The brand concept has various meanings in the marketing framework, which make it interpret as a multifaceted entity. The diversity and scope of brands suggests that a single definition would be too limited or too broad within the scope of the modern company. In this sense, it is important to present for discussion the results of a theoretical investigation that aims to delve into the most relevant aspects of the brand concept and its strategic management from a comprehensive perspective.
Especially with regard to its definition, importance and relevance as a strategic asset; as well as the description of aspects related to its construction and management (branding), its image (brand associations) and ethical dilemmas that it has. All this in order to facilitate the understanding of the brand concept as one of the main intangible assets of a company.
Keywords: Brand, Branding, Brand Identity, Brand Image.
Introduction
In recent years, marketing has focused on promoting revolutionary changes in the conception and study of customer relationships. “From the new approaches, we are told that organizations should be concerned with creating value for the consumer, since this value will be associated with loyalty behaviors that, in turn, generate positive effects on business profits” (Rodríguez and Others, 2002: 01).
The addition of value to products and services constitutes a fundamental part for the growth and sustainability of the satisfaction of the needs of the increasingly demanding private clients. In addition, it has a direct impact on the acquisition (positioning) and retention of customers (loyalty) and consequently allows increasing participation and permanence in the market (profitability).
Within this context, the brand constitutes a determining, differential and inimitable factor to create and add value in products, services and companies. Their degree of influence on the purchase decision depends on the familiarity, appreciation, identification, trust and respect that the buyer has with and for the brand. The fact that a consumer remembers, chooses or identifies with a brand and not with others, is the consequence of various interrelated elements, which make this preference directly influence the increase in sales and profitability for the company that owns that brand. brand. This means that customers buy an intangible structure: a thought, a feeling, a physical sensation, and even, in some cases, a social interaction that come together in pleasurable satisfaction.
According to Garnica (1997), the brand's differentiation function serves to separate them, or demarcate them, from those others that compete, that is, to locate (or position) it within a competitive spectrum. Furthermore, due to the emotional nature of their relationship with the consumer, brands now have an appropriation function, which has the result of highlighting perceptual associations that that brand entails and that transfer a certain prestige to the user.
Currently, the brand represents the main satisfaction that a customer expects and wants from the purchase process, and from the use of a product or service. Likewise, it represents a continuous collaboration between the seller and the buyer, configured through multiple interactions with a product or service and marketing activities. This collaboration produces an important buyer / seller relationship that can be lasting and anchored by an essential social identity that is configured over time creating a brand story (Moon and Millison, 2001).
For this reason, for some time now, brand management has acquired significant complexity worldwide, becoming a basic aspect of management in organizations. In this order of ideas, the objective of this work is to analyze from the bibliographic review the most relevant aspects of the brand concept and its strategic management, specifically, its conceptual definition, importance and relevance as a strategic asset; as well as the description of aspects related to its construction and management: branding, brand associations (identity and brand image). Likewise, an analysis of the brand image crisis is included as an ethical dilemma.
Brand definition
The brand concept has many meanings, which make it interpret as a multifaceted entity. In its process of evolution, the brand began as a sign (antiquity), then it was a discourse (Middle Ages), then a memory system (industrial economy), until today it has become a complex phenomenon (information economy, service culture, knowledge society) that includes at the same time the previous conceptions (symbol, speech, memory system) and many other things more: objects of desire and seduction; security subjects; fetishes; idealized mirrors (Costa, 2004).
But in essence, from the structural point of view, the brand before anything else is a sensitive sign that fulfills two different functions that complement each other at the same time: verbal or linguistic (name, denomination, designation) and visual (logo, symbol, image, graphic, color). The brand as a sign must communicate the meaning of something specific and serve as a sign of identity or identification.
The commercial definition of a brand states that “it is a name, symbol or design, or a combination of them, whose purpose is to designate the goods or services of a manufacturer or group of manufacturers, and differentiate them from the rest of the products and services of other competitors. ”(Kotler, 2001; 404).
The use of brands, in addition to being an advantage for manufacturers and / or sellers in terms of differentiating their products and services from the competition, presents advantages for the consumer by facilitating the identification of products and services, and guaranteeing comparable quality when you repeat your purchase. For this reason, the brand is one of the main attributes of the product, the perception of which makes it possible to establish important distinctions regarding its positioning in the market.
