A thematic exploration of human brands: literature review and agenda for future research

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is threefold. First, human brands are conceptualized and the distinction between them and personal brands is established. Second, human-brand research is reviewed in light of a strategic brand management framework and gaps in the knowledge that may suggest new research pathways are identified. Third, the extent to which a brand management model designed for products could be applied to human brands is explored. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted in this study. The content analysis of the selected set of papers allowed the assessment of the state of this field of brand management and the identification of proposals for future research. Findings Substantial research exists on different aspects of human brands. However, these studies are fragmented in nature, thus highlighting the need for specific and complete human-brand management models. Research limitations/implications A limitation of this literature review is that it is based on a sample of papers collected by one specific criterion; furthermore, the way the papers were classified may be challenged. However, this study provides a comprehensive picture of studies on human brands available today. Originality/value A parsimonious distinction and connectivity between human and personal brands suggest a branding-by-individual continuum. Additionally, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first identifiable one that summarizes the growing literature on human brands, reveals important gaps in the knowledge and calls for the development of particular human-brand management models.

Can human brands help consumers eat better? Influence of emotional brand attachment, self‐identification, and brand authenticity on consumer eating habits

“…There are several ways to appear authentic in consumers' eyes, but the most efficient one is to really be authentic, and to not view this as purely strategic (Gilmore & Pine, 2007). Emphasizing a brand's accessibility and proximity—which can be achieved through active participation in social networks (Thomson, 2006)—is particularly relevant for human brands, considering their potential in creating deep relationships with consumers (Osorio et al, 2020; Thomson, 2006). In addition, a significant component of brand authenticity is a brand's intrinsic motivation, which lies outside of purely commercial objectives (Guèvremont, 2018).…”

“…A human brand can be defined as a well‐known persona that is the subject of marketing communication efforts (Thomson, 2006). Recent work suggests that human brands are essentially brands that are also people (Fournier & Eckhardt, 2018; Osorio, Centeno, & Cambra‐Fierro, 2020). Fournier and Eckhardt (2019) further define such brands as entities that are “at once a person and a commercialized brand offering” (Fournier & Eckhardt, 2019, p. 603).…”

“…The relationship perspective posits that consumers interact with brands in a humanlike way (Fournier, 1998). Human brands are thus particularly interesting in terms of their ability to create deep connections with consumers and committed relationships (Osorio et al, 2020; Thomson, 2006).…”

“…), they have an increasing role in the culinary world (e.g., Cohen & Csergo, 2012; Dion & Arnould, 2016; Henderson, 2011; Scholes, 2011). Culinary human brands represent well‐known human brands that are active and recognized in the food communication industry (Hewer & Brownlie, 2013; Osorio et al, 2020) through their food television shows, recipes website, and magazines/cookbooks (Vigneault, 2017). The culinary human brands studied in this research represent a specific case of human brands proposed by Cohen (2014); human brand personifiers.…”

Guest editorial

“…"Exploring human brands" article summaries Overview of the human branding literature Osorio et al (2020) article offers an overview of the human branding area. The paper first assists in differentiating personal branding from human branding, suggesting each represents the opposite ends of one continuum.…”