BRANDING: AN EXPLORATION OF THE CHANGING DEFINITIONS AND

UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE MEANING OF THE CONCEPTS PRIOR AND UP

TILL DE CHERNATONY AND DALL’OLMO

RILEYS (1998); GOODYEAR (1996) WORKS.

BY

JENNIFER ONOSE

PAU/SMC/PT2/034

SCHOOL OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS, PAN – AFRICAN UNIVERSITY, LAGOS –

NIGERIA.

NOVEMBER, 2010.

AUTHOR’S DETAILS

Jennifer Onose is an M.sc Marketing Communications student at school of Media and

Communication, Pan – African University, Lagos, Nigeria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i. Abstract

ii. Design/Method/Approach

iii. Findings

iv. Practical Implication

v. Theoretical Implication

vi. Limitation of Study

vii. Originality and Value of Paper

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Brands and Branding

1.2 History of Brands

1.3 Subject of Research

SECTION 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Concept of Brand Meaning

2.2 Critique

SECTION 3

DISCUSSIONS

3.1 What exists, and what has changed.

3.1(i) Group of Similar Brand Definitions and Group References.

3.2 Minter Dial’s 5 E’s Brand Model

3.3 What was discovered?

SECTION 4

CONCLUSION

REFERENCE

APPENDIX => 55 Definitions of Branding.

ABSTRACT

Whilst the word brand is used widely in marketing. It is a word which has multiple meanings, and

cannot be clearly defined. This lack of any clear definition presents significant problems in the way in

which research is formulated and undertaken.

Mark Avis, (2009).

Purpose of this Paper: This paper explores and makes a review of how the meaning of branding was

constructed and viewed, pre-1998 and post-1998. There is a significant departure from the meaning of

branding as theorized by (De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Goodyear 1996).

This paper has two aims:

1. To group together the various similar definitions of branding pre 1998 and post 1998.

2. To suggest and draw propositions about the significant departure from the meaning of

branding as theorized by De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, (998); Goodyear, (1996) (i.e.

between the time their paper was published and now).

Doing so clarifies and provides insights on the shift and focus of the meaning of branding.

To achieve these aims, this paper describes the evolution brand concepts and meanings construct as

suggested by Goodyear (1996); De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, (1998) and a host of several

scholarly definitions of the meaning of “brand” as a concept.

Design/Method/Approach: A series of theoretical evidence are presented to argue that the

construction of the meaning of branding has witnessed an ongoing similarity of meanings and a shift

in change of meanings over time. Thus a theoretical and conceptual frame of work, describes the

change in the construction of the meaning of “brand-branding” in literature prior and up till date, De

Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s (1998); Goodyear (1996) works published. This research is

exploratory; the historical analysis method is applied to the meanings of brand.

Findings: the review of literature on the definition of the meaning of branding indicates that the term

“brand construct” was referred to the producers, it served as a trademark, was overwhelmingly

associated with physical goods between 1950-1970. It was seen as conveyor of product information.

The similarity of meanings witnessed during this period took a shift as the term “branding” generated

interests. Complexity of definitions began to arrive in the 1980’s functional and emotional values

were attributed to the term “brands” the meanings moved beyond physical goods and commodities to

consumers perspectives. Consumers are not passive recipients of branding activities and thus branding

is not something done to consumers but rather, something they do things with Meadows, (1983).

The stability in the similarity of meaning witnessed this period was cut short during the 1990’s as

branding metamorphosed and gathered spectrum of meanings and interpretation. Competition

increased, consumers became cynical and knowledgeable. Various marketing scholars and brand

custodians in an attempt to give meaning to the term “brands-branding” came up with a plethora of

models and metrics. Brands were viewed in different components such as service branding, corporate

branding, destination branding, nation branding, product branding. The term branding developed a

personality. It was viewed and defined from a firm perspective, consumer-centered perspective; the

brand became personified as an entity that interacts with its consumers. This era suggested a wide

range of associations creating provocative insights on how branding should be perceived and what can

be improved on it.

The meaning of branding as theorized by De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, (1998); Goodyear,

(1996) are: brands were seen as a logo, a company, a value system, as personality, as relationship,

identity system, as shorthand, as a legal instrument, as image, evolving entity, risk reducer, as policy,

icons, reference and unbranded goods. This similarity of meanings continued unabated as the new

millennium approached. The year 2000-2002 saw this stability.

Another level was conceived on the work, on the construction of the meaning of the term “brands-

branding” from 2003-2010. The term “brands” has populist interpretations, technical interpretations

and conceptual interpretations. Mark Gabbott, Colin Jevons (marketing theory 2009:119). A

significant departure from the meanings of branding as theorized by De chernatony and Dall’Olmo

Riley, (1998); Goodyear, (1996) began emerging. Theoretical evidence will be drawn to propose that

there was a significant departure on the meaning of branding post 1998.

Branding was viewed as a mechanism that enables a direct valorization in the form of share prices,

consistent expression of promise and reputation. (Arvidsson, 2005; Klein 1999; Balmer 1999).

