The future of brand and brand management – Some provocative propositions from a more methodological perspective

Abstract

In the context of dramatic changes in society and markets, namely, the trend to an active and critical society that is growingly concerned about sustainable goods and services while empowering customers and other stakeholders via social media and other Information & Communication technologies, it is doubtless important to critically review the state of the art with respect to branding. When one is heavily involved in both brand research and brand management practice, many issues run through one's mind and present various suggestions for the future direction of both brands and their management. At the same time, it also seems appropriate to critically review the existing discussion. Given the restricted space available, I decided to combine the two and contribute some provocative propositions to the ongoing discussion, which accentuates a perspective that is slightly more methodological. It seemed especially critical to me to select the following issues: ensuring connectivity to existing management theory and practice, the development of comprehensive integrated brand management concepts, the acceptance of complexity, the foundation of measurement, theory building and management based on the insight and methods of neuroscience, and finally, the plea for both differentiation and situational relativisation.

How diverse is corporate brand management research? Comparing schools of corporate brand management with approaches to corporate strategy

“…CBM aims to build a clearly defined brand proposition, which “underpins organizational efforts to communicate, differentiate, and enhance the brand vis-á-vis key stakeholder groups and networks” (Balmer, 2001a, p. 281). This closely corresponds to Wiedmann’s (2015, p. 750) view, who defines the process of corporate branding as “highlighting the most valuable & valued corporate strengths”. Therefore, a corporate brand can also be considered an information cue of company’s values and goals (Halliday, 1998; Kay, 2006; Urde, 2003).…”

“…Corporate brands have been described as brands that focus on multiple, internal and external stakeholder groups (e.g., customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers and the general public; Curtis et al , 2009), compared to product brands that focus mainly on customers (Balmer, 2001a; Kernstock et al , 2014). Hence, corporate brands are in need of a different management approach than product brand (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001) and CBM should therefore be integrated into a much broader and comprehensive concept of corporate leadership that attracts and preserves all relevant stakeholder groups (Wiedmann, 2015). A central characteristic of the corporate brand is its function to build enduring confidence in the company’s offers (Griffin, 2002).…”

“…A central characteristic of the corporate brand is its function to build enduring confidence in the company’s offers (Griffin, 2002). The resulting trust is one of the company’s central resources (Kernstock et al , 2014), which leads to a positive corporate reputation (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004; Wiedmann, 2015). Other functions of corporate brands include lending credibility (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004) and reducing media costs (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002) when launching new products or entering new markets, connecting strategy and vision to a firm’s marketing functions (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004), aligning organizational subcultures across functions and geographic boundaries (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002), supporting internal brand building (Aaker, 2004) and attracting talents (Balmer and Gray, 2003).…”

Brand engagement without brand ownership: a case of non-brand owner community members

“…PO has become a construct of importance in customer-brand relationships (Wiedmann, 2014). For example, the feelings of PO are stimulated by merely touching the objects (Peck and Shu, 2009); at the mere sight of the objects (Kamleitner and Feuchtl, 2015); by naming the products (Stoner et al, 2018) and by co-designing the innovations (Sembada, 2018).…”

Antecedents and consequences of brand ownership: moderating roles of social value orientation and consumer perceived ethicality in Taiwan's food industry

“…Moreover, the psychological ownership literature shows that the psychological ownership of a product is associated with more favourable product judgement (Jussila et al , 2015) and behavioural responses (product consideration) (Kamleitner and Feuchtl, 2015). Psychological ownership has become an important construct in customer–brand relationships (Wiedmann, 2014), for example, in product naming (Stoner et al , 2018) and in co-designing innovations (Sembada, 2018). Simultaneously, and in response to the growing ethical demands from customers, new players have established their businesses with a claim of a higher ethical purpose and have referenced their brand's conscience (Iglesias et al , 2019).…”