Therefore, the brand offers an added value to the product and service that is appreciated by the consumer and whose price is willing to pay. The brand concept, therefore, is not simply a characteristic of certain industries, but has to do with the way in which customers perceive and acquire things. In this sense, Stephen King, cited by Temporal and Lee (2003; 39), states that “a product is something that is made in a factory, while the brand is what consumers buy”. This means that customers buy an intangible structure: a thought, a feeling, a physical sensation and even, in some cases, a social interaction that is combined with a pleasant satisfaction.
This structure is based on the perception that customers have towards the brand, which is the summary of all the multiple experiences and relationships that it has had with it. Regardless of how a brand is created or how communication is established with the people to whom it is directed, the success or failure of a brand depends on the experience that the consumer obtains from it. In fact the brand is an experience; it is a promise that is made to the consumer and must be fulfilled (Temporal and Lee, 2003).
In accordance with the above, one of the definitions that most closely approximates this context is that of Arnold (1993; 343) who defines the brand “as the personality or identity of a product, range of products or of an organization, derived from the perception of the consumer regarding the attributes ”.
With this definition it is corroborated that the brand is something that transcends the product or service; has its own life that feeds on the original product, but also carries its values and identity with it in new product areas. Within this context, the diversity and scope of trademarks suggests that a single definition would be too limited or too broad.
In this sense, some experts have classified brand definitions into six categories (Randall, 2002): visual; perceptual; positioners; value added; image and personality. Brands can also be classified according to their sponsorship into: brand name, corporate brand, trademark, distributor brand, and licensed brand; According to the strategy, they can be classified into: individual brands, unique brands, brands by product lines, combined brand, own brands, private brands, multiple brands, among others (Pujol, 1999).
These different definitions of brand existing in its different dimensions, levels and types, leads to many authors not adopting a single definition of brand. Very common situation in marketing, which is based on the study carried out by Chernatony and Riley (1996), cited by Randall (2002), whose results indicate that the media consultants are not willing to stay with a single brand definition.
Importance of trademarks
Brands are important to consumers because they contribute (Temporal and Lee, 2003):
- Clear and defined options: people like to have options, brands grant the freedom to choose. Experience with a brand makes the next choice faster. A means to simplify your decisions: brands facilitate the selection process, by recognizing a brand the client speeds up decision-making. Quality assurance: customers choose quality products and services whenever they have the opportunity, they relate their brand experiences to the levels of quality and strength of the brand. Risk prevention: customers do not choose products and services of which they are unaware of their performance and quality standard. A positive previous brand experience generates confidence in the customer, this reduces the risk of a bad choice. A form of self expression:Brands allow people to express their sociological and psychological needs (social level, success achieved, aspirations, love and friendship, personality). Brands add an emotional component to their relationship with consumers. Something They Can Trust: Strong brands are built on trust, this means that people know that what they buy will live up to their expectations.
The brand as a strategic asset
Brands sell. Brands endure. Brands are worth it. Brands are strategic assets. Brand building, as companies know today, has long been considered the key to building wealth. Specifically, brands were a front-page issue in 1988, when The Economist magazine, cited by Arnold (1993), titled "The Year of the Brand." This is due to the sudden emergence of the brand and the skills required to manage it as vital elements of corporate heritage.
In particular, the brands gained resonance from that historic year as a result of Philip Morris's acquisition of Kraft in the United States; and in Europe, the acquisition made by Nestle of the clothing firm Rowntree. Philip Morris paid four times the value of Kraft's tangible assets; and Nestle paid five times Rowntree's book value. These acquisitions were justified, according to Randall (2002), for three fundamental reasons: future potential, the enormous sums on which the projections of the exorbitant profits that these brands are capable of producing in the long term were based; by preventing competitors from taking over the brands; and because it is easier to acquire successful brands than to build them from scratch.
The aforementioned results and acquisitions such as those described stimulated from that time on, that brands should appear on the balance sheets because of how valuable they are. For this reason, in many countries, despite the many controversies that have arisen over the different valuation methods developed, the value of brands was considered an intangible asset (goodwill).
Today brands are considered, in their own right, as strategic assets by many companies, and brand valuation is becoming a rapidly growing business. The valuation of brands, until recently, is that it has become more sophisticated and has gained greater acceptance. It is currently one of the most fascinating parts of brand building. Trademarks can be used to leverage the value of a company and as collateral to obtain credit. A recent example of the value of a brand is the Hong Kong company VTech, which paid $ 115 million in the first quarter of 2000 to acquire the rights to the AT&T brand name for ten years, plus royalty payments (Temporary and Lee, 2003).
