Lessons from nearly a century of the brand management system

Abstract

Purpose -T he aim of this essay is to perform a historical analysis of the Brand Management System (BMS) in order to understand why and how, over the past century, the BMS has become the dominant marketing organizational model across Western countries and sectors and what the lessons are that can be learned from history to enlighten its current changes in today's digitized environment. Me thodology/approach -Building on Low and Fullerton's work (1994), the paper traces the evolution of the BMS from its creation in the 1930s to the recent digital era. Data from various sources -research papers, historical business books, case studies, newspaper articles, and internal documents -is analyzed to inform an intellectual historical analysis of the BMS's development. Findings -The paper uses the prism of institutional isomorphism to highlight four distinct periods that show that the BMS has gradually imposed itself on the Western world and managed to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Moreover, it shows that, in the current digital age, the BMS is now torn between two opposing directions: T he brand manager should act as both absolute expert and galvanic facilitator and the BMS needs to reinvent itself once again. O riginality/value -This paper provides a broad perspective on the BMS function to help marketing scholars, historians, and practitioners gain a better understanding of the issues currently facing the BMS and its relevance in the digital age.

Strategic investments in entrepreneurial brand ventures by large incumbents

“…Many of the marketing textbooks prescribed in business schools (e.g. starting with Kotler's first edition in 1967) were devoted to large firm brand models with the original brand manager construct purportedly started by P&G and Johnson & Johnson in the 1930s (see Aim e et al, 2018;Low and Fullerton, 1994, for the history of the brand manager system). Building strong brand portfolios are seen to imbue organizations with competitive advantages and archetypically developed via brand creation, extension and acquisition strategies (Aaker, 2020;Damoiseau et al, 2011;Doyle, 1990).…”

“…Many of the marketing textbooks prescribed in business schools (e.g. starting with Kotler's first edition in 1967) were devoted to large firm brand models with the original brand manager construct purportedly started by P&G and Johnson & Johnson in the 1930s (see Aimé et al. , 2018; Low and Fullerton, 1994, for the history of the brand manager system).…”

The Reconfiguration of Marketing Organization in the Age of Digital Transformation: A Paradox Perspective

“…Over the past decade, the literature has identified changes and conflicting obligations for the marketing function, all of which are areas of uncertainty and issues for managers and researchers (Aimé et al, 2018;Moorman & Day, 2016). Firstly, D 3 ("digital, datarich, and developing market") environments have produced a considerable increase in the amount of data since the early days of the Internet and, in particular, since the advent of social networks (Sridhar & Fang, 2019).…”

“…These mutations generate tremendous tension, put growing pressure on marketing departments to perform (Whitler & Morgan, 2017), and entail organizational changes. So far, marketing organizations have managed to evolve and adapt, despite predictions that technological revolutions would cause marketing organizations to disappear (Aimé et al, 2018). Does digital transformation jeopardize marketing?…”