this is continue of discussion 4, remember we need to reply to 3 students as before
FIRST DISCUSSION
Article: Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image
The first article I read was on how emotional branding, or a consumer-centrist, relational, and story-driven approach to forging deep and enduring affective bonds between consumers and brands, can lead to having a “doppelganger” effect (Thompson et. al., 2006). The doppelganger effect includes mocking images and stories about a brand that are circulated to the public by a loosely organized network of consumers, anti-brand activists, bloggers, and opinion leaders in the news and entertainment media(Thompson et. al., 2006). Over time, these brand-focused parodies and criticisms can blend into opposing meanings that upset brands that already successfully initiated competitive success through emotional-branding strategies (Thompson et. al., 2006). In effect, a doppelganger brand image culturally competes with the emotionally resonant meanings that a brand’s management attempts to instill through its marketing activities (Thompson et. al., 2006). The article then looks at how management can use this effect as a diagnostic tool that can reveal hidden brand image problems that could eventually grow into an actual brand image crisis. More precisely, the analysis of a doppelganger brand image can (1) call attention to cultural contradictions that could potentially undermine the perceived authenticity of a firm’s emotional- branding strategy, (2) provide early warning signs that an emotional-branding story is beginning to lose its value as an authenticating narrative for consumers’ identity projects, and (3) offer insights into how an emotional-branding strategy can be reconfigured to fit better with changing cultural times and shifting consumer outlooks (Thompson et. al., 2006).
For my personal experience, I relate this with my military experience. Throughout the decades, there has been a slow disconnect with society and military. Mainly due to how the media portrays the military. Public views label veterans as community assets and leaders, but also assume veterans experience PTSD and homelessness (Moore, 2018). The article uses Starbucks as their main example of a company that has had this doppelganger band image effect. The following websites are examples of this imaging www. illwillpress.com/sml.html and www. albinoblacksheep.com/flash/sbux.php. Starbucks is perceived as performing misdeeds, including crushing local competition, degrading the environment, exploiting third-world workers, homogenizing local cultures, and perpetuating the worst excesses of status-conscious consumer. This is simply not true. The same can be seen in the media/film/TV portrayal of the military. Nearly all the notable military/veteran television characters fall into three categories: military service as an explanation for certain skills and abilities PTSD from military service, and questionable characters with military service(Moore, 2018). I view this as a doppelganger image brand for the military. Instead of these types of shows, i.e. Bones, NCIS, Homeland, Valor, Enlisted, The Brave and Mad Men, the media should portray the subtleties of military branches, the struggles of grunt life, the cultural differences between enlisted troops and officers, or even just the experience of combat (Moore, 2018). This misinterpretation by the media is having negative effects on the interest among young people to serve, which could threaten national security in the long run (Moore, 2018).
Article: The destructive side of branding: A heuristic model for analyzing the value of branding practice
This article addresses consequences of branding by theorizing its destructive side. It highlights how branding may divert the public’s attention away from unpopular practices, creating space for organizations to do things that would otherwise be hard to ‘get away with’, thereby detracting societies from important discussions about organizations (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). It also provides tools for articulating in new ways what branding is and how it may destroy value by blocking off insights that would be instrumental to people and communities in their pursuit of achieving what they find important in life (Bertilsson et. al, 2018).
For example, the article states McDonald’s brands itself as a “believer in young people”. The association between McDonald’s and support of the young may create market value because more young people may apply for a job at McDonald’s and more people may buy their products because they sympathize with the idea of consuming food from an organization that supports young people (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). But this fragment of McDonald’s suppresses and deflects attention from the fact that working conditions at McDonald’s are not always acceptable (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). Also, Ronald McDonald invites children and their parents to eat, play, and enjoy themselves, participating in the creation of McDonald’s as a fun and safe place for kids (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). As a result, market value is likely to transpire. However, in the “green world”, where value is measured by the extent to which actions contribute to environmental sustainability, it is not valuable (or child friendly) to encourage children to consume food that contributes to the warming of the planet (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). Similarly, in the civic world, where value is measured by the extent to which actions contribute to the common good, it is not valuable to have children eat and play in a way that makes them overweight (Bertilsson et. al, 2018). I do not have any personal experience with this, but it is very interesting and something I intend to research on with my current employer.