Although many problems persist to agree on the effective way of valuing brands and the fair criteria to know whether or not it is convenient to continue investing in them. The truth is, that in view of the strategic importance of brand equity, whether it appears or not, on the balance sheet, it is reasonable to know how much brands are worth, even more so when various tests show the high profitability that these produce when they are strong and leaders.
Among these tests, the comparative study carried out by Ward and Perrier (1998), cited by Randall (2002), over a period of 20 years, to companies focused mainly on goods with strong brands with which they obtain their value in the form of strong brands, stands out. Non-Brand: Companies with strong brands consistently outperformed the other 350 equity marketing companies evaluated. Another study, carried out by Meter Doyle (1989), cited by Randall (2002), which was based on a set of several tests of the high profitability of strong brands, suggests as a result that brands with a market share of 40 % generate three times more returns on investment than those with only 10% participation.
Due to the aforementioned, among other things, various companies worldwide, eager to be leaders, undertook the task of developing strong brands to dominate their market segments and increase their assets. That is why, parallel to this resurgence of brands at the end of the eighties of the last century, it is beginning to be understood that strong brands constitute a valuable capital, by which a set of strategies had to be generated to build them, maintain them and so that they generate an appreciated economic and marketing value. Branding became one of the most discussed processes among managers and boards of directors of large companies in the world as a method to consolidate brands.
Brand management and construction: branding
The American word branding comes from brand, brand. The origin of the terms brand and branding is found in the act of an owner identifying or marking their livestock, thus transforming an animal into a branded product. This marking did not end in a mere claim of ownership; the mark of a good breeder became valuable in itself: a certain level of quality and the confidence of not being deceived.
Nowadays, things have become more sophisticated, but the essence of the branding concept has changed very little: it is about conceiving, designing, implementing, pampering, making profitable an image and product concept that responds to the values and wishes of a market segment. The term branding is used by Homs (2004) to describe everything related to the development of brands, the generation of value through them and the way in which their identity is consolidated. For its part, strategic branding focuses on strengthening the competitive potential of brands.
The concept of branding became popular in the nineties of the last century although it arose together with the appearance of the firm Procter & Gamble (thirty of the last century), which has always been oriented to brand management. Today, brands are carefully designed by business systems, which are made up of the selection of raw materials, to the final service provided to consumers. This business system being what a customer buys, not just the product.
When brands become business systems, brand managers become very important in their roles, requiring greater decisions and actions at each point in the value chain. Within this context, the main function that brand managers develop to create and manage brand equity as a business system is branding. Branding is an integrated process that includes the systematic and consistent application of the design of the product or service, the telling of the story, the media and the technology to understand the purchase and use behaviors of customers, throughout the cycle of life of satisfaction (Moon and Millison, 2001).
There are several types of branding that companies may need or require, which can be part of a sequence and be chosen from multiple variations. In essence Temporal and Lee (2003) present three options: Product branding: it is the one that is applied when a company decides that the product can be maintained on its own and can be left exposed to success or failure without the support of the corporate brand or the name of the company. Corporate branding: it is the one that is applied to the corporate brand so that it occupies a prominent place and its entire identity is transferred to its products. Home or support branding: is the one that is applied so that each product has its own brand and in turn uses or relies on the name of the corporate brand.
In our days, the strategic importance of brands requires an investment in branding, since, through it, many things can be achieved at the same time, including positioning, maintenance, remembrance and recognition. Branding involves considering the interaction between brand (what customers buy) and value (what sellers sell), distinguishing the perspective of the seller and that of the buyer (especially), and focusing on the relationship of both with the brand (Moon and Millison, 2001).
Branding is becoming increasingly important. Consumer goods companies have learned not only how expert branding can add to products and services, but also how it can transform ordinary goods into highly regarded products and services. The marketing of the new century has begun to seek differentiation in a world that is acquiring greater parity. Branding makes the difference. Branding allows the set of attributes and values of a brand to be developed and maintained in a coherent, appropriate, distinctive way, capable of being legally protected and attractive to consumers.
Brand associations
Brand associations are all those elements, situations, attributes, qualities, symbols, etc. that are presented to the mind of the consumer when he interacts or relates to the brand, that is, brand associations are the image of the brand that the consumer has in his mind. In this sense, for Dowling (1986: 23), the brand image is the “set of meanings by which an object is known and through which people describe, remember and relate it”.
