Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Previewpdf
Previewpdf
Previewpdf
Edited by
David A. Aaker
Universiry 01 California at Berkeley
Alexander L. Biel
Alexander L. Biel & Associates, California
First Published by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
365 Broadway
Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642
Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint
but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.
Contents
Preface ix
4 Branding in Japan
Hiroshi Tanaka 51
v
vi CONTENTS
19 Brands as Categories
David M. Boush 299
IX
x PREFACE
person ofthe conference, is an incredible talent and was the reason the confer-
ence ran smoothly. She deserves our admiration and appreciation. Finally, the
enthusiasm and competent support ofLawrence Erlbaum Associates were wel-
come, indeed.
David A. Aaker
Alexander L. Bie!
Chapter 1
Brand Equity and Advertising:
An Overview
David A. Aaker
University 01 California at Berkeley
Alexander L. Biel
Alexander L. Biel & Associates, California
Brand equity, a concept born in the 1980s, has aroused intense interest among
marketing managers and business strategists from a wide variety of industries.
The Marketing Science Institute, a consortium of over 50 leading firms, con-
siders brand equity one of its top research priorities. For this reason, sub-
stantial research effort has been channeled into defining, measuring, and
understanding the antecedents and consequences of building strong brands.
This book is one result of that effort. The topic is prominent because of (a)
the financial community's interest in placing a value on brands, and (b) reac-
tion against the frequency of short-term price competition that dominates many
industries.
The financial community has placed extraordinary prices on the value of
established brands, treating them as intangible assets with the potential to grow
in value rat her than depreciate. As a result, interest in a company's port folio
of brands has been elevated from the marketing department or product group
to the executive floor and boardroom.
Philip Morris purchased Kraft for more than six times its book value. In
his 1989 keynote address to the Advertising Research Foundation, Hamish
Maxwell, the man behind the acquisition, emphasized that he was buying strong
brands. Philip Morris sought brands that (a) had a loyal consumer franchise,
(b) could convert the puH of that consumer franchise into leverage with the
grocery trade, (c) could be extended, and (d) most importantly, could guaran-
tee the successful diversification of Philip Morris outside the tobacco business.
In some ways, Nestle's recent acquisition ofPerrier for $2.5 billion represents
1
2 AAKER AND BIEL
The book contains six seetions, plus this introduction and a concluding com-
mentary by Bill WeHs. In the first section, three chapters present aglobai view
of branding. The second section discusses brand personality. The third sec-
tion deals explicitly with the role of advertising in creating brand equity. The
fourth provides three different perspectives on brand equity. The fifth delves
into brand extensions, and the sixth includes several ca se studies.
1. BRAND EQUITY AND ADVERTISING 3
There is, with good reason, intense interest in branding issues as firms grap-
ple with developing and implementing global branding strategies. In this con-
text, the three chapters that open the book provide timely insight into the area,
each from a very different perspective.
The lead chapter in this section, by Owen at Landor, is ''The Landor
ImagePower Survey-A Global Assessment of Brand Strength," which in-
cludes perceptions of hundreds of brands in Europe, Japan, and the United
States, determined along esteem and awareness dimensions. In our view,
this survey is a useful empirical effort to study brand power. The survey
methodology and results have never been published in as great detail as they
are here.
The ImagePower survey provides a specific operational view of what brand
strength is and how it should be measured so that brands can be compared.
It identifies how brands perform along these measures, a first step toward learn-
ing how strong brands become strong and why weak brands are weak. Of spe-
cial interest is the existence of side-by-side data in Europe, Japan, and the
United States. Thus, we can observe which types of brands are strong in each
market (e.g., car brands tend to be stronger in Europe). We also explore how
foreign brands fare in each market.
The next piece, by Jeri Moore ofDDB Needham, "Building Brands Across
Markets: Cultural Differences in Brand Relationships Within the European
Community,'' describes a survey of brand strength for 93 brands in 13 product
categories across five countries, conducted by DDB Needham. The awareness
dimension is similar to the Landor measure, but esteem is replaced by brand
affinity ("brand I like," "suits me," "brand I trust") and brand perceptions
("leading brand," "worth the price," "excellent quality").
Moore also explores cultural factors that may contribute to the ease with
which a brand can build its equity within a particular market. These factors,
combined with graphic examples of how actual brand equities vary, by dimen-
sion, across markets, suggest the dangers of using a common marketing strategy
across markets within the European Community.
The next selection, by Tanaka of Dentsu, ''Branding in Japan,'' is a rare
paper by a leadingJapanes(! researcher that discusses why advertising in Japan
is so different. Tanaka describes the extent to which Japanese advertising re-
lies upon mood advertising and proposes reasons for this. His arguments pro-
vide true insight into the Japanese culture and advertising environment. He
discusses the role of new product velocity and its impact on the corporate brand
in Japan. Tanaka reviews nine empirical studies sourced in Japan, basing his
theories on sound evidence.
