Branding, co-branding and innovation: expectations and limitations

Wilkof, Neil

doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpx235

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these products, most consumers may not recall the brand name and not bother too much about the finer nuances of brand positioning. At the other end, some firms, for example, large fast moving consumer good (FMCG) firms, invest large amounts of resources to create just the right kind of brand image to gain brand loyalty through differentiation (Aaker, 2007; Slotegraaf and Pauwels, 2008; Wilkof, 2018) and nowadays even co-creation (Hatch and Schultz, 2010; Iglesias et al , 2013; Kennedy and Guzmán, 2016; Merz et al , 2018). Examples may include soap, shampoo, clothing and fashion brands, where the basic products may be relatively similar, but the brand image results in significant differences in value perception and consumer loyalty.…”

Section: Brandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation-branding: should all firms be equally ambidextrous?

Paswan

Guzmán

Pei

2020

JPBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The fundamental question asked in this study is – should all firms engage in innovation and branding activities to the same extent to achieve their goals? The purpose of this paper is to answer this question, a strategic typology that integrates branding and innovation (BI) from an organizational ambidexterity perspective is proposed. Design/methodology/approach This paper builds theory by proposing a typology. Integrating the literature on BI, organizational ambidexterity and resource/knowledge-based view of firms, this study posits that to create a value proposition, a firm could choose to engage in innovation and branding activities in a variety of ways depending on their dominant strategic orientation along two dimensions of ambidexterity. Findings The four proposed typical branding-innovation orientations are low innovation × low branding; low innovation × high branding; high innovation × low branding; and high innovation × high branding. Practical implications A firm should choose its dominant strategic orientation depending on conditions such as market, consumers, needs and demand and resources. Originality/value By framing the innovation-branding paradox within an organizational ambidexterity framework, the proposed typology helps integrate two complementary and yet conflicting organizational functions by shifting the focus from an operational to a strategic level.

show abstract