For Keller (1993: 345), the brand image is the “perceptions about the brand that are reflected as existing associations in the consumer's memory”. This image is the support of visual communication that materializes a fragment of the perceptual world (visual environment), capable of subsisting through time, and that constitutes one of the main components of the mass media (photography, painting, illustrations, sculpture, cinema, television), computer icons and all the visual and imaginable presentations that nature provides. Therefore, the image of the brand is the totality of perceptions that consumers have about the brand or the way they see it: the brand image connotes the expectations of the consumer.
According to Keller (1993), these associations can be created from direct experience with the good or service, by the information communicated (by the company itself, other commercial sources and through the word-of-mouth effect) and by making inferences according to Pre-existing associations about the company, origin, among others.
Within this context, Aaker (1996) refers to brand identity as the unique set of associations that the strategist aspires to create and maintain, which represent the brand's reason for being and as a whole configure its meaning. Therefore, it is the enduring aspiration and represents what the company wants its customers, employees, suppliers and distributors to think of the brand. That is why various authors affirm that the brand image becomes the tactic and while the brand identity the (business) strategy. The brand image is oriented to the past and the brand identity to the future (aspirated associations). The brand identity reflects the enduring qualities of the brand even if they are not outstanding from the brand image.
For Aaker (1996) the brand image, that is, how customers and others related to it perceive, provides a useful and necessary informational background to develop the brand identity, but it should not dictate the position. To create a brand position, a comparison between the identity and the brand image in different dimensions can be established as a step. This comparison can influence so that the brand image is: increased, if you need to add or reinforce a dimension); reinforced and exploited, if image associations are consistent with identity and strong; diluted, smoothed or removed, if the image is inconsistent with the brand identity.
The importance of the brand image lies in its unique character to distinguish a company and a product, even more so in this saturated world. Without a strong image, it is extremely difficult for a company to gain new customers, retain existing ones, and at the same time impose high prices on its products. The brand identity is the anchor center of the image. It begins with the product and is an essential part of its personality. The image itself is the product of the brand's distinctive identity: a mental synthesis based on values. Identity stimuli become values, constituted as an image.
Brand identity, suggests Aaker (1996), is structured in two fundamental parts: central identity and extended identity. The core identity represents the essence of the brand both for the meaning and success of the brand, it contains associations that should remain constant. On the other hand, the extended identity includes elements that incorporate details that help to understand and complement the reason for being of the brand.
That is, the brand image can be perceived by the buyer as a specific set of attributes that provides not only the basic service of the product (functional utility), but also a set of added secondary services (supplementary utility) that constitute distinctive elements between brands, which serve as particular satisfaction-generating attributes individually or globally qualified by the buyer according to their presence and importance.
That is why associations can be based on attributes or benefits of the product, intangible factors (perceived quality, technological leadership), benefits provided to the customer, relative price, use or application, type of user or customer, celebrity or well-known person, style life, personality, product class, competing products and country or geographic area.
Table No. 01. Distinction between Identity, Image and Positioning
Distinction between Identity, Image and Positioning
Source: Aaker (1996).
Keller (1993) indicates that brand associations can be broken down into attributes, benefits, and attitudes. This author also proposes the measurement of the congruence between the different associations for a given brand and the leverage of secondary associations related to the company (reputation, credibility.), Country of origin, distribution channels (price, advice, quality, service.), event and existence of a famous spokesperson or prescriber of the product or service.
In any case, it is important to emphasize that an image only exists in the mind of the consumer (McInnis and Price, 1987), and that the objective superiority of a brand does not have to entail any purchase motivation, if this superiority is not perceived by the market, since the associations that make up the brand image are of a different nature and depend on factors both internal and external to the individual.
For this reason, in order to fully understand the brand image, or any other term, it is not only important to know what “it is”, but also what “it is not”. One of the most common mistakes is to confuse brand identity -associations that the company tries to communicate- with brand image -associations that are finally perceived-, what Aaker (1996: 14) calls the “brand image trap”.
Table Nº 02. The Brand is more than a Product
The Brand is more than a Product
Source: Aaker (1996).
In this sense, brand image is a matter of social psychology rather than a matter of design. To delve into the brand image is to penetrate the social imaginary, the everyday psychology, the personal world of aspirations, emotions and values. For cognitive science, brand image is a mental model.
In accordance with the above, the term image has two main meanings: the first "image as a material object", a physical representation of things that are found in our environment of objects and products; and the second meaning is "image as mental representation", a synthetic and intangible product of the individual imagination and by extension of the collective imagination. Costa (2004) states that the image puts two worlds in interaction. A world “A” external to the human being (physical), composed of the reality that surrounds it, where objects, things, phenomena are found; This world is defined by the capabilities and limitations of the sensory system (perceptions and understanding) that allows the subject to capture the environment.