4 AAKER AND BIEL
cultural meanings ofbrands: How do they get there and why are they impor-
tant to consumers? A particularly interesting construct in McCracken's paper
is the process he cans meaning transfer.
McCracken suggests that cultural meanings are constantly drawn from the
general culture, transferred to brands and product categories by advertising,
and then transferred from brands to consumers. Strong brands, he notes, are
rich "storehouses of the meanings" that consumers use to define their actual
and aspiration selves.
This section contains three very different perspectives on brand equity that
provide new insight into the construct.
Efforts to measure brand equity are often based on survey data in which
consumers were asked to appraise brand names. In the first selection of this
section, McQueen, Foley, and Deighton, a practitionerlacademic research
team, take a very different approach.
Their chapter, "Decomposing a Brand's Customer Franchise into Buyer
Types," is based on behavioral rather than survey evidence. As their title sug-
gests, they categorize people into five unique buyer types on the basis ofbrand
purchase behavior over time. For example, one group buys only one brand
consistently; another chases deals. The authors argue that identifying and un-
derstanding these buyer types can help the marketing manager develop strate-
gies. They also suggest that segmenting by purchase pattern will result in very
different calculations of lifetime value of customers and will provide leverage
in allocating marketing assets.
In their wide-ranging chapter titled "Cognitive Strength of Established
Brands: Memory, Attitudinal, and Structural Approaches," Haugtvedt and
his co-authors Leavitt and Schneier suggest that managers are not weil served
by their overreliance on primitive measures of brand strength. They review
a variety of supplementary measures to help explain strong brands. The authors
suggest that not all strong brands are alike. Some have a simplex structure;
others have a structure they characterize as multiplex.
1. BRAND EQUITY AND ADVERTISING 7
Haugtvedt, Leavitt, and Schneier point out that a simplex structure may
be easier to achieve, but ultimately more vulnerable to competitive attack or,
even worse, gradual changes in how the product category is used. A strong
brand with a multiplex structure, however, although harder to build initially,
is less likely to be susceptible to competitive attack.
Understanding and managing brand associations are at the heart of brand
equity. Farquhar and Herr note that it can be important to consider the direc-
tion of the associative links. The ability of a brand to suggest an association
(such as a product dass, user, or attribute) may be very different from the ability
of an association to stimulate a person to think of a brand. The authors discuss
ways to measure the strength of these links and show how the concept of a
directionallink can be useful for building brand strength and determining how
to extend a brand.
Because new brands are expensive to create and cannot guarantee success,
brand extension has become the strategy of choice with increasing frequency.
It is no surprise, therefore, that a number of contributions to this volume fo-
cus on extending currently successful brands.
In the chapter by Nakamoto, MacInnnis, andJung, "Advertising Claims
and Evidence as Bases for Brand Equity and Consumer Evaluation of Brand
Extensions," the authors speculate, based on an experiment, that when the
strength of the original brand is based on the specific attributes of the brand,
any transfer of equity to a new product is likely to be successful but limited
to products in adjacent fields that share common attributes. However, the
authors also find that when the parent brand's equity is based on a general
or an overarching characteristic such as quality, it is easier to extend the brand
to a wide range of disparate categories.
In "Brands As Categories," Boush raises the novel idea of considering
brands as categories. Although he proposes this new paradigm to supplement
rather than replace the more conventional notion of product category, Boush
makes an intriguing argument for the value of a paradigm shift. His chapter
shows an interesting relationship to Tauber's idea ofleverage, which folIows.
Although others have argued that advertising is often the most important
contributor to brand image, it is interesting to note that one of the world's
strongest brands, as shown by Owen (chapter 2), is Sony. Yet Sony has histor-
ically been a low spender in advertising. One possible explanation for this ex-
ception may have to do with Sony's new product strategy: By expanding into
dosely adjacent fields, the brand's new products have dearly leveraged Sony's
expanding concentric cirdes of expertise.
This observation is particularly interesting in light of Tauber's discussion
8 AAKER AND BIEL
in his piece entitled "Fit and Leverage in Brand Extensions." Tauber argues
that leverage is a greater consideration than fit in building successful exten-
sions and implies that a brand with broad fit potential is likely to have little
to offer in the way of leverage. He suggests that a brand that fits many categories
weil is usually deficient because it brings little or no leverage to the party. He
argues that too often marketers chase fit at the expense of leverage. Noting
that they are somewhat inversely correlated, he suggests that marketers and
researchers would be weil advised to work at understanding the meaning of
the established brand and then to seek situations where a unique image offers
leveragable potential.
