brand capability value

THE BRAND CAPABILITY VALUE OE INTEGRATEDMARKETING COMMUNICATION (IMC)

Janek Ratnatimga and Michael T. Ewing

ABSTRACT: Practitiotiers perpetLtally question whether they are spending the right amount of money on the rightmarketing activities to optimize sales, profitability, brand equity, and shareholder value. This perennial problem Is perhapseven more salient today, as organizations increasingly begin to recognize the value of intangible assets and question theextent to which marketing should be viewed as an investment (as opposed to an expense). This paper introduces the notionof brand capability within a tangible-intangible asset valLiation framework. Specifically, a model is developed to assess theimpact of integrated marketing communication on brand equity by leveraging capability-enhancing marketing expensesto economic values through the use of specific combinations of expense-leveraged value indices.

It is now widely accepted that intangible assets provide themost sustainable source of competitive advantage (Barskeyand Marchant 2000; Leadbeater 2000; Litman 2000). Indeed,brand equity ofteti accounts for a major portion of shareholdervalue. However, Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004)argue chat firms need to go beyond individual asset values (bethey tangible or intangible) and begin to recognize how theseassets work in concert to provide the capability of an organi-zation CO enhance its shareholder value. They contend chaccapability economic values can be derived for all tangible andincangible assets in an organization using specific expense-leveraged value indices (Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran2004). Integrated marketing communicacion (IMC) is par-ticularly amenable to such a valuation approach, as by ics verynature, it seeks to Integrate tangible and intangible asset andexpense combinations to increase the strategic capabilities otan organizacion.

As Forcini-Campbell (1994) points out, organizations donot integrate marketing for its own sake; they do so to havean effecc in the marketplaceto grow sales and strengthenbrands. IMC combines and converts tangible and incangibleinputs into oucputs. However, measuring the commercialsuccess (or otherwise) ot IMC has proved difficult (Eagleand Kitchen 2000). This paper examines che extent cowhich che CEVITA (Capability Economic Value of In-cangible and Tangible Assets) approach, recently developedby Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004), can be

Janek Ratnatunga (Ph.D., Bradford) is a professor in the Depart-ment of Accounting and Finance, Monash University, Australia.Michael T. Ewing (DCom, Pretoria) is a professor of marketing in theFaculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia.

adapted and applied to the budgeting and valuation of IMCprocesses.

IMC AND BRAND PERFORMANCE

The search for reliable mechods to assess communications ef-feccs can be traced Co che earliest writings on advertising inche nineceench cencury. In fact, the current emphasis on mar-kecing measurement and the "bottom line" (Ambler 2000) isarguably stronger chan at any point in the discipline's history.Various accempcs have been made to value brands, and thenotion of brand equity has accracced considerable atcencion.Customers are increasingly being viewed as assets, with tan-gible equity (Blaccberg and Deighcon 1996) and lifetime value(Pict, Ewing, and Berchon 2000). A strong case is also beingdeveloped co view markecing as an investment rather chan asan expense (Almquisc and Wyner 2001; Zyman 1999), and aconcomitant research scream is focusing on apportioningmarketing expenditure between customer acquisition andcuscomer recencion (e.g., Neckermann 2004). Integrated mar-keting communication (IMC) has che potential to be a lead-ing contributor to, and central player within, this newparadigm. In fact, calls to measure IMC's ROI (return on in-vestment) were made more than a decade ago (Wang 1994).IMC is considered cricical co organizacional performance be-cause it provides competitive advantage via cash flow andshareholder value (Eagle and Kitchen 2000). However, cheexcant liceracure has hitherco failed co expressly demonscraceIMC's contribution to brand performance (Baker and Mitchell2000; Cornelissen 2000; Low 2000), for, as both Ambler(2000) and Jones (2005) warn, advertising/marketing expen-diture will only be considered seriously in the boardroom whenit is presented within an acceptable financial reporting frame-

Joumal of AJivrniivg. vol. 34. no. 4 (Winter 2005), pp, 25-40. 2005 American Academy of Advertising, All rights reserved.

ISSN OO9I-.13f.7 ! 2005 $9.50 . 0.00.

26 The Journal of Advertising

work. The present study hopes to advance that worthwhilecause in some way.

STUDY RATIONALE ANDRESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Our approach begins with the contention that the value of anorganization's asset capabilities is highly context-dependent.For example, although accountancy practices and advertisingagencies both depend heavily on human capital, they do so inquite different ways. A qualification and experience-basedmeasure appropriate for a firm of accountants may not be espe-cially relevant in an ideas-based advertising agency. Lave andWenger (1991) argue that contextual knowledge is created pri-marily through the ongoing interactions and improvisationsthat an organization's employees undertake to perform theirjobs. Indeed, they state that this learning could be regarded asa product of a community, that is, as organizational learningrather than individual learning. There is synergy to the capa-bility measure of an organization, which may be greater thanthe sum of the individual parts. This can increase during theprocess of learning, and any drop in one component may re-duce the total in excess of the individual component's worth.Because such lessons learned cannot easily be transferred fromone setting to another, any measures developed to value suchassets should consider such contextual settings.

The preceding discussion suggests that even if tangibleassets (such as salespeople, billboards, point-of-sale merchan-dise, samples, catalogues) and intangible assets (brands, logos,trademarks, advertising jingles, slogans, patents, and copy-rights)' can be valued, what is especially difficult in practiceis the valuation of the associated tacit knowledge and judg-ment required to combine these differing assets to enhancethe capability of the organization. This paper will explore howthese tangibles and intangibles can be integrated to give acompany a source of comjietitive advantagein other words,how they should be recognized as the organization s capabili-ties, rather than as assets or capital in some fixed sense. It willthen provide a practical approach to value and report suchcapability values in the IMC and brand management arenas.

Valuation difficulties plague mosc tangible and intangibleassets in their own rights, let alone how they combine to formasset capabilities. The impetus to consider asset capabilitiesas against asset values draws inspiration from a study under-taken by Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004) for theAustralian Department of Defence (DOD). The DOD's pub-licly available Annual Report has two components: a finan-cial section that follows generally accepted accountingprinciples (GAAP), and another section rhat accounts forAustralias defense capabilities in terms of resourcing costs(e.g., strike capability, surveillance capability, ground-basedair defense capability, amphibious lift capability, etc.).

Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004) offered a valua-tion approach to link the two DOD reports. This paper seeksto extend some of the key findings from the DOD study byapplying them in a commercial context, specifically, by pro-viding a theoretical framework for the valuation of market-ing activities. (See the Appendix for a glossary of accountingterms used in this paper.)

VALUATING INTANGIBLES

Several responses to the intangible asset valuation problem havebeen presented in the financial literature (see Keller 2003;Leadbeater 2000; Ratnatunga 2002; Sveiby 1997), but there isa distinct lack of theory underpinning these approaches. Whitethe theoretical foundations of organizational capabilities andcontextual knowledge accumulation (see Lave and Wenger 1991;Orlikowski 2002; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997) are fairlywell developed, notable gaps exist in terms of valuing the ef-fect of asset combinations in the context of organizational ca-pabilities. Thus, there is a need to develop a theoreticalframework to underpin a model develoj^ed specifically for thevaluation of marketing communication capabilities.