In world “A” there are the real things that we see and touch directly (A1); and also the represented things (A2) that constitute the universe of images and symbols. The second is world "B", which interacts with the previous "A1" and "A2". It is the mental world, that is, psychological and cultural, which encompasses learning, the interpretation of what we perceive and feel, and imagination (Costa, 2004). Consequently, brands, products and services are offered in world “A”, in its hemispheres “A1” and “A2”; and relationships with brands link world "A" with world "B".
Brands are materially in the "A1" world, linked to real things: products, services, functions, prices, etc. They are also in the “A2” world, linked to symbolic things: physical images that represent those things: words, signs, shapes, colors, sounds; in the same way they are in world "B" because they come from world "A". Brands are thus transversal.
"A1 and" B1 "represent the physical or material relationships of individuals with objects, products, services. "A2" and "B2" represent the sensory relationships and experiences between symbolic images and their meanings, which are inscribed in the minds of individuals. The mental images of brands are, therefore, internal representations (psychological products) that determine our behaviors and opinions.
Table Nº 03. Brand Image Phenomenology
Brand Image Phenomenology
Source: Costa (2004).
When an individual goes from the perceptual dimension (A1; visual) of the brand, to its symbolic dimension (A2; significant), and from these to the psychological dimensions of the experience with what the brand represents (B1 and B2), then This becomes a mental image, a full reference that is incorporated into personal memory and affects preferences and decisions that have to do with the brand (Costa, 2004).
Brands thus live in the market and in society, on two worlds, "A" and "B", with their multiple real and symbolic dimensions, their material things, with their utilitarianism and banality, their refined aesthetics, their significance. psychological and social, their satisfactions and frustrations, their experiences and emotions, their adventures and their routines.
According to Costa (2004), the mental image of the brand is a matter of degrees, or intensity and can be graphically expressed by means of a large arc that represents the evolution from the sign (brand) to the symbol (mental image). The sign, as a general expression of what is functional, both in products and services, as well as in its brands; and the symbol, as a profound expression of the most emotional.
This evolution of the brand to the image has several points of reference for the individual in relation to what the brand product and / or service contribute, based on the basis that brands are born as products.
These progressive anchoring points are: at the initial end of the arch, a functional satisfaction (for example, food or pharmaceutical products); in the center of the arch, an intellectual or rational gratification, which can pass through security (financial brands, transport, etc.) and professional, technical or general information (books, studies, etc.); and the other extreme, an emotional gratification, found in intimacy (fashion, entertainment, luxury, self-image and enjoyment).
Table Nº 04. Evolution of the Brand to the Image
Evolution of the Brand to the Image
Source: Costa (2004).
The process that occurs along that arc that begins at the end where the brand is a sign (brand / function), which in turn has a functional role. It is the sign as a designation (the name) and as a recognition (reminder) that is associated with a product (satisfactory). At the other end of the arc's path, the brand / emotion is no longer a sign, but has been enriched with a series of values that add up to become a symbol.
Products and services, with their brands, represent these things, and others, always combined and nuanced with each other. According to Costa (2004), the arch scheme aims to be a synthesis that helps to make the phenomenon of the generation of mental images caused by brands intelligent. But in reality it is infinitely complex.
It is noteworthy that the emotional experience of the consumer - user tends to be the engine of the big brands, once the functionality of the product is no longer distinctive. Beyond the functionality and presentations of products and services, and beyond the rationality and logic of their utility, the sensory-emotional experience is sought. For this reason, according to Costa (2004: 24), “it is said that a brand must be, first of all, an emotion”.
This trend acquires greater attention in the case of services, where the challenges are greater, since it is in the universe of the intangible, and the almost immaterial identity becomes more subtle in favor of the emotional image. As can be seen, the brand image is a multidimensional representation, in that sense, various authors have identified various dimensions of image associations and brand identity, among them Aaker (1996) raises four: the brand as a product; the brand as an organization; the brand as a person and the brand as a symbol.
On the other hand, Temporal and Lee (2003) add three more to these dimensions: the brand as a set of values; the brand as culture and the brand as position. Each of these dimensions is described below:
- The brand as a product: the associations related to the product constitute an important part of the brand's identity system since they are directly linked to the decision alternatives and experiences of use. Attributes directly related to the purchase or use of the product can provide functional and emotional benefits to the customer. The product-attribute relationship can create a value proposition by offering something extra and better.