CASE STUDIES
Two chapters provide case studies that illustrate the actual brand strategies
and their result. Winters provides another of his series of in-depth case studies
of brand advertising in his chapter "The Role of Corporate Advertising in
Building a Brand." In this case, he details how Chevron built a carporate name
in Texas, to be used as a platform for a brand launch. The story is camplete
with campaign selection and postcampaign tracking.
Aaker, in "Are Brand Equity Investments Really Worthwhile?" discusses
the short-term pressures that inhibit investments in brands. He describes aseries
of four case studies to illustrate how brand management decisions can dramat-
ically affect the fortunes of a brand and can actually result in large changes
in shareholder wealth. The cases involve the Datsun-to-Nissan name change,
the lack of customer support at WordStar, the vision ofWeight Watchers, and
the fall of Schlitz beer caused by a change in ingredients and process.
REFERENCE
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Brand Equity and Advertising: An Overview
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Branding in Japan
Batra, R. , & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17, 203–214.
Fields, G. (1984). Kokoku hyogen no nichi-bei hikaku [Comparison of advertising execution
between Japan and the U.S.]. In Amerika no kokoku hyogen (pp. 127–159). Tokyo: Nikkei
Kokoku Kenkyu-jo.
Hasegawa, K. (1990). Content analysis of Japanese and American prime time TV commercials.
Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Radio and Television, Southern Illinois University,
Car-bondale, IL.
Holmberg, E. R. (1985). Foreign images in Japanese advertising: An overview with historical and
sociological perspectives. Paper submitted to International Division, Waseda University, Tokyo,
Japan.
Hong, J. W. , Mudderrisoglu, A. , & Zinkhan, G. M. (1987). Cultural differences and advertising
expression: A comparative content analysis of Japanese and U.S. magazine advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 16(1), 55–68.
Kagono, T. , Nonaka, I. , Sakakibara, K. , & Okumura, A. (1983). Nichi-bei kigyo no keiei hikaku
[A comparison between Japanese and American corporate management]. Tokyo: Nihon Keizai
Shimbun-sha.
Kishii, T. (1987). Message vs. mood: A look at some of the differences between Japanese and
Western television commercials. In Dentsu Japan Marketing/Advertising 1987 (pp. 51–57).
Tokyo: Dentsu Inc.
Kotler, P. , Fahey, L. , & Jatusripitak, S. (1985). The new competition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Lazer, W. , Murata, S. , & Kosaka, H. (1985). Japanese marketing: Towards a better
understanding. Journal of Marketing, 49, 69–81.
Levitt, T. (1983, May-June). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, pp. 92–102.
MacMaster, N. A. (1985, March). A question of relevance: Must Japanese advertising be different
to be successful? Paper presented at the International Education Center Forum, Tokyo, Japan.
Madden, C. S. , Caballero, M. J. , & Matsukubo, S. (1986). Analysis of information content in U.S.
and Japanese advertising. Journal of Advertising, 15(3), 38–45.
Manabe, K. (1990). Kokoku no shakai-gaku [Sociology of advertising]. Tokyo: Nikkei Kokoku
Kenkyu-jo.
Marquez, F. T. (1975). The relationship of advertising and culture in the Philippines. Journalism
Quarterly, 52, 436–491.
Matsui, M. (1991, January). Shin-shohin no shijo donyu to shohisa maindo [New product
introduction and consumer attitude]. Asahi Ad Monthly, pp. 10–15.
Ministry of International Trade and Industry . (1989). Nichi-bei no kigyo kodo hikaku [A
comparison of corporate behavior between Japan and the U.S.]. Tokyo: Nihon Noritsu Kyokai.
Moriarty, S. E. , & Dunkan, T. R. (1991). Global advertising: Issues and practices. Current Issues
and Research in Advertising, 13(1&2), 313–342.
Mueller, B. (1987). Reflections of culture: An analysis of Japanese and American advertising
appeals. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(3), 51–59.
Nishio, C. (1989). Burando sentaku no kitei-yoin ni kan-suru kenkyu [The effect of corporate
image on brand choice]. Marketing Science, 13, 37–43.
Otsuki, H. (1982). Shodo-gai ha naze okoru-noka? [Why does impulse purchase occur?]. Shohi
to Ryutsu, 6(4), 153–160.
Reed, J. D. (1985, November 4). Does the soft sell still sell? Japanese ad executives concentrate
on kanjo. Time, p. 24.
Shimaguchi, M. , & Ishii, J. (1989, January). Moderu chenji no sekkyoku-teki tenkai [Aggressive
utilization of model change]. Diamond Harvard Review, pp. 49–58.
