1
Lecture 1: What Is a Brand & Why Does It Matter?
What is a brand? Two perspectives
The American Marketing Association defines a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design,
or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of
sellers and to differentiate them from competitors. This formal definition complements the
broader psychological view developed throughout the lecture. It is not fixed but a social and
psychological construct that carries different meanings for different stakeholders.
The company perspective
For firms, a brand is a strategic source of
reputation, credibility, and power that
attracts customers in distinctive ways and
supports sustainable profit. Brands are
intangible assets that must be continually
nourished and leveraged. The power of the
brand (=brand equity) drives customer
lifetime value (CLV) and predicts
acquisition, retention, and loyalty. Marketing
actions (the 4Ps you can manipulate as a
brand) shape brand equity, which in turn
influences CLV, creating a repeating
decision loop: what managers do affects
how much people like and choose the
brand, which then informs the next round of
decisions. Companies sometimes talk about creating a brand as if it is “just an asset,” yet the
complex, iterative work to build equity is easy to underestimate from a purely financial vantage
point.
The consumer perspective
Consumers often relate to brands emotionally, symbolically, and even irrationally. They rarely
know how a brand does things unless the brand tells and shows them. The relationship between
a customer and a brand can be way more intense than with a product: a brand is experienced
as a partner rather than an object.
Understanding consumer brand behavior
Because consumers are the ultimate users of brands, brand management must begin with how
they perceive, feel, and think about brands, what drives their preferences and positive attitudes,
and how firms can influence brand-related intentions and behavior. The course, therefore,
focuses on this consumer side of branding.
Sherlock Holmes test: make inferences about this man
Observing a person’s visible brand choices: an Apple laptop, a Juventus shirt, Gucci shoes,
Starbucks coffee, Levi’s jeans. This invites inferences: tech-savvy, urban professional,
trendsetter with above-average income, and someone who values authenticity and heritage. In
short, people show who they are and what they stand for through the brands they use.
, 2
Brands as symbols and relationship partners
Consumers buy not only for what products do (utilitarian motives) but also for what they mean
(symbolic motives). The decision frame shifts from “Do I need this?” to “Do I want this? Do I like
it? What does this brand tell others about me and who I am?” These symbolic choices (feeling-
based) are shaped by their self-concept, goals, and situational feelings and thoughts, as well as
self-signaling (= signaling ideal self-images, e.g., projecting competent, intelligent, generous,
environmentalism, wealth) and the desire for distinction or belonging to groups and
communities. This marks a move from purely rational or economic thinking toward emotional
and psychological processing (Paper: Symbols For Sale: Levy, 1959). Brands that shape your
daily use, such as Spotify, Salt brand, supermarket, and coffee shop) “The consumer is not as
functionally oriented as he used to be - if he ever really was”.
Paper: Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research by Susan Fournier (1998) researched how consumers relate to brands as if they
were human partners. People describe everyday brands like they describe friends, feel less
lonely with them, and treat brands “like another human being,” implying relationship-like bonds
and symbolic meaning.
Paper: Dimensions of Brand Personality by Jennifer L. Aaker (1997) researched the nature
of brand personality and how to measure it because people see brands as living entities. It
proposes a theoretical framework and a reliable, valid, generalizable scale capturing five
dimensions—Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, Ruggedness—with
implications for the symbolic use of brands.
These papers generated extensive research and empirical evidence on the relational view of
self-brand connection. Consumers establish relationships of varying quality with their brands
(from more casual and transactional to extremely intimate and loyal). Overall, consumers
perceive brands as living entities that bring meaning to their lives.
When brand personality “rubs off”
Paper: Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Consumers? By
Park and John. A central question is whether using a brand with an appealing personality can
make that personality “rub off” on consumers. Rub off = people or brands have an influence on
you, rubbing off (=copying), you start acting the same. After using the brand, do people perceive
themselves as more like the brand? Eg., Calvin Klein billboard: Will it make me more attractive?