A strong link to the product class means that the brand will be remembered when the product class emerges. Quality is one of the core identity attributes of many brands. The perceived quality supplies the price of admission or the competitive pivot.
- Branding as an organization: The perspective of branding as an organization focuses on the attributes of the organization rather than those of the product or service. These organizational attributes such as innovation, search for quality and concern for the environment are created by the human resources, culture, values and plans of the company.
Organizational attributes can be distinguished from product attributes; they are more durable and resistant to the actions of the competition than the product attributes result.
- The brand as a person: the brand personality is the "who is" (the brand), added to the "what is" (product or service); It is the set of human characteristics associated with a certain brand. Personal values are used to give a distinctive personality to the brand or to give it character. This adds a touch of warmth and human warmth to the brand. In this way, it is intended to capture more the attention of consumers and summarize the strengths of the brand.
Brand personality, like human personality, is both distinctive
and enduring. Describing a person can be used the same as to describe a brand. Specifically, a brand can be described by demographics (age, gender, social class, and race) or by aspects of human personality (extroversion, liking, or dependency).
The construction of the brand personality allows the understanding of people's attitudes and perceptions towards the brand, contributing to a differentiated brand identity, guiding the communication effort and creating value for the brand.
- The brand as a symbol: brands go beyond logos and trademarks. A symbol can provide cohesion and structure to identity. They make it easier to obtain recognition and remembrance. Your presence is a key element for brand development and potential power. Everything that represents the brand can become a symbol.
A strong visual image captures most of the brand identity. Symbols can cause greater meaning when they include a metaphor, either with the symbol itself or some characteristic that represents a functional, emotional, or self-expressive benefit.
- The brand as a set of values: successful brands are created around a set of brand values. Many brands use very defined brand values to ensure that they meet consumer expectations, some of these values may be close to personality characteristics. For example: quality, operational effectiveness (performance), reliability, speed, continuous improvement, etc. The brand as a position: the brand is only a position, which will have value when it is created in the minds of consumers. That is why the brand will be successful to the extent that this specific position is secured, which may be given by a favorable opinion or image.
Position is the part of the brand identity and value proposition that must be actively communicated to the target audience, as it demonstrates an advantage over competing brands. The brand position allows to increase, reinforce and spread the brand image; This is the basis for creating a good brand position, since it is based on perceptions and their management, as it guarantees that both the company and the products and services to offer are considered as fully differentiated unique identities.
- The brand as a culture: a brand is a source of pride, a factor of belonging and esteem. A brand with a leadership position makes everyone in the organization move around it, it is a source of motivation that can get members to do anything to make it prosper. The creation of a solid brand culture arises from a large amount of training and development, which is based on the knowledge of the values that distinguish the brand.
The dimensions or elements of the image / brand identity previously exposed, according to Aaker and Álvarez (2004), will depend on the type of product. The most powerful brands will have more elements in their identity and all will contribute to associative patterns. On the contrary, weak brands will have an identity based on few elements and / or those elements will appear unrelated, or even be unconscious.
The characteristic of brand image associations depends on how that combination of all these elements or dimensions is produced. In some cases, the brand identity must be adapted to some markets or product contexts; in other situations it will be so persuasive and universal that it can work in all markets. The high number of elements that determine the brand image make its measurement not an easy task.
For this reason, in numerous works the image is measured according to the tangible and intangible attributes or benefits that are associated with the brand and that provide a favorable attitude towards the choice of each particular brand, trying to identify the underlying dimensions through various character techniques direct and indirect. Given the difficulty of generalizing the results obtained from these investigations, some authors have proposed dimensions and scales that can be applied to different brands and sectors.
The brand image crisis: an ethical dilemma
During the last fifty the brand image has become the central concept of marketing, which has become more creative than scientific. The maturation of many consumer markets and the development of multiple products with similar characteristics and prices raised the need to enter the psyche of consumers through advertising by creating symbols that stimulate the consumer society (Grant, 2004). This situation, in the eighties of the last century, produced the change of the old business paradigm of the industrial economy that promoted: “the more things are manufactured, the higher the income”; by which he proclaimed: "successful companies must first produce brands and not products."
Within this context, companies such as Nike and Microsoft, and later Tommy Hilfiger and Intel, emerged. These pioneers put forward the bold thesis that the production of goods is only a secondary aspect of their operations, and that thanks to their recent victories in trade liberalization and labor reforms, they were able to manufacture their products through contractors, many of them foreigners (Klein, 2001). The main thing these companies produced was not things, but brand images. His real job was not to manufacture but to commercialize media images.