Capabilities are sometimes referred to as the distinctionbetween "knowing" and "knowledge" (Polanyi 1967; Ryle1949), or as Schoen (1983) states, "our knowing is in our ac-tion"; or, more specifically, the essential role of human agencyin knowledgeable performance is critical (Orlikowski 2002).This paper extends Schoen's observation further by consider-ing the role of human agency and tangible hardware. For ex-ample, does an Apple Mac computer have any value to an adagency if there are no trained creative staff to use it? Thus, atthe core of the paper is the theoretical question "Should thevaluation of assets be based on what one has or what one cando?" We believe that the answer is the latter, and thereforethat marketing activities should be viewed in the context ofwhat an organization does to enhance its brand equity, andultimately, its economic value. For example, Orlikowski(2002) provides a comprehensive case study of a company thathas developed significant capabilities in global product de-velopment. She identified a repertoire of practices that consti-tute organizational capability, from collective know-how torepeatedly enacting competence over time. Orlikowski (2002)suggests, therefore, that "knowing" is not a static embeddedcapability or stable disposition of actors, but racher an ongoingsocial accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actorsengage the world in practice. These same arguments can beextended to marketing capabilities and brand value.

Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997) propose a "dynamic capa-bilities" approach in which a firm's strategic dimensions areits managerial and organizational/"rflreww (essentially, its de-cision-making capabilities); its present competitive positton(e.g., technological capability and intellectual property, cus-

Winter 2005 27

tomer base, communication capabilities, supplier relations);and the paths open to it (technological trajectories and busi-ness opportunities). For example, understanding competitiveadvantages that accrue from IMC requires viewing firms as ablend of interacting relationships, resources, organizationalvalues, and technology. This interaction sometimes creates pathdependencies that lead to unique resources or context-depen-dent assets, which increiise in value to owners and consumers,especially if the competitors fmd it hard to imitate such capa-bilities. Similarly, Lave and Wenger (1991) contend that thereis a strong link between knowledge and society, and that this isbased on the idea that, in its essence, knowledge has a practicalnature. In other words, knowledge, far from being an abstractmatter based on a factual representation of reality, is closelylinked to the context of social practices, which are created, gen-erated, and reshaped within an organization.

Traditional Approaches to Valuing Intangibles

The more traditional valuation responses suggest taking one ormore of three approaches to value tangible assetsthat is, re-placement cost, income projections, and market valuationand extending them to value intangibles. However, Ratnatunga(2002), Leadbeater (2000), Barsky and Marchant (2()0{)), andothers agree that these approaches do not work well for mostintangibles. For example, assessing the full costs of replace-ment is quite challenging in terms of marketing assets, asoften the tangible and intangible components are almost in-separable. This is particularly the case where the role of hu-man agency in knowledge performance is salient (see Schoen1983), such as in an auto dealership. Here, although one canascertain the replacement cost ofthe bricks and mortar, cata-logues, displays, and so forth, and even, for that matter, thestock in trade (the automobiles), ascertaining the replacementcost of the salesperson s product knowledge and flair wouldbe a very difficult task.

In terms of income projections, this method is also inap-propriate in that it is difficult to isolate the income attribut-able to an intangible, especially where it is wrapped up witha tangible product. For example, what proportion of a cardealership's income from sales would be the result of thesalesperson's expertise (intangible) as against that from thephysical asset of the automobile (tangible)?

Alternative Approaches to Valuing Intangibles

More contemporary approaches to valuing intangibles take theview that while many ofthe assets that make up an organization'scapability may not be visible, they can still be measured andmanaged (see MERITUM 2002). The argument is that if man-agers want to cultivate intellectual and other intangible re-sources, they need to develop performance measures that link

internal productivity to market value. The question is. Howdoes one link reasonably objective fmancial statement mea-sures to the somewhat subjective measures of intangibles, suchas intellectual capital or creative capability?

There have been numerous attempts to make this link andto more reliably value intangibles. First, there are a numberof new approaches to performance measurement and internalcorporate reporting using modified discounted cash flow tech-niques and accrual accounting adjustments. Second, there arethe index-based measures, such as the balanced scorecard.These typically attempt to link financial performance to in-tangible drivers such as employee morale and customer satis-faction (Kaplan and Norton 1992), and then link this fmancialperformance to a company's share market valuation. Third,there are the measures that attempt to directly value intan-gibles such as brands, patents, R&D, and customer loyalty byeither linking them to market values if a market exists, or ifnot, by obtaining a consensus of their likely market values.These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Different kindsof measures might be more relevant to differenc stakeholders.Some are designed primarily to give managers and workers aclearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of their orga-nization and to change the way they think and act. Othersmay be designed to help analysts and investors assess the con-tribution that these intangible assets make to the fmancialperformance of the organization.

Capability Economic Value of Intangibleand Tangible Assets (CEVITA)

An extension of the above alternative approaches to valuingintangibles is the CEVITA model. The original CEVITA con-ceptual model was developed to generate strategic financialstatements aimed at enhancing the capability value (in contrastto the financial accounting value) of defense-related intangibleand tangible assets (Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran2004). To calculate CEVITA, an organization needed to firstprepare a strategic income statement from which capabilityassets could be valued. A variant of this income statement (ina commercial setting) is illustrated in Figure 1. Here, con-sensus measures and other key performance indicators (KPIs)are used as economic levers to convert costs to capability val-ues. These measures are recognized as the many Expense Le-veraged Value Indexes (ELVF'^) found in organizations. TheELVI measure will be explained in detail in a later section ofthis paper.

The CEVITA valuation approach recognizes that an assetmay be a factory, a warehouse, a sales booth, or a retail outlet.Or it could be a Web site or Internet-based channel exhibit-ing impressive traffic and/or sales. It could be a patent, a train-ing program, a logo, a slogan, or an advertising campaign.Therefore, to develop strategic value statements, one hiis to


FIGURE 1The Strategic Income Statement

CAPABIUTY PROVIDING INCOME

Revenue from products

Revenue from servicesRoyaltiesLicences and related salesOther income (e.g.. advertising

banner fees)

CAPABIUTY PROVIDING EXPENDITURE

Material costs(assigned directly)

BrandA

$500,000

$500,000

($ 15,000)

Resource costs (assigned via activity-based costing)People resources

Labor (including unions)ManagementKnowledge v/orkers

1

Organizational process resourcesPPE (depreciation)Overhead (rent, rates, .etc.)

1

Marketing resourcesBrandsCustomersi^arkets ,PromotionsChannelsAlliancesNetworks

Innovation resourcesR&D (life cycle-based)Intellectual property

Financial resourcesLease costsInterest expenses

Total expensesNet profit before taxTax expenses (@40%)NPATDividend expensesRetained earningsNet increase in CEVITA

($4,000)

($4,000)

($2,000)

($2,000)

($3,000)

($500)

($3,500)

($20,000)

($20,000)

$0

Note: ELVI = Expense Levfragctl Value Indexes; PPE =value of intangible- and tan^jiblc assets.