The key propositions in the paper are that appealing brand personalities can shift self-
perception (H1: what); that this is especially likely for entity theorists (H2: when): people who
see traits as fixed, rather than incremental theorists who believe traits can change. The
mechanism is signaling utility (H3: why), where consumers derive identity value from the brand
(identity signaling). Entity theorists are more inclined to absorb brand traits into “who I am” (I am
fat), while incremental theorists are less susceptible (but I can change by going to the gym).
Study 1: carrying a Victoria’s Secret bag
In a mall study, female shoppers first reported baseline self-views and
whether they were entity or incremental theorists (survey). They were
then randomly given a Victoria’s Secret-branded pink bag or an
identical plain bag to carry while shopping. Afterward, they reported
self-perceptions on traits aligned with the brand (e.g., feminine,
glamorous, good-looking). Entity theorists in the branded condition
reported higher levels of these traits than those in the control;
incremental theorists showed no significant change. The implication is
that carrying an identity-laden brand can shift self-perception for
consumers predisposed to fixed self-views.
, 3
Critisize
Key critical boundaries and questions include whether the effect requires public display or also
occurs in private settings (study 4 shows the effect in public and private is the same); whether it
can backfire by increasing pleasure-seeking or risk-taking; whether self-perceptual shifts
translate into actual behavior; whether loyalty status strengthens or weakens the effect; and
how long the changes last. These are precisely the kinds of issues that help you evaluate
evidence and design stronger studies.
Reconciling perspectives: Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE)
To get the company’s instrumental view and the consumer’s relational and emotional view to
match, the firm’s task is to create and nourish brand knowledge—strong, positive, and unique
associations in hearts and minds (= mental image is key here). These associations form through
marketing activities and lived experiences the consumer has with the brand over time =
Consumer Brand Knowledge. Over time, they become automatically activated (torn towards),
and positive associations are activated automatically. This has an impact on purchase behavior
and behavioral change. So you want your brand to live in people’s memory with strong, unique,
positive associations, so it’s on top-of-mind and in their consideration set. Then, simple cues will
trigger automatic, System 1 responses (=fast, automatic and emotional) rather than System 2
thinking (=cognitive and slow).
Customer-Based Brand Equity
Customer-Based Brand Equity is the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the brand’s marketing. Positive CBBE occurs when consumers react more
favorably to a marketing-mix element for a branded offering than to the same element for a
fictitious or unbranded equivalent. Handbag example: willingness to pay more for an otherwise
identical bag with a conspicuous logo is CBBE in action. So, Customer-based brand equity is
the difference in what the consumer is willing to pay for a branded product, compared to an
unbranded identical equivalent of the same product.
Why associations matter
A Coca-Cola executive once remarked that if all production assets were lost, the
firm would survive, but if consumers suddenly forgot every association with Coca-
Cola the company would fail. The point is that brands sit as networks of associations
in memory; when brand elements appear, they activate distinctive, positive
associations that drive salience, top-of-mind status, and inclusion in the
consideration set, which in turn increases the probability of choice. Eg., LEGO =
everything is fun, creative, technical (MacD = clowns, fast, comfort, unhealthy,
negative because people become more health-conscious). As these associations
increasingly trigger System 1 responses, purchase becomes more automatic. When
your brand is top-of-mind, 70–90% of choices tend to go your way. The more
positive the associations, the higher the likelihood of repeat purchase.
Priming brand associations
The question then becomes whether exposure to brand-related elements (eg, logos) can
influence behavior and decision making in line with existing associations. If consumers have
positive (or negative) associations about brands (brand knowledge), then activation of those
associations through exposure to brand elements should influence their voice and behavior.
Priming = to activate; this can be done with hearing, seeing, and then thinking. These can be
defined in two concepts that can be activated: whether the effect is consciously (= supraliminal
priming) or subconsciously (= subliminal priming).
Lecture 1: What Is a Brand & Why Does It Matter?
