Authenticity has historically been associated with transcending the self and the market (Beverland, 2005; Fine, 2003; Kozinets, 2002; Peterson, 2005; Thompson, Rindfleisch, & Arsel, 2006), yet an emerging stream of consumer research identifies that people attribute authenticity to brands. Research suggests that authenticity is central to brand status, equity and corporate reputation (Beverland, 2005; Gilmore & Pine, 2007), with some even suggesting it is one of the "cornerstones of contemporary marketing", (Brown, Kozinets & Sherry, 2003, p. 21). Scholars have previously examined consumers' quests for authentic experiences (Arnould & Price, 2000), rituals associated with the authentic self (Belk & Costa, 1998; Kozinets, 2002), the cues used to attribute authenticity to objects (Beverland, Lindgreen, & Vink, 2008; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Leigh et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2006), the processes used to assess an object's authenticity (Rose & Wood, 2005), and the various forms that authenticity can take (Brown et al., 2003; Grayson & Martinec, 2004). We extend this line of inquiry by defining and measuring consumer-based brand authenticity. We do this through the development of a brand authenticity scale. Such research seeks to reduce the present fragmentation of research on the consumption of authenticity and assist managers create and maintain a brand's authenticity-building on calls for more research in this area (Beverland, 2005; Leigh et al., 2006; Peterson, 2005).Four separate studies were undertaken to generate and refine scale items (Study 1), determine and then confirm the underlying factor structure of brand authenticity (Studies 2 and 3), and finally to test for convergent and discriminant validity of the scale (Study 4). In Study 1, Churchill's (1979) scale development paradigm was adopted, using a deductive approach for the generation of scale items (Schwab, 1980). Drawing on the extant literature, an initial list of 157 items was generated reflecting brand heritage (26 items), quality commitment (21 items), craftsmanship (14 items), sincerity (43 items), nostalgia (23 items), cultural symbolism (21 items) and design consistency (nine items). Content validity of the initial pool of items was then assessed following the method outlined by Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel (1989) and Zaichkowsky, (1985), resulting in the retention of 33 scale items. Study 2 involved further purification of the scale and an assessment of the internal reliability of the 33 items. Data was collected via self-administered questionnaires from 247 undergraduate students at a large inner city university. Several items were eliminated during analysis, resulting in the retention of 19 items reflecting three factors, namely quality commitment, heritage and sincerity. These items formed the basis for further structural testing through confirmatory factor analysis in study 3, where data was gathered from a second sample of university students (n=203). Examination of the data suggested the deletion of five additional items, ...

Although an impressive body of literature has emerged focusing on the critical activities involved in brand management for larger organizations with wellestablished brands and substantial marketing budgets, no research has been undertaken to examine branding within small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The present study therefore seeks to assess the nature and scope of brand management within an SME context. Findings show significant differences between small and large organizations along 9 of the 10 brand management dimensions reported in Keller's brand report card. Moreover, different brand management practices are associated with business performance in SMEs. Implications of the study are highlighted, limitations noted, and directions for future research outlined.

No abstract

Postmodern consumers use brands to create an authentic self and to reconnect to place, time, culture and others. Although previous research has identified that consumers draw on a range of cues in order to attribute authenticity to branded objects, no scales exist to measure the construct of brand authenticity. Building on the existing literature, this paper uses quantitative methods to develop a psychometrically robust measure of brand authenticity from a consumer's perspective. Findings demonstrate convergent, discriminant and predictive validity, whereby 14 items represent three interrelated first order factors labeled quality commitment, sincerity and heritage that correspond with a higher order brand authenticity construct. This study extends our understanding of the consumption of authenticity. Moreover, it provides a tool by which firms can evaluate the effectiveness of strategic decisions designed to deliver an authentic brand offering to consumers. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

We examine the global branding programs of five New Zealand industrial firms and identify the salient components and capabilities underpinning these programs. The cases built their respective brand identities around adaptability to customer needs and the provision of a total solution. This identity was built around five capabilities: relational support, coordinating network players, leveraging brand architecture, adding value, and quantifying the intangible. Underpinning these identity promises were five organizational level supportive capabilities: entrepreneurial, reflexive, innovative, brand supportive dominant logic, and executional capabilities. This approach resulted in global brand leadership, but also reflected the fundamental differences between the B2C and B2B realms.