Brand Morphing--Implications for Advertising Theory and Practice

Brand morphing across Wal-Mart customer segments

“…Brand morphing is another way of looking at the same phenomenon (Kates and Goh, 2003). Kates and Goh (2003) explore the brand morphing concept in depth.…”

“…That is, multiple brand meanings can co-exist. Kates and Goh (2003) are the leading proponents of brand morphing, using qualitative cases. Berthon et al (2009) provide a theoretical frame for brand morphing, emphasizing the theory of mutual knowledge.…”

Titanic: Consuming the Myths and Meanings of an Ambiguous Brand

“…The term is nowadays applied to hospitals, universities, art galleries, police forces, political parties, utility suppliers, religious denominations, rock bands, sports teams, movie stars, and, according to Muñiz and Schau (2005), almost everything in contemporary consumer society-dirt, diseases, and disasters included (Ebeling 2010;Fanning 1999). Its mounting semantic entropy is also attributable to the rising tide of cocreative brand communities (Fournier and Avery 2011), proprietorial consumer tribes (Cova, Kozinets, and Shankar 2007), postmodern advertising agencies (Kates and Goh 2003), story-spinning management consultants (Salmon 2010), and academicians' cacophonous contributions to the branding conversation (Thompson, Arnould, and Giesler 2013). The upshot is that the domain, the discourse, the documentation of branding has become much more indefinite, more nebulous, more ambiguous than before.…”

“…Ambiguity is employed in upscale retail stores, where savvy sales associates shape the beliefs, behaviors, and brand choices of consumers as the transaction unfolds (Johnston and Sandberg 2008). Ambiguity is beneficial for transnational advertising agencies (Kates and Goh 2003) and adolescents engaging in acts of interpersonal one-upmanship (Ritson and Elliott 1999). Ambiguity is the essence of Hello Kitty's worldwide appeal, because the character's "cryptic simplicity," her blank facade, is infinitely interpretable (Walker 2008, 18).…”

Building corporate reputation with stakeholders

“…In practice, organizations confronted with conflicting stakeholders can engage in "strategies that do not minimize ambiguity but are nonetheless effective" (Leitch and Davenport, 2002, p. 130). In the context of communications, this strategy is believed to result in downplaying certain details of the organizations' operations that conflict with the desired image (Beverland and Luxton, 2005), having vague mission statements (Leitch and Davenport, 2002), and adapting messages for alternate audiences (Kates and Goh, 2003).…”