What is a brand? Two perspectives
The American Marketing Association defines a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design,
or a combination of these, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of
sellers and to differentiate them from competitors. This formal definition complements the
broader psychological view developed throughout the lecture. It is not fixed but a social and
psychological construct that carries different meanings for different stakeholders.
The company perspective
For firms, a brand is a strategic source of
reputation, credibility, and power that
attracts customers in distinctive ways and
supports sustainable profit. Brands are
intangible assets that must be continually
nourished and leveraged. The power of the
brand (=brand equity) drives customer
lifetime value (CLV) and predicts
acquisition, retention, and loyalty. Marketing
actions (the 4Ps you can manipulate as a
brand) shape brand equity, which in turn
influences CLV, creating a repeating
decision loop: what managers do affects
how much people like and choose the
brand, which then informs the next round of
decisions. Companies sometimes talk about creating a brand as if it is “just an asset,” yet the
complex, iterative work to build equity is easy to underestimate from a purely financial vantage
point.
The consumer perspective
Consumers often relate to brands emotionally, symbolically, and even irrationally. They rarely
know how a brand does things unless the brand tells and shows them. The relationship between
a customer and a brand can be way more intense than with a product: a brand is experienced
as a partner rather than an object.
Understanding consumer brand behavior
Because consumers are the ultimate users of brands, brand management must begin with how
they perceive, feel, and think about brands, what drives their preferences and positive attitudes,
and how firms can influence brand-related intentions and behavior. The course, therefore,
focuses on this consumer side of branding.
Sherlock Holmes test: make inferences about this man
Observing a person’s visible brand choices: an Apple laptop, a Juventus shirt, Gucci shoes,
Starbucks coffee, Levi’s jeans. This invites inferences: tech-savvy, urban professional,
trendsetter with above-average income, and someone who values authenticity and heritage. In
short, people show who they are and what they stand for through the brands they use.
, 2
Brands as symbols and relationship partners
Consumers buy not only for what products do (utilitarian motives) but also for what they mean
(symbolic motives). The decision frame shifts from “Do I need this?” to “Do I want this? Do I like
it? What does this brand tell others about me and who I am?” These symbolic choices (feeling-
based) are shaped by their self-concept, goals, and situational feelings and thoughts, as well as
self-signaling (= signaling ideal self-images, e.g., projecting competent, intelligent, generous,
environmentalism, wealth) and the desire for distinction or belonging to groups and
communities. This marks a move from purely rational or economic thinking toward emotional
and psychological processing (Paper: Symbols For Sale: Levy, 1959). Brands that shape your
daily use, such as Spotify, Salt brand, supermarket, and coffee shop) “The consumer is not as
functionally oriented as he used to be - if he ever really was”.
Paper: Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research by Susan Fournier (1998) researched how consumers relate to brands as if they
were human partners. People describe everyday brands like they describe friends, feel less
lonely with them, and treat brands “like another human being,” implying relationship-like bonds
and symbolic meaning.
Paper: Dimensions of Brand Personality by Jennifer L. Aaker (1997) researched the nature
of brand personality and how to measure it because people see brands as living entities. It
proposes a theoretical framework and a reliable, valid, generalizable scale capturing five
dimensions—Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, Ruggedness—with
implications for the symbolic use of brands.
These papers generated extensive research and empirical evidence on the relational view of
self-brand connection. Consumers establish relationships of varying quality with their brands
(from more casual and transactional to extremely intimate and loyal). Overall, consumers
perceive brands as living entities that bring meaning to their lives.
When brand personality “rubs off”
Paper: Got to Get You into My Life: Do Brand Personalities Rub Off on Consumers? By
Park and John. A central question is whether using a brand with an appealing personality can
make that personality “rub off” on consumers. Rub off = people or brands have an influence on
you, rubbing off (=copying), you start acting the same. After using the brand, do people perceive
themselves as more like the brand? Eg., Calvin Klein billboard: Will it make me more attractive?
