Supporting argument
Brand is traditionally connected with product by describing its special qualities. Brand structure includes logo, design scheme or slogan. Thus, brand is tied with product in the process of advertising. By creating beautiful images and impulses branding seeks to make certain products popular and increase demand on them. As a famous researcher in marketing Kotler suggests that the success of product depends on the level of brand recognition. If the brand is recognizable then the firm will gain more profits.
This schema suggests economic relationship between products and brands. If a brand gets positive sentiment in the market it will acquire so called brand franchise, which means that the product hidden under the brand or incorporated by it gains the large sector of a given market. Thus, the popularity of brand results in the high sales for certain products. The question that arises from this concept is as following: Is successive branding sufficient to gain longstanding popularity of the product or not? In our view, brand recognition depends not only on the marketing efficiency but also on the products quality. If the product loses its quality and dies as a high demand category the brand which represents it will go the same way. It is impossible to sustain large scale sales for the product which lost consumer preference due to various factors such as reduction of quality, the increase of its counterfeit etc.
Thus the relationship between brand and product is wholly economic relation notwithstanding the fact that brand is designed to stimulate demand. There is always a point when product is no longer popular. So in this way brands die the same way as products do.
Another factor that supports this point of view may be found in the goods that are no longer produced and advertised. After the short period of time since the suspension of production line, new brands and products occupy the market niches and costumers forget about mere existence of a certain brand or product.
Critical argument
There is opposite approach to the same problem. In this view it may be interesting to consider the concept of “brand strategy”. This theory brings together the views that branding is experiential and that it can not be reduced to the mere experiences of the costumers. The developing of brands according to this concept is not about just generating profit but developing positive experiences. According to this point of view brands create energies that can not be reduced to mere consumption and stay intact even after the decline in product production. Brands create such phenomenon as consumer’s loyalty which means that brands can themselves generate value not tied to any concrete product. People stick to certain brands since they regard them to be of high quality and increasing social status. Thus, their demand on them is inelastic, i.e. permanent for all possible market configurations. Therefore, I assume that brands are not so tightly correlated with economic parameters but have a certain degree of autonomy.
Another concept that supports this argument relates to attitude branding. It represents the position which is not directly connected with a given product but generates special feelings, mood and orientation. It is used to create personalities with certain interests, lifestyles. In this way the demand is increased not on the separate category of product but on the trademark in general. Such strategies are widely used by such firms as Starbucks, Nike, and Apple etc.
To sum it up, it is important to note that there exist several equally reasonable approaches to the same problem, which means that policy decisions in branding must be measured with their consequences.