Search results

The aim of this study is to determine the effects of brand components (CBBE, brand fit, brand image, brand reputation, brand familiarity) on consumers brand portfolio attitude via perceived risk (for two main portfolio strategies).

The study used a structured questionnaire to collect primary data from 636 consumers who made purchases from companies using house of brand (318) and branded house strategy (318). By conducting reliability and validity analysis, the model of this study was tested with confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis methods, using structural equation modeling.

According to the results of the path analysis, the effects of CBBE and brand reputation on brand attitude were confirmed for both house of brand and branded house strategy. Moreover, the full and partial mediating effect of perceived risk was proven in the relationships.

One of the limitations of the study is determining a portfolio of brands for each strategy and collecting data for these brands. In addition, since the number of consumers using brand portfolios could not be reached in the study, data could be collected using the purposeful convenience sampling method. For this reason, it is thought that research conducted with the data obtained through systematic sampling methods can yield more reliable results.

Managers of companies with a brand portfolio should work on a main strategy that enhances CBBE and brand reputation regardless of the strategy they use. After these two variables, the variable that portfolio managers need to address is brand fit.

It will offer different perspectives in terms of understanding which portfolio strategy is needed, and which predecessors and outputs can be produced. Also, the findings of the research will produce important results to reduce the perceived risks of consumers and increase their positive attitudes toward brand portfolios.

This paper aims to propose a dynamic and holistic framework that combines the brand portfolio audit with the brand architecture redesign.

Depicting from an extensive review on the frameworks of brand audit and brand architecture, a dynamic approach to brand portfolio audit and brand architecture strategy was developed, and later applied and tested in three B2B and B2C companies.

The paper suggests an eight-step framework to guide practitioners when auditing a specific brand portfolio and designing a revised brand architecture strategy. Additionally, a Brand Audit Scorecard was developed to enable and sustain brand portfolio audits, divided into three dimensions (brand equity, brand contribution and strategic options).

Further research should aim at testing the proposed framework in different types of companies and countries.

This paper contributes to the brand audit and brand architecture literature by proposing a holistic framework that is not static.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of a shift in brand architecture strategy on corporate brand equity. The change is from a house of brands to a branded house approach in which the corporate brand is prominent. The study proposes two alternative approaches in order to explore how consumers build the corporate brand equity from single product brand equities in the portfolio: the dilution process or the bookkeeping/subtyping cognitive process.

Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 150 Italian consumers. All the items were related to a real corporate brand – Procter & Gamble (P&G) – and to seven of the product brands in its portfolio. The choice of the Italian context and the P&G brand was motivated by the fact that P&G has recently adopted a shift in its brand strategy, starting to give prominence to the corporate brand in its communication campaign in Italy.

The dilution process does not describe the effect of a change in strategy on corporate brand equity, but the bookkeeping/subtyping cognitive process does. This suggests that consumers tend not to revise corporate brand equity when they perceive many product brands behind it.

The value of the present paper is to deal with a relevant and current topic: the brand architecture dynamism. This research is an exploratory step to satisfy the need for theory-based research on consumer responses to the shift in the brand portfolio architecture strategy.

This paper seeks to address the following question: What causes firms to choose brand creation vs brand acquisition for brand portfolio expansion?

A multilevel interdisciplinary conceptual model is developed with nine factors at three levels of influence: the market, firm, and brand portfolio. Using 125 brand acquisitions and creations for 22 firms between 2001 and 2007, the model is tested using logistic regression to determine which factors significantly influence brand portfolio expansion strategy and whether they encourage acquisition or creation.

Significant factors were found at the market and firm levels, with competitive intensity of the market having the strongest effect, followed by the firm's financial leverage, market concentration, and market growth.

Contrary to prior expectations, external factors at the market and firm levels have an impact on choice of acquisition vs creation. However, internal firm factors may serve as moderators of strategy effectiveness.

This is the first study to empirically examine factors affecting the brand portfolio expansion strategy via brand creation versus brand acquisition across a variety of industries. From a methodological standpoint, one of the more serious and persistent problems facing prior brand research is the lack of brand‐level data, but this paper's approach overcomes this limitation by using media expenditures in the AdSpender database to represent brands within a category/market.

This paper aims to investigate the effects on corporate brand equity when a company moves from a house of brand strategy to a branded house. In fact, recently, most of large companies (Procter & Gamble, Unilever) are managing this swift in order to simplify and optimize their efforts.

A total of 433 consumers participated in a between-subject experimental design completing a questionnaire. Each respondent was exposed to one of eight hypothetical scenarios with real-existing brands. A moderated-mediation model was tested.

The number of individual brands interacts with the variety of product categories within the portfolio to define its internal consistency which, in turn, exerts a significant mediation effect on corporate brand equity.

The study supports the mental accounting process (subtyping vs bookkeeping), demonstrating how this psychological framework is applicable within brand management.

The study unveils a strong dichotomy: consumers award very small portfolios focused on a single product category or, conversely, they appreciate a wide and highly diversified brand portfolio. No chances for intermediate and hybrid solutions. Findings demonstrate that a brand architecture shift might be a flexible opportunity to manage an on-going diversification strategy.

The study is the first to analyse the importance of internal consistency within a brand portfolio in case of a shift in the portfolio strategy. Moreover, it investigates the effects since the first announcement of a linkage between the individual brands and the corporate one.