The key propositions in the paper are that appealing brand personalities can shift self-
perception (H1: what); that this is especially likely for entity theorists (H2: when): people who
see traits as fixed, rather than incremental theorists who believe traits can change. The
mechanism is signaling utility (H3: why), where consumers derive identity value from the brand
(identity signaling). Entity theorists are more inclined to absorb brand traits into “who I am” (I am
fat), while incremental theorists are less susceptible (but I can change by going to the gym).
Study 1: carrying a Victoria’s Secret bag
In a mall study, female shoppers first reported baseline self-views and
whether they were entity or incremental theorists (survey). They were
then randomly given a Victoria’s Secret-branded pink bag or an
identical plain bag to carry while shopping. Afterward, they reported
self-perceptions on traits aligned with the brand (e.g., feminine,
glamorous, good-looking). Entity theorists in the branded condition
reported higher levels of these traits than those in the control;
incremental theorists showed no significant change. The implication is
that carrying an identity-laden brand can shift self-perception for
consumers predisposed to fixed self-views.
, 3
Critisize
Key critical boundaries and questions include whether the effect requires public display or also
occurs in private settings (study 4 shows the effect in public and private is the same); whether it
can backfire by increasing pleasure-seeking or risk-taking; whether self-perceptual shifts
translate into actual behavior; whether loyalty status strengthens or weakens the effect; and
how long the changes last. These are precisely the kinds of issues that help you evaluate
evidence and design stronger studies.
Reconciling perspectives: Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE)
To get the company’s instrumental view and the consumer’s relational and emotional view to
match, the firm’s task is to create and nourish brand knowledge—strong, positive, and unique
associations in hearts and minds (= mental image is key here). These associations form through
marketing activities and lived experiences the consumer has with the brand over time =
Consumer Brand Knowledge. Over time, they become automatically activated (torn towards),
and positive associations are activated automatically. This has an impact on purchase behavior
and behavioral change. So you want your brand to live in people’s memory with strong, unique,
positive associations, so it’s on top-of-mind and in their consideration set. Then, simple cues will
trigger automatic, System 1 responses (=fast, automatic and emotional) rather than System 2
thinking (=cognitive and slow).
Customer-Based Brand Equity
Customer-Based Brand Equity is the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the brand’s marketing. Positive CBBE occurs when consumers react more
favorably to a marketing-mix element for a branded offering than to the same element for a
fictitious or unbranded equivalent. Handbag example: willingness to pay more for an otherwise
identical bag with a conspicuous logo is CBBE in action. So, Customer-based brand equity is
the difference in what the consumer is willing to pay for a branded product, compared to an
unbranded identical equivalent of the same product.
Why associations matter
A Coca-Cola executive once remarked that if all production assets were lost, the
firm would survive, but if consumers suddenly forgot every association with Coca-
Cola the company would fail. The point is that brands sit as networks of associations
in memory; when brand elements appear, they activate distinctive, positive
associations that drive salience, top-of-mind status, and inclusion in the
consideration set, which in turn increases the probability of choice. Eg., LEGO =
everything is fun, creative, technical (MacD = clowns, fast, comfort, unhealthy,
negative because people become more health-conscious). As these associations
increasingly trigger System 1 responses, purchase becomes more automatic. When
your brand is top-of-mind, 70–90% of choices tend to go your way. The more
positive the associations, the higher the likelihood of repeat purchase.
Priming brand associations
The question then becomes whether exposure to brand-related elements (eg, logos) can
influence behavior and decision making in line with existing associations. If consumers have
positive (or negative) associations about brands (brand knowledge), then activation of those
associations through exposure to brand elements should influence their voice and behavior.
Priming = to activate; this can be done with hearing, seeing, and then thinking. These can be
defined in two concepts that can be activated: whether the effect is consciously (= supraliminal
priming) or subconsciously (= subliminal priming).