It was viewed also from the internal and external stake holder perspective, as a social environment, as

objects of property and immediate asset, as a mechanism for achieving competitive advantage through

differentiation of purpose and as a covenant (Mark Ligas and June Cotte 1999; Otubanjo 2010.) New

understandings emerged and old meanings were expanded on. A framework highlighting emerging

new definitions and groups of similar definitions is identified.

In this theoretical study, it is apparent that the definition of “brand” has no singular universal meaning

and is problematic. Schultz and Schultz, (2004) summarizes the problem of brand definition as

follows:

“It’s like Humpty Dumpy: it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less…’

Even chernatony acknowledged this, “As long as theorists continue to define brands from their own

theoretical perspective, (see Brodie and De chernatony, 2009) there will be no easy resolution to the

problems of defining the term branding.

I found out that the term branding has a long history and usage within marketing, organizational,

corporate and business world. It is a term that connotes different meanings to consumers, scholars,

brand custodians and professors of marketing.

It is a term that will generate different perspectives and experiences and there will be no universal

agreement on how it should be defined because it has no boundaries. Theoretical Implication: The

multiplicity of definitions and understandings of the meaning of “brand” are a serious hindrance to

theory development about branding.

This study provides ample evidence in this regard. The brand is constantly changing according to

perceptions, contexts, culture and utility. I conclude along with various scholars that “There will never

be a uniting/universal definition of the construct “brand”, “branding”. Mark Gabbott, Colin Jevon

(2009); Otubanjo and Melewar (2007); Balmer, (2002); motion and leitch, (2002). Except if viewed

from the financial/monetization perspective. All studies, researches and investigations though

different across the continent and the passage of time and centuries have continuously defined,

modeled and updated themes, and meanings which is all geared to the financial digit of a company be

it product or service.

I propose a new consensus of understanding of the meaning of branding, that it should be viewed

from the financial/monetization perspective and every themes and models be taken as a

ladder/processes of what must be done to achieve the mega-financial digit. This way there will be

fewer semiotics about the term construct “brand”.

Practical implication: this paper provides scholars with the different analysis of how broad the

meaning of branding is, its recent update on the constructed meaning of branding.

It also gives an insight on the increasing change in marketing, from product meanings to Brand

building, brands seen as an imagery, promise, covenant, providers of experience and sum of the

mental connections people have around it. This will provide a basis on managerial decisions as

regards planning, marketing, brand equity and building, corporate identity and advert campaigns.

Limitation of study: this study is limited to the theoretical review of the meaning of the word “brand”,

“branding” prior 1998 and after De chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s 1998 work. It fails to account

quantitatively about how firms and practitioners construct the meaning of the concept “brand”,

“branding”.

Originality and value of paper: The review of literature in this study indicates existing studies on

the meaning of branding. Various scholars’ subjection of the same construct to varying definitions

(Jacoby 1978) and meanings. This study provides an update on the similarities and changes on the

meaning of the term “brands”.

It also suggests a proposition on a new consensus of understanding of the meaning of branding rather

than the agreed cliché that there will never be a universal understanding/definition of the meaning of

branding.

This paper is original and came as a result of an assignment given to me by my facilitator Dr. Tayo

Otunbanjo on brand management, on November, 2010.

Type of paper: CONCEPTUAL.

Key words: Brand equity, brand personality, brand definition, brand meaning, brand concept,

corporate branding, brand identity, product branding, service branding, destination branding, nation

branding.

INTRODUCTION

The meaning of branding itself, has a long history within marketing thought and practice (Koehn,

2001), McNeil and McNeil, (2003) believes that branding was developed as a result of human beings

drawn together in patterns of interaction and exchange, co-operation and competition since earliest of

times. However, low and Fullerton, (1994) argues that modern branding can be traced to the late 19th

century with …’the development of branded consumer products such as Quaker-oats and Gillette.

This research reviews various definitions and understanding of the term “brand” in literature with core

focus on De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s 1998; good year, 1996’s works on the term branding.

The research was done to see if there is a significant departure from the meaning of branding, as

theorized by them. My purpose, aim, method of approach and findings are presented also in my

Abstract.

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

This research is concerned with the exploration of the changing definitions and understandings of the

meaning of the concept “brand” prior and up till de chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s (1998); Good

year, (1996) works.

For decades, several statements have advanced in academic literature to describe, define, update,

construct and de-construct what branding is, there is therefore a dearth of academic knowledge on the

status of the meaning of branding (Otubanjo, 2010)

De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley views the term “brand” from 12 themes in their 1998 work; (i)

as a legal instrument (ii) logo (iii) company (iv) identity system (v) short-hand (vi) risk reducer (vii)

image in consumers minds (viii) as a value system (ix) as personality (x) as relationship (xi) as added

value and (xii) evolving entity. This all comes across as functional list views. While Goodyear (1996)

views the term brand from 6 conceptual models coming across as brands having an emotional view.