According to Klein (2001), this formula turned out to be enormously profitable, and its success launched companies into a race towards weightlessness: the one that owns the fewest things, the one that has the shortest list of employees and produces the most powerful images, and not products, it is the one that wins. In this sense, the brand became the essential meaning of the great modern company, advertising as the vehicle to transmit that meaning to the world. For this reason, nowadays we talk about image companies and brands, clearly oriented to marketing.
Image brands, for Tybout and Carpenter (cited by Iacobucci, 2002), are successful when they make an emotional connection with consumers; they address the desire to belong to a larger social group, to be liked by others, or to define oneself according to a particular image. Advertising and other forms of communication play a prominent role in the development of image brands because their value arises, to a large extent, from a shared interpretation of what it means to use the brand, and no longer from the features of the product.
For this reason, we understand and distinguish that brand X is not a product but a lifestyle, an attitude, a set of values, a personal appearance and an idea. In this regard we can mention as examples: Nike is no longer a sports shoe company but a sports company whose mission is to improve people's lives and their physical condition, keeping the magic of sports alive; IBM no longer sells computers, but business solutions; and Swatch is no longer concerned with making watches, but with the idea of time.
Brand image shaping has been viewed as a highly costly fantasy image to create and high risk to maintain, thanks to fragmented markets and the influence, sophistication and reach of the media. This conception of the brand image as a social aspiration has been subjected to multiple attacks, especially because in many cases it is based on a position of glamor and attraction that is achieved thanks to the objects that are acquired. In this race for the victory of market control, the obsessive struggle between companies for brand image has surpassed limits, covertly or not, that affect private and public spaces, common institutions such as schools, the identity of young people,the concept of nationality and the existence of non-commercial spaces.
According to Grant (2004), the brand image has fueled the consumer society to negative extremes due to the influence of elements that stimulate envy as a driver of consumption, which in its maximum expression according to various investigations is related to the action of crimes and crimes, because there are many excluded from wealth who take justice into their own hands to be able to own inexpensive products that they cannot buy, whose value has a high marketing cost. A common example of these times is robbery and even murder to obtain a fashionable pair of shoes.
In Grant's opinion (2004; 97): “the truth about brand image is that everything is lies; a brand is a definition, it is a promise, therefore, the brand image usually promises something that was not true ”.
These branding decisions face one of the biggest ethical dilemmas in marketing activities, both individually and organizationally, because in many cases superfluous needs are created, consumerism is encouraged and consumers are deceived with products and services that do not really satisfy you or, especially, that do not deliver on their promise of value.
Within this context, ethical elements must be resolved in many business issues, according to Kotler (2001) one of the most important are the aspects of advertising, such as false and deceptive advertisements, use of high pressure tactics to persuade the people to buy or, failing that, use any type of medium to acquire and own the products and brands of their choice. Therefore, companies need to review if they are practicing ethical marketing in search of the internal and external common good. Success in business and the continued satisfaction of customers and other stakeholders are closely related to the adoption and implementation of high standards of business and marketing conduct.
Raising the level of socially responsible marketing requires an attack on three sources (Kotler 2001): society must use the law to define, as clearly as possible, practices that are illegal, anti-social, or anti-competitive; companies should adopt and disseminate a written code of ethics, create a tradition of ethical conduct in the company, and hold their staff fully accountable for respecting ethical and legal guidelines; individual marketers must practice social awareness in their specific dealings with customers and various stakeholders.
In marketing activities, at no time should the end justify the means, that is, fundamental values cannot be ignored for the achievement of selfish business objectives that only seek to stimulate demand at all costs to maximize profits. On the contrary, the marketing philosophy is based on the satisfaction and respect of consumers to ensure their loyalty in the medium and long term. Consequently, leaders, marketers, brand managers, organizations and society must guarantee the ethical use of marketing practices and especially brand management in safeguarding the fundamental principles and values that proclaim the common good and that for centuries have served as an axis to achieve prosperity.
Final thoughts
The traditional definition of a brand, as it could be corroborated, has undergone various transformations and has acquired different commercial uses over time beyond its original conception. This evolution of the concept generates a series of problems of interpretation and adoption of a single definition. What was previously only considered as a sign that represented and differentiated a manufacturer, is currently a symbol with a life of its own that is nourished by the perceptions of consumers, and that has a meaning in the superior market of the product or service that it identifies.