Article: Diversification, Branding, and Performance of Professional Service Firms
This article analyzes the effects of brand breadth on firm performance for professional service firms (PSFs).
The author’s hypotheses are: PSFs adopting a narrow brand strategy only achieve a higher performance if they remain pure-service providers, and PSFs adopting a broad brand strategy only achieve a higher performance if they remain pure-service providers (Castaldi & Giarratana, 2018). Broad brands characterize a branding strategy with scarce associations to specific product characteristics. Narrow brands characterize a branding strategy with plentiful associations to specific product characteristics. The results found that the narrower the brand strategy, the higher the performance in pure-service firms (Castaldi & Giarratana, 2018). PSFs that exploit economies of scope from their intangibles, managing a specialized portfolio of brands within services, achieve a higher performance (Castaldi & Giarratana, 2018).
This relates to my experience because I believe this is how my firm manages their branding. We have our logo and our reputation as our brand which are intangible. The article states, PSF markets have particularly strong information asymmetries (Castaldi & Giarratana, 2018). . In other words, consumers unsure about the quality of an offer due to the lack of tangible attributes, will use the brand with its attached meaning as a decision anchor (Castaldi & Giarratana, 2018). Our firm chooses to use multiple sub brands to market diverse services. One such sub brand is our trademark BeyondZero®, which is a program that promotes safety and a culture of caring beyond the workplace and our immediate workforce, extending to all the people and places we influence, everywhere and every day (Jacobs, 2019). By using this trademark, we can show our customers that we have a caring culture which in turn attracts consumers looking for this type of quality.
Respond replied from other student, all responds has to look similar
Hi Valerie,
I enjoyed reading your post. Brand equity can be a huge asset to a company when consumers have positive thoughts about the brand. At the same time, negativity surrounding a brand can destroy equity and value in a company. I believe brand equity is one of the most powerful competitive advantages companies can have in the retail industry.
Please respond below to discussion with nicely paragraph, you can ask them question too based on their discussion: max 100 words is ok….
SECOND DISCUSSION
Ross posted Apr 12, 2019 9:59 AM
The first article I read was The importance of customer equity and branding: A research note, by G.C. Martin. This article discussed how branding focusses on the image of an organization. Along with how branding encompasses market analysis, employee engagement, marketing communications and brand architecture (Martin 2015). The author also discusses how logos and style branding helps build an image of quality viewed by customers resulting in a lifelong relationship between the customer and the business. The article discussed that businesses with consistency through branding are able to strengthen their business and establish clear expectations for customers and employees (Matin 2015).
The second article I read was Do customer perceptions of corporate services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles of brand heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits, by O Iglesias, S. Markovic, J.S. Jatinder and V. Sierra. This article discussed that in today’s society of ethical consumerism in order for organizations to be successful brands are facing increasing pressure in integrating ethical values into their identities along with displaying an ethical commitment at the corporate level (Iglesias 2019). The article examined the effects of customer views of the ethics of corporate brands operating in the services sector. The results of this article showed that when consumers have positive feelings and emotions towards a brand they are more likely to be less sensitive to poor service or performance and will most likely relate failures to an external occurrences (Iglesias 2019). The author of the article used Patagonia and Toms as examples of brands who have placed ethics, CSR and sustainability at the core of their business strategy and identity, resulting in a favorable and positive image.
The third article I read was Brand strategies in social media by G. Tsimonis and S. Dimitriadis. This article discussed why and how organizations create and use brand pages in social media, policies and strategies they follow, outcomes expected and how users benefit from these pages (Tsimonis 2014). The author discussed how social media and the internet has offered consumers many new opportunities in raising brand awareness. The results of the article were that social media can gain brand awareness by giving customers the opportunity to become familiar with the brand (Tsimonis 2014).
These article discussed the importance of branding and how it can and will make a memorable impression on consumers and lets them know what they can expect from an organization. Brands should deliver a clear message establishing the businesses credibility in the marketplace. Along with motivating consumers to make a purchase while building customer loyalty. For a business to be successful in branding they must understand the needs and wants of the current and potential customers. Branding not only creates loyal customers but loyal employees, A successful brand will help employees understand the purpose of the organization that they work for.