(i) Unbranded goods (ii) brand as reference (iii) brand as personality (iv) brand as icon (v) brand as

company and (vi) brand as policy.

This conceptual definitions inspired lots of several scholarly definitions on the meaning of “brand” as

a concept; some had similarity of meanings and interpretations and others had a significant departure

of meanings as theorized by de chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley, (1998); and Good year, (1996).

One of the earliest papers to attempt a definition of a brand, Gardner and Levy, (1955); acknowledged

that brands not only have functional values but emotional values also.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are myriads of definitions of what a brand is; there has been found 27 definitions of brand

image and 12 definitions of brand personality in literature, and the terms are often interchanged and

used in opposing context (Hosany, Ekinci, Ulysal, 2006).

Work on brand management has attracted immense interest in the last two decades. The volume or

academic literature contributing to this discipline provides evidence in this regard. Central to this

debate on brand management however is its meaning. For decades, several statements have been

advanced in academic literature to define, describe or underscore what branding is. While some texts

address this subject fully and comprehensively, others approach it passively or as an introduction to

their work. Existing works (de chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley, 1998; Goodyear, 1996), provides an

analysis of the meaning of branding, though useful is becoming outdated – numerous papers

addressing the meaning of this subject has since been published. There is therefore a dearth of

academic knowledge on the current status of the meaning of branding (Otubanjo, 2010).

Due to the multiplicity of definitions and understandings posed by the term “branding”, “brands”, it is

appropriate to study the extent to which the conceptualization of the definition of the term “brand” has

evolved over the years. This paper draws proposition about the possible change in the meaning of

branding beyond de chernatony and Dall’olmo Riley’s (1998); Goodyear, (1996) work on branding.

THE CONCEPT OF BRAND MEANING

This paper addresses this issue by first reviewing De Chernatony and Francesca Dall olmo Riley’s:

defining a brand beyond the literature with experts interpretations(1998).they content analyzed over

one hundred articles from trade as well as from academic journals, and identified twelve main themes

on which they derived a broad range of definitions of the term “brand” i.e.

(i) logo (ii) company (iii) legal instrument (iv)short hand (v)risk

reducer (vi) identity system (vii)image in consumer mind (viii)value system (ix)

personality (x)relationship (xi)adding value (xii)evolving entity

A striking but new phenomenon within the context of this definition, which has engaged the attention

of other authors has emerged (Otubanjo, 2007) i.e. Balmer and Muzellec, (2005); Leitch and

Davenport, (2007); Dan Karrenman and Anna Rylander, (2008); they address the phenomenon of

branding as a market tool which can be understood as a management exercise, corporate branding

according to Dan Karreman and Anna Rylander, (2008); can be viewed as a management and

leadership practice, which can be interpreted as an ambiguity.

But Gorz, (2003); emphatically states that brands are monetizable symbolic values.

Adam Arvidsson, (2005); gives an in-depth meaning when he viewed branding as a mechanism that

enables a direct valorization in the form of share prices.

In today’s world, the term “branding” has acquired new meanings in literature due to media

fragmentation, what I term the triple play (online, offline and mobile) interactivity of various scholars,

consumers and brand custodians. This shift in meaning has brought about plethora of understandings

of the meaning of branding; even published works keeps getting updated with added numeric increase

in earlier defined themes.

De Chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley came up with nine (9) themes in literature about the term

“brand” in 1997, in the year 1998, they came up with twelve (12) themes, and in 1999, they came up

with 21 themes, creating more shifts on the meaning of branding.

Recently more meanings of the term “branding” has emerged (i.e. de chernatony, 2006; Macrae,

1999; Otubanjo, 2010) all view the concept brand as a mixture of manifests that culminates as a

promised experience, this is at variance with his earlier existing works.

A relatively new phenomenon has also emerged; the term branding has been extended to include city

branding, destination branding nation branding and individual branding with several brand

components emerging. (I.e. see existing works Ian Vande Walle, 2008; Hakinson, 2001; Kavaratzis,

2004).

CRITIQUE

De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s model of 1998, provides understandings about various

perspectives and function of the term “branding – brand”. It helps understand brand evolution both

from theoretical and practical stand point; but leaves considerable uncertainty about the future

understanding of the term “branding” and how it applies to the recent management practices.

Stern, (2006, P. 216) discusses the “semantic confusion”, the “instability and idiosyncratic usage of

the word brand”. De chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley’s (1998) work on branding which considers

brands as constituted by their components presents a problem of what might or should be included.

They do not include brand equity; the evolution of brand theory continues to add brand components,

brands as cultural artifacts (Schroeder, 2009). In addition to the questions of which components

should be added? How should they be defined?

The different approaches to constructing and de-constructing the term “brand” arose from complex

cultural understandings i.e. personality branding is and American term, this can come with various

models and components. Corporate branding is an European term and can be deconstructed with

several complex identities. See works (Olins, 1990; Balmer, 1993; Balmer and Soenen, 1997; Hatch

and Schultz, 1997; Davies et al, 2003; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Otubanjo, 2007).