BrandB

$800,000

$800,000

($12,000)

($3,000)

($3,000)

($1,000)

($1,000)

($5,000)

($1,500)

($6,500)

($45,000)

($45,000)

$0

property, plant.

Nonbrand

$50,000

$50,000

($8,000)

($2,000)

($2,000)

($1,000)

($1,000)

$0

($ 1,000)

($1,000)

$0

and equipment;

Segment

$25,000$10,000$5,000

$1,000$41,000

($10,000)($10,000)

($12,000)($50,000)

($600,000)($662,000)

($25,000)($30,000)($55,000)

($4,000)($2,000)($3,000)($6,000)($2,000)($3,000)($1,000)

($21,000)

($100,000)($50,000)

($150,000)

($40,000)($10,000)($50,000)

NPAT = nee

TOTAL

$1,350,000$25,000$10,000$5,000

$1,391,000

($45,000)

($21,000)($50,000)

($600,000)

($29,000)($30,000)

($12,000)($2,000)($3,000)($6,000)($4,000)($3,000)($1,000)

($166,000)($50,000)

($40,000)($ 10,000)

($1,072,000)$319,000

($ 127.600)$191,400($50,000)$141,400

profit afcer tax; CEVITA

NetELVI

.40-10.00

2.40

1

.80-6.00

-12.00-3.40-0.50-^.00-5.00

4.30.60

.70

Capabilityasset value

$8,400($500,000)

$ 1.440,000

$9,600($12,000)($36,000)$20,400($2,000)

($ 18,000)($5,000)

$713,800$30,000

$28,000

$1,677,200

= capability economic

Winter 2005 29

first recognize what the capability-based tangible and intan-gible assets are (some of which are more easily identifiablethan others). Some of the more identifiable (bur still trouble-some) key intangibles found in most organizations are sum-marized below.

The first category of intangibles is comprised of humancapital and customers. Most of the more recent performance-measurement systems include measures of customer and em-ployee acquisition and retention, life cycle, and turnover. Thechallenge is to show how these nonfinancial measures can betranslated into financial measures that could be relevant tothe economic value of the brand in terms of its capabilities. Astrong brand can give a company benefits such as greater cus-tomer loyalty, less vulnerability to competitive marketing,larger margins, and decreased elasticity in customer responseto price increases. Human capital and customer expenses needto be leveraged to ascertain the asset value being created. R&D,marketing research, intellectual property, and patents are someof the other relevant intangibles. Most marketing expendi-ture occurs in this area, with the specific objective of eitherobtaining an immediate sale, or enabling a potential futuresale by enhancing the brand's capability value or equity. SomeR&D is basic research that may be highly risky but that couldprovide the basis for substantial long-term growth. Otherforms, such as software development, are aimed at develop-ing products with a short life span. This product develop-ment type of R&D differs from research designed to makeproduction/logistics/supply chain processes more efficient.Financial accounting regulators often take the view that suchR&D spending (like most marketing spending) should not berecorded as an asset but treated as a single-period expense.However, such expenditure could be leveraged to provide a ca-pability in future j^eriods (i.e., a capability economic asset).Similarly, patents are becoming a focus for intellectual-capitalmanagement within many organizations. Of course, the exis-tence of patents increases the capability of the organization andmust therefore form part of the overall CEVITA measure.

At this point, it is important to define and contrast brandequity components. Brand equity is the asset, that is, "whatone has," much like a Ferrari FI racing car (tangible asset) orMichael Schumacher's driving skills (intangible asset). Brandcapability is what can be achieved (or "what one can do") whenthese asset categories are combined in a contextual situation,tbar is, winning the World Championship, Brand capabilityvalue (BCV) is the economic value of the capability (i.e., thecurrent and future monetary value to Ferrari in winning theFormula One World Championship).

Extending the CEVITA Model

In this section, we explore the possibility of extending theCEVITA model to the valuation of commercial capabilities.

specifically, to those that accrue from marketing activities.Before doing so, however, two questions arise. First, is there aneed for such a model in a commercial context? Second, is amodel developed specifically for the valuation of defense ca-pabilities valid in other contexts? For the reasons that follow,we believe that the answers to both questions is yes.

With regard to the first question, Keller (2003), along withmany others, has made the observation that business ownerswant ro do more than just report historical financial transac-tions. They are looking for advice that will help them bettermanage their business and better measure their performanceagainst additional, nonfinancial criteria and standards, in or-der to to show a more complete picture of their value. Keller(2003) states that the current transactions-based financial re-porting model is too focused on things that have already hap-pened (and therefore cannot be changed) and ignores the futureevents that a company can work toward to create future value. Inrecent times, an ever-increasing number of organizations and com-mentators have challenged the current financial accounting-basedvaluation model. For example, PricewaterhouseCoopiers (2002)reports that top executives at multinational companies considernonfinancial performance measures, such as development ofbrand equity, product and service quality, and customer satis-faction and loyalty, to be more important than current financialresults in creating long-term shareholder value.

Regarding the second question concerning the validity of ex-tending the model, Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004)state that some of the theories used as the starting point of theDOD valuation approach for defense capabilities originated fromthe commercial world; therefore, such an extension (or reversion)back to the commercial arena could be considered more evolu-tionary than revolutionary. In feet, many valuation measures thatwere considered to be of limited use for defense capabilities canbe (and are) more applicable in the commercial environment.'^

Brand Capability Value

We have already discussed that it is the highly context-dependent combinations of tangible and intangible assets thatmake up an organization's capability, and that often it is themarketing activities that provide the base of the contextualcapability combinations tbat competitors find difficult toimitate. Such organizations strive to leverage their IMC ex-penditures to create capability-related market values, espe-cially in terms of their brand(s). This suggests that there is astrong and demonstrable link between what an organizationspends in a particular period on marketing and how such ex-penditure can increase (or if the spend is inadequate, decrease)brand value. Therefore, we contend that the approach takenby Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004), where assetvalues are calculated via a single-period valuation process us-ing ELVI (similar to the revaluation of a noncurrent asset in


traditional financial accounting), is suitable for commercialapplications for organizations seeking to value their strategiccommunication capabilities.

The relationship ofthe ELVI to the market consensus valueis demonstrated using the following equation;*

= r.E.dt

M-SM

The equation indicates that the change in the economic valueidSldt) of a capability-enhancing asset at tirne / is a functionof five factors:'*

E: the costs/expenses incurred to support the capability;

r: the value-increasing constant (ELVI No. 1, defined asthe value generated per expense dollar when S = 0);

M: the maximum consensus value of the capability;

S: the current value ofthe capability; and

d: the value-decay constant (ELVI No. 2, defined as thefraction of value lose per time unit when E = 0).

The equation states that che change (increase) in the capabil-ity value will be higher when r, E, and the untapped capabil-ity potential are higher, and the value-decay constant is lower.

