positive perception toward the brand and the offered product fit of the partner brand. The term fit refers for the consumer perception on congruity of both the partner brand and their offered product categories and the branding concepts (Simonin Ruth, 1998). The model of Simonin Ruth had been circumscribed by Hadjicharalambus (2001) to gain an evidence that overall fit (i.e., the joint venture of two brands A B as a new joint brand product) effects the evaluation positively of the joint branded products, but overall the fit is influenced by the transfer fit positively, or partner brand fit with product category of the joint branded product and fit of the brand. There is a possession of synergitic effect on the high transfer fit, which generates positive direct effects. The direct link with the brand equity and the joint branded products has been stated by Washburn (1999) and Washburn et al. (2000, 2004) , this displays that the higher brand equity of partner brand enhance the comprehend brand equity of the joint branded product and thus radiates positive direct effect.The study conducted by Janiszewski Van Osselaer (2000) and Van Osselaer Janiszewski (2001) shows how the consumer predicts the products performance through brand names and product features by different training methods. As explained by Simonin Ruth (1998) and Park et al.,(1996) that joining two or more established brands improves the position value of a joint branded products because the well known ingredient of a brand gives positive direct effects.The two most recent study conducted on the direct effect of joint branding is done by Baumgrath (2003) and Huber (2005). These studies agree and support to the previous studies of Simonin Ruth (1998) and Hadjicharambouss (2001) findings. The most comprehensive study on direct effects is given by Baumgarth (2003). He had analyzed a bi ggest simple, the great variety of joint branded products, and the most path relationship. He also states that advertising has a relevantly great importance in terms of evaluating the joint branded products. Huber (2005) proved evidently that involvement of product and orientation of consumers brand influences the success of joint branded product.The comparison of brand extension and joint branding studys displays some interesting similarities and differences. The requirement of fit in a high degree in a brand and the product extension is the main factor of success for brand extension, high involvement of parent brand, acceptance from the market and retailer (Volckner Sattler, 2006). The success of joint branded product is influenced by the transfer fit and support from market, but it carries much significance obtained from the product fit and the partner brand. This is because the joint branding introduces the new evaluation dimensions, unlike the brand extension. The collaboratin g concept of joining two or more brand from a single product to a joint branded product can achieve much benefits of that it may not achieve from its own. This finding is supported by Park et al (1996). The experimental test conducted shows that a joint branded product is assumed much favorable than that of the direct brand extension in the parent brands product categoryThe literature of joint branding still need to analyze the addition factor of success of brand extension, like retailer acceptance and parent brand involvement. The table 2 below shows the relevance of relationship from the brand extension that may serve as a potential factor of success for joint branded product. Such combination can be considered for further research.TABLE 2 Succes Factors for Direct effectsSuccess factors for direct effectsA Joint branded product is more successful if..sourceRelative ImportanceCharacteristics of constituent brands/products cognizancebrand awareness of the constituent brand is highL evin et al. (1996) Fang and Mishra(2002) Voss and Tansuhaj(1999) Vaidyanathan and Aggarwal(2000) Desai and Keller(2002)MediumQualitythe perceived quality of the constituent brands is highRao et al. (1999) McCarthy and Norris (1999) Park et al. (1996) Simonin and Ruth (1998) Janiszewski and van Osselaer (2000) van Osselaer and Janiszewski (2001) Baumgarth (2003) Lafferty et al. (2004) Huber (2005)HighBrand equitythe brand equity of the Constituent brands is highWashburn (1999) Washburn et al. (2000 2004)HighCharacteristics of Joint Branded productAdvertisingthe evaluation of advertising campaigns with regard to the joint branded product is positive.Baumgarth (2003)HIgh sell Acceptanceretailer acceptance is highVolckner and Sattler (2006)NAFit constituent brands/productsDegree of Complimentarinessthe constituent brands are highly complimentary regarding an attitudeof the joint branded productPark et al. (1996)MediumBrand fitBrand fit of the constituents brand is highSimonin and Ruth ( 1998) Baumgarth (2003)HighProduct fitProduct fit of the product categories of constituents brandsis highSimonin and Ruth (1998) Baumgarth (2003) Huber (2005)HIghIncongruencePartner brands are moderately incongruent under high involvement conditions.Walchi (1996)MediumFit constituent brands with Joint branded productFit of constituents brands and Joint branded productThe fit between the brands and the joint branded product is highHadjicharalambous(2001 Baumgarth (2003))HIghPerson specific variablesProduct involvementInvolvement with the product category of the cobranded product is highHuber(2005)MediumBrand OrientationBrand orientation is highHuber(2005)LowConstituent brand involvementConstituent brand involvement is highVolckner and Sattler (2006)NA(Source Helming, Huber Leeflang, 2008)2.3.3 Spillover EffectsStudies on joint branding that delivers spill-over effect are scarce. A structural compare model has been developed by Simonin Ruth (1998) that displays consumers attitude to wards the joint branded product, influencing positive attitude towards each partner brand. These authors have also proved that the brand that are less familiar in the market gains weak impact on the consumer attitude by the joint branded product (Lafferty, 2004). Baumgrath (2003) states that, great brand constancy has less image erosion due to unfavourable extension, which may deliver weak spill over effect. Joint branded products may increase evaluation of an unknown brand if those unknown brand are joint with well known brand.A joint branded product which has two high equity partners can get a win-win potential, which can lead to great spill over effect. Brands with low brand equity gain the higher benefit from the joint branding and that carrying high brand equity does not suffer down grading of reputation, even if they are joined with a lower equity partner (Washburn, 1999 Washburn et al. 2000 2004). Vaidyanathan Aggarwal (2000) states that the brand equity of a national brand does not decrease if collaborated with the unknown private brand. Musante (2000) finds that a joint branded products improves its evaluation if it cooperates with the second brand which is perceived to be higher in that dimension.Table 3 Success factor for spill over effectsSuccess factor for spill Spill over effect on one/both brand(s) Sourceover effect are stronger more positive if..Characteristics of constituent brand(s)Brand AwarenessBrand awareness of one of the constituent brand is highVoss Tanssuhaj (1999)Brand Personality/attitudeThe brand personality of one of the constituent brand is positiveMusante (2000)Brand EquityThe brand equity of one of the constituent brands is highWashburn (1999) Vaidyanath Aggarwal (2000) Washburn (2000 2004)Brand FamiliarityThe brand familiarity of the constituent brand is lowSimonin Ruth (1998)Brand stabilityThe brand stability of the constituent brands is lowBaumgarth(2003)Success factor for Spill over effectSpill over effect on one/both b rand(s) are stronger /more positive if..SourceCharac

No comments:

Post a Comment