Introduction
The modern world is often called “a consumer world” because the influence of business and especially trade upon the lives of ordinary human beings is immense. Drawing from this, the great attention that business and branding as its part have recently had among scholars can be easily explained. Based on the scholarly works, nowadays every average person knows what a brand is, what it means, and what it serves for (Addis and Holbrook 2001). However, such an understanding is not enough for business companies that have recently started experiencing issues connected with their attempts to extend and develop their brands. The point here is that the latest examples of such attempts of brand extension are rather infamous because the companies Martha Stewart Living Omni-media, Ford Motor Co., etc. have failed their branding initiatives. Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) address the causes of these failures in their article and offer the theoretical framework for effective brand management.
Literature Review/Theoretical Foundations
The very focus of the article is the phenomenon of the so-called “brand space”, which is understood by the authors as the tool of understanding and successful management of a brand:
A brand can be closely associated with, or independent from, a specific product or service; it can focus on what the product or service can do, or on what it means. Together those two dimensions define a brand space, a conceptual tool for better brand management (Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert, 2003).
Thus, brand space is a central notion of the article under consideration. The chapters of the article explain how the brand space should be understood, analyzed, and successfully used for brand management. Developing their idea of the brand space, Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) exemplify their argument with the most numerous mistakes made by different companies with the intention of brand development but leading to brand decline.
Accordingly, criticizing numerous famous companies for their mistakes in brand management, Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) suggest their own specifically developed tool for this activity. It is called “brand space” that refers to two basic dimensions including the level of abstraction the product or brand has, and the level of enactment it is characterized by. Provided the company understands where its brand stands in this space, this company is able to direct it correctly so that to ensure the proper brand management and avoid any redundancies possible.
In more detail, the abstraction of the brand is the extent to which this or that brand is out of the limits of a specific product and is used more as a notion to refer to the whole company or all products of the kind. Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) exemplify this idea by arguing that a brand goes the way from a specific product through a group of products and product themes to refer to the concept or image related to this product in the public mind. An example is the Virgin brand that developed from a specific type of rock music recording to the brand that is associated with the whole range of music stores dealing in numerous music products.
Enactment is the second dimension of the brand space understanding. It refers to the connection between the functions of the product that the brand represents and the associations this brand has in the public mind. The weaker this connection, the stronger the brand enactment is. The example of the low enactment is WD-40 technical lubricant, while high enactment brands are Louis Vuitton, Kelvin Klein, etc. whose names are not associated with single products or functions those products fulfill. Therefore, understanding the interrelation of the brand abstraction rate and enactment level ensures that the company is able to see the state of its brand and determine its further development directions.
Applications/Research Findings/Methodologies
Great attention is paid by Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) to the typical mistakes that the companies like Arthur Andersen, Martha Stewart Living Omni-media, Ford Motor Co., Firestone, etc. have made in their brand management initiatives. The examples that the authors use to support their argument are rather vivid, close to any ordinary reader as they are all related to brands used by numbers of people every day, and strongly credible as they are supported by the specifically developed theoretical framework and ideas about the possible improvements (Berthon, Hulbert, and Holbrook 2000). The ideas that the authors of the article express are the more credible, the more specific and convincing evidence the authors use.
Thus, for instance, Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) consider the example of Procter & Gamble that had to resort to specific confusion reducing policies to restore its reputation among the customers. The point in the situation with Procter & Gamble was that the company reportedly developed a too wide variety of shampoos, and its customers got lost in this variety to the extent that the sales of the company started decreasing on a steady basis (Swaminathan, Fox, and Reddy 2001). The controversy was complicated by the media asking the public if it was absolutely necessary for Procter & Gamble customers to have 31 varieties of shampoo and 52 varieties of Crest (Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert 2003). The company had to resort to a “Make It Simple” policy to reduce the product variety and confusion among its customers.
Another infamous example discussed by Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) is the case of Coca-Cola’s plan to launch “new Cola”. This plan was hostilely met by the customers who defended their traditional drink using the slogan “Don’t mess with our Coke” (Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert 2003). What Coca-Cola had to do was to cancel the initiative based on customer dissatisfaction with it. Thus, examples used by Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) to support their view the companies usually make mistakes in brand management are rather credible and persuasive. The readers see the names of familiar companies which they face every day and can evaluate the arguments themselves, which is also evidence of authors’ being certain about the ideas they express.
Conclusion
To conclude, branding, or brand management, is an important point in the activity of every company, and the examples of failing brand management presented by Berthon, Holbrook, & Hulbert (2003) are used to prove this point. However, the authors of the article go from criticizing to specific actions aimed at improving brand management. They suggest brand space theory to help companies see the positions of their brands in the market and outline the necessary directions in the development of their brands. Abstraction and enactment are the two dimensions of the brand space that are interconnected are equally important in this theoretical framework of effective brand management.
References
- Addis, M and Holbrook, MB 2001, ‘On the Conceptual Link between Mass Customisation and Experiential Consumption: An Explosion of Subjectivity’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 1, pp. 50-66.
- Berthon, PR, Holbrook, MB, & Hulbert, JM 2003, ‘Understanding and managing the brand space’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 49–54.
- Berthon, PR, Hulbert, JM and Holbrook, MB 2000, ‘Beyond Market Orientation: A Conceptualization of Market Evolution’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 14, pp. 50-66.
- Swaminathan, V, Fox, R.J. and Reddy, S.K 2001, ‘The Impact of Brand Extension Introduction on Choice’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1-15.