Search results

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 investigate the problem of place brand architecture. Despite being a well-established research domain in the field of product and services marketing, brand architecture remains an under-explored phenomenon in relation to places. The paper aims to discuss a new approach to a sub-brands strategy that builds on both the supply and the demand sides, and explores the benefits and challenges of the suggested strategy.

This paper is based on a case study of St Petersburg, Russia, using both secondary and primary data. The primary data consists of in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved in city branding and applies thematic analysis.

The results demonstrate that place brand architecture helps to design a differentiated system of sub-brands that are customer-focused and reflect the complexity of a place. The paper outlines the benefits (such as, flexibility of the sub-brands strategy and the increased credibility of the brand) and the challenges for strategy implementation (such as, higher promotional expenditure and communication risk and stakeholder misalignment).

This paper will be helpful for place brand and tourism managers who seek to attract new target groups and avoid various problems, such as the overcrowding of popular sights.

While the existing literature on place brand architecture is mainly approached from a geographical perspective, this paper proposes a new target-group-specific approach that incorporates the supply and demand sides.

Companies commonly view brand architecture as primarily a tactical, one‐time exercise. But it can be the means to drive both greater top‐line growth and bottom‐line performance.

Corporations must routinely ask “how should we allocate existing financial and human resources among our brands to grow shareholder value?” Firms should focus on getting the most from existing brands through better organizing and managing brands and brand inter‐relationships within the existing portfolio. “Brand architecture” is the way a company organizes, manages, and markets their brands. It must align with and support business goals and strategies. Different business strategies require different brand architectures. The two most common types are: “Branded house” architecture – employs a single (master) brand to span a series of offerings that may operate with descriptive sub‐brand names and “House of brands” architecture – each brand is stand‐alone; the sum of performance of the independent brands is greater than they would be if under a master brand. Neither type is better than the other. Some companies use a mix of both. The key is to have a well‐defined brand architecture strategy. Steps to maximize brand architecture: take stock of your brand portfolio from the perspective of customers because their view is the foundation for your strategy; do “brand relationship mapping” to identify the relationships and opportunities between brands across your portfolio. Check for these criteria: the perceived or potential credibility of the brands in that space – the perceptual license; whether or not the company currently has or can develop competencies in that space – the organizational capabilities; and whether the size and current or potential growth of the market is significant enough to merit exploitation and investment – the market opportunity. Mine the opportunities where all three criteria are met (aka, the “sweet spot”). Or use these innovative strategies if all criteria do not intersect: “pooling” and “trading,” branded partnerships’, strategic brand consolidation, brand acquisition, new brand creation. Continuously emphasize the portfolio‐wide thinking and business‐wide implications of brand‐oriented decisions. Create a brand council. When managed strategically and used as a structure to anticipate future business and brand needs, concerns, and issues, brand architecture can be the critical link to business strategy and the means to optimize growth and brand value.

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 aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between the architecture of retail stores and the communication of brand identity.

The researchers adopted a qualitative approach using case studies of the design process and architecture of four new food superstores in the UK between 1998 and 2005. The case studies draw on interviews, photographs, observations, and archival materials.

The case studies demonstrate that high‐profile architects have been involved in the design of supermarket buildings. The reuse of buildings has also become a significant element of visual identity at a local level. “Stealth” design, by contrast, reduces visual identity. In each case the relationship between retailer, architect, local authority, media and public opinion influenced the design process and the visual identity of the building.

The research implications are that architecture is not well understood in the retail industry as a medium for communicating a consistent brand identity. For designers and architects, building as brand for superstores presents opportunities to create a distinctive brand style. Urban regeneration will continue to offer opportunities for new, iconic buildings. The building, its location and history can provide points of differentiation and contribute to brand awareness and reputation.

The originality of this research lies in its interdisciplinary approach, which uses both design and management literature and methodology to examine architecture's role in visual identity. It focuses on the previously unresearched architecture of food retailers.

This conceptual paper studies how brand and business model architectures interact.

Confronting the literature on brand and business model architectures, a “problematizing review” perspective is taken in this article. To develop the conceptual framework, a cyclical process of theory generation based on a literature review and empirical evidence is used. Various interaction options between a brand and business model architecture are discussed in detail and illustrated with practical examples.

The conceptual grid allows positioning each brand and business model architectural move in a coherent way, emphasizing the alignment challenges of each positioning option. This study also sheds another light on “dynamic capabilities,” as companies not only need to mix, remix and orchestrate business model architecture decisions, but at the same time align these decisions with brand architecture decisions.

By confronting and integrating two research domains, a novel higher-order theoretical perspective is obtained. In this sense it contributes to a management school of thought that is more integrative and deals better with today's more complex and dynamic reality, in which business model and brand decisions cannot be taken independently.

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.

Most research on branding highlights the role of associations for a single brand. Many firms, however, have multiple brands and/or different versions of one brand. The latter is largely the case for many corporate brands. This paper aims to broaden the understanding of corporate brand associations and their transfer within the firm’s brand and product portfolio. In particular, this paper also examines the concept of corporate brand innovativeness and the influence of brand architecture as supportive and restrictive boundary conditions for its transfer.

This conceptual paper explains the nature, benefits and challenges of corporate brand innovativeness within the context of a firm’s brand architecture. On the basis of a literature review, the authors provide an overview of the domain and derive avenues for future research.

Research and practice have not fully realised the importance of corporate brand images for supporting a firms’ product portfolio. In particular, (corporate) marketing managers need to consider the potential value of favourable perceptions of corporate brand innovativeness across products and the moderating role of brand architecture.

More empirical research is needed to understand the reciprocal relationship and transfer between corporate and product brand associations and equity.

A corporate marketing perspective allows firms to use corporate brand associations to support products and services for that brand. This paper discusses perceived corporate brand innovativeness as one particularly important corporate brand association.

The authors discuss the use of corporate brand associations under the consideration of brand architectures and boundaries and draw on several research streams in the brand management literature. Much of the branding and innovation literature centres on the product level; research on corporate brand innovativeness has been relatively neglected.

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.