It could also be argued that each of the personality measures is simply looking at a narrow aspect of a

brand (Mark Avis, 2009).

According to Dan Karreman and Anna Rylander in their work, “managing meaning through branding

the case of a consulting firm” (2008). There are studies investigating themes relating to the origins of

brand commitment (Coulter et al, 2003); the emergence of brand communities (Muniz and O’ Guinn

2001, Mc Alexander et al, 2002. They view branding from an organization perspective which is

different from the works of de chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley’s 1998 work.

De Chernatony et al, 2001, agrees that branding is a spectrum of interpretations developing into the

concept of brands as competition increases.

Woods, 2000 (p. 677); views branding as a mechanism for achieving competitive advantage for firms

through differentiation. While Ind (2004) proposes that a brand is a unique mental construct in the

mind of the stakeholders in which they based upon their own individual perspective, experience and

culture in relation to their individual position relative to the brand. The inability to agree on a

universal definition is a question of perception.

THE GOODYEAR MARY: Divided by a common language, (1996); diversity and deception in the

world of global marketing she developed a conceptual model of brand evolution and images in 6

stages, (i) unbranded goods (ii) brand as reference (iii) brand as company (vi) brand as policy.

This view suggests emotional attribute to the term “brand” except the fifth stage which agrees with de

chernatony and Dall’ Olmo Riley’s functional attribute viewing brand as a company. The implicit

meanings on the meaning of the term branding supports/focuses on emotional benefits, products

benefits…, it also suggests the connotations that the consumer now ‘own’s the brands, that brand taps

into higher order values of society, are aligned to social and political issues.(Mc Nally and de

Chernatony, 1999).

The Goodyear model definition has practical values and also inspired various researches. (Kunde,

2000) explores a brand through Goodyear’s 1996 view he says a brand, as an unbranded commodity,

develops through brand icon and brand culture into a policy driver or even brand religion. The

meaning of brands metamorphosed and develops a personality, emotional and meanings as cynical

consumers construct their own identity and meaning (Otubanjo 2010; Christenson and Askegaard,

2001).

The perspectives on brands, although different in research focus and assumptions (Dan Karreman and

Anna Rylander, 2008) are seeking various strategic ways to increase financial digit of how a

company, be it product or service oriented.

All studies and investigations on various themes and models are geared towards brand understanding,

brand positioning, brand asset, brand value, brand loyalty, premium brand price difference and brand

equity. The haunting truth is, all these functionalist, commoditization and emotional perspectives,

leads to ways, a company’s financial digit can be mega. The whole system is built towards acquiring

more financial value.

In this context, it makes sense to construct the “term” brand as the mega financial digit of a

company’s processes such as standard management and leadership process consisting of (i)

consistency, (ii) bundles of meanings, (iii) reference, (iv) icon, (v) policy, (vi) as a company and

brand equity, (vii) as a covenant, (viii) image, (ix) in consumer’s minds, (x) legal instrument, (xi)

adding value (xii) evolving entity (xiii) promise to internal and external stakeholder (xix) reputation

(xv) as a material and immaterial asset (xvi) react time engagement (xvii) as a social environment,

individual and marketing environment (xviii) as populist interpretations, technical and conceptual

interpretations (xvix) as mechanisms that enables direct valorization in the form of share prices (xx)

total beliefs about the brand held by consumers, strength of consumer attachment to the brand and as a

relationship and risk reducer.

This view can be positive and can help resolve the problematic definitions, confusions and lack of a

universal agreement in the term “brand-branding”.

Every other plethora of models and measurements can now be classified as brand components, not

definitions i.e. service branding, corporate branding, organizational and management branding,

destination branding, nation branding, product branding, city branding, individuals as personality

branding, etc.

It can also have an unexpected boomerang as branding perceptions are culturally, stereotyped and

filled with prejudices of various scholars and practitioners all over the world.

Rubenstein, (1995), developed a model for brand charactering, it presents the key dimensions of brand

against its communication, management and implementation objectives.

Keller and Kotler, (2006), also developed a model but a “brand tracking” which consists of a brand

pyramid which starts with “salience” at the base to define awareness and identity, moves through

performance, imagery, judgments and feelings towards resonance at the apex which denotes

relationship with the brand.

Cathy Hsu and Liping Cai, (2009) develops branding blocks for tourist decisions making process in

place/destination branding. Several of these models for branding exist in literature but have not been

known if it works empirically.

The fundamental problem is the question of what exactly a brand might be Schultz and Schultz,

(2004) summarize it as follows:

Its like Humpty Dumpy, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less, its lack of

agreement causes much confusion, lost motion, wasted efforts and misplaced investments in brands

and branding today.

DISCUSSION

What exists? What has changed? And what was discovered?

This study contributes to the debate on the similarities and shift in meaning of the term “brand” prior

and aftermath of the publication of the works of de chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, (1998);

Goodyear, (1996).