Although investments in knowledge/learning/communi-cation/training have been used as an indicator to value orga-nizational capabilities, in much the same way as R&Dactivities are, some further caution is required in u.sing theELVI indexes and the resultant CEVITA measure. The DODresearch study^ indicated that organizations generally focuson five main components of intangible capability-enhanc-ing assets, that is, innovation assets, human resource assets,brand image assets, external relationship assets, and inter-nal infrastructure assets. These are the strategic capability-enhancing assets, which allow an organization to perform.These include unique technological assets such as softwareor code, unique process core competencies, and unique physi-cal assets such as specialized or well-located plants or retailers.Such organizations leverage these assets to create capability-related market values. Although some of these assets can berelated to cash flow generation, many subcategories cannotfully be captured on a cash basis, but still provide value lever-age to an organization. Examples of these include;

I

Lei'eraging Captive Attention-Based Assets

Property managers, sales managers, and Web site developershave realized there is inherent, unrealized value in the peopletrafficking through their building lobbies, elevators, and Webpages every day. Often this traffic is "captive" and can be con-verted to end users with a little visual, auditory, and othercognitive attention-generating methods.

Leveraging Unique Information Assets

Credit card agencies collect unique information assets on creditcard holder spending patterns; Internet-service providers col-lect unique information on the Web-browsing habits of theirclients; POS (point-of-sale) scanners provide real-time feed-back on the impact of promotions on sales. Such informationis a prized asset, particularly given the critically importantrole of the database in successful IMC.

Leveraging Trust-Based Relationship Assets

Many firms have found that trust-based relationships can beleveraged into previously untapped cross-selling and up-selling opportunities. Even celebrities endorsing cenain prod-ucts are visible manifestations of this trust, but the concept hasbeen extended to one trusted commercial group endorsing an-other. Thus, professional bodies, at special rates, are now issu-ing credit cards for members, thus providing additional memberservices for the professional body and new cardholders tor thecredit card company. The following types of "trust-based" rela-tionships can be leveraged into valuable assets: unique partnersand alliances, key vendor relationships, unique competitor re-lationships, unique government relationships, key customer/buyers, flnancier links, special employee/union relationships.

Leveraging Managernent and Board Experience

Companies, via their management and boards of directors,often enjoy extensive industry relationships, access to capital,and other advantages. The right combination of experience isan asset, creating the foundation for successful execution of astrategy, and sometimes those competitive advantages aregained through innovative partnerships and alliances. In othercases, it can even be the lack of certain barriers to success thatis most valLiable. The following are some examples of such expe-rience-based assets: industry relationships, union relationships,special reputation, strong leadership, strong teamwork, goodmanagerial "reserves," access to qLiality interim personnel, accessto personnel for peaks and troughs workflow management, goodemployee knowledge or other special characteristics, strongrecruiting capabilities.

Leveraging Unique Organizational Assets

There is a whole host of organizational assets that are recog-nizable as intangible, but do not neatly fit into the moreconventional intangible assets mold. These arise due to theunique technological, physical, and financial processes foundin some organizations. Some examples are unique technologi-cal assets (domain names, unique software or code, hardwareinfrastructure); unique process assets (core competencies, dis-

Winter 2005 31

tribucion or channel power, economies of scale); unique physi-cal assets (speciali:ced or well-located showrooms or warehouses,specialized or well-located equipment); and unique financingassets (ease of access to equity/venture capital or cheap debt).

These asset categories are listed in Figure 2 as the invest-ment side of a strategic balance sheet. Furthermore, for thebalance sbeet to balance, the financing that was used to createsuch assets also needs to be shown as a reserve account. This isno different from the way tangible asset revaluations are treatedin the financial accounts of organizations.^

APPLYING THE CEVITA MODELTO MARKETING COMMUNICATION

Within reason, the more logistical and financial support is in-vested in a marketing channel (say a Web site), the more ca-pable it becomes. The difficulty, however, lies in estimatingthe relationship between the cost and the resultant capabilityenhancement. As a hypothetical example, assume that an orga-nization is considering setting up a Web-based communica-tion and delivery channel for on-line promotion, customization,and order entry for its products (i.e., similar to the Dell busi-ness model). The two fundamental objectives of this Web sitewould be related to the development of external relationshipsrequired for "order generating" (brand building and sales) and"order processing" (distribution). Due to the economics ofdiminishing returns, however, such external relationship as-.sets, like all economic assets, would have a maximum capa-bility potential, no matter how many financial and otherresources were lavished on it. Let us assume that this market-ing channel has a maximum (consensus-based) capability po-tential of (say) $25,000,000. Let us also assume that it hashad 10 years of support from the organization, and its currentcapability value is estimated as $15,000,000, based on thefinancial, logistical, and facility costs expended on it.

Let us now assume that the organization, based on its pastexperience, estimates the value-increasing constant (r) to be 6if such support is continued, and the value-decay constant (6)to be .02 if such incremental support is withdrawn. If theorganization in year 11 expends $160,000 () to support thecommunications capability of the Web-based channel via in-stalling customer relationship management (CRM) software,the capability value of the channel will, using the equationpresented earlier, be enhanced as follows:

dTl

15.000.000 J

capability support, the capability value has been leveraged upby a significant $340,000, or a net ELVI of 2.125. If the ob-jective of the organization is merely to maintain the capabil-ity level of its distribution channel, then ciS/Jt can be set tozero, and thus the equation becomes:

0 = 6 (.67) E - .02 (15,000,000)

3000.000 = 6 (.67) f

300,000= = approximately $75,000

| = 6(.67).I60.000-300,000=$340.000dTThus, based on these ELVI, by spending only $160,000 on

This concept is no different from the expenses a companywould need to spend on repairs and preventive maintenanceof its tangible assets (e.g., delivery vehicles). Just to keep thevehicles running at its current level of economic capability, acertain level of expenses would need to be incurred.

Note that if the organization in the preceding example spendsonly $50,000 on capability support, by applying the capabil-ity-enhancing asset equation, the change in economic value (dS/dt) works out to be a negative $99,000, or a net ELVI of minus1.98. Thus, all organizations would have a range of net ELVI,some greater tban 1, some between 0 and 1, and some nega-tive. Hence, the model is not biased only in the positive (ca-pability-enhancing) direction, nor are the resultant valueslinear to the amount of expenditure. That is, inputs to themodel will not always produce a positive result, as a campaignthat is not funded at the proper level may result in a weakenedmarket position for the brand, due to the (poor) creative/design or (poor) execution/media strategy of that effort.'

This range of positive and negative capability-leveragingexpenses is illustrated in Figure I. Note also that as the nega-tive net ELVI values reduce capability asset values, this is con-ceptually very similar to the depreciation/amortization of assetsunder traditional financial reporting, whereas the positive netELVI-related values are similar to the revaluation ot asset val-ues under traditional financial reporting.