I work for the government but branding is still essential in government agencies. The brand of government run agencies must establish trust. Government agencies must also build and maintain a positive public image. Our clients must feel comfortable in turning to us in their times of need and have the confidence that they can count on us to do what is needed. The agency I work for has in the past couple of years developed a mobile app as a way of communicating with our clients and giving them easier access to their cases. Good branding allows government agencies to easily spread their message and communicate goals and areas of expertise.
Respond replied from other student, all responds has to look similar
Great job on the discussion. As for branding with government agencies, trust is the key, as you already mentioned. Replace brand with trust and you get similar results. When I think of government agencies, I think of how clearly and quickly will the engagement be and will there be good customer service.
Thanks for sharing.
Bottom of Form
Please respond below to discussion with nicely paragraph, you can ask them question too based on their discussion: max 100 words is ok….
DISCUSSION 3
Toyin posted Apr 12, 2019 12:08 AM
Subscribe
This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll.
Adjust automatic marking as read setting
The American Marketing Association defines “brand” as a name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies a specific s good or service as different from those of competitors. (Omar, M., et al., 2009). The legal term for brand is trademark. According to Omar, M et al, a brand may identify one item, a family of items, a service, company, feature or attribute.
The first article argues that a brand can be considered a resource, something that is more than an asset, something that adds value. The author goes further to say that a brand is a resource when it reinforces the firm’s capability to precisely and effectively produce a market contribution that adds value to specific market segments. The article goes on to emphasize that to be a resource, a brand must add some type of value. According to (Hunt S., D. 2019) a brand may be considered both a relational and legal resource. Relational because it reflects the organization’s relationship with its consumers and legal because trademark laws prevent competitors from infringing upon the organization’s rights to develop its brand equity.
The second article, examines corporate branding from an organizational talent management perspective. The authors discuss how the workforce in an organization ultimately determine the organization’s (brand) success. (Maurya, & Manisha. 2018) believe that when the workforce is dedicated to productivity they create a competitive environment and increase organizational performance thereby making the brand stronger. This article ties into the first one in the way it emphasizes the importance of branding in organization growth and performance. The stronger an organization’s brand is the higher the chances of success.
The third article talks about branding from a competitive advantage stand-point. The article also argues that employer branding is the image of the organization as perceived by the employees and other stakeholders. According to (Maheshwari, et al. 2017) employer branding involves promoting the organization both internally and externally to convince consumers, employees, stakeholders and everyone else that the company is the best.
All these articles have one thing in common, emphasis on employee perception, development and engagement. Corporate branding involves promoting, a clear view of what makes a firm different and desirable as an employer and a brand both internally and externally. (Gatewood R., D, Gowan, M., A, & Lautenschlager, G., J. , 2013). In order to develop a strong corporate brand, demonstrating the organization’s specific strengths and culture is critical. (Priem R., L, & Butler, J., E. 2011). Having worked in the telecommunications industry in the last 18 years I have come to understand that the way employees, stakeholders and consumers perceive a company can make or break the brand. I have seen companies prioritize profits over the well-being of their employees which ultimately led to a downward spiral for a lot of the companies. In my experience, in order for organizations to retain a talented workforce, they need to promote team spirit, training and development, career development plans, rewards and recognition, as well as promote work-life balance. By taking these proactive steps, companies will be able to reduce the probability of losing critical employees and instead be able to create a strong competitive edge in the industry.
Respond replied from other student, all responds has to look similar
Toyin,
Good post. I do have a question. You mention all three of these articles emphasis on employee perception, development and engagement. I would think that a more efficient and effective path for Brand research should come from the Consumers perspective. If the consumer doesn’t like something about the Brand, they won’t buy is, doesn’t matter at that point what the employee’s perception is. The consumer is who are purchasing the products at a volume many times the rate of employees. Just a though.
Please respond below to discussion with nicely paragraph, you can ask them question too based on their discussion: max 100 words is ok….