Table 3.5 shows group of similar brand definitions/views at concepts and group references citing

definitions.

GROUP OF SIMILAR BRAND DEFINTIONS

GROUP VIEW CONCEPTS GROUP REFERERENCE CITING DEFINITIONS

As a Legal Instrument Le chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1997); Crainer (1995);

Broadbent and cooper (1987); Koch (1994); Dibb et al (1994);

Kotler et al (1996); Watkins (1986); Aaker (1991).

As as a Logo Le Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1997); Watkins (1986);

Aaker (1991); Ama (1960); Kotler, Armstrong, Saundes and

Wong (1996); Koch (1994); Keller (1993); Keller (1993);

Klein (1999); Mark Ligas and June Coltte (1999); Miriam –

Salzer-Morlin and Lars Strannegard (2001); Otubanjo (2008).

As a Company Le chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1998); Dietenbach

(1992); Aaker (1996); Otubanjo (2007); Goodyear (1996);

Bateson (1995); Dibb et al (1997); Doyle (1994); Kotler et al

(1996); Watkins (1986).

As an Immaterial Asset Adam Arviddson (2005); Bennett (1988).

As Associated with Physical Goods Shostack (1977); Faust and Eilertson (1994); Turley and More

(1995).

Covenant Perspective Otubanjo (2010); Balmer (2001)

Personality Perspective Aaker (1996); Smothers (1993); Shields (1992); Belk (1988);

Balmer and Greyssery, (2006); Christerison and Askegaard

(2001); Otubanjo (2010); le chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley

(1998); Faust and Eilertson (1994).

Consumer Centred Perspective Newman (1957); Pitcher (1988); de chernatony (1993); Keller

(2001); Alt and Griggs (1998); Brown (1992); Southgate

(1994); Adam Arvidsson (2005); Kapferer (1997); Leitch and

Motion (2007); Karreman and Rylander (2008).

As an Image Boulding (1956); Joyce (1963); Keeble (1991); Martineau

(1959), Hatch and Schultz (2001); de chernatony and

Dall’Olmo Riley (1998).

As an Identity Kapferer (1997); Aaker (1996); Balmer (1995); Keller (1993);

Perrier (1997); Klein, (1999, P. 20); de chernatony and

Dall’Olmo Riley (1998).

Evolving Entity Jones (1986); de chernatony and Macdonald (1994); de d

From table 3.1, we get a clear view of what exists and what has changed. Minter Dial (2010) argues that the term “brand” is complex and the shift in meanings is brought about by (1) plethora of brands with onslaught of new product launches (2) the digital world (internet and mobility) (3) and latent lack of trust between consumer and the brand.

Diagram 3.2

Meaning Connection Passion Listening

Essence Engagement Exchange

Dialogue

5E’s

of Brand

Real-time Surprise

Experience Emotion

Celebration

(Minter Dial, (2010); the mindset.com)

His approach is at variance with what exists in literature.

WHAT WAS DISCOVERED

The term “brand”, “branding” has gone through various metamorphosis, it served as a trademark, and

was overwhelmingly associated with physical goods between 1950-1970. It was seen as conveyor of

product information. The similarity of meanings witnessed during this period took a shift.

Complexities of definitions began to arrive in the 1980’s, functional and emotional values were

attributed to the term “brands”.

1990’s: Branding metamorphosed and gathered spectrum of meanings and interpretations.

Competitions increased, consumers became cynical and knowledgeable. Various marketing scholars

and brand custodians, in an attempt to give meaning to the term “brand” came up with a plethora of

models and metrics. Various themes and components were viewed, constructed and updated i.e.

service branding; consumer centered branding, firm’s perspective, product branding, destination, city,

nation and corporate branding. This era personified the term “brand”, “branding” and suggested a

wide range of associations creating provocative insights on how branding should be viewed.

2000: The new millennium up till the year 2002 saw this stability of understanding of the term

“branding” as discussed in my relevant review of literatures.

2003-2010: Another level, a significant shift was conceived on the construction of the term

“brand” – “branding”. A significant departure from the meaning of branding as theorized by de

chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1998); Goodyear (1996) began emerging. New understandings

emerged and old meanings were updated, and expanded upon. It also became apparent that the

definition of “brand” has no singular universal meaning. Theorist kept defining the term from their

own cultural theoretical and practical perspectives.

The term “branding”, “brands” connotes different meanings to consumers, scholars, brand custodians

and professors of marketing it is constantly changing according to utility, context of usage,

perceptions and culture.

CONCLUSION

Drawing on the recently discovered complex and varied meanings of the term “brand”, “branding” I

am suggesting that the term as a meaning be defined and viewed as the mega – financial digit of a

company’s processes, such as standard management and leadership process consisting of 20 standard

meanings.i.e

(1) consistency (2) bundles of meanings (3) reference (4) icon (5) policy (6) as a company and

branded equity (7) as a covenant (8) image in consumer’s minds (9) legal instrument (10) adding

value (11) evolving entity (12) promise to internal and external stakeholders (13) reputation (14) as a

material and immaterial asset (15) as a social, individual and marketing environment (16) as populist

interpretations, technical and conceptual interpretations, technical and conceptual interpretations (17)

as mechanisms that enables direct valorization in the form of share prices (18) total beliefs held by

consumer, strength of consumer attachment and relationship with the brand. (19) As a risk reducer

(20) as an expression of culture and personality.