Tajima, Y. , & Miyashita, M. (1985). Ryutsu no kokusai hikaku [International comparison of
distribution]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Tanaka, H. (1984). Cultural values in U.S. and Japanese magazine advertising: A comparative
content analysis. Unpublished master's thesis, Journalism Graduate Studies, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, IL.
Tsusan chosa: choki-ka yobikake e [MITI study calls for shorter model change cycle] . (1992,
March 11). Nihon Keizai Shimbun.
Yamaki, T. (1990). Kokoku kokusai hikaku to gurobaru senryaku [International comparison of
advertising and global strategies]. Tokyo: Sanno Daigaku Shuppan-bu.
Yamamoto, M. (1987). Shakai-teki joho-shori katei no hikaku bunka-teki kento: Kokoku joho no
shori ni kansuru kento [A comparative cultural analysis of social information processing: An
examination of advertising information processing]. In Josei Kenkyu-shu (pp. 138–158). Tokyo:
Yoshida Hideo Kinen Jigyo Zaidan.
The year in numbers—1990 . (1991, January 7). Product Alert, p. 4.
Brands as Categories
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. , & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of
Mar¬keting, 54(1), 27–41.
Ashcraft, M. (1978). Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A
descrip¬tion and discussion. Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 227–232.
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.
Barsalou, L. W. , (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants
of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cogni¬tion, 77(4), 629–648.
Boush, D. M. (1991, October). Brand name effects on product similarity judgments. Paper
presented at the Association for Consumer Research conference, Chicago, IL.
Boush, D. M. (in press). How advertising slogans can prime evaluations of brand extensions.
Psy¬chology and Marketing.
Boush, D. M. , & Loken, B. (1991). A process tracing study of brand extension evaluation. Journal
of Marketing Research, 28(1), 16–28.
Boush, D. , Shipp, S. , Loken, B. , Gencturk, E. , Crockett, S. , Kennedy, E. , Minshall, B. ,
Misurell, D. , Rochford, L. , & Strobel, J. (1987). Affect generalization to similar and dissimilar
brand extensions. Psychology and Marketing, 4(3), 225–237.
Carpenter, G. S. , & Nakamoto, K. (1989). Consumer preference formation and pioneering
ad¬vantage. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 285–298.
Erickson, G. M. , Johansson, J. K. , & Chao, P. (1984). Image variables in multi-attribute product
evaluations: Country of origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 77(3), 694–699.
Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1106–1115.
Higgins, E. T. , Bargh, J. A. , & Lombardi, W. (1985). Nature of priming effects on
categoriza¬tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11,
59–69.
Jacoby, J. , Olson, J. C. , & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition
characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 570–579.
Johnson, M. D. (1986). Consumer similarity judgments: A test of the contrast model. Psychology
and Marketing, 3, 47–60.
Keller, K. L. , & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 35–50.
Leavitt, C. (1989). The structure and maintenance of well-established brand images (working
paper No. 89-7). College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Loken, B. , & Ward, J. (1987). Measures of attribute structure underlying product typicality. In M.
Wallendorf & P. F. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 22–28). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Loken, B. , & Ward, J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of
typi¬cality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111–126.
Malt, B. C. (1989). An on-line investigation of prototype and exemplar strategies in classifica¬tion.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4), 539–555.
Malt, B. C. , & Smith, E. E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory and
Cognition, 10(1), 60–75.
Mervis, C. B. , & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of
Psychology, 32, 89–115.
Nedungadi, P. , & Hutchinson, J. W. (1985). The prototypicality of brands: Relationships with
brand awareness, preference, and usage. In E. C. Hirschman & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.),
Ad¬vances in consumer research (Vol. 12, pp. 498–503). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Park, C. W. , Jaworski, B. J. , & Maclnnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
manage¬ment. Journal of Marketing, 50(A), 135–145.
Park, C. W. , Milberg, S. , & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of
product-feature similarity and concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2),
185–193.
Ratneshwar, S. , & Shocker, A. D. (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usage context in
product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 281–295.
Ries, A. , & Trout, J. (1981). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Rosch, E. , & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of
categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Rosch, E. , Simpson, C. , & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structure bases of typicality effects. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4:), 491–502.
Roth, F. M. , & Shoben, E. J. (1983). The effect of context on the structure of categories.
Cognitive Psychology, 15, 346–378.
Smith, E. E. , & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Universi¬ty Press.
Smith, E. E. , Shoben, E. J. , & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A
featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.
Sujan, M. , & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers'
brand and category perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 454–467.
Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost control world. Journal of
Ad¬vertising Research, 31(3), 26–30.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–350.
Ward, J. , & Loken, B. (1986). The quintessential snack food: Measurement of product
proto¬types. In R. Lutz (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 13, pp. 126–131). Provo, UT:
As¬sociation for Consumer Research.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.