Search results

This chapter examines the empirical evidence about business-to-business (B2B) brands and offers implications for value creation. Brand marketing texts typically emphasize the competitive advantage of strong brands but often assume a consumer branding (B2C) perspective. However some of the world's most valuable brands are predominantly B2B in nature, and the question arises regarding the importance of branding in B2B marketing. This chapter examines the following question. How do B2B brands create and deliver value for firms in interorganizational transactions? The chapter begins by examining the relevance of current theoretical frameworks of branding in the B2B context and the stages of the brand value chain. Next, the chapter considers extant research showing the impact of B2B branding at the various stages of the brand value chain. The chapter also suggests areas for future research in B2B branding and concludes with a reader case study.

Understanding the impact of marketing-related investments on market-based assets is a fundamental issue for marketers. In this study we address the relationship between product-related investments and communication-related efforts, with respect to a basic intangible market-based asset: consumer-based dimensions of brand equity. We draw from a longitudinal study of pre-purchase brand attribute data derived from consumer panels, conducted within the context of the U.S. automotive market. Brand equity dimensions are statistically related to marketing investments and contextual factors of “region of origin” and “global brand reach,” employing a seemingly unrelated regression model. The results reveal a positive effect of communication-related investments, as measured by annual advertising expenditures, on all dimensions of brand equity except luxury image. Product-related investments, as indicated by a brand's innovativeness, positively affect brand image but negatively affect perceived economy. Region of origin and global brand reach have mixed effects on the consumer-based dimensions of brand equity.

Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default consumer position is to accept a brand’s narrative, and we find that consumers maintain belief in this narrative even when explicitly reminded that it is manufactured by firms with an underlying profit motive. Because belief seems to be the default position adopted by consumers, we investigate what factors act as disruptors to this default position, thereby reducing assessments of authenticity.

This research uses a series of studies to investigate when and why consumers view some brand stories as authentic and others less so. In addition, we examine the impact of changes to authenticity assessments on managerially important brand outcomes.

Only when one or more authenticity disruptors are present do consumers begin to question the authenticity of the brand narrative. Disruption occurs when the focal brand is perceived to be nakedly copying a competitor, or when there is a gross mismatch between the brand narrative and reality. In the presence of one or both of these disruptors, consumers judge brands to be less authentic, report lower identification, lower assessments of brand quality and social responsibility, and are less likely to join the brand’s community.

Creating compelling brand stories is an important aspect of any marketing manager’s job; after all, these narratives help drive sales. Care must be taken when crafting narratives however, since consumers use these as the basis of their authenticity assessments, and brands deemed inauthentic are penalized.

In the literature on product branding, significant attention is given to brand equity in the consumer context, but relatively little attention is paid to the application of the concept in the business-to-business (B2B) context. Even less research exists on the role of brand equity in the retailing context. Retailers are often seen as irrelevant to the source of brand value, resulting in manufacturers not targeting retailers to help them build stronger brands. Potential occurs, therefore, for some channel conflict to exist between manufacturers and retailers. On the one hand, retailers tend to focus on building their own, private brands to differentiate themselves from other retail competitors and to increase their power in relation to manufacturer brands. At the same time, most retailers still need to create a good image in the consumer marketplace by selling famous, manufacturer-branded products. In other words, retailers often have to sell famous brands even if they would prefer to sell other brands including their own. Manufacturers tend to focus their brand-building efforts on the consumer market to entice consumers to insist that retailers stock their brands, rather than placing any real emphasis on building a strong and positive brand relationship with the retailer directly.

This study explores the relationship between brand image and brand equity in the context of sports sponsorship. Keller's (1993, 2003) customer-based brand equity models are the conceptual inspiration for the research, with Faircloth, Capella, and Alford's (2001) conceptual model – adapted from the work of Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993) – the primary conceptual model. The study focuses on the sponsorship relationship between the New Zealand All Blacks and their major sponsor and co-branding partner, adidas. The sporting context for the study was the 2003 Rugby World Cup held in Australia. Data were collected from two independent samples of 200 respondents, utilizing simple random sampling procedures. A bivariate correlation analysis was undertaken to test whether there was any correlation between changes in adidas' brand image and adidas' brand equity as a result of the All Blacks' performance in the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Results support the view that Keller (1993, 2003) proposes that brand image is antecedent to the brand equity construct. Results are also consistent with the findings of Faircloth et al. (2001) that brand image directly impacts brand equity.