These twenty (20) meanings was derived from several definitions of various scholars, brand

custodians and marketing professors

This can help resolve the problematic confusions and lack of universal meaning on the term “brand” –

“branding”. This perspective covers the view of de chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley; Dan Karreman

and Anna Rylander; Kunde; Otubanjo; Keller; Kotler; Christensson and Askegaard; Olins; Hatch and

Schutz; Hakinson; Gorz; Macrae; Stern; Schroeder; Gutman; Balmer; Beckett; Southgate; Shelth;

Cook; Thrift; Woodward; Dubott; Davenpor; Leitch; Kapferer; Mc William; Goodyear; Ind;

Rubenstein; Mark Ligas and June Cotte’ Aaker David; Aaker Jennifer; Koch; Wong; and et al. these

are notable names with existing conceptual works. Since the concept of brand itself has a long history

within marketing thought and practice (Koehn, 2001) it will be a laudable achievement for the

academic and practioner’s world to have a universal meaning to work on. And these proposed 20

meanings, I think just does it.

The advantage of adopting a universal meaning is manifold.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D (1997), “should you take your brand to where one action is?” Harvard Business Review,

September – October, 135-143.

Aaker, D (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation, Energy,

Leverage and Clarity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, J (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, 34

(3), 347-56.

Adam, Ardvidsson (2005). Brands: A Critical perspective, journal of consumer culture, 235.

Avis, M (2009), “The Problems of Brand Definition, University of Otago, Mark Avis @

business. Otago.ac.nz.

Bateson, John (1995), “Managing Services Marketing”, Forth Coming, Dryden Press.

Belk, Russell and Richard .W. Pollay (1985) “Images of Ourselves: The Good Life

Twentieth Century Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11th (March).

Biel, Alexander (1999), “The Brandscape”, Admap, 26th October, 476.

Brodie, R.J. and de chernatony (2009), “Towards New Conceptualizations of Branding:

Theories of the Middle Range” Marketing Theory, 9(1), 95.

Brown, Stephen (1995), Post Modern Marketing, London, Routeledge.

Balmer; J. M.T. (2001), “Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate

Marketing Seeing Through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, 35 (314): 248.

Cathy, HSU and Liping A. (ai (2009).

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/referred/sessions/friday/12.

Berry, L.L. (1986). “Retail Business are Service Business”. Journal of Retailing, Vol.62,

Spring, pp. 3-6.

Charton, p. and Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1976). “An Experiment in Brand Choice”. Journal of

Marketing Research”, Vol.13th May, pp. 152-160.

Churchhill, G.A.J. (1979). “A Paradigm for Development Better Measures of Marketing

Constructs”. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.16th, February, pp. 64-73.

De chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, (1998) “A Brand Beyond the Literature with

Expert Interpretations”. Journal of Marketing, Vol.14, pp. 417-443.

De chernatony, L. and Segal – Horn, S. (2003), “The Criteria for Successful Services

Brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1095-1118.

Evans, J. and Berman; B (1997). Marketing 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jeysey,

Prentic Hall Inc.

Feldman, L. p (1969), “Of Alphabets, Acrony and Corporate Identity”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol.33 No. 4, 72-75.

Fiol, C.M., Hatch, M.J. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1998), “Organisational Culture and

Identity: What’s the Difference anyway”, in Whetten D.A., and Godfrey P.C. (Eds) Identity in

Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations, Sage Publications,

London.

Freeman, R.E. (1994), “The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions”, Business Ethics

Quarterly , Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 409-421.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K (2000), “Organizational Identity, Image and Adaptive

Instability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.25 No. 1, pp. 63-81.

Gold, J.R. and Word, S.V. (Eds), Place Promotion: The use of Publicity and Marketing to sell Towns

and Regions, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Gordner, Burleigh B. and Levy, Sidney J. (1955), “The Product and the Brand”, Harvard Business

Review, 33, March – April, pp. 33-39.

Goodyear, Mary (1993), “Reviewing the Concept of Brands and Branding”, Marketing and Research

Today, 21, 2 pp. 75-79.

Goodyear, Mary (1996)”, Divided by a Common Language”, Journal of the Market Research Society,

38, 2, pp. 105-122.

Hamel, Gary and Prahaland, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston, Harvard Business

School Press.

Hunt, Shelby D. (1990), “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research” Journal of Marketing, 54.

Jacoby, Jacob and Kyner, David B. (1973), “Brand Loyalty vs. Repeat Purchasing Behaviour”,

Journal of Marketing Research, 10, pp. 1-9.