We strongly believe that such an approach provides animportant strategic tool in planning for the organization, asit now is able to determine what expense levels must be in-cluded for the maintenance of that particular capability at azero-base (see Eigure 2). Similarly, in terms of brand manage-ment, an organization would need to expend a minimum levelof money to keep the brand visible in the eyes of customers,depending on the quality of the creative, the target audience,the level of competition (i.e., share of voice), and the life stageof the brand. For example, in the frequently purchased pack-age goods market, this minimum level of marketing expen-diture has rraditionally been very high due to low customerinvolvement, frequent brand switching, and low technical

32 The Joumal of Advertising

FIGURE 2The Strategic Balance Sheet in a Commercial Organization

STRATEGIC BALANCEII

Investments Financing

Cash-Generating (Operational) Assets(Mostly Tpdable)

I ITangible Assets inungible Assets

(Appraisals loi I I Market Vaiue),_ Working In vest-

Capital ments

Capability-EnhancingAssecs Equity Capital Debt Capital

" ' "^ Patents & ^ira ' * * ' - ' ~'\'"'"'Equity Copyright iMvk^it Options Attention

Share Capital ReservesI

Intellectual Capital

Human Capital Organliational[_ Capital

WorkforceCapital

ManagerialCapital

RelationshipCapital

Tangible Asms Intangible Assets(Mostly Non-

Tradable)

Business RenewalCapital

Buiineis ProcessCapital

Innovation iHuman Organ riationalAsseu (Pure Resource Assets ' " "^^ Assets

"^ * (Index-based) (Index-based)Capiuttced)

Labor Management KnowledgeWorkforce Workers

ExternalRelacionship

Asset*(Index-based)

InternalInfrastructure Assets

(Index-based)

CustomerCapital

Supplier Capital OtherRelationship

Capital

Technological Physical Financial(Deep

Pockets)

Alliances Customers Suppliers Unions DisertbutlonChannels

Gort. Financiers

Hott: PPE = property, plant, and equipment.

entry barriers. Thus, value-decay constant ((5) of most brandsin this sector is high.

Additional factors can be embedded in our model in a num-ber of long-run value equations and used to estimate the ca-pability-value consequences of alternative expense-budgetingstrategies. For instance, an asset value can be given as a func-tion of

che percentage of repeat-purchase customers and therate of churn;

che percentage of customers not committed to the firmor its main competitor;

che size and rate of growch of the total market; the relative influence of product characteristics, price,

personal selling, sales promotion, and distribution asinfluences of capability value; and

the reiative influence of the "interaction" of productcharacteristics and advertising as an Influence oncapability value.^

These measures would differ by industry. The aim would beto set industry-specific standards for reporting robust, nonfi-

nancial information on asset capability (especially intangibles)that could be independently audited. In high-tech industries,with heavy investment in research and development, fairmarket values for relared R&D might be highly relevant. Inothers, such as fast-moving consumer goods, estimates of brandvalue would be more relevant.

It would be a mistake to aim for global standards becausemeasures relevant to large mature brands would not necessarilyapply to smaller, emerging brands. Instead, the aim should beto develop measures tailored to particular industries, whichcould be adjusted to take into account a company s stage ofdevelopment. Figure 1 provides a simple illustration of howvarious capability-maintaining and capability-enhancing ex-penses are leveraged using specific ELVI to obtain asset values.

Where relevant, the already established "traditional" and"new" valuation approaches discussed earlier should be usedand incorporated into the overall CEVITA valuation. How-ever, in situations where, for whatever reason (theoretical orpractical), any one of the above measures cannot be used, thenthe consensus-based ELVI measure should be used. Thus, theELVI will often be the measure of last resort.

Winter 2005 33

EIGURE 3Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Recognition

Antecedents

Advertising

Directmarketing

Publicrelations

Sponsorship

Promotions

WWW

IntermediateVariable

Consequences

Brandrecognitioncapability

Immediate sales

Future sales

Nok: WWW=World Wide Web,

EXTENDING THE MODEL TO INCORPORATETHE EFFECT OF MARKETING COMMUNICATION

ON BRAND VALUE AND SALES

A.S user-friendly as the approach is, the interdependent natureof IMC could make the application of the univariate CEVITAmodel .somewhat restrictive. While it can be argued thar allassets need to be integrated to provide a competitive capabilityto an organization, IMC, by its very nature, has as its objectivean integrated approach to the marketplace. Thus, for theCEVITA model ro provide useful informarion for budgeringand performance-reporting purposes, it needs to be extendedin a multivariate manner to deal with the complex IMC inter-relationships. We therefore consider IMC tools (see Figure 3)to be the preconditions (or antecedents) required for the induce-ment of sales (which are the consequences). These antecedents actvia an intermediate variable, such as brand recognition.

Based on the preceding literature on the conventional wis-dom regarding IMC, and the model presented above, it canbe posited that IMC can potentially have both an attirudinaleffect on the brand and a behavioral effect on sales. Thus, the

many ELVI values that constitute IMC effort in an organiza-tion first need to be combined to provide brand capabilityvalue, as follows:

M-SM

-6.5

The equation indicates that the change in the economic brandvalue (dS/dl) of a capability-enhancing IMC campaign at time/ is a function of seven factors,'^ namely:

E: the costs/expenses incurred to support the capabilityof the /' ' IMC variable;

r . the value-increasing ELVI constant of the t^^ IMC variable(defined as the value generated per expense dollar whenS = 0);

M: the maximum consensus value of the brand capability;S: the current value ot the brand capability;d^: the value-decay ELVI constant of the i''' IMC variable

(defined as the fraction of value lost per time unit whenE = 0); and


TABLE IProjected Contribution of Advertising to Sales

Selling task

Making contactArousing interestCreating preferenceMaking specific proposalsClosing ordersKeeping brand wanted

Sales forecast

Brand contribution to so/es

% weight oftask in the

sales process

Estimate Actual

10%15%25%15%fO%25%

100%$18,518,519

$10,000,000 (54%)

% contributionto selling taskdue to brand

recognition

Est. Act.

70%80%60%00

80%

Totalcontribution

of brandrecognition

Est. Act.

7%12%15%00

20%54%

pj che proportion of funds expended on the i''" IMC variable,where N = the total number ot IMC variables, and where:

This model uses a multivariate approach to capability as-set valuation, and we have termed this the Brand CapabilityValue of Integrated Marketing Communication (BCV'"),which forms one of the components of the overall CEVITA ofan organization. The extension of the univariate CEVITAmodel to incorporate IMC processes requires the derivationof the p^ measure for each IMC task. This will initially alsohave to be a consensus measure, until experience in using themodel is developed. One approach to obtaining such p valuesinitially is to ask those carrying out the above performanceappraisals to first break up the selling process into six sepa-rate selling tasks and estimate a percentage for each task indi-cating the relative weight of the task toward the total sellingprocess. Next, they could be asked to indicate the contribu-tion of brand equity (i.e., brand recognition) using a "scale"ot some sort (e.g., rates, weights, percentages) for each sellingtask.'" Such an evaluation is obviously based on subjectiveestimates, and therefore, che resulcs obtained are a "subjec-tive-squared" figure. Such a figure is not an end in itself, how-ever, but a structuring of the complex process of thought uponwhich the various managers will be basing their decisions.Thus, the figures arrived at must be considered as one of theinputs in the difficult field of planning-communications strat-egies and measurement of their effectiveness. Note chat theselling tasks and cheir relative weights will differ from indus-try to industry. The techniques outlined above could be usedbefore the actual sales process begins to enable more objective

setting of percentages. These numbers (for a hypothetical case)are provided in Table 1.

