Search results

This paper examines the boundary within which the recognition of an asset currently takes place. It proposes the establishment of a new boundary based upon “separability” which would allow internally created or home‐grown assets to be recognised on the balance sheet. It provides a new definition of brand assets so that, whether purchased separately or as part of goodwill or internally created by a business, brands can be recognised as assets within a new boundary.

The purpose of this study is to develop and test a practical model to identify a developing destination’s assets. Using the existing destination branding concepts and theories in the research, this study aims to identify how the assets of a developing destination differ from those of a developed destination.

The study followed the “practical model for determining destination assets” proposed in the article. The first stage includes collecting the information on the tourism potential of the destination. In the second stage, in-depth interviews were carried out with information carriers of a developing destination and analyzed by highlighting keywords in the responses. The following stages include the questionnaire survey, factor analysis and segmentation analysis.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the study. First, the assets of a developing destination, recreation areas, attractive visitor facilities and obligatory additional services are rational. Second, the assets used for destination branding are based on their unique character. According to the analysis results, the Almaty region’s unique character is associated with natural resources. The direction of recreation in the Almaty region boils down to two components: cognitive tourism and sports tourism.

The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. First, given that external tourism faced significant constraints during the pandemic, we must acknowledge that a study of destination branding may be more appropriate before or after the pandemic. Second, the survey was conducted online in connection with the introduction of quarantine measures. Third, the assets of a developing destination were selected based on the results of the interviews. In future studies, including other attributes may allow the identification of new assets for branding.

The practical destination branding model presented in the study has practical implications for destination authorities. Using the proposed model, assets of other destinations can be identified. In addition, the results of the analysis of the Almaty region as a developing destination will be effective for destination authorities in developing their tourism programs. Recreation areas, attractive tourism facilities and obligatory additional services can be used in destination branding.

This study drew on the experience of the population’s ambassador activity. The in-depth interview was obtained from the destination’s tourism informants, and the survey aimed to identify public opinion. The residents who participated in the interview and survey perform an ambassadorial function in strengthening the identified assets of the destination and implementing tourism programs. Accordingly, there is a growing sense of pride in being a resident of the destination.

The study has both theoretical and practical significance with the following results. First, it provides insights on enhancing public participation from the beginning of the destination branding process and respecting the continuation of its ambassadorial activities, provided that the identified destination assets are rational. Second, destination asset associations for developing destinations are presented. Third, the study creates a realistic picture of the Almaty region as a destination for visitors and destination authorities.

Examines the various brand asset recognition methods used by the accounting profession, within their existing rules, to highlight, first, the restrictive nature of a brand asset’s current attachment to purchased goodwill and, second, the restrictive requirement for brand asset recognition to be derived solely from a “transaction or event”. Then examines the latest rule change, FRS10, to assess whether the recognition of brand assets is likely to remain restrictive in the future. It concurs with Murphy’s view that brand asset recognition on the balance still continues to be an accounting exercise which is “fudged”.

Purchased goodwill conforms to the current accounting definitions of an asset. However, as the descriptive framework contained within this paper will show, purchased goodwill is not an asset and, therefore, should not be shown on the balance sheet. This would not necessarily matter, from a marketing viewpoint, was it not for the linkage of brand asset recognition to purchased goodwill asset recognition. Currently, the recognition of a purchased goodwill asset tends to be a prerequisite for the recognition of a brand asset extracted from it. If it can be shown that purchased goodwill is not an asset, then the prerequisite disappears. The widespread recognition of brand assets is then unfettered by its association with purchased goodwill. Weakening the basis for the recognition of a purchased goodwill asset is an important first step in encouraging the accounting profession to devise new ways of dealing with the different kinds of intangible assets that are becoming paramount in the governance of companies.

The purpose of this paper was to provide Korean screen golf systems suppliers experiencing severe competition in an oversaturated market with effective brand marketing strategies by examining the interrelationships among brand assets, brand trust, and brand loyalty.

This study used the convenient sampling method of non-probability and distributed questionnaires to 1,200 subjects over 20 years of age from ten screen golf playing facilities in Korea.

The following results were obtained: first, the subfactors of brand assets were identified to have significant influence upon brand trust in the following order: perceived quality, brand image, and brand awareness. Second, brand trust was identified to have a significant influence on brand loyalty. Lastly, the subfactors of brand assets were identified to have significant influence on brand loyalty in the following order: brand image, brand awareness, and perceived quality.