Jones, John P. (1986), What’s in a name, Aldershot, Grower.

Kapferer, Jean – Noel (1995), “Stealing Brand Equity: Measuring Perceptual Confusion between

National Brands and ‘copycat’ own labels”, Marketing and Research Today, 23, May.

Keebly, Giles (1991), “Creativity and the Brand” in: Understanding Brands by 10 people who do

(Ed.) Cowley, Don, London, Kogan Page, pp. 167-182.

Keller, Kelvin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer – Based Brand

Equity”, Journal of Marketing, 57.

Koch, Richard (1994), The Financial Times A – Z of Management and Finance, Pitman, London.

Kollat, David T., Engel, James and Blackwell, Roger D. (1970), “Current Problems in Consumer

Behaviour Research; Journal of Marketing Research 7.

Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary, Saunders, John and Wong, Veronica (1996), Principles of Marketing

Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall Europe.

Low, George S. and Fullerton, Ronald A. (1994) Brand, Brand Management and Marketing

Research, 31.

Martineau, Pierre (1959) “Sharper focus for the Corporate Image”, Harvard Business Review, 36.

Mc Willaim, Gill (1993) “A tale of two gurus: Aaker and Kapferer on Brands”, International Journal

of Research in Marketing, 10.

Olins, Wally (1989), Corporate Identity, London, Thames and Hudson.

Olutayo Otubanjo, T.C. Melewar (2008), “Corporate Identify: A Paradigmatic Shift in the Theoretical

Construction of its meaning.

Olutayo Otubanjo, Olusanmi Amujo (2009), “Conceptualizing the Notion of Corporate Brand

Convenance.

Plummer, Joseph T. (1985(), “How Personality makes a Difference” Journal of Advertising Research,

24.

Southgate, Paul (1996), “Revolution Behind the Scenes”, Marketing, March 14.

Staveley, Nicholas (1987), “Advertising, Marketing and Brands”, Admap, 23, pp. 31-35.

APPENDIX I

DEFINITIONS OF BRANDING

1. Brand meanings consists of three environments, each existing within the “culturally,

where positioning tactics makes the brand recognizable, the individual environment and the

social environment, where brand meanings facilitates communication through symbolism

(Mark Ligas, June Cotte, 1999).

2. A brand is commonly defined as a graphic sign that distinguishes a product from

other products (Miriam Salzer – Morling, Lars Strannegard, 2001).

3. Brands are first and foremost providers of experience (Schmitt, 1999, p. 20).

4. Branding is an issue of fostering powerful identities and c oncepts (Klein,

1999, p. 20).

5. Branding is a process of “re-enchanting” commodities; conveying an avra to Mass

produced goods (Shields, 1991, quoted in Lash and Urry, 1994, p. 277).

6. A brand is something that identities a product or a service, be it a name symbol or

something else (cf. Keller, 1993).

7. Goodyear, (1996)’s Conceptual Model of brand Evolution and Images in 6 stages:

(i) unbranded goods (ii) brand as reference

(iii) brand as personality (iv) brand as icon

(v) brand as company (vi) brand as policy

8. The concept of “brand” itself has a long history within marketing thought and

practice.

9. A name or symbol that functions as a tool for differentiating products from

competition, this traditional definition stems from the concept of a brand’s visual

features as basis for differentiation.

10. Brand as a legal instrument, legal statement of ownership, registered trademark (TM

or R) to designate legal owners.

11. Brand as a logo, the meaning a logo conveys about a brand has significant implication

for the meaning of branding de chernatony (1998); Watkins (1986); Aaker (1991);

Dibb et al (1994); Kotler et al (1996); Koch (1994); support 9, 10, and 11.

12. Brand as a company

Personality

Corporate

Meaning Branding Covenant

Otubanjo, 2007.

13. Absence of a universal meaning/definition, branding can be seen fro three

perspectives: covenant, personality and meanings perspective, (Otubanjo, 2010).

14. Covenant Perspective; a Pledge made to Stakeholders with reference to profitability

responsibility and return on investment (Balmer, 2001).

15. Personality Perspective: An Expression of cues (Christensen and Askegaard, 2001).

16. Brand as an Expression of Vision, Image, Culture and Value (Hatch and Schultz,

2001).

17. Brand as an Expression of Character Traits (Balmer and Greyser, 2006).

18. Meaning Perspective: a symbol of meanings (Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 1998).

19. A symbol of meanings generated through interpretation of images (Leitch and

Motion, 2007).

20. Brands are symbols and cues (Otubanjo, 2008).

21. A brand is the sum of all the mental connections people have around it (Brown,

1992).

22. Brand as an identity system (Balmer, 1995) has 7 schools of thought, which

represents the articulation of corporate mission, strategic change through visual means.

23. Brands as an image in the mind brands are images in consumers’ minds of functional

and psychological attributes, (MArtineau, 1959).

24. Newman (1957) developed a consumer centred perspective on the meaning of brands,

examplied through the construction of brand image as everything people associate

with a brand.