At the end of an actual sales period, the behavioral tech-niques could be used again, along with the experience gainedduring the period, to attach new weights to the selling taskand new percentages to advertising's contribution toward thattask.'' Deviations could be analyzed, and the more this methodis used, che better both the accounting and marketing func-tions will understand the true nature of the contribution ofbrand capability to the total sales effort. As more knowledgeof chis relationship is obtained, performance standards can beset, so that an investigation can be initiated if the actual ob-servations are not in line with model expectations.

The estimates provided in Table 1 indicate that the brandcapability contribution to the overall sales target is 1)4%. Thus,assuming the organization's initial brand capability value is$10 million, then its potential sales revenue is $18.5 million(keeping other non-IMC sales-related variables constant).''' Thisnumber will be the starting |X)int for a sales revenue forecast.

Let us now assume thac che marketing director is consider-ing che components (ot antecedents, see Figure 3) required tomaintain or increase this brand capability value (and thusgenerate more sales revenue), and has escimated a mix of IMC-relaced variables as per Iteration I in Table 2.

To continue our hypothetical example further, let us alsoassume chat the various ELVI values have been obtained foreach ot the IMC variables in terms of its contribution to brandrecognition, and that the multivariate model equation is be-ing used. We can see in Table 3 that if the maximum brandcapability value (M) is set using the consensus approach at$20 million, and the current brand capability value (5) is ini-tially $10 million (as stated in Table 1), and if, say, $500,000is expended on IMC activities for the period, then the brand

Winter 2005 35

TABLE 2Contribution of Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC) Variables to Brand Recognition

Iteration I Iteration 2 Iteration 3

IMC variable Estimate Actual Estimate Actual Estimate Actual

AdvertisingDirect marketingPublic relationsSponsorshipPromotionsWorld Wide Web

60%15%5%5%

10%5%

100%

50%20%15%5%5%5%

100%

45%26%15%5%5%4%

100%

T A B L E 3Brand Capability Incremental Value

IMC variable

Value-increasing

ELVI constant

4.86.53.52

101.5

Value-decaying

I_Y|TM constant.2.2.1.01.3.03

Percentage ofcosts expended

(Iteration 1)60%15%5%5%

10%5%

IMC (integratedmarketing

communication)variable contribution

to BCV (brandC(^)ability value)

($480,000)($56,250)

($6,250)$20,000

($50,000)$3,750


Brand copabiWtf incremental value ($568,750)

capability value based on the proportion of funds expendedon each IMC variable is a negative $568,750.

Table 3 thus indicates thar half a million is inadequate tosustain che capability value of che brand, and as a consequence,the sales tasks as per Table 1 will be made much harder, re-ducing rhe sales forecast to $17.5 million as follows:

Initial brand capability valueLess: Brand capability incremental valueNet brand capabilitySales forecast 54%

$10,000,000($568,750)

$9.431.250$17,465,277

Therefore, if the organization wishes to maintain the sameBCV, then the model equation will indicate (using the goal-seek function in Excel) that $718,540 will need to be ex-pended, to maintain the brand capability at its initial value.This would be the zero-based level of expenditure on IMC forbrand capability maintenance. This is shown in Table 4. As onecan see, such a model will be extremely useful in helping re-solve recurring budgeting problems in marketing generally(Piercy 1986) and IMC specifically (Ewing, de Bussy, and

Caruana 2000), namely, that of allocating expenditure betweencompeting IMC variables.

One can see from Table 4 that even this revised expendi-ture level is still inadequate to maintain some individuai IMCvariable values (e.g., advertising). Thus, the goal-seek func-tion can be utilized again to ascertain the minimum expendi-ture required to maintain the level of advertising capability.This works out to approximately $830,000, and the result isshown in Table 5.

Of course, as this expenditure level also increases the spendon the other IMC variables (see Iteration 1 in Table 2), the netcapability value of the brand, and hence the sales forecast,also increase as follows:

Initial brand capability valueAdd: Brand capability incremental valueNet brand capabilitySales forecast 54%

$10,000,000$298,750

$10,298,750$19,071,759

The IMC model can also be used to increase brand capabilityby expending different proportions of funds on the individual


TABLE 4Brand Capability Maintenance Value

IMC variable

Value-increasing

ELVr" constant

4.86.53.52

101.5

Value-decaying

ELVI constant

.2

.2

.1

.01

.3

.03


(Iteration 1)60%15%5%5%

10%5%



to BCV (brandcapability value)

($165,303)$50,288$12,872$30,927$59,270$11,945


capability incremental vaiue $0

TABLE 5Advertising Capability Maintenance Value

IMC variU)le

Value-increasing

ELVr" constant

4.86.53.52

101.5

Value-decaying

ELVI^" constant

.2

.2

.1

.01

.3

.03


(Iteration 1)60%15%5%5%

10%5%




$0$106,250

$22,917$36,667

$i 16,667$ 16.250


Brand capability incremental value $298,750

variables. Using the Iteration 2 column from Table 2, keep-ing the total spend at $830,000, the brand capability valueincreases to $313,500 (see Table 6). Using the Iteration 3column, brand capability value increases to $352,500. This isbecause the different ELVI values of the IMC variables im-pact the capability values differently.

CONCLUSIONS

While there are many new measurement systems using mea-.sures of human capital, customer relationships, and brandvalues, these approaches are plagued by variously restrictivelimitations. Many of these new systems appear elegant butwould require large investments in daca collection. Manymeasure "assets" that have no obvious bearing on strategicvalues. In contrast, the CEVITA measure, presented via stra-

tegic financial statements, provides a useful and practical wayto visualize and value the intangible capability assets of anorganization.

This measure, which uses a number of Expense LeveragedValue Indexes (ELVI), also overlaps with new performance-measurement systems such as the balanced scorecard, especiallyin the leveraging of expenses to derive capability-enhancingasset vaiues. One such value is the capability value of brands.This paper demonstrates how Brand Capability Values (BCV)can be derived for budgeting and valuation purposes using amultivariate model incorporating all of the IMC variables thatare the preconditions (or antecedents) required for brand ca-pability enhancement.

Note, however, that we are not suggesting that our ap-proach is complete; rather, it is a work in progress. We be-lieve it has both the theoretical and methodological rigor to

Winter 2005 37

TABLE 6Brand Capability Growth Sensitivity Analysis

IMC variable

Value-increasing

ELVI constant

4.86.53.52

101.5

Value-decaying

ELVr" constant

.2

.2

.1

.01

.3

.03


(Iteration 2)50%20%15%5%5%5%





Brand capability incremental value

$(4,000)$139,500$67,875$36,500$57,500$16,125

$313,500

serve as a useful point of departure for enlightened organiza-tions to customize, implement, and refine. Of course, IMC isa process, not a program (Schultz 1994), and the challenge isnot only to measure value, but also to manage it (Neckermann2004). Our approach should allow firms to do both. As Jones(2005) points out, however, marketing communication ishighly context-specific; this is something that we believe wehave been able to capture in our model. Yet for our assertionto be verified, the brand capability model needs to be imple-mented and adapted in different organizations and industries.