In this sense, the importance of the brand is even greater, both for the consumer and for the company that owns it. For the consumer, beyond simplifying the decision-making process of choice and purchase (for quality, trust, etc.), it is a form of self-expression of their sociological and psychological needs. For the company that owns the brand, it represents a strategic asset with a highly profitable economic and market intangible value, which must be managed as a business system. Within this framework, the definition of a brand is a much broader and more comprehensive concept in the modern company.
The management and construction of powerful brands is the goal of all leading companies, or not, who wish to dominate a market segment and increase their assets, especially in mature markets where differentiation and attraction is achieved in the psyche of consumers. In this regard, branding turns out to be the key to this entire process of generating brand value, since it allows a coherence to be maintained or created between the identity that the company wants to project its brand and the image that the market perceives. A strong brand image will provide a favorable meaning and attitude towards your choice and acceptance.
The entry barriers of mature markets can cause the breakdown of the paradigm of the traditional company, changing its production orientation to a marketing orientation. Producing, more than goods, brand image, the raison d'être of the modern company. This orientation turns out to be challenging and costly in time and resources, but substantively rewarding if efficiently administered. Advertising and other means of communication are the foundation of a brand's development and success.
The appropriate and responsible use of the media and communication resources within the management of the brand image, the delivery to the market of a consistent and reliable value proposition, is key within the markets saturated with information and false promises. Attacks and discredits due to abuse and excesses of brands are daily with notable effects in various societies due to the absence and ignorance of ethical standards that guarantee satisfaction and respect for consumers. Modernization and business innovation implies updating, modification and creation of ethical frameworks adjusted to the needs of the new times. Business and professional prosperity cannot be considered successful if you do not have an ethically responsible social conscience.
Bibliographic references
- AAKER, DAVID (1996). Build Powerful Brands. Madrid: Ediciones Gestión 2000 SAAAKER, D. AND ÁLVAREZ DEL BLANCO, R. (1994). Capitalize on Brand Value. Harvard Deusto Business Review. March. Pp. 62-76 ARNOLD, DAVID (1993). Brand Management Manual. Bogota: Grupo Editorial Norma. COSTA, JOAN (2004). Brand Image: a social phenomenon. Madrid: Ediciones Paidós Ibérica SADOWLING, GR (1986). "Managing your Corporate Images", Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 109-115.GARNICA, ALEJANDRO (1997). Brand Equity: a literature review. Mexico: Amai Bulletin, Trend Data and Diagnostics. Mexican Association of Market Research and Public Opinion Agencies. Year 4, Number 12.GRANT, JOHN (2004). Beyond the image. Spain: Ediciones Deusto.HOMS, R. (2004). The era of predatory brands. Mexico: Editorial McGraw Hill Interamericana Editores, SAIACOBUCCI, DAWN (2002). Marketing according to Kellogg. Spain: Editorial Javier Vergara Editor.KELLER, K. (2000). The brand report card. Harvard Business Review, January-February. 147-157 KELLER, KL (1993). "Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Costumer-Based BrandEquity." Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22.KLEIN, NAOMI (2002). No logo. Spain: Editorial Paidós Contextos.KOTLER, PHILIP (2001). Marketing direction. México: Editorial Prentice Hall.MCINNIS, DJ Y PRICE, LL (1987), “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions”, Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 473-491.MOON, MICHAEL Y MILLISON, DOUG (2001). Firebrands: how to build brand loyalty in the internet age. Bogota: Editorial McGraw-Hill. PUJOL, BRUNO (1999). Marketing Dictionary. Spain: Editorial Cultural SARANDALL, GEOFFREY (2002). Branding practical guide for planning your brand strategy. Mexico: Editorial Panorama.RODRÍGUEZ, SILVIA Y OTROS (2002).Loyalty and Value in the Consumer Relationship. An Application to the Case of Financial Services. Granada: University of Valladolid. Paper published in the memories of the XIV Meeting of University Professors of Marketing. P. 1.TEMPORAL, PAUL AND LEE, KC (2003). High-tech branding. Mexico: Editorial McGraw Hill Interamericana Editores, SA
Bachelor of Business Administration. Master of the Master in Business Management Marketing Mention at the University of Zulia. Participant in the Doctorate Program in Business Administration at the Polytechnic University of Madrid.
To complement what has already been explained in this document, about the brand concept and its management, we suggest the following video conference. This is a complete presentation by Alex Alda, director and founding partner of one of the five most important firms in Latin America dedicated to brand management, who shares part of his experience addressing the issue of the power of the brand in people and in society. (6 videos - 1 hour and 18 minutes)
Download the original file