25. Pitcher (1985) conceived a brand as a consumer’s idea of a product.

26. Branding can be interpreted as an ambiguity – coping strategy towards external stake

holders. It provides a way of communicating certain qualities (Dan Karreman and

Anna Rylander, 2008).

27. Brands are mechanisms that enable a direct valorization in the form of share prices,

i.e. of people’s ability to create trust, affect and shared meanings; their ability to

create something in common (Adam Arvidsson, 2005).

28. Brands are moneizable symbolic values (Gorz, 2003:60).

29. The power of a brand, is what resides in the minds of customers (Keller, 2001).

30. Branding definition and concept of corporate branding was approached from an

internal and external stake-holder perspective (Balmer, 2001).

31. De chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley (1997) identified nine main themes in literature

about “brand” as a (i) logo (ii) legal instrument (iii) company (iv) identity system (v)

image in consumers minds (vi) personality (vii) relationship (viii) adding value (ix)

evolving entity.

32. Branding research overwhelmingly associated with physical goods (Shostack, 1977;

faust and Eilerton, 1994; Turley and Moore, 1995).

33. An Investigation into branding/corporate identity taxonomy classified the focus of the

brand activity into mixtures of actual communicated, ideal and desired identity

(Balmer and Soenen, 1999).

34. Brand concept as an expression of a consistent brand promise that aligns the loyalty

of every stake-holder (Macrae, 1999).

35. de chernatony (2006) considers brands as a mixture of functional and emotional

values that become manifest in the promised experience.

36. City branding is a relatively new phenomenon which is essentially grounded in

corporate branding theory and general marketing concepts, in an attempt to identify

the critical points in developing a city. Brand … “Awareness, overall judgement,

functionality/symbolism, spectrum and brand resonance (Ian Vandewalle, 2008).

37. Ogilvy describes a brand as “the intangible sum of a product’s attributes; it’s name,

packaging and price, it’s history, its reputation and the way, it is advertised.

38. (Bulotaite, 2003) defines a brand as no thing more than building, managing and

developing total impression of images and associations i.e. emotions, experiences one

facts that an organization has created in the public mind. Brand is not about

awareness and familiarity alone.

39. McNeil and McNeil (2005) believes that branding was developed as a result of …

human beings drawn together in patterns of interactions and exchange, co-operation

and competition.

40. Branding is a mechanism for achieving competitive advantage for firms through

differentiation. (Wood, 2000, p. 677).

41. Feldwick (2002) gives a scholarly definition from three perspectives, the total value

of a brand as a separable asset, the strength of consumer attachment to the brand, and

a description of the association and benefits about a brand held by consumer

attachment to the brand and a description of the association and benefits about a

brand held by consumers.

42. Ind (2004) proposes that a brand is a unique mental construct in the mind of the

stakeholders in which they form their own understanding of the brand based upon

their own individual perspectives, experiences and culture in relation to their

individual position.

43. Stagliano and O’Malley (2002) views the brand and organization as an inseparable

asset. They question whether it would be possible to sell a brand, such as Mac

Donald’s without selling the people and processes and the entire company.

44. Brand image is defined as a means of aiding a consumer in the categorization of

product offerings. (Hagel and Armstrong 1997).

45. A brand is an identifiable product, service, person, or place augmented in such a way

that the buyer or user perceives relevant unique added values which match their needs

most closely (de chernatony and Mc Donald, 1998, p.20).

46. Macrae, (1999) defines branding as a commercial right to invest in leadership of

relationships which involves periods of time that of a little beyond the shorttermist

organization which reports efficient performance in quarters.

47. Amber (1992) defines a brand as the promise of the bundles of attributes that

someone buys and provide satisfaction…’ The attributes may be real, illusory,

rational or emotional tangibles or invisible.

48. Brand is … nothing more or less than the sum of all the mental connections people

have around Brown (1992).

49. A brand is a mechanism for achieving competitive advantage for firms, through

differentiation (purpose). The attributes that differentiate a brand, provides the

customer with satisfaction and benefits for which they are willing to pay (mechanism)

(Losa Wood, 1994).

50. Brands are values in consumers minds (Southgate, 1994).

51. Kapegerer, (1997) associates the theme branding with “identity”, he envisions the

brand identity as having six facets: physique, personality, relationship, reflection and

consumer’s self image.

52. The concept of the brand is a contract between the organization and the organization

and the consumer (staveley, 1987; Kapferer, 1995).

53. A brand becomes a brand as soon as it comes in contact with consumers opinions

(Keeble, 1991).

54. Stern (2006, p. 216) discuss the “Semantic confusions” and the instability and

idiosyncratic usage of the word “brand”.

55. De chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley’s (1998) work on branding views it from 12

themes (1) as a legal instrument (2) as a logo (3) as a company (4) identity system (5)

shorthand (6) risk reducer (7) image in consumer’s mind (8) as a value system (9) as

personality (10) as relationship (11) as adding value (12) as evolving entity.