As Shoebridge (2004) taunts, it is now time for marketersto stop complaining and start quantifying. We hope we haveprovided IMC practitioners with a tool to manage the processmore efficiently and profitably. Finally, it is perhaps worthreflecting on what we perceive to be the paper's five mostsalient contributions:

1. While 'measuring marketing ROI" is unquestionably a"hot topic" at the moment and the subject of frenetic schol-arly activity, the harsh reality remains that until marketerscan master the lingua franca of the boardroom (i.e., finance),the function will remain marginalized. Ambler's (2000) re-search reveals the startling fact that boards devote nine timesmore attention to spending and counting cash flow than towondering where it comes from and how it could be increased.Similarly, Jones (2005) observes that advertising has fallenoff top management s agenda and that brand management isbeing relegated to relative juniors in many organizations. Itis our hope that our approach can help empower marketers byallowing them to present both budgeting and evaluative pro-cesses within a cogent financial framework, thereby givingmarketing more legitimacy and credibility in the boatdroom.

2. Until fairly recently, advertising's defensive or btandmaintenance role has been overlooked (at least, outside of theUnited Kingdom, where the Ehrenbergian/weak theory doc-

trine is most widely accepted). In mature markets, maintain-ing market share is atguably the most important priority for(most) established brands today. We provide a method to jus-tify defensive marketing communications expenditure (i.e.,where customer retention is more of a priority than customeracquisition). Such an approach has hitherto been lacking, leav-ing many brand managers feeling compelled to strive for to-tally unrealistic gtowth strategies, causing them to then(predictably) "fail" and face further budget cuts. To addressthis, we offer a sophisticated "bottom-up," objective-and-taskmethod for budget setting. Despite the rhetoric, many firmstoday still use archaic "top-down" approaches (e.g., percent-age-of-sales or share-of-market/share-of-voice), which severelyrestrict growth and/or "punish" maintenance.

3. VoTmer Journal of Advertising editor George Zinkhan re-cently noted that marketing and finance professors live in twodiffetent worlds, seldom interacting, and even constructingartificial barriers between one another (Zinkhan and Verbrugge2000). This paper is a tangible example of what can be achievedwhen the two disciplines put aside their differences and workto achieve a true research synergy, one that we hope advancestheory in both disciplines, and fmds application among prac-titioners at the coalface.

4. As Ambler (2000) points out, many marketers remainconfused as to the difference between brand equity (an asset)and brand value (a financial metric). This paper provides alink between the two via a new construct called brand capabil-ity (i.e., what one can actually achieve with the asset). It alsooutlines the potential role of IMC in enhancing brand equity.

5. Finally, we have substantially extended Ratnatunga,Gray, and Balanchandran's (2004) univariate valuation model(applied to the Australian Department of Defence) by con-structing a multivariate model with widespread commercialapplicability.


NOTES

1. We define an asset as a cost Incurred that has a "futureeconomic benefit." Current financial accounting reporting stan-dards do not recognize some of these costs as assets {e.g., adver-tising costs), many of which are considered as having onlysingle-period economic benefits, and thus are expensed in finan-cial accounting reports. However, Ratnatunga, Gray, andBalachandran (2004) argue that such costs enhance the strategiccapability of an organization and should therefore be consideredas capability assets for future-oriented decision making.

2. Cash flow measures and market-based measures were notconsidered relevant for military capability valuation, as assets insuch contexts were not expected to generate income.

3. The theoretical underpinning of this model was derivedfrom the Vidale-Wolfe (1957) model employed to describe thesales response to advertising efforts,

4. Over time, and with experience, these coefficient valuesshould reflect the value-expense relationships that exist in mostspending decisions, but remain largely unquantified. The ELVIessentially attempts to quantify the "qualitative" aspects of thecost-benefit approach.

5. The DOD obtained these intangible asset categories fromnumerous research studies (see Barsky and Marchant 2000;Leadbeater 2000; Litman 2000; and Ratnatunga 2002).

6. For a full discussion of the double-entry procedure sug-gested to record asset capabilities and associated financing costs,see Ratnatunga, Gray, and Balachandran (2004).

7. We thank the guest editors for pointing this out.8. This paper provides a conceptual model of generating ca-

pability values in the context of the interaction effects of mar-keting communications variables. Extensions of this model can,theoretically, be applied to the interaction effects of all of themarketing mix variables.

9- Over time, and with experience, these coefficient valuesshould reflect the value-expense relationships that exist in mostspending decisions, but remain largely unquantified. The ELVIessentially attempts to quantify the "qualitative" aspects of thecost-benefit approach.

10. For example, the salespersons may say that 70% of the tiiskof making contact with a customer was made easier because thebrand was well known.

11. Here, the salespersons are being asked to determine the extentoi effectiveness of each IMC variable on the enhancement of the brand'scapability value at the end of the period, that is, the ex post percent-ages (actuals). This will be in the feedback stages of model applica-tion, and would help in the ceplanning for the next period.

12. For simplicity, no distinction has been made between thecurrent sales and future sales in this sales forecast.

REFERENCES

Almquist, Eric, and Gordon Wyner (2001), "Boost Your Mar-keting ROI with Experimental Design," Harvard BusinessRevietv, 79(9), 135-141.

Ambler, Tim (2000), Marketing and the Bottom Line. London;Pearson Education.

Baker, Susan, and Helen Mitchell (2000), "Integrated Market-ing Communication: Implications for Managers," papetpresented at the European Society for Opinion and Mar-keting Research conference, "Reinventing Advertising,"Rio, Brazil, November.

Barsky, Noah P., and Garry Marchant (2000), "Measuring andManaging Intellectual Capital," Strategic Finance, 81 (8),59-62.

Blattberg, Robert, and John Deighton (1996), "Manage Mar-keting by the Customer Equity Test," Harvard Business Re-view. 74(4), 5-14.

Cornelissen, Joep R (2000), "Integrated Marketing Communi-cations and the Language of Market Development," Inter-national Journal of Advertising. 20 (4), 483-499.

Damodaran, Ashwath (2002), Investment Valtiation, 2nd ed.. NewYork: John Wiley.

Eagle, Lynne, and Phillip Kitchen (2000), "IMC, Brand Com-munications and Corporate Cultures," European Journal ofMarketing, 35 (5/6), 677-686.

Ewing, Michael T , Nigel de Bussy, and Albert Caruana (2000),"Perceived Agency Politics and Conflicts of Interest as Po-tential Barriers to IMC Implementation," 7'"'"'*'^ of Mar-keting Communications. 6 (2), 107-120.