This study aims to develop dimensions and sub-items that explain hotel brand portfolio strategy (HBPS) and explore performance differences among HBPS groups in an effort to improve our knowledge about HBPS. A key ingredient in success for a hotel company is the successful building and management of a strong brand portfolio.

This study proposes four dimensions of HBPS: brand portfolio scope, intra-portfolio competition, brand portfolio location and brand portfolio element. By employing ten additional sub-items, the study evaluates the HBPS practices of hotel firms and tests performance differences.

The findings present current HBPS practices in the hotel industry and identify four groups pursuing similar HBPS. The results also suggest that operational performance differs according to a firm’s particular focus in HBPS.

This study enriches our knowledge of HBPS by establishing dimensions and relevant measures and by suggesting the effect that HBPS has on performance. Future research might extend this study to examine the potential impacts of a business’s internal and external environments on the relationship between HBPS and its performance.

This study will aid executives in making important HBPS decisions such as whether to add a brand or how to reallocate resources among brands. This study also provides executives with a tool with which to monitor the relative position of their HBPS within the market.

This study is the first to establish dimensions and sub-items for understanding HBPS in the hotel industry. It also demonstrates a new approach to the analysis of competitive positioning and its relationship to performance.

Brand architecture and brand portfolios have been regarded as absolute entities to be analysed from the company’s perspective. The purpose of this study is to question such a uniform view by adding a perceptional dimension to the two concepts.

Semi-structured interviews with 58 marketing professionals and customers were used to explore ten propositions and map associations in the perceived brand portfolios, based on the brand concept map methodology.

The study reveals systematic differences between the collective view of company representatives, who name fewer brands associated through more sophisticated and highly connected brand systems and customers who include more partners and competitor brands in the portfolio, who also name more brands and connections in total.

Implications of the results are analysed and future research is suggested to determine the generalizability of the findings and the economic implications of discrepant internal and external views of a brand architecture and brand portfolio.

Academics should relate to this dualism by compensating for the effects of the associative predisposition of employees versus customers when interpreting results of studies related to brand portfolios and brand architecture. Marketing practitioners must actively acknowledge and manage the role of partners and competitors as part of the company’s external brand portfolio.

This study is the first to problematize the unilateral interpretation of brand portfolios and brand architecture by introducing a dual view of these concepts based on internal (employees) and external (consumers) perceptions.

The paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of brand portfolio management by examining the brand portfolio strategies of four leading cosmetics companies. The research focuses on two questions: what reasons lead companies to develop, or not, a brand portfolio strategy, and how brand portfolio management can create a higher and stronger level of competitive advantage that is harder to grasp and imitate.

The paper utilises an exploratory approach by means of case studies. Data were collected from the following companies: L'Oréal, Clarins, Estée Lauder and Wella. The research involved in‐depth interviews with 33 company directors.

The research results show that an aggregation of brands is not in and of itself a brand portfolio. The juxtaposition of brands is one of the elements, but not the sole element, necessary for the development of a brand portfolio, which is a combination of a brand ensemble and key factors born out of organisational savoir‐faire.

The results validate the existence of a link between brand portfolios and competitive advantage, a link based on the existence of four key factors identified in the research.

A model is proposed to assist managers in better understanding and controlling brand regrouping, because the research illustrates the benefits for a company that executes well‐coordinated brand management.

This research fits into the complex context of strategic/marketing relationships and broadens the field of brand analysis, notably its strategic dimension. The contribution of this research is to show how a brand portfolio can create a stronger and higher level of competitive advantage, which is more difficult to copy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceived content and structure of a brand portfolio, which may differ between individuals, by mapping the brand portfolio of two multi-national companies from the perspective of the marketing team. The discrepant views between individuals are analyzed and an aggregated brand portfolio is presented.

Semi-structured interviews with nine marketing professionals were used to map their individual perceived brand portfolios and structure, based on the Brand Concept Map methodology.

The study finds that there is a consistent difference in the individual perceived brand portfolio between marketing professionals. Brands that are not supported by all stakeholders may be suffering from an unclear positioning or undesired associations, and should receive management attention.

Explanations for the results are offered and future research is suggested to determine the generalizability of the findings and the economic implications of discrepant views on the company’s brand portfolio.

Marketing practitioners should consider the possible effects of conflicting views within their marketing teams on business performance. Identifying brands that are not supported by all stakeholders could be a way to discover under-performing brands with problematic brand positions in need of immediate attention.

This study is the first to compare and fully map the differences in perception of a company’s brand portfolio among internal stakeholders and the possible implications of this discrepancy.

This research aims to clarify the nature of the links between brand architecture and brands portfolio. Although these two themes have been the focus of significant research, the question of a link between the two concepts has not truly been asked; and yet the major role of brands raises the question of brand optimisation and balance at the core of an individual company.

After having clarified the two concepts by way of synthesising various works, the paper examines the similarities, differences, complementarities and oppositions between these two methods of organising and utilising brands.

This work shows that brand architecture corresponds, in its essence, to a hierarchical relationship approach between brands; whereas the brands portfolio concept corresponds to a non‐hierarchical method of organising the brands within themselves. The combination of these two approaches allows going beyond the idea of competition at the individual brand level and rather to replace that with a metadimension better suited to reconcile the needs expressed by consumers with organisational logistics and company profitability.

The research may assist managers in better understanding and controlling brand regrouping because the research illustrates some benefits for a company that executes well‐coordinated multi‐brand management.

The discussion distinguishes clearly the concept of brand architecture from the one of brand portfolio and shows their contribution to a stronger link between marketing and strategy.