This paper provides useful information for developing an effective brand strategy in an oversaturated situation.

Marketers frequently lament the lack of representation of marketing in the boardroom and the short tenure of CMOs. The most common explanations offered are that marketing is not perceived as a strategic discipline and that marketers do not demonstrate a strong enough understanding of how the business makes money.

Financial accounting is how “score is kept” in terms of business performance. It is, therefore, in the self-interest of marketers to become familiar with financial reporting. Doing so will allow them to understand how marketing activities are recorded. In addition, academic researchers need to understand the meaning of the financial measures that they often use as the metrics of success when researching marketing strategy questions.

This is especially important since financial reporting generally does not recognize assets created by marketing investments. In order to substantiate a claim that “brands are assets”, marketers must be able to explain how the financial accounting rules misrepresent economic reality and why managers might use a different set of principles for management reporting.

We argue that the misrepresentation of market-based assets has two forms of negative impact for marketers: external and internal. The external problems are that financial statements are not especially informative about the value of marketing for the providers of capital and do not provide a true portrait of the economic resource base of the company. The internal problems are that marketers cannot point to valuable assets that they are creating, nor can they be effectively held accountable for the way that these assets are managed given that the assets are not recorded.

We do not expect immediate radical changes in financial reporting because financial accounting rules are designed with the specific interests of the suppliers of capital (debt and equity) in mind. To influence financial accounting developments, such as encouraging greater disclosure of marketing activity in the notes to the published accounts, marketers must be able to communicate in language understood by accountants and the current users of financial accounts. To aid this we provide guidance for marketers on the purpose and practices of accounting. We also discuss how academic marketing researchers might wish to adjust financial accounting data to capitalize a proportion of marketing expenses for companies where marketing is a primary driver of business performance.

Brand equity has recently emerged as an important research area in marketing and it has been examined from practical and academic perspectives. Following this lead, the purpose of this paper is to propose a new method to evaluate the impact of brand intangible assets on a firm value creation process.

The paper proposes an approach based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, illustrating its efficacy in the measurement of the value of brand intangible assets and its capacity to overcome the flaws of current methods.

The outcomes of the AHP application should be considered as a KPI enabling management to optimize brand investments and strategies. The paper concludes with an application of the presented method on a famous multi‐brand company.

This methodology puts in evidence the fundamental aspects of brand intangible assets and, above all, how much they impact on the firm value creation process.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate brand equity into companies’ overall risk assessment by suggesting a methodology of evaluating the relevant aspects of brand risk.

Based on a theoretical framework which discriminates between brand assets, brand strength and brand value, this paper set two alternative directions that can be followed to assess brand risk: a financial direction, which accounts on brand value, and a marketing direction, which stresses on brand assets and brand strength. Following the latter one, this paper provides mathematical formulas which contain specific factors of volatility that can be integrated in a future scoring system.

This paper proposes four major risks that need to be considered when evaluating brand assets risk: reputational risk, presence risk, loyalty risk and halo effect risk. This paper provides an evaluation methodology for each one. In addition, a 12-step implementation model is proposed as a managerial guideline for integrating brand risk in the companies’ risk management.

This paper emphasizes the importance of considering brand equity as a potential source of risk and thus integrating it into risk management. Also, we continue Abrahams’ pioneer work on adding risk literacy into brand management.

This paper aims to explore the impact of brand authenticity on forming self-reinforcing assets (enticing-the-self, enriching-the-self and enabling-the-self), which subsequently influence the brand-self connectedness and consumers’ behavioral intentions.

The authors surveyed 347 consumers in the USA and Brazil and used structural equation modeling to test the relationship among brand authenticity, self-reinforcing assets, brand-self connectedness and behavioral intentions.

Brand authenticity was found to influence the self-reinforcing assets. In turn, the self-reinforcing assets promoted closeness toward the brand, thereby increasing the behavioral intentions of consumers to buy a product, visit a store/website in the future and recommend the brand to other people.

Marketing practitioners can use these results to promote better brand positioning by considering brand authenticity as a key factor in how consumers cognitively assess brands.

This paper shows that brand authenticity is a key antecedent of consumer–brand self-reinforcing assets.