Fortini-Campbell, Lisa (1994), "Brand Contacts," in IntegratedMarketing Communications Symposium. R. Kaatz, ed., Lincoln-wood, IL: NTC Business Books, 1-5.

Jones, John Philip (2005), How to Turn Advertising Expenses intoInvestments. Singapore: Pearson Education.

Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton (1992), "The BalancedScorecard-Measures That Drive Performance," HarvardBusiness Revietv. 70 (1). 71-79.

Keller, Joyce (2003), "The Evolving Business Reporting Modeland Use of Performance Measurement Methodology,'" TheCPA Letter/Education (AICPA; American Institute of Certi-fied Public Accountants) (April), G2-3.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Le-gitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Leadbeater, Charles (2000), New Measures for the Economy, Lon-don: Centre for Business Performance, Institute of Char-tered Accountants of England and Wales.

Litman, Joel (2000), "Genuine Assets: Building Blocks of Strat-egy and Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Strategic Fi-nance. 82 (5), 3 7 ^ 2 .

Low, George S. (2000), "Correlates of Integrated Marketing Com-munication,"Jo/vratf/tf/A^/ctT/ww^ Research. 40 (3), 27-39.

MEKITUM Guidelines (2002), Guidelines for Managing and Re-porting on Intangibles (intellectual capital report), Madrid:VodafoneFoundation, available at www.uam.es/proyectosinv/meritum (accessed October 5, 2005).

Neckermann, Christian (2004), "Don't Just Measure CustomerValueManage It," working paper, Insidelto 1 Strategy, avail-able at www.ltol.com/View.aspx?DocID=28380 (accessedOctober U), 2005).

Orlikowski, Wanda J. (2002), "Knowing in Practice: Enacting aCollective Capability in Distributed Organizing," Organi-zation Science, 13 (3). 249-273.

Winter 200^ 39

Piercy, Nigel (1986), "The Politics of Setting an AdvertisingBudget," InteniatitmalJournal of Advertising. 5 (4), 281-305.

Pitt, Leyland F., Michael T. Ewing, and Pierre Berthon (2000),"Turning Competitive Advantage into Customer Equity,"Busi>ies.\ Horizom. 43 (5), 11-18.

Polanyi, Michael (1967), The Tacit Dimension. New York:Doubleday,

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2002), "Non-Financial Measures Are High-esc-Rated Determinants of Total Shareholder Value," Manage-nient Barometer (April 22), available at www.barometersurveys.com (accessed October 5, 2005).

Ratnatunga, Janek (2002), "The Valuation of Capabilities: A NewDirection for Management Accounting Research," Jw/rWof Applied Management Accounting Research. 1 (1), 1-15.

, Norman Gray, and Kashi R. Balachandran (2004),"CEVITA: The Valuation and Reporting of Strategic Ca-pabilities," Management Accounting Research. 15 (1), 77-105.

Ryle, Gilbert (1949), The Concept of Mind. London: Hutcheson.Schoen, Donald A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York:

Basic Books.Schultz, Don E. (1994), "The IMC Process," in Integrated Mar-

keting Communications Symposium. Ronald Kaatz, ed.,Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books, 613.

Shoebridge, Neil (2004), "Ir's No Use Complaining: Get Out Thereand Quantify," Australian Financial Review (February 2), 2.

Sveiby, Karl Erik (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Man-aging and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets, San Francisco:Berretr Koehler.

Teece, David J., Garry Pisano, and Amy Shuen( 1997), "DynamicCapabilities and Strategic Management," Strategic Manage-ment Journal. 18 (7), 509-533.

Vidale,M. L.,and H. B. Wolfe (1957), "An Operations-ResearchStudy of Sales Response to Advertising," Operations Research,5(3), 370-381.

Wang, Paul (1994), "Measuring ROI," in Integrated MarketingCommunications Symposium. Ronald Kaatz, ed., Lincolnwood,IL: NTC Business Books, 32-44.

Zinkhan, George M., and James A. Verbrugge (2000), "TheMarketing/Finance Interface: Two Divergent and Comple-mentary Views of the Firm " Journal of Business Research.50 (2), 43.

Zyman, Sergio (1999), The End of Marketing as We Know It, NewYork: HarperBusiness.

APPENDIX

Glossary

accounting equation: The fundamental mathematicalequation upon which all accounting information isbased: Assets - Liabilities = Owner's Equity {A - L ^ E).

accounting-period convention: This convention assumesthat the indefinite life cycle ofthe firm can be subdi-vided into periods of equal length (usually 12 months),so as to establish fixed reporting intervals.

accrual accounting: The recording and reporting of alltransactions affecting a firm in a specified period, both ofa cash and noncash nature.

asset: An item of economic value that is owned by thebusiness and is expected to contribute to the futurerevenue-earning capability ofthe business.

balance sheet: A detailed listing of the entity's assets,liabilities, and owner's equity accounts. It is designed toillustrate the financial position ofthe firm at a given pointin time, and is usually provided at the end ofthe month oryear. Also referred to as a statement of financial position.

cash flow from operations: Cash flows arising from anentity's provision of goods and services.

cash flows: These are cash movements during a reportingperiod resulting from transactions with parties externalto the entity.

current assets: Asset values that vary in a single account-ing period, such as the value of inventory, accountsreceivable, and cash.

DCF: Discounted cash flow, or future cash flows restated incurrent money value terms, using the cost of capital as adiscount rate.

equity: The interest, or claim, of the shareholders of theentity against the net assets of the business. Equivalentto total assets less total liabilities.

expense: Money spent to earn income in the currentperiod.

financial statements: Financial reports, including theprofit and loss account, balance sheet, and cash flowstatement, which are produced by the firm on a regularbasis, and are useful for decision making and resource-allocation purposes.

income: Revenue of the business that is earned through thesale of goods or the performance of services; also referredto as revenue.

I

income projection valuation: Estimation ofthe currentincome-generating capacity of an asset.

income statement: See profit and loss account.

4() The Journal of Advertising

intangible assets: Assets one cannot physically touch,

investment: Money spent on the purchase of assets,

market valuation: The current market price of an asset.

matching principle: The principle that revenue andexpense items pertaining to a particular period must beproperly recognized and compared to obtain the correctprofit (or loss) for the period.

net assets: Total assets less total liabilities. Equivalent toowners' equity.

noncurrent asset: Long-term assets, also known as fixedassets.

profit and loss account: A financial statement that illus-

trates the trading activities of the firm during rhe speci-fied period. Items are classified as revenue less expenses,to obtain the net profit or loss. Also referred to as incomestatement, revenue statement, or profit and loss state-ment. This is a statement of financial performance.

replacement costs: Money that will have to be spent toreplace an asset to its current income-generating ability.

reserves: Profits that have been retained within a companyfor specific purposes, such as capital reserves (reservesthat are not available for distribution) or revenue reserve(reserves that are distributable to the shareholders).

tangible asset: Assets that one can physically touch, suchas the plant and machinery.

brand capability value

Documents

value of intangible

shareholder value

value brands

notionof brand capability

thenotion of brand equity

tangible assets approach

professor of marketing

tangible andincangible