Branding
WEEK 1: Branding boundaries & brand equity
Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J. B. E., O’Guinn, T. C. G.,
& Schmitt, B. (2020). Branding in a hyperconnected world:
Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal of
Marketing, 84(2), 24-46. (Links to an external site.)
The concept of hyperconnectivity refers to the proliferation of networks of
people, devices, and other entities, as well as the continuous access to other
people, machines, and organizations, regardless of time or location.
Hyperconnectivity has led to two major changes in branding.
- First, brands are shifting away from single to shared ownership, as
heightened access to information and people is allowing more
stakeholders to co-create brand experiences and brand meanings
alongside traditional brand owners (or entities who market the brand).
Also called the “blurring of branding boundaries.”
- Second, hyperconnectivity has allowed existing brands to expand their
geographic reach and societal roles, while new types of branded entities
are further stretching the branding space, which constitutes a “broadening
of branding boundaries.”
-
3 Fundamental questions:
(1) What are the roles and functions of brands? (2) How do brands (co)create
value? and (3) How should brands be managed?
There are three theoretical perspectives (firm, consumer, and society) and two
approaches within each perspective. The firm perspective views brands as
assets and examines the various functions and roles that brands serve for firms,
both strategically and financially. The consumer perspective views brands as
signals (economic approach) and mental knowledge cues (psychological
approach). The society perspective presents brands in societal and cultural
contexts affecting individual consumers both directly and indirectly through
social forces, structures, and institutions.
This article focuses on future contributions to brand research,
management, and measurement in a hyperconnected world in which the
boundaries of branding have been blurred and broadened.
Hyperconnectivity contributes to several new roles in which brands are
containers of socially constructed meaning, architects of value in networks,
catalysts of communities, arbiters of controversy, and stewards of data privacy,
among others. Many of these new roles can be the focus of research from
multiple disciplinary perspectives, and this article highlight a variety of research
questions that can draw from different theoretical perspectives throughout the
article. As brand boundaries are blurring, this article also discusses the shift
toward co-created brand meanings and experiences enacted via digital platforms
that facilitate such cocreation.
One implication of hyperconnectivity for branding research lies in the fact that
brands will need to be conceptualized more broadly within each of the
,theoretical perspectives in the extant brand literature. The consumer and firm
perspectives should focus more on consumers and firms as part of
networks, rather than on their roles as individual buyers or managers of brands.
The society perspective should go beyond the role of brands as cultural
symbols and examine them as agents of social change. Moreover, the authors
propose that brands are more than symbols attached to products that are owned
by individual firms. They can be ideas, people, and places.
There is also an opportunity to examine topics that cut across these theoretical
perspectives. For example, the firm perspective will need to embrace societal
questions as organizations or corporate brands are asked to address broader
issues including social responsibility, sustainability, and human-resource
practices that go beyond profit maximization. Brands need to fulfill a broader
mission and purpose. The consumer perspective will also have to be more
rooted in the society perspective as consumers form networks that are
becoming distinct and occasionally vociferous entities that can shape both
managerial practice and societal trends. The impact of network on brands, like
that of communities, requires additional sociological, psychological, and cultural
insight.
,
,
WEEK 1: Branding boundaries & brand equity
Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J. B. E., O’Guinn, T. C. G.,
& Schmitt, B. (2020). Branding in a hyperconnected world:
Refocusing theories and rethinking boundaries. Journal of
Marketing, 84(2), 24-46. (Links to an external site.)
The concept of hyperconnectivity refers to the proliferation of networks of
people, devices, and other entities, as well as the continuous access to other
people, machines, and organizations, regardless of time or location.
Hyperconnectivity has led to two major changes in branding.
- First, brands are shifting away from single to shared ownership, as
heightened access to information and people is allowing more
stakeholders to co-create brand experiences and brand meanings
alongside traditional brand owners (or entities who market the brand).
Also called the “blurring of branding boundaries.”
- Second, hyperconnectivity has allowed existing brands to expand their
geographic reach and societal roles, while new types of branded entities
are further stretching the branding space, which constitutes a “broadening
of branding boundaries.”
-
3 Fundamental questions:
(1) What are the roles and functions of brands? (2) How do brands (co)create
value? and (3) How should brands be managed?
There are three theoretical perspectives (firm, consumer, and society) and two
approaches within each perspective. The firm perspective views brands as
assets and examines the various functions and roles that brands serve for firms,
both strategically and financially. The consumer perspective views brands as
signals (economic approach) and mental knowledge cues (psychological
approach). The society perspective presents brands in societal and cultural
contexts affecting individual consumers both directly and indirectly through
social forces, structures, and institutions.
This article focuses on future contributions to brand research,
management, and measurement in a hyperconnected world in which the
boundaries of branding have been blurred and broadened.
Hyperconnectivity contributes to several new roles in which brands are
containers of socially constructed meaning, architects of value in networks,
catalysts of communities, arbiters of controversy, and stewards of data privacy,
among others. Many of these new roles can be the focus of research from
multiple disciplinary perspectives, and this article highlight a variety of research
questions that can draw from different theoretical perspectives throughout the
article. As brand boundaries are blurring, this article also discusses the shift
toward co-created brand meanings and experiences enacted via digital platforms
that facilitate such cocreation.
One implication of hyperconnectivity for branding research lies in the fact that
brands will need to be conceptualized more broadly within each of the
,theoretical perspectives in the extant brand literature. The consumer and firm
perspectives should focus more on consumers and firms as part of
networks, rather than on their roles as individual buyers or managers of brands.
The society perspective should go beyond the role of brands as cultural
symbols and examine them as agents of social change. Moreover, the authors
propose that brands are more than symbols attached to products that are owned
by individual firms. They can be ideas, people, and places.
There is also an opportunity to examine topics that cut across these theoretical
perspectives. For example, the firm perspective will need to embrace societal
questions as organizations or corporate brands are asked to address broader
issues including social responsibility, sustainability, and human-resource
practices that go beyond profit maximization. Brands need to fulfill a broader
mission and purpose. The consumer perspective will also have to be more
rooted in the society perspective as consumers form networks that are
becoming distinct and occasionally vociferous entities that can shape both
managerial practice and societal trends. The impact of network on brands, like
that of communities, requires additional sociological, psychological, and cultural
